My interest in the technical specifications of Star Wars: X-Wing and its sequels has always been central to my enjoyment since I started playing the series in the mid-90s. I paid great attention to detail when reading each craft’s characteristics and strengths, within the game and in game-related literature. My curiosity was aroused when I started using ship editors like X-Wing Editor Pro (XP)[xwing.rebelsquadrons.org] and X-Wing Ship Editor (XWSE)[xwing.rebelsquadrons.org]. It wasn’t long before I discovered the significant discrepancies between the actual ship specs during inflight gameplay versus the source material, be it digital (e.g. Tech Room) or print (e.g. The Farlander Papers). This write-up addresses the differences and presents a report of the actual technical specifications in the inflight gameplay of X-Wing.


X-Wing Editor Pro 1.52


The Farlander Papers limited run novelette distributed with the original X-Wing release

The scope of this guide somewhat encompasses the X-Wing Series: TIE Fighter, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter: Balance Of Power (XvT: BOP) and X-Wing Alliance (XWA), since the inconsistencies between actual inflight game specs and sources were prevalent throughout all of them. For the sake of time I chose to focus on craft in X-Wing only as it provides an adequate sample to conduct an in-depth investigation with. With the exception of XWA, the ship specs mostly remain the same throughout the series.




It is assumed that readers of this guide are well experienced players of X-Wing and/or the series. It is also a given that all readers would be Star Wars fans of some sort and have prior knowledge of spacecraft specifications in this universe. You don’t have to be a mathematician or physicist to understand the data interpretation in the analysis but it does require some basic mathematical understanding to know how the units and measurements are calculated and converted. To all those who love the technical aspect of Star Wars, I hope you enjoy delving deep into the science of this amazing fiction as we read on.

After the initial excitement of flying an X-Wing and thinking, “Wow this is just like the movies!”, a bit more exposure raised questions like, “Gee, my X-Wing can sure take a lot more hits than Biggs’s in A New Hope”, or “Why is the Star Destroyer’s top speed sooo slow when I recall two of them keeping up with the Millennium Falcon when it fled Tatooine?!”. Understandably the game designers had to tweak some things and address numerous unanswered questions in the films and canon literature (namely ILM and the source books). They had to make the game playable and present challenging, yet passable missions. It’s safe to say the movies and canon sources had partial influence to capture the authenticity of the Star Wars universe, but not quite enough to dictate the ship specs, physics and storyline of the game. I mean, imagine trying to outrun a Star Destroyer in a Y-Wing which could be destroyed with two direct hits from the turbolasers!


Goodbye Biggs...you should have double charged your rear shields

It’s also worth noting the game was built in an era where PC games needed more memory than most home machines could spare. Things had to be scaled back, such as the number of vessels in a mission. Sadly we had to give up hopes of massive fleet battles, at least until XvT. Lastly, LucasArts’s Star Wars: Behind The Magic (BTM) provided data closer to that in canon, most notably in the speed and size charts. For example the X-Wing’s speed was listed as 80 MGLT (20 MGLT less than the game) and the TIE Fighter’s at 100 MGLT (as per the game). This fitted canon quite appropriately. Think of Luke’s X-Wing flight navigating the Death Star’s trench at “full throttle” and yet Vader and his wingmen in their TIEs closed in with remarkable ease. We could go on but I’m not even going to get into the overly discussed 8km/12.8km fallacy of the 19km long Executor!


Star Wars: Behind the Magic Speed Chart

I would argue most of the game’s ship and “science” specifications were derived from Legends material and possibly role playing games. Source books and the above mentioned BTM lean towards canon and everything on StarWars.com can be treated as canon. However publications such as Star Wars Technical Journal Vol. #2-3 cited surprisingly close information to game literature. Finally, I must mention how incredibly insightful and thorough Star Wars Technical Commentaries (SWTC)[theforce.net] is. To this day I have not read a more critical analysis of the science of Star Wars, particularly in relation to vessels. The writers do an impressive job at debunking published material, establishing theories and reinforcing claims by employing detailed observation of the films, books and games.


