A Fleeting Question: Exploring the Range

[Cyrus Tregessar]

Punning title aside, this is a question for everyone not just fleeters, because it reflects basic core assumptions about how technology and warfare interact in the Star Wars universe.

Effective Range in a tricky little question in Star Wars, with major continuity problems only exacerbated by The Last Jedi. We tend to work around it here on Chaos by using broad range bands with no exact definition. Depending on your outlook, there can be anywhere from three to five of these. The typical ones used are as follows:

Short/Close - Dogfight range, also used for point defense weapons and most warheads.
Normal/Medium - Turbolaser Range. The standard effective range of capital ship sized weapons without any modifications. So this includes mass drivers, railguns, ion cannons, etc.
Long - The range band dominated by energy torpedoes, HVC's, and other purpose-built weapon systems.

I tend to operate with two other range bands in mind, which bound the extremes.

Melee (Knife-fight range) - I assume short range starts at about half of normal, and still mostly invovles capital-ship scale weapons, but is also where things like laser cannons start seeing use. With that in mind, 'melee' range is where point defense begins to shine, and where fighters engage other fighters.
Extreme - Beyond even long range, the this is interplanetary stuff like hurling rocks at static defenses and the like. Theoretically, any kinetic weapon system (railguns, HVC's, mass drivers) is capable of being used at this range, but the travel time for a shot is so long if the target is capable of any form of maneuver it can probably avoid it.

Anyway, recent events have made me wonder just what sort of ranges people have in mind when considering the above. Even given that Star Wars makes absolutely no effort to be even remotely realistic, I tend to inject a little basic physics into the equation. Canon does not. So the question is thus,for anyone who wants to answer.

What are the rough ranges you assume correlate with the three bands used on Chaos?

Why do you follow that assumption?

Are details like this a barrier to fleeting for you?

This is hardly a mandatory poll, feel free to answer some, all, or none of the above, and/or chime in with commentary, critique, whatthefuckever. I'm curious and plan on writing a blog post about assumptions in fleeting later because there's a hurricane coming and I'm bored. Humor me, if you will.

 

[Captain Larraq]

Star Wars source materials are entirely inconsistent. Some sources put standard Capital Ship engagement ranges (with turbolasers) at anywhere between 80 and 300km, while other source materials claim that a Turbolaser can accurately hit a target from X-lightseconds away. Honestly, the last time I tried to research this topic, I ended up getting pretty pissed off at the inconsistency and lost my interest in writing in the SW setting for a few days.

 

[Jsc]

1. Range

- I don't think StarWars obey's physics. So, I would just fly my ships at the other guy's ships while shooting lasers at them. And I never much ever progressed further than that strategy and the genre never cared that I did either. Lulz. Whenever another writer PM'ed me with a complication or asked for specifics? Well. We'd just figure it out and shake hands on a gentleman's agreement. Was it stupid? Yeah. Was it ridiculous? Yeah. Did it make much sense? About as much as The Last Jedi did. But did everybody who read our posts think we were fleeting? Oh yes! We fleeted the sh** out of that stuff.


2. Assumptions on Stats

- It's a silver screen thing. You have to fit all the ships into the frame while having lasers everywhere. That's kinda it really. The more you can make it look like a World War dive bombing reel, the better. Naturally, this means that once you've accomplished making a fleet battle "look" like a fleet battle. You've essentially just won the game. You "Fleeted". GG. Got the T-shirt.


3. Barriers to Fleeting

- Yes. So much yes. As, again, Star Wars as film does not obey the laws of reality. It obeys the laws of the silver screen. Fill the screen with boats, and lasers, and explosions; and you've won. Easy as pie.

 

[Valiens Nantaris]

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"]
As [member="Captain Larraq"] says, the canon and legends not only contradict each other, internally there is zero consistency.

For instance in some materials, like the older Clone Wars books and the Thrawn novels the ranges are shown to be long. A Venator is said to have a range of 10 light minutes. That's a monumental range considering a light second is 300,000km.

