8 hours ago, Lobokai said:Huh. I thought it was in the first printing of the Imperial Source book, which predates Heir to Empire. Page 50 something IIRC... but my brain gets fuzzy that far back
(Leans 4 feet to the left). . .dang your (mostly) right. The sourcebook was printed 1989, so that beats Zahn. It's on page 72, though
I can't wait 3 years from now for this to come out.
Mara Jade Pilot!
4 minutes ago, Kelvan said:I can't wait 3 years from now for this to come out.
Mara Jade Pilot!
As long as it's Hand Jade not Mara Skywalker
On 8/21/2017 at 8:07 PM, Vontoothskie said:thats a hideously bad render of the Star Jewel, lol. and the star jewel is also bigger than a CR-90. its shape isnt fighter oriented because its a luxury command carrier with big guns.
honestly what i hate about the skipray is its supid engine... like its literally a single tube. how would it even turn? well to each their own. eventually they'll make it and you can fly your fav. hopefully by then I'll have my **** dunelizards
Uh, pretty sure the Skipray engine has vectored thrusting and is situated well behind the center of gravity. This would allow more than enough manueverabilty to intercept capital ships.
Might aa well ask how TIE Fighters climb or dive with only two horizontally mounted engines.
11 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:Uh, pretty sure the Skipray engine has vectored thrusting and is situated well behind the center of gravity. This would allow more than enough manueverabilty to intercept capital ships.
Might aa well ask how TIE Fighters climb or dive with only two horizontally mounted engines.
This. Also, those wingtips might have some maneuvering thrusters on it. That being said, I suspect the people who like Galaxies ships just don't like that Star Wars aesthetic wherein the overall design is a bit nonsense, but the details look so functional that it feels real. Galaxies is just a mess of nonfunctional design combined with xXxtreme extra wings and engines and thrusters. I mean, Galaxies was literally a game where improving your ship consisted of tacking on weapons and wings and other junk willy nilly. You know, the way you can just weld an extra engine on top of a fighter to upgrade it in real life?
...That being said, I'm all about the Vigo and that Imperial Gunship. Those things are well designed and kinda sweet.
1 hour ago, GrimmyV said:Uh, pretty sure the Skipray engine has vectored thrusting and is situated well behind the center of gravity. This would allow more than enough manueverabilty to intercept capital ships.
Might aa well ask how TIE Fighters climb or dive with only two horizontally mounted engines.
Yep, Star Wars space combat is based on WW2, not in real science. Ships maneuver like planes would, not like real space ships. I suppose George Lucas didn't see the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey before doing his films.
Anyway, later stuff tryed to explain the OT problems. Here is a cool taken on the maneuver jets for the TIE Fighters:
On 8/22/2017 at 1:05 PM, Wondergecko said:Little bit of Skipray eye candy.
BLASTBOAT!
One thing that would be nice about the Skipray is that it would provide a non-shuttle large-base option for the Empire. The Rebels have their freighters, scum has all sorts of different options, but the Empire just has the Decimator.
Heh, it would be funny if they made a Wave where the Empire got the Skipray Blastboat and Scum got a large-based shuttle for a change
36 minutes ago, Freeptop said:One thing that would be nice about the Skipray is that it would provide a non-shuttle large-base option for the Empire. The Rebels have their freighters, scum has all sorts of different options, but the Empire just has the Decimator.
Heh, it would be funny if they made a Wave where the Empire got the Skipray Blastboat and Scum got a large-based shuttle for a change
Somewhere there's a bounty hunter crying.
2 hours ago, Odanan said:Yep, Star Wars space combat is based on WW2, not in real science. Ships maneuver like planes would, not like real space ships. I suppose George Lucas didn't see the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey before doing his films.
Anyway, later stuff tryed to explain the OT problems. Here is a cool taken on the maneuver jets for the TIE Fighters:
Yeah getting nitpicky about how Star War ships work is like reading the LotR and complaining about the logistics of giant spiders being unable to breath in a modern atmosphere.
11 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:Somewhere there's a bounty hunter crying.
Yeah. It's Judo Kast.
I absolutely love the blastboat from the EU. I'm in!
On 8/21/2017 at 8:37 AM, SabineKey said:On another note, these guys aren't exactly small. I looked it up and they are suppose to be about 25 meters long, which is roughly how long a U-Wing is with its wings forward. I've got the feeling the Blastboat would be a large base.
That's actually a lot smaller than I had thought. I had vague hopes it could be an Epic ship for Scum, but lol. Not at that size.
I do like the idea of the blastboat in the game. Just not sure what role it might fill.
5 hours ago, GrimmyV said:Uh, pretty sure the Skipray engine has vectored thrusting and is situated well behind the center of gravity. This would allow more than enough manueverabilty to intercept capital ships.
Might aa well ask how TIE Fighters climb or dive with only two horizontally mounted engines.
1 hour ago, Punning Pundit said:That's actually a lot smaller than I had thought. I had vague hopes it could be an Epic ship for Scum, but lol. Not at that size.
I do like the idea of the blastboat in the game. Just not sure what role it might fill.
A better firespray?
So, some more interesting stuff about the Blastboat:
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/GAT-12_Skipray_Blastboat
To answer Punning Pundit's question of what role it would fill, it's another Imperial ship that canonically carries a twin laser cannon! A " Twin Senko Systems 5000x2 "Tru-Lok" laser cannon turret", to be precise. Also, if both Imperial and Scum, it could be another non-epic Jabba carrier.
