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 combat via "movie physics" is invalid?

Thank you Internet.

It's comparing apples to Orange Crush by REM.

I'm not saying that PWT turrets should be removed from the game. I'm saying they should be weakened a little to balance it more.

My Fix as said before:

PWT's +1 Attack die for range one, only in primary arc.

Just like ever other ship in the game. No one has convinced me with a good argue about how this totally destroys turrets. It now makes the end game possible to win if you can out maneuver the enemy, because the PWT ship is not getting +1 all the time on easy mode. Then actually have to try and get you in their front arc. (IMO What the game is all about)

Or how about this?

"On a round when your ship executes a boost or a barrel roll, subtract one attack die from any attacks you make."

Seems to fit the theme of turrets being rendered less accurate aboard a ship thats performing extreme maneuvers...

If you would like me to speak solely to the tabletop game, then I think you should always get some degree of bonus(es) when attacking a ship outside of it's firing arc. If maneuvering is such a big part of this game, I see no reason why outmaneuver or autothrusters(when defending against a turret) shouldn't be a basic rule, or at the very least, usable by all small ships

If you would like me to speak solely to the tabletop game, then I think you should always get some degree of bonus(es) when attacking a ship outside of it's firing arc. If maneuvering is such a big part of this game, I see no reason why outmaneuver or autothrusters shouldn't be a basic rule, or at the very least, usable by all small ships

You usually get the benifit of not getting shot at when you attack a ship outside of its arc. Turrets take that advantage away, allowing shots out of arc. Unfortunately primary weapon turrets get that bonus at r1 so that hamstrings traditional swarms, and makes Fat Han a pain when trying to get damage pass two evades a round (and one per attack after the first). R3 HLC ships like defenders and IG, as well as autotbrusters are good counters to Fat Han and turrets as a rule, but appearantly the tourney scene is still full of PWTs despite this. I dunno, the game seems pretty balanced to me, it's not my concern that the same few hundred super competitive players always copy the same 'winning' lists and skew the meta game once you get past he SC level.

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.

You might want to look up the actual history on this. The USAAF daylight bombing strategy relied on bombers to defend themselves with turrets, and it was an absolute catastrophe, leading to massive losses and casualties. It was only late in the war when the Luftwaffe was on its last legs and the allies had fighters that could escort bombers constants (specifically the P-51) that this changed.

Yes, turrets have always been there. No, they've never been anywhere near as effective as what we're currently experiencing in X-wing - in fact, historically turrets have absolutely sucked against fighters. And at the end of the day, no, it doesn't matter - the historical usefulness of turrets really shouldn't have much impact on X-wing's balance decisions.

Now name a fighter from WWII with a turret as its primary weapon? Forward-fixed weapons are primary weapons for a reason.

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.

But the original post was a valid comparison? Please.

In unrelatred news, cheese and wine go together really, really well.

I seem to remember the first space combat shown in Star Wars between ships in the scale of XWMG was Han and Luke blowing TIEs to pieces.

Turret vs fighter was first in Star Wars, not dogfighting.

poor tie fighters. them poor suckers never stood a chance

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.

Last I checked, formations of Y-Wings with 360 turrets weren't dominating the meta.

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.

Last I checked, formations of Y-Wings with 360 turrets weren't dominating the meta.

If they had 3-attack PWTs, they would.

Haha yeah probably. I think every ship should get 3-attack PWTs as a 4 point modification.. As everyone likes to insist they are 100% balanced.

FAQ: any ship being targeted by another ship's primary weapon firing outside its firing arc can roll one additional defense die during that attack.

This ought to make Fat Han mirror matches an absolute joy to watch. Almost like paint drying.

How dares you not love dems Turrets!

HOW DARES YOUS!!!

I've always favored that ships firing out of arc do not gain +1 attack at R1.

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.

Last I checked, formations of Y-Wings with 360 turrets weren't dominating the meta.

Check back after wave 7

Not that you'll find me complaining about a 2ndary turret

Tlts forever!

I mean i'm not complaining too much but imagine if a ww2 dogfighting game had b-25s, ju-88s, and G4Ms as a very common thing players chose.

It's kinda weird and star wars is ww2 as heck.

I mean i'm not complaining too much but imagine if a ww2 dogfighting game had b-25s, ju-88s, and G4Ms as a very common thing players chose.

It's kinda weird and star wars is ww2 as heck.

Yup...

Mispost.

The vast majority of turrets in both world wars did not fire 360 degrees, mainly the top-side on WW2 bombers and the belly-bubble-turret underneath a B-17

(I have no idea what the correct name in English is for that thing)

I am not sure about 360 firing turrets in WW1, aren't they at risk shooting of the top wing?

I believe it's 360 degree rotation at the base but always firing up at an angle (preferably away from the plane )

Explains the Kwing, anyway. Xwing is technically 2d but represents a 3d engagement

The vast majority of turrets in both world wars did not fire 360 degrees, mainly the top-side on WW2 bombers and the belly-bubble-turret underneath a B-17

(I have no idea what the correct name in English is for that thing)

I am not sure about 360 firing turrets in WW1, aren't they at risk shooting of the top wing?

They had safeguards that prevented that, usually, iirc. Just like the forward guns would shoot between the props.

The vast majority of turrets in both world wars did not fire 360 degrees, mainly the top-side on WW2 bombers and the belly-bubble-turret underneath a B-17

(I have no idea what the correct name in English is for that thing)

I am not sure about 360 firing turrets in WW1, aren't they at risk shooting of the top wing?

They had safeguards that prevented that, usually, iirc. Just like the forward guns would shoot between the props.