www.ditl.org

It depends on the TIE, natch. The original version and Interceptor were death traps for the pilots, but the Avenger and Defender models weren't so bad. Heck, the Defender's the most advanced fighter in SW.

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:It depends on the TIE, natch. The original version and Interceptor were death traps for the pilots, but the Avenger and Defender models weren't so bad. Heck, the Defender's the most advanced fighter in SW.

But neither of those were produced in large numbers. If you add sheilds to the Interceptors(as many commanders, generals, and warlords did) they are formidable anti-starfighter ships. Still, I'd take an E-wing over even a TIE Defender anyday.

TIEs generally get done down thanks to the X-wing games and novels - in the films their kill/loss ratios aren't at all bad, and they generally take as much punishment as Rebel fighters before going down. There's apparently also evidence of them being shielded in ANH.

As for the E-wing vs Defender argument, I'd take a Defender any day. It's more maneuverable, better armed (4 lasers and 2 ion cannon against 3 lasers), isn't reliant on an astromech for hyperspace jumps, and the pilot gets a proper spacesuit rather than the somewhat flimsy kit Rebel/NR pilots wear.

Ya, but I prefer having an astromech because I just want someone to talk to on long flights. TIE Defenders do have better firepower then E-Wings. It's just a personal preference

Uh, it's a military craft. On long missions, you're going to have a lot to do. Scanning the area, keeping an eye on your wingmates, checking in with the mothership, etc. Talking to your robot isn't going to be high on the list of priorities.

Could you see me in the military? I'd probably be a mercenary or a smuggler or something. I just hate flying solo.

Even then you'd probably have a lot to do. And you could always just talk to your wingmates.

There are some jobs or missions that require radio silence too.

In truth, I was speaking about the TIE/f, or the standard TIE if you will. They were faster then an X-wing and packed two medium lasers. But, no life support for long range mission, no hyperdrive, no shields. These were cheap but they lost 3 for every rebel x-wing they took down with them. That ends up still costing you the same as building one TIE/d that has an even kill rate against the X-wings. The TIE/f were useful against the aging Y-wings sure enough but after a while the X-wings pilots had enough pratice in combat that those kill counts started to add up. With that time we began to see rebel aces flying against imp replacements.

As to the TIE/d, it is my favorite starfighter of all time! Heavy armour and shields, 4 medium lasers and 2 meduim ions, warhead racks for 6 PTs or 12 CMs. And best of all, a hyperdrive!

There are some jobs or missions that require radio silence too.

Yes, and on those missions you will be going through great lengths to make sure you haven't been detected, and keep and eye on the system and any ships in it. And there you have something to do.

Deepcrush wrote:In truth, I was speaking about the TIE/f, or the standard TIE if you will. They were faster then an X-wing and packed two medium lasers. But, no life support for long range mission, no hyperdrive, no shields. These were cheap but they lost 3 for every rebel x-wing they took down with them. That ends up still costing you the same as building one TIE/d that has an even kill rate against the X-wings. The TIE/f were useful against the aging Y-wings sure enough but after a while the X-wings pilots had enough pratice in combat that those kill counts started to add up. With that time we began to see rebel aces flying against imp replacements.

The bog-standard TIE was the TIE/ln, and it wasn't as poor a design as it's often made out to be. The lack of full life-support is hardly a disadvantage, since the pilot had a full life-support suit of his own, which meant he had a good chance of surviving if he ejected, unlike the lightweight suits the Rebels wore. Evidence from ANH suggests that they actually do have shields, and in any event they're about as tough as X- and Y-wings, taking about the same amount of punishment before being destroyed. The lack of hyperdrive places limits on their flexibility, but since most Imperial ships have a hanger of some description that doesn't severely limit their deployability. Their lack of missiles is another weakness, but omitting the launchers leaves a simplified design which makes both mass-production and repair easier.

True that the TIE doesn't count as the worst in sci-fi but I still dislike it overall. The TIE/in that came later was a very nice add up. 4 light or medium lasers (wing mounted) with 2 more medium lasers (ball mounted) brings a lot of punch with a nasty fast rate of fire. More to the mix that the only thing faster then the TIE/in was the A-wing meant that once they were on you they weren't going to let you go.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Deepcrush wrote:In truth, I was speaking about the TIE/f, or the standard TIE if you will. They were faster then an X-wing and packed two medium lasers. But, no life support for long range mission, no hyperdrive, no shields. These were cheap but they lost 3 for every rebel x-wing they took down with them. That ends up still costing you the same as building one TIE/d that has an even kill rate against the X-wings. The TIE/f were useful against the aging Y-wings sure enough but after a while the X-wings pilots had enough pratice in combat that those kill counts started to add up. With that time we began to see rebel aces flying against imp replacements.

The bog-standard TIE was the TIE/ln, and it wasn't as poor a design as it's often made out to be. The lack of full life-support is hardly a disadvantage, since the pilot had a full life-support suit of his own, which meant he had a good chance of surviving if he ejected, unlike the lightweight suits the Rebels wore. Evidence from ANH suggests that they actually do have shields, and in any event they're about as tough as X- and Y-wings, taking about the same amount of punishment before being destroyed. The lack of hyperdrive places limits on their flexibility, but since most Imperial ships have a hanger of some description that doesn't severely limit their deployability. Their lack of missiles is another weakness, but omitting the launchers leaves a simplified design which makes both mass-production and repair easier.

TIEs did not have shields. TIEs were designed and produced for quantity over quality. They were to be like a swarm of bees. The Empire had capital ships that could base the TIEs so hyperdrives were unnecesssary and an added cost that was counter to the TIE idea.

The rebels needed get-in-get-out ability which is why they went with ships with hyperdrives and shields. They went for quality over quantity hence the much lower number.

I wouldn't say the TIE vs X-wing comparison is one of quantity over quality so much as mission roles. The TIE was a short-range interceptor while the X-wing was a long-range fighter-bomber. Some TIEs were definitely equipped with shields, since shield effects are observable in ANH (the fighter that bounced off Vader's in the trench).

In combat in ANH four TIEs were lost (two in the dogfight, one to the Falcon, one to accident) compared with five X-wings (one in the dogfight, Read Leader's group and Biggs) and three Y-wings. According to the EU only Vader's Black Squadron was deployed to defend the Death Star (of whom only Vader survived) against thirty Rebels (of whom only Luke, Wedge and Keyan Farlander survived). The kill/loss ratio is therefore 4-8 in the TIEs favour in the film, and 27-11 in the TIEs favour in the EU (although that's an upper limit, since some fighters were lost to surface defences).

I find ANH as a poor judge as the rebels were flying down a trench. ROTJ is a much better place to draw our ideas from.