| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2023 12:22 am Post subject: Massed Point Defense |
 |
|
With my rules for Heavy Ordnance, and the addition of anti-starfighter weaponry to most capital ships, the missing piece has been how point defenses can shoot down massed waves of ordnance, either from a starfighter or starbomber squadron, or from the launchers of a Victory or other ordnance-heavy ship.
I did write up some rules for this a while back as part of the Advanced Starfighter Combat post, but I've been hesitant to port the system across as-is without confirming it for balancing. The original version used the same result numbers as the standard Damage Chart, which uses irregular number sets (4, 5, 4, 3, 3). IMO, this works for personal combat by increasing the chances of a Stun or Wound result, but doesn't jibe with my desire for an orderly mathematical progression. I also want it to match with my Alternate Coordination Bonus Method, which I use for determining bonuses for both massed missile swarms and massed point defense.
So, what I'm thinking is something along these lines:-An Ordnance Swarm gets a bonus (depending on whether it's Coordinated or Uncoordinated) which is added to either Damage or Fire Control, at the Commander's discretion (Generally, a group of starfighters working as a unit must be in Attack Formation to be Coordinated, but may still make Uncoordinated attacks in Patrol Formation).
-If the target has point defense weaponry in the threatened arc, it may Coordinate them against the incoming ordnance.
-To resolve this, use the Interception entry on the stat of the specific type of ordnance to generate the Gunnery Difficulty for the point defenses, then resolve accordingly. On a Miss, the point defenses don't eliminate enough of the swarm to appreciably affect the swarm's size. On a Hit, the Point Defenses receive a +1 to Damage for every 3 points of Success.
-Once a Hit is established, roll for Damage against the Ordnance's Body, including any Gunnery Bonus generated in the previous step. Then compare the results of the opposed roll to the following table:Damage Result = Penalty to Swarm's Coordination Bonus
<0 = Unaffected
0-3 = -1D
4-7 = -2D
8-11 = -3D
12-15 = -4D
16-19 = -5D
20-23 = -6D
24-27 = -7D
28-31 = -8D
32-35 = -9D
36-39 = -10D
40+ = -1D for every additional 4 points of Damage.
(I took the list to 10D for ease of use, as the highest possible Coordination value for the ordnance of a single ship in my system is 8D+2, on the Torpedo Sphere.)
-If a Swarm's Coordination Bonus is reduced to less than 0D, the Swarm is completely destroyed. However, if it is 0D or higher, roll for Damage as normal.
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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 432
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2023 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, as always CRM,I have great respect for your attention to details.
However, on this particular topic - capital ship point defense ....gear.. - I am not sure we need this .... two reasons.
1 - Capital Ships in star wars...
Not sure if we should have this in Star Wars....
At least from my "point of view"....
Star Wars leans heavily on the ww2 doctrine where the best defense of capital ships against fighters - are their own fighters.
Now, we could easily say "well, if the death star had a tighter defense they would not have needed fighters..."
Well, yes, we could.
However, from rogue one, to many instances in rebels and clone wars - when a group of fighters (or bombers) gets close to a a capital ship - it might be able to shoot down a couple - but without a fighter screen - that ship is toast.
So, I don't think super effective point defense exists in star wars - we can make up what ever fluffy reason as needed - but this sounds REALLY effective - and does not fit to me.....
2 - Capital Ship Combat - in our RPG....
Honestly - I don't think we need rules for capital ship events in our character based TTRPG. They should be narrative devices or background events at best. Or a capital ship might be the terrain for a star fighter combat - having the fighters attack their own size chunks or objects on a capital ship, as part of an adventure - from taking out cannon to save the medical frigates, to destroying defenses so boarding parties can land, to putting two torpedoes into an exhaust port.
Don't get me wrong - as a long time wargamer (many....over decades) and someone with way too much spent on star wars Armada (amazing game, actually) I don't think capital ship battles fit in our game about smugglers and jedi. Except again, as mentioned above.
In my house rules overhaul, I am considering dropping capital ship battles alltogether (or using some abstract system...).
In Conclusion
So, the war gamer in me think what you have done here is pretty cool - albeit it feels a bit too effective for star wars - but still cool.
That and rolling damage against Ordnance - I mean - would skip that - make it harder to hit - to represent all the missing being those hits that did not damage it, then any hit renders the Ordnance ineffective.
If you keep it - I would simplify that way. But I suspect I might not understand some of your ordnanace rules.....
Now, I know some folks don't share my "point of view" on point defense, much less the need for rules on capital ship level combat - and of course, different folks like different levels of crunch - so this might be great for those folks.
thanks for sharing - even if not a good fit for MY game, might be fun as an experimental weapon a group of rebels have to take out......or smugglers steal the plans for...
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2023 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I get that this won’t be for everyone’s campaign, but this a natural outgrowth of my Advanced Starfighter Combat project, which is heavily informed by the old X-Wing PC game, in which being able to target and shoot down missiles, torpedoes, bombs and such is absolutely a thing. And if starfighter-scale weapons on a starfighter can do it, then the ones mounted on capital ships should certainly be able to, as well. For example, the higher-end XQ-Series Space Platforms were equipped with a defensive missile launcher that could shoot down incoming ordnance, and the only way to overcome it was to barrage the station with multiple attacks at once, overloading the launcher’s targeting and rate of fire. Also worth noting that I have a long-term goal of making rules that allow PCs to command capital ships in combat, where this will absolutely come in handy.
Having to roll damage against ordnance is a necessary step, since the various ordnance types have different Body ratings, particularly torpedoes, which receive a +3D bonus to resist damage rolls (on account of their energy sheath). It wouldn’t take too much work to level out the damage and make torpedoes harder to hit, but as of now, this is a match to the ordnance stats I’ve written up.
And we really don’t see that much in the way of starfighters taking out capital ships (outside of the cartoons, of which I am deeply skeptical in general). In Rogue One, a cap ship was disabled by a fighter strike, but that’s not the same thing. And considering how much WEG made of the threat starfighters pose, their game stats never quite delivered on the promise.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2023 3:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
The way I would do it is each PD battery gives +1D against missile/torpedo attacks, added to Shield and Hull rolls. Additionally it can counterattack starfighters with 1D+2 FC and 4D damage. PD batteries have a Starfighter scale Hull of 3D and targeted by starfighters with a Very Difficult attack roll. Amusingly, HARM or similar missiles hit on an Easy attack roll and auto destroy the battery (assuming that the PD doesn't shoot it down).
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2023 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | The way I would do it is each PD battery gives +1D against missile/torpedo attacks, added to Shield and Hull rolls. Additionally it can counterattack starfighters with 1D+2 FC and 4D damage. PD batteries have a Starfighter scale Hull of 3D and targeted by starfighters with a Very Difficult attack roll. Amusingly, HARM or similar missiles hit on an Easy attack roll and auto destroy the battery (assuming that the PD doesn't shoot it down). |
I see several problems with this.
1) Getting an additional +1D per battery ramps up insanely fast. The RAW Coordination Bonus of +1 pip per cannon/battery is much more balanced, until you get above 10 guns, at which point it gets more and more broken. There is a running theme in the game rules of “x2 = +1D”, where every time the power output of something doubles, the damage goes up 1D. It’s not universal, but it’s consistent enough to be treated as a rule of thumb for game design.
2) Simply assigning a “per battery” bonus doesn’t take into account the difference in effectiveness between different types of weapons. The single laser cannon on a Nebulon would be just as effective (per individual weapon) as the quad-lasers on a Lancer.
3) Assigning a flat Difficulty to a target ignores the effect of range. Targets should be easier to hit as the shooter gets closer. Better to assign it a Scale, then allow attackers to choose whether to snipe from a distance or get in close to knife-fighting range.
4) Similarly, a HARM missile (or whatever its SWU equivalent is) would be better served by having a bonus to hit a given type of target (possibly offset by a penalty when shooting at anything else).
_________________
"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: 14174
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2023 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
1) Getting an additional +1D per battery ramps up insanely fast. The RAW Coordination Bonus of +1 pip per cannon/battery is much more balanced, until you get above 10 guns, at which point it gets more and more broken. There is a running theme in the game rules of “x2 = +1D”, where every time the power output of something doubles, the damage goes up 1D. It’s not universal, but it’s consistent enough to be treated as a rule of thumb for game design. |
Agreed. Now if you set it that each arc had one or two PD's, that may be easier to rule..
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
2) Simply assigning a “per battery” bonus doesn’t take into account the difference in effectiveness between different types of weapons. The single laser cannon on a Nebulon would be just as effective (per individual weapon) as the quad-lasers on a Lancer. |
It also doesn't take into account the Rate of fire of those weapons. Some imo shouldn't be able to 'flak barrage' to counter incoming missiles.. Such as a standard turbolaser.
