“Greetings, Gentlebeings. I am Commodore Novastar (ret), formerly of the Alliance 3rd Fleet, who participated in the Battles of Endor, Ghorman, and Sullust aboard the Mon Calamarian Cruiser Maria. Following her destruction at Ghorman, I transferred my flag to the Alliance Bulk Starfighter Carrier Wolf’s Claw, where I served until my retirement. I have served for over 30 years in various Navies: Republic, Imperial, and Alliance, and Commandant Jefferies has asked me to lecture here at the newly re-opened Republic Naval Acedemy. So if you’d be so kind as to queue up your datapads, I’ll explain my method of instruction.”
“First, I will be lecturing on Basic Premises: Weapons, Engines, Armor, Damage Control and the like. From there, I will lecture on Starship Functions. Starships are built for unique functions, and we’ll be examining both their strength and weaknesses therein. Lastly, I will be analyzing the respective Fleets and individual Starships from both the Clone Wars and The Galactic Civil War.”
“The Lecture will be broken down into 3 parts: Theory, Application, and Alternatives.” “Theory will attempt to explain the reasons behind current designs; if you will, the fundamental viewpoint of modern engineers and strategists. Within this section we’ll be outlining “the rules of the game”, so to speak.” “Application will attempt to put this in real world terms, for the number-crunchers. It will include a lot of technical jargon, so it’s not for the lay-person. However, since all of you are command-level graduates, if not existing officers, you’ll be expected to be able to follow along. Besides , who else will catch my math errors?” “Lastly, there will be Alternatives. I anticipate this to be my longest section, as well as my most incomplete. Here we will examine alternative Theory and Applications. By my own fallible nature, I simply cannot imagine every Alternative, so I expect there will be lively discussion from your peers on this subject.” “Questions, comments, and criticism’s are always welcome. Just remember : I outrank you. So keep it civil.”
“And with that, let’s begin.”
Ship Size Theory: The size of a ship gives us some indication of her function, and to a lesser extent, her capabilities. Starfighters seek the smallest design possible, to present minimal design aspect (smaller target). While a freighter is looking for the best mass-to-thrust ratio possible, to get as much cargo or passengers on-board as possible. Capital Ships run a gamut of sizes, typically with smaller ships acting as screening vessels, while the larger cruisers act as both battleship and fleet carrier. The larger the ship, the more equipment she can carry, and the more space she can devote to different ship functions. The largest ships, such as the Imperial Star Destroyer and Mon Cal Cruiser, often have Multi-Function roles within a navy. Application: The larger the vessel, the more it’s going to cost, since there’s more area to cover with armor, the larger the engines required to move it, and the more energy it’s going to require for basic needs. But the trade-off is that it can mount the most powerful equipment possible, since it can devote space and resources to keep it functioning. A larger vessel also occupies more squares in starship combat (each square is about 500 meters). So an ISD for example, occupies a 6x2 space, allowing for more ships to engage it, than say a Nebulon-B Frigate (20 adjacent squares to 9). Alternatives: While I would like a system that took into account the larger size of ships affecting Drive speeds, and Hull & Shield costs, that runs the risk of being a mathematical nightmare. So the current system in SotG, while very arbitary, works well enough.
Crew Theory: The more crew, the more functions a ship can perform. Larger crews also mean more people are available to perform a given function, particularly important in the Engineering and Damage Control sections. Conversely, the more crew, the greater the amount of Life Support (water, air, space for quarters, and foodstuffs) that a ship will need to stock. A large crew, meant for long cruises on-board a ship, requires said ship to devote enormous space to its’ own need, thereby reducing space for other ship systems. Generally speaking, most Navies fill their ships as full of crew as possible, since battle damage leads to horrendous casualty rates. Application: The more crew, the more expensive the cost to provide living space for them. A larger crew also reduces the amount of automation required on-board a starship. Alternatives: My only gripe with SotG on this, is that different levels on amenities should influence how many people can be on a ship. There’s a difference between a Luxury Ship’s cabin, a serviceman’s barracks, and a slave’s cubicle on a ship. I think Cargo space should also be lost as the Crew increases. Running off the assumption that 2 metric tons equal 1 cubic meter (WEG’s Far Orbit Project, pg22), an opulent suite could require 120 tons of space, an officer’s room 15 tons of space, a barracks room for 60 a mere 360 tons (6 tons per person), and a slaver’s box a scant 2 tons of space.
Passengers/Troops Theory: Depending on the type of starship, this may be its’ primary function, or a nonexistent one. Passenger/Luxury Liners make their money off transporting groups of people across the galaxy, while a Scout ship has no room for such luxuries. Troops decrease the amount of people you have available for crew, but can be invaluable when boarded/boarding another vessel, as well as ground assault. Application: The same mechanic is used to provide crew as passengers, so it mostly relies on deciding how many of your available slots are going to be crew, and the rest troops. Alternatives: same as above for Crew.
