| 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: Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:12 pm Post subject: Ship of Riddles (Archive Edition) |
 |
|
For those too young to remember, Ship of Riddles was a website that did an in-depth analysis of the Millennium Falcon in an attempt to resolve various contradictions between the Falcon we see in the films and the assorted official deck plans. The ultimate conclusion was that the Falcon could not exist; there were too many shapes that didn't fit right, rooms and corridors that would've ended up sticking out through the hull, and so on and so forth. However, a compromise deck plan was included in an attempt to reconcile as many of the disparate pieces as possible, resulting in a "What Might Have Been" Millennium Falcon (if the production crew had had the luxury of resolving the interior and exterior models of the ship).
So, without further ado, here is the Archived Version of the web site Ship of Riddles.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Sutehp
Commodore
Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 1797
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you for finding this and presenting it to us.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RyanDarkstar
Commander
Joined: 04 Dec 2014
Posts: 351
Location: Chambersburg, PA, USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Very cool stuff. Thanks for sharing this.
What is the final size of his version of the Falcon? About 50 meters?
_________________
Currently playing D&D 5E and painting an unholy amount of miniatures. |
|
| 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: Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
I actually just this morning spoke to Frank Bonura, of the Star Wars Deckplans Alliance, and the conclusion they reached was that WEG underestimated the Falcon's length by 40%, so an accurate length for the Falcon would be ~37.5 meters.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Ship of Riddles (Archive Edition) |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | For those too young to remember, Ship of Riddles was a website that did an in-depth analysis of the Millennium Falcon in an attempt to resolve various contradictions between the Falcon we see in the films and the assorted official deck plans. The ultimate conclusion was that the Falcon could not exist; there were too many shapes that didn't fit right, rooms and corridors that would've ended up sticking out through the hull, and so on and so forth. However, a compromise deck plan was included in an attempt to reconcile as many of the disparate pieces as possible, resulting in a "What Might Have Been" Millennium Falcon (if the production crew had had the luxury of resolving the interior and exterior models of the ship).
So, without further ado, here is the Archived Version of the web site Ship of Riddles. |
Where is Lando's cape room? 
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Star Wars Deckplans Alliance, and the conclusion they reached was that WEG underestimated the Falcon's length by 40%, so an accurate length for the Falcon would be ~37.5 meters. |
So therefore, stock YT-1300s should be close to that too, right? Wookieepedia (Canon and Legends) has stocks at 34-35 meters long, and I think the bigger size makes more sense. I usually avoid using YT-1300s in my game at all, but I'm sure some GMs might still have stock or modified YT-1300s in their game.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| 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: Thu Aug 30, 2018 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Frank Bonura posted the following on the Star Wars D6 Facebook page. It's the length conversion chart they use over at the Star Wars Deckplans Alliance:If a freighter's WEG length is < 53.4 meters long: 140%
If a freighter's WEG length is 53.5 to 106.7 meters long: 120%
If a freighter's WEG length is 106.8 to 213.5 meters long: 110%
If a freighter's WEG length is >= 213.6 meters long: No change
So, take the listed WEG length of a ship, compare that to the above list, then multiply accordingly.
For example, the 26.7 meters listed for a YT-1300 falls into the 140% range, so multiply 26.7 by 1.4 to get 37.38 meters.
Obviously most freighters that characters will be using fall into the 140% range.
EDIT: Added "WEG length" to the above table, to clarify which length to use as a base in (the EU being what it is, a ship can easily have multiple "official" lengths).
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Fri Aug 31, 2018 11:18 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RyanDarkstar
Commander
Joined: 04 Dec 2014
Posts: 351
Location: Chambersburg, PA, USA, Earth
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is great. Thanks, CRMcNeill. I'm totally using this.
I had used Wookieepedia's length of ~34 to get ~50 meters, not realizing I should have modified WEG's stat. 50 meters did seem a bit too long.
