Maneuvering and Maneuverability

Spacecraft maneuvers vary widely. Simple navigation tasks are not difficult to perform, given time and proper planning. For example, getting from point A to point B in an aircraft means accelerating toward point B until you get there, then stopping. Easy. In space, it means accelerating toward point B until the halfway mark, then decelerating for the rest of the journey, to avoid overshooting point B at extreme speed. A bit more complex, but not really a big deal.

In combat, things get more interesting. The goal of combat is to overcome one's enemy while avoiding defeat oneself. Maneuvering can aid both of these purposes, of course; evasive maneuvers can greatly increase defense (no shield system can protect as well as not getting hit in the first place), and clever maneuvering can put a vehicle in just the right position to attack its enemy.

The overwhelming concern is Maneuverability: an abstraction representing a ship's ability to translate (move in three dimensions) and rotate. More powerful thrusters will produce better maneuverability. Better maneuverability means more benefit from maneuvers. In any contest between two ships, the more maneuverable ship has a clear advantage, other things being equal.

The Size Effect

The most important factor to maneuverability is vehicle size. Other things equal, as a ship's size increases, its maneuverability decreases, despite increased power available to apply thrust. Why? Well, as a ship's size increases, several problems occur, which prevent its maneuverability from keeping pace with its size growth:

The Inertia Problem

The Rotation Problem

The G-Force Problem

The Deceleration Dilemma

Conclusion

So, with that out of the way, we can conclude that with great size, comes crappy maneuverability. We can then derive the following:

Thus, the final conclusion, and the definition of the Size Effect: The more maneuverable vessel, which is almost always the smaller vessel, determines relative positioning and relative velocity; the less-maneuverable vehicle cannot contest this.

Practically speaking, a fast ship can decide that it would prefer to engage at 10 kilometers. Any action the larger ship takes to increase or decrease that range is easily countered by the smaller ship. It can't just turn tail and run; the smaller ship can outrun it. Nor can it close; the smaller ship can beat its acceleration.

Many of the tactics that might occur to a less-maneuverable vehicle on the ground do not work in empty space, such as:

There remain a few practical maneuvers for ships on the wrong end of the Size Effect; these are discussed in a later section.

Practical Maneuvers

Forget everything you know about aerial combat--none of it applies in space. Some of the realities of modern fighter combat are relevant, but nothing from the WWII era or earlier...that era is marked by the total supremacy of Aerodynamics over Newtonian Physics, a trend that is completely and infinitely reversed in the vacuum of space.

So rather than describing how familiar maneuvers might work in space, just forget all of them. We'll start fresh.

Attack

Attacking an enemy is fairly simple, in principle: point a weapon at him and shoot it. In practice, there are other variables to consider: the weapon's range, the target's ability to evade, the strength of the target's defenses, etc.

Effective Range due to Attenuation

Weapon range is a complex issue in space; many weapon types can travel forever, never losing potency, as there is no air resistance or gravity to interfere with their trajectory. A kinetic projectile enjoys this advantage. Others can partially exploit Newtonian motion; a long-range torpedo could coast for days, weeks, or years, provided the total amount of actual, powered thrust it needed to do did not exceed its fuel supply. Others attenuate over sufficient distance, such as lasers. The most common weapon used by Star Wars starships, the plasma bolt, attenuates over very short distances, rarely more than a few kilometers.

Effective Range due to Evasion

In any case, the weapon's attenuation is not the only factor. The longer it takes a weapon to reach its target, the longer the target has to evade. Given long enough, even the slowest vehicle can evade an attack. Thus, the best-case scenario is always a faster projectile (rarely something you can change in real-time, usually just a set muzzle velocity for a given weapon) fired from a shorter range. The latter is much more easily controlled by a pilot.

Of course, what's good for the gander is good for the goose; if the attacker is more potent for being closer, so is the defender. Thus, in cases where the attacker has some reason to fear the defender's own weapons (if any), the ideal range is the maximum range at which his own attacks are still reasonably difficult to evade. Hopefully, this range gives the attacker a decent chance to evade the defender's counter-fire.

Assault-focused ships, and the modules they prefer to equip, are typically designed to give a range advantage. The best way to do this is to increase projectile speed and ship maneuverability; other methods including using EWAR modules to confound the defender's sensors (which become vital at long range to achieve targeting) to reduce his counterattack range, or to use light-speed or near-light-speed weaponry that cannot be seen in time to effect evasion. Of course, this is paired with the "force-range" maneuver; assuming the attacker is the more maneuverable ship, he will set range to just inside his maximum, thus maximizing his own defense against counterattack while retaining the ability to hit the defender.

This tactic is best used against defenders who rely on evasion, but the defensive advantages to the attacker apply no matter what. Thus, it is commonly employed by smaller, more maneuverable craft intended for dogfighting, or for assault craft intended to attack larger craft from range. The latter type is often referred to as "artillery", as distinct from the perhaps more common approach of the close-in "dive bomber"; the former is more common with larger assault craft, such as an assault frigate, and the latter is more common when attacking in a swarm, to mitigate the effect of close-in weaponry.