Starlog's Star Wars Technical Journal featured specifications very close to those mentioned in game literature


One of the greatest analyses of Star Wars technical specifications ever written

This is where things get critical. When it comes to understanding the game to its fullest I studied the Tech Room data, watched the animated ship specs before “The Maze” Training and Historical Combat and read the game literature The Farlander Papers and X-Wing Collectors CD-ROM: The Official Strategy Guide. The same went for TIE Fighter. I went through every ship in the Tech Room, watched the pre-flight info animations and read The Stele Chronicles. That passion carried over to XvT’s Craft Database, which was a game changer (more on that later). Some of it was enlightening, but other parts just plain confusing.


The official strategy guide for the 1994 CD-ROM edition of X-Wing


The Stele Chronicles limited edition novelette distributed with the original version of TIE Fighter

If a TIE Fighter and an A-Wing have equal hull ratings of 15 RU, why does the latter take 3 hits to destroy (without shields) and the former just 2 hits? Is it the structural integrity of the ships? If a Corellian Corvette and an Assault Gunboat both boast 100 SBD shields, why does the former require 4 torpedoes to bring down and the latter just 1? Is it to do with the size multiplication of the shields? Perhaps. And if the source tells me a Nebulon B Frigate can carry 24 fighters, why is it in some missions they are carrying in excess of that (and by more than just a few!)? These are the sort of questions I hope to address in the following analysis and presentation of actual gameplay data.


15 RU vs 15 RU does not equal 3 shots vs 2 shots

All my findings and investigation data is tabulated in an Excel spreadsheet with a PDF version available. I will keep referring to this spreadsheet throughout the rest of the guide. It can be accessed below in the Google Drive folder:

Download X-Wing - Technical Specification Data[drive.google.com]

The above document consists of several sheets:

• Craft Specs - the final interpretation of specs after investigation and conversion.
  
• Conversions - a list of conversion formulae and ratios used to convert raw values into those listed in Craft Specs.
  
• Weapons - verified weapons specs derived from experimentation and investigation.
  
• Definitions - a list of definitions for the terms used in Craft Specs and Weapons.
  
• Craft Specs (Raw) - the unconverted raw values of the craft specs read directly from the game files.

I also referred to published literature (see References, Tools and Resources) for ship specs related to the design of missions but not actually configurable in the game ship files. For example the number of crew on-board is not a spec in the game per se, but should influence mission design. If the objective is to capture an Imperial Frigate with 920 crew members and 75 Stormtroopers on-board, you would need a significant boarding party to take control of the ship. You will find these specs tabulated separately in the Craft Specs sheet.


Several Transports and Shuttles carried ample commandos to overcome the 75 Stormtroopers on-board the Nebulon B Frigate Priam, but were they really enough to subdue the 920 crew members?

Before proceeding it is imperative to point out that the craft specification raw programmed values in the game are not the same units as the print. There is a conversion taking place behind the scenes. For example in the game files, the raw value of the X-Wing’s speed rating is 225. All speed specs are divided by 2.25, giving the X-Wing a 100 MGLT speed rating. These conversions are listed in the Conversions sheet.


X-Wing Ship Editor 5.0 showing the raw units for the X-Wing

Ship names in the games were generalised and abbreviated to allow strings of text to fit onto the CMD and screen for inflight messages. For example the Imperial Star Destroyer became just “Star Destroyer” and the Stormtrooper Transport became just “Transport”. There is not much to debate here, just a few inconsistencies with other sources.

• Advanced TIE - every other TIE is “TIE {sub-model}”. The game designers possibly reversed the order here to avoid an issue with the plurality of “TIE Advanceds”. All sequels of the game changed the name to TIE Advanced after X-Wing.
  
