| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 2:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Quote: | | Right, so you would position your interdictor at the place where the business loop diverges from the main route. |
Depends on what your goal is for the Interdiction, really. If my truck driving example holds, then known routes are the equivalent of paved roads. The closer you get to a city, the more common the paved roads become, and the more paved roads there are, the more likely it becomes that persons wishing to avoid a checkpoint will be able to find an alternate route. Putting an interdiction point too close to a planet increases the odds that alternate routes can be navigated around it. Interdiction would be most successful if it is in a location constrained by geography to the point that there is only a single route to use (or just a few smaller ones) that travelers have to use to get where they are going. |
And here is where I think the roads analogy falls apart. Hyperroutes are places where there is good data about where large physical objects are not located. Given that such objects are going to be closer to star systems rather than far away from them, and a star system is not like a city where there are outlying neighborhoods with small roads and such. Okay, so maybe, if the other planets in the system also have habitation and therefore tiny hyperroutes leading to the main one through the system... I suppose. But even then you have to pass through other systems' versions of the Kuiper Belt, or whatever other asteroid fields they have.
But this is a good thing to think about, but maybe for a different thread about astro-navigation.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I picture interdiction stations as the Star Wars equivalent of DOT scales, actually. |
That's certainly an interesting idea. Is there any mention of such a system in the literature?
| crmcneill wrote: | | Again, if my interstate analogy holds, that will be the case in some places, but not others. The closer one gets to their destination, the more likely it becomes that you will be required to use a single route, but when your goal is merely to head in a general direction, there are almost always options and alternate routes if the route you were planning to use is blocked off. |
Aha - I could see a system's local authority having an interest in blocking alternate routes through their system. Not only can they better track traffic, but also potentially close it off and maybe tax it. I could see this being a particularly interesting concept in the New Republic, but also before the Rise of the Empire era.
But what would the Empire's general regime of interstellar trade and travel be. I don't know of stuff in the literature, but I could see it about being about permits and taxes, with discounts to cronies and major corporations.
| crmcneill wrote: | | The alternate routes will likely be more circuitous, slower and potentially more challenging to navigate, but they will get you where you need to go. IMO, the closer the interdiction is to the target of the blockade, the more successful it will become. Just putting up a blockade in a major hyperspace route (equivalent to an interstate) will only make the old space hands re-route over to Bob's Trade Spine for a few hundred lightyears before it joins back up further down the line. |
The local authorities, or the Empire, would have an interest in making those routes impossible. They wouldn't even have to actually create interdictions or push physical objects into the routes. All they would have to do is to manipulate the data of the Imperial Space Ministry. People wanting alternate routes would have to have access to alternate data, and that data would be illegal. I imagine that the spaceports in non-Shadowports or independent worlds would automatically check for contraband data when the nav computer links with the spaceport's BoSS computer.
This is a great topic, but - again - probably worthy of a thread of its own. I'd start that thread, but I'm away from home this week and the next and don't have the capability to really engage in debate as I normally would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will let you start it up, then, and get back to the topic at hand.
When looking at your list of various ship types, not everything conforms to the Anaxes system so easily. Just breaking things up by size ignores mission, in that just because a Victory-Class Star Destroyer and an Imperial Star Destroyer are both classified as Star Destroyers, it doesn't mean they are both equally equipped to perform the same missions. The Victory I is more of a planetary assault platform, combining the missions of battleship and troop transport.
For Star Destroyers, I would shunt the Victory I into the pre-Torpedo Sphere slot, then put the Victory II into the Heavy Attack Lines as a Star Cruiser (it is supposed to be less common than the Victory I anyway). Venators then predate Imperial I's, with Imperial II's being the obvious latest model.
Some classes of vessels are easier. Since a Tartan-Class and a Lancer-Class are both dedicated anti-starfighter platforms, I would say Tartans belong in older units. Dreadnoughts obviously predate Vindicators. As far as Medium Cruisers, I would say the Bulk Cruiser would be a good predecessor to a Strike-Cruiser (The Neutron Star-Class is purportedly available as either a cruiser or a carrier). The Carrack seems to be the ship that just keeps going and going.
There seems to be a mystery ship of some kind predating the Nebulon B, since something had to serve as an escort frigate before it came on the scene.
