Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 38

Thread: Golan defense platform stats??

  1. #16
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    I guess that's where I feel differently than you or wolverine does when it comes to "fixing" things. I don't feel that by artificially inflating numbers in an attempt to replicate a passing line in a book or movie is the way to do it. I don't feel that sticking specifically to hull and shield numbers, or contemplating weapon damages is the ONLY way to go about fixing the things that seem broken.

    I've suggested what I believe should be done to "fix" the stations to effectively account for the passing line of text in a book that was NOT written based on the RPG, but based on the author's desire to make something sound impressive. He didn't consider what the game stats would be, or all definitions of what "absorb damage" would mean. The RPG writers also didn't consider all possible definitions of "absorb damage" would equate out to. Now, years later, some people look at it and believe that since the game ONLY includes hull/shields and weapon stats, everything written NOT BASED-ON the RPG must be pidgeon-holed into the same parameters.

    I think if you're going to rework things in an attempt to fit better, you're going to need to do some work. And it's not going to be simple work. You, onebigchuck mentioned one of the obvious issues with the RPG stats as written. The game, made separately, and the books, written not based on the RPG (in terms of statistics and probability), can't be easily reconciled without fixing some potentially BIG issues. Scale is one of them. Inclusion of additional weapon systems is another. A different form of damage resolution could be another. And fixing one of them may require a fix further on down the line, yes indeed!

    I'm just not the type of person to blindly throw larger numbers at things and say "Okay, that's done!". I feel that's breaking the game as much as the original stats for the item "broke" the idea of how the item was presented in a book (a book that was not based on the stats in the RPG). So I offered a suggestion on how to "fix" it. I'm not the type to jump on board with what everyone else suggests. It would seem that, in some regards, you think the same way, as you mentioned the scale system needing to be tweaked.

    If you or wolverine wants to just inflate the dice numbers for the Golan stations and call it good, then go for it! It's your games, you have to live with it. I certainly won't use the numbers and would take the time to fix the station's stats so that I don't have to worry about it later on when I'm comparing the station against the next mega-weapon that comes out for Star Wars.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  2. #17
    Experienced Player
    Join Date
    October 2000
    Posts
    754

    Default

    My fix on Golans has been to first give them starfighters - a wing or two. And second tweak the weapons by either increasing the range of the existing weapons or subbing in the heavy turbolaser batteries an ISD2 mounts. Mostly this fix is to make it so that the station can actually fight back when confronted by a ship with the longer range weapons.

    Another big reason a Golan is intimidating is because its so much cheaper, both to manufacture and to particularly to crew. I mean an ISD takes about 34 times more crew then a Golan 3 not to mention all the troopers and equipment aboard and the prestige of commanding an ISD. There is so much additional value to an ISD that its commander is probably going to be far more hesitant to get into a slugging match.

    Lastly if a Golan commander and crew actually manages to survive the loss of the station they are probably going to get a new position/promotion quickly because they are not actually expected to survive. Whereas if a ISD commander gets his ship all blown up and survives he is probably getting a visit by someone who's last name is Vader.

  3. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    I guess that's where I feel differently than you or wolverine does when it comes to "fixing" things. I don't feel that by artificially inflating numbers in an attempt to replicate a passing line in a book or movie is the way to do it. I don't feel that sticking specifically to hull and shield numbers, or contemplating weapon damages is the ONLY way to go about fixing the things that seem broken.
    Unfortunately, WEG has a well-deserved reputation for poor quality control. Very little is known about the actual capabilities of the Golan stations, apart from a few throwaway mentions in various novels. Those little tidbits, however, should be taken into account when writing stats. If the primary source (the novel) says that a group of six ISD II's split into two groups of three, with one group going after each of the two Golan III's in orbit over Coruscant, then further says that the Golans are proving far more capable of absorbing damage than thought possible, that is, at least, a general measurement of ability. When a secondary source (like the RPG) attempts to duplicate what is seen in the novel by making role-playing stats for it, they should take that into account, rather than (apparently) genning up random numbers to make something look good.

