To be fair, I'm not arguing that one doctrine is better than the other. Simply that, WITHIN those doctrines fighters obviously have very different roles to play.
From a Rebel Alliance perspective, they don't have a carrier force, pilots and spacecraft are precious resources and tactically they need to hit fast, gain temporary superiority and get out.
It absolutely makes sense, therefore, that they'd lean towards a multi-role fighter.
It absolutely makes sense, therefore, that they'd lean towards a multi-role fighter.
The Empire, on the other hand, does lean more towards the old USSR approach but also taken to an extreme (in terms of access to quantity and regard - or lack of it - for living resources)
The empire is very much about projecting and controlling space, complex bureaucratic supply and training chains etc.
It also has a super big-ship mentality, and thus has a LOT of carrier capacity.
It also has a super big-ship mentality, and thus has a LOT of carrier capacity.
It makes sense for the EMPIRE, therefore, to focus on a very basic superiority fighter for the reasons I described in thread.
What I was trying to get at, is that IN THE CONTEXT OF THEIR INDIVIDUAL ROLES, I think the TIE is a glorious piece of function following form in design as a superiority fighter, whereas the X-Wing is only an AVERAGE multi-role fighter.
Worse, that there IS clearly a subset within both Rebel Alliance command structure AND its miltary industrial complex that persists in pushing the X-Wing as a superiority fighter, whether for romantic, political or economic reasons.
The Empire doesn't have that problem, although i suspect that's simply because on a strategic level it's not flexible enough to even consider the possibility that it MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE to have a multi-role fighter.
Because space wizards keep force-choking anyone who tries to experiment tactically, or expresses dissent with the overall composition of the Imperial Navy.
In conclusion: Goddamn space wizards.
In conclusion: Goddamn space wizards.
