Jump to content
immortalfrieza

C-ROC Gozanti-class Light Cruiser Vs. Consular-Class WTH?

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

 I've said the starship crafting rules already address that, even though the designers don't use them.

There are many posters here that have expressed in detail issues with the ship crating rules. They really do not work very well. There are entire threads that cover this in detail if you choose to look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

I guess I'm failing to see the stats as nonsensical. What prevents it from having the stats it does?

Other than size, primary role and lack of support in the lore of the SW Universe?

For instance, have you ever saw a Gozanti as primary supporting ship for multiple Star Destroyers?
Do you think freighter hulls are as sturdy as military vessel hulls? Or that their systems should take the same level of strain?
You think that a small ship could somehow have the room and power to carry the same amount of weapons than a ship 3-4 times it size and still be as good as the former?

18 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

No, we can compare to the other ships the writers have made without using the trash rules from FO and see how a given ship fits in the ranges offered. This is where we will see that the Gozanti is well on the extreme end of its size and role when it comes to HTT and SST. Comparing it to ships made using the system that outright fails to be able to recreate those ships (because that wasn't its purpose) does no good at all.

14 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

There are many posters here that have expressed in detail issues with the ship crating rules. They really do not work very well. There are entire threads that cover this in detail if you choose to look.

The problem is that your distaste for the crafting rules is making you blind to the small part of them I'm using to make my point.

  1. I've never said the crafting rules are perfect, I didn't even stated they are good. But they are a far more objective set of conventions to use than opinions.
  2. Since I don't have all the over 30 sourcebooks already released, and know every single ship already statted, I really don't think comparing stats is the best way to go.
  3. I really think that the frame classification, and consequently the stats that come with it, are a very good complement to the silhouette system, heck it is the only part of the whole crafting system that I consider to be good. and as
  4. Per 3, you don't even need the whole crafting system, just as @panpolyqueergeek, the idea behind these frames were already incorporated in the system from the start, so independent of the crafting rules, they area already there.

In the end it doesn't have much to do with the crafting rules, but with a concept that seems to be behind the stats most of the time (frame). You may not like it, but if you really starts comparing ships, you will reach the same conclusions.

Edited by nichendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

Other than size, primary role and lack of support in the lore of the SW Universe?

For instance, have you ever saw a Gozanti as primary supporting ship for multiple Star Destroyers?
Do you think freighter hulls are as sturdy as military vessel hulls? Or that their systems should take the same level of strain?
You think that a small ship could somehow have the room and power to carry the same amount of weapons than a ship 3-4 times it size and still be as good as the former?

I mean, in canon the Gozanti is a heavily armed freighter and cruiser that was used extensively by the Empire, flew in their fleets, and some were converted to carry TIEs. I think its stats are in-line with that role. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume some freighter hulls to be as sturdy as military hulls, especially when the freighter in question is also used by the military. I don't think it's unreasonable for freighters to be able to take the same level of strain. What ship are you comparing it to at 3-4x the size? And why couldn't a Sil 5 craft carry 5-6 weapons? How are you quantifying "as good as the former?"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

 You may not like it, but if you really starts comparing ships, you will reach the same conclusions.

and

14 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

Since I don't have all the over 30 sourcebooks already released, and know every single ship already statted, I really don't think comparing stats is the best way to go.

seem mutually exclusive and I'm very confused at how you expect us to come to the same conclusions that you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, nichendrix said:

In the end it doesn't have much to do with the crafting rules, but with a concept that seems to be behind the stats most of the time (frame). You may not like it, but if you really starts comparing ships, you will reach the same conclusions.

I do have all 30 or so books, and I have been comparing the stats of ships--what I consider the best option--for years, and I have certainly not reached the same conclusion as you. I have done this both for my own purposes and for playtesting. The crafting rules simply do not make ships that are much like the examples we have at all.

Edited by HappyDaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nor have I. The lack of consistency or sense in the starship rules is the greatest failing of this game, in my opinion. Its at least half the reason I bring up editioning the game now and then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

I mean, in canon the Gozanti is a heavily armed freighter and cruiser that was used extensively by the Empire, flew in their fleets, and some were converted to carry TIEs. I think its stats are in-line with that role. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume some freighter hulls to be as sturdy as military hulls, especially when the freighter in question is also used by the military. I don't think it's unreasonable for freighters to be able to take the same level of strain. What ship are you comparing it to at 3-4x the size? And why couldn't a Sil 5 craft carry 5-6 weapons? How are you quantifying "as good as the former?"?

They key word on your description is freighter, this is Gozanti's primary role, this is what it was made for. Yes, there are military versions of the Gozanti, as much as there are civilian versions of a CR90 Corvette, but a military Gozanti, as retrofitted as they might be, could not go so far from their original design as to become other ship entirely. Maybe an image showing the difference in size could help you understand what I'm talking about.

