[d20 Future/Star Wars] Starships?

[Furluge]

Yeah I think it's a good idea for everyone who likes space combat to just realize that unless you're using fighter craft it's considered a naval encounter. Larger spaceships are always going to be based of naval ships, fighters after, duh, fighter planes. I mean if you compare a regular "space ship" to a naval ship on the waters now they share a lot of similar characterisitcs. Thus the stratgies that work on the oceans will almost always work in the depths of space. Of course real space combat might not be as close, but with any other kind of fiction it has to be based off something.

Of course if you don't like fighters, you don't have to have them in your campaign either. I mean some people don't quite like the idea of strapping good men and women into tin cans of death..

If you goto the suggestions thread you'll find a lot of suggestions for making ships lose their ability as they lose HP. Personally I think it should be left to the critical hits, it makes them more important and exciting in my opinion. But then again I haven't playtested it, so this is only conjecture. I'd just like to think that in all that rolling someone would roll a crit, you know?

 

[d4]

But that's generally how fighters work. They can't travel far, they're fragile, but dammit they've got a ton of guns strapped in front of them! I mean it worked in the Pacific in WW2. Don't think of fighters are tiny lone ships, think of them as a carrier's attack.

now i'm an Army man myself, so most of my interest in WW2 is the European Theater and infantry engagements. so i'm pretty ignorant of what happened in the Pacific. did fighters really take out capital ships? i'm not talking bombers or fighter-bombers here, but regular fighters.

Still, two attacks per round with a move action is still a lot more than the piddly damage we've been suggesting here.

actually, if you re-read my first post, you'll see that i was counting damage from both of the weapon systems of the ship, so i've always been considering multiple attacks per round.

I think a lot of my (and maybe d4's) problems would be solved just by increasing either the number of weapons per ship or the amount of damage each inflicts. Even just a couple of extra dice per weapon would go a long way to speeding up combat.

yes, that was a suggestion i made earlier.

i think multiplying most capital ship weapons' damage by 5 would be a good start...

i don't think fighters should be carrying the same caliber of armaments as capital ships, though. i prefer a paradigm where fighters are effective against fighters, and capital ships are effective against capital ships, but fighters are ineffective against capital ships unless the mass-swarm them, and capital ships are ineffective against fighters unless they have dedicated point-defense systems. just my personal taste, though.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

now i'm an Army man myself, so most of my interest in WW2 is the European Theater and infantry engagements. so i'm pretty ignorant of what happened in the Pacific. did fighters really take out capital ships? i'm not talking bombers or fighter-bombers here, but regular fighters.

I can`t tell you anything historically accurate, so I just wonder (and still eagerly await my copy of the D20 Future ): Does D20 Future make a distinction between fighters and bombers in spacecraft? If not, than you can safely assume that these fighters are actually bombers.
But I believe (whithout anything to back me up - except mabye some fellow posters) that WW2 fighters usually also carried bombs/rockes besides their automatic cannons, and as such should be able to destroy ships - maybe they will not instantly sink, but if the upper decks are destroyed, the ship is at least useless.

i don't think fighters should be carrying the same caliber of armaments as capital ships, though. i prefer a paradigm where fighters are effective against fighters, and capital ships are effective against capital ships, but fighters are ineffective against capital ships unless the mass-swarm them, and capital ships are ineffective against fighters unless they have dedicated point-defense systems. just my personal taste, though.

But the question is - what`s the point of fighters then? If they can`t harm a capital ship, but the capital ship can harm other capital ship and probably make planetary bombardments, where do you need a fighter?
In Startrek, this paradigmn seems to be true - but you never see small fighters there. The Maquis used smaller ships, but they weren`t exactly simple fighters, and they need multiple of them to harrass cardassian ships.
In Babylon 5, fighters meant something - in fact, in the first seasons they were the only real offensive power Babylon 5 had.
The same holds true for Starwars.

 

[humble minion]

But I believe (whithout anything to back me up - except mabye some fellow posters) that WW2 fighters usually also carried bombs/rockes besides their automatic cannons, and as such should be able to destroy ships - maybe they will not instantly sink, but if the upper decks are destroyed, the ship is at least useless.

That would be a big 'no'. In naval warfare, especially in the Pacific theatre, the only aircraft that could seriously bother a cruiser-sized ship (or larger) was a dedicated dive- or torpedo-bomber carrying a single big, ungainly piece of ordnance. The torpedo, or bomb or whatever, reduced a plane's performance enormously and made them sitting ducks. Hence fighters - to kill your enemy's lumbering bombers, and to protect yours from the enemy's fighters. While fighters could carry small bombs, doing so made them pretty much useless in a dogfight, and they couldn't carry enough to bother a big ship anyway. Destroyers and the like maybe, but nothing bigger. And sure, you could shoot up the decks of a ship, but any naval vessel is going to be laugh at any weapon mounted on a fighter. You may succeed in damaging radars, killing exposed antiaircraft gunners and so on, but that's about it.

But the question is - what`s the point of fighters then? If they can`t harm a capital ship, but the capital ship can harm other capital ship and probably make planetary bombardments, where do you need a fighter?
In Startrek, this paradigmn seems to be true - but you never see small fighters there. The Maquis used smaller ships, but they weren`t exactly simple fighters, and they need multiple of them to harrass cardassian ships.
In Babylon 5, fighters meant something - in fact, in the first seasons they were the only real offensive power Babylon 5 had.
The same holds true for Starwars.

I think how it should be is that bombers pose a real threat to capital ships (though probably only once, until their ordnance is expended), and fighters kill bombers. This isn't reflected very well in TV and movies though - space combat scenes tend to be more about movement and spectacle than tactical logic. Babylon 5's Starfuries never seriously bothered a capital ship on their own, as far as I can remember, although they were useful against other small ships and for police-type duties. I can't comment on Star Trek - I've never really watched it. Star Wars - well, I love Star Wars, but I'm never, ever going to even try to pretend that there was any sort of logic or thought put into the battle scenes beyond 'ooh, that looks cool!'

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

In StarCraft, fighters carry missiles designed to destroy capital ships. Lighter fighters carry anti-fighter weapons (usually with a high rate-of-fire) to destroy these attack fighters.

Alternity had 3 classes of fighters...

 

[d4]

But the question is - what`s the point of fighters then? If they can`t harm a capital ship, but the capital ship can harm other capital ship and probably make planetary bombardments, where do you need a fighter?

well like i said, i'm an Army man and my knowledge of naval/air doctrine is pretty much non-existent.

i like humble minion's idea, though: bombers are a danger to capital ships, and fighters are used to screen the bombers and attack enemy bombers.

i don't see fighters themselves doing much damage to capital ships; i'd rather have them as a screening force (whether to protect a capital ship from bombers or to protect bombers from other fighters).

 

[Vigilance]

I can`t tell you anything historically accurate, so I just wonder (and still eagerly await my copy of the D20 Future ): Does D20 Future make a distinction between fighters and bombers in spacecraft? If not, than you can safely assume that these fighters are actually bombers.
But I believe (whithout anything to back me up - except mabye some fellow posters) that WW2 fighters usually also carried bombs/rockes besides their automatic cannons, and as such should be able to destroy ships - maybe they will not instantly sink, but if the upper decks are destroyed, the ship is at least useless.

Fighters were a serious threat to ships in both the pacific and atlantic during WWII provided they were equipped with torpedoes.

This is the case with fighters in d20 Future. If a fighter doesnt have rockets its not very handy. If it does then, especuially in numbers, it could seriously damage a capital ship.

But the question is - what`s the point of fighters then? If they can`t harm a capital ship, but the capital ship can harm other capital ship and probably make planetary bombardments, where do you need a fighter?
In Startrek, this paradigmn seems to be true - but you never see small fighters there.

Not true. The Jem`Hadar used fighters, and those fighters did take out a Galaxy-class Cruiser (with a Kamakaze attack) and a fleet of Romulan and Cardassian- the Jem`Hadar fighters outnumbered the capital ships 150 to 20.

In the final stages of the Dominion War, both the Federation and the Cardassian/Jem`Hadar forces are shown using fighters as well.

This makes a certain amount of sense in a couple of ways. First, the Federation has "shuttles" which are basically lightly armed fighters. But a war would change that, and it seems to.

Like in the pacific, the best way to stop fighters is with fighters. Since the Jem`Hadar, and then the Cardassians were using them, they needed to as well.

There's a reason why aircraft carriers are the most important ships in any navy and battleships are relegated to shore bombardment.

And it isnt because fighters from an aircraft carrier are useless against other ships or land targets

Chuck

 

[Furluge]

now i'm an Army man myself, so most of my interest in WW2 is the European Theater and infantry engagements. so i'm pretty ignorant of what happened in the Pacific. did fighters really take out capital ships? i'm not talking bombers or fighter-bombers here, but regular fighters.

...Shortened for length...

i don't think fighters should be carrying the same caliber of armaments as capital ships, though. i prefer a paradigm where fighters are effective against fighters, and capital ships are effective against capital ships, but fighters are ineffective against capital ships unless the mass-swarm them, and capital ships are ineffective against fighters unless they have dedicated point-defense systems. just my personal taste, though.

Well first of all I'll say I'm not an expert. I do enjoy my history, but I'll be the first to admit I haven't made an accurate enough study of individual battles, nor am I an encyclopedia on various ships. That being said I can comment on things I've seen in things such as flight sims, movies, and the History Channel. (The History Channel has a new show called command decisions, one that was on about a month ago was a break down of mainly the Battle of Midway.)

