So I'm trying to get my father to play this game but his interest in Star Wars is tepid at best. He does, however, have a great knowledge and interest in 19th century and WWII Naval history and strategy; I figured I could catch his interest through some comparisons, as the similarities between Star Wars naval battles and WWII naval battles are significant.

From my own childhood experience with the X-Wing series I developed something of an intuitive grasp of the nature of various ships, fighters, etc. (though B-Wings being slower than Y-Wings still throws me off) so I can look at a thing and immediately have some idea of its strategic value, role, and usage. My father obviously doesn't have this, so I thought that if I could find a rough WWII equivalent he might be able to start thinking more strategically about what role a Star Destroyer plays vs. a Victory, etc.

I've got a few ideas so far, was wondering if anyone else would like to consider and contribute:

Ships

Star Destroyer/MC80 Home One: My obvious first comparison is to a battleship, but I realized that this doesn't quite fit due to the squadron value. This would be more of a Battle-Carrier, and as such I've had a really hard time finding a good equivalent. I may just have to tell him "Take a battleship, make it three times bigger, then weld an aircraft carrier to it. 19th century 1st Rate 100-Gun, but 19th century gets weird when considering snub fighters.

Gladiator/MC30: Think this is pretty easy. 19th century equivalent would be a carronade frigate. WWII a battlecruiser: at optimal range can take on anything its size or smaller and run away from anything bigger. Heavy armament with weaker armor than a battleship.

Victory: "Pocket" battleship I.E. Deutschland class. Smaller than a standard battleship but heavily armed for its size. Similar to a heavy cruiser but bigger guns. 19th century 3rd Rate Line Ship maybe.

MC80 Liberty: Battleship, 19th century 2nd Rate Line Ship.

Assault Frigate: Heavy Cruiser (ironically). I might just call both these and Victory's Heavy Cruisers in the end, for simplicity sake. Thinking 19th century 3rd or 4th Rate.

CR90/Hammerhead/Raider: Torpedo Boats? Maybe Frigates? 19th Century 5th Rate.

Pelta/Light Cruiser/Nebulon: Destroyers 19th century 4th Rate.

Interdictor: ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? A minelayer??????ihavenoidea.

Fighters

X-Wing: Mustang

Y-Wing: ?

B-Wing: Bombers are tricky, as they aren't like bombers in a WWII sense. They're more torpedo bombers than "heavy bombers". Maybe a Sea Wolf?

A-Wing: P38

TIE Fighter: Wildcat

TIE Int.: Hellcat

TIE Defender: Zero

TIE Bomber: Stuka? I'm having trouble with this one, and I don't like using a dive-bomber as a comparison...

I haven't even given any thought to the various transports yet. I'm thinking they'd be more along the lines of B-17's and other heavy bombers, but then I run into the same problem of it not making sense when applied to naval warfare.

Feel free to disagree or post your own comparisons!

@GiledPallaeon

I think that's about what I could say. Demolisher might even be a submarine. It shoots torpedoes and you don't see it coming (well you might, but there's not much to do about it).

Interdictor I think really doesn't have a comparison, something that makes giant vortexes in the ocean? Goodness that would be terrifying.

I would switch the A-wing and the x-wing. IIRC P-38s could be decent light bombers.

Also I think Ties should be something Russian. Something best used in huge numbers.

I have often thought it would be great if someone made a ww2 port for this game. It actually would make a lot more sense since you know, it's actually a 2d battlefield and not a 3D one.

11 minutes ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

I think that's about what I could say. Demolisher might even be a submarine. It shoots torpedoes and you don't see it coming (well you might, but there's not much to do about it).

Interdictor I think really doesn't have a comparison, something that makes giant vortexes in the ocean? Goodness that would be terrifying.

I would switch the A-wing and the x-wing. IIRC P-38s could be decent light bombers.

Also I think Ties should be something Russian. Something best used in huge numbers.

I have often thought it would be great if someone made a ww2 port for this game. It actually would make a lot more sense since you know, it's actually a 2d battlefield and not a 3D one.

I like the Glad as a Uboat, especially as I have certainly seen wolfpacks of the things. The only issue is the usage and role. Uboats don't rush headlong into something and then try to run away, they tend to skirt the battlefield and pick off prey with patience. I suppose you can use a Glad like that, but I'm concerned he will sit the things on the sidelines. With the battlecruiser comparison I think he'll be able to think "right, need to use speed and careful maneuvering" bit that I think inherently comes with the Glads.

