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, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 538

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 8:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Speaking of eras...

I think it is a fallacy to consider Star Wars tech to be constantly improving in short time frames.

Because we live on a planet that sees rapid tech advancement over a matter of decades, it seems to makes sense to apply this to the Star Wars Galaxy.

But if you think about it logically...if things are advancing at that rate, then you would have to reduce the efficiency of the tech at the same slope or rate when going backward in time.

If you follow that slope...how incredibly crappy would the ships and tech be 100 years before the battle of Yavin?

What about 300 years?

500 years or more?


In my game, I assume the tech progression is fairly static. Like a high fantasy genre, where warriors 1000 years ago were riding horses and wielding swords....very much like they are today...and will be in another 100 years.

Sometimes there are new inventions or tech improvements, but the overall employment of tech stays pretty much in the same range.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 9:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dredwulf60 wrote:
Speaking of eras...

I think it is a fallacy to consider Star Wars tech to be constantly improving in short time frames.

Because we live on a planet that sees rapid tech advancement over a matter of decades, it seems to makes sense to apply this to the Star Wars Galaxy.

But if you think about it logically...if things are advancing at that rate, then you would have to reduce the efficiency of the tech at the same slope or rate when going backward in time.

If you follow that slope...how incredibly crappy would the ships and tech be 100 years before the battle of Yavin?

What about 300 years?

500 years or more?


In my game, I assume the tech progression is fairly static. Like a high fantasy genre, where warriors 1000 years ago were riding horses and wielding swords....very much like they are today...and will be in another 100 years.

Sometimes there are new inventions or tech improvements, but the overall employment of tech stays pretty much in the same range.



Yet we do see these tech developments all the time.
With your reasoning there should be no more than 1 ship of each class, as they will never develop and never be more advanced?

If the ship in KOTOR was the fastes ship in the galaxy, how come it had a slow hyperdrive compared to even a clone wars Acclamator, a huge ship with a (fluff, not stats) hyperdrive of .5 and statted still better than the defender class light corvette.

The targeting sensors in the newer stromtrooper armors were better than the ones from the clone wars, in fact clone war armor was so inferior it was actually GIVEN AWAY on imperial hollidays.

Though I will agree that some tech have slowed in development and that development is not uniform throughout., but then again technology is not uniform around earth either........we have still an active tech development.

Claimning we don't have a tech development because there are stone age tribes in the andaman islands is sort of a silly argument.


What would be correct is that tech is modernized all the time, and with a intercalactic government like the empire, then a active tech is logical.

Then what ever happens on a backwater plabnet is irrelleavent, the empire develops even if tattooone is "stone age".


So iy is about eras.


If you take anything from 100 1000 10000 years back in Star wars we see this development.

However in a game mechanic, there can't be stats making the old gun inferior and the new gun better, but both needs stats to reflect their game effects.

In SW D6 we have a stat called "ERA" on much of the stat sheets, this is the indicator to what era the item is supposed to be used in.

We know from FLUFF and canon books and lore that the Venator was phased out.
Becuse it was Phased out it is no longer a ship that can be compared to the new and and better armeoerd, faster, and better gunned imperial ISDs.

This does not mean there is no Venators in the galaxy, but it does mean that finding a venator with a full 400? starfighter compliment will be hard.
Even harder is finding one with a full compliment of up to par fighters.

If we look at general game mechanics for tabletop rpgs, lets look at a revolver......45 colt peacemaker vs a colt .45 M1911 we see the same base damage.....and more or less the same "weapon" except rof and magazine.

However this is becuse it is not written by people that know about weapons and their properties.

Did the weapons both use the same type of modern ammo, or did the older colt use ball and powder ( as it actually did)
etc etc

What is the balistic properties of the led ball compared to the csed bullet?


Etc etc.

So we need to set a era limit where some old stuff will be less effective, it makes sense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4356

PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2018 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

denderan marajain wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
My point is that you have shown a pattern of quoting rules that are either misunderstood or completely different from what is officially published. Asking for clarification so as to insure we are on the same page is a natural response.

And since your tone has gone well past polite disagreement into arrogant condescension, I expect I'll be ignoring you from here on out.


do not be a mimosa

You'll endure a bit of sarcasm. I could also blame you for being arrogant because you took it for granted that I use the wrong rules. Did I complain? No, do not be offended and endure it like an adult person


You have probably realized that I am right with my arguments. If that had not been the case, you would have gone into the main points and thrown no fog grenades at the topic for the purpose of distraction

Your sudden indignation regarding my choice of words also fits into this scheme.


