Starfighters Vs Capships

[garhkal]

[Kytross]

Wow, never had to look that up before. You'd think they'd include that since they had to get away from the first Death Star before it exploded. I checked a few different books and couldn't find it either.

My first GM used 1 space as full damage, 2 spaces was half damage.

Heh, I've been playing by WEG rules for 13 years and I never noticed that.

[garhkal]

Many gms cause there is no rule either
A) Gloss over it
or B) make up a HR to cover it.
I have as a GM had to rule on the fly before in situations where a Y wing pilot got right UP to the enemy ship (carrack) at a SR of 1 and fired at almost point blank range.. I ruled he was in the blast radius and took 7d damage from the back blast.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Darth Ginzain]

I've never seen anything on a blast radius for torpedos. Also I've never seen anything about shooting down a torpedo. That an HR you're using as well?

Years ago I toyed around with this topic. Was using the 2E rules for combined fire since the 2E R&E did hinder massive fighter attacks on capital ships too much. You simply can't mass enough fighters to get enough dice to do anything but break even. A 12D command would let you combine a squadron of fighters. And assuming they were unhindered they can toss 13d torps into an ISD which is the same as the ISD'd hull code with the scale difference. 2E was a little easier to combine large numbers of weapons. The chart tops out at 1500 weapons. It really exposed the weakness in the Imperial ships in so much as like the Bismark, which had something like 3 guys with bolt action rifles for AA, they have a complete lack of point defence weapons.

[Tupteq]

I'm a bit late in this discussion, but I'd like to add my 2 cents:

I found a rule in D6 Space that if ship is making a full dodge, then all actions done on board are at -3D.
Moreover - full dodge doesn't allow to move normally, because any move beyond cautious move in V.Easy-Moderate terrain requires an action. So, you can't do a full dodge in the middle of "starfighter combat with many ships in the immediate area" (SW 2nd R&E, p.125), because it's a Difficult "terrain" and you have to spend an action on piloting.

Next thing, I made some (rough) calculations:
Starfighter dodge advantage is neglected by about three 6s on Wild Die in a row. Chance is 1 to 216, not much, but it raises to about 40% for 100 tries. So, 25 turbolasers had to "only" shoot 4 times each (in subsequent rounds to avoid MAPs).
Then, ISD with 120 batteries (turbolasers and ion cannons) surrounded by swarm of starfighters (so each battery have a chance to hit) should take down one starfighter every other round.
Conclusions: I don't have any

Next - reduced hull of subsystems - in my games, I'm using reduction of hull by subtracting or replacing hull code, but I'm always keeping the scale and it never goes below 2D (particle shielding value). So, single turbolaser would have 2D of capital scale hull.

Next - shooting at group (formation) of starfighters. I didn't think about this before, but how about this: make a use of "Combined Action" bonus - adding it to attacker's roll (where number of ships in formation would determine attacker's bonus). On success, random ship in formation gets hit. Ships in formation may even dodge, but for as long as they stay together (which is required to effectively coordinate attack), attacker has a bonus to hit.

[Kytross]

[Darth Ginzain]

So in effect, the target "parries" the missle with some kind of weapon and using the normal skill dice for that weapon? I like it. I might have to "borrow" that.

[garhkal]

[DougRed4]

[vanir]

In real world jetfighter and naval aerial screening technologies it is harder to hit any of the birds flying in tight formation due to the millisecond processing requirements for target discrimination using data signal interpretations, which is how fire control systems work.

Flying in formation makes it less likely anyone in the formation gets hit, not more likely an individual in a group of birds gets hit.
You're thinking of scatter-guns used by hunters to shoot geese. That's easier to hit something by firing into the crowd, but it's a human on the trigger with his biological brain as the fire control, meaning at some point he just says "oh what the heck" and pulls the trigger. Computer technology has real problems saying what the heck about determining the parameters of a function, it has to be precisely solved mathematically. Hence the firing officers terminology "a firing solution", it means the fire control system has solved the mathematical requirements to fire on the target. If you don't, you can't.

eg. specifically the MiG-29 (Sapfir-29 analogue twist-cassegrain set) has real problems with target discrimination of enemy birds in close formation due to processor overload, it's a glaring fault recognized by NATO as a major tactical advantage. Engage two-by-two in tight groups and rotate leads, they have to get to BFM and use helmet targeters and dogfighte missiles. Gives the Block 50 Vipers a distinct BVR advantage on the MiG Fulcrum. The MiG-29C (Topaz digital twist-cassegrain) theoretically beats this but NATO hasn't fought those, only the older export ones in the ME (they're Ru-AF only equip, but pretty much all the Ru ones are upgraded to it).


Just an aside, we often swap scaling with high powered weapons depending on the application. A repeater blaster (eg. E-Web) does 8D character scale, but the same gun on a pintle mounting to a speeder will be listed as 4D speeder scale and the type of weapon is generally regarded as a light anti-vehicle and heavy antipersonnel troop support weapon.
So you could easily say a Proton Torp from a starfighter rates 4D+2 capital scale for damage purposes only when attacking capital scale targets (I use old 2E scaling with caps, you get better tank action in ground battles), or 9D starfighter scale when attacking starfighter or lesser scale targets (effectively caps at 9D starfighter scale damage whether hitting walkers or other starfighters, but does capital damage against capital scale). Makes it to starfighters what an E-Web is to a troop squad.