As to Interdictor, I agree there doesn't seem to be anything close. I think we know what the military should be thinking up next for future naval technologies though!

I really want to emphasize the speed and anti-fighter capability of the A-Wing and not get it mixed in with fighter-bombers. Maybe even the ME262?

I like the Russian idea for the TIEs: maybe the Polikarpov I-16? It's just as silly looking. I do like using the Hellcat and Wildcat though as it gets across the idea that "they're both similar, one came from the other, and one is distinctly better than the other".

This is how I look at it:

In the Empire , Imperial Star Destroyers are the fantasy of Battleships with a carrier component. Depending on how they are configured they can be battleships (ISD-II), or supercarriers (ISD-I, upgrades).

You can also look at the Victory Star Destroyers as predreadnoughts that were rendered obsolete by the ISD. Functionally now they serve as heavy cruisers. The Quasar Fire is very much a CVE: Combustable, Vulnerable, Expendable, but it otherwise provides the fighter capabilities that a normal carrier fields for a discount. The Interdictor is an armed utility ship plain and simple.

The Gladiator and Arquitens are both cruisers, the former is a torpedo (close range) one and the latter is an artillery (long range) one.

The Raider is a corvette/frigate (depending on what you believe is the lightest element in a fleet) that is so pigeonholed in its role it only does one thing well. The Gozantis are kind of like those boat launches from WWI that are used to convey cargo.

I've heard in X-Wing how Imperial fighters are like Japanese planes. I guess that holds true here?

In the Rebellion , they really like their light ships. The MC80 Home One is like a giving a modern age supercarrier an age-of-sail gun broadside. The Liberty is like the french Battleship Dunkerque- all of the primary armament is pointed forward. Both ships are very role-specific.

The Assualt Frigate , in spite of the name, is really a kind of poor, under-armed cruiser that was built to fight the VSD's predreadnought. It has not aged well.

The Rebels really rely on their small ships for hit and run tactics. The MC30 is the most analogous in my opinion to Submarines, not just because of their appearance but because they're Torpedo-focused, their titles allow them crazy defensive abilities (like being submerged) and they don't take rams well.

Peltas feel like old surplus cruisers from some old war that were modified by the alliance to turn into carriers. It's like using an old cruiser, and not an oiler, to build up the USS Langley.

Nebulons are hard to classify. Their long thin profile is I guess similar to Japanese warships from WWII, but they have good guns they can't just turn. Nowadays most Rebels use it for the Yavaris title, making it a kind of AA platform with great air traffic coodination.

Corvettes are like WWII frigates or destroyers, and giving them Turbolaser reroute circuits is like giving them Radar to guide their shots. Hard to say where Hammerheads are. Probably Corvettes from a different manufactuerer/national navy that does slightly different things.

GR-75s are those same launches that go and do things, except instead of a gun mount it has an antenna mount to do special things.

Rebel Fighters have longer endurance and are heftier than the Imperial craft.

And that's what I've got.

3 hours ago, PodRacer said:

@GiledPallaeon

I'll be back in a minute. Let me dig up the thread where I dealt with the ships. I'll go ahead and throw out that I think those characterizations of Imperial star fighters as WW2 era American planes is pretty backwards, considering the former's lack and the latter' multitude of damage absorption. That of course flips for the Zero, a notoriously flimsy aircraft, and the Defender, the toughest space superiority fighter in the game. More like a N1K Shiden or F8F Bearcat

Yea TIE interceptors are Zeros.

Some good thoughts here.

I'm a hobby WWII naval historian, so these topics always interest me when they come up. At some level, the comparisons always break down because the ship sizes, classes, and functions respond to specific historical circumstances, and there is quite the trajectory that leads to the names and functions as we find them in WWII. Battleship is directly descended from (Battle)-ship of the line, for example. Although space fantasy settings can borrow the names, the particular roles and functions respond to that space setting's own historical circumstances.

Then, there's the added problem of translating the ships into the game and how the game is actually played. So the idea of an MC30 or Gladiator being kind of like a battlecruiser isn't a wrong thought, just that those ships hit far above their pay-grade in the game against much larger ships. There's just nothing I'd consider comparable in WWII era.

