| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 4:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | It isn't that the missiles do not damage, but that the damage isn't significant enough to matter. I've been on a WWII battleship where part of the deck had been blow to bits and replaced with concrete. The hole in the deck certainly "damaged" the Battleship, but didn't do enough damage to actually impair the ship's ability to move, fight, or stay afloat. |
I've bolded the part the we definitely disagree on. During her fight with the Hood, the Bismark was struck by two shell, probably from fired from Prince of Whales (a British Battleship), one hit her amid-ships below the water line, causing one of her electric plants to flood and one boiler room to take on some water and is believed to be the cause of her fuel oil leek, the second hit the bow above the waterline and passed through without exploding. The bow hit cause the forecastle to flood and ship settled by the bow by 3 degrees, this trapped around 1000mt of fuel oil. These fuel problems caused her to turn for a friendly port, preventing her from running her persuers into a waiting U-Boat screen. Her fighting ability was still completely intact, she had suffered no casualties, and her speed was only slowed by 2 knts, but she was forced to abandon her mission and return to port, by a pair of un-significant hits.
With regard to the ship you were on, I willing to say that that hit did affect her, even if all it did was tie up damage control parties fighting fire or flooding. Several of those hits can overwhelm the ships ability to combat the fire/flooding and cause the loss of the ship. Another thing that people seem to forget is that Capital ships are filled with people and those people have jobs to do during combat, as injuries/casualties occur the effectiveness of the crew to complete those jobs decreases.
| Quote: | | As for using the average numbers, then yeah, most of the time the Falcon isn't going to significantly damage an ISD. The same is true with blaster pistols and Wookiees, or TIE fighters shooting at the Falcon, or any other time where the Str/Body dice are greater than the damage dice. |
You seemed to have missed that I didn't start talking about averages until after I had defined the wild dice to have gone in favor of the falcon. Luck was with the falcon on that roll, otherwise the likelihood of damage decreases considerably.
| Quote: | | But the thing is dice are random. Statically speaking the Falcon can damage the ISD, just that most of the time it won't. Which is how Lucas and company envisioned it. Star Wars combat is heavily patterned on WWII era combat, specifically before it was realized just what the full effect of air power was. So taking out a capital ship with a single fighter (oir freighter) is mostly a non option. |
I know dice are random, which is why I was talking about averages, as they are what is likely to happen. Saying Lucas and company envisioned it that way, is a bit of a stretch, and pure presumption on your part, in my opinion. And to clarify, I am well aware that Star Wars combat is heavily patterned on WW II, if you would note, I have been talking about WW II combat. I have never said anything about taking out a Capital ship with a single fighter, I have been talking about damaging it, there is a huge difference.
| Quote: | | Even if you want to view an ISD as a carrier, carriers are big and all that mass and size makes them tougher to sink. You could literally shoot at one all day with a .50 cal, or even a 20mm autocannon without sinking one. |
Again your talking about sinking. A .50 cal will kill the crews manning the guns and it can damage the guns themselves. Also, WW II U.S. and Japanese carriers had wooden flight decks so shooting them all day with a .50 cal would tear them up beyond use, effectively taking the carrier out of action, not to mention that the bullets could hit volatile things in the hanger decks below causing explosions and fires.
| Quote: | | The chances of sinking a carrier, even without it'S fighter complement and escorts with a tramp freighter (even an up-gunned, up-shielded one) is slim. What really makes the Falcon dangerous is Han Solo. With his high skill ratings he makes the Falocn hard to hit, and can easily fire off a barrage of attacks ( that 6D scaling translates into 6 attacks a round at full skill and no pilot/dodge penalty, if desired). |
Yet again your talking about sinking, remember I'm talking about damaging it, not sinking it, though I agree with your statement about Solo.
| Quote: | | What you could do is use the Body Point option from other d6 games if you wanted to have the ship get whittled down. That way you could see the ISD slowly losing Hull Points. But with the standard rules we only track significant damage. |
I hadn't thought of that option, I'll peruse those rules again and see if I find anything usuable. I don't want a straight hit point system either, in fact I think the 1st ed companion rules are a very good start as far as a damage system goes. I think a more accurate word for the type of damage tracked by the current rules is catastrophic.
| Rerun941 wrote: |
The other thing you are forgetting is combined actions rules. You don't take out an ISD with a single X-Wing. You take it out with a SQUADRON of X-Wings. And we're talking about a military engagement, right? So it's not unheard of for starfighter pilots to coordinate their attacks to "beat the scale differences" aka take out a Capital Ship.
