Approved Starship Relentless-class Cruiser

[Evangeline Ovmar]

Image Source​

Affiliation: First Order
Manufacturer: First Order
Model: Relentless-class
Modularity: N/A
Production: Mass
Material: Alusteel, Durasteel, and other starship construction components.
Classification: Heavy Cruiser, Ship of the Line/Wall

Length: 900
Width: 350
Height: 150

Armament:
8 Annihilator-class Turbolaser batteries
4 Despoiler-class Turbolaser batteries
15 warhead launcher batteries
8 Pursuit-class Defensive Missile Systems

Hangar:
1-2 shuttles
2-4 interceptor/scout craft

Special Features:

Maneuverability Rating: 14
Speed Rating: 14
Hyperdrive Class: 1.0

Strengths:

• Heavy armor
• Heavy shields
• Reinforced internal structure
• Heavy armament

Weaknesses:

• Very little hangar space
• Slow
• Sluggish

Description:

One of the first ships to roll off of First Order assembly lines featuring new technology, the Relentless-class Cruiser embodies the new doctrines of the Order's fleet.

Armed with a withering and brutal array of weaponry, the Relentless is a brutally effective brawler capable of pounding through armor and shields alike in combat. The Relentless is covered in thick, heavy armor plates designed to shrug off as much damage as possible and covered in a tough shield powered by a reinforced shield generator. Internally, the ship sports a honeycombed design, lending the vessel added strength all along its length, allowing it to resist all but the worst of critical or crippling damage. The spine itself is also thickened and armored, allowing the vessel to avoid most damage that would warp or break the spine of the ship and see it removed from the field entirely.

This comes with a cost, however. The ship is heavily armed and armored, reinforced throughout, but because of this the ship is slow and sluggish. It keeps pace with its brethren and appears sleek and agile, but in reality if forced to make rapid maneuvers or evasive action, the ship wallows where others glide. In addition, hangar space was deemed unneeded and unnecessary. The majority of all hangar space was removed entirely to allow more space for bulky internal reinforcement or weapon component space. Because of this, the Relentless sports only a utilitarian hangar capable of one or two shuttles and a meager handful of scout ships designed to aid the ship in search missions or to locate the enemy fleet.

Development Thread: N/A
Intent: To create a sturdy and resilient cruiser for the First Order fleet that follows the intended fleet doctrine

 

[Gir Quee]

RESEARCH REVIEW
-----
Star Wars Canon:
Pending initial review
------
Starwars Chaos:
Pending initial review
------
WITHOUT DEV THREADS
Pending initial review
------
WITH DEV THREADS
Pending Initial review
------
SUGGESTIONS
Pending Inital review

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Evangeline Ovmar"], as awkward as this may seem, by our current template, small craft have to be listed as complete squadrons rather than as individual ships. I'd suggest annotating it as something like this:

1 mixed squadron (4 interceptors/scouts & 2 shuttles)

By old 2.0 standards, this looks like it's a bit over the gun count for capital guns, but by the same standards, there would be more support craft as well. This looks close enough to be a wash to me, but others may disagree. I'd suggest to be careful when playing this offensive strength of this ship's weapons.

Sluggish

Assuming that this isn't the ship's speed, what does this mean in terms of game play? Is the helm slow to respond? Or is it something else?

Going along with that, given its heavy armor and reinforced structure, this ship would likely have a lot of mass. With high mass comes high amounts of inertia, which without special maneuvering systems, would probably not make this ship the easiest thing to maneuver.

I'd like to see either the heavy armor or reinforced structure be removed to keep its current maneuverability rating. Alternatively, keep both heavy armor and reinforced structure but change maneuverability to 14 to match the engines. Thoughts?

 

[Evangeline Ovmar]

[member="Gir Quee"]
I get that, I'm just... Sometimes that just doesn't work, if I'm honest. Even front line battleships in WWII carried a plane or two to scout for the ship and even today some destroyers and cruisers have helipads for helicopters or VTOL aircraft (Granted, those craft don't fulfill the scout role, but I feel they help point out that a ship can accommodate a small number of craft without fielding a squadron). I get where the 3.0 guide is coming from... But this is one of those cases that the 3.0 guide doesn't cover.

As for the speed/maneuverability thing, sluggish generally means that it just doesn't handle rapid maneuvers or high speed actions as well. Tell you what. It's easy enough to get a big, heavy thing moving, but a different story to turn one. What if I flip flop the speed and maneuverability to help reflect all that?

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Evangeline Ovmar"], I can appreciate the historical analogy and your eye for detail, and I'll be among the first to admit that what you have described is realistic and makes sense from an IC perspective, but it doesn't mesh well with the current OOC template rules. I will bring up this concern to discuss with the rest of the factory staff, but for the moment, we work with the template we've got.

One option might be to state the Relentless's complement as something like this:

1 Interceptor Squadron (<4 Interceptors)
1 Shuttle Squadron (2 shuttles)

As for the speed/maneuverability thing, sluggish generally means that it just doesn't handle rapid maneuvers or high speed actions as well. Tell you what. It's easy enough to get a big, heavy thing moving, but a different story to turn one. What if I flip flop the speed and maneuverability to help reflect all that?

My biggest concern will always be balance, but I'm flexible on how we get that balance.

Conceptually, I see this as going to pick any two".