Super Star Destroyer = Yamato (XI18.1" turbolasers)

Much of my background focuses on naval strategy, operations, etc., both in the present and in the recent past (20th century). So with that in mind, I have collated something of an organization to the types of ships the starships in Armada play, based on their role and capabilities. A note, I know that almost every ship in Armada can be forced to play the role of carrier, so I’m mostly focused on ship-to-ship capabilities and design. Here are my thoughts.

Let’s start with the light units. Both flotillas rather defy conventional denomination schemes, but for the sake of it I’m filing them under corvette-carriers (that’s carriers that are corvettes, not ships carrying corvettes, for the record). The best real world analogs are the Bogue style escort carriers built by the Allies during World War 2, cheap, slow, expendable(ish), and kept around not to fight other combatants face to face, but to organize squadrons and perform critical fleet support functions. They are, I will note, the only ships that are carriers in the American sense, which is to say without significant internal armament.

Next up are five small ships often grouped together that I am going to break apart for doctrine reasons, the CR90, the Hammerhead , the Raider , the MC30, and the Gladiator . For the CR90 and the Scout Hammerhead , I would classify these ship as a frigate/destroyer escort. It’s fast and agile (frigate-built), and effective as a light screening ship capable of pitched combat, but not a dedicated killer. Even with TRCs, CR90s have a rather standoffish approach to combat, and they certainly have relatively low damage output compared to many other options in game. They exist as flanking fire support, drawing attention and energy away from the main battle group, and with titles like Tantive IV , they fulfill a similar support function in fleets to the corvettes. An example comparison is the recently retired Perry class frigate, or for WW2 the vein of a Fletcher class destroyer.

Raider s, Torpedo Hammerhead s, MC30s, and Gladiator s by contrast are destroyers. Just as fast and agile as the CR90, instead of plinking away at the edge of battle they dive right in, gunning for high damage output and destruction. Raider s are destroyers with an anti-aircraft (squadron) bent, like the WW2 era Gearing class, whereas Gladiator s and MC30s destroy ships, pure and simple. A more modern comparison for the latter pair would be the Cold War era Soviet Sovremenny class destroyers, or the American Spruance class destroyer. For WW2, I'll select the French heavy destroyers of the Fantasque and Chacal classes. These are the aggressive units in a fleet, with high dice-hull ratios, and often high points-hull ratios as well. Like frigates, destroyers typically operate in groups, often with cruisers or a battleship present, but wolfpacks are not necessarily unviable.

The next category is light cruisers, filled by the Nebulon -B, the Arquitens , and the Pelta . These are ships that start to form the backbone of fleets. While not necessarily as high-performance as destroyers or frigates, light cruisers are found in many fleets as the flexible muscle, and the ships where a loss is actually possibly a significant degradation to fleet fighting power. By counterpoint, they are also usually the lightest ship that can safely wander off into danger from its own angle (e.g. Yavaris plus squads). They are equally adept at organizing squadrons, particularly the Pelta , and fighting ships face-to-face, and offer (generally somewhat) improved durability over destroyers and frigates. Sending a light cruiser to fight a destroyer is not a guaranteed victory for the cruiser, but odds are in its favor when played well. For historical comparison, I would compare the Nebulon to the Omaha class scout cruiser, the Arquitens to the Leander class, and the Pelta to a (somewhat slower) Cleveland class, with the Independence class light carrier filling in the Command version as the game’s only escort carrier. As a rule of thumb, the lightest most fleets will go for flagships is a light cruiser for these reasons, barring the odd destroyer swarm (e.g. Clonisher). Quasar Fire I'm going to slot here, since it's about as durable as a light cruiser, but more like the Command Pelta . We're going to pick Ranger as our point of comparison for the mid-century era, and either the brand-new Queen Elizabeth or Izumo class medium carriers.

