Jump to content



Photo

Dead in the Water Question


  • Please log in to reply
39 replies to this topic

#1 evanger

evanger

    Member

  • Members
  • 242 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:44 PM

It appears the adventure that ships with the GM screen repeats a common "factual error" with respect to the EF76 Nebulon-B frigate.

 

With regard to whether these craft were ever supposed to have internal hangar bays or not, I seem to recall some kind of error (maybe even as far back as the WEG days) that incorrectly started the rumor of the Nebulon-B having internal bays, when scale studies (with the Falcon docked on Redemption's central spar) seem to suggest otherwise.

 

redemptionfalcon.jpg

 

Even the AoR core rulebook seems to split the difference on this issue, saying that yes, the Imperial version of the Nebulon-B does carry starfighters, but only 2 squadrons, mounted externally on the central spar. This works for TIEs (and is a concept repeated with the more recent Gozanti-class cruiser), but would not work for any Rebel craft.

 

Anybody recall where this "Nebulon-B internal hangars, yes or no?" issue first cropped up?

 

 



#2 KRKappel

KRKappel

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:06 PM

As the guy who wrote the adventure, I would point at a few sources. The two I relied on most heavily, of course, were West End Games' Far Orbit Project (which has a number of deckplan images for the Nebulon B Frigate, and both versions of the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, which mention interior landing bays, as well as the spar's docking ports. The X-wing series of video games also allowed Rebel Fighters to launch from the Neb Bs, which would be less likely to work with a docking tube, due to their particular cockpit design. I did look over several other sources as well, including the most recent Complete Vehicles from DK books, which also mentions hangar bays for TIE Fighters being a former feature, since that image is specifically of the medical frigate.

Consider that the Nebulon B Frigate is a modular craft, particularly in the forward hull. If you look closely at the forward hull, the modular container style pods are about 3 decks high each, with some variance, attached along a bracket that runs the height of the ship. I imagine these can be exchanged at a shipyard to achieve a container load out for a custom purpose, be it starfighter interdiction/escort, medical, communications, light destroyer, scoutship, and I'd imagine even more. The Neb B in ESB is generally known as a medical frigate, and as a result, it may have a design that is without a hangar.


  • Donovan Morningfire, LethalDose, copperbell and 9 others like this

Official Contributor: Edge of the Empire: Suns of Fortune, Far Horizons, Age of Rebellion: GM's Kit, Stay on Target, and Force & Destiny: Core Rulebook

Follow me @KRKappel, facebook, and my author site. Co-founder Fandom Comics


#3 Hedgehobbit

Hedgehobbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:17 PM

If the CR90 can have an internal hanger, the Neb should be able to as well.

#4 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 919 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:50 PM

Most of the people who claim they can't have internal bays overestimate how much space such a bay would take IMO. In history there have been much smaller ships have carried fighters internally, and Star Wars fighters don't require nearly as much space to launch as historical fighters.

 

The Long Island class Escort carriers from World War II were less then half the length of a Nebulon-B but carried 16 fighter or fighter bomber craft in an internal hanger with more then twice that being stored in the flight decks..


  • KRKappel likes this

#5 KRKappel

KRKappel

    Member

  • Members
  • 309 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:07 PM

So I used to work on a US Aircraft carrier. The USS Theodore Roosevelt is 332 meters, give or take. That is only 82 meters longer than a Neb B. We carried 80 aircraft. The F/A 18 Super Hornet is 17 meters long. The X-wing is 12.5 meters long. Just in case you are looking to put a real-world take on things. Granted, this was split between the flight deck and internal hangar, but still.

However, if, at the end of the day, Star Wars to you means a Neb B with no internal hangar bays, then have at it. It's your table, so you do whatever feels right. But if you want to go by canon, as far as I'm concerned (and apparently LFL also, as they approved it), the ship has internal hangars as well as spar docking ports for larger ships. If you can find a source that specifically says they don't have internal bays, I would be fascinated to read it.


  • Doc, the Weasel, LethalDose, Ghostofman and 3 others like this

Official Contributor: Edge of the Empire: Suns of Fortune, Far Horizons, Age of Rebellion: GM's Kit, Stay on Target, and Force & Destiny: Core Rulebook

Follow me @KRKappel, facebook, and my author site. Co-founder Fandom Comics


#6 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 04:02 PM

Anybody recall where this "Nebulon-B internal hangars, yes or no?" issue first cropped up?

 

Honestly, I don't think it's an issue.  X-wings are smaller than YT-1300, and we don't get a good look at the size of the Falcon compared to Nebulon-B's fore and aft superstructures.

As to where it started, at least back in the early 90's.  WEG's "Rebel Alliance Sourcebook" (1994) states the Neb-B has "the capacity to carry up to two starfighter squadrons into battle." (pg. 60), and they had a similar capacity in the "Rebellion" game from 1998.

 

That's canon enough for my tastes.  If you have scale studies that suggest otherwise, I'd invite you to cite them.  But remember that even estimates about the size of the Falcon have varied substantially between sources over the years.
 

IIRC, the Neb-B also had a number of separate configurations (Medical frigate and escort carrier being two notable examples).  The different configurations could be a possible explanation for what you describe as an "issue".  The Empire may simply prefer using external racks because it better suits how TIEs dock, which leaves more internal space for other systems.  The rebels may prefer internal bays for a similar reason: they're better suited to house Alliance fighter craft.

 

Maybe the Falcon could have berthed inside the frigate it's shown attached to, but the bays were full of fighters, or that specific frigate was configured to not have internal bays.  /shrug.

 

Like I said above, I don't think it's an issue overall.


Edited by LethalDose, 07 August 2014 - 04:04 PM.

  • Doc, the Weasel and KRKappel like this

"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#7 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 919 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 04:27 PM

Yeah its specifically mentioned that the frigate in questioned sacrificed much of its hanger space, along with many weapons, for more space to add medical facilities in its Wookieepedia page.


  • LethalDose likes this

#8 Doc, the Weasel

Doc, the Weasel

    Pretending to be many, many things.

  • Members
  • 1,645 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 05:25 PM

I'm still waiting for the outrage over the book showing Bespin as orange, instead of grey/white.


  • Ghostofman, kaosoe and AceSolo5 like this

Listen to my actual play podcasts at BeggingForXP.com.

 

Take a look at my Talent Trees (Edge of the Empire and Age of Rebellion), YT-2400 deck plans for the Lazy Bantha, as well as my other handouts.


#9 AceSolo5

AceSolo5

    Member

  • Members
  • 46 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 01:18 AM

WHAT?? Well colour me outraged
  • Col. Orange and PartTimeGamer93 like this
Keep calm &... I don't know,fly casual!

#10 evanger

evanger

    Member

  • Members
  • 242 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 09:51 AM

Good discussion.

 

I like (thematically) the idea of internal starfighter hangars, but I was under the impression that wasn't the case for this vessel. As I mentioned, I also seem to recall this being a flip-flopping point of contention in the past.

 

 

Any ideas why the adventure appears to disagree with the AoR Core Rulebook (which specifically mentions the TIEs mounted externally along the spar)?

 

 

I am onboard, to some degree, with the analysis of the Nebulon-B being highly configurable, and I can see the scaling info with regard to real-world fighter planes on a real-world aircraft carrier and the space required, etc. The Neb-B is adequately sized to carry the 24 smaller ships, I guess. Launching and recovery would likely take very little additional space (tractor beams and repulsorlifts).

 

I personally feel this ship is a bit small to carry a complement of starfighters internally; it is a picket-type support ship, not a carrier-type capital ship. Also, the Alliance favors hyper-drive equipped craft which usually don't need to be carried.

 

 

As a side note, I appreciate the fact the adventure author is gracious enough to chime in (I don't mean to be too nit-picky here!). I am just befuddled about what is the correct situation. I hope my comments aren't construed as overly critical, as I don't mean to be negative. Thanks for the background on your sources, too. Very interesting.

 

 

 

For my part, I try to keep the following George Lucas quote in mind (even though it irks me a bit, being a physics and math guy): "Star Wars isn't about answers."


  • kaosoe likes this

#11 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:53 PM

I like (thematically) the idea of internal starfighter hangars, but I was under the impression that wasn't the case for this vessel. As I mentioned, I also seem to recall this being a flip-flopping point of contention in the past.

 

 

Any ideas why the adventure appears to disagree with the AoR Core Rulebook (which specifically mentions the TIEs mounted externally along the spar)?

