I think the Trajectory Simulator should have a cheaper cost for Starfortresses. It true Starfortresses got a point drop, but not enough to deal with the encreased cost of Trajectory Simulator. These bombers are much less mauverable then anything else that can use Trajectory Simulator. I don’t think it’s worth the cost to put it on them anymore. I am now paying much more for something that is hard to use effectively on this big wagon of a ship.

With this new adjustable point cost it is possible to adjust the cost of an upgrade by the pilot or ship who uses it (at least that was what FFG said back when they announced 2.0). This would be a good example of a good use of this capability.

Probably more likely to see a resistance only device that allows you to Launch it when the bomber is re-released.

24 minutes ago, Tyhar7 said:

Probably more likely to see a resistance only device that allows you to Launch it when the bomber is re-released.

Or to vary the Trajectory Simulator's cost by base size, like engine upgrade. The BS/F-17 is, as far as I know, the only large base ship which can equip it.

I'm not, by the way, convinced the bomber is that much less manoeuvrable than a TIE Punisher - it does have speed 1 turns, for example.

1 hour ago, Magnus Grendel said:

I'm not, by the way, convinced the bomber is that much less maneuverable than a TIE Punisher - it does have speed 1 turns, for example. 

I respectfully disagree with you there. The Starfortress's large base and inability to k-turn or barrel roll make it much more of a flying barn then the Punisher.

The punisher had a massive price increase.. that coupled with the price increase on the traj sim makes that kind of build un viable for me.... I hardly used it anyways but now I never will.

10 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Or  to var  y the Trajectory Simulator's cost by base size, like engine upgrade. The  BS/F-17 is, as far as I know, the only large base ship which can eq  uip it.

I like this option better then mine. Also I would not like a new Resistance specific upgrade at all. Having a new specialized upgrade to fix an issue with an already existing more general upgrade is what broke 1.0. We don’t need that in 2.0.

Or is this really 2.1?!