Honestly, a strike fighter that could destroy anything _except_ scouts would have a role. It would be the bomb, and scouts would be the scissors.

That is part of the idea.... for strikes to be a choice good pilots might make for a good reason. The consequences would affect mostly, how often the fighters that have been pressed into the role they will take are used.

Other then plausably taking armor piercing down on burst lasers, I don't think it would be fair to nerf scouts, although boosting strikes enough would have a similar effect.... scouts are an important part of the game balance especially against gunships. I see a role for all four craft types although when it comes to face to face engagements, I think it is the strike that needs the most kick in it's dps, but that means strikes that are hardly any faster, and most likely no more agile. Strikes you would call in to strike a bomber nest, because their defenses against such would be strongest. my view of the GSF 'Rock Paper Scissors': strike fighter defeats bomber... (fighters shooting down bombers, it's old school) Bomber defeats scout (well the MINES and the DRONES mostly.... scouts hate being pegged by bomber deployables which are actually worse for someone dodging madly into exploding objects.... think a motorcycle in a mine field) Scout defeats gunship (Motorcycle vs howitzer... get close enough to take out the artillery piece) so gunships..... well gunships are the bomb.... they hurt everybody they hit, but gunships wasting strike fighters adds up too. Strikes are already half way to being dedicated bomber killers.... bombers can't missile break (unless it's a strike fighter+bomber). Strikes are better shielded then scouts and have more hull hit-points. But 'dedicated bomber killer' would be quite a bit of forward pointing dps, and honestly, they should out dps most anything else flying head to head. That's why gunships would be targeting them from afar. Scouts would be sneaking up on them from behind (it's scout, not super ninja tank) and bombers would be trying to set their nests with as many mines as they could.... perhaps using more mines that slow their enemies so they could flee around the borders of their nest, perhaps into another strike fighter.... strike fighters should have fire power the T2 scout would envy... but not the agility, sensors, or other features of the recon role. The T2 would still be an awesome flying machine.... just use that agility to avoid being in-front of the large slow well armed target.... I mean strikes

What seems to be 'unique' to strikes is a dependence on missiles for burst damage/as a secondary weapon, missiles have many advantages... if you can get them off they take less dead-eye accuracy on the part of the pilot to hit their target, they do significant damage, the longer they take to lock the more damage/dot/ or shield piercing they do. Strikes are also one of the only platforms which switches between two of the same family of weapons (t1 and t2 both have this feature) yet they have a small listing of those weapons. If you wanted to capitalize on the uniqueness of this feature, the T1 should have more primary weapon options.... perhaps every primary weapon in gsf, let the pilots experiment with them and find a good build for themselves.... say a T1 with ion cannons and burst lasers perhaps. Just thinking of strikes as fighter craft with larger chassis and power supplies then scouts, or comparable in size to gunships, I can't think of a physical reason they couldn't mount any primary weapon in gsf... that would make them 'generalists' alright, but with two weapons to pick from, if they are good weapons the pilots could custom specialize them for their flying style. The T2 being able to do the same with missiles should probably have any missile in the game to pick from.... perhaps interdiction missiles would compliment another well or a nice straifing run on someone who can't out turn them anymore. sabotage probe followed up by a torpedo? the possibilities for good builds if you give the missile specialists all the seeking weapons to choose from.... or even allow them rocket pods (why exactly can't a strike mount rocket pods? it can't be take off weight?) pods and heavy lasers or quads..... isn't this a known design? Why couldn't a strike do it..... and a T1 or T2 could switch roles with the press of a key. T1 with pods and heavy lasers would be quiet a mine clearer, T2 with quads and pods or torps would make a bomber's day miserable. What the strike is good at, at the moment, is a fair bit of dog fighting and shooting down the unskilled. and making people blow missile breaks, some of them (maneuvers) can force a pilot to peal from a target. I've shot down some of the best pilots in my strike.... but they were dog fighting someone else and had probably blown many of their missile breaks. The inability to kick out good burst damage vs skilled pilots means strikes are relegated to playing tie fighter vs the x-wings.... out number and try to force them to waste their cool downs so somebody can land a missile. If someone can, they would rather take the X-wing... which is the crux of the problem, pilots of equal skill in strikes are unable to meet parity with scouts or gunships.... which increasingly seem to resemble scouts. (a few unique strike-only weapons might be nice too.... say a range 8k gatling cannon or that cruise missile the T2 gunship was _supposed_ to have, or a forward fired missile-mine that locks onto the first target that comes into range. If the gunships can mount a rail-gun on even the dogfight frame of the condor/jurgran what could you put into the strike's chassis?)