I've made this image comparing the standard Gozanti freighter (which is the base for the light carrier and have the same size), the C-ROC Gozanti and the Consular frigate. They are to scale up to 3 decimal points, so this is really the in universe difference of size between these 3 ships.

You don't need to think too much to understand that these ships are not the same size, and could not hope to have the same stats (or else the smaller one having better base stats than the really big one). It just doesn't make sense to assume these two ships can carry the exact same weapons, the exact same amount of hull plating and pretty much that they are equal in any kind of parameter you can come about. Just look the size of the Consular Twin Torbolasers combared to the size of the Gozanti.

Military Gozanti, as shown in SWU are patrol craft, they are used to go in combat against smugglers and pirates, maybe a small fighter group, but nothing more than that and the reason is simple, Gozanti's are not capital ships. Consulars were used on a much larger scale, they are in fact capital ships, They aree made to go against other capital ships, not against smugglers' transports or the average pirate vessel.

So yeah, it makes no sense to be that Consular's have HTT 46 STT 24 and Gozanti have HTT 50 and STT 36.

Size Gozanti vs C-ROC Gozanti x Consular Frigate.png

Edited by nichendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

and

seem mutually exclusive and I'm very confused at how you expect us to come to the same conclusions that you did.

Actually they aren't.

The core rules already states that there is a hull type (overall frame profile) and class ( the profile specific to that model). In the crafting rules, the first choice you have to make is choosing the frame profile, which would give the base Silhouette and statistics of the vessel. These two observation, despite coming from very different sources support one another and the idea that the role (or frame profile) should have a good influence on the ship's stats.

Going even further, this kind of classification and mechanical device in crafting rules is present in SW RPG for the past 30 years, for example, this is the frame profile for the crafting rules for stock ships used in the last core rule set released by WotC (Saga Edition). So this idea of having frame profiles isn't new, it's going around for the last 30 years or so. I find the most of the crafting rules on FFG system quite crappy, but this specific idea isn't and is quite useful as complement to the silhouette system, and even the profiles presented on the crafting rules kind of distinguish a freighter from a corvette or frigate of the same size, since in the FFG System the base HTT for a freighter should be around HTT 35, to a Corvette HTT 45 and to a Frigate HTT 80 (for Sil 6). This progression is far more reasonable and realistic than the ones we got.

Stock Ship Types.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

They key word on your description is freighter, this is Gozanti's primary role, this is what it was made for.

I mean, you can say "this is what it was made for" all you want, but CEC made it to be a multi-role vehicle. It's actually listed as a "Cruiser" in its model and class. Sounds like armor and hull and system strain and weapons would be important for a cruiser, or for a freighter that is meant to double as a cruiser.

15 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

You don't need to think too much to understand that these ships are not the same size, and could not hope to have the same stats (or else the smaller one having better base stats than the really big one).

Why not? I see no reason why the Gozanti can't have as many weapons as the Consular. Bigger does not always equal better. 

 

18 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

Gozanti's are not capital ships

Why not? They are Sil 5. That qualifies it to be a Capital Ship. FFG, CEC, and Wookieepedia all categorize it as a cruiser, which is a capital ship. I am inclined to agree and do not feel you have provided compelling evidence to the contrary. If you want to make it Sil 4 and nerf the stats for your own table, that is of course, your right.

But I think I'm done tenderizing this deceased equine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

These two observation, despite coming from very different sources support one another and the idea that the role (or frame profile) should have a good influence on the ship's stats.

No, they don't in the slightest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I do have all 30 or so books, and I have been comparing the stats of ships--what I consider the best option--for years, and I have certainly not reached the same conclusion as you. I have done this both for my own purposes and for playtesting. The crafting rules simply do not make ships that are much like the examples we have at all.

I hope my previous two posts have clarified what I'm talking about for you. But if not, here I go again...

The fact that the crafting rules could or could not generate the exact same stats of the stock ships is pretty much irrelevant to the comparison I've been making. The only thing in the crafting rules that is really of interest to this discussion is the idea of frame profiles, this idea is not exclusive to these crafting rules, it is around in SW RPG for the past 30+ years (I even show how it was used in the WotC Saga Edition). The frame profile idea and their influence on the stats is portrayed well enough in the crafting rules to serve as the base for this specific discussion, specially since it agrees and is consistent with over 30 years of SW RPG in multiple rule systems.

You may have all the books, but I don't, I can't draw an universally valid conclusion from the sample of books I do have, and sincerely, neither do you, since unless they use some rule and make it public, ships stats are completely arbitrary. Just look for the inconsistencies for the same ship in multiple books, the HWK-290 comes immediately into mind, since in some books it is Sil 3, others Sil 4.

