View Full Version : X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter (not the game!!!!)

7 June 2007, 03:20 PM
Ok, I've got one here. Has anyone played any SW game lately and slaughtered TIEs with X-wings? How about watching Episode IV lately? I noticed in almost every game/book X-wings are way more powerful than TIEs and slaughter them in masses, but in A New Hope, the X-Wings were exterminated by TIEs. Why do you think this is? It seems to me to be a case of the rebels won in the movie so their equipment *must* be better. The TIEs obvious advantage over X-Wings appears to have fallen by the wayside. Yes, X-wings have shields, stronger weapons and more durable hulls, however people seem to forget that TIEs stats SHOULD be significatly faster and more manuverable than the X-wing.

7 June 2007, 03:35 PM
True, but the pilots of the rebel ships are generally better than the imperials, which does make up for the better maneuverability of the ties.

7 June 2007, 03:48 PM
I'd be willing to bet that the Rebel pilots did their share of slaughtering, too. We just don't see as much of that because the Rebels' objective was to get in, drop their torpedoes, and get out. Remember they were on a pretty tight timeline, too. They couldn't afford to say, "Okay, we're gonna wipe out these TIEs and then worry about the Death Star." They were too badly outnumbered to begin with.

7 June 2007, 08:43 PM
TIE's were supposed to have two advantages; two huge blaster cannons welded to the hull, and the fact that they were bloody screaming fast. You'll notice that even in the movies, one hit on a TIE will kill it, while some of the Rebel ships take several hits, even from Vader's TIE. It usually damages the ship rather than outright blowing it up (the heavy armor and shields DO come in handy some times), but they were so fast that they were really, really hard to hit. I mean, Luke and Han had trouble keeping off four.

So yes, I agree with you, Morningstar.

zappo inc
8 June 2007, 08:36 AM
yes indeed, Ties are waay awesome fighters, hence the rebellion's need to build the A-wing to counter them. the original x-wings held their own, but were outclassed in the speed and dodginess departments.

10 June 2007, 08:58 AM
Good points above and remember, Han was right, it was essentially a suicide mission. They were outnumbered potentially 1000's to one if the Empire wanted it and needed to make that run. They pointed their noses down the appropriate trench and went for it.

12 June 2007, 07:50 AM
it definately has to be the skill of the pilots, and knowing their machine. plus timeframes.

zappo inc
12 June 2007, 09:40 AM
I must disagree...there has grown a whole mythic fallacy surrounding Tie pilots and their supposed ineptitude. Let us remember that they are all clones of dear old Jango, and he seems to have been a capable pilot (he gave ObiWan a bloody good run for his money in Ep2).
And if the rebels pilots were as 'good' as has been claimed, why, oh why, did they not have a backup flight to cover the boys makin the torpedo run??! Why did they just fly in with no cover, pedal to the metal, and hope they could hit their target in time?
So, as far as piloting is concerned, I'd say it's nearly a dead heat; for ships, also a dead heat, with x and ties' various advantages balancing out their disadvantages. Thus, i'd venture to guess that the x's 'won' because they had a specific target, and Luke nailed it. (oh, and because it's possible the imperials only sent out an equivalent number of Ties - there didn't seem to be an overwhelming number of ties flitting around, as we see in Return of the Jedi)

12 June 2007, 06:11 PM
Since when did TIE pilots get to be clones of Jango?

12 June 2007, 06:29 PM
I suppose that some of the earlier TIE pilots might still have been Jango clones (as the ARC-170 and presumably V-wing pilots were) but by the time of EPIV I'd guess that, like stormtroopers, most were natural-born humans.
Just IMO :)

As for the question at hand, I'd say, as Ubiq said in his first post, that the rebels were heavily outnumbered and had to hit their main objective as quickly as possible. They didn't have enough numbers or time to whittle down the defending fighters...or even to cover their own bombers particularly well.

