PDA

View Full Version : I just came up with the most bizarre starship tactic ever.



AstralFire
2009-08-03, 07:03 PM
Nerdy Stuff that probably Won't Make Sense if you don't know Saga:
Take a Mankvim-814 Light Interceptor (Starships of the Galaxy, p. 109). They cost 6,000 credits used. Add the Ancient Template to get it down to 3,000 credits.
Strip out the gun.
Sell it for a handful of credits.
Repeat. Once.
Kamikaze them on a capital ship of -any- size.

Congratulations, you have now taken out a capital ship (hundreds of millions of credits or more) with minimal infrastructure damage with the equivalent of two used cars piloted by ROB. Send in some people to take over the ship and command it for the rest of the battle.

How it works:
Collision Damage dealt is dealt to the ship - it's unclear if it's meant to bypass Shield Rating and Damage Reduction, because there's a maneuver in Starships of the Galaxy based on this idea (fly next to their shields, shoot them). However, that's irrelevant. You also deal this damage to the people inside the ship. You just dealt 6d6+11 damage to everyone in there, twice. This averages out to 38x2, or 76.

A 5th level Scoundrel (which would be better than most of the people on the ship) has 44 HP with Con 12. A 5th level Soldier with Con 14 has 72 HP on average, which is pretty much the best case scenario most of the crew can ever hope for. You've just wiped out 90% of the crew and most of the remainder is down two steps on the condition track. Have a third one fly in and you've got them all for good. If we assume that a Super Star Destroyer has one hundred crewmen with more than 38x2 HP and that every single one of the 38,000 elite stormtroopers in stowage survive, that leaves the Super Star Destroyer short by 240,000 crew members.

With advanced slave circuits that are anything less than Katana-fleet class, the SSD needs at least 93,000 crew members to run. Ship is dead in space.

Milskidasith
2009-08-03, 07:06 PM
I haven't played the game... but that's awesomely cheesy.

The question is, if the ship is this big, what are the chances a hostile, very lightly armored ship could get past the automated defenses? It also seems to be a poorly constructed system where ships have absurd amounts of HP, but all damage dealt to them is dealt to the entire crew.

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 07:09 PM
With stealth? Actually pretty high. If you invested a little more in this and got better pilots, the ships would probably survive, even.

The collision damage rules probably shouldn't do damage to people that can't actually penetrate the ship's Shields and Damage Redux, and it needs to do sectional damage when there's three or more size category difference, IMO. Maybe two or more.

jmbrown
2009-08-03, 07:10 PM
Kamikaze is a very successful tactic. Of course you have to get passed the defenses first.

With that said, as a DM I'd rule that the people you deal damage to is equal to the damage itself. In other words, 72 people would take 72 points of damage. It's pretty retarded that a ship the size of several city blocks would lose its entire crew when rammed by a ship the size of a small house.

Fuzzy_Juan
2009-08-03, 07:12 PM
no dice. Ramming attacks or any sort of collision don't bypass shields, and even if they did, they don't bypass the hull's damage reduction.

A larger cap ship might have DR 20 or so with a stupid high SR. You'd have to find a way to get through the shields and then get a big run of speed to multiply your damage to them. You might scratch them, but not oblliterate the crew inside. Besides, you may be referencing the normal vehicle rules for damage to passengers, starship size damage might be handled slightly different.

Edit: the rules section has two diffreent entries, under ram, it says passengers of the vehicle take 1/2 damage, while the 'vehicle special rules' state full damage, the collision box states that by going full out you can double the damage you do to their vehicle.

Either way, unless their shields have been taken down ALOT, you will just bounce off and hurt your ship alot more. However, if it were me, i might rule that passengers on board take half damage and half that with a successful reflex or maybe tumble equal to the damage done.

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 07:17 PM
Kamikaze is a very successful tactic. Of course you have to get passed the defenses first.

With that said, as a DM I'd rule that the people you deal damage to is equal to the damage itself. In other words, 72 people would take 72 points of damage. It's pretty retarded that a ship the size of several city blocks would lose its entire crew when rammed by a ship the size of a small house.

Oh, I'd never dream of using this in a real game or suggesting that it should work, neither would I let it fly as a DM. There is no stretch of the imagination in which this could possibly make sense. I was trying to figure out ways to make the G-Force/Battle of the Planets/Science Team Gatchaman "Phoenix Mode" attack work in Saga for the hell of it and just found this amusing rules issue.


Besides, you may be referencing the normal vehicle rules for damage to passengers, starship size damage might be handled slightly different.

These are the starship rules. If there's anything about shields and DR actually stopping this kind of silliness in the rules, I haven't found it. Though Saga is riddled with rule 'oversights' where I think they just assume a DM will rule by common sense (note: I believe this is a fair assumption, actually - I would hardly call this a problem in the game's rules) and don't spell out stuff like "your dinky used car should not destroy a capital ship's crew utterly on impact."

Lert, A.
2009-08-03, 07:17 PM
Errata'd- p. 173 – Collisions
Add the following sentence to the end of the first
paragraph: “Unless the vehicle provides no cover
to those onboard, any damage dealt to
passengers and crew in a collision is reduced by
an amount equal to the vehicle’s damage
threshold.”