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
3) Assigning a flat Difficulty to a target ignores the effect of range. Targets should be easier to hit as the shooter gets closer. Better to assign it a Scale, then allow attackers to choose whether to snipe from a distance or get in close to knife-fighting range. |
The further away a missile is, the easier IMO It is to block it via filling the sky with flak. The closer it is, imo the harder it is to shoot it down.
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
4) Similarly, a HARM missile (or whatever its SWU equivalent is) would be better served by having a bonus to hit a given type of target (possibly offset by a penalty when shooting at anything else). |
Harm. Those are the ones who target lock on radio signals? Radar??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 10, 2023 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Now if you set it that each arc had one or two PD's, that may be easier to rule. |
I just allow a ship’s anti-starfighter weapons to be used as point defenses. And since I’ve already modified most warships to include some sort starfighter-scale weaponry, this rule just tacks onto that.
| Quote: | | It also doesn't take into account the Rate of fire of those weapons. Some imo shouldn't be able to 'flak barrage' to counter incoming missiles.. Such as a standard turbolaser. |
MAPs are the countervailing factor there. I’ve already added RoF to my stats, with high RoF weapons like blaster cannon and auto-blasters getting Auto-Fire dice, which makes them the most effective anti-ordnance weapons.
| Quote: | | The further away a missile is, the easier IMO It is to block it via filling the sky with flak. The closer it is, imo the harder it is to shoot it down. |
But RoF limits this, too, as a missile’s flight to the target takes place in the round it was launched. I made a rule for Lock-On that doubled the range and made Long Range attacks take an extra round to get to the target, so you could conceivably get in two shots, or use the Preparation rule to get yourself a bonus to hit.
| Quote: | | Those are the ones who target lock on radio signals? Radar?? |
Well, any radio signal, including comms and jamming. In the SWU, it’s better to be nonspecific and have it home on any active signal.
_________________
"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: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2023 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | The further away a missile is, the easier IMO It is to block it via filling the sky with flak. The closer it is, imo the harder it is to shoot it down. |
After some consideration, I’ve come around to this point, with the addition that a shorter flight time for a missile will also give the point defenses less time to plot the targeted ordnance’s course in order to plot an intercept point. Initially, I had considered adding a Difficulty modifier inverse to the Range, so that it would get conversely harder to hit a missile the closer it was launched, but then it occurred to me that I had already modified the missile stats so that the Difficulty to intercept varies by range. The Difficulty and modifiers I had in mind would have essentially cancelled eachother out. So I’m considering going back to the previous rule, where an individual missile/torpedo had a flat Difficultly to intercept, regardless of range. garhkal’s above point would give the technobabble explanation to justify it.
On a related note, what are your thoughts on how point defense works with Initiative. Say, for example, a squadron of Y-Wings is on a bombing run against an ISD. All other things being equal, it will likely be easier for the ISD’s point defenses to shoot down the Y-Wings before they launch, so that would be a logical declared action for the ISD captain during the Initiative phase. But what if the Y-Wings win the race and launch before the ISD’s turn? Should the ISD be stuck with the declared action, or should point defenses be able to “react” and switch over to the incoming ordnance? My initial thought is that the point defenses should be able to switch targets and shoot down the ordnance, but at a penalty of -1D or -2D.
Incidentally, this scenario is a good example of why it would benefit ships to have a mix of lasers and blasters for point defense, so the lasers can engage the starfighters, while the blasters (which are much better suited to ordnance intercept) can be held in reserve for just this situation.
Anyway… 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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 14, 2023 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: |
I see several problems with this.