12 June 2007, 07:56 PM
Yeah, by EPIV most of the storm troopers were normal humans, and TIE pilots were well trained at places like Carida Academy. The problem was TIE pilots had terrible survivability because, like their ships, they were cheap to mass produce apperently so TIE pilots that survived were ususally very good. You can't just chalk it up too a difference in skill, since a lot of the rebellion's best pilots were former Imp pilots, like Tycho Celchu, Hobbie Klivian, Biggs Darklighter, Jake Farrell and Kasan Moor.

I think the real difference has to do with the ships themselves. X-Wings are a good deal more costly than TIEs because they consume greater amounts of fuel compaired to TIEs (since TIEs get some of their power from solar panels and are generally much shorter range fighters because of the lack of hyperdrive. Of course, this price difference means that X-Wings get to have shields, 4 laser cannons to the TIEs two and proton torps. TIEs have the advantage of greater speed and maneuverability over X-Wings, with atmospheric speeds of 1,200 km/h and 1,050 km/h respectively, although in atmosphere TIEs have huge yaw problems because of those big solar panels and the extreme turns the TIEs are known for in space can destroy the craft.

As proved by the real world Me 262, greater speed doesn't always win in a dog fight. Also, an interesting note from Wookieepedia: Although Expanded Universe material and also a speed chart used by the film crew of RotJ sets the speed of the TIE fighter to equal that of an X-wing, in ANH they are shown overtaking X-wings despite the latter "going in full throttle".

As too acuracy and all that, ususally the TIEs outnumbered X-Wings, even at the battle of Yavin (I know, we don't get too see more than Vader's personal squadron, but Wedge got 6 TIE kills so there had to be more than just those) and firing into an area where there are more unshielded allies than shielded enemies means you'd have to take extra care. To use the SWRPG stats, it's a -4 to attack rolls, I believe. Also at Yavin, when Vader took out those X-Wings, if I remember correctly, they had their shields double front (might have evened them out before that, I don't remember off the top of my head) making it easier to kill them.

12 June 2007, 09:27 PM
Yes, they were evened out by that time.

"The guns, they's stopped..."

12 June 2007, 09:43 PM
That's right, I remember now. I suppose then that the difference between that and normal X-Wing vs TIE duals is that Vader was in a TIE Advanced x1 (or Bright), which uses SFS L-s4 laser cannons rather than the normal L-s1s on a TIE Fighter, the Bright's advanced tracking system and the fact that it was flown by freaking Darth Vader.

zappo inc
13 June 2007, 09:15 AM
let's not confuse canonical info with speculative info - as far as the films are concerned, stormtroops et al are still jango clones.

It seems to me, to use modernity as an example, we have a case of f-14's (xwings) versus f-18's (ties). Which is better? Who can say? they fulfill their respective roles.

13 June 2007, 09:48 AM
It seems to me, to use modernity as an example, we have a case of f-14's (xwings) versus f-18's (ties). Which is better? Who can say? they fulfill their respective roles.

Might want to rethink the aircraft in the comparison there as that's actually a bad comparison .

In one fell swoop you have made the X-wing such a cost ineffective maintenance hog that it gets replaced by the more cost effective and comparable performance Tie series.

13 June 2007, 03:11 PM
let's not confuse canonical info with speculative info - as far as the films are concerned, stormtroops et al are still jango clones.

I think that's supposed to say "stormtroopers are all still..." in which case, I think you are wrong. We've wrangled over this on the forums a few times, but the movies show that they are NOT all Fett clones; the stormies are different heights. And from the books, most TIE pilots were recruits, like Han Solo.

But anyway, I would think that X-Wings are BETTER fighters. They have more guns, more armor, sheilds, hyperdrive, and life support. They are superior to TIE fighters (most of them, anyway). They're a little slower and a little less maneuverable, but they'll keep you alive longer than a TIE will. The only thing is, they are freaking expensive. The RCR has the X-Wing as 2 and a half times as expensive as a TIE, which is pretty significant. The Empire had such massive resources at their disposal, and a nearly unlimited supply of recriuts, that they could afford to lose ships and pilots. The Rebellion couldn't.

So, if you were to put an X-Wing against a TIE fighter, the X-wing would win (I've played the game, I know :P). However, 2 X-wings against 5 TIE's, and the Rebellion is going to be in trouble.

