So I know excitement is building for wave 4, even though the imperial aces and big ships haven't yet arrived, but what would you like to see in an eventual wave five?

Standard release seems to be 2 rebel 2 imperial

So I'm thinking I'd like to see

Rebel- Lady Luck landos ship (big)
Rebel- ????????

Imperial- virago prince xizors ship (big)
Imperial- tie predator


Also I know a third faction has been talked about before, but it could be cool to see some uglies make an appearance

Also as capital ships have started appearing I'd say some form of star destroyer is probably likely at some points

I can't see them releasing the Virago unless they include Outrider as well. Adding a Shadows of the Empire tie-in would make so many fans happy. Of all the EU stuff, SotE is probably the closest to being "canon".

If they wanted to to something really different for the Empire, they could give them Howlrunners as an option.

Not sure they'll ever do Star Destroyers. If they did them to scale it would be too big (and cost about £200 per model). If they reduced the size, it would look rubbish.

Well they reduced the sizes for the other capitals, also there are smaller imperial capital ships

Think I need a visual aid here...

They could always bodge something up, like make a Victory Class Star Destroyer (or a whole new class) that is the size of a Corvette.

I always thought the giant Venator Class pocketmodel from Wizkids would make a cool stand-in (the smaller one is about 4 inches long):



Plus they are dirt cheap, going for about 15 dollar online. There is also a Banking Clan Frigate.



I would estimate them as about as long as a Corvette model is going to be.

For a few extra bucks you can buy a plastic venator at the model shop.

I always have a soft spot for the TIE Hunter.

Less chance of getting in than a coralskipper, but I can dream.

Dash renders ship can't remember name

What about the 4 new fighters? FFG showed previews of the E-Wing, Z-95, Tie Defender and Tie Phantom. Are these not wave 5? or are they part of wave 4?

They are wave 4.

The imperial aces and capital ships aren't a wave, or wave 3.5 not too sure

Wittman79 wrote:
Dash renders ship can't remember name

The Outrider!!! I've ranted about wanting this ship for a while in other threads. Oh and its Dash Rendar, Rendar with an 'a'...Yeah I played that game too much, I'm proud of it.

The lengths FF is willing to go to to keep the game appropriately(ish) scaled is impressive but precludes the Idea of Star Destroyers or Mon Calamari warships. IF they REALLY wanted to do it they could have, or in all actuality still could, But that would require a ruleset where a normal size ship represents a squadron of like two or more ships, the current large ships are re-produced at the normal size to be closer in scale, and the star destroyers are produced at the size they are releasing the Tantive IV and GR-75 at. And honestly I would happily buy the expansion material (ship squadron cards, base tiles, rule book) to play that game.

Couldn't they just make a 3' section of a star destroyer to sit along one of the table edges? have it with defense laser batteries or some such and the rebels mission be to take out objectives that are placed on its edge to "cripple" the destroyer so that a high priority person escapes. Just an idea. Maybe have an escape pod that also must be escorted off the board and launches from the destroyer. The destroyer and other ships cannot shoot the pod because Lord Vader wants them alive.

Or it scans as having no life forms aboard so isn't destroyed

I don't think that the SotE are the 'most canon' EU stuff out there, if anything I'd imagine those that started the EU with deep information like the Zahn Trilogy would be better options.

And within those books we have great ships like the Preybird-class Starfighters. Tons of freighter options like the Wild Karrde, Lady Luck, 'Green Palace' GX1 Short Hauler, and Dawn Beat(YZ-series) that would be a departure from the 'lets make another YT-series'.

The X-wing series, being built around starfighter combat as well, brings in plenty of applicable ships as well...some used in video games prior as well. Ships like the Lancer-class Frigate, Deathseeds(would love to see these), and a plethora of other starfighters and frieghters (Pulsar Skate!?).

They could do acclimator class. It's significantly smaller than a star destroyer. Or they could make a BFG-esque game so that everyone could have their capital ship goodness.

 Farseer Faenyin wrote:
I don't think that the SotE are the 'most canon' EU stuff out there, if anything I'd imagine those that started the EU with deep information like the Zahn Trilogy would be better options.

And within those books we have great ships like the Preybird-class Starfighters. Tons of freighter options like the Wild Karrde, Lady Luck, 'Green Palace' GX1 Short Hauler, and Dawn Beat(YZ-series) that would be a departure from the 'lets make another YT-series'.

The X-wing series, being built around starfighter combat as well, brings in plenty of applicable ships as well...some used in video games prior as well. Ships like the Lancer-class Frigate, Deathseeds(would love to see these), and a plethora of other starfighters and frieghters (Pulsar Skate!?).

I would love to see the Deathseed if not that and other Uglies then the Imperials get the Chiss Nssis-class Clawcraft and the Rebels get their K-Wing fighter.

I want nothing more than a squadrons worth of K-Wings... it'll be an expensive squadron for sure, since they would likely be large-based ships ala Slave 1/Millenium Falcon/Lambda Shuttle

I also really would like to see ARC-170s (it would be cool to get some dual faction ships in there, since they were used by both the Rebels and the Imperials during the early stages of the GCW).

Other than that, I dunno, I don't really want to see star destroyers/mon cal cruisers, etc. Hell, I dont even really want the Tantive or the Rebel Transport, the fact that they are a different scale irks me greatly, I'd rather not exacerbate that further with even larger ships that are in yet another different scale from the fighters/sub-capitals they have already introduced. IMO, they should simply create a different game using similar mechanics if they want to do the whole capital ship thing.

I would love for them to scale up to a 'second game system' that incorporates the capital warships. It would be very interesting to be able to build an Imperial 'Battle Squadron' with the associated ISD and support ships.

This is where my true love would be.

I am still so happy about Z-95s and E-Wings, I don't even know what I'd want in a next wave.

Tartan class patrol cruiser(never gonna happen but still) and the rest of the TIEs(predator and that world devestator Droid version(or are they the same?)etc)

TIE/Ds are not the same as Predators. I really doubt we will see Predators as they are Legacy-era and X-Wing has been GCW to New Republic so far.

I'll probably get crucified for this because they're so old compared to x-wings, etc. timeline wise, but the SWTOR ships would be a pleasing addition to me.

Ebon Hawk! Heck yeah!

I kinda want the Naboo Starfighters, Jedi Starfighter, Clone Ships and the Droid Starfighter line up all from Ep 1-3 too. Heresy? Maybe, maybe. But awesome. And a good dozen plus ships to keep the game alive!

Honestly, I hope wave 5 brings another faction: scum and villainy, maybe? Throw smugglers and bounty hunters in that class, let Han and Boba Fett be playable as they currently are AND in the new class. Add IG-88, Bossk, Rendar, a Hutt ship, etc. the only complaint I have with X-Wing is that there are only two forces. Attack Wing has 6 already (I believe) with more on the way. A third faction would be good, a fourth would be awesome (Yuuzhan Vong starships? There is actually enough source material to make it work).

How about Galen Marek's Rogue Shadow:

I would flip my gak if they put in K-wings.

The biggest question with a hypothetical wave 5 is what design space is left to explore? Making a bunch of random obscure EU ships just for the sake of having more ships is bad for the game if those new ships don't have a clear role to fill. So far FFG has been pretty good about this, but the design space for the game isn't infinite. For example, what is some random smuggler's freighter going to offer that the YT-1300 and Firespray don't? What is a TIE droid gong to offer that an academy pilot doesn't do? IMO the ships that could actually be added without running into this problem:

K-wing and missile boat: dedicated high-end missile/torpedo ships (the TIE bomber takes the cheap bare-minimum missile/torp carrier role), preferably with some kind of improvement in the point cost per shot of secondary weapons.
Assault gunboat: Imperial "generalist" fighter like the X-wing and B-wing.
Second rebel large ship of some kind? Maybe the K-wing, since it seems to be larger than a typical fighter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Attack Wing has 6 already (I believe) with more on the way. A third faction would be good, a fourth would be awesome (Yuuzhan Vong starships? There is actually enough source material to make it work).

Strongly disagree with this. One of the reasons why X-Wing is such a good game is that it has two factions with their own clear identities. Adding more factions just for the sake of having more factions, especially when they're drawn from awful EU sources, would probably blur those lines and make the game a lot less interesting. I'd much rather see FFG focus on making its two core factions as good as they can be.

I have to agree that X-wing's design horizon is far smaller than I would have initially expected it to be, so is Attack Wing's(and possibly far more so) but for different reasons. This being the first game to introduce me to Fantasy Flight's design ability I'm impressed as all heck at the quality of game/product design they put out. Took a look at their Netrunner CCG and that only reinforced my high opinion of the company. So I have faith that with consumer backing the game could survive a long time with FFG piloting it. Though trying to think of new interesting and interactive abilities to use for named pilots or base ship stat differences is not entirely easy for this game in part due to how tightly it's already balanced. Not impossible of course but not simple either.

Yes, there is the question of 'what role does this ship fill?', and almost all the major roles have been filled. But that is to my mind an almost irrelevant, players will buy new ships if only because of how they look or to just have the newest thing. Let there be multiple ships filling the same role! Give them different style abilities, make one tough, and another shooty, done! Artificial infinite design space! If you want to distinguish between them assign them different 'Eras' of play. Say that B-wings cant be taken starting late Galactic Civil War and through early New Republic and be done with it.

As for new Factions I agree that they could use one or two more, under the right design spec. A 'Scum and Villainy'? Not impossible but probably not the right fit. An 'Old Republic' and 'Sith' faction? Now that you might pull off, just because your really starting the 'Era' breakdown I mentioned above with out throwing a bunch of spanners into the already well built machine. It would be more like an add-on then expansion to the current game. Would it be bad for the game, hell no. Would it do a lot for it, nah, just make it pretty and that's plenty fine.

Lastly I strongly disagree with the Empire getting a generalist (aka Superiority Role) starfighter like an X-wing. Especially since they already have one in the form of the TIE Advanced, similar price and options, +1 agility/-1 firepower. Or a heavy fighter like the B-wing. They never had anything really similar to that at all canonically but the Lambda comes closest to fulfilling the same role in game. This was a result in how their strategic philosophies differed and what resources they could acquire. Major props to the Star Wars universe for not mirroring the military's!

KnuckleWolf wrote:
But that is to my mind an almost irrelevant, players will buy new ships if only because of how they look or to just have the newest thing. Let there be multiple ships filling the same role! Give them different style abilities, make one tough, and another shooty, done!

But making one tough and another shooty isn't multiple ships in the same role, it's two different roles. The problem with X-Wing's design space is that there just aren't that many combinations of the basic attributes available, especially if you want to have the two factions be clearly different from each other. And if you start releasing ships that actually have the same role then people are going to quickly lose interest in new releases. Sure, the dedicated fanboys will buy a dozen copies of every obscure EU ship, but if the rules for it are pretty much "it's a Y-Wing with a different model" then most people won't be very excited about it and will just keep playing with their existing Y-Wings.

If you want to distinguish between them assign them different 'Eras' of play. Say that B-wings cant be taken starting late Galactic Civil War and through early New Republic and be done with it.

This is a terrible idea because it introduces divisions in the community. One of X-Wing's greatest strengths is the fact that you can just show up on game night and say "hey, let's play a 100 point game". If you start breaking the game up into arbitrary eras then people are going to prefer different eras and you have to negotiate which things are going to be allowed before you can ever play a game. It's just not worth it to add a bunch of obscure EU ships that few people care about, or stuff from the movies that most people would prefer to pretend never happened.

Lastly I strongly disagree with the Empire getting a generalist (aka Superiority Role) starfighter like an X-wing. Especially since they already have one in the form of the TIE Advanced, similar price and options, +1 agility/-1 firepower. Or a heavy fighter like the B-wing. They never had anything really similar to that at all canonically but the Lambda comes closest to fulfilling the same role in game.

But that's exactly what the assault gunboat was in the X-Wing video games: an imperial version of the X-wing/Y-wing. Obviously it shouldn't be exactly the same as either of them, but it should fill the same general role of "generalist fighter that can act independently". And that should be possible without making a rebel ship with a different paint scheme, as FFG demonstrated when they made the Z-95 a rebel "academy pilot" that is still clearly a rebel ship.

And no, the TIE advanced doesn't fill that role at all. No ship with two attack dice can ever do that job. The advanced is much closer to being an imperial A-wing, a ship that values staying alive above all else.

(Preface: Hoo-ray for the interwebs! lol)

Point 1: If I'm understanding you, your statement says that Luke and Wedge are two different roles? I would state that they are the same role but function distinctly. Making one tough and another shooty in fact does allow two ships to fill the same 'role' while being distinct as Luke and Wedge demonstrate handily. For instance to do Clone Wars era Y-Wing bombers you could say that the two basic pilot cards are both 1 pilot skill lower and appropriate points cheaper because they are still new to most pilots and the flight controls still need ironing out. Alternatively to do a Separatist Droid Starfighter you could take the base stats of a TIE and change its maneuver dial, take away Barrel Roll and give it Boost. Want to make a Naboo Starfighter? Take a X-Wing, drop a Firepower, tack on a shield. In each case you get the same role, but with different functionality. Now make them feel different within each ship type. One Droid starfighter may Koigran without stress, another may re-roll one of his attack die every attack, another may receive a free Evade token after being Target Locked. Same ship, same roles, distinct functions, but new things to play with.

Point 2: Proclaiming that such division in the community is foregone conclusion is like saying 'Apocalypse will kill 40k!' No, it's not a terrible idea. It gives players options without dictating to them, which can never be bad. The suggestion of 'Era Format' does not preclude the option to smash my Ebon Hawk in a list to play against your (heaven forbid) Yuhzan Vong. Notably Flames of War has lasted more or less a decade with distinct 'Eras' dividing it. The point of the game is still to have fun, no one suggested taking that away.

Point 3: Ironically the TIE Advanced was a multi-role starfighter that could act independently. I never said it was good at it though in game. The game really does not support 2 Firepower ships very well as far as I care, unless of course you can get a few of 'em together with like a Howlrunner buff going in which case heck yeah. However getting a TIE/Adv into your opponents rear and close range makes it work in that role quite well I'm afraid, if you can manage it, but then again when doesn't it? An A-Wing it is not, that comparison is better reserved for the TIE/In, which foregoes shields to pick up firepower but other than that uses its mobility to duck and weave enemy fire. All this of course in each our own humble opinion. But that's how the Empire rolls: More but weaker guns, more maneuverable but weaker hulls with out shields. To change this up so that the Imps have a ship as equal as you want it to be to X's or Y's would nix the whole feel. I'm sorry if you don't care for the Advanced but that's your X-Wing, and the TIE Bomber is your Y-wing.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Point 1: If I'm understanding you, your statement says that Luke and Wedge are two different roles?

Not really. They're two slight variants of the X-Wing's role as a generalist fighter. If they were two separate $15 ships you'd be pretty disappointed and one wouldn't be very interesting if you already have the other. For ships to be interesting they need to have clearly different roles. For example the X-Wing is the generalist ship that all rebel fighters are measured against, the Y-wing is a turret boat, the B-wing is the close-range knife fighter, the A-wing is the fast ship, the E-wing is the expensive super-ship, and the Z-95 is the cheap meatshield. There are probably more broad categories like that to explore, but they are certainly not infinite and I doubt there are enough of them to cover every random obscure EU ship.

For instance to do Clone Wars era Y-Wing bombers you could say that the two basic pilot cards are both 1 pilot skill lower and appropriate points cheaper because they are still new to most pilots and the flight controls still need ironing out.

But that's not really going to make that ship play differently compared to a standard Y-wing. It's going to feel like another set of character cards (like Imperial Aces or the X-wing that comes with the transport), not a unique ship. That might work fine where the new ship is literally just a variant of an existing one, but if it's supposed to represent a different ship then it's going to be disappointing.

Alternatively to do a Separatist Droid Starfighter you could take the base stats of a TIE and change its maneuver dial, take away Barrel Roll and give it Boost. Want to make a Naboo Starfighter? Take a X-Wing, drop a Firepower, tack on a shield. In each case you get the same role, but with different functionality. Now make them feel different within each ship type. One Droid starfighter may Koigran without stress, another may re-roll one of his attack die every attack, another may receive a free Evade token after being Target Locked. Same ship, same roles, distinct functions, but new things to play with.

The problem is that this kind of thing adds complexity without adding much depth. It generates lots of options, but since the options are all very similar it all blends together into a dull mess. For example, when you have a choice between boost or barrel roll on your cheap "academy pilot" it's hard to tell which one you'd prefer, or even feel like they're two truly different choices. It's much better to have a smaller number of options, but have all of them be different enough to be interesting. For example, TIE fighter vs. TIE interceptor is a very interesting choice that most players have a strong opinion about.

Point 2: Proclaiming that such division in the community is foregone conclusion is like saying 'Apocalypse will kill 40k!' No, it's not a terrible idea. It gives players options without dictating to them, which can never be bad. The suggestion of 'Era Format' does not preclude the option to smash my Ebon Hawk in a list to play against your (heaven forbid) Yuhzan Vong. Notably Flames of War has lasted more or less a decade with distinct 'Eras' dividing it. The point of the game is still to have fun, no one suggested taking that away.

This isn't just hypothetical, it's what's happening right now with 40k. The community is divided about what should be legal (FW/Escalation/allies/etc), how competitively you should play, what rules need to be changed, etc. If I show up with a Baneblade I can expect to have to negotiate about whether my opponent will play against it, and have to give up on playing if they don't like it and I don't want to change my army. The only way to avoid it is to make everything balanced and compatible, but then you have "eras" that exist in name only.

The game really does not support 2 Firepower ships very well as far as I care, unless of course you can get a few of 'em together with like a Howlrunner buff going in which case heck yeah.

The game supports them just fine in general, FFG just made a mistake with the point costs of the TIE advanced and A-wing. They're both a little too expensive for what they do, especially with low-skill pilots that can't make good use of all of their actions.

An A-Wing it is not, that comparison is better reserved for the TIE/In, which foregoes shields to pick up firepower but other than that uses its mobility to duck and weave enemy fire.

The interceptor also costs more points (compared to what the advanced should cost) and has the critical three attack dice. In actual games the interceptor plays like a faster X-wing or B-wing with the three attack dice to kill you quickly and the speed to get into an ideal firing position to do it, while the A-wing and TIE advanced are both "turtle" ships that stack defensive actions, maneuver out of arcs, and focus on surviving as long as possible while slowly wearing down their opponents.

But that's how the Empire rolls: More but weaker guns, more maneuverable but weaker hulls with out shields. To change this up so that the Imps have a ship as equal as you want it to be to X's or Y's would nix the whole feel. I'm sorry if you don't care for the Advanced but that's your X-Wing, and the TIE Bomber is your Y-wing.

That's why the gunboat shouldn't be a literal X-wing, just like the Z-95 functions as a rebel "academy pilot" while still clearly being a rebel ship. Make the gunboat a middle ground between the B-wing and X-wing with two evade dice, a dial somewhere between the two rebel ships, barrel roll, no droid, and missiles instead of torps.

I think there are still loads of options for wave 5, without going down the road of too much eu stuff. All the Nubian stuff from episodes 1-3. I'm not sure why folk get worked up that they are 'old republic'. So was the falcon under a different name, and slave 1. The whole 6 film saga takes place over a generation or two. Surely there would still be plenty of ships knocking about from the earlier era.

Other possibilities I'd like to see - the scimitar assault bomber, skipray blastboat, Jedi starfighter, with maybe the Lady Luck as a large base rebel ship. Also, I'd like to see variant ships, like the black x wings.

One could argue that if the N-1 was able to reliably stand up to TIEs then the Rebels would have used them more commonly. But one could counter by suggesting that perhaps the N-1 really is a cracker jack starfighter, even by GCW-era standards, but is simply too expensive/high maintenance for the rag tag Alliance.

To me, it seems unlikely that a largely ceremonial ship designed by an inexperienced, vestigal military in a long era of peace would be on par with GCW-era fighters. It stands to reason that the N-1 was outclassed by early, Clone Wars-era variants of the Y-Wing and Z-95 decades before the Battle of Yavin. Considering the late variants of those fighters are among the "weaker" ships available in the game, where would that leave the N-1?

The same analysis applies to other prequels-era or earlier ships. While the YT-1300, Firespray, Y-Wing, and Z-95 are all technically prequels-era ships, the ones available in the game are "updated" for the GCW-era, as supported by the movies; either late variants at the end of their operational history or souped-up hot rods like the Millennium Falcon.

Furthermore, there is the question of branding. The brand of this game is not "Star Wars" (as with WotC products) but rather "X-Wing." The GCW is clearly the heart of the brand. I'd say this is another strong argument for not developing a fringer faction. In this era, everything is defined by the conflict between Rebels and Imperials. (Jabba is the only clear exception in the movies.)

With all that in mind, I think the future of X-Wing lies in mid-size ships with lots of customizability, fighters defined by entirely new mechanics (such as Wave 4's TIE Phantom but also the A-Wing from before), repaints with new cards, and playstyle-changing/expanding large-size ships.

The N-1 was still in use during the GCW (as was the ARC-170 and other Clone Wars era designs).

chaos0xomega wrote:
The N-1 was still in use during the GCW

 Manchu wrote:
if the N-1 was able to reliably stand up to TIEs then the Rebels would have used them more commonly

If they aren't great, price them cheap at let us take a squadron.

 Eggs wrote:
aren't great, price them cheap

If only game design was that simple so we could all be game designers.

As mentioned above, my idea for a future release is the Rogue Shadow.



In addition to whatever stats the ship itself brings (at the very least, a game-changing mid-size cloaking ship), it could come with two versions of the Starkiller upgrade card: one that makes it a Rebel ship and another than makes it an Imperial ship. It could also be packaged with faction-specific cards for each faction. For example, there could be a Rebs-only Rahm Kota upgrade and a Imps-only PROXY-as-Vader, or similar. Basically, whether you only play Rebs or Imps, you could still incorporate the ship into your list.

 Manchu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The N-1 was still in use during the GCW

 Manchu wrote:
if the N-1 was able to reliably stand up to TIEs then the Rebels would have used them more commonly

Or, it might just be that by that point the N-1 fighters were out of production and not easily available. Correlation does not equal causation.

Personally, one of the things that always bothered me about Star Wars was the apparent inconsistency in technological progression. Evidently, during the entire 10,000 or so year history of the Republic (up to the point of the Clone Wars), the size of starships and the capabilities of weapon systems remained relatively static... then the Clone Wars come along, and the size of the vessels remains roughly the same as it has been (though you start to see a general increase), but the systems capabilities (if not the quantity of the weapon systems themselves) seems to suddenly spike up making capital ships much more capable combatants...

AND THEN the Galactic Civil War era sets in, and you evidently see not only a great increase in size (Ex. Imperial Star Destroyers are almost twice the size of some of the vessels they replaced, and about 25% larger than some of the larger vessels they replaced... despite the fact that they (the ISD's) were considered 'medium size' at the time of their introduction...) but also a great increase in capability (you hear things like the weapons on an x-wing had a faster recharge time and were more powerful than those on z-95s, and older capital ships lacking the firepower to damage newer capital ships, even en masse, etc.).

I dunno, just never seemed like technology progressed over that 10,000 year or so period like you would expect it to.

chaos0xomega wrote:
it might just be that by that point the N-1 fighters were out of production and not easily available

 Manchu wrote:
But one could counter by suggesting that perhaps the N-1 really is a cracker jack starfighter, even by GCW-era standards, but is simply too expensive/high maintenance for the rag tag Alliance.

I suppose we could do this all day but I wish you'd just give my post a read.

chaos0xomega wrote:
just never seemed like technology progressed over that 10,000 year or so period like you would expect it to

This is the result of SW being a fantasy franchise rather than a sci fi one, despite appearances.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The N-1 was still in use during the GCW

 Manchu wrote:
if the N-1 was able to reliably stand up to TIEs then the Rebels would have used them more commonly

Or, it might just be that by that point the N-1 fighters were out of production and not easily available. Correlation does not equal causation.

Personally, one of the things that always bothered me about Star Wars was the apparent inconsistency in technological progression. Evidently, during the entire 10,000 or so year history of the Republic (up to the point of the Clone Wars), the size of starships and the capabilities of weapon systems remained relatively static... then the Clone Wars come along, and the size of the vessels remains roughly the same as it has been (though you start to see a general increase), but the systems capabilities (if not the quantity of the weapon systems themselves) seems to suddenly spike up making capital ships much more capable combatants...

AND THEN the Galactic Civil War era sets in, and you evidently see not only a great increase in size (Ex. Imperial Star Destroyers are almost twice the size of some of the vessels they replaced, and about 25% larger than some of the larger vessels they replaced... despite the fact that they (the ISD's) were considered 'medium size' at the time of their introduction...) but also a great increase in capability (you hear things like the weapons on an x-wing had a faster recharge time and were more powerful than those on z-95s, and older capital ships lacking the firepower to damage newer capital ships, even en masse, etc.).

I dunno, just never seemed like technology progressed over that 10,000 year or so period like you would expect it to.

I see it as this:

10 000 years of relative peace, leading to little in the way of technological development for Warfare. Then, along comes a Massive war, triggering an arms race and leading to a massive technological revolution. This re-starts the development of Military Technology, which is maintained by a period of continuous Warfare from the Clone Wars on. From Around the Battle of Naboo through to the Vong Wars, Tech progresses at a level comparable to today.

That's the fluff justification. A more realistic explanation is that the people describing the old republic stuff got lazy and just used pretty much the same tech as main-series Star Wars. they are therefore forced to maintain stasis for 10 000 years. From the Clone Wars on, however, the tech is allowed to advance at a rate which is fairly reasonable for a 50-year period of near-constant war.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
10 000 years of relative peace

Not true. Star Wars lives up to its name in all eras except perhaps the 1000 years immediately preceding Attack of the Clones.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
A more realistic explanation is that the people describing the old republic stuff got lazy

I think it's less about laziness and more about wanting to connect the games to moves through visual thematics. I think it's just hard to convey what an older futuristic vessel looks like (this is sometimes a problem in Star Trek, too, but that's sci fi unlike SW so they can rely on technological differences to drive the point). Lucas came up with a genius method for distinguishing between the "past" and "present" in the prequels; namely, the design of the past is primarily aesthetic whereas the present is primarily utilitarian. Tales of the Jedi also does a great job of coming up with an extremely archaic SW aesthetic but BioWare chose to do something completely different in KotOR.

 Manchu wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
aren't great, price them cheap

If only game design was that simple so we could all be game designers.

Isn't this what they are doing with the z95 then?

I did read your post, issue is that your premise is incorrect. I mean, it might have been a 'ceremonial' fighter design during a long era of peace by a vestigial inexperienced (note that many of the pilots actually came from mercenary/pirate backgrounds and were actually veteran pilots, as the Naboo Royal Space Fighter Corps was a volunteer organization) military, etc. but it was considered a very successful and highly effective starfighter design according to (expanded) in-universe sources, and they were considered to be 'battleship killers'.

While we do know that it was considered outdated by the time of the GCW, the fact that they were used at all means there was some worthwhile value to them.

Beyond that, I would argue that the basic tie fighter design was individually inferior to all of its contemporaries, and more on-par with Clone Wars era designs than GCW designs.

There is also the updated N-1T from Star Wars Galactic Battlegrounds which was considered the successor model. Its from a video game... but so is the Tie Phantom.

In fact is that not how all wargames work?

 Eggs wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
aren't great, price them cheap

If only game design was that simple so we could all be game designers.

Isn't this what they are doing with the z95 then?

I don't know if that's all they're doing. I do know that the "not as good and cheaper" formula is what I always advocated for the Z-95 but then again I'm no game designer. Bandit Squad ships cost as much as Academy Pilots but the comparison sort of stops there. You know, this is actually something I'd like to hear Peregrine weigh in on.

@Peregrine: Is the Z-95 just a cheaper generalist ... as in, are we just talking about replacing 3 X-Wings with 5-6 Z-95s?

I would think not. I've been thinking about them as missile delivery systems. I think there will need to be a A-Wing aces pack to "edit" as it were the A-Wing after the Z-95 release.

chaos0xomega wrote:
they were considered to be 'battleship killers'

LOL I can read Wookiepedia, too. The only time we've seen a N-1 kill a capital ship was when Anakin did it by accident.I actually own the Essential Guide to Warfare and will try to remember to look this up later.

chaos0xomega wrote:
the fact that they were used at all means there was some worthwhile value to them

Kinda sorta but not really. If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and all I have is a hammer then I guess I'll use the hammer. But if I have some time to prepare ... Point being, the Alliance clearly did not avail itself of the N-1 starfighter. As I already said, maybe that means it was outdated -- and maybe that means it was too expensive. But it's more likely that it was simply outdated by the time of the GCW, as even Wookiepedia says.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would argue that the basic tie fighter design was individually inferior to all of its contemporaries

I doubt anyone would disagree at that superficial level. But of course the TIE is designed to be used in swarms.

So, if a TIE is inferior to its contemporaries but intended to be used in swarms, on the tabletop this is represented with a lower points cost and a weaker set of status... logically then designs like the N-1, ARC-170, V-wing, and other such fighters could be represented with slightly better statlines and slightly increased points costs... no?

Okay, this is going to get a bit theoretical and the disclaimer is that I'm not a games designer.

I think there is a common misconception about points costs being in a separate category from stats. The thinking seems to go, stats have a certain value that is represented by points cost.

I see a lot of players trying to figure out the "conversion rate." How much is one more point of defense worth? Is it different as between 1 and 2 as opposed to as between 2 and 3? Does having a 2 rather than a 3, or vice versa, in attack effect that calculation? And what about shields, hull points, maneuvers, upgrade slots, etc?

I think the conversion rate is an illusion. To me, points cost is not a product of stats but rather just another stat.

What does that have to do with making low cost prequels ships?

One important function of design in X-Wing is to simulate what players generally think about both the individual ships and the factions. TIE Fighters don't cost less than X-Wings primarily because they have a few lower stats. Their lower points cost is itself a stat meant to simulate (1) TIE Fighters and (2) Imperial military doctrine.

