| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 9:30 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hm, I wonder if it would be good to start a listing in a separate thread. However, I've been creating a lot of threads lately, and I may be overdoing it. I'm also still doing this with an unclear purpose other than to think more about naval combat with all of you'se assistance.
Part of that is in order to think more about the ISD, which we're building - and its interrelationships with other vessels of the Imperial Navy. This has yielded the notion that its role as a flagship implies that it would have to dedicate a lot of its on-board personnel to administrative functions. At the same time, it is more capable than most other regular vessels (if not all) of acting independently in a large number of roles. So, it can be both flagship as well as Lone Wolf.
Another part of that is in order to think about the building of some sector fleets in the online games that I am playing, just like RexMundiAbu is doing in his game for one sector.
What part of these discussions have you found intriguing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
lurker
Commander
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 423
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | Hm, I wonder if it would be good to start a listing in a separate thread. However, I've been creating a lot of threads lately, and I may be overdoing it. I'm also still doing this with an unclear purpose other than to think more about naval combat with all of you'se assistance.
Part of that is in order to think more about the ISD, which we're building - and its interrelationships with other vessels of the Imperial Navy. This has yielded the notion that its role as a flagship implies that it would have to dedicate a lot of its on-board personnel to administrative functions. At the same time, it is more capable than most other regular vessels (if not all) of acting independently in a large number of roles. So, it can be both flagship as well as Lone Wolf.
Another part of that is in order to think about the building of some sector fleets in the online games that I am playing, just like RexMundiAbu is doing in his game for one sector.
What part of these discussions have you found intriguing? |
I wouldn't worry about making another thread, but ... as my Sunday school and cadets have learned, I like to chase rabbits in my discussions so take that with a grain of salt ...
Rgr on having an ISD need lots of space for admin functions.
However, for it being a 'lone wolf' ... that makes me salivate ... If I was a Rebel commander, that would be a perfect target. 1 lone ship over confident out there. I would think of every way to use what I had to find and hit it in the chinks in its armor (and there is always a chink in any Goliath's armor). At the very least it would be a forlorn hope. That said, I could see the Imperials being that arrogant ...
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain
Forgive all spelling errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16405
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Hm, I wonder if it would be good to start a listing in a separate thread. However, I've been creating a lot of threads lately, and I may be overdoing it. I'm also still doing this with an unclear purpose other than to think more about naval combat with all of you'se assistance. |
There's nothing wrong with creating a new thread if you feel you are diverging far enough from the original topic of discussion. I'm sure if we start creating too many threads, Loc Taal or one of the moderators will step in and let us know all about it.
| Quote: | | Part of that is in order to think more about the ISD, which we're building - and its interrelationships with other vessels of the Imperial Navy. This has yielded the notion that its role as a flagship implies that it would have to dedicate a lot of its on-board personnel to administrative functions. At the same time, it is more capable than most other regular vessels (if not all) of acting independently in a large number of roles. So, it can be both flagship as well as Lone Wolf. |
I picture an ISD as the Star Wars analog of an aircraft carrier in the US Navy. It is the most powerful ship in the fleet (by far) and certainly the most recognizable, but that doesn't make it omnipotent. Even as a combination battleship / aircraft carrier / assault transport / flagship / repair & supply base, it does still have exploitable weaknesses. As lurker said, a major capital ship operating alone without escort can be overwhelmed by the right mix of smaller craft. Of course, Star Destroyers in the films are shown almost exclusively operating without an escort, so I think the institutional arrogance is definitely a factor. Per the ImpSB, a Star Destroyer generally deploys with 2 Attack Lines and a Pursuit Line, so that's a minimum of 10 ships accompanying the Star Destroyer as an escort. The assigned mission of the 2 Attack Lines is to defend the Star Destroyer from attack so that it can go on offense, devoting its weaponry to destroying opponents rather than having to divide its attention between both offense and defense. If I were in command of an ISD, that's a definite layer of protection I would think twice about giving up.
| Quote: | Another part of that is in order to think about the building of some sector fleets in the online games that I am playing, just like RexMundiAbu is doing in his game for one sector.
What part of these discussions have you found intriguing? |
All of it, really. Playing with the organizational side of military units has always been an interest of mine, especially in combination with Star Wars. Up until now, I've mostly enjoyed this hobby in a vacuum, so its nice to have someone to discuss it with,
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 11:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding the Lone Wolf scenario, I think it's worthwhile to note a crucial difference between an ISD and an aircraft carrier. An ISD can escape to hyperspace (unless it's operating close to a planet or similar mass).
