| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 5:55 pm Post subject: Maneuverability & Hull issues.. |
 |
|
I feel that Maneuverability in the game does not really work as I would like it. Also, its not unusual for starfighters to take as much punishment as larger ships.
1. The difference in maneuverability between a30m civilian 'old tub' freighter and a Starfighter is too small.
2. Starfighters have too high Hull values compared to larger ships, even military ones.
How to solve this? Im thinking of making starfighters and freighters two different scales, with a 2D difference.
Two problems arise.
How to handle when firing at a freighter with a starfighter. I want to make the fighers more fragile, not the freighters more resilient! One proposal is to have starfighters weapons 'freighter scale'.
Hmm, that would solve the problem with starfighter vs capitals, as the weapons stay the same scale, so apparently I either have two or no problems.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not sure I understand the problems you are trying to fix.
1. Maneuverability - many freighters have around 1D maneuverability. Most starfighters have around 2D+ maneuver. How much of a difference do you want?
A different solution would be to assume freighter maneuverability is based on empty holds. Adjust the maneuverability by something like:
Empty Holds - maneuver as listed
1/4 full -1pip
1/2 full -2pips
3/4 full -1D
Full holds -1D+1
2. I haven't found this to be a problem. TIE fighters only have hull 2D, so do a few other less common fighters. Z-95, X-Wing, and Y-Wing are pretty durable, but so are YT-1300 base models. Compare a stock X-Wing: Space 8, maneuver 3D, hull 4D, shields 1D to a stock YT-1300: space 4, maneuver 1D, hull 4D, shields 0D. I don't see a problem here. Can you give me a few examples of what you find concerning or what effect you want to have? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | I'm not sure I understand the problems you are trying to fix.
1. Maneuverability - many freighters have around 1D maneuverability. Most starfighters have around 2D+ maneuver. How much of a difference do you want? |
There are 2D 'ordinarey transports', but the main issue is that theres no biggie upgrading to 2D+ even though most freighters dont start there.
| Quote: |
A different solution would be to assume freighter maneuverability is based on empty holds. Adjust the maneuverability by something like:
Empty Holds - maneuver as listed
1/4 full -1pip
1/2 full -2pips
3/4 full -1D
Full holds -1D+1
2. I haven't found this to be a problem. TIE fighters only have hull 2D, so do a few other less common fighters. Z-95, X-Wing, and Y-Wing are pretty durable, but so are YT-1300 base models. Compare a stock X-Wing: Space 8, maneuver 3D, hull 4D, shields 1D to a stock YT-1300: space 4, maneuver 1D, hull 4D, shields 0D. I don't see a problem here. Can you give me a few examples of what you find concerning or what effect you want to have? |
I feel that its a bit odd that a Fighter have the same Hull as a Freighter, or even military transport. Sure there are some weak examples, but 4D starfighters are not that uncommon.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2010 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I feel that its a bit odd that a Fighter have the same Hull as a Freighter, or even military transport. Sure there are some weak examples, but 4D starfighters are not that uncommon. |
BTW, I took a look in my old 2E rules.
Ship Type...MAN...HULL...SHIELD
X-wing.......3D......4D......1D
Y-wing.......2D......4D......1D+2
TIE............2D......2D......none
TIE Int.......3D+2..3D......none
YT-1300.....0D......4D......none
Ghrtoc.......1D......3D+2..1D
Scout-A......0D.....4D......1D
ZzaphodD, I'm not grasping why you find it odd that a military vessel sometimes has as strong a hull as a civilian transport. In the real world, armored cars are more durable than 18-wheel trucks. I expect that military jets are more durable than civilian jets. Why is it surprising that an unarmored tranport has the same hull as a military starfighter which has redundant systems backup and armor protecting vulnerable areas? |
|
| 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
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 5:52 am Post subject: Re: Maneuverability & Hull issues.. |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | I feel that Maneuverability in the game does not really work as I would like it. Also, its not unusual for starfighters to take as much punishment as larger ships.
1. The difference in maneuverability between a30m civilian 'old tub' freighter and a Starfighter is too small. |
At most i have seen 2d as a freighters maneuverability. AND that was for small ships. most fighters start OUT at around 2d and go up.. Some even have 4d..
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
2. Starfighters have too high Hull values compared to larger ships, even military ones. |
Lets see. A stock L-19 has 6d hull. Most fighters have between 3d and 4d+1..
| Quote: | A different solution would be to assume freighter maneuverability is based on empty holds. Adjust the maneuverability by something like:
Empty Holds - maneuver as listed
1/4 full -1pip
1/2 full -2pips
3/4 full -1D
Full holds -1D+1 |
Consider this yanked Bren.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 09, 2010 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Consider this yanked Bren. |
Glad I could help. 
garhkal, you and I seem to be in total agreement on this topic. I guess I will have to go back to the attribute increase thread if I want to argue with you so more.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh its easy.. I argue a lot around here just to keep people on their toes! 
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Oh its easy.. I argue a lot around here just to keep people on their toes! |
I kind-of noticed that. Some might even say I sometimes resemble that remark.
My players are less rules oriented than I am, so this is a good place for me to get some rules discussion done with other interested parties.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 10, 2010 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | ZzaphodD, I'm not grasping why you find it odd that a military vessel sometimes has as strong a hull as a civilian transport. In the real world, armored cars are more durable than 18-wheel trucks. I expect that military jets are more durable than civilian jets. Why is it surprising that an unarmored tranport has the same hull as a military starfighter which has redundant systems backup and armor protecting vulnerable areas? |
Well, we are not talking tanks vs cars here, but spaceships. Given that Starfighters are supposed to be fast and maneuverable they need to have a low weight, hence no 20cm durasteel armor. Also, looking at the movies Starfighters, even those belonging to the good guys, seem to explode at a hit from a laser cannon.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 2:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Quote: | | Oh its easy.. I argue a lot around here just to keep people on their toes! |
I kind-of noticed that. Some might even say I sometimes resemble that remark.
|
Hey... that is my excuse.. Get your own 
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 12:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well, we are not talking tanks vs cars here, but spaceships. Given that Starfighters are supposed to be fast and maneuverable they need to have a low weight, hence no 20cm durasteel armor. Also, looking at the movies Starfighters, even those belonging to the good guys, seem to explode at a hit from a laser cannon. |
And in the movies the only example of a transport in combat are the Millenium Falcon (which never dies) and the Naboo transports that get shot up or blown to bits on the landing pad. So arguing from that, cargo ships are as nimble as TIE fighters and far more durable. They also pack better armament. Or they are unarmed and really fragile like the Naboo ships. Which do you prefer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Quote: | | Well, we are not talking tanks vs cars here, but spaceships. Given that Starfighters are supposed to be fast and maneuverable they need to have a low weight, hence no 20cm durasteel armor. Also, looking at the movies Starfighters, even those belonging to the good guys, seem to explode at a hit from a laser cannon. |
And in the movies the only example of a transport in combat are the Millenium Falcon (which never dies) and the Naboo transports that get shot up or blown to bits on the landing pad. So arguing from that, cargo ships are as nimble as TIE fighters and far more durable. They also pack better armament. Or they are unarmed and really fragile like the Naboo ships. Which do you prefer? |
Well, given the Falcons improved status it still get hit quite easily, and survives (even if the shields go down). Starfighters dont.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well, given the Falcons improved status it still get hit quite easily, and survives (even if the shields go down). Starfighters dont. |
Luke and Wedge were both hit on the first Death Star run and survived. In the movies, NPC starfighters do blow up quite a bit. NPC transports don't exist. I don't think you can derive a lot from that, which is why I looked to real world analogs.
I will note that in the extended universe X-wings frequently take damage without being destroyed (look at almost any Rogue Squadron novel or comic). If you want most/all transports to be tougher than starfighters, just make them tougher. It seems odd to me and would likely change the role of starfighters in combat, but I'm not the boss of you.
I want the ships the PCs are in to be able to survive some damage for two reasons, both of which are independent of whether the PCs are in starfighters or transports.
1) Space combat is deadly. Since you can't add character points to add to your ship hull roll it is even more so than most ground combat. Getting PCs that interact well and have a shared history takes time, so I am reluctant to kill them off too easily, especially for a merely a flukey die roll.
2) It is exciting to have the ship the PCs are in take some damage. It gives the R2 units and the techs something to do in combat and makes the players feel that their characters are in danger in space combat without necessarily killing them.
A corollary to 2) above is that if players are in a ship that will generally not survive a laser cannon hit (e.g. your modified starfighters), then they will spend FP or CP to not get hit at all. I find the PCs getting missed all the time kind-of boring. So do some of my PCs. Your mileage may vary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Apart from this I have been thinking of ways to make maneuverability a larger part of the equation in general. As it is, extreme cases aside, most of the time theres just 1D in difference which in comparison to the number of skill dice used most of the time dont make any real difference.
This, in combination with the rather cheap ways of getting a 2-3D maneuverability transport may be my real beef with the system. As pointed out most transports have 1D and some of the 2D one can easily be retconned if they feel wrong (a 38m pre clone wars cheap transport for example). Lets face it, not many PCs fly around in a 1D maneuverability ship for long if they can anything about ship combat.
So, if one would increase the cost of 'Lateral Thrusters' (easy enough) and change how the Maneuverability rating works (trickier) my problems will mostly be solved.
Regarding hulls and starfighters the goal is not to have starfighters explode from cosmic radiation, but to have the rules reflect the difference in mass between the different ships. A freighter might have less armour, but just the size and mass will mean that you have a lot of non critical structure that can take some punishment (especially from non-explosive weapons). This is not the case with a compact fighter.
You cannot really compare to 'real world' aircraft at all here. In SW you more or less cannot even damage a starship (almost no matter how weak) with a personal weapon (almost no matter how heavy). This is clearly not the case in the real world.
But perhaps making a larger difference in hull rating is not the way to go. If you want to represent the difference in mass then perhaps some other way of making the larger ship more durable if preferred. If you dont want to go the 'hull points' way, which I dont, then having different damage tables would be the way to go. This solution can be applied all over freighters but on the other hand needs some consideration. What Im looking for is perhaps more hit locations. Another hit location might be 'Cargo Space' and/or crew/passenger. The idea is that 'light damage' can be spread out over more componenents representing the mass and size of the ships means that therese more to hit. In a compact starfighter theres just critical components there.
Structure Hit:
Light damage = Ionized.
Heavy damage=Structure of the ship weakened -1D to starship maneuvers.
Severe Damage: Structural Damage. Ship will break up in 1D rounds. This is as per the RAW.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
