| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Brain
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 242
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2014 5:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | 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. |
Internal combustion engines and PCs would also look like that to a person from the Middle Ages and are ubiquitous today, but guess what, you still have trade offs today on the grounds of performance vs economics. All those technologies require maintenance, the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook and the SW Adventure Journal have a whole sections/articles on X-wing starfighters needing huge amounts of maintenance and A-wings being absolute hanger queens. The lowly TIE and venerable Headhunter are praised for their ruggedness and low maintenance needs. The poster child for the upgraded beyond its original specs ship the Millennium Falcon is repeatedly shown in canon to be a nightmare to upkeep. IRL German Panther, Tiger, and King Tiger tanks all using ubiquitous technologies for their time, acknowledged as technically superior but all had reliability issues. Hydrogen-peroxide submarine propulsion developed by Germany and post war by the British gave superior performance to diesel-electric subs of the time but was discarded because of the practicality of safely handling the volatile nature of the fuel. The US Air Force experiments with the permeable flow wing in the 1960s sure it worked but the difficulties of properly maintaining the tiny air channels in the field caused the idea to be discarded. How many flying cars to you run into today? People have been trying to get those into common usage for over 50 years. Look you can put whatever spiffy new wiz bang ordnance you want into your game but from your posts you seem to think from your posts that there is no other factors involved for ratcheting up performance. |
|
| 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: Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Read all 4,000+ of my posts on this forum, then? Just because I advocate in favor of one technology that happens to be the subject of this thread does not mean that I support it in favor of all other technological reasons why ordnance is still in use in the SWU. I'm in favor of multiple methods and house rules for making missiles in the SWU better, but in the interests of avoiding confusion, I do my best to limit myself to the subject of the conversation at hand. Or did you not notice that I'm simultaneously carrying on a conversation about smart missiles in both the official rules and house rules sections at the same time I'm involved in this one here?
_________________
"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: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | AFAIAC, any argument based on "too complex" is automatically suspect in a universe where they have temporal manipulation (stasis fields), |
Actually, do we even know that SW stasis pods are temporal manipulation units, or are they more advanced cryogenic storage pods like we have been working on for 60+ years?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most Wookieepedia references to Stasis involve field generation of some form. The term entropy field is used a couple of times. Specifically, a person or object protected by an entropy field does not grow old or decay with the passage of time.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2014 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Been thinking about the changing of the warheads thing and I remembered that something similar was in the Battlestar Galactica game for PS3 (terrible game, don't buy it). While the actual dogfighting was fairly realistic, in a manner of gameplay speaking, there was a problem: the missile launcher.
You could change it to one of four presets, IIRC, and even with that it was impossible to get right. Every time you fired it you forgot what it was set on, and even with a single button to toggle it from setting 1 through 4 it was such a hassle that after a few attempts you set it on capital ship and just used your guns to deal with fighters. And this is a video game with simplified controls where your life is not on the line and if you fail you get to try the mission again.
My personal view is that since lasers are so cheap (and have a limitless supply of ammo) that they are for dogfighting and the missiles/torpedoes/bombs are for large targets.
YMMV
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| 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: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm hesitant to say that an idea won't work just because it didn't work out in a badly designed video game from another genre.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The point is, in combat, changing settings on weapons is a lot more for a pilot to process when it isn't really necessary. It's a cool idea, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see the practicality.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| 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: Wed Mar 19, 2014 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | | The point is, in combat, changing settings on weapons is a lot more for a pilot to process when it isn't really necessary. It's a cool idea, don't get me wrong, but I just don't see the practicality. |
But it doesn't have to be manual. It could happen automatically depending on the type of target he has locked onto. Once the missile control systems have identified what it is shooting at, it can automatically set itself to the optimum setting.
Even if it isn't, its not like combat pilots today aren't trained to do multiple things at once to prep missile weapons to fire. The firing sequence for modern missiles involves multiple manual settings for homing and tracking modes, arming switches, etc.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 21, 2014 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You make a great point. I'd prefer, for my own twisted purposes, to have dedicated missiles. But I see what you're going for, and if you like it, then fire away.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
Even if it isn't, its not like combat pilots today aren't trained to do multiple things at once to prep missile weapons to fire. The firing sequence for modern missiles involves multiple manual settings for homing and tracking modes, arming switches, etc. |
True, but those things don't change the warhead out.. which is what blast shaping is imo.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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: Sat Mar 22, 2014 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | True, but those things don't change the warhead out.. which is what blast shaping is imo. |
By current tech, yes.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2295
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 3:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: |
Even if it isn't, its not like combat pilots today aren't trained to do multiple things at once to prep missile weapons to fire. The firing sequence for modern missiles involves multiple manual settings for homing and tracking modes, arming switches, etc. |
True, but those things don't change the warhead out.. which is what blast shaping is imo. |
But changing the warhead out isn't what was being floated as a possibility. I thought the proposed idea was to have the pilot flick a switch (or have the missile be smart enough to 'recognize' what type of target it's after) such that perhaps tiny force fields (or similar technology) reshapes the charge, alters the chemistry, or adjust the way the explosive is used? Given the tech we have in Star Wars, I don't find such a proposed method that out of line with their capabilities.
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2014 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Name one other tech in SW that can change the type of damage or area based on a switch of a lever? The closest you can get in the RAW is flicking from single to quad fire on Xwings and such.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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 23, 2014 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Name one other tech in SW that can change the type of damage or area based on a switch of a lever? The closest you can get in the RAW is flicking from single to quad fire on Xwings and such. |
Think outside the box. There are also technologies that can confine matter in a fluid state (magnetic fields holding in the atmosphere on launch bays), as well as technologies that can hold matter in place (tractor beams). If the tech level of the SWU has the ability to make a fluid conform to a given shape (remember the water ballet in ROTS), why can't it do the same with an explosive? What if a plastique-type explosive could be subjected to force fields to mold it into the shape required to maximized damage to a target? Plus, we are assuming that explosives in the SWU are simple chemical explosives like what we use now. What if the explosive used is pressurized blaster gas that can be shaped by electromagnetic fields to generate a specific field of discharged blaster energy? What if it is superconducting wire that is driven to explosive detonation by a massive surge of electricity (read this one in a David Drake novel)?
Bottom line, if you want to believe that explosives in the SWU must be consistent with modern explosives, that is certainly your prerogative. Personally, I like my sci-fi with a few less limitations.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2014 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, as a byproduct of my work on my own version of stats for the Torpedo Sphere / Tyrant-Class Star Monitor, I have been forced to revise my opinion on this matter.
I was previously of the opinion that on-the-fly blast sculpting was conceivably a feature of all standard missiles and torpedoes. However, during my write-up for the Torpedo Sphere, I used the description of Shield Buster Torpedoes to explain why the official stats of the Torpedo Sphere's Proton Torpedo Launchers inflict 9D Damage to Shields, but only 4D damage to anything else. Specifically, Torpedo Spheres use a torpedo that is specifically configured to attack one kind of target and have a reduced effect on other types of targets. If this is the case, that an advanced Imperial warship uses warheads that are locked into a single detonation mode, I must then concede that on-the-fly blast shaping is not a standard feature of missile weapons in the SWU.
However, this doesn't change my belief that the concept itself is sound, so I therefore amend this feature to only being included in advanced missile types, not standard ones.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
