I'm very OK with the ARC170 not being a dogfighter but more being a Recon Rig with guns.

That's the point I'm trying to get across. It should be common sense to not bum rush a ship with the wingspan of the Falcon into a dogfight.

I think we shouldn't get hung up on labels. Clearly it won't be very manoeuvrable (Y-Wing like, maybe worse?), but should have big guns (ie 3 attack), I think. Really though, the stats should be determined as much by gameplay purposes as fluff purposes - the existing ships tend to seem like a compromise betwixt the two don't they?

It should be a 2/1/5/3 or 4, with an aux arc, and it would be the first wide ship. (Its wingspan is huge but it is only slightly longer than an X-wing) an Astro slot, a torp slot, and a crew slot.

Focus and TL

1 forward, banks green

2 forward, banks, turns white

3 forward, banks white

4 forward red

either 5 k-turn or none

maybe have the coordinate action since it is an intel fighter.

Size is not irrelevant. If you take the same level technology (ie equip the ARC 170 with new guns) the bigger runs will be stronger.

Hans blaster is smaller than a storm troopers rifle but is more powerful, so strong in fact it's illegal.

Really? That sounds like something some fanboy up for some really crappy EU source. I'm not saying that makes it any less a part of the canon, but if we're including that then we sure as heck can't use the "KotoR doesn't count cos it was just an aesthetic/marketing concern" argument, which means Star Wars tech has been stagnant for thousands of years.

OK that's unfair, maybe it's not a crappy source, obviously I haven't seen/read it and it could be very good, I don't want to sound like an arse who hates everything he's not personally familiar with. I don't buy that though.

It should be a 2/1/5/3 or 4, with an aux arc, and it would be the first wide ship. (Its wingspan is huge but it is only slightly longer than an X-wing) an Astro slot, a torp slot, and a crew slot.

Focus and TL

1 forward, banks green

2 forward, banks, turns white

3 forward, banks white

4 forward red

either 5 k-turn or none

maybe have the coordinate action since it is an intel fighter.

I'm just not sure from a gamplay perspective another 2 attack ships has much to offer. It won't be suitable for swarms, it won't have the double tap (from one arc) the Y-Wing has, so I don't see quite what use it would be. I'd have to go with three attack I think, although that would really push the price up into the Firespray band wouldn't it, and it shouldn't simply be a rebel Firespray.

So make it a recon buff/debuff ship with moderate combat capabilities?

Make it so each faction has pilot cards for it, with each pilot card using that factions astromech. IMPERIALS DID HAVE ASTROMECHS!

Maybe make a biggs-alike card, or other special stuff.

Let's not make the ARC another boring dogfighter.

That sounds awesome.

I dunno, just looks and feels like a heavy hitter to me. Those guns... it has to punch hard!

Well, you could give it Firepower 4 range 2-3

Honestly, as long as it's fun an unique and in the game, i'm happy.

Size is not irrelevant. If you take the same level technology (ie equip the ARC 170 with new guns) the bigger runs will be stronger.

Hans blaster is smaller than a storm troopers rifle but is more powerful, so strong in fact it's illegal.

Really? That sounds like something some fanboy up for some really crappy EU source. I'm not saying that makes it any less a part of the canon, but if we're including that then we sure as heck can't use the "KotoR doesn't count cos it was just an aesthetic/marketing concern" argument, which means Star Wars tech has been stagnant for thousands of years.

OK that's unfair, maybe it's not a crappy source, obviously I haven't seen/read it and it could be very good, I don't want to sound like an arse who hates everything he's not personally familiar with. I don't buy that though.

"Originally designed by BlasTech and seen as early as 33 BBY , the weapon found increased use at the hands of outlaws and fringers on the edge of legality, groups like smugglers and the Rebel Alliance due to its capability to penetrate stormtrooper armor . This caused the Empire to put a restriction order upon this model, restricting and technically outlawing the purchase and ownership of the gun."

​It's right there on wookiepedia you don't even have to scroll down that far.

The DL44 is classified as a heavy pistol, hence my comparison to the Desert Eagle or MK23. - Or Colt Python.

That regulation seems almost sensible, but really, the E-11 also has significant kick and more importantly is full auto.

Does it mean the smaller gun is more powerful than the bigger one?

Not really. different purposes.

Sometimes the gun is bigger because bolt for bolt it about evens out, but all the heatsinking means rapid fire is more practical.

