Talk: TIE/d "Defender" Multi-Role Starfighter/Legends/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:TIE | d "Defender" Multi-Role Starfighter | Legends

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Accelerational Value?

Is the Defender actually meant to possess a slower acceleration than the TIE Interceptor? Because this is rated at 4220 Gs, while the Interceptor is at 4240 Gs. I always thought the Defender was meant to be blisteringly fast, more along the lines of 144 MGLT, or in the terms of Gs, 4896 Gs. Being the 'ultimate Imperial starfighter' it seems its supposed to be, it seems strange to me that they didn't have the improved drive system of the Avenger, especially since I remember it using a Tri Ion Engine, instead of a Twin. Of course,t he last bit is purely recollection, so I'm probably wrong again.

  • I think it should be faster, but if the majority of the sources says otherwise, then I guess it isn't. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, all we have to go on other than game mechanics is The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. It gives the Defender slightly (less than ½ of 1 percent) lower straight-line acceleration but a much higher atmospheric flight speed (1,680 vs 1,250 km/h). (Of course, all the atmosphere speeds are way too low except the ones in the Ep3 ICS, but that's another problem entirely.)
Comparing their stats in Star Wars: X-Wing Alliance puts the Interceptor at 110 MGLT and the Defender at 144 MGLT, and those are the top speeds. The problem is, assuming a Star Wars ion drive works on the same Newtonian physics as a real-world ion drive (and there's no real reason it shouldn't), there shouldn't be such a thing as a "maximum speed" in the absence of a friction medium like air. Unfortunately, neither the spaceflight games nor the RPGs recognize this. (And there's no really reliable way to convert MGLTs to Gs. I've tried. It averages out to roughly 34 Gs per MGLT, but only if you ignore wild variations in individual ships.)
The WotC version of the SW RPG is the only one that has provided statistics for the Defender, and it lists both the Interceptor and the Defender as "Maximum Speed: Ramming," which (although fairly vague) would seem to agree with the miniscule variation in acceleration listed in the NEGVV.
The TIE Defender is the "ultimate Imperial fighter" because of its other attributes. In both the RPG and the flight sims, it's more maneuverable than the Interceptor and has heavier armament and shields than the X-wing (in the WotC RPG, the shields are stronger even than the NJO-era T-65AC4, though it still has the standard TIE series tinfoil hull).
Can you tell I put way too much thought into these things? —Darth Culator (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Uses of TIE Defender

I am a new Wookieepedian, so I don't have much idea how these things work, but I have a long history of reading Star Wars, playing games, watching the movies, etc. I was curious- in such a thorough database, why is there no mention of Wedge Antilles' and Rogue Squadron's use of the TIE Defender in X-wing: Isard's Revenge? The Defender was instrumental in taking down Ciutric's planetary shield and killing the clone of Isard. Also, Defenders were used by Turr Phennir and the 181st Fighter Group in X-wing: Starfighters of Adumar against the combined New Republic/Adumari force. I believe there were three wing pairs (6) Defenders present. Why is there no mention of these uses of the Defender in this article?

Atarumaster88 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, Fleet Admiral. I'm new at this. Is there any record of what happened to the 8 or so Defenders Antilles acquired? Atarumaster88 14:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • That is some very useful information there, Atarumaster88. Perhaps you could begin a section in the article called "History" and include your information there. --Azizlight 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Per Azizlight's recommendation, I have created the aforementioned history section and moved some of the already existing historical information to that section. It's probably incomplete.

17:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Atarumaster88

  • I still don't think we should have gone that in depth, though. The information on Rogue Squadron's use should be on Rogue Squadron with a mention here, with the same kind of thing with the 181st Fighter Group. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've been watching this discussion page for a little while and have seen no other input. With sincere respect to Admiral Nebulax, I am leaving what I added until there is a larger response. As Corran Horn said, "If one person calls you a Hutt, ignore him. If two say it, start wondering. If three people call you a Hutt, buy a drool bucket and start stockpiling spice."

Atarumaster88 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see why the History section can't be kept. We have similar on other starship articles. It gives a good overview of the ship's history and usage by various groups, and really, it isn't overly detailed - Kwenn 15:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another move?

