Dogfighting

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

(Shameless Plug ON)I was able to use Dogfighting successfully in my TAS adventure "The Bronze Case" (Shameless plug OFF).

BUT, it was exclusively a dogfight between 3 vehicles, no switching between time frames. During the playtest, it worked well without having to houserule or make many Referee Interpretations.

 

[phavoc]

Regarding SPECIFICALLY the number of shots in a round, I have always thought of it as not being 1 shot = 1 attack roll.

I have always assumed (back to CT days), that a ship fires multiple times within a combat round with each weapon, but you only roll one attack roll. SO, we you move into Dogfighting and the time scale changes, you are now rolling for every single shot, not some cumulative shot like you do at the Starship Combat stage.

Missiles obviously work differently.

I have always thought this because I thought it was insane that a TL8 laser weapon would take 20 minutes to recharge when we can do better than that now with late TL7, let alone at TL15.

If you think of the attack roll as NOT being per shot, then the energy balance things disappears too. An EP is just what it takes to fire the weapon as many times as it fires within a combat round.

Of course, I was strongly influenced by Star Wars (weren't we all back then) which showed a stream of pulses following a ship as it tracks across the field of view. Sure some weapons only fired once per combat round (spinal mounts etc.) the turrets fired much more often but the Attack Roll was simplified into a single roll per round.

This does make a reasonable case, though I'm not sure how'd you resolve the beam/pulse laser differences since their operations are different. Though I could see one simply hand waving the issue.

For the most part, the time factor is an arbitrary one. If the rounds were one minute instead of six, the effects would be the same. The difference, of course, being what actions the players may take between the rolls, trying to jury-rig the systems back into operation before their ship gets blasted to pieces around them. From an RPG perspective, the longer time fame makes sense. From a realism perspective, not so much. And it gets worse with the arbitrary limit on missiles.

Ideally the way to fix it would be to give each weapon type a ROF, thus weapons that fired more often would be (most likely) weaker, and cheaper, while your more powerful weapons required a longer cycle time, but did more damage and cost more. Missiles, of course, could be terribly effective here, but if you added in better countermeasures (real point defense weaponry, and counter-missiles), you could see that advantage blunted. And PC's and smaller ships would be loathe to expend massive amounts of CR required, thus most would fall bck onto cheaper weapons.

All in theory of course.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Dogfighting is totally implausible using traveller technological assumptions.
It should be listed as a cinematic option for those who wish to use Star Wars like fighters in their games.
If you want Star Wars stick to Star Wars, I'll stick to Traveller ship combat - no dogfighting.

That said if a fighter can fire at 10x then so can the target ship, the target ship should also have the advantage in having weapons mounted is swiftly traversable turrets rather than having to spin the whole fighter to get a weapon lock. If the fighter has weapons mounted in those same turrets I can not see how the fighter can get a bonus while the ship doesn't.

A fighter vs. a single turret ship can consistently maneuver to stay outside the firing arc of the turret, which is physically limited in its firing direction by the hull of the ship. From there, it can fire with impunity, to the extent that superior dogfighting allows. At least, in principle.

 

[Condottiere]

Unless it's a missile launcher, since unlike beam weapons, missiles can change direction.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Unless it's a missile launcher, since unlike beam weapons, missiles can change direction.

Yeah, until the fighter reaches outmaneuvering range, those first few missiles will be tricky.

 

[phavoc]

Dogfighting is totally implausible using traveller technological assumptions.
It should be listed as a cinematic option for those who wish to use Star Wars like fighters in their games.
If you want Star Wars stick to Star Wars, I'll stick to Traveller ship combat - no dogfighting.

That said if a fighter can fire at 10x then so can the target ship, the target ship should also have the advantage in having weapons mounted is swiftly traversable turrets rather than having to spin the whole fighter to get a weapon lock. If the fighter has weapons mounted in those same turrets I can not see how the fighter can get a bonus while the ship doesn't.

A fighter vs. a single turret ship can consistently maneuver to stay outside the firing arc of the turret, which is physically limited in its firing direction by the hull of the ship. From there, it can fire with impunity, to the extent that superior dogfighting allows. At least, in principle.

