| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1854
Location: Norway
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:22 am Post subject: Starship Gutting....... |
 |
|
I was reading up on the "Corvus" and it made me think a little.
The Wookiepedia states that the Corvus was gutted, I assume this is more or less as simple as keeping the hull and actually putting new and even different stuff inside, as long as it is made to fit.
This to me could be why the "Corvus" carried internal fighters rather than on external racks (as stated the regular raiders do).
IF this is the case, then ship construction in star wars is given a new dimension.
So how far can we push something like this?
Could something like a Torpedo Sphere be gutted and refitted to serve the role of a massive carrier, a mini death star with tons of huge guns.
I also think this may be way to "allow" mechanically some of the strange starships out there, like a freighter luke udes that was just big enough to hold his x wing, and launch it...........
I don't how he would dock it, but again I never read the story, just noticed the very exotic light freighter of his.
I can also see with this systems, shields, engines and the like being retrofitted into a shell of a hull.
Maybe give the designation -X like a gutted and refitted TIE Shuttle, turned into a single person combat transport.
Gutting and refitting the pods, engines and the like...all of a sudden the TIE shuttle can perform, fight and may have shields.
though on something that small a gutting would possibly be harder.
This also makes me think of miniaturization and automation.
I can actually see a corvette size ship with 4 double turbolasers, having 0 gunners on each gun, but a bridge gun control bay with maybe 4 gunners.
This could maybe influence firecontrol and the like, but makes sense to me.
I can see a bridge like this ; Helm, shields, gunnery, countermeasures, comms, sensors, and bridge officer
the gunnery crew on bridge replacing many or even all of the crews for the gun turrets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just because something is physically possible isn't the same thing as being economically or technologically feasible. If form follows function, ships designed from the outset may perform poorly when shoe-horned into other roles, no matter how much technology is swapped out. Cargo space is relative easy to convert; your example of converting a Torpedo Sphere into a carrier would only be slightly more complicated (depending on how much of its interior is magazines for the torpedo launchers, and how much is taken up by other systems like the Gravshock Device). Something like a shuttle, however, will be built around a physical framework that isn't designed to the same stress tolerances as starfighters, and no amount of technology swapping is going to fully make up for that.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Zarn
Force Spirit
Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 698
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Luke's Q-ship, the one with the concealed X-Wing, was a one-off device used to employ a maneuver known as a Covert Shroud. There's a diagram here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Covert_Shroud_Maneuver
The YZ-775 transport No Luck Required, had a revolving hangar device retrofitted that could hold up to four A-Wings. It did have to sacrifice some weaponry to do that. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/No_Luck_Required has an image that shows the rotating hangar rack - it's externally mounted.
Re-engineering something is likely much harder than just breaking something down for parts and raw materials. Something like the World Devastators point to that. The exception to this would be if you had something really large made of an exotic alloy or something, or if you for some reason don't have access to cutting edge technology. Retrofitting an ancient battlecruiser or something would be in this general area - particularly if it was something like a Sith battlecruiser.
If I were to design anything that was to deploy a swath of starfighters at once, I'd likely start with a non-modular bulk freighter - a cavernous hold should give me enough space to play with. I'd then have one side be capable of being blown entirely open, and the racks of starfighters pointing out.
Something like that will never be a true carrier. Re-stacking the starfighters would be a tedious and slow process. Handling combat damaged starfighters or re-arming starfighters would also be slow and tedious. A true carrier would be able to handle both of those things. Makeshift carriers like what you're suggesting would likely work once or twice because of surprise - but would have trouble sustaining operations.