That said first of all here is a webpage describing US carrier plane attacks against Japanese carriers in the Battle of Midway.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/wwii-pac/midway/mid-4k.htm

You'll see there are two main attack ships mentioned, the Devistator torpedo plane and the Dauntless dive bomber. You can find some images of these planes and other naval aircraft here.

http://www.daveswarbirds.com/navalwar/aircraft.htm

What you'll notice is that these aren't the kind of bombers that come to mind when one normally says the word bomber. These ships are are basically a fighter craft frame modified and given one bomb or torpedo as their payload. This is because on a carrier there isn't room for the massive sized bombers that can take off from a land base. These planes would fly to their target, release their payload, then fly back to their carrier, get another one and fly back. A dive bomber is obviously named because bombs were normally dropped by diving toward the target, letting the bomb go and then pulling up on the stick so you don't go smack into the now exploding target, which shows the plane has a lot more mobility than a say, a B-17 flying fortress.

Now it's true these craft aren't nimble as the dedicated fighters, but they're certainly very manuverable, especially once they're freed of their payload. And generally in anything where you aren't being a real stickler for realism, like say a video game or an RPG, they're usually treated as a fighter.

And usually in sci-fi these they're both treated as fighters as well, with large missiles taking the place of bombs or torpedos. You commonly see fighters as a means to take out captial ships in lots of sci-fi series, including Star Wars, Wing Commander, and Master of Orion. The trade off for this is that the mortality rate for such is usually obscenely high.

Also, the basic ships don't make a distinction between fighters and bombers in any case. I would guess that a bomber and a fighter would be the same except a bomber would have a much heavier loadout, but what would be the point, really?

 

[Pagan priest]

Even advancing the technology up to when I was in the Navy, a fighter was fairly useless agains a ship... unless it was armed with an anti-ship missile. An air to air missile might hit the ship, and the ship might notice (eventually). Even an A - 10 Warthog would be hard pressed to actually do any damage to a capital ship, with its typical anti tank load out.

For a SF based game, I think it comes down to realism Vs cinematic. Realism says that a fighter can't do anything to a capital ship, unless it is carrying a very specialized payload, one that would be useless against other fighters. A cinematic game allows Star Wars type action where the pilot can stick his head out the cockpit and destroy the capital ship with a well placed blaster bolt from his sidearm.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not true. The Jem`Hadar used fighters, and those fighters did take out a Galaxy-class Cruiser (with a Kamakaze attack) and a fleet of Romulan and Cardassian- the Jem`Hadar fighters outnumbered the capital ships 150 to 20.

In the final stages of the Dominion War, both the Federation and the Cardassian/Jem`Hadar forces are shown using fighters as well.

This makes a certain amount of sense in a couple of ways. First, the Federation has "shuttles" which are basically lightly armed fighters. But a war would change that, and it seems to.

Like in the pacific, the best way to stop fighters is with fighters. Since the Jem`Hadar, and then the Cardassians were using them, they needed to as well.

The Jem`Hardar ships were approximately the size of the Defiant, maybe a bit bigger. And while the Defiant was small, it could still carry 50 or more crewmen, and can`t be really considered a fighter (at least if we want fighters to have only one pilot and maybe a co-pilot).
(The crew of DS9 once controlled a Jem`Hardar ship and it required a full bridge crew to operate, and it contained space for several more people)
Usually in Startrek meant bigger = better. The Defiant is, in some way, a glaring inconsistency. (But I like her anyway, so I am happy to ignore it and pretend to have some good reasons why she had to be the exception)
As you noted, a Jem Hardar ship had to ram a Galaxy Class ship to destroy it (though I think they could have blown the whole ship by using beam weapons - they were able to ignore the ships shield, after all - a point not to forget in that scene. Later, the federation was able to avoid this problem...)

But it is true that the Federation did also use fighter-like craft - these small winged ships (similar to those of the maquis, possibly even the same type) seemed to be fighters. But I always got the impression they really were support craft in space combat. Considering that the Federation even used the 100 years old Mirinda class star ships during the Dominon war seems to indicate that they really used all they had... (In the "retaking of Deep Space Nine" scenes, these ships didn`t seem strong enough...). So that might be the reason why the also used these fighters. They are at least not that useful unless in large numbers.

There's a reason why aircraft carriers are the most important ships in any navy and battleships are relegated to shore bombardment.

And it isnt because fighters from an aircraft carrier are useless against other ships or land targets

Chuck

Sounds reasonable, and sheds in interesting light on fighters in space:
To want fighters in space, they either must be the best (if not only) choice to attack a ground target (planetary target), or they must be dangerous to much bigger ships.
I think the first isn`t that unreasonable, depening on the defense systems of planets and the primary types of weapons - if energy weapons don`t have enough range to get from space through the atmosphere to a ground target, you would rely on torpedos/missiles/bombs, that might be easier to intercept then space ships.