Weapons Lethality

Tollon's picture
Tollon
May 26, 2017 - 2:35am
I am working on a new set of weapon cards.  I noticed Rifles and Pistols have the same damage output.  I figure rifles should have more damage than pistols.  But in doing so lethality is increased.  I want to make all rifles 2d10 but, realize how fast it can kill off PC.  What are your thoughts?
Comments:

jedion357's picture
jedion357
May 26, 2017 - 3:07am
We are talking rifles firing bullets I assume.

this change means a rifle could churn out 6d10 damage in one turn making it on par with some other weapons but not outside the original system.

However, how does this change effect the burst fire rules? it would double the damage out put of that as well I should think. and that might be a system breaker.

unless you make burst fire a 3 round burst then I guess you could get away with this.

but from where I sit it looks like you have to make two changes to the rules: 1 is an item stat change and the other an actual rules change.

personally I think semi automatics ought to be added to the game- the semi automatic pistol was of course in SFman #1

I suppose a new Minizii marketplace offering should be done introducing the semi automatic rifle as well. The setting could be amended to say that semi-automatics have a place in places with restictive weapon's laws. Clarion comes to mind but I think the weapons laws there are so restrictive that semi automatics might still be excluded. Non the less these weapons should have a place in the game as well.

I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Tchklinxa's picture
Tchklinxa
May 26, 2017 - 4:15am
There might be differences in other weapons... for instance beem weapons, or blast ranges... I was working on the Fusiion Riffle an archaic human weapon, and I think it was a bit different than standard SF equivalent. I will see if I can recover that file to see... oh the joys of computer issues. ??

Then if you get into the wild stuff in say old Sci Fi you got exploding bullets like radium riffles.
"Zoinks!"

jedion357's picture
jedion357
May 26, 2017 - 7:23am
Tchklinxa wrote:
There might be differences in other weapons... for instance beem weapons, or blast ranges... I was working on the Fusiion Riffle an archaic human weapon, and I think it was a bit different than standard SF equivalent. I will see if I can recover that file to see... oh the joys of computer issues. ??

Then if you get into the wild stuff in say old Sci Fi you got exploding bullets like radium riffles.


I think gyrojet ammo could be exploding.

what about alien society the PCs could encounter where they see nothing wrong with manufacturing a bullet with a small ammount of poison in it. the bullet mushrooms on contact with the target and releases the poison. This ammo would be illegal in the Frontier but it would still turn up.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Tollon's picture
Tollon
May 26, 2017 - 8:23am
Rifle ammo, nor was I going to increase the burst.  I'd rather see it was decreased because of the recoil to say 3d10.  Pistol, would stay the same 1d10 and would also get decreased to 4d10.  Really the biggest factor is range.  The further you are from the target or location the more round you can put on target.  Decreasing the range of a weapon, allows more people to get closer and more bullet whizing by.

Stormcrow's picture
Stormcrow
May 26, 2017 - 12:10pm
The purpose of rifles is to shoot at greater range and with greater accuracy than pistols, not to cause more damage.

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 26, 2017 - 8:06pm
Stormcrow wrote:
The purpose of rifles is to shoot at greater range and with greater accuracy than pistols, not to cause more damage.

Assuming the same ammo is being used, yes. However outside of Thompson Contenders and other competition pistols with their one round capacities you're just not going to find any handguns capable of firing the high powered rifle rounds that actually do cause more damage. This is the noteable difference between "submachine gun" and "assault rifle"...the former utilizes pistol ammo and the latter high power rifle ammo.