You can also look to the Q-ships in the Honorverse for some discussion about armed merchantmen (bulk freighters, essentially, unless it was purpose-built as a q-ship), http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Q-ship , or look to the real q-ships adapted during WWII. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/q/q-ships-during-world-war-ii.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1854
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2018 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zarn wrote: | Luke's Q-ship, the one with the concealed X-Wing, was a one-off device used to employ a maneuver known as a Covert Shroud. There's a diagram here: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Covert_Shroud_Maneuver
The YZ-775 transport No Luck Required, had a revolving hangar device retrofitted that could hold up to four A-Wings. It did have to sacrifice some weaponry to do that. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/No_Luck_Required has an image that shows the rotating hangar rack - it's externally mounted.
Re-engineering something is likely much harder than just breaking something down for parts and raw materials. Something like the World Devastators point to that. The exception to this would be if you had something really large made of an exotic alloy or something, or if you for some reason don't have access to cutting edge technology. Retrofitting an ancient battlecruiser or something would be in this general area - particularly if it was something like a Sith battlecruiser.
If I were to design anything that was to deploy a swath of starfighters at once, I'd likely start with a non-modular bulk freighter - a cavernous hold should give me enough space to play with. I'd then have one side be capable of being blown entirely open, and the racks of starfighters pointing out.
Something like that will never be a true carrier. Re-stacking the starfighters would be a tedious and slow process. Handling combat damaged starfighters or re-arming starfighters would also be slow and tedious. A true carrier would be able to handle both of those things. Makeshift carriers like what you're suggesting would likely work once or twice because of surprise - but would have trouble sustaining operations.
You can also look to the Q-ships in the Honorverse for some discussion about armed merchantmen (bulk freighters, essentially, unless it was purpose-built as a q-ship), http://honorverse.wikia.com/wiki/Q-ship , or look to the real q-ships adapted during WWII. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/q/q-ships-during-world-war-ii.html |
Superb breakdown and it did answer some of the things I wondered about.
In general, what I was referring to was something that was designed to share the hull X, but the insides, designed and purposely built, lets say by the empire R&D division, and the insides of hull X is not the standard.
This would explain some of the usually one off anomaly ships out there, like the corvus (pre rebel redesign), allowing for the hidden but small hangar, at among other things (possibly) expence of the external racks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
willg
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 202
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Just because something is physically possible isn't the same thing as being economically or technologically feasible. If form follows function, ships designed from the outset may perform poorly when shoe-horned into other roles, no matter how much technology is swapped out. Cargo space is relative easy to convert; your example of converting a Torpedo Sphere into a carrier would only be slightly more complicated (depending on how much of its interior is magazines for the torpedo launchers, and how much is taken up by other systems like the Gravshock Device). Something like a shuttle, however, will be built around a physical framework that isn't designed to the same stress tolerances as starfighters, and no amount of technology swapping is going to fully make up for that. |
Absolutley. Reminds me of a Doctor Who line which gets the idea across, its a bit abrupt but it's from middle of an argument about genetic engineering.
" I have no doubt you could augment an earwig to the point where it understood nuclear physics, but it'd still be a very stupid thing to do!"
Now you can rationalise things, like oh there was a limitation on available resources, or in the instance of Lukes freighter that concealed the X-wing, that was for covert and mission based purposes. However, in the long run outside certain missions, it wouldnt be practical.
The shuttle vs Fighter analogy is good, its like comparing a Cesna airplane to a Tornado or a Harrier fighter jet. or a mini van with a Racing car. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
willg
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 29 Apr 2014
Posts: 202
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
In general, what I was referring to was something that was designed to share the hull X, but the insides, designed and purposely built, lets say by the empire R&D division, and the insides of hull X is not the standard.
|
It IS possible you could rationalise something, oh it was leftover from something, a half completed build and the bean counters in the Empire were being particularly stingy, so instead of having a new vessel custom built, they had to adapt existing tech. That could be interesting. Or perhaps a certain design or shaped hull was required and they already had this type in production.
This might seem to contradict what I was saying, but its like the expression trying to make a silk purse out a pigs ear. It cant be done because the materials are wrong. However, repurposing existing tech does have precedent.
the USAS American Mariner for instance was a repurposed WW2 Liberty ship, as after the war, the Navy had an abundance of these cargo vessels. Worth looking into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAS_American_Mariner[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1854
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2018 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| willg wrote: | | Quote: |
In general, what I was referring to was something that was designed to share the hull X, but the insides, designed and purposely built, lets say by the empire R&D division, and the insides of hull X is not the standard.
|
It IS possible you could rationalise something, oh it was leftover from something, a half completed build and the bean counters in the Empire were being particularly stingy, so instead of having a new vessel custom built, they had to adapt existing tech. That could be interesting. Or perhaps a certain design or shaped hull was required and they already had this type in production.
This might seem to contradict what I was saying, but its like the expression trying to make a silk purse out a pigs ear. It cant be done because the materials are wrong. However, repurposing existing tech does have precedent.
the USAS American Mariner for instance was a repurposed WW2 Liberty ship, as after the war, the Navy had an abundance of these cargo vessels. Worth looking into.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAS_American_Mariner |
[/quote]
I am sort of thinking of the corvus for this example.
To me "standard" raiders have external ties racks, appear to have different systems, as it seems the corvus could be piloted (possibly not use the weapons, or only some) by only 2 people.
Additionally it seemed it operated just fine with what would be less than a skeleton crew for a standard Raider.
So this is where I figured if build by a shipyard/company etc then to me ti seems plausible to actually more or less have anything go as conversions or modifications |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Reading up on the description of the Corvus, I have to say that, while Wookieepedia may have used the word "gutted" incorrectly. "Upgraded" seems more appropriate, as the "gutting" took place in the context of giving the ship "state of the art computer systems."
As a side note, the Wookieepedia article gives the Raider II both ion cannon and concussion missile launchers, which is technically incorrect. While the ship customization system in Armada is much more open to personal preference than the WEG system, the ship stats in the game are much more geared to the Raider I being equipped with concussion missiles or torpedoes, while the Raider II is equipped with ion cannon.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1854
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Reading up on the description of the Corvus, I have to say that, while Wookieepedia may have used the word "gutted" incorrectly. "Upgraded" seems more appropriate, as the "gutting" took place in the context of giving the ship "state of the art computer systems."
As a side note, the Wookieepedia article gives the Raider II both ion cannon and concussion missile launchers, which is technically incorrect. While the ship customization system in Armada is much more open to personal preference than the WEG system, the ship stats in the game are much more geared to the Raider I being equipped with concussion missiles or torpedoes, while the Raider II is equipped with ion cannon. |
I did not stat it, but I would find it reasonable the internal and from the battlefront game also "hidden" hangar, would be parts of this gutting. as in all scourses I have seen the raiders are all given external racks for fighters, not a hangar.
The corvus has one |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No offense, but your grammar there was sufficiently tortured that I need to ask for clarification of your intended point.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1854
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | No offense, but your grammar there was sufficiently tortured that I need to ask for clarification of your intended point. |
What I meant was that if we look at the corvus, then that ship had to have undergone more "gutting" than simply enhanced systems.
The ship has a "hidden" hangar on the right side, all other sources states that the raider(s) have external racks.
Another thing about that ship in particular is the extremely small size crew, at the most it appears to be a skeleton crew size in the 15-20 range, with only 2 needed to actually pilot the vessel.
(that being said, most ships even star destroyers can "easily" be piloted by 1-4 people, it has been done in the EU)
Seeing the hangar of the corvus is large enough to fit at least two TIE fighters and room for an X Wing in addition (as seen from battlefront).
To me this looks very much like a massive gutting and refitting of the ship.
Maybe even a total modification.
The small crew also makes me wonder if the weapon systems are heavily automated and possibly fully controlled from the bridge.
