Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Interesting analogy regarding the Actis Interceptor
Page 1 of 5
admiraljz
Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:08 am
#1
Despite the fact of valid arguments pertaining to immersiveness in the current timeline, there have been a lot of complaints regarding ships such as the Actis Interceptor being "old," "outdated," and that such an "old" ship should not be able to compete against modern technology.
I'd like to point to the US Navy/ Airforce for a bit of an analogy.
Our current timeline is running somewhere approximately 21 years after the events of ROTS. The Actis Interceptor, featured in ROTS, was not seen in AOTC, set 3 years earlier, so let's place an age-range of 21-24 years for the spaceframe design.
Let's look at some US Military fighter jets for comparison.
Although it's being replaced since 2002 by the F/A 18 Hornet, the F-14 Tomcat is still in service. Date of first service: 1970. Age: 35 years.
The F-16 Falcon continues to be a staple of air forces around the world, and is also still used by the US Military. Date of first service: around 1976. Age: 29 years.
Obviously the newer, more advanced fighters are typically superior to these two, but it's clear since they're still in service by arguably the greatest military in the world, that they have not outlived their usefulness at 30+ years of service. They're certainly not so outdated as to be antique and vulnerable in combat.
I don't therefore don't see the argument about the age of the Actis vs it's combat capabilities being particularly valid. Nor do I view any argumentthat the more modern TIE Fighter should be more effective very compelling. The Emperor decreed from the beginning of the Civil War that it would be one of attrition. TIEs had no shields, hyperdrive, or life support. They were mass-produced ships for a war of attrition. The Actis, on the other hand, would seem to have been a well-built ship designed with Jedi in mind, and made in much smaller numbers.
Before the arguments and accusations start: no, I do not fly an Actis. I have flown an Actis, and one of my 8 charcters owns one, but I haven't been behind the stick of one since ROTW came out. I, too, am in the same camp as those who are pushing for more iconic content relative to the timeline (to those who failed reading comprehension in English 101, I want to see more X-Wings and TIEs than "relic" ships be competetive in the game).
So it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, the Actis certainly isn't an outdated ship that should perform a much lower level than current-technology ships. In fact, one could argue that at this time of large-scale warfare, with an Empire mainly interested in disposable ships and pilots, and the Rebellion working with much fewer resources, that the Actis should maybe be superior to any ship other than maybe the A-Wing.
But the Actis is available, and what's available, players will use. As long as the Actis remains the best maneuvering ship with enough mass to pack a pretty mean punch (I've seen them outfitted with level 10 engines and level 7 guns - combined with the fact they can be absolutely miserable to hit, there's no question why they dominate PvP in most instances), it's going to be a common sight in space PvP.
The problem with the Actis' perfomance-for-mass-and-profile is best described when comparing it in battle against the X-Wing Space Superiority fighter. I choose the X-Wing because, contrary to those who argue about it's wingtip weapon deployment and lack of weapon convergence, the thing is a flying shotgun. With three weapons mounted in six locations, firing all weapons simultaneously while maneuvering, creates a scatter-pattern fire that is pretty much gonna hit anything. I find the X-Wing to be the best choice for hitting smaller targets like the Actis, because it's hard to miss anything with that much fire covering such a large area.
However, the X-Wing is a larger ship, and is rightly a larger, more vulnerable target to a smaller, faster ship. Against a standard TIE fighter, even in PvP, this isn't such a big deal. The X-Wing can carry shields sufficient to absorb a couple good shots from the typical loadout on a TIE. But the Actis has much more mass. While it's darting all over the place like a speck of space dust caught in a jetstream, it's also packing two level 7 or better guns. In PvP, that's a lot of firepower. Enough to waste most ships with a single strike (more about Actis hunting in POB ships at a later date). The closest non-ROTW ship to compare it to is the A-Wing, which may have an excellent engine but be restricted to, at most, one level 7 gun (due to mass restrictions).