But then, for the cinematic feel of it, we have battles in movies and other stories which have the ships seemingly within mere kilometres of each other (ROTS, ROTJ, RO).

There is no answer, which is why I use bands or if there's a map then the squares/hexes are unspecified distances. No one knows, especially not Star Wars authors, what the acceptable range is, so there's no standard.

 

[Isaiah Dashiell]

What are the rough ranges you assume correlate with the three bands used on Chaos? I think your list is good as far as writing damage goes, HOWEVER I also don't shy away from the extreme ranges of Star Wars legends/canon. I think the key word is "effective range". I tend to think that most weapons in star wars have incredible ranges, but like is shown in the last jedi (and can be assumed by the fact that they even use starfighters to begin with) shielding technolgy in star wars is so powerful that to shoot a turbolaser from 10 light minutes away it won't do enough damage to an enemies' shield to even warrant evasive maneuvers. On top of that, rather than being wrapped tightly around a ship like plastic wrap shields act as bubbles of "you can't go here" to turbolasers at various ranges. However, the closer you get the less shields begin to matter (see the stupidly close broadside attacks from the Battle of Coruscant). Much to that effect I think starfighters are used precisely because the shields function as bubbles rather than wraps which is why they are so essential in traditional star wars naval combat. On top of that, range seems to increase with the power of the weapon. For example, in the Last Jedi the Raddus may have been too far for their Star Destroyers' weapons to harm which is why they fired from the super star dreadnought which even at long range dealt damage to shields that was strong enough to rock the ship itself.

Are details like this a barrier to fleeting for you?
No, however the injection of real world physics is. While I understand the love of space combat much of the posts seem overly convoluted. If anything I prefer the simplicity of the WWII Naval-style combat. It makes for shorter posts and easier reads imho.

 

[Gir Quee]

[member="Cyrus Tregessar"], I'll more or less agree with what you and Captain Larraq said.

Though as a personal addition, I think that the Wizards of the Coast D20 system did it best. There were literally three ranges: short, medium, and long.

From a practical standpoint, I think that "relative" range gives enough distinctiveness to be useful in an RP setting without being overly convoluted or looking too hard into exact numbers.

 

[Jorus Merrill]

For all the reasons Valiens and Larraq noted, I just go with this:

Short = laser cannons
Standard = turbolasers
Long = long-range turbolasers and other special weapons
Extreme = HVCs, energy torps

Seems the most intuitive way to go about it, and I try to make it real clear what assumptions I'm using in each post.

 

[Cathul Thuku]

I know I already had this discussion with [member="Cyrus Tregessar"] as far back as Factory 3.0, and despite the total lack of consistency that LJ only made worse, I typically had an additional band, for when I had heavy turbolasers that don't qualify for long-range status, assault concussion missiles or even heavy tractor beams:

• Point-defense: quad-lasers, anti-missile octets, tractor beams, and other point-defense weapons
• Standard turbolaser range: turbolasers, proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, ion cannons
• Heavy turbolaser range: heavy turbolasers, heavy tractor beams
• Long-range turbolaser range: long-range turbolasers (surface-to-orbit or not), mass drivers, assault concussion missiles
• Extreme: energy torpedoes, HVCs

As far as I fleeted, I know a few writers that will simply assume that they are within standard turbolaser range from the moment they open fire at enemies. However, the inclusion of real-world physics, to variable extents, by writers (I'm as guilty of it as much as the next guy) is often just a response to the canon's complete lack of consistency, which leads to equally inconsistent results from a writer to another.

 

[Captain Larraq]

I think I'm going to have a stab at an actual discussion here....



Here are two articles on Star Wars Blasters and Turbolasers, heavily based upon visual analysis of the movies. (1)(2)

And here is a conversation about one of those two articles and a comparison between several different written source materials. (1)



Personally, I like the conclusions made in the articles and in the discussion. My own personal views on Star Wars physics conform to what's offered here and I feel that it presents a much more useful basis from which to organize stories, as opposed to the source materials that claim significantly longer ranges. Personally, I feel that the article on st-v-sw.net should be the gold standard for Chaos, as it presents a fairly straightforward and easy to visualize set up.

The assertions made in the article are that a star destroyer firing at another star destroyer should have a practical maximum effective weapon range of 1,000km (But that hitting a target at 5,500km would not be impossible, if the object were large and stationary) and that the the standard long-ish ranges of engagement would be between 100km and 200km. While the short range engagements would typically be made at ranges of less than 20km. Also, given that the size of the target and the speed at which it is traveling are a factor, the article leaves us with a Star Destroyer having difficulty firing at escape pods at 40km, and that a Star Destroyer would be 'unlikely' to hit an object the size of the Millennium Falcon at a range of 135km or even 75km.

And then we have laser cannons and starfighter / light freighter scale weaponry. The assertions made in the article are that the Falcon would have a maximum effective range against a Star Destroyer of about 100km, and a maximum effective range against a TIE Fighter of about 350 meters. Meters, not Kilometers. And the same goes for X-wings firing at TIE Fighters and shooting at incoming proton torpedoes. In the discussion I liked, sources are quoted claiming... well... more like implying... but still, implying that standard engagement ranges for an X-wing would be 250-400 meters and a maximum engagement range of about 1km.






Personally... I like these conclusions and assertions. They make sense and they are very easy to visually represent, not to mention present a very... simple and easy frame of reference for people to write about, such as what we do on Chaos. For Chaos purposes, working with these sort of ranges as a basis helps set up an environment where terrain and movement can still be brought into effect from a tactical point of view. And from a roleplay point of view, it is typically a more engaging and interesting event when movement and terrain are included as part of the story. Attempting to get into range or stay out of range creates an engaging story, paints a very visually stimulating image, and presents an interesting back-and-forth tactic to work with, as opposed to simply relying upon volume of fire and strength of shields as the sole factors of engagement.

I also like the idea of weapon ranges being not based upon the weapon itself, but upon the size of the object being fired upon. It makes things interesting if, say, a Star Destroyer can be fired upon at 150-300km range depending on how it's facing, but a frigate can only be fired upon at, say, a range of 120-180km range (depending on how it's facing). That creates a very interesting dynamic from which to write a story, as you'd end up with several faster and more agile ships maneuvering to stay out of range of the larger Star Destroyer, while the Star Destroyer attempts to utilize escorts to corral the smaller ships into exposing their broadsides or otherwise moving closer so that the Star Destroyer can bring its weapons to bare. It becomes an interesting back and forth with the advantage going to the smaller ships, so long as they operate intelligently.

And, to me at least, that's just a more fun story to tell than "I shot you from 300,000km away and maneuvering means nothing". Also, from a "gameplay" point of view, it presents a very real and unique balancing point for the 3-10km warships that we have on Chaos. If being big means that you can be more easily engaged from longer ranges (and making your ship slow and cumbersome), then working with these sort of range limitations helps balance out a meaningful weakness for such enormous ships. Lots of big guns, impressive shields, thick armor, exc. But also, so large that almost anything can hit it from much farther away than it. Personally, I like the practical and tactical limitations that presents.



Hooooooowever.

Not everyone agrees on these things. And some people flat out don't care. Which creates a lot of headaches when two opposing points of view clash. Because you can end up with one writer thinking that an engagement range of 300,000km is perfectly reasonable while the opposing writer could think that the engagement range should be less than 100km. And then you have one writer lurching their ship forward to get behind the other ship in a single post... and the guy that thinks they're engaging at 300,000km is suddenly very, very upset with what they consider to be an idiotic or power-gamy maneuver.

And it just boils down to a lack of standards on Chaos and in Star Wars in general.

Personally? I like math. I like relatively set weapon ranges and relatively set maximum rates of acceleration.
Others don't want to bother with these things and want to keep things vague, simple, and flexible.
And, to be fair, the second approach works best from a narrative and writing point of view.
As a story, the specific speeds and ranges do not matter.
However, for collaboration purposes, knowing these things and keeping them as a frame of reference prevents confusion and conflict between writers that have different points of view.
Such as, say, a 3km Warship having a maximum rate of acceleration of X, and a current speed of Y and being at a range of Z.
Said ship is firing at target A... exc, exc.
And decides to move in for a ram.
How many posts should that take?
Is that really something that should be done in a single post?
Can that ship reasonably move 50-250km in a single post?
Were the two ships even that close to begin with?
Were they closer than that?

This stuff can create a lot of angst when it comes up in roleplay, which is why I really gave up on trying to do any form of meaningful naval activity on Chaos. It's just not fun when every action results in drama because nobody can agree on a frame of reference. Personally, I get more fun from just playing a videogame. So that's what I do.

 

[RC 212]

LOLZ

I like the idea of Extreme-Long-Medium-Short-Point Blank

Extreme being the heavier weapons as well as of course any Mass Driver. Short and pointblank coming down to laser cannons or weapons of that class.

As far as accounting for that it depends on who I'm writing with, what I'm writing and how competitive folks wanna be. I like to write fro flexibility and semi realism. I think if we started tacking on all these math formulas and such it'd be even more of a chore to fleet than it is. I love me a good fleet battle but there are some barriers.

Keeping track of what everyone's doing, especially when ships start firing individually at different targets.

And generally just keeping track of who's where, and then writing your own fleets actions.

 

[Gir Quee]

I also like the idea of weapon ranges being not based upon the weapon itself, but upon the size of the object being fired upon. It makes things interesting if, say, a Star Destroyer can be fired upon at 150-300km range depending on how it's facing, but a frigate can only be fired upon at, say, a range of 120-180km range (depending on how it's facing). That creates a very interesting dynamic from which to write a story, as you'd end up with several faster and more agile ships maneuvering to stay out of range of the larger Star Destroyer, while the Star Destroyer attempts to utilize escorts to corral the smaller ships into exposing their broadsides or otherwise moving closer so that the Star Destroyer can bring its weapons to bare. It becomes an interesting back and forth with the advantage going to the smaller ships, so long as they operate intelligently. And, to me at least, that's just a more fun story to tell than "I shot you from 300,000km away and maneuvering means nothing". Also, from a "gameplay" point of view, it presents a very real and unique balancing point for the 3-10km warships that we have on Chaos. If being big means that you can be more easily engaged from longer ranges (and making your ship slow and cumbersome), then working with these sort of range limitations helps balance out a meaningful weakness for such enormous ships. Lots of big guns, impressive shields, thick armor, exc. But also, so large that almost anything can hit it from much farther away than it. Personally, I like the practical and tactical limitations that presents.

Kudos to bringing movement and relative size into this discussion, as I think they are largely ignored factors when it comes to practical range. But I think you're right in that they open up more depth and nuance to roleplays that I'd personally like to see more of.

The old fleeting system that Valiens made was kind of nice for simplifying but not entirely ignoring these factors from a competitive gameplay aspect.

The following isn't my work, but rather that of a mentor who was influential in my understanding of Star Wars lore and mechanics when I first got started in Star Wars RPing. This was originally posted by a man who went by the screen name of Ace Roscoe (back at the New Imperial Federation website), and has since disappeared from that site, but you guys may find some of his observations of "Turbolaser Nature" interesting:

Turbolaser nature

The exact nature of turbolasers are subject to speculation. Some say the light is just a tracer going sublight along a laser beam, some say it's a contained plasma bolt. The only thing we know for certain is that it uses gas (perferrable spin-sealed Tibanna) and power to fire a visible bolt of energized particles.

EDIT 20030315- with the advent of the AOTC ICS, turbolasers has a sublight component and an invisible, lightspeed component. It is not stated which part does most of the damage, but movie visuals suggest that it is the visible part. One might think of it in simplified terms as an invisible laser beam (lasers are invisible in space) followed by a superhot plasma bolt. At short range, they hit simultaneously. There are two instances in the original trilogy where damage occurs before the visible bolt strikes. Some claim this is an FX error, but it matters not; it's the canon truth. It is further reinforced in AOTC where an explosion occur close to the Techno Union starships, but the visible bolt doesn't strike until the next two frames. However, this is likely a blaster bolt rather than a turbolaser.

