I spend a lot of time on these forums and I have seen a lot of speculation of possible ships to come in the future and I see the same thing coming up again and again.

Lots of ships in the Star Wars Universe have turrets. In fact if its not a fighter it probably has a turret. And not as some sort of supplementary weapon, but as their primary weapon- give this ship 360 firing on its primary weapon.

But firing 360 degrees in this game is a huge advantage. There are only a select few ships that can do it. Even fewer that can do it with their primary weapon.

I am just imagining this game another 2 years in the future... Will we ever fly the lowly forward only firing fighters.

I think part of this problem comes from the fact that the game does not accurately reflect how much more difficult it is to fire a turreted weapon (and hit something) than it is to fire fixed forward mounted weapons.

Ships with turrets tend to have a dedicated gunner. Even the Y-Wing has a gunner for its turret.

I have to admit I'd be tempted to run a tournament that banned all Phantoms, YT-1300's, YT-2400's, and Decimators. I think it would be fun! Call it Classic X-wing.

My problem isn't with turrets themselves. After all, do we really want to play a starfighter-scale Star Wars game that DOESN'T include the Millenium Falcon? The problem is the implementation. The introduction of a stumbling block for firing out of arc may help...like requiring a Target Lock on the target, or not being able to spend Focus tokens when attacking. Something like that wouldn't change the feel of the ship at all but would go a long way toward altering how it plays, both for the controller and his opponent.

If I could go back in time and give James feedback on it...

I'd of made the rule that a weapon that fires outside the primary arc gets a -1 attack die. Because I agree that it's not the turrets persay that's the problem it's how powerful the turrets can be.

Dash with a HLC can be a serious beast assuming no one gets into the range 1 donut.

My problem isn't with turrets themselves. After all, do we really want to play a starfighter-scale Star Wars game that DOESN'T include the Millenium Falcon? The problem is the implementation. The introduction of a stumbling block for firing out of arc may help...like requiring a Target Lock on the target, or not being able to spend Focus tokens when attacking. Something like that wouldn't change the feel of the ship at all but would go a long way toward altering how it plays, both for the controller and his opponent.

That makes no sense. On ships with turrets, they have a gunner doing the targeting and firing. The pilot/captain isn't flying the ship and firing the turret at the same time.

If I could go back in time and give James feedback on it...

I'd of made the rule that a weapon that fires outside the primary arc gets a -1 attack die. Because I agree that it's not the turrets persay that's the problem it's how powerful the turrets can be.

Dash with a HLC can be a serious beast assuming no one gets into the range 1 donut.

*per se*

What would be the cause of the -1 die? Just because?

What would be the cause of the -1 die? Just because?

Yeah, just a balance mechanic. Based almost completely on hindsight.

That makes no sense. On ships with turrets, they have a gunner doing the targeting and firing. The pilot/captain isn't flying the ship and firing the turret at the same time.

This is exactly what makes them work badly. That disconnect between the pilot's mind and the gunner's causes an impedance.

Historically and realistically, turrets simply aren't an effective option in air combat. That held true for purely defensive options, and the idea of slapping a bunch of turrets onto a flying platform for anti-fighter work is pretty ludicrous.

From a game balance stand point, not having to worry about your own arcs enables purely defensive flying with zero offensive penalty. That's a HUGE advantage, which is not completely covered in the cost or other functionality for those ships, which are already strong platforms even on their own. There are a number of things that could be done to fix that. Limiting the offensive flexibility is one, but there are any number of others that could be considered.

What would be the cause of the -1 die? Just because?

Yeah, just a balance mechanic. Based almost completely on hindsight.

I guess that just seems arbitrary, and frankly, unneeded. All ships with primary weapon turrets are large, and relatively un-agile:

Ship Agility

==== =======

YT-1300 1

YT-2400 2

VT49 0

Their turrets make up for the fact that larger ships are more vulnerable to taking damage, both because of their size and their low agility.

For ships with secondary turrets, they are also low agility:

Ship Agility

==== =======

HWK-290 2

Y-Wing 1

Additionally, they have to pay additional points to buy their turrets.

