| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| DougRed4 wrote: | | wildfire wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | wildfire wrote: | | It might not be the best system but it's the only cannon one even though it was only recently invented it is at least system that is fairly consistent. |
No, canon applies only to the material drawn from the films. Just because some author somewhere came up with a chart doesn't make it canon. A system using tonnage or displacement would be more accurate, as length is only a single dimension. |
Okay we are going to have to disagree on this point as I allow into cannon things from the greater universe, in this case it was created especially to explain things in universe and i think it makes as much sense as some of the other official things |
That's all well and good for "your own view of the SW Universe", wildfire, but that isn't actually "canon". Star Wars canon (at the moment) fits into specific levels, defined by letter codes (G-canon, T-canon, C-canon, S-canon, N-canon and D-canon). Note also that this is going to change (thankfully), where someday we'll only have what is "official" (canon) and not (non-canon).
So while any of us gets to put whatever we want to into our own SW Universes, none of us get to "allow" anything into canon.  |
Okay badly explained but the Anaxes War College System is from the The Essential Guide to Warfare which is c-cannon at least which is what I meant by cannon.
I'm also trying to say I don't just take the movies or g-cannon as the primary or only source. |
|
| 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: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*canon
As in, a canon is a source of factual reference. A cannon is the thing you shoot stuff out of.
And you can, of course, make your own decisions regarding what constitutes your own personal canon.
However, based on the discussion Mikael and I are having over at the Sector Group topic, we've pretty much concluded that the Anaxes system is little more than a arbitrary system used by military neophytes to brag about the respective sizes of their ships (and possibly using their ship size to compensate for other shortcomings). The real military mindset is seen in the exceptions to the Anaxes system, in that a ship may be moved up or down the scale depending on its capabilities. Military planners are less concerned with size than they are with "what can it do and how much resources will it consume when it does it?"
_________________
"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: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | *canon
As in, a canon is a source of factual reference. A cannon is the thing you shoot stuff out of.
And you can, of course, make your own decisions regarding what constitutes your own personal canon.
However, based on the discussion Mikael and I are having over at the Sector Group topic, we've pretty much concluded that the Anaxes system is little more than a arbitrary system used by military neophytes to brag about the respective sizes of their ships (and possibly using their ship size to compensate for other shortcomings). The real military mindset is seen in the exceptions to the Anaxes system, in that a ship may be moved up or down the scale depending on its capabilities. Military planners are less concerned with size than they are with "what can it do and how much resources will it consume when it does it?" |
Damn auto correct
Okay I think another point we will have to disagree on (this is getting familiar) but its the only in universe rating we have for classifying ships, so I'm using it for now, even if it's not perfect |
|
| 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: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, then if you are going to use it, why are you ignoring it when making your own OB and putting 600m Heavy Cruisers into slots designated for Frigates (200-400m) and Corvettes (100-200m). 
Sorry, couldn't resist. 
_________________
"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: Wed Mar 26, 2014 2:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | Okay, then if you are going to use it, why are you ignoring it when making your own OB and putting 600m Heavy Cruisers into slots designated for Frigates (200-400m) and Corvettes (100-200m).
Sorry, couldn't resist. |
Because I screwed up the first draft and as pointed out need to rework it |
|
| 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: Sat Apr 26, 2014 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On a related note that has come up in another topic. I have another proposed variant, the Disrupter-Class Information Warfare Cruiser.
In addition to formidable armament, this ship mounts a powerful communications and signal processing suite which is used to decode enemy transmissions, jam their signals, hack their databases and otherwise engage in information warfare, all while using its weapons in support of a battle line.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | On a related note that has come up in another topic. I have another proposed variant, the Disrupter-Class Information Warfare Cruiser.
In addition to formidable armament, this ship mounts a powerful communications and signal processing suite which is used to decode enemy transmissions, jam their signals, hack their databases and otherwise engage in information warfare, all while using its weapons in support of a battle line. |
Would this also be a modified Vindicator-class cruiser? |
|
| 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: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It would.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That makes sense. Clearly long-range FTL is a power hog, as is projecting a gravity well. As such, the modified Vindicator has significant power-generation capabilities.
It does make me start to wonder about the proportionality of reactors. It's said that the reactor aboard the ISD was one of the largest ever built - but why? Why did it need to be so big, especially when the original hull (the ISD1, or the Tector we presume) had a 2x hyperdrive.
