So, I have a friend who was pretty much born to be a pilot, and his favorite airplane is the F-16. I am not in the Air Force, but I decided it would be cool to make this airplane and X-wing ship just for fun (not planning on fixing anything).

I have thsee ideas so far:

Information Source: http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/

New faction: USAF

Ship: F-16 "Fighting Falcon"

• Attack: 2

• Agility: 3

• Hull: 3

• Shields: 0 (no shields in real life...yet)

• Actions: Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Boost

• Upgrades: System, Bomb, Missile, Missile

• Dial: I think this dial is appropriate but I don't know.

--- 1 white banks, white straight

--- 2 green turns, green banks, green straight

--- 3 white turns, white banks, green straight, red talon rolls

--- 4 white straight

--- 5 red straight (Apparently, F-16's can go 1,500 mph using afterburners, RZ-1 A-wings only go 1,300 mph!)

• Pilots: I couldn't think of any, but they would probably be names like Fighter Novice, Fighter Veteran, Fighter Ace, etc.

I would make some titles for the different models, one allowing you to get a crew, or a Thunderbirds title.

If this were to come with upgrade cards, I would have it include Fire Control System, Homing Missiles, Assault Missiles, Guidance Chips, and Munitions Failsafe.

Now I don't know very much about fighter planes, but I think this could be cool just for fun. If anyone knows more about these planes, please contribute. I will soon make cards.

3 minutes ago, AwesomeJedi said:

So, I have a friend who was pretty much born to be a pilot, and his favorite airplane is the F-16. I decided it would be cool to make this airplane and X-wing ship just for fun (not planning on fixing anything).

I have thsee ideas so far:

Information Source: http://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104505/f-16-fighting-falcon/

New faction: USAF

Ship: F-16 "Fighting Falcon"

• Attack: 2

• Agility: 3

• Hull: 3

• Shields: 0 (no shields in real life...yet)

• Actions: Focus, Target Lock, Barrel Roll, Boost

• Upgrades: System, Bomb, Missile, Missile

• Dial: I think this dial is appropriate but I don't know.

--- 1 white banks, white straight

--- 2 green turns, green banks, green straight

--- 3 white turns, white banks, green straight, red talon rolls

--- 4 green straight

--- 5 green straight (Apparently, F-16's go 1,500 mph, RZ-1 A-wings only go 1,300 mph!)

• Pilots: I couldn't think of any, but they would probably be names like Fighter Novice, Fighter Veteran, Fighter Ace, etc. I wouldn't create specific squadrons.

• Squad Point Costs: I think a PS 2 generic "novice pilot" would cost about 24 squad points.

I would make some titles for the different models, one allowing you to get a crew.

If this were to come with upgrade cards, I would have it include Fire Control System, Homing Missiles, Assault Missiles, Guidance Chips, and Munitions Failsafe.

Now I don't know very much about fighter planes, but I think this could be cool just for fun. If anyone knows more about these planes, please contribute. I will soon make cards.

It has controlled instability with computerized controls, so I think the dial is appropriately maneuverable.

I'm not sure if it ever really includes a second crew.

What about adding a Thunderbirds title?

It looks really cool...and very interesting that it’s faster than an A-Wing

Think 24 points is waaaaaaaay too high, though. It has the stat line of a TIE fighter. Give it +1 point for the dial and +1 for the upgrades and PS and you’re looking at 14, which seems pretty fair to me.

Don't cut your design space short, if the F-16 is already Agi 2, what do you plan to give those jets with supermaneuverability.

I love the idea and have some feedback!

i recommend dropping bomb and adding torpedo slots. How bombs work in X-Wing just doesn’t fit the bill. A torpedo slot would allow you to take extra munitions for a total of 4 missiles which is much closer to the true payload. Modern fighters are not designed to primarily dogfight and instead rely on missiles for the most part. Plus torpedoes in X-wing are theoretically just slower Missiles and that’s primarily what fighters use now against ground targets. Iron bombs are not as popular.

you have the maneuvering and everything spot on. No white K-turns since imellmens (k-turns) are not easy given the G-forces.