Since the AD rules state the pistol is essentially an "improved version of modern submachine guns" and the rifles are "longer barrel versions of the pistols" then this means they both use the same ammo (although rifle clips and pistol clips are not interchangeable, go figure). The bottom line is if you want higher damage rifles then you need to introduce assault rifles and high powered rifles into the game. Spec out a Barrett .50 for some real fun. ;)
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Tollon's picture
Tollon
May 26, 2017 - 9:00pm
Look, I understand that weapons can use pistol ammo.  Marlin puts out a rifle that fires 9mm rounds.  Heck, I own a rifle and a pistol that uses .30 cal carbine ammo.  But weapons used in hunting are usually larger calibers with more powerful charges. These rounds are intend to bring down larger animals and of course, they get used on people. AD rules imply that the governments of the UPF have standardized the ammo and by law allow only 1d10 damage to occur.  However, in the real world different calibers (in theory) are intended to stop larger animals.  You would think, creatures get really nasty on the frontier and stopping them would be a priority of the arms manufactures and ammo makers...Just saying.

jedion357's picture
jedion357
May 27, 2017 - 3:41am
Tollon wrote:
Look, I understand that weapons can use pistol ammo.  Marlin puts out a rifle that fires 9mm rounds.  Heck, I own a rifle and a pistol that uses .30 cal carbine ammo.  But weapons used in hunting are usually larger calibers with more powerful charges. These rounds are intend to bring down larger animals and of course, they get used on people. AD rules imply that the governments of the UPF have standardized the ammo and by law allow only 1d10 damage to occur.  However, in the real world different calibers (in theory) are intended to stop larger animals.  You would think, creatures get really nasty on the frontier and stopping them would be a priority of the arms manufactures and ammo makers...Just saying.


if there was standardization I suspect that PGC was behind that as a business decision more than a governmental one. Wartech would certainly offer high powered rifles and ammo. and would grab market share on PGC real quick.

Someone at PGC was drunk on recreating the Frontier in the PGC image in the years after the Sathar War (SW1). They had established an intergallatic unit of credit based a standard energy unit (SEU). A trade language. The first mega corp brand. Galactic Standard Time. Been instrumental in saving the galaxy by arming the newly formed military organizations of Space Fleet and Land Fleet. Their brand was known and well thought of by the returning veterans and their show rooms were spreading everywhere.

So and executive made the decision that bullet weapons should be standardized and the PGC auto pistol and auto rifle were the only things produced.

Enter Wartech and a slew of smaller corporations. The smaller corporations typically were limited to one planet and focused on the needs of that planet, its environment, culture and society. Wartech rose to be the intergalactic weapon suplier.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 27, 2017 - 8:20am
Tollon wrote:
Look, I understand that weapons can use pistol ammo.  Marlin puts out a rifle that fires 9mm rounds.  Heck, I own a rifle and a pistol that uses .30 cal carbine ammo.  

I was simply pointing out that by the rules Stormcrow's take is spot on...even in the description the rifles are merely longer barrel versions of the pistols so it validates how both do the same damage.


 But weapons used in hunting are usually larger calibers with more powerful charges. These rounds are intend to bring down larger animals and of course, they get used on people.

FWIW the high power rounds tend to be low to medium caliber with .17 on the low end and .375 H&H being on the high end (well...the aforementioned .50BMG is largest but it's not really a "hunting" round, it was designed to bring down aircraft). The difference of course is the larger diameter and longer casing that packs a lot more powder than a comparable pistol cartridge, hence the extra damage.


 AD rules imply that the governments of the UPF have standardized the ammo and by law allow only 1d10 damage to occur. 

AD is pretty restrictive on ranged weapon damage across the board. The fact that an average character (STA:45) with the least expensive & basic armor (skeinsuit) stands a good chance of surviving a point blank machine gun burst (the SF equivalent of an M-60) speaks volumes about this.

Oddly enough the powered melee weapons (electric sword, sonic sword, etc) offer more damage per capita over ranged hand weapons. Even a basic "D&D" sword causes the same damage as three pistol or rifle rounds with a single swipe, and on top of that you get a favorable adjustment on the to-hit roll too.

 However, in the real world different calibers (in theory) are intended to stop larger animals.  You would think, creatures get really nasty on the frontier and stopping them would be a priority of the arms manufactures and ammo makers...Just saying.

