| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2014 11:37 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| garhkal wrote: | | I wouldn't call some of their tech leaps and bounds ahead of us.. Look at most modern firearms. Their Effective ranges are bounds ahead of what the RPG lists for blaster rifle's max range. |
Which were set by WEG, of course. Who knows what the actual range of a working weapon firing a linear plasma discharge would be in real life? Try comparing the real life effective ranges of modern firearms to the ranges set by WEG in the D6 Adventure books and see what you get...
_________________
"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: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
True, until we actually get blasters it would be hard to see if WEG was on the money or wayyyyy off..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | True, until we actually get blasters it would be hard to see if WEG was on the money or wayyyyy off.. |
Probably not even then. We not only have to account for the creation of a new weapons technology but also for the inevitable advancements and refinements of that technology. You can't very well judge the capabilities of modern firearms off of the old touch-hole hand cannons. And that's just after 500 years of development. In Stars Wars they have had blaster technology for longer than humans have had the knife. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It always bothered me that a blaster pistol has a maximum range of 120 meters while a rifle has a maximum of 300 meters. The rifle range seems okay but the pistol range seems to be at least double what it should.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2014 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | It always bothered me that a blaster pistol has a maximum range of 120 meters while a rifle has a maximum of 300 meters. The rifle range seems okay but the pistol range seems to be at least double what it should. |
It doesn't bother me, much. I read a few years back about the development of the assault rifle. Some German officers got together and discussed the current, 7. 62 mm rifle and how big and heavy it had to be, in order to fire the 7.62 mm round accurately out to 1000 yards. They agreed that the average soldier couldn't hit anything with any sort of reliability at 100 yards anyway, and that if they adopted a lighter bullet that was accurate out to about 300 yards or so they could make the rifles and ammo lighter.
I could see the 120m limit of blasters as a continuation of that theory. I suspect most hit with the naked eye probably take place within 100 meters anyway, so they wouldn't loose much.
What does bother me is the lack of a long range "sniper blaster" that can reach out 600-1000m or so for special troops. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 1:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point. Even book listed 'sniper blaster rifles' get only out to an ave of 50 more yards..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Good point. Even book listed 'sniper blaster rifles' get only out to an ave of 50 more yards.. |
Yeah. That is why there is some support for ht thinking that blaster bolts are not that stable and break up at a certain distance.
However , the fact that Staffighter sclae blaster scan shoot out to 17 SUs proves that there is some way to get the bolts out much further than 300m.
Perhaps it's a weight issue? Getting th bolt to go further might require a heavier barrel? That wouldn't be a problem for a vehicle or even a heavy weapon, like an E-Web, but weapon designers might not want to make the tradeoff for a longarm.
Oh, and one houserule that I swiped from the James Bond RPG was that scopes double a weapon's medium and long range. It would at least give us a decent sniper blaster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 12, 2014 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My problem is if the average soldier struggles to hit something at 100m with a rifle, then there's no way they could hit something at even 20m with a pistol. I'm fine with 300m for most rifles, but would like to see more range on sniper rifles.
Just me and my own weirdness...
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | My problem is if the average soldier struggles to hit something at 100m with a rifle, then there's no way they could hit something at even 20m with a pistol. I'm fine with 300m for most rifles, but would like to see more range on sniper rifles.
Just me and my own weirdness... |
Not so weird. In real life "effective range" actually varries from shooter to shooter, based on thier realtive skill.
If we wanted more realsitc ranges, we could customize them based on shooter's skill. If we assume that the average shooter has a 4D skill then the listed ranges would be for 4D. THen we could scale the ranged up or down for higher or lower skill, up to some sort of cap.
For instance if we set the rifle at:
Close: up to 25m per D
Medium: up to 50m per D
Long: up to 75m per D
we'd ge the ranges in the RAW. But if we assume the the ranges listed represent a higher skilled shooter, we can adjust the multipliers.
If the average shoot struggles to hit something at 100m then 10m/20m/.30m per D seems about right.
I'm more concered with the 120m pistol range than the rifle range. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
WOTC probably has a more realistic rule with their range increments; the higher your skill level, the further out you can shoot.
Perhaps it might be better to move this discussion to its own topic...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 14, 2014 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | WOTC probably has a more realistic rule with their range increments; the higher your skill level, the further out you can shoot.
Perhaps it might be better to move this discussion to its own topic... |
Yup. Although I think CORPS did it better. In that RPG the difficulty is a function of the range, and is the same for every ranged weapon. Then each weapon gets an accuracy stat that offsets some of the range penalty-up to a point.
