StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I’m sure I’m not alone in thinking that the TIE-Defender is one badass fighter. It is supposedly as fast as the best Alliance fighters and carriers more than enough firepower to leave X-wings quaking in their boots. But lets face it, it’s design is Wank…

The fighter has:
4 Lasers
2 Ion Cannons
2 Torp Launchers
A Hyperdrive and Shields

All of this in a space just BARELY larger then the original TIE fighter… So, lets take a step back. It’s a good concept, lots of weapons, but it needs to be thoroughly redesign to be even slightly realistic in it’s shape and size. So, any ideas? Anyone have any sketches they’d like to submit? Perhaps something like a Tri-winged ‘Avenger’ or something new?

I say keep the radiator design but drastically increase the cockpit size. Something just as large or larger than the Avenger's cockpit would be good.

It should have a body bigger than Vader's TIE. Unless the shields are notably weaker than those of the x1, the larger weapons loadout and greater (AFAIK) acceleration means that it's going to need to have a larger reactor.

Wait I was under the impression that all Ties have Sheilds. Saxton even says something to the likes. The no sheilds on Ties is just a myth created by the Rebels to make the Empire look more evil. Its just like the Rebels trying to make it look bad because Imperial pilots actually have life support units.

The X-1 had the extra mass because of the hyperdrive.

They have to have some sort of shielding, to avoid destruction at the hands of space dust and also fly properly in atmosphere. I think that's what it was. Whether that is capable of deflecting weapons grade blaster fire is not something I'd like to test.

Also, TIE Interceptors had ten laser cannons at the Battle of Endor, according to Saxton, based on the presence of protrusions present that couldn't be anything other than blasters.

I would keep the radiator panels, but put it on an X-1 style body. That should leave room to put a larger power plant, sheild generators, and torp launchers. Supposedly, it also has a tractor beam in X-wing allience, but in that you can give A-wings space bombs. So I'll write off the tractor beam as game mechanics, unless someone can prove they do.

The Jazz Intern wrote:I would keep the radiator panels, but put it on an X-1 style body. That should leave room to put a larger power plant, sheild generators, and torp launchers. Supposedly, it also has a tractor beam in X-wing allience, but in that you can give A-wings space bombs. So I'll write off the tractor beam as game mechanics, unless someone can prove they do.

Didn't it have a beam generator that could have either a tractor beam, weapon jammer, or missile jammer in either TF or XvT?

The Defender is seriously over stuffed with weapons. It does have a tractor beam, as shown in X-Wing when Rogue Squadron goes undercover in Defenders.

Queory... Do Games count as canon?

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Queory... Do Games count as canon?

Unless they are specifically over-riddenn by higher canon (movies, novelizations, and even novels I believe.) However, only story based elements, cut scenes, and certain components are canon, game mechanics are not.

I'd like to point out the Tie Defender is the result of extensive R&D into making the next generation of Starfighters.

It's entirely possible that the thing, valued at 330,000 credits (or so, I can't find my essential guide to vehicles), was literally 'state of the art' with a shit load of minaturized systems in it.

The only thing that is iffy about them, IMHO, is the warhead capacity, and that's just barely.

I mean, an X-wing has 4 lasers, shields, hyperdrive and warhead launchers.

The Tie Defender just has an extra set of ion cannons, and more powerful sub-light engines.

And is quite a bit smaller to boot I believe (but I could be quite wrong) and mounts a very powerful tractor beam.

Ford Prefect wrote:And is quite a bit smaller to boot I believe (but I could be quite wrong) and mounts a very powerful tractor beam.

The body of the TIE-D is smaller than the X-Wing, but counting the heat-dispersal panels, it's actually somewhat larger. It really doesn't have much room for warhead storage, but other than that, it's pretty reasonably designed.

What about the reactor required to power this beast? I know they can build 'em small, but could they fit it in there? Considering that it has to fit in said high output reactor, capable of keeping up shields, powering a hyperdrive, the four cannons (which are more powerful than an X's, IIRC), the ion cannons and the tractor beam (obviously not all at once, but hey) along with six missiles.

