I mean did they just universally have problems installing them? Easy guess is the engine wash but since they can fly through hyperspeed and all...
Also, random, does anybody else remember flying too close to the engines of a capital ship in X-wing VS TIE Fighter and taking damage from the engine wash?
The history id that armor (and shields) cost money. A good commander will keep his enemy to his side so as to fire a broadside. As both ship pass and turn the aft of the ships face each other and likely will not take fire.
Starting with the tall ships of the early armadas, through most modern armor, the rear quarter tends to have lighter grade of protection for cost and weight.
In space you should be able to see anything approaching you and move to keep it out of your aft quarter.
I think it's more a tactical decision - the same reason why armored vehicles concentrate armor in the front. In the ideal tactical situation, you will be putting your primary firepower towards the enemy, so you will want most of your shielding there, too.
For Star Destroyers, the firepower is concentrated in the forward arc; for most Rebel ships, the flanks have the most firepower. Either way, you want strong shielding in that arc, and strong shields in the front so you can advance towards the enemy while surviving. Aft shields are less important, as you will be maneuvering to keep that arc away from the enemy (as it has less firepower).
Each ship platform has a limit to the shields and armor they can take...and if the aft shields are less important, then it makes more sense to reduce shield capacity there to allow for stronger shields elsewhere. They could just as easily build the ships with equal all-around shielding, but that doesn't make as much sense.
The big ships can only carry so many shield generators, and have limited power available, so the most important areas get the most shields.
Engine wash damage started in XvT and carried on through XW:A. It wasn't in X-Wing or TIE Fighter, which gave the CR-90 a big blindspot in back.
Well I have to ask, do you plan on running away often? 
Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Warfare, has engine backwash as the reason. I’ve only recently started reading it, but highly recommended for those who are keen on fluff. I’m hoping to write some detailed scenarios using it as well :-)
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Essential_Guide_to_Warfare
Think bug on a windshield. Now speed way up, and replace bugs with massive rocks (not kilometre long, but maybe 3 meters across). And at relativistic speeds, even something as small as a proton becomes lethal radiation.
You need shields to absorb the impact / push it out of the way.
The combat impact is purely a side benefit.
Think bug on a windshield. Now speed way up, and replace bugs with massive rocks (not kilometre long, but maybe 3 meters across). And at relativistic speeds, even something as small as a proton becomes lethal radiation.
You need shields to absorb the impact / push it out of the way.
The combat impact is purely a side benefit.
The shields worked great in The Empire Strikes Back, those ISDs didn't suffer any damage in the Asteroid Field.
Yes, in space a loose bolt could penetrate your hull easily as it is flying at a couple thousand miles/kilometers an hour at you.
It's 100% tactical. In WWII, tanks had the strongest armor on the front, moderate armor on the sides, and weak armor on the rear.
If the back end of your ship is facing your enemy you are having a bad problem and you will not stay in space today.
It is a game design decision. Weak rears give an incentive for flanking maneuvers, making for a better game.
The charm of a science fiction game is, that you can back up any decision on game design with bogus science.
"Engine backwash", muhahahaha.
Commanders are encouraged to attack rather to flee.
Would you attack with minimum frontal shielding but extreme back shields? Of course not!
Dat ass o' the Star Destroyer is easier to hit too with it being so wide.
It is a game design decision. Weak rears give an incentive for flanking maneuvers, making for a better game.
The charm of a science fiction game is, that you can back up any decision on game design with bogus science.
"Engine backwash", muhahahaha.
Don't believe it. It's a trick to lure you into behind his ship where he's prepaired a trap.
Oh yeah, I have been lured into a "backside trap" before.
Was not fun.
Star Wars was always WW2 in space, physics-wise, so it's no surprise that Armada's Capital Ships resemble tanks 
apart from engineering and redirects, we may see some ways to strengthen rear shields by borrowing some mechanics from Empire at War. I recall there was some ship with the ability to shunt engine power to shields, leaving you a sitting duck albeit an incredibly hard to kill one. Not sure if we'll see that in Armada as the ability to stop moving isn't necessarily a drawback (removing the ability to change speed and tweek the navigation tool, though...) but we do already have the Dominator converting shields to damage so space's the limit
Have you seen 'Fury'? Basically it's that tank battle. The Star Destroyer is the Tiger Tank, and the plucky Rebel ships are 'Fury'
Get behind it and kill it. Stay in it's front and get murdered.
Fury is an amazing movie, imo 
but don't watch it if you want to color your perception of Star Wars games, that **** gets real heavy 
The tiger battle is a tad misleading, though, because the tiger is just absolutely nasty no matter the range nor angle of approach (you need to hit the rear to have a prayer of hurting it, though) while the Victory is far less devastating at any arc that isn't the front and isn't nearly as scary from far away
The Victory would be more like a mix between the tiger and the Elefant or however the German's spelled it, a massive lumbering tank destroyer with a fixed cannon (too heavy for a turret) which was unparallelled in its role but absolutely hopeless outside of it (see Victory's 1 anti-squadron die) and tended to maneuver about as well as a static emplacement, only those didn't tend to sink into roads that were never meant to hold their weight
unfortunately, space doesn't have much rough terrain to mire the Victory onto, but it's also not particularly gifted in terms of maneuverability Tarkin + Defensive liason can make it pretty surprising, though
Have you seen 'Fury'? Basically it's that tank battle. The Star Destroyer is the Tiger Tank, and the plucky Rebel ships are 'Fury'
Get behind it and kill it. Stay in it's front and get murdered.
They were just lucky.
Fury is an amazing movie, imo
Yes, except for the tank battles. No Tiger commander worth his salt would rush forward at point blank range, as he could kill a Sherman a kilometer away.
The tiger battle is a tad misleading, though, because the tiger is just absolutely nasty no matter the range nor angle of approach (you need to hit the rear to have a prayer of hurting it, though) while the Victory is far less devastating at any arc that isn't the front and isn't nearly as scary from far away
The 76mm gun on the 'Easy Eight' Sherman (which 'Fury' was one) could penetrate a Tiger I's front armor from ~500m. Such an encounter would certainly be bad for the Shermans, but not as bad as the movie depicts.
Of course, both sides made some pretty stupid decisions in that movie ("we're going to send your tanks out alone, unsupported, while the M8 Greyhounds that you see as you're leaving just get to chill..." "hey, there's an American tank all alone, but all these Panzerfausts are heavy, so we're going to set them down and march in formation towards it..." "hey, there were Germans in this forest, but we're going to get out of our tanks because the Nazis never had snipers..."), so the Tarkin-style overconfidence of the Tiger commander just goes with the theme.
More armor.
More mobility.
More firepower.
Pick 2.
This formula has always applied to all engines of destruction.
simple designing....if you can only have a limited amount of defense rate....where would you put the most defense? in your front or in your rear...
Exactly, an engineering limitation. If the Empire listened to commanders that wanted to be fully protected then they'd have to put armor absolutely everywhere. Then they'd want more where their guns were. Then more in the blind spots...
Why you'd end up with some sort of huge armored death sphere or something. And even that would have some sort of exhaust port or something.
Exactly, an engineering limitation. If the Empire listened to commanders that wanted to be fully protected then they'd have to put armor absolutely everywhere. Then they'd want more where their guns were. Then more in the blind spots...
Why you'd end up with some sort of huge armored death sphere or something. And even that would have some sort of exhaust port or something.
For only your third post, this was a worthy contribution.
We'll be watching your forum career with great interest.
More armor.
More mobility.
More firepower.
Pick 2.
This formula has always applied to all engines of destruction.