Modifying Starfighters?

[Bren]

[atgxtg]

[jmanski]

Why the hate for Lucas?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[Bren]

[jmanski]

Actually I meant atgxtg.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[Bren]

[jmanski]

Yeah. I left the theater almost in shock. It is the coolest movie I have ever seen.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[Bren]

[atgxtg]

[vanir]

This topic is interesting because one major campaign many years ago was partly based around a player's starfighter pilot and naturally went the direction of modifying them.

This is more like house rules than official but we stuck generally to published guidelines and there was much discussion concluding satisfactory rules.

Working from memory here.
We ruled that starfighters are already engineered for maximum performance so modifying them immediately places any example into the category of an engineering prototype.
So you couldn't use starship repair (or space transports repair) to modify them, you had to put points in the advanced skill of Starfighter Engineering (A). You used these skill die alone for difficulties modifying individual systems and this was the way I governed his Y-Wing mods when GM'ing...sure eventually that suped up starfighter could take on small cruisers but not at any faster rate than you could develop an uber tough Jedi.
Secondly you have to spend character points for each modification, and it is a major rebuild which changes the appearance and structure of the vessel.
Other than that we used the simple guidelines for enhancement modifications in the galaxy guide for transports.

He wanted to get the speed up towards TIE standards for example, so it wasn't just a matter of making the difficulty roll and changing the stat entry. He had to come up with some kind of rationale and spend some character points for the re-engineering, in this case IIRC we upped the power output on the base ion engines and added a pair so his Y-Wing had four white hot ion engines and had to follow jury rigging rules.

This is sort of along the lines of how Messerschmitt and Focke Wulf continuously developed German fighters in WW2, production examples were taken right off the line and modified by engineers to become prototypes for the succeeding new model, they were virtually chopped up and rebuilt for major improvements, increased streamlining, centre of gravity issues, armaments upgrades, more power, strengthened structure.

So we pretty much adapted this line of thinking, an individually modified starfighter is like taking an engineering project to refine a new model for production and whisking it away in the prototype stage and handing it to a player, except if they're doing the modification you have to make them go through this whole process from scratch, develop the advanced skills required and spend the character points, then chop up and rebuild the starfighter.

For whatever it's worth

[garhkal]

I'd say CP and credits.. but i like the "you need to use (A) engineering" to get the job done.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[thedemonapostle]

my original star wars group consisted of this:
a computer engineer,
2 automotive mechanics (i was one)
a 7th year physics major
a future English professor
an accountant
a graphic designer/marketing specialist
and a helicopter pilot

so when we modified stuff it made sense to us. we brought uglies to a whole new level of ugly.
we came to the conclusion that you could replace the engines on ships provided the ship had the fuel (power core) to run it. some could run the new engines but with a significantly reduced length of time. (kinda like putting a corvette engine in a civic, possible but requiring skill and resources)
we decided that weapons could be modified with no real change to anything but fuel, but should they be replaced or new ones added, more modifications would be required. which is why we tended to use the power core from the skipray blast boats for most freighters. we figured it could handle most of what we put on the ship because we figured that it would be somewhat like putting the engines from an aircraft carrier in a semi truck.
also we decided that in space aerodynamics held little over acceleration, cruising speed and top speed. weight would only affect acceleration but not top speed or cruising speed.
it should be noted that an A-0Wing travels at space speed of 12; atmospheric of 450; 1,400 kilometers per hour. 1,400 kmh is roughly 875mph, thats its cruising speed, not max, according to the books its all out max speed is 4 times this: 3,500 mph (5,600kmh) with is only mach 4.66. in relation to real world vessel ratings:
F-15 mach 2.5 (1,875 mph/3,000kmh)
F-16 mach 2.0+ (1,500+ mph/2,400kmh)
F-22 mach 2.25 (1,687.5 mph/2,700kmh)
2 of these were introduced in the 1970's before the movies were created and as such the they were just starting hollywood physics based of what they know in the real world. so we concluded that since in star wars they have 20,000 years worth of advances in space flight we had much more freedom to create ships than the manufacturers used. like modern cars they have a bunch of systems that are not needed, the catalytic converter is a good example, as is the restrictive air intake and exhaust systems. all three of these real world systems restrict performance. so we also figured there were systems like this on ships that were there based more on political reasons that usefulness.
we also decided that most starships do not have armor. some do, like the skipray blastboats. so we armored up ships more. a good example of an highly armored ship in star wars is the sun crusher.
like real world weapons we figured most were used because of politics rather than their effectiveness. so modified the weapons more effectively.
shields seemed more based upon emitter size rather than ship size, so we had to custom build shield emitters that would create massively powerful shields. if we had the larger capital ships we would put planetary shields on them.
most systems seemed more based upon what would be cheap to make rather than what was best for the ship, similarly in the real world ford uses the same block in most of its like cylinder numbered engines, i4, v6, v8 etc. so we swapped out mass produced for custom performance parts.
when all was said and done we had a custom ship that was as fast and as maneuverable as an A-Wing, with a hull almost on par with an ISD, shields better than an ISD, weaponry to go head to head with an ISD and win, cargo space greater than a skipray, much more passengers and fewer crew and multiple power cores.