    I agree with you that, in real life, there are many factors that play into how well a ship or station can survive in combat. Unfortunately, we are playing a roleplaying game that is, at best, an inaccurate reflection of fictional life in a science fiction universe. Per the rules of that RPG, the only measure of how well something survives being struck (i.e. absorbing damage) in combat is its Hull and Shields dice. Unless I missed something in the RAW, there are no other contributing factors, even though a more realistic game would include them. Therefore, to realistically represent the little that is known of the capabilities of a Golan III battle station, there are two choices: 1) rewrite the stats to fit or 2) write a house rule to cover the contributing details (and potentially sparking a mass rewrite of all published WEG stats). While I would prefer it if a rule was in place in the RAW to represent how things like Command, crew quality and damage control contribute to a ship's combat survivability, the fact remains that, under the RAW, they do not. Admittedly, adjusting the battle station's shields to counter an attack would require a Command roll to order the shield operators to roll their skill dice to properly angle the deflector screens, but even full shield power into a single arc does not produce a high enough dice total to soak the damage inflicted by a combined barrage from three ISD II's. Under the RAW, the only remaining option to show how these things come into play is to increase the station's Hull and Shield dice. It would be nice if things were different, as I'd love to see more definitive rules for how Command can be used to enable PCs to captain a capital ship in combat. Maybe some pointers could be taken from Battlefleet Gothic, which already has rules for special orders, crew casualties and such.

  4. #19
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    Where did it say that the three Star Destroyers were combining all of their fire on the station ALL AT THE SAME TIME?

    That's an assumption on the part of some people, and a mighty big one at that.

    Who's to say that the Star Destroyers didn't just use a few turbolasers on them, and not their full compliment, and not combine with two other ships at the exact same time? Who's to say they didn't just throw a squadron of TIE fighters at them and that was it? The line "far more capable of absorbing damage than thought possible" is entirely subjective and of little use. They could have thought that the Golans were simply going to pop when some TIEs shot it. Or they could have though that one Star Destroyer firing a few of it's turbolasers would be enough to drop the shields and destroy the station. When those instances didn't occur, then the station was "far more capable of absorbing damage THAN THOUGHT POSSIBLE."

    It's all subjective.

    Since we have NO clue whatsoever that the Star Destroyers all combined their entire firepower, and ALL of the shots impacted the station in the exact same spot, we have no reason to believe that the stations should be strong enough to withstand a combined firepower from 3 ISDs. We only know that 1: Two stations were holding off 6 ISDs. and 2: they were far more capable of absorbing damage than thought possible.

    Heck, give the Golans backup shield generators like the Mon Cal ships. Give them extended range weapons. Give them anti-starfighter weapons. Make them a bit more stout. But don't go overboard and make them into some megalithic beast of a station. Doing so will result in everyone having a Golan 3 around their planet and becoming undefeatable because, hey, they can hold off 3 ISDs.

    Like I said: Power creep

    You make those stronger, you have to make stronger ships to defeat them. You make stronger ships to defeat them, you then have to make stronger defenses to keep those ships in check. Welcome to Rifts, Star Wars.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    Where did it say that the three Star Destroyers were combining all of their fire on the station ALL AT THE SAME TIME?
    Well, what ELSE would they be doing? At the time, I didn't feel the need to quote the entire relevant passage from The Last Command, but at that point, Garm Bel-Iblis had just pulled ALL of his warships to lower orbit, leaving the Golans to face the Imperial fleet BY THEMSELVES, and it was at that point that they were proving their capability to absorb damage. Under WEG's ridiculously underpowered stats, a Golan is unable to withstand a full barrage from even ONE ISD II, let alone three at once, and per the primary source, there is nothing else around for them to direct their fire at, so why wouldn't they be expending all their firepower on the Golans? Even if there were other targets, my original number crunching only generated combined fire damage numbers for the forward arc heavy turbolaser batteries and ion cannon, leaving nothing for the port and starboard batteries to do. In addition, I didn't include combined fire damage for the heavy turbolaser cannon, which leaves all of them free to engage other targets (if there were any) while the prow turbolaser batteries do their work.