If anything, I would argue that the Actis should, if anything, have it's mass reduced to 60,000 (5,000 less than A-Wing). This would still allow Actis Pilots to equip their ships with fantastic level 8 or 10 engines and continue darting all over creation, frustrating opposing gunners. That's the ship's role. But with that much mass to work with, firepower would be sacrificed, further defining the Actis' role to one similar to the A-Wing. The only valid argument against the performance of the Actis, at this point, is that it is a little too multi-role for it's size. In short, it's about the perfect ship to use for anything. I would much rather see TIEs and X-Wings be the ship of choice for most situations, with ships like the Actis and the A-Wing defined to more restricted roles.
So, in summation to stem the arguments from those with the reading comprehension of a 5 year old: I do not fly an Actis, do not particularly have a problem flying against them, do not feel a 21-24 year old ship should be that out-dated against modern starfighter, but do agree that it would be better to see more iconic-timeline ships making up the majority. The solution I feel is best is to reduce the mass of the Actis to about 60,000 (5,000 less than a typical A-Wing). Many FOTM Actis pilots would abandon them at that point, hopefully in favor of a TIE Figher or an X-Wing.
Anyone not of the "OMG U JEEDAI FANBOI/ JEEDAI HATER/ FOTM D00D" crowd, I welcome your comments. Discussion is good, and constructive, engaging discussions even better.
DeepFatFryer
Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:29 am
#2
With 60k mass this ship would still knock the socks off most things. TIE interceptor, Khiraxz, for example.
Simply put, a ship with Pitch 600 Yaw 600 Roll 300, is going to take a hell of a lot to balance against everything. The only ships that had those stats before the disaster that is RotW were 12k mass.
Simply put, a ship with Pitch 600 Yaw 600 Roll 300, is going to take a hell of a lot to balance against everything. The only ships that had those stats before the disaster that is RotW were 12k mass.
admiraljz
Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:12 pm
#3
Nearro wrote:
Very well thought out and typed up comparison. I do agree that the Actis was built in extremely limited quantities, as a special order for the Jedi, so it should be far superior to most anything of the time.
The only flaw I see in your analogy, going off the timeline, is the fact that the current ships for any faction, especially those that, according to the timeline, are still being developed, are not in line with the F-16/14 to F/A-18/22 analogy. These "current" ships, that were the staple when JTL first came out, should, at least some of them, far outpreform the older ships. The A-wing, B-Wing(since it's still a prototype in the timeline), Oppressor (if you think of it as a project going on while the Defender is being developed), and the Advanced are all more recent "cutting edge" technologies.
The B-Wing makes up for maneuverability with firepower, that's no question. But, JTL isn't about firepower, when one hit from one level 9/10 gun can kill pretty much any player ship.
The A-Wing, while vastly superior to the other "original" ships, still lacks in comparison to an Actis, especially with the limitations of one gun mount and a larger profile.
The Oppressor is about as close to comparable as I've seen, exchanging some maneuverability and size for a big increase in firepower.
The Advanced is alose close, but the difference in hitbox size and mass do still make it inferior.
Now, while, of those ships, the TIEs are meant more as "mass produced" models instead of specialties, they are cutting-edge technology. When you get right down to it, you should be able to compare the cutting-edge of today vs the cutting edge of 20 years ago, and today's should win. The problem is, the Actis (and B-22, since it wasn't mentioned), are not designed with specific roles in mind. They are designed to cover just about everything, packing enough firepower to be a heavy hitting ship, while not suffering at all the penalties of that much firepower. The 4 I mentioned above all suffer those drawbacks. Where they gain in one, they loose in another, balancing out the equation very nicely. The Actis and B-22 toss in some heavy weight, offseting the balance that was there.
Now, I could fully understand them making ships with those stats, if they stuck a little closer to the truth behind them: They were specialty ships, built for specific people/groups. They were not supposed to be available to every pilot that wished to fly one, as they are in SWG. Any Tier 4 pilot that has done the mission can pilot a JSF. And, any Tier 4 pilot with at least 5 badges and 180k (Bloodfins price) can fly a B-22. Making that 180k to buy one is not hard at all, especially for a pilot. I can make that in a night easy of casual flying.
