'kay, let's talk WRONG.

[Cannonshop]

You can't build a Mitchell-Hyundine SA-43 Starfury in battletech.

No, seriously, you can't build the iconic fighter from Babylon 5 in Battletech-even using vector movement you can't do it.

in fact, you can't really build ANY non-atmospheric-capable fighters.

They just don't exist, the rules don't either.  If you use Smallcraft, then you're at an automatic disadvantage during initiative.

That's how much you can't build it.

so...what if, for your grossly-out-of-context custom faction wants this?

okay.

What if they do?

There are a few things we'll have to delete. We'll start with landing gear.

Now, since you're entirely relying on thrusters, instead of wings, we can get rid of the wings too.  Instead of wings, we'll need four locations for support struts.

That's right, four.

There will also be one location for a powerplant,

but four locations for engine assemblies.

and a fuel tank.

Oh, yeah, cockpit.  gotta have life support, and it's never going to be landing so you'll need some extra duration on that.

I think adding 50% to the weight of cockpit controls and life support works better here.

Since we're not dressing out in acres of lifting airfoil, the internal structure should be about 5% heavier (More points) for the same weight.  It's not what you think, it's that none of it has to be thin to let air pass by.

because it doesn't re-entry, duh.

Starslab is fine for the outer plating, but here's the thing: you don't need to armor every location-just the locations with stuff you need to protect, like the cockpit, the engines, whatever weapons you have, fuel tanks, and avionics bays (though you can maybe stuff those in the cockpit too, since you don't need to have aerodynamic fairings).

Potentially, you can have the support struts be unarmored, or only armored from the front, or rear, or you can armor it all evenly.  dress to suit.

Advantages:  any facing change you want? 1 MP. 

Fly backwards?? okay.

Sideways? sure, why not. 

You can even accelerate sideways, backwards, up (Positive X axis), Down (Negative X axis).

Pilot training costs:  YES, expensive.  Fifty percent higher for pilot training if you use training costs in your campaign.

Per pilot.

Drawbacks: going into atmosphere is a PSR+10 not to immediately fall out of control and burn up/plunge to your death.  There is no 'safe landing' without ejecting.  (Ejection pod CAN land safely...once.  or at least, land in such a way that it doesn't kill the pilot.)

so, is this wrong enough?

[idea weenie]

I would have gone with design it like an ASF, but instead of +2 to the Thrust rating a pure SpaceFighter would get +3 to the thrust rating.  It also is limited to a speed of one hex per turn while in atmosphere (it can't climb quickly otherwise stuff gets torn off and damaged due to air resistance), and any facing changes in atmosphere cost fuel.

The idea about it having any facing change for 1 MP is a nice one.

For all around thrusting (i.e. reverse thrusting), you might be able to go with allocating thrust points for certain directions.  I.e. a pure-space fighter with 6 pts of thrust could allocate 3 pts aft, 1 pt forward, and 1 pt to either side.  This will give it fantastic maneuverability, but poor direct-line acceleration.

[RifleMech]

Wouldn't the Non-Atmospheric Flyer Quirk work?

I'm also not sure about no landing gear and no wings. The Starfury does look like it has wings. They just don't generate lift in an atmosphere.

[Cannonshop]

Wouldn't the Non-Atmospheric Flyer Quirk work?

I'm also not sure about no landing gear and no wings. The Starfury does look like it has wings. They just don't generate lift in an atmosphere.

They're stylized struts.  It's easier to see it with the actual model, and remember also that artists are artists, not engineers-the only reason to sweep those structural supports is to give a slightly better area for mounting external ordnance than using a straight beam while still keeping the compactness to fit in a launching bay.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Unstreamlined and Weak Undercarriage quirks, Improved Life Support and Improved Communications quirks to balance.

[Cannonshop]

Unstreamlined and Weak Undercarriage quirks, Improved Life Support and Improved Communications quirks to balance.

Quirks do absolute zero for me, to be honest, I want something that if I drop the type on the table for playtesters, they're not turning the game session into debate club over whether or not the text says what the text says.

even if it's house-rules text and I had to write it.

Here's the logic behind why I did what I did.

1. Internal Structure materials.  Unlike on an airframe, you can make this shit bulky (more points) because you don't have to thin it out for aerodynamic reasons.

