Ok, so we have the following vehicles/ships:

Size 2 (Let's say Cloud Car) armed with a pint mounted Auto-Blaster.

Size 4 (Let's say Luruxy Yatch) target

Size 7 (Let's say Vindicator) armed with a turret mounted Auto-Blaster

They are all at close range.

The Cloud Car has a 1P dificulty to attack the Yatch.

The Vindicator has a 4P dificulty to attach the Yatch.

It's the same weapon! Firing at the same target at the same range.

I can understand if you are considering that the weapons are all fixed mounted. The vindicator would take a lot more time and effort to maneuver to bear the target, while the Cloud Car would do it easily. But with turret mounts?

What do you guys think?

Cheers,

It's not just how the weapon is mounted, but also the sheer size difference between the various ships.

Silhouette is both a measure of how big a given vessel is, but also an abstract measure how maneuverable it is in comparison to ships of different Silhouette categories.

To the Cloud Car, the space yacht is a much bigger target, it'd be akin to a human using a pistol to shoot at a moving 18-wheeler from 30 feet away.

To the Vindcator, the space yacht is a much, much smaller target, it'd be akin to that same human using a pistol to now shoot at a moving mouse from 120 feet away.

Also bear in mind that this game is NOT about realistic combat simulation, either in character scale or vehicle scale. Combat is abstracted quite a bit in this system, requiring the players and GMs to be more creative in describing how a combat scene would go.

Another point is with smaller ships, you're either sitting right on top of the cannon, or near it (allowing you to use windage to line up your shots); whereas in a larger starship you're probably sitting at a console on the bridge (and all your data is coming from a monitor).

Narratively speaking, a missed result from a larger ship could mean the smaller ship moved beyond a cannon's firing arc, either because that arc is limited, or the turret moved to such a degree that the larger starship would have to fire through itself in order to hit the smaller ship.

Other example:

Size 4 (Let's say Luruxy Yatch) target

Size 5 (Let's say CR90) armed with Light Turbolaser

Size 7 (Let's say Vindicator) armed with Light Turbolaser

The CR90 and Vindicator are at medium range of the Yatch.

The CR90 has a 2P dificulty to attack the Yatch.

The Vindicator has a 4P dificulty to attach the Yatch.

They are firing the same weapon, at the same target at the same range, doing the same damage. Speed of the target is irrelevant in this case.

Extreme case:

Size 7 (Vindicator) as target

Size 8 (ISD) armed with Heavy Turbolaser

Size 200 (Death Star) armed with Heavy Turbolaser

The Vindicator is at Long range of the ISD and Death Star.

The ISD has a 2P dificulty to attack the Vindicator.

The Death Star has a 4P (or more!) dificulty to attach the Vindicator.

If the universe worked by those rules, no one would build ships larger than the minimum size needed for that weapon. Trade Federation with millions of those small droid fighters would have ruled the whole galaxy. Fighters would be Kings and the whole point os space combat was to deploy more fighters to the battlefield.

As a suggestion, I think a way to fix this illogical part of the game, when firing, use the minimum weapon size silhouette. So a Heavy Turbolaser cannon always fire "from" a size 6. So the "emplacement" is a size 6.

Cheers,

In the CRB is a point about turrets in anti-fighter configuration that are treated as 1 silhouette less.

Such turrets get rather are on bigger ships since they were designed to smash the big ships.

SDs are there to transport troops, turn freighters and battleships into ash, and leave the fighter-fighting to the launched TIEs.

Medium ships for fleet screening and fighter-protection would be the Lancer-class Frigatte, the IPV or the VT-49 Decimator.

But yes, i would flat-out give turret(-batteries) in anti-fighter configuration a silhouette of 4, so that they can do their job.

Size 4 (Let's say Luruxy Yatch) target

For future reference... Its yacht. A yatch is something else entirely...

Rogue and rouge?

I said this earlier in the thread, but it bears repeating....

Also bear in mind that this game is NOT about realistic combat simulation, either in character scale or vehicle scale. Combat is abstracted quite a bit in this system, requiring the players and GMs to be more creative in describing how a combat scene would go.

So if what you're expecting realistic combat out of this system, you're doomed to failure from the start. Combat in this game is an abstract . This is not d20 or Rolemaster or BattleTech or Starfleet Battles or any other tactical-based game system where everything is measured out in exacting detail. The Silhouette system itself is an abstract, as ship sizes in the Star Wars universe can vary wildly.

It's not bad game design on FFG's part, but rather a consequence of opting for a system that is more narrative friendly over one that requires maps and measuring tape.

Narratively, it could be described as thus. Remember that rounds are around a minute and when shooting you probably aren't just taking one shot, but several, represented by a single roll:

You are in a turret below the Millenium Faclon going after the Yacht. Your relatively small ship's pilot is easily keeping your belly mounted turret in the right place to get a shot lined up often.

