What's new

Factory Suggestion : Get rid of...

Sith Science is Best Science
Character
I agree wholeheartedly - hell, I would argue keeping track of Support Craft is in itself unnecessary, so long as rules are included that make it clear that only Starfighters are meant to have an impact on naval combat during normal circumstances; most canon ships do not track every damn shuttle or repair boat they have on board, so I don't see why we should have to.

Even if that won't happen, at the very least make it so that Support Craft and Starfighters can be interchanged without having to have separate submissions (which accomplishes nothing but clogging up the Factory, since Copy+Paste is a thing) - I can't think of a single situation in canon (starfighter racks notwithstanding) where a shuttle has been unable to land in a hangar "because it was made for Starfighters" or vice versa.

Sorry if I come off as a bit salty, but internal inconsistencies in regards to lore and common sense always get me going.

(Edit: If you're going to read anything in this thread, read #14 by Khonsu - he says much of what I say through several posts, but better.)
 
Last edited:
Coopers Cooler
Writer
Squadrons are squadrons. We have squadron size allocations inside them to account for different sized ships.
 
D I S G R A C E D
Roleplay Judge
The submission does not state directly that the vessels a Hanger can carry need to be linked. Just that the count of Support/Attack vessels needs to be provided. You are not required to link any of the ships you want to use. Just the Amount it can hold.

An example would be a Civilian ship can carry 20 squadrons of Support vessels, but cannot support Military ships.

Hangar Space: (Please provide the amount of fighters/support craft this submission can hold in it's hangar by count of Squadrons, which hold 12 average Starfighters. The higher your squadron count, the lower your Armament and number of advanced systems should be. )
Taken from the Star Destroyer Template.
 
Sith Science is Best Science
Character
Vora Kaar Vora Kaar

I believe you misunderstand, as I see the premises of this discussion is that it's a bit silly that the Starfighter/Support Craft ratio is set in stone, effectively meaning that one has to create entirely separate submissions just to, say, swap out some fighters with some gunships because doing so would work better for the vessel's current assignment. (Well, the original post is about ditching Hangar Allocations entirely and just keeping the number of squadrons it can hold, but I feel like Kaine Australis Kaine Australis would agree that the former would be much, much better than the current practice.)

Seems quite silly from an in-universe perspective, but that's what I've been told anyway.

Civilian ships would, of course, only be able to carry civilian ships regardless of whichever ruleset one uses - unless one were to adopt a system in which civilian vessels could have a tiny amount of weapons and starfighters, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
 
Coopers Cooler
Writer
Also i know this is a side issue, but can we look into a way of the template reflecting the ability of a big ship to carry a little one, like Raddus's ship has the Tantive IV corvette in it in Rogue One.
 
Sith Science is Best Science
Character
Vora Kaar Vora Kaar

I see no reason not to open it up, unless the starship in question uses special equipment like fighter racks designed for rapid deployment, but really any amount of versatility would be better than now - it's really bloody difficult making all-purpose starships (without clogging the Factory with identical subs that have different hangar allocations, which just seems stupid) when the rules regarding Hangar Allocation are so, well, unyielding.

(Personally I'd just track Starfighters like we used to and leave Support Craft vague, but vague in such a way that it wouldn't really impact fleet combat. Who keeps track of all troop transports involved in a ground battle anyway? I've yet to see it done, that's for sure.)
 
Directorate Officer
Factory Judge
Adrian Vandiir Adrian Vandiir , we did go without listing explicit support craft for a while, about one year.

I did bring it back though during my time as Factory Admin though because we had several people using that grayness to bring in large amounts of heavily armed support craft which can have an effect on fleeting or grounding. The example that comes to mind was something like an Acclamator Star Frigate that had a "very low" or "none" hangar bay rating...but then had something like 72 gunships listed as unregulated "support craft".

When crafting rules, sometimes we have to cater to the lowest common denominator(submitter). If you see a rule that seems pretty restrictive or unnecessary in some way in the current times, there's a good chance someone in the past exploited a gray area that ended up bringing the rule about.

I'm not saying that that means the rule is the best solution to the problem, but it exists for a reason. If there is a better way to solve that problem with less fuss for people, great. But pretending that the problem won't exist or somehow return in the future is not a bet I'd be willing to make given the relatively large community of Chaos, especially when we have new writers coming in who are looking for (gray) areas where they think they can gain an advantage.

On the flip side of this, I personally haven't heard of any issues of people talking about carrying small, personal transports on warships and the like, even if they aren't included in the official hangar bay squadron count.
 
Sith Science is Best Science
Character
Gir Quee Gir Quee

I figured something like that might have been the cause and I'm not going to claim that the response was unreasonable or disproportional; there is always going to be people playing in the grey areas as if to "win the game", even in a cooperative RP environment.

I do, however, disagree that the current system is the best way of doings things.

