With the Aggressor spoiled, and its instant comparison (to my surprise) to the Defender, the comparison of large vs small base ships really needs to be fleshed out on a comprehensive scale. I see arguments for the Defender in favor of it being a small-base ship, but I have also seen arguments saying that a large base is better for a ship.

That said, the question is this: is having a large base a benefit or a drawback?

This is a question that has to be addressed very basically. Starting with pure observation:

• A large base has four times the area of a small base (double the length on each side).

• Maneuvering/dodging skill aside, you are more likely to have a large ship in arc than a small ship.
• Likewise, when moving, you are more likely to overlap a large ship than a small ship, and the large ship is more likely to overlap you when it moves.
• A large ship's firing arc covers more area than a small ship's firing arc, and a large ship has a greater area for target locking.
• A maneuver executed by a large base ship takes it further than the same maneuver executed by a small base ship, essentially increasing the speed of all maneuvers on a large ship by 1. Also, a large ship's horizontal and vertical displacement from a barrel roll are both greater than those of a small ship, measured from the center.
• These have additional consequences, all other things equal between a large and small ship:
  • Large ships are easier to target than small ships, but also have an easier time getting a target in arc than small ships.
  • Large ships are easier to block than small ships, but can travel further to avoid blocks. They are also easier to block with, but risk missing the block if the requisite maneuver is a slow one.
  • Large ships can arc-dodge more effectively than small ships.
  • Large ships are faster than small ships. They are less effective at tailing, but they are more effective at closing in on a far-away target. They are more effective at disengaging (if not blocked) from a furball.
  I think it is obvious that a large ship must be flown with a different goal in mind than a small ship.

  But from these alone, it looks like there's mostly just some tradeoffs that you have to take into account when talking about large vs small. The only thing that is unambiguous is this: a large base ship is absolutely the better choice for arc-dodging.

  Please highlight anything I may have missed, but also be aware that I am not putting this in context of existing large ships. (A ship with a turret is in a league of its own in terms of acquiring targets that cannot return fire, for instance, but I don't care about that.) What I want to consider is the case where all other things are equal.

  This leaves me with one question, and one proposal.

  My question to everyone is, "Given a ship of a certain dial, action bar, and statline, would you rather it have a large base or a small base?"

  My proposal is that people playtest existing small base ships on large bases, and report on improved or degraded performance. This will a) confirm or deny the conclusions I reached based on observing the size differences in a vacuum, and b) provide practical support to put to rest the question, "is having a large base a benefit or a drawback?"

I think the clearly discounted costs points to having a small base is better.

Unless it has a turret, I would pick a small base every time.

I think the clearly discounted costs points to having a small base is better.

But with IG2000 at 36 points and Rexler at 37 points, that discount is kinda non existent. In general I tend to agree with your viewpoint on this, but the times appear to be changing.

On topic, I am leaning towards the large base. The OP is spot on with his observations about ease of dodging. If you can fly around asteroids, the large base can present a lot of problems for your opponent. Back before they changed large based barrel rolls, I used to play Han with EU and EH making a kind of large based Soontir. The ease of dodging was absurd, and that build didn't include the ability to boost and barrel roll on the same turn natively. A ship like IG2000 is not quite the dodger that Soontir is, but the lack of BR is made up in speed. There's already been a couple of threads about the movement of the ship that illustrate this far better than I can so check those out for more. Bottom line is that certain large based ships, flown correctly actually benefit from the larger footprint. I think that Han will still be king because PS9 is too much of an advantage, but IG2000 is definitely Big News.

tl;dr I think that a large base is more of a benefit than a detriment.

I think the clearly discounted costs points to having a small base is better.

But with IG2000 at 36 points and Rexler at 37 points, that discount is kinda non existent. In general I tend to agree with your viewpoint on this, but the times appear to be changing.

On topic, I am leaning towards the large base. The OP is spot on with his observations about ease of dodging. If you can fly around asteroids, the large base can present a lot of problems for your opponent. Back before they changed large based barrel rolls, I used to play Han with EU and EH making a kind of large based Soontir. The ease of dodging was absurd, and that build didn't include the ability to boost and barrel roll on the same turn natively. A ship like IG2000 is not quite the dodger that Soontir is, but the lack of BR is made up in speed. There's already been a couple of threads about the movement of the ship that illustrate this far better than I can so check those out for more. Bottom line is that certain large based ships, flown correctly actually benefit from the larger footprint. I think that Han will still be king because PS9 is too much of an advantage, but IG2000 is definitely Big News.

tl;dr I think that a large base is more of a benefit than a detriment.

