C'mon. Even in WWII you had fighters escorting huge bomber planes. Sure it's not quite dogfighting. But it is aerial combat. And fighting around those large planes.

I just wish we had more bomber esque ships for large ships. Or something. Or capital or command esque ships. Just different roles. Dang it.

I am a fan of smaller ships as well.

The Large Ships just muck up the place and feel clunky (even the Falcon at times, in spite of its awesome dial) due to the standard 3x3 board size limitation.

I thought the standard size was 3x3

It is.

I am a fan of smaller ships as well.

The Large Ships just muck up the place and feel clunky (even the Falcon at times, in spite of its awesome dial) due to the standard 3x3 board size limitation.

I thought the standard size was 3x3

It is.

That's what I get for reading your post so early in the morning...

Don't mind me

Also. You're against lambdas? Seriously? Seriously? Showing up in lists like falcons???????

Falcons are 32% of the meta!!! What garbage.

Wow, I ask for thoughts and yet there is so much vitriol. I didn't expect everyone to agree with me, but some are quite rude.

To those of you who have disagreed with me because you see the ships participating in space battles in the movies or video games, you have a very valid point. Perhaps I am using the context of ships that size (in comparison) being lumbering in air battles and applying it to space battles. All it would take to be as maneuverable as a smaller ship would be stronger thrust in various directions. Considering the game doesn't take real physics into account anyway should probably make me less caring of the bigger ships.

I guess it is just aesthetics to me. Oh well. Thanks for the thoughts to those of you who expressed them kindly.

If you didn't want discourse, you wouldn't have asked for comments on the matter, so thanks for inviting discussion despite the risk that it would bring about negativity.

Some people are really attached to large base ships and probably felt you were trying to get rid of them. Personally, I get what you're saying. In fact, I usually take only small base ships because I want to maneuver nimbly, and I just don't know how to fly the larger ships. I just thought your premise was wrong.

Keep flying.

If you didn't want discourse, you wouldn't have asked for comments on the matter, so thanks for inviting discussion despite the risk that it would bring about negativity.

Some people are really attached to large base ships and probably felt you were trying to get rid of them. Personally, I get what you're saying. In fact, I usually take only small base ships because I want to maneuver nimbly, and I just don't know how to fly the larger ships. I just thought your premise was wrong.

Keep flying.

Nevermind...may have misread you.

S'okay, dude. It happens.

I've had to face big ships often it's never bothered me, I tend to use mostly fighters but ships like the firespray have been shown to be agile enough to deserve a place in the game.

While I do think that the Falcon has made the meta less varied, that is not what I want to talk about today.

I have a dislike of the Falcon, Slave I, Lamda,Outrider, and Decimator. This is not because of their power level or effect on the meta. Instead, they do not seem to me to be dogfighting ships. It doesn't look right aesthetically and it doesn't seem right mechanically. The FACT that Falcons and Lamdasin particular show up in a large number of lists only makes it worse. I love games that are all small based ships. They seem to me to be dogfighting games.

Thoughts?

What these ships allow is a varied set of scenarios. For instance, you don't have to just be fighting enemy ships just to do it. You could be imagining a high profile prisoner transport that the rebels seek to disrupt, or perhaps the Rebels are attempting to assassinate some high ranking dignitary to prevent the Empire from solidifying its hold in a region where the Rebels are more active. Either way, you can sure bet that if a shuttle or cargo ship finds itself in a kill or die situation, every pilot involved is going to do the best they can. I for one enjoy all the possibilities inherent in having these ships feature in combat. (plus they break up the styles of play a little bit. the game would get stale if all you ever did was fly/fight the same types of strategies…)

While I do think that the Falcon has made the meta less varied, that is not what I want to talk about today.

I have a dislike of the Falcon, Slave I, Lamda,Outrider, and Decimator. This is not because of their power level or effect on the meta. Instead, they do not seem to me to be dogfighting ships. It doesn't look right aesthetically and it doesn't seem right mechanically. The FACT that Falcons and Lamdasin particular show up in a large number of lists only makes it worse. I love games that are all small based ships. They seem to me to be dogfighting games.

Thoughts?

What these ships allow is a varied set of scenarios. For instance, you don't have to just be fighting enemy ships just to do it. You could be imagining a high profile prisoner transport that the rebels seek to disrupt, or perhaps the Rebels are attempting to assassinate some high ranking dignitary to prevent the Empire from solidifying its hold in a region where the Rebels are more active. Either way, you can sure bet that if a shuttle or cargo ship finds itself in a kill or die situation, every pilot involved is going to do the best they can. I for one enjoy all the possibilities inherent in having these ships feature in combat. (plus they break up the styles of play a little bit. the game would get stale if all you ever did was fly/fight the same types of strategies…)

Great points!

This is weird. OP said clearly this wasn't about Falcon hate it is about large ships and how they relate to dog fighting. I'd yout don't want more "whining" about Falcon fatness, why are you hijacking the thread towards that end?

