One of my minor niggles with the X-Wing game system is that freighters are faster than fighters due to the difference in base size. While that's OK for the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy, I also figure that's what the Engine Upgrade is there to represent.

It occurred to me that there's a way to change maneuvering that eliminates the discrepancy: measure movement rear-to-rear rather than front-to-rear. This eliminates the base length as part of the maneuver, and means that everything that moves the same speed maneuver has the front of the base move the same distance. It slows fighters down, but slows the big base ships down more.

Here's how you do it: Place the maneuver template against the side of the ship's base, flush with the rear of the base. Then move the ship so that the rear of the base is parallel with the front of the template. For banks and turns, place the left templates on the left side of the ship's base, and the reverse for the right.

For consistency this actually needs redesigned templates which have a right angle at front and rear to simplify alignment, but it results in more consistent movement across all ship sizes.

Brought to you in the theme of "answers to question you never asked" ...

One of my minor niggles with the X-Wing game system is that freighters are faster than fighters due to the difference in base size. While that's OK for the fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy, I also figure that's what the Engine Upgrade is there to represent.

It occurred to me that there's a way to change maneuvering that eliminates the discrepancy: measure movement rear-to-rear rather than front-to-rear. This eliminates the base length as part of the maneuver, and means that everything that moves the same speed maneuver has the front of the base move the same distance. It slows fighters down, but slows the big base ships down more.

Here's how you do it: Place the maneuver template against the side of the ship's base, flush with the rear of the base. Then move the ship so that the rear of the base is parallel with the front of the template. For banks and turns, place the left templates on the left side of the ship's base, and the reverse for the right.

For consistency this actually needs redesigned templates which have a right angle at front and rear to simplify alignment, but it results in more consistent movement across all ship sizes.

Brought to you in the theme of "answers to question you never asked" ...

I'm not sure an issue with a fundamental mechanic of the game that requires a major effort to fix and probably a repointing of every large ship in the game is minor.

Why not just giving large base ships dials like the Lambda's (not in maneuver colors, just similar in available maneuvers)? If I get it right, freighters could almost stay stationary with 1 straights (they should be able to if they can Barrel Roll at least over 2 turns).

This could be stronger than a red stop maneuver as you can use Push the Limit to get another action and you don`t get stressed if you don`use PTL.

Generally I find most large ships are fast but can't turn for toffee. There are exceptions like the Aggressor which was known for doing very fast turns, but that is more of a large interceptor than a crate.

Generally I find most large ships are fast but can't turn for toffee. There are exceptions like the Aggressor which was known for doing very fast turns, but that is more of a large interceptor than a crate.

Shuttles, Firesprays, and YV-666s I grant you. Tell that to the ships with 1-hards turns, like the YT-1300, YT-2400, Jumpmaster, Aggressor though ...

Generally I find most large ships are fast but can't turn for toffee. There are exceptions like the Aggressor which was known for doing very fast turns, but that is more of a large interceptor than a crate.

Shuttles, Firesprays, and YV-666s I grant you. Tell that to the ships with 1-hards turns, like the YT-1300, YT-2400, Jumpmaster, Aggressor though ...

Well the Aggressor was meant to be able to do silly maneuvers due to the fact that the pilot wasn't living so it had a lot of the inertia safeties turned off. The Jumpmaster has a red 1 turn in one direction, but again was the ship of a Bounty hunter and not particularly slow, it was really a pursuit craft... The YT-1300 and YT-2400 suffer from more or less being the Falcon and Outrider which were very maneuverable. I always wish the ships had been more average with really expensive titles.. maybe a red 1-turn with the title making it white.

TBH I wish they had also had 2/1/6/4 on all the YT-1300 ships, and then multiple expensive titles, so the Falcon would have brought it up to the standard stats. There are so many semi-famous YT-1300 you could have had 3 or 4 unique titles.