The beam weapon had a seperate power system, it was an independant unit. Its missiles are less powerful than the PTs on X-Wings.

One may also note that if the Defender is off the top, the XJ3 and newer E-Wings are too. No one complains about Avengers being overpowered, yet the Defender has 50% more radiator area. Not to mention TIE fighter lasers being tiny compared to X-Wings, yet they are quite adequate. Miniaturization is obviously not the problem.

Fair enough then. I was just wondering. And Defenders can make use of Proton Torps or Concussion Missiles.

Out of curiosity, where does one stick a tractor beam in such a fighter?

Frankly I would keep it as is...but get rid of the missile launchers. Seriously, there is no way you could fit it in. I could see a couple of ion cannons and a shield generator, if its reactor was litearly THE state of the art, even a tractor beam. But the missile launchers just put it over the top.

Not that I'm bitching. In Tie Fighter in campaigns eight, nine and ten I slew GOD knows how many enemies of the Emperor with a T/D. But it is seriously over the top.

I'd gave each radiator-panel a single, but more powerful laser-cannon, and would get rid of the ion-cannons.

Where does it say, that its torpedos are weaker than its rebel-counterparts?Does that make sense?

Another thing, i would assume, that the T/D doesn't have to power shields, weapons and hyperdrive all at the same time.

The T/D doesnt really neet the torps so get rid of them. And thats just too many weapons for a single person to control anyways. So, just get rid of the Ion Cannons as well.

Well, let's see...

*Nix the entire upper panal array - it creates un-needed surface area.
*Invert the slant of the lower two panal arrays, and draw them a bit closer to the main hull to reduce targettable surface area. Also redesign the panals to be a simple straight mounting instead of the three-piece affair it currently is.
*Remove the two outer-most laser cannons and replace them with the ion cannons removed from the upper panal array.
*Flatten and extend the central hull in terms of depth and width and add two maneuvering fins that rise from the rear. Place the sensor array in the nose of the redesigned central hull, the cockpit bubble in the center, the power plant/engines and hyperdrive in the rear. Instead of a single massed shield generator, install two status/linked weaker generaters to the sides and rear of the cockpit bubble. Place vernier thrusters at omtimal positions on the nose, maneuvering finns, underside, and "wings".
*Nix outright the beam array and missile launchers.

Yeah, this is about right:





In all seriousness, though, the majority of the above stil stands - given the firing rates of TIE laser cannons and the destruction they tend to reap, having four of them is wasteful excess (not to mention that the things fired half as slow when using four instead of two) though the ion cannon has its uses. The tractor beam is an energy sucker, and there's just no room to be fitting a missile launcher on the thing. Reduce the profile as much as it can, get things bundled as closely as possible, and just use some basic sense.

While I'll agree that the ship is wanktastic, most of it is explainable.

1. The four laser cannons and two ion cannons are mounted on the leading tips of the solar arrays, like on an Interceptor.

2. The beam weapon is an independent modual that gets mounted in the bottom of the cockpit and uses the housings of the ball lasers as it's emitters.

3. The the hyperdrive, shield generators and large power core can fit into the hull extension on the back of the cockpit, and the shild emiters can be placed on the array struts.

The only thing that doesn't mesh up is where in the hell do they mount the torpedos?

I would keep the design as is with the only change as an addition of a single, duel capacity warhead launcher on the end of each strut, with the arrays mounted to the launchers

Sharpshooter wrote:In all seriousness, though, the majority of the above stil stands - given the firing rates of TIE laser cannons and the destruction they tend to reap, having four of them is wasteful excess (not to mention that the things fired half as slow when using four instead of two) though the ion cannon has its uses.

Isn't there a picture somewhere showing an Interceptor that has 8 or even 10 cannons?

Yeah, there is. Specificaly, it's a still of an Interceptor that points out all the hardpoints that look like they might be laser cannons. I think it's on the Technical Commentaries webpage, but I'm not 100% sure. I'll see if I can find it, but I'm going on vacation tommorow and might not be able to locate it in time.

