Should Fighters Need Commanders?

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think that Starwars and many other sci-fi just have incredible sized for their ships for no real good reasons other than just because, there are no real thought behind why they are the way they are. It become more like a contest in which lore have the biggest ships and that become tiresome quite fast in my personal taste. WH-40k are sort of the end of the spectrum here with their hulking cathedrals in space using VAST open space inside their ships...makes little sense but perhaps cool for cinematic effects. These ships are just meant to be cool and nothing else.

Eh, I won't contest the fact that WH40k is just trying to look cool

However regarding star wars, I was a fan of the extended universe lore (not the CRAP that disney made afterwards). I even have all the sourcebooks for the pen and paper RPG (which I used to play with friends).

In those, and keep in mind this is basically "official" material before disney came and ruined everything, there was a mission description for the various ship classes, and for battleship it read something like this:

A battleship is supposed to be a force strong enough to lay waste to most "normal" star systems on its own, carry enough troops to mount a credible offensive against a "normal" planent, bombard a "normal" planet into submission, act as a command and control center, carry a full wing of fighters into battle, have enough assorted small ships and shuttles for a variety of situations, and have enough supplies to stay operative for years.

That's a lot to ask from one ship. I would say that being 1km long or more is certainly warranted for all that. And it fits, considering it's literally a galaxy-spanning setting.
Now, I don't want to talk about realism when we're talking about sci-fi. But I don't feel it was for "big for no real reason"
But hey, maybe I'm a bit on the fanboy side of things here 

Sorry, I derailed the thread 

I have all those Star Wars RPG books sitting above my computer on the shelf too and I love reading those book even today. They describe the military organisation and the different ships and their operational use etc... they are quite a good read.

The problem is that in Aurora ship weapons and armour are allot more compact and powerful than for example a typical Star Wars ships are described to be. They don't scale in the same way... an Aurora ship the size of a "Star Wars" "Star Destroyer" would have far more of everything. If you made Tie Fighters the size of say the smallest fighter possible and used Gauss guns as blasters they could potentially be very small.

Here is the closes I get to a Star Wars TIE fighter...

Code: [Select]

TIE/ln class Space Superiority Fighter      84 tons       4 Crew       30.2 BP       TCS 2    TH 15    EM 0
8981 km/s      Armour 1-1       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.5
Maint Life 0 Years     MSP 0    AFR 16%    IFR 0.2%    1YR 1    5YR 14    Max Repair 16.0 MSP
Lieutenant Commander    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 3 days    Morale Check Required   

Sienar Fleet Systems STD-P54  Twin Ion Drives (1)    Power 15.0    Fuel Use 4676.54%    Signature 15.00    Explosion 30%
Fuel Capacity 3,000 Litres    Range 0.1 billion km (4 hours at full power)

Cydyne Corporation Twin Blaster Cannons (1x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 8,981 km/s     Accuracy Modifier 8.00%     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Sienar Fleet Systems BL5-YN  Targeting Computer System (1)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
An Imperial Star Destroyer only carried about 72 of these (TIE of different kinds) so not that many for the size of such a ship. In Aurora you need about 6000t worth of Hangars to fit those fighters.

[Jorgen_CAB]

To evolve the Star Wars theme a bit more... and derail the thread even more...

Each Imperial Star Destroyer carries a full division of troops and a large engineering section to construct whatever base on a planet necessary to garrison it.

A division is roughly...

10000 soldier
500 light/medium vehicles
50 Heavy Vehicles

I also count an extra
20 Very Heavy Vehicles (AT-AT)
30 Light Asssault/Scout (AT-ST)

10.000t Engineering Vehicles/Equipment

That is a total ground force of about... 100.000t of ground troops.

This give an Aurora...

