Starfighter hitting difficulty

[Tupteq]

It seems to be a bit odd that difficulty to hit TIE-Fighter (6.3m long) and Corellian HT-2200 (54.8m long) is the same. Of course I'm saying about situation when attacked ship's pilot doesn't actively dodge and both starships are of starfighter scale.

I saw a proposition of the additional scale (space-transport 8D or so), but even this doesn't solve the problem completely (for example TL-118 StarHammer is a fighter and is 35m long).

Trying to solve this I came up with a quick solution that bases on starship's size: largest dimension, (most often length, but not always). For each 10 meters of size, attacker has +1 to attack roll, modifier is -1 for smaller than 5 meters and -2 if length is negative (see below).

Calculated size is adjusted by the ship's shape:
- Very elongated shape (width to height proportion at least 4 to 1): -10m (Geonosian Starfighter, Corellian Lancet).
- Elongated shape (proportion at least 2 to 1), wedge, slender with wings, "openwork": -5m (X-Wing, A-9, Delta-7, Naboo N-1).
- Full shape: no modifier (A-Wing, Droid Bomber, CloakShape Fighter, YT-1300).

Of course, ships look different from different angles (TIE Fighter is full-shaped from side, but openwork otherwise). My proposition here is to just find largest size. I hope examples will clarify everything.

Example: X-Wing has length of 12.5 meters, it's worst shape is if we looked from top, it's definitely slender with wings, so we adjust size: 12.5-5=7.5m, no modifier.
Example: TIE Fighter has length of 6.3 meters, it's worst shape is side: full shape, so size equals length and is 6.3m, no modifier.
Example: B-Wing has length of 16.9 meters, it's worst shape is back (slender with wings) or side (elongated) - both have the same modifier: -5 ,so size: 16.9-5=11.9m, +1 to hit.
Example: Geonosian Starfighter has length of 9.8 meters, it's very elongated (-10m), so we adjust size: 9.8-10=-0.2m, -2 to hit.

Now freighters:

Example: YT-1300 (or YT-2400) has length of 26.7 meters, it's worst shape top (full shape, no modifier), so size is: 26.7m, +2 to hit.
Example: HT-2200 has length of 54.8 meters, it's worst shape top (openwork, -5m), so size is: 54.8-5=49.8, +4 to hit.
Example: Gymsnor-3 has length of 34.1 meters, it's worst shape top (elongated, -5m), so size is: 34.1-5=29.1, +2 to hit.

etc...

I just noticed that instead of -5, -10m I can use percentages for adjustments, so here's my alternative version of rules above.

Shape modifiers:
- Very elongated shape: x1/4.
- Elongated shape, wedge, slender with wings, "openwork": x1/2.
- Almost full shape: x3/4 (CloakShape Fighter, Droid Bomber).
- Full shape: no modifier (A-Wing, YT-1300).

To hit modifiers:
- below 2.5m: -2
- up to 5m: -1
- up to 10m: 0
- exceeds 10m: +1 (for each 10m)

Example: TIE Fighter, 6.3 meters, full shape (side), size 6.3m, +0 to hit.
Example: B-Wing, 16.9 meters, elongated (side), size: 16.9/2=8.45m, +0 to hit.
Example: Geonosian Starfighter, 9.8 meters, very elongated (top), size: 9.8/4=2.54m, -2 to hit.
Example: YT-1300 (or YT-2400), 26.7 meters, full shape, size: 26.7m, +2 to hit.
Example: HT-2200, 54.8 meters, almost full shape,, size: 54.8*3/4=41.1, +4 to hit.
Example: Gymsnor-3, 34.1 meters, elongated (top), size: 34.1/2=17m, +1 to hit.

Notes:
- I think I like the second option more (fractions) even that first method is simpler.
- Value of "to hit" doesn't change, so it needs to be determined only once (unless a masochistic GM will use different size depending on angle of fire).
- This works only for starfighter scale stuff, for other scales, values had to be different.
- I think about adding more "dividers" (1/3 and maybe 2/3), but it may cause that the sheep shape will be even harder to choose.
- What about shields? It seems to be a problem especially for openwork-shaped ships (shields may absorb a hit that wouldn't hit a ship anyways).
- Maybe modifiers should be higher? +1 for each additional 5 meters?

[garhkal]

by this logic, would you also not need to add mods for people shooting at bigger people, cause someone large size would be easier to hit?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Naaman]

Ill weigh in on this more later, but I do have a question: are these house rules intended to address a problem that is arisinng during play, or are they just to bring more logic to the system for preference reasons?

[Darth Ginzain]

Think of it this way though. A ship traveling at thousand of kilometers a second is shooting at another ship also traveling thousands of kilometers a second. Does 6 meters or 50 meters make that much difference?

That said, simply slide the difficulty around within the difficulty range. So if a Tie Fighter and X-Wing are shooting at each other at medium range the X-Wing might need a 14 or 15 and the Tie Fighter maybe an 12 or 13. Anything more then that and you're adding a layer of complexity.

[Tupteq]

[Tupteq]

[Naaman]

The simplest way I see to address this is to give fighters a bonus as it applies to scale. For example, give proper starfighters a bonus to hit and dodge against space transports (+2D) for example.

Personally, though, I would be inclined to rewright every single fighter and space transport in the book, and then approve anything else on a case by case basis.

Generally speaking, though, Id be inclined to say that freighters have 0D (and in some cases less) maneuverability, while fighters have bonuses.

Also, any freighters/transports with weapons systems would have only the basics of targeting systems, with minimal bonuses on fire control, etc.

Of course players may upgrade their stuff to better quality.

[garhkal]

Plus fighters are specifically made for combat, and therefore get licensed FOR those weaponry. Freighters not so much.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Naaman]

Agreed. A transport might be licenced forr some weaponry based on the type of cargo it hauls, while still being limited to "just enough" firepower to defeat a threat, but that would not compete with imperial law enforcement firepower or military craft.

[garhkal]

Yup. IN some of my home games i have had massive outrage from pc's when i cramped down on them (acting as the imperials) when they brought their souped up ships into an imperial space port...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[jmanski]

As it should be, IMHO. You have an overpowered freighter people will take notice.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[Leon The Lion]

That's all well and good for private owners, like PCs.
But what's to stop the goverment, imperial, republican, or other, from using those freighters instead of fighters? That's what I believe Tupteq is talking about here.
_________________
Plagiarize! Let no one else's work evade your eyes,
Remember why the good Lord made your eyes! So don't shade your eyes,
But plagiarize, plagiarize, plagiarize... Only be sure to call it, please, "research".
- Tom Lehrer

[Naaman]

I think the specifics of the thread have simply moved into a slight tangeant. The govt can use whatever they want, but a transport is still more clunky, slower, and less optimized for combat (even if modified to carry weaponry) than a purpose-built fighter.

[Tupteq]

[garhkal]

Then perhaps a new system for limiting the modifications of freighters, besides how much 'tonnage' is available, needs to be implemented..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!