OOC Chat

[Dementat]

The idea of just reducing speed to 0 has merit. Plenty of evidence ships still had some limited maneuverability while in tractor lock. They need a purpose though. We have seen plenty of evidence in GCW:EII of how underpowered Star Destroyers are.

[SWSF Hale]

Speed = 0, effect happens instantaneously, but only after initial damage is dealt.

i.e.

ISD attacks CORV, engages tractors, CORV = Speed 0.

Next post, CORV returns fire with Speed 0 UCR.

[Ramano]

Well, see, I can show multiple examples of ships still being able to move themselves inside of a tractor beam lock. Your also not taking into account the fact a tractor locked ship normally is not just going to give up and surrender either. They would do everything they could, including damaging their vessel if necessary, to break said tractor lock.

Personally, I like the idea of tractor beams only being allowed to move a friendly or disabled vessel. As far as combat usage, a full tractor lock should be an instant UCR reduction to 1. It wouldnt prevent movement, but would be usable for an ISD to combat a fleet of frigates ripping it apart, as should happen. Like the UCR loss is a modifier, not any actual loss of movement or manuverability. Thus TBs effect would take place on the attackers post, allowing them to take advantage of the new smashed UCR.

I mean, I understand the books and movies for effect do a lot of stuff we cant put into play with rules and numbers, but, lets face it, if 5 corellian corevettes came out of HS and attacked an ISD head on, it would just tractor lock all 5 of them and blast them out of the sky. My suggestion allows an ISD to do that, without having to go into a bunch of details on how exactly this works, and when, who can move what where, what are the consequences of such, etc etc etc.

Lets face it, for all the examples and reasons we can find, TBs were for 1 thing and 1 thing only. Reducing a ships defensive capability to avoid damage.

[SWSF Hale]

Well then...

[SWSF Eidolon]

I'm always a proponent of movie recreation.  In that respect, Tractors were never used for any purpose but to capture a vessel much smaller than captor.  In the case of Falcon, it was easy for Death Star to tractor lock at distance because it was not zipping about unpredictably a la dog fighting/evading etc.  Close in I don't think a Tractor should have any effect on unfriendly SF/Aux units, much like in the Death Star trenches, Turbolaser towers couldn't target the tiny maneuverable fighters well enough, neither would a tractor beam be effective "close in" I imagine against them.  Also in a last citation of movie reference to my personal tastes for Tractor Beam rules, the Tantive IV was never tractored until it was hit several times, presumably disabled to some extent.  If you want to get in to the muddy arena of physics in space, this suggests a mass to momentum ratio, further supporting the idea that a small ship with small engines and power of thrust and low body mass such as the Falcon could not over power a tractor beam on it's own will, where as the Tantive IV a Corellian Corvette with substantial greater size and half a body full of engine couldn't) be tractored until it was disabled.

Dem, I totally agree that ISDs aren't what they should be themselves but whacky tractor dynamic can't be the fix it to that imo.  ISDs just don't have the kind of durability you'd expect from such a magnificent and perfected mechanism of interstellar warfare.

Here's my thought on Tractor Beam rules to basically supplement what's already been said. .

Tractor Beams have range of Same location only
Unfriendly SF/Aux units cannot be locked on unless disabled
Opposing Units that can be locked, must first have their shields disabled
When In Tractor Lock a unit loses all Speed
When Performing Tractor Lock(s) on units that are NOT Disabled, unit loses 1 maneuver (if you're moving disabled friend or foe you don't get hurt worse)

+ what Hop said, two units locked in tractor I'd think would be able to easily target one another.  Should be 100 dmg both ways there imo.

   So an ISD can still capture 5 CRVs or an RAF in tractor lock, if it takes their shields out first and stays close enough to them, once they are locked, their speed won't matter anymore, for escapability or UCR.  The ISD itself loses 1 maneuver when locking on to other units that aren't disabled, because if they can still use engines and thrusters you figure the ISD has to use it's own might to hold them in the "lasso" so to speak, but in making it maneuverability, it can still exercise full movement when holding something in tractor lock.

[SWSF Hale]

Nevermind that the Death Star had a million tractor beam projectors. For all we know the Falcon's helplessness or the Tantive IV's helplessness could've just been 1 beam. That's the problem with the movies. The technicalities are never discussed. Leaving us simmers with the mess. George Lucas should've known AOL would've created the SWSF, and WEG the SWRPG. Yeah, he should've known. Yeah I said it. 

[SWSF Hoppus]

I like Eid's ideas on this.

[SWSF Hoppus]

As for the Imperial Star Destroyer's durability, this is an area Hale and I have been working on A LOT. It is very difficult to represent the worth of a unit when working with CP/Cost that is fair an in proportion.

Increasing durability around the table benefits the larger vessels exponentially more (at x2 shields, an ISD has 1600 points more protection, an DREAD 700, a NEB 300, etc). As durability increases, the value of a unit on the battlefield goes up but I don't think its a straight line. That is to say, having 5 Nebs (1500m) does not a Star Destroyer make. Even if you argue it rivals it in firepower and support craft, the player with 5 nebs will lose many ships and fighters where the ISD will leave with his greatest asset intact.

It occurs to me this morning (when I'm supposed to be well under way with work!) that there is a solution to this.

