View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Naaman Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3191
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I remember a thread or something regarding spending CPs to soak damage dealt to a starfighter or some such. The premise being that the character has invested personal energy and time into "loving" the ship so that it performs better than stock.
I could see spending CPs to actually improve the base endurance rating OR perhaps being used "in flight" when cash and time are not available for a stop at a proper ship yard.
I presume that maintenance en route is something CRM has a specific expertise in and could probably whip up something fairly "realistic" if he wanted to. Which is to say that I assume his personal knowledge is informing the nuances of this house rule. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16187 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Naaman wrote: | I remember a thread or something regarding spending CPs to soak damage dealt to a starfighter or some such. The premise being that the character has invested personal energy and time into "loving" the ship so that it performs better than stock. |
That was my concept, too, actually. In essence, characters would transfer CP to their ship by "loving it", and those CPs could then be spend for soak rolls
Quote: | I could see spending CPs to actually improve the base endurance rating OR perhaps being used "in flight" when cash and time are not available for a stop at a proper ship yard. |
The in-game-rule equivalent of the pilot sitting in the cockpit, chanting, "Please don't run out of fuel, please don't run out of fuel, please don't run..."
Quote: | I presume that maintenance en route is something CRM has a specific expertise in and could probably whip up something fairly "realistic" if he wanted to. Which is to say that I assume his personal knowledge is informing the nuances of this house rule. |
Otherwise known as "How to repair a Semi Truck on the side of a highway using duct tape and WD40 101". All joking aside, the best results are found in (as a company driver, at least) sticking to your maintenance schedule and leaving as much of it as possible to the professional mechanics in the shop. Apart from that, just check the basics every day (tire pressure, fluids topped off, etc). _________________ "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 |
|
|
Naaman Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3191
|
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's more or less what I was referring to: for OTR trucking, I imagine issues arise despite even perfect adherence to the maintenance schedule.
I was driving through the desert one night... middle of nowhere... and I was overtaking a semi truck in a rather "spirited" manner when I heard a loud "pop!" I looked over and saw sparks flying out from under one of the axles under the trailer... tire blew out as I was passing by. Luckily, I passed on the left, while the blow out was on the passenger side of the trailer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 Posts: 152
|
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
CRMcNeill wrote: | All joking aside, the best results are found in (as a company driver, at least) sticking to your maintenance schedule and leaving as much of it as possible to the professional mechanics in the shop. Apart from that, just check the basics every day (tire pressure, fluids topped off, etc). |
With that in mind, I wanted to point something out to those interested in the "nitty-gritty" Starfighter experience. A few of years ago now, I was peripherally involved with the computer fire control system on a new-ish fighter jet. In the "current" US Air Force, fighters receive "typically" between 3 and 6 man-hours (sometimes actual) of scheduled maintenance PER HOUR of flight time. In the case of the A-wing that was mentioned back on page one, it would be reasonable to assume that the engines are tuned to be practically the fastest fighter around and that as a result, they require more frequent replacement of parts... hence more maintenance. It's also worth pointing out that pilots also don't do their own maintenance any more due to the specialized complexity in each of the key systems. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Naaman Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3191
|
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
JironGhrad wrote: | CRMcNeill wrote: | All joking aside, the best results are found in (as a company driver, at least) sticking to your maintenance schedule and leaving as much of it as possible to the professional mechanics in the shop. Apart from that, just check the basics every day (tire pressure, fluids topped off, etc). |
With that in mind, I wanted to point something out to those interested in the "nitty-gritty" Starfighter experience. A few of years ago now, I was peripherally involved with the computer fire control system on a new-ish fighter jet. In the "current" US Air Force, fighters receive "typically" between 3 and 6 man-hours (sometimes actual) of scheduled maintenance PER HOUR of flight time. In the case of the A-wing that was mentioned back on page one, it would be reasonable to assume that the engines are tuned to be practically the fastest fighter around and that as a result, they require more frequent replacement of parts... hence more maintenance. It's also worth pointing out that pilots also don't do their own maintenance any more due to the specialized complexity in each of the key systems. |
That's some nice insight. I wonder how much of the maintenance and upkeep could be relegated to droids, and whether any kind of automation would make it any faster.
Just out of curiosity, why did flight time matter? If, for example, one hour of flight time requires xyz to be replaced, then does that mean that a plane cannot fly for more than one hour before it begins to lose performance/reliability/whatever? Or are those man-hours spent primarily on checks and inspections?
For something like an A-Wing, if we are talking about ramping up the maintenance tempo, we are also taking about increased costs in part and such. Now, the ship's speed alone (space: 12) could make that worth while if its being used for all its worth (for example, if the A-Wing squadron's job is to chase down TIE pilots... kind of like a seek and destroy mission). Though, depending on how the maintenance rules turned out, I might be tempted to increase the A-Wing's base maneuverability and/or fire control (say, a couple pips each) in order to make it "live up to the hype" of all the headaches that the maintenance schedule causes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016 Posts: 2248 Location: San Antonio
|
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another thought on spending CPs to reduce difficulties... considering the crew size of something like a Nebulon-B (to say nothing of the really big ships), even a 1 CP per year "tax" on the crew (i.e. doing basic repairs and maintenence on a schedule) would put endurance a lot higher. _________________ "I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 Posts: 152
|
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Naaman wrote: | That's some nice insight. I wonder how much of the maintenance and upkeep could be relegated to droids, and whether any kind of automation would make it any faster.
Just out of curiosity, why did flight time matter? Or are those man-hours spent primarily on checks and inspections?
|
I'm of the opinion that probably 90-95% of regular upkeep and repair is done by droids in the SWU, the exception being cases where droids might not be available. Droids with microscopic level sensors would also make things like checking for stress failure much easier.
As far as flight time, just like any car or truck, there are normally things you do every 'x' many miles. Unlike most civilian aircraft, military fighters go through extreme forces (as a child we lived near a fighter base, and the F-15s take off by boosting and then doing a 90 degree turn straight up; it has a superior thrust/weight ratio) which, naturally, puts greater stress on the airframe. A lot of that time is spent checking things that can break for damage and replacing the parts that show wear.
Naaman wrote: | If, for example, one hour of flight time requires xyz to be replaced, then does that mean that a plane cannot fly for more than one hour before it begins to lose performance/reliability/whatever? |
Technically, yes... a fighter jet starts to degrade the minute the engine is ignited. From a practical standpoint, let's assume no upkeep is done on the fighter between flights. Barring extreme examples of mishaps (such as sucking a bird or other debris into the engine intake), you might reasonably expect to be able to get 20-30 hours of flight time before beginning to see noticeable dips in performance. That number would obviously increase if you're babying the plane (not using afterburners, no high-g aerobatics, avoiding combat scenarios) but wouldn't exceed 75 hours before you had to do an engine overhaul. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Naaman Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3191
|
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting. If we consider fighter jets as analogous to starfighters, perhaps the A-Wing would need 5-8 hours of PMCS for every hour.
I'm imagining that the maintenance "averages out" rather than accumulating by the hour (so, whether the last mission was 1 hour or 3, the following checks and inspections are the same, not counting any "scheduled" maintenance that is also due)? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16187 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2016 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
MrNexx wrote: | Another thought on spending CPs to reduce difficulties... considering the crew size of something like a Nebulon-B (to say nothing of the really big ships), even a 1 CP per year "tax" on the crew (i.e. doing basic repairs and maintenence on a schedule) would put endurance a lot higher. |
I've backed away from the idea of applying this to capital ships. The numbers involved just end up getting way out of hand. Unless someone comes up with a workable solution, I only plan on applying this rule to small craft with 1-2 crew. _________________ "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 |
|
|
Naaman Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011 Posts: 3191
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
The "workable" part is the real challenge. I don't really see a need for such a solution, anyway: while a crew may be collectively invested in the state of their capitol ship, they are not individually invested in it in the same way that a freight pilot or fighter pilot is invested in the upkeep of his own, personal craft.