2. Handling tweaks: it's not meant to fly like an aeroplane, (hence the higher training cost-pilots can't go to ground school at a ground based school to get even the basic flight training on it-they pretty much HAVE to be null-gee and vac certified before they begin live-stick training, also thanks to how it maneuvers, they have to have more advanced techniques to handle negative gee loadings in addition to positive gees.)

3. Armor Scheme-the idea of it being built around the "Armored Components" scheme instead of all-over uniform unibody construction, is because it doesn't have to fight atmospheric turbulence but instead can focus on protecting vital areas because (again) you're not looking at minimizing bulk the way you have to with an actual airframe.

4. Engine distribution: four locations because widely distributed thrusters gives you less burn time for more extreme maneuvers and facing changes, something you really can't do with something that has to fight atmospheric turbulence and air resistance.  (goes to handling)
This is counter-balanced by the fact that your propulsion can be hit from any direction, not just behind, since you're also not shrouding it by burying it in a fueselage, but instead putting it out there on a boom-arm in a nacelle.  (also makes it easier to service and maintain, since it's your basic six-bolts-and-a-coverplate, only you don't need a forklift because it's in a null-gee environment at all times.)

5. No landing gear/grounding gear because you're not landing in an atmosphere, this thing can't do re-entry so you don't bother with the parasitic mass of an undercarriage at all-it's maybe got clamping points, if you're feeling spendy, because this doesn't land. 

It docks.

Because it can't be used in an air-to-mud role (Unless the target's on a moon or other airless body) the tactical use is pretty narrow-unlike the multimission flavor of an Aerospace fighter, this is more what you break out when you decide the Pirates don't get to leave the way they came in-you're going after their jumpships or their dropships.

or both, and relying on the ground units to deal with the raiding force if it gets past you coming in-they might land, they might even beat the snot out of the militia on the ground, take the water purifier parts, but then...

They've got nowhere to go unless you arrange a ride for them.

THAT is the doctrine it's for=denying the enemy their transportation assets and trapping them wherever they are.

[HobbesHurlbut]

They're stylized struts.  It's easier to see it with the actual model, and remember also that artists are artists, not engineers-the only reason to sweep those structural supports is to give a slightly better area for mounting external ordnance than using a straight beam while still keeping the compactness to fit in a launching bay.

1. mounting the thruster engine assemblies at distance from the main fuselage; this help with the rotational movement.
2. the struts can house internal fuel tanks; they're *thick* enough for that purpose

[Cannonshop]

1. mounting the thruster engine assemblies at distance from the main fuselage; this help with the rotational movement.
2. the struts can house internal fuel tanks; they're *thick* enough for that purpose

both excellent points, I was more referring to the 'swept wings' shaping-they're swept at an angle backward to let it be narrower in the bay while carrying the same ordnance load.

[Giovanni Blasini]

Quirks do absolute zero for me, to be honest, I want something that if I drop the type on the table for playtesters, they're not turning the game session into debate club over whether or not the text says what the text says.

[Cannonshop]

sorry Gio, didn't mean to come off that harsh, I just really don't like the addition of 'quirks' for tabletop play.

[Lagrange]

My understanding is that a starfury style design should be possible and should be much more maneuverable than an airplane-shaped design in space. 

The only plausible difficulty that I can think are scale related---maybe it's hard to have small scale fusion thrusters for some reason?  So that 4x small fusion thrusters somehow pay a mass penalty compared to a 1 large fusion reactor?  But this is the opposite of the standard engine tonnage/power curve, and we see no penalties at the Mammoth scale.

[Daryk]

Honestly, if you're going after JumpShips, Small Craft should work just fine...

[Cannonshop]

Honestly, if you're going after JumpShips, Small Craft should work just fine...

'just fine' isn't as good as 'oh my god'. lol.

[Daryk]

True, true.. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE the idea of "space only" fighters.  They SHOULD have advantages over craft with the compromises needed to fly aerodynamically.  But if you narrow their role to just hunting JumpShips, that's a bit of a different proposition...

[Cannonshop]

True, true.. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE the idea of "space only" fighters.  They SHOULD have advantages over craft with the compromises needed to fly aerodynamically.  But if you narrow their role to just hunting JumpShips, that's a bit of a different proposition...

Jumpers and droppers and the escorting 'compromise' fighters with them.  The main idea is to pin an enemy force in place for destruction, or try to intercept them before they reach the atmospheric boundaries. (where regular Aerofighters and aerospace fighters can take over the job).