1 if you're in a strike your secondary weapon is missiles and the above mechanic always applies.... Scouts often mount 'rocket pods' which fire just like lasers 2. perhaps part of the problem is finding pops harder to come by on your server 3. everyone who flies is rewarded in gsf, no matter how poorly, as long as they participate... I often used it just to get credits to buy things from vendors or the market 4. the more you do gsf the better you get... everyone starts out pretty low on the board, I look at times when I'm getting shot down as challenges to learn to fly better, or opportunities to try to be harder to kill.... although 'run like chicken' as I call my full panic tactic doesn't count as participating.

if strikes were out running scouts but not out shooting them.... would strikes be the new scouts? node racers but not chief node holders? good for quick response but it takes a couple to deal with anything they find? Scout pilots didn't relish such a role, and when the soup was served scouts were souped up to the point they can lay waste to anything on the battle field (in the right hands). But if strikes were faster... had more boost then scouts... then they would be the recon.... and scouts (mostly just the T2s but other scouts are still good dog fighters) would be the strikes.... Not an entirely bad idea... but do we really want to go so far as to admit the roles have been reversed? I still like the idea of strikes being heavy fighters that do heavy (certianly more then now) damage to things not nimble enough to get out of their limited range. Scouts seem to be the boost kings currently, and unless the strike can out run the scout, they are going to remain unable to escape that way from one. Honestly, all the things I want to see on my strike fighter... being able to fly faster then scouts for longer then scouts doesn't seem like a strike fighter thing to do.... more boost couldn't hurt, but out scouting scouts just reminds me that scouts are out striking strike fighters. I think we can get a role for our fighter without taking theirs from theirs.

