Dogfighting

[wbnc]

I'm thinking we really need to look at bringing this to 10-60 second rounds for dog fighting.

With space being 1-6 minute rounds.

The 6 to 1 ratio is more than enough... the 60 to 1 is a bit crazy.

Besides - 10 to 60 seconds is very much realistic for the shortest period of a dogfight. Sometimes it may go minutes, sometimes is resolved in under a minute!

It's the 360 dogfights per 1 space combat turn ratio that cccrraaaazy

If you wan to think of a theoretical extreme. In the one space combat turn, the ace fighter pilot in the advanced fighter can shoot down 360 obsolete enemy pilots! Yes it's cinematic lol - but... I can't even think of that with a straight face

if you think of one close combat round being the entire combat, it is a bit extreme. However, in historical sense dogfight time scales are incredibly compressed..6 seconds is close to the absolute minimum for a single pass, or maneuver.

if you think of the single round as the entire dogfight it does seem to be extreme. But if you view it as only a single pass, or exchange it becomes less so.

in a dogfight the pilot may spend a good deal of time looking for and maneuvering into close combat, then the actual dogfight is over in seconds. The fighter would spend most of its time in regular combat time...tracking, intercepting, and maneuvering into position. then the dogfight itself would move into compressed time.

In and extremely crowded, target rich environment, the pilot might be able to transition out of one dogfight,directly into another. but realistically he might engage in one or two per regular combat round at best. So the odds of any one fighter being able to engage in a full (normal rules)combat round worth of dogfights is on the far end of unlikely.

Fighters will be popping in and out of close combat rounds between normal rounds. the fact they have to maneuver to engage each other between dogfights ensures they wont be completely engaged in dogfights for more than a few minutes at a time over the course of any combat.

long story short, six sedoncs is the absolute minimum for a single pass/maneuver/attack...they may get strung together into longer engagements, but they are as good a time from as any for the sort of brutal, unnaturally fast action that makes up a dogfight.


Side notes
If I remember right the longest dogfight in history is 10 minutes. And that lasted so long only because the pursuing fighter had jammed guns and was simply delaying the opponent to keep it occupied while his fellow pilots dealt with the other targets.

the most extreme case of actual dogfighting for an extended period was a Single SDB bomber engaging a flight of "Zeros". the other aircraft of the SDB flight were in flames within seconds after being jumped by the Zeros.

the engagement took around 20 minutes, but most of that was taken up by the Zeroes loitering out of gun range to set up for their attack runs. they entered close combat, exited, maneuvered, then reengaged in close combat on several occasions.

only the fact the pilot of the SDB "Swede" Vejtasa,was a future high ranking fighter ace, kept the entire fight from being over in a single six second time frame. With the entire formation of SDBs being shot down before they could return fire.

by the way the American pilot shot down three fighters, two with two consecutive maneuvers.then survived a midair collision with the third...he got credit for downing it as well.

 

[hdan]

Might one way to resolve this problem be to reduce the damage a weapon does in "dogfight" mode? If we're compressing the time frame, it makes sense to compress the damage as well.

Maybe lower damage to a single point per d6 per hit, which sort of (and I mean sort of) simulates the damage roll when combined with the chance to miss?

Armor becomes problematic, though with +Effect damage, you could still punch through.

You should also limit certain weapon types. Particle spinal mounts can't be used in dog fights, at least not more than once. Missiles are a special case, and should do full damage when they hit, though maybe they require a "lock" for two turns - the first turn rolls to get the lock, the second turn rolls to maintain the lock and then launches the missile.

If you imagine two light fighters in a dogfight (Armor 2, Pulse Laser), the winner (who gets +2) will do at least 2 points of damage on any hit, and even against a properly armored target (Armor 4), Effect of 1 or better will do some damage.

 

[wbnc]

Might one way to resolve this problem be to reduce the damage a weapon does in "dogfight" mode? If we're compressing the time frame, it makes sense to compress the damage as well.

Maybe lower damage to a single point per d6 per hit, which sort of (and I mean sort of) simulates the damage roll when combined with the chance to miss?

Armor becomes problematic, though with +Effect damage, you could still punch through.

You should also limit certain weapon types. Particle spinal mounts can't be used in dog fights, at least not more than once. Missiles are a special case, and should do full damage when they hit, though maybe they require a "lock" for two turns - the first turn rolls to get the lock, the second turn rolls to maintain the lock and then launches the missile.

If you imagine two light fighters in a dogfight (Armor 2, Pulse Laser), the winner (who gets +2) will do at least 2 points of damage on any hit, and even against a properly armored target (Armor 4), Effect of 1 or better will do some damage.

I can see your point, but tweaking damage adds a layer of rules, additionally by tweaking the damage it unbalances the effectiveness of armor and hull points.

missiles wont work in dogfights since it occurs inside their minimum range..they are strictly for Normal combat situations.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yeah - too much tweaking and adding separate systems creates complexity and actually allows for abuses or inconsistencies. We always have to address the root cause:

The root cause is that dogfights, for whatever reason, need to be simulated as faster paced than space combat.

a) Either assume they are happening at a faster pace but you're only simulating the result every minute (aka dont change the scale of the rounds)
OR
b) Sure - have more "dog fight rounds" happen in the space of a normal round, but don't change any other systems. And just make sure the amount of dogfight rounds to normal space-combat rounds isn't ludicrous (so 10 to 1 may work, but not 100 to 1)

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Damage per second is precisely the sort of inconsistency that needs to be corrected. You can't build a system off a platform with legs that aren't the same size!

Dogfighters should beat Starships because they loiter in the blind-spots between that Starship's firing arcs. Starships should beat Dogfighters because they got off a lucky shot, or, at best, anticipated the Dogfighter's movements; the difficulty modifiers for the reduced craft size and range should never be neglected.

Dogfighters should beat other Dogfighters because they've got to get off several consecutive shots, or a few called shots to a disabling system after a successfully anticipated maneuver.

 

[phavoc]

There aren't any 'blind spots' to take advantage of with the combat system. All weapons can be brought to bear on any target within a (space) combat round.

I'm not even sure you should get any called shots, as the speeds and maneuvers of all the various ships make for that to be a pretty rare event. Remember Luke, there is no Force in Traveller... though we do have their Ion Cannons... prepare the transports!

 

[Nerhesi]

Agreed with phavoc. What loitering? What called shots?

You're maneuvering at several Gs per second squared at ridiculous speeds, with distances up to 5 km... this isn't some silly xwing or freespace space Sim where you are near-crawl speed hovering behind the ship between the two engines...

Even the slowest ships are maneuvering too fast for you to do something that "cinematic".

Also- disabling systems via Called shots in space combat is a bit of a pipe dream. Maybe on a large craft that is stationary... but definitely not on anything moving and definitely not in a dogfight!

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Relative velocity is all that matters. Dogfighters are trained to match the target's velocity and exploit the limits of their target's firing arcs. It's the essence of all dogfighting.

With regards to blindspots... The traditional "Type S Scout" is nothing but blindspot on its entire dorsal section, and significant parts aft, too. The turret can only protect the top part of the ship...

A ship with two turrets has a disk-shaped blindspot perpendicular to the axis between the turrets, and more if they're poorly placed.

A ship with three turrets has a cylinder-shaped blindspot perpendicular to the plane all 3 turrets lie on.

At four turrets, you start getting nearly full coverage, with some exception for obstructions, like wings and legs. A turret or two will have to be taken out before you send in fighters.


This is what dogfighting should be like. Maneuvering around until you can go in for the kill and exploit their blindspots, of which there are many below 500 dTons or so.

 

[phavoc]

All your points are valid. But the Traveller combat system has never addressed firing arcs.

In reference to the S class weapon coverage only on the dorsal arc - again, a true statement. However there's nothing preventing a pilot for spinning the ship along it's axis to allow the ship to main the same vector AND engage any target within a 360 globe. No attacking ship, dogfighter or not, is going to be able to stay in it's blind spot.

Any small craft that slows down to remain in a much larger ship's blind spots is gonna die. Small craft can't take a pounding, so they depend on agility to stay alive rather than armor. The most likely blind spot for any ship is going to be aft, due to the engines needing to be there. It's not difficult to position turrets to provide for coverage. Going back to the S class, the blind spot is would require an opposing ship to close to within a few meters, and even then a simple change in vectors would bring the ship into your firing arc. And remember this isn't Star Wars with lasers missing at a hundred or so meters. It's ships firing from kilometers away, which effectively means no true blind spots. This is where you'd get more into the potential of Star Wars-esque dog fights.

 

[AndrewW]

All your points are valid. But the Traveller combat system has never addressed firing arcs.

2300AD does.

The most likely blind spot for any ship is going to be aft, due to the engines needing to be there.

Engines are commonly placed there but this isn't a requirement for a gravitec drive.