That being said, since the beta edition of EotE, the idea that there is a hull type (overall frame profile) and class (the profile specific to that model) is present on the game, and this piece of idea is the only thing the crafting rules really got it right.

Well if I'm comparing ships in two different ways and both lead to the conclusion that despite the very wide range of sizes that is described in silhouette, there is a component of the stats that comes (our should come) from their overall frame profile, than I can safely assume that this is not only a valid concept but a rather objective one to use.

Like I've said, the specifics of the crafting rules are irrelevant to the idea of Frame Profiles and their influence on stats. You may disagree, but like I said this concept is around for 30+ years, so I would stick to it for the sake of consistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

I mean, you can say "this is what it was made for" all you want, but CEC made it to be a multi-role vehicle. It's actually listed as a "Cruiser" in its model and class. Sounds like armor and hull and system strain and weapons would be important for a cruiser, or for a freighter that is meant to double as a cruiser.

Why not? I see no reason why the Gozanti can't have as many weapons as the Consular. Bigger does not always equal better. 

 

Why not? They are Sil 5. That qualifies it to be a Capital Ship. FFG, CEC, and Wookieepedia all categorize it as a cruiser, which is a capital ship. I am inclined to agree and do not feel you have provided compelling evidence to the contrary. If you want to make it Sil 4 and nerf the stats for your own table, that is of course, your right.

But I think I'm done tenderizing this deceased equine.

Because not all silhouette five ships would even remotely qualify as a capital ship. A 43.9 meter long VCX-100 (such as the Ghost), or a 54.3 meter long YZ-900 are not capital ships by a long shot. They’re medium freighters. Yet both ships are silhouette five. Compare them to the 150 meter long CR-90 Corellian Corvette. That ship is also Silhouette five but is significantly larger and most certainly is a capital ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

I mean, you can say "this is what it was made for" all you want, but CEC made it to be a multi-role vehicle. It's actually listed as a "Cruiser" in its model and class. Sounds like armor and hull and system strain and weapons would be important for a cruiser, or for a freighter that is meant to double as a cruiser.

 

I think you're joking. Look at the size of these ships, look at how they are portrayed, look at the role they are portrayed. Just pick up any media and prove they are used for the same purposes, or that they are remotely comparable outside this instalment of SW RPG. There are no canonical or Legends material supporting your statement.
 

53 minutes ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

Why not? I see no reason why the Gozanti can't have as many weapons as the Consular. Bigger does not always equal better.

 

Gozanti can have as many weapons as you could pack in it, but size matters a lot in terms of what can be put on a vehicle or not. I can have an Aircraft Carrier with hangar bays full of fighter squadrons, but I could not fit them on a cruiser or figrate or freakin ferry boat. I can have a Civic push a small boat, but I can't have it tugging a a bunch of cars like a 18 wheeler truck. This is valid for real life and for the SW Universe.

The same goes for the weapons systems. A Gozanti with 5 medium/heavy laser canons, right, a pair of light Turbolasers, right, but a Gozanti with 6 medium/heavy Turbolasers, there's no way it will fit on a ship that small. It is not something on the line bigger is better, is just bigger you have the minimum amount of space to put this weapon system. Interestingly all previous installments of SW RPG were adamant in forbidding anything that was not a capital ship having turbolasers, even if they do have size to put it, because they are weapons used exclusively for capital ship to capital ship combat.

 

53 minutes ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

Why not? They are Sil 5. That qualifies it to be a Capital Ship. FFG, CEC, and Wookieepedia all categorize it as a cruiser, which is a capital ship. I am inclined to agree and do not feel you have provided compelling evidence to the contrary. If you want to make it Sil 4 and nerf the stats for your own table, that is of course, your right.


But I think I'm done tenderizing this deceased equine.

The FFG system doesn't state all Sil 5 ships are capital ships, just states that Sil 5 is the smaller size a Capital Ship can be, Wayfarer is bigger than the Gozanti, and isn't considered a capital ship, the VCX-100 is a bit smaller than the Gozanti and isn't considered a capital ship .  Even the Gozanti itself doesn't have a clear classification under FFG system, for instance Fly Casual put the Gozanti as a space transport, not as a capital ship, but No desintegrations put the C-ROC Gozanti as a small capital ship.

So how we deal with such inconsistencies? I prefer to look into the lore, in SWU Gozanti's were always portrayed as either patrol vessels against smugglers/pirates or as escorting vessels for frigate and other smaller capital ships, and only once as AT-AT carrier stationed inside a Star Destroyer. There is absolutely no instance, where a Gozanti and a Consular were portrayed performing the same tasks, or used on the same scope.

