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

Venator-Class Star Destroyer
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Venator-Class Star Destroyer Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mamatried
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

denderan marajain wrote:
In a direct duel, every ship uses everything it has and the ISD is clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to RAW

1. He has only 18% of the number of Starfighters

2. His armament can not compensate at all

But as long as one does not respond to my points in more detail it makes little sense to continue the quite interesting debate;)

I'm mainly concerned with two things

1. Background must be covered by the rules

2. Balancing must be given



The ISD is a newer ship, more guns 60 turbos vs 8 turbos......so yes the ISD would win unless we go deeply tactical.

But back to what you were inquireing form before.

The ISD was never a dedicated carrier, so it will never be stated as one, compared to the venator.

However looking at both ships compliments I see no problem removing a dozen huge walkers and prefab bases to add same mass of fighters, in the TIE line this counts as a lot of fighters.

But that being said, a 400 starfighter carrying ISD simply is not conceptualized in SW, you my have to make your own.

As to the rules, NO there is no carrier ISD with any compliments reaching those numbers.

The best I can say to balance is to swap compliment A with B.
Meaning remove the AT-ATs and the like from a ISD and replace them with fighters.

But other than you ask for something that doesn't exist.



Looking at how the various imps did work, I personally see no rules issues with experimental ISDs even dedicated carrier.

But there is nothing in the rules


Ps! The ISD has 8 times the gunnery power of the venator...so it wins hands down
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 207
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The ISD is a newer ship, more guns 60 turbos vs 8 turbos......so yes the ISD would win unless we go deeply tactical.




And? YES, we clearly go for tactics. Everyone uses all their resources would otherwise be nonsense

Quote:

The ISD was never a dedicated carrier, so it will never be stated as one, compared to the venator.



I never said so and was or is not the subject of my argumentation



Quote:
But that being said, a 400 starfighter carrying ISD simply is not conceptualized in SW, you my have to make your own.



I can not understand why you do not read what I wrote. I never wanted to turn the ISD into a carrier

Quote:
As to the rules, NO there is no carrier ISD with any compliments reaching those numbers.



wrong theme




Quote:
Ps! The ISD has 8 times the gunnery power of the venator...so it wins hands down



Unfortunately, the ISD was shot to dust by 400 Starfighter before he could use his superior armament






I'll try again to explain what it's all about

I'm NOT about:

To turn ISD into a carrier



All I said was that the ISD is used as the basis for all other ships. I think you can agree on that?

An ISD should be superior to EVERY other ship in 1: 1. This includes all resources of the respective ship.

I just explained why the RAW is not like that and that's why my arguments have turned. These arguments and topics were ignored and it was dropped on the one where I said explicitly that it is NOT my topic !!!



My examples regarding background are not covered by the rules, which is my main topic, was not answered at all, which I think is a great pity
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Commander
Commander


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@ denderan marajain



Ahhh, my bad.

I am pretty sure the ISD is the "basis" for most if not all imperial capital ships.

However as to being superior, they are not superior to everything out there, but they are far superior to most things.

A single ISD is by the imperial doctrine actually enough to capture a planet, with a destroyer line alone enough to take and control a full system.
This despite the system forces are larger than "just" line, however they are usually smaller ships and supported or reinforced with an ISD line.

But back to the being superior.

ISD is by design the single most powerful "stock" ship of the era.
A venator, if they still exist and if they can have a full compliment, is a threat, however with outdated systems, guns and shields, and above all outdated fighters, the venator still is not an alternative.

So are there individual ships of the era that is the same size but stronger than the ISD, belonging to other factions...........yes a handful, nothing more.

So the ISD is the strongest warship.
it is all about the era(s) the ships belong to.

I dare say a modern 2000s patrol cutter beats any ww2 battleship, even several of then at once.
And that is a good way of looking at it , ISD is modern, venator is ww2, ISD is the norm and considered for the age the "strongest" stock warships
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10545
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see several false assumptions here about the efficacy of starfighters against capital ships. While a Venator loaded with, say, TIE Avengers or Defenders would certainly present a formidable threat, there are a variety of factors that would make it highly unlikely. A short list:
    1). Assuming that, just because it can carry a large number of fighters automatically means the ship is carrying a full load. IRL, carriers at war were often forced to make do with understrength airgroups due to shortages in their supply and training pipelines. In the SW Sourcebook, it is specifically mentioned that many Victory I-Class SD's have mothballed their hangar bays, as there are not sufficient TIEs in service to fully equip them all. This will be especially problematic for the Alliance, which faces serious supply shortages just maintaining the fighter strength that it already has scattered around the galaxy.

    2). Assuming that all starfighters are created equal. Even if you can fully load a Venator with fighters, it is unlikely they will all be front-line, ordnance carrying fighters of the type needed to do actual damage to a ship like an ISD.

    3). Assuming that you have flight crews and unit commanders of sufficient skill and experience to be able to coordinate in such numbers. I have no idea what Difficulty you set for that Command roll, but if they successfully managed a 400-strong coordinated strike, I have no doubt at all that it was set way too low.

