Should Capital Ships Have Slower Hyperdrives?

[CRMcNeill]

I've been playing around with this idea for a bit now...

As I'm redoing stats, I've been thinking about the analogies of strengths and weaknesses between real world aircraft and naval vessels. The main balance is one of speed vs. endurance, in that aircraft can fly at higher speeds (both relatively and absolutely), while naval vessels have much greater endurance, and can stay on station for weeks or months at a time. Since the stats already show the massive disparity in endurance between starfighters / space transports and capital ships, I've been thinking about capping the Hyperdrive Multiplier for Capital Ships at x2, with some exceptions for dedicated high-speed pursuit platforms that have to be fast enough to keep up with their prey.

I'd like to hear opinions on this, as well as suggestions as to how to apply this, and which ships should be the exceptions...
_________________
"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

[garhkal]

While i see the logic in that, i feel their hyperdrives since they have more power to push it, shouldn't be limited..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Zarn]

I could almost argue that the other way. Though there probably is an optimal size to speed ratio for hyperspace, one could easily visualize something that is pretty much a set size (or perhaps increases in size linearly as compared to the hyperdrive field) - which could mean that bigger ships could very easily be faster in hyperspace while being much more lumbering in realspace.

There might also be some economy of scale in there, what with the infrastructure necessary to support a hypermatter generator.

One could consider the case of the Long Shot, a number 4 General Products hull that contained the Quantum II drive used in the short story "At the Core" by Larry Niven. Here, one imagines that the Quantum II drive is just barely smaller than the number 4 General Products hull, and something similar might be the case for, say, a class 1 hyperdrive.

Using real-world examples, one might consider the size of a SR-71 as the fastest manned aircraft, while a dogfighting arcraft is somewhat smaller. Then again, supercruise seems to require a certain power-to-weight ratio, so that's probably along the lines of the sweet spot you're looking for.

So I might argue that the Corellian Blockade Runner could be a good candidate for a potentially very fast ship, while an A-wing might be very fast in realspace but lack the room necessary to have a particularly fast hyperdrive.

Which might actually make a case for a space transports-size hyperspace collier, come to think of it.

You could also suppose that the economics of scale is part of the reason why the Empire chooses to use a non-hyperdrive fighter as their primary fighter - it is simply more efficient to have a (fast hyperspace) carrier deploying fast realspace fighters rather than having to choose a fighter that tries to both be reasonably fast in realspace and reasonably fast in hyperspace.

[CRMcNeill]

[Zarn]

I think you're being disingenuous. You first explain that you've been toying with the idea that capital ships might be capped at a higher hyperdrive multiplier than smaller fighter, to further enhance the perceived gap in roles and real-world analogies. And then, you ask for opinions.

I then give a counterpoint, suggesting that if hyperdrives scale better than realspace engines one might actually argue the other way - having starfighters faster in realspace, while capital ships might be faster in hyperspace.

I did mess up my word choice regarding the collier - I didn't mean collier, I meant collar - but I guess I was too caught up in maritime nomenclature to think of the correct word at the time. What I was trying - and failing - to suggest was the capital scale version of a hyperdrive docking ring.

Basically, for operational security, one might think that a system like Kuat might have dedicated hyperdrive docking rings - but on a capital scale - that would ferry bulk cargo freighters into and out of a secure system. Sort of like the Nkllon shield ships, but more hyperspace and less parasol. Or it might be for keeping costs down, allowing ore freighters in a system with active mining to forgo the cost of a hyperspace drive and rather rely on a ferrying system.

The disingenuous part is arguing against my opinion using WEG examples (which your initial position argued changing - I could use exactly the same argument against your opinion), using Einstein's famous equation to argue a point in hyperspace, and then using a point from the movies to argue the correctness of the hyperdrive multiplier assigned to the Corellian Blockade Runner (while the encounter took place in realspace rather than hyperspace - and I could use exactly the same argument against your position as well). You're also using the X-Wing with its assigned WEG stats as a comment, or possibly an argument against, my suggestion. Again, I could mirror that argument exactly as you, too, suggest possibly changing WEG stats.

When it comes to the point of using Einsteinian physics for hyperspace - they likely break down, either partially or completely, in the case of hyperspace travel, as is obliquely addressed in the Legends entry on hyperspace - http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Hyperspace/Legends - in the sentences about baryonic vs tachyonic matter. At the very least, it underscores that the equations for tachyonic matter likely would be different from what one is used to for baryonic matter.

For E = mc^2 to be correct, one would have to use the speed of light as a limit; indeed, that equation is predicated on that notion. Arguing that particular equation in a superluminal context is extending the equation into an area where the prerequisites for the equation are not met.

We both know that we're reading way too much into this. Star Wars ships travel at the speed of plot. No more, no less. The X-Wing is comparable to the TIE fighter in speed and howls as it flies past the screen because it made for more exciting storytelling.

Ultimately, deciding to enhance the difference between capital scale ships as big, lumbering oafs with extreme endurance while small fighters become even faster - perhaps both in hyperspace and realspace - is a matter of taste. Personally, I find the idea of huge ships being fast in hyperspace while small ships being fast in realspace an interesting juxtaposition.

Your opinion seems to lie elsewhere. Which means that opening the floor, as it were, wasn't a true invitation to a discussion or even a sounding of different opinions - you seem to have sought consensus for your initial position. And that was the disingenuous part, to my mind.

[CRMcNeill]

Actually, I'm pretty undecided on this one. AFAIAC, I'm just raising counterpoints, but if you want to take that as being disingenuous, it's a free internet.
_________________
"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

[ForbinProject]

[Zarn]

[MrNexx]

[ForbinProject]

[MrNexx]

And that analogy would go along with Lucas's inspiration for the space fight scenes.
_________________
"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/

[CRMcNeill]

Another question on hyperdrives is criteria for what ship has what sort of multiplier.

For instance, the ISD I has a x2, while the ISD II has a x1, literally twice as fast. So what criteria should be set as to what sort of ship can be equipped with a x1 drive, as opposed to a x2.

Also, just out of curiosity, do any of you use alternative modifiers as interim steps between the existing modifiers?

What I mean by this is, while a x2 hyperdrive is 33% faster than a x3 hyperdrive, a x1 is 50% faster than a x2, and likewise with a x1/2 over a x1. It seems a little bit off to me that hyperdrive speeds would scale up so much more quickly as they get faster; I would think that, at the higher speed levels, the increases in speed would get closer and closer together, due to incremental improvements in technology.

For myself, adding in a x1.5 and x.75 modifier results in an alternating progression of 33% and 25% increases in speed when progressing from x3 to x1/2 (and continues if you decide to add in x1/3 and x1/4 modifiers for advanced tech).

Anyway, weigh in.
_________________
"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

[shootingwomprats]

I absolutely think that larger ships should be slower in hyperspace as well as real space and have low if not negative maneuverability scores.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]