Performence of Naboo N-1s against Imperial era starfighters

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

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.

So? It's a much smaller craft than an X-Wing, and an X-Wing's shields don't consistently stand up to direct hits either. It's probably designed to defend against proximity explosions, debris, harmful radiation, etc.

[Praxis]

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.

So? It's a much smaller craft than an X-Wing, and an X-Wing's shields don't consistently stand up to direct hits either. It's probably designed to defend against proximity explosions, debris, harmful radiation, etc.

Ah, so now TIEs have shields, but they're really weak and just protect from debris and radiation.

So the N-1 will blow through it like it didn't have shields.

Concession accepted.

[Illuminatus Primus]

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.

Yes it is. You cannot develop a cogent argument from "well they seem to fare less well." That's subjective. Well they were also the goons of the Empire against the absolute creme de la creme of the Rebellion's jocks. Not Darth Vader's personal squad against a unit so unstable that the few-hours recruit got a slot.

And it is still a gross generalization. You cannot make your conclusions rationally from the available evidence.

All TIE assignments imply dangerous conditions with relativistic debris.

Really, I didn't realize the ejecta cloud from an exploded planet was par on course for TIE deployments. Might you show ONE instance in the OT (since apparently single incidents there override all instances in the EU) other than there where TIE risked relativistic debris?

And you simply clipped out my remark that being assigned to the Death Star is obviously a prestige assignment, and not going to recieve the second-rate crap.

That silent refutation tactic, I'm going to have to try that.

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.

Really. Are you going to seriously claim to me that X-Wings are probably not more durable than TIEs? So capitalizing on the available agility and avoiding getting hit is quite possibly more important? What about TIEs on convoy duty, defending against A-Wings, is it really best to trade some agility against those interceptors for some shielding?

Sorry buddy, but simply stating your position as a fact does not prove anything. Try again.

Any fighter battle is going to involve high speed debris whenever a craft gets blown up.

That is not comparable to the debris from Alderaan.

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.

I'm sure that the shields of the X-Wing, for example, designed to protect against a small handful of hits from 1-5 kiloton range guns, will be so much more useful at shrugging off the blast of 200 megaton antifighter missiles. Sorry, but buying yourself maybe a dozen meters or so survivability envelope is not worth more than the SPEED TO HELP EVADE THE MISSILE ITSELF.

And TIEs are extremely expensive already.

Compared to what? Care to bother posting any evidence?

Increasing the survivability by adding a shield would greatly reduce overall cost.

Yeah, except its still probably overall less durable than, say, a X-Wing, except now it'll have a much harder time evading the craft since its slower, and its an easier target for guns and missiles.

We see that they have put at least one shield on at least one TIE,

Exactly: gross generalization. I take it you don't think there's a difference in priorities between engaging an armed freighter and dogfighting other starfighters, right? Perhaps worrying about lost agility is a moot point in engaging the former since its a lumbering slug anyway, and thus the shields are a smarter bet. When those shields protect you from maybe one or two blasts, and your enemy is not a lumbering slug and has four BIG fire-linked guns, and you just lowered your agility considerably....

the benefits greatly outweigh the cost,

Did you compare the accelerations of the shielded and unshielded models and those against common Rebel fighters? Did you calculate the level of increased survivability due to observed shields and compared that to the X-Wing's firepower or the Slave 1 missiles?

Or did you just assert that direct from your anus?

and to top it off there is no other fighter in Star Wars that is claimed to be shieldless besides the TIE series.

The Haor Chall Engineering Variable Geometry Self-Propelled Battle Droid, Mark I

The only countervailing evidence is the EU, which is notorious for glaring factual errors when it comes to capabilities of Imperial equipment,

Its not just a statement, but untold numbers of depicted events where TIEs did not have the benefit of shielding.

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.

Uh, it means X-Wings are more durable, and with their armament, the conclusion that giving the TIEs token shields and reducing their manuverability and acceleration significantly would afford them more survivability is a specious argument.

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

Now you're just starting to fall apart. That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam - the Argument from Ignorance, and specifically Shifting the Burden of Proof; I am not entitled to postulate the existance of shields and then disprove them. Shields are not assumed to be present until demonstrated to exist.

On the other hand, you have to be blind, dogmatic, or stupid to watch A New Hope and not recall the several times Luke's fighter was hit by enemy fire, and never with appreciable loss of flying ability.

Its not comparable, and your retaliation with a question about something else than I called you on is an evasive tactic. Like I said, you should not have ran your mouth.

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.

No, coward, your initial position was that the X-Wing was not more survivable than a TIE, and you challenged people to find an example of a X-Wing getting shot and surviving - I did so, and you responded with this bullshit about how the X-Wing games do not properly represent the survivability in the canon. So what? That just means the X-Wing games are bullshit, and in no way changes the observable fact that X-Wings are significantly more durable than TIEs. Its a red herring. Everyone knows their game mechanics are screwed up. That doesn't mean that the X-Wing cannot in fact be more survivable due to other observations.

You got caught in bullshit and now you're trying to save face.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Ah, so now TIEs have shields, but they're really weak and just protect from debris and radiation.

So the N-1 will blow through it like it didn't have shields.

Concession accepted.

Don't you love it?

Its great when you point out your firepower will cut through them like butter and the response is "well they have shields which are useless to block gunfire, but don't pay attention to that--focus on the word shields. Come on now."

[wautd]

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.

Did you saw the speed of those N-1 torpedos? My car is faster than that

[Gil Hamilton]

Did you saw the speed of those N-1 torpedos? My car is faster than that

Sure, right out of the launcher they are slow, probably because the launcher doesn't have any mass driving capablity.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

So? It's a much smaller craft than an X-Wing, and an X-Wing's shields don't consistently stand up to direct hits either. It's probably designed to defend against proximity explosions, debris, harmful radiation, etc.

Ah, so now TIEs have shields, but they're really weak and just protect from debris and radiation.

And why doesn't that make sense? If you've got a small ship like a TIE that can't mount shields capable of surviving a direct hit, but you don't want it to be vulnerable to a myriad of things that can trash an unshielded ship, then that kind of shield is still the right move.

So the N-1 will blow through it like it didn't have shields.

Concession accepted.

Thanks for restating what I said earlier. Learn to read, moron.

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.

Yes it is. You cannot develop a cogent argument from "well they seem to fare less well." That's subjective. Well they were also the goons of the Empire against the absolute creme de la creme of the Rebellion's jocks. Not Darth Vader's personal squad against a unit so unstable that the few-hours recruit got a slot.

... I have no idea what you're talking about. How does what you just typed relate to the argument?

And it is still a gross generalization. You cannot make your conclusions rationally from the available evidence.

No, but I can make a strong case that it makes sense to equip at least most TIEs with a shielding system. Your case, on the other hand, relies on the known-to-be-unreliable EU and the nonsense claim that if their shields can't take a direct hit, then they can't exist.

All TIE assignments imply dangerous conditions with relativistic debris.

Really, I didn't realize the ejecta cloud from an exploded planet was par on course for TIE deployments. Might you show ONE instance in the OT (since apparently single incidents there override all instances in the EU) other than there where TIE risked relativistic debris?

I wasn't talking about Alderann. I was talking about debris from nearby exploding ships, warheads, etc. It may not be relativistic, but it should make mincemeat out of an unshielded fighter.

And you simply clipped out my remark that being assigned to the Death Star is obviously a prestige assignment, and not going to recieve the second-rate crap.

That silent refutation tactic, I'm going to have to try that.

Bullshit. I said that all TIE assignments involve situations where there could be debris or dangerous radiation, implying that it makes sense for all TIEs to have shields, not just the cream of the crop.

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.

Really. Are you going to seriously claim to me that X-Wings are probably not more durable than TIEs?

I said the exact opposite of that in my last response to you. At first I thought you had a reading comprehension, now I think you're doing this on purpose just to piss me off.

So capitalizing on the available agility and avoiding getting hit is quite possibly more important? What about TIEs on convoy duty, defending against A-Wings, is it really best to trade some agility against those interceptors for some shielding?

How do you know there's a significant speed/agility tradeoff? You keep harping on the "fact" that it would hurt combat performance enough to offset any advantages. At least my assertion that an unshielded ship should be unacceptably vulnerable is likely.

Sorry buddy, but simply stating your position as a fact does not prove anything. Try again.

I didn't state my position as fact, you lying fuck. I support my position with one piece of evidence and one piece of logic. 1) We saw a TIE with a shield. 2) Given that it's possible, it makes sense for a number of reasons to equip TIEs with shields. Sure, it's not a slam dunk, but it makes more sense than your position, which is to assume that there must be an unnaceptable agility and speed tradeoff.

Any fighter battle is going to involve high speed debris whenever a craft gets blown up.

That is not comparable to the debris from Alderaan.

Who cares? It doesn't matter if it's comparable to that, it just matters whether it can significantly damage an unshielded TIE.

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.

I'm sure that the shields of the X-Wing, for example, designed to protect against a small handful of hits from 1-5 kiloton range guns, will be so much more useful at shrugging off the blast of 200 megaton antifighter missiles. Sorry, but buying yourself maybe a dozen meters or so survivability envelope is not worth more than the SPEED TO HELP EVADE THE MISSILE ITSELF.

1) You're assuming that there's some huge acceleration tradeoff with no evidence or reason.
2) You're assuming that, in the heat of battle with strong ECM, a fighter pilot will be able to see the missile coming with enough lead time to accelerate out of range.
3) While shields will obviously not protect a fighter from being close to a 200 megaton blast, they will greatly reduce the distance that the fighter can be from said blast without being fried. An unshielded fighter can be quite some distance and still get hosed, while a shielded one would be okay at that same range.

And TIEs are extremely expensive already.

Compared to what? Care to bother posting any evidence?

Military fighters are always expensive, and so is training pilots. Shields are not exactly an exotic technology. There's no way the cost of the shield system is going to offset the increased risk of losing the fighter and the pilot.

Increasing the survivability by adding a shield would greatly reduce overall cost.

Yeah, except its still probably overall less durable than, say, a X-Wing, except now it'll have a much harder time evading the craft since its slower, and its an easier target for guns and missiles.

Pure conjecture. All the assumptions I've made have been backed up with logic. There's no compelling reason to think that a shield system either should or shouldn't have a significant effect on maneuverability.

We see that they have put at least one shield on at least one TIE,

Exactly: gross generalization.

Keep saying that. I'm sure it will become true eventually if you repeat it enough times.

I take it you don't think there's a difference in priorities between engaging an armed freighter and dogfighting other starfighters, right? Perhaps worrying about lost agility is a moot point in engaging the former since its a lumbering slug anyway, and thus the shields are a smarter bet. When those shields protect you from maybe one or two blasts, and your enemy is not a lumbering slug and has four BIG fire-linked guns, and you just lowered your agility considerably....

Perhaps, if we accept your assumption. But the majority of missions certainly aren't straight up dogfights, so there's no grounds to say that most TIEs won't be equipped with shields.

the benefits greatly outweigh the cost,

Did you compare the accelerations of the shielded and unshielded models and those against common Rebel fighters? Did you calculate the level of increased survivability due to observed shields and compared that to the X-Wing's firepower or the Slave 1 missiles?

Or did you just assert that direct from your anus?

Don't project your mindset onto me. I base the assumption that it won't be a big acceleartion/maneuverability hit on the fact that none of the other fighters forego shields, not even the superfast and maneuverable A-Wing.

and to top it off there is no other fighter in Star Wars that is claimed to be shieldless besides the TIE series.

The Haor Chall Engineering Variable Geometry Self-Propelled Battle Droid, Mark I

That's the Trade Fed fighter, right? The Trade Federation is a predictable exception since they tend to use large numbers of cheap throwaways. Not the kind of tactics you want to use when you've got human pilots.

The Rebel Alliance does not field any fighters that do not have shields, not even the A-Wing. If shields are as big a performance hit as you claim, the A-Wing would not use them, nor would the X-Wing when dogfighting. Why should the hit apply to Imperial fighters and not to anyone else?

The only countervailing evidence is the EU, which is notorious for glaring factual errors when it comes to capabilities of Imperial equipment,

Its not just a statement, but untold numbers of depicted events where TIEs did not have the benefit of shielding.

Told from the points of view of Rebel or New Republic pilots. We know that TIE shields, if they exist, cannot withstand a direct hit, so how would they know whether they had shields or not?

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.

Uh, it means X-Wings are more durable, and with their armament, the conclusion that giving the TIEs token shields and reducing their manuverability and acceleration significantly would afford them more survivability is a specious argument.

Then explain why the A-Wing has shields. What goes for the Imperials goes for the Rebels.

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

Now you're just starting to fall apart. That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam - the Argument from Ignorance, and specifically Shifting the Burden of Proof

The hell it is. I present an argument for the existence of shields, you say that the movie's footage contradicts it, I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields and thus contradicts the argument. An argument from ignorance involves assuming one's position to be the default and then using the fact that one cannot prove a negative as part of one's argument. Despite your bullshit claims, I have not done this.

I am not entitled to postulate the existance of shields and then disprove them. Shields are not assumed to be present until demonstrated to exist.

When virtually every fighter in the fictional universe has shields and then one does not, we need to explain why. When we see that at least one in fact does have shields, and when we consider that the EU is often full of shit, then it seems at least as likely that most or all TIEs have shields rather than not. At no point did I assume that having shields was a default position, so either you never learned to properly read or you're purposely distorting things.

On the other hand, you have to be blind, dogmatic, or stupid to watch A New Hope and not recall the several times Luke's fighter was hit by enemy fire, and never with appreciable loss of flying ability.

The hits I remember were glancing, and not dead center. And that does not contradict anything I said. An X-Wing is several times the size of a TIE, so it stands to reason that it can take several times as much punishment, maybe more depending on how and for what purpose the respective shields and armor were designed.

Its not comparable, and your retaliation with a question about something else than I called you on is an evasive tactic. Like I said, you should not have ran your mouth.

I posted an argument in an unassuming fashion. Even if I'm wrong, and even if I later realize I'd committed some fallacy, I wasn't "running my mouth." You set upon me, full of sarcasm and vitriol, like I had personally jizzed in your salad dressing, and I have no idea why. What I do know is that even if it turns out that you're right and I'm wrong, you're the one that's been using strawmen and acting like an asshole.

And I have no idea what that first sentence is supposed to refer to.

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.

No, coward

Coward? You mother fucking son of a bitch. Why are you trying to get under my skin? I post an argument that you don't happen to agree with and you start looking for ways to push my buttons. What the hell is your problem?

your initial position was that the X-Wing was not more survivable than a TIE, and you challenged people to find an example of a X-Wing getting shot and surviving

No it wasn't, and no I didn't. This whole thread is here for all to see. Not everyone's reading skills are as impaired as yours. My initial position was that TIEs probably have shields, but not as strong as the shields on an X-Wing by virtue of the X-Wing being much bigger. Then, as a rebuttal to the argument that TIEs going down in one hit disproves shields, I said that most of the X-Wings went down from direct hits, too. The fact that a few of them didn't does not disprove my argument. Are you really so stupid that this had to be explained to you, or do you get some sort of sick pleasure out of frustrating me with this bullshit?

I did so, and you responded with this bullshit about how the X-Wing games do not properly represent the survivability in the canon. So what? That just means the X-Wing games are bullshit, and in no way changes the observable fact that X-Wings are significantly more durable than TIEs. Its a red herring. Everyone knows their game mechanics are screwed up. That doesn't mean that the X-Wing cannot in fact be more survivable due to other observations.

That whole paragraph was a red herring. I never claimed X-Wings were no more survivable than TIEs.

You got caught in bullshit and now you're trying to save face.

No, I was making a (perfectly sound) argument that TIEs probably have shields, now I'm returning fire in a mudslinging exchange with an idiot who can't read, or maybe a liar who won't read. Either way, fuck you.

[Lord Revan]

I may be a little stupid, but tell what relevence does shield status of TIEs have in this debate if those shield won't stop TIEs from becoming either a flaming wreck or exploding from any hit to the body of the figther. both N-1 and the T-65 have survived hits to the body.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I may be a little stupid, but tell what relevence does shield status of TIEs have in this debate if those shield won't stop TIEs from becoming either a flaming wreck or exploding from any hit to the body of the figther. both N-1 and the T-65 have survived hits to the body.

None. It's turned into its own debate that has nothing to do with the original post.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And why doesn't that make sense? If you've got a small ship like a TIE that can't mount shields capable of surviving a direct hit, but you don't want it to be vulnerable to a myriad of things that can trash an unshielded ship, then that kind of shield is still the right move.

IF THE SHIELDS HAVE NO REAL USE AS DEFENSE AGAINST ENEMY GUNFIRE, WHY BRING THEM UP?

Check back in, Tux; SW materials science can take micrometeors just fine. TESB novelisation has large meteors being shrugged off by the ISD's hull.

Thanks for restating what I said earlier. Learn to read, moron.

Thus your shields are irrelevent to combat and irrelevent to anything in this debate.

... I have no idea what you're talking about. How does what you just typed relate to the argument?

Your argument is that we can treat the EU sources as ipso facto biased and erroneous because they depict a different kill ratio from X-Wings to TIEs than the movie. There are obvious extenuating circumstances which you ran roughshod over, and I pointed out clearly. I'm not going to repeat myself. You can re-read it.

No, but I can make a strong case that it makes sense to equip at least most TIEs with a shielding system.

Just because they SHOULD doesn't mean they bother to spend the money to do so; want to ask The Great Leader or The Shep about all the stupid shit the politicians have done with the military?

Your case, on the other hand, relies on the known-to-be-unreliable EU

I've already shown not only is this unquantificable, but in this instance hardly a solid case.

And I'll fill you in on something: "Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon." - Ms. Sue Rostini

The sources claiming that most TIEs are unshielded is canonical; live with it. You have ONE TIE Starfighter, and are trying to claim ALL TIE Line Fighters and TIE Starfighters must have shielding. This is a specious argument.

and the nonsense claim that if their shields can't take a direct hit, then they can't exist.

If they're "navigation shields" they are irrelevent to advantage in combat and thus outside the scope of this discussion; we're talking about combat defensive shielding.

Anyhow, why would you weigh yourself down and rob energy from your engines when you're fighting slower, bigger fighters which will vape you in one direct hit, shields or no shields, while you have no missiles, and they do? You press your advantages, most notably, your agility.

I wasn't talking about Alderann.

I was, idiot. Don't refute me by bringing up debris moving at many orders of magnitude lesser relative velocity. :eye roll:

I was talking about debris from nearby exploding ships, warheads, etc. It may not be relativistic, but it should make mincemeat out of an unshielded fighter.

