Starship Combat—I Am a Leaf on the Wind

What about thermal exhaust ports?

What about thermal exhaust ports?

That was a feature, not a bug.

SM

though if they did need to land they could have extending legs to not crush the guns

Ships that large don't land. They either dock into a orbital station or crash into the planet.

dharkus wrote:

though if they did need to land they could have extending legs to not crush the guns

Ships that large don't land. They either dock into a orbital station or crash into the planet.

For example: Here's the USS Enterprise D, a classic capital ship, "landing"

Will there be a speed modifier that effects attack and defense? Seriously, I'd really like to know about an​ acceleration/deceleration stat for vehicles.
Will there be rules for interaction with ground targets, such as wheeled vehicles? Or are the rules primarily about starship rules?

There is a manuver for staying in one spot and pivoting, so I would say conservation of momentum isn't a thing in the Starfinder universe.

Steven "Troll" O'Neal wrote:

dharkus wrote:

though if they did need to land they could have extending legs to not crush the guns

Ships that large don't land. They either dock into a orbital station or crash into the planet.

For example: Here's the USS Enterprise D, a classic capital ship, "landing"

The Enterprise isn't designed to land. Other ships probably could be, though that may be problematic depending on how drives work. I'd wonder about ground pressure, to be honest. A classic SF scene is the chase through a city to the spaceport to escape, so I wouldn't close it off even for large ships.

Massive starships (and in this universe we could be talking about Lexx/Death Star etc) could have enough gravity of thier own to inflict Earthquakes on anything they attempted to land on, even if they where made of exotic materials strong enough to survive the forces involved.

In Star Trek, Voyager can land, but that is relatively small, with a crew of fewer than 200.

It's a good justification for the existance of ships the size of the player's ship if larger ships can't land, anyway.

There is a manuver for staying in one spot and pivoting, so I would say conservation of momentum isn't a thing in the Starfinder universe.

Pivoting isn't too bad. The 'drive in reverse' maneuver makes physics scream a bit though.

Especially with the pictured ships.

Massive starships (and in this universe we could be talking about Lexx/Death Star etc) could have enough gravity of thier own to inflict Earthquakes on anything they attempted to land on, even if they where made of exotic materials strong enough to survive the forces involved.

In Star Trek, Voyager can land, but that is relatively small, with a crew of fewer than 200.

It's a good justification for the existance of ships the size of the player's ship if larger ships can't land, anyway.

Something as large as the Death Star isn't landing, but I see no reason more 'normal' space battleships would have to be impossible to land. How else would you organise a revolt and seize the battleships while they're on the ground?

I'd also suggest there's no reason for large vessels to make small ones obsolete. It hasn't on the Earth's oceans, after all.

Fardragon wrote:

There is a manuver for staying in one spot and pivoting, so I would say conservation of momentum isn't a thing in the Starfinder universe.

Pivoting isn't too bad. The 'drive in reverse' maneuver makes physics scream a bit though.

Especially with the pictured ships.

Maybe only certain kinds of ships can pull that one off by swinging their engines around on gimbals or they use esotic drives that can change the direction they move the ship without physically re-orienting themselves? Add in some stress or ship damage and a drastically reduced speed in your new direction and i could buy it.

Why do we not see a "Death Blossom" maneuver listed? it has to be there... Whirlwind Attack 2:In Space!

Something as large as the Death Star isn't landing, but I see no reason more 'normal' space battleships would have to be impossible to land. How else would you organise a revolt and seize the battleships while they're on the ground?

Well you can make your sci-fi universe whatever you want but I'd say large battleships couldn't or shouldn't land on planet for the same reason that one of our naval battleships can't go inland. They're designed for space and, even if they do have emergency landing capability, they'd have to be designed to withstand atmosphere entry and need a massive amount of fuel to achieve escape velocity to get back into space. They'd just be far better at what they're meant to do (spaaaaaaaaaace!) if they didn't have to worry about getting on ground (just as real life battleships are better at being boats by not having tires on the bottom to turn into some kind of landships).

That doesn't mean they can't be crazy effective in support to ground invasions though. Orbital bombardments and being able to drop massive waves of bombers that *are* designed to enter and escape gravity wells could bring a planet that can't defend against it to its knees.

As for seizing battleships, I'd suggest the best way to do that would be by assaulting through the the docking ports of an orbital dock rather than on the ground.

Fardragon wrote:

Massive starships (and in this universe we could be talking about Lexx/Death Star etc) could have enough gravity of thier own to inflict Earthquakes on anything they attempted to land on, even if they where made of exotic materials strong enough to survive the forces involved.

In Star Trek, Voyager can land, but that is relatively small, with a crew of fewer than 200.

It's a good justification for the existance of ships the size of the player's ship if larger ships can't land, anyway.

Something as large as the Death Star isn't landing, but I see no reason more 'normal' space battleships would have to be impossible to land. How else would you organise a revolt and seize the battleships while they're on the ground?

I'd also suggest there's no reason for large vessels to make small ones obsolete. It hasn't on the Earth's oceans, after all.

What comes to mind is the same effect as when a torpedo cracks a naval ship, you detonate the weapon underneath the ship and let its own weight, suddenly not supported by the water that was displaced by the explosion snap the ship in half. The explaination i was told long ago at least, the explosion may damage the ship itself but the real threat is from the ship still being bouyed in the water at the ends but not immediately above the point of detonation, it effectively puts the weight of the ship against itself and no ship can survive that.

A huge spaceship coming in to a gravity well has to worry about the same thing, is it designed to fully support its own weight with either a LOT of rockets even spaced underneath it dividing the weight amongst themselves or using an anti-gravity field across the whole ship or is the whole thing aerodynamically designed such that it can act as an aeroplane in atmoshpere to support its weight.

The original Robotech had a similar moment in the pilot episode, they try to launch the super long battleship from atmosphere by using the anti-gravity generators but they dont fully encompass the ship and end up tearing themselves out of the hull instead of lifting the ship up.

I think Battlestar Galactica recgonized this as well in that episode where they jump into a planet, go into a free fall and jump out before hitting the ground, their ship just couldnt survive supporting itself under a planet's gravity.

Its all the same thing in the end.

In Star Wars, most ships larger than, say, the Corellian Blockade Runner (the Tantive IV, as a specific example) are typically incapable of landing on a planet, especially Star Destroyers and Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, simply due to the size of the ship and the fact they can't support their own weight in atmosphere with gravity. Some smaller capital ships, like the Acclamator-class star cruisers, were capable of entering the upper atmosphere, but even they weren't capable of truly landing on the ground.

As an example of scale, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Mark 1 has a total crew size of 46,785. The largest real-world aircraft carrier (the U.S. Nimitz-class carrier) has a maximum crew of 5300. A Star Destroyer requires almost 9 times the crew to operate, and is 5 times as long, stern to bow. The amount of engine thrust required just to escape a planet's gravitational pull would be massive, and that assumes Earth standard gravity and not heavier. There's a reason Vader didn't just land his fleet on Hoth and get out the airlock to go hunt Rebels.

Now, this being Star Wars, there is ONE exception to this in the books, where the Super Star Destroyer Lusankya was buried underneath an entire sector of Coruscant, but that one involved the Emperor using the Force to do so - especially since no one knew it was there until it burst out of the surface, destroying thousands of buildings and killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions. And the only way it made orbit was by means of a specially-designed repulsorlift platform, implying that the largest, most powerful ship the Empire ever built is incapable of achieving the necessary lift needed to escape a planet's gravitational field.

You can ignore a certain amount of physics when talking about the vacuum of space, but as soon as you introduce a gravitational field, it gets really hard to ignore physics.

In Star Wars, most ships larger than, say, the Corellian Blockade Runner (the Tantive IV, as a specific example) are typically incapable of landing on a planet, especially Star Destroyers and Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, simply due to the size of the ship and the fact they can't support their own weight in atmosphere with gravity. Some smaller capital ships, like the Acclamator-class star cruisers, were capable of entering the upper atmosphere, but even they weren't capable of truly landing on the ground.

As an example of scale, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer Mark 1 has a total crew size of 46,785. The largest real-world aircraft carrier (the U.S. Nimitz-class carrier) has a maximum crew of 5300. A Star Destroyer requires almost 9 times the crew to operate, and is 5 times as long, stern to bow. The amount of engine thrust required just to escape a planet's gravitational pull would be massive, and that assumes Earth standard gravity and not heavier. There's a reason Vader didn't just land his fleet on Hoth and get out the airlock to go hunt Rebels.

