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

R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6180
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:14 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
I figured I was already changing up enough as it was. It would be easier for techs to simply tack on some DERs or FSTs to increase passive sensor capacity to an existing unit than it would be to swap out an entire sensor package for a new one. For a second generation craft, designed from the ground up, you would be correct, but this is more like taking a car to a shop to have after-market performance parts added than it is of buying a sports car stock from the dealership.


But what I don't get is why adding additional DERs or FSTs wouldn't also increase the perfomance of active scans as well.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10835
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 03, 2011 8:38 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Esoomian wrote:
But what I don't get is why adding additional DERs or FSTs wouldn't also increase the perfomance of active scans as well.


Not sure, really. All I know is that when I wrote it up, I figured the active sensors would almost never get used, because they would broadcast the ship's position, so I just went with an upgrade of the Passive sensors only and left everything else stock.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:39 am    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
My theory going in is that the engineers who redesigned the R-42 into the R-Wing didn't take anything out if they didn't have to, and only upgraded what they needed to. Because the ship was designed to operate primarily in stealth mode, they upgraded the passive sensors only, but left the active ones stock.
Quote:
Stealth: +6D
That is extremely stealthy. Seems more like a Sith vessel. Possibly something from the NJO or later period. Maybe even something that uses captured/found Sith Tech.


According to the RAW in Pirates and Privateers, a ship with a Sensor Mask and two layers of Sensor Baffling gets +4D to Stealth. Adding in the Drive Baffling and the Passive Jamming, then +6D is certainly possible...

As far as the laser cannon, I mentioned above with the sensors that the engineers didn't remove anything unless they absolutely had to, so IMO, they also left the laser cannon, even though the laser cannon almost never get used. If anything, their presence is nothing more than a security blanket for the crew, in the sense that, if they have nothing else to fall back on, they can still shoot back.
It seems implausible to me that one can add many new systems while keeping nearly all existing systems. Life is trade offs. The designers will need to find space, power, computer capacity, etc. for all the new sytems. In addition, since the Rebellion is short on resources and equipment, non-mission profile equipment should be stripped and reused on ships that are intended to use the equipment. Regarding the ability to just "bolt on" extra missile launchers to the wings or hull, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

Since jamming makes detection easier, but identification harder, I don't think passive jamming would be additive with sensor baffling from a detection standpoint. Only from an ability to tell what the object detected actually is, so no -6D to detect, but -6D to identify.

Passive sensors is just a different mode of existing sensors. I just don't see how one can detect something at a greater distance without emitting any energy than one can detect while emitting energy. I suggest you just use the Y-wing longprobe sensors if you want the greater passive range and remove something non-essential...hint, hint, the laser cannons. Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11756
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Plus i can't logicstically see the rebellion getting lots of these sensor suites for a full wing... Maybe 1 full squadron i could see..
_________________
It's Not who you kill, but how they die!
You cannot dodge it if you do not know it is coming, and you cannot hit it if you do not know its there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10835
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 1:37 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
It seems implausible to me that one can add many new systems while keeping nearly all existing systems. Life is trade offs. The designers will need to find space, power, computer capacity, etc. for all the new sytems. In addition, since the Rebellion is short on resources and equipment, non-mission profile equipment should be stripped and reused on ships that are intended to use the equipment.


From my perspective, for this ship to do what it needs to do, it has to have a functional hyperdrive, so the only real pieces of equipment I can see removing would be the laser cannon and the shields.

Quote:
Regarding the ability to just "bolt on" extra missile launchers to the wings or hull, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.


This is more like the replacement of stock concussion missiles launchers with a multi-function launcher that can also fire pro-torps, rockets, bombs, sub-munitions, etc. It's similar to what would be found on a TIE Bomber.

Quote:
Since jamming makes detection easier, but identification harder, I don't think passive jamming would be additive with sensor baffling from a detection standpoint. Only from an ability to tell what the object detected actually is, so no -6D to detect, but -6D to identify.


