19 replies to this topic

[Pellean]

While perusing the Units page (looking in vain for some spoilers on land units), I re-read the B-Wing specs and noticed something interesting. This caught my eye:

B-wing Assault Starfighter Prototype
Length: 16.9 m
Speed: 76 MGLT
Acceleration: 10 MGLT/s
Maneuverability: 75 DPF
Hyperdrive: none
Shielding: 100 SBD
Hull: 60 RU
Armament 1: 1 light double blaster cannon
Armament 2: 3 light ion cannons
Armament 3: 2 (6) light proton torpedo launchers

I ran the Strike Force: Shantipole adventure (to my knowledge the only canonical appearance of prototype B-Wings) not too long ago, and I was struck by the lack of heavy laser cannon- I remember my players being brutally effective against the Imperial TIEs with those weapons. I looked back through the guidebook and discovered that I was right: West End Games has the Experimental B-Wing's armament as two heavy laser cannons (fuselage and what was later to become the autoblaster mount?), three ion cannons, and only one proton torpedo launcher.
I was wondering whether this was an oversight or a deliberate decision on your part; your B-Wing is substantially less effective in dogfights and a bit better against capitals than the RPG version.

-edit- The WEG B-wing prototype also has a hyperdrive.

Edited by Pellean, 16 February 2012 - 05:57 AM.

[johnchm.10]

id bet choice. more specifically, to keep the prototype more in line with the production models. and in the mod, when it comes to the fighters and bombers, there are already three space superiority fighters (just using new rep. units, the Z95, A-Wing, R41), who have armaments more suitable for taking on fighters (missiles.), but who arent great for taking on anything heavier than corvettes unless en masse. then you have the heavy bombers Y-wings and K-wings. these bad boys are packing some nice anti-ship missiles (proton torpedoes, and eventually proton rockets in the case of the Y-Wings, and that "shotgun blast" of plasma and proton torpedoes, supplemented with concussion and eventually flechette missiles in addition to the slug thrower cannons) these are the bane of capital ships, but arent that great against fighters (i know they have turrets and i know in the case of the k-wing, its got missiles, but the issue is more of a maneuverability one, in my opinion). then youve got the "general purpose" fighters. the X-wing has the speed and maneuverability to go into a dogfight and have a decent chance of winning, but still has proton torpedoes that can be used against capitals. thats not to say that a single squad of X-wings can take on an ISD and kill it on the first pass, but they fare better then the lighter fighters. its got the best balance of anti fighter and anti capital ship capabilities, until you get the E-wing. the B-wing works better against fighters than the Y-wings, with improved speed, maneuverability, and forward firing weapons, but cant keep pace with newer fighters. it also loses out on the turret, and that initial gap in the torpedo payload is closed when the proton rockets get introduced to the Y-wing, which reduces its effectiveness against the heavier capital ships. in this regard, it has the weaker of the general purpose fighters. the E-wing takes the strengths of both the B-wing and the X-wing, as it has more torpedoes, better guns, and is generally better than the X-wing, but has better maneuverability than the B-wing, and while it cant release as many torpedoes as the B-wing, it does so faster, with one torpedo every 7.5 seconds, as opposed to 2 every 12 seconds when you upgrade the B-wing enough. in addition, once you get to the series 2 E-wing, the lasers are overall better than those of the B-wing.

[johnchm.10]

those are just my own observations, backed up only by stats. if im wrong, then so be it

[Phoenix Rising]

I'm impressed this even came up. The prototype B-wing was indeed based on the ones recovered from the Shantipole Project; however, my recollection of it is from '94 PC game B-wing. I've only recently acquired Strike Force: Shantipole (regrettably, I wasn't into WEG when they had the license... not to mention, I think I was just learning to read when it came out) and I haven't gone through it thoroughly. So, let's address it now.

Obviously the whole X-wing series screws up the B-wing's standard armament by giving it three light lasers. The R-9X is one of the most advanced starfighter cannons at the height of the Empire (I had looted ones mounted on my Nova Courier in JtL... they were nasty) and autoblasters are relatively weak, so the prototype armament was reverse engineered in response to X-wing.

One problem is with the blaster damage: the triple blasters on the Z-95 forced me to lowball the output for everything in order to keep three of them weaker than one light laser. There's probably a better way to do it by penalizing just the Z-95. Also, there's no special mechanic for autoblasters. These issues will have to wait.

I can, however, fix the prototype stats. SF:S sure does give it x2 hyperdrive, a single launcher with 8 torpedoes, and two 7D lasers. Or are they individually half that because they're fire-linked?

