| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 19, 2020 12:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
My bad. Things have been pretty hectic for me lately, and I'm guessing that I keep reinterpreting your idea as a re-stating of the Deepwater, rather than a separate vessel. That's been my approach to many of my stat re-writes, in that an "official" variant with so many untenable flaws and contradictions needs to be corrected.
_________________
"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: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:35 am Post subject: MC-13v2 |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | My bad. Things have been pretty hectic for me lately, and I'm guessing that I keep reinterpreting your idea as a re-stating of the Deepwater, rather than a separate vessel. That's been my approach to many of my stat re-writes, in that an "official" variant with so many untenable flaws and contradictions needs to be corrected. |
Sure. I originally set out just to make an individual modified DeepWater with its own deckplan, but in the process of doing so I realized just how flawed the DeepWater was in multiple aspects that it ended up making more sense for my modified ship to be a successor model of the DeepWater that improved on the flaws of the DeepWater (and cost double the price). The Star Wars Universe can have some starships with flawed designed, even the Mon Cals. And doing it this way means that any GM can adopt the MC-13v2 into his campaign without stepping on the toes of their existing continuity if they have already used the DeepWater from RAW in their campaign universe.
Where did I come up with the name of the MC-13v2? I can't find it now, but I swear that when I was researching for this project I had come across some fanon that said the DeepWater was the MC-10. 13 is my favorite number and MC-13 hadn't been used in publishing, so I just decided my new class of ship would be the MC-13 (and in my mind I think of the DeepWater as MC-10).
The "v2" has multiple meanings. My original deckplan didn't start as being from a new class of ship but ended up one, so the stock deckplan came second and it's "version 2" in a retro-engineering kind of way. Also, the letter "w" is 2 v's, so "v2" is symbolic my name's initial of W (no way I would have "u2" in the ship name).
At some point I realized that the stock ship I designed still didn't justify the big escape pod capacity I wanted my modified ship to have, so I decided that in-universe the stock ship was originally designed as a luxury passenger-oriented vessel (still with high freight capabilities), but last minute design changes before production began reconfigured the ship even more so as freighter (to take full advantage of the engine hauling power and space for freight), so they just left the three escape pods in the standard version to not delay it going into production. On the drawing board the original ship had been called MC-13, so the first version that went into production was the redesign called MC-13v2. After the MC-13v2's initial success, they also released the original design for the ship as a lesser-produced variant that they then called the MC-13v2p for marketing reasons.
I knew about the MC-18 ship that WEG and the FFG RPG published, but I didn't realize until after I designed the three deckplans and wrote up the document that the MC-18 unfortunately has the same fundamentally flawed design that DeepWater does (that the shield system is used to protect it from the pressures of the deep instead of its own hull, so if the shield system fails when the ship is too deep then bye bye). It wouldn't seem to make sense that they would go back to the flawed design after being more successful with the fixed design, but maybe they wanted to make a middle market vessel that just took advantage of the popularity of the MC-13. (The R5 definitely was a step down from the R4, R3, and R2.) Maybe sometime I'll flesh out the stats for the MC-18 like I did for the DeepWater.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2020 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I love it! I think I'll see about using one in my next solo play, or at least figure out a way to work one in.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2020 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
I haven't got back to this but when I do, I think the write-up for The Odyssey (modified example of MC-13v2), and the MC-13v2p (passenger variant) won't be too hard because they are based on the existing ship. The deckplans are already done.
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | I love it! |
Thanks for your feedback. It means a lot.
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | I think I'll see about using one in my next solo play, or at least figure out a way to work one in. |
Cool. Let me know how it goes.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Fri Mar 05, 2021 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to have to convert it to 1E, but I'm going to use one in my upcoming game.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| 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: Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | I'm going to have to convert it to 1E, but I'm going to use one in my upcoming game. |
Would you like that in 1E or IAG?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm going to have it be the Smuggler's Impounded ship that he still owes money on. I'm going to be providing a replacement ship during the first adventure, stealing back his baby will be a side quest.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| 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: Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's the straight 1E Conversion.Craft: MC-13v2 Freighter
Type: Stock Freighter
Crew: 2 (minimum)
Passengers: 6
Cargo Capacity: 330 metric tons
Consumables: 2 months
Hyperdrive Multiplier: x2
Sublight Speed: 3D
Maneuverability: 1D
Hull: 5D
Weapons:Dual Pulse Laser
Fire Control: 2D
Damage: 5D Shields:
Let me know if you want a hybrid stat with stuff incorporated from later editions.
I tried to reverse calculate an underwater speed, but there's not enough information in the Conversion appendix in the 2E Rulebook to generate an answer that wasn't a guess. In the absence of other information, I'd probably just go with 1D.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Raven Redstar wrote: | | I'm going to have to convert it to 1E, but I'm going to use one in my upcoming game. |
Would you like that in 1E or IAG? |
Both? 
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Here's the straight 1E Conversion.Craft: MC-13v2 Freighter
Type: Stock Freighter
Crew: 2 (minimum)
Passengers: 6
Cargo Capacity: 330 metric tons
Consumables: 2 months
Hyperdrive Multiplier: x2
Sublight Speed: 3D
Maneuverability: 1D
Hull: 5D
Weapons:Dual Pulse Laser
Fire Control: 2D
Damage: 5D Shields:
Let me know if you want a hybrid stat with stuff incorporated from later editions.
I tried to reverse calculate an underwater speed, but there's not enough information in the Conversion appendix in the 2E Rulebook to generate an answer that wasn't a guess. In the absence of other information, I'd probably just go with 1D. |
Wow, that was quick. Thanks! I think this will be good.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Here's the straight 1E Conversion.Craft: MC-13v2 Freighter
Type: Stock Freighter
Crew: 2 (minimum)
Passengers: 6
Cargo Capacity: 330 metric tons
Consumables: 2 months
Hyperdrive Multiplier: x2
Sublight Speed: 3D
Maneuverability: 1D
Hull: 5D
Weapons:Dual Pulse Laser
Fire Control: 2D
Damage: 5D Shields:
Let me know if you want a hybrid stat with stuff incorporated from later editions.
I tried to reverse calculate an underwater speed, but there's not enough information in the Conversion appendix in the 2E Rulebook to generate an answer that wasn't a guess. In the absence of other information, I'd probably just go with 1D. |
Thanks. It is true that the vehicle edition conversion appendix doesn't have any subaquatic vehicles, but there is a bit more to go on here. The ship's 2e atmosphere move is 330, and it says for 1e to 2e to go by the ship's description for that. The subaquatic move is one-fifth of the atmosphere move, which IIRC was your suggestion. On the chart, 6D+2 is the atmospheric Modified Speed that corresponds to Move 330. Converting 6D+2 with 3 pips per D gives you 20 pips, and dividing that by 5 is 4 pips which converts back to 1D+1. If you give D a more accurate value of 3.5, then 6D+2 = 6(3.5)+2 = 23, and 23/5 = 4.6, and 4.6/3.5 = 1.314D, which is pretty close to 1D+1. So based on that, I'd give it a subaquatic speed code of 1D+1.
However, comparing it to published 1e subaquatic vehicles, I looked in the Battle for the Golden Sun module. The PC "Space Boat" Explorer which has space/atmo/subaquatic capability is not even given an underwater speed code (It's sublight is 2D). The AT-AT Swimmer has a speed code of 3D, which makes the MC-13v2 seem too slow. So it seems that, like the vehicle chart in the appendix suggests, each type of vehicle had its own scale for speed codes in 1e, and we only have ground and air vehicle types in the chart, not subaquatic vehicles.
Incidentally, the 2e conversion of the AT-AT Swimmer in the Rancor Pit Vehicles conversion doc has a Move of 28. I found a conversion on the web dated February 2000 (which may have been consulted when the Rancor Pit stat compilation was made). It also has a Move 28, and it says that Eric Trautmann, WEG author, "signed off" on the stats. It's obvious that they came to that figure by applying the Walker modifier from the Vehicle chart to the AT-AT Swimmer's speed code, which doesn't really seem applicable to a submarine that only resembles an AT-AT without legs. However in 2e, the 28 seems appropriate compared to the MC-13v2 because the ship's subaquatic full speed (66) is based on the shields providing a supercavitation effect, and when the shields are not operational then the speed is halved to 33 which is just a little over the AT-AT Swimmer, which I just do not see as a really fast vehicle.
So in 1e I'd give the MC-13v2 a subaquatic speed code of 1D+1 but I'd give the AT-AT Swimmer a speed code of 1D.
EDIT: I added my 1e stats to the bottom of the original stats post (which also incorporate updates to the 2e stats).
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:09 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10402
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2020 2:31 am Post subject: Re: MC-13v2 Freighter |
|
|
I made some updates to these posts. First, I embraced this ship being a medium freighter. That really helps justify this ship seeming so OP for a light freighter. This ship is already larger than a lot of light freighters anyway. This ship being considered a medium freighter really seems to help justify the passenger capacity and other stats.