Roles:Brief Scout: Reconnaissance and smart fighter (hit and run, sneak attack, ambush) Primary targets: Gunships, secondary targets: strike fighters, other scouts. Biggest threat: bomber deployables Bomber: area denial, 'utility', 'tank' Primary targets: scouts, biggest threat: currently gunships but ideally strikes with enough firepower to take on a hard target and enough shields and hull to survive a few mines Gunship: Artillery/anti aircraft guns Primary targets: strike fighters, other gunships. Secondary targets: bombers Biggest threats: scouts and other gunships... why else would they arm them with burst lasers? it's those pesky little scouts that zip in and take out the artillery pieces. Strike: Main combat, 'dumb' fighter (direct dps, some tanking, up close face to face combat) Primary targets: bombers (ideally, something larger, slower and more heavily armored... and the strike has enough shield, hull, and ideally firepower.... heck bombers chronicly are unable to dodge missiles and strikes specialize in missile use) other strikes. secondary targets: scouts that come head on and gunships that let one get too close.... biggest threats: scouts that fly smart and gunships at 15k... Roles: Verbose Scouts.... people forget are meant to be smart fighters that do a good amount of damage, high _RISK_ high reward, there's supposed to be a risk flying a scout which is when they get caught in the gunsights of something with bigger guns... at the moment nothing actually has bigger guns then a point blank range burst laser charged by a cool down granted that seems to require certain skills and a net/computer with minimal lag to pull off (to date I don't seem to have the latter and upgrades are outside of my price range currently). Scouts are core to the game and should remain so. Does this mean we have to nerf the scout to make it vulernable to the strike? no.... the strike simply needs enough dumb firepower to make coming at one head on at-least as unpleasant as coming at a gunship that is charging it's one hit wonder gun. Without the added pain that another gunship within 15k can nail you while you are making your hero charge. PS nothing wrong with using quads and pods at the rear, or side of a target, especially one that's flying stright as it's doing a joust and/or missile lock.... a common tactic of strike fighters. Bombers: these work rather nice in the meta as is, frankly I see them as being anti-scout since, the smart fighters have to contend with deployable ordinance from the bomber that is ultra dumb and not something a nimble, fast, and moving target wants to deal with. Gunships: Where did they find weapons longer ranged then the ones on cap ships? I kid you not, a group of friends and I thought 'destroy turrets' meant on the cap ships and took our gunships and just went picking them off one of the three imperial dreadnaughts on the other side of the map... we blew up four or more without getting in their range. Gunships are artillery pieces in most ways that make sense... having to stop to fire, slow reloading, high damage, and even aoe object skipping damage, albiet from a non-lethal round. Gunships are undoubtedly the most hated ships in gsf, but without them some pilots would be looking for new roles, Evasion on scouts is largly an anti-gunship measure. Combining gunships with bomber makes for trench warfare ala WWI, a successful tactic, that turns dog-fighting into suicide within 15k of any such nest. Perhaps buffed strikes could do something about this trend? Strikes:intended as the primary dog-fighters, their role has been forgotten as others received their gifts. Strikes were envisioned as something like the X-wing, a highly destructive and agile interceptor with more durability then it's attrition-based imperial counter part. They seem to be rounding out towards the Y-wing, a versatile fighter craft with greater durability and versatility. Higher then average weapon payload for attacking stubborn targets and enough agility to compete with the lighter more nimble fighters. With some more firepower they could be a force to be reckoned with.... not the x-wing of the battle field (that's the sting and flash fire currently) but as hard hitting 'strike' fighters they could possibly break up bomber nests and keep the battle field moving where scouts can enjoy their role more, and where gunships would be more indecisive over gunning down a strike or a scout in their range. There's a role to play for every fighter type in my view, and nobody should just be 'cannon fodder' if they know what they are doing. Heck... if scouts have to rely on strikes to take out bombers, they would be doing their 'recon' role!

This is the easy question: which begs a question: what are strike fighters for (their intended function and their role) and what are scouts for (their intended function and their role) Bombers are tough and have area denial weapons and they usually out perform strike fighters at area denial. Gunships have 1500 burst damage and that's just the slug railgun, if strikes could do that in 10k- I wouldn't complain at all. Scouts.... are recon craft ment to scout the battle field, they are LIGHTER frames with LIGHTER weapons and limited space for electronics and defenses part of that is committed to a sensor package for their named mission: recon. Strikes are HEAVIER frames with HEAVIER weapons and more room for defenses and sensors. What did they do with this space? the strike has 90% copies of weapons used on other craft, not heavier or supported by complex electronics (scouts get that for some reason). They get multiple mountings places for these second best weapons. Strike fighters are supposed to be the main dog-fighters, failing that the heaviest close range fighters with the best firepower in that bracket. They have the weight to mount the best weapons, best defenses so they should be tanks or dps in their weapon range. What you are asking is for scouts to be best at the strike's role. The scout with it's more maneuverable frame, better speed, and unique cool downs is well built for surprise attacks it's the craft for a pilot who knows what they are doing and has the reflexes for a high risk high reward pay off. The skilled/smart pilot's dog fighter. The strike with it's heavier frame and larger payload is built for direct combat, it's either a tank or dps.... but it lacks the turning and speed to keep it's weapons on targets like scouts. If you cede the scout's turning and head to head with a strike, the strike should have the advantage in raw firepower and durability.... a scout that plays the strike fighter game, shouldn't be the better strike fighter. Scout as light armored dps, they do alot of damage but ideally from behind or the side. They have the speed, turning, and fuel tanks to get anywhere on the map from spawn faster then anyone else. They can choose which direction to attack any unescorted fighter. Right now, the sting and flash fire are the nastiest dog fighters, both from behind and the side, but also head on. With the max engine bar, fastest engines, best turning, best up-close firepower, best missile defenses, and good laser defenses (evasion and shields). Why would you want to fly a strike fighter? The strike is supposed to be worth flying, and I'll cede speed and turning to the scout, I quibble over larger fuel tanks, but in combat the strike needs to shine as a damage dealer or damage taker. Strikes that can't beat a scout in a head to head are not the best at turning, at speed, at engine bar, at firepower, at missile defense, at laser defense (their shields and hull are substantial but it doesn't matter if one pass from a flash fire is all it takes). Basically the flash fire and sting are the best dogfighters, best scouts, best damage dealers in the game Strikes need to be best at something, best head to head firepower perhaps best defense vs lasers.... someone suggested best defense vs debuffs. Let the scouts still be the best at turning and dog fighting... give the strikes the firepower to make them wish they didn't go at them head to head.