Since you are talking about Wookieepedia, lets see what's wookieepedia says about these ships:

About the Gozanti:

Quote

The Gozanti-class cruiser was a 64-meter long starship that could act as a freighter and cruiser. It sported a twin laser turret in a dorsal mount and a heavy laser cannon on its ventral side. [...] The Imperial ships were wider than standard ones, with new side extensions stretching over the engines, and the dorsal radar dish being moved to the center. The large, ventral, double dish radar was abandoned in favor of docking struts for the ship's complement.

About the Consular

Quote

The Consular-class cruiser with the Charger c70 retrofit was a starship manufactured by Corellian Engineering Corporation. The Charger c70 retrofitted Consular-class cruiser, also known as the Republic frigate, was a 138.55-meter vessel that could travel 1,200 kilometers per hour. [...] It had three sublight engines, was equipped with five twin turbolaser turrets and one twin laser cannon turret, and was outfitted with armored hull plating, a deflector shield generator, a forward navigational sensor dish, a port and starboard docking ring, and a communications and sensor dish towards the stern. The vessel was also equipped with four Republic escape pods and a detachable salon pod in the bow below the bridge for diplomatic meetings.

 

Edited by nichendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Because not all silhouette five ships would even remotely qualify as a capital ship. A 43.9 meter long VCX-100 (such as the Ghost), or a 54.3 meter long YZ-900 are not capital ships by a long shot. They’re medium freighters. Yet both ships are silhouette five. Compare them to the 150 meter long CR-90 Corellian Corvette. That ship is also Silhouette five but is significantly larger and most certainly is a capital ship. 

He just wants to go with his fantasy that all Sil 5 ships are one and the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

I mean, you can say "this is what it was made for" all you want, but CEC made it to be a multi-role vehicle. It's actually listed as a "Cruiser" in its model and class.

Just as a comparision with real world vessels, since it is where the Star Wars comes from.

Both these ships are cruisers, but not only they are very, very different, but the military one has enough firepower and nuclear weapons to effectively make a very big damage to a small country. You can modify one to perform the role of the other all you want, and they would still not do the same thing or perform the same role.

USS_Port_Royal_CG-73.jpg

cruise-cruise-ship-ocean-144237.jpg

Edited by nichendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

House rule it for your games.    Star  Wars lore is full of inconsistencies when it comes to ship classifications.   They even referenced it at some point with  the move to the Anaxes War College model, from the Ruusan Reformation classifications.   Even then, there were inconsistencies internally to the Anaxes classifications.   To me,  the silhouette system is designed to cover a general classification of hulls within each silhouette category.  A K-Wing is a Sil 3 fighter, and it dwarves the Aethersprites which are also Sil 3.   Also there are numerous ships that in my opinion, should be a silhouette up from where they are.  As an example, a Marauder class frigate is quite capable of punching above its weight, and with its fighter complement, I find it hard to believe it's only 5.   I'd view it more as a 6 from its capabilities.    As far as HT etc,  I just put those down as peculiarities of the hulls, or their construction.  The CROC is obviously designed with robust systems, and lots of redundancies as the designers envisioned a freighter operating on its own most of the time,  while the Consular class Cruiser were already on the edge of obsolete by the time the Clone Wars started

 As to your example of the  cruise ship vs a modern destroyer.  your analogy is a bit off.  A better example would be to compare an armed freighter vs a destroyer in WWII.  While the destroyer was more than capable of taking out an armed merchantman, the merchantman would get some good licks in,  before it was forced to surrender or be destroyed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, panpolyqueergeek said:

O, see, I don't think it was ever the intention to do so with Sil. The ships are already sub-classified by type (Freighter, Capital, etc) and Hull Type/Model. 

 

The base stats are based on the frame type, not the sil. The rules in FO can't be used to properly replicate any of the stock ship stats- it's literally rules for one or more mechanics building a starship in a garage, as compared to the ships in the books built in proper shipyards and facilities.

Ships created this way will not reflect the same rules used to create stock ships. The designers had a hard enough job trying to reverse engineer stats for ships that already exist in media, and coming up for rules for them when the people who created them had no such rules in mind. With the diversity of ships and hands in the shipbuilding pie, I think the abstract approach that FFG went with was wise. 

I understand your criticisms, but I feel like you are asking the system to do something that it was never intended to. 

