Jump to content

Dusk Raven

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Dusk Raven

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Dusk Raven

    Why the large crew sizes?

    Something that's happened IRL as well - a nation inflating its military just to provide employment and establish power at the same time. That sounds really interesting, however when I click on it the forum gives me a message: "This attachment is not available. It may have been removed or the person who shared it may not have permission to share it to this location." Anyway, I actually looked up the Iowa-class myself, although Wikipedia didn't list how many crew they had. I instead found a crew listing for the Essex-class carrier, also used in WWII. As Wikipedia states, "The original design for the class assumed a complement of 215 officers and 2,171 enlisted men. However, by the end of World War II, most crews were 50% larger than that." This for a ship a little over 250 meters long. Doing that research finally gave me an idea of the sheer scale of some Star Wars ships. This is an aircraft carrier, one of the largest ships on the sea today, and a Nebulon-B Frigate is bigger than it, to say nothing of how colossal a Star Destroyer must be. The Lambda-class, at least, has a breakdown of what each of the crew does. "One pilot, one co-pilot, one navigator, one gunner, one comms operator, and one engineer" makes a fair amount of sense (although I'd personally have the pilot/co-pilot do navigation and replace the dedicated navigator with a "commander" position, but that's just me). As for the consumables, I figured that was 60 days for one person, and thus you'd divide that by the number of people aboard.
  2. Dusk Raven

    Why the large crew sizes?

    Part of it does indeed seem to be the nature of Star Wars itself, and how utterly unexplored some avenues of tech are, like automation. In Legends at least, the reason for the lack of automation was due to the Katana fleet debacle, where they had a 200-strong fleet of special Dreadnaughts modified through automation so that they had half the crew size... only to have the entire fleet's crew wiped out by a "hive virus," with the fleet's commander sending the entire fleet off in a random direction, causing the entire fleet to be lost for decades. So that kind of killed interest in large-scale ship automation. On top of that, droids and AI seem to be less effective (en masse, anyway) in Star Wars than one would think given the technology - you would think battle droids would have much greater reflexes and precision than the clone troopers they fought against. A more realistic setting (when it comes to automation, anyway) would probably have greatly reduced crew sizes.
  3. So, something I've noticed about Star Wars ships is that there are a lot of people on-board. A C90 Corvette needs 30-165 "depending on configuration" but that seems odd compared to the older Consular-class cruiser which is only slightly smaller but needs far fewer crew. The Lancer Frigate (according to the AoR core book) requires a crew of 800, for a ship 250 meters long. A Nebulon-B Frigate is slightly longer and requires slightly more crew. The Dreadnaught is 600 meters long and takes an absurd "9,000 to 16,000" depending on configuration, and an Imperial Star Destroyer (at 1.6km long) has an incredible 37K people aboard. Now, I don't know very much about the crews of IRL ships, and the crew numbers of Star Wars capital ships may simply be extrapolations based on current warships and scaled up for the size, but... I gotta wonder, what do all those people do on a starship? I don't know what running a giant starship involves, but given the sheer number of crew, I'm kind of curious...
  4. Well, my friend described it as designed to work with the same setting as Legacy of Dragonholt, hence my confusion. I'm perfectly happy to use it for a fantasy setting, of course.
  5. These two in particular. Also, I will note, the last time I heard of a female character who was big-breasted and generally "got around" in my vicinity (as in, among the people in my area who game)... the player themselves was female. Such behavior is not entirely dependent on one's IRL gender. I believe all of us here agree that such behavior should be frowned upon in gaming in most cases... the issue seems to be that banning players from playing the other gender is overreaching and doesn't really fix the problem. I mean... I don't feel good helping to sidetrack it, but it happens to be something I have thoughts about. And I'm notoriously unable to keep my thoughts to myself.
  6. Someone had told me that FFG had released a system that was very much like Edge of the Empire et al, but they didn't know the name. I guess that's Genesys? I will indeed investigate. I admit I had assumed it was for a specific fantasy setting, but I'm pleased to hear that I'm wrong. I will investigate immediately!
  7. It seems to have worked out fine in this game, at least. As for the next adventure... my first instinct is a mission where the consequences for disobedience are immediate and dire... but then of course, you have to prepare for the possibility that they press the proverbial big red button. ...So, dire, but not actually lethal. Say, stealing a ship and piloting it to specific coordinates using a specific flight plan - failure to do so results in crashing the ship in a jungle, or perhaps getting the authorities on their tail due to stumbling into a sensor sweep. In this instance, it's not even their employer who punishes them, but the circumstances of their mission. The lesson there is "If you had trusted me when I told you to jump, you would have dodged the blade swinging at your ankles and been fine." Sorry for being super abstract, it's difficult for me to come up with concrete plans quickly.
  8. Heretical, perhaps, but I'm strongly considering it for my own adventures with FFG's Star Wars RPG. It's not that I don't like Star Wars as a setting, it's just... well, this is a setting I've been working on in some fashion for most of my life (has it been 15 years? 16? I really can't remember) and I really want the chance to run it. And, after considering my options, I've decided that Edge of the Empire et al. is the best system for it. ...Besides, I really like EotE. Anyway, I've been doing a bit of homebrewing, and I wanted to ask if anyone else had undertaken such projects - and if I could expect any support if I posted about my efforts on here. After all, this is a Star Wars RPG - would it be taboo to use it for anything other than Star Wars?
  9. There's been a lot of discussion on this thread in a short period of time, but I want to say two things: The Star Wars movies have always been driven more by narrative demands rather than internal logic, or at least internal technical details. This basically means that "things are the way they are because it's what the writers want." In fact, FF's Star Wars RPG mimics that by allowing Destiny Points to change the game on the fly, and generally encouraging players and GMs to do what's cool or what would make a good story, rather than adhere by strict realism or rules. This of course means that any attempts by fans to make sense of it (ie. trying to figure out the maximum speed of an X-Wing in KPH) is basically them imposing a sense of consistency and detail onto a setting inspired by movies that simply do not have such logic. This is not a criticism of Star Wars or of the RPG (in fact I love the latter's ability to be flexible), but a lot of the times the answers to questions of "why" or "how" is "because the writers said so." It's not the fact that there are unrealistic things in the setting like (as mentioned earlier) wookies firing crossbows - those can be explained internally by any writer willing to do so. The issue is that Star Wars as a whole simply does not care about realism itself. Anyway, something else that was touched upon in this thread was that, essentially, the gulf between personal and vehicle scale is too big, a complaint I myself have. I've never liked how the largest personal-scale blaster in the core book deals 15 damage, and the weakest blaster on the vehicle scale deals 30 personal-scale damage. Meanwhile, given how poorly personal armor protects against blasters, I find it unlikely that an X-Wing could stand up to E-Web fire as well as the rules say it should. Meanwhile, if I want to throw an AT-ST at my players as a boss (like in the Star Wars Trilogy arcade game!), I'd like for them to have more options other than scramble around for a rocket launcher (which is still unlikely to do that much damage)... although I'd welcome creative terrain usage. If blasters are as powerful as the lore says they are, then you should be able to bring down an AT-ST with some heavy blasters, patience, and probably a lot of running for cover.
  10. Dusk Raven

