Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ironman4

i want bombers

27 posts in this topic

I really think tie bombers an b-wings, as well as a lambda shuttle will add a lot of scope for scenarios. also the b wing is my fave rebel ship i never really played much x wing on the pc but i played tie fighter to death. hopefully i can convince my opponents to be the good guys . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question however...

if this is a dog fighting game, what use are bombers? Sure they hit hard but generally they're no match for a fighter. Will there be bombing missions in this game? or will bombers be tweaked to be able to dog fight?

 

I guess if the falcon can out fly tie fighters any thing is posable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say something to that effect, but I feel I've been a wet blanket sufficiently already. Truly, though, at starfighter scale I can only see the Y-Wing and B-Wing as even remotely useable. Though they may appear (esp. Y-wing), more useful to see A-Wings, TIE Interceptors, a few "uniques",  and then a range of prequel/Clone Wars fighters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GorFrag said:

Will there be bombing missions in this game? or will bombers be tweaked to be able to dog fight?

An excellent question. I for one am confident that there will be bombing missions -- especially if they are planning on tapping into the nostalgia of the old X-wing and TIE Fighter video games.

There are also rumors about the Slave I and the Millennium Falcon making an appearance in this game. If those rumors are true then bombers may be of strategic value in opposing such larger ships by dealing heavy damage that wouldn't necessarily be able to hit a starfighter.

However, since proton torpedoes are already a part of the game, and all they do is increase attack without any limitations on targeting, it's likely that bombers will be tweaked for dogfighting (probably by exhibiting greater hull/shield values than other starfighters). Just my prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wings of War WWII had stukas, those are more ore less bombers, and in real life had no buisness dog fighting.

Has anyone here played that game and seen how Dive bombers worked?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an exceptionally good question. MY next question was actually going to be, does WoW have Stukas, Dauntlesses and the like? What do they do (as in, how do they factor in)? You answered the first part; a Stuka was indeed a toad of a "fighter." So how it factors in to a WWII fighter game would help give us an idea of not only how a TIE bomber would factor in to "X-Wing," but indeed where the (as yet unrelesed) game would end up going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IG-58 said:

I was going to say something to that effect, but I feel I've been a wet blanket sufficiently already. Truly, though, at starfighter scale I can only see the Y-Wing and B-Wing as even remotely useable. Though they may appear (esp. Y-wing), more useful to see A-Wings, TIE Interceptors, a few "uniques",  and then a range of prequel/Clone Wars fighters.

But, but... ion cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I hope that the game is not a clone of "wings of war" in space. If the game has a system with bombing missions, the bombers can be in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 First off, I want bombers too. The Y-wing is my personal favorite of the core Rebel starfighters from the movies (A/B/X/Y - wings).

Second, I believe bombers will still find a place in this game, even though it may be primarily about dogfighting. Obviously they should have a special place in missions, so I will focus on the dogfighting instead. We all agree that bombers are typically at a disadvantage to more nimble classes such as interceptors. I believe this is primarily due to the difference in maneuverability. We cannot say that bombers' weapons are ineffective against other classes; that would be ridiculous. To emphasize this maneuverability disadvantage, the bombers should be given a new set of movement guides. All guides should turn less than 90 degrees to represent the decreased maneuverability. I would also go further by recommending that immelmans (sp.) be unavailable to bombers. They should also have shorter movement guides to represent their slower speed.

So, given the disadvantage of a bomber, why have it on a team? I believe most bombers are useful for long-range assaults. Maybe bombers ought to have a longer range guide that allows them to hit targets a little farther off from the standard fighter. I also agree with Parakitor that they may have some particular efficacy against larger craft such as the Slave I and Millennium Falcon. Another natural benefit is stronger shields and/or stronger hull (more hit points). Finally, as qwertyuoip mentioned, Y-wings and B-wings ought to have ion cannons available. Perhaps an ion cannon has a higher rate of successful hits, but reveals damage cards that disable ship systems without causing damage to hull. Just a thought, but that can be discussed elsewhere.

In summary, I believe that bombers, although not made for dogfighing, have enough benefits to outweigh their costs that there is no reason to omit them from this game or make them like carbon copies of X-wings. The trade-off of hp vs. maneuverability seems balanced to me, and the idea of bombers being good against larger craft will be good for the metagame. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the game allows alternate warhead loadouts, bombers could also serve as missile platforms. In the computer game "X-wing Alliance" you had the option of changing the proton torpedo default loadout of b-wings, x-wings and y-wings to a concussion missiles loadout. And, if I remember correctly, the concussion missiles were supposed to be smaller than proton torpedoes, so you could carry more concusion missiles than proton torpedoes (let's say double the capacity). An Y-wing carrying 16 concussion missiles instead of 8 proton torpedoes was a very powerful deterrent against TIE Fighters.

