[HG] A Fighter and a Bomber (both at TL12)

[Golan2072]

Both are state-of-the-art, ultra-expensive purely-military designs.

Ship: Eagle
Class: Eagle
Type: Heavy Fighter
Architect: StellarDream Inc
Tech Level: 12

USP
FH-0106C31-000000-04000-0 MCr84.5 50 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 12

Cargo:2.5 Fuel: 6 EP: 6 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops

Architects Fee: MCr0.8 Cost in Quantity: MCr67.6


Detailed Description

HULL
50 tons standard, 700 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
Pilot

ENGINEERING
6G Manuever, Power plant-12, 6 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/3 Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 Hardpoint

ARMAMENT
1 Single Fusion Gun Turret organised into 1 Battery (Factor-4)

DEFENCES
None

CRAFT
None

FUEL
6 Tons Fuel (28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
2 Acceleration Couches, 2.5 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr85.3 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr0.8), MCr67.6 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
24 Weeks Singly, 19 Weeks in Quantity

---

Ship: Hailstorm
Class: Hailstorm
Type: Bomber
Architect: Andrew Moffatt-Vallance
Tech Level: 12

USP
FM-0106C51-000000-00002-0 MCr111.75 50 Tons
Bat Bear 1 Crew: 1
Bat 1 TL: 12

Cargo: 1.5 Fuel: 6 EP: 6 Agility: 6
Fuel Treatment: Fuel Scoops

Architects Fee: MCr1.1 Cost in Quantity: MCr89.4


Detailed Description

HULL
50 tons standard, 700 cubic meters, Needle/Wedge Configuration

CREW
Pilot

ENGINEERING
6G Manuever, Power plant-12, 6 EP, Agility 6

AVIONICS
Bridge, Model/5 Computer

HARDPOINTS
1 Hardpoint

ARMAMENT
1 Triple Missile Turret organised into 1 Battery (Factor-2)

DEFENCES
None

CRAFT
None

FUEL
6 Tons Fuel (28 days endurance)
On Board Fuel Scoops, No Fuel Purification Plant

MISCELLANEOUS
2 Acceleration Couches, 1.5 Tons Cargo

USER DEFINED COMPONENTS
None

COST
MCr112.9 Singly (incl. Architects fees of MCr1.1), MCr89.4 in Quantity

CONSTRUCTION TIME
24 Weeks Singly, 19 Weeks in Quantity

 

[RainOfSteel]

No armor?

 

[Anthony]

Yeah, you want armor on fighters to avoid taking automatic criticals from turret weapons. Adding factor 4 armor (resists a triple missile turret) is about the minimum.

In other bugs, the Eagle doesn't have enough power to operate its fusion guns -- it needs 3 EP for the computer, 4 EP for the fusion guns, and if it wants agility 6 another 3 EP for that.

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Anthony:
In other bugs, the Eagle doesn't have enough power to operate its fusion guns -- it needs 3 EP for the computer, 4 EP for the fusion guns, and if it wants agility 6 another 3 EP for that.

I was wondering about that, but I only had 60 seconds to read and post on my way out the door this morning.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Yeah, you want armor on fighters to avoid taking automatic criticals from turret weapons. Adding factor 4 armor (resists a triple missile turret) is about the minimum.

In other bugs, the Eagle doesn't have enough power to operate its fusion guns -- it needs 3 EP for the computer, 4 EP for the fusion guns, and if it wants agility 6 another 3 EP for that.

So you mean that Armor is more inportant than Agility? What do you see as the order of preference between Armor, Agility and Computer?

And the bug is not mine; its HGS's. Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[The Oz]

I read the "Eagle" as being just fine: it has only a single fusion gun (2 EPs), a mod/3 computer (1 EP), and Agility-6 on a 50 dton hull (3 EPs) for a total of 6 EPs, which is just what its powerplant-12 produces in a 50-ton dton hull.

And I think Agility is much more important than armor, although a higher computer would be nice.

 

[Scott Martin]

My order of preference for fighters, and my reasoning:

Computer:
-helps to hit, reduces the chance to be hit

Agility
-Reduces the chance of being hit, useful for initiative and penetration to the reserves

Armour
-reduces damage if you are hit. since most fighters taking a surface hit "fuel-1" result are mission killed I don't bother

Armour might make that battery hit turn into "only" a drive, computer or weapon hit. Stuff it onto the hull if you have the space, but I don't go out of my way to add it.

Maybe I'm a cold-blooded sociopath, but "heavily armoured fighter" just strikes me as an oxymoron.
_____________________________________

IM (Classic) TU Fighters are attrition units, and the pilots can't get life insurance.

IMTU I don't use fighters, because they just aren't capable enough units. TNE at Tech 11-14 really limits the combat suitability of small craft: carry more missiles instead! Small craft get used for boarding and customs operations, but generally under the "watchful eye" of something mounting a lot of ordinance.

Scott Martin

 

[mike wightman]

Robotic fighters - does the Imperium really value life so little that it won't use robotic fighters?

Ok, so you add a couple of MCr to the cost of your MCr100+ fighter, but so what?

 

[Scott Martin]

Book 8 wasn't out when I was playinng with HG... I imagine you could play the "good pilots" game fairly easily with robots, and you could also ignore the "max pilots" problems with TCS games...

