A more comprehensive ship list

By Ahrimon, in Star Wars: Edge of the Empire RPG

Posted at
1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. I said "a ship the size of the Executor/Deathstar". To quote my original post:

A ship the size of the Executor or Death Star . That is what I said. I made no claim that the Executor or Deathstar had no cargo capacity. I said a ship designer could design a ship the size of the Executor , or a ship the size of the Death Star and allot no space for cargo. As such, there is no such thing as a " minimum " cargo capacity, only a maximum cargo capacity.

Secondly, Encumbrance is both a Measure of weight and volume combined , according to Sam Stewart.

As for the YZ-775, Those stats are ones I have the biggest problem with . The developers completely botched that ship. The Passenger capacity alone is a huge screw-up. The YZ-775 has a passenger capacity of fourteen according to the original sources, not zero . Regardless of whether or not they deliberately chose to change that spec, it is fundamentally wrong and completely contradictory to the source material.

No, it doesn't give them license to do whatever they want. And no, the FFG cargo stats are not self-consistent. Their Encumbrance values are all over the place. There is no consistency in the cargo capacities of these ships; not within the game itself and not with the source material, be the source current canon or Legends. Their cargo capacities are all random and arbitrary .

No matter what measurement you use, the IR-3F has a cargo hold only a little larger than the YT-1300, according to the source materials of both ships. As such, the IR-3F should not have an Encumbrance over ten times that of the YT-1300. At most it should have an Encumbrance 180% that of the YT-1300, given that its cargo capacity is 180% that of the YT-1300.

For all your pages of arguing, you.re down to critizising the way FFG measures cargo, despite it being semi-abstract and having little to do with the argument at hand. The only thing you're doing now is keeping the argument going by moving the goalposts to cover up that you haven't had a leg to stand on since you first started this. Heck, you havent even got a toe.

You're pretty good at baiting Elias though, but that's not arguing your point, that's trolling.

Posted at
6 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

For all your pages of arguing, you.re down to critizising the way FFG measures cargo, despite it being semi-abstract and having little to do with the argument at hand. The only thing you're doing now is keeping the argument going by moving the goalposts to cover up that you haven't had a leg to stand on since you first started this. Heck, you havent even got a toe.

You're pretty good at baiting Elias though, but that's not arguing your point, that's trolling.

Not just cargo, several of the stats. The YZ-775, for instance has a number of flaws, the most egregiously being it's passenger capacity .

Quote

YZ-775 medium transport

Production information

Model

YZ-775 [1]

Cost

  • 500,000 credits (New) [1]
  • 350,000 credits (Used) [1]

Technical specifications

Length

52 meters [1]

Maximum atmospheric speed

950 km/h

Hyperdrive rating

Backup Class 12 [1]

Shielding

Equipped

Navigation system

Equipped

Minimum crew

Passengers

Cargo capacity

400 metric tons [1]

Consumables

6 months [1]

Other systems

That number comes directly from the original source material: SW Gamer #2 . By contrast, Dangerous Covenants gives the YZ-775 a passenger capacity of zero . This completely contradicts the source material. And that's only one of its flaws. IT's cargo capacity is 4 times that of the YT-1300, yet its Encumbrance is almost 8 times that of the YT-1300. Then there's the YV-929, which had about the same number of hull points as a Tie Fighter , according to the same original source (a very fragile hull), and the source explicitly states, "Unfortunately, this approach does little for the ship's sturdiness and 929s were infamous for tearing apart after just a few hits after losing their shields" . Yet Dangerous Covenants gives it a higher Hull Trauma Threshold than the YT-1300; and claims its stout and durable. It also changed its Consumables rating from Three months to Six months, and changed its weapons from triple blaster cannons to triple light laser cannons and removed its turbolaser cannons. IT's also listed as having a cargo capacity of 150 metric tons, which is 150% that of the YT-1300 , yet DG only gives it an Encumbrance rating of 80 . That's less than half that of the YT-1300 .

Quote

YV-929 armed freighter

Production information

Model

YV-929

Cost

  • 250,000 credits (New) [1]
  • 100,000 credits (Used) [1]

Technical specifications

Length

22 meters [1]

Maximum atmospheric speed

1000 km/h

Hyperdrive rating

Hyperdrive system

Equipped [1]

Shielding

Equipped

Navigation system

Equipped

Minimum crew

1

Passengers

Cargo capacity

150 metric tons [1]

Consumables

3 months [1]

See a pattern here yet? It's not just one stat or one spec on one or two ships that's at issue here. It's across the board . FFG makes arbitrary changes to these ships with no regard to the original source materials . That is what I have a problem with. And Sam Stewart has even said as much. They have no "system". They make everything up whole cloth. It's completely arbitrary.

And, for the record, I didn't start this argument.

Posted at
4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. I said "a ship the size of the Executor/Deathstar". To quote my original post:

A ship the size of the Executor or Death Star . That is what I said. I made no claim that the Executor or Deathstar had no cargo capacity. I said a ship designer could design a ship the size of the Executor , or a ship the size of the Death Star and allot no space for cargo. As such, there is no such thing as a " minimum " cargo capacity, only a maximum cargo capacity.

Secondly, Encumbrance is both a Measure of weight and volume combined , according to Sam Stewart.

As for the YZ-775, Those stats are ones I have the biggest problem with . The developers completely botched that ship. The Passenger capacity alone is a huge screw-up. The YZ-775 has a passenger capacity of fourteen according to the original sources, not zero . Regardless of whether or not they deliberately chose to change that spec, it is fundamentally wrong and completely contradictory to the source material.

No, it doesn't give them license to do whatever they want. And no, the FFG cargo stats are not self-consistent. Their Encumbrance values are all over the place. There is no consistency in the cargo capacities of these ships; not within the game itself and not with the source material, be the source current canon or Legends. Their cargo capacities are all random and arbitrary .

No matter what measurement you use, the IR-3F has a cargo hold only a little larger than the YT-1300, according to the source materials of both ships. As such, the IR-3F should not have an Encumbrance over ten times that of the YT-1300. At most it should have an Encumbrance 180% that of the YT-1300, given that its cargo capacity is 180% that of the YT-1300.

That doesn't help your case any, a ship the size of the executor or death star having zero cargo is complete and utter bull/nonsense

Thank you for conceding the point that Bastion's stats for the YZ-775 are vastly different than the RAW ffg stats. Because Bastion's stats are vastly different than RAW ffg stats they aren't comparable/compatible. Thus to use any of Bastion's ship stats you can't use any ffg RAW ship stats. It's an all or nothing proposition. For you to use bastion stats in a game means no one else should be using raw ship stats. Whether you feel the game designers botched the YZ-775 is irrelevant .

Incorrect. There are 3 not 2 factors, encumbrance is a combination of volume, shape and weight. Two of the 3 are purely geometric. Weight is volume of cargo times density of cargo. Density/weight is also limited by what sentients/droids can load into the ship so geometry is about 2.5/3 = 5/6 of encumbrance. And regardless even if there were only two equally important components of encumbrance it would still be a much more appropriate metric for cargo than only weight because aircraft cargo capacity is specified by volume and weight (evidence by the wikipedia link that I provided Sunday).

Neither star wars canon nor the ffg rpg is anyway constrained by the officially discarded inconsistent legends crap. Whether you like it or not, Lucasfilm approving the ffg ship stats makes them right. If you feel strongly that the ffg stats should be changed, write a letter to Lucasfilm to ask them to make ffg change them. But until they do, you will remain dead wrong on this.

Whether or not you agree with the fact that ffg ship stats don't strictly adhere to the arbitrary legends crap (which has been officially discarded from canon by Lucasfilm) doesn't change the fact that most of the ffg ship stats are strongly correlated (negatively in the case of some stats) with ship size. That makes them self consistent, and if you don't think that correlation is strong enough, that would be a much stronger justification to prefer the RAW ffg stats over previous editions of the game which are much much more arbitrary/self- in consistent.

There is no canon source material for the ir-3f, you have no way of knowing what it's canon cargo capacity is and thus no grounds for challenging the ffg stats for it. If you think you do, then cite a canon source for the ir-3f's cargo capacity, but until you do you will remain dead wrong on this (like everything else that's been discussed to date in this thread)

Posted at
On 9/3/2019 at 1:21 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

He likes fast ships, I like big ships with lots of cargo and passenger space and plenty of firepower.

On 9/3/2019 at 8:56 PM, EliasWindrider said:

Yz-900 isn't RAW, isn't that big, and even if you use the complute bogus (inconsistent with comparable RAW ships in htt and strain) this is the blog your looking for stats doesn't have that much cargo capacity and the firepower isn't that impressive.

But if you take the ir-3f and add a hyperdrive and a few droid brains you get everything you just said you valued and it's fast.

If and only if, by "starting an argument" you actually meant pointing out a RAW ffg ship whose stats fulfilled your stated criteria better than the non canon, non-RAW and inconsistent with RAW ship stats you're currently using (and that would be a really weird way to communicate that) then yes this arguement would be my fault.... otherwise not so much.

Of course everything I said in this post is backed up by RAW/true.

Posted at
18 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

That doesn't help your case any, a ship the size of the executor or death star having zero cargo is complete and utter bull/nonsense

Thank you for conceding the point that Bastion's stats for the YZ-775 are vastly different than the RAW ffg stats. Because Bastion's stats are vastly different than RAW ffg stats they aren't comparable/compatible. Thus to use any of Bastion's ship stats you can't use any ffg RAW ship stats. It's an all or nothing proposition. For you to use bastion stats in a game means no one else should be using raw ship stats. Whether you feel the game designers botched the YZ-775 is irrelevant .

Incorrect. There are 3 not 2 factors, encumbrance is a combination of volume, shape and weight. Two of the 3 are purely geometric. Weight is volume of cargo times density of cargo. Density/weight is also limited by what sentients/droids can load into the ship so geometry is about 2.5/3 = 5/6 of encumbrance. And regardless even if there were only two equally important components of encumbrance it would still be a much more appropriate metric for cargo than only weight because aircraft cargo capacity is specified by volume and weight (evidence by the wikipedia link that I provided Sunday).

Neither star wars canon nor the ffg rpg is anyway constrained by the officially discarded inconsistent legends crap. Whether you like it or not, Lucasfilm approving the ffg ship stats makes them right. If you feel strongly that the ffg stats should be changed, write a letter to Lucasfilm to ask them to make ffg change them. But until they do, you will remain dead wrong on this.

Whether or not you agree with the fact that ffg ship stats don't strictly adhere to the arbitrary legends crap (which has been officially discarded from canon by Lucasfilm) doesn't change the fact that most of the ffg ship stats are strongly correlated (negatively in the case of some stats) with ship size. That makes them self consistent, and if you don't think that correlation is strong enough, that would be a much stronger justification to prefer the RAW ffg stats over previous editions of the game which are much much more arbitrary/self- in consistent.

There is no canon source material for the ir-3f, you have no way of knowing what it's canon cargo capacity is and thus no grounds for challenging the ffg stats for it. If you think you do, then cite a canon source for the ir-3f's cargo capacity, but until you do you will remain dead wrong on this (like everything else that's been discussed to date in this thread)

Wrong on all counts. The only thing "vastly different" about Bastion's stats are that his are more accurate particularly in regards to Cargo and passenger capacity. His stats are fully compatible with this system. And, the very fact that he says you can adjust them as needed further expands that compatibility. Just because you personally don't like them is your problem. It doesn't make them incompatible with the game. As for cargo capacities of starships, The only one that is of primary importance is weight . Volume can be gotten around by using external pods. Weight can't be because if the ship is overloaded, it can't even take off , much less escape the atmosphere. This is why NASA itself focuses on making sure their payloads are as light as possible, regardless of the payload's volume. The more weight, the more fuel needed to get off the ground, which adds more weight, which requires more fuel. This is also true of starships. The engines themselves can only support a certain maximum load . If the ship is overweight, it's not going anywhere. So weight is of utmost importance. This is why Lucasfilm uses weight for determining cargo capacities of their ships.

As for Legends being "officially discarded"? Wrong . Legends may no longer be canon, but it is still published and mined for material for the current canon. And, as I already stated, there are FFG ship stats that contradict current canon, not just Legends sources. And remember, the game itself is not canon either. It covers both current canon and Legends. And, for the record, but Dangerous Covenants and EotE core rules were both published before Disney relegated any books published before 25 Aug 2014 to Legends status. Dangerous Covenants was released on 28 Feb 2014 . Thus, Dangerous Covenants is a Legends book , and is incongruous with the original source, which at the time of Dangerous Covenants ' writing and release, was still canon up to that point . Ergo, their specs for the YZ-775 and YV-929 contradicted a source which at the time of production was still canon. Just because that source is no longer canon is irrelevant. It was canon at the time Dangerous Covenants was produced and released. Ergo, the stats regarding these ships contradicted the canon of the time.

