70 replies to this topic

[feld]

Thanks all for the responses!

The problem with your Tector-class design is that, unless we were looking at a Tector II-class that was heavily modified from the original so as to just provide a heavier version of the Imperial-class, we saw a Tector-class in RotJ, where it appeared exactly like an Imperial-class, but without a hangar.

Looking at the stills of the TECTOR from RotJ at Wookie and Saxton's sites, I agree that coloring and surface detailing look more like ISD2, but there's really not enough data to tell.

I believe it also lacked the slits in the hull for the heavy quads, but I could also be postulating. Hard to distinguish when there's so little official data.

I can't really tell from the pictures: I can't tell if the shots go far back enough along the hull that I'd expect to see brim notches or not...


While I agree with all points on ground support, I'd propose a modification to the statement below:

Space combat is 3-dimensional, so technically the placement of guns doesn't matter so much as the maneuvering capability of the ship. Keeping the ship oriented towards the intended target/s in the proper way could keep all heavy batteries aimed at the intended target/s, instead of having only half weaponry available.

I'd say:
"Space combat is 3-dimensional, so the placement of guns and maneuvering capability of the gun platform are interdependent."

A maneuverable ship (like PR's CC-9600 example) can compensate for poor placement or low numbers of guns. Similarly, a low maneuverability vessel (like an ISD, I'd argue) can compensate by a larger number of emplacements. It's not just the ability to put the main battery on target, it's also the ability to engage multiple targets at once at the range you expect to fight. I 'm conjecturing that TECTOR was designed to drive into a dimensional fur-ball like the Battle of Coruscant (the portion in synchronous position over the Senate area), survive, and pummel everything that got in its way.

The design of the layout of the heavy turbolasers is kind of flawed anyway. It's more reminiscent of a broadside battery than anything else. Staring an Imperial-class head-on does keep you in sight of the greatest number of guns, but only two of the eight heavy batteries. Which means that they could be designed primarily to broadside something, so as to partly make up for the weakness of having the number of available guns halved.

The approach I take is to assume that the in universe designers know what they're doing, even though in RL an artist and modelmaker who probably don't have much engineering background are the people who decided what the ships look like on screen. Yes: my hobby is totally irrational...but hey...it's fun for me.

So I don't think that the layout is "flawed". Instead, I try to postulate WHY anyone would build a ship like that. That said, I agree with you...these guys are meant to get close and slug it out. My contention is that a SW ship can carry so much shielding/armor that battles cap ships pretty much HAVE TO close to short range to hurt each another. This is the only in universe rationalization I can think of that produces the VERY short ranges of filmed SW space combats.

There are actually two canon references to the Imperial-class being able to enter a planetary atmosphere....

Wow! I haven't played TFU. Those make me feel a bit better.

I think I may have had more to say on this matter, but I totally forgot if I did. And this is all I can think of right now.

Great stuff! Definitely testing the limits of my argument. Love to hear anything else you've got.

Apparently, that's (the solar ionziation reactor bulb)what the whole ship was designed around.

italics mine

Yeah...I know...you're completely correct. It's just that it makes NO sense to me as a guy with degrees in rocket science and a naval background (long story) to stick such a vital component outside of the main armor "wedges". The rest of my (TOTALLY NON-CANON ) reasoning for this has to do with my belief that the drive nozzles on SW ships are LOUSY nozzles for rocket propulsion. The reasons for my argument are too technical for me to just rattle off: I'd need to hit the books on rocket propulsion (particularly relativistic rocket propulsion) and go from there. In my little world the "drive nozzles" are only "drives" as a secondary function: they're actual thermal exhaust ports of seven reactors (in my little world the ship has seven, vice one). But this is all TOTALLY NON-CANON and this is a very canon forum so I won't talk about it any more b/c I'll either bore you to death or just really p*ss you off.

I believe your "broadside" comment to be the most accurate on the gun placement.. much odler sailing naval combat was comducted by sailing up and broadsideing your enemy.. even current naval combat would be conducted like this.. you know if major fleet actions actually occured..

