Illuminatus Primus wrote:That's silly. The A/FRG is a stripped-down and refitted Dreadnought that ends up being lighter but less crew-intensive, more manuverable, and faster.
A Dreadnought is significantly inferior to the Victory-class Star Destroyer. None of the A/FRG modifications would make its shielding, armor, and firepower great enough to reach parity with the VSD.
I totally agree, I just wasn't sure if the A/FRG had been in WEG or anything other than the video games. Because if it had only been in the video games, then we'd have to conclude that it was at least equal to a VSD. Fortunately, we don't have to do this.
Phong wrote:She says he's scaled it and found there's actually enough room for those starfighters. I'll ask him about it later -- the ROTJ:SE appears to have fixed the EFX error as well, but again, I'll have to look at it.
I don't know about the error being fixed, I've only ever seen the error on the Special Edition version, because I never bothered to check my pre-SE copies for it...so unless I've been high on crack every single time...
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
With the exception of the CMLs, an AF is a clear winner in fights vs a VSD and the DN. The AF has a significant speed and maneuverability advantage over the VSD, but it's TLBs have the same range as the CMLs of the V. Remember the V is a decades old design by the time the DNs got retrofitted with much newer tech to become AFs.
A V-2 will kick an AFs ass every day of the week though.
You neglected that the AF has the weakest sensors of the ships, and its QLCs and LCs are anti-starfighter weapons with pitiful range compared to the other two.
All the weaker weapons will have virtually no effect against 8d of combined hull and shields. Only the 7d TLB or 9d CMLs have a real chance of inflicting damage, and those have the same range of 60. Remember that under the WEG system, shields are not ablative, until you actually penetrate the combined sheild and hull rating, then it goes down by 1d.
2d and 4d weapons are irrelevent, no matter their range.
As far as sensors go, I didn't bother to look, I don't think it'd have a major effect. I didn't mention starfighters either, a DN can carry up to 2 sqds, and a V up to 4sqds, but without TIE Bombers, TF won't be able to effect a capital ship. An AF can dock up to 20 SFs, but not carry them through hyperspace; since rebel fighters are HS capable, if anything, the AF would be accompanied by fighters truely capable of inflicting significant damage on a cap ship.
Andras wrote:As far as sensors go, I didn't bother to look, I don't think it'd have a major effect. I didn't mention starfighters either, a DN can carry up to 2 sqds, and a V up to 4sqds, but without TIE Bombers, TF won't be able to effect a capital ship. An AF can dock up to 20 SFs, but not carry them through hyperspace; since rebel fighters are HS capable, if anything, the AF would be accompanied by fighters truely capable of inflicting significant damage on a cap ship.
That would cut down on the operational range, though, since fighters are usually short-legged things. Long-range operations would demand some sort of carrier vessel (maybe a CVE) in support, otherwise they'd have to fly solo.
Andras wrote:All the weaker weapons will have virtually no effect against 8d of combined hull and shields.
From start, yes. You also skipped that the AF has only 1D of Fire Control on its TLBs, while the VSD has 4D on its QTBs, and 2D on its CMLs. I think its clear that the AF has little chance against a VSD, while it is slightly better than a dreadnaught. The larger number of TLBs on the AF doesn't help much under the WEG system.
Make no mistake, the CMLs on a V-1 will eat up a AF. I specifically excepted the CMLs and said that. The AF would have to stay at the very edge of effective range (using it's speed and maneauverability) and use the time-of-flight of the CMLs to fire and retreat. TOF is not modeled in the 2e system however.
edit- I forgot that there is a penalty to hit for missile weapons dependig ont he speed of a target, see a later post for the specifics, but the CMLs cannot hit at long range
Higher FC on 5d QTLBs is irrelevent given the combat system as laid out in 2e WEG.
Phong- Maybe, but the fighters could also be tasked from a local fighter base in the target sector. "Meet AF 123 at location X for a mission." They dock, receive the mission plan, rest, and then hyper in.
Last edited by Andras on 2004-01-08 10:40am, edited 1 time in total.
Andras wrote:Phong- Maybe, but the fighters could also be tasked from a local fighter base in the target sector. "Meet AF 123 at location X for a mission." They dock, receive the mission plan, rest, and then hyper in.
Yeah, but that grossly cuts into the flexibility of missions if the A/FRG is forced to use some local fighter base to stage fighters from. That also means that they'll have B-Wings at best for antiship support, and I'd rather have K-Wings for that (mmm, plasma bombs).
1 AF sans fighters vs 1 V-1
AF has a 50% speed advantage and a 2 pip maneuver advantage.
