| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 8:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | I would imagine that TIE bombers, with a large payload of ordnance, would be particularly well-suited for anti-capital ship warfare. |
Indeed. I'm also working on a concept similar to dive bombing for starfighters in space, using the space bomb from the X-Wing game. Since the bomb has no drive of its own, its speed (and by extension its effective range) will be directly related to the speed of the launching craft at the moment it was fired. If you go by the RAW and don't allow pilots to do anything but pilot if they are traveling at All-Out, this would actually make the Y-Wing a formidable bomber, because the pilot can concentrate on flying the ship directly at the target and leave the actual launching of the bombs to the gunner, where the TIE Bomber, with a single pilot could only shoot while flying at Full speed (Space 12 at Full for the Bomber, compared to Space 28 at All Out for the Y-Wing). Haven't decided whether to call this Swoop-Bombing or Slam-Bombing...
| Quote: | | Do you also make provisions for starfighter-scale craft being able to slip under the shields of capital ships, so as to be able to do their damage without that damage being minimized by the shields? |
Working on it, but this is also affected by which version of the shield rules you use. By the RAW, even ISDs don't have enough to put 1D in all their arcs, so it would be relatively easy to get a starfighter in under a ship's shields.
However, if played by the rules in the X-Wing game, a ship's shield dice essentially covers all 4 arcs simultaneously, so effort would have to be made to bring down a ship's shields before making precision attacks.
This also adds new impetus to updating the weaponry on capital ships to provide for a stronger defense against starfighter attacks...
_________________
"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: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 22, 2014 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It sounds almost as if you need a matrix to keep track of different rules combinations. The more each rule-type (scaling rules, combined action rules, etc.) has variations across edition, the more combinations are possible, in addition to the homebrew you want to test out.
I think you might be facing something that might get out of control. I'd suggest just initially testing 2nd Ed. RAW vs. R&E RAW, and seeing what the differences imply for the balance of capabilities. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | It sounds almost as if you need a matrix to keep track of different rules combinations. The more each rule-type (scaling rules, combined action rules, etc.) has variations across edition, the more combinations are possible, in addition to the homebrew you want to test out. |
It's not as bad as all that. There aren't too many more rules that I really want to include; at this point, it's more a matter of picking the rules that make the best combination of results for what we are trying to do here.
| Quote: | | I think you might be facing something that might get out of control. I'd suggest just initially testing 2nd Ed. RAW vs. R&E RAW, and seeing what the differences imply for the balance of capabilities. |
I've already pretty well settled on the 2E coordination bonus chart, and I think I would like to have some sort of discussion to reach a general consensus on the scale system. I'd like to have some idea of who supports what...
_________________
"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: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I've already pretty well settled on the 2E coordination bonus chart, and I think I would like to have some sort of discussion to reach a general consensus on the scale system. I'd like to have some idea of who supports what... |
Okay, so create a thread in the Official Rules topic - or Gamesmasters topic - and ask around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat May 24, 2014 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
At this point, I'd like to point out that we are starting to have a new source of canon about the scales, even if it isn't in the framework of our system.
A game that I've just gotten around to playing is the X-Wing Miniatures game by Fantasy Flight Games (FFG). While it's clearly a starfighter scale game, they've just introduced two capital-scale ships - The CR-90 and the Gallofree transport.
It's really been a tremendously fun game, even if the mechanics are radically different from what we're used to. It'll be a while yet 'till I can gauge the implications of scale. The big minis are pretty expensive.
EDIT: 'canon' from above may be a heavy word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We have stats on capital scale missiles. If you want to simulate torpedo planes, why not just do something simple like say you can strap a single missile to a starfighter, which can then "fire" it as a dumb missile. Give the starfighter some penalties like -1D to Maneuverability (or more) and -2 Space Speed (or more) or something?
I could see requiring a pilot to fly toward his target for a full-round without any maneuvering (or something) as a way to mitigate the crazy potential of putting capital sized missiles on starfighters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun May 25, 2014 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | We have stats on capital scale missiles. If you want to simulate torpedo planes, why not just do something simple like say you can strap a single missile to a starfighter, which can then "fire" it as a dumb missile. Give the starfighter some penalties like -1D to Maneuverability (or more) and -2 Space Speed (or more) or something?
I could see requiring a pilot to fly toward his target for a full-round without any maneuvering (or something) as a way to mitigate the crazy potential of putting capital sized missiles on starfighters. |
I've been leaning towards something similar, but never really put pen to paper on the stats. Requiring the ship to fly straight and level to line up the torpedo is consistent with WWII era torpedo plane attacks, though...
Maybe something like this:
Anti-Ship Torpedo
Fire Control: 0D Starfighter-Scale
Space Range: 3-6/15/30
Atmosphere Range: 300m-600m/1.5km/3km
Damage: 6D Capital Scale
Penalties:
-Must be carried externally, which increases the launching craft's vulnerability to damage (-1D to Hull)
-The large size of the torpedo affects the performance of the launching craft, reducing Maneuverability -1D and Speed -2 per torpedo carried (penalties are cumulative).
-To line up the shot, the launching craft must fly straight and level for 1 round. Flying straight and level for an additional round counts as Preparing, and adds a +1D bonus to the shot.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Surgo
Cadet
Joined: 01 Jul 2014
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
crmcneill, you've mentioned in a number of places your house rules for various forms of space combat. Would you consider uploading them somewhere persistent for perusal, like a Google Doc? That would be really interesting to see  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Unfortunately, it's not possible at this time for a variety of reasons, including my work schedule, the scattered nature of my house rule collection, plus the fact that the house rules have tended to evolve over time due to in-game experimentation showing what works and what doesn't. To be honest, the most complete compilation of them can be found here on the Forum if you dig through my previous posts.
Are there any in particular you are looking for?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Surgo
Cadet
Joined: 01 Jul 2014
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| There are not, and it wasn't particularly urgent either -- I just thought it would be interesting to see in one place an overarching picture of all the changes you had made. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
With as many rules as you've got, what would you do if you ran a game, cr? Do you figure you've got them down enough (in your head) that you could be consistent?
I did that for many years, and for over a decade I just had a few things written out. But I decided finally to get them all down in writing, for everyone to have access to. It made sure we were all being more consistent and everybody knew what to expect.
Of course, if you have no intention of ever running again, it really doesn't matter. I'm just curious.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lurker
Commander
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 423
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | We have stats on capital scale missiles. If you want to simulate torpedo planes, why not just do something simple like say you can strap a single missile to a starfighter, which can then "fire" it as a dumb missile. Give the starfighter some penalties like -1D to Maneuverability (or more) and -2 Space Speed (or more) or something?
I could see requiring a pilot to fly toward his target for a full-round without any maneuvering (or something) as a way to mitigate the crazy potential of putting capital sized missiles on starfighters. |
I've been leaning towards something similar, but never really put pen to paper on the stats. Requiring the ship to fly straight and level to line up the torpedo is consistent with WWII era torpedo plane attacks, though...
Maybe something like this:
Anti-Ship Torpedo
Fire Control: 0D Starfighter-Scale
Space Range: 3-6/15/30
Atmosphere Range: 300m-600m/1.5km/3km
Damage: 6D Capital Scale
Penalties:
-Must be carried externally, which increases the launching craft's vulnerability to damage (-1D to Hull)
-The large size of the torpedo affects the performance of the launching craft, reducing Maneuverability -1D and Speed -2 per torpedo carried (penalties are cumulative).
-To line up the shot, the launching craft must fly straight and level for 1 round. Flying straight and level for an additional round counts as Preparing, and adds a +1D bonus to the shot. |
I just caught up on this thread .... I like this.
Especially as I watched parts of a documentary about a key naval battle in the Pacific. (I can't remember the name of the battle). The Japanese fleet was larger and with bigger guns, the American fleet had more escort carriers so more planes in the air. The smaller American picket cruisers were aggressive and got in close (limiting the ability of bigger Jap ships to hit them), and the dive bombers and torpedo bombers (after the fighters held back the Jap fighters) harassed and damaged the bigger ships and it became a stale mate and then (despite heavy losses of the smaller aggressive ships) the Japanese had to pull back because of their losses.
The aggressive tactics of the picket cruisers and the use of 'fighter scale' ships with 'capitol scale' weapons to counter the superiority of the Japanese fleet would fit into the SW setting perfectly.
Your HR give the fighters that needed ability to truly damage the bigger Imperial ships.
_________________
"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: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DougRed4 wrote: | With as many rules as you've got, what would you do if you ran a game, cr? Do you figure you've got them down enough (in your head) that you could be consistent?
I did that for many years, and for over a decade I just had a few things written out. But I decided finally to get them all down in writing, for everyone to have access to. It made sure we were all being more consistent and everybody knew what to expect.
Of course, if you have no intention of ever running again, it really doesn't matter. I'm just curious. |
My current work schedule pretty much precludes any gaming; there aren't a lot of regular SWD6 games at truck stops. I GM'd a one-off adventure with some friends last year, and for the most part I stuck to the RAW simply because it was the game that everyone knew and there wasn't a lot of time to introduce new elements. Nowadays, most of my musings and participation here on the forum is the result of my brain occupying itself by thinking about Star Wars and such while the rest of me is driving my big rig down the road. I suppose, if I started with the 2R&E rulebook, I could go through it cover to cover and list out the changes I have made, but I don't have a lot of free time in which to do that.
_________________
"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: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lurker wrote: | | Especially as I watched parts of a documentary about a key naval battle in the Pacific. (I can't remember the name of the battle). The Japanese fleet was larger and with bigger guns, the American fleet had more escort carriers so more planes in the air. The smaller American picket cruisers were aggressive and got in close (limiting the ability of bigger Jap ships to hit them), and the dive bombers and torpedo bombers (after the fighters held back the Jap fighters) harassed and damaged the bigger ships and it became a stale mate and then (despite heavy losses of the smaller aggressive ships) the Japanese had to pull back because of their losses. |
Sounds like Leyte Gulf.
| Quote: | The aggressive tactics of the picket cruisers and the use of 'fighter scale' ships with 'capitol scale' weapons to counter the superiority of the Japanese fleet would fit into the SW setting perfectly.
Your HR give the fighters that needed ability to truly damage the bigger Imperial ships. |
I've considered making rules for space dive-bombing, too, using the space bomb weapon from the TIE Fighter game, but I can't seem to get a rule that I like.
On a side note, anti-ship torpedos would be a way to include the ARC-170 in a classic era campaign, as there was mention of an anti-ship bomber variant of the ARC. I would think a dedicated anti-ship bomber would be able to carry at least one of these beasties internally with no reduction in performance.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
lurker
Commander
Joined: 24 Oct 2012
Posts: 423
Location: Oklahoma
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | lurker wrote: | | Especially as I watched parts of a documentary about a key naval battle in the Pacific. (I can't remember the name of the battle). The Japanese fleet was larger and with bigger guns, the American fleet had more escort carriers so more planes in the air. The smaller American picket cruisers were aggressive and got in close (limiting the ability of bigger Jap ships to hit them), and the dive bombers and torpedo bombers (after the fighters held back the Jap fighters) harassed and damaged the bigger ships and it became a stale mate and then (despite heavy losses of the smaller aggressive ships) the Japanese had to pull back because of their losses. |
Sounds like Leyte Gulf.
| Quote: | The aggressive tactics of the picket cruisers and the use of 'fighter scale' ships with 'capitol scale' weapons to counter the superiority of the Japanese fleet would fit into the SW setting perfectly.
Your HR give the fighters that needed ability to truly damage the bigger Imperial ships. |
I've considered making rules for space dive-bombing, too, using the space bomb weapon from the TIE Fighter game, but I can't seem to get a rule that I like.
On a side note, anti-ship torpedos would be a way to include the ARC-170 in a classic era campaign, as there was mention of an anti-ship bomber variant of the ARC. I would think a dedicated anti-ship bomber would be able to carry at least one of these beasties internally with no reduction in performance. |
Leyte gulf sounds right, were you watching AHCH yesterday That our you are an expert at recognizing WWII naval battles from minimal descriptions 
For dive bomber rules, you can use your torpedo rule and it to add a steep angle of attack ...
As for the ARC-170, I like it for that. To me it just screams make me a Stuka and enjoy the damage I'll cause !
However, to make room for a capitol bomb or torpedo I'd say you may need to lose one of the three crew members ... That or you would need to wing/belly mount it.
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain
Forgive all spelling errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
