Obviously its more than just the stability of the ship to consider as it would make tactical decisions change a little and mean you'd have to think in '1 an a half' ship bases but...

Perhaps its time for a medium ship base. The K wing clearly is a bit big for a small ship base and the agressor always felt a bit small on a large base.

I mean the horse has bolted and you cant retrofit the agressor and its clear the next wave will be on small and large size bases.

But does anyone else think a mid size base would makes sense?

I don't think small and large are far enough apart to warrant an in-between size.

Keeping it simple with 2 base sizes is good. I don't want FFG to start making a different base size for each ship.

Given the Interdictor and Punisher don't have them I think it's a safe bet this isn't going to happen.

Yeah its clearly not going to happen, the question is 'would it be a good thing'?

I mean some quite fundamental things in the game now like mods and titles were afterthoughts to the core game.

I think it would have been a good thing. Introducing them now though would be a mistake and cause too many issues.

I wouldn't mind seeing "very large" based ships that are on between large and huge ships. Maybe playable in regular games but using the energy mechanic.

Nah.

A medium base is a good idea, however that ship has already sailed. The Agressor is perhaps the best argument so far for a medium base but since it didn't get one we can safely assume it won't happen any time soon.

Really the aggressor never looked to me like it should be on a smaller base. The hwk, the defender, now the k-wing,mprobably the punisher those are the ships that struck me as needing a medium base.

No.

doubling the area of a square (while keeping it a square) is one of the hardest things to do in geometry. I think the 2x2 large base and the 1x1 small base is sufficient.

doubling the area of a square (while keeping it a square) is one of the hardest things to do in geometry.

Ok, so?

doubling the area of a square (while keeping it a square) is one of the hardest things to do in geometry. I think the 2x2 large base and the 1x1 small base is sufficient.

Not really. If you want to double the area of a square all you need to do is drop the diagonals down to create the edges on the new square and you've just doubled the area. Pretty darn simple to me and easy to do with just a straightedge and compass.

As for adding a 'medium' base to the games I'm all for the NO answer. IF that was going to happen it already should have happened.

I get what you're saying, Gadge, but I think the medium base would have been problematic on the Aggressor because the large base is part of what balances it within the game. The Aggressor's dial is pretty sweet, but the large base helps to hold it back from being too good, considering all the other neat things it possesses. A medium base would eliminate some of the difficulty in playing it well, and would make the ship "better" on the tabletop, which might unbalance it.

I don't think the medium base idea is bad on the whole, and I think you agree with everyone saying it's not going to be a thing, but I think if we were going to introduce it, we'd have to pick the ships carefully and then they'd have to have their dials messed with to keep things in balance. Would it have been a good idea? I'm not sure. Scale in Star Wars is so hard to figure out sometimes, and I'm still getting the hang of how differently large-based ships fly from small ones. I'm not ready to process the capabilities of a medium just yet.

doubling the area of a square (while keeping it a square) is one of the hardest things to do in geometry. I think the 2x2 large base and the 1x1 small base is sufficient.

I think if there ever was an argument for a medium base the K wing would have been it, but oh well.

FYI the punisher makes the K-Wing looks small and is closer to the hounds tooth main section. Its freaking huge for a small.

doubling the area of a square (while keeping it a square) is one of the hardest things to do in geometry. I think the 2x2 large base and the 1x1 small base is sufficient.

Have they not developed the square root of two where you live yet?

I think if there ever was an argument for a medium base the K wing would have been it, but oh well.

yup, I am well aware of sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2 and I will still say those are not nice numbers.

doubling the area of a square (while keeping it a square) is one of the hardest things to do in geometry. I think the 2x2 large base and the 1x1 small base is sufficient.

Have they not developed the square root of two where you live yet?

I think if there ever was an argument for a medium base the K wing would have been it, but oh well.

yup, I am well aware of sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2 and I will still say those are not nice numbers.

What's not nice about 1.414213562373095?

doubling the area of a square (while keeping it a square) is one of the hardest things to do in geometry. I think the 2x2 large base and the 1x1 small base is sufficient.