Also, an aircraft carrier has a single role - carrying aircraft. An ISD is not a dedicated platform, it's an all-round platform that carries a wing of TIE fighters (so it's never alone without protection), enough firepower to make anything think twice about coming into danger range, and very powerful shields to keep it alive until it is out of a mass shadow preventing a jump into hyperspace.
That said, I understand what you all are saying. My point is that because it an ISD-II is fast (hyperdrive x1) and versatile in terms of the missions it can perform, I think there would be a tendency for it to be ordered to perform specific functions on its own, while the other lines of its squadron are dedicated to other missions.
While, yes, it may be an imprudent idea, it seems to be what tends to be done in the fiction. Even Thrawn went about in the Chimaera without dragging squadrons of ships in his wake.
Edit: Regarding the types of craft, I think I'm just going to (further) hijack RexMundiAbu's thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16405
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
If so, I would suggest limiting the number of types of craft you wish to include. There are already several craft in the ImpSB that have no firm location in the OB, such as the Escort Carrier, or the Victory-Class destroyers (which are alluded to, but never firmly placed).
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | If so, I would suggest limiting the number of types of craft you wish to include. There are already several craft in the ImpSB that have no firm location in the OB, such as the Escort Carrier, or the Victory-Class destroyers (which are alluded to, but never firmly placed). |
You've already seen that I've done so, and - indeed - I don't want to make the lists inclusive of everything. However, I want to make sure that I don't just exclude based on my prejudice/ignorance.
I'd say the role of the Escort Carrier is pretty clear; the name says it all. However, you're right that we need to figure out where it fits in the OB.
It's safe to assume that it's part of escort squadrons, which are either light or heavy squadrons, of which - annoyingly - there are two types each. (But you know that.) As a light-ish cruiser, it could be part of any line really with different degrees of comfort.
Victory-class could operate as Star Destroyers in poorer fleets, or as parts of heavy attack lines in wealthier fleets.
As to the 'Lone Wolf' debate, the Essential Guide to Warfare reads the following:
| Essential Guide to Warfare, p. 115 wrote: | | Officially, each [Star Destroyer] was assigned a battle squadron of eighteen smaller ships, but in practice Star Destroyers were normally accompanied by just two or three escorts, if any - an Imperial Star Destroyer was designed to operate without support, and was too fast for any escorts except the speediest light cruisers. While superiority forces were officially assigned to fleet combat, they were normally used as mobile reserves, projecting Imperial power in response to local threats. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16405
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | I'd say the role of the Escort Carrier is pretty clear; the name says it all. However, you're right that we need to figure out where it fits in the OB.
It's safe to assume that it's part of escort squadrons, which are either light or heavy squadrons, of which - annoyingly - there are two types each. (But you know that.) As a light-ish cruiser, it could be part of any line really with different degrees of comfort. |
Yeah, it's too bad there isn't a dedicated Escort Line to simplify things, but inclusion in Light Squadrons would be appropriate.
| Quote: | | Victory-class could operate as Star Destroyers in poorer fleets, or as parts of heavy attack lines in wealthier fleets. |
Also, Rex mentioned earlier the idea of using Victory I's as stand-ins for the Torpedo Spheres in the Torpedo Lines (since the Torpedo Sphere is apparently much rarer than the OB would indicate).
Personally, though, I like the idea of using Victory II's with the Heavy Attack Lines and Imperial I's in the poorer fleets, with Imperial II's more common in the wealthier ones.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so to parallel the Sector Group thread, it'd be nice to hammer down a list of roles, so that we can move our debates beyond the initial stage.
Thus far it seems we have the following:
Transport
Carrier
Anti-Starfighter Warfare (ASW)
Anti-Capital ship Warfare (ACW)
Blockade running
Observe
Interdiction
Bombard
- Strategic
- Tactical/Ground Support
Are we missing any roles?
Also, it seems to me that it's worthwhile to distinguish tactical role from mission, even if the two words seem to have overlap.
A tactical role is the specialized task a ship can achieve in a (potentially) hostile situation. (This includes transport, where it's not so much what it can do, but generally speaking, what it can't, as transport vessels tend to be sitting ducks in hostile situations.)
A mission is something that strikes me as being at a higher level of analysis, such as the operational level. Missions include what we see in our lines and forces: attack, pursuit, escort, reconnaissance. You will have noticed that I pulled reconnaissance from my original listing and called it 'observe' instead. It strikes me that reconnaissance is more of a mission than a role. (I know I may be splitting hairs here, but it seems to make sense in my mind right now.)