You are in a turret on the side of a Star Destroyer. Every once in a while the small Yacht zips past and you try to quickly get a snap shot off.

Narratively, it could be described as thus. Remember that rounds are around a minute and when shooting you probably aren't just taking one shot, but several, represented by a single roll:

You are in a turret below the Millenium Faclon going after the Yacht. Your relatively small ship's pilot is easily keeping your belly mounted turret in the right place to get a shot lined up often.

You are in a turret on the side of a Star Destroyer. Every once in a while the small Yacht zips past and you try to quickly get a snap shot off.

Sure, but what you are describing is difference in speed, not size. And if the Star Destroyer is firing from long range, the Yacht (thanks!) did not have time to close yet for the zipping.

I know the combat is abstract. And I'm perfectly happy with personal combat way to do it. I just think it is strange to change the system when going to vehicle scale.

On personal scale combat, the base difficulty of the shot is the distance. I really liked how they managed to do that independent of weapon type. Very clever.

On vehicle combat, the base difficulty is the size difference. And that makes the same weapon firing from a larger vehicle to do less damage on the same target at the same range. For me that makes no sense.

It would make more sense to me if the base difficulty of the shot was speed difference. Smaller silhouette craft would (more likely) have better acceleration (and speed) and be more difficult to hit.

Cheers,

Trust the Force Statistics!

True, the big ships have a harder time hitting on any single shot, but they make up for that with the number of times they get to shoot.

That Vindicator in the first example isn't just armed with one auto-blaster, it's bristling with them. That means the guns either get to enjoy the benefit of minion groups (which adds yellow dice), or the GM gets to make multiple rolls against the target.

Try rolling 2G vs. 4P ten times. I'll bet odds are pretty good you'll hit at least once. You'll even stand a decent chance of scoring multiple hits.

Sure, but what you are describing is difference in speed, not size. And if the Star Destroyer is firing from long range, the Yacht (thanks!) did not have time to close yet for the zipping.

Its a narrative system. Think back to what we saw in the large space battles in Episodes II, III and VI. The large ships, even if they were possibly moving fast, appeared to be almost static relative to the smaller ships. Imagine what a gunner on the side of one of those capital ships would see compared to an ARC-170 rear gunner. Lots more opportunities to line up shots for the smaller craft. Its not speed, its mobility. The smaller ships have much more mobility to quickly pivot and bring their guns on target.

Imagine a large sailing ship with cannons along its sides. Imagine an individual cannon trying to line up a shot on a small yacht. Even if the cannon can pivot a bit, the opportuntiy to get a shot off at a mobile yacht circling in the water will only come from time to time. Now imagine even a non-pivoting cannon in a row boat sticking out one side. The number of shots its gunner could get off at the yacht would only be limited by reload time. Many more opportunities to be on target versus the larger ship. More opportunities equates to more shots equates to a higher chance of a hit within one minute of time.

Right, but what if the Cannon is firing from the side of a fort on a island? What size is the island?

Cheers,

So, to use a RL example, the CIWS on a carrier is less effective than the CIWS on a DDG? I don't think so.

Right, but what if the Cannon is firing from the side of a fort on a island? What size is the island?

Cheers,

If it's a single cannon, protecting a small outpost, I'd give it a low silhouette. If it's a battery of cannons, I'd give the entire group a silhouette proportional to a similarly armed ship.

So, to use a RL example, the CIWS on a carrier is less effective than the CIWS on a DDG? I don't think so.

I think it's a comparison of tactical-apples vs. narrative-oranges.

In the games, when a small ship performs a flyby of a Star Destroyer, the big ship gets to fire off multiple guns at its target. In RAW, that translates to several misses and one or two hits; and narratively, that gets presented as a hail of blaster fire with one or two connecting shots. The survivability of of the small ship hinges on the luck of those multiple long-shot rolls. If those multiple rolls were "fair," the small ship would be vaporized every time .

If 1 roll of 2G 4P has approx a 25% chance of scoring a hit,

then 10 rolls of 2G 4P have a 95% chance of scoring at least one hit (and with luck, more)

And assuming minion groups of 5:

2 rolls of 2Y 3G 4P have a 90% chance of scoring at least one hit (with the potential for more net success)

The probabilities work themselves out in the end.

Now I can totally understand reworking space combat to be more tactical, if that's what your table would prefer. But with those reductions in large-ship difficulties, there ought to be a similar reduction in the number of cannons a large ship can use in a single round of attacks. Otherwise, they will decimate anything that comes into range.

So, to use a RL example, the CIWS on a carrier is less effective than the CIWS on a DDG? I don't think so.

easy houserule solution: use speed, not size, for target difficulty. Makes TIEs and X-Wings tougher, has no impact on most cap ships versus each other, plus makes more overall sense.

