| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:05 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | vanir wrote: | Okay I'm out. I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark and guess you don't like the B-Wing very much 
Kind of partial to the A-Wing myself. |
I like the look of it, and think that it's a great concept, but when i try to find a practical application for that ship, I find that there aren't that many options. The only one I have been able to come up with is my flying turret concept, which no one else seems interested in. Cest la vie. |
Perhaps the flaw here is trying to find a practical application for something that was made to look cool on camera. I'm sure everyone in the art department said "that looks cool!" but not a person said "hhmmmm, why would the cockpit turn around like that?"
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | Perhaps the flaw here is trying to find a practical application for something that was made to look cool on camera. I'm sure everyone in the art department said "that looks cool!" but not a person said "hhmmmm, why would the cockpit turn around like that?" |
Now where is the fun in that? 
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Good point
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 01, 2011 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| vanir wrote: | | You and I are flying in formation. You bank right, I bank left. We lose sight of each other. If my cockpit stayed upright while my aircraft banked left, I'd be still watching you whilst you lost sight of me, right? |
In a real fighter, you and I are flying in formation. You bank right, I bank left. I lose sight of you, but my cockpit has rotated along with the res of the airframe to give me a very clear and easy view of where I'm turning. Your cockpit stays upright and you can see me, but you only have 50% of a view of where you are going. Furthermore, it's the lower 50%, you know, where mountains and SAMs live.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I do believe that rear firing CM launcher was used in the same fashion rear gunner turrets on modern/ww2 planes were used for. TO hit stuff on your tail!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I do believe that rear firing CM launcher was used in the same fashion rear gunner turrets on modern/ww2 planes were used for. TO hit stuff on your tail! |
Except that if the target is on your tail, then the target must be moving about as fast as the Preybird (space 8) which according to the RAW adds +20 to the difficulty of the shot. Due the difficulty of hitting a moving ship with a missile, a laser or ion cannon would make a much better tail gun. Based on the existing rules, I think a parting shot at a slower moving transport or stationary target as the Preybird is flying away makes much more sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It might be harder to hit a ship following you, but it would also make life much more difficult for them to hit you too- which is very important if you don't want to die.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2011 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | It might be harder to hit a ship following you, but it would also make life much more difficult for them to hit you too- which is very important if you don't want to die. |
I agree. To a smuggler, getting away is probably more important than getting to paint another kill on your cockpit. Firing a concussion missile may not produce a hit, but it may make your pursuer evade the shot. If you are getting chased by a larger ship, your chances of getting in a hit do go up (scale modifiers).
On top of that, the target movement modifiers for concussion missiles make little sense in this case. I can see it if the target is moving laterally, but in this case, the target is chasing after the ship doing the shooting. If the pursuer is serious, it's sitting right in the ship's aft fire arc, doing its best to catch up, not dodging around.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 12:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | I do believe that rear firing CM launcher was used in the same fashion rear gunner turrets on modern/ww2 planes were used for. TO hit stuff on your tail! |
Except that if the target is on your tail, then the target must be moving about as fast as the Preybird (space 8) which according to the RAW adds +20 to the difficulty of the shot. Due the difficulty of hitting a moving ship with a missile, a laser or ion cannon would make a much better tail gun. Based on the existing rules, I think a parting shot at a slower moving transport or stationary target as the Preybird is flying away makes much more sense. |
Since those rules imo would also apply to other weapons (or should) then i think it would be allowable to have the combined speed (if i am going space 7 and you are on my @$$ at space 5) the net speed for you should be space 2. BUT if we are going head to head, it would be space 12..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Since those rules imo would also apply to other weapons (or should) then i think it would be allowable to have the combined speed (if i am going space 7 and you are on my @$$ at space 5) the net speed for you should be space 2. BUT if we are going head to head, it would be space 12.. |