AF totals 3d shields, 5d hull; 8d defense
Vic totals 3d+1 shields, 4d hull; 7d+1 defense
AF has 5x 7d TLB f/p/s,
Vic has 5x 5d QTL per p/s arc. the 40x 2d+2 TwTLs are split 10f, 15 p/s, the 80x 9d CMLs are split 20 per f/p/s/a.
The base to hit at long range is 20, CMLs suffer an additional penalty depending on the speed of the target vessel, AFs speed of 6 grants a 20 point penalty on the to hit chance(p110). Energy weapons will hit on 20s, CMLs on 40s.
The AFs gunnery crew skill is 4d+2, plus 1d f/c = 5d+2, average 19.5 needs a 20 to hit
The Vics gunnery skill is 4d+2, fire control on the CMLs is 2d; total 6d+2, average 23, needs a 40 to hit. The QTLs have 4d FC, 8d+2 total, average 30. hits on 20s. The TwTLs FC is 3d, total 7d+2, average 26.5, hits on 20s
The QTLs and TwTLs on the V1 exceed the range of an AF by 15 units, but don't do enough damage to be a real threat to the AF, plus the QTLs cannot fire into the front or aft arcs. The CMLs cannot ever hit a spd 6 target at long range (best possible roll 38, needs a 40)
The AF has an advantageous fire arc (5 heavy weapons in 3 arcs vs 2 arcs), speed, maneuver, and ability to damage the target(7d vs 7d+1), the Vic can hit more often with its energy weapons, but cannot reliably damage an AF (at best 5d vs 8d, more likely 2d+2 vs 8d). In addition, the range advantage of the Vic can be crossed in one round by the AF.
If the Vic can close to medium range, it's energy weapons are still ineffective, the CMLs can only hit by rolling a 35+ on 6d+2(avg roll 5.5 per die), and the AF will be hitting more then the 50% it was getting at long range ( avg 19.5 vs df15 at medium)
I had forgotten about the penalty to hit for missile weapons, so I'll give this combat to the AF now. Again, this is strictly in the context of the WEG 2e rules.
edit to add- once a damage roll equals a defense roll, then the shields drop by 1d, since the AFs has a 50% chance of equalling the defense rolls of a V-1, it'll be knocking down the shields, and scoring progressively increasing damage far earlier then the V-1.
Ironically, a Strike cruiser has a much better then even chance of defeating an AF 1v1. The Strike has the same speed, better maneuver, and longer range weapons that are effective and a stronger hull/shield combo.
Last edited by Andras on 2004-01-08 10:43am, edited 1 time in total.
Andras wrote:Phong- Maybe, but the fighters could also be tasked from a local fighter base in the target sector. "Meet AF 123 at location X for a mission." They dock, receive the mission plan, rest, and then hyper in.
Yeah, but that grossly cuts into the flexibility of missions if the A/FRG is forced to use some local fighter base to stage fighters from. That also means that they'll have B-Wings at best for antiship support, and I'd rather have K-Wings for that (mmm, plasma bombs).
The HTTE source book says that NR AFs could indeed carry fighters through hyperspace. So between Rebellion era and Thrawn era, AFs were given the ability to carry small craft through HS.
BTW, it's silly to complain that Rebellion era AFs couldn't carry K-Wings, as K-Wings are BFC era craft.
With the exception of the CMLs, an AF is a clear winner in fights vs a VSD and the DN. The AF has a significant speed and maneuverability advantage over the VSD, but it's TLBs have the same range as the CMLs of the V. Remember the V is a decades old design by the time the DNs got retrofitted with much newer tech to become AFs.
Err... Assault Frigates have a far shorter range than 3/4 of the Dreadnaught's guns (and all the VSD1's guns.), AND the AF has a far slower rate of fire (1/3 fire rate.)
In fact, the RASB indicates in the AF entry that: "Unfortnately, the assault frigate did have to sacrifice offensive capability - while it has additional weaponry, crew members and power generators were diverted from the interior of the ship, resulting in shorter ranges and a lower rate of fire for the turbolasers compared to the Dreadnaught."
It should also be noted that while the AF got more weapons, the majority of its armaments are only laser cannons, which have FAR shorter ranges than the turbolasers.
It seems that the Rebel Alliance-era assault frigate would be designed more towards dealing with escorts - enemy starfighters and light ships (escort frigates, Carrack-class cruisers, patrol ships, etc.) - they would be ideally suited to assisting in raiding Imperial commerce, since most convoys tended to use lighter warships as escorts (agian, like escort frigates.) This is also substantiated by later models which seem to have been converted to pure-laser armaments, suggesting more of a defensive role than offensive role.
However, it should be noted that the four assault frigates that engaged the Chimaera in HttE may suggest that other assault frigates may have been optimized for ship to ship combat and are capable of threatening even a Star Destroyer (at least with sufficient starfighter escort.) This may instead point to some sort of "specialization" employed in later assault frigate designs.
