Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: Golan defense platform stats??

  1. #1
    Veteran Player
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    Reynoldsburg ohio (SE of columbus)
    Posts
    4,249

    Default Golan defense platform stats??

    BTB a golan has (thrawn trilogy source book)

    Hull/Shield
    Golan 1 = 4d/0d
    Golan 2 = 4d/2d+2
    Golan 3 = 5d+2/4d

    By the Imp source book
    Star destroyers have
    Victory mk1 = 4d/3d+1
    Victory mk2 = 4d+2/3d
    ISD 1 = 7d/3d
    ISD 2 = 7d+1/2d+2

    So how in the heck can 3 GIIIs hold of 6 ISD IIs???

    And that is just their Hull/shields.

    So what do you feel they SHOULD be?
    You cannot dodge it if you don't know it is coming, and you cannot shoot at what you don't know is there!

  2. #2
    Moderator boccelounge's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 2005
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    2,931

    Default

    Wolverine,

    If you're thinking the Hull/Shield are too low, I can only guess that they're meant to be. That is, maybe the Golan should be seen as a powerful but ultimately "disposable" asset. Or to look at it another way, making them "lighter" makes them cheaper, which means you can field more of them.

    And, FWIW, in the early d20 Starships of the Galaxy, the stats are roughly consistent with WEG sources:
    Golan - Hull 400
    VSD I - Hull 400
    VSD II - Hull 460
    ISD II - Hull 730

    So, at least various sources generally agree on the Golan's relative strength, compared to comparable vessel types. Something to think about-- HTH.


    - CY
    "Half the fun of God's forgiveness is having reasons to ask for it."

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Same topic over at the Rancor Pit generated stats roughly equivalent to a Super Star Destroyer in Hull and Shields (10D/8D), while also breaking the weaponry down so it wasn't all turret and including SF-scale weaponry for defensive purposes.

  4. #4
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    Honestly, the thing I would do with Golan's is extend the ranges of their weapons. If the ranges of the weapons are 50% further than that of a ship's weapons, two Golan stations could outlast 6 ISDs simply by being able to pummel the ISDs for a while before the ISDs could even fire their weapons.

    And yes, I'd also include some anti-starfighter weapons on them as well, otherwise sending in the fighters would be the easiest way to defeat Golan Defense Stations.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    Honestly, the thing I would do with Golan's is extend the ranges of their weapons. If the ranges of the weapons are 50% further than that of a ship's weapons, two Golan stations could outlast 6 ISDs simply by being able to pummel the ISDs for a while before the ISDs could even fire their weapons.
    I like the idea of using extended range weapons, but the official material (The Last Command) talks about how good Golans are at absorbing damage, not how good they are at hitting their targets at long ranges. When we crunched the numbers at the Rancor Pit, someone had already suggested the 10D/8D numbers from a Super Star Destroyer, and with three ISD III's hitting a Golan with a full forward barrage (including ion cannon), that earlier suggestion ended up being right in the ballpark (using the 2D=7 rule of thumb to calculate likely damage/soak results). The flip-side of those stats was that the Golan's weaponry was so powerful that it could vaporize two of the ISD in a single round (hitting one with turbolasers and the other with proton torpedoes, once the station's weapon ranges were adjusted to the norm for CS-Scale weaponry. It's not just that the hull and shields need to be adjusted, the station's weaponry also needs to be better allocated, broken down into fire arcs instead of all being turret firing.


    And yes, I'd also include some anti-starfighter weapons on them as well, otherwise sending in the fighters would be the easiest way to defeat Golan Defense Stations.
    What would be more appropriate: the quad-lasers off a Lancer, or the more numerous dual-laser cannon like those found on the KDY escort carrier?

  6. #6
    Veteran Player
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    Reynoldsburg ohio (SE of columbus)
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    It's not just that the hull and shields need to be adjusted, the station's weaponry also needs to be better allocated, broken down into fire arcs instead of all being turret firing.
    Especially since looking at the pics, the turrets they do have (on the G II and G III) show the superstructure blinds it to one arc, but allows most turrets to fire in 3 arcs..

    What would be more appropriate: the quad-lasers off a Lancer, or the more numerous dual-laser cannon like those found on the KDY escort carrier?
    I was thinking one full lancer's worth on a Golan II, and 2 on a Golan III.
    You cannot dodge it if you don't know it is coming, and you cannot shoot at what you don't know is there!

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolverine View Post
    Especially since looking at the pics, the turrets they do have (on the G II and G III) show the superstructure blinds it to one arc, but allows most turrets to fire in 3 arcs..
    Personally, I would go with each cannon having 2 fire arcs, evenly split between front/left, front/right, rear/left and rear/right, with the remaining 10 split between top and bottom turret.



    I was thinking one full lancer's worth on a Golan II, and 2 on a Golan III.
    The only reservation I have with using Lancer quad-lasers is that Lancer weapons are supposed to be relatively advanced and correspondingly rare. IMO, something like a battle-station would be more likely to have the smaller, more numerous dual-laser cannon that can be combined for greater effectiveness without having to utilize the more advanced, expensive (and, per the Lancer's description) less reliable quad-lasers.