Reason I haven't posted in a while is above... it looks good, if it's do-able it would probably be enough to push the strike up to being something some of the very good pilots will try again. Two thumbs up.

If strikes have this much boost, would they be neck and neck racing to nodes with scouts? Would that be a problem?

Honestly, do you think scouts deserve armor piercing lasers? If BLC didn't have armor piercing it would make bombers harder for scouts to kill, which would open the door for other platforms to be bomber busters.... say platforms with heavier shields and hull and or charged plating themselves. Or can you think of a better way to go about this? I know you're happy with having a high damage and armor piercing point blank shot gun weapon on your scout and if at all possible, improvements to the strike fighter should be done without nerfing someone else. My hope is to increase the firepower of strike fighters... say perhaps a new high dps mid range laser, and faser locking, reloading, and higher ammo missiles... I'm imagining the starguard and rycer could use better turning... it's not like they have as much armor as scouts but if they also got the engine capacity boost one pilot has asked for would that be overkill? Or would scouts still have a role? That the current scout pilots can live with? Perhaps the engine capacity boost could go to the T2 and T3 strikes only? or would it be best if the Starguard and Rycer turn no better then now, but get the long legs to hit and run?

You mean it's mostly effective against mines in the current meta. It is also effective against weapons that don't have 100% armor piercing. what is intended and what is a bonus is a matter of opinion, is it better that light weight weapons like burst lasers ARE 100% armor piercing? Do gunships NEED 100% armor piercing or rather does the game need gunship walls and stationary fighters? I think less armor piercing would help strikes. This is one advantage they could have had over scouts that is nerfed because of the high armor piercing on the highest dps weapons (burst lasers, rail guns). The counter argument I have heard is that lower armor piercing would make bombers harder to kill (for scouts) but if strikes gain more firepower and have armor piercing weapons like heavy lasers, they may be needed for engaging bombers that scouts can't handle. (course that also means rocket pods might become more popular but without an armor piercing laser not sure it would make a difference) As for not being able to 'hit' a scout that has maxed light weight armor, popped distortion field, is using an evasion boosting crew member and targeting telemetry's defensive buff. Perhaps it's not as much that I can't hit such a scout at all, as the damage I can do with my strike when they park right in-front of my guns doesn't amount to much, but the damage they deal kills me quickly. So perhaps it is not so much that they are completely invulnerable but that their burst damage is completely unbalanced compared to mine. Why else would they park in-front of enemy strike fighters and gunships and win. This isn't just a pilot skill thing or the good pilots who select scouts would be doing the same thing with strike fighters, they know this and don't necessarily want strikes to become more competitive because it would make them have to change their tactics or take up flying strike fighters The point of the forum is to make strike fighters a viable option, if they become a logical choice for some missions then that would be success on our part. At the same time, we don't want to make scouts useless, but as long as they are faster, quicker to nodes, and possibly turn better (although the T1 strike could use that turning radius and not threaten the scouts recon mission) there are videos on the web of scouts coming to a complete stop and wailing away at other craft, sometimes in-front of their guns Many of the good pilots avoid strike fighters now because experience has told them they are better off in the strike scout: Flash fire, sting. Other scouts remain on the battle field because being faster, more agile, and more versatile are real advantages still. Now if you want to talk supposed to the T2 scouts are 'supposed to' be second best to the T1 strike in dog-fighting and firepower. We know that's not the case in the current meta and that argument seems to have no weight, it's an opinion that was posted in text files that describe the craft but isn't supported by code.

A scout can press two buttons (cool downs) and suddenly be nearly invulnerable and deadly, even come to a complete stop in-front of enemy guns (stacked evasion with distortion field, targeting telemetry with the defensive buff) Can a strike fighter do this? It could have if it's components worked. Charged plating is supposed to provide a damage reduction during it's up period, it's a cool down so the excuse scouts give 'well it's not all the time' applies too. But armor piercing is too common, it's available even on weapons that should not have armor piercing and it's 100% so anything with armor as a defense is naked before them. Anything that does high dps is already armor piercing even if it shouldn't be like: burst lasers, a weapon supposedly using multiple small energy pulses.... is armor piercing when that is the opposite of a dense co-inherent penetrating weapon. (Shotguns typically don't piercing armor plates.... but low tech polish lances can and in fact did.) So armor and armored targets becomes virtually useless to anyone using one of these high dps weapons.. if you want to bring back armor into the light, some of these weapons, especially the ones used by light weight fighting vehicles should get less.... perhaps only 75.... 50.... or 25 percent armor piercing. If that happens bombers will suddenly come off the floor as being tough enough to take the abuse scouts can dish out, and strikes, with their torpedoes and missiles (weapons most bombers can't even dodge) might have a role engaging them.... not to mention strikes with armor (not the T1 unless the damage reduction of charged plating becomes a non-armor factor since it can't stack it with an armor comp) will be more of a factor in the game. Rail-guns do have the right physics for armor piercing.... but if you want more game balance perhaps they should also only get 75 or 50 percent armor penetration.... then someone with charged plating who's getting hit by a gunship won't be surprised to find out their super damage resistance cool down, doesn't resist damage dealt by gunships. Who knows, perhaps the T2 gunship with it's proton torps might get new life as it will need to lob those torps at bombers and strikes, and gunship walls might become less of a fixture of the battle field (since when was stationary fighters firing away at range ever seen in any star wars movie?)

in a nut shell this is the problem... in making strikes 'generalists' they made every system second best. System cool downs are the domain of scouts and specialist ships. The strike most feel is most useful, is the one with system cool downs. The other two and a half models use the same weapons as are shared by lighter and heavier hulled ships but on the scouts the cool downs super charge their weapons making them more effective, and they mount a larger variety of weapons that are potentially more effective. These strike's compensation is being able to switch between different under performing weapon systems. While there is something to be said for that ability, they obviously need more. Better weapons to choose from? An across the board upgrade (reduction) to missile lockons? Higher ammo for strike's missiles (lower ammo for scouts.... seriously, lighter faster, more tightly turning chassis=lower available payload weight). An ability to drop strike's missile reload time with a cool down? Say by pressing 1 if there is a missile on CD it resets it and starts a 60 second debuff that prevents it from happening again and or firing missiles triggers a 10 second buff that drops all cool down times for missiles to 0... with the same debuff to prevent it from procing again for 60 seconds.... To BE a generalist they need the firepower to out fight the light weight specialists. If missiles could hit, that might be the edge you would need. A few more missiles in the racks might compensate also for the trend of wasting missiles on enemy missile breaks.... incidentally, could we get credit for 'participating' for _FIRING_ missiles? I got kicked from a match because none of my torps hit, but I locked and fired them contiously... I was participating, I was making the other guys blow their missile evasions hot and heavy. I would have gotten more credit if I had fired on a mine or drone, which is kinda crazy. What strikes need.... is burst damage around the 1500 mark that gunships do with a single shot. They would have to be in the 10k-0 range band, preferably around 8-4k but damage should not decline with closer range.... they are strike fighters not archers (that would be the gunships who could possibly use a damage nerf under 6k? just saying...) With this much damage, IF they can hit a scout, they would do serious damage to it, perhaps not kill it outright.... but that's enough to get them on the table. If they do 1500k in a burst, two or three such hits would take out most strikes.... and several would deal with a bomber (any gunship ace could give you better numbers for the damage to kill anything) But if a scout can do MORE damage then a strike (granted only the T2 scout) and a gunship can do more damage over time then a strike (divide 1500 by the recharge/reload period of the gunship) then you can see why choosing a strike over a gunship or scout wouldn't give you the killing power to out perform them regardless of speed and turning. As it is, a scout parked at a dead stop (no speed or turning), can face tank a strike and win. I think it should be the other way around.... and that's just to make a strike at-least a generalist

How does that help strikes and how does that help scouts? Are we talking giving the GS a pipper to aim at so it can 99% hit scouts with high evasions? If we're trying to help strike fighters, how about a shotgun/chaff shield that does damage to anything within 2k that's in the target cone regardless of evasion.... (or target sphere but it cuts one level of shields right off your ship and gives a missile break...)

I think we're talking making rail guns have to lead their targets.... I mean it's rail gun not laser cannon, so it could have a 'flight time' and thus need to lead the target.... which would make a lot of scouts happy, some strike fighters, no bombers, and no gunships. Kinda off topic for 'how do we improve strike fighters' Since it's just a nerf to the death star fighters

I see no reason strike fighters shouldn't do damage to moving targets.... perhaps such a bonus suits bombers or any fighter that isn't being devastated by less armed and armored scouts. if the idea is to preserve the dominance of scouts the limitation makes sense, but strikes still will have problems with mobility... getting around the battle field, following fleeing enemies, surviving when gunships single them out. They don't need limitations on directed firepower, they need more. What heavy fighter/strike fighter is less well armed then the recon ships? Right now scouts are taking up the role of main combatant because out out gun and out run anything in their range. Strikes need to out gun. Let the scouts out run and see if it isn't a better game for all.

Frankly, I'd really like to see how a game plays out when you simply turn off the evasion stat. no evasion=gunship game.... every shot is a hit.... scouts wilt like flowers in the field.... strike fighters soon after.... bombers have some survivability as they run for cover.... you end up with gunships in bomber nests.... the least favorite scenario of most pilots I've spoken too.

If possible... I'm thinking of not using or not just using tracking/targeting but also aiming... gunships are known to target things they aren't shooting to spoof their targets also all/most? weapons seem to hit their targets nearly instantly when fired so knowing if someone has their cross-hairs on your carrot would be useful intel. In a dogfight, there is less time to react to someone shooting at you, but if they are aiming from a far any warning is better then what we have now. Although it would ruin some sneak attack runs unless the pilots are good at aiming at the last second.

I have been combing my memories of X-wing and Tie Fighter for inspiration as to how to 'fix' GSF... and I have an idea from tie fighter. It won't do anything to change the speed of the game, but it might make anyone making surprise attacks less... happy. Tie fighter, the game with the paper thin player-piloted fighters, featured a laser warning indicator. For them it ment a bolt of energy was flying through space directly at your craft. For us it would have to mean someone's railgun/laser sights are lined up on you. This might make it harder for gunships and anyone who depends on surprise attacks to keep their targets as you can try to evade. Might be less useful where something is already targeting you.... turrets, drones If such was implemented, and that is a big if, it would probably go to everybody, but it offers some possibility for dodging gunship shots especially for the strike fighter, which has just enough maneuverability but not enough speed to run and hide