Code: [Select]

Imperial II class Star Destroyer      625,000 tons       18,947 Crew       105,788 BP       TCS 12,500    TH 48,600    EM 10,320
3888 km/s    JR 3-50      Armour 12-651       Shields 344-537       HTK 4560      Sensors 110/110/0/0      DCR 1976      PPV 1,602.6
Maint Life 3.79 Years     MSP 187,879    AFR 1760%    IFR 24.4%    1YR 20,547    5YR 308,208    Max Repair 18033.7 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 10,000 tons     Troop Capacity 100,000 tons     Drop Capable    Cargo 5,000    Cryogenic Berths 10,000    Cargo Shuttle Multiplier 4    Tractor Beam     
Captain    Control Rating 6   BRG   AUX   ENG   CIC   FLG   PFC   
Intended Deployment Time: 24 months    Flight Crew Berths 200    Morale Check Required   

Kuat Drive D-625  Class-2  Primary Hyperdrive     Max Ship Size 625000 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 3

Cygnus Spaceworks Gemon-4 Ion Engines (18)    Power 48600.0    Fuel Use 31.76%    Signature 2700.00    Explosion 13%
Fuel Capacity 40,119,000 Litres    Range 36.4 billion km (108 days at full power)
KDY-58  Deflector Shield Generator Dome (2)     Recharge Time 537 seconds (0.6 per second)

XX-20  Turbolaser Battery (50x2)    Range 320,000km     TS: 6000 km/s     Power 20-10     RM 40,000 km    ROF 10       
XX-15  Turbolaser Battery (50x2)    Range 240,000km     TS: 6000 km/s     Power 12-6     RM 40,000 km    ROF 10       
XG100  Quad PD Laser Cannons (80x4)    Range 40,000km     TS: 16000 km/s     Power 0-0     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
C180  Ion Cannon (20)    Range 200,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 10-5    ROF 10       
R200  Tractor Beam Projector (10)    Range 200,000km     TS: 4,000 km/s     Power 10-5     RM 200,000 km    ROF 10       
Indigo Secondary Targeting Computer System (3)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 4,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Zergon Corporation Point-defence Targeting Computer System (4)     Max Range: 40,000 km   TS: 16,000 km/s     75 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Indigo Turbolaser Targeting Computer System (4)     Max Range: 320,000 km   TS: 6,000 km/s     97 94 91 88 84 81 78 75 72 69
Cydyne D43/242  Solar Ionization Reactor (4)     Total Power Output 971.6    Exp 10%

Cydyne High Resolution Sensor System (2)     GPS 12600     Range 94.6m km    Resolution 120
Cydyne Low Resolution Seonsor System (2)     GPS 2100     Range 52m km    Resolution 20
Cydyne Torpedo Detection Sensor (2)     GPS 105     Range 19.2m km    MCR 1.7m km    Resolution 1
Fortis Tech EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  82.9m km
Fortis Tech Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 110     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  82.9m km
ELINT Module (1)     Sensitivity 5     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  17.7m km

ECCM-2 (8)         ECM 20

The only troublesome component is the Jump-drive... I simply had to SM the best possible type... so any campaign using super large ships probably should just give max Jump-drive efficiency from the start.

This ship can
 easily accompany 70 TIE-fighters plus any assortment of boarding shuttles and small patrol ships.

[Zincat]

That's an amazing attempt at replicating a Star Destroyer 

I would assume that, in Aurora's terms, you'd need more cargo, as given the description in the various books you'd guess it would have a lot more "generic" supplies apart from just MSP. 

Also the hangar deck would need to be larger, as in the star wars universe they seem to be quite spacious.
Keep in mind, we literally see a corellian corvette being tractored inside. And that's a 150 meters long ship. A quick and dirty calculation makes it around 100000 m^3, or about 7000 tons by itself. That is in excess of any other ships the ISD was carrying already.

But still, an amazing design 

I had not considered the maximum size of the military jump drive. That's a problem, yeah.

[Jorgen_CAB]

That's an amazing attempt at replicating a Star Destroyer 

I would assume that, in Aurora's terms, you'd need more cargo, as given the description in the various books you'd guess it would have a lot more "generic" supplies apart from just MSP. 