To split that hair further:
Reconnaissance
- Route Reconnaissance Hyperspace
- Route Reconnaissance Realspace
- Area Reconnaissance (Scouting)
- Zone Reconnaissance (Patrol)
I'm breaking up reconnaissance after some cursory research on the subject. (As in: I might have butchered the subject, and hopefully Lurker will set me straight.) I'm reading about three types of reconnaissance: Route, Area, and Zone.
- Route reconnaissance is to go ahead of the main unit and make sure there aren't any dangers or roadblocks along the route. Since routes are both along hyperroutes and in realspace, these two are treated as distinct.
- Area (which I'll call scouting) reconnaissance is to go to an area in order to find out what's there, especially in terms of enemy presence.
- Zone reconnaissance (which I'll call patrol) is about making sure there is no enemy presence in an area otherwise presumed to be safe.
I make mention of these different types, because they seem (to me) to be fundamentally different roles, even if they can all be called reconnaissance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16405
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Looks good to me.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so this is an attempt to marry the roles list above, with the narrow list of the common Imperial ship types from the Imperial Sector Fleet discussion (last post on the page).
Because so many vessels have multiple purposes, I'm listing them in multiple categories - with the exception of the pure transport category. I'll add an asterisk if a ship also appears in a different category.
I'm only doing this for the Empire. Maybe someone else wants to do so for the ships that the Rebels tend to have.
Transports
Evakmar-KDY transport (D6H) 74,794+ troopers
Star Galleon-class (WEG) 300 troopers
Imperial II-class (WEG)* 9,700 Stormtroopers
Imperial I-class (WEG)* 9,700 Stormtroopers
Victory II-class (WEG)* 1,600 Stormtroopers
Victory I-class (WEG)* 2,040 Stormtroopers
Venator-class (WEG)* 2,000 Stormtroopers
Acclamator I-class (D6H)* 16,000 troopers
Strike-class (WEG)* 340 Troopers + armored vehicles
CR90 Corvette (WEG)* 600
Carrier
(My definition: carries a squadron of fighters or more.)
Escort Carrier (WEG) 6 squadrons
Imperial II-class (WEG)* 6 squadrons
Imperial I-class (WEG)* 6 squadrons
Victory II-class (WEG)* 2 squadrons
Victory I-class (WEG)* 2 squadrons
Venator-class (WEG)* 20 squadrons (wth?!)
Acclamator I-class (D6H)* 13 squadrons (huh??)
Immobilizer 418 (WEG)* 2 squadrons
Vindicator-class (D6H)* 2 squadrons
Dreadnaught-class (WEG)* 1 squadron
Strike-class (WEG)* 1 squadron
EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate (WEG)* 2 squadrons
Anti-Starfighter Warfare (ASW)
(I'm listing the weapons that seem to me to have an ASW purpose. Quantity, fire control/damage, listed scale.)
Lancer-Class (WEG) - 20x 4d/4d starfighter scale
Tartan-class (D6H) - 20x 3d+2/6d starfighter scale
Raider-class corvette (homebrew)
EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate (WEG)* 12x 2d/2d starfighter scale
Venator-class (WEG)* 26x 3d/3d starfighter scale
Vindicator-class (D6H)* 10 4d/4d starfighter scale
Anti-Capital ship Warfare (ACW)
(This is big-guns category. I'm listing the weapons that seem to me to have an ACW purpose. Quantity, fire control/damage.)
Imperial II-class (WEG)* 50x 0d/10d + 50x 1d/7d (I disagree with WEG on this, but that's a different discussion.)
Imperial I-class (WEG)* 60x 4d/5d
Victory II-class (WEG)* 20x 1d/7d + 20x 2d/5d
Victory I-class (WEG)* 10x 4d/5d + 40 3d/2d+2
Venator-class (WEG)* 8x 3d/6d+1 + 2x 5d/5d
Vindicator-class (D6H)* 25x 3d/4d + 20x 2d/4d
Dreadnaught-class (WEG)* 10x 1d/7d + 20x 2d/4d + 10x 3d/2d
Carrack-class (WEG)* 10x 1d/7d + 20x 3d/2d
Strike-class (WEG)* 10x 1d/7d + 20x 2d/5d
EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate (WEG)* 12x 3d/4d
Bayonet-class (WEG)* 8x 2d/7d + 6x 3d/2d
CR90 Corvette (WEG)* 6x 3d/4d+2
Assassin-class * - 6x ?/? (presumed: 6x 3d/4d+2)
Space Assault Transports
(This will include more ships. It did not dawn on me before that the vehicle below was not intended for ground operations. However, it was on my list and I didn't want to delete it, even if it wasn't a military transport the way that the Evakmar-KDY transport clearly is.)
