| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: |
Well, my preference is 3D, because of all the reasons I mentioned. To summarize again, making it 4D would make "Capital" scale ships even more resistant to satrfighters than they are by RAW, which you seemed to dislike. So now I'm not sure what is it you actually intend with your rulings. |
I'm a noob here, so I don't know what RAW means.
As to making Capital Ship scale vessels more resistant to Starfighter attacks, I addressed that above, but I will include an enhancement here. Say an ISD is in a space battle with an MC80 cruiser. I don't particularly like the canon shield system, but I'll ignore that for now. The ISD is holding it's own but takes a few Shields Blown results from the combined Turbolasers and Ion Cannon of the MC80, reducing its overall shield rating.
Now, with my rules, an ISD with a Hull of 7D and Shields 3D has an absolute minimum of 23D+1 (7D+8D+1+8D) to resist Starfighter Scale damage in any arc, so long as it allocates a minimum of +1 of shields to each arc. If affected by a Shields Blown result, the commander of the ISD has to make some decisions about how to allocate his shield energy. If he drops the shields completely in any arc, the Star Destroyer's ability to resist damage from starfighters drops to 15D in that arc.
Now, if a starfighter squadron of X-Wings attacks the ISD in its unshielded fire arc, each firing two proton torpedoes and using the combined actions rule to coordinate their torpedo attack...let's look at the rulebook here. +1D for the first 3 characters (read: torpedo) combining, then +1 for every additional character. 24 torpedoes in a barrage from the X-Wings, so the first 3 = +1D, plus 21 pips (or 7D if you want to convert pips to dice). The result is 10D+21 (or 17D converted), which is a credible threat to an ISD, so long as its shields are down.
| Leon The Lion wrote: |
| crmcneill wrote: | | I would disagree with you on the X-Wing vs. YT-1300. The YT-1300 may be larger, but it's a commercial vessel, not a military one. A large portion of its interior is hollow for cargo storage space. An X-Wing, on the other hand, is specifically designed for combat and durability. Hull rating doesn't just reflect structural integrity, it also reflects things like redundant backup systems, automated repair functions (as controlled by the Astromech) and blast/shock hardened internal components that are specifically designed to function in sustained combat operations. |
Exactly. And how much do you hurt the freighter when you hit this empty space?  And that's why I think a freighter should always be more durable than a starfighter. Many shots at the freighter would punch through the hull to damage... Thin air! An unlucky (or lucky, from the point of view of the freighter) shot could go all the way through the ship and out the other side without hitting anything important on the way! With a starfighter, with how small it is and how packed it has to be with systems because of that, that's impossible. Any penetrating hit is practically guaranteed to take out something you need. It needs all those backup systems mentioned just to survive a single hit without significant damage. But that's how I roll. |
In that case, the distinction would be commercial vessel versus military vessel. A commercial vessel is built to lower standards, being designed to cope with the stress of space travel, while a military vessel is designed to a higher standard, as it has to face the rigors of sustained space combat.[/i] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
Good point. Maybe that should be a changed rule. After all, damage to one system usually results in reduced overall effectiveness of the operating whole. Realistically, when something the size of a Walker does a faceplant (ala the AT-AT in ESB), it's not going to survive completely intact. Internal systems will be stressed and shocked in ways they weren't designed for, armor and structural integrity will be affected the same way, and the crew will be dazed and confused and unable to perform their operational duties as they normally would. A reduced Hull Strength value for a damaged vehicle is not unrealistic. |
There are some problems with that concept though. For one thing, many vehicles have fairly low Hull Codes and would wind up with a Body/Hull Code of zero.
ANd while things can and usually are damaged from a fall like that, it might not necessarily buckled the hull plating.
You might even argue that the AT-AT exploded from the all, not from the blaster hit and that the timing was coincidence.
But, I for just don't believe that AT ATs are all that tough. In ESB the rebels are mostly using hand blasters and the ever impotent Atgar against them. No wonder they looked invincible. The only thing that was effective was the airspeeders and then mostly because of the harpoon and cable.
I think things would work out fine if you just dropped the extra +2D that Walkers get to soak. That would still give them a 4D scaling modfier under you new system, making them virtually invulnerable to small arms (Atgar included), and still haighy resistant (10D vs. 5D) to T47s. And on the plus side, the Walker's laser cannons wil do 2D more damage.
| crmcneill wrote: |
As for why the Alliance didn't just use their X-Wings against the AT-AT's in the first place, I have never been able to find a reasonable explanation for that. Their only real contributions to the battle were the trip attack and distracting the AT-AT's (marginally) from targeting the groud troops. |
 Well the real explanation is that because it fits the story better to have the big, bad Imperials literally walk all over the hapless rebels.
As for in game reasons, they are a bit tougher to come up with. The best excuse I can think up is that the risk of friendly fire was too high. A missed shot from an X-Wing could do more damage to the rebel forces than the walker it was aiming at.