That makes no sense. On ships with turrets, they have a gunner doing the targeting and firing. The pilot/captain isn't flying the ship and firing the turret at the same time.

This is exactly what makes them work badly. That disconnect between the pilot's mind and the gunner's causes an impedance.

Historically and realistically, turrets simply aren't an effective option in air combat. That held true for purely defensive options, and the idea of slapping a bunch of turrets onto a flying platform for anti-fighter work is pretty ludicrous.

From a game balance stand point, not having to worry about your own arcs enables purely defensive flying with zero offensive penalty. That's a HUGE advantage, which is not completely covered in the cost or other functionality for those ships, which are already strong platforms even on their own. There are a number of things that could be done to fix that. Limiting the offensive flexibility is one, but there are any number of others that could be considered.

Historically, turrets didn't work very well because you have slow human beings attempting to hit targets that are much faster relative to them in mostly pre-computer days. In the Star Wars universe, they have all sorts of targeting computers to compensate.

Historically, turrets didn't work very well because you have slow human beings attempting to hit targets that are much faster relative to them in mostly pre-computer days. In the Star Wars universe, they have all sorts of targeting computers to compensate.

Yeah, that's what made the escape from the Death Star sequence so exciting - Han pushed the "Computer Fire" button on the turret control, and they took a nap while the targeting computers did all the work.

Historically, turrets didn't work very well because you have slow human beings attempting to hit targets that are much faster relative to them in mostly pre-computer days. In the Star Wars universe, they have all sorts of targeting computers to compensate.

Yeah, that's what made the escape from the Death Star sequence so exciting - Han pushed the "Computer Fire" button on the turret control, and they took a nap while the targeting computers did all the work.

Hilarious. If you bother to watch the sequence closely, you'll see that both Han and Luke have a targeting computer, along with other assistive technologies. They're not just aiming with a Mk1 eye ball.

I'd of made the rule that a weapon that fires outside the primary arc gets a -1 attack die. Because I agree that it's not the turrets persay that's the problem it's how powerful the turrets can be.

What would be the cause of the -1 die? Just because?

As Buhallin alluded to, the justification would be that the gunner firing the turret has no idea how the ship is going to move from instant to instant. If the pilot jukes left to avoid hitting something, then suddenly the gunner's target is in a completely different location, relative to the gunner. That makes it A LOT harder to keep a turret on target.

Of course, realistically, that means that any weapon that is supposedly being fired by a gunner should get the penalty, whether the target is in front of the ship or not.

What Buhallin and Forgottenlore are saying is exactly why shooting from the turret with the ship on autopilot was such a horror in X-Wing Alliance.

Start around minute 7 to skip the explanation

Another option (not that I actually think it necessary) would be to say that turrets ships still have a firing arc, covering ~90° just like other ships, but each round (during the activation phase I should think) turrets may rotate the firing arc either direction by 90°...

Hilarious. If you bother to watch the sequence closely, you'll see that both Han and Luke have a targeting computer, along with other assistive technologies. They're not just aiming with a Mk1 eye ball.

These same technologies are presumably available to standard fighters as well. Assuming a common base of tools, a separate pilot/gunner system is not going to be nearly as effective as a single coordinated weapon system on a fast-moving platform.

If you bother to watch the sequence closely, you'll see that both Han and Luke have a targeting computer, along with other assistive technologies.

Yet... How many shots does it take to kill a tie fighter? Compare that to the number of shots it takes a X-Wing to kill one in other places in the movie.

But even then, IMO Balance > Fluff pretty much every time. If giving turrets a -1 when outside the arc would make the game better, then **** the fluff and do it.

I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about it, I haven't crunched any numbers and I'm not saying it's the perfect fix. But it's also effectively the same thing FFG is doing with Auththrusters.

I'd of made the rule that a weapon that fires outside the primary arc gets a -1 attack die. Because I agree that it's not the turrets persay that's the problem it's how powerful the turrets can be.

What would be the cause of the -1 die? Just because?

