| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14055
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:10 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I never liked the idea that shields didn't stop ion cannons, so a rule that ion cannons are highly disruptive to shields makes more sense to me. |
Nearly everyone i have gamed with say that is the only reason they would ever take ions..
| Quote: | | Of all the ideas discussed I like ZzaphodD's +1 soak for every D of shields idea best. |
I can potentially see that..
| Quote: | I think that having shield recharge should be a repair roll, that way engineering crews on larger vessels actually have some work to do to keep the ship tip top even during a fight. Having to make adjustments to the shield generators or repair blown fuses or whatever to get the shields back up to full strength.
Even on a freighter or space transport, if you have a techie, it makes sense. That way he feels like he's contributing something to the group in space combat other than taking up oxygen, or having to be a gunner to help in the fight. |
Exactly. In MY ion cannon rules, i allow techies to attempt a repair roll to half the duration something is shut down..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | This would be a distinction between civilian and military vessels, I think, in that starfighters would have advanced automated systems designed to handle shield recharge automatically, while space transports and the like wouldn't be designed for such combat-intensive needs, and would require manual control. |
Isn't that what the astromech is doing in an X-Wing? |
Sure, but unless someone is playing the Astromech as a PC, it's essentially an automated ship's function anyway. It was even presented in some of the X-Wing novels that astromechs served as a RIO for the pilot, performing fire control for the X-Wing's proton torpedoes.
_________________
"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: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Nearly everyone i have gamed with say that is the only reason they would ever take ions.. |
I was in a pirate campaign where our after-market ion cannons got more use than the rest of the ship combined. They're very handy for disabling a target without blowing a lot of holes in it (after all, holes mess up the resale value).
_________________
"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: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Has anyone done rules for Point Defense systems? I have been thinking that, rather than simply line the ship with guns, each ship should have its own point defense array, possibly one for each fire arc. The array would have two effects:
1). Provides an automatic bonus between 1D-3D to any damage rolls to resist projectile attacks.
2). Any starfighter-scale craft within Point-Blank range (3 units or less) of the capital ship takes an automatic attack from the point defense array every round. Damage would start low, but would scale up based on how well the point defense array rolled on Starship Weaponry. [NOTE: This is the issue I'm having the most trouble with, insofar as stats.]
The point defense array would count as a weapon system for damage purposes. For Light Damage, the array would lose 1D of effectiveness. For Heavy Damage, the array would be knocked out completely.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14055
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes. A PDS laser system has 2d damage and an automated Fire control of 7d for engaging enemy missiles.. You roll the FC against what the enemy had for his tohit roll..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Yes. A PDS laser system has 2d damage and an automated Fire control of 7d for engaging enemy missiles.. You roll the FC against what the enemy had for his tohit roll.. |
I think I would probably use this rule strictly for anti-starfighter defense, and leave anti-warhead defense as a flat bonus to resist the damage roll, for simplicity's sake if nothing else. Do you use the 1/5 damage stacking rule from RoE with this?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I think I would probably use this rule strictly for anti-starfighter defense, and leave anti-warhead defense as a flat bonus to resist the damage roll, for simplicity's sake if nothing else. Do you use the 1/5 damage stacking rule from RoE with this? |
It doesn't make sense to me to have point defense add to damage resistance. Point defense either destroys a missile before impact (in which case there would no or minimal damage from the missile) or should miss the missile in which case point defense would add nothing.
Note for simplicity I am assuming missiles are either destroyed far enough away so that any damage can be ignored or the missile explodes close enough to the ship that it can be presumed to have scored a normal hit.
If one wanted, a system of simple dice adds, one could have point defense add to the difficulty to hit rather than adding to the resistance to damage when a missile successfully hits. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | It doesn't make sense to me to have point defense add to damage resistance. Point defense either destroys a missile before impact (in which case there would no or minimal damage from the missile) or should miss the missile in which case point defense would add nothing.
Note for simplicity I am assuming missiles are either destroyed far enough away so that any damage can be ignored or the missile explodes close enough to the ship that it can be presumed to have scored a normal hit.
