Lets talk speculation about things we might see on the Huge ships

How about a reverse movement option? You would have to do a 0 move on 1 turn and then you could do a reverse 1 straight or bank. This would make it so that we wouldn't have to play on 6x6 tables to turn the thing around. I think the 0 could be red but the reverse moves would be green. Well at least the reverse straight but maybe the banks as well. If you want to go forward again you must do a stop maneuver before going forward. And definitely no k-turns on these things, although that seems pretty obvious. What do you think? Any other outside the box ideas?

Winners get.... well the joy of being right. Although if FFG want to kick something in that would be ok, too. Say... a free transport to the person who gets closest to the truth on any features of the ships. I would like to point out that I got pretty close to right on for the Lambda's 0 move, although admitedly I thought it might be on the HWK. I'm not trying to brag or anything (although it kind of feels like I am) but I felt pretty good when my idea was not as crazy as I thought.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/87497-crazy-idea-re-ship-movement/?hl=%2Bcrazy+%2Bidea

So lets have a discussion about possibilities. There are no stupid ideas, although criticism of why an idea won't work is welcome as long as it is given in a kind manner.

Well, the one thing I'll say about the reverse, is that the ships aren't designed to go backwards. All of the engines are rear facing. Short of maneuvering thrusters while "parking" the only time we see any indication of a "reverse" on ships is during episode 3 when they fire the emergency reverse thrusters. I consider the engines similar to our jet turbines on our jets. They are great at going forward, but need assistance to go backwards, thus the little tug that attaches to the front wheel and pushes them away from the gate.

I've also often wondered how these ships maneuver in space. Take the A wing for example... supposedly very maneuverable, but it has two giant engines rearwards facing, and that's it. I don't consider whatever maneuvering thrusters to be used in combat (read Rogue Squadron to hear how Corran made use of the maneuvering thrusters after he lost all other controls to understand that they're not the primary way they turn). And unlike our jets, there's no air resistance to use flaps to manipulate the drag, and change the orientation of the ship.

But the same question could be posed to any capital ship or corvette. How does the Tantive IV actually turn?

Yeah I guess any reverse or even side to side is bassed on maneuvering thrusters. I can't remember what they are called in the books (repulsors??). Which is why i think any reverse would be limited to very slow maneuvers (1's)

I'm guessing that they don't have a reverse. But I think that they will have a white zero maneuver. So you just move them a few times till you get them where you want....and just park em.

I'm guessing that they don't have a reverse. But I think that they will have a white zero maneuver. So you just move them a few times till you get them where you want....and just park em.

I like that idea. Its more simple than mine which is a good thing. I think that these ships for sure need a way to avoid constant forward movement or the play area just gets to be too big for a casual player to be able to justify. As it is the 3x3 doesnt fit on a lot of tables and desks. And if it does fit it usually doesn't allow a lot of room for your cards and stuff

Well, the one thing I'll say about the reverse, is that the ships aren't designed to go backwards. All of the engines are rear facing. Short of maneuvering thrusters while "parking" the only time we see any indication of a "reverse" on ships is during episode 3 when they fire the emergency reverse thrusters. I consider the engines similar to our jet turbines on our jets. They are great at going forward, but need assistance to go backwards, thus the little tug that attaches to the front wheel and pushes them away from the gate.

I've also often wondered how these ships maneuver in space. Take the A wing for example... supposedly very maneuverable, but it has two giant engines rearwards facing, and that's it. I don't consider whatever maneuvering thrusters to be used in combat (read Rogue Squadron to hear how Corran made use of the maneuvering thrusters after he lost all other controls to understand that they're not the primary way they turn). And unlike our jets, there's no air resistance to use flaps to manipulate the drag, and change the orientation of the ship.

But the same question could be posed to any capital ship or corvette. How does the Tantive IV actually turn?

Silly Khyros, there is no physics in Star Wars.

If anything the ability t o go in reverse would be less likely in a large ship than in a small ship. They don't dock inside other ships, or space ports very often instead the dock along side. You don't really need to go backwards for that.

Side note: the Millennium Falcon does go backwards as it is takes off from Hoth. It can be assumed that it goes backwards when it takes off from the Death Star and from Besbin, but I don't remember if it is actually shown. But this movement would all be done with repulsors rather than its actual space flight engines.