Also the hangar deck would need to be larger, as in the star wars universe they seem to be quite spacious.
Keep in mind, we literally see a corellian corvette being tractored inside. And that's a 150 meters long ship. A quick and dirty calculation makes it around 100000 m^3, or about 7000 tons by itself. That is in excess of any other ships the ISD was carrying already.

But still, an amazing design 

I had not considered the masimum size of the military jump drive. That's a problem, yeah.

Here is a Corellian CR-90 non militiarized version... so basically the civilian version...

Code: [Select]

Corellian CR-90 class Transport      8,749 tons       241 Crew       1,478.1 BP       TCS 175    TH 625    EM 900
3571 km/s    JR 1-50      Armour 4-37       Shields 30-300       HTK 62      Sensors 11/11/0/0      DCR 6      PPV 34.24
Maint Life 3.05 Years     MSP 633    AFR 102%    IFR 1.4%    1YR 102    5YR 1,530    Max Repair 312.50 MSP
Hangar Deck Capacity 375 tons     Cargo 500   
Commander    Control Rating 1   BRG   
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Flight Crew Berths 40    Morale Check Required   

Mason-Branger JP50  Class-2  Hyperdrive     Max Ship Size 8750 tons    Distance 50k km     Squadron Size 1

Girodyne Tier-58  Ion Turbine Stardrive (1)    Power 625.0    Fuel Use 52.41%    Signature 625.00    Explosion 12%
Fuel Capacity 748,000 Litres    Range 29.4 billion km (95 days at full power)
Phoah-Kingsmeyer 484-J4E  Shield Projector (1)     Recharge Time 300 seconds (0.1 per second)

Taim & Bak H9 Twin Turbolaser Turret (2x2)    Range 160,000km     TS: 8000 km/s     Power 8-8     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Taim & Bak H6 Single Turbolaser Turret (4x1)    Range 120,000km     TS: 12000 km/s     Power 3-3     RM 40,000 km    ROF 5       
Pheren Tech Type-40  Targeting Computer System (1)     Max Range: 160,000 km   TS: 12,000 km/s     94 88 81 75 69 62 56 50 44 38
Pheren Tech Type-80  Targeting Computer System (1)     Max Range: 240,000 km   TS: 8,000 km/s     96 92 88 83 79 75 71 67 62 58
Mason-Branger 7085-12  Ionization Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 12.5    Exp 20%
Mason-Branger 7085-16  Ionization Reactor (1)     Total Power Output 16.5    Exp 20%

Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite  High Resolution Sensor (1)     GPS 2240     Range 42.7m km    Resolution 80
Pax Hustana XN-03 Suite  Torpedo Detection Sensor (1)     GPS 28     Range 9.9m km    MCR 891.1k km    Resolution 1
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  EM Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11.0     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km
Pax Hustana  XN-03 Suite  Thermal Sensor (1)     Sensitivity 11.0     Detect Sig Strength 1000:  26.2m km

Compact ECCM-1 (1)         ECM 10

I have looked at some other ships to... my conclusion is that the smaller ships get in Star Wars the more like Aurora in size the get in terms of capabilities while the larger ships are really oversized for what they actually do.

Aurora probably is the better balancing force here as it actually does factor in allot of more realistic factors.

In terms of the actual capacity of an Imperial II star-destroyer it should not be as large as it is in Star Wars... even if you were to add maybe an additional 20.000-30.000t hangar space to it to accommodate a few more ships to dock with it. We also have see that the Drop Capable troops transport facilities carry all the transport needed for dropping troops and the Cargo Shuttle module also have allot of ships in them as well. The Hangars only hold ships that has anything to do with the troops or cargo (except assualt shuttles for boarding actions as the Gamma class),.

The Corellian version above are quite comparable to an Aurora version.

