Return of the Fighter

[Vormaerin]

Mind you, if people were talking about aerospace fighters... craft designed to operate as warfighting platforms in both atmosphere and near orbit, that's a different kettle of fish.

But as far as deep space goes, small craft are just smaller spaceships and shouldn't have special rules to try to make them something they aren't. IMHO, of course.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

"Dogfighting" at interplanetary speeds,

Of course you can dogfight spacecraft, if you match vectors first. Both ships and smallcraft can magically match vectors without effort in the MgT simplified model.

And if the alternative is full vector movement, I agree with Mongoose. One-dimensional vector movement is manageable.

special rules to allow little single man ships actually carry weapons without using up space and power they don't have or needing a gunner to use them, and all there rest.

There are no special mounts for fighters, just "smaller" weapons with "smaller" power consumption and range.

Ships can use fixed mounts and have the Pilot fire them just as well.


I get that you don't like the MgT handling of smallcraft, but don't exaggerate.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The highest acceleration smallcraft fighter I recall is a TL12 17g fighter in T4.

I hope it was a drone, as the max compensator in T4 is 6 G just as in TNE.

 

[Sigtrygg]

You can stack acceleration compensation in T4.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You can stack acceleration compensation in T4.

Says who?

T4 FF&S says not:

T4 FF&S, p80:
Artificial Gravitv & G Compensation
Artificial gravity inertial compensators create an artificial gravity field directed between the deck plates of a ship to provide a constant gravity field. The generators are also tied into the ship's computer, which varies the field strength to counteract the effects of a ship's acceleration, up to a maximum level. See Table 214.

 

[Condottiere]

I'd go back to the Great War dogfighting.

If Striker is still valid, dirtside energy weapon systems outrange smallcraft ones outside of an atmosphere.

For a more modern context, stealthize the hull, have long range sensor suite, and snipe with missiles.

 

[Vormaerin]

But you don't need special dogfight rules to play magical vector matching and deal with a game that doesn't use facings normally. It just creates needless complexity. "Oops, you are momentarily within 10k of the other guy, whole new special rules set where facings kind of apply, but not really, because your turrets are still 360 spherical arcs of fire regardless. It's just fixed mounts get weird rules.

Fixed Mounts were added the way they are (no space, no power, no penalty to pilot gunnery) to allow single pilot little fighters that don't have space for actual ship weapons.

But you put them on ships and they are stupid. So you put 4 fixed mount missiles on your fat trader and what, you have 48 missiles strapped to the outside of your hull, taking up no volume (when they'd be several tons as cargo), needing no power, and now the pilot can launch 4 of them as a secondary action instead of triggering 1 turret with the 2 actions penalty?

A lot of pain with no gain, imho.

 

[Condottiere]

Fixed mounts were added to distinguish Confederation ship design from Imperium.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Says who?

T4 FF&S says not:

View attachment 1916

The author of Central Supply Catalogue Greg Porter says so, page 53:

"The following section is a modified version of the vehicle design system in Fire, Fusion and Steel, adjusted for T4, and limited to a subset of vehicle types likely to be encountered or designed by characters. It can be used to create non-spacecraft vehicles of most sizes, and while it incorporates much of the Standard Starship Design rules, it has some needed exceptions for extremely small vehicles."

Later on page 67:


On page 68 he states:
"Starships can apply the same technology if desired"

Then there is an example of the fighter I mentioned later in the book.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

The author of Central Supply Catalogue Greg Porter says so, page 53:
...
Later on page 67:

Thank you.

I think you skipped over this a bit to easily:

Optional: While not normally done for efficiency purposes, grav compensators can be “stacked to generate more compensation than is practical with single units. To get greater grav compensation, take the desired level, divide by the maximum normally allowed, and cube the result. This is the multiple to the compensator volume required to get the compensation needed. This becomes prohibitively costly for starship-class vehicles, and in fact the process begins to break down on extremely large volumes. But for small civilian or military vehicles, it can be done without too much trouble. Assume that a minimum of 2m3 of compensated volume is required for military pilots to ensure that their ejection seat and all controls are within the compensated envelope.

The Grav Fighter on p80 is a vehicle, not a FF&S spacecraft.

On page 68 he states:
"Starships can apply the same technology if desired"

That is a truncated quote, that creates the wrong impression. The full quote is:

Starships can apply the same technology if desired, and gravity compensation on passenger ships is a major cost, both in terms of volume, power and credits. Whether or not a small vehicle can exceed the compensation allowed in the starship design rules is a matter of preference.

Spacecraft can use the same tech, i.e. compensation for a small part of the hull, not the full hull. Optionally, small vehicles can use higher compensation, but that does not apply to spacecraft. Note that it explicitly only applies to Contragrav, not Thruster Plates (M-Drives). Contragrav is handled completely differently in CSC, more like CT anti-gravity.


Sorry, I can't see that "stacked" compensators applies generally, but only for "small" grav vehicles. Why or how that would be, I have no idea, and no coherent explanation is given. I can only guess it has something to do with adding cool features to the vehicle design system, without overriding the spacecraft design systems?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

But you don't need special dogfight rules to play magical vector matching and deal with a game that doesn't use facings normally. It just creates needless complexity. "Oops, you are momentarily within 10k of the other guy, whole new special rules set where facings kind of apply, but not really, because your turrets are still 360 spherical arcs of fire regardless. It's just fixed mounts get weird rules.

It's Mongoose, it's not meant to bother with the details of physics, it's meant to be cool and playable.

Facing isn't very relevant at longer ranges, as spacecraft can change facing quickly without affecting the movement vector.

Fixed Mounts were added the way they are (no space, no power, no penalty to pilot gunnery) to allow single pilot little fighters that don't have space for actual ship weapons.

Fixed mounts were added in CT with some disadvantages. Fixed mounts in MgT2 can be used by ships in just the same way as smallcraft, there is nothing special there. Fixed mounts still have some disadvantages, e.g. can't be used for Point Defence.

But you put them on ships and they are stupid. So you put 4 fixed mount missiles on your fat trader and what, you have 48 missiles strapped to the outside of your hull, taking up no volume (when they'd be several tons as cargo), needing no power, and now the pilot can launch 4 of them as a secondary action instead of triggering 1 turret with the 2 actions penalty?

Yes, it's silly, but it's the same problem with turrets. The ship has the same tonnage with or without the turrets, even if part of the turret sticks out outside the hull. In effect the 1 Dt for the turret is for the turret socket (or perhaps fire control?), not the turret itself (and it has been that way since times immemorial).

Fixed mounts on hardpoints (=ships) can mount three missile racks each, so the Pilot can launch 4 × 3 = 12 missiles per round for free.



If you don't like dogfights, just don't use them?
If you prefer, use the LBB2 movement system instead?

 

[Vormaerin]

Yes, it's silly, but it's the same problem with turrets. The ship has the same tonnage with or without the turrets, even if part of the turret sticks out outside the hull. In effect the 1 Dt for the turret is for the turret socket (or perhaps fire control?), not the turret itself (and it has been that way since times immemorial).

Fixed mounts on hardpoints (=ships) can mount three missile racks each, so the Pilot can launch 4 × 3 = 12 missiles per round for free.

Turrets, unlike fixed mounts, do require power and space. Sure, the weapon system doesn't take up additional space, which arguably it should. But if all weapons are on turrets then that is just part of the fudging for simplification, not an actual mechanical advantage. Fixed Mounts are flat out superior for almost every purpose: no power cost, no space used, cheaper, and easier to fire. And they don't require gunners, because the pilot can fire them all by himself. I consider that to be bad game design that exists to further a goal I don't support anyway.

Yes, fixed mount lasers and sandcasters are unable to do point defense. But you can't do point defense with missiles, railguns, particle accelerators, plasma guns, or fusion guns anyway. Why would you ever put any of these weapons on a turret? On the off chance someone actually gets within 10km of you with both of you still in fighting condition, I guess you are gonna have to rely on whatever lasers you choose to have for point defense. I don't think a lot of ships are gonna be in a position where their opponent closes from 25,000 to 50,000km to 10km without one or both getting wrecked.

If you don't like dogfights, just don't use them?

That's what I said originally, which is that I don't use dogfights, ship based fixed mounts, and afterburner reaction drives and other things I think are nonsense designed to make space fighters act like aircraft in my opinion. Then you jumped in to tell me I shouldn't do that?. And now you are like "don't use the rules then?" That's where we started? So we agree!

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Then you jumped in to tell me I shouldn't do that?. And now you are like "don't use the rules then?" That's where we started? So we agree!

I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do anything.

That's what I said originally, which is that I don't use dogfights, ship based fixed mounts, and afterburner reaction drives and other things I think are nonsense designed to make space fighters act like aircraft in my opinion.

High Burn Thrusters and fixed mounts are carried over from earlier editions, they are not there just to annoy you.

If anything, reaction drives were introduced as a cheap retrofit to give your trader some extra oomph.

MgT2'16 was designed to give iconic craft types such as battleships and fighters something to do, to be viable combatants, even if the '22 edition largely backs out of that. Strangely no-one complains about the special exceptions for battleships...

Fighters became a thing in Traveller with LBB2. Dogfighting is just a way of making them different, not just another long range gun platform.

Turrets, unlike fixed mounts, do require power and space. Sure, the weapon system doesn't take up additional space, which arguably it should. But if all weapons are on turrets then that is just part of the fudging for simplification, not an actual mechanical advantage. Fixed Mounts are flat out superior for almost every purpose: no power cost, no space used, cheaper, and easier to fire. And they don't require gunners, because the pilot can fire them all by himself.

They are different, with different properties.

The pilot is probably not the best gunner onboard, and can presumably only make one attack, so can't attack multiple targets.

If you want to run a Scout on a single crew member, a fixed mount is an obvious choice.
If you want a Patrol Cruiser/Corvette to be able to fight under any circumstance, fixed mounts are probably not the best choice.
If you want to fight in atmosphere where facing is a thing, fixed mounts are disadvantaged.
If you want to menace someone on the spaceport tarmac, a fixed mount is useless.

I consider that to be bad game design that exists to further a goal I don't support anyway.

Bad design is debatable, but they are not there just for the reason you imagine.

Yes, fixed mount lasers and sandcasters are unable to do point defense. But you can't do point defense with missiles, railguns, particle accelerators, plasma guns, or fusion guns anyway. Why would you ever put any of these weapons on a turret? On the off chance someone actually gets within 10km of you with both of you still in fighting condition, I guess you are gonna have to rely on whatever lasers you choose to have for point defense. I don't think a lot of ships are gonna be in a position where their opponent closes from 25,000 to 50,000km to 10km without one or both getting wrecked.

If you leave yourself helpless at close range, guess what the enemy will try to exploit? A fast craft can get from Long to dogfight in two rounds.

Railgun, Fusion, and Plasma have short ranges, if you are relying on them dogfights are a distinct possibility, so mounting them on fixed mounts are risky.

Particle Accelerators are superior full stop. Allowing them as turret weapons again, after being nerfed in MgT1, MgT2'16, and T5 is a curious choice. Excellent range, excellent damage, excellent upgradability. And if another ship or vehicle slips in close enough you are toast, if mounted on fixed mounts.

 

[Vormaerin]

Yeah, yeah, those ships going 40km/s faster than your ship to close that distance in that time frame while being so maneuverable that they can stay with 10km of your ship to trigger dogfight mode once they get there. There's simplifying vector movement to something playable and there's tossing it out on its ear...

Trying to introduce firing arcs to a game that otherwise doesn't use them, changing the time scale of combat so that you might have ships using 6s combat rounds and 6 minute combat rounds in the same fight, and adding random penalties like -2 to hit just because you lost the dogfight on top of existing penalties for evasive maneuvering... just ugh. double ugh.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I have long been of the opinion that Traveller fleet combat requires the belligerents to choose to form lines of battle that match vectors. If they don't then combat would last at the most 1 turn or the fleets would just avoid each other completely.

Matching vectors with a target that seeks to avoid having that done requires a lot more acceleration advantage than just double.

 

[Vormaerin]

MgT2'16 was designed to give iconic craft types such as battleships and fighters something to do, to be viable combatants, even if the '22 edition largely backs out of that. Strangely no-one complains about the special exceptions for battleships...

Fighters became a thing in Traveller with LBB2. Dogfighting is just a way of making them different, not just another long range gun platform.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't have an opinion on whatever these special rules for battleships are because I have never, in 45 years of running and/or playing in Traveller campaigns, needed to resolve a battleship's actions via mechanics. That's just not the scale that my players have ever operated on. I don't know if they are good or bad *in play*.

On the other hand, rules trying to make space fighters act like aircraft do impact gameplay. When they wanted to up-gun their ship, my players wanted to know what the purpose of a missile turret even was, since it was in every way worse than a fixed mount. And they have a fast launch, so when there is ship combat it is entirely possible that the small craft jock would be in dogfight mode while the 5 players in the main ship are in space combat mode.