The same was true during WWII. Commanders never sent aircraft out to attack battelships singlely or in pairs. They'd launch a squadron to make a coordinated attack. Split the enemy battleship's defensive fire, make coordinated strafing runs, etc.
What'd we see during the Battle of Endor? "Concentrate all fire on that Super Star Destroyer!" and visually... two A-Wings make strafing runs against the bridge deflector shields (combined fire) taking them out.
The scaling rules work just fine. |
I'm not forgetting about them, I was deliberately avoiding them, because you should not need them to cause damage. However, I agree that it's indeed sound tactics and even highly advisable if you wish to take out the ISD. You say the scaling rules work fine, but the example you give of the 2 A-Wings, can't be done under the rules, without GM intervention.
| Grimace wrote: | You are correct in thinking that, garhkal. Shields ARE affected by scaling, just as Hull is.
This was very succinctly answered in the ISB Intercepts of Adventure Journal #15. Page 80-81.
I'll paraphrase.
Yes. Which demonstrates how difficult a Star Destroyer is to defeat. It takes a squadron of X-Wings or other fighters to penetrate the defense.
So a Star Destroyer would have 7D Hull (+6D scale difference) and 3D Shields (+6D scale difference), for a total of up to 22D rolled total.
Note that this is one reason why I don't like the R&E version of doing scales....too many dice. |
Here are the pertinent lines from p95-96 of R&E:
| Quote: | Apply the difference between the two scales: this is now the "adjusted modifier."
[........]
The higher scale target adds the modifier to the roll to resist damage;.... |
Since shield dice and hull dice are combined into one roll and it says "the modifier", as in singular. I would concluded that what is written in that journal is a rules change, instead of a clarification. In my opinion, they noticed their oversight with shields and took a bad rule and made it worse. Capital ships would now have 24D in scale dice when shooting at the Death Star, your right Grimace...way too many dice.
Lastly, I would like to state that I am very tired, so if anything comes across as terse or argumentative, it was unintentional. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14357
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So hows about each cap ship has say 1 "hull point" per system, and each loss of a hull point represents 1 system destroyed.
And change the damage from light/moderate/severe damage to -01 hull, -2 hull etc..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Orion wrote: |
I've bolded the part the we definitely disagree on. During her fight with the Hood, the Bismark was struck by two shell, probably from fired from Prince of Whales (a British Battleship), one hit her amid-ships below the water line, causing one of her electric plants to flood and one boiler room to take on some water and is believed to be the cause of her fuel oil leek, the second hit the bow above the waterline and passed through without exploding. The bow hit cause the forecastle to flood and ship settled by the bow by 3 degrees, this trapped around 1000mt of fuel oil. These fuel problems caused her to turn for a friendly port, preventing her from running her persuers into a waiting U-Boat screen. Her fighting ability was still completely intact, she had suffered no casualties, and her speed was only slowed by 2 knts, but she was forced to abandon her mission and return to port, by a pair of un-significant hits. |
First off the Prince of Wales was a BC, so it really doesn't apply as far as scaling goes. Now if she had been a tramp steamer with a 4" gun, it might have some bearing on the Falcon.
Secondly, your argument fails to consider that this is minor damage. The Bismark's captain noted it more as an annoyance, the reason why he didn't return the ship to port, and why the British were able to hunt her down.
| Quote: |
In regard to the ship you were on, I willing to say that that hit did affect her, even if all it did was tie up damage control parties fighting fire or flooding. Several of those hits can overwhelm the ships ability to combat the fire/flooding and cause the loss of the ship. Another thing that people seem to forget is that Capital ships are filled with people and those people have jobs to do during combat, as injuries/casualties occur the effectiveness of the crew to complete those jobs decreases. |
But it had little effect as far as directly sinking the ship. Things like DC parties, problems with having to avoid a hole that must be avoided, and human/non-human casualties are things that are not factored into the Star Wars space combat rules in general, and are not the fault of scaling.