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 07:20 PM
Errata'd- p. 173 – Collisions
Add the following sentence to the end of the first
paragraph: “Unless the vehicle provides no cover
to those onboard, any damage dealt to
passengers and crew in a collision is reduced by
an amount equal to the vehicle’s damage
threshold.”

Ah, clever girl... Yeah, that's actually an elegant and quick way to handle it, too. 574 Damage Threshold on Executor - nothing's getting through that. It's unable to model the really awesome A-Wing sacrifice on the bridge, but that's much easier to DM fiat back in than out.

Fuzzy_Juan
2009-08-03, 07:22 PM
Errata'd- p. 173 – Collisions
Add the following sentence to the end of the first
paragraph: “Unless the vehicle provides no cover
to those onboard, any damage dealt to
passengers and crew in a collision is reduced by
an amount equal to the vehicle’s damage
threshold.”

ooh, damage threshold...wow...not gonna hurt the people on those big ships at all...wow.

erikun
2009-08-03, 07:22 PM
Don't forget to drop a Fell Animate Locate City Bomb while your at it. Imperial Star Destroyer full of zombies! :smallbiggrin:

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 07:24 PM
ooh, damage threshold...wow...not gonna hurt the people on those big ships at all...wow.

Which is really more the way it should be. Gargantuan versus Colossal++++? That's what, 1/64 of the length, 1/(64^3) volume?

Lert, A.
2009-08-03, 07:26 PM
It is some useful errata.

Dervag
2009-08-03, 07:58 PM
Nerdy Stuff that probably Won't Make Sense if you don't know Saga:
Take a Mankvim-814 Light Interceptor (Starships of the Galaxy, p. 109). They cost 6,000 credits used. Add the Ancient Template to get it down to 3,000 credits.
Strip out the gun.
Sell it for a handful of credits.
Repeat. Once.
Kamikaze them on a capital ship of -any- size.

Congratulations, you have now taken out a capital ship (hundreds of millions of credits or more) with minimal infrastructure damage with the equivalent of two used cars piloted by ROB. Send in some people to take over the ship and command it for the rest of the battle.

How it works:
Collision Damage dealt is dealt to the ship - it's unclear if it's meant to bypass Shield Rating and Damage Reduction, because there's a maneuver in Starships of the Galaxy based on this idea (fly next to their shields, shoot them). However, that's irrelevant. You also deal this damage to the people inside the ship. You just dealt 6d6+11 damage to everyone in there, twice. This averages out to 38x2, or 76.

A 5th level Scoundrel (which would be better than most of the people on the ship) has 44 HP with Con 12. A 5th level Soldier with Con 14 has 72 HP on average, which is pretty much the best case scenario most of the crew can ever hope for. You've just wiped out 90% of the crew and most of the remainder is down two steps on the condition track. Have a third one fly in and you've got them all for good. If we assume that a Super Star Destroyer has one hundred crewmen with more than 38x2 HP and that every single one of the 38,000 elite stormtroopers in stowage survive, that leaves the Super Star Destroyer short by 240,000 crew members.

With advanced slave circuits that are anything less than Katana-fleet class, the SSD needs at least 93,000 crew members to run. Ship is dead in space."Intensify forward firepower!"
"AAAUUUGGGGHHH!!!"
"Too late!"
_______

I submit that the ship damage from ramming should get taken on shields, because they had to knock down the bridge deflector shields for that to work.

So how do we houserule ramming by fighter-sized craft being even slightly effective in?

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 08:05 PM
"Intensify forward firepower!"
"AAAUUUGGGGHHH!!!"
"Too late!"
_______

I submit that the ship damage from ramming should get taken on shields, because they had to knock down the bridge deflector shields for that to work.

So how do we houserule ramming by fighter-sized craft being even slightly effective in?

Require the damage to be greater than Damage Threshold to affect the ship as the whole, but allow segmented damage targeting when discussing ships of Colossal (frigate) or bigger.

NEO|Phyte
2009-08-03, 08:07 PM
"Intensify forward firepower!"
"AAAUUUGGGGHHH!!!"
"Too late!"
_______

I submit that the ship damage from ramming should get taken on shields, because they had to knock down the bridge deflector shields for that to work.

So how do we houserule ramming by fighter-sized craft being even slightly effective in?
For one, shields aren't form-fitting, otherwise that Starship Maneuver (like Force Powers, only for ships) where you pop under a ship's shields to make an attack that bypasses SR wouldn't work. Plus, there's PLENTY of fighter crashes that did jack to the ship they hit, Mr. A-wing might have spent a Destiny Point to go out in an awesome fashion. Or maybe the impact WAS his destiny, like that one jedi Jolee met that ended up asploding some bad guy's ship by falling into a shaft that led somewhere important.

As for making intentional ramming work, closest I can think of is coming up with rules for ramming a specific PART of a ship, such as the shield generators/engines/what have you.

lvl 1 fighter
2009-08-03, 08:24 PM
My own SAGA shenanigans:

My group played a few games of Star Wars on our break from our dnd campaign. I played a Jedi, and we didn't have any errata for the Move Object power. So my Jedi would pick up a Storm Trooper and throw it against another Storm Trooper. Both would usually die, because the damage dice was based off your skill check, but the power didn't specifically end.

So he kept on throwing the Storm Troopers dead body around the battlefield, knocking about into other Troopers.

We laughed and decided it wasn't a very Jedi thing to do. :smallsmile:

Have they even errata'd that power? I never checked, as it was a short game.

Lert, A.
2009-08-03, 08:27 PM
Have they even errata'd that power? I never checked, as it was a short game.

p. 98 – Move Object
Change the Target text to "One target within 12
squares and within line of sight."
Replace the second sentence under Special with
the following: “Maintaining the move object power
is a standard action, and you must make a new
Use the Force check each round. If you suffer
damage while maintaining move object, you must
succeed on a Use the Force check (DC = 15 +
damage taken) to continue concentrating. If you
deal damage with the move object power, you
cease to be able to maintain it.”

lvl 1 fighter
2009-08-03, 08:29 PM
p. 98 – Move Object
Change the Target text to "One target within 12
squares and within line of sight."
Replace the second sentence under Special with
the following: “Maintaining the move object power
is a standard action, and you must make a new
Use the Force check each round. If you suffer
damage while maintaining move object, you must
succeed on a Use the Force check (DC = 15 +
damage taken) to continue concentrating. If you
deal damage with the move object power, you
cease to be able to maintain it.”

Just as well. It was slightly silly, hurling dead ST's around with telekinesis.

Reverent-One
2009-08-03, 08:46 PM
Not to split hairs, but I'd say you weren't the first to come up with the tactic of suicide bomber ships ramming larger ships either (http://homeworld.wikia.com/wiki/Mimic-class_Infiltration_Craft).

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 08:52 PM
Not to split hairs, but I'd say you weren't the first to come up with the tactic of suicide bomber ships ramming larger ships either (http://homeworld.wikia.com/wiki/Mimic-class_Infiltration_Craft).

Yeah, but what made this unique was that it wasn't necessarily a kamikaze and that it worked not by damage to the ship, but by killing all of the crew and leaving the ship intact.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-03, 09:11 PM
Already beat you to it(and successfully used it) in old Revised d20 edition.

1) Take an Imperial Shuttle(or equivalent thereof).
2) Add cheap hyperdrive.
3) Get Techie to jury-rig it until the safety disengage is disabled.
4) Find capital ship.
5) Aim shuttle at capital ship.
6) Evacuate.
7) Have astromech activate hyperspace.
8) ???
9) Profit as your ship-turned-bullet goes Faster Than Light then crashes into the enemy ship.

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 09:24 PM
I... don't think that leaves the enemy ship intact.

root9125
2009-08-03, 09:27 PM
@ ZeroNumerous:

That was basically the plot of the Expanded Universe "Children of the Jedi" series. A ship applies that logic to a sun, causing (because someone Did Not Do The Research (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DidNotDoTheResearch)) a supernova that wipes out solar systems. Large plot point about The Dark Side (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheDarkSide) being born of Absolute Power (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WithGreatPowerComesGreatInsanity), blah, blah, blah.

Anywho, I'd love to watch someone do that. XD

RS14
2009-08-03, 09:28 PM
Actually, this doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Hit the capitol ship at *sufficient* relative velocity and the acceleration experienced will splatter the entire crew against some handy flat surface.

Mando Knight
2009-08-03, 09:49 PM
Actually, this doesn't seem too unreasonable to me. Hit the capitol ship at *sufficient* relative velocity and the acceleration experienced will splatter the entire crew against some handy flat surface.

Let me put this into perspective: Mankvim interceptor: About the size of an F-18E Super Hornet.
Imperial-II class Star Destroyer: 5x longer than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.

I don't think that the troopers patrolling the main hangar would even feel something crash into the bridge, much less take enough damage from the collision to die. The guys on the bridge, sure, but they're taking a direct hit. The structural integrity of the bridge would give out first.

RS14
2009-08-03, 10:04 PM
Let me put this into perspective: Mankvim interceptor: About the size of an F-18E Super Hornet.
Imperial-II class Star Destroyer: 5x longer than a Nimitz class aircraft carrier.

I don't think that the troopers patrolling the main hangar would even feel something crash into the bridge, much less take enough damage from the collision to die. The guys on the bridge, sure, but they're taking a direct hit. The structural integrity of the bridge would give out first.

Yep. I can't find masses for either, but if we make the assumption that the ratio of their masses is simply the cube of the ratio of their lengths, the Imperial II is about 10^6 times more massive than the Mankvim.

Hence the note about sufficient velocity. Crank it up high enough... 0.99999c? :smalltongue:

Now reasonably, that Mankvim at (1-10^-5)c or whatever should not collide inelastically with a Imperial II, but should instead punch messily through. But the problem is with that not happening according to the rules, as I understand them.

I'm sorry, it's late; I"m being silly. Don't take me too seriously.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-03, 10:21 PM
I... don't think that leaves the enemy ship intact.

Logic says no. Physics says it depends on the shield strength. After all, Star Wars has proven that shield hits transfer kinetic energy to the ship itself(for no reason). Sufficient shield strength not to be penetrated means the entire crew is liquified. Insufficient shield strength means you destroy it. Either way, your enemy loses millions(potentially billions of credits) and you've only spent 50,000 creds(possibly as little as 20,000 depending on the ship) plus 1,000 for the hyperdrive.