There is a case to be made that the durability of the Gladiator and MC30 slide them into the light cruiser category, leaving the Raider s and Hammerhead s alone like the CR90. In some configurations, particularly MC30 Scout Frigates in Ackbar fleets with Gunnery Teams as long range harassers, MC30s provide the long range fire and moderate durability common to CLs, while the Gladiator ’s brace token means it can be more survivable than an Arquitens . However, and I expect this to be a point of discussion, I have left them as destroyers, albeit heavy destroyers, by virtue of their aggressive playstyle to maximize black dice effectiveness, and the design intent that is less intent on a survivable multi-role platform than a dedicated attack unit. There is not actually a good comparison in real naval strategy for that much firepower packed into a platform both that expensive and that delicate, but given that the entire point of the ships is to deliver dice to target, I stand by the destroyer classification. I will further note here that while the use of torpedo language about black dice upgrades and the short range can evoke torpedo use from bygone eras, they are in no way related to the submarines preceding the nuclear revolution. U-boats and other fleet submarines from the World War II era were extremely slow and relatively unmaneuverable; their only advantage against escort ships was stealth afforded by submerging, which they were not able to maintain for significant lengths of time, even after the advent of the snorkel. Modern nuclear-powered fast attack submarines have the power-to-weight ratios and top speeds to make the comparison ok, but the emphasis on stealth approaches and superior sensor technology that dominates undersea combat is not present in Armada.

Above light cruisers are heavy cruisers, the Assault Frigate MK 2, the Victory , and the Interdictor . These are all solid ships, capable of holding a battle line, and with support from either another heavy cruiser or multiple light units effectively challenging enemy battleships. These ships are often the flagships of fleets without the dreadnoughts, and are fully in the range of capital ships in the classical sense. They are able to fight, and fight well, without the lighter units, but if the lighter units attempt to fight without them against superior forces, the odds are not in their favor. Heavy cruisers are most notable over light cruisers for the significant improvement in durability they offer, in addition to the usual firepower improvement. The Interdictor is something of the odd man out here, as it is fully as durable, and situationally as powerful as the other two heavy cruisers, but performs a far more subtle fleet support function than the other two ships that doesn't have a good real equivalent. A good general comparison for all of them is the Baltimore class or the Slava class cruiser, with the Saipan class carrier channeling the carrier capability.

The final category of starship is the battleship. This is the Imperial class Star Destroyer, the MC80, and the MC80 Liberty . These are the ultimate capital ships, with little to fear on the table besides each other, the ships they are built to fight. They fully meet the classic definition of a battleship, capable of both weathering and dealing incredible amounts of damage. They also are capable of providing incredible squadron support capabilities like fleet carriers, and are priced like all that to boot. A further subdivision might be that the Imperial and the Liberty are the category of fast battleships, providing (relative) speed and firepower, while Home One is a World War One style dreadnought with thick armor (shields and defensive retrofits) at the cost of speed. Historical comparisons to the Iowa class (Imperial), Bismarck (Home One), and the Scharnhorst (Liberty) are not at all out of place.

I would hold that Armada does not currently have a battlecruiser. (If you wish to fight me about whether or not Scharnhorst is a battlecruiser, spoiler: she isn’t, she’s a fast battleship with a very specific mission set, PM me, this is the Armada forum.) There are two overall understandings of the battlecruiser, the British version and the German version. (The Japanese version is just early fast battleships, so that doesn’t count.) The British version, invented by Admiral Jackie Fisher, focused on battleship size ships with battleship grade guns, but cruiser-grade speeds, meaning cruiser-grade armor. These were ships like HMS Invincible , HMS Renown , and the mighty HMS Hood , intended to avoid enemy battleships and sweep away enemy cruisers with hugely superior firepower. The German approach was (surprise, surprise) the inverse, trading the biggest guns for battleship grade armor with the cruiser grade speed, often leaving German battlecruisers with firepower sufficient to cow cruisers, but less overwhelming than British types. Examples would include SMS Von der Tann and SMS Derfflinger . A great example of the distinction is the results of the Battle of Jutland, where numerous British battlecruisers were destroyed (doing something doctrinally they had no business doing), more than one with all hands, whereas the German battlecruisers all survived (more or less) the pounding delivered by British rifles.

Squadron comparison to follow.

4 hours ago, Norsehound said:

The Quasar Fire is very much a CVE: Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable, but it otherwise provides the fighter capabilities that a normal carrier fields for a discount.

So true. I do have a soft spot for the CVEs, since I played them a lot it World of Warships. Maybe that explains why I like the Quasar already

Alright, let's do squadrons. I'm going to try for one modern(ish) jet and one WW2 fighter/bomber/thing per, just for breadth of comparisons.

