Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Harleequin

What ships would you like to see next?

Recommended Posts

Satellites:
Those satellites are all near our sun. Many times, TIEs will be deployed somewhere that isn't even in a solar system. Even inside a solar system, but far away, the sun will be very dim and just look like a really big star.

Heat Transfer:
That's not how heat transfer works at all. "Space" isn't cold in the way you think of cold. Space is mostly empty and there are a few atoms floating in it that may be really cold. Just going into space won't be like getting dipped in liquid nitrogen because there aren't enough cold atoms out there to absorb enough heat. The only major heat loss is through thermal radiation.

It's like sticking your hand in an oven to check the temperature but the reverse. The air in the oven is in fact hundreds of degrees (yes, it actually is), but because air has so few atoms, there isn't enough heat transferred to burn your hand. Likewise, the atoms in space may be arbitrarily cold and it won't matter because there aren't enough atoms touching your hand to make a difference.

Heat Generation:
This is Star Wars. I don't know how hot the engines or weapons get but I'd refer you to what I wrote about heat transfer and satellite distance. If they were heat sinks, the extra surface area would help with radiative cooling. I'm not an engineer so I don't know how well that would work, but it would be a lot better than catching a few photons of star light to power a ship's engine and weapons, I'm sure.

 

None of what I typed takes working for NASA to figure out. It is basic high school physics. However, I do have a cousin who used to work for NASA so I could ask him what he thinks, if you want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lord Dragon said:

 

ShadowJak said:

 

Lord Dragon said:

 

 I would love to see some Jedi stealth x's no idea how they would work unless you could program your move after seeing everyone else's.  Nor do I know how the shadow bombs would work but I have the feelings they would be awesome pieces to play with.

 

 

Shadow bombs are just super kewl anti-vong jedi powerz to counter the super kewl anti-torpedo vong powerz.

Multiple layers of terrible.

 

 

 

What make the idea terrible?

 

 

Super kewl powerz are always terrible. They are contrived weaknesses and strengths lazily thrown in to add apparent tactical challenges and solutions without any effort on the part of the author or the reader. It's the type of stuff 13 year-old boys think is cool because they don't know any better.

-------------------------------------------

Proton Torpedoes are so kewl. They blow stuff up while sounding all sciencey because they have the word "proton" in the name and I heard that in a science class or something, man.

Oh noez, the Vong can't be targeted by the proton torpedoes because the have super kewl living gravity generators. Those sound even more sciency because they involve gravity which is some kind of science and are "living" which is biology or chemistry or something. That's 2 sciencey kewl points to the proton torpedoe's 1. Wow, man, deep. I think I'm getting smarter already from reading this. Who needs math and stuff when we can learn everything from Star Wars.

Look now, the jedi are using their force powerz to shoot the torpedoes through the Vong impenetrable defenses. These shadow bombs are the kewlest. They have shadow in the name (yeah, I know I have shadow in my name too but my name comes from classic sci fi and shadow stuff is cool dammit), have more explosives, and are propelled by the force. That's like Luke's trench run with every shot. That has to be worth 5 cool points by itself or something. So we have like 7 or something super kewl points to the Vong's 2 sciencey cool points which means the Jedi win. Yeah, so awesome. The author should win an award for coming up with something so original.

------------------------------------------

Sorry If I'm taking a dump on something you like but that is how I see the thought process behind that type of thing. New powers obviously aren't always bad. The singularity generators aren't even terrible by themselves; it is just the lazy solution to them that is the problem. Instead of coming up with something original to get around them, the author just relies on the force. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hellfury said:

Exactly, The alliance has to steal them. They are not flying off of productions lines and into Alliance hangars. They are more difficult for the Alliance to acquire and thus should be more expensive for the Alliance to field.

Just because we have a "so far" precedence does not mean that such cannot change. It is appropriate thematically for both sides to use them, it is just rarer for one side to field them.

This is a long held pricing strategy for many types of point based miniature wargames, and it works.

 

Actually, I think you've got that wrong.  Most games go for balance, and making something cost more points just because of rarity isn't balanced from a gameplay perspective.

Stay with me on this…

Take Warhammer 40K as an example.  A Space Marine in Terminator armor costs an arm and a leg beyond what a Space Marine in normal power armor costs (which is already a lot).  Of course, Terminator armor is quite rare, but the points cost for them isn't because of the rarity.  They cost a ton because they're much more powerful than a regular model in regular power armor.  

The same goes with every mini's game I've played.  The points-cost is determined by the power of the thing being used, not its rarity.

Rarity is handled by a separate game mechanic: limiting the number that can be fielded.  

 

Limiting the number of alliance stolen-and-owned shuttles would be fine; making them cost more points-wise than the exact same thing on the Imperial side would not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grumm said:

Hellfury said:

 

Exactly, The alliance has to steal them. They are not flying off of productions lines and into Alliance hangars. They are more difficult for the Alliance to acquire and thus should be more expensive for the Alliance to field.

Just because we have a "so far" precedence does not mean that such cannot change. It is appropriate thematically for both sides to use them, it is just rarer for one side to field them.

This is a long held pricing strategy for many types of point based miniature wargames, and it works.

 

 

 

Actually, I think you've got that wrong.  Most games go for balance, and making something cost more points just because of rarity isn't balanced from a gameplay perspective.

Stay with me on this…

Take Warhammer 40K as an example.  A Space Marine in Terminator armor costs an arm and a leg beyond what a Space Marine in normal power armor costs (which is already a lot).  Of course, Terminator armor is quite rare, but the points cost for them isn't because of the rarity.  They cost a ton because they're much more powerful than a regular model in regular power armor.  

The same goes with every mini's game I've played.  The points-cost is determined by the power of the thing being used, not its rarity.

Rarity is handled by a separate game mechanic: limiting the number that can be fielded.  

 

Limiting the number of alliance stolen-and-owned shuttles would be fine; making them cost more points-wise than the exact same thing on the Imperial side would not.

You are correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ShadowJak said:

 

Parakitor said:

 

kmanweiss said:

 

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

 

 

Definitely stands for Twin Ion Engine, and they're actually heat-sinks, not solar panels.

 

 

 

Whoa whoa whoa….hold your horses.  TIE wings are not solar panels?  Can you back that up?  Every reference to the Tie wings (of any version) has always indicated that they are solar panels.

"The x1's most important innovation was the use of "bent-wing" solar array wings, like those used on the TIE/sa bomber, which had the advantages of increased surface area for more power while also reducing the craft's profile, compared to the TIE/ln starfighter's hexagonal panel wings."

That's straight from the TIE Advanced X1 Wookieepedia site.

While it's clear in some tech readouts that the solar arrays served a daul purpose as a heat exchanger also, their primary purpose was power generation.

 

 

I own both The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and The NEW Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and they both list the TIE fighter wings as "solar array panels." Where did you get the heat-sinks idea from, you DrUnK3n_PaNdA? 

 

 

They would make a lot more sense as heat sinks, but you are correct, they are solar panels. It's too bad really because most of space is extremely dark.

 

 

 

I have the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, but a number of it's facts on the schematics are wrong, like calling the communications array on a Star Destroyer the shield generator.

Wookieepedia refers to them as both solar arrays and radiator panels in the entry for the TIE/ln fighter. According to the cross-section, though it appears they're both? From what I've read in the past when the TIE was made, the immense amount of power used for the engines and weapons generated an immense amount of heat that needed to be bled off and the best way to do so was with the inclusion of the large wings.

This is also in the Wookieepedia entry for the TIE series:

"Many fans have disagreed with this information, on the grounds that the power output of solar panels would not be sufficient to give TIEs the acceleration attributed to them, particularly given that TIEs have never been indicated to suffer reduced performance in interstellar space or when flying at night on a planet. Some seek to discard the "solar panel" idea altogether, and the wings of the prequel-era forerunners of the TIE, Scimitar and Advanced Projects prototype, have been identified instead as radiator assemblages for waste heat from a conventional Star Wars reactor core. "

It would seem there's no official canon on what exactly they are or are supposed to be, but I've always found the idea of them being solar panels to be a little more silly, plus, I like attributing that 'machine gun' noise a TIE makes shortly after firing to the sound of super-heated coolant gas flowing through it's systems to the radiators.