This is actually the question I've been trying to answer. If the strike fighter replaces the scout in it's role, then we've failed in some way to acknowledge they have different roles. The scout is not supposed to be the most heavily armed or armored fighter... it's defense lies heavily in evasion, and it's offense while impressive, shouldn't be the most powerful on a traditional fighter... or there is no point in calling them scouts, they would simply be 'fighters'. Like an A-wing or Tie fighter. The strike fighter, should be the most heavily armed or armored traditional fighter. T1: having no armor at all, which is less then any scout, this fighter which specializes in energy weapons, should probably turn at least as well as any armored fighter. It is credited with being a good dog fighter, it doesn't necessarily need the long legs of the scout, which scouts might be wise to use, to keep their distance from it. A threat to bombers if only because of it's impressive firepower, as much as the T2 scout or more if the right options are mounted. Enough damage dealing ability to destroy or cripple another fighter in 5 seconds or less (how long does it take a T2 scout to destroy a bomber?). Perhaps even as much evasion as a basic scout chassis... without anything to stack on it, it would still be second best to a scout in dodging rail guns, but as with piloting a Tie interceptor the number one rule of surviving combat is don't get hit. To perform it's role the X-wing and tie interceptor traditionally did not mount any anti-fighter missiles, the former used heavy torpedoes for ground targets, the latter occasionally had a couple slapped on but had to rely on heavy lasers to accomplish any mission otherwise. T2: armored and armed, this fighter should have more then enough firepower to destroy most anythng infront of it in the 8k-2k range. Lacking the maneuverability of the T1 it may have to simply be tougher.... given it's heavy missile armament and focus on being able to position on the battlefield... longer legs, and perhaps faster engines are appropriate... think the F4/mig25.... high altitude high speed, missile launching platforms that turn like an ailing rancor. Star wars examples: Y-wing, the Xg-1 'starwing' a missile launching airplane winged fighter meant to put a dent in the X-y wing's superiority and armed with dozens of concussion missiles. T3: Fire support strike fighter, it needs longer ranged lasers, perhaps more effective missiles, but it's not really a strike fighter in any way except name, yet it is quite capable of tanking quite a bit of damage. This fighter of all three of them is the most useful as is, but is also probably the least likely to shoot down a skilled pilot up close. Tie Bomber? B-wing without half the lasers? Lambda shuttle with torps? there isn't really much of a counter part I can think of in the star wars movies, it's capabilities put it between Tor's bombers and it's scouts. the X-wing and Tie interceptor are both space superiority fighters with enough firepower to _be_ generalists, but still having set roles: shoot down other fighters and attack lightly defended targets with their considerable armament. the Y-wing and the Xg-1 are both heavily armored and armed attack craft, both capable of attacking other fighters, albiet neither has superior turning, but with thicker defenses and more munitions, they are often tasked to attack harder targets like capital ships and hardened installations. "strike fighters" in a more traditional sense The Tie Bomber and B-wing exist for only one purpose: attacking larger craft and installations. They are attack craft 'bombers' in their own setting, in ours, their role falls to strike fighters and gunships a few thoughts about the other craft in the setting: Scouts: star wars is in some ways a re-telling of WWI fighter aces, the iconic X and Tie fighter bearing a subtle similarity to bi-planes, one turned on it's side the other pinched together in the middle. Bi plane fighters started out as recon aircraft for visually spotting enemy's locations on the battlefield. They were made of wood and fabric and when one pilot brought a pistol to shoot at rivel pilots in the air, an airborne arms race was born. Special machine guns synchronized to fire between the turning propeller blades and other advances made 'scouts' the first dog fighters. Perhaps that explains why tie fighters are both so agile, and delicate. Bombers: Blimps filled this role in WWI, large lumbering behemoths with potential to mount their own defensive guns and even launch a fighter or two of their own (ever see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?), but they were soon replaced by larger, faster flying airplanes, that were increasingly armed with defensive guns pointing in every direction, to fend off smaller fighters. Our 'bombers' resemble them only in so much as their mines and drones have a limited capability of defending them, and they are large and lumbering. In WWII the line between bomber and fighter blurred, planes like the Stuka and Mosquito were meant to bomb but _could_ dogfight, and planes like the Corsair and Thunderbolt could dogfight rather well and still lay down heavy firepower on ground targets with machine guns and bombs. These were 'strike fighters' and the X and Y wing both seem to fit the mold Gunships: The name seems to come from airborne artillery, bombers loaded with cannons and machine guns to support ground troops, the function seems to be more an example of heavy anti-tank guns or assault guns. Mobile weapons so large they have to deploy supports before they can fire. There isn't so much logical reason why a space combat craft couldn't be built around such a gun, however, it seems to out-range capital ships and installations. If you had such a weapon available, why wouldn't you mount it on your capital ships or in places where it doesn't need to move, such as turrets around a hardened facility. Short of the death star's super laser, I can't actually think of too many space based examples in star wars, perhaps the KDY plannetary ion cannon? or the numerous artillery pieces on hoth? In the setting there are a few ships similar in size to large fighters that can maneuver and dish out an assortment of energy and missile damage, some of which feature turrets, others are apparently capable of engaging fighters on their own terms: Skip-ray blast boat, Fire-spray patrol craft, YT-1300 freighter. Nothing really with the kind of weapon the gunships depend on, such a weapon might be on-par with the planetary bombardment turbo-lasers used by star destroyers. As long as such super-guns are around, life is going to be harder for any fighter craft not agile enough to run for cover. Here's an idea for dealing with sudden death from the railguns: a decoy that can mimic the appearance of a fighter from a distance (don't tell me they don't have halo-projectors, you use em every time you make a call) something that can only take one hit, but has the same name, and appearance as the launching unit.... perhaps even that mimic's it's mother-ship's behavior (if the projector was on the fighter or on a string behind it... it would probably move with it anyway) the larger size of strike fighters from say... scouts, suggests they could accommodate a defensive system like this

Ok I see where this is coming from.... perhaps we could borrow some more from X-wing and have new keys like G toggle gun a, gun b, and linked The T1 would (perhaps) have the best laser selection, the T2, mix it up with longer range rockets (how bad would it really be if T1 scouts could get 10k range rockets too?), and T3.... well if they could mount from all the lasers available to them, that would be nice. given the way this train of thought is going, relatively long range-unguided munitions are appropriate... not to disapprove, because I _like_ this idea.... but how are these not, torpedoes? How would they behave differently from prot / thermite options that currently do fill this role? Faster lock on times? Fire without warning from 10k and deal damage instantly? Kinda like a mobile rail-gun with an ammo limit? (t2 gunship "can I get one?") In a sense, this is the idea, that the X-wing/Y-wing/B-wing/Tie-Adv are the ideal strike fighter with a large laser/ion dps straight forward, durable shields, hull, and torpedoes for attacking slower targets. Owing much of their role to a reliable and large laser armament. Fighters like the A-wing being 'scouts' with better turning, adequate firepower and anti-fighter missiles.

I see no issue with doubling the DPS on the strike fighter, if it can get a target in front of its guns. A large part of what's wrong with flying a strike fighter, is how ineffective it's dps can be at times, compared to other craft. If a T2 scout hits you 2-3 times with it's dps, you're probably dead, if a gunship hits you 2-3 times you're probably dead (lower dps but much higher burst), if a strike hits you 2-3 times with it's lasers, you're running for cover, or out turning the lumbering rhino that is the 'top dog fighter' and lining up some more effective burst dps. Strikes need more effective punch. If you have so many weapons on your under-performing fighter, why not choose to fire, weapon 1, weapon 2, or 'fire linked' fire them all... it's very X-wing and if it helps the strike's dps I don't see a down side. T1 scouts fire lasers and pods, 'these weapons behave completely differently' but pilots have made them work for a good burst. Of course, this only works for the T1 strike, the T2 depends on two sets of missiles, unless the 1 key was re-purposed to let you lock on/fire the second weapon system instead of swapping it out... then you could be holding 1 to lock a second missile system while locking the first.... And T3?

Currently, only three chassis have BLC as an option: T1 Gunship, T2 scout, and T3 gunship (two of those have cartel market clones) Adding one more the T1 strike doesn't seem like it would turn the game into BLC wars to me... it also wouldn't do anything for the T2 or T3 strikes. Unfortunately, it also wouldn't do much to help strike fighters in their optimum range of about 7-4k range and with their current turn radius don't expect to see alot of T1 strikes winning dogfights with skilled scout pilots Missiles are still their best hope for good burst damage, combined with good lasers ofcourse

Seems like a good idea.... I believe they are called 'concussion missiles' the armor piecing might have to go to 100, everything else has 100% armor piercing or 0% (thematically I think concussion missiles are supposed to deal their damage from the shock wave, making them more effective at piercing shields, but such distribution of force would not be armor piercing... if the blc loses it's armor piercing concussion missiles probably should too.... ) that might leave you with a missile system that could clear mines but not do alot of damage to bombers. it wouldn't be so bad to be able to fire two proton or thermite torpedoes either.......