The "D" in the designation no doubt stands for "Defender". Suggest moving this to TIE/D starfighter? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

  • When have we ever seen this referred to by any name or designation other than "TIE Defender"? -- Darth Culator 01:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Jaymach said The Official TIE Fighter Strategy Guide is the source. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
      • The strategy guide actually refers to it as the TIE/D Defender, rather than THE/D starfighter...additionally, moving it to TIE/D starfighter may confuse people as it has the same designation as the TIE/D droid starfighter. The strategy guide also says its role is a Fleet Defender, oddly. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Twin Ion Engines or Triple Ion Engines?

Like Atarumaster88, I am a new Wookieepedian, so I don't have much idea how these things work, but I have a long history of reading Star Wars, playing games, watching the movies, etc. I seem to recall a reference in the Tie Fighter Series of games from Lucas Arts, the popular acronym Twin Ion Engine actually became Triple Ion Engine in reference to the Defender. This meaning that the information posted here about the Engine units being SFS P-sz9.7 Twin Ion Engines (rated 230 KTU) could potentially be incorrect, but perhaps not as I mentioned that I am a new Wookieepedian. Also perhaps a reference to this should be also made in the body of the article somewhere but I did not wish to make the changes myself as I only have a vague memory and very uncertain how to find proper reference material to verify this. Does anyone else recall this as well, or have reference material stating such?--Dazz Zarr Err-Ron 01:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Are there two different Tie Defender models?

Because I'm trying to reconcile how this: http://www.theforce.net/ swtc/Pix/cg/tie/tied4.gif (there's a space in the link so the picture won't automatically pop up) looks anything like this: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:TIEdefender_negvv.jpg

I mean the solar panel designs look completely different. Are there two Marks for the Tie Defender, because a WEG card indicated a Tie Defender Mark I, is the second photo I posted a Mark II, or am I just looking into something that's simply the effect of upgraded graphics? I mean it's almost the same thing with the Missile Boat between Tie Fighter and X-Wing Alliance looking completely different. --Anguirus111 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The T/D has 2 different appearances owing to the differences in stylistic conventions between the TIE Fighter developers and the SWCCG artists. The first picture is actually from either X-Wing Alliance or (more likely) the 1998 collectors edition of TIE Fighter which used the XVT engine. Stylistically it's just a higher resolution version of the T/D from the 1994 version of TIE Fighter. In the game the defender looked very much to be made from the same elements as the TIE Avenger. The Wing panels were the same general shape albeit mounted inverted on the struts, and the struts were the same flat, forward swept panels. When the T/D was illustrated in the CCG the design was changed to be a shorter ship, with the wing struts resembling those on TIE Fighters and Interceptors and the wing panels much closer in shape to an Interceptor. While there is no doubt that the CCG style image is much higher quality, due to the fact that it didn't have to be rendered in real time with dozens of other ships on a typical 1998 personal computer, the original design still strikes me as more plausible. TIE Fighters are supposed to be built extremely compact with absolutely no wasted internal space. Shields, hyperdrives, armor, warhead launchers and the associated auxiliary equipment take up space. The short CCG version is barely any more massive than the Interceptor, meaning that those systems would have had to have been shrunk significantly to fit into such a tiny shell. Such a significant and revolutionary advance in technology does not fit in with the accepted canon. If you assume that the CCG version is a unique ship and not just a different artistic interpretation, it would likely be some sort of reduced capability version of the original TIE Defender. Such a ship could still be a significant improvement on the TIE interceptor without requiring a massive change in Imperial starfighter tactics and procurement systems.

96.245.90.167 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)ADyer

Inconistency with Wrack page

This page says that two of said ship's TIE Defenders were destroyed at Bilbringi, while the Wrack article says that all three were destroyed. I don't have that book, can anyone clear this up?

The best starfighter?

The article said that TIE Defender is a highly performance TIE starfighter which exceeds Rebel's starfighters such as A-Wing and X-Wing. Should we consider it as the best starfighter? Personally I dislike the look. The TIE Defender looks very weird in my point of view, but looks count next to nothing on a battlefield.Jasonfu 06:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pilot

  • my friend said that in the tie fighter game (for ms-das) that in a cutscene right before u save the emperor, level 8 mission 5 or something like that, u see a pilot scrambling for a defender and he looked different than a normal tie pilot? can anyone back that up.--PyRo 14:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There's no cutscene like that in any version of TIE Fighter, and I've played them all.--TIEDefenderPilot 09:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Main image vote.