Sure, the increased movement of a large-based ship gives it the chance to move out of more arcs. But the real trick is still having a target after that. Most large based ships have turrets so that doesn't matter. The IG2000 needs to be pointed at something after it moves. Early game it won't be as big a deal, but I think late game it will suffer.

I think the clearly discounted costs points to having a small base is better.

But with IG2000 at 36 points and Rexler at 37 points, that discount is kinda non existent. In general I tend to agree with your viewpoint on this, but the times appear to be changing.

On topic, I am leaning towards the large base. The OP is spot on with his observations about ease of dodging. If you can fly around asteroids, the large base can present a lot of problems for your opponent. Back before they changed large based barrel rolls, I used to play Han with EU and EH making a kind of large based Soontir. The ease of dodging was absurd, and that build didn't include the ability to boost and barrel roll on the same turn natively. A ship like IG2000 is not quite the dodger that Soontir is, but the lack of BR is made up in speed. There's already been a couple of threads about the movement of the ship that illustrate this far better than I can so check those out for more. Bottom line is that certain large based ships, flown correctly actually benefit from the larger footprint. I think that Han will still be king because PS9 is too much of an advantage, but IG2000 is definitely Big News.

tl;dr I think that a large base is more of a benefit than a detriment.

Sure, the increased movement of a large-based ship gives it the chance to move out of more arcs. But the real trick is still having a target after that. Most large based ships have turrets so that doesn't matter. The IG2000 needs to be pointed at something after it moves. Early game it won't be as big a deal, but I think late game it will suffer.

With a conventional dial I agree 100%. But the s-loops gives it a better chance on that front. Plus the bigger arc covers a lot more real estate at R3 than most people think.

One thing I think should be mentioned is that large bases have a much harder time avoiding obstacles. Of course part of this is simply getting used to a big base, but my big ships have a far greater tendency to hit obstacles compared to small ships.

The S-loops are not superior to the K-turn. It gives you more options, sure. But it also gives you more options to be wrong. If the opponent goes the opposite way you expect, you won't have a shot. And yes, Iggy D will also give it some nice maneuverability. As well as Stay on Target. But, that won't help you too much against the higher PS pilots.

Just because the Defender requires you to fly differently than other TIEs does not mean it is a bad ship. I will still gladly take a Defender against Iggy.

It's got a four k turn that's a massive distance to travel to go 180 degrees, against higher ps pilots the s loop is easy to exploit using a barrel roll.

It's no where near as bad as a shuttle but it's still going to take more careful piloting to avoid stuff than a small based ship.

Clever use of an asteroid field will present real issues.

Interesting topic!

I would seek clarification on one "ramification"

What ramifications this has is:

• ...
• A large ship's firing arc covers more area than a small ship's firing arc, and a large ship has a greater area for target locking.

the difference equates to an extra strip at the widest part of the arc (the "thick end of the wedge") about 1/4 of the large base size (= half a small base) in width. This is also how much more a large ship protudes/projects into such an arc, so I would have thought this would cancel out.

Interesting topic!

I would seek clarification on one "ramification"

What ramifications this has is:

• ...
• A large ship's firing arc covers more area than a small ship's firing arc, and a large ship has a greater area for target locking.

the difference equates to an extra strip at the widest part of the arc (the "thick end of the wedge") about 1/4 of the large base size (= half a small base) in width. This is also how much more a large ship protudes/projects into such an arc, so I would have thought this would cancel out.

Im confused on what you say here...

Could someone do the math and tell us the total area of the front arc for a small base ship and a large base ship?

Thanks

• • Large ships are easier to block than small ships, but can travel further to avoid blocks. They are also easier to block with, but risk missing the block if the requisite maneuver is a slow one.
  • Large ships can arc-dodge more effectively than small ships.

1.) Large ships travel further, but don't travel further to avoid blocks. If a ship can block a small ship, it can block a large ship in the same position. Both large and small ships travel on the same templates, if a blocker is at the destination end of the template, it blocks a ship no matter the size.

2.) Large ships can't arc dodge more effectively using standard maneuvers. You're going further on a particular maneuver, but the net displacement of targetable area isn't greater. If a small ship can't use a 1-bank to dodge (or any other maneuver), a large ship can't either. Large ships can arguably arc dodge more effectively with a barrel roll, because the displacement is so large, but they will also be in arc more because of the bigger footprint.

i'm confused. how does a large base ship have a bigger firing arc? I suppose since you measure from the edge of the base and the base is larger, this in some ways gives slightly more "range" but isn't it essentially a 90 degree arc in either case?

I think that small base is better in almost every situation except barrel roll.

