You should go listen to the List strikes back episode of the order 66 podcast as well as the one on space combat.

an important thing is to not have the scenario happen in empty space.

Thats why I added an asteroid field around the planet!

I also have a continual ongoing argument with one player about quite how far away from a planet you need to be before you can jump to hyperspace, and where/when you can plot the jump itself. (He could probably argue you can program it on the surface, and as soon as you are in orbit.. POP!.. gone.)

I can tell you how to deal with that issue. Tell him much like google maps you can not get a route till you have a starting point and your ship needs to be at a valid starting point before it can calculate a route.

Yeah. Talk nerdy to him.

*bites lip*

You should go listen to the List strikes back episode of the order 66 podcast as well as the one on space combat.

an important thing is to not have the scenario happen in empty space.

Thats why I added an asteroid field around the planet!

I also have a continual ongoing argument with one player about quite how far away from a planet you need to be before you can jump to hyperspace, and where/when you can plot the jump itself. (He could probably argue you can program it on the surface, and as soon as you are in orbit.. POP!.. gone.)

I can tell you how to deal with that issue. Tell him much like google maps you can not get a route till you have a starting point and your ship needs to be at a valid starting point before it can calculate a route.

But just like Google Maps, you don't have to be at the starting point to get the route ahead of time. So, you can be on the ground, calculate the jump based on a starting point out in orbit, then fly to the starting point and make the jump.

... then fly to the starting point and make the jump.

It sounds like the quibble is where the starting point actually is. The player is assuming they just have to break atmosphere, but it could in fact be anywhere from there, to the other side of the planet, or to the outer reaches of the whole system (which would take half a rotation to get to). Basically the player shouldn't be making that assumption.

Gravity wells... they make things ALOT harder.

He has to leave not only the atmosphere, but has to be quite a bit away from the gravity well (say, about the distance of our moon)

You should go listen to the List strikes back episode of the order 66 podcast as well as the one on space combat.

an important thing is to not have the scenario happen in empty space.

Thats why I added an asteroid field around the planet!

I also have a continual ongoing argument with one player about quite how far away from a planet you need to be before you can jump to hyperspace, and where/when you can plot the jump itself. (He could probably argue you can program it on the surface, and as soon as you are in orbit.. POP!.. gone.)

Wrong thread. Sorry about the Forum-Necro!

I love space combat in any game type including RPGs and I adore the FFG created ships that have appeared in the system and like the overall ship selection for the most part but I personally feel that the space combat rules are by far the weakest point of the system especially when small craft and fighters are involved because I feel one of the main advantages of a small craft is reduced here.

I would point out that Han had to get fairly far out of orbit to jump. As Queen Amidala. Which is what makes blockading a planet even possible.

I would point out that Han had to get fairly far out of orbit to jump. As Queen Amidala. Which is what makes blockading a planet even possible.

Not that far. The distance appeared to be about the same as geosynchronous orbit, if that. That's about 26,000 miles from the center of Earth, or about 22,000 miles from the surface. That's less than 1/10th the distance to the moon (about 240,000 miles). The ships jumped in to Coruscant at what appeared to be a significantly lesser distance at the beginning of Ep III.

Oh sweet Force Jesus, please for the love of gundarks don't bring math/science into this space opera.

On topic: Dave, buddy I feel your pain, it sounds like you've got a bunch of DnD Strategic Tabletoppers instead of roleplayers. I started with the same thing, literally everyone in my group comes from a Dungeons and Dragons background (granted they've played other systems, but as far as I know nothing "narrative" like the Star wars system). My game has been running for about 8 months now, and we are -just- now getting to where my players actually -sometimes- narrate their own actions beyond "I shoot that guy" or "I hack the terminal". It sounds to me like your pilot is playing to "win", which can be a tough thing to break a player of. It is gonna take time, and repeated chats about how you're not there to "beat them" and that you're a facilitator not an enemy. One of my favorite quotes is "The GM isn't here to kill you, he's here to make you heroes."

Oh sweet Force Jesus, please for the love of gundarks don't bring math/science into this space opera.

On topic: Dave, buddy I feel your pain, it sounds like you've got a bunch of DnD Strategic Tabletoppers instead of roleplayers. I started with the same thing, literally everyone in my group comes from a Dungeons and Dragons background (granted they've played other systems, but as far as I know nothing "narrative" like the Star wars system). My game has been running for about 8 months now, and we are -just- now getting to where my players actually -sometimes- narrate their own actions beyond "I shoot that guy" or "I hack the terminal". It sounds to me like your pilot is playing to "win", which can be a tough thing to break a player of. It is gonna take time, and repeated chats about how you're not there to "beat them" and that you're a facilitator not an enemy. One of my favorite quotes is "The GM isn't here to kill you, he's here to make you heroes."

And proper heroes need to be put up in trees and have rocks thrown at them. Other wise it is a very boring story.

Things your players need to accept-

a. Space combat is deadly. Your are flying in a vulnerable tin can and get shot by lasers.

b. A Freighter is not a combat ship.

c. Space combat is like naval combat, even a few little fighters can sink a big ship.

Taking into consideration this three principles, the players and through them the characters need to deduct a strategy, fitting for them. Sometimes this stratify means, we need a better dice pool, or as some commented here, know the mechanics and don't fly full speed through terrain

For example, my crew decided they should make room in their hanger for starfighters and deploy them in combat, while the main ship retreats to gain some distance and attacks first on initiative next turn, to give the killing blow.

There is also the option of social checks via comms between ships during combat or instead, when the odds are against you.

Oh sweet Force Jesus, please for the love of gundarks don't bring math/science into this space opera.

On topic: Dave, buddy I feel your pain, it sounds like you've got a bunch of DnD Strategic Tabletoppers instead of roleplayers. I started with the same thing, literally everyone in my group comes from a Dungeons and Dragons background (granted they've played other systems, but as far as I know nothing "narrative" like the Star wars system). My game has been running for about 8 months now, and we are -just- now getting to where my players actually -sometimes- narrate their own actions beyond "I shoot that guy" or "I hack the terminal". It sounds to me like your pilot is playing to "win", which can be a tough thing to break a player of. It is gonna take time, and repeated chats about how you're not there to "beat them" and that you're a facilitator not an enemy. One of my favorite quotes is "The GM isn't here to kill you, he's here to make you heroes."

And proper heroes need to be put up in trees and have rocks thrown at them. Other wise it is a very boring story.

Amen, as long as you don't take a chainsaw to the tree while the heroes are still in it.

The difficulty of flying that ship in such a way is because it is not a starfighter.

The Falcon was a highly customized YT-1300, with a Pilot who had served in the Imperial Navy. Not that all Imperial pilots are awesome-sauce, but Han certainly was.

Ah... back in d6 Star Wars, where the average TIE fighter was not flown by the average TIE fighter pilot. TIEs were given average crew ratings of 4D, while the write-up for the average TIE fighter pilot gave them 6D. So the average TIE was piloted by some average newbie scrub, but the average TIE fighter pilot you might meet on the ground had epic elite piloting skills... just where their piloting skills were irrelevant.

It did strike me when looking at the rules for ships that the Space Combat is a lot less forgiving than ground combat. Damage is much more of a big deal, due to the time and cost it takes to fix it. There also seem to be less ways to improve defence, unless you have invested heavily in piloting abilities, which are next to useless at other times.

However, not having spent over 100xp does seem odd. There isn't anything like that to save up for. Maybe enforce a rule that as soon as someone has enough to purchase their next specialisation tree or 25 xp (whichever is more) they need to spend their xp.

The only ways I believe starship defence can be upgraded is by raising the number of defence dice (sheilds, pilot talents) or via force sense. Certain tree's make pilots really efficent flying machines though. More often then not having a great pilot sill is more then enough. We don't really have a commited pilot anymore.

In the pilots case, I don't really see why anyone could hold onto 110 exp, but I know the feeling. We have one guy who regularly hordes between 50-80exp before he spends. He does always spend in the end but is quite relaxed otherwise.