Of course, this depends of how closely the rules of the game would stick to what has been seen at the movies, and how many things they will be willing to incorporate from another sources as the novels, computer games and RPG lines, that are usually considered as "canon" capabilities of the fighters (such as the A-wing's sensor jammer and back-firing blasters, or the B-wing's tracking laser, ¡or even the Y-wing's ion turret!) but are not seen on the movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the old games the bombers were probably less effective in dogfights than specialised fighters, but they were still able to fight, and if an opponent was dumb enough to let the bomber get a clear shot they were toast due to the amount of ion shots and torpedos the bombers fired.

I think B wings might have been closer to the tie defender in capabilities, Y wing with tie bomber, X wing with tie advanced etc

Less manouverability, more shields and armour, and a second crewmember has to give some kind of advantage.

A rule for torpedos like in the old games workshop space battle game would be good, with them represented on the batllefield and with fighters dodging them and being trailed etc.

Also bombers are good for taking out other slower heavier armed ships like other bombers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be very surprised if bombers did not make an appearance.

 

First, they give the game far more scope than "my fighters can outfight your fighters." Protecting bombers on their missions is a time-honored mission.

 

Second, they're a canonical part of the forces we've seen in the films. Very few of the space battles we saw in Episodes 4-6 were all-fighter battles; there were always some bombers involved.

 

...and lastly, I think they'd be fun, so why not?!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they have the have the licence for the expanded universe then I guess they could really branch out and add plenty of other fighters and bombers.  Bombers make sense as scenario ship so they will likely make an appearance at some point.  Saying that, FFG will probably just stick to galactic Civil war and Clone war settings for the ships available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agrivar said:

And, if I remember correctly, the concussion missiles were supposed to be smaller than proton torpedoes, so you could carry more concusion missiles than proton torpedoes (let's say double the capacity). An Y-wing carrying 16 concussion missiles instead of 8 proton torpedoes was a very powerful deterrent against TIE Fighters.

I loved the X-wing games, but I am finding that they are the only source in Star Wars that say concussion missiles are smaller and more maneuverable than proton torpedoes. Everybody else claims that concussion missiles are heavier warheads. Has anybody else run across this discrepancy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only explanation I have is that concussion missiles come in different sizes with different weights of warheads.  No references, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I agree, an expansion set of bombers would make a lot of sense: slow moving point buckets that have a lot of firepower but poor maneuverability.  No immelman turns here! Equating this game to Chess, the bomber is King--doesn't matter how many ships you loose, or how many of their ships you take out, each team has one piece they need to protect at all costs. Taking it up another notch, introduce the interceptors as Queens: Double moves, but lighten up of the damage compared to the fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quixote4u@gmail.com said:

 

 I agree, an expansion set of bombers would make a lot of sense: slow moving point buckets that have a lot of firepower but poor maneuverability.  No immelman turns here! Equating this game to Chess, the bomber is King--doesn't matter how many ships you loose, or how many of their ships you take out, each team has one piece they need to protect at all costs. Taking it up another notch, introduce the interceptors as Queens: Double moves, but lighten up of the damage compared to the fighters. 

 

 

Ah, interceptors. Now that gets interesting. See, TIE interceptors have quad laser cannons, so does it make sense to give them reduced firepower? Even if the lasers were weaker, you'd think it would average out to the same amount of damage. A-wings, however, could be even more interesting. Aren't their laser cannons supposed to be able to rotate 360 degrees in the Z-axis (vertical axis)? You can imagine the base for an A-wing having two diagonal guides indicating where it can fire and maybe you have to choose as your action whether to face your lasers backward or forward. That could get really interesting.

As far as bombers being like kings, I think that would be good for a scenario, but I wouldn't like that as a permanent skirmish rule. I think Y-wings are plenty competitive against TIE Fighters, even if the newer craft are superior. But I totally agree about less maneuverability. Having no immelmans is a good idea, and I would go further and say that no turns would be able to move it 90 degrees. All turns would have to be less than 90. Then again, even the Y-wings broke away from the 2nd death star pretty quickly when the Rebels figured out that the shield was still up in Return of the Jedi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ack! Too many rules for me. I don't mind if bombers can hold their own against TIEs in this game. I just want to fly some ships against my friends. Streamlined with options -- that's the mantra for this game, I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parakitor said:

Ack! Too many rules for me. I don't mind if bombers can hold their own against TIEs in this game. I just want to fly some ships against my friends. Streamlined with options -- that's the mantra for this game, I think.

Yeah, the turning laser cannons could be complicated, but the maneuverability should be pretty streamlined -- you just make each ship have its own unique movement dial and you're restricted to the choices on the dials. You wouldn't have to remember that Y-wings can't take immelmans or anything like that because it's all on your movement dial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just.. what? I had to double-check to see if I was actually in the X-Wing forums for a moment, and not some older Armada thread. Nope, just some strange threadromancy!

Punning Pundit likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0