Is the justification that the Rebels and the Imperials prefer different configurations an insufficient answer?


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#12 Ghostofman

Ghostofman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,602 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:32 PM

The "problem" with the Neb-Bs size stems from that you can actually measure it's "true" length in the films. If you use the window that Luke and pals peer out of at the end of Empire, you can use that to generate a scale and get a fairly accurate measurement, which comes out to around 300ft, not 300 meters. In all likelyhood when someone wrote one of the early fluff bits they actually got this measurement about right and listed it in feet, but as Star Wars is a metric universe, the editor just changed it to meters without adjusting the math. That established the size, and it's been reprinted as 300m ever since.

 

So the issue of how many craft you think it carries depends on if it's super bloody important to you that everything match the films perfectly.

 

If it's important, then the Neb-B is smaller then a CR90 corvette and probably can't carry a squadron of fighters.

 

If you're ok with it being 300m long, then as Mr. Kappel points out, it's got more then enough space for a dozen or so fightercrafts, and maybe even a TIE/sh or two.


MAGIC HEADPHONES PROTECT ME FROM THE SPACE!


#13 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 919 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:29 PM

Its also possible that the original was supposed to be 300 meters, and the model maker was the one who had feet and meters mixed up. Though honestly this is far from the only case where a craft's official size doesn't fit with what we see on screen in Star Wars. If memory serves isn't the Falcon's interior bigger then the official size of the ship?


  • kaosoe likes this

#14 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:33 PM

Its also possible that the original was supposed to be 300 meters, and the model maker was the one who had feet and meters mixed up. Though honestly this is far from the only case where a craft's official size doesn't fit with what we see on screen in Star Wars. If memory serves isn't the Falcon's interior bigger then the official size of the ship?

The Falcon is a freakin' TARDIS!!!


"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#15 Ghostofman

Ghostofman

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,602 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:03 PM

Its also possible that the original was supposed to be 300 meters, and the model maker was the one who had feet and meters mixed up. Though honestly this is far from the only case where a craft's official size doesn't fit with what we see on screen in Star Wars. If memory serves isn't the Falcon's interior bigger then the official size of the ship?

Yep, tha'ts also part of the problem with the Neb-B actually. The falcon docked model was just the falcon model they had, not a special one custom built to match the Neb-b scale.

 

Personally I think this is issue is sorta like arguing that all Stormtroopers carry thermals, or is the E-11 a blaster rifle, or a carbine...


  • kaosoe likes this

MAGIC HEADPHONES PROTECT ME FROM THE SPACE!


#16 Kallabecca

Kallabecca

    Member

  • Members
  • 870 posts

Posted 08 August 2014 - 08:40 PM

It appears that the original source material is missing due to the change in the Star Wars site, but:

 

"The resulting model was 247 centimetres (97 in) long, 99 centimetres (39 in) tall, and included a "window" where a still from the scene in the medical bay could be inserted for filming.[2][3] Following the completion of filming, Lucas decided to revisit the end of the movie to better establish the characters' final locations, requiring a section of the frigate to be built that corresponded to the scale of the 2-foot (0.61 m) Millennium Falcon model.[2]"

 

So, using measurements from the movie will be messed up since the model's scale was readjusted after filming to work better with a 61cm model of the Falcon.


  • Ghostofman, KRKappel, RKBrooks and 1 other like this

#17 evanger

evanger

    Member

  • Members
  • 242 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 10:20 AM

 

I like (thematically) the idea of internal starfighter hangars, but I was under the impression that wasn't the case for this vessel. As I mentioned, I also seem to recall this being a flip-flopping point of contention in the past.

 

 

Any ideas why the adventure appears to disagree with the AoR Core Rulebook (which specifically mentions the TIEs mounted externally along the spar)?

Is the justification that the Rebels and the Imperials prefer different configurations an insufficient answer?

 

 

 

Sure. It could be an answer, but I don't think the "evidence" agrees.

 

I don't actually care about this tidbit as much as this thread implies, but....

 

I take the "...externally along the spar" comment to be an indication of the lack of internal hangar space. Or at least an indication from the CRB writers that they aren't sure about where the TIEs are supposed to go.

 

I realize that my inferences drawn from such a minor sentence fragment are not entirely justifiable, but dragging externally mounted ships through hyperspace seems less "ideal" than carrying them inside a protected (environmentally controlled) hangar space.

