I've just read a passage in the 9th X-wing novel which says that the Alliance used an ISD with TIE's which they retrofitted with shields...

If you played Tie Fighter back in the 90s or read the X-Wing stories the answer was laid out:

People are cheap

Ties are cheap

The longer you last as a pilot, the higher up in the food chain you get and the better the ships. It is an artificially-created version of natural selection. It also encourages a pilot to strive to improve his or her lot.

Ties depend on their bases or mother ships as they are short-ranged and can't jump, so are unsuited for desertion.

Quantity has a quality all its own...

If an X-Wing can take 2 TIEs on and win, but you send 10 TIEs, he should die with at most the loss of a single TIE. In that case, you lost a single cheap TIE for the loss of a single very expensive X-Wing. If the X-Wing costs twice as much you have a net win, regardless.

Also, the Rebels were able to choose targets. They only needed enough ships to hit a single location of their choosing, were concerned with using as few bases as possible, and had very limited manpower. Under those circumstances a hyper capable expensive fighter gave them the most bang for their buck.

The Empire on the other hand had to garrison EVERY WORLD in the Empire, with ships sufficient to protect them. That sort of thing just isn't feasible if your fighters are individually expensive.

Good points all. Its quantity versus quality. The X-wings tended to have better pilots too because their durabilty means that Pilots could survive longer and therefore become more experienced, better pilots. Which brings up the question, Who is a better pilot, Wedge or Soontir? It was a topic touched on in some of the X-wing books and i can't remember if it was ever really settled. Wedge flew an X-wing with shields, but Soontir flew an interceptor (at least during his time as an Imp) which although lacking shields, was faster and more maneuverable. Maybe that's a discussion for another thread though

Quantity has a quality all its own...

If an X-Wing can take 2 TIEs on and win, but you send 10 TIEs, he should die with at most the loss of a single TIE. In that case, you lost a single cheap TIE for the loss of a single very expensive X-Wing. If the X-Wing costs twice as much you have a net win, regardless.

Also, the Rebels were able to choose targets. They only needed enough ships to hit a single location of their choosing, were concerned with using as few bases as possible, and had very limited manpower. Under those circumstances a hyper capable expensive fighter gave them the most bang for their buck.

The Empire on the other hand had to garrison EVERY WORLD in the Empire, with ships sufficient to protect them. That sort of thing just isn't feasible if your fighters are individually expensive.

yeah, could you imagine the cost of garrisoning just a single planet, all of the man power and machines you would need to have on every continent.............well i geuss we do.......

now multiply that by thousands!!!! YIKES!!!

imagine what are taxes would be

And the #1 reason the TIE fighter is the choice of the Imperium:

1. It just sounds too cool!

And the #1 reason the TIE fighter is the choice of the Imperium:

1. It just sounds too cool!

Yes, the Imperium were completely against formal neckwear.

Snazzy dressers, those Imperials.

Shields are for cowards.

I am I always go back and forth on this with a friend of mine. In my reasoning I found it most peculiar that the Rebellion the which is the equivalent (in terms of its economy of equipment, vs personnel) to the Taliban(2001-)/Mujahideen(1979-1989) but operates the StarWars equivalent of a Generation 5 Jet Fighter, and the Empire which in this analogue as is the United States(2001-)/Soviet Union(1979-1989) utilizes the equivalent of a Generation 3 Jet Fighter.

Its seems off to me that a group with the most to lose; with every credit mattering, every ounce of material potentially never coming again once used (the policy of never arming the GR-75, as every gun mounted on transports to defend them is a gun not firing a shot in anger against the Empire), and forced out of necessity to conduct hit and run operations out of Caves (on ice planets) deep in the fringes (but seems to have a plentiful number individuals willing to volunteer, especially after the destruction of the Death Star) would not only invest in procuring one of the most expensive/capable/advanced space superiority fighter platforms, but be able to produce them at a rate the approaches usefulness and upkeep them...

the sith is about being free of chains and fear is a form of chains. without having sheilds is one way of not having the fear thus making you a better pilot as u cant take one hit

Quantity has a quality all its own.

Plus, it makes a philosophical point about how the Empire feels about its people - replaceable.

Great point! Very true.

I am I always go back and forth on this with a friend of mine. In my reasoning I found it most peculiar that the Rebellion the which is the equivalent (in terms of its economy of equipment, vs personnel) to the Taliban(2001-)/Mujahideen(1979-1989) but operates the StarWars equivalent of a Generation 5 Jet Fighter, and the Empire which in this analogue as is the United States(2001-)/Soviet Union(1979-1989) utilizes the equivalent of a Generation 3 Jet Fighter.

Its seems off to me that a group with the most to lose; with every credit mattering, every ounce of material potentially never coming again once used (the policy of never arming the GR-75, as every gun mounted on transports to defend them is a gun not firing a shot in anger against the Empire), and forced out of necessity to conduct hit and run operations out of Caves (on ice planets) deep in the fringes (but seems to have a plentiful number individuals willing to volunteer, especially after the destruction of the Death Star) would not only invest in procuring one of the most expensive/capable/advanced space superiority fighter platforms, but be able to produce them at a rate the approaches usefulness and upkeep them...

actually, lets look at the russians of WWII, they gave 1 soldier a rifle and the other a clip, when the guy with the gun dies, pick up his rifle and shoot.

they sent waves of infantry into german lines, no thought to the lives lost, the empire is similar in my eyes. the emperor being over confident and not caring how many thousands die to preserve his empire. and then punishing those who fail him with death.

i think this fits the mold well, as for the rebels being talaban, the rebels had entire planets backing them and giving them the supplies they needed, and defecting imperials bringing supplies with them as well. i think it reasonable to beleive that the rebels where as well equiped as portraid.

because with them every man was important, so having ships that would provide better offens and defense, so seeking out better ships is feesable to me

would not only invest in procuring one of the most expensive/capable/advanced space superiority fighter platforms, but be able to produce them at a rate the approaches usefulness and upkeep them...

A couple points.

One, Incom defected to the Rebellion early on and provided many of the T-65's to them, most likely at no or little cost.

Two, given their limited number of pilots would have to provide a platform that allowed them to return even if the mission went poorly.

Three, the Rebellion would of had much greater resources then the groups you mention, they had whole planets providing them aid and support.

Four, they would of had to invest either in captial ships or fighters that could make hyperspace jumps. Capital ships would of made a very tempting target, and one a lot easier for the Empire to destroy.

It doesn't even have to be a case of feeling ships and men are expendable. If you lose 1 v 1 vs. X-Wings, and if you win 4-1 vs X-Wings but lose 3 TIEs, you can send 20 TIEs to clobber an X-Wing and not lose a single TIE in the process. You are much better off having a lot of GOOD ships than a few GREAT ships. The Germans in WW II were a PERFECT example of that. There are plenty of sensational anecdotes about how "crap" the Sherman tank was, but the real numbers reflect something else entirely.

In 1954, the US Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory conducted a study of tank vs tank engagements fought by the 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions from August to December 1944.

98 engagements were identified, including 33 from the Ardennes fighting. The typical engagement involved 9 US Shermans against 4 German AFVs. Only 1/3 of the total involved more then 3 German AFVs. The average range Shermans inflicted kills on the panzers was 893yds, and the panzers averaged kills at 946yds.

The study concluded that the most important factor was spotting and shooting first. Defenders fired first 84% of all engagement, inflicting 4.3 times more casualties on the attackers then suffered. When the attackers fired first, they inflicted 3.6 times as many casualties on the defenders compared to own losses.

29 engagements involved Panthers and Shermans. The Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data showed the Panther had a 10% advantage over the attacking Sherman when the Panther defended, but the Sherman was a whopping 8.4 times more effective then attacking Panthers when the Sherman defended. Overall, the Sherman was 3.6 times as effective as the Panther in all engagements. German A/T guns however, were by far the most effective anti-Sherman weapon they had.

From the study itself:

Data on World War II

Tank Engagements

Involving the U.S.

Third and Fourth Armored Divisions

According to Table II, the most common type of engagement was Shermans defending against Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 19 engagements, involving 104 Shermans and 93 Panthers, 5 Shermans were destroyed compared to 57 Panthers.

The second most common engagement was US Tank destroyers defending against Panthers, with the TDs firing first. In 11 engagements, involving 61 TDs and 19 Panthers, 1 TD was lost compared to all 19 Panthers.

The most successful enemy weapon was antitank guns defending. In 9 engagements (3rd most common), 19 a/t guns inflicted 25 casualties on 104 total attacking Shermans, losing 3 guns in exchange.

The 4th most common engagement was Shermans attacking Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 5 actions a total of 41 Shermans fought 17 Panthers, losing 2 and taking 12 Panthers in return.

In 40 actions in which the US forces were attacking, they had 437 weapons and lost 100 (23%). The Germans had 135 and lost 45 (33%). In 37 actions in which the Germans were attacking, the US had 205 weapons, losing 14 (7%), and the Germans lost 83 of 138 (60%).

On average, one crewman was killed when a Sherman was knocked out.*

* For comparison, when a T-34 was knocked out, on average, one crewman survived.

Again, Quantity has a quality all its own. Shermans WERE individually inferior, but the fact that they outnumbered the enemy made each of them "better" than a Panther. One on one you lose a Sherman and the Panther survives. 2 on 1 you lose a Panther and both Shermans survive.

Try playing X-Wing with "economy" balancing rather than point-based "effectiveness" balancing. Put 20 TIEs on the board vs. 2 X-Wings, and see how many TIEs you lose. I can guarantee you both X-Wings will die, and it would be a surprise if you lost even a single TIE in return. The reason the Rebels could get away with X-Wings is that they were the attackers, so they could make sure that when a battle actually occurred the odds were closer to 1 - 1 at that location.

The Producer, Director, and Writers wanted the Rebels to win.

It doesn't even have to be a case of feeling ships and men are expendable. If you lose 1 v 1 vs. X-Wings, and if you win 4-1 vs X-Wings but lose 3 TIEs, you can send 20 TIEs to clobber an X-Wing and not lose a single TIE in the process. You are much better off having a lot of GOOD ships than a few GREAT ships. The Germans in WW II were a PERFECT example of that. There are plenty of sensational anecdotes about how "crap" the Sherman tank was, but the real numbers reflect something else entirely.

In 1954, the US Army's Ballistics Research Laboratory conducted a study of tank vs tank engagements fought by the 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions from August to December 1944.

98 engagements were identified, including 33 from the Ardennes fighting. The typical engagement involved 9 US Shermans against 4 German AFVs. Only 1/3 of the total involved more then 3 German AFVs. The average range Shermans inflicted kills on the panzers was 893yds, and the panzers averaged kills at 946yds.

The study concluded that the most important factor was spotting and shooting first. Defenders fired first 84% of all engagement, inflicting 4.3 times more casualties on the attackers then suffered. When the attackers fired first, they inflicted 3.6 times as many casualties on the defenders compared to own losses.

29 engagements involved Panthers and Shermans. The Shermans had an average numerical advantage of 1.2:1. The data showed the Panther had a 10% advantage over the attacking Sherman when the Panther defended, but the Sherman was a whopping 8.4 times more effective then attacking Panthers when the Sherman defended. Overall, the Sherman was 3.6 times as effective as the Panther in all engagements. German A/T guns however, were by far the most effective anti-Sherman weapon they had.

From the study itself:

Data on World War II

Tank Engagements

Involving the U.S.

Third and Fourth Armored Divisions

According to Table II, the most common type of engagement was Shermans defending against Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 19 engagements, involving 104 Shermans and 93 Panthers, 5 Shermans were destroyed compared to 57 Panthers.

The second most common engagement was US Tank destroyers defending against Panthers, with the TDs firing first. In 11 engagements, involving 61 TDs and 19 Panthers, 1 TD was lost compared to all 19 Panthers.

The most successful enemy weapon was antitank guns defending. In 9 engagements (3rd most common), 19 a/t guns inflicted 25 casualties on 104 total attacking Shermans, losing 3 guns in exchange.

The 4th most common engagement was Shermans attacking Panthers, and the Shermans fired first. In 5 actions a total of 41 Shermans fought 17 Panthers, losing 2 and taking 12 Panthers in return.

In 40 actions in which the US forces were attacking, they had 437 weapons and lost 100 (23%). The Germans had 135 and lost 45 (33%). In 37 actions in which the Germans were attacking, the US had 205 weapons, losing 14 (7%), and the Germans lost 83 of 138 (60%).

On average, one crewman was killed when a Sherman was knocked out.*

* For comparison, when a T-34 was knocked out, on average, one crewman survived.

Again, Quantity has a quality all its own. Shermans WERE individually inferior, but the fact that they outnumbered the enemy made each of them "better" than a Panther. One on one you lose a Sherman and the Panther survives. 2 on 1 you lose a Panther and both Shermans survive.

Try playing X-Wing with "economy" balancing rather than point-based "effectiveness" balancing. Put 20 TIEs on the board vs. 2 X-Wings, and see how many TIEs you lose. I can guarantee you both X-Wings will die, and it would be a surprise if you lost even a single TIE in return. The reason the Rebels could get away with X-Wings is that they were the attackers, so they could make sure that when a battle actually occurred the odds were closer to 1 - 1 at that location.

ok, now i want to play flames of war....................

Not with the current Russians, you don't. Hen and Chicks in the current edition kinda messed up the Tankovy horde.

I do think the point about jump capability was a good one. It's much easier for 2 or 3 jump enabled ships to dart in do some damage then go to ground, than 10 ships that need a carrier to get them places.

Hi, just ordered this fun game, still waiting for it to arive so thought I'd check out the forums.

I've read the x wing books many times, and played the games, and a few observations I've noticed.

"A disposable craft, built for disposable pilots." (Cmdr.Wedge Antilles, Wraith Squadron)

Also mention that the shields of an x wing provides a buffer for the mistakes rookies make, while with tie fighter pilots the first mistake you make is your last. Interceptors and defenders were all discribed to be superior to the x wing in handling, even more so when the alliance were piloting them

It is always a problem with a massive amount of worlds to keep everything in the loop, thanks to all the red tape.