Scales: Walker v. Starfighter

[MrNexx]

So, what's the difference between them? I was playing around with my Robotech conversion, and trying to decide if giant robots that turn into spaceships should be classed as "Walker" or "Starfighter" scale, and I'm not sure what makes them different, since sizes seem comparable.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/

[garhkal]

Size and power seems to be the mix.. But then you also have fighter vs cap issues.. Some ships large enough to qualify as small capitals, are still seen as fighter scale, while some that are smaller get listed as cap for power they output.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

I got the feeling that WEG based their scale system on smaller walkers like the AT-ST. Something like that would certainly be considered smaller and more maneuverable than, say, a cargo barge. However, they made the mistake of inflicting the Walker Scale class on everything that was a walker (regardless of actual size), as well as a few things that weren't (see the Leviathan Submersible Carrier).

Personally, I got fed up with the system and came up with my own, which places Walker above Starfighter, but moves the smaller walkers like the AT-ST and AT-PT down to Speeder-Scale.

YMMV.
_________________
"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

[MrNexx]

[CRMcNeill]

[Thx1138]

one thing I noticed was that power output seems to be related to scale. Look at the Skipray blastboat. It's no bigger than most freighters but due to its power output it is classified as a capital. I would think the Starfighter is larger than walker is accurate due to the fact that many Starfighters have shields and stronger missile weapons than most walkers hull. Just my two cents and I am open to debate.

[CRMcNeill]

[Thx1138]

so you basically made the AT-AT into a new scale class like land Dreadnaught or something like that?

[CRMcNeill]

[Thx1138]

But does that include smaller walkers such as the AT-PT or the AS-ST? I would think a separate class would work better for the larger ones like what you have but the smaller ones should be vulnerable to say bombing runs from star fighters.

[Thx1138]

okay now I see, so smaller Walkers would be speeder scale in this system. rolls of the tounge a little weird calling traditional walkers speeder scale but I like it. Also explains how little bears could destroy an AT-ST with trees.

[CRMcNeill]

[Kytross]

Here's the best reasoning I could come up with.

Starfighters are specifically designed to harrass and damage capital ships. Their power output to size (mass/lift ratio) is ridiculous.

AT-ATs, on the other hand, are built for mop up action. Start with orbital bombardment and then send in the army to mop up what's left. They have starfighters in their defense? Send in TIEs and TIE bombers to deal with them and then send in the army to mop up.

Convert AT-ATs and TIE fighters to Starfighter scale, 2R&E.

AT-ATs do 4D damage with the main cannon, have 4D body, have +4D fire control and 2D maneuverability. Remember, an AT-AT has gunners and pilots, so there are no MAP penalties.

TIEs do 3D damage, 2D body, 2D fire control and 2D maneuverability.

[CRMcNeill]

But going purely by stats, there are better options. Compare the AT-AT to the Sentinel Landing Craft (adjusted to Walker Scale):

Hull - 6D vs. 6D+2 (plus 3D+2 Shields)

Atmosphere Move - 21 vs. 350 (and Space 7 with a x1 Hyperdrive to boot)

Maneuverability - 0D vs. 0D+2

Crew - 5 vs. 2 + 3 gunners

Passengers - 40 vs. 54

Cargo Capacity - 1mt vs. 180mt

Main Armament - 2D/6D vs. 1D/8D

Secondary Armament - 2D/3D vs. 1D/11D (CMs) and 6D/1D+2 (Repeaters)

Sensors - No vs. Yes

In pretty much every respect, the Sentinel is a superior combatant to the AT-AT, and there is nothing in the rules to accord the AT-AT any particular advantages. Even for a Star Destroyer, onboard deckspace has limits, so why would any captain choose to bring along a less capable platform that needs an additional vehicle to get it onto the planet's surface, when he has one all-in-one platform that can self deploy (from another system, even) and hit harder while carrying more stuff?
_________________
"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

[Kytross]

You certainly have a valid point.

Cost is likely a consideration. Outside of the TIE line, starfighters are supposed to be prohibitedly expensive. Depending on the source material, their power source would cost significantly more than a walker's, and generate more power, allowing for fighters to have shields.

The concept of scale was created to keep the number of dice we're rolling low. It would be easy enough to put everything at human scale, but who wants to roll 16D+2 Everytime a Correllian Corvette fires off a round?

I agree that if a walker should be in Starfighter scale, put it in Starfighter scale. If a speeder should be in walker scale, put it there. There's no hard limit to what should be in what scale.

So here's my take on the 2R&E scale system, with modern equivalents. How much damage an average hand gun would do against something in that class is in parentheses.

Human - will be killed by one to three shots from a hand gun (4D)
Speeder - Civilian vehicles, will be damaged by a hand gun (2D)
Walker - Armored vehicles, can pretty much ignore a hand gun (0D)
Starfighter - Tanks, can completely ignore hand guns (-2D)
Capships - Navy ships. Hand guns are used to repel boarders (-8D)