The two of the three basic options:

1) Mobility
2) Weapons
3) Defenses

Since the weapons and defenses on this ship are already pushing the limit for a ship this size, I think that mobility, in all of its aspects, needs to be substandard to offset these strengths. I think its an organic weakness that fits well with the design as you've described it. I would prefer to see that demonstrated as maneuverability and speed rating of "14".

If you want to reduce another aspect of the design, such as its defenses or weapons to keep some more mobility for the design, that would also be acceptable.

 

[Evangeline Ovmar]

[member="Gir Quee"]
Then how about I drop all listed stats and list something like "utility hangar" and not list anything in it. It's specific enough that no one is going to suddenly launch a squadron of TIE fighters out of it, but broad enough that one or two fighters or a shuttle or small transport can land and take off. I get the ooc, but when ooc no longer covers the logic and reasoning of historical ooc and current IC, then there's a problem. Anyways, moot point.

For speed and maneuverability, I get it, but I'd rather like to avoid two stats at 14. Half because it seems superfluous when the ship is already at the far end of the scale and half because two same number stats bug me on an ooc level. I can meet you in the middle with a 13/14, though. Speed and maneuverability respectively. Reflects Newton's laws well enough and balances it out decently.

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Gir Quee"]
Then how about I drop all listed stats and list something like "utility hangar" and not list anything in it. It's specific enough that no one is going to suddenly launch a squadron of TIE fighters out of it, but broad enough that one or two fighters or a shuttle or small transport can land and take off. I get the ooc, but when ooc no longer covers the logic and reasoning of historical ooc and current IC, then there's a problem. Anyways, moot point.

After consultation with the other Factory Judges, another option would be to list this load in fractions of a squadron, such as "1/2" squadrons and the like. Ultimately, any craft carried by the Relentless-class will be quantified in some sort of terms of squadron count at this time.

For speed and maneuverability, I get it, but I'd rather like to avoid two stats at 14. Half because it seems superfluous when the ship is already at the far end of the scale and half because two same number stats bug me on an ooc level. I can meet you in the middle with a 13/14, though. Speed and maneuverability respectively. Reflects Newton's laws well enough and balances it out decently.

My viewpoint on this hasn't changed from my last post. I'm simply not comfortable with that given this ship is already pushing the limits offensively and defensively. You have two options:

1) Keep weapons and defenses as is, and have speed and maneuverability at 14 or greater
2) Lower special features in defenses to get either speed or maneuverability at 12

If these are sticking points for you, there is always the second chance option.

 

[Evangeline Ovmar]

[member="Gir Quee"]
Considering the squadron count moot and the speed/maneuverability issue secondary at this time, is there anything else wrong with the submission as it stands?

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Evangeline Ovmar"], I see the speed and maneuverability issue being tied to the offensive and defensive systems of the ship, but otherwise, I don't see any other issues at this time.

 

[Evangeline Ovmar]

[member="Gir Quee"]
Then with that in mind, please archive this. I'll take door number three with this design instead.

 

[Gir Quee]

Noted.

[member="Cira"] | [member="Spencer Varanin"] | [member="Raziel"]

 

[ADM. Reshmar]

Moved to Archives - PM [member="Spencer Jacobs"] for removal / if denied for Second Chance please post and tag Spencer Jacobs for review.

Thank you!

 

[Raziel]

[member="Evangeline Ovmar"]

Under review

 

[Raziel]

[member="Evangeline Ovmar"]

For a ship of this size, 12 is actually pretty manoeuvrable. Please change to 14 to be consistent with the description.

 

[Evangeline Ovmar]

[member="Raziel"]
Is this ship, aside from the maneuverability, OP, broken, or unfair to roleplay? For me, this is an important answer to have before making edits.

 

[Raziel]

[member="Evangeline Ovmar"]

I see no issue in the submission other than the requested edit.

 

[Evangeline Ovmar]

[member="Raziel"]

Okay. I ask because it wasn't denied, it was archived by submitter request. I see no rules stating that because something was archived it cannot benefit from the Optional Factory precedence. If it was denied I can see a problem, but not here.


I've stated in the report PM chain that the writer who made the report was upset not because the ships were unsubbed, but that I felt and interpreted that the writer was upset because he felt he couldn't "get away with" using the factory as optional per precedence. As such, I'm feeling extremely targeted by the writer making the report.


I feel I was reported not because anything I was using was unfair, but because the writer in question feels or believes that because they use the factory, then everyone should use the factory. I personally have been doing everything in my power to avoid the factory and give an example on how to properly and fairly treat the factory as optional.


If one person who feels like everyone needs to use the factory is capable of making a report for no reason other than because they feel that treating the factory for submissions that are not inherently broken, overpowered, or unfair to roleplay and the result is to promptly place that same item through the factory for unnecessary edits, then how is the factory optional?


If the edits are going to be mandatory and absolutely required, I will make them, but if so I would like to ask that perhaps a decision should be made on whether the factory is or is not actually optional to prevent situations like this from occurring. I'm not trying to be a pain in the rear, I'd just like to discuss this before any final decisions are made.

 

[Raziel]

[member="Evangeline Ovmar"]

Edits were requested reducing the capability of this ship that were not made instead it was archived.

Your questions are being or have been answered via pm and the edits I requested have been made so this is being marked pending approval.

 

[Raziel]

<p>Awesome. Pending Admin Approval. Thanks! [member="Spencer Jacobs"]</p>

 

[Hailyn]

<p>Approved.</p>