posted
Absolutely horrible. Pasting two good designs together does not make a larger good design. That fighter would be one biiig target.
Besides, the overall idea has already been done (as an original design) in the Skipray Blastboat.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
But, seriously, I can't think any good reason to cross X-wing with B-wing. The execution is flawless, but the idea itself... ugh.
Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
LMAO, nice one. The Rebels could use a very heavy fighter like that.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Mostly I did it for a joke. But I do think that the Rebel alliance needs a "bigger" ship in its fighter arsenal, Although this one is pretty ridiculous......
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Hang on, the B-Wing is designed to take down capital ships, and you think they need a BIGGER fighter? For what?
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
To take down BIGGER capital ships. And maybe to counter those pesky Missile Boats.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Right, so you build starship which is bigger and therefore easier to hit?
If squadron of X-wings can destroy a ISD, then if enemy ship is twice as big, you simply take more squadrons. You don't need to design big fighters to defeat big targets - by that logic, Alliance would need 1.6km long fighter to destroy Death Star...
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: No, but you do need to design a fighter that can lob more torpedoes at said bigger targets and soak up more damage during the lobbing phase.
Not getting hit at all is a much better idea than the ability to soak up damage. Plus, you still have to deal with enemy space superiority fighters, for lack of a better term.
Even the aforementioned missle boat isn't designed to soak up damage. Manuverability coupled with afterburners == fun.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
Well, yeah, but when your resources are limited and you have to rely primarily on fighters to perform offensive operations, it's an equally good idea to make them as tolerant to damage as technically attainable.
And, uh, for such a fast & agile craft, the Missile Boat could sure take quite a pounding. Its shields were nearly twice as strong as those of a B-Wing...
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
