23 minutes ago, Grand Admiral Buford said:

Why would I want to have bombardment weapons spreadout all over instead of being focused on the actual target. Rolling the ship is silly if my goal is to pound people on the ground. I want all of my ground tageting weapons facing the target at all times. Rolling is fine if you are discussing a non-dedicated platform, but my argument is that this is NOT a dedicated platform based on the spread of the weapon systems

We’re basically in agreement: multi-mission ships should have guns pointed more directions than forward. A purpose-built planetary assault ship should focus it’s guns in one direction.

I think the SSD is neither, and the only thing it really does better than an ISD is scare people. For that task, is not the ISD (or the fleet of them you could get from the materials of an SSD) good enough at scare tactics?

Except for the new First Order Pizza Wedge, bombardment weapons and ship-to-ship weapons are the same thing on Star Wars capital ships. Even distribution of multi-purpose weapons is ideal because the side of your ship facing out into space can deter other ships while the planet-facing side bombards. If you have weapons single-purposed for planetary bombardment; then it makes sense to have all those weapons on the same side of a ship.

3 minutes ago, Grand Admiral Buford said:

Rolling for the reasons mentioned above is an excellent idea, however, a flying pizza slice is a poor design choice. A cylinder is far better.

This is the reason the MC80 (pickle variant) is a more practical design than an Angry Triangle in a 3-dimensional environment. The engine blind spot is much smaller and the multiple-contoured geometry grants each individual battery a much wider arc of fire.

Answering the actual subject of the thread: I don’t think there is any satisfactory way to represent the SSD as a model in Armada. Maybe as an alternate-format play area like the Trench Runs people make for X-wing.

22 minutes ago, Grand Admiral Buford said:

Rolling for the reasons mentioned above is an excellent idea, however, a flying pizza slice is a poor design choice. A cylinder is far better. Constant rate of fire and sheilding with even recovery time. Further, just look at an ac-130. Pour huge volumes of fire from one side only is a nicely focused manner. Designed well for ground attack.

To True. However, the emperor does love his pizza slices. Maybe someday we will see a cone. I mean, that is somewhat a cross between a cylinder and a wedge, right?

2 minutes ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

To True. However, the emperor does love his pizza slices. Maybe someday we will see a cone. I mean, that is somewhat a cross between a cylinder and a wedge, right?

A cone does seem ideal for this sort of application. You could use the rotating approach for sustained fire, or orient nose-on-target for a high-intensity burst (assuming things like power generation and cooling supported a full simultaneous salvo).

13 minutes ago, jmswood said:

Answering the actual subject of the thread: I don’t think there is any satisfactory way to represent the SSD as a model in Armada. Maybe as an alternate-format play area like the Trench Runs people make for X-wing.

The actual question was are SSD’s effectual in ship to ship combat. There does not appear to be ample data to conclude one way or another with current canon resources.

Whether we will ever see one in Armada is the topic of another, (longer, more bitter) thread.

I just want to make a point about those 5000 guns. Remember who is firing them......

People keep applying our technology or combat doctrines and projecting that.

Sorry to say a ship the size of the executor would be virtually invulnerable. Space is not a planet, space is not an Atmosphere around a planet.

Size of a ship means more space internally, more space internally means more capability. More space means more power sources, more armour plate, more shield projection systems, more everything that keeps you alive. It means more capability to absorb damage, more capability to have damage not be critical due to masses of redundant back up systems.

An X-wing has shields, armour and thrusters, the Shields and Thrusters are powered from the same source, the X-wing is a snub fighter, its shields and armour are sufficent for it to engage with other snub fighters, because other snub fighters are operating under the same constraints that the X-wing itself is, SPACE, everything requires energy, size limits energy production, or it limits the things you can mount on the frame. X-wing shields and armour are not designed to cope with capital ship grade weaponry.

