Something Lighter..

[AnotherDilbert]

a) That Aid Gunners makes sense for fighters (Literally speaking, we can argue this both ways. It explicitly delineates that the pilot starts a task-chain for "his gunners" to create a more stable firing platform. A pilot cannot be synonymous with "his gunners" as they are clearly articulated here as different entities. The fact that a pilot IS also the gunner in a fighter, would then not allow him to stabilize for himself). Of course - This can be argued equally from the other direction (but probably not as strong intuitively).

The pilot can only fire fixed mounts, Core p156, so I assume any turrets or barbettes have separate gunners, with additional staterooms on any carrier. Hence, I assume Aid Gunner is usable.

Worse is that the Dogfighting table gives +1 per Thrust dedicated to dogfighting, if the Thrust is dedicated to dogfighting it should not be available for Movement or Combat Manoeuvres. So, any Thrust used for Movement should be unavailable to be dedicated to dogfighting, and if you dedicate your remaining Thrust to dogfighting you should have no Thrust left for Combat Manoeuvres such as Aid Gunner or Evasive Action.

b) Crew is a +5 but dodge is only a +3? Both attack and dodge are based on "skill" - which includes characteristics, implants, etc.. I'm assuming you basing this on a characteristic DM of +2, and a skill of 3 for your +5.

I am unsure about this. I used +5 earlier, but after a book check some weeks ago I changed to skill = skill level. Can you give me a pointer to the rule defining this? I can only find definitions for "skill level" and "skill check", characteristic DM is specifically only added to checks, not static skill (Core, pp56)?

I also forgot to give the expensive fighters a boon for sensor lock, but that still do not save the expensive fighters. If we lazily assume that a boon is about +2 Effect:

Expensive:
To hit: +5[crew] +4[software] +1[aid] +1[accurate] -2[dogfight] -0[evade] -5[dodge] = +4 to hit, average Effect +3 +2[boon] ≈ +5.
Damage: 4D +5[effect] -15[armour] ≈ 4,37 damage, killing 4,37 / ( 2 * 17 ) ≈ 12,9% of enemy force.

Cheap:
To hit: +5[crew] +3[software] +1[aid] +2[dogfight] -2[evade] -5[dodge] = +4 to hit,
Damage: 2D +3[effect] -5[armour] ≈ 4,98 damage, killing 2 * 4,98 / 18 ≈ 55,3% of enemy force.

a) I wonder if the incorporation of a more realistic outnumbering bonus would make the difference.. rather than just the -1 for every fighter ... if we take a look at having that bonus apply for each outnumbering factor. Example, two times more fighters on one side = -1. Three times = -2. Again - wouldn't have an impact here, the -1 would still tip it.

-1 only gives the enemy an edge. -10 guarantees that the enemy wins the dogfight.
-1 for twice, -2 for thrice, and so on would probably be more in the spirit of the rules, if we assume that the rules assume one craft on one side.

b) Tachyon seems to be the Third Imperium go-to for fighters then. Granted not accurate but the average damage is much better when comparing to Armour 15 fighters.

Assuming the enemy doesn't play tricks on us. Either they can come with TL16 armour, or much cheaper ships with no armour at all. If so Tachyon guns are non-optimal.

Finally - with the fighter bonus for outnumbering as it stands, I wonder if each fighter squadron should be engaging while escorted by 30 really crappy 5 MCr fighters that are just there for numerical advantage

Ouch, yes, that would work. Again the tiny drone rears its ugly head. I wonder how many drones it's worth to bring, before the squadrons combat effectiveness decreases. Probably a lot.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Hangar capacity is just as limited as the number of fighters, by cost.

Yes, that's true. But it doesn't address the issue of you having X tons set aside for fighters in your hangar. Thus IF you can afford it, the more powerful and capable fighter you can carry, the more likely you are to prevail over your opponent. That is the point I am making.

But the hangar space is not limited by anything but money. In MgT2 the carrier is not necessarily more expensive than the fighters it carries. Even today it takes years to build a carrier, but it takes decades to develop a new type of fighter.

History says otherwise. During the Battle of Brit...

Some history, yes. Some other history, no. Ask Poland, Denmark, Norway, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Yugoslavia, and Greece how many battles they could afford to lose. Britain was only saved in 1940 by the Channel. Having a sea between you and the enemy is certainly a luxury. Having automatic naval superiority because the enemy is a continental power that must concentrate on the army is a luxury.

Britain and the US could engage in luxuries because the vast majority of Germany's and Japan's military forces were tied up by someone else. France, Russia, Germany, or Japan could not afford such luxuries.