    That's an assumption on the part of some people, and a mighty big one at that.
    You are making some pretty big assumptions as well, which seem to be based on nonexistent rules and supposition not supported by the primary source; I am at least recognizing the failings of the RAW system while working within it. I fail to see why you are opposed to raising the stats of the Golan when you have no problem with the Torpedo Sphere stats as written, with its 9D+2 Hull. At 2600 meters, the Golan III is 700 meters longer than the Torpedo Sphere, and with it being designed to be essentially immobile, it can be designed to be tougher (no engine ports, armor all around, and a power core which doesn't have to divert energy to sublight and hyperdrives can direct a lot of energy towards shields). As such, 10D Hull and 8D Shields seems about right for a massive station that can't dodge enemy fire and has to sit and slug it out with enemy ships because retreat is not an option. I have arrived at this opinion based on interpretation of available evidence combined with calculations generated from the SWRPG RAW. While you raise several valid points in criticism of WEG's stat and space combat systems, I have seen nothing to convince me that the stat should not be increased to better reflect the action seen in-universe.


    Heck, give the Golans backup shield generators like the Mon Cal ships. Give them extended range weapons. Give them anti-starfighter weapons. Make them a bit more stout. But don't go overboard and make them into some megalithic beast of a station. Doing so will result in everyone having a Golan 3 around their planet and becoming undefeatable because, hey, they can hold off 3 ISDs.
    You are assuming that everyone can afford to have a Golan III in orbit. We are talking about Coruscant here, the galactic capital, which can reasonably be expected to be the best defended planet in the galaxy. Under the Empire, it originally had three Golan III's in orbit, one of which was destroyed when the Alliance invaded, leaving the remaining two to face off against Thrawn's main force in The Last Command. Golan III's are likely to be hideously expensive, and as such, are only used to protect extremely high value targets. Even the shipyards at Bilbringi in The Last Command only had Golan II's (assuming there were more than the one mentioned). IMCO, Golan III's are very powerful, and also very rare. Only the most wealthy and influential worlds can afford to have even one of these behemoths, and having them appear in orbit around every planet in the galaxy is the sign of a bad GM, not a bad stat.

  6. #21
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    I fail to see why you are opposed to raising the stats of the Golan when you have no problem with the Torpedo Sphere stats as written, with its 9D+2 Hull.
    I've said it a couple of times, but I'll say it again. Power creep.

    I don't have a problem with altering stats. Don't get me wrong. I even said "give the Golans backup shield generators like the Mon Cal ships. Give them extended range weapons. Give them anti-starfighter weapons. Make them a bit more stout." I'm just saying boosting it to the proposed 10D/8D is just flat out going overboard!

    Here....I'll randomly throw some numbers out as a suggestion.

    Golan 3 Battle Station
    Scale: Dreadnought (18D)
    Hull: 7D+1
    Shields: 4D+2*
    * The Golan III has 4D of backup shields. When 1D of shield is lost the crew can make an Easy shields roll to bring 1D of the backup to active and increase the primary shields to no greater than normal.
    Sensors:
    Passive: 65 / 0D
    Scan: 80 / 1D
    Search: 200 / 2D+1
    Focus: 10 / 4D

    Weapons:
    50 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
    Arcs: 12 Port/Aft, 12 Starboard/Aft, 13 Port/Forward, 13 Starboard/Forward
    Scale: Capital (12D)
    Fire Control: 4D+2
    Range: 3-25/65/105
    Damage: 6D+2

    36 Dual Laser Cannons
    Arcs: 9 Port/Aft, 9 Starboard/Aft, 9 Port/Forward, 9 Starboard/Forward
    Scale: Starfighter (6D)
    Fire Control: 4D
    Range:1-6/20/45
    Damage: 3D+2

    24 Heavy Proton Torpedo Launchers
    Arcs: 6 Port/Aft, 6 Starboard/Aft, 6 Port/Forward, 6 Starboard/Forward
    Scale: Escort (10D)
    Fire Control: 2D+2
    Range:3/6/15
    Damage: 9D

    12 Tractor Beam Projectors
    Arc: 3 Port/Aft, 3 Starboard/Aft, 3 Port/Forward, 3 Starboard/Forward
    Scale: Capital (12)
    Fire Control: 6D
    Range: 1-7/24/45
    Damage: 8D*
    *does not actually damage the target, but is use to hold it in place, or move it closer/further, or in other directions


    There. Not as much power creep, is still quite durable, has some backup systems to help out, can reach out and touch enemies at greater ranges.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  7. #22
    Veteran Player
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    Reynoldsburg ohio (SE of columbus)
    Posts
    4,249

    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.

    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!
    Grim.. Being that BTB to even START repairs, you need to wait 2 rounds after TAKING the damage, how is that gonna help if you had a 'ship destroyed' result?