It should also be noted that even though the F&D core book was published after 25 AUG 2014, it still relies heavily on Legends material . It is itself not a canon book. As such, its stats for the IR-3F ( an exclusively Legends ship ) Should match up with the original source material as well.

And, as for a ship the size of the Deathstar not having any dedicated cargo capacity. It's not complete and utter bull. What it is is an extreme example. Ship designers have to balance several factors when designing a ship or vehicle. These include cost, weight, size, power, thrust, fuel efficiency, crew capacity, passenger capacity, firepower, etc. There is only so much space within a given hull, even if it is a large hull. More weapons, more crew, more passengers, means less room for cargo. If the engines aren't up to it, that also limits more than one of those other factors. Then there's cost. If you want to keep the costs down, you need to cut back on one or more of the other factors. This includes cargo capacity.

One of the best ship (and Mecha) construction systems I know of in any game system is R.Talsorian Games, Mekton Technical System published in Mekton Z Plus . You start with a "torso" (a hull for ships), whcih has a limited number of spaces for any and all components you plan on adding, all of which costs Construction Points (which also converts to the ship's cost in in game money). You add other servos which provide a few more spaces each, as well as added durability. then you buy the armor, movement systems, control systems, crew capacity, passenger capacity, weapons, cargo space, etc. And this means, you have to prioritize what's most important, weapons, crew, passengers, engines, flight systems, cargo capacity, etc. IF you want more spaces than the servos have, you need to sacrifice hull integrity to do so . As such,yes, you can end up with a large ship with lots of weapons, lots of armor, big, powerful engines, but little in the way of cargo capacity , (as is the case with the IR-3f, a capital ship with a cargo capacity of only 180 metric tons, according to the original source material) or a small ship with a huge cargo capacity, and a lot of firepower, and shields, but a very fragile hull (like the YV-929) because hull integrity was sacrificed for a large cargo capacity. The Designers of the IR-3F sacrificed cargo capacity in favor of larger engines, greater firepower, and better armor, and a stronger hull. By contrast, the designers of the YV-929 sacrificed hull integrity for a large cargo capacity for its size, as well as heavy, practically out of scale weaponry (the turbolasers).

18 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

If and only if, by "starting an argument" you actually meant pointing out a RAW ffg ship whose stats fulfilled your stated criteria better than the non canon, non-RAW and inconsistent with RAW ship stats you're currently using (and that would be a really weird way to communicate that) then yes this arguement would be my fault.... otherwise not so much.

Of course everything I said in this post is backed up by RAW/true.

Keith, my initial comment was simply a statement that I prefer ships with large cargo capacities, plenty of space for passengers, and plenty of firepower, while you like fast ships. It's a statement of personal preferences not an invitation to argue over the flaws in FFG's stats, compared to an unofficial source. Neither preference is wrong. It's simply a matter of personal taste. But you had to use that to retread the same argument over my long-time character's ship because you can't let go of a grudge. I didn't even bring up Korath or his ship. You did.

If you want to stick with just those ships FFG has officially released, that is your prerogative. However, that does not change the fact that FFG's ship stats are not consistent either within itself, nor with the original source material, whether current canon or Legends. If you don't like that, tough. Don't play in the same campaigns as me. I will continue to use Bastion's material, whether you like it or not, and I will continue to support Bastion's material on these forums, whether you like it or not . You are not going to change my view that FFG has royally screwed up several ships. and that their choices are completely arbitrary and contradictory to both canon and Legends original sources.

Edited by Tramp Graphics
Posted at
On 9/26/2019 at 2:06 AM, Tramp Graphics said:

And, for the record, I didn't start this argument.

Nor did you post anything relevant to it.

FFG has the ball now, and if they change something established by WEG, or the EU, well tough bananas, that's the way it is now. As far as the YV-929 is concerned, the change was intentional since a turbolaser (at least what FFG defines as turbolaser) on ship the size of the 929 is somewhat ludicrous in the context of their system. So it's been changed, superceeding older source material. This means that as far as official sources are concerned, the YZ-900 might as well not exist . And as you yourself have admitted, the fan made stats are made to another design philosophy making them about as relevant for comparison as...
latest?cb=20100607171321

Anything else is your personal head canon until you oust Pablo Hidalgo.

Posted at
3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong on all counts. The only thing "vastly different" about Bastion's stats are that his are more accurate particularly in regards to Cargo and passenger capacity. His stats are fully compatible with this system. And, the very fact that he says you can adjust them as needed further expands that compatibility. Just because you personally don't like them is your problem. It doesn't make them incompatible with the game. As for cargo capacities of starships, The only one that is of primary importance is weight . Volume can be gotten around by using external pods. Weight can't be because if the ship is overloaded, it can't even take off , much less escape the atmosphere. This is why NASA itself focuses on making sure their payloads are as light as possible, regardless of the payload's volume. The more weight, the more fuel needed to get off the ground, which adds more weight, which requires more fuel. This is also true of starships. The engines themselves can only support a certain maximum load . If the ship is overweight, it's not going anywhere. So weight is of utmost importance. This is why Lucasfilm uses weight for determining cargo capacities of their ships.

As for Legends being "officially discarded"? Wrong . Legends may no longer be canon, but it is still published and mined for material for the current canon. And, as I already stated, there are FFG ship stats that contradict current canon, not just Legends sources. And remember, the game itself is not canon either. It covers both current canon and Legends. And, for the record, but Dangerous Covenants and EotE core rules were both published before Disney relegated any books published before 25 Aug 2014 to Legends status. Dangerous Covenants was released on 28 Feb 2014 . Thus, Dangerous Covenants is a Legends book , and is incongruous with the original source, which at the time of Dangerous Covenants ' writing and release, was still canon up to that point . Ergo, their specs for the YZ-775 and YV-929 contradicted a source which at the time of production was still canon. Just because that source is no longer canon is irrelevant. It was canon at the time Dangerous Covenants was produced and released. Ergo, the stats regarding these ships contradicted the canon of the time.

It should also be noted that even though the F&D core book was published after 25 AUG 2014, it still relies heavily on Legends material . It is itself not a canon book. As such, its stats for the IR-3F ( an exclusively Legends ship ) Should match up with the original source material as well.

