| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:21 am Post subject: Modified scale system |
 |
|
I like the new scale system put forward by crmcneill in this thread but it doesn't sit well with me so I've tweaked it to fit my style of play.
The modification to the scale system that splits the Capital Scale band into three separate bands each based on the length of the vessel.
| Code: |
Scale Dice Modifier Length
Character 0D
Speeder +2D
Walker +4D
Starfighter +6D 0-100 meters
Starship +10D 101-900 meters
Capital +14D 901-2500 meters
Dreadnought +18D 2501-25000 meters
Death Star +24D >25000 meters
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16403
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd still like to hear your reasoning as to why Walker should be lower than Starfighter. If it's just a feeling or your style of gameplay, I understand, but I'm interested in hearing an opposing viewpoint.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd say it is a mixture of feeling and gameplay style.
I've always felt that Starfighters are inherently stronger as they are designed to deal with the stresses of flight and combat, which can come from multiple directions at once. While Walkers only have to deal with gravity and other stresses in limited directions at once.
While on a gameplay level even though there are sources showing the strength of Walkers over Starfighter weapons that can be explained away as cinematic license.
Also I note the attacks seen in The Empire Strikes Back are Speeder vs Walker, the only Walker vs Starfigher fight I can remember is an attack run by X-wings on an AT-AT in one of the X-wing books. Though there maybe others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16403
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wildfire wrote: | | I've always felt that Starfighters are inherently stronger as they are designed to deal with the stresses of flight and combat, which can come from multiple directions at once. While Walkers only have to deal with gravity and other stresses in limited directions at once. |
My feeling was that, because walkers are both larger and do not have to deal with the environmental stresses you described, they could take the additional stress of carrying larger power plants to charge heavier weaponry, as well as packing on lots and lots of heavy armor.
I want to point out that I'm not advocating that all walkers be higher in scale than starfighters simply because they are walkers. I'm fine with smaller walkers like the AT-ST and the AT-PT being Speeder Scale, as they are somewhat borderline size-wise.
| Quote: | While on a gameplay level even though there are sources showing the strength of Walkers over Starfighter weapons that can be explained away as cinematic license.
Also I note the attacks seen in The Empire Strikes Back are Speeder vs Walker, the only Walker vs Starfigher fight I can remember is an attack run by X-wings on an AT-AT in one of the X-wing books. Though there maybe others. |
The book in question was Isard's Revenge (X-Wing #8, I believe), which featured a battle between four AT-ATs and four X-Wings (piloted by Wedge Antilles, Tycho Celchu, Hobbie Klivian and Wes Janson, four of Rogue Squadron's best). In that battle, the X-Wings were forced to use coordinated attacks to disable or destroy the AT-ATs. Four of the best starfighter pilots in the EU have to work together to take out AT-ATs is quite a statement on their toughness. I prefer the X-Wing novel's take over WEG's on a lot of subjects, including this one. If you crunch the numbers:WEG Scale System = Walkers -2D vs. Starfighters
AT-AT Hull 6D-2D(Scale)= 4D vs. X-Wing Laser Cannon @ 6D.
Using the 2D=7 Rule, an X-Wing pilot can reasonably expect to inflict a Lightly Damaged result with every hit.
Oddly enough, due to the vagaries of the WEG scale system, a slow, clumsy AT-AT actually has a +2D advantage (due to the Scale modifier) to dodge shots from starfighter scale weaponry as opposed to other slow, clumsy walkers, even though starfighters are, on the average, far more nimble and maneuverable.
If you flip it, however, with Walkers at +2D vs. Starfighters, the roll is now 6D vs. 8D. Advantage = Walkers. X-Wings now have to either coordinate fire or use optional rules (quad-linked lasers, discretionary power, precision targeting, etc.) or both to take them out. However, the X-Wings now have a +2D bonus to dodge attacks from the AT-AT (which, IMO, better captures the feel of large clumsy walkers vs fast maneuverable fighters).
For me, flipping the scale also simplifies the old question as to why the Alliance didn't use starfighters against the Walkers on Hoth: because the walkers were too tough even for the starfighters. The only way to take them out was to engage them with a tactic that exploited the AT-AT's main exploitable weakness (balance) and required a much more maneuverable craft than an X-Wing. In game terms, the cable-trip attack doesn't cause damage so much as it inflicts an automatic movement failure that immobilizes the walker (rules as yet to be determined).
