StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Howedar wrote:I think the first half of the Cold War is a rather better comparison. During which, of course, both the US and Russia went through aircraft designs like they were toilet paper.

There was no direct confrontation between the US and USSR (as opposed to the Axis/Allies in WW2) while there was for the Republic/Separatists during the Clone Wars but generally I agree. Doesn't change the fact that there's little incentive to introduce new weapons when there are no threats the old ones can't handle.

I was referring to the state of affairs between the NR and the Remnant. As for there being little incentive to introduce new weapons, clearly there was as new weapons were in fact introduced with some regularity.

Yeah, aren't the Xwings entirely secondary now, with the E-wing or something the primary fighter? I don't keep up.

Stark wrote:Yeah, aren't the Xwings entirely secondary now, with the E-wing or something the primary fighter? I don't keep up.

Would have been if they actually followed up. Literally the X-Wing became the bizarre every ship eventually for the Alliance.

Personally, I'd suggest that the early force structure of the Rebellion allowed for two main types - the fighter (X-Wing) and the bomber (Y-Wing). The need for versatility ensured that the X-Wings had a secondary strike role, but their primary mission was always going to be taking on the TIEs. The A-Wing and the B-Wing are simply 2nd generation craft to fill the same two roles; the continued presence of the X-Wing in GA service is simply an indication that, in a government reluctant to spend on defence, you need to milk everything you can out of the airframes you've got.

This is the result of research being based on WEGs 80's RPG.

Especially since WEG explicity stated in the GMs section that the mechanics are tweaked so the PCs can take on hordes of Imps and stand a reasonable chance of winning.

WEG did their numbers to reflect a style of game and canon be damned.

I figured the XJ-Wing was cheaper, less maintenance-intensive and had some supply-chain commonality with earlier X-Wings - so the NRDF bought lots of them instead of more expensive but superior fighters. (For a real-life example, see SUPER HORNET SWARM vs. Tomcat + Hornet + Intruder). This would be especially important seeing as the NRDF was not exactly well funded for some time.

Stark wrote:The remilitarisation of the Clone wars sees both sides go through many fighter designs, but the NR still uses what are essentially Xwings - shit backyard fighters? What ever.

Really, what makes a fighter, though? It's not like the Cold War when the aerodynamic art was being continuously improved. Newer engines? Put them in. Better lasers? Bolt it on. Superior sensors? Add that, too. Soon you have a much more capable fighter that looks very much like the original.

Batman wrote:I love the Fishbed/Phantom ananlogy. It fits perfectly.
As for the A/Y/B-Wing I must admit I'm at something of a loss.
The B-Wing seems to me to be something of an F-15E/F-111 hybrid, it's tolerably capable of antifighter work but mainly geared towards strike missions.

Well, the F-111 was also intended to be a fighter (really, more an interceptor) ... so perhaps a gun-armed F-111B.

The A-Wing would be the Wests answer to the MiG-21. A pure air-to-air F-16/F-20 might fit the bill

I thought F-104 given its interceptor roots ... how it has a hyperdrive I don't know, considering its puny size.

dworkin wrote:This is the result of research being based on WEGs 80's RPG.

Especially since WEG explicity stated in the GMs section that the mechanics are tweaked so the PCs can take on hordes of Imps and stand a reasonable chance of winning.

WEG did their numbers to reflect a style of game and canon be damned.

Quote please? This would be good the next time some WEG retard bitches about us horrible "maximalists."

I always thought, A-Wing -Interceptor, X-Wing -Multirole Fighter, Y-Wing -Light Bomber, B-Wing -Heavy bomber, E-Wing -Gunship.

It's interesting that you can classify the Rebel/NR Starfighters easily, however the Empire/Imperial Remnants are harder to classify (Except for TIE/in, Interceptors, and Bombers). Though I am interested as to what you'd slassify the wanktastic TIE Defender.

The closest real world equivelant to the Tie Defender is the F-22 Raptor. But it still isn't a perfect fit since the Tie Defender is better by a much larger margin to other SW fighters than the F22 is to RL fighters in terms of armament and performance.

Are you sure? I thought in the EU the TIE-D was good, but not the ubership it is in the games.

Stark wrote:Yeah, it's just bullshit. In the movies, they're shown as pretty much equivalent. It's the EU that makes up all this feelgood 'hillbillies with greatest FIGHAH EV4H' bullshit. You know, the same EU that makes out the B-wing is a capship killer, designed by Admiral fucking Akbar? Excuse me while I ignore all the bullshit.

That's what I mean. I'm just trying to reason out the X-wing's love and reputation without descending to the notion of underfunded rebels sporting superior spacefighters while the big, bad and rich Imperials were stuck with cannon fodder.

It just doesn't sit right to me, and the only rationalization I can see is that the X-wing's rep comes from the fact that it's a cheaper, ruggeder fighter that can hold its ground against TIEs (but not slaughter them en masse).

I've made my views clear on this matter before, but IMO, the EU only makes out the X-Wing to be some sort of dramatically superior fighter to the TIE Fighter because it covers elite squadrons fighting, for the most part, un-named Imperial hamburgers. In the movies, TIEs give as good as they get, without fail. You get behind any fighter, that fighter is usually fucking dead. Just like real life, and just like we see in the movies, whether it's RotS, ANH or RotJ.