Now the E-11 suffers from a recoil problem (that's also on wookiepedia I beleive) Other guns like the T-21 less so. Hence my argument that while the ARC's guns are mighty big they might not necessarily be for increased firepower.

Increased range or rapid fire are equally possible.

In other words i'm probably agreeing with you.

I don't' really care what wookiepedia says about it - I'm talking about the feeling Star Wars as a series of films gives, that's the key point. Subjective, obviously, you may not share my opinion, but quoting obscure EU sources isn't the way to go.

ISD is more powerful than CR90, Death star is more powerful than anything else, it clearly gives a size matters impression to me.

I don't' really care what wookiepedia says about it - I'm talking about the feeling Star Wars as a series of films gives, that's the key point. Subjective, obviously, you may not share my opinion, but quoting obscure EU sources isn't the way to go.

ISD is more powerful than CR90, Death star is more powerful than anything else, it clearly gives a size matters impression to me.

to quote yoda:

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."

One of the smallest jedi is one of the most powerful in the orders history, i really don't get how you can miss one of starwars key messages.

​The rebellion is minuscule compared to the Empire but who wins at Yavin and Endor?

I don't' really care what wookiepedia says about it - I'm talking about the feeling Star Wars as a series of films gives, that's the key point. Subjective, obviously, you may not share my opinion, but quoting obscure EU sources isn't the way to go.

ISD is more powerful than CR90, Death star is more powerful than anything else, it clearly gives a size matters impression to me.

to quote yoda:

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you? Hmm? Hmm. And well you should not. For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship."

One of the smallest jedi is one of the most powerful in the orders history, i really don't get how you can miss one of starwars key messages.

​The rebellion is minuscule compared to the Empire but who wins at Yavin and Endor?

Yoda isn't an item of technology.

Also, Yoda was full of c***

Some people refuse evidence and continue to believe whatever they want regardless. It's called willful ignorance.

Some people know better than to say never.

The correct answer to anything without evidence is scepticism.

You really aren't reading my posts are you? I'm not using the movies to prove its combat effectiveness. I'm using them to support the evidence that IT'S NOT MEANT FOR DOGFIGHTING . There's is a difference. Y-wings aren't meant for dogfighting but they sure are effective against ISDs. And as for the part about CR-90s and ISDs, yea it is stupid, I'm just using your logic.

I read your posts, and turned it around to support a viewpoint that the X-wing is not meant for dogfighting. I'M POKING FUN AT YOUR ARGUMENT. I am using hyperbole.

Your only example points at how many ARC's we see destroyed in the opening battle and that somehow justifies your view that they are a terrible superiority fighter. You even agreed that that whole setup is a parallel to the Trench Run scene yet they somehow get judged by their sole visible performance when they had a massive handicap. What?

In the end, it doen't matter one bit what the ARC's history or capabilities are and whether or not it fits into XMG lore-wise. What matters is if FFG thinks it can fit a spot in the game that doesn't make it a slightly better/worse copy of another ship, and if it can fulfill a role that no other ship does.

Look at the **** TIE Defender. That ship barely represents its game version, yet the only other option we had was a souped up TIE Interceptor, which would have been boring and probably unhealthy for the game in the long run. instead FFG did the smart thing and turned it into a different kind of animal. Now whether the succeeded in making it viable is a whole 'nother topic in multiple different threads.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the ARC's guns are probably more powerful than the TIE fighter's. That doesn't make them more effective for the air to air role (or space to space in this case), it just means that shot per shot they deliver more punch. TIE fighter laser canons seem to me to have an extremely high cyclic rate, both in the movies and in the games. The ARC doesn't seem to possess that high cyclic rate at all. I think what we're dealing with is something akin to the comparison of cannons vs machine guns in WW2.

I would compare the ARC-170's guns to something like the Ju-87G-2 Stuka dive bomber from WW2. It had twin 37mm cannons slung under the wings for tank-busting. They were heavy, slow-firing, and made the roll response on the aircraft extremely sluggish, but they hit like trucks. They weren't suited for the air-to-air role though, because the cyclic rate was too low to get enough of a scatter pattern in the air to actually hit anything. You'd have to be super lucky to hit another plane with the G-2s cannons, except maybe a bomber.

The TIE fighter, by contrast, uses a high-cyclic rate weapon, more like the US .50 Cal from WW2, or if you want to give them a tech boost, more like the high cyclic rate 20mm cannons found on aircraft in later years.

