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 Vehicle Stats
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Revising Official Vehicle Stats Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, ... 20, 21, 22  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5755
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
If you want to have this thing fire grenades with a bigger blast radius, load it with frag grenades.

garhkal wrote:
I still see it as being @$$ backwards that a larger unit's grenade is a smaller area of effect than a smaller unit's grenade.. but what ever.

garhkal, you are free to use or not use what CR shared. You are also free to change it however you see fit for your own game.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
I still see it as being @$$ backwards that a larger unit's grenade is a smaller area of effect than a smaller unit's grenade.. but what ever.

The weapon includes this as part of its stat:
    Scale: Character
It may be mounted on a Walker-Scale vehicle, but it is a Character-Scale weapon. My intent is to allow the grenade launcher-equipped vehicles to fire multiple types of grenades, depending on the situation. Where Frag grenades are geared more for anti-personnel use, I see a Concussion grenade as more for armor piercing / anti-vehicle use. Since the two grenades would have the same basic dimensions (which is necessary for firing them from the same launcher), I can't just make the Concussion grenades hit for more damage with the same blast radius; something has to give.

We don't have a lot of information about how concussion warheads actually work, and what information we are given is contradictory. For example, the Wikipedia Canon section on Concussion Missiles describes them as being equipped with a proton-scattering warhead, which is identical to the description of proton torpedoes in the EU. The previous description was that a concussion missile was little more than a delayed-fuse explosive that penetrated into the target before exploding.

My problem is that we already have weapons that can do that now. And have had them for close to a century. And fragmentation explosives? They've been around in one form or another for hundreds of years. I find it hard to accept that, with all the advanced technology available in the SWU, hand grenade technology has frozen at roughly a late-Industrial level of development.

Personally, I think Concussion warheads are more like the Seismic Charges seen in AOTC (and the Concussion Rifle used in the Dark Forces video games). Specifically, they release an energy field effect that somehow transfers kinetic energy to the target, causing it to fracture along weak spots and stress points. It's even possible that tractor beam tech operates on similar physics: using energy to manipulate the kinetic energy of an object in the absence of a direct physical connection.

While living beings would take impact damage from a concussion blast (as seen in the Dark Forces FPS series, where both the concussion rifle and concussion grenades cause targets to get flung through the air on impact), concussion weapons are far more effective against rigid, non-living objects (vehicles in particular). However, to pack enough of a punch to damage a vehicle into a housing the size of a hand grenade requires that the energy release be focused into a specific, confined area, so as to concentrate for greater effect. As such, a concussion grenade would have a much reduced blast radius compared to a frag grenade, as the majority of the grenade's power would be focused on a specific point, with only a little bleeding out into the immediate area.

As an aside, IMC, I've replaced Fragmentation Grenades with Proton Grenades, primarily because of what I mentioned above: Fragmentation Grenades have been around in one form or another for hundreds of years already. Star Wars needs something high-tech in its place. I just ruled that a Proton Grenade has the same stats as a Fragmentation Grenade, but the "shrapnel" thrown off is composed of high-velocity proton particles. I could still see Fragmentation Grenades being in use in relatively primitive societies that still utilize firearms, but again, IMO, the SWU needs something more "Star Wars"-ish.
_________________
"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: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As I'm redoing these stats, there are going to be some notes thrown in for assumptions I'm making about the vehicles. The big one that comes to mind is sensor ranges. You'll notice I've been giving sensor ranges to all of the ground vehicles, but those ranges are minimal compared to the ranges on starships. The reasoning behind this is that the actual range number will be modified based on the environment in which the vehicle is operating:

-In short, the sensor ranges will be subject to the same modifiers as the sensors on capital ship weapons when operating in space, orbit, or in atmosphere.

-The listed Sensor Ranges for all the vehicle stats is the range to use sensors to detect things on the ground, or close enough to the surface as to be hidden in the surface clutter (~100 meters or so). The sensors ranges would read like so:
    Sensors:
    Passive 2km/1D
    Scan 4km/2D
    Search 6km/3D
    Focus 300m/4D
-When detecting airborne targets (above the ~100 meter line), the range is increased by x20 (the difference between Orbital Range and Atmosphere Range for weapons), like so:
    Sensors:
    Passive 40km/1D
    Scan 80km/2D
    Search 120km/3D
    Focus 6km/4D
-Airborne vehicles and starships in atmosphere would have their sensor ranges reduced to the same level. For example, an X-Wing, with sensors of
    Sensors:
    Passive 25/0D
    Scan 50/1D
    Search 75/2D
    Focus 3/4D
would have a sensor rating of
    Sensors:
    Passive 50km/0D
    Scan 100km/1D
    Search 150km/2D
    Focus 6km/4D
while operating in an atmosphere, and
    Sensors:
    Passive 2.5km/0D
    Scan 5km/1D
    Search 7.5km/2D
    Focus 300m/4D
if on the ground (or operating below the ~100 meter line) and trying to detect objects on the ground or also below that line.

The idea here is to put starfighters and ground combat vehicles on something approaching an equal footing, in that the two are equally capable of detecting each other and engaging in combat, although each will have their own advantages in that regard.