EDIT 20040225. There are also some examples of blaser bolts doing damage just before visible impact in the OT.

Firepower:

A number of calculations has provided the firepower figure in the past. With the new Attack Of The Clones Incredible Cross-Section, we have an exact figure for once.

200 Gigatons per shot. This is the maximum firepower. Older calculations for heavy turbolasers vary between 2 to 1000 GT per shot.

Note that this number is for the Acclamator-class tran-galactic military transport ship's quad turbolasers, which can be considered medium weapons. An Imperial Star Destroyer has significantly larger turbolasers, at least twice the calibre. (Not to mention a lot more of them) Heavy turbolasers can be expected to be in the 1 TT range.

EDIT 20031213: Light turbolasers are rated at 6 megatons/shot. This is from the AOTC:ICS, but is also consistent with TESB derivatives.

Rate Of Fire:

Roughly 2 seconds per shot for heavy batteries. Eventually, the gunners get tired and the rate goes down. Source - ROTJ.

6 shots per second for light turbolasers, as can be witnessed in ANH from the Tantive IV. Other instances are in the same range.

Range:

Star Wars Technical Journal - Death Star range = 47,060,000 km

Behind The Magic CD-Rom - Death Star range = 100 space units

Imperator-class Star Destroyer
LIGHT Turbolaser range
Short = 3 - 15 Space Units
Medium = 36 Space Units
Long = 75 Space Units

Conclusion: Turbolaser maximum range = 35 295 000 km.

This is the highest known number.

It should be noted that turbolaser bolts do not propagate at a fixed speed. They accelerate until they they reach lightspeed after ~75,000 Km. Even at lightspeed, it takes nearly two minutes to strike something at maximum range, which makes this range useful only against relatively large and stationary targets, such as planets.
Shield of Lies Pg. 292: "Their system entry had placed them a startingly close 16.000 klicks from their targets, and the thrustship grew quickly in the scopes and screens as the bombers accelerated to attack velocity."

Not long after this, they started to get return fire. I suppose I should point out the obvious; range would decrease against such small and maneouverable targets as K-Wing bombers (compared to capital ships).

The new NJO novels Rebel Dream and Rebel Stand has a ship firing turbolasers from outside the Coruscant solar system simultaneously with a turbolaser fired in another star system. The idea was to trick the Vong that the NR had developed a faster-than-light turbolaser. Obviously they didn't, but that TL fired from outside the star system still hit its target. As reference, our solar system is 5 946 000 000 km in diameter, counted out to the orbit of Pluto.

EDIT 20030519 - The author was asked on how the turbolaser in question was modified (it was stated in the novel that it was), and apparently the modification was only that to change the TL to be able to fire for a couple of minutes in a continuous beam, no modification for range or targeting (See needle beam below).

It took "considerable time" for the bolts to hit. But they fired on a Death Star-sized worldship, so it should have been easy to hit anyway. The attack lasted for a minute (see above).

This may come as something of a shock to anyone playing the X-Wing games in which TL range is about 3 km, but I'd like to remind you that an SSD is much larger than that. Not to mention the TL batteries on the Death Star. They couldn't fire on the rebel fighters since they were made for battling capital ships. 3 km away from the DS is spitting range.

Not to mention that the ROTJ battle started at about 100 km distance to begin with, and that was considered point blank range. Duh, I say. Btw, the longest range derived from the movies is 19 000 km.

EDIT: Well, maybe I should clarify this a bit. This is the longest range they have been actually firing at that we have seen, not a maximum range. For example, the Star Destroyers took up geosynchronous orbit around Hoth prior to the attack. Geosynchronous orbit around Earth is 35,786 Km. Hoth cannot be much smaller than Earth, since it has comparative gravity, so the figure stands.