Technically, there are such effects when a ship gets something past the shields. But the RPG doesn't track things to such fine detail. With only a half dozen or so damage results possible that type of detail isn't possible. Likewise crews on YT-1300s don't have to worry much about getting sucked into space when they get damaged.
The thing is your who argment seems not to be a problem with scaling, but with the way damage is handled in the game. For instance, when a character gets shot and the damage roll fails to beat thier STR, they are not hurt. Now realistically, if you shoot someone, they are going to be wounded, unless they have armor or something. But, not all wounds are bad enough to seriously impair the character. Hence the STR roll.
THe game does the same things with ships.
| Quote: | | You seemed to have missed that I didn't start talking about averages until after I had defined the wild dice to have gone in favor of the falcon. Luck was with the falcon on that roll, otherwise the likelihood of damage decreases considerably. |
Not as much as you think. The more dice you roll, the less significant the wild die becomes. Statsitically speaking when rolling 11D and 13D the standard deviation is high enough to be at least as important as the wild dice. The number of dice make the extra 2D less significant than, say 6 4D vs. 6D.For instance if the 11D rolls a high average of 4 per die (44) and the 13D rolls a low average of 3 per die (39), you get a Light damage result. The Falcon is going to end up damaging the ISD more often than the ISD is going to hit the Falcon.
| Quote: | | I know dice are random, which is why I was talking about averages, as they are what is likely to happen. |
But the Flacon not damaging the ISD is the most likely result, at least i terms on the RPG damage levels. With a hit point/hull point system it might be different, but in game scale that is about right.
| Quote: |
Saying Lucas and company envisioned it that way, is a bit of a stretch, and pure presumption on your part, in my opinion. And to clarify, I am well aware that Star Wars combat is heavily patterned on WW II, if you would note, I have been talking about WW II combat. I have never said anything about taking out a Capital ship with a single fighter, I have been talking about damaging it, there is a huge difference. |
Not much. The oncscreen stuff supports this view, and there quite a few games, that support the them.The ISD is something like 500 times the length of a YT-1300 and probably has something like 75,000,000 times the mass. Hence it is on a different scale.
Now it's not that the Falcon can't damage it, it can. It is just that the most likely result is no damage in game terms. Otherwise the capital ships would be way to vulnerable to small ships. So much so that they are not worth building. Keep in mind that it is only a 12 point shift from damage to destroy in the game. So if a ship like the Falcon (or an X-Wing) could damage a ISD most of the time, it would destroy it in about one out of three hits. Now since a pair of X-Wings can make 3 attacks on an ISD in one round, the whole "two fighters against a Star Destroyer" line just looks like whining.
| Quote: | | Again your talking about sinking. A .50 cal will kill the crews manning the guns and it can damage the guns themselves. Also, WW II U.S. and Japanese carriers had wooden flight decks so shooting them all day with a .50 cal would tear them up beyond use, effectively taking the carrier out of action, not to mention that the bullets could hit volatile things in the hanger decks below causing explosions and fires. |
But killing the crews isn't considered damage in RPG terms. Even getting through the deck, most of the damage would be cosmetic, and not all hits strike the deck. Nor were all decks unarmored.
| Quote: | | I hadn't thought of that option, I'll peruse those rules again and see if I find anything usuable. I don't want a straight hit point system either, in fact I think the 1st ed companion rules are a very good start as far as a damage system goes. I think a more accurate word for the type of damage tracked by the current rules is catastrophic. |
It sounds like you want a finer degree of detail damage than the current system. One way you could achiencve that would be the rules in the compaion, although as the companion had scaling I don7t think you'd see much of a difference in actual play. It'S not much easier for a small ship
to damage an ISD there.
A simplier way to go, based on Star Warriors might be to apply the scaling mod to the damage brackets rather than the hull roll. Basically making it easier to damage a big ship but harder to inflict heavy damage or destroy it outright. For instance if Light Damage was +8-+16 instead of +4 to +8.
Personally, I wouldn't advise it though IMO Solo and the Falcon have a better than 50% chance of beating an ISD in a one on one fight now. The Falcon is not going to get hit often, and Solo can speand CPs to inflict damage. Sooner or later he will beat the ISD's defenses by 9 or more and take it out.
I'm not forgetting about them, I was deliberately avoiding them, because you should not need them to cause damage. However, I agree that it's indeed sound tactics and even highly advisable if you wish to take out the ISD. You say the scaling rules work fine, but the example you give of the 2 A-Wings, can't be done under the rules, without GM intervention.
| Grimace wrote: | You are correct in thinking that, garhkal. Shields ARE affected by scaling, just as Hull is.
This was very succinctly answered in the ISB Intercepts of Adventure Journal #15. Page 80-81.
I'll paraphrase.
Yes. Which demonstrates how difficult a Star Destroyer is to defeat. It takes a squadron of X-Wings or other fighters to penetrate the defense.
So a Star Destroyer would have 7D Hull (+6D scale difference) and 3D Shields (+6D scale difference), for a total of up to 22D rolled total.
Note that this is one reason why I don't like the R&E version of doing scales....too many dice. |
Here are the pertinent lines from p95-96 of R&E:
| Quote: | Apply the difference between the two scales: this is now the "adjusted modifier."
[........]
The higher scale target adds the modifier to the roll to resist damage;.... |
I'm not fond of lots of dice either. One reason why I wish WEG had kept going longer. In later systems they came up with the idea of dice multipliers and I suspect that they would have been used for sstarship scaling eventually.
For example, if the scaling mod from starfighter scale to captial ship scale was x2 (seems about right) the ISD would be rolling the same number of dice, but doubling the result.
| Quote: |
Lastly, I would like to state that I am very tired, so if anything comes across as terse or argumentative, it was unintentional. |
Nah. I just figured your trying to get your points across in a long text. I've seen terse and argumentative (and worse), no comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garkhal wrote: | So hows about each cap ship has say 1 "hull point" per system, and each loss of a hull point represents 1 system destroyed.
And change the damage from light/moderate/severe damage to -01 hull, -2 hull etc.. |
This is along the lines that I am thinking but I am still in the concept phase and trying to decide how to modify scaling to achieve the desired effect, so I haven't gotten to the particulars yet, but thanks for the suggestion.
| atgxtg wrote: | First off the Prince of Wales was a BC, so it really doesn't apply as far as scaling goes. Now if she had been a tramp steamer with a 4" gun, it might have some bearing on the Falcon.
Secondly, your argument fails to consider that this is minor damage. The Bismark's captain noted it more as an annoyance, the reason why he didn't return the ship to port, and why the British were able to hunt her down. |
Actually Hood is a WW I design BC and Prince of Whales is a WW II design BB, that was so new that when she put to sea to intercept Bismark she was under crewed and still had work parties aboard finishing things up in route.
The fact the damage was minor, was the point. Admiral Lütjens didn't think the fuel situation was severe enough to return to the nearest port, but knew he couldn't continue operation "Exercise Rhine" and instead selected a French port as his destination, probably believing that it would be the best place to resume the Battle of the Atlantic from and the fuel problems did prevent him from running the pursuing British vessels into a waiting U-Boat trap, he just couldn't spare the fuel to do it.
| Quote: | But it had little effect as far as directly sinking the ship. Things like DC parties, problems with having to avoid a hole that must be avoided, and human/non-human casualties are things that are not factored into the Star Wars space combat rules in general, and are not the fault of scaling.
Technically, there are such effects when a ship gets something past the shields. But the RPG doesn't track things to such fine detail. With only a half dozen or so damage results possible that type of detail isn't possible. Likewise crews on YT-1300s don't have to worry much about getting sucked into space when they get damaged.
The thing is your who argment seems not to be a problem with scaling, but with the way damage is handled in the game. For instance, when a character gets shot and the damage roll fails to beat thier STR, they are not hurt. Now realistically, if you shoot someone, they are going to be wounded, unless they have armor or something. But, not all wounds are bad enough to seriously impair the character. Hence the STR roll.
THe game does the same things with ships. |
Actually, my problem is with both, as the scaling rules make it far too difficult to cause damage to the Capital Ships and the damage rules make it far too easy to destroy it. To put it another way WEG scaled the to-hit roll and the damage roll, but they didn't scale the damage effects. I understand the abstraction of the rules, very well, I just don't agree with it. In my opinion, it sacrifices too much, for simplicities sake.
