The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Light Carrier from SW Rebels
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships & Equipment -> Light Carrier from SW Rebels Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 1679
Location: Online

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:
...compared it to what's written down in the Truce of Bakura Sourcebook...The Sourcebook says that it can hold 48 fighters...while Oliver's stats say it can only hold 24 fighters...


Keep in mind, that is Legend and not canon.

Sutehp wrote:
But only 2 squadrons sounds low to me...if...in SWRe only managed to scrounge up 2 squadrons...I can't believe that was the ship's full capacity.


I struggled with this when working out the stats. I decided on the two squadrons capacity based on what I saw in the episode. The Empire did not field anywhere near 24 fighters, even with with an ISD I in support. Phoenix squadron fields two short squadrons of A-wings and accompanying vessels they have picked up.

Using this as a benchmark by comparing how many TIEs I saw and the complement associated with Phoenix squadron is how I arrived at the sip complement. Even so, I was still not 100% comfortable with this number. The ship could have been understaffed but this makes little sense as Ryloth is controlled by the Empire and has been fighting an insurgency for the last 16 years. In fact Palpatine and Vader were successfully stranded in the wilds of the planet for a while and an ISD I destroyed by partisans. Not something I think Palpatine would not be vindictive about.

I also took a look at the size comparison of TIEs and other ships while launching from the bays. I tried to see what interior shots to see if I could count TIEs on racks. I was unsuccessful at this though.

Sutehp wrote:
EDIT: Something else: I was trying to figure out what that floating-by-itself "(p. 228)" page reference was for. Then I realized it was for the D20-to-D6 Conversion Starship book. And it says the Quasar Fire can hold 48 fighters as well.


That is probably the page number from Starship Stats book. I will check to confirm.

Sutehp wrote:
EDIT 2: Wait, does that say a skeleton crew of 1 person??? Am I reading that right?


You are right, this seems low. Though in the last episode of season 3, Commander Sato orders everyone to escape pods and was going to pilot the ship alone and ram the an interdictor. Two additional crew stayed behind to assist him. You are correct, Skeleton: 1/+10 seems more appropriate or 1/+15. One can infer that it requires are least 3+ to pilot the ship without a negative modifier. This does not mean that a typical crew is not 5+, as it takes into consideration not only pilots but ancillary crew such as engineers, sensor ops, etc. Crew number would include bay support and such. I guess I am open to suggestions.
_________________
Daniel Stull, Don Diestler
Hosts, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9526
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's worth noting that, at Bakura, the Flurry only carried 20 X-Wings, 3 A-Wings and 4 B-Wings, 27 star fighters. Now, this was just after Endor, so whether this is an indicator of maximum capacity or that this was all the Alliance could spare after Endor is unknown.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Sub-Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 2:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
It's worth noting that, at Bakura, the Flurry only carried 20 X-Wings, 3 A-Wings and 4 B-Wings, 27 star fighters. Now, this was just after Endor, so whether this is an indicator of maximum capacity or that this was all the Alliance could spare after Endor is unknown.


It's been a long time since I read that book and I don't recall liking it a ton, but my recollection is that they do mention the shortage of assets they have to send to Bakura in the book. Like, that's an issue surrounding whether to make the expedition.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sutehp
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 01 Nov 2016
Posts: 934
Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway)

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Solo4114 wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
It's worth noting that, at Bakura, the Flurry only carried 20 X-Wings, 3 A-Wings and 4 B-Wings, 27 star fighters. Now, this was just after Endor, so whether this is an indicator of maximum capacity or that this was all the Alliance could spare after Endor is unknown.


It's been a long time since I read that book and I don't recall liking it a ton, but my recollection is that they do mention the shortage of assets they have to send to Bakura in the book. Like, that's an issue surrounding whether to make the expedition.


Yeah, the Flurry was most definitely not at full capacity when it was sent to Bakura. I remember that specifically.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 1679
Location: Online

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sutehp wrote:
Yeah, the Flurry was most definitely not at full capacity when it was sent to Bakura. I remember that specifically.