Taking that back to what you said, not every pilot in the world can fly a F-16/14, while I'm sure a ton would kill to. Those 2, the 14 more specifically, have always been my favorite planes around (well, aside from the A-10...something about a plane built around a gun that just makes me smile). Allowing anyone to pilot them would then take it to an analogy that was almost identical to SWG. Any pilot, any faction, as long as they meet the training requirement, can fly an Actis or B-22. Could you imagine what it would be if you could go take a class and then fly your very own F-14 around. Man, wouldn't that be nice. But, you can go take classes and fly a little Cessna. Ok...I'm taking this a bit too far.
In the end, the Actis and B-22 are a little out of the norm. If/When they get around to fixing JTL, these ships might have a little more ground to be arguable as comparable fighters. As it is, if you want to win in PvP, odds are you're best bet is in one of those 2. Unless, of course, you are going up against veterans. They will still knock you around good. But, stick one of those vets in a ship like that (good luck getting them to fly one regularly), and you'd really be in for a show, letting you see the full potential of something that powerful.
**Edit...damn quick typers:
SkiingSullustan wrote:
However, while F-14's are still in use in the military, the F-18 would have no problem smoking one in a head-to-head confrontation.
Here, I will have to disagree. An F-14 would still have far superior range with missles. Now, if they got into a close-range dogfight, sure, the F-18 would have no problem. But, the F-14, while good at it, isn't meant for close range dogfighting against a superiorly maneuverable plane. It's meant to see those pop off a missle at 100 miles, and not really worry much about it. I guess we can use the Actis -> X-Wing / F-18 -> F-14 analogy on that one. If an X-Wing sees an Actis coming at him, smack him with a missle. He's not going to beat him in a dogfight due to maneuverability. So use his firepower to his advantage and just don't let him get close. The problem with this is, by the time you get a missle lock on those quick little gnats, he's already blasting at you with both barrels. Missles, while very very powerful when they hit, have, at best, a very minimal range increase over guns. And, while you're trying to get a lock on him starting at 600m, he's already shooting at you at 540. And blaster shots travel a lot quicker then missles, so you're getting hit about the same time you're just setting your missle loose.
Message Edited by Nearro on 08-22-2005 03:04 PM
I think you're pretty much getting at the same things I was saying. I guess the main point of my post is that, at only 20-some years old, the Actis is definitely not an obsolete relic. But it does definitely need restriction to a particular role. Whether that's a mass decrease, a decrease to one weapon hardpoint, or both, your guess is as good as mine.
As far as the A-Wing is concened vs the Actis... it does pretty well. It doesn't have the same PYR accel that the Actis does, and is a little bigger, but can maneuver at full throttle without much, if any, loss in performance. I can often dogfight an Actis in my A-Wing at a faster speed, making up for my slightly bigger profile.
In all actuality, the best ship for taking out an Actis is probably a Nova Courier with a good crew and a killer level 10 engine. With our shields set to extreme front, we have about 7000 front shield protection and 2800 front armor. At half throttle (we're obviously moving slower than the Actis, but that doesn't matter because a ship that size is gonna get hit at any speed), and 1.4 PYR from my engine, I can keep the nose of my Nova always pointed at the Actis. If he hits us, the shields can hold 4-5 shots without shunting. Our overloaded cap is close to 3000 energy. And three IR2s bound to the same weapon group can get a lock REAL fast. We've absorbed as many as a dozen hits from an Actis in pvp before (and in that instance, my bottom gunner SOMEHOW managed to hit him while I was maneuvering through rolls, nearly crippling him in the process).
But yeah, there's a lack of "specialty" to the Actis, and especially the B-22, which comes a dime a dozen. Thankfully the JTL vets and serious PvPers generally stay away from those and the RGI. I've only come across one RGI in deep space, and after talking to the guy about howI failed to hit him with 15 consecutive shots from 100m while he was flying straight and I was right on his tail, he hasn't come back with it. There's usually an Actis floating around in there, but I see at least as many Firesprays in deepspace.
My all-time favorite PvP battle in deepspace has to be B-Wing vs Firespray. I fragged three Firesprays in a span of 20 mins a couple weeks ago. Two ships with big guns and big shields can come head-on and exchange some fire before one of them folds. Fortunately for me 4 guns > 2 guns
FIVER
Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:17 pm
#4
I think the analogy is flawed.....
