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

Decelerating vs. Coasting
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Decelerating vs. Coasting Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 14942
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Nov 19, 2021 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
I actually started with a much crunchier ionization system and now it is very short and only crunchier than RAW in that there is a 1d6 roll to determine minor effect. Other than that it is only tweaked from RAW and not more complicated.

While I see where you're going with this, I can also foresee problems with a GM having to keep track of two different levels of ionization once ion cannon attacks are involved. As in, if a ship takes 2D of Ionization damage from an Ion Cannon, but then takes a Controls Ionized result from a Laser Cannon, the GM has to keep track of which system gets the extra -1D of ionization. If you can keep track of that, then cool, but for others, I expect it will be simpler to only keep track of a single line of ionization penalties.

Quote:
And based on other discussions, unless you've changed on this too, shouldn't it be -1D to piloting checks and not maneuverability? This still penalizes pilots of ships with zero (or negative maneuverability). But it would equally penalize a pilot on movement rolls too, not just evasion.

Correct. This is still my position.

EDIT: Although I am rethinking my position on allowing ships to soak up to their Hull dice in Ionization penalties before reaching Controls Dead, as this effectively allows their Hull to resist Ion Damage twice (once on the initial Ionization roll and again by having more dice to play with when Ionization penalties are applied).
_________________
"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
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 8577
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Whill wrote:
I actually started with a much crunchier ionization system and now it is very short and only crunchier than RAW in that there is a 1d6 roll to determine minor effect. Other than that it is only tweaked from RAW and not more complicated.

While I see where you're going with this, I can also foresee problems with a GM having to keep track of two different levels of ionization once ion cannon attacks are involved. As in, if a ship takes 2D of Ionization damage from an Ion Cannon, but then takes a Controls Ionized result from a Laser Cannon, the GM has to keep track of which system gets the extra -1D of ionization. If you can keep track of that, then cool, but for others, I expect it will be simpler to only keep track of a single line of ionization penalties.

Yes, multiple ionization effects could be more to keep track off, but not for long since they each only effect the ship for the remainder of the round they occur and the following round. Making the effects random was part of my mission to make ionization less punitive. The same systems being effected with multiple dice simultaneously can quickly stack up against a ship. Spreading the penalties around to multiple systems lessens the odds of the same system getting hit bad. RAW is too harsh with each die of ionization affecting maneuverability, weapon fire control, and weapon damage. In my system, the same ship systems can all possibly be affected, but not all of them at once from the same damage result, except for one result (out of six) which includes piloting and weapon attack rolls both. A few ionization dice should not be worse than light damages. My system accomplishes making ionization appropriately less punitive than RAW, with hardly any more complication. It's a good trade off, and the randomization of minor effects was a necessary component in achieving it.

CRMcNeill wrote:
Although I am rethinking my position on allowing ships to soak up to their Hull dice in Ionization penalties before reaching Controls Dead, as this effectively allows their Hull to resist Ion Damage twice (once on the initial Ionization roll and again by having more dice to play with when Ionization penalties are applied).

I thought you already rethought your position on Hull and made it a flat 5D threshold for all ships. I thought you are where I got that idea from for my system.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 14942
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Nov 20, 2021 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
...It's a good trade off, and the randomization of minor effects was a necessary component in achieving it.

I shall think on it...

Quote:
I thought you already rethought your position on Hull and made it a flat 5D threshold for all ships. I thought you are where I got that idea from for my system.

IIRC, having a 5D threshold was connected to the rule where Ionization also capped Move Levels, so it had to get down to -5D in order to completely immobilize a ship. If I remove the Move Level capping, and just penalize Piloting rolls in order to reduce Move Level indirectly, then there's no need to do a -5D cap any more.
_________________
"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
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 8577
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Quote:
I thought you already rethought your position on Hull and made it a flat 5D threshold for all ships. I thought you are where I got that idea from for my system.

IIRC, having a 5D threshold was connected to the rule where Ionization also capped Move Levels, so it had to get down to -5D in order to completely immobilize a ship. If I remove the Move Level capping, and just penalize Piloting rolls in order to reduce Move Level indirectly, then there's no need to do a -5D cap any more.

For me, using a universal 5D threshold for ionization accumulation causing 'controls frozen' was also part of the effort to make ionization less punitive. Most ships do not have 5D hull. And it is not like hull is completely removed from the equation, because it is still hull used to resist damage.

I chose 5D as the threshold mainly because my ion damage chart has a 4D max damage for a single attack, so the 5D threshold also prevents an especially damaging single ion cannon attack causing 'controls frozen'. It's still not too hard for multiple attacks to cause 'controls frozen'.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 14942
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Nov 21, 2021 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
I chose 5D as the threshold mainly because my ion damage chart has a 4D max damage for a single attack, so the 5D threshold also prevents an especially damaging single ion cannon attack causing 'controls frozen'. It's still not too hard for multiple attacks to cause 'controls frozen'.

