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

Effects of Scale on Maneuverability and Acceleration
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Effects of Scale on Maneuverability and Acceleration Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Raven Redstar
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1859
Location: Pullman, WA

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Raven Redstar wrote:
Maybe do -1D per 33%? Which means a full load will knock off 3D maneuverability which kills pretty much any sort of transport, only the super modified ones will have a chance of having anything left.


I can get behind that. Though would the -1d apply even if say the ship HAS no maneuverability dice?


That's an interesting idea, at some point the ship is so sluggish that it takes a really good pilot to be able to make her maneuver when she's loaded down. I would say it would be a GM's call on the fly.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vanir
Jedi


Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
As far as pilots reducing the G-loads of a maneuver by choice. That's not entirely true. Not all aircraft can take the same G-loading.

But it is entirely true when you're talking about toning down the manoeuvre to keep the same induced g-loading in the same aircraft at a higher mass loading as I was.
You're talking about different craft. I'm talking about how you have to fly the same craft differently.

I do concede about Space units vs MGLT. Because I think in piloting terms of throttle input = thrust delivery, the force being expressed with throttle input is against drag rather than mass, combined with the atmosphere rating it was making me think of space rating in terms of velocity.

But it's still true about manoeuvre. You don't need to reduce your manoeuvre for a heavier load in the same craft if you simply slow down. Thus a load doesn't affect intrinsic manoeuvrability, it just exceeds G-limitations of the structure at lower speeds.
Hence you can either go more slowly in velocity and turn just as hard as before, or go easier on turns and go as fast as before, when you increase your mass load on the same craft.

Not talking about 747 vs F-15. Talking about 747 vs 747, or F-15 vs F-15, at two different loads.



That's okay, I get that you're going with what you're doing and I fully support that. As mentioned this exercise by me is as always for my own peace of mind to create the best GM ruleset for me.
If anyone's interested I'm going with concession that space rating does in fact reduce under heavy loads to reflect inertial effects of mass, seeing it represents MGLT acceleration.
On top of this pilots should reduce velocity in manoeuvres when under heavy loads. Not so much throttle when turning to keep stuctural integrity within limits specification for the craft.
I'm not taking dice off manoeuvre, but doing violent manoeuvres at more than 50% load exceeds safety limitations. This is exactly what happens in aircraft IRL.
The last two bits are under pilot RP discretion, but will result in game effect if handled badly.
And I'm going to use a cargo analogue of fuel load modifications to pilot guidelines in aircraft as taught in actual flight training. Less than half fuel = full performance, light load = performance increase, more than half fuel = reduced performance. Analoguous to cargo capacity in SWU spacecraft, 0-10% cargo +1 space rating, 11-50% cargo listed space rating, 51-100% cargo -1 space rating.
Other than that game effect, the only change is piloting guidelines. Not so much throttle in turns (restrict the number of moves in the same round you manoeuvre). Or else go softer on the manoeuvre (don't do a 180 at 3-4 moves, just do slow turns or slow down).

Like I said, I get you won't be doing this. But it's where I'm coming down on it all happy.
I do really appreciate the thread, it helped me get that sorted. It was about the only area of starship combat I hadn't rewritten more realistically.
Like I've put in BVR versus BFM where you have to use sensors to get fire control locks, use Search rolls in BFM to dogfight properly, I've put in an ECM/ECCM phase when engaging enemy craft, etc.
Just hadn't worked out throttle and manoeuvre control for piloting guidelines yet, but that's sorted now. Cheers Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2456

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Raven Redstar wrote:
Maybe do -1D per 33%? Which means a full load will knock off 3D maneuverability which kills pretty much any sort of transport, only the super modified ones will have a chance of having anything left.


I can get behind that. Though would the -1d apply even if say the ship HAS no maneuverability dice?


I can't because not all 33%s are the same. For a big bulk freighter, the majority of the craft is probably cargo, while on a small courier ship the cargo hold is probably only a token amount of the overall mass.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2456

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

vanir wrote:
Quote:
As far as pilots reducing the G-loads of a maneuver by choice. That's not entirely true. Not all aircraft can take the same G-loading.

But it is entirely true when you're talking about toning down the manoeuvre to keep the same induced g-loading in the same aircraft at a higher mass loading as I was.


But if you are reducing speed to pull off a maneuver you aren't as maneuverable. THat is what maneuverability means. Look at cars. A performace car can make turnsd at high speed than something like a VW Beeltle can't make at speed. Sure if the VW slows down, it can make the same turn as a Ferriari, but the Ferriri is far more maneverable.

Quote:

You're talking about different craft. I'm talking about how you have to fly the same craft differently.


Oh, do you mean that if you overload a vehicle you have to turn slower and generally handle it more carefully to avoid overstressing the frame or engine?


[quote]
I do concede about Space units vs MGLT. Because I think in piloting terms of throttle input = thrust delivery, the force being expressed with throttle input is against drag rather than mass, combined with the atmosphere rating it was making me think of space rating in terms of velocity.

[quote]
But it's still true about manoeuvre. You don't need to reduce your manoeuvre for a heavier load in the same craft if you simply slow down. Thus a load doesn't affect intrinsic manoeuvrability, it just exceeds G-limitations of the structure at lower speeds. [/qoute]

But that is reducing your maneuverability. For example, let's say you got two vechiels in a dogfight. Sure one can slow down to make the same turns as the more maneuverable craft, but in so doing the slower vehicle will fall behind and lose the maneuverability war.

A very good example would be a maneuver war between a man and a missile. In the real world the man can change direction much easier than the missile, but he is going so slow that he really couldn't dodge the thing.

BTW, if it helps, I do run a houserule where the speed affects the difficulty of any maneuvers.

Quote:

Hence you can either go more slowly in velocity and turn just as hard as before, or go easier on turns and go as fast as before, when you increase your mass load on the same craft.

Not talking about 747 vs F-15. Talking about 747 vs 747, or F-15 vs F-15, at two different loads.


Yes you can, but the G forces are related to the square of the velocity. So to half the G forces a vehcile would have to go 1/4th as fast.




As far as keeping maneuvers under a limit. You might want to consider using any maneuver dice above the ship's Hull rating as damage dice. THat would help to explain why TIE fighters only have 2D maneuverability despite their high Thrust-mass-ratio.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2006
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I don't equate a ship's Space to acceleration, I do think that top speed must be lowered for several reasons:
1. It has been done in Tramp Freighters for the cargo pods
2. There has to be a real penalty for over loading the vessel. Adding a million cargo pods would be possible if it only affected maneuverability. I'm sure there are folks out there willing to take a -1million d penalty to maneuver to fly more stuff around (they'll use the argument that they'll fly in a straight line and not turn....)
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Argentsaber
Lieutenant
Lieutenant


Joined: 07 Oct 2017
Posts: 78

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raven Redstar wrote:
garhkal wrote:
Raven Redstar wrote:
Maybe do -1D per 33%? Which means a full load will knock off 3D maneuverability which kills pretty much any sort of transport, only the super modified ones will have a chance of having anything left.


I can get behind that. Though would the -1d apply even if say the ship HAS no maneuverability dice?


That's an interesting idea, at some point the ship is so sluggish that it takes a really good pilot to be able to make her maneuver when she's loaded down. I would say it would be a GM's call on the fly.

I absolutely agree.. it seems like an inversion of the high difficulty of "difficult terrain" to me.
_________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest."
G'Kar, Survivors (Babylon 5)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wouldn't all this only apply to atmospheric travel?

Space is weightless and thus size or mass don't affect speed as there is no real resistance ( yes there are micro particles and all that )

I can not see how size should matter on speed, or even manuverability as this would be dependent on the power of the manuvering thrusters used.
same goes with speed....both hyperdrive and Sublight speed.

