| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 12:51 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| lurker wrote: | Leyte gulf sounds right, were you watching AHCH yesterday That our you are an expert at recognizing WWII naval battles from minimal descriptions  |
I have some modest ability in that regard. However, that particular incident was rather unique in the history of WWII, so it was an easy guess.
| Quote: | | For dive bomber rules, you can use your torpedo rule and it to add a steep angle of attack ... |
But in space, there is no up or down. I was thinking more in terms of speed bombing; running directly at a target at high speed, firing an inertial bomb at the last second, then pulling up sharply to avoid a collision. TIE Bombers had this option in the TIE Fighter video game, but since the bomb is launched forward, other fighters could be equipped to do it as well. A Y-Wing with a two man crew could actually coordinate, with the rear seat gunner handling the bomb launch while the pilot (with nothing else to distract him) could make the attack run at All-Out.
| Quote: | As for the ARC-170, I like it for that. To me it just screams make me a Stuka and enjoy the damage I'll cause !
However, to make room for a capitol bomb or torpedo I'd say you may need to lose one of the three crew members ... That or you would need to wing/belly mount it. |
I haven't really looked into it, apart from thinking it would be a cool idea. The NTB-630 Naval Bomber and the PTB-625 Planetary Bomber were mentioned as close cousins of the ARC-170, but my initial read was that they were basically the same airframe equipped for different missions. I envisioned the three types combined into the SWU equivalent of an Avenger Torpedo Bomber. Ship Attack Mission? Put a torpedo on it. Bombing Mission? Put a bomb on it. Scout/Recon Mission? Put a consumables tank on 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 |
|
 |
lurker
Commander
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 423
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
But in space, there is no up or down. I was thinking more in terms of speed bombing; running directly at a target at high speed, firing an inertial bomb at the last second, then pulling up sharply to avoid a collision. TIE Bombers had this option in the TIE Fighter video game, but since the bomb is launched forward, other fighters could be equipped to do it as well. A Y-Wing with a two man crew could actually coordinate, with the rear seat gunner handling the bomb launch while the pilot (with nothing else to distract him) could make the attack run at All-Out.
...
|
Well for up/down, you could make it specifically regarding the target, but I do think your direct run and turn at the last second fits better.
Just picture a bomber doing a run on an ISD and putting the bomb into the bridge or into the TIE landing racks (or through the racks into fuel & munitions storage areas). That gives the lowly fighter scale craft some dangerous teeth. And a reason for the "concentrate all fire forward, don't let any fighters through" quote.
Rgr on the Y wing. I've always thought it was an under used craft and underwhelming stated. A slight modification (of the ship and the rules) will make the Y wing more useful and actually fully utilize the 2 man crew.
| crmcneill wrote: |
| Quote: | As for the ARC-170, I like it for that. To me it just screams make me a Stuka and enjoy the damage I'll cause !
However, to make room for a capitol bomb or torpedo I'd say you may need to lose one of the three crew members ... That or you would need to wing/belly mount it. |
I haven't really looked into it, apart from thinking it would be a cool idea. The NTB-630 Naval Bomber and the PTB-625 Planetary Bomber were mentioned as close cousins of the ARC-170, but my initial read was that they were basically the same airframe equipped for different missions. I envisioned the three types combined into the SWU equivalent of an Avenger Torpedo Bomber. Ship Attack Mission? Put a torpedo on it. Bombing Mission? Put a bomb on it. Scout/Recon Mission? Put a consumables tank on it. |
Nice, I like the modular idea. makes 1 air frame 3 x more useful.
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain
Forgive all spelling errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lurker wrote: | | Just picture a bomber doing a run on an ISD and putting the bomb into the bridge or into the TIE landing racks (or through the racks into fuel & munitions storage areas). That gives the lowly fighter scale craft some dangerous teeth. And a reason for the "concentrate all fire forward, don't let any fighters through" quote. |
Indeed. In WWII aircraft strikes on capital ships, the use of multiple attacking aircraft was not to hit simultaneously for greater damage (which is the surface impression the RAW generates), but to increase the odds that just a fraction of those bombs and torpedoes will hit something critical and/or vital. At Midway, the Akagi was hit by just one bomb out of three dropped on her, but it hit in exactly the right place to do massive damage.