Cargo Theory: Ahhh, wide open spaces separated from the void by the thin hull of the ship. While large areas of nothingness on a ship literally jammed as tightly together as she can be engineered might seem ludicrous, they are vitally important. It’s the very lifeblood of a Freighter’s existence, and crucial to any star-faring powers economic and military stability. Cargo allows vital supplies and parts to be transported by starship, whether there meant to re-supply some outpost, or keep a military ship operational after a battle. Application: The more area devoted to Cargo, the larger the craft needs to be, and the cost will rise accordingly, as decks will need to be further reinforced to stand the strain of increasing load demands upon them (larger ships will normally have many smaller Cargo areas, rather than one huge one, in case of hull breach). Alternatives: Ok, first a pet peeve. 1 cubic meter = 1 metric ton. If you’re going to use a standard, use the standard. With that said, I think this is one of the areas that has been glossed over far too much by both incarnations of the game. The most important factor on a starship is space, and Cargo is a direct correlation to the space left after you put everything else together. While I personally think everything on a ship should have a “Cargo” requirement, symbolizing the space lost when you install a system, I realize it might have been omitted in favor of a simpler creation system. But perhaps the most important inclusion, how much cargo room in necessary for berthing a starfighter? An X-wing is about 12.5 x 10.8 x 4 meters, requiring about 540 cubic meters, or 1080 metric tons of space. A TIE fighter is 6.4 x 6.3 x 7.5 meters, requiring about 300 cubic meters, or 600 metric tons of space. (I’m not taking into account that the craft takes less space, since it’s not a box, for the same reason I’m not taking into account extra room for ground crews to work around her, or refuel stations behind her, etc) So a rough estimate is that Tiny-sized starfighters require 1000 metric tons of Cargo each, while Diminutive-sized starfighters require 600 metric tons of space each, a Small freighter would be about 10,000 metric tons worth of space.
Consumables Theory: The more space put aside for Consumables: fuel, air, water, and foodstuffs, the longer a vessel can operate. While useful for most ships, it’s imperative for Scout and Military vessels. Scout vessels are often away for long periods, and one never knows if edible food is to be found during its’ travels. Military ships with longer cruise times require less re-supply; less re-supply means that less ships are needed to provide escort to convoys; less ships pulling escort duty means more ships available to strike the enemy or protect forward bases, and more ships is always a good thing. Application: The more room supplied to Consumables, the greater the cost to a vessel, in the form of ventilators and sanitation devices. Alternatives: Consumables should be tied much more directly with Crew/Passengers. It doesn’t take as much to get 6 years worth of Consumables for a 6-man Scout ship as a 40,000 Crew Imperial Star Destroyer (for fun fact file: To feed it’s entire crew, an ISD has over 88 million meals on-board. Hate to see how much water she needs to carry….
Hyperdrive Theory: The only means to travel the long distances between stars. Application: The faster the hyperdrive, the greater the cost to your starship. Alternatives: I actually have little problem with hyperdrives, since they’re squarely in the “techno-babble” camp of sci-fi. The cost of a faster drive gets exorbitantly high the faster you want to go, increasing a vessel’s price quite quickly. I’ve heard that the “flannel one” has commented that the Millennium Falcon was so fast, not due to her engines, but the power of her NavComputer. While a nice explanation for why the Falcon couldn’t outrun anything except in hyperdrive, I can’t help but wonder why ISD’s weren’t faster, since they could devote the space for the NavComputer that equaled that of the entire Millennium Falcon… My only fix might be to set “Hyper Points” for craft to exit a system. It would assure a safe exit vector from a star system, set a customs/inspection point, and a point heroes must rush to, in order to escape pursuit in a system. It would also make interdiction easier for patrol craft, since if a vessel’s coming in from a direction other than the Customs port, then it’s almost certainly up to no good…
Hyperdrive Backups Theory: Accidents happen. Better than cruising back home under Ion Drives, especially when such trips could take years, if not decades… Application: The faster the Backup, the more expensive. Alternatives: I’d personally make the builder pay for a second Hyperdrive, rather than the Backup, especially if they wanted a faster Drive.