EDIT: Honestly, it brings up the question of why no one has weaponized Imperial Shuttles in the past. I mean, they're cheap and plentiful and certainly the Rebellion can go for broke when they have a mere fifty capital ships between the entire navy.

Mando Knight
2009-08-03, 10:44 PM
EDIT: Honestly, it brings up the question of why no one has weaponized Imperial Shuttles in the past. I mean, they're cheap and plentiful and certainly the Rebellion can go for broke when they have a mere fifty capital ships between the entire navy.

It raises questions as to why the CIS didn't just ram their Vulture Droids into every Republic capital ship, if your interpretation is correct.

...Which I don't think it is. The crew of the Star Destroyers tend to get jostled around a bit when the ship gets hit with asteroids or such, not thrown to the other side of the room. The shields seem to be lessening the impact of the object.

Gralamin
2009-08-03, 10:47 PM
It raises questions as to why the CIS didn't just ram their Vulture Droids into every Republic capital ship, if your interpretation is correct.

...Which I don't think it is. The crew of the Star Destroyers tend to get jostled around a bit when the ship gets hit with asteroids or such, not thrown to the other side of the room. The shields seem to be lessening the impact of the object.

The Asteroids aren't going at the speed of light though. If an asteroid can jostle you, something of about the same mass at the speed of light will destroy you.

Yahzi
2009-08-03, 10:54 PM
With advanced slave circuits that are anything less than Katana-fleet class, the SSD needs at least 93,000 crew members to run. Ship is dead in space.
93,000 crew? What the heck are they doing, rowing?

No vessel takes 93,000 people to run. You can run New York City on only 250,000 employees.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-03, 11:01 PM
It raises questions as to why the CIS didn't just ram their Vulture Droids into every Republic capital ship, if your interpretation is correct.

Actually they didn't do that because Vulture Droids are not hyperspace capable. Though it does bring up the question of why they didn't just buy junker YTs and use those instead.


93,000 crew? What the heck are they doing, rowing?

Gunning, I presume. And it has a lot of guns.

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 11:01 PM
93,000 crew? What the heck are they doing, rowing?

No vessel takes 93,000 people to run. You can run New York City on only 250,000 employees.

The actual crew size is 280,734.

It is 19 km long, holds 250,000 tons of cargo, can operate for 6 years without further supply, and carries 144 starfighters.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-03, 11:04 PM
It is 19 km long, holds 250,000 tons of cargo, can operate for 6 years without further supply, and carries 144 starfighters.

And that's just TIEs (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Executor). Not including the 200 misc support craft.

AstralFire
2009-08-03, 11:06 PM
There's also, I imagine, a lot of systems to monitor and maintain when you get that big.

CockroachTeaParty
2009-08-04, 12:05 AM
Forget weaponizing existing ships, this sounds like a whole new evolution of space combat: FTL projectiles.

I suppose you got to accelerate a pretty decent mass to achieve the desired results, but it's not too difficult to imagine the development of a one time use hyperdrive torpedo. Screw proton torpedoes or lasers. Why not just shoot really really really fast, solid objects at enemy ships?

Suddenly, detection, stealth, sensor range, and getting the drop on the enemy is much more important, since ship vs. ship combat can be resolved with a single attack.

It makes me wonder if there was some sort of unwritten law against using such tactics, established around the time the hyperdrive was developed...

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-04, 12:11 AM
It makes me wonder if there was some sort of unwritten law against using such tactics, established around the time the hyperdrive was developed...

Fire and brimstone brought about by the hyperspacing of a large colony ship into a planet? The resulting devastation saw a refusal to utilize such tactics again. Sort of like nukes are a no-no these days, but regular combat is A-OK.

Though, again, this doesn't address why the Rebellion doesn't use this against the Empire, or the Empire doesn't utilize it on their own.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-04, 12:16 AM
Forget weaponizing existing ships, this sounds like a whole new evolution of space combat: FTL projectiles.

At near-c speeds, you don't need to even weaponize them. You can just use tinfoil cone sabots and still cause more damage than nuclear warheads.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-04, 12:17 AM
At near-c speeds, you don't need to even weaponize them. You can just use tinfoil cone sabots and still cause more damage than nuclear warheads.

Ya, but you need something that fits a hyperdrive. So basically you'll end up with something the size and general shape of a luxury sedan if you're going for utter basics in terms of FTL weaponry.

Mando Knight
2009-08-04, 12:22 AM
I suppose you got to accelerate a pretty decent mass to achieve the desired results, but it's not too difficult to imagine the development of a one time use hyperdrive torpedo. Screw proton torpedoes or lasers. Why not just shoot really really really fast, solid objects at enemy ships?

Empy's been there, tried that (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Galaxy_Gun). He even got so far as to station a near-invincible battlecruiser (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Eclipse_II) next to the torpedo launcher. The problem came when he forgot that Luke and R2 are nigh unstoppable.

Saph
2009-08-04, 12:23 AM
I don't think hyperdrive works that way in Star Wars. When ships go into hyperspace they pretty much disappear from the physical universe. To hit something in normal space you have to drop out of hyperspace first.

It got discussed a while ago on one of the Wizards forums, and finally one of the devs said that if you hit something's mass shadow while in hyperspace, you're destroyed but it doesn't notice. This was in response to some guy who was planning to use starships as WMDs to destroy the civilian populations of planets. I guess they figured that having a single Death Star was enough without every freighter effectively becoming a planet-killer as well.