And, as for a ship the size of the Deathstar not having any dedicated cargo capacity. It's not complete and utter bull. What it is is an extreme example. Ship designers have to balance several factors when designing a ship or vehicle. These include cost, weight, size, power, thrust, fuel efficiency, crew capacity, passenger capacity, firepower, etc. There is only so much space within a given hull, even if it is a large hull. More weapons, more crew, more passengers, means less room for cargo. If the engines aren't up to it, that also limits more than one of those other factors. Then there's cost. If you want to keep the costs down, you need to cut back on one or more of the other factors. This includes cargo capacity.

One of the best ship (and Mecha) construction systems I know of in any game system is R.Talsorian Games, Mekton Technical System published in Mekton Z Plus . You start with a "torso" (a hull for ships), whcih has a limited number of spaces for any and all components you plan on adding, all of which costs Construction Points (which also converts to the ship's cost in in game money). You add other servos which provide a few more spaces each, as well as added durability. then you buy the armor, movement systems, control systems, crew capacity, passenger capacity, weapons, cargo space, etc. And this means, you have to prioritize what's most important, weapons, crew, passengers, engines, flight systems, cargo capacity, etc. IF you want more spaces than the servos have, you need to sacrifice hull integrity to do so . As such,yes, you can end up with a large ship with lots of weapons, lots of armor, big, powerful engines, but little in the way of cargo capacity , (as is the case with the IR-3f, a capital ship with a cargo capacity of only 180 metric tons, according to the original source material) or a small ship with a huge cargo capacity, and a lot of firepower, and shields, but a very fragile hull (like the YV-929) because hull integrity was sacrificed for a large cargo capacity. The Designers of the IR-3F sacrificed cargo capacity in favor of larger engines, greater firepower, and better armor, and a stronger hull. By contrast, the designers of the YV-929 sacrificed hull integrity for a large cargo capacity for its size, as well as heavy, practically out of scale weaponry (the turbolasers).

Keith, my initial comment was simply a statement that I prefer ships with large cargo capacities, plenty of space for passengers, and plenty of firepower, while you like fast ships. It's a statement of personal preferences not an invitation to argue over the flaws in FFG's stats, compared to an unofficial source. Neither preference is wrong. It's simply a matter of personal taste. But you had to use that to retread the same argument over my long-time character's ship because you can't let go of a grudge. I didn't even bring up Korath or his ship. You did.

If you want to stick with just those ships FFG has officially released, that is your prerogative. However, that does not change the fact that FFG's ship stats are not consistent either within itself, nor with the original source material, whether current canon or Legends. If you don't like that, tough. Don't play in the same campaigns as me. I will continue to use Bastion's material, whether you like it or not, and I will continue to support Bastion's material on these forums, whether you like it or not . You are not going to change my view that FFG has royally screwed up several ships. and that their choices are completely arbitrary and contradictory to both canon and Legends original sources.

You are completely ignorant of the physics and design factors involved in vehicles. For example you repeatedly insisted I was wrong when I was correcting your extremely ignorant claim that volume could be measured in tons. Beyond having different units they have different dimensions . And since you don't know the significance of the units verses dimensions (proved by your repeated insistence that volume can be measured as a weight) it proves you have no basis for making any claims about the design of complex mechanical systems.

Have you ever heard of "induced requirements" or "secondary requirements"? Not core requirements but things that are needed to support the core requirements. A mech is a fighting machine, similar to a tank or fighter jet with a small period of operating time before it requires external support. It doesn't need much cargo for a core mission. For those kinds of vehicles, yes you could design them with "no" cargo, but I suspect they would still haul survival kits for their crew.But something like an aircraft carrier needs to haul spare parts and fuel for the planes it hosts (not to mention the parts and raw materials needed to repair the aircraft carrier itself). Anything whose mission involves extended deployment requires substantial cargo. That cargo is largely dependent on the size of the vehicle and the length of deployment (those two factors are also strongly correlated, you don't make something huge for short deployments). If you have a massive enemy that you need to destroy, it's faster, cheaper and more effective to kill it with a cruise missile with a suitably sized warhead rather than build a gigantic mech to fight it. Even missiles are "overkill" cost is while we're moving to hypersonic gauss cannons on big ships, and they're only restricted to big ships and fixed installations because of power requirements. Missiles are highly portable by comparison. Will we ever have mechs in real life, yeah probably but they won't get much bigger than tanks or construction vehicles for just that reason.

You can't have it both ways at the same time, the differences between Bastion's stats and ffg stats either matter or they don't, they can't both matter and not matter at the same time.

So which is it Mike, in you're opinion do the differences between Bastion's and fifa's stats matter or don't they.

if the differences between bastion's and ffg's stats are small enough not to matter, then ffg stats don't need to be corrected at all

if the differences between Bastion's and ffg's stats are large enough to matter, then that makes bastion's stats incompatible with ffg stats.

Those are the only two logically consistent positions on this issue. Double standards are inherently unfair and logically inconsistent.

But let's spot check those differences by comparing bastion vs ffg official stats for the YZ-775 (bastion first)

Speed 3 vs 2

Armor 3 vs 4

Handling -2 vs -3

Htt 45 vs. 34

Enc 400 vs 800

Passengers 14 vs 0.

Those are huge differences.

There is also a huge problem with your pre disney canon arguments. Namely that pre Disney there wasn't a single canon but multiple levels of cannon. And the multiple levels frequently contradicted with higher levels trumping lower levels. More importantly either later pre disney canon trumped the earlier pre Disney canon or it didn't get published without being corrected to conform to the earlier pre Disney canon that stuck. Thus the fact that pre-Disney Lucasfilm is the one who approved it completely defeats your argument, as would it being Disney canon, there is simply no way that you could be right on this issue.

Pointing out that you don't have to choose between fast ships and big ship with lots of cargo and passenger space and plenty of firepower or go outside RAW to get it is not starting or rehashing an argument. You could have taken that at face value without arguing every minutia bit of it.

What comes next does not belong in this thread, however I will say it as a rebuttal to your accusation of a grudge against Korath. For the record I don't have a problem with Korath, I have an issue with how you play all of your characters. You play to argue and put others players down in character, and you insist on there being double standards that benefit your characters (it's remarkably similar to how you approach any discussion). It took me a long time to realize that was your modus operandi, I kept wanting to see the best in you, and was looking for excuses why you should get a pass on how you played *Korath*.