 

[phavoc]

All your points are valid. But the Traveller combat system has never addressed firing arcs.

2300AD does.

The most likely blind spot for any ship is going to be aft, due to the engines needing to be there.

Engines are commonly placed there but this isn't a requirement for a gravitec drive.

2300AD was created independent of the Traveller rules at the time. It's a separate game system that got folded in using Traveller rules. It's not a good example. Their shared history is that both were developed and originally published by GDW.

Under Traveller engines must be at the back or be able to focus their thrust towards the rear to generate forward acceleration. Again not a good comparison. I think it is safe and accurate to state that the vast majority of ships designed under Traveller rules have the engines in the rear in a manner similar to standard reaction engines.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

In reference to the S class weapon coverage only on the dorsal arc - again, a true statement. However there's nothing preventing a pilot for spinning the ship along it's axis to allow the ship to main the same vector AND engage any target within a 360 globe. No attacking ship, dogfighter or not, is going to be able to stay in it's blind spot.

Well, obviously, the superior agility of the dogfighting craft and its pilot's well-trained skill needs to be successfully opposed by the starship's agility and the starship pilot's skill for that to happen. My argument is that it's the superior agility of the dogfighting craft that predominantly puts it in the scout's blindspot, and allows the dogfighter to have an advantage over it.

Any small craft that slows down to remain in a much larger ship's blind spots is gonna die.

This is simply not true. Relatively speaking, the scout is going to roll in place along the same trajectory; so long as the fightercraft follows that same turn with a spiral, he'll be fine. Now, while the fightercraft has to trace a circle, and the scout only has to spin, compared to the extreme forward velocity, the velocity difference is peanuts.

The most likely blind spot for any ship is going to be aft, due to the engines needing to be there. It's not difficult to position turrets to provide for coverage.

No, it's not, but existing Traveller examples do a very poor job of it. Ships optimized for combat should do much better. So we either ditch the canon designs, or we use them for dogfighting.

Going back to the S class, the blind spot is would require an opposing ship to close to within a few meters, and even then a simple change in vectors would bring the ship into your firing arc. And remember this isn't Star Wars with lasers missing at a hundred or so meters. It's ships firing from kilometers away, which effectively means no true blind spots. This is where you'd get more into the potential of Star Wars-esque dog fights.

This is not true. The hemispherical blindspot of the S-Class extends all the way out to the ends of the universe; distance doesn't matter until range limits do. An S-Class surrounded by fighters will be dead meat, because half of them will always be in its turret's blindspot, regardless of range. And fighter pilots have wingmen for good reason; usually, reasons like this.

Two very well-placed turrets may have an outer-range at which their disc-shaped blindspot ends. There are very few existing Traveller examples that satisfy this criteria.

Three rather well-placed turrets possibly have an outer-range at which their cylindrical-shaped blindspot ends. There may be some existing Traveller examples that satisfy this criteria.

After four turrets, there are probably no convenient blind-spots that aren't due to obstructions due to poor ship design.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Under Traveller engines must be at the back or be able to focus their thrust towards the rear to generate forward acceleration. Again not a good comparison. I think it is safe and accurate to state that the vast majority of ships designed under Traveller rules have the engines in the rear in a manner similar to standard reaction engines.

This isn't true either. This is only done for the sake of preserving iconic canon designs.

 

[Nerhesi]

I dont think you're realising the logical impossibility of what you are describing Tenacious.

The agility of the dog-fighting craft won't matter because the distance required to travel to maintain position in the blind spot is massive.

Where the fighter may be 4 times as agile lets say as the Type S, the Type S need only rotate on a single plane to make it's blind-spot, several thousands kilometers away from the fighter.


If you take a look at any newtonian flight model simulators out there, and try them, you will find that today's idea of dogfighting is completely different. In fact, what is usually referred to that happens, and changes the dynamic completely, is what is known as "turreting" - because you can always bring your guns to bear on ANY one opponent.

The exception may happen in a split second when they happen to be very close, but that rarely lasts more than that.

The scenarios you're describing regarding blindspots simply do not exist in a Newtonian environment because you're not simply matching speed with the enemy, who has to drift, drag, slip and worry about much more complex inertia as they would in an atmosphere. For the situation of blind-spotting to happen, you're going to need some massive disparity in speed and maneuverability. Massive.

All of this doesn't matter, because Dogfighting in MGT2 abstracts the "blindspot, tailing, I pull a scissors while you pull an immelman etc etc" by simply saying, you get a +2 they get a -2. Whether it is blindspots/tailing in an atmosphere.. or simply using Maneuver Alpha-4 to trump Gamma-6 in space combat, the end result is a bonus.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

I dont think you're realising the logical impossibility of what you are describing Tenacious.

The agility of the dog-fighting craft won't matter because the distance required to travel to maintain position in the blind spot is massive.

Where the fighter may be 4 times as agile lets say as the Type S, the Type S need only rotate on a single plane to make it's blind-spot, several thousands kilometers away from the fighter.

You are fixing the range for your own convenience. At closer range, the distances to maintain my described spiral are a lot lower, and easily met. The key question, then, is, "Can a fighter close this range to the scout so it becomes a trivial difficulty before being shot down?". I'm inclined to say yes, it can.

If you take a look at any newtonian flight model simulators out there, and try them, you will find that today's idea of dogfighting is completely different. In fact, what is usually referred to that happens, and changes the dynamic completely, is what is known as "turreting" - because you can always bring your guns to bear on ANY one opponent.

The exception may happen in a split second when they happen to be very close, but that rarely lasts more than that.

The strategy you are describing was attempted in World War II with turreted bombers like the B-29. The historical record on how well that went without fighter escorts is clear. Simulation is neither required nor more informative.

The scenarios you're describing regarding blindspots simply do not exist in a Newtonian environment because you're not simply matching speed with the enemy, who has to drift, drag, slip and worry about much more complex inertia as they would in an atmosphere. For the situation of blind-spotting to happen, you're going to need some massive disparity in speed and maneuverability. Massive.

Newtonian physics is far simpler to manage than aircraft physics. An aircraft must oppose several natural forces that are not constant. A spacecraft only has its own controlled forces that it chooses to impose to worry about.

All of this doesn't matter, because Dogfighting in MGT2 abstracts the "blindspot, tailing, I pull a scissors while you pull an immelman etc etc" by simply saying, you get a +2 they get a -2. Whether it is blindspots/tailing in an atmosphere.. or simply using Maneuver Alpha-4 to trump Gamma-6 in space combat, the end result is a bonus.

Right; which means they're doing it wrong. From a blindspot relationship, a starship pilot's piloting+agility should first have to beat the dogfighter's piloting+agility; then, the gunner should have to make a roll at an extremely difficult modifier, because he didn't even see the target before to be able to aim his guns at him; that penalty should only go away if the pilot can keep the dogfighter in view of the gunner. And in the meantime, the dogfighter has the opportunity to dodge, and maybe even get in the Scout's blindspot again.

Assuming two completely unskilled pilots, and perfect gunning, it will always be impossible for the Scout to hit the dogfighter at least half the time. Assuming equal piloting instead, the superior agility of the dogfighter's fightercraft should mean he's even less available to hit. Anything else is nonsense.

 

[AndrewW]

2300AD was created independent of the Traveller rules at the time. It's a separate game system that got folded in using Traveller rules. It's not a good example. Their shared history is that both were developed and originally published by GDW.

Didn't say it was directly Traveller, just a reference point to firing arc rules.

Under Traveller engines must be at the back or be able to focus their thrust towards the rear to generate forward acceleration. Again not a good comparison. I think it is safe and accurate to state that the vast majority of ships designed under Traveller rules have the engines in the rear in a manner similar to standard reaction engines.

Have and required are too different things.

 

[phavoc]

2300AD was created independent of the Traveller rules at the time. It's a separate game system that got folded in using Traveller rules. It's not a good example. Their shared history is that both were developed and originally published by GDW.

Didn't say it was directly Traveller, just a reference point to firing arc rules.

Under Traveller engines must be at the back or be able to focus their thrust towards the rear to generate forward acceleration. Again not a good comparison. I think it is safe and accurate to state that the vast majority of ships designed under Traveller rules have the engines in the rear in a manner similar to standard reaction engines.

Have and required are too different things.

Many game systems have firing arcs. I can break out my Renegade Legion, or SFB books, too. I'm sure Victory at Sea has firing arcs. But we've been talking Traveller here. Actually, RL-Interceptor would be more appropriate to discuss dogfighting tactics and rules.

Not sure what you are hinting at with "have and required are two different things". I can't recall any ship design in Traveller (not saying that there isn't) that did not have the engines at the rear, either in the main body or in sponsoons of some sort. But all have been aft-facing to provide continuous thrust towards the destination (with the rule always being a ship has to flip over at the half-way point if they expect to stop at their destination).