A ship the size of the Executor would have armour of such thickness that no snub fighter powered weapon system would be generating enough energy to penetrate it, same goes for its shielding systems. We see in Starwars that shields are basically energy absorption systems, they use energy to produce the shield, and that shield can absorb X amount before it collapses and needs to be reignited (we see several R2's do this). So we can say an X-wings Laser is powerful enough to overpower the shielding on another snub fighter (because we see X-wings lose shields to attacks from other snub fighters). Thus we can extrapolate from that : An X-wing produces sufficient energy to shield itself from X power rated weapon systems. This again allows to to extrapolate that Capital class ships can mount monumentally larger power generating systems, and thus can project shields capable of absorbing monumentally more energy before they collapse, they also have the space to install multiple shielding systems in layers, or front loaded redundants that allow instant reignition. And that is in a normal ISD, the SSDS are magnitudes of power beyond an ISD.

Size in space is not a detriment, it is the total opposite.

And this it has a command station in a tower outside its hull....the ship is what 11 miles long? you think that is the only control point? a room at the end of 11 miles of ship that is maybe 100 meters front to back? OK

It's a paper tiger because it is a plot device just like the death star is, monumental weapon systems getting destroyed by the little guy in a tiny fighter. I'm fine with that btw, just not fine with statements like "there is a reason we don't make battle ships anymore." not even remotely the same thing.

It looks **** good. It's silly big, but I'd love to take it out for a spin.

Just now, Green Knight said:

It looks **** good. It's silly big, but I'd love to take it out for a spin.

As for having one in Armada, I'd love to see an actual model of it produced. Not sure it fits in with the current game system we have, guess I'm on the fence.

The only point of the SSD (and it's actually a valid one, just not for Armada) is to keep your ISD captains from getting the idea that maybe they should just take their ships and set themselves up as a warlord in some far part of the galaxy. The Executor isn't to kill rebels, it's to kill rogue Imperials if necessary.

i still want to see the SSD on my play-mat!

Period!

2 hours ago, rjl51869 said:

i still want to see the SSD on my play-mat!

Period!

I would love for FFG to come out with a 6x3 playmat of Executor over Endor. Would be hilarious.

13 hours ago, TheEasternKing said:

People keep applying our technology or combat doctrines and projecting that.

Sorry to say a ship the size of the executor would be virtually invulnerable. Space is not a planet, space is not an Atmosphere around a planet.

Size of a ship means more space internally, more space internally means more capability. More space means more power sources, more armour plate, more shield projection systems, more everything that keeps you alive. It means more capability to absorb damage, more capability to have damage not be critical due to masses of redundant back up systems.

An X-wing has shields, armour and thrusters, the Shields and Thrusters are powered from the same source, the X-wing is a snub fighter, its shields and armour are sufficent for it to engage with other snub fighters, because other snub fighters are operating under the same constraints that the X-wing itself is, SPACE, everything requires energy, size limits energy production, or it limits the things you can mount on the frame. X-wing shields and armour are not designed to cope with capital ship grade weaponry.

A ship the size of the Executor would have armour of such thickness that no snub fighter powered weapon system would be generating enough energy to penetrate it, same goes for its shielding systems. We see in Starwars that shields are basically energy absorption systems, they use energy to produce the shield, and that shield can absorb X amount before it collapses and needs to be reignited (we see several R2's do this). So we can say an X-wings Laser is powerful enough to overpower the shielding on another snub fighter (because we see X-wings lose shields to attacks from other snub fighters). Thus we can extrapolate from that : An X-wing produces sufficient energy to shield itself from X power rated weapon systems. This again allows to to extrapolate that Capital class ships can mount monumentally larger power generating systems, and thus can project shields capable of absorbing monumentally more energy before they collapse, they also have the space to install multiple shielding systems in layers, or front loaded redundants that allow instant reignition. And that is in a normal ISD, the SSDS are magnitudes of power beyond an ISD.

Size in space is not a detriment, it is the total opposite.