Ion Drives Theory: Propelling starships at speeds slower-than-light, this is the only way to travel once you arrive at a system, since hyperdrives shut off when they detect mass-shadows (deadly to craft). An incredibly important system for all manner of craft, but most especially for starfighters. Application: The more powerful the Engine, the greater the cost. Alternatives: Alrighty, first let’s start out with the obvious. There’s a difference between velocity & acceleration. And in space, acceleration is more important. It’s also incredibly difficult for anyone other than a physicist to calculate on their own. So let’s accept that we’re working with an abstract system, one that favors velocity for simplicity’s sake, and move on. (If this was the Honor Harrington RPG, I might delve more into this, but for Star Wars, it works well enough) One of the problems I’ve seen in the system is the incredible speeds massive vessels can manage. Mass still applies, so large vessels should, by default, always be slower than smaller craft, but with an increased cost for their massive drives. So I recommend the following change: add a vessels size modifier to their Move speed. Revolutionary, no? Now, why you’re still reeling from that, let me explain another concept, Ramming is the fastest speed for an Engine, at a Move Speed of 9. However, it possible for a Tech Specialist to Mastercraft an Engine for greater performance, each +1 increasing the Move Speed by one as well (+1 = 10, +2 = 11, +3 = 12). The best, mass-produced engine, is a Ramming +1. Viola, the system now works. Let’s look at some examples: An A-wing: (Ramming+1 engine:10)(Dim craft) = Move:14 An X-wing: (Attack engine:8)(Tiny craft) = Move: 10 TIE Fighter: (Attack engine:6)(Dim craft) = Move: 10 TIE Interceptor: (Ramming engine:9)(Dim craft) = Move: 13 TIE Bomber: (Attack engine:6)(Tiny craft) = 8 Corellian Corvette: (Attack engine:6)(Large craft) = 5 Nebulon-B Frigate: (Attack engine:5)(Huge craft) = 3 Acclamator Assault Ship: (Ramming+1)(Gargantuan craft) = 6 Imperial Star Destroyer: (Ramming+1:10)(Colossal craft) = 2 Missiles: from Move speed 9 to Move speed 18, mattering on quality (Poor = 9, Standard = 12, Excellent = 15, Superior = 18)
(Writer’s note: The Building cost for an Attack engine is equal to the thrust it provides. i.e. a Move: 5 engine costs 5 points, a Move: 6 engine costs 6 points, etc. The lower cost of the engine may be a deciding factor when building.)
While this makes some of the larger vessels a bit slower, and allows players to make craft even faster than an A-wing, well, it’s possible that’s how it should be. The cost of tricking out a large vessel to such speeds is enormous, and unlikely to ever happen, but the cost to starfighters and space transports isn’t so bad, allowing owners to modify their vehicles (half the fun of owning one, after all).
(For fun: The fastest drive for your YT-1300 you can buy at the dealership: (Ramming engine)(Small craft) = 10 The fastest drive for your YT-1300 you can get at a specialty shop: (Ramming engine+1)(Small craft) = 11 The fastest drive for your YT-1300 you can build, oh mighty Tech Spec: (Ramming engine+3)(Small craft) = 13 Oh, how a Tech Spec has become soooo much more valuable to a starship captain…
Shields Theory: Powerful energy fields surround a ship, protecting it from harm. The more energy & space devoted to the system, the more powerful the system becomes, as well as more expensive. Application: The Shield system acts as rechargeable Hull Points, keeping the craft from harm. Shields recharge slowly on their own (RCR pg216), but an operator can quickly rebuild them with a Computer Use roll (RCR pg225), an Engineer can redirect power from another system into them (RCR pg225), or an operator can double their effectiveness by angling shields in one direction (RCR pg 225). Alternatives: I’ve long held that shields should reduce damage, rather than absorb it. Also, by having shields provide DR, it remains consistent with what personal-scale shields on droids do, as well. My revision is as follows: -Rather than have shields that absorb damage directly, shields add to a starships DR. Every 30 points of shields (or 1d6 for WEGamers ), gives a Starfighter or Space Transport an additional +5 DR. Every 100 points (or +1d6) of shields gives a Capital ship a +10 DR. Angling shields doubles the DR from shields from one direction, but the craft loses the benefit of shields from the other direction.
Hull/Armor Theory: The amount of damage a craft can take before it is rendered disabled, or even destroyed. Larger craft can mount thicker walls of armor, and can position critical systems further from its’ outer hull, protecting them from enemy fire. Some smaller ships mount disproportionate amounts of armor to their outer hull. While this makes them harder to damage, it also severely affects their maneuverability & speed. Application: The larger the vessel, the more armor it can bear. There exist maximums, and minimums, or armor than can be added to a ship, with cost rising as more armor is added. Alternatives: I have three variations on this: -DR should return to a range of 5-30, based on Starship Size (DR can be increased with the Armor option from SotG). -Hull Points should be reduced in half for Starfighters, remain normal for Space Transports, and double for Capital Ships. -The Pilot can substitute their Vitality for Hull, when the Hull gets damaged. This way, a 20th-level Soldier in a TIE is able to survive a lucky hit that would kill a rookie. (It also serves to make Heroic Class characters, PC and NPC alike, stand out a little better)
Defense Theory: The larger a vessel is, the easier it is to hit. Application: A starships Size modifier adds or subtracts from its’ defense. All starships get a “+10 Armor bonus”. Alternatives: I have three revisions: -Remove the +10 "Armor" bonus from starships. -Class Defense bonus’ apply to the starships they are flying. Characters without the Starship Operation feat take a -4 to their craft’s Defense. The Starship Ace & Jedi Ace's Familiarity special ability also applies to Defense, as well. -Dex bonus added to Starship Defense.
Maneuverability Theory: The speed and ease which a craft can complete a maneuver, such as a hard right, or full loop. Application: The Size of a starship provides a bonus, or penalty, to all Pilot rolls. Alternatives: While the Maneuvering Systems found in SotG (pg19) is nice, I think it’s only a start. I would allow a Tech Spec to provide a bonus to Maneuverability using their Mastercraft ability. (There’s something similar in the Sienar Engineer PrC, HG pg113). For every +1, the ships Maneuverability increases by +2 (+1 = +2, +2 = +4, +3 = +6). Since traveling at high speeds reduces Pilot checks (-4 at Ramming speeds), this is a nice counterbalance (along with the expense).