Scott Martin

 

[far-trader]

Do you really think that in a war between Interstellar Superpowers with Hundred Kiloton Destroyers that a fight will be decided by who loses their remotely controlled drones first? I don't think so. Even if the fighter craft on each side are the first line and uncrewed once they are lost and the big boys start in you will have fast and huge loss of life, including all those "pilots" sitting at their remote control stations.

You may also be forgetting the extra expense in putting those remote stations aboard your carrier. A carrier that now needs more of everything else to get them there. More fuel, more jump drive, more maneuver drive, more powerplant. All of which means less armor, less weapons, less fighters even.

Even going robotic won't negate the above, just reduce it some. Besides we all know the OTU doesn't trust robots enough to turn even an X-Boat over to them, whole fighter wings with nuclear missiles has got to be right out

 

[mike wightman]

Not remote fighters - robotic

Ship's boat 4, gunnery 4, ship tactics 4 robots.

The real reason for the Imperium's distrust of robots?
[conspiracy mode]AI wars during the Rule of Man

[/conspiracy mode]

 

[Scott Martin]

IIRC Sigg's spec gives each fighter +1 computer, +1 to hit and +1 agility. (so +2 computer with some initiative and breakthrough bonuses) It would also make these almost impossible to hit without using spinal weapons.

I think that were I to "game the system" in this way I'd see what capabilities I could cram into a 1Dton chassis at TL-12 (14 kiloliters is a LOT of robot) and give it 4 hours of endurance. Turn 7 of combat half the fighters declare "emergency agility" or enter the reserve to recharge their batteries, turn 8 the remainder do (repeating at 15, 23 etc.) I suspect that this will be far cheaper than an improved computer in terms of tonnage, power AND price.

And massively violate the "spirit" of the game.

The logical extension of this would be robotic cruisers crewed with engineering drones... Oh wait, isn't that TNE?

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I prefer my sophonts to be squishy and subject to irrational acts I do realize that some (Virushi) only satisfy one of those parameters...

Scott Martin

 

[far-trader]

Hmm, subject to irrational acts? That's got the old gray matter whirling

Just an off the cuff idea (and very mtu) but how about if all those "can't be hit and can't hit a thing" fighters are the way it works with full automation? What if the sophont element adds a quantifiable but undefinable factor into the equation, represented by a +1d6 to hit for sophont crewed craft. It could be rolled at the start of combat or each turn, for each side or even each combatant.

 

[The Oz]

I have my Hiver fleet using robotic fighters.

Of course, that's the Hivers....

 

[mike wightman]

IMTU they have robotic battle riders too

 

[Scott Martin]

Finally, a reason to build Battle Riders No crew requirements saves space, no jump means that if the computer goes insane you can leave it isolated in the system while you go get another fleet to deal with the problem.

Scott Martin

 

[far-trader]

You have read Fred Saberhagen's Berserker stories haven't you

I'm just saying they are a glimpse into what happens if you give AI's battleships. It's not pretty.

While the idea of leaving the rampant Rider behind while you go get a fleet to deal with it sounds good in theory, it won't be that clean.

Firstly the reason you're using AI's is to make the Rider a much more efficient weapon. So what are you going to bring to this fight? More AI Riders or will you use sophonts you can trust? Catch 22.

Secondly AI's smart enough to fight for you that go rampant won't suddenly berserk in singles, they'll talk things over with the less enlightened AI Riders, and enlighten them. All at the speed of light and in the blink of an eye. So you won't have a single rampant Rider, it'll be the whole fleet.

Thirdly, once this happens, before you can run off through jump to get a fleet to deal with the rampant fleet, well, you have to survive the attack of said rampant fleet. Best of luck with that since they are the combat units and you're in the carriers, the lightly armed and armored carriers, and the attack is going to be a surprise, to put it mildly.

Finally, let's say you, some few of you, do get out. The rest of your armada is likewise heavily dependant on AI's for fighting and sophonts for the carriers yes? So, how long to change to sophont fighting? And how much larger a force will you need to deal with the AI fleet? And how much more AI fleet will there be to deal with in the system you left them in?

Trust me they will have converted some of the inhabitants (if there are any) to Good Life and be very busy building. They will also likely have intercepted a few jump capable craft for their Good Life to install them on. And you had better hope you didn't leave a mission killed but jumpa capable carrier back there for them to repair and use.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that I think it may be a very bad idea. I'm also quite convinced it would be a popular idea at some levels and could even come to pass. That's what makes cautionary tales so compelling, the good ones at least.

I have always had Berserkers lurking in my TU, but never used them. Yet

 

[Whipsnade]

Oz,

Oooh... robotic battleriders? No wonder the Hivers don't like Virus!


Dan,

Lurking Beserkers IYTU? I had them too! Sadly, the players just never went in that 'direction'.


Have fun,
Bill

 

[The Oz]

Bill:

The robotic battleriders are in Sigg's universe, not mine.

Although they will be in mine, soon enough....

 

[mike wightman]

I got the idea from the Protoss carriers in Starcraft - fight at a distance with robots and retreat if things are going against you.
The saving on staterooms doesn't amount to much tonnage saved, and the robots cost a bit more, but there's no need to armour them - electronic circuit protection for the robots, just like fib for the computers - so you make them as small as possible for the spinal mount they carry.

Having model 10 computers helps as well