So let's take a look at the X-Wing and its predecessor the ARC-170. First off, they are very different ships in a lot of ways but they seem to serve similar roles albeit in different eras. The state of warfare had changed so much between the Clone Wars and the early days of the GCW that X-Wings had completely replaced ARC-170s in the Alliance military. Let's also keep in mind that X-Wing is set during the GCW (as opposed to the timeless abstraction of WotC's SW miniatures game).

Given that, how do we simulate an ARC-170 in the X-Wing game? Your proposal seems to be, give it lower stats that translate into a lower cost. Well, if the X-Wing is our benchmark, we know the ARC-170 has to have lower stats simply because the X-Wing is supposed to outperform it in our simulation. The notion that these lower stats then imply a lower points cost is problematic, however. The ARC-170s was not a swarm-attack fighter in any era, after all. But if we don't lower the points cost then there is less or no mechanical incentive to play the ship.

In this way, we see that era is important to game design.

This should be apparent to anyone with some experience in historical war games. War game rules are meant to simulate conflict given certain parameters, importantly including place and time. It does not make design sense, for example, to shoehorn WW1-era tanks into a game about Kursk. If the game is about Kursk, then its rules should be allowed to focus on simulating Kursk. The Germans should not be able to take a 5-10 Oberschlesiens from 1918 for every one T-34/85 the Russians take.

Similarly, the X-Wing miniatures game is in fact a historical war game even if the history in question happens to be fictional. The game is not designed to simulate warfare during the ancient Old Republic, the Clone Wars, or the Yuuzhan Vong invasion. This is a game explicitly about the GCW.

I suppose you will say again, well, ARC-170s were used in the GCW. No, they weren't really. I mean, maybe in some one-off adventure but not in the war at large nor did such one-off adventures play any meaningful role in the GCW. The rediscovery of a cache of ARC-170s or N-1s would not have significantly affected the Rebellion's chances, as opposed to the successful development and deployment of experimental TIEs like the Phantom.

Treating points costs as derivative of other stats strikes me as the flaw essential to this ahistorical approach to game design. But think where it ultimately leads. Looking back into the far past, all ships must have zeroes in every stat and cost nothing, i.e., have no effect on the game whatsoever. And looking into the future, you would hypothetically have single fighters that cost more than the point allowance for a whole fleet, to the same practical result.

Now the ARC-170 is a much less extreme example of course. It's the immediate predecessor to the X-Wing, after all, just as the Y-Wing was initially a Clone Wars-era bomber and predecessor to the B-Wing. But there is a difference inasmuch as that "historically" the late variant Y-Wings were useful and were used even after the declaration of the New Republic whereas the ARC-170 is totally outmoded by the Battle of Yavin.

In other words, low stats and low cost do not accurately simulate the ARC-170s place in the GCW. Not being in the game accurately simulates the ARC-170s place in the GCW.

 Manchu wrote:
@Peregrine: Is the Z-95 just a cheaper generalist ... as in, are we just talking about replacing 3 X-Wings with 5-6 Z-95s?

That's exactly what we're talking about. Z-95s will be used in two situations: as a swarm list with 6-8 Z-95s, and as a "filler" unit to add cheap numbers to a list (much like the prototype pilot now). For example, a list with Wedge/HLC B-wings/etc might add 2-3 Z-95s instead of a single X-wing, just so the ship count doesn't drop too low. Or a list that's in the 80-90 point range where you can't add a "real" ship without cutting something important will take a single Z-95 instead of throwing 10 points into marginal upgrades. But in either case I expect it to play a lot like the academy pilot: a generalist "just another ship" that tanks damage and makes attacks, without any fancy tricks or specialization.

IMO the missile role is going to end up like the "torpedo role" that X-wings have. Yeah, you have the upgrade slot available, but you aren't going to use it all that often. I don't think missiles are appealing enough in general for dedicated missile Z-95s to become popular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
TIE Fighters don't cost less than X-Wings primarily because they have a few lower stats. Their lower points cost is itself a stat meant to simulate (1) TIE Fighters and (2) Imperial military doctrine.

I think you've got that kind of backwards. The point cost is a direct product of the stats, and the stats were designed with the intent of producing a ship that would be balanced at a cheap point cost. I imagine the way it worked in FFG's design and playtesting was that they realized early on that the TIE fighter stat line would work well as a cheap ship, and then fine-tuned the point cost once the stats were set. After all, if TIE fighters had cost 11 points or 13 points it would have had very little impact on the "fluff" concept (it's still a cheap swarm ship), but it would have had a massive impact on balance.

 Peregrine wrote:
I don't think missiles are appealing enough in general for dedicated missile Z-95s to become popular.

IMO missiles are a bit expensive on any rebel fighter. But you won't find a cheaper way to use them than Bandit Squadron. The ion pulse missile is also cheap and wants some follow up punch that can't be provided from one other Z-95. Then again, you're more likely to have two post-ion shots lined up flying with a swarm of Z-95s than one shot lined up flying with a heavier hitter.

I'm still wary of the supposed Rebel swarm. Butu I am really looking forward to seeing the Z-95 dial.

 Peregrine wrote:
After all, if TIE fighters had cost 11 points or 13 points it would have had very little impact on the "fluff" concept (it's still a cheap swarm ship), but it would have had a massive impact on balance.

I'm not discounting balance. I'm saying that points cost is a stat that can be balanced against other stats rather than a representation of net value of stats.

To be more clear:

Their lower points cost is itself a stat meant to simulate for the purposes of the X-Wing game (1) TIE Fighters and (2) Imperial military doctrine.

Under the misconception about cost that I'm talking about, it's the conversion rate (which is assumed to be constant against some standard, probably the X-Wing in this case) that does the balancing.

That's a slightly different aspect, however, than what I was addressing; namely, how chasing the illusionary conversion rate leads to the belief that ships outside the GCW era can/should be added to the game.

I think there is room for prequel ships though. Just because the majority of the GCW took place with X wings, Y wings et al, doesn't mean that you can't have the occasional antique knocking about. The conflict was galaxy wide, so there were bound to be all sorts of ships pressed into service here and there. An old, outdated star fighter is better than no star fighter.

I'm not fussed wither way. I can see why they'd want to keep the background 'pure', but I'm a fan of all the movies, the animated series, and I've read a good chunk of the books too. If they want to throw prequel stuff out there, I'll buy it. Pew pew pew.

 Eggs wrote:
I can see why they'd want to keep the background 'pure', but I'm a fan of all the movies, the animated series, and I've read a good chunk of the books too.

It's not really a matter of "pureness," or even a matter of disliking the prequels. Rather, it is a matter of design as I explained at great length above.

 Eggs wrote:
An old, outdated star fighter is better than no star fighter.

Of course, this is not a choice presented to players in the X-Wing game so I'd have to say it's irrelevant.

 Eggs wrote:
I think there is room for prequel ships though. Just because the majority of the GCW took place with X wings, Y wings et al, doesn't mean that you can't have the occasional antique knocking about. The conflict was galaxy wide, so there were bound to be all sorts of ships pressed into service here and there. An old, outdated star fighter is better than no star fighter.

But that's just bad design. You could theoretically make a prequel ship with 1/1/1/0 stats at 5 points each and it would accurately represent its usefulness in the setting of X-Wing (obsolete garbage) and likely tactics (swarm with enough of them to compensate for its inferiority), but is anyone going to be very happy to see their favorite ship, which was pretty cool in the prequel era, reduced to being obsolete garbage that even academy pilots laugh at? You'd have to break the game into "eras" so that the older ships can be satisfying without being un-fluffy.

Also it would just be boring to redo X-Wing for the Clone Wars era because so much of the design space has been explored in the GCW era's idiom. It would amount to a reskin. If there was to be a CW-era game, I'd like to see a design progression from what FFG has done with Flight Path in X-Wing. The first thing I would do is reduce the scale to better accommodate huge formations and capital ships.

Given the nature of the Rebellion and its military doctrine, fighter-focused combat makes good sense for a game simulating the GCW era. That is less true of the Clones Wars.

Well, I had commentary. lol

But it is becoming apparent that for a forum thread, oppinions otherwise to those of certain posters are unwelcome or at the least unrespected and intently shredded on contact with the board. So have a good time, I withdraw. Interesting thoughts though. Never heard some one compare a point cost to a stat that way. At least they got that it's not a static conversion from other values. Good job whoever that was.

I'm not sure why you think prequel ships are obsolete garbage. They still use the same astromechs, weapons systems etc. the start of the first civil war to the end is only what? 20 years? The tech has developed for ten thousand years up to that point, encompassing many wars. Did things really move on so much in 20 years that all existing ships became obsolete garbage? Yet they didn't bother upgrading their astromechs or weapons?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I have a fifteen year old car. It'll still eat about 80% of brand new cars for breakfast, progress be damned.

 Eggs wrote:
I'm not sure why you think prequel ships are obsolete garbage.

Because that's what the fluff says. The Z-95, despite upgrades over time, is a barely-adequate fighter that sees little use outside of pirates and rebel units that can't get better ships. And by the end of the rebellion era it has pretty much lost that role, with only the most desperate groups even attempting to use them. And all of the other ships are gone. Does it makes sense in a setting with 10,000 years of relative stability in technology? Not really, but that's what the fluff says.

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
The N-1 was still in use during the GCW

 Manchu wrote:
if the N-1 was able to reliably stand up to TIEs then the Rebels would have used them more commonly

Or, it might just be that by that point the N-1 fighters were out of production and not easily available. Correlation does not equal causation.

Personally, one of the things that always bothered me about Star Wars was the apparent inconsistency in technological progression. Evidently, during the entire 10,000 or so year history of the Republic (up to the point of the Clone Wars), the size of starships and the capabilities of weapon systems remained relatively static... then the Clone Wars come along, and the size of the vessels remains roughly the same as it has been (though you start to see a general increase), but the systems capabilities (if not the quantity of the weapon systems themselves) seems to suddenly spike up making capital ships much more capable combatants...

AND THEN the Galactic Civil War era sets in, and you evidently see not only a great increase in size (Ex. Imperial Star Destroyers are almost twice the size of some of the vessels they replaced, and about 25% larger than some of the larger vessels they replaced... despite the fact that they (the ISD's) were considered 'medium size' at the time of their introduction...) but also a great increase in capability (you hear things like the weapons on an x-wing had a faster recharge time and were more powerful than those on z-95s, and older capital ships lacking the firepower to damage newer capital ships, even en masse, etc.).

I dunno, just never seemed like technology progressed over that 10,000 year or so period like you would expect it to.

I believe this is due to Palpatine having a need to prove that size does matter.

I agree that they are drying up a pool of roles that need filled for each faction. That is why I vote they delve into the capital ship classes in a second system next!!

 Peregrine wrote:

 Eggs wrote:
I think there is room for prequel ships though. Just because the majority of the GCW took place with X wings, Y wings et al, doesn't mean that you can't have the occasional antique knocking about. The conflict was galaxy wide, so there were bound to be all sorts of ships pressed into service here and there. An old, outdated star fighter is better than no star fighter.

But that's just bad design. You could theoretically make a prequel ship with 1/1/1/0 stats at 5 points each and it would accurately represent its usefulness in the setting of X-Wing (obsolete garbage) and likely tactics (swarm with enough of them to compensate for its inferiority), but is anyone going to be very happy to see their favorite ship, which was pretty cool in the prequel era, reduced to being obsolete garbage that even academy pilots laugh at? You'd have to break the game into "eras" so that the older ships can be satisfying without being un-fluffy.

You mean like slave 1 is obsolete garbage?

 Manchu wrote:


One important function of design in X-Wing is to simulate what players generally think about both the individual ships and the factions. TIE Fighters don't cost less than X-Wings primarily because they have a few lower stats. Their lower points cost is itself a stat meant to simulate (1) TIE Fighters and (2) Imperial military doctrine.

I disagree with this, the 'fluff' depicts Tie fighters as usually outnumbering X-wings by a wide margin, yet you would have to take two academy pilots against an upgraded red squadron pilot just to get a 2:1 ratio, which is a worse ratio than the one presented on screen in films, in the books, and in games. Beyond that I would argue that the tie fighter is too durable. In addition to that, the TIE Interceptor was supposed to replace the TIE fighter in its entirety, and even though they only made up like 20-30% of the Imperial fighter force by the time of the battle of endor, they were still more than capable of outnumbering rebel fighter squadrons, yet they are priced roughly on par with the x-wing. Then you have A-wings which are cheaper than any X-wing, despite the fact that they were only produced in extremely limited numbers during the Galactic Civil War (they were built by hand) and only a couple squadrons of them existed by the time of the battle of endor. Clearly there is a disconnect between points cost and fluff, especially with Fantasy Flight pushing the game as a tournament environment.

The state of warfare had changed so much between the Clone Wars and the early days of the GCW that X-Wings had completely replaced ARC-170s in the Alliance military.

False on both counts. The state of warfare has remained the same, and ARC-170s were still in service with both the Imperials and the Rebel Alliance.

The ARC-170s was not a swarm-attack fighter in any era, after all. But if we don't lower the points cost then there is less or no mechanical incentive to play the ship.

I disagree, even if they cost the ship equivalent to an X-wing, I would still use them on coolness factor alone.

This should be apparent to anyone with some experience in historical war games. War game rules are meant to simulate conflict given certain parameters, importantly including place and time. It does not make design sense, for example, to shoehorn WW1-era tanks into a game about Kursk. If the game is about Kursk, then its rules should be allowed to focus on simulating Kursk. The Germans should not be able to take a 5-10 Oberschlesiens from 1918 for every one T-34/85 the Russians take.

The game is not designed to simulate warfare during the ancient Old Republic, the Clone Wars, or the Yuuzhan Vong invasion. This is a game explicitly about the GCW.

Had there been World War 1 tanks at Kursk, you could bet that there would be rules to use them, and they would be costed appropriately. There were ARC-170s, N-1s, etc. in use during the Galactic Civil War (Hell, N-1s even shown in one of the many remakes...errr.... updates... of Return of the Jedi during the celebrations after the Death Star II is destroyed), therefore there should be rules to use them.

Also, E-wing. All your arguments are invalid. It didn't enter service (or see development/production) until after the New Republic was established, after the end of the Galactic Civil War era.

Stop trying to speak for what the game is supposed to represent as though you are the game designer, because you aren't, and you're clearly being contradicted by the design studios actions.

I suppose you will say again, well, ARC-170s were used in the GCW. No, they weren't really. I mean, maybe in some one-off adventure but not in the war at large nor did such one-off adventures play any meaningful role in the GCW. The rediscovery of a cache of ARC-170s or N-1s would not have significantly affected the Rebellion's chances, as opposed to the successful development and deployment of experimental TIEs like the Phantom.

Again, E-wing. Your argument is invalid as it didn't even exist during the Galactic Civil War era. As for the N-1, if they were worthy of 10 seconds of screen time in the film, then they are evidently worthy of implementation into the game. Hell, just look at the A-wing, there were only a handful in existence at the time of Endor, it has only a minute or so of screentime, and yet its available.

Treating points costs as derivative of other stats strikes me as the flaw essential to this ahistorical approach to game design. But think where it ultimately leads. Looking back into the far past, all ships must have zeroes in every stat and cost nothing, i.e., have no effect on the game whatsoever. And looking into the future, you would hypothetically have single fighters that cost more than the point allowance for a whole fleet, to the same practical result.

Well, thats more the result of you arguing that they were inferior designs and would thus have lesser stats. My argument is that the difference between a clone wars era and a republic era starfighter is miniscule and virtually nonexistent.

Now the ARC-170 is a much less extreme example of course. It's the immediate predecessor to the X-Wing, after all, just as the Y-Wing was initially a Clone Wars-era bomber and predecessor to the B-Wing. But there is a difference inasmuch as that "historically" the late variant Y-Wings were useful and were used even after the declaration of the New Republic whereas the ARC-170 is totally outmoded by the Battle of Yavin.

And the Z-95 wasn't outmoded? Trick question: it was... Keep in mind that the Z-95 design being implemented by Fantasy Flight is the ORIGINAL Z-95 design developed prior to the Battle of Naboo, and not the Clone Z-95 which was larger, faster, more maneuverable, and better armed.

In other words, low stats and low cost do not accurately simulate the ARC-170s place in the GCW. Not being in the game accurately simulates the ARC-170s place in the GCW.

Disagreed on both counts (especially when you consider that an ARC-170 would be costed higher once you add back in all the upgrades that are needed to represent the basic ARC-170 shown on screen), and again, if E-wings and Z-95s can be in the game (representing ships that entered service well before and well after the start/end dates of the GCW), then ARC-170s can too.

I think you've got that kind of backwards. The point cost is a direct product of the stats, and the stats were designed with the intent of producing a ship that would be balanced at a cheap point cost. I imagine the way it worked in FFG's design and playtesting was that they realized early on that the TIE fighter stat line would work well as a cheap ship, and then fine-tuned the point cost once the stats were set. After all, if TIE fighters had cost 11 points or 13 points it would have had very little impact on the "fluff" concept (it's still a cheap swarm ship), but it would have had a massive impact on balance.

This I agree with.

It's not really a matter of "pureness," or even a matter of disliking the prequels. Rather, it is a matter of design as I explained at great length above.

Which would be great if you were part of the design team and had any knowledge whatsoever as to what their design intent was and where they were going with all this.

But that's just bad design. You could theoretically make a prequel ship with 1/1/1/0 stats at 5 points each and it would accurately represent its usefulness in the setting of X-Wing (obsolete garbage) and likely tactics (swarm with enough of them to compensate for its inferiority), but is anyone going to be very happy to see their favorite ship, which was pretty cool in the prequel era, reduced to being obsolete garbage that even academy pilots laugh at? You'd have to break the game into "eras" so that the older ships can be satisfying without being un-fluffy.

Personally I disagree, I think the 'inferiority' of prequel era vessels, etc. is vastly overstated (especially given the Rebels penchant for upgrading older designs with new weapons, engines, avionics, etc. to keep them space-worthy).

Because that's what the fluff says. The Z-95, despite upgrades over time, is a barely-adequate fighter that sees little use outside of pirates and rebel units that can't get better ships. And by the end of the rebellion era it has pretty much lost that role, with only the most desperate groups even attempting to use them. And all of the other ships are gone. Does it makes sense in a setting with 10,000 years of relative stability in technology? Not really, but that's what the fluff says.

It doesn't make sense at all, and I think its more a function of production than it is of technology. If the manufacturer stops producing the ship, and you can't get any parts, then its obsolete via availability rather than via technology, it happens in the real world too. Besides that, the Z-95 was still kicking around decades after the Battle of Endor, so it clearly wasn't that 'inferior'. And as I pointed out before, the TIE Fighter is technically an inferior design to any of the Clone Wars era ships (and that was done intentionally mind you, with the mindset of quantity over quality), yet they're the main fighter of the Empire (at least until Interceptors had completely outphased them).

Let's not get hung up on this "10,000 years of stable technology" red herring. That is an assumption based more on visual design elements than in-universe discussion of science and engineering.

The issue is so much more simple than that, anyway. Go watch the Original Trilogy. Note that there are no N-1s, no ARC-170s, no droid starfighters, etc, etc, etc, in the major battles of the GCW. We know why this is. N-1s were outmoded by ARC-170s. ARC-170s were outmoded by X-Wings.

For those who want an ARC-170 in X-Wing, please suggest some stats and provide justification for those stats as to GCW-era fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@chaos0xomega:

The New Republic was declared after the Battle of Endor. The GCW dragged on for a long time after. This is the subject of the X-Wing novels. It is also the subject of Dark Empire, where the E-Wing appears.

The brand identity of this game is obvious and you don't have to be on the design team to understand what it is. I'm sorry if you wish it were something else. Maybe there will be a Clone Wars game one day. I hope so and, like I said, I hope it is in a smaller scale so we can have CW-era appropriate battles with huge squadrons and capital ships.

 Manchu wrote:
Let's not get hung up on this "10,000 years of stable technology" red herring. That is an assumption based more on visual design elements than in-universe discussion of science and engineering.

False. It would be one thing if a starfighter during the GCW time period had distinctly more powerful weapons or shields or armor or engines or whathave than during the Old Republic era, but they are still utilizing the same basic technologies (lasers, blasters, durasteel, etc.) despite the 10,000 year time difference, and they are consistently shown to operate in the same 'performance envelope' (for lack of a better term). Placed side by side, given the known (and calculated) tech-specs of the various vehicles, the differences between a Sith Wars era starfighter and a GCW era starfighter are pretty much miniscule, and if anything I would argue that 'progression' is more an issue of 'preference' with the emphasis on different design elements varying over time rather than true changes in performance. For example, if you compare the MGLT (top speed in space) of various starfighters over time, you would find that there isn't any real difference in speed from a fighter produced 4000BBY or 40ABY, yes there are some slight variations (which is a given), but its not an issue of technology, but of design, unlike the real world where a ww1 era biplane is completely outmatched by a modern jet fighter. The same is true of acceleration. Weapons wise, they're still using blasters, lasers, turbolasers, and ion weapons over that entire period of time, and likewise they were slinging concussion missiles and proton torpedos 4000bby just like they are 40aby.

theforce.net says it best I think:
"Objectively, the galaxy cannot have experienced major technological change at any time in recent millennia. The whole galaxy was governed in essentially the same way for over a thousand generations. The occurrence of vast periods of political stasis requires stasis in all of the fields of life that can affect politics. If any change of technology had been sustained and accumulated, it would have eventually altered the dynamics of the civilisation to the point where pre-existing institutions such as the Galactic Republic (and perhaps even the Jedi) would have been rendered irrelevent.

On a storytelling level, George Lucas did not set out to tell a tale about machines and technical developments. His stories are intended to be more eternal than the hundreds of factory-produced TV SF shows where the plot depends on the provision of some kind of novelty device.

None of the spin-off novels, comics or games published to date shows any empirical evidence of technological progress in the mainstream galactic society of the STAR WARS universe. On the fringes of the civilisation there are some exotic non-human societies that are experiencing technological change while they are adjusting towards a different status within or outside the supra-civilisation, by either ascending from a primitive state or else falling into decadence. However these isolated exceptions are not part of the technical mainstream. The only variations of galactic technology are due to either:

cyclic variations of fashion, as needs and preferences change so as to favour one kind of device over another, to accomplish the same task (eg. the use of hyperspace beacons in a peaceful era vs the autonomy of individual ships' navicomputers in unstable centuries);
changes of scale (eg. the Death Star, which is not fundamentally different from ancient blaster weapons, and which is only remarkable as an expression of concentrated political willpower in a militaristic regime).

There are no more "advanced" technologies, starships or products in the mainstream STAR WARS universe (excepting pre-interstellar primitive societies and fringe groups that are isolated from the galactic community). It appears to be simply a matter of balancing technical tradeoffs of competing items in a strategic environment that oscillates sluggishly about a mean galactic level over the centuries. In some eras, a highly capable device is developed and manufactured, and its makers may consider it incrementally superior. In a different generation, those capabilities would be downplayed and atrophied as other requirements come to the fore. Elegance of design or economy of manufacture are examples of utilitarian values that sometimes take precedence over attributes such as speed or firepower. Lucafilm designers for Episode I have stated versions of this principle in numerous printed interviews, especially with regard to the technical aesthetics of the Naboo culture."

The issue is so much more simple than that, anyway. Go watch the Original Trilogy. Note that there are no N-1s, no ARC-170s, no droid starfighters, etc, etc, etc, in the major battles of the GCW. We know why this is. N-1s were outmoded by ARC-170s. ARC-170s were outmoded by X-Wings.

Except there ARE N-1s in the original trilogy... watch the latest remaster of Return of the Jedi, they overfly Thebes to celebrate the destruction of the Death Star II. PS - N-1s weren't outmoded by ARC-170s at all. N-1s were a design indigenous to Naboo and pretty much only used by Naboo. ARC-170s were outmoded by Clone Z-95s (which is odd since it was effectively outmoded by a design based on one that it itself had previously replaced), which were in turn outmoded by X-wings. Given that the Z-95 (the version that the ARC-170 replaced) is being introduced into the game, despite the presence of the X-wing (which in turn replaced the Z-95/ARC-170/Clone Z-95), then clearly the argument that "x outmoded y" is not a valid one to justify inclusion/exclusion of any one ship from the game.

There also weren't any TIE Advanced (Vaders prototype doesn't count), there was only one YT-1300, only one Firespray-31, no HWK-290, no E-wing, and no TIE Defender, so your argument here is invalid by the virtue of the fact that things not shown in film are present in game. We know from EU sources that there were ARC-170s in use during the Galactic Civil War by both sides of the conflict. They might not have been front line, they might not have been common, but you know what? Neither were Z-95s.

For those who want an ARC-170 in X-Wing, please suggest some stats and provide justification for those stats as to GCW-era fluff.

I don't stat, I'm not a game developer, and I don't pretend to speak for them either.

The New Republic was declared after the Battle of Endor. The GCW dragged on for a long time after. This is the subject of the X-Wing novels. It is also the subject of Dark Empire, where the E-Wing appears.

You're right on timeline, as the Galactic Civil War didn't end until 19ABY, I was trying to communicate the concept of the Rebellion Era, but confused it with "Galactic Civil War era". Regardless, the Z-95 was in use as of 32BBY and the E-Wing entered service 9ABY. Episodes 4-6 occur between 0BBY and 4ABY. Clearly designs from at least 32 years prior are still usable as of 0BBY (and in fact were still in use during the Second Galactic Civil War at 40ABY), so clearly the prequel technology is not outmoded by original trilogy tech.

The brand identity of this game is obvious and you don't have to be on the design team to understand what it is.

Uh huh. So you knew from the day they first released the core set the exact direction this game would take huh? Because the 'identity' of the game when it was first released was "X-wings versus TIE Fighters". After Wave 1 and Wave 2 it looked like the 'identity' of the game was the original trilogy. As of the Wave 3 it looked like it was events set in and around the Original Trilogy including expanded universe sources. With the epic/cinematic wave of the big ships, they have shown that this is clearly more than just a starfighter game (which is perhaps the BIGGEST change in the games identity to date, and not one that you could have predicted...). With Wave 4, it has become clear, at least to me, that the scope of this game is well outside of just the film period. The brand identity is very clearly 'Star Wars', and beyond that, you really CANNOT say what it is, because with each successive wave that identity has expanded to encompass more and more of the setting... but thats irrelevant, because even if it was just 'ships used during the galactic civil war' numerous prequel trilogy designs would still qualify.

I'm sorry if you wish it were something else.

I'm sorry you think that it won't be.

Maybe there will be a Clone Wars game one day. I hope so and, like I said, I hope it is in a smaller scale so we can have CW-era appropriate battles with huge squadrons and capital ships.

I very highly doubt that. FFG is a business, and a savvy one that understands how that would impact their bottom line negatively, but I think its cute that you're trying to take this high horse omniscient stance on the topic instead of approaching it as any sane person would with the understanding that the introduction of some prequel era vessels is both possible and plausible within the current 'brand identity' of the game.

The "world" we're talking about is not an alternative universe but rather (1) a setting for a story and (2) marketable IP. The supposed consistency of technology does in fact have an actual cause: creating and managing brand with visual cues. Rationalization (especially retconning) from an in-universe perspective is itself an aspect of brand management and is always at the service of brand management more generally.

That, and only that, is the reason you see a N-1 in the "specialer edition." (Plus it's just flying parade duty.)

FFG has established a brand identity for the X-Wing Miniatures Game that is apparent from the name or at the very least the pattern of releases. Just as the larger IP is managed by "era" so too has FFG decided to develop a game that simulates a certain era of the SW franchise (note: era of franchise, not era of in-universe history). The game included elements from certain portions of the EU from the beginning. Nothing from any wave of releases contradicts that, including the big ships.

The Z-95 is included in the game because it is from just such an EU element (namely, the Zahn trilogy and X-Wing v. TIE Fighter video games). Even so, its stats reflect it being an older model that cannot keep up with the X-Wing ... as per the EU sources FFG is simulating.

 Manchu wrote:
The "world" we're talking about is not an alternative universe but rather (1) a setting for a story and (2) marketable IP. The supposed consistency of technology does in fact have an actual cause: creating and managing brand with visual cues. Rationalization (especially retconning) from an in-universe perspective is itself an aspect of brand management and is always at the service of brand management.

That, and only that, is the reason you see a N-1 in the "specialer edition."

That is all irrelevant, however true it might be. The real world marketing and management that went into the decision to depict a Naboo starfighter is irrelevant to the context of the in-universe explanation for their presence in the film. That explanation is that N-1s were still in some form of use.

FFG has established a brand identity for the X-Wing Miniatures Game that is apparent from the name or at the very least the pattern of releases. Just as the larger IP is managed by "era" so too has FFG decided to develop a game that simulates a certain era of the SW franchise (note: era of franchise, not era of in-universe history). The game included elements from certain portions of the EU from the beginning. Nothing from any wave of releases contradicts that, including the big ships.

I disagree with you entirely. They have established the brand identity of the game as "Star Wars space combat" and haven't gone any further than that. Their release pattern has shown a trend of expanding the scope of the game rather than maintaining it.

The Z-95 is included in the game because it is from just such an EU element (namely, the Zahn trilogy and X-Wing v. TIE Fighter video games). Even so, its stats reflect it being an older model that cannot keep up with the X-Wing ... as per the EU sources FFG is simulating.

Well, considering some of the other options that they could have gone with for the Rebels, I would take the release of both the Z-95 and the E-wing to indicate that both older and newer designs are going to be implemented.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The real world marketing and management that went into the decision to depict a Naboo starfighter is irrelevant to the context of the in-universe explanation for their presence in the film.

The subject of this discussion is the real world marketing and management that goes into a miniatures game product line.

Their release pattern has shown a trend of expanding the scope of the game rather than maintaining it.