Mostly I'm rambling at this point, but these are my thoughts on the matter so far.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:27 pm Post subject: Re: Imperial Sector Fleet |
|
|
| RexMundiAbu wrote: | | Hi , I am wondering if anyone has ever worked out ( using the old imperial sourcebook ) a total Imperial sector fleet , and got a list of all the capital ships e.g. total has x amount of Imperial star destroyers , x amount of dreadnaught heavy cruisers etc. |
I did this for an expeditionary force into Wildspace, but I did it on paper and don't know where that paper is. As pointed out above, the contents of a "line" is a variable, so it ends up contingent upon your choices. I think my end result was some 200 capital combat starships—mostly smaller like reconnaissance corvettes—and around a dozen larger cruisers. One ISD and one VSD. Plenty of landing craft, too.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's variable, but its not 200-ships-to-a-line variable. Per the ImpSB, a line consists of anywhere from 4 to 20 ships.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | When looking at your list of various ship types, not everything conforms to the Anaxes system so easily. |
I'm totally with you on this, and I'm reminded of why I thought of the 'bureaucratic lines' idea, even if I continue to have given up on the way I thought about it.
The Anaxes system seems to be a system of relative prestige, rather than relative tactical roles. So, while I do think 'real' tactically-minded navy men would dismiss the Anaxes system, I do think that prestige-minded Moffs would embrace it. ("My ships are bigger than your ships are.")
So, for our purposes here, dismiss the Anaxes system, and give us a system that you think works better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | So, for our purposes here, dismiss the Anaxes system, and give us a system that you think works better. |
Well, it'd be nice if we could invent our own line types. I'd love to be able to put escort carriers and frigates in a separate Escort Line and leave the Attack Lines strictly to the cruisers.
EDIT: Although, by ignoring the "or frigates" part of the Attack Line description, frigates could be treated as "small combatants" for inclusion in the Skirmish Lines. Might even be a good place for an Escort Carrier if we can justify it...
At the moment, I think it would be easiest to start at the System Force level and work up rough estimates of ship types and numbers in each. Once you have a list that says a Superiority Force has # of Star Destroyers, # of Heavy Cruiser, # of Medium Cruisers (and so on and so forth), this becomes the Force Pools mentioned in the System Force description. Any lines or squadrons from that System Force will be drawn from the administrative squadrons that compose the "pool".
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | At the moment, I think it would be easiest to start at the System Force level and work up rough estimates of ship types and numbers in each. Once you have a list that says a Superiority Force has # of Star Destroyers, # of Heavy Cruiser, # of Medium Cruisers (and so on and so forth), this becomes the Force Pools mentioned in the System Force description. Any lines or squadrons from that System Force will be drawn from the administrative squadrons that compose the "pool". |
But isn't the main purpose of this exercise to figure out what the systems forces and sector groups would consist of, working from the line on up?
When I made the reply above, I forgot which thread this was. I'd like to see you refashion my list in the capital ship roles thread in order to have it reflect the roles lines would play per the ImpSB's list. What ships are in an attack line, or a pursuit line, and in what numbers? How would the needs and political pull of a sector change the makeup of those lines? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | But isn't the main purpose of this exercise to figure out what the systems forces and sector groups would consist of, working from the line on up? |
If you look back on page 1 of this thread, you'll see where I said that things got too complicated, and this is why. This about the point where all of my previous attempts fell apart. I'll see if I can describe it...
| Quote: | | An attack line has from three to six ships; fewer ships if the line consists of heavy cruisers or larger ships, six if the line consists of light cruisers or frigates. |
Fewer. 3-4 or just 3? But wait, it says six ships (no less) if the line consists of light cruisers or frigates. Does that mean 5 is fewer too?
Heavy cruisers or larger ships. How much larger? What's the dividing line between Heavy Cruiser and Star Destroyer?
Light Cruisers or Frigates. So where do the Medium Cruisers go? They aren't heavy or light, and that seems to be the dividing line...
If I want to do a mixed line, whats the exchange rate? How many Frigates can I put in the line if I take out 1 Heavy Cruiser? Okay, how about 1 Medium Cruiser?
What about specialty ships? Do Escort Carriers and Interdictors count as heavy cruisers?
This is before you get into the complications involving what kind of ships your sector has...
Heavy Attack, Pursuit and Skirmish all have variations on the same theme
Some lines are pretty cut and dry; Recon, Troop, Torpedo and Star Destroyer all have what they have, with the only real variation being in Recon. Of course, Torpedo Lines contains two of the 1900 meter long Torpedo Spheres, and according to the Torpedo Sphere write-up, there are only six of them in existence, so how are there possibly enough Torpedo Spheres to fill out a full Bombard Fleet with 24 of them? Who knows what to make of that?
There is no easy answer. Maybe I'll put some more thought into it tomorrow...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I understand the conundrum. That's why I've been trying to think about tactically effective lines, as well as politically impressive ones.
I'm not saying that we need to discern what the ImpSB meant. If it doesn't say it, we're off the hook for being hamstrung by WEG. With the conversation on tactical roles, I'm hoping that we can fill in WEG's blanks with something that makes tactical sense.
To take this into an entirely novel direction, I think it'd be fun to do a play-by-email, tactical game. 2 commanders, 1 GM. That way we could play out the tactical scenarios of line combat.
You game?
Anyone else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2014 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm a little too wiped out to consider it at the moment, but I'll get back to you.
As far as some of the questions I posted in the previous...
Star Destroyer = Imperial Class
>Heavy Cruiser = Victory II or Venator (Victory II being more of a Star Cruiser while the Venator is more of a Star Carrier)
Heavy Cruiser = Vindicator or Dreadnought (plus Interdictor and Escort Carrier)
Light Cruiser = Strike-Class
Pursuit = Carrack-Class
Recon = Modified Carrack-Class
Skirmish = Nebulon Bs, Lancers and Assassins
Troop = Evakmar-KDY
Torpedo = 1 Torpedo Sphere or 2 Victory I's
How these break down into organization is anyone's guess. I would say that the CC-7700 Interdiction frigate would replace Interdictors in older sector fleets, with the same being true of Bulk Carriers for Escort Carriers. Tartans could be pre-Lancers, since they are primarily anti-starfighter platforms.
That's all I can think of now, and I'm tired. Goodnight.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 601
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2021 4:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | A couple more suggestions for the Fleet List Transport section:
-I'd classify the Star Galleon as an armed transport rather than a frigate.
-The Galleon. From the Rebellion Game. It's basically an unarmed Star Galleon, but the Navy needs a good, mass-produced transport to meet its logistical needs.
-The Field Secured Container Vessel.
EDIT: There is also the Neutron Star-Class Bulk Cruiser, available as a combatant or a carrier. Unlikely to be front-line unit material, but likely still around out in the galactic boonies. |
Wiki re-indexed, https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Galleon_(Starship_class) is the ship i think CRM was referencing, since the link is now for the pirate barge from the Resistance series.
So would i be good to go if i take the Star Galleon, strip it of weapons & change the name?
Last edited by Inquisitor1138 on Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:30 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16174
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 11, 2021 7:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear God, no.
It's this ship, from the Star Wars Rebellion strategy game from several years back.
Wookieepedo becomes more and more of a junk yard with every passing moment.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 601
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, CRMcNeill!
I tried fixing the url, but the comic art in the page i linked kinda matches what you posted from Rebellion. The link i gave wasn't working & may have taken you to the barge instead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2021 3:19 pm Post subject: Galleon (Starship class) |
|
|
Right, Inquisitor1138. Thanks for pointing this incorrect URL reference case out.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Dear God, no.
It's this ship, from the Star Wars Rebellion strategy game from several years back.
Wookieepedo becomes more and more of a junk yard with every passing moment. |
Galleon is the name of a specific recent-years vessel from Star Wars Resistance, so according to normal Wookieepedia conventions they gave the original URL of the unrelated class of ship of topic here to the new specific ship, and then changed the URL of the class of ship to include that it is a class with parentheses. Wookieepedia did nothing wrong.
The additional new issue of not being able to link directly to the current URL of the class of ship is a Rancor Pit issue, not a Wookieepedia issue. The current forum software cannot usually link to URLs with parentheses in them, and the links sometimes only work until the first parenthesis. In this case that gives you the unrelated specific ship's URL plus one underscore, which the system auto-resolves by removing the underscore now linking to the wrong article. I'm guessing the Rancor Pit problem arrises from the fact that URLs used to never have parentheses in them, but at some point that was added. There is no known solution to the problem of linking to URLs with parentheses in them available at this time.
So I edited the above post and the original post it quoted from by putting the URL in the List tags, which removes the auto partial URL (to the incorrect page). Now you can just copy and paste the URL into another browser tab to get to the correct Wookieepedia article. https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Galleon_(Starship_class)
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 601
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2021 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ah, thanks, Whill! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
