| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Henrik.Balslev
Commander
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Denmark
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 15, 2011 3:59 pm Post subject: Trilon Industries Aggressor Patrol Cruiser |
 |
|
does anyone have the stats for the stock version of this ship? I know the IG-2000(??) is in the ship stats book, but how about the unmodified version?
_________________
-
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Henrik.Balslev
Commander
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've come up with something like this. This is assuming that IG-88 is not concerned with the comfort of his prisoners, and as such, has not bothered whith any niceties for his prisoners, thus using the "cheap" cargo to passenger conversion in GG-6 loosing one ton of cargo per passenger, instead of the 10 ton rate per passenger. Another factor is that I think 80 tonnes of cargo in a 20 meter ship, as sleek as the Trilon Inc. Aggressor Assault Fighter is unlikely. I also removed the Ion cannon, thinking it was probably added by IG-88 to disable the ships of his targets.
I see this as sort of a space patrol car which is why I left the Tractor beams making it quite literally capable of pulling over anyone they wish 
Craft: Trilon, Inc. Aggressor Assault Fighter
Era: Rebellion
Type: Transport
Scale: Starfighter
Length: 20 meters
Skill: Space transports: Aggressor
Crew: 1
Crew Skill: Varies
Passengers: 1
Cargo Capacity: 12465 kilograms
Consumables: 1 week
Cost: Not available for sale (650,000 estimated)
Hyperdrive Multiplier: x1
Nav Computer: Yes
Maneuverability: 2D+1
Space: 8
Atmosphere: 400; 1,150 km/h
Hull: 4D
Shields: 2D
Sensors:
Passive: 20/0D
Scan: 40/1D
Search: 60/2D
Focus: 3/3D
Weapons:
2 Assault Lasers (fire-linked)
Fire Arc: Front
Skill: Starship gunnery
Fire Control: 4D
Space Range: 1-3/12/25
Atmosphere Range: 100-300/1.2/2.5 km
Damage: 6D
2 Tractor Beams
Fire Arc: Front
Scale: Capital
Skill: Capital ship gunnery
Fire Control: 2D+1
Space Range: 1-5/15/30
Atmosphere Range: 2-10/30/60 km
Damage: 4D
_________________
-
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936)
Last edited by Henrik.Balslev on Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:26 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14172
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2011 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think IG-88 also upped the speed/hull and shields...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henrik.Balslev
Commander
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
you might have a point ... space rating of 8 ? hull 4D and 2D shields?
_________________
-
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Henrik.Balslev wrote: | | Another factor is that I think 80 tonnes of cargo in a 20 meter ship, as sleek as the Trilon Inc. Aggressor Assault Fighter is unlikely. |
One thing to remember is that as far as weight goes, thrust, not size, is the deciding factor. It could probably easily haul 80 tons of iron.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henrik.Balslev
Commander
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | One thing to remember is that as far as weight goes, thrust, not size, is the deciding factor. It could probably easily haul 80 tons of iron. |
true, but I'm thinking it wouldn't fit inside the ship which is also a factor
_________________
-
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Henrik.Balslev wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | One thing to remember is that as far as weight goes, thrust, not size, is the deciding factor. It could probably easily haul 80 tons of iron. |
true, but I'm thinking it wouldn't fit inside the ship which is also a factor |
Also, why would you make a 20 m fighter with 80 ton cargo capacity??
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Henrik.Balslev wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | One thing to remember is that as far as weight goes, thrust, not size, is the deciding factor. It could probably easily haul 80 tons of iron. |
true, but I'm thinking it wouldn't fit inside the ship which is also a factor |
Also, why would you make a 20 m fighter with 80 ton cargo capacity?? |
Well dense things like iron and water would fit. 80 tons of Wonderbread? Not so much, but the idea is the maximum it can carry. As for why, it could be more a multirole ship than a straight fighter. (Good for piracy and privateering.) It could be a fighter-bomber with extra storage space to carry a lot of bombs and other munitions. It could be intended to carry spare parts for extended operations.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14172
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Henrik.Balslev wrote: | | you might have a point ... space rating of 8 ? hull 4D and 2D shields? |
That to me works.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Henrik.Balslev wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | One thing to remember is that as far as weight goes, thrust, not size, is the deciding factor. It could probably easily haul 80 tons of iron. |
true, but I'm thinking it wouldn't fit inside the ship which is also a factor |
Also, why would you make a 20 m fighter with 80 ton cargo capacity?? |
Well dense things like iron and water would fit. 80 tons of Wonderbread? Not so much, but the idea is the maximum it can carry. As for why, it could be more a multirole ship than a straight fighter. (Good for piracy and privateering.) It could be a fighter-bomber with extra storage space to carry a lot of bombs and other munitions. It could be intended to carry spare parts for extended operations. |
Im not talking about size. If you have a fighter with such bad-@$$ weapons costing like 5-6 light freigthers why would you make it carry around cargo? Talk about defeating ones purpose when designing the ship.. Skip the cargo weight and lighten the ship to increase speed and maneuverability.
Crew 1, pass 1, 1 week consumables, not a great pirate vessel. I dont think you would carry bombs in the cargo bay and throw them out the hatch..  Extended operations, again 1 week consumables for 2 persons.. I simply doesnt make any sense..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | | Henrik.Balslev wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | One thing to remember is that as far as weight goes, thrust, not size, is the deciding factor. It could probably easily haul 80 tons of iron. |
true, but I'm thinking it wouldn't fit inside the ship which is also a factor |
Also, why would you make a 20 m fighter with 80 ton cargo capacity?? |
Well dense things like iron and water would fit. 80 tons of Wonderbread? Not so much, but the idea is the maximum it can carry. As for why, it could be more a multirole ship than a straight fighter. (Good for piracy and privateering.) It could be a fighter-bomber with extra storage space to carry a lot of bombs and other munitions. It could be intended to carry spare parts for extended operations. |
Im not talking about size. If you have a fighter with such bad-@$$ weapons costing like 5-6 light freigthers why would you make it carry around cargo? Talk about defeating ones purpose when designing the ship.. Skip the cargo weight and lighten the ship to increase speed and maneuverability.
Crew 1, pass 1, 1 week consumables, not a great pirate vessel. I dont think you would carry bombs in the cargo bay and throw them out the hatch.. Extended operations, again 1 week consumables for 2 persons.. I simply doesnt make any sense.. |
My size comment was in response to Henrik.Balslev's.
Anyways, it's reasonable that IG-88 reduced the duration of the consumables by adding more or larger generators to allow higher energy draw for better weapons and shields. Even if he didn't 1 week is enough for piracy in Star Wars, and two guys can pirate a light freighter. Not every copilot is a wookiee.
The difference between a cargo bay and a bomb bay is the presence of bombs and usually bomb racks. Some bombs just drop straight from a cargo bay (MOAB and Commando Vault, for example)
There's plenty of other roles a ship like that could perform, too. The large cargo bay could put it into a different class with less legal restrictions. It could be a good blockade runner. It could just have a powerful engine that means it can carry plenty of cargo by coincidence.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 2:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 8D damage and 4D firecontrol seems way overgunned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14172
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would be ok with it if their fire rate was say 1 shot every 3 rounds..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henrik.Balslev
Commander
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Denmark
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
hmm ok so how about damage of 6D (still very powerfull I know), and 2D+1 Fire control
_________________
-
It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.
G. K. Chesterton (1874 - 1936) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Henrik.Balslev wrote: | | hmm ok so how about damage of 6D (still very powerfull I know), and 2D+1 Fire control |
Better. 
Though if it is designed to be a police craft rather than a military vessel, i.e. it has tractor beams so the Space Patrol can "pull people over" you might want to retain the Ion Cannon so they can disable rather than just blow up fleeing suspects and downgrade the laser cannon to 4D.
In the Real World, most police vechicles don't come equipped with a .50 MG.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