No, the same franchise sources used in Wave 1 are used through Wave 4. The only thing close to an exception is Dark Forces; but even that is a GCW-era story. I also wouldn't be surprised to see the Outrider from the Shadows of the Empire multi-media project or the Rogue Shadow from the Force Unleashed multi-media project.

I would take the release of both the Z-95 and the E-wing to indicate that both older and newer designs are going to be implemented.

Agreed in so much as the Z-95 and E-Wing are themselves the older and newer designs to be implemented.

Another possible source for new-to-the-game ships could be the upcoming GCW-era show SW Rebels.

chaos0xomega wrote:
It would be one thing if a starfighter during the GCW time period had distinctly more powerful weapons or shields or armor or engines or whathave than during the Old Republic era, but they are still utilizing the same basic technologies (lasers, blasters, durasteel, etc.) despite the 10,000 year time difference

This is like saying that modern fighters and WWI fighters both use "wings" and "engines" and carry "guns", therefore there shouldn't be much of a gap between them.

and they are consistently shown to operate in the same 'performance envelope' (for lack of a better term)

You can claim this all you want, but it is indisputably false. Canon sources explicitly state that technology advanced significantly over the time period in question. The Z-95 started as a decent fighter, and by the rebellion era it was an obsolete relic that was only used by people who couldn't get anything better. The X-wing was the best fighter you could get when it was first introduced early in the rebellion era, but by the late-EU era it required a major redesign to remain relevant. Same thing with capital ships, prequel-era stuff remained in service because capital ships are too valuable to scrap when you're a criminal or terrorist group, but they were explicitly second-tier ships.

Except there ARE N-1s in the original trilogy... watch the latest remaster of Return of the Jedi, they overfly Thebes to celebrate the destruction of the Death Star II.

But you're talking about a fighter that was designed for looks over function and primarily used for police and ceremonial duties even when it was new. It's not at all unreasonable to think that the fighters continued to be used in that role because how good they were was irrelevant. After all, why buy new fighters when you rarely use them for anything besides fancy parades? And that's exactly what we see them doing: more parade duty, not real combat.

They might not have been front line, they might not have been common, but you know what? Neither were Z-95s.

You can't follow the Z-95 example for two reasons:

1) The design space is too limited. The Z-95 already fills the role of "cheap rebel fighter", and the academy pilot does the same on the imperial side. There just isn't much room to add a bunch of low-tier ships to the game without making them boring Z-95 clones that nobody cares about.

2) The Z-95 only works as an "obsolete relic" fighter because that's how it has been described from the moment it was first mentioned, and everyone sees it that way. That doesn't work for something like the ARC-170, where people thought it was cool in the prequel movies and would expect it to be an equally powerful ship in the X-Wing game. Making it a low-tier "well, I guess I've got 15 points left, might as well bring another ship instead of putting missiles on everyone" ship is just going to disappoint everyone who likes the ship, and it would be better to leave it out entirely.

I don't stat, I'm not a game developer, and I don't pretend to speak for them either.

So if you can't come up with stats then how can you be so sure that it's possible to come up with balanced and interesting stats that don't violate the fluff?

Clearly designs from at least 32 years prior are still usable as of 0BBY (and in fact were still in use during the Second Galactic Civil War at 40ABY), so clearly the prequel technology is not outmoded by original trilogy tech.

Except that's not true. The Z-95 is first mentioned, in 2BBY, as an obsolete ship that struggles to compete with modern fighters. The pirate group flying the Z-95s only uses them because they can't do any better. And this description returns every time we see Z-95s in the rebellion era: newer ships have made them obsolete, and nobody will use them if they have a choice. The Z-95 is just barely able to avoid becoming so obsolete that it's better to have no fighter at all than to commit suicide by attempting to fly one.

Well, considering some of the other options that they could have gone with for the Rebels, I would take the release of both the Z-95 and the E-wing to indicate that both older and newer designs are going to be implemented.

What other options could they have used? The Z-95 is a popular ship that had to be included in the game at some point, and a natural fit for the "rebel academy pilot" role. The E-wing isn't as much of a "must include" ship, but it's a pretty obvious choice for the "rebel super ship" role once you do the inevitable and include the TIE defender that everyone expects to have. These were both ships you could have predicted as soon as the game demonstrated enough success to justify creating additional waves of ships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
The Z-95 is included in the game because it is from just such an EU element (namely, the Zahn trilogy and X-Wing v. TIE Fighter video games).

Just a minor nitpick: the Z-95 was first mentioned in 1979, in one of the old Han Solo books, and its design is taken straight from the original concept art for the X-wing. So yeah, plenty of history there, and it would have been pretty shocking if we didn't get a Z-95 model eventually.

I'm afraid that reads to me like you are justifying the release of the z95, because they've released it. Your justifications for it work just as well for other old ships.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what ffg do!

 Eggs wrote:
I'm afraid that reads to me like you are justifying the release of the z95, because they've released it.

Not really. I would have said the same thing before wave 4 was announced. The Z-95 was inevitable once the game became enough of a financial success to justify new releases, and it's a ship many of us have been eagerly anticipating. Just go back and look at speculation about new releases from before the wave 4 announcement, you'll see the Z-95 at the top of the rebel list.

Your justifications for it work just as well for other old ships.

Not once the Z-95 exists. And there's no plausible situation in which FFG makes some random prequel-era ship but not the Z-95.

Who said they would make orequel ships without the z95 like?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And funnily enough, lots of people are now speculating and anticipating other prequel era ships, just like they did with the z95...

I'm afraid your logic isn't working for me.

Peregrine - You'll note that I did address the difference between world war 1 biplanes and a modern jet fighter somewhere in my ranting. You dont see those differences in Star Wars. KOTOR era ships are shown to travel as fast, utilize the same weapon systems, etc. as their GCW counterparts. While the guns that most modern jet fighters are armed with might be based on 60 year old tech, the missiles they use tend to be a lot more recent by comparison. You dont really see that distinction in star wars.

Re: canon indicating that the z-95 is outclassed, the e-wing was also stated to be a superior design which outmoded the x-wing (until the upgraded variant you mention came about), yet we have all three ships cohabitating the same design space, and all three of them aee capable of combating one another in game to varying degrees of effectiveness. Beyond that, despite the canon saying that x outclassed y, etc. we seem to see that occuring throughout the 4000+ year period were discussing, yet we see no major technological changes to indicate this is possible. Given stated and shown performance characteristics of a KOTOR era starfighter, and extrapolating for 4000 years of development, an x-wing should be capable of traveling close to the speed of light, turning on a dime, and a single laser should be powerful enough to destroy a stardestroyer... yet what we find is that an x-wing travels as fast/slightly faster/slightly slower and turns at the same right/slightly tighter/slightly looser than a KOTOR era ship and its laser cannons have a similar/comparable power output.

If anything, I would argue that the performance differences are so minute as to be irrelevant, though the cyclical tradeoff explanation of theforce.net (to me) is the best descriptor out there.

Getting back to the ARC-170, was just flippin through one of the newer issues of Crimson Empire (set somewhere around 9-14 ABY, and lo and behold there are ARC-170s being used by the Imperial faction.

Re: stats, i could come up with them, but theres more to it than stats, there are fire arcs, upgrades, and maneuver dials, and actions, and at the end of the day im not a game designer, so its irrelevant, and as we all know homebrew rules just lead to arguments between people who think they know how to balance a game.

chaos0xomega wrote:

Re: stats, i could come up with them, but theres more to it than stats, there are fire arcs, upgrades, and maneuver dials, and actions, and at the end of the day im not a game designer, so its irrelevant, and as we all know homebrew rules just lead to arguments between people who think they know how to balance a game.

Translation: I don't want to have to put numbers to my position, because I'll have to defend them. So I'll just say you're wrong.

ARC 170, Aggresive Recon Clone Starfighter, Clone Wars Era and Onward, Preliminary Concept

Stnadard 1x1 base
Clone Ensign Pilot...Pilot Skill 2...Cost 23(+++/-)*
Firepower...3(+)/2**
Agility.............2
Hull................4
Shield............2
Action Bar: Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll(-)
Upgrades: Torpedo, Droid, Crewmember(+)

**The ARC 170 had a tail laser gunner with forward medium lasers. To make the piece representative and unique in game it is the next ship to receive a rear facing fire arc and has 3(+) firepower in the front, 2 in the back.

Dial Speed and Angle:
1- Forward(Green), Bank(Green)
2- Forward(Green), Bank, Turn(Red)
3- Forward, Bank, Turn
4- Koigran(Red)

*(+/-) These plus and minus signs indicate areas where the value or mechanic next to them could be increased, decreased, repeated, or taken away, initilay to establish the core aspects of the ship. Other changes could be made to any value of the ship after the premise is agreed on. AKA this is a starting point with a few interesting avenues earmarked for exploration

There. I played in the sand box and the Lego bin. Oh heaven forbid I've ruined your day.

Don't get wrapped up in who is and who isn't a game designer. The truth is that it was through game design that you probably learned a lot of your communication skills as a toddler. See subject 'Psychology of Play', or just go remember how you used to make up rules for tag and four-square on the playground. That isn't to say some aren't better or worse at it, or published whether they are good at it or not. But to act as though you understand the mind of another or a group of others, without having spent a considerable amount of time getting to know them in person and having nothing concealed from analysis, is arrogant, ignorant, and rude in any light, be it philosophy, religion, or yes even games. In this arena of games however, if someone makes a game or toy and sells it to you, they would be a fool to not think you would play with even the design of it at some point and have every right to do so since you did buy it after all. (I'm also looking at you, Mr G. Lucas)

KnuckleWolf wrote:
ARC 170, Aggresive Recon Clone Starfighter, Clone Wars Era and Onward, Preliminary Concept

Stnadard 1x1 base
Clone Ensign Pilot...Pilot Skill 2...Cost 23(+++/-)*
Firepower...3(+)/2**
Agility.............2
Hull................4
Shield............2
Action Bar: Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll(-)
Upgrades: Torpedo, Droid, Crewmember(+)

**The ARC 170 had a tail laser gunner with forward medium lasers. To make the piece representative and unique in game it is the next ship to receive a rear facing fire arc and has 3(+) firepower in the front, 2 in the back.

Dial Speed and Angle:
1- Forward(Green), Bank(Green)
2- Forward(Green), Bank, Turn(Red)
3- Forward, Bank, Turn
4- Koigran(Red)

*(+/-) These plus and minus signs indicate areas where the value or mechanic next to them could be increased, decreased, repeated, or taken away, initilay to establish the core aspects of the ship. Other changes could be made to any value of the ship after the premise is agreed on. AKA this is a starting point with a few interesting avenues earmarked for exploration

Okay, I'm going to compare this to the Rookie X-Wing, a Rebel Ship with similar stats and point cost.

Cons (ARC-170)
+2pt
The Speed 2 Turn is Red- If you don't buy an R2 unit
Loss of 4 straight maneuver

Gains (ARC-170)
Barrel Roll
Auxillary Firing Arc
+1H
Crew Upgrade

So it's slower, and doesn't turn as fast (unless using a Koigran), and costs slightly more to run. However, the small hit to maneuverability it took is countered by having the rear arc, and inexplicably having barrel roll. You've basically created a ship which is tougher, as-or-more maneuverable (because, R2), and dangerous from both ends. You don't even lose any flexibility by taking the R2 unit, because you get crew (which is, IMO, better).

Assuming that you put an R2 on the ARC, and a Hull upgrade on the X-wing, they cost the same, and have the same stats. The only difference is that the ARC trades the 4--> maneuver for an Auxillary Firing arc and barrel roll. You swap your astromech slot for a crew slot-lets call this an even trade. Considering that the 4-> maneuver is rarely used, I would say that you have created an X-wing+. It has the same niche (that of a mid-cost space superiority Jack-of-all-stats fighter), but can fill it better with greater maneuverability (Green 2 maneuvers, Barrel Roll), firepower (rear Arc), and Flexability (more crew options than Astromechs). While I think that it would be great for a Clone-Wars Setting (if you dropped the Barrel Roll), I would hate to see this thing in X-wing.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
ARC 170, Aggresive Recon Clone Starfighter, Clone Wars Era and Onward, Preliminary Concept

This is completely broken. A point cost of 23 points suggests that it's a better fighter than every existing rebel ship, and the stats support that cost. Other than the red turns, which are easily negated by spending a point for an R2, you've created a ship that is superior to the X-wing in every way. This blatantly contradicts the fluff that the X-wing was the superior ship and the ARC 170 was a low-tier ship like the Z-95 at best. If you're going to include it in X-Wing without creating a separate prequel-era game that is not compatible with the main game then you need to balance it against the Z-95's stats and point cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Peregrine - You'll note that I did address the difference between world war 1 biplanes and a modern jet fighter somewhere in my ranting. You dont see those differences in Star Wars. KOTOR era ships are shown to travel as fast, utilize the same weapon systems, etc. as their GCW counterparts. While the guns that most modern jet fighters are armed with might be based on 60 year old tech, the missiles they use tend to be a lot more recent by comparison. You dont really see that distinction in star wars.

Really? It seems like you're just declaring that "it also shoots a pretty laser beam" means "it's the same weapon with the same firepower".

Or, let's even assume that the fundamental technology didn't change at all, and it's just incremental improvements. A real-world F-22 uses the same technology as a Vietnam-era fighter: jet engines, guided missiles, etc. However, the F-22 will slaughter any number of Vietnam-era fighters, and the only limit on how many it can kill is the fact that it has limited ammunition before it has to disengage and rearm.

Re: canon indicating that the z-95 is outclassed, the e-wing was also stated to be a superior design which outmoded the x-wing (until the upgraded variant you mention came about), yet we have all three ships cohabitating the same design space, and all three of them aee capable of combating one another in game to varying degrees of effectiveness.

Yes, and, as I've said, this works because those ships were the first to claim that design space. The E-wing occupies the "40-50 point super ship" role, while the Z-95 occupies the "cheap and spammable" role. However, you can't really add another "Z-95" equivalent because there isn't any design space for it. All that really matters in the Z-95's role is the cost: 12 points. A prequel-era ship that has Z-95 stats except for 11 points and only one shield HP would be a failure because it doesn't add anything interesting to the game.

Beyond that, despite the canon saying that x outclassed y, etc. we seem to see that occuring throughout the 4000+ year period were discussing, yet we see no major technological changes to indicate this is possible.

Your opinion here is irrelevant, because this is not something that is up for debate. Whether you like it or not canon sources are perfectly clear that technological changes did happen and prequel-era ships did become obsolete by the rebellion era. And I don't think that FFG should re-write the background stories so that you can have prequel-era toys.

Re: stats, i could come up with them, but theres more to it than stats, there are fire arcs, upgrades, and maneuver dials, and actions, and at the end of the day im not a game designer, so its irrelevant, and as we all know homebrew rules just lead to arguments between people who think they know how to balance a game.

"Stats" includes firing arcs, maneuver dials, etc. And your inability to show any means that you are not justified in claiming that it can be done.

I suspect we'll see a bunch of stuff in the rebels series that will render this kind of argument pointless. Not to mention the new films.

All the arguments assume a static design space, but the design space isn't static. With each wave they introduce new mechanics and new abilities. I personally think they'll go in both directions - the z95 shows they are happy to introduce 'obsolete garbage' and the e wing and tie defender shows they are happy to introduce the 'super ship'.

I don't necessarily agree that introducing ships with almost identical stat lines is a bad thing - gives people a choice and sells more units, which in turn keeps the game alive. If you look at other games, there is often multiple options that fulfil the same role. As winterdyne says above, the new stuff should generate some new options too.

As long as the waves of new shinies keep coming, I'll be happy. Just wish they would make them easier to get hold of...

Eggs wrote:
I don't necessarily agree that introducing ships with almost identical stat lines is a bad thing - gives people a choice and sells more units, which in turn keeps the game alive. If you look at other games, there is often multiple options that fulfil the same role. As winterdyne says above, the new stuff should generate some new options too.

Thing is, all massive niche overlap results in is extra development resources being spent, for little reward. Players aren't going to run out and get the ARC if it occupies the same role as the X-wing. Instead, they will decide if they need more medium-role fighters in their list. If so, they will decide if they will rather get ARC's or X's. Without a compelling rules reason, some players will be happy to just get one, or buy fewer of one. They are competing with each other for FF's the same slice of Pie. FF would therefore not want to do this at all.

Whereas other people will go 'cool. New ships. I'll have four of them as well.'


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The imperial aces box is just existing ships with a different coat of paint and new cards. Surely your argument would apply there too? Ffg seem to think differently though, and I suspect sales will too.

 Eggs wrote:
All the arguments assume a static design space, but the design space isn't static.

But it is finite. There's a limited number of potential ship designs available, and each new release closes off some of that design space (either by using it directly or creating something that conflicts with it). The only question is how many new ships FFG can produce, not whether they can keep doing it forever.

I personally think they'll go in both directions - the z95 shows they are happy to introduce 'obsolete garbage' and the e wing and tie defender shows they are happy to introduce the 'super ship'.

Yes, but those were two roles that we all knew about and were waiting to see ships for. Now that those ships have been released those concepts are severely limited for future releases. There just isn't much room for designs outside of the 20-25 point range (for a generic pilot with typical upgrades), and now huge blocks of it have been spent. There will be severe diminishing returns on any future "obsolete garbage" or "super ship" releases, and adding enough ships on the low end to cover the prequel era would be well past the point where it's doing more harm than good.

I don't necessarily agree that introducing ships with almost identical stat lines is a bad thing - gives people a choice and sells more units, which in turn keeps the game alive. If you look at other games, there is often multiple options that fulfil the same role.

Yes, other game companies are happy to keep putting out redundant garbage just for the sake of getting you to buy new models. But that's not good game design. You can have multiple options in a particular role, but they have to be different options if you want them to be interesting. Releasing an ARC-170 that is just a Z-95 with a different model doesn't give you two legitimate options, it gives you one legitimate option with an aesthetic choice, like choosing whether to paint your tactical squad blue or yellow. Sure, hardcore collectors will buy it just to have everything, but the gamers won't be very excited about the new ship and will start to lose interest.

 Eggs wrote:
Whereas other people will go 'cool. New ships. I'll have four of them as well.'

If you design your game around satisfying the obsessive collectors who buy everything with the "Star Wars" name on the box you're going to have a bad game for everyone else. That kind of attitude encourages you to focus on maximizing the number of new releases and spend less time making sure you're adding good content to the game. The end result is what GW is doing with 40k: lots of new stuff to buy, but the game itself is a broken mess. And many GW's customers are voting with their wallets and abandoning the game.

The imperial aces box is just existing ships with a different coat of paint and new cards. Surely your argument would apply there too?

No, for two reasons:

1) It's a low-investment product for FFG. Repaints are cheap to manufacture, and cards and tokens aren't any more expensive than printing the existing TIE interceptor stuff. A new ship, on the other hand, has much higher standards to meet before it can be financially justified.

2) It doesn't attempt to be a different ship. Imperial Aces is clearly TIE interceptors with some extra cards that could have been in the original TIE interceptor release, so it doesn't have the same design space issues as trying to release an entirely new ship that has to feel like a new ship. When you have different pilots and upgrades for the same ship you expect them to be subtle variations on the same general concept. When you have two different ships you expect them to be different, like how all of the existing ships work. Releasing an ARC-170 that is blatantly a Z-95 with a different pilot ability is going to be a major disappointment.

Sticking with the central conceit that this would be a game still set during the Rebellion era, and not branching off into Clone War, Old Republic or even NJO/Legacy and beyond, I'd probably go:

Imperials:
Assault Gunboat (a generalist Imperial fighter craft with shields!)
Assault Missile Boat (a dedicated super-bomber that matches against the K-Wing)

Rebels:
R-41 Starchaser (acts as a sister ship to the Z-95, in that it's a cheap lower class star fighter, but has better access to things like Ion Cannons)
K-Wing (a dedicated super-bomber that matches against the Gunboat)

And for new capital ships, fitting within the scope of the game:
Lancer Frigate
DP20 Frigate (aka the Corellian Gunship)

Both fill roughly the same role, and one is Imperial the other is Rebel.


And alternative to the Missile Gunboat would be the Scimitar Assault Bomber, but it'd be nice to give the Assault Gunboat something that matches it aesthetically so it doesn't stick out too much.

 Peregrine wrote:
1) It's a low-investment product for FFG. Repaints are cheap to manufacture, and cards and tokens aren't any more expensive than printing the existing TIE interceptor stuff. A new ship, on the other hand, has much higher standards to meet before it can be financially justified.

To be fair Peregrine, given X-Wing's overwhelming success and the fact that they consistently sell out of everything, I'd say they could financially justify Jar Jar in a space suit armed with a blaster and a jetpack a new release.

ARC 170, Aggresive Recon Clone Starfighter, Clone Wars Era and Onward, Preliminary Concept Mk II

Stnadard 1x1 base
Clone Ensign Pilot...Pilot Skill 2...Cost 25(++/-, Used 2 pluses and added one for future use)*
Firepower...3(+)/2**
Agility.............2
Hull................4
Shield............2
Action Bar: Focus, Target Lock, (+, Used the minus)
Upgrades: Torpedo, Droid, Crewmember(+)

**The ARC 170 had a tail laser gunner with forward medium lasers. To make the piece representative and unique in game it is the next ship to receive a rear facing fire arc and has 3(+) firepower in the front, 2 in the back.

Dial Speed and Angle:
1- Forward(Green), Bank(Green)
2- Forward(Green), Bank, Turn(Red)
3- Forward, Bank, Turn
4- Koigran(Red)

*(+/-) These plus and minus signs indicate areas where the value or mechanic next to them could be increased, decreased, repeated, or taken away, initilay to establish the core aspects of the ship. Other changes could be made to any value of the ship after the premise is agreed on. AKA this is a starting point with a few interesting avenues earmarked for exploration SOME ARE NOW USED

Changes: Point cost eliminates this ship as a four-of squadron with upgrades but still permits a four-of list. The cinematic Barrel Roll was removed for consistency as a 'Rebel' or likely 'Republic' faction ship. Also adding a note here to the design file for possibility of a Imperial Pilot card. Dial will remain static for now. Also adding note to file to explore tail gun as an upgrade card or to use an existing one (i.e. blaster turret) with an errata to some cards to control possible combinations. New point cost will help absorb the the effect of an extra hull point while hedging out other upgrade options for the remaining 100pt limit of a standard tourney game. Guessing it functions like a awkward falcon or blade wing now haha

There. I played in the sand box and the Lego bin AGAIN! Oh heaven forbid I've ruined your day.

PS: The games design space is about as limited as they want it to be by the way, no argument one way or the other will take away the fact that people make strange decisions and that means there is always the possibility that if they want they can create entirely new ships if they g-darn well please. Any speculation about it is hearsay and arguments over it are only going to prove yourself ignorant to that dirt-simple truth. Props to the ones here who have known that all along.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
ARC 170, Aggresive Recon Clone Starfighter, Clone Wars Era and Onward, Preliminary Concept Mk II

Still broken. A ship that the X-wing replaced can not be more expensive than the X-wing because that would mean that it's a better ship.

Excellent points all around, Peregrine. To me, it really boils down to this:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes, other game companies are happy to keep putting out redundant garbage just for the sake of getting you to buy new models.

Without questioning folks who just want to buy FFG's product like they would SW Micro Machines, X-Wing is a game first and foremost.

 Peregrine wrote:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
ARC 170, Aggresive Recon Clone Starfighter, Clone Wars Era and Onward, Preliminary Concept Mk II

Still broken. A ship that the X-wing replaced can not be more expensive than the X-wing because that would mean that it's a better ship.

So if you've playtested it that much already can I see your data? Would save me a ton of time, like a TON of time. Also your logic is flawed, in fact mentioned earlier A-wings are over costed for what they do, sooooo...nice try?

Playtesting is irrelevant to his conclusion, which is that those stats seem to indicate the ARC 170 is a more advanced ship, similar to the E-Wing, than the X-Wing ... which doesn't seem right.

I think it could be rationalized in a different way; namely, that design standards actually fell during the GCW. Maybe the Rebels couldn't afford ARC 170s? But then we're in the territory of making up fluff to justify putting a Clone Wars ship in a game about the GCW.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
So if you've playtested it that much already can I see your data?

I don't need to playtest it to see that your fundamental design concept is broken because it doesn't represent the fluff. Point cost is supposed to represent how effective a ship is, and what your stats say is that the ARC-170 is worth 25 points compared to a 21 point X-wing. This means that you believe that the ARC-170 is significantly more effective than the X-wing (to justify the extra cost) and nearly at E-wing levels, but according to the fluff the X-wing is a clearly superior ship that completely replaced the obsolete ARC-170. If you want to even consider adding the ARC-170 you need to go back to the beginning and design it to be balanced at a power level and point cost roughly equal to the Z-95, a ship that is in the same position of being a prequel-era fighter that is second-tier at best in the "current" setting of the game. If your proposed ARC 170 is over 15 points (with typical upgrades included) then it's broken.

Also your logic is flawed, in fact mentioned earlier A-wings are over costed for what they do, sooooo...nice try?

Yes, and pretty much everyone who plays competitively agrees that the A-wing's point cost is a mistake. Saying "FFG made a mistake, so I'm going to deliberately repeat their mistake" is not exactly good game design.

The arc 170 might not have been retired due to in effectiveness. It might simply have been harder to maintain or manuacture without specific supplies.

winterdyne wrote:
The arc 170 might not have been retired due to in effectiveness. It might simply have been harder to maintain or manuacture without specific supplies.

That doesn't make much sense because it was a common fighter when it was new, and presumably plenty of them survived the war. If it was worth using in the rebellion era then someone would be using it, even if it means buying up a whole swarm of them and cannibalizing them for spares to keep your squadron operational. Plus, we have explicit statements that the Z-95, a fighter that was comparable to the ARC-170, is considered obsolete by the rebellion era. Even in the absence of explicit confirmation that the ARC-170 was obsolete it's a safe bet that it followed a similar path from top-tier to useless scrap.

 Peregrine wrote:

winterdyne wrote:
The arc 170 might not have been retired due to in effectiveness. It might simply have been harder to maintain or manuacture without specific supplies.

That doesn't make much sense because it was a common fighter when it was new, and presumably plenty of them survived the war. If it was worth using in the rebellion era then someone would be using it, even if it means buying up a whole swarm of them and cannibalizing them for spares to keep your squadron operational. Plus, we have explicit statements that the Z-95, a fighter that was comparable to the ARC-170, is considered obsolete by the rebellion era. Even in the absence of explicit confirmation that the ARC-170 was obsolete it's a safe bet that it followed a similar path from top-tier to useless scrap.

The X-Wing and ARC-170 do not have the same role. The Z-95 is old, and made obsolete, and replaced directly by the T-65 X-Wing. The ARC-170 had a different role, as a long range patrol and strike fighter, rather than a space superiority craft like the X-Wing. It's rather larger, and has a crew of 3 plus an astromech, which is a major drawback compared to the X-Wing. It's like trying to compare the P-51 and say the P-38 lightning.

I find the best way to compare the Z-95 is to the M4 Sherman in WW2. The Z-95 was designed to be a product, but never top of the line. Comparisons, subsitute terminology for Z-95 and Star Wars equivalents, and it works perfectly.

The M4 was quickly outpaced by other tanks in the theatre in capability to the point that it was 'obsolete' by 1944. It was still used not because it was capable to go toe to toe with the Panthers, Tigers, Tiger IIs that were on the battlefield but because it was easier to fix, already available in massive quantities and a logistical nightmare to swap out.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
ARC 170, Aggresive Recon Clone Starfighter, Clone Wars Era and Onward, Preliminary Concept

Stnadard 1x1 base
Clone Ensign Pilot...Pilot Skill 2...Cost 23(+++/-)*
Firepower...3(+)/2**
Agility.............2
Hull................4
Shield............2
Action Bar: Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll(-)
Upgrades: Torpedo, Droid, Crewmember(+)

**The ARC 170 had a tail laser gunner with forward medium lasers. To make the piece representative and unique in game it is the next ship to receive a rear facing fire arc and has 3(+) firepower in the front, 2 in the back.

Dial Speed and Angle:
1- Forward(Green), Bank(Green)
2- Forward(Green), Bank, Turn(Red)
3- Forward, Bank, Turn
4- Koigran(Red)

*(+/-) These plus and minus signs indicate areas where the value or mechanic next to them could be increased, decreased, repeated, or taken away, initilay to establish the core aspects of the ship. Other changes could be made to any value of the ship after the premise is agreed on. AKA this is a starting point with a few interesting avenues earmarked for exploration

Okay, I'm going to compare this to the Rookie X-Wing, a Rebel Ship with similar stats and point cost.

Cons (ARC-170)
+2pt
The Speed 2 Turn is Red- If you don't buy an R2 unit
Loss of 4 straight maneuver

Gains (ARC-170)
Barrel Roll
Auxillary Firing Arc
+1H
Crew Upgrade

So it's slower, and doesn't turn as fast (unless using a Koigran), and costs slightly more to run. However, the small hit to maneuverability it took is countered by having the rear arc, and inexplicably having barrel roll. You've basically created a ship which is tougher, as-or-more maneuverable (because, R2), and dangerous from both ends. You don't even lose any flexibility by taking the R2 unit, because you get crew (which is, IMO, better).

Assuming that you put an R2 on the ARC, and a Hull upgrade on the X-wing, they cost the same, and have the same stats. The only difference is that the ARC trades the 4--> maneuver for an Auxillary Firing arc and barrel roll. You swap your astromech slot for a crew slot-lets call this an even trade. Considering that the 4-> maneuver is rarely used, I would say that you have created an X-wing+. It has the same niche (that of a mid-cost space superiority Jack-of-all-stats fighter), but can fill it better with greater maneuverability (Green 2 maneuvers, Barrel Roll), firepower (rear Arc), and Flexability (more crew options than Astromechs). While I think that it would be great for a Clone-Wars Setting (if you dropped the Barrel Roll), I would hate to see this thing in X-wing.

