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

Updating Anti-Starfighter Weaponry for Capital Ships
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Updating Anti-Starfighter Weaponry for Capital Ships Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 4:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DougRed4 wrote:


Interesting that you posted this, atgxtg, as I was going to suggest something almost exactly like this (modifying the Starship Maneuver Failure table). Great minds and all... Smile


Well, I did post something similar a few years back when Bren and I were tossing ideas back and forth. What you see here is the final form of one of three different methods.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
crmcneill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
I prefer my SW gritty, not cimenatic.. which usually DOES stand for 'script immunity for heroes, all else suffers'.

Then we must duel to the death, and the loser will admit that the winner's version of the Star Wars universe is the only true and correct one. Choose your weapon, sir.


Rubber chickens, at 10 paces! 8) 8)


That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time... Laughing
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
garhkal wrote:
crmcneill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
I prefer my SW gritty, not cimenatic.. which usually DOES stand for 'script immunity for heroes, all else suffers'.

Then we must duel to the death, and the loser will admit that the winner's version of the Star Wars universe is the only true and correct one. Choose your weapon, sir.


Rubber chickens, at 10 paces! 8) 8)


That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time... Laughing

LOL. Roll for initiative, garhkal!
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
One idea I've tried is to use a FlaK value based on the skill, fire conrol, and combined fire rules and then use the Starship Maneuver Failure table from page 125. I replaced the normal collision damage with the normal weapon damage from the firing ship, The skids and spins represent evasion maneuvers to avoid being hit, and the collisions represented hits.

I could see this working well. I'm not sure if I would go with the normal damage roll, especially from ships with multiple weapon types. Using some variation of the existing movement damage system would allow for ships to take hits for damage rather than outright destruction.

Also, I'd attribute the slips and spins to near misses rather than evasive action.
_________________
"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
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="crmcneill"]
atgxtg wrote:

I could see this working well. I'm not sure if I would go with the normal damage roll, especially from ships with multiple weapon types. Using some variation of the existing movement damage system would allow for ships to take hits for damage rather than outright destruction.


Two things to help clarify:

1) I was using my idea of letting captial ships downscale thier weapons to starfighter scale when I did this (otherwise the 6D scaling bonus makes it nearly pointless). In fact, it was the FlaK rules that forced me into the downscaling idea.

2) A minor collision on the movement table is damage at -3D.

So it does " allow for ships to take hits for damage rather than outright destruction"


Quote:

Also, I'd attribute the slips and spins to near misses rather than evasive action.


Works for me. Either one or the other or both. It doesn't matter much.



Oh, I also allowed capital ships to use this to attack a SPACE UNIT rather than a particular target. Ships that fly through that SU have to deal with the FlaK. It's possible (likely even) for some ships to target two or three different SUs, thanks to multiple guns, and make things pretty tricker for incoming fighters.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
So it does " allow for ships to take hits for damage rather than outright destruction"

Okay, that works. How do you handle mixed flak, such as if it were coming from an ISD II, firing two types of turbolasers plus ion cannon?

Quote:
It's possible (likely even) for some ships to target two or three different SUs, thanks to multiple guns, and make things pretty tricker for incoming fighters.

I was thinking more along the lines of something like formation rules, which would affect how close the targets are flying together, which in turn would dictate the flak pattern's dispersion.

The basic concept is that ships flying in formation are acting as one, which allows a flak pattern to target them as a single ship.
_________________
"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
Dromdarr_Alark
Commander
Commander


Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 426
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4241

Here is the tactical combat thread with the suppressing fire house rule. Now that I look at it, I don't think it will help that much. But I guess you could adapt it, saying that your cap ship is shooting at a number of space units, and any ship that moves in those space units provokes an attack of opportunity from each gun shooting there.

That would make moving through a wall of turbolasers quite risky, considering how many space units a ship moves through in a turn.

For example: a ship with Space 6 going all out through a 40 square space unit area of turbolaser fire would have to dodge 24 turbolaser shots (of course with scaling applied). While it would be difficult to hit the starfighter with each individual shot, chances are that one of the turbolaser shots would strike true and blow it up.

This is how I would handle it.
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the link. At this point, I'm really liking the feel of treating a flak barrage as difficult terrain...
_________________
"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
aegisflashfire
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Location: Cincinnati, OH

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the idea in concept but not execution:

If you make flak=terrain, then the net effect is that moving faster through the terrain makes you far MORE vulnerable to damage, rather than less.
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aegisflashfire wrote:
I like the idea in concept but not execution:

If you make flak=terrain, then the net effect is that moving faster through the terrain makes you far MORE vulnerable to damage, rather than less.

That's an easy fix; just say that the speed the ships are flying through the barrage offsets the increased difficulty of flying fast through terrain. That way, you can use a flat difficulty regardless of speed and simplify the process.
_________________
"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
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aegisflashfire wrote:
I like the idea in concept but not execution:

If you make flak=terrain, then the net effect is that moving faster through the terrain makes you far MORE vulnerable to damage, rather than less.


