Q&A: Developer's Corner 2.0

[Ramano]

Not arguing the rules here, just the logic behind them. For the record, im fine with the changes, however, on Hoth, those troopers most certainly could have fired until all of their weapons melted before even scratching that AT-AT. The typical AT-AT Walker carried armor over a foot thick, of durasteel, which has an estimated (has to be estimated as the shit doesnt really exist) hardness and density near that of compressed irons inside of an asteroid.

Now, using a small asteroid as the comparison, it has been shown that an asteroid roughly 450 feet in diameter (roughly that of an AT-AT) would take about 50 million joules of energy to completely destroy said asteroid such as the ISDs did when moving through the asteroid belt on ESB. (Depending on how much you trust scientists math) Now, thats total vaporization, to simply break it up, scientists calculate it would take somewhere in the vicinity of 642,000 joules of energy. Your average 1 Megaton thermonuclear device only releases an equivalent to 450,000 joules of energy. So in essence, we wouldnt even have the technology with our most powerful weapons to hurt it.

Now as to your standard starwars E-11 repeating blaster, one of the most powerful personal anti-infantry weapons in star wars, only carries about 10 joules of energy per shot, and the extreme cold temp on Hoth, and the large area for dispersal on the AT-ATs armor, even continued fire on the vehicle would be absorbed and cooled before being able to cause any sort of damage. So realistically, yes, even 1000 squads of troopers would be unable to make that thing even flinch using normal anti-infantry weaponry.

Edit: It sucks to be smart, it takes all the fun out of movies.

Edit Edit: Also, this is why I say dont refer to video games when trying to make a realistic pen&paper RPG. In a video game, of course you hand held blaster has to damage the big AT-AT, otherwise people would complain the game is impossible to beat and not buy it. People are whiners now days.

Edit Edit Edit: Although, I thought the system we had was pretty nice as it forced you to use specialized troops to go after most heavy vehicles, as it should be realistically. I do understand however that you've already made it a point to say you dont care about the realism aspect, so feel free to do as you choose. Just stating my piece. Im done now, lol.

[Ramano]

Although I do have a question? Have you gone ahead and just taken the dictator/god position in the game?

Im only curious because im wondering why these changes wernt discussed before hand and just taken unilaterally. I dont mind either way, I just need to have a feel for what im dealing with here, is this still a democracy or have we evolved into a religion?

And again, so there can be absolutely no misinterpretation, im not bitching, im just asking a question. Personally I think the game would do better to just have a GM instead of a committee but I just want to know where it sits.

[SWSF Hale]

It's not just the blaster rifles, but also the explosives each squad carries. In this game, a single Stormtrooper Squad represents a compact fighting force that is capable of every battle engagement, much like our U.S. military employs squads with different weapons configurations (one guy has a machine gun, another a sniper, another a rocket launcher, in addition to their normal weapons, etc.) similarly, we can expect squads of troopers in this game to have a Star Wars-equivalent weapons configuration. So yes, while blaster rifles would hardly do anything to an AT-AT, imagine a hundred troops flanking the massive beast, and launching high explosive RPGs into its belly. Even if 1 guy in a squad of 10 had the rocket launcher, this would still cause enough damage if aimed and targeted correctly.

To explain the recent changes:
1. In Ashes of the Alliance, ground combat worked entirely differently.
2. In this current setup, the ground rules changed to something completely new. The specs were also modified to get rid of that "x10 hit point/damage" multiplier we had going on, which confused things.
3. Unfortunately, the new ground specs were not tested properly, which led to this current change. Having done the math myself, and seeing that it would take thousands of squads to destroy a facility, and hundreds of troops to take on even an AT-ST... something didn't feel right.
4. I'm trying to make this game easier for people to play, not harder. Concerning some of the changes I make, I will open up a dialogue - but in some cases this is more akin to opening a can of worms (see: recent discussions about missions). So, all things being what they are I'm going to play the "GM" card as well as the "I Wrote The Rules" card when it comes to making unilateral decisions to improve gameplay as I interpret it. If there is a decision that changes gameplay (i.e. missions, etc.) then I will try to seek some kind of consensus. Obviously, the qualitative difference of improve versus change is also a subjective term, but I will try to do my best to be fair to all and strive to make an excellent game.
5. Many of the changes have been prompted by other players, and if everyone's PM boxes were open, you'd all see that there is a lot more going on behind the curtain than I'm letting on. Nearly every single time somebody has a question about the rules or an observation regarding them, I take their feedback seriously and respond promptly. In about half these cases some minor changes (such as rewording the rules to make them read more easily or to clarify something) are necessary; the other half I normally rebuff the status quo.