 

Why? TIE repairs or refits while the Neb-B is underway, for one. Any ships larger than this don't carry their TIEs that way, so I am led to believe it is not the optimal or preferred carriage method.

 

Carrying ships externally could likely shave a few seconds off launch times, but such a piggy-backing arrangement seems an unnecessarily inconvenient arrangement if you had the option for internal hangars (fitted with TIE racks).

 

 

Good points about the scale of models used in filming. We likely can't "learn" all that much from a careful study, frame-by-frame, of movie props. I am convinced George Lucas doesn't care as much about this subject as we appear to (and I think that is true across the width and breadth of the Star Wars universe). He is/was looking to make a cool Space Opera story, not build a fully-formed alternate reality of hard Sci-Fi. The fact that the Star Wars canon almost works this way is incredibly remarkable.

 

 

As another side note, the CR90 that supposedly has been retrofitted to carry starfighters has additional "pods" installed that fill in the empty space between the engineering section aft and the hammerhead bow, if I recall correctly.



#18 LethalDose

LethalDose

    Member

  • Members
  • 782 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 10:52 AM

The following sentence should not be taking as mocking:

 

LOL TIE Repairz!

 

Seriously though, there's evidence that the Imperial Navy has a pretty "disposable" mindset when it comes to equipment.  I honestly doubt they'd spend much effort repairing damaged TIEs, and probably handle maintenance in more amenable situations (e.g. stations or the bays of larger vessels).

 

It may be that internal bays just aren't an option for the TIEs.  Remember, they have those big launch clamps:400px-Av10.jpg

 

I agree that keeping the TIEs in internal bays would be easier, but maybe it's just easier to mount TIEs outside the ship given the size constraints of a Neb B.

 

Really, it's all conjecture about fiction anyway.  You can choose to continue to see it as contradictory, or you can choose to accept there's a good reason for the rebels and the Imperials to carry the vessels in different ways.


  • kaosoe likes this

"All models are wrong, but some models are useful."  - George E. P. Box


#19 BadMotivator

BadMotivator

    Member

  • Members
  • 235 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 12:19 PM

Most of the people who claim they can't have internal bays overestimate how much space such a bay would take IMO. In history there have been much smaller ships have carried fighters internally, and Star Wars fighters don't require nearly as much space to launch as historical fighters.

 

The Long Island class Escort carriers from World War II were less then half the length of a Nebulon-B but carried 16 fighter or fighter bomber craft in an internal hanger with more then twice that being stored in the flight decks..

 

While that is true, at the same time those ships were completely given over to being Carriers.

 

Presumably, a Nebulon-B wouldn't be in the same boat and would only have a small bay with enough for a couple fighters/freighters.

 

Some space is also going to be taken up by spare parts, servicing equipment, and munitions for the fighters in question. And comparing the Falcon to the Frigate will give us an idea of how much space could be given over to Hangers. Not a ton if you wanted to maintain other capabilities.

 

A dedicated carrier will be able to carry more fighters for its size than a ship which only has a small docking bay.

 

IE: You have 2 identical ships, one being a dedicated carrier and another only having a small hanger bay taking up 20% of its volume. If the carrier can carry 100 fighters, that doesn't mean the other ship will be able to carry 20, it will have to dedicate proportionally more of the hanger space to support equipment and might only have half as many fighters.

 

This is because the second ship needs a bunch of space for its primary armaments and other systems. While a dedicated carrier would strip those out in favor of some compact fighter storage in addition to the hangers themselves.


I am the lag on your server! I am the cluster of dead pixels! I am the rattle in your engine! I am the friction in your bearings! I am the wearing down of your joints! I am the crick in your neck! I am the cracked gasket! I am the short circuit! I am the corroded fluid duct! I am the imperfect weld! I am entropy!

 

I am the Bad Motivator!


#20 evanger

evanger

    Member

  • Members
  • 242 posts

Posted 11 August 2014 - 01:16 PM

In my opinion, this is a proper internal hangar configuration for a massive ship (or a superweapon!). Space to move around in; breathable atmosphere, the tech can work without a spacesuit, etc. etc.

 

13+TIE+Fighter+Hanger.jpg


  • kaosoe likes this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS