Dogfighting

[Nerhesi]

What I am referring to is that in Traveller ship combat smallcraft have filled the niche occupied by MTBs in surface naval combat, there is not and never has been an aeroplane analogue in Traveller ship combat. Not until MgT and its fixation with cinematic, 'unrealistic', setting changing fighter paradigm.

Classic Traveller (and other traveller versions), has always supported single 1-man fighters, which evaded based on pilot skill, and were housed and launched via "carriers". There exists decades old traveller lore on the role of carriers, fighters, and how certain Major Races even have navies that make very heavy use of small craft.

I dont see how MgT made fighters any more cinematic or 'unrealistic' then what already existed. If realistic was the goal... then traveller with it's multi-crew ships, manually operated turrets, and skill-of-a-human having any affect on battles happening at 1000s of kms would have a lot of bigger issues than fighters dog fighting.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point Sigtrygg

 

[Infojunky]

Sigtrygg is referring to “motor torpedo boat” as in a WWII Patrol Torpedo Boat. Moreover, he’s referring to them being high drag vehicles where constant thrust equals constant velocity. To which, I reiterate; only in atmosphere... or liquid, for submersible craft.

WW2? Go study your Navel History.... Especially as it pertains to Traveller...

Book 2 in pretty standard late 60's early 70's Navel combat.

While Book 5 is clearly based on the WW1 era Navel combat. Note which is where Motor Torpedo Boats are big factor in Navel Doctrine.

And neither of these Doctrines lend themselves very well to "Dogfighting".

 

[Sigtrygg]

Classic Traveller (and other traveller versions), has always supported single 1-man fighters, which evaded based on pilot skill, and were housed and launched via "carriers". There exists decades old traveller lore on the role of carriers, fighters, and how certain Major Races even have navies that make very heavy use of small craft.

Those fighters had no performance advantage over the ships they were up against. Have you played LBB2 ship combat, mayday, HG2, Brilliant Lances, Battle Rider?

I dont see how MgT made fighters any more cinematic or 'unrealistic' then what already existed

And therein lies the problem, because it is more cinematic, unrealistic, and a lot more words I could use if I wasn't being polite.

If realistic was the goal... then traveller with it's multi-crew ships, manually operated turrets, and skill-of-a-human having any affect on battles happening at 1000s of kms would have a lot of bigger issues than fighters dog fighting.

I get it - you like dogfighting. I don't. Dogfighting has never been in Traveller before and doesn't fit the established paradigm, you think it is a cool addition.

 

[alex_greene]

The entry in the rulebook about the new dogfighting rules are interesting if you have fighters going at each other but how exactly do they work? With the ship combat rounds dropping from 6 minutes to 6 seconds...
1) Do weapons that normally take 6 minutes to fire once suddenly become capable of firing once every 6 seconds? Especially missile launchers?
2) What actions are allowed/disallowed within the new 6 second rounds?
3) The whole winning the dogfighting roll really only seems to matter if you don't have turrets? Is that correct? (yes I see the +2/-2 to hit)
4) Basically if a ship over 100 tons is trying to fight a ship under 100 tons it's hosed? Once a fighter gets into dogfighting range it becomes almost impossible to hit?

They work on the vehicular scale, with the vehicular timeline.

Between vehicles.

The skills involved are Flyer, Drive and Seafarer.

If there are spaceships in atmo, they would have to be treated as flying vehicles, and the pilot of the ship or fighter would be using their Flyer skills and adding their vessels' surface - level Agility scores.

As for what those Agility scores would be in surface combat, we may all have to wait for the Vehicle Handbook to come out. Which means a very, very quick email to msprange is definitely in order to make sure there is some sort of conversion guide handy in the VHB.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

They work on the vehicular scale, with the vehicular timeline.

Between vehicles.

That would be great, but it is not what the rules say:

Battling spacecraft within Close or Adjacent range of one another use these ‘dogfight’ rules. This is a series of manoeuvres whereby the pilot of one ship attempts to gain a position of advantage over another.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

What I am referring to is that in Traveller ship combat smallcraft have filled the niche occupied by MTBs in surface naval combat, there is not and never has been an aeroplane analogue in Traveller ship combat. Not until MgT and its fixation with cinematic, 'unrealistic', setting changing fighter paradigm.

Book 2 in pretty standard late 60's early 70's Navel combat.

While Book 5 is clearly based on the WW1 era Navel combat. Note which is where Motor Torpedo Boats are big factor in Navel Doctrine.

I think we are all taking the Naval similes a bit too far.

Unlike Torpedo Boats Traveller fighters have never had any weapons capable of doing serious damage to large ships, apart from pure LBB2. Unlike aircraft Traveller fighters have the same armour and drives as large ships.

 

[alex_greene]

They work on the vehicular scale, with the vehicular timeline.

Between vehicles.

That would be great, but it is not what the rules say:

Battling spacecraft within Close or Adjacent range of one another use these ‘dogfight’ rules. This is a series of manoeuvres whereby the pilot of one ship attempts to gain a position of advantage over another.

The same dogfighting rules, and the dogfighting timescale, used in the vehicles section.

So that effectively IS what the rules say. When the ships are close enough that they can smell the enemy's fear, or maybe their aftershave, stop using the space combat rules and use the vehicle chapter dogfighting rules instead.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The same dogfighting rules, and the dogfighting timescale, used in the vehicles section.

If that is the intention, I would say the rules fail to make that clear. I would say that the space dogfighting rules fail to make almost anything clear.

As we can see in this thread, and some similar discussions in the beta forum, almost everyone interprets the rules differently.

Using the personal combat, and by implication the vehicle combat rules, for space combat makes little sense. Suddenly using different skills to operate the same vessels and weapons, depending on the range makes no sense. But that is only my opinion.

 

[arcador]

I am sure spacecraft dogfighting will be an interesting engagement. The only case here is that it needs more clarification.

I can see how the vehicular dogfighting rules might be more balanced (hitting a fighter might be easier) vs the current interpretations we patch up individually.

 

[Nerhesi]

Those fighters had no performance advantage over the ships they were up against. Have you played LBB2 ship combat, mayday, HG2, Brilliant Lances, Battle Rider?

Yes and it has nothing to do with my original question nor does it logically follow. I never said it was different - I simply said fighters existed. We can agree on this statement.

On a sidenote, it shows a very large bias as you've cherry-picked versions that do not take into affect ship size/agility (T4, T20, Gurps, T5). So your assertion earlier about only "MgT" having some sort of special treatment of fighters is not correct. More on this on our friendly conclusion below.

I dont see how MgT made fighters any more cinematic or 'unrealistic' then what already existed

And therein lies the problem, because it is more cinematic, unrealistic, and a lot more words I could use if I wasn't being polite.

Unfortunately, the problems rests with your adhoc bias that somehow fighters, are any more unrealistic, than non-fighters.
It may be more realistic given your bias for liking big ship combat. It is absolutely not any more, or any less, objectively realistic.

If realistic was the goal... then traveller with it's multi-crew ships, manually operated turrets, and skill-of-a-human having any affect on battles happening at 1000s of kms would have a lot of bigger issues than fighters dog fighting.

I get it - you like dogfighting. I don't. Dogfighting has never been in Traveller before and doesn't fit the established paradigm, you think it is a cool addition.

You got close here. I like variety, and meaningful options. In any game. It is a good design principle and generally conducive to enjoying something.
Yes sometimes, we dont like some of the "meaningful options" and we consider them unrealistic, but the fact is - everything is equally unrealistic.

However, while "dog fighting" as a text-title has been rare in traveller (and Im almost sure it's in 5th edition by the way); advantages for fighters have functionally existed in MANY versions. Size advantages, agility advantage, increased thrust (therefore more speed, maneuverability and dodging), or even the inability to hit at certain ranges... So it is unfair to say Mongoose Strayed here. In fact - I think I can honestly say MgT is the only version (along with T5 perhaps?) to actively limit the fighter's ability in light of it's advantages (massively reduced weapons range).

 

[phavoc]

However, while "dog fighting" as a text-title has been rare in traveller (and Im almost sure it's in 5th edition by the way); advantages for fighters have functionally existed in MANY versions. Size advantages, agility advantage, increased thrust (therefore more speed, maneuverability and dodging), or even the inability to hit at certain ranges... So it is unfair to say Mongoose Strayed here. In fact - I think I can honestly say MgT is the only version (along with T5 perhaps?) to actively limit the fighter's ability in light of it's advantages (massively reduced weapons range).

You had me till here. Smaller craft vs. larger ones has been a perennial issue since combat between craft was capable. The larger you are, the more weapons, more armor, more crew, more coffee makers, more everything you get to mount. Smaller craft have always been more nimble, had fewer weapons, less armor, fewer coffee makers, heck, even fewer bathrooms.

But Mongoose didn't create smaller craft, didn't create agility, didn't create dodge, didn't create a whole lot of stuff. What they've done is try to shoe-horn in some Star Wars-esque fighter concepts to make things more "exciting". Except I think the rules are still immature. Changing combat rules from 6min to 6 seconds is rather silly. It also screws with the rules because now you've made different combat timings when it's quite possible you are going to have mixed groups. I don't say "dumb" because the rules are just out and I think they still need work. If they retain the far shorter rule set, then I think my opinion will shift to officially being "dumb".

The weapon range issue is one that was put in to nerf fighters. A missile fired from a small craft or a battleship is no different. A 1.21 gigawatt laser fired from a fighter vs. a capital ship is no different. Under the old rules, only GURPS had differences that set apart lasers based on power output. Ergo a pulse laser in a fighter is the same power, same everything as one mounted in a cruiser. What they've done here is to introduce artificial constraints without providing any sort of underlying structure to justify them.

It makes a lot of sense to have smaller craft with more speed and agility because they are smaller. It makes no sense to have an armor factor 15 fighter that is comparable in damage resistance as an armor factor 200,000 ton battleship. Now THAT is dumb. Small craft are supposed to be agile BECAUSE they are death traps, and their agility is their survival mechanism.

Let's be honest and state the obvious - Traveller rules for starship and small craft combat aren't the best. There are many game systems out there that are far better. But that's ok because starship combat rules for Traveller have always been an add-on to the RPG aspect of the game, not vice-versa. If you want to fight with better rules that have a stronger foundation I suggest you move on to a different combat system for that and when your ship combat is completed you jump back into the RPG portion. But trying to "fix" the rules as they stand is going to be a long, hard slog that will probably officially go nowhere.

 

[Nerhesi]

I dont disagree the time-scale isn't the best implemented thing. As I've said, I'm not in favour of it at all. Thats why I clearly indicated I'm not using that rule as it doesn't integrate well.

As for armour - we've disagreed on this and rested our cases. The "toughness" paradigm in this game is Armour and "hull points" - so I am perfectly fine with the 15 armour on fighters, because they'll die in 1-3 hits depending.

Also, note for large battles, all dog-fighting is abstracted and there are no 6-second rounds. So basically, "dog fighting"/agility/whatever you want is nothing more than a penalty because your target is a fighter.

 

[Condottiere]

Dogfighting implies that the ships are so close, in order to really shoot each other, they need to be in an advantageous position, at least for some of their weapon systems.

If the fighter is fast approaching up from the rear, where a great money weapon systems are placed, that's not a dogfight, that's mince meat.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Which is why they wouldn’t fight that way. They would use their superior speed and sufficient stealth to intercept the target from its blindspot. For Ships against which they would be unable to do that, they would treat it like a “Wild Weasel” mission, 2 fighters per turret, guaranteeing blindspotting.

 

[FallingPhoenix]

Which is why they wouldn’t fight that way. They would use their superior speed and sufficient stealth to intercept the target from its blindspot. For Ships against which they would be unable to do that, they would treat it like a “Wild Weasel” mission, 2 fighters per turret, guaranteeing blindspotting.

Of course, "realistically" there is no stealth in space (of course, there is no reactionless drive in space, either, so I'm totally okay with stealth in Traveller).

Then again, in the rules as currently exist (unless I missed something again, which is entirely possible), "fighters" can't be any faster than any other ship can potentially be, so that advantage is gone as well.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Then again, in the rules as currently exist (unless I missed something again, which is entirely possible), "fighters" can't be any faster than any other ship can potentially be, so that advantage is gone as well.

Manoeuvre Drives are the same for everyone, and fairly cheap. But Reaction Drives are cumulative and very space consuming, requiring vast amounts of fuel. Realistically only fighters can use Reaction Drives, so they can generally be much faster.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Which is why they wouldn’t fight that way. They would use their superior speed and sufficient stealth to intercept the target from its blindspot. For Ships against which they would be unable to do that, they would treat it like a “Wild Weasel” mission, 2 fighters per turret, guaranteeing blindspotting.

And they dump their velocity how? And they achieve stealth in space how?
Even more cinematic rubbish.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Then again, in the rules as currently exist (unless I missed something again, which is entirely possible), "fighters" can't be any faster than any other ship can potentially be, so that advantage is gone as well.

Manoeuvre Drives are the same for everyone, and fairly cheap. But Reaction Drives are cumulative and very space consuming, requiring vast amounts of fuel. Realistically only fighters can use Reaction Drives, so they can generally be much faster.

And if they are using reaction drives they are easily spotted at vast ranges and have to move in abeyance to St. Newton.
Battle Riders, SDBs and monitors could also use reaction engines since they don't need to worry about jump fuel.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Certainly.
BRs would become as big and expensive as battleship, and still need tenders, I think this would be uneconomical.
SDBs would work, but I guess I would prefer filling the boat with bays.
Bigger ships have less need for reaction drives since they can attack at longer range, only fighter really need the reaction drives.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If fighters are now the threat they are presented in MgT HG2 then navies will have to start thinking about escort class ships which can beat the fighters at their own game.
Fast, armoured against fighter mounted weapons, and carrying weapons that can knock out a fighter. If such a vessel can not be built than MgT has done what no other version of Traveller has done - produce one type of ship that automatically beats all the others. Traveller navies would build nothing but fighter carriers.