It's not as impossible as you think it is, and it doesn't even require huge changes from RAW

(note that these rules are still being tweaked)

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/272869-the-nubian-design-collectives-whole-vehicle-crafting-handbook/?page=9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Raicheck said:

House rule it for your games.    Star  Wars lore is full of inconsistencies when it comes to ship classifications.   They even referenced it at some point with  the move to the Anaxes War College model, from the Ruusan Reformation classifications.   Even then, there were inconsistencies internally to the Anaxes classifications.   To me,  the silhouette system is designed to cover a general classification of hulls within each silhouette category.  A K-Wing is a Sil 3 fighter, and it dwarves the Aethersprites which are also Sil 3.   Also there are numerous ships that in my opinion, should be a silhouette up from where they are.  As an example, a Marauder class frigate is quite capable of punching above its weight, and with its fighter complement, I find it hard to believe it's only 5.   I'd view it more as a 6 from its capabilities.    As far as HT etc,  I just put those down as peculiarities of the hulls, or their construction.  The CROC is obviously designed with robust systems, and lots of redundancies as the designers envisioned a freighter operating on its own most of the time,  while the Consular class Cruiser were already on the edge of obsolete by the time the Clone Wars started

 As to your example of the  cruise ship vs a modern destroyer.  your analogy is a bit off.  A better example would be to compare an armed freighter vs a destroyer in WWII.  While the destroyer was more than capable of taking out an armed merchantman, the merchantman would get some good licks in,  before it was forced to surrender or be destroyed.  

 


I actually don't need to house rule it for my games because in my games the PCs would never have a ship as big as a Consular, and I would never allow them to put a turbolaser on a Wayfarer (the ship they are actually using and also is Sil 5). And yes there are inconsistencies in the canon, but despite all of them, there is no material that would classify the Gozanti or the C-ROC Gozanti as a Capital Ships, I think that we can agree that anything less than 100m isn't a capital ship (since this was the closest we got from a measure system to this kind of stuff).

In the end my whole point is based on how they are portrayed. Gozantis were never portrayed in this role. They are ships used to fight against smugglers and pirates and the only two C-ROC ever shown in Canon (Star Wars Rebels TV Show), were smuggling vessels that are described as to relying more on their shields and speed rather than their weapons in order to avoid trouble with the Imperials. Most Imperial Gozantis in Rebels were easily destroyed, single handedly, by the Ghost, a VCX-100 freighter, and most took at best 2-3 shots before being destroyed or disabled.

On the other hand in the Clone Wars TV Show, we see a lot of Consulars taking multiple hits from Munificent-class (825m long) or Providence-class  (1008 m long) ships or by squadrons of droid fighters before being destroyed. Consulars in CW TV show are not patrolling against smugglers, they are actually taking their punch against much bigger ships, they are not performing the same role Gozantis do, it is simple as that.

 

19 hours ago, Raicheck said:

House rule it for your games.    Star  Wars lore is full of inconsistencies when it comes to ship classifications.   They even referenced it at some point with  the move to the Anaxes War College model, from the Ruusan Reformation classifications.   Even then, there were inconsistencies internally to the Anaxes classifications.   To me,  the silhouette system is designed to cover a general classification of hulls within each silhouette category.  A K-Wing is a Sil 3 fighter, and it dwarves the Aethersprites which are also Sil 3.   Also there are numerous ships that in my opinion, should be a silhouette up from where they are.  As an example, a Marauder class frigate is quite capable of punching above its weight, and with its fighter complement, I find it hard to believe it's only 5.   I'd view it more as a 6 from its capabilities.    As far as HT etc,  I just put those down as peculiarities of the hulls, or their construction.  The CROC is obviously designed with robust systems, and lots of redundancies as the designers envisioned a freighter operating on its own most of the time,  while the Consular class Cruiser were already on the edge of obsolete by the time the Clone Wars started

 

I too think a lot of ships are in the wrong silhouette category. I too think the Marauder is a Sil 6 ship, and I see no problem with silhouette portraying broad categories. I see a problem when I see things like he HWK-290 being Sil 3 on a book and Sil 4 on another, or when I see the Gozanti as a freighter on a book and a capital ship on another. Or when I see a Gozanti stats on par with war vessels far bigger and consistently stated as more well armed than they are always portrayed in the SWU, since Gozanti, by FFG, are on par with the CR90 and even better equipped than the Consular (which more or less pack the same punch as a CR90 in canon).

Again my whole consideration comes from what these two ships are portrayed to do. If one wants to interpret that they are the same thing in their games it is up to them, but it is certainly not what it is shown in the SW Universe.

 

19 hours ago, Raicheck said:

As to your example of the  cruise ship vs a modern destroyer.  your analogy is a bit off.  A better example would be to compare an armed freighter vs a destroyer in WWII.  While the destroyer was more than capable of taking out an armed merchantman, the merchantman would get some good licks in,  before it was forced to surrender or be destroyed. 

Actually that was meant more as an informative joke than as something really serious, after all both ship are called cruisers, but for very different reasons. It is more or less the situation of Gozanti and Consular, both are called cruisers, but cruiser in this case doesn't mean the same thing.

In the end, even by your comparison, the WWII Destroyer would have the upper hand over the armed freighter, but as stated, the the armed freighter would have the upper hand over a lot of destroyers, since they have stats on par with them not with armed freighters.

