2020. 1. 31. 03:19ㆍ카테고리 없음
Great work, but I have two questions for you.1) Why did you give them squadron? Seems a little off for a freighter.2) Why did you put lower shields at the bow and stern? Going by historical examples, the ship might be armed with anti-aircraft or a single anti-sub gun. The rest would be centered around defense. For the unarmed ones, why not have 2 shields all around? I can see the lower shields for the armed ones. The ship only has so much power.Just curious.
The Imperial Cargo Ship, also known simply as the Imperial Freighter, was a heavy freighter model used by the Galactic Empire to transport cargo. Season Two 'The Forgotten Droid' (First appearance) Imperial Cargo Ship Star Wars Rebels Wiki FANDOM powered by Wikia.
Out standing work. Oh, one final thing. Would you be interested in trading the Photoshop files? Ill send you my bulk cruiser when it is done?
I was thinking of giving it Squadron 0, but that has no effect on the Squadron command token, which lets it activate a single Squadron anyway. It only really makes a difference once you install Expanded Hangars - which you wouldn't, ever, if it only meant going from 0 to 1. And there's precedent (in the TIE games at least) of these ships being adapted to carry small numbers of fighters, so I thought I'd leave that option open.As for the shield distribution, originally it was 1 all around. But because of its shape, I figured wide broadside arcs (like on a Nebulon-B) were appropriate. And then it made sense to beef them up a little, both thematically and for game balance. The Redirect token becomes a bit more meaningful like this, too.Sure, I'll put the PSD files up in a Dropbox folder later.
Also, it doesn't translate into what the ships are.The corvette, when you think about it, is just engines attached to a small living compartment. It should barely have any hull at all.The cargo ship, however, has a lot of subdivision for cargo compartments, cargo packed in, structural reinforcement, etc.
All of that would absorb weapons hits. I think Diablo is spot on with that.I always assumed that the higher hull values reflect the fact that the corvette, presumably, as a military vessel, has armor plating and reinforced bulkheads and the kind of extra protection that one wouldn't find on a civilian vessel.Not that you're wrong about the freighter having more hull than the corvette, necessarily, your analysis is sound, but that's how I conceptualize it. Sadly, this is the point where I would get somewhat pedantic as a naval historian.
Please forgive me if it sounds that way. I don't mean it to. Anyway.A real world naval corvette is built for speed. Its not really even a fighting asset.
Originally, they were built to quickly take messages or VIPs to destinations so information could be acted upon. To do this, the ship would have minimal armor or weapons and the largest means of propulsion possible. In sailing days, that meant lots of canvas, and later, big engines.
Any extra weight would be eliminated for the sake of speed.The way the Tantive IV was portrayed in A New Hope is actually correct. A very important person taking assets to an important destination. Also, the ship is shown with minimal weaponry to try to defend itself with. That it would quickly fall to a real warship is also correct. Corvettes were never, under any circumstances, meant to be used as offensive or even defensive warships.The CR-90 in Armada is completely wrong if it is trying to reproduce what we saw in the movie or historical concepts of a corvette.
It more closely matches a destroyer of destroyer escort, which are both completely different in design philosophies. Agreed, but as ship nomenclature/classification has changed so much over time, I'm not all that comfortable saying FFG got things right or wrong.
The Star Wars universe has played pretty fast and loose with ship types.Frigates used to serve as the eyes and ears of the fleet and were more likely to operate independently (and aggressively) than the larger, more powerful ships of the line (17th-19th cent). More recently, the name was assigned to a class of escort vessels (often tasked with ASW duties). In WW2, these vessels tended to be smaller than destroyers (and even smaller destroyer escorts), but that's not necessarily the case post-WW2. Destroyers themselves were initially designed to engage and sink torpedo boats (hence their name as 'torpedo boat destroyers'), but evolved into escort class vessels post WW1.Cruisers used to range dramatically in size/power (unprotected, protected, and armoured) until the 1920s-1930s when light and heavy classifications came into common usage. They varied so much in displacement, armament, and speed as to almost defy legitimate comparison.
Although some heavy cruisers were second only to battleships as surface combatants. Now, some 'cruisers' are smaller than 'destroyers.' Agreed, but as ship nomenclature/classification has changed so much over time, I'm not all that comfortable saying FFG got things right or wrong.
The Star Wars universe has played pretty fast and loose with ship types.Frigates used to serve as the eyes and ears of the fleet and were more likely to operate independently (and aggressively) than the larger, more powerful ships of the line (17th-19th cent). More recently, the name was assigned to a class of escort vessels (often tasked with ASW duties). In WW2, these vessels tended to be smaller than destroyers (and even smaller destroyer escorts), but that's not necessarily the case post-WW2. Destroyers themselves were initially designed to engage and sink torpedo boats (hence their name as 'torpedo boat destroyers'), but evolved into escort class vessels post WW1.Cruisers used to range dramatically in size/power (unprotected, protected, and armoured) until the 1920s-1930s when light and heavy classifications came into common usage.
They varied so much in displacement, armament, and speed as to almost defy legitimate comparison. Although some heavy cruisers were second only to battleships as surface combatants. Now, some 'cruisers' are smaller than 'destroyers.' Agreed, After all the Imperial Star 'Destroyer' is a title not a class. It is more akin to a Heavy Cruiser.
Response got cut off.In other words, I don't think we need to get caught up on ship nomenclature as they relate to terrestrial examples. As those have, themselves, evolved over time.I disagree.
