Return of the Fighter

[AnotherDilbert]

That entirely misses the point.

I addressed the point you made:

It also open up another conundrum - if the inertial compensator cannot handle G's in excess of their M-drive rating, does that mean the orientation of the gravity onboard will change to being in the same plane as the excess thrust? As of now the crew aboard a ship does not experience the thrust and as far as their movements go, they feel gravity oriented towards the deck plating.

That particular problem isn't applicable to tail-sitters.

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.

Yes, but a tailsitter doing 3 G with a 2 G compensator will experience a standard 1 G downward gravity, without crew difficulties.

A horizontal ship would experience a ~1.4 G grav field at a 45° angle in the same situation.

Advantage tailsitter?

Both types (tail sitters or lighter than air) have advantages, but ultimately their disadvantages relegate them to niche uses only.

What disadvantages for tail-sitters?

 

[Vormaerin]

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

I was discussing M-Drive/R-Drive interactions with Phavoc and I off handedly commented in *one* post that I didn't like trying to make small spaceships different in kind from large space ships. And all the rest of the conversation has been me responding to you jumping on me about that. Might as well ask 'why do you care how I play if you don't play at my table?'.

Anyway, don't worry, I'm done with this conversation.

 

[phavoc]

I addressed the point you made:

You didn't actually. Since you like to mention others truncated quotes, here's what I wrote in full:
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.

That particular problem isn't applicable to tail-sitters.

Depends on what rules you are using. If you allow for gradual compensators (i.e., if you have a 4G compensator it absorbs up to 4Gs and makes it feel like 1G force onboard - the idea behind the model is that a regular 1G force is experienced by the crew via the deck plates and artificial gravity fields). Now crank that up to 5G - would the crew feel the full 5G or would it feel only (1G from the compensator field and 1G that is in excess of the limit) 2Gs? Since its not clear exactly how they work when their capability is exceeded it's open to interpretation. And calling out bits and pieces from a dozen different rule sets over 30 years does not confirm crap. Unless the rule sets are meant to be cumulative (and let's be honest, very few iterations of Traveller are), then whatever one set says is canon for that one, and that one only. Comparisons across multiple versions gets silly.

Yes, but a tailsitter doing 3 G with a 2 G compensator will experience a standard 1 G downward gravity, without crew difficulties.

A horizontal ship would experience a ~1.4 G grav field at a 45° angle in the same situation.

Advantage tailsitter?

Would it? I don't think that's as cut and dry as you think it is. Since we don't have a good solid explanation of exactly how the fields work - especially if one were to exceed the designed M-drive rating, then would the person onboard a standard ship feel an increased gravity variant pulling them towards the direction of the thrust, or would the field channel it downwards towards the deck plating? There is no inherent advantage in a tailsitter if you simply put gimbals on your crew seats so that they align with the excessive thrust (Assuming it would be felt that way - and that's just an assumption).

What disadvantages for tail-sitters?

A tail sitter is vertical, a standard design is horizontal. Access to a tail sitter can be more problematical due to the location of deck access - and it gets worse when you get into things like cargo. A standard free trader using horizontal decking can easily load/unload cargo to the ground level. Make that ship a tail sitter and your cargo deck access is much further from the ground and while still doable, it's not as efficient (using grav loading equipment can alter that, but what if none available, only standard wheeled forklifts on a lower-tech planet. Then either the tail sitter has to invest in its on cargo movers (and pay the displacement penalty for doing so), or it's just limited to certain ports with the right unloading equipment.

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

I have been playing with fighters recently, and the concept of dogfighting in general.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

You didn't actually. Since you like to mention others truncated quotes, here's what I wrote in full:
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.

Yes, I'm sure it missed that point, as that was not what I commented on:

It also open up another conundrum - if the inertial compensator cannot handle G's in excess of their M-drive rating, does that mean the orientation of the gravity onboard will change to being in the same plane as the excess thrust? As of now the crew aboard a ship does not experience the thrust and as far as their movements go, they feel gravity oriented towards the deck plating.

Yes, of course, for an airplane-style ship. A tail-sitter does not have that particular problem.

Depends on what rules you are using. If you allow for gradual compensators (i.e., if you have a 4G compensator it absorbs up to 4Gs and makes it feel like 1G force onboard - the idea behind the model is that a regular 1G force is experienced by the crew via the deck plates and artificial gravity fields). Now crank that up to 5G - would the crew feel the full 5G or would it feel only (1G from the compensator field and 1G that is in excess of the limit) 2Gs?

Agreed, that is not specified in most editions, but is specified in FF&S. When in doubt, I use the closest approximation from an other edition (and that remarkably often happen to be FF&S as it is more detailed than most editions).

By FF&S (and I presume it works the same in other editions), an "up to 4 G" compensator compensates for 4 G as expected, and does not suddenly fail at 5 G. A compensator is just an artificial grav field in the opposite direction to the perceived acceleration, so should not suddenly stop working under acceleration.

A tail sitter is vertical, a standard design is horizontal. Access to a tail sitter can be more problematical due to the location of deck access - and it gets worse when you get into things like cargo.

A tail-sitter does not have to be tall and slender, it can be short and squat.
We can make the cargo hold square and close to the ground, if we so choose.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

View attachment 1932
I have been playing with fighters recently, and the concept of dogfighting in general.

OK, small and deadly, but very easy to kill with next to no armour and Hull 4. Any damage would lead to sustained damage crits that would likely lead to more damage, destroying the craft.

A bit short of fuel? Minimum 1 Dt per month for the power plant and 8 h × 4 G × 2.5% × 10 Dt × 40% = 3.2 Dt?

While I agree with you, technically personal scale weapons don't have AP in space scale.
CPPG-13 have a range of 500 m, well short of the 1000 m of Adjacent space range? Wouldn't regular PGHP-13 do just as well, without the ammo restriction?
Lt Bombs would still be Smaller Weapons, and require 1 Dt for four weapons?


Thank you, I had missed G-suits, that helps.

Ship's Brain, is that Robots Handbook?

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

OK, small and deadly, but very easy to kill with next to no armour and Hull 4. Any damage would lead to sustained damage crits that would likely lead to more damage, destroying the craft.

A bit short of fuel? Minimum 1 Dt per month for the power plant and 8 h × 4 G × 2.5% × 10 Dt × 40% = 3.2 Dt?

While I agree with you, technically personal scale weapons don't have AP in space scale.
CPPG-13 have a range of 500 m, well short of the 1000 m of Adjacent space range? Wouldn't regular PGHP-13 do just as well, without the ammo restriction?
Lt Bombs would still be Smaller Weapons, and require 1 Dt for four weapons?


Thank you, I had missed G-suits, that helps.

Ship's Brain, is that Robots Handbook?

1) As a fighter, this is comparable with the other fighters in the Small Craft Catalogue (Homeshield has Hull 2, Armour 0; Cyclone has Hull 4 and Armour 4; Moray has Hull 4 and Armour 2; Sentinel has Hull 4 and Armour 6) and is designed to exceed the Rampart from High Guard 2024. However, I may upgrade the fighter with a reinforced hull (Making it Hull 6)
2) Small craft no longer have to have a month of fuel (which makes sense)
3) Regarding Range. I treated the groundscale to spacescale conversion very conservatively. If the weapon did not have the full range band, I reduced it.

• Extreme range can be considered doubled in minimal or zero gravity. [[Field_Catalogue.pdf]]
• Extreme Range: If a target is beyond the weapon’s Long Range but less than four times the Range away, it is at Extreme Range. The attacker will suffer DM-4 when making an attack roll. [[Central Supply Catalogue Update 2023.pdf]]

4) I reduced the AP by 90%. The CPPG has AP 30 on Groundscale
5) Ship's Brain is in the Robot Handbook, as is the BIACS
6) I was hanging the bombs, but you may be right about bumping them to 1 dton.
7) CPPG was just a method to get the right damage at the right level.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

1) As a fighter, this is comparable with the other fighters in the Small Craft Catalogue (Homeshield has Hull 2, Armour 0; Cyclone has Hull 4 and Armour 4; Moray has Hull 4 and Armour 2; Sentinel has Hull 4 and Armour 6) and is designed to exceed the Rampart from High Guard 2024.

Agreed, but is it actually combat effective? How will it fare against a warship or something like the armoured fighter in the first post?
1D damage is not a lot against armour, even with augmented pilots?

Of course it will kill itself, or similar craft, with ease. The question becomes how do you survive? How do you survive laser (or particle) fire from ships at longer ranges?

However, I may upgrade the fighter with a reinforced hull (Making it Hull 6)

Reinforced hull is +50% cost, but only +10% Hull.

2) Small craft no longer have to have a month of fuel (which makes sense)

Agreed, but it's still 1 Dt for four weeks, so 0.25 Dt per week?
I think you miscalculated reaction fuel, it should be 8 h × 4 G × 2.5% × 10 Dt × 40% = 3.2 Dt? Just take it down to 1 h?

3) Regarding Range. I treated the groundscale to spacescale conversion very conservatively. If the weapon did not have the full range band, I reduced it.

OK, extreme range is reasonable, but the DM-4 should be noted, as well as the DM+2 for shooting a vehicle scale weapon on a spacecraft.

4) I reduced the AP by 90%. The CPPG has AP 30 on Groundscale

I agree it's reasonable, but it's also a house rule (see Core, p79). Just make a footnote?

5) Ship's Brain is in the Robot Handbook, as is the BIACS

Thank you!


The Burst Laser from JTAS#1 has Medium range, so Adjacent mounted on a firmpoint. It would require a range tech advantage for Close range.
It consumes 3 Power (4 × 75%), and would cost MCr 0.75 + MCr 0.1 for the fixed mount, or MCr 0.75 × 125% + MCr 0.1 ≈ MCr 1 for Close range (@TL-12).

 

[ProfGrizzlyJon]

Agreed, but is it actually combat effective? How will it fare against a warship or something like the armoured fighter in the first post?
1D damage is not a lot against armour, even with augmented pilots?

Of course it will kill itself, or similar craft, with ease. The question becomes how do you survive? How do you survive laser (or particle) fire from ships at longer ranges?


Reinforced hull is +50% cost, but only +10% Hull.


Agreed, but it's still 1 Dt for four weeks, so 0.25 Dt per week?
I think you miscalculated reaction fuel, it should be 8 h × 4 G × 2.5% × 10 Dt × 40% = 3.2 Dt? Just take it down to 1 h?



OK, extreme range is reasonable, but the DM-4 should be noted, as well as the DM+2 for shooting a vehicle scale weapon on a spacecraft.


I agree it's reasonable, but it's also a house rule (see Core, p79). Just make a footnote?


Thank you!


The Burst Laser from JTAS#1 has Medium range, so Adjacent mounted on a firmpoint. It would require a range tech advantage for Close range.
It consumes 3 Power (4 × 75%), and would cost MCr 0.75 + MCr 0.1 for the fixed mount, or MCr 0.75 × 125% + MCr 0.1 ≈ MCr 1 for Close range (@TL-12).

I may have sent the wrong screen cap. Further revisions included a specialized computer for "Dogfight" software (which provided DM's to Initiative, Evasive, Stunt and Ram rolls). Since all spacecraft sensors include telescopic visual, we always had the Scope trait implied (but that is an easy add-on to the Dogfight software).

House rule? The AP trait says “Spacecraft scale targets (see page 167) ignore the AP trait unless the weapon making the attack is also Spacecraft scale.” - the vehicle-mounted CPPG was converted to Spacecraft scale; not sure if that “counts as” a house rule or is simply part of the conversion. I follow your rationale though.

As a singleton, this would not survive against a warship. Against an Adventure-class starship, one or two of these would wreck their morning. A pirate carrier with ten Carthus is a bit scary.

Fighters are not designed to tackle warships, unless you strap nuclear or plasma torpedo grapples on to them

Against a 71-ton fighter like you originally described, at TL +2, it would take a flight of three Carthus. You might as well convert an SDB into a dogfight capable spaceship

In this adventure, the local defenses come from Fighterbox modules on space stations or vessels