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:

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.