I was thinking more like:

Firepower...4/2** (have you seen the size of those laser cannons???!?)
Agility.............1 (it strikes me as not being a very maneuverable fighter)
Hull................4 (its supposed to be very durable)
Shield............4 (the s-foils are supposed to have made the shields very efficient, possibly should be 3 since the X-wing had them as well, could go either way on this one)
Action Bar: Focus, Target Lock
Upgrades: Torpedo, Droid, Crewmember, Crewmember, System
**The ARC 170 had a tail laser gunner with forward medium lasers. To make the piece representative and unique in game it is the next ship to receive a rear facing fire arc and has 4 firepower in the front, 2 in the back.

Dial Speed and Angle:
Speed should be identical to an X-wing for straight-line flight, but decrease maneuverability across the board by one color (so less green/white maneuvers and more red)

I won't pretend to put points to it, because again, I aint about the whole balance thing, but as you can see from other posts, the exact reason I didnt want to bring stats into discussion is now being discussed in this thread.

Or, let's even assume that the fundamental technology didn't change at all, and it's just incremental improvements. A real-world F-22 uses the same technology as a Vietnam-era fighter: jet engines, guided missiles, etc. However, the F-22 will slaughter any number of Vietnam-era fighters, and the only limit on how many it can kill is the fact that it has limited ammunition before it has to disengage and rearm.

Things the F-22 has that vietnam era fighters don't:
Supercruise
AESA Radar
Thrust Vectoring
All-Aspect Stealth technology
AIM-120C/AIM-120D AMRAAM, JDAM, SDB, AIM-9X
EWAR
Datalink
Infra-red/Ultraviolet MAWS
Fly-by-wire
Glass Cockpit
etc.
etc.
etc.

Half of those things didn't exist or were only just being developed at the time of Vietnam.

Show me evidence of a technology featured on GCW era starfighters not found on one 4000 BBY and I'll concede the point to you.

Yes, and, as I've said, this works because those ships were the first to claim that design space. The E-wing occupies the "40-50 point super ship" role, while the Z-95 occupies the "cheap and spammable" role. However, you can't really add another "Z-95" equivalent because there isn't any design space for it. All that really matters in the Z-95's role is the cost: 12 points. A prequel-era ship that has Z-95 stats except for 11 points and only one shield HP would be a failure because it doesn't add anything interesting to the game.

Except that E-wings don't cost 40-50 points, the basic rookie pilot is 27, I have trouble picturing the 'standard' pilot running more than 30 or so.

Your opinion here is irrelevant, because this is not something that is up for debate. Whether you like it or not canon sources are perfectly clear that technological changes did happen and prequel-era ships did become obsolete by the rebellion era. And I don't think that FFG should re-write the background stories so that you can have prequel-era toys.

Obsolescence occurs for numerous reasons other than being technologically outmatched.

"Stats" includes firing arcs, maneuver dials, etc. And your inability to show any means that you are not justified in claiming that it can be done.

Or that I have reservations for posting them and starting an inevitable bitch-fest.

Releasing an ARC-170 that is just a Z-95 with a different model doesn't give you two legitimate options, it gives you one legitimate option with an aesthetic choice, like choosing whether to paint your tactical squad blue or yellow.

Except nobody is proposing an ARC-170 with the same stats as a Z-95.

Still broken. A ship that the X-wing replaced can not be more expensive than the X-wing because that would mean that it's a better ship.

False, it fulfills a separate role and it is only a better ship if you prioritize one set of features above another. The X-wing is still an all around better combatant than the ARC-170.

Playtesting is irrelevant to his conclusion, which is that those stats seem to indicate the ARC 170 is a more advanced ship, similar to the E-Wing, than the X-Wing ... which doesn't seem right.

WELL considering that the ARC-170 was a larger ship with 3 crew, an extremely advanced shield system, heavy laser cannons, rear mounted turret laser cannons, and a sophisticated sensor package, it seems perfectly right. The ARC-170 wasn't a front-line fighter like the X-wing, it was a scout/raider (I like to think of it as being the equivalent of real-world scout-bombers, a long range scout capable of hitting above its weight class, similar to a strike fighter, but with even less air-to-air capability), so the idea that the ARC-170 was replaced by the Z-95 Clone and later the X-wing seems entirely wrong since the starfighters performed entirely different roles on the battlefield. This, I think, goes back to the argument presented on theforce.net, 'advancement' is simply a reshifting of priorities of different design features. The Z-95/X-wing replaced the ARC-170 because the favored features that led to its design were replaced with new ones that resulted in the Z-95/X-wing (something smaller, faster, more maneuverable, and more optimally suited to combating other starfighters).

This means that you believe that the ARC-170 is significantly more effective than the X-wing (to justify the extra cost) and nearly at E-wing levels, but according to the fluff the X-wing is a clearly superior ship that completely replaced the obsolete ARC-170.

I would attribute the 'clearly superior ship' bit to be more a result of poor writing than anything else (see above, again, completely different designs that only look similar but fulfill altogether different roles). Besides that, you have to move away from the idea that more points = more effective. In a perfect world that would be correct, but every game design prioritizes certain features over others, etc. Besides that, there are a whole host of features not represented within the design space of the game. X-wings had faster hyperdrives (Class 1 vs. Class 1.5), and I believe a faster cycle time on its laser cannons (though this im not sure of). Beyond that there are things like mission-ready rates, logistics, repairs, fuel usage (if any?), operating costs, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, and pretty much everyone who plays competitively agrees that the A-wing's point cost is a mistake. Saying "FFG made a mistake, so I'm going to deliberately repeat their mistake" is not exactly good game design.

How is it a mistake?

That doesn't make much sense because it was a common fighter when it was new, and presumably plenty of them survived the war. If it was worth using in the rebellion era then someone would be using it, even if it means buying up a whole swarm of them and cannibalizing them for spares to keep your squadron operational.

It was used... by both sides during the GCW. What part of that aren't you getting. And again, see Crimson Empire III, the imperial remnant faction is using them somewhere between 9 and 14 ABY (meaning that they were still being used after the E-wing entered service).

Plus, we have explicit statements that the Z-95, a fighter that was comparable to the ARC-170, is considered obsolete by the rebellion era. Even in the absence of explicit confirmation that the ARC-170 was obsolete it's a safe bet that it followed a similar path from top-tier to useless scrap.

Not obsolete, just outclassed. You also have to take into consideration the differing environments in which they were designed. The Z-95 Headhunter predates the ARC-170 and anything we have seen in film, so on that I can't comment, but the ARC-170 and Z-95 Clone were built during the Clone Wars to fight against droid starfighters which were typically fast and maneuverable, but very fragile and lightly armed (even moreso than TIE fighters, vulture fighters fitted blaster cannons and tri-fighters only had one laser cannon (though I think they had 3 blasters as well?)).

The Clone Z-95 would have been a great combatant against these (I would argue that the ARC-170 wouldn't be as it was too slow and unmaneuverable to keep up, and had more firepower than it needed to handle any single enemy fighter though apparently it could hold its own thanks to the rear turret, which is likely the reason it was phased out for the Clone Z-95) as it was decently fast and maneuverable, packed enough of a punch to handle enemy armor/shields, and could take enough of a beating to survive return fire... fast forward a few years and the design paradigm has shifted, you have tie fighters which are pretty fast and maneuverable (though less so than droids), a good bit more survivable, and hit a lot harder than what it used to face, so its a more even match. Then you introduce the x-wing, which is faster, more maneuverable, better armed and armored (and also featured a hyperdrive) to counter the TIE, and the Z-95 won't stand much of a chance. It's all about trade-offs and whats needed against a given opponent.

Not completely unlike the Superhornet/Tomcat/Hornet relationship in the real world, mind you. The Superhornet is technically a derivative of the Hornet design (just larger and more sophisticated, they aren't really the same aircraft at all, they were just sold as such for political reasons) which replaced the Tomcat (which was technically itself a superior aircraft to the Superhornet (once it was upgraded, etc.), it just fulfilled a different set of roles and was too costly to maintain). The two (Tomcat/Superhornet) actually both coexisted for some time, before it was decided that the Tomcat was basically doctrinally obsolete and too expensive for what it was otherwise being used for.

The X-Wing and ARC-170 do not have the same role. The Z-95 is old, and made obsolete, and replaced directly by the T-65 X-Wing. The ARC-170 had a different role, as a long range patrol and strike fighter, rather than a space superiority craft like the X-Wing. It's rather larger, and has a crew of 3 plus an astromech, which is a major drawback compared to the X-Wing. It's like trying to compare the P-51 and say the P-38 lightning.

Yes, although again its important to note that there is some retconning occuring so your post isn't 100% accurate (the Z-95 came first, then the ARC-170, then the Clone Z-95, then the X-wing).

Also, just for the record:


via Hasbro, ARC-170 in Imperial coloration

Let's keep it in context:

ARC-170s were originally designed and developed by the Republic for assault and recon operations against Separatist forces. Built for endurance rather than speed and maneuverability, the heavy combat fighter/bombers were being phased out for more nimble starfighters with the rise of the new Galactic Empire.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Shadow_Squadron_(Galactic_Empire)

Plus Imperial use of ARC-170s is from the Dark Times comics, which are set 19 before the Battle of Yavin.

TBH I think the ARC-170 is a nicer looking starfighter than just about anything in the EU and if FFG made them I would buy two or three. I just think it's difficult to see where adding this in would be meaningful to the game design-wise.

Plus Imperial use of ARC-170s is from the Dark Times comics, which are set 19 before the Battle of Yavin.

What part of "Crimson Empire III" and "set 9-14 ABY" are you not understanding?

As for keeping it in context, your quote there would seem to support my view that the ARC-170 wasn't obsolete/outclassed, merely not suited to the new design paradigm (which favored speed/maneuverability over durability/firepower) that had spawned the TIE series and X-wings, etc.



Note the fighter on the right.

TBH I think the ARC-170 is a nicer looking starfighter than just about anything in the EU and if FFG made them I would buy two or three. I just think it's difficult to see where adding this in would be meaningful to the game design-wise.

WELL, it just so happens that FFG will be releasing these things, called the Corellian Corvette and Rebel Transport, kinda like... mini capital ships, maybe you heard of them ;D Ships like the ARC-170 would be an effective anti-capital fighter.

Also, is it me or is everyone like, completely ignoring 95% of the stuff I post??

Not at all. I'm reading it with interest. You're making points I want to make, but better than I could make them, so I'm just reading. You're right though. The 'limited design space' folk keep banging on about could potentially be greatly expanded by the new large ships, as well as epic and cinematic play formats. Just an example;

Say the corvette is great at range, but is vulnerable once fighters get up close and personal, something like a couple of dirt cheap n1's with low stats kept close to it could be useful for holding up attackers for a turn or two until you can bring your bigger guns to bear. Even with a 2/2 attack and defense, 1/1 hull and shields, it's enough for an escort to do its job.

Well thank you kindly!

Interesting find while perusing wikipedia: Hammerhead-class Cruisers were maintained in active Republic service for at least 3000 years (as per Leland Chee)... I'm sure they were upgraded many times over that timeframe, but that implies that the core technologies that made it possible to begin with haven't changed much.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I was thinking more like:

Dear god no. You've turned an obsolete prequel-era ship on the level of the Z-95 into an E-wing style supership. Your proposed rules aren't even remotely balanced or reasonable.

Show me evidence of a technology featured on GCW era starfighters not found on one 4000 BBY and I'll concede the point to you.

Fabritech ANq 3.6 tracking computer and IN-344-B "Sightline" holographic imaging system, whatever that is. Bet you can't find that exact same thing on a prequel-era ship.

Plus, your generous offer to concede doesn't really matter since your personal opinion that old ships "should" be relevant doesn't outweigh explicit canon statements that those ships were obsolete.

Except that E-wings don't cost 40-50 points, the basic rookie pilot is 27, I have trouble picturing the 'standard' pilot running more than 30 or so.

Base cost isn't the only thing that matters. The 27 point rookie will rarely be used because you're paying 6 points over a basic X-wing for +1 agility. You're only justified in paying that cost if you're going to make use of the E-wing's other advantages: the system upgrade and stress-causing EPTs to take advantage of its (presumably) larger number of greens. And that means spending extra points for the upgrade cards, along with even more points for a pilot with an EPT slot available. The typical E-wing as it will actually be used is probably going to be at least 35 points, and probably in the 40-45 point range.

Obsolescence occurs for numerous reasons other than being technologically outmatched.

*shrug*

Blame it on whatever you like, obsolescence is still obsolescence. Prequel-era ships all go into the same "obsolete but cheap" role as the Z-95.

Except nobody is proposing an ARC-170 with the same stats as a Z-95.

But that's what you're stuck with because of the fluff. The ARC-170 has to be a cheap second-tier ship, and the limits of what you can do with a ship in the 10-15 point range mean that you're going to end up with something very similar to the Z-95 or academy pilot. Yeah, you can have subtle differences, but none of them really matter that much when the ship's only reason to exist is the cheap point cost.

False, it fulfills a separate role and it is only a better ship if you prioritize one set of features above another. The X-wing is still an all around better combatant than the ARC-170.

No, it really isn't. A 1 point R2 negates the red maneuver drawback entirely, so what you're left with is a ship that fills the same role as the X-wing except it does it better.

WELL considering that the ARC-170 was a larger ship with 3 crew, an extremely advanced shield system, heavy laser cannons, rear mounted turret laser cannons, and a sophisticated sensor package, it seems perfectly right.

Was. Past tense. The ARC-170 was a good ship in the prequel era. In the "modern" era of the game it is obsolete garbage, which means stats on the level of the Z-95 and TIE fighter.

The ARC-170 wasn't a front-line fighter like the X-wing, it was a scout/raider (I like to think of it as being the equivalent of real-world scout-bombers, a long range scout capable of hitting above its weight class, similar to a strike fighter, but with even less air-to-air capability), so the idea that the ARC-170 was replaced by the Z-95 Clone and later the X-wing seems entirely wrong since the starfighters performed entirely different roles on the battlefield.

Which just makes your argument even worse, since the long-range strike fighter role was taken by the Y-wing, a ship that is "currently" a second-tier fighter that only sees continued service because the rebellion can't afford to replace it yet.

How is it a mistake?

It's too many points. FFG over-valued the extra actions, didn't account for the "hidden" cost of taking PTL and/or a missile, and underestimated the problem of having an ship with two attack dice that can't be swarmed properly. The A-wing is not a good example to base your balance argument on.

And again, see Crimson Empire III, the imperial remnant faction is using them somewhere between 9 and 14 ABY (meaning that they were still being used after the E-wing entered service).

So was the Z-95. You're missing the critical difference between front-line service with people that have a choice of fighter (where the ARC-170 disappeared entirely), and people who are desperate enough to take anything with an engine and working guns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Interesting find while perusing wikipedia: Hammerhead-class Cruisers were maintained in active Republic service for at least 3000 years (as per Leland Chee)... I'm sure they were upgraded many times over that timeframe, but that implies that the core technologies that made it possible to begin with haven't changed much.

Or, unlike fighters, large capital ships are so expensive to build that even obsolete designs are worth upgrading, especially if there isn't a major war that demands absolute maximum performance from them. So you'd have ships where the hull and some basic components (life support, etc, things that don't require cutting-edge technology) are 3000 years old, but all of the important systems (guns, sensors, etc) have been stripped out and replaced with modern stuff. The result is a second-tier ship, but that's fine when there isn't a major war to worry about because even second-tier capital ships are capable of dealing with pirates/rebellions/etc that don't have capital ships at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I was thinking more like:

Dear god no. You've turned an obsolete prequel-era ship on the level of the Z-95 into an E-wing style supership. Your proposed rules aren't even remotely balanced or reasonable.

Except the Z-95 and ARC-170 are absolutely nothing alike, so okay, yeah, you're 100% right *sarcasm*

Fabritech ANq 3.6 tracking computer and IN-344-B "Sightline" holographic imaging system, whatever that is. Bet you can't find that exact same thing on a prequel-era ship.

I never said the exact same thing, so that invalidates your attempt, but since the IN-344-B was used on the Y-wing which WAS a prequel era ship, your post is partially invalid on that basis alone.

Base cost isn't the only thing that matters. The 27 point rookie will rarely be used because you're paying 6 points over a basic X-wing for +1 agility. You're only justified in paying that cost if you're going to make use of the E-wing's other advantages: the system upgrade and stress-causing EPTs to take advantage of its (presumably) larger number of greens. And that means spending extra points for the upgrade cards, along with even more points for a pilot with an EPT slot available. The typical E-wing as it will actually be used is probably going to be at least 35 points, and probably in the 40-45 point range.

Am I the only person who flies naked rookie rebel ships regularly??

But that's what you're stuck with because of the fluff. The ARC-170 has to be a cheap second-tier ship, and the limits of what you can do with a ship in the 10-15 point range mean that you're going to end up with something very similar to the Z-95 or academy pilot. Yeah, you can have subtle differences, but none of them really matter that much when the ship's only reason to exist is the cheap point cost.

No, thats what YOU'RE stuck with due to your INTERPRETATION of the fluff. There is no stated reason as to why the ARC-170 is 'obsolete', only that it is, and you're ASSUMING that reason to be that its useless against modern starfighters.

No, it really isn't. A 1 point R2 negates the red maneuver drawback entirely, so what you're left with is a ship that fills the same role as the X-wing except it does it better.

Not really, the x-wing can actually defend against an attack, good luck doing that with 1 damage dice. Also note, all the red maneuvers the X-wing already has would cease to exist on the ARC-170 (under my proposal).

Was. Past tense. The ARC-170 was a good ship in the prequel era. In the "modern" era of the game it is obsolete garbage, which means stats on the level of the Z-95 and TIE fighter.

Not stated anywhere, and very much doubtful considering its stated to be more durable and more heavily armed than a Z-95.

Which just makes your argument even worse, since the long-range strike fighter role was taken by the Y-wing, a ship that is "currently" a second-tier fighter that only sees continued service because the rebellion can't afford to replace it yet.

The Y-wing started out as a bomber and was converted to starfighter/strike fighter usage after the clone wars by planetary defense forces and the rebel alliance owing to the crafts low cost and high durability. Your argument that its a second tier fighter has nothing to do with age and has everything to do with the fact that it was pressed into service in a role it was never intended to be used in (and note: it was replaced by the B-wing).

It's too many points. FFG over-valued the extra actions, didn't account for the "hidden" cost of taking PTL and/or a missile, and underestimated the problem of having an ship with two attack dice that can't be swarmed properly. The A-wing is not a good example to base your balance argument on.

Huh, I've had good success with my A-wings *shrug* although I often find myself wishing they had included the 360degree swivel on its laser cannons.

So was the Z-95. You're missing the critical difference between front-line service with people that have a choice of fighter (where the ARC-170 disappeared entirely), and people who are desperate enough to take anything with an engine and working guns.

Well, considering that (unlike the Z-95) the concept of an ARC-170 didn't exist until a few years ago, and they are slowly 'backfeeding' elements of the prequels into new canon, that remains to be seen.

Or, unlike fighters, large capital ships are so expensive to build that even obsolete designs are worth upgrading, especially if there isn't a major war that demands absolute maximum performance from them. So you'd have ships where the hull and some basic components (life support, etc, things that don't require cutting-edge technology) are 3000 years old, but all of the important systems (guns, sensors, etc) have been stripped out and replaced with modern stuff. The result is a second-tier ship, but that's fine when there isn't a major war to worry about because even second-tier capital ships are capable of dealing with pirates/rebellions/etc that don't have capital ships at all.

Unfortunately there were quite a few major wars in between 4000BBY and 1000BBY so I'm not sure thats a valid analysis, though I would otherwise err on the side of agreeing with you. Besides that, the Hammerheads weren't particularly large ships, and if anything Star Wars seems to suggest that the cost of starships isn't expensive relative to the cost of modern day surface combatants/aircraft. An A-wing for instance costs 175,000 credits and based on a few scenes in the film (Dex's diner for one) and mentions within the expanded universe, we can determine that a credit is roughly equal in value to the US dollar.

Your posts have a serious element of "I'm too stubborn to admit the possibility that I could be wrong" to them, which while you might be right, is rather silly given the context of a fictional universe which has numerous examples to support ideas differing from your own.

chaos0xomega wrote:
What part of "Crimson Empire III" and "set 9-14 ABY" are you not understanding?

Another would-be remnant warlord found a cache of old junk. Doesn't really support your points.

chaos0xomega wrote:
As for keeping it in context, your quote there would seem to support my view that the ARC-170 wasn't obsolete/outclassed, merely not suited to the new design paradigm

At this point, and this statement of yours really sums it up nicely, I don't think you know what "obsolete/outclassed" means. X-Wing is a game set during that "new design paradigm" you mention.

ARC-170s are in all likelyhood FAR better then Z-95 headhunters.Why?Well which one was around during phantom menace?(source is second or 3rd chapter of novelization)And Peregrine:If prequel era ships are "obsolete crap"..what about slave 1?You know the ship that was 20 something years old in Empire strikes back?That was piloted by the best bounty hunter in the galaxy?Last time I checked that was a very powerful ship.

If the game is purely set in that 'new design paradigm', why is the y wing, standard firespray or yt, or z 95 available? I can understand a tricked out millenium falcon being different, but you can take a standard yt etc. surely they too are all obsolete, superseded garbage?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Except the Z-95 and ARC-170 are absolutely nothing alike, so okay, yeah, you're 100% right *sarcasm*

They weren't alike. In the prequel era they were very different ships. In the "modern" era they're both obsolete junk.

Am I the only person who flies naked rookie rebel ships regularly??

No, but you're missing the point. If you're flying naked ships then you fly the X-wing or B-wing, not the E-wing. The E-wing pays a lot of points for those upgrade slots, if you aren't going to use them then you're better off taking cheaper ships.

No, thats what YOU'RE stuck with due to your INTERPRETATION of the fluff. There is no stated reason as to why the ARC-170 is 'obsolete', only that it is, and you're ASSUMING that reason to be that its useless against modern starfighters.

Sorry, but that's just how it is. It's explicit canon that the Z-95, a comparable ship to the ARC-170 in the prequel era, is obsolete in the "modern" era. It's also explicit canon that the ARC-170 saw little, if any, use in the "modern" era despite the rebellion struggling to get adequate fighters.

Not really, the x-wing can actually defend against an attack, good luck doing that with 1 damage dice. Also note, all the red maneuvers the X-wing already has would cease to exist on the ARC-170 (under my proposal).

Sigh. You do realize that HP and defense dice are interchangeable, right? This is why the B-wing is more durable than the X-wing, despite having only a single defense die. You've completely negated any drawback to the single defense die by giving your proposed ship tons of raw HP to tank with.

Also, you're missing the fact that the X-wing only has k-turns for red maneuvers.

Your argument that its a second tier fighter has nothing to do with age

Wrong again. Canon sources explicitly state that the Y-wing is obsolete because of its age.

Well, considering that (unlike the Z-95) the concept of an ARC-170 didn't exist until a few years ago, and they are slowly 'backfeeding' elements of the prequels into new canon, that remains to be seen.

That's your speculation. And it's also your speculation that this "backfeeding" will show the ARC-170 in a major role, instead of making it a Z-95 equivalent that some random pirate group uses because they can't afford better ships.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eggs wrote:
If the game is purely set in that 'new design paradigm', why is the y wing, standard firespray or yt, or z 95 available? I can understand a tricked out millenium falcon being different, but you can take a standard yt etc. surely they too are all obsolete, superseded garbage?

The Y-wing and Z-95 are second-tier fighters at best. The basic YT-1300 is a weak ship whose primary role is being a mobile asteroid and getting in everyone's way. The "basic" Firespray is a good ship, but probably represents a customized "generic bounty hunter" rather than a stock military ship.

 Da krimson barun wrote:
And Peregrine:If prequel era ships are "obsolete crap"..what about slave 1?You know the ship that was 20 something years old in Empire strikes back?That was piloted by the best bounty hunter in the galaxy?Last time I checked that was a very powerful ship.

It's also a heavily customized ship armed with the best stuff you can buy and owned by someone willing to invest tons of time and effort into tinkering with their ship to make it all work. You can't compare a single bounty hunter spending excessive resources on keeping dad's old ship running to standard fighters in military service.

Also the Z-95s and Y-Wings that appear in the game are late variants. They aren't the same as the very first ships to bear those designations. Even so, they are still outclassed by the X-Wing.

The basic yt is a weak ship, but it is in the game, and is ancient. The speculation that a basic firespray is not a basic firespray is pure speculation on your part. There is nothing in the game to say it's been modified in any way.

So, I'm going to try to come up with an ARC-170 design that isn't just a case of "I like this ship, I want to give it good stats". I'm going to actually try to create something that has it's own niche space, and which is hopefully balanced.

So we know that the ARC-170:
1) Has a 3-man crew plus astromech, including tailgunner.
2) Was considered tough, but towards the slow side of ships when it was introduced.
3) Is outdated, but still some some use during civil war era
4) Armaments: Tailgun, Large Laser Cannons, Proton Torps.

So, looking at this, I begin to think that it could function as an outdated B-wing equivalent- poor stats, but able to take upgrades in order to compete. I would represent the Tailgunner with an Auxillary Firing Arc as with the Firespray.

And so for Stats:

PS:1/3
It's an older fighter, and rather sluggish on the controls. To represent this, I give it low pilot skill.
F: 2
Undergunned, yes, but this helps keep base costs down, and limits the tailgunners power. However, the ship has upgrades to circumvent this.
A: 1
The ship was less than maneuverable compared to the Z-95, which is A: 2, so A:1 seems appropriate.
H: 4
The ARC-170 is tough. This gives it a major difference from the Z-95, while still being more fragile than the Y-wing.
S: 2
It's shields were good for its time, so should not be less than a Z-95, but are outdated, so should not be greater than an X-wing.

Actions: Target Lock, Focus
The basics. Nothing really to see here.
Upgrades: Crew, Droid, Cannon, Torpedo
Here's where the ARC-170 shines. It has a lot of upgrades for a small, cheap ship, allowing a great degree of customization.

Maneuver Dial
1) Straight, Bank
2) Straight, Bank, Turn
3) Straight, Bank, Turn
4) Straight

This maneuver dial makes some big sacrifices to mobility, which aren't canceled by a 1-point upgrade. The big part is the loss of K-turn, forcing it to rely on its tailgunner to avoid being swarmed from behind. The Red turn at 3 also helps in this regard.

Point Cost... Not knowing the Z-95's maneuver dial, I cannot give a fixed answer. I would speculate in the range of 14-16 pt for the PS1 version. At this range, it can run naked with a Heavy Laser Cannon and sit in the same point range as an X-wing, albeit with greater firepower in exchange for maneuverability. Or it could be a cheap Ion Cannon porter. Or just be an expendable ship which is tougher than a Z-95 but cheaper than a Y- or A- wing.

In terms of Faction, I think that it could fit for either one (Rebel salvage vs. Imperial mothball). It is more in line with Rebel playstyle (Tanky ships with poor maneuverability and good firepower), but would bring more to the Imperials, as they have nothing remotely like it as of yet. The Imperials could really use a mid-costed superiority fighter, which this could bring them without being an X-wing clone, whereas for the Rebels it could be either a "Weaker, cheaper B-wing" of end up competing with a Y-wing for support fire roles.

 Eggs wrote:
The basic yt is a weak ship, but it is in the game, and is ancient.

Yes, and it's a garbage ship. It has weak firepower, average maneuverability, and no defense besides having a decent pile of HP to get through before it dies. It's clearly a second-tier ship whose only purpose is blocking, much like the academy pilot or Z-95.

The speculation that a basic firespray is not a basic firespray is pure speculation on your part. There is nothing in the game to say it's been modified in any way.

Other than the fact that it's a bounty hunter flying it, and Star Wars has a pretty clear trend of bounty hunters (along with smugglers/mercenaries/etc) flying heavily modified ships.

So chaos isn't allowed to speculate but you are? Interesting outlook.

This is going round in circles, so I'll bow out here.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
1) Has a 3-man crew plus astromech, including tailgunner.

I don't think this should matter. Crew slots represent extra seats beyond the minimum required to fly the ship effectively, ships that just have multiple standard crew (like the Y-wing and its turret gunner) don't get crew slots.

So, looking at this, I begin to think that it could function as an outdated B-wing equivalent- poor stats, but able to take upgrades in order to compete.

I don't think you should be compensating at all. The ARC-170, with typical upgrades, should simply be less effective (and cheaper) than "modern" ships because that's what it was fluff-wise.

At this range, it can run naked with a Heavy Laser Cannon and sit in the same point range as an X-wing, albeit with greater firepower in exchange for maneuverability.

This is a really dangerous thing to have. HLCs are easily the most powerful weapon in the game, and I think FFG has made a deliberate choice to limit how many of them you can take by making the base cost of all cannon ships so high (21-33 points). Even the Shuttle, with its incredibly poor maneuverability, is still 21 points base. An ARC-170 with a cannon slot would allow you to take four HLCs in a list instead of 2-3 and still have points left for upgrades. Sure, you're going to have less durability than other HLC lists, but with that kind of alpha strike it isn't going to matter very much. Instead of a rough Z-95 equivalent (cheap but not very impressive) you've made a ship that makes X-wings and B-wings start to look redundant.

Or it could be a cheap Ion Cannon porter.

This causes some serious design space issues because the assault gunboat, which has a much better claim to being included in the game, wants that job. If you add your ARC-170 to the game, especially on the imperial side, you're going to have a hard time finding an interesting design for the gunboat.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eggs wrote:
So chaos isn't allowed to speculate but you are?

It's "speculation" based on clear canon trends. Pretty much every time we see a bounty hunter/smuggler/mercenary/etc with a ship it's a ship that they've heavily modified from whatever stock equipment it used to have.

 Manchu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
What part of "Crimson Empire III" and "set 9-14 ABY" are you not understanding?

Another would-be remnant warlord found a cache of old junk. Doesn't really support your points.