• Corellian Corvette - this wasn’t an issue until Revenge of the Sith identified the vessel as an Alderaan Cruiser because it belonged to Bail Organa from Alderaan. This wasn’t just a name change but an identity shift for the starship. It no longer was Corellian or nicknamed the “Blockade Runner” as we came to accept as canon until the prequel trilogy.
  
• Calamari Cruiser - most sources would identify the ship as the Mon Calamari Cruiser, named after the system. Again, the liberty to remove “Mon” probably avoided the craft name being too long for mission messages which would result in truncated statements on a 320 * 200 pixel resolution screen.

Canon doesn’t even mention “Corellian Corvette” or “Blockade Runner” anymore as proven by a Databank search. How rude...

This isn’t an explicit editable ship spec (if using one of the editor tools). However it proves there is a shield and hull unit multiplier for larger ships. In X-Wing, we aren’t told the shield and hull ratings for any ships outside of the starfighter category. However, in TIE Fighter we are given that information for every ship in the Tech Room. We can see that a Corvette has 50 RU hull, yet it takes 2 torpedoes to destroy (without shields). How does that line up with the B-Wing’s 60 RU hull that can’t even handle a single torpedo? Is it just size?

The question was answered in XvT when the Craft Database revealed the literal shield and hull ratings with the size multipliers in effect. The Corvette, previously stated having 100 SBD shields and 50 RU hull now displayed 400 SBD shields and 188 RU hull - approximately a 4 times increase. However I was not fully satisfied. The hull values seemed to be arbitrarily decremented from a round figure. In the Corvette’s case, down from 200 RU. More on this under the Shields and Hull section.


Corvette spec comparison between TIE Fighter and XvT where the former neglected the factor of 4 increase on the conversion from the raw shield and hull values (Note: the craft’s actual spec is equal across the entire X-Wing Series, but is incorrectly reported in TIE Fighter)

The conclusion drawn here is that for medium class vessels, raw shield and hull values are increased by a factor of 4. In the case of heavy class ships, shields and hull increase by a factor of 16. So the Star Destroyer appearing to have 300 SBD shields and 150 RU hull has in fact 4800 SBD shields and 2400 RU hull. Though XvT again reduced the hull arbitrarily down to 2272 RU, which is not consistent to the factor for other heavy ship hull ratings. We also know that 2400 RU is accurate because it takes 24 torpedoes to destroy the Star Destroyer’s hull.


As with the Corvette, the Star Destroyer also gets an exponential increase on shields and hull rating by a whopping 16x

Long been a topic of debate is actual craft dimensions in the Star Wars universe. Sources have stated conflicting lengths particularly for larger vessels like Super Star Destroyers and Mon Calamari Cruisers. Even the Corellian Corvette has been subject to discrepancy with lengths ranging from 126.68m[www.starwars.com] (StarWars.com) to 150m (Legends). SWTC provides an excellent and convincing study on craft dimensions from observing the films. I encourage you to read their articles[theforce.net]. Pay attention to dimensions particularly for:

• Super Star Destroyer Executor[theforce.net]
  
• Imperator-Class (Imperial) Star Destroyer[theforce.net]
  
• Mon Calamari Cruisers Home One, Liberty, MC80a and anonymous 1300m cruiser[theforce.net]

As for X-Wing I decided to compare actual craft lengths in the game against quoted lengths in the X-Wing Series and literature. For higher resolution graphics and consistency with craft models across X-Wing, TIE Fighter and XvT, I used the special edition version of the game. The method employed was to build test missions that lined up craft on the same X and Y axes with equidistant space on the Z axis (basically a vertical stack). Shifting the inflight camera to a side view, I took screenshots and used pixel measurements to convert length into metres. There also had to be a reference point as a single source of truth. I chose to treat the Star Destroyer’s mostly undisputed length of 1600m to be the scale for all other ships. Here are the screenshots with length annotations:


The longest craft in each screenshot is the reference for the rest of the craft and inherits its length from the previous screenshot analysis.