    Unfortunately, WEG has a well-deserved reputation for poor quality control. Very little is known about the actual capabilities of the Golan stations, apart from a few throwaway mentions in various novels. Those little tidbits, however, should be taken into account when writing stats. If the primary source (the novel) says that a group of six ISD II's split into two groups of three, with one group going after each of the two Golan III's in orbit over Coruscant, then further says that the Golans are proving far more capable of absorbing damage than thought possible, that is, at least, a general measurement of ability. When a secondary source (like the RPG) attempts to duplicate what is seen in the novel by making role-playing stats for it, they should take that into account, rather than (apparently) genning up random numbers to make something look good.
    Especially since we didn't se stats for those stations till the thrawn source books came out, which was after the novels.

    Well, what ELSE would they be doing? At the time, I didn't feel the need to quote the entire relevant passage from The Last Command, but at that point, Garm Bel-Iblis had just pulled ALL of his warships to lower orbit, leaving the Golans to face the Imperial fleet BY THEMSELVES, and it was at that point that they were proving their capability to absorb damage. Under WEG's ridiculously underpowered stats, a Golan is unable to withstand a full barrage from even ONE ISD II, let alone three at once, and per the primary source, there is nothing else around for them to direct their fire at, so why wouldn't they be expending all their firepower on the Golans?
    Especially since the Golans can't dodge, the ISD commanders would be foolish to not combine fire into damage..

    BTW.. for ease of reference can you repost your modified scale chart?
    You cannot dodge it if you don't know it is coming, and you cannot shoot at what you don't know is there!

  8. #23
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    Character = 0
    Large = +1D
    Vehicular = +2D
    APC = +3D
    Walker = +4D
    Starfighter = +6D
    Transport = +8D
    Escort = +10D
    Capital = +12D
    Battleship/Dreadnought = +18D
    Death Star = +24D


    I've got others higher and lower, but those would be the only scales applicable to Star Wars.

    And just out of curiosity, what the difficulty for the ISD captains to not only coordinate fire of ALL of their weapons on their ship, but also the weapons of TWO other ships? Have you figured that out?
    Last edited by Grimace; 22 December 2012 at 02:59 PM.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  9. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Grimace, you seem more interested in avoiding "Power Creep" than you are in accurate stats. Here are the relevant quotes from The Last Command:

    "Six Imperial Star Destroyers had come in from hyperspace through the center gap of the Interdictor group, splitting into two groups of three and heading for the two massive midorbit Golan III battlestations."

    "'They're abandoning the battle stations?'
    Thrawn snorted gently. 'They never should have brought those ships out to defend them in the first place. Golan defense platforms can take considerably more punishment than their former ground commander apparently realized.'"

    "Unwilling to risk the ground-based weaponry, the Imperials were letting the defenders retreat back toward Coruscant. 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."


    My calculation for 10D/8D uses the following math:

    Assuming three ISD II's are attacking the Golan, their front arc is the most heavily armed with 20 heavy turbolaser batteries (10D), 20 heavy turbolaser cannon (7D) and 10 ion cannon (4D). Step 1, IMO, should be the Hull vs the ion cannon. But this then raises the question, how do you calculate the combined fire bonus? Do you calculate all three ships firing at once (30 ion cannon = +10D), or do you calculate the bonuses separately for each ship, then add an additional bonus for 3 ships combining fire (10 cannon per ship = +3D+1, then 3 ships = +1D, for a combined total of +4D+1)? Either way, you are looking at a minimum Hull strength of 8D+1 or 14D to break even against the combined ion cannon fire of three ISD II's. Anything lower and the ion cannon begin stripping off shield dice, which makes the station even more vulnerable.

    On top of that, applying the same formula to the heavy turbolaser batteries equals combined fire bonuses of either +20D or +7D+2, for total damage rolls of either 30D or 17D+2. With the same numbers applied to the heavy turbolaser cannon, we get 27D or 14D+2, but since I've never really been able to get how to combine the fire of two weapon systems of differing damage, I think I'll just leave that one open for explanation by someone who understands it better. Since using the total method of combining fire results in the three ISDs inflicting more damage than a shot from a Death Star superlaser, I'm going to go with the two step method (calculating two separate bonuses; one per ship, then an additional one for the number of ships combining fire).