Well, that 'old junk' was all secretly rerouted by the Emperor to storage on a planetoid where they were upgraded, restored, and maintained, for what purpose I don't know, but I don't the Emprah would waste resources keeping 'old junk' in fighting condition when he has the resources of the entire Empire at his disposal for the production of new designs.

chaos0xomega wrote:
As for keeping it in context, your quote there would seem to support my view that the ARC-170 wasn't obsolete/outclassed, merely not suited to the new design paradigm

At this point, and this statement of yours really sums it up nicely, I don't think you know what "obsolete/outclassed" means. X-Wing is a game set during that "new design paradigm" you mention.

I'd rather them just make a new game system for the Clone Wars and Prequel Eras than anything else. I really don't want the two to be mixing.

chaos0xomega wrote:
lol, based on what metric are they obsolete junk?

On the in-universe statements of "the Z-95 is obsolete because it is old" and "the Y-wing is obsolete because it is old". Seriously, you can talk all you like about how they shouldn't be obsolete but it's indisputable fact that they were.

Saying that you only fly the E-wing with upgrades is ignoring the potential impact of its maneuver dial.

Not really. We've seen the preview which strongly suggests that it won't have a 1-turn, which is the only meaningful way a naked E-wing could have a better maneuver dial than a naked X-wing (since the X-wing has all of the other maneuvers available). It will probably have more greens than the X-wing, but if you aren't investing in upgrades that generate stress then that's not a very significant advantage, especially when the X-wing + R2 already has every 1- and 2-speed maneuver as a green.

Second, nowhere does it state ANYWHERE that the Z-95 was absolute, nor does it state that the ARC-170 was obsolete.

The word you're looking for is "obsolete". And the Z-95 has been an obsolete fighter since the very first time it was mentioned, way back in 1979. Han's first reaction to having to fly one is "lol, you guys robbed a museum?", and it's made very clear that the Z-95 is at a significant disadvantage compared to the newer fighters they're facing.

Except for how they aren't? Defense dice are a random probability of blocking the loss of an HP/Shield.

Sigh. Dice can be averaged. This is why we say that the B-wing with one defense die and eight HP is more durable than the X-wing with two defense dice and five HP. Reducing a ship to one defense die doesn't make it more fragile if you simultaneously give it tons of HP.

And your point is...? What exactly? The ARC-170 is a LARGE ship that was very well armored and not very maneuverable, didn't you say this game was all about how rules fit the fluff or some nonsense like that?

The point is that it WAS a durable ship, by prequel-era standards. However, prequel-era standards are not the same as "modern" standards, and a ship that was durable relative to other ancient relics is not necessarily durable compared to modern ships. An 8 HP ARC-170 might make sense in a prequel-era variant game where "modern" ships aren't allowed, but in the actual game it's way too much.

Cept it never says that its obsolete, and the age wasn't an issue aside from the issues relating to maintenance, which is understandable since everything has a finite lifetime and given that they went out of production at the end of the Clone Wars, the average Y-wing would have been 20 years old or so by the time of Yavin.

Sigh. Yes, it does say that the Y-wing was obsolete, over and over again. The Y-wing is obsolete because of its poor performance compared to modern fighters and is only kept in service because the rebellion isn't able to replace them with more modern ships.

I dont have to speculate that they played a major role, because the Z-95 didn't either.

You're right, they didn't. That's the whole point: ships from the prequel era are second-tier at best. You could make them all Z-95 equivalents, but then you run straight into the design space issue of having a bunch of ships competing for too few design concepts.

Game-breakingness aside, I've never been that impressed by the HLC myself, its an extra die of damage at longer range and you cant crit.

That's because you don't seem to understand that dice in X-Wing aren't linear like dice in 40k. They're opposed dice, so what matters is the difference in attack and defense dice. A 3-dice ship has way more than 50% more firepower than a 2-dice ship, and a 4-dice ship is even better. The HLC gives four dice at all ranges AND ignores the extra defense die you normally get at range 3. There's a very good reason why you're paying seven points for it, and you can't bring more than three of them in a 100-point list. Making a cheap HLC platform might not be completely game-breaking, but it's one of those things that has to be approached very carefully. And if you're going to do it then the assault gunboat should get that privilege, not an obsolete relic like the ARC-170.

text removed.

Reds8n

Wow. Thank you all for jumping in on the debate here! I have been intently reading in lurk mode since my last post and want to thank everyone for not leaving me hanging. I must say it was the most support I've ever received in this forum and was so well executed, I had nothing to post that was relevant but not said! I think I can truly walk away from this thread satisfied that the debate was won (approximately 3 strongly for, 2 neutral, 1 strongly against)*** in favor of the ARC's potential as a game piece. Despite Peregrines worthy effort to shoot it down. No pun intended. (But I really like it!) As wise men say, time will tell.

We may see it, we may not. It may be in an entirely new lineup that's strictly Clone Wars Era, it might just expand the line up for X-wing as it stands. We've no less than three separate versions of stat outs to dream from. A fascinating in depth exploration of the evolution of the fighter with a few real world comparisons to help out. the ARC was only the mascot for this debate as other possible ships could have been debated in its place. Either way I am very excited for the future of the game. And I've made some friends along the way!

P.S.: Call me crazy, but I've been typing ARC-170 so much I'm very close to just calling it an R-wing and being done with it

***Edit: Due to poster error an amendment has been made to this post in the thread below. 3-1-2 is the new tally.

I don't know if you were counting me or not but I agree with Peregrine about strongly opposing including it or any other CW-era military ship. I'm just being realistic about my own attitude toward collecting when I admit that I'd buy one or two if it did come out, as I'm sure other SW fans would. There is a big difference, however, between thinking about this as a toy collector and thinking about it as a gamer or someone interested in game design or someone interested in the success of the game's design in terms of product line development.

Whoops! Sorry my mistake, had you as neutral since you said you would in fact buy them if released. My mistake, new tally!

New tally: 3 strongly for, 1 neutral, 2 strongly against.

Note: There are a few other posters who may not be included due to a low comment count that may not be truly considered a 'vote'. Since they were transient and varied in opinion I've counted them as a 'wash'. This tally is interpretive at best, and only of the most involved posters to date at time of this post. An addendum has been made to the earlier post to note the mistake.

You can put me in the I gave up on this arguement waaaaay back there and just want to discuss the game without all the hoopla.

Sounds like you might prefer reading blogs. Hoopla is a part and parcel of forum participation.

I still really want the Outrider. But I'm concerned they won't make it because it's too similar to the YT-1300. I was also letting my mind wander around a a bit and it came back with the Idea of a new starter set that has two Z-95 Headhunters and a TIE Defender, awkward as that sounds. It would be a way to kick start the Bandit Squad pile for collectors. Give it some upgrades/pilots that aren't available in the blisters like they did last time. I would consider buying two if made.

I think there's a good chance of seeing the YT-2400. As I mentioned earlier, I think highly customizable mid-size ships are a natural way to expand the game.

I agree there is that, but I'm just a bit leery of how often we will see lists with double and triple mix and match of 1300's and 2400's together y'know? I'm just more in love with the dogfight aspect of the game. Dumb as it sounds, I've seriously only played my Falcon once so far because I just like using small, linear fire, fighter ships more. I guess I'm going to have to fix that.

I fly the Falcon pretty often and just love pushing that tank into TIEs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Attack Wing has 6 already (I believe) with more on the way. A third faction would be good, a fourth would be awesome (Yuuzhan Vong starships? There is actually enough source material to make it work).

Strongly disagree with this. One of the reasons why X-Wing is such a good game is that it has two factions with their own clear identities. Adding more factions just for the sake of having more factions, especially when they're drawn from awful EU sources, would probably blur those lines and make the game a lot less interesting. I'd much rather see FFG focus on making its two core factions as good as they can be.

I agree with timetowaste85. I dislike playing against the faction I'm playing as. I always hated it in tournaments when I'd come across another Dark Elf or Dark Eldar player... even if their list was very different from mine.

If they just had a 3rd faction, I'd probably choose X-Wing over Star Trek. I'm much more a SW fan than a ST one. However, my hatred of mirror matches overpowers my universe preference. I recognize and appreciate the game design FF is doing, but the game just doesn't interest me yet.

I'll probably eventually get some X-Wing stuff (I really like the Tie Interceptors), but it's low on my list.

While it may not be an issue for Peregrine, I think it's a common one for gaming groups. In any discussion about X-Wing for STAW, it's pretty much the main advantage everyone says STAW has. In some groups it's more important than others. I don't claim to know the best way to implement a new faction, or what the best choice would even be... it's just something I would like to see.

As you yourself mention, having multiple factions does not eliminate mirror matches. Certainly adding one more faction is not going to dramatically reduce your chances of a mirror match especially given that Imps and Rebs would likely be more popular over time than a Fringer faction.

That said, my gaming is 90% thematics and 10% competitive. If my opponent wants to fly Rebs then I will fly Imps, and vice versa, because I don't care for mirror matches purely as a matter of narrative. Mechanically, however, I think mirror matches are pretty interesting.

I am strongly against CW ships in this game.

If they released a new faction now, and if it was balanced, then everyone would hop to it. The mirroring would happen even more often. If they expand I would like to see two factions pop up. That way any ship hopping would at least survive a while longer.

Alternatively I'd like to see a different scenario for winning with one of the factions. Maybe they start with less points, but earn points for duration they survive. I'm no game designer so I'll leave it up to FFG to bring the a game.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't know if you were counting me or not but I agree with Peregrine about strongly opposing including it or any other CW-era military ship. I'm just being realistic about my own attitude toward collecting when I admit that I'd buy one or two if it did come out, as I'm sure other SW fans would. There is a big difference, however, between thinking about this as a toy collector and thinking about it as a gamer or someone interested in game design or someone interested in the success of the game's design in terms of product line development.

I would also like to ensure that I'm in the "Strongly against the ARC" category. My theoryhammer stats were simply created in an attempt to have a concept for the ship that wasn't an accidental strawman.

 Theophony wrote:
If they released a new faction now, and if it was balanced, then everyone would hop to it. The mirroring would happen even more often. If they expand I would like to see two factions pop up. That way any ship hopping would at least survive a while longer.

As long as FF can maintain the quality of models and balance of rules, then I think the more factions the better. However, figuring out what those factions could be would be hard. Especially if they are planning on keeping the timeline relatively narrow. I trust FF though. I'm a casual (meaning havn't expanded much from the starter sets) fan of both Netrunner and AGoT. I know they have very good games designers.

I'm still watching this game and may pick up 2 starter sets to play with my family... where I know I'm the only one that would want to play Empire. It looks like my friends are going for Star Trek though.

I'm not as much an expert on the EU as some of y'all seem to be, but is there a more natural third faction than the Yuuzhan Vong? And if they did expand that way (which, I think introducing a third faction is much more natural and wise than splitting the game to accommodate different eras) what kind of design space would we expect that to explore?

By the way, if you are counting votes, I am neutral/don't care about the ARC-170, but I am 100% opposed to splitting the game into eras, which would essentially kill the whole thing.

Oh man! There's an upset! I think that flipped the vote but I'm about to head out the door so I'll re-tab it fully later. I don't know what to count tomjoads vote as, I think you were tabbed as neutral initially any way bro but we might want to redefine the poll question as something less specific as just the ARC to make sure your counted. 3-1-4 is the tally now at least if not 2-1-4. Now it's getting interesting. Wish we could put it up as a poll on dakka. But I don't want to derail this from the new/revisit topic of Factions. Which could be another poll all together. I am a little sad that it flipped but hey, I'm learning a lot of us nerd/geeks just dont want to be happy in this game and many others. Gak damn we're an oppinionated bunch

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Wish we could put it up as a poll on dakka.

By all means, start a new thread with a poll. I would do it but I refuse to endure the abuse over how the question and answers are phrased.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tomjoad wrote:
I am 100% opposed to splitting the game into eras, which would essentially kill the whole thing.

How so?

 Manchu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tomjoad wrote:
I am 100% opposed to splitting the game into eras, which would essentially kill the whole thing.

How so?

At this point, at the size X-Wing currently is, it would split the player base too much. If I went to my LFGS and tried to get a game using some Interceptors and a Firespray, but the only other player there wanted a game using his Jedi Starfighters...what, no game? I'd prefer to just toss the fluff out and let CW-era ships fight evenly with GCW ships if it came to that and leave it be as a single game (I'm not saying I WANT that to happen, just that it's preferable to making them two separate games).

At some point down the road, if this keeps growing the way it has, I think adding a capital ship version of the game along the lines of BFG would make sense, and making a Warmahordes style split where all the ships CAN fight each other all using the same rules makes sense. But a split a la WHFB/WH40K where it's two distinct rules sets would be tantamount to suicide by FFG.

I totally disagree except to the extent that a CW game needs to be substantially different from X-Wing, as in completely non-interchangeable.

Well then, now I'm curious to hear your reasoning. Is it due to wanting to stay true to the fluff? Do you think the community is big enough to handle that split? Are there some circumstances/conditions that would need to occur before that happened, or would you be in favor of FFG doing that as soon as they were able?

Well, I basically think it should be a different game. In fact, I think any CW miniatures game should either focus on capital ship combat or ground combat. Fighter-based space superiority seems like more of a GCW-era thing.

Ok... Here's my list of ships and a ranking (1= least, 10=dead certainty) of how likely I feel that FFG will make them for the X-Wing Game:
*Note... I have some casual knowledge of the EU, but stopped keeping up after the number of authors bloomed out of control in the late 90's. If your favorite ship isn't listed, it's most likely because I don't know much about it and can't judge.

Assumptions:
#1. FFG will keep with the current level of tech and ships usable during the Galactic Civil War.
#2. FFG will keep the fighter level ships to scale with each other... capital ships will not be to scale, but will be the smaller ones... in their 'epic' games

Star Destroyers (of all varieties) 2
SD's are just too big to play with... even with the reduced scale of the capital ships seen so far.

Mon Calmari Cruisers 2
Same as SD's above.

Nebula B Frigates 8
These smaller frigates are roughly (very roughly) the same size as the capital ships we've seen. They are also served many roles, and thus would have interesting game play.

Vanity Ships, such as Wild Karrde, Lady Luck, or Outrider 6
While all of these are cool, they don't offer significantly different game play than the YT-1300... and are less iconic.

Bounty Hunter Ships 6
Like the Vanity ships above, they don't offer different game play than the Firespray... and are less iconic.

Arc 170 8
I'd like to imagine the Arc 170 as a 2 seat X-Wing for the Imperials... There is design space for a 2 seat fighter, or as some has said... a capitol ship killer.

Skipray Blast Boat 8
If we see an Arc 170, we should see Skipray Blast Boats as well for very much the same reasons.

Jedi Starfighter, Naboo N-1, Clone Ships, and Droid Fighters 2
I only think that these will come if they release it as a separate game or era... I don't see them playable against X-Wings and Ties.

Y-Tie Uglies 1
They are ugly. They don't open new play styles, and they are ugly.


I do see them releasing additional factions.
First... I think that it is likely that they will introduce a neutral faction... in the form of pilot cards for planetary defense forces, smugglers, and merchants who use current ship models. Z-95's, HWK-290's, YT-1300, and Firespray's are primed for that treatment. I can imagine these being introduced as repaints... like the Imperial Aces and Rebel Aces packs.

Secondly, I'd really like them to introduce the Vong forces. Not only are their ships completely different than the machines that we know, but they have battles with both the New Republic and the Imperial Remnant. There would be totally new technologies and upgrade cards. It could even introduce a different pilot mechanic. Possibly, very very cool.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only one pushing for Vong ships. Plus, bio-weapons would be fun to add in.

Add in "hit by a moon" as a damage card-the only critical that Chewie can suffer.

I'd vote for alternate large imperial ships just because while I like the firespray on a gameplay level, it's as ugly as sin so I will never own it. Some people may also feel that way about the YT, so an alternative would not be totally unwarranted on both sides.

 tomjoad wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tomjoad wrote:
I am 100% opposed to splitting the game into eras, which would essentially kill the whole thing.

How so?

At this point, at the size X-Wing currently is, it would split the player base too much. If I went to my LFGS and tried to get a game using some Interceptors and a Firespray, but the only other player there wanted a game using his Jedi Starfighters...what, no game? I'd prefer to just toss the fluff out and let CW-era ships fight evenly with GCW ships if it came to that and leave it be as a single game (I'm not saying I WANT that to happen, just that it's preferable to making them two separate games).

At some point down the road, if this keeps growing the way it has, I think adding a capital ship version of the game along the lines of BFG would make sense, and making a Warmahordes style split where all the ships CAN fight each other all using the same rules makes sense. But a split a la WHFB/WH40K where it's two distinct rules sets would be tantamount to suicide by FFG.

I watched a game of Klingons versus imperial for about three seconds, wasn't as fun as I thought. A cw versus gcw game would be the same to me.

Naboo N-1? Adding the single fighter from a single world used in a single conflict before the Clone wars even started would be kinda strange.

There are at least 4 types of Clone fighters that I can think of off the top of my head. The N-1 needn't be there.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Naboo N-1? Adding the single fighter from a single world used in a single conflict before the Clone wars even started would be kinda strange.

There are at least 4 types of Clone fighters that I can think of off the top of my head. The N-1 needn't be there.

Normally, I'd agree with you but what people remember of star-fighters in the first movie was Anakin in the N-1. If they do a Clone Wars installment (I still think it will not be fully compatible with X-Wing) we will get them.

Just thinking out loud - for adding different 'factions', they could always do themed boxes - Naboo planetary defence force, tatooine security patrol etc. a bit like the infinity sectoral boxes. Not saying I want them to go down that route, but it'd be a way of scratching that faction itch, while introducing some of the more obscure stuff.

Eeeeww, Vong, gross. Count me out. How do you even do upgrades for those? They are bio-tech right? Can I put them on an X-wing or TIE? This makes about as much sense to me as adding CW era pieces did to the rest of you. Have to say they(the Vong) are the worst thing that ever happened to the EU. Wait...You'll agree to go an entire era FORWARD in EU, but the actual canon era BACKWARD is out? I'm lost right?

I have to say I really like the Naboo ships. All of them. A little retro, sleek, nice to look at. A "Queens Gambit" box that had two N-1's would be pretty swank.

P.S. I would start a poll but A.) Can't figure out how to punch it in, haven't played with the thing yet, and B.) After this gak storm I don't see what a whole new thread is going to accomplish by putting all the same gak through the fan again. Haha

KnuckleWolf,
Here's my rational for the Vong: Both the Empire and New Republic fight them with the ships that are in game already... X-Wings, E-Wings and Tie Interceptors (ie, basically the same level of tech, which can't be said for the ships of CW).. They would help the game reach the Walkin Mandate of 4 factions in a wargame.
Would Vong ships present a problem? Yes... how do you have named characters? Everything about them would be faction specific, bio-weapons and elite pilot talents included.

I'm not against CW ships in the game... I like the idea of Arc-170's for instance. But how many of the basic Droid fighters do you want to buy to play at 100? If Academy Tie's are 12 points, wouldn't droid fighters be 6 or 8 points? How would the game play if you had 12-16 ships on your side? You lose so much maneuver room. I'm sure that I would throw up my hands in the air with frustration playing such a list. If they do go to the CW, it almost has to be with a point system that makes it non-comparable with the current game.

PS... I would totally buy your 'A Queen's Gambit" box that has two N-1's and a J-Type 327 Nubian... just for all the shiny, shiny ships.

The Vong... I have to agree with KnuckleWolf. I would rather see clone wars stuff.

Same here, it's the lesser of two evil. Happily, FFG is unlikely to do either if their current release choices are anything to go by.

True... I fully expect FFG to tap into whichever ships appear in the new trilogy. That will probably trump either CW or Vong War.

And, again, SW Rebels will be out soon.

Looks like a modified YT-2000... cool.

Take a look at those larger ships behind it (in the second pic), too. Maybe a large Imp ship for X-Wing?

@Manchu: Yeah that would be a BA large ship for the Imps. Sweet!

@Anpu-Adom: Initially I hadn't thought of the J-type being included in "Queens Gambit" but rather as a separate large(2x2) ship for $30 and Gambit would be two N-1's for $30 as well. So when I read your post this morning it stirred up a brainstorm that went on all day. I decided that you could feasibly do a package the same size as the GR-75 will be that does have the two N-1's and the J-type. Then I wondered what the point of the J-type's role would be because I remembered, it's not armed. And then it came to me, it could be a 20pt range, 2x2 ship, that has fleet support abilities just like the GR-75 and Tantive IV. Which I thought was neat. But only doable at that point if you want to dive all the way in to the CW. (Though the ship supposedly does function into the New Jedi Order, news to me) And yes...those would be some shmexy shiny ships.

And as the lightning continued to strike my brain (yes, it hurt) and I weighed the concerns discussed about factions, and appropriate power levels, how do you work in the Vong if you do at all, and on, and on, I slowly came to conclusion that the best route could still logically be to go back to the Clone Wars. And I worked on this reasoning a lot as my job leaves a lot of mental energy available haha. Hear me out. First I had to reconcile the Vong. I really don't want a faction that just sits by itself and doesn't share its content, or only a limited portion of it, with the rest of the game. That seems counter in the extreme to the modular design of X-wing. Not impossible, people would buy it, but it's not as rewarding to consumers as the rest of the game already is. From what I can tell of FFG, this seemed like a big hurdle to it's designs allure. (Plus I heard a rumor that Disney is 'throwing out' all post Ep. 6 EU content and taking the story in a new direction. Can anyone confirm? It could mean the Vong are now alt universe according to 'canon')

Then I thought OK, we want four factions, can we do that with the Vong and saaay...Scum and Villainy? We could, but even excepting Han Solo since he did join the rebellion, so we have a legitimate excuse for him, we potentially already missed that opportunity with the Slave 1/Firespray expansion which has 3 bounty hunters marching under Imperial flags. Could we work around that? Sure, not insanely difficult either, even if it is a bit inelegant to patch around it. Okay so we have that, but what ships do we use? We already used two of the most iconic so we don't have any big draw gems to attract attention. And I'm no pro but I couldn't come up with too many that were (in)famous enough save for the YT-2400 I want anyway, which also works fine as a Rebel ship. There was the Wild Karde to use for their capital ship though! So while feasible to do functionally, a Vong/Scum build in, it really wasn't doing it for me.

Well what does the alternative offer? What if CW is the direction? Well, its official movie canon for one thing. The kids who watched Ep1-3 when they were young and the animated Clone Wars installments will love it, and they are now teens or close to, so there's a sizable target market, likely more so than the Vong. I get to keep the modular co-supporting game factor, that's a plus. I do get two factions, Republic and Separatists, that have interchangeable tech and everything else. The Sep's ships likely wont have a lot of multi-faction cards, but the Republic could have Pilot content available for the already existing two factions, that's a plus. Then the kicker is tech level. Well we have already established that the Empire kept a lot of Republic inventory so there's legitimate reason to have Rebels vs. Republic though I admit that's pushing it. At least we could make up for that with Empire Pilots for the Republic ships. Then there was at least one battle in SW: Battlefront 2(PS2) with the GCW Empire fighting a Droid Army that got reactivated. And I would have to believe we could come up with a reason for some break away clones, or escaped Jedi, or heck training exercises for the Empire vs. Republic. So the match ups don't work quite as well as Vong/Scum, but certainly manageable.

How about tech level? Well I have to imagine at some point you refit your military to keep up, many have pointed this out, and then there's always that transition period to account for. So we say the reason these ships stats aren't straight ones vs. straight fives due to time difference is that look, it's the late era upgraded ARC's and Droids, with their veteran pilots/advanced programming and well refined ship knowledge and tactics, against your still new TIE's and X-wings that are still a little glitchy, and manned with freshly trained pilots, none of which are battle tested in these newfangled craft. Some have mentioned their is a tech sophistication gap. But it's not nearly as big as you think. The example of a Mustang to an F-22 doesn't fly. (No pun intended, but lol just the same!) Your better off trying to compare the F-18 to the F-22. The arguments made are as if we went from Mustangs with NO targetting computers and primitive radios all the way to on board radar guided, beyond visual range targeting. It's the same old "I build this, they counter by building that". I wager all the ships still use similar hull plating materials. Similar thrusters. For gaks sake they all can use the same astromech droids! I mean really!? I can plug my walking Intellivision into your F-35 and use it to plot hyperspace jumps!? Oh, that works? Sweeeeet!

So stat the ARC's out to be somewhere between X-wings and B-wings. Make the Droid starfighter close to a TIE with an added on missile slot for 12 points minimum like the other two swarm ships. No more than 8 ships a side is the limit, never wanted more, and I don't want to make consumers feel required to fork over the dough with out sufficient reward. Balance the game with the assumption that you are on technologically equal levels with in reason. It might not fly, but their are at least EIGHT new ships for 1x1 and 2x2 designs total if you go with the CW. Then when the new Trilogy is finished you'll have all it's content to add. I'm just saying. I respect your desire to have Vong, and I hope they make them so we all have are own little awesome toys, but if I were at the meeting to discuss X-wings future, I stand with the clones. Then I read my essay post and facepalm. I did it again. I'm so sorry.

I'll dig through the whole of that big, thoughtful post over the course of this evening, but I just want to respond about the Fringer faction. Again, this is a game about the GCW. Fringers are involved in the game because they are sucked into the conflict on one side or the other just like in the movies -- with Jabba as a notable exception as far as the movies go. (But then again, this is also why RotJ feels like two mini-movies smushed together.) Even Prince Xizor, compared to whom Jabba is nobody, would make the most sense as an Imperial faction member in this game. That doesn't mean you couldn't fly his Chiss clawcraft against Vader's TIE/x1, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
The example of a Mustang to an F-22 doesn't fly. (No pun intended, but lol just the same!) Your better off trying to compare the F-18 to the F-22.

Agreed but (steps over the strawman corpse) ...

 Peregrine wrote:
Or, let's even assume that the fundamental technology didn't change at all, and it's just incremental improvements. A real-world F-22 uses the same technology as a Vietnam-era fighter: jet engines, guided missiles, etc. However, the F-22 will slaughter any number of Vietnam-era fighters, and the only limit on how many it can kill is the fact that it has limited ammunition before it has to disengage and rearm.

Vietnam was a technologically loooong time before said F-22. Not in years but in tech years. An F-4 Phantom, the first really good example of modern fighter, versus a F-22 yeah no contest. I'm thinking the jump between Clone Wars and Rebellion is more like Desert Storm to the modern Iraq War, where the A-10 Warthog and F-117 Nighthawk, and others are used in both conflicts. That's where your incremental improvements are most similar to Star Wars speed of improvement. We had only just figured out jet propulsion when the F-4 was made. It took a couple generations to master it to the point of producing supercruise and thrust vectoring. Which are features other modern craft enjoy

Deleted post (reposted for relevance), sanitized as per mods (not that there was anything to sanitize):

 Peregrine wrote:
*snip*

Do you know what the word 'explicit' means? Because you're arguing that its explicitly stated that ships are obsolete (my bad phone auto-corrected to 'absolute' in that one case), except its nowhere stated explicitly that any of them are obsolete, its only INFERRED by comments saying that its old, disadvantaged, etc. etc. etc. None of those things equate to obsolete, they just equate to being old, disadvantaged, etc. etc. etc. You ever hear of the MiG-21bis? It's old (entered service in 1959, was produced in limited numbers until 1985), disadvantaged, outdated, etc. etc. etc. Most, if not all of its contemporaries are considered obsolete, hell in some circles the MiG-21bis is considered obsolete, yet it continues to be used, and used well. In simulated dogfighting, upgraded MiG-21s can even defeat F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s (aircraft built some 20-30 years later) with somewhat surprising ease (even when said aircraft are allowed to use their RADAR, which is the common pundit defense for why they lose, except there are numerous instances of simulated ACM where the two face eachother without such restrictions).

Sigh. Dice can be averaged. This is why we say that the B-wing with one defense die and eight HP is more durable than the X-wing with two defense dice and five HP. Reducing a ship to one defense die doesn't make it more fragile if you simultaneously give it tons of HP.

Of course it doesn't make it fragile (its anything but fragile if you give it a bunch of HP, but thats irrelevant, because I wasn't trying to make it fragile to begin with), but you can't equate the two either. Your HP is your wounds characteristic, and your Agility is like your save, unless you want to argue with me that those two things are interchangeable in 40k as well...

The point is that it WAS a durable ship, by prequel-era standards. However, prequel-era standards are not the same as "modern" standards, and a ship that was durable relative to other ancient relics is not necessarily durable compared to modern ships. An 8 HP ARC-170 might make sense in a prequel-era variant game where "modern" ships aren't allowed, but in the actual game it's way too much.

And your basis for this is what exactly? Ships are still flying around sporting laser cannons, blaster cannons, turbolasers, ion cannons, concussion missiles, and proton torpedoes. I'm sure there may have been, at one point or another, some sort of improvements to any of these weapons (in fact, some improvements are mentioned in various books but they are always stated to come as a tradeoff, like rapid-fire turbolasers in the Yuzhan Vong series which fire faster but have weaker shots, and the long range turbolasers developed afterwards that fired farther, but also had weaker shots), but not enough to render whatever came before obsolete, and we know this because of people like those on stardestroyer.net, etc. who have degrees in physics, etc. and can calculate energy requirements based on things referenced in films and books and determine that the amount of energy used by weapons and shields in Star Wars is astronomically high to begin with, and for the improvement to have the effects that would be required to render something obsolete from prequel era to sequel era would require an increase by at least an order of magnitude (in some cases several orders of magnitude) which would become problematic to say the least.

To further illustrate, the quad lasers on the millenium falcon are identical to the quad lasers used by the lancer frigate. Let me re-iterate that: IDENTICAL . Same exact model number, good old Corellian Engineering Corporation AG-2G Quad Laser Cannons. Know when the lancer frigate entered service? At the end of the Clone Wars. Know how long they were used for? They were still kicking around during the whole Yuzhan Vong situation. Know what they were really effective against? X-wings, E-wings, and Y-wings when Grand Admiral Thrawn utilized them against the New Republic in 9ABY. So yeah, weaponry from the clone wars is totally obsolete and useless against anything during the GCW, right?