Edited by EliasWindrider
Posted at
16 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

You are completely ignorant of the physics and design factors involved in vehicles. For example you repeatedly insisted I was wrong when I was correcting your extremely ignorant claim that volume could be measured in tons. Beyond having different units they have different dimensions . And since you don't know the significance of the units verses dimensions (proved by your repeated insistence that volume can be measured as a weight) it proves you have no basis for making any claims about the design of complex mechanical systems.

Have you ever heard of "induced requirements" or "secondary requirements"? Not core requirements but things that are needed to support the core requirements. A mech is a fighting machine, similar to a tank or fighter jet with a small period of operating time before it requires external support. It doesn't need much cargo for a core mission. For those kinds of vehicles, yes you could design them with "no" cargo, but I suspect they would still haul survival kits for their crew.But something like an aircraft carrier needs to haul spare parts and fuel for the planes it hosts (not to mention the parts and raw materials needed to repair the aircraft carrier itself). Anything whose mission involves extended deployment requires substantial cargo. That cargo is largely dependent on the size of the vehicle and the length of deployment (those two factors are also strongly correlated, you don't make something huge for short deployments). If you have a massive enemy that you need to destroy, it's faster, cheaper and more effective to kill it with a cruise missile with a suitably sized warhead rather than build a gigantic mech to fight it. Even missiles are "overkill" cost is while we're moving to hypersonic gauss cannons on big ships, and they're only restricted to big ships and fixed installations because of power requirements. Missiles are highly portable by comparison. Will we ever have mechs in real life, yeah probably but they won't get much bigger than tanks or construction vehicles for just that reason.

You can't have it both ways at the same time, the differences between Bastion's stats and ffg stats either matter or they don't, they can't both matter and not matter at the same time.

So which is it Mike, in you're opinion do the differences between Bastion's and fifa's stats matter or don't they.

if the differences between bastion's and ffg's stats are small enough not to matter, then ffg stats don't need to be corrected at all

if the differences between Bastion's and ffg's stats are large enough to matter, then that makes bastion's stats incompatible with ffg stats.

Those are the only two logically consistent positions on this issue. Double standards are inherently unfair and logically inconsistent.

But let's spot check those differences by comparing bastion vs ffg official stats for the YZ-775 (bastion first)

Speed 3 vs 2

Armor 3 vs 4

Handling -2 vs -3

Htt 45 vs. 34

Enc 400 vs 800

Passengers 14 vs 0.

Those are huge differences.

There is also a huge problem with your pre disney canon arguments. Namely that pre Disney there wasn't a single canon but multiple levels of cannon. And the multiple levels frequently contradicted with higher levels trumping lower levels. More importantly either later pre disney canon trumped the earlier pre Disney canon or it didn't get published without being corrected to conform to the earlier pre Disney canon that stuck. Thus the fact that pre-Disney Lucasfilm is the one who approved it completely defeats your argument, as would it being Disney canon, there is simply no way that you could be right on this issue.

Pointing out that you don't have to choose between fast ships and big ship with lots of cargo and passenger space and plenty of firepower or go outside RAW to get it is not starting or rehashing an argument. You could have taken that at face value without arguing every minutia bit of it.

What comes next does not belong in this thread, however I will say it as a rebuttal to your accusation of a grudge against Korath. For the record I don't have a problem with Korath, I have an issue with how you play all of your characters. You play to argue and put others players down in character, and you insist on there being double standards that benefit your characters (it's remarkably similar to how you approach any discussion). It took me a long time to realize that was your modus operandi, I kept wanting to see the best in you, and was looking for excuses why you should get a pass on how you played *Korath*.

First off, while the pre-Disney canon contained a hierarchy , it was still a single continuous timeline; a single history. What the tiers of canon did was establish a priority for when there was a contradiction . in which case the higher tier supersedes the lower. Otherwise everything was true. The different levels were not "different timelines".

As for the YZ-775, let's compare Bastion's stats and FFG's stats vs the original source materials: and see which is more accurate.

Quote

Model

YZ-775 [1]

Cost

  • 500,000 credits (New) [1]
  • 350,000 credits (Used) [1]

Technical specifications

Length

52 meters [1]

Maximum atmospheric speed

950 km/h

Hyperdrive rating

Backup Class 12 [1]

Shielding

Equipped

Navigation system

Equipped

Minimum crew

Passengers

Cargo capacity

400 metric tons [1]

Consumables

6 months [1]

Other systems

From SW Gamer #2:

Quote

Craft: YZ-775 Transport
Class: Transport
Cost:500,000 new 530,000 used
Size: Medium

Crew: 8 (skilled +4 )

Passengers 14

Cargo Capacity 400 Metric tons

Consumables 6 months

Hyperdrive: X1 Backup X12

Max Speed: Attack

Defense: 20

Shield Points 180

Hull Points 210

DR 15

Weapons: Turbolaser cannons (2 Fire Linked)

Fire Arc Partial turrets Front, Left, Right.

Attack Bonus: +10 (+4 crew, +6 Fire Control)

Damage 5D10x5

Range Modifiers: PB +0, S+0, M -2, L -4

Weapon: Twin Laser cannons (2)

Fire Arc: Turret

Attack Bonus: +10 (+4 crew, +6 Fire Control)

Damage 5D10 x5

Range Modifiers: PB +0, S+0, M/L n/a

Weapon: Proton Torpedo tubes (2, 12 torpedoes each)

Fire Arc: Front

Attack Bonus +6 (+4 Crew, +2 Fire Control)

Damage 10D10 x2

Range Modifiers: PB +0, S/M/L n/a

From Dangerous Covenants:

Quote


SILHOUETTE 5 SPEED 2 HANDLING -3

Defense : Fore 1, Port 1, Starboard 1, Aft 1

Armor 4

Hull Trauma 34 System Strain 25
Hull Type/Class: Transport/YZ-775.
Manufacturer: Corellian Engineering Corporation.
Hyperdrive: Primary: Class 1, Backup: Class 1 2.
Navicomputer: Yes.
Sensor Range: Medium.
Ship's Complement: One captain, one pilot, one copilot,
two engineers, one cargo master, two gunners.
Encumbrance: 850
Passenger Capacity: 0.
Consumables: Six months.
Price/Rarity: 500,000/3.
Customization Hard Points: 2,
Weapons: One dorsal turret-mounted twin light turbolaser
(Fire Arc All; Damage 9; Critical 3; Range [Medium];
Breach 2, Slow-Firing 1).
One port and one starboard turret-mounted twin
medium laser cannon (Fire Arc Forward, Port and Aft
or Forward, Starboard, and Aft; Damage 6, Critical 3;
Range [Close]).
Two forward-mounted proton torpedo launchers
(Fire Arc Forward; Damage 8; Critical 2; Range
[Short]; Breach 6, Blast 6, Guided 2, Limited Ammo
8, Slow-Firing 1).