A really good marksman could actually shoot two or three times as far as a novice with the same weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Brain
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | True. I'm definitely not a fan of the WEG approach, though. If a missile just goes in a straight line for a short range, it would be simpler to just replace it with a larger, more powerful laser cannon. Ordnance has to have some advantages that it brings to the table. |
So am I the only one that remembers those proton torpedoes in A New Hope making a 90 degree turn to go into that thermal exhaust port? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Brain wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | True. I'm definitely not a fan of the WEG approach, though. If a missile just goes in a straight line for a short range, it would be simpler to just replace it with a larger, more powerful laser cannon. Ordnance has to have some advantages that it brings to the table. |
So am I the only one that remembers those proton torpedoes in A New Hope making a 90 degree turn to go into that thermal exhaust port? |
I've actually lost count of the number of times that point has been made, although rarely have I seen it done with such eloquent sarcasm..
It's pretty obvious that WEG ignored film evidence to turn an obviously guided weapon into a spaceborn rock, and a lot of house rules have attempted to change that over the years. My point here was not just to allow guided weapons to home on their target, but also to allow the pilot to customize the weapon effect on the fly based on the kind of target he was attacking.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
The Brain
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | True. I'm definitely not a fan of the WEG approach, though. If a missile just goes in a straight line for a short range, it would be simpler to just replace it with a larger, more powerful laser cannon. Ordnance has to have some advantages that it brings to the table. |
They do, energy density. Look at one of those cutaway diagrams of an X-wing compared the amount of volume the proton torp launcher that gives about 50% more destructive bang for your buck you uses, compared to the laser cannons.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Lane Arroway wrote: | Would their be special missiles and torpedoes or will this replace what's already in the game?
On the same thought, would the ship need special equipment or do they have them installed already? What would it take/cost to modifiy a civilian vessel to do this? |
My thinking is that it would be part and parcel of existing ordnance launch systems. |
I'm thinking special equipment, the reason cost efficiency. Any given piece of equipment can be thought of like this the more you want it to do the more parts/complexity which means higher production costs. On top of that the extra parts/complexity is most likely going to mean higher maintenance and therefore bigger operational costs. For an example lets look at an X-wing sure installing those variable fusing/detonation proton torps would be pretty wizard because then you could better kill other fighters and damage small capitol ships with the same weapon system, but it's gonna cost extra. Is that extra cost justified? You already have a quad laser cannon system with better range, rate of fire, and effectively unlimited ammunition for dealing with other fighters/small craft. Why run up bigger costs for an unneeded redundancy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Brain wrote: | | They do, energy density. Look at one of those cutaway diagrams of an X-wing compared the amount of volume the proton torp launcher that gives about 50% more destructive bang for your buck you uses, compared to the laser cannons. |
But why just stop with one or two advantages? If a warhead has the added damage of energy density, plus being able to home on its target, plus being able to customize its effects based on the type of target, why put limits? On an X-Wing, quad-lasers are the work-horses when it comes to combat, but proton torpedoes are the silver bullets; they're what you use when you have a high-value target that absolutely positively has to be destroyed right then and there. Why lower expectations? It's not like WEG has given us a lot to work with, anyway.
| The Brain wrote: | | I'm thinking special equipment, the reason cost efficiency. Any given piece of equipment can be thought of like this the more you want it to do the more parts/complexity which means higher production costs. On top of that the extra parts/complexity is most likely going to mean higher maintenance and therefore bigger operational costs. For an example lets look at an X-wing sure installing those variable fusing/detonation proton torps would be pretty wizard because then you could better kill other fighters and damage small capitol ships with the same weapon system, but it's gonna cost extra. Is that extra cost justified? You already have a quad laser cannon system with better range, rate of fire, and effectively unlimited ammunition for dealing with other fighters/small craft. Why run up bigger costs for an unneeded redundancy? |
AFAIAC, any argument based on "too complex" is automatically suspect in a universe where they have temporal manipulation (stasis fields), gravity manipulation (repulsorlifts, intertial compensators, artificial gravity), FTL travel, energy weapons and sentient machinery. And not only do they have it, but all of these things are so commonplace that their existence barely rates a mention. To say that there is a starfighter in existence (the X-Wing) that has FTL drive, advanced zero-g maneuvering systems (possibly repulsorlift based), protective energy shields, energy weaponry, advanced sensor systems, inertial compensation, and a droid copilot, plus who knows how many other tech systems that are far beyond our comprehension, yet can't have advanced warheads because they are too complex is an unrealistic double standard.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