That's part of why I labeled it as a "passive" jamming system as opposed to an active one. Active jamming functions exactly as you describe it. On the other hand, a passive jamming system (my own term) is designed not to disrupt the sensors of other vessels, but to alter and distort the signals being emitted by the ship itself, making it appear to be something other than what it is. My theory is that, while the sensor mask blocks most forms of detection, it doesn't block them all, so the passive jamming is needed to cover the gaps. What it does is broadcasts energy that overlays the few facets of the spectrum in which the R-Wing does radiate, making the odd sensor contact appear to be something other than what it is. It's not trying to actually jam the enemy sensors; it's just tricking them.

Quote:
Passive sensors is just a different mode of existing sensors. I just don't see how one can detect something at a greater distance without emitting any energy than one can detect while emitting energy. I suggest you just use the Y-wing longprobe sensors if you want the greater passive range and remove something non-essential...hint, hint, the laser cannons. Razz


The only reason I am hesitant to upgrade the full sensor package is that this craft was intended to be as stealthy as possible, and as such, would almost never use its active sensors in a combat situation. I'm amenable to pulling the laser cannon and the shields for the same reason (and to make room for the upgrades, but I have difficulty justifying the added expense of upgrading an entire sensor package from stock if its active component is never going to be used. Perhaps the laser cannon could be replaced with passive-only sensor arrays that tie into the stock sensor package, increasing the Passive sensor rating as written.

garhkal wrote:
Plus i can't logicstically see the rebellion getting lots of these sensor suites for a full wing... Maybe 1 full squadron i could see..


I'm not sure I follow you. You're saying that, out of an entire galaxy, the Alliance could get a hold of 12 sensor suites, but couldn't get a hold of 36 of them? The way I wrote this up, the main obstacle for mass production is the cost and availability of the stealth equipment. Sensor packages are most likely a dime-a-dozen by comparison.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:05 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
Quote:
Regarding the ability to just "bolt on" extra missile launchers to the wings or hull, we'll just have to agree to disagree about that.

This is more like the replacement of stock concussion missiles launchers with a multi-function launcher that can also fire pro-torps, rockets, bombs, sub-munitions, etc. It's similar to what would be found on a TIE Bomber.

The write up of the TIE Bomber in Gry Sarth's book only has concussion missiles. Maybe you are thinking of a TIE Avenger or a TIE Defender? If so, I think it makes it much harder to justify the ship have prototype or advanced Imperial technology rather than just going with the more standard single use launchers that would be available to the Alliance. But I can see why you would want them for a "special" unit.
Quote:
Quote:
Since jamming makes detection easier, but identification harder, I don't think passive jamming would be additive with sensor baffling...

What it does is broadcasts energy that overlays the few facets of the spectrum in which the R-Wing does radiate, making the odd sensor contact appear to be something other than what it is. It's not trying to actually jam the enemy sensors; it's just tricking them.

I still think whatever nomenclature you use that broadcasting energy would increase the chance of detection over not broadcasting energy. That's why I don't see the 4D and 2D as additive.

Quote:
The only reason I am hesitant to upgrade the full sensor package is that this craft was intended to be as stealthy as possible, and as such, would almost never use its active sensors in a combat situation. I'm amenable to pulling the laser cannon and the shields for the same reason (and to make room for the upgrades, but I have difficulty justifying the added expense of upgrading an entire sensor package from stock if its active component is never going to be used. Perhaps the laser cannon could be replaced with passive-only sensor arrays that tie into the stock sensor package, increasing the Passive sensor rating as written.

I don't think of the active and passive sensors as two different arrays, but two different modes of operating the same computer software and detection hardware. But even if you are correct that they are separate, I would wonder how expensive, compared to the overall cost of the vehicle, the sensors would really be? Given that Y-Wing longprobe already exists, it is clear the Rebels can access the tech.

The missile/torp accuracy would be enhanced if they could be "boxed" by the ship's sensors going active prior to firing rather than firing blind and hoping the missiles acquire the right target. Since the launch itself should be detected (see the flames shooting out when a proton torp is launched in both ANH and in the incredible cross section drawing), a seconds extra notice by going to active sensors before firing isn't likely to make the ship that much more detectable that multiple launchers alone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10835
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:51 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
The write up of the TIE Bomber in Gry Sarth's book only has concussion missiles. Maybe you are thinking of a TIE Avenger or a TIE Defender? If so, I think it makes it much harder to justify the ship have prototype or advanced Imperial technology rather than just going with the more standard single use launchers that would be available to the Alliance. But I can see why you would want them for a "special" unit.


