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

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

Scales: Walker v. Starfighter
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules -> Scales: Walker v. Starfighter Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 9:08 am    Post subject: Scales: Walker v. Starfighter Reply with quote

So, what's the difference between them? I was playing around with my Robotech conversion, and trying to decide if giant robots that turn into spaceships should be classed as "Walker" or "Starfighter" scale, and I'm not sure what makes them different, since sizes seem comparable.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14022
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Size and power seems to be the mix.. But then you also have fighter vs cap issues.. Some ships large enough to qualify as small capitals, are still seen as fighter scale, while some that are smaller get listed as cap for power they output.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got the feeling that WEG based their scale system on smaller walkers like the AT-ST. Something like that would certainly be considered smaller and more maneuverable than, say, a cargo barge. However, they made the mistake of inflicting the Walker Scale class on everything that was a walker (regardless of actual size), as well as a few things that weren't (see the Leviathan Submersible Carrier).

Personally, I got fed up with the system and came up with my own, which places Walker above Starfighter, but moves the smaller walkers like the AT-ST and AT-PT down to Speeder-Scale.

YMMV.
_________________
"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


Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:09 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I got the feeling that WEG based their scale system on smaller walkers like the AT-ST. Something like that would certainly be considered smaller and more maneuverable than, say, a cargo barge. However, they made the mistake of inflicting the Walker Scale class on everything that was a walker (regardless of actual size), as well as a few things that weren't (see the Leviathan Submersible Carrier.

Personally, I got fed up with the system and came up with my own, which places Walker above Starfighter, but moves the smaller walkers like the AT-ST and AT-PT down to Speeder-Scale.

YMMV.


Probably smart, but I was hoping there was some official reasoning provided. Unfortunately, "We made weird @$$ decisions 20 years ago" seems to be a common theme in RPG design. Wink
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2016 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
Probably smart, but I was hoping there was some official reasoning provided. Unfortunately, "We made weird @$$ decisions 20 years ago" seems to be a common theme in RPG design. Wink

QFT
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Thx1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Where ever the Force takes me

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 11:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

one thing I noticed was that power output seems to be related to scale. Look at the Skipray blastboat. It's no bigger than most freighters but due to its power output it is classified as a capital. I would think the Starfighter is larger than walker is accurate due to the fact that many Starfighters have shields and stronger missile weapons than most walkers hull. Just my two cents and I am open to debate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thx1138 wrote:
one thing I noticed was that power output seems to be related to scale. Look at the Skipray blastboat. It's no bigger than most freighters but due to its power output it is classified as a capital. I would think the Starfighter is larger than walker is accurate due to the fact that many Starfighters have shields and stronger missile weapons than most walkers hull. Just my two cents and I am open to debate.

Power affecting scale only happens twice in the WEG stats, AFAICR. That would make it more the exception than the rule.

The problem with Starfighter being bigger than Walker is that it renders Walker all but useless. Under the 1E rules, where Starfighter, Walker and Speeder were essentially the same scale, an AT-AT was tougher than any Starfighter, but far slower and nowhere near as maneuverable. Under the 2R&E rules, the AT-AT is only at 4D Soak vs. Starfighters, but just as maneuverable as a TIE Fighter or a Y-Wing. I highly doubt it.

Ultimately, though, if Walker really is 2D lower than Starfighter, there is no need for an AT-AT at all. A good troop shuttle (or even a stock light freighter kitted out as a short range passenger transport) would be just as tough, carry as many troops, pack as much of a punch, be far faster and able to fly in space and hyperspace. After all, with the 2D modifier, the stock laser cannon on a basic YT-1300 does 6D Walker-Scale damage, just like the twin heavy laser cannon on the AT-AT.

Going strictly by size, the AT-AT is in the same size rating as a space transport, but with only a fraction of its power demands. It doesn't have or need a hyperdrive, ion drive, combat shields (although I strongly suspect Particle shielding is used to reinforce its Hull rating), or repulsorlifts. With that sort of surplus in its power budget, a Walker's reactor can be devoted almost entirely to powering the legs (which aren't carrying the weight while in-stride). This means a truly massive amount of armor can be fitted, more than enough to make the Walker far tougher than any Starfighter or Space Transport.

Finally, just because something is a Walker doesn't mean it must be Walker-Scale. Under my system, while the AT-AT is Walker-Scale, the AT-ST and AT-PT are Speeder-Scale. IMO, it's appropriate that smaller walkers be smaller scale than starfighters or AT-ATs, but for the big monsters to be truly effective, they need to have the durability and firepower to offset their lack of mobility. In fact, Ansel Hsiao's All-Terrain Siege Platform is easily Capital-Scale (compare it to the AT-AT in this image. The AT-AT barely comes up to its knee).