And this it has a command station in a tower outside its hull....the ship is what 11 miles long? you think that is the only control point? a room at the end of 11 miles of ship that is maybe 100 meters front to back? OK

Problem is, while this might make sense, it contradicts info that has already been established. The Incredible Cross Sections: TFA book, specifically calls out the Finalizer's auxiliary bridge as something it has that the Executor lacks. The movies specifically show A-Wing missiles penetrating the armour on the Executor's shield generators. And so forth. (We see an X-wing's lasers leave a big white melted spot on a Star Destroyer's bridge armour, too - so it isn't just torpedoes).

The newcanon approach seems to be that while the Executor might have the volume of 200-300 Star Destroyers, it does not have the fighting power of 200-300 Star Destroyers.

16 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

I'm only working with what's on wookiepedia. ISD II has 126 turbolasers and 20 ion cannons. Not exact so don't quote me, but good enough to work some numbers. I have SSD with 4000 turbo, 250 ion, and 500 point defense, as well as 250 concussion/torpedo tubes. Not sure where I got these numbers because they aren't on wookiepedia anymore.

The Legends page still has them. The cite for them is WOTC: page Starship Battles Preview 1 - but neither the page, nor the Wayback Machine link, work anymore:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor-class_Star_Dreadnought/Legends

16 hours ago, Grand Admiral Buford said:

Ok, big problem with ssd as a planetary bombardment platform. Based on everything I can find, gun emplacements are evenly spread top and bottom. If I am building for orbital support roles, the lower decks are getting a larger collection of weapons than the upper decks.

Regarding the density of the Executor's weaponry - the flat areas of the hull (as opposed to the cityscape and the waist trench) have nearly 1000 "weapons blisters" all told - with number of dorsal blisters being just under double the number of ventral blisters:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/exec.detail.html

so, rather than being evenly spread, nearly 2/3 of them are on the top.

Using most of the weapons blisters as being 8-gun mounts, there's enough blisters (over 900) that every one of the 250 regular turbolaser 8 gun mounts, and 250 heavy turbolaser 8 gun mounts, can correspond to a blister - with plenty left over for things like ion cannons, concussion missiles, etc.

It would appear that the "over 5000 weapons emplacements" figure, counts point defence lasers, counts each gun in an 8-gun battery separately, and counts tractor beam projectors - for a total of 5040.

Perhaps on paper it’s a deadly warship and a threat truly in proportion to its size. However, for practical purposes, it’s just too big...

5 minutes ago, Tayloraj100 said:

Perhaps on paper it’s a deadly warship and a threat truly in proportion to its size. However, for practical purposes, it’s just too big...

That certainly applied to the Mega Star Destroyer (at least, until it was clarified that it was 60km wide, not long). I'm not sure if it's entirely fair for the Executor though.

There's also the question of what the "8 gun batteries" actually are - are they the same as the octuple barbettes? Or are they bigger?

If they're the same as the octuple barbettes, with the "regular turbolasers" being much less relevant (especially since Imperial-class have lots of regular turbolasers too) then 250, compared to the 8 on a regular ISD, puts total firepower as around 30-odd ISDs, for heavy turbolasers at least.

That could work fairly well - allows it to be fairly weak for its volume (300-odd ISD volumes) but at the same time, be reasonably good - "equivalent to 30 ISDs", rather than "equivalent to 100 ISDs" (maximalist interpretation) or "equivalent to (just over) 5 ISDs" (minimalist interpretation) seems like a good compromise.

The SSD is just a large sound stage for their Imperial entertainment corps. Here is a sample of what Imperial troops used to watch on board the SSD.

The Empire Strips Back - on tour now!

20 hours ago, Megatronrex said:

A little known (and completely made up) fact about the SSD's 5000+ turbolasers is that they were used to put on some of the most amazing laser shows in the Galaxy. Here in the US we celebrate the Fourth of July with massive fireworks extravaganzas. When loyal galactic citizens celebrate Empire day all they have to do is look to the night sky to watch glorious and dazzling displays of luminescent brilliance (even from light years away thanks/no thanks to JJ). It's just one of the many incredible gifts bestowed upon the galaxy by our kind, loving, and benevolent Emperor.