Really, it's all about the scenario you're expecting.

Dogfighting

Consider a battle between an X-Wing and a TIE Fighter. One pictures a give-and-take between pilots battling the laws of physics, the limits of their own vessels, and their opponent's skill. When one pilot finally achieves an advantageous position, he exploits it, taking his shot, and scoring a kill.

But this isn't what it looks like. You're probably picturing a WWII-esque dogfight, with lots of high-G banking, streaming gun fire, and the whole nine. That's wrong for so many reasons; most importantly, the maneuverability of WWII fighters is highly variable. A fighter at cruising speed, flying level, under good conditions, has a lot of maneuverability, because he has a lot of options; a fighter just shy of a stall, flying through fog, with frost on his windshield from atmospheric water, has comparatively few options.

But in space, maneuverability is pretty much constant. Without air resistance and gravity, the options available to a pilot never really change; he can accelerate according to the limits of his craft, and to the G-Forces he can tolerate. That's about it. So when the X-Wing is banking hard to catch up with the TIE Fighter...the TIE Fighter wins, because it can bank harder. Forever.

Okay, that's not exactly true, but let's think about the scenario.

The engagement begins at a range outside either fighter's maximum as most combats do. The TIE pilot and the X-Wing pilot realize the same thing at the same time: the TIE has superior maneuverability, and the Size Effect is his. The TIE chooses his attack range (ideally, just under his own maximum, but anything outside the X-Wing's will do), and exploits his acceleration to maintain that range. The X-Wing struggles to catch up, but his efforts are in vain; the TIE has superior acceleration.

However, the TIE's designer has made a critical (and sadly common) error; any assault vessel that anticipates winning the Size Effect commonly should not forward-optimize the vessel. Why? See Overcoming the Size Effect (the Force-Facing maneuver) for more detail, but in short: if the X-Wing constantly accelerates toward the TIE, the TIE is forced to face away from the X-Wing to use its rear thruster...thus denying itself use of its forward-facing weapons, even as the X-Wing is pointing all of its weapon systems directly at the TIE. A much better design would mount the TIE's weapons on a turret that can face fore or rear, and allow the refocusing of defenses toward the rear. Even a permanently rear-mounted weapon would make more sense than a permanently fore-mounted one.

The TIE pilot has limited options. He can sacrifice his range lock, or he can make the most of it, and try to outfly the X-Wing pilot long enough to take a few shots of his own. The former strategy is the most intuitive, and is absolutely stupid. A head-on charge against a slower opponent almost always means a head-on charge against an opponent with superior offense and defense. In this particular case, that couldn't be more true; the TIE can be destroyed almost effortlessly by the X-Wing, but the X-Wing is unlikely to fall to even a sustained bombardment, given the limited time the TIE can fire before passing the X-Wing.

There is some merit to this maneuver, however; if done right, and if the pilot is lucky, the psychological effect of a head-on rush may cause the defender to compromise his counterattack to focus instead on avoiding the collision. If he does so, and if the attacker remains steel-willed, he might enjoy a brief window of uninterrupted attack. Of course, if the defender doesn't move, the attacker must in turn compromise his own attack to avoid a collision...or they can just hit each other and both die. This is known as Playing Chicken. It is not advised by Imperial Field Manuals.

A more practical approach is Jousting, a variant of the head-on rush, where instead of convincing the enemy you are crazy enough to ram him, you deliberately plot a course to miss your enemy. Firing on the enemy while approaching is optional; the key is to rotate after passing, keeping the enemy in your sights. If the enemy is unfamiliar with the tactic, you will gain advantageous positioning--your front to his rear--and can fire uninterrupted, even as your momentum carries you back to a safe range. Of course, if the enemy is familiar, he will counter-rotate, denying you an uninterrupted attack. And of course, this maneuver does not negate the danger you place yourself in by attacking head-on in the first place; in any head-on scenario, whether closing or opening, the vessel with superior offense and defense is likely to win. The Field Manual does not recommend this maneuver for TIE fighters attacking X-Wings.

Instead, by far the most sensible maneuver is the Orbit. Essentially, the TIE maintains its range lock not through linear acceleration, but by flying in a circle around the X-Wing. When the range falls, the TIE pulls away to compensate; when it rises, the TIE pulls in. If done correctly, not only does the TIE confound the X-Wing's attempts to close or open the field, but he also forces the X-Wing to match rotation, lest he present the wrong arc.

Establishing a circular motion in space requires constant acceleration toward the center. When orbiting a planet, the planet provides that acceleration with the pull of gravity. When orbiting an X-Wing, gravity is infinitely insufficient, so the main drive must be used. And here is where the maneuver truly shines.

