 May 28, 2010 - 2:21am | One thing I have been thinking about with SF is the need for maned space fighters. In shows like Star Wars, and Battlestar Galactica, fighters and their heroic pilots are the focus of these epic war stores, but in Star Frontiers, Fighters take a backseat to Assault Scouts because a whole party (5-8 men) can full out a ship of that size, and there have also been no adventure produced around fighter squads - why tie yourself to a static Carrier Group (an Assault Carrier, plus the ships needed to protect it), when an Assault Scout is the perfect combat RV for spaceborne adventures? Realistically, a space fighter would be a more effective weapon if you removed the fighter pilot, and then replaced them with a tactical computer. The disadvantage of a living pilot, is the added weight of the pilot and life support systems, and the acceleration limits a body can endure in high-speed maneuvers. I know about Burnside's Zeroth Law of space combat (see below), and I know that converting a fighter into a drone fighter would make it an automated rocket platform, and potentially a pricey guided missile/suicide bomber (when ordered to slam into larger ships). For those who don't know about the Zeroth Law, I pulled this from Atomic Rockets: Burnside's Zeroth Law of space combat: Science fiction fans relate more to human beings than to silicon chips. That is, while it might make more logical sense to have an interplanetary battle waged between groups of computer controlled spacecraft, it would be infinitely more boring than a battle between groups of human crewed spacecraft.To me, the lack of focus with fighter pilots in the setting makes their use in the game somehow feels rather moot (I also never been a fan of the low fighter capacity of Assault Carriers - I generally count their fighter capacity as a Flight of 3 Fighters/Mecha, or 1 Bomber/Gunboat for each Fighter slot). Even when you do play as a fighter pilot, the KH rules seem to focus more on the big ships, as their are no fighter and anti-fighter weapons (forward lasers and decoys for Fighters, and point-defense systems for ships) in the game - all you do is deploy, fire missiles, return, reload, repeat, and nothing else! So what is everyone's take on this? |
 May 28, 2010 - 4:17am | Comments: 1. manned fighters=more fun ( Burnside Zeroth law?- yeah what he said.) 2. drone fighters= no dead Player characters (a fighter is a terrible platform for RPG in that its a great way to kill off party members- at least with a bigger ship you can hand wave- someone will survive somewhere in the wreckage)- could even go in for telepresence control of the drone to involve PCs Personally, I would like an overhaul of the KHs system that didnt give the exact same weapons to the opposing combatants. Ie: the UPF ships are equipped with a host of laser type weapons and missles that are more capable than what the game has. my feeling is that beam weapons in reality, would be short ranged weapons and missles would be the long range weapons. Defenses against missles would be counter missiles that fire off at high rates seeking to kill regular missiles with poximity explosions and lower power lasers that are tasked with intercepting but then were talking about a whole different paradigm of ship building rules. Sathar show up with a different suite of weapons. purhaps they're willing to accept a seek missile that will target their own ships and they use proton and electon weapons. initial stages of conflict proton and electron weapons rip into UPF ships which only had albedo defenses, engineers scramble and equip the fleet with proton and electron screens which catch the sathar by surprise. zuraquor maybe use rail guns. etc. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 May 28, 2010 - 5:24pm | While it is a good idea to have race-based weapon technology, there are some problems with this. First most, if someone shoots my prize ship with a laser gun, and i dont have one, you better bet i'm gonna do whatever I can to get my hands on one, whether i steal the technology or develop an identicl tehcnology. Its the old addage of dont bring a knife to a gun fight. So the development of nearly identical weapon systems is an eventuality. Now, of course dramatically more advanced races may show up with something completely amazing that is a real paradigm shifter. However, even with the amazing technological edge, the first thing my government will try to do is get my hands on it whatever it takes. |