Large base is better for blocking, but also easier to block.

i'm confused. how does a large base ship have a bigger firing arc? I suppose since you measure from the edge of the base and the base is larger, this in some ways gives slightly more "range" but isn't it essentially a 90 degree arc in either case?

This should help. A small base firing arc on top of a large base:

i'm confused. how does a large base ship have a bigger firing arc? I suppose since you measure from the edge of the base and the base is larger, this in some ways gives slightly more "range" but isn't it essentially a 90 degree arc in either case?

Firing Arcs aren't round.

They are three parts:

1. An Arc of Range 1-3 from the corner, from the difference of 90* to the appx 81* of the arc.
2. A rectangle of the front of the ship x Range 1-3
3. An Arc of Range 1-3 from the corner, from the difference of 90* to the appx 81* of the arc.

DracoPyrothayan is right, of course, when considering the leading edge of the base as the starting point (ie juxtaposing the small and large bases with the front edges aligned).

I was considering aligning base centres.

DracoPyrothayan is right, of course, when considering the leading edge of the base as the starting point (ie juxtaposing the small and large bases with the front edges aligned).

I was considering aligning base centres.

In that set, range is reduced by 1/2 a ship's base in all directions

• 1) Large ships are easier to block than small ships, but can travel further to avoid blocks.
• 2) Large ships can arc-dodge more effectively than small ships.

Good discussion. But I have to disagree with these 2 points.

1) If you're trying to block a ship moving 3-straight, parking your blocker at the end of the 3-straight will block both small and large ships. Yes, the total front-to-back distance is longer for the large ship, but the start and end positions overlap the same area, meaning your blocking tactics are the same, regardless of distance.

2) Yes and no. You're still moving a ship whose base covers 4x the area, so even if the Boost/Barrel Roll moves the ship farther, it also has to be moved a lot farther to actually get the whole base out of arc.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see Biophysical said exactly this already.

In another thread, someone did the math:

A large ship has 4x the hotbox, but only a 13.8% bigger firing area.

I'd go so far as to say that the Large base makes it a lot _harder_ to both get out of arc and get an opponent into arc.

And then there's the whole PS 6 thing. Phantoms should dance circles around an Aggressor.

None of which makes the Agressor bad. But it will be a beast to fly. It will also be a terror to go up against.

I dont have the detailed analysis in mathwing MajorJuggler has. But I did an excel file with a formula that pretty much calculates the squad points of each ship with hardly any flaw.
You can see it here:
http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/121931-points-formula-in-excel-good-for-custom-card-creators/

Anyway... with that in mind, I would say the same stats on a Large Ship and a Small Ship would make the Small Ship 10 points more expensive than the large ship. So it is worse to be a Large Ship than a Small Ship.

• 1) Large ships are easier to block than small ships, but can travel further to avoid blocks.
• 2) Large ships can arc-dodge more effectively than small ships.

Good discussion. But I have to disagree with these 2 points.

1) If you're trying to block a ship moving 3-straight, parking your blocker at the end of the 3-straight will block both small and large ships. Yes, the total front-to-back distance is longer for the large ship, but the start and end positions overlap the same area, meaning your blocking tactics are the same, regardless of distance.

2) Yes and no. You're still moving a ship whose base covers 4x the area, so even if the Boost/Barrel Roll moves the ship farther, it also has to be moved a lot farther to actually get the whole base out of arc.

EDIT: Nevermind, I see Biophysical said exactly this already.

Regarding this and Biophysical's post there are a couple of factors missing:-

1) Large ships are easier to block insofar as a ship that would be just to the right/left of a small ship's manoeuvre can be blocking the right/left edge of a large ship. Likewise a ship parked in a position where a small ship would fall just short of bumping it would result in a large ship bump. It's entirely possible you might be able to manoeuvre a ship so that it couldn't quite block the small, but can still block the large. Sure, it's only a minor block in terms of changing the ship's end position but it still will knock out its action.

Another advantage of the small ship is its manoeuvre could land in between 2 small ships, avoiding a block, whereas the combination of one near the manoeuvre destination and one halfway through the manoeuvre could be enough to mean the Large ship barely moves at all (not enough space to land between the 2 smalls).

They can't travel further to avoid blocks though, as noted by the two posters, the actual maneuver distance is the same meaning they have no added capacity to overshoot a blocker.

2) It's a better arc dodger insofar as the original manoeuvre takes its frontage further, meaning the boost/barrel roll originates from a point further forward than with the small ship. It's sheer size does make it more likely to get into an arc in the first place however, or to be hemmed in by obstacles/ships when trying to boost/roll. I therefore disagree with the OP's assertion that the Large Ship is undisputedly a better arc-dodger. It's much more likely to be blocked from arc-dodging.

Interesting topic overall though!