Plus I suspect that some of the fighters were flying escort the the transports, or preventing the Imperials from launching a bomber attack. The Imperials don't seem to soften up the base with TIE Bombers, so maybe the rebel fighters were responsible. Only a handful of pilots are flying T-47s, maybe just Luke's squadron.
Lastly, with the way hyperspace travel works in the game, it is possible that the rebels didn't use the fighters since if one was shot down and recovered by the Imperials, the Empire could get the location of the rebel rendezvous point from any semi-intact astromech droid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I'm a noob here, so I don't know what RAW means. |
It means "Rules As Written" - what the official rules in the book say.
| crmcneill wrote: | | As to making Capital Ship scale vessels more resistant to Starfighter attacks, I addressed that above. |
Ah, sorry, missed your edit. So, you're fine with your rules making "Capital" ships even tougher against starfighters (what you say abaout the shields is equally true with the RAW scale difference). That's fine. I would never go that route (I find the difference big enough as it is), but whatever works for you.
| crmcneill wrote: | | In that case, the distinction would be commercial vessel versus military vessel. A commercial vessel is built to lower standards, being designed to cope with the stress of space travel, while a military vessel is designed to a higher standard, as it has to face the rigors of sustained space combat. |
That is fine for about equally sized vessels and I won't argue with that. But I'm talking starfighter vs. freighter many times it's mass and size here. An attack that would literally vaporize the fighter would only desintegrate a portion of the freighter. Yes, if it was an important part than the freighter would stll count as "destroyed", but it could be repaired (well, partially rebuild) later. If it was just the cargo hold that got blasted (like the middle module on the Mobquet Custom, without damaging the "spine") the freighter could conceivably keep flying. The starfighter would always be beyond any kind of recovery (it would be an expanding cloud of hot gas).
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: |
But I'm talking starfighter vs. freighter many times it's mass and size here. An attack that would literally vaporize the fighter would only disintegrate a portion of the freighter. |
It was interesting that when WEG did the Star Warriors starship combat game, they supported that idea, too. A YT-1300, which has the same 4D Hull Code as an X-Wing in the RPG, had 3-4 times the fighter's body points in Star Warriors.
What I think the problem with, in RPG terms is that the YT-1300 should be just as easy to damage as the X-Wing, but that it should be able to adsorb more total punishment. Perhaps the answer is to adjust the range for the damage levels. Instead of everything using the 4-8 Light, 9-12 Heavy, 13-15 Severe, 16+ Destroyed scale, maybe we should alter the damage ranges a little too. That might help with capital ships too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: |
There are some problems with that concept though. For one thing, many vehicles have fairly low Hull Codes and would wind up with a Body/Hull Code of zero.
ANd while things can and usually are damaged from a fall like that, it might not necessarily buckled the hull plating.
You might even argue that the AT-AT exploded from the all, not from the blaster hit and that the timing was coincidence. |
I think that would depend on what kind of damage the cable attack inflicted. If the cable caused a Movement Failure, then the AT-AT would have to have suffered atleast a Collision (more likely a Major Collision to cause the kind of damage for a spontaneous explosion). It would take a minimum of a Seriously Damaged result (with a result of 3, 5 or 6) to cause that kind of damage from a collision.
| atgxtg wrote: |
But, I for just don't believe that AT ATs are all that tough. In ESB the rebels are mostly using hand blasters and the ever impotent Atgar against them. No wonder they looked invincible. The only thing that was effective was the airspeeders and then mostly because of the harpoon and cable. |
Well, apart from ESB, the only official incident of Starfighters vs. Walkers was in the novel X-Wing: Isard's Revenge. In that scenario, four Rogue Squadron X-Wings engaged four AT-AT's and had to gang up on them with sustained fire to succesfully destroy them. In that scenario, the Walkers were more heavily armored, but not overwhelmingly so.
| atgxtg wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: |
As for why the Alliance didn't just use their X-Wings against the AT-AT's in the first place, I have never been able to find a reasonable explanation for that. Their only real contributions to the battle were the trip attack and distracting the AT-AT's (marginally) from targeting the groud troops. |
Well the real explanation is that because it fits the story better to have the big, bad Imperials literally walk all over the hapless rebels.
As for in game reasons, they are a bit tougher to come up with. The best excuse I can think up is that the risk of friendly fire was too high. A missed shot from an X-Wing could do more damage to the rebel forces than the walker it was aiming at.
Plus I suspect that some of the fighters were flying escort the the transports, or preventing the Imperials from launching a bomber attack. The Imperials don't seem to soften up the base with TIE Bombers, so maybe the rebel fighters were responsible. Only a handful of pilots are flying T-47s, maybe just Luke's squadron.
