StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Against TIE fighters the N-1 should do well. The TIEs fighters dont have shields so one hit from the blasters should kill them.

TIE Interceptors would be difficult to kill. While they dont have shields they have four laser cannons compared to N-1's, each of the lasers are also probobly stronger than the N-1's blasters. They would be a seriious threat to the N-1's shields

Against X-Wings N-1's dont stand a chance. X-Wing probobly have stronger shields, and certainly stronger firepower.

Advanced Imperial fighters like the TIE Advanced and the Defender will also slaughter the N-1

I might be wrong but the N-1 looked pretty slow to me and not very agile.

I'm loathe to believe some parade starfighter built by engineers of sume podunk sector capital would outpace and outfight the flagship space-superiority starfighter of the Galactic Empire.

Yeah but to my understanding the basic TIE is a rather cheap machine. Even the old Z-95s got better armament.

I have always thinked in terms combat power the N-1 is a Z-95 in a better looking shell. so a T.I.E figther would probaly lose a TIE/ln would probaly win (it's more agile and faster). TIE Interceptor can an X-wing pilot a run for his money, so N-1 would probaly lose. An N-1 has better armament then standard TIEs and it has also shields, but TIEs are faster and agile. In most scenarios the N-1 can win only if gets of shot before the TIEs.

The new Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels settles that:

"The N-1 was never intended as a dedicated combat starfighter".

According to the same guide. The standard Tie Fighter is also faster. The Arnament of the both are fairly the same - twin lase cannons, although the N1 also fields ten proton torpedos. Given their (near) uselessnes in dogfights, I doubt they arer going to do much of a difference.

The N-1 might have shields, but against the Ties superior speed, maneuverability and advanced targeting system, the N-1 looses. Its probably like Y-wings (although without the heavy armor and heavy shields) against Ties.

Edit: fixed some spelling mistakes.

An N-1 has better armament then standard TIEs and it has also shields, but TIEs are faster and agile. In most scenarios the N-1 can win only if gets of shot before the TIEs.

Standard TIEs have two laser cannons while N-1s have twin blasters. IIRC blasters are weaker than lasers. Of course the N-1 has torpedoes but they are anti-capital ship weapons.

IUnknown wrote:

An N-1 has better armament then standard TIEs and it has also shields, but TIEs are faster and agile. In most scenarios the N-1 can win only if gets of shot before the TIEs.

Standard TIEs have two laser cannons while N-1s have twin blasters. IIRC blasters are weaker than lasers. Of course the N-1 has torpedoes but they are anti-capital ship weapons.

I think torps can be used as improvised anti-starfigther weapon (not very effective, but it works). This is about the only chance the N-1 has.

Where does the blaster armament come from? The NEGVV only mentions two laser cannons. Is that a mistake in the NEGVV?

IUnknown wrote:Against TIE fighters the N-1 should do well. The TIEs fighters dont have shields so one hit from the blasters should kill them.

TIE Interceptors would be difficult to kill. While they dont have shields they have four laser cannons compared to N-1's, each of the lasers are also probobly stronger than the N-1's blasters. They would be a seriious threat to the N-1's shields

Against X-Wings N-1's dont stand a chance. X-Wing probobly have stronger shields, and certainly stronger firepower.

Advanced Imperial fighters like the TIE Advanced and the Defender will also slaughter the N-1

Actually, TIEs do have shields. Mike proved it. And in the movies, X-Wings almost always went down in one hit, shields or no. So it will come down to quality of targeting systems, maneuverability, speed, and slim profile, and the TIE has tremendous advantages in all of these areas.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Actually, TIEs do have shields. Mike proved it.

Brian Young is not the same person as Mike Wong; Mike later formed a photo, but I believe Young was the first to notice and vid-capture it.

And that scene is only proof of a couple things: the EU rhetoric about TIEs being defenseless is probably exaggerated, and those TIEs themselves had shields.

You cannot extrapolate that and conclude that all TIEs everywhere - or even most had shields and the EU was mostly/always full of shit. That's a gross generalization, and is not rational.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:And in the movies, X-Wings almost always went down in one hit, shields or no.

Kind of like how Luke got clipped on his wing? Or hit twice in the astromech? Or how TIE Fighters fire bursts so I'm really impressed by your ability to capture to explosion just after the first pair hits but before the second. That's real quick there.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:So it will come down to quality of targeting systems, maneuverability, speed, and slim profile, and the TIE has tremendous advantages in all of these areas.

Actually once you average in the side-view, the TIE's profile on avg is not that good.

Ties rule, N-1s can suck it.

I agree, the N-1s are pussy parade fighters, and lack the cold hard utilitarianism of the TIE.

On the gripping hand, the N-1s have missiles and TIE Fighters do not. That could be a deciding advantage, particularly if they start at range, since ordinance that can track well will eliminate the TIE fighters speed and manueverablity. We know how well StarWars missiles can manuever, both from ANH and AotC. The N-1 needs only loose it's missile load at the TIE Fighter, putting as many birdies in the air as it can before the TIE can get into range with it's lasers and take the TIE out.

Since the N-1 has a torpedo payload, it's probably slightly better at attacking capital ships than TIE's, but that difference is largely negated by the fact that the N-1's don't seem to be able to do that much damage against defended targets. In a dogfight, though, the TIE's superior handling and the N-1's pathetic reliability (shot destroys one engine--N-1 goes into irrecoverable spin on take-off despite the presumable presence of repulsors) would make it rather lopsided.

The N-1 seems to be very sluggish and not very agile. I think a TIE would win in a dogfight.

<idiot>But the N-1 in Rogue Squadron 3D was the best fighter in the game, it was faster than an A-wing and had more firepower than anything else!11!!!11111</idiot>

The only advantage I can see the N-1 having is the torpedo launcher and its shields which would likely only be good against glancing hits anyways. Aside from that the standard TIE is definately faster and more manueverable and its cannons likely more powerfull than the N-1's.

I suppose it depends on just where the fightin's takin' place: in an atmosphere, the N-1's probably got the advantage due to its aerodynamic design as opposed to the flying box that is the TIE, while it'd be ripped to shreds by an Imperial pilot in vacuum. The torpedoes it carries does give it a bonus in firepower, but using them on a tsarfighter is a wasteful longshot, since a TIE could just jink out of its line as it putters along and do some anti-missile defese: the only way one could reasonably hit a TIE is by hitting an enemy that's completily off-guard with a shot at close ranges (Wedge firing a torp from the asteroid he was hiding in at the end of The Krytos Trap - I think that's the one).

As the old spacer at the beginning of the TPM novel more or less said, give me a good ol' Z-95 any day.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Actually, TIEs do have shields. Mike proved it.

Brian Young is not the same person as Mike Wong; Mike later formed a photo, but I believe Young was the first to notice and vid-capture it.

I stand corrected.

And that scene is only proof of a couple things: the EU rhetoric about TIEs being defenseless is probably exaggerated, and those TIEs themselves had shields.

You cannot extrapolate that and conclude that all TIEs everywhere - or even most had shields and the EU was mostly/always full of shit. That's a gross generalization, and is not rational.

Why not? We have observed many times the EU (which has a strong New Republic bias) claiming that Imperial craft did not have capabilities that we know they had or that they had weaknesses we know did not exist.

And there was nothing special about the TIE that had the shield effect. It wasn't attached to an elite unit or anything. The only reason that they wouldn't have put a shield on TIEs is that they couldn't have made one small enough. But that incident showed that they could make a strong enough shield that can fit on a TIE, so there's no reason to think that it wouldn't be standard.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:And in the movies, X-Wings almost always went down in one hit, shields or no.

Kind of like how Luke got clipped on his wing? Or hit twice in the astromech? Or how TIE Fighters fire bursts so I'm really impressed by your ability to capture to explosion just after the first pair hits but before the second. Real quick there.

Kiss my ass you sarcastic piece of shit.

The point is that in the majority of incidents, X-Wings did not stand up to repeated hits like in the X-Wing games.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:So it will come down to quality of targeting systems, maneuverability, speed, and slim profile, and the TIE has tremendous advantages in all of these areas.