I choose to add hangars to the Corvette as it was known for its extreme modular capabilities and adding Luxury liner modules to fir 600 passengers did not fit well with the what the corvette was used for so I used space roughly 75% extra space of what the crew would get and it should only have about 250t Aurora cargo space (3000 metric tones) but 500t was the smaller so I chose a bit less hangar space to compensate.
But the above should reflect a Corellian Corvette roughly speaking.

Have we derailed this thread enough now... but it is fun trying to replicate these ships.   

[liveware]

A test fighter in my game for example need 30t living space for 20 people for a 3 month deployment operation... it would not be very reasonable to think that 30 cubic meters is anywhere near enough for that. That is what 15 square meters of space to live on roughly.

The bridge of most ships are about 50t which would be about 25 square meters or a 5*5 room, that is VERY small as you need all the equipment in there too... not just the people working there.

Submarine crews have been crammed into pretty small spaces for a few months at a time. 1.5 cubic meters per person would certainly be tight, but if you throw in hot-bunking it's probably possible. Well, provided you're ignoring food stores. Three months of preserved food is probably going to put that over the edge.

The bridge is easier - since (small) ships work without a bridge, most of the fundamental control equipment must not be coming out of the bridge tonnage at all.

Submarines are a pretty good example and even if they are cramped the crew don't live in 1.5 cubic meters... you don't only count their sleeping quarters but all living space on the ship. A fighter and FAC also include all of the working space as well into this space. It also include ALL the space for the equipment, bulkheads, water and life support machinery etc. So perhaps two third or as little as half of the space is actual space for the crew to move around in, tops.

I think I remember that Steve said something a few years ago about using submarines and living space as one of the measurements for the space needed for space ship in Aurora so he clearly have thought this through more than once.

Submarines have allot more space than 1.5 cubic meters for the crew to live and work on, even in a small diesel submarine.

If you are dedicated to determining the level of reality of Aurora, you might consider historical airship designs, such as those used in the early 20th century. In that context, the volume consideration based on liquid hydrogen is much more relevant and interesting than for submarines immersed in water.

[Garfunkel]

Do you think it is necessary for fighter craft to have commanders?

Yes.

[liveware]

I see some of my Barracuda heavy fighters made it into this thread. Below is my 'light' fighter concept which has only 3 crew, which I typically assume to be a pilot, missile gunner, and flight engineer:

Code: [Select]

Piranha-MF class Fighter      108 tons       3 Crew       28 BP       TCS 2    TH 35    EM 0
16296 km/s      Armour 1-2       Shields 0-0       HTK 1      Sensors 0/0/0/0      DCR 0      PPV 0.9
Maint Life 33.94 Years     MSP 16    AFR 1%    IFR 0.0%    1YR 0    5YR 0    Max Repair 17.5 MSP
Magazine 9   
Lieutenant    Control Rating 1   
Intended Deployment Time: 0.3 days    Morale Check Required   

Chaimberlin-Sherman Internal Fusion Drive  EP35.00 (1)    Power 35    Fuel Use 2241.05%    Signature 35    Explosion 25%
Fuel Capacity 7,000 Litres    Range 0.5 billion km (8 hours at full power)

Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Box Launcher (7)     Missile Size: 1    Hangar Reload 50 minutes    MF Reload 8 hours
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 2.0 Box Launcher (1)     Missile Size: 2    Hangar Reload 70 minutes    MF Reload 11 hours
Chaimberlin-Sherman Missile Fire Control FC5-R1 (50%) (1)     Range 5.4m km    Resolution 1
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 2 Anti-Ship Missile (1)    Speed: 50,000 km/s    End: 0.2m     Range: 0.7m km    WH: 3    Size: 2    TH: 233/140/70
Chaimberlin-Sherman Size 1 Anti-Ship Missile (7)    Speed: 50,000 km/s    End: 0.1m     Range: 0.4m km    WH: 1    Size: 1    TH: 216/130/65

Missile to hit chances are vs targets moving at 3000 km/s, 5000 km/s and 10,000 km/s

This design is classed as a Fighter for production, combat and planetary interaction

I usually assume the pilot is the 'commander'.