Power Systems Theory: The more systems you power, the more powerful your reactors have to be, and often multiple reactors/batteries are used to power ship’s systems. Most modern military vessels run multiple reactors, with the reactors running at less than full power, so that in the case of battle damage, and possible loss of a reactor, the redundant reactors can still supply full power to the warship. Application: An Engineer can use his Repair skill (RCR pg225) to redirect power in a starship, bolstering certain systems by powering down other systems. Alternatives: Another aspect of the game that’s totally glossed over. While military ships tend to have power to spare (for the reasons mentioned above), most civilian ships do not. Power, along with space, is at a premium on-board a ship. By giving ship systems a Power Requirement, a ship’s captain would have to prioritize which systems get power. But it probably adds another element too number crunchy for Star Wars, so we’ll ignore it (for now….
Sensors Theory: The ability to observe your environment outside your starship, from stellar phenomena, to starship traffic, to enemy fleets. While often underrated in modern times, it is no less a vital ships system. Even civilian craft tend to mount redundant sensor systems, such is the need for valuable sensor data. Picket vessels and Scout ships tend to mount the most powerful sensor systems, especially compared to their starship size. Application: Starships can gather data from Passive sensors, most often used when a vessel wants to remain unseen, Active sensors, the default configuration, sensors in Search mode, doubling the range but only in once specific arc, or Focus their sensors on one specific ship, a sure-fire way to let smuggler’s know you’re coming. The tighter the scan however, the more information that can be gleamed from you’re target (RCR pg210). A starship’s Sensors can also give it a bonus to fire or Defense with a Computer Use roll (RCR pg225). Alternatives: Where to begin? -First, space is a whole lot of nothing. Finding something in it, especially a high energy signature starfighter or warship, should not be difficult! Sensor ranges that mean a ship has to engage Search mode to avoid running into something at full speed, is just preposterous. -Second, a TIE Fighter and an ISD should not have the same sensor system. It’s either a complete waste of equipment on a TIE fighter, or a serious weakness in every Capital Ship. The idea that a starfighter could be out of your sensor range, zoom past your Capital ship, and be out of sensor range again in one or two rounds just seems preposterous to me. -Third, not every ship is going to have the same kind of sensor. A starfighter is likely to have different hardware than a Scout ship, or a freighter, or a Command ship. A brief write-up about what the ship can sense would be useful…
Once again, I assume the kind of technical complexity my three points engender, was less than desirable in a Star Wars game. But at the very least, double the ranges for Capital Ships, so they can at least see their enemies before their within firing range…
Stealth Systems Theory: Through the use of both passive and active devices, to render a ship undetectable. Popular methods include sensor-resistant paints and polymers, sensor masks, and the ever elusive cloaking device. A ship that remains undetected has a considerable edge over his opponents, allowing him to withdraw unimpeded, launch a devastating first strike, or gain unrestricted information on enemy formations and numbers. While ships equipped with stealth systems are valuable resources, modern sensors have rendered them largely moot and powerless. Stealth technology is only supposed to be available to the military, but often finds itself in the possession of criminals. Application: Sensor Masks and Paints increase a starships difficulty to be detected, making this stealth system most effective at longer ranges. A Cloaking Device renders the starship Invisible, unable to be detected unless the Cloaking Field is somehow breached. Unfortunately, the Cloaking Field has a “double-blind” effect, causing all sensor readings beyond the field to read null. Alternatives: I don’t have much to say, though I wish they’d converted some of the things from WEG’s Pirates & Privateers (the ultra-cold drive & Backup battery, specifically). Countermeasures Theory: Modern Navies use an astounding amount of devices to avoid detection, counter missile threats, jam enemy radar and communications, and fool enemy radar. Properly evaluating sensor readings, and enemy forces, can be the difference between victory and defeat. Once again, this is meant to be equipment only available to military forces, but pirate and criminal forces make widespread use of such technology. Application: Point Defense weapons can be used to fire on missiles/starfighters/unwary Capital Ships that come adjacent to their starship. Often held in reserve, they provide a last line of defense against missile attacks (RCR pg214). Alternatives: There exists a number of countermeasures, many seen in WEG’s Pirates & Privateers: -Chaff: Requires a move action to activate, provides full concealment (50% miss chance) to starship against any missiles that pass thru the affected square, only works for one round. Can be fired from any missile system of the appropriate type: starfighter, space transport, capital ship (larger ships dedicate a launcher or two just for this system). -Starship Jammer: Makes it impossible to identify a craft, but also gives opponents a +4 to their Sensor rolls to find the jamming ship. -Sensor Jammer: A powerful jammer, it increases the difficulty for Sensor rolls by +10 for all ships within Long Range (including itself). -Comm Jammer: A powerful jammer, and a favorite of pirates. The Comm Jammer operator must designate a target, and then makes a Computer Use roll to set the DC for the round. In order for any communications to leave the target ship, the Comm officer of the target must succeed at a Computer Use roll higher than the DC. If the target uses a communications system the jamming ship doesn’t possess, the DC is lowered by 10. -Sensor Decoy: A specially built remote used to project the profile and energy signature of a specific starship (generally the host ship). An enemy sensor tech must beat the DC by 10 to detect the decoy’s false image. Can be fired from any missile system of the appropriate type: starfighter, space transport, capital ship.