1) Getting an additional +1D per battery ramps up insanely fast. The RAW Coordination Bonus of +1 pip per cannon/battery is much more balanced, until you get above 10 guns, at which point it gets more and more broken. There is a running theme in the game rules of “x2 = +1D”, where every time the power output of something doubles, the damage goes up 1D. It’s not universal, but it’s consistent enough to be treated as a rule of thumb for game design. |
This is actually the intended effect. PD is supposed to be difficult for missiles to penetrate, otherwise it wouldn't be effective.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | 2) Simply assigning a “per battery” bonus doesn’t take into account the difference in effectiveness between different types of weapons. The single laser cannon on a Nebulon would be just as effective (per individual weapon) as the quad-lasers on a Lancer. |
Laser cannon don't count towards PD as they're designed to engage larger and much slower targets. They simply don't have the agility to lay the gun on target.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | 3) Assigning a flat Difficulty to a target ignores the effect of range. Targets should be easier to hit as the shooter gets closer. Better to assign it a Scale, then allow attackers to choose whether to snipe from a distance or get in close to knife-fighting range. |
The alternative is to increase the difficulty by one level, however that encourages getting into knife fighting range, which obviates the advantage of missiles, i.e. staying outside your opponent's range envelope. The way I see it, giving a flat +1D is actually more fair to the attacker and allows for better fire control, S/DEAD (Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air Defense), crew skill, and better missile seekers to have more of a chance of getting through.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | 4) Similarly, a HARM missile (or whatever its SWU equivalent is) would be better served by having a bonus to hit a given type of target (possibly offset by a penalty when shooting at anything else). |
Not necessarily. The A-Wing's jammer is only effective against starfighter scale craft, so why not so the same with HARMs?
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2023 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | This is actually the intended effect. PD is supposed to be difficult for missiles to penetrate, otherwise it wouldn't be effective. |
There’s a difference between realistically effective and overpoweringly unbalanced. Yours is the latter. Applying a “+1 = +1D” formula to one side of the equation makes this thing far more effective than it has any right to be. My goal is to counterbalance the improved effectiveness of my redesigned starfighter ordnance stats, while maintaining the in-universe premise that starfighters are still a threat against capital ships. Your system would make capital ships practically invulnerable against the one weapon starfighters have that could threaten them.
On top of that, your “+1 = +1D” formula would have to be applied to the system in general to maintain any semblance of balance, which would, in turn, make starfighters so potent that a squadron of them could kill any capital ship in existence. A squadron of Y-Wings firing linked proton torpedoes would get a +23D bonus to damage, which would give them a one-punch knockout against an Executor. I get the feeling you aren’t taking second- and third-order effects of your proposed rules into consideration.
| Quote: | | Laser cannon don't count towards PD as they're designed to engage larger and much slower targets. They simply don't have the agility to lay the gun on target. |
Yet you gave your point defense weapon the same stats as a low-tier single laser cannon turret (4D Damage and 1D+2 Fire Control). Pick one; you can’t have both. A laser with a fire control system designed to track and engage flying objects will be far more effictive against relatively large, slow fighters than it will against fast, tiny ordnance.
And as I said above, my larger system is heavily informed by the old X-Wing PC game, in which laser cannon could actually be used in a point defense role, albeit most other energy weapons in the game were better at it.
| Quote: | | The alternative is to increase the difficulty by one level, however that encourages getting into knife fighting range, which obviates the advantage of missiles, i.e. staying outside your opponent's range envelope. |
That would happen regardless of the method used, since “the closer you are to your target, the easier it is to hit” is an integral part of the rules. And there is no need for a bespoke rule specifically for PD Turrets when we already have a system for dealing with smaller or larger weapons and targets.
| Quote: | | The A-Wing's jammer is only effective against starfighter scale craft, so why not so the same with HARMs? |
I don’t even see how that’s applicable here. A HARM homes on a specific active signal (selected by the pilot/weapons officer aboard the launching craft), and the only way to spoof it is to stop broadcasting the signal it’s homing on. As such, giving it a +3D or 4D to Fire Control when targeting a specific signal makes it much more effective at all ranges.