In the Traveller universe, with reaction drives, no fighter would be able to outmaneuver a ship that can spin on it's axis or rotate in any direction - unless said ship is so exceedingly slow to maneuver.
The smaller craft trying to stay out of a firing arc would never be able to expend enough energy fast enough. At 1km the firing arcs are pretty large.

Since ships in Traveller don't have agility ratings it's a moot point.

 

[Nerhesi]

Dogfighting is totally implausible using traveller technological assumptions.
It should be listed as a cinematic option for those who wish to use Star Wars like fighters in their games.
If you want Star Wars stick to Star Wars, I'll stick to Traveller ship combat - no dogfighting.

That said if a fighter can fire at 10x then so can the target ship, the target ship should also have the advantage in having weapons mounted is swiftly traversable turrets rather than having to spin the whole fighter to get a weapon lock. If the fighter has weapons mounted in those same turrets I can not see how the fighter can get a bonus while the ship doesn't.

A fighter vs. a single turret ship can consistently maneuver to stay outside the firing arc of the turret, which is physically limited in its firing direction by the hull of the ship. From there, it can fire with impunity, to the extent that superior dogfighting allows. At least, in principle.

Two items here:

In theory - that is correct. In theory - a ship with turrets has some blindspots. If you can remain in those blind spots, you will not be fired at al.
In practice, this is not correct. Because that ship can spend significantly less effort maneuvering (rotating) to ensure you are NEVER in the blind-spot. The only exceptions to this is something like a star-destroyer with a single turret or so. Hence why, in practice, with most ships, you will never blind spot any turret unless the target is actively making an effort to aid you in your effort (aka, the pilot of the enemy craft is incompetant/on your side).

As for Sigtrygg's point:

You can't make that assumption - that dog fighting is totally implausible based on traveller technology. It is not anymore implausible than:
Having skill levels for gunnery at all
Having dodge/evasion exist at all

Hmm.. I dont think I'm explaining this well enough... So I'll try to summarize:

If you're having space-combat at ranges of <5km, then dog fighting, Skill modifiers, and attribute modifiers are logically sound.

If you're having space-combat at greater ranges (whether it's 50km or 5,000km or more), then logically, human skill and are attributes are completely redundant from a logical perspective - because to be able to hit a stationary target at that range, means you will unerringly hit any target, no matter how much it's evasion, distance, movement, or your manual dexterity. Because the "computer" is able to pin-point a target at 000s of km and fire a near light-speed weapon.
So either a) You have to make your game FUN/affected by player skill.. or b) "realistic" and just compare armour vs weapons and declare winner. Obviously, being an RPG we choose the former.

Some aspects of Sci-Fi games get around that being having FTL/magic drives that are not based on Gs of acceleration. This allows you to plot a "pattern" of attacks and dodging, rather than "I'm actually trying to hit the target and he's trying to maneuver so my pewpew misses them". An example of this I believe is the "skip drive" or like technology..

 

[Nerhesi]

Thank you for respecting my opinion.

For a single ship being attacked by a bunch of fighters the time-scale means little, true.

But if we have two ships vs a bunch of fighters, the ships can simply separate to Short range. The same fighter can then not engage both ships at once. The ships can then fire at the fighters engaging the other ship, negating the dogfighting -DM.

There are penalties for firing into an existing dog-fight, with the Referee prerogative of applying either a penalty, or randomizing the target(s) - so both are significant.

The fighters will also do damage quite slowly, making them less efficient killers than ships. Killing a ship in 10-15 rounds of 6 s is very quick, killing a ship in 10-15 rounds of 6 minutes is rather slow.

They would still do damage faster, and from a safer vantage than non-fighters. Given that a 40+ ton fighter can sport a particle/fusion barbette equivalent.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

In the Traveller universe, with reaction drives, no fighter would be able to outmaneuver a ship that can spin on it's axis or rotate in any direction - unless said ship is so exceedingly slow to maneuver.
The smaller craft trying to stay out of a firing arc would never be able to expend enough energy fast enough. At 1km the firing arcs are pretty large.

Since ships in Traveller don't have agility ratings it's a moot point.

Everything is a mathematical balance. There is a radius at which the maximum rotation rate of the ship is exceeded by the ability of the dogfighter’s thrust to accelerate it through a turn. We may not know where that radius is, but we know that it is there. Please stop pretending it isn’t. When the single turret ship uses all its thrust, there’s nothing left to turn with. Since the fightercraft has excess thrust, it can match those velocity changes and turn, maintaining its position in the single turret craft’s blindspot.

There is some radius, beneath which, this is true. Whether that radius is somewhere exploitable is, unfortunately, up in the air, but there’s very little point to fightercraft if it isn’t. Therefore, for fighters to make economic sense, and be something for which governments pay money, it must be an exploitable phenomenon.

 

[phavoc]

In the Traveller universe, with reaction drives, no fighter would be able to outmaneuver a ship that can spin on it's axis or rotate in any direction - unless said ship is so exceedingly slow to maneuver.
The smaller craft trying to stay out of a firing arc would never be able to expend enough energy fast enough. At 1km the firing arcs are pretty large.

Since ships in Traveller don't have agility ratings it's a moot point.

Everything is a mathematical balance. There is a radius at which the maximum rotation rate of the ship is exceeded by the ability of the dogfighter’s thrust to accelerate it through a turn. We may not know where that radius is, but we know that it is there. Please stop pretending it isn’t. When the single turret ship uses all its thrust, there’s nothing left to turn with. Since the fightercraft has excess thrust, it can match those velocity changes and turn, maintaining its position in the single turret craft’s blindspot.

There is some radius, beneath which, this is true. Whether that radius is somewhere exploitable is, unfortunately, up in the air, but there’s very little point to fightercraft if it isn’t. Therefore, for fighters to make economic sense, and be something for which governments pay money, it must be an exploitable phenomenon.

Wow, you go off on tangents pretty easily. Ain't nobody pretending anything, but maybe you. It's funny that you want to cite only those items that seem to make you look right, except you aren't. First you want to cite science and math to prove your point. Then you want to cite thrust points for a ship to prove your point.

Except you are neglecting that ships may rotate in any direction along their axis without expending any thrust points. In reality spacecraft accelerate along their primary thrust axis (generally, where their biggest engines are). However they have these neat-o inventions called thrusters. Thrusters act like primary engines, but by using them they can (gasp!) spin along their axis in any orientation! Amazing what science can teach us!

And in the rules, if you bother to read those that you don't like, you would find that there is no limitation on a ship bringing even it's spinal mount (in case you haven't read those rules, a spinal mount is a very large weapon system built into the spine of a vessel, thus the entire vessel must be pointed at it's target in order to fire at it) to bear during it's combat turn. Traveller doesn't go into any detail regarding the use of thrusters during maneuvering, you just can without expending any main engine thrust points.

Using more "science", a Traveller spaceship trying to stay within the blindspot of another ship would have to be within hundreds of meters, or less. And it would also have to not only match the thrust output of the ship, but greatly exceed it in order to attempt to maintain that position. Since you claim to know math, you should know why an object at the end of a tether has a much different velocity than that from the center of the radii that it's anchored towards. The centered object needs only to expend minor amounts of energy to rotate. The object at the end must expend far greater effort. The further out from the center, the more energy must be expended. Just watch an ice skater when they are doing a spin and pull their arms in on their center mass - their rotation speed increases a great deal. Imagine that ice skater is a ship, and another ice skater is trying to match their rotation from 3m away. The outside skater simply cannot expend enough energy to match. Any vessel trying to match the rotation at it's edge would also lose that race - especially since Traveller has an upper limit on thrust. It's not an impossible task, as with great amounts of thrust it would be possible (or say mechanical help for the skater). But in Traveller ship thrust is not unlimited, ergo it is an impossible task by the rules. And common sense, if you use that rule.

Traveller combat also occurs in turns. Each side gets a turn. This means the ship with the turret always gets a chance to maneuver and bring it's weapons to bear.

You completely gloss over very good reasons to have small craft. A ship with 10 small craft can deploy them to be in 10 separate places. It can engage targets in multiple areas where it's weaponry cannot be brought to bear or the targets are out of range. It can use small craft to pursue multiple targets whereas with itself it can only pursue one at a time. It can attack a target from multiple vectors. There are more reasons, you just don't want to seem to acknowledge them. But hey, that's your perogative to do so. Doesn't mean those reasons don't exist however.

And, did you notice how I was able to state my case without the excessive use of italics? Amazing isn't it?

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Wow, you go off on tangents pretty easily. Ain't nobody pretending anything, but maybe you. It's funny that you want to cite only those items that seem to make you look right, except you aren't. First you want to cite science and math to prove your point. Then you want to cite thrust points for a ship to prove your point.

Except you are neglecting that ships may rotate in any direction along their axis without expending any thrust points. In reality spacecraft accelerate along their primary thrust axis (generally, where their biggest engines are). However they have these neat-o inventions called thrusters. Thrusters act like primary engines, but by using them they can (gasp!) spin along their axis in any orientation! Amazing what science can teach us!

This is a function of the Maneuver Drive; without the Maneuver Drive, the ship can’t rotate on its axis; there are no “additional thrusters”. When you hit the Maneuver Drive, all ability for the ship to rotate on its axis is gone. Per the rules, the ability for a ship to rotate on its axis is exclusive to the Maneuver Drive; otherwise, it would be called the Thrust Drive, and the Maneuver Drive would be a separate system. If a ship has used up all its thrust accelerating away, there’s no thrust left for what you call “thrusters” (really just the same Maneuver Drive components) to spin the ship around its axis; while, admittedly, not part of the rules, that is because the rules neglect that fact, not because it isn’t a fact. Furthermore, if the ability of a ship to rotate on its axis isn’t fixed to a finite number, the massive gaping brokenness of that would be more incredible than you can imagine. Rules or not, the ability of a ship to rotate on its axis must be a finite number! Which, therefore, can be compared to the thrust and speed of a fighter craft, if known.

Using more "science", a Traveller spaceship trying to stay within the blindspot of another ship would have to be within hundreds of meters, or less. And it would also have to not only match the thrust output of the ship, but greatly exceed it in order to attempt to maintain that position.

You can’t pick a fixed distance without also picking a maximum rate for the ship rotating about its axis! The two numbers are inextricably linked! Care to guess what number you picked for the ship’s maximum rate of rotation?

We’ll use 300 meters, because logarithmically, it’s right in the middle of your vague statement of “hundreds”. Let’s give our 100dT Ship a generous Thrust 5, and our Dogfighter the expected Space-Superiority of Thrust 10. They’re both accelerating in the same direction at Thrust 5, which leaves the Fighter Craft with Thrust 5 to execute its turn to keep out of the Ship’s blindspot. So, the Fighter Craft is executing a Thrust 5 turn at a Radius of 300 Meters... how fast around a circle is that, so we can know how fast the Ship has to rotate to keep up with it? Well, that’s a function of Centripital Acceleration, so...

a=(v^2)/r; 5g=(v^2)/300; 49=(v^2)/300; 14700=v^2; v=121.24... m/s.

So we’re going at 121.24... m/s around a 300 meter radius circle... how many degrees per second of roll is that?

c=2πr; c=2*π*300=600π=1884.95... m/s

(121.24/1884.95)*360= 23.15... degrees per second of roll, to keep up with the Fighter Craft.

The roll rate of an F-16 is 240 degrees per second... and this is about 1/10th that... but the Ship is so much bigger! It may have about 4 times the thrust of an F-16, but it’s way more than 4 times as big; imagine a ship with the proportions of an F-16 and a 100dT volume; at over 40 times the volume of the F-16, the radius becomes much larger than you’ve stated. And since the Fighter Craft can almost certainly roll at the full 240, it can, in fact, get much, much closer.

Traveller combat also occurs in turns. Each side gets a turn. This means the ship with the turret always gets a chance to maneuver and bring it's weapons to bear.

Each side gets a turn to do what it physically can; not what it cannot, like fly through a rocky planet.