I have noticed that it is worth optimizing for tiny fighters, even though the allowed fighter tonnage maxes out at 500 tons. It is possible to fit some small useful weapon systems on tiny fighters and swarms of them can be used to good effect.

[Droll]

Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not fighters need or dont need commanders - I wan't the ability to exclude specific classes from auto assignment so if I have 100s of defence satellites in orbit of a planet my lieutenants don't get taken up by them. Its not a problem for commanding officers but since auto assignment considers command positions over bridge crew it hampers my ability to field tactical officers etc.

[liveware]

Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not fighters need or dont need commanders - I wan't the ability to exclude specific classes from auto assignment so if I have 100s of defence satellites in orbit of a planet my lieutenants don't get taken up by them. Its not a problem for commanding officers but since auto assignment considers command positions over bridge crew it hampers my ability to field tactical officers etc.

Why not just build more military academies? Then you would have more lieutenants?

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not fighters need or dont need commanders - I wan't the ability to exclude specific classes from auto assignment so if I have 100s of defence satellites in orbit of a planet my lieutenants don't get taken up by them. Its not a problem for commanding officers but since auto assignment considers command positions over bridge crew it hampers my ability to field tactical officers etc.

What I would go for is priory 0 taking surplus officers and immediately giving them up when a better post opens up, and negative priority not getting anyone assigned.

Honestly it doesn't matter to me whether or not fighters need or dont need commanders - I wan't the ability to exclude specific classes from auto assignment so if I have 100s of defence satellites in orbit of a planet my lieutenants don't get taken up by them. Its not a problem for commanding officers but since auto assignment considers command positions over bridge crew it hampers my ability to field tactical officers etc.

Why not just build more military academies? Then you would have more lieutenants?

Then there would be hundreds of lieutenants with no job openings when they get promoted from do-nothing positions.  There is the number of academies needed and the needless expense of building them.  Ships that are RPed as unmanned shouldn't have officers assigned to them.  The problem isn't that there aren't enough lieutenants, but that not every ship should have one.

[Garfunkel]

Star Wars sizes have no reason aside from rule of cool. The sizes came first, then afterward few nerds were hired to come up with the filling for the ships. To be fair to them, they came up with a lot of good reasons why the SW ships are the way they are but in the end, the real reason is that George Lucas thought that big numbers are cooler than small numbers.

[Jorgen_CAB]

A test fighter in my game for example need 30t living space for 20 people for a 3 month deployment operation... it would not be very reasonable to think that 30 cubic meters is anywhere near enough for that. That is what 15 square meters of space to live on roughly.

The bridge of most ships are about 50t which would be about 25 square meters or a 5*5 room, that is VERY small as you need all the equipment in there too... not just the people working there.

Submarine crews have been crammed into pretty small spaces for a few months at a time. 1.5 cubic meters per person would certainly be tight, but if you throw in hot-bunking it's probably possible. Well, provided you're ignoring food stores. Three months of preserved food is probably going to put that over the edge.

The bridge is easier - since (small) ships work without a bridge, most of the fundamental control equipment must not be coming out of the bridge tonnage at all.

Submarines are a pretty good example and even if they are cramped the crew don't live in 1.5 cubic meters... you don't only count their sleeping quarters but all living space on the ship. A fighter and FAC also include all of the working space as well into this space. It also include ALL the space for the equipment, bulkheads, water and life support machinery etc. So perhaps two third or as little as half of the space is actual space for the crew to move around in, tops.

I think I remember that Steve said something a few years ago about using submarines and living space as one of the measurements for the space needed for space ship in Aurora so he clearly have thought this through more than once.

Submarines have allot more space than 1.5 cubic meters for the crew to live and work on, even in a small diesel submarine.

If you are dedicated to determining the level of reality of Aurora, you might consider historical airship designs, such as those used in the early 20th century. In that context, the volume consideration based on liquid hydrogen is much more relevant and interesting than for submarines immersed in water.