I was pointing out the RAW. For missile weapons, I agree that the relative speed is what should actually be relevant with one caveat. The faster the actual speed, the higher the angular velocity as the two ships move and turn and a high angular velocity may make it more difficult for Star Wars missiles to hit a target. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | I was pointing out the RAW. For missile weapons, I agree that the relative speed is what should actually be relevant with one caveat. The faster the actual speed, the higher the angular velocity as the two ships move and turn and a high angular velocity may make it more difficult for Star Wars missiles to hit a target. |
IMO, angle of attack should also be considered. A target closing or running away is showing much less relative motion than a target running perpendicular to the missile's flight path.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Since those rules imo would also apply to other weapons (or should) then i think it would be allowable to have the combined speed (if i am going space 7 and you are on my @$$ at space 5) the net speed for you should be space 2. BUT if we are going head to head, it would be space 12.. |
I was pointing out the RAW. For missile weapons, I agree that the relative speed is what should actually be relevant with one caveat. The faster the actual speed, the higher the angular velocity as the two ships move and turn and a high angular velocity may make it more difficult for Star Wars missiles to hit a target. |
I have never understood why the RAW only had "SPEED" modifiers to hit for Proton torps and concussion missiles.. nver for ground combat, or other space weaponry...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | IMO, angle of attack should also be considered. A target closing or running away is showing much less relative motion than a target running perpendicular to the missile's flight path. |
Only if the first ship is flying straight and not trying to dodge (which seems unlikely if someone is on the first ship's six). It the first ship is trying to dodge than the following ship must follow which will necessarily involve a path that is not straight. Thus creating angular motion.
In addition, a simple perpendicular path is easy to adjust for. Otherwise the wet navy tactic of crossing another vessel's T would be ineffective - which it was not. | garhkal wrote: | | I have never understood why the RAW only had "SPEED" modifiers to hit for Proton torps and concussion missiles.. nver for ground combat, or other space weaponry... |
It seems that the WEG envisioned space missiles and torpedoes as space equivalents of fairly short range dumb bombs and torpedoes from WWII. And I assume a big part of the penalty for target speed was to make it more difficult to hit fast moving ships, like a starfighter flown by a PC.
Many folks don't like the dumb missile theory, hence the plethora of house rules on missiles and torpedoes with longer ranges or that can track. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | In addition, a simple perpendicular path is easy to adjust for. Otherwise the wet navy tactic of crossing another vessel's T would be ineffective - which it was not. |
In that scenario, the target is closing with the enemy, not running perpendicular to the line of fire. It may be easy to adjust for a moving target, but it would still be more difficult than engaging a target that is closing or fleeing (i.e. no lateral or vertical movement to throw off targeting).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | In addition, a simple perpendicular path is easy to adjust for. Otherwise the wet navy tactic of crossing another vessel's T would be ineffective - which it was not. |
In that scenario, the target is closing with the enemy, not running perpendicular to the line of fire. It may be easy to adjust for a moving target, but it would still be more difficult than engaging a target that is closing or fleeing (i.e. no lateral or vertical movement to throw off targeting). |
Not necessarily. As I mentioned, a simple perpendicular is easier to adjust for than a situation where the trailing ship is making rapid lateral movements to maintain the fleeing vessel in its sights. Why do you think two ships would engage in combat while flying perfectly straight in a one behind the other follow the leader fashion?
If simply flying straight and not dodging is what the first ship is doing, then you are correct. That was already implied in the part of my comment that you didn't quote. But that was not the situation I was addressing in my comment.
Of course if the first ship is simply flying straight and not dodging, it would seem logical to conclude that the longer range laser cannon that the chasing ship presumably mounts in its forward arc would already have shot down the fleeing ship before the chasing ship ever gets within the short range of the missiles. If the fleeing ship is dodging to avoid being shot by the laser cannon, then the two ships will have significant lateral motion. It's sort of implied by the term "dodge," not so? I thought all that was clear in my original comment.
| Bren wrote: | | Only if the first ship is flying straight and not trying to dodge (which seems unlikely if someone is on the first ship's six). It the first ship is trying to dodge than the following ship must follow which will necessarily involve a path that is not straight. Thus creating angular motion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
