🚀 go-pugleaf

Ashley wrote:
> 
> jsha...@jaxnet.com (Jeff Shannon) wrote:
> 
> >>OKAY, NOW, STOP!  How about a more relevant thread, like this: What
> >>would win: the Victory with its--how many fighters?  Gotta be less than
> >>50--fighters, or an Imperial Star Destroyer?
> >>
> 
> >What about an A-Wings versus an Arrow?  Or a TIE Bomber vs a Longbow?
> 
> Back the A-wing

Why? It has nothing going for it. Although the A-wing as described in
the role-playing games has no missiles, the video game designers must
have thought this would be boring so they threw on some concussion missiles.
The problem is that the A-wing must aim almost directly at his opponent
for about 5 seconds (?) or so, maybe less. The lock time on an Image Rec
is about 2 seconds, and it doesn't have to be continuous aiming and can
still lock even if the view is indirect. This is not to mention that the
ImRec has a much longer range than a concussion missile, if I remember
correctly.

> but the Longbow V TIE Bomber might be a bit each way.
> he problem wiht the Lonbow is its pathetic maneuvering. Back the TIE
> Bomber. 
I hate to keep responding like this, but there is one obvious comparison.
If you look at the turn rate of an X-wing in the computer game of the same
name, it's about the same as that of a Longbow. There's no way a TIE
bomber would be more maneuverable than an X-wing.

>                                         Cya,
>                                            Ashley
> 
> *******************************************************************************
> When the rich make war it's the poor that die. - Jean-Paul Sartre

Evan