 

19 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

It's not as impossible as you think it is, and it doesn't even require huge changes from RAW

(note that these rules are still being tweaked)

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/272869-the-nubian-design-collectives-whole-vehicle-crafting-handbook/?page=9


It seems that there is a good deal of people that think the crafting rules RAW are too far from a good and usable system for crafting starships, but really with a few adjustments and complements, they can be improved to become quite useful rules, even good ones.

And this picture more more or less says everything that needs to be said about this thread. The Gozanti isn't much bigger than the Ghost, and most of the times they are easily destroyed by the Ghost and its crew. And all the times Gozantis went against CR90 they either run or tried to run because they do not have enough firepower to go against them. Since Consulars are armed with almost the same weapon systems of CR90, it makes no sense to compare it with a Gozanti or to Assume the Gozanti is an equal in armament, given they always run from the CR90s.

latest.png

Edited by nichendrix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, nichendrix said:


I actually don't need to house rule it for my games because in my games the PCs would never have a ship as big as a Consular, and I would never allow them to put a turbolaser on a Wayfarer (the ship they are actually using and also is Sil 5). And yes there are inconsistencies in the canon, but despite all of them, there is no material that would classify the Gozanti or the C-ROC Gozanti as a Capital Ships, I think that we can agree that anything less than 100m isn't a capital ship (since this was the closest we got from a measure system to this kind of stuff).

In the end my whole point is based on how they are portrayed. Gozantis were never portrayed in this role. They are ships used to fight against smugglers and pirates and the only two C-ROC ever shown in Canon (Star Wars Rebels TV Show), were smuggling vessels that are described as to relying more on their shields and speed rather than their weapons in order to avoid trouble with the Imperials. Most Imperial Gozantis in Rebels were easily destroyed, single handedly, by the Ghost, a VCX-100 freighter, and most took at best 2-3 shots before being destroyed or disabled.

You do you.   And, as I said previously, silhouette covers a wide range of factors and general classifications.   Sil 4 covers everything up to x dimensions, sil 5 covers everything from y to z etc.  The VCX is obviously at the low end of sil 5, the gozanti and the CROC are too, while the Consular, and the CR90 are nearer to the top.

You also disregarded the point I made about the Consular being older. They were first built almost a 1000 years BBY, and have been in service to the Republic during most of that time.  Compare  that to a Gozanti which first made its appearance 10 years prior to the Clone Wars.  Most of the Consular's used in the Clone Wars had armaments added to them, so they could function as warships.   It doesn't surprise me that the Gozanti is just as tough, or a bit tougher given that info. The C-ROC's are an even newer design, being essentially a refit of a Gozanti.    

If we're going to use the movies and  Tv shows as your main guideline, geeze.  The absurdity of a mere sil 3 fighter destroying a sil 9+ space station.  Fighters must be OP, everyone knows that a space  station of that size would be invulnerable to the fighters weapons...  Likewise, what about that fighter that single handedly took  out two sil 5 corvettes, and a sil6+ frigate?  The rules are obviously broken. Also it's also possible that the Rebels weren't facing CR90's , (which are also an older design) but rather it's cousin the  CR92, which is a bit more to handle, as the two ships aren't that visibly distinct.  

Seriously though, the TV shows and movies are great for showing us cool things, and the possibilities of the universe, but I would never gauge a ship's characteristics on how well it performed for the main heroes or villains.  There will always be a bit of plot armor.   Also, if you dip further into canon, and read some of the books, you'll get more examples of ships being used in different roles.   

Anyways, the system works well enough for me.  And my girlfriend is giving me the "You've spent too much time arguing over silly stuff on the internet again" look.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, nichendrix said:

I too think a lot of ships are in the wrong silhouette category. I too think the Marauder is a Sil 6 ship, and I see no problem with silhouette portraying broad categories. I see a problem when I see things like he HWK-290 being Sil 3 on a book and Sil 4 on another, or when I see the Gozanti as a freighter on a book and a capital ship on another. Or when I see a Gozanti stats on par with war vessels far bigger and consistently stated as more well armed than they are always portrayed in the SWU, since Gozanti, by FFG, are on par with the CR90 and even better equipped than the Consular (which more or less pack the same punch as a CR90 in canon).
 

To set the record straight, the HWK-290 appears in two books, Far Horizons and the Force and Destiny CRB, with the exact same stat block and silhouette. The HWK-1000 is a different, larger ship, with a separate set of stats and a description explaining that it is a completely different but related vessel, and is found in Fly Casual.