  8. #8
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onebigchuck View Post
    I like the idea of using extended range weapons, but the official material (The Last Command) talks about how good Golans are at absorbing damage, not how good they are at hitting their targets at long ranges. When we crunched the numbers at the Rancor Pit, someone had already suggested the 10D/8D numbers from a Super Star Destroyer, and with three ISD III's hitting a Golan with a full forward barrage (including ion cannon), that earlier suggestion ended up being right in the ballpark (using the 2D=7 rule of thumb to calculate likely damage/soak results). The flip-side of those stats was that the Golan's weaponry was so powerful that it could vaporize two of the ISD in a single round (hitting one with turbolasers and the other with proton torpedoes, once the station's weapon ranges were adjusted to the norm for CS-Scale weaponry. It's not just that the hull and shields need to be adjusted, the station's weaponry also needs to be better allocated, broken down into fire arcs instead of all being turret firing.
    The problem with those numbers is "power creep". You end up with a game like Rifts. Golans as powerful as a Super Star Destroyer. That's just outlandishly silly.



    What would be more appropriate: the quad-lasers off a Lancer, or the more numerous dual-laser cannon like those found on the KDY escort carrier?
    Oh, double laser cannons for sure. I'd put something like a dozen per size class of Golan, divided among the various arcs. So a Golan 1 would have 12 dual lasers for anti-starfighter, a Golan 2 would have 24 dual lasers, and a Golan 3 would have 36 dual lasers.

    I do like the idea of making all of the weapons a two-arc turret firing weapon. So you'd have, at most, half of all of the Golan's weapons firing at one time. This would include the newly added anti-starfighter weaponry.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  9. #9
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    The problem with those numbers is "power creep". You end up with a game like Rifts. Golans as powerful as a Super Star Destroyer. That's just outlandishly silly.
    I agree. Unfortunately, for one Golan III to stand up against three ISD II's (as they are stated to do in The Last Command), the numbers need to be approximately that high. It's either that or ISD II stats need to be downgraded.

    Honestly, I've always felt that SSD Hull stats were a little underpowered. After all, they are only 1D of Hull stronger than a Torpedo Sphere...


    Oh, double laser cannons for sure. I'd put something like a dozen per size class of Golan, divided among the various arcs. So a Golan 1 would have 12 dual lasers for anti-starfighter, a Golan 2 would have 24 dual lasers, and a Golan 3 would have 36 dual lasers.
    That works for me.

  10. #10
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    In reality, the ability to "hold off" or "stand against" superior numbers comes from leadership, not from stats of the items themselves.

    Take a look at all the instances in history where smaller numbers of soldiers held out against vastly larger numbers. It wasn't just the technology that helped in those situations (though sometimes it helped), it was the leadership and mettle of the men that made the difference.

    Gunners being more accurate. Damage repair crews working more efficiently. Operations crews doing their job more effectively than the crews on the Star Destroyers, and commanding officers having the wherewithal to keep their men focused, dedicated, and unshaken.

    Longer range guns and accurate enough fire could significantly shake the measure of a less competent Star Destroyer captain. When they're taking punishing hits that are causing personnel loss and damaging potentially significant systems before you can even move your ship into range, you become less willing to continue moving at the target. That holds off one entire Star Destroyer potentially fairly quickly.

    And honestly, I never thought that a SSD should be that much tougher than a Torpedo Sphere. Those are basically "mini" Death Stars, so they should be tough. The SSD is long, generally "lanky" by comparison, and therefore a bit more fragile. While it's significantly bigger (longer), that fragility inherent in the design makes it overall less durable, based on size, than an equal sized Torpedo Sphere.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    The quote from The Last Command actually reads "That left only the two battle stations still in danger, and they were proving themselves more capable of absorbing damage than Leia had realized they could." While I agree with your statements regarding leadership, crew quality, damage control and such in the real world, WEG stats do not allow the Command skill to directly affect Damage soak rolls by the Hull and Shields, and there is no mention of repairing damage in combat, so successful damage control must be represented by the ship / station's Hull dice. As I said before, I like what you have to say about extended range, and I think you're right about the effectiveness of extended range on combat. However, the available evidence in the official material does not specifically mention holding off attackers; it specifically mentions the capability of Golans to absorb damage, and that means it has to have a higher Hull and Shields to soak the damage being inflicted by the three ISD II's.

    I am not a fan of the WEG scale system for a lot of reasons, and I particularly don't like how they've given the SSD short shrift. Film evidence indicates the ship is far larger than WEG's claimed 8,000 meter length, and I've always felt that the SSD needed to be upstatted to reflect its actual size in the films (visual evidence indicates that the SSD is approximately 11 times longer than an ISD). Instead of upstatting the ship, however, I have been playing with an alternate scale system, which breaks Capital Ship scale up into three categories: escort, cruiser and dreadnought (using 4D, 8D and 12D steps up from Starfighter scale, respectively). This makes my issues with the SSD's stats much simpler, as the stats stay the same, but it is now 6D tougher in all respects.