For what its worth, the X-Wing books talk about an "etheric rudder" that turns the fighters. What it is or how it works I can't say.

Side note: the Millennium Falcon does go backwards as it is takes off from Hoth. It can be assumed that it goes backwards when it takes off from the Death Star and from Besbin, but I don't remember if it is actually shown. But this movement would all be done with repulsors rather than its actual space flight engines.

Pretty sure the backwards is when leaving the Death Star, Hoth was a straight shot out of the bay.

At least lore-wise, this is probably accomplished via repulsorlifts rather than straight engine reversal.

If someone can make a P-51 go backwards, I suspect we'll see a Star Wars fighter going backwards. Because like it or not, that's the baseline for "physics" in Star Wars.

Can someone explain to me WHY you'd want to go backwards in the first place? Modern jet fighters rely on speed and agility. The only one that can actually go backwards is the Harrier, but it's hardly about to start going backwards in the middle of air to air combat. It'd be a sitting duck.

Repulsorlifts are a nifty plot device for working AGAINST gravity for landspeeders, etc, thus not likely to be used in space as there's nothing to repel against. Thrusters are for manoeuvring and wouldn't drive a bulky transport backwards fast enough to be useful.

Although the big models look very cool, I'm still not sure how they're going to play out in a Starfighter-based game. But then again, I can't understand why the Lambda is so well liked. It should be a complete pig compared to a Starfighter.

Can someone explain to me WHY you'd want to go backwards in the first place? Modern jet fighters rely on speed and agility. The only one that can actually go backwards is the Harrier, but it's hardly about to start going backwards in the middle of air to air combat. It'd be a sitting duck.

Repulsorlifts are a nifty plot device for working AGAINST gravity for landspeeders, etc, thus not likely to be used in space as there's nothing to repel against. Thrusters are for manoeuvring and wouldn't drive a bulky transport backwards fast enough to be useful.

Although the big models look very cool, I'm still not sure how they're going to play out in a Starfighter-based game. But then again, I can't understand why the Lambda is so well liked. It should be a complete pig compared to a Starfighter.

I understand your reasoning but I think it is a little flawed in the sense that you are trying to apply "real life logic" to futuristic (although taking place a long time ago in another galaxy) space craft and situations. Small fighter craft wouldn't want to go backwards in a dogfight. You are correct on that, which is why none of the curent ships can go backwards. And in a real space fight with no invisible edges that you can fly off and have your ship destroyed, you probably wouldn't want to do so even with a huge transport. But with a huge lumbering ship that you are trying to fit on the top of your kitchen table without flying off the edge, you may want the option to back that thing up. And driving the transport back isn't a fast process in my original suggestion. It requires two rounds of play. First you have to stop, and then you can reverse and only at slow "1" speeds. I don't think that is so unreasonable. And finally, comparing space craft that can travel faster than the speed of light and shoot lasers to any modern military craft is not a fair or accurate comparison. This game exists in Mr. Lucas' "Land of make believe" (I would love to see that PBS show) so things like "gravity" don't always have the effect we would expect, or the effects can be explained away by some imaginary piece of equipment on the ship that nullifies them. When we look at it like that, ideas that are ridiculous from a real world viewpoint are much more believable and the game becomes more fun...

all of this post is IMO.

Heh, just a little tid bit to add that I thought of reading your post. Gravity has yet to be proved. As such, it's not the Law of Gravity, rather the Theory of Gravity. So, there's always the chance that gravity doesn't exist, and something else completely causes our feet to stay attached to the ground. And being an advanced society, it's possible that they have proven that gravity doesn't exist and can manipulate whatever replaced it.

How about that imperial transport ship, deploy on board, when you want to deploy tie fighters they deploy movement 1 from the ships base and to re deploy do the same. Think this would be cool and allow you to protect your ties till you want to deploy them.

Cant remember the name of the transport though but think it can carry 10 ties or something.

I like the idea of a white 0, means you can sit still for a number of turns then surprise someone by moving and therefore killing them!

Also, if you've got manoeuvring thrusters - how about a bank (although without rolling!) as a movement?

I'm against a reverse move for a few reasons, both logical and abstract.