To be honest this make no sense what so ever as the two have no relation with each other.

One is the scale at which the game is considering the ship, the other is the space which crew need for living and the space needed for all the equipment and material such as bulkheads and life support.

[alex_brunius]

Star Wars sizes have no reason aside from rule of cool. The sizes came first, then afterward few nerds were hired to come up with the filling for the ships. To be fair to them, they came up with a lot of good reasons why the SW ships are the way they are but in the end, the real reason is that George Lucas thought that big numbers are cooler than small numbers.

I disagree. I think the reason is because it's much more relatable to real world fighters airplanes which from WW1 until today have almost all of them been single pilot planes.

If you look at star wars in general the genius about it is that all locations, characters and vehicles are in some way instantly relatable to real world counterparts which helps massively to build immersion and feel attached to the world.


Edit: For the same reason I really love to have leaders start their Career as a fighter commander and work their way up to one day command an entire Carrier Strike group. It feels relatable to how things work in the real world.

[Jorgen_CAB]

but in the end, the real reason is that George Lucas thought that big numbers are cooler than small numbers.

I disagree. I think the reason is because it's much more relatable to real world fighters airplanes which from WW1 until today have almost all of them been single pilot planes.

If you look at star wars in general the genius about it is that all locations, characters and vehicles are in some way instantly relatable to real world counterparts which helps massively to build immersion and feel attached to the world.

I think that you are both right... of course... when you make a movie everything need to be relatable to something or the audience will not get what the makers are trying to convey which most of the time is a feeling of some kind.

The enormous size of big capital ships IS cool and give a certain feeling... the problem comes when you try to back fill their use after the fact. These ships are so massive that it is almost ridiculous. If you ever tried to make a ship that massive in Aurora you could fit so much stuff in it that it becomes unreal. From an Aurora perspective such large ships make very little sense. The capabilities of these ships from the lore simply don't make them justice in comparison with the smaller ships, such as the Corellian corvette above that have allot more realistic proportions from an Aurora perspective.

Now. getting back to "fighters" in Aurora is that I don't actually like the term fighter for the reason it give people the wrong impression for what they really are... small space ships.

I think that missile fighters have way too few crew than for example a beam fighter that usually need something like 15-20 crew (unless it is a Gauss fighter). Box launcher require no crew, small missile fire-controls does not require crew and other small sensors does not require crew either. In my opinion these things should require crew to operate, even box launchers given the size of these system should need at least some engineers to maintain. Sensors certainly should need crew to both operate and maintain even if very small, at least one crew per system you attach no matter how small.

I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.

Sure you can solve it with more Academies and you probably should build enough of them, but sometimes pure chance will make sure that some skills are not distributed in enough quantities so there might not be enough tactical officers and most of the ones you have goes to useless fighter positions instead. So you always need to over produce officers so you have the ones you really need not just enough of them.

It would at least be good if you could set the priorities our self which positions are the most important.

Now... I might also think that in the same spirit of balance one should perhaps think about the implication of building thousands of small stations and fighters before doing that in the first place as well. Sometimes building larger vessels or stations is what you should do to preserve good leadership, the same things goes for ships. Large ships will be able to much better use good leadership... so either you match the Academies with the amount of ships you build or you will sit there with lots of ships and stations but no good officers to command them.
When you expand your fleet you must also make sure you expand your academies as well to fit the fleet you build. So if you build hundreds or thousands of small ships/fighters/stations you need to match that with even more Academies as well.

[alex_brunius]

I do agree that you should be able to opt out of using commanding officers on small crafts in favour of other more important positions such as executive officer or commander of a CIC on a capital ship. Fighter should have the lowest of priorities followed by FAC and then as bridge crew of capital ships. It is is irritating when a fighter gets commanded before you get a CIC officer on your most important ships for example.

I thought it was already possible to do this by setting the Commander Priority of your larger ships to be higher than that of the fighters. Haven't tested it myself but doesn't this work?