Lol now I have a mental image of hundreds of innocent bystanders looking up at the night sky as a long, wedge-shaped form blocks out the stars.

The Imperial March plays in the background and the citizens cower in fear.

Abruptly, the Imperial March cuts off, and is then replaced by Rush’s Tom Sawyer.

The sky lights up in a dazzling array of colors, and the crowds begin cheering.

Casting my 2 cents...I think the SSD follows Imperial Doctrine to a T and makes perfect sense from a certain point of view. It was designed from the ground up to be a capital ship killer/planetary bombardment/command logistics platform; fighters were never really considered. They even make the comment in one of the (now defunct, I'm sure) books that the SSD, while nigh impervious to the ships of the line, suffered from the same malady that the Death Star did; TRD (Trench Run Disease). At the time the SSD was designed and built the Empire didn't consider fighters a legitimate threat, and they paid the price for that time and time again.
Against planetary gun emplacements or capital ships, the SSD would have been a nightmare beast, but against fighters? Throw a swarm of killer bees after the biggest beast, it's probably not going to survive.
As to how to reflect this in Armada (should it ever make an appearance)? I'd say maybe try something like giving it only close in, crazy low anti-starfighter dice (like 1 die...after all, what was it...500 guns over a ship roughly the size of Manhattan Island? Talk about blind spots, holy ****!) and then using the rule that any fighters attacking it ignore it's shields (since they're inside them).
Just some thoughts.

22 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

It depends on how large you want the SSD. I have some numbers that are for a 1:23.75 scale relative to ISD (48inch) and the dice are reasonable.

Front arc: 20 red, 8 blue, 8 black
Side arcs: 11 red, 4 blue, 4 black
Rear arc: 11 red, 4 blue, 4 black

<snip>

We all agree though that for Anti-Squadron it gets a single red die with one of the 'hits' scratched off.

Also the Executor title is -8 points: All squadrons are considered to have the Bomber trait when firing at this ship.

19 hours ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

The actual question was are SSD’s effectual in ship to ship combat. There does not appear to be ample data to conclude one way or another with current canon resources.

Whether we will ever see one in Armada is the topic of another, (longer, more bitter) thread.

Its a shame really the only cannon sorces that cant be messed with that could show the SSD power (ESB, ROTJ) dont really seem to cover the big ship combat. Rotj would be prime matieral to show how awesome it was but the death star was the only thing shown blowing up capitol ships.

In terms of armada as a game its a tough sell. In anything close to a standard game it would feel way too powerfull. If it was watered down to make it fit in a standard game, it would be dissapointing.

22 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

It depends on how large you want the SSD. I have some numbers that are for a 1:23.75 scale relative to ISD (48inch) and the dice are reasonable.

Front arc: 20 red, 8 blue, 8 black
Side arcs: 11 red, 4 blue, 4 black
Rear arc: 11 red, 4 blue, 4 black

These numbers are based off the amount of turbolasers an ISD has and how they are distrusted in terms of dice. The front arc of an ISD has about 44% of the overall fire power the ship can put out, so the same logic is applied to the SSD.

I have the hull at 72 and lots of shields, somewhere around 80. This is because it takes roughly 13 MC80s to bring the ISD down, which has a combined firepower of 61.75 damage. So 2 full rounds of attacking is about enough to drop it.

I have more data I can share if you're interested.

22 hours ago, geek19 said:

I can say that those numbers might seem reasonable, but I highly doubt FFG is going to put out a ship with 20 red dice in its front arc.

Heck, change my statement to 20 dice and I still stand by it. I'd predict (since we're down this road again) 200-300 points, maybe 15 dice total. Being able to one shot a large ship at red range with a lucky roll (accuracy for the brace, 12-20 damage) is a negative play experience and does turn Armada into a pay to win game.

