| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
john brewer
Cadet
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Location: Houston, Texas
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 29, 2004 10:30 pm Post subject: Starfighter Modification rules |
 |
|
Hey all,
GG#6 Tramp Freighters gives the rules for modification of light freighters and their ilk, but they say (and I quote), "Future supplements will discuss modifications to starfighters and other types of vessels."
What supplement would that be?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ray
Commodore
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1743
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
None, WEG never got to it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john brewer
Cadet
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
DANG IT!
Oh well. Has anyone written anything workable (and not "Monty Hall"), or should I look at the "House Rules" forum?
I figure, why reinvent the wheel if I don't have to.
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hellcat
Grand Moff
Joined: 29 Jul 2004
Posts: 11921
Location: New England
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wouldn't some of the stats from Galaxy Guide 6 still work?
_________________
FLUFFY for President!!!!
Wanted Poster |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gigobyte
Ensign
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 30
Location: Glenn Ellyn, IL
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wouldn't see why it wont work with starfighters, with some minor tweaking, because some modifications use up cargo space and alot of starfighters don't have the required space for them... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray
Commodore
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1743
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say an increase in price as you're using items that are miniaturized and made with less mass intensive materials.
50% might be a good starting price increase. Also, anything that requires alot of power will have to have an improvement to the power core, which ups the price even more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2005 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My character is upgrading a scoutship at the moment and in order to increase the maneuverability from +0d to +1d he made me loose 30 tonnes of cargo space to represent the hull being made more streamlined... I wasn't happy about that.
And even with loosing the 30 tonnes I could only increase maneuverability to a maximum of 1d+2. I thought If I lost the 30 tonnes that would make my ships base level maneuveribility 1d but noooooo it still counts as an increase.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gigobyte
Ensign
Joined: 06 Oct 2004
Posts: 30
Location: Glenn Ellyn, IL
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 07, 2005 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If your GM alows it ask to jury-rig the wings and fins to make it more maneuverable, the rules for jury rigging are different then uprading and are in the Rebel Op. Guide.
The increments are only in D like; 1D, 2D, and 3D (the max) and you need to use parts from almost anything to complete the project (set by your GM). Infact I think that they accualy have that specific modification in the sourcebook, with what parts you need, but I could be wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Volar the Healer
Jedi
Joined: 04 Aug 2003
Posts: 664
Location: Arizona, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rather than costing cargo space or credits, how about costing speed or maneuverability? Anything added must have something removed or the fighter should logically slow down...
_________________
Know Jesus, Know Peace.
No Jesus, No Peace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray
Commodore
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1743
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Like additional armour decreases manouverability in Tramp Freighters.
Also, maintence would also go up for the craft. Don't forget that Starfighters are down for about five to ten hours for every hour of flight time, IIRC. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I wish it was only down that often. At this rate it's spending more time in the shop than it does in the air. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray
Commodore
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1743
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What are you flying, Es?
Oh, reminds me, in one of the Adventure Journals I read once (It was bought the day before I was able to get money for it, too.  ), it gave a description of the entire line of Tie Fighters (From the Republic T.I.E. Fighter on!), and it was mentioned that Ties are actually very maintence light, due pirmarily to their engines being really, really well designed and almost never breaking down (Which means more "Live Flight" time for the Pilots). But, when they break, the ship is down for awhile due to parts being on order.
Couldn't find that Journal at GenCon, either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john brewer
Cadet
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | My character is upgrading a scoutship at the moment and in order to increase the maneuverability from +0d to +1d he made me loose 30 tonnes of cargo space to represent the hull being made more streamlined... I wasn't happy about that.
|
I guess you're talking about the SFS Lone Scout-A, right? I've seen several different takes on that ship. It's not a starfighter; in R&E it is in the Transports section. But, instead of streamlining costing you cargo hauling capacity, I'd suggest that the addition of more maneuverability jets and the associated hardware would be the cause of the loss. 30 tons seems extreme, since a Starscream-9 ion engine, which would take your Space from 5 to 12  , only costs 24 tons (if you could find one, much less install it [save all of your cp's for a while]).
I've seen people who think that the ball cockpit is 2.04 meters in diameter, making that ship long, short and skinny (6.5m wide, 3.2m tall and 24m long), with very little room for a lot of modifications. If you think that the 'box on top' is a long rectangle-ish truncated pyramid-type shape that runs most of the 24 meters, it kinda works, because you can design a cargo hold that will carry 60 cubic meters, even in that skinny layout.
But I've also seen renditions that, in scale, have the proportions of length and width closer to each other (say, 12m wide and 24 meters long, with much taller wings-making the ball closer to 4 or 5 meters in diameter). I haven't decided which I think is better, and it's pretty important because my players have one in the new game.
What do you all think?
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ray
Commodore
Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1743
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I gotta go with the 12X24 metres.
Don't forget that it carries a *LOT* of cargo (150 Metric Tons, which requires the space for said), as well as passangers. Also, as it isn't held by restrictions of having to be in a "Tie Rack" thanks to its landing gear, so size isn't as much a problem as it is for Imperial craft.
I personally figure that the "Box" on top (At least the front of it) holds the Sensor Gear, which, as it's a "Military Scout Ship", needs to be as far away as possible from the "High Energy" equipment that could cloud it's recievers (Such as Lasers and Engines).
I personally see the ship having a loading ramp like Darth Maul's ship in Episode I. Allows for quick loading/unloading, and gives lots of flexibility for what shapes you can load (Important for Scouts), and allows it to be used as a small Military Transport for the smaller military vechicles (Speeder Bikes, maybe even a CAV might be squeezed in there).
But that's just me. And it's one of the craft that I am going to be seeing about getting for my "Pilots" character. Seeing as he's well on his way to having a fear of Headhunters, and X-Wings are just big Headhunters in his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
john brewer
Cadet
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
Posts: 15
Location: Houston, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ray wrote: | I gotta go with the 12X24 metres.
<snip!>
But that's just me. And it's one of the craft that I am going to be seeing about getting for my "Pilots" character. Seeing as he's well on his way to having a fear of Headhunters, and X-Wings are just big Headhunters in his mind. |
Okay, there's one vote for the larger size. I was looking in detail at the picture, and it should be 12.8 meters wide if you double the size of the ball. Let me work on that and see what I come up with.
Sorry about your pilot character's phobia of Z-95's. They're a versitile craft. One character in my game has a Z-95t (2D maneuverability) with the hyperdrive upgraded from class 3 to class 2, as well as having the Taim & Bak KX5 fire-linked laser cannons (4D damage). Toss in those concussion missiles and watch the fun!
Thanks for the input!
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
