/sw/ - Star Wars

>>33413

"Brawling" with a Star Destroyer that has no shields is perfectly plausible. You do remember that ships exiting hyperspace have no shields right? It's a chance to trade a few (likely stolen) bombers or planetary defense force craft (or leftover droid craft) for a 150 million credit Star Destroyer (which with carried craft and crew could easily equal half a billion credits in losses).

>>33392

>>no shields

Too be fair, how many times in the movies did the supposedly "shielded" fighters survive more than one hit?

>>thin paper armor

See above.

>>no internal life support

That's not a bad thing. For one, if your window breaks, you won't have all your air sucked out. Two, if smoke fills the cockpit, or something catches on fire inside the cockpit, you can just open the hatch to let it out. And three, if something goes wrong on the outside of the ship, you can turn the ship off, climb out and possibly fix it without going back to base.

>>no hyperdrive

That's doctrinal and has no bearing on what is a good fighter or not.

>>33428

This depends upon having several bombers being ready to fight and in exactly the right position to respond to something coming out of hyperspace. If it emerges at the other side of the planet or the edge of the solar system, what then?

>>33445

if you can predict from what system that whatever your target is will arrive from, then you can take a good guess at where it will come out of hyperspace, as starships can't simply fly through planets or really turn while in hyperspace. Of course, if the enemy knows that you're ambushing them then their only option will be to come out of hyperspace out of your (and most likely his as well) range which would allow you to simply fuck off to hyperspace yourself. It is a very frustrating game of cat and mouse with no real ability for the one being ambushed to win.

>>33447

There are ways. Simply come out as predicted, but instead of whatever the rebels are expecting, send an Immobilizer and a Lancer or two, while the vulnerable target comes out of hyperspace a little earlier and a little farther away.

>>33390

>>33396

>>33393

>>33437

>lack of shields, support, proper armor, etc

>all that treats pilots as disposable material

All those things are a reason to increase the fighter survivability, the investment in the pilot. Cheap fighters who rely on swarm tactics = waste of troops and resources training them.

There was a reason that the imperials themselves invested in better fighters to deal with the rebellion since their "cannon fodder" tactics were show as ineffective.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/TIE/LN_starfighter

>The design choices of the TIE/Ln could arguably be explained by Imperial military philosophy, which viewed the starfighters and their pilots as an expendable asset. Though Imperial pilots were of an elite stock, they were also expected to consider themselves expendable, in accordance with their ideological training.

>Other Imperial pilots considered TIE Fighter pilots to be suicidal due to how expendable the starfighters were.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/TIE/IN_interceptor/Legends

>After the Empire's disastrous loss of 286 TIE/LN starfighters to the Lightspeed Panthers during the Fei Hu campaign in 1 BBY, the Empire realized the superiority of the Incom T-65 X-wing starfighters, and decided to create an interceptor model of the TIE series as a means to counter the X-wing, with development succeeding that same year.[9] In large part because of the success, they were later utilized in campaigns such as Operation Strike Fear and Operation Skyhook.[22] Interceptors however were also used in early Imperial conflicts, such as putting down Gizor Dellso's droid rebellion.[9]

>Another factor in its development was to have the power of the TIE/Advanced starfighter but be more cost-effective, as the TIE/Advanced was too expensive to mass-produce.

>After the destruction of the first Death Star during the Battle of Yavin, the Empire, realizing quickly the growing threat of the Rebel Alliance, increased mass production of the TIE Interceptors, thus resulting in the TIE Interceptors becoming the new fighter force of the Empire after the battle.

>>33454

Why did you quote me? Your post doesn't talk about any of my points at all.

>>33449

That relies on knowing you're getting ambushed, and Immobilizers are expensive, you can't have one every time you wanna move some of your ships. The enemy doesn't need to be successful all the time, just enough times for the material and personal cost ratio to be in their favor factoring in size difference.

>>33403

That relies so much on being exactly at the right place at the right time with the sizeable enough force and absolutely everyone ready to swarm the right target. Even by some miracle you do there's a good chance it's going to get it's shields up before you do any significant damage.