You completely gloss over very good reasons to have small craft. A ship with 10 small craft can deploy them to be in 10 separate places. It can engage targets in multiple areas where it's weaponry cannot be brought to bear or the targets are out of range. It can use small craft to pursue multiple targets whereas with itself it can only pursue one at a time. It can attack a target from multiple vectors. There are more reasons, you just don't want to seem to acknowledge them. But hey, that's your perogative to do so. Doesn't mean those reasons don't exist however.

It can also deploy them to both sides of a ship’s hull, guaranteeing that half of those ships will be in that ship’s blindspot! But you would prefer that the ship can magically rotate on its axis so as to always be able to fire at all of them.

 

[phavoc]

Magic, eh? Holy crap, I did not know that NASA was secretly a bastion of wizards. It seems the Space Shuttle can do all this. Alas, I, a poor muggle, had no idea.

You have destroyed my faith in "science", sir. I shall now forever have to rely upon magicians and magic to satisfy my orbital needs.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

Magic, eh? Holy crap, I did not know that NASA was secretly a bastion of wizards. It seems the Space Shuttle can do all this. Alas, I, a poor muggle, had no idea.

You have destroyed my faith in "science", sir. I shall now forever have to rely upon magicians and magic to satisfy my orbital needs.

Magically as in “magically fast”; not as in “at all”. By refusing to accept the possibility of a physical constraint, you are effectively declaring it to be magically effective.

 

[phavoc]

Magically as in “magically fast”; not as in “at all”. By refusing to accept the possibility of a physical constraint, you are effectively declaring it to be magically effective.

Lulz. You just hate it when people correct you on your rants don't ya?

Since you seem incapable of accepting facts and have to resort to yard-school attempts at bullying (and failing, like most yard-school bullies), lemme edumahcate you:

The Space Shuttle had multiple engine systems. The largest and most powerful was the SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine), who's primary task were to act as additional launch thrust and primary thrust as the main boosters dropped off. They were lthe three large engines set in the back of the shuttle (much like where Traveller engines on ships are). The second most powerful set of engines were the OMS (Orbital Maneuvering system), which also provided some launch thrust, but were used mostly for orbital injections and de-orbit burns. There were a pair of these on the rear of the shuttle, mounted above the primary engines. Which brings us to the final and smallest set of engines, the RCS (Reaction Control System). Or more normally known as, "thrusters". The RCS were used to provide pitch, yaw and roll, or in more simple terms you might (or not) understand - the ability to rotate the ship in any direction, spin it, or both at the same time. You see, the ability to provide small amounts of energy to rotate and spin would be very useful for things like docking maneuvers, or say rotating the ship to bring a turreted weapon system to bear while your opponent tries (and fails) to match you. It's simple physics.

I've never said there wasn't a physical constraint, and in fact I pointed it out - but it was not on the ship with the turret, it was on the fighters whom you think can magically stay in the mythcal blindspot of a ship. You should read up on the definition of what a firing arc is (arc being another mathematical concept that you seem to ignore). A 100 ton scout ship with a fighter 1km away from it on it's belly will always win the arc wards since the fighter can never expend enough energy to match the amount of energy that the scoutship would have to expend to simply roll on it's axis. The G rating on the main engines has nothing to do with roll/pitch/yaw maneuvers. Again, more simple physics.

Or, if you cannot grasp this concept, use the space shuttle (real tech, from the 1970s) as an example. Tiny little RCS can spin the ship to point in any direction. The main engines cannot do the same. Nor can the OMS. They propel the ship in a fixed direction. So ask yourself (if you can do so without italics or being an ass), just how can that Traveller space ship with essentially souped-up engines from the 1970s somehow magically orbit another ship to stay in it's blindspot without having the ability to change it's pitch or yaw? In the 52nd century are they going to employ gyroscopes to do so? Or are they going to be scientifically reasonable and utilize a thruster system?

You like to say you want Traveller grounded in science... yet you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp very basic and simple concepts because you don't like them. That's kind of sad really. Clearly you have a good grasp on a number of real science issues that relate to a sci-fi RPG universe. Yet your continued rants towards anyone or anything that contradict you really make most people ignore your statements. Perhaps you should try working on that and taking a step back from the keyboard antics you currently practice?

And remember... in space you have to think in three dimensions. Khan didn't, and look where that got him. Don't be a Khan.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

The Space Shuttle had multiple engine systems...