(more to come)
When 900 years old you become, look as good, you will not, hmmm?
Interesting. Keep it coming. Some thoughts of my own;
Ship Size: Have you anything to say about how Ship Size is used as a modifier for attacks? I have always found it bizarre that the rules assume that the ship fires the guns and not the gunner. As if the ship is a creature and not an object.
Cargo: You said 1 cubic meter = 1 metric ton but in your examples you use 1 cubic meter = 2 metric tons
Hull/Armor: Do you have any thoughts on the difference between civilian and military ships? I have been giving this some thought lately and while giving military ships more HP than civilian is the easy way out I feel that there should be a difference in DR as well. At the end of the day it’s hard to get around that the armor simply is thicker on a destroyer than on a freighter even if both are 1000m long.
Defense: While it is easy to add a Class Defense bonus to fighters and other small ships it is harder for large vessels. Whose Class Defense bonus should be used on an ISD? The helmsman, the officer in charge on the bridge or the Captain?
Sensors: There are some alternative rules in the FAQ. Have you looked at them? They are far from perfect (the ranges are still too short IMO) but they are superior to the crude rules in the RCR.
Countermeasures: Interesting. I think jamming is briefly touched upon in the RCR somewhere and it could be done without specialized equipment. I couldn’t find the reference now so it doesn't matter as your suggestion is better and I think jamming should at least be very hard to do without a special jammer.
Overall, Excellent, I've wanted to redo the SotG myself but found it to be too much of an undertaking, So thanks. However there are some things I dont like. For starters being able to add you dex and class to Def seems to water down the Jedi and Starship Aces, maybe increase their familiarity? You should really try to think about a good power system, While you said that it does make for more number crunching and detracts from SW I myself am a good cruncher and like that sort of thing, makes my custom ship feel more like a project and not a refit. My favorite thing was the Ion Drives, that just so PERFECT! Keep it coming!
Wow it took me so long to read that I hadnt even notice Naktor had posted. Naktor I came up with a little rule for gunners a while ago: When a weapon is fired and its fired by a gunner, half the ships size mod. is added to the attack roll. This accounts for several things: An ISD doesnt move much so the ships size and movement doesnt adversely affect the gunner's aim to a high degree, But a Y-Wing is usually chugging along fairly fast and and juking and such so the gunner doesnt get the full benefit of the Wishbone's size as his aim keeps bouncing off target.
Communications Theory: The ability to communicate through the vastness of space. Since one of the fundamental aspects of sentience is the ability to communicate with one another, this is again an understated system. Powerful communications systems are cornerstones of both the military and civilian markets. Electronic Mail is one of the oldest services that galactic governments have provided for its’ citizens, allowing family members to keep in touch even across the galaxy. Mail Courier ships boast impressive communications gear, so they can limit the amount of hyperspace jumps they must undertake. It’s not uncommon for Mail ships to jump to a central hub system, and beam their “cargo” to a dozen nearby systems, before jumping to a new hub. With powerful enough transceivers, a ship isn’t even necessary. A planet can beam its’ transmissions from one hub to the next next, but such systems are generally quite expensive. Communications are vital to military ships, since it allows us to respond to galactic emergencies, and maintain formations in maneuvers. Application: Comms, Subspace Transceivers, Hypertransceivers, and HoloNet Transceivers can provide audio to full holographic functions, from intra-system to galaxy-spanning distances, with either delays or real-time transmissions. (RCR pg210) Most civilian ships boast only a Comm, with an emergency SOS Subspace Transceiver. A Mail Courier would generally boast both a Comm & full Subspace Transceiver. Military vessels generally boast a Comm and Hypertransceiver, allowing for real-time holographic messages in-system, and time-delay signals out-system. Smaller communication stations would likely boast several Hypertransceivers, so they could send and receive from multiple sources. Only the largest communication stations, and military Command ships, would boast a HoloNet Transceiver, allowing for instantaneous holographic communications across the galaxy. Alternatives: I think that the comm. gear should take up space, or have a size requirement, since I doubt an X-wing could mount a Holonet Transceiver.
Automation Theory: This actually has two aspects, one brought to sharp focus by the Clone Wars. The first, and more benign, is the amount of simple droids and computer automation you incorporate into your starship design, freeing up crew space for additional passengers. Civilian craft tend to automate crews down to skeleton levels, while military vessels tend to allow for large crews. The second aspect, is droid automation. The Separatist forces of the Clone War made heavy use of this technology, making the bulk of their forces automated, a fearsome force the Republic struggled against. Due to the horrific loss of life and property during the Clone Wars, much legislation was passed following the War that outlawed “Battle Droid” technology. That’s not to say such technology doesn’t exist anymore, but it is much more tightly regulated. Application: The higher the degree of automation on your starship, the less crew you will need, but at increased cost. Crew minimums are still observed, though further independent droid automation can reduce the amount of sentient’s needed on a ship. Built-in droid automation is possible, but can be expensive, especially if multiple processors are required. Alternatives: no comments really (strangely enough...)