Have they not developed the square root of two where you live yet?

I think if there ever was an argument for a medium base the K wing would have been it, but oh well.

yup, I am well aware of sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2 and I will still say those are not nice numbers.

What's not nice about 1.414213562373095?

The fact that your number is still wrong, sure only by a small amount but wrong none the less . You got to love error calculations, but please don't get me started on that monster.

I'm still not clear why doubling the area of a square is relevant. A small base is 40mm to a side, a large base 80mm. A medium base would sit right in the middle and be 60mm on each side. Area seems fairly irrelevant.

yeah, I was thinking why not 60? the small base matches up to the speed 1 movement, the large base matches up to a speed 2 movement, the medium should be a 1 straight, and another rotated perpendicular.

I'm still not clear why doubling the area of a square is relevant. A small base is 40mm to a side, a large base 80mm. A medium base would sit right in the middle and be 60mm on each side. Area seems fairly irrelevant.

It is all about scaling and how it fits in with the flight path system. The 2x2 while having 4 times the area it scales well as we all know a 1 straight for a large base ship is equal to a 2 straight for a small base ship and a 4 straight for a large is a 5 straight for a small. Being 2 base by 2 base makes it fit easily with all the movement templates for maneuvers and even barrel rolls as back in the release of wave 5 had to be adjusted for large ships making their barrel roll action a completely different action from small based ships. The numbers in my humble opinion match up withe perfect squares 1, 4, and 9.

I'm still not clear why doubling the area of a square is relevant. A small base is 40mm to a side, a large base 80mm. A medium base would sit right in the middle and be 60mm on each side. Area seems fairly irrelevant.

Even if for some weird reason they really wanted to double the area...

Who would have noticed if they had gone with 1.4 * 40 mm sides instead of sqrt(2) * 40 mm sides?

I really don't get why the irrational-ness of sqrt(2) is relevant in anyway...

Especially since, looking back, no one even mentioned doubling the area before Marinealver brought it up

I'm still not clear why doubling the area of a square is relevant. A small base is 40mm to a side, a large base 80mm. A medium base would sit right in the middle and be 60mm on each side. Area seems fairly irrelevant.

It is all about scaling and how it fits in with the flight path system. The 2x2 while having 4 times the area it scales well as we all know a 1 straight for a large base ship is equal to a 2 straight for a small base ship and a 4 straight for a large is a 5 straight for a small. Being 2 base by 2 base makes it fit easily with all the movement templates for maneuvers and even barrel rolls as back in the release of wave 5 had to be adjusted for large ships making their barrel roll action a completely different action from small based ships. The numbers in my humble opinion match up withe perfect squares 1, 4, and 9.

What you just said about maneuvers matching up between large ships and small ships refers to the base dimensions, not their area.

Even what you said about barrel rolling refers to base dimensions, not area.

There's already the "half base" measurement in the game :

• A large ship move half a base sideways when barrel rolling
• A small ship can move a half base forward or backward when barrel rolling/decloaking

Seems like the most appropriate size for a medium base would be one and a half bases (60mm), not the ~56.6mm you seem to be proposing.

I still don't think it's a good idea though

But if they were to do it, 60mm seems like the obvious choice.

Edit: I don't get your last bit about perfect squares 1, 4, 9...

Are you referring to area? With a small base being 1, and a large base being 9? If so...

A medium base should have 1.78 times the surface as a small base, not twice the surface.

I think keeping it down to small and large bases keeps the game simple. Especially considering how people have pointed out the connection between the template lengths and the bases themselves. If you had a medium based ship the size you reference. It would be much more harder to keep it level with the other small and large based ships in your game when flying in formation.

To keep a small ship level with a large ship, you need to do +1 what the large ship will do. So if the large ship is doing a 1 straight, the small ship needs to do a 2 straight. There would be no way for a medium ship to fly in formation with either a large or small base ship since it would therefore need to do a 1.5 straight (only a guess, was never good at mathematics).

You could always have rectangular bases, like a 1x2, 2 bases long, 1 base wide. The ships would maneuver the same way small ships maneuver, but their aft would "drift".