Correction. The Raider was in Force Awakens.

2 hours ago, Wiredin said:

Correction. The Raider was in Force Awakens.

I'm not seeing it.

4 hours ago, AlphaTwo said:

they may be falling past it, but look between the wings of the Raider. You can see the hanger opening, very briefly. Have to pause it at just the right time to see it.

It could be, and theres no rebel ships above for them to fall out of...

But then the hangar is way too narrow to allow a TIE fighter... which should be okay because would special forces even fly standard TIE's? the x-wing model for the raider is about an inch too short, so the extra space would allow for an X-Wing and maybe an interceptor....

8 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I'm not seeing it.

the engine arrangement and the solar wing is clearly visible.

Rebel Alliance Raider Confirmed 2018 FFG, contains special forces buff for all X-Wing fighters plus 1 damage and has the can deploy 2 x-wings for 0 additional points

5 hours ago, Zeoinx said:

Rebel Alliance Raider Confirmed 2018 FFG, contains special forces buff for all X-Wing fighters plus 1 damage and has the can deploy 2 x-wings for 0 additional points

Special Deployment Rule: X-Wings must be dropped onto the mat from a height of approx 24" (60cm) and play them where they land.

2 hours ago, kris40k said:

Special Deployment Rule: X-Wings must be dropped onto the mat from a height of approx 24" (60cm) and play them where they land.

Welcome to the battle hero of the rebellion.... FFG IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BROKEN SHIPS USING THIS DEPLOYMENT METHOD We hope you enjoy your new Epic Ship and continue shopping with us in the future. BUY MORE X-WINGS, YOU WILL NEED THEM....

It can't be a real trailer. Those storm troopers are actually hitting their targets, and we all know that's impossible.

A point of Order: Devastator captured Tantive IV, stormtroopers stormed the ship and shot down the rebels. Of course, they did take a few casualties, but they did hit their targets XD

The only time in the original 3 episodes you see stormtroopers missing, is when they're told to.

DeathStar Escape, Bespin herding

otherwise they're pretty accurate

I think you're forgetting about some friendly teddy bears.

ok look, the costume designers didnt know how to make ewoks vicious... they were all made by the puppet creators from Henson, of course they looked friendly

19 hours ago, Alexhurlbut said:

Basically like the Rogue Squadron/Wraith Squadron post Endor.

Was going to post this -- Old Canon Wraith Squadron was create to literally be what Inferno Squad is for Imps in this game.

Silly Double Post.

55 minutes ago, Zeoinx said:

ok look, the costume designers didnt know how to make ewoks vicious... they were all made by the puppet creators from Henson, of course they looked friendly

The Skeksis from Dark Crystal disagree with this

23 hours ago, Marinealver said:

You have played Battlefront, This is the only way they make sense.

I think this is the only show that did such a thing. But you o got to admit it is rather unpractical to have your pilots serve as infantrymen as well.

Space: Above and Beyond was the first thing that popped into my head. Even back then, when I was in high school, it seemed absurd to me.

But since Battlefront is a Combined Arms shooter that is the only way to force it into narrative.

Why even force it in? Plenty of other games have just used multiple protagonists to tell the story. Have a pilot character and a commando character. It isn't like the idea of a split-protagonist narrative is anything new. If the Call of Duty games can figure it out, so can EA.

On 4/23/2017 at 4:59 PM, Marinealver said:

You have played Battlefront, This is the only way they make sense.

I think this is the only show that did such a thing. But you o got to admit it is rather unpractical to have your pilots serve as infantrymen as well. But since Battlefront is a Combined Arms shooter that is the only way to force it into narrative.

The thing is, TIEs are much cheaper relevantly speaking than jet fighters or helicopters today; and in the SW universe piloting isn't an uncommon skill. Even moisture farmers and nerf-herders fly in their spare time.

The only reason our Special Forces today don't also have pilot training is because it is cheaper and easier to have a helicopter ferry them out and come back to pick them up or stay nearby. If they could all take TIEs it would mean faster insertion, and no waiting for extraction. They can be their own air support, and are overall much more versatile, self-contained units.

You can say to them "Go there, kill that, bring me X. Go, now." without having to arrange transport off of the carrier or a fighter escort, and they can just go do it.

It also means they aren't helplessly waiting in a shuttle when the dogfighting occurs - which is also a very common aspect of warfare in SW.