Really? Since when have meager shrapnel and projectiles been murder for SW spacecraft? All my evidence shows extremely advanced materials science, even in the civilian construction sector. I suppose since sub-relativistic projectiles are such a danger, the Alliance is full of morons for not mounting repeating mass-drivers instead of energy weaponry.

Do you have any evidence, or are you just asserting this as fact?

Bullshit. I said that all TIE assignments involve situations where there could be debris or dangerous radiation,

Which was made in response to my remark about those TIEs serving in the proto-Alderanian Graveyard. Sub-relativistic shrapnel is not comparable to relativistic fragments of an exploded planet, moron.

implying that it makes sense for all TIEs to have shields, not just the cream of the crop.

Meager "navigation" particle shielding will handle this. Why would the boonie TIE need high-grade, expensive, and heavy energy shielding?

I said the exact opposite of that in my last response to you. At first I thought you had a reading comprehension, now I think you're doing this on purpose just to piss me off.

Let's have that quote in whole.

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.

Really. Are you going to seriously claim to me that X-Wings are probably not more durable than TIEs? So capitalizing on the available agility and avoiding getting hit is quite possibly more important? What about TIEs on convoy duty, defending against A-Wings, is it really best to trade some agility against those interceptors for some shielding?

Sorry buddy, but simply stating your position as a fact does not prove anything. Try again.

The point, stupid, was that it is NOT too expensive when your enemy CAN survive direct hits, you cannot, and your primary advantage, agility, is stymied by extra weight and power requirements.

How do you know there's a significant speed/agility tradeoff?

Because its fucking obvious, dumbass. Maybe the fact that equipment weighs something and shields require lots of power that would otherwise go into engines or guns goes without saying.

And besides, the Wraith Squadron series of X-Wing novels depicted TIE Interceptors that "handled like X-Wings" due to add-on hyperdrives. A shield generator, shield projectors, a re-radiation apparatus of some kind, and the heat sink for residual energy all takes up space and has mass. And this all has required significant percentages of reactor power in other vessels. The shielded TIE observed has a standard hull, and therefore, if anything, the reactor size (and by extention, power output) was reduced from standard to make room for shielding equipment. At best the reactor is the same size, except it must now pay the penalties of moving around more mass and with less energy to do it. Meanwhile the enemy will still kill the ship with a direct hit, and is equipped with missiles. The strongest advantage the ship had, superior agility, has been stymied.

You keep harping on the "fact" that it would hurt combat performance enough to offset any advantages. At least my assertion that an unshielded ship should be unacceptably vulnerable is likely.

Except its not backed up by the canon, imbecile, and mine is.

And furthermore, why would an agile fighter stand to gain by reducing the magnitude of its strongest advantage for limited returns (shields which cannot stop direct hits)?

[snip ugly picture]
I didn't state my position as fact, you lying fuck.

A strawman is where someone rephrasing and alters your argument in synopsis to make it more vulnerable than before. I'm simply stating its shit and you are waving around saying "It SHOULD be this way because I SAY SO." That's hardly a strawman, idiot. I didn't invent corollaries to your theory to make it more stupid. I didn't need to make it more stupid. Its 90% conjecture and it stands against the LFL canon policy. And oftentimes, common sense and economics as well.

I support my position with one piece of evidence

And extrapolate that over literally probably hundreds of millions of craft, like I said: gross generalization.

and one piece of logic.

The "logic" that its in an agile small fighter's interest to diminish its agility advantages for token defensive improvements which the bigger enemy can still punch clean through, or more easily acquire you with missiles. :eye roll:

1) We saw a TIE with a shield. 2) Given that it's possible, it makes sense for a number of reasons to equip TIEs with shields.

"SHOULD" does not always translate to "IS"; especially in STARK contrast to the canon, and in some areas not strategically intelligent at all.

Sure, it's not a slam dunk, but it makes more sense than your position, which is to assume that there must be an unnaceptable agility and speed tradeoff.

Assume? Excuse me?

Anyone who opens a Incredible Cross Sections book will find that shield equipment of all colors takes up SPACE, and thus adds MASS.

Anyone who has almost any experience in the Star Wars Expanded Universe knows that shields gobble up plenty of energy.

Anyone who read Wraith Squadron and her sequels knows that while additions can be added to the basic TIE hull, these often degrade performance DRASTICALLY. And hyperdrives are hardly much different in volume than shield equipment, and worse yet, the shield equipment draws lots of power all the time, not just in brief periods (hyperjumps).

In short, you must be a brainless moron to conclude you can arbitrarily add equipment without the reactor or engine feeling the different one bit. Why do you think the TIE Advanced X1 prototype, the TIE Avenger, and the TIE Defender all sported elongated and extended hulls? Shits and giggles? No; because of their extra equipment, more room for a bigger reactor to avoid degrading performance was a design imperative - and despite this, the TIE Advanced X1 prototype was still more sluggish than the standard TIE Starfighter. And it added simply shields and a hyperdrive; and that necessitated all that extra room, and it still did not meet the original fighter's agility levels.

Who cares? It doesn't matter if it's comparable to that, it just matters whether it can significantly damage an unshielded TIE.

Who cares about velocity? I mean it is only one of the variables determining the kinetic energy of the impact. :eye roll: I hoped we moved away from this no-numbers mentality with the end of vs. debates, but no.

Again, what evidence is there that combat debris is a major threat to even unshielded craft thanks to SW level materials science? Even if minor particle shields stave off micrometeors, what does this do for combat energy shielding?

1) You're assuming that there's some huge acceleration tradeoff with no evidence or reason.

The evidence is quite literally everywhere, and quite frankly, intuitive.

2) You're assuming that, in the heat of battle with strong ECM, a fighter pilot will be able to see the missile coming with enough lead time to accelerate out of range.

They have active seeking heads, moron. And besides, that changes nothing: the only chance a fighter concievably has against a missile is to outpace/manouver it. Their yields make even glancing proximity hits lethal.

3) While shields will obviously not protect a fighter from being close to a 200 megaton blast, they will greatly reduce the distance that the fighter can be from said blast without being fried. An unshielded fighter can be quite some distance and still get hosed, while a shielded one would be okay at that same range.

Only now its slow and easily hit by the missile, negating the meager gain in wiggle room against proximity hits (a specious argument since AOTC seems to imply missiles manouver in for as-close-as-possible proximity or even impact hits).

I mean if we look atWraith Squadron's TIE Interceptors w/ hyperdrives: when a hyperdrive is probably comparable to shield equipment in weight, and the shield equipment is more continuously energy intensive, and the Interceptor is already significantly more agile than the TIE Line Fighter, and the modified Interceptors were comparable to X-Wings in handling, well its not difficult to imagine that shielded TIE Starfighters and Line Fighters may be comparable to an X-Wing in manouverability and agility or worse. In fact, ILM's speed charts lock the TIE and the X-Wing neck-and-neck. A possible fix or interpretation is those represent shielded TIE Fighters.

Military fighters are always expensive, and so is training pilots.

So? I'm talking relatively expensive. There's no reason the TIE is regarded as expendable merely because it is not shielded. However, the economics and military role of fighters is quite different from the modern day.

Shields are not exactly an exotic technology. There's no way the cost of the shield system is going to offset the increased risk of losing the fighter and the pilot.

How about by adding defensive ability insufficient to defeat direct hits by enemy guns, but reducing it to the enemy's agility?

And "SHOULD" != "IS."

Pure conjecture. All the assumptions I've made have been backed up with logic. There's no compelling reason to think that a shield system either should or shouldn't have a significant effect on maneuverability.

Oh silly me, we should ignore the evidence of other TIE spacecraft which have permanently added such equipment as shielding and hyperdrive and the prohibitive requirements on reactor scale, and assume the shield equipment weighs nothing. I am an idiot.

Keep saying that. I'm sure it will become true eventually if you repeat it enough times.

TAKING A SINGLE EXAMPLE AND ASSUMING IT MUST APPLY TO POSSIBLE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF INSTANCES UNIFORMLY IS A GROSS GENERALIZATION.

Perhaps, if we accept your assumption. But the majority of missions certainly aren't straight up dogfights, so there's no grounds to say that most TIEs won't be equipped with shields.

"My assumption" is canon fact. Deal with it.

Don't project your mindset onto me. I base the assumption that it won't be a big acceleartion/maneuverability hit on the fact that none of the other fighters forego shields, not even the superfast and maneuverable A-Wing.

All of the other craft, including the A-Wing, are significantly more volumnous and massive than the TIE standard hull, idjit.

That's the Trade Fed fighter, right? The Trade Federation is a predictable exception since they tend to use large numbers of cheap throwaways. Not the kind of tactics you want to use when you've got human pilots.

Again, not my fault you shoot off your mouth.

The Rebel Alliance does not field any fighters that do not have shields, not even the A-Wing.

The A-Wing is more massive; it features a larger reactor and has greater internal space.

If shields are as big a performance hit as you claim, the A-Wing would not use them,

No, because it was designed with a bigger hull and reactor to accomodate both goals at once. Just like the TIE Avenger and the TIE Defender. This increased volume for equipment and an enlarged reactor is conspicuously absent in the TIE standard ball.

I ask you: why would these fighters bother with a larger hull and thus a larger target profile if they could simply bolt on equipment with no draw on the fighter's finite resources?

