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.

Good point. I seriously (no sarcasm at all) thank you for an argument that is based on the "facts" of the Star Wars universe as we know them. That's the type of argument that makes sense to me in the context of this game.

My answer's to your question are many. Maybe a 3 Kilometer long Star Destroyer doesn't have reverse thrusters. Maybe it can't stop on a dime. That doesn't mean it can't stop. Maybe the Star Destroyer captain decided that the evasive maneuvers were a safer bet because he didn't think he could stop fast enough, or maybe he knew that he couldn't be absolutely certain that the other Star Destroyer would think fast enough to stop and therefore would plow right into his motionless SD. I can't claim that I know all the possible reasons why the SD didn't stop, but inability to do so is not the only option.

And comparing a SD to a much much smaller transport doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me either. Actually comparing any of these ships to another ship doesn't always work. The Falcon and the Lambda are relatively the same size and yet in the context of this game, one can stop and the other cannot. So even if a Star Destroyer is incapable of stopping or reversing, that doesn't mean that the Rebel Transport or the Corvette has the same limitation.

We already know that, again, in the context of this miniatures game, it is possible for some ships to stop moving (i.e. lambda). So is it really such a huge leap to think that a ship that has stopped could go in reverse?

I'm not trying to say that they can't go in reverse. They would have to be able to for docking maneuvers etc that are done at low speeds. But they take time to slow down enough with just reverse propulsion systems and then reverse their direction of travel.

As to the comparison between the Lambda and the YT1300, I imagine it is a difference in roles. The YT1300 spends a lot of it's time going long distances so it makes sense to devote much of your power to forward propulsion to reduce travel times. The Shuttle by comparison whilst capable of hyper space transport, is often used for ship to ship and ship to ground tranporting within the local system. Since it spends more of it's time docking and un docking instead of long journey's it would make sense that more of it's usable engine abilities are directed towards multi direction thrust to make it more proficient in it's intended role.

I'm not trying to say that they can't go in reverse. They would have to be able to for docking maneuvers etc that are done at low speeds. But they take time to slow down enough with just reverse propulsion systems and then reverse their direction of travel.

As to the comparison between the Lambda and the YT1300, I imagine it is a difference in roles. The YT1300 spends a lot of it's time going long distances so it makes sense to devote much of your power to forward propulsion to reduce travel times. The Shuttle by comparison whilst capable of hyper space transport, is often used for ship to ship and ship to ground tranporting within the local system. Since it spends more of it's time docking and un docking instead of long journey's it would make sense that more of it's usable engine abilities are directed towards multi direction thrust to make it more proficient in it's intended role.

Those are reasonable arguments.

Edit: Although I still don't think any argument I've heard has proven or convinced me that it would be impossible for a craft in this game to have a reverse movement option

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.

Nailed it on the head. That was my point exactly. Good to see there's some logic out there.

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.

Clearly, you have no concept of modern air combat, and although it doesn't equate to space combat quite the same, it is the basis for my argument (due to there being no actual space combat precedent yet). Stating the F-22 is slower than the F-15 is quibbling over 100 knots at their top speed - which is irrelevant.

Dogfighting would not normally be happening at 1,500 knots. Indeed the F-22 is more maneuverable due to having vectored thrust, which is designed to improve it's turning performance, and therefore out-maneuver an opponent. But this is all based on a gravity controlled, air-filled atmosphere, where speed equates to kinetic energy - a crucial component of AIR combat. It's not acceleration that's most important, it's being able to hold a certain speed that allows you to maneuver without stalling.

The classic Star Wars dogfight is EXACTLY the same as a World War I, World War II or Korean War type of air combat - lots of tight maneuvering to get your opponent in front of you so you can shoot him. Plain and simple. F-22s and F-15s are designed for missile combat beyond visual range, but still equipped with a gun for that "up close and personal" combat.

As for air to air helicopters, the Kamov Ka-50 and the AH-64D Apache are both capable in the anti-air role already, but you won't see them taking on jets at 10,000 feet.

I'm gonna definitely say no on the reverse maneuver. Just doesn't make sense.

OK. First of all I made this thread to invite a variety of ideas about the Huge ships, so if anyone else has any ideas, please feel free to share them. This wasn't intended to be all about reverse movement and why it will or won't work, although that is what it seems to have become. (I did like the idea about a White 0 Move and think that could work for these ships as well)