Firstly, any ship moving forward is going to have momentum. To come to a stop and then start reversing (on limited thrusters I might add) makes you a very easy target which isn't what you'd be doing in a firefight. Also due to those limited thrusters, you wouldn't be able to decelerate to 0 and then start reversing at any sort of timely rate. So you lose your speed, you lose your ability to dodge, you're moving predictably and you can't accelerate again quickly as you now need to shed reverse speed before you begin to move forward again. Under all but some very specific circumstances, this sort of behavior gets you killed in a dogfight.

Secondly reversing backwards in game would be similar to a K turn in that it may allow you to get a shot off at an enemy that was behind you. So there is little tactical need for such an addition to the game.

Depends really, the Harrier is used for training just because it can do that sort of maneuver. coning to a stop means the ship that was tailing you is now in front of you.

Since the whole turn based movement thing is really representing a fluid, even changing movement, you could think of as not really reversing, just a way of representing an unexpected slowdown. Dunno if that helps!

Also, it's not entirely unStarWarsy: you see it on a speederbike.

I'd like to see some sort of turn manoeuvre that turns you around...

Actually, yeah, how about some sort of upgrade that just turns your ship around 180 degrees? Only available on high end ships maybe, perhaps an EPT that causes stress if you have engine upgrade, double stress if you don't?

Edit: I mean boost, not engine upgrade

Can someone explain to me WHY you'd want to go backwards in the first place? Modern jet fighters rely on speed and agility. The only one that can actually go backwards is the Harrier, but it's hardly about to start going backwards in the middle of air to air combat. It'd be a sitting duck.

I'd dispute that. A modern fighter wants agility and acceleration. Speed is something that has its uses but "fast and straight" is really a LOT easier to shoot at than "slow but nimble." The F-22 is SLOWER than an F-15 although the F-22 is going to be more maneuverable at lower speeds. Watching some of the "dancing fighter" videos on You-tube and I'm convinced that "speed" isn't what you want/need in a dogfight but maneuverability. My thought is that if a helicopter gunship were optimized for an air to air role it could school most fixed wing aircraft in a true dogfight. Speed will get you into and out of an engagement faster but when your in one you need to move and moving backwards is extremely unexpected.

I'm against a reverse move for a few reasons, both logical and abstract.

Firstly, any ship moving forward is going to have momentum. To come to a stop and then start reversing (on limited thrusters I might add) makes you a very easy target which isn't what you'd be doing in a firefight. Also due to those limited thrusters, you wouldn't be able to decelerate to 0 and then start reversing at any sort of timely rate. So you lose your speed, you lose your ability to dodge, you're moving predictably and you can't accelerate again quickly as you now need to shed reverse speed before you begin to move forward again. Under all but some very specific circumstances, this sort of behavior gets you killed in a dogfight.

Secondly reversing backwards in game would be similar to a K turn in that it may allow you to get a shot off at an enemy that was behind you. So there is little tactical need for such an addition to the game.

I would rebuttal by saying that these giant ships are already easy targets. Whether you are going 4 forward, 1 forward, 0 or 1 reverse, any of the "fighter" craft in the game will have no trouble keeping that giant footprint in its arc and shooting it. As far as dodging, the transport has 0 Agility dice, so its not dodging anything no matter what speed or direction it is moving or not moving (unless there is some as yet unrevealed way to add agility dice to your ship). Next there is nothing predictable about a ship that can stop and then go forward or reverse. Although, predictability is kind of a moot point on these things as they are large and slow enough that there is a good chance that they aren't going very far in any direction. Finally the tactical need for reverse movement IMO is that there is no way that these huge ships will have a k-turn option. If they did that would really blow up any idea that physics has any place in this game. So you can either start banking long before the edge of the board to turn around, or you have some option to back up and possibly pull a 3 point turn

Can someone explain to me WHY you'd want to go backwards in the first place? Modern jet fighters rely on speed and agility. The only one that can actually go backwards is the Harrier, but it's hardly about to start going backwards in the middle of air to air combat. It'd be a sitting duck.

I'd dispute that. A modern fighter wants agility and acceleration. Speed is something that has its uses but "fast and straight" is really a LOT easier to shoot at than "slow but nimble." The F-22 is SLOWER than an F-15 although the F-22 is going to be more maneuverable at lower speeds. Watching some of the "dancing fighter" videos on You-tube and I'm convinced that "speed" isn't what you want/need in a dogfight but maneuverability. My thought is that if a helicopter gunship were optimized for an air to air role it could school most fixed wing aircraft in a true dogfight. Speed will get you into and out of an engagement faster but when your in one you need to move and moving backwards is extremely unexpected.

