Getting away from all the "sky is falling" and "when will rebel aces get here" threads for a minute, whenever I try to describe this game to people, I typically lead with "it's basically a top gun simulator, with dice"

Which lead me to thinking that it would be really awesome to get, well, a top gun simulator. Some of the values would need to be tweaked, because aircraft don't have shields just yet, but the idea of loading up 4 f-14s with Phoenix missiles and shooting down some migs (actual migs, not black f-5s) would be equally as fun.

I'd equate it more to a WWI/WWII dogfight game 'with missiles' tbh as the whole manouvres thing seem more WWII than modern.

A modern fighter gets a lock and can engage kilometres away, this is 'whites of their eyes' stuff like the battle of Britain.

Probably why its the same mechanics in the WWI and WWII similar games ?

But to answer the question i dont think i'd play a modern version as it just wouldnt really feel right.

My entire experience of flying fighter jets comes from Ace Combat, which is less "fire and forget" and more dogfight-heavy.

Surely the way to sell this game to people though is 'it like you get to play the death star star fighter battle with little model x wings?'

I'd have thought 'star wars' was a bigger selling point than 'top gun'

No.

Surely the way to sell this game to people though is 'it like you get to play the death star star fighter battle with little model x wings?'

I'd have thought 'star wars' was a bigger selling point than 'top gun'

Star Wars covers a whole gamut of things though, sword fighting, gun battles, etc.

This game is about dogfighting. And top gun is about dogfighting (and maybe Tom Cruise tuning away from his latent homosexuality).

It's the simplest descriptor without having to clarify anything

agree with Sanchez... this is my first miniatures game, and while I love the game and everything about it, I'm a huge star wars nut and that was what got me hooked in the first place, unfortunately/Fortunately (Depends on your point of view) theme is HUGE for people and even if it played exactly the same, I wouldn't have bought hundreds of dollars of ships and such to play it. I think FFG is realizing that too since they just announced a couple more Star Wars games even basically saying that Imperial Assault is very much like a game they already have with Star Wars added on (I will be buying that but never played Descent)

It wouldn't work well in modern setting.

I think the only real-life era it matches with any closeness is the Vietnam War.

Hell no. You make it more real and it gets too much like glorifying violence and being macho. Huge turn off for me.

agree with Sanchez... this is my first miniatures game, and while I love the game and everything about it, I'm a huge star wars nut and that was what got me hooked in the first place, unfortunately/Fortunately (Depends on your point of view) theme is HUGE for people and even if it played exactly the same, I wouldn't have bought hundreds of dollars of ships and such to play it. I think FFG is realizing that too since they just announced a couple more Star Wars games even basically saying that Imperial Assault is very much like a game they already have with Star Wars added on (I will be buying that but never played Descent)

This is actually my opinion, so that's cool.

I only jumped on this game because imperial aces caught my eye. I'd probably get far fewer ships if any at all, had this been a modern Air Force game.

No. But Battlestar Galactica...

I got into mini wargaming wishing there was a Star Wars game, now I'm happy.

No. But Battlestar Galactica...

BEGONE, HERETIC

Hell no. You make it more real and it gets too much like glorifying violence and being macho. Huge turn off for me.

I'm very interested in this response.

Where's the line? These games are a facsimile of things that happened to fictional characters. So, would it be ok if it were fictional pilots in real fighter jets? Or, how about video games like call of duty. Those are fictional characters, in a modern setting. Are they included in the glorifying violence too? What about replacing bullets with lasers makes han's kill count ok?

I apologize if it seems I'm patronizing, I'm genuinely curious.

No.

No. But Battlestar Galactica...

(Also, way to few ships...)

OP: No.

My mates used to play an online BSG fighter game... it was dull as **** to watch them. They kept trying to get me into it and I had better things to do like paint the shed.

I can see myself being as enthusiastic about a tabletop BSG, my only regret is that I sat through every episode of the show.. started off good, got boring abot season 3, got ridiculous soon after but they kept assuring me it 'got better'... it didnt.

I think the Star Wars label causes such a Pavlovian response (grinning like an idiot, glassy eyed, handing over money without thinking) in people of a certain age (ages 30 to 50) that if the basic game mechanics were exactly the same but the setting was different, it would not be such a huge hit. In my case, the Star Wars label drew me in and the strength of the product has kept me coming back for more and more and more... If this game was set in WW1 or WW2, I don't think I would have been drawn in in the first place unless dragged to it.

Darth Chuck bring that minimum age down... I'm under 30 throwing all my money at Star Wars! To be honest I don't think age has anything to do with it. I wasn't old enough to see the movies in theaters when they first came out, to be honest the first time I owned them was the first revamping that Lucas did, but it still hit me the same way it hit many other people. The prequels, while not up to the standards of many of the older crew, at least did one great thing, they brought in another age group that also fell in love with Star Wars. Star Wars is luckily something that people of all ages can enjoy.

you see i'd been tempted by 'wings of glory' or whatever the similar WWI game is called for a while (pre painted models, manouvre cards/dials etc.. its not the same but its conceptually similar) but couldnt find enough mates interested in the 'great war'

(was it that great, i think it was probably a bit horrendous.. although my great grandad apprently loved being at Gallopoli go figure.. .)

With 'star wars' as the 'catch/bait' I've got non wargamers to buy core sets before they even played a game just by telling tthem it was easy, really good fun and that you dont have to paint or glue anything but you can if you want to.

I wouldn't be that interested if this were not Star Wars. See also: I have zero interest in Attack Wing. I have friends who might like it (since they always tease me that there shouldn't be air resistance and such in space, and they adore flying Ace Combat whatever number we're on now), but I myself would not. And I'm the one who got my friend group playing.

Surely the way to sell this game to people though is 'it like you get to play the death star star fighter battle with little model x wings?'

I'd have thought 'star wars' was a bigger selling point than 'top gun'

Star Wars covers a whole gamut of things though, sword fighting, gun battles, etc.

This game is about dogfighting. And top gun is about dogfighting (and maybe Tom Cruise tuning away from his latent homosexuality).

It's the simplest descriptor without having to clarify anything

Simpler than 'star wars dogfights!' or 'star wars fighter battles' ?

Honestly i'd be put off by being told a game had any simularity to 'top gun'... that was a truly terrible film... no actually it was just poor.

'Bronx Warriors' or 'zombie flesh eaters III'... now *thats* truly terrible film

'Bronx Warriors'

Not to be confused with THE Warriors, which is an epic f***ing movie.

Oh yeah 'bronx warriors' is an italian 'spaghetti apocalypse' movie which tries to be both 'the warriors' and 'mad max' on a budget of 75 pence