And how about the Dreadnought class cruisers? Built 80 years prior to the Clone Wars, still in use after the Yuzhan Vong situation, 3 to 5 (un-upgraded) of them are stated to be capable of outgunning an Imperial Star Destroyer, despite being 1/6th the size and possessing only a fraction of the star destroyers armament, so clearly technology at least some technology from 100 years prior to the Battle of Yavin is still good as of the battle of Yavin and as of 40+ years after the battle of Yavin.

And then the Imperial I class Star Destroyers, entered service DURING the Clone Wars, still considered powerful warships up to and through the Yuzhan Vong war and in fact were still the mainstay warship of the Imperial remnant well afterwards despite the fact that they had access to newer designs such as the Turbulent-class.

Sigh. Yes, it does say that the Y-wing was obsolete, over and over again. The Y-wing is obsolete because of its poor performance compared to modern fighters and is only kept in service because the rebellion isn't able to replace them with more modern ships.

I haven't seen the word 'obsolete' used within the fiction in reference to anything, except maybe something that Luke might have said in A New Hope in reference to a droid, and perhaps in some Legacy era stuff (set 130 years after Yavin).

You're right, they didn't. That's the whole point: ships from the prequel era are second-tier at best. You could make them all Z-95 equivalents, but then you run straight into the design space issue of having a bunch of ships competing for too few design concepts.

Except they aren't at all in any way shape or form Z-95 equivalents. The Z-95 always was what it is now, it always was less powerful and less durable but faster and more maneuverable than an ARC-170, was always less powerful and less durable but faster and more maneuverable than a Y-wing, and was more durable but slower and less maneuverable than a droid tri-fighter (which is in turn basically a faster TIE fighter). From the game and the fluff we see that the Z-95 is statted appropriately relative to the Y-wing, and in turn is thus statted appropriately relative to everything else, not because it is 'old' or 'obsolete' but because thats simply the way it was designed. Given that the ARC-170 is known to be MORE powerful and MORE durable than a Z-95, and also known to be faster than a Y-wing, and also thus known to be more powerful and more durable than a TIE fighter (via the tri-fighter), how exactly are you statting it the same as a Z-95?

That's because you don't seem to understand that dice in X-Wing aren't linear like dice in 40k. They're opposed dice, so what matters is the difference in attack and defense dice. A 3-dice ship has way more than 50% more firepower than a 2-dice ship, and a 4-dice ship is even better. The HLC gives four dice at all ranges AND ignores the extra defense die you normally get at range 3. There's a very good reason why you're paying seven points for it, and you can't bring more than three of them in a 100-point list. Making a cheap HLC platform might not be completely game-breaking, but it's one of those things that has to be approached very carefully. And if you're going to do it then the assault gunboat should get that privilege, not an obsolete relic like the ARC-170.

Oh, no I understand that entirely, just that I've never seen an opponent actually able to derive any benefit from them worth 7 points, either through his own gakky rolling, or me being able to negate his roll via a variety of methods (for example: A-wing at range 3 throws four defense dice, A-wing at range 2 with an evade token throws 3 defense dice plus a guaranteed evade result if you burn the token). I'd say more than 80% of the time I've faced an HLC its done absolutely nothing to me, though there was one time I took 4 damage from it (despite rolling four defense dice and coming up with nothing).

As for this:

 Manchu wrote:
I'll dig through the whole of that big, thoughtful post over the course of this evening, but I just want to respond about the Fringer faction. Again, this is a game about the GCW. Fringers are involved in the game because they are sucked into the conflict on one side or the other just like in the movies -- with Jabba as a notable exception as far as the movies go. (But then again, this is also why RotJ feels like two mini-movies smushed together.) Even Prince Xizor, compared to whom Jabba is nobody, would make the most sense as an Imperial faction member in this game. That doesn't mean you couldn't fly his Chiss clawcraft against Vader's TIE/x1, of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
The example of a Mustang to an F-22 doesn't fly. (No pun intended, but lol just the same!) Your better off trying to compare the F-18 to the F-22.

Agreed but (steps over the strawman corpse) ...

 Peregrine wrote:
Or, let's even assume that the fundamental technology didn't change at all, and it's just incremental improvements. A real-world F-22 uses the same technology as a Vietnam-era fighter: jet engines, guided missiles, etc. However, the F-22 will slaughter any number of Vietnam-era fighters, and the only limit on how many it can kill is the fact that it has limited ammunition before it has to disengage and rearm.

I direct you to this:

Things the F-22 has that vietnam era fighters don't:
Supercruise
AESA Radar
Thrust Vectoring
All-Aspect Stealth technology
AIM-120C/AIM-120D AMRAAM, JDAM, SDB, AIM-9X
EWAR
Datalink
Infra-red/Ultraviolet MAWS
Fly-by-wire
Glass Cockpit
etc.
etc.
etc.

Half of those things didn't exist or were only just being developed at the time of Vietnam.

Show me evidence of a technology featured on GCW era starfighters not found on one 4000 BBY and I'll concede the point to you.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I direct you to this:

Saw it. Didn't buy it when you posted it, don't buy it now that you've reposted it. SW is about fantasy action adventure, not tech manuals. Fortunately, the point stands regardless. The movies make it clear that times have changed by not showing any ARC-170s or the like at any major battle of the GCW. This could change with SW Rebels (and I would bet they'd show a new variant as per the Clone Z-95) and I'd be fine with FFG adding them at that point.

Don't buy what? The nonexistence of real world technologies in use with fighters today not being in use 40 years ago?? Its kinda sorta documented fact...

In any case, thats a compromise I'm willing to agree with, though I will also caution you that the movies aren't indicative of anything, given that the at least one current ship (HWK-290) and the entirety of the oncoming wave 4 aren't depicted in the films at all (and as of the last revision GL made to the films, N-1s were incorporated, even if for only a few seconds, into Return of the Jedi), and if you are going by Expanded Universe sources, there is a slowly but steadily increasing depiction of the CW era designs being utilized in the GCW era).

chaos0xomega wrote:
Don't buy what? The nonexistence of real world technologies

No, I don't buy the existence of fictional world technologies.

chaos0xomega wrote:
though I will also caution you that the movies aren't indicative of anything

It's not that the movies don't count. They count more than anything. They are what inspired all the EU sources FFG is using after all. I obviously understand that FFG is not only using the OT content. But even the EU content cannot prove the point that the prequel ships stand a chance on the GCW-era battle-er, starfield. Again, if SW Rebs shows it as a non-mothballed Imp fighter then I'd be right there with you saying yeah put it in the game. I really like the design of the ship, although I don't think it really goes with the GCW-era design. You can tell it's supposed to be a visual bridge between the rounder, nouveau looks of the Republic and the boxy industrialism of the Empire.

Just noticed the GR-75 has a logo in the name area on its pilot card. Ominous portent of a 'Era' icon. CR-90 has one too.

However I have a new guess as to what the Imperial huge ship could be! Victory-2 Class Star Destroyer. They were the frigates for the Empire in Battlefront 2(PS2). Just a guess.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Just noticed the GR-75 has a logo in the name area on its pilot card. Ominous portent of a 'Era' icon. CR-90 has one too.

Nope. It's the icon for the "epic" variant game where big ships are allowed, the transport isn't legal in "standard" games.

However I have a new guess as to what the Imperial huge ship could be! Victory-2 Class Star Destroyer. They were the frigates for the Empire in Battlefront 2(PS2). Just a guess.

They're way too big: 900m, compared to 150m for the corvette. Unless you completely abandon any pretense of having accurate scaling that's just way too big to be practical. You can't fit them on a reasonable table, and nobody is going to buy something that expensive.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Do you know what the word 'explicit' means? Because you're arguing that its explicitly stated that ships are obsolete (my bad phone auto-corrected to 'absolute' in that one case), except its nowhere stated explicitly that any of them are obsolete, its only INFERRED by comments saying that its old, disadvantaged, etc. etc. etc.

Sigh. Please don't resort to nitpicking like this, if a character says "wow, you guys must have robbed a museum to get those Z-95s" and the out-of-character descriptions explicitly state that they're inferior to newer fighters then it's pretty clear that the book is saying "this ship is obsolete".

Most, if not all of its contemporaries are considered obsolete, hell in some circles the MiG-21bis is considered obsolete, yet it continues to be used, and used well.

And I'm sure that somewhere there are some ARC-170s still in use, long after their original users have scrapped them, by random mercenaries/pirates/etc that can't get anything better. But that's just a sign of desperation, and that design space is already occupied by the Z-95. An ARC-170 that has poor stats and a cheap point cost would be an accurate representation of its state in the "modern" era, but the game doesn't need multiple ships with such a high overlap in role.

Of course it doesn't make it fragile (its anything but fragile if you give it a bunch of HP, but thats irrelevant, because I wasn't trying to make it fragile to begin with), but you can't equate the two either. Your HP is your wounds characteristic, and your Agility is like your save, unless you want to argue with me that those two things are interchangeable in 40k as well...

That's exactly what I'm going to tell you. In 40k wounds/toughness/save are irrelevant as individual attributes, what matters is how many shots it takes to kill a model. The AP system, which X-Wing has no direct equivalent for, makes things a bit more complicated, but if, say, you're shooting bolters at a unit whether it is composed of two-wound MEQs or one-wound TEQs is pretty much irrelevant and both units have the same total durability. So your proposal for an ARC-170 that has lots of raw HP but low agility isn't an accurate representation of the ship in the "modern" era because it's just as durable as "modern" fighters.

And your basis for this is what exactly?

Explicit canon statements saying "these ships are obsolete because they are old". Seriously, you can keep repeating all your arguments about how it "shouldn't" work like that, but the people who are in charge of deciding what happens in the Star Wars setting disagree with you and their decisions are final.

Ships are still flying around sporting laser cannons, blaster cannons, turbolasers, ion cannons, concussion missiles, and proton torpedoes.

And real-world fighter jets are still flying around sporting cannons, jet engines, and guided missiles. And yet all of these things that share the same general name have been improved so much between "generations" of fighters that the best fighters of the previous era are little more than target practice for modern fighters.

So yeah, weaponry from the clone wars is totally obsolete and useless against anything during the GCW, right?

First of all, that's a blatant strawman. I didn't say that prequel-era ships are completely useless, I said they're obsolete. An obsolete ship can still be relevant, but the design space of "low-tier but cheap" fighter is already taken up by the Z-95 and academy pilot. An ARC-170 with accurate stats for the "modern" era wouldn't be some 1/0/1/0 joke ship that has to re-roll all hits when attacking, it would be in the same general range of the Z-95's 2/2/2/2 stat line. IOW, capable of fighting in the "modern" era with meaningful results, but only with superior numbers to compensate for poor individual performance. The problem is that this design space is subject to severe diminishing returns on adding more ships to it, and much of it has already been used up. It would be difficult to add even 1-2 ships from the prequel era while still making them interesting, and impossible to appropriately represent all of them.

I haven't seen the word 'obsolete' used within the fiction in reference to anything, except maybe something that Luke might have said in A New Hope in reference to a droid, and perhaps in some Legacy era stuff (set 130 years after Yavin).

Again, please stop nitpicking like this. The exact word "obsolete" doesn't have to be used if the author just describes the concept of being obsolete in different words that make it perfectly clear what they're talking about.

Oh, no I understand that entirely, just that I've never seen an opponent actually able to derive any benefit from them worth 7 points, either through his own gakky rolling, or me being able to negate his roll via a variety of methods (for example: A-wing at range 3 throws four defense dice, A-wing at range 2 with an evade token throws 3 defense dice plus a guaranteed evade result if you burn the token). I'd say more than 80% of the time I've faced an HLC its done absolutely nothing to me, though there was one time I took 4 damage from it (despite rolling four defense dice and coming up with nothing).

No, you just don't understand how X-Wing's rules and math work. You only get the bonus range 3 defense die against primary weapons, and the HLC is not a primary weapon. So already you're talking about four attack dice vs. three defense dice from the HLC, compared to three attack dice vs. four defense dice for a primary weapon shot. Then you're also ignoring the fact that if you're defending so well against the HLC then ships with 2-3 dice primary weapons are even less likely to do anything. The HLC is indisputably a powerful weapon and worth its 7 points, and adding the ability to take four of them in a list is a very dangerous thing to do.

Show me evidence of a technology featured on GCW era starfighters not found on one 4000 BBY and I'll concede the point to you.

This isn't possible because you have a ridiculous double standard where a new and superior missile type for a real-world fighter is considered new technology instead of just "guided missiles", while anything that shoots glowy energy bolts is considered a "laser cannon" just like every other laser weapon even if the gap in performance between both pairs of weapons is proportionally the same.

Probably shouldn't have spent all that time reading the arguments but I couldn't stop for some reason!

Just going to try my hand at this...

During the 'modern' era (ie. Star Wars, Empire Strikes Back, and RotJ), if the average pilot was given a choice between piloting a X-Wing or a Z-95 Headhunter, which would they most likely pick?

Now, some pilots might pick the Z-95. But would they pick it because it is BETTER than the X-Wing or because they have some sort of emotional attachment with it or because they are more familiar with it?

Regarding the ARC-170, I was under the assumption that it was obsolete as well but looking at Wookieepedia... it doesn't really say that (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Aggressive_ReConnaissance-170_starfighter).
At one part it even says "During the Galactic Civil War, ARC-170s could be found in both Imperial and Rebel fleets, where they were considered elite craft". However looking at the reference, it refers to Star Wars Galaxies so I'm not sure how 'canon' that is then.
I always assumed that they would be worse than X-Wings mainly because they were featured in the prequels and not in the original trilogy but who knows? They may very well be on par but they couldn't field enough numbers of them? Lucas just didn't have enough time to digitally insert them into the original trilogy? Maybe they really are utter garbage and completely surpassed by X-Wings? I can't really find evidence supporting one over the other.

Oh Epic Play Icon, that would make sense!...I can has citation pls? Always like reading up on the new material! Oh and 'scuse me they aren't listed as 'Star Destroyers' but as Frigates on Wookipedia Victory-2 Frigate

Explicit canon statements saying "these ships are obsolete because they are old". Seriously, you can keep repeating all your arguments about how it "shouldn't" work like that, but the people who are in charge of deciding what happens in the Star Wars setting disagree with you and their decisions are final.

Really? Hey G-Man! Lucas! Yo George! You got anything to say about this? Oh right never mind, I forgot, the infamous 'Edits', right, I'm with it now! Go back to enjoying your billions! Hahaha! This guy man, whoooo, I'll tell ya. This guy...man, this guy...Any who, Disney owns Star Wars now so I'm not holding my breath about this 'finality' of yours y'know? As long as FFG is licensed to use the IP, it's possible they could create more, or yes modify exisitng, if it is with permission from Disney. That is kinda how ALL the EU stuff came to be after all.

I think its just a matter of what designs they had available in production. The ARC-1...., screw it let heresy bloom, the 'R-Wing' wasn't even conceived until someone walked down to the art department and said "HEY! Make us a Starfighter for Star Wars! NAOW!" during the prequel production.

Peregrine, we aren't likely to budge on this. Seriously, for the health of the internet, I think its time to agree to disagree.

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Oh Epic Play Icon, that would make sense!...I can has citation pls? Always like reading up on the new material! Oh and 'scuse me they aren't listed as 'Star Destroyers' but as Frigates on Wookipedia Victory-2 Frigate

Then whoever placed that in there doesn't understand ship classification very well in Star Wars, hehe. The Victory II should classify as a Heavy Cruiser or Star Destroyer but certainly not a Frigate. There are other cases of it being FUBAR like the 'Imperial Customs Frigate' being smaller and less capable than the 'Imperial Customs Corvette'. Even canon sources bone this up pretty bad sometimes. I remember when a Super-class Star Destroyer was a single class of vessel, now it is a sub-class of vessel with varied ships listed as examples. I also remember when the ISD's weapons were simply what was listed in books and not what you find in video games and random comic book illustrations. Blargh.

P.S - The ARC and Z-95 are old and obsolete. If not because of effectiveness but because they used older technology parts that were no longer produced and impossible/hard to acquire. There are lots of reasons for something to become obsolete or no longer produced, only one of which because it is no longer as good as newer models. Now I firmly believed that the newer models ARE simply better craft (like the X-wing), otherwise it would be cheaper to retool your machinery to make the old ARCs than start anew with X-wings for something like a fledgeling Rebellion.

Why can't they have two ships of different classes? The design of the two ships are distinct from one another. They have the Victory-2 SD listed separately. I see no problem.

P.S.S. I think its less a technology thing and more a doctrine thing....Wait...didn't I already agree to disagree LOL

 Peregrine wrote:


Sigh. Please don't resort to nitpicking like this, if a character says "wow, you guys must have robbed a museum to get those Z-95s" and the out-of-character descriptions explicitly state that they're inferior to newer fighters then it's pretty clear that the book is saying "this ship is obsolete".

"Sigh." Know what else you would have to rob a museum to find? An SR-71. Know what isn't technologically obsolete? The SR-71.

An ARC-170 that has poor stats and a cheap point cost would be an accurate representation of its state in the "modern" era, but the game doesn't need multiple ships with such a high overlap in role.

Only according to you.

That's exactly what I'm going to tell you. In 40k wounds/toughness/save are irrelevant as individual attributes, what matters is how many shots it takes to kill a model. The AP system, which X-Wing has no direct equivalent for, makes things a bit more complicated, but if, say, you're shooting bolters at a unit whether it is composed of two-wound MEQs or one-wound TEQs is pretty much irrelevant and both units have the same total durability. So your proposal for an ARC-170 that has lots of raw HP but low agility isn't an accurate representation of the ship in the "modern" era because it's just as durable as "modern" fighters.

I disagree. A low agility rating (in this case 1) puts a hard cap as to the number of dice you can successfully defend against, meaning that while in general it WILL make the ship more survivable over time, you are unlikely to block critical hits which can have a huge impact.

Explicit canon statements saying "these ships are obsolete because they are old". Seriously, you can keep repeating all your arguments about how it "shouldn't" work like that, but the people who are in charge of deciding what happens in the Star Wars setting disagree with you and their decisions are final.

You keep using that word, 'explicit,' yet it isn't at all explicitly stated. I don't think that word means what you think it means. Also, cute that you're saying that they disagree with me and their decisions are final, yet the only thing they ever say is that the ships are old, not necessarily that they are technologically inferior. Besides that, there is the simple fact that technology has been shown over the past 20-30 years of expanded universe development to have not really changed at all. Ultimately, Star Wars is space opera, not science fiction, it doesn't need to 'progress' the way you think it should, because its not grounded in any real amount of science whatsoever. Besides that, the setting is supposed to be one of stagnation, both the Republic and the repressive Empire are illustrative of this, and as much as I hate the trope, they are actually not altogether unlike the Imperium in terms of technology. Remember cloning? You know, that technology that made the Clone Wars possible? Guess what was almost entirely forgotten by the time of the GCW, and only rediscovered via fortuitous deus ex machina? Yep, cloning.

And real-world fighter jets are still flying around sporting cannons, jet engines, and guided missiles. And yet all of these things that share the same general name have been improved so much between "generations" of fighters that the best fighters of the previous era are little more than target practice for modern fighters.

The cannons remain unchanged, and for the most part so do the jet engines (in fact some of the jet engines made 50 or so years ago are more powerful and more advanced than what is in standard use today. As a matter of fact, the turbofan engines in use today on most jet aircraft were first developed in the 40s, but then discarded in favor of turbojets (which were themselves first developed in the 20s/30s) for a variety of reasons, before being picked back up again about 30 years ago). You have me on the missiles, but then when you realize the whole host of technologies that were involved in making missile use possible in the first place, and the new technologies involved in making them superior today, and then you realize that there is no parallel set of developments within the Star Wars canon, the argument falls apart. Besides that, the major difference in real world fighters happens to be in the realm of aerodynamics (something that only applies to starfighters within atmosphere, I can tell you that most of the prequel era designs are better aerodynamically than the sequel era without actually having to do any amount of aerodynamic analysis on them), generally speaking the aerodynamics of modern aircraft is superior to those from before, though this isn't universally true, and in fact many of the common airfoils in use today were first developed 50-80 years ago.

An ARC-170 with accurate stats for the "modern" era wouldn't be some 1/0/1/0 joke ship that has to re-roll all hits when attacking, it would be in the same general range of the Z-95's 2/2/2/2 stat line

Again, no, no it wouldn't. For this to be true the Z-95 and the ARC-170 would have to have laser cannons of the same or similar strength, which would in turn have to be less than that of an X-wings. What we know for certain is that the ARC-170 had more powerful laser cannons than any of its contemporaries (and they were used in an anti-capital role, implying that they have serious energy outputs). On top of that we know that the Z-95 had 2 laser cannons (or in some cases triple blasters on each wing, I think its safe to say the variant represented in game has the laser cannons) of the same manufacture as those in use on Y-wings and Lambda-class shuttles. The X-wing utilized 4 laser cannons of similar manufacture (although ostensibly more modern design based on the model number), which are stated to be more powerful than the TIE fighter equivalent. The Z-95 and Y-wing, both sporting two such cannons, have attack 2. The X-wing sporting 4 of what is apparently a more powerful design has attack 3. The TIE fighter has 2 laser cannons giving 2 attack dice, the TIE interceptor sports 4 of a more advanced laser cannon design, also giving 3 dice. The TIE advanced had 2 of the same laser cannons used by the Interceptor, and only has attack 2. From this we see a sort of 'baseline' for relative power levels of weapon design. Given that the ARC-170 has unusually large and powerful laser cannons (stated to be 'medium laser cannons' which within the star wars canon indicates a more powerful weapon than a 'laser cannon') said to be used to good effect against larger vessels, I will argue that it should spit at least 3 attack dice, given the fact that it is a much more powerful weapon than any of the weapons used by the ships that spit only 2 attack dice (although, then again, the number of dice rolled may in fact be a function of the quantity of weapons rather than the power of weapons, as the only other ship that has more than 3 dice is the Tie Defender which was equipped with 4 of the Interceptors laser cannons plus 2 ion cannons (which were sometimes replaced with additional lasers)).

Similarly, we know that the ARC-170 was not as maneuverable as a Z-95, but we know for a fact (based on numbers stated within star wars tech manuals) that the ARC-170 had the same speed as an X-wing, and the acceleration greater than a B-wing and almost the same as a Y-wing. We also know that the ARC-170 had tremendously efficient shields (though we have no real metric to compare it to, other than knowing they were more powerful than a Z-95, and possibly similar to a Y-wing, also keep in mind that the X-wing and the Z-95 have the same shield stat, so a 3 for shields isn't out of the question)and that it was well armored, and on top of that was large...


The V-wing is about the size of a TIE fighter, unfortunately I couldn't find a comparison of the ARC-170 to anything relevant like a Z-95 or a Y-wing size wise, but I believe it would be perhaps a bit smaller than a y-wing and obviously larger than an x-wing (2.5m longer in fact).

IN addition to the obvious issues that all the in-universe canon (in this circumstance at least) presents for your argument that an ARC-170 should be a piece-o-gak (given that, once again, it and other similar starfighters operate in similar performance envelopes, and given that in this case the ARC-170 is known to be more effective vs. larger ships/a heavy hitter), there is also the issue of the impact of progression. For technological advancement to have the impact you seem to describe, an older vessel would have to be inferior to a GCW era one in just about every metric, and yet, actually comparing vessels and known performance measures tells us otherwise. An Aurek fighter (from KOTOR era) for example has a speed in vacuum of 160MGLT... an X-wing has one of 100MGLT... to illustrate, an A-wing, the current gold-standard for speed, has a top speed of 120MGLT, so clearly the Old Republic was capable of building engines that far outperform those used 4000 years later. That same fighter also sported a pair of heavy laser cannons and two proton torpedo launchers with 6 torps. Now, I suppose you could argue that the heavy laser cannons of 4000 BBY are the equivalent of a laser cannon as of 0 BBY, but that would be like arguing that a WW2 era .50 cal is only as powerful as a modern day .30 cal... now, I *might* be able to buy an argument like that, except that from things referenced in the books and films we have a rough understanding of the amount of energy these weapons can pack, and its so high that any actual difference would have no real impact on practical performance (otherwise we would run into serious issues of scale, where a GCW era fighter would, theoretically, be capable of single handedly vaporizing a KOTOR era cruiser. BTW, those Aurek class fighters were in service for over 3000 years, which implies, over that period of time at least, there were no real practical developments in technology. Is it possible that things suddenly started progressing again around 1000 BBY? I suppose so, but I wouldn't really count on it, given that the 3000 years or so that it was in service for the Republic found itself to be more or less perpetually at war, whereas the 1000 years or so afterwards were relatively peaceful, generally speaking you see more progress during wartime than peacetime (at least in the real world).

Again, please stop nitpicking like this. The exact word "obsolete" doesn't have to be used if the author just describes the concept of being obsolete in different words that make it perfectly clear what they're talking about.

Stop describing things as being explicitly stated then when they clearly aren't.

No, you just don't understand how X-Wing's rules and math work. You only get the bonus range 3 defense die against primary weapons, and the HLC is not a primary weapon. So already you're talking about four attack dice vs. three defense dice from the HLC, compared to three attack dice vs. four defense dice for a primary weapon shot. Then you're also ignoring the fact that if you're defending so well against the HLC then ships with 2-3 dice primary weapons are even less likely to do anything. The HLC is indisputably a powerful weapon and worth its 7 points, and adding the ability to take four of them in a list is a very dangerous thing to do.

Learned something new today, good to know for future use. Regardless of that, its been my experience that 2/3 dice is still frustratingly low for general gameplay. My opponents and I regularly run 150 point games that take up to 4 to 5 hours to complete despite going at a pretty decent pace. Most of our attempts to shoot one another turn up absolutely nothing in terms of actual results (we have a nasty habit of completely negating one anothers rolls).

This isn't possible because you have a ridiculous double standard where a new and superior missile type for a real-world fighter is considered new technology instead of just "guided missiles", while anything that shoots glowy energy bolts is considered a "laser cannon" just like every other laser weapon even if the gap in performance between both pairs of weapons is proportionally the same.

No, because I can point at all the things that make an AIM-9X superior to an AIM-9, for example like infrared focal plane arrays, joint helmet mounted cuing system compatability, 3D thrust vectoring control, and lock after use, all of which are technologies that came about well after the initial introduction of the AIM-9 sidewinder in the '50s. There is no double standard there, there is an actual understanding that there were a lot of technological developments involved in related fields that lead to the improved weaponry we have today. Those same sorts of improvements are not shown to have occurred in Star Wars, you can argue that its simply because the writers haven't depicted it, in which case I would have to argue that that is an invalid argument based on some of your other attempts to rationalize the canon from a seemingly literalist approach.

P.S - The ARC and Z-95 are old and obsolete. If not because of effectiveness but because they used older technology parts that were no longer produced and impossible/hard to acquire. There are lots of reasons for something to become obsolete or no longer produced, only one of which because it is no longer as good as newer models. Now I firmly believed that the newer models ARE simply better craft (like the X-wing), otherwise it would be cheaper to retool your machinery to make the old ARCs than start anew with X-wings for something like a fledgeling Rebellion.

Your first part I would agree with, i.e. - old/'obsolete' because of lack of production, etc. Much in the same way that you can consider an SR-71 to be obsolete owing to the fact that the production tools were destroyed to prevent future manufacture despite having more technologically advanced optic sensors, engines, and airframe than any other known aircraft out there. The second part I would debate, as the X-wing and the ARC-170 fulfilled different roles entirely, and the X-wing/Z-95, while fulfilling the same role, were designed with different opponents and considerations entirely. It's like arguing that an F-22 is a better aircraft than a B-2... I mean, you could make that argument if you were discussing it from the perspective of a fighter aircraft, but if you shift the prism of perspective to the bomber role, the F-22 doesn't hold a candle to a B-2.

As for re-tooling your machinery to make old ARCs in lieu of an X-wing, theres a simple argument not do so: money. It costs money to keep production lines going, and (at least in the real world) once demand for something ends, theres no reason to keep that production line open, thats why the F-22 production line has been shut down entirely (because the only customer isn't purchasing them any longer) despite it being a better air-superiority fighter than anything else on the market, and the likely reason we will never build another one of them, despite the fact that the F-15, F-16, and F-18 production lines are still open and producing new airframes, despite being largely inferior designs.

Beyond that, just look at automobiles. There is little difference between a 2001 Honda Civic and a 2010 Honda Civic (I'm sure there are better comparisons to be made, but thats what I got to work with) performance wise, most of the difference is in the exterior styling, and amenities (audio hookup vs. cassette player, etc.). If someone gave you the option to buy a 2001 at MSRP, you'd probably turn your nose up and say what an old piece of junk, etc. and instead opt to put the MSRP down on the new 2010 instead, despite the fact that your actual on-road performance, mileage, anti-lock brakes, etc. would largely be the same.

Basically, its entirely possible and within reason that the ARC went out of vogue after the Republic stopped buying them (instead focusing on lighter Clone Z-95s), prompting Incom to shut down the production line, and develop a new design that it could then sell for more money in the future.

Resize your photo.

errr... how? I just linked it from elsewhere.

chaos0xomega wrote:
errr... how? I just linked it from elsewhere.

Upload it into photoshop, imagshack, or here on Dakka.

Huh, I guess the forum auto-resized?

Also, just going to throw it out there: look at the Z-95 objectively, from a design standpoint, the four immediate things that should jump out and grab you:

The X-wing has bigger engines
The X-wing has twice as many guns
The X-wing has an astromech
The X-wing is larger (implying more room for advanced systems)

Well, huh, no wonder its a better fighter... But you know what? None of those features speak to superior technology, just a better design, especially considering that you can find ships with bigger engines,more guns, astromechs, larger size, etc. etc. etc. throughout the timeline, though admittedly none of them are necessarily the package deal that the x-wing is (which is why the design was so successful, because it was a perfect blend of various performance measures to give it longetivity against much more modern designs that emphasized differing performance characteristics).