    4). Abuse of the coordination bonus. If you used the 2R&E coordination bonus method, you're looking at a combined bonus of +133D, which means these 400 starfighters effectively outgun the Death Star Superlaser by several orders of magnitude. The 2R&E coordination system was never intended to be used with such high numbers in mind.

    5). Assuming that there will not be additional factors within the setting that prevent both sides from making full use of the Venator's capabilities, willingly or otherwise. The EU has made it quite clear that the Empire has moved away from carrier-focused combat in favor of capital ships. One reason in particular is the emphasis on centralized authority and surveillance (much easier to keep control of - and keep an eye on - the 40,000 plus crew of an ISD than a single pilot in a cockpit). Starfighter piloting requires a degree of independence that a totalitarian regime would view askance.

denderan, I don't know what particular set of rules you are using, but more than once on this forum, I have seen you make reference to a rule that I have never heard of, and cannot locate in any source in my possession. Are you, perchance, using some form of house rule that you haven't mentioned?
_________________
"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.
dunderhead marajain
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 207
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Fri May 11, 2018 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Due to lack of time I will not be able to answer in detail until next week.

I ask for your understanding
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 207
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2018 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So now I finally have the time for the answers

Quote:
see several false assumptions here about the efficacy of starfighters against capital ships. While a Venator loaded with, say, TIE Avengers or Defenders would certainly present a formidable threat, there are a variety of factors that would make it highly unlikely. A short list:




If we assume that a Venator is properly run militarily and has 400 Starfighters on board, why should not 100 of the 400 be bombers?

Quote:
1). Assuming that, just because it can carry a large number of fighters automatically means the ship is carrying a full load. IRL, carriers at war were often forced to make do with understrength airgroups due to shortages in their supply and training pipelines. In the SW Sourcebook, it is specifically mentioned that many Victory I-Class SD's have mothballed their hangar bays, as there are not sufficient TIEs in service to fully equip them all. This will be especially problematic for the Alliance, which faces serious supply shortages just maintaining the fighter strength that it already has scattered around the galaxy.



Now, in my opinion, you are reaching deep into the argumentative bag of tricks.

I'm not saying anything but an ISD that is 100% operational against a Venator, also at 100% capacity, has no chance even though, according to the background, it should not


Quote:
2). Assuming that all starfighters are created equal. Even if you can fully load a Venator with fighters, it is unlikely they will all be front-line, ordnance carrying fighters of the type needed to do actual damage to a ship like an ISD.



You see, that's exactly what I'm about. If the Venator is better why not give it the better Starfighter?

Even with 2nd Class Starfighters, a Venator wins against pretty much everything except Death Star and SSD

Quote:
3). Assuming that you have flight crews and unit commanders of sufficient skill and experience to be able to coordinate in such numbers. I have no idea what Difficulty you set for that Command roll, but if they successfully managed a 400-strong coordinated strike, I have no doubt at all that it was set way too low.



I do not have to. Since the ISD has no more Starfighter Defense, these were erased by the starfighters of the Venator.

4 squadrons are enough to get the job done. Each Squadron comes from one side -> 1D Shields on 3 Fire Arcs and on the last page 0D Shields.

If they are "only" equipped with Proton Torpedoes, the base damage is 9D. If they make a co-ordinated attack at 8, the damage is 11D + 2.

3 times 11D + 2 versus 14D and once 11D + 2 versus 13D

Statistically, they do at least one damage that goes beyond the resistance roll.

And that goes every round like that

Quote:

4). Abuse of the coordination bonus. If you used the 2R&E coordination bonus method, you're looking at a combined bonus of +133D, which means these 400 starfighters effectively outgun the Death Star Superlaser by several orders of magnitude. The 2R&E coordination system was never intended to be used with such high numbers in mind.




See point 3

Quote:

5). Assuming that there will not be additional factors within the setting that prevent both sides from making full use of the Venator's capabilities, willingly or otherwise. The EU has made it quite clear that the Empire has moved away from carrier-focused combat in favor of capital ships. One reason in particular is the emphasis on centralized authority and surveillance (much easier to keep control of - and keep an eye on - the 40,000 plus crew of an ISD than a single pilot in a cockpit). Starfighter piloting requires a degree of independence that a totalitarian regime would view askance.




Here, I do not contradict, as I said before, the background is not covered by the rules.

Quote:

denderan, I don't know what particular set of rules you are using, but more than once on this forum, I have seen you make reference to a rule that I have never heard of, and cannot locate in any source in my possession. Are you, perchance, using some form of house rule that you haven't mentioned?



I have argued clearly that I just use the 2nd Edition rules. I do not understand how you think it would not be so ???

I have explained with examples of Leia, AT-AT, etc. what I am about.

It would be helpful to go into that and not throw argumentative grenades at all times and talk about things that are not part of my argument.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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
Page 4 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