Honour guards are human. They weren't designed and built by an arms manufacturer.

Do you get "purely ceremonial" tanks?

A freighter can not be built for combat because its primary role is transporting cargo. A shuttle can not be designed for combat because it's primary role is transporting people. But all a starfighter does is fight. How can you have a starfighter for which the primary role is not starfighting?

Utilitarian design can be to a degree, not absolute.

"Heavy" and "super-heavy" tanks and Battleships, particularly around the time of WW2, were more often icons of national pride than entirely practical designs. While they are certainly combat-useful, logistical and strategic concerns make them poor choices on which to spend excessive resources. If you have some know-how, it is probably possible to point at any category of military equipment and find examples that were designed without maximum practicality in mind (excluding examples of "practical" designs simply failing to perform).

Yeah, the S-Turn is not a reposition, it's a maneuver. A red maneuver with no number to be more specific, so it can never be made green by astromechs or what have you.

Then isn't that the same as doing a forward followed by a bank (maybe a two bank)?

I'm sorry to sound so negative, it just sounds like a slightly convoluted way of achieving something we can already do (or that would be simpler to introduce by way of a speed two baller roll manoeuvre).

It's not at all, because it's a single-side offset. So, the idea is that you make a one bank, followed by a one bank the opposite way. This faces the fighter in the same direction it started, but moves it forward and off to one side. It's more like a two forward with a double barrel roll. I considered plotting it with a 2 hard instead, but that's a whole lot of movement for one red maneuver, but that may work better. Haven't play-tested it yet, and I have two competing ideas in my mind.

The first idea is that the game desperately needs a single-side offset maneuver like they have in Wings of War/Wings of Glory. This is what you do when initiating a rate fight against an enemy. You want offset to avoid the guns pass, and to give you space to maneuver, so that when you break hard into him, you end up getting around on his six quite quickly. So, if you imagine the approach on this, you would have two ships approaching one another head-on. The Naboo fighter would initiate an S-turn, the next move would be a green hard one or a green hard two, cutting across the flight path of the opponent, and putting yourself in position to boost to get arc. So, you're making a hard and aggressive turn circle entry.

The second idea is that this maneuver could be a version of the "worm" which is a move used in fighter-piloting to force an overshoot. In this case, the hard yaw would force your ship violently off-course, changing its velocity vector, and then you'd throw it back the other way, putting yourself on your original heading, more or less, but you'd have slowed down so much that the opponent would have overshot. In this instance, I think the maneuver would best be represented more like a barrel roll as a movement action. So, you can set your dial to a one left or one right, enabling you to clear the enemy's flightpath so that he overshoots, and then you can either boost after him or stay where you are to get guns on the target.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm liking option 2.

As to the idea of a speed 2 barrel roll maneuver, I quite like that. Could be interesting.

Honour guards are human. They weren't designed and built by an arms manufacturer.

Do you get "purely ceremonial" tanks?

A freighter can not be built for combat because its primary role is transporting cargo. A shuttle can not be designed for combat because it's primary role is transporting people. But all a starfighter does is fight. How can you have a starfighter for which the primary role is not starfighting?

The C-130 transport has several combat designator roles after retrofitting.

It's not at all, because it's a single-side offset. So, the idea is that you make a one bank, followed by a one bank the opposite way. This faces the fighter in the same direction it started, but moves it forward and off to one side. It's more like a two forward with a double barrel roll.

...

As to the idea of a speed 2 barrel roll maneuver, I quite like that. Could be interesting.

So, wouldn't it be easier to just provide a speed-2 barrel roll? I still don't quite see the difference - is it that you could do this manoeuvre when the forward-then-barrel-roll would be blocked?

Yes, because obviously machines are inferior in all aspects to humans... Especially when it comes to precision stuff where you need fine motor control...

They are in star wars, droids are a match for clone troopers at best they are not superior if they were the separatists would of won because you can mass produce them in days and weeks instead of years, in war numbers mean alot.

That's not really a problem in Star Wars. They have truly static technology. Their blaster, hyperdrive, shield, and ion engine designs haven't changed or improved in thousands of years. Same with computing technology and electronics, like targeting computers.

It's not true at all if they had reached the apex then there would be one design they used for four thousand years straight, you'd have no reason at all to make new designs of fighter.

Yet in the movies alone we see a progression from tie fighter to tie advance to tie interceptor in a few short years each more powerful and superior for it's given task.

You go from the prequel carrier to victory class star destroyers and then to imperial class.

You see the y-wing's replacement being brought in in the form of the B-wing, you see the A-wing come in to counter the tie interceptor.

Thats without even touching EU sources.

It's incredibly simple-minded to assume that just because there's a variety of fighter designs that there isn't an apex in technology. It fails to take into account the hundreds or thousands of corporations in the galaxy that manufacture fighters, which would have their own values as to what constitutes a good design.

Just because there are different designs between fighters spaced a few years apart doesn't mean that their designers are producing something more advanced than ships that appeared five thousand years prior. KotOR had designs like the Aurek that were just as maneuverable as the TIE Fighter and in fact had more powerful weaponry. Same with the Naboo Starfighter. It's clearly just as maneuverable as the TIE in Episode I and has blasters that are as powerful as the TIE's.

The only reason the Republic didn't have larger vessels than the Empire was their philosophy. Ancient Sith designs were larger than the Imperial class, and the Lucrehulk was two miles in diameter. The Republic believed in utilizing smaller, more efficient designs that could be manufactured quickly and cheaply while still having a reasonably high firepower. The Empire believed in building enormous ships that were the size of small countries in order to terrorize the populace.

The Y-wing's design being replaced by the B-wing isn't an indication of advancement so much as it is the Rebel Alliance now having access to more planetary resources. The Empire captured or nationalized thousands of corporations that made advanced starfighters, like Seinar Fleet Systems, and older models like the Y-wing were left out because they didn't fit the design philosophy of the Empire. There were dozens of surplus Y-wings that the Alliance was able to get ahold of because the Empire didn't consider them a credible threat when the ship relies on ordnance for a punch and they control the manufacture of proton torpedoes. The Alliance was able to make use of them only because that's all they had besides Z-95's. When Slayn and Korpil defected, they were able to provide the Alliance with their manufacturers and designers, and they gave them a fighter that was superior to the Y-wing.

The A-wing is roughly on par with the TIE Interceptor, because while it is faster, it has inferior weaponry and maneuverability. Besides, you can't compare them because they're actually designed for two totally different missions. The TIE is designed as an interceptor (a fighter that relies on speed to intercept an enemy force before they can reach their target) while the A-wing was designed as a light scout vessel (a fighter that relies on speed to get in and out as quickly as possible).

It's not at all, because it's a single-side offset. So, the idea is that you make a one bank, followed by a one bank the opposite way. This faces the fighter in the same direction it started, but moves it forward and off to one side. It's more like a two forward with a double barrel roll.

...

As to the idea of a speed 2 barrel roll maneuver, I quite like that. Could be interesting.

So, wouldn't it be easier to just provide a speed-2 barrel roll? I still don't quite see the difference - is it that you could do this manoeuvre when the forward-then-barrel-roll would be blocked?

The idea is that, without advanced sensors, you're doing a forward, then barrel roll. Or, in the case of the latter, you're effectively creating a sideslip maneuver, as, again without advanced sensors, you can barrel roll in the movement phase, which would enable you to force an overshoot of an enemy behind you, while also putting yourself out of position so that you don't block him, which is sometimes desirable (like in the end-game).

The idea is that, without advanced sensors, you're doing a forward, then barrel roll. Or, in the case of the latter, you're effectively creating a sideslip maneuver, as, again without advanced sensors, you can barrel roll in the movement phase, which would enable you to force an overshoot of an enemy behind you, while also putting yourself out of position so that you don't block him, which is sometimes desirable (like in the end-game).

I am completely confused! What's to stop you doing a forward and then a barrel roll normally? What difference does it make being part of the manoeuvre itself rather than an action?

The idea is that, without advanced sensors, you're doing a forward, then barrel roll. Or, in the case of the latter, you're effectively creating a sideslip maneuver, as, again without advanced sensors, you can barrel roll in the movement phase, which would enable you to force an overshoot of an enemy behind you, while also putting yourself out of position so that you don't block him, which is sometimes desirable (like in the end-game).