Why should the hit apply to Imperial fighters and not to anyone else?

It doesn't apply to "Imperial fighters." The I-7 Howlrunner, the Sorosuub Preybird, the TIE Avenger, Advanced X1, and Defender, as well as Interceptor variants, all sported shields. The TIE/Ln and TIE Starfighter also, probably, can, and do sport shields at times, but by no means universally or even in the majority.

Don't strawman me.

Told from the points of view of Rebel or New Republic pilots. We know that TIE shields, if they exist, cannot withstand a direct hit, so how would they know whether they had shields or not?

SENSORS, idjit.

"We've got to be able to get some kind of reading on that shield, up or down!"

"Well how could they be jamming us if they don't know - that we're coming?"

Then explain why the A-Wing has shields. What goes for the Imperials goes for the Rebels.

Because its BIGGER, dumbass, just like the TIE Avenger, Advanced X1, and Defender.

The hell it is. I present an argument for the existence of shields, you say that the movie's footage contradicts it,

No, imbecile, I say that no where else is empirical evidence present, therefore you do not assume that it is there.

I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields and thus contradicts the argument. An argument from ignorance involves assuming one's position to be the default and then using the fact that one cannot prove a negative as part of one's argument.

Exactly:

I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields

How the fuck are you supposed to present proof that a craft did not have shields? Your remark implicitly assumes that all TIEs have shields due to that single instance, and that therefore in all other situations I must disprove it. That's horseshit.

Despite your bullshit claims, I have not done this.

Really?

I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields

Demanding to Prove a Negative; Argument from Ignorance by definition.

When virtually every fighter in the fictional universe has shields and then one does not, we need to explain why.

No. we don't. Its canon until explicitly disproven by higher material.

When we see that at least one in fact does have shields, and when we consider that the EU is often full of shit, then it seems at least as likely that most or all TIEs have shields rather than not.

Not only is that a gross generalization, but also a false dichotomy: "either the EU is completely right and now TIE Fighters can have shields, or its completely wrong and all TIEs have shields."

What kind of logic is that?

At no point did I assume that having shields was a default position, so either you never learned to properly read or you're purposely distorting things.

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

I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields

Eat it.

The hits I remember were glancing, and not dead center.

So what? The shots still made solid contact with the hull and were mostly deflected.

I'm sorry, if the angle is too oblique for you than we assume the multi-kiloton blasts are effectively an order of magnitude lower? What are you smoking?

An X-Wing is several times the size of a TIE, so it stands to reason that it can take several times as much punishment, maybe more depending on how and for what purpose the respective shields and armor were designed.

And so why the fuck do you think you can just shove shit into the TIE hull without no deleterious draw on its resources whatsoever?

I posted an argument in an unassuming fashion. Even if I'm wrong, and even if I later realize I'd committed some fallacy, I wasn't "running my mouth." You set upon me, full of sarcasm and vitriol, like I had personally jizzed in your salad dressing, and I have no idea why. What I do know is that even if it turns out that you're right and I'm wrong, you're the one that's been using strawmen and acting like an asshole.

Please. My first post was perfectly civil, apart from some light sarcasm in regards to the "X-Wing's always go down in one hit"; which anyone who's seen A New Hope should no better then. It was you who responded to that by calling me a "Kiss my ass you sarcastic piece of shit."

Let's compare civility:

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.

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.

I didn't start pulling out the textual arsenal until the last post or so, since you've begun insisting you're not using logical fallacies even though you're practically reciting the textbook and got all huffy because I made your turd look just like what it is: a turd.

Coward? You mother fucking son of a bitch. Why are you trying to get under my skin? I post an argument that you don't happen to agree with and you start looking for ways to push my buttons. What the hell is your problem?

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people.

Grow up. I used a little sarcasm for someone making wild claims (which to boot had been dealt with in a thread no less than a week ago, but I digress), and you flipped out because you have a lot of pride and apparently enough of it is invested on this Star Wars message board to cause you to get all huffy and defensive.

Simply admit you're wrong, or accept that you screwed up, and for this board, pretty royally when you forget obvious instances from THE Star Wars movie. Don't lash out at me. Was I wrong? No.

But since I've had to repeat myself over and over, and now even quote myself back to you to prevent you from glossing over cut-out bits of my text and ignoring points, and having to quote you previously to demonstrate fallacies you claim you weren't using, I have become agitated. And with the increasing string of evasive shitlicker tactics, I'll call it out as cowardly. I don't understand why such the thin skin. People who repetatively refuse to admit flaw and debate Mike or some of the other oldies will get called fucking dumbasses and whatnot, and that's part of this forum in general. Learn to take the heat or get out of the fire. But really, just concede. You're becoming ridiculous.

Then, as a rebuttal to the argument that TIEs going down in one hit disproves shields, I said that most of the X-Wings went down from direct hits, too. The fact that a few of them didn't does not disprove my argument. Are you really so stupid that this had to be explained to you, or do you get some sort of sick pleasure out of frustrating me with this bullshit?

Right.

First it was "all the X-Wings got downed in one hit"

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

Which, by the way, was in response to this:

X-Wing probobly have stronger shields, and certainly stronger firepower.

Ah, so you were then trying to show X-Wings were not necessarily more durable, and now you are--oh I see.

Anyhow, that was bullshit:

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.

Then I was mistaken, you see, "And in the movies, X-Wings almost always went down in one hit, shields or no," was really saying:

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

Anyhow, my respnose:

Backpeddle backpeddle backpeddle.

Responded to by:

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.

(Incidentally, this was the second outright insult in the exchange, that's two posts in a row for him, and I didn't call him names in the interim; him calling me an asshat. But, as we know, IP is teh EEVIIILLL and Arthur is the honorable paragon of virtue and an exploited victim).

Because, you WERE backpeddling. You remarked that X-Wings never survive multiple hits in the films in contrast to the claim that "X-Wings have stronger shields." And then that was "supposed to" mean that the X-Wing games are BS in their mechanics? :eye roll:

Sure fooled me!

So folks, what do you think:

X-Wing probobly have stronger shields, and certainly stronger firepower.

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

Equals?

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

I'm so silly, I should've realized the entire point was that the X-Wing games have shitty mechanics!

That whole paragraph was a red herring. I never claimed X-Wings were no more survivable than TIEs.

Then why state "in the movies, X-Wings almost always went down in one hit, shields or no" in rebuttal to "X-Wing probobly have stronger shields, and certainly stronger firepower."

Stupid me, I didn't the invisible-type describing how this was actually in response to a nonexistant post about the authority of X-Wing game mechanics.

No, I was making a (perfectly sound) argument that TIEs probably have shields, now I'm returning fire in a mudslinging exchange with an idiot who can't read, or maybe a liar who won't read. Either way, fuck you.

Your "perfectly sound" argument has been a gross generalization from the first post, and is logically flawed even beyond that.

Mudslinger?

Kiss my ass you sarcastic piece of shit.

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.

Lying? Inability to read? Inability to read the text oneself just wrote?

Despite your bullshit claims, I have not done this.

I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields

Good day, sir.

[phongn]

Did you saw the speed of those N-1 torpedos? My car is faster than that

Sure, right out of the launcher they are slow, probably because the launcher doesn't have any mass driving capablity.

To play devil's advocate a bit, those torpedos might be optimized for the light-strike role (like Hellfire) and not the dogfighting role (like Slave 1's munitions).

[Gil Hamilton]

To play devil's advocate a bit, those torpedos might be optimized for the light-strike role (like Hellfire) and not the dogfighting role (like Slave 1's munitions).

Maybe, but they are still spaceship weapons. I can't imagine them being worth anything unless they have a range of a few thousand kilometers and even if they are only a fraction as manueverable as Luke's torpedo or Slave 1s fire-and-forget, it can still out turn a TIE fighter. I still think that as long as the TIE figher isn't dropped on top of the N-1, the missiles the N-1 carries makes the difference.

[Ender]

Did you saw the speed of those N-1 torpedos? My car is faster than that

Sure, right out of the launcher they are slow, probably because the launcher doesn't have any mass driving capablity.

To play devil's advocate a bit, those torpedos might be optimized for the light-strike role (like Hellfire) and not the dogfighting role (like Slave 1's munitions).

While the torpedos launched by Slave 1 was intellegent, it lacked the higher acceleration observed in X-wing torpedos and lacked the plasma stealth/aerodynamic covering on almost all other missile weapons. On top of that, it's yield was far higher then dogfighting would require. I doubt that was its primary purpose.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

This argument has ballooned to huge size, with only a few main points. I'll try to pare it down.

IF THE SHIELDS HAVE NO REAL USE AS DEFENSE AGAINST ENEMY GUNFIRE, WHY BRING THEM UP?

Someone said they didn't have shields. That's what I was responding to.

Check back in, Tux; SW materials science can take micrometeors just fine. TESB novelisation has large meteors being shrugged off by the ISD's hull.

Fragments of exploding friendly or enemy ships will be made of the same strong materials. Who was talking about micrometeors?

*snip argument on irrelevance of this discussion to the OP*

... I have no idea what you're talking about. How does what you just typed relate to the argument?

Your argument is that we can treat the EU sources as ipso facto biased and erroneous because they depict a different kill ratio from X-Wings to TIEs than the movie. There are obvious extenuating circumstances which you ran roughshod over, and I pointed out clearly. I'm not going to repeat myself. You can re-read it.