So, to use a RL example, the CIWS on a carrier is less effective than the CIWS on a DDG? I don't think so.

it actually is... marginally... do to inferior positioning on the carrier's hull. Plus, the enhanced radar of the ÆGIS system makes handoffs to the CIWS slughtly better quality.

easy houserule solution: use speed, not size, for target difficulty. Makes TIEs and X-Wings tougher, has no impact on most cap ships versus each other, plus makes more overall sense.

GURPS does this, but in two charts. One for size (bigger targets are easier to hit than smaller) and a second that is speed + distance. A fast, but close target is about as easy to hit as the same sized target farther away but moving slower.

Rogue and rouge?

One is a description of a person's character, the other is makeup that you put on your cheeks.

I tried a witty wordplay on Ghostofman'S comment about yacht and yatch.

In the CRB is a point about turrets in anti-fighter configuration that are treated as 1 silhouette less.

[snip]

But yes, i would flat-out give turret(-batteries) in anti-fighter configuration a silhouette of 4, so that they can do their job.

Thanks, that does at least help.

Trust the Force Statistics!

True, the big ships have a harder time hitting on any single shot, but they make up for that with the number of times they get to shoot.

That Vindicator in the first example isn't just armed with one auto-blaster, it's bristling with them. That means the guns either get to enjoy the benefit of minion groups (which adds yellow dice), or the GM gets to make multiple rolls against the target.

Try rolling 2G vs. 4P ten times. I'll bet odds are pretty good you'll hit at least once. You'll even stand a decent chance of scoring multiple hits.

I'm away from my book right now. Does it provide any rules/suggestions for how many shots/what size Minion Group should be used on different vessels?

.

Trust the Force Statistics!

True, the big ships have a harder time hitting on any single shot, but they make up for that with the number of times they get to shoot.

That Vindicator in the first example isn't just armed with one auto-blaster, it's bristling with them. That means the guns either get to enjoy the benefit of minion groups (which adds yellow dice), or the GM gets to make multiple rolls against the target.

Try rolling 2G vs. 4P ten times. I'll bet odds are pretty good you'll hit at least once. You'll even stand a decent chance of scoring multiple hits.

I'm away from my book right now. Does it provide any rules/suggestions for how many shots/what size Minion Group should be used on different vessels?

I'm away from my book right now. Does it provide any rules/suggestions for how many shots/what size Minion Group should be used on different vessels?

I think that's a difficult thing to consistently rule on, due to circumstances varying by encounter. In some situations your big ships might be there to do some real damage. In others, they might just be background noise, scoring a hit here and there while the smaller ships have their dogfight.

As a baseline, I'd probably group minions until the number of greens/yellows equals the number of purples/reds. If I wanted to be more sure of a hit each round, I'd add minions to that group; if I was looking to create just some narrative flak, I'd dial the the minion count back.

As far as number of attacks, I'd let the rolls determine that. If I scored a hit on the second shot, then I'd just have the remaining attacks either target other ships (if I was going for narrative flak) or focus on the same target (if I'm really trying to take that one ship down). In actual play, I probably wouldn't use the 10-shot example I created above. Nobody wants to sit around and watch the GM play with his dice.

I'd probably use a few, large minion groups to simulate focused fire and numerous, small groups to simulate flak (probably not to exceed the number of fighters in range).

This subject was discussed sometime ago in the EotE forums (I think).

In my opinion they should abandon the comparison of silhouettes between vehicles, it gives rise to odd situations as the ones described here, or for example, which is the silhouette of a Land turret mounted Turbolaser?

I neat fix would be to have each weapon come with a predetermined silhouette which must be compared with the target vehicle, I think HappyDaze did already a pretty consistent list with this option.

Cheers,

Yepes

This subject was discussed sometime ago in the EotE forums (I think).

In my opinion they should abandon the comparison of silhouettes between vehicles, it gives rise to odd situations as the ones described here, or for example, which is the silhouette of a Land turret mounted Turbolaser?

I neat fix would be to have each weapon come with a predetermined silhouette which must be compared with the target vehicle, I think HappyDaze did already a pretty consistent list with this option.

Cheers,

Yepes

Or, as someone suggested before, use speed as difficulty. After all, the logic behind silhuette comparison is that smaller and faster vessels are hard to hit. So let fast vessels be hard to hit. Stationary speeder bike should be easy to hit even for turbolaser targetting computer.

Some mods like Diff. -1 when target is attacking or rynning away or -1 at short range (and +1 for Turbolasers at short range), and we have easy system without any new tables ..

Narratively, though, it does sorta stay in line with what we've seen in the movies. If the Death Star's anti-fighter/anti-ship batteries had been effective, there never would have been a need to launch fighters to fend them off.

This isn't a case of modern naval battles, where fighters represent a projection of firepower (due to range and standoff weapons). I'm not actually sure what modern analog X-Wings and TIE fighters fill, but in universe they exist to counter each other, and when not countered, provide a weapons platform that is marginally effective (at best) against larger ships. They're a threat that can't be ignored (thus the counter), but only a threat in numbers or specific situations (Death Star).

I think there's a good precedent for this to be the norm.