Now, this being Star Wars, there is ONE exception to this in the books, where the Super Star Destroyer Lusankya was buried underneath an entire sector of Coruscant, but that one involved the Emperor using the Force to do so - especially since no one knew it was there until it burst out of the surface, destroying thousands of buildings and killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions. And the only way it made orbit was by means of a specially-designed repulsorlift platform, implying that the largest, most powerful ship the Empire ever built is incapable of achieving the necessary lift needed to escape a planet's gravitational field.

You can ignore a certain amount of physics when talking about the vacuum of space, but as soon as you introduce a gravitational field, it gets really hard to ignore physics.

I thought both Acclimators and Venators could land and launch from the ground but were specifically designed to do so. Acclimators were actually meant to be giant assault landing ships that could land armies at a time and as for Venators, weren't there scenes in Episode III and TCW that had them berthed planetside at a few points? granted Star Wars and physics are not on speaking terms anyways but i thought those two were meant to stand out as smaller than Imperial ships because they could do shenanigans like that.

Fardragon wrote:

There is a manuver for staying in one spot and pivoting, so I would say conservation of momentum isn't a thing in the Starfinder universe.

Pivoting isn't too bad. The 'drive in reverse' maneuver makes physics scream a bit though.

Especially with the pictured ships.

Bow thrusters! :P

Having just checked Wookiepedia, you are correct, the Acclamator and the Venator could land on planets. The Acclamator was actually relatively small in comparison to both previous ships (less than half the length of an Imperial Star Destroyer). And the Victory Star Destroyer was actually capable of upper atmospheric operations as well - although it did not possess the necessary landing gear to make planetfall. Victory SDs are actually shorter than Venators, apparently.

I'd say that ruling a small capital ship equipped with the proper landing gear (say, frigate-sized, if they go with that classification for space combat scale), could make planetfall, but nothing larger.

I also suspect that it's far more practical and economical to use shuttles to send teams down to the planetary surface as opposed to just landing a big old ship, but I don't know the overall economics of that in Starfinder's scale for how they handle things like fuel costs. The Star Wars RPGs just kind of had a "Consumables" stat where a ship could go for X months without resupply or refueling. I don't know how specific Starfinder intends to get with supplies.

Having just checked Wookiepedia, you are correct, the Acclamator and the Venator could land on planets. The Acclamator was actually relatively small in comparison to both previous ships (less than half the length of an Imperial Star Destroyer). And the Victory Star Destroyer was actually capable of upper atmospheric operations as well - although it did not possess the necessary landing gear to make planetfall. Victory SDs are actually shorter than Venators, apparently.

I'd say that ruling a small capital ship equipped with the proper landing gear (say, frigate-sized, if they go with that classification for space combat scale), could make planetfall, but nothing larger.

I also suspect that it's far more practical and economical to use shuttles to send teams down to the planetary surface as opposed to just landing a big old ship, but I don't know the overall economics of that in Starfinder's scale for how they handle things like fuel costs. The Star Wars RPGs just kind of had a "Consumables" stat where a ship could go for X months without resupply or refueling. I don't know how specific Starfinder intends to get with supplies.

hmm, two thoughts.

1) its a given that ships can land and launch from a planet until they reach Class C (probably capital ship class) at which point they must buy back that ability for some cost in ship customization points.

2) even if a ship could land planetside it seems like it would make it incredibly vulnerable as most of its sensors and weapons would be blocked off and it is really relying on port systems for defense at that point. sometimes you dont have a choice though and i imagine a lot of PCs would pay for the ability to land when away from a safe harbor anyways.

For going backwards, some Star Wars ships, such as the Invisible Hand, used focused deflectors to turn the exhaust around after leaving the engine. Maybe the Starfinder ships could do something similar?

Why do we not see a "Death Blossom" maneuver listed? it has to be there... Whirlwind Attack 2:In Space!

That will likely be the end of a chain four feats deep or so.

Well, there's always the improbable water landing. It is a ship after all.

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Dear Lord! That's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Dear Lord! That's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

Easy fix, someone give the ship a potion of Planetary Adaptation... so, where is it's mouth?

Hill Giant wrote:

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Dear Lord! That's over 150 atmospheres of pressure!

Fry: How many atmospheres can the ship withstand?

Professor Hubert Farnsworth: Well, it's a space ship, so I'd say anywhere between zero and one.

Easy fix, someone give the ship a potion of Planetary Adaptation... so, where is it's mouth?

My first thought

Voss wrote:

Fardragon wrote:

There is a manuver for staying in one spot and pivoting, so I would say conservation of momentum isn't a thing in the Starfinder universe.

Pivoting isn't too bad. The 'drive in reverse' maneuver makes physics scream a bit though.

Especially with the pictured ships.

Bow thrusters! :P

I wouldn't mind seeing some ships like that.

Loved the Star Furies in Babylon 5 for having both forward and reverse thrusters, and pairing the sides for turns.

Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:

My problem is with the fact that presumably space combat would take place in three dimensions. There appears to be no consideration for attacking from above or below. Space combat in two dimensions feels like it loses something important.

They apparently do have rules for that.

Also..."If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax."

As a counterpoint: "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Fardragon wrote:

Mk III Drone: you can have it in any colour as long as it's not black.

How much do you wanna bet the Shireen really tried to take special "single color" orders but then they get on the factory floor and all of those color options and then their compound eyes get really big...

That sounds like the shipyard paintcrew is staffed entirely with dozens/hundreds of Sabine Wrens.

thecursor wrote:

Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:

My problem is with the fact that presumably space combat would take place in three dimensions. There appears to be no consideration for attacking from above or below. Space combat in two dimensions feels like it loses something important.

They apparently do have rules for that.

Also..."If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax."

As a counterpoint: "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Which is rubbish. Moving "up and down" is still two dimensional relative to only one other vessal.

Dominar Rygel XVI wrote:

thecursor wrote:

Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:

My problem is with the fact that presumably space combat would take place in three dimensions. There appears to be no consideration for attacking from above or below. Space combat in two dimensions feels like it loses something important.

They apparently do have rules for that.

Also..."If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax."

As a counterpoint: "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Which is rubbish. Moving "up and down" is still two dimensional relative to only one other vessal.

Wouldn't two dimensional thinking be be as simple as not understanding that a two dimensional plane can shift its position in three dimensional space?

Fardragon wrote:

Dominar Rygel XVI wrote:

thecursor wrote:

Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:

My problem is with the fact that presumably space combat would take place in three dimensions. There appears to be no consideration for attacking from above or below. Space combat in two dimensions feels like it loses something important.

They apparently do have rules for that.

Also..."If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax."

As a counterpoint: "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Which is rubbish. Moving "up and down" is still two dimensional relative to only one other vessal.

Wouldn't two dimensional thinking be be as simple as not understanding that a two dimensional plane can shift its position in three dimensional space?

Also, without getting into spoilers, the quote makes more sense when seen in its original context of Wrath of Khan.

Hitdice wrote:

Fardragon wrote:

Dominar Rygel XVI wrote:

thecursor wrote:

Mine all mine...don't touch wrote:

My problem is with the fact that presumably space combat would take place in three dimensions. There appears to be no consideration for attacking from above or below. Space combat in two dimensions feels like it loses something important.

They apparently do have rules for that.

Also..."If you're wondering how he eats and breathes and other science facts, just repeat to yourself it's just a show, I should really just relax."

As a counterpoint: "He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking."

Which is rubbish. Moving "up and down" is still two dimensional relative to only one other vessal.

Wouldn't two dimensional thinking be be as simple as not understanding that a two dimensional plane can shift its position in three dimensional space?

Also, without getting into spoilers, the quote makes more sense when seen in its original context of Wrath of Khan.

To truly appreciate it, you should watch it in the original Klingon.

Hey Jason, now that the Core Rulebook is out, I'd love to hear what rules you were using for ramming with Game Trade Media vs the goblin ships. I think I recall you mentioning larger ships would be less affected by smaller ships, so base frame seems to be a factor here - is armor involved at all? Anyone come up with any cool homebrew rules of their own?