That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm mainly talking about the size of the Executor and mislabeling the ISDs sensor domes as shield generators. Those are more serious errors than the presence or absence of TIE shields, and also easily disproved via sensor readings.

No, but I can make a strong case that it makes sense to equip at least most TIEs with a shielding system.

Just because they SHOULD doesn't mean they bother to spend the money to do so; want to ask The Great Leader or The Shep about all the stupid shit the politicians have done with the military?

Fair enough.

Your case, on the other hand, relies on the known-to-be-unreliable EU

I've already shown not only is this unquantificable, but in this instance hardly a solid case.

And I'll fill you in on something: "Our goal is to present a continuous and unified history of the Star Wars galaxy, insofar as that history does not conflict with, or undermine the meaning of Mr. Lucas's Star Wars saga of films and screenplays. Things that Lucas Licensing does not consider official parts of the continuous Star Wars history show an Infinities logo or are contained in Star Wars Tales. Everything else is considered canon." - Ms. Sue Rostini

The sources claiming that most TIEs are unshielded is canonical; live with it. You have ONE TIE Starfighter, and are trying to claim ALL TIE Line Fighters and TIE Starfighters must have shielding. This is a specious argument.

A specious argument is defined as one that seems reasonable on its face, but is wrong, yet you keep using that term and then saying how patently ridiculous the position is. Make up your mind.

Anyway, if we use suspsension of disbelief and treat the EU books as in-universe sources, sources whose authors have been repeatedly shown to be biased to the point of making repeated distortions, then we don't have to take everything in those books as gospel unless contradicted by a higher gospel.

and the nonsense claim that if their shields can't take a direct hit, then they can't exist.

If they're "navigation shields" they are irrelevent to advantage in combat and thus outside the scope of this discussion; we're talking about combat defensive shielding.

Apparently we're having different discussions. The one I was having was about whether or not TIEs have shields. A "navigation shield" would certainly qualify.

*snip restatement of position that TIEs would be slowed down significantly by shields*

*snip redundant debris bit*

*snip redundant bit*

implying that it makes sense for all TIEs to have shields, not just the cream of the crop.

Meager "navigation" particle shielding will handle this. Why would the boonie TIE need high-grade, expensive, and heavy energy shielding?

They wouldn't, necessarily. I'm willing to conceed that they're more likely to have lower-level particle shielding than high grade energy shielding. It's still shields, and fits into what I was saying.

The point, stupid, was that it is NOT too expensive when your enemy CAN survive direct hits, you cannot, and your primary advantage, agility, is stymied by extra weight and power requirements.

Navigation shields are fine. To be honest, the disparity between ray and particle shields slipped my mind. I didn't originally consider the possibility of such a navigation shield, but it makes sense.

*snip bit about shields' weight and power requirement*
I didn't realize it was spelled out explicity in the EU, most of which I haven't read, so I'll conceed that bit. Anyway, as you said, it doesn't take combat ray shielding to defend against the things I was talking about.

*snip more arguments on the same*

A strawman is where someone rephrasing and alters your argument in synopsis to make it more vulnerable than before. I'm simply stating its shit and you are waving around saying "It SHOULD be this way because I SAY SO." That's hardly a strawman, idiot. I didn't invent corollaries to your theory to make it more stupid. I didn't need to make it more stupid. Its 90% conjecture and it stands against the LFL canon policy. And oftentimes, common sense and economics as well.

You strawmanned by saying that I incorporated a burden of proof fallacy, when I didn't.

I support my position with one piece of evidence

And extrapolate that over literally probably hundreds of millions of craft, like I said: gross generalization.

A gross generalization is performing that extrapolation without a compelling reason. You may not find my reasons compelling, but they were stated, and so it is not a gross generalization.

*snip agility redundancy*

1) We saw a TIE with a shield. 2) Given that it's possible, it makes sense for a number of reasons to equip TIEs with shields.

"SHOULD" does not always translate to "IS"; especially in STARK contrast to the canon, and in some areas not strategically intelligent at all.

No, "should" does not always translate to "is", but given that there's a "should", you can say that there's a good probability of an "is", especially if the countervailing evidence can be shown to have presented untruths as fact due to bias.

*Snip redundancy about mass and power consumption*

*snip redundancy about debris*

*Mass and power consumption*

2) You're assuming that, in the heat of battle with strong ECM, a fighter pilot will be able to see the missile coming with enough lead time to accelerate out of range.

They have active seeking heads, moron. And besides, that changes nothing: the only chance a fighter concievably has against a missile is to outpace/manouver it. Their yields make even glancing proximity hits lethal.

If the warhead is homing on to you. If it's homing on someone else, and you happen to be close by, you're going to want shields. However, given that you showed that there are in fact significant agility / acceleration tradeoffs, I'll conceed that all TIEs probably do not have high grade energy shields.

*snip discussion on missiles and mass / power consumption*

*snip already conceeded expense vs survivability and mass / power consumption*

*snip redundancy about the term "gross generalization"*

Perhaps, if we accept your assumption. But the majority of missions certainly aren't straight up dogfights, so there's no grounds to say that most TIEs won't be equipped with shields.

"My assumption" is canon fact. Deal with it.

It's canon that those claims were made. Nothing else. The idea that the domes on an ISD are shield generators is never explicity contradicted by a higher order of canon, either.

*snip acceleration / manueverability tradeoff*

Why should the hit apply to Imperial fighters and not to anyone else?

It doesn't apply to "Imperial fighters." The I-7 Howlrunner, the Sorosuub Preybird, the TIE Avenger, Advanced X1, and Defender, as well as Interceptor variants, all sported shields. The TIE/Ln and TIE Starfighter also, probably, can, and do sport shields at times, but by no means universally or even in the majority.

Don't strawman me.

I didn't mean "imperial fighters" as all "imperial fighters", but it doesn't matter now, as I've already conceeded the acceleration / maneuverability angle.

Told from the points of view of Rebel or New Republic pilots. We know that TIE shields, if they exist, cannot withstand a direct hit, so how would they know whether they had shields or not?

SENSORS, idjit.

"We've got to be able to get some kind of reading on that shield, up or down!"

"Well how could they be jamming us if they don't know - that we're coming?"

Fair enough, but they are still unreliable accounts when it comes to capabilities of Imperial stuff.

*snip A-Wing's lack of shields*
Conceeded. The A-Wing is bigger. Can't argue that.

*snip discussion of appeal to ignorance because it is covered in more detail below*

*snip redundancy to above*

*snip point about the lack of shields being canon unless contradicted*

When we see that at least one in fact does have shields, and when we consider that the EU is often full of shit, then it seems at least as likely that most or all TIEs have shields rather than not.

Not only is that a gross generalization, but also a false dichotomy: "either the EU is completely right and no TIE Fighters can have shields, or its completely wrong and all TIEs have shields."

What kind of logic is that?

The kind belonging to an argument that you just made up, apparently, because I said nothing like that.

At no point did I assume that having shields was a default position, so either you never learned to properly read or you're purposely distorting things.

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

I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields

Eat it.

The idea that the movie footage does not contradict the type of shields I was talking about is not a "prove a negative or I win" because it was in response to your criticism and not made part of the case I was making. The fact that you would have had to prove a negative to show that the movie footage contradicted my position simply means that the criticism was invalid.

*snip now irrelevant bits*

I posted an argument in an unassuming fashion. Even if I'm wrong, and even if I later realize I'd committed some fallacy, I wasn't "running my mouth." You set upon me, full of sarcasm and vitriol, like I had personally jizzed in your salad dressing, and I have no idea why. What I do know is that even if it turns out that you're right and I'm wrong, you're the one that's been using strawmen and acting like an asshole.

Please. My first post was perfectly civil, apart from some light sarcasm in regards to the "X-Wing's always go down in one hit"; which anyone who's seen A New Hope should no better then. It was you who responded to that by calling me a "Kiss my ass you sarcastic piece of shit."

"Real quick there" and "I'm really impressed by your ability..." is not light sarcasm. It's extremely insulting, and not like the insults you got in response. It's the weaselly, ambiguous kind where you can act like you were being "perfectly civil". I usually have a thick skin, but that really got under it.

*snip quoting of earlier posts*

I didn't start pulling out the textual arsenal until the last post or so, since you've begun insisting you're not using logical fallacies even though you're practically reciting the textbook and got all huffy because I made your turd look just like what it is: a turd.

No, I got pissed because of those sarcistic little comments in your first post, then I got even more pissed when you started putting words in my mouth to accuse me of logical fallacies.

Coward? You mother fucking son of a bitch. Why are you trying to get under my skin? I post an argument that you don't happen to agree with and you start looking for ways to push my buttons. What the hell is your problem?

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people.

No no, it's "Get your fill of sci-fi, science, mockery of stupid people, and groundlessly calling people cowards." Oh wait, it was the first one.

Grow up. I used a little sarcasm for someone making wild claims (which to boot had been dealt with in a thread no less than a week ago, but I digress), and you flipped out because you have a lot of pride and apparently enough of it is invested on this Star Wars message board to cause you to get all huffy and defensive.

Your comment set me off because it was extremely insulting and yet framed in a way for you to go "who, me?" I've never stubbornly held to a position that was proven wrong on this board, and I will never do so. Once you presented a strong case for maneuverability / acceleration tradeoffs, I conceeded it. In the previous posts, I didn't conceed it because you hadn't given me a compelling reason to. So no, your picture of a person hanging onto an argument out of pride is not correct.