I vaguely recall an optional rule somewhere that allowed smaller scale ships to engage specific features or systems of larger scale ships, such as attacking shield generators or weapons turrets. Obviously the starfighters wouldn't be able to destroy a star destroyer on their own, but they could certainly soften it up for bombing runs or cap ship attacks.
| Quote: | | Rgr on the Y wing. I've always thought it was an under used craft and underwhelming stated. A slight modification (of the ship and the rules) will make the Y wing more useful and actually fully utilize the 2 man crew. |
The Y-Wing isn't that bad really. It has better shields than an X-Wing and it matches TIE fighters in maneuverability, plus it has a good weapons package (the ion cannon are always handy). Making it able to launch a wider variety of ordnance would just make a solid ship even better.
| Quote: | | Nice, I like the modular idea. makes 1 air frame 3 x more useful. |
Yup. Including an ARC like this would require some retconning, but i m partial to it. In my universe, the Alliance uses ARC-170s as I described above and also uses V-Wings for fleet defense.
_________________
"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 11, 2014 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The 1st Ed. Rules Companion had rules for targeting smaller portions of a capital ship.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Far Orbit Project - Pg 30 wrote: |
Optional Rule: Ship Location Targeting
Raiders (and military vessels) occasionally have to use full-power energy weapons against a target (if they don't have ion cannons, for example). This is quite dangerous, since these weapons might accidentally destroy the prize. To avoid this, gunners may choose to "call a shot" target a particular location on a ship. This is harder than just hammering away at the enemy ship. Also, a higher-scale weappon cannot target a location on a lower scale target -- for example, a capital scale ship can target a capital ship's engines or a capital ship's bridge, but not awalker's legs or head.
Targeting a primary section of a ship (the conning tower of a Star Destroyer, the engines, the landing bay, the main body) adds +2D to the difficulty to hit. Targetting a sub-section of a ship (a gun battery, a particular engine, the shield generators, the command section.) adds +4D to the difficulty to hit. Targeting a specific location of a ship (a specific gun, the bridge, a maneuvering thruster, an engine's thermal exhaust port) adds +8D to the difficulty to hit.
Location: - Modifiers:
Primary Section +2D
Sub-Section +4D
Specific Location +8D
Damage should be worked out normally. The specific results should be determined by the gamemaster using the normal starship results guidelines.
In general, a lightly damaged location loses -1D or -1 Move, a heavily damaged location loses -2D or -2 Move, a severely damaged location is disabled and unable to perform its function, and a destroyed result indicates that the location has suffered catastrophic damage (this may mean that the engines have overloaded, or that a gun explodes, setting off a chain reaction of gun explosions). Targeting locations does guarantee that a ship will be simply disabled, but it does increase the odds of capturing a ship with minimal damage.
Damage: = Penalty
Light Damage = -1D or -1 Move
Heavy Damage = -2D or -2 Moves
Severe Damage = System Disabled
Destroyed = Catastrophic damage; threatens ship
|
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Surgo
Cadet
Joined: 01 Jul 2014
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
A really quick idea could read as:
| Quote: | | Starfighters can attack distinct points on large capital ships (meaning their weapons can actually do damage to them). Apply a different scale modifier to the attack resolution depending on the size of the attacked target (attacking a specific gun would be an attack against a starfighter-scale target, for example -- including for the soak roll). After a number of specific targets on the larger ship are destroyed (number depending on the ship), the ship itself will then be destroyed. |
Unfortunately that leaves an awful lot up in the air, but I don't think such rules could reasonably be retrofitted without coming up with a lot of new numbers and system lists for the various spaceships of interest. Luckily, you only have to do that for the capital ships you currently have in a battle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | The Y-Wing isn't that bad really. It has better shields than an X-Wing and it matches TIE fighters in maneuverability.... |
How is that not a mistake? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2014 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Don't know what to tell you; the TIE has had 2D Maneuverability since 1E.