in regards to the whole ISD movement thing. inertial dampeners and artificial gravity generators would remove the G's from movement. i can cleverly stick a 1hp engine on a semi truck and it would eventually get up to 55mph, it would take forever but it would still do it. the ISD's have huge engines which it used effectively. why does the millenium falcon accelerate faster? because its base speed is faster. duh. why does it take longer for an ISD to turn than a small freighter. the maneuvering thrusters on both ships are in the rear. and then we get into the whole over-steer vs under-steer arguments. why does one maneuver better than the other? take your average 20 year old driver and put them in a race against a 20 year veteran formula one driver. both drive 100% equal cars, who wins? my money is on the 20 year veteran formula one driver. in the iSD vs the millenium falcon the better pilot is han, while the ISD has a generic set of pilots. skilled vs lack of skill. tough call there with who is the better pilot. a YT-1300 is only 27.5 meters long which is to say that theres a significantly shorter distance from pilot's brain to the engines, whereas the ISD is 1600 meters long. to change direction the commander(s) issues orders, pilots issue commands to a computer, engineers then change settings to allow maneuvering, power is shifted and direction changes. this is significantly greater than the smaller ships out there.
i personally like the explanation for the game rules on ho0w to deal with maneuvering capital scale ships vs starfighter scale ships. a 6D penalty in maneuvering for capital ships attempting to do starfighter maneuvers with a -1D to that number for every round it waits/prepares for the maneuver. i might make changes to this at sometime but i think ill keep it in mind.
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?

d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle

Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers

[atgxtg]

thedemonapostle,

Someobsevations:


Mixing engines: Might be possible. But there are more considerations than fuel/power core. Forst starters there is the space required for the engine. You might be able to fit a Corvette engine into a Civic, but you can't fit the engine from a locomotive or battleship into that Civic.

Also, even when a larger/more powerful engine can be fitted, the vehicle might not be designed to withstand he stresses assocated with the higher speeds. For example, than Civic probably can't take the stressess associated wih turning at 200kph the waythe Corvette can.

Up-gunning ships: Assuming you can fit the guns onto the ship and can come up with the power for them, you would still need to rewite the ship becuase the power linsthat exist might not be able to handle the higher loads.

Vehicle Speeds: In the RPG, Mve scores are listed as Move; max kph. So an X-Wing with a Atmospheric Move of 365; 1050kph, can move at 365 m/round, and if moving all out (1460 m/turn) it would be traveling at 1050kph, not 4200 kph.

You can check his out with some simple math. A Move of 5 (5m per 5 second game turn) second) is equvalent to 1 m per second, or 3.6 kph. That works out to max KPH= Move*2.88.A Move of 1460 would be 292 m/s or 1051.2 kph. The Move scores in the rule book are often rounded off, and might be off slighly, but they should roughly match up.


Aerodynamics SHOULD affect speeds in an atmosphere. That is why the fighters in Star Wars are "slow" compared to fighter jets. A X-Wing or TIE fighter just isn't designed for atmoperic combat he way a F-16 is.

Regarding ISD: The whole canceling out gavity with inerial dampers depdns on how much cancelling they can do.

Plus,isnce mass is unchanged (just gravity) the accleration would not be affected. So the ISDs probablyhave a lower thrust to mass ration than the Falcon.

As far as a 1hp semi-truck reaching 55 mph-not necessarily. First off in an atmosphere, aerodynamic drag would cap the speed. As would gearing and power losses. And then the engine might not be able to take the strain. But assuming the gearing would allow 55mph, and that the engien didn't blow, and if semi was operating in a vacuum, then yeah, any speed would be possible. Techncally spaceships don't really have a top speed.

[thedemonapostle]

well in regards to the space required for the "new" engines. they don't always have to fit inside the ship. more so on starfighters, i reference the Y-Wing with its engines externally mounted.

"you can't fit the engine from a locomotive or battleship into that Civic. "

no, but you can take the starter motor from the train and put it in a car and you can take the battery from said train and put it in the same car, both parts weigh individually more than the original engine, but when the vehicle runs off the starter motor as its main supply of propulsion, it will run faster than the gas engine.

if you put the nuclear reactor from the battleship in the locomotive, you've just gone and over powered the locomotive. in this example you've turned the diesel/electric hybrid of the train into the steam/nuclear hybrid super train. now you have more power and longer distances between fuel stops...

if you take a smaller version of that battleship reactor and put it into a car, you now have an exceptionally high powered car.

thanks for the update of atmospheric speeds, i totally forgot about that bit many years ago.

as for structural support to withstand the new power of the new engines. we had 2 mechanics, a 7th year physics major and a helicopter pilot in the group.

we used the original stats for the original ship being modified as a platform. next since that base platform is what would be considered stable in atmosphere at 4 times its listed speed ,yes we skipped that small bit in the starship section. so we would set up the modified design to withstand the atmospheric shear of 4x the new speed listing. then we would reinforce it. it was mostly based upon the atmospheric speed, hull rating and length. after negotiating back and forth we would finalize the modifications as either safe at 4x atmosphere or safe for 4x space speeds.

regarding aerodynamics.

"also we decided that in space aerodynamics held little over acceleration, cruising speed and top speed. weight would only affect acceleration but not top speed or cruising speed. "

not arguing that aerodynamics will affect a vehicles movement speed in atmosphere.

up scaling the weapons. this is where multiple skipray blastboat power cores comes in play. what we did was use one exclusively for weapons and the other for everything else. granted we all agreed that we always borderline that weapons power core. also, as i recall the technical description for the lasers, turbolasers and ion cannons all state that they have capacitors for an increased rate of fire. and this was where i think the computer engineer of the group figured this into the calculations for the weapons and im thinking he had larger ones installed.
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?

d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle

Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers

[atgxtg]