I don't see a real problem for a single attack going all the way to Controls Frozen if the roll goes high enough. I mean, the one time we see an Ion Cannon in action, it takes two hits to disable a Star Destroyer, but if you cap it at 4D, that means it would take the same two hits to disable a Corellian Corvette. Considering the disparity in size, I'm perfectly fine with a ship being disabled on a single hit if RNGeezus decrees it thus.

What I ended up doing was going with a chart that measured how badly Damaged the ship's systems were by how far into Controls Dead territory did the last hit go. I figure, once the ship is disabled, Ion Cannon can't have any further effect (on account of tripped breakers and the like) until the ship is up and running again.
_________________
"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
DougRed4
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Posts: 1979
Location: Seattle, WA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2021 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've long had ships 'coast' once the pilot "takes their foot off the gas" and focuses on other things, and I've just had the ship continue on at the previous speed. Until they either accelerate or decelerate, that is.

In the vast majority of circumstances, a piloting roll isn't even necessary in RAW (for both Cautious and Cruising speeds). It's only when things are really crowded, like in the middle of a massive battle or in an asteroid field. So because of this, it's been common in my games - once the fighting starts - for pilots to ignore piloting and just to coast, unless they need to Starship Dodge. It often still costs one of their actions, but since they don't have to even make a skill roll, they just more or less ignore the ship's movement and focus on things like firing at the enemy. Of course, when they need to turn, or dodge, or move around something, they need to focus on piloting again.

I'd never thought of limiting how long they could coast. I think in most of my games something happens before even a couple of rounds, so it would rarely even come up.

As far as that section on Long-Distance Movement, even 10 minutes is way longer than any battle is going to last. So I don't think that's ever come up in my games. It would be really rare that a ship would redline their engines and scream along at All-Out. I'll also admit that I don't remember seeing this rule, either, so it's an interesting one if a ship is racing somewhere at High Speed (it does say that even this is "pushing" the starship for added speed).
_________________
Currently Running: Villains & Vigilantes (a 31-year-old campaign with multiple groups); mostly on hiatus are Adventures in Middle-earth (two groups), D6 Star Wars and Delta Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 13248
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2021 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DougRed4 wrote:

As far as that section on Long-Distance Movement, even 10 minutes is way longer than any battle is going to last. So I don't think that's ever come up in my games. It would be really rare that a ship would redline their engines and scream along at All-Out. I'll also admit that I don't remember seeing this rule, either, so it's an interesting one if a ship is racing somewhere at High Speed (it does say that even this is "pushing" the starship for added speed).


Agreed. Since combat rounds are six seconds, TEN minutes would be ONE hundred rounds... I think i MAY have had a few combats hit 20 rounds of action, but MOST have been completed in 7 to 12 rounds at the most...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 14942
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2021 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still, the fact that the rule is there at all means ships at those speeds aren't just coasting, and are actually having to exert some degree of strenuous effort to maintain that speed. It may not be realistic sci-fi, but it is the rules.
_________________
"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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 13248
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 2:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SO maybe there still IS some sort of gravity or resistance, slowing ships down..??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 8577
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
SO maybe there still IS some sort of gravity or resistance, slowing ships down..??

That's what we've been saying, that the ship's own inertial compensator provides the resistance that must be constantly accelerated against. The alternative of no inertial compensation is high speed space travel that is very unsafe for organic life (and would probably also have undue stress on the ship). It's a good explanation for RAW.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2217
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2021 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
SO maybe there still IS some sort of gravity or resistance, slowing ships down..??

That's what we've been saying, that the ship's own inertial compensator provides the resistance that must be constantly accelerated against. The alternative of no inertial compensation is high speed space travel that is very unsafe for organic life (and would probably also have undue stress on the ship). It's a good explanation for RAW.


I might also add internal artificial gravity as that drag.

Consider that, without an inertial compensator, you might get going to a decent velocity, get everyone set, then cut the compensator to let your velocity stabilize, then go into free-fall. (might not work that way for technobabble reasons, but I can see it).

If you want to keep internal gravity, though, you've got to keep dragging against that.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 8577
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
I might also add internal artificial gravity as that drag.

Sure.

MrNexx wrote:
Consider that, without an inertial compensator...

If you want to keep internal gravity, though, you've got to keep dragging against that.

Between the two, I'd have to say inertial compensation is much more important than artificial gravity in a high speed ship. It's the difference between splat and ow.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 14942
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

When it comes to the mount of inertia involved, 1 g of artificial gravity is a pittance compared to the hundreds or thousands of g's of thrust being generated by the ship. In fact, in the Honor Harrington series, where ships run almost exclusively off gravity drives, the artificial gravity on the ships is actually "shunted" sideways from the inertial compensator with dozens or hundreds of g's to spare. If anything, I'd say that this is the case with SWU ships as well, with backup artificial gravity kicking in if the inertial compensator isn't putting out enough energy to do the job on its own.
_________________
"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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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