There are problems with repeating vehicles with different stat blocks across books. The YV-929 (Age of Rebellion and Dangerous Covenants) has different sensor ranges; the V-35 Courier appears in both Desperate Allies and Far Horizons and are completely different; the Hyperfoil 1000-XTC appears in Desperate Allies and Far Horizons with different stats and entirely different vehicle classifications (landspeeder in one, airspeeder in the other); the fang fighter three times (No Disintegrations, Dawn of Rebellion, Unlimited Power) with completely different stats. All while other reprints utilize the same stats consistently.

But the HWK-290 is not victim to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Raicheck said:

You do you.   And, as I said previously, silhouette covers a wide range of factors and general classifications.   Sil 4 covers everything up to x dimensions, sil 5 covers everything from y to z etc.  The VCX is obviously at the low end of sil 5, the gozanti and the CROC are too, while the Consular, and the CR90 are nearer to the top.


That's exactly what I'm saying from the beginning. That in the silhouette system each tier encompasses a very broad range of vehicles in size role/purpose, and that silhouette alone should not be used to infer capabilities of these vessels. I even pointed out that Sil 5 encompasses everything from 44m long VCX-100 to 315m long Sphyrna-class Corvette (Hammerhead-class in DotR) and everything in-between.

But despite both being Sil 5, we cannot consider that the VCX-100 and and the Hammerhead to have similar capabilities and being able to endure the same amount of HTT, STT and have the same amount and kind of weapon systems, as @panpolyqueergeek was sugesting for the case of the Gozanti and Consular.

 

7 hours ago, Raicheck said:

You also disregarded the point I made about the Consular being older. They were first built almost a 1000 years BBY, and have been in service to the Republic during most of that time.  Compare  that to a Gozanti which first made its appearance 10 years prior to the Clone Wars.  Most of the Consular's used in the Clone Wars had armaments added to them, so they could function as warships.   It doesn't surprise me that the Gozanti is just as tough, or a bit tougher given that info. The C-ROC's are an even newer design, being essentially a refit of a Gozanti.   


The part I've highlighter in red, is where you get everything totally wrong.

The Consular-class cruiser with the Charger c70 retrofit -- which is the ship we are talking about -- isn't a a 1000 years old bunch of ships that miraculously could survive that long. The text you're referring states that Consular Cruisers (a range of cruisers used for consular/diplomatic purposes) are in service of the Republic since 990 BBY, it isn't refering to this specific model, rather than a a number of models throughout the years that served for the same purpose.

Let's see what Wikipedia states about the Consular-class cruiser:

Quote

The Consular-class cruiser became recognizable throughout the galaxy during the last decades of the Galactic Republic, due to its distinctive shape and hue.

And about the Consular-class cruiser with the Charger c70 retrofit

Quote

The Consular-class cruiser (Charger c70 retrofit), often called simply a Republic frigate, was a starship developed for the Galactic Republic during the Clone Wars.


It is clear that they are not a 1000 years old ships, and as far as we know the from the legends timeline the diplomatic version of the Consular-class cruiser started being used around 40 BBY, i.e. at most 10 years prior to the Gozanti's release. This time difference is meaningless in therms of stats given technology's low rate of advancement in SWU.
 

7 hours ago, Raicheck said:

If we're going to use the movies and  Tv shows as your main guideline, geeze.  The absurdity of a mere sil 3 fighter destroying a sil 9+ space station.  Fighters must be OP, everyone knows that a space  station of that size would be invulnerable to the fighters weapons...  Likewise, what about that fighter that single handedly took  out two sil 5 corvettes, and a sil6+ frigate? 

 

You know that fighters are made exactly for that, right? To use number and manoeuvrability superiority to destroy things that otherwise would be too difficult to hit and usually carry quite enough ammunition to cause quite a big amount of damage to infrastructure orders of magnitude bigger than them.

And I don't even need to go as far as using the level of technological advancement we see in the SW Universe, attack fighters like the F-117 and F-35 could carry a pair of B-61 Nuclear warheads which -- in their maximum payload-- are more than enough to level a small city.

In the SW Universe, all examples of a single starfighter exploding space stations or vessels a lot bigger than them, are not based on standard attacks to the space station's hull, but to directed attacks in critical points of their structure. For instance both Death Stars, THe Star Killer Base and the main Droid Control ship in TPM were all destroyed when a fighter could find a way to blow their main reactor core from within, other case is when an uncontrolled A-Wing blew the bridge of the Executor and without it the ship went out of control and collided with Death Star II. All these scenario are feasible, because these ships/space stations were not designed to be protected from attacks made from within them.

If you said that a fighter could destroy a space station hitting its hull until they are destroyed, well that's really not right. But if you say a fighter, somehow got inside them and blew their reactor core and the core's explosion destroyed the space station, well, that's what these fighters were designed to do.

 

7 hours ago, Raicheck said:

Also it's also possible that the Rebels weren't facing CR90's , (which are also an older design) but rather it's cousin the  CR92, which is a bit more to handle, as the two ships aren't that visibly distinct. 