[Daryk]

I suppose it depends ion how big a "place" you want to pin them in, much like your latest fanfic...  ^-^

[RifleMech]

They're stylized struts.  It's easier to see it with the actual model, and remember also that artists are artists, not engineers-the only reason to sweep those structural supports is to give a slightly better area for mounting external ordnance than using a straight beam while still keeping the compactness to fit in a launching bay.

Like HobbesHurlbut said, their engines are mounted at the end of the wings. That helps with maneuverability. Also the SA-32A Thunderbolt the SA-23E Starfury both share the same basic design. It's just that the SA-32A is more aerodynamic than the SA-23E. It's like the leading edge of the wing and the flaps and ailerons have been removed from the 23E's wings showing the internal skeleton of the wing. That would make it pretty difficult to fly in an atmosphere.  To keep things simple, I'd build it as an ASF and give it quirks.

Since you don't like quirks and want something different, how about...

1. building it as a vehicle? Like a VTOL or WIGE? Their chassis takes up mass. You could also allow other structure types, like Reinforced etc which could take up space. VTOLs can also carry external ordnance.

2. You could take an additional 10% for "lift systems" and call them veneer thrusters.

3. Building as a vehicle allows you at armor whatever you wanted. Although, I think ASF can used armored components too.

4. BT doesn't really do multiple engines but you could go with Vehicle Jump Jets for the Thrusters. Then just hand wave their arrangement. Plus this way one can get knocked out instead of the entire engine. Think of it as a Thorizer without the conversion systems. It also starts out with 1 ton of fuel and unless you add more it's flight range is very limited. VTOL's can't use JJs but this isn't really a VTOL but you could substitute VTOL Jet Boosters. Or even include them as an extra burst of speed. Think of it as a supercharger for the JJs.

[Cannonshop]

I suppose it depends ion how big a "place" you want to pin them in, much like your latest fanfic...  ^-^

well, 'pinning' works best when the enemy's in a system they don't wholly control, with no way out and no way to call for reinforcements.  So first you knock out their jumpships, then you hunt down their dropships, if the ground is good and hostile (say, it's a raiding force) they're going to be on the run as soon as their starlift capacity's kicked it, and you can hound and harry them to exhaustion.  (Whether physical on the ground, or running them out of fuel in space.)

if they've got more than one dropper (and really, they ought to), you pick off the weakened ones as it goes-because they ain't going nowhere, and they have to land where there's liquid water unless they've got a comet-mining rig, and being raiders, pirates, or military, they probably reserved that space for ammunition and weapons instead, being as everyone focuses on the ground game, pretty much exclusively.

Even the guys with a rep for flying, because Belters and free Spacers wouldn't be bothering to make trouble with your surface real estate when they can trade or collect out where the usual competition doesn't go.  (trade is easier on the hardware, and you don't have to clean the blood off'n it.)

Said types likely wouldn't have something comparable, because again, 'Ground game is king'-so if your system defense has these types, they're the only ones what do most times out of ten, being as it's really only good for escort flights that don't cross atmo, or defensive interceptors that base out of rocks or off of stations and carriers, that don't go in atmo.

They ain't much use for ground support, see, less'n they's doin' it on a hard-vacuum rock, and that's a pretty rare circumstance.

[Maingunnery]

Sound like you need a very big fighter:



Mammoth SpaceFighter
Type: Military Spheriod
Mass: 52,000 tons
Technology Base: Inner Sphere (Standard)
Introduced: 2658
Mass: 52,000
Battle Value: 22,988
Tech Rating/Availability: E/E-F(F*)-E-E
Cost: 1,770,910,400 C-bills

Fuel: 700 tons (7,000)
Safe Thrust: 12
Maximum Thrust: 18
Heat Sinks: 525
Structural Integrity: 40

Armor
    Nose: 430
    Sides: 360/360
    Aft: 300

Cargo
    Bay 1:  Small Craft (2)         2 Doors   
    Bay 2:  Cargo (5015.5 tons)     1 Door   

Ammunition:
    192 rounds of Gauss Rifle [IS] ammunition (1 tons),
    360 rounds of Anti-Missile System [IS] ammunition (3 tons),
    108 rounds of LRM 20 Artemis-capable ammunition (3 tons)

Escape Pods: 6
Life Boats: 0
Crew:  6 officers, 9 enlisted/non-rated, 6 gunners, 10 bay personnel      

Notes: Mounts 144 tons of ferro-aluminum armor.