- Saph

Lamech
2009-08-04, 12:25 AM
I think there were no FTL projectiles for the same reason there were no nukes. The series gets less interesting if Luke and Han left a nuclear bomb by the Death Star's main reactor before leaving. No story if they just go: The death stars only weakness is a tiny exhaust port. Or nukes. Or relativistic projectiles.

Its why in BSG they didn't jump ships inside the enemy with a nuke on board and call it a day.

Fax Celestis
2009-08-04, 12:25 AM
Ya, but you need something that fits a hyperdrive. So basically you'll end up with something the size and general shape of a luxury sedan if you're going for utter basics in terms of FTL weaponry.

...assuming you want to pilot your sabot, sure. But if you just want a near-c sabot, you can fly a starship in hyperspace and drop sabots while in hyperspace, and have them collide with stuff at relativistic speeds.

The advantage here is that you get to live through the battle and your opponent has no idea where you came from.

See also: Schlock Mercenary (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/d/20001105.html).

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 12:29 AM
Forget weaponizing existing ships, this sounds like a whole new evolution of space combat: FTL projectiles.

I suppose you got to accelerate a pretty decent mass to achieve the desired results, but it's not too difficult to imagine the development of a one time use hyperdrive torpedo. Screw proton torpedoes or lasers. Why not just shoot really really really fast, solid objects at enemy ships?

Suddenly, detection, stealth, sensor range, and getting the drop on the enemy is much more important, since ship vs. ship combat can be resolved with a single attack.

It makes me wonder if there was some sort of unwritten law against using such tactics, established around the time the hyperdrive was developed...

There's some precedent for this IRL; the SR-71's never utilized attack bomber variant was not intended to launch missiles, but simply concrete blocks at high momentum.

Milskidasith
2009-08-04, 12:33 AM
IRL, aren't there plans for "rods from god?" Basically, you get a few silos of giant tungsten rods orbiting the earth, and when you want to hit a target, you drop one. Combine having a few in orbit with a decent guidance system, and BOOM! You have a fallout free nuke anywhere in the world within 15 minutes, and apparently capable of piercing a mile into the Earth.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-04, 12:37 AM
...assuming you want to pilot your sabot, sure. But if you just want a near-c sabot, you can fly a starship in hyperspace and drop sabots while in hyperspace, and have them collide with stuff at relativistic speeds.

I prefer using astromechs to guide the target to it's destination as your method requires you to pilot a starship with it's safety disengage disabled. I dunno about anyone else, but while I aspire to the jet jockey syndrome I also like surviving my bombing runs.

Keld Denar
2009-08-04, 12:38 AM
I Fax! Long time, no see! You were mentioned over in the Friendly Banter forum in the thread about being popular!
[/sycophant]

Anyway, can you even do the math needed to drop something at near-c speeds and have it hit an otherwise stationary target? A moving target? You'd need 5 full sized blackboards just to write down all the variables involved...

RS14
2009-08-04, 07:24 AM
There's some precedent for this IRL; the SR-71's never utilized attack bomber variant was not intended to launch missiles, but simply concrete blocks at high momentum.
Citation needed. The closest I can find is the YF-12, which would have carried the AIM-47, predecessor to the AIM-54. Most certainly not concrete blocks.

Fixer
2009-08-04, 07:55 AM
I was just reading up on Wookiepedia and according to their description of hyperspace none of the FTL tactics can work.

Hyperspace is not realspace. Objects in hyperspace can only be affected by gravitational wells, which tend to rip objects in hyperspace to little pieces. Since it is only gravity that is affecting anything, the actual matter in realspace isn't affected.

While you are travelling faster than the speed of light, you effectively have no mass of your own. You only seem to possess gravity while in hyperspace. Thus, your gravity would interact with another gravity and the bigger gravity would tear apart/absorb the smaller gravity source.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-04, 08:26 AM
Thus, your gravity would interact with another gravity and the bigger gravity would tear apart/absorb the smaller gravity source.

So you get sufficient mass to overwhelm any other starship. Strap a hyperdrive to it and fire it in the general vicinity of the enemy fleet. Your gravity well overwhelms their own and pulls them along as your rocket speeds off towards a star.

Not nearly as cost efficient, but now it wipes out fleets.

Random832
2009-08-04, 08:34 AM
IRL, aren't there plans for "rods from god?" Basically, you get a few silos of giant tungsten rods orbiting the earth, and when you want to hit a target, you drop one.

"dropping" an object from orbit requires nearly as much energy as putting an object into orbit.

RS14
2009-08-04, 08:53 AM
So you get sufficient mass to overwhelm any other starship. Strap a hyperdrive to it and fire it in the general vicinity of the enemy fleet. Your gravity well overwhelms their own and pulls them along as your rocket speeds off towards a star.

Not nearly as cost efficient, but now it wipes out fleets.

I suspect that your impractically large mass requires an impractically large hyperdrive.

Holocron Coder
2009-08-04, 09:07 AM
So you get sufficient mass to overwhelm any other starship. Strap a hyperdrive to it and fire it in the general vicinity of the enemy fleet. Your gravity well overwhelms their own and pulls them along as your rocket speeds off towards a star.