Imperial Assault Transport (WEG) 20 naval troopers
Gamma-class assault shuttle (WEG) - 40 Spacetroopers
DX-9 Stormtrooper Transport (WEG) 40 Stormtroopers
Observe (Patrol)
(Hyperdrive, Scanning sensors: range/dice)
Carrack-class (WEG)* x1 Hyperdrive, 50/1d
Bayonet-class (WEG)* - x1 Hyperdrive, 80/3d
IPV-1 System Patrol Craft (WEG) not hyperspace capable, 80/1d+2
CR90 Corvette (WEG)* - x2 Hyperdrive, 80/2d
Assassin-class* - x2 Hyperdrive, ?/? (presumed: 80/2d)
Interdiction
(Beyond preventing a ship from entering hyperspace, the way the Immobilizer 418 can do, I'm also including ships with the ability to knock out a transport's engines through 'conventional means' and tractor beam them.)
Immobilizer 418 (WEG)* 4 gravity well projectors.
Carrack-class (WEG)* 5 TBs + 0 ICs
Victory I-class (WEG)* 10 TBs + 0 ICs
Venator-class (WEG) 6TBs + 0 ICs
Imperial II-class (WEG)* 10 TBs + 20 ICs
Imperial I-class (WEG)* 10 TBs + 60 ICs
Victory II-class (WEG)* 10 TBs + 10 ICs
Strike-class (WEG)* 10 TBs + 10 ICs
Last edited by Mikael Hasselstein on Sat Dec 20, 2014 9:09 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16405
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 1:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's important to note that Wookieepedia adds a "+" to the 74,794. 74,794 was the size of an Imperial Armor Corps, the largest Army Corps at that time. However, the description of the Evakmar-KDY specifically states that it was designed with an eye for the planned expansion of the Army. My own version of the ship put passenger capacity at 120,000, which is enough room for a 50% expansion in the overall size of the corps.
The Assault Transport carries a full regiment, while the Armored Transport is a small cargo ship carrying only 20 naval troopers. This is part of why I hate Wikis as a source; quality control is for $h!t. Some idiot on the Holocron decided to include the picture of the Assault Transport on the Armored Transport page.
| Quote: | | Dominator/Interdictor-class* ??? -- It's said that this was built on an ISD-I hull. Do you think it still has troop-carrying capacity? |
IMO, an Interceptor modified ISD is more likely to be treated as a pure space combatant. I think it would still have troops, but they would be geared more towards boarding operations than ground combat. Not that they couldn't do that as well; but the addition of gravity well projectors would take up a lot of room, so something would have to give.
I have always thought this ship was a mistake, in that Dark Horse comics (always a paragon of canonical accuracy) were attempting to make an Interdictor Cruiser and got their art mixed up.
There is also the Torpedo Sphere, which carries 8,540 troops, which are likely also Stormtroopers. I would see this unit being roughly equivalent to what is found on a Star Destroyer, minus units like Spacetroopers, as the Torpedo Sphere is purely a planetary assault platform.
IMC, I've cut the Victory's troop complement to around a thousand and allow the ship to carry 6 squadrons, since it is more of a space combatant than the Victory I. But that's just me...[/quote]
| Quote: | | Dominator/Interdictor-class* ??? -- It's said that this was built on an ISD-I hull. Do you think it still has fighter/bomber-carrying capacity? |
I expect so. Combined with my above, I think this ship is designed as a pure superiority platform, and the addition of the gravity well projectors would be at the expense of troop space, not the starfighter wing.
The Venator is probably less of a Star Destroyer than it is a Star Carrier. It has some heavy armament and troop capacity, but it seems that its primary intent is to haul a LOT of starfighters into battle while providing them with a degree of big-gun backup.
