The Hangar

[FrozenPhoenix32]

Nelowulf

FrozenPhoenix32

Deep_insanity

Ships that I've always fancied are the TIE interceptor and TIE advanced fighter.

Its all about the Defender man.

pfft. Avenger.

Squadron of 6 each.

Cale:

You didn't like TIEs? Come on, they were bitchin! They were so...orderly.  

[Sol Walker]

Oh the Pilots were well disiplined, but the TIE just isn't a very pilot friendly ship  

[FrozenPhoenix32]

I guess not...no landing.  

[Sol Walker]

or shields, or missles, or life support, or good visibility, or ejection seats...  

[Sol Walker]

I do hear they have a great sound system as a standard feature.  

[Nelowulf]

Ties are like corvettes. All are cool, but some you won't ever see me flying in.  

[AFK Masturbating]

Nelowulf

Ties are like corvettes. All are cool, but some you won't ever see me flying in.

Amusing that you mention corvettes. mrgreen Mark Hamill was once in a movie caled "Corvette Summer", between ANH and ESB, if I'm not mistaken.  

[Nelowulf]

Angelic Celestia

Nelowulf

Ties are like corvettes. All are cool, but some you won't ever see me flying in.

Amusing that you mention corvettes. mrgreen Mark Hamill was once in a movie caled "Corvette Summer", between ANH and ESB, if I'm not mistaken.

I only mention corvettes because my family owns one... a 50th anniversary one that has 0 miles on it.

Totally collector's item. In 25... 50 years.. can you imagine the price it'll fetch?  

[Nospai Deathous]

if it survives WW III, quite a lot, unless it's illegal to use due to the worsening gas situation.

speaking of which, what do land vehicles like the AT-ST and Juggernaut run on anyway??

and by the way, ties do have particle shields and ray shields to resist microdebris and radiation and crap, but they're not powerful enough to resist laser or turbolaser energy. and i'm only saying that cause if they didn't they'd be pointless.  

[Nelowulf]

Nospai Deathous

if it survives WW III, quite a lot, unless it's illegal to use due to the worsening gas situation.

speaking of which, what do land vehicles like the AT-ST and Juggernaut run on anyway??

and by the way, ties do have particle shields and ray shields to resist microdebris and radiation and crap, but they're not powerful enough to resist laser or turbolaser energy. and i'm only saying that cause if they didn't they'd be pointless.

They are still pointless though. If shields can't block a laser, then they really have no point. I mean, everything has a natural shielding against microdebris and stuff, but the point of shielding is to be able to defend against more than just that.


and the AT-ST and things prolly run on fuel, like the Xwings. Perhaps another form of Tibanna gas that lasts a long time?  

[Nospai Deathous]

tibanna gas? why?

and also, there is a point; lasers (essentially blasters) and turbolasers (essentially turboblasters) have a lot more energy than debris or radiation. however, radiation and debris are kind of omnipresent in space, and are easily shielded against with energy fields. they require less energy to defend against deadly forces.

if you think about it, even an x-wing's shields aren't too effective... certainly didn't defend them from shots above the death star. so why waste energy, mass, and space on something that depends on something that can't effectively combat high energy projectiles? you need low energy shields though, or the ship would be destroyed/its pilot made ill as soon as it got into space in certain areas, especially a battlefield or near a star.  

[Nelowulf]

tibanna gas perhaps when manufactured differently could create a fuel. Of course, your guess is as good as mine, but if its good enough for blasters, why not an engine?


also, the point of the shield is to protect. But a more powerful shield that can defend against the so needed "deadly forces" is somehting a bit more wanted in combat.

I mean, garunteed, one can use a gladius by itself, but why not have a shield with it, like it was designed for?

and the xwing's shields are effective. The problem with the DS run is that many were gunned down in the trentch, where they were sitting ducks. No maneuverability, no defense.

Also, if one also notes, that it doesn't matter the amount of shielding one has, one must be able to put that advantage to good use. Like I saw in one of the manuals for starcraft once,

"While these upgrades may be costly and expensive, don't expect a single soldier to be vastly superior. But when applied in force and numbers, these upgrades will definately appear".

Meaning that while the shields themselves may not be able to defend against repeated blasts, a shield that can take several hits before faultering will save the life of a pilot whom, without the shield, would die in the exact number of hits.

So while an unskilled pilot may have his shields wasted quickly and prove nothing, another may be confident that one or two hits which would have killed him would instead have only put a slight pressure on the shields.

When I said that shields have no point, i mean the shields past the natural barrier. I mean, if a shield can only defend against debris on a combat ship, then it is much like sending a warrior on the battlefield unarmored. While they may be able to move much faster without hindrance, they are also suseptable to much more injury.  

[Nospai Deathous]

but you're forgetting a key advantage of the tie; maneuverability. like the scottish.. they'd attack without armor right?

armor does provide protection, but it limits maneuverability. they are pretty fair trade-offs; if you're maneuverable you're less likely to get hit due to the fact you're harder to hit. if you're armored, you're less maneuverable and easier to hit, but are capable of taking more damage. again cost becomes a deciding factor. if you only want to spend x amount on each fighter, it's more effective to make a bunch of lightly armed armed fast ones than well-armed ships with reasonable speeds in fewer numbers. want evidence? WWII. the germans had superior machineguns, tanks, and other war technologies (they had relatively effective missiles [considering the time period] and were developing jets and flying saucers and more rockets), but we simply swamped them with great numbers of simpler weapons. we were more cost effective than they, and we won.

so if you can provide a similar advantage (avoiding destruction [via maneuverability]) with less cost, then why not do it, especially if you don't care about individual pilots (though they were well trained) and use them in vastly superior numbers?  

[Nelowulf]

Why do you continue trying to argue? I'm not disagreeing with anything! I know maneuverability is partially key to defense, but I've yet to see a TIE fighter and Xwing with the exact same pilot take the same amount of abuse with the TIE lasting longer.

Yes, the TIE is extremely nimble, but so is the X-wing. They are on equal par, and yet, the X-wing is much better for pilot survivability rate.

I'm not saying for one damn instant that a TIE with shields is good, I'm simply stating that saying it has shields is a waste of breath. The shields are too weak to provide any defense for combat purposes. Not that they don't have them. Its just that their defense is so crucially minimal that its not even worth stating they have shields.

And actually, there is such a thing as scottish armor. Everyone thinks they wore their kilts into battle, but that's not exactly true. Most people envision what the celts call the "woad raider". These were nimble guerrila like warriors who were mostly farmers, and didn't have the resources to make weapons and armor. However, many scottish kings did have their own suits.

oh, and the german thing, You do realize that not only did we swamp them, but we also had something called "fresh troops" and "total resource allocation" to provide? America didn't enter the war until 2 (or is it 3) years after the war started. By that time, everyone was fatigued. Not to mention, we had nothing to fear by committing to total war, so we did. But we didn't really have simpler weapons. Ours were about as complex, but far more inefficient (machinegun wise).

A better example would have been the Russians against the Germans.  

[Nospai Deathous]

are you telling me the MG-42 was superior to the browning? it could rattle off >1000 rounds per minute... was fairly easily transported and much easier to change barrels with (no handle on the browning?!) and it was pretty damn accurate if you didn't melt the barrel, which was an inevitability for both weapons.

our most efficient/effective weapon was the M1 Garand. it was good weight, really dependable, and a good all-around rifle. perhaps the mustang and some bombers could be listed as well, but comparing to them what the germans were almost going to put into production, they were vastly inferior.. they still used propellors!!

and look at our tanks. shermans. it's almost a joke, pitting a sherman against a king tiger.. but say they gang up, they have a chance; and they were comparable to the ties, maneuverable, pretty fast, and very lightly armored.

now imagine some 10 shermans per 1 king tiger. they'll get taken out, but the shermans will probably survive ultimately despite losses.

as for the US forces... of course they weren't exhausted, and they wouldn't be, because we had /so damn many/ troops. it's like the whole country was a giant soldier factory; same with mass production of ginormous ships and tanks and trucks and ginormous planes and guns. very much like the empire.

i didn't know that about the scotts, so i concede that to you. however, the x-wing is by no means as fast or maneuverable as the tie. it uses a drastically less efficient method of propulsion and has greater mass.

my point is that shields for the ties aren't necessary. of course they can be taken out if they get hit once; but the trick is hitting them!