Bastions Stats:

Quote

SILHOUETTE 5 SPEED 3 HANDLING -2

Defense : Fore 1, Port 1, Starboard 1, Aft 1

Armor 3

Hull Trauma 45 System Strain 25
Hull Type/Class: Transport/YZ-775.
Manufacturer: Corellian Engineering Corporation.
Hyperdrive: Primary: Class 1, Backup: Class 1 2.
Navicomputer: Yes.
Sensor Range: Medium.
Ship's Complement: one pilot, one copilot,
one load master, five gunners.
Encumbrance: 400
Passenger Capacity: 14 .
Consumables: Six months.
Price/Rarity: 500,000/3.
Customization Hard Points: 2,
Weapons: One dorsal turret-mounted twin light turbolaser
(Fire Arc All; Damage 9; Critical 3; Range [Medium];
Breach 2, Slow-Firing 1).
One port and one starboard turret-mounted twin
medium laser cannon (Fire Arc Forward, Port and Aft
or Forward, Starboard, and Aft; Damage 6, Critical 3;
Range [Close]).
Two forward-mounted proton torpedo launchers
(Fire Arc Forward; Damage 8; Critical 2; Range
[Short]; Breach 6, Blast 6, Guided 2, Limited Ammo
8, Slow-Firing 1).

Which is more accurate to the source material ?

It's Bastion's . Bastion's version gives the ship the proper passenger capacity (14 passengers) and an Encumbrance equal to its capacity in metric tons. Also, a speed of three and handling of -2 is closer to the original speed of Attack speed (950 kmph) and crew rating of +4) Speed 2 is closer to Cruising speed from OCR.

Secondly, the differences between Bastions version and FFG's version are relatively small, except for the Passenger capacity and cargo capacity . Bastion's version has a somewhat higher hull trauma threshold (45 vs 34), and a little better speed and handling (3 vs 2 and -2 vs -3 respectively), but weaker armor (3 vs 4). The weapons are exactly the same, the Shields are exactly the same, the System Strain is the same, the number of crew is exactly the same (though different in configuration ), hyperdrive, navicomputer, Consumables, price, etc. All these are exactly the same. The differences between the Dangerous Covenants version and Bastion's version are minor enough to be considered variations of the same craft, just as there are two versions of the Consular Cruiser in the game, And both are perfectly usable. The question is which one is more accurate to the source material? And, for the record, th e YZ-775 has the same speed as the CR-90 (950 Kmph), according to their respective technical specs, and the CR 90 has a Speed of 3 . If two ships have the same top speeds as each other in their technical specs, then, logically, they would have the same speeds as each other in game specs. So, once again, Bastion's specs for that ship are more accurate than the specs in Dangerous Covenants .

Also, the differences in the DG version's Encumbrance to its original cargo capacity in metric tons clearly illustrates the inconsistencies with FFG's cargo capacities, particualry when you compare them with other ships, such as the YT-1300, CR-90, and Imperial I class Star Destroyer, and how their cargo capacities in metric tons compare to their Encumbrance ratings.

The YT-1300 has a cargo capacity of 100 metric tons but an Encumbrance of 165 ( 165% its capacity in metric tons). The YZ-775 has a cargo capacity of 400 metric tons , yet an Encumbrance (according to DG) of 850 ( 212.5% its capacity in metric tons). The CR-90 has a cargo capacity of 3000 metric tons , yet an Encumbrance of only 2500 ( 83% its capacity in metric tons). The Imperial I class Star Destroyer has a cargo capacity of 36,000 metric tons , yet an Encumbrance of only 15,000 ( 41.16% its capacity in metric tons) This applies to the IR-3F as well. The IR-3F has a cargo capacity of 180 metric tons , yet an Encumbrance of 1800 ( 1000% its capacity in metric tons).

How is any of this consistent? There is no consistency in how they measure ship encumbrance of any ship , and how it compares to these ships' cargo capacities in metric tons in the official Lucasfilm specs. So don't tell me that FFG's specs aren't arbitrary, and don't try to tell me that they're consistent. They are most certainly completely arbitrary , and completely in consistent. The numbers don't add up. They're all over the place. There is no rhyme, nor reason , to these cargo capacities. It's all completely random, and arbitrary . There was no research done. They just put in whatever numbers they wanted regardless of what the original sources said, with no real conversion formula. Regardless of whether Encumbrance is a measure of weight, volume, shape, or some combination thereof, there should be some consistent correlation between these ships' cargo capacities in metric tons and their Encumbrance ratings, and there is none. There is no correlation, no consistency, nothing. It's completely random and arbitrary .

And, for the record, the YZ-775 is a Legends only ship.

Posted at

Where are you getting this multiple timelines bit from? Regardless later pre-Disney canon either conformed to or superceded/trumped/overrided earlier pre-disney canon, so ffg stats for the YZ-775 and other ships trump those of earlier games even if they were released before the Disney buyout of Lucasfilm. Moreover following Disney era Lucasfilm's decision to formally eject legends from the official canon, there are no "proper"/canon stats for the YZ-775, ir-3f, etc. to contradict ffg stats for those ships. Your personal head canon adherence/interpretation of legends is as irrelevant to what ffg ship stats should be as the very professional looking vader fan film that Lucasfilm sued the creators of for profiting of their ip, yeah you can still find it on YouTube, and it's making money for Lucasfilm but it is in no way official. There is no reason why ffg should be adhering to legends. ffg gets to line item pick and choose what if anything to mine from legends subject only to approval by Lucasfilm.

Whether you like it or not, in ffg star wars encumbrance (and many other stats) strongly correlate with ship size. Whether you like it or not, whether it adheres to legends cargo/etc or not, that shows self consistency far greater than that was present in earlier iterations of the game, it also shows ffg at least an implicitly followed a system. If you're going to try to make a meaningful argument that ffg ship stats are self inconsistent, it can't involve any non canon numbers in it (no stats from previous games or legends novels or legends wookieepedia pages).