EDIT: In retrospect, what I've done with the larger Walker-Scale vehicles is just what WEG did with the Skipray and Gamma. While their size places them roughly equal to Starfighters, they are much more durable with more powerful weapons, but are much more ponderous in both speed and maneuverability. The best way to represent that is moving them to a higher scale.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Thx1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Where ever the Force takes me

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

so you basically made the AT-AT into a new scale class like land Dreadnaught or something like that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thx1138 wrote:
so you basically made the AT-AT into a new scale class like land Dreadnaught or something like that?

The only thing I changed was the scale system. AT-ATs, Juggernauts and such are still Walker Scale, but Walker is now at +8D, 2D above Starfighter.[/list]
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Thx1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Where ever the Force takes me

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But does that include smaller walkers such as the AT-PT or the AS-ST? I would think a separate class would work better for the larger ones like what you have but the smaller ones should be vulnerable to say bombing runs from star fighters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thx1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Where ever the Force takes me

PostPosted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

okay now I see, so smaller Walkers would be speeder scale in this system. rolls of the tounge a little weird calling traditional walkers speeder scale but I like it. Also explains how little bears could destroy an AT-ST with trees.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 23, 2016 7:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thx1138 wrote:
okay now I see, so smaller Walkers would be speeder scale in this system. rolls of the tounge a little weird calling traditional walkers speeder scale but I like it. Also explains how little bears could destroy an AT-ST with trees.

That was a factor in my thinking, as well. I had considered adding a mid-range ground vehicles scale between Walker and Speeder (essentially Starship, but for ground vehicles), but ultimately, the 4D split between Walker and Speeder is close enough to overlap without stats getting too ridiculous; anything Speeder-Scale with a Body Strength of 5D or more has atleast 1D when adjusted to Walker-Scale.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kytross
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 773

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the best reasoning I could come up with.

Starfighters are specifically designed to harrass and damage capital ships. Their power output to size (mass/lift ratio) is ridiculous.

AT-ATs, on the other hand, are built for mop up action. Start with orbital bombardment and then send in the army to mop up what's left. They have starfighters in their defense? Send in TIEs and TIE bombers to deal with them and then send in the army to mop up.

Convert AT-ATs and TIE fighters to Starfighter scale, 2R&E.

AT-ATs do 4D damage with the main cannon, have 4D body, have +4D fire control and 2D maneuverability. Remember, an AT-AT has gunners and pilots, so there are no MAP penalties.

TIEs do 3D damage, 2D body, 2D fire control and 2D maneuverability.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

But going purely by stats, there are better options. Compare the AT-AT to the Sentinel Landing Craft (adjusted to Walker Scale):
    Hull - 6D vs. 6D+2 (plus 3D+2 Shields)

    Atmosphere Move - 21 vs. 350 (and Space 7 with a x1 Hyperdrive to boot)

    Maneuverability - 0D vs. 0D+2

    Crew - 5 vs. 2 + 3 gunners

    Passengers - 40 vs. 54

    Cargo Capacity - 1mt vs. 180mt

    Main Armament - 2D/6D vs. 1D/8D

    Secondary Armament - 2D/3D vs. 1D/11D (CMs) and 6D/1D+2 (Repeaters)

    Sensors - No vs. Yes

In pretty much every respect, the Sentinel is a superior combatant to the AT-AT, and there is nothing in the rules to accord the AT-AT any particular advantages. Even for a Star Destroyer, onboard deckspace has limits, so why would any captain choose to bring along a less capable platform that needs an additional vehicle to get it onto the planet's surface, when he has one all-in-one platform that can self deploy (from another system, even) and hit harder while carrying more stuff?
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Kytross
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 773

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You certainly have a valid point.

Cost is likely a consideration. Outside of the TIE line, starfighters are supposed to be prohibitedly expensive. Depending on the source material, their power source would cost significantly more than a walker's, and generate more power, allowing for fighters to have shields.

The concept of scale was created to keep the number of dice we're rolling low. It would be easy enough to put everything at human scale, but who wants to roll 16D+2 Everytime a Correllian Corvette fires off a round?

I agree that if a walker should be in Starfighter scale, put it in Starfighter scale. If a speeder should be in walker scale, put it there. There's no hard limit to what should be in what scale.

So here's my take on the 2R&E scale system, with modern equivalents. How much damage an average hand gun would do against something in that class is in parentheses.

Human - will be killed by one to three shots from a hand gun (4D)
Speeder - Civilian vehicles, will be damaged by a hand gun (2D)
Walker - Armored vehicles, can pretty much ignore a hand gun (0D)
Starfighter - Tanks, can completely ignore hand guns (-2D)
Capships - Navy ships. Hand guns are used to repel boarders (-8D)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0