 

[Nerhesi]

You are fixing the range for your own convenience. At closer range, the distances to maintain my described spiral are a lot lower, and easily met. The key question, then, is, "Can a fighter close this range to the scout so it becomes a trivial difficulty before being shot down?". I'm inclined to say yes, it can.

I covered that when I said, it may happen for a split second. Inertia in a vacuum is such that, with the Acceleration of multiple Gs, you're only at that "closer" range for fractions of a second. The velocity and acceleration associated with (at least traveller) space combat is that you're not having dog-fights at 200 meters and maintaining that range. As indicated, you're dogfights are up to 10 kilometers in range!

The strategy you are describing was attempted in World War II with turreted bombers like the B-29. The historical record on how well that went without fighter escorts is clear. Simulation is neither required nor more informative.

This is utterly, and completely not the point and non-sequitur. This actually highlights your lack of understanding here when you say simulation is neither required nor more informative. Turreting is not having a mounted turret. Turreting is being able to rotate on axis, regardless of your Inertia.

This has no relevance to world war 2 bombers which had one person flying, and others mounted in turrets with blindspots that don't in any way control your actual craft flight, still resulting in blindspots that they did not control. No - when we (people who enjoy Newtonian flight model combat simulations) say turreting, what that entails is the equivalent of having the pilot of the bomber capable of rotating along one axis while still flying along the other. So as you can see, zero relevance to ww2 bombers and their turrets.

Newtonian physics is far simpler to manage than aircraft physics. An aircraft must oppose several natural forces that are not constant. A spacecraft only has its own controlled forces
that it chooses to impose to worry about.

Thats exactly my point. Hence why turreting is a reality in space combat, and why it is not in atmosphere. Hence why 'tailing' and turning battles happen in the atmosphere, but do not happen in space combat.

which means they're doing it wrong. From a blindspot relationship, a starship pilot's piloting+agility should first have to beat the dogfighter's piloting+agility; then, the gunner should have to make a roll at an extremely difficult modifier, because he didn't even see the target before to be able to aim his guns at him; that penalty should only go away if the pilot can keep the dogfighter in view of the gunner. And in the meantime, the dogfighter has the opportunity to dodge, and maybe even get in the Scout's blindspot again.

Nope - but hopefully you see that now because blindspots and tailing dont exist in a Newtonian environment.

Assuming two completely unskilled pilots, and perfect gunning, it will always be impossible for the Scout to hit the dogfighter at least half the time. Assuming equal piloting instead, the superior agility of the dogfighter's fightercraft should mean he's even less available to hit. Anything else is nonsense.

The only nonsense here I'm sorry to say is this statement. The fact that you think assuming equal skill, that the rotation of Type S scout is somehow beaten 50% of the time by the maneuverability, and speed and rotation of some fighter, without knowing the specifications on either craft is beyond ridiculous. You don't know the degrees per second on the roll, pitch and yaw of either craft. You don't know (and show a lack of understanding) of their inertia and how if a fighter does manage to get into a blind-spot for a split second, how it's inertia may still carry it a good 2km out in the next split second, meaning that it only spends perhaps 1 in 10 seconds in a blindspot.. if at all. You don't know of the performance of the craft vs their size, which could very very easily indicate that a Type S can rotate faster than the distance, + turning, +changing velocity vector of the fighter that is needed to keep it in the blindspot.

All in all - it's become really very apparent that you're not familiar with this flight model. If you'd like to see it in action, you can take a look at Star Citizen, with it's Newtonian flight model and dissimilar combat craft (read: from light fighter to corvette). You will note the first thing most pilots tell you to do is forget everything you learned from flight sims (and I mean Falcon F16, not some arcade action mouse flier). You will also note how dogfighting is completely different than the basics of Dicta Boeckle. It's all about maneuvering on different axis while always keeping your nose on your opponent - with the latter part being trivial (aka no blind spot) , and the difficult aspect being how to still maintain some evasive ability while doing so.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

You are fixing the range for your own convenience. At closer range, the distances to maintain my described spiral are a lot lower, and easily met. The key question, then, is, "Can a fighter close this range to the scout so it becomes a trivial difficulty before being shot down?". I'm inclined to say yes, it can.

I covered that when I said, it may happen for a split second. Inertia in a vacuum is such that, with the Acceleration of multiple Gs, you're only at that "closer" range for fractions of a second. The velocity and acceleration associated with (at least traveller) space combat is that you're not having dog-fights at 200 meters and maintaining that range. As indicated, you're dogfights are up to 10 kilometers in range!

It is entirely possible to match speed and loiter behind a target's blind spot. You just have to apply reverse thrust to avoid overshooting. Any space pilot with proper training can do that. And at that point, you just keep matching the roll of the target to stay in its blindspot.

The strategy you are describing was attempted in World War II with turreted bombers like the B-29. The historical record on how well that went without fighter escorts is clear. Simulation is neither required nor more informative.

This is utterly, and completely not the point and non-sequitur. This actually highlights your lack of understanding here when you say simulation is neither required nor more informative. Turreting is not having a mounted turret. Turreting is being able to rotate on axis, regardless of your Inertia.

This has no relevance to world war 2 bombers which had one person flying, and others mounted in turrets with blindspots that don't in any way control your actual craft flight, still resulting in blindspots that they did not control. No - when we (people who enjoy Newtonian flight model combat simulations) say turreting, what that entails is the equivalent of having the pilot of the bomber capable of rotating along one axis while still flying along the other. So as you can see, zero relevance to ww2 bombers and their turrets.

What you are referring to is called "roll"; no flight manual for any flying craft, air or space, has ever described this "turreting" you talk about.

Newtonian physics is far simpler to manage than aircraft physics. An aircraft must oppose several natural forces that are not constant. A spacecraft only has its own controlled forces
that it chooses to impose to worry about.

Thats exactly my point. Hence why turreting is a reality in space combat, and why it is not in atmosphere. Hence why 'tailing' and turning battles happen in the atmosphere, but do not happen in space combat.

No, your point was that space combat is "harder" because all that drag people expect is missing. But that expectation is only valid for an earth-bound person like us. For someone who has spent much of their lives in space, it might well be perfectly natural to not expect a countering drag force. Further, the forces at work are simpler. So you can't argue that it's easier for one craft to roll and harder for the other one to maintain a candela roll around his blind spot at the same time. It's either easier for both or harder for both; you don't get to pick and choose just to win the argument.

which means they're doing it wrong. From a blindspot relationship, a starship pilot's piloting+agility should first have to beat the dogfighter's piloting+agility; then, the gunner should have to make a roll at an extremely difficult modifier, because he didn't even see the target before to be able to aim his guns at him; that penalty should only go away if the pilot can keep the dogfighter in view of the gunner. And in the meantime, the dogfighter has the opportunity to dodge, and maybe even get in the Scout's blindspot again.

Nope - but hopefully you see that now because blindspots and tailing dont exist in a Newtonian environment.

Of course they do, so long as your pilots are remotely competent. You're talking about a level of piloting where the pilots are incapable of basic docking maneuvers...

Assuming two completely unskilled pilots, and perfect gunning, it will always be impossible for the Scout to hit the dogfighter at least half the time. Assuming equal piloting instead, the superior agility of the dogfighter's fightercraft should mean he's even less available to hit. Anything else is nonsense.

The only nonsense here I'm sorry to say is this statement. The fact that you think assuming equal skill, that the rotation of Type S scout is somehow beaten 50% of the time by the maneuverability, and speed and rotation of some fighter, without knowing the specifications on either craft is beyond ridiculous.

Listen, and you might learn something. Because the pilots are incompetent, the positions and orientations of each ship in space is completely random; therefore, the fighter will always have a shot, but the scout will only have a shot half the time due to his blindspot. If you match the skill of the pilots, but give the fighter more agility, as they are likely to have, things are only going to get worse for the starship.

You don't know the degrees per second on the roll, pitch and yaw of either craft...

Don't need to; the game mechanics are enough. If a fighter has 3 times the agility of a starship, then, at a given radius from an axis around which the starship executes a candela roll, the fighter can execute that same roll at 3 times that radius. All other details are unnecessary.

All in all - it's become really very apparent that you're not familiar with this flight model.

I know the flight model just fine; you're the one that's still learning.

 

[hdan]

Babylon 5 had a space fight scene that shows why you can't "tail" someone in a space fight. Sure, in atmospheric flight it's a basic maneuver, but in a vacuum, forget it.

Essentially, a Star Fury was being followed by an enemy craft. It spun around to face its rear, and then opened fire. Simple. Pretty sure the recent(ish) Battlestar Galactica had a similar scene.

Any ship operating in a vacuum can do the same thing. The ship's facing and velocity are not connected.