I would say that we might be thinking too narrowly with regards to the design space for SSD. Indeed with that kind of stats it would be unkillable and removing 2 in-range opposing ships off the board every round.

Consider the CR90 in X-wing Miniatures. As a "huge" ship for "epic" play it worked on a different system to the small and large base fighters seen in normal play format. While red/green dice were still present, it made use of an "energy" system which powers up the weapons onboard. Also it was not limited to the "one attack per turn" rule and could possibly fire all weapons on the same turn if energy was managed well. It also possessed more than one "hull zone" each with their own set of damage cards

So perhaps, SSD could be made differently to the current armada ships. For example, why have 4 hullzones only when you can have 8? On a "huge" base(I expect larger than large armada base), dividing the space into 4 hullzones means each hullzone covers alot of space, meaning vastly increased coverage for the firing arcs. Increasing the number of hullzones and reducing the number of dice in each hullzone allows it to have a similar total number of dice overall but allows smaller opposing ships to contend with it if they do not get double-arc'd(which shouldn't be hard to do if SSD base is sufficiently large). At the same time the SSD shields would be easier to "puncture", as since redirects can only affect adjacent shields, it is easier to reach the hull without having to clear all the shields on the SSD. Now, give the SSD the ability to make more than 2 attacks through some form of mechanic(energy?) and it can now battle multiple ships in one round while opposing ships can survive if they maneuver well and not get double-arc'd. Also, give each hullzone a set of its own damage cards for strategic flavour and lolz

Main point is, SSD does not have to be designed the same way as the rest of the current armada ships, ffg could draw up new ideas in "epic" play to make it operable in the game's current design space without killing the game.

17 minutes ago, Arowmund said:

Casting my 2 cents...I think the SSD follows Imperial Doctrine to a T and makes perfect sense from a certain point of view. It was designed from the ground up to be a capital ship killer/planetary bombardment/command logistics platform; fighters were never really considered. They even make the comment in one of the (now defunct, I'm sure) books that the SSD, while nigh impervious to the ships of the line, suffered from the same malady that the Death Star did; TRD (Trench Run Disease). At the time the SSD was designed and built the Empire didn't consider fighters a legitimate threat, and they paid the price for that time and time again.
Against planetary gun emplacements or capital ships, the SSD would have been a nightmare beast, but against fighters? Throw a swarm of killer bees after the biggest beast, it's probably not going to survive.
As to how to reflect this in Armada (should it ever make an appearance)? I'd say maybe try something like giving it only close in, crazy low anti-starfighter dice (like 1 die...after all, what was it...500 guns over a ship roughly the size of Manhattan Island? Talk about blind spots, holy ****!) and then using the rule that any fighters attacking it ignore it's shields (since they're inside them).
Just some thoughts.

I second just about all of this, and a fair bit of @TheEasternKing's analysis. I realize Star Wars physics and tactics are not based on real life, but I've done some pretty deep thinking about what space engagements would look like. Detection and engagement would start from tens or hundreds-of-thousands of kilometers away. Therefor most of the battle is going to be fought on approach, making forward firing emplacements of primary importance (whoever damages first tends to damage best, all things being equal). In this vein I have no problem with the design of Imperial wedges (though yes, a cone would be a bit more efficient, with gimble, rather than turret, mounted weaponry). When attempting to design my own real life potential future ships I've found a focus on forward firing weapons, 360d point defense, and as many guided munitions as possible to be logical. The shear amount of firepower ISD's and SSD's put forward means they are highly likely to inflict a great deal of damage on the first pass (as we often see on the tabletop). It's after that first pass that things get complicated for them.

As for a model in the game, I'm a person fine with a strong decrease in relative size and power to allow it to function on the table top. I'd prefer something around 16-20" that throws about 12-14 dice forward, 6-8 out the sides, and 4 out of the rear, maybe 1 or 2 red-dice for AA, either a high ENG score (or some sort of auto regeneration of shields, since six is the max), 6 command, 6 squadron (maybe an upgrade or title that allows you to increase your proportion of fighters by points?), and a ton of upgrade options (two officers I think). Speed 1 with one click, 200-250 points.