Not nearly as cost efficient, but now it wipes out fleets.

Actually, the general consensus seems to be that starships of any normal size do not have a large enough gravity signature to show up in hyperspace. There's a variety of ship known as Interdictors that are built to project 'false gravity signatures' into hyperspace to pull ships from it, but that's about as close as you'd get (and they're nowhere near cheap).

As for the kinetic energy on shields affecting the ship, I'm not sure how that works out, but I'll point out that, in-universe, ships have 2 sets of shields: one for energy (lasers, turbolasers, radiation, etc) and another for physical objects (other ships, meteors, space dust, etc).

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 09:49 AM
Citation needed. The closest I can find is the YF-12, which would have carried the AIM-47, predecessor to the AIM-54. Most certainly not concrete blocks.

No citation, this was related to me at an air show.

RS14
2009-08-04, 10:08 AM
I did some more searching, and it apparently has been done (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projectile#Kinetic_projectiles) by other planes.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-04, 10:13 AM
There's a variety of ship known as Interdictors that are built to project 'false gravity signatures' into hyperspace to pull ships from it, but that's about as close as you'd get (and they're nowhere near cheap).

Yes, but that's moot when you get the random Techie mishap of disabling the hyperdrive safety. Gravity wells no longer pull you out of hyperspace automatically, letting you zip right into them and subsequently bypass/ignore interdictors. Downside: You might hit a planet or two. Of course, this is rendered irrelevant when the only thing you're using the hyperdrive for are kamikaze runs.


I suspect that your impractically large mass requires an impractically large hyperdrive.

Probably. But hey, can't make a WMD without spending millions of credits.

lesser_minion
2009-08-04, 10:18 AM
As far as I'm aware, the Star Wars hyperdrive doesn't catapult things around at 'lightspeed' (which I suspect was a colloquialsim, if anything). It essentially removes them from real space.

Spacecraft can be destroyed by collisions while in hyperspace - apparently asteroids and the like can be used to block hyperspace routes - but I don't think those really happen that often.

My overall impression, however, is that there is no way to crash two objects into each other at relativistic speeds in the Star Wars universe.

Note also that objects are apparently enclosed in a special sheath of energy while in hyperspace, because apparently real matter is simply destroyed.

Fri
2009-08-04, 10:29 AM
Forget weaponizing existing ships, this sounds like a whole new evolution of space combat: FTL projectiles.

I suppose you got to accelerate a pretty decent mass to achieve the desired results, but it's not too difficult to imagine the development of a one time use hyperdrive torpedo. Screw proton torpedoes or lasers. Why not just shoot really really really fast, solid objects at enemy ships?

Suddenly, detection, stealth, sensor range, and getting the drop on the enemy is much more important, since ship vs. ship combat can be resolved with a single attack.

It makes me wonder if there was some sort of unwritten law against using such tactics, established around the time the hyperdrive was developed...

It's actually an often discussed and used weaponry in a lot of sci-fi setting. Even in this forum, every time someone mentioned space combat, that technique would be mentioned by someone. It's called mass driver, the OTHER space weaponry besides torpedo and energy weapon.

Not only that, in the CRPG Mass Effect, their personal firearms don't use ammo because of this. Basically, what they have as ammo is a chunk of solid metal. Their weapon, either it's a pistol, rifle, or shotgun, scrape juust a bit of that metal, maybe grain sized, an then accelerate it to near lightspeed using the titular Mass Effect technology. So personal firearms' ammunition is neglible in this setting.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-04, 10:40 AM
I think there were no FTL projectiles for the same reason there were no nukes.

Nukes have existed for thousands of years before Luke was born. The Mandalorians used them to commit genocide. IIRC, the majority of Star Wars crafts are even powered by nuclear fusion. I'm not sure why they didn't use any.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 10:47 AM
Nukes have existed for thousands of years before Luke was born. The Mandalorians used them to commit genocide. IIRC, the majority of Star Wars crafts are even powered by nuclear fusion. I'm not sure why they didn't use any.

Proton torpedoes are fall-out free nukes, actually.

Dervag
2009-08-04, 11:23 AM
Mr. A-wing might have spent a Destiny Point to go out in an awesome fashion. Or maybe the impact WAS his destiny, like that one jedi Jolee met that ended up asploding some bad guy's ship by falling into a shaft that led somewhere important.Ah, yes, Engine-Sucking Andor.

Thanks to Jolee Bindo, I can never hear anyone in Star Wars say any variant on "it is your destiny" or "you have a great destiny" without cracking up...


Proton torpedoes are fall-out free nukes, actually.It's never come up. In most situations where a nuclear-range bomb would be useful, there was no reason for anyone to have them in the first place. In others, weapons in the same general energy range (like capital ship turbolasers) were available, making a nuclear warhead redundant.

ZeroNumerous
2009-08-04, 12:44 PM
It's never come up. In most situations where a nuclear-range bomb would be useful, there was no reason for anyone to have them in the first place.

I dunno about you, but my old Revised edition party(of all Jedi, no less) carried around at least one proton torpedo warhead for the express purpose of whenever a situation where having a tac-nuke would be useful.