(VENTING: Why is it that the Venator has a 1x hyperdrive and the Acclamator a 0.6x?? I need me a shot gun to shoot some kids hanging out on my lawn again with their kewler toys.)
What are the trade-offs of reactor size vs. capabilities? |
|
| 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: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | It does make me start to wonder about the proportionality of reactors. It's said that the reactor aboard the ISD was one of the largest ever built - but why? Why did it need to be so big, especially when the original hull (the ISD1, or the Tector we presume) had a 2x hyperdrive. |
No idea. Maybe sheer mass; the ISD has over 400 meters in length on the Venator, as well as much larger mass...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | It does make me start to wonder about the proportionality of reactors. It's said that the reactor aboard the ISD was one of the largest ever built - but why? Why did it need to be so big, especially when the original hull (the ISD1, or the Tector we presume) had a 2x hyperdrive. |
No idea. Maybe sheer mass; the ISD has over 400 meters in length on the Venator, as well as much larger mass... |
But why should mass matter for anything aside from acceleration and deceleration? Some of what I've read is that there was a decreasing economy of scale (the bigger the ship, the bigger the power generator had to be, proportionally speaking). However, that's without the Star Destroyer having gravity wells to generate. |
|
| 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: Sun Apr 27, 2014 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not so hugely worried about the issue that I feel the need to devote time to it. My procedure for building stats is pretty much just based around, "what do I want it to be able to do," then build stats to that effect. Then I post the stats here to get opinions on balance, as well as to get in pointless arguments rooted in the fact that everyone here perceives Star Wars differently.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 11:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: |
But why should mass matter for anything aside from acceleration and deceleration? Some of what I've read is that there was a decreasing economy of scale (the bigger the ship, the bigger the power generator had to be, proportionally speaking). However, that's without the Star Destroyer having gravity wells to generate. |
Well that extra mass is probably taken up by systems that require energy. In engineering what happens is that as a building or vessel gets bigger a larger percentage of it must be used for support systems.
For instance, with skyscrapers if you double the height you need to do more than just double the number of elevators, since not only did you double the distance that the existing ones have to travel, but you've more than doubled the number of people who need to use them (taking the stairs is not really an option if you work on the 67th floor).
The same sort of thing hold true for stuff like plumbing, lighting systems, phone lines, etc. And all that stuff needs space and power. It's why there is a practical limit to how big a skyscraper can be. It's probably a factor in ISD design. Probably some admiral decides that he wants another TIE squadron on a ship, and by the time it's all worked out the ship mass is increased by 5%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I'm not so hugely worried about the issue that I feel the need to devote time to it. My procedure for building stats is pretty much just based around, "what do I want it to be able to do," then build stats to that effect. Then I post the stats here to get opinions on balance, as well as to get in pointless arguments rooted in the fact that everyone here perceives Star Wars differently. |
Fair enough, though you also like to have a visual. It seems to me like a ship needs to look like it's able to do the things we want it to be able to do, and we want to be able to rationalize these things together.
Maybe the gravity well generators also have their own dedicated power sources, in which case: quandary solved!
| atgxtg wrote: | | Well that extra mass is probably taken up by systems that require energy. In engineering what happens is that as a building or vessel gets bigger a larger percentage of it must be used for support systems. |
I think you're talking about volume more than we are about mass, in which case your point is very well taken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: |
Maybe the gravity well generators also have their own dedicated power sources, in which case: quandary solved! |
Yes, gravity generators woul;d need some power source, so the ship would need bigger or more generators. And while gravity generators are purely fictional, the laws of thermodynamics would indicate that the power they would require to cancel out the force of a large object would be greater than the actual force. [/quote]
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: |
I think you're talking about volume more than we are about mass, in which case your point is very well taken. |
Both. While you need volume for the systems, you also need machinery to make them work, and that takes up mass and requires power, so it means a bigger generator. For instance, just to get hot water on the top of a high rise requires adding a pump to get the water to the top, and then a way to heat the water. If you throw in, say, a 30 gallon hot water heater, you just added at least 240 pounds for just the water. That's not counting the weight of the tank itself or all the plumbing to get the water into and out of the tank.
Now, if you got a ship with 30,000 crew, and they each take a 3 gallon shower each day, you need 360 tons of water a day just for showers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