Also blast radius, our group came up with a simple ad hoc rule for all weapons emplacements used as artillery, flak or just for gaming atmosphere. Walker and starfighter scale does meters in damage points radius per shot which exceed any specific target being shot, capital scale does tens of metres. An orbital bombardment combining batteries of capital scale emplacements would easily do hundreds of metres worth of blast radius in addition to structural damage in the targeted area, so you get a shore bombardment kind of effect like with real world naval vessels.
This gets much worse when talking about capital scale concussion missles, which are specifically conceived for planetary and structural bombardment. We run those basically as ICBMs or SLBMs for effect, including radiation effects. We even generally refer to them in game as nukes.

Proton torps are still under periodic group discussion, we do want to make them unique and special. So far we generally refer to them as mini-nukes (starfighter scale does typical 9D and capital scale versions do typically 6D+1 or so). The way we play them is like neutrino bombs, much of the power of a nuke (not quite) but none of the radiation aside from the initial neutrino burst. No fallout and heavy irradiation, just initial rad burns from the blast itself.

These radiation elements we've included in common weaponry also gives the specialised Imperial Radtroopers a definite place and role in special missions, such as an adventure which involves an Imperial planetary bombardment will almost invariably involve a clean up operation led by squads of Radtroopers, and within the bombardment area we enforce GM penalties for high-radiation zones to normal powered weaponry (explodes on a wild die unless specially modified and similar problems).

[lurker]

Vanir

Good post and on point with the info.

I agree there is a difference between a computer firing a gun/missile etc and me out in the wet lands around here trying to hit a goose or duck. I get close, lead a bit and let the steel shot spread out to make a close enough shot. A computer tries to get the shot to hit and waits till it knows it will.

The only cross over on that is very specific AA rounds that are fired in a specific # of rounds burst, and their timer fuses are set where they all explode at once (giving you a column of AA flack similar to firing a shotgun). That and the Aegis type gun that fires a metric ton of rounds very fast. But, even with that it is only useful at close range (and against a relatively slow moving target, or one that is flying flat dumb and happy in a fairly strait line)

Now the question is, how does this apply to the game ... my answer ... I don't know ...

I'm to rusty in it to even guess (and even when I played and ran it back year ago we never got this deep into the weeds). I'll leave that to my betters around here (and set back and enjoy the discussion!) 8)
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

[Kytross]

Vanir, thanks for the information. Firing a missile into a formation would significantly raise the difficulty, probably to very difficult or heroic.

Turbolasers, however, are fired by a human gunner, much like in WWII, what with the entire space combat system used in the OT being based off fighter footage from WWII. It would be more like trying to fly in formation through a barrage of 16 inch cannon fire. "Intensify forward-firing, I don't want anything getting through!" Rather a bit like Lurker's example of hunting geese.

Of course, continuing the analogy, firing turbolasers at a starfighter is a bit like firing 16 inch cannons at a spitfire. Hence the scale difference. It's also why on ships like the Corellian Gunship there are both capital and starfighter scale weapons.

[garhkal]

True dat.. Firing a quad laser canon (sf scale) into a horde of fighters should stand a chance of hitting SOMETHING even if it misses the target it went for.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[vanir]

When laying aerial suppression fire even mid-late WW2 flak (especially german flak) used fire control systems and required precise firing solutions aimed at specific aircraft in the formation, designated by the spotter.
What you could do is mass fire as an emergency barrage, which you do by firing over open sights without using the fire control system. Obviously only works at close (ie. unaided visual) ranges.

Since turbolasers use a fire control system, what you could do to maintain continuity, is give an option for massed (combined) fire without the fire control bonus for normal difficulties against starfighters in formations, but only at the short range of the weapon type for visual range of manual fire control
or,
targeted fire (combined or individually) with the weapon fire control bonus, but at increased difficulty due to target discrimination processing required by the computerised fire control system. You could make opposed tactics rolls to determine if the starfighter formation gets the increased difficulty bonus.

Does two things:
1. simulates a distinction between using fire control systems and firing over open sights, providing a roleplay enhancement in aerial gunnery

2. provides an opportunity for electronic warfare in starfighter combat, when standard jamming equipment which is installed on X-Wings and other expensive starfighters, but absent from TIE and other budget starfighters, you can increase difficulty level for jamming, and again for tactical use of formation flying, between them you could raise difficulties quite a bit for enemy gunnery at long-med ranges using fire control sets, they would have to wait until you are short/visual range and fire over open sights, without fire control bonus but at normal difficulties (can't jam eyes, don't have to worry about mathematical firing solutions in manual gunnery).

This means tactically proficient starfighter assaults could virtually defy long range gunnery defences and only have to deal with massed enemy fire at close range, which they can try to zip in and out of using speed. Of course you should probably use the optional rule that within 1-3 space units of a capital ship starfighters use atmospheric speed (due to gravitational mass shadow). Would really raise the thrill level of the entire exercise.

Of course that's where enemy starfighter screening formations of interceptors comes in...
But then again the Rebel interceptor-interceptor, the A-Wing has a very effective jammer and could operate with virtual impunity against enemy emplacement fire under these enhanced house rule conditions to protect the assault package by intercepting their interceptors.

Just a sidetrack...hey I just thought, you know what's cool about a Y-Wing? When making a bombing run at point blank with enemy gunnery emplacements trying to put up a massed barrage, the Y-Wing gunner can sit there firing ion-cannon at the individual gun emplacements all the way through the bomb run, and like the way the death star turbolaser towers are lesser scale, individual emplacements on big capital ships like Star Destroyers are probably starfighter scale...ion cannon should put them out of action at least the ones that are proving most dangerous to mission survival...
Me likey Y-Wings

[Kytross]

Heh, B-Wings are even more devastating.