I am completely confused! What's to stop you doing a forward and then a barrel roll normally? What difference does it make being part of the manoeuvre itself rather than an action?

It depends on your pilot skill, and what the other person does whether you want to go forward at all. Suppose, for example, you have a low pilot skill, and an enemy behind you. You want that enemy in front of you so that you can shoot it. If you move first, and you go forward as your action, and then pick a side to barrel roll, you're potentially putting yourself in a position where either the opponent will hit you (thus staying behind you), or will that opponent will have the chance to get arc on you with its own actions. Your barrel roll is a blind guess. By contrast, if you were to make a lateral action with no forward component, you would essentially force the opponent to overshoot you, because he would have to plot a forward action. This is more akin to taking a Lambda stop maneuver AND getting a free barrel roll.

The idea is that, without advanced sensors, you're doing a forward, then barrel roll. Or, in the case of the latter, you're effectively creating a sideslip maneuver, as, again without advanced sensors, you can barrel roll in the movement phase, which would enable you to force an overshoot of an enemy behind you, while also putting yourself out of position so that you don't block him, which is sometimes desirable (like in the end-game).

I am completely confused! What's to stop you doing a forward and then a barrel roll normally? What difference does it make being part of the manoeuvre itself rather than an action?

It depends on your pilot skill, and what the other person does whether you want to go forward at all. Suppose, for example, you have a low pilot skill, and an enemy behind you. You want that enemy in front of you so that you can shoot it. If you move first, and you go forward as your action, and then pick a side to barrel roll, you're potentially putting yourself in a position where either the opponent will hit you (thus staying behind you), or will that opponent will have the chance to get arc on you with its own actions. Your barrel roll is a blind guess. By contrast, if you were to make a lateral action with no forward component, you would essentially force the opponent to overshoot you, because he would have to plot a forward action. This is more akin to taking a Lambda stop maneuver AND getting a free barrel roll.

Ooh, you're not talking about doing a forward bank right followed by a forward bank left? One of them is backwards, is it?

The idea is that, without advanced sensors, you're doing a forward, then barrel roll. Or, in the case of the latter, you're effectively creating a sideslip maneuver, as, again without advanced sensors, you can barrel roll in the movement phase, which would enable you to force an overshoot of an enemy behind you, while also putting yourself out of position so that you don't block him, which is sometimes desirable (like in the end-game).

I am completely confused! What's to stop you doing a forward and then a barrel roll normally? What difference does it make being part of the manoeuvre itself rather than an action?

It depends on your pilot skill, and what the other person does whether you want to go forward at all. Suppose, for example, you have a low pilot skill, and an enemy behind you. You want that enemy in front of you so that you can shoot it. If you move first, and you go forward as your action, and then pick a side to barrel roll, you're potentially putting yourself in a position where either the opponent will hit you (thus staying behind you), or will that opponent will have the chance to get arc on you with its own actions. Your barrel roll is a blind guess. By contrast, if you were to make a lateral action with no forward component, you would essentially force the opponent to overshoot you, because he would have to plot a forward action. This is more akin to taking a Lambda stop maneuver AND getting a free barrel roll.

Ooh, you're not talking about doing a forward bank right followed by a forward bank left? One of them is backwards, is it?

Well, I'm batting around several different ideas, and I'm open to suggestions from players who have better ideas than I do. The core of what I want to do is simulate the potential maneuverability advantage of the N-1's engine configuration. In the P-38 Lightning, a WW2 aircraft, pilots could slam the throttle forward on one engine, and chop the power on the other, to use the torque to quickly roll and turn their airplanes in a way that you couldn't do with just a single engine. I want use that idea in this game somehow.

One of the ideas I had was that in space, due to the lack of resistance, you could theoretically yaw hard one way and then the other, far beyond what your thrusters could manage, based on this kind of throttle control, in order to shake off an opposing fighter. In the "real" world, this would work well, as it would force an overshoot. I'm not sure how best to make it work in X-wing.

If you have a way of creating a new maneuver that utilizes this capability, I'm all ears. I guess another option would be a hard Seignors Loop, with the option to do it using the 1-hard template. Might be interesting too.