The TIE is more maneuverable than the X-Wing, has the same practical firepower for space superiority purposes, is a smaller target, and is faster. The X-Wing has overpowered, longer-ranged guns, proton torpedoes, deflector shields, and a hyperdrive. Pick your poison, but none of the movie fighters are clearly superior to their Imperial equivalents, and depending on how the pilots train, the TIE would be a better choice.

Vympel wrote:I've made my views clear on this matter before, but IMO, the EU only makes out the X-Wing to be some sort of dramatically superior fighter to the TIE Fighter because it covers elite squadrons fighting, for the most part, un-named Imperial hamburgers. In the movies, TIEs give as good as they get, without fail. You get behind any fighter, that fighter is usually fucking dead. Just like real life, and just like we see in the movies, whether it's RotS, ANH or RotJ.

The TIE is more maneuverable than the X-Wing, has the same practical firepower for space superiority purposes, is a smaller target, and is faster. The X-Wing has overpowered, longer-ranged guns, proton torpedoes, deflector shields, and a hyperdrive. Pick your poison, but none of the movie fighters are clearly superior to their Imperial equivalents, and depending on how the pilots train, the TIE would be a better choice.

Eh...I'd probably figure the B-wing as a superior bomber to the TIE Bomber model, given the superior weapons load.

Pfft, the B-Wing's weapons load is bullshit on the order of the original weapons stats given for ISDs. It's heavily gunned, but I doubt the thing has any missiles at all.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:

Stark wrote:Yeah, it's just bullshit. In the movies, they're shown as pretty much equivalent. It's the EU that makes up all this feelgood 'hillbillies with greatest FIGHAH EV4H' bullshit. You know, the same EU that makes out the B-wing is a capship killer, designed by Admiral fucking Akbar? Excuse me while I ignore all the bullshit.

That's what I mean. I'm just trying to reason out the X-wing's love and reputation without descending to the notion of underfunded rebels sporting superior spacefighters while the big, bad and rich Imperials were stuck with cannon fodder.

It just doesn't sit right to me, and the only rationalization I can see is that the X-wing's rep comes from the fact that it's a cheaper, ruggeder fighter that can hold its ground against TIEs (but not slaughter them en masse).

You do understand, it's entire reputation as we know it is from the EU?

Nowhere in the movies do people expouse the masturbation levels of the X-Wing?

Jim Raynor wrote:Quote please? This would be good the next time some WEG retard bitches about us horrible "maximalists."

Unfortunatly I don't have the book on me. I know who has my copy now and when I catch up with them I try to transcribe it.

The essence of it was that WEG wrote a GMs section so that people will have an idea how to run a SW themed game as opposed to a SF variant of the Other Game (tm). It talked about cheesy Imp stats being part of this.

The fact that people used this as 'research' amuses old gamer geeks like me no end.

Stofsk wrote:Where would the B-wing enter into it? It seems to be a hotted up version of the X-wing. Greater strike capability, less dogfighting ability (making the X-wing more of an all-rounder, I guess).

the B-wing is pretty much wanked out by the source GL
Admiral Ackbar disgned that fighter to be a Capital Ship buster, pretty wanking job to me

Vympel wrote:Pfft, the B-Wing's weapons load is bullshit on the order of the original weapons stats given for ISDs. It's heavily gunned, but I doubt the thing has any missiles at all.

Hmmm...

Is there even roomin there for the 16 missiles it's supposed to be sporting? It never seemed like that in the games, and don't know if RotJ ever gave any good scaling shots of it.

I do wonder what the purpose of the B-wing was going to be in the movie (even in the few seconds we see it, it doesn't seem like it should have a lot more missiles or that much more power in it than an X- or Y-wing). Sure there's an exploding ISD behind them in some artwork I've seen, but that could just be incidental.

RogueIce wrote:
Hmmm...

Is there even roomin there for the 16 missiles it's supposed to be sporting? It never seemed like that in the games, and don't know if RotJ ever gave any good scaling shots of it.

No way in hell. At least, not proton torpedoes like an X-Wing or Y-Wing carry in their generously large storage bay/ launch tube assemblies. The only way you could do it is if you wanked the living shit out of it's engines so they have virtually no length. It's design is such that the central "pod" with the engines at the rear is the only place you could fit missiles of any kind.

dworkin wrote:This is the result of research being based on WEGs 80's RPG.

Especially since WEG explicity stated in the GMs section that the mechanics are tweaked so the PCs can take on hordes of Imps and stand a reasonable chance of winning.

WEG did their numbers to reflect a style of game and canon be damned.

Gah, this confuckulation has its roots in WEG books again. Why am I not surprised

I have a new analogy for the Star Wars fighters:

TIE Fighter: fast, agile, respectable firepower, and no armor at all.
Zero

X-Wing: can take as much as it dishes out, and faster in a dive.
F4U

Y-Wing: supposedly rugged strike fighter.
P-47

A-Wing: a goddamned jet engine with a seat and some guns tacked on.
Goblin

B-Wing: long range heavy hitter.
A-26B


accurate enough?

Pretty much, though the TIE Fighter has greater acceleration than the X-Wing.

Those are all certainly fine choices for analogies (I think I've used some of them in the past), though I would have chosen an F4F for the X-Wing. Also, jeez, those are big pics for inlining.

Fixed.