(emphasis mine)

ummm....muneyoshi: RL nit to pick: If "current naval combat" above means "naval combat on Earth's oceans in 2008", I've got to tell you that guided missile destroyers, submarines, and carriers would not fight broadside to broadside. And, while I generally dislike arguments from authority, I've got to mention here that I've been a US Navy line officer for the past 11 years. Meaning that I was "in line" to command a ship and much of my job was tactics. A widely accepted rule in modern fleet engagements is: "Attack Effectively First". In a missile ship engagement, this generally means keeping your ships undetected as long as possible, finding the other folks' ships via scouting, and launching a huge missile barrage set to arrive at the bad guys formation all at the same time. This barrage overwhelms his point defenses and a single modern antiship missile is enough to put all but the largest warships out of action (though usually not sink it).

Before roughly WW2 all big gun steel armored battleships used to fight like you describe. They're a pretty good analogue for SW-type combat.

<end nit>

Edited by feld, 05 December 2008 - 06:07 PM.

[Tropical Bob]

The design of the layout of the heavy turbolasers is kind of flawed anyway. It's more reminiscent of a broadside battery than anything else. Staring an Imperial-class head-on does keep you in sight of the greatest number of guns, but only two of the eight heavy batteries.

Unless you're sufficiently wide, of course.

If you're sufficiently wide, you won't be staring an ISD head-on. I was referring to the design choice of having a head-on charge concentrate the greatest number of guns on a target. If you move off to the side, less guns will be available.

The most deadly position to be in with relation to all the heavy batteries is along the center-line and above the ISD, because then you have all eight batteries firing at you. The only question is whether or not gaining the six batteries makes up for losing all the normal weaponry on the dorsal side of the ship. I don't know enough about the power outputs of each type of weapon, so I can't answer that, but I can see it being a toss-up in either direction.

[Kaleb Graff]

I was under the impression from the TFU book that the ISD on Raxus Prime was basically shot down, and Starkiller had to divert it away from him.

Mostly the odd armament of the ISD can be explained by the following:
http://www.stardestr...mmandments.html

Still, in a real universe, what would matter most is the ISD's roll and pitch rates. The batteries were likely designed to fire at targets approaching from "above", which would concentrate firepower and cover the vulnerable bottom. If the roll/pitch rates are high enough (and these are independent of velocity/direction of travel) the ship could likely turn to the most optimal direction to face attackers from quickly. Because of FoC's physics engine, we can't do this, but it very well could happen.

[muneyoshi]

I believe your "broadside" comment to be the most accurate on the gun placement.. much odler sailing naval combat was comducted by sailing up and broadsideing your enemy.. even current naval combat would be conducted like this.. you know if major fleet actions actually occured..

(emphasis mine)

ummm....muneyoshi: RL nit to pick: If "current naval combat" above means "naval combat on Earth's oceans in 2008", I've got to tell you that guided missile destroyers, submarines, and carriers would not fight broadside to broadside. And, while I generally dislike arguments from authority, I've got to mention here that I've been a US Navy line officer for the past 11 years. Meaning that I was "in line" to command a ship and much of my job was tactics. A widely accepted rule in modern fleet engagements is: "Attack Effectively First". In a missile ship engagement, this generally means keeping your ships undetected as long as possible, finding the other folks' ships via scouting, and launching a huge missile barrage set to arrive at the bad guys formation all at the same time. This barrage overwhelms his point defenses and a single modern antiship missile is enough to put all but the largest warships out of action (though usually not sink it).

Before roughly WW2 all big gun steel armored battleships used to fight like you describe. They're a pretty good analogue for SW-type combat.

<end nit>

yeah.. I didn't describe what I meant very well.. with missle and even gun battary ranges.. submarines.. naval combat isn't broadside to broadside.. I was speculateing a "what if" two battleships ended up in close range to each other.. or for some reason 2 fleets closed to that kind of range with each other... and I also admit that in my head when I was writeing that I was also pictureing the older battleship design with the gun placement.. sorry for the misunderstanding and my screwing up what I meant

[muneyoshi]

I was under the impression from the TFU book that the ISD on Raxus Prime was basically shot down, and Starkiller had to divert it away from him.

no.. Kota was yelling at him during the game to "Rip it out of the sky." and during the battle with it it fixes it's heading and can even head back up abit if you take too long.. I dunno about the book.. but in the game it was clearly able to enter and exit the atmo on it's own

[Kaleb Graff]

I was under the impression from the TFU book that the ISD on Raxus Prime was basically shot down, and Starkiller had to divert it away from him.

no.. Kota was yelling at him during the game to "Rip it out of the sky." and during the battle with it it fixes it's heading and can even head back up abit if you take too long.. I dunno about the book.. but in the game it was clearly able to enter and exit the atmo on it's own

Oh. Kota wasn't around in that part of the book, as I recall. Still, I didn't think ISDs had repulsors at all.

