| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 8:03 pm Post subject: X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter Missile Rules for D6 |
 |
|
So, while I'm fleshing out the Space Bombs over in another topic, I want to start laying out my concept here, and I'll bring in the Space Bomb later. I'm especially interested in the input of those of you who got a lot of play-time in for the various X-Wing & TIE Fighter games over the years, as some of what I'm thinking is based off of assumptions that may or may not be supported by gameplay itself.
I'm working on stats and rules for the various weapons, but the first thing I'd like to discuss is the Lock-On. Lock on times seem to vary depending on the weapon used, so I'm thinking 1 action for locking on concussion missiles, and 1 round for locking on proton torpedoes. As far as the rules for Lock-On, I'm thinking it requires a successful Sensor Focus to Detect roll, at which point the missile / torpedo can be launched. Thoughts...
_________________
"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: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2015 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The more I think about it, another, more important question comes to mind. Is it appropriate to incorporate over all the steps required to use guided missiles in combat the way the video game does it, or should those steps simply be part of the background, with missile stats be as close to the RAW as possible, with greater range and higher fire control representing their homing capability?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you go the route of 'locking on needed', would ships be automatically detecting enemies trying to lock on them, or would that require active sensor usage?
When you say 'lock on needs a successful sensor focus' what would the difficulty be, especially since mos ships focus ratings are 3-4d?
If locking on is achieved, what chance does a ship have of 'shaking the lock'?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say a lock on would basically be a sensor roll similar to an attack, that can be dodged. In the computer game, the hard bit is keeping the nose locked onto the target long enough to get the lock. So maybe the sensor task would be free but the pilot must make a piloting roll to keep the ship pointed at the target? In RPG terms it's probably takes a whole round to get a lock in the computer game.
Once locked, I'd assume the missiles just track the target, move at at least 25 SU a round (the can't be outrun in the computer game, and any slower and most ships can escape at high speed), and have an endurace of 2-3 turns.
Oh, and one thing that I do all the time is fire the missles without a lock at targets that are at point blank range. If you are very close ( 1 SU or so)the missle will fly into the target much like a laser shot. But that might be a glitch. I'd expect the missles would need a lock to arm. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | If you go the route of 'locking on needed', would ships be automatically detecting enemies trying to lock on them, or would that require active sensor usage? |
That depends on how the weapons are written. I had originally intended to make the concussion missile a passive homing fire-and-forget missile, so it wouldn't need a target lock. However, the videos I've watch of the TIE fighter game seem to indicate that a lock-on is still required, with concussion missiles just being smaller and faster than proton torpedoes. I'm on the fence.
| Quote: | | When you say 'lock on needs a successful sensor focus' what would the difficulty be, especially since mos ships focus ratings are 3-4d? |
By "successful Sensor Focus" I mean that the shooting ship needs to make a successful Sensor Focus on the target as per the rules of the RAW. Once that occurs, the weapon is locked on and, when launched, follows the guidance signal designated by the Sensor Focus.
| Quote: | | If locking on is achieved, what chance does a ship have of 'shaking the lock'? |
I'd treat shaking the lock like any other reaction attempt. I would say that a ship's Passive sensors automatically warn the pilot when someone is making a Lock-On attempt, which they may then try to evade just as they would an attack with an actual weapon.
To that end, I'm also considering changing up the rules for Focus, as well, by allowing the Focus range to represent other uses:-Can Sensor Focus on that many objects simultaneously, or...
-Can coordinate to scan a single object, increasing the existing Sensor Focus bonus.
_________________
"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: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | I'd say a lock on would basically be a sensor roll similar to an attack, that can be dodged. In the computer game, the hard bit is keeping the nose locked onto the target long enough to get the lock. So maybe the sensor task would be free but the pilot must make a piloting roll to keep the ship pointed at the target? In RPG terms it's probably takes a whole round to get a lock in the computer game. |
That was my impression as well; that once you got a lock-on, you stayed locked on until the target was destroyed or you switched to a different target. Not sure how realistic that is; even in the Rogue Squadron novels, enemy starfighters could shake missile locks if they maneuvered hard enough.
As far as the lock-on times, concussion missiles definitely took less time to lock on than proton torpedoes, so I was thinking of making concussion missiles require only a standard action to lock on, whereas proton torpedoes would require a full round.
| Quote: | | Once locked, I'd assume the missiles just track the target, move at at least 25 SU a round (the can't be outrun in the computer game, and any slower and most ships can escape at high speed), and have an endurace of 2-3 turns. |
I'm not hugely concerned about what a missile's actual Space value is; I'd rather treat them as a weapon like any other, just adding in rules for follow-up attacks.
| Quote: | | Oh, and one thing that I do all the time is fire the missles without a lock at targets that are at point blank range. If you are very close ( 1 SU or so)the missle will fly into the target much like a laser shot. But that might be a glitch. I'd expect the missles would need a lock to arm. |
I'm actually planning on keeping the RAW version of missiles and torpedoes and just calling them rockets to distinguish between the guided weapons. Rockets will be inertially guided and only go where you point them, but will inflict higher damage than the guided weapons.
_________________
"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: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="crmcneill"That was my impression as well; that once you got a lock-on, you stayed locked on until the target was destroyed or you switched to a different target. Not sure how realistic that is; even in the Rogue Squadron novels, enemy starfighters could shake missile locks if they maneuvered hard enough. [/quote[
In the X-Wing games, you can break a lock by moving out of the attacker's forward (i,e, firing) arc. It would be kinda nice and easy to incorporate this into the RPG. If it takes at least an action the opponent will get pinged when he gets locked on, and then has chance to move out of the arc.
| Quote: |
As far as the lock-on times, concussion missiles definitely took less time to lock on than proton torpedoes, so I was thinking of making concussion missiles require only a standard action to lock on, whereas proton torpedoes would require a full round. |
Hmm. To mimic X-Wing you should reuire the pilot/gunner to keep the target in the weapon's firing arc. You don't want someone getting a lock while facing the wrong way, getting a lock, and then suddenly doing a sharp turn or 1/2 loop and firing.
| Quote: | | I'm not hugely concerned about what a missile's actual Space value is; I'd rather treat them as a weapon like any other, just adding in rules for follow-up attacks. |
Ah, so basically you would need to give them a range score (to see how far out the can attack) and then and endurance (in rounds). I'd probably consider lowing the range to target each round, since ti would be getting closer and closer. It probablhy won't matter much unless the target does a full dodge.
| Quote: | | I'm actually planning on keeping the RAW version of missiles and torpedoes and just calling them rockets to distinguish between the guided weapons. Rockets will be inertially guided and only go where you point them, but will inflict higher damage than the guided weapons. |
Okay, I didn't explain this properly. In the X-Wing computer game, I have the habit of snap shooting missiles and torps at enemy ships that fly right across my targeting scope at point blank range. I was actually rather good at it. A couple of my friends used to watch me do it, shake thier heads, and complain that I wans't supposed to be able to shoot targets with missiles that way.
BTW, I got a version of X-Wing vs. TIE fighter on my PC, so let me know if you need anything from the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
By "successful Sensor Focus" I mean that the shooting ship needs to make a successful Sensor Focus on the target as per the rules of the RAW. Once that occurs, the weapon is locked on and, when launched, follows the guidance signal designated by the Sensor Focus. |
At what difficulty though? Sensor focuses give a 3-4D bonus for using sensors, so are you just using the bonus on its own at say a moderate roll needed, or combining it with the ave sensor skill most templates have (3d) but at a higher difficulty?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2015 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Probably whatever the normal Difficulty is for using sensors in Focus mode, which can be found in the Skills chapter of the main rulebook? I can't look it up right now.
_________________
"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: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | In the X-Wing games, you can break a lock by moving out of the attacker's forward (i,e, firing) arc. It would be kinda nice and easy to incorporate this into the RPG. If it takes at least an action the opponent will get pinged when he gets locked on, and then has chance to move out of the arc. |
The way I'm thinking, a lock can be dodged like any other attack, either by a standard or full reaction as normal. I would probably rule that, to attempt a lock, the target must be in the shooter's forward fire arc and in normal sensor range. However, the shot still requires that the target be within the missile's range to take the shot (rules for stand off weapons are on my list of things to do, but right now I'm just trying to hammer out the basics.).
| Quote: | | To mimic X-Wing you should reuire the pilot/gunner to keep the target in the weapon's firing arc. You don't want someone getting a lock while facing the wrong way, getting a lock, and then suddenly doing a sharp turn or 1/2 loop and firing. |
I'll just incorporate that into the reaction roll to break the lock. Of course, an advanced option for guided missiles is that they may have a backup homing system that engages if the launching ship loses guidance lock...
| Quote: | | Ah, so basically you would need to give them a range score (to see how far out the can attack) and then and endurance (in rounds). I'd probably consider lowing the range to target each round, since ti would be getting closer and closer. It probably won't matter much unless the target does a full dodge. |
My current rule treats a guided missile just like any other weapon the first round, with the base difficulty set by range and fire control added to the gunner's skill and so on. However, if the missile misses on the initial attack, what happens next is dependent on how bad it missed. Something likeMissed by = Result
0-10 = Missile missed but is still locked on and may attack again the next round @ Moderate Difficulty.
11-20 = Missile has lost lock and goes into search pattern. Roll to reacquire lock next round. If lock is regained, the missile may attack again in the following round. If lock is not regained, the missile self destructs.
21+ = Missile has lost lock and can not reacquire. Missile self destructs.
I wrote up this chart for smart, fire-and-forget type missiles, which would use three different stats to track, the first being Fire Control (which also represents the missile's Maneuverability), the second being Sensors (which is rolled when reacquiring lock-on) and the third is a skill equivalent for a droid brain, which stacks with Fire Control and Sensors, substituting for the gunner after the first round.
Obviously, a missile being guided by a remote lock-on from the launching craft would need a slightly different table, as the lock is coming from the ship, not the missile.
| Quote: | Okay, I didn't explain this properly. In the X-Wing computer game, I have the habit of snap shooting missiles and torps at enemy ships that fly right across my targeting scope at point blank range. I was actually rather good at it. A couple of my friends used to watch me do it, shake thier heads, and complain that I wans't supposed to be able to shoot targets with missiles that way.
BTW, I got a version of X-Wing vs. TIE fighter on my PC, so let me know if you need anything from the game. |
The main things are going to be how weapons behave once they are fired. Does the heavy rocket have any sort of homing ability, or is it purely dumbfire?
_________________
"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 Jan 31, 2015 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
The way I'm thinking, a lock can be dodged like any other attack, either by a standard or full reaction as normal. I would probably rule that, to attempt a lock, the target must be in the shooter's forward fire arc and in normal sensor range. |
Works for me.
| crmcneill wrote: |
I'll just incorporate that into the reaction roll to break the lock. Of course, an advanced option for guided missiles is that they may have a backup homing system that engages if the launching ship loses guidance lock... |
At the risk of opening up a can of giant space worms, what about countermeasures? Chaff? Can the target try to jam the missles with sensor skill?
| Quote: | My current rule treats a guided missile just like any other weapon the first round, with the base difficulty set by range and fire control added to the gunner's skill and so on. However, if the missile misses on the initial attack, what happens next is dependent on how bad it missed. Something likeMissed by = Result
0-10 = Missile missed but is still locked on and may attack again the next round @ Moderate Difficulty.
11-20 = Missile has lost lock and goes into search pattern. Roll to reacquire lock next round. If lock is regained, the missile may attack again in the following round. If lock is not regained, the missile self destructs.
21+ = Missile has lost lock and can not reacquire. Missile self destructs. |
For 21+ instead of self destructing, how about the missile locks on to the wrong target? That actually happens with real missiles. And I've seen the wrong ship (usually mine) get hit by a missile just by being too close to the target. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 2:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Works for me. |
I also think it should be harder to break an existing lock than to evade a lock-on attempt (which also seems to be how it works in the games). If nothing else, I would justify it by saying that an established lock-on provides detailed sensor information about the target, such as drive energy and any aspect changes, which would allow the locked-on craft to better anticipate sudden maneuvers and such.
Also, starfighters equipped with astromechs could also assign the sensor lock-on duties to the astromech, if it has the Sensors skill. That would allow the pilot to avoid MAPs for flying his ship and acquiring a lock-on.
| Quote: | | At the risk of opening up a can of giant space worms, what about countermeasures? Chaff? Can the target try to jam the missles with sensor skill? |
I think I had an addendum to the follow-up attack list that allowed ships to be equipped with decoys (non-specific scifi combination of flares, chaff and other unspecified anti-fire control equipment in a pod about the size of a softball) that added +1D to the pilots roll to break/avoid lock for every decoy launched, but only a limited number could be carried.