[Dementat]

I shot myself in the foot asking my question. My Sith is no longer a god on the ground 

[Ramano]

Sounds good, and thank you for the clerification.

[SWSF Hale]

Which brings up another point. Since ground units got adjusted, I need to tweak the Heroes as well. The intention was to have each Hero be a force to be reckoned with, with Jedi/Sith nearly unstoppable.

A Sith Lord has the following stats:
UCR 12, Armor: 300, Health: 300, Attack: 600

Which means that it would take 240 Stormtrooper Squads to gun down 1 Sith Lord. On the other hand, the Sith Lord could take down 150 Stormtrooper Squads (using two attacks).

What would ya'll think about the following rule?

In order to attack a Hero, all of the ground units with the Hero must be engaged first.

This makes ground units kinda like a CSP of sorts, but still allows your main Hero to jump into the fray and get some action.

[Dementat]

Makes sense to me.

[Ramano]

Sounds like an awful lot of work to fix rules that probably wont be used anyway... -shrugs-

[SWSF Hale]

Okay everybody, I cleaned up the Ground Rules to reflect the recent changes... please take a looksie.

[SWSF Eidolon]

Per Hale's request

If everyone could please list some changes they'd like to see under the Developer's 2.0 thread, that would be appreciated. I don't think we need to pause the game, but perhaps taking a moment to implement some transitional rules before we get Episode III rolled out, that would be best.

It was mentioned I know but just echoing for sake of placing it more out front but I think limits to complement deployments could be a nice change, whatever system you want to use in gauging it. 1-4 squads for cap ships, 25% aux complement or raw num value, 6 12 18 whatever.  RE: HS capable craft, maybe set max of 12 (1 sqd or 12 aux) may deploy prior to entering HS.  Perhaps some Hero ability factor in to able to have greater number pre-deploys etc *shrug*.


As a real simple system for factions to interact with each other besides basic combat action, "Trade Relations".  Keep it simple, one faction can officially establish trade relations with any faction that consents (by MISSION if that be dynamic of it), both reap a +KC per AD benefit (maybe effected by planetary holdings/traits if you wanted to get that 'crazy' but not requisite of the system).  An opposing faction may then "Blockade" another faction by simply presenting itself at any opponents controlled system and holding position/declaring blockade intent, thus cutting off opponents AD cycle +KC Trade Relation bonus (pro rated by whole days if you wanted or a 15 day all or none scheme).  If desired, Blockading entity receives the bonus value instead, or some degree of it.  This is just basic simplelittle system for interacting with each other on other levels/excuses to precipitate p v p hostility/peace.


This suggestion will prolly get some stern resistance, but what about Unit Upkeep?  If even only for Capital Cruisers at 10% cost and 1 per 2 ADs.  Then do away with limits to Reserve fleet, so you can pile up whatever your infrastructure can support. If I'm understanding it correctly as is currently anyways.

[SWSF Hale]

Launch Limits are definitely getting added and will come in the form of Launch Bays, which will universally be able to launch 1 SF Squad or 12 AUX. Each ship will have a number of "launch bays" even if they only technically have 1. The QFBC for example will have 4 Launch Bays.

HS capable SF/AUX will be able to do Fleet Escorting up to 24 Hours in hyperspace at 1 SF Squad or 12 AUX per Ship. This is an old familiar rule I think many will enjoy. The Rebel Fleet in ROTJ jumps from Sullust to Endor, which by our rules would be 24 Hours, so it's always good when your game system can recreate movie moments.

I don't want to give away too much, but unit upkeep is going to be obsolete with the new Command Point system in place, along with a new Industrial Output setup. As discussed before, facilities will be entirely done away with so income will be derived from system strength and combat performance.

To give everyone an idea, how we have it now is that Command Points = Construction Time, but in the new system Command Points will = Cost, and players will be given a huge allowance to afford this (we're working with 10k CP for player Fleets). There will be no more free stock units, and everything that costs money - even the 1 KC Infantry Squads - will count towards your CP limit. As you could imagine, ISDs are going to eat up alot of CPs, especially if you load them with more advanced units. Systems themselves will be able to contribute to your CP Limit so Player Fleets wont have to be everywhere at once, but not a whole lot. This will add some strategic and tactical nuances to the game I believe, because if you want to play a starfighter-heavy fleet, every little squad is going to add up.

Trade Routes and such might be an interesting addition to the game to increase the level of strategy, and perhaps something could be used with the Red/Blue Hyperspace routes to that effect? If you have some more ideas about this shoot me or Greg a PM.

[Ramano]

Happy thanksgiving everyone! Hope your turkey tastes as good as mine.