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
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:32 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
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?).
Well the stats would have to conflict since the new movies conflict with the old movies and the video games conflict with both. I can't blame WEG for all of the inconsistencies.

Quote:
...This capacity extends all the way back to the outdated TIE/gt, so it is not rare; WEG just neglected to include stats for it.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.

I believe in RW chronology the TIE bomber predates the TIE/gt which was retro fitted to fill a theoretical predecessor role. Similarly the article in the Adventure Journal is well after the Imperial Sourcebook that mentioned the TIE/gt. But that is really an academic point. However, I read the stats in the Journal as specifying 16 missiles OR 8 torpedos OR 2 bombs OR 20,000 leaflets. Not AND.

Quote:
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.

Perfect. Now I understand. And yes, that actually does make me happier. Smile

Quote:
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.

Not ignoring. It was why I continued to comment.

I sense we have reached the limit of your willingness to modify your design. That was what I meant by
Quote:
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
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:40 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Ankhanu wrote:
Personally, I like my Star Wars reminiscent of the OT; dirty, decaying, largely analogue, and somewhat fantastical Smile

Me too. I definitely prefer the original films. The enormous SD flying overhead was awsome and having the Falcon be so dinged up and dirty made it seem real in a way that shiny white ships never can. And don't even get me started on Han waiting for Greedo to fire. Mad

Our main SW campaign ran for 10+ RW years. We started three years BBY and have worked up to a few months ABY. Sadly we went on a long hiatus from SW due to various RW activities and moves and haven't really gotten back to Star Wars.
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 7:52 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
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.


I know. That's why I said my piece and backed off Wink
In the end, your game is your game. It has to be fun for you.

Bren wrote:
Ankhanu wrote:
Personally, I like my Star Wars reminiscent of the OT; dirty, decaying, largely analogue, and somewhat fantastical Smile

Me too. I definitely prefer the original films. The enormous SD flying overhead was awsome and having the Falcon be so dinged up and dirty made it seem real in a way that shiny white ships never can. And don't even get me started on Han waiting for Greedo to fire. Mad

Our main SW campaign ran for 10+ RW years. We started three years BBY and have worked up to a few months ABY. Sadly we went on a long hiatus from SW due to various RW activities and moves and haven't really gotten back to Star Wars.


Haha, exactly Smile The grit and low tech-high tech feel are integral, and utterly lost in the more recent additions. It's a sad loss, as it completely changes the character of the setting into something far less notable and interesting.

Sorry to hear about the slow demise of your game. Hopefully you can get it kickstarted again. RL can be a thorn, eh? I've been without a Star Wars table-top game for years and I really have an itch to play again. Unfortunately no one's bit on the lines I've cast out (except for Vong here on the board, but he's an 18hr drive away, and another friend who's in Japan Razz ).
_________________
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: 10856
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:48 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Bren wrote:
Well the stats would have to conflict since the new movies conflict with the old movies and the video games conflict with both. I can't blame WEG for all of the inconsistencies.


This one is actually on WEG. Their stats conflict with their own write-up.

Quote:
I believe in RW chronology the TIE bomber predates the TIE/gt which was retro fitted to fill a theoretical predecessor role. Similarly the article in the Adventure Journal is well after the Imperial Sourcebook that mentioned the TIE/gt. But that is really an academic point. However, I read the stats in the Journal as specifying 16 missiles OR 8 torpedos OR 2 bombs OR 20,000 leaflets. Not AND.


It's actually the other way around. The TIE Bomber replaced the TIE/gt, although a lot of TIE/gt are still in service. I don't recall saying "and", but if I did, I meant "or", although I recall mention somewhere that the TIE bomber had two separate bomb bays, so it could carry a mix of warhead types.
_________________
"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 8:59 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

Ankhanu wrote:
Sorry to hear about the slow demise of your game. Hopefully you can get it kickstarted again. RL can be a thorn, eh? I've been without a Star Wars table-top game for years and I really have an itch to play again. Unfortunately no one's bit on the lines I've cast out (except for Vong here on the board, but he's an 18hr drive away, and another friend who's in Japan Razz ).
Well, I'm hoping that heading back to the US may help a bit. That will at least remove 5 hours of time zone difference from some of the gang. Smile It probably even makes it easier to Skype in our pal in Japan (he keeps weird hours).

