Jump to content
Eagle128

Super Star Destroyer discussion thread

Recommended Posts

are you sure about that there seems to be a lot of uncertainty in the thread about how big it is.

 

19000 meters is still pretty big. That's like 1/2 a marathon, or 11 times as long as an imperial star destroyer, do you realize that?  i don't think you guys realize how big that is. how would it balance?  i think the best way to put it on the table is to have it "spike" vertical style.  the "underbelly" would be lighter armored and softer, like bubblegum, and all the guns would be on the 'hard top'.  that way if you maneuver around to the 'belly' you could strike at it kind of like the exhaust port for death star, only bigger. 'get it in the guts' hehehe.  then again why would the empire only armor the top side not the belly, oh well i guess when you make a ship 1900 meters long you only have enough iron for one side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I never got into balance, but I can add my points on that too, and again, its that people are cannon-whores. It has to be like 3 feet long and the rebels cant have something similar. Guess what, maybe its still a secret, but the Raider is a homebrew from FFG, and Disney gave it the OK. Go play Rebellion ($6 on gog.com), they gave the Rebels a ship of similar power, not as good, but the point being they made it up. Yes, the Bulwark Battlecruiser was ugly, designed poorly, and really not worth using. But they tried and it was good enough. Since Disney is likely loving the free Star Wars R&D done by FFG, I imagine they will be OK with any ideas they come up with. My guess is something clone wars era, maybe older even, that was the SSD of its time. It will be something more like the Dauntless Cruisers in Rebellion or CIS ships in clone wars. I expect it to be roughly 1/2-2/3 the size of a SSD model, so slightly large than my assumed ISD sizes, giving the rebels something large, with decent firepower to fight back, and probably carrier oriented to offset its own physical weakness compared to a SSD.

 

As for balance I assume the points of anything larger than an ISD will solve the issue. I do not see the SSD or anything similar before wave 4, maybe 5, well after FFG has really fleshed out the normal fleet options. Add in that I expect an epic format points limit to weigh in at minimum 1000pts it will mean they can give the SSD a cost of 600+ points for the one ship allowing the rebels to really fill out their lists with the many larger ships to needed to balance things out (going to also guess on this something like 4 large moncals and 6ish squadrons will be similar in points and be a fair opponent power-wise). I am thinking points are where people are getting lost on this idea, thinking it will all have to fit in just a few hundred for the game, but xwing went from 100-300 by adding a CR90 which is WAY more deadly to the fighters it faces than a SSD would be to a even 1 mon cal.

 

Also, got to point out, the people who keep saying the thread is dead are not getting that they themselves are still weighing in on the topic. Dead and slowed are not the same....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would take 144 x-wings nose to aft to equal the same length. A SSD is 19000m, or the length of just under 11 ISDs. How is this even a comparable argument?

If an ISD is 8-9 inches which most seem to think it is. Then a properly sized SSD is 88-99 inches or between 7-8 feet long. Which is clearly to large for a 3x6 table. I trust you can see the issue inherent in that.

So as I said, a 15 or 16" SSD would be MASSIVE, require careful maneuvering and look cool. Seriously, what is wrong with having a SSD that isn't 3 feet long?

Simple, it's no longer a real SSD, it's a big ISD. If you're happy with that, fine. But that does not mean everyone else will accept a big ISD.

and dont compare an x wing ISD to the x wing CR 90.

Why not? It's the best thing to compare it to, since both Epic X-Wing and Armada use a sliding scale. Yet in X-Wing even with a sliding scale, they still felt the ISD is too large to fit in. So the two things are completely comparable.

The only reason to deny that would be because of the damage it does to your argument.

But does that matter as long as it is the biggest thuthing on the table?

Because once again, for some/many/most of us, a "SSD" that's only twice as large as a ISD is not really a SSD. It's a pathetic excuse for a SSD and we'd be better off with nothing rather than a SSD pretender.

That is of course all a matter of opinion, but it is apparently one that FFG shares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the Raider is a homebrew from FFG, and Disney gave it the OK.

