And even then, no.

And of course the turret got stuck in TFA, the shipmhad had no proper maintenance in ages.

You do realise there's an Edit button, right, Dagonet?

I do, but that sucks on a tablet. And this way, it's easier to quote.

According to the movies, the two quad gun positions it has seem to only have a ~90 degree traverse.

Lazy game design? Lazy game design. IMO the Falcon should have an aux arc like the Firespray does and should have costed less.

The space scenes in the films feel like a classic WW2 film. The Falcon is much like a B-17 with waist gunners.

In game terms, reversing the PWTs range bonus when shooting (range 1 = extra defense die to enemy and range 3 = extra attack die) could be a thematic way to make PWT ships more fun to fly or face on the battlefield.

This would make maneuvering more important (for both players) and would emulate the difficulty that our fearless heroes had in hitting tie fighters as they streaked by up close at high speed

See this is why I don't accept the tie cog can't have a 360 turret because the falcon and k-wing do and clearly have dead spots as bad as the cog.

I am more concerned that retrofitted freighters (the equivalent to the space 18-wheeler) are better gun platforms than the Defender, which is supposed to be the best starfighter in the galaxy.

That might be because it really is a better gun platform than a Defender. The Falcon carries as much firepower as an X-wing in each of its two turrets. It's got more in common with a light gunship than it does any civilian freighter.

yeah like an AC-130 gun ship... however an AC130 is still a C-130 and flys like one!! it aint going to outmaneuver a fighter!!!!!! ANY fighter.. just saying!! lol

It does and it does not.

The characters are not actually in a separate turret.
They're still in the hull of the ship.

The cannon is in a turret on top/bottom of the ship.

The turret movement seems exaggerated compared to the seat movement of the characters in the movies, so they're aiming using the scopes on the seat.

Does that make any sense?

they were just trying to make it work and look like the "Ball" turrets on WWII bombers...

See this is why I don't accept the tie cog can't have a 360 turret because the falcon and k-wing do and clearly have dead spots as bad as the cog.

But the Falcon doesn't have wings blocking any firing arcs. It's a big difference.

Also, both the kwing and the falcon actually have 2 turrets, and while there are dead spots, they are not as huge as they would be on a tie fighter with a belly turret.

wait you are worried that it should have a aux arc but NOT worried that an OLD freighter is more maneuverable then some dedicated FIGHTERS??

This also struck me the first time I saw the MF on the table.

If North Korea starts refitting rust bucket frieghters with guns, they could dominate the entire Pacific Rim for years!

If Kim Jong Ill was still alive, he'd have made the connection and abdicted some Monster Garage mechanics for the purrpose.

I am more concerned that retrofitted freighters (the equivalent to the space 18-wheeler) are better gun platforms than the Defender, which is supposed to be the best starfighter in the galaxy.

That might be because it really is a better gun platform than a Defender. The Falcon carries as much firepower as an X-wing in each of its two turrets. It's got more in common with a light gunship than it does any civilian freighter.

yeah like an AC-130 gun ship... however an AC130 is still a C-130 and flys like one!! it aint going to outmaneuver a fighter!!!!!! ANY fighter.. just saying!! lol

Flying in Atmosphere isn't exactly the same as in space.

wait you are worried that it should have a aux arc but NOT worried that an OLD freighter is more maneuverable then some dedicated FIGHTERS??

This also struck me the first time I saw the MF on the table.

If North Korea starts refitting rust bucket frieghters with guns, they could dominate the entire Pacific Rim for years!

If Kim Jong Ill was still alive, he'd have made the connection and abdicted some Monster Garage mechanics for the purrpose.

Don't give chubby bubby any ideas

Which reminds me of the American general who was tasked with playing the enemy in exercises in preparation of Gulf War II.

In simulations he suicide struck the troop transports destroying them and killing thousands upon thousands.

Then the exercise was reset and the rules were changes to assure a blue victory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

Think it should get a crew slot then?

Hells to the no.

For one, the guy in the back is too busy manning the gun to do anything else.

For another, we are absolutely not ever giving the stresshog access to Tactician.

If it's got a turret secondary, then we assume there is a gunner working it and he doesn't have the time to be Tacticing or Recon Specialing

I would be ok trading the turret upgrade slot for a crew slot, but the guy in the second chair shouldn't be able to do both.

Do I have to go Grab my Dad's 1977 Millenium Falcon and show you!

I was about to like your comment then I realized I had a Falcon in 1977 you young whipper snapper.

I am more concerned that retrofitted freighters (the equivalent to the space 18-wheeler) are better gun platforms than the Defender, which is supposed to be the best starfighter in the galaxy.

That might be because it really is a better gun platform than a Defender. The Falcon carries as much firepower as an X-wing in each of its two turrets. It's got more in common with a light gunship than it does any civilian freighter.

yeah like an AC-130 gun ship... however an AC130 is still a C-130 and flys like one!! it aint going to outmaneuver a fighter!!!!!! ANY fighter.. just saying!! lol

Flying in Atmosphere isn't exactly the same as in space.

When you look at the Rebel (and to a lesser extent Scum) faction, some of the best ships they have (Falcon, Outrider, YV, etc...) are converted civilian freighters and are, arguably, as good as or better than dedicated starfighters such as the Interceptor and Defender. That is the same as taking Semis and Winnebagos and making them better than a tank in combat. That is crazy talk.

Do I have to go Grab my Dad's 1977 Millenium Falcon and show you!

I was about to like your comment then I realized I had a Falcon in 1977 you young whipper snapper.

I've got one of those. Missing 90% of the pieces.

That is the same as taking Semis and Winnebagos and making them better than a tank in combat. That is crazy talk.

Go on, tell me more.

I think the answer to this is really simple. The turrent rotates faster than the chair, it's not a 1 to 1 ratio. Therefore a chair rotating 180 degrees could cause a turrent to rotate the full 360. Which would also explain why in New Hope they have a hard time hitting 4 ties but it looks like a beast in Jedi fighting a 100 or more fighters. The targeting system sucks, it might be fast but it is still the hunk of junk most people see it as in the movie. It's probably a miracle they ever hit anything with those turrents and I agree with the range bonus hose for the Falcon. Now the outrider and decimator, meh who knows.

-n

I am more concerned that retrofitted freighters (the equivalent to the space 18-wheeler) are better gun platforms than the Defender, which is supposed to be the best starfighter in the galaxy.

That might be because it really is a better gun platform than a Defender. The Falcon carries as much firepower as an X-wing in each of its two turrets. It's got more in common with a light gunship than it does any civilian freighter.

yeah like an AC-130 gun ship... however an AC130 is still a C-130 and flys like one!! it aint going to outmaneuver a fighter!!!!!! ANY fighter.. just saying!! lol

Flying in Atmosphere isn't exactly the same as in space.

When you look at the Rebel (and to a lesser extent Scum) faction, some of the best ships they have (Falcon, Outrider, YV, etc...) are converted civilian freighters and are, arguably, as good as or better than dedicated starfighters such as the Interceptor and Defender. That is the same as taking Semis and Winnebagos and making them better than a tank in combat. That is crazy talk.

This comparison is flawed IMO. Most Star Wars light freighters come either armed or at least 'gun-ready' from the factory assembly line. This means that, unlike modern cars, some thought has been put into their combat performance. I think sailing era armed merchant ships vs. warships is a much better comparison than cars vs. tanks.

Also, it's easier to convert a spaceship than a car. Especially considering most of those freighters were designed with modularity in mind.

I could make a point that maneuverability in spacecraft is entirely dependent on the Thrust/Mass ratio as well. Larger ships with more powerful and economical drives and larger fuel reserves would probably outperform fighters.

..but then, this is Star Wars, and one really doesn't want to overthink the mechanics of it. Save that for a Traveller campaign. ;3

@blind spots in 3D space

EDIT:

I could make a point that maneuverability in spacecraft is entirely dependent on the Thrust/Mass ratio as well. Larger ships with more powerful and economical drives and larger fuel reserves would probably outperform fighters.

..but then, this is Star Wars, and one really doesn't want to overthink the mechanics of it. Save that for a Traveller campaign. ;3

I would like to point out that the Millennium Falcon (which we see chasing a TIE fighter later on) can't outrun an Imperial-class Star Destroyer and when Han brags about how fast his ship is he says about outrunning "big Corelian ships", so at least the original idea was that bigger = faster (not agile tho, but that's another matter).