| 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: Sat May 21, 2016 6:31 pm Post subject: Cargo Capacity Conversion Discovery |
 |
|
Something I've always wondered is how certain vehicles convert into weights for cargo capacity. In a recent download of the Classic Adventures update over on the G+ community, I found the following:An AT-AT Shuttle Barge can carry 1 AT-AT, 4 AT-STs or 80 metric tons of cargo.
An AT-AT can carry 40 troops or 2 AT-STs. Combine the two and the result is a cargo capacity equivalent of:80 metric tons = 80 passengers (troops) = 4 AT-STs = 1 AT-AT
So an AT-ST on the hoof weighs 20 tons, and an AT-AT weights 80 tons.
Thoughts?
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After looking at some screen grabs from RotJ, I'm thinking 20 tons is overestimating the weight of an AT-ST; although, I'm certain you're more familiar with tonnage and what it looks like than I am.
Do you estimate that a 500 horsepower tractor could pull exactly two of these, and not a pound more? Seems like, if you could fold up the legs underneath them, you'd have maybe 10 tons and could pull 4 of them... just guessing, though.
I know I've seen some "wide loads" that must certainly outweigh an AT-ST by a factor of at least 2...
What do you think? |
|
| 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 May 21, 2016 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | What do you think? |
I think that this is the closest thing I've seen to an actual conversion ratio, and that points like yours are the reason I asked the question in the first place. 
My personal approach is that, rather than the cargo capacity being a flat limit (at least in the case of space transports), going above the cargo capacity begins to inflict temporary Lost Moves, starting at 50%, 100%, 150% and 200%, as per the Lost Moves chart for starship damage. Basically, every time a ship goes up a Step, it loses a Move until, at 200%, its engines lack the power to move it any further.
It's not the most accurate system, but it encompases the idea well enough, in that the more heavily you load a thing, you get a gradual falling off in performance, not a sudden stop.
There is also a place for an increase in piloting difficulty as weight increases, but I'm not quite sure how I'd apply 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 |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see. Well, as for the sudden stop thing, I can see what you mean. What about damage to the vehicle caused by overloading? Too much crunch?
Also, I'd be perfectly happy with an explanation for weight/capacity having something to do with size + weight... as in, regardless of how much it actually weighs, it takes up its size (for example, a 20-ton equivalent) or its weight (which might only be 10 tons) whichever is greater.
A bounce house might only weigh a couple hundred pounds, but (assuming its fully inflated), it takes more space than, say, 12,000 lb truck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Sat May 21, 2016 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would suggest that, based on examination of relevant sources, an AT-ST probably weighs closer to 4 tons. It might even be lighter than that, given that it's designed to be a scout device. It would lose a substantial amount of that function if it were heavier and, therefore, unable to traverse terrain that would bog down something larger. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2016 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
My initial thought was also that its tonnage would be in the single digits, but, after seeing what a few tons of concrete looks like (its surprisingly "small" considering its weight), I find myself a little bewildered when it comes to estimating the total mass of something.
Given that an AT-ST has more volume than mass (i.e. it has empty space inside) I could see it being lighter than it looks. |
|
| 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: Sun May 22, 2016 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | My initial thought was also that its tonnage would be in the single digits, but, after seeing what a few tons of concrete looks like (its surprisingly "small" considering its weight), I find myself a little bewildered when it comes to estimating the total mass of something.
Given that an AT-ST has more volume than mass (i.e. it has empty space inside) I could see it being lighter than it looks. |
I'm only hesitant to agree because we don't know the weight of its armor plating.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2016 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Considering that the modern Stryker armored car weighs in right around 20 tons, I don't find it too strange that an AT-ST weighs the same.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2016 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think the tricky part, in my game at least, is the nexus that must exist between weight and volume.
When my players are figuring out where to put everything in their cargo hold for example, there is a space restriction as well as the weight restriction; it's the weight that would contribute to flying penalties of course.
So I'll often assign something bulky a 'tonnage' based on how bulky it is. That might trump its actual weight.
While an AT-ST might be bulky it's also mostly hollow...so...?????? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2016 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Exactly what I was trying to say, only yours was better. |
|
| 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: Sun May 22, 2016 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | | While an AT-ST might be bulky it's also mostly hollow...so...?????? |
And a Stryker isn't? It's 20 tons of metal on the hoof, but that weight is mostly in the outer shell. Saying that something is light just because it looks light is not conclusive proof. I have no problem believing that the AT-ST's outer shell and frame are composed of dense, durable, heavy metals, or that the legs are composed of similar materials. I don't see why this is such an issue.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2016 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I don't see why this is such an issue. |
There's no issue unless you're making one. Searching for something to argue about?
It's a shared question;
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Thoughts? |
My thought is...any cargo capacity conversion has to address volume and not just weight...unless your hold is cavernous enough to never get full before you hit the maximum lift weight....even if you're transporting crates of pillow stuffing vs bars of lead. |
|
| 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: Sun May 22, 2016 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WEG's rule of thumb is 1 cubic meter per 2 metric tons.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10408
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun May 22, 2016 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Something else to consider is that the Empire is a highly-advanced civilization taking place in a completely fictional galaxy where they would likely have metal alloys that simply do not exist in the real world. They could be stronger and lighter than anything we have. They do have transparent metal after all. I caution against overly relying on comparisons to the real world. Just throwing that out there. Carry on.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 911
|
| Posted: Mon May 23, 2016 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | WEG's rule of thumb is 1 cubic meter per 2 metric tons. |
I'm interested in YOUR take on it.
That's way more simplistic than what I expect from you. lol. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
