| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anakin
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 129
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Anakin wrote: | | I'd say that a medium sized nuke warhead of starwars technology would easily pulverize the death star. |
I'm not following your reasoning here. Remember that the Death Star I is estimated at 100 miles in diameter, and the Death Star II is even larger. On top of that, it is specifically designed to resist combat damage (such as that inflicted by a nuke). Sure, a good sized nuke detonated in contact with the outer skin of the Death Star would inflict a lot of damage, but pulverizing the whole thing? I don't think so. |
The star wars technology is way beyond our technology (right?). The "Tsar bomba" was built in 1961. A medium sized star wars nuke should at the very least be a tenth of the biggest we could come up with in the sixties, and a fifth of the "Tsar bomba" would be comparable to a little more than 666 (nice bad @$$ number) Hiroshima bombs...
_________________
If you fall seven times, get up eight times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 5:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anakin wrote: | | The star wars technology is way beyond our technology (right?). |
Well...I would argue it is better in some ways, but not in all ways.
Better:
hyperdrive
space speed
shields
energy storage and output
repulsorlifts
droids
cybernetics
lightsabers
Not obviously better:
comlinks - my Blackberry has better functionality and is about the same size as a SW comlink.
sensors - pilots appear to visual scan for and identify targets rather than relying on sensors, Han Solo had to investigate the anomolous reading by eyeball to identify it as a Probe Droid. That makes it seem as if sensors are more limited than current technologies.
thermal vent design - apparently the concept of an angled vent was unknown on Death Star I
analog control design in OT vs. digital control design of real world |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anakin
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 129
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Anakin wrote: | | The star wars technology is way beyond our technology (right?). |
Well...I would argue it is better in some ways, but not in all ways.
Better:
hyperdrive
space speed
shields
energy storage and output
repulsorlifts
droids
cybernetics
lightsabers
Not obviously better:
comlinks - my Blackberry has better functionality and is about the same size as a SW comlink.
sensors - pilots appear to visual scan for and identify targets rather than relying on sensors, Han Solo had to investigate the anomolous reading by eyeball to identify it as a Probe Droid. That makes it seem as if sensors are more limited than current technologies.
thermal vent design - apparently the concept of an angled vent was unknown on Death Star I
analog control design in OT vs. digital control design of real world |
I agree, but portable fusion generators are common goods, so nuclear tech is definitely on the strong side.
_________________
If you fall seven times, get up eight times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Anakin wrote: | | I agree, but portable fusion generators are common goods, so nuclear tech is definitely on the strong side. |
By fusion generator, I assume you mean an atomic fusion reactor. Are portable fusion reactors common? I agree that very high output power generators are common, but I've always thought the source of the power was unspecified. What is your source for it being atomic fusion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anakin
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 129
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Anakin wrote: | | I agree, but portable fusion generators are common goods, so nuclear tech is definitely on the strong side. |
By fusion generator, I assume you mean an atomic fusion reactor. Are portable fusion reactors common? I agree that very high output power generators are common, but I've always thought the source of the power was unspecified. What is your source for it being atomic fusion? |
The main source is the "Star Wars Sourcebook, second edition".
I have however only read "fusion power generator", so it isn't necessarily atomic fusion.
That is a possible loophole 
_________________
If you fall seven times, get up eight times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anakin
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Feb 2011
Posts: 129
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
In other words:
Let's say the Star Wars technology don't contain advanced nukes. Would a Star destroyer or the Death Star withstand a direct hit from a nuke?
Depends on the manufacturer of the nuke:
Standard galactic nuke (probably Mandalorian or Ubese) - I'd say the Death Star stands a good chance.
Sovjet (don't ask me how they would end up over there) nuke - the Galactic empire would quickly succumb to the might of the Sovjet empire. But then again - as always - there would be nothing left for Sovjet to rule...
_________________
If you fall seven times, get up eight times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Fallon Kell wrote: | | I use 2E die caps. No changes. I find them fast, elegant, and reliable. They aren't perfect, but they're almost as fast and easy to use as 2R&E scale dice and they have less room for "What the [dirtywords]? How in the [expletives] 'verse did that happen!?" moments. |
But 2E die caps don't prevent shooting down TIE fighters with a hand blaster. My character did that in 2E. Nor do die caps prevent a smaller scale weapon actually damaging or destroying the Death Star. They just make it very highly unlikely.
We often use a house rule that,no matter how many sixes you roll on the wild die, the maximum damage you can do is twice the maximum possible natural rolled damage. So for a 4D blaster, the maximum natural rolled damage is 4x6=24 points. So the maximum possible damage even with a wild die or accuracy bonuses is twice that or 2x4x6=48 pips of damage. This decreases the likelihood of lower scale weapons destroying higher scale targets and actually makes it mathematically impossible to destroy the Death Star with a blaster pistol. |
In 2E, Capital scale damage is capped at one against death star scale. Everything else is capped at zero. So you can't kill a death star with 20 thousand fire-linked starfighter laser cannons firing 24/7/365 for a decade. Small arms are capped at zero against capital ships, so you can't bring down Nebulon B's with any E-web, no matter the rolls. A good blaster carbine or rifle can bring down a TIE fighter, but a good rifle can also bring down a real life fighter if the pilot flies close enough to the ground. (Forensic evidence suggests that the red baron was shot down with a vickers .303 round fired by an Australian machine gunner. [While this is a good E-Web equivalent in my book, he was only hit with one round, and my friend owns a .303 british rifle that fires 1 round at a time too.])
| Anakin wrote: | Let's say the Star Wars technology don't contain advanced nukes. Would a Star destroyer or the Death Star withstand a direct hit from a nuke?
Depends on the manufacturer of the nuke:
Standard galactic nuke (probably Mandalorian or Ubese) - I'd say the Death Star stands a good chance.
Sovjet (don't ask me how they would end up over there) nuke - the Galactic empire would quickly succumb to the might of the Sovjet empire. But then again - as always - there would be nothing left for Sovjet to rule... |
I just read an article on Stardestroyer.net that provides good evidence for the yield of each individual blast from an ISD's heavy turbolasers being in the 450+ megaton range. If the Death star can handle capital starship fire, it can handle real life nukes with no problems.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System
Last edited by Fallon Kell on Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | In 2E, Capital scale damage is capped at one against death star scale. Everything else is capped at zero. So you can't kill a death star with 20 thousand fire-linked starfighter laser cannons firing 24/7/365 for a decade. Small arms are capped at zero against capital ships, so you can't bring down Nebulon B's with any E-web, no matter the rolls. |
Hmmm...I guess my recollection is wrong then.
| Quote: | | A good blaster carbine or rifle can bring down a TIE fighter, but a good rifle can also bring down a real life fighter if the pilot flies close enough to the ground. (Forensic evidence suggests that the red baron was shot down with a vickers .303 round fired by an Australian machine gunner. [While this is a good E-Web equivalent in my book, he was only hit with one round, and my friend owns a .303 british rifle that fires 1 round at a time too.]) |
Three points:
(1) A WWI plane could scarcely be called a real life fighter in 2011. They were made of wood and paper stuck together with glue and wire providing no protection (other than the engine in front) to a pilot from even pistol fire. And the Vickers MG is what many British planes were armed with, so its no surprise that ground fire was able to shoot down Von Richthofen's low flying kite.
(2) To my mind a .303 is more the equivalent of a light or medium repeating blaster. An E-web would be more analogous to a .50 caliber heavy MG.
(3) A standard blaster carbine or rifle does 5D damage. An E-Web does significantly more damage. Shooting down a TIE with a blaster carbine is more like shooting down a jet fighter with a .303 rifle. I suppose that may have happened somewhere, sometime, but I bet the odds are a lot lower than they are in D6 - with or without die caps. |
|
| 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 13, 2011 10:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | (3) A standard blaster carbine or rifle does 5D damage. An E-Web does significantly more damage. Shooting down a TIE with a blaster carbine is more like shooting down a jet fighter with a .303 rifle. I suppose that may have happened somewhere, sometime, but I bet the odds are a lot lower than they are in D6 - with or without die caps. |
Because WEG lacks a uniform rapid-fire rule, it's a reasonable assumption that an E-Web's high damage is a reflection (at least in part) of its high fire rate, i.e. the high damage is partially a result of getting hit multiple times.
_________________
"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: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Because WEG lacks a uniform rapid-fire rule, it's a reasonable assumption that an E-Web's high damage is a reflection (at least in part) of its high fire rate, i.e. the high damage is partially a result of getting hit multiple times. |
True. But going on size and function, the T-21 light repeating blaster is a squad support weapon that looks to be about the size of a Lewis gun without the 47 round drum magazine (which of course it is because the T-21 is a Lewis gun without the drum http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/T-21_light_repeating_blaster). The Lewis gun is a light MG and if fires the .303 round and it was used, among other things for infantry support.
So it seems like light repeating blaster --> light MG.
The Browning .30 caliber is a medium MG. Sounds like that should match up to the medium repeating blaster. So medium repeating blaster --> medium MG.
The Snowtroopers on Hoth were trying to set up an E-Web heavy repeating blaster to stop the Millenium Falcon form taking off http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/heavyrepeatingblaster/index.html For it to have a chance to stop a freighter from taking off it must be a very powerful character scale weapon. That sounds more like a .50 caliber MG, was designed at the end of WWI. It is effective against infantry, unarmored or lightly armored vehicles and boats, light fortifications, and low-flying aircraft. Sounds like the role of the E-Web in Star Wars.
The Browning .50 caliber is a heavy MG. Ergo, it seems like heavy repeating blaster (E-Web) --> heavy MG (.50 caliber). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I go
LMG (SAW) - Light repeater
MMG (M60) - Medium repeater
HMG (M2 50 cal) - Eweb..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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 13, 2011 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | I go
LMG (SAW) - Light repeater
MMG (M60) - Medium repeater
HMG (M2 50 cal) - Eweb.. |
Ditto. The various blaster cannon are likely equivalent to 20mm or 30mm cannon. Oddly enough, SF-scale laser cannon are likely more the equivalent of a 105 or 120mm tank cannon.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | Three points:
(1) A WWI plane could scarcely be called a real life fighter in 2011. They were made of wood and paper stuck together with glue and wire providing no protection (other than the engine in front) to a pilot from even pistol fire. And the Vickers MG is what many British planes were armed with, so its no surprise that ground fire was able to shoot down Von Richthofen's low flying kite.
(2) To my mind a .303 is more the equivalent of a light or medium repeating blaster. An E-web would be more analogous to a .50 caliber heavy MG.
(3) A standard blaster carbine or rifle does 5D damage. An E-Web does significantly more damage. Shooting down a TIE with a blaster carbine is more like shooting down a jet fighter with a .303 rifle. I suppose that may have happened somewhere, sometime, but I bet the odds are a lot lower than they are in D6 - with or without die caps. |
(1)I figured that since TIEs have a bit of a reputation of being made from aluminum foil, A biplane was a better indicator than a modern jet.
(2)Okay. Fair enough.
(3) I'd say shooting down the much more durable Z-95 with a carbine (mine did 5D+1) is a closer analogy. Even then, the Panavia Tornados used in the Gulf War of 1991 were in constant danger of small arms fire when they made their low level runway attacks. A standard 7.62mm round from an AK-47 can punch through the canopy and the pilot's head. An armor-piercing round might be able to critically damage an engine, or take out necessary avionics. It has to be a really lucky shot, but so does the carbine bringing down the TIE fighter.
Even if the TIE gets zero for its hull, without a six on the chance die for damage, the TIE will survive the hit. With one or two sixes in a row, if it doesn't survive the hit, it's because the "severly damaged" Die came up "dead in the water" or "generator overload" or "ship explodes".
It's extremly unlikely that you can take down a TIE with a carbine under 2E rules. That's why I'm so proud I did it!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 13, 2011 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fallon, not that it matters, but I generally think of a TIE as being similar to a WWII Japanese Zero - fast, but fragile.
I reviewed my old 2E rules. I'd forgotten that there were three separate and different scale charts for: To Hit, To Dodge, and To Damage and that the To Damage chart is needless complicated in format. If they had only labeled the first column as the acting scale and the the other columns as the target scale the tables would have been a lot easier to read.  I've never been a fan of multiple charts, especially asymmetric charts. It is much easier for me to memorize coherent rules than a bunch of random data thrown on a chart. The review reminded me of why we quickly adopted 2RE scaling over 2E.
I am still struggling with the asymmetry of the charts. Can one of you masters of the 2E scale rules give me a rationale for why the charts, especially the To Hit chart and the To Dodge charts, aren't symmetric?
Here are two examples to clarify what I am asking: (i) a speeder trying to hit a character has a die cap of 4 to hit, but when the speeder tries to dodge a character scale weapon the die cap is 5 and (ii) a walker has a die cap of 3 to hit a character, but a die cap of 5 to dodge a character scale weapon. I'm having a hard time seeing an AT-AT nimbly dodging shots from a blaster pistol.
One more question, why does the To Dodge chart indicate that a Character cannot dodge a Walker scale attack, but can dodge a Starfighter scale attack? Is that just a typo in the table?
However, gripes and whining aside, I have to agree that there are interesting and valuable strategic outcomes to using the 2E scale charts and they do fix some, though by no means all, problems of silly scale results. I really like the fact that starfighter proton torpedoes are a threat with 2E scaling to small capital ships and a squadron load of proton torps may even damage an SD. Looks like I may have to reconsider using the 2E scale rules. At least if I change the format on the To Damage chart and add labels for acting and target columns I can make the tables easier to read.
I did notice that in 2E both character and speeder scale weapons do exactly the same damage against both Walkers and Starfighters. The fact that the chart makes Walkers and Starfighters the same, from a certain point of view, is interesting and actually makes me think it would make more sense if the E-web was a speeder scale weapon doing 6D damage, rather than an 8D character scale weapon. With this change, the Snowtroopers attempt to set up an E-web to stop the Millenium Falcon on Hoth make more sense.
Oh and just to make sure it is clear. I was wrong.  Gosh I dislike being wrong. You can’t destroy a Superstar Destroyer with a blaster pistol, but apparently you can still do so with quite a number of hand held weapons, e.g. a Golan Arms FC1 Flechette Launcher or a Merr-Sonn PLX-4 Missile Launcher or even a small cube of detonite doing 1D speeder scale damage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 12:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | I am still struggling with the asymmetry of the charts. Can one of you masters of the 2E scale rules give me a rationale for why the charts, especially the To Hit chart and the To Dodge charts, aren't symmetric?
|
I agree the to damage chart is akward in it's presentation. That's why I memorized most of it!
I think the general idea of the tohit/to dodge differences is that to hit something you're dealing with the fine-ness of control versus size of target, wheras the To Dodge caps deal with the opposed agility of gun and target.
| Bren wrote: |
I did notice that in 2E both character and speeder scale weapons do exactly the same damage against both Walkers and Starfighters. The fact that the chart makes Walkers and Starfighters the same, from a certain point of view, is interesting and actually makes me think it would make more sense if the E-web was a speeder scale weapon doing 6D damage, rather than an 8D character scale weapon. With this change, the Snowtroopers attempt to set up an E-web to stop the Millenium Falcon on Hoth make more sense. |
I always figured that due to the overlap of speeder and character scales (speeder bikes and rancors) the scale differences were only significant at those levels, whereas it simply didn't matter whether you were shooting something as big and tough as a walker with a blaster rifle or a vehicle blaster. Also, there's a lot of overlap between vehicle guns and small arms in the real world. (A high powered rifle can damage an engine block, while a man can carry a .50 caliber machine gun. http://youtu.be/jwu3ivAJ68U)
The fact that speeder weapons can damage capital ships while Character weapons can't, may be intended as a reflection of the ability of artillery or large containers of detonite to damage small capitals.
I do think that E-web idea makes a lot of sense, too. It's probably just 8D character to make things simpler. Or for targeting reasons... I haven't had my player up against and E-web yet, though, so I suppose I'll look in to this.
| Bren wrote: |
Oh and just to make sure it is clear. I was wrong. Gosh I dislike being wrong. You can’t destroy a Superstar Destroyer with a blaster pistol, but apparently you can still do so with quite a number of hand held weapons, e.g. a Golan Arms FC1 Flechette Launcher or a Merr-Sonn PLX-4 Missile Launcher or even a small cube of detonite doing 1D speeder scale damage. |
Yup, just so long as you're lucky enough to manage to knock out the bottom brick, it'll all come down!
Also, my hat's off to you. I don't know if I've ever seen those "I was wrong" words on the internet before. You're a shining example of what makes this forum different from all the others!
Furthermore, If I didn't use 2R&E, I'd certainly use your rules!
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