Amusingly when you think about it neither of the options really makes sense, There's not much ambient solar energy in most of space, and likewise a near-perfect vacuum is extremely good at insulating heat.

 

Hellfury said:

Exactly, The alliance has to steal them. They are not flying off of productions lines and into Alliance hangars. They are more difficult for the Alliance to acquire and thus should be more expensive for the Alliance to field.

Just because we have a "so far" precedence does not mean that such cannot change. It is appropriate thematically for both sides to use them, it is just rarer for one side to field them.

This is a long held pricing strategy for many types of point based miniature wargames, and it works.

 

Actually, I think you've got that wrong. Most games go for balance, and making something cost more points just because of rarity isn't balanced from a gameplay perspective.

Stay with me on this…

Take Warhammer 40K as an example. A Space Marine in Terminator armor costs an arm and a leg beyond what a Space Marine in normal power armor costs (which is already a lot). Of course, Terminator armor is quite rare, but the points cost for them isn't because of the rarity. They cost a ton because they're much more powerful than a regular model in regular power armor.

The same goes with every mini's game I've played. The points-cost is determined by the power of the thing being used, not its rarity.

Rarity is handled by a separate game mechanic: limiting the number that can be fielded.

 

Limiting the number of alliance stolen-and-owned shuttles would be fine; making them cost more points-wise than the exact same thing on the Imperial side would not.

If you and GW were on the same page about that I'd still play Warhammer. But I do agree that units should be pointed for their usefulness, not their rarity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DrUnK3n_PaNdA said:

If you and GW were on the same page about that I'd still play Warhammer. But I do agree that units should be pointed for their usefulness, not their rarity.

 

Unless normal Space Marine models and Terminator models now have the same points cost in-game, we are on the same page.  I'm not talking about real money costs for the actual model kits; I'm only talking about the points value of them within the game.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well as a many-year veteran of the RT tournament scene, I can tell you many of the points costs are ridiculously skewed and many GW employees and fanboys use the 'rarity' of units to defend their points-cost issues. This isn't really the place to argue about it, but I can tell you I was so disgusted with 5th edition that I have about three Army Transport cases worth of Eldar and some forgeworld models collecting dust on the shelf thanks to GW's 'balancing' and accuracy to the canon of their world.

Fortunately X-Wing seems to be pretty fair in regards to relative points cost except when it comes to Y-Wings. They really should be cheaper base and Ion Cannons should be more expensive. FFG's accuracy to canon has been great too. It's a good thing they're not basing their points-cost on rarity! If they did, then TIEs would be about 2 points each!

Anyway, that's my piece. Back to topic!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardrainfalling said:

shadowjax your post made me laugh so much ! i wish there was a like option aplauso.gif

 

Yes I agree it was really funny and I laughed myself, I just see such a rich star wars universe out there that I would hate to see this game pigeon holed into just the movie genre.  seeing some OR or NR stuff would be awesome…expensive but awesome.  Plus I thought the Stealth x's where cool in the fate of the jedi series and was curios to see how the game mechanics would work if they were an element.  the vong ships were crazy over powered in the books and have no idea how they would work in the game but I would like to see alot of different movement breakers in this game.  I am a hard core SWM gamer and love the different aspects of each faction, special abilities, and yes even force powers. I think it makes for an awesome playing experience and would like to see something similar here as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Art Vandelay said:

 

I apologize if this has been mentioned but I would love to see Dash Rendar and the Outrider. The YT-2400 was also included in the RPG. The Outrider is one of the best looking ships in Star Wars.

