Honestly, I think looking at Star Wars 'freighters' as freighters is a mistake. These ships don't seem designed to carry cargo. Compared to a real life cargo ship, cargo plane or even an in-universe GR-75 they have really tiny cargo holds compared to crew space/auxiliary systems. As such, most are probably designed with smyggling/ bounty hunting/piracy in mind, which makes comparable performance to fighters much more logical.

Honestly, I think looking at Star Wars 'freighters' as freighters is a mistake. These ships don't seem designed to carry cargo. Compared to a real life cargo ship, cargo plane or even an in-universe GR-75 they have really tiny cargo holds compared to crew space/auxiliary systems. As such, most are probably designed with smyggling/ bounty hunting/piracy in mind, which makes comparable performance to fighters much more logical.

That is partly because the Falcon is a PT config, it's not designed to carry cargo, it's designed to carry passengers, their luggage and a bit extra. If you want a proper hauler, you are looking at the YT-1300-T with extra storage pods. But all that cuts down on the ability to maneuver which as a smuggler isn't a good trade.

The Jumpmaster has a red 1 turn in one direction,

I'd personally say that both the turns on the right being red would make it a much more interesting ship to fly. As it is, it's just a better dial than most ships full stop, let alone more large ships, unless you're stressed.

Honestly, I think looking at Star Wars 'freighters' as freighters is a mistake. These ships don't seem designed to carry cargo. Compared to a real life cargo ship, cargo plane or even an in-universe GR-75 they have really tiny cargo holds compared to crew space/auxiliary systems. As such, most are probably designed with smyggling/ bounty hunting/piracy in mind, which makes comparable performance to fighters much more logical.

I think of the YTs and their kind more as a freight van rather than a freight train. Good for local (in system) use and passable for a road trip (interstellar). In that case the Millennium Falcon is a 12 passenger van stuffed with a supercharged big block engine, riding on lowered springs, and half the seats are torn out to make room for a rocket engine

Freighters have larger more powerful engines, it makes sense for them to be faster than fighters, especially once you accept that every freighter in the game has been modified for combat duty in some way by default.

Honestly, I think looking at Star Wars 'freighters' as freighters is a mistake. These ships don't seem designed to carry cargo. Compared to a real life cargo ship, cargo plane or even an in-universe GR-75 they have really tiny cargo holds compared to crew space/auxiliary systems. As such, most are probably designed with smyggling/ bounty hunting/piracy in mind, which makes comparable performance to fighters much more logical.

I've always been under the impression that they were marketed as "freighters" with a wink and a nod, as they're obviously built to carry very small amounts of extremely expensive cargo (i.e., drugs, weapons, and other contraband) and are fast and agile enough to evade government enforcement.

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" ...

In our 2nd Ed / Alternate Rules Set, we fixed this problem by making all moves from the rear.

1. Place a 40mm edge piece against the rear pegs.

2. Lift the ship away.

3. Place the Manoeuvre Template against the edge piece. It can be centred or adjusted to the left or right.

4. Place the Ship back down against the end of the manoeuvre template

This method is also used for Barrel rolls and Boosts. The method reduces all move lengths by the base size and makes all movements consistent. The adjustment to left or right from the edge piece allows ships to form up without bumping and allows a little adjustment to dodge asteroids (10mm or 1/4 Small base). It also fixes large base barrel-rolling and cloaking on large bases.

Considering this is all set in space, where aerodynamics doesn't work, the fact that a large ship is faster than a small ship makes perfect sense; it has bigger engines and more momentum.

However, since fighters have a much higher engine-to-weight ratio, they have more acceleration. This is usually represented by the Boost action, which is found on many of the faster fighters and only a single large ship (the Aggressor, which is special).

The additional maneuverability of the smaller ships is also usually represented by the barrel roll action, which is also exceedingly rare on large ships.

In a more game-oriented sense, look at the shuttle and the YV-666. Two of the least maneuverable ships in the game, and both are complete crap if something gets behind them. You want all large ships to be that useless at maneuvering?

Large ships have enough downsides, what with being a bigger target, having a harder time avoiding obstacles, and being easier to bump. They don't need to be completely kneecapped, especially when the vast majority of them are just fine balance-wise.