I'm not nuanced in D6 rules (all the RPGs seem to provide diminishing returns on linking weapons for the sake of balance - it's not realistic though), but it's more likely that they're closer to light lasers +2 if the capacitors and reactor are the same as the production model. It looks like the modular weapon mount at the far end is simply not in use on the prototype.

So, new stats:

Hyperdrive: Class 2.0
Armament 1: 2 light laser cannons +2
Armament 2: 3 light ion cannons
Armament 3: 1 (8) light proton torpedo launcher

The six-capacity launchers on the first production model remain to explain that discrepancy. Apparently, it's just a shortage.

[johnchm.10]

if the WEG and X-Wing stats are different, they may still be both right. could just be different iterations of the prototype, or, since the B-wing's weapons package is modular, they could just be different configurations, as im pretty sure the designers tested different weapons on the B-wing, to test its effect on targets with the different loadouts, and to find the optimal capabilities for the platform

[Pellean]

I can, however, fix the prototype stats. SF:S sure does give it x2 hyperdrive, a single launcher with 8 torpedoes, and two 7D lasers. Or are they individually half that because they're fire-linked?

I'm not nuanced in D6 rules (all the RPGs seem to provide diminishing returns on linking weapons for the sake of balance - it's not realistic though), but it's more likely that they're closer to light lasers +2 if the capacitors and reactor are the same as the production model. It looks like the modular weapon mount at the far end is simply not in use on the prototype.

The diminishing return is half for convenience and half illusory: the system gives +1D to fire control and damage for each weapon adding to the volley. This is to 1: make life easier for the GM, who only has to make one attack roll, and 2: make up for maximum damage (e.g. every shot hitting) with weight of fire, increasing the chances that a volley will hit and the amount of damage that it will do. If you compare the 7D from the B-Wing's two linked lasers to the BY-era X-Wing's 6D from four, you will see that they are still pretty powerful guns. The B-Wings in service at Endor have a single laser cannon hitting for 7D (almost a light turbolaser) in addition to the autoblasters, resulting in a net increase in firepower despite the removal of the second cannon.

P.S. Sorry if this is incoherant; it's pretty late and I checked the forum before going to bed, but I'm too geeky to let the matter rest...

-edit- Strike Force Shantipole is a first-edition adventure book; given the differences between alien stats in the two games, it's possible that the vehicle stats are dated too.

Edited by Pellean, 16 February 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[johnchm.10]

given the modularity of the B-wing, im imagining that at some point in its design, someone on the design team got an idea to have a laser only or ion only gun armament. can you say over-powered?

[johnchm.10]

incidentally, i couldnt help but notice that when supporting ground assaults in the game, some of the fighters that are used, the B-wing and Assault Gunboat in particular, never had provisions for the proton gravity bombs

[Ghostrider]

incidentally, i couldnt help but notice that when supporting ground assaults in the game, some of the fighters that are used, the B-wing and Assault Gunboat in particular, never had provisions for the proton gravity bombs

Just so you know, we have revised the 'bombing runs' for ground assaults, ensuring that each flight of 3 bombers delivers an accurate payload to the target.

As the bombers move across the map, they strafe infantry and vehicles with laser and ion cannons, and then unleash their entire (standard) magazine at the target. It's pretty depressingly when the air cover turns out to be TIE Targeters, though, and I can instantly see why the TIE/sa was developed!

B-Wings are very nice in this regard, and flatten things rather well. You also get a real bonus with Ackbar in command, becuase his personal craft is a B-Wing E2 and therefore all bombing runs that take place with Ackbar in orbit are B-Wing flights. Awesome for 18BBY targets.

It should be noted however, that all bombing flights are based on the standard bomber, and the current system does not take account of upgraded craft, so all B-Wings, from the Prototype to the B-Wing/E8 bomb as per the B-Wing Assault Starfighter payload, so if you were hoping to level entire cities with your BTL S6 Y-wing's Proton Rockets, sorry. Not this time.

If you want to see a light show though, just watch those Scimitar's in action.

So to answer your question, Proton Bombs are not currently used in V1.2 bombing runs.
A full description of all 9 different bombing run payloads from the ARC-170 to the Xg-1 Star Wing is given on page 70 of the Technical Manual.

We hope to expand this in V1.3 and have bombing runs exactly match the upgrade level of the craft, but that's for later!

Edited by Ghostrider, 16 February 2012 - 06:44 PM.

[Phoenix Rising]

It's an interesting point. Bombers are space units with a niche ground role... I don't see how we can have two sets of weapons for them without there being confusion. They all fire the same warheads on bombing runs as they would in space, but if it makes any difference, the payload on the proton bomb warhead is intended to be identical to the free-falling proton bomb in ESB. Perhaps it's just a difference of setting in targeting?

[Pellean]

A full description of all 9 different bombing run payloads from the ARC-170 to the Xg-1 Star Wing is given on page 70 of the Technical Manual.

You have no idea how much I am looking forward to reading that; I'm actually more excited for the manual than the game at this point because my only computer that can actually run it is having RAM issues...

[Ghostrider]

Perhaps it's just a difference of setting in targeting?

That might explain the high cost of the TIE/sa series in general compared to other bombers. It's an all in one multi-role design for both space combat and ground assault with a customised bombing system to flatten planets and fire concussion missiles!

Personally I think the TIE bomber is wasted in space. It dies too fast, but it's glorious in its Surface Attack role.

I think we have to assume that the Proton Bomb system seen in ESB is not the standard every day package and the techs had to setup the payload specifically for the mission "find Millenium Falcon", especially considering that this these proton bombs are 'dropped' into an extremely low or even variable gravity environment of an asteroid field. So this system is more "push down" than "drop".

This setup is must also be fairly uncommon as it would be nearly useless in space combat unless you manage to fly directly over the bridge of the enemy ship!



I.e this is a mission-specific payload and customised software package.

Edited by Ghostrider, 17 February 2012 - 08:33 PM.

[johnchm.10]

you know, i did just think of a reasonable explanation. well, a few.
1: they arm the standard torpedoes, but they jettison them instead of launching them. i can imagine that real life fighters can do this, in case of a failure in the weapon.
2: they use the approach i like to call "primer only" system. it could be that the proton bombs are just standard torpedoes but only with enough fuel to clear the firing platform (bombers), and travel a short distance. its never explicitly stated that the proton torpedo is a sealed unit that cannot be dismantled. i personally like this theory, as it makes sense from a logistics standpoint. it allows for more torpedoes to be carried aboard ship, compared to having both torpedoes and bombs, and it would presumably require little to no modification to the launching platform
3: the torpedoes could have their fuel removed and replaced with a spring launching device, like on the old PIAT anti tank weapon. i dont like this theory, since the way im imagining it, some modifications would need to be made to either the torpedo or to the launching platform, as in replacing the firing mechanism for the normal weapons with the new one,

[Zeta1127]

That might explain the high cost of the TIE/sa series in general compared to other bombers. It's an all in one multi-role design for both space combat and ground assault with a customised bombing system to flatten planets and fire concussion missiles!

Personally I think the TIE bomber is wasted in space. It dies too fast, but it's glorious in its Surface Attack role.

Apparently, the SA in TIE/sa bomber really does stand for Surface Assault for a reason... Something like a Skipray Blastboat, Missile Boat, or TIE Defender is a far better choice in space, because they have far better survivability and versatility.

[Pellean]

you know, i did just think of a reasonable explanation. well, a few.
1: they arm the standard torpedoes, but they jettison them instead of launching them. i can imagine that real life fighters can do this, in case of a failure in the weapon.
2: they use the approach i like to call "primer only" system. it could be that the proton bombs are just standard torpedoes but only with enough fuel to clear the firing platform (bombers), and travel a short distance. its never explicitly stated that the proton torpedo is a sealed unit that cannot be dismantled. i personally like this theory, as it makes sense from a logistics standpoint. it allows for more torpedoes to be carried aboard ship, compared to having both torpedoes and bombs, and it would presumably require little to no modification to the launching platform
3: the torpedoes could have their fuel removed and replaced with a spring launching device, like on the old PIAT anti tank weapon. i dont like this theory, since the way im imagining it, some modifications would need to be made to either the torpedo or to the launching platform, as in replacing the firing mechanism for the normal weapons with the new one,

I always assumed that those were free-falling thermal detonators or some other light munition. They didn't make that big of an explosion, and the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels claims (I'm not sure how that book stands in canon) that a common mission configuration includes thermal detonators.

[smashedsaturn]

perhaps it's simply a setting for the torpedoes? "launch and use a short burn of fuel to follow a ballistic path to target" or something, to preserve the extra fuel that wouldn't be needed to reach the target to increase the destructive power of the weapon?

[Phoenix Rising]

I always assumed that those were free-falling thermal detonators or some other light munition.

They're proton bombs per SWCCG. You don't send star destroyers into an asteroid field if you're not willing to break out the big explosives.

[johnchm.10]

in a related note.
Seismic Charges. how the hell would they presumably work in space, given that there isnt a medium for the seismic wave to travel?

[Phoenix Rising]

Probably the simplest explanation is that it's a misnomer, like "laser" cannons.

[johnchm.10]

lol. fair enough