Damage Control Theory: The ability of a vessel to repair or contain damage taken in battle or from galactic debris. While Capital Ships usually dedicate a team (or several, mattering on the ship’s size) to Damage Control, it’s even more important on a smaller ship, since civilian craft tend to be less compartmentalized than a warship, making hull breaches even more deadly to their crews. Damage Control teams often must be “Critter Control” as well, disposing of harmful vermin, such as mynocks, that attach themselves to a starship. Application: Each time a ship is hit after it’s lost half its’ Hull Points, a roll on Table 11-9: Battle Damage is required, knocking out a ship’s systems. Proper repairs require an hour of uninterrupted time, and a Repair roll, which restores the roll’s amount of Hull Points (fiendish GM’s may also require separate Repair rolls for affected systems). But in the middle of combat, a Jury-Rig repair can be attempted. As a full-round action, at the Repair (DC – 5), you can restore a ship’s system for the duration of the encounter (RCR pg97). Destroyed systems cannot be recovered, but disabled ones can be. Alternatives: d20 Future has Damage Control systems restore Hull Points, but I’m not a fan of that solution (I like that an Astromech or Engineer has to look over the ship to repair it, rather than the ship naturally repairs itself).
Landing/Docking Theory: An important design consideration from the outset of construction. Freighters need to be able to hold massive amounts of Cargo, but it also needs to be able to load and unload such Cargo’s quickly, since after all, time dirt-side, is time wasted to a freighter crew. Military vessels also need large docking areas, especially for ground assault craft or carrier craft, but even the smallest Capital Ship requires re-supply, and the faster it can be done, the better. In addition to the size of a ship’s docking ports, is its’ ability to mate with other ship’s ports is equally important, since ships who’s ports don’t mate will have to transfer materials EVA. Whether a ship can land on a planet, either on the ground or in the water, is a matter of ship design. With modern repulsorlift technology, even a ship as massive as an Imperial Star Destroyer could make a landing, but why would it? The most fuel intensive part of a ship’s life is the landing and take-off operations in a planet’s gravity well. The cost of landing an ISD is far mitigated by giving her Dropships to deploy her Army and Armor units, and it has the added benefit of allowing the ISD to maintain orbital superiority, and deploy its’ Naval starfighter units. Application: Mostly mentioned as flavor text, it does give starships added flexibility in choosing a landing site. Alternatives: To quote Futurama (as the Planet Express ship is rapidly sinking): Fry: “Eek! We’re at 5,000 atmospheres! Quick, Professor, how much can the ship take?” Professor: “Well, it’s a spaceship. So, somewhere between 0 and 1.” Since the necessity of structural bracing and/or extra repulsorlift generators to compensate for the ship’s weight would be needed to land a ship, it should increase the cost of the ship, maybe adding a few Construction Points to the cost.
(the last of the basics, Weapons, still to come)
When 900 years old you become, look as good, you will not, hmmm?
Ship Size: Have you anything to say about how Ship Size is used as a modifier for attacks? I have always found it bizarre that the rules assume that the ship fires the guns and not the gunner. As if the ship is a creature and not an object.
I've always assumed that was a mechanic to explain why Capital Ships such as an ISD don't regularly shoot down Alliance starfighters. "In-game", I suppose I could rationalize it with the slow movement of a Capital Ships weapons compared to the fast movement of starfighters.
But mostly it's to confine the big ships to shooting at one another. :D
(However, I think it's also far more likely that the best Fire Control, the +6 & +8, would be used on these massive battlewagons as well...)
Cargo: You said 1 cubic meter = 1 metric ton but in your examples you use 1 cubic meter = 2 metric tons
Too true. Unfortunately, all the stats in the various books are made with the 1 cubic meter = 2 metric tons assumption, so to keep it consistent, I had to use the (erroneous) assumption.
When I get to statting out the ship's in my StarshipsAlternative sections, one of the changes I'll be making across the board will be the Cargo entries...
Hull/Armor: Do you have any thoughts on the difference between civilian and military ships? I have been giving this some thought lately and while giving military ships more HP than civilian is the easy way out I feel that there should be a difference in DR as well. At the end of the day it’s hard to get around that the armor simply is thicker on a destroyer than on a freighter even if both are 1000m long.
D***. I forgot to include my Revised Armor rules from SotG (pg17). Basically, use the increased DR (Tiny/Dim/Fine craft get DR:8), but halve the Pilot Check Modifier penalty, and remove the Cargo requirement (why would you use internal Cargo space to add external armor?) But otherwise, I just use increased Hull Points. After all, a military is far more likely to spend the money to increase the durability of their combat craft than a civilian freighter company.
Defense: While it is easy to add a Class Defense bonus to fighters and other small ships it is harder for large vessels. Whose Class Defense bonus should be used on an ISD? The helmsman, the officer in charge on the bridge or the Captain?
