Fighter Carrier?

[AnotherDilbert]

I cannot make out how to build a fighter carrier.

I may need:
Docking Space 110% No maintenance
Full Hangar 200% Slower launch?

Optionally:
Launch Tube, why would I want this when I can launch just as quick from Docking Space?
Recovery Deck, This can recover craft quickly, but how many do I need? That can only reasonably recover 5-10 craft before you have to shift the craft into permanent hangars more slowly? Given how expensive they are in tonnage, I see little reason to use them.

Alternatively I can use grappling hooks to carry the fighters outside the carrier, but losing streamlining, so no refuelling. It should probably be quick to launch and retrieve craft, but that is undefined.


Also I cannot see where in the combat sequence I should launch craft. Given that "everything else" happens in the Action Phase that is a reasonable guess?

 

[Chas]

Looking at the rules I decided the best way to do this as a fleet element was:
- Docking clamps
- Fully automated fighters

Which does have historical precedent and also makes for good 'expendable' fighters which they'll often need to be as a fleet element.

 

[Nerhesi]

I'd posted about full-hanger and launch-tube problem - yup. They need to fix launch times - they shoul be 1 combat round (1D minutes)

With the non-launch tube methods being waaay longer (4x longer at least)

 

[MongooseMatt]

Launch times fixed, plus using launch tubes allows both fighter and mothership to use actions and expend thrust in the same round (nothing else allows this).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Great!

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

Hang on a second... In the previous version a launch tube 'costed' 25x the tonnage of the fighters it would handle, and could launch or retrieve up to 10 craft per turn. The new version 'costs' 20x (for launch and recovery) but an only handle a single craft per turn? What? This means that the required tonnage has increased tenfold?

As for the other launching options, the note about neither ship being able to act in the launching round (except when using launch tubes) sounds good, and 1D/2D minutes to launch from docking space/full hangar sounds reasonable, though it might be easier to say 1/2 six minute rounds, to integrate better with the rules. As it stands now, with a good roll a craft can be launched in a single turn from a full hangar, but if one rolls badly it takes two - which I don't mind, but when a round is six minutes long, does it matter if a docking space launches its craft in one or three minutes? Of course, when shifting to six second rounds, or simply adventuring, single minutes can be relevant...

Lastly, is this text supposed to be there:

It takes D3 rounds to release or recover a ship of less than 2,000 tons, during which time neither ship can expand any Thrust or make any attack rolls. Larger ships take 1D rounds.

It's from the Docking Space paragraph on p. 46. The text speaks of 1D minutes to launch, and then comes this, and the "release or recover" bit sounds more like docking clamps than hangars.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I still cannot make out how to build a fighter carrier.

I may need:
Docking Space 110% No maintenance, launch in 1D min or D3 rounds?
Full Hangar 200% Slower launch?, launch in 2D min (1-2 rounds)

Optionally:
Launch Tube, why would I want this when I can launch just as quick from Docking Space? OK, I can launch in combat, but a carrier in range of enemy guns is a dead carrier, so why would I want to?
Recovery Deck, This can recover craft slowly at massive tonnage. And I do not know how many craft can be recovered, 5 - 10? Why would I want to recover 5 craft in 5 rounds when Docking Spaces can recover all craft in ~2 rounds?

Alternatively I can use Grappling Hooks to carry the fighters outside the carrier, but losing streamlining, so no refuelling. They can launch all craft in 1 round, great!


Also I cannot see where in the combat sequence I should launch craft. Given that "everything else" happens in the Action Phase that is a reasonable guess?


Suggestion: We need a rule that says something like:
A ship can launch or recover 1 carried craft per 10 000 dT every round. Each Launch Tube can launch an additional craft every round. Each Recovery Deck can recover two additional craft every round. Each Recovery Deck can only recover craft up to 70% of it's size, after that it takes XX rounds to transfer the craft to their regular hangars before the Recovery Deck can be used again.
Carried craft are launched and recovered during the Manoeuvre Phase. Only craft launched with Launch Tubes may manoeuvre and attack in the same round, immediately after the launching ship. Docking is a combat manoeuvre that costs one Thrust, the roll is not opposed if the carried craft and carrying ship are cooperating. The carrying ship may not Evade or Dodge in the same round as it launches or recovers craft. All rounds in this section are space combat rounds.
Otherwise Launch Tubes will never be used since they are very expensive.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

To maintain parity with previous editions it should probably be something like:
A ship can launch or recover one carried craft per 10 000 dT every round. Each Launch Tube can launch five additional craft every round. Each Recovery Deck can recover five additional craft every round. Each Recovery Deck can only contain craft up to 70% of it's size, and transfer two craft to their regular hangars each round.
Carried craft are launched and recovered during the Manoeuvre Phase. Only craft launched with Launch Tubes may manoeuvre and attack in the same round, immediately after the launching ship. Docking is a combat manoeuvre that costs one Thrust, the roll is not opposed if the carried craft and carrying ship are cooperating. The carrying ship may not Evade or Dodge in the same round as it launches or recovers craft. All rounds in this section are space combat rounds.

