Next Generation ISD (fan Design)

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Irbis
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2262
Joined: 2011-07-15 05:31pm

Re: Next Generation ISD (fan Design)

Post by Irbis »

Crossroads Inc. wrote:*Yeah "fluff" aside, I never understood the reason for the old source books making crews for imperial ships so MASSIVE other than as a "Hur hur Imperial needs more people because they suck!" or something... Put some training and Faith in your crew, and the number drops dramatically. Even my current "reduced" numbers could come down even more most likely.
As far as the bridge tower goes... Is it sad I originally kept because it "looks cool?"
I"ll admit I'm already putting together a Redacted design and, yeah, time to finally loose the "Shoot Me" target.
Frankly, WEG books were complete and utter shit. Maybe mechanics were easy to learn, but everything about Empire was horribly biased. Part of it is understandable - players had to have a chance in fight, but that could have been solved by making the players exceptional individuals. What we got instead were absurd nerfs to Imperials all over the place.

For example, every Rebel ship having free +2D to maneuver, making old, obsolete bomber (Y-Wing) better and more agile fighter than best TIEs. Imperial ships having absurdly large crews (or Rebels way too tiny ones), weird numbers of guns/ships carried not resembling movies in any way (60 "batteries", also, Nebulon B, basic rebel ship, was capable of carrying 24 X-Wings despite not having place for 8-10 much smaller TIE Fighters in ESB). Sizes being drawn from the hat (see 8 km Executor debacle, tiny Millennium Falcon, and Veers being apparently 90 cm tall if you accept their AT-AT size).

Stormtroopers were less skilled and accurate than teenager with rusty blaster. Jedi being dumber and less literate than random thug off the street. Being dark jedi or pro-Imperial triggered 'you're now an GM NPC, roll new character' rule - no, seriously, biggest mistake WotC did with their SW RPG book was keeping most of WEG numbers intact :evil:
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Next Generation ISD (fan Design)

Post by Patroklos »

Crossroads Inc. wrote:*Yeah "fluff" aside, I never understood the reason for the old source books making crews for imperial ships so MASSIVE other than as a "Hur hur Imperial needs more people because they suck!" or something... Put some training and Faith in your crew, and the number drops dramatically. Even my current "reduced" numbers could come down even more most likely.
As far as the bridge tower goes... Is it sad I originally kept because it "looks cool?"
I"ll admit I'm already putting together a Redacted design and, yeah, time to finally loose the "Shoot Me" target.
I actually always thought it was the opposite, that they were trying to make the ISDs and Empire seem more massive and more awesome. Or they just looked at a modern super carrier with a crew (with embarked airwing) of 5000, did some multiplication based on internal volume, and came up with the ISD number.

Then the EU got ahold of it and put a bit more thought into it (or less) and we get the various "har the Empire is STOOPID!" or "THEY HATE DROIDS! (which is a better excuse)".
Batman wrote:I'm...not sure how that's supposed to figure into the (allegedly) bloated crew numbers for ISDs.Yes, they're likely to have bigger stores and probably even brothels (though given the available technology those may be virtual) but the people employed there aren't going to make up more than a tiny fraction of the crew (if they are counted as crew to begin with, they may be civilian subcontractors). That being said, even a measly line ISD is huge by modern standards. Using modern day Navy crew members per cubic meter of ship standards, they're practically unpopulated.
The Supply Department on a DDG51 Destroyer makes up roughly upwards 1/6th of the crew and that does not count administration and medical.
it should be noted that even modern warships are "overcrewed" compared to automation would allow under ideal conditions even after you factor in the fact that they have multiple shifts, with positions that could be 100% automated under the same ideal conditions still crewed, since lets face you rarely if ever have ideal when in combat.
No, its quite the opposite. The USN is undermanned per ship based on maintenance and increased op tempo requirements and its a big bone of contention within the fleet right now. Every ship designed for minimal crew through automation has always been plussed up quietly after the fact because automation is many times a "good on paper" concept, the LCS is a great example of this.
Post Reply