There is another in-universe example that comes to mind. In AOTC, Walker-Scale SPHA-Ts combined fire to destroy a Federation Core Ship. While no official stats exist for either vehicle, the SPHA-Ts would have to overcome a +8D Scale Modifier by a minimum of 13 points to inflict enough damage to make the Core Ship crash. Also, in one episode of the Clone Wars, Anakin ambushed a Separatist Fleet by deploying his AT-TE walkers onto several large asteroids. Both examples speak in favor of Walkers being larger in scale and thus able to fire more potent weaponry than starfighters.
In the end, I have seen far too many WEG screw-ups to believe they got everything right and everyone else got it wrong. Cinematic license that disagrees with what WEG says may end up being more realistic.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | wildfire wrote: | | I've always felt that Starfighters are inherently stronger as they are designed to deal with the stresses of flight and combat, which can come from multiple directions at once. While Walkers only have to deal with gravity and other stresses in limited directions at once. |
My feeling was that, because walkers are both larger and do not have to deal with the environmental stresses you described, they could take the additional stress of carrying larger power plants to charge heavier weaponry, as well as packing on lots and lots of heavy armor.
I want to point out that I'm not advocating that all walkers be higher in scale than starfighters simply because they are walkers. I'm fine with smaller walkers like the AT-ST and the AT-PT being Speeder Scale, as they are somewhat borderline size-wise. |
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this point at least.
As I feel the opposite is true, Starfighters have bigger power plants and better armour because of the greater stresses they are exposed too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: |
| wildfire wrote: | While on a gameplay level even though there are sources showing the strength of Walkers over Starfighter weapons that can be explained away as cinematic license.
Also I note the attacks seen in The Empire Strikes Back are Speeder vs Walker, the only Walker vs Starfigher fight I can remember is an attack run by X-wings on an AT-AT in one of the X-wing books. Though there maybe others. |
The book in question was Isard's Revenge (X-Wing #8, I believe), which featured a battle between four AT-ATs and four X-Wings (piloted by Wedge Antilles, Tycho Celchu, Hobbie Klivian and Wes Janson, four of Rogue Squadron's best). In that battle, the X-Wings were forced to use coordinated attacks to disable or destroy the AT-ATs. Four of the best starfighter pilots in the EU have to work together to take out AT-ATs is quite a statement on their toughness. I prefer the X-Wing novel's take over WEG's on a lot of subjects, including this one. If you crunch the numbers:WEG Scale System = Walkers -2D vs. Starfighters
AT-AT Hull 6D-2D(Scale)= 4D vs. X-Wing Laser Cannon @ 6D.
Using the 2D=7 Rule, an X-Wing pilot can reasonably expect to inflict a Lightly Damaged result with every hit.
Oddly enough, due to the vagaries of the WEG scale system, a slow, clumsy AT-AT actually has a +2D advantage (due to the Scale modifier) to dodge shots from starfighter scale weaponry as opposed to other slow, clumsy walkers, even though starfighters are, on the average, far more nimble and maneuverable.
If you flip it, however, with Walkers at +2D vs. Starfighters, the roll is now 6D vs. 8D. Advantage = Walkers. X-Wings now have to either coordinate fire or use optional rules (quad-linked lasers, discretionary power, precision targeting, etc.) or both to take them out. However, the X-Wings now have a +2D bonus to dodge attacks from the AT-AT (which, IMO, better captures the feel of large clumsy walkers vs fast maneuverable fighters).
For me, flipping the scale also simplifies the old question as to why the Alliance didn't use starfighters against the Walkers on Hoth: because the walkers were too tough even for the starfighters. The only way to take them out was to engage them with a tactic that exploited the AT-AT's main exploitable weakness (balance) and required a much more maneuverable craft than an X-Wing. In game terms, the cable-trip attack doesn't cause damage so much as it inflicts an automatic movement failure that immobilizes the walker (rules as yet to be determined).
There is another in-universe example that comes to mind. In AOTC, Walker-Scale SPHA-Ts combined fire to destroy a Federation Core Ship. While no official stats exist for either vehicle, the SPHA-Ts would have to overcome a +8D Scale Modifier by a minimum of 13 points to inflict enough damage to make the Core Ship crash. Also, in one episode of the Clone Wars, Anakin ambushed a Separatist Fleet by deploying his AT-TE walkers onto several large asteroids. Both examples speak in favor of Walkers being larger in scale and thus able to fire more potent weaponry than starfighters.
In the end, I have seen far too many WEG screw-ups to believe they got everything right and everyone else got it wrong. Cinematic license that disagrees with what WEG says may end up being more realistic. |
To answer a few of these points not in any order. 
The starfighters on Hoth were limited in number as each transport only got two escorts and they were needed to protect the transports. As the base was an untenable position and the ground forces where solely to buy time for the bases evacuation, it makes no sense to us them to defend the base if it means a transport is lost to fighters while escaping.
Coincidentally I was watching he clones wars episode this afternoon and the AT-TE walkers were only firing against bare hulls as all shields were switched forward. Which probably evened up the damage vs hull ratios.
Ah that was the book I last read it when it was published long ago
I can't argue with the damage figures, though I think its a case of dramatic license dictating the outcomes, but its too long since I read the scene, must reread it sometime soon.
I also kinda feel the bonus to dodging partially represents the difficulty of targeting something from a faster moving and potentially jinking etc platform |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thedemonapostle
Commander
Joined: 02 Aug 2011
Posts: 257
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
theres a lot wrong with the scale system. ive had problems with players that couldnt understand why a s*** 150 meters long with a capital scale hull of 4D had the same hull strength as a ship nearly 8 times its size. or why a ship thats 7800 meters long has the same hull as a ship thats only 150 meters long.
im more for basing the scale off of the size type rather than the standard.
off the top of my head here are a few suggestions and suggested lengths:
planetary 1,000km-250,000km+
death star 2.5-1,000km
battleship 2,000-25,000m
dreadnought 1,000-2,000m
cruiser 750-1,000m
destroyer 400-750m
frigate 200-400m
corvette 100-200m
determining the dice difference between these is a whole other bag of worms...
_________________
Aim low, shoot high
I'm a pirate, need I say more?
d6holocron.com: Thedemonapostle
Thedemonapostle Star Wars Crossovers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16403
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wildfire wrote: | | The starfighters on Hoth were limited in number as each transport only got two escorts and they were needed to protect the transports. As the base was an untenable position and the ground forces where solely to buy time for the bases evacuation, it makes no sense to us them to defend the base if it means a transport is lost to fighters while escaping. |
And yet, to me, if the starfighters had the power to take out the AT-ATs (as they easily do per WEG's scale system), it would make more sense to use the starfighters against the AT-ATs, thereby protecting the power generators, delaying Vader's landing and gaining additional time to launch the transports. Instead, they are sitting on the ground, idly waiting to protect transports that haven't taken off yet (and therefore are not yet in need of an escort), and for Rogue Group to ditch their airspeeders. Besides, based on my number crunching, an AT-AT would only be rolling 4D (6D Damage -2D Scale) against an X-Wing's 4D+1D, so its not like they would be in any real danger of getting shot down by the AT-ATs.
Hey, don't look now, but I think we're beating a dead horse...
| Quote: | | Coincidentally I was watching he clones wars episode this afternoon and the AT-TE walkers were only firing against bare hulls as all shields were switched forward. Which probably evened up the damage vs hull ratios. |
There are no official stats for either the Separatist ships or the AT-TE's, but the fact remains that the AT-TE's would still have to overcome a +8D Scale modifier to inflict even light damage on a capital ship, even before shields became a factor.
| Quote: | Ah that was the book I last read it when it was published long ago
I can't argue with the damage figures, though I think its a case of dramatic license dictating the outcomes, but its too long since I read the scene, must reread it sometime soon. |
Let me know what you think.
| Quote: | | I also kinda feel the bonus to dodging partially represents the difficulty of targeting something from a faster moving and potentially jinking etc platform |
IMO, that is distorting the intention of the scale system. Scale was intended entirely to represent overall size, and its effectiveness both on responsiveness and maneuverability in inverse proportion to armament and ability to resist damage. How speed affects accuracy (both as a shooter and a target) should be under a different rule.