May 28, 2010 - 5:40pm | While it is a good idea to have race-based weapon technology, there are some problems with this. First most, if someone shoots my prize ship with a laser gun, and i dont have one, you better bet i'm gonna do whatever I can to get my hands on one, whether i steal the technology or develop an identicl tehcnology. Its the old addage of dont bring a knife to a gun fight. So the development of nearly identical weapon systems is an eventuality. Now, of course dramatically more advanced races may show up with something completely amazing that is a real paradigm shifter. However, even with the amazing technological edge, the first thing my government will try to do is get my hands on it whatever it takes. your absolutely correct and during WW1 the refinement of aircraft got so fast that a design could be on the drawing board and in the air 30 days latter similar stuff happened during WW2 I just think that it adds a greater degree of realism to have a initial contact with a race with different tech no doubt the sathar seek to steal everything they can through thier agents. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
 May 28, 2010 - 8:46pm | I'm mixed with the opinions about fighters and the carriers, I try to mix it up a bit. I think because of show like Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica that is how most sci-fi fans are going to think of fighters, but when you see how modern fighter warfare is conducted most sci-fi shows don't even come close to what star fighters would really be like. Not to mention there's a logic problem a series like Space: Above and Beyond had. After all the training you gave a fighter jock, are you really going to risk that investment in a fight on the ground? But then a crew of an assualt scout by that logic is equally as a valuable asset. At least with fighters there is an ejection seat for the pilot to bail at the last second from a burning craft. I don't see ejection systems on many of the larger space crafts, it's always "Every one to the escape pods!" Followed by a mass run of paniced crew fighting for space in whatever lifeboat they can find. What kind of character driven games can you do with a fighter squad? -escort duty -sink the target ship -intercept missions -dog fights/furballs -fleet scout -search and destroy That's about it right there, I mean you are not going to want to land your fighter in the hold of an enemy ship and fighter your way through it now are you? In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same. |
May 28, 2010 - 9:28pm | I'm mixed with the opinions about fighters and the carriers, I try to mix it up a bit. I think because of show like Star Wars and Battlestar Galactica that is how most sci-fi fans are going to think of fighters, but when you see how modern fighter warfare is conducted most sci-fi shows don't even come close to what star fighters would really be like. I think that the prime examples: Star Wars and old BSG were influenced by WW2 ideas and visions of fighter craft- lot of romance in that and sort of harkens back to the wild west- hero mounts up on his steed and goes out to save the day. It makes more sense that an assault scout sized ship would land and get involved in a ground fight than a squad of fighter pilots. For one this the two gunners would be well qualified to be one hit wonders with their weapons of choice having to earn the pre-reqs for their star ship skills. Add in the characters with the foundation skills for KHs pilot, astrogator and engineer and you have a well rounded squad that can deal with most anything. Add in a few robots to play the Nodwick role and you're good to go. I suppose the choice is go space opera hard science and do drones or roll with the romance of the fighter and play to the cliche - the small fast ship with a squad sized crew will likely prove just as unreasonable as fighters but I have to say the Assualt Scout has to be my favorite star ship that never made it on screen. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
May 29, 2010 - 12:13pm | drone fighters do make a lot of sense from a weapons system perspective. Like a cruise missle that is re-useable, delivers its payload and returns for a reload. However, it is most definitely not glamorous, heroic, or exciting. If you use robots a lot in your game, drone fighter could fit in nicely as a kind of robot in and of themselves i.e. new BSG and star wars ep 1. I think the draw to having a pilot is the fact that a pilot can still do things that no computer can do. Creative intuitive problem solving, situational awareness, "gut feelings", adaptability, and emotional drives. A computer will never feel the need for vegenance or the self-preservation that can be amazing motivators. A computer, even an artificially advanced intelligence, still couldnt be programed to "feel" such things and thus would perform, well...like a machine. This is one of the reasons that in the new BSG that colonial vipers had a high advantage against the cylon drone fighters. However, in all space fighter combat we are stuck with the problem of how a space fighter with a pilot could effectively operate like a space fighter should with a biological lifeforms limitations. I guess this comes down to the GM'S choice on what is important an exciting space combat game or a realistic hard science simulation. While I like to see hard science - scifi, there is a point where it's just plain boring. Lets face it we cheer at shows like star wars, BSG, Space A&B, and star trek not because they have the proper thrust vector shown on screen but because we love the story. |
 May 29, 2010 - 2:44pm | While I think the idea of drone fighters is cool. I would use them to distract the enemy while my manned fighters do the killing. Here is why. The pilot of a ship that carries assault rockets adds 5% x his skill level to that weapon's chance to hit. From base 50 percent add on Accuracy:A gunner can apply this subskill to only one weapon per turn. The bonus can be combined with the pilot's Forward Firing Weapons bonus, +10% however. So If I have a level 3 pilot with a level 3 Rocket Gunnery thats 50% plus 15% plus 15% +10% FF bonus. Thats 90% chance to hit against a capitol ship with my First rocket and 75% with my other two. Not counting ICM of course. While the compter controlled gunnery chart gives a 60% across the board before ICM is counted. Imagine a level 6 pilot with level 6 rocket gunnery. They are there to get the enemy capitol ships attention while the human fighter comes in with his better skills and does the "heroic" aimed shots And It makes sense to fly in as fast as possable let lose a volley in one pass only give the enemy ship 1 turn to shoot at you and be gone as quick as you can while he is shooting at the drones. (In our Campains "We fire all assault rockets in volley because the rules allow it, each rocket is on its own mount and besides the KH Book gives a specific example of wasted shots where a player declares he is fireing 2 Torpedoes 1 Rocket Battery etc etc. Page 6 under Aiming.) You dont have to agree, thats the way we interpreted it. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
May 29, 2010 - 6:47pm | While I think the idea of drone fighters is cool. I would use them to distract the enemy while my manned fighters do the killing. Here is why. The pilot of a ship that carries assault rockets adds 5% x his skill level to that weapon's chance to hit. From base 50 percent add on Accuracy:A gunner can apply this subskill to only one weapon per turn. The bonus can be combined with the pilot's Forward Firing Weapons bonus, +10% however. So If I have a level 3 pilot with a level 3 Rocket Gunnery thats 50% plus 15% plus 15% +10% FF bonus. Thats 90% chance to hit against a capitol ship with my First rocket and 75% with my other two. Not counting ICM of course. While the compter controlled gunnery chart gives a 60% across the board before ICM is counted. Imagine a level 6 pilot with level 6 rocket gunnery. They are there to get the enemy capitol ships attention while the human fighter comes in with his better skills and does the "heroic" aimed shots And It makes sense to fly in as fast as possable let lose a volley in one pass only give the enemy ship 1 turn to shoot at you and be gone as quick as you can while he is shooting at the drones. (In our Campains "We fire all assault rockets in volley because the rules allow it, each rocket is on its own mount and besides the KH Book gives a specific example of wasted shots where a player declares he is fireing 2 Torpedoes 1 Rocket Battery etc etc. Page 6 under Aiming.) You dont have to agree, thats the way we interpreted it. Well..... in combat a robot's chance to hit is 30% + 10%/level and no doubt a drone would have to be level 5 or 6 also remote weapons, according to the AD rules are controlled by a computer using a robot management program and their chance to hit is 30% + 10%/level which translates to 80% or 90% to hit before other modifiers Thats not to shabby a to hit chance I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
May 29, 2010 - 7:22pm | Well..... in combat a robot's chance to hit is 30% + 10%/level and no doubt a drone would have to be level 5 or 6 also remote weapons, according to the AD rules are controlled by a computer using a robot management program and their chance to hit is 30% + 10%/level which translates to 80% or 90% to hit before other modifiers Thats not to shabby a to hit chance Yeah I did not think of that, and also its cheaper and less time consuming to build a robot brain for the ship that it is to train a pilot. Need a level six pilot with level six rocket gunnery? Here is a program. That being said why not have robots shoot every gun on all the ships. Take Human error right out. Humanoids in the Battleships might as well be along for the ride. humans take a long time to train up or get experiance and I can build a robot that will do it right now. Hmmm.... All the Humans have to do is decide when to shoot at wich target and wich way the ship should go. The bombing starts in five minutes. |