Weapons:                                       Capital Attack Values (Standard)
Arc (Heat)                                 Heat  SRV     MRV     LRV     ERV   Class       
Nose (44 Heat)
2 ER Large Laser                           24   2(16)   2(16)   2(16)    0(0)  Laser       
8 Gauss Rifle                               8   12(120) 12(120) 12(120)  0(0)  AC         
    Gauss Rifle Ammo [IS] (192 shots)
2 LRM 20+Artemis IV                        12   2(24)   2(24)   2(24)    0(0)  LRM         
    LRM 20 Artemis-capable Ammo (36 shots)
RS/LS Fwd (57 Heat)
4 Large Pulse Laser                        40   4(36)   4(36)    0(0)    0(0)  Pulse Laser
5 Anti-Missile System                       5   2(15)    0(0)    0(0)    0(0)  AMS         
    Anti-Missile System Ammo [IS] (120 shots)
2 LRM 20+Artemis IV                        12   2(24)   2(24)   2(24)    0(0)  LRM         
    LRM 20 Artemis-capable Ammo (36 shots)
RS/LS Aft (24 Heat)
2 ER Large Laser                           24   2(16)   2(16)   2(16)    0(0)  Laser       
Aft (45 Heat)
4 Large Pulse Laser                        40   4(36)   4(36)    0(0)    0(0)  Pulse Laser
5 Anti-Missile System                       5   2(15)    0(0)    0(0)    0(0)  AMS         
    Anti-Missile System Ammo [IS] (120 shots)
   

[Dragon Cat]

You get DropShips that aren't atmospheric but it would be cool if fighters and DropShips designed to operate exclusively in a vacuum could do slightly different things

[Maingunnery]

You get DropShips that aren't atmospheric but it would be cool if fighters and DropShips designed to operate exclusively in a vacuum could do slightly different things

Hopefully lower cost multipliers....

[Charistoph]

The idea of setting up void-only fighters is a good idea.  They could be alternative builds like tripods and quads for mechs, or tracked vs hover for Combat Vehicles, and allowing for advantages as a result.

4. BT doesn't really do multiple engines but you could go with Vehicle Jump Jets for the Thrusters. Then just hand wave their arrangement. Plus this way one can get knocked out instead of the entire engine. Think of it as a Thorizer without the conversion systems. It also starts out with 1 ton of fuel and unless you add more it's flight range is very limited. VTOL's can't use JJs but this isn't really a VTOL but you could substitute VTOL Jet Boosters. Or even include them as an extra burst of speed. Think of it as a supercharger for the JJs.

Yes, and no.  Keep in mind that the Starfury uses a reactor as its primary energy source.  The "engines" of the Starfury are more "drives" than power-generating vector-alterating systems (aka engines).  Just like VTOLs have one engine, they drive multiple motive systems to provide its mobility.  This is how I see the Starfury operating in a BT-like atmosphere.

Hopefully lower cost multipliers....

This should be a consideration, in both C-Bills and BV.  However, there should be some drawbacks to coincide with advantages, too.

[DevianID]

I really like the quad analogy.  Quads can side step and get -2 on psr rolls; a space fighter can side thrust and get -2 psr in space; they fly like spheroids in atmo (aka fall up and down)

[RifleMech]

The idea of setting up void-only fighters is a good idea.  They could be alternative builds like tripods and quads for mechs, or tracked vs hover for Combat Vehicles, and allowing for advantages as a result.

I think void only fighters would be cool. The trick is getting the rules to see them as something different without using quirks.

Yes, and no.  Keep in mind that the Starfury uses a reactor as its primary energy source.  The "engines" of the Starfury are more "drives" than power-generating vector-alterating systems (aka engines).  Just like VTOLs have one engine, they drive multiple motive systems to provide its mobility.  This is how I see the Starfury operating in a BT-like atmosphere.

Kind of like nearly all units in BT. At least rules wise. Art is another issue.  ;)  So it shouldn't be a problem fluffing the thrust vents as being at the end of the wings instead of the aft part of the fighter.

This should be a consideration, in both C-Bills and BV.  However, there should be some drawbacks to coincide with advantages, too.

The C-Bills and BV would depend on how you build the fighter. I would guess they'd be lower than an ASF since void only fighters have a limited area of operations. Their pilots could be better in space than regular ASF pilots though as they only pilot in space.

One thing that might be different is the number of external stores that could be carried. Void fighters aren't going to be worried about so much drag that they loose lift.