This is the Imperial Mosifictions, it appears that after defection the ship was even more modified, with different wing foil system as well as design |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually, the D6 stats with external racks were written up by me, so I can speak with some authority on my sources. To wit, there really aren't any; putting TIE racks was more of an intuitive choice made because of the Armada ship having at least some ability to "activate" (IIRC) fighter units. However, no official sources I'm aware of give the Raider I or II integral fighter transport capacity.
It's important to remember that video games are not always the best source; visual designers tend to think in terms of what looks cool rather than what fits well with the canon. That being said, refitting a Raider with an internal hangar bay is theoretically possible, with the caveat that for something to be put in, something must be taken out (warships especially try to keep wasted space to a minimum). In this case, it seems that, with the state-of-the-art computer system upgrades, this would increase the ship's automation, thereby reducing the size of the crew, which would allow crew quarters to be stripped out to make room for added transport space.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mamatried
Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 1854
Location: Norway
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2018 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Actually, the D6 stats with external racks were written up by me, so I can speak with some authority on my sources. To wit, there really aren't any; putting TIE racks was more of an intuitive choice made because of the Armada ship having at least some ability to "activate" (IIRC) fighter units. However, no official sources I'm aware of give the Raider I or II integral fighter transport capacity.
It's important to remember that video games are not always the best source; visual designers tend to think in terms of what looks cool rather than what fits well with the canon. That being said, refitting a Raider with an internal hangar bay is theoretically possible, with the caveat that for something to be put in, something must be taken out (warships especially try to keep wasted space to a minimum). In this case, it seems that, with the state-of-the-art computer system upgrades, this would increase the ship's automation, thereby reducing the size of the crew, which would allow crew quarters to be stripped out to make room for added transport space. |
Something about what I was thinking on the matter.
I am also thinking if this can be done with a raider, then this can be done with other ships.
However these are not to modifications, as I see that things that can be done "relatively cheap and easy" compared to a factory "customization".
If we look to the books that do have some rules for ship modification, none of them seems undoable and to me the limit is what fits in to the hull and does it serve a purpose and is it actually needed.
This takes me back to the fractalsponge images we have a ling to on here.
The Imperial Custom Corvette ( Larger than the raider though) turned into mini carrier.
Otherwise, I am not where I saw it, but in general the customization mechanics is to remove/replace cargo space, though I like that option I find it to be only an added option.
I can not see how it in any way can be hard to almost totally refit ships, there IS turbolaser cannons for fighters awesome and a proof to me that they don't need to be big as a house.
Technology I think within reason is being renewed and maybe even miniaturized as we do see turbolasers for starfighters and light freighters be a possible but expensive and hard to get upgrade.
If we look to corvette and that size ship to me it seems the most versatile in terms of allowing modification and customizations, much like light freighter is "the sandbox ship" of the non capital ships, I much see the corvette size to be.
Look at the CR90, I don't there is a ship more modified and "reconfigured" and/or gutted and changed in the entire EU/Canon.
We have the "classic" blockade runner, then we have the "Far Star" and this is radical as this is even more than a gutting, this is an almost total rebuild, larger hull with added hangars etc etc....
So I am thinking, with the empire being "CHEAP", the listings of their starships is the cheapest minimum (for their demands), and such the stats of imperial ships can be upgraded to the extreme.
The TIE Defender, is not radically larger than the normal TIE, the cockpit and hull section of them both are more or less the same......
One has a shield generator, one does not..............while I would argue a shield generator that fits a defender will fit almost any other TIE, same goes with a hyperdrive............one model has this then all other models CAN have this.
So where exactly do the limit go?
I dare say once you have the hull you can and should be allowed anything that fits, even very strange things like allowing for a light freighter to launch fighters or a corvette to launch freighters, or destroyers launching corvettes
Adding and reducing crew down to skeletons and beyond.
To be fair I can realistically see a star destroyer even , be full flown and operated even through combat by a micro crew, maybe for destroyer less than 100, and maybe even allow a flight only with as little a 1-X pilots.
So where do you guys think the limit is if there is any |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