Lastly, with the way hyperspace travel works in the game, it is possible that the rebels didn't use the fighters since if one was shot down and recovered by the Imperials, the Empire could get the location of the rebel rendezvous point from any semi-intact astromech droid. |
That last point is probably one of the more plausible ones I've ever seen. Come to think of it, in all six movies, no starfighters are shown to engage in atmospheric combat (apart from the TIE fighters pursuing the Falcon at the end of ESB).
Friendly fire is a concern, but one that can be addressed by simple precautions. In this case, since the Alliance troops in the trenches are in front of the AT-ATs, issues order not to attack the walkers from the rear, which is the only angle from which any stray shots could potentially result in a friendly fire incident. Restricting any attack runs to front or side angles should eliminate that risk entirely.
As far as the TIE Bombers, I think you're forgetting the main shield. A planetary shield strong enough to deflect any bombardment would also be proof against TIE Bombers trying to fly through it. Any such attacks would have to wait until ground assault knocked out the shield generator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat May 22, 2010 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps the best compromise would be to remove the +2D bonus rule on Starfighter / Walker scale and simply have them be the same scale. After all, if an AT-AT has a Body Strength of 6D and a Maneuverability of 0D, the additional 2D to Strength is somewhat excessive.
If I go that route, what should the new scale level be called, since it covers both Starfighters and Walkers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | (Damage results in a Dice penalty to all rolls, including resisting damage) |
Care to quote something from the rules that says that? I know for character scale it DOES say str for soaking is NOT affected by wound penalties...
| Quote: | | Good point. Maybe that should be a changed rule. After all, damage to one system usually results in reduced overall effectiveness of the operating whole. |
BUt how are you going to get around the inconsistency with that as characters would nto suffer, but items would>
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun May 23, 2010 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | (Damage results in a Dice penalty to all rolls, including resisting damage) |
Care to quote something from the rules that says that? I know for character scale it DOES say str for soaking is NOT affected by wound penalties... |
Sorry, it's been a while and I'm rusty. It was pointed out to me in an earlier post that this is not the case.
| garhkal wrote: |
| Quote: | | Good point. Maybe that should be a changed rule. After all, damage to one system usually results in reduced overall effectiveness of the operating whole. |
BUt how are you going to get around the inconsistency with that as characters would nto suffer, but items would> |
Well, if I were to make a rule for it, I would probably just say that, especially for larger vessels, when systems get damaged in combat, they don't just stop working. Usually they explode with varying degrees of violence, inflicting damage on the crew operating said system and causing casualties. This, in turn would result in a varying degree of reduced functionality on the part of the ship overall.
I'm not saying its perfect or absolute, merely that the basis is there for an optional rule if someone wanted to write it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | The problem I foresee is how to re-stat the weapons systems of Capital Ship and Dreadnought Scale. If you look at the weapon systems of WWII era battleships, they had their main guns (heavy 15-18" cannon with 20+ mile range), lighter dual purpose guns (lighter 5" dual purpose cannon that also served as the main armament on destroyers and frigates), and a mass of light cannon for use against airplanes. How do we reconfigure the weapon systems of both Capital Ships and Dreadnoughts to fit this model? |
As to that. Simple principle. "Capital" scale guns are your "15-18" cannon" equivalent. "Escort" scale guns are your "5" dual purpose cannon" equivalent. "Starfighter" scale blaster turrets are your "mass of light cannon for use against airplanes". There are really no "Dreadnought" scale guns equivalent, but "Dreadnought" scale, and maybe some "Capital" scale ships would mount them. Other than that, just put any configuration of the above armament on the ship that you feel looks sensible for its size, type and role. Don't be afraid to house rule the ships armament for your game - you're already doing it anyway with the new scale system. Remember that Star Wars ships don't always (I would say rarely actually) conform to the scheme you described, as statted in the game books. An ISD has all "Capital" scale guns and no "Starfighter" scale guns for AA whatsoever, relaying instead on TIE cover for anti-fighter work.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: | | Remember that Star Wars ships don't always (I would say rarely actually) conform to the scheme you described, as statted in the game books. An ISD has all "Capital" scale guns and no "Starfighter" scale guns for AA whatsoever, relaying instead on TIE cover for anti-fighter work. |
One thing that might be worth mentioning is that D20 Starwars actually made the light turbolasers starfighter scale weapons, allowing them to serve as the equivalent of AA guns.
Personally, I think that would be the correct approach. I suspect the reasons why D6 didn't do it was that the stats predated the scaling system, and the concept of mixed scaled ships didn't appear right away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MA-3PO
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 236
Location: Olathe, Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Leon The Lion wrote: | | Remember that Star Wars ships don't always (I would say rarely actually) conform to the scheme you described, as statted in the game books. An ISD has all "Capital" scale guns and no "Starfighter" scale guns for AA whatsoever, relaying instead on TIE cover for anti-fighter work. |
One thing that might be worth mentioning is that D20 Starwars actually made the light turbolasers starfighter scale weapons, allowing them to serve as the equivalent of AA guns.
Personally, I think that would be the correct approach. I suspect the reasons why D6 didn't do it was that the stats predated the scaling system, and the concept of mixed scaled ships didn't appear right away. |
Yeah, I houseruled that half of the ISD's 60 turbolasers are starfighter scale to make them scarier for my fighter pilots. It also allows the hits the Falcon takes in TESB make more sense too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MA-3PO wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | Leon The Lion wrote: | | Remember that Star Wars ships don't always (I would say rarely actually) conform to the scheme you described, as statted in the game books. An ISD has all "Capital" scale guns and no "Starfighter" scale guns for AA whatsoever, relaying instead on TIE cover for anti-fighter work. |
One thing that might be worth mentioning is that D20 Starwars actually made the light turbolasers starfighter scale weapons, allowing them to serve as the equivalent of AA guns.
Personally, I think that would be the correct approach. I suspect the reasons why D6 didn't do it was that the stats predated the scaling system, and the concept of mixed scaled ships didn't appear right away. |
Yeah, I houseruled that half of the ISD's 60 turbolasers are starfighter scale to make them scarier for my fighter pilots. It also allows the hits the Falcon takes in TESB make more sense too. |
It fits with Star Warriors, too. There, all the weapons were on starfighter scale.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the turbolasters are all starfighter scale. And 60 of them would probably be enough to hurt a captical ship. IMO the big ships are less like WWII battleships than Age of Sali ships. They don't seem to have any main guns like a battleship, but simply have lots nand lots of guns. Kind of like a 60 gun Ship of the line.
I think fdropping all the tubolasers down to starfighter scale (with an addtional 6D damage) and having them comibne in group of 6 or so (+2D), and limit the number that have a clear shot at something starfighter sized would probably be a bit more true to the films.
But since the idea of the PCS fighting a Star Destroyer in a small ship is sucidal, I haven't bothered trying this out. I might if I were to play out a space battle or something similar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue May 25, 2010 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon The Lion wrote: |
As to that. Simple principle. "Capital" scale guns are your "15-18" cannon" equivalent. "Escort" scale guns are your "5" dual purpose cannon" equivalent. "Starfighter" scale blaster turrets are your "mass of light cannon for use against airplanes". There are really no "Dreadnought" scale guns equivalent, but "Dreadnought" scale, and maybe some "Capital" scale ships would mount them. Other than that, just put any configuration of the above armament on the ship that you feel looks sensible for its size, type and role. Don't be afraid to house rule the ships armament for your game - you're already doing it anyway with the new scale system. |
There would also definitely need to be something along the lines of the 8" gun main armament found on cruisers, to give the higher end Starship-scale vessels an armament worthy of the name Cruiser.
I was thinking of making the Axial Superlasers on the Eclipse and Sovereign into Dreadnought-Scale, given the fact that no other weapons mounted on either ship would qualify. Maybe some of the siege weapons described in the Imperial Sourcebook (specifically the Two-Stage Gravshock Device) would be likely candidates for Dreadnought Scale as well.
As for Capital Ship armament, specifically the ISD, I was thinking of making the flank turret weapons described in the Incredible Cross-sections book into some form of Capital Scale weapon while retaining the stock stat armament as Starship-Scale. I was considering something along the line of the Lance weapons found on warships in Battlefleet Gothic, almost like a mini-superlaser.
| Leon The Lion wrote: | | Remember that Star Wars ships don't always (I would say rarely actually) conform to the scheme you described, as statted in the game books. An ISD has all "Capital" scale guns and no "Starfighter" scale guns for AA whatsoever, relaying instead on TIE cover for anti-fighter work. |
As far as ISD's not mounting any anti-starfighter armament, I plan to go with the option (as described in the Revised D20 Rulebook) where ISD's are also equipped with 40 point-defense laser cannon. It seems silly for weapons of such value to not be equipped with integral anti-starfigher defenses. Even the Death Star had atleast some Starfighter-Scale weapons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon The Lion
Commander
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 309
Location: Somewhere in Poland
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 4:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | There would also definitely need to be something along the lines of the 8" gun main armament found on cruisers, to give the higher end Starship-scale vessels an armament worthy of the name Cruiser. |
That would just be an "Escort" scale gun with high-end damage.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed May 26, 2010 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've been thinking of eliminating scaling completely, and instead replace it with multipliers that are included in the vehicle stats.
For example, a X-Wing could have Hull 4Dx2 and it's Lasers could do 6Dx2. When fighting other starfighters the multipliers could be ignored. Or, if I got with crmcneill's variant, something like:
Speeder x2
Walker/Starfighter x3
Transport x4
Escort? x5
Capital Ship x6 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