When the maneuver is executed correctly, the TIE is moving in a perfect circle, centered on a stationary X-Wing (his own movements are irrelevant in a relative frame of reference, as long as the TIE counters them exactly). To maintain the circle, the TIE is thrusting toward the center--directly toward the X-Wing. Because it uses its main drive to do this, that means it is presenting its forward arc squarely to the X-Wing at all times, while maintaining optimum range (unlike the head-on scenario). Not only is the TIE's forward profile much harder to hit than its side, but the X-Wing's need to constantly rotate compromises his targeting ability, compared to a head-on scenario with minimal rotation.

Executing the maneuver is surprisingly simple; the hardest part is injection (though the TIE's targeting computer helps with that). The TIE's optimum range is a known, unchanging quantity, and therefore the incident velocity is also unchanging. A TIE going in for an attack run will target an entry point at the proper distance from the target, and achieve the desired velocity relative to the target. At the moment of injection, it must be facing the target exactly, and have a rotational momentum designed to exactly counter its revolution around the target. If this is all done properly, the only thing the TIE need do is vary the forward thrust; when range increases, he adds thrust, and when it decreases, he lets off. Rotation is automatic, if the momentum was set up right.

Of course, the target can attempt to spoil the maneuver by accelerating in a direction other than directly toward or away from the TIE. This is not an intuitive defense, but a tactic commonly known to students of dogfighting, and it is thus not unreasonable to assume the opponent knows the tactic. The skill of the TIE pilot is thus crucial, as it requires less skill to juke randomly around than it does to maintain a perfect orbit around a juking target. TIE pilots train for many hours in simulators to gain an intuitive feel for the control tweaks necessary to keep their target centered and their orbit stable. With enough practice, they even learn to confound the target's counteracts with juking motions of their own.

The greatest disadvantage of the maneuver is that it is relatively easy for the target to keep the TIE centered for a counterattack, should the defender have enough range to make such attacks (and larger ships usually do). A large orbit gives the TIE pilot ample time to evade such attacks, but doing so without spoiling orbit is a very challenging task, whereas simply firing on the TIE when it is centered in a reticule is quite an easy task for the defender. While an individual TIE pilot's best hope to avoid this is to increase his own piloting skill, the best tactic overall is simple: add more TIEs.

TIE pilots rarely fly alone, and are trained to focus fire in clusters of 5 or fewer fighters. Thus, a wing of 5 TIEs will all choose their wingleader's target, and will all enter orbit of the target. The wingleader gets preferential range; everyone will stagger inward by a certain margin, depending on rank within the wing. This ensures that each TIE has an uninterrupted "bubble" to work with for evasion and orbit stabilization. The target is then presented with 5 TIEs, each flying in a different direction. Focusing on any one TIE negates defense against all others. Even the coolest hands among rebel pilots often falls victim to the psychology of the multi-TIE orbit, foolishly dividing fire between multiple TIEs. Meanwhile, all 5 TIEs are attacking simultaneously, which prevents the target from focusing defenses forward, and of course means his defenses will fall at least 5 times faster.

The Imperial Field Manual mandates the Orbit as the primary maneuver for TIE pilots in a dogfight. It is statistically proven to be many times more likely to succeed than Jousting or similar maneuvers. There is some risk of friendly fire in a multi-TIE orbit, but the risk is deemed acceptable.

Overcoming the Size Effect

The previous section described what to do when you have the maneuverability advantage. What if you don't?

The Size Effect means that larger, less maneuverable vessels are typically at the mercy of smaller, more maneuverable vessels, in terms of velocity and positioning. But there are some practical maneuvers to counter this tendency. Some of the most common or applicable include:

What about the X-Wing vs TIE example? Well, let's assume the TIE pilot is smart enough to use the Orbit maneuver. Further, let's assume the X-Wing pilot does not have a sufficient advantage of piloting skill to spoil the maneuver. So what can he do?

So what remains? If one cannot count on superior skill, or an exceptional astrogation droid, perhaps one can count on friends; the Orbit maneuver was designed to attack a single ship. If the X-Wing has a wingman, said wingman can pursue the TIE to his preference; the piloting demands of the Orbit maneuver are so intense that managing to evade a wingman while maintaining the orbit is inconceivable for a being of human intelligence.

Sadly, rebel pilots cannot count on numeric superiority--far from it, they are usually quite outnumbered themselves. Where they do enjoy a major advantage, however, is in their engineering corps, and in the design of their favored fighter. Not only is the X-Wing categorically superior to the TIE in every capability besides maneuverability, it is also far more extensible. After the Battle of Yavin and other early sorties, rebel pilots realized the need to adapt to the TIE's maneuverability, and asked their mechanics for help. The OP delivered. Later generations of X-Wing would be equipped with Power Relay Modules, allowing some of the ship's power to be selectively relayed to weapons, propulsion or shielding, or whatever combination of the three the pilot preferred at the time.

With these modules, it became possible to boost the X-Wing's thrust to match that of the TIE (albeit at the cost of all power to weapons). Thus, an X-Wing pilot caught in an orbit can use the following go-to maneuver to break free: