The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

TIE/fb Fighter Bomber
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> TIE/fb Fighter Bomber Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

8, 10, it's an even number.... (I thought it was 10 like the ln...oh well)

And yes, you could put on bigger engines. But wouldn't that reduce the maneuverability?
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drop Bear
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 23 May 2011
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

IIRC T.I.E. fighters where space 7

TIE Fighters are Space 8
TIE/in Fighters are Space 10
TIE Interceptors are Space 11

whatever they do to get that extra point of speed out of the Interceptors engines can be done to other TIE series engines to make them go faster as well.

apparently the /gt was built off of recommissioned T.I.E. series fighters, the /fb is built off of TIE series
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

T.I.E space 8, and the GT has space 4.

A Tie/ln has space 10, so your Tie/fb at space 8 seems to fast to me.

I just don't agree with your point about Tie Interceptors. The interceptor was designed to be fast, they didn't just tweak the engines.

I think that if you plop a missile rack and targeting computer onto something as light as a Tie (of any series) it will slow down and lose maneuverability.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 9:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:

And yes, you could put on bigger engines. But wouldn't that reduce the maneuverability?

Nope. TIEs use thrust vectoring, so the more powerful the engines, the more maneuvering force they can exert. If the engines were made larger to increase the speed, then they should also be able to accommodate the increased weight in engines and weapons systems and maintain the original maneuverability code.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Sat May 28, 2011 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, but you'd still have to add a bigger engine (or more thrust) to accomodate the extra equipment. The Interceptor was a major leap forward and it only increased speed by 1 space. I just don't agree that a Tie/ln with a missile rack and targeting systems should go space 8.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drop Bear
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 23 May 2011
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 12:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Q. Why should the Rebels, Bounty Hunters, Freebooters and such get all the Cool Toys?

If you look it it closely even it's (post Ep. VI) "Ultimate Form" is still no match for an Ep. IV X- or Y-Wing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jmanski wrote:
Ok, but you'd still have to add a bigger engine (or more thrust) to accomodate the extra equipment. The Interceptor was a major leap forward and it only increased speed by 1 space. I just don't agree that a Tie/ln with a missile rack and targeting systems should go space 8.

Yeah, but I don't think that a missile rack necessarily weighs any more than those other two laser cannons, or the hull rating upgrade for the interceptor either. It's just an intermediate step offset by an increase in cost.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drop Bear
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 23 May 2011
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

a bit of in universe and in character perceptive.


Excerpt from Briefing on TIE variants by Commander Wedge Antillies

.....OK people moving on, if you could open file #11 in your Data Packet.

This is the TIE/fb it's a Fighter/Bomber developed as a stop-gap measure to replace the TIE/gt in lower order Sector Fleets and some bottom of the barrel Imperial Main Fleets wile waiting on the new TIE Bomber we looked at in files five through eight, Do not confuse it with the /gt, it is a marked improvement on the older craft and easily discernible both visual and on your sensors with it's longer hull pod and elongated Solar collectors also their is a noticeable increase in Generator and Engine Output capacity if the fact it has twice the Acceleration and Agility didn't give it away.

Wile the /gt was re-manufactured off the original T.I.E. as a largely Ground Support Bomber the /fb is re-manufactured off the more modern TIE fighter or a new build using TIE series technology and is a Space Fighter/Bomber. It appears that due to the inclusion of some management and redundancy systems normally found on the /in the /fb can keep pace with the standard TIE's it normally serves along side with only a minimal shortening of the number of flight hours between major services. From what we have bean able to learn it has a high level of component interchangeability with the baseline TIE allowing it to be easily supplied by sector level manufacturing or deplete now obsolescing TIE component war stocks not used on more modern TIE variants as well as use more modern complementary as some of the already starting to appear upgraded seam to be able to.

Hard Data is in short supply as they are being put out by provincial divisions of SFS that Intel. Branch hasn't had the resources to do a blanket infiltration of. But hear is what we know in the year since they first showed up over one hundred variants have popped up, put out by various SFS subsidiaries, only about 30 of those are Technologically distinctive and less than a dozen are Functionally distinctive. This starts with an upgrade of the Generator and/or Solar Collectors note the "bent wing" configuration on figure #35, along with the associated power distribution systems that allows several options and when combined together combinations of other upgrades, examples of upgrade options include going from the TIE Double Laser Canon to Twin Linked Laser Canons like found on the /in, upgrades to the Missile Launcher Targeting System that significantly increased it's accuracy and allows it to simultaneously manage Multiple Ordnance in Flight. others upgrade the Engines to /in series but not to get extra acceleration but by governing them down to extend the flight time between maintenance cycles. an other unexpected upgrade is the instillation of a Shield Generator that do not appear on any other Imperial Line Fighters that we are aware of, at this time we bereave these are either Command or Heavy Assault variants.

leave this file open as we will be referring back to in in the next section of today's briefing where we will look at the tactical implications of the TIE/fb, now please open file #12........
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Grimace
Captain
Captain


Joined: 11 Oct 2004
Posts: 729
Location: Montana; Big Sky Country

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your idea is interesting Drop Bear. The only problem I see is that this /fb is a better baseline development and would have supplanted the TIE Bomber being developed. Why would the Empire focus on slowing down their bomber, taking away it's maneuverability, all at the expense of a bigger hull and greater payload capacity when they have the /fb to work from and upgrade?

So while the idea of a /fb is an interesting one, I think your craft design is a bit too powerful for what it's supposed to represent, which seems to be a stop-gap craft put out before the TIE Bomber to handle things that the /gt did but in space. I might use the idea, but I wouldn't use all the stats you provided as I believe it overpowers the Empire. Sure it doesn't stand up to an X-wing or Y-wing. Fortunately it doesn't ever have to fight at fair odds against those craft. Stack a dozen of these, along with a dozen /In against 6 X-wings and the result is completely different. It doesn't need to stack up one on one against a Y-wing. The Empire throws numerical superiority against the rebels. Semi-close makes these craft very dangerous and an awkward step between the /gt and the TIE Bomber.

Otherwise, I find it an interesting idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Sun May 29, 2011 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That was the line of thinking that I had but couldn't make coherent. Well put, Grimace. That's why I am bucking so hard against the speed and maneuverability.

I like the idea, just not the results.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 1:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Grimace wrote:
Your idea is interesting Drop Bear. The only problem I see is that this /fb is a better baseline development and would have supplanted the TIE Bomber being developed. Why would the Empire focus on slowing down their bomber, taking away it's maneuverability, all at the expense of a bigger hull and greater payload capacity when they have the /fb to work from and upgrade?

To me the short answer seems to be that the TIE Bomber is a light multirole bomber with a much larger and more versatile payload, where as the /fb would technically be a strike fighter or attack craft. The Bomber may be slower, but it is also tougher and it simply fulfills a different role. The same way the FB-111 and A-10 aren't redundant.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier

Complete Starship Construction System
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drop Bear
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 23 May 2011
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Mon May 30, 2011 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK without invoking Goodwin's Law a good analogy (heck it's even Naval Aviation in basis) of the tactical roles are the IJN air wings in WWII. the T.I.E. is the A5M "Claude", the TIE would be the A6M (Type 0) "Zeke", the N1K1 "Val" the TIE Bomber where the TIE/fb would be one of the Torpedo/Dive Bombers. and the TIE Interceptor would be one of the ME-109 clones.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Drop Bear
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 23 May 2011
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK Watching the re-edited cut of Jedi tonight and guess what I saw, a TIE that matches the description of a fully tricked out TIE/fb, White single hull, extended bent wing without a dagger point.

most probable explication is someone stuffed up doing the CG for the re-edit and dropped in a couple of Vader Specials to give some variety to the seen, but I'm going to stick to the story that their /fb's

Also they show up on the cover of Dark Force Rising. OK those are most probably meant to be Scimitars, but they don't match the technical drawing in the fighters section of the source book, so I'm calling them /fb's as well
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DB 2.0
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 208

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok the Drop Bear is posting under a new ID wile I try to get my old one back up.

thought I'd post the TIE/gt+ (upgraded /gt) that's the same as the TIE/gt II (new Builds and more extensive remanufacturers).

In 5BBY the TIE/gt had reached the limit of it's T.I.E. based technology with the -G, and was fairing poorly compared to Independent, Criminal and Rebel equivalent craft, SFS was still five years away from their first TIE Bombers entering service and had just bean instructed to build Parrnell Shuttle, Lander and Boarding Craft on the same spaceframe, that would slow production of the TIE Bomber once manufacturer had begun. in an effort to not anger the Empire they began a project to upgrade the TIE/gt to provide Category A Bomber Squadrons an improved craft wile they waited on the new TIE Bombers and an improved craft for Auxiliary Wings that would not warrant the TIE Bomber at a later date. when designing the /gt+ and /gt II SFS once again turned to the long obeisant T.I.E. hybridized with more modern TIE Technology as the basis as the plan was to upgrade later series /gt craft (the original plan was to upgrade craft as old as the /gt-C, but only -F & -G series craft would prove to be suitable) and build /gt II's on upgraded /gt production lines. The /gt+ and /gt II was designed to address the short falls of the original /gt, namely lack of Acceleration, poor Agility and long obsolescent main gun.

The first prototype was available six months later and was comparatively a wounder craft when placed beside the original /gt with upgraded Power Systems, Engines, Weapons & Agility packages. By the time first upgrade packages and /gt II's where delivered 18 months after that the first production models where somewhat less impressive than the orignal full upgrade package of the Prototype that dangerously overtaxed the originally selected Power Generators, most of the stress came from the Engines that though now more efficient and powered by a more powerful Generator was still overtaxed and unable to support the new engines (that where retained) and the upgraded Weapons and Agility packages (that had bean shelved for the time being), but the Engines and Generators caused a heaver maintenance requirement. The next three years saw more efficient engines and more powerful generators and maintenance became more manageable and plans where made to reintroduce the Weapons and Agility packages to the production models (one or both where in use by some Elite Squadrons) but these plans where not realized until 5ABY after the Empire had fallen, but by 3ABY one or the other where wildly available.

Between 5ABY and 10ABY unsuccessful attempts where made to further upgrade the Weapons Package and Engine Power and even add Shield Generators, but even T.I.E./TIE Hybrid technology had reached it's limits and in 10ABY the production of the /gt II was abandoned in favor of the wholly TIE based TIE/fb that though more capable was it's self nearing the apex of it's development.

TIE/gt+ or TIE/gt II
Craft: Siener Fleet Systems T,I.E. (Modified)
Type: Space Fighter/Ground Attack Bomber
Length: 6.3m Apx. (length varies by sires)
Skill: Starfighter Pilot: TIE
Crew: 1
Crew Skills:
Passengers: None
Consumables: 2 days
Hyperdrive: None
Hyperdrive Backup: None
AstroNav Computer: None
Maneuverability: 1D (2D on later models)
Hull: 2D
Space: 6
Shields: None
Sensors: Passive: 20/0D
Scan: 40/1D
Search: 60/2D
Focus: 3/3D
Weapons: Laser Canon (Double Laser Canon on later models), Concussion Missile Launcher

Laser Canon (Double Laser Canon on later models)
Fire Arc: Forward
Skill: Starship Gunnery
Fire Control: 2D
Space Range: 3/12/25
Atmosphere Range: 300M/1.2Km/25Km
Damage: 2D+2 (3D on later models)

Concussion Missile Launcher
Fire Arc: Forward
Skill: Starship Gunnery
Fire Control: 1D
Space Range: 2/8/15
Atmosphere Range: 200M/800M/1.5km
Damage: 8D
Payload: 12 Concussion Missiles
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)


Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas

PostPosted: Tue Sep 04, 2012 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So it's a faster TIE GT? I don't have any heartburn over that. Always thought 4 was kinda slow anyway.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0