| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2023 8:11 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon, Victory III |
 |
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I haven’t fully resolved how a Victory I’s lower Space performance is improved to II/III levels in the process, but I am working on it. There’s potentially room for a Victory/t Assault Transport that drops the Victory I’s fire support capability in favor of being a pure troop lander. |
| Wookiepedia wrote: | Victory I-class Star Destroyer
Engine unit(s) Alderaan Royal Engineers LF9 ion engines[4]
Propulsion systems
The Victory I-class Star Destroyer's biggest disadvantage was its underpowered LF9 ion engines, which could not produce sufficient acceleration to pursue newer and faster ships, allowing them to escape ship-to-ship combat. This flaw was rectified in the limited Victory II-class, produced shortly before the advent of the Empire.[2]
Some variants of the Victory-class were designed with three main thrusters and four auxiliary thrusters, like the larger Imperial-class. Others, like the Harrow and the Protector, had two main thrusters and two auxiliary thrusters wedged in-between.[13][14]
The Victory Star Destroyer's Class 1.0 hyperdrive was superior to that of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer, allowing Victory ships to reach their destinations in half the time.[10]
History
Republic-Imperial origin
At the start of the Clone Wars and the introduction of the Acclamator-class assault ship, the Arch-Provost of Rendili ordered industrial spies and ship-designers to come up with a way to curb Kuat's lead on new contracts with the Galactic Republic.[15]
The two rival shipbuilders, Rendili StarDrive and Kuat Drive Yards, later embarked on a collaborative design-project while the war was still in its early phases.[7] This was called the "Victor Initiative Project," which resulted in the Victory-class. This design by Walex Blissex became a direct challenge to Kuat's Venator-class.[8]
An early batch of Victory I-class Star Destroyers were deployed to defend Sector 0 against the Techno Union's fleet of Bulwark Mark I battlecruisers, which had escaped the blockade of Foerost.[8] This resulted in the deployment of the "Victory Fleet" six months ahead of schedule. Despite this, the majority of the initial commission group was not deployed until Palpatine had already dissolved the Galactic Republic and established his Imperial rule.[8]
A subclass known as the Victory II was introduced later in the Clone Wars.[16] Refitted with new ion engines by Hoersch-Kessel Drive to replace the underpowered LF9s, and trading the concussion missiles for ion cannons and extra turbolasers; this variant was designed with an emphasis on space combat. This newer class was externally very similar to its predecessor. Very few Victory II's were built, as they were introduced not long before the Imperial-class, which essentially supplanted it in the space combat role. |
Edit - i hit 'Submit' too soon. I can see some VSDs being made into dedicated transports for ground assets - troops, vehicles, mobile or stationary garrisons. Whatever is needed.
For the Empire!
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
 
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| 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 Nov 14, 2023 10:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I know about that already. My point was that I hadn’t decided whether to upgrade the Victory I’s engines as part of the Carrier conversion, or to have a separate, slower version.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2023 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I know about that already. My point was that I hadn’t decided whether to upgrade the Victory I’s engines as part of the Carrier conversion, or to have a separate, slower version. |
In my game/SWU, the Space: 4 & Space: 6 engines were in use, but around the time the Victory IIs came out, Sigiltech Systems & Kylix Engineering were making Space: 7 Atmosphere: 340; 975 km/h refits for the Victory Star Destroyers & everything else in the Republic's arsenal, forcing Hoersch-Kessel Drive to offer Space: 7 Atmosphere: 340; 975 km/h refits too.
By 15 BBY, Victory Is, Victory IIs, Imperators/Imperials, variants & more are Space: 7 Atmosphere: 340; 975 km/h (or better!).
The Tarkin Doctrine is not the sole doctrine/ideology in the Empire; those with different views, so long as they don't disgust Palpatine, get the chance to prove their worth in the 'do or die' culture of the Empire.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| 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 Nov 15, 2023 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
We’ve discussed your decision to upgrade all military ships in in your setting to Space 7; I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do, but I’m not going to rehash that here. Obviously, you can do whatever you want in your own game. I opted with the idea that the Victory I’s Space was deliberately downgraded in trade for improved atmospheric performance (it’s as fast as a Y-Wing in atmospheric flight). The idea is, it uses light missile launchers to provide orbital fire support, but can use its speed to quickly deploy a heavy Walker assault battalion in reaction to ambushes, rapidly evolving skirmishes and the like where a lot of firepower is needed ASAP.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2023 1:40 am Post subject: "Ye cannae change the Laws of Physics!" |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | We’ve discussed your decision to upgrade all military ships in in your setting to Space 7; I thought it was a bad idea then, and I still do, but I’m not going to rehash that here. Obviously, you can do whatever you want in your own game. I opted with the idea that the Victory I’s Space was deliberately downgraded in trade for improved atmospheric performance (it’s as fast as a Y-Wing in atmospheric flight). The idea is, it uses light missile launchers to provide orbital fire support, but can use its speed to quickly deploy a heavy Walker assault battalion in reaction to ambushes, rapidly evolving skirmishes and the like where a lot of firepower is needed ASAP. |
Fair enough.