As many many many many hours of playing Warthunder will attest to, the G-2 is absolute murder on bombers. My poor B-17's... Dog fighting is another matter. You'll get wrecked if they hit you, but the chances of that are very low.

I'm sure I mentioned the stuka in this topic too. It's what the ARC reminded me of.

At any rate the following must be held as true:

Until the game is rendered out of print, there is always a realistic chance that a prequel era ship wave may exist.

Unless someone can concrete tell the future and say there isn't then it's a possibility.

Look at TFA ships. In order for TFA to be added new factions and ships will need to be added ideally being incompatible with previous GCW waves.

They are realistically more likely than prequel era ships, I suspect no-one here will seriously argue with me over that.

Eventually someone is going to have prequel nostalgia and it's probably going to get greenlit. Maybe a year from now, maybe on TPMs 20th anniversary. **** that's only what? 4 years down the line?

As many many many many hours of playing Warthunder will attest to, the G-2 is absolute murder on bombers. My poor B-17's... Dog fighting is another matter. You'll get wrecked if they hit you, but the chances of that are very low.

Sure, but keep in mind that WarThunder, even played with the realism settings turned all the way up, is a pretty arcade sim. In reality, the B-17 was almost a hundred miles per hour faster than the Stuka, and it tended to fly at altitudes above 20,000 feet, which is nearing the top of the Stuka's service ceiling, and is certainly higher than its typical operating altitudes. That being said, similar cannons were used to good effect by the Bf-110 during the war in the bomber-destroyer and nightfighter roles. So, the principle of the heavy cannon against the large aerial target holds.

The ARC-170 should be more akin to an HS-129, ME-410, IL-2, etc.

Also, 20 and 30mm cannons were common air to air weapons throughout the war...

I had a 20mm deactivated cannon shell as a paperweight for the longest time.

The ARC-170 should be more akin to an HS-129, ME-410, IL-2, etc.

Also, 20 and 30mm cannons were common air to air weapons throughout the war...

Yes, and the 37mm was used in the air-to-air role by the Yak-9T as well as the P-39 Airacobra. However, there is no question whatever that low cyclic rate heavy cannons are much harder to aim in the air to air role against fighter-sized targets. The 20mm is not so low in cyclic rate, apart from maybe the early variants used by the Germans and the Japanese, but even then, they're quite a bit higher in cyclic rate than the Stuka's 37mm cannons. As to 30mm cannons being common air to air weapons, this isn't really the case. They were used by the 262 in small numbers, and by some numbers of 109s, but by and large the 20mm was the dominant air to air cannon in the war.

As to what the ARC should be, its appearance is clearly based on the North American P-61 Black Widow. Its performance is probably closer to the 110 than the 410 or the HS-129.

1- The Z-95 is older than the V-Wing and the ARC-170. It was created before the Battle of Naboo.

True if you replace "is older than" with "was first produced in." The Z-95 keeps being updated and rereleased like many long running models: it's kind of the Star Wars Ford Transit. The Z-95's an old model but not an antique by default because Incom still make them updated to modern technological standards. You can buy a factory new Z-95 in the GCW.

The ARC-170 was first produced in the Clone Wars as a heavy fighter for the Republic. After the Clone Wars, it continued as a heavy fighter for the Republic for roughly five more years, then was phased out in favour of the TIE fighter. This meant a cease to ARC-170 production: while they'd certainly take time to filter out of the Imperial ranks the ARC ceased to be produced, and the base model's technology stops at about 14 BBY.

As a result, the ARC's somewhat outdated by the GCW. The Z-95 is usually not that severely outdated (although I could see Scum flying some truly ancient rebuilt Z-95s) and its stats are where they are because it's not a heavy fighter like the X-wing: it's a cheap, nimble, relatively low budget fighter craft.

This is all more than likely a hundred percent correct. Of the two, I see the ARC-170 as being far less likely to be seen. ICly, it isn't a truly appealing option to any faction because of parts and crew requirements. Too much investment required from every angle. The V-Wing on the other hand seems like it would fit better. The lack of a hyperdrive seems to be the biggest issue but it seems to play as a less evasive TIE with shields and more survivability, being harder to manufacture and more expensive as a result.The ARC doesn't seem to have a role in-game or universe while I can see the V-Wing having a role in-game and universe.

The ARC-170 seems perfect for a pirate ship, fast and agile enough to escape larger ships, adaptable, rugged, and most importantly packs the punch to take down freighters quickly. The only thing that might make it hard is original parts, but Scum doesn't care about that.