"Capital Ship Scale" and larger space transports

[Telsij]

While writing up SAPONZA (from the Star Wars: Commander videogame) for the next "Obscure Character Archive" post, I debated whether or not to tweak the scale of his CR-20 Troop Carrier from Capital to Space Transports. Ultimately I think I'll do it, for a variety of reasons. What probably tipped the scales was finding the old F7 “Landing Brick” Drop-Ship, with the same length (60m) and similar silhouette, and a similar (enough) function as the CR-20 Troop Carrier — and that Saponza was able to rig his ship so as to fly it solo.

So despite the earlier D20 to D6 conversion of the 2003 Clone Wars ship as a capital ship, I'll likely have Saponza's CR-20 be a space transport and adjust ship stats accordingly.

And that got me curious as to what the Pit's general consensus re: similar issues of scalie might be:

With all the known stat inconsistencies in WEG, what are your criteria for establishing the cut-off point between large space transports (and similarly-sized drop-ships, carriers and gunships), and capital ships?

Mine, off the top of my head, and among other things, are (obviously) size, function and armament, and crew reqs.

Elsewhere here, I have seen a creation of a scale between starfighter and capital, but if keeping (more or less) to RAW, what do you usually do, with these "middle-ground" cases?


EDIT: I did search for existing topics first, but if this has been covered elsewhere ad nauseum, Whills or mods, pls feel free to move to where appropriate!

[Whill]

Adding any scales above starfighter involves updating existing stats as ships get reclassified, so it just depends on how much work you want to put in it. I have no problem with more scales if someone else does the work of revising stats accordingly, which CRM has done quite a lot of. Below is his body of stats and the House Rules post has a link to his Scale System. It might not be for everyone but it might be worth it to look at it and consider it.

https://rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6769
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage

[Telsij]

Yes! Sorry if I worded it poorly. I wasn't going to add any new formally named intermediate scales (though using the three +2D increments in the 6D gap between starfighter and capital, for hull code increments when statting new ships, works well for me), I was just curious about what people's general criteria were.

Without adding formal scales, where do people usually draw the line between large space transports and capital ships, in terms of dimensions? For creating new ships, say, or revamping old ships within RAW whose stats weren't so "accurate", do you have set ballpark figures, weigh function over size or armament or vice versa, etc?

Would you go with a combination of size and function in terms of assigning classification, esp since WEG did it so willy-nilly? Where some make sense (a 100 meter gunship would be capital, while a 100 meter container ship might be starfighter scale) and others don't.

That said, good call, Whill! I definitely dug CRMcNeill's in-depth revamp of starship rules, combat and scale in particular, and even just looking back into the threads now (it had been some months) has helped me cement the decision and stick with my ballpark benchmarks of approx 100 meters and up, plus combat function, then adjust case-by-case.

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

As far as skills, though, I think there's something to be said for having the Capital-Scale Space Transports work under the Capital Ship Operations skill (although I'd prefer a more inclusive skill name), and then put both Starfighters and Starfighter-Scale Space Transports under a single skill called Starship Operation.
_________________
"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

[Raven Redstar]

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]

Larger Scale also makes a ship more vulnerable to precision fire with smaller scale weapons, via the RoE Accuracy Damage Bonus rule. Sure, a Proton Torpedo from an X-Wing only does 3D Capital-Scale Damage, but it has an effective Fire Control of 8D.
_________________
"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

[Mamatried]

In short. A small ship has a bonus to hit a large ship but it deals less damage, a large ship has a penalty to hit a small ship but does a lot of damage.

now we consider that a starfighter is in fact a threat to even a star destroyer, and a squadron even more so (becuse of the lack or low number of anti starfighter weapons on the isd) the we could argue that a transport, a buld freighter, a tanker, or something like this would be signifacntly less armored and less shileded, with most likely much less performanc abilities than a warship.

With the current scales then a starfighter, espcieally a heavy fighter will bave a bonus to hit the vessel just like when attacking a warship, but becuse the civilian freighter is less armored and less shileded the scale penalty for the attacking starfighter is then in effect significantly less.

Now I can not imagine any large bulk frieghters over 4-5 speed if that even, with maybe a max +1D maneuver, though I would but this for the majority in the 0+1 or 0+2 range. I doubt we have a hull rating of much more than 4D and shields I can not see over 2D, now due to sheer size it may take a hit or two, but an ion blast a proton torpedo, even some well placed heavy shots and the ship is very very very dead in space, ripe for the boarders if not not destroyed

[Bren]

One option would be to give certain space transports the worst of both worlds. Capital scale for maneuverability and dodging. Starfighter scale for damage.

Obviously this would apply to unmodified, transports designed for relatively safe routes or for traveling in convoys or with escorts. Some transports would be more robust.

[Raven Redstar]

[CRMcNeill]

[Bren]

[Mamatried]

the scaling system doesn't type skill with size, so in many ways what TS wanted I can't see be a bigger deal than to simply change skill Cpatial Ship X to Space transport X.

This due to a ton of ships, some 500meter + in size all being capatal size but with space tranport skill.

Now a captal ship a transport of 500+ meter, why capatal whrrn you have same size ships being space transport,

As to dealing damage, trust me a fighter carrying ion weapons and turbolasres ( yes fighters CAN carry then and not be ugly ships) then an fairly unarmed and unarmored anything would be damage.


Now one thing I do find that the ruels don't cover is boosting wepons and maybe even allowing different scale weapons.

I can't for the life ofme not see why a starfiter can not have a heavy enough cannon that isat apr with some of corvettes, and why , becuse we see this in real life, you don't need a big boat to sport a 40mm oelicon autocannon, and well unless you are a warship, even a supertanker will quite easily be sunk by it......despite the size diffenence.

Now let think this, how much damage would a single spitfire do to a german battleship, then lets size down to a cruiser, then down to a destroyer and soo on, once we come down to about patrol boat size is the starfighter a significant threat.

TWO star fighters on the other hand is muchg more than double the threat, then 3 for a fight, and 12for a squadron.

I can't see any scenario in star wars with fither vs "destroyer" in any meaninful way, and for that I am not worried if a single fighter can take it.....

[Mamatried]

This is about starfiter combat, but do contain data for things like turbolaser ROF and turnrate etc etc, maybe a good selection of rules, ddesigned for space combat onely.

WEG Star Warriors: Starfighter Combat in the Star Wars Universe



EDIT: Removed link to WEG Star Wars bootleg.