It will still take more tonnage than previous editions, but at least not ten times as much...

 

[phavoc]

The launch/recovery rules, as such, are stupid. Launch and recovery rates should be based on hangar size and the size of the craft coming in/out. Anti-grav means you are not limited by sequential or linear restrictions. So if you have 100 Dtons of hangar "floor space" - i.e. where your actual small craft are located on the deck, if you applied say a 2.5x ratio to that, ANY craft could launch/land over and around others with no issue. For combat launches you would actually align all your craft towards your hangar door and easily be able to safely launch your entire flight in one round. It's more a question of having sufficient clearance to float over those things below than anything else.

The limitations would be combat recovery, or damaged ship recovery. In those cases this sort of hangar scenario makes for a little bit more problems as you dont' want a damaged ship dropping out of the air unexpectedly on another one. But that's easily taken care of by spreading out your hangars, or actually having a few smaller hangers who's secondary purpose is explicitly for recovering damaged craft safely. OR even having a tug/recovery craft that picks them up short of the hangar and brings them inside.

If anyone remembers the older Star Blazers cartoon, the Yamato had a standard Traveller Hangar onboard, but the carriers of the enemy races were more along the lines of what things should be. The internal hangars used lifts like a modern-carrier to lift the craft up to the "flight deck", which was really just the outer hull, and the craft staged, took off and landed in vacuum while the actual servicing, re-arming and storage was below decks. Also if you look at some previous editions of Traveller you'll see carriers with that sort of deck arrangement, lending more credence to that concept.

Launch tubes are big and expensive and horribly mis-used under the existing rules. Their purpose is not only to rapidly-launch a small craft, but also to provide a speed bonus to close with the enemy faster. Since we are talking space and vacuum, there's no reason to say that the craft can't be launched at say 25G (we already are breaking the inertial compensator rule that used to be 6G, so let's continue the trend). At that rate the small craft can close the distance to their targets far faster than an enemy starship could hope to do. And since we don't keep track of G-turns to have to apply negative thrust, once they close the range bands they can attack and then return to their carrier for re-arming (assuming they use external weapons and aren't sticking around to engage in anti-starship combat). This also makes it reasonable to have carriers WITH launch tubes so you can get a first strike in against a distant enemy.

Small craft operations and equipment really deserve their own supplement so they can be properly discussed and provided rules that make sense for their environment. Thus far they've always been treated like tiny, more delicate starships (except those designs with 15 armor factors....sigh)

 

[Nerhesi]

Previous tubes simply allowed 10x launch rates. Why not just keep it a that?

I think the issue is having "200 hangers" just allows you to open up 200 doors and launch...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Launch and recovery rates should be based on hangar size and the size of the craft coming in/out. Anti-grav means you are not limited by sequential or linear restrictions. So if you have 100 Dtons of hangar "floor space" - i.e. where your actual small craft are located on the deck, if you applied say a 2.5x ratio to that, ANY craft could launch/land over and around others with no issue. For combat launches you would actually align all your craft towards your hangar door and easily be able to safely launch your entire flight in one round. It's more a question of having sufficient clearance to float over those things below than anything else.

Previous tubes simply allowed 10x launch rates.

I think you basically agree. This is how I saw launch tubes, as a bit of extra space that allowed craft to manoeuvre around each other.

I think the issue is having "200 hangers" just allows you to open up 200 doors and launch...

Exactly, hence I suggested "A ship can launch or recover one carried craft per 10 000 dT every round".

 

[phavoc]

Previous tubes simply allowed 10x launch rates. Why not just keep it a that?

I think the issue is having "200 hangers" just allows you to open up 200 doors and launch...

To me, having that many hangars feels like rules lawyering. From a logical and realistic standpoint you would never do that. Why? Because you have X number of support personnel. In order to keep your crew size down they need to be concentrated and be able to rapidly move from one craft to another for work.