>>33428

Brawling a Star Destroyer is both idiotic and an act of desperation. Even without shields those things are armor plated and will cause considerable damage to anyone stupid enough to close distance with them. There was a reason why Rebels capital ships relied on long range tactics or tactics that severely reduced their ability to output fire.

>>33454

Then why was the V-Wing far more popular and successful than the ARC-170?

>>33392

All this no shield and armor faggotory, yet every normalfags pants get wet from the Eta-2 and the jedi starfigher. Ships which were built purposely fragile to fuck the jedi in the ass during Order 66.

>>33471

>Jedi starfighter

Had shields

>eta 2

Nice design, but yes it was also another Sienar design without shields

>ships used by jedi

>guys with precog and unnaturaly faster reflexes

Jedi doesn't count, they basically live in cheat mode when it comes to piloting.

>>33390

>Why do normalniggers think this is a bad starfighter again?

The same reason Wheraboos think the Tiger was the best tank of WW2. 99% of people can't grasp the difference between tactics and strategy and when you try and explain it to them they act like it's 'unfair' to do anything but go all out on tactical-level quality in equipment like outnumbering/outproducing/out-logisticing your opponent is cheating or something.

>>33643

But the TIE fighter doesn't fit in strategy either. The only purpose of a fighter is to counter other fighters and bombers, yet a TIE fighter can't do either well. A TIE/LN costs 60,000 credits while a Y-Wing, its primary target, costs 130,000 (barely more than double) and will typically lose 3+ craft to kill one Y-Wing (especially since the top turret fucks over unarmored fighters). This is even worse when compared to a Scyk (55,000 with shields and a hyperdrive). Further aggravating this is that the TIE, thanks to its lack of hyperdrive, needs extensive infrastructure (a 34 million+ capital ship per two dozen fighters) to try to do anything.

>>33657

>and will typically lose 3+ craft to kill one Y-Wing (especially since the top turret fucks over unarmored fighters).

Firstly comparing costs from different EU sources is always silly, they're never consistent. Those three prices you've quoted are from three entirely separate sources for example. Secondly where are you getting 3 TIEs per one Y-Wing? They're repeatedly stated to be outdated, slow and manoeuvrable compared to TIEs all ingredients that leave unescorted bombers as easy targets.

As per in-universe statements the TIE is significantly cheaper both to make and to supply/repair though in the latter case it's often easier to just discard it and use a new one which saves you paying for repairs, the staff to repair, wasting space on repair bays etc. It also has better operational readiness compared to rebel ships which are often in for repair because they have many more moving parts or that TIEs shields can go wrong, hyperdrives can go wrong etc which means the de facto cost per unit available to go is lower: if 20% of your X-Wings are out for maintenance you need to pay for 20% more of them to maintain a comparable number at any one time.

>Further aggravating this is that the TIE, thanks to its lack of hyperdrive, needs extensive infrastructure (a 34 million+ capital ship per two dozen fighters) to try to do anything.

Strictly speaking it's the other way around: unless you start digging heavily into the EU there's not much call for fighters and bombers other than fighting opposing capital ships/large targets with their own fighters and bombers or maybe bombing a planet for which you'd want a large ship in orbit to follow up anyway. Assuming you're the Galactic Empire and have no need to transport individuals rather than major military formations the capital ships are already paid for and even if you're not you'll need somewhere to base the pilots, repair and resupply the fighters and so on regardless of if they have their own hyperdrive.

>per two dozen fighters

It's honestly pretty strange that the Empire seems to send out individual capital ships that are Carrier/Battleship hybrids and can't do either role well. Much more sensible would be making use of carrier battle groups i.e. specialised anti-fighter and support vessels along with one or more dedicated carriers and, if wanted, separate Battleships/Battlecruisers for slugging matches. Now obviously that would somewhat reduce the practical size of the fleet since you'd have to group ships up but you could counter this by using planets as built up bases or even building a larger number of stations.