Which simply gives further weight to the No SSD argument. They couldn't make an ISD fit into X-Wing, despite thousands of posts on why they could and should include one.

So they made up something completely new, that was a compromise, a semi-ISD shaped ship that's 150m long. That means the most FFG would do, is make some sort of Huge ISD, something that is say 2500m or so, with a model that's 12-15 inches long. Not a miniature version of the Executor, but something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

are you sure about that there seems to be a lot of uncertainty in the thread about how big it is.

 

19000 meters is still pretty big. That's like 1/2 a marathon, or 11 times as long as an imperial star destroyer, do you realize that?  i don't think you guys realize how big that is. how would it balance?  i think the best way to put it on the table is to have it "spike" vertical style.  the "underbelly" would be lighter armored and softer, like bubblegum, and all the guns would be on the 'hard top'.  that way if you maneuver around to the 'belly' you could strike at it kind of like the exhaust port for death star, only bigger. 'get it in the guts' hehehe.  then again why would the empire only armor the top side not the belly, oh well i guess when you make a ship 1900 meters long you only have enough iron for one side.

 

Yup quite sure.

 

at 19,000 m = 19 km = 11.8 mi

 

an ISD is ~ 1600 m (or 1 mile) so there are approximately 12 ISD's to equal 1 Executor in length.

 

And as others have said...its just too big to field on the table if the scales are fixed between ships.

Edited by Glovebait

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But using your argument, an ISD isnt an ISD unless its x10 a Cr 90. How come nobody is complaining of the lack of scale there? A ISD has way more fire power than a corvette, but i highly doubt that it will throw more than 10 dice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeless,

 

You must have missed the earlier scale threads. Lots of us did argue about that. But once the model came out, the argument ended. Those of us who still have problems with it are going to replace it with in scale proxies. Im planning to replace it with a two ship model so the expenditure of power suggested by the dice actually reflects something realistic to the model representation.

 

 

Im at work now, and cant address the reply to my post on SSD balance the way it deserves, but in essence, that sill wasn't really a good argument for it. Too much divergence from the topic at hand. I grade college papers for a living, so some of these wandering tangents are making my head hurt.

Edited by Thalomen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with you on this Eyeless. This "discussion" isn't really going anywhere. Perhaps we need to split into two threads. Those who are interested in discussing the SSDs possible inclusion from a game play and just for fun perspective, and then a thread for... to be nice about it, everyone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeless,

 

To a degree. But that still assumes its going to be released...

 

Anyway, to your main SSD post.

 

First, number of guns, accuracy and computer targeting. You suggest that the guns are slow, cant be well aimed, enemy ships will be maneuvering, they cant all be aimed etc. Not all of that is true. Episodes IV and VI in the battle scenes clearly establish very accurate targeting targeting computers. Also, its clear the range of these guns go many many thousands of miles. We can deduce that the targeting computers are taking into account leading the targets, maneuvers, etc. I don't find that a realistic reason to reduce the accuracy of the guns. If is ship is just "many kms away" it should be within a targeting sweet spot where the guns are most accurate. ROTJ didn't reflect that for plot reasons, obviously, but a realistic weapons system would.

 

You said the fighter compliment was irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree. That the SSD is, in part, a fleet size fighter (aircraft) carrier, is part of what an SSD is. That must be taken into account in designing a representation of that ship. If you want the ship in the game, you need to reflect its nature. Not to do so means it will not be the Executor. It will look like it, but it wont be it.

 

From them on, you go into a discussion of scale based on the dice output of the CR-90. Here again, I think you are making a huge mistake. I think the CR-90 is exponentially overpowered. If you look at the battle scenes in the movies they most clearly resemble WWII naval battles. As such, comparing ships classes from those two paradigms is the most productive.

 

The CR-90 most closely resembles and functions like a WWII Destroyer Escort. To accurately get the power output that the CR-90 has in the game, the stand should really have 2 or 3 ships operating together. I would further argue it should not have long range guns. Looking at a destroyer escort (DE) you can see the power plant, size of the ship, etc, restricts ammo storage, gun placement, etc. The same types of problems must exist on a fictional ship to make it realistic. What kind of power plat does a CD-90 have that powers those massive engines AND powers battleship guns on a DE body?