_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2014 4:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Don't know what to tell you; the TIE has had 2D Maneuverability since 1E. |
I know. I just looked back at it.
It just seems nuts to me.
I guess I'm too infected by playing X-Wing, where the TIE fighter has a great set of maneuver options whereas the Y-Wing is a bit of a dog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No reason you can't house rule TIE's up to 3D Maneuverability.
_________________
"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 Jul 19, 2014 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | No reason you can't house rule TIE's up to 3D Maneuverability. |
True.
With all the disparate sources of lore about the SWU, I wonder if we should be pleased with the amount of consistency there actually is, or be frustrated with the amount of consistency that there isn't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why not both?
_________________
"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 Jul 20, 2014 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Why not both? |
Yeah.
I wonder how Star Trek compares to this. I get the feeling that when they did the Next Generation, Voyager, DS9, they managed to pretty effectively control their canon, while Star Wars is just all over the place by comparison.
But that may just be a feeling. I was into Star Trek a little, but to nowhere the same degree as Star Wars.
Anyway, one of the reasons I got into the X-Wing Game was for research purposes, but... it kinda got away from me.  One thing is clear (to me) though, is that that game is really wildly successful. It's drawing in a lot of people. What it misses (in my view) is an impetus towards story and lore building.
What it does do well is to add more complexity to the maneuvers. That said, I'm not sure how much added-value there is in that complexity towards understanding starfighter roles in the SWU.
Also, the balances are different - for example the Y-Wing and the TIE fighter having the same maneuver stat. Like I said, in the X-Wing game, the Y-Wing is a dog compared to the magnificently agile TIE fighter. Furthermore, in that game the TIE Bomber hasn't really yet come into its own as a anti-capital ship craft, because they have only (thus far) introduced two 'huge' ships (the Gallofree transport and the CR-90 corvette). So, right now the bomber works as an platform with anti-starfighter ordnance (which is fun!)
Anyway, the game is geared to be fun rather than a methodical simulation of the SWU. That is, of course, what it should be, just as our game should be geared for fun. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2272
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 21, 2014 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
IMHO, and as a big fan of both franchises (SW and ST), I think they're both about the same.
The difference is that Star Trek has (effectively) two levels of canon (or actual canon and then fanon or non-canon) - you can pretty much check them online by looking at Memory Alpha (canon) and Memory Beta (not) - while Star Wars typically had a bunch of different layers.
Perhaps once the Story Group trims down stuff to 'canon' and 'not', it will improve the issue.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aegisflashfire
Commander
Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
I tend to disagree. Star Trek has never made an effort to police their non-Paramount canon. For that matter, they don't even bother to check their own canon much.
The novels (the primary Star Trek Canon outside the TV shows/films) have no internal consistency whatsoever, excepting those parts that are written by the same author or related authors. (IDIC Epidemic/Vulcan Academy Murders), (Rihannsu series+Spock's World+Doctor's Orders+Intellivore+The Wounded Sky), (Dreadnaught!/Battlestations!) (Chain of Attack/Last Outpost)
The Roleplaying games share nothing in common. The various iterations of Starship combat (FASA's Starship Combat Simulator vs. Star Fleet Battles vs. Hero Click's Attack Wing)
Even The Paramount materials vastly contradict each other ("Vulcan has no moon" yet nearly every shot of Vulcan has moon(s), Spock states explicitly he has no brother, and his brother shows up in STV, the Animated series is considered non-canon, but regularly referenced both visually and in events, particularly in remastered TOS.
Star Wars on the other hand, makes mistakes, and Lucas does his own thing, but they at least tried to maintain a uniform canon to the point of having a whole department in charge of maintaining canon.
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
