Resolving the Lancer / Tartan Confusion

[CRMcNeill]

So, when you go down the list of available ships for Empire at War, the Tartan is something of an anomaly. Almost every other major ship is derived from the WEG material, yet the Lancer is left out. In its place, we have the Tartan, which has the exact same function (anti-starfighter) even though it is called a patrol cruiser. The ship even looks like someone flipped a picture of a Lancer upside down. The Behind The Scenes section for the Tartan comes right out and says that the Tartan was supposed to be a Lancer.

And yet, rather than getting to see the Lancer in the game, we get the pseudo-Lancer.

One of the main reasons I write stats is because I like filling in the gaps of the EU by filling out existing material. For the last few days it has been on my mind to distill the stats and background for both ships (as well as combining data from my previous homebrew versions of the Lancer and the Tartan) to create a single ship with aspects of both.

Some possibilities I'm considering:

-Making the Lancer part of a larger class of ships that use the same basic Lancer hull, but with different weapons loadouts for different missions. Right now, this class is tentatively called the Soldier-Class Light Frigate, and the sub-classes would all have names of different types of soldier classes from history, such as the Sentry-Class Escort Frigate, the Ranger-Class Scout Frigate, the Cataphract-Class Torpedo Frigate, the Archer-Class Troop Transport, and so on and so forth.

-Giving it a Space of 6, which incorporates the greater speed of the Tartan, thus making the ship more versatile than the Lancer's rather slow Space of 4.

-Strongly considering stealing the ship from KDY and making it a Damorian Manufacturing product. Since Damorian's only other contribution to the Imperial Navy is the Carrack, a light, fast frigate would be a useful addition to their line-up.

-The Lancer, rather than being a brand-new design on a brand-new hull, would be a test-bed platform, using an established system as a basis for its highly capable anti-starfighter weapons.

I don't have the time to sit down and bang out stats right at the moment, but I'd like to get some input to fill out my idea a little...
_________________
"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

[garhkal]

Perhaps the lancer was the first run, and the tartan was what it eventually became?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

[garhkal]

Go ahead, but i might go the other route. Tartans are kept, lancers dumped.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

[Phalanks Balas]

I always think Lancer class vessel wasn't a frigate class ship but only an escort corvette designed to defend convoy like Nebulon-B Frigate do.
_________________
Phalanks

A day you will be facing the guns of the Black Pearl. You will know what means damned pirates !

[Raven Redstar]

Looking at them side by side, they seem very similar with regards to size and shape.

I honestly, would take the look of the Lancer and apply the stats for the Tartan for it. I like the heavy number of anti-starfighter weapons, with the lower crew compliment.

That's just my take on it.

I'd have to take a look at the D6 stats side by side, but what sorts of changes were you imagining making?
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[Raven Redstar]

Okay, after taking a look at the Lancer stats... They're a joke. It's the worst war ship I've ever seen.

I honestly would just take the stats or the Tartan and use them on the Lancer frame as a quick patch, until some better formal stats could be taken.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[Kytross]

The Lancer was intentionally statted out to be a mistake, because in character the Lancer is a mistake. Lancers have all the disadvantages of a capital ship and the disadvantages of a starfighter rolled into one vehicle.

After Luke nuked the first Death Star the Lancer was created to fight starfighters on a cap ship platform. A good idea, in theory. But in reality it needs to defend itself against capships and it doesn't have the weapons to do it. So it sits in Star fighter gun range of bigger cap ships, like Star Destroyers as a slow moving target of Mon Cal cruisers who have significantly more weapon range than the Lancer.

In other words, a MC80 can sit outside a Lancer's gun range and destroy it with a volley from any one firing arc.

The Correllian Gunship and the Nebulon B are both better suited as anti-fighter capships

[Kytross]

I like the idea that after the Lancer's obvious flaws played out the recalled it and reworked the design.

[Raven Redstar]

The thing is, The Lancer and Tartan are almost identical. Same size, same number of anti-starfighter guns.

The Lancer has 1 week of consumables vs. the Tartan which has 1 year.

The Lancer has a crew of 810 vs. Tartan at 70

The Lancer has cargo capacity of 300 tons vs. 1000 for the Tartan.

Sensors are Worse, Lasers are Worse, Slower, but a slightly higher hull and shields.

The problem is that it's not even good at what it was supposedly designed for. A Tartan cruiser can't hold up in a capital ship slugging match either, but at least it can operate decently against starfighters and operate efficiently as an escort to a larger ship designed to battle capital ships.

I understand having ships with flaws out there, but the Lancer is just garbage. They even look similar. I'm with Mcneil about giving the Lancer an overhaul, and making it fit more with its description.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[RedKnight]

Is the Tartan perhaps a long range patrol/escort version of the Lancer, designed for operations distant from bases and possibly in small detached flotillas.

[ForbinProject]

[CRMcNeill]

[CRMcNeill]