People who say the Actis is an antique are wrong too.....but it shouldn't be able to compete against newer fighters. I think you cherry picked two planes......20-25 years is usually HUGE technologically....
Who'd win...WW1 biplanes versus WW2 P-38s? Those same P-38s versus Vietnam era Phantoms? Those same Phantoms against F-16s.......get my drift? all about the same time difference.
Also, the "updated parts" argument is flawed....put steatlh materials on a Phantom? never!....its angles and structure would make them useless. Put jet engines on a p-38?..the wings would break off.
Finally, the use of 35 or 40 year old fighters in our "greatest" navy/air force does not support your cause. It is a testament to the poor technology of our threat nations. Our country flies these craft becasue they don't have to fly newer ones! Our enemies are flying OLDER LESS ADVANCED planes. When the army canceled the Comanche helicopter project, they were not saying that the current Kiowas/Apaches were better then the Comanche, they were saying the Kiowas/Apaches are superior to the competition. We have not designed a new tank in 30 years either, because no nation has designed a tank superior to the M1 since its inception.....That's a key distinction that explains seemingly old technology.
Older ships have value. They can be deadly, but they should not be able to defeat a much newer ship, with a similar role/mission, when all else is equal. An old space superiority fighter SHOULD lose to a much newer space superiroity fighter.
I understand that this is a game. So realism be damned.......I want to fly my jedi starfighter like in the movie....so we have to let realism slide....just don't try to justify it with real world logic, because it will fail.
People who say the Actis is an antique are wrong too.....but it shouldn't be able to compete against newer fighters. I think you cherry picked two planes......20-25 years is usually HUGE technologically....
Who'd win...WW1 biplanes versus WW2 P-38s? Those same P-38s versus Vietnam era Phantoms? Those same Phantoms against F-16s.......get my drift? all about the same time difference.
Also, the "updated parts" argument is flawed....put steatlh materials on a Phantom? never!....its angles and structure would make them useless. Put jet engines on a p-38?..the wings would break off.
Finally, the use of 35 or 40 year old fighters in our "greatest" navy/air force does not support your cause. It is a testament to the poor technology of our threat nations. Our country flies these craft becasue they don't have to fly newer ones! Our enemies are flying OLDER LESS ADVANCED planes. When the army canceled the Comanche helicopter project, they were not saying that the current Kiowas/Apaches were better then the Comanche, they were saying the Kiowas/Apaches are superior to the competition. We have not designed a new tank in 30 years either, because no nation has designed a tank superior to the M1 since its inception.....That's a key distinction that explains seemingly old technology.
Older ships have value. They can be deadly, but they should not be able to defeat a much newer ship, with a similar role/mission, when all else is equal. An old space superiority fighter SHOULD lose to a much newer space superiroity fighter.
I understand that this is a game. So realism be damned.......I want to fly my jedi starfighter like in the movie....so we have to let realism slide....just don't try to justify it with real world logic, because it will fail.
SkiingSullustan
Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:20 pm
#5
Yes, I guess you're right about the F-14 and F-18 regarding their different strike capabilities, although in terms of Swg space combat, missles don't have much more range than a blaster does. Which leads me to think that the Devs should up the range on missles substantially, actually making them useful and not PvP suicide.
FIVER
Mon Aug 22, 2005 2:44 pm
#6
When I think about it, I think the only argument that would hold water would be to say the Empire purged itself of the Republic illuminati.....
The Empire was dark (not just ethically) times, like midevil Europe, where new engineers had to reinvent the wheel after societal collapse.....Universities emptied, organizations shuffled, etc etc....
So the X-wing was revolutionary for its brief time period, but it fails when compared to the "Golden Era" fighters........
The Empire was dark (not just ethically) times, like midevil Europe, where new engineers had to reinvent the wheel after societal collapse.....Universities emptied, organizations shuffled, etc etc....
So the X-wing was revolutionary for its brief time period, but it fails when compared to the "Golden Era" fighters........
