5 hours ago, Biophysical said:Fun fact: the only country whose pilots have aerial victories flying the F14 is Iran. They got it a few from the US before the Shah was toppled and did very bad things to Migs with them in the Iran-Iraq war.
Actually.......
1 hour ago, catachanninja said:
So the real question, what is the silencer, my gut says f22, but the tie phantom has that covered neatly. They can't all be raptors, right?
Silencer fits F22 better, I think. Phantom seems to rely predominantly on one trick. Silencer has stealth (as it is represented in this game) on top of being a serious conventional combat chassis. But not everything has to have a real-world analog.
6 hours ago, Biophysical said:Fun fact: the only country whose pilots have aerial victories flying the F14 is Iran. They got it a few from the US before the Shah was toppled and did very bad things to Migs with them in the Iran-Iraq war.
Your fun fact may be incorrect. IIRC two Tomcats downed two Libyan Migs in the late 70's early 80's. They used a version of the AIM-9 Sidewinder. I also think that the camera footage has been uploaded on YouTube.
Edit: First Gulf of Sides Incident, 19 August 1981
Edited by Stoneface1 hour ago, Biophysical said:Silencer fits F22 better, I think. Phantom seems to rely predominantly on one trick. Silencer has stealth (as it is represented in this game) on top of being a serious conventional combat chassis. But not everything has to have a real-world analog.
The Phantom still has a good dial on top of cloaking, and the f22 brings a tremendous amount of firepower, but isn't quite as maneuverable as some of its Russian counterparts. And I disagree. Arguing real world comparisons is my favorite thing in x wing, don't take this from me lol
I think the defender is likely the 6th gen fighter that is likely being mistaken for a ufo right now. The phantom fits the f22 as it must lose stealth in order to fire. The striker I'd say is the mig 29. Very maneuverable and short range boosty but not stealthy whatsoever.
4 minutes ago, catachanninja said:The Phantom still has a good dial on top of cloaking, and the f22 brings a tremendous amount of firepower, but isn't quite as maneuverable as some of its Russian counterparts. And I disagree. Arguing real world comparisons is my favorite thing in x wing, don't take this from me lol
Maybe we should compare them to WWII planes, then. There are so many more of them.
Maybe make 1 the f22 (the phantom) whereas the silencer the f35?
1 minute ago, Ralgon said:Maybe make 1 the f22 (the phantom) whereas the silencer the f35?
I think if you were using those, the Phantom with its okay dial is more like the F35, whereas the Silencer with its great dial is more like the F22. I'm not sure the 22 vs the 35 justifies a dramatically different attack stat, but you could make the argument that the 35s distributed aperture system gives it the enhanced targeting information to merit the Phantom's 4th attack die.
The F-35 DOES look invisible when viewed through the pilot's helmet. Maybe that does make a better fit for the Phantom.
This is the 2nd best thread on the forums.
DANGER ZONE
Edited by Boom Owl4 hours ago, Mackaywarrior said:Darn, looks like you posted just as I was editing my post so I wouldn’t double post lol.
Iran has the only F-14 aces.
Yeah, but did any of them ever do a 4G-inverted dive with a MIG-28?
I didn't think so. But Maarek "Maverick" Stele did, in a GUNBOAT!
Edited by Hawkstrike
Carry on with this twin-tailed tomfoolery!
Edited by HawkstrikeJust now, Hawkstrike said:Yeah, but did any of them ever do a 4G-inverted dive with a MIG-28?
I didn't think so. But Maarek "Maverick" Stele did, in a GUNBOAT!
Carry on with this twin-tailed tomfoolery!
They were inverted
4 hours ago, Biophysical said:I think if you were using those, the Phantom with its okay dial is more like the F35, whereas the Silencer with its great dial is more like the F22. I'm not sure the 22 vs the 35 justifies a dramatically different attack stat, but you could make the argument that the 35s distributed aperture system gives it the enhanced targeting information to merit the Phantom's 4th attack die.
Also the f35 is dumb. Though the t70 miiight be an apt comparo
57 minutes ago, catachanninja said:Also the f35 is dumb. Though the t70 miiight be an apt comparo
So is the Phantom. I bet the guys at Seinar Fleet Systems paid a bunch of moffs until they believed that there would thousands of Phantoms, as cheap as the TIE Interceptor, and twice as maneuverable.
Difference:
The F-14 is a long-range Fleet Defense interceptor. The Assault Gunboat...is a gunboat primarily designed for assault missions, with only marginally self-defense capability. In terms of mission profile, the Gunboat has far more in common with the A-7 Corsair II.
With mission profile in mind, I see it more as:
Rebellion/New Republic
Z-95 / F4F - A superb little machine at the time it was introduced, but just about at the end of its shelf life by the time the conflict began. Holds its own against the enemy's front-line fighter mainly by virtue of being tougher and better armed. Ironically, some of its weaknesses actually make it better suited to some mission profiles than more advance types.
T-65 / F6F - Primarily air-to-air combatants with some strike capability. Durable and reliable, but frankly kind of boring in their ability to get the job done.
Y-wing / P-40 - Multirole fighter that is nominally obsolescent, but just so darn good at what it does it manages to soldier on well after far more advanced types become available.
A-wing / F8F-1 - Fast and nimble interceptor lacking in firepower, but **** can that little SOB move.
B-wing / B-25H - Dedicated gunship. Slow, turns like a brick, but pure, unadulterated forward firepower (I've analyzed the B-wing effects models six ways from Sunday. This ship DID NOT CARRY TORPEDOES, no matter what WEG and its derivatives say. There is physically NO WHERE that they could possibly fit. However it's packing no less than EIGHT guns — 4 light cannon in the nose, one heavy cannon on the end of each S-foil, and two more heavy guns in the main spar pod).
E-wing / F4U-1A/D - Like the T-65 / F6F, but sexier. Popularly overshadowed by its more conventional stablemate despite significantly better performance. Hampered by initial teething problems.
K-wing / SB2C - Ungainly and butt-ugly divebomber packing a heavy bomb load.
Resistance
T-70 / F4U-4 - Multirole fighter capable of both attack and dogfighting. Oh, AND it hauls a metric @#$%ton of blow-crap-up-ability.
Resistance Bomber - I honestly can't find an adequate comparison for this, at least among Allied bomber designs. I mean it's a space bomber that has no means of launching its ordinance FORWARD, thus requiring it to maximize time-over-target (which is a VERY BAD THING for a bomber). AND the ENTIRE FLIPPIN' FORMATION can be taken out by the splash damage from just ONE going up in flames. Seriously, I can't tell you just how much I despise this ship. It's conceptually HORRIBLE.
The Empire
TIE Fighter / A6M - Ridiculously maneuverable. And made out of 1-ply toilet paper so it falls apart into a wet icky mess when you sneeze on it.
TIE Advanced / Ki-61 - If you didn't know any better, you'd swear it was designed by the other side. Fast, though not quite as agile, as the front-line fighter but makes up for it by being able to take a beating.
TIE Interceptor / Ki-84 - Fast. Maneuverable. Packs a punch. Can actually take a hit.
TIE bomber / D3A - Faster and more maneuverable than a bomber has a right to be. Bursts into flames if you look at it funny.
Edited by Ambaryerno15 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:Difference:
The F-14 is a long-range Fleet Defense interceptor. The Assault Gunboat...is a gunboat primarily designed for assault missions, with only marginally self-defense capability. In terms of mission profile, the Gunboat has far more in common with the A-7 Corsair II.
With mission profile in mind, I see it more as:
Rebellion/New Republic
Z-95 / F4F - A superb little machine at the time it was introduced, but just about at the end of its shelf life by the time the conflict began. Holds its own against the enemy's front-line fighter mainly by virtue of being tougher and better armed. Ironically, some of its weaknesses actually make it better suited to some mission profiles than more advance types.
T-65 / F6F - Primarily air-to-air combatants with some strike capability. Durable and reliable, but frankly kind of boring in their ability to get the job done.
Y-wing / P-40 - Multirole fighter that is nominally obsolescent, but just so darn good at what it does it manages to soldier on well after far more advanced types become available.
A-wing / F8F-1 - Fast and nimble interceptor lacking in firepower, but **** can that little SOB move.
B-wing / B-25H - Dedicated gunship. Slow, turns like a brick, but pure, unadulterated forward firepower (I've analyzed the B-wing effects models six ways from Sunday. This ship DID NOT CARRY TORPEDOES, no matter what WEG and its derivatives say. There is physically NO WHERE that they could possibly fit. However it's packing no less than EIGHT guns — 4 light cannon in the nose, one heavy cannon on the end of each S-foil, and two more heavy guns in the main spar pod).
E-wing / F4U-1A/D - Like the T-65 / F6F, but sexier. Popularly overshadowed by its more conventional stablemate despite significantly better performance. Hampered by initial teething problems.
K-wing / SB2C - Ungainly and butt-ugly divebomber packing a heavy bomb load.
Resistance
T-70 / F4U-4 - Multirole fighter capable of both attack and dogfighting. Oh, AND it hauls a metric @#$%ton of blow-crap-up-ability.
Resistance Bomber - I honestly can't find an adequate comparison for this, at least among Allied bomber designs. I mean it's a space bomber that has no means of launching its ordinance FORWARD, thus requiring it to maximize time-over-target (which is a VERY BAD THING for a bomber). AND the ENTIRE FLIPPIN' FORMATION can be taken out by the splash damage from just ONE going up in flames. Seriously, I can't tell you just how much I despise this ship. It's conceptually HORRIBLE.
The Empire
TIE Fighter / A6M - Ridiculously maneuverable. And made out of 1-ply toilet paper so it falls apart into a wet icky mess when you sneeze on it.
TIE Advanced / Ki-61 - If you didn't know any better, you'd swear it was designed by the other side. Fast, though not quite as agile, as the front-line fighter but makes up for it by being able to take a beating.
TIE Interceptor / Ki-84 - Fast. Maneuverable. Packs a punch. Can actually take a hit.