Alejandro
2009-08-04, 01:14 PM
There are older Star Destroyer models fitted with dozens of bombardment tubes, filled with high powered missiles. I think it was at least one of the Victory class series. However, they generally aren't nukes, or at least radioactive weapons.

There's no need to irradiate and ruin (or at least require droid cleanup) parts of planets that you might want to control, tax, and exploit, when you can achieve the same amount of damage with non nuclear options, such as turbolasers. If you really want to ruin an enemy world, you can simply order a full scale bombardment. I suppose you could shoot some nukes off during such a bombardment, for nostalgia.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 01:47 PM
There are older Star Destroyer models fitted with dozens of bombardment tubes, filled with high powered missiles. I think it was at least one of the Victory class series. However, they generally aren't nukes, or at least radioactive weapons.

There's no need to irradiate and ruin (or at least require droid cleanup) parts of planets that you might want to control, tax, and exploit, when you can achieve the same amount of damage with non nuclear options, such as turbolasers. If you really want to ruin an enemy world, you can simply order a full scale bombardment. I suppose you could shoot some nukes off during such a bombardment, for nostalgia.

From the bridge of a Star Destroyer
{table]http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/everaldo/starwars/Darth-Vader-icon.jpg | It's just not how I imagined it. -hk...hu...hk...hu The death of a planet. It is just so... quiet.
http://www1.theforce.net/jc/icons/theempirestrikesback/ozzel2.gif | Of course it is. We're in space. Vacuums can't transmit sound.
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/everaldo/starwars/Darth-Vader-icon.jpg | hk...hu...hk...hu
http://www1.theforce.net/jc/icons/theempirestrikesback/ozzel2.gif | I'll forget I s- can'tbreathecan'tbreathe
http://www.mauvaisoeil.com/extras/darth/en/tarkin1.jpg | Ah, old friend. Put him down. We have a rare treat for you, today. An old weapon, one that renders the land uninhabitable for long after it is broken. Gone are the days of the old order, with destruction wrought silently with glimmering lights in the vast darkness.
http://files.myopera.com/salmondine/albums/16280/Mushroom%20Cloud%20Avatar.png| NUKE'D
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/everaldo/starwars/Darth-Vader-icon.jpg | Excellent.
http://www.mauvaisoeil.com/extras/darth/en/tarkin1.jpg | Mushroom clouds from nuclear weapons; an ancient yet effective method that symbolizes terror and desecration. These shall represent our reign and keep the rebels in-
http://www1.theforce.net/jc/icons/theempirestrikesback/ozzel2.gif | Seriously, mushrooms?
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/everaldo/starwars/Darth-Vader-icon.jpg | hk...hu...hk...hu
http://www.mauvaisoeil.com/extras/darth/en/tarkin1.jpg | You ... are a remarkably brave man, Admiral. (turns aside to Vader) Why did you make him your flagship Admiral?
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/everaldo/starwars/Darth-Vader-icon.jpg | hk...hu...hk...hu
http://www.mauvaisoeil.com/extras/darth/en/tarkin1.jpg | ...Well?
http://icons.iconarchive.com/icons/everaldo/starwars/Darth-Vader-icon.jpg | The Emperor never told you what happened to his last throne room, did he?
http://www.mauvaisoeil.com/extras/darth/en/tarkin1.jpg | Ah. Punishment.
http://www1.theforce.net/jc/icons/theempirestrikesback/ozzel2.gif | Seriously, who's going to be afraid of a giant orange mushroom? Orange just isn't frightening. If we dipped Lord Vader in a vat of orang-can'tbreathecan'tbreathe rightforgettingIasked[/table]

Fax Celestis
2009-08-04, 01:55 PM
From the bridge of a Star Destroyer
{table]http://files.myopera.com/salmondine/albums/16280/Mushroom%20Cloud%20Avatar.png| NUKE'D[/table]

AHAHAHAHA oh god my sides

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 02:02 PM
AHAHAHAHA oh god my sides

-bows low- I am pleased to serve. :smallwink:

Alejandro
2009-08-04, 02:07 PM
My cat begs to differ, by the way. Vacuums transmit a great deal of sound.

Holocron Coder
2009-08-04, 03:49 PM
Yes, but that's moot when you get the random Techie mishap of disabling the hyperdrive safety. Gravity wells no longer pull you out of hyperspace automatically, letting you zip right into them and subsequently bypass/ignore interdictors. Downside: You might hit a planet or two. Of course, this is rendered irrelevant when the only thing you're using the hyperdrive for are kamikaze runs.



Probably. But hey, can't make a WMD without spending millions of credits.

-ponders that- That is perhaps true, but, as you note, the chances of you hitting something actually dangerous increase. And you moving through the large-enemy-starship while in hyperspace doesn't actually affect it. The gravity of your hyperspace-travelling starship simply doesn't register in reality. And since there is no way to move at any significant fraction of C in the star wars universe, you can't weaponize small ships in that sense.

RS14
2009-08-04, 04:12 PM
And since there is no way to move at any significant fraction of C in the star wars universe, you can't weaponize small ships in that sense.

Why not? It should be limited only by fuel, interstellar dust, c, and patience. The starwars databank (http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/sublightdrive/index.html) states only that "sublight drives cannot move a vessel faster than the speed of light."