Hence the suggestion to introduce high power rifles (or even assault rifles) into the campaign. Hunting & sniper weapons are simple bolt action devices, the shooter relies solely on stealth & skill rather than firing capacity: one shot = one kill. Besides, more often than not if you miss you really won't get a second opportunity as the target will either duck & hide or scatter, thus making any second shot more difficult regardless if it's a bolt action or self-loader. Also noteworthy the bolt action simply makes the shot more accurate as no back pressure is lost from throwing the slide back to chamber another round. The trade off of course is additional kick after the discharge.

Even a laser weapon could be restricted to single shots, perhaps a high powered laser weapon would require "priming" before each shot. IIRC the Dragon article on Raflurs discussed this with their sniper rifle version of the proton guns, although the reversed ranges were rather wonky at best where 1000m was short range and 5m was extreme range (or whatever the actual figures were)...there were already existing rules for scopes that reduce the range by one factor --- extreme became long, long became medium --- so this was never really needed.
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 27, 2017 - 8:35am
jedion357 wrote:


if there was standardization I suspect that PGC was behind that as a business decision more than a governmental one. Wartech would certainly offer high powered rifles and ammo. and would grab market share on PGC real quick.

So and executive made the decision that bullet weapons should be standardized and the PGC auto pistol and auto rifle were the only things produced.

It was rules streamlining more than anything. Granted there are a lot more weapons than Basic D&D, but to make the analogy basic D&D has three swords: short, regular, and two handed that do d6, d8, & d10 damage respectively. Meanwhile AD&D takes the standard sword and complicates it by introducing long sword, broad sword, scimitar, and bastard swords that all do varying damage depending on creature size and armor types (that's 1e by the way, I'm sure later versions managed to further complicate this premise).

As a GM I prefer the clean basic D&D take, however as a player we probably all want the filthy dirty AD&D expansions. ;)
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Tchklinxa's picture
Tchklinxa
May 27, 2017 - 9:01am
I think that is always the tug of war in RPG how to get that real enough feel to things like weapons while not bogging the game down to much. 







"Zoinks!"

jedion357's picture
jedion357
May 28, 2017 - 5:56am
Shadow Shack wrote:
jedion357 wrote:


if there was standardization I suspect that PGC was behind that as a business decision more than a governmental one. Wartech would certainly offer high powered rifles and ammo. and would grab market share on PGC real quick.

So and executive made the decision that bullet weapons should be standardized and the PGC auto pistol and auto rifle were the only things produced.

It was rules streamlining more than anything. Granted there are a lot more weapons than Basic D&D, but to make the analogy basic D&D has three swords: short, regular, and two handed that do d6, d8, & d10 damage respectively. Meanwhile AD&D takes the standard sword and complicates it by introducing long sword, broad sword, scimitar, and bastard swords that all do varying damage depending on creature size and armor types (that's 1e by the way, I'm sure later versions managed to further complicate this premise).

As a GM I prefer the clean basic D&D take, however as a player we probably all want the filthy dirty AD&D expansions. ;)


I completely agree with you but I like my in setting explanation better.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 28, 2017 - 7:36am
The creative explanation is always a good endeavor...I am reminded of the Marvel "No-Prizes" from the 70's, 80's, & 90's where there is never anything actually "wrong" with the published material because there's always a sensible explanaiton that the reader can concoct to justify it. 

Unfortunately for TSR that concept still doesn't work for Zeb's.  Tongue out
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
May 28, 2017 - 9:41am
Based on my reasearch back when I was tinkering with the combat system, and using real world ammo as a referent, and the 1 SEU= 1d10 = 1 KJ standard, 9mm rounds should be between 1 and 2d10.  Rifle rounds, IIRC run 3-5d10 per round.

Combat is lethal.

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 28, 2017 - 11:37am
ChrisDonovan wrote:


Combat is lethal.

Exactly.

Unfortunately the SF medium mimics the old west in every possible way, right down to the gunfights. Mind you I'm not referring to the Hollywood quickdraw/one shot/one kill portrayals, rather the actual old west fights where ammunition quality control was non-existant and each shot beahved differently from the last...it was bang...BANG...poof...Bang!...click...bang...click...click...click...click...click...(second time hammer lands on the dud round) BANG!!! and reload & repeat until you finally score a hit. A simple one on one encounter took a long time to resolve due to all the misses due to ammo shortcomings.

SF simply mimics that with hits that do little to nothing each time until you rack up enough little hits. In other words they traded inaccuracy for non-lethal hits and the simple one on one encounter still takes a long time to resolve.
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

iggy's picture
iggy
May 29, 2017 - 7:18am
Shadow Shack wrote:
SF 
simply mimics that with hits that do little to nothing each time until you rack up enough little hits. In other words they traded inaccuracy for non-lethal hits and the simple one on one encounter still takes a long time to resolve.

Maybe we are seeing the frontier take on arms control.  Rather than messing with the free market supply chain and causing high prices and short supply, maybe the governments have inacted safely laws on the ammo such that the pills are lighter and the powder loads are weaker.Tongue out

Just being funny, not serious.

The rules were written to keep it simple and not kill an 11-year-old first time player's character to fast that he never played and bought another TSR product again.
-iggy

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 30, 2017 - 6:54am
iggy wrote:

The rules were written to keep it simple and not kill an 11-year-old first time player's character to fast that he never played and bought another TSR product again.

Yet B/X D&D (the clean & simple model, probably closest to what SF was patterened from) was written for that same audience and the included B2 module was a meat grinder that would kill off that same 11 year old's first character quite efficiently. Keep in mind this is a franchise that has been the basis of all RPGs out there and after, what...45 years, it's still being published? Even if you disregard the meat grinding nature of B2, low level B/X D&D (or low level any D&D for that matter) is extremely deadly and in most cases (i.e. lv-1 non-fighters with average CON scores) your character can die from one hit. The lv-1 fighter classes with higher CON scores die in two hits. Pressing on is never an option in low level B/X D&D, if you're hurt you retreat or it turns into a TPK. 

The thing with D&D is it became "less deadly" as you gained levels, at least up until you started encountering higher level magic. But even so, a pair of lv-14 fighters with 18 strengths and +3 swords would be whacking at each other all day until someone finally falls.

lv-14 fighter #1: "HAH!!! I rolled an 8, that's maximum damage at 14!"
lv-14 fighter #2: "Big deal, I still have 98 hit points. It's just a flesh wound!"

SF merely starts you at the top of that "food chain" and it never changes after that. Not until Knight Hawks anyways, where two or three laser hits on your assault scout completely incinerates everyone on board. ;)

...which brings up another issue: why do fighters, frigates, & destroyers have 8 hull points per hull size while the assault scouts only have five? If you introduce HS:2 heavy fighters into the game do they have 10 hull points, thus making the HS:1 fighter more attractive with its higher speed & maneuverability while retaining nearly the same "toughness"; or 16 hull points, thus making it slightly tougher than the scout? That pattern completely FUBARS one class of ship no matter which way you go. Okay, my tangent rant is over...however no matter what side of the aisle you stand on with the 5 vs 8 on smaller warships one thing remains constant: KH combat is deadly annd AD combat is not.
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Stormcrow's picture
Stormcrow
May 30, 2017 - 10:59am
Shadow Shack wrote:
why do fighters, frigates, & destroyers have 8 hull points per hull size while the assault scouts only have five? If you introduce HS:2 heavy fighters into the game do they have 10 hull points, thus making the HS:1 fighter more attractive with its higher speed & maneuverability while retaining nearly the same "toughness"; or 16 hull points, thus making it slightly tougher than the scout? That pattern completely FUBARS one class of ship no matter which way you go.

Assault scouts are a new and especially versatile kind of ship, able to both land on planets and enter the Void. Their versatility comes at a price: being less capable in combat. "They are lightly armed and easily damaged." They're "scouts," not primary warships. If I were to add a hull size 2 heavy fighter, I'd give it 16 hull points with more weaponry than an assault scout but slower and less maneuverable than a fighter.