On 4/23/2017 at 5:56 PM, Zeoinx said:

If you ask me, the Interior shots look like a scaled back ISD Bridge, so there ya go for the bridge. As far as the rest, and based on what I can determine holding my Epic Scaled Raider next to the CR-90, dont give it many "quarters", give it a restroom facility, a large armory, and a huge cargo area, that CAN be used to sleep in, but mainly is used to deploy your special forces out of, maybe have at least two or three speeder bikes and a single Hover tank inside too

Personally I'm a fan of quarters. They can be used as whipple shielding on the outer layer of the ship (they crew isn't going to be sleeping in them during a battle anyway), and if there are crew in them it means fewer die per hull breach.

4 minutes ago, OneKelvin said:

The thing is, TIEs are much cheaper relevantly speaking than jet fighters or helicopters today; and in the SW universe piloting isn't an uncommon skill. Even moisture farmers and nerf-herders fly in their spare time.
...

Well of course, just think how many Giant mechs we could have if we didn't think of money as any real thing. I mean how much do you pay for a TIE Fighter in Battlefront? Well the same as you pay for any other player $500 (console of course) plus $65 for the game and any microtransaction. OMG I can see it now 25 TIE Fighters for only $9.99. Heck yeah a $10 TIE Fighter is cheaper than a multi-million dollar fighter jet.

31 minutes ago, OneKelvin said:

The thing is, TIEs are much cheaper relevantly speaking than jet fighters or helicopters today;

When it comes to space fighters, per-unit cost is fairly irrelevant compared to transportation logistics.

No matter how many TIE Fighters the Empire can produce, only a finite number will fit inside any given transport, be in escort carrier or star destroyer. On the flip side, it has plenty of room for crew. There is no human efficiency in cross training personnel.

The reason modern special forces don't fly themselves in is again a question of efficiency and expediency. A helicopter can carry a finite number of passengers and crew. Unless you're abandoning your aircraft after landing, that means somebody is staying behind to guard it, or be prepared to fly it. With TIE Fighters, that inefficiency is multiplied. Any battlefield casualties mean an aircraft left behind since it doesn't have a pilot anymore. Even the fairly silly TIE Special Forces only alleviates that inefficiency by half. Plus, every TIE used to transport 1-2 operatives is now one less TIE the carrier vehicle has to use for interdiction, air superiority or air support missions.

The only reason such a story would exist is because it's written by somebody who has no idea how wars are fought, lol.

21 minutes ago, VaeVictis said:

When it comes to space fighters, per-unit cost is fairly irrelevant compared to transportation logistics.

No matter how many TIE Fighters the Empire can produce, only a finite number will fit inside any given transport, be in escort carrier or star destroyer. On the flip side, it has plenty of room for crew. There is no human efficiency in cross training personnel.

The reason modern special forces don't fly themselves in is again a question of efficiency and expediency. A helicopter can carry a finite number of passengers and crew. Unless you're abandoning your aircraft after landing, that means somebody is staying behind to guard it, or be prepared to fly it. With TIE Fighters, that inefficiency is multiplied. Any battlefield casualties mean an aircraft left behind since it doesn't have a pilot anymore. Even the fairly silly TIE Special Forces only alleviates that inefficiency by half. Plus, every TIE used to transport 1-2 operatives is now one less TIE the carrier vehicle has to use for interdiction, air superiority or air support missions.

The only reason such a story would exist is because it's written by somebody who has no idea how wars are fought, lol.

But yeah, just like in the TV shows/ movies and games, the only way to make the pilot/foot-soldier game would be to well make 2 seperate games that some how fit together. Since it is easier to make one game and just have the ships and the infantry avatar controlled by the same person with just a slightly varied controller scheme, is easier.

Is it that much easier? Why do I need two separate games? Honestly, how hard would it be to transition? It's not like the game is going to be seamless in between levels. Fly escort in your TIE Fighter, finish the escort mission, Loading... Please Wait... Boom, now I'm a commando watching the fighters and the transport shuttle flying away. Even if the console has the processing power to load levels seamlessly, the movie industry has done everybody a huge favor by developing scene change techniques. Dissolves, wipes, fades, etc.

In Call of Duty 4, there's a level where the player controls the gun stations on an AC-130 while the SAS character he was playing on the previous level is now just an NPC running on the ground. Then that level ends, and the player goes back to controlling a third character, a US Marine. One level later, he's back to being the SAS guy. Seriously. This isn't even remotely a problem. Video games have been handling multiple-POV transitions for years.

A TV show like S:A&B combines characters for budgetary reasons. One would hope EA could afford to hire one extra voice actor, lol.

20 hours ago, Wiredin said:

the engine arrangement and the solar wing is clearly visible.

