|1 person marked this as a favorite.|
Since Gilfalas' thread is the one that took off, I'm going to add my question here and delete my thread:
Something seems seriously wrong with Starship scaling at larger sizes, and the stated tonnage and crew complements.
Page 294 has a STARSHIP SCALE table that covers the expected Size, Length, and Weight of Starfinder Starships. This table, when compared to real-world ships just doesn't make any sense.
- Taking "Gargantuan" for this example, and their max stats: 15,000ft long and 8,000 tons, and the largest example ship provided (Battleship) with a maximum crew of 300.
- Compare that against an Arleigh Burke class destroyer which has comparable tonnage (actually closer to 9,000) and the same crew of 300.
- Silhouette comparison (SF Battleship in Black, US Destroyer in Red): http://imgur.com/a/4AKiL
The Arleigh Burke has a length of 500ft which is 3% of the Starfinder Battleship, yet they weigh the same and have the same crew size?
Can someone explain this? Is this a typo in the book where the designer forgot to cube the tonnage?
Why such a small crew complement for such an enormous ship? Even with automation this doesn't make sense.
Looks like two zeroes need to be added to both tonnage and crew sizes for the high-end of ships.