Warmaker01
Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:58 pm
#7
FIVER wrote:
When I think about it, I think the only argument that would hold water would be to say the Empire purged itself of the Republic illuminati.....
The Empire was dark (not just ethically) times, like midevil Europe, where new engineers had to reinvent the wheel after societal collapse.....Universities emptied, organizations shuffled, etc etc....
So the X-wing was revolutionary for its brief time period, but it fails when compared to the "Golden Era" fighters........
Saying the Empire shunned technology is absurd, judging by the evidence given in the movies and various games and books.
* The Empire took up, built a Death Star. Granted, the research was done by the Geonosians, but the Empire built, staffed, and maintained it. And it worked. After its loss at Yavin IV, the Empire built ANOTHER one.
* The Empire, from its Old Republic roots, enlarged, empowered, and expanded the Navy. Ships were of the cutting edge design. Larger, more powerful, faster, and still capable of many roles; surpassing anything built before. So powerful were Imperator Class Star Destroyers that the appearance of one in a rebellious system was enough to put things in check, to make local leaders think twice. Then came the Executor Class Star Destroyers. You can say that the TIE corps was disposeable, with enough evidence to back that claim up, but the Imperial Navy was the most cutting edge and most powerful of the armed forces of the Empire.
* In the books of the EU, the Empire is famous for developing cutting edge, powerful weapons that the Alliance / New Republic must somehow (actually, since they're the goodguys, WILL) overcome. In the X-Wing series, we see the TIE Avenger, TIE Defender, and Missile Boats. In some older games, we see the TIE Phantom / V-38 (Stealth capable). Then there's the large ships from the "Dark Empire" comics, the Sovereign and Eclipse Classes, surpassing in power the Executor Class. These 2 classes even have a smaller, advanced version of the Death Star Laser. Then there's the Darktroopers from the Jedi Knight series (pay no heed to the discombobulated DTs in SWG).
* Groundtroops even had refinements in equipment over the Old Republic, comparably to the Clone Wars. The Clonetroopers became the Stormtroopers. Armor refinements had been gradually introduced, which can be seen in the Prequels, culminating in the famous ones of the Original Trilogy. Weapons progressed... the E11 replaced the DC-15 Rifle and Carbines. The T21 is placed as the Heavy Rifle of the Empire. Then there's the AT-ST which surpasses any of the reconaissance and light support walkers the Republic had. Then there's the AT-AT, which is practically impervious.
The Empire had undertaken more massive, highly advanced projects, simultaneously, and in its short history, that even the Old Republic in any point in its history ever did. Prove me wrong in that!
Message Edited by Warmaker01 on 08-22-2005 06:00 PM
"If they can be fooled, they can be killed."
ViperWolf
Mon Aug 22, 2005 6:30 pm
#8
My only problem with the Actis is its mass. Its a cockpit with wings for crying out loud! Isn't it common sense that a larger ship (A-Wing is longer and thicker) would have more mass? And even if the Actis did have 90k mass, wouldn't nearly 80-90% of that 90k be the freaking cockpit ball? It just doesn't make sense. The Actis is smaller than the A-Wing, therefore it should have less mass. Im actually okay with the YPR values of the ship - due to the "Golden Age" of fighters argument, and if the mass was adjusted to less than 65k, Im sure most everyone else would be too.
Ducimus
Mon Aug 22, 2005 7:07 pm
#9
I dont think timeline is a good argument for or against anything in SWG. As it clearly does not adhere to any one timeline. Nor did i ever consider the age of a ship a good argument for or against the Actis.
Age and timeline is purely fictional. You can say whatever you want to fill in any holes. What does matter is the here and now, and what is acutaully in play. I finally got off my lazy arse and did the actis quest about 4 days ago. My first trip up in that thing, and i could see why ppl zealously guard this ship and fear for its nerfing. Its TOO damn good. I'll be the first to admit, its a joy to fly, but its just too good.
Age and timeline is purely fictional. You can say whatever you want to fill in any holes. What does matter is the here and now, and what is acutaully in play. I finally got off my lazy arse and did the actis quest about 4 days ago. My first trip up in that thing, and i could see why ppl zealously guard this ship and fear for its nerfing. Its TOO damn good. I'll be the first to admit, its a joy to fly, but its just too good.
Halyn
Mon Aug 22, 2005 10:01 pm
#10
Ducimus wrote:
I dont think timeline is a good argument for or against anything in SWG. As it clearly does not adhere to any one timeline. Nor did i ever consider the age of a ship a good argument for or against the Actis.
Age and timeline is purely fictional. You can say whatever you want to fill in any holes. What does matter is the here and now, and what is acutaully in play. I finally got off my lazy arse and did the actis quest about 4 days ago. My first trip up in that thing, and i could see why ppl zealously guard this ship and fear for its nerfing. Its TOO damn good. I'll be the first to admit, its a joy to fly, but its just too good.
/agree
I was one of the first people in my guild who went Imperial for a day or two to grab an Actis. It's a joy to fly, yes--and most of my PvP kills have been in it. A lot of Imp pilots have learned to either avoid that red-and-black Actis or use missiles on it. Unfortunately...it is too good. It needs to be toned down. As much as I love it, and as deadly as I am in it, I can't deny that fact.
SkiingSullustan
Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:57 am
#11
I completely agree with most of this. However, while F-14's are still in use in the military, the F-18 would have no problem smoking one in a head-to-head confrontation. Now, if we're comparing the F-14 to the Actis, andthe F-18 to the X-Wing, then why isn't the Actis still in service somewhere in one of the two militarys. You would think that the Empire would want at least some form of starfighter to combat threats such as Rouge Squadron, instead of trying to improve on an obsolete design (the Tie Fighter). What I mean is, why would the empire keep upgrading its Tie designs (Tie Fighter > Tie Intercepter > Ect.) when it could just use the Actis?
And I agree that the X-Wing, being aRebel starfighter,is in service inmilitarythat is short on rescources. But, I thought that the X-Wingdesign was taken fromIncom engineers that defected from the Empire, so wouldn'tthey havehad the rescources of theEmpire to design the X-Wing?Or maybe they designed it after defecting? Anyhow, Iagree that the Actis is to powerful for the current timeline. And I think your proposal to lower its mass is awesome.I think theActis should be on par with the X-Wing at most, (not in yaw, pitch, ect., butjust balanced in head-on-head), and shouldn't be able to defeat an A-Wingwithout some luck.Thats my two cents, and to clarify, this was meant to support your post.
So hopefully aDev will see this post soon.
Nearro
Tue Aug 23, 2005 12:57 am
#12
Very well thought out and typed up comparison. I do agree that the Actis was built in extremely limited quantities, as a special order for the Jedi, so it should be far superior to most anything of the time.
The only flaw I see in your analogy, going off the timeline, is the fact that the current ships for any faction, especially those that, according to the timeline, are still being developed, are not in line with the F-16/14 to F/A-18/22 analogy. These "current" ships, that were the staple when JTL first came out, should, at least some of them, far outpreform the older ships. The A-wing, B-Wing(since it's still a prototype in the timeline), Oppressor (if you think of it as a project going on while the Defender is being developed), and the Advanced are all more recent "cutting edge" technologies.
The B-Wing makes up for maneuverability with firepower, that's no question. But, JTL isn't about firepower, when one hit from one level 9/10 gun can kill pretty much any player ship.
The A-Wing, while vastly superior to the other "original" ships, still lacks in comparison to an Actis, especially with the limitations of one gun mount and a larger profile.
The Oppressor is about as close to comparable as I've seen, exchanging some maneuverability and size for a big increase in firepower.
The Advanced is alose close, but the difference in hitbox size and mass do still make it inferior.
Now, while, of those ships, the TIEs are meant more as "mass produced" models instead of specialties, they are cutting-edge technology. When you get right down to it, you should be able to compare the cutting-edge of today vs the cutting edge of 20 years ago, and today's should win. The problem is, the Actis (and B-22, since it wasn't mentioned), are not designed with specific roles in mind. They are designed to cover just about everything, packing enough firepower to be a heavy hitting ship, while not suffering at all the penalties of that much firepower. The 4 I mentioned above all suffer those drawbacks. Where they gain in one, they loose in another, balancing out the equation very nicely. The Actis and B-22 toss in some heavy weight, offseting the balance that was there.