Also, why would a HARM automatically destroy the turret when the turret has a 3D Hull rating?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2023 3:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | On top of that, your “+1 = +1D” formula |
Where'd you get that from? I just came up with it of the top of my head.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | On top of that, your “+1 = +1D” formula would have to be applied to the system in general to maintain any semblance of balance, which would, in turn, make starfighters so potent that a squadron of them could kill any capital ship in existence. A squadron of Y-Wings firing linked proton torpedoes would get a +23D bonus to damage, which would give them a one-punch knockout against an Executor. I get the feeling you aren’t taking second- and third-order effects of your proposed rules into consideration. |
This is actually cool AF, and definitely fits in Star Wars. A wave of bombers, breaking through TIE screens, weaving their way through a hail of defensive fire, launching a wave of torpedoes that crash into the target, and then fly away as the target explodes? HELL YES. Besides, it would also explain why fighters - and bombers in particular - are such a threat to capital ships.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Yet you gave your point defense weapon the same stats as a low-tier single laser cannon turret (4D Damage and 1D+2 Fire Control). Pick one; you can’t have both. A laser with a fire control system designed to track and engage flying objects will be far more effective against relatively large, slow fighters than it will against fast, tiny ordnance. |
I think this part of a much larger problem. PD and conventional cannon are competing for the same role - defense of capital ships against small craft and ordnance.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | And as I said above, my larger system is heavily informed by the old X-Wing PC game, in which laser cannon could actually be used in a point defense role, albeit most other energy weapons in the game were better at it. |
 I thought laser cannon were supposed to be better than turbolasers at PD.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Quote: | | The alternative is to increase the difficulty by one level, however that encourages getting into knife fighting range, which obviates the advantage of missiles, i.e. staying outside your opponent's range envelope. |
That would happen regardless of the method used, since “the closer you are to your target, the easier it is to hit” is an integral part of the rules. And there is no need for a bespoke rule specifically for PD Turrets when we already have a system for dealing with smaller or larger weapons and targets. |
So how are you supposed to encourage stand-off missile warfare - where PD would actually be effective - instead of simply piling single shot box launchers onto a hyper-maneuverable craft and shotgunning a capital ship from point blank range where the PD is effectively useless? The way I have it, PD is brutally effective, specifically because the threat of a close-in missile attack is very real.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Quote: | | The A-Wing's jammer is only effective against starfighter scale craft, so why not so the same with HARMs? |
I don’t even see how that’s applicable here. A HARM homes on a specific active signal (selected by the pilot/weapons officer aboard the launching craft), and the only way to spoof it is to stop broadcasting the signal it’s homing on. As such, giving it a +3D or 4D to Fire Control when targeting a specific signal makes it much more effective at all ranges.
Also, why would a HARM automatically destroy the turret when the turret has a 3D Hull rating? |
The missile doesn't destroy the turret - it just destroys the sensor array, either through kinetic force, explosive force, or shrapnel. That renders the weapon effectively blind. The 3D Hull is for when a starfighter specifically chooses to attack it. When destroyed, it reduces the batteries Defense Bonus by 1 pip. Shoot enough HARMs or manually kill enough guns and you expose the ship to missile attack from starfighters or other capital ships.
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | Where'd you get that from? I just came up with it of the top of my head. |
…
I got it from your post. The RAW already has rules for generating bonuses when two or more things combine their efforts; 2E and 2R&E have their own separate versions. If you are assigning a bonus of +1D for every additional PD cannon, that is a new version, and a particularly unbalancing one.
| Quote: | | This is actually cool AF, and definitely fits in Star Wars. |
No, it actually doesn’t, because if done using your method it would become so easy as to be common and passé, not cool. Something like this should be difficult and rare so that when it actually does happen, it’s exciting and memorable, and not “the same thing we did twice in the last game session alone.”
Since that example apparently wasn’t ridiculous enough for you, here’s another. Using your +1 = +1D method, there would’ve been no need to do the Death Star Trench Run in ANH. The Death Star has a Hull of 15D at Death Star-Scale (+24D). A proton torpedo does 9D damage at Starfighter-Scale (+6D). If thirty starfighters (“we county thirty Rebel ships, Lord Vader…”) each fired a pair of proton torpedoes - total of sixty torpedoes - that would do 50D Death Star-Scale Damage by your method. All the fighters would’ve had to do is get under the Death Star’s shields and mass launch their torps: bye bye Death Star.
| Quote: | | I think this part of a much larger problem. PD and conventional cannon are competing for the same role - defense of capital ships against small craft and ordnance. |
This is only because you’re picturing PDs as a completely separate weapon system, whereas I see anti-starfighter lasers and blasters being used against both starfighters and ordnance, in accordance with how things work in the X-Wing game. And since I’ve already modified most warship stats to include some form of anti-starfighter lasers, this rule would just be another function they perform.
| Quote: | | I thought laser cannon were supposed to be better than turbolasers at PD. |
I don’t see how turbolasers are even relevant to this discussion. I said “most energy weapons were better at [point defense] than lasers.”
| Quote: | | So how are you supposed to encourage stand-off missile warfare |
You haven’t looked at my missile weapon stats yet, have you. The missiles that PD will have the most difficulty with will be the ones least likely to damage it. The heavy stand-off stuff has to be carried on belly mounts on Y-Wings (or similar craft) and is sufficiently fragile that it won’t survive a direct hit from even a laser cannon, never mind something like a quad-laser or auto-blaster.