I also had an idea for a modular unit that could be attached to the rear of existing starfighters that could mount decoy launchers, fire control jammers (functioned only in the aft arc) and rear firing point defense cannon, with the exact combination of what the modular unit contained based on personal choice and the size of the starfighter.
| Quote: | | For 21+ instead of self destructing, how about the missile locks on to the wrong target? That actually happens with real missiles. And I've seen the wrong ship (usually mine) get hit by a missile just by being too close to the target. |
I thought of that, but felt that the rules necessary to determine the range and bearing to other craft close enough for the missile to detect would be too complicated. In the end, I would probably leave this up to individual GMs to introduce as they saw fit, such as for Wild Dice mishaps and such.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14168
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Probably whatever the normal Difficulty is for using sensors in Focus mode, which can be found in the Skills chapter of the main rulebook? I can't look it up right now. |
You are missing what i am getting at.
Normally when using sensors, you roll skill + sensor type modification (usually passive adds little if anything, up to 5d in some cases for focus) against a set difficulty.
So saying a "successful focus" is effectively saying they would normally always meet the diff unless its real high, when you take that +4d ave bonus from focus into account.
You also lower the difficulty to detect/identify based on which form you use, to where focus is an Easy/Very easy (10/5) roll.
Evne with some of the modifiers, it is not putting your target number for fighter vs fighter more than say 25/20.
Ergo, if i am rolling say 4d ave sensor skill, +4d focus bonus, that is really easy to reach as 28 is your AVE roll for 8d (24.5 from 7d)..
IMO getting a lock shouldn't be THAT easy to where an ave roll at the highest sensor rating would always make it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal, you are making this way more complicated than it has to be. According to the RAW, rolling Sensors in Focus mode has a minimum threshold of Very Easy to Detect and Easy to Identify. I'm going with Identify being the equivalent of a lock-on, so the Lock-On will have a base Difficulty of Easy. However, the targeted vessel has the option of trying to evade the lock-on, the same way they would any other attack. That means the Sensor Focus roll not only has to beat the base Difficulty, it also has to beat the opposed Piloting roll of the target. If the target decides to go full evasive, the Sensor Roll has to beat Easy plus the target's Piloting roll, just like any other full reaction skill roll.
It will be a challenge to lock-on, especially the better the enemy pilots get.
EDIT: For comparison, getting a Sensor Lock against a target that isn't trying to evade will be equal in difficulty to shooting a stationary object at Short Range. It's when that target starts Dodging that things get complicated.
_________________
"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: 16281
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2015 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, here's a few basics of what I'm thinking...
-Energy cannon still work as described in the RAW; you roll Gunnery + FC to see if you hit. This is possible with warheads, too, but much more difficult, and only at very close ranges. Guided weapons will have a lower range and FC when dumb-fired, so it will be best to conserve them for Lock-On shots unless you are very sure of yourself.
-The Lock-On works as I described above. The Lock-On also benefits energy cannon shots by giving them a +1D bonus, but any ship that is Locked-On will be instantly aware of it.
-Torpedoes and concussion missiles require a sensor lock-on to home on their target. Concussion missiles are smaller, faster, lock-on more quickly, while proton torpedoes have greater endurance and inflict more damage.
-For the sake of simplicity (and allowing pilots to fit a variety of weapons to their starfighters without haggling over what will fit where), weapons come in either big (torpedo diameter) or small (concussion missile diameter). Torpedo launchers can launch proton torpedoes, proton rockets or space bombs, while concussion missiles can launch either concussion missiles or concussion rockets (I'm on the fence on allowing concussion-sized space bombs).
-Ships like the TIE Bomber, with a bomb bay specially designed to carry multiple types of ordnance will be more versatile in their ordnance capacity, as will more advanced starfighters like the TIE Avenger and TIE Defender, which are equipped with Warhead Launchers that can be configured for a variety of ordnance types.
-Larger weapons are under consideration, but will come later, and will be fitted to external pods.
-Advanced missiles and torpedoes will have higher FC, and will also feature an auto-homing mode that kicks in if the launching ship loses lock.
-Another advanced option will be stalker missiles and torpedoes, which are passive homing and don't require a lock-on. Also, at some point, stand-off missiles, which can hit at much longer ranges, but take several rounds to get to their target. Advanced stand-off missiles will be fire-and-forget capable, but either kind will have to be carried externally.
EDIT: Also, if targeting a capital ship-scale target, the gunner may target specific locations on the target ship with his missiles/torpedoes by holding his lock for an extra round.
/rambling. Discuss.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