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
May 30, 2017 - 6:27pm
Oh, and that 3-5d10/round for rifles? I actually pulled that BACK a bit.  If I went straight by the math, some high-powered hunting/sniping rifles were up there with the light cannons and rocket launchers.

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 30, 2017 - 6:45pm
Stormcrow wrote:
Assault scouts are a new and especially versatile kind of ship, able to both land on planets and enter the Void. Their versatility comes at a price: being less capable in combat. "They are lightly armed and easily damaged." They're "scouts," not primary warships. If I were to add a hull size 2 heavy fighter, I'd give it 16 hull points with more weaponry than an assault scout but slower and less maneuverable than a fighter.

By the book it has to be slower/less maneuverable than a HS:1 fighter, HS:2 = ADF/MR: 4/4. Even so, that's pretty respectable for fleet encounters but I still can't make them more heavily armed than the assault scout since that would FUBAR the scout. Not without extra measures anyways...the PGC Eureka/+1 ADF is always a way out.

My typical heavy fighter has twin engines for improved acceleration (only one drive is called for in the tables so I house rule doubling the drives for a +1 ADF bonus) but it is not as heavily armed as the assault scout, typically sporting a pod laser system and pod laser turret (a shorter ranged LB that takes up less space). This in essence makes it less lethal than the scout but an awesome anti-fighter platform that doesn't waste rockets that are better suited for the enemy's capital ships.

Sapping the heavy fighter performance allows for an AR system to be added to that mix, one of my heavy fighters has an ADF:3/MR:4 to reflect this toughness.
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Stormcrow's picture
Stormcrow
May 31, 2017 - 8:13am
Shadow Shack wrote:
By the book it has to be slower/less maneuverable than a HS:1 fighter, HS:2 = ADF/MR: 4/4. Even so, that's pretty respectable for fleet encounters but I still can't make them more heavily armed than the assault scout since that would FUBAR the scout.

No it wouldn't. Heavy fighters wouldn't be able to make interstellar jumps. They're probably nothing more than flying control rooms for two or three people. They don't have the equipment needed for anything other than attacking; compare with the assault scouts of the Royal Marines of Clarion, which perform cargo inspections and intercept intruders for boarding.

But there AREN'T any heavy fighters in the UPF. If there were, maybe they WOULD supplant assault scouts in battle, just as heavy cruisers have been supplanted by battleships in the UPF. That's not FUBAR; that's technology. I maintain that assault scouts are still more versatile ships than the hypothetical heavy fighter, and the cost of that versatility is less effectiveness in battle.

Stormcrow's picture
Stormcrow
May 31, 2017 - 8:35am
Actually, it occurs to me that fighters and hypothetical heavy fighters might not be able to land on planets, either. "...[O]nly a few types of ships can land on planetary surfaces. These types include all shuttles, system ships of hull size 5 or less, assault scounts, and other scout class starships. Scout class starships include military, exploration and research ships of hull size 3 with two atomic engines."

"[Shuttles] are propelled with chemical drives (rockets)." "System ships are driven by chemical propulsion." "A fighter is the only ship that has an atomic drive mounted in the spaceship's tail." Therefore, fighters do not count as shuttles or system ships, even though they cannot make interstellar jumps. This leads us to the conclusion that fighters cannot land on planets, and neither could hypothetical heavy fighters.

So there is another advantage of the assault scout over the heavy fighter that outguns it: it can land on planets.

iggy's picture
iggy
May 31, 2017 - 12:00pm
I'd guess that a fighter landing on a planet is a one way trip.  This would be for emergency situations to save the pilot.  The process would be to jettison the atomic drive and angle the nose for atmospheric reentry.   Then the fighter would glide in if in good enough shape or deploy parachutes.
-iggy

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
May 31, 2017 - 3:20pm
Stormcrow wrote:
Shadow Shack wrote:
By the book it has to be slower/less maneuverable than a HS:1 fighter, HS:2 = ADF/MR: 4/4. Even so, that's pretty respectable for fleet encounters but I still can't make them more heavily armed than the assault scout since that would FUBAR the scout.

