| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dr. Bidlo
Commander
Joined: 24 Nov 2021
Posts: 439
Location: Arizona, USA
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 6:39 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Two words: Spherical Ships! No fire arcs and no aesthetic appeal! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10293
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | He also may have been thinking about my RPG system which uses six arcs, the four normal arcs plus top and bottom. |
That's how i've seen it ran by Most every DM i have played under.. Top, bottom, left, right, front and rear arcs for shields. |
Really? That is not RAW and that has not been my experience. I guess my six-arc system isn't that innovative for WEG Star Wars after all. Good to know other GMs have already done it too.
| Dr. Bidlo wrote: | | Two words: Spherical Ships! No fire arcs and no aesthetic appeal! |
While possibly having wider arcs for weapons, spherical ships still wouldn't have no arc limitations. The Death Star may not be spherical for aesthetic reasons but it could be psychological. It may seem pretty terrifying for this unassuming "small moon" to show up and destroy your planet.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10293
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 01, 2022 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | And yet, in every battle we see on screen, ships orient toward a common up/down plane. Even in the Wrath of Khan, while changes in "altitude" were used on two occasions, orientation relative to up/down remained constant.
There are a few possible reasons for this. The most prominent one that comes to mind is that, for a ship's main guns, there are limits to how widely you can disperse your weapons, as well as how great a fire arc they can cover, before you start cutting into their ability to combine their fire and resist combat damage. As such, weapons are mounted and grouped so as to be able to bring the greatest number of them to bear on an arc as possible. So, when an enemy ship is detected, the ship angles to place the target within its primary fire arc, thus establishing a new up/down orientation for the purposes of combat. So, while up/down may shift and end up wildly different from where it started at the beginning of the battle, ships will always be working to maintain it simply because doing so provides them the best firing angles for their weapons.
EDIT: WEG addresses this in the RASB, on pgs. 54-55. Attributes it more to psychological limitations of humans, but the more I learn about real-world ship design, the more partial I am toward it being a physical limitation of ship weapon design itself. |
That all makes a lot of sense to me, but it isn't only the attacking ship's weapon placement that is of concern in three dimensions. If an attacking ship is chasing another ship that is actively evading to avoid being hit, they aren't flying away is a straight line (leaving only their back arc as a target). They are twisting and turning in three dimensions. There is a possibility that a hit could land in the "top" or the "bottom" of the defending ship. Maybe not as often as the traditional back, right, or left arcs, but it is not unreasonable for it to sometimes happen.
Now in the four arc system, it is easy to imagine the arcs going up and down in three dimensions as they extend out. However, I have a more difficult time with imagining shields in the four-arc paradigm protecting from an attack coming from straight up or straight down. What if a ship is parked on the ground and an attack comes from straight above? Maybe they have time to activate shields before lifting off to evade? A six-arc system for shields makes more sense to me to protect from attacks directly "above" or "below" the ship. Imagining every ship at the center of a six-sided die, so there are six continuous arcs that begin from the ship and extend out as short pyramids from the ship, covers all directions an attack may come from. And as far as attacking fire arcs, it is clear from the films that the Falcon's "top" quad laser canons can shoot straight "up" and the "bottom" one can shoot straight "down." There must be a reason for that.
So while the "top" and "bottom" fire arcs may not come into play as much as the four RAW arcs for the reasons you've stated, it would offend my disbelief suspension too much for those two other arcs to not be there at all.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Heck, we see it in ESB when the falcon DIVES down from the 3 ISD's chasing him (two behind, one in front)..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10293
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Heck, we see it in ESB when the falcon DIVES down from the 3 ISD's chasing him (two behind, one in front).. |
In the absence of an attempt to attack the star destroyer from below, I would classify that more as a directional shift in the "agreed-upon" up/down axis. Had the camera perspective stuck around, one or more of the Star Destroyers would've altered course "downward" to continue pursuing the Falcon, thus shifting to a new directional plane for any further battle.
_________________
"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: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | So while the "top" and "bottom" fire arcs may not come into play as much as the four RAW arcs for the reasons you've stated, it would offend my disbelief suspension too much for those two other arcs to not be there at all. |
Also some good points. My hesitance to introduce rules for dorsal/ventral shields is less about whether or not having them is realistic than I am as to whether or not the additional layer of complexity would benefit gameplay. My conceptual solution is to picture any attacks from above/below as being very high-angle attacks against one of the four extant fire arcs, as in, you aren't attacking the top of the target ship, you're attacking its side from well above it.
Off-hand, I'd say the most concrete in-universe evidence for the existence of dorsal/ventral is the Executor losing its "bridge deflector screens" at Endor.
I have considered using Dorsal Shields in some applications, especially my Renegade Legion D6 Stats. In that setting, armored vehicles have varying shield values depending on which side of the vehicle is being attacked, with Dorsal Shields used to resist artillery and air attacks. However, that's in an environment where there's a clearly defined up/down, with certain attacks always approaching from above.
As an aside, if you were to use both dorsal/ventral shields and find a usable house-rule to apply D6 combat to a hex map, you could have as many as eight separate shields: front, left-front, right-front, left-rear, right-rear, top and bottom. one for each hex facing plus one each for above and below.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10293
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 3:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | As an aside, if you were to use both dorsal/ventral shields and find a usable house-rule to apply D6 combat to a hex map, you could have as many as eight separate shields: front, left-front, right-front, left-rear, right-rear, top and bottom. one for each hex facing plus one each for above and below. |
I doubt any GMs would want to redefine fire arcs in that way. Hexes would work with 1e's no-arc system. Hexes did work with Star Warriors' 2-arc system (front/back, which I house-ruled into my 1e game), but hexes would not work with 2e's 4-arc system. I doubt any GM would want 6 arcs in one plane. That would be radical, and uneven. With my system of 6 arcs, there are 4 arcs in each of the three defined planes. It's even.