| Quote: | | instead of simply piling single shot box launchers onto a hyper-maneuverable craft and shotgunning a capital ship from point blank range where the PD is effectively useless? |
You mean like this? Simple: as the GM you make both the missiles and the missile spam launching platforms rare, expensive and/or experimental, and thus only available in specific, dire circumstances.
| Quote: | | The way I have it, PD is brutally effective, specifically because the threat of a close-in missile attack is very real. |
No, the problem is that yours is so effective that missiles are unlikely to get through at all, which defeats the whole purpose.
| Quote: | | The missile doesn't destroy the turret - it just destroys the sensor array, either through kinetic force, explosive force, or shrapnel. |
This is Star Wars; anti-electronic warheads in this setting would use Ion, EMP or a combination thereof. Explosive shrapnel is hopelessly out of date.
| Quote: | | When destroyed, it reduces the batteries Defense Bonus by 1 pip. |
Wait, so… a single turret provides a bonus of +1D per turret, but if said turret is destroyed, it only takes away 1 pip? So if I have six turrets, with a total Defense Bonus of 6D, and all six turrets are destroyed (-6), I still have a Defense Bonus of 4D (6D minus 6 pips)? You can’t be serious.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2023 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Since that example apparently wasn’t ridiculous enough for you, here’s another. Using your +1 = +1D method, there would’ve been no need to do the Death Star Trench Run in ANH. The Death Star has a Hull of 15D at Death Star-Scale (+24D). A proton torpedo does 9D damage at Starfighter-Scale (+6D). If thirty starfighters (“we county thirty Rebel ships, Lord Vader…”) each fired a pair of proton torpedoes - total of sixty torpedoes - that would do 50D Death Star-Scale Damage by your method. All the fighters would’ve had to do is get under the Death Star’s shields and mass launch their torps: bye bye Death Star. |
Nope. If they did that, then they'd get murdered by turbolasers or TIE fighters. Besides, there's nothing stopping the GM from ruling that the Death Star is too massive to be taken out that way. Just because the book says so, doesn't mean the GM is obligated to follow the book RAW. In fact, game designers actually like it when you deviate from RAW and make your own patches and fixes. That tells them that you and your table like the game enough to modify it to the way you like. It's actually an insult to run it RAW.
| Quote: | | This is only because you’re picturing PDs as a completely separate weapon system, whereas I see anti-starfighter lasers and blasters being used against both starfighters and ordnance, in accordance with how things work in the X-Wing game. And since I’ve already modified most warship stats to include some form of anti-starfighter lasers, this rule would just be another function they perform. |
That's a dual-purpose weapons system, or possibly AEGIS, not PD. PD is closer to CWIS/RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile)
| Quote: | | You haven’t looked at my missile weapon stats yet, have you. The missiles that PD will have the most difficulty with will be the ones least likely to damage it. The heavy stand-off stuff has to be carried on belly mounts on Y-Wings (or similar craft) and is sufficiently fragile that it won’t survive a direct hit from even a laser cannon, never mind something like a quad-laser or auto-blaster. |
True, I didn't look at your missile stats. However, I also don't use missile warfare enough to justify anything more than a 'good enough' system, which is why my system isn't nuanced or super detailed.
| Quote: | | I said “most energy weapons were better at [point defense] than lasers.” |
That includes turbolasers. If you wanted to be specific, you should have stated which ones.
| Quote: | | No, the problem is that yours is so effective that missiles are unlikely to get through at all, which defeats the whole purpose. |
Which means that the PD worked as intended. However, if it helps, you can restrict the total bonus to 1/4 of the ship's hull rating, with a min of 1 pip
| Quote: | | Wait, so… a single turret provides a bonus of +1D per turret, but if said turret is destroyed, it only takes away 1 pip? So if I have six turrets, with a total Defense Bonus of 6D, and all six turrets are destroyed (-6), I still have a Defense Bonus of 4D (6D minus 6 pips)? You can’t be serious. |
Each battery has three turrets. Each turret gives a +1 pip bonus. I use batteries as a container unit for ease of tracking.
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 19, 2023 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | If they did that, then they'd get murdered by turbolasers or TIE fighters. |
You're dodging the point. Per the films, they did not get murdered by turbolasers or TIE fighters because the Empire did not consider a "small, one-man fighter to be any threat, or they'd have a tighter defense". Using your rule, they manifestly would be a threat, and one entirely out of proportion to their size and strength. What's more, the Empire would know they were a threat and would have reacted far differently than they did in the films.