 

So.... to make the pro-SSD argument for the pro-SSD side, here is how it would be done.

 

First, rather than class the bases sizes as small, medium and large, you class them as escort, cruiser and battleship/carrier sized stand. While still a little vague to allow for variety, it more clearly give the idea of size as well as role of the ship on it.

Next, no ship on the escort stands would have anything other than close range guns. That forces the use of the ship be used

in a realistic role. Escorts would also be two to three ships on each stand, reflecting fighting in a squadron like they did historically. Cruiser sized ships would have close and mid ranged, one ship per stand, battleship/carriers would get all ranges also at one ship per stand. In the real world, cruiser rarely had guns larger than 8 inch guns. They, like escorts, were never really intended to take on battleships, so they wouldn't have the heavy guns.

 

That leaves only battleship class ships carrying battleship type weapons. Mon Cal MC-80s facing off against ISDs at long range, with the smaller ships zipping in and out fighting each other as reflected in the movies. To get the SSDs in, you add a larger base, say dreadnought sized. This would only be for epic play. The dreadnoughts could have an increased range, call it "extreme range," that out strips even the battleships. That would reflect its increased power output, much the same way a battleships 16. 17 or 18 inch guns (such as on the Yamato) far out-ranges an escorts 5in guns or a cruisers 8 or 9 inch guns. You might also change the 1/3 rule for fighters, revising it to 1/2 for the increased carrying ability of the dreadnought type.

 

Here again, we get more realistic ships with specific roles to be filled in the Armada. More over, scenario possibilities are increased. You could use real world examples, such as the hunt for the Bismarck, the battles of Leyte Gulf and such as templates for ST Armada campaigns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game has a sliding scale... so there's no reason not to include it.  Make it bigger than an ISD.   That's all you need to do.   It might be a little big, but it'll look fabulous.   Look at Star Trek Attack Wing's Deep Space 9, or the huge Borg Cube?   They are magnificient!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeless,

 

To a degree. But that still assumes its going to be released...

 

Anyway, to your main SSD post.

 

First, number of guns, accuracy and computer targeting. You suggest that the guns are slow, cant be well aimed, enemy ships will be maneuvering, they cant all be aimed etc. Not all of that is true. Episodes IV and VI in the battle scenes clearly establish very accurate targeting targeting computers. Also, its clear the range of these guns go many many thousands of miles. We can deduce that the targeting computers are taking into account leading the targets, maneuvers, etc. I don't find that a realistic reason to reduce the accuracy of the guns. If is ship is just "many kms away" it should be within a targeting sweet spot where the guns are most accurate. ROTJ didn't reflect that for plot reasons, obviously, but a realistic weapons system would.

 

You said the fighter compliment was irrelevant. I wholeheartedly disagree. That the SSD is, in part, a fleet size fighter (aircraft) carrier, is part of what an SSD is. That must be taken into account in designing a representation of that ship. If you want the ship in the game, you need to reflect its nature. Not to do so means it will not be the Executor. It will look like it, but it wont be it.

 

From them on, you go into a discussion of scale based on the dice output of the CR-90. Here again, I think you are making a huge mistake. I think the CR-90 is exponentially overpowered. If you look at the battle scenes in the movies they most clearly resemble WWII naval battles. As such, comparing ships classes from those two paradigms is the most productive.

 

The CR-90 most closely resembles and functions like a WWII Destroyer Escort. To accurately get the power output that the CR-90 has in the game, the stand should really have 2 or 3 ships operating together. I would further argue it should not have long range guns. Looking at a destroyer escort (DE) you can see the power plant, size of the ship, etc, restricts ammo storage, gun placement, etc. The same types of problems must exist on a fictional ship to make it realistic. What kind of power plat does a CD-90 have that powers those massive engines AND powers battleship guns on a DE body?

 

So.... to make the pro-SSD argument for the pro-SSD side, here is how it would be done.