Since Thefourdotelipsis reverted my edits, I'll bring it to the talk page in the form of a vote. My reasons for making option 2 the main image instead of option 1 (the current main image) are this: The current main image doesn't look much like the other images, with the cockpit being larger and/or the wings being shorter. In addition, the current main image looks more like a toy version of the TIE Defender, similar to Hasbro's TIE Interceptor vehicle. So, since neither jSarek or Fourdot posted their reasons for changing the image in their edit summaries, maybe they'd care to explain here. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

File:Defender.jpg|Option 1 (current main image) File:Defenderff3.jpg|Option 2

Option 1

  1. Thefourdotelipsis 11:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. This one looks clearer to me. Actually, I don't like the look of either of them, but I prefer this one. Unit 8311 13:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. It looks a little more plastic, yes, but it's also more consistent with the original TIE aesthetic than the Fact Files CGI. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 14:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. This one is nice and photorealistic; the FF one is obvious in its CGI-ness. jSarek 19:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Since when is a CGI image worse than one that has a ship that looks like it's made out of plastic? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It looks no more plastic to me than the TIEs that appeared in the original films. I've always thought that this pic, along with the TIE Avenger and bounty hunter ship pics, were exceedingly well done. jSarek 20:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Then what's wrong with a picture being a CGI image? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
          • Nothing. It's just that Decipher did a better job with their CGI than Fact Files did. jSarek 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Could have fooled me. The Decipher image doesn't even look like it's CGI. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
              • That's the point; good CGI *doesn't* look like it's CGI. The Fact Files pic was obviously cooked up in a computer, while Decipher's ship looks like it could be straight out of one of the movies. jSarek 00:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                • Good CGI doesn't make a ship look like it's made of plastic. Besides, neither picture of the TIE Defender has appeared in a movie, so either one could be "straight out of the movies" by that logic. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Good CGI makes something look like it's intended to look. Since the TIEs in the movies look plasticky, so does this. And no, neither could be "straight out of the movies" because only one has the quality to pass as a photorealistic image. jSarek 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. The photorealism's enough for me. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Although I really like the second one for some reason (I don't know why), I feel that this one is the better of the two with regards to the infobox. Greyman(Paratus) 00:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Option 2

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. It's a higher resolution, though I'd actually prefer a different FF one that's not uploaded yet. Additionally, the CCG one just looks...off...to me somehow. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

I added to the development section, as the Defender does owe much of its design to the Avenger and Advanced x1. Indeed, the old section pretty well went from nothing to the Defender, without noting the milestones of these earlier craft. The main goal that Sienar was to accomplish with the Defender is to improve on the Avenger in terms of role flexibility.

The old phrase TIE Defender itself was touted as the next "logical advance" of the TIE series—a starfighter that was fast, well armed and capable of hyperspace travel. is too generic, because the Avenger did essentially accomplish this.

Yeah, the Defender is pretty well superior to all other fighters, but the Avenger was not far behind in a dogfight, Maarek Stele did manage to come out on top. While Stele was a great pilot, he was also helped as the Avenger's 145 MGT speed is not too shabby compared to the Defender's 155 MGT.

GreenDragon 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem is that we can only repeat information that is explicitly stated and nothing gives a direct comparison to the TIE Avenger. TIE Fighter's depiction of speed is inaccurate as the concept of maximum speed in space is frowned upon and, according to The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, the TIE Interceptor actually accelerates faster than the TIE Defender and no acceleration value exists for the TIE Avenger. Also, if you do add anything to the article, please be sure to properly cite references. Green Tentacle (Talk) 12:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Engage multiple enemies?

What's the talk about engaging multiple enemy fighters? How is the system different from other TIEs and how does it work? In the X-wing series (where it was first seen) it's just a badass fighter with good stats but you can't engage many fighters at once unless they mean that TIE/D can properly spank them all regardless of number. I own the book that originally says this "factoid" but it's just as unexplained as here. Celery 10:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

  • It would be being outnumbered and still coming out on top, rather than actually being able to shoot at two things at the same time. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In that case pretty many starfighters' systems "allow" engaging multiple enemies although without mentioning it as a technical fact. In fact almost every Alliance craft can defeat TIEs outnumbered and other TIEs are what Defenders were mainly shooting down when it was made. Mentioning it specifically is confusing. Celery 23:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)