Should maned small combat crafts be deleted from chartered space?

[Maxijohndoe]

I think people don't realise how quickly meatbag pilots can be turned out.

During WW2 around 1.5 million aircrew with around 500,000 pilots were trained, and more pilots died during training than were in service prior to the war.

The USA had 450,000 aircrew in the pipeline for 1945 but cut back the numbers once it appeared that the war would end and they wouldn't be needed.

Fighters are small craft and can be made at any A-C Starport assuming you have supplies, although fabricators probably mean you can make most parts in situ.

This makes fighters a quickly produced local defense option.

In part I think the issue is that the people writing the source books have never really looked in depth at fleet combat or what would actually occur during an event like the FFW.

I could see a lot of Imperial systems quickly making fighters and putting drafted pilots into them to defend against raiders like the Vargr. A SDB might be more capable but it needs more resources to manufacture and more crew.

Also, given the vast differences in TLs, population and resources different systems can have, you can't easily apply a standard across the board.

So a TL 15 system with a lot of industry might be churning out a mass of craft with ship brains, robotic crews and swarms of unmanned drones, while a TL 11 system might be fabricating fighters and torpedo boats.

Fleet battles are rare compared to facing off against raiders and Travellers are unlikely to be part of a fleet battle (POD's final battle might count), so going into great detail about how fighters could be used in a fleet engagement is more of an academic pursuit.

 

[Sigtrygg]

It’s called space that’s the factor. Capital ships with J4 M6 are already under gunned and light on defense you want to make them even weaker? Yea you can make a capital ship with M9 but what are you sacrificing to get that? Defenses? Weapons? Jump? It has nothing to do with legacy and everything to do with space costs?

A capital ship has a lot more available volume for drives than a fighter, the grandfathered designs are just very poor compared with what you could do with the construction rules in HG2022. Imperial TL15 warships could all be built with M9 and a much better weapon load out going by the rules as written.

I think another point needs to be made. There’s been a big push by some people to robotize everything in Traveller, robot crews that do everything, robot troops, robots stewards. Can you do this sure but it’s not Traveller it’s Robots in Space and if that’s the game you want to play have at it but my players actually like having to do things instead of sitting back and letting the Robots do it. There comes a point when you have to say this is a RPG and having things that are not quite optimized is a good thing because in Traveller it’s possible to optimize your PCs out of the game.

Then the rules need to be kept separate from the setting. As things stand Matt has said anything iin any MgT book is allowed in the Charted Space setting. I think that destroys the setting integrity and introduces problems especially in light of the Robots book. But then there are cybernetic enhancements, biological augmentation, all sorts of PC scale upgrades which should be routine within the Imperial military.

 

[Vormaerin]

T5's version of Charted Space, I am pretty sure that every career has a waferjack as a possible mustering out benefit.

The core problem that Traveller has always had once it became married to Charted Space is that people want to add new things to the game, but no one wants to update all the setting books to reflect these new things. This is probably part of why GDW kept blowing up Charted Space: "if you are going to update the books, let's just do it with a clean slate". I think TSR/WotC did the same thing in the Forgotten Realms when they changed editions. Spellplague or something?

Mongoose, thankfully, doesn't want to do that. But they also don't want to either put a "setting paradigm" book out or actually apply the kitchen sink of new techs in revised setting books. Probably because few people will be be all that excited about yet another Beyond the Claw book to replace the half dozen that already exist across editions.

 

[Condottiere]

In theory, every sailor is a pilot.

It's a skill acquired in the first term.

Question would be, exactly when in those four years.

The moment he does, instant TIE Fighter pilot.

 

[swordtart]

I would think so, as well. But there's no such actions in the Fleet Combat or Ship Combat rules to reflect that. Does that mean that the designers didn't think about it? Does it mean it's a solved problem and doesn't work like our current distinctions? Either of those is possible.

Robot Handbooks covers hacking robot brains. The core book covers hacking general computer systems (difficult for civilian systems and formidable for military ones).

For any such attempt there would need to be an existing mechanism for data to be ingested into the target system. This is a referee call, but the tactical data links would be the most logical vector. It is easier to subvert a receiver that exists than trying to install one where it doesn't exist. detailed knowledge of the system functions would also be needed, but finding that out should probably be a while campaign arc, not a quick dice roll.

 

[rinku]

I could see a lot of Imperial systems quickly making fighters and putting drafted pilots into them to defend against raiders like the Vargr. A SDB might be more capable but it needs more resources to manufacture and more crew.

Possibly the best point made in the discussion so far. Well done!

Even in a fleet, I would think the main job for a fighter group would be remote patrol and recon. If a raider jumps in, the main ships may be too far away to engage, but a nearby patrolling fighter group can assess their chances and either fight or run BEFORE the main ships have even received the signal. Their expendability is an asset, over a larger patrol craft (though there is room for those too).

 

[Vormaerin]

Robot Handbooks covers hacking robot brains. The core book covers hacking general computer systems (difficult for civilian systems and formidable for military ones).

For any such attempt there would need to be an existing mechanism for data to be ingested into the target system. This is a referee call, but the tactical data links would be the most logical vector. It is easier to subvert a receiver that exists than trying to install one where it doesn't exist. detailed knowledge of the system functions would also be needed, but finding that out should probably be a while campaign arc, not a quick dice roll.

yes, but those hacking rules operate on a completely different time scale than ship combat. Hacking a robot brain you've already gained access to is a 10 to 60 minutes task, while hacking into a secure computer is 10 to 60 HOURS.

These are clearly not any sort of mechanics for dealing with space combat drones or robot fighters in the context of space battle.

Seems a lot more like a special story option along the lines of any other sort of sabotage rather than a battle tactic.

 

[rinku]

On a related tangent... psionic links are a potentially unhackable control method...

...or so the Zhodani assumed!

(I'm thinking here more that a lack of a Psionic enemy leads to only basic security protocols, sufficient for avoiding cross channel interference etc)

 

[tytalan]

A capital ship has a lot more available volume for drives than a fighter, the grandfathered designs are just very poor compared with what you could do with the construction rules in HG2022. Imperial TL15 warships could all be built with M9 and a much better weapon load out going by the rules as written.

Not with a jump higher than 2. Jump 4 by itself takes a minimum of 40% of the available space. M9 is going to take another 10%, power plant is around another 15%, there you’ve used 60% before you add armor, crew, weapons, defenses and various other needed systems. While I agree legacy designs are poorly executed losing a additional 10% between maneuver drive and power plant to support it is not practical

 

[tytalan]

yes, but those hacking rules operate on a completely different time scale than ship combat. Hacking a robot brain you've already gained access to is a 10 to 60 minutes task, while hacking into a secure computer is 10 to 60 HOURS.

These are clearly not any sort of mechanics for dealing with space combat drones or robot fighters in the context of space battle.

Which is why my spy’s stole the codes I needed to hack your fighters 6 months ago, after 6 months of hacking now all I need to do is run the virus and watch your fighters turn on your battle wagons. Hacking is more than coding!

 

[tytalan]

On a related tangent... psionic links are a potentially unhackable control method...

...or so the Zhodani assumed!

(I'm thinking here more that a lack of a Psionic enemy leads to only basic security protocols, sufficient for avoiding cross channel interference etc)

I’d agree and even the Zhodani don’t chance it with anything more powerful than infantry just in case.

 

[Terry Mixon]

Not with a jump higher than 2. Jump 4 by itself takes a minimum of 40% of the available space. M9 is going to take another 10%, power plant is around another 15%, there you’ve used 60% before you add armor, crew, weapons, defenses and various other needed systems. While I agree legacy designs are poorly executed losing a additional 10% between maneuver drive and power plant to support it is not practical

For the jump 4 drive, it is 50%, 40% for the fuel and 10% for the jump drive itself.

 

[rinku]

@tytalan , you might be overestimating the powerplant allocation too. M-Drive needs 10% ship hull multiplied by thrust rating power points, but a TL15 plant provides 20 points per ton, so the formula is: 0.1 x T /20 tons, or 0.005 (0.5%) per Thrust rating

I make that 4.5% of ship volume for the power plant requirements of Thrust 9, although ships will need a larger plant to provide for weapons and basic ship systems... but you need nowhere near 15% unless you plan to operate the M-Drive and J-Drive simultaneously. The Tigress (J-4, Thrust 6) has 4.4% of its tonnage allocated to powerplant and can operate all systems other than one out of the J-Drive and full thrust M-Drive at once (it can still manuever at Thrust 2 and make a Jump-4 if it's not shooting all guns. Or it could thrust more and jump if it makes a shorter jump, I guess).

 

[swordtart]

yes, but those hacking rules operate on a completely different time scale than ship combat. Hacking a robot brain you've already gained access to is a 10 to 60 minutes task, while hacking into a secure computer is 10 to 60 HOURS.

These are clearly not any sort of mechanics for dealing with space combat drones or robot fighters in the context of space battle.

Seems a lot more like a special story option along the lines of any other sort of sabotage rather than a battle tactic.

Agreed and you therefore must also agree that it is not an unknown situation that cannot be discussed within a rules context. If you recall in my post I was pointing out that hacking into a ship was different to hacking into a drone. The secure computer on a ship would have to be done in advance (like in Battle Star Galactica) with operatives on board.