I’m torn between 2 hull and 3 Hull. 3 Hull would be X-wing viable but Hull 2 is probably more appropriate verses X-wings lol.

As far as the cost goes, I have no idea. Lol flight wings are generally 2-3 so whatever the cost should be for 2-3 f-16s needs to take down a tie swarm sounds good to me lol

oh and give it an evade action. These things are maneuverable and that’s how they survive.

2/3/3/0 sounds about right.

The 5 straight should be red indicating afterburner.

My unit had F-16's at one point.

13 minutes ago, AwesomeJedi said:

--- 5 green straight (Apparently, F-16's go 1,500 mph, RZ-1 A-wings only go 1,300 mph!)

The RZ-1 A-Wings have the navigational thrusters to break from that speed as well. The F-16 has not. Furthermore the F-16 stated speed is not cruise, but afterburner speed. Top cruise speed is below mach 1. One of the big points about the F-22 was it's ability for super-cruise, reaching mach 1 without afterburner. That and it's vector thrusting gets often overlooked, mainly because stealth and its capacity for long-range missiles overshadow other aspects of the F-22.

Should also include an airbrakes mod to reduce speed by 1 to a minimum of one, at the cost of a stress token. Tactical suicide in a missile fight, but if done right Tactically brilliant in a dogfight.

From what i've read (someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) But isn't the F-16 considered to be highly maneuverable? (compared to other fighters of it's generation). I think that could warrant some red one turns.

3 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Should also include an airbrakes mod to reduce speed by 1 to a minimum of one, at the cost of a stress token. Tactical suicide in a missile fight, but if done right Tactically brilliant in a dogfight.

From what i've read (someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) But isn't the F-16 considered to be highly maneuverable? (compared to other fighters of it's generation). I think that could warrant some red one turns.

It is highly maneuverable but does not have a very low stall speed. Not sure what the minimum turn radius is off the top of my head but I think the lack of a 1 turn sounds reasonable.

Oh, I think giving a white straight 4 is enough speed, the thing has boost already to represent the AB.

6 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

It is highly maneuverable but does not have a very low stall speed. Not sure what the minimum turn radius is off the top of my head but I think the lack of a 1 turn sounds reasonable.

F-16 inner, F-4 phantom outer. Although even though it's tight, Actually thinking save 1 speed turns for the spitfire and zero and almost any bi-plane fighter would be better. And I guess the talon rolls sort of represent the tight turning.

I guess against fighters of the same generation yes, it would warrant 1 speed turns, but against other combat fighters as a whole....

Well there's always the daredevil EPT.

1 minute ago, FlyingAnchors said:

F-16 inner, F-4 phantom outer. Although even though it's tight, Actually thinking save 1 speed turns for the spitfire and zero and almost any bi-plane fighter would be better. And I guess the talon rolls sort of represent the tight turning.

I guess against fighters of the same generation yes, it would warrant 1 speed turns, but against other combat fighters as a whole....

Well there's always the daredevil EPT.

Agreed. These things are FAST. And think about it’s positioning after a 2 turn and barrel roll in. I think thats more than enough.

34 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Don't cut your design space short, if the F-16 is already Agi 2, what do you plan to give those jets with supermaneuverability.

I think the F-16 is the jet with super maneuverability.

23 minutes ago, FlyingAnchors said:

Should also include an airbrakes mod to reduce speed by 1 to a minimum of one, at the cost of a stress token. Tactical suicide in a missile fight, but if done right Tactically brilliant in a dogfight.

From what i've read (someone feel free to correct me if i'm wrong) But isn't the F-16 considered to be highly maneuverable? (compared to other fighters of it's generation). I think that could warrant some red one turns.

Yes. It has highly evolved low SA delta wings that give it controlled instability. The jet cannot actually be flown without the assistance of an avionics computer to correct trim and the keep the plane on task.

16 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I think the F-16 is the jet with super maneuverability.

I think he was referring to all the Su's with thrust vectoring. (And the F-22 for that matter.)

14 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

I think the F-16 is the jet with super maneuverability.

Not as far as I am know. There were some experimental crafts based on the F-16 with thrust vectoring for super maneuverability, but only the F-22 and some SUs got production runs.
No Pugachev's Cobra, no J-Turns, etc for standard F-16.

