| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14305
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16382
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think I'm closing in on a final piece of this particular puzzle. I've been wondering how to resolve transitioning between orbital altitudes listed in kilometers for atmospheric craft and Space Units for starships, and I have a partial solution based on a couple references.1). In the novel adaptation of the original film, it is stated that purely repulsorlift-driven vehicles must be within 6 planetary diameters of a planet to function.
2). It is also stated that, while repulsorlift require a gravity field to function, hyperdrives only function in the absence of a gravity field.
3). The RAW states that a ship must be at least 50 units from a planet to jump to hyperspace.
So, what I'm thinking is using 50 SUs as the dividing line. Pure repulsorlift craft can't function beyond it, but hyperdrives don't work properly until you are past it.
As far as weapon ranges, I'm going to do a little sci-fi handwave and say that a planet's Van Allen belts prevent capital ship scale weaponry from passing through, so in order to perform orbital bombardment or fire support, cap ships have to pass through the belts and enter low orbit to use their weapons effectively, thus incorporating WEG's orbital weapon ranges for capital ships.
Death Star Scale weaponry, on the other hand, has more than enough power to punch through the radiation belts, and can thus be fired from beyond high orbit.
Anti-orbital Turbolasers and ion cannon will have their ranges adjusted to better reflect their greater power and range, either up to a maximum of 50, or some fraction thereof.
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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks fairly reasonable, though having watched the bombardment of Taris a couple times this weekend (damned autosaves are never where you think they'll be), I do wonder about orbital bombardment distances.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14305
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Will there be rules for things like
boiling up rivers, lakes and even oceans?
Starting a perpetual forest fire (like the legacy of the force novels had Jacen do on Kashykk)?
Shooting up land masses enough to cause the tectonic plates / fault lines to act up?
Searing off an atmosphere??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2016 3:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am reminded of an episode for ST: TNG where someone posed as a god by using tractor beams to pull on tectonic plates, causing earthquakes.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16382
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Will there be rules for things like <snip> |
...
IMO, if your campaign actually requires rolling Death Star Scale damage against a Death Star Scale target, you should probably pause for a moment and backtrack to try and find where you went off the rails. The catastrophic effects of orbital bombardment are pretty much just descriptive scenery. Orbital range, however, is still a factor since starships in orbit can still attempt to target characters on the ground or ships in atmosphere.
EDIT: However, if you'd like to come up with something, here. From one of my very first posts back when I was a cadet.
_________________
"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: 16382
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | Looks fairly reasonable, though having watched the bombardment of Taris a couple times this weekend (damned autosaves are never where you think they'll be), I do wonder about orbital bombardment distances. |
Strictly speaking, low Earth orbit is between 160 kilometers and 2,000 kilometers. If the orbital ranges for capital ship weaponry were realistic (combined with the low orbit rule I suggested above), their ranges would be 10x what WEG says they are.
What I'm considering is a rule that increases terrain difficulty as capital ships without an Atmosphere rating drop closer and closer to the surface. Closing the range would make their weapons more accurate, but would also make the ship harder to handle...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14305
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 2:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Will there be rules for things like <snip> |
...
IMO, if your campaign actually requires rolling Death Star Scale damage against a Death Star Scale target, you should probably pause for a moment and backtrack to try and find where you went off the rails. The catastrophic effects of orbital bombardment are pretty much just descriptive scenery. |
You DO remember i have had several threads on "what if the pc's get caught in a bombardment..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16382
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2016 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | You DO remember i have had several threads on "what if the pc's get caught in a bombardment.. |
You DO remember I participated in most of those threads, in addition to starting a few of my own...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14305
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 2:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
So we are on the same page then!! 8)
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zarn
Force Spirit
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 698
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2016 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You are now, at least several times, on page 4 of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16382
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not quite sure how I want to use this, but WEG included this chart in the 1E Rules Companion, listing ranges in meters and kilometers for Starfighter and Cap Ship Scale weaponry. Apparently, under this system, proton torpedoes were strictly Starfighter Scale:Starfighter Mounted Weapons:
