So, got the ROTS ICS, hope this hasnt been posted already.

[The Original Nex]

Here's the ROTS V-Wing:

http://www.wizards.com/swtcg/swtcg_auto ... ame=V-wing[Clone[Starfighter#

[Connor MacLeod]

So by that logic, all the craft visible in the drawing represent the total craft complement? I can only see 7-8 ARC-170s. Does that mean it's the total complement?

Don't be an idiot. My reference to there being only TWO actis interceptors is that they only referenced those particular two fightrs. Did you not notice that the ICS had annotations on the standard complements for both the V-wing and the ARC-170 (annotations pointing to specific fighters.) But there was no correpsonding entry about the Venator "normally" carrying 192 actis interceptors.

The ICS data file says:

Complement: 192 V-wing fighters; 192 Eta-2 Actis Interceptors; 36 ARC-170 fighters; 24 military walkers; 40 LAAT/i (Low Altitude Assault Transport/infantry) gunships; miscellaneous shuttles

It doesn't say "either 192 V-wing fighters or 192 Eta-2s".

I never said it had to be either/or (which you might hav enoticed if you hadn't deliberately snipped the rest of my argument in favor of attacking just that one line.) - in fact I delibereately suggested they might be designed to carry OTHER fighters (like the Delta-7's.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Changes nothing, that the Venator is said to carry that many Actis-fighters. What would be the point to give stats for a special-equipted vessel instead of the standard fighter-load?

Ever seen the TPM: ICS? They give the stats on the droid control ship - does this mean that we assume ALL Tradefed battleships are identical to the DCS?

Edit: Furthermore, what about the Acclamator? We've seen versions dedicated to carrying fighters rather than just carrying assault troops, gunships, and whatnot.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Stupid question: not having the ICS yet, is the V-Wing referred to by the ICS the same as the V-Wing of EU / Rogue Squadron games fame? I haven't seen any production art or captures with anything Republic that has resembles a V but perhaps I just missed them.

No. "V-Wing" is not its official name, it's a tag on given to it by its pilots. It's actual name is the Alpha-3 Nimbus-class Starfighter.

For the record, the V-Wing first appeared in Dark Empire.

Secondly, the V-wings in DE and the RS games are airspeeders, while these are starfighters, and they don't resemble each other in the least.

[FTeik]

Changes nothing, that the Venator is said to carry that many Actis-fighters. What would be the point to give stats for a special-equipted vessel instead of the standard fighter-load?

Ever seen the TPM: ICS? They give the stats on the droid control ship - does this mean that we assume ALL Tradefed battleships are identical to the DCS?

No. We know from the text, that we are looking at the DCS and not at a standard TF-battleship.

Contrary to that nothing in the ROTS:ICS suggests, that the Venator described is something special.

You yourself suggested in your answer to Firefox, that the Venator could carry other fighters instead of the Jedi-Interceptor in addition to the V-Wings and ARC-170s - why not a version of the Actis, that can be piloted by clones as i suggested?

[Connor MacLeod]

No. We know from the text, that we are looking at the DCS and not at a standard TF-battleship.

You asked "what would be the point of giving stats to a special-equipped vessel?" The TPM ICS gives the stats of what? A special equipped vessel. Yes, they name the vessel, but what's your point? Do you need every single detail somehow spelled out to you in excruciating detail before you accept its validity? (apparently not, since you propose that they can SOMEHOW build an actis-interceptor that can pack all the neccessary gear for a normal pilot to fly it into that same frame!)

Contrary to that nothing in the ROTS:ICS suggests, that the Venator described is something special.

Except that it apparently can carry 192 fighters specially designed to be flown by Jedi. Or does the Republic have a cadre of force-sensitive pilots lying in wait to fly these things?

You yourself suggested in your answer to Firefox, that the Venator could carry other fighters instead of the Jedi-Interceptor in addition to the V-Wings and ARC-170s - why not a version of the Actis, that can be piloted by clones as i suggested?

Where are you goign to stick the neccessary gear in the hull, pray tell?

[FTeik]

No. We know from the text, that we are looking at the DCS and not at a standard TF-battleship.

You asked "what would be the point of giving stats to a special-equipped vessel?" The TPM ICS gives the stats of what? A special equipped vessel. Yes, they name the vessel, but what's your point?