TIE Fighter: Mitsubishi A6M Zero ; Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 /Early MiG-29

Fast, agile air/space superiority fighter with limited ground attack capability; fearsome in swarms.

TIE Interceptor: Nakajima Ki-84 ; Convair F-106 / Sukhoi Su-15

Extremely high-performance interceptor, to the exclusion of all else. In fourth and fifth generation jet fighters, this is a rare breed.

TIE Advanced: Grumman F6F Hellcat ; Panavia Tornado ADV

The F6F is giving the Advanced a bit much credit in the lethality department, but as a big, solid fighter, it's a good match.

TIE Bomber: Curtiss SB2C ; General Dynamics F-111

These are all fast dedicated strike aircraft, although neither of my selections were near as cheap as a TIE Bomber is for an Imperial commander.

TIE Defender: Kawanishi N1K Shiden ; Sukhoi Su-34 / 35

The Defender is fairly straightforward, a superfighter capable of attack, but really designed to clear the skies permanently.

TIE Phantom: Hawker Tempest ; Lockheed Martin F-35

The Phantom is one of the most difficult fighters on this list. The Tempest was chosen for its speed, superlative intercept performance (albeit at low altitude), and impressive ground attack capability. I expect some pushback on the F-35, but my general reasoning was that the Phantom is no F-22, but the F-35's sensor package and moderate weaponry was enough to earn it the spot.

VT-49 Decimator: Boeing B-17 ; Sukhoi Su-25

The Decimator is the only thing vaguely resembling a strategic bomber on the list; it's a blunt instrument not necessarily wise to fly into fighters, but with good rolls capable of impressive damage output and remarkable durability. The Sukhoi is in this for the raw array of weaponry it can carry, even as it lacks the precision capabilities of its American cousin, the A-10.

Lambda-class Shuttle: Consolidated PBY Catalina ; Boeing E-3

The Relay/Strategic squadrons really don't lend themselves to World War 2 era comparisons. What they really are are C4I (Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence) aircraft, which I'm going to round into AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System). There's not a lot of record of PBY Catalinas controlling squadrons of other aircraft, but its duties sorting ships hunting U-boats and Japanese submarines earns the Strategic part enough I'm moving on.

Firespray-18: Lockheed P-38 ; McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

Solid multi-role platforms with a good mix of anti-squadron and anti-ship capability. The F/A-18 undersells the durability of the Firespray, but the multi-role design of the Hornet fits like a glove.

YV-666: Messerschmidt Bf 110 ; McDonnell Douglas F-4

Slow is a recipe for dead, no matter how well armed, for a superiority fighter. The YV-666 doesn't have a lot of great comparisons, but I'll saddle these two poor fighters with it. The F-4 was a lot faster and more capable of ground attack than this implies, just as the Bf 110 was a fearsome close air support craft, but they are the only heavy fighters I can find that I don't want elsewhere.

Jumpmaster 5000: General Dynamics EF-111

Like Relay/Strategic, Intel really doesn't lend itself to historical comparisons before electronics took over the world. For that reason, I'm slotting the EF-111, the unarmed electronic warfare variant of the F-111 strike aircraft, here, and leaving it at that.

Aggressor Assault Fighter: Messerschmidt Bf-109 ; McDonnell Douglas F-15C

Another quality space superiority fighter with moderate attack capability, I gave the F-15C and the Bf 109 to the Aggressor. I almost always see what few Aggressors I do in space superiority roles, and this seemed the best place to drop off these two famous fighters. (Yes I'm aware of the irony of the Bf 109 and F-15's popularity versus the dearth of Aggressors in Armada play.)

X-wing: Focke-Wulf Fw-190 ; McDonnell Douglas F/A-18E/F

Note the choice of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, the new and improved model of that aircraft with sizable improvements in performance for both surface strike and superiority operations.

Y-wing: SBD Dauntless ; Grumman A-6

Rugged, dependable bomb trucks defines the Y-wing in Armada for me, just as the SBD was the plane that crippled the Imperial Japanese Navy at Midway and Coral Sea, and how the A-6 defined US Navy strike operations for almost half a century.

A-wing: Supermarine Spitfire ; General Dynamics F-16

Unlike the TIE Interceptor, the A-wing's black antiship gives it true multi-role capability. Neither the F-16 nor the Supermarine Spitfire were shatteringly fast like an A-wing, but neither are slouches in the speed department either.