13 June 2007, 03:56 PM
Et al is latin for "and others", I think he meant storm troopers and TIE pilots, but you're right Fingon, there is evidence that the stormies weren't clones by Ep IV. I think the complaint was about primary vs secondary cannon, in which case the obvious example is not Han but Biggs, who in the movies is shown to have gone to the Imperial Academy as a pilot (same place Luke wanted to go).

Yeah, that's exactly what I was trying to get at, X-Wings are better fighters than TIEs at the expence of, well, expensive.

I don't know man, I'd take those odds. Angle the shields and get some torpedo locks at range and you could vape a few of them before the TIEs even got close enough to use their chin lasers. That sort of tactic is part of why Rogue Squadron was so effective. Suddenly, the odds look a lot better :hansolo:

13 June 2007, 06:05 PM
Et al is latin for "and others",

You know... you would think that knowing some Spanish and Greek would help with my latin. Apparently not :p.

I dunno... it would depend on who was flying. It could go either way... certainly, Rogue Squad against a few "red shirt" pilots is going to be easy picking, but if we were to put Obsidian Squadron against some X-wings, Id definitely be rooting for the Empire.

Besides, the Empire could make so freaking many of these that the Rebellion was always hopelessly outnumbered.

13 June 2007, 07:32 PM
Didn't han and biggs both go through imperial academies?

13 June 2007, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Fingon

You know... you would think that knowing some Spanish and Greek would help with my latin. Apparently not :p.

I dunno... it would depend on who was flying. It could go either way... certainly, Rogue Squad against a few "red shirt" pilots is going to be easy picking, but if we were to put Obsidian Squadron against some X-wings, Id definitely be rooting for the Empire.

Besides, the Empire could make so freaking many of these that the Rebellion was always hopelessly outnumbered.

You'd think, but it's really closer to Italian really.

Well yeah, it always depends on the skill of the perticular flyers involved. Elite squadrons either way change the odds.

Yeah, they were, but sometimes that's not an advantage. Like in a furball with more TIEs than X-Wings where the TIEs could easier accidently shoot eachother (One of Corran Horn's prefered tactics, as well as the basis of the Kettch Drill, as I recall).

And yes wolverine, they both went though Imperal Academies, but that Han did is never mentioned in the movie and the issue of cannon level came up.

13 June 2007, 10:00 PM
To my knowledge, there is no canonical source that states that stormtroopers et al. are Jango clones. There is certainly no proof of that in the films. At best, I'd say the films are inconclusive, which means that suggesting that TIE pilots, stormtroopers, or anybody else is just as speculative as saying that they are not.

Now, if there are canonical sources stating that stormtroopers are clones, I will gladly recant my position on that. I just haven't seen any.

13 June 2007, 10:24 PM
There's only one mention of clones in the original three (Obi Wan's comment about the clone wars) so that's a bit of a dead end. The only source that seems to have any substantial amount of information about the transition between the Clone Troopers and Storm Troopers is Battle Front 2's story line concerning the 501st, the last pure Fett Clone storm trooper unit, and I'm unsure of the cannonal status of the game. The Wookieepedia articles are somewhat conflicting. The article on cloning states that the clones were phased out in favor of recruits because of the accelerated aging process of the Kamino-made clones shortening their life expetancy, which seems to be the general perseption of the subject, however the article on clone troopers has this to say: "Ultimately, the cloning program that was used to produce almost 50 percent of the stormtrooper ranks was finally ended with the defeat of the Galactic Empire. After Palpatine and Vader's death, clones became increasingly rare and obsolete as the remnants of the Empire turned to birth-born recruits, both Human and non-Human alike." So take that as you will.

We do however know from The Declaration of a New Order that at the end of the clone war, the clone troopers did transition into being Storm Troopers from this line: "The clone troopers, now proudly wearing the name of Imperial stormtroopers, have tackled the dangerous work of fighting our enemies on the front lines. Many have died in their devotion to the Empire. Imperial citizens would do well to remember their example." -Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. It's an issue then of if in the next 20 or so years between that statement and Ep IV they were phased out, which seems to be the case, for the most part at least, or Thrawn's Spaarti clones wouldn't have been counted as anything unusal. Of course, this could be totally incorrect, but this is the best information I can find on it.