Alone as I have debunked your targets in my last post and you do not want to respond to the obvious mistakes on your part and instead hiding behind an offended facade speaks for itself



As I said, I do not hold a grudge against you and consider it quite when I get headwind but I make it no drama


Sorry, you are making drama. As soon as you accuse someone of hiding behind a facade of being offended, your comments are personal, and not about the game. When you tell someone to act like an adult, it's personal, not about the game.

This thread already has moderator attention, it's time to take a break and cool off.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 213
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

@Cheshire


No, I just point out that you can discuss without drama and cynicism and sarcasm have quite your justification as a stylistic device


The recurring claim I would ignore rules, etc. and the way it was done was also personal, but I do not need an administrator to perform my "battles" for me Wink


Of course it will always be a bit personal in such debates, but if I'm an adult person, my life will not be ruine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4356

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure if there's a language barrier here or if there is something else in the way, but I'm going to try to put this another way.

I'm a forum moderator. I'm telling you that the tone in this thread is less civil than we expect users to maintain on the forum. CRMmcneil has said that he's bowing out of engaging you. If that's what he needs to do, then that's sub-optimal but better than letting things degrade to a bickering match between the two of you.

You're still invoking a sanctimonious attitude about your engagement. That's not civil conversation.

If you have questions, please feel free to ask me in a PM.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Dredwulf60
Captain
Captain


Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 538

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:


Yet we do see these tech developments all the time.
With your reasoning there should be no more than 1 ship of each class, as they will never develop and never be more advanced?.


I get what you mean, friend.

Progress is logical. This is why the makers/writers of Star Wars, the RPG and the EU naturally made older things a little 'worse' than the newer things.

And that initially worked because all of Star Wars encompassed only a couple human life-times worth of time. We could compare it to our own modern era of tech advancement, especially during war time.

But when you sit back and think about it logically...it starts to not make as much sense when you are looking at how OLD the Star Wars civilizations are supposed to be.

This is made WORSE by game mechanics, because naturally you want the stats of older stuff to be a little lower...and newer stuff to be a little better.

So...look at the stats of an X-Wing versus an old clone-wars V-19 Torrent.

Naturally, the X-wing is better, by a fair bit. Only a few decades of time difference.

What if you wanted to set your game 600 years after RotJ?

Is your star fighter going to have 6 to 12 times better stats in everything?

Why do stats for fighters in the Old Republic not have 1D or less in everything. They should be too crappy to barely even fly, and have weapons so weak they wouldn't scratch the paint of an X-wing, being 3000- 4000 years more primitive!!

Logically extrapolating it anyway.


In any case, it is just something one has to not think too much about I guess. Just sit back and enjoy it. Suspend the disbelief.

My personal take on it...in my game; it is a sci-fi version of a high fantasy universe.

Most star fighters are pretty much decent. Some have a little better stats or a little worse depending on the design. Some are truly awesome, no matter what era they come from...(as long as they aren't worn out and properly maintained) just due to excellent design and craftsmanship. And others just fail to really perform.

Like a D&D fighter with a longsword. The one that is 500 years old might have been made by a master craftsman and have a +2 bonus. This other one might have been made by slave labour just a few years ago and be hard to hold an edge.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 5:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If we do look at the sword.
That technology didn't change in what 5000 years maybe even more.
spear being even more "basic" remained more or less unchanged for 100 000 years.

Looking at most weapons, and Ship Stat Sheets there is an "Era" stat, and to me this is where you have made a mechanical difference.

It is not supposed to be mixed too much, however 20 years, even with wars is not all that much.
We saw during Vietnam that ww2 era aircraft were still in active use, rifles too in the early stages.

But like our world I am pretty sure that the galaxy far far away also have eras where development is higher than other eras, and like on earth not every area is equaly developed.

If we remove the fighters from both the ISD and the Venator, we do see less guns, less armor and somewhat less speed and maneuver.
Not in all cases but a 8 gun vanator vs a 60 gun ISD is significant.

Now the issue of comparing the ones, have to be on as equal terms as possible, and refelect their "era" at the same time.

It would not be fair to compare a venator with "new" armor, better weapons and a newer version of starfighters, with new sensors and targeting systems etc etc.
So we have to look at the "old" stock version.

Lets also say that it is at a max starfighter compliment, with inferior fighters that will only on the extreme success be able to even damage the ISD.
And will be picked off by the point defense weapons, again in larger number than any venator.

Secondly the sensors, these indicate the ranges where the ships can operate, and the difference is huge, it actually makes it hard to effectively deploy the fighters with no real support.

Once they are done with, being inferior in speed and maneuver comperd to the tie they will loose, numbers are not that important.

Now the venator is empty of starfighters and is dead....given it is so inferior in armament and armor.


So comparing the two is in may ways impossible, it is like comparing a F-15 to a FW-190, both among the best fighters of their era, but neither is good in a versus.


Also looking at how developmnet is depicted......it makes more sense to give an "era used" stat, than having a weapon do +1pip becuse it is didn't have deluxe batteries, and if the game is set in the old days a 1D waepon is a planet killer?

No the only real good way to actually reflect the level of tech is the "era" stat block, an eras do overlap, and weapons and equipment as well.

But there is not and can not reasonably be any mechanical XD difference, other than maybe a footnote in some rule that if the era is so and so then reduce X from so and so stat if used in newer times.

We also don't see much that is oldet than at best 150 years when it comes to guns and vehicles anrmor and the like.

I think we have yet to see anything old republic in the "later times"
With the lightsaber being the exception.

But again, looking at developments we don't often see anthing new, ut we do see almost non stop "upgrade" or improvements.

Looking to TFA and TLJ era we do see the TIEs here being far superior to any fighter of the "classic era", they are better armed, have shields and hyperdrives (most likely)
Etc etc.

here we do see this tech development.

Now to then argue that the so and so older is better even in numbers is ok if the gap in tech is small enough.

I am sitting by a machinegun mowing down the horde of attackers storming my position, if they have stone axes I don't need to worry , when I run out of ammo I close the hatch and I am safe, their weapons eeven all of them can not in any way hurt me.

Equally I would be just as relaxed and not worried if they had muskets, and the like.

Even to some extent ww2 guns.

Look at the primary Anti Armor weapons of that era 1-2 inches of penetration.......this is actually "less" than some modern infantry weapons.

Meaning that ALL the 1500 Tigers build if pitted against ONE abrams then the abrams would kill all the tigers and not be damaged at all.

In a game like this using D6 stats, both tanks would be very similar but belong to different eras
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11477
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 6:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It should be noted that the “8 gun Venator” is technically incorrect, as the official stats do not show one weapon system that was clearly depicted in ROTS.

During the battle of Coruscant, when a Venator made a broadside run against the Invisible Hand, cannon could be clearly seen firing through ports in the hull, yet no such weapons appear on the ship’s stats.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
It should be noted that the “8 gun Venator” is technically incorrect, as the official stats do not show one weapon system that was clearly depicted in ROTS.

During the battle of Coruscant, when a Venator made a broadside run against the Invisible Hand, cannon could be clearly seen firing through ports in the hull, yet no such weapons appear on the ship’s stats.


I think we see this fire from inside the hull in the original trilogy too
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11477
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 25, 2018 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
I think we see this fire from inside the hull in the original trilogy too

That was my thinking, that the big turret guns seen on the Venator and ISD are the SWU equivalent of main battery guns on battleships, while the smaller, more numerous (and all but invisible except on close examination of the ship's hull) are the equivalent of secondary batteries.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Mon May 28, 2018 3:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Going beyond Wookiepedia and looking at actual footage from both the live action movies and the animated series, both being canon I noticed something regarding the venator's main weapons.

They appear be to located at the hull, just under the two towes, on each side of the tover base.

It is 4 on each side making it an 8 gun ship, however looking closely at the footage I see double barrels, and on other ships where gunnery is listed as a turbo laser the footage shows twin or quad barrel guns.

Now this being a 8 twin cannon ship doens't change much in ways of thw ship being inferior by 0BBY/0ABY
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Zarn
Captain
Captain


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 662
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm wondering about retrofit costs now. Perhaps the Empire are arrogant enough that they don't want to use 'obsolete equipment', but retrofitting a Venator instead of sending it to the breakers might make (economic) sense for, say, the Corporate Sector or something like that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4356

PostPosted: Wed May 30, 2018 7:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The thread is now reopened. Let's please keep to the subject. Any questions or commentary on moderation methods can be directed to the moderators via PM.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Thx1138
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 182
Location: Where ever the Force takes me

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Over the last few days I have been throwing an alternate use for the venator in my head. Looking at that long hanger, I considered that the empire might use them like the star galleon as the long hanger bay would be great converted as a cargo bay since it seems that the individual hangers seem to have some shielding around them which adds some protection for dangerous cargo. The venator would also be capable of defending itself against most pirates and it's two side hangers could hold around two squadrons for anti fighter defense.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RyanDarkstar
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 04 Dec 2014
Posts: 104
Location: Chambersburg, PA, USA, Earth

PostPosted: Thu May 31, 2018 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thx1138 wrote:
I considered that the empire might use them like the star galleon as the long hanger bay would be great converted as a cargo bay since it seems that the individual hangers seem to have some shielding around them which adds some protection for dangerous cargo. The venator would also be capable of defending itself against most pirates and it's two side hangers could hold around two squadrons for anti fighter defense.


I really like this.
_________________
Currently playing AD&D 5E, The Old Republic, Neverwinter and Star Trek Online.
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, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 
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