No it wouldn't. Heavy fighters wouldn't be able to make interstellar jumps. They're probably nothing more than flying control rooms for two or three people. They don't have the equipment needed for anything other than attacking; compare with the assault scouts of the Royal Marines of Clarion, which perform cargo inspections and intercept intruders for boarding.

But there AREN'T any heavy fighters in the UPF. If there were, maybe they WOULD supplant assault scouts in battle, just as heavy cruisers have been supplanted by battleships in the UPF. That's not FUBAR; that's technology. I maintain that assault scouts are still more versatile ships than the hypothetical heavy fighter, and the cost of that versatility is less effectiveness in battle.


Assault scouts are like Coast Guard Cutters.  Good for patrol/commerce enforcement/etc but will always lose out to a dedicated military craft.

A "heavy" fighter would be more akin to a torpedo plane or fighter/bomber than anything else.  Similar to how the Y- and B-wings are vs the X-wing.

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
May 31, 2017 - 9:20pm
Stormcrow wrote:

No it wouldn't. Heavy fighters wouldn't be able to make interstellar jumps. They're probably nothing more than flying control rooms for two or three people. They don't have the equipment needed for anything other than attacking; compare with the assault scouts of the Royal Marines of Clarion, which perform cargo inspections and intercept intruders for boarding.

HS:2 = 30m x 5m
HS:3 = 50m x 8m

There's plenty of room for a two or three bunk common area with crew galley/lounge, life support, and astrogation equipment for jumping. True, it's not going to be as versatile as the assault scout (i.e. inspection duty/boarding parties etc) or even offer the same degree of creature comforts, but with the space allotted you'd better bet your bippy they can not only jump but sustain that crew of two or three along the way.

Deck plans just to illustrate the available space:



...and just for the sake of the original point, a HS:2 heavy fighter I've been working on. It's not to scale just yet but remember --- 30 meters long by 5 wide, and decks-perpendicular as is the KH standard:

No automatic alt text available.

The red area is the helm, yellow would be crew quarters with a gunnery station, blue would be engineering, green is the engine room where the short-strutted atomic A drives can be accessed (most likely via a space walk from the hatch rather than connected to the blue/engineering deck), and the two beige areas at the fore would contain avionics, astrogation equipment, life support, sensors, etc etc etc. Like I said, plenty of room to ferry two or three across the void with all of the basic necessities.

Quote:
"...[O]nly a few types of ships can land on planetary surfaces. These types include all shuttles, system ships of hull size 5 or less, assault scounts, and other scout class starships. Scout class starships include military, exploration and research ships of hull size 3 with two atomic engines."

"[Shuttles] are propelled with chemical drives (rockets)." "System ships are driven by chemical propulsion." "A fighter is the only ship that has an atomic drive mounted in the spaceship's tail." Therefore, fighters do not count as shuttles or system ships, even though they cannot make interstellar jumps. This leads us to the conclusion that fighters cannot land on planets, and neither could hypothetical heavy fighters.

So we're right back to the "atomic drives can't land on planets unless they're mounted in HS:3 scouts" canon fodder? 

"Canon" fodder...sometimes I just crack myself up. Laughing

Puns aside, how could an atomic A powered scout ship operate in an atmosphere when the rest of the atomic A driven ship population can not? Are we to believe that atomic A drives on a scout ship operate differently than atomic A drives mounted on any other ship in the galaxy? Perhaps the laws of physics cease to exist on HS:3 scouts. Do the scouts have magic atomic A drives? Did the scouts get their drives from the same guy that sold Jack his beanstalk beans? 

(paraphrasing My Cousin Vinny, seriously...it's the same debate. Wink )

I'll play along with those "hard" rules from canon:

I'll design a HS:1 fighter with the single drive mounted on a strut. Wait, scratch that...two atomic drives mounted on the wings just like a scout. Can it operate in an atmosphere now?

I'll design a HS:1 fighter that has --- in addition to the stern mounted single atomic drive --- a pair of stern mounted chemical A drives flanking the atomic drive. Can it operate in an atmosphere now?

I'll design a HS:2 heavy fighter along either of those two HS:1 fighter parameters above. Can it operate in an atmosphere now?

I'll design a HS:4 craft along either of those two HS:1 fighter parameters above. Can it operate in an atmosphere now?

Inquiring minds (including Vincent Gambini) want to know. ;)
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

Stormcrow's picture
Stormcrow
June 1, 2017 - 11:33am
The rules are not telling you the laws of physics; they are telling you the practical realities of Frontier technology. It's not that ships smaller and larger than hull size 3 can't have atomic engines and land on planets, it's just that none DO.

The question has never been whether a "heavy fighter" can exist; it's whether its existence would "bork" the assault scout. I've been trying to show you how a heavy fighter would have a niche of its own without making the assault scout obsolete.

Tollon's picture
Tollon
June 1, 2017 - 1:11pm
What is being overlooked when discussing the Assualt scout is, it is a armed transport, just like the Osprey.  It is not a warship or a large fighter.

Sargonarhes's picture
Sargonarhes
June 1, 2017 - 7:31pm
If one were to go by the stats or info from the dreaded Zebulon Guide, it has the rifle ammo and pistol ammo at 5.56mm. Now days we have a pistol round that is close to that, the FN Five Seven. Which the FN P90 uses that same round. It however is not the same as an M4 or HK416 5.56 round never mind going for the kill with a larger 7.62 round.

So it could be that the SF universe went with a standardized round that was univerally accepted, and is therefore used in all rifle and pistol firearms. Much like the FN 5.7mm round is. No it really doesn't make much sense as what if some one wants a different type of ammo? Then it's a specialty firearm, and the only real way different ammo calibers would be made if enough people wanted those calibers.

In the real world some people want their Glocks while others want their Smith and Wessons, never mind they both use the same 9mm round. SF pistol and rifle slug throwers are just like that, one is just as good as any other.

But if you really wanted to make differences, why not add a small +1 to +4 points of damage to the weapon. After all D&D has that for the swords and axes.
In every age, in every place, the deeds of men remain the same.

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
June 1, 2017 - 7:50pm
Stormcrow wrote:
The rules are not telling you the laws of physics; they are telling you the practical realities of Frontier technology. It's not that ships smaller and larger than hull size 3 can't have atomic engines and land on planets, it's just that none DO.

It's cool, I get that. he thing is this is a debate that pops up periodically and over time ther have been numerous folks that subscribe to "It's not that ships smaller and larger than hull size 3 can't have atomic engines and land on planets, it's just that none CAN"...which is why I tend to go overboard in the responses. ;)

Quote:
The question has never been whether a "heavy fighter" can exist; it's whether its existence would "bork" the assault scout. I've been trying to show you how a heavy fighter would have a niche of its own without making the assault scout obsolete.

Yes, I get that too. I have a Star Fighter Corps game/campaign and I spent a lot of time drafting up heavy fighters that didn't upset game balance so as to make the HS:1 or HS:3 craft less desirable. Although I have belted out several with heavy price tags that manage to render both ends "inferior" (at least combat-wise) but those are restricted designs that are rarely seen/encountered...note the fighter I rendered above, it has four drives to allow for the heavy armor (16 hull points) and a fair array of weaponry while offering assault scout grade performance. It socsts an extra million Cr to do this, hence the prohibitive nature...it's a tough sell against more affordable craft that are "almost as good".

But for those few militias willing to shell out the coin, you can get the best stuff available to put the rest to shame. Or as is the case with the SFC campaign, playes get to test the new/prototype stuff before any decisions are made. Such is life. ;)
No, I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide. Nor do I have any qualms in stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

JCab747's picture
JCab747
June 8, 2017 - 8:16pm
I like the idea of heavy fighters/bombers that can jump.

Also, I don't see why a ship with a powerful enough engine/engines and is aerodynamic can't land and take off from a planet.
Joe Cabadas