The ~100 meter line for low altitude operations is basically an arbitrary number I chose because I want to include a rule for low altitude flight operations. I have yet to work out the details for it in a manner that I would like, but the basic idea is that, if you can fly close enough to the surface, the ship becomes harder to detect on sensors, at the cost of increased piloting difficulty and the increased chance of plowing into the ground.
_________________
"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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12243
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why would most ground vehicles even have sensors. I can see some combat vehicles having them as standard, while others have them as a field add on, but i do not see why say a pod racer would have them, or a trash barge..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 1:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
Why would most ground vehicles even have sensors. I can see some combat vehicles having them as standard, while others have them as a field add on, but i do not see why say a pod racer would have them, or a trash barge..

Although I haven't reached that point yet, I'm planning on putting Passive-only sensors on most non-combat vehicles (including pod racers and landspeeders), although some civilian model airspeeders might get more the military-grade package. The idea is, among other things (as your signature suggests), to give characters in vehicles an excuse to know when they are being attacked (and thus allow them to make a reaction roll). As for sensors on the combat vehicles, the idea is (as I mentioned above) to give them a degree of parity with starships (starfighters and space transports). Film evidence and WEG's own write-ups clearly state that vehicles are equipped with sensors, yet they completely dropped the ball on providing the vehicle stats with the sensors they themselves said the vehicles had.
_________________
"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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12243
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That makes some sense. On those 'civvy passive only" would those be always active ones, or would they have to be kicked in??
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5755
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I'm planning on putting Passive-only sensors on most non-combat vehicles (including pod racers and landspeeders), although some civilian model airspeeders might get more the military-grade package. The idea is, among other things (as your signature suggests), to give characters in vehicles an excuse to know when they are being attacked (and thus allow them to make a reaction roll). As for sensors on the combat vehicles, the idea is (as I mentioned above) to give them a degree of parity with starships (starfighters and space transports). Film evidence and WEG's own write-ups clearly state that vehicles are equipped with sensors, yet they completely dropped the ball on providing the vehicle stats with the sensors they themselves said the vehicles had.

Thank you! I completely agree that WEG fumbled on vehicle sensor stats.

But I think that the sensors for the Imperial speeder bikes in RotJ were in the scout troopers helmets as opposed the the bike themselves, which makes it more dangerous and exciting for Luke and Leia to be flying "sensor-blind". And I don't think all pod racers necessarily had sensors because they seemed to be custom built or at least heavily modified/personalized, and it is suggested by TPM that they normally required beyond-human ability to fly them.

I definitely agree that most landspeeder and airspeeders, even civilian, would have at least some basic sensor package. And walkers should definitely have them too. CR, thanks so much for everything you do!
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
But I think that the sensors for the Imperial speeder bikes in RotJ were in the scout troopers helmets as opposed the the bike themselves, which makes it more dangerous and exciting for Luke and Leia to be flying "sensor-blind".


I think the sensor package was probably on the bike itself... but the "interface" necessary to read the sensors was built into the helmet. Same result as above, but no "hand-waving" to explain bulky sensors attached to the head.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5755
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JironGhrad wrote:
I think the sensor package was probably on the bike itself... but the "interface" necessary to read the sensors was built into the helmet.

That's what I meant. Much better worded. Thanks.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
That makes some sense. On those 'civvy passive only" would those be always active ones, or would they have to be kicked in??

I expect I'll go with Always-On or at least some form of automated warning mode. It gives the GM the ability to automatically convey important information, like when the PCs are being shot at.
_________________
"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: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
JironGhrad wrote:
I think the sensor package was probably on the bike itself... but the "interface" necessary to read the sensors was built into the helmet.

That's what I meant. Much better worded. Thanks.

This is my feeling as well. While I haven't hammered out the details yet, I'm going to be doing uniform sensor rules, as well, including the ability for military grade sensor packages to be able to jam opponent's sensors and comlinks.

While I don't think all Speeder and Flitter scale vehicles should have active sensors, military scout vehicles like the scout bike are an obvious exception. Per the films, they even have jamming capability (Luke: "Quick, jam their comlinks! Center switch!")
_________________
"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: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
I definitely agree that most landspeeder and airspeeders, even civilian, would have at least some basic sensor package. And walkers should definitely have them too. CR, thanks so much for everything you do!

Pleased to be of service.
_________________
"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: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll also be porting over several concepts from my Advanced Starfighter Combat system, including the use of sensors for Lock-On, as well as guided weapons for ground vehicles (the Hoverscout is the only vehicle in the core sourcebooks that this will effect). The addition of these systems will also necessitate a re-write of the Vehicle Damage Chart to allow for the possibility of damaging sensors and fire control.
_________________
"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
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 12243
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
garhkal wrote:
That makes some sense. On those 'civvy passive only" would those be always active ones, or would they have to be kicked in??

I expect I'll go with Always-On or at least some form of automated warning mode. It gives the GM the ability to automatically convey important information, like when the PCs are being shot at.


Would be sucky to have
"Warning object detected in path, automated breaking system engaging" during an attempted race away from the enemy..

And a creative enemy can (or should) be able to Spam his enemy's vehicle with false sensor warnings to either overwhelm it, or possibly force it to go where he wants..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 12476
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see it more as audible warnings used to automatically draw a character's attention to the sensor read-out, so that they may then decide what to do, not with the vehicle reacting for them.

However, there was a short story in GG11 where a Juggernaut fell for just that trap, where an automated braking system was tricked into slamming the vehicle to a stop. That would, IMO, be the exception, not the rule, though.
_________________
"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
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, ... 20, 21, 22  Next
Page 2 of 22

 
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