If one wanted, a system of simple dice adds, one could have point defense add to the difficulty to hit rather than adding to the resistance to damage when a missile successfully hits. |
My theory behind this is that the combined rating of a ship's Hull and Shields is an indicator of how well it can survive an attack. In the case of a point defense system, it adds to the ship's survivability against missile weapons by shooting down some or all of the inbound warheads. I used a dice bonus rather than a flat difficulty increase because I wanted the point defense bonus to reflect the randomness of such a system when it comes to intercepting warheads.
This adds simplicity in the case of a mass-warhead attack because, rather than rolling to hit on each inbound missile, you simply give the target ship a bonus to surviving a missile attack. The complexity and size of the system is a direct reflection of the D rating, so that a ship with a 3D point defense system will have fewer guns or lower processing capacity than a 5D point defense system. The theory is the same whether you use targeting rolls or a simple damage bonus; the more effective the point defense system is, the more survivable the ship is against missile attacks. Massed fire can still overload the defenses and inflict damage, but a certain percentage of those warheads will get shot down by the system and be unable to inflict damage. How many of those warheads get shot down is a function of the effectiveness of the point defense system. However, missile intercept with a cannon is not an exact science, so the point defense system will not always intercept the exact same number of missiles in any given attack.
Ultimately, the bottom line is that point defense systems make a ship more resistant to damage from a specific kind of attack. I realize a lot of my rules concepts are a confusing mish-mash of simplicity versus complication, but in this case, simply adding a random dice number to the ship's Hull dice to resist missile attacks is a lot less complicated than rolling to hit on a dozen or more missiles. It takes a dozen rolls and reduces them down to one, by a simple mechanic that ultimately says "The point defense system protected the ship from X amount of damage."
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | My theory behind this is that the combined rating of a ship's Hull and Shields is an indicator of how well it can survive an attack. |
OK. Still makes more sense to me to add to difficulty to hit. Presumably that would mean fewer missiles hit so less damage. It should work even with combined fire.
Additionally, it means a ship with 3D hull and a very tough point defense, say 4D under your rules, is worse off against missiles than a 7D hull 1D point defense ship. That seems like a result that I don't want.
The first ship should be very missile resistant, but should get blasted by blaster/laser weapons. While the second ship should shrug off blasters/lasers, but should fear a huge volley of missiles - or if not fear at least be somewhat concerned. 
That being said, you seem to like your rules and their consequences better than what I proposed, which of course is your perogative. Since you seem happy with what you already proposed. I feel no need to debate the point further.
BTW - According to the RAW shields are irrelevant since missiles ignore shields. Since many long discussions on prior threads. Although as do others, as a house rule I include the shields vs. missiles however. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Additionally, it means a ship with 3D hull and a very tough point defense, say 4D under your rules, is worse off against missiles than a 7D hull 1D point defense ship. That seems like a result that I don't want. |
IMO, this system would generally be a function of the ship's size (more surface area = more room to tack on guns). Corvettes and Frigates would be in the 1D-2D range, while Star Destroyers and the like would be 4D-5D. Something with a 3D hull and 4D Point Defense would be something like a Lancer-Class frigate, specifically designed to take out starfighters and missiles.
This could make Lancers a more interesting ship for a variety of reasons. I'm working on rules for overlapping shields for mutual defense, so it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to come up with massed-fire rules for interceptors, whereby something like the Lancer would be able to contribute additional Point Defense dice to the protection of another vessel.
| Quote: | | BTW - According to the RAW shields are irrelevant since missiles ignore shields. Since many long discussions on prior threads. Although as do others, as a house rule I include the shields vs. missiles however. |
Exactly. I never liked that rule anyways.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14055
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Yes. A PDS laser system has 2d damage and an automated Fire control of 7d for engaging enemy missiles.. You roll the FC against what the enemy had for his tohit roll.. |
I think I would probably use this rule strictly for anti-starfighter defense, and leave anti-warhead defense as a flat bonus to resist the damage roll, for simplicity's sake if nothing else. Do you use the 1/5 damage stacking rule from RoE with this? |
Nope. Most games i have just used dice pooling on a 2 for 1 basis (2 of to hit, 1 add to dam)..
| Quote: | | Exactly. I never liked that rule anyways. |
May i ask why? it seem to me to be perfectly logical, that the shields (energy) would do nothing against particles which missiles would be
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Quote: | | Exactly. I never liked that rule anyways. |
May i ask why? it seem to me to be perfectly logical, that the shields (energy) would do nothing against particles which missiles would be |
Can't speak for crmcneill, but as I introduced the point I'll take a shot - the space rules for WEG SW D6 have always seemed somewhat broken to me once you moved above starfighter scale. Capital ships' hull strength and shielding often seem only loosely correlated to ship size and function as do the type, number, and strength of armament.
My take is that the rules were designed to simulate movie combat on a player scale i.e. X-wings, TIES, and YT-1300s, not to simulate Star Destroyers vs. Gunships or Mon Cal Cruisers. The capital ships are really just there as background, color, and obstacles to the PCs flying about in their smaller vessels. Big ship combat, like large scale land battles, runs by predetermined GM drama influenced a bit by PC action. Not by rolling scads of dice to find out what really happens between a Rebel and an Imperial fleet.
Personally I'd prefer the big ships acted more like WWI and WWII naval vessels with fast vessels (like corvettes and light cruisers) performing escort and picket duty, cruisers as an in between compromise between smaller ships and ships of the line, and ships of the line (Star Destroyers, Mon Cal cruisers) lining up against each other and slugging it out.
I'd even prefer a greater speed difference between starfighters and capital ships so that the starfighters could behave more like WWII naval planes. This also seems in keeping with the fact that in large fleet battles RotJ and RotS we see the big ships effectively standing still while the starfighters race up to, over, under, and around them.
I'd also like some rules that seem related to the in game strengths and capabilities of the ships, but that would allow a reasonably fast resolution of fleet size engagements so I could game out what happens when two fleets meet rather than deciding the outcome just based on drama and GM intuition.
...And yes I have heard of Star Warriors but the d*mn thing has been out of print since before some gamers were born  and I don't happen to have a copy and I'm not sure how well it works for capital fleets anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | It doesn't make sense to me to have point defense add to damage resistance. Point defense either destroys a missile before impact (in which case there would no or minimal damage from the missile) or should miss the missile in which case point defense would add nothing.
If one wanted, a system of simple dice adds, one could have point defense add to the difficulty to hit rather than adding to the resistance to damage when a missile successfully hits. |
Yes, add the 'rating number' (ie how effective the system is) to either the to hit number or to the dodge roll. A point defence system of 2D would add +2D to the difficulty to hit or +2D to the dodge. The random numbers can of course be replaced by fixed numbers.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: |
Yes, add the 'rating number' (ie how effective the system is) to either the to hit number or to the dodge roll. A point defence system of 2D would add +2D to the difficulty to hit or +2D to the dodge. The random numbers can of course be replaced by fixed numbers. |
Basically a modification of the cover rules. In fact, Point Defense/Close In Defense could be set by the size o the target. So as PD guns are taken out the PB "cover" dice get reduced. Something like an ISD would need a lotmore guns to provide cover than a Corvette. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16202
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Nope. Most games i have just used dice pooling on a 2 for 1 basis (2 of to hit, 1 add to dam).. |
Works for me.
| Quote: | | May i ask why? it seem to me to be perfectly logical, that the shields (energy) would do nothing against particles which missiles would be |
To me, the whole "shields don't stop missiles" thing seems like another WEG flight of fantasy. There is nothing in any of the movies or novels to indicate that that is the case, and yet they ran with it. The end result is that you have major military assets like Star Destroyers whose shields are useless against two of their biggest threats; torpedoes and ion cannon.
In other systems, specifically Battlefleet Gothic, shields are only effective against energy attacks, but they include the added defense of turrets to shoot down enemy ordnance. SW simply leaves all ships vulnerable to missile attacks, which is a truly stupid idea.
That being said, most of the EU novels have gone a different route and allowed shields to stop torpedoes and missiles, especially the X-Wing novels, which are a great source of material, particularly for potential optional rules. I prefer to take a well-written in-game novel's take on the rule over WEG's often perplexing rule decisions that sometimes seem to have no basis in reality or logic.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