    Slugthrowers: Pointless?

    Well, not quite infinite in a practical sense - while they will keep going until they hit something, they still take time to reach their target, during which time the target's position can shift (this happens even in atmosphere at long ranges), meaning you not only have to line up a shot just right, you also have to predict where the foe is going to be. Eventually you reach a point where there's just too many potential variables. And anything big enough to hit reliably at very long distances in space is something that won't be fazed by a slugthrower.
  11. Dusk Raven

    The whole Imperial Army thing...

    I thought the discussion was about ideological policies, not aesthetics. I'm not disputing the aesthetic associations, which is why I haven't actually disagreed with them at all - or talked about them. What I'm trying to say is in terms of policy - in terms of how the Empire affects the lives of its citizens - the original trilogy doesn't seem to have much to show. If there are such indications in the movies that I've missed, do let me know... but to me, the Empire was a very generic sort of evil. This isn't to say that the Empire didn't resemble the Nazis or their style, only that I couldn't see anything uniquely Nazi about them. Of course, I'm sure the comparison would have been more obvious to people in the 70s... Hypocrisy is often the order of the day when it comes to the corrupt, or to the extreme.
  12. Dusk Raven

    The whole Imperial Army thing...

    I am aware of the uniform design and of course, the origin of the Stormtrooper name. My main point is that beyond aesthetics that's not obvious in the movies themselves, and there's not really enough on the Empire in the movies themselves to say how similar they are in practice. I'm also aware of the inspiration for the current First Order. But, as someone who follows the Death of the Author school of thought to some extent, I'm primarily concerned with how things actually express themselves in the media. As a result, I'm not sure what I said was actually untrue within the context of the movies themselves. Also, to qualify the "military junta" comment - the prologue of the novelization of the original Star Wars novelization, written with the aid of some of Lucus' notes, gives insight into what the world of Star Wars was originally imagined to be: It's a bit different from the current world - it seems originally there was no ideology beyond long-broken promises, and the Empire (and the Emperor himself) were tools used by ambitious military officers and governors to achieve and keep power.
  13. Dusk Raven

    The whole Imperial Army thing...

    I would actually argue that some political ideologies do have rule of law as a goal - or rather, the goal is a society that is orderly (or more orderly than the present is perceived to be), and once achieved the goal is maintaining that society. The difference, I think, between order being a means and an end is semantic. Of course, even if you couldn't have order as a goal for some reason, that wouldn't anyone from trying to have it as a goal. Just because a goal is irrational or logically impossible doesn't mean people won't hold it as an objective. Of course the problem with ascribing fascistic traits to the Empire is that they are largely retroactive. When Star Wars came out, the Empire was just generically evil, with no more explanation than that given to a cartoon villain. The most we really see is the Emperor's off-screen dissolution of the Senate, and Tarkin destroying Alderaan. Otherwise, most of the sense of evil that a viewer gets is from the Empire's visual aesthetic and the personalities of its officers. Even the whole racist and sexist traits of the Empire is not even hinted at in the movies, and was likely invented after the fact to explain the Empire's utter homogeneity in its officers (although in the first movie the Rebellion was just as white, male (other than Leia), and human). This means that to really compare the Empire to fascism (as opposed to a simple military junta, which is what it was in the very early stages of the franchise's life), you need to look in the EU, which can be a bit... scattershot. Also, this. Of course, power is the kind of goal that can be both achieved, and lost. Once Palpatine came into power, his motivation was from gaining power, but the fear of losing it. Keeping power the kind of objective that can only be failed, never permanently achieved, so of course it demands constant action to maintain.
  14. I see, hadn't seen those before for some reason. It does look like they'd require quite a few talents as prerequisites, however. But still doable.
  15. Dedication talents? Hmm, not familiar with those.
×