| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| garhkal wrote: | | Why not make each scale have their own turbos.. so there is a frigate scale one and a cap ship one.. |
I think my biggest hang-up is a question of terminology, in that lasers are starfighter/walker scale and turbolasers are supposed to be the next step up, so what's the next step past that? I suppose I could make the distinction between turbolasers and heavy turbolasers. However, there is a part of me that wonders why the beam weapons seen used in the prequels are absent from the OT. In the OT, turbolasers are exclusively seen to be blast-type weaponry, not beam. In the prequels, however, both sides are seen to be using composite-beam type weaponry to great effect, and such weaponry is actually called a turbolaser. I'd like to see a reintroduction of beam-type weaponry into the SW series, if possible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: |
The problem is not actually scaling (or at least not mainly scaling), its the fact that theres no penalties for hitting fast moving targets. The scaling rules say that its easier to hit a X-wing sized object moving at mach 1 than a human sized object (iron man?), which is quite reasonable. However, the problem of hitting something moving at mach 1 is not taken into consideration. |
There is in R&E, ut it is only for missiles hitting a moving target. IIRC +10 at speeds of 3-6 SU, +15 at speeds of 6-8 SU, and +20 at 9 and above.. or something like that. |
Yeah, someting similar for all weapons, but not has steep penalty.
Actually its much steeper than your example:
Space/Difficulty
3/+5
4/+ 10
5/+ 15
6/+20
The funny thing about this is that a Y-Wing firing a proton torpedo at an ISD will just have a slight edge chance of hitting given equal skill (Gunnery vs Piloting) if the Captains decides to evade (I dont know why he should do that, but for arguements sake..). If said Captain goes on full evade it will get really tricky.. If the target is a strike cruiser then the chance is down to about 50% 
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 10:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | Yeah, someting similar for all weapons, but not has steep penalty.
Actually its much steeper than your example:
Space/Difficulty
3/+5
4/+ 10
5/+ 15
6/+20
The funny thing about this is that a Y-Wing firing a proton torpedo at an ISD will just have a slight edge chance of hitting given equal skill (Gunnery vs Piloting) if the Captains decides to evade (I dont know why he should do that, but for arguements sake..). If said Captain goes on full evade it will get really tricky.. If the target is a strike cruiser then the chance is down to about 50% |
Somewhere I saw a middle ground idea that I liked; simply allow a target to add its speed to its evasion roll. That allows speed to come into play without making the numbers get ridiculously high. And once you bring Scale modifiers into play, the odds of a capital ship dodging a starfighter's torpedo get pretty low. Of course, some sort of chart would need to be worked out for ground vehicles, since their Move numbers don't equate well to a rule like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, based on a recent discussion, I thought I'd revive this here, with some expansion. My latest revision of my scale system is as follows:
Character 0D
Cycle +2D
Speeder +4D
Starfighter +6D
Walker +8D
Starship +10D
Capital Ship +14D
Dreadnought +18D
Death Star +24D
My reasoning for the current changes is as follows:
1) I added the Cycle scale because, based on real world experience, motorcycles and their equivalents are both more maneuverable and more fragile compared to more standard sized cars.
2). I moved Walker above Starfighter because I have always felt that, despite their similarity in size, Walkers should be both less maneuverable, more durable and have more powerful weaponry than starfighters.
3). I shifted from a base 4D scale system to a mix of 2D and 4D because, IMO, those who have argued for smaller steps (2D or 3D) have made a partial impression on me.
Also, scale steps play more of a factor when combined with this house rule.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
2). I moved Walker above Starfighter because I have always felt that, despite their similarity in size, Walkers should be both less maneuverable, more durable and have more powerful weaponry than starfighters.
|
Less maneuverable maybe, not more durable (check out the xwing novels and how easily xwings took out some at-ats)..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: |
2). I moved Walker above Starfighter because I have always felt that, despite their similarity in size, Walkers should be both less maneuverable, more durable and have more powerful weaponry than starfighters.
|
Less maneuverable maybe, not more durable (check out the xwing novels and how easily xwings took out some at-ats).. |
But it took multiple X-Wings (with Rogue Squadron pilots) to take them out. So, yes, more durable.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Quetzacotl
Commander
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 281
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I seriously can't see that a walker is more durable then a Starfighter.
Looking at the movies (old and new), this sounds just wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quetzacotl wrote: | I seriously can't see that a walker is more durable then a Starfighter.
Looking at the movies (old and new), this sounds just wrong. |
Sorry, but this has been a long time coming. Going strictly off size, Walkers and Starfighters are actually pretty close to each other; the AT-AT compares favorably to the Millennium Falcon. My previous version of this scale system put walkers and starfighters in the same scale category, but I couldn't resolve how to make walkers be slower and less maneuverable than starfighters without giving them some advantages.
Similar size means that, in the SWU, you can fit similar size power plants into similarly sized vehicles. In the case of starfighter scale vehicles, you have sublight drives, hyperdrives, navigation shield projectors, artificial gravity, inertial compensation, environmental controls, powerful sensor systems, and weapons, plus enough consumables to run for a week or more at a time. Walkers have much less draw on their systems (leg motors and actuators, environmental controls and basic sensors). As such, they have a lot more power to put towards hauling around heavy stuff (like armor).
Plus, from a rules standpoint, if starfighters are bigger and tougher than walkers, why bother with walkers at all? After all, if you have a heavily armored shuttle with shields, VTOL capability via repulsorlifts, and the ability to fly at supersonic speeds in atmosphere (and even faster in space), what do you need a slow, weak, armored vehicle for? By putting walkers above starfighters, you make them formidable pieces of equipment that starfighter scale vehicles have to treat with respect, rather than just for target practice. Putting them only 2D below Starship scale makes walkers a potential threat even to small capital ships (ala the SPHA-Ts in AOTC).
Bottom line, there is no reason for Walker-Scale to be smaller, weaker and more maneuverable than starfighters, and plenty of reason for the roles to be reversed.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why do you need walkers?
Fear.
And they're cool.
And they're cheap.
And while an AT-AT is tough, there's no way its tougher than the Millenium Falcon (which takes turbolaser blasts from an ISD, no less). In ESB Luke and Wedge seemed surprised that the AT-ATs could withstand blasters. Not turbolasers. Blasters.
Walkers were meant to survive on the battlefield dominated by people and speeders, which they do effectively. They weren't meant to take turbolaser blasts.
Have I mentioned AT-ATs are cool?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, but think of the fear they could cause if they were so tough that even star fighters had a hard time damaging them. That'd be pretty cool too...
I don't think Luke sounded surprised by the AT-AT's armor; it sounded more like he was making a statement of fact.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Quetzacotl
Commander
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 281
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Yeah, but think of the fear they could cause if they were so tough that even star fighters had a hard time damaging them. That'd be pretty cool too... |
Yeah but I just can't see that.
But hey, do whatever you want, it's just my opinion that Walkers are not as tough as Starfighters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quetzacotl
Commander
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 281
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 2:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah dammit, I just realize that I was thinking about the AT-ST and not the AT-AT.
Yeah, the AT-AT should be more durable then a Starfighter, but an AT-ST shouldn't.
Which leads us to the Problem that both are considered "Walkers" and thus the "Walker" Scale would affect both.
So we probably need a new Scale, like "light Walker" and "heavy Walker" or something like that.
And then it would be:
Character < Cycle < Speeder < light Walker < Starfighter < heavy Walker < Starship < ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14034
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Not really. The AT-AT/AT-ST disparity is already represented in the differing hull ratings for both vehicles. the former has a solid 6d body (hull) while the latter has 3d.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quetzacotl
Commander
Joined: 29 Jan 2013
Posts: 281
Location: Germany
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Which begs the question:
Why even bothering with a Scaling System to begin with?
If you want to reduce the number of Dice you have to roll, why not just use a general rule like "If both sides have to roll more then YD, substract 1D from each side until one of them reached a value equal to or below YD".
So let's take 7 for Y.
So let's take a Walker with 10D hull value (universal) and a Starship with 14D in weapons.
Now we just reduce the dice to 7D and 11D respectively and the number is reduced.
Alternatively, you could say "Reduce 1D until both have reached a value equal to or below YD". That would give us 3D for the Walker and 7D for the Starship.
Why would we even need a Scale to begin with? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 13, 2014 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Then you would have to universal all the die codes.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
