Have been apart of air combat since World War I, and the space battles in A New Hope were based on filmed World War I and World War II dogfights .

Looks like a turret to me

and another

Do i really need to post pics of World War II bombers?

Turrets have been apart of air combat since the beginning and especially the period the Star Wars dogfights are based on.

But they are so OP.

I can have 3 of these things and be compleetly untoppable.

Haha, yup. To be fair, though, the game should be a slave to gameplay, not theme. I'm cool with turrets, though they do get overplayed.

I'm mainly laughing, though, because of how upset this will (likely) make lots of X-Wing forum-goers. Brace yourself.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Dam_Busters_(film)

"The attack on the Death Star in the climax of the film Star Wars is a deliberate and acknowledged homage to the climactic sequence of The Dam Busters. In the former film, rebel pilots have to fly through a trench while evading enemy fire and fire a proton torpedo at a precise distance from the target to destroy the entire base with a single explosion; if one run fails, another run must be made by a different pilot. In addition to the similarity of the scenes, some of the dialogue is nearly identical. Star Wars also ends with an Elgarian-style march, like The Dam Busters. The same may be said of 633 Squadron, in which a squadron of de Havilland Mosquitos must drop a bomb on a rock overhanging a key German factory at the end of a Norwegian fjord."

Turrets are even older than that. Castles had turrets as defenses hundreds of years ago.

Other than a history lesson (that no one needed), what is the purpose of this post again?

Now turrets in games tend to be very hard to aim properly.

In real life combat what is the effectiveness of turrets mounted to moving air planes?

Just wondering. Cuz as everyone knows the bombers used to have turrets. But they also could not effectively defend themselves from fighter attack. Hence the usual fighter escort. So. What's the more complicated analysis say?

so what does any of this have to do with turret implementation in X-wing miniatures?

not only does fluff != gameplay, but there are literally infinite ways to represent a turret's mechanics in a game. FFG just opted for the laziest I have seen since 40k.

Not that I necessarily blame them for it. wave 2 was ages ago, and I don't think they knew X-wing would take off like it did now. Plus, they've done an admirable job with the Yt-2400 and the K-wing by downplaying the PWT for more positioning dependent weapons. Meanwhile, 2ndary weapon turrets are perfect, offering far greater covering; just not perfect coverage so your opponent actually has something to play around.

I'm still wondering why humans and aliens put their squishy bodies inside tin cans and try to blow each other up when we know droid brains can fly ships and destroy each other just as well without loss of organic life. Is it just too expensive to program really smart and agile droid fighters when it's so cheap to raise and train clones or conscripts/volunteers?

Oh and don't let me geek out on the obsurd space physics that would be required to make a spaceship do barrel rolls. It's a good thing this is just a game based on some fun movies.

Also turrets (upgrades on y wings) were in wave one.

Now turrets in games tend to be very hard to aim properly.

In real life combat what is the effectiveness of turrets mounted to moving air planes?

Just wondering. Cuz as everyone knows the bombers used to have turrets. But they also could not effectively defend themselves from fighter attack. Hence the usual fighter escort. So. What's the more complicated analysis say?

Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II has these numbers for aerial victories in the ETO: 6,098 by heavy bombers, 7,422 by fighters, and 103 by medium bombers.

not too shabby for the bombers of WW2. When attacking a bomber formation, most tactics relied upon not getting close. German fighters would fire longer range cannons and sometimes rockets to 'break-up' the bomber group and then could pounce on a straggler or bomber that fallen out of its protective formation. The escort fighters were there to prevent this from happening. If fighters tried to mix it up inside the bomber formation, they often sustained heavy loses.

Ahh-shut-up and play the **** game!

"If you can see PWT, he can see you. If you can't see PWT you may be only seconds away from death. "

"PWT's calendar goes straight from March 31st to April 2nd; no one fools PWT."

"PWT puts the laughter in manslaughter. "

"The grass is always greener on the other side, unless PWT has been there. In that case the grass is most likely soaked in blood and tears. "

"Ghosts are actually caused by PWT killing front arc-only ships faster than Death can process them. "

Now turrets in games tend to be very hard to aim properly.

In real life combat what is the effectiveness of turrets mounted to moving air planes?

Just wondering. Cuz as everyone knows the bombers used to have turrets. But they also could not effectively defend themselves from fighter attack. Hence the usual fighter escort. So. What's the more complicated analysis say?

Army Air Forces Statistical Digest, World War II has these numbers for aerial victories in the ETO: 6,098 by heavy bombers, 7,422 by fighters, and 103 by medium bombers.

not too shabby for the bombers of WW2. When attacking a bomber formation, most tactics relied upon not getting close. German fighters would fire longer range cannons and sometimes rockets to 'break-up' the bomber group and then could pounce on a straggler or bomber that fallen out of its protective formation. The escort fighters were there to prevent this from happening. If fighters tried to mix it up inside the bomber formation, they often sustained heavy loses.