Despite my long held belief that the Captain is the ship, from a mechanics viewpoint I'd make it the Helmsman, to keep it consistent.
Sensors: There are some alternative rules in the FAQ. Have you looked at them? They are far from perfect (the ranges are still too short IMO) but they are superior to the crude rules in the RCR.
Eep! Nope, I hadn't looked at them. I'll give them a look-see after I finish this...
Originally posted by AT-AT Assault:
For starters being able to add you dex and class to Def seems to water down the Jedi and Starship Aces, maybe increase their familiarity?
You did notice that Familiarity now adds a bonus to Defense, correct? That makes a 10th-level SA have a +11 Defense bonus to his/her favorite starship, in addition to other Class/PrC bonuses...
You should really try to think about a good power system, While you said that it does make for more number crunching and detracts from SW I myself am a good cruncher and like that sort of thing, makes my custom ship feel more like a project and not a refit.
I've been working on a Power System, and it works reasonably well on Starfighters and Transports, but falls completely apart with large Capital Ships. Meh, work-in-progress... :D
When a weapon is fired and its fired by a gunner, half the ships size mod. is added to the attack roll. This accounts for several things: An ISD doesnt move much so the ships size and movement doesnt adversely affect the gunner's aim to a high degree, But a Y-Wing is usually chugging along fairly fast and and juking and such so the gunner doesnt get the full benefit of the Wishbone's size as his aim keeps bouncing off target.
Well remember, you Defense, Attack, and Piloting rolls are affected by how fast you're traveling too (RCR pg218). So starfighters take a hit to Attack rolls the faster they Move.
Thanks for the responses, and most especially for the input! :D
When 900 years old you become, look as good, you will not, hmmm?
Since the necessity of structural bracing and/or extra repulsorlift generators to compensate for the ship’s weight would be needed to land a ship, it should increase the cost of the ship, maybe adding a few Construction Points to the cost.
That extra repulsorlift generators to allow landings costs both space and money is one thing, but extra structural bracing isn't needed since any ship that can accelerate as fast as Star Wars ships do, and not take any damage, can handle the stresses of flying in an atmosphere and landing on a planet just fine.
Weapons Theory: It is a sad fact of the universe that reason and wisdom alone cannot solve all our problems. Sometimes it comes down to who has the bigger gun, or who has more of them. Weapon choices, and tactics, are as varied as the species that use. We’ll be examining some of the most popular weapons currently used, as well as some esoteric notables. Application: For the most part, weapons inflict damage up to a given range. The amount of damage, as well as the range, varies widely across a plethora of ranges. -Blaster technology is one of the oldest still in use, and is being phased out in favor of Laser technology. Blaster technology fires a weak laser pulse thru a charge of blaster gas, igniting the gas, and firing the weapon’s beam at close to the speed of light. Damage tends to run low to middle range, and the inclusion of volatile blaster gas tanks has made this weapon increasing unpopular over the ages. One of the few advantages Blaster weaponry has over Laser weaponry is a higher rate of fire, but at a loss of accuracy. Blaster weaponry is restricted to Short Range. -Laser technology has become the predominant form of light craft weaponry. Civilian craft and starfighters mount the weaponry as a primary form of defense, and even Capital Ships mount such weaponry for Point Defense. Amplified light is fired thru a focusing lens, at just under the speed of light. Damage tends to run in the middle range. Lasers typically fire only out to Short Range, but special varieties are able to fire to Medium and Long Range, with some loss of power. -Ion technology is becoming more prevalent, as it leaves its’ target undamaged, but disabled. It uses charged particles to short out electrical systems on a target vessel. Damage tends to run on the low side, so multiple weapons are often used to increase damage potential. Ion Cannons can fire out to nearly any range, but power requirements tend to limit the range based on ship type (and reactor output). -Missiles and Torpedoes (Starfighter & Transport scale) are ancient pieces of technology, that remain in use do to their excellent destructive potential. A homing computer, often varying in sophistication, brings a chemical or energy explosive warhead to its’ intended target, and explodes. Damage runs very high for such a small package, and they are commonly mounted on starfighters to attack & destroy Capital Ships. A missile/torpedo can be “dumb-fired” at Point Blank Range, or locked on a target, and accelerate towards its’ target for 6 rounds. Missiles/Torpedoes are one-shot weapons, making them incredibly expensive, but the loss of an enemy Capital ship more than offsets the price. -Missiles (Capital Scale) are large, Ship-Killer Types. They boast some of the most destructive warheads ever created, and the amount of damage they can inflict is mind-boggling. Despite their destructive potential, however, the Cap Missiles are rarely used anymore, replaced by weaponry that can be used repeatedly, and can reach extreme ranges nearly instantaneously, unlike the missiles which must accelerate to range. -Turbolaser technology is a refinement of laser technology, storing energy in capacitance batteries, and then releasing it in one powerful blast from an enlarged laser cannon. The result is a weapon that inflicts incredible amounts of damage, and has nearly unequaled (Long) range. Multiple batteries generally feed a single turbolaser cannon, allowing the weapon to fire and charge