• The Calamari Cruiser is slightly longer than the popular 1200m publication but is closer to the TIE Fighter and XvT stated lengths of 1300m, so these sources may have rounded up the actual spec.
  
• The Nebulon B Frigate is larger than the widely accepted 300m. Like the Calamari Cruiser the actual length is much closer to the XvT value of 378m and TIE Fighter’s likely round up to 400m.
  
• The Freighter has a refined length in the zoomed-in screenshot. This is no surprise as a higher resolution produces a more accurate measurement.
  
• The Freighter’s appearance always suggested it could carry 4 Containers, 2 per side. However the Container’s length never made sense of this as it’s more than half the length of the Freighter.
  
• The Y-Wing is much bigger than the common 16m reference. The length is almost equal to canon’s 23.4m[www.starwars.com] as seen on StarWars.com.
  
• The other Alliance fighters are very close to their literature specs.
  
• The Tug is twice is big as the Tech Room’s 5m and almost on par with XvT’s 9m.
  
• The TIEs are marginally larger than their quoted specs in Legends.
  
• How big is that mine?!

An excerpt from X-Wing Collector Series Instruction Guide showing the Engine Power Level in the X-Wing’s cockpit instrumentation

In literature, KTU was the unit of measure for the propulsion level of a craft. In X-Wing, it’s a variable engine power level indicator that changes depending on Engines, Lasers and Shields (ELS) in the Power Configuration System (PCS). It rises and falls with approximately the same percentage as full throttle speed depending on how much power is directed to or from the engines. It’s purely an indicator of available engine power. The following table explains using the X-Wing as an example:


Note: percentages are relative to the default ELS of 50%. Regardless of default KTU, the only useful information from this indicator is the percentage of engine power gained or loss.

There are two inconsistencies for Engine Power Level specs:

• In sources, the B-Wing’s propulsion is rated at 290 KTU. In the game flight, it’s 250 KTU. This may just be a programming error.
  
• Only Alliance fighters have KTU above 100 according to printed specs. This tells us that it’s purely a visual aesthetic during flight gameplay. All other craft in the game have this specification set to 100. It’s safe to assume the value does not affect the performance of other specifications. Given Engine Power Level was removed from the cockpit view in X-Wing’s sequels reinforces the claim that it is trivial to the gameplay.

In literature and in-game specs, this measurement quantified a craft’s speed at full throttle when ELS is set to normal levels. Most craft have an actual speed rating with 1-2 MGLT variance on what is stated. For example the B-Wing’s speed rating is 90 MGLT in the text but 91 MGLT in flight. Similarly the TIE Interceptor has a stated 110 MGLT on paper but 111 MGLT during flight. When examining the values in XWSE and XP, the conclusion we draw is that each raw speed value was rounded to the nearest 5 (they’re all multiples of 5) then converted to MGLT. Hence the slight inconsistencies.


A B-Wing cockpit screenshot by Bring-The-Reign showing a speed rating of 91 MGLT vs the B-Wing spec in the Training briefing room showing 90 MGLT

A fun fact is that 1 MGLT in flight is approximately 4 km/h, meaning an X-Wing’s speed rating is about 400 km/h. Not quite as fast as sources state for atmospheric speed, which is 1050 km/h. Even if ELS was configured for the X-Wing’s maximum speed of 150 MGLT, it’s only 600 km/h. The game designers probably scaled this back to make the game more playable as most of us don’t have pilot reflexes, except in the case of the Death Star trench run where your speed is tripled. In the movies there is a great variance between battle speed and cruising speed. We can see ships approach planets and space stations with immense speed but when strafing a Mon Calamari Cruiser, it seems similar to the game speeds.

This spec didn’t really appear on the radar until XvT when acceleration was explicitly mentioned for each craft (notably boosted for that game and XWA). Therefore there isn’t any source for X-Wing that would challenge the inflight specs. The spec measures the the average increase in MGLT per second when a craft is accelerating. The conversion of raw values in the programming is the same as speed - divide by 2.25.

There are two possible bugs where the Advanced TIE and Nebulon B Frigate have the same insanely high acceleration rate. To test this I edited the Advanced TIE to have an A-Wing cockpit. Then I created a custom mission and flew the Advanced TIE. The acceleration is indeed quick but not proportionate to the raw value. The Advanced TIE would accelerate from 0-144 MGLT in around 6 seconds which equals approximately 24 MGLT/second, not 18204.4 as seen in the program files! There must be cap in the rate somewhere around the 24 MGLT/second mark.

A craft’s manoeuvrability is broken down into two values. The first is Pitch, which is the craft’s ability to pull up and down on the Y axis. The second is Roll, which is the craft’s ability to bank left and right on the X axis as well as barrel roll on the Z axis. According to SWTC[theforce.net] a ship’s manoeuvrability rating (DPF) can be calculated as follows:

DPF = 2 * Pitch + Roll

For this specification the raw values in the program files are 1:1 to that of the game specifications, so there is no conversion necessary. There are many inconsistencies here when compared to literature and also a couple of bugs:

• Most of the fighters’ DPF values do not match literature. The Rebel ships come close but the TIEs are greatly different. For instance The Farlander Papers lists a TIE Interceptor’s DPF as 125, but the inflight spec is 94 DPF. Far more comparable to an A-Wing.
  
• XvT’s Craft Database shows values much closer to the actual game specs of X-Wing.
  
• Again, the Advanced TIE and Nebulon B Frigate have their Roll values set at a strange value of 0. This literally means they can’t turn. I confirmed this when test flying an Advanced TIE in a custom built mission.
  
• However it seems the AI has an override on manoeuvrability specs or at least a separate value as the Advanced TIE and Frigate can obviously turn in the game. A custom hex editor program revealed that later games in the series had a field for AI manoeuvrability separate to the standard Pitch and Roll. I believe this is to normalise the performance given that AIs don’t use a calibrated joystick.

The ratings of shields and hull appear to reference the same unit, where SBD is for shields and RU is for hull. We don’t assume shields and hull have equal durability but we infer that 1 RU is the same measure of durability as 1 SBD. SBD also refers to the combined strength of front and rear shields. The conversion of raw units for shields is as follows:

SBD = (Front Shields + Rear Shields) / 100 * Class

For example, the Y-Wing’s shields in the program file is:
(3750 + 3750) / 100 * 1 = 75 SBD

For medium class vessels, this value is multiplied by 4. So a Freighter’s shields would be calculated as:
(6000 + 6000) / 100 * 4 = 480 SBD

For heavy class vessels, this value is multiplied by 16. So a Calamari Cruiser’s shields would calculate as:
(12000 + 12000) / 100 * 16 = 3840 SBD

For RU, it is simply a division by 100 multiplied by the ship class factor:

RU = Hull / 100 * Class

So for the Y-Wing:
4200 / 100 * 1 = 42 RU

Freighter:
3000 / 100 * 4 = 120 RU

Calamari Cruiser:
14000 / 100 * 16 = 2240 RU

Note: Some would argue that RU is derived from dividing the raw value by 105 instead of 100. This produces results closer to the “random” hull ratings seen in the XvT Craft Database but the formula is not consistent across all craft. Weapons testing also debunks this formula as ship hulls appear to be stronger than what is stated in the Craft Database.

Therefore, we can draw a final calculation on overall ship durability:

Total Durability = SBD + RU

Continuing with our examples above we get the following:

• Y-Wing durability = 75 + 42 = 117 units
  
• Freighter durability = 480 + 120 = 600 units
  
• Calamari Cruiser durability = 3840 + 2240 = 6080 units

Total durability indicates how much destructive weapon power is required to destroy a craft. More on this in the Weapons Analysis sections.

• Y-Wing - the Tech Room incorrectly states 40 SBD compared to the actual 75 SBD in flight and all other sources.
  