[Cannonshop]

I think void only fighters would be cool. The trick is getting the rules to see them as something different without using quirks.

Kind of like nearly all units in BT. At least rules wise. Art is another issue.  ;)  So it shouldn't be a problem fluffing the thrust vents as being at the end of the wings instead of the aft part of the fighter.

The C-Bills and BV would depend on how you build the fighter. I would guess they'd be lower than an ASF since void only fighters have a limited area of operations. Their pilots could be better in space than regular ASF pilots though as they only pilot in space.

One thing that might be different is the number of external stores that could be carried. Void fighters aren't going to be worried about so much drag that they loose lift.

Okay, let's look at some napkin math and come up with something LIKE rules to go by.

Hit locations-we need to fit the likely hit locations on 2D6, with the most critical locations near the extremes of the bell curve.

Forward:

2 Nose (possible crit
Crit Locations:

• Cockpit/Pilot
• Sensors (Navigation)
• Sensors (Targeting)
• _____________
• Life support
• _____________

3 Upper left strut
Crit Locations:

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

4 Lower left strut
Crit locations:

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

5 Fuselage (left)

6 fuselage (left)

7 Nose

8 Fuselage (right)

9 Fuselage (right)

10 Lower Right Strut
Crit Locations:

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

11 Upper Right Strut

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

12 Nose (Possible crit)
Crit Locations:

• Cockpit/Pilot
• Sensors (Navigation)
• Sensors (Targeting)
• _____________
• Life support
• _____________

Items to locate (that need to be put SOMEWHERE):

Fuel Tank (4 criticals)
Control Runs (8 criticals) 1 in each strut location, plus 'body' locations.  Control run hits impose +2 Piloting, +1 Gunnery
Fusion Unit (3 for standard, 9 for XL, 7 for Clan XL or IS LFE)-must be concurrent
Ejection System (Pilot)*  Only if you're going to buy it, located at "Nose critical" from the front.
and obviously, weapons and other equipment, including external stores.

For the side arcs, hits to powerplant are added, for the rear arc, replace 'nose' with 'tail' and replace cockpit references with 'powerplant' in the critical hit tables.

This should provide ample vulnerabilities to offset the advantages in gameplay-losing thruster packs quarters your movement point total each time, a fuel tank hit can blow a strut off if it's not wrapped in CASE, and loses 1/4 of your starting fuel in thrust points.

Does it work for you guys?


[/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]

[Daryk]

I was going to say there should be a second Life Support hit, but then I saw your note about the Ejection system, so it probably works as is.

I'm also thinking the 7 result should be "Center Fuselage" vice "Nose".

3 crits seems way too small for a standard fusion unit.  I think they should be the same size as 'mech engines (6 for standard, 3 for compact, 12 for XL, 10 LFE/clan XL).

As far as the struts, if they were only 6 slots each, the crit table would resemble a quad 'mech and still have more crts overall due to fewer required components (actuators).  Making them all like arms instead of legs is a bit too much, I think.

Last, I think the 2/12 thing should be just like a 'mech.  One is the "Cockpit" (Head) location, the other is a possible critical hit (either Center Fuselage, or floating).

I'm not sure how to add the aft location.  Maybe split the crits for the Center Fuselage (6 each)?  ???

[Charistoph]

Okay, let's look at some napkin math and come up with something LIKE rules to go by.

Hit locations-we need to fit the likely hit locations on 2D6, with the most critical locations near the extremes of the bell curve.

I think it is too much, honestly, unless you're looking to have regular ASF have a similar table for them.

[DevianID]

Looking at the base fighter hit/crit chart, you could use the small craft hit/crit chart instead for these.  The main difference is that the small craft has doors and docking crits, which make sense for the starfury-ish to have as they could be externally mounted via docking arm right?

[Cannonshop]

I was going to say there should be a second Life Support hit, but then I saw your note about the Ejection system, so it probably works as is.

I'm also thinking the 7 result should be "Center Fuselage" vice "Nose".

3 crits seems way too small for a standard fusion unit.  I think they should be the same size as 'mech engines (6 for standard, 3 for compact, 12 for XL, 10 LFE/clan XL).

As far as the struts, if they were only 6 slots each, the crit table would resemble a quad 'mech and still have more crts overall due to fewer required components (actuators).  Making them all like arms instead of legs is a bit too much, I think.