Increase durability by pumping up the armor, not the shields. In the books, again, shields seem to give out long before armor. A freighter rigged for combat took 2 proton torpedoes to the forward shields and they dropped and were toast without manuevering systems around, for example.

This means that while an ISD outlasts a squad of Neb Frigates, the ISD will still cost money to fix up since its armor theoretically has been eaten into.

Shields x1 / Armor x2 or x2.5?

Neb = 300 / 750
RAF = 700 / 1750
VSD = 900 / 2250
ISD = 1600 / 4000

[Ramano]

Well, we are all aware of the lacking ability of the ISD but it was done that way for an issue of balance. The only options with that ship were to under power it so that the game is balanced and no one side can completely over power the other, or we make the ISD a single ship only fleet. We tried making the ISD 23CP to equal out its power, but no one wanted to use it because of the inherent weakness of the ship. Even in the movies, an ISD falls to heavy Frigates. It cant maneuver with them, and its weaponry is too slow. To increase the power anymore then it already has gives the imperials a ship thats nearly impossible to kill. And whether or not this was the case in the movies, when it comes to a game not everything from reality can transfer over correctly. To give the ISD anymore power imbalances the game.

Also, the problem is not so much that the ISD is under powered, your just facing off against someone who knows exactly how to kill one. I have studied these ships enough to know where ALL of their weaknesses lie, and just like in a pokemon game, I will exploit that weakness in every battle. Its just good strategy.

Now, back to the tractor beam issue, while Eids idea may work, it still leaves with a "this and this is this unless this or this" situation. Over complexity, to which we have all agreed is bad. With his situation, we not only have to keep track of where everyones shields are at, but the amount of movement they are making, as well as re-figure everythings UCR, to which every ships will be different. On top of it, your adding ranges to it that must be kept track of as well. Many issues that could cause confusion and create unnecessary mistakes.

Also, it makes no sense that a ships speed would be effected by not its maneuver? And besides, like I said, tractor beams never stopped a ship from being able to move, only fleeing to hyperspace. Take empire at war for example. In a tractor lock ships can still move around, they just eat additional damage from the ISD. My idea does exactly that, without adding any of the complexity that Eids idea figures in. Im not saying Eids idea isnt good, im just saying its too complex for the spirit of our game.

[Ramano]

Hop, that has to do with how we use shielding. In the movies, SW ships had deflector screens, not actual shielding like we use. We have no way without sitting down and hashing out 45hrs of math to reflect that, so we just use global shielding cover. Its also why ships would lose a "shield" and still not be taking damage as they could just move the screens from other parts of the ship to patch the gaps in coverage.

Also, there is the key fact that, in movies, things can happen that couldnt actually happen. If the SW movies showed ship combat for what it would have really looked like, these would be some boring ass movies dude. They have to have that "lucky shot" scenario to keep it interesting. Fortunately, we do not need such a thing here to make it interesting.

[Dementat]

All this talk of balance and the ISD-I makes me wonder how the MC80 was overlooked. Just saying...

[SWSF Hoppus]

1. ISDs were siege weapons. in Thrawn series he uses them for hit and strikes and everyone is on abotu how ISDs arent for that its crazy risk by thrawn etc etc. Their value is in subjugating the world with the huge escort of troops and vehicles etc. It stays in orbit and scares everyone.

2. TB = you could go against them and cause damage but you were still pulled into the ship targeting you. But you maybe on to something. We have to step back and remember how we use them now was decided by kids 15 years ago - that 100m are held for every beam. Thats totally arbitrary.

Tractor Beams:
- Shields must be down
- Hold X meters each
- If a ship breaks the tractor lock (moving out of gridspace) they take damage
- Ships in tractor beams CANNOT enter hyperspace.

So an ISD puts 3 beams on a Neb - 300m held. If the neb moves away from the ISD it takes 300 damage to ARMOR. The neb cannot enter hyperspace.

Next turn neb breaks the tractor beam lock (takes 300 dmg to armor) and moves a grid away, then enters hyperspace.

[SWSF Hoppus]

also ISD issue highlights general problem and that is we only ever think about space battles. ISD's ground compliment, damage output, damage tolerance, and escort of shuttles and fighters is amazing for 1 vessel. Its cost doesnt reflect its load out of troops and GAVs even now

if ground warfare mattered more, then it would be more valuable. Rebs have trouble bringing troops to fight. but now we can just bomb with fightres all day and eventually land fewer troops to mop up.

so yeah blame uninteresting ground combat

[SWSF Hale]

Rest assured regarding the MC80. It will return to its 3~4 SF Squadron loadout. We're taking a more canon approach to the specs, GCW-flavoured of course.

Does anyone have any old warbooks? I seem to forget quite a few details regarding Tractor Beams that may come in handy right about now. No need to re-invent the same wheel that Walker or Dravin made.

[Ramano]

The problem you have is there are about 5 different variations on the MC-80. The one we currently use is the Mon Remonda class, which were a carrier. I dont think its been over looked. Yes it carries a load of fighters, but it doesnt have nearly the shuttle or troop compliment of an ISD, not to mention about half the fire power for a ship roughly the same size.

The reason we didnt add any of the other MC-80 variants is because no one would use them. For their size and cost, they suck.