[Phoenix Rising]

A maneuverable ship (like PR's CC-9600 example) can compensate for poor placement or low numbers of guns.

EaW is imperfect because we're limited by 2.5D, so, for example, the dorsal guns on the CC-9600 are mostly useless. Still, it's better than other alternatives.

Apparently, that's (the solar ionziation reactor bulb)what the whole ship was designed around.

italics mine

Yeah...I know...you're completely correct. It's just that it makes NO sense to me as a guy with degrees in rocket science and a naval background (long story) to stick such a vital component outside of the main armor "wedges".

I just remembered: the entire reactor can be jettisoned in the event of a catastrophic failure that would otherwise destroy the ship. I guess those are common enough to justify the decreased protection, although that seems kind of like a catch-22 to me. Didn't Tantive IV's reactor get blown out in the first SW combat ever?

While we're on the topic of reactors, compare and contrast the Allegiance's design if you haven't already; it's probably very similar to the TSD (although both are painfully lacking in quantitative specs).

And, while I generally dislike arguments from authority, I've got to mention here that I've been a US Navy line officer for the past 11 years. Meaning that I was "in line" to command a ship and much of my job was tactics.

That's downright awesome... I mean, from a civvie game developer's perspective . Thanks for serving!

One of my goals with the mod is to create a tactically-rich combat system where the consequences of your orders (macro and micro) have a direct effect on the outcome of a battle, opposed to it being determined by who has the biggest fleet and is able to ninja the most shield generators, as was with vanilla. Since I don't get the opportunity to ask a professional tactician every day, I'd love to get your critique .

Still, in a real universe, what would matter most is the ISD's roll and pitch rates.

The DPF rating is a combination of the two.

[feld]

Mostly the odd armament of the ISD can be explained by the following:
http://www.stardestr...mmandments.html

That's the RL reason. But that's not the game I enjoy playing. I actually enjoy taking starships designed by people who don't know anything about astronautical engineering and trying why they are the way they are using as much real physics and engineering as I can. I assume (all without much support)the in universe designers knew their business, take the stuff I see on screen as literally true, and try to mix up a blend of real engineering/physics with made up engineering/physics. I think this "what-if" game has actually helped my technical creativity.

Still, in a real universe, what would matter most is the ISD's roll and pitch rates. The batteries were likely designed to fire at targets approaching from "above", which would concentrate firepower and cover the vulnerable bottom. If the roll/pitch rates are high enough (and these are independent of velocity/direction of travel) the ship could likely turn to the most optimal direction to face attackers from quickly. Because of FoC's physics engine, we can't do this, but it very well could happen.

Confused. What does "real" mean in your statement? I don't know whether to agree or disagree because if I used the term "real" in this context it would mean "a universe where the engineering is based on extrapolations of currently established physics". In that sense, an ISD as a spacecraft doesn't work very well at all due to numerous technologies that we think violate physics in one way shape or form (eg: repulsorlift and faster than light) so I don't think this is your intent.

REPULSORLIFT:
<deleted a stuff about phyiscally perfect rockets because I finally looked at where Saxton et al got the acceleration figures for ISDs: they're from the 4 second long clip on a tactical screen in RotJ...I can't make an argument from that...>

The other thing that led me to this insight is that all the ships (including those as large as Trade Fed Battleships which are ISD size) at the Battle of Coruscant in RotS are pretty clearly on repulsorlift.
1. If you look at the film and the novels, portions of the battle in the film is established in a stationary location roughly over the Senate.
2. If you look at the film Coruscant isn't moving and the ships are only a couple of hundred km away from the surface. There's implicit assumptions here:
-Coruscant is roughly Earthlike in gravity, therefore in density, and so ultimately in diameter. This is sort of established: Coruscant's diameter on wookie is roughly Earth's. In SW, they could have just have installed anti-grav in every building on the planet.
3. When Invisible Hand loses power, she falls out of the sky and her internal "down" becomes the center of Coruscant. This behavior is only physically possible on a ship that's NOT in a classically defined "orbit" (i.e. going so fast that she falls and misses the ground).