But your statement about downgrading Space speed but increasing Atmosphere speed doesn't make sense. The sublight engines that propel the ship through space are the same ones that propel it through atmosphere.
| Expanded Speed Chart wrote: |
Space: 6, Atmosphere: 330; 950 km/h B-wing, CloakShape Ftr, Svelte-cl Imp Shtl, CR90 Corvette, MC80 Cruiser, Rebel Assault Frigate
Space: 7, Atmosphere: 350; 1,000 km/h Corellian Gunship, Y-wings, Z-95 Headhunter, B-wing/E2, Sentinel-cl LS |
I'll read your explanation/clarification tomorrow.
Good night, CRM!
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| 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 Nov 15, 2023 12:00 pm Post subject: Re: "Ye cannae change the Laws of Physics!" |
|
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | But your statement about downgrading Space speed but increasing Atmosphere speed doesn't make sense. The sublight engines that propel the ship through space are the same ones that propel it through atmosphere. |
Per the RAW, starships use repulsorlifts until they reach orbit, at which point they can use their sublight drives. This is supported by the guidelines for traveling to another planet in the same Star system, which would require extremely high velocities not seen in either the existing stats or on screen. Further, not all existing stats have Atmosphere speeds that match with their common Space equivalent. In at least two instances (the Z-95 Headhunter and the I-7 Howlrunner) ships are “faster” in atmosphere than they should be. The Howlrunner, for example has a Space of 9, but has the same Atmosphere as would a TIE Interceptor (Space 11).
In addition, there seems to be a very hard lockout on using sublight drives in atmosphere. In at least two on-screen instances (escape from Cloud City in ESB and escape from Jedha in RO), it would’ve been very useful to simply be able to engage the sublight drives and use their extremely high speeds to escape pursuers / destruction. Instead, they chose to endure a long tail chase or a blind hyperspace jump.
The working theory seems to be that full power sublight drives used in atmosphere would cause catastrophic damage to an inhabited planet, both from shockwaves produced by moving at hypersonic velocities and the waste / thrust ejected by the drive itself. My solution is that a ship’s drive is a dual-mode system that uses a safer, much less powerful drive system while in atmosphere. The atmospheric drive is integrated with the main sublight drive and uses the same thrust nozzles, but having a faster Atmosphere drive cuts into the performance of the Sublight drive, and vice versa.
This helps explain several stat discrepancies, and allows for more granularity in starships, with some ships sacrificing space performance for atmospheric, and others sacrificing atmospheric performance for space.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2023 12:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I like the thread - and think the carrier is an interesting idea.
I can say - in regards to speeds, space drives and atmospheres...
We have to be careful what we infer from the movies - GL was a story teller first... I mean, even my group has the joke "ships move at the speed of plot".
Now for a game, we like to have some kind of structure - barring plot induced equipment failure - we like having things work in a consistent manner. if it took 3 days to go from X to Y the last time, it should be close to that the next time on the same route.
Regarding that some ships faster in atmo than ships they are slower in space - to me - that is they are more streamlined - as in space does not matter.
Obviously, this works for some ships - but there is always a chance there are those it does not work for...
As far as long range space speeds being must faster - I don't think we need super complex "tech". I put it up to either;
* with no atmo to slow them down - over longer trips they can accelerate much faster.
* outside the gravity well, the inertial compensators and artificial gravity allow for much faster speeds.
I would skip the shockwave thing - as the next obvious is "hey - so I can have one ship be a super weapon by putting a droid in it and going too fast".
Or super simple - in an atmosphere- if they used full power - the ship would rip itself apart (over overheat - whatever).
(if you want rules for that - start doing hull structural damage for going faster - 1D for each 100kmph over, or whatever).
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2023 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There's also something else to consider. According to the 1st to 2nd conversion chart, an A-wing - one of if not the fastest ship in the galaxy in sublight, has an atmospheric speed of just 800km/h, or Mach 0.63 at sea level. There's no way it's going hypersonic under main engine power - at least in atmosphere.
_________________
The GM runs a living setting. Players unstick their own s***. |
|
| 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 Nov 15, 2023 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jtanzer wrote: | | There's also something else to consider. According to the 1st to 2nd conversion chart, an A-wing - one of if not the fastest ship in the galaxy in sublight, has an atmospheric speed of just 800km/h, or Mach 0.63 at sea level. There's no way it's going hypersonic under main engine power - at least in atmosphere. |
As I said above, per the RAW, ships in atmosphere operate on repulsorlifts until they reach low orbit (50 kilometers). It’s not going hypersonic because WEG has ruled that it can’t engage its sublight drive while in atmosphere, and has written its stats accordingly. I’m not entirely happy with that system, but I haven’t been able to come up with a better alternative, so it’s what we work with.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
pakman
Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021
Posts: 385
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2023 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | jtanzer wrote: | | There's also something else to consider. According to the 1st to 2nd conversion chart, an A-wing - one of if not the fastest ship in the galaxy in sublight, has an atmospheric speed of just 800km/h, or Mach 0.63 at sea level. There's no way it's going hypersonic under main engine power - at least in atmosphere. |
As I said above, per the RAW, ships in atmosphere operate on repulsorlifts until they reach low orbit (50 kilometers). It’s not going hypersonic because WEG has ruled that it can’t engage its sublight drive while in atmosphere, and has written its stats accordingly. I’m not entirely happy with that system, but I haven’t been able to come up with a better alternative, so it’s what we work with. |
We see ships use their engines in an atmo all the time in the movies - if there is a weg limit on no sublight in an atmo - I would just throw that out - I mean - we have a ton of house rules already around here.... 
Pak's Alternative
I am thinking going super simple - just convert Space to "Move", abandon the atmo speeds.
The move is how many units the ship can move in space or atmo.
(for doing ship combat in atmosphere - e.g. rogue one, mando, etc.).
Then convert to kph for the rare instance you need to hop continents or something.
My house rules are prolly going to say something like this....
| Code: | Starships have a Move rating.
This represents abstract units in either space combat or atmospheric combat.
(anywhere from 100 yards to 1km - use what fits your scene).
Ships use this as their base move rating in combat.
If necessary to convert to long distance travel in an atmosphere, treat each Move value as 100kph.
Thus a ship with a Move: 6, could go up to 600kph at Cruising speed.
|
So, an A-wing with a Space of 12 becomes Move:12
This is either space or atmosphere.
Convertred to KPH (for island hopping on scarif) - that is 1200kph at top cruising speed.
Which is about mach 1, not too unrealistic.
If you wanted to bother with that some ships might have better (or worse) aerodynamics - give them a modifier for going faster than Cruising (or some ships a penalty - like a tie bomber is -1D for going faster than 1x etc.).
If you feel capital ships are bit bulky - then give them another modifier etc.
Or skip it as in atmospheric races might seem outside the context of most of the game...
Regarding In system travel
As far as how ships go faster in space - here is my attempt at a rationalization I will put in the space travel and sublight drives section of my house rules...
Sublight Benchmarks
Free of an atmospheric drag and further from a planet's gravity well impacting the ships's inertial dampener effects, ships can go much faster -"
Then put in the "sublight benchmarks" rates for going to a moon, or other planet etc. from the rulebook.
I think I am going to go this way....
_________________
SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jtanzer
Lieutenant
Joined: 01 Mar 2023
Posts: 75
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2023 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Or you could just use 1E's Speed codes.
_________________
The GM runs a living setting. Players unstick their own s***. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2023 11:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | The sublight engines that propel the ship through space are the same ones that propel it through atmosphere. |
Correct.
This discussion reminded me of the brief convo we had in May.
WEG/RAW?
| pakman wrote: | | if there is a weg limit on no sublight in an atmo - I would just throw that out |
We don't have to do "if". Either WEG does or it doesn't say that. But yes, if WEG had said that, we would indeed each be free to throw it out.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Per the RAW, starships use repulsorlifts until they reach orbit, at which point they can use their sublight drives...
As I said above, per the RAW, ships in atmosphere operate on repulsorlifts until they reach low orbit (50 kilometers)...
It’s not going hypersonic because WEG has ruled that it can’t engage its sublight drive while in atmosphere, and has written its stats accordingly. |
RAW stands for "rules as written" meaning game mechanics. I can see RAW sometimes also referring to game stats which are values important to game rules.
I find absolutely no support for the above statements in RAW. Spaceships do have separate speed stats for space and atmo, and the stats also include the skill used to operate a vehicle. The rules don't even indicate that you use the repulsorlift operations skill when piloting a spaceship in atmo, and they very easily could if that were the case.
Please don't indicate that game rules state which engine is used for flying spaceships in atmo without specifically citing those rules.
However WEG fluff (part of the EU) is clear...
| On R&E p.116, an author wrote: | | Sublight drives are used whenever a ship blasts off from a planet's surface to make a safe jump to hyperspace — such as when the Millennium Falcon blasted out of Moss Eisley Spaceport... All starship combat takes place in realspace at sublight speeds. Ships also use their sublight drives for atmospheric flight.... Most starships capable of planetary landings also have repulsorlift drives — similar to the ones used for vehicles — for maneuvers during landings. |
The sublight engines provide the trust. In space, there is no need for lift. When flying in the presence of gravity, I can see the ship's repulsorlift engine providing the lift, but WEG is quite explicit that sublight engines provide the main thrust in atmospheric flight, and that makes sense to me.
In my game, characters use the spaceship operation skill for the atmospheric flight of spaceships. I have however required a repulsorlift operation roll if a difficult maneuver was required for landings or take offs.
SUBLIGHT BENCHMARKS?
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | This is supported by the guidelines for traveling to another planet in the same Star system, which would require extremely high velocities not seen in either the existing stats or on screen. |
I think you are referring to the "sublight benchmarks" on R&E p.116. R&E also says sublight engines are used for in-system flights, but for longer ones didn't you argue (rather convincingly) that it would make more sense for ships to do microjumps through hyperspace? Or was that me? This would not require extremely high sublight velocities.
| pakman wrote: | As far as long range space speeds being must faster - I don't think we need super complex "tech". I put it up to either;
* with no atmo to slow them down - over longer trips they can accelerate much faster. |
That makes logical real world sense, but in RAW, all-out is the max speed, so that system doesn't allow for continued acceleration. Some of us more physics-minded fans have technobabble for why spaceships have a max speed; inertial compensators, vital to protect organic life at high speeds, also provide some resistance to the engines...
| pakman wrote: | | * outside the gravity well, the inertial compensators and artificial gravity allow for much faster speeds... Free of an atmospheric drag and further from a planet's gravity well impacting the ships's inertial dampener effects, ships can go much faster |
Gravity could in turn effect the inertial compensators effectiveness, which would thus require atmo speeds to be much slower (but relative to a ship's space speed since the compensators are tied into sublight engines).
SPACE/ATMOSPHERE CORRESPONDENCE?
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Further, not all existing stats have Atmosphere speeds that match with their common Space equivalent. In at least two instances (the Z-95 Headhunter and the I-7 Howlrunner) ships are “faster” in atmosphere than they should be. The Howlrunner, for example has a Space of 9, but has the same Atmosphere as would a TIE Interceptor (Space 11). |
Correct. But as I demonstrated here, RAW's atmo speed chart itself is wonky in the first place, and it is possible that the ships with Space/Move correspondences that are off from RAW's chart may have been the result of unintentional errors if there isn't any fluff justifying it. We definitely do have errors that were corrected by later works, like the YT-1300's Move stat in R&E being way off.
| jtanzer wrote: | | There's also something else to consider. According to the 1st to 2nd conversion chart, an A-wing - one of if not the fastest ship in the galaxy in sublight, has an atmospheric speed of just 800km/h, or Mach 0.63 at sea level. There's no way it's going hypersonic under main engine power - at least in atmosphere. |
The Edition Vehicle Conversion chart and the Spaceships in Atmo chart are both wacky, as discussed here. The A-wing's 2e RAW stat actually has its max atmo speed as slightly over Mach 1. But I'm not sure what there is to consider about that, unless you are saying that must be far under what sublight speed must be, which I agree with, but the space and atmo speeds stats were never meant to represent an equivalence. The whole purpose of for the invention of vague space units is so we can remove distance specifics from the system and only preserve spaceship speeds in relation to each other.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | The atmospheric drive is integrated with the main sublight drive and uses the same thrust nozzles, but having a faster Atmosphere drive cuts into the performance of the Sublight drive, and vice versa. |
| pakman wrote: | | Regarding that some ships faster in atmo than ships they are slower in space - to me - that is they are more streamlined - as in space does not matter. |
That's along the lines of my thinking. Spaceships could be faster in atmo than the typically corresponding speed to their space due to being more aerodynamic, and ones slower in atmo could be ones than are particularly non-aerodynamic. There could be other factors too.
