| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kytross
Line Captain
Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 776
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 11:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
I saw this one when it was first posted, and I wanted to help but I don't really understand the issue here or even see the problem. But I figured I'd post some trivia and see if any of it could spark a solution for you ZzaphodD.
The way I figure it, Fighters are military ships, freighters are civilian transports. It's a battle between an F-16 and a 747.
Yes, Freighters are larger ships then fighters, but fighters should have armor, freighters should not. In fact, there are restrictions placed on how heavy a civilian ship can be compared to it's thrusters, it's called a mass/lift ratio. Military ships, like fighters, are legally allowed to ignore this ratio. So there is a potential for making freighters combat worthy, it's just illegal.
Regarding fighters having high hull strength, 2D of a shielded ship's hull is their particle shields. So an X-Wing has a hull of 2D + 2D particle shields +1D ray shields.
If you look at original trilogy fighters the TIE Interceptors and TIE Bombers are the only ships without particle shields to have unpowered hull codes of 3D or higher. If you cut all power to an A-wing their hull code would be +2. Not 2D, just +2.
If you added shields to a YT-1300 freighter it's hull code would jump from 4D to 6D, to account for the added particle shields.
Regarding maneuverability in space... YOU'RE IN SPACE! No atmosphere to drag the ship, no gravity to drag the ship. The only physical law you have to deal with is inertia. It makes maneuvering considerably easier. In atmosphere you have repulsorlifts, which is the only reason any of these non-aerodynamic ships can fly. Except for Naboo ships are there any ships in the movies that have wings that could even produce lift? You cut power to an X-wing or the Millennium Falcon in atmosphere and they fall and fall hard. Zero lift.
There are combat ships larger then starfighters. They are called capital ships. For whatever reason the Emperor decided to have two main kinds of combat ships, capital ships and starfighters. Since the 'current' style of combat ships flow out of the clone wars and Palpatine determined the construction of both sides of those armies I guess he felt little need for starfighter/freighter scale large combat vessels.
Or maybe all space combat is based on WWII combat. The capital ships are navy ships and the fighters are, well fighters. The kind of ship you seem to be looking for was the B-17 flying fortress. It didn't do so well against fighters, which lead to them needing fighter escorts... But that's leaving continuity for the real world.
Either way, I'll stack my corellian gunship up against a couple fighters any day of the week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | In a compact starfighter theres just critical components there. |
But military equipment often has armored fuel lines, hardened electronics, and redundant back up systems that civilian vessels do not have. This is what, for me, accounts for the high hull per size ratio of starfighters vs. civilian transports.
I do get what you are saying in one sense, a transport has cargo holds that are not critical to ship operations. Hits there won't impact that engines etc. They will, however, depressurize parts of the ship and most characters on transports are not in sealed environmental suits. Starfigher pilots are in suits that allow them to survive vacuum.
One thing I have used with larger capital ships it to assume that, for example a Victory Star Destroyer can take more than one heavy damage hit before moving to severely damaged. I don't recall the mechanic, but it was probably something along the lines of
corvette size ship = 1 heavy damage before moving to severely damaged
cruiser/dreadnaught = 2 heavy damage results before moving to severely damaged
Imperial Star Destroyer = 4 heavy damage results before moving to severely damaged.
Also I don't increase the damage level with a light damage hit. This allows big capital ships to take a lot of hits (as long as they aren't taking severe damage) before being destroyed. If you want them to be even more durable, do something similar with severe damage, so:
Imperial Star Destroyers = 2 severe damage resultes before moving to Destroyed.
This gives Imperial Star Destroyers the durability they seem (to me) to deserve.
You could do something similar with starfighter scale transports by giving them 2 heavy damage hits before moving to severely damaged. This would make the ship a bit more durable than a smaller starfighter.
On the maneuverability front, sounds like your transport ships are more heavily modified than ours. Our players are lucky to make a few minor mods. The most heavily modified freighter has no where near the overall speed and maneuverability of a starfighter.