Blasters: 200m-10km/20km/35km
Missiles: 250m-4km/17km/30km
Laser Cannon: 200m-5km/25km/50km
Ion Cannon: 5m-5km/15km/75km
Proton Torpedoes: 500m-15km
Capital Ship Mounted Weapons:
Missiles: 3km-25km/60.5km/125km
Turbolasers: 5km-30km/70km/150km
Ion Cannon: 2km-20km/50km/100km
Tractor Beam: 1km-10km/30km/60km
When you compare this to 2E weapon ranges, there is some correlation, like how the maximum ranges for Turbolasers and Ion Cannon are the same. However, it isn't an exact match...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | I'm not quite sure how I want to use this, but WEG included this chart in the 1E Rules Companion, listing ranges in meters and kilometers for Starfighter and Cap Ship Scale weaponry. Apparently, under this system, proton torpedoes were strictly Starfighter Scale:Starfighter Mounted Weapons:
Blasters: 200m-10km/20km/35km
Missiles: 250m-4km/17km/30km
Laser Cannon: 200m-5km/25km/50km
Ion Cannon: 5m-5km/15km/75km
Proton Torpedoes: 500m-15km
Capital Ship Mounted Weapons:
Missiles: 3km-25km/60.5km/125km
Turbolasers: 5km-30km/70km/150km
Ion Cannon: 2km-20km/50km/100km
Tractor Beam: 1km-10km/30km/60km
When you compare this to 2E weapon ranges, there is some correlation, like how the maximum ranges for Turbolasers and Ion Cannon are the same. However, it isn't an exact match... |
Personally I wouldn't worry about reconciling the listed combat ranges for orbital bombardment. The RAW's abstraction has to include limitations of the targeting equipment, which means that they are including the ability to get a firing solution on small fast highly maneuverable starfighters at max range, hitting larger and relatively stationary things from orbit shouldn't be a problem at longer distances. I'd say double those ranges would probably be about right as it would require ships to be inside the Van Allen Belts to do orbital bombardments. Remember that weapons like turbolasers don't just evaporate at their max listed ranges they would slowly deteriorate (lower their D code) until they are gone over a large distance. More evidence that targeting is part of the abstraction is that an SU is not a fixed distance it varies with the terrain of the area. | 2nd R&E page 123 wrote: | Sublight Speeds. Starships cover thousands of kilometers per second in open space. While they are moving much more slowly when orbiting planets and maneuvering through asteroid fields, their speeds are still incredible.
Rather than use these huge numbers for movement, the game uses "Space units" to represent ship speeds and weapon ranges. The ships always move at the same proportional speeds. |
The above rule means that a ship moving all-out in open space is moving faster than the same ship moving all-out in orbit, since the space numbers are the same in both cases they are shrinking the size of the SU in the latter case. This means that the actual ranges are shorter for targeting purposes in orbit when compared to open space for the same range brackets. IMO, the limitation has to come from the targeting mechanisms not the weapons themselves.
With regards to your delineations of Atmosphere Types I would use 4km, 8km, and 16km, for I, II, and III respectively, not only is it an easy progression to remember, but real world accomplishments line up better. Being above 4km without O2 is not likely to kill you, you probably won't even pass out, unless you spend an extreme amount of time there, you will just be working at a reduced capacity. The best example I can think of is Everest which is over 8km has been climbed without O2, in fact an expedition in 1924 got within 900ft of the top(still over 8km) without O2 or any of the high tech gear that is used today. Add to that the above 8km altitudes are referred to as the "Death zone" in the climbing world because of the lack of necessary O2 and I think that it's a strong case for the numbers that I suggested.
Lastly a word about repulsorlift vehicle combat in orbit, based on what I remember from TCW cartoon, I don't believe that such vehicles would be as maneuverable in orbit as they are in atmo, at least they didn't seem to be from what I remember, they simply transited between ship and surface usually with starfighter escort. In any case that's my thoughts on the subject. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3190
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're definity not alone on that thought: it would seem to me that a repulsorlift wouldn't even be able to sustain orbital operations: if they are designed for atmospheric use, why would they even have provisions for orbital operation?
They would have to be completely air tight, would need some kind of climate control capable of overcoming the near absolute zero temps (controls and fluids and whatever else freezing up, etc). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tcschenks
Cadet
Joined: 21 Jun 2016
Posts: 14
Location: Poplar Bluff, MO
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2016 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | You're definity not alone on that thought: it would seem to me that a repulsorlift wouldn't even be able to sustain orbital operations: if they are designed for atmospheric use, why would they even have provisions for orbital operation? |
I'd agree. Atmospheric vehicles have a ceiling or maximum altitude listed. The highest I've seen was 150 km, which I always considered where space began. 150 km is still a lot of combat rounds when a stock light freighter's all-out atmospheric speed is 800 kmh.
I don't think the fastest repulsorlift vehicle in existence that would be able to somehow move in space (perhaps with rocket boosters?) would be able to match the space speed of a lumbering system shuttle with a sublight speed of 1 s.u.
I wonder if a repulsorlift engine could latch on to a starship's tractor beam, though. Aren't they the same technology? Repulsor slingshots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