May 29, 2010 - 8:16pm | Yeah I did not think of that, and also its cheaper and less time consuming to build a robot brain for the ship that it is to train a pilot. Need a level six pilot with level six rocket gunnery? Here is a program. That being said why not have robots shoot every gun on all the ships. Take Human error right out. Humanoids in the Battleships might as well be along for the ride. humans take a long time to train up or get experiance and I can build a robot that will do it right now. Hmmm.... All the Humans have to do is decide when to shoot at wich target and wich way the ship should go. Well..... Now you sound like a military planner from a Bolo novel- Bolo's are self aware robotic tanks the size of a city block that are capable of independent operation but usually are paired with a human commander. the tank handles thoughsands of calculations/ second and makes mirad of decisions on his own concerning targets and his own defense while the commander considers overall strategy. The last mark of Bolo had a cyber system that let the mind of the bolo and the mind of the commander fuse into one and the result was greater then the sum of its parts. many of the authors who wrote in that series explored some really interesting ideas concerning artificial intelligence. I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers! |
May 29, 2010 - 11:42pm | One thing I did not consider (or just forgot about) is how nerfed robots are under the rules. This is likely why I said "tactical computer" early on - that is, a military-issued computer that is designed to fight, and works much better then what you can find in the civilian sector. Under the normal rules, a "robot fighter" is really broken - but I find a number of things broken with this system. The only way I was able to make Fighters work in my games, was to add more verity to the game. The basic fighter design is a space pod built around a gyroscope, and armed with a forward laser and guided missiles - not rockets. I also use Mecha and Aerospace Fighters as variations to the basic design (but not both, because I found out the hard way about the fragile mounting at the hip through my Valkyrie and Zeta Gundam model kits). I also use (Hull Size 2) Bombers and Gunboats - they lack the thrust and maneuverability of a normal fighters, but can be carried on Assault Carriers. Bombers mount a grater array of missiles (8-12) or (1-2) torpedoes, and mounts little or no defensive guns. Gunboats mounts only anti-fighter weapons. With this, I also made similar variations to the Assault Scout (they lack the thrust and maneuverability of a normal Assault Scout, but they still keep the laser battery). The Attack Scout (or Heavy Gunboat) swaps out the missiles for anti-fighter weapons, the Heavy Bomber (or Long-range Bomber) swaps out everything for (3-4) torpedoes, and the Packet Ship - which is an armed transport. (mind you, I made all this work only by fudging rules - a lot - or by making them up out outright) Even with a human pilot, a fighter (or mecha and such) would still require a tactical AI to handle much of the craft's maneuvering and targeting because both requires a great deal concentration and guesswork. With all these micro adjustments out of the way, the pilot can focus more on the battle (or to bitch back at the whinny computer). The fighter's AI can communicate with the pilot like a somewhat normal person, and can even operate the craft by itself, but they lack the creativity and intuition to handle unusual situations. Without pilots, these machines can operate beyond human levels, but are usually dependent on feed-back from a commanding ship (mostly to designate targets), but electronic warfare can really complicate things. (damn, I over-think things  ) |
 May 30, 2010 - 3:44am | I have an entire subsection of my campaign devoted to star fighters. In short, players can waive enrollment into Gollwin (and resulting SpaceFleet) and instead opt for a career in the Star Fighter Corps, which is a joint venture between SpaceFleet and the variuos planetary governments. Players go to an acadamy for two hundred days and come out with Pilot LVL:1 or their choice of gunnery (rocket or energy), and gunners can continue into astrogation or engineering afterwards. After a two year tour of duty through various systems and coworking with numerous militias, the players end up with sufficient skills (and pay) to strike out on their own or continue with the Corps. It ties in with my Dominion campaign (where an upstart dictator