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

Resolving the Lancer / Tartan Confusion
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Resolving the Lancer / Tartan Confusion Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 11:36 pm    Post subject: Resolving the Lancer / Tartan Confusion Reply with quote

So, when you go down the list of available ships for Empire at War, the Tartan is something of an anomaly. Almost every other major ship is derived from the WEG material, yet the Lancer is left out. In its place, we have the Tartan, which has the exact same function (anti-starfighter) even though it is called a patrol cruiser. The ship even looks like someone flipped a picture of a Lancer upside down. The Behind The Scenes section for the Tartan comes right out and says that the Tartan was supposed to be a Lancer.

And yet, rather than getting to see the Lancer in the game, we get the pseudo-Lancer.

One of the main reasons I write stats is because I like filling in the gaps of the EU by filling out existing material. For the last few days it has been on my mind to distill the stats and background for both ships (as well as combining data from my previous homebrew versions of the Lancer and the Tartan) to create a single ship with aspects of both.

Some possibilities I'm considering:
    -Making the Lancer part of a larger class of ships that use the same basic Lancer hull, but with different weapons loadouts for different missions. Right now, this class is tentatively called the Soldier-Class Light Frigate, and the sub-classes would all have names of different types of soldier classes from history, such as the Sentry-Class Escort Frigate, the Ranger-Class Scout Frigate, the Cataphract-Class Torpedo Frigate, the Archer-Class Troop Transport, and so on and so forth.

    -Giving it a Space of 6, which incorporates the greater speed of the Tartan, thus making the ship more versatile than the Lancer's rather slow Space of 4.

    -Strongly considering stealing the ship from KDY and making it a Damorian Manufacturing product. Since Damorian's only other contribution to the Imperial Navy is the Carrack, a light, fast frigate would be a useful addition to their line-up.

    -The Lancer, rather than being a brand-new design on a brand-new hull, would be a test-bed platform, using an established system as a basis for its highly capable anti-starfighter weapons.

I don't have the time to sit down and bang out stats right at the moment, but I'd like to get some input to fill out my idea a little...
_________________
"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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps the lancer was the first run, and the tartan was what it eventually became?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Perhaps the lancer was the first run, and the tartan was what it eventually became?

And turned it upside down in the process? No. The Wookieepedia article on the Tartan specifically states it was supposed to be the Lancer, but somebody somewhere dropped the ball. Unless someone comes up with a convincing reason to keep it, I'm going to drop the Tartan entirely. Besides, if the Lancer is the prototype, any follow-on almost wouldn't make it into the Classic Era. My theory is more that the Lancer used an existing, proven hull as a testbed for an experimental anti-starfighter system. This makes the Lancer hull available for a greater variety of other uses.
_________________
"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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Go ahead, but i might go the other route. Tartans are kept, lancers dumped.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Go ahead, but i might go the other route. Tartans are kept, lancers dumped.

To each their own. But of the two, I like the look of the Lancer better...
_________________
"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
Phalanks Balas
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 175
Location: Paris - France

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always think Lancer class vessel wasn't a frigate class ship but only an escort corvette designed to defend convoy like Nebulon-B Frigate do.
_________________
Phalanks

A day you will be facing the guns of the Black Pearl. You will know what means damned pirates !
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking at them side by side, they seem very similar with regards to size and shape.

I honestly, would take the look of the Lancer and apply the stats for the Tartan for it. I like the heavy number of anti-starfighter weapons, with the lower crew compliment.

That's just my take on it.

I'd have to take a look at the D6 stats side by side, but what sorts of changes were you imagining making?
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay, after taking a look at the Lancer stats... They're a joke. It's the worst war ship I've ever seen.

I honestly would just take the stats or the Tartan and use them on the Lancer frame as a quick patch, until some better formal stats could be taken.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kytross
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 773

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Lancer was intentionally statted out to be a mistake, because in character the Lancer is a mistake. Lancers have all the disadvantages of a capital ship and the disadvantages of a starfighter rolled into one vehicle.