TIE bomber / D3A - Faster and more maneuverable than a bomber has a right to be. Bursts into flames if you look at it funny.
The only problem is we don't have ground targets to attack so I just assume most if not all of these X-Wing ships are air-to-air craft. As far as I am concerned, the video game X-Wing gunboat is not quite the same gunboat from the X-Wing board game and I'm okay with that if it means imperials are back.
I really like your analysis of the ships! I like to focus on modern aircraft when it comes to X-wing. Why you ask?
29 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:Difference:
The F-14 is a long-range Fleet Defense interceptor. The Assault Gunboat...is a gunboat primarily designed for assault missions, with only marginally self-defense capability. In terms of mission profile, the Gunboat has far more in common with the A-7 Corsair II.
With mission profile in mind, I see it more as:
Rebellion/New Republic
Z-95 / F4F - A superb little machine at the time it was introduced, but just about at the end of its shelf life by the time the conflict began. Holds its own against the enemy's front-line fighter mainly by virtue of being tougher and better armed. Ironically, some of its weaknesses actually make it better suited to some mission profiles than more advance types.
T-65 / F6F - Primarily air-to-air combatants with some strike capability. Durable and reliable, but frankly kind of boring in their ability to get the job done.
Y-wing / P-40 - Multirole fighter that is nominally obsolescent, but just so darn good at what it does it manages to soldier on well after far more advanced types become available.
A-wing / F8F-1 - Fast and nimble interceptor lacking in firepower, but **** can that little SOB move.
B-wing / B-25H - Dedicated gunship. Slow, turns like a brick, but pure, unadulterated forward firepower (I've analyzed the B-wing effects models six ways from Sunday. This ship DID NOT CARRY TORPEDOES, no matter what WEG and its derivatives say. There is physically NO WHERE that they could possibly fit. However it's packing no less than EIGHT guns — 4 light cannon in the nose, one heavy cannon on the end of each S-foil, and two more heavy guns in the main spar pod).
E-wing / F4U-1A/D - Like the T-65 / F6F, but sexier. Popularly overshadowed by its more conventional stablemate despite significantly better performance. Hampered by initial teething problems.
K-wing / SB2C - Ungainly and butt-ugly divebomber packing a heavy bomb load.
Resistance
T-70 / F4U-4 - Multirole fighter capable of both attack and dogfighting. Oh, AND it hauls a metric @#$%ton of blow-crap-up-ability.
Resistance Bomber - I honestly can't find an adequate comparison for this, at least among Allied bomber designs. I mean it's a space bomber that has no means of launching its ordinance FORWARD, thus requiring it to maximize time-over-target (which is a VERY BAD THING for a bomber). AND the ENTIRE FLIPPIN' FORMATION can be taken out by the splash damage from just ONE going up in flames. Seriously, I can't tell you just how much I despise this ship. It's conceptually HORRIBLE.
The Empire
TIE Fighter / A6M - Ridiculously maneuverable. And made out of 1-ply toilet paper so it falls apart into a wet icky mess when you sneeze on it.
TIE Advanced / Ki-61 - If you didn't know any better, you'd swear it was designed by the other side. Fast, though not quite as agile, as the front-line fighter but makes up for it by being able to take a beating.
TIE Interceptor / Ki-84 - Fast. Maneuverable. Packs a punch. Can actually take a hit.
TIE bomber / D3A - Faster and more maneuverable than a bomber has a right to be. Bursts into flames if you look at it funny.
I like your comparisons but I think the gunboat in the OS-1 configuration is more like the Missileer than the A7. The Punisher would fall into the A-1 Skyraider category, I'd place the K-Wing there BUT for its turret. The Resistance Bomber is a tough one. Sort of the love child of a B-17 and B-24. The slow speed of the 17 but with its durability but the weakness of the B-24 with its super critical wing. Not a very good comparison I agree but the best I can think of outside of the B-10.
So what’s the Tie/SF in all of this? She’s a beast in Quickdraw’s hands... I only lost her once in Regional play and that’s because I had two harpoons in her and I flew into the enemy formation to deal 11 damage in my glorious death (if you count 1 that mattered triggered on her too)
11 minutes ago, Lobokai said:So what’s the Tie/SF in all of this? She’s a beast in Quickdraw’s hands... I only lost her once in Regional play and that’s because I had two harpoons in her and I flew into the enemy formation to deal 11 damage in my glorious death (if you count 1 that mattered triggered on her too)
Honestly the only thing I could think of would be a heavy fighter like the beaufighter that had a gunner that could fire forward or back. Only issue is that they couldn't turn as well as the comparative starfighter that has a better dial and equal (or better with lwf) green dice than the xwing.
As for the y wing, I'm definitely picking up il2 vibes from it. Flying brick? Check. Gunner? Check. Heavy payload? Check. Armor for days? Check. I'd imagine there's a bunch of soviet fighters in the sun faction as well. The protectorate fighter just screams yak7.
12 hours ago, Biophysical said:Maybe we should compare them to WWII planes, then. There are so many more of them.
TIE Fighters would certainly by Zeroes.