View Single Post
Old 03-18-2009, 12:30 PM   #3
Kelly Pedersen
 
Kelly Pedersen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
Default Re: [Spaceships] Design switches, system availability etc. for Star Wars?

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby
Atleast there is a need for SM +4 and maybe even down to SM +3 in ship size
The general consensus the last time this came up was that the TIE fighter was more of a streamlined SM +4, rather than SM+3. I'm not enough of a Star Wars geek to know if there are significantly smaller ships than a TIE Fighter in the Expanded Universe, but I don't remember any from the movies, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby
You need to limit the ability of larger ships to target smaller with their capital weapons and limit the hit probabilities with their antifighter weapons to fairly low.
Particle beams tend to have negative sAcc, and I think particle beams are the most appropriate for Star Wars - engagements tend to happen at short range in that universe, which the low ranges of particle beams will support. Combine the low sAcc and the small size of fighters (remember, you get a bonus equal to SM to hit a ship), and have high pilot skill to dodge attacks, and you should be pretty good. Although I've thought for a while that a "maneuvering thrusters" system that added to a ship's Hnd stat would be a good idea as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby
You need to allow forcefields, with the large ships have very high DR ones.
I'd say the "partial" option for Force Screens is the default, if not automatic, given the way different sections of shields always seem to go down at different times. Also, a level or two of Hardening as a default seems appropriate.
Force screens in SW seem to be a "bubble" configuration, which seems to allow smaller ships to slip in underneath them. Possibly any ship more than 5 SM increments smaller than another ship can get underneath its shields if it closes to rendezvous range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby
Also acceleration rates for smaller ships need to be signifcantly higher than those of large ships.
Offhand, I'd say that dividing the thrust provided by the reactionless drives by 5 every 5 SM increments, starting at SM +10, sounds about right. That means that a SM +5 starfighter with a Super reactionless drive can pull 50 Gs, while a SM +10 cruiser can do 10 Gs, and a SM +15 Star Destroyer does 2 Gs. Vader's Executor Super Star Destroyer, at a whopping SM +22, would be pulling .4 Gs. On the other hand, its armor and force screen are probably so individually strong that it can afford to devote less systems to them, and throw in more engines.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weby
Even most of the smaller fighters have shields and hyperspace generators in addition to 2 weapons and the highe power engines.
Well, some of the smaller fighters have shields and hyperdrives. The TIE series is infamous for not having them, after all. I don't think any of the really small ships have a hyperdrive or shields at all, actually. The only TIE that does, as far as I know, was the Tie Defender, which is notably bigger than the other TIEs - it probably deserves SM +5.
Kelly Pedersen is offline   Reply With Quote