Although the TIE Bomber stats say it only has concussion missiles, the description hints at the ability to carry other ordnance. In the opening paragraph, the description in the Star Wars Sourcebook (2E) specifically mentions proton bombs, guided missiles, orbital mines and free-fall thermal detonators. The cut-away in the Incredible Cross-Sections book shows the Bomber able to carry concussion missiles and proton bombs simultaneously.

If you look at the write-up for the TIE/gt in Adventure Journal #10, it can carry 12 concussion missiles, 6 proton torpedoes, 18 mines, 2 cluster bombs or (in unusual cases) 20,000 plastic leaflets, even though its stats only say that it can carry concussion missiles. Since the TIE Bomber is an advancement over the TIE/gt, it makes sense that the Bomber would also include that versatility of ordnance capacity. Based on the TIE/gt's concussion missile capacity (when compared to the TIE Bomber), the Bomber could be loaded with 16 concussion missiles, 8 proton torpedoes, 24 mines, 2-3 cluster bombs or around 27,000 plastic leaflets. Numbers would have to be estimated for the proton bombs and thermal detonators mentioned in the description

The GP Warhead Launcher was a way to lump all of these launcher systems into one unit that allowed the starfighter in questions to carry and launch a variety of different weapons without swapping out the entire launcher.

Quote:
I still think whatever nomenclature you use that broadcasting energy would increase the chance of detection over not broadcasting energy. That's why I don't see the 4D and 2D as additive.


It actually doesn't always work that way. There is a demonstrable effect in modern stealth technology that if you broadcast a signal that is the exact opposite of another signal, the two cancel each other out by exactly mirroring the amplitude and frequency of the opposing waves. It is demonstrable under lab conditions and may actually be featured on next-generation stealth aircraft.

A simple version is used (I'm pretty sure) on certain drone military aircraft in modern use. Because a drone can be spotted visually because of the distinction between it and the surrounding sky, the drones have been equipped with lights controlled by a rheostat (dimmer switch) so that the light being generated by the drone exactly matches the light being generated by the surrounding sky, which essentially makes them invisible to the naked eye.

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine that the SWU would have technology this advanced, if not light-years ahead of it. We can argue terminology if we want, by Passive Jamming System is really nothing more than my technobabble to describe that a system does what I say it does, which is to contribute to the overall stealth package of this particular ship.

Quote:
I don't think of the active and passive sensors as two different arrays, but two different modes of operating the same computer software and detection hardware. But even if you are correct that they are separate, I would wonder how expensive, compared to the overall cost of the vehicle, the sensors would really be? Given that Y-Wing longprobe already exists, it is clear the Rebels can access the tech.


It's a balance of cost, really. The Alliance really does have to work on a budget, so why would they upgrade to an expanded sensor package that would almost never get used when they could simply add expanded passive sensors that will get used almost exclusively and tie them in with the existing system? It's not like the R-42 sensor package is all that bad off.

Quote:
The missile/torp accuracy would be enhanced if they could be "boxed" by the ship's sensors going active prior to firing rather than firing blind and hoping the missiles acquire the right target. Since the launch itself should be detected (see the flames shooting out when a proton torp is launched in both ANH and in the incredible cross section drawing), a seconds extra notice by going to active sensors before firing isn't likely to make the ship that much more detectable that multiple launchers alone.


That depends on the degree of sensor signature generated by the launch. In modern combat, especially at night, launching a missile generates a momentary flash that can be picked up visually. Turning on an active radar lights up every ESM system out to ten times the effective range of the broadcasting unit. The warhead launch would generate [i]a[/i[ signature, but it is highly unlikely that it would generate one equal to an active sensor pulse. Even if it did so, it is arguable that the launch signature would be masked by the active stealth systems aboard the launching craft.

There are advanced technologies currently available that would allow active sensors to be masked in similar fashion, such as frequency agility, variable pulse-rates, and other Low-Probability of Intercept tech, but these would be far more likely to be found on second or third generation stealth craft, not something modified from a non-stealth stock.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6180
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I quite like the idea of some sort of stealth launcher that simply ejects the missiles from the rack (which is now perhaps rear mounted) using simple mechanical force and then after a preset delay the missiles activate using their own power to hit their targets.