You're also ignoring the TIE's major benefits in manoeuvrability due to lower weight and complexity: in the hands of well trained pilots a major advantage. And its weapons and engines being more powerful than comparable rebel fighters due to not having to split power up between excessive subsystems. Mostly the issue is that one side has massive plot armour/writer bias in almost every source we have, the exception being things like the X-Wing games where both their guns and their engines/manoeuvrability are shown to be major advantages.

>>33657

M8 what are you on about, Y-wings get raped by TIEs on a regular basis.

>>33657

>1 Y-Wing is worth 3 TIEs

Someone modify the wheraboo bingo for rebelaboos.

>>33669

>Mostly the issue is that one side has massive plot armour/writer bias in almost every source we have, the exception being things like the X-Wing games where both their guns and their engines/manoeuvrability are shown to be major advantages.

alot of this stems from the Rebels being 'us' and the Empire being 'them'. instead of two competing factions with very different ideals, they're presented as the evil tyrants vs the radical cool dudes, which creates bias. I could say much more, but I don't want to derail the thread.

>>33669

>Firstly comparing costs from different EU sources is always silly

Both were originally by WEG and were reprinted in Starships of the Galaxy (Saga). Pretty much all the ship prices originate in a WEG book (as does a great deal of the EU's background).

>Secondly where are you getting 3 TIEs per one Y-Wing?

Every video game ever. Even Empire at War makes it an unfavorable matchup for the TIEs. This is also how Saga has stated them, with TIEs being CR7 and a Y-Wing being CR10.

>They're repeatedly stated to be outdated, slow

The TIE isn't actually that much newer than the Y-Wing, and it's only slow in comparison to a dedicated fighter. Shields and a hemisphere firing range is sufficient to beat TIEs easily (and that's not even counting warheads).

> Assuming you're the Galactic Empire and have no need to transport individuals rather than major military formations the capital ships are already paid for and even if you're not you'll need somewhere to base the pilots, repair and resupply the fighters and so on regardless of if they have their own hyperdrive.

Yes, but it means you need to send the multi-million capital ship to actually project any force. Every incident that needs a fighter needs committing a very large minimum to. Remember that hyperspace entry points are predictable to the point they can be mined, and ships coming out of hyperspace don't have shields.

It also means you can't really do offensive projection with TIEs stationed at a space station or planetary garrison. Even a PDF can follow pirates

>>33681

>>33672

Game mechanics, both vidya and tabletop, consistently follow that a Y-Wing is more than a match for a TIE 1 v 1.

>>33698

>gameplay mechanics

>any bearing on the reality of a setting

That's retarded.

>>33698

>Yes, but it means you need to send the multi-million capital ship to actually project any force. Every incident that needs a fighter needs committing a very large minimum to.

that's why the Empire built Lancer-class Frigates after the Battle of Yavin, to fill this operational gap. they were designed as escorts that could handle Rebel fighters without having to commit a Star Destroyer.

>>33701

definitely. it doesn't make sense to judge the universe by game design, especially since TIEs are often used as mooks for the player to swat down, which contributes to the bias against them.

Given how expendable they are and how few TIE fighter pilots survive enough missions to become experienced, you could replace the entire regular TIE fleet with TIE-Ds and see no difference in effectiveness even assuming that their AI is very limited in what it can do because TIE tactics are based on swarms and don't require individual skill. >>33398's comparison of TIEs and spears is accurate because they're primarily a formation weapon. But depending on who you ask, fighters in general are awful and should be retired.

>>33693

Thanks for making this chart. It saved me the trouble of typing another long-winded post. But only 3 of these apply to me:

>TIEs are death traps

>Muh shields

>TIEs are unarmored

Speed, agility, and low cost make the budget hawks happy, but nobody ever dodges every shot. Even Vader used the best-armored and shielded fighter money could buy, and nobody would question his piloting qualifications.

>>33709

>WEG books

>obscure

The EU is literally built on WEG sourcebooks. Zahn got a pallet of them in the mail when writing the Thrawn Trilogy.

If you actually look at modern anti-insurgency warfare, requiring you send all or nothing forces against insurgents is crippling. NATO in Afghanistan is crippled by the inability to launch missions without Medevac on standby for missions, and that's just a bureaucracy move nowhere near commitment sending a full capital ship is. All the roads being shit or mined to fuck is also an issue and that's when the mines have to be detonated manually and MRAP armor doesn't disappear at easily determined points.

>>33701

>>33703

And how do you purpose measure TIE strength compared to anything then?

It's not just TIEs being there for the player to destroy. Empire at War is built for multiplayer and unit level starship fights are built

>>33724

The first SW RP game also introduced all the secondary major planets and the names for many species that would be used from then on, like Twi'leks, Biths and whatnot.

>>33724

>>33728

using games as sources is not all-or-nothing. when it comes to lore, races, planets, etc, they're usually fine. but when it comes to relative military strength, that is naturally biased by game mechanics.

>>33710

>Speed, agility, and low cost make the budget hawks happy, but nobody ever dodges every shot. Even Vader used the best-armored and shielded fighter money could buy, and nobody would question his piloting qualifications.

TIEs may not have the shielding of X-wings, but they're not made of paper-mache either.

>>33709

to be fair to the bottom left corner, ambushing something coming out of hyperspace along pre-established and constant routes such as a logistical network is how many pirate groups work. Short ranged coordinated jumps are also another way that said pirate groups work as well, with one ship in concealment confirming the target has arrived with the rest of the pirate flotilla coming out once they get the signal.

Now it is certainly not the be all end all of military strategy, it only really works in smaller scales on raiding missions and certainly not in a battle scenario such as the Attack on Coruscant by the CIS; which wile initially successful was beaten off at very high cost to the CIS.

>>33796

> it only really works in smaller scales on raiding missions

You mean the main source of attacks on the Empire?

>>33747

Price is lore. Game mechanics were only noted as being consistent with every other portrayal of TIE vs. Y-wing.

>>33805

>You mean the main source of attacks on the Empire?

That sword cuts both ways, they were the main source of attacks because nothing else worked. The rebels were great at guerilla warfare, so their strategy and equipment choices reflect that. High-quality snubfighters capable of operating without a mothership are excellent for that one specific role, and so long as that was the only way for the rebels to wage war they did so. But as the rebels became the New Republic, they began to use other tactics–as ambush hit-and-runs are great for being a very expensive nuisance to an occupying power but not as great for taking and holding worlds. They just kept X-wing squadrons in the limelight, despite their becoming more specialized tools, as propaganda. Especially after the Battle of Yavin, crack teams of X-wings became symbols of the Rebellion, and it was in their own interest to maintain that symbol regardless of true efficacy.

>>33815

This is true. I'd question what else they thought they'd be opposed by, but the Empire's inability to see this kinda thing is totally in character.

>>33826

the Empire was always hubristic and operated on a large scale. they probably didn't bother considering how an insurgency might fight back effectively. instead, they assumed that their military machine would be enough to ensure dominance. when resistance proved stubborn, they went bigger, not smaller, and built the Death Star. by investing in superweapons, they were doubling down on their doctrine of overwhelming force. in the end, this whole pyramidal, centralized structure was the Empire's undoing.

as I said above, the Lancer-class frigates were a notable exception to this, as they were designed to project force at a lesser scale, specifically against small shielded ships. however, these were only built after Yavin, directly in response to Rebel tactics, and sources seem to agree that they weren't used to their potential until Thrawn (although the same could be said of many things ).

>>33451

>From the bolted-on peashooters of a civilian freighter/smuggler.

Where has it ever been said that the Falcon's weapons were underpowered? The general impression you get from Han's baby is that it's basically a gunship masquerading as a cargo vessel.

>>33471

>All this no shield and armor faggotory, yet every normalfags pants get wet from the Eta-2 and the jedi starfigher. Ships which were built purposely fragile to fuck the jedi in the ass during Order 66.

I don't think TIEs were ever even meant to lack shields. In the OT, they get lit up with a flashing corona just like Rebel fighters when they take damage that doesn't immediately destroy them.

>>33472

>Jedi doesn't count, they basically live in cheat mode when it comes to piloting.