After Luke nuked the first Death Star the Lancer was created to fight starfighters on a cap ship platform. A good idea, in theory. But in reality it needs to defend itself against capships and it doesn't have the weapons to do it. So it sits in Star fighter gun range of bigger cap ships, like Star Destroyers as a slow moving target of Mon Cal cruisers who have significantly more weapon range than the Lancer.

In other words, a MC80 can sit outside a Lancer's gun range and destroy it with a volley from any one firing arc.

The Correllian Gunship and the Nebulon B are both better suited as anti-fighter capships
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kytross
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Posts: 773

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the idea that after the Lancer's obvious flaws played out the recalled it and reworked the design.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thing is, The Lancer and Tartan are almost identical. Same size, same number of anti-starfighter guns.

The Lancer has 1 week of consumables vs. the Tartan which has 1 year.

The Lancer has a crew of 810 vs. Tartan at 70

The Lancer has cargo capacity of 300 tons vs. 1000 for the Tartan.

Sensors are Worse, Lasers are Worse, Slower, but a slightly higher hull and shields.

The problem is that it's not even good at what it was supposedly designed for. A Tartan cruiser can't hold up in a capital ship slugging match either, but at least it can operate decently against starfighters and operate efficiently as an escort to a larger ship designed to battle capital ships.

I understand having ships with flaws out there, but the Lancer is just garbage. They even look similar. I'm with Mcneil about giving the Lancer an overhaul, and making it fit more with its description.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RedKnight
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 01 Feb 2016
Posts: 103

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Is the Tartan perhaps a long range patrol/escort version of the Lancer, designed for operations distant from bases and possibly in small detached flotillas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ForbinProject
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 May 2016
Posts: 318

PostPosted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raven Redstar wrote:
The Lancer has 1 week of consumables vs. the Tartan which has 1 year.


Wookipedia says the Lancers consumables is 6 months, which contradicts what's in the Imperial Sourcebook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Phalanks Balas wrote:
I always think Lancer class vessel wasn't a frigate class ship but only an escort corvette designed to defend convoy like Nebulon-B Frigate do.

Classification of naval vessels into groupings by size has a certain arbitrariness to it, as if whoever was in charge of such classification simply says "well, we have to draw the line somewhere." In this case, though, i see it more as being on the smaller end of the frigate scale rather than the large end of the corvette scale. After all, if this ship is the absolute upper limit of the corvette class (at 250 meters) and the Carrack Light Cruiser (at 350 meters) is the absolute lower limit for the cruiser class, that leaves only a 100 meter length to classify frigates. Personally, I put the upper limit for corvettes at 200 meters, with the 195-meter long Guardian-Class Corvette being a "heavy" corvette.
_________________
"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: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kytross wrote:
So it sits in Star fighter gun range of bigger cap ships, like Star Destroyers as a slow moving target of Mon Cal cruisers who have significantly more weapon range than the Lancer.

In other words, a MC80 can sit outside a Lancer's gun range and destroy it with a volley from any one firing arc.

The Lancer works best in combination with other ships. While the WEG stats need some work, it can put 5 4D/4D quad-lasers into any arc. If it operates in close formation with a Star Destroyer, it can defend the destroyer from starfighter attacks while the destroyer (essentially) defends it from ships like the MC80. Of course, its lower speed limits the Star Destroyer if they are in formation.

Quote:
The Corellian Gunship and the Nebulon B are both better suited as anti-fighter capships

The Gunship, maybe, but as it stands with the WEG stats, the Nebulon B's 12 laser cannon are anemic by comparison, with only 2D damage. Even a TIE will usually skate with little or no damage from that even with a direct hit. A Rebel X-Wing or Y-Wing will have a minimum 2D advantage on any soak roll. Those stats might've made sense under 1E rules, but they are badly outdated under the current system.
_________________
"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 -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
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