As for the character level stuff, I have already changed that in my game. A damage roll that beats the armor value, but not the total strength roll causes 1 point of cumulative damage, for every 3 of these you acquire a stun, these stuns count towards the affected stun rules.
| Quote: | | Not as much as you think. The more dice you roll, the less significant the wild die becomes. Statsitically speaking when rolling 11D and 13D the standard deviation is high enough to be at least as important as the wild dice. The number of dice make the extra 2D less significant than, say 6 4D vs. 6D.For instance if the 11D rolls a high average of 4 per die (44) and the 13D rolls a low average of 3 per die (39), you get a Light damage result. The Falcon is going to end up damaging the ISD more often than the ISD is going to hit the Falcon. |
You missed that the falcons missiles gain 1D, so with the wild dice both going for the falcon there is only 1D of difference instead of 4D.
| Quote: | | But the Flacon not damaging the ISD is the most likely result, at least i terms on the RPG damage levels. With a hit point/hull point system it might be different, but in game scale that is about right. |
The falcon should be damaging it, but not be in any real danger of destroying it, and that damage should affect the ISD in some way is my point.
| Quote: | Not much. The oncscreen stuff supports this view, and there quite a few games, that support the them.The ISD is something like 500 times the length of a YT-1300 and probably has something like 75,000,000 times the mass. Hence it is on a different scale.
Now it's not that the Falcon can't damage it, it can. It is just that the most likely result is no damage in game terms. Otherwise the capital ships would be way to vulnerable to small ships. So much so that they are not worth building. Keep in mind that it is only a 12 point shift from damage to destroy in the game. So if a ship like the Falcon (or an X-Wing) could damage a ISD most of the time, it would destroy it in about one out of three hits. Now since a pair of X-Wings can make 3 attacks on an ISD in one round, the whole "two fighters against a Star Destroyer" line just looks like whining. |
I disagree, with the onscreen stuff supporting it. Rerun pointed to the 2 A-Wings destroying the bridge deflectors of the Executor, but by the rules 2 A-Wings combining fire with their energy weapons, don't have a snowballs chance in overcoming the Executor's 18D plus scale dice (+6 by the old method and +12 by the new). The same is true for the X-Wings damaging the Death Star's guns. It's a 16 point shift, I count shields blown/controls ionized as a type of damage, but this is what I was referring to when was talking about the damage effects needing to be scaled.
| Quote: | | But killing the crews isn't considered damage in RPG terms. Even getting through the deck, most of the damage would be cosmetic, and not all hits strike the deck. Nor were all decks unarmored. |
The only armored carrier decks, I'm aware of were the British Carriers and you said "all day long", I agree in practice it would not knock a carriers deck out of action, but given the time frame you stated, it could and killing the crews prevents the firing of the weapon, killing the crew of Blaster Artillery stops it from shooting, so why should it be different in space?
| Quote: | It sounds like you want a finer degree of detail damage than the current system. One way you could achiencve that would be the rules in the compaion, although as the companion had scaling I don7t think you'd see much of a difference in actual play. It'S not much easier for a small ship
to damage an ISD there.
A simplier way to go, based on Star Warriors might be to apply the scaling mod to the damage brackets rather than the hull roll. Basically making it easier to damage a big ship but harder to inflict heavy damage or destroy it outright. For instance if Light Damage was +8-+16 instead of +4 to +8.
Personally, I wouldn't advise it though IMO Solo and the Falcon have a better than 50% chance of beating an ISD in a one on one fight now. The Falcon is not going to get hit often, and Solo can speand CPs to inflict damage. Sooner or later he will beat the ISD's defenses by 9 or more and take it out. |
I will look at Star Warriors again to see what I can borrow from it. As for Solo and the Falcon, though I avoided talking about combining fire for purposes of causing damage to the ISD, it is a very valid tactic and I have no qualms about doing so should the ISD's gun crews need help hitting a target.
| Quote: | I'm not fond of lots of dice either. One reason why I wish WEG had kept going longer. In later systems they came up with the idea of dice multipliers and I suspect that they would have been used for sstarship scaling eventually.
For example, if the scaling mod from starfighter scale to captial ship scale was x2 (seems about right) the ISD would be rolling the same number of dice, but doubling the result.