Back to the subject at hand though, which would you rather fly in the end, an X-Wing or a TIE Fighter?

14 June 2007, 05:17 AM
X-Wing. Just because it has shields. The thought of flying around in a thin-walled tin can like a TIE fighter while people are shooting at you is just a little scary.

Even in Episode IV, how many TIE fighters do you see surviving multiple hits? X-Wings were able to survive at least a little bit of a beating. TIE fighters are pretty much disposable.

14 June 2007, 08:44 AM
The thought of flying around in a thin-walled tin can like a TIE fighter while people are shooting at you is just a little scary.

I believe that's where the term "eggshell" came from. :)

If I had to choose between an X-Wing and a TIE Fighter, it would be the X-Wing. A TIE Fighter can only win out to an X-Wing if there are lots of them. Strength in numbers.

If I had my choice of TIE to fly, though, it would be the Interceptor. Their increased speed, maneuverability and firepower (not to mention supercool solar panels) could win in a head on dogfight of otherwise equal pilots, IMO. 'Course, shields would be nice... ;)

14 June 2007, 12:54 PM
If I had my choice of TIE to fly, though, it would be the Interceptor

TIE Avenger all the way. It has Shield AND hyperdrive. On a tie.

Actually... that's a good point. There are other TIE's besides the fighter kind... interceptors must have been pretty common, if episode VI is any indication.

And by all means, X-wings are by far superior craft. But that was not the point. I mean, Han and Luke had troble holding off four TIE's in the Falcon... TIE's are nothing to sneeze at. They are basically guns and engines with a cockpit and pilot duck tapped to them. They had the speed, firepower, and numbers to be a real threat to just about anything.

14 June 2007, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Fingon

TIE's are nothing to sneeze at.

Yeah, but be careful if you do. You might break it. ;)

14 June 2007, 05:48 PM
Yes, there are lots of kinds of TIE variants, although Starfighters, Bombers and Interceptors are the most common by far (Squints made up about 20% of the total imp navy star fighters post endor, according to Wookieepedia) but Avegers were extremely uncommon. Personally if I had to pick one from any TIE type it would be a TIE Defender, for obvious reasons, but stickly TIE Starfighter vs X-Wing then it would be X-Wing all the way.

Iain Kysler, Jedi Apprentice
17 June 2007, 12:14 PM
A couple of points here...

First, it is mentioned in X-wing book 1, Rogue Squadron, that the X-wings the Alliance sent up against the Death Star from Yavin had laser cannons that had been zeroed at a farther distance than usual. Think of dogfighting: The closer you get to your target with guns, the better the kill chance. So if you've got guns (multiple guns, I mean...I wouldn't want to go up against an A-10's 30mm cannon...) zeroed for ground attack at distance so that you don't fly into the ground during a strafing run (their distance was about...600 meters if I recall correctly, and normal X-wing guns are zeroed at 200 meters), and you get into a close-in dogfight with a more agile and numerically superior opponent, you're in trouble.

Second point (already mentioned): There was a time deadline. It doesn't matter how many of the TIEs you blow out of the sky or how many aces you've produced in one battle if the entire point of the battle is to protect the political leadership. That's like saying 'Okay, there are Soviet fighter-bombers all over coast coming towards D.C. I'm going to go for as many kills as I can' versus 'I'd better hit them at range and keep them from firing missiles and nuking the capital'. Maybe not quite an exact comparison, but close enough that you get the idea.

Third: Numbers. There were at least 3 or 4 times as many TIEs as there were Rebel fighters. Think about how many the Death Star must have carried, although the Death Star was prepared to fight entire fleets, rather than single-person fighters ("Or they'd have a tighter defense..."), and so probably weren't carrying as many fighters as they were bomber variants and the like.

Pilot quality: Not to demean the Rebellion, but at this stage its pilots weren't quite the legends they had been yet. There's a learning curve, and just based on the feel of the movie, I get the feeling that, although their pilots were experienced, they weren't really 'seasoned' yet. They got their pilots from various sources, vs. the Imperials who had a TIE Fighter training program and academies.