I infer that the ships at the Battle of Coruscant were largely on repulsorlift. If a Trade Fed size ship can do it, there's a good chance that an ISD can do it and if repulsor is cheap enough to be mounted in landspeeders I think a starship designer would take every opporunity they could to use repulsor-type drive instead of a more conventional ion-drive type rocket.

r/feld

Edited by feld, 06 December 2008 - 05:53 PM.

[feld]

yeah.. I didn't describe what I meant very well.. with missle and even gun battary ranges.. submarines.. naval combat isn't broadside to broadside.. I was speculateing a "what if" two battleships ended up in close range to each other.. or for some reason 2 fleets closed to that kind of range with each other... and I also admit that in my head when I was writeing that I was also pictureing the older battleship design with the gun placement.. sorry for the misunderstanding and my screwing up what I meant

Woah...no apology required. I'm just delighted that anybody cares about modern naval combat. What with world events lotsa people appear to think that the US, EU, AUS, CAN, Japanese, Russian, and Chinese Navies are irrelevant. Also, with how much SF space combat has been stuck in a broadside/carrier mentality for years, I am always happy to find people who even bothering to mention it!
r/
feld

[Kaleb Graff]

By real, I meant using Newtonian physics, in which facing and velocity are not related. And also, I'm not sure about the repulsors at Coruscant. Based on the Corellian trilogy, repulsors only work close to the surface. I know the work fairly far out, but I don't think they usually work in orbit. Still, they could be using their engines.

[feld]

That's downright awesome... I mean, from a civvie game developer's perspective . Thanks for serving!

One of my goals with the mod is to create a tactically-rich combat system where the consequences of your orders (macro and micro) have a direct effect on the outcome of a battle, opposed to it being determined by who has the biggest fleet and is able to ninja the most shield generators, as was with vanilla. Since I don't get the opportunity to ask a professional tactician every day, I'd love to get your critique .

Thanks for modding! Without civvie game developers' games my job might drive me nuts!

I don't want to give the impression that I'm ADM Thrawn or something. I am command track and I do study tactics...but most of my career has been spent on submarines in shipyards. I've spent lotsa time in simulators and I love to read the tactics manuals...but there are plenty of better tacticians than me!

One of my goals with the mod is to create a tactically-rich combat system where the consequences of your orders (macro and micro) have a direct effect on the outcome of a battle, opposed to it being determined by who has the biggest fleet and is able to ninja the most shield generators, as was with vanilla. Since I don't get the opportunity to ask a professional tactician every day, I'd love to get your critique .

Happy to, but with a disclaimer: muneoyshi's absolutely right that modern naval tactics have little to do with SW tactics. So I'm not sure how much my opinion counts in this case. In the world of SW and PR in particular, you and the regulars here who play the game are the tactical "professionals" by virtue of (self directed) education and experience. I read the stuff, but I don't know the EU near as well as I did when it was only WEG and the Zahn Trilogy. That said my 2$:

Overall, if your goal was to mod EAW/FOC to create tactical depth with a SW feel then you've done very well with v1.0. Specifics and suggestions follow:

1. Consistent set of stats for the ships. This is probably the biggest strength. Each vessel has things it's good at and not good at. This has great strategic, operational, and tactical implications on gameplay overall. It also has opened up perspectives on canon that I never considered. 2 examples of results. I'm sure there are many many more:
-The power and sheer arrogance of the ISD is clear. They can indeed take out a fleet of small enemy ships but are vulnerable to starfighter attack.
-You can do a surprising amount of offensive work with nothing more than Dreadnoughts and Blastboats. Their TL's take care of frigates and the quads make them mean anti-starfighter ships. But they're pigs when it comes to handling. So I pair them with a Blastboat or Star Wing flotilla which jumps in first for recon, fly the Blastboats up close, and hyper five Dreadnoughts in to pound whatever it is. This works even better if you can catch a substantial number of fighters with the quads while remaining outside of

2. Weapon Arcs: The weapons actually have arcs! You've got to maneuver your ships so that those arcs are effective. This goes a long way to defining the fire/maneuver decision space for the player. PR is infinetly better than vanilla here! Weapons no longer shoot through the ship they're mounted on. This factors into the tactical feel for me alot. The strengths and weaknesses of the ISD daggerhull have never been clearer, the Mon Cals are strongest on the broadside, the Lancer is a little sphere o'starfighter death, etc.

