Ship to Ship combat should provide full bonuses to the pilot

[Greyaxe]

Ship to Ship combat is the art of warfare between two or more ships. A nice skill to have. However the +1 bonus to weapons only applies to the gunners of the ship and not to the pilot using both weapons and defensive systems at the same time. It allows the pilot to dog fight and use shields anti missile defences and fire weapons at the same time but as I mentioned doesn't provide the +1 bonus to strike. I think this should be an all inclusive skill for the pilots particularly used in conjunction with pilot space fighter. What do you think?

[glitterboy2098]

isn't Space combat: Fighter a seperate skill?


the Ship-to-Ship combat skill would represent the art of taking capital ships into battle. so a bonus to gunners and not pilots would make sense. kinda hard to fire guns as a pilot when the gunnery station not only has its own crew, but is half way across the bridge from you.

plus, most capital ships wouldn't be that manuverable, so a piloting bonus wouldn't show. the normal pilot: Spacecraft skill would suffice

[Greyaxe]

Yes Pilot Space fighter is a seperate skill. What I was meaning is to have bothe ship to ship combat and Pilot Space fighter skill and have the bonuses from both skills apply to the pilots combat abilities.

[Vrykolas2k]

isn't Space combat: Fighter a seperate skill?


the Ship-to-Ship combat skill would represent the art of taking capital ships into battle. so a bonus to gunners and not pilots would make sense. kinda hard to fire guns as a pilot when the gunnery station not only has its own crew, but is half way across the bridge from you.

plus, most capital ships wouldn't be that manuverable, so a piloting bonus wouldn't show. the normal pilot: Spacecraft skill would suffice

So I can't use the Picard Maneuver anymore?

[glitterboy2098]

isn't Space combat: Fighter a seperate skill?


the Ship-to-Ship combat skill would represent the art of taking capital ships into battle. so a bonus to gunners and not pilots would make sense. kinda hard to fire guns as a pilot when the gunnery station not only has its own crew, but is half way across the bridge from you.

plus, most capital ships wouldn't be that manuverable, so a piloting bonus wouldn't show. the normal pilot: Spacecraft skill would suffice

So I can't use the Picard Maneuver anymore?

big difference between hitting the FTL drive for a few seconds, and trying to take a 200,000,000 ton brick into an Immellmen turn.


i refer to manuverbility in the sense of turn rates along the XYZ axis. a fighter would be able to do really rapid attitude changes, while a capitol ship would seem to be a lumbering whale.

for a good example, watch the Millenium Falcon escape the Star Destroyers above Hoth. the falcon is small, and thus can manuver very well, while you'll notice the big ships can barely roll fast enough to avoid colliding.

it's a mass issue. the more massive you are, the more inertia you need to build up to move the mass. so to be manuverable at great mass, you need a pretty large % of that mass to be manuvering systems.

[Braden Campbell]

I understand what Greyaxe is saying: that the pilot of, say, a small runner ship should be able to fire the weapons and dodge around an asteroid belt at the same time.

As was said previously, it could be a mass issue... that a tiny space fighter (which allows the pilot to move and fire by himself) is simply better built for the task.

Space fighters would (realistically) have improved manuvering thrusters that would let them roll, pitch, and yaw with a flick of the switch.

BUT... this skill might also be intended to be an understanding of how to use the "bigger guns" that can be mounted on combat shuttles, small runner ships, and vessels of Frigate size and larger. A comparison might be WP Heavy Weapons and WP artillery.

What I'm saying is that I'm not ready to fully weigh in on this one, as I can see both sides...

[glitterboy2098]

Hmm... I thought cap ships have more manuevring thrusters? But I also know that turning at high speed is very very difficult. I am a speed demon in cars.

more =/= better

lets say that your space fighter requires 2km/s to do a full 90 degree tilt along the Y axis (nose up/nose down)

if you double the mass, your looking at a squared increase in the needed velocity change.

so your double mass fighter would require 4km/s at least.

even the smallest capships run 10 to 1000 times more massive, if not more.

if you have a ship 100 times more massive, you need 1000 times more energy to effect the same level of change.

[glitterboy2098]

it's not surface, it's mass.
more mass = more inertia.

you remember newtons laws?

"an object in motion stays in motion, and an object at rest stays at rest, unless acted apon by an outside force."

however, what few people tend to remember that there is a correlation between mass and the needed energy.

the more massive an object, the more energy that an outside force needs to impart a change on the objects movement.

so lets say we put the same manuvering jets on a 10 ton, and a 100 ton ship.

if the ten ton ship only requires 2 seconds of thrust to get moving, the 100 ton ship will require closer to 200 seconds. this is because the energy imparted by accelleration is the same, but the amount of energy needed to overcome inertia is higher with the more massive ship.



as for weapons, yeah, but a capship will have dedicated gunnery crews seperate from the pilot.

[Jefffar]

It's more like this.

A space fighter is weapon systems, propulsion systems, control systems defensive systems and a pilot.

A capital ship is weapon systems, propulsion systems, control systems, defensive systems, hanger bay, crew quarters, galley, head, brig, observation deck, FTL system, bridge, engine room, armoury, recreation area, 3 ring circus and a few thousand crewmembers.

While in absolute terms a capital ship can carry more thrusters and more powerful thrusters than a fighter can - the ratio of the strength of those thrusters to the mass of the ship is going to be much less.

Because a space fighter doesn't have to worry about all that extra stuff, it can devote a larger proportion of its mass to things like weapon systems, propulsion systems, control systems and defensive systems. The result is that pound for pound, a space fighter is typically faster, more agile, better armed and protected than a capital ship.

But there are lots of things the fighter can't do that the capital ship can. For example, while the fighter is better armed pound for pound, that capital ship can carry weapons that are bigger and heavier than the fighter itself. Likewise, while the capital ship is slower - it has the space for a powerful FTL drive that the smaller fighter really doesn't. While proportionaly the fighter will have thicker armour and more powerful shields - in absolute terms a fighter will be atomized by a hit that won't even scratch the capital ship.

Each system has unique capabilities, advantages and disadvantages - which is why most military forces will field a mixture of capabilities.


Post Count 10 000 - 18

[Braden Campbell]

Double poster...

Shame on you. Increasing your post count needlessly like that...










+1.

[glitterboy2098]

ah, turning radii.

different than what i was saying.

yes, the shape plays a part, but it doesn't alter the math, much.

a ship twice as wide will take twice as long, but the movemnents are at the same speed, it's just the distance expands the amount of space to cover. like wheels. at the same speeds, a smaller wheel will turn faster than a larger one.

but dimensions do not alter the amount of energy to get moving. it only alters the amount needed to get a signifigant result.

i was working on the abstract, just the physics involved, not figuring in the dimensions.

[Esckey]

Okay stupid question here; Would you really need alot of manuvering thrusters when you have a CG drive? They never really cover sublight speeds, or even what a CG drive does exactly.

[glitterboy2098]

Would you really need alot of manuvering thrusters when you have a CG drive? They never really cover sublight speeds, or even what a CG drive does exactly.

no, but the manuvering function of a CG drive would just replace them, the basic issues would remain.

it's not a matter of the drive, but the nature of physics. (and even 'inertialess' drives don't ignore physics, just exploit them.)

[Esckey]

Well if a CG drive changes the mass of ship, making FTL easier, wouldn't it ease the power needed to manuver the ship?

[glitterboy2098]

it doesn't alter the mass of the ship though. it alters space so gravity has less effect.

remember, it's mass, not weight. weight is mass effected by gravity.


so while a CG drive might yoke the effects of gravity to provide thrust, it still has to overcome the inertia issues inherent in the mass of the ship.