Actually once you average in the side-view, the TIE's profile on avg is not that good.

No, the side profile is not good, but on average the profile is no worse than the N1, and those other areas are clearly superior on the TIE.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Why not? We have observed many times the EU (which has a strong New Republic bias) claiming that Imperial craft did not have capabilities that we know they had or that they had weaknesses we know did not exist.

Because it is a gross generalization, and is not a valid argument. Did you read my post or just kneejerk wildly?

I claim all flamingos can fly in my writings, and you see a bunch of flamingos standing around and upon giving chase to two or three of them, discover they cannot fly at all. Therefore, you onclude that my book on flamingos was wrong, and all the flamingos you've seen and all the ones I described in fact, can't fly.

The sample is too small, and you're taking a handful of specific incidents and extrapolating it over all possible examples in the opposition of a tendency noted elsewhere. That's not correct.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:And there was nothing special about the TIE that had the shield effect. It wasn't attached to an elite unit or anything.

The Death Star? Flying around in an environment filled with relativistic debris? I'd say these were prestige and dangerous assignments.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:The only reason that they wouldn't have put a shield on TIEs is that they couldn't have made one small enough.

Shield equipment also weighs quite a bit and sucks up plenty of energy. Both would make the fighter more sluggish and have poorer acceleration. Not all situations would call for more survivable but slower fighters over less survivable but more agile ones.

It also costs plenty of money. Much of the EU describes commands out in the boonies. Why waste cash on giving them all the frills if it was not strictly necessary?

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:But that incident showed that they could make a strong enough shield that can fit on a TIE, so there's no reason to think that it wouldn't be standard.

Its quite presumptious of you to treat your conclusion as default, where I must generate a good reason why it would not be standard, despite the fact that the EU dictates a general tendency to the contrary, and your entire argument in a gross generalization.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Kiss my ass you sarcastic piece of shit.

What you said was blatantly and obviously untrue by even the most cursory examination of the film. It isn't my fault you shot your mouth off.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:The point is that in the majority of incidents, X-Wings did not stand up to repeated hits like in the X-Wing games.

Backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:

IUnknown wrote:Against TIE fighters the N-1 should do well. The TIEs fighters dont have shields so one hit from the blasters should kill them.

TIE Interceptors would be difficult to kill. While they dont have shields they have four laser cannons compared to N-1's, each of the lasers are also probobly stronger than the N-1's blasters. They would be a seriious threat to the N-1's shields

Against X-Wings N-1's dont stand a chance. X-Wing probobly have stronger shields, and certainly stronger firepower.

Advanced Imperial fighters like the TIE Advanced and the Defender will also slaughter the N-1

Actually, TIEs do have shields. Mike proved it. And in the movies, X-Wings almost always went down in one hit, shields or no. So it will come down to quality of targeting systems, maneuverability, speed, and slim profile, and the TIE has tremendous advantages in all of these areas.

Sorry, but there was only ONE TIE FIGHTER in the movies that had shields, and every other one died in one shot.

According to the EU, *some* TIE's (the best pilots and higher ranking officers) have shields, but most don't.

Since the EU is canon unless contradicted, and we only saw one TIE having a shield impact, it's safe to assume that *most* ties don't have shields, but some do.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Why not? We have observed many times the EU (which has a strong New Republic bias) claiming that Imperial craft did not have capabilities that we know they had or that they had weaknesses we know did not exist.

Because it is a gross generalization, and is not a valid argument. Did you read my post or just kneejerk wildly?

I claim all flamingos can fly in my writings, and you see a bunch of flamingos standing around and upon giving chase to two or three of them, discover they cannot fly at all. Therefore, you onclude that my book on flamingos was wrong, and all the flamingos you've seen and all the ones I described in fact, can't fly.

The sample is too small, and you're taking a handful of specific incidents and extrapolating it over all possible examples in the opposition of a tendency noted elsewhere. That's not correct.

That example is not analgous at all. If the writer consistently made up bullshit that made flamingos seem weaker and more pathetic than they were, and if the book said that flamingos CAN'T fly and you observe a flying flamingo, then it would be closer.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:And there was nothing special about the TIE that had the shield effect. It wasn't attached to an elite unit or anything.

The Death Star? Flying around in an environment filled with relativistic debris? I'd say these were prestige and dangerous assignments.

All TIE assignments imply dangerous conditions with relativistic debris. It's too expensive NOT to equip them with a shield if we know they can do it, and that TIE proves that they can.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:The only reason that they wouldn't have put a shield on TIEs is that they couldn't have made one small enough.

Shield equipment also weighs quite a bit and sucks up plenty of energy. Both would make the fighter more sluggish and have poorer acceleration. Not all situations would call for more survivable but slower fighters over less survivable but more agile ones.

Any fighter battle is going to involve high speed debris whenever a craft gets blown up. An unshielded fighter also opens up the possibility of a single high-yield missile damaging or taking out lots more fighters at once than would normally be possible. Forgoing the shield is a fool's bet.

It also costs plenty of money. Much of the EU describes commands out in the boonies. Why waste cash on giving them all the frills if it was not strictly necessary?

See above. It is necessary. And TIEs are extremely expensive already. Increasing the survivability by adding a shield would greatly reduce overall cost.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:But that incident showed that they could make a strong enough shield that can fit on a TIE, so there's no reason to think that it wouldn't be standard.

Its quite presumptious of you to treat your conclusion as default, where I must generate a good reason why it would not be standard, despite the fact that the EU dictates a general tendency to the contrary, and your entire argument in a gross generalization.

We see that they have put at least one shield on at least one TIE, the benefits greatly outweigh the cost, and to top it off there is no other fighter in Star Wars that is claimed to be shieldless besides the TIE series.

The only countervailing evidence is the EU, which is notorious for glaring factual errors when it comes to capabilities of Imperial equipment, and the fact that most of the TIEs blew up from direct hits, but since most of the X-Wings also blew up from direct hits (albeit not as violently) and are much larger craft with (presumably) stronger shields, this means nothing.

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:Kiss my ass you sarcastic piece of shit.

What you said was blatantly and obviously untrue by even the most cursory examination of the film. It isn't my fault you shot your mouth off.

Oh really? Where in the films does it show TIEs being destroyed in such a manner that they could not have had shields?

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:The point is that in the majority of incidents, X-Wings did not stand up to repeated hits like in the X-Wing games.

Backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle.

That's not a backpeddle, asshat. That's a restatement of my original position, since you didn't seem to get it the first time.

Oh really? Where in the films does it show TIEs being destroyed in such a manner that they could not have had shields?

Getting killed in the first hit by an X-wing, getting killed in the first hit from the Falcon, getting killed in one hit from an A-wing...etc.

Master of Ossus wrote:Since the N-1 has a torpedo payload, it's probably slightly better at attacking capital ships than TIE's, but that difference is largely negated by the fact that the N-1's don't seem to be able to do that much damage against defended targets. In a dogfight, though, the TIE's superior handling and the N-1's pathetic reliability (shot destroys one engine--N-1 goes into irrecoverable spin on take-off despite the presumable presence of repulsors) would make it rather lopsided.

Let's be fair though. At anything other than point blank range in space (100km and closer, I'd say, for StarWars), the TIEs superior handling isn't going to make that much of a difference, simply due to it traversing a much smaller arc. The TIEs superior spatial handling could be the difference of a few more degrees or even arc minutes traversed in reference to the N-1. That's where missiles are a major advantage. Between ships in space, guided missiles are easily the weapon of choice when any direct hit is a kill. If they are being launched from different bases hundreds of thousands of klicks apart, the N-1 handling like a slug compared to the TIE won't make a bit of different. All that matters is that the missiles deployed by the N-1 can out-manuever the TIE. Given that we see the things be able to do 90 degree turns at orbital speeds in the space of a few meters, the TIE is going to need a miracle or be piloted by a Jedi to outdodge a StarWars missile.