Now, I could fully understand them making ships with those stats, if they stuck a little closer to the truth behind them: They were specialty ships, built for specific people/groups. They were not supposed to be available to every pilot that wished to fly one, as they are in SWG. Any Tier 4 pilot that has done the mission can pilot a JSF. And, any Tier 4 pilot with at least 5 badges and 180k (Bloodfins price) can fly a B-22. Making that 180k to buy one is not hard at all, especially for a pilot. I can make that in a night easy of casual flying.
Taking that back to what you said, not every pilot in the world can fly a F-16/14, while I'm sure a ton would kill to. Those 2, the 14 more specifically, have always been my favorite planes around (well, aside from the A-10...something about a plane built around a gun that just makes me smile). Allowing anyone to pilot them would then take it to an analogy that was almost identical to SWG. Any pilot, any faction, as long as they meet the training requirement, can fly an Actis or B-22. Could you imagine what it would be if you could go take a class and then fly your very own F-14 around. Man, wouldn't that be nice. But, you can go take classes and fly a little Cessna. Ok...I'm taking this a bit too far.
In the end, the Actis and B-22 are a little out of the norm. If/When they get around to fixing JTL, these ships might have a little more ground to be arguable as comparable fighters. As it is, if you want to win in PvP, odds are you're best bet is in one of those 2. Unless, of course, you are going up against veterans. They will still knock you around good. But, stick one of those vets in a ship like that (good luck getting them to fly one regularly ), and you'd really be in for a show, letting you see the full potential of something that powerful.
**Edit...damn quick typers:
Here, I will have to disagree. An F-14 would still have far superior range with missles. Now, if they got into a close-range dogfight, sure, the F-18 would have no problem. But, the F-14, while good at it, isn't meant for close range dogfighting against a superiorly maneuverable plane. It's meant to see those pop off a missle at 100 miles, and not really worry much about it. I guess we can use the Actis -> X-Wing / F-18 -> F-14 analogy on that one. If an X-Wing sees an Actis coming at him, smack him with a missle. He's not going to beat him in a dogfight due to maneuverability. So use his firepower to his advantage and just don't let him get close. The problem with this is, by the time you get a missle lock on those quick little gnats, he's already blasting at you with both barrels. Missles, while very very powerful when they hit, have, at best, a very minimal range increase over guns. And, while you're trying to get a lock on him starting at 600m, he's already shooting at you at 540. And blaster shots travel a lot quicker then missles, so you're getting hit about the same time you're just setting your missle loose.
The only flaw I see in your analogy, going off the timeline, is the fact that the current ships for any faction, especially those that, according to the timeline, are still being developed, are not in line with the F-16/14 to F/A-18/22 analogy. These "current" ships, that were the staple when JTL first came out, should, at least some of them, far outpreform the older ships. The A-wing, B-Wing(since it's still a prototype in the timeline), Oppressor (if you think of it as a project going on while the Defender is being developed), and the Advanced are all more recent "cutting edge" technologies.
The B-Wing makes up for maneuverability with firepower, that's no question. But, JTL isn't about firepower, when one hit from one level 9/10 gun can kill pretty much any player ship.
The A-Wing, while vastly superior to the other "original" ships, still lacks in comparison to an Actis, especially with the limitations of one gun mount and a larger profile.
The Oppressor is about as close to comparable as I've seen, exchanging some maneuverability and size for a big increase in firepower.
The Advanced is alose close, but the difference in hitbox size and mass do still make it inferior.
Now, while, of those ships, the TIEs are meant more as "mass produced" models instead of specialties, they are cutting-edge technology. When you get right down to it, you should be able to compare the cutting-edge of today vs the cutting edge of 20 years ago, and today's should win. The problem is, the Actis (and B-22, since it wasn't mentioned), are not designed with specific roles in mind. They are designed to cover just about everything, packing enough firepower to be a heavy hitting ship, while not suffering at all the penalties of that much firepower. The 4 I mentioned above all suffer those drawbacks. Where they gain in one, they loose in another, balancing out the equation very nicely. The Actis and B-22 toss in some heavy weight, offseting the balance that was there.