In fact other than the extreme need for power, the even greater cost, I see no reason for star destroyers to not be super duper fast, even in the 10+ range and even have very good maneuverability as all this depends on the power of the systems used and not the size of the object in space.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raven Redstar
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1859
Location: Pullman, WA

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Film evidence suggests otherwise with regards to how ISDs handle in space.

Chasing the Milennium Falcon in ESB. They nearly collide with one another because they're unable to make the sorts of z-axis turns that his ship does, and it's shown again when they choose to go into the asteroid field after him.

Even if there's no gravity in space, the ships themselves have gravity generators or plating so that crew and passengers can walk around. If the ship starts making crazy maneuvers, the crew will feel the G-force effect, and if gravity is disabled, then they find themselves slammed against walls, the ceiling, and the floor.
_________________
RR
________________________________________________________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raven Redstar wrote:
Film evidence suggests otherwise with regards to how ISDs handle in space.

Chasing the Milennium Falcon in ESB. They nearly collide with one another because they're unable to make the sorts of z-axis turns that his ship does, and it's shown again when they choose to go into the asteroid field after him.

Even if there's no gravity in space, the ships themselves have gravity generators or plating so that crew and passengers can walk around. If the ship starts making crazy maneuvers, the crew will feel the G-force effect, and if gravity is disabled, then they find themselves slammed against walls, the ceiling, and the floor.



And is this due to the ship's size or lack of or weak maneuvering thrusters?

As to maneuver I would agree a huge ship would be rated low due to the power needed, however there could be ways to improve this.

As to speed, if we look to earth and the various wet navies, we see a battleship actually cruising about 30 knot flat, a speed more than many private "speed" boats and enough to waterski behind. with more to go if need be, and yes these have a lower maneuver rating than a smaller but eually fast, faster or even slower ship.

Destroyers even in the 1940s could cruise at 25+ knots, again waterskiing speeds.

What I am saying is that the ships are made that way, other ships of same size could be designed otherwise and be better on both speed and maneuver.

Remember the empire was "cheap".........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10742
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

D6 Space did something along these lines by increasing the Difficulty of all Piloting rolls by +5 for every degree of overload (i distinctly recall reading it, but now I can't seem to find the reference). For example, even a single degree of overload (say 50%) increases even Free Actions to standard actions at Very Easy Difficulty. This effectively ties the degree to which a craft can be overloaded directly to the pilot's skill level.
_________________
"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
yomama360
Cadet
Cadet


Joined: 26 Oct 2016
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2018 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
Wouldn't all this only apply to atmospheric travel?

Space is weightless and thus size or mass don't affect speed as there is no real resistance ( yes there are micro particles and all that )

I can not see how size should matter on speed, or even manuverability as this would be dependent on the power of the manuvering thrusters used.
same goes with speed....both hyperdrive and Sublight speed.

In fact other than the extreme need for power, the even greater cost, I see no reason for star destroyers to not be super duper fast, even in the 10+ range and even have very good maneuverability as all this depends on the power of the systems used and not the size of the object in space.


In space (away from a planet) your ship still has mass, just nothing nearby for it to gravitate to. Only other difference in an atmosphere is that the atmosphere would slow the ship down and cause drag depending on how aerodynamic the object.

The more mass (weight) the ship has, the more energy/ power/ thrust required to move it around, regardless of whether there is a planet nearby or not. So I agree that the maneuverability is based on power of the engines, but RELATIVE to the mass of the object in space. So yes, mass does matter.

In game terms, the way I imagine it, a ship with high maneuverability would have powerful turning thrusters relative to it's mass. So it makes sense that a loaded freighter would lose maneuverability. High maneuverability might also mean it can handle g-forces and abrupt changes better. I interpret the "speed" rating to be the power of the forward (and reverse) thrusters relative to ship mass for speeding up and slowing down.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

 
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