If the names are meaningless, why use the names to begin with? Clearly the production staff wanted to convey certain ideas. Historically, a corvette is a certain kind of ship, and the way it was portrayed in the movei conformed to that. For those ships they wanted to make less familiar and less terrestrial, they invented a name or modified a type. Star destroyers and medical frigates (whatever that is) for example. For the moment, I view the CR90 as more towards a DD while NebB is more towards CL.
The VSD is more akin to (relative to core set) BBs.Once Wave 2 comes live, VSD, RAF, seems to be geared more towards CA or battlecruiser standards. Crowning glory goes to ISD or MC80 as BB standards.The following are pretty standard terminology for the post-WWI era.DD = DestroyerCL = Light Cruiser (evolution of the protected cruiser)CA = Heavy Cruiser (evolution of the armored cruiser)BC = Battlecruiser (cruiser speed and protection with the weapons of a battleship)BB = Battleship (biggest and nastiest). To further shed light into the comparison (or to muddle it even more!), these are typical displacements of some WW2-era ship types:Corvette: 1,000 tonsFrigate: 1,500 tonsDestroyer: 2,500 tonsFreighter: 5,000 tonsLight Cruiser: 6,000 tonsHeavy Cruiser: 10,000 tonsOil Tanker: 10,000 tonsBattlecruiser: 35,000 tonsBattleship: 50,000 tonsOcean Liner: 50,000 tons (!)Returning to the BFF-1, it would feel odd to me if it were lighter (i.e. Had fewer hull points) than the smallest type of warship. Response got cut off.In other words, I don't think we need to get caught up on ship nomenclature as they relate to terrestrial examples. As those have, themselves, evolved over time.I disagree.
If the names are meaningless, why use the names to begin with? Clearly the production staff wanted to convey certain ideas. Historically, a corvette is a certain kind of ship, and the way it was portrayed in the movei conformed to that. For those ships they wanted to make less familiar and less terrestrial, they invented a name or modified a type.
Star destroyers and medical frigates (whatever that is) for example.Certainly your prerogative to disagree. But the 'CR90' was originally described as a 'blockade runner' and not a corvette at all.
Star Wars Bulk Cargo Freighter
That nomenclature was added as the Star Wars universe evolved. All a blockade runner really needed was to be able to fight its way through a blockade (or avoid it entirely) and then run like heck. The Tantive IV fits that description in appearance, even though it fails catastrophically in its intended role.My point was that we shouldn't get caught up in trying to describe these space vessels with naval terms which have meant different things, to different people, at different times. The most iconic of all Star Wars ships (completely my opinion) has really no real-world analog. As it carries a pretty substantial air wing (aircraft carrier), packs some serious anti-ship weaponry (battleship), is depicted as operating both independently and in squadrons (frigate or cruiser), and can take its fair share of lumps (battleship again).
So far as I know, we've yet to see something of that nature on our ocean. In the Star Wars universe, it's a Star Destroyer (and an Imperial-class one, at that). But I would more readily describe it as a System Control Ship.Looking at this from a gaming perspective, we're limited because there are so few 'iconic' Star Wars capital ships, especially when considering the original trilogy (Eps IV-VI). Until RotJ, the Rebels have nothing that can stand with a Star Destroyer.With this being the case, it seems to me that FFG would have missed the boat if they failed to include the first vessel to grace the screen in one of their early waves. To further shed light into the comparison (or to muddle it even more!), these are typical displacements of some WW2-era ship types:Corvette: 1,000 tonsFrigate: 1,500 tonsDestroyer: 2,500 tonsFreighter: 5,000 tonsLight Cruiser: 6,000 tonsHeavy Cruiser: 10,000 tonsOil Tanker: 10,000 tonsBattlecruiser: 35,000 tonsBattleship: 50,000 tonsOcean Liner: 50,000 tons (!)Returning to the BFF-1, it would feel odd to me if it were lighter (i.e.
Star Wars Bulk Freighter Size
Had fewer hull points) than the smallest type of warship.Depends upon what we're considering Hull Points to represent. If it represents survivability in a combat environment, displacement should not be the most important factor. Freighters are designed to carry cargo. They're typically unarmored and rather easy to poke holes through with naval cannon. They're also much easier to sink.Of course, Destroyers weren't graced with a ton of armor themselves. Just ask anyone who served on 'Tin Cans.' They were, however, typically much faster and more maneuverable than freighters, tankers, and other targets.
For whatever it's worth, BFF-1s were stupid simple to destroy in the flight simulators where they appeared. They had enough resilience to put up with attacks from a single fighter for a while, but if a single squadron wanted to, they could destroy it.But a ship in this game that gets destroyed whenever a fighter squadron activates isn't really fun, is it?The problem here with the BFF-1 is that it doesn't have a clear gameplay function. It's a transport, and as yet nobody has an idea of what transports should do. It's why GR75s are going to be a dubious addition as well.
What would they do, except faff about as targets to get shot at? For whatever it's worth, BFF-1s were stupid simple to destroy in the flight simulators where they appeared. They had enough resilience to put up with attacks from a single fighter for a while, but if a single squadron wanted to, they could destroy it.But a ship in this game that gets destroyed whenever a fighter squadron activates isn't really fun, is it?The problem here with the BFF-1 is that it doesn't have a clear gameplay function. It's a transport, and as yet nobody has an idea of what transports should do. It's why GR75s are going to be a dubious addition as well. What would they do, except faff about as targets to get shot at?They can have a great game play function. Specifically supply and convoy scenarios.
One side would try to get them from point A to B with the other trying to destroy them. Each destroyed ship is worth X amount of points. More if it is desingated as fully loaded. I really think this ship is a great addition.