But the Gunboat still looks imperial, from just a glance. People see it and go, oh is that the Imperial Shuttle...it at least looks Imperial right away!

. The Gunboat looks like it could have come from any of dozens of sci-if space games. If not for all the panting and moaning about it being such a marvelous example of Imperial design I'd never know it had anything to do with Star Wars. Heck, same goes for the K-Wing. But that ship has sailed.

Could NOT disagree with you more! We do however agree on your comments about the K-wing.

Yeah, the gunboat is awesome; it's like the designers of the shuttle wanted to make a statement that they could hang with the big boys over at the TIE design department. Kinda like the GM Grand National designers did to the Corvette designers in the 80's. But I agree that the K-wing is not Star-Warzy in the least; and it's odd and unballanced, like a 6 year olds drawing. Ugg

It is still easily the least Star Warsy ship released by FFG.

TBH, the gaps at the "hinges" on the striker look to have enough space that we may even see movable Tie striker model, athough we havent seen the alternate pose in photos yet....That would be pretty cool.

A lot pf the prequel ships were also fairly "uninspired". The naboo starfighters were just fighter versions of podracers (and the podracers were designed to resemble chariots a la "Ben-Hur").

The vulture droids looked like rip-off TIE Interceptors.

The Eta-2 Actis looks like a hamfisted attempt to mash some TIE features onto a Jedi Starfighter instead of showing a gradual design change throughout the three movies.

The ARC-170 is just a big art deco X-wing.

Basically what I'm saying is the design choices in the new movies to echo iconic ships is nothing new to star wars. I'd rather they play it safe instead of going off the deep end on crazy designs. The TIE Striker and the U-wing look like they came straight out of a 90's Lucas Arts game which is awesome. And the T-70 X-wing is waay sexier than anything the old EU writers came up with to replace the T-65.

TBH, the gaps at the "hinges" on the striker look to have enough space that we may even see movable Tie striker model, athough we havent seen the alternate pose in photos yet....That would be pretty cool.

Yeah you can see this movement in the Lego Model.

Next up... Every Star Destroyer looks almost like every other Star Destroyer!

Even the star destroyers in the OT and prequels were a lot more interesting. Executor? Arquitens and Venator-Class? I would give you the Imperial Class 2, but that is more of a fluke in production in the first place, not really an intentional new ship.

Though I must admit, I don't like the U-Wing either, even when it clearly is a new design. I like what it brings to the universe, I just don't like the ship itself. ^-^

...but the ties in TFA do bother me they dont look anymore advance then the old ties seems a step back from the tie interceptor and defenders

With all their funds sunk in to building another (stooopid) moon-sized base-station with mega-gun, no wonder they don't have the resources to do more that just bring a cheap easy-to-mass-produce front-line fighter up to date with some tech, and hope it's good enough.

I can't tell if you are joking. The Death Star in R1 is the one in ANH.

Sorry, I should been clearer about which part I was responding to (ie the reference to TFA).

- - - - -

On the topic of " not looking like Star Wars "... for me the StarViper looks more like something from any number of Japanese Anime rather than SW... but it's a big Universe, room for lots of alternate design styles I suppose.

I agree.

This is not real life, every Star Wars movie introduced fresh designs, TFA did it only for ships with 2 seconds of screen time.

Really how fresh was the Interceptor compared to a TIE Fighter? It's just a wing swap. T-70 makes perfect sense for being the next version of the X-Wing, and the TIE f/o makes perfect sense as the FO was just a wanna-be Empire, so they copied everything they could from the Empire.

I agree that the T-70 makes sense as the "next version of the X-wing" in the same regard as the Inteceptor worked as the "next version of the TIE". But that was 3 years later, not 30. TFA made minimal changes to the existing ships, which doesn't make much sense considering the number of years in between.

I would expect R1 to have more similar designs to ANH given how close together they are in time. But again, both ships use very similar cockpits and wings in a different configuration and call it a new ship. It just feels like a kid with ONE lego set who just rearranges the parts occasionally. TIE with inteceptor wings HORIZONTAL - BAM! Y-wing cockpit with X-wing Engines and movable wings - BAM!

Again, I liked the designs of the prequels even though I know many did not. I felt that the prequels did a much better job of starting 30 years away from the OT and gradually working design elements back into the ships. But compare the ARC-170 to the X-wing and then compare the X-wing to the T-70. Pretty big difference in imagination to me. Compare the Jedi Interceptor to the TIE, and then compare the TIE to the TIE f/o.

The difference is that the prequel designs recalled components of the OT designs without blatantly reusing those same components.

Weren't most of the PT designs scrapped OT concepts?

Regardless, I still think the /Fo and /SF were bad choices, merely because the /fo should have been based on one of the functional upgrades like the Advanced or Interceptor. The /SF is just a dumb idea to justify a prison breakout.

You might argue that the U-Wing isn't completely original :

...but I'd like to think it pays a little homage to a genius

WAT!! Fried chicken AND aircraft design!? That Col. Sanders was a genius!

This is not real life, every Star Wars movie introduced fresh designs, TFA did it only for ships with 2 seconds of screen time.

Really how fresh was the Interceptor compared to a TIE Fighter? It's just a wing swap. T-70 makes perfect sense for being the next version of the X-Wing, and the TIE f/o makes perfect sense as the FO was just a wanna-be Empire, so they copied everything they could from the Empire.

Except for the TIE interceptor, Bomber, Defender, etc.

Except the Commander game never canonized the Defender.

Bombers and Lines were also practically outdated by Endor, hell even by Yavin when X-Wings were a staple ship. Interceptors actually rectified some of the problems with Lines by adding more weapon hardpoints and a smaller profile. Not including the improved reactor, stronger laser cannons, a slightly more durable hull, and upgraded targeting systems.

You have to think past the visual box you narrow yourself to. The only reason they went with rehashing the Line was for nostalgia, any common sense would tell you to use the more deadly craft.

Except the Commander game never canonized the Defender.

Wookieepedians seem to believe it did:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/D_Defender

I get that they might be trying to channel the 'feel' of the OT, but every single ship from both movies is just a minimally modified echo of the OT ships.

Which is exactly how they ought to be, both in terms of marketing and lore. I hate the look of the T-70, but the idea that a completely new build of X-Wing had popped up since Jedi makes total sense.

Honestly, if you expected anything else, the problem might be you.

This is not real life, every Star Wars movie introduced fresh designs, TFA did it only for ships with 2 seconds of screen time.

Really how fresh was the Interceptor compared to a TIE Fighter? It's just a wing swap. T-70 makes perfect sense for being the next version of the X-Wing, and the TIE f/o makes perfect sense as the FO was just a wanna-be Empire, so they copied everything they could from the Empire.

I agree that the T-70 makes sense as the "next version of the X-wing" in the same regard as the Inteceptor worked as the "next version of the TIE". But that was 3 years later, not 30. TFA made minimal changes to the existing ships, which doesn't make much sense considering the number of years in between.

I would expect R1 to have more similar designs to ANH given how close together they are in time. But again, both ships use very similar cockpits and wings in a different configuration and call it a new ship. It just feels like a kid with ONE lego set who just rearranges the parts occasionally. TIE with inteceptor wings HORIZONTAL - BAM! Y-wing cockpit with X-wing Engines and movable wings - BAM!

Again, I liked the designs of the prequels even though I know many did not. I felt that the prequels did a much better job of starting 30 years away from the OT and gradually working design elements back into the ships. But compare the ARC-170 to the X-wing and then compare the X-wing to the T-70. Pretty big difference in imagination to me. Compare the Jedi Interceptor to the TIE, and then compare the TIE to the TIE f/o.

The difference is that the prequel designs recalled components of the OT designs without blatantly reusing those same components.

30 years ain't that much, really, at least not when technology is relatively mature, as it appears to be in the GFFA.. 30 years ago, the U.S. had F15's, F-16's and F-18's. Some variant of those planes are STILL in service, and will be for some years to come. B-52's are still flying and they fist entered service over 60 years ago. 60. Years. And in-Universe, the T-70 is already an older design. If the "Before the Awakening" story is to be believed, Poe was flying T-85's in the New Republic Navy. T-70's might very well have been introduced just a few years after Endor.

I think folks have more valid complaints about the TIE's. The First Order TIE is basically a repaint. The sf variant is different, but not different enough to be visually distinct. A nerd like me notices the differences, but my wife, who is a more casual fan? It's all the same to her. I would liked the SF variant to be more distinct. But I loves me some TIE's, so I'm not complaining TOO much.

I get that they might be trying to channel the 'feel' of the OT, but every single ship from both movies is just a minimally modified echo of the OT ships.

Which is exactly how they ought to be, both in terms of marketing and lore. I hate the look of the T-70, but the idea that a completely new build of X-Wing had popped up since Jedi makes total sense.

Honestly, if you expected anything else, the problem might be you.

It's not a completely new anything. That's what I'm saying. It is virtually the exact same ship. They tweaked the look of the engine. That is all. TFA was supposed to be a new time-frame. So let's see... in ANH building a moon sized base was nigh impossible. 30 years later, they build one the size of a planet that can shoot light-speed lasers across the galaxy after harvesting a star. Sounds like a fair bit of power creep in technology. But for the starfighter? We changed the shape of the engine.......

The problem that I'm suggesting is that rather than artfully tapping into an aesthetic, they reproduced things via cut and paste to just copy what was done before. It's poor design. The prequels had things that looked vastly different from the OT, which is more what I would expect with an entire galaxy worth of production companies making advancements over 30 years.

Perhaps the /FO is different from he /ln in more than just some cosmetic ways. Since everyone is so fond of saying that the Interceptor is so radically different on the inside (lasers than run the length of he wings, improved and more powerful targetting system, reactor, solar collector/radiator panels...) but with a cockpit that looks identical to the /ln, maybe we can say with some confidence that the /FO has vastly improved engines, stronger hull, SHIELDS, better targetting computer, probably more powerful weapons since they are noticeably bigger, better sensors with visible structures supporting better reception/communication, ect.

The FO is not just some pallet swap, it's a different ship visually and lore-wise. The Interceptor added some pointy wings and MOAR GUNs to an already effecient and effective design.

Except the Commander game never canonized the Defender.

Wookieepedians seem to believe it did:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE/D_Defender

They officially announced all future material would be canon, but games like Commanders only contain material for gameplay sake and don't contribute. The interpretation needs a smack with a brick and people are getting Indoctrination theory stupid again.

Perhaps the /FO is different from he /ln in more than just some cosmetic ways. Since everyone is so fond of saying that the Interceptor is so radically different on the inside (lasers than run the length of he wings, improved and more powerful targetting system, reactor, solar collector/radiator panels...) but with a cockpit that looks identical to the /ln, maybe we can say with some confidence that the /FO has vastly improved engines, stronger hull, SHIELDS, better targetting computer, probably more powerful weapons since they are noticeably bigger, better sensors with visible structures supporting better reception/communication, ect.

The FO is not just some pallet swap, it's a different ship visually and lore-wise. The Interceptor added some pointy wings and MOAR GUNs to an already effecient and effective design.

Here, I designed a line of Imperial ships that should be enough for the next two or three trilogies

Each starship is different visually and extremely different lore-wise.

EDIT Bonus, why Interceptor is much more visually interesting (the most important kind of interesting in visual media) than FO:

They are starships in a movie, they move fast and don't stay in the frame for too long, they have to be easily distinguishable. For the purpose of the movie, FO is just a repaint. For the same reason SF is the worst SW design ever, including all possible EU sources - I'm absolutely sure not a single person who haven't read about it beforehand and/or analyzed the trailers frame by frame noticed the movie had two (functionally) completely different First Order fighters. That's just horrible.

Perhaps the /FO is different from he /ln in more than just some cosmetic ways. Since everyone is so fond of saying that the Interceptor is so radically different on the inside (lasers than run the length of he wings, improved and more powerful targetting system, reactor, solar collector/radiator panels...) but with a cockpit that looks identical to the /ln, maybe we can say with some confidence that the /FO has vastly improved engines, stronger hull, SHIELDS, better targetting computer, probably more powerful weapons since they are noticeably bigger, better sensors with visible structures supporting better reception/communication, ect.

The FO is not just some pallet swap, it's a different ship visually and lore-wise. The Interceptor added some pointy wings and MOAR GUNs to an already effecient and effective design.

Since you want to play the lore card, the Interceptor was initially divised when X-wings were decimating Line squadrons because TIEs lacked the firepower to overwhelm them and survive the damage from a lack of shielding. Everything about the Interceptor chassis was an upgrade to the Line more than what you got from a hollywood model that reused the older one for budget and design reasons. If you'd stop being a potato, you would remember that more weapon hardpoints and a smaller target wasn't the only thing Interceptors had because the internals were different. You would've gotten that much earlier if you'd stop being a potato. Much more importantly, flying knife hands look far more lethal than bowties.

The functional differences between /sfs and /fos are pointless, and was justified for a romantic prisoner escape. Even then, you can probably see the differences but it's just as original as GB Heavy TIE Bombers and Interdictors just being TIE Bombers with ordnance pods slapped on. At least with Rogue One, they came up with some new designs. Even if they look like utter ****.

I have never realized how much I need a TIE/TOW in my life until now.

Needs to be a TIE with maybe a tractor beam that fires from the rear arc.

Unique pilot:

· "Mater"

Perhaps the /FO is different from he /ln in more than just some cosmetic ways. Since everyone is so fond of saying that the Interceptor is so radically different on the inside (lasers than run the length of he wings, improved and more powerful targetting system, reactor, solar collector/radiator panels...) but with a cockpit that looks identical to the /ln, maybe we can say with some confidence that the /FO has vastly improved engines, stronger hull, SHIELDS, better targetting computer, probably more powerful weapons since they are noticeably bigger, better sensors with visible structures supporting better reception/communication, ect.

The FO is not just some pallet swap, it's a different ship visually and lore-wise. The Interceptor added some pointy wings and MOAR GUNs to an already effecient and effective design.

They've repeatedly said the /FOs were upgraded and modernized designs based off the Line chassis. The point of this argument is that the design stems from a inferior model TIE. They specifically went with the Line upgrade for nostalgia because TFA was a copypasta of ANH. Even T-70s were designed to match TIEs in maneuverability and overall are the superior ship line still. I also read the same lore for the new designs, there's nothing inspiring about them much like XJ3s or Imperial Remnant Star Hunters/Chiss Phalanx Clawcraft were.

Since you want to play the lore card, the Interceptor was initially divised when X-wings were decimating Line squadrons because TIEs lacked the firepower to overwhelm them and survive the damage from a lack of shielding. Everything about the Interceptor chassis was an upgrade to the Line more than what you got from a hollywood model that reused the older one for budget and design reasons. If you'd stop being a potato, you would remember that more weapon hardpoints and a smaller target wasn't the only thing Interceptors had because the internals were different. You would've gotten that much earlier if you'd stop being a potato. Much more importantly, flying knife hands look far more lethal than bowties.

The functional differences between /sfs and /fos are pointless, and was justified for a romantic prisoner escape. Even then, you can probably see the differences but it's just as original as GB Heavy TIE Bombers and Interdictors just being TIE Bombers with ordnance pods slapped on. At least with Rogue One, they came up with some new designs. Even if they look like utter ****.

Whoa now, what's with this POTATO talk? No one mentioned root vegetables, that's just going too far!

Anyway.

Did you read my post? I was directly referencing all the internal changes that went into the interceptor. And I'm well aware of the 'more' behind the Interceptor's creation. I'm also old enough to have seen them on screen in 1983. And I've built models of various scales of numerous TIE models including squints. That's why I'm so taken aback that anyone can say the FO doesn't demonstrate a true advancement in the /ln model since the changes were all visible! Pointy wings don't suggest faster engines or better targeting computers when those engines and other systems are in the completely identical cockpit. The 'lore' even gets the total number of weapons wrong on the INT seeing that it has 10 obvious cannons. (Thanks Dr. Saxton Fr pointing this out!)

But yeah, the audience needed to see TIE fighters and recognize them easily. And somehow that's 'wrong'.

What ever. Neither ship holds a candle to the awesomeness of the /sa Bomber anyway. Now THAT is an iconic ship.