Edit: I would be curious if there are any canon sources imposing a sub-c maximum speed.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 06:29 PM
I get the impression it's mostly handwaved. But generally stuff like hyperspace, slipspace, etc, don't rely on a ship actually going anywhere near lightspeed in localspace, just creating a tear through reality to an alternate dimension. A tesseract.

Holocron Coder
2009-08-04, 06:32 PM
Why not? It should be limited only by fuel, interstellar dust, c, and patience. The starwars databank (http://www.starwars.com/databank/technology/sublightdrive/index.html) states only that "sublight drives cannot move a vessel faster than the speed of light."

Edit: I would be curious if there are any canon sources imposing a sub-c maximum speed.

Eh, true. I'm mostly basing on the fact that it's never been mentioned as possible.

Random832
2009-08-04, 06:36 PM
Eh, true. I'm mostly basing on the fact that it's never been mentioned as possible.

Except for, you know, physics. Since it's perfectly mundane, it doesn't need to be mentioned as specifically possible. You would need a _lot_ of fuel, and you'd probably get better results with a blaster using the same amount of energy.

AstralFire
2009-08-04, 06:37 PM
But it has - there was this paper called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" published by some nobody by the name of "A. Einstein" :smallcool:

I don't think 1905 qualifies as enough of a long, long time ago.

Random832
2009-08-04, 06:39 PM
(For context, I edited out a reference to Einstein in the above post since I thought it was a bit too clever)


I don't think 1905 qualifies as enough of a long, long time ago.

Yeah, but my point was that it's mundane physics.

ColdSepp
2009-08-04, 06:46 PM
I don't think hyperdrive works that way in Star Wars. When ships go into hyperspace they pretty much disappear from the physical universe. To hit something in normal space you have to drop out of hyperspace first.

It got discussed a while ago on one of the Wizards forums, and finally one of the devs said that if you hit something's mass shadow while in hyperspace, you're destroyed but it doesn't notice. This was in response to some guy who was planning to use starships as WMDs to destroy the civilian populations of planets. I guess they figured that having a single Death Star was enough without every freighter effectively becoming a planet-killer as well.

- Saph

Black Fleet Crisis confirms this. The imperials at the end talk about their attempts to drop missiles/mines from hyperspace for hit and run attacks. It didn't work. Then then stuff the bad guy in a lifepod and eject it while in hyperspace.

Apparently, you need a hyperspace drive to get out of hyperspace as well as get into it... and lifepods don't have those...

Yora
2009-08-30, 08:42 AM
First: Can you get the Erratas as pdf somewhere?

Second: A tie fighter goes kamikaze and deals 8d6+24 damage, with an average of 52. So it takes 42 points of damage and deals 5 points of damage to the pilot. So even with the cheapest cardbox and styrofoam fighter you can crash into EVERYTHING and fly away mostly fine?
Another case: An imperial class star destroyer goes full speed and crashes into something big. Let's say a moon. It deals 30d6+92 damage on average 197. Which deals 27 to the ship and doesn't even shake the crew from its feet.

Am I missing some important rule? :smallyuk:

quicker_comment
2009-08-30, 04:00 PM
Yeah, but my point was that it's mundane physics.
Star Wars is fiction. In fiction, one may freely deviate from reality, physics included. The fact that something is true in our universe does not mean that it has to be true in every fictional universe.

RS14
2009-08-30, 04:21 PM
"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" does suggest that it shares a universe with our own, and thus presumably the same basic physical principles.

Renegade Paladin
2009-08-30, 05:18 PM
Citation needed.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Edsel1.jpg

Anyway, I was going to add some substance to this post by pointing out that dropping objects from hyperspace doesn't work, citing the Black Fleet Crisis, but I see that someone has just done that, so I suppose there's no point in repeating it. :smalltongue:

Fixer
2009-08-30, 07:47 PM
First: Can you get the Erratas as pdf somewhere?

Second: A tie fighter goes kamikaze and deals 8d6+24 damage, with an average of 52. So it takes 42 points of damage and deals 5 points of damage to the pilot. So even with the cheapest cardbox and styrofoam fighter you can crash into EVERYTHING and fly away mostly fine?
Another case: An imperial class star destroyer goes full speed and crashes into something big. Let's say a moon. It deals 30d6+92 damage on average 197. Which deals 27 to the ship and doesn't even shake the crew from its feet.

Am I missing some important rule? :smallyuk:Tie Fighter (Huge Starfighter) Flying 5 squares (starship scale) Str 34
Ramming Damage: 4d6 +12 base damage (26 average damage) Doubled if going at full speed.
(Avoided by a DC 15 Pilot check, I might add. Who cannot make that kind of check?)

The damage in question is given to both ships involved (Tie Fighter and Target) and to all crew members on each ship. 52/60 damage is not anything to sneeze at, and on a bad die roll WILL destroy the tie fighter. I don't see rules on it, but I would say the crew on the larger ship would only be harmed in the section where the collision occurs, not the whole ship. That last part isn't RAW, though.

Random832
2009-08-30, 07:50 PM
Star Wars is fiction. In fiction, one may freely deviate from reality, physics included. The fact that something is true in our universe does not mean that it has to be true in every fictional universe.

Right, but those deviations are just that - special cases / exceptions / etc. Things that are true in our universe are true by default, without any requirement that it be specifically said to be true.