34 minutes ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Playing X-Wing leaves me convinced that real starfighters will probably have turrets.

Real jets have 360 missile turrets; they just use fancier words

Real space combat will look much more like The Expanse than pretty much any other sci-fi, at least until we develop something that can provide as much energy as warp cores and artificial singularities, then it'll trend toward Star Trek a bit (insofar as automated tracking and targeting of omni-directional weapons). Big ships with multiple torpedo tubes, and computer controlled point defence systems for torpedo countermeasures/extremely close attack, occasionally heavier systems like rail guns - or some other accelerated kinetic energy weapon - for use against stationary objects. Maybe, if folks want to get really risky, boarding craft.

Arguably, the closest SW got to "realistic" space combat was Seps using swarms of drones/droids to fly those engagements instead of fleshies. People pass out on roller coasters, our bodies couldn't handle pulling 10G turns while tracking an opposing ship with a manually operated weapon. RC or AI, either way it'll be unmanned and wildly different.

Re the problem of high initiative (to which 1st edition turrets were the absolute laziest piece of **** possible counter mechanic) is lack to low initiative incentives

I.e stuff that rigged cargo, which you can drop before higher I stuff activate

Buzz droids are another example as they launch before initiative order

Stuff like Drk Probes also help A LOT

Snap shot too I think, just haven't seen it much

Everything should be relevant.

That means, well, everything.

Forward arc, small-base ships being half of everything, I earnestly hope they stay relevant!

But at the same time, the YT2400 and the MG-100 (for example) should also be relevant. They’re generally not right now. Of course they should require skill and allow all kinds of counterplay (so that everything is relevant, you with me?), but they should also be able to be used skillfully and be able to counterplay existing archetypes.

The original post comes across as somewhat arbitrary though. Generally the small-base, forward-only ships have been about 85% of the meta, and representing only 50% of ships, it seems more resistant to overall balance than conducive to it.

My two cents.

3 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Playing X-Wing leaves me convinced that real starfighters will probably have turrets.

That said, this is a SW game and small based F arc ships need to be viable.

Oh, they totally will have turrets. Gimbals and such are cool, but a pilot has so much to worry about in space that, frankly, it'll be far easier for one guy to shoot and another to fly.

4 hours ago, Pewpewpew BOOM said:

Playing X-Wing leaves me convinced that real starfighters will probably have turrets.

If manned starfighters are ever made (there is a really combative school of thought against center on the additional mass required for manned space ships and the limitations of propulsion/heat mitigation tech currently) they will likely be the "turret" itself. A ship can rotate its facing without changing its direction of movement. And just turning the ship saves on allot if mass that can be used elsewhere in the ship.

The issue with that, again, is pilots. The body doesn't react well to G stresses associated with those kind of whip-changes. Remote piloted drones doing that? Sure thing. Manned ships recreating the Death Blossom? That's more likely to leave the pilot/gunner plastered against the canopy.

Personally, I'm skeptical that there will ever be a need for--much less a realization of-- real starfighters.

...apart from the F-104, of course.

11 hours ago, Darth Seridur said:

If you play Imperials, you are essentially playing "pure" Xwing. A forward arc, a dial, and belief in your own double-reposition skill.

If that is what you like pick that sort of faction.

I love that, but there is also room for the Han players skirting around with their Falcon.

Just be aware that on occasion (5 A2Wings), other ships will be able to do things you can't (shoot backwards).

Fixt

Starfighter theory in my book is simple. They're not a thing until after some combat has been conducted for some time. Intercepting remote guided munitions becomes the standard, so you eventually need platforms that extend the range of their carriers to deliver those payloads to enemy ships. These are what we'd consider bombers. As a counter, the opposition ends up developing interceptors- manned, to take care of them. So we start flying them with escorts.

That's the most simplified version of my concept as to how Starfighters will become relevant. I can go at length, but maybe another day.

1 hour ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Oh, they totally will have turrets. Gimbals and such are cool, but a pilot has so much to worry about in space that, frankly, it'll be far easier for one AI to shoot and fly.

fixt

4 minutes ago, NakedDex said:

Manned ships recreating the Death Blossom?

🤨 Who the heck said anything about replicating the Death Blossom??? While your point about G stress on the body isn't that far off, G stresses only apply during a change in movement direction, velocity, or large shifts in facing while under thrust, unless you're being stupid (IE trying to replicate the Death Blossom Attack from The Last Starfighter). Simply rotating without changing the direction or velocity of the rest of the ship isn't that big of an issue as long as you don't try an use your ship as a 3d version of the old Gravitron fair rides.

Just now, TasteTheRainbow said:

fixt

Yeah don't do that, because you're wrong. Here's the thing about AI.

It can't black out or anything, sure, but it can also be hacked or jammed, and has an operational range far more directly tied to its mothership- especially if we're saving costs. Autonomous, FTL based drones? That's sorta' dangerous territory. Not something you'll be able to convince people to adopt. For insurance they'd still need an AWACS like, long range support platform for resupply and guidance- not because they need to be remote controlled, but... Well, do you trust AI that can run missions on its own, entirely?

Manned fighters, tanks, boots on the ground, will always be necessary. You cannot phase out the organic soldier. There are simply too many variables for an electronically sensitive machine to account for, no matter how well you build it.

It's also a matter of cost. Let's say you build a terminator.

Cool. How expensive is it compared to a squadron of soldiers? Guess what the DOD's gonna' opt to field?

Just plain old soldiers. The better you make drones the more expensive they are- eventually, moreso than just having people.

9 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Starfighter theory in my book is simple. They're not a thing until after some combat has been conducted for some time. Intercepting remote guided munitions becomes the standard, so you eventually need platforms that extend the range of their carriers to deliver those payloads to enemy ships. These are what we'd consider bombers. As a counter, the opposition ends up developing interceptors- manned, to take care of them. So we start flying them with escorts.

That's the most simplified version of my concept as to how Starfighters will become relevant. I can go at length, but maybe another day.

That presupposes a need for capital ships to start the whole thing off.

2 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

That presupposes a need for capital ships to start the whole thing off.

Uh. Even 100m can be considered a capital ship for a small, infantile navy. Which by this point ours would be.

So... Yes... We'd have a capital ship or ten. What else are we going to conduct war with in space? Long range missiles? Yay. Unlikely to be the sole implement.

2 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Uh. Even 100m can be considered a capital ship for a small, infantile navy. Which by this point ours would be.

So... Yes... We'd have a capital ship or ten. What else are we going to conduct war with in space? Long range missiles? Yay. Unlikely to be the sole implement.

Why do we need to conduct war in space? Shooting down satellites?

Just now, JJ48 said:

Why do we need to conduct war in space? Shooting down satellites?

Oh my god, don't even try to gaslight me. Nobody said anything about doing it now. This is all, for ALL of us, future-tense and entirely speculative.

Have some respect for me as a person, geez.

Just now, Captain Lackwit said:

Oh my god, don't even try to gaslight me. Nobody said anything about doing it now. This is all, for ALL of us, future-tense and entirely speculative.

Have some respect for me as a person, geez.

I wasn't talking about now, but have it your way: why will we need to conduct war in space? Shooting down satellites?

1 minute ago, JJ48 said:

I wasn't talking about now, but have it your way: why will we need to conduct war in space? Shooting down satellites?

Because humans are kinda' jerks? Some colony, someday, is gonna' be all, "ARGH, WE WISH TO SECEDE" or something, or will attack, or gods forbid, will BE attacked by us or something, or even worse, we'll start moving even higher from air superiority to space superiority, controlling the space above earth and fighting above it becuase we're gonna' just gotta' do it because reasons.

Why was the nuke needed? Why was the gun needed? Why did anybody need to put missiles and cannons on boats? Why did warfare need to be conducted in the skies?

Because in some form or another it was strategically advantageous, and they needed that edge. I hope you understand, space is not safe from this tendency of war?

5 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

space is not safe from this tendency of war?

No matter how much people want to apply utopian ideals to it...

1 minute ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Because humans are kinda' jerks? Some colony, someday, is gonna' be all, "ARGH, WE WISH TO SECEDE" or something, or will attack, or gods forbid, will BE attacked by us or something, or even worse, we'll start moving even higher from air superiority to space superiority, controlling the space above earth and fighting above it becuase we're gonna' just gotta' do it because reasons.

Why was the nuke needed? Why was the gun needed? Why did anybody need to put missiles and cannons on boats? Why did warfare need to be conducted in the skies?

Because in some form or another it was strategically advantageous, and they needed that edge. I hope you understand, space is not safe from this tendency of war?

Thank you.

I guess where I disagree is in your assumption (from what I can tell) that there will be colonies on other worlds. To my knowledge, we have yet to find any planet or moon capable of supporting human life. Are there resources, then, so valuable that people will want to live on these hostile worlds just to harvest them? It makes for good science fiction, but I don't see it happening in the real world.

6 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Thank you.

I guess where I disagree is in your assumption (from what I can tell) that there will be colonies on other worlds. To my knowledge, we have yet to find any planet or moon capable of supporting human life. Are there resources, then, so valuable that people will want to live on these hostile worlds just to harvest them? It makes for good science fiction, but I don't see it happening in the real world.

Depends on what you consider a valuable resource. Hypothetically how far would you be willing to move and what difficulties would you be willing to face if where you are currently you're considered similar to and treated in a similar manner to many of the early colonists that came to North Am? To those that came later during the build up to the Soviet Revolution and the first and second World Wars? Resources aren't just physical things you can eat or craft into something else, sometimes they're the very distance you can gain from a severe threat to your person or your family. Especially if that threat comes from large/powerful enough entities that facing them down amounts to nothing more than suicide.

13 minutes ago, JJ48 said:

Thank you.

I guess where I disagree is in your assumption (from what I can tell) that there will be colonies on other worlds. To my knowledge, we have yet to find any planet or moon capable of supporting human life. Are there resources, then, so valuable that people will want to live on these hostile worlds just to harvest them? It makes for good science fiction, but I don't see it happening in the real world.

You only need one crazy person like Elon Musk to make it possible.

Also, you’re clearly not aware of the potential mineral spoils in asteroids or other space objects - for relatively rare metals like gold or iridium, the supply in space objects may be far superior versus mining for them.

Just now, Hiemfire said:

Depends on what you consider a valuable resource. Hypothetically how far would you be willing to move and what difficulties would you be willing to face if where you are currently you're considered similar to and treated in a similar manner to many of the early colonists that came to North Am? To those that came later during the build up to the Soviet Revolution and the first and second World Wars? Resources aren't just physical things you can eat or craft into something else, sometimes they're the very distance you can gain from a severe threat to your person or your family. Especially if that threat comes from large/powerful enough entities that facing them down amounts to nothing more than suicide.

The primary difference being that the colonists could count on the New World having some basic necessities, such as food and oxygen...

Just now, JJ48 said:

The primary difference being that the colonists could count on the New World having some basic necessities, such as food and oxygen...

Ingenuity + Need = solution. It can be done, even with our current level of technology. It'd just be rough going at first.