Nah. I just figured your trying to get your points across in a long text. I've seen terse and argumentative (and worse), no comparison. |
While multipliers would most definately help the existing system, they don't help me, as it still leaves fighters needing near impossible rolls to inflict damage. I was trying to shorten this one, but it didn't seem to work  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, It seems like you want to don't like the damage system in general. So it isn't really a scaling issue. You seem to prefer some sort of Hit Point system to keep a running track of damage.
Basically the difference between the rules update and 2nd edition is that Rules Update did use a s0ort of HP system, while 2nd edition makes it harder to do damage, but the damage effect are more severe.
What Star Warriors added to the mix was a crtical hit table that made it possible but unlikely for a fighter to take out a capital ship with a "chain reaction" hit.
Oh, and BTW, 2 A-Wings don't take out the ship. An A-Wing crashing into the bridge caused the Executor's "nose" to drop, and crash into the Death Star. And that was after the Executor had been in combat with other ships. Technically it was crashing into the Death Star that destroyed the Executor. If it wasn't there the ship probably wouldn't have been destroyed.
Some options you could try:
1) Apply the scaling to the attacker's damage after the Hull roll. Basically you half the difference. This would make the big ships easier to damage, but harder to destroy. Since a ship can take a infinite number of light damage results in the RPG
2) Ala Star Warriors. Cap the damage a small ship can inflict on a large one at light damage, and use something like the Star Warriors critical chart. On a good roll the ship could get more damage, or even go up in a chain reaction.
3) D20 Hull Points and Damages. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Orion
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 16 May 2008
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 01, 2009 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | | Okay, It seems like you want to don't like the damage system in general. So it isn't really a scaling issue. You seem to prefer some sort of Hit Point system to keep a running track of damage. |
Just because I have some issues with the damage system, doesn't mean that I don't like anything about it, nor does it mean that I don't have issues with the way scaling is handled. I would hardly call my cumulative damage rules a hit point system, they use the existing affected stun rules and simply add a new way to become stunned, the character receives no damage from them that requires treatment or healing. They were created for two reasons, the first is that I have a power gamer in my group, and the second is that even the non-power gamers in my group never liked the idea of hitting someone and having no damage at all occur, this dates back to our shadowrun days. We never housed ruled those rules though, because we couldn't find a good way to do it, but Star Wars' affected stun rules work nicely.
| Quote: | Basically the difference between the rules update and 2nd edition is that Rules Update did use a s0ort of HP system, while 2nd edition makes it harder to do damage, but the damage effect are more severe.
What Star Warriors added to the mix was a crtical hit table that made it possible but unlikely for a fighter to take out a capital ship with a "chain reaction" hit. |
By Rules Update, I take it you mean the rules in the Rules Companion, which I just refer to as 1st edition rules, as they state that they were the first rules to actually specifically cover Capital Ships, maybe they were covered someplace else. In any case, what I like about the 1st Ed rules is that it allows targeting of areas of the ship and has more than one damage that it tracks separately. It still has the problem of fighters having problems damaging them, which is a scaling issue. While a critical hit table, certainly allows more varied results to be added to the system, I am trying to avoid creating tables and can live without the possibility of a fighter 1 shoting an ISD.
| Quote: | | Oh, and BTW, 2 A-Wings don't take out the ship. An A-Wing crashing into the bridge caused the Executor's "nose" to drop, and crash into the Death Star. And that was after the Executor had been in combat with other ships. Technically it was crashing into the Death Star that destroyed the Executor. If it wasn't there the ship probably wouldn't have been destroyed. |
Perhaps you might want to re-read what I typed, as I never said, nor did I suggest that the 2 A-Wings took out or destroyed the Executor. I said they destroyed the Bridge Deflectors of the Executor, this action is not possible in the RPG rules without GM intervention, and by that I mean the GM either arbitrarily decides to allow them to do it or has to create modifications to the scaling and damage rules plus create targeting rules, all on the fly, in order to make it possible, the same is true for the X-Wings shooting at the Death Star's gun emplacements.
| Quote: | Some options you could try:
1) Apply the scaling to the attacker's damage after the Hull roll. Basically you half the difference. This would make the big ships easier to damage, but harder to destroy. Since a ship can take a infinite number of light damage results in the RPG
2) Ala Star Warriors. Cap the damage a small ship can inflict on a large one at light damage, and use something like the Star Warriors critical chart. On a good roll the ship could get more damage, or even go up in a chain reaction.
3) D20 Hull Points and Damages. |
1)I'm not sure I follow you on this one, would you mind clarifying it a bit.
2)I'm intending to but I am not exactly sure of the method I will use yet, as I don't want one or two fighters blowing up Capital Ships.
3)This is too far removed from the base rules and from what I can remember of it, it wasn't that great anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, I'll just try to keep this short.
As far as things like "destroying the bridge deflectors or targeting specific areas, yeah, the 2nd edition RPG rules don't really get into that. For Capital ship battles the RC is probably the best choice. Star Warriors did cover it in and abstract way. I think it has to do with the focus of the RPG. That level of detail isn't in the style of the "fast & loose" style of the RPG, and probably not something that will come up a lot with most groups. OF course if the campaign is about a fighter squadron, that'S a different story.
Combat Options:
1) What you do is use the normal (unscaled) damage to see if a ship is damaged. The subtract the total of the scaling dice from the damage rolled. This way the big ship will take some minor damage. You could replace the ionization stuff with a table of minor damage results, or just assume that anything that does at least 4 damage before scaling does light damage. Since a ship can take an infinite number of light damage results (and minor damage if you add it in), the small ship can now damage the big ships more often, but aren't as likely to take out one with a single hit.
Another, simpler way to do this is to roll Damage vs. Hull unscaled, and if the fighter wins, divide whatever it's difference is in half. FOr example, if a X-Wing fired a pair of proton torpedoes as an ISD, hits, and rolls 35 damage vs. the ISD Hull roll of 21,you would get 35-21 for a 14 result. Cut that in half and you get a 7 damage result, or light damage. This will make it easy for small craft to damage large ships but very hard for them to inflict more that light damage. Likewise you could get the same effect by doubling the damage ranged (Ion 0\6, Light Damage 7-16, Heavy 17-24, Serious 25-30, and destroyed 31+)
2) What made this work in Star Warriors was that is was possible buy very hard to do. Generally, you had to get a "Chain Reaction"i critical on the damage table-something like a 1 in 1300 chance, after getting damage past the shields.
Another advantage Star Warriors has is that it is fairly compatible with the rules in the RC. Both use the "9 pip" damage method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 13, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| masque wrote: | | It's not a matter of the size of the ship, it's the size of the weapons. The Skipray Blastboat, for instance, is a starfighter sized ship, but its weapons are so powerful that it's classified as capital. |
Or one weapon at least...
The Blastboat is a bit tricky in that sense..
But the question is a valid one. A 100 m Patrolship shouldnt have such a hard time hitting a 50m transport really..
However, all game mechanics have awkward points. Its the same with ranges for weapons, why is it suddenly very much harder to hit your target as he moves 1 meter away from you (stepping into 'long' range). The alternative would be to have a multitude of scales (or ranges in the example) with little difference between them, but this would take away the simplicity in the SW game mechanics. As a GM you have to come up with 'suitable' on the spot solutions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schnarre
Commander
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
Posts: 333
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...I use Star Warriors for large battles, with RPG rules when dealing with players' ships. I also use 1st Ed Die Caps (Rules Companion), since it handles much of what I need with to-hit & damage resolution. I also use the 1st Ed rule of a hit from point-blank range ignored Shields. I never cared for how R&E modified the scaling (too many dice), but that's me.
...In 1st Ed. if a PC was hit with a TIE's laser cannon, the damage was simply doubled (PC would be rolling Strength vs 10D damage). Also if a small craft went up against Capital Ships, there were no Hull or Shield codes even listed--smaller craft were not considered really able to affect them to any great degree.
_________________
The man who thinks he knows everything is most annoying for those of us that do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:16 pm Post subject: Space Range Crazyness.. |
|
|
Ive been looking into the Ranges of space combat..(or space travel in general).
It seems to me that ranges for weapons and sensors are much to short compared to the speed of ships.
*A laser cannon has a long range of 25.