Suggestions:
Given that I feel the biggest strength of the mod from the standpoint of varied tactics lies in the way that each ship has its own "flavor" leading to many choices for the player, my suggestions are mostly ways to improve ship distinctiveness. Many of these have been discussed on the forum before and I know that the engine has limits.

1. Capships performance gradualy degrade with damage This generally increases the number of decisions available to the player in combat and rewards them for being observant. For example, you notice that an opposing ISD is no longer firing port heavy turbos as often even though it has targets - move everything you can over there to keep pounding on him without taking as much damage in return. The ISD's player also has a different set of choices now to make.

2. Some form of limited player controlled hardpoint targeting: This is a separate suggestion from the above because it's really about ship distinctiveness and multiplying player options. You can capture things like Mon Cal gun batteries being after market add on slits in the hull while ISD's heavy batteries are purpose built armored turrets. Specifics follow:
-Everything should not be targetable. Ideally, everything should be gradually destroyable (as above) but only stuff that sticks out of the main armor or is otherwise vulnerable should be susceptible to targeting. Probably mostly weapons and sensors but maybe engines on ships which show long drive tubes without significant armor.
-hardpoints should ideally cost the targetting player something. Perhaps up the hit points of targetable ships, armor the targetable component, apply penalties to hit, decrease rate of fire when hardpoint targeting, etc. I'm not sure what latitude the engine allows here. Other potential limits on the ability.
-Maybe only certain weapon classes can hardpoint target.
-Maybe only fighters can target hardpoints (This could represent some comments in the novels as to fighters penetrating shields and shooting at seams in armor, etc etc.).
-Maybe a side can only target hardpoints if it has a certain unit on the map(a la the recon TIE discussion). Again, don't know what can be done here.
-If the interface can be told to only show hardpoint icons below a certain zoom level, that might limit the player's time to go crazy with this ability and declutter the screen.

3. Give ships strategic endurance: I know that a Blastboat has the same hyperdrive rating as an ISDI...but that doesn't mean it's got the same strategic reach. I doubt the engine will allow for this though from what I've seen.

4. See if the AI can get smarter with tractor beams:There was an old WEG adventure module called "Starfall" that involves a battle between a VSD and a Rebel strike group. One of the things that occurs in that battle is that the VSD's skipper disables a Corvette and uses the combat tractors to ram it into a Mon Cal. Thrawn's trick with the Nebulon-B (disabling all weapons on one side and then tractoring it in close to use it as a shield) also comes to mind. I don't think the engine does this sort of collision detection...but it would be great if t-beams actually stopped their targets! I've tractored a corvette with an ISD and had nothing happen...

Well, that's my twelve bucks worth! Hope it helps!
r/
feld

[feld]

By real, I meant using Newtonian physics, in which facing and velocity are not related. And also, I'm not sure about the repulsors at Coruscant. Based on the Corellian trilogy, repulsors only work close to the surface. I know the work fairly far out, but I don't think they usually work in orbit. Still, they could be using their engines.

Ok. Got it and I agree with you about facing being all important in a pure Newtonian drive case, I'm just not sure that this is a pure Newtonian case. Apparently Lucas says that repulsors work within "6 planetary diameters" in the EP IV novelization. That's from Saxton's site, I haven't read the book in a while. That would be roughly 72,000km for Coruscant so EP 3 *should* be covered. Just from watching too much NASA TV I can tell you that they weren't much more than 400 km up. That 72K km should cover the Battle at Endor as well.

I've never read the Corellian trilogy...that could be problematic to my idea. I was thinking that repulsor generators might have to "focus" on a mass to repel from. On the larger ships they could might be able to "focus" on a mass farther away by having a longer baseline between a pair of generators. Smaller ships (in my idea) would need to be closer to the mass they were repulsing from in order to use their smaller (? fewer?) repulsor units. The simplest repulsor (like the one in an airspeeder or repulsortank) would have a very diffuse "focus" and could only interact with a broad mass very close by. Would an idea like that help in the Corellian trilogy case?

r/
feld

Edited by feld, 06 December 2008 - 10:56 PM.

[muneyoshi]

yeah.. I didn't describe what I meant very well.. with missle and even gun battary ranges.. submarines.. naval combat isn't broadside to broadside.. I was speculateing a "what if" two battleships ended up in close range to each other.. or for some reason 2 fleets closed to that kind of range with each other... and I also admit that in my head when I was writeing that I was also pictureing the older battleship design with the gun placement.. sorry for the misunderstanding and my screwing up what I meant

Woah...no apology required. I'm just delighted that anybody cares about modern naval combat. What with world events lotsa people appear to think that the US, EU, AUS, CAN, Japanese, Russian, and Chinese Navies are irrelevant. Also, with how much SF space combat has been stuck in a broadside/carrier mentality for years, I am always happy to find people who even bothering to mention it!
r/
feld

eh.. I'm not military.. but I do love to study tactics and try to learn everything I can.. weather they be ancient tactics about the best way to use swordsmen and archers.. or modern tactics with fleet manuvers.. up to sci-fi naval/space action.. it's odd.. we cite the lack of effective design of gun placement and broadsideing and what not.. not just in star wars.. yet.. all through history many weapon systems were developed to use tried and true tactics.. look at naval warfare in real life.. for hundreds.. thousands, of years it was broadside to broadside in SOME way.. (much much older vessels actually used rams with archers shooting the other ships crew as they bashed into each other)... all the way to around WWII.. when missle and other much longer range weapons were able to be deployed accuratly and at much safer ranges then engageing the enemy with your guns.. now we fling missles and aircraft at each other from sometimes hundreds of miles away... this even applies to star wars in a way.. I have won a number of battles keeping the cap ships back in a defensive formation and simply using the fighter wing to engage the enemy ships and stations.. using the Z-95's, X-wings and A-wings to intercept fighters and cover bombers.. while the y-wings and b-wings (sometimes depending on numbers I put some x-wings here as well) make bombing runs.. it is very effective and a "safe" tactic when you have enough fighters and bombers... but ship design in scifi.. not just star wars.. often works with heavy guns.. like our own older battleships.. either energy or ballistic.. that can out range missle fire.. or is powerful enough to warrent designing a ship with it's gun placement used to put the most guns at an enemy ship.. and since even in sci-fi most ships are longer then wider.. this tends to have the most guns able to fire to port and starboard.. not forward.. back to broadsideing.. in truth I think actual starship design (if we as a planet make it that far) would probably begin to reflect this as well.. perhapes in more of a 3-D asspect.. but most likely still rolling/pitching the ship to broadside the enemy.. this tried and true tactic allows to you heavily damage your enemy.. though you can take it in return.. star destroyers are one of the only sci-fi "naval" combat ship that can point most of it's guns forward, with the exception of the heavy guns which can only fire so many forward at once.. a flaw I think would be easily fixed by raising the height of the guns behind.. instead of spreading them out they could have put them on "stairs".. this flaw however gives the rebels a fighting chance.. the lack of all heavies fireing foward means a mc80 vs a isd is a good match up.. the isd has heavier firepower over all.. but the bulk of it's weapons are "light" turbolasers and "light" turboions.. this means that the mc80 that has NO heavy guns.. but all of it's guns are standard turbos actually can out gun the isd at close range IF.. IF you are able to stripe away the ISD's increased fighter/bomber squads.. note this is counting number of guns.. not the fact that roughly 1/2 of these guns are pointing the other way.. add the fact that mc ship design calls for alot of back up shield generators (the basis for the shield boost power) mean the mc80's shields will last longer giving it a slight edge in 1 on 1 combat.. add all the fighters and bombers to both ships though and the balance swings back in favor of the ISD.. I'm babling now though so I'll shut up

Edited by muneyoshi, 06 December 2008 - 11:19 PM.