I'd love to table top game, but Maryland is 19 hours from Nova Scotia. Have you tried Skype? It works pretty well for multiple locations via voice, but is very nice for two locations with video. I've done that a fair amount to game with folks in the US while over here in the UK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bren
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral


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

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:16 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
Quote:
I believe in RW chronology the TIE bomber predates the TIE/gt which was retro fitted to fill a theoretical predecessor role. Similarly the article in the Adventure Journal is well after the Imperial Sourcebook that mentioned the TIE/gt. But that is really an academic point. However, I read the stats in the Journal as specifying 16 missiles OR 8 torpedos OR 2 bombs OR 20,000 leaflets. Not AND.


It's actually the other way around.

No it's not. Please read what I said.
In the real world, the TIE Bomber was written up first. Then later in the real world a writeup for the TIE/gt was written up with the rationale that in universe it predated the TIE Bomber. Then the Adventure Journal article on TIEs was written up with stats that conflicted with the Imperial Sourcebook stats for the TIE/gt.

But be that as it may, it is, as I said, an academic point which given your stated object is really a moot, academic point.

Quote:
I don't recall saying "and", but if I did, I meant "or", although I recall mention somewhere that the TIE bomber had two separate bomb bays, so it could carry a mix of warhead types.

Well you said:
Quote:
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.

But I accept that was an inadvertent grammatical error. Happens to everyone. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11761
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:09 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:

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.


Being your sensor suites seem to be more of a Counter sensor unit, then yes.. Something like that (especially to the tune you have it) would be highly restricted.. If at all even available for purchase...

Quote:
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.


Maybe thats cause they switch out the launcher.
_________________
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: 10856
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2011 11:27 pm    Post subject: Re: R-Wing Stealth Strike Starfighter Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Being your sensor suites seem to be more of a Counter sensor unit, then yes.. Something like that (especially to the tune you have it) would be highly restricted.. If at all even available for purchase...


The way I read it, the stealth gear is more like shields / armor than it is like sensors. The core sensor unit is stock, but it has additional passive sensor arrays in place of the laser cannon that feed into the stock system and enhance only the passive sensors. Two of the items on the stealth gear are commercially available, but highly restricted, while I basically made up the other two. The posted prices for the known items were factored into the base price for the R-Wing, and I guesstimated for the others. The relative rarity of the items for purchase would be the main reason why the Alliance has so few of them (only one wing, as opposed to a bunch of wings scattered across the galaxy, as opposed to their other fighter types).

Quote:
Maybe thats cause they switch out the launcher.


Could be, but maybe that's what they do with GP warhead launchers, too.
_________________
"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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 11761
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still seems out of wak to me for the rebellion timeframe.. maybe experimental during the events leading up to thrawn..
_________________
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: 10856
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Depends on the game you want to play, I guess. The official stealth tech (Sensor Mask and Sensor Baffling) is available in the Pirates and Privateers book, which seems to focus on the Rebellion era, so it's not too much of a stretch for me to believe that the Alliance could get a hold of some and use it for combat purposes.
_________________
"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
schnarre
Commander
Commander


Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 322

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...Had an R-Wing in my setting years back. I'll post the stats when I can dig them out.
_________________
The man who thinks he knows everything is most annoying for those of us that do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jedi Skyler
Moff
Moff


Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 8450

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know I'm coming into this discussion WAY after the fact, and I've basically read quickly through pages one and three, and looked at a bit of two.

I don't know if this is relevant, or how well-received this will be...but what I'm envisioning when the development of this craft is listed, is how the American forces TOTALLY stripped down the bombers used to drop A-bombs on Japan.

These aircraft were stripped of EVERYTHING that did not serve a purpose to the specific mission...even to the point of taking out extra gas tanks to make them light enough to make the journey. The pilots hand-loaded small cans of fuel onto the planes to add to their overall range so they could actually make it...and even then, it was no guarantee. They were launched off of CARRIERS (a feat previously thought impossible, but the total strip-down job made them light enough to be able to launch from such a short runway). I could be wrong, but I think this is along the lines of what was intended when this concept was put on paper.

I like the idea of this spacecraft still having at least a pair of laser cannon with which to mount a last-ditch defense. However, sticking to my analogy, those bombers had a fighter escort, something that is supposed to be done away with, according to the original write-up I read. I'm not completely opposed to this craft being used by itself, but on the other hand, it's an insanely expensive craft. It'd be in the Alliance's best interest to protect that investment, if for no other reason than they don't have the money to keep making them in quantity. I'm envisioning a recon run supported by fighters, or even a capital ship or two, but these ships would hide in planetary shadows, or just outside the target system, etc. If the recon ship has to break comm silence to call for help, its existence has been made, and everyone has to spring into action. Micro-jumps are helpful in this situation.

Also, I agree with the lower speed due to ion dampening/baffling. However, I also think that, if this feature is not being used, the normal stock speed should be attainable. I don't think it should be permanently lost, and that the bafflers should be a system that is able to be shut off to improve the chances of the craft's escape. After all, we're talking about the Alliance here; they place FAR greater value on life than the Empire ever did, and their creations should reflect that. IMO, anyway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10856
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Skyler wrote:
I don't know if this is relevant, or how well-received this will be...but what I'm envisioning when the development of this craft is listed, is how the American forces TOTALLY stripped down the bombers used to drop A-bombs on Japan.

These aircraft were stripped of EVERYTHING that did not serve a purpose to the specific mission...even to the point of taking out extra gas tanks to make them light enough to make the journey. The pilots hand-loaded small cans of fuel onto the planes to add to their overall range so they could actually make it...and even then, it was no guarantee. They were launched off of CARRIERS (a feat previously thought impossible, but the total strip-down job made them light enough to be able to launch from such a short runway). I could be wrong, but I think this is along the lines of what was intended when this concept was put on paper.

This is actually an amalgamation of two different events during WWII. What you describe with the strip-down and the carrier launches was from the Doolittle Raid in early 1942. While it had never been done, a B-25 Mitchell medium bomber could (and did) launch off the deck of the USS Hornet to perform that raid. A B-29 Superfortress is an entirely different animal.

Initially, B-29's were used like B-17's over Europe: daylight, high-level conventional bombing with massed machine guns for air defense. However, after several months of mixed results using this technique, as well as evaluating Japanese defenses, they switched up and started using them for night-time firebombing raids. Since the Japanese had very limited night-intercept capability, they ended up pulling all the defensive guns and gun crews from the bombers; they just weren't needed. However, the guns would still be reequipped for daytime missions like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki runs.

Quote:
I like the idea of this spacecraft still having at least a pair of laser cannon with which to mount a last-ditch defense.

There is some EU evidence to suggest that laser cannon increase a ship's sensor signature, as the energy discharge from firing them creates a detectable sensor pulse. I went with mass-driver cannon based on the concept (which I made up) that it would allow the ship to still have a usable cannon for both attack and defense, yet still be able to maintain stealth, which is this ship's primary defense.

Quote:
I'm envisioning a recon run supported by fighters, or even a capital ship or two, but these ships would hide in planetary shadows, or just outside the target system, etc. If the recon ship has to break comm silence to call for help, its existence has been made, and everyone has to spring into action. Micro-jumps are helpful in this situation.

I could see that being useful in certain situations. However, the only presentation of a recon run in the EU had a recon X-Wing doing the run on its own and forced to self destruct to avoid capture, so that is the route I took.

Quote:
Also, I agree with the lower speed due to ion dampening/baffling. However, I also think that, if this feature is not being used, the normal stock speed should be attainable. I don't think it should be permanently lost, and that the bafflers should be a system that is able to be shut off to improve the chances of the craft's escape. After all, we're talking about the Alliance here; they place FAR greater value on life than the Empire ever did, and their creations should reflect that. IMO, anyway.