_________________
"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: 16403
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thedemonapostle wrote: | planetary 1,000km-250,000km+
death star 2.5-1,000km |
So you're thinking that Death Stars and planets should have different scales brackets?
| Quote: | cruiser 750-1,000m
destroyer 400-750m
frigate 200-400m
corvette 100-200m |
I lump all of these into the same scale, with the cut-off at 900m, so that the Victory-Class is the lower end of the Capital Ship Scale.
| Quote: | | determining the dice difference between these is a whole other bag of worms... |
This is what I use:
Character 0D
Cycle +2D
Speeder +4D
Starfighter +6D
Walker +8D
Starship +10D (100m-899m)
Capital Ship +14D (900m - 3km)
Dreadnought +18D (3km - 30km)
Death Star +24D
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | wildfire wrote: | | The starfighters on Hoth were limited in number as each transport only got two escorts and they were needed to protect the transports. As the base was an untenable position and the ground forces where solely to buy time for the bases evacuation, it makes no sense to us them to defend the base if it means a transport is lost to fighters while escaping. |
And yet, to me, if the starfighters had the power to take out the AT-ATs (as they easily do per WEG's scale system), it would make more sense to use the starfighters against the AT-ATs, thereby protecting the power generators, delaying Vader's landing and gaining additional time to launch the transports. Instead, they are sitting on the ground, idly waiting to protect transports that haven't taken off yet (and therefore are not yet in need of an escort), and for Rogue Group to ditch their airspeeders. Besides, based on my number crunching, an AT-AT would only be rolling 4D (6D Damage -2D Scale) against an X-Wing's 4D+1D, so its not like they would be in any real danger of getting shot down by the AT-ATs.
Hey, don't look now, but I think we're beating a dead horse...
|
Yep, I think we aren't going to agree on this anytime soon, we have too different an opinion of how this works, though these discussions are fun |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16403
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LOL. True.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
wildfire
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 19 Feb 2006
Posts: 234
Location: Scotland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | wildfire wrote: | | I also kinda feel the bonus to dodging partially represents the difficulty of targeting something from a faster moving and potentially jinking etc platform |
IMO, that is distorting the intention of the scale system. Scale was intended entirely to represent overall size, and its effectiveness both on responsiveness and maneuverability in inverse proportion to armament and ability to resist damage. How speed affects accuracy (both as a shooter and a target) should be under a different rule. |
Never really though about it that way, always assumed the scale system took into account size, responsiveness, manoeuvrability and the difficulty of hitting a smaller target with a larger weapon, kinda like using an artillery piece as a sniper rifle, or hitting a fast moving small boat with a 16" naval gun difficult but if you land a shot it's gonna hurt
The reverse is its easy to hit a larger target but it won't hurt it much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14354
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wildfire wrote: |
Yep, I think we aren't going to agree on this anytime soon, we have too different an opinion of how this works, though these discussions are fun |
That's one of the reasons i like this site compared to others.. WE may get into heated discussions, but not to the level where threads get locked, people get banned etc
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16403
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | That's one of the reasons i like this site compared to others.. WE may get into heated discussions, but not to the level where threads get locked, people get banned etc |
Well, not recently anyway. 
_________________
"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: 16403
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2014 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wildfire wrote: | Never really though about it that way, always assumed the scale system took into account size, responsiveness, manoeuvrability and the difficulty of hitting a smaller target with a larger weapon, kinda like using an artillery piece as a sniper rifle, or hitting a fast moving small boat with a 16" naval gun difficult but if you land a shot it's gonna hurt
The reverse is its easy to hit a larger target but it won't hurt it much. |
If you're interested in throwing speed and scale into the mix together, I just recently generated this: | Quote: | Hmm. So, something like this for the left and right fire arcs:Target SU / round = Difficulty Increase To Hit
1-4 = +1D
5-8 = +2D
9-16 = +3D
17-32 = +4D
33-64 = +5D
65+ = +6D
and like this for the front and rear arcs:Combined Closing Speed of Target and Shooter = Difficulty Increase To Hit
1-16 = +1D
17-32 = +2D
33-64 = +3D
65+ = +4D
These dice numbers would make any vehicle traveling All-Out a much more difficulty target, but not necessarily more difficult than they would be if the pilot was using evasive maneuvers. |
Short version is you pick your chart based on relative positioning between the shooter and target, then calculate relative movement to generate a penalty. For example, if an Interceptor crosses in front of an X-Wing at Full Speed (22 SU's), the X-Wing would be at +4D difficulty to hit it.
I haven't had a chance to playtest, but IMO it looks promising...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