Last, I think the 2/12 thing should be just like a 'mech.  One is the "Cockpit" (Head) location, the other is a possible critical hit (either Center Fuselage, or floating).

I'm not sure how to add the aft location.  Maybe split the crits for the Center Fuselage (6 each)?  ???

I think it is too much, honestly, unless you're looking to have regular ASF have a similar table for them.

Forward:

2 Nose (possible crit
Crit Locations:

• Cockpit/Pilot
• Sensors (Navigation)
• Sensors (Targeting)
• _____________
• Life support
• _____________

3 Upper left strut
Crit Locations:

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

4 Lower left strut
Crit locations:

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

5 Fuselage (left)

6 fuselage (left)

7 Nose (Center fuselage on Left or Right tables)

• Power plant

• Power Plant

8 Fuselage (right)

9 Fuselage (right)

10 Lower Right Strut
Crit Locations:

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

11 Upper Right Strut

• Thruster Nacelle (+1 all PSR, lose 1/4 MP)

12 Nose (Possible crit)
Crit Locations:

• Cockpit/Pilot
• Sensors (Navigation)
• Sensors (Targeting)
• Life support
• Life Support

a note on the "Nose" (so to speak): cockpit's going to be centrally mounted as close to the center of mass as physically possible (this should make sense to anyone who's seen someone black out due to acceleration on a carnival ride).  Likewise you'd want to bury your main powerplant as close to the middle as possible since it's essentially there to create wattage, not thrust.  (thrust is generated at the thrusters, y'all)  but that's also where you're going to put as many of your straight-line weapons as you can (hence the resemblance to a 'mech's center torso location). "Light" or "XL" would spread vulnerability into the left and right (Bulkier).  one of the trade-offs here is that on a standard ASF or small craft, your powerplant and your thrusters are co-located for aerodynamic/streamlining for atmosphere purposes, while they're separated on this layout.

Each 'fuel tank' crit you purchase is 1.5 tons of compressed liquid hydrogen or Deuterium slurry.or whatever it is that is going to be shoved into the thrusters and superheated to fusion events before being ejected out the nozzles to provide thrust.  making them discreet locations means you can (theoretically) concentrate it in a single location like a traditional ASF, or spread it out so that hits only remove a fraction, instead of the whole bundle.

The cockpit hits are sitting at the extremes on the front arc, because there are two of them from the front, but only one cockpit.  It's a little like the inverse of your 'mech chart, in that pilot hits are about twice as likely while still being relatively rare.

[Col Toda]

They were Babylon 5 games out there . Both RPG and space combat minitures . Battletech was developed in the 80s . It has its own  SF tone of big mecha fused with a Sharps Rifle Napoleonic culture for 2/3 of its original created material and Japanese and Chinese analogs for the remaining 1/3 . Where areospace fighters was influenced by Buck Rogers and Battle Star Galactica.  Battletech has become its own franchise and the retro feel is just an aspect of the game now . The  CW is rebbooting B5 maybe you can get your fix that way . I just do not see Battletech is going to revamp the aerospace rules offically . In battletech aerospace that cannot operate in atmosphere for ground support is just not flexible enough to build in the first place save for the canon super cargo Haulers .

[Coldstone]

Why not go for the SA-43 Hammerhead from Space above and beyond. That one should be doable with BT Technology.

[idea weenie]

Why not go for the SA-43 Hammerhead from Space above and beyond. That one should be doable with BT Technology.

The SA-43 is an ASF, not a pure space fighter.  Some people even thought it looked like an air-breathing fighter.

[Cannonshop]

They were Babylon 5 games out there . Both RPG and space combat minitures . Battletech was developed in the 80s . It has its own  SF tone of big mecha fused with a Sharps Rifle Napoleonic culture for 2/3 of its original created material and Japanese and Chinese analogs for the remaining 1/3 . Where areospace fighters was influenced by Buck Rogers and Battle Star Galactica.  Battletech has become its own franchise and the retro feel is just an aspect of the game now . The  CW is rebbooting B5 maybe you can get your fix that way . I just do not see Battletech is going to revamp the aerospace rules offically . In battletech aerospace that cannot operate in atmosphere for ground support is just not flexible enough to build in the first place save for the canon super cargo Haulers .

(Points to the title)  Did I NOT say at the start, 'this is supposed to be wrong'?