The primary engine is far too wide-framed away from the radial section to be a Raider. Several parts are missing, so what looks like the raider's wings may very well not be.

I'm not seeing it.

4 hours ago, VaeVictis said:

Is it that much easier? Why do I need two separate games? Honestly, how hard would it be to transition? It's not like the game is going to be seamless in between levels. Fly escort in your TIE Fighter, finish the escort mission, Loading... Please Wait... Boom, now I'm a commando watching the fighters and the transport shuttle flying away. Even if the console has the processing power to load levels seamlessly, the movie industry has done everybody a huge favor by developing scene change techniques. Dissolves, wipes, fades, etc.

In Call of Duty 4, there's a level where the player controls the gun stations on an AC-130 while the SAS character he was playing on the previous level is now just an NPC running on the ground. Then that level ends, and the player goes back to controlling a third character, a US Marine. One level later, he's back to being the SAS guy. Seriously. This isn't even remotely a problem. Video games have been handling multiple-POV transitions for years.

A TV show like S:A&B combines characters for budgetary reasons. One would hope EA could afford to hire one extra voice actor, lol.

Well it isn't easier, that's why it is not done. As I said before the path of least resistance is to change up the control schemes a little when moving from infantry avatar to flying vehicle.

8 hours ago, VaeVictis said:

When it comes to space fighters, per-unit cost is fairly irrelevant compared to transportation logistics.

No matter how many TIE Fighters the Empire can produce, only a finite number will fit inside any given transport, be in escort carrier or star destroyer. On the flip side, it has plenty of room for crew. There is no human efficiency in cross training personnel.

The reason modern special forces don't fly themselves in is again a question of efficiency and expediency. A helicopter can carry a finite number of passengers and crew. Unless you're abandoning your aircraft after landing, that means somebody is staying behind to guard it, or be prepared to fly it. With TIE Fighters, that inefficiency is multiplied. Any battlefield casualties mean an aircraft left behind since it doesn't have a pilot anymore. Even the fairly silly TIE Special Forces only alleviates that inefficiency by half. Plus, every TIE used to transport 1-2 operatives is now one less TIE the carrier vehicle has to use for interdiction, air superiority or air support missions.

The only reason such a story would exist is because it's written by somebody who has no idea how wars are fought, lol.

You're trying to cut down a work of fiction using real-world statistics and tactics.

It's not really a fair fight.

What I do is assume that the humans they portray are just as intelligent and able as humans IRL. They do assign individual fighters to SF forces in-universe, they do fight using blaster guns, they do dogfight at visible range in space and jump from one star to the next. Pointing out that their methods and tactics are silly with real-world technology and politics is pointless; the only question that matters is why they would do what they are currently doing.

And saying "Because the writers are uneducated in such matters." is an avoidance tactic. The beauty of fiction is that the worlds turn in our imaginations without the need for us to monitor every meal, restroom break, tactic, transaction, etc. I'm sure I could pull apart some very-well written realistic military fiction if I wanted to by pointing out that certain vehicles would need certain amounts of gasoline to go certain distances, or that certain new developments render their research pointless.

Ever read an old real military political-drama and had them talking about the awesome power of the... floppy disc? Yeah. The world spins, and the old ways are made obsolete. I see it as being very plausible that modern US Special-forces doctrine has gone the way of the Pike Square by the year 3281 LY.

So be clever now; what conditions would make it useful to have self-contained fighter-born SF units? We've seen that the forces in SW are so energy-rich that inefficiencies in ship design and usage are near to non-issues. For the value of the missions these SF are expected to undertake, is fleet command really concerned about the possible cost of a single abandoned TIE fighter? Are they incapable of installing a self-destruct so that it takes out a few of the enemy if they try to steal it?

"Plus, every TIE used to transport 1-2 operatives is now one less TIE the carrier vehicle has to use for interdiction, air superiority or air support missions." You mean like... the Raider dedicated to nothing but SF transport and air-superiority?

And is it really certain that they insert using their TIEs? Perhaps their base uniform simply incorporates the elements required for flight control so that they don't need to change if they are summoned for ship defense while still in orbit. Fewer Uniforms = Efficiency.

Really guys, you miss the point of theory-crafting.*


*(The point of theory crafting is to help make the world more immersive. By finding gaps and akward chinks in the writing and coming up with explanations and ways around them, it helps the suspension of disbelief to hold up under scrutiny. Writers aren't perfect, many aren't even good; it's all I can do to keep the illusion going for just one more minute or so.

)