Fighter quality: Alright. X-wings have greater survivibility and firepower, but cost more, while TIEs can be mass-produced and have speed and maneuverability on their side. Placed into the situation listed above (where their guns aren't zeroed for dogfighting, they have to protect Y-wings, and they have to kill this massive target on a deadline with a tough shot), that's why they appear to get shellacked in Episode IV.

That's in my opinion, of course.

Two words for my favorite fighter: TIE Avenger. The Defender is a bit too much...and I've played X-wing, TIE Fighter, and X-wing vs. TIE Fighter. Gotta stick with the Avenger.

Again, just my opinion. Like this thread, by the way. Very nice.

17 June 2007, 03:52 PM
Two words for my favorite fighter: TIE Avenger. The Defender is a bit too much...and I've played X-wing, TIE Fighter, and X-wing vs. TIE Fighter. Gotta stick with the Avenger.

Heck yes you do. The only thing that comes close for me is the TIE Advanced.

Then again, my favorite starfighter is the X-wing. Go figure :p.

zappo inc
19 June 2007, 09:11 AM
pls, if ya could, remind me about the tie avenger...

19 June 2007, 01:29 PM
The TIE Avenger is sort of like a TIE Advanced, it's got hyperdrive, shields, 4 laser cannons, 2 warhead launchers (4 concussion missiles each), and great speed and menuverability. This makes it probably the closest analog to an X-Wing that the Imps have in terms of amarment, but it's actually got a hand up in several areas. Maarek Stele prefered it over the TIE Defender.

19 June 2007, 01:32 PM
It also has a beam weapon (according to XW v TF), and looks nearly identical to a Interceptor. Now THAT would be a nasty suprise... hit a TIE dead on and it keeps coming at you.

19 June 2007, 01:42 PM
Not really identical, it looks more like a TIE Advanced that an Interceptor because of it's elongated body, although the front wing cut outs are the same as the Interceptor, but it also has back cut outs. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/TIE_avenger

zappo inc
20 June 2007, 09:12 AM
and thanx fer the link, btw - very considerate.:)
So, jeez, avenger, defender or advanced: what's an ace to choose...?

20 June 2007, 09:18 AM
Not really identical, it looks more like a TIE Advanced that an Interceptor because of it's elongated body, although the front wing cut outs are the same as the Interceptor, but it also has back cut outs.

Hmm... maybe I was just remembering incorrectly. Strange.

In any case, they're my favorite TIE.

26 June 2007, 02:49 PM
*Shrug* From directly in front of it it would look like an Interceptor.

Still a pretty good craft though.

2 July 2007, 03:28 PM
Alright, this thread seems to have wandered a bit. I suppose I should have posted it in rants rather than here, but I wasnt trying to start another which is better argument. I have been playing several SW games lately and they have all made the same mistakes... the X-Wing and TIE are either the same stat model with different skins OR the X-Wing completely outclasses the TIE in all areas including speed and manueverablity. My point was that TIEs are more manauverable... One last thing... the cost comparison. Everyone here mentions that TIEs were made so they could be the cheapest possible. Yes, the TIE Inteceptor was faster and better armed... at the futher trade off of durablity. I think that the Empire decided to build the TIE the way it did exactly for the purpose of speed. The Seps used heavier fighters, but the Rupblic won thier war on speed. After the transition to Empire, I don't see them able to change their reliance on speed.... the Sith are fairly inflexible and have always favored speed and numbers.

2 July 2007, 03:47 PM
I guess I'm having trouble seeing your point, Alis. Okay, the TIE is significantly faster than the X-Wing. Most stat comparisons I've seen have the TIE fighter as roughly 50% faster than the X-Wing. So what?