It cancels out, since the faster ship would be able to going around some of the FlaK, instead of flying through it. And going faster puts more pressure on the enemy to break up it fire over multiple spaces, or even multifire, both of which lower the FlaK value.

But if you don't like that, just use a fixed difficulty instead of a terrain based on, or even base the difficulty off of the range.


EDIT: Come to think of it, I'm not sure I did use the terrain difficult for the base. Forgive me, Itt's been over a year since I ran. I think I just used the attack value of the flak. I figured if you were taking flak through an asteroid field the extra cover would cancel out the resisted area. Of course you still had to make piloting rolls to avoid hitting the asteroids.


Last edited by atgxtg on Tue May 06, 2014 3:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
atgxtg wrote:
So it does " allow for ships to take hits for damage rather than outright destruction"

Okay, that works. How do you handle mixed flak, such as if it were coming from an ISD II, firing two types of turbolasers plus ion cannon?



For weapons of the same type, . You can:

1)average out the damage proportional to the guns (so two 7D TBL and twenty 4D TBLS, is probably still doing about 4D, about 4D+1 looks right)

2) or just use the highest (ala combined fire, which FlaK usually is),

3) or use the lowest.

4) or roll randomly to see which weapon hit, probably in general proportion to the relatively quantity of each type of weapon.

So if attacking the port side of an ISD II it would work out as 1-3 Heavy TBL battery (10D ouch!) , 4-5 Heavy TBL cannon (only 7D, still ouch!), 6 Ion Cannon (4D, yippie)

5) or just treat each type of weapon (heavy TBLs, light TBLs, Ion Guns) or type of attack (TBL vs Ion Gun) as a separate Flak Value.

I'd probably leave to the individual GMs to pick which method works best. So they can fire tune the damage to fit what they wants to do.

.


crmcneill wrote:

]
I was thinking more along the lines of something like formation rules, which would affect how close the targets are flying together, which in turn would dictate the flak pattern's dispersion.The basic concept is that ships flying in formation are acting as one, which allows a flak pattern to target them as a single ship


Sure, if you want. Basically, what I'd do in that case if give a modifier based on formation and if the squad leader gets hit. Something like:

Very Close Formation:
+10 dodge bonus is leader missed, -10 dodge peanty if leader hit.
Close Formation:
+5 dodge bonus is leader missed, -5 dodge penalty if leader hit.

Standard Formation: No modifiers (yea!)

Open Formation: -5 dodge penalty is leader missed, +5 dodge bonus if leader hit.

Very Open Formation: -10 dodge penalty is leader missed, +10 dodge bonus if leader hit.


BTW, if yuo add formation rule, then you might want to apply that bonus/penalty to any combined fire actions.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
jmanski wrote:
garhkal wrote:
crmcneill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
I prefer my SW gritty, not cimenatic.. which usually DOES stand for 'script immunity for heroes, all else suffers'.

Then we must duel to the death, and the loser will admit that the winner's version of the Star Wars universe is the only true and correct one. Choose your weapon, sir.


Rubber chickens, at 10 paces! 8) 8)


That's the funniest thing I've read in a long time... Laughing

LOL. Roll for initiative, garhkal!


No need, i have combat sense up, which lets me go when i wish! Laughing Laughing Laughing

atgxtg wrote:

Oh, I also allowed capital ships to use this to attack a SPACE UNIT rather than a particular target. Ships that fly through that SU have to deal with the FlaK. It's possible (likely even) for some ships to target two or three different SUs, thanks to multiple guns, and make things pretty tricker for incoming fighters.


Sort of a ship with multiple laser cannons can 'area denial' a single SU per x cannon turrets, but batteries get to hit say a trio of spots.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:


Sort of a ship with multiple laser cannons can 'area denial' a single SU per x cannon turrets, but batteries get to hit say a trio of spots.


Something like that. I got it written down somewhere (terrabyes are great for hiding stuff), but if memory severs you decided how to break up your weaponry and that generated the Flak value. I used the average roll for gunnery + fire control and added in for combined fire for multiple weapons. I used the average result (i.e 1D=3, 2D=7, etc.) to streamline things. The whole point was to allow my players to get into big fights without their having to wait ten minutes for the GM to roll a hundred attacks for each Capital Ship!

A ship could attack multiple SU (up to 1 per gun) but that would reduce the FlaK value, sometime to the point where it could be flown throw easily.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2014 1:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

atgxtg wrote:
I'd probably leave to the individual GMs to pick which method works best. So they can fire tune the damage to fit what they wants to do.

Actually, there is a sixth option: default to the most numerous gun, or if there are two cannon of equal strength, default to the one with the highest FC. Ion cannon damage might have to be resolved separately, though...

Quote:
BTW, if yuo add formation rule, then you might want to apply that bonus/penalty to any combined fire actions.

My concept was more along the lines of either tight or loose formation, with Loose allowing the ships to have a little room to maneuver, and Tight allowing them to overlap shields. Hadn't really gotten beyond that, though. I know WOTC's 4ER rulebook has a section on using starfighter squadrons in combat, but I haven't had the chance to read up on it since I found it. I'll be looking for some pointers there as soon as I find the 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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
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