| pakman wrote: | | Obviously, this works for some ships - but there is always a chance there are those it does not work for... |
Sure, that doesn't explain all RAW stats, but stats can be altered to make more sense to the paradigm we are operating under.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | This... allows for more granularity in starships, with some ships sacrificing space performance for atmospheric, and others sacrificing atmospheric performance for space. |
You can also have even more granularity with spaceships by not having a better space reduce their atmo speed or a better atmo reduce their space speed. There doesn't necessarily have to be a balance between them.
FILM EVIDENCE?
| pakman wrote: | | We have to be careful what we infer from the movies - GL was a story teller first... I mean, even my group has the joke "ships move at the speed of plot"... We see ships use their engines in an atmo all the time in the movies. |
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | In addition, there seems to be a very hard lockout on using sublight drives in atmosphere. In at least two on-screen instances (escape from Cloud City in ESB and escape from Jedha in RO), it would’ve been very useful to simply be able to engage the sublight drives and use their extremely high speeds to escape pursuers / destruction. Instead, they chose to endure a long tail chase or a blind hyperspace jump. |
In those and every other filmic instance of spaceships moving in atmosphere (other than slow maneuvering in take-offs/landings), the ships main engines are shown to be used with the same visual glow (and sound effects) as in space. Your point assumes your conclusion as a premise of your argument by saying spaceships are not using sublight engines in atmo because they would be much faster. It could be that ships are using sublight engines in atmo, but they cannot move in the same speed as when they are in space due to a limitation of the atmo setting...
| pakman wrote: | Or super simple - in an atmosphere- if they used full power - the ship would rip itself apart (over overheat - whatever).
(if you want rules for that - start doing hull structural damage for going faster - 1D for each 100kmph over, or whatever). |
It could be this, or the previously mentioned effect from gravity of the environment reducing the effectiveness of the inertial compensators thereby requiring the sublight engines to operate on reduced "planetary" scale, or a combination thereof.
I'm not seeing even a hint of this supposedly "very hard lockout on using sublight drives in atmosphere" in films.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | The working theory seems to be that full power sublight drives used in atmosphere would cause catastrophic damage to an inhabited planet, both from shockwaves produced by moving at hypersonic velocities and the waste / thrust ejected by the drive itself. My solution is that a ship’s drive is a dual-mode system that uses a safer, much less powerful drive system while in atmosphere. |
| pakman wrote: | | I would skip the shockwave thing - as the next obvious is "hey - so I can have one ship be a super weapon by putting a droid in it and going too fast". |
I totally agree. This sublight-atmo catastrophic shockwave is canon-breaking, another Holdo Maneuver. If this were a thing, it would be used a lot. This theory doesn't work at all. There's also this:
| On SW Sourcebook p.7-8, Curtis Smith and Bill Slavicsek wrote: | | Though many varieties of sublight drives exist throughout the galaxy... by far the most popular in the Empire is the Hoersh-Kessel ion engine... While the H-K's thrust is mildly radioactive and dangerous at extreme close ranges, it is safe enough to use in an atmosphere. |
CONCLUSION
| Quote: | | I’m not entirely happy with that system, but I haven’t been able to come up with a better alternative, so it’s what we work with. |
Sometimes it seems we create problems that require solutions when their really aren't problems to begin with.
Anyway, there is no RAW or filmic evidence that indicates repulsorlift engines are being used for thrust in atmo, but there is film evidence suggesting sublight engines are in use in atmo. The same engine can be used in two environments and have different performance in each environment.
There are boldly explicit WEG EU statements indicating sublight engines are indeed used in atmospheric flight. If a fan wants to change that for their own reasons, that's fine. If a fan feels strongly their headcanon is better than actual canon, that's fine too. If a fan feels so strongly that they want to present a case to convince others that their way is better, then they should make sure their facts are straight and provide citations.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| 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: Sat Nov 25, 2023 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's taken me a while to get around to this, for a variety of reasons, not least of which being that work has kept me too busy to break out my laptop and your essay-length posts are difficult to reply to on mobile
| Whill wrote: | | If a fan feels so strongly that they want to present a case to convince others that their way is better, then they should make sure their facts are straight and provide citations. |
Okay, then.
| Quote: | | Either WEG does or it doesn't say that. |
WEG did say it in 2E (pg. 110):"Most ships will have to fly at their Atmosphere speed until they reach a height of 120 kilometers (for planets that are normally considered habitable) at which point they are in space." I'm guessing I switched it up with the "at least 50 units from a planet to safely jump to hyperspace" benchmark, but it does exist. However, WEG removed that line in 2R&E, for unknown reasons. Considering how essential it is w/r/t establishing the parameters for vehicle performance (GMs and players do need to know where the line is between Space and Atmosphere to establish which form of Movement they're using), and how close its placement would've been to the end of the chapter (the last paragraph on the last page), I strongly suspect its removal from 2R&E was an editing error, ala the missing tables from GG6 2E.
Bottom line, if you're going to have two different methods of Movement, you need to have a common point at which you either switch from one to the other (in the case of craft that have both Space and Atmosphere values) or the point at which you can't go any further (for craft that have only a Space or Atmosphere value). Even with pakman's version of having a single value for both, you still need to set a boundary.
| Quote: | | The sublight engines provide the thrust. In space, there is no need for lift. When flying in the presence of gravity, I can see the ship's repulsorlift engine providing the lift, but WEG is quite explicit that sublight engines provide the main thrust in atmospheric flight, and that makes sense to me. |
As I stated in the post you linked above, vehicles that are putatively "repulsorlifts" in canon make use of auxiliary thrusters to achieve higher straight-line speeds, yet are still considered repulsorlifts. When I said "repulsorlifts", I meant vehicles that use a combination of anti-gravity repulsorlift systems and booster engines to augment speed (which would take the form of thrust from the sublight drive nozzles). My larger point (which I will address below) is that, when comparing the stated numbers for Atmospheric performance to the Sublight Travel Benchmarks, there is a huge disparity, and thus either one of those numbers must be wrong or travel in space is far faster than that in atmosphere. The RAW supports the latter, specifically on 2R&E pg. 123"Starships cover thousands of kilometers per second in open space. While they are moving much more slowly when orbiting planets and maneuvering through asteroid fields, their speeds are still incredible." Thousands of kilometers per second is far faster than even the fastest starfighters in atmosphere (the A-Wing, for example, with an All-Out velocity of 1,300 kilometers per hour in Atmosphere). If such speeds are possible in space, yet not in atmosphere, there must be something limiting or governing the drives, especially if such incredible velocities can't even be used in atmosphere under even the direst of emergency conditions (the escape from Jedha, primarily, but the escape from Bespin also counts).
If one takes the Sol System and Earth as a benchmark for a "representative" system (which, as a single yellow star with less than a dozen planetary bodies, it certainly qualifies), and it would only take 30 minutes to fly from the Earth to the Moon (which is ~384,400 kilometers away), that's an average speed of 768,800 kilometers per hour, over 590 times faster than an A-Wing's maximum atmospheric velocity, or roughly Mach 622.6. Again, that's an average; assuming acceleration and deceleration phases, the actual peak speed will likely be far higher.
| Quote: | | I think you are referring to the "sublight benchmarks" on R&E p.116. R&E also says sublight engines are used for in-system flights, but for longer ones didn't you argue (rather convincingly) that it would make more sense for ships to do microjumps through hyperspace? Or was that me? This would not require extremely high sublight velocities. |
I did, and I do, but the RAW distinguishes between sublight and micro-jumps. Note the second paragraph in this excerpt from 2R&E pg. 116:"Anywhere from 10 to 48 hours to fly from a star to the outer limits of the system, depending upon distance and the presence of any hazards such as asteroid belts or gas clouds. (It takes about 15 hours to reach the outer limits of a 'representative' system composed of a single yellow star and less than a dozen significant planetary bodies.)
Often, pilots find that it's quicker to travel between planets by making a 'micro jump' in hyperspace. While very precise navigation coordinates are necessary for this type of jump, such trips can be completed within an hour, compared to sublight 'intersystem' trips taking many hours." So, the RAW recognizes that micro jumps would be faster for in-system travel, and provides a basic guideline for doing so, but the rest of the Benchmarks are for sublight travel (at least as far as the RAW is concerned).
| Quote: | | pakman wrote: | | Regarding that some ships faster in atmo than ships they are slower in space - to me - that is they are more streamlined - as in space does not matter. |
That's along the lines of my thinking. Spaceships could be faster in atmo than the typically corresponding speed to their space due to being more aerodynamic, and ones slower in atmo could be ones than are particularly non-aerodynamic. There could be other factors too. |
Very few ships in the SWU are truly aerodynamic as we would consider it. While some may be closer than others, even ships like the X-Wing still have blunt-edged wings and similar design features that don't readily contribute to smooth travel through atmosphere all on their own. Considering the tech level of the setting, its far more likely that ships use particle / navigation shields to form an aerodynamic barrier around the ship, achieving a degree of aerodynamic effect that would be impossible with a pure physical effect (shielding would also help explain temperature build-up at high velocities). Where aerodynamics could come into play is with "streamlining" allowing for said navigation shielding to be projected more easily and efficiently around the ship relative to other, less gainly hull designs.
| Quote: | | You can also have even more granularity with spaceships by not having a better space reduce their atmo speed or a better atmo reduce their space speed. There doesn't necessarily have to be a balance between them. |
All vehicle and starship designs should be a compromise of design features. Giving it one feature will either cut into the performance of some other feature or increase the cost. It also helps maintain game balance; for example, my Z-Wing Close Air Support Starfighter (a modified Z-95) is a monster in atmosphere, but compensates by being slow and unwieldy in space. Another is my write-up for the Braha'tok-Class Gunship which officially has the same Atmosphere as a Nebulon B, but having a Space of 4 makes no sense for what's supposed to be a fast attack gunship. so instead of changing it, I wrote it into the design that since it was designed for space operations, cuts were made into its atmospheric flight performance.
| Quote: | | In those and every other filmic instance of spaceships moving in atmosphere (other than slow maneuvering in take-offs/landings), the ships main engines are shown to be used with the same visual glow (and sound effects) as in space. Your point assumes your conclusion as a premise of your argument by saying spaceships are not using sublight engines in atmo because they would be much faster. It could be that ships are using sublight engines in atmo, but they cannot move in the same speed as when they are in space due to a limitation of the atmo setting... |
My conclusion is predicated on a desire to not throw out an aspect of the RAW if I can come up with a valid reason / explanation for doing so. In this case, having a separate atmosphere-thrust system integrated into the drive allows for both the space/atmosphere performance variance I described above, while also accounting for ships using their sublight drives (or appearing to, at least) in atmosphere.
| Quote: | | pakman wrote: | Or super simple - in an atmosphere- if they used full power - the ship would rip itself apart (over overheat - whatever).
(if you want rules for that - start doing hull structural damage for going faster - 1D for each 100kmph over, or whatever). |
It could be this, or the previously mentioned effect from gravity of the environment reducing the effectiveness of the inertial compensators thereby requiring the sublight engines to operate on reduced "planetary" scale, or a combination thereof. |
The problem I have with this is the aforementioned "aerodynamic shielding", which would almost certainly protect against this effect. The gravitic issue is a stronger possibility, but considering how much inertia starships would have to absorb on a regular basis (see the above speed calculations for Earth-to-Moon-in-30-Minutes), I question whether a 1G planetary gravity field would be at all challenging for it to compensate for.
| Quote: | | I'm not seeing even a hint of this supposedly "very hard lockout on using sublight drives in atmosphere" in films. |
I've cited two examples on multiple occasions, the most obvious being the escape from Jedha in Rogue One. Even though their U-Wing is about to be destroyed by the shockwave of the destruction of Jedha City, Cassian chose to engage the hyperdrives in atmosphere and do a blind jump rather than throwing full power to the sublight drives. Because the setting has already established that there are hard safety lockouts on jumping to hyperspace too deep in a gravity well (which points to the hazardous nature of doing so), Cassian still chose this particular hazard over the (seemingly) minor hazard of throwing full power to the drives. The planet was already suffering an environmental catastrophe due to the destruction of Jedha City, so any concerns about radiation / shockwaves would've already been rendered moot. Yet they still went the blind hyperspace jump route.
Bespin is another potential example, albeit somewhat less extreme. Why would the heroes settle for a long tail-chase by a few TIE fighters, ultimately falling under the guns of the Executor, when they could just as easily throw full power to the Falcon’s drives and get to orbit in seconds, potentially denying the Executor time to intercept them?
