| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | So, incidentally, we have to rethink the Theta, as it is apparently no longer canon. Mikael, did you ever generate dimensions for it? |
Yes, I did. Somewhere I have them.
When you say no longer canon, are you saying that it's been overwritten, or is it just as no-longer-canon as everything else in the EU? Was there something in an episode of Rebels that I missed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16400
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, actually, it has been for a while. The Emperor's shuttle in ROTS is officially the Theta-Class. Since the films supercede all EU material, the Theta has to be called something else.
Since the Y-85 Titan is named for a mythical creature of great strength, perhaps Atlas, Goliath or Behemoth might be appropriate...
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh so it's just the NAME that's been decanonized, not the vessel itself?
It feels like "Theta" and "Lambda" can be applied to multiple things. A Theta shuttle and Theta transport feel like they can coexist. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16400
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 3:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mojomoe wrote: | | It feels like "Theta" and "Lambda" can be applied to multiple things. A Theta shuttle and Theta transport feel like they can coexist. |
Perhaps if the two aircraft were from distinct eras and had similar missions, I might agree. But with a twenty-year split and transitioning in type from a VIP shuttle to a bulk landing barge is a bit much, especially when other shuttles retain the Greek Letter nomenclature, yet known landing barge types do not.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree that the naming is annoying, but not without precedent. Did you ever see this stupid thing?
Another explanation is that the name "Theta" wasn't successfully patented by either Incom or Cygnus. Or, maybe Cygnus had to sell the name 'Theta' to Incom when Incom got the contract to start building the barges.
At any rate, if it's just about the name, then I really don't care all that much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16400
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | I agree that the naming is annoying, but not without precedent. Did you ever see this stupid thing? |
That's somebody's homebrew POS, isn't it? I can't find any official references to the thing, and honestly it looks more like an Ugly than anything Sienar would waste their time with...
| Quote: | Another explanation is that the name "Theta" wasn't successfully patented by either Incom or Cygnus. Or, maybe Cygnus had to sell the name 'Theta' to Incom when Incom got the contract to start building the barges.
At any rate, if it's just about the name, then I really don't care all that much. |
I think that's reaching, to expect an trans-stellar corporation to produce a major product and not patent the name. Plus, Theta just doesn't fit with Incom naming conventions. They give their products names like Sleuth, Howlrunner, Headhunter, Raptor and Titan; Theta is a Greek Letter name, which pretty much just covers shuttle types made by either Seinar/Cygnus or Telgorn.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16400
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It could be that the Greek Letter nomenclature is applied to Imperial Military Shuttles only, which would explain why the Sentinel Landing Craft doesn't use a Greek Letter, even though it is a Seinar product. But the Theta still wouldn't fit, as it is a landing craft with a designation reserved for shuttles...
If I had my druthers, I'd redesignate the Sentinel as the Sigma-Class, then call the landing barge something like the Y-38 Sentinel. Failing that, it'd almost be easier to throw out the Theta entirely and replace it with something like the Sentinel Loader Shuttle, combined with the AT-AT landers seen in the Cross-Sections book. Something would definitely need to be done about the tail fin, though...
EDIT: Or a combination of the loader shuttle and the Y-4 Raptor, with the Raptor's bay replaced with the Loader's grappling system, which would allow it to mate with cargo pods (including AT-AT pods) and deploy them to the surface...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16400
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 10:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In fact, the more I think about it, using a modular system would be an elegant solution to the height problem of getting the AT-AT barge out of the hangar doors. If you move the lander and the AT-AT pod through the bay door separately, then mate them in the main bay before they leave the ship, the AT-AT pod will have more wiggle room height-wise, and the question about the scissor-folding mechanism on the legs could potentially be dropped as well.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2015 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You're making persuasive points. You may have to push harder to get me over the edge of giving up on the Theta, though.
Also, at this stage, I wonder how important it is. I can well imagine that the Empire had a number of different solutions to putting AT-ATs on the ground. I doubt that any of their solutions would impact the way the interior of the ISD is going to have to be figured out. Also, the number of crew per barge or loader shuttle should be about equivalent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16400
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | You're making persuasive points. You may have to push harder to get me over the edge of giving up on the Theta, though. |
Add in the fact that video games are notoriously bad at proper scaling. Force Commander shows the barge in its cut scene being far larger than what is seen in gameplay. By the cut-scene scale, the barge could easily be a Titan, delivering a single AT-AT.
On top of that, you have the visual similarities between the "Theta" and the MTT from E1; I recall when the game first came out that more than one person commented that the barge seemed like a rip-off.
Plus, no one has ever done a really good rendering of the "Theta"; the best that even comes close is the cross-section's cutaway of the Titan.