Btw, you didn't answer whether the difference between Bastion's and ffg ship stats mattered in your opinion. If the difference isn't significant there's no reason to use them. If the difference is significant it makes them incompatible. 11 hull trauma (34 vs 45) even after accounting for a point of armor difference; it's a difference of several hits from a heavy laser cannon. 3 vs 2 speed is also huge.

Edited by EliasWindrider
Posted at
21 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Where are you getting this multiple timelines bit from? Regardless later pre-Disney canon either conformed to or superceded/trumped/overrided earlier pre-disney canon, so ffg stats for the YZ-775 and other ships trump those of earlier games even if they were released before the Disney buyout of Lucasfilm. Moreover following Disney era Lucasfilm's decision to formally eject legends from the official canon, there are no "proper"/canon stats for the YZ-775, ir-3f, etc. to contradict ffg stats for those ships. Your personal head canon adherence/interpretation of legends is as irrelevant to what ffg ship stats should be as the very professional looking vader fan film that Lucasfilm sued the creators of for profiting of their ip, yeah you can still find it on YouTube, and it's making money for Lucasfilm but it is in no way official. There is no reason why ffg should be adhering to legends. ffg gets to line item pick and choose what if anything to mine from legends subject only to approval by Lucasfilm.

Whether you like it or not, in ffg star wars encumbrance (and many other stats) strongly correlate with ship size. Whether you like it or not, whether it adheres to legends cargo/etc or not, that shows self consistency far greater than that was present in earlier iterations of the game, it also shows ffg at least an implicitly followed a system. If you're going to try to make a meaningful argument that ffg ship stats are self inconsistent, it can't involve any non canon numbers in it (no stats from previous games or legends novels or legends wookieepedia pages).

Btw, you didn't answer whether the difference between Bastion's and ffg ship stats mattered in your opinion. If the difference isn't significant there's no reason to use them. If the difference is significant it makes them incompatible. 11 hull trauma (34 vs 45) even after accounting for a point of armor difference; it's a difference of several hits from a heavy laser cannon. 3 vs 2 speed is also huge.

And whether you like it or not, they don't match up with official Lucasfilm technical specs in the source material, much of which is still current canon , such as the YT-1300, Cr-90, and Imperial I Star Destroyer. FFG's cargo capacities do not match up with those ships either. So it's not just the YZ-775 and IR-3F which are flawed. It's with all of their ships. So the problem isn't just with Legends ships. Its with current Disney canon ships as well.

Posted at

Elias and Tramps don't you think you reached the the point where you better agree to disagree ?

Posted at
1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And whether you like it or not, they don't match up with official Lucasfilm technical specs in the source material, much of which is still current canon , such as the YT-1300, Cr-90, and Imperial I Star Destroyer. FFG's cargo capacities do not match up with those ships either. So it's not just the YZ-775 and IR-3F which are flawed. It's with all of their ships. So the problem isn't just with Legends ships. Its with current Disney canon ships as well.

The "And" you started your post with seems to indicate that you accepted conceded those statements were true. Thank you, for that.

However, the canon wookieepedia page for the YT-1300 has cargo capacity (2 different model specific cargo capacities actually) but neither the cr90 nor isd has canon cargo capacities. So I'm calling your bluff on that. Care to try again?

Btw if memory serves (because it came up when I was trying to use the nubian design collective rules to reproduce the cr90) the cr90 in eote core lists a range of crew, passengers, and cargo "depending on configuration" rather than a single value for each, so that would be a hard ship for you to use anyway.

Edited by EliasWindrider
Posted at
2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Elias and Tramps don't you think you reached the the point where you better agree to disagree ?

In this particular exchange, Tramp has been much more reasonable than usual. As in, provided that logical arguments are repeated sufficiently/ad naseum, they actually seem to be getting through to Tramp this time. They say that there is a first time for everything but I thought that it was something that I would never see (although I've spent many years trying to get him to be reasonable about anything, and I've known Tramp in real life since circa 2004, met him at church in Amherst, new york, a suburb of Buffalo while I was getting a PhD at the University at Buffalo, the reason why I haven't walked away from these discussions is if a logical argument was ever able to convince him to see another viewpoint is it would change his life, actually there are two of these discussions I have walked away from, there wee two times my patience hasn't outlasted his stubbornness).

Anyway, this represents huge character growth on Michael Trampert's part, so, because of the evidenced character growth, I don't think this discussion should be cut short. Btw in case you're wondering, if you follow any of the cgi images he posts in the numerous pbp threads they'll take you to his deviant art page which lists his full name so he hasn't been hiding his identity (no new info was released). And my name is Keith Dalbey (so not revealing anything about him that I'm hiding about myself).

Edited by EliasWindrider
Posted at
On 9/28/2019 at 5:35 PM, EliasWindrider said:

The "And" you started your post with seems to indicate that you accepted conceded those statements were true. Thank you, for that.

However, the canon wookieepedia page for the YT-1300 has cargo capacity (2 different model specific cargo capacities actually) but neither the cr90 nor isd has canon cargo capacities. So I'm calling your bluff on that. Care to try again?

Btw if memory serves (because it came up when I was trying to use the nubian design collective rules to reproduce the cr90) the cr90 in eote core lists a range of crew, passengers, and cargo "depending on configuration" rather than a single value for each, so that would be a hard ship for you to use anyway.

The CR 90 and ISD have official listings for their cargo capacities. Those same listings appear in current sourcebooks, and visual dictionaries, so those numbers are still canon. As for the YT-1300, that cargo capacity is the standard for both the YT-1300 F and YT-1300 FP. These are considered the "standard" for the YT-1300.

And, no, the "and" in my previous post does not indicate concession of anything.

Posted at
On 9/29/2019 at 12:16 AM, EliasWindrider said:

Anyway, this represents huge character growth on Michael Trampert's part, so, because of the evidenced character growth, I don't think this discussion should be cut short.

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And, no, the "and" in my previous post does not indicate concession of anything.

I don't think there are any absolute rules, but I think character growth is supposed to last for more than a day.

Posted at
5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The CR 90 and ISD have official listings for their cargo capacities. Those same listings appear in current sourcebooks, and visual dictionaries, so those numbers are still canon. As for the YT-1300, that cargo capacity is the standard for both the YT-1300 F and YT-1300 FP. These are considered the "standard" for the YT-1300.

And, no, the "and" in my previous post does not indicate concession of anything.