Based on the Wookieepedia article, this is more of an either/or, in that the ship can be configured as a troop transport (18,000 troops) or as a carrier (13 squadrons), with the Acclamator II being modified as a space combatant and fire support platform.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
It's important to note that Wookieepedia adds a "+" to the 74,794. 74,794 was the size of an Imperial Armor Corps, the largest Army Corps at that time. However, the description of the Evakmar-KDY specifically states that it was designed with an eye for the planned expansion of the Army. My own version of the ship put passenger capacity at 120,000, which is enough room for a 50% expansion in the overall size of the corps. |
You're right - I remember that discussion. I'm just playing it conservative, but I'll add the '+' instead of the '??' in my edited version, which is forthcoming.
| crmcneill wrote: |
The Assault Transport carries a full regiment, while the Armored Transport is a small cargo ship carrying only 20 naval troopers. This is part of why I hate Wikis as a source; quality control is for $h!t. Some idiot on the Holocron decided to include the picture of the Assault Transport on the Armored Transport page. |
Yes, I'm making a separate category for assault transports. I suggest you go fix the Holocron.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Quote: | | Dominator/Interdictor-class* ??? -- It's said that this was built on an ISD-I hull. Do you think it still has troop-carrying capacity? |
IMO, an Interceptor modified ISD is more likely to be treated as a pure space combatant. I think it would still have troops, but they would be geared more towards boarding operations than ground combat. Not that they couldn't do that as well; but the addition of gravity well projectors would take up a lot of room, so something would have to give.
...
I think this ship is designed as a pure superiority platform, and the addition of the gravity well projectors would be at the expense of troop space, not the starfighter wing.
|
I trust you mean interdictor modified ISD, but I take your meaning. Based on the comic-quality images of the thing, the projectors seem to be located where the heavy turbolaser batteries would be. I'm still cogitating on what this would mean for the troop/fighter complement. Though, given where the fighters are on a regular ISD, I don't think the projectors would get in the way. So, I'm inclined to agree.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I have always thought this ship was a mistake, in that Dark Horse comics (always a paragon of canonical accuracy) were attempting to make an Interdictor Cruiser and got their art mixed up. |
I agree. So, should I remove it from the list?
| crmcneill wrote: | | There is also the Torpedo Sphere, which carries 8,540 troops, which are likely also Stormtroopers. I would see this unit being roughly equivalent to what is found on a Star Destroyer, minus units like Spacetroopers, as the Torpedo Sphere is purely a planetary assault platform. |
Ugh, yes. I acknowledge the existence of Torpedo Spheres, but my preferred interpretation would be that they're too few to really make them a crucial part of the normal order of battle. You disagree?
| crmcneill wrote: |
The Venator is probably less of a Star Destroyer than it is a Star Carrier. It has some heavy armament and troop capacity, but it seems that its primary intent is to haul a LOT of starfighters into battle while providing them with a degree of big-gun backup.
Based on the Wookieepedia article, this is more of an either/or, in that the ship can be configured as a troop transport (18,000 troops) or as a carrier (13 squadrons), with the Acclamator II being modified as a space combatant and fire support platform. |
(I haven't had much sleep, so I'm a little cranky with the Prequel ships right now - plus the Venator's bridges look like Jar-Jar Binks' eyestalks. Take my diatribe below with appropriate grains of salt.)
I'm a bit annoyed by the prequel era stuff. So much of it seems to be superior to the later warcraft. I understand that in order to generate interest from the younger crowd by making stuff kewler than the stuff their parents likes in the Original Trilogy, but it's a cheap trick, and I don't care for it.
Now, I think it's an interesting discussion to posit that technology doesn't actually advance very fast in the SWU, but for it to get worse over time doesn't make sense to me.
That said, maybe what we're seeing is the reverse paradigm shift that we see in WWII. Maybe bigger ships with more powerful shields actually made SWU battleships more viable platforms than carriers. Bigger meant more impervious to small starfighter weapons, and the shields meant a greater need for the large turbolasers and capital-on-capital warfare. What do you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16405
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | So, should I remove it from the list? |
I certainly would.
| Quote: | | I acknowledge the existence of Torpedo Spheres, but my preferred interpretation would be that they're too few to really make them a crucial part of the normal order of battle. You disagree? |
Here's my take on Torpedo Spheres in particular and Bombard vessels and the OB in general. Perhaps it will change your mind...
| Quote: | I'm a bit annoyed by the prequel era stuff. So much of it seems to be superior to the later warcraft. I understand that in order to generate interest from the younger crowd by making stuff kewler than the stuff their parents likes in the Original Trilogy, but it's a cheap trick, and I don't care for it.
Now, I think it's an interesting discussion to posit that technology doesn't actually advance very fast in the SWU, but for it to get worse over time doesn't make sense to me.