Simply admit you're wrong, or accept that you screwed up, and for this board, pretty royally when you forget obvious instances from THE Star Wars movie. Don't lash out at me. Was I wrong? No.

Some parts of your argument weren't wrong. But the way you conducted the debate was. You misrepresented my argument and accused me of logical fallacies which were not commited. You're obviously modelling yourself after Mike, as most of us do to some extent, but you lack his ability to properly identify fallacies and his ability to discern when someone is being irrational and their likely motives for doing it. I know I can't do what he does, so I don't try, but your failed attempts to do so just make you look like an ass.

But since I've had to repeat myself over and over, and now even quote myself back to you to prevent you from glossing over cut-out bits of my text and ignoring points

Until this post, I didn't snip a word, and I certainly haven't ignored any meaningful points.

and having to quote you previously to demonstrate fallacies you claim you weren't using,

The quotes don't show what you say they show.

I have become agitated. And with the increasing string of evasive shitlicker tactics, I'll call it out as cowardly.

The instances where I used these tactics exist only in your mind.

I don't understand why such the thin skin. People who repetatively refuse to admit flaw and debate Mike or some of the other oldies will get called fucking dumbasses and whatnot, and that's part of this forum in general. Learn to take the heat or get out of the fire. But really, just concede. You're becoming ridiculous.

If I were debating Mike, it wouldn't look like this at all. He would have identified right away where I was going wrong (ie. forgetting that there can be a distinction between navigation shields and combat shields), and then I would have said "oh ok" and that would have been the end of it. But you came in with your grating insults and baseless accusations, didn't make a strong case about the parts I conceeded until several posts in, and then acted like I was being irrational for not agreeing with you from square one.

The reason it got under my skin is because I pride myself on being honest, upfront, and willing to change my mind. When you distort my words and claim that I'm being dishonest and using sneaky tactics to "win" the debate, that pisses me off like nothing else can.

Then, as a rebuttal to the argument that TIEs going down in one hit disproves shields, I said that most of the X-Wings went down from direct hits, too. The fact that a few of them didn't does not disprove my argument. Are you really so stupid that this had to be explained to you, or do you get some sort of sick pleasure out of frustrating me with this bullshit?

Right.

First it was "all the X-Wings got downed in one hit"

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

Which, by the way, was in response to this:

X-Wing probobly have stronger shields, and certainly stronger firepower.

Ah, so you were then trying to show X-Wings were not necessarily more durable, and now you are--oh I see.

Anyhow, that was bullshit:

I was trying to establish that having shields does not mean that a fighter won't go down in one direct hit. X-Wings are several times larger than TIEs, and they still went down in one hit as often as not, so the point was that if a TIE did have shields, we would expect it to always go down in one hit. Ergo, the fact that all the TIEs went down in one hit is not evidence against shields.

*snip redundancy to above*

(Incidentally, this was the second outright insult in the exchange, that's two posts in a row for him, and I didn't call him names in the interim; him calling me an asshat. But, as we know, IP is teh EEVIIILLL and Arthur is the honorable paragon of virtue and an exploited victim).

Yes. When I insult, I do it strongly and unambiguously. You choose to be condescending and sarcastic instead. How is that better?

Because, you WERE backpeddling. You remarked that X-Wings never survive multiple hits in the films in contrast to the claim that "X-Wings have stronger shields." And then that was "supposed to" mean that the X-Wing games are BS in their mechanics? :eye roll:

Sure fooled me!

No. I remarked it in contrast to the claim that TIEs being destroyed in one hit shows that they cannot have shields.

*snip redundancy*

*snip restatement of argument already dealt with at top*

*snip attempt to prove that I'm the worse asshole because I choose to insult openly*

Lying? Inability to read? Inability to read the text oneself just wrote?

Despite your bullshit claims, I have not done this.

I ask exactly which footage shows that they could not have had shields

Good day, sir.

The most aggravating part of dealing with you is that you think you have the debating and analytical skills of someone like Mike, and you don't. Your whole format has been a second rate copy of his. The identification of fallacies, the use of someone's own quotes against him when he changes his story and then refuses to admit it, and ending by positing a reason why the opponent behaved that way, then waiting patiently for the person to descend to trolling or run away without conceeding.

You assumed that I would behave like the kind of people we love to see Mike smack down, and when I didn't, you distorted what I said to make it seem like I did. Maybe you didn't do it intentionally, but it's still infuriating.

Anyway, We were both right. I conceeded that TIEs probably do not have high grade energy shields, which proves your point that TIEs do not have shields that would matter in a fight with a Naboo Starfighter. We seemed to agree that they instead have particle "navigation" shields, which proves my argument that TIEs have shields.

[Kurgan]

I can't, for the life of me, remember where I heard it from, but I recall some quote (from an Imperial) about "outdated fighters" (referring to the Rebels) and his frustration about it.

I sort of thought that what the Rebels used in the OT were the "standard" or "old" generation of tech, and the stuff the Imperial used was the "new" stuff.

This was reinforced by the idea from the EU of the Z-95 being the "precursor" to the X-Wing, and how it was this ship used in the Old Republic (for who knows how long, since the OR was supposed to be tens of thousands of years old).

Granted, tech flies, but we've all heard the 'technological stasis' arguments about the SW universe. Why keep building better and better weapons when you have relative peace for so long in a galactic society? Then all of a sudden the Empire comes along and starts throwing up new weapons like there's no tomorrow (Death Star anyone?).

Then I hear that the X-Wings and all the stuff the Rebels use is actually bleeding edge tech, since the people who designed it all defected from the Empire at the start of the war.

So which is it? Are the Rebels using "outdated" stuff (as of the OT movies) or is this just a later quote I'm confusing from somebody far in the future post-ROTJ? And if so, what were the ships being compared (the presumably "up to date" fighters they were facing)?

[phongn]

The X-Wing isn't bleeding edge, but it was a competitive new fighter when deployed by the Rebel Alliance. Much of the Rebellion's stuff was old, however (see: Y-Wing) and they never could afford the top-of-the-line stuff.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Someone said they didn't have shields. That's what I was responding to.

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

Actually, TIEs do have shields. Mike proved it. And in the movies, X-Wings almost always went down in one hit, shields or no.

Your response was to (erroneously) portray TIE defensive capability as on parity with X-Wings; even using the same reference to their durability "destroyed in one shot," as IUnknown did. Navigational shielding my ass. You're a backpeddler.

Fragments of exploding friendly or enemy ships will be made of the same strong materials. Who was talking about micrometeors?

You admitted TIE Interceptors do not have shields. Why the magic exemption?

And strength does not always correlate with mass; and mass and velocity determine KE. The Delta-9 Aethersprite, while very strong, floats on the waters of Kamino.

That's not what I was talking about at all. I'm mainly talking about the size of the Executor and mislabeling the ISDs sensor domes as shield generators. Those are more serious errors than the presence or absence of TIE shields, and also easily disproved via sensor readings.

And my point was is you only can use contradictions to override the EU in that particular instance.

A specious argument is defined as one that seems reasonable on its face, but is wrong, yet you keep using that term and then saying how patently ridiculous the position is. Make up your mind.

It is deceptively reasonable. The EU is often poor in quality and has made numerous errors in technical issues. The blanket description for TIEs as unshielded is obviously erroneous and in particular it originated from WEG, that cornicopia of fetid bullshit.

However, the argument implicitly forgets some of the strict technicalities of canon policy and subtely uses hasty generalizations to butress the central point.

Anyway, if we use suspsension of disbelief and treat the EU books as in-universe sources, sources whose authors have been repeatedly shown to be biased to the point of making repeated distortions, then we don't have to take everything in those books as gospel unless contradicted by a higher gospel.

Except that's subjective, and you have no direct evidence that it is untrue in this point. Its one thing to say, well they don't have good records of the scale of ships, since the canon shows an 11 mile Executor.

Its another thing to say that because the EU depicts other TIEs (which I remind you are of the TIE Line Fighter model, not that TIE Starfighter of ANH) as being shieldless, and a single TIE in the movie of a different model to boot, is shielded. Thus all TIEs of that family must be shielded.

There's a reason we go with "true until contradicted": 1. they said outright that's the policy, and 2. its often rather nebulous and subjective to determine the bias and how much that warrants diminishing the authoritive quality of the evidence.

Apparently we're having different discussions. The one I was having was about whether or not TIEs have shields. A "navigation shield" would certainly qualify.

Than why discuss how X-Wings and TIEs are approximately equivalent in durability? That was the source of the contention. You later gave a silent concession on the X-Wing's superior durability, but never articulated that the argument was no longer about durability.

They wouldn't, necessarily. I'm willing to conceed that they're more likely to have lower-level particle shielding than high grade energy shielding. It's still shields, and fits into what I was saying.

Yet the engagement range for guns in SW is often in kilometers; the debris spread will be blasted forward due to the velocity of the fighter before destruction and the fact its usually being shot from behind. The chances for large fragments to impact at high velocity is low. To boot, despite strength currently impossible to image, the craft are obviously light, or they could not float. With little mass and little velocity, you have low KE, and even the TIE's meager armor could probably shrug that away.

Navigation shields are fine. To be honest, the disparity between ray and particle shields slipped my mind. I didn't originally consider the possibility of such a navigation shield, but it makes sense.

