Jump to content
EVIL INC

Atmosphere

Recommended Posts

I was bored and decided to read a few reviews. The one I am thinking of now was discussing one of the horizontal paneled ties and how it really didnt do that much besides look cool as it was designed for atmosphere work where the vertical finned ones would not work as well. Of course, this led me to think and wonder if anyone had come up with atmosphere rules or scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rules or anything, but after playing a few games on Guildball mats at my FLGS, I thought it might be interesting to use something other than outer space mats. The weird hybrid that is Hoth sort of tries it, but it would be interesting to see somehing like stratosphere Scarif.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a number of ships which are said to be better in atmo than in space. The LAAT/i and LAAT/c, the TIE Striker and TIE Reaper. The Y-Wing is said to be "buggy" in atmosphere.

Though we have seen a number of times where starfighters enter atmosphere and seem completely unaffected, so words stated may not actually mean much in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple physics here.... Ships which fly in atmosphere have to deal with aerodynamic effects even if they don't use bernoulli's principle to generate lift. Some of those ships are shaped in such a way that they can slice through atmosphere with relatively little interference. (RELATIVELY being the operative word here.)  Other are nightmares.   NONE of these ships would be good candidates for taking a trans-Atlantic flight.

 

The more a ship is shaped like an actual airplane, the more likely it is to be functional in atmo.  The more it has big, flat, sail-like panels that are likely to be perpendicular to any plane of movement, the more likely you are to get spanked by the wind. 

 

So yeah, ships with solar panels, strike foils, or other "wings" that are parallel to the horizon, and can "slice" through the air (X, Z, A, Fang, Gunboat, Striker, Reaper, Misthunter), will do better than blocky ships, and blocky ships (if they don't present a large face to the wind anyway: B, Y, YT-1300) will do better than ships with awkward protrusions (most ties) or wide faces (Firespray).

 

And even the TIEs, will do fine, as long as they fly STRAIGHT FORWARD. The minute they start any turning maneuver, those big flat sails get perpendicular to the wind and the results could be disastrous.  I suspect there would be a distinct hierarchy of suck even with the TIE subcategory, with the Interceptors and Aggressors coming out OK, and the basic TIE/LN - TIE/Fo shape just being the absolute worst possible thing you could put in the air.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SomeDudeWhoMostlyLurks said:

Simple physics here.... Ships which fly in atmosphere have to deal with aerodynamic effects even if they don't use bernoulli's principle to generate lift. Some of those ships are shaped in such a way that they can slice through atmosphere with relatively little interference. (RELATIVELY being the operative word here.)  Other are nightmares.   NONE of these ships would be good candidates for taking a trans-Atlantic flight.

 

The more a ship is shaped like an actual airplane, the more likely it is to be functional in atmo.  The more it has big, flat, sail-like panels that are likely to be perpendicular to any plane of movement, the more likely you are to get spanked by the wind. 

 

So yeah, ships with solar panels, strike foils, or other "wings" that are parallel to the horizon, and can "slice" through the air (X, Z, A, Fang, Gunboat, Striker, Reaper, Misthunter), will do better than blocky ships, and blocky ships (if they don't present a large face to the wind anyway: B, Y, YT-1300) will do better than ships with awkward protrusions (most ties) or wide faces (Firespray).

 

And even the TIEs, will do fine, as long as they fly STRAIGHT FORWARD. The minute they start any turning maneuver, those big flat sails get perpendicular to the wind and the results could be disastrous.  I suspect there would be a distinct hierarchy of suck even with the TIE subcategory, with the Interceptors and Aggressors coming out OK, and the basic TIE/LN - TIE/Fo shape just being the absolute worst possible thing you could put in the air.

 

 

I think these explanations are why it's sometimes said that Star Wars ships use deflector shields in atmosphere. I'm speculating that this means that the shields provide an aerodynamic profile as a sort of frame around the ship. I don't know how well these can be shaped but if they can be shaped to work more like a "wing" or what have you that might explain how some of these ships can manage in atmo when their shape shouldn't allow it. Even some of the ones that are stated specifically to be suited for atmosphere, like the LAAT/i, the Striker, the Reaper, seem like they would still have to use a mechanism like this to work properly. Something like most TIEs would absolutely need it. I assume it's a separate function from defensive shielding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, SomeDudeWhoMostlyLurks said:

So yeah, ships with solar panels, strike foils, or other "wings" that are parallel to the horizon, and can "slice" through the air (X, Z, A, Fang, Gunboat, Striker, Reaper, Misthunter), will do better than blocky ships, and blocky ships (if they don't present a large face to the wind anyway: B, Y, YT-1300) will do better than ships with awkward protrusions (most ties) or wide faces (Firespray).

As I recall, in Decipher's Star Wars CCG, there were Cloud locations that reduced power and maneuver of ships in them.  Z-95s got a boost in Clouds that offset this penalty.

Oddly enough, the Empire had a ship that could offset the penalty, too, and it was a TIE/ln of all things (not all TIE/lns, just one particular variant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

atmo would be interesting to try and do in X-wing, but I feel like it would probably necessitate some pretty substantial changes to dials and green dice values, except on a few ships that are designed for it. (strikers, reapers, etc.) Basically, if I were to design these rules, I'd make it just the normal game, but flying on hard mode. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Hippie Moosen said:

atmo would be interesting to try and do in X-wing, but I feel like it would probably necessitate some pretty substantial changes to dials and green dice values, except on a few ships that are designed for it. (strikers, reapers, etc.) Basically, if I were to design these rules, I'd make it just the normal game, but flying on hard mode. 

Maybe increase difficulty of all maneuvers? Green to White, White to red And red to impossible? And you relief stress by reducing green dice fór turn?

Share this post


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

Maybe increase difficulty of all maneuvers? Green to White, White to red And red to impossible? And you relief stress by reducing green dice fór turn?

What's a Green maneuver?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I came up with some quick rules for atmosphere, basically all hard turns are red and after barrel rolling or boosting you gain a stress (This was during 1st edition, now could probably just make all barrel roll and boosts red?) This had the benefit of making reapers and strikers the only ships that can turns without being stressed because they can bank and then bank again.

Share this post


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

Simple physics here...

 

Which has nothing at all to do with Star Wars. 

 

Seriously though. The flight path system is already HEAVILY abstract. It aims to capture the dramatic feel of Star Wars combat, not be a simulation of how that combat is depicted in the films, much less of real world physics. As such, I don’t see a need to modify the rules much at all. Create a few new types of obstacles and use different mat and you’re good. Anything else seems like change just for changes sake. 

 

Now, adding in ground forces....

Share this post


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

 

Which has nothing at all to do with Star Wars. 

 

Seriously though. The flight path system is already HEAVILY abstract. It aims to capture the dramatic feel of Star Wars combat, not be a simulation of how that combat is depicted in the films, much less of real world physics. As such, I don’t see a need to modify the rules much at all. Create a few new types of obstacles and use different mat and you’re good. Anything else seems like change just for changes sake. 

 

Now, adding in ground forces....

That's a good point. Star Wars does tend to show space combat as functioning almost identical to any aerial battle that would take place IRL between fighter planes. This makes perfect sense, if you're aware of Lucas borrowing heavily from WWII movies for inspiration. There are little things here and there, from various sources that may or may not be canon, that seem to indicate there is a difference between atmo and space flight, but on screen it all just looks like fighter planes going at it. To top it off, the differences noted in those sources, are either vague, or just minor inconveniences. The only exception to that that comes to mind, is the starviper needing it's wings open to swivel it's guns around to the back or side to side, which if opened in atmo messed with it's maneuverability. that's something that it could do in the old WestEnd RPG, but it's not represented in X-wing so it's really a moot point, especially on a ship that doesn't exist in the films. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Forgottenlore said:

“Inspiration” yeah

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdb03Hw18M

 

 

Lol, yeah, it's a shot for shot remake of the Dam Busters scene. Credit where credit is due though, it's a pretty fantastic recreation of the sequence, and none of the other films have that feeling of directly copying scenes from other films. Early Star Wars feels like it's everything Lucas thought was cool thrown into a blender with very little care as to how it would all turn out. Plus it's not like people are gonna accuse you of plagiarism if you have replaced everything from the original with it's more futuristic spacey doppelganger.

Share this post


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

And even the TIEs, will do fine, as long as they fly STRAIGHT FORWARD. The minute they start any turning maneuver, those big flat sails get perpendicular to the wind and the results could be disastrous.  I suspect there would be a distinct hierarchy of suck even with the TIE subcategory, with the Interceptors and Aggressors coming out OK, and the basic TIE/LN - TIE/Fo shape just being the absolute worst possible thing you could put in the air.

the basic TIE/LN should do good going straight, and in climbs/dives as long as they aren't going side to side. they look like they'd be terrible on a turn or sideslip.

that said, at low speeds at least they seem to do fine travelling in any direction, as the stolen TIE in Rebels Season 1 "Fighter Flight" showed,

i would presume though that at higher speeds the drag from the panels would offset most of the thrust benefit you get from the engines+Repulsor lifts. though the ability to use the repulsors to literally thrust sideways probably would be useful in a dogfight, similar to the Harrier's ability to VIFF ("vector in forward flight"), cranking the vectored exhaust nozzles around to tighten turns, climb nearly straight up in flight, or even decelerate rapidly to a near standstill.

something like a TIE Striker would be better at turning.. but probably would have a tougher time climbing and diving, due to the drag from that large panel surface.

 

the TIE Advanced would probably not be much better than the standard TIE/LN.. the bent wings wouldn't actually cut down the drag much. the one on the inward side would see less.. but the outward side ends up becoming a big 'scoop' and would generate extra drag. the TIE Interceptor would be better than any of them.. but only because those forward cut outs mean there is less surface to generate drag in the first place.

on the rebellion side, things are better. the A-wing is basically a big lifting body, and the X-wing ought to be fairly decent in aerodynamics despite having relatively little streamlining. the B-wing is basically a big flying wing. then there is the Y-wing.. that thing is proof that with enough repulsorlifts, anything can fly. no wonder they get called "twitchy in atmospheric combat"

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...