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

Revising Official Capital Ship Stats
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Revising Official Capital Ship Stats Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

System Patrol Craft- In the Capital Ship Roles topic, you mentioned that the IPV lacks the weapons suite it needs to actually perform its assigned mission. In the 1E stats, the IPV had 4 laser cannon, but 2E switched them up to turbolasers. I decided to split the difference and give the ship two of each (upgrading the lasers to dual laser cannon) so that it could fight effectively against both starfighter and capital scale targets, and then added a tractor beam projector as icing on the cake.
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nebulon B- Like the Assault Shuttle, this upgrade was based more on intuition combined with the content of the ship's description. The Nebulon B was supposed to be a TIE carrier, but the write-up specifically mentions the effective combination of "TIEs supported by a Frigate's heavy guns." The disparity here is that, with the wimpy 2D laser cannon, the frigate's only real defense from enemy fighters is its own TIEs, and if the TIEs are defending the frigate, they can't defend the convoy (which was the main reason the Nebulon was introduced). As such, the Nebulon needs a relatively strong ASF weapon system (but not too powerful, or there would be no need for the Lancer later on).

Since I'm basically just adding to 2D to the Damage of all existing Laser Cannon stats, I grabbed the Twin Laser Cannon off the Escort Carrier and put them on the Nebulon. With 12 of the twin cannon, the Nebulon has the firepower equivalent of an additional squadron of TIE fighters to defend itself, so that its TIEs can go on the offensive without worrying too much about their mothership.
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 9:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Strike Cruiser- Seeing as how almost every other ship has at least a minimum complement of Laser Cannon, I decided to add them here, too. The special rule was something I came up with based on the ship's write-up, which specifically states that the Strike's modular nature makes it vulnerable, specifically that "entire systems or weapons batteries can be knocked out by a single, well-placed hit."
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lancer- Apart from switching up the damage on the quad-lasers, I added two special rules based on excerpts from the ship's write-up, specifically, "each gun is mounted on its own tower to provide an increased fire arc," and "the modified targeting systems still need work, resulting in less than half of each Lancer's weapons operating perfectly on any given day."
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Super Star Destroyer, Imperial Star Destroyer (I & II), Victory Star Destroyer (I & II), MC80 Cruiser, Torpedo Sphere and Star Galleon- Seeing as how most ships seem to have at least minimal anti-starfighter defenses, I decided to add basic laser cannon capability to these ships, so that they have at least a token defense against starfighters. As reinforcement, WOTC added 40 point laser cannon to the stats of the ISD I in their Revised Rulebook, so there is some official backing for this. The 4D cannon is nowhere near as useless as the 2D cannon, but it is weak enough relative to Alliance fighters that it could dovetail with the WEG narrative of the Empire believing that starfighters aren't a threat to capital ships. It's not that they didn't bother to include anti-starfighter defenses at all; it's just that they armed their ships inadequately to deal with the current threat level. The double laser cannon on the Nebulon B and the Escort Carrier (and the quad-lasers are on the Lancer) would be indicators of a change in doctrinal thinking based on experience.

I put twin laser cannon on the MC80 out of a feeling that the Alliance would be more cognizant of the starfighter threat than the Empire, and would potentially make more of an effort to defend their big ships from attacking TIE fighters.
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Everything Else- The only changes I made to other stats were just to upgrade the relatively weak damage on the laser cannon armament, increasing all damage ratings by 2D. This increase puts ship-mounted anti-starfighter weaponry on par with the laser cannon actually mounted on starfighters per their official stats.
_________________
"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
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Line Captain


Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 803
Location: Portland, OR

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wow, thanks for being so thorough. I'll work my brain through these, though the next couple of days I'll be somewhat AFK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dromdarr_Alark
Commander
Commander


Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 426
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree with what you did to the Correllian Corvette. I'm not sure about the other ones. The Star Destroyers are practically invulnerable as they are. I don't think I would improve them any.

I don't know much about most of the ships you posted and I only really looked at the ones that are in my game, namely the Corellian Corvette, Bulk Cruiser (did you mean the Neutron Star/Battlehorn?), Nebulon B, and Victory Star Destroyer.
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dromdarr_Alark
Commander
Commander


Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 426
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 12:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Looking back at the bulk cruiser, I don't think a converted cargo ship should have such powerful lasers. Military-grade laser cannons are expensive (hence why lasers on freighters are weaker than on starfighters), so I would keep them at 4D. It seems to fit with the cheap conversion idea of the ship.

It would also be hard to find a supplier for military-grade lasers in bulk.
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dromdarr_Alark wrote:
The Star Destroyers are practically invulnerable as they are. I don't think I would improve them any.

It wasn't my original idea; WOTC added 40 laser cannon to the ISD when they came out with 4ER. I'm just updating the D6 stats to match, and adding similar armament to the other big ships.

Quote:
Bulk Cruiser (did you mean the Neutron Star/Battlehorn?)

The Neutron Star, from the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. And it was actually built as a warship, not a converted cargo ship.
_________________
"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
Dromdarr_Alark
Commander
Commander


Joined: 07 Apr 2013
Posts: 426
Location: Boston, MA

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

crmcneill wrote:

Quote:
Bulk Cruiser (did you mean the Neutron Star/Battlehorn?)

The Neutron Star, from the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. And it was actually built as a warship, not a converted cargo ship.


I knew that not!
_________________
"I still wouldn't have a roll for it - but that's just how I roll."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dromdarr_Alark wrote:
crmcneill wrote:

Quote:
Bulk Cruiser (did you mean the Neutron Star/Battlehorn?)

The Neutron Star, from the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. And it was actually built as a warship, not a converted cargo ship.


I knew that not!

WEG didn't help matters when they included Omze's Incredible Traveling Starport in Platt's Starport Guide. Even though it looks like an Action-Series Bulk Freighter instead of the ship shown in the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. My fix was to say that Omze's was a Battle Horn, as no official images of it exist.
_________________
"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
aegisflashfire
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 299
Location: Cincinnati, OH

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

WEG reused spaceframes a couple of times; particularly egregious was the "Alderaan War frigate" that was also a space barge.
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12480
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm thinking of limiting the laser cannon on the big ships by saying that their fire control systems do not permit more than 4 lasers at a time from engaging a single target.
_________________
"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
aegisflashfire
Commander
Commander


Joined: 24 Mar 2014
Posts: 299
Location: Cincinnati, OH

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there should be a speed-based penalty for targeting starfighters. The scale charts bonuses are based size.

In real word dogfighting tactics (at least during the WWI/WWII era, which Star Wars dogfighting is patterned on) speed turns out to be a greater factor than maneuverability in determining who wins.

I would suggest a +2 difficulty to hit a starfighter scale target per 1 difference in relative speed. (So traveling approximately the same direction as the fighter makes the shot easier, but having a large transverse motion makes it a much harder shot)
_________________
http://swfallingstar.podbean.com
GM of Falling Star: D6 Star Wars Campaign Podcast
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 11, 12, 13  Next
Page 2 of 13

 
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