Connor MacLeod wrote:
Err... Assault Frigates have a far shorter range than 3/4 of the Dreadnaught's guns (and all the VSD1's guns.), AND the AF has a far slower rate of fire (1/3 fire rate.)
In fact, the RASB indicates in the AF entry that: "Unfortnately, the assault frigate did have to sacrifice offensive capability - while it has additional weaponry, crew members and power generators were diverted from the interior of the ship, resulting in shorter ranges and a lower rate of fire for the turbolasers compared to the Dreadnaught."
It should also be noted that while the AF got more weapons, the majority of its armaments are only laser cannons, which have FAR shorter ranges than the turbolasers.
...
However, it should be noted that the four assault frigates that engaged the Chimaera in HttE may suggest that other assault frigates may have been optimized for ship to ship combat and are capable of threatening even a Star Destroyer (at least with sufficient starfighter escort.) This may instead point to some sort of "specialization" employed in later assault frigate designs.
It's obvious you didn't read the rest of my posts, the weapons that a Vic has that actually outrange the TLBs on an AF DO NOT DO ENOUGH DAMAGE TO EFFECT THE AF. There is no mention of a rate of fire restriction in the AF game entry, unlike the entries for Hapan ships. The Text of the RASB Mon Cal indicates it has "extensive firepower to the front, respectable firepower to the sides, and negligable firepower the the rear", but the game entry gives it 12 TLBs in each of the 4 arcs. Do not apply filler text to the game stats, unless there's a mention in the stat block.
The HTTE source book provides stats for the NR AFs and they have the same armaments that the RA AF does; however, the NR AFs have the ability to tote fighters through hyperspace, unlike the RA AFs.
The 7d TLBs on a DN actually have a decent chance of damaging an AF, but the AF has significant speed advantage, and a better arc of fire. The range advantage can be crossed in one round, and then it's a slugging match. The secondary weapons cannot reliably effect an AF through it's defenses.
Andras wrote:The HTTE source book says that NR AFs could indeed carry fighters through hyperspace. So between Rebellion era and Thrawn era, AFs were given the ability to carry small craft through HS.
Ah, excellent.
BTW, it's silly to complain that Rebellion era AFs couldn't carry K-Wings, as K-Wings are BFC era craft.
I know that, it was more in the context of the post-BFC era A/FRGs.
Well, Post BFC AFs would be entirely different kettle of fish then the Rebellion era modDN AFs. They'd be new build with full power weaponry. Remember that the modDN AFs were very rare and few were constructed. Yet by HTTE, NR AFs were the primary patrol craft for the outer NR territorys, according to the HTTE sourcebook. So the NR went on an AF building spree between Endor and Thrawn. Which still leaves 10 years or so for improvements in follow-ons by the time BFC rolls around.
Andras wrote:Well, Post BFC AFs would be entirely different kettle of fish then the Rebellion era modDN AFs. They'd be new build with full power weaponry. Remember that the modDN AFs were very rare and few were constructed. Yet by HTTE, NR AFs were the primary patrol craft for the outer NR territorys, according to the HTTE sourcebook. So the NR went on an AF building spree between Endor and Thrawn. Which still leaves 10 years or so for improvements in follow-ons by the time BFC rolls around.
Sounds fine to me, though I'm somewhat surprised that they didn't come out with another flight with a full flight-deck. Bel Iblis was still puttering in his modified DN as late as the HoT duology.
IIRC was Iblis's Dreadnaught dreadfully unmodified, beyond the Katana Fleet Mods? I seem to remember him mentioning that the Comm system was away from the Bridge unlike other NR Dreadnaughts.
Andras wrote:
It's obvious you didn't read the rest of my posts, the weapons that a Vic has that actually outrange the TLBs on an AF DO NOT DO ENOUGH DAMAGE TO EFFECT THE AF.
Only by literal interpretation of WEG stats. Why would we consider WEG any more valid than say, the games SW Rebellion or the stats from X-wing Alliance/XvT, etc.?
There is no mention of a rate of fire restriction in the AF game entry, unlike the entries for Hapan ships.
Try reading again. Its between "fire control" and "skill" ratings. I should also mention that the Galactic Empire Databank also acknowledges the existence of the slow refire rate here
The Text of the RASB Mon Cal indicates it has "extensive firepower to the front, respectable firepower to the sides, and negligable firepower the the rear", but the game entry gives it 12 TLBs in each of the 4 arcs. Do not apply filler text to the game stats, unless there's a mention in the stat block.
Based on what, exactly? I wasn't awre there was a previously-defined methodology for analyzing game stats. Usually its the game stats that get thrown out on the base of fluff.