Very insightful.

People don't have problems with turrets, they have problems with the implementation of turrets. Bit late to fix that though.

Chuck Norris wears PWT Underoos

PWTs can divide by zero

The historical problem with turrets was that basically once fighters became more heavily armed they were outgunned, the gun mounts were not the most practical, and gunning in that way was actually significantly harder than shooting fixed guns because you had to do deflection shooting from an aircraft that was itself moving differently from the guns and could sometimes be trying to maneuver.

That being said, I think the simplification is fine, I just feel large ships are too maneuverable in general, at least the turrets.

I'd like a qualifying definition of "aerial victories". Does that mean planes shot down or missions successfully run?

Listen I've seen Memphis belle twice so I happen to be an expert on ww2 turrets, and clearly x-wing pwt are too strong!

The historical problem with turrets was that basically once fighters became more heavily armed they were outgunned, the gun mounts were not the most practical, and gunning in that way was actually significantly harder than shooting fixed guns because you had to do deflection shooting from an aircraft that was itself moving differently from the guns and could sometimes be trying to maneuver.

That being said, I think the simplification is fine, I just feel large ships are too maneuverable in general, at least the turrets.

I think you hit the nail on the head. It's the movement options large ships have that make their PWT a real problem. Because of their large amount of hit points, an opponent needs to keep them in arc to wear them down. When the falcon can 1 turn and boost due to engine upgrade, a good player can use this large ship as a potential arc dodger and still get his 3 to 4 attacks with his PWT. When you only have a limited time to take out a large point fortress, every turn not shooting it really hurts, not to mention getting shot by it. Take away post maneuver moving shenanigans, and most large ships die fairly quickly(not count on 3po or Isard - but that's another topic) I know this sounds radical but what if the rule was a large ship received a weapons disabled token when they boosted? It would take some of the teeth from PWT large ships.

I'd like a qualifying definition of "aerial victories". Does that mean planes shot down or missions successfully run?

Aerial victories means enemy planes shot-down.

I'd like a qualifying definition of "aerial victories". Does that mean planes shot down or missions successfully run?

Aerial victories means enemy planes shot-down.

Heavy bombers tended to overreport because multiple gunners tended to fire at single planes so all of them would claim the same kills. I won't say heavy bombers didn't destroy a lot of German fighters, though, to the point where the Germans sought standoff weapons against the bomber boxes.

Now turrets in games tend to be very hard to aim properly.

In real life combat what is the effectiveness of turrets mounted to moving air planes?

Just wondering. Cuz as everyone knows the bombers used to have turrets. But they also could not effectively defend themselves from fighter attack. Hence the usual fighter escort. So. What's the more complicated analysis say?

the difference being those bombers were not dodging and weaving. the flew in relatively straight lines so the turret gunners and fuselage gunners could get better shots, this left them extremely vulnerable to enemy fighters sinse they couldn't evade the strafing runs. hence the fighter escort to break up those strafing runs.

I always felt that a turret ship should have 2 shots. 1 with the primary and 1 with the turret. only the turret would grant the target +1 or +2 agility due to the movement of the ship.

if you ever played X-wing alliance and jumped into the turret and tried to keep a fighter in your sights while the computer was flying, it was difficult

I always felt that a turret ship should have 2 shots. 1 with the primary and 1 with the turret. only the turret would grant the target +1 or +2 agility due to the movement of the ship.

I don't see the point of 1 primary and 1 turret. I think the MF having only the turret makes sense, but I agree with the second part about the agility.

When I first saw the stats of the turret ships compared to others and that there were no special rules when defending/attacking with/against them, I was shocked. Autothrusters is a step in the right direction, but I feel like everyone should get a bonus when defending outside the arc of a turret.

Even with an automated targeting system, firing at a craft with a different acceleration/velocity is difficult with a turret.

Gimbaled forward facing targeting (like the arcs on the ships in x-wing kinda mimics) is easier since the shooter has to align with the target making the relative velocity of the target to the gun smaller.

I suppose the implicit suggestion (from some) is that unless bomber turrets from WW1 + WW2 can be empirically proven to have exactly the same effectiveness in downing enemy aircraft, then allowing turrets in a game that simulates (Edit:) space combat via "movie physics" is invalid?

Thank you Internet.

It's Star Wars, there's all sorts of technology that we don't even know about that allows people to do incredible things. If there's ships with turrets then I think they are probably effective enough in their function to exist.

FFG's PWTs might be a pain to fly against, but don't try to justify taking away or including turrets based on anything other than actual game mechanics because all other arguments are much less valid.