I mean, it outflew and out-maneuvered 4 TIE fighters through a ridiculously clustered asteroid field. While both seem impractical, there are many examples in Star Wars, I imagine its design is based on the movie and scenes like that.

Yeah totally, but the Falcon is totally not a standard YT-1300.

https://youtu.be/8sarFZJl3h0

That would change which maneuvers would hit obstacles. You'd need a lot more room on the inside to bank or turn around the asteroid.

If people freaked out about having to get a new damage deck, they'd really lose their **** over needing to replace their templates.

I'm not sure a change that big to fix what is essentially a fluff problem, and not a gameplay problem, would be worth doing.

being a big ship is also a huge weakness. All I have to do is 1 forward to stay behind you, forever.

Well, to be fluff accurate most of the big ships should have had at least two dials: one for "Millennium Falcon" (only use if you have the title equipped), one for the run of the mill YT (something like the lambda dial but less red, add a k-turn), and one for a bone stock YT (K-wing dial, lambda+hwk reds, Y-wing greens).

Other ships that should get the multi dial treatment: JM5000, YT-2400, YV-666, VCX-100, G1-A & HWK-290. Ironically the small ships are the ones that got "less modified" maneuver dials, from a fluff perspective you could even argue that the HWK (a courier by design) is worse than stock!

FFG, I want a dials pack now! Maybe combine with the pilots & titles pack people keep asking for?

I agree some of the larger ships are too fast and turn too easily compared to smaller supposedly 'more agile' ships.

What about a new 1 sharp turn template for large ships only that turns 45 degrees not 90 degrees?

Large ships with engine upgrade can be a problem, its got to do more with their 360 firing arc giving them easy shots while they zoom away. Maybe restricting the boost action to 1 straight would solve this? This goes with the school of thought that large ships are fast but less agile

Generally I find most large ships are fast but can't turn for toffee. There are exceptions like the Aggressor which was known for doing very fast turns, but that is more of a large interceptor than a crate.

Shuttles, Firesprays, and YV-666s I grant you. Tell that to the ships with 1-hards turns, like the YT-1300, YT-2400, Jumpmaster, Aggressor though ...

Well the Aggressor was meant to be able to do silly maneuvers due to the fact that the pilot wasn't living so it had a lot of the inertia safeties turned off. The Jumpmaster has a red 1 turn in one direction, but again was the ship of a Bounty hunter and not particularly slow, it was really a pursuit craft... The YT-1300 and YT-2400 suffer from more or less being the Falcon and Outrider which were very maneuverable. I always wish the ships had been more average with really expensive titles.. maybe a red 1-turn with the title making it white.

TBH I wish they had also had 2/1/6/4 on all the YT-1300 ships, and then multiple expensive titles, so the Falcon would have brought it up to the standard stats. There are so many semi-famous YT-1300 you could have had 3 or 4 unique titles.

I kind of wish we'd get more "bog" large ships in general, the way we have plenty of small ships that don't really have an iconically titled version, but it doesn't seem to fit the way they want to sell large ships.

I am also in the camp of having issues that Large Based ships are FASTER than fighters who are suppose to be the fastest out there.

The main issue is that unlike in Star Wars StarWarriors and Armada, X-Wing does not have an acceleration/deacceleration portion of maneuver. The ability to accelerate to great speeds and maintain maneuverability is what is theoretically baked in but several waves ago that model was broken for Scum large based ships. This creates a great divide between game mechanics. While there may be other scope creep that is acceptable all these scum large based ships rocking best dials is offensive in so many ways. Sometimes it feels like playing two separate games.

In the water a bigger boat can have a bigger engine and thus go faster than a smaller ship.

The fastest airplane ever built is quite a bit larger than many fighters are.

There are reasons that a bigger ship may be faster than a smaller ship but I do see where you are going and when it comes to boost I may even agree.

While measuring from back to back instead of back to front would put all ships on equal footing when it comes to distance moved it isn't so easy to do. To me the "best" way would be to mark the ship's rear guide location, remove the ship and place the desired maneuver flush with the previously marked rear guide, and then replace the ship at the front of the desired maneuver with it sitting in the rear nubs.

I'm not so bothered by their speed. More their agility.

Big ships shouldn't have barrel rolls or hard 1s in my opinion.

I think most of the big rebel and scum ships are based on the heavily modified versions of their most famous owners instead of the normal versions.

Perhaps it would be fun if those ships had two dials one normal to represent the unmodified one and one for the title which makes it into the known modified ship, so a YT-1300 would fly differently than the Millenium Falcon.

The thing is, the flight path system is easy and works for the dial-based game play mechanic whereas if you want to better simulate a more "realistic" movement, you'd need something more complex.

X-wing is supposed to be a game of starfighter combat, but there are a few too many iconic ships that need to be included. Clearly the mechanic used for small ships doesn't really lend itself to large ships adequately because it allows a Lambda to outpace an A-wing. But a complete redesign isn't really an option this far into the design. Should large ships be allowed to use Engine Upgrade? I don't think so. I think the solution would be to nerf some of the upgrades that allow large ships to have superior maneuverability over the starfighters. Changing dials and/or templates is logistically just not viable.

Personally, I'm more concerned about big ships that can evade.

Though I guess it can be explained as routing more energy to the shields or something.

Personally, I'm more concerned about big ships that can evade.

Though I guess it can be explained as routing more energy to the shields or something.

No, I think it can be explained by the fact that it's a LARGE target.

I see your point here OP, and your idea is rather similar to armada's movement. However, like it has been said, making people adjust to such a radical change would make more than a few people angry. Both the need for new templates, and adjusting to the way the ships move would be tough.

The idea is nice however. Could you give it a try, and tell us how it goes? I might try it once or twice too.

You could always use the Huge movement template for large ships.

Actually, a seperate set of templates for Large ships would be a great solution.

Maneuverability (on Boost) could be somewhat mitigated if Large Ship Boost was restricted to 1-Straight only.

Curious to know if this small change would affect peoples upgrade choices (possibly not)...

... what if it was also amended to using the template sideways (like B-Roll) - still get more than a whole base displacement distance...

... or for the most reduction, put a 3-straight template against the side of the template, so that one end lines up with the rear edge of the base - then push the ship forward until the front edge lines up with the forward end of the template.

(only half a base displacement)

- - - - -

What if small ships (only) could "side-slip" on a straight - ie, when placing the model at the end of the template, rather that between the nubs, you could opt to place the ship so the at template is outside (but touching) the nub (a flush with the back of the base).

(or get rid of rear nubs on Small Ships altogether, and let them be placed as flexibly as B-Rolls and T-Rolls)

Then you could have a large ship Modification that grants the same ability (but removes EU as an option).

Large Ship B-Rolls could even have been a variation on this - place 1-straight template between front or rear nubs, then move the ship as far in the direction of the B-Roll as it can go whilst keeping full contact with the end of the template (no forward-backward flexibility granted under this method).

- - - - -

I haven't been on this forum for long, but long enough to have seen a few "Large Ship are too maneuverable" posts - and whilst I agree with them on a thematic level (even despite the "these are heavily customised versions of mundane vessels" argument) - but inevitably, people will raise the other counter-arguments highlighting the disadvantages imposed on Large Ships which maintain a balance (though I'm not sure I'm yet convinced).

Well they did add "small ship only" to deadeye, so errata is not completely out of the question anymore...

Personally, I'd prefer a barrel roll style FAQ. Little known change back in wave two is that big ships barrel roll (then just the MF with expert handling) originally was long just like smalls. But really this problem has existed just as long so I doubt it will ever be "fixed".

- In that vein i would like to see boost similarly altered: big ships can only boost 1 straight, small ships can boost either straight 2 or bank 1.

I could go for a separate set of templates for large ships