| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2019 9:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I've been thinking about this again, and once again, with a simple version that blends two of the previous versions. It's also somewhat similar to the Range Increment from D20...
Here's what I'm thinking...1). Take the Cargo Capacity of a Stock WEG ship and divide it by 5. The resulting number is the ship's Cargo Increment.
2). For every full Cargo Increment of cargo carried by the ship, increase the Difficulty of all Piloting and Astrogation rolls by +1.
3). For every 5 Cargo Increments carried, reduce the ship's Space and Atmosphere by one step on the Speed Code Chart.
3). There is theoretically no upper limit to weight carried, so long as the ship's volume and the pilot's skill level are enough to stay ahead of it.
EDIT: Added Astrogation penalties to #2.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:31 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I like it. Just to make sure I am reading that right, this is not only addressing overloading a ship beyond its Cargo Capacity stat in tons, right? A ship hauling only 1/5 - 4/5 of its Cargo Capacity will not suffer a reduction in speed but will still suffer the according piloting difficulty increase. Correct? But 5 or more increments the ship will also start having a move reduction. Correct?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Correct. The numbers may still need to be tweaked, though. I think the Cargo Increment is solid, but I did the Speed Loss mechanic on the fly...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10297
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| This is semantical, but it may be "simpler" to impose a -1 penalty per increment, rather than a +1 difficulty (the most obvious case would be opposed rolls). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | Correct. The numbers may still need to be tweaked, though. I think the Cargo Increment is solid, but I did the Speed Loss mechanic on the fly... |
It's a good start. |
For most ships, it's going to still be pretty limiting. If we compare a stock YT-1300, for example, it will have a Cargo Increment of 20 metric tons, but has an absolute limit of 400 metric tons before its Space drops to 0, and even then it would be facing a +20 Difficulty penalty to all actions.
So, the question is going to be less about the abstract hard cap the WEG stat places on Cargo Capacity than it is about how far the captain/pilot is willing to push his ship and his skill level. Ships like the Millennium Falcon would be that much more extraordinary by dint of having a Space of 8 and a Cargo Increment of 20 metric tons because they can theoretically push up to 800 metric tons (@ +40 Difficulty) before their engine zeroes out.
Another possibility would be to apply the Cargo Modifiers to the Long-Distance Movement rule, so that the more weight a ship is hauling, the greater the chance of suffering a malfunction if it's pushed to Full or All-Out for too long.
_________________
"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: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Naaman wrote: | | This is semantical, but it may be "simpler" to impose a -1 penalty per increment, rather than a +1 difficulty (the most obvious case would be opposed rolls). |
That can be extrapolated as needed. The initial implication here is how well the ship handles under normal circumstances. Conversion for combat purposes (all the opposed rolls) won't be hard to do.
_________________
"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: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
From there, ships (just Space Transports; there's no real need to do this for starfighters or capital ships) would need an additional stat for Cargo Volume, separate and distinct from the Weight Increment. A Base of 1 cubic meter per 2 metric tons is a decent rule of thumb unless someone wants to use a deck plan that specifies a different cargo volume.
_________________
"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: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On a related note, this would work with a modified version of the Improved Thrust rule from 1E Tramp Freighters, whereby a ship can be modified for greater cargo capacity at the expense of speed.
When used in combination with this rule, it presents a trade-off of top-end speed vs. maintaining handling when loaded.
What I'm picturing is, a ship with this modification can exchange 1 unit of their Space rating for a 10 ton increase in their Cargo Increment.
So, using the Stock YT-1300 example, we would have the following progression:Tons Carried = Difficulty Increase (Space Penalty)
0-20 = +0 (-)
21-40 = +1 (-)
41-60 = +2 (-)
61-80 = +3 (-)
81-100 = +4 (-)
101-120 = +5 (-1)
121-140 = +6 (-1)
141-160 = +7 (-1)
161-180 = +8 (-1)
181-200 = +9 (-1)
201-220 = +10 (-2) Now, suppose the ship's captain decided he wanted to upgrade his engine for Improved Thrust. So he pays the appropriate price to bump up his Cargo Increment from 20 to 30 metric tons, at the price of reducing his ship's Space from 4 to 3. Now, the progression looks like so:Tons Carried = Difficulty Increase (Space Penalty)
0-30 = +0 (-)
31-60 = +1 (-)
61-90 = +2 (-)
91-120 = +3 (-)
121-150 = +4 (-)
151-180 = +5 (-1)
181-210 = +6 (-1)
211-240 = +7 (-1)
241-270 = +8 (-1)
271-300 = +9 (-1)
301-330 = +10 (-2)
So, comparing the two ships side-by-side, the stock YT-1300 will perform better empty, but if both ships were loaded with 120 metric tons of cargo, the Improved Thrust YT-1300 will handle better (+3 to Difficulty instead of +5), and they will be matched in speed.
If we push the numbers all the way up to the maximum on the chart, the Stock YT-1300 hauling 210 metric tons will be reduced to Space 2 and a Maneuver Penalty of +10, while the Improved Thrust YT will also be at Space 2, but with a Maneuver Penalty of only +6.
I'm typing this up somewhat on the fly, but I like the trade-off that it offers to Space Transport owners: better performance when empty vs. less performance degradation when loaded, or pay a lot of money for a heavily modified ship with both.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Given your last idea, it seems likely that cargo ships that are heavily modified for speed end up with what is, in effect, a negative cargo thrust change. Which would makes sense for smuggler's ships designed to run low volume - high value contraband like spice. So the Falcon, rather than having a 20 ton increment might have only a 10 ton increment or even a 5 ton increment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 03, 2019 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Given your last idea, it seems likely that cargo ships that are heavily modified for speed end up with what is, in effect, a negative cargo thrust change. Which would makes sense for smuggler's ships designed to run low volume - high value contraband like spice. So the Falcon, rather than having a 20 ton increment might have only a 10 ton increment or even a 5 ton increment. |
I would definitely enforce that for PC ships, especially ones that have upgraded their engines for higher speed at the cost of cargo capacity. However, as I said above, I think letting the Falcon have a 20-ton Cargo Increment with a Space of 8 is part of what makes the ship so unique and special.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | I think letting the Falcon have a 20-ton Cargo Increment with a Space of 8 is part of what makes the ship so unique and special. |
It makes sense to me if there is always a trade-off between speed, agility, and cargo capacity. Even for Han Solo's ship. I see it as similar to how capital ships should have to trade off between offense, defense, and speed. A very fast, very agile ship that can also haul more cargo than a larger, slower, less agile ship seems wrong to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | It makes sense to me if there is always a trade-off between speed, agility, and cargo capacity. Even for Han Solo's ship. I see it as similar to how capital ships should have to trade off between offense, defense, and speed. A very fast, very agile ship that can also haul more cargo than a larger, slower, less agile ship seems wrong to me. |
And yet the Falcon always had the same cargo capacity as a stock YT-1300, but with double the speed, due to it being highly modified. I'm not making the Facon any more special than it already was, just phrasing it differently.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Let's just agree to disagree on this, shall we? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 04, 2019 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Let's just agree to disagree on this, shall we? |
Well, we could, but I'm genuinely curious as to how you justify the existing Falcon's stats, yet find this house rule problematic.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
