| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| wildfire wrote: | | I'm using set length mean certain scales automatically, in this case longer than 50m means starship scale, might have to drop it down to 2D hull. |
Personally, I drew the line closer to 100m, with things like the Corellian Gunship and the System Patrol Ship being the lower end.
Also, there's nothing wrong with making spacecraft Walker-Scale (which is only 2D above Starfighter by my system). It just means that they are more durable and less maneuverable than starfighters, but not quite up into the Starship range.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | wildfire wrote: | | I'm using set length mean certain scales automatically, in this case longer than 50m means starship scale, might have to drop it down to 2D hull. |
Personally, I drew the line closer to 100m, with things like the Corellian Gunship and the System Patrol Ship being the lower end.
Also, there's nothing wrong with making spacecraft Walker-Scale (which is only 2D above Starfighter by my system). It just means that they are more durable and less maneuverable than starfighters, but not quite up into the Starship range. |
Might rejig my scale system slightly, as I already have starfighter 2D over Walker so making ships up to 100m starfighter should work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wildfire wrote: | | Might rejig my scale system slightly, as I already have starfighter 2D over Walker so making ships up to 100m starfighter should work. |
Ah. Yeah, I still think that is a mistake. Using my system but flipping starfighter and walker puts starfighters at -2D from Corellian Gunships all the way up to Dreadnaughts and Interdictors. I had specific reasons for making walkers tougher than starfighters, so if you're going to reverse it, you need to examine the in-game effects very carefully.
Also, to avoid confusion, I have found that it is best to either post stats that are in line with the RAW or to specifically define the way in which your stat deviates from the RAW. When you said that you were using my scale system, it didn't clarify that you were flipping starfighter and walker scale.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Okay will have to write a cover post for my variant of the scale system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wildfire wrote: | | Okay will have to write a cover post for my variant of the scale system. |
I would like to hear your reasoning for flipping the scales from what I proposed. For me, since AT-ATs are noticeably larger than starfighters (and comparable in size to light freighters and shuttles), yet have nowhere near the same energy demands, it becomes much easier to pack on the armor and make them much tougher than starfighters (especially since very few walker-scale vehicles have shields). When comparing an AT-AT to an X-Wing using the 2R&E RAW Scale System, the AT-AT is actually less durable than the X-Wing (6D Hull - 2D Scale Modifier vs. 4D Hull + 1D Shields) even though it is much larger and still less maneuverable (0D + 2D Scale Modifier vs. 3D).
Based on the RAW (and indeed on any scale system that puts walkers below starfighters), there is a large stat disparity, in that starfighter scale vehicles are faster, more durable, have more powerful weaponry, and are more versatile than walker scale vehicles. From a military perspective (where a vehicle's combat performance is derived from its game stats), there is no logical reason for walkers at all, since something starfighter scale can do the same job better and faster. All arguments in favor of using walkers over starfighters ultimately fall flat if the walker is lower in scale. Cost? Since when is the Empire concerned with cost? Psychological effect? Lasts until your characters take out an AT-AT with one strafing run from an X-Wing.
On the other hand, if you flip Walker and Starfighter scale (as I have done), the Walker suddenly becomes much more potent. It's still big and clumsy, but it packs a bigger punch and is much harder to damage. Stats-wise, there is suddenly a definite advantage to having it on the ground because it is much harder to take out than a starfighter, and its primary weapons pack a punch big enough to threaten small capital ships.
Bottom line, flipping Walker and Starfighter turns walkers into equal players on the battlefield, rather than relegating them to also-ran status behind starfighters.
If you still insist on having walkers below starfighters, however, I would suggest reordering your dice codes, because having starfighters within 2D of Starship makes them far too powerful with respect to small capital ships.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 6:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'll post my ideas once I get home from work and have swung off night shift, pulling 30 hours straight awake today if nothing bad happens with me getting home  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay my mods to scale system posted Modified Scale System
made a few changes to the vessel mostly stepped down to starfighter scale and slowed it down a little as well as swapping the weapons for simple laser cannons.
Conveyor Landing Barge
Craft: Sienar Fleet Systems' Conveyor Landing Barge
Type: Landing Barge
Scale: Starfighter
Length: 60 m
Skill: Space Transport Piloting; Conveyor
Cost: 450,000
Crew: 16, Gunners: 2, Skeleton: 4/+10
Passengers: 1000
Cargo Capacity: 2000 tons
Consumables: 1 week
Hyperdrive Multiplier: none
Hyper Backup: none
Nav Computer: No
Maneuverability: 1D
Space: 5
Atmosphere: 295; 850 kmh
Hull: 5D
Shields: 3D
Sensors:
Passive: 20/0D
Scan: 40/1D
Search: 80/2D
Focus: 4/2D+2
Weapons
2 Laser Cannons
Scale: Starfighter
Fire arc: Front
Crew: 1
Skill: Starship Gunnery
Fire control: 3D
Range: 1-3/12/25
Atmosphere: 100-300/1.2/2.5 km
Damage: 4D
Small craft
None
In need of a landing barge for use with their Invader troop cruiser 418 variant and finding most ones currently in Imperial service lacking in one way or another, they decided to try designing one specifically for their use.
While not fast or heavily armed it is well protected and able to deliver a battalion of troops and their equipment into a hostile landing zone. The ungainly boxy design has minimal rounding on the corners of the cargo area. While it has two folding wings like the Lambda and Sentinel shuttles it draws it heritage and some parts from, it's tail is is short and stumpy in deference to the overhead clearances in most hangar bays.
The sensors were taken from their existing Sentinel Landing Craft along with ita cockpit module and Laser cannons.
The long squat box of the cargo area is bracketed by the two engine compartments and systems bays. Troops are housed on an upper deck, there are four compartments two either side of a central hallways each able to hold a full company of troops and their support personnel in seated rows of crash resistant seating.
Troops disembark down a ramp leading to the main cargo deck beneath, this deck can be configured to hold either repulsorlift vehicles or small walkers, due to the height of the bay AT-AT walkers can not be carried.
Embarked units can then disembark via one of three hatches, troops and small vehicles can disembark via a small hatch on each side while larger vehicles must disembark via the large aft hatch that spans the entire width of the bay. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
*See previous discussion on fixed forward lasers vs. turrets.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | *See previous discussion on fixed forward lasers vs. turrets. |
Aye I recall the discussion but I still think the weapons should only be able to fire in the forward arc. I envision them mounted on the front of the engine sections to either side of the cockpit section, where they can provide limited support while troops disembark or help clear the LZ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16345
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
#AgreeToDisagree
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | #AgreeToDisagree |
Aye |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gavin storm
Lieutenant
Joined: 07 Mar 2014
Posts: 81
Location: Warrington, UK
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
drop pods are more fun 
_________________
Gavin Storm
Causing Imperials headaches, one punch at a time, since 2000 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| But not for large deliveries |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
