Hull Dice and Fire Arcs

[CRMcNeill]

Has anyone ever played around with ships having different Hull values based on which Fire Arc they are being attacked from? For instance, a ship might have -1D in Hull dice when attacked from the rear due to the exposed thrust ports on the engine. Alternatively, a ship might have an exceptionally well-armored bow or enhanced navigation shields that provide +1D to Hull dice when being attacked from the front. A Nebulon-B, for example, might suffer a -1D to attacks from the sides due to the spindly spar connecting the main hull to the drives.

Naturally, it would have to be something done on a case-by-case basis. I considered doing something like this when I did stat conversions for the Renegade Legion tanks (which already feature something to this effect in their original stats), but decided against it for the sake of not adding too many house rules all at once.

At the same time, it's definitely a thing in the real world. Many anti-tank missiles don't attack a target's thick frontal armor, but instead fly a meter or so over the top of it, and the detonate an explosively-forged projectile into the relatively weak top armor. Close air support fighters commonly engage their targets from the side or rear, where their relatively weaker weapons have a better chance of penetrating the thinner armor.

Thoughts? Suggestions on ships or vehicles that would be particularly vulnerable to this, or for general applications that would apply to everything?
_________________
"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

[Raven Redstar]

There are already vehicles in universe that come to mind namely the AAT: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Armored_Assault_Tank/Legends

I seem to recall in the converted stats, it has 2 hull codes, 1 for front, and 1 for rear.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________

[Pel]

The necks of AT-ATs always seemed particularly vulnerable. Well, less invulnerable. I think there was some mention of this in the ESB novel, and it was definitely the case in the first two Battlefront games. Never did tire of pumping anti-armor rockets into their necks (on the odd occasion that I'd play as Rebel scum, that is ).
_________________
Aha!

[nuclearwookiee]

Makes sense. Relatedly, I could see adjusting to-hit rolls based on the arc as well. The Neb-B front profile, for example, seems much harder to hit than its side.
_________________
Obligatory postscript: It's your game; you do you.

[CRMcNeill]

[Mamatried]

This is something i could see make sense.

While defelctor shiled can be "boosted" or directed fron/aft and left/right
I doubt that a space ship, even a purpose built warship to have equally thick armor all over.

Lets look at Battle Tanks, while their armor is awesome, it is mostly in front, in fact sides and rare are often significatly less armored, same goes with turret and top of the hull, hense why MBTs are vulnerable to attacks from above.
By design the MBT however has fairly thick bottom armor, mostly to protect againt mines.

Now lets look at warships, again we see massive hulls, some more than a foot of armor, while the deck may often be slightly less armored, but by design somewhat protected against bombs from above.
Gun turrets are actually does not have all that thick armor, neither do the ship superstuctures like command bridge and funnels etc.

I would argue though in capital ship vs capital ship combat these "weaknesses" in Hull would not make much of a difference due to the ships for the most part are broadsiding.
However in a chase, liek we see in the beginning of ANH, where Vader's ship is fireing at the Tantive iv and hitting the top of the ship, I would allow less hull value.

Mostly however i can see this matter with fighter vs capital ships for the most part ( though angle of attack counts on any target), where I would argue a fighter can target areas a larger ship can not, this includes shooting into hangars from outside, and targeting weak sections like the brideg, like gun turrets and top or bottom hull depending on ship type.


Without going into meachincs I am thinking that if a fighter attacks the bridge of a star destroyer ( yes he made the gauntlet and was not shot down somehow) I would give the destroyer hull much less dice.

I am thinking for a destroyer if we are going to be very detailed, would have ( all vehicles and ships would have ) a top and bottom hull rating, with either of these counting for super structures and turrets, bridge etc.

Hull 6D
Top 3D
Bottom 3D
Left/Right 6D

something like that, a -1D or more for the weaker sections


The alternative is to lower the attacking ship's damage penalty in certain situations simulating attacking weaker spots

[CRMcNeill]

I got the idea from reading up on the Renegade Legion game system, where pretty much everything has varying degrees of armor and shields depending on which angle the attack comes from. Of course, if I really wanted to get into detail, I'd need to come up with damage charts for each fire arc with, for example, a greater chance of damaging the engines if attacked from the rear or the sides.

The biggest problem is that instituting it would require effectively re-writing all of the stats based solely on visual evidence and anecdotal accounts. Some of them are obvious - the Nebulon B would have a definite weakness when attacked from the sides due to the spar connecting the main hull and engineering hull - but others would be far more obscure.
_________________
"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