simultaneously. Older designs sometimes require extended periods of time to recharge. -Gravity weaponry is a recent development, used to pull craft out of hyperspace, or deny them their initial entry. The power requirements are massive, requiring a heavy cruiser’s amount of energy to properly power. Only the Empire ever seriously funded this research, converting a handful of Star Destroyers and creating the Interdictor-class cruiser to utilize this new weaponry. -Tractor beam technology is a welcome refinement over old magnetic grapples, and their use is widespread throughout the galaxy. Weaker versions are often used to move cargo in large container ships and docking ports. Stronger versions are often mounted on military and customs starships, to stop smaller craft from escaping. Tractor beam range is rather limited, however, only extending out to Short range. Alternatives: Ah, where to begin… -Starship weapons drop their multiplier. Starfighters and Transports do normal damage with guns, missiles and torpedoes do x2 damage, and Capital ships do x3 damage with all weapons. I can live with an X-wing and an AT-AT doing the same amount of damage with their cannons. -Ion Weapons do “subdual” damage. When a craft reaches 0 Hull, it is immobilized, though no permanent damage is done to the craft. A Repair check, requiring an hour normally, removes as much Ion damage as the roll (a roll of 25 with bonuses, will remove 25 ion damage). Thanks to Naktor for this suggestion! -Mass Driver technology is an old technology. By accelerating a material (typically ferrous or originally encased in a ferrous material) thru magnetic acceleration rings, a body is super-accelerated out of a barrel, much like old-style firearms. The more time sent accelerating the material, and the more massive the “bullet”, the harder it becomes to deviate the “bullet” from its’ course, and the greater it’s energy at impact. If a ferrous shell was initially used to accelerate the “bullet”, then jettisoned, then the influence of magnetic fields will be unlikely to affect the “bullet’s” course. This was a favored tactic of Xim the Despot (along with his Droid armies). -Nuclear technology exists in Star Wars, since most of the power plants are fission-based IIRC. So that means someone must have examined the possibility of harnessing the atom as a weapon. I figure the damage would be akin to that from a Cap ship Missile, but with a large explosive area of effect, even in space. -Flak cannon technology doesn’t seem to exist in Star Wars, which seems odd to me. A Flak cannon launches an explosive round toward the enemy; the round then explodes, much like a grenade, filling the area with deadly shrapnel. While very cost heavy, and ammo dependent, the Flak cannon puts up a heavy screen to starfighter and starfighter missiles alike. I’d say 6d10 damage, 10 shots (can be reloaded, but takes time: 1 minute), out to Medium Range, and it only has to hit the square (Defense: 5), inflicting damage to every craft within the square. -Anti-Missile missile technology is more in vogue in Navies that still use Cap ship Missiles. In effect, it a starfighter/transport scale missile system programmed to intercept Cap Ship scale missiles. A simple droid brain is added to a missile launcher (+2000cr for droid automation), able to fire one counter-missile per round. Missile quality varies among Navies, but tends toward the best they can produce (it needs to hit Defense: 22).
When 900 years old you become, look as good, you will not, hmmm?
Novastar I did realize you said familiarity would add to def, I guess I should have been a lot more clearer than I was. In the old rules a 20th level char with 10 Starship Ace would have an additional 6 to def where 20th lvl chars w/o SA had nothing. Now under your rules everybody adds class and dex. Since class def usually comes out to 10-14 it kinda throws some things off, So What I meant was to increase familiarity by 2 or 3 points(this would benefit those Jedi Aces who dont have SA even more since their fam. is low). As for my gunnery rule that is also influenced by the RCR 1st rules(I dont have 2nd printing) on attack mods at diff ranges. IMO 1st better states what ships do best, An ISD for example is designed to engage other Caps at long range so why should their weapons be most effective at point blank? And I agree with your comment about tracking, Big guns are designed to track better at long ranges rather than short which is also reflected in RCR 1st as the ISD's weapons suffer a -6 at point blank. More of my credits goes to using the individual ship range mods spelled out in RCR 1st.
That extra repulsorlift generators to allow landings costs both space and money is one thing, but extra structural bracing isn't needed since any ship that can accelerate as fast as Star Wars ships do, and not take any damage, can handle the stresses of flying in an atmosphere and landing on a planet just fine.
Actually...I meant the structural bracing for if a starship wants to land on water or, more importantly, submerge.
But I can still argue some structural bracing might be needed. After all, you don't want to recreate the SDF-1's initial attempt to launch from Robotech...
Hmmm, while I see your point AT-AT Assault, I have to disagree. In the end, the two PrC's lose about a point of Defense, but the benefit of opening up Starship Combat to the other Classes seems to outweigh that loss.
As to the problem with Ranges, I'm going to be looking at that more after I finish reading the FAQ on Sensor Ranges, and see if the FAQ has addressed this yet. While I may not agree with upping the Fire Control, increasing the Range squares (and thereby increasing the time it takes a starship to reach a Cap Ship), might be a solution.
(After all, if there's only a 25% chance of a hit, but 4 batteries are shooting at you, you're still gonna get hit once (on average))
When 900 years old you become, look as good, you will not, hmmm?
.