The idea is that, without advanced sensors, you're doing a forward, then barrel roll. Or, in the case of the latter, you're effectively creating a sideslip maneuver, as, again without advanced sensors, you can barrel roll in the movement phase, which would enable you to force an overshoot of an enemy behind you, while also putting yourself out of position so that you don't block him, which is sometimes desirable (like in the end-game).

I am completely confused! What's to stop you doing a forward and then a barrel roll normally? What difference does it make being part of the manoeuvre itself rather than an action?

It depends on your pilot skill, and what the other person does whether you want to go forward at all. Suppose, for example, you have a low pilot skill, and an enemy behind you. You want that enemy in front of you so that you can shoot it. If you move first, and you go forward as your action, and then pick a side to barrel roll, you're potentially putting yourself in a position where either the opponent will hit you (thus staying behind you), or will that opponent will have the chance to get arc on you with its own actions. Your barrel roll is a blind guess. By contrast, if you were to make a lateral action with no forward component, you would essentially force the opponent to overshoot you, because he would have to plot a forward action. This is more akin to taking a Lambda stop maneuver AND getting a free barrel roll.

Ooh, you're not talking about doing a forward bank right followed by a forward bank left? One of them is backwards, is it?

Well, I'm batting around several different ideas, and I'm open to suggestions from players who have better ideas than I do. The core of what I want to do is simulate the potential maneuverability advantage of the N-1's engine configuration. In the P-38 Lightning, a WW2 aircraft, pilots could slam the throttle forward on one engine, and chop the power on the other, to use the torque to quickly roll and turn their airplanes in a way that you couldn't do with just a single engine. I want use that idea in this game somehow.

One of the ideas I had was that in space, due to the lack of resistance, you could theoretically yaw hard one way and then the other, far beyond what your thrusters could manage, based on this kind of throttle control, in order to shake off an opposing fighter. In the "real" world, this would work well, as it would force an overshoot. I'm not sure how best to make it work in X-wing.

If you have a way of creating a new maneuver that utilizes this capability, I'm all ears. I guess another option would be a hard Seignors Loop, with the option to do it using the 1-hard template. Might be interesting too.

Is there any way you could draw/ roughly map what you're intending? I dont think I'm picturing this correctly

Not only do you want the N-1 included in a GCW game, but you also want it outperform more advanced fighters. A bit biased?

Not only do you want the N-1 included in a GCW game, but you also want it outperform more advanced fighters. A bit biased?

Are you addressing me? I was looking for a native movement for the N-1 based on its unique engine configuration. Though, personally, I think the new movement should be house-rules extended to the Y-wing, because it has a similar engine configuration. It's rooted in something that P-38 pilots did historically and sounded like fun to add into the Star Wars universe, particularly since the Porax P-38 is completely based on the original P-38 Lightning. And that would be a fun ship to add this mechanic to as well.

Is there any way you could draw/ roughly map what you're intending? I dont think I'm picturing this correctly

I will diagram this out as soon as I get a chance.

The C-130 transport has several combat designator roles after retrofitting.

Can not, not cannot, as in "it is possible for it to be not". A transport can not be primarily built for combat, but combat is the only purpose of a starfighter, how do you, assuming you're not trying to sabotage your own design, not design it for combat?

Whether you do or do not get purely ceremonial tanks, quite clearly you could, w hich answerers your second question.

Ceremonial tank.

You're suggesting someone designs a tank for the purpose of driving it around at parades. The tank can't fight for ****. Is that even a tank any more, or is it a rather daring carnival float? Do you know what the German word for tank is? Panzerkampfwagen. Translates to Armoured Fighting Vehicle.

You can get ceremonial swords because a sword is an overgrown knife, stabbing people isn't inherent to its nature. Same with guns, it's an object for accelerating a projectile, that projectile injuring someone isn't inherent to its nature. But if a vehicle can't fight, can you really call it an armoured fighting vehicle? And if it can, if it is a combat vehicle, then its primary function is to use the gun on the top to blow up other vehicles. You can parade it around, but it's still built to fight.

"Heavy" and "super-heavy" tanks and Battleships, particularly around the time of WW2, were more often icons of national pride than entirely practical designs. While they are certainly combat-useful, logistical and strategic concerns make them poor choices on which to spend excessive resources. If you have some know-how, it is probably possible to point at any category of military equipment and find examples that were designed without maximum practicality in mind (excluding examples of "practical" designs simply failing to perform).

Practicality has nothing to do with it. A battleship is still built to battle other ships, even if its design is more of an ostentatious threat than a military practicality. However impractical it may be it is still a combat vessel: it's purpose is to sink other ships. And if it isn't, what is it for?

As for tanks, the idea behind a super heavy tank is that its armour is so thick that smaller tanks can't pierce it, the problem being they were too heavy to move. The reason we no longer have light, medium and heavy tanks is because

If the N-1's primary role is not combat, why is it called a starfighter, and what is its primary role? The Visual Dictionary quote is silly. It's a starfighter. It's built for combat. Maybe not heavy military combat, but it is built to ward off and shoot down threats to the Naboo system. It fights.

In relation to the N-1 maneuver I'm suggesting, I'm drawing on the following account from a P-38 Lightning pilot:

One trick I once used (other P-38 pilots may also have used it at times) when a German plane got close behind me in a tight left turn was to chop right throttle and kick full right rudder along with right aileron. I seemed to snap up and over to the right, and although I am certain I never approached a spin, I do not know to this day exactly what maneuver the plane executed. However, the German plane could not follow me through it, and that was the important factor. I never needed to try this trick in a right bank, but the resulting maneuver probably would have been the same, though in the opposite direction.

The maneuver here described is probably a violent right barrel roll, with a high degree of yaw component (owing to the differential thrust of the engines and the use of the right rudder). This maneuver, as the pilot described, was something the German planes couldn't match, because they weren't able to essentially redirect their thrust in this fashion. This is the kind of thing I'd love to try developing a mechanic for in X-wing for the N-1, the P-38, and potentially for a house rules Y-wing, though on a slower, heavier scale.

It seems like it's only possible in atmosphere.

Barrel rolls and displacement work much different in a zero g vaccum.

Assuming I am understanding you right.

It seems like it's only possible in atmosphere.

Barrel rolls and displacement work much different in a zero g vaccum.

Assuming I am understanding you right.

Sure, but in the atmosphere the result is a snap roll out of the turn, which is advantageous. Without the atmosphere, the result would be a tremendous yawing moment, which could create a flight path change so drastic that it would force an overshoot, like an extremely hard break turn. So, you yaw hard one way, then the other, and the enemy goes from the six to the twelve. That was what my initial inspiration was for the S-turn idea, but I'm not sure how to really materialize it in the X-wing game.

You're all crazy anyway, going on about N1s when you should be whining about ARC-170s...

It seems like it's only possible in atmosphere.

Barrel rolls and displacement work much different in a zero g vaccum.

Assuming I am understanding you right.

Thing is, starfighters in Star Wars behave like atmospheric fighters without a down (they act like there's air resistance). Capital ships move like boats without a down.

Provided you don't get too into the physical and aerodynamic specifics fighter planes are a decent model for how Star Wars starfighters behave.

You're all crazy anyway, going on about N1s when you should be whining about ARC-170s...

The ARC-170 would be somewhat off topic, given the title of the thread.

You're all crazy anyway, going on about N1s when you should be whining about ARC-170s...

You mean a 3 firepower small base ship with two firing arcs and the ability to take on both crew and an astromech, with considerable armor but no barrel roll or boost?

Yeah, we should definitely do everything but whine about that. That'd be radical.

You're kidding, right? Mazz0, trying to steer the topic to his off-topic obsession, and Captain Lackwit with such ridiculously outrageous stats. But hey, if you love it you make up anything you want.

You're kidding, right? Mazz0, trying to steer the topic to his off-topic obsession, and Captain Lackwit with such ridiculously outrageous stats. But hey, if you love it you make up anything you want.

Disagreement can be super-productive if it's phrased in a productive way. What would you do?

Well, the Arc-170 should have at least have barrel roll. Maybe a unique thing to the arc-170 would be if it barrel rolls its the only movement it can do for a turn, maybe a special modification card that cost 0-2 points would solve that. The rear auxillary arc should be smaller than normal, say 30 degrees in stead of the normal 45. maybe 3 hull and 2 shields. Also to use the rear turret it should be an optional upgrade, like the ion cannon on the Y-Wing. Hardly worth complaining about assuming they ever add it with these conditions.

They won't, under any.