eventually usurps the Frontier and takes over). One special mission I have forces the group to land on an unpopulated world after one of them experiences technical difficulties (which they soon discover ends up being the direct result of having been shot with a surface based ion gun that disables their craft). The group ends up scouting ahead of their landing zone to discover a secret outpost, the very one that shot their comrade down. Another subsetting exposes what is initially believed to be a sathar agent infiltrating the corps and takes a turn to something much different. A third scenario introduces a civilian light freighter captain and co-pilot who are former Corps men and the exposing of the upstart dictator takes off from there. So you can easily throw in a slew of non-KH scenarios into a fighter campaign too. But the point I want to make here is that the fighters have long been overlooked, typically being treated as gnats to be swatted away by capital ships at their liesure. Add some skill and tactics and they become quite deadly --- level 2 and 3 pilots along with a back seat level 2-3 gunner assisting ramp up the odds of hitting a target immensely! Think about it, six fighters going up against a heavy cruiser at 40,000km out (4 hexes) with head on shots: each fighter with a LVL:2 pilot and LVL:2 rocket gunner has a base 80% chance to hit with their assault rockets, each of which will average 15 hull points of damage (not counting the 20% chance each rocket has at inflicting double damage). Now you have a six pack of fighters that is capable of wiping out a heavy cruiser in one pass (while effectively styaying out of said cruiser's rocket battery range and applying a -20% modifier to their defensive fire from energy guns). And should the poo hit the fan, the fighters have auto-eject modules (the entire cockpit is an escape pod per se, tied in with stress analysis and damage control software) that permits a very good chance of survival from an exploding craft. Also of noteworthy mention, there is no iron clad rule for having life support equipment on a fighter. The crew can get by on space suits and reserve LS packs for any mission, but the escape pod scenario may offer some suspense as they await recovery...bottom line here is unless you have a HS:2 heavy fighter that is jump capable (hence the astrogation training program for gunners) life support is purely an option of luxury. Finally, I have a special repair rule. With or without an engineer, repairs are only possible against disabled systems via rerouting power and such fixes...no hull damage can be repaired unless the craft is outfitted with a maintenance robot that can access the hull (or if the crew wishes to spacewalk). Not so much "astro-mech" R2D2 mind you, but more of a bay with a single bot that has magnetic traction capability that can crawl around the hull. Generally this isn't going to appear until the HS:2 heavy fighters. Beyond that I have supply ships that are capable of in flight repairs, fighters dock with them (or their host carriers) for repairs, which take a full three combat turns (during which time reloading can be accomplished as well) and the added benefit of a higher DCR rating. |
May 30, 2010 - 1:20pm | Ship Design question: How many fighters should an Assault Carrier be able to carry, Modern U.S. Supercarriers are about HS 14-15 and carry a compliment of aircraft between 70 to 90 Aircraft, the planes such as the FA/18 Hornet or the F22 raptor are just about HS 1, If you build an Assault Carrier HS 20 how many can that carry. USS Nimitz has 2 Atomic Engines driving 4 Screws (propellers) and Fuel bunkers for extended Flight operations for its compliment of aircraft and enough fuel it can refuel its non nuclear escorts ships at sea. and has a crew of over 4000 people, Granted its cramped compared to UPF ships who have 10 times less crew than the US navy does on Larger ships, if you ask me there seem to be a lot of wasted space abaord Star Frontiers Spaceships in general. But of course someone will point out that Mass is more important in space. It just seems to me that the Assault carrier was some sort of afterthought as far as the writers for the cannon rules were concerned. Or perhaps they wanted it to be a Big Gun Navy universe like pre WWI Earth. All those Battleships and dreadnoughts of that era and only one major fleet battle was fought durring WWI "Jutland" And that came out a draw for all intents and purposes. Tactical Victory for the Germans Strategic victory for the British. The Germans neft port again. Pearl Harbor and Midway and Corral Sea were fought by Carriers and were decisive battles. But I digress. How many fighters and bombers should a Carrier be allowed to have? The bombing starts in five minutes. |