Firstly and more moderately I would strongly support a more flexible approach, as per the original post - if the goal is to prevent the abuse of unregulated "support craft" then there's no reason ships couldn't simply have a hangar shared amongst both, leaving it to users to decide how many starfighters and how many support craft to give - if this is asking too much, at the very least permit some flexibility in submissions, as the current "This Battlecruiser fits exactly thirty-one squadrons of Starfighters and exactly eleven of Support Craft" feels very... strange.

Doubly so given the Star Wars tradition for shared hangar space, take the Venator or the Quasar Fire as examples.

More radically I would suggest returning to the old "only Starfighters are counted" system, but with a twist - have it so that any starship between 1-50 metres fielded in a combat capacity counts as a "Starfighter", regardless of whether it's an interceptor or a gunship. I am primarily thinking about naval combat because again, ground warfare is a wholly different beast, what with the fact that vehicles is really only constrained by plausibility and what the other side will accept - it could apply to any and all starships used in a combat capacity, however.

Obviously, any system used will have its flaws, so I can hardly say that mine's the best™, but that's my views on the matter, take it or leave it.
 

Listib Hibin

Character
Factory Judge
I am going to throw in my two cents and be done with it.

What they have said when they abused certain things, it can happen and is possible. I personally never got to see it but I still agree on the Starfighter/Support Craft distinction for one reason. Civilian Ships. Technically any of us can make a 10KM civilian dreadnought but we cannot allow it to have combat ready starfighters which generally ends up being almost 90% of the time, being support craft. There are some exceptions such as taxis and personal envoy messengers but in reality, it exists also for that reason.

Another thing I do wish to bring up is how difficult that distinction can be during roleplay. If I was to say have 14 fighter squadrons and 1 support craft squadron, I could use that one support craft for repair, recon, boarding, ect. The main massive difference is that if someone targets your boarding squadron as an example with about 10-15 fighter squadrons, expect it to go boom. I do not mind the idea of support crafts being in specific niche roles that starfighters normally cannot do and it is important to think of it that way.

If I was to invade a planet per say, one may need to make specific ships or at least, have freighters and so forth deliver said armaments for a military operation. Support craft also are generally NOT combat capable long term or very quick. Examples come to mind of an AT-AT Barge, ATR-6, Gamma-6, ect. Basically if something has more than two-three people, it should most likely be listed as a support craft like a gunship.

Again, these are my two cents, go buy a coffee with it if you want.
 

Khonsu Amon

Supreme Sun Guardian
Character
The distinction between Support Craft and Starfighters is inane and arbitrary, especially with how it's handled on Chaos. It's been a pet peeve of mine for a while now, but I've tried not to let it get the better of me. Star Wars canon doesn't make the distinction between the two like we do, rather it uses Starfighters as a category for which everything branches off from. As seen by this Wookieepedia article, Starfighters are small and maneuverable spacecraft designed for combat in atmosphere, or in the void of space. That means it also covers the categorial classifications of bombers, gunships, transports, light freighters, shuttles, trainers, and even atmospheric fighters. So, basically everything under the sun when it comes to Chaos and our small craft template, especially when you look at the category on wookieepedia.

Sure, you could argue that Civilian Ships aren't designed for combat and therefore fall into the distinction of Support Craft, but they're armed with a small array of weapons more often than not. Even if the intent is entirely based around self-defence and protection, that still means they're armed for combat - no matter how you spin it. A butter knife can kill a person, just as it can spread butter on toast. It's just not very good at killing when someone uses it in such a fashion. In Star Wars, a similar concept can be applied when looking at Point Defence Weaponry. Point defence cannons are just as dangerous as any other weapon on the market, they're just not as effective as their more fine-tuned and heavier kin.

When it comes to the general mindset regarding these supposed support craft - it's wrong to assume that they're not combat capable - especially long-term as seen with the starship model that Ghost from Rebels is based on, and that they're all slow and purposeful. Their capabilities, much like their opposites, depend entirely on the submission that's been posted in the Factory and the writer using them.

So - why not get rid of the distinction all together? Fold them into the canon mindset and allow for people to fill their ships with a modular loadout at their discretion. The present carrying capacity metric doesn't need to be changed at all, so Ship's will still carry what the current factory rule-set allows for. The only thing that might need to be changed is the terminology the template uses, and making the allocation section optional for those people who still like breaking down their starship's exact, and non-modular carrying capacity.

For example, for the more visual-based people:

Current Template:
  • Hangar Space: (Please provide the amount of fighters/support craft this submission can hold in it's hangar by count of Squadrons, which hold 12 average Starfighters. The higher your squadron count, the lower your Armament and number of advanced systems should be. )
50m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 0 | High: 0 | Very High: 0 | Extreme: 0 ]​
100m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 0 | High: 0 | Very High: 1 | Extreme: 2 ]​
200m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 1 | High: 2 | Very High: 3 | Extreme: 4 ]​
  • Hangar Allocations: (This is the allocated amounts of starfighters and support craft (dropships, shuttles,gunships,etc) this submission can hold in its hangar based on the maximum hangar space capacity listed above)
    • Starfighters: x squadrons
    • Support Craft: x squadrons
Updated Example:
  • Hangar Space: (Please provide the amount of Small Spacecraft this submission can hold in it's hangar by count of Squadrons, which hold 12 average Starfighters. The higher your squadron count, the lower your Armament and number of advanced systems should be. )
50m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 0 | High: 0 | Very High: 0 | Extreme: 0 ]​
100m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 0 | High: 0 | Very High: 1 | Extreme: 2 ]​
200m [Base: 0 | Very Low: 0 | Low: 0 | Average: 1 | High: 2 | Very High: 3 | Extreme: 4 ]​
  • Hangar Allocations: (Optional: Please use this space to breakdown the carrying capacity of Small Spacecraftthat your chosen rating for this submissions allows for.)
    • Example: (We'll use the High rating for this Example.)
      • Two "Starfighter" Squadrons
        • One Fighter Squadron.
        • One "Gunship" Squadron.
The wording doesn't have to be exactly what I've written in the updated example, and as it's Optional - folks will be given that flexibility to flesh out their hangar carrying capacity as they see fit. However, regardless of whatever may change - I ultimately believe that the distinction between Starfighters and Support Craft needs to be removed, not only to bring the Judging standards we have into line with Canon, as well as the Factory's current lineup of templates.

EDIT: I had a brain fart while writing the last section of this post. Added a few words to make it flow better.

Also:
Listib Hibin Listib Hibin - You may want to work on your delivery method, as while I respect and understood the point you were trying to convey, the manner in which it's currently done may be taken as hostile, or rude.
 
Last edited:
Triumvir of Power
Writer
The simplest option is to just tell people that you can't carry any more starfighters/small craft than the squadrons in your hangar. You don't simply say "you can use as many support craft as is 'reasonable'", you tell them if you have 20 squadrons in your hangar and you use 20 of them for attack craft then you don't get to bring support craft.

I don't even understand why or how it got to the point that people were allowing support craft to be "unlisted" in the sense that you didn't consider it part of the hangar size, the hangar size is the hangar size.

You can't abuse that, because semantically it's the same rules you apply now except you don't have to segregate, before every RP thread the ship will be in ever what ratio of attack to support crafts are put into play. I'm not sure why this is being so overthought, it isn't that complicated.

Gir Quee Gir Quee Vora Kaar Vora Kaar Listib Hibin Listib Hibin
 
Triumvir of Power
Writer
Vora Kaar Vora Kaar you're a member of the site's staff commenting on a suggestion/request in the factory, I assumed it would be pertinent to add you in to the tag list so someone on site staff was aware of a simple way to follow the suggestion that doesn't open the system up for "abuse" as has been claimed more than once by other people in the thread (also tagged).
 

Cyrus Tregessar

Grand Admiral, First Order Central Command
Writer
Adrian Vandiir Adrian Vandiir , we did go without listing explicit support craft for a while, about one year.

I did bring it back though during my time as Factory Admin though because we had several people using that grayness to bring in large amounts of heavily armed support craft which can have an effect on fleeting or grounding. The example that comes to mind was something like an Acclamator Star Frigate that had a "very low" or "none" hangar bay rating...but then had something like 72 gunships listed as unregulated "support craft".
Isn't this something that should be resovled by the report system or via OOC discussion/Roleplay Discussion threads, rather than hard rules in the factory that make little sense in the context of Star Wars?

On the flip side of this, I personally haven't heard of any issues of people talking about carrying small, personal transports on warships and the like, even if they aren't included in the official hangar bay squadron count.
Something is ostensibly subverting the rules but is accepted as convention strikes me as a very sub-optimal way to run things.`

Listib Hibin said:
If I was to invade a planet per say, one may need to make specific ships or at least, have freighters and so forth deliver said armaments for a military operation. Support craft also are generally NOT combat capable long term or very quick. Examples come to mind of an AT-AT Barge, ATR-6, Gamma-6, ect. Basically if something has more than two-three people, it should most likely be listed as a support craft like a gunship.
A canon ATR-6 was packing turbolasers and multiple missile launchers. In the lore it's viewed as a high-tier threat to starfighters, it just happens to have an additional role of troop transport and assault.
 
Lady of Vanity
Writer
Just my opinion but, unless I missed it somewhere, there's nothing stopping you from having your support craft be like Raptors from BSG and being capable of similar duties. I will also point out that it does make some logical sense, the physical hangar size may remain the same however the space that the craft themselves take up (Starfighters vs Support Craft) and the fact that the equipment to support them takes different sizes. This is actually one of the canonical advantages of the Tie Fighter for example being able to be stored on cranes and needing minimal equipment.

That being said there's nothing wrong with Modular Hangars as Adrian Vandiir Adrian Vandiir suggested either (with some limitation imo).
 
Top