Kytross - nice points well articulated. I think the combat is very WWII in flavor. We even saw Kamikaze like effects in the RotJ bridge stike.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kytross wrote: | | Yes, Freighters are larger ships then fighters, but fighters should have armor, freighters should not. |
I dont think we can assume that, given the fact that most freighters have mounted anti ship weapons.
| Quote: |
In fact, there are restrictions placed on how heavy a civilian ship can be compared to it's thrusters, it's called a mass/lift ratio. Military ships, like fighters, are legally allowed to ignore this ratio. So there is a potential for making freighters combat worthy, it's just illegal. |
I havent found this anywhere. Where can you find this mass/lift ratio?
| Quote: |
Regarding fighters having high hull strength, 2D of a shielded ship's hull is their particle shields. So an X-Wing has a hull of 2D + 2D particle shields +1D ray shields.
If you look at original trilogy fighters the TIE Interceptors and TIE Bombers are the only ships without particle shields to have unpowered hull codes of 3D or higher. If you cut all power to an A-wing their hull code would be +2. Not 2D, just +2. |
I think you will find if you check out some stats that this doesnt really hold up to scrutiny. There are shielded ships under 4D in hull.
| Quote: |
If you added shields to a YT-1300 freighter it's hull code would jump from 4D to 6D, to account for the added particle shields. |
This is not stated anywhere AFAIK. Also, again it doesnt hold up to scrutiny if you look at some ships. The whole 'particle shields' mechanic is badly thought through and should be approached with care.. 
| Quote: |
Regarding maneuverability in space... YOU'RE IN SPACE! No atmosphere to drag the ship, no gravity to drag the ship. The only physical law you have to deal with is inertia. It makes maneuvering considerably easier.
|
Well, its a mass to thrust issue (much like the mass to lift you mention above). A starfighter have more thrust compared to mass, hence should have more maneuverability. The problem isnt really the ships original stats, even if I think the difference is too low, but how easy it is to modify a freighter to get 2D or above in maneuverability.
| Quote: |
There are combat ships larger then starfighters. They are called capital ships. For whatever reason the Emperor decided to have two main kinds of combat ships, capital ships and starfighters. Since the 'current' style of combat ships flow out of the clone wars and Palpatine determined the construction of both sides of those armies I guess he felt little need for starfighter/freighter scale large combat vessels.
|
IŽd say its not the Emperor, but the WEG game designers.
| Quote: |
Or maybe all space combat is based on WWII combat. The capital ships are navy ships and the fighters are, well fighters. The kind of ship you seem to be looking for was the B-17 flying fortress. It didn't do so well against fighters, which lead to them needing fighter escorts... But that's leaving continuity for the real world.
|
Well, thats what Im after. Even 'middle ground' (freighter size) ships should have some disadvantage against the fast starfighters. As it is now, a D or two in maneuverability isnt really representing this very well.
| Quote: |
Either way, I'll stack my corellian gunship up against a couple fighters any day of the week. |
Well, its a good ship, if that was your point.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | But military equipment often has armored fuel lines, hardened electronics, and redundant back up systems that civilian vessels do not have. This is what, for me, accounts for the high hull per size ratio of starfighters vs. civilian transports. |
This is why I after some though 'switched' to the idea of increasing freighter (or larger ships) hit locations instead. This will indirectly mean that they can take more punishment, as long as you dont hit critical components. However, a lucky shot will still end the day reall quick for the freighter captain.
| Quote: |
I do get what you are saying in one sense, a transport has cargo holds that are not critical to ship operations. Hits there won't impact that engines etc. They will, however, depressurize parts of the ship and most characters on transports are not in sealed environmental suits. Starfigher pilots are in suits that allow them to survive vacuum. |
Of course there should be no 'no effect' hit locations. Any cargo in the cargo hold might be destroyed for example. This might be a bigger problem in the big picture than a destroyed weapon system (if you are running spice for Jabba for example). All my players are quick to don space suits when the lasers start shooting, but crew/passengers can still suffer secondary damage if their cabin gets hit with a proton torpedo  .
| Quote: |
One thing I have used with larger capital ships it to assume that, for example a Victory Star Destroyer can take more than one heavy damage hit before moving to severely damaged. I don't recall the mechanic, but it was probably something along the lines of
corvette size ship = 1 heavy damage before moving to severely damaged
cruiser/dreadnaught = 2 heavy damage results before moving to severely damaged
Imperial Star Destroyer = 4 heavy damage results before moving to severely damaged.
You could do something similar with starfighter scale transports by giving them 2 heavy damage hits before moving to severely damaged. This would make the ship a bit more durable than a smaller starfighter.
|
This was my first thought about freighter sized ships too. We never accumulate ships damage like the RAW, but roll on the tables and applies the results. Two heavy damage results will however lower the hull rating with 1D, and once all 'hit locations' have been destroyed it will go to severe damage (BTW, OT: But isnt the damage tables rather 'easy' on the hyperdrives?).
| Quote: |
Also I don't increase the damage level with a light damage hit. This allows big capital ships to take a lot of hits (as long as they aren't taking severe damage) before being destroyed.
|
I think Im going with having the captial ships having separate 'hit locations' that take damage separately. Some will of course affect the others (Bridge, Engines, etc).
| Quote: |
On the maneuverability front, sounds like your transport ships are more heavily modified than ours. Our players are lucky to make a few minor mods. The most heavily modified freighter has no where near the overall speed and maneuverability of a starfighter.
|
Nah, speed costs plenty, but lateral thrusters dont. As I pointed out just raising the cost on these might do part of the trick. If you want to have a 3D maneuverability freigher then you will need massive thrusters and the power core to back them up, making the ship stand out like a christmas tree. But take a stock Z-10 seeker, its 3D maneuverability with cargo pods and 4D+1 without (ruling out the idea about original stats repersenting an empty ship idea). Thats A-wing maneuverability and Space 9 for a measly 86K (new).
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One more thought, it seems like heavily modifiying a transport ship is likely to make the systems more vulnerable to damage since the modification is likley to remove redundancy in systems.
I forgot about the Z-10.
Those stats seem broken to me. As a fix, I'd be tempted to run the modifiers as minuses when adding cargo pods rather than bonuses for removal. I like the -10 difficulty add for modifications. I would also be tempted to rule that modifications to increase the puny 3D+1 laser cannon or adding shiields to the 3D hull will decrease speed and possibly mobility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 12, 2010 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | One more thought, it seems like heavily modifiying a transport ship is likely to make the systems more vulnerable to damage since the modification is likley to remove redundancy in systems.
I forgot about the Z-10.
Those stats seem broken to me. As a fix, I'd be tempted to run the modifiers as minuses when adding cargo pods rather than bonuses for removal. I like the -10 difficulty add for modifications. I would also be tempted to rule that modifications to increase the puny 3D+1 laser cannon or adding shiields to the 3D hull will decrease speed and possibly mobility. |
I just ignored the Z-10, its an example of the weak consistency between published ships.
In my (unfinished) ship building/modification rules I have an hull option called 'reinforced structure' that includes redundancy systems when it comes to power supply and such. This takes up both space and weight but raises the hull value by +1D.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I havent found this anywhere. Where can you find this mass/lift ratio? |
If you wish i can email you some ship building instructions which do mention MtL ratios...
Also many groups i have gamed with through the years uses a rule where you can add 1 modification (say cargo compartment, weapon system, turret) Per full D of hull....
| Quote: | | Of course there should be no 'no effect' hit locations. Any cargo in the cargo hold might be destroyed for example. This might be a bigger problem in the big picture than a destroyed weapon system (if you are running spice for Jabba for example). All my players are quick to don space suits when the lasers start shooting, but crew/passengers can still suffer secondary damage if their cabin gets hit with a proton torpedo Twisted Evil . |
Plus a gaping hole in engineering or the cargo hold is A) going to lose you air, B) screw up your areodynamics which even in space should mess up your maneuvering, and C) might even mess your hull integrity up.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh, I thoght you meant that the LtM ratio rules where in some supplement.
Well, a gaping hole anywhere in the ship will often cause some negative effects to the ship, so no difference there.. (you dont lose hull integrity from getting your blaster cannon or shield generator shot up). Sure you could add those rules to all damage caused to the ship if one wants to step up the realism..
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