B-wing: Bell P-39 , Douglas A-1 ; Republic A-10

It's a rare day where I can cite the P-39 Airacobra, but its unmatched ability to fight to a target, kill said target, and fight its way home over the Soviet skies of the Eastern Front earns it this spot next to the A-10 Warthog as the Rebel's deadliest multi-role fighter, the B-wing.

E-wing: Vought F4U ; McDonnell Douglas F-15E

Just like the E-wing, the Vought F4U and F-15E are multi-role aircraft at the top of their game. (I'd prefer the E-wing have a black antiship die with Bomber to truly earn the Strike Eagle's deadliness to enemies on the ground, but I'll take this.)

Z-95: Nakajima Ki-43 ; Northrop F-5

Cheap, expendable fighters, yet still capable of doing damage if left unattended. Nothing to write home about, but still intriguing on occassion. (Can you tell I'm not a Pierre Sprey fan?)

VCX-100: Curtiss SC Seahawk ; Grumman E-2 Hawkeye

Yeah, I'm still at a loss as to what I'm supposed to do with these. See comments on the Lambda.

Lancer Pursuit Craft: Curtiss P-40 , de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito ; Eurofighter Typhoon

In a truly questionable decision, I'm going to slot the Eurofighter and the Warhawk here. This undersells both planes' lethality and survivability, but does some justice to the speed and overall package that is a Lancer. If someone has a better idea than a P-40 I'm all ears.

YT-1300: Hawker Hurricane , Boeing YB-40 ; Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

The YT-1300 suffers the same problem as the YV-666; slow and well armed doesn't exist, because generally it's not a good idea. I've selected the Hawker Hurricane and MiG-23 for this spot, mostly for their defensive service to their creators, even though neither is near as tough as the seven hull 1300.

YT-2400: Republic P-47 ; Grumman F-14

Big, powerful fighters with good speed, good range, and the ability to kill whatever they needed to as the mission required defines not only the 2400 but the Tomcat (particularly the D model "Bombcat") and the famously powerful P-47.

HWK-290: Grumman EA-6B

Same as with the Jumpmaster, there wasn't EW during World War 2, nor anything comparable, so there's just the EA-6B Prowler here.

Scurrg H-6: Grumman TBF Avenger ; LTV A-7

Two sterling strike aircraft, among the most famous in their time for good reason.

I think that covers everyone. Anyone have questions, comments, concerns?

Edited to add some @Maturin and @TallGiraffe suggestions.

5 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Much of my background focuses on naval strategy, operations, etc., both in the present and in the recent past (20th century). So with that in mind, I have collated something of an organization to the types of ships the starships in Armada play, based on their role and capabilities. A note, I know that almost every ship in Armada can be forced to play the role of carrier, so I’m mostly focused on ship-to-ship capabilities and design. Here are my thoughts...

Impressive. Most Impressive. Your expertise is appreciated and I agree with all your points.

Thanks for the thoughtful input!

3 minutes ago, Varulfr said:

Impressive. Most Impressive. Your expertise is appreciated and I agree with all your points.

Thanks for the thoughtful input!

Always happy to help. I always have fun with these discussions.

Wow, that was a great read.

And I can follow most of the planes just with their numeric designation. I'd be hard pressed to do better myself. Superb job on the selections.

I would have given the X-wing the Hellcat and the B wing to the P47.

18 minutes ago, TallGiraffe said:

I would have given the X-wing the Hellcat and the B wing to the P47.

Does the Advanced get the Fw 190 then? And while the P-47 was a devastating attack aircraft, the big cannon that made the P-39 worth flying seemed more appropriate for the B-wing, as opposed to the hail of .50 cal and rocket fire (and the odd bomb) a P-47 killed with.

On phone, on vacation...can't do justice to this conversation yet. But I love it.

We've discussed this in the past and others have laid out most relevant points. The only thing I'll add is that I think the best WWII equivalents for black dice Glads and Torpedo MC30's are Oi and Kitakami, IJN light cruisers armed with 40 torpedo tubes. Forty tubes on a speedy platform with not much hull weight...while they were not operational successes, the theory definitely fits what we see out of Demo and MC30's on the tabletop.

Also, just skimmed @GiledPallaeon 's post so far but I absolutely agree that TIE's are Zeros and Y-wings are SBD's.