The exact details are really not discussed. This could be something mundane such as fuel, starfighter mechanics, support crew, enough trained personnel, lack of fuel, ordnance, etc. I am not convinced it has more than two squadrons.

Again, I know people have different feelings about this, but we are talking about a canon version of the vehicle. As it stands right now, unless it is directly cited somewhere by a canon source it is considered Legend. Legend sources are treated as additional data or inference until replaced by canon citations.

Unfortunately this leads to a lot of arbitrary decisions, like this one. I can see the argument for either two or even up to four squadrons. It can also be hand-waved that in the episode of SWRe in which they steal the carrier that it did not have a full complement because Dave Filoni made the decision that it would take away from the story and cost too much to animate that much action. We have to take this sort of possibility into consideration when using even canon sources.

A possibility is that the Quasar Fire-class carrier is considered an older ship that has been replaced by the ISD I and ISD II. That is it not fully complemented and is considered enough to keep Ryloth in check for the most part.

The strongest inference I see for more squadrons is there are four bays, each large enough to launch multiple TIEs from. We see from R1 at the planetary shield gate that quite a few TIEs can be launched from a single bay. Now is that bay a standard-size and complement or something that falls outside standard Imperial design protocols? My answer would be a cautious, its a standardized size in most cases as the Empire likes modular designs. Therefore a standard launch bay for TIEs would be close to identical across platforms.

I am not sure how many TIEs came from the shield gate but it has six hangars and there were two ISD as support, and another ISD when Vader shows up at the end.

Again, suggestions welcome.
_________________
Daniel Stull, Don Diestler
Hosts, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Solo4114
Sub-Lieutenant
Sub-Lieutenant


Joined: 18 May 2017
Posts: 64

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not sure if you've considered this, but another Legends/EU source for info on ships could be the old Rebellion computer game. (Basically, LucasArts' foray into 4x strategy territory.) It's available from GOG.com, and I think on Steam as well. It's a quirky game, but it does give some stats on a range of ships, including the Alliance Escort Carrier (and an Imperial model that may already be covered in a sourcebook I haven't looked at yet).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shootingwomprats wrote:
The strongest inference I see for more squadrons is there are four bays, each large enough to launch multiple TIEs from. We see from R1 at the planetary shield gate that quite a few TIEs can be launched from a single bay. Now is that bay a standard-size and complement or something that falls outside standard Imperial design protocols? My answer would be a cautious, its a standardized size in most cases as the Empire likes modular designs. Therefore a standard launch bay for TIEs would be close to identical across platforms.

I am not sure how many TIEs came from the shield gate but it has six hangars and there were two ISD as support, and another ISD when Vader shows up at the end.

Again, suggestions welcome.



IMHO one should take into consideration that TIE fighters, and TIE Interceptors are much smaller than Rebel/Alliance fighters.

TIE Fighter - 6.3m
TIE Interceptor - 6.6m
TIE Bomber - 7.8m

A-Wing - 9.6m
X-Wing - 12.5m
Y-Wing - 16m
B-Wing - 16.9m

So Imperial models of this ship could carry twice as many fighters as a Rebel/Alliance model. Maybe even more if the Tie's are stacked like we saw in "The Force Awakens"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9526
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My personal feeling? If a 300 meter ship like the Nebulon B can hold 2 squadrons of fighters, a 340 meter ship that is essentially a flying hangar should be able to hold four. YMMV.

And I agree that fighters should take up different amounts of deck space. A simple method would be to classify fighters as light, medium or heavy, with medium taking up 1.5 slots and heavy taking up 2. So, if an A-Wing is Light, an X-Wing is medium and a B-Wing is heavy, the combined fighter group of the Flurry would take up 41 deck slots: (20 x 1.5) + (3 x 1) + (4 x 2).
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 1679
Location: Online

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
My personal feeling? If a 300 meter ship like the Nebulon B can hold 2 squadrons of fighters, a 340 meter ship that is essentially a flying hangar should be able to hold four. YMMV.