    Bottom line, looking at the combined damage potential of three ISD II's firing their forward arc weaponry en masse at a single target, the stats on a single Golan III just don't add up. Even using the lowest method of calculating combined fire, the ion cannon can reasonably be expected to inflict 8D+1 damage against 5D+2 Hull. Figuring with the 2D=7 rule, the ISDs can reasonably expect to inflict around 3 Controls Ionized every time they hit for damage, and that results in a 3D drop in shields, as well.

    Moving on to the heavy turbolaser batteries, even assuming that the Golan III (as written) has focused all of its shields into the affected arc, and that the ISDs are using the lower method of combining fire, they are still doing 17D+2 damage versus a combined soak of 9D+2, you can reasonably expect the ISDs to win by around 28 points. Even with full shields, the station would be automatically destroyed by a full combined barrage in the first round (This, of course, presupposes that all the requisite Command and Capital Ship Gunnery rolls were successful).

    However, if one were to go with the 10D Hull / 8D Shields suggestion, it immediately becomes a different story. At 10D, the Hull can be expected to brush off all but the most concerted ion cannon attack, and the combined shields and hull of 18D is pretty close to an even match to the 17D+2 of the combined turbolaser batteries.

    Also, based on your scale chart, if the Golan is Dreadnought-scale and the ISDs are Capital Ship-scale, with a 6D Scale difference, the Golan's modified stats become 13D+1 Hull and 10D+2 Shields, while the ISDs remain unchanged. In reality, your stats show far worse power creep than mine; you just conceal it in the scale modifier.

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    And just out of curiosity, what the difficulty for the ISD captains to not only coordinate fire of ALL of their weapons on their ship, but also the weapons of TWO other ships? Have you figured that out?
    Considering how muddled and vague the Command skill and coordination rules are with regards to commanding multiple vessels in space combat, no, I have not. However, I am just going to go out on a limb here and guess that Grand Admiral Thrawn's various Command specializations of Command: Imperial Naval Officers - 13D, and Command: Chimaera crew - 15D+2 were probably enough to succeed. I'm sure his Tactics specializations (Fleets - 13D and Sieges - 12D) probably played a roll as well.

    Also, the ISD captains wouldn't have to coordinate fire all of their weapons; they'd just have to coordinate the ones in the forward fire arc.
    Last edited by onebigchuck; 22 December 2012 at 03:44 PM.

  11. #26
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    Do what you want.

    It was asked what people's opinion were.
    I expressed mine. Obviously it differs from yours.

    You will not convince me otherwise, just as I will obviously not convince you.

    And I don't experience the power creep you state because I DON'T use the bonus dice method of scales. I either use Die Caps or a flat modifier. Thus I'm never rolling more than 12D to resist the damage.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  12. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimace View Post
    I DON'T use the bonus dice method of scales. I either use Die Caps or a flat modifier. Thus I'm never rolling more than 12D to resist the damage.
    I'm confused by this, because you just posted a scale modifier chart above using the bonus dice method. I'm not trying to start a fight here, but I am genuinely curious how you translate a scale chart using the bonus dice method into Die caps or a flat modifier.

  13. #28
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    Here's the Static Modifier scale version using the same scales:
    Character = 0

    Large = 3

    Vehicular = 6

    APC = 10

    Walker = 14

    Starfighter = 20

    Transport = 24

    Escort = 36

    Capital = 55

    Battleship = 72

    Death Star = 96
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

  14. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Location
    Chico, California, former college party capital
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Applied like the static modifier in D6 Space?

  15. #30
    D6 Forever!
    Join Date
    April 2000
    Location
    the great western state of Montana!
    Posts
    3,797

    Default

    And the reason I posted the Bonus Dice method is because it seems to be the preferred method of D6 Star Wars players. It's not my preferred method, but I do recognize that others use it.

    For Die Caps I use a sliding scale, centered on the item in question.

    So for the scales in question, if a Capital scale Imperial Star Destroyer was firing, it would have the base "6" centered on the Capital scale. One scale, both up and down, would be at 5.

    So if a Capital scale was shooting at a Battleship scale, it would roll normally to hit, but if it hit the dice would be capped at 5 for doing damage.

    In the case of the lower scale, to dice to determine the hit would be capped at 5. But if the larger scale hit, the resistance dice of the smaller scale would be capped at 5.

    I know that may not be the best description, but it takes some graphical representation to get the point across.
    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    facta, non verba

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
  •