[victor_shaw]

First let me clarify, I would love to see a more GURPS 3rd edition style all around unified construction system that allows for the construction of any type of equipment/vehicle/fighter/spacecraft/etc. But the fact is there is no need for it in the BTU as the rules for BT physics and construction have been set. (however non-intelligible they are)

I'm also going to say that this is a pointless discussion without the contexts that the Starfury was designed in. The reason for the design as it stands, is due to the overall (vs. the rest of the powers) lower tech level of earth. Unlike in most SF settings EF is not the most advanced or even equal with a lot of the other powers technologically speaking. Even the Narn that are relatively lower tech then the major races, are more advanced then EF in some aspects of ship design. So the EF design bureau decided to ditch the idea of a Aerospace fighter and go with a Space Superiority fighter giving up the ability to enter atmosphere to give the fighter better space performance. Without the need to make the fighter aerodynamic and provide a lift body they where able to create a fighter that could turn on a dime and be more fuel efficient.

Now back to the BTU. Fighter designers in the BTU do not have to worry about more advanced races or alien tech, so they could make a more jack of all trades Aerospace fighter. Now since the tech to make these has been around for a long time in the BTU no one is going to hamstring their fighters by making them space specific.

[Daryk]

If there was a sufficient advantage over a jack-of-all-trades design, they would.  I think that's what Cannonshop is chasing.  There are deep space facilities no where near an atmosphere, so there could be an economic advantage if there were:

a) enough of an advantage over jack-of-all-trades designs

AND

b) enough deep space targets to protect

I think Cannonshop's various fan fiction entries demonstrate the latter.  He's after the former in this thread.  What those advantages are, I'm curious to see...

[victor_shaw]

If there was a sufficient advantage over a jack-of-all-trades design, they would.  I think that's what Cannonshop is chasing.  There are deep space facilities no where near an atmosphere, so there could be an economic advantage if there were:

a) enough of an advantage over jack-of-all-trades designs

AND

b) enough deep space targets to protect

I think Cannonshop's various fan fiction entries demonstrate the latter.  He's after the former in this thread.  What those advantages are, I'm curious to see...

While you have some valid points.
General use equipment has proven time and time again to be more cost efficient and overall useful then mission specific equipment. The only time that mission specific equipment wins out is when General use equipment proves unable to handle the current threat, and this is normally only for a short time before the tech for the General use equipment catches-up.

So the advantages of a space only fighter would have to be substantial compared to an aerospace fighter for it to even be considered as an option.

[RifleMech]

I can see some groups, like Belters, using purely space fighters. Unless they're invading a planet, why would their fighters need wings, tails, stabilizers, flaps, and all the other things an atmospheric aircraft needs to fly? That said, Starfurys are built along conventional lines. Their "wings" may not support lift but they're still built like wings and support engines/thrusters and ordnance. So I don't think we need to deviate too much from the rules. Besides the non atmospheric quirk, I'm leaning towards a lighter engine by subtracting 2.5 instead of 2. That's as close as I can get in terms of weight loss by stripping everything atmospheric from the craft. So a 100 ton ASF with a safe thrust of 6 would have an engine rating of 400. A 100 ton SF with a safe thrust of 6 would have an engine rating of 350.

I'd also thinking of adapting Atmospheric and VTOL Rotor quirks. SF would get the space equivalent of the Atmospheric Quirk. Then to differentiate more between space fighters, SF without wings would use the Co-axial Rotor Quirk while SF like the Starfury would use the Dual Rotor Quirk.

[Daryk]

Here's an analogy:

Which would you rather have on land, a tank or an amphibious assault vehicle?  8)

[idea weenie]

For me, I'd go with giving pure-space fighters the higher of +3 or +25% to their Thrust rating (compared to ASF getting +2), but taking damage if a pure-space fighter moves more than 1 hex per turn in atmosphere.

So the PSF can land and take off from a planet, but it will be slow and clumsy the entire time.  Once they are back in space, they can have fun.  For the opposing ASF, fun has them.

Here's an analogy:

Which would you rather have on land, a tank or an amphibious assault vehicle?  8)

Very good analogy too

[Daryk]

At the very least a pure space fighter should behave like a spheroid in atmosphere (if you let them enter it at all).

[Maingunnery]

The largest benefit that I find reasonable for a pure-space fighter (inc SC & DS) would be a significant cost reduction.
The construction rules could really use a pure-space cost modifier for ASF/SC/DS.

[Daemion]

Tagging to catch up.  I'm interested in this.