Imagine that you have 1000 expensive fighters as in the OP and that the enemy invades your home system with 2000 cheap fighters. ...

The question here is are you fighting a single battle, or fighting a war?

For a single world power, if you lose this battle you have lost the war. Being the Imperium and having a vast resource and tech advantage over any single potential enemy is a luxury.

Numbers don't always equate to winning.

No, of course not. But in this specific case with cheap fighters vs expensive fighters, numbers win.

 

[Condottiere]

Hangars are large holes, and experience indicates that you need them to keep fighters flying.

Trying to economize on that never seems to have worked out well, though part of the reason for that was that fighter planes increased in size.

 

[arcador]

In that particular example you're using, the most dramatic difference seems to come from the -10 AP of one the fighters. The weapon in question seems pretty well suited for fighter killing, considering you own the dogfight rolls. I am not saying the expensive fighters should win, but simply the current design of the cheap fighters is superior for this situation.

 

[Nerhesi]

Keep in mind when we say cheap fighters vs expensive fighters, it's not like Mig15s vs F22, it's more of an F35 vs F22

What's interesting is the balance point we are using is unfortunately not a very realistic.

Speaking from personal experience, government budgets aren't about "here is 3000 MCR get as many fighters as you can". It is more of "make your case". So if you're looking to acquire a wing, perhaps you'll be able to swing for expensive fighters (after all, you're just trying to get 30 fighters or so).

However, until the institution of a point-value system (like battletech BattleValue), which will be fraught with its own biases, cost is the only common denominator (other than pilots/crew)

 

[phavoc]

Also, since this is a game, there's no equivalent costs associated with finding/training/equipping those pilots. Even cheap fighters need expensive pilots. Though that's not very well reflected in games.

 

[Nerhesi]

I think my biggest annoyance with this is how do you interpret fighters in the same dogfight.

If I'm in a dogfight wit 1 enemy fighter, 10 really terrible enemy fighters with 1 laser beam, I'm only in a 1v1, because I will ignore the hell out of those 9.

It would be easily simulated by basically:

Each ship in the dogfight identifies 1 or more targets to "engage". Make opposed roll.
-1 per target over the first that is engaged.

Ship not engaged can immediately "win" the dogfight vs any engage target.

That's it

 

[AnotherDilbert]

MgT1 TCS has a (way to low) cost for crew members at different skill.


Also development costs and time should be much higher.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Each ship in the dogfight identifies 1 or more targets to "engage". Make opposed roll.
-1 per target over the first that is engaged.

Ship not engaged can immediately "win" the dogfight vs any engage target.

Sounds reasonable, but it can be misused.
If you are fighting three enemy fighters you will probably lose the dogfight, so you engage a single enemy giving you a good chance to win against that single enemy.

Perhaps there should be an additional bonus for unengaged craft?

 

[Condottiere]

Doesn't really account for train, maintain and retain personnel, which are surprisingly expensive.

However, compare the population of an interstellar polity against actual requirements.

 

[Nerhesi]

Each ship in the dogfight identifies 1 or more targets to "engage". Make opposed roll.
-1 per target over the first that is engaged.

Ship not engaged can immediately "win" the dogfight vs any engage target.

Sounds reasonable, but it can be misused.
If you are fighting three enemy fighters you will probably lose the dogfight, so you engage a single enemy giving you a good chance to win against that single enemy.

Perhaps there should be an additional bonus for unengaged craft?

That would be the intent and it is lined up realistically too.

If I'm focused on that 1 enemy, he will not have any Undue advantage against me. The other 3 wingmen would trounce me though. (the +2?)

 

[wbnc]

Also, since this is a game, there's no equivalent costs associated with finding/training/equipping those pilots. Even cheap fighters need expensive pilots. Though that's not very well reflected in games.

This assumes that pilots are like modern pilots who are an elite force. When fighters were the cutting edge of technology they thought was that you can't trust anything that advanced to an enlisted man. You need an Officer.In a setting where fighters are not the cutting edge, and may not even be a primary factor in either tactical or strategic planning. Anyone who would make a good officer would be channeled toward other assignments. Fighter pilots might be considered grunts, or cannon fodder in a fleet based around cruisers and Dreadnoughts.


If a military was basing its entire fighter strategy on large numbers of relatively expendable fighters then it would not make a lot of sense to risk good officers on an assignment that might result in dozens, if not hundreds, of pilots getting killed in a single fleet engagement. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that the fighter arm of the navy would have a high turnover rate, with experienced pilots being rotated to better fighters, or training and command positions if they survived the first term or two as a pilot. For every new pilot assinged to a basic Mig-21 style fighter, simple reliable, and easy to produce, one in ten might make it through the system to fly the Mig-29/F-18 style fighters, and only one out of a hundred would be selected to fly F-22/ type fighters.

 

[phavoc]

Also, since this is a game, there's no equivalent costs associated with finding/training/equipping those pilots. Even cheap fighters need expensive pilots. Though that's not very well reflected in games.

This assumes that pilots are like modern pilots who are an elite force. When fighters were the cutting edge of technology they thought was that you can't trust anything that advanced to an enlisted man. You need an Officer.In a setting where fighters are not the cutting edge, and may not even be a primary factor in either tactical or strategic planning. Anyone who would make a good officer would be channeled toward other assignments. Fighter pilots might be considered grunts, or cannon fodder in a fleet based around cruisers and Dreadnoughts.


If a military was basing its entire fighter strategy on large numbers of relatively expendable fighters then it would not make a lot of sense to risk good officers on an assignment that might result in dozens, if not hundreds, of pilots getting killed in a single fleet engagement. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that the fighter arm of the navy would have a high turnover rate, with experienced pilots being rotated to better fighters, or training and command positions if they survived the first term or two as a pilot. For every new pilot assinged to a basic Mig-21 style fighter, simple reliable, and easy to produce, one in ten might make it through the system to fly the Mig-29/F-18 style fighters, and only one out of a hundred would be selected to fly F-22/ type fighters.

Perhaps you'd have your space wing comprised of all sergeants, similar to your tanks. But I don't think so. At least not with the flavor of Traveller. You don't actually need an officer to fly. But it's done for a variety of reasons. In WW2 the pilots were officers, but the rest of the flight crew tended to be enlisted (for bombers). For single man aircraft they were all officers. It certainly could work... but you'd make a small craft pilot the same rank as you would a ships pilot. At least I would. Of course anything is possible, and if you are training your flight personnel to be expendables, that is an inherent problem, as you are putting tens of millions of credits in the hands of someone you are willing to toss away (and who is going to know that). You may find your peace time and training losses quite expensive (even for 'cheap' craft).

 

[AnotherDilbert]

This assumes that pilots are like modern pilots who are an elite force. When fighters were the cutting edge of technology they thought was that you can't trust anything that advanced to an enlisted man. You need an Officer.In a setting where fighters are not the cutting edge, and may not even be a primary factor in either tactical or strategic planning. Anyone who would make a good officer would be channeled toward other assignments. Fighter pilots might be considered grunts, or cannon fodder in a fleet based around cruisers and Dreadnoughts.

I think we have to assume all crew on warships are rather well trained. Each additional skill point is a powerful force multiplier on tens of millions, or even billions, of credits worth of equipment.

The real elite should be the few people controlling the critical systems of dreadnoughts, e.g. the helmsmen and spinal gunners.

 

[wbnc]

Perhaps you'd have your space wing comprised of all sergeants, similar to your tanks. But I don't think so. At least not with the flavor of Traveller. You don't actually need an officer to fly. But it's done for a variety of reasons. In WW2 the pilots were officers, but the rest of the flight crew tended to be enlisted (for bombers). For single man aircraft they were all officers. It certainly could work... but you'd make a small craft pilot the same rank as you would a ships pilot. At least I would. Of course anything is possible, and if you are training your flight personnel to be expendables, that is an inherent problem, as you are putting tens of millions of credits in the hands of someone you are willing to toss away (and who is going to know that). You may find your peace time and training losses quite expensive (even for 'cheap' craft).

I would imagine that a large number of pilots would be roughly equivalent to Chief Petty officers in a mass fighter force. Well trained... but with most of his training focused on the business end of his assignment flight, and combat maneuvering rather than the skills needed to be an offcier. Someone with a college education, several yeas of officers training, and a year or two of pilot training would, as previously mentioned, be very expensive.Using seniorNCOs as tank commanders has proven to be very effective. They are considerably less expensive to risk in a high attrition environment, and can handle the technical aspects of a complex, multi-million dollar, vehicle without being overwhelmed.