These are my speculations about the noble and oft-misunderstood Blastboat, should it make it to this game:
So, the page says it had "medium laser cannons." Most ships in X-Wing follow the pattern of "light" = 2 dice, "medium" = 3 dice, and "heavy" = 4 dice, so I'm guessing it would have a three-dice attack. Probably only one agility (it's pretty unmaneuverable in a dogfight, as a lot of the PC-game veterans will recall), so I'm guessing one agility. I like @Odanan 's shield and hull ideas - those, I assume, are actually based on comparing its in-game stats to those of known ships? They seem to fit the Wookieepedia data perfectly. So my idea for a statline is 3-1-5-7, with no primary weapon turret. The ship should also have a torpedo slot, a missile slot, at least one crew slot, and a turret (see below).
Then the variants. These, I think, should be titles, with the exception of GAT-12h. I think the base upgrade bar should have a turret, effectively meaning if you equip a turret, you've made it the GAT-12h (since all of the variants have turrets anyway, it's unnecessarily cumbersome to make this a title. If you want the standard GAT-12g, just don't take the turret).
GAT-12i should read: "title. You must equip a cannon upgrade costing one or fewer squadpoints. You may not equip any missile upgrades." and have a negative cost (-2?)
GAT-12j should read: "title. Your upgrade bar gains the missile icon. Your action bar gains the reload action. Decrease your primary weapon value by one." and cost 0.
GAT-12m would be tricky. Probably something about making maneuvers green.
GAT-12p should read: "title. Your upgrade bar gains the sensor icon. When attacking, you may spend a focus token to gain a target lock on the defender." and cost 2 or 3 squadpoints.
Thoughts?
Edited by Kieransi1 hour ago, GrimmyV said:A better firespray?
That's coming with the new Boba Fett movie that's in the works for a couple years away.
It actually leaves me a little conflicted: It's great that we've got new stuff coming, but it's a little offputting to realize our balance patches are now tied to movie releases...
31 minutes ago, Reiver said:... it's a little offputting to realize our balance patches are now tied to movie releases...
Agreed
3 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:That's actually a lot smaller than I had thought. I had vague hopes it could be an Epic ship for Scum, but lol. Not at that size.
I do like the idea of the blastboat in the game. Just not sure what role it might fill.
Imps could use a big base ship like the Lancer. I think the Blastboat could fill that kind of slot.
57 minutes ago, SabineKey said:Imps could use a big base ship like the Lancer. I think the Blastboat could fill that kind of slot.
I hope it'd have a lancer like turret (how all turrets should be anyway).
20 minutes ago, Lobokai said:I hope it'd have a lancer like turret (how all turrets should be anyway).
I absolutely agree. I think all ships that qualify for PWT should be given mobile arcs moving forward. I can understand if the old PWT aren't touched due to the major overhaul necessary, but anything new should be a mobile arc.
13 hours ago, Princezilla said:Yeah getting nitpicky about how Star War ships work is like reading the LotR and complaining about the logistics of giant spiders being unable to breath in a modern atmosphere.
Its not a modern atmosphere. It's the atmosphere belonging to Arda at the end of the third age/start of the fourth age in the first coming of Ea. So there.
16 hours ago, SabineKey said:I absolutely agree. I think all ships that qualify for PWT should be given mobile arcs moving forward. I can understand if the old PWT aren't touched due to the major overhaul necessary, but anything new should be a mobile arc.
I disagree. That tends to push ships with PWT into the PS race. If I were to redesign them, I'd have PWT either a) be unable to modify their out of arc shots or b) only be able to fire out of arc at ranges 1-2 or c) reduce the firepower of a PWT by 1 when firing outside its arc. And there could be crew that mitigated those restrictions. That would allow arc dodgers to still have their strengths, without really pushing a PWT into the PS9-11 category.
13 minutes ago, Punning Pundit said:I disagree. That tends to push ships with PWT into the PS race. If I were to redesign them, I'd have PWT either a) be unable to modify their out of arc shots or b) only be able to fire out of arc at ranges 1-2 or c) reduce the firepower of a PWT by 1 when firing outside its arc. And there could be crew that mitigated those restrictions. That would allow arc dodgers to still have their strengths, without really pushing a PWT into the PS9-11 category.
While some of those suggestions do sound workable, I'm more talking from the point of view that the rules for PWT's remain unchanged. If there is no overhaul to PWT rules, I would rather future vessels that would qualify for PWTs to get a mobile arc instead. I think that is a far more interesting way to make turrets with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. This does make Autothrusters less useful, but the old PWTs will still be around. And mobile arcs can be arc dodged. Your point on the PS race is something to lookout for. It all comes down to action economy because moving the arc is an action. If you can out PS an arcdodger and move the arc to get them, that's nice, but unless you've spent upgrades on providing more actions or like results, you are just rolling naked dice. The times I've seen VI Ketsu fly, she has been action starved, even with something like Dengar or K2 Security Droid on board.
So, I think there are ways to make joining the PS race unappealing for mobile arc ships on top of possibly capping PS on them and/or (if the ship is a real monster) take away the option to take EPTs although like on the Ghost.
On 8/24/2017 at 8:19 PM, SabineKey said:Imps could use a big base ship like the Lancer. I think the Blastboat could fill that kind of slot.
I had always thought of it as a small base ship. But in the large base role, it would be the perfect answer to "large base Imp ship that is not a shuttle."
That being said, the only role I need it to fill is kewlness in my game.
And Mara Jade, Hand of the Empire as pilot.