Ultimately, for me, the Theta is just an example of ret-conning gone mad. It's a cheap knock off inserted into a sucky video game for the sole purpose of getting an AT-AT on the ground.
| Quote: | | Also, at this stage, I wonder how important it is. I can well imagine that the Empire had a number of different solutions to putting AT-ATs on the ground. I doubt that any of their solutions would impact the way the interior of the ISD is going to have to be figured out. Also, the number of crew per barge or loader shuttle should be about equivalent. |
I'm actually really warming up to using the Lifter Shuttle to haul AT-AT transport pods, assuming its possible. Per the prequels, the LAAT had two variants, one of which was capable of transporting a wide variety of equipment, up to and including an AT-TE. Its limitation, however, was that it wasn't space flight capable. A Sentinel Lifter, on the other hand, could conceivably even be able to haul an AT-AT through hyperspace for short distances.
Plus, the modularity appeals to me; want the Lifter to haul something different? Just switch out the pods. I believe we were talking about doing the same thing with the Theta; using modular pods mounted inside the cargo bay to carry different types of cargo and support equipment. Having a ship smaller than a Theta to carry the various pods would save a lot of deck space...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hey man,
If you want to design something that can work with the ISD, then I'm all for it.
On a different note, someone began a thread about the crew complement of an ISD at FFG: Crew sizes of Star Wars capital ships
There's not much there yet, though I'm trying to defend how the ISD could/should have that many crewers, and how they can fit.
One person brought up the support of the stormtroopers. He mentioned that in RW military, there are about 2 support staff for every combat trooper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16400
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 12, 2015 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | Hey man,
If you want to design something that can work with the ISD, then I'm all for it. |
Hey, you said I needed to push harder. 
As far as the replacement, shootingwomprats did stats for the Sentinel Lifter over on Google+, so pretty much all that would be needed is to add something for the pods for AT-ATs.
| Quote: | | One person brought up the support of the stormtroopers. He mentioned that in RW military, there are about 2 support staff for every combat trooper. |
I've been looking into that as well, and its true. Especially at the battalion HQ level and above, there are a lot more administrative personnel in addition to the practical support personnel. I found an official document from the Marine Corps that lists all of the personnel job slots in a Battalion HQ, and I can only imagine the numbers going up at higher levels.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 13, 2015 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | One person brought up the support of the stormtroopers. He mentioned that in RW military, there are about 2 support staff for every combat trooper. |
I've been looking into that as well, and its true. Especially at the battalion HQ level and above, there are a lot more administrative personnel in addition to the practical support personnel. I found an official document from the Marine Corps that lists all of the personnel job slots in a Battalion HQ, and I can only imagine the numbers going up at higher levels. |
Yeah. In terms of administration, I've already accounted for those abstractly. Now I'm curious about how may would be necessary for security, ie. policing 37000 crewers and 9800 stormtroopers, in a society like that aboard an Imperial Star Destroyer?
On the FFG forum they're also trying to argue with me about three shifts of full readiness. The schemes they're coming up with seem completely logical from the efficiency of human capital perspective. But from two angles, I think they miss the point:
1. Being efficient with limited resources is not what the Empire cares about. Resources are not limited, and human beings are the least limited resource at its command.
2. I'm trying to figure out what 37000 people do. The more efficiently they operate, the more roles I have to figure out. The less efficiently (ie. more redundantly) they operate the fewer roles I have to figure out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firmus Piett
Cadet
Joined: 23 Feb 2015
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
This thread is awesome! I joined the forum because I was so impressed by the research going on back in 2013, with Mojomoe and Mikael Hasselstein. I'm currently working on an article for my site detailing turbolasers, identifying and roughly scaling them. I want to show the differences in scale between them, in future vids and pics. So that discussion, along with the pictures, intrigued me.
I felt inspired to share an observation I think was missed, or at least not brought up. In ESB we do get a pretty decent look at what looks like a fairly detailed bunker, with a bolt actually emerging from an identifiable hole. The bunker has two rows of four holes (or perhaps 5, it's hard to tell), so it houses eight guns. I have also scaled the bunker at ~8.5 meters wide by ~3.5 meters tall. So considering it has two decks, the ceilings would be fairly low, and you wouldn't be able to stand (unless your less than 1.75 meters tall). So the gunners must be seated. The weapons would also have to be fairly compact, roughly equivalent in size to the anti fighter quad turrets on the Falcon. Much larger and you wouldn't fit eight of em in the bunker.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAxYwXrJ5Mw&feature=youtu.be
_________________
http://www.galacticempirewars.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DougRed4
Rear Admiral
Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 2295
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2015 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Welcome to the Pit, Firmus Piett! 
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 32-year-old campaign with multiple groups) and D6 Star Wars; mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth and Delta Green |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