And all this to, as you say, "make them different, not just another long range gun platform". When I don't see any reason why they should be different. There's no reason they should be faster. They might be somewhat more maneuverable if M-Drives produce torque via the same formulae as reaction drives, but it isn't nearly as dramatic as you'd see planetside where environmental factors affect maneuvering through drag.

I get that people want their X-Wings and Vipers. I don't think that will actually be a thing in space combat, but so what? It's fiction and people should make games for the fiction they want to experience. However, I personally find the way Traveller tried to do it to be mechanically awful and not conducive to good gameplay. So I don't use those rules. If someone else doesn't have that view, that's fine.

 

[phavoc]

Tail-sitters doesn't have the particular problem of the gravity field turning as we overpower the compensators. The grav field will still be straight down, just stronger.

Tail-sitters will even get a free 1 G "compensation" simply by turning artificial gravity off.

That entirely misses the point. Regardless of the drive orientation movement aside from raising an arm under 2g or greater is not practical, and under more it quickly becomes impossible.

The advantage of not having a G field, temporarily does not offset the advantages of a standard layout of a ship. That's equivalent of saying a lighter than air craft doesn't need wings compared to a heavier than air craft. Both types (tail sitters or lighter than air) have advantages, but ultimately their disadvantages relegate them to niche uses only.

 

[phavoc]

Yeah, I know what they are after also. But I'm not interested in replicating airplane activity with my spacecraft. Anything that works on my Viper or X-Wing in space also works on my Space Battleship Yamato and I don't feel like having afterburners on the Yamato. I accept the space magic drives because the Tyranny of the Rocket Equation makes reaction drives not great gameplay, as much as I love the idea of orbital operations being extra cool.

IMHO, the correct analogy for "space fighters" is the PT boat, not the airplane. Because the conditions of operation for space fighters and full ships are essentially the same. But I also know that's not the fantasy a lot of people want to play. So I'm cool with them being in the rules. I just don't feel obliged to use them

Yes, reality is the bane of space fighters, always has been.

There's nothing wrong with a smaller spacecraft, say 10 dton fighters over say 1 50 dton gunboats. One allows for potentially more crew space and a longer deployed time scale, among other things. It also presents a larger target and a higher cost. Tradeoffs like everything else.

There are roughly three ways to escape such tyranny - ignore the idea and have fun, come up with a inertialess drive mechanism that lets you ignore it, or a maneuve mechanism like "space etheric" controls for ships in star wars (not sure what BG or SB used but based on the shows it's probably something along the latter).

Personally I don't care much so long as the game system stays consistent within the gaming system. Traveller has always had a tendency of trying to do both simultaneously at times.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

On the other hand, rules trying to make space fighters act like aircraft do impact gameplay.

They're not aircraft, they're smaller spacecraft with smaller, short range weapons. They obey the exact same approximation of Newton as ships.

When they wanted to up-gun their ship, my players wanted to know what the purpose of a missile turret even was, since it was in every way worse than a fixed mount.

How do you reload a fixed mount?

And they have a fast launch, so when there is ship combat it is entirely possible that the small craft jock would be in dogfight mode while the 5 players in the main ship are in space combat mode.

If they do it that way, the smallcraft combat is resolved first, unless they just run away. Splitting the party can be "interesting"...

And all this to, as you say, "make them different, not just another long range gun platform". When I don't see any reason why they should be different. There's no reason they should be faster.

They're not faster. They have the exact same M-drives and R-drives as ships. You can make very fast smallcraft and you can make equally fast megaton behemoths.

It's fiction and people should make games for the fiction they want to experience. However, I personally find the way Traveller tried to do it to be mechanically awful and not conducive to good gameplay. So I don't use those rules. If someone else doesn't have that view, that's fine.

Great, good for you. But why do you complain about it so much, when you don't use it?

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I have long been of the opinion that Traveller fleet combat requires the belligerents to choose to form lines of battle that match vectors. If they don't then combat would last at the most 1 turn or the fleets would just avoid each other completely.

Yes, of course. And the battle lasts as long as the faster fleet wants (unless jump).

Matching vectors with a target that seeks to avoid having that done requires a lot more acceleration advantage than just double.

Not really, with any sort of acceleration advantage you will catch up eventually.