@Chaos: That last post was the reasoning we should be looking at. I wanted to say it myself but as long as it's stated I don't care. Specifically when for all the supposed tech upgrades to the lasers and having two more besides, the X-wing and Z-95 are only different by ONE in the firepower stat. That's a lot of stuff to account for in a single die.

Well, the X-wing has better hull as well IIRC, but that is explainable by the slightly larger size and slightly thicker armor plating... imagine that!

Speed/maneuver wise, the X-wing is known to be faster and more agile, however the Z-95 is stated to be capable of tighter turns than the X-wing is.

All of which are also not surprising considering the changes between the two. This seals it. Can we go back to postulating what wave 5 will have for a 'Huge' ship?

Huge ship ala the blockade runner and transport? I don't think those will be in a wave, rather one of the intermediate releases (like the Imperial/Rebel Aces and the Transport/Blockade Runner), I think the waves will strictly stay fighter/small craft, though I could be wrong.

My money's on the Outrider, maybe the Virago, maybe a Skipray Blastboat.

I'd like to see the IG-2000.

I'd part with cash for a skipray...

 Eggs wrote:
I'd part with cash for a skipray...

Agreed.

 Manchu wrote:
My money's on the Outrider, maybe the Virago, maybe a Skipray Blastboat.

I'd like to see the IG-2000.

I'd like to see any of these ships, though I dont understand why everyone is clamoring for a Skipray Blastboat, I mean its armed to the teeth, but its not exactly... I dunno, visually appealing I guess would be the term? Like its ugly... and not in the sexy way like an A-10 warthog

Skipray looks fine to me. It's not the Suncrusher.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Like its ugly...

Agreed but no moreso than the fugly HWK-290, which showcases all of the foibles of 90s video cards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Skipray looks fine to me. It's not the Suncrusher.

Or the K-Wing, blarg.

I'd party with lots of moneys for Skiprays...yes...I'd certainly buy more than one.

@chaos - You are right as to the roles of the craft, so I agree that the X-wing might not be the perfect comparison. I also agree that the X-wing was obviously a better craft than the Clone Z-95 which is why it was probably not looked at.

As to the idea for production, I fully disagree. It would have been MUCH easier for Incom to have supplied the Rebels with established ARC machines and tooling than to have given them a brand new design and make it into production with material support. I do fleet logistics for a living, trust me when I say that with the Rebel's need for cost-effective and easy to access craft...if the ARC wasn't inferior in quality/ability in general...it would be there in lieu of at least one of the major craft used by the Rebellion(whichever one you want to assume the ARC could take on the role of).

 Manchu wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Like its ugly...

Agreed but no moreso than the fugly HWK-290, which showcases all of the foibles of 90s video cards.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Platuan4th wrote:
Skipray looks fine to me. It's not the Suncrusher.

Or the K-Wing, blarg.

OOhhhhh god don't get me started on the HWK-290... but the K-Wing? That IS sexy in a fugly sort of way...

But the suncrusher... wtf, I don't even... besides the fact that its like... the Mary Sue of fething spaceships, its shape/design makes absolutely no logical sense... how the hell does the thing even land??

As to the idea for production, I fully disagree. It would have been MUCH easier for Incom to have supplied the Rebels with established ARC machines and tooling than to have given them a brand new design and make it into production with material support. I do fleet logistics for a living, trust me when I say that with the Rebel's need for cost-effective and easy to access craft...if the ARC wasn't inferior in quality/ability in general...it would be there in lieu of at least one of the major craft used by the Rebellion(whichever one you want to assume the ARC could take on the role of).

I would disagree. First, ARC-170s seemingly ceased production about 20 BBY (once the Empire made the doctrinal change which rendered them doctrinally obsolete within the Imperial Navy), the Rebellion didn't kick up until about 2 BBY, so we're talking about 18 years of cold production, I doubt Incom or any real world manufacturer of aircraft, etc. would leave a production facility sitting around ready to go and unused for that long a period of time. Likely the facilities were converted for other purposes and a new design was produced, and I'm sure production tooling etc. for the ARC-170 weren't retained (at least not for that long), because that would come with its own costs as well. No matter what, an ARC-170 production line is very unlikely to have been in a 'ready-to-go' state as of 2 BBY whereas other more current designs might have been ready (or far enough along in development to make it a moot point), and it would have cost additional money to convert production over to the ARC, which (as per your statement) wouldn't necessarily have been cost-effective (or for that matter time-efficient). In any case, we do know that it was used during the GCW on both sides.

Also, the Rebellion didn't use Incom/Subpro exclusively (and given it was a joint venture and their partnership evidently ended at some point during the Clone Wars, its possible that they weren't able to manufacture them at all anymore), beyond that the X-wing wasn't technically produced by Incom, only designed by them until the Rebellion 'liberated' it.

Its also entirely possible that the ARC-170 fulfilled such a niche design space ("Aggressive Reconnaissance") that the Rebellion never had use for that specific type of craft in great numbers (meaning that whatever examples of the type they already had access to were sufficient for the Rebellions needs).

chaos0xomega wrote:
No matter what, an ARC-170 production line is very unlikely to have been in a 'ready-to-go' state as of 2 BBY whereas other more current designs might have been ready (or far enough along in development to make it a moot point), and it would have cost additional money to convert production over to the ARC, which (as per your statement) wouldn't necessarily have been cost-effective (or for that matter time-efficient). In any case, we do know that it was used during the GCW on both sides.

Also, the Rebellion didn't use Incom/Subpro exclusively (and given it was a joint venture and their partnership evidently ended at some point during the Clone Wars, its possible that they weren't able to manufacture them at all anymore), beyond that the X-wing wasn't technically produced by Incom, only designed by them until the Rebellion 'liberated' it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but when the Rebels started using the X-wing, didn't they have just the plans and a handful of prototypes (most of which got trashed in short order)? So both ships needed their production built from the ground up to be used in any numbers. If the ARC wasn't outdated, wouldn't it have been smarter for the Rebels to go for the tried and tested fighter? The ARC would also have to have been widely available, as both sides used it- implying that it was at least somewhat easy to get, unless it's use was some kind of one-off (in which case every fighter would qualify to have been "used by both sides"). Parts likewise would have had to either be scrounged (implying availability) or improvised (suggesting a rugged, easy-to-repair design), both of which would have been very logistically useful.

So from a Logistics standpoint, I do not see how the mechanical elements of the ARC could have been worse than the X-wing. I could see the Rebels deciding that it was to manpower intensive to have 3 "Pilots" in a ship, but, assuming that each "pilot" was qualified to fly their own fighter, you just tripled the number of Astromechs you need to scrounge.Likewise, you now need three times the maintenance hours to keep those fighters running, so unless the ARC was stupidly high maintenance you are not getting ahead by splitting the crew.

This leaves us with three options.

1) The rebels decided their line fighter on a coin toss between two equally good fighters.
2) The Rebels were so determined to not be the Empire they rejected a superior fighter for purely aesthetic reasons.
3) The ARC was in some way inferior to the X-wing.


I like option 3.

Funny, option four was better I thought:

I could see the Rebels deciding that it was to manpower intensive to have 3 "Pilots" in a ship, but, assuming that each "pilot" was qualified to fly their own fighter, you just tripled the number of Astromechs you need to scrounge.Likewise, you now need three times the maintenance hours to keep those fighters running, so unless the ARC was stupidly high maintenance you are not getting ahead by splitting the crew.

How about the plethora of other scraped together smugglers, volunteers, and whatever crummy ship they brought to the party? I would wager we don't see them because they were put on other assignments. As you are all hell bent on them being 'obsolete', let's pause a moment and think about that. The Rebels didn't have CRAP! They are a resistance movement who's best defensive tactic for a better part of the war is to run the flip away. You think just because some engineer or logistics guy says "Well, the ARC-wings aren't that good anymore blah blah blah" they are going to be like "Oh well, scrap 'em I guess. har-d-har!" They need ships enough to cover the freaking galaxy for gaks sake. Any ship deemed 'obsolete' that still flies and can fire rocks at the bad guys is solid gold to some sci-fi-fantasy resistance movement that doesn't have anything else to really work with and is under attack by a vastly larger force of oppression which is out to kill them.

Likely conversation between Leia Organa and her Quartermaster.
Leia: So the ARC-wing is no good huh?
Quartermaster: Not really. Not enough men to man them all. Kinda slow-ish.
But it flies? And shoots in two directions? And has Hyperdrive?
Yeah, its got those. Guns do have some bite I suppose. I guess the crews can handle their own routine maintenance, being all old familiar systems and what not. And that were in the Star Wars universe where every joe blow some how knows how to fly a starship and maintain it.
Okay well, lets put some with the transports for escorts but only pilots and tail gunners and one R2 unit each, got to be frugal. They get the same things the Y-wings get.
What if they get shot to hell?
Then while they are busy exploding, those vital supplies have a chance, and our offense capable ships are elsewhere! We can collect the salvage later with some of our civilian assets. Now what else we got?
Clever, let the Imps blast them into spare parts and save on labor. Okay but we still have some extra ARCs, lots left over from the clone wars and all.
Really? Well deploy the rest as picket ships to protect our Main fleets and bases. You did say we can get their sensors to work right?
Sure, will do. Alright, so, what do you want to do with these V-wings we found in the back of the cave we're hiding in? One of the boys already fired up their engines for some extra heat in here. And Jimbo Comethopper there used the lasers to carve the Alliance insignia on the wall for us.
MOAR SHIPS! IT'S LIKE CHRISTMAS!

Just the way the situation felt to me y'know?

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would disagree. First, ARC-170s seemingly ceased production about 20 BBY (once the Empire made the doctrinal change which rendered them doctrinally obsolete within the Imperial Navy), the Rebellion didn't kick up until about 2 BBY, so we're talking about 18 years of cold production, I doubt Incom or any real world manufacturer of aircraft, etc. would leave a production facility sitting around ready to go and unused for that long a period of time.

But according to you technology was completely static over that time period. You close production lines in the real world because technology keeps moving on and a fighter from 20 years ago wouldn't be worth restarting. But if an older design is just as good as it was when it was first introduced then the opposite is true: you keep the production lines in storage while looking for a new buyer, and keep the ability to meet a new order as soon as you get one. And remember, most production is automated, unlike real-world factories where you have lots of hand tools and skilled worker knowledge to worry about. Turn the droids off, have the maintenance people sweep the dust off every few years, and a hundred years later you can start producing top-tier fighters again as soon as you hit the "on" switch.

Its also entirely possible that the ARC-170 fulfilled such a niche design space ("Aggressive Reconnaissance") that the Rebellion never had use for that specific type of craft in great numbers (meaning that whatever examples of the type they already had access to were sufficient for the Rebellions needs).

This doesn't make any sense because the rebellion was desperate for fighters in the early days. If it was possible to dust off a pile of surplus ARC-170s and have them be more than a suicide mission for their unfortunate pilots then they would have done so. The ARC-170s absence in a time period where the Y-wing and Z-95 were kept in service despite being too old to be top-tier fighters is a pretty strong argument that the ARC-170 was obsolete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

KnuckleWolf wrote:
Any ship deemed 'obsolete' that still flies and can fire rocks at the bad guys is solid gold to some sci-fi-fantasy resistance movement that doesn't have anything else to really work with and is under attack by a vastly larger force of oppression which is out to kill them.

Unless the ships in question are so hopelessly obsolete that it would be like matching the first WWII-era jets against F-22s, and the only thing using them would accomplish would be getting valuable pilots killed. The rebels were desperate, not suicidal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
None of those features speak to superior technology, just a better design, especially considering that you can find ships with bigger engines,more guns, astromechs, larger size, etc. etc. etc. throughout the timeline, though admittedly none of them are necessarily the package deal that the x-wing is (which is why the design was so successful, because it was a perfect blend of various performance measures to give it longetivity against much more modern designs that emphasized differing performance characteristics).

The problem with this argument is that technological stasis also implies design stasis. If fighter technology has been pretty much constant for hundreds (or even thousands) of years in a setting with as many different competing starship engineers as the Star Wars galaxy then someone is inevitably going to find the perfect fighter design. There's no room for someone to come along later and magically discover the perfect multi-role fighter that replaces everything that came before it. The only way that can happen is if you have major technological changes and everyone is scrambling to find the best way to take advantage of them.

@Crazy Carnifex - When the Rebels first started using the X-Wing they had 4 prototypes, specs, and the entire engineering/design team from Incom to assist them in setting up their own production of them. Additionally, after the initial acquisition of prototypes, the Rebellion also raided an Incom production facility and got their hands on a large number of production models.

As for availability, they might not have been easily available. Realize that the Z-95 was in production at least 10 years prior to the Clone Wars, the ARC-170 went into production just prior to the Clone Wars, but evidently didn't see widespread use until later on. Theres also the fact that its a joint Incom/Subpro design, and the two ended their partnership at the start of the Clone Wars, so its entirely possible that there simply werent enough ARC-170s and/or parts left by the time of the GCW to utilize them as a front-line combatant, whereas there were enough Z-95s produced over a 20-40 year timeframe that they were still available in sufficient quantities to be used by the Rebellion. You could argue that this should be reason enough for them to not be included in the game, but then I will point you to the TIE Advanced, which was only ever produced in large enough quantities to outfit just a handful of squadrons, so much so that a replacement for Vaders fighter wasn't actually available and it had to be recovered and repaired after crash landing in the wilderness.

The Empire continued to use them at least until they could be replaced by other craft (which generally speaking were lightly armed, armored, and lacked hyperdrives, so good luck arguing that the Empire faced them out because they were technologically inferior), and even then it seems that they went through the trouble of putting at least some of them into storage (and IIRC actually continuously maintaining them) after refurbishing and upgrading them, hence their use after the death of the Empire by some Imperial factions, why an organization like the Empire, with access to pretty much whatever damned starships they damned please would go through the trouble of preserving something that would be regarded as 'obsolete' is otherwise beyond me, unless of course the explanation is that they weren't obsolete, just different, and they saw potential uses for the craft at a later date. I suppose the same can be said about production, why they would bother storing/maintaining these things if they had the option to build more is also beyond me (although I think its implied that the whole operation is somewhat hush-hush, so maybe that simply wasn't an option to the Empire?)

In any case, considering that the Empire would have had the majority of the fighters, seeing as how it (politically and militarily) succeeded their primary user, the Rebellion possibly only had enough for limited use, but we don't know for sure because that fluff evidently hasn't been written yet, all we know is that they did, in some capacity, utilize them at some point.

As for maintenance and logistics, well although I'm championing the ARC-170, I highly doubt a single ARC-170 would be a match against 3 separate starfighters, or even comparable to 3 separate starfighters in terms of anti-capital capabilities (even though the ARC-170 wasn't designed to be an actual fighter, and seemingly was intended for use against bigger/larger/heavier opponents, it seems that thats how they were overwhelmingly used), so you have to consider economy of force in that application. Also, it seems the rebellion didnt have much of a shortage of astromech droids (or 'astromech' droids considering that they mostly used repurposed agricultural R4 models), and in general I would assume that the cost of a single droid is far less than the cost of a human life, given how ubiquitous droids seem to be within the Star Wars universe.

As for your 3 options, it kinda seems to ignore a lot of other plausible alternatives, no? I have no doubt that the ARC-170 was in some way inferior to the X-wing, especially given that they are NOT intended to fill the same role (at least from the perspective of designers intent), that doesn't necessarily mean that this inferiority (likely in the form of acceleration and maneuverability) was the reason why it wasn't used.

I also feel the need to go back to the Z-95/X-wing design lineage.

We have the Z-95 which entered production sometime prior to the Battle of Naboo
The ARC-170 which entered production just prior to the Clone Wars (about 10 years after Naboo)
The Clone Z-95 which entered production at some point during the Clone Wars (probably 2-3 years after the ARC-170), which despite its name is a very different, although similar, design to the Z-95
The X-Wing which entered production about 20 years after the Clone Wars.

Now, the argument, it seems, is that the X-wing replaced the Clone Z-95 which in turn replaced the ARC-170 which in turn replaced the Z-95 (despite the fact that the ARC-170 and Z-95/Clone Z-95 fill roles in the design space, but whatever, maybe the Republic, after 1000 years of peace, misunderstood what was required for a successful space-superiority fighter and
thought the ARC-170 was good for the job even though it was better suited for hunting big ships). The ship we're getting in a few months (hopefully) is the original design, or a derivative thereof, as in the design that preceded the ARC-170. So, even though the original Z-95 never actually saw service with the Republic, it was technically 'replaced' by the ARC-170... does it make sense that we have the X-wings grand-daddy in game, but not the X-wings err... mother/uncle (assuming the Clone Z-95 is the X-wings actual daddy)? If the ARC-170 replaced the Z-95 and would thus be technologically superior (as the argument seems to go), then why is it we get the really obsolete ship and not the slightly less obsolete ship? It makes no sense to me.

@Knucklewolf, I wouldn't really say the Rebels didn't have crap, if anything the movies and canon seems to imply that the Rebels, at least by the Battle of Yavin, and definitely by the Battle of Endor, were actually very resourceful, enough so that they had designed and produced their own native fighter designs in the form of the A-Wing and the B-Wing, as well as the use of Mon Calamari cruisers which were also native designs (unlike the X-wing which was actually an abandoned Imperial design).

 Peregrine wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
I would disagree. First, ARC-170s seemingly ceased production about 20 BBY (once the Empire made the doctrinal change which rendered them doctrinally obsolete within the Imperial Navy), the Rebellion didn't kick up until about 2 BBY, so we're talking about 18 years of cold production, I doubt Incom or any real world manufacturer of aircraft, etc. would leave a production facility sitting around ready to go and unused for that long a period of time.

But according to you technology was completely static over that time period. You close production lines in the real world because technology keeps moving on and a fighter from 20 years ago wouldn't be worth restarting. But if an older design is just as good as it was when it was first introduced then the opposite is true: you keep the production lines in storage while looking for a new buyer, and keep the ability to meet a new order as soon as you get one. And remember, most production is automated, unlike real-world factories where you have lots of hand tools and skilled worker knowledge to worry about. Turn the droids off, have the maintenance people sweep the dust off every few years, and a hundred years later you can start producing top-tier fighters again as soon as you hit the "on" switch.

Again, I direct you to the SR-71 and the F-22, neither of those production lines were shut down because technology kept moving ahead (at least as far as we know), they were shut down for political reasons in the former, and a combination of political and business reasons in the latter (and interestingly enough, the apparent reason that the Empire moved away from Republic-era hyperdrive/shield equipped designs in the first place was evidently largely political). Beyond that, say they did keep the ARC-170 production open and it continued to sell, now every Joe and his cousin in the galaxy is flying them... great... so are you going to keep producing these things that everyone already has, or are you going to introduce a new model with new features thats all shiny and new and makes people hand over more money for something (because its new)? Its what the car industry does year after year, it doesn't make a car built 20 years ago technologically obsolete, it just makes it old (though that might change given the implementation of new EPA standards, and attempted alt-fuel development, etc.).

Beyond that, your assertion that you just turn the droids off and have maintenance sweep the dust off is pretty ridiculous from a business standpoint, the money you would lose by not utilizing that facility and those droids, let alone the costs to maintain the facilities, etc. wouldn't make that a profitable venture in the slightest.

This doesn't make any sense because the rebellion was desperate for fighters in the early days. If it was possible to dust off a pile of surplus ARC-170s and have them be more than a suicide mission for their unfortunate pilots then they would have done so. The ARC-170s absence in a time period where the Y-wing and Z-95 were kept in service despite being too old to be top-tier fighters is a pretty strong argument that the ARC-170 was obsolete.

Makes perfect sense, we haven't seen much of the Rebellions early days, that is still forthcoming from Disney, etc. so you can't really say that they didn't utilize surplus 170s in such a manner. And again, the Y-wing was never a top tier fighter, it was never intended to be a top tier fighter, its a bomber which the rebellion repurposed as a strike-fighter. Similarly the Z-95 isn't a top tier fighter because its old, it isn't a top tier fighter because it wasn't a great design to begin with.

Unless the ships in question are so hopelessly obsolete that it would be like matching the first WWII-era jets against F-22s, and the only thing using them would accomplish would be getting valuable pilots killed. The rebels were desperate, not suicidal.

You'd be surprised actually. While those F-22s can fly faster and higher and carry more punch, they would have a lot of difficulty actually bringing weapons to bear against those old WW2 fighters, simply because they fly TOO fast for their opponent, and would have lots of difficulty acquiring a lock on them (especially the various fighters that were made out of wood). Its the same reason why, at times, the National Guard has to role out A-10s for civil air defense roles in lieu of F-16s (older civilian planes flying slower than the F-16 can fly and too low for the F-16s radar to resolve them against the background clutter). Granted, I wouldn't doubt the eventual success of an F-22, it just wouldn't be as one sided as you would think.

The problem with this argument is that technological stasis also implies design stasis. If fighter technology has been pretty much constant for hundreds (or even thousands) of years in a setting with as many different competing starship engineers as the Star Wars galaxy then someone is inevitably going to find the perfect fighter design. There's no room for someone to come along later and magically discover the perfect multi-role fighter that replaces everything that came before it. The only way that can happen is if you have major technological changes and everyone is scrambling to find the best way to take advantage of them.

I disagree, as stated much earlier in the thread, technology in Star Wars seems to revolve around design trade-offs, the reason design stasis hasn't been reached is, to borrow gaming terminology, 'changes to the meta', although, I would argue that you do reach a sort of design stasis once the X-wing comes around (and we saw a similar sort of design stasis with the aforementioned Aurek-class fighter which served for 3,000 years). The X-wing continued to be used as of about 40 ABY (and its implied that it was still used well beyond that) despite introduction of all manner of starfighters intended to replace it (E-wing, etc.), granted the late model X-wings featured upgraded hardware (and in the case of the XJ series an additional proton torpedo launcher), but none of that necessarily speaks to an improvement in technology, just the implementation of better hardware that the Rebellion might not have had access to earlier on.

KnuckleWolf wrote:Funny, option four was better I thought:

I could see the Rebels deciding that it was to manpower intensive to have 3 "Pilots" in a ship, but, assuming that each "pilot" was qualified to fly their own fighter, you just tripled the number of Astromechs you need to scrounge.Likewise, you now need three times the maintenance hours to keep those fighters running, so unless the ARC was stupidly high maintenance you are not getting ahead by splitting the crew.

How about the plethora of other scraped together smugglers, volunteers, and whatever crummy ship they brought to the party? I would wager we don't see them because they were put on other assignments. As you are all hell bent on them being 'obsolete', let's pause a moment and think about that. The Rebels didn't have CRAP! They are a resistance movement who's best defensive tactic for a better part of the war is to run the flip away. You think just because some engineer or logistics guy says "Well, the ARC-wings aren't that good anymore blah blah blah" they are going to be like "Oh well, scrap 'em I guess. har-d-har!" They need ships enough to cover the freaking galaxy for gaks sake. Any ship deemed 'obsolete' that still flies and can fire rocks at the bad guys is solid gold to some sci-fi-fantasy resistance movement that doesn't have anything else to really work with and is under attack by a vastly larger force of oppression which is out to kill them.

I am not entirely sure why you are quoting me here. I say: "There might be reason to not use the ARC (manpower), but it would be a logistics nightmare for these reasons...". You start talking about how the rebels are desperate, and I'm not really sure how you think this is supposed to be coherent.

Also, re: basic line maintenance. Other than the Falcon, I cannot think of anybody doing all their own maintenance. Do you have examples?

Well, Luke and his X-wing on Dagobah comes to mind immediately, although given the circumstances and who it is (considering he was a farm boy and all and thus had to be good with machines) it makes sense. Also Anakin plus the crew/passengers of the Naboo Royal whatever it was on Tattooine in the Phantom Menace.

The general sense I got (and I think I recall an interview with GL that basically affirmed this) is that starfighters/smaller starships in Star Wars are the settings equivalent to cars in our own world, not everyone necessarily has one, but they are common and affordable (which is reinforced by pricetags of various starships in various canon sources being 100-200k credits new and often less than 100k used, based on other canon pricing, including the films themselves, it seems that the value of a credit is roughly equal to the value of a real world US dollar (see also: prices in Dex's Diner)), so its not really that farfetched to think that most pilots are capable of some rudimentary maintenance.

@CrazyCarnifex: It's like chaos says. The ability to fly a starship and maintain it is really just a handy tool for storytelling. Obi-wan didn't necessarily know how to fly one 'expertly' but in Ep. 2 opening he climbs into a cockpit and goes into combat. It's space opera remember, jumping into a starfighter is roughly equivalent to donning armor and grabbing a sword. Many of the role playing game books dedicate some time to this phenomenon to explain why a character won't need a specific skill like 'Pilot' to at least move a ship around in space.

@Chaos: Indeed, by the battle of Yavin they did have some ability to wage standard warfare. They even had their own new generation fighters, the X-wing. By Endor they have enough support and resources to field an A-wing squadron which is built by hand, and B-wings too. Plus they had a full fledged naval fleet, the Mon Calamari, backing them. But the funny thing to note is that in both battles they didn't turn it away when the Millennium Falcon wanted to join the battle despite being held together with duct tape and the good graces of the Force. And it was designed to be a Civilian ship! Of course it had been modified a ton too.

@Peregrine: You are STILL trying to compare fighters from too large a time gap to appropriately analogize the difference. Even using your WWII example, I'd like to point out Russian prop-driven fighters did manage to confirm kills on German jets in that war alone. Stop trying to compare it to WWII which was 60 years before the Raptor was fully introduced. Even Vietnam is a tad too far back at 30 years. Luke and Leia are only 19 when A New hope begins.

American prop-driven fighters likewise managed to score kills against ME-262s. Regardless though, the comparison isn't really apt. The core technologies used to design a world war 2 fighter are significantly different from that used to design a raptor. Its completely different propulsion systems, a completely different airframe design and airfoils, completely different avionics systems, the primary weapon system of the world war 2 fighter is a secondary (or even tertiary) system in the Raptor, different electronics, countermeasures, etc. etc. In Star Wars the propulsion technologies are largely unchanged, as are the air(space?)frame designs (I dont really think any craft in star wars, even atmospheric, bother with airfoils anymore), weapon systems, avionics, electronics, countermeasures, etc. etc. etc.

The ARC was terribly slow and lumbering. I imagine once air superiority fighters got better than the ones we see in the Clone Wars movies(none are terribly powerful offensively) and get to craft like the X-wing and TIE Fighters(because of quantity fielded), those ARCs become a lot harder to use properly even against their intended targets.

That could be where it become no longer feesible for use. Just ideas here...as we have no actual hard data to go on.

I could believe the political assassination of the project, but that is unlikely considering the Empire's use of craft like the Assault Gunboat which has a similar role and capability. Granted, that is pretty 'loose' canon material...but still something to think about.

The manpower thing does ring a bit true with the Rebellion, but I'm thinking it was more along the lines of the prevalence of effective capital ship targetting systems and prevalence of space superiority spacecraft.

Obviously, we are all speculating...so there are a few reasons the ARC would have not be used. :-P

Lumbering? Yes. Slow? No, we have 'hard data' from canon that says it had the same speed in vacuum as an X-wing, so unless you also regard the X-wing as 'slow', the ARC-170 wasn't.

Hard data from canon?

If you consider the video games produced by Lucasarts as canon (which it would seem like you must given the introduction of the TIE Phantom and TIE Defender), then yes.

The technicalities of SW canon, which are hardly reliable in the first place, are probably a pretty low priority when it comes to design. (Cf. the great A-Wing debate.)

I'd say the higher priority considerations are:

- making every ship a viable option
- making every ship feel unique
- maintaining gamewide thematics

We can (and might) argue about the ARC-170 forever BUT, given previous releases, I'd say it's best chance to make it into X-Wing is showing up on SW: Rebels.

So, does anyone know if the Empire had any fighters with turrets? Maybe one of the bounty hunter ships? I love ion turrets and wish there was some way to use them in Imperial lists, but I'm not familiar enough with EU canon to know if it would ever be a possibility.

I suppose it's possible the Empire had a few Y-wings they used occasionally... But obviously FFG isn't moving in the direction of multi-faction ships yet.

Don't know. But I remembered today that there was something called a Cloak Shape Fighter. That might be the wave five 'odd' ship. Like the HWK-290 was. Unless the YT-2400/Outrider takes that spot.

chaos0xomega wrote:
The X-wing continued to be used as of about 40 ABY (and its implied that it was still used well beyond that) despite introduction of all manner of starfighters intended to replace it (E-wing, etc.), granted the late model X-wings featured upgraded hardware (and in the case of the XJ series an additional proton torpedo launcher), but none of that necessarily speaks to an improvement in technology, just the implementation of better hardware that the Rebellion might not have had access to earlier on.

This is the ultimate concession. None of your other ridiculous claims about how technology "shouldn't" advance in Star Wars matter, because canon sources explicitly say that it did. The X-wing was a top-tier fighter when it was first introduced, by far the best ship the rebellion had access to and able to handle anything the empire could throw at it. But within 40 years it was already becoming obsolete, and only a major redesign (almost to the point of being a new ship in all but name) and brand new hardware kept it in its top-tier position. "Standard" X-wings were completely outclassed by the newest fighters.

And no, your "the rebellion didn't have good hardware" argument doesn't work. The X-wing wasn't just the best the rebellion could manage with its limited resources, it was one of the best ships of its time, period.

Actually, no the canon never explicitly states that technology advanced in Star Wars, it only vaguely implies it via terminology such as 'outclassed' and 'old'. What it does explicitly state is that things age and that newer designs frequently 'outclass' the older ones. What it also explicitly states is that some designs were still in regular service after more than 3000 years. If a starfighter design can remain a viable element through 3000 years of warfare, then I highly doubt there was much advancement in technology, and if there was it was at such a glacial pace that for the purposes of this discussion its irrelevant, as clone wars tech would be about as old as last years performance car by the time of the Yuzzhan Vong War.