As Buhallin alluded to, the justification would be that the gunner firing the turret has no idea how the ship is going to move from instant to instant. If the pilot jukes left to avoid hitting something, then suddenly the gunner's target is in a completely different location, relative to the gunner. That makes it A LOT harder to keep a turret on target.

Of course, realistically, that means that any weapon that is supposedly being fired by a gunner should get the penalty, whether the target is in front of the ship or not.

We have technology to keep a turret on an M1 Abrams tank pointed at a target no matter where the bottom of the tank goes or what terrain it hits. I'm sure technology like that would exist in Star Wars.

If you bother to watch the sequence closely, you'll see that both Han and Luke have a targeting computer, along with other assistive technologies.

Yet... How many shots does it take to kill a tie fighter? Compare that to the number of shots it takes a X-Wing to kill one in other places in the movie.

But even then, IMO Balance > Fluff pretty much every time. If giving turrets a -1 when outside the arc would make the game better, then **** the fluff and do it.

I haven't spent a ton of time thinking about it, I haven't crunched any numbers and I'm not saying it's the perfect fix. But it's also effectively the same thing FFG is doing with Auththrusters.

It would have been pretty boring and unsuspenseful if they blew up each Tie as soon as they shot at them. They do have 3 agility you know.

Ships with turrets tend to have a dedicated gunner. Even the Y-Wing has a gunner for its turret.

But taking the fact that you are not only shooting at a moving target, but also firing from a moving target that you aren't controlling makes lining up shots in real life really difficult.

Even in the modern attack craft like the Apache Helicopter and the F-14 (and other two seated fighter craft) The copilot handles the Target Lock, weapon selection and other set up work, but the actual trigger is fired by the pilot who is also in control of the movements of the attack craft.

Ships with turrets tend to have a dedicated gunner. Even the Y-Wing has a gunner for its turret.

And if you run the version that doesn't the turret locks forward.

In a "go back in time and redesign from scratch way...

I'd restrict all turret primaries to the forward arc, unless there was a crew member with a "turret crew" on board.

If the balance worked out, I'd even let a ship have more than one attack- assuming they had enough turret crew members.

It would be interesting to see the choice between spending Turret Crew Chewie on a crit, if that meant losing your turret. Or Turret Crew Leia might see some use.

It would be hard to balance properly- maybe even impossible- but it would be fun if we could see Chewie flying while Luke and Han manned the guns against a swarm.

I have to admit I'd be tempted to run a tournament that banned all Phantoms, YT-1300's, YT-2400's, and Decimators. I think it would be fun! Call it Classic X-wing.

What about Y-wings and HWKs?

If we want to relate it to modern tech, it's worth considering that auto-stabilizing platforms and the like see use on ground and sea platforms, which are relatively stable, but modern air combat makes pretty much zero use of turrets. That would seem to point away from the "targeting computers can handle it" argument.

If we stick to Star Wars, I think arguing the available tech of the Star Wars universe is a black hole we really shouldn't go down. It's a broken-down future conceived of in the '70s, and just like the original Star Trek, our own tech has moved far past it while the universe itself hasn't. In some ways, the tech is advanced; others, it's not. Honestly, the nature of Star Wars as a highly heroic narrative argues pretty strongly that there AREN'T effective targeting/tracking technologies, because if there were, you wouldn't need heroes to fire the guns, and it would be as boring as an automated point defense system smashing down fighters while the heroes napped. The technological base for Star Wars is, and always will be, what the narrative needs to make it work.

The justification can be flexible enough to cover what the game needs, and while there is obviously disagreement, a lot of people feel that unrestricted, full-power turrets are a very bad thing for the game.

I hadn't known about modern tanks, ships, etc using auto tracking systems. It seems like such an obvious outgrown of steadycam and other photography technologies, though.

I do think part of the reason a modern combat aircraft would not use turrets is that time to target has dropped a lot since WW2. Why ruin your aerodynamics with a randomly placed bubble when you can just go _really fast_ and avoid being seen until things are already exploding on the ground. Not to mention that modern bombing campaigns tend to take place in an environment of total air supremicy.

Star Wars tends to be different. Enemies see you coming and going. Attacks on capital ships/installations tend to take place with an intact enemy space force. Etc.