*A typical sensor (from rulebook) on 'scan' has a range of 25.
*A ship with a speed of Space 6 (quite typical) can move 24 units in one round at full speed.
This means.
*Scan is useless when looking for enemies. You will have no reaction time from enemies armed with laser cannons. Round 1 they will fire at long range from maximum sensor range.
*A starship with space 6 will go from beyond sensor range to 2 space units distance in one round.
*A ship with space 6 starting 2 space units away will pull out of maximum range in one round!
My fast and simple suggestion is to:
*triple all sensor ranges.
*Double all starship weapon ranges.
*Make 'full out speed' triple the qruising speed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14357
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They can move at 24 only if going flank, and that is ALL they can do.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | They can move at 24 only if going flank, and that is ALL they can do. |
Yes, but given the sensor range of 25 they will move from outside the sensor range into point blank range in one round. They dont need to do anything else, as no one knows they are there until its too late...
It still does not change the fact that sensor / weapon ranges are very short compared to movement speed..
Mind you, this is at the very average Space Speed of 6. If you take fast starfighers intercepting a starship they can move from outside sensor range into point blank, fire a few shots and then next round fly out of sensor range again..(ie disappear). If I start using that to my player repeatedly (and why shouldnt enemies use this tactic) they would rather soon go home... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 1:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think the problem is that ships can do double and quadruple moves. In 2 R&E even the slow ships can pull off a double move. Also, if someone decides to run for it and goes 4 moves, anyone chasing him can't shoot unless he has a gunner.
Perhaps space vehicle speeds could be trimmed down to something like in Star Warriors with The ships normal Move being it's normal max, and overspending (extra moves) only adds an extra space per move, rather than double and quadding it.
That way even the TIE fighters would take a couple of rounds to close on a ship at extreme sensor range.
Another possibility would be to treat the sensor range as "Short" range and allow it to work at Medium (2x) and Long (3x) range at increased difficulty (+5, +10) to the sensor rolls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZzaphodD
Rear Admiral
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2426
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| atgxtg wrote: | I think the problem is that ships can do double and quadruple moves. In 2 R&E even the slow ships can pull off a double move. Also, if someone decides to run for it and goes 4 moves, anyone chasing him can't shoot unless he has a gunner.
Perhaps space vehicle speeds could be trimmed down to something like in Star Warriors with The ships normal Move being it's normal max, and overspending (extra moves) only adds an extra space per move, rather than double and quadding it.
That way even the TIE fighters would take a couple of rounds to close on a ship at extreme sensor range.
Another possibility would be to treat the sensor range as "Short" range and allow it to work at Medium (2x) and Long (3x) range at increased difficulty (+5, +10) to the sensor rolls. |
Very similar in effect to my idea above, but with slightly different numbers. Instead of increasing weapons range you lowered starship speed.
*Spaceship can move up to Space units per round.
*Sensor ranges are tripled (but segmented into range categories).
I like the idea of increased difficulties. That way ships may be warned about an approaching ship, but may only see it as a fast approaching 'blip' in the screens.
Question:
'Overspending' move, how does that work? Is this then 'flanking' speed (todays 4 x space move)? Any effects exept moving very fast? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimace
Captain
Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The only problem with the idea of the ship moving farther than it's sensor range is that the sensors continue to sense as the ship moves. So you might have a ship that starts at X and has a range of 25. So it senses X+25. Once it moves 5 spaces, it can sense out X5+25 = 30. That same ship moves 24 units, well now it senses X24+25 = 49. So it's not like the sensors stop dead at the initial range 25 from starting. As the ship moves, so does the sensor bubble.
Now if you were doing a "snapshot" of *poof* here's what I see when I start...then turn the sensors off and go barrelling across space 24 spaces, then yeah...you could end up at point blank range with another ship that was originally not detected by your sensors. But who just turns their sensors on long enough to take one quick glance and then turns them off while they're flying? You keep sensors up so you don't go stumbling into something you didn't want to, like an asteroid field or minefield or into another ship.
Even if the ship moves 100 units in space over multiple rounds, as long as the sensors are going it's always going to sense what up to 25 spaces out from it no matter where it is along its path from the initial starting point.
So I don't think you need to start tweaking sensor ranges or weapon ranges or anything like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