Second, I am not saying that these ships or any future ships will definitely have a reverse move or even a 0 move. It is all just speculation designed to promote good converstion about these ships and what features they may have that would be somewhat unexpected. To be fair, we have had a lot of good conversation (well 3 or 4 of us have) about it. But most of the arguments against reverse movement have been based on real life situations and not the Star Wars Universe or this miniatures game. The idea of the Star Destroyers in Empire was a good one, but it did not prove that no ship in the Star Wars universe could use reverse thrusters (or something similar) in a combat situation simply because those SD didn't/couldn't in that situation. And the statements about how the "Lambda and the YT were built for different things and that's why the Lambda can do a 0" actually only seems to confirm my point. Different ships are built for different things, by different companies, and can be modified in a variety of ways. So if the Lambda was built for a purpose that allows 0 movement, why can't another ship be built for a purpose and in a way that allows slow reverse movement? The lambda being able to go from speed 3 to 0 in a single turn proves that it is possible for a ship in this game to do such a thing. So why is it impossible for a ship that is not moving to now go in reverse at a slow speed? Maybe you can find some info on the transport or the corvette that tells us that these ships don't have such a capability, but does that mean no future ship could do it?

So this is what I'm looking for to prove that my idea is ridiculous and will never see the tabletop:

A) Why it is impossible in the Star Wars Universe for any ship, to go in reverese in a combat situation, using "facts" from the Star Wars Universe (no F-15, WWII planes, boats, cars, space shuttles allowed)

B) Why it is impossible in the realm of this tabletop game for any ship to have reverse ability. Will it "break" the game? Why? What about it breaks the game for you?

And please keep in mind that this game doesn't exist in the world of reality. If it did, the asteroids would probably be moving around the board, there would be no imaginary barrier for our space combat, the whole match wouldn't take place in an area not much bigger than a footbal stadium, it wouldn't be turned base, etc etc.

Thanks for the good discussion so far and for keeping it civil

Edit: Sorry for the huge post

Well, one of the things that I've often thought of, is that movement is relative. For example, asteroids would never be completely still. They just wouldn't. But they could be orbiting a planet at the same rate, as such, someone looking at one asteroid from another would see them both as stationary since there is no relative motion between the two.

The same can be applied to the shuttle stopping. It's not so much that its stopping in dead space, just that it is no longer accelerating. Meanwhile, all of the fighters are still accelerating, possibly because they need to keep their engines fired up so they can maneuver (something the shuttle doesn't really do btw).

If you watch RoTJ, it doesn't appear that the star destroyers are moving at all. But they are because the death star itself is moving because it's orbiting Endor.

So now I've explained a logical reason why the asteroids and the shuttle could "stop." I still don't really know how the ships change direction. The Y wing is the only one that I can fathom since it has those thrust vectors at the end of the engines, which could change the direction of the thrust, allowing it to maneuver. Maybe the X wing changes the thrust of each individual engine, which could cause moments to rotate the ship. I guess that makes some sense. The same could be said for the B wing. And the fact that the engines are so closely bundled could be why it can't maneuver that well. But I have no clue as to the A wing or any of the TIEs. I don't presume to even know how the YT, FS, or Lambda engines work. All of the others have concentrated nozzles that resemble our turbine/rocket engines, outputting high velocity air, and conservation of momentum says that if lots of air is going really fast backwards, then the ship needs to go somewhat fast forwards.

I suppose since we're saying that multiple engines could be manipulated such that it causes a moment to rotate vehicles, the same could be said about the star destroyers and the Tantive IV and other ships (all larger ships have multiple engines). It doesn't explain how a ship slows down though in space, though in the sense of this game, the different speed maneuvers could be portrayed as accelerations - an A wing does a 5 forward, accelerating really fast, putting distance between him and his opponent, then he slows his acceleration to 2 in order to bait the trap... or whatever. He's still moving forward, he's still accelerating, just not as fast as he was before, allowing someone to accelerate faster to catch up. Meanwhile, the entire 3x3 field is accelerating through an area of space, with the asteroids all in geosynchronous orbit. (blah blah blah - the ones closer to the planet would be going slower... consider the planet "down").



So, back to the original topic of going in reverse. If we're considering maneuvers as accelerations for a given time period (each round does represent a set amount of time), then everything we have currently works. A reverse movement would actually just mean slowing down ("negative" acceleration), not actually going in reverse. But there doesn't seem to be any way the ships can physically slow down in real space (I'm separating that from hyperspace because we have no clue how that works). Larger ships and space stations seem to have tractor beams to guide smaller ships back in, which could be considered an "auto park" feature, it could also be considered as a way to slow the ship down to the point that he can use maneuvering thrusters. This is supported in the clone wars (S2 I believe) when Ashoka is transporting clone troopers to a medical facility and long story short, the ship is approaching it "too fast" that the two tugs with tractor beams can't slow her down enough.

Furthermore, for atmosphere capable ships, they can use atmospheric drag to slow them down for entry. At that point, they're going much slower than they do in space (1100km/hr is the top speed of an X wing in atmosphere iirc vs. 45k km/hr or something in space) possibly letting the thrusters do the landing.