14 hours ago, Jadotch said:

I think he was referring to all the Su's with thrust vectoring. (And the F-22 for that matter.)

Technical I love those X-31 and X-32 experimentals as well. Alas no production runs for those.
The X-29 was super cool too, though it came with something quite different and does not really reach super maneuverability, just a very high aerodynamic maneuverability. Similar to the F-16 btw.
Stuff like the F-16 vista (experimental aircraft only) and some other super maneuverability jets still be controlled when literally flying backwards.

edit: Speaking of the X-29, now that would be a good candidate for green 1-turns. And green-2 turns. That thing was not fast, but it could turn like a king, even when compared to the vector thrusters of its time.

25 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

Not as far as I am avaible. There were some experimental crafts based on the F-16 with thrust vectoring for super maneuverability, but only the F-22 and some SUs got production runs.
No Pugachev's Cobra, no J-Turns, etc for standard F-16.

36 minutes ago, Jadotch said:

I think he was referring to all the Su's with thrust vectoring. (And the F-22 for that matter.)

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

Don't cut your design space short, if the F-16 is already Agi 2, what do you plan to give those jets with supermaneuverability.

In which case, a better dial.

And, in terms of physics, I would think that is the right way to express it in game mechanics:

Controlled Instability = better AGI

Vectored Thrust = better dial.

Should the F-16 get a 4 red Koiogran turn?

2 minutes ago, AwesomeJedi said:

Should the F-16 get a 4 red Koiogran turn?

Some sort of K turn is appropriate. They can perform immelmen’s (which is what the k-turn is based on)

honestly, if you wanted to make things simpler you could just use an A-wing dial. I think that paired with boost and barrel roll would be appropriate and save you some headache.

12 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

Some sort of K turn is appropriate. They can perform immelmen’s (which is what the k-turn is based on)

honestly, if you wanted to make things simpler you could just use an A-wing dial. I think that paired with boost and barrel roll would be appropriate and save you some headache.

I'd give the F-22 the A-wing dial with boost (simulate supercruise transition and thrust vectoring) and barrel roll.

F-16 needs so be slightly slower and less maneuverable in comparison. Maybe a T-70 dial with barrel roll.

12 minutes ago, Hawkstrike said:

I'd give the F-22 the A-wing dial with boost (simulate supercruise transition and thrust vectoring) and barrel roll.

F-16 needs so be slightly slower and less maneuverable in comparison. Maybe a T-70 dial with barrel roll.

I disagree. The f-22 really doesn’t have an equal in the Star Wars universe. I’d argue the f-22 deserves an A-Wing dial plus talon rolls and a 0 stall.

Seriously, nothing moves like it. Not even in the Star Wars world.

Oh and stealth. So cloaking lol

14 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

Some sort of K turn is appropriate. They can perform immelmen’s (which is what the k-turn is based on)

honestly, if you wanted to make things simpler you could just use an A-wing dial. I think that paired with boost and barrel roll would be appropriate and save you some headache.

I don't know, the Koiogran turn is like a snap roll performed "b y pushing the throttle forward with one hand and twisting the control stick with the other, [so] the pilot would lose all forward momentum and loop-roll in another direction." The Immelman turn is more like a loop.

Just now, Mackaywarrior said:

I disagree. The f-22 really doesn’t have an equal in the Star Wars universe. I’d argue the f-22 deserves an A-Wing dial plus talon rolls and a 0 stall.

Seriously, nothing moves like it. Not even in the Star Wars world.

Oh and stealth. So cloaking lol

No cloak, just take Stealth Device

Just now, AwesomeJedi said:

I don't know, the Koiogran turn is like a snap roll performed "b y pushing the throttle forward with one hand and twisting the control stick with the other, [so] the pilot would lose all forward momentum and loop-roll in another direction." The Immelman turn is more like a loop.

You are thinking too 2-dimensionally. Imagine a K-turn in 3-D. It is an Immelmann. There are very few ways to do a 180 turn in a dogfight.

I guess the difference is the the Koiogran turn is more intense?