The fact that the Firespray was a pre-Clone Wars design,

Only the Slave I is an original Firespray, and that's a ship that's been modified countless times by both owners, undergone multiple overhauls and a complete refit by KSE.

The other Firesprays were manufactured by KSE in the Imperial era.

See my above post, as I think it answers this quite accurately. What we're talking about is not a new ship called the Firespray, but the original Firespray that you are assuming (on the basis of zero actual evidence) to have upgraded components. Maybe it does. But if you can update the ship without changing its appearance, and we have N-1s making a flyover of Theed in RotJ, then the same argument applies to the N-1. Given the wonderful characteristics of the airframe, that is suggestive of the original argument I was making, which is that an N-1 has 3 agility dice. (Though, I confess, it has been a long and torturous path in support of those 3 agility dice).

Firstly, guessing you missed this bit from the Firespray post:

"If you mothballed one after the Battle of Naboo (33 BBY) and then pulled it out in 4 ABY it's going to struggle. But it strikes me as unlikely the Naboo wouldn't update the N-1 over 37 years, assuming of course that the Theed starfighter corps are still in charge of the defence of Naboo and the Empire haven't taken it over."

we're talking about is not a new ship called the Firespray, but the original Firespray that you are assuming (on the basis of zero actual evidence) to have upgraded components.

I'm basing that on the fact that it's silly to suggest that, upon revisiting the design 20 years later, that 20 years containing a 4 year long galactic war, they'd change nothing. The only argument in favour of stagnation is the now Legends relegated KoTOR, and multiple threads have explained why KoTOR looks the way it does. We've got a much stronger argument against stagnation in the form of the TIE interceptor and the fact that a ship that is quite literally TIE fighter 2.0 exists.

But if you can update the ship without changing its appearance, and we have N-1s making a flyover of Theed in RotJ, then the same argument applies to the N-1. Given the wonderful characteristics of the airframe, that is suggestive of the original argument I was making, which is that an N-1 has 3 agility dice.

The problem with giving it 3 agililty dice isn't "it's old it must be steamrolled". It's where do you then reduce it to stop it outperforming the A-wing?

If you mothballed one after the Battle of Naboo (33 BBY) and then pulled it out in 4 ABY it's going to struggle. But it strikes me as unlikely the Naboo wouldn't update the N-1 over 37 years, assuming of course that the Theed starfighter corps are still in charge of the defence of Naboo and the Empire haven't taken it over.

Yes, I don't think we're actually disagreeing in principle. So, given that that's the case, are you ready to support 3 agility dice for the N-1?

Also, according to Wookieepedia, the Firespray was supposed to be a limited-run ship, a prototype in fact, with six total units built. And, drumroll please, it was first produced prior to the Battle of Naboo. So, we have a prequel-era ship that predates the Clone Wars in a more limited run than the N-1, and it's in the game with no complaints. Granted, its antiquity is something that was added later by Lucas when he made the prequels, but that antiquity is canon, and nobody has ever brought it up as a reason for it to perform poorly.

I don't think the game will add the N-1. I don't think it makes sense as a release, but that wasn't the discussion I was having either. I was talking performance capabilities vis a vis GCW ships.

The one fight scene it has it utterly fails to kill an unshielded target.

We see it flying through space and taking off from bespin in the OT movies it's never in a fight so we have zero clue how well or how poorly it would perform.

Your argument is bootless.

Jangos oppoment was a Jedi in a fighter craft specialised towards their particular usage. Considering Obi-Wan turned up in the OT it's hardly surprising Jango couldn't kill him. What we did see however was a pretty extensive range of abilities that was used by that particular slave 1. Though it's a fair point

Besides, the Slave 1 as stated was reproduced later on and a fair few other characters then went on to use it. Plus it was the iconic ship of the only bounty hunter in the OT that did anything (which, tracking Han Solo was pretty much his primary contribution.). Aside from Anakin there isn't a single pilot I could name, and he was 9 years old. Much as it would tickle me to see Darth Vader pelting around in one of these things ,I don't think it's going to happen.

The N-1 doesn't have any named pilots that would be relivent to the Old Trilogy. Relivent to the OT is the key thing here, most ships have seen service in this era have belonged to the current trend of ships. It's manufacture date is unimportant; if it didn't feature in the EU or in the OT then chances are it would need a fair amount of creativity to work in. Though I am open to suggestions as I am particularly fond of that ship, and Mauls (even though the latter litrally did nothing)

That being said, I only got the Scum ships and invested in that faction because I thought they were cool: I don't actually have any idea on who most of the pilots are, that I will likely read up on later.

It doesn't have a "Generic Aggressor".

Doesn't mean a generic Aggressor doesn't exist. There aren't exactly three TIE interceptor squadrons in existence, Alpha, Avenger and Saber.

I don't understand why you think "Aha! This is a battle that IG-88 happens to have been involved with!" is more of a stretch than "OK, this dogfight is happening near Naboo." Or indeed, "Well, OK, Lando and Chewie are both flying YT-1300s in this fight. But neither of them are the Falcon." Or whatever other nonsensical narrative fluff weirdness the nature of X-Wing throws up.

What I'm saying is that you can't credibly cite "there weren't many built" as a reason not to include the N-1 in a game that features the IG-2000.

The reasons the IG-2000 is in the game don't apply to the N-1. It has no GCW pilots. It isn't a neat fit into any of the factions without shoehorning it. And before you give me "the Rebels could have used it" I'll point out that every single ship currently in the game is an unquestionable fit into its faction. It's not "could they have used that", it's "that is a Rebel ship".

Also: I'd contend that the average person on the street (or even the average fan of Star Wars) is more likely to recognise a Naboo Starfighter than an IG-2000. Or even IG-88 himself. So what's more "iconic"?

In a, I quote FFG, "GCW forward" context? The N-1's not even in it.

A ship's inclusion in X-wing has to be based on its presence in the Imperial era. I actually struggle to think of a graphical source in the Legends canon depicting the N-1 in use by any of the game's three factions in that era.

The old Republic fighters like the V-wings and ARCs are Imperial (albeit obsolete) if you put them in grey livery, and the V-wing could be spun as Scum. But the N-1 is not a Republic fighter.

"The N1 wouldn't be released because it's a Prequel ship that doesn't fit neatly into any faction" is a completely different argument, though - and incidentally, not one I disagree with. I'm just pointing out that it's ridiculous to say "Of course you have to have IG-88's ship in the game, he's iconic" when the thing you're comparing him to is a ship that actually appeared in an actual Star Wars film.

Firstly, guessing you missed this bit from the Firespray post:

"If you mothballed one after the Battle of Naboo (33 BBY) and then pulled it out in 4 ABY it's going to struggle. But it strikes me as unlikely the Naboo wouldn't update the N-1 over 37 years, assuming of course that the Theed starfighter corps are still in charge of the defence of Naboo and the Empire haven't taken it over."

we're talking about is not a new ship called the Firespray, but the original Firespray that you are assuming (on the basis of zero actual evidence) to have upgraded components.

I'm basing that on the fact that it's silly to suggest that, upon revisiting the design 20 years later, that 20 years containing a 4 year long galactic war, they'd change nothing. The only argument in favour of stagnation is the now Legends relegated KoTOR, and multiple threads have explained why KoTOR looks the way it does. We've got a much stronger argument against stagnation in the form of the TIE interceptor and the fact that a ship that is quite literally TIE fighter 2.0 exists.

But if you can update the ship without changing its appearance, and we have N-1s making a flyover of Theed in RotJ, then the same argument applies to the N-1. Given the wonderful characteristics of the airframe, that is suggestive of the original argument I was making, which is that an N-1 has 3 agility dice.

The problem with giving it 3 agililty dice isn't "it's old it must be steamrolled". It's where do you then reduce it to stop it outperforming the A-wing?

Obviously, there's a lot of cross-posting going on. I read it initially and then promptly forgot that you wrote it. But like I said, I don't think we disagree in principle. So, the question I would pose is this - why do we have to stop it out-performing the A-wing? Or really, more to the point, why shouldn't it perform as well as the A-wing? Given what we know about the production situation, about how expensive it is to produce, about how limited the run of the ship seems to have been, and a whole host of other factors, why shouldn't it perform as well as the A-wing? Especially, I think, since we both agree that it's not going to get made anyway.

Yes, I don't think we're actually disagreeing in principle. So, given that that's the case, are you ready to support 3 agility dice for the N-1?

No, because I can't see how to stop it being superior to the A-wing if you do. A Z-95 with a much better dial, an astromech slot and a torpedo slot I can see as being a decent representation but if you give it that extra agility you have to utterly cripple its dial. The astromech slot means that whatever dial you give it can have all green 1s and 2s, which is better than the A-wing. Why do you think the E-wing, meant to be an X-wing A-wing hybrid, lacks 1 turns?

That's obviously true. But FF haven't put a generic Aggressor in the game, they've put a heavily modified Aggressor, the IG-2000, in the game. A ship of which there are - what, less than ten? In the whole galaxy?

What does it say under the pilot name? It sure ain't IG-2000.

I don't understand why you think "Aha! This is a battle that IG-88 happens to have been involved with!" is more of a stretch than "OK, this dogfight is happening near Naboo." Or indeed, "Well, OK, Lando and Chewie are both flying YT-1300s in this fight. But neither of them are the Falcon." Or whatever other nonsensical narrative fluff weirdness the nature of X-Wing throws up.

The first condition is, given the size of the galaxy, far more probable than the second as the first could occur just about anywhere. And which side are these icons of Naboo fighting on? If it's the Rebel side, Naboo's about to get a Star Destroyer bombardment shaped boot on one of its minor cities. Imperial? Unlikely.

I'm just pointing out that it's ridiculous to say "Of course you have to have IG-88's ship in the game, he's iconic" when the thing you're comparing him to is a ship that actually appeared in an actual Star Wars film.

I didn't say that. I said an ESB bounty hunter is a far more obvious choice than a prequel planetary defence fighter. You keep arguing against things people haven't actually said.

Why does it have to not outperform the A-wing? Because the A-wing's on par with the TIE interceptor and the interceptor is the best the Empire's got in that department. You'd have a planetary defence force's almost homebrew outperforming the best the Rebel Alliance with all its defector scientists could come up with and the industrial machine of the Empire could put together. Even the StarViper, the absolute best money can buy starfighter wise, is a far cry from a god ship.

If the Naboo can do better than the A-wing with their limited resources, why couldn't the Rebels with their significantly better resources?

Ah the astromech slot. That makes sense.

If it's got to have 3 agility I'd recommend making it more comparable to the M3A in terms of stats and dial (2/3/2/1 or 2/3/1/2 which'd make sense given its tiny size) or giving it an E-wing dial rather than a TIE fighter dial.

Given it's a houserule ship anyway you could also give it the Salvaged Astromech slot instead of the astromech slot, which could prove interesting.

If it's got to have 3 agility I'd recommend making it more comparable to the M3A in terms of stats and dial (2/3/2/1 or 2/3/1/2 which'd make sense given its tiny size) or giving it an E-wing dial rather than a TIE fighter dial.

Given it's a houserule ship anyway you could also give it the Salvaged Astromech slot instead of the astromech slot, which could prove interesting.

I thought about that. For flavor, I think the Scyk stat line works better than the Z-95 stateline, partly because this ship will be going up against Z-95s regularly. Explain to me why the Scyk statline and a TIE fighter dial is broken though. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious, but I'm not a min-maxer by nature.

What I'm saying is that you can't credibly cite "there weren't many built" as a reason not to include the N-1 in a game that features the IG-2000. The difference between the IG-2000 and, say, the Firespray is that X-Wing's got a card for "All The Umpty-Thousands Of Firesprays In The Galaxy That Aren't Flown By Anyone We're On First-Name Terms With". It doesn't have a "Generic Aggressor".

Also: I'd contend that the average person on the street (or even the average fan of Star Wars) is more likely to recognise a Naboo Starfighter than an IG-2000. Or even IG-88 himself. So what's more "iconic"?

(Personally, I think the N-1 looks kind of nice in a Buck Rogers sort of way, but I'd be happy if I never got reminded of the existence of The Phantom Mess again for as long as I live, so I'm entirely ambivalent about it being included in the game, and can see loads of good arguments as to why it shouldn't be. It's just that specific reason I'm taking issue with).

What I actually wrote was "If it's of such limited production and value outside its backward, isolated home planet, that's just another reason for the mosquito ship to never enter the game". The IG and others of limited production had value (and use) outside of a backward, isolated planet.

Why is Naboo backward again?

Why is Naboo backward again?

Because as has already been mentioned in this thread they were isolationist and valued the past more than the future.

Why is Naboo backward again?

Because as has already been mentioned in this thread they were isolationist and valued the past more than the future.

Like Japan, whose aesthetic sense Naboo is greatly rooted in.

What exactly do you expect technology from the KotoR period to look like? They had FLT technology, blasters, shields, lightsabaers, there's only so different in can possibly get. The fact that by Phantom Menace people hadn't all developed to exist "on a higher plane" as the old cliche goes suggests a degree of stagnation to me.

I can certainly imagine there was refinement with each new ship design, but I suspect it's the kinda that takes a long view to appreciate, not something that jumps out at you (similarly, problems probably became apparent that made people prefer the older ships in some cases). Was the TIE Interceptor based on new technology, or was it just taking the TIE Fighter technology in a new, more focused direction? Also, I don't know about in the canon, but in X-Wing there are times I'd take TIE Fighters over TIE Inteceptors, wouldn't you?

Why is Naboo backward again?

Because as has already been mentioned in this thread they were isolationist and valued the past more than the future.

Like Japan, whose aesthetic sense Naboo is greatly rooted in.

I don't often agree with Mr Jebus, but I'm with him on this one. I haven't really thought about why very much, but I always got the impression that Naboo wasn't exactly Correlia.

As for Japan - it isn't isolationist any more, and when it was it didn't really work out great for it, did it?

Why is Naboo backward again?

Because as has already been mentioned in this thread they were isolationist and valued the past more than the future.

Like Japan, whose aesthetic sense Naboo is greatly rooted in.

I don't often agree with Mr Jebus, but I'm with him on this one. I haven't really thought about why very much, but I always got the impression that Naboo wasn't exactly Correlia.

As for Japan - it isn't isolationist any more, and when it was it didn't really work out great for it, did it?

Same goes for Naboo. They stopped being isolationist after the Trade Federation dispute and instead became major players in the Galactic Senate.

Where does the idea that Naboo was isolationist come from?

The trade federation was blockading the planet to prevent them from trading with other worlds. That means, well, that they were trading with other worlds i.e. not isolationist. The fact that they were a significant enough trading hub to justify a major political incident (and that their senator was a prominent, powerful one, representatives from backwaters don't get nominated for chancellor) suggests that they were VERY not isolationist.

Why is Naboo backward again?

Because as has already been mentioned in this thread they were isolationist and valued the past more than the future.

Like Japan, whose aesthetic sense Naboo is greatly rooted in.

I don't often agree with Mr Jebus, but I'm with him on this one. I haven't really thought about why very much, but I always got the impression that Naboo wasn't exactly Correlia.

As for Japan - it isn't isolationist any more, and when it was it didn't really work out great for it, did it?

Same goes for Naboo. They stopped being isolationist after the Trade Federation dispute and instead became major players in the Galactic Senate.

True, but that's not much time for them to catch up in terms of engineering skills. I don't know anything about modern military technology so I can't think of a good analogy, but imagine country that's famous for making beautiful, top end luxury cars, toys if you will, but not well respected for its serious stuff like military equipment. Italy springs to mind, but for all I know they're famous for good fighter planes as well as sports cars.

Certainly the way that wee, flying slave-owner on Tatooine said "Naboolian" sounded like it was respected, but that doesn't necessarily mean respected for making good military grade stuff.

Slight tangent - I was just watching Empire, and they refer to "the nth planet in the Hoth system" (I think it was 6th), so why's everyone talk like Hoth's the name of the planet, rather than the system? If it's both, you'd think they'd just say Hoth when referring to the planet.

Where does the idea that Naboo was isolationist come from?

The trade federation was blockading the planet to prevent them from trading with other worlds. That means, well, that they were trading with other worlds i.e. not isolationist. The fact that they were a significant enough trading hub to justify a major political incident

Or that they were deemed a suitable target by the TF precisely because they weren't a big deal.

and that their senator was a prominent, powerful one, representatives from backwaters don't get nominated for chancellor

Says who?

Why is Naboo backward again?

Because as has already been mentioned in this thread they were isolationist and valued the past more than the future.

Like Japan, whose aesthetic sense Naboo is greatly rooted in.

I don't often agree with Mr Jebus, but I'm with him on this one. I haven't really thought about why very much, but I always got the impression that Naboo wasn't exactly Correlia.

As for Japan - it isn't isolationist any more, and when it was it didn't really work out great for it, did it?

Well when you admit the colour of m&m's has nothing to do with how they taste we can make up.

Why is Naboo backward again?

Because as has already been mentioned in this thread they were isolationist and valued the past more than the future.

Like Japan, whose aesthetic sense Naboo is greatly rooted in.

I don't often agree with Mr Jebus, but I'm with him on this one. I haven't really thought about why very much, but I always got the impression that Naboo wasn't exactly Correlia.

As for Japan - it isn't isolationist any more, and when it was it didn't really work out great for it, did it?

Well when you admit the colour of m&m's has nothing to do with how they taste we can make up.

I haven't had M&Ms for yonks, but I I can well believe it. Mind you, until a few weeks ago I was sure the same was true of Skittles until somebody pointed out the flavour differences, and now I feel like a numpty, cos they're taste really different. There's no difference with mini eggs though, so I think with chocolate sweets they probably all taste the same.

Mini eggs! now I must get some.

Some quotes that might be relevant:

"The N-1 was never intended as a dedicated combat starfighter, but it does function well in small skirmishes against space pirates or outlaws."

- The new essential guide to vehicles and vessels

"The people of Naboo have prospered under the security of the Republic, advancing their society without concern for outside threats."

- Episode I The visual dictionary

I'd say these sources characterise the Naboo starfighter as well designed but not necessarily very tough or hard-hitting. Pilots are well trained but often not experienced in combat.

I don't see why this craft should be very different from a Z-95, perhaps an A-Wing, or something in between. There might be a niche for a cheap ship with an astromech slot.