 

 

i figure the Outrider is a good bet to be done eventually since it has an onscreen appearance in the Empire SE. It just makes sense that any ship that fits the game scale and was actually on film will eventually get added.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hope they'd get to a few more ships before releasing the outrider. We already have a YT transport coming and they look pretty similar in general style… that was the point of the Outrider after all, a Falcon that wasn't the Falcon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ships I'd like to see eventually:

Z-95 Headhunter

B-wing fighter

Lambda class T4a shuttle

TIE bomber

E-wing fighter

Imperial assault/gun boat

More freighter choices.

The rest (assuming FF decides to take the plunge) I could take or leave as the whim strikes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A B wing. More than anything a B wing. And i agree with TIE bombers as a counter to it, but a bomber is not translating well in my head to a dogfight game. But i think i need to wait till i get the falcon and judge it from there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crunchysam42 said:

A B wing. More than anything a B wing. And i agree with TIE bombers as a counter to it, but a bomber is not translating well in my head to a dogfight game. But i think i need to wait till i get the falcon and judge it from there. 

The Tie bomber would make a horrible counter to the B-wing, although I wouldn't mind seeing both in wave 3.

I think people's problem with TIE bombers is the name and the movie appearance.  You logically think the thing just carries bombs, but it doesn't.  It can also carry a large number of missles and torpedoes.  The Rebel couter to the TIE bomber is really the Y-Wing.  They are both fighter/bombers.  Not agile, but well armed.  The tie bomber could carry torpedoes, missles, or bombs. And it could carry more than the Y-Wing.

Obviously the bomber has no shields and probably stats similar to the Tie fighter, movement compairable to the Y-Wing, and stick a couple missle slots on it.  A cheaper alternative to the tie advance that can carry missles would be pretty intimidating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crunchysam42 said:

A B wing. More than anything a B wing. And i agree with TIE bombers as a counter to it, but a bomber is not translating well in my head to a dogfight game. But i think i need to wait till i get the falcon and judge it from there. 

For this game, I expect the TIE Bomber to be a Missile & Torpedo platform more than a bomber. That thing *should* have the ability for double missiles and double Proton Torps if they follow fluff. I think I could be a fine heavy support craft for Imperials, even if it is a bit fragile.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iunno… when I see the

in action in X-Wing I start to wonder if it's a better counter to the TIE Defender.

Both of them have a six weapons (2 Ions, 4 lasers of the TIE/D vs 3 Ions, 3 Las of the B-Wing), both of them can carry torpedoes, both are shielded, both are hyper capable… the differences between both of them are in speed and manuverability (TIE/D fast, B-Wing slow), resilency (The B-Wing is better armored than the TIE/D),  and that the TIE/D has special equipment mounts which I don't think will make much difference in the mini game's engine. On the other hand you could give the B-Wing the same capability because of its modular nature.

But it's more likely we'll see the B-Wing matched with the TIE bomber because both of them are canonical and haven't been released yet, even though they aren't exactly that equal with one another.

 

I think the "lots of missiles, almost no attack" slot would better fit for the Missile boat IMO. With the special rule of "does not roll attack dice this turn to have a boost action" to represent the SLAMs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I never had trouble dogfighting in my TIE Bomber when playing TIE Fighter. Sure, it doesn't excel at dogfighting, but it can still rack up some kills. I'm looking forward to seeing the TIE Bomber in action. I would hope it has at least a 2 for its primary attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The TIE/sa 'Bomber' is really a bit of a misnomer, because it's more of a Patrol Torpedo Craft than anything in my opinion.  Which means it should have a better capability of equipping either Conkers or ProTorps.  Obviously, it has a bombing capability, but that seems to have always been a secondary role.  It's about half as fast as the TIE Advanced, and half again as maneuverable.  That being said, it's a ballistic spammer…Wookiepedia says it doesn't have shields, but they can be equipped…if the gameplay version is shieldless, I sure hope you can buy shields as an upgrade for it.  I'd say it's maneuvering would be on par with the Y-Wing for gameplay purposes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...