That said, maybe what we're seeing is the reverse paradigm shift that we see in WWII. Maybe bigger ships with more powerful shields actually made SWU battleships more viable platforms than carriers. Bigger meant more impervious to small starfighter weapons, and the shields meant a greater need for the large turbolasers and capital-on-capital warfare. What do you think? |
There is also the fact that warships are designed to fit projected needs (during peace) or actual needs (during war). In the case of the two Clone Wars-era carrier ships, their opponents (the Separatists) were capable of flooding space with thousands of droid starfighters at a time. As such, they needed a way to get as many of their own starfighters into battle as they could, thus the high starfighter counts of late-Clone War era capital ships. Once the wars ended (and the droids were deactivated), the kind of mass threat presented by a tsunami of starfighters gave way to more normalized patrols. Since capital ships can offer the kind of long term stamina and presence needed for the superiority role, they gradually came back to the fore, with starfighters operating in support. The Alliance, operating out of necessity-induced innovation rather than institutional thinking, put increased emphasis on starfighters because of their low relative cost and the missions to which they would be used (space denial rather than superiority).
I'm going back to work today, so I won't be able to respond as quickly as I have been the last few weeks, but I will be on line tonight.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, I've updated the list. It's still not complete, but it's getting there.
Regarding the Reconnaissance roles, I'm not sure it's all that worthwhile to separate out the Route Reconnaissance and the scouting. Those seem to relate to missions that the Empire rarely has to fulfill - except maybe in escort missions (Route Reconnaissance)... I'll have to think about what sort of capabilities ships would have to have - distinct from patrol - which would help me think about which ships could fulfill those roles. Anyway, I'm back-burnering those for now.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | So, should I remove it from the list? |
I certainly would. |
Done.
I'll take it into consideration.
| crmcneill wrote: | | That said, maybe what we're seeing is the reverse paradigm shift that we see in WWII. Maybe bigger ships with more powerful shields actually made SWU battleships more viable platforms than carriers. Bigger meant more impervious to small starfighter weapons, and the shields meant a greater need for the large turbolasers and capital-on-capital warfare. What do you think? |
There is also the fact that warships are designed to fit projected needs (during peace) or actual needs (during war).[/quote]
You're absolutely right! The Empire went from conventional naval warfare to counter-insurgency warfare. That's a great insight. The big idea for counter-insurgency was the ability to create a ubiquitous presence in the parts of space that politically matters to the regime (ie. not the Outer Rim).
| crmcneill wrote: | | Since capital ships can offer the kind of long term stamina and presence needed for the superiority role, they gradually came back to the fore, with starfighters operating in support. The Alliance, operating out of necessity-induced innovation rather than institutional thinking, put increased emphasis on starfighters because of their low relative cost and the missions to which they would be used (space denial rather than superiority). |
Yes, though I'm not sure it explains why the Star Destroyers got bigger. I do think that the Star Destroyers represent the terror aspect of the counter-insurgency strategy. Also, as we can see above, they're wonderfully versatile in that they can project power onto the ground, fulfill the carrier role (both in space and close air support for the ground with the bombers), and they can really pound capital ships into nothing, as well as capturing vessels with their tractor beams. The only things they don't do well is interdiction (from hyperspace) and patrol (too big and expensive to use for something that routine).
| crmcneill wrote: | | I'm going back to work today, so I won't be able to respond as quickly as I have been the last few weeks, but I will be on line tonight. |
Okay - that's fine. Tonight I will probably be offline because I'll be back in no WiFiville. I'll be able to read your postings, and I can respond to emails, but I won't be able to post.
I'm mostly interested in the tweaks I need to make to the list above. I know it's not finished, but it's getting there.
By the way, do you think this is a useful exercise for the purpose of allowing tactical roles to inform the building of lines and fleets, or is there nothing particularly illuminating for you up there? It's educative for me, anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Regarding Interdiction, I'm trying to think about this in a broader way than just gravity well projectors. Otherwise, the Immobilizer is the only game in town, really.
So, I'm thinking ion cannons and tractor beams, but I'm a little puzzled by what I'm seeing. Ion cannons could knock out a ship before it can make the jump to hyperspace, and then the target could be tractor beamed in order to force it into a position from where it can be boarded.
However, there are a number of ships that seem to have tractor beams without having ion cannons (the Strike Cruiser and the Carrack-class cruiser). Do they just blast the engines of a target with their conventional lasers and then do their tractor beaming?
The added value of an ion cannon is that it doesn't permanently damage the target or its crew/passengers. However, it's only really the very large vessels that have the ion cannon and tractor beam combination.
Thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