[Kaleb Graff]

Based on the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, typically ships fought in a broadside line, which the ISD is built for. It'd be even better if it was top towards the enemy, as all of the heavy guns and most light guns could be brought to bear. While fighter attacks work well, that's because of AI not paying enough attention to them, instead of being a really good tactic, leaving broadside (or topside) as the best method.

[muneyoshi]

Based on the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, typically ships fought in a broadside line, which the ISD is built for. It'd be even better if it was top towards the enemy, as all of the heavy guns and most light guns could be brought to bear. While fighter attacks work well, that's because of AI not paying enough attention to them, instead of being a really good tactic, leaving broadside (or topside) as the best method.

The fact that fighter/bomber attacks work well isn't due to ignoreing them.. not completely... that just makes them MORE effective.. the fact they work well is also based on that turbos can't effectively target small craft.. AI ignoreing them is just a big bouns.. though with zarkis's AI I notice him not ignoreing them as much as he use dot

[feld]

Based on the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, typically ships fought in a broadside line, which the ISD is built for. It'd be even better if it was top towards the enemy, as all of the heavy guns and most light guns could be brought to bear. While fighter attacks work well, that's because of AI not paying enough attention to them, instead of being a really good tactic, leaving broadside (or topside) as the best method.

The fact that fighter/bomber attacks work well isn't due to ignoreing them.. not completely... that just makes them MORE effective.. the fact they work well is also based on that turbos can't effectively target small craft.. AI ignoreing them is just a big bouns.. though with zarkis's AI I notice him not ignoreing them as much as he use dot

The apparent lack of dedicated anti-starfighter weaponry on many of the big ships doesn't help (and never made much sense to me). The main reason I was so happily surprised by the Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser was that the quad lasers eat starfighters quite nicely. Never expected that out of that ship. Made me wonder if the ISD and Mon Cal (at least in later variants maybe) might mount more anti-fighters lasers.

r/
feld

[muneyoshi]

Based on the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, typically ships fought in a broadside line, which the ISD is built for. It'd be even better if it was top towards the enemy, as all of the heavy guns and most light guns could be brought to bear. While fighter attacks work well, that's because of AI not paying enough attention to them, instead of being a really good tactic, leaving broadside (or topside) as the best method.

The fact that fighter/bomber attacks work well isn't due to ignoreing them.. not completely... that just makes them MORE effective.. the fact they work well is also based on that turbos can't effectively target small craft.. AI ignoreing them is just a big bouns.. though with zarkis's AI I notice him not ignoreing them as much as he use dot

The apparent lack of dedicated anti-starfighter weaponry on many of the big ships doesn't help (and never made much sense to me). The main reason I was so happily surprised by the Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser was that the quad lasers eat starfighters quite nicely. Never expected that out of that ship. Made me wonder if the ISD and Mon Cal (at least in later variants maybe) might mount more anti-fighters lasers.

r/
feld

well.. realisticly you probably would have done that.. atleast to some degree.. but canoniclly these ships never had normal laser turrents mounted.. the problem was described as being that the turbo turrents couldn't turn fast enough to track something as small and fast as a fighter/bomber.. but you're right.. if I was designing those ships.. or had any say in it I certainly would have put quads up on them.. even if just a couple to offer SOME degree of protection (this not meaning designing as PR has done but going along with the hypotical if these ships were real.. PR has done a great job keeping them as close to canon as possible on this note as this type of thing is quite clear in canon).. now I know this is the reason these ships have fighter squads.. to provide a fighter cover. This is also why I tend to use resclusants.. they have even more lasers then a dreadnaught HC.. them and assualt frigates

[Kaleb Graff]

I don't think that the imps at least took fighters seriously until after Yavin. Then they produced the Lancer.

[feld]

I don't think that the imps at least took fighters seriously until after Yavin. Then they produced the Lancer.

Absolutely agree with that. In fact, playing PR has given me a new appreciation of just how arrogant Imperial warship design really was.

[Tropical Bob]

I always just use the garrisoned fighter squadrons to protect me from enemy fighters. I don't really like using the Dreadnaught- or Recuscant-classes, because of the obvious lack of heavy weaponry. Yes, they have some, but not enough for my taste. They just don't stand up to the heavier ship classes like the Imperial-class and whatnot.