The point i thought to be obvious is, that as long as a vessel isn't marked as something special (like the DCS or Grevious wheel-bike), it is a standard-version. What is so diffucult to grasp about that?

Do you need every single detail somehow spelled out to you in excruciating detail before you accept its validity?

What validity? I suggest a version of the Actis, that can be piloted by clones, you suggest the Venator-stats in the ICS describe a special case.

(apparently not, since you propose that they can SOMEHOW build an actis-interceptor that can pack all the neccessary gear for a normal pilot to fly it into that same frame!)

Read my original post - i suggested replacing the life-support-system with sensors. If you do that you have a vessel almost identical to a TIE (plus additional ion-cannon). Aside from that, how much does the astromech add to the sensor-functions?

Aside from that, if what i heard about the ROTS:VD is right, it mentions V-Wings with hyperdrives so Actis-fighters with aditional sensors as a modified version of a fighter aren't a single incident. I could as well ask, where Pellaeon and Thrawn put the shield-generators, they built into their TIEs, since we are at it.

[Firefox]

My reference to there being only TWO actis interceptors is that they only referenced those particular two fightrs. Did you not notice that the ICS had annotations on the standard complements for both the V-wing and the ARC-170 (annotations pointing to specific fighters.) But there was no correpsonding entry about the Venator "normally" carrying 192 actis interceptors.

What do you mean? It doesn't specify that the Eta-2 entry is normal or non-standard.

I never said it had to be either/or (which you might hav enoticed if you hadn't deliberately snipped the rest of my argument in favor of attacking just that one line.)

But why doesn't it mention Delta-7s? I would favor that argument, but it doesn't indicate such in the ICS unless it was a mistaken omission.

EDIT: From your original argument:

How do we know they actually carry Actis Fighters? The cross section only shows two there - I didnt see any others (you can see lots of V-wings and ARC-170's, though.)

This implies that you're suggesting only those visible in the illustration represents the actual complement, or that the fact that there are more ARC-170s and V-Wings than the two Eta-2s implies the latter is not in large numbers, anyway.

It may very well carry 192 other kinds of fighters (delta 7's, more V-wings.. or maybe other types or kinds of fighters for all we know.)

That's not stated in the complement list, though I wish it was.

Unless we actually see this thing carrying or launching large numbers of Actis, I see no reason to assume it actually carries such a tiny, impractically-designed starfighter (Much better to dedicate that space to V-wings or more ARCs)

On the other hand, could it mean that the other Eta-2s simply weren't launched for some other reason?

[FTeik]

I would have no problems with another 192 V-Wings instead of the 192 Actis-Interceptors, if it comes to that.

I'm just not convinced, that we should ignore the possibility (especially considering the later make-up of imperial wings with fighters, interceptors and bombers), that there is a version of the ship, that can be piloted by somebody else.

[Ekiqa]

It would be a HUGE waste of resources for a company to build and produce a starfighter that can ONLY be used by Jedi.

As is mentioned in the quote, Jango Fett has piloting capabilities near to Jedi, so it is not unreasonable that clones can fly the fighter.

[Firefox]

As I said, I'd prefer it if the "standard" complement were Delta-7s for use by clone pilots instead of Jedi, although indeed, there ought to be a non-Jedi variant of the Eta-2. Too bad we haven't seen it, though.

[SCVN 2812]

Here's the ROTS V-Wing:

http://www.wizards.com/swtcg/swtcg_auto ... ame=V-wing[Clone[Starfighter#

Are there views from other angles? Perhaps I'm putting on the tights of Captain Obvious here, but it looks a great deal like an H and to me at least, very little like a V, from this angle at least.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Here's the ROTS V-Wing:

http://www.wizards.com/swtcg/swtcg_auto ... ame=V-wing[Clone[Starfighter#

Are there views from other angles? Perhaps I'm putting on the tights of Captain Obvious here, but it looks a great deal like an H and to me at least, very little like a V, from this angle at least.

Well, the B-Wing looks nothing like a B and the A-Wing only looks like an A if you extend the winglets until the meet, so it doesn't have to look like the letter in question, I don't think.

[Manus Celer Dei]

Here's the ROTS V-Wing:

http://www.wizards.com/swtcg/swtcg_auto ... ame=V-wing[Clone[Starfighter#

If that's the V-Wing, whats the one piloted by the clones in the first season of Clone Wars? The one that's got a horizonatl wing on either side then a vertical wing one underneath the cockpit.

[Mange]

Here's the ROTS V-Wing:

http://www.wizards.com/swtcg/swtcg_auto ... ame=V-wing[Clone[Starfighter#

If that's the V-Wing, whats the one piloted by the clones in the first season of Clone Wars? The one that's got a horizonatl wing on either side then a vertical wing one underneath the cockpit.

That's the V-19 Torrent.

[SCVN 2812]

Here's the ROTS V-Wing:

http://www.wizards.com/swtcg/swtcg_auto ... ame=V-wing[Clone[Starfighter#

Are there views from other angles? Perhaps I'm putting on the tights of Captain Obvious here, but it looks a great deal like an H and to me at least, very little like a V, from this angle at least.

Well, the B-Wing looks nothing like a B and the A-Wing only looks like an A if you extend the winglets until the meet, so it doesn't have to look like the letter in question, I don't think.

The B wing with a little imagination vaguely can resemble a B, the A-Wing I never had trouble with. Maybe I'm concentrating too much on the wings rather than the main body.

[Connor MacLeod]

The point i thought to be obvious is, that as long as a vessel isn't marked as something special (like the DCS or Grevious wheel-bike), it is a standard-version. What is so diffucult to grasp about that?

Fighter complements aren't all that substantial an alteration ot the ship (compared to the addition fo the extra droid-control components.) altering them changes very little fundamental about the ships (except what fighters it carries.) Besides which, they can obviously carry different kinds of shuttles or walkers (even though we see only AT-TEs - I suppose you take that to mean ALL Venators must carry AT-TEs?)

Besides, what about the Blockade Runner in the OT:ICS? Is that supposed to be a "standard version" as well? How about the AT-TE's mass driver? Are you going to assume that because the AT-TE describes a mass driver they ALL carry must carry one?

And more specific to onboard complements: What about the acclamator's fighter complements in the Clone Wars cartoons? How about the fact that ISD fighter complements have changed over time as well (IE most notably the replacement of one TIE fighter squadron with another interceptor squadron?)

And last.. if we go by your logic, why should we assume the "Jedi interceptor" (as it is called in the ICS) can be piloted by others?

What validity? I suggest a version of the Actis, that can be piloted by clones, you suggest the Venator-stats in the ICS describe a special case.

The ICS also describes the actias as a fighter specially-made for the Jedi. I notice you're not above playing fast and loose with THIS part of the ICS.

Read my original post - i suggested replacing the life-support-system with sensors. If you do that you have a vessel almost identical to a TIE (plus additional ion-cannon). Aside from that, how much does the astromech add to the sensor-functions?

HELLO? That thing is smaller than a TIE fighter (or the aethersprite for that matter, which is too small to fit even a hyperdrive in it without modifying the hull to add space.) Where the hell are you going to find a sensor package small enough to fit that space (and that doesn't impose either directional limitations, or restrict the fighter to just active/passive sensing.)

And even IF you manage to solve the sensor problem, there's still the lack of shielding, the overly-simplified flight controls, AND the lack of jamming equipment.) Good luck finding space for that. On top of that, by your logic, it would no longer be a "standard" Actis-interceptor.

Aside from that, if what i heard about the ROTS:VD is right, it mentions V-Wings with hyperdrives

The ones assigned to personally escorting Palpatine's shuttle are. I might point out the ROTS: ICS makes it explicit that V-wings don't have the capacity for a hyperdrive. So if these carry them, they are either more expensive models, or they have some sorts of trade-offs or limitations (very short ranges, the loss of deflector shields or other systems to allow the hyperdrive.) Possibly both miniturization AND tradeoffs.

so Actis-fighters with aditional sensors as a modified version of a fighter aren't a single incident.

I could as well ask, where Pellaeon and Thrawn put the shield-generators, they built into their TIEs, since we are at it.

Again, TIEs are more massive than the intereceptor is, and they apparently DO carry shields of some sort in movie canon. (At the very least, navigational shields are a requirement simply for the ship to accelerate to high speeds in space.)

If they carry combat shields (which there is ample canon/official evidence for) they could have the internal space for them but not 'normally' be fitted with them to save on weight and cost (adding shields would add mass and draw off power, thus reducing performance.) You cannot do this for the Actis, and this is aside from the fact that you're applying a double-standard to the ICS (IE you can claim your "modified clone-piloted actis" exists despite what the ICS says, ,but the Venators cannot carry alternate fighter complements because the ICS says what the "standard complmenent - accoridng to you at least - is supposed to be.)

[Connor MacLeod]

What do you mean? It doesn't specify that the Eta-2 entry is normal or non-standard.

The same logic applies to the Venator's entry (nothing specifies whether it is standard or non-standard then.)

I might point out that if there is some version of the interceptor exists that carries sensors and all that other gear, it is definitely 'non-standard" (the only possible way to fit more non-specialized/expensive gear into the ship is to enlarge the hull.)

But why doesn't it mention Delta-7s? I would favor that argument, but it doesn't indicate such in the ICS unless it was a mistaken omission.

Who the fuck cares whether it was mentioned or not? It doesn't mention carrying "specially modified actis-intercecptors" either, yet that is essentially what you are proposing! Either the data in the ICS is concrete (meaning that variations aren't allowed, in which case you don't get your modified actis), or they're open to interpretation and/or modification where neccessary (in which case, then the fighter complments AREN'T set in stone, which is going to be required anyhow for your "modified actis" to be partt of the standard complement, since there its virtually impossible practically cram any more gear into that hull, even if you remove certain components like life support.)

This implies that you're suggesting only those visible in the illustration represents the actual complement, or that the fact that there are more ARC-170s and V-Wings than the two Eta-2s implies the latter is not in large numbers, anyway.

Why don't you try reading the paragraph in its entirety, rather than this piecemeal slice and dice crap that you seem to be favoring?"

How do we know they actually carry Actis Fighters? The cross section only shows two there - I didnt see any others (you can see lots of V-wings and ARC-170's, though.) It may very well carry 192 other kinds of fighters (delta 7's, more V-wings.. or maybe other types or kinds of fighters for all we know.)

You, in turn, proceed to claim:

So by that logic, all the craft visible in the drawing represent the total craft complement? I can only see 7-8 ARC-170s. Does that mean it's the total complement?

Gee, do you think that the fact I suggested it might carry 192 kinds of other fighters would suggest that I think the fighter complmenet of the ship is larger than what we see in the ICS?

Moreover, it ignores the fact that the actis-interceptor illustrations (and notations) are distinctly and notably different from the ARC-170 and V-wing entries (notations attached to the illustrations give "normal" complements for both of those. None such is given for the actis. Which I did point out (after the fact, admittedly, but its still a telling point.)

That's not stated in the complement list, though I wish it was.

Your "specially modified actis" isn't listed in the complmenet either, yet you seem to have no problem in assuming thats what the ICS entry refers to for some odd reason.

On the other hand, could it mean that the other Eta-2s simply weren't launched for some other reason?

So basically you're saying its normal for the Venators to carry nearly two hundred fighters that are supposedly partt of its normal complmenet but for some reason it does not employ in combat?

[Firefox]

Who the fuck cares whether it was mentioned or not? It doesn't mention carrying "specially modified actis-intercecptors" either, yet that is essentially what you are proposing! Either the data in the ICS is concrete (meaning that variations aren't allowed, in which case you don't get your modified actis), or they're open to interpretation and/or modification where neccessary (in which case, then the fighter complments AREN'T set in stone, which is going to be required anyhow for your "modified actis" to be partt of the standard complement, since there its virtually impossible practically cram any more gear into that hull, even if you remove certain components like life support.)

You've got me there.

Gee, do you think that the fact I suggested it might carry 192 kinds of other fighters would suggest that I think the fighter complmenet of the ship is larger than what we see in the ICS?

I meant to say the 7-8 ARC-170s represented the entirety of the ARC-170 complement.

Moreover, it ignores the fact that the actis-interceptor illustrations (and notations) are distinctly and notably different from the ARC-170 and V-wing entries (notations attached to the illustrations give "normal" complements for both of those. None such is given for the actis. Which I did point out (after the fact, admittedly, but its still a telling point.)

So could the 192-ship count indicate the number of V-Wings or Eta-2s? I'm trying to understand how the figure cited in the book can mean something besides 192 Eta-2s as the "standard" complement for the class.

So basically you're saying its normal for the Venators to carry nearly two hundred fighters that are supposedly partt of its normal complmenet but for some reason it does not employ in combat?

Conceded, though the movie may show otherwise. So far, none of the screens or film clips have shown more than two Eta-2s in the battle.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Is this still a general discussion thread about the book? Because I noticed what could be an interesting super-obscure reference in it that I don't think has been mentioned yet...