29 minutes ago, Muelmuel said:

I would say that we might be thinking too narrowly with regards to the design space for SSD. Indeed with that kind of stats it would be unkillable and removing 2 in-range opposing ships off the board every round.

Consider the CR90 in X-wing Miniatures. As a "huge" ship for "epic" play it worked on a different system to the small and large base fighters seen in normal play format. While red/green dice were still present, it made use of an "energy" system which powers up the weapons onboard. Also it was not limited to the "one attack per turn" rule and could possibly fire all weapons on the same turn if energy was managed well. It also possessed more than one "hull zone" each with their own set of damage cards

So perhaps, SSD could be made differently to the current armada ships. For example, why have 4 hullzones only when you can have 8? On a "huge" base(I expect larger than large armada base), dividing the space into 4 hullzones means each hullzone covers alot of space, meaning vastly increased coverage for the firing arcs. Increasing the number of hullzones and reducing the number of dice in each hullzone allows it to have a similar total number of dice overall but allows smaller opposing ships to contend with it if they do not get double-arc'd(which shouldn't be hard to do if SSD base is sufficiently large). At the same time the SSD shields would be easier to "puncture", as since redirects can only affect adjacent shields, it is easier to reach the hull without having to clear all the shields on the SSD. Now, give the SSD the ability to make more than 2 attacks through some form of mechanic(energy?) and it can now battle multiple ships while opposing ships can survive if they maneuver well and not get double-arc'd. Also, give each hullzone a set of its own damage cards for strategic flavour and lolz

Main point is, SSD does not have to be designed the same way as the rest of the current armada ships, ffg could draw up new ideas in "epic" play to make it operable in the game's current design space without killing the game.

I agree on multiple hull zones. It let's you split the dice pools and can allow for multiple attacks, which feels more immersive IMO. After all, this thing is so large the turrets in the middle of the ship are 8km away from the front of the ship. It makes sense for the turret pods to attack different ships. This is something I have been toying with, but it's hard to balance. I've turned 4 hull zones into 10, and equally distributed the dice among them. I don't want a large ship to be one-shot by the SSD unless it focuses multiple attacks on it. By doing this, I'd also allow the Rebels to have more ships to compensate, something like 200-300 points per player on top of the 400-500 they bring.

The energy system is interesting, but I think it feels weird with the whole Armada system. Capital ships already have large enough reactors to do whatever they need to do, and I feel the command dials simulate redirecting power to subsystems, like repairing or concentrate fire. I was thinking more along the lines of the AT-AT from the old WotC Star Wars minis game where the SSD must perform certain actions every round. This makes it predictable, but it's also a capable of wiping out entire fleets on its own.

If it's not clear or you don't know, my SSD is for a custom campaign and is not intended for casual play. This allows me to have a more unbalanced ship to add to the immersion of the Rebels struggling to fight the Empire.

20 hours ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

The actual question was are SSD’s effectual in ship to ship combat. There does not appear to be ample data to conclude one way or another with current canon resources.

Whether we will ever see one in Armada is the topic of another, (longer, more bitter) thread.

Yeah...I got distra- Hey look! It’s a red herring!

If made out proberly an SSD should have the following layout to fit in Armada

6x hull zones on a Epic scale base

The hull zone layout should be that, you can only triple arc another Epic scale based ship, Large base ships cannot.

Front hull zone has no more than 8x attack dice. the other hull zones no more than 6 attack dice.

No Weapons team upgrade slot

Be allowed to attack 3x times.

The 3x attacks distributed on three of six hull zones would give relatively alot of firepower, however it would be spread out, amongst multible targets, if the opponent only has large base ships or less in his/her fleet.

I hope you guys can see where im going with this.