It's mostly a setting factor, with hundreds of worlds and a budget that exceeds the sum total of all wealth in the history of earth to throw at a problem I don't see it being impossible to man millions of fighters with officers. Just a good deal more expensive. I personally tend to think that fighters in a setting where capital ships are the arm of decision, and the primary means of power projection, fighters would lose some of the rocks star status the aircraft and pilots enjoy today. In a manner very similar to the mounted knight. When they were the cutting edge ( literally) of technology the cavalryman was seen as the elite of the military. However as technology, and combat tactics changed the cavalryman found himself as not much more than a well-trained infantryman with a horse. They eventually became the modern tanker. A skilled soldier but no longer considered an elite fighting force.

this might mirror the decline of the fighter/attack craft as a primary force projection asset. they would be valuable, but not so valuable that losing an entire squadron in a fleet engagement would be an unacceptable loss.Certainly an expensive loss but compared to the loss of a cruiser, or destroyer an acceptable one. The US lost entire squadrons on several occasions during WWII, but in the process destroyed major capital ships, when the costs were added up, the final decision was that the loss of so many pilots and aircraft was tragic but acceptable.

The evolution from a decisive weapon to a useful but limited asset( strategically, and tactically) would make the use of lighter fighters, and less heavily trained pilots seem attractive to some forces. The ability to get more fighters int eh air, and replace losses far more quickly would be a driving force in reducing the expense, and investment in materials and training for fighter forces. a 50-ton advanced fighter would definitely be an asset for more complex missions, Air superiority, battlespace denial, and strike operations...but for screening, escort, and point defense, the number of fighters in the air would be far more important than the quality of the pilot. When it comes to shooting down missiles, and throwing missiles in bulk at enemy fighters/strike craft quantity has the edge of quality.

I am sure the pilots would be well trained unless dealing with a force like...The Empire, which didn't give a flip if they lost pilots..as long as there were enough pilots/fighter left over to do the job....and if the number of fighters was insufficient....buid more fighters.

I tend to think that in a situation where even the most exceptional pilot can not affect the outcome of a battle, someone with exceptional potential would be shunted over to a position where that potential can be exploited to the greatest degree. Someone who in our current military who would be a good fighter pilot would be directed into Gunnery, or command for a starship rather than fighters. His potential would yield a higher return manning a cruiser or Dreadnought rather than manning a fighter.

same for the fighter itself. Do you invest heavily in a weapon system that is in most situations a purely defensive weapon, or do you shave off a few million from each fighter to invest in bigger guns for your heavy ships... Light, even featherweight fighters become the defensive weapon of choice while fewer heavy fighters are deployed in an offensive role.


This is all just my opinion, and everyone has one or two of those laying around collecting dust. It's a matter of taste. If a player wants a heavy fighter, with an experienced pilot as the primary weapon of choice...it's as valid as a swarm of 10-20 ton fighters flown by the equivalent of flying grunts. A clash between those two styles would be interesting to play out.

 

[Condottiere]

Pilots can be recruited as specialists, therefore warrant officers, and if they show any talent or inclination for command, commissioned.

At least, that's my vision of the Solomani Navy.

 

[phavoc]

In wartime many nations recruited any bodies that could fly an aircraft, made them offices after running through a 60-day course, and then they were done.

But after the war ended, nations reverted to their peacetime requirement that officers have college degree's. And a peacetime/wartime military are two entirely different animals. During WW2 the Germans took a year to train an NCO. Even during their greatest needs for NCO's (who run a military), they didn't skimp on their training because they were the glue that held together things. Plus they already had a host of poorly-trained soldiers who absolutely needed good leadership to have a chance at being effective.

It's entirely possible within a gaming universe to do anything. But human nature will probably remain the same in the future as it has done for the thousands of years that we have experienced thus far. Plus whatever the society it's coming from. Imperial society appears to be built somewhat around the British/European government designs, as does the Imperial military. You want to know that your pilots, who you still have to train a great deal, are capable of learning tactics and are smart enough to adapt over time. Right now a college degree requires (usually) some modicum of intelligence, but it's really just a check-point. Even in the future you'd want to your pilots (even if they are expendable) will survive long enough to justify the huge costs that are associated to getting them to the battlefield in the first place.

 

[Condottiere]

The question you might ask is, how many pilots do the Solomani and Imperium Navies actually need?

 

[Nerhesi]

The question you might ask is, how many pilots do the Solomani and Imperium Navies actually need?

Less than Zhodani and Aslan which base a lot of the their fleet strength on fighters

 

[wbnc]

The question you might ask is, how many pilots do the Solomani and Imperium Navies actually need?

hundreds of thousands easily.. one pilot per fighter, plus extras to rotate pilots out for R&R/training, replace combat, and accidental losses, and maintain numbers as pilots muster out. depending on how many fighters are assigned to each sector/subsector feet.
Then adding in planetary garrison forces, local defense squadrons, etc... it's possible to have a HUGE number of fighter pilots/ex-fighter pilots, and other combat craft pilots loitering around.