Which specific "current canon" source books and visual dictionaries are you referring to? You seem to have a broader definition of canon than Lucasfilm.

Edit: I checked and visual dictionaries released prior to 2014 are non-canon, and original trilogy visual dictionaries don't seem to have been released since then, there is a visual encyclopedia though. So yeah you made a patently false statement, of course it's possible you meant to say "visual encyclopedia" when you said "visual dictionaries" that offers a chance at redemption. There also seems to be one other canon book

Star Wars: Aliens and Ships of the Galaxy

That might contain the cr90 isd info your claiming. So the plural on "sourcebooks" is likely also false (I suppose a random factoid could appear in a book on a different topic).

Given the very limited number of canon sources where the info could have come from, it's highly unlikely that the wookieepedia page is missing canon cargo capacity considering the other info that is there.

So yeah, given your history of false statements, your credibility is pretty shot, and I don't trust that you wouldn't lie about a which source you snapped a pic from.

Edited by EliasWindrider
Posted at
21 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Which specific "current canon" source books and visual dictionaries are you referring to? You seem to have a broader definition of canon than Lucasfilm.

Edit: I checked and visual dictionaries released prior to 2014 are non-canon, and original trilogy visual dictionaries don't seem to have been released since then, there is a visual encyclopedia though. So yeah you made a patently false statement, of course it's possible you meant to say "visual encyclopedia" when you said "visual dictionaries" that offers a chance at redemption. There also seems to be one other canon book

Star Wars: Aliens and Ships of the Galaxy

That might contain the cr90 isd info your claiming. So the plural on "sourcebooks" is likely also false (I suppose a random factoid could appear in a book on a different topic).

Given the very limited number of canon sources where the info could have come from, it's highly unlikely that the wookieepedia page is missing canon cargo capacity considering the other info that is there.

So yeah, given your history of false statements, your credibility is pretty shot, and I don't trust that you wouldn't lie about a which source you snapped a pic from.

They've published and released new editions of the Visual Dictionaries and Encyclopedias for the new canon, including a Complete Visual Dictionary (pub 18 Sep 2018) covering everything up through Epsiode VIII. Among other things, it includes technical specs and cutaways for the ISD and CR-90, among others.

Posted at

Does the 2018 contain cargo for the cr-90 and isd?

Posted at
8 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Does the 2018 contain cargo for the cr-90 and isd?

I am loath to bring this up, but if you guys are going to discuss cargo as an absolute numerical stat, how about start by comparing, roughly, how many of a certain object, let's say backpacks, you can store in a given cargo hold if you measure by weight, volume or FFG's nebulous encumbrance rating.

I'll sit here and wait for my point to make itself.

Posted at
2 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I am loath to bring this up, but if you guys are going to discuss cargo as an absolute numerical stat, how about start by comparing, roughly, how many of a certain object, let's say backpacks, you can store in a given cargo hold if you measure by weight, volume or FFG's nebulous encumbrance rating.

I'll sit here and wait for my point to make itself.

Wasn't planning to, but I'm pretty sure the number doesn't appear in the source he's citing because 1) I'd expect it to be on the wookieepedia canon pages if it did and 2) he would probably have said it was there already, but he's been trying to dance around the statement. Tramp is usually pretty precise when he thinks he has evidence to back up what he is saying.

Posted at
9 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Wasn't planning to, but I'm pretty sure the number doesn't appear in the source he's citing because 1) I'd expect it to be on the wookieepedia canon pages if it did and 2) he would probably have said it was there already, but he's been trying to dance around the statement. Tramp is usually pretty precise when he thinks he has evidence to back up what he is saying.

My point is, as far as RAW goes, a backpack is -4 encumbrance, making it kind of interesting how much encumbrance a backpack full of backpacks are. Or you know, if you want to fill your cargo hold with bricks, would it take less or more encumbrance if you packed them into backpacks first?

Point is, FFG's cargo capacity is semi-abstract and takes into account nebulous stuff like accessibility and not just mass and volume. Meaning that any comparison to stats that only takes mass and/or volume into account is therefore flawed. I mean, considering how FFG handles encumbrance, adding a good shelving system to your cargohold might actually increase it's encumbrance capacity compared to just hauling a bunch of stuff in a pile on the floor, despite you actually reserving less mass/volume for cargo.

So yeah, any point Tramp raises regarding cargo capacity is as pointless as the rest of his arguments, so feel free to just don't bother with them.

Posted at
On 10/2/2019 at 7:22 AM, penpenpen said:

I am loath to bring this up, but if you guys are going to discuss cargo as an absolute numerical stat, how about start by comparing, roughly, how many of a certain object, let's say backpacks, you can store in a given cargo hold if you measure by weight, volume or FFG's nebulous encumbrance rating.

I'll sit here and wait for my point to make itself.

Canonical Star Wars ship technical specs, as used in all of the technical source books such as the Visual Dictionaries, all use metric tons for cargo capacity. In other words, cargo capacity is measured by weight only.

Posted at
24 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Canonical Star Wars ship technical specs, as used in all of the technical source books such as the Visual Dictionaries, all use metric tons for cargo capacity. In other words, cargo capacity is measured by weight only.

That's fine. Now to the specific question. Do any of the canonical sources specifically mention the cargo for the ISD out the CR-90?

Posted at
Just now, Jareth Valar said:

That's fine. Now to the specific question. Do any of the canonical sources specifically mention the cargo for the ISD out the CR-90?

"out" the CR-90? I don't get the question.

If you mean how a CR-90 fit inside the ISD, that's the hangar, not the cargo hold.

If you're asking about if the canon sources list the actual cargo capacities for those two ships, yes, they do. The CR-90 is listed as having a cargo capacity of 3000 metric tons, whereas the ISD is listed as having a cargo capacity of 36,000 metric tons. IF you're asking exactly what specific cargo each carries, of course not. That's because the cargo a given ship loads and unloads changes regularly, and no two ships even carry the same cargo at any given time. what these sources give is the maximum cargo capacities for these ships.

Posted at

"Or" not "Out"

3,000 metric tons seems a bit... high for the CR-90. Especially when you compare it to the Encumbrance capacity of 3,000 in this system. Are your numbers skewed on that, or did someone goof? I don't think that the CR-90 would have the cargo space for it.

I'm no expert on weights of ships, but could those numbers have been the weight of the ship itself? 3,000 tons is approximately 1,000 F-150s. Did you mean 300 tons?