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.

 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 An old, outdated star fighter is better than no star fighter.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You mean like slave 1 is obsolete garbage?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.