| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | One thing that would be worth considering, Gamer, is that while you can store tanks in a room no more complex than an empty warehouse, you need a lot more than that to launch and recover fighters.
While I have no doubt that the ship could carry tons of fighters, I think you can't just look at the internal volume, or even footprint space of the ship and the fighters and come up with an accurate estimate of what the ship can field in a fight. |
You missed it more than words can say 
I considered operational space more than you could possibly imagine.
Look at it the post again you will see the word 'store' throughout.
launch and recovery space means absolutely nothing in my figures that space was never used to figure fighters carried.
I know how aircraft are stored, launched, recovered and maintained on carriers I have been on those darn things too many times not to.
The vehicle space figured is just those in STORAGE.
You do not 'store' vehicles on a flight deck, they are either prepped for launch or have been recovered, well some aircraft need to be on the flight deck for some maintenance as they don't fit in the hanger -the V22 osprey is the big culprit.
Aircraft on modern carreris are 'stored' in the hanger below.
using vehicle footprint in 'storage' ensures that there is still room for operational prep work and maintenance to be done on the vehicle replacing it and fits within its footprint.
Aircraft footprints on the plot boards aka 'ouija board' are used on carriers today it ensures the aircraft will fit in storage and on the flight deck and when it is moved from place to place or while it is under maintenance.
Like this:
So factually yes you can tell by the footprint how many a carrier can field as it has been done since carriers have been built and will be doing in the future and you can't operate a modern carrier safely in the field without it.
The flight deck itself is empty in my figures.
The fighters are only replacing the vehicles used by the battledroids, there is no room taken up on the flight deck it's only those in storage.
You can place other aircraft on the flight deck for some operations, take the doolittle raid the uss Hornets flight deck had the b-25s on board and its full complement of aircraft 'stored' in the hanger.
Or anytime other branch special operations are deployed on the nimitz classes.
The helicopters are placed on board in various areas through out while still maintaining full aircraft complement.
while still able to maintain flight operations, like this:
That's an MH-47 during landing deck qualification operations on the USS Kittyhawk.
Not exactly an empty flight deck.
The vast flight deck of the Lucrehulk class hanger arms ensures you could have alot of fighters sitting in a launch prep area while launching and recovering spacecraft and in starwars they don't seem to care about launch and recovery space like some fans seem to go overboard about as episode IV showed during the launch of fighters against the deathstar.
As I said before I considered all operational space and then some. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 5:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gamer wrote: |
You missed it more than words can say
I considered operational space more than you could possibly imagine.
|
I get the idea you may have missed what I was saying, (and if I'm to take that second statement literally, you need to seek professional help, because I can imagine far more than it is healthy for a human to do! )
You've served on a carrier, which is awesome, (and thank you for serving!) But none of us has served aboard a combat spacecraft that launches other combat spacecraft.
I don't think the flight deck is the bottleneck either. I'm not so much talking about physical space as information control for hundreds of fighters travelling thousands of miles per hour over vast distances in 3 dimensions.
That, and also the energy and consumable requirements for starfighter operations. You would need a massive crew, a computer system that, granted, is probably already in space, a truly impressive sensor network, etc. You'd need tractor beams for recovery, storage for probably tens of thousands munitions so compact a man can carry two, but so powerful their yield is measured in megatons. Fielding so many starfighters at a time would lend truly new meaning to the phrase logistical nightmare. Just think of NORAD during all out global thermonuclear war, with an entire added spatial map dimension, at 100x the speed.
The other option is a massive flying warehouse full of expendable fighters launched as cannon fodder, which is bad economic strategy, even for the Empire.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You've served on a carrier, which is awesome, (and thank you for serving!) But none of us has served aboard a combat spacecraft that launches other combat spacecraft. |
I had served off of Carriers,LHAs and LHDs all of which would be considered modern comparisons to the trade federation battleship and other similar craft.
It gives me a decent frame of reference for them.
| Quote: | | Just think of NORAD during all out global thermonuclear war, with an entire added spatial map dimension, at 100x the speed. |
Tell me what is your frame of reference to imagine that?
Just when did NORAD ever operate under a global thermonuclear war in normal time much less at 100x?
I don't ever recall there ever being a global thermonuclear war and I am sure I would not have missed that.
Nobody on this planet knows how NORAD is going to be during an allout Global thermonuclear war at normal time much less 100x that, so how are you even close to qualified to tell me how to think of it as?
Yet your going to tell me this?:
| Quote: | | But none of us has served aboard a combat spacecraft that launches other combat spacecraft |
This was the first thing that came to mind: Insulting hypocrit.
I'm now just going to ignore that poster have had enough frustration there.
Just going to address the issues of the post even though I personally believe that they really shouldn't need to be addressed if it was actually thought about and then again something in the post may be something somebody else here didn't even think about.
| Quote: | | I'm not so much talking about physical space as information control for hundreds of fighters travelling thousands of miles per hour over vast distances in 3 dimensions |
.
So how did this battleships computer manage to control every action of it's droid starfighter complement?
which by the way the vulture droid fighter has a flight speed of 3900 g's compared to the x-wings 3700 g's.
Somehow this vessels computer is not capable of handling flight operation coordination during the empire, yet during the clone wars it handled every droid on the ship including the droid fighters and its droid gunners shooting at -hold on folks heres apparently a shocker- jedi pilots at the same time it is controlling its battledroid forces on the ground battling -wait for it- Jedi's.
Yet somehow this ships computer cannot handle information control during combat operations during the rebellion where the battles were far smaller than the clone wars.
Seriously what version of the prequals did everyone else watch? did or did not these types of vessels already handle information control for hundreds of droidfighters travelling thousands of miles per hour over vast distances in 3 dimensions on top of everything else it did?
| Quote: | | That, and also the energy and consumable requirements for starfighter operations. |
This vessel had to power/replenish everything on the ship before, every droid and every carried craft which also includes 50 capital scale landing craft and yet somehow this vessel cannot possibly handle the replenishment requirements for the starfighters that replaced all of that?
So the crew would have to add more life support to replenish the added crewed starfighters, like there isn't any room left to add that onboard?
| Quote: | | You would need a massive crew |
This ship already has a massive droid crew that already had to maintain everything on the ship,every carried craft, every battle droid, every droid fighter, every lightbulb, electrical outlet.
It already has one that can easily do the job.
The crew would need to add the fighters flight crews and expand the medical facilities big deal.
A simple software upgrade easily handles any hardware upgrade the droid crew confronts.
| Quote: | | a truly impressive sensor network |
why? this is just like the information control issue.
This battleships systems are suddenly useless now?
Where is it said the sensor network on this battleship gets easily over taxed during the clone wars?
They had no problems handling the much larger and more convaluted space battles with many, many thousands of starfighters on each side at the same time handling it's droid contingent fighting enormous land battles, but now suddenly the ships system just can't handle the much smaller space battles between the empire and alliance?
| Quote: | | You'd need tractor beams for recovery, storage for probably tens of thousands munitions so compact a man can carry two, but so powerful their yield is measured in megatons. |
The battleship suddenly lost all of this ?
The armories for all the munitions for the carried craft suddenly vanished it used to have 6,250 armored assault tanks each carried a large number of various types of missiles and rockets? did these armories suddenly vanish?
How many millions of just the tanks various types of ordinance did it carry?
is that post saying these already existing armories can't handle the starfighter munitions?
is the post saying the recovery tractor beams it already had just vanished or never ever existed? it had 1500 droid fighters, it had numerous shuttles, it had 50 capital scale ships, but the post seems to be saying it doesn't already have sufficient recovery tractor beams?
Just how did this come to be?
| Quote: | | Fielding so many starfighters at a time would lend truly new meaning to the phrase logistical nightmare. |
sigh.
this ship already had to field during the clone wars
how many droid fighters
how many armored assault tanks ands other ground combat vehicles like the troop carriers, STAPs and so on.
how many landing craft
how many shuttles
Is the post saying the ship suddenly has a hard time with starfighters that replaced all of that?
Again the before mentioned software upgrades can handle the technical side.
This vessel can easily handle a retrofit to carry a rather large compliment of starfighters itself.
Just because the battleship is actually capable of such a refit that doesn't mean it is entirely practical in doing so.
The practical side of being able to do so must remain with the playing style of each GM.
Does the alliance have that many X-wings? I really don't care.
Would I retrofit such a craft to carry max fighters possible?
Only if I was the Empire and had it's resources.
But that is me somebody else may think it would be super cool.
what I had thought about doing with a Lucrehulk class was make one into something like the Errant Venture wouldn't even have to do much of anything with it.
It was mostly a curious of what could it carry without overly trying exercise. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gamer wrote: |
Tell me what is your frame of reference to imagine that?
Just when did NORAD ever operate under a global thermonuclear war in normal time much less at 100x?
I don't ever recall there ever being a global thermonuclear war and I am sure I would not have missed that.
Nobody on this planet knows how NORAD is going to be during an allout Global thermonuclear war at normal time much less 100x that, so how are you even close to qualified to tell me how to think of it as?
Yet your going to tell me this?:
|
It was a hypothetical situation used as an analogy. What gave you the idea that I was referring to a historical event?
I think I can answer the rest of you post by just pointing out that you're talking about replacing a massive occupying army of droids with a massive fighting space fleet. Just because there was enough starfighter command and control ability to field a force able to repel about a dozen N-1 starfighters, albeit letting one piloted by an untrained child land in the ship unnoticed by the bridge crew doesn't mean that you can scale up the fighter fleet without scaling up the support systems.
I'm sure you can agree that between equal volumes of fighter aircraft and infantry and tanks, the fighter aircraft demand more support. They're simply more finicky and more demanding. Their weapons are of drastically higher and more concentrated power. They use fuel prodigiously. They're plainly more complex.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| 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: Thu Oct 27, 2011 2:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I'm sure you can agree that between equal volumes of fighter aircraft and infantry and tanks, the fighter aircraft demand more support. They're simply more finicky and more demanding. Their weapons are of drastically higher and more concentrated power. They use fuel prodigiously. They're plainly more complex. |
Fallon, I think you are getting a little too far into starship designer mode here. It ultimately comes down to a difference of opinion, and based on Gamer's background and experience, I would say that he has a lot of practical experience with fitting both ground combat vehicles and aircraft into a ship, even if that ship is on the water, not in space.
