Switch Theme:

What will wave 5 bring?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in ca
Huge Hierodule






Outflanking

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.

Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?

A: A Maniraptor 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

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).

CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in ca
Huge Hierodule






Outflanking

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.

Q: What do you call a Dinosaur Handpuppet?

A: A Maniraptor 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

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.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/04/03 19:29:11


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





Central Pennsylvania

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.

Farseer Faenyin
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc)
Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)

Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds) 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

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.


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





Central Pennsylvania

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?

Farseer Faenyin
7,100 pts Yme-Loc Eldar(Apoc Included) / 5,700 pts (Non-Apoc)
Record for 6th Edition- Eldar: 25-4-2
Record for 7th Edition -
Eldar: 0-0-0 (Yes, I feel it is that bad)

Battlefleet Gothic: 2,750 pts of Craftworld Eldar
X-wing(Focusing on Imperials): CR90, 6 TIE Fighters, 4 TIE Interceptors, TIE Bomber, TIE Advanced, 4 X-wings, 3 A-wings, 3 B-wings, Y-wing, Z-95
Battletech: Battlion and Command Lance of 3025 Mechs(painted as 21st Rim Worlds) 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba




The Great State of New Jersey

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.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/04 19:54:36


CoALabaer wrote:
Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Maryland

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.

   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





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.
   
 
Forum Index » Atomic Mass Games (Star Wars & Marvel: Crisis Protocol)
Go to: