Well, I think the game mechanics are flawed; one combat round is six seconds. Ackbar seems to think that closing with the Star Destroyers would be dangerous, but in the game mechanic, a MCC would barely last eighteen seconds from the moment it stepped in range. At point blank range, the ISD will only miss on a 1, and so the MCC will blow up in six seconds. I don't think the game is really designed to support capital ships engaging each other in large groups.Mr. Oragahn wrote:Pretty much in line with the SotG that says a MCC wouldn't engage an ISD directly, but rely on its fighters. At some point, the MCC would have enough firepower and shields to help its fighters finishing off the ISD.
I think it might be overstating the rate of fire for capital ships just a little bit - there are a lot of cuts in the ROTJ battle, but I'm pretty sure at least a couple minutes pass after the Rebel fleet closes to knife range.
It's pretty clearly not a perfect system - most game mechanics aren't - but at the same time, the game system is an "expert" look at simulating SW. I'd say that the game statistics aren't especially generous to the MCC, compared to the text:
The game mechanical analysis doesn't really support that sentence. I've underlined the most pertinent clause. The game statistics simply give the MCC very anemic firepower - even without the DR and SR that make high-damage weapons superior, the MCC only barely puts more than a third as many dice downrange including ion cannons. In terms of straight turbolasers-to-turbolasers (we don't see MCCs firing ion cannons at ISDs in ROTJ) they have barely a fifth of the power, and their batteries are barely strong enough to get through the ISD's shields.The recklessness of the Imperial Commanders, combined with the skill of the Mon Calamari gun crews, cost the Empire several of its most powerful warships.
Bear with me a minute. Let's say the gunners are "ace" quality gunners on the MCC. Then even at long range for the turbolasers, their target number is 3. They can hit by a margin of up to 17, which means they get up to 5 bonus dice.
Their first attack will most typically deal 45-50 damage through the shields, which happens on a roll of 9-11. If the MCC rolls, in sequence, 20,19,18... 9, which is definitely on the lucky side, and rolls the typical damage each time, that's 1645 hp taken off in three rounds. The ISD has over 2000 hit points. It's basically a statistical impossibility for the MCC to engage the ISD directly and win without relying on its fighters in this game mechanic, and even then, it's a chancy affair if the ISD chooses to shoot back at the MCC instead of supporting its defensive fighter screen against the Rebel attack.
In fact, the smaller Victory-II Star Destroyer - half the displacement, three quarters the length - is a match for the upgraded Home One MCC model in the SWRPG game mechanic, if I'm reading the numbers correctly (and I probably am).
The Home One puts six 5d10x5 turbolaser batteries downrange at +15 to hit, while the Victory-II has four 7d10x5 and four 4d10x5 turbolaser batteries at +14 to hit; both have a SR of 150. The MCC has more hit points and shields that regenerate more quickly, but the Victory has better firepower. Another odd point: The Venator has a SR of 200(!), more hangar space, and almost as much firepower - including, importantly, four point-defence batteries.
In other words, the Venator is perfectly equipped for handling attacks from an MCC and its fighter complement, within the game mechanic. If it's a carrier war, why aren't both sides using something like the supposedly obsolete Venator? There are a lot of puzzling loose ends in the EU presentations, period, the supposed hangar capacity of the Venator being one.