 

All source material states that, in Rebels, the Rebel Alliance only had CR70 and CR90 Corvettes. Also in universe the CR92a only appears some years later. Gozanti either are blown to bits or flee whenever we see the rebels attacking the imperials with a CR90.

 

7 hours ago, Raicheck said:

Seriously though, the TV shows and movies are great for showing us cool things, and the possibilities of the universe, but I would never gauge a ship's characteristics on how well it performed for the main heroes or villains.  There will always be a bit of plot armor.  

 

`Plot armor or not, the system is made to replicate this experience, and as I've said in some previous post, most of the crazy things we see these ships doing on novels and comics actually were originated on the RPG (specially in the WEG version), not  the contrary.

 

7 hours ago, Raicheck said:

Also, if you dip further into canon, and read some of the books, you'll get more examples of ships being used in different roles.  

 

I have 4/5 of all novels, 4/7 of all comics, all movies, all TV shows and nearly databooks published about Star Wars, some even in languages I can't hope to understand, I'm think I kind way past dipping further into canon, I'm probably the guy on alone on a mini-submarine exploring the very bottom of the Mariana trench SW canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Swordbreaker said:

To set the record straight, the HWK-290 appears in two books, Far Horizons and the Force and Destiny CRB, with the exact same stat block and silhouette. The HWK-1000 is a different, larger ship, with a separate set of stats and a description explaining that it is a completely different but related vessel, and is found in Fly Casual.

There are problems with repeating vehicles with different stat blocks across books. The YV-929 (Age of Rebellion and Dangerous Covenants) has different sensor ranges; the V-35 Courier appears in both Desperate Allies and Far Horizons and are completely different; the Hyperfoil 1000-XTC appears in Desperate Allies and Far Horizons with different stats and entirely different vehicle classifications (landspeeder in one, airspeeder in the other); the fang fighter three times (No Disintegrations, Dawn of Rebellion, Unlimited Power) with completely different stats. All while other reprints utilize the same stats consistently.

But the HWK-290 is not victim to this.

 

Oh, my mistake, but in the end, as you also pointed out, there are quite a number of inconsistencies in vehicle/ship stats between the books. 

 

21 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

I do have all 30 or so books, and I have been comparing the stats of ships--what I consider the best option--for years, and I have certainly not reached the same conclusion as you. I have done this both for my own purposes and for playtesting. The crafting rules simply do not make ships that are much like the examples we have at all.

Since you prefer the comparison method...

One interesting thing that I just noticed is that in Dawn of Rebellion there are stats for the Broken Horn, which are far more adequate to represent the C-ROC Gozanti. I don't know if you know but up until now, just 2 C-ROC Gozanti were ever shown in the SW Universe -- one is the he Borken Horn and the other the Merchant One -- both were shown in the Star Wars: Rebels TV show, both belonged to smugglers, both were stated in the starwars.com Databank as being lightly armed and relying on speed and shields rather than in their weapon systems and of these two ships The Broken Horn has quite a great amount of screen time.

It is interesting how they have completely different stats, I think that the stats for The Broken Horn portrays very well the in universe capabilities of the C-ROC Gozanti and of Gozanti's in general, it also puts it on par with ships of similar size and role (armed medium freighter) like the Wayfarer, the VCX-100 and the HT-2200. If the Gozanti's are downgraded to the same level of the Broken Horn's stats, the regular stats for Consular's would be more than appropriate.

 

swr10_the-broken-horn.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Broken Horn's HTT and SST look far more reasonable. The Speed and Handling are likely benefiting from customization as are the shields. These could easily be Speed 3, Handling -2 and Shields of 2/1/1/2 for an unmodified C-ROC. I'm a bit surprised that the Armor isn't 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

The Broken Horn's HTT and SST look far more reasonable. The Speed and Handling are likely benefiting from customization as are the shields. These could easily be Speed 3, Handling -2 and Shields of 2/1/1/2 for an unmodified C-ROC. I'm a bit surprised that the Armor isn't 4.

Why they upped so much HTT and STT for a stock C-ROC I don't know, I think these designers have to start double checking for the consistency of their ship/vehicles stats.

I too think that with defence 2/1/1/2, speed 3 and handling -2 for the Stock C-ROC Gozanti would be quite realistic, if you downgrade the defence to 1/1/1/2, HTT 35 and STT 20 it would be a very interesting stock Gozanti, maybe even handling -3. This way the Gozanti would be quite on par with the Wayfarer and the HT-2200 which, as freighters, are on the same category in terms of size and cargo capacity, given the main characteristic of the Gozantis were extra weapons, not better handling or durability, you could just add 2-3 turrets instead of just 1, as is typical for civilian ships.

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...