And the XJ series X -wing was hardly a major redesign, no moreso than an F-16 Block 50 is to a Block 40. It was simply an upgrade of certain systems. The only element of it that comes close to being a 'major redesign' is the addition of a third proton torpedo launcher. Standard X-wings also were NOT completely outclassed by the newest fighters, given that the T series X-wing was still in use with the Republic even going into the Yuzzhan Vong War alongside the E-wing. The only ones who had access to the XJ were the NJO and some elite fighter squadrons (Rogue and Twin Suns primarily).

And the 'rebellion didn't have good hardware' argument does work, just because the X-wing is one of the best starfighters of its time does not mean that it had all the best hardware stuffed into it. That would actually be pretty impossible given the fact that there are ships flying around that are better armored, or better shielded, or better armed, or faster, etc.

chaos0xomega wrote:

And the 'rebellion didn't have good hardware' argument does work, just because the X-wing is one of the best starfighters of its time does not mean that it had all the best hardware stuffed into it. That would actually be pretty impossible given the fact that there are ships flying around that are better armored, or better shielded, or better armed, or faster, etc.

Thing is, fighter design probably isn't just "stuff the best stuff in there, it'll work". There will be trade-offs. For example, the TIE fighter eschews armour, life support, and guns in exchange for speed and agility. The X-wing is a generalist. This isn't to say that Incom said "Eh, we could give this thing perfect systems, but that would be a little unfair, y'know?", but instead there may be some kind of mechanical limitation (Such as power generation) that restricts the X-wings ability to get those super-heavy shields like we see on a B-wing while running a TIE fighters speed. The newer version X-wings may simply represent the Rebels overcoming these technological limitations, or developing ways to work around them.

Also, look at the TIE-Interceptor vs. TIE-Fighter; the Interceptor is faster and better gunned than the Fighter, while still holding to the Imperial Doctrine of "Fast, cheap, and expendable". If technology is not advancing, why didn't we see the interceptor earlier?

Because there wasn't any need for it? The Interceptor was developed as a response to the X-Wing. According to one source X-wings had something like a 70:1 kill:death ratio against TIE fighters, and the Empire needed something better, so they adopted the TIE interceptor.

If you actually look back, the entire 'advancement' of technology within Star Wars basically amounts to a cyclical set of technological tradeoffs between difference performance criteria, seemingly limited only by practical application and money

Also as I stated previously, the Interceptor (and the A-wing) are hardly the only or the first starfighters of that speed. The Aurek starfighter that I keep referring to (the one that was in service for 3,000 years) was considerably faster (in fact I can't find anything else nearly as fast in any of the eras) than both the TIE Interceptor (about 40%) and the A-Wing (33%), and arguably more heavily armed than either (twin HEAVY laser cannons and twin proton torpedo launchers). If technology progressed, i think it safe to say that the Aurek shouldn't have been able to carry such a heavy armament to such a great speed if neither the Interceptor nor the A-wing can match or exceed it. And again, the Aurek was designed 4,000 BBY and served until 1,000 BBY...

Okay, so if the Aurek was so good, why was it retired?

That doesn't have a clear explicit answer, but if I had to guess:

Seeing as how its retirement seemingly coincides with the Ruusan Reformation which all but disbanded the Republic military and ushered in about 1000 years of peace... well, yeah, it basically was retired because the Republic military ceased to exist and for the most part there was no more need for it. The manufacturer of that ship in particular was Republic Fleet Systems (and thus purpose built for the Republic Navy by the Republic government itself), so there was no opportunity to produce the ship for anyone else, and existing models would eventually cease to be used through lack of available parts, losses/attrition, and just outright aging of the hulls.

Theoretically they should have been able to put them in production, but it seems RFS was disbanded by the Senate not too long before the Clone Wars, so that design might have been lost... besides that 1000 years is a long time, nobody around who would have even remembered that such a ship existed, and its actual production would just be a footnote in a history book... We also have a pretty good indication from the canon that history/records aren't something that the Republic (or anyone else for that matter) seems to do a very good job of maintaining, so its not out of the question that even the design specs are lost and/or unavailable by this time.

You could, I suppose, argue that there was little to no technological progression over that 3000 year period and thats why the Aurek remained viable over such an extended period of time... but we have no real reason to believe that there was any progress over the following 1000 years or so either if thats the case. If anything, it would imply that technology (or at least design concepts) stagnated over that time, given the fact that numerous Old Republic starfighters possessed hyperdrives, yet by the time of the Clone Wars its rare for starfighters to have their own hyperdrives and they only gradually start making an appearance in starfighters again over the course of the war.

Going back to my previous theory about cyclical tradeoffs, etc. If I had to hazard a guess, the lack of centralized military planning and serious resources poured into it, etc. (the only real military forces remaining in known space were system/planetary defense fleets organized locally as a sort of space militia) meant that military designs (DESIGN not technology) stagnated and thus favored smaller/lighter/cheaper/less capable ships that weren't necessarily *GOOD* but were good enough for the competition. Enter the Clone Wars and the return to a centralized military and you see that there is a general progression within the Republic in terms of design in building progressively more capable starfighters (and even capital ships) that aren't necessarily more technologically advanced, but simply more capable from a design standpoint. Similarly, you see that same progression from the Separatists in a sort of arms race as each side implements new designs to keep up with the opposition. Also remember, despite the fact that the technology is theoretically there, there is still a learning curve that needs to be applied from the design standpoint as to what works, what doesnt, whats needed, what isn't etc. A lack of serious military production (most of the designs used by the system fleets, etc. were seemingly commercially available and not purpose built for military use) over the previous millenia, and the lack of proper doctrine, etc. means that they are effectively relearning how to fight wars. By the end of the Clone Wars you see far more capable designs stemming from this learning curve and galaxy wide remilitarization. Then enter the Empire which is a HEAVILY militarized faction which sees the designs shift in a new, more aggressive direction than what was previously seen before (owing to greater resources and a more militant organizational culture), and you change the entire status quo for the galaxy, meaning everyone who is designing combat capable space vessels has to account for a new design paradigm unlike what was seen before.

So, in that sense, there really isn't any technological progression there, just a progression of how its utilized.

chaos0xomega wrote:
That doesn't have a clear explicit answer, but if I had to guess:

Seeing as how its retirement seemingly coincides with the Ruusan Reformation which all but disbanded the Republic military and ushered in about 1000 years of peace... well, yeah, it basically was retired because the Republic military ceased to exist and for the most part there was no more need for it. The manufacturer of that ship in particular was Republic Fleet Systems (and thus purpose built for the Republic Navy by the Republic government itself), so there was no opportunity to produce the ship for anyone else, and existing models would eventually cease to be used through lack of available parts, losses/attrition, and just outright aging of the hulls.

Theoretically they should have been able to put them in production, but it seems RFS was disbanded by the Senate not too long before the Clone Wars, so that design might have been lost... besides that 1000 years is a long time, nobody around who would have even remembered that such a ship existed, and its actual production would just be a footnote in a history book... We also have a pretty good indication from the canon that history/records aren't something that the Republic (or anyone else for that matter) seems to do a very good job of maintaining, so its not out of the question that even the design specs are lost and/or unavailable by this time.

Okay, so you are saying that the technology could have been lost... and are also arguing that there is not space for technological improvement.


I strongly disagree.


The Aurek may have been the ultimate fighter, remaining in service for 3000 years. I would argue that this is simply a product of bad writing, but that is beside the point. The point is, there is then 1000 years of peace. Due to the Republics poor bookkeeping, records are lost, including a large portion of the knowledge of military technology. When we reach the Clone wars, there is plenty of room for improvement on starfighter designs. We see these improvements made throughout the Clone Wars, and into the Galactic Civil War. As such, despite the fact that one fighter design lasted 3000 years in the past, now we actually get to see an arms race. We see Clone-Wars era designs fall into the category of "obsolete, outdated fighter" (Z-95, Y-Wing), shipd get replaced by successors (TIE FIghter to TIE Interceptor) with similar roles.

Because of the One-thousand years of military technology regressing, the fact that the Aurek lasted 3000 years is irrelevant to the question of "Is the ARC-170 outdated". Because from the Clone-wars on we see signs of hardware improving, and we do not see the ARC in any major combat role post Clone Wars, I would argue that the answer is "Yes".

I wasn't at all arguing that technology was lost, I'm arguing that a design for a starfighter was lost. Design does not equate with technology, the two are different things. I'm talking like the blueprints need to construct the thing. Considering that the Empire lost the means to continue producing clones at an industrial scale(the technology was still there in the galaxy somewhere, just not available to them) during the GCW, the Republic lost information pertaining to countless star systems (even their very location and existence) over the years (especially after a certain Sith Lord wiped portions of their databanks), the Jedi Order lost countless pieces of information relating to their history over the years, etc. Its not that farfetched to believe at all. All that information was still available within the galaxy to someone somewhere, just not necessarily to the people that wanted and/or needed it.

It's not that different in todays world, even with all our technology we don't necessarily know a lot about what happened 1000 years ago let alone what happened 100 years. Yes, we know the major important bits, it doesn't necessarily mean we have the blueprints needed to rebuild the USS Maine. I mean, technically speaking I'm sure those blueprints exist somewhere in a dusty filing cabinet at the back of a rarely used storage space in a sub-basement of some office building or something like that, but we don't necessarily know to look there.

Beyond that, I'm arguing that warfighting methodology (doctrine) was lost, not technology. Just because we know that at one point our ancestors fought in phalanxes and stormed castle walls doesn't mean that we, today, would know how to properly fight in a phalanx formation or storm a castle walls. There is nobody alive today that has ever put those skills into practical use to train us, we would have to relearn and retrain in those methodologies if we wanted to do it.

In regards to the rest of your point, yes the designs are dated, but here is the problem: Some posters are arguing that the technology is outdated, meaning that the laser cannons are weaker, the engines are weaker, etc. etc. etc. and that an arc-170 should be a straight set of 2s for anything and everything because there is no way that it could keep up with anything else. What I am arguing is that the technology isn't outdated, merely the design. Its not that an ARC-170 or a Z-95 would be incapable of handling GCW era designs, its simply ineffecient and unoptomized for that purpose, and thus isn't necessarily used.

The minis game doesn't necessarily take a lot of the elements that would be required to represent that on tabletop into consideration, or necessarily do so at a 'resoution' where those subtle differences would become apparrent.

In other words, its entirely possible that the ARC-170 could and should be statted as 3 or 4 attack, 1 defense, 3 hull, 3 shield or something like that vs the proposed 2-2-2-2 or whatever it was that Peregrine or Manchu suggested, and that would be an accurate in universe representation of those performance criteria relative to the other ships in the game, but due to the abstraction inherent to any non-simulation based game design, that doesn't take into consideration such things as shield recharge rates, rate of fire, targeting speed, subtle differences in maneuverability and handling, etc. that would make one design preferable over another. Nor does the game take into account the doctrine under which they were employed, TIE fighters and TIE Interceptors for example always being supported by capital ships from which they operated or the rebels using hit and run tactics to take advantage of their hyperdrives, etc.

Also, re-read my previous post, I think you missed my edit...

I can see what you are saying. To use a current example; The technology to build another space shuttle has not been lost, but the knowledge of how it was put together has - Most of the peeps involved in building them have moved on, or passed away, and as a result, NASA admits it couldn't build a new one even if it wanted to. Despite the fact it is 1960's tech.

Really?? That I did not know, I would assume that we at least still have the blueprints floating around though, no? I know there were rumors that we lost the blueprints to the Saturn V, but it seemed that turned out to be bunk as they have them on microfilm somewhere.

The shuttle was such a complex craft, no blueprints existed as such. There were hundreds of different systems and parts to it, so they each had plans and drawings etc at one point, but they were scattered over different facilities, offices and such, many of which are now lost. So no, there isn't a set of blueprints as such.

Here's a story that may be used as an allusion...

The Savage Firearms company released their Model 99 Savage Lever-action rifle in 1899. We'll compare it to the Winchester Model 94... the most common Lever-action Rifle. The Winchester 94 (released in 1894) is what you think of when someone mentions a Lever-Action rifle... it is actually a refinement on the Model 1873... "The Gun That Won The West".

Both rifles work in the same way... they operate in the same way (the lever)... the bullets components and powder are not different, the metals that they are made of are not different.
However, there is a fundamental difference in engineering, that makes these two rifles (introduced only 5 years apart) worlds apart.

The action of the 99 is such that it can use Spitzer (pointed) bullets rather than the rounded ball ammunition of the 94. Spitzer bullets are ballistically superior to ball ammunition, providing a much better flight and kinetic energy at the target. A hammerless design increased shooting accuracy. In many ways, the mechanism of the 99 is much closer to the modern military semi-auto rifle than the other lever actions of its time.

So is the image of the 94 an iconic part of American culture, but the 99 not? The 99 didn't have a conflict to win. By the time WWI came, it was either bolt action rifles (Springfield 103) or fully automatic machine guns (Browning BARs and Thompsons). The 94 is just an updated version of the 1873... unless you are a serious gun nut, you'll have a hard time telling the difference. The lesson remains the same... it isn't advances in technology that make certain things iconic... it is their uses in specific combats.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Some posters are arguing that the technology is outdated, meaning that the laser cannons are weaker, the engines are weaker, etc. etc. etc. and that an arc-170 should be a straight set of 2s for anything and everything because there is no way that it could keep up with anything else.

Please don't post straw man arguments like this. I never said the ARC-170 must have a 2-2-2-2 stat line, I said it has to be comparable to that stat line. For example, the basic TIE fighter has a 2-3-3-0 stat line, but is roughly equivalent to the Z-95 since they're both worth 12 points. The ARC-170 would have some room for variation in stats (it might get 3-1-2-1, for example) in that general 12-15 point range, but it has to fall short of a "modern" fighter's stat line because it's locked into being a cheap Z-95 equivalent.

And, as I've said before, the problem isn't finding balanced stats, it's the limited design space available for a 12-15 point ship. The most important attribute of a cheap ship is its point cost, so subtle variations on the stat line of a 12-point ship are pretty boring and lead to a bunch of ships that nobody has any strong feelings about. You might have room to add the ARC-170 if you absolutely must have it, but you almost certainly don't have room to add the other prequel-era fighters without running straight into the design space problem. And if you can't include a complete prequel-era expansion then why include just one of the ships?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Really?? That I did not know, I would assume that we at least still have the blueprints floating around though, no?

This is somewhat of a misunderstanding. What it means when we say we've lost the ability to build X is that we can't build more of X without investing so much effort that we might as well just build an updated version of X with modern technology. For example, why go to considerable effort to duplicate the shuttle's exact computer systems (which have been out of production for decades) when you can use modern computers that are more powerful, take up less space, and use less power? And then you have to redesign the racks that hold the computers, the bolts that hold the racks to the wall, re-do all of the weight and balance stuff to account for the changes, etc. In the end you're investing a solid majority of the work required to make an entirely new design. So the old one is effectively "lost" in that nobody considers it worth the effort to keep it.

And you'll note the common theme in your examples of "lost" technology: it's all obsolete. We can't build a copy of the USS Maine because nobody bothered to keep all the necessary blueprints and production methods for a ship that would be hopelessly obsolete if we built another one. If someone wanted to build a warship of equivalent size they'd design a new one from scratch that would be far more powerful.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Because there wasn't any need for it? The Interceptor was developed as a response to the X-Wing. According to one source X-wings had something like a 70:1 kill:death ratio against TIE fighters, and the Empire needed something better, so they adopted the TIE interceptor.

Again, this is a concession that technology advanced and ships became obsolete. You don't get a 70:1 kill ratio with a new fighter unless it's a major advance in design and technology. So the X-wing was explicitly better than any similar ship that came before it, and it was explicitly becoming obsolete within 30-40 years and required major upgrades to stay competitive.

and arguably more heavily armed than either (twin HEAVY laser cannons and twin proton torpedo launchers)

You're again making the assumption that two things with the same broad category name are identical in performance. Just like "missiles" from 1970 and 2014 are very different weapons the "heavy laser cannon" from an ancient fighter may be no better than an average blaster pistol in the "modern" era. The fact that it was "heavy" relative to other weapons of its era does not mean that it is "heavy" relative to "modern" weapons.

 Peregrine wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Some posters are arguing that the technology is outdated, meaning that the laser cannons are weaker, the engines are weaker, etc. etc. etc. and that an arc-170 should be a straight set of 2s for anything and everything because there is no way that it could keep up with anything else.

Please don't post straw man arguments like this. I never said the ARC-170 must have a 2-2-2-2 stat line, I said it has to be comparable to that stat line. For example, the basic TIE fighter has a 2-3-3-0 stat line, but is roughly equivalent to the Z-95 since they're both worth 12 points. The ARC-170 would have some room for variation in stats (it might get 3-1-2-1, for example) in that general 12-15 point range, but it has to fall short of a "modern" fighter's stat line because it's locked into being a cheap Z-95 equivalent.

Right, but there is no reason for it to be locked into being a cheap Z-95 equivalent except for your own belief that it is an inferior craft, whereas it is my belief that it isn't inferior, just different. I suppose, for the purposes of abstraction you could argue that this difference needs to be represented by an inferior statline, but without truly knowing how the design team goes about translating 'real' performance to a statline, it would be difficult to make that argument I think.

And, as I've said before, the problem isn't finding balanced stats, it's the limited design space available for a 12-15 point ship. The most important attribute of a cheap ship is its point cost, so subtle variations on the stat line of a 12-point ship are pretty boring and lead to a bunch of ships that nobody has any strong feelings about. You might have room to add the ARC-170 if you absolutely must have it, but you almost certainly don't have room to add the other prequel-era fighters without running straight into the design space problem. And if you can't include a complete prequel-era expansion then why include just one of the ships?

This I can agree with I think, you can probably squeeze a few of the Clone Wars designs into some niche roles (the ARC-170 especially given it has the rear laser cannons which would make it pretty unique for such a small ship), but a lot of them would overlap with other ships without the implementation of some new secondary rules/upgrades to try to diversify and differentiate them.

Again, this is a concession that technology advanced and ships became obsolete. You don't get a 70:1 kill ratio with a new fighter unless it's a major advance in design and technology. So the X-wing was explicitly better than any similar ship that came before it, and it was explicitly becoming obsolete within 30-40 years and required major upgrades to stay competitive.

Stop using 'explicit' unless you can actually find that word used somewhere. And theres a bit of an issue, you're saying you don't get a 70:1 kill ratio unless its a major advance, etc. so its better than any similar ship that can before it... well, the TIE fighter isn't at all similar in any way shape or form except that it was the oppositions front line fighter, so is that really a valid analysis?

You're again making the assumption that two things with the same broad category name are identical in performance. Just like "missiles" from 1970 and 2014 are very different weapons the "heavy laser cannon" from an ancient fighter may be no better than an average blaster pistol in the "modern" era. The fact that it was "heavy" relative to other weapons of its era does not mean that it is "heavy" relative to "modern" weapons.

See, theres an issue inherent to that, in that they were using the same construction materials to build their ships back then (durasteel, which is used to construct pretty much everything in star wars), so if a heavy laser cannon then is the modern equivalent of a blaster, then there are serious issues with constructability in pretty much every aspect of design throughout the timeline. We know that blasters cause largely superficial damage to durasteel (seen in the first film when the stormtroopers open fire on the Falcon) unless they come in 'blaster cannon' form, which even then are primarily an anti-personnel weapon or used against very light unarmored vehicles. We know that modern laser cannons are powerful enough to vaporize small asteroids, which takes an OBSCENE amount of power, so you're talking the difference of several orders of magnitude in power levels... and if the heavy laser cannons of yesteryear are the blasters of today... well, then those weapons wouldn't be very good against ships of the same era that were also made of durasteel. Yes, they could have improved durasteel over time, but NOT by that much. Given that, if any sort of technological advancement occurred, then it would have been very very tiny almost irrelevant levels, so yes, I suppose in that sense things could become 'obsolete' but to borrow some gaming terminology, we're looking at a difference of like 1 DPS (damage per second), not really enough to really be noticeable to anyone except number crunchers and bean counters looking to maximize efficiency and minimize costs.

chaos0xomega wrote:
[

Again, this is a concession that technology advanced and ships became obsolete. You don't get a 70:1 kill ratio with a new fighter unless it's a major advance in design and technology. So the X-wing was explicitly better than any similar ship that came before it, and it was explicitly becoming obsolete within 30-40 years and required major upgrades to stay competitive.

Stop using 'explicit' unless you can actually find that word used somewhere. And theres a bit of an issue, you're saying you don't get a 70:1 kill ratio unless its a major advance, etc. so its better than any similar ship that can before it... well, the TIE fighter isn't at all similar in any way shape or form except that it was the oppositions front line fighter, so is that really a valid analysis?

Just going to point out two things here.

1) The word explicit doesn't work the way you are demanding it does. You will never find a (at least half-decently written) sources that explicitly states that a ships technical capabilities are explicitly X. Because Explicitly is an adjective used to describe the description, not part of the description itself.

2) The thing is, comparing the line fighters is a good comparison. Admittedly, part of the problem with the TIE is to do with Doctrine- it is an expendable, cheap fighter. However, the Interceptor follows the same design philosophy, but is just more powerful. Had the Empire shifted to an X-wing-like ship, one could argue that the difference was simply doctrinal after all. However, because the Interceptor is a TIE Fighter+, it shows that the change was technological, not doctrinal.

1. Incorrect, definition of explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. It is not stated clearly and in detail (leaving no room for confusion or doubt) that a Z-95 is obsolete vis-a-vis an X-wing, only that it is outclassed and old. That does not explicitly imply technological advancement or obsolesence.

2. First let me state that even the TIE interceptor did not achieve parity against an X-wing, much like the TIE fighter it was still an inferior one on one combatant that relied on numbers (in addition to speed and maneuverability) to combat an X-wing. One of the comics does make it *explicit* that heavily upgraded TIE Interceptors fitted to include hyperdrive, shielding, and proton torpedo launchers were regarded as being equal, ship for ship, to an X-wing, so again, the difference is not technological, it is doctrinal.

Furthermore, if you actually look at what was done to develop the TIE fighter - They took the core TIE fighter design, upgraded the engines (I mean that literally, they took the TIE fighters twin ion engines and tweaked them for increased output and added in what basically amounts to a thrust vectoring system), swapped out the wings (to increase power output), and doubled the amount of weapons it carried (they removed the two laser cannons in the 'ball' and added four onto the wingtips). The laser cannons used by the Interceptor were more powerful than the ones used by the TIE fighter, but the ones used on the TIE fighter had a faster rate of fire, and they were both developed at approximately the same time. So again, there is nothing to indicate that there was a technological advancement that lead to the TIE interceptor, only a design advancement, as the core craft is literally the same, just modified for difference performance specifications more suited to combating their peer competitors, and lo-and-behold with the tradeoff of being more costly than the TIE fighter (though still very cheap).

chaos0xomega wrote:
1. Incorrect, definition of explicit: stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt. It is not stated clearly and in detail (leaving no room for confusion or doubt) that a Z-95 is obsolete vis-a-vis an X-wing, only that it is outclassed and old. That does not explicitly imply technological advancement or obsolesence.

2. First let me state that even the TIE interceptor did not achieve parity against an X-wing, much like the TIE fighter it was still an inferior one on one combatant that relied on numbers (in addition to speed and maneuverability) to combat an X-wing. One of the comics does make it *explicit* that heavily upgraded TIE Interceptors fitted to include hyperdrive, shielding, and proton torpedo launchers were regarded as being equal, ship for ship, to an X-wing, so again, the difference is not technological, it is doctrinal.

Furthermore, if you actually look at what was done to develop the TIE fighter - They took the core TIE fighter design, upgraded the engines (I mean that literally, they took the TIE fighters twin ion engines and tweaked them for increased output and added in what basically amounts to a thrust vectoring system), swapped out the wings (to increase power output), and doubled the amount of weapons it carried (they removed the two laser cannons in the 'ball' and added four onto the wingtips). The laser cannons used by the Interceptor were more powerful than the ones used by the TIE fighter, but the ones used on the TIE fighter had a faster rate of fire, and they were both developed at approximately the same time. So again, there is nothing to indicate that there was a technological advancement that lead to the TIE interceptor, only a design advancement, as the core craft is literally the same, just modified for difference performance specifications more suited to combating their peer competitors, and lo-and-behold with the tradeoff of being more costly than the TIE fighter (though still very cheap).

1) You were telling Peregrine to find the word "explicit" used somewhere. I was telling you that that was silly, because the actual word "explicit" is rarely included in an explicit description. Trust me, my command of the English Language is excellent.

2) So they improved the design of the ship... and that doesn't mean the Interceptor is more advanced than the TIE-Fighter?

Tell me more.

1. You seem to not have an excellent mastery of the english language if you thought I meant for him find the use of the word 'explicit' as opposed to the word 'obsolete', then again, perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in my post.

2. It depends on what you mean by 'more advanced'. If you mean its newer, then yes. If you mean that its more complex owing to the implementation of two additional laser cannons, modified/upgraded engine hardware, and angled solar panels, then yes. If you mean from a design standpoint, then yes, its a huge performance boost based on modifications to a largely existing design. If you mean more technologically advanced, then no, at least not the way I see it. All they did was change the geometry of the wings, add two additional weapons, bump the power output of the engine, and add finer flight control systems. All those technologies existed prior in some way, shape, or form within the galaxy, they simply (re)packaged them together differently than they had been before.

The weapon systems have much better targetting ability according to fluff ont he Interceptors and still in the small hull that TIEs provide. It has an upgraded engine and manueverability. Making things better in the same hull or smaller with the same capability is still an advancement even if the raw technology isn't new.

So, heres the thing with that, if all the technology existed beforehand, is it really an advancement? Its definitely not a technological advancement, because again, all of that already existed beforehand. Is it a more advanced design? Well, yes by way of comparison to the TIE fighter, but relative to an X-wing or some other contemporary design? Well, not really, its still missing shields, hyperdrives, and a life support system. I mean overall it is still a very simple design.

As for 'making things better in the same hull or smaller' bit, well theres nothing to imply that they *weren't* capable of doing that beforehand. The Eta-2 (predecessor of the TIE series) of the Clone Wars era is similarly small (in fact, its actually smaller than both the TIE fighter and TIE interceptor, primarily due to the wings of both ships) and packs 2 ion cannons, 2 laser cannons (which are described as packing more punch than the larger Delta-7 fighters which were developed around the same time), and in some sources missile launchers, an astromech droid, s-foils, and twin ion engines. Oh, did I mention that its also *faster* than both the TIE Interceptor and the A-wing? Did I mention it also has faster acceleration than *either* of those two craft (much moreso the TIE Interceptor)? Did I mention that this same hull was later upgraded to include shields and heavier armor, while still retaining all the same qualities of the un-upgraded version, the only main difference being that it was now more expensive to produce?

After some time of using the Eta-2 (we know they were used at least through most of the Jedi Purge so they stuck around for a few years), the Empire then went to a *larger*, less complex, less capable design (which was then followed up with a yet larger, still less complex, still less capable design). The only advantage that either design had was that they were cheaper. The Rebellion also used the Eta-2 for some time during the GCW. Oh... did I also mention that the ARC-170 was widely regarded to be a SUPERIOR starfighter to the Eta-2??? So why did the Empire choose to continue developing what was considered the 'inferior' design? Because during the Battle of Coruscant, the more advanced heavier fighters suffered significant losses to the smaller, lighter, more agile fighter swarms. This lead to the empires design philosophy which spawned the TIE series, which if you think about it, was an erroneous opinion given that later, larger, heavier starfighters like the X-wing were more successful.

BTW, another interesting finding while reading Star Wars Legacies... the R-28 starfighter, it was developed during the Galactic Civil War by Incom, but was overshadowed by the X-wing and thus not commonly used. After some upgrades, it became more popular and eventually becomes the 'successor' to the X-wing even though they were apparrently developed around the same time, and by 137 ABY its one of the most popular starfighters in the galaxy, frequently used by local defense forces, etc. (the sense that I got was that its the Legacy era equivalent of a Z-28). Meanwhile, its successor (X-83 Twin Tail) is used in front-line service by the New Jedi Order as their primary starfighter (and is regarded as one of the most powerful starfighters of all time, superior to any of its contemporaries by a wide margin, to the point that the Empire pretty much outlawed them)... so why is this relevant? The X-83 uses pretty much all of the same major systems as the Z-28 starfighter (which was developed more than a century before), which is an important plot point as Incom continues to produce the X-83 clandestinely because of the fact that its weapons, engines, avionics, etc. are identical to those of the R-28 which is regarded as 'outdated'. So whats the difference between these two ships, really? The manner in which all these systems are packaged.

I'm curious as to where some of your 'data' comes from regarding the pre-Yavin ships...especially in relation to post-Yavin ships. Sources for your above statements?

What data specifically? Some of the info like MGLT (speed measurement) comes from books like "Incredible Cross Sections" others like weapon armament, shielding, and hyperdrive comes from Essential Guides, etc. You can also go on wookiepedia if you want to get quick sourcing for various 'datapoints' though the site isn't necessarily complete in that regard.

Has anyone considered the possibility using ships from the new MMO?

We know that FFG isn't afraid to use video game based ships. It follows the same basic format with two sides - the Galactic Republic and the Sith Empire - with a bunch of different ships for either faction - I count six apiece from the Wookieepedia page, plus a few others.

Additionally, the ships are so far in the past (3640 BBY) that there's no reason for people to play them against the movie-era ships - it'd be akin to how Wings of Glory had games for the WW1 and WW2 dogfighting.

Y'know, I wouldn't mind a pack booster pack of just some new pilot cards to be honest. There was Renegade Squadron, I'd love pilot cards for them. They could be vanilla PS 3 X-wings, or vanilla Rouge Squadron X-wings that could take Elite Pilot Talents would be cool too. Would love to rock a list of three X-wings with R2 droids and expert handling and basic protons. It would just be to fluffy for me to resist.