You also have to think about things most people don't. For example, most small craft should have (or would have) the ability to carry external ordnance. That means for those 200 hangars you would have to have 200 different access routes from your ammunition magazines to each individual hangar. Safety and space concerns aside, if your ammo conveyance corridors were blocked by battle damage, especially closer to your magazines, then no hangars from that point forward could receive ammunition. You also have to factor in things like re-arming crews. If you automate all of that then you have 200 sets of arming machinery to pay for and maintain. You'd also have 200 fuel lines running to each bay, more points of failure.

I know if makes book sense to do that, but it wouldn't happen in reality. For some as long as it fits in the rules, they are ok because "it's abstracted!". But others, like myself, are ok with abstraction, but to a point. If I'm always abstracting things to get around poorly thought out rules, why do I bother with dice or adventures or anything, I'll just pull it all out of my butt. And look at the money I'd save by not buying rule sets!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Well, yes, but if your carrier can carry 20 fighters in an efficient central hangar, or 200 fighters in blisters on the hull, someone will work very hard to solve the technical problems.

Technically you do not have any rearming or refuelling crew, so these processes must be automated. And no, no external ordnance, because <INSERT HANDWAVE HERE>.

We are talking about a civilisation that routinely builds FTL starships of bonded superdense material with massive fusion plants that works reliably for many decades with minimum maintenance. I can stretch my imagination to automated refuelling of small craft.

 

[Nerhesi]

Yup - I think we agree as well. Therefore:

There needs to be a limit that a "hangar" or "docking space" doesnt' necessarily mean immediate access to the space. So that just because you pack in 200 hangars, doesn't mean you can release all 200 fighters. I do like launch/recover 1 carried craft per 10,000 tons. (Without Launch tubes)

Launch tubes would then allow the launching of Ten craft per tube or so.

I believe that is the simplest, cleanest solution.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Earlier edition launch tubes were 25 times the tonnage and launched 10 craft per round.
Now launch tubes are 10 times the tonnage (+recovery decks) and should probably launch a bit less than 10 craft per round.

 

[phavoc]

Well, yes, but if your carrier can carry 20 fighters in an efficient central hangar, or 200 fighters in blisters on the hull, someone will work very hard to solve the technical problems.

Technically you do not have any rearming or refuelling crew, so these processes must be automated. And no, no external ordnance, because <INSERT HANDWAVE HERE>.

We are talking about a civilisation that routinely builds FTL starships of bonded superdense material with massive fusion plants that works reliably for many decades with minimum maintenance. I can stretch my imagination to automated refuelling of small craft.

Um, how so? How do arrive at that? The fact that it's not explicitly mentioned doesn't mean anything. There have been many other areas that the rules never mentioned that were simple oversight. As I said, small craft operations would deserve their own supplement specifically BECAUSE there are many unique aspects to small craft <> small starships. But the existing rules don't really make much distinction between the two because historically Traveller has never been very interested in small craft operations. Another reason why I said a person should look outside of Traveller to other gaming systems if they liked to fight small craft.

To counter your point about it "in the future we don't have maintenance" I would directly point out how ship's maintenance, especially the life support costs, are a direct contradiction to that statement. And many ships are NOT built with collapsed matter hull plating - most use crystaliron, a relatively lower TL material.

The matter here has always been that different versions change the default rules. MGT vastly increased the time for launches compared to previous versions, with no logical reason for doing so (just like the original concept of jump drives was changed to jump bubbles - no reason, just changed because it's a new version).

Yup - I think we agree as well. Therefore:

There needs to be a limit that a "hangar" or "docking space" doesnt' necessarily mean immediate access to the space. So that just because you pack in 200 hangars, doesn't mean you can release all 200 fighters. I do like launch/recover 1 carried craft per 10,000 tons. (Without Launch tubes)

Launch tubes would then allow the launching of Ten craft per tube or so.

I believe that is the simplest, cleanest solution.

It's a solution, but I wouldn't say it's a good solution. It is simply a rule being imposed that has no logical basis because no effort is being expended to actually make the rule logical AND to fit within the scales of the other rules (such as launch tubes). It's lazy game ruling at it's best.

Why 10,000 tons? Because it's an arbitrary guideline. Why not per 1,000 tons? It's just as arbitrary, but seems to make better sense, to me at least, to allow for faster deployments. To make it more reasonable there would need to be an additional rule that states a ship may only have one hangar per 10,000 (or 1,000) tons so that these two rules are in synch. Otherwise you'll have even MORE rules that don't synch and don't make any logical sense.

 

[Nerhesi]

But phavoc, aren't all rules arbitrary and lazy game design by that definition?

