• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About OneKelvin

  • Rank
  • Birthday

Recent Profile Visitors

644 profile views
  1. You're trying to cut down a work of fiction using real-world statistics and tactics. It's not really a fair fight. What I do is assume that the humans they portray are just as intelligent and able as humans IRL. They do assign individual fighters to SF forces in-universe, they do fight using blaster guns, they do dogfight at visible range in space and jump from one star to the next. Pointing out that their methods and tactics are silly with real-world technology and politics is pointless; the only question that matters is why they would do what they are currently doing. And saying "Because the writers are uneducated in such matters." is an avoidance tactic. The beauty of fiction is that the worlds turn in our imaginations without the need for us to monitor every meal, restroom break, tactic, transaction, etc. I'm sure I could pull apart some very-well written realistic military fiction if I wanted to by pointing out that certain vehicles would need certain amounts of gasoline to go certain distances, or that certain new developments render their research pointless. Ever read an old real military political-drama and had them talking about the awesome power of the... floppy disc? Yeah. The world spins, and the old ways are made obsolete. I see it as being very plausible that modern US Special-forces doctrine has gone the way of the Pike Square by the year 3281 LY. So be clever now; what conditions would make it useful to have self-contained fighter-born SF units? We've seen that the forces in SW are so energy-rich that inefficiencies in ship design and usage are near to non-issues. For the value of the missions these SF are expected to undertake, is fleet command really concerned about the possible cost of a single abandoned TIE fighter? Are they incapable of installing a self-destruct so that it takes out a few of the enemy if they try to steal it? "Plus, every TIE used to transport 1-2 operatives is now one less TIE the carrier vehicle has to use for interdiction, air superiority or air support missions." You mean like... the Raider dedicated to nothing but SF transport and air-superiority? And is it really certain that they insert using their TIEs? Perhaps their base uniform simply incorporates the elements required for flight control so that they don't need to change if they are summoned for ship defense while still in orbit. Fewer Uniforms = Efficiency. Really guys, you miss the point of theory-crafting.* *(The point of theory crafting is to help make the world more immersive. By finding gaps and akward chinks in the writing and coming up with explanations and ways around them, it helps the suspension of disbelief to hold up under scrutiny. Writers aren't perfect, many aren't even good; it's all I can do to keep the illusion going for just one more minute or so. )
  2. Personally I'm a fan of quarters. They can be used as whipple shielding on the outer layer of the ship (they crew isn't going to be sleeping in them during a battle anyway), and if there are crew in them it means fewer die per hull breach.
  3. The thing is, TIEs are much cheaper relevantly speaking than jet fighters or helicopters today; and in the SW universe piloting isn't an uncommon skill. Even moisture farmers and nerf-herders fly in their spare time. The only reason our Special Forces today don't also have pilot training is because it is cheaper and easier to have a helicopter ferry them out and come back to pick them up or stay nearby. If they could all take TIEs it would mean faster insertion, and no waiting for extraction. They can be their own air support, and are overall much more versatile, self-contained units. You can say to them "Go there, kill that, bring me X. Go, now." without having to arrange transport off of the carrier or a fighter escort, and they can just go do it. It also means they aren't helplessly waiting in a shuttle when the dogfighting occurs - which is also a very common aspect of warfare in SW.
  4. I'm not sure, but the trailer shows a few scenes inside Impy starships. If that scene with RedRobesEv1LGuy is inside the Raider then I need to scale down the bridge. And I made the corridors in the original deck plan like this: When they seem to be more like this: Though it could be a mixture. The CO quarters and mainways get big, glossy, Imp-style halls while the snipes and bilge rats get squeezy-sub cooridoors. Kind of like my deckplan. We'll see when the game comes out. Mayhaps there'll be a Raider level like the Tantive IV level in SWBF2? =D
  5. ............
  6. I kinda would, but I'm not sure how you're supposed to get it to me through the computer.
  7. From what I understand, in some theaters SF units may be mixed and matched from members depending on the requirements of the mission. There are some squads that seem more tight-knit like SEAL teams or snipers and their spotters (they switch roles sometimes), but the military isn't about you and your battle-brothers; you are a number. The reason you exist as an infantryman is to secure objectives: that is the only thing that cannot be done with missiles, jets, or shells. The only reason SF exist is to clear out specific threats to allied infantrymen so that their infantry can secure the objectives. If command wants you working with the Deathtroopers today and you have the skills, you'll be wearing black in no time. There's no reason they couldn't recruit for specific units out of existing ones. Stormtrooper -> Scout trooper -> Storm Commando -> Spec-Ops -> Deathtrooper -> Royal Guard. Marine -> Marine Specialist -> SEAL -> SEAL Specialist -> SEAL leader -> Spooky Action at a Distance.
  8. Whipple Shields. That is the term for the thing you have described. Come now. This is all you need to play Malifaux: Turn, flip, chainshot snipers, dogpile objective, turn, flip, chainshot snipers.
  9. It's a trick of perspective and camera angle. --- ------------- ---------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------- ------------- --- You'll see. Vindication is coming. Also when you decide to draw up your own deck plan buster, you can make the decks however you like. I already said you could use the tileset if you liked; so go make it already! You only need MS paint!
  10. Anti-something irl doesn't mean the invulnerable hard counters that video games would have us believe. Destroyers are often kitted to be anti-submarine or anti-fighter; this doesn't mean that submarines or fighters can't destroy them if deployed in groups. What it mean is that the destroyer will likely be able to destroy an infinite amount of single fighters or lone subs without taking significant damage, and can contribute well to a close maneuver if needed. A fighter costs less than a destroyer or missile frigate, but the presence of a missile frigate or destroyer severely makes it impossible to conduct a mission without taking fighter casualties. The Raider doesn't need to take on entire flight groups alone to be a good anti-fighter ship. In a real military situation most ships and weapons don't pay for themselves in a single battle, and many are destroyed without paying for themselves. To use the Raider best (and I've said this before) you need to think like a military strategist and be mean with it. A small rebel outpost has two or three two-fighter patrol teams around it: a Raider would be perfectly capable of moving from team to team, destroying each pair without sustaining more than shield damage in each engagement and then moving in on the base or jumping away before the main squadrons could attack it. A group of TIE fighters might try the same thing, but they run the risk of being whittled down one ship at a time. Attacking six or seven fighters head-on would be a waste of resources; it's just that since X-Wing is all about equally-balanced dogfights that the Raider seems underpowered. Imagine for a second that you were facing a Raider: you can have as many small ships as you like, but they come on the board two at a time, and only one pair every two turns. How long would it take for you to win? It is probably capable of chasing down transports and corvettes as well, the small ones that slip by Star Destroyers; but in the end it is meant to beat the Rebels at their own game by hunting down small strike teams and performing hit-and-run raids. That's my theory anyway.
  11. When your ship becomes truecanon. Put on your best uniform, throw the prisoners out the airlock, and make room for the blue champagne! We'll be canon captains soon!
  12. Those specific corporations were nationalized after the creation of the Empire. It wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to see elements from different design teams brought in to work on a single project. You bring in some Sienar energy technicians because Sienar ships may actually run on starlight, and you pull some Kuati naval engineers so that the ship has that nice sleek arrowhead look and can take a beating. Ya put them together and them that you'll be personally "watching over" their families until you get a good ship, and boom! Energy efficient, durable, anti-starfighter corvette. Put on a clean coat of Imperial Grey and you're ready for business. also to whom it may concern.... I've explained the solar panels so many times it's getting ridiculous. Energy-cheap artificial gravity + inertial dampeners = weightless, massless, ship. Ion thruster has high thrust velocity, low power requirements, but low impulse. A cheap artificial gravity generator like you find in a flying butler droid would allow a ship like a TIE to run its main engine nigh-indefinitely with little propellant. The solar collectors may be utilizing different frequency of light or background radiation that are higher-power than photons. Mass Effect did it, so can Star Wars. Really there are so many ways to make a ship like that work given the previously-demonstrated technical advances in Star Wars that if you are still complaining about the solar panels you probably just didn't like TIEs to begin with and want to justify it. I mean come on, "Those solar panels can't work." is an old, hackneyed argument that belongs in the same bin with "sound in space" and "flying movement". It's old, it's been gotten over, explained away, and buried under 30 tons of dead horsemeat. Please, go watch the Expanse. It's a great show, it has what you want; for the love of dayum don't put the same old gripe about "MAH SIE-ENSE" up here for the eleventy-billionth time.
  13. I don't speak computer, your guess is better than mine.