The Space Shuttle’s RCS systems are part of its Maneuver Drive. Ships without a Maneuver Drive do not get to spin for free. Saying “Shuttle has RCS so FAIL” doesn’t save your argument, because when the Maneuver Drive goes down, so does the ability for the Ship to turn; therefore, it’s part of the Maneuver Drive.

I've never said there wasn't a physical constraint, and in fact I pointed it out - but it was not on the ship with the turret, it was on the fighters whom you think can magically stay in the mythcal blindspot of a ship. You should read up on the definition of what a firing arc is (arc being another mathematical concept that you seem to ignore)...

There is a maximum rate at which a ship can spin on a given axis. For every possible maximum rate, there is a corresponding radius, within which the Fighter Craft will be able to turn faster than the Ship can spin about its axis. You can disagree about how far out that radius is all you want, but it exists. The physical constraint is mutual; it works both ways. Inside the radius, the Fighter Craft wins; outside the radius, the Ship wins. The only thing magical is your assertion that this radius does not exist. It does, no matter how much you wish it didn’t. The firing arc is limited by the hull of the ship that turret is placed on, and when the Fighter Craft isn’t on that side of the hull, the turret can’t hit it. And if the Fighter Craft is inside that radius, the Ship will never turn fast enough to get it within the turret’s firing arc.

 

[Sigtrygg]

If your fighter is "turning" as you put it - serious lack of vector movement concept or sloppy choice of wording? - it can no longer bring its own weapons to bear on the target if it has fixed mounts.
What's to stop a ship having thrust 10 the same as the figher?

In space if I know your current vector and your engine performance I know the exact spherical volume of space you can be in at a future point in time, all I need to do is fill that entire volume with weapon fire to the limit of my ability and I have a guaranteed hit. The closer you are the smaller that volume of space is. At dogfighting ranges fighers should be autohit.

 

[Tenacious-Techhunter]

If your fighter is "turning" as you put it - serious lack of vector movement concept or sloppy choice of wording? - it can no longer bring its own weapons to bear on the target if it has fixed mounts.
What's to stop a ship having thrust 10 the same as the figher?

In space if I know your current vector and your engine performance I know the exact spherical volume of space you can be in at a future point in time, all I need to do is fill that entire volume with weapon fire to the limit of my ability and I have a guaranteed hit. The closer you are the smaller that volume of space is. At dogfighting ranges fighers should be autohit.

That is patently untrue, for a variety of reasons.

First, to execute such a turn, you thrust parallel to the radius; if you’re assuming that all the thrust comes out of the back, this has your guns pointed directly at the target.

Second, the assumption that all the thrust comes out the back is patently false in Mongoose Traveller; the ship can execute full thrust in any direction it likes, regardless of facing. Which just gives the Fighter Craft pilot all the leeway he needs to keep his guns fully trained on the target.

A 100 dT “Ship” with Thrust 10 would probably be more of a system defense boat than a Player Character Ship capable of Jump. If the thrust is equal, and the piloting is equal, then it’s a mostly fair fight, with any blindspotting only happening due to random chance due to failed rolls. Additionally, with all the consistently varying rotation the Fighter Craft pilot has to do to stay on target at his ship’s maximum rated thrust, he might be risking a blackout or a redout. But it’s a pretty odd circumstance for a Fighter Craft to face such a large ship with so much thrust...

Volume is a massive thing; there’s no such thing as “filling a sphere with fire”; the dispersal over even a very small range would leave much to be desired. See grunts trying to use Fully Automatic Rifles in a training scenario when they haven’t been trained to fire that way yet. It’s also very temporal; each laser “bolt” only exists in a given location at a fixed point in time, so there’s no creating an “unavoidable wall” of laser fire, like you suggest. Additionally, we’re talking about avoiding the firing arc altogether. You can’t hit a Fighter Craft if it isn’t even in your firing arc...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

There are penalties for firing into an existing dog-fight, with the Referee prerogative of applying either a penalty, or randomizing the target(s) - so both are significant.

OK, fighters still have advantages, but lose some. We have to set up some fights to find out if they are still good.

I'll see what I can do.