Yes and no. WWII dogfights proved that speed was very important. If you can go faster, you can pull out of the range of your enemy's guns. If you can stay out of his range, you can choose when and on what terms the engagement is made. So you have more options in regards to gaining height, waiting for assistance from a wingman, etc. The more maneuverable craft can out turn a faster craft but it must wait for the faster craft to engage it first.

There are plenty of examples of how a slower craft beat a faster one, but that doesn't mean that they win most of the time.

I'm against a reverse move for a few reasons, both logical and abstract.

Firstly, any ship moving forward is going to have momentum. To come to a stop and then start reversing (on limited thrusters I might add) makes you a very easy target which isn't what you'd be doing in a firefight. Also due to those limited thrusters, you wouldn't be able to decelerate to 0 and then start reversing at any sort of timely rate. So you lose your speed, you lose your ability to dodge, you're moving predictably and you can't accelerate again quickly as you now need to shed reverse speed before you begin to move forward again. Under all but some very specific circumstances, this sort of behavior gets you killed in a dogfight.

Secondly reversing backwards in game would be similar to a K turn in that it may allow you to get a shot off at an enemy that was behind you. So there is little tactical need for such an addition to the game.

I would rebuttal by saying that these giant ships are already easy targets. Whether you are going 4 forward, 1 forward, 0 or 1 reverse, any of the "fighter" craft in the game will have no trouble keeping that giant footprint in its arc and shooting it. As far as dodging, the transport has 0 Agility dice, so its not dodging anything no matter what speed or direction it is moving or not moving (unless there is some as yet unrevealed way to add agility dice to your ship). Next there is nothing predictable about a ship that can stop and then go forward or reverse. Although, predictability is kind of a moot point on these things as they are large and slow enough that there is a good chance that they aren't going very far in any direction. Finally the tactical need for reverse movement IMO is that there is no way that these huge ships will have a k-turn option. If they did that would really blow up any idea that physics has any place in this game. So you can either start banking long before the edge of the board to turn around, or you have some option to back up and possibly pull a 3 point turn

You'll just have to start banking early. Big ships have momentum. Momentum takes a long time to slow up. Big ships don't have large reverse thrusters.

Ask a captain of a shipping vessel how long it takes them to stop.

You can't think about it in terms of turn to turn momentum - if you do it doesn't make sense that you can switch from speed to to speed five instantly.

You'll just have to start banking early. Big ships have momentum. Momentum takes a long time to slow up. Big ships don't have large reverse thrusters.

Ask a captain of a shipping vessel how long it takes them to stop.

Well this is all speculation so if the huge ships don't have a reverse, I'll deal with it and fly it as designed. And if i ever meet a captain of a Space shipping vessel I will be certain to ask him what he thinks of my idea. But any suggestion that a seagoing vessel or an airplane or even a real life space craft built in the USA or Europe or Russia or anywhere else on this earth is in any way similar to the space craft in the fictional Star Wars universe is quite frankly ludicrous. That is like comparing apples to... well, to Space ships

I understand that earth made vehicles are the only real thing any of us has to compare X-wing to, but it just makes no sense to me. Where is your imagination people?

You'll just have to start banking early. Big ships have momentum. Momentum takes a long time to slow up. Big ships don't have large reverse thrusters.

Ask a captain of a shipping vessel how long it takes them to stop.

Well this is all speculation so if the huge ships don't have a reverse, I'll deal with it and fly it as designed. And if i ever meet a captain of a Space shipping vessel I will be certain to ask him what he thinks of my idea. But any suggestion that a seagoing vessel or an airplane or even a real life space craft built in the USA or Europe or Russia or anywhere else on this earth is in any way similar to the space craft in the fictional Star Wars universe is quite frankly ludicrous. That is like comparing apples to... well, to Space ships

I understand that earth made vehicles are the only real thing any of us has to compare X-wing to, but it just makes no sense to me. Where is your imagination people?

So why don't the Star Destroyers chasing the Millenium Falcon in the Empire Strikes Back, just reverse thrusters and stop instead of trying to use evasive maneuvers to avoid crashing into each other prior to Han flying the Falcon into the asteroid field? They could have just stopped instead of dodged if your ideas are true, but we have evidence in the movies of the fictional universe that we are playing the game in that these ships don't really have that capability.