• B-Wing - sources say 125 SBD when it is 100 SBD.
  
• Assault Gunboat - the Tech Room incorrectly states 80 SBD compared to the actual 100 SBD in flight and literature.
  
• Advanced TIE - the strategy guide says 100 SBD and “fast-recharging”, however there is no known spec for charge speed and the rating is actually 50 SBD. From TIE Fighter onwards this was reduced to 40 SBD.
  
• Transport - published game literature states 125 SBD when the actual is 80 SBD.

Generally speaking, RU is significantly more inconsistent between sources and gameplay than SBD. Rebel fighters come close but the rest are way off. In XvT we see a much more accurate display of RU ratings. For example the TIE Fighter in multiple sources is quoted to have 15 RU hull, but XvT stated 9 RU which answers the “2 shots to kill” discrepancy. However, I still stand by my findings that a TIE Fighter’s hull is 10 RU. I believe XvT simply applied some arbitrary deductions in RU values to appear “realistic” and less round in figures. This conclusion on RU is further supported by examining weapons power in the following section.

A couple of inconsistencies are too large to leave unmentioned:

• Both the TIE Bomber and Assault Gunboat have multiple sources stating 50 RU hull, where the actual is 30 RU. From XvT this was more accurately displayed as 28 RU.
  
• Published game literature states the Transport having 80 RU hull which is double the actual of 40 RU.
  
• Though X-Wing has no hull spec for the Nebulon B Frigate, the closest inconsistency is in the TIE Fighter Tech Room, stating 80 RU. After our factor of 16 increase, this equates to 1280 RU; 320 RU less than the actual 1600 RU.

The second part of this analysis is dedicated to the craft weapons in X-Wing, since it is such a massive standalone topic. We need to begin by defining the unit of destructive power used to measure weapons. This unit is called Blast Rating or BLS. Though not explicitly mentioned in X-Wing or its literature, from TIE Fighter onwards BLS was a common unit to measure the destructive power of warheads and to a less obvious extent, laser-based weapons.

From the strategy guide sources (Hits to Kill Tables and Cannon Statistics) and SWTC, we can establish that BLS is the equivalent of durability as a destructive unit. So 1 BLS is the unit of weapon power required to destroy 1 unit of durability (be it SBD or RU). Therefore we make the inference that:

1 BLS + 1 SBD = 0
1 BLS + 1 RU = 0

(Or BLS is negative in durability terms)

So if a Y-Wing has 117 units of durability it will require 117 BLS of weapon power to destroy it.

Laser cannons and turbolasers can be categorised into Rebel or Imperial. There is a difference beyond colour and sound. Rebel lasers are 25% more powerful and have greater range. I’m not sure why this is the case. At first I thought it was to give the player an advantage over AI opponents. However in TIE Fighter they continued this specification as proven from the strategy guide and inflight gameplay. The method for discovering this:

• Test missions comparing the number of hits it takes to deplete the shields or destroy a target.
  
• Ship edited the Assault Gunboat to have a Y-Wing cockpit and flew a weapons test mission to compare Imperial lasers against Rebel.
  
• Created a mission to test being shot at by a Calamari Cruiser and a Star Destroyer in an X-Wing (50 SBD shields). The Rebel turbolasers (5 BLS power) depleted my shields in 10 hits flat whilst the Imperial turbolasers (4 BLS power) took 13 hits with partial damage to my hull.

A canon source explains why TIEs shoot green laser and X-Wings shoot red, though there is no real difference in power:
https://youtu.be/Ux3zsLJfHyU

All light class craft-based lasers have two power ratings - normal and supercharged. We assume all readers know the difference regarding the charge status of cannons. Through many tests and investigations we can determine that a Rebel normal laser blast is 2.5 BLS and a supercharged blast is 5 BLS - double the power. Additionally, range is greater. Refer to the Weapons table in the data spreadsheet for the full report.

• Supercharged