This would mean that the missiles effectively fire a round or so after they launch and any signals they generate are no longer in the same location of the stealth fighter. You'd have to cut the range of the missiles to account for the fact they're no longer getting the boost from the firing craft but even with the delay as long as the missiles have a guidance system and they're constantly being fed sensor data from the launching ship they should still be able to be an accurate weapon.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10835
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esoomian wrote:
I quite like the idea of some sort of stealth launcher that simply ejects the missiles from the rack (which is now perhaps rear mounted) using simple mechanical force and then after a preset delay the missiles activate using their own power to hit their targets.


It could be an ejector system that uses compressed inert gases to kick the missile free. I know modern sub-launched torpedoes are "swim-out" capable, in that they eject from the torpedo tubes under their own power rather than depending on a shot of compressed air (which creates a launch transient that is detectable on enemy sonar systems).

Quote:
This would mean that the missiles effectively fire a round or so after they launch and any signals they generate are no longer in the same location of the stealth fighter. You'd have to cut the range of the missiles to account for the fact they're no longer getting the boost from the firing craft but even with the delay as long as the missiles have a guidance system and they're constantly being fed sensor data from the launching ship they should still be able to be an accurate weapon.


The other alternative would be to use passive sensor based homing missiles that you could fire and forget. The missile would home on the target using its own passive sensors and require no further input from the launching craft at all, and the launching craft would be free to maneuver away from the target before the missile hits.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Esoomian
High Admiral
High Admiral


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6180
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Possible but I'd figure there has to be some downsides to a time delay stealth launcher.

Initially I thought you might need to use tactics to predict where the target would be by the time the missile fires but that could quite quickly slow the game right down.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.

Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10835
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Esoomian wrote:
Possible but I'd figure there has to be some downsides to a time delay stealth launcher.

Initially I thought you might need to use tactics to predict where the target would be by the time the missile fires but that could quite quickly slow the game right down.


A simpler mechanic would just be to roll it like a surprise attack without getting into all the technical details. Even if the target detects the launch on a successful surprise attack, they won't be in any position to do anything about it, and by the time they are, the R-Wing will have veered off in a random direction so that firing back along the missile's course will hit nothing but vacuum.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3606
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 5:51 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
Although the TIE Bomber stats say it only has concussion missiles...

You selected the TIE bomber as the model, not me. But you might notice the TIE/gt does not list 9D missiles, heavy rockets, or proton bombs as ordinance that it deploys. But go ahead and add the leaflets. Wink The launcher you did choose is part of rare, late stage TIE models. These would be very difficult for the Allance to acquire, much less by the dozen.
[quote]
Quote:
I still think whatever nomenclature you use that broadcasting energy would increase the chance of detection over not broadcasting energy. That's why I don't see the 4D and 2D as additive.


Quote:
It actually doesn't always work that way. There is a demonstrable effect in modern stealth technology that if you broadcast a signal that is the exact opposite of another signal...

But that's not what you said it did. You said it imitated a rock by broadcasting a rock image.
Quote:
...is designed not to disrupt the sensors of other vessels, but to alter and distort the signals being emitted by the ship itself

If you want super stealth, you can obviously have it, but it would be nice if the made up tech was consistent.
Quote:
Quote:
I would wonder how expensive, compared to the overall cost of the vehicle, the sensors would really be?

Quote:
It's a balance of cost, really.

Again, how much more does it cost versus a super duper passive system? How does that cost compare to the prototype TIE Advanced GP Warhead Launcher system? How does it compare to the cost of salvaged 5D laser cannons and ion cannons that could be removed to repair existing Y-wings?
Quote:
That depends on the degree of sensor signature generated by the launch.

Looks real noticeable in the movie.

Quote:
Even if it did so, it is arguable that the launch signature would be masked by the active stealth systems aboard the launching craft.

I thought you said the stealth system was passive not active. How does a passive system mask visible flame?

crmcneill, you appear to be picking rationales to fit a preexisting idea. If RW works then you use that. If RW doesn't you hypothesize that SW tech is superior. If SW tech is demostrably insufficient, you pick SW tech from a different time period. But if you don't want to include something you decide it is too expensive.