Range Bands, hardpoints per tonnage, missile salvos, PD, computer software... can't I just define anything that isn't my perception of what is realistic/acceptable/whatever you lazy game design or not good enough?

 

[phavoc]

But phavoc, aren't all rules arbitrary and lazy game design by that definition?

Range Bands, hardpoints per tonnage, missile salvos, PD, computer software... can't I just define anything that isn't my perception of what is realistic/acceptable/whatever you lazy game design or not good enough?

Yes, and no. A game system has certain parameters, and once you set your boundaries through your hand-wavium, you shouldn't continue to do the same within the boundaries. That's where game design comes into play. We've set the boundaries as being in space, but instead of magical space engines we have newtonian motion. Some of that is hand-waved (in error, in my opinion) whereby the rules state you can retain your relative direction and speed entering and then exiting jump space - ok. But then if you encounter another ship, you magically come to a relative halt and start playing with range bands. That's bad game design because you are going against the rules you've already set forth with.

The two issues don't have to be mutually exclusive. And people will say "but it's a game"... and then turn around and cite some rules because "it's a game". That nonsense and the equivalent of telling someone the reason is "because".

So why do I push for game rules that fit within the concepts of a gaming system - because I want to make the game better. I don't like having to interpret rules all the time (or to use a perennial excuse of the referee can decide...ugh). If you are going to go through the effort of making, for example, spinal weapons fit within a logical structure that scales up and down and is explainable and defendable, why do you then NOT do the same for other areas of the ruleset? Hence the discussion here around what makes sense. If we accept certain other arguments within the rules, then whenever possible you should extend that to the rest of the rules.

Why would it take 6 minutes to launch a small craft from a hangar? That's just plain dumb. In six minutes a carrier can launch 8 fighters from 4 catapults, And those are STEAM catapults and the plains have to be moved into position. So we should accept a lazy rule that says an anti-gravity capable small craft requires 6 minutes each to leave a hangar? Even WW2 carriers, with all their fighters arranged sequentially could take off at a rate faster than that.

There are times when you DO need to do some hand-wavium because you are at a point where you can't dissect it further and put out a different solution. Small craft launching rates of 1 per 10,000 tons just to protect launch tubes (which aren't even given the advantages they should have) is, in my opinion, NOT one of those reasons.

 

[Annatar Giftbringer]

While I'd argue that there's not automatically anything wrong with requiring more time to decompress a hangar and launch a craft from tight confines than launching a plane via catapult within atmosphere (and it could be argued the aircraft carrier is designed along launch tube-like reasoning (the ship is designed to launch - and recover - several planes in swift succession, kinda like launch tubes)) isn't the time to launch a small craft in traveller including everything from powering up the craft, to pumping out the atmosphere in the bay, and finally flying off?

How long does it take to launch a plane from a carrier, if we count every step from moving it out of storage and up until the actual launch?

Uhm, anyways, I don't like the idea to limit the number of craft launch-able per turn to a fraction of the mothership's tonnage, wether it's one craft per 1,000 dtons or per 10,000. If my 400 dton ship has two hangars, I expect to be able to launch small craft from both of them simultaneously.

Launch tubes need to improve, the other options don't need to be made worse, IMHO.

There are times when you DO need to do some hand-wavium because you are at a point where you can't dissect it further and put out a different solution. Small craft launching rates of 1 per 10,000 tons just to protect launch tubes (which aren't even given the advantages they should have) is, in my opinion, NOT one of those reasons.

I agree fully.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

It's a solution, but I wouldn't say it's a good solution. It is simply a rule being imposed that has no logical basis because no effort is being expended to actually make the rule logical AND to fit within the scales of the other rules (such as launch tubes). It's lazy game ruling at it's best.

I think we basically agree, but you want much more detail. I want a rule that means that to launch a lot of craft quickly we need something more than minimal hangars, e.g. launch tubes.

Nothing in this system is very detailed, not even TNEs Fire, Fusion, and Steel was even remotely as detailed as you seem to be suggesting.

Why 10,000 tons? Because it's an arbitrary guideline. Why not per 1,000 tons? It's just as arbitrary, but seems to make better sense, to me at least, to allow for faster deployments. To make it more reasonable there would need to be an additional rule that states a ship may only have one hangar per 10,000 (or 1,000) tons so that these two rules are in synch. Otherwise you'll have even MORE rules that don't synch and don't make any logical sense.

Yes it is a completely arbitrarily limit (taken from an previous edition). Any limit will of course be completely arbitrary. It's there simply to give all ships some launching capability, even if they have not invested in good launching capabilities, aka launch tubes.