May 30, 2010 - 3:02pm | I still haven't penned any house "carrier" rules...but I permit one fighter per hull size, with larger carriers able to accomodate larger craft (so a heavy fighter can be substituted for a pair of standard fighters). My only other "rule" Ihave for carriers is they have separate bays, smaller carriers have one bay per fighter and larger ones have bays that can hold one heavy fighter or two standard fighters. As such I have designed a "scout carrier" in a HS:6 platform that carries a squadron of six fighters (each in their own separate bay), and said carrier's frigate/destroyer grade performance can get those fighters in and out of a scenario much more efficiently. On the other side of the spectrum are the dreadnaught carriers (HS:20+) with ten bays @ HS:20 that can hold any combination of standard and heavy fighters imagineable. Larger dreadnaughts have HS:3 capacity bays that can accomoate a heavy fighter and light fighter, three light fighters, or even an assault scout... Realistically, they should still be permitted to carry more than one per HS. KH obviously designed the carrier with game balance in mind more than actual capacity. |
 May 30, 2010 - 3:25pm | They should definitely be able to carry more than the 8-12 the canon rules allow for. It is a known issue with the KH rules that has been discussed many times that the size of the ships goes up geometrically with hull size while their capacity for weapons and fighters only goes up linearly. Ad Astra Per Ardua! My blog - Expanding Frontier Webmaster - The Star Frontiers Network & this site Founding Editor - The Frontier Explorer Magazine Managing Editor - The Star Frontiersman Magazine |
May 31, 2010 - 4:48am | While Human Pilots are the baseline, I think that Vrusk with the ambidexterity and faster reflexes would make the best pilots and dralasites would make the most challenged fighter pilots with their slower reactions. Yaz would make excellent fighter pilots but their aggressiveness would make them brash and reckless which could be a asset or a handicap. |
May 30, 2010 - 5:24pm | Mechanoids Might make the best Pilots :) The bombing starts in five minutes. |
May 31, 2010 - 2:26pm | While Human Pilots are the baseline, I think that Vrusk with the ambidexterity and faster reflexes would make the best pilots and dralasites would make the most challenged fighter pilots with their slower reactions. Yaz would make excellent fighter pilots but their aggressiveness would make them brash and reckless which could be a asset or a handicap. Sadly the rules don't allow for ability modifiers. And really, with ten minute game turns they shouldn't...even the most clumsy character should be capable of executing a few 60º maneuvers inside a ten minute window. |
May 31, 2010 - 3:30pm | I see your point, the scale at which KH occurs is so far away that eveything would appear like watching ants, a lot of the little detail is lost and only the big moves are visible. With in a 10k hex a fighter could be weaving all over the place but the MR only records the big course changing turns and manuvers. |
June 1, 2010 - 9:03am | I deal with ship combat with the "lightning strike" rules used in the Silhouette Core Rules (with some adjustments). Each turn is about 1 minute, each hex is about 1km, one Thrust Point of movement (instead of ADF) is about 0.1 gee of thrust. The key thing to this system, is the abstract way the map is used to represent vectors. Its a bit complicated to the uninitiated, but it uses the 6 directions of a Hex map to represent the positive and negative XYZ vectors. That is, +Y is going forward, -Y is going backwards, +X is starboard side, -X is port side, and +Z is above, and -Z is below. Movement works like KH, but a craft's Maneuverability Rating determines the cost (in Thrust Points) to make a face change. I never been a fan of how KH Fighters have fusion engines. I rather have them use chemical propellant (I ignore the 1 ADF limit). With this, I use Assault Carriers as a ship to reload and refuel. |
 June 1, 2010 - 11:24am | The thought keeps coming back to me that the best race to take the Gs in a fighter is the Dralasites. Assuming that the flight controls are no longer joystick dominated and that the quick reaction maneuvers are preprogrammed in and triggered by voice and touch controls a dralasite should be an admirable fighter pilot. -iggy |
June 1, 2010 - 5:37pm | I have no problem with atomic (or even ion) drives in a fighter. I simply include "jump governors" on them to prevent them from reaching jump velocity (except for the HS:2 heavy fighters, which are jump capable). But I also have a few chemical driven fighters in my game as well, and penned rules on fuel versus velocity for chemical drives to boot (IIRC it was in the last issue of SFMan). |