For me, my weapons were my "babies" on deployment. I spent an average of an hour a day working on them (basic maintenance) plus an additional amount of time (varied widely) practicing dry fire and just investing my own personal time and energy into developing that "rapport" with my guns. At every test fire, my guns operated flawlessly, whereas other gunners often had issues with theirs at some point on the deployment. Heck, when we got back home, the weapons techs came by the company HQ to QAQC our M9s. Of the 170+ pistols, only 5 were still serviceable. 4 of them were unissued weapons. The 5th one was mine. Now, did I particularly "care" about whether the comms at the TOC were working? I mean, I cared, but it wasn't my lane, so I didn't worry about it. Did I have any influence over whether the mechanics had good, functional tools? Not my lane. (I may be part of the invested collective, but my own time and energy cannot be spread so broadly, which leads to the following):
As for a workable system, though, if you want one (and I think you have the right idea of not even worrying about it, TBH), how about this: the CP requirement is scaled with the craft in question AND only the systems operated by the crew members who invested those CPs would benefit. Again... is it workable, or more trouble than its worth? I'm leaning toward the latter, here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016 Posts: 152
|
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2016 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Naaman wrote: | I'm imagining that the maintenance "averages out" rather than accumulating by the hour (so, whether the last mission was 1 hour or 3, the following checks and inspections are the same, not counting any "scheduled" maintenance that is also due)? |
Correct. If you have to replace "bearing A" after 1 hour of flight; if you've used it for 3 hours, you don't replace the part 3 times, but just once. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16187 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Wed Sep 07, 2016 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm coming back around to this because I've got an idea for how to apply a ship's Endurance dice to the Running Silent rule. Because of that, I've decided that, continuing forward for this rule, Endurance will purely be a measurement of Consumables. Technical issues and the like will be covered by a separate Dice value (Reliability, most likely). More to come... _________________ "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: 16187 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2016 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
CRMcNeill wrote: | Just for reference on converting Consumables into Endurance, here is the SWU calendar system, along with the Consumables rating converted to Days (using the SWU calendar) for all starships in the 2R&E Rulebook and the three core sourcebooks:1 week = 5 days
1 month = 7 weeks = 35 days
1 year = 10 months + 3 festival weeks + 3 holidays = 368 days
Super Star Destroyer = 2,208 days
Imperial Star Destroyer = 2,208 days
Torpedo Sphere = 1,472 days
Victory I & II = 1,472 days
MC80 = 736 days
Dreadnaught = 736 days
Assault Frigate = 552 days
Interdictor = ~442 days
Strike Cruiser = 552 days
Carrack = 368 days
Escort Carrier = 315 days
Bulk Cruiser = 368 days
Nebulon B = 736 days
Lancer = 5 days
Star Galleon = 210 days
Corellian Corvette = 368 days
Corellian Gunship = 280 days
IPV 1 = 105 days
Guardian Light Cruiser = 105 days
Lone Scout A = 368 days
Gamma Assault Shuttle = 5 days
Skipray = 35 days
Container Ship = 500 days
Luxury Liner = 300 days
Action VI = 105 days
GR90 = 210 days
Space Barge = 5 days
YT-1300 = 70 days
Ghtroc 720 = 70 days
A-Wing = 5 days
B-Wing = 5 days
X-Wing = 5 days
Y-Wing = 5 days
Y-Wing Longprobe = 15 days
TIE/ln = 2 days
TIE Interceptor = 2 days
TIE Bomber = 2 days
Z-95 = 1 day |
So, this is my biggest stumbling block on this idea at the moment. I'd like to move forward with converting the Consumables values on all ship stats over to Dice. The problem is the conversion ratio.
I had considered changing the modifier based on what kind of ship it was. For example, a starfighter and a freighter might have a similar D rating (say, 5D) but the Starfighter's consumption modifier would go up at a rate of +5 per instance, while the freighter's would only go up at +3 per instance.
I'd like to maintain the same basic rates of consumables, but is it even worth it to convert over Capital Ship Consumable values? And even if I stick just to Starfighters and Space Transports, how do I convert over something like the Lone Scout, with a full year of Consumables?
I'm all ears, as I'm out of ideas at the moment. _________________ "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: 16187 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm coming back around to this because I have an updated version in mind that I intend to post as soon as I can get home.
My only remaining stumbling block at this point is how to convert the Consumables values on capital ships over to dice accurately without intruding into bucket o' dice territory.
But in the end, does it matter? Does it matter if I accurately represent that an ISD has 6 years of Consumables? When in the history of gaming has anyone actually used that in a scenario?
If the whole idea is that this sort of thing occurs between episodes to determine a ship's Consumables state for the next encounter, does the actual number matter so long as it demonstrates that capital ships will always have more endurance than starfighters or space transports? _________________ "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 |
|
|
MrNexx Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016 Posts: 2248 Location: San Antonio
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2017 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
CRMcNeill wrote: | I'm coming back around to this because I have an updated version in mind that I intend to post as soon as I can get home.
My only remaining stumbling block at this point is how to convert the Consumables values on capital ships over to dice accurately without intruding into bucket o' dice territory.
But in the end, does it matter? Does it matter if I accurately represent that an ISD has 6 years of Consumables? When in the history of gaming has anyone actually used that in a scenario?
If the whole idea is that this sort of thing occurs between episodes to determine a ship's Consumables state for the next encounter, does the actual number matter so long as it demonstrates that capital ships will always have more endurance than starfighters or space transports? |
Not having studied this as you have, is it feasible to Scale these dice? Like, the consumable rating on a Starfighter is Days, on a Space Transport is Months, and on a Capital Ship is years? So, the X-Wing might have 2D consumables (averaging out to a standard week), the YT-1300 might have 1D (about two months), and the Star Destroyer might have 2D (averaging about 5-6 years)? _________________ "I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|