[Firefox]

I'm interested, though I wonder if I've started a derail.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

It's just that I'm worried about it getting swallowed up before people actually have a chance to read it, because 2-3 people are going on for pages about some who-could-care-less issue. Anyway...

For the Commerce Guild Recusant-class light destroyer, it says that the manufacturers were Hoersch-Kessel Drive Inc. and Free Dac Volunteers Engineering Corps. It also mentions that Invisible Hand was manufactured by Free Dac Volunteers at Pammant Docks.

Both ships also mention the involvement of Seperatist-allied exiled Quarren participating in the construction, which we can deduce are the Free Dac Volunteers.

On his page for the Mon Calamari, Saxton mentions an old 1982 issue of the Bantha Tracks newsletter (which would evolve into Star Wars Insider) which mentions that the Mon Calamari's home planet is called Dac, which is about the only place that statement is made.

Saxton postulates that Dac could be the native name for the planet called Mon Calamari, and given what we know about an aspect of the Quarren population from the Clone Wars TV series and other materials, calling this faction Free Dac makes for a simply awesome obscure reference.

[Connor MacLeod]

I meant to say the 7-8 ARC-170s represented the entirety of the ARC-170 complement.

No, since I also pointed to the annotations of the ARC-170s and V-wings (which lists 192 V-wings and 36 ARC-170s.. so obviously they carry MORE than what is listed in the book.)

So could the 192-ship count indicate the number of V-Wings or Eta-2s? I'm trying to understand how the figure cited in the book can mean something besides 192 Eta-2s as the "standard" complement for the class.

It might, but it doesn't neccearily have to be simply one or the other. Its not impossible for certain battles to require the presence of hundreds of Jedi (especially if you consider there might be battles where they command millions or billions of troops to assault any of those Separatist Fortress worlds.)

Conceded, though the movie may show otherwise. So far, none of the screens or film clips have shown more than two Eta-2s in the battle.

There's only about 10,000 Jedi total in the galaxy. You could not plausibly have more than 50 or so Venators carrying 192 "Jedi Starfighters" In all liklihood that is simply an optimal complement (the most efficient use of space possible.) THere could arguably be cases where they would sacrifice fighters for more ground troops.. or vehicles/gunships... or maybe go "all fighters".

[Firefox]

I knew something was off when considering the Eta-2 was nothing more than a Jedi-only fighter. That's why I nodded my head with the postulation that a non-Jedi variant existed, but that was incorrect. Possessing 192 of the craft doesn't work with so few Jedi (even fewer if you're suggesting the 10,000 were those who existed before the Clone Wars began).

As for the Jango reference to his abilities being comparable to a Jedi from earlier in the thread, I can't help but think that was a slight exaggeration. I don't think he'd last long if he were at the controls of an Actis.

Thanks for the clarification, Connor.

[FTeik]

Noted the Dac-references, made the connection, but didn't make a lot of fuss about it.

I found the part about the self-replicating factories of the TechnoUnion more interesting. We already know from SW:ITWOT, that the empire has self-replicating construction-technology, now we have it confirmed, that it isn't a new technology. It has also consequences for the concept of the world-devastators, since those TechnoUnion-factories are said to use the materials of the worlds they are on.


And to keep the debate about the Jedi-Interceptor alive...

Fighter complements aren't all that substantial an alteration ot the ship (compared to the addition fo the extra droid-control components.) altering them changes very little fundamental about the ships (except what fighters it carries.)

I would think, that this depends largely on the kind of fighter. If you have fighters without landing-gear like TIEs, that have to hang in racks above the hangar-ground you need at least modifications to the ceiling.

Besides which, they can obviously carry different kinds of shuttles or walkers (even though we see only AT-TEs - I suppose you take that to mean ALL Venators must carry AT-TEs?)

No, since the ICS doesn't say what kind of walker the Venator carries. Here, contrary to the 192 Actis-fighters, we are free to assume different models - why wasn't that liberty used for the fighters?

Besides, what about the Blockade Runner in the OT:ICS? Is that supposed to be a "standard version" as well?

Depends if it was called BlockadeRunner or CorellianCorvette, don't you think? In the first case we have a special case, in the second we don't. And even if, we know that a special ship was meant (i somehow doubt every CC has Darth Vader on it chocking the captain).