TIE INTERCEPTOR:
There are ten hardpoints shown - one per wingtip, two per wing-centerpiece and two underwindow; the centerpiece hardpoints are referred to as targeting sensors, and SWTC declares that the default we've seen in games is "the most basic model," while a "sub-class" of Interceptors at Endor has a laser in every hardpoint; this also ignores the possibility that the Interceptor's accuracy might plummet without the targeting sensors, if that's what they really are. Thrawn's retrofit proves that there's room for deflector shield generators without loss of performance, but I don't know whether it could accept generators for both deflector shields and additional cannons.

However, here's the problem with assuming that the Interceptor's "targeting sensors" are all actually laser cannons -- the Defender would have twelve cannons.

TIE DEFENDER:
There's nothing wrong with the TIE Defender's cannon mounting, but the idea of using the ball hardpoints as the beam weapon's emitters contradicts the EGVV illustration where the hardpoints are warhead launchers. It could be that the beam weapon is somehow small enough to fit under the warhead launchers and the payload, which would not contradict a TIE Fighter cutscene where a beam weapon is shown being positioned under the cockpit but within the ball. However, could the beam weapon actually be mounted AFT? (Since Rebel Assault II is canon, the TIE Phantom appears to have been the first TIE with a tri-wing assembly connected to the centerpiece with the cockpit forward ... a possible Defender predecessor? It certainly establishes the centerpiece as room for extras.)

As for the shield emitters, is that three emitters, two generators? And is that three engines I see on the back of the Defender? (That is, the two glowing "dots" on a TIE/ln, are those three dots on the Defender's rear all ion engines?)

The book Defender has slightly more than the game Defender (8 torpedoes instead of 6), but the game default payload was 8 advanced concussion missiles (double damage, twice the speed but 5 seconds less homing). I can see where you're going by putting a dual-capacity launcher between each "dagger" wing, but doesn't that replace the targeting sensor/cannon hardpoints with six times the payload of a normal launcher?

Off-topic: Anyone have ideas on how to fix the aft blind spot?

Incidentally, in my Empire of the Hand (EotH) roleplaying AU, where pragmatists fled for the Outer Rim and linked up with Thrawn, Col. Maarek Stele (Rapier squadron leader, 181st Fighter Group) suggested that even shielded interceptors and assault gunboats be relegated to the reserves, while the TIE Avenger and Scimitar assault bombers became the frontline fighters of this reduced Empire, while the TIE Defender and the Missile Boat became their high-end "superfighter" counterparts -- even if working up the funds meant suing for peace and accepting perpetuity as a regional power.

How's this sound?

(And yes, I use TIE Fighter stats instead of XWA stats or book comparisons with Rebel fighters because the TIE Fighter stats are SUPERWANK.)

Here's the picture of the ten hardpoints on an Interceptor

As for the beam projector emitters, I know that the EGV&V say that the hardpoints on the cockpit are warhead launchers, but that would mean that the torpedos are a few inches across to be able to fit through the tubes, and the TCS shows that proton torpedos are quite a bit larger than this and that concussion missles are even larger. and with the cut scene in the TIE Fighter game showing where they load the beam weapons, it seams to make sense that those hardpoints would be the emiter housing

I can see where you're going by putting a dual-capacity launcher between each "dagger" wing, but doesn't that replace the targeting sensor/cannon hardpoints with six times the payload of a normal launcher?

And as for the duel capacity launchers, I ment that as two warheads per launcher, not twice the normal capacity. Sorry for any confusion. And it wouldn't replace the cannon hardpoints as I was thinking that the launcher would be the square part of the array with the two dagger pieces of the array attached to it.

And I could be wrong, it's been awhile since I checked out my EGV&V, but wasn't the targeting sensors on the Defender placed on top of the entry hatch? If they were between the daggers, then I would simply attach them to the forward part of the warhead launcher.