2 July 2007, 06:05 PM
My point is that most games negate that advantage for TIEs. Battlefront II has TIEs as just the Imp X-Wing with the same firepower/manuever... which is all wrong. In galaxies most ships are the same until you change thier equipment (although at least the TIE isn't being compared to the X-Wing, but the Z-95.) Game designers need to review background material and make ships that are as they appear in the movies, not something that is thier idea of "balanced" so everyone has a "fair" footing... it's like my complaint about any SW game with a Hoth level; snowspeeders are the ultimate answer to AT-AT's, but in the movies they die in swarms to take down one. It was more of a rant about the hatred I have for game designers who can't make each ship different or take the time to understand why people dont like thier starfighter levels.

2 July 2007, 06:24 PM
From my understanding, that was just a game mechanics thing, they made no claim in BF2 that the ships were completely acurate, there was a certian degree of standardization all around as a compromise to expidency. I'm sure the game designers are probably as big SW fans as us and have done their research, but since they needed a base starfighter, the X-Wing and TIE ended up with the same stats because of that, the same why that the A-Wing and the Interceptor got the same stats, giving the Interceptor some rather mysterious missiles. The same sort of thing was done with the Clone Marine and Clone Commander skins.

I'll give you the AT-AT thing though, that was annoying, and other sources have shown that snowspeeders are a pretty lousy way to take them down, but still every level of Rogue Squadron 3D with AT-ATs has you flying snowspeeders against them... even on Corellia. It's much more effective just to shoot them in the neck, like in Isard's Revenge.

2 July 2007, 06:28 PM
Well, I think it's done for video game balance.
In Battlefront II both the TIE fighter and interceptor have non-standard missile weapons...because if they didn't they'd be outclassed by the rebel ships...and incapable of damaging the rebel capital ships. Perhaps if the designers had been able to get the Imperials to field more fighters than the rebels...so the TIEs outnumbered the ?-wings, then it might be okay to make the TIEs weaker.

Another aspect of game balance making things unrealistic is fighters being able to take out some of the really BIG capital ships...but I'm not complaining about that: in a video game I want to do that kind of thing! :D
Then when I want something a little more 'realistic' (I use the term lightly) I turn to an RPG.

In Saga Ed, at least; TIEs are faster, but less maneuverable than X-wings.

2 July 2007, 07:39 PM
Well, I think it's done for video game balance.

Yeah... in most games you couldn't have it otherwise. You could in the X-wing/Tie Fighter series, or in a game like Homeworld, but in Battlefront (which is a MOCKERY of real life military tactics) and similar games, it kind of has to be done.

The snowspeeder thing bugs me too... they used tow cabes, for goodness sake! Not exactly standard military grade weaponry.

In Saga Ed, at least; TIEs are faster, but less maneuverable than X-wings.

That's how it should be... the X-Wing's engines are further apart, and they have four. Unless TIEs have an elaborate thruster system (which I don't think they do), there's no reason that they should be more maneuverable. Just wicked fast.

... wait... what mechanism do TIEs use to maneuver? They don't have drag flaps, only have two engines, and don't have thrusters. Twio engines would allow them to yaw, but how do the bloody things pitch and roll?

2 July 2007, 07:46 PM
"That armor's too strong for blasters!"

Yeah, I guess I can see that point. I haven't played Battlefront II, Galaxies, or any of the other games you mentioned where X-Wings and TIE fighters are the same. In my experience, games are better when the ships are not the same, but are still balanced.

TIE Fighter - Advantages: extremely fast, extremely maneuverable. Disadvantages: not particularly well-armed, hull like a tin can.

X-Wing - Advantages: well-armed, pretty durable. Disadvantages: TIE fighters can fly circles around them.

I like the idea of balance, but the best games are the ones in which the balance is specialized.

And as for how TIEs maneuver... they've got to have some sort of maneuvering jets somewhere. But that's a good point - they probably wouldn't be all that maneuverable, just fast.

3 July 2007, 02:59 PM
Wellll.... they could manuver by radiating energy from the large solar panels to create friction... outside of atmosphere it would generate radical vector changes... in atmo it would generate a basically radical uncontrolable vector change... bad business.

3 July 2007, 04:41 PM
HA! I've found it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIE_fighter

There are drag flaps, right behind the engines, which give the fighers the ability "to make tight turns and rolls impossible in Rebellion craft."