The rules for a Star Wars RPG should reflect the reality of the Star Wars setting to the greatest degree possible. What you are proposing deviates from the reality of Star Wars in a manner that is arguably setting-breaking, as both of my previous examples have demonstrated.
| Quote: | | Besides, there's nothing stopping the GM from ruling that the Death Star is too massive to be taken out that way. |
A far better position would be to structure one's house rules (and modifications to the RAW) such that the GM didn't have to keep track of case-by-case exceptions. I believe you made a similar point here, so it's curious to see you advocating the opposite.
GMs have to keep quite a few balls in the air when running a gaming table, and having a universal concept central to the system for them to fall back on (such as the x2=+1D Formula) is far easier for a GM to remember when he has to make something up on the fly. Yes, when in doubt, just make something up, but that's at the gaming table; the point and purpose of forums like the Rancor Pit is to reduce or eliminate (to the greatest degree possible, at least) the need to improvise something in the moment.
| Quote: | | Just because the book says so, doesn't mean the GM is obligated to follow the book RAW. |
Yes, the RAW itself says this in multiple locations, but particularly on the first page of Chapter 4: The Rules (pg. 73 of 2R&E), on the same page where they say "The game rules do the same thing for you. They tell you how to run your game. They make sure everyone gets treated fairly." Without the RAW, the game itself would not exist. The RAW provides the basis and framework for the gaming system as a whole, and understanding the details of the RAW are the first step in knowing if, when and/or how to change it. I'm the last person in the world who would tell you you must adhere to the RAW, but what I've been trying to tell you is that it's crucial to make sure that, when you do change it, you should do so in a way that's balanced and in line with the rest of the game and the setting. Your +1 = +1D formula is neither, and should be rethought.
| Quote: | | That's a dual-purpose weapons system, or possibly AEGIS, not PD. PD is closer to CWIS/RAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) |
Both Phalanx and RAM can be used against aircraft and small boats, not just missiles. The Phalanx was designed as such from the outset, and the RAM was modified for that capability shortly after introduction (the modification only requiring a software upgrade). They are effectively dual-purpose, too.
| Quote: | | That includes turbolasers. If you wanted to be specific, you should have stated which ones. |
I don’t need to be specific; I said “most”, which is sufficient for my purposes. A cursory glance at my system would tell you that the best PD weapons are high FC, low damage and high RoF, everything that turbolasers are not. I have introduced a couple of concepts (the Turboblaster and the Turbolaser FLAK Mode concept) that would improve a turbolasers chances of shooting down ordnance, but they would never be used as such if any other options were available.
Technically, any weapon that causes a physical effect is capable of being used as point defense, including tractor beams and ion cannon. The main limitations to doing so is accuracy and the desired effect (ion cannon, for example, have a potentially temporary effect that may not be enough to permanently disable a missile). As such, having the ability to shoot down ordnance be tied to a general rule - as opposed to a specific weapons system - allows a GM more room to improvise if all the players have are "non-PD" weapons, yet they decide to throw a curveball.
| Quote: | | True, I didn't look at your missile stats. However, I also don't use missile warfare enough to justify anything more than a 'good enough' system, which is why my system isn't nuanced or super detailed. |
For what it’s worth, I think your individual system is passable on its own; it’s the stacking bonuses that’s my main issue. Put too many of these on a ship’s hull and it rapidly becomes practically untouchable in very short order, which is a serious issue in a game, since proton torpedo barrages are the only viable way for a small party to inflict meaningful damage to capital ships.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 97
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 21, 2023 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Put too many of these on a ship’s hull and it rapidly becomes practically untouchable in very short order, which is a serious issue in a game, since proton torpedo barrages are the only viable way for a small party to inflict meaningful damage to capital ships. |
I think that this might be why we have such a drastic difference in opinion. You prefer balanced, mathematically constructed solutions, while I take the position of "Find another way". IMO, the PC's shouldn't be able to launch an attack on all but the smallest of capital ships without extensive planning and reconnaissance, and even then, some degree of planning is required. I don't particularly like the idea of destroying capital ships being commonplace - it leads to them being devalued and less scary then they should be. Thus my preference for quick and dirty solutions - make it clear to the PCs that this is Bad Idea - and deal with the consequences as they come.
_________________
The best villians are the ones the PCs create. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