The HTTE source book provides stats for the NR AFs and they have the same armaments that the RA AF does; however, the NR AFs have the ability to tote fighters through hyperspace, unlike the RA AFs.
And of course, we know the RPG/game stats are comprhensive across the board regardless of the source you consult
The 7d TLBs on a DN actually have a decent chance of damaging an AF, but the AF has significant speed advantage, and a better arc of fire. The range advantage can be crossed in one round, and then it's a slugging match. The secondary weapons cannot reliably effect an AF through it's defenses.
I would bet a Carrack stands a pretty good chance of destroying a Victory-class too, by WEG stats.
Andras wrote:
It's obvious you didn't read the rest of my posts, the weapons that a Vic has that actually outrange the TLBs on an AF DO NOT DO ENOUGH DAMAGE TO EFFECT THE AF.
Only by literal interpretation of WEG stats. Why would we consider WEG any more valid than say, the games SW Rebellion or the stats from X-wing Alliance/XvT, etc.?
Ok, once again, the Vic's weapons do either 5d or 2d+2 damage, the combined hull and shield of the AF is 8d. How effective do you think those weapons are going to be? No interpretation is required. The whole point was that someone asked if there was any source besides the computer games, I gave 2e and explained how an AF can beat the Vic, as was apparently the case in XWA.
There is no mention of a rate of fire restriction in the AF game entry, unlike the entries for Hapan ships.
Try reading again. Its between "fire control" and "skill" ratings. I should also mention that the Galactic Empire Databank also acknowledges the existence of the slow refire rate here
I see it in the GDB, I will recheck my books at home. NTL, AF can close, fire, and retreat for 2 turns. It will have a better chance of knocking down shields or doing damage then the V-1 that has weaker energy weapons.
Edit- Ok, on further review, I see the rof in the RA SB, unfortunately , I made that post from work. That will hurt the RA AF vs a DN, however, with 3 available sets of 5 TLBs, it is certainly mitigated to an extent. The AF is still a win vs a V1 tho. It can move in, and in one turn fire all 15 TLBs(by maneuvering through an arc of about 100 degrees). That will blow away all shields and inflict a light and either a moderate or heavy damage result to the Vic, on average.
HTTE Source book, OTOH, makes no mention of the rate of fire restriction in either the text or the game stat block for NR AFs. In addition, the GDB mentions both the ability to carry small craft through hyperspace and the ROF restriction, which are mutually exclusive factoids from the 2 different eras of AFs.
Andras wrote:
Ok, once again, the Vic's weapons do either 5d or 2d+2 damage, the combined hull and shield of the AF is 8d. How effective do you think those weapons are going to be? No interpretation is required.
WEG's depiction of the combat is interpretive, especially relative to other sources (You even admitted that the nongame elements conflict with the ingame stuff, to say nothing about other elements.) In this case, you're taking the game stats to literally (and accurately) represent combat between two Star Wars vessels, and that is highly debatable.
The whole point was that someone asked if there was any source besides the computer games, I gave 2e and explained how an AF can beat the Vic, as was apparently the case in XWA.
It matters whether or not it is accurate relative to other evidence.
What shall we explain the various SDs with built-in grav wells and such in the NJO?
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish
"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.
The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | LibertarianSocialist |
A revised system of Capital ship combat and damage was released by WEG (in the Gamemasters sourcebook IIRC, if I'm wrong, it will have to wait until next weekend when I have access to the book)
Under this system, Capital ships have 9 damage levels before they are destroyed, taking 1 'pip' worth each time the shields are overcome. The shields are degraded by one pip each time half of the combined Shield + Hull rating is met. This book also provided for the six shield facings being accounted for separately, and gave a mass fire index, for accounting the effects of shooting at someone with an entire broadside of guns individually incapable of affecting the target.
Lord Pounder wrote:IIRC was Iblis's Dreadnaught dreadfully unmodified, beyond the Katana Fleet Mods? I seem to remember him mentioning that the Comm system was away from the Bridge unlike other NR Dreadnaughts.
It's probably been refitted, but still, I expected it to at least been rebuilt to the A/FRG standard.
Where does Rebellion stand? I notice Dauntless and Bulwark were mentioned so I'll do Liberator.
Liberator-class cruiser - 1040m, 1 Wing of Fighters. From this it would seem it is probably a Carrier, it isn't particularly well armed for ship to ship combat but can take a beating.
History? I love history! First, something happens, then, something else happens! It's so sequential!! Thank you first guy, for writing things down!
evilcat4000: I dont spam
Cairbur: The Bible can, and has, been used to prove anything and everything (practically!)
StarshipTitanic: Prove it.
Very low. You can barely acknowledge the existance of the Bulwark and the Dauntless by contrivance. The Liberator on the other hand is a novel ship also, referred to as a carrier-cruiser.