Further edit:

Lancer: Mosquito

I thought that the Lancer might be equivalent to some Frankenstein's monster-ish mashup of all the various versions of the Mosquito. Hits ground targets hard, decently armed as a night fighter, and mostly relies on speed for survival (representing Grit).

YV-666: P-61 Black Widow

Big, lots of hull, relatively slow, but packs a big wallop when it hits. Night fighters generally only got one chance to engage a target before losing it at night so the YV-666 being heavy seems to fit well.

YT-1300: maybe the YB-40 Flying Fortress escort version? A sturdy airframe, low speed, and the ability to shoot back at whoever is attacking you...not the most perfect description but close enough for me...

2 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Does the Advanced get the Fw 190 then? And while the P-47 was a devastating attack aircraft, the big cannon that made the P-39 worth flying seemed more appropriate for the B-wing, as opposed to the hail of .50 cal and rocket fire (and the odd bomb) a P-47 killed with.

I am also taking in durability to the matter. Lots of rockets and bombs for the P47. If not the P47 then go with the Skyraider.

Capital ships in Armada could be likened to the IJN Ise hybrid. Any hybrid for that matter.

The ISD1 to the French BB Dunkerque class.

The ISD2 to the French BB Richelieu class.

The MC-30 to the IJN Oi Long Lance cruiser.

10 hours ago, Maturin said:

Lancer: Mosquito

I thought that the Lancer might be equivalent to some Frankenstein's monster-ish mashup of all the various versions of the Mosquito. Hits ground targets hard, decently armed as a night fighter, and mostly relies on speed for survival (representing Grit).

YV-666: P-61 Black Widow

Big, lots of hull, relatively slow, but packs a big wallop when it hits. Night fighters generally only got one chance to engage a target before losing it at night so the YV-666 being heavy seems to fit well.

YT-1300: maybe the YB-40 Flying Fortress escort version? A sturdy airframe, low speed, and the ability to shoot back at whoever is attacking you...not the most perfect description but close enough for me...

I'll take the Lancer as a Mosquito. Can engage fighters, but shouldn't without the benefit of alpha and/or numbers. I remember the P-61 as a fairly swift airframe, but I'll accept that logic as well. YB-40 is actually probably a better fit than the Hawker I gave it, but as I pointed out was generally a failure of a concept.

4 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

I remember the P-61 as a fairly swift airframe, but I'll accept that logic as well.

Yes, point taken. I was thinking in relation to other late-war fighters (Two thirds the max speed of a P-51D for example). As always, the comparisons across time periods always include several unspoken assumptions.

I see this is an old topic, but something I’d like to mention.

it seems the larger ships in Star Wars are either more like the battlecarrier concept briefly attempted by the Japanese during WWII, and pitched for the Iowa modernization and reactivation, or they fit the soviet model of aircraft carrying cruisers rather than fitting in specifically as a battleship or a carrier or a CL/CA

On 7/16/2017 at 12:34 AM, GiledPallaeon said:

YT-1300: Hawker Hurricane , Boeing YB-40 ; Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-23

The YT-1300 suffers the same problem as the YV-666; slow and well armed doesn't exist, because generally it's not a good idea. I've selected the Hawker Hurricane and MiG-23 for this spot, mostly for their defensive service to their creators, even though neither is near as tough as the seven hull 1300.

The freighters are tricky, as they don't really fit in our world. We may put a deck gun or other armament on large transports during war, but these are large ships, and the freighters are meant to be only a bit larger than fighters. We don't put guns on semi trucks.

Even in the Star Wars universe, freighters appear to mostly use their weaponry to defend until they can escape or help arrives, not dive into dogfights. I know they need to be in the game because they're recognizable ships, but in an ideal world, I would think combat-equipped freighters would be more akin to AC-130s, supporting ground troops once air superiority was established.

On 9/7/2019 at 2:18 PM, JohnPJones said:

I see this is an old topic, but something I’d like to mention.

it seems the larger ships in Star Wars are either more like the battlecarrier concept briefly attempted by the Japanese during WWII, and pitched for the Iowa modernization and reactivation, or they fit the soviet model of aircraft carrying cruisers rather than fitting in specifically as a battleship or a carrier or a CL/CA

I think the Graf Zeppelin deserves a mention too. Should she have been finished she would have been a "functional" light cruiser armed carrier.