 

First, rather than class the bases sizes as small, medium and large, you class them as escort, cruiser and battleship/carrier sized stand. While still a little vague to allow for variety, it more clearly give the idea of size as well as role of the ship on it.

Next, no ship on the escort stands would have anything other than close range guns. That forces the use of the ship be used

in a realistic role. Escorts would also be two to three ships on each stand, reflecting fighting in a squadron like they did historically. Cruiser sized ships would have close and mid ranged, one ship per stand, battleship/carriers would get all ranges also at one ship per stand. In the real world, cruiser rarely had guns larger than 8 inch guns. They, like escorts, were never really intended to take on battleships, so they wouldn't have the heavy guns.

 

That leaves only battleship class ships carrying battleship type weapons. Mon Cal MC-80s facing off against ISDs at long range, with the smaller ships zipping in and out fighting each other as reflected in the movies. To get the SSDs in, you add a larger base, say dreadnought sized. This would only be for epic play. The dreadnoughts could have an increased range, call it "extreme range," that out strips even the battleships. That would reflect its increased power output, much the same way a battleships 16. 17 or 18 inch guns (such as on the Yamato) far out-ranges an escorts 5in guns or a cruisers 8 or 9 inch guns. You might also change the 1/3 rule for fighters, revising it to 1/2 for the increased carrying ability of the dreadnought type.

 

Here again, we get more realistic ships with specific roles to be filled in the Armada. More over, scenario possibilities are increased. You could use real world examples, such as the hunt for the Bismarck, the battles of Leyte Gulf and such as templates for ST Armada campaigns.

This here is a productive argument.

I have spent 7 years in the US Marines, so i know big guns and what they are capable of.

When i argue about accuracy. I know that missles are the most accurate. Even now we can shoot a missile from hundreds of miles away and have it fly through a window to kill everybody in a given room, but not hurt anybody next door. But laser bolts are different.

A tank turret can do a 360 in about 8 secs. Its fast. But when youre shooting at a target 2000m awayand the target is moving. Its hard to hit. And we have technology to track and target and stuff. It works. But it cant account for crazy things people do.

Ships are always moving, for the most part, in naval battles. Likewise if i was a cpt of a Neb B or something up against a SSD, I would 1) try and hyperspace away only to realize there are Interdictors nearby 2)use superior manuvering to out run the SSDs guns. This does not mean, same speed, same heading. This means slowing and speeding up and loop de loops and all that jazz.

This means more work for the gunnery crews/computer which give me more time to get away. Yeah modern artillery guns can reliable hit an area target, not so much a point target. But if you have a shell that leaves a 100ft crater, you only need to hit 99ft away (speaking theoretically here). Yes the SSD has a lot of guns. But they wouldnt be aimed at the exact same point, but rather a ship sized area. Like I said, if you fire 100,000 laser bolts you will hit something. But I question the point target accuracy of something so large. Even with advanced technology.

ISDs carry quite alot of fighters too, but foghter rules are separate. This is mostly to keep things simple. If rules get to complicated it CAN be bad. But if you would care to give a sample of rules it could possibly have, which fit in armada, I'd give you feed back.

Yes the CR 90 is over powered when compared to everything else. But that wont change. I do like your idea or escorts and carriers and such, but its also to late to change that. Its a neat idea. But we cant redesign the game around the SSD. BUT we can try and use the armada system to find a working compromise for the SSD. I think the system allows for a SSD to fit in for reasons i and others have said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This game has a sliding scale... so there's no reason not to include it.

There's a sliding scale for X-Wing Epic ships... Yet we'll never get a ISD there.

 

And we'll never see one in Imperial Assault either, because it doesn't belong.   However a massive ship like the SSD does belong in a game about massive ships like Armada.  Especially when the ISD is only slightly bigger than the Victory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However a massive ship like the SSD does belong in a game about massive ships like Armada.

There's already plenty of massive ships in Armada, but more importantly there are massive ships that fit within established range of sizes that can fit on a table. Even with the sliding scale, a SSD is going to be 2.5 to 3 feet long, and that's getting a bit large for a 3x6 table.