The inference in both instances is that there's something that's keeping the drive from engaging, to the point where going full sublight thrust in-atmosphere isn't even considered as an option in the face of certain death.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | I would skip the shockwave thing - as the next obvious is "hey - so I can have one ship be a super weapon by putting a droid in it and going too fast". |
I totally agree. This sublight-atmo catastrophic shockwave is canon-breaking, another Holdo Maneuver. If this were a thing, it would be used a lot. This theory doesn't work at all. |
And yet, a ship traveling at Mach 600 (which per WEG's own numbers, they can do) in atmosphere would absolutely cause massive shockwave damage. Even the shockwave from breaking the sound barrier at Mach 1 can cause structural damage to buildings. It's enough of a problem that supersonic flight over land is prohibited under most circumstances. So if ships really can go that fast, then it absolutely would be weaponized.
Which is part of why I'm leaning toward an extremely robust lock-out system to keep it from happening. This sidesteps the entire issue by making ships adhere to the RAW and only be able to travel at their listed Atmosphere speed until they exceed 120 kilometers in altitude. However, it would be nice to have solid scientific and/or technobabble reasons as to why the lock-out exists and is so robust to begin with. Ideally, I'd like for there to be serious negative consequences for the PCs, because a bunch of murderhobos wouldn't mind frying the biosphere of an entire planet just to make an easy getaway. The consequences for gamers needs to be personal and deadly so that they discard this as an option.
| Quote: | There's also this:
| On SW Sourcebook p.7-8, Curtis Smith and Bill Slavicsek wrote: | | Though many varieties of sublight drives exist throughout the galaxy... by far the most popular in the Empire is the Hoersh-Kessel ion engine... While the H-K's thrust is mildly radioactive and dangerous at extreme close ranges, it is safe enough to use in an atmosphere. |
|
The issue here is that, if ships in the SWU are truly capable of the extremely high speeds that WEG says they are, then the engines have to be able to put out staggering amounts of thrust energy, which will absolutely not be dangerous only at extremely close ranges. For my purposes, I'd say that this is an H-K running in atmosphere mode (using its integrated atmosphere thrusters, not the sublights), not full thrust.
EDIT: I put the shockwave question to the science-heads over on the Fractalsponge Discord. At the Mach 600 speed quoted above, in a low atmosphere pass, the shockwave would cause nuclear blast level over pressure effects, as well as heat flash from the bow compression wave (hypersonic flight in atmosphere actually turns air into plasma at those speeds).
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 29, 2023 12:32 am Post subject: Putting Descartes in front of the Horse, or Hyperdrive... |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Either WEG does or it doesn't say that. |
WEG did say it in 2E (pg. 110):"Most ships will have to fly at their Atmosphere speed until they reach a height of 120 kilometers (for planets that are normally considered habitable) at which point they are in space." I'm guessing I switched it up with the "at least 50 units from a planet to safely jump to hyperspace" benchmark, but it does exist. However, WEG removed that line in 2R&E, for unknown reasons. Considering how essential it is w/r/t establishing the parameters for vehicle performance (GMs and players do need to know where the line is between Space and Atmosphere to establish which form of Movement they're using), and how close its placement would've been to the end of the chapter (the last paragraph on the last page), I strongly suspect its removal from 2R&E was an editing error, ala the missing tables from GG6 2E.
Bottom line, if you're going to have two different methods of Movement, you need to have a common point at which you either switch from one to the other (in the case of craft that have both Space and Atmosphere values) or the point at which you can't go any further (for craft that have only a Space or Atmosphere value). Even with pakman's version of having a single value for both, you still need to set a boundary. |
The boundary between space and a planet's atmosphere wasn't being debated. The need for two different game mechanics, to apply for two vastly different environments, for game consistency & balance. It does not explicitly state switching between different forms of propulsion. The argument you seem intent on making is that the repulsorlifts achieve escape velocities, not the sublight engines. I find such an argument to be fundamentally wrong.
| Escape velocity wrote: | | the escape speed from Earth's surface is about 11.186 km/s (40,270 km/h) |
It has always been my understanding that the slowest sublight engines (Space: 0) can achieve this, but repulsors cannot.
It is also my understanding that at such speeds, maneuvering isn't really possible. Basically the maneuverability is sacrificed for speed.
| Whill wrote: | 
Ships use their sublight drive for atmospheric flight, such as flying from a planet's surface to a hyperspace jump point in space. WEG is explicit on this. The author's intention is quite clear here.
Everyone is free to change this if they wish for their personal canon, but it is not correct to represent WEG/RAW as if it doesn't say this.
Official canon/RAW and Personal canon/house rules |
I'm with Whill on this.
Is WEG RAW a perfect system? No, but i've yet to see anyone do better.
YMMV.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
