| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2259
Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 11:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I think part of the reason Star Trek has the mountains of contradictions is because of the much vaster source of actual stuff on film. There's just so much more of it that it was bound to have contradictions. There just to be these books called "The Best of Trek" (compilations from the old fanzine "Trek") that had a regular feature where people would attempt to reconcile the (many) contradictions. Of course, with Trek they can always go with the 'infinite dimensions' excuse, too.
Still, they don't really police their "non-canon stuff" (as you said, mostly the novels), but then Lucasfilm didn't worry much about the lower levels of canon for their stuff. And for about a decade after the films, Lucasfilm didn't do much policing of their franchise, either (with the comics, trading cards, etc.).
_________________
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 22, 2014 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | Why not both? |
Yeah.
I wonder how Star Trek compares to this. I get the feeling that when they did the Next Generation, Voyager, DS9, they managed to pretty effectively control their canon, while Star Wars is just all over the place by comparison.
But that may just be a feeling. I was into Star Trek a little, but to nowhere the same degree as Star Wars.
Anyway, one of the reasons I got into the X-Wing Game was for research purposes, but... it kinda got away from me.  One thing is clear (to me) though, is that that game is really wildly successful. It's drawing in a lot of people. What it misses (in my view) is an impetus towards story and lore building.
What it does do well is to add more complexity to the maneuvers. That said, I'm not sure how much added-value there is in that complexity towards understanding starfighter roles in the SWU.
Also, the balances are different - for example the Y-Wing and the TIE fighter having the same maneuver stat. Like I said, in the X-Wing game, the Y-Wing is a dog compared to the magnificently agile TIE fighter. Furthermore, in that game the TIE Bomber hasn't really yet come into its own as a anti-capital ship craft, because they have only (thus far) introduced two 'huge' ships (the Gallofree transport and the CR-90 corvette). So, right now the bomber works as an platform with anti-starfighter ordnance (which is fun!)
Anyway, the game is geared to be fun rather than a methodical simulation of the SWU. That is, of course, what it should be, just as our game should be geared for fun. |
Again, I'll start by saying my level of knowledge on EU (including the 'X-wing game') is nonexistent, so I have to default to real world experience.
To see how effective an air frame is you have to look at the era it was made (era may not be the right word considering in flight technology 10 years is not an era but it makes a huge difference), the specific use or tasking of the airframe (with associated modifications to support the tasking), and the willingness of the pilot to push the envelope of the frame & the pilots' general experience level.
For example(s) today's A-10 compared to other jets. Personally, I love the A-10. I owe my life and lives of my buddies and team mates to the hog drivers. It carries huge amounts of ordinance, has a huge gun, and the pilots get it down in the dirt and fly IN the valleys. It is pinpoint accurate and very survivable. (It helps that one of the lead pilots during a deployment had the hottest radio voice with a great female southern Texas drawl, but I digress). For the other fast movers that would support us with CAS, I hated them. F-15 & 16s all flew to high were too fast etc to be great help in the CAS roll. Plus they had a painfully high bottom of their flight deck to be easy to use. On the Navy side, similar problems, but add on top of that they were 9 out of 10 times carrier based, so they had fuel restrictions. There were exception to the rule on all of those (an F-15 that would come down and do a show of force breaking the sound barrier at 1k ft above the target, or even a B1 that did it & that is a sight to behold) but for the most part ...
Also, there were similarities in the RW side of the house. Army Apaches were good capable air frames, but I loved working with the Marine Super Cobras. The apaches would wx out &/or be a bit risk adverse. The snake drivers would fly anytime any where you needed them. As would the Marine Huheys and the Army little birds. So 'un' risk adverse it would scare me ... but again, that saved peoples' lives time and time again.
Now if you stated them out the F-15/16/18 etc would be better stated than the A-10 (speed maneuverability and weapons) but the A-10 is made for a specific niche and excels in it. For the RWs, it isn't the air frame that makes the difference it is the pilots.
So, as Mikael stated, you may need to house rule specific benefits to the ships (Y-wing & TIEs) in specific scenarios. If you want the Y-wing to be more capable than the TIE, then HR & narrate it that the TIE is a more nimble and agile craft, but the level of training for the pilots is not to the point where they fully utilize that agility, or their TTPs are more focused on mass of TIEs instead of singular TIE 'dog fighter' style flying. Of course you can massage the narrative in any way you want to get it to fit how you see the specific air frames being utilized.
_________________
"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: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, to get this back on topic, WOTC provided a rule for starfighters or speeders to make strafing runs against slower or immobile targets. When I picture strafing runs, usually cannon or rockets come to mind, but rules for strafing runs could easily be expanded to include bombing runs. I have an idea for a rule, but there are a lot of factors that could come into play.
As far as the required rolls, I see a series of three:
1). The Run In - A normally calculated Starfighter Piloting or Space Transports roll, depending on the craft in question. Modifiers would be based on Speed and whether or not the pilot chooses to make evasive maneuvers to throw off enemy defensive fire.
2). The Shot - A normal weapons shot, with the difficulty modified by the Speed at which the ship was traveling.
3). The Pull-Up - Since the pilot makes his shot with the nose of his ship aimed at the target (either the ground or a capital ship), he must immediately alter course to avoid colliding with his target. The difficulty here will be modified by both his speed and the range at which he fired his weapon.