Now you are right in saying that he also extends his dislike to all large ships in his post. So in that case the Title either is either mismatched and should say something like "Large Ships ruin the dogfighting game." If the title is intended then it is obviously focused on the Falcon as first item mentioned tend to take up priority. Therefor it is a very usual Falcon comment.

Now on to large ships, I can understand the annoyance as they tend to have 10 or more health, enough firepower to one shot smaller ships, and large area of control with multiple arcs. Not to mention people do "break" the dogfighting aspect with YT-fortress builds or even the Deci-fort once it is released. Still many people will agree that it would be a lesser game without them. They still fit the theme of Star Wars.

If only I could change the title to "Lessons from Marinealver on Thread Titles"

Title your post about not being a falcon bashing thread; then proceed to bash said craft? Ha. I'm surprised this thread lasted this long!

The falcon is probably one of the most dogfighty ships in the universe. It's fast, has tactical prowess with a turret and other load out options, and a great dial. The lambda, on the other side of the spectrum, has even more tactical options and relies even more heavily on good maneuvering since it doesn't have a rear arc or turret. And slave one is great.

To me it sounds like your real complaint is "Large ship bases take up more space". Most large ships ca move "faster" (or farther) than thier small base counter parts, especially if given Engine upgrade. With Expert handling or native BR, the large base barrelroll end up in positions that make every small base ship except the phantom jealous. While they certainly fly differently, I don't think you can say any of them (and both new large ships have great dials) are not "dogfighters".

Non-game-mechanics-wise, large ships won't have the maneuver problems in space that they would in atmosphere/gravity, so they should be (in theory) on par with the smaller ships as far as maneuverability.

PSST- gravity is perhaps the single most powerful and important force being applied to everything in the universe. Outside of the very small number of solid masses in the galaxy it's probably the thing spacers have to worry about most when piloting.

Non-game-mechanics-wise, large ships won't have the maneuver problems in space that they would in atmosphere/gravity, so they should be (in theory) on par with the smaller ships as far as maneuverability.

PSST- gravity is perhaps the single most powerful and important force being applied to everything in the universe. Outside of the very small number of solid masses in the galaxy it's probably the thing spacers have to worry about most when piloting.

Sorry, I worded that really poorly. I was thinking of friction from air resistance (nearly Zero in space), and lift requirements (also very much lower, until you get too close to the planet/moon/giant space station) holding them back much less in space than in atmosphere/gravity.

I think most ships have repulsers to help in a gravity well, certainly can't see how a tie fighter flies in atmo otherwise.

Title your post about not being a falcon bashing thread; then proceed to bash said craft? Ha. I'm surprised this thread lasted this long!

The falcon is probably one of the most dogfighty ships in the universe. It's fast, has tactical prowess with a turret and other load out options, and a great dial. The lambda, on the other side of the spectrum, has even more tactical options and relies even more heavily on good maneuvering since it doesn't have a rear arc or turret. And slave one is great.

To me it sounds like your real complaint is "Large ship bases take up more space". Most large ships ca move "faster" (or farther) than thier small base counter parts, especially if given Engine upgrade. With Expert handling or native BR, the large base barrelroll end up in positions that make every small base ship except the phantom jealous. While they certainly fly differently, I don't think you can say any of them (and both new large ships have great dials) are not "dogfighters".

Non-game-mechanics-wise, large ships won't have the maneuver problems in space that they would in atmosphere/gravity, so they should be (in theory) on par with the smaller ships as far as maneuverability.

PSST- gravity is perhaps the single most powerful and important force being applied to everything in the universe. Outside of the very small number of solid masses in the galaxy it's probably the thing spacers have to worry about most when piloting.

So "not your usual comments" equals "not falcon bashing"? My comments were different than falcon bashing based on the effect on the meta or its prevalence in tourney builds ergo, my title was only problematic insofar as you jumped to conclusions.

My statements demonstrated that my issue was AESTHETIC, not game play or meta related. Or at least not game play related unless you include the aesthetics of the game in game play.

I will now address the rest of your post, in which you again jumped to the conclusion that my dislike of the large ships is based on their size and game play in spite of me SPECIFICALLY saying that it had nothing to do with that. The falcon is not one of the most "dog-fighty" ships. It is in 4 space battles that I can recall. 1) leaving deathstar in which it flies straight and the turrets (notoriously difficult to hit small agile fighters with) kill the tie fighters 2) Battle of Yavin. Surprises a Tie fighter and shoots it from the flank with element of surprise...nothing else. 3) Fleeing Hoth it flees into an asteroid field to avoid combat. It does maneuver around asteroid field 4) Battle of Endor. It flies into the deathstar.

While the asteroid field and deathstar demonstrate maneuverability, they do not demonstrate great fighting ability.

I hope they enter a Skipray Blastboat into the game. Now there's a dogfighty large ship!