2e's 4-arc system is supported by dialogue in TESB. My system is just another layer to the RAW system that doesn't undo the 4-arc system. My system is three dimensions, with each dimension having two sides. It is the 2e RAW system but adding the third "up/down" dimension.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Heck, we see it in ESB when the falcon DIVES down from the 3 ISD's chasing him (two behind, one in front).. |
In the absence of an attempt to attack the star destroyer from below, I would classify that more as a directional shift in the "agreed-upon" up/down axis. Had the camera perspective stuck around, one or more of the Star Destroyers would've altered course "downward" to continue pursuing the Falcon, thus shifting to a new directional plane for any further battle. |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8deRYotdng&t=28s
If the ISDs had brought any guns to bear on the Falcon at the beginning of Han's maneuver, they would have been shooting at its "top" or "bottom."
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | My conceptual solution is to picture any attacks from above/below as being very high-angle attacks against one of the four extant fire arcs, as in, you aren't attacking the top of the target ship, you're attacking its side from well above it. |
That's RAW. An unquoted part of my last post you quoted addressed why that doesn't work for me...
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | ...So while the "top" and "bottom" fire arcs may not come into play as much as the four RAW arcs for the reasons you've stated, it would offend my disbelief suspension too much for those two other arcs to not be there at all. |
Also some good points. My hesitance to introduce rules for dorsal/ventral shields is less about whether or not having them is realistic than I am as to whether or not the additional layer of complexity would benefit gameplay. |
There is no additional layer of complexity in my game at all. Space combat always at least partially (and sometimes fully) is "shown" in the theater of the mind. I as GM make a judgment as to which of the six arcs a shot lands in based on the situation. Easy peasy, for me. But it is true that may not work for GMs that prefer less imagination in their game.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | Off-hand, I'd say the most concrete in-universe evidence for the existence of dorsal/ventral is the Executor losing its "bridge deflector screens" at Endor.
I have considered using Dorsal Shields in some applications, especially my Renegade Legion D6 Stats. In that setting, armored vehicles have varying shield values depending on which side of the vehicle is being attacked, with Dorsal Shields used to resist artillery and air attacks. However, that's in an environment where there's a clearly defined up/down, with certain attacks always approaching from above. |
"Up/down" is relative in space, but still definable. Each ship has their own "up/down" axis. Sometimes enemy ships will have their axes alined, and sometimes they won't be. The films show spaceships moving such that their axes are going in and out of alignment with each other. My imagination is capable of emulating the films. My players have seldom ever had trouble with it.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2022 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | Heck, we see it in ESB when the falcon DIVES down from the 3 ISD's chasing him (two behind, one in front).. |
In the absence of an attempt to attack the star destroyer from below, I would classify that more as a directional shift in the "agreed-upon" up/down axis. Had the camera perspective stuck around, one or more of the Star Destroyers would've altered course "downward" to continue pursuing the Falcon, thus shifting to a new directional plane for any further battle. |
IIRC they were all to busy avoidng ramming into one another..
| Quote: | | If the ISDs had brought any guns to bear on the Falcon at the beginning of Han's maneuver, they would have been shooting at its "top" or "bottom." |
BUT if han was shooting back, he'd been going against their underbelly.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2022 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | If the ISDs had brought any guns to bear on the Falcon at the beginning of Han's maneuver, they would have been shooting at its "top" or "bottom." |
If I'd been GMing that scene, I would likely have just ruled that any attacks would strike the rear shields, either in the instant before the dive maneuver was performed, or just as the Falcon had leveled out and the destroyer was once again in the Falcon's rear arc.
| Quote: | | An unquoted part of my last post you quoted addressed why that doesn't work for me... |
I knew I had read the idea elsewhere, but I had forgotten it was the RAW that the shield arcs extended up that high. I expect this will have to be one of those places where we agree to disagree, then. I'm not saying your version is wrong, just that I personally don't feel the need at this time to incorporate it.
_________________
"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: 16172
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2023 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A thought on this:
I've already introduced Shield Control dice, and will almost certainly introduce Navcomputer Dice in the near future. It occurs to me that a logical extension relevant here would be Power Transfer Dice, providing bonuses to the Flight Engineer (presumably) to transfer power more quickly and effectively.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10293
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2023 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | It occurs to me that a logical extension relevant here would be Power Transfer Dice, providing bonuses to the Flight Engineer (presumably) to transfer power more quickly and effectively. |
In almost all cases, the difficulties in my system are going to be low, especially when you have a dedicated person (or droid) doing it without MAPs. But sure, I can see more expensive aux power generators coming with a control code of maybe +1D max to boost the rolls.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It also gives something to do, for other characters, who are NOT in the cockpit/gun turrets, when in space combat!
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10293
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | It also gives something to do, for other characters, who are NOT in the cockpit/gun turrets, when in space combat! |
Right. That's why my system is geared for space transports. In other words, PC ships. I don't like running groups where everyone doesn't have something to do in space combat. Someone, usually a techy character, can route power to whatever the captain needs at at the moment.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14030
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2023 1:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Though with face/doc characters what do THEY do??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