Perhaps it would be more helpful to explain what sort of response you are looking for here? Or perhaps we should stop now that it is clear that for reasons perhaps unrealated to feasibility (you think it is cool and fills an interesting niche, while I don't) we just agree to disagree, eh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ankhanu
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 3102
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:00 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Perhaps it would be more helpful to explain what sort of response you are looking for here? Or perhaps we should stop now that it is clear that for reasons perhaps unrealated to feasibility (you think it is cool and fills an interesting niche, while I don't) we just agree to disagree, eh?


Honestly, I don't think he's looking for any response/critique, so much as offering up what he's made. At least that's the sense I've gotten from this and the Z-wing threads; I could well be wrong.


You and I are on similar pages, Bren. I think we could develop something that would work quite handily in a wider concept of the Star Wars setting that could be quite interesting (and probably not quite as capable). Personally, I like my Star Wars reminiscent of the OT; dirty, decaying, largely analogue, and somewhat fantastical Smile
_________________
Hotaru no Hishou; a messageboard about games, friends and nothing at all.

Donate to Ankhanu Press
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10835
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:09 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
You selected the TIE bomber as the model, not me. But you might notice the TIE/gt does not list 9D missiles, heavy rockets, or proton bombs as ordinance that it deploys. But go ahead and add the leaflets. Wink The launcher you did choose is part of rare, late stage TIE models. These would be very difficult for the Allance to acquire, much less by the dozen.


Actually, if you look beyond the nomenclature to the actual function, these are what the TIE/gt and the TIE Bomber are actually equipped with, even though the WEG stats say they only have concussion missiles (notice how WEG's own stats conflict with their own stat write-up?). I can't recall if General Purpose Warhead Launchers were an invention of the TIE Fighter game or if they were a stat invention to cover the fact that TIE Bombers, TIE Avengers and TIE Defenders could carry and fire a variety of different types of weapons. This capacity extends all the way back to the outdated TIE/gt, so it is not rare; WEG just neglected to include stats for it. As far as the heavy bombs and rockets, if a TIE Bomber can carry 16 concussion missiles and 8 proton torpedoes, but only 2 cluster bombs, I'm sure they can find room for heavy rockets or bombs in their if they needed to.

Quote:
But that's not what you said it did. You said it imitated a rock by broadcasting a rock image.

Quote:
If you want super stealth, you can obviously have it, but it would be nice if the made up tech was consistent.


You mean like how lasers in the SWU are actually a combination of plasma and linear energy, and bear little resemblance to actual lasers, but we still call them lasers?

If it will make you happier, the Passive Jamming System boosts the stealth rating of the ship because that was my intent when I wrote it up. Regardless of terminology being applied accurately or inaccurately (which is hardly unique in the SWU), the equipment applied has the effect that the stat says it does, because that was the intent of the author when he wrote the stat up.

Quote:
Again, how much more does it cost versus a super duper passive system?


A super duper passive system would have a range of 200 or more with a 6D boost. This does not do that. All it does is add some additional passive sensors to the stock system. Rather than replacing the entire sensor package. all it is doing is tacking on some additional systems to the existing sensor package.

Quote:
How does that cost compare to the prototype TIE Advanced GP Warhead Launcher system? How does it compare to the cost of salvaged 5D laser cannons and ion cannons that could be removed to repair existing Y-wings?


See above

Quote:
Quote:
That depends on the degree of sensor signature generated by the launch.

Looks real noticeable in the movie.


Looks are deceptive, especially depending on the sensor being used. Modern military aircraft use flares to decoy IR homing missiles and chaff to decoy radar-guided missiles. A flare is highly visible in both the visible and infrared spectrum, but would be ignored by a radar-guided missile. Conversely, chaff (strips of aluminum) is barely visible to the naked eye, yet creates a very large radar signature that radar guided missiles are distracted by, but the lack of heat would be very easily ignored by an IR homing missile. Bottom line, just because something looks noticeable on-screen is no guarantee that it is so in real life.