So, while I will not rule out it being possible for a ship in the star wars calaxy to go in reverse, I do find it highly unlikely that any ship I have seen could go in reverse (at flight speeds, not parking speeds). There's a potential possibility of a thruster being mounted to the front of a ship, that could be used to actively slow it down, but that might not be plausible due to the exhaust being pushed into the flight path of the vehicle. Either way, none of the ships I've seen have that engine config.

Oh, I just thought of how the A wing could maneuver - it seems to have much smaller engines in the center directly behind the cockpit. Since they're so small (and we never see them on) it would indicate that they are there for maneuvering. If these were mounted at an angle, it would explain how the A wing could do such sharp turns via small engines. TIEs are still a mystery though, especially for banking and up/down, but I don't know how an ION engine works, so perhaps my lack of knowledge of how an ion engine works would explain why they can turn via just 2 engines.

Edit: To add to the speculation, I'm going to say they have a tractor beam that can be used to manipulate the enemies position.

You seem not to understand the differences between Acceleration and Velocity and Speed....

I personally don't like the idea of reverse maneuvers in this game, even with the capital ships. The forward movement and maneuvering is a fun part of this game. And anything other than a straight reverse is just too weird. I do think they will likely have a Stationary maneuver, even possible it will be white.

I think the bigger question is how the Tantive IV will operate with weapons. I am assuming the Corvette will have a primary weapon. Will it just have one arc? If it has a turret, does it apply to both bases, or just one? Heck, since the Corvette is bigger, will just have 2 hull sections? And how many of the new actions will it have, will it have new ones, or some of the old ones from the standard ships? The Transport gives us a good teaser of how the capitals will move and how important energy is. But I imagine it will play very differently than the Corvette.

I just found a good reason why the transport won't have a reverse. In the transport article:

The GR-75 comes with two bases, one large ship token that spans the bases, and a new maneuver template that better reflects the way this bulky vessel flies through space. The result is that your GR-75 will surge forward, drift, and yaw in a way that truly feels like it’s carrying its momentum forward through space and across your table.

So although it doesn't specifically say "no reverse", it does talk about the momentum of the ship going forward and indicates that this is part of the fun of the ships. So that tells me probably no reverse

You seem not to understand the differences between Acceleration and Velocity and Speed....

Acceleration x Time = Velocity. Speed + Direction vector = Velocity...

I know everything I said does not quite line up perfectly to the game, but it does make some sense.. enough to say that reverse could be interpreted as slowing down. If an A wing is traveling at 1000m/s, and accelerates at 50km/ss for a round lasting 10 seconds, he would then be moving 1500m/s, and would have covered approx 12500m. If he then does the same 50km/ss for a round lasting 10 seconds, he would end the round at 2000m/s, covering approx 17500m. So it would seem that each move would move farther and farther.

But the B wing chasing him was starting at the same 1000m/s and accelerates at 30km/ss, moving approx 11500m, ending the round at a speed of 1300m/s. The gap between him and the A wing opens up by 100m. Then he does the same accel of 30km/ss, and moves 15500m and ends at a speed of 1600m/s. So the gap opens up to 200m.

So, the gap between the A wing and B wing opens at a linear rate, even though they both moving faster and faster. This is exactly what happens on the table when the A wing goes 5 forward for 2 turns, and the B wing goes 3 forward for 2 turns. It also explains why only really fast ships can do 1 turns - the acceleration is m * V^2 / r. And they're the ships that can ACCELERATE really fast.

Edit: And for the sake of the "stop" maneuver that the Shuttle can do... If it has the same base speed of 1000m/s, after 1 turn it will have moved 10000m, putting it 150m behind the B and 250m behind the A.

Circling back to the A + B wing example - turn 3, the A wing accelerates 20m/ss, and the B keeps going at 30m/ss. The A wing's speed increases to 2200m/s, and he travels 21000m. The B wing speed increases to 1900m/s, and he travels 17500m. The distance still increases from 200m to 450m. This is where I was saying that the accel doesn't translate perfectly to the game. However seeing as more often than not you don't go 5 + 5 + 2 forward (totaling 24 of the 36 inches of the playmat), once you turn or turn around it stays closer to this. Though it doesn't answer why an X wing can't do a 1 turn at "slow" speeds, while the A can do a 1 turn at "high" speeds.

This works fine as long as ships are all travelling in the same direction... otherwise your logic fails...

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.

Its a neat idea... until your transport gets blown up with all of your ties on board still. Ouch

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.

Its a neat idea... until your transport gets blown up with all of your ties on board still. Ouch

That thing is huge... Longer if I remember correctly than a Nebulan-B Frigate.

I'd like to see an Interdictor Class Star Destroyer at some point, but I'm wondering what it's abilities would be...

I'd like to see an Interdictor Class Star Destroyer at some point, but I'm wondering what it's abilities would be...

You are not allowed to leave the field of play or be destroyed.... O wait