Stop trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Considering this is all set in space, where aerodynamics doesn't work, the fact that a large ship is faster than a small ship makes perfect sense; it has bigger engines and more momentum.

More momentum means the ship has enourmous problems to brake (going a slower straight then the turn before) or turn tightly (hard 1); if not using hilarious amounts of energy. And the latter is just not economically - no wonder Han was broke

Think of it more like there large mass makes it hard for them to slow down quickly so they cover more ground. While a small agile fighter can adjust its velocity quickly so can operate in tighter manouvers.

Honestly, I think looking at Star Wars 'freighters' as freighters is a mistake. These ships don't seem designed to carry cargo. Compared to a real life cargo ship, cargo plane or even an in-universe GR-75 they have really tiny cargo holds compared to crew space/auxiliary systems. As such, most are probably designed with smyggling/ bounty hunting/piracy in mind, which makes comparable performance to fighters much more logical.

I think of the YTs and their kind more as a freight van rather than a freight train. Good for local (in system) use and passable for a road trip (interstellar). In that case the Millennium Falcon is a 12 passenger van stuffed with a supercharged big block engine, riding on lowered springs, and half the seats are torn out to make room for a rocket engine

The MF analogy is nice that would be a cool pic.

I have however a problem that all the other delivery vans as well are faster and more agile than formula 1 cars (A-wings).

Honestly, I think looking at Star Wars 'freighters' as freighters is a mistake. These ships don't seem designed to carry cargo. Compared to a real life cargo ship, cargo plane or even an in-universe GR-75 they have really tiny cargo holds compared to crew space/auxiliary systems. As such, most are probably designed with smyggling/ bounty hunting/piracy in mind, which makes comparable performance to fighters much more logical.

I think of the YTs and their kind more as a freight van rather than a freight train. Good for local (in system) use and passable for a road trip (interstellar). In that case the Millennium Falcon is a 12 passenger van stuffed with a supercharged big block engine, riding on lowered springs, and half the seats are torn out to make room for a rocket engine

The MF analogy is nice that would be a cool pic.

I have however a problem that all the other delivery vans as well are faster and more agile than formula 1 cars (A-wings).

It's likely that the YT-1300 is designed like a 'tug boat' and clamps onto a large cargo pod/train with its mandibles and pushes it with oversized engines, as seen in some concept art. The Jumpmaster looks like it could be loaded with cargo pods as well. The YT-2400 looks like crap, just like 20 years ago. The YV-666 is a LOT smaller now than it was in the original EU sources.

Honestly, I think looking at Star Wars 'freighters' as freighters is a mistake. These ships don't seem designed to carry cargo. Compared to a real life cargo ship, cargo plane or even an in-universe GR-75 they have really tiny cargo holds compared to crew space/auxiliary systems. As such, most are probably designed with smyggling/ bounty hunting/piracy in mind, which makes comparable performance to fighters much more logical.

I think of the YTs and their kind more as a freight van rather than a freight train. Good for local (in system) use and passable for a road trip (interstellar). In that case the Millennium Falcon is a 12 passenger van stuffed with a supercharged big block engine, riding on lowered springs, and half the seats are torn out to make room for a rocket engine

The MF analogy is nice that would be a cool pic.

I have however a problem that all the other delivery vans as well are faster and more agile than formula 1 cars (A-wings).

It's likely that the YT-1300 is designed like a 'tug boat' and clamps onto a large cargo pod/train with its mandibles and pushes it with oversized engines, as seen in some concept art. The Jumpmaster looks like it could be loaded with cargo pods as well. The YT-2400 looks like crap, just like 20 years ago. The YV-666 is a LOT smaller now than it was in the original EU sources.

Nah... there are two whole books about the YT-1300 and neither have suggested that... The 'clamps'/'mandibles' is actually the main loading dock. There is a loading arm that slides out of there an the main cargo hold is directly behind. There is also a second loading lift in the engine bay.

I too think that 58/61/64 point ships should have trash dials.

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

I really doubt that they will take a card that's available in only two expansions and change it so the ships in those expansions can't use it. Because EU is only in the Falcon and Hounds Tooth packs. I find it hard to believe that FFG thinks this actually an issue if they released it again in wave 7 with another large ship.

Also errata has not been out of the question for some time now.

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.

Except the ship we play are not just the highly modified ships of infamous bounty hunters and smugglers. They are any contracted scout, outer rim smuggler, John or Jane Doe that can get their hands of a freighter.

Most any freighter or 'hunk of junk' should be able to out fly a ship specifically built as a highly maneuverable fighter.

TBH I'm not sure any smuggler is going to be running a standard freight version of the YT-1300. They are going to modify it so they can get in under the radar.

TBH I'm not sure any smuggler is going to be running a standard freight version of the YT-1300. They are going to modify it so they can get in under the radar.

Of course. But then why would any major power waste resources, time and development on fighters, bombers, etc. when they could just take a freighter which was typically better anyway?

I wouldn't say any of the Freighters are as maneuverable as the more maneuverable fighters. Their dials are average to poor, They don't have boosts / barrel rolls built in, so they have no innate way to reposition after there move. They also have really low agility.

TBH I'm not sure any smuggler is going to be running a standard freight version of the YT-1300. They are going to modify it so they can get in under the radar.

Of course. But then why would any major power waste resources, time and development on fighters, bombers, etc. when they could just take a freighter which was typically better anyway?

Why are we trying to draw conclusions about a fictional world from x-wing again?

TBH I'm not sure any smuggler is going to be running a standard freight version of the YT-1300. They are going to modify it so they can get in under the radar.

Of course. But then why would any major power waste resources, time and development on fighters, bombers, etc. when they could just take a freighter which was typically better anyway?

Why are we trying to draw conclusions about a fictional world from x-wing again?

Indirectly games in general:

We apply real world concepts to both fictional worlds and the games we play. Many expect freighters in the game to act like freighters. Having them out preform fighters doesn't make sense to some either in the real world, fictional world or the game itself.

Perception and how we relate to a "game" directly impacts, at least for most, how enjoyable it is.

Specifically this game:

For a more direct answer to your question "Why are we trying to draw conclusions about a fictional world from x-wing again?"

Many of us like Star Wars and got into this game because it is Star Wars : X-Wing. There are many other games out there but this game relates directly to the fictional world which is both the inspiration for the game and, for many of us, the very reason we started playing.

Does that help?

Considering this is all set in space, where aerodynamics doesn't work, the fact that a large ship is faster than a small ship makes perfect sense; it has bigger engines and more momentum.

However, since fighters have a much higher engine-to-weight ratio, they have more acceleration. This is usually represented by the Boost action, which is found on many of the faster fighters and only a single large ship (the Aggressor, which is special).

The additional maneuverability of the smaller ships is also usually represented by the barrel roll action, which is also exceedingly rare on large ships.

In a more game-oriented sense, look at the shuttle and the YV-666. Two of the least maneuverable ships in the game, and both are complete crap if something gets behind them. You want all large ships to be that useless at maneuvering?

Large ships have enough downsides, what with being a bigger target, having a harder time avoiding obstacles, and being easier to bump. They don't need to be completely kneecapped, especially when the vast majority of them are just fine balance-wise.

Stop trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Uh, more momentum is a bad thing. Especially in space, but its also very visible in the atmosphere.

Why does a train take forever to stop? Momentum is through the fething roof, and it takes forever for it to counteract that momentum. Thats also why even a train going 5mph hitting a car doesnt even look like it got phased by hitting the car, but the car got obliterated.

High momentum would allow them to plow through tiny meteors, debris, or much smaller ships and not really be phased. It has nothing to do with speed or maneuverability.

Youre right on the weight to thrustor ratio affecting acceleration, but this also affects stopping. There is no such thing as brakes in space, only thrustors in the opposite direction to negate your momentum manually.

in the case of starwars, they dont do ANYTHING ship-design wise that makes sense realistically. Coming from a guy that worked on airplanes for 6 years and has a high interest in the things NASA does/did, its really difficult for me to ignore these issues lol. Thats why im part of the boat that things its stupid/silly a freighter can outmaneuver a fighter. Realistically, either they'd have to have some insanely advanced engines (which raises the question: why doesnt the fighter have that?) or have so many engines their offense would be hampered.