That's another thing; you used the ANH source as the central tenet of your argument - that's ray shielding, and hardly applies to defense against debris and whatnot. You were always arguing implicitly in favor of combat shielding.

I didn't realize it was spelled out explicity in the EU, most of which I haven't read, so I'll conceed that bit. Anyway, as you said, it doesn't take combat ray shielding to defend against the things I was talking about.

But we were talking about how it obviously could be mounted in a TIE in ANH - which is ray shielding there - and how easy it would be to mount it on any TIE. But the existance of pure navigation shielding is nebulous at best, and not represented in the canon. If you're conceding on ray shielding it pretty much ends the argument.

You strawmanned by saying that I incorporated a burden of proof fallacy, when I didn't.

Granted.

A gross generalization is performing that extrapolation without a compelling reason. You may not find my reasons compelling, but they were stated, and so it is not a gross generalization.

Have you taken statistics? Does the term appropriate sampling of the population mean anything? Or outlier?

A single fighter does not establish such a pattern. Particularly when you're arguing for conjectural nav shielding and the film portrays ray shields.

No, "should" does not always translate to "is", but given that there's a "should", you can say that there's a good probability of an "is", especially if the countervailing evidence can be shown to have presented untruths as fact due to bias.

Bias can never determine truth or untruth. It simply implies that the source is not authoritative. But George Bush can tell the truth about how to fry an egg even if he lies through his teeth about everything else.

And as I said, a single ship is not an appropriate sample of the population (all TIE Starfighters) to warrant your extrapolation.

If the warhead is homing on to you. If it's homing on someone else, and you happen to be close by, you're going to want shields.

What allowed Obi-Wan to survive as long as he did in AOTC is his agility. Had he been in a Y-Wing he would've gotten that missile up one of his engine nozzles.

It's canon that those claims were made. Nothing else. The idea that the domes on an ISD are shield generators is never explicity contradicted by a higher order of canon, either.

You mean Richard Edlund? What about Inside the Worlds of Classic Star Wars? X-Wing's classic missions?

I didn't mean "imperial fighters" as all "imperial fighters", but it doesn't matter now, as I've already conceeded the acceleration / maneuverability angle.

If you don't mean "Imperial fighters," don't say "Imperial fighters."

The kind belonging to an argument that you just made up, apparently, because I said nothing like that.

Sure, you were always arguing that implicitly, all TIE Fighters should be shielded because the ANH one was. Remember such remarks as "there's no reason to assume the ANH fighters were special"?

The idea that the movie footage does not contradict the type of shields I was talking about

Doesn't have to, the EU does. And besides, my criticism is a simple tenet of empiricism and the origin of the rational basis of atheism. Where something is not observed, it is not assumed to exist.

This especially applies in this case, when the EU argues those fighters-observed-without-shields should not have shields.

"Real quick there" and "I'm really impressed by your ability..." is not light sarcasm.

I'm not going to bend over and kiss your ass. I don't know if the ANH TIEs EVER fired ANY single shots, or even single duos. It was an incredibly ignorant claim for a relatively experienced member here, especially in refutation of another poster.

It's extremely insulting, and not like the insults you got in response.

Calling me a piece of shit and a motherfucker is not equivalent to being sarcastic because you had apparently never watched the movie, or were cognitively shutting it out because it didn't agree with your thesis.

If you do not believe me, talk to people tomorrow and when they say something incredibly stupid, make a sarcastic jab. They'll be pissed certainly.

Then go to another person, do the same thing. Call them a "piece of shit" and a "motherfucker." Watch. Compare.

It's the weaselly, ambiguous kind where you can act like you were being "perfectly civil". I usually have a thick skin, but that really got under it.

Please. Anyone who's ever posted for any length of time on this board knows that I don't mince words or play absurd little political games. If I think you're a dumb piece of shit, I'll say so.

No, I got pissed because of those sarcistic little comments in your first post, then I got even more pissed when you started putting words in my mouth to accuse me of logical fallacies.

You were being evasive. All those "snips" are because you finally are admitting I was right about them.

No no, it's "Get your fill of sci-fi, science, mockery of stupid people, and groundlessly calling people cowards." Oh wait, it was the first one.

Insulting whatever shit character traits manifest in your posts fits under mocking, buddy.

And my initial sarcasm definitely fits under it.

Your comment set me off because it was extremely insulting and yet framed in a way for you to go "who, me?" I've never stubbornly held to a position that was proven wrong on this board, and I will never do so.

That did not appear to be the case last time you posted.

So no, your picture of a person hanging onto an argument out of pride is not correct.

And I am pleasantly surprised to be wrong.

Some parts of your argument weren't wrong. But the way you conducted the debate was. You misrepresented my argument and accused me of logical fallacies which were not commited. You're obviously modelling yourself after Mike, as most of us do to some extent, but you lack his ability to properly identify fallacies and his ability to discern when someone is being irrational and their likely motives for doing it. I know I can't do what he does, so I don't try, but your failed attempts to do so just make you look like an ass.

I'm sorry, but "I never read any EU" was not a good enough reason for your evasions. You did, repetatively, and consistently treat it as if a single ship was a quality population sample for TIEs, which is absurd, and critique the EU without having read it, which is agitating.

Sorry, but it does illuminate as evasive when you make comments which are obviously simply parrots of others' complaints about the EU while having no knowledge of this fact in this case whatsoever. You did this repetatively, simply ignoring me when I pointed out this wasn't the case.

Quite frankly on the population sample point and the canon policy, your conclusions were always flawed, and your attempts to evade that and respond, by repeating yourself, and now, giving red herrings ("they were wrong on sensor domes") comes off as evasive.

Until this post, I didn't snip a word, and I certainly haven't ignored any meaningful points.

You quoted me and cut it apart, posting it in jumbled order, which distorts the layout and presentation of what I am trying to say. You cannot excise context like that.

Its different to snip out something already covered. Its another thing to take part of a particular argument, and snip some parts away.

The quotes don't show what you say they show.

Stating that I have to show in the film that shields don't exist is a classic moving of the burden of proof. The whole point is they are assumed not to exist so long as they are not observed. That is the default state and why I needed to suggest nothing more.

The instances where I used these tactics exist only in your mind.

If I were debating Mike, it wouldn't look like this at all. He would have identified right away where I was going wrong (ie. forgetting that there can be a distinction between navigation shields and combat shields),

Ok, you used an example of a TIE blocking gunfire, extrapolated that over millions of ships, and compared its durability to an X-Wing.

Your navigation crap IS a backpeddle. You brought nothing up about protecting oneself against debris until I refuted your "the TIEs aren't special" by pointing out that they had to fly in space full of supervelocity fragments of Alderaan.

And failing to distinguish against ray shielding and particle shielding is your own fault. They're only stated in the selfsame movie you cite.

When your centrally maintained tenet is an example of gunfire being blocked by a shield, arguing against ray shielding is hardly out of place, especially when this nav shielding stuff grew out of a refutation to one of your claims, and was a late development.

But you came in with your grating insults and baseless accusations, didn't make a strong case about the parts I conceeded until several posts in, and then acted like I was being irrational for not agreeing with you from square one.

You were being irrational. An idiot should be able to figure that a shield system which can block fragments which you're claiming would maul a fighter would require energy and space. And a single ship is still not a sufficient population example to draw your conclusions.

[snip this personal bullshit because I really don't give a fuck anymore]

I was trying to establish that having shields does not mean that a fighter won't go down in one direct hit. X-Wings are several times larger than TIEs, and they still went down in one hit as often as not, so the point was that if a TIE did have shields, we would expect it to always go down in one hit. Ergo, the fact that all the TIEs went down in one hit is not evidence against shields.

Your inability to clearly articulate your points is not my fault. You compared the durability of the X-Wing and the TIE and supported your argument with an example of ray shielding. Surprise! I argued along those lines.

Yes. When I insult, I do it strongly and unambiguously. You choose to be condescending and sarcastic instead. How is that better?

Because the magnitude of profanity in my remaks was far lower than yours. There's a spectrum of emphasis, you realize?

No. I remarked it in contrast to the claim that TIEs being destroyed in one hit shows that they cannot have shields.

The X-Wing games have what to do with that?

Despite your bullshit claims, I have not done this.

Your attempt to claim I had to show that the film disproved shielding to make my argument was flawed. If it is not shown it is assumed to not exist.

[snip meaningless psychoanalysis]

I am not here to play to the mob. As I said before, I have argued against this before and quite recently. I was agitated that on all levels you were ignorant and failed to do your own homework, even while claiming that my sources were perhaps invalid when you had no knowledge of them yourself. You failed to notice the obvious fact that TIEs never fired except in bursts, making an assertion of X-Wings being killed in single shots impossible. You failed to appreciate basic logic and scientific analysis in several ways. Firstly, treating a single case as a meaningful sample of the population of TIEs. Second, acting that the TIEs that do not demonstrate shields somehow occupy a "limbo" of shielded-unshielded until I prove their unshielded. This is as irrational as agnosticism. If the evidence does not exist for the positive claim (your position) than we do not assume it is true, reverting the default negative (my position). You were arguing that something was there that should not be there. All I need to point out is where the proof does not exist. And lastly, you failed to appreciate that if the shields protect the craft in such a way that without them, the craft would be mauled, they require ample energy resources and space for the mechanisms themselves. This is common sense, and hardly needed direct source references.

Anyway, We were both right. I conceeded that TIEs probably do not have high grade energy shields, which proves your point that TIEs do not have shields that would matter in a fight with a Naboo Starfighter.

Right.

We seemed to agree that they instead have particle "navigation" shields, which proves my argument that TIEs have shields.

No, I said they -could-. Its still completely conjectural. They do not because there is NO evidence to support any of them having such shielding, and the strength of SW materials science argues that it is not necessary. Sources have described TIEs as armored, you know.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Yesterday I remembered the scene from TESB in the asteroid field where the TIEs hit each other and then the asteroid, and there was no evidence of particle shielding. So I was wrong to conclude that TIE's have shielding. Nevertheless, I want to respond to a few points made in his last post, because he has wrongly associated my behavior with that of trolls and scum, and I want to show that I have not been dishonest.

Your response was to (erroneously) portray TIE defensive capability as on parity with X-Wings; even using the same reference to their durability "destroyed in one shot," as IUnknown did.

I was comparing the X-Wing's durability to the N-1's, not the TIE's. The argument was that the N-1's shields wouldn't help much because the X-Wing's also had shields and the TIE's took them down in one hit (or one short burst, which functionally is the same given the high rate of fire). Pointing out that the TIEs did have shields (which I was wrong about) was just a nitpick.

Navigational shielding my ass. You're a backpeddler.

Backpeddling only has meaning when applied to someone who changes his position and then pretends he always held the modified one. There's nothing wrong with changing a position if one admits it.

The kind belonging to an argument that you just made up, apparently, because I said nothing like that.

Sure, you were always arguing that implicitly, all TIE Fighters should be shielded because the ANH one was. Remember such remarks as "there's no reason to assume the ANH fighters were special"?

The argument I was making was that we have reason to believe all TIEs were probably shielded because the ANH one was and because of a line of reasoning where it would make sense to equip all of them (a line that I now see was based on incomplete information). What I denied in that response was the false dichotomy you accused me of.

It's extremely insulting, and not like the insults you got in response.

Calling me a piece of shit and a motherfucker is not equivalent to being sarcastic because you had apparently never watched the movie, or were cognitively shutting it out because it didn't agree with your thesis.

If you do not believe me, talk to people tomorrow and when they say something incredibly stupid, make a sarcastic jab. They'll be pissed certainly.

Then go to another person, do the same thing. Call them a "piece of shit" and a "motherfucker." Watch. Compare.

"Piece of shit" and "motherfucker" are non-specific. They indicate anger toward a person, but they don't really make any accusations. "Backpeddler" and "coward" are labels that can make people lose all respect for a poster if they stick, and are therefore much worse.

No, I got pissed because of those sarcistic little comments in your first post, then I got even more pissed when you started putting words in my mouth to accuse me of logical fallacies.

You were being evasive. All those "snips" are because you finally are admitting I was right about them.

I was waiting for that. I made those snips because the argument was taking up 9 fucking pages in Word, so I snipped out parts that were making the same points about the same subject. When I admitted I was wrong about something, I did it openly, not silently by snipping.

Some parts of your argument weren't wrong. But the way you conducted the debate was. You misrepresented my argument and accused me of logical fallacies which were not commited. You're obviously modelling yourself after Mike, as most of us do to some extent, but you lack his ability to properly identify fallacies and his ability to discern when someone is being irrational and their likely motives for doing it. I know I can't do what he does, so I don't try, but your failed attempts to do so just make you look like an ass.

I'm sorry, but "I never read any EU" was not a good enough reason for your evasions. You did, repetatively, and consistently treat it as if a single ship was a quality population sample for TIEs, which is absurd, and critique the EU without having read it, which is agitating.

No, I did not. You have either the worst reading comprehension or the worst learning disability I have ever encountered. For the umpteenth time, the argument was based on the idea that shielding is the only sensible thing to do, and that the ANH TIE proves that it was possible. My position was not, as you keep repeating like a mantra, that the single TIE proves they all have shields.

Also I have read some EU books, just not very many. Yes, I was wrong not to consider that there might be evidence against my case in some of the books I haven't read, but I was not wrong to challenge a general "EU proves your argument wrong" claim because the EU has made serious mistakes on similar issues before.

Until this post, I didn't snip a word, and I certainly haven't ignored any meaningful points.

You quoted me and cut it apart, posting it in jumbled order, which distorts the layout and presentation of what I am trying to say. You cannot excise context like that.

Everyone cuts paragraphs apart when quoting. It's not intentional, it's natural to put a "/quote" after a sentence that you take issue with and make your response. To make accusations based on that is absurd.

Its different to snip out something already covered. Its another thing to take part of a particular argument, and snip some parts away.

I didn't snip a single thing until the post where I said at the top I was snipping, and then I snipped whole paragraphs that were repeats of other ones. If I snipped away all but one point in an argument, it was either because the rest had already been made earlier in the post, and I tried to maintain the cohesion.

The quotes don't show what you say they show.

Stating that I have to show in the film that shields don't exist is a classic moving of the burden of proof. The whole point is they are assumed not to exist so long as they are not observed. That is the default state and why I needed to suggest nothing more.

When you make a charge like that, and someone responds with reasons why they didn't do what you think they did, you don't just trot out the same thing as before without modification and ignore the response. I can't believe you did that and then had the gall to call me evasive.

[snip this personal bullshit because I really don't give a fuck anymore]

Of course you don't care, you're not being run through the mud based on false accusations. You could let this drop and people won't be left thinking you're an evasive, argument snipping backpeddler.

No. I remarked it in contrast to the claim that TIEs being destroyed in one hit shows that they cannot have shields.

The X-Wing games have what to do with that?

I was using them for comparison because everyone is presumably familiar with them. In the X-Wing games, it took many hits to bring a shielded fighter down, but in the movies it only took one or two, and some people seemed to think that TIEs going down in one hit refuted the existence of shields, presumably because they held the view that shields should be able to take multiple hits and hold a la the X-Wing games.

[Praxis]

Thanks for restating what I said earlier. Learn to read, moron.

So you're saying that you believed TIE shields were ultra weak and couldn't take a single hit ALL ALONG? If so, then why the heck did you even bring them into the arguement? My point was, N-1 shields can take several hits, TIE fighters can't take one, and your arguement was, "They do have shields!" You conveniently left out that they're so pathetic they can't take a SINGLE LASER HIT.

Oh and btw, as for your claim that X-wings died in one hit...did you notice, "Deflectors on Double Front"? To dumb it up for you, it means they turned off the rear shield and doubled the forward shields to protect from surface fire from the Death Star during the attack run. Guess what? The TIE fighters shot them in the back, where the shields were OFF.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Thanks for restating what I said earlier. Learn to read, moron.

So you're saying that you believed TIE shields were ultra weak and couldn't take a single hit ALL ALONG? If so, then why the heck did you even bring them into the arguement? My point was, N-1 shields can take several hits, TIE fighters can't take one, and your arguement was, "They do have shields!" You conveniently left out that they're so pathetic they can't take a SINGLE LASER HIT.

The point about TIEs having shields was more of a nitpick than an actual point. I would have taken it out if I had thought about the post longer. The real point was that Star Wars shields on fighters don't seem to protect against direct hits anyway, so the N-1's shields won't help. More on that below.

Oh and btw, as for your claim that X-wings died in one hit...did you notice, "Deflectors on Double Front"? To dumb it up for you, it means they turned off the rear shield and doubled the forward shields to protect from surface fire from the Death Star during the attack run. Guess what? The TIE fighters shot them in the back, where the shields were OFF.

Good point. I forgot about that bit of dialogue. Have we seen fighters take direct hits in instances where we knew their shields were up? Perhaps during the Battle of Endor?

[Meest]

At Endor most of the Rebel kills on TIEs completely destroy them, but they are several instances of Rebel fighters getting hit and getting damaged and crashing but not vaporizing or exploding enough to break the whole ship apart. Only found one incident of a dual TIE blast destroying an A-wing just as fast as TIEs go down. Though in this case he was being chased by two TIEs and was told help was incoming.

EDIT: Sorry if these are too big and need to be scaled

[Rogue 9]

One thing that's bothered me about that scene. No one on the cruiser thought to shoot at the TIEs?

[Icehawk]

Oh and btw, as for your claim that X-wings died in one hit...did you notice, "Deflectors on Double Front"? To dumb it up for you, it means they turned off the rear shield and doubled the forward shields to protect from surface fire from the Death Star during the attack run. Guess what? The TIE fighters shot them in the back, where the shields were OFF.

Just so you know, a moment after the TL fire stopped Gold Five said to "stabalize your rear deflectors, watch for enemy fighters". Now they may not have been able to recharge the rear shields in time but the two groups of X-Wings which followed shouldn't have made the same mistake.

[Icehawk]

One thing that's bothered me about that scene. No one on the cruiser thought to shoot at the TIEs?

Why should they bother?

1) If they try to fire in support of the A-Wing they are at great risk of friendly fire. They have more than enough of their own fighters deployed to handle the TIEs and a Y-wing vaped both those interceptors a few seconds later anyways.

2) Unless equipped with Torpedoes fighters can't do jack shit to capital ships anyways. Theirs no reason for capships, especially rebel ones to fire at TIE's unless they are bombers armed with high yield torpedoes or if they don't have fighters of their own to scramble against them.

[Illuminatus Primus]

[snip]

I don't give a shit.