Now, I could fully understand them making ships with those stats, if they stuck a little closer to the truth behind them: They were specialty ships, built for specific people/groups. They were not supposed to be available to every pilot that wished to fly one, as they are in SWG. Any Tier 4 pilot that has done the mission can pilot a JSF. And, any Tier 4 pilot with at least 5 badges and 180k (Bloodfins price) can fly a B-22. Making that 180k to buy one is not hard at all, especially for a pilot. I can make that in a night easy of casual flying.
Taking that back to what you said, not every pilot in the world can fly a F-16/14, while I'm sure a ton would kill to. Those 2, the 14 more specifically, have always been my favorite planes around (well, aside from the A-10...something about a plane built around a gun that just makes me smile). Allowing anyone to pilot them would then take it to an analogy that was almost identical to SWG. Any pilot, any faction, as long as they meet the training requirement, can fly an Actis or B-22. Could you imagine what it would be if you could go take a class and then fly your very own F-14 around. Man, wouldn't that be nice. But, you can go take classes and fly a little Cessna. Ok...I'm taking this a bit too far.
In the end, the Actis and B-22 are a little out of the norm. If/When they get around to fixing JTL, these ships might have a little more ground to be arguable as comparable fighters. As it is, if you want to win in PvP, odds are you're best bet is in one of those 2. Unless, of course, you are going up against veterans. They will still knock you around good. But, stick one of those vets in a ship like that (good luck getting them to fly one regularly
), and you'd really be in for a show, letting you see the full potential of something that powerful.**Edit...damn quick typers:
SkiingSullustan wrote:
However, while F-14's are still in use in the military, the F-18 would have no problem smoking one in a head-to-head confrontation.
Here, I will have to disagree. An F-14 would still have far superior range with missles. Now, if they got into a close-range dogfight, sure, the F-18 would have no problem. But, the F-14, while good at it, isn't meant for close range dogfighting against a superiorly maneuverable plane. It's meant to see those pop off a missle at 100 miles, and not really worry much about it. I guess we can use the Actis -> X-Wing / F-18 -> F-14 analogy on that one. If an X-Wing sees an Actis coming at him, smack him with a missle. He's not going to beat him in a dogfight due to maneuverability. So use his firepower to his advantage and just don't let him get close. The problem with this is, by the time you get a missle lock on those quick little gnats, he's already blasting at you with both barrels. Missles, while very very powerful when they hit, have, at best, a very minimal range increase over guns. And, while you're trying to get a lock on him starting at 600m, he's already shooting at you at 540. And blaster shots travel a lot quicker then missles, so you're getting hit about the same time you're just setting your missle loose.
Message Edited by Nearro on 08-22-2005 03:04 PM
Washell
Tue Aug 23, 2005 4:25 am
#13
Analogies are nice, if they are correct.
F-14 is the navy'sair superiority fighter, F-18 is the navy's multi-role fighter/bomber. Airforce has respectively the F-15 and F-16 in these rolls. The F-15 is being phased out in favor of the F-22, the others will be replaced by the JSF (joint strike fighter), with the F-18 temporarily replacing the F-14 untill enough JSF's are made.
There are no 20 to 30 year old fighter planes in service. The G-forces they pull produce such a stress on the airframe that they don't pass inspection within a limited amount of years. It gets dismantled, components will be inspected, refurbished and used as spare parts. Only the basic design lasts 30 years.
Now back to Star Wars.
Pre clone-war/civil war the republic was the biggest, wealthiest political body. They had no army, so no development of military equipment. Anakin tinkered with his delta-7. The company took his tinkering, worked with him and turned out the ETA-2. The ETA-2 wasn't a limited production run to keep up with the speed Anakin thrashes them. A full complement of 192 ETA-2's was on board of each destroyer. We can only guess how many troops and squadrons were based on the millions of planets. In short, more ETA-2's were build then we've built planes since the wright flyer.
That said, a cockpit bulb and 2 wings shouldn't have 90k mass.
Page 1 of 5