For a robot brain that already has a drone interface simply using a drone controller grants automatic access, and the extra 10-60 minutes to hack it is more credible in space combat terms. If they are going to attack you with pulse lasers it is going to take many rounds of 6 minutes for them to get into range. Even if not you can rush the task and reduce the time per attempt to 1D minutes and do it in real-time.

As I pointed out, full military systems with encryption and decent security will make provide so many negative DMs that it makes this next to impossible and you would need to take even longer. This sort of thing therefore only really works with low spec systems (such as civilian level equipment pressed into military service) and even then it is very challenging. Therefore drone vulnerability is not the long pole in the tent when deciding on robot vs sophont pilot.

 

[Maxijohndoe]

In the context of the FFW the 3I has been on the receiving end of a generational program of influence, infiltration and espionage from the Zhodani.

That introduces a set of risks that the 3I would be aware of but would be hard to mitigate against.

The Cylon infiltration that allowed them to disable the Colonial Navy in the reimagined Battle Star Galatica has already been mentioned above.

The engineered flaw in the Death Star is another fictional example of an insider sabotaging a defense project.

This also happens in RL too. Due to espionage and battlefield captures the flaws and weaknesses of a widely used air defense system had been determined. In two recent attacks these air defense systems were disabled by EW targeting those specific flaws and weaknesses, effectively turning off a major system and allowing air attacks to occur without facing those systems.

One rule of warfare is that anything you use on the battlefield will eventually wind up in the hands of the enemy. Even self-destruct systems cannot be relied on.

So what happens when your robotic fighter or drone falls into the hands of the enemy? They can now reverse engineer it and might find weaknesses that can be exploited.

Insiders are a problem. Iran's centrifuges in their enrichment facilities were controlled by a piece of German technology. A virus was introduced that specifically targeted that technology that told the centrifuges to spin at such high speeds they tore themselves apart, while also preventing the technicians from taking control back.

Spies or traitors might sabotage or hide backdoors in your technology even as it is being built. Kill switches hidden in modern technology is already a worry if it allows a foreign power to switch off your power grid or satellites.

I think it was on Reddit where I commented to the reason you have sophonts running warships and defense systems is that it limits the amount of damage a traitor can cause. A crewman working for the enemy can cause damage, but if there are many other crewmen they can stop that individual or try to reverse their actions. A robotics programmer could potentially disable or even turn against you thousands of robots and leave you with little choice but to fight them.

 

[tytalan]

As I pointed out, full military systems with encryption and decent security will make provide so many negative DMs that it makes this next to impossible and you would need to take even longer. This sort of thing therefore only really works with low spec systems (such as civilian level equipment pressed into military service) and even then it is very challenging. Therefore drone vulnerability is not the long pole in the tent when deciding on robot vs sophont pilot.

One of the biggest growing sections of the US military is cyber warfare and security because it’s a serious issue. These are military systems not civilians. Drone are vulnerable to control signals interference and both are very much at risk for hacking. You keep trying to downplay the threat of hacking but I’ll point out that the pentagon has been hacked multiple times in the last 20 years. The vulnerability is clearly a serious issue to day and it’s a serious issue in the Traveller universe. Full military systems with encryption and decent security will provide many negative DMs that will be completely countered and then some by military hacking systems and hackers and the benefits of information gathering.

 

[tytalan]

@tytalan , you might be overestimating the powerplant allocation too. M-Drive needs 10% ship hull multiplied by thrust rating power points, but a TL15 plant provides 20 points per ton, so the formula is: 0.1 x T /20 tons, or 0.005 (0.5%) per Thrust rating

I make that 4.5% of ship volume for the power plant requirements of Thrust 9, although ships will need a larger plant to provide for weapons and basic ship systems... but you need nowhere near 15% unless you plan to operate the M-Drive and J-Drive simultaneously. The Tigress (J-4, Thrust 6) has 4.4% of its tonnage allocated to powerplant and can operate all systems other than one out of the J-Drive and full thrust M-Drive at once (it can still manuever at Thrust 2 and make a Jump-4 if it's not shooting all guns. Or it could thrust more and jump if it makes a shorter jump, I guess).

Most military ships are set up to run their maneuver and jump simultaneously because if your running from someone you not going to want to shut down your maneuver so you can jump. But even using your numbers 50% for jump drive + 5% maneuver drive +5% power plant I believe that adds up to 60% armor is probably going to run 12%+ so there 72% even if you round things down you get 70% before any systems are added.

 

[tytalan]

For the jump 4 drive, it is 50%, 40% for the fuel and 10% for the jump drive itself.

I was being nice and figure decrease jump fuel mod on the jump drive.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Ths Zhodani can hack the human pilot...

but psionic shield you say

you electronically hack the psi shield

I mean you are postulating you can somehow hack shielded air gapped AI electronics...