Especially when the ISD is only slightly bigger than the Victory.

Expect that isn't actually true, based on everything I've seen the ISD is nearly twice the size of a VSD. The VSD is about 5 inches, the ISD is 8-9 inches. Which is about the correct scale size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think a 2ft mod is doable. IMO anything more than 20" is to big. I think the sweet spot is arpund 18". Which is considerably larger than the ISD which is the most important thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate puzzles me.  *Anything* added to Armada with the designation "SSD" would be so only in name.  The power of such a ship would be need to be toned down so far that it would not be a SSD as we know it based on canon.  Such a ship will not, and cannot, do the Executor (or any other SSD) justice.  

 

Ya'll should be honest and just say you want FFG to make up another ship (ala the Imperial Raider) that is bigger than an ISD, but is separate from the SSD class.  Otherwise you just spit on what the SSD is supposed to represent within the Imperial Navy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This game has a sliding scale... so there's no reason not to include it.

There's a sliding scale for X-Wing Epic ships... Yet we'll never get a ISD there.

 

And we'll never see one in Imperial Assault either, because it doesn't belong.   However a massive ship like the SSD does belong in a game about massive ships like Armada.  Especially when the ISD is only slightly bigger than the Victory.

 

 

 

ISD = 1600 meters, VSD = 900 meters. Only a 700 meter difference.

 

SSD = 19,000 meters, ISD = 1,600 meters. That's a 17,400 meter difference. Go head, start sliding the scale. It will look stupid and I'll sell all my Armada stuff if they ever release one.

Edited by Jo Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eyeless,

Thanks! I appreciate your remarks and your credentials. While I dont have the same as you, I am a PhD student specializing in naval history 1875-1945.

I understand what your saying about the targeting. Ships will zig-zag, go evasive, lay smoke screens and a hundred other things. Your right. However, Clearly the tech in SW is far far beyond anything we have today, it being "a long time ago," aside. Like wise, I think the kinds of targeting systems that kind of civilization could bring to the equation would be orders of magnitude more accurate than any real life counterpart. While I stand by my WWII comparisons for ship types, capabilities based on size, and tactics, I do think a wide berth has to be given for unknown parameters of extremely advanced tech.

As for sending out sample rules for possible fighter loads, I'll let you know if I follow through with it. Honestly, I was just trying to make a por-SSD argument that was better than the "I want it!" argument so many of your pro-SSD compatriots are making. I think most of my suggestions would work, even though it is home brewing the crap out of the rules. I will probably do it when my game group gets familiar with Armada as it stands. Ill let you know how it works out if you like. I'll be proxy-ing the models either way.

Please excuse misspellings and typos. Im down to one wrist today due to a sprain and my typing is suffering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Im not saying that technology wouldnt help guns be more accurate. But you would know that defensive technologies develop to counter offensive ones. We got radar them stealth. Better radar better stealth. Plate mail armor, crude muskets. Bulkier armor to stop slugs, better bullets.

Im sure the same thing is happening in SW. The empire has the best tech, so the rebels work around it. So maybe the rebels have some target jammer transmiter thing that make guns less effective at 19km....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Im not saying that technology wouldnt help guns be more accurate. But you would know that defensive technologies develop to counter offensive ones. We got radar them stealth. Better radar better stealth. Plate mail armor, crude muskets. Bulkier armor to stop slugs, better bullets.

Im sure the same thing is happening in SW. The empire has the best tech, so the rebels work around it. So maybe the rebels have some target jammer transmiter thing that make guns less effective at 19km....

Thats a good point. I could see DE stand ships getting some kind of benifit for being at extreme range, conducting evasive manuevers and being high at speed. Espcially if some kind of jammer is established.

And also, at a certain range 18 inch guns on a BB just become decoration, such as when a DE or DD get in so close as to fire a torpedo spread for example. Speaking in WWII terms, of course. So, in my home brew rules BB and DN size stand ships would not have close range weapons, not because they can't fire short range, but because the explosive yield of the weapon would cause damage to the ship as well as the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...