| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16341
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Hows about using it as 'supression fire'.. To even get in the zone, you have to pilot better than the to hit, but anything that enters that area has to do it or gets whakked. |
There are suppression fire rules in Rules of Engagement. That might make good starting point.
_________________
"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: 16341
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Interesting, but maybe a bit too much considering how hard it is for a Captial scale ship to hit a starfighter, now. Unless you want to reducing scaling a bit. |
There is that, but it does make it more realistic. If you look at even turret mounted weaponry, say on a modern warship or a tank, they all have blind spots that can be utilized by something small enough.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 11:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | | Interesting, but maybe a bit too much considering how hard it is for a Captial scale ship to hit a starfighter, now. Unless you want to reducing scaling a bit. |
There is that, but it does make it more realistic. If you look at even turret mounted weaponry, say on a modern warship or a tank, they all have blind spots that can be utilized by something small enough. |
Somewhat. Often the "blide spot" is mobile.
I am thinking that part of the difficulty in game terms is that turbolasers probably aren't capital scale weapons like 16" cannon, but instead are more like 40mm autocaanon, designed to shoot at fighters.That would mae sense too, since most the big ships are carriers of some type, and quite vulnerable to fighters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16341
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Somewhat. Often the "blide spot" is mobile. |
True, but that just means that a fighter has to make a Piloting roll to stay within the blind spot (Difficulty to be determined).
| Quote: | | I am thinking that part of the difficulty in game terms is that turbolasers probably aren't capital scale weapons like 16" cannon, but instead are more like 40mm autocaanon, designed to shoot at fighters.That would mae sense too, since most the big ships are carriers of some type, and quite vulnerable to fighters. |
Tough to say. It could've just been a WEG oversight. I know WOTC updated the stats for ISDs to include point defense cannon. Quite a few of the fleet's smaller vessels include dedicated anti-starfighter weaponry; perhaps the thinking is that the big cruiser ships are too large and durable to be effectively attacked by starfighters?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: |
Perhaps cap ship guns have a potential power setting where they can 'rapid fire' at a lesser power level, creating that flak barrage.. Each D of damage they take off gives them say +2 to hit bonus...
| Quote: | | For capital vs. starfighter weapons the 6D scaling factor makes a hit unlikely, but makes virtually any hit instantly fatal. Which is not what I want for PCs |
Hence my above reduction in power for better chance to hit. |
I7ve been thinking of changing turbolasers to starfighter scale. I think it would make more sense (none of the WEG ships had point defense guns), and would also explain why the big ships can pound each other for so long.
The T/Ls do seem to be more of an autofire weapon than a big gun.
But dialable damage wouldmake sense, too. Maybe would could just swipe the autofire rules for captial ships? That is they could trade off damage dice for fire control. So dropping 6D of damage would negate the scaling bonus and throw up w ider pattern of shots? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16341
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | But dialable damage wouldmake sense, too. Maybe would could just swipe the autofire rules for captial ships? That is they could trade off damage dice for fire control. So dropping 6D of damage would negate the scaling bonus and throw up w ider pattern of shots? |
I know the description for turbolasers says that they run off banks of capacitor batteries to charge their shot. Maybe for CS-Scale attacks, turbolasers use the entire capacitor charge all at once, but for SF-Scale, they draw charge from one component of the bank at a time, resulting in a lower energy yield, but greatly increased fire rate?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 12:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: | Yeah. At least "final" until I change it again!  |
Obviously. And thanks! 
When I think of flak, I think of shell bursts that sometimes damage (via shrapnel or concussion I suppose) rather than outright destroy planes. |
I know what you mean.
[/quote]
I think I misremembered or misunderstood what you had previously posted. I may still be misunderstanding, but what you posted seems not much different that just targeting the incoming starfighter. It just seems that you are cutting down on the number of rolls for the defending ship by using one roll (or most of one roll) for all incoming ships. I was thinking the flak number would set what was in effect a terrain difficulty that the pilot than had to maneuver through (rather than rolling a dodge vs. the attack). Then how well the pilot succeeded in traversing the terrain would determine if he avoided damage or took damage, but the damage would vary based on the amount the roll was missed by. With a bad miss = full damage, but less severe misses = lesser amounts of damage [/quote]
I like that idea. . You didn't misrember. I did orginally had the damage go up in 1D increments, but it didn't work out too well becuase the FlaK value was too low. Basically, the scaling bonus messes it up.
Maybe trading off scale damge dice for Fire Control might help?
[/quote]
For capital vs. starfighter weapons the 6D scaling factor makes a hit unlikely, but makes virtually any hit instantly fatal. Which is not what I want for PCs. I would prefer that flak - blasting in the general area of incoming ships as opposed to specifically targeting incoming ships - does the following four things: (i) creates a bumpy ride for the incoming fighter (no real game effect, just color really), (ii) provides an increase in the space terrain difficulty so that incoming fighters need to move at a lower speed than all out or risk running into flak, (iii) provides a better likelihood of some damage being inflicted than if the guns were directly targeting the fighter, but (iv) provides a lower likelihood of outright and instant destruction compared to directly targeting the fighter.
 I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just curious, but are you spelling flak with an upper case K accidently or on purpose. I know keyboards sometimes have a mind of thier own. [/quote]
Your not being snarky. I agree with you. It is just that I haven't been bold enough to throw out the scaling factor yet. I think if I just treated the sguns as starfighter scale, things would work a bit better. Maybe even replace the fixed damage with something like 1D per 3 failed by, or just use the mishap table and replace collisions with hits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14247
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2011 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Glad some are liking my Dialable damage idea.
_________________
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 Jun 25, 2011 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I had what I thought was a really insightful follow up to the Flak topic which I could have sworn I posted, but I can't find the darn thing. I think I will start a new thread on flak and try to recereate it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