4). The Defense - An attacker will have a chance to shoot down any incoming ordnance, but the difficulty of doing so will be modified both by the speed of the attack run and the range (how long the pilot waited to fire the shot).
Ultimately, the pilot will have to make a choice. If he runs in slow and fires at long range, the difficulty level for the run-in and the pull-out will be reduced, but there will be a greater chance of the target evading the shot or intercepting the ordnance. On the other hand, if he runs in fast and releases at the last possible moment, he stands a much greater chance of successfully delivering the ordnance on target, however, to do so would greatly increase the difficulty of the required piloting skills.
Naturally, MAPs would be applied as required; two separate piloting rolls (one each for the run-in and the pull-up) plus the gunnery roll. This is where multi-crewed ships like the Y-Wing, the ARC-170 or the K-Wing would come in handy.
Thoughts?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
aegisflashfire
Commander
Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would tend to rule that no dodging is possible during a round you strafe.
(While a strafing run might include rocket/bomb attacks, strafing specifically refers to attacking with guns), meaning fire must be 'walked' on to the target. That pretty much precludes maneuvering unless you have turret or swivel mounted guns.
maybe 1-2 rounds to approach, 1 round of firing where you cannot dodge, and then 1-2 rounds to evade/circle back.
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aegisflashfire wrote: | | I would tend to rule that no dodging is possible during a round you strafe. |
I don't agree; certainly making evasive maneuvers during an attack run would make things more difficult, but not impossible. All that is necessary would be for the pilot to have the nose of his craft aimed in the appropriate direction at the moment of firing. Maneuvering to make himself a more difficult target would just reduce the window in which the pilot would line up the target, not eliminate it entirely.
| Quote: | | maybe 1-2 rounds to approach, 1 round of firing where you cannot dodge, and then 1-2 rounds to evade/circle back. |
The general timeline works for 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 |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aegisflashfire wrote: | I would tend to rule that no dodging is possible during a round you strafe.
(While a strafing run might include rocket/bomb attacks, strafing specifically refers to attacking with guns), meaning fire must be 'walked' on to the target. That pretty much precludes maneuvering unless you have turret or swivel mounted guns.
maybe 1-2 rounds to approach, 1 round of firing where you cannot dodge, and then 1-2 rounds to evade/circle back. |
I agree, dues to the fact that a strafing run, to be a true strafing run, needs to be several seconds long and dodging would reduce that to almost nothing.
Perhaps a dodge negates a strafing run?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aegisflashfire
Commander
Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A strafe isn't a single snap shot though. It's a series of shots, not just a single instant, but several seconds of sustained fire. The reason strafing works is that you sweep the gun making multiple shots pitching the nose of the craft through the target. The high relative speed makes any other motion through the target inaccurate. Think about the angles involved.
If you've ever played a flight sim you know the only way to sustain fire near the target with any accuracy is to come in straight
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
This concept would allow for multiple shots simply by applying MAPs. The added difficulty would represent the challenge of firing a sustained burst of fire as opposed to a short burst of fire.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
aegisflashfire
Commander
Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think you have an unrealistic expectation of how easy it is to hit a target while strafing. The Even at WWII combat craft speeds, say 200-300 mph, and at a distance of 1000 yards, a 1 degree change in angle of the plane's nose would put it way off its target (by about 17 yards)
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 1:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And I'm willing to sacrifice some realism to come up with a playable rule that doesn't slow down the action too much, but also does not place arbitrary restrictions on the game. In this case, I'm willing to say that plotting an evasive course would make the strafing run more difficult, just not impossible.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
aegisflashfire
Commander
Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Using realism to generate a rule is actually the exact opposite of an 'arbitrary' restriction. They're literally antonyms.
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A strafe run is an area attack, not a quick burst. Time is needed to attack the entire area.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| aegisflashfire wrote: | | Using realism to generate a rule is actually the exact opposite of an 'arbitrary' restriction. They're literally antonyms. |
And the misapplication of realism based on personal opinions falls under the definition of arbitrary. I dislike the use of absolute limitations on skill rolls in the SWU because it subjects all characters to the same limitations, regardless of skill level. While an average pilot would likely not be able to successfully strafe while flying an evasive pattern, a great pilot's skill level might be sufficient to pull it off. In the game, that is represented by MAPs and increased difficulty levels, not absolute restrictions. There are circumstances where absolute prohibitions are appropriate, such as lacking the proper equipment for the job in question, but in scenarios like this, I always default to increased difficulty, not flat out no.
_________________
"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: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2014 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | A strafe run is an area attack, not a quick burst. Time is needed to attack the entire area. |
I think you are getting hung up on terminology. Regardless of whether the weapon being used is a laser cannon, a proton torpedo or an inertial bomb, the method of attack will be a run in at the target, a close range shot and a pull up to avoid crashing into the target. What you describe certainly fits the common definition of a strafing run, but if you reread my previous posts, you will see that I only said that WOTC's strafing run rules could be expanded to form the conceptual basis for rocket or bomb attacks, not that I was going to insist on naming them all strafing runs. The idea is for a common rule; the name can be decided upon later.
As for rules on strafing run attacks against smaller scale targets, perhaps the barrage pattern rules would work here, where the weapon creates hazardous terrain for the targets to move through.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 7:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm with you on the hazardous terrain idea. I can see how a pilot would need to work his way through it.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