The EU seemed to put truly exceptional "blunt" pilots at a level beyond their Jedi counterparts, though. Even with the Force, I don't think any Jedi/Sith could have taken on Han Solo, Wedge Antilles or Soontir Fel in a one-on-one dogfight and survived.

>>34759

A dark sider might beat the best mundane pilot, but only by making it a distant mindfuck instead of a dogfight.

>>34760

Probably not, since we never see anything like that happening in the movies. Quite the opposite, in fact, considering that Vader was completely taken by surprise by Han during the Battle of Yavin.

-Why do

>because theyre fucking retards

because the empire staffs them with shitty pilots as its more cost effective

>see #1

>>33390

>>34762

Vader was more grabby grabby and less mind touchy.

>>34795

The point still stands, being able to force choke some vital part of an enemy fighter should work perfectly.

I even remember that in the Thrawn trilogy Luke was tempted by the dark side during a fighter engagement to just reach out with the force and crush his enemies' ships.

>>34838

That's just wishful thinking with no actual support from G-canon. Neither Vader nor Obi-Wan, the only two Jedi or Sith starfighter pilots we ever see in extended space combat, ever make use of any observable Force powers when they're in the cockpit, not even when it's a matter of life or death, such as when Obi-Wan gets swarmed by Buzz Droids over Coruscant. Going by the EU's general conception of Force-users, this should be a trivial matter easily dealt with through a small display of telekinesis, but no, Obi-Wan just sits there helplessly while the little pests are tearing his fighter apart, and rather than getting "grabby", Anakin resorts to the extremely dangerous tactic of actually shooting them off of Obi-Wan's wings. The logical conclusion to be drawn from such examples is that the EU has severely exaggerated the practicality and usefulness of the Force in many situations vs. what Lucas actually shows us in his movies.

>>34762

If I recall correctly Vader's wingman freaked out when Han appeared and crashed into Vader's ship… sending it spinning out of control.

>>34759

EU stuff/ supplementary material : Vader's ship had shields and a hyper-drive some interceptors had both & possibly some Tie fighters. In any case they do have some armor since they visibly take a few hits to kill in the OT films. Also a stripped down craft that is basically an engine with guns is not out of the ordinary if we compare it with historical aircraft like the Zero, Mig3, Havilland Mosquito, Mig15,etc.It makes more sense given that they are launched from a space aircraft carrier Star Destroyer, Super STar Destroy, or Death star where weight,space and maintenance come into play.

>>34841

Vader doesn't even notice that Han is right on top of him until his first wingman blows up right next to him.

>>34841

I don't know if we have enough on-screen information to say if the OT TIEs are "stripped-down" (a term which makes me think more of the Rebels' Y-Wings). That most models (with exceptions like Vader's personal craft) lack hyperdrives seems reasonable, given the comments about their being "short-range fighters" that can't get very far out into space on their own (and they're always shown operating alongside larger vessels like Star Destroyers or Death Stars, vs. Rebel fighters launching from hangars on the ground). However, it's worth noting that, generally speaking, the TIEs are very, VERY good in their intended role: as seen during the Battle of Yavin, they're individually capable of easily destroying any Rebel fighter, and so fast and maneuverable that getting one on your tail is basically a death-sentence unless you can get a wingman to pick him off (they also have more graphically-advanced targeting systems, suggesting that the level of tech they represent is newer or better than what the Rebels have access to).

>>34858

We must take on consideration that Vader was focused, and rightly so, on Luke. "Stay on the leader". And more that he just had felt the Force around that pilot. What i don't get it is how the Falcon approached the DS just like that. There were still ties around plus the TL towers.

>>34862

>We must take on consideration that Vader was focused, and rightly so, on Luke.

That's the kind of focus that gets you killed in a dogfight. And more than that it invalidates the idea that it's effectively impossible to get the drop on trained Force-users.

>>34862

the Millennium Falcon wasn't an ordinary ship, presumably it had enough speed and shielding to get through the defenses, especially on a steep trajectory. also, Han flew out of the sun to attack Vader, which would've made him harder to detect. (I'm a different Mando btw)

0