  12. #12
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    Bingo! That's the whole crux of the matter.
    I, too, have reworked scales in D6. In fact, they have nearly identical names to yours. "Escort", "Capital", "Battleship". So, yes, I agree with the stats being the same, but the scale being different.

    The same could be done with the Golan stations. Put the Golan 1 at Escort, the Golan 2 at Capital, and the Golan 3 at Battleship/Dreadnought scale. Leave the stats for the hull and shields as they are, but take the different scales into account.

    And, in my opinion, the "absorb damage" is all semantics. When they're talking about absorbing damage, that would also include damage control. They don't mention crew loss either, but you know that "absorbing damage" also takes into effect the amount of crew available to do the tasks needed.

    So perhaps the best bet is to use the reworked scales, keep the listed hull and shields, rework the weapon arcs, extend the weapon ranges, and add anti-starfighter weapons. Simple!
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  13. #13
    Veteran Player
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    Reynoldsburg ohio (SE of columbus)
    Posts
    4,249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    Oh, double laser cannons for sure. I'd put something like a dozen per size class of Golan, divided among the various arcs. So a Golan 1 would have 12 dual lasers for anti-starfighter, a Golan 2 would have 24 dual lasers, and a Golan 3 would have 36 dual lasers.

    I do like the idea of making all of the weapons a two-arc turret firing weapon. So you'd have, at most, half of all of the Golan's weapons firing at one time. This would include the newly added anti-starfighter weaponry.
    I'd be ok with 8 per arc for G1s, 14 for G2s and 20 for G3s.
    You cannot dodge it if you don't know it is coming, and you cannot shoot at what you don't know is there!

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    And, in my opinion, the "absorb damage" is all semantics. When they're talking about absorbing damage, that would also include damage control. They don't mention crew loss either, but you know that "absorbing damage" also takes into effect the amount of crew available to do the tasks needed.
    Perhaps, but the fact remains that WEG stats do not take that into account, so the only way to represent how those factors contribute to a ship or station's viability under fire (short of a complete revamp of the WEG stat system) is to increase the ship / station's Hull dice to reflect that increased survivability. I know in Battlefleet Gothic, a ship's damage points actually represent crew losses, so maybe that would be a good place for an optional rule. However, until then, massed weapons fire rolled against shields and Hull dice are the only measure we have of how durable a ship is in combat. Therefore, to determine how well a Golan III can do when facing up against 3 ISD II's, you have to crunch the numbers and find out at exactly which point can the Golan III at least break even in a damage soak vs. combined fire roll. When I crunched the numbers, 10D/8D was about dead on. Of course, factoring in my modified scaling system gives a comparative bump of 6D to both Shields and Hull, which puts it at 11D+2/10D relative to its position in the current WEG scale system.


    So perhaps the best bet is to use the reworked scales, keep the listed hull and shields, rework the weapon arcs, extend the weapon ranges, and add anti-starfighter weapons. Simple!
    Of course that then generates the problem of what happens to the scale of the various weapons. Right now, with Capital being a single scale bracket, all of the turbolasers are at Capital scale. If the Golan III is bumped up to Dreadnought scale, do all of its weapons get bumped up too? Or should there be a division of weaponry, so that the Golan has a few Dreadnought-scale weapons, more numerous Cruiser-scale weapons, even more numerous Escort-scale weapons, and finally a myriad of Starfighter-scale weapons?

  15. #15
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    And, in my opinion, the "absorb damage" is all semantics. When they're talking about absorbing damage, that would also include damage control. They don't mention crew loss either, but you know that "absorbing damage" also takes into effect the amount of crew available to do the tasks needed.
    Perhaps, but the fact remains that WEG stats do not take that into account, so the only way to represent how those factors contribute to a ship or station's viability under fire (short of a complete revamp of the WEG stat system) is to increase the ship / station's Hull dice to reflect that increased survivability. I know in Battlefleet Gothic, a ship's damage points actually represent crew losses, so maybe that would be a good place for an optional rule. However, until then, massed weapons fire rolled against shields and Hull dice are the only measure we have of how durable a ship is in combat. Therefore, to determine how well a Golan III can do when facing up against 3 ISD II's, you have to crunch the numbers and find out at exactly which point can the Golan III at least break even in a damage soak vs. combined fire roll. When I crunched the numbers, 10D/8D was about dead on. Of course, factoring in my modified scaling system gives a comparative bump of 6D to both Shields and Hull, which puts it at 11D+2/10D relative to its position in the current WEG scale system.


    So perhaps the best bet is to use the reworked scales, keep the listed hull and shields, rework the weapon arcs, extend the weapon ranges, and add anti-starfighter weapons. Simple!
    Of course that then generates the problem of what happens to the scale of the various weapons. Right now, with Capital being a single scale bracket, all of the turbolasers are at Capital scale. If the Golan III is bumped up to Dreadnought scale, do all of its weapons get bumped up too? Or should there be a division of weaponry, so that the Golan has a few Dreadnought-scale weapons, more numerous Cruiser-scale weapons, even more numerous Escort-scale weapons, and finally a myriad of Starfighter-scale weapons?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •