I'd also like to mention that relative to the number of fighters seen on screen per capship at any given time, one model = one craft makes total sense. At endor we see like 30 fighters at the vanguard of a fleet of 3 mc80's, 2 nebs, amd 3 cr90's... we see less than 50 tie fighters deployed for about 40 ISD's + SSD.

We see 30 x-wings/y-wings destroy a small moon sized uber battle station: why do they keep building them? Heroes gotta blow up something

I'd also like to point out that a single modern strike aircraft armed with a pair of air to surface weapons could sink a multibillion dollar super carrier, but that doesnt stop the US from building them...(maybe star wars is more realstic than we give credit!)

Its the other way around: I would make no sense, if the most decisive battle in the histroy of the Imperium we see only 80 fighters launched for both sides in total.

The explanation is simple:

1. we see only a part of the battle and the forces, espaccally condisering that we mostly share the PoV of the heroes.

2. there was just not enough money to make better scenes of the battle.

And you analogy of the carriers today is wrong: Today we build nearly only carriers, because fighters reign supreme and can destroy any ship. We build carriers to carry fighters (hence the name ).

Would a 1-3 fighters be able to destroy Star Destroyers (any size), Star Wars would be: Battle of the carriers like the Quasar or Ton-Falk and not the Battlecarrier and heavy/light cruiser-carrier setting we have.

From my experience, The imperials taking an obscene number of squadrons has never been an issue. In fact, Id say the opposite. What I usually see is a flying circus of all their aces. Soontir, Mauler, Vader, Dengar, etc.

If some custom rule was needed for the imps, Id say it should encourage larger swarms of more homogenous squadrons. Maybe something like buying in bulk gets a discount Buy 3 ties, get a free point. Buy 5 ties, get 3 points, buy 7 ties, get 5 points.. or something.

...

And you analogy of the carriers today is wrong: Today we build nearly only carriers, because fighters reign supreme and can destroy any ship. We build carriers to carry fighters (hence the name ).

Would a 1-3 fighters be able to destroy Star Destroyers (any size), Star Wars would be: Battle of the carriers like the Quasar or Ton-Falk and not the Battlecarrier and heavy/light cruiser-carrier setting we have.

Eh?

In terms of sheer count, we build mostly destroyers and attack subs. The Carrier is the beating heart of the surface fleet, no doubt (as the nuclear sub is is the heart of the U fleet.) But both of those need a multitude of vessels to support and defend them. I'd agree that cruisers are going obsolete (just as battleships), but destroyers still very much serve a purpose.

Actually, according to this article, the cruiser plays an important role as a command & control ship for air defense and the Navy has a problem with most of her cruisers ending their term in service by 2020.

"Capt. David McFarland, Rowden’s deputy in the Surface Warfare Division, is an experienced cruiser and destroyer commander.

“You can use a DDG as a shotgun, but only in a tactical sense, not a command-and-control sense,” he said. “As a destroyer captain, I’ve been shotgun for a carrier, and I did it well, it’s just maneuvering. But I was also the area air defense commander when a cruiser wasn’t around and that is extremely difficult.” http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/archives/2014/07/07/us-navy-s-cruiser-problem-service-struggles-over-modernization-replacements/78531650/

Phoenix One?

...

And you analogy of the carriers today is wrong: Today we build nearly only carriers, because fighters reign supreme and can destroy any ship. We build carriers to carry fighters (hence the name ).

Would a 1-3 fighters be able to destroy Star Destroyers (any size), Star Wars would be: Battle of the carriers like the Quasar or Ton-Falk and not the Battlecarrier and heavy/light cruiser-carrier setting we have.

Eh?

In terms of sheer count, we build mostly destroyers and attack subs. The Carrier is the beating heart of the surface fleet, no doubt (as the nuclear sub is is the heart of the U fleet.) But both of those need a multitude of vessels to support and defend them. I'd agree that cruisers are going obsolete (just as battleships), but destroyers still very much serve a purpose.

I don't exactly know of US Navy tactics - and since we failed to complete our first and last carrier - but as far as I know of - a carrier is the cornerstone of both, strategy and tactics and thus not only the strongest piece but also the weakest spot. I imagine an ISD as 2 battleships and one carrier combined in one vessel. + enough room for supplies to operate weeks and month w/o the need of support ships.

Cruisers and Battleships became obsolete due to our current technology, and costs.

That does not translate to a space faring technology level capable of building space stations the size of a small moon. Or hell even the Executor.

The absolute reverse works in space, mainly because its space, IE no gravity (apart from what comes from being near stars/planetary bodies) and an environment inimical to human life, so you can build big ships, and you will want to build big ships because it needs to carry everything with it that the humans inside it need to live, crew of 2000? just stop for a moment and think how much food, water and air are required per day for 2000 people.

Plus ships that size have armour that thick no snub fighter would ever pack enough punch to penetrate it, they are designed for fighting other capital ships.

The Bismark for example was for all intents and purposes immune to damage from our air dropped torpedoes that the Lighting biplanes were carrying, it's armour belts were too dense, they fluked out and damaged the rudders, which were outside of the armour belts. But otherwise that ship had zip to worry about from Lightning Torpedo attacks. Now imagine a space ship with literally meters and meters of hull plating, the energy required to penetrate it would be way beyond what you could mount in a 1 man snub fighter, and that is ignoring the shields.

One of the primary reasons fighters, and then missiles were so deadly against large ships was we had either people trying to track and hit, or rudimentary radar controlled AA batteries, simply put the objects were to fast and to small for the defenses to track and target properly, have any of you seen what the latest defenses are like? Radar guided computer controlled, they can track and shoot missiles traveling over mach 3/4 from a huge distance.

Imagine the computers of the future linked to anti squadron defenses, firing laser based weaponry, and you think they would not be able to deal with human flown snubfighters? they would annihilate them.

Actually, according to this article, the cruiser plays an important role as a command & control ship for air defense and the Navy has a problem with most of her cruisers ending their term in service by 2020.

"Capt. David McFarland, Rowden’s deputy in the Surface Warfare Division, is an experienced cruiser and destroyer commander.

“You can use a DDG as a shotgun, but only in a tactical sense, not a command-and-control sense,” he said. “As a destroyer captain, I’ve been shotgun for a carrier, and I did it well, it’s just maneuvering. But I was also the area air defense commander when a cruiser wasn’t around and that is extremely difficult.” http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/archives/2014/07/07/us-navy-s-cruiser-problem-service-struggles-over-modernization-replacements/78531650/

Phoenix One?

The only real issue I see with this is that the only CG that we (The US) has today was built as a DD, but was reclassed as a cruiser due to the Soviets having more cruiser. Comparing it to our state of the art destroyer it is not really much larger. It does not carry that much more firepower, and its crew is not that much larger. Now I ahve never served (or even been) on eith of them, but my guess is that it has more to do with title prestige as Cruisers are the biggest war ships around. (Yes I know that Carriers are also "war ships" but they are not in you face fighting ships)

Ticonderoga class - 9600 tons and 567 X 55 X 34ft about 130 missiles, Two 5 inch guns, Two CIWS, Four to Six smaller guns, and Six torpedo tubes. With a 400 man crew.

Arleigh Burke class - 9800 tons and 509 X 66 X 30.5ft, about 100 missiles, One 5 inch gun, One CIWS, Six smaller guns and six torpedo tubes. With about 320 man crew

Eastern King doesn't consider small, one-manned fighters to be much of a threat...

I love Starwars, and I can accept it is a movie, and a game based on a movie.

People bring up real life stuff, and it sets me off, what can I say?

I'd also like to mention that relative to the number of fighters seen on screen per capship at any given time, one model = one craft makes total sense. At endor we see like 30 fighters at the vanguard of a fleet of 3 mc80's, 2 nebs, amd 3 cr90's... we see less than 50 tie fighters deployed for about 40 ISD's + SSD.

We see 30 x-wings/y-wings destroy a small moon sized uber battle station: why do they keep building them? Heroes gotta blow up something

I'd also like to point out that a single modern strike aircraft armed with a pair of air to surface weapons could sink a multibillion dollar super carrier, but that doesnt stop the US from building them...(maybe star wars is more realstic than we give credit!)

Its the other way around: I would make no sense, if the most decisive battle in the histroy of the Imperium we see only 80 fighters launched for both sides in total.

The explanation is simple:

1. we see only a part of the battle and the forces, espaccally condisering that we mostly share the PoV of the heroes.

2. there was just not enough money to make better scenes of the battle.

And you analogy of the carriers today is wrong: Today we build nearly only carriers, because fighters reign supreme and can destroy any ship. We build carriers to carry fighters (hence the name ).

Would a 1-3 fighters be able to destroy Star Destroyers (any size), Star Wars would be: Battle of the carriers like the Quasar or Ton-Falk and not the Battlecarrier and heavy/light cruiser-carrier setting we have.

Regardless of the reasons why, that's what my mk1 eyeball scanner sees when I watch the movies, and that's what this game's about for me! Not amazing cross sections data indicating that a star destroyer has ninety-hojillion meters of megaplasteelarmz0rz.

I see 30 T-70's destroyer a planet with a giant frikin' laser on its equator and I assume said fighters can find some plot-licious excuse for being able to take down an ISD or two (or three or four).

I'm not saying that your point isn't reasonable if we were to assume some sort of realistic conditions, monsieur Scipio, I am merely saying that I think it's perfectly legitimate to have my star wars pew-pew table represent what's on screen, low-budgets, nonsense, and all (and sonic charges in space!).

"Sir, these nitpickings are so small they are evading our heavy turbolaser batteries."

"We'll have to destroy them nonsense to nonsense. Get my keyboard ready."