And more specific to onboard complements: What about the acclamator's fighter complements in the Clone Wars cartoons?

Are we talking about the troop-carrying version of the Acclamator or the fighter-carrying? There were more versions, IIRC, but the AOTC:ICS explicitely described the troop-carrying version.

Aside from that your comparison is flawed. Compared to thousands of troop-carrying Acclamators and thousands of fighter-carrying Acclamators we would have thousands of standard Venators, but only a handful of Venators with 192 Jedi-Interceptors and the Jedi to fly them at best.

And last.. if we go by your logic, why should we assume the "Jedi interceptor" (as it is called in the ICS) can be piloted by others?

The proper name is Actis Eta-2-Interceptor, Jedi-Interceptor is a nickname.

And why should it be possible for others to pilot it?

1) the same ICS that suggest the Actis is Jedi only tells us, that Venators carry 192 of them without marking those stats a special case,

2) the novel of AOTC suggests, that Jango, the donator for the clones, is a comparable pilot to Jedi-aviators (that might be youthful exeggeration by Boba, but Jango "agrees" with his son on that),

3) costs. Until KSE is willing to limit itself to build only a few hundred Actis and the GR is willing to pay the extra-price, there should be thousands of Actis-Interceptors. Planning and designing those things, not to mention to the construction of machines, part-building machines and so on would take more time and cost a lot more, than would be justifiable for only a few hundred fighters,

this becomes even worse, if we consider, that not every Jedi is a pilot and not every Jedi-pilot can be as good as Anakin Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi.

4) as already suggested, additional sensors could be included, if we get rid of the life-support-system and perhaps the ion-cannons. I don't know about the dimensions of a life-support-system in comparison to a fighter-sized-sensor-suit, but if we add the abilities provided by the astromech and possible in-build-sensors in the pilots helmet we should get at least comparable results to a Jedi without those.

5) considering the nature and extreme use of ECM and jamming in SW-combat (the pilots of the Y- and X-Wings in ANH had to rely on their eyes) it is questiable, of how much use a large sensor-package would be at all.

At this point i want to suggest a third possibility, that the standard Actis-Interceptor can be piloted by ordinary aviators, while the Jedi-Interceptor-version is the modified model, which sacrifices shields, sensors and so on for higher acceleration and manouverability. (although i doubt, that the LFL-croonies tasked to solve this dispute, should they ever notice, will take this approach).

The ICS also describes the actias as a fighter specially-made for the Jedi. I notice you're not above playing fast and loose with THIS part of the ICS.

Am i? That door swings both ways since the ICS also claims, that the Venator carries 192 of them. Or is the ICS only talking about the fighters used by Kenobi and Skywalker only? I also noticed, that the ICS-quote on the Jedi-Interceptor lowers the number of Jedi-aviators to "some Jedi-pilots", which is even less, than even the 192 Actis for your supposed special-equipted Venator.

HELLO? That thing is smaller than a TIE fighter (or the aethersprite for that matter, which is too small to fit even a hyperdrive in it without modifying the hull to add space.)

Hello yourself. How much smaller than a TIE-fighter exactly? A TIE is basically a sphere with a diameter of a little more than two meters. Everything else is wing-pylons and heat-radiator-panels.
A standard TIE doesn't have a life-support-system, doesn't have large cannons, doesn't have ion-cannons, doesn't have landing-gear, doesn't have repulsors.
And later models of the Aethersprite featured inbuilt hyperdrives, but i don't know about them having a modified hull.

The ones assigned to personally escorting Palpatine's shuttle are. I might point out the ROTS: ICS makes it explicit that V-wings don't have the capacity for a hyperdrive. So if these carry them, they are either more expensive models, or they have some sorts of trade-offs or limitations (very short ranges, the loss of deflector shields or other systems to allow the hyperdrive.) Possibly both miniturization AND tradeoffs.

So why can't the same be true for the Actis? Or, as i suggested, that the superior performance of the Jedi-starfighter compared to the "standard-model" is payed for with throwing out sensors, flight-controls and shields?

Again, TIEs are more massive than the intereceptor is, and they apparently DO carry shields of some sort in movie canon. (At the very least, navigational shields are a requirement simply for the ship to accelerate to high speeds in space.)

And Jedi-Interceptors don't need shields or what? Once again, not every Jedi is an Anakin Skywalker or an Obi-Wan Kenobi.