_________________
Currently playing D&D 5E and painting an unholy amount of miniatures. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | It's the length conversion chart they use over at the Star Wars Deckplans Alliance:If a freighter's WEG length is < 53.4 meters long: 140%
If a freighter's WEG length is 53.5 to 106.7 meters long: 120%
If a freighter's WEG length is 106.8 to 213.5 meters long: 110%
If a freighter's WEG length is >= 213.6 meters long: No change
So, take the listed WEG length of a ship, compare that to the above list, then multiply accordingly.
For example, the 26.7 meters listed for a YT-1300 falls into the 140% range, so multiply 26.7 by 1.4 to get 37.38 meters.
Obviously most freighters that characters will be using fall into the 140% range.
EDIT: Added "WEG length" to the above table, to clarify which length to use as a base in (the EU being what it is, a ship can easily have multiple "official" lengths). |
I understand that WEG blew it for interpreting ships from the classic trilogy films, but what about WEG ships that didn't appear in the films? Does this length increase apply to all the freighters under 213.6 meters in Stock Ships?
Take this ship. There is nothing in the films to dispute the length WEG gave it, but since it is a WEG freighter under 53.4 meters, it automatically gets increased to 140% of its WEG length?
And if we do that, won't that throw off the deck plans? Won't the chairs and beds be too big (if they were close to right for the published size in the first place)?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| 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 Sep 22, 2018 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm reasonably certain that Frank et al applied this to all WEG ships. Here's a quote from him on this over on the SWD6 Facebook page: | Quote: | Regarding the 40% increase to light freighters and ships in the 26 to 55 m length demographic.
If you head over to my Facebook page Paul Cargile built a 3-D model of the millennium falcon. It was during the building of this 3-D model that we realized the full-scale set that the movies were shot in were not full scale. The full-scale millennium falcon was actually 2/3rds scale and the only part of the millennium falcon that was full scale was the cockpit set. Upon this discovery we realized that WEST END GAMES built all of their ships too small and so in my campaign I enacted a 40% increase in the size of light freighters and it turned out to solve a great many spacing problems in ships including the millennium falcon and many others. |
Considering his perfectionist approach to deck plans, I don't think he much cares if it threw off the WEG ones.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| 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 Sep 22, 2018 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say this one's an exception. I don't much like the WEG deck plans, but the stats seem a good match for the length compared to the re-dimensioned YT-1300 (~36-37 meters long). Combine that with the reduced cargo capacity and the submersible drive system, I think it's good the way it is.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 22, 2018 1:53 am Post subject: DeepWater |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I'd say this one's an exception. I don't much like the WEG deck plans, but the stats seem a good match for the length compared to the re-dimensioned YT-1300 (~36-37 meters long). Combine that with the reduced cargo capacity and the submersible drive system, I think it's good the way it is. |
Thanks. I'm not a fan of the deckplan either, so I think I will keep the WEG length and scale, but photoshop a different deckplan. It won't be a short or fun process for me, but this will be the main ship for a long campaign so it's got to work for me. These Mon Cal ships are supposed to be unique but if so they wouldn't make good smuggler or rebel ships because even with false transponders, uniqueness would make them easier to identify. So I'm thinking that the uniqueness for freighters is in the deckplans. 'No two Mon Cal freighters are laid out the same way.'
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10434
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I'd say this one's an exception. I don't much like the WEG deck plans, but the stats seem a good match for the length compared to the re-dimensioned YT-1300 (~36-37 meters long). Combine that with the reduced cargo capacity and the submersible drive system, I think it's good the way it is. |
It has been a long and laborious process, but I am starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel in making a better deckplan for a modified DeepWater. Fore to aft this deckplan's ship outline measure 22.5cm on the page, so with a 45m actual length, 1cm=2m. The beds measure 1cm on the page so they are 2 meters. The chairs look good based on that scale. The escape pod looks kinda small but it probably could hold six if packed in tight.
The deckplan and the image in Stock Ships contradict each other. I've had to make a lot changes to the deckplan, including to better match the exterior image for the ship. Now I know this is a Mon Calamari ship and they can say that no two are exactly alike, but even then it would still only make sense that the deckplan provided in the book matches the exterior image provided in the book. For my ship, I've also have to alter the exterior image so it and the deckplan meet somewhere in the middle.
In looking through the entire book for additional perspective for my new deckplan, I've come to the disappointing realization that Stock Ships is a steaming piece of poodu. A lot of the deckplans don't make sense. Some have a frail thin hull to outer space. Some have tiny beds, or beds that fill up the entire room. Some have the stock escape pods at the same size as on the DeepWater, but each ship is a different length so each deckplan is its own scale. I also compared stats to deckplan, and ship to ship. The crew and passengers numbers don't match up to the crew and passenger quarters in the deckplans. The DeepWater seems to have bunk beds in the quarters and room for way more people than the stats would indicate.
The seems to have been no effort to coordinate the cargo capacities and the apparent cargo bay sizes. Yes different ships will have different varying height rooms, but freight can only be stacked so high there still should be some general relationship to cargo capacity and cargo bay area on the deckplan. The DeepWater being 45m is one of the biggest ships here and its cargo bays look huge, but the stats say it only has an 85 ton cargo capacity. Even with the YT-1300 being enlarged to 140% its WEG size, the DeepWater looks it has way more room than wherever they cram cargo on a YT-1300. I've shrunk the cargo bays a bit on my DeepWater but to make the deckplan make any sense, I'm thinking it will be an 85 tons capacity in each bay, but that still seems too small.
All in all, I think every single ship in the Stock Ships book has problems (beyond a few things being mislabeled here and there). In 1988 WEG's Long Shot deckplan had problems but Stock Ships suck to a new low. Some problems might be addressed by adjusting the stat blocks more than the deckplan. Yes, enlarging the ships by the % in the Deckplan Alliance chart would definitely help the ones that have way too small of a cargo bay for the statted cargo capacity, but that would only address one problem when there are many (and it would create other problems).
It seems to me that the % increases were based on Falcon being too small, but then considered how the Falcon stats compared to the stock YT-1300 stats and then how those stats compared to other WEG ship stats. CRM, in your quoted statement above, you seemed to have likewise disregarded the deckplan and based the DeepWater length on the stock stats, that a submarine drive would require a large engine space and reduced cargo capacity despite being a larger ship than our original 'stock light freighter'. Not at all unreasonable. But according to the deckplan, the engine room on the ship is already huge too. My deckplan is changed the shape of the engine room some but it looks about the same size so I'm thinking I've got the submarine drive covered. Stat wise, the ship didn't really need to be 45 meters, but I've already put a lot of work into it for that scale so I'm not changing it now. An increased cargo capacity is definitely in order.
Since the deckplans in the book have multiple issues, it probably would make the most sense to disregard the deckplans all together and go by the DA standard to increase the length, keeping the rest of the stats. But then you don't have what made Stock Ships so cool in the first place, deckplans to the ships, which makes them feel more real to players than just a stat block and maybe an outer visual. More accurate Falcon length and deckplans give us some perspective to more accurate YT-1300 deckplans, but it sad that Stock Ships sucks so bad.
Anyway, I'll share my DeepWater deckplan when I am done.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I look forward to seeing your Deepwater. It was my favorite ship out of Stock Ships.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________ |
|
| 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: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Raven Redstar wrote: | | I look forward to seeing your Deepwater. It was my favorite ship out of Stock Ships. |
Seconded. There is so much wrong with Stock Ships, but the Deepwater is one of the few bright spots, if only because of the added dimension of the submersible capability. I am also looking forward to seeing what you come up with, Whill.
Honestly, the best part of the book is the back stories on some of the ships, and how they have little hidden quirks built in. The deck plans were...well, terrible is appropriate.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