_________________
"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: Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Now, how many X-wings can fit inside a Death Star? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | the fighter aircraft demand more support. They're simply more finicky and more demanding. Their weapons are of drastically higher and more concentrated power. They use fuel prodigiously. |
They use fuel prodigiously, really?
Last I looked they aren't gulping down fuel like modern jets, what does the game books say?
consumables:
The Xwing 1 week
The Y-wing 1 week -other models 3 weeks
The B-wing 1 week
the A-wing 1 week
the Z-95 is 1 day.
The majority so far says 1 week.
The books doesn't back the contradictory starfighters prodigious use of fuel claim you are making, you need to rectify that.
The 50 C9979 landing ships have consumables lasting one whole 24 hour period.
So just how much fuel do these capital ships need to have stored on board the Battleship especially if they plan on using them more than than one day, can't really sustain mission operations without a serious amount of fuel for these things on board.
Wouldn't be much of a planetary invasion if your support craft doesn't have enough fuel to sustain it after all the droid army still requires a minor detail called logistics.
The onboard shuttles also have consumables of one day the carried craft on the battleship seems to be the ones using fuel prodigiously.
| Quote: | | the fighter aircraft demand more support.They are more finicky and more demanding |
Luke Skywalkers X-wing was submerged in the swamps of Degobah for how long?
What did he do call AAAA starfighter support to get his ship fully operational again?
Just how 'finicky' can a state of the art starfighter be or how much 'support' does it really 'demand' if it can be made fully flight operational -he did have to jump into hyperspace after all- with just the tools in the glovebox after being submerged in the swamp for how ever long?
The movies are in contradicition to your claim, you need to rectify that.
The space needed to maintain a Armored assault tank isn't going to be small they also require the removal of the bottom 'foot' just to reload, they replace it with a reloaded one, which is going to take up even more room than the tank itself requires.
You also need the space to reload the foot too which eats up even more room and needs even more support to handle.
Which of the starfighters need that much room and support just to reload its torpedoes?
Which apparently are small enough a man can carry two as Fallon says, What support does it need to load it's torpedoes?
A load toads ordnance cart to carry the ordnance for safety sake, Yep that's really taking up alot more room and takes alot more support personnel/droids to do 
Doesn't seem to take anymore room than what the starfighter is already taking up.
With the AAT you only have to merely lift the tank body up, move the foot away, place a new one under it, move old foot to an ordnance loading area, reload foots launchers then place the foot in yet another storage area for loading onto new tank body this uses up how much space and support personnel/droids?
You earned this starship designer title how again  
I've have looked into the support and room required a long time ago and there is more than enough space for such a simple refit without some massive overhaul Fallon seems to somehow think it would require.
Stripping out the old craft support systems and placing in the ones for the starfighters would be childs play.
It already has for support
massive fuel bunkers
massive armories
massive storage for replacement parts
many different repair shops for those 'requires more than hanger deck can handle' repairs that can very easily be refitted into repair shops handling the starfighter systems.
there are already a massive amounts of droids who did maint and repair on the previous craft aready and a simple software upgrade solves any need more crew problems there.
It's not like one day I said ok this can take the place of that and this can be there instead of those and its finished, alot of research went into it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gamer
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 May 2010
Posts: 125
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Now, how many X-wings can fit inside a Death Star? |
Way too many for anyone to produce.
Refitting the ground vehicle storage into starfighter storage would take too much work IMHO since it is 'deep storage' and not near the surface and they are also hung on racks as pictures in the DS tech companion shows, easier to refit surface level cargo bays into starfighter hangers.
Tie fighters are hung on racks so you have to refit those bays as well overall not as easy a refit.
|
|
| 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: Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
I thought that Deep Storage on the Death Star used stasis fields and zero-gravity, so the racks really wouldn't matter. Since they are already in zero-gravity, and all the gravity they have is generated artificially, it would actually save power to have gravity turned off in Deep Storage, which also makes it much easier to store big bulky things like GAVs or starfighters...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
Fallon, I think you are getting a little too far into starship designer mode here. |
I do suppose it's possible. Some stuff in the system I'm working on perfecting still isn't sitting right with me, and I'm always fiddling with parts of it in my head. I hadn't thought of reducing the entire problem to a point value in the starship construction system, though, if that's what you're getting at! Although now that I think about it, maybe I should...
My point boils down to the fact that I wanted to make sure Gamer was factoring in more than a simple ground force to space force volume conversion. Instead of saying that he did, or that he hadn't thought of it, he seemed to get defensive, angry and counter attack-prone. I spent my last few posts just deflecting those counter attacks.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| 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: Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah. Sometimes it's hard to know what the dividing line is as to whether or not someone will take offense, especially if it is a subject they are well versed in...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