I justified it by saying that power was rerouted from the drives to run the add-on equipment. Since the ship is so heavily dependent on stealth, I decided to keep it relatively weak in other areas, including speed.
_________________
"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
Jedi Skyler
Moff
Moff


Joined: 07 Sep 2005
Posts: 8450

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:
Jedi Skyler wrote:
I don't know if this is relevant, or how well-received this will be...but what I'm envisioning when the development of this craft is listed, is how the American forces TOTALLY stripped down the bombers used to drop A-bombs on Japan.

These aircraft were stripped of EVERYTHING that did not serve a purpose to the specific mission...even to the point of taking out extra gas tanks to make them light enough to make the journey. The pilots hand-loaded small cans of fuel onto the planes to add to their overall range so they could actually make it...and even then, it was no guarantee. They were launched off of CARRIERS (a feat previously thought impossible, but the total strip-down job made them light enough to be able to launch from such a short runway). I could be wrong, but I think this is along the lines of what was intended when this concept was put on paper.

This is actually an amalgamation of two different events during WWII. What you describe with the strip-down and the carrier launches was from the Doolittle Raid in early 1942. While it had never been done, a B-25 Mitchell medium bomber could (and did) launch off the deck of the USS Hornet to perform that raid. A B-29 Superfortress is an entirely different animal.

Initially, B-29's were used like B-17's over Europe: daylight, high-level conventional bombing with massed machine guns for air defense. However, after several months of mixed results using this technique, as well as evaluating Japanese defenses, they switched up and started using them for night-time firebombing raids. Since the Japanese had very limited night-intercept capability, they ended up pulling all the defensive guns and gun crews from the bombers; they just weren't needed. However, the guns would still be reequipped for daytime missions like the Hiroshima and Nagasaki runs.

Quote:
I like the idea of this spacecraft still having at least a pair of laser cannon with which to mount a last-ditch defense.

There is some EU evidence to suggest that laser cannon increase a ship's sensor signature, as the energy discharge from firing them creates a detectable sensor pulse. I went with mass-driver cannon based on the concept (which I made up) that it would allow the ship to still have a usable cannon for both attack and defense, yet still be able to maintain stealth, which is this ship's primary defense.

Quote:
I'm envisioning a recon run supported by fighters, or even a capital ship or two, but these ships would hide in planetary shadows, or just outside the target system, etc. If the recon ship has to break comm silence to call for help, its existence has been made, and everyone has to spring into action. Micro-jumps are helpful in this situation.

I could see that being useful in certain situations. However, the only presentation of a recon run in the EU had a recon X-Wing doing the run on its own and forced to self destruct to avoid capture, so that is the route I took.

Quote:
Also, I agree with the lower speed due to ion dampening/baffling. However, I also think that, if this feature is not being used, the normal stock speed should be attainable. I don't think it should be permanently lost, and that the bafflers should be a system that is able to be shut off to improve the chances of the craft's escape. After all, we're talking about the Alliance here; they place FAR greater value on life than the Empire ever did, and their creations should reflect that. IMO, anyway.

I justified it by saying that power was rerouted from the drives to run the add-on equipment. Since the ship is so heavily dependent on stealth, I decided to keep it relatively weak in other areas, including speed.


Good points, all. I hope you didn't see my comments as criticism, because that's the opposite of my intent.

I like the mass driver concept. I haven't looked the stats over closely, so I didn't get much in the way of details. Is it something like a rail gun? Just from the name of the weapon, that's the concept that sprang to mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10856
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 25, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jedi Skyler wrote:
Good points, all. I hope you didn't see my comments as criticism, because that's the opposite of my intent.

Not at all. Constructive criticism is always appreciated. The point about using other ships as support or rapid reaction rescue is a good one that hadn't occurred to me.

Quote:
I like the mass driver concept. I haven't looked the stats over closely, so I didn't get much in the way of details. Is it something like a rail gun? Just from the name of the weapon, that's the concept that sprang to mind.

My concept is similar to a rail or coil gun, but gravity based instead of magnetic. The sensor descriptions in the SW Sourcebook seem to indicate that gravity location sensors seem rarer and more expensive than electromagnetic based sensors, ergo a gravity based firing mechanism would be less detectable.
_________________
"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 3 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