 

[phavoc]

The Space Shuttle’s RCS systems are part of its Maneuver Drive. Ships without a Maneuver Drive do not get to spin for free. Saying “Shuttle has RCS so FAIL” doesn’t save your argument, because when the Maneuver Drive goes down, so does the ability for the Ship to turn; therefore, it’s part of the Maneuver Drive.

It's part of it's engine system, but it's decided NOT part of it's Maneuver drive? Why? For the Shuttle, the engines are separate, distinct and also have different primary purposes (re-read what I wrote). Taking the absolute most expansive definition, yes, they all "maneuver" the ship. But the mechanical parts of the wing and tail ALSO function to "maneuver" the ship in an atmosphere. Taking your definition then those pieces also must be included in the Maneuver drive. However a more accurate definition is that thrusters and main drive are part of the maneuver SYSTEM. By that they are distinct pieces of a system designed to work together. Using that definition the shuttle's atmospheric control surfaces would also be encompassed within the definition. It's far more elegant and allows for many variations. I don't know why you have such a hard time accepting that thrusters would be a distinct part of the ships maneuvering system.

There is a maximum rate at which a ship can spin on a given axis. For every possible maximum rate, there is a corresponding radius, within which the Fighter Craft will be able to turn faster than the Ship can spin about its axis. You can disagree about how far out that radius is all you want, but it exists. The physical constraint is mutual; it works both ways. Inside the radius, the Fighter Craft wins; outside the radius, the Ship wins. The only thing magical is your assertion that this radius does not exist. It does, no matter how much you wish it didn’t. The firing arc is limited by the hull of the ship that turret is placed on, and when the Fighter Craft isn’t on that side of the hull, the turret can’t hit it. And if the Fighter Craft is inside that radius, the Ship will never turn fast enough to get it within the turret’s firing arc.

Oh? And how is this possible? If our scout ship in question is rotating 2 revolutions per second, and it's turret's firing arc is 180 degrees, that means your fighter in question must be able to match the rotation speed through thrust. With no atmosphere or friction to work against, that means it must expend thrust in multiple directions simultaneously in order to orbit the scout ship. Traveller rules do not even fathom this sort of maneuver. And the scout ship double it's axial rotation to 4 revolutions per second, the fighter would have to expend twice as much thrust. Not to mention if the Scout ship is travelling in a simple straight line at say 2Gs, then your fighter must also expend 2Gs of maneuver thrust along the same axis in order to simply maintain it's relative station.

No, the fighter will lose that energy war very quickly. You simply don't want to acknowledge that it takes far less energy to spin a vessel than it takes to orbit around it (which requires a great deal of thrust vectoring/maneuvering). And you refuse to consider that the turreted vessel could perform both pitch AND yaw maneuvers at the same time - the fighter could not hope to match such maneuvers. And all of this maneuvering takes place under newtonian physics rules.

 

[phavoc]

That is patently untrue, for a variety of reasons.

First, to execute such a turn, you thrust parallel to the radius; if you’re assuming that all the thrust comes out of the back, this has your guns pointed directly at the target.

Second, the assumption that all the thrust comes out the back is patently false in Mongoose Traveller; the ship can execute full thrust in any direction it likes, regardless of facing. Which just gives the Fighter Craft pilot all the leeway he needs to keep his guns fully trained on the target.

Oh? Do cite the section of the rules that states this. I certainly have found no section to state this, not to mention that every illustration debunks this statement, as well as travel time rules.

From 2e - "All of these formulae use kilometres (which can be determined by Range Bands for short distances), and assume the ship is undertaking a journey from rest, that it accelerates continuously to midpoint of the trip, then decelerates to rest again." Nothing there states that a ship maneuvers in such a manner. Previous versions talk of turnover for the deceleration, which would indicate thrust is coming from the main engines. As we've all seen, the MGT rules can leave some mighty large gaps in descriptions of how things work. Your statement here would contradict what previous versions have detailed out and where MGT rules make no mention of it.

So if that's how you are interpreting the rules, that's fine. But your statement of "patently false in Mongoose Traveller" is not an interpretation. You are making a statement as fact. So please provide chapter and verse of said fact.