Actually... they did make some pretty insane maneuvers in the movies; only the Falcon could out maneuver them, it looked like.

zappo inc
4 July 2007, 08:33 AM
Falcon outmaneuver Ties??!!

I'm sorry, Fingon, y'know i luv ya, but no, wrong, delete, end of sentence.

The Falcon's a flying brick, great for hyperspeed, but not for outmaneuvering Ties. Have ya watched Star Wars recently?...those 4 ties were all over the Falcon...all over it.

I assume yer thinkin of the Empire asteroid chase...well, that was all about Han's crazy-assed piloting, not his ship's maneuverability - the Tie pilots couldn't do what Han did; but that's not a slam against their ships.

Or p'raps yer thinkin the Jedi Death Star chase - again, that was a limited field of play, wherein the Ties advantages were negated by the close quarters.

And as fer fighter representation in video games...hmmm, mostly irrelevant, i should say. Have there been any 100% accurate games made yet?? Let us not heap our expectations too high - they're only game designers, after all; their concern for accuracy is a distant second to game playability.


4 July 2007, 09:49 AM
No... you heard me right, zappo. The Falcon was able, through some crazy piloting on Han's and Lando's parts, to loose the TIEs screaming down on them. I'm not sure what else I would call that. It's the only example I can think of where this happens in the movies.

But yes, TIE's are faster and more maneuverable than the Falcon could hope to be.

Acutally, the "here they come" scene in EP IV kind of confuses me... TIE's aren't THAT much faster than the Falcon, and we see the Falcon doing some crazy stunts in V. In terms of film making, the answer is easy; funding. In terms of Star Wars, I attribute it to a total restart of the Falcon's reactor or something like that.

zappo inc
5 July 2007, 09:12 AM
Why can't ties be THAT much faster? They certainly seemed to be in the Death Star escape scene...we can't limit ourselves to stats made for gaming balance. Let's be honest: the Falcon's a freighter; Ties are the primo elite fighter. It's to be expected that Ties are waay zippier.
(is 'zippier' a word? yeah, why not);)
Not to mention that Vader and his wingmen were able to catch up to the x and y-wings makin the attack run...

5 July 2007, 02:07 PM
All right... back to some physics.

Now, Wiki listed the "speed" of a TIE fighter at 100 MGLT, and the Falcon's at 80, which is the same as an X-Wing. Now, that isn't actually speed... since space is a vaccum, top speed really doesn't exist until you start approaching the speed of light (or the heat capacity of the ship). MGLT is the measure of acceleration tolerance of the craft; ie how quickly it can rack up speed.

Now, no unites were given for MGLT, so I can't break it down to km/s or anything, but we can determine that a TIE can only accelate 25% faster than the Falcon can. Considering how big the Falcon is, it has some beefy engines. Also considering how fragile TIE's are, this probably means that the Falcon has a higher CRUISING speed than a TIE (remember in Ep IV when the Falcon was gaining on a TIE on the way to the Death Star?), but for all intents and purposes in a combat situation, and TIE will be faster. Becuase of it's smaller intertia and screaming big engines (for craft size) it can turn accelerate faster than the Falcon can.

So... I was pretty much arguing symantics.

5 July 2007, 04:46 PM
I'm with Fingon on this one, the Falcon has greater mass and therefore greater inertia making it harder to get up to speed than the smaller and therefore less massive TIE Fighter, but it has massively overpowered sublight engines for a light freighter, making it a very fast ship none the less. The crazy maneuvers the Falcon does are probably a mix of Han Solo being a very good pilot, modifacations to the Falcon and Han's familiarity with the ship, whereas a TIE's ability to make impossibly sharp turns are a matter of the way the ship is built (it can't do that sort of turn on atmo though, they break apart).

zappo inc
7 July 2007, 09:15 AM
i love that you researched wiki, but where did their magical numbers come from??? Who made up this alleged acceleration???