Again, trying to get what we see to align with stats. Though, as I have said, it would not a lot convincing for me to call it four squadrons of TIEs.

CRMcNeill wrote:
And I agree that fighters should take up different amounts of deck space. A simple method would be to classify fighters as light, medium or heavy, with medium taking up 1.5 slots and heavy taking up 2. So, if an A-Wing is Light, an X-Wing is medium and a B-Wing is heavy, the combined fighter group of the Flurry would take up 41 deck slots: (20 x 1.5) + (3 x 1) + (4 x 2).


Keep in mind on Imperial ships TIEs are typically parked in racks towards the ceiling. Alliance vehicles sit on decks. Very different use of space.
_________________
Daniel Stull, Don Diestler
Hosts, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Grand Moff
Grand Moff


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 9526
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 19, 2017 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you look closely at the art for the Flurry in the Truce at Bakura Sourcebook, you can see Alliance fighters stored on overhead racks, as well, including both A and B-Wings. So the concept is not exclusively Imperial.
_________________
"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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3382
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

And TIEs are taller than Alliance ships like the A-Wing, X-Wing, and Y-Wing so you can't stack as many TIEs in the same vertical space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 4:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
And TIEs are taller than Alliance ships like the A-Wing, X-Wing, and Y-Wing so you can't stack as many TIEs in the same vertical space.


Have you seen the flight deck scene in "The Force Awakens"? Tie Fighters are not stacked vertically.

They are on angular escalator type conveyor belts, with each TIE slightly behind and above the other.

The belts have at least four fighters

There are four belts on each side of the flight deck.

That's over two full squadrons in just one flight deck.






Rebel/Alliance starfighters simply can't fit into those belts, and there isn't enough deck space available to fit the same number of rebel/alliance fighters on the flight deck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bren
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3382
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForbinProject wrote:
Rebel/Alliance starfighters simply can't fit into those belts, and there isn't enough deck space available to fit the same number of rebel/alliance fighters on the flight deck.
So don't use those belts.

They are clearly designed only for regular TIEs and they seem to use a not particularly efficient stacking method. The top half of the angled wall space is completely empty (though the belts appear to extend up that high) while 2/3 of the lower half of the angled wall space does not have belts at all. Just some track lighting. Rearranging and using a different stacking method - say 2 Rebel starfighters high on both the top and bottom angled sections of wall using the same number of belts would allow stacking of 4 Rebel starfighters per belt which is 1/3 more fighters than what we see in these pictures.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 302

PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2017 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
ForbinProject wrote:
Rebel/Alliance starfighters simply can't fit into those belts, and there isn't enough deck space available to fit the same number of rebel/alliance fighters on the flight deck.
So don't use those belts.


That's the point I'm making. The rebels can't use these extremely efficient belts. Efficient for storing and launching TIE's, and leaves the flight deck clear for dropships and shuttles.

The screenshots of this particular flight deck show the Imperials can launch 32 TIE's in waves of 8 in seconds with more fighters being brought up from storage..


But if you think being able to rapidly launch nearly 3 squadrons of fighters is inefficient we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bren
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3382
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2017 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ForbinProject wrote:
Bren wrote:
ForbinProject wrote:
Rebel/Alliance starfighters simply can't fit into those belts, and there isn't enough deck space available to fit the same number of rebel/alliance fighters on the flight deck.
So don't use those belts.

That's the point I'm making.
Apparently I didn't make my point clear. Let me be more clear.

"So don't use those belts" means modify the existing belts or else install new belts or some other stacking method that will work with Rebel ships. Looking at the screen shots you provided there is plenty of room to either side of the existing belts to accommodate the wider Rebel ships. So width isn't going to be a problem.

Quote:
The rebels can't use these extremely efficient belts.
But that does not imply that there is no other kind of belt or stacking method that they can use. Now if you think that the Rebels couldn't or wouldn't think of modifying the existing belts or installing new belts or creating an alternate racking or stacking method that will work for Rebel starfighters then to use your own words "we'll just have to agree to disagree."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships & Equipment All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0