Looking at all the other medium freighters made me realize that this ship is serious pirate bait with the 330 ton cargo capacity. Pirates like to know their targets and choose them judiciously, weighing risk against the potential gain. The possibility of this ship having full cargo holds means possibly more booty, which makes this ship more attractive. Yes, it has a higher Hull than a lot of freighters, but didn't think that was enough to balance it out, so I added another turret (dorsal emplacement of the same weapon). That adds another crew member and employee expense for the captain, but of course they can always risk leaving one gun unmanned. The gun can be remote controlled from the bridge at a penalty. A copilot was already required for this ship or else the pilot suffers skeleton crew penalties to all piloting and shield rolls, so spreading yourself too thin could be dangerous. And for other GMs using this ship, a second gun turret gives another player something to do in space battles and makes them more exciting because the ship can take on more and better enemies.
In the capsule post, I also switched out the external image for my current color image of my modified MC-13v2. I clarified some text in the capsule and updated some of the game notes in the stats.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Fri Mar 05, 2021 7:09 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Krassh
Cadet
Joined: 26 Nov 2020
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
An interesting and a bit more practical ship design for roleplaying purposes for sure.
Though what irks me about it a bit is the single deck design and the disjointed small cargo bays. There's just no practical reason to build a transport ship with such an interior layout. How about gunning for a single, easily accessible cargo hold with a central loading ramp/lift/airlock and arrange everything else around and above it? This way, that thing could even hold some speeders or other small vehicles.
Perhaps take a hint from the design of the Firefly, which is ugly but somewhat more practically designed for its purpose.
But at least the crew quarters seem a bit more viable in size for a tramp freighter.
Also it seems to have too few action stations in combat situations for a larger crew, especially that single gun turret only. Maybe give it at least a single fixed forward firing gun for the pilot or copilot to shoot and perhaps also an option for an additional rear firing turret, mounted on the underside?
I mean, having a rear firing gun to deter pirates is pretty much a no brainer, since pursuing pirates would focus at taking out the engines first to prevent their prey from fleeing.
That way, you can give at least a crew of 4 something to participate in combat with. Or is that to be added by the owner later through upgrades? |
|
| 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 Dec 09, 2020 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the Tramp Freighting perspective, there are definite advantages to having multiple and/or subdivided cargo bays. Tramps make their money hauling a lot of different types of cargo all at once. Say you have two kinds of cargo, one that has to be transported in a methane atmosphere at -100C while the other requires pure nitrogen at 90C. Obviously you can’t store them both in the same cargo bay, but having multiple bays gives you options.
Also, in combat, if one of four cargo bays gets blown open, you only lose 1/4 of your load, rather than all of it.
Sure, some freighters will only have a single large bay, but that doesn’t make it the ideal design.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Krassh
Cadet
Joined: 26 Nov 2020
Posts: 20
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | From the Tramp Freighting perspective, there are definite advantages to having multiple and/or subdivided cargo bays. Tramps make their money hauling a lot of different types of cargo all at once. Say you have two kinds of cargo, one that has to be transported in a methane atmosphere at -100C while the other requires pure nitrogen at 90C. Obviously you can’t store them both in the same cargo bay, but having multiple bays gives you options.
Also, in combat, if one of four cargo bays gets blown open, you only lose 1/4 of your load, rather than all of it.
Sure, some freighters will only have a single large bay, but that doesn’t make it the ideal design. |
Ok, i can get behind that reasoning. Still, it greatly limits the size of the cargo transportable and prevents the cargo hold of the ship to be used as an impromptu hangar bay. Or a training hall. Also makes loading and unloading much more difficult and time consuming.
Besides, i think it would be more practical to put cargo in need of special, extreme storage conditions simply into appropriately climatized and sealed cargo containers, which then could be connected to the ship's power to keep them running for extended time.
So a single large cargo hold with room for multiple bigger freight containers would be just as variable but still more practical in general. Plus, it would need only one single larger loading door/ramp.
A twofold divided cargo hold would also work i guess, but 4 separate ones? Debatable.
Generally, i would design the ideal player group adventure transport in a way which makes it as practical, variable, modular and upgradable as possible. With enough room to serve as a mobile base of operations and home in the stars. And with an interior layout which allows certain spaces to be utilized for varying tasks depending on circumstance. Better a bit too roomy than too small. And with more than one single deck, because a space ship gains nothing from being low profile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