And i love that yer bringin physics into this...;)

As fer the Falcon gaining on the fleeing Tie, hmmmm....interesting point...but we must also remember that the Falcon couldn't outrun the SD Avenger in Empire...(but we can still outmaneuver them).:hansolo:

So, does this mean that bigger = faster; smaller = acceleratererererer?(sorry!);) :D

7 July 2007, 09:40 AM
I THINK those stats come from Star Wars books which have been released, all of those "technical" manuals.

I'm not sure... a big ship takes longer to get up to speed, in the case of a Star Destroyer, much longer. But a bigger ship, with bigger engines, power, and hull integrity could THEORETICALLY gain a higher cap speed before the ship would fly apart.

I remember in X-wing vs. TIE fighter the Executor could go faster than a TIE on top speed... it was scary.

7 July 2007, 11:04 AM
They're probably from The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, although the numbers seem to line up with the stats given in X-Wing.

Also, it's worth noting that while the Falcon couldn't outrun the Avenger, it did outrun the Devastator over Tatooine and all of Death Squadron over Hoth.

7 July 2007, 11:36 AM
It only outran the Devistator because of a jump (Luke whining "while they're right there gaining?") and Death Squad because they ran into an asteroid field. Apparently those Star Destroyers can go pretty bloody fast.

That does make sense to me... Carriers are some of the fastest ships in our current fleet, with a top unclassified speed at 55 knots (they can go faster). With a frictionless space, those Star Destroyers should be able to get going pretty quickly.

7 July 2007, 12:23 PM
For those who emember me, I'm back in a limited capacity...

Originally posted by Fingon
That does make sense to me... Carriers are some of the fastest ships in our current fleet, with a top unclassified speed at 55 knots (they can go faster). With a frictionless space, those Star Destroyers should be able to get going pretty quickly.

Well, that was funny... I was stationed on the USS George Washington for three years and never saw the ship get above 50 knots. Actual listed speed is 30+ knots but I can tell you that it can go pretty fast but not that fast. The fact is weight is the main issue here; the weight of the carrier when fully loaded is up around 97,000 tons. Granted we are running on two nuclear reactors with four shafts, it still can't reach 50 knots. Simple hydro physics limit the top speed to around 30+ knots. Again I can roughly figure out the top speed but the actual cruising speed is around 20~25 knots. That is mainly for the wind across the deck for aircraft to take off and land safely.

Back on subject, Id fly the X-wing personally over the TIE/Ln. Now if we were open up to flying different models of TIEs it would be a toss up between the TIE/D and the TIE/Ad. Just my to credits worth.

8 July 2007, 01:56 PM
The Washington is a Submarine, isn't it?

Wait... oops. Not knots, KmpH. My bad. On of my friends served on the USS Nimitz for about a decade, that's where I got this. The offical listed speed of the Nimitz is 30+ knots, but it can go faster. I personally don't have any personal knowedge to back this up, but that's what I heard.

8 July 2007, 03:15 PM
Nah, the USS George Washington is a carrier. CVN 73 is its designation as for Knots here is the break down.

1 Knot or 1 Nautical Mile is equal to 1.151 MPH give or take a few thousandths of a MPH. SO 30+ knots ~ 34.523 MPH. Hope that helps.

8 July 2007, 03:21 PM
I think there's a little misconception here-- the George Washington (CVN-73) is a Nimitz-class carrier. It displaces something like 100,000 tons; there's no way it can hit 50 knots, or 50 mph for that matter.

As mentioned, CVN speeds are classified, but a good guess is about 35 knots (roughly 40 mph, in still water).

55 knots is about 63 mph (nominal). That's really really fast, for a ship. The only ocean-going ships that go that fast are hydrofoils... I don't know that the USN has any in service at the moment. I seem to recall that they were retired i the mid-90's.

And... now let's get back on-topic. :o

8 July 2007, 04:05 PM
Agreed, enough with the little trivia.

I still say I'd fly the X-wing over the regular TIE Fighter. Shields make all of the difference in a dog fight one-on-one. Also having torpedo's don't hurt the cause either. Though here is the real question.

What variant of the T-65 are you talking about?
Each model was slightly different and had slightly increase or greatly increased stats. Then again I'm making this argument and I say we base the comparison off of the T-65B.