Just as an example, a friend of mine was in the US Navy and stationed aboard an AEGIS cruiser. The AEGIS cruiser was equipped with AN/SPY-1 phased array radar that can pump out 6 megawatts of power when active. He told me a story after one cruise, that he and a friend had gone out on the catwalk below one of the radars while it was active and threw a bag of microwaveable popcorn up into the air in front of the radar. By the time the bag hit the catwalk, just seconds later, every last popcorn kernel in the bag had popped. Enough energy to dwarf the average microwave oven was passing directly over their heads. Properly adjusted, an AEGIS radar get a sensor return off the moon, and yet there was nothing to see.

Just because you see something launch with a puff of flame on a movie screen does not automatically mean that the sensor signature generated by that puff of flame will be directly proportional. I'm not saying that it won't be directly proportional, merely that to say that you will be able to detect something on sensors just because you see it make a puff of flame on the screen is not sufficient proof.


Quote:
I thought you said the stealth system was passive not active. How does a passive system mask visible flame?


As I have said before, the passive jamming system emits energy to mask the energy signals generated by the R-Wing. This includes the energy spike presented by the launch of a missile or torpedo. I used the word "passive" to differentiate between a stealth based system and a more active system designed to disrupt the functions of enemy vessels. An active jammer would disrupt all sensors, and would immediately let someone know that they are there, while a passive system would be subtle and stealthy and designed to conceal a ship's presence by disrupting and concealing its sensor signature.

Quote:
crmcneill, you appear to be picking rationales to fit a preexisting idea. If RW works then you use that. If RW doesn't you hypothesize that SW tech is superior. If SW tech is demostrably insufficient, you pick SW tech from a different time period. But if you don't want to include something you decide it is too expensive.


This is a fictional universe. Nothing we invent for this game has anything more than an incidental basis in reality, and we all have to invent rationales for our ideas every time we come up with a homebrew stat. Any stat we invent will, by its very nature be a balancing act.

In the case of the sensor packages, I don't want to change them out for a brand-new sensor suite because why bother. The existing R-42 stock sensor suite works perfectly fine, and a simple upgrade to the Passive sensors alone is, IMO, all that's really needed. Aesthetically and technically, it makes perfect sense to pull the laser cannon and replace them with add-on passive sensor probes that are connected back into the stock sensor package. With a vessel that will use its active sensor systems less than 1% of the time, why bother upgrading the perfectly functional active systems, when it is the passive systems that will be doing almost all the work?

As far as the Warhead Launchers, although they exist only in name on advanced TIE models, they exist in spirit and function on several older models of starship. If I had known that a simple name would create this much drama when I wrote up the stat, I would've called it something else. Technically speaking, based on WEG's own write-ups, TIE/gt's and TIE Bombers should be equipped with GP Warhead Launchers in place of their Concussion Missile Launchers. Let's just go ahead and add that to the long list of ways that WEG screwed up and move on.

I am more than willing to make changes to the design when their are good reasons behind the change. Pulling the laser cannon and the shields actually makes perfect sense in retrospect. However, since this is my stat write-up, I'm not willing to change something just to please your sense of what is or is not "proper".

Quote:
Perhaps it would be more helpful to explain what sort of response you are looking for here? Or perhaps we should stop now that it is clear that for reasons perhaps unrealated to feasibility (you think it is cool and fills an interesting niche, while I don't) we just agree to disagree, eh?


You are completely ignoring the fact that I have already made changes to the stats to reflect criticisms offered by others on this list, and that I am prepared to make even more, based on your suggestions. If I am so amenable to changes in some aspects, and yet so opposed to them in others, perhaps it is your argument that is flawed, not my reasoning.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
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: 10835
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:28 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Ankhanu wrote:
Honestly, I don't think he's looking for any response/critique, so much as offering up what he's made. At least that's the sense I've gotten from this and the Z-wing threads; I could well be wrong.


Go back and read the first post; I've edited the stats twice to reflect criticism that have been voiced over the course of this conversation. It's not that I'm not willing to make changes; I simply have different ideas than you and Bren on various aspects of the stats, and on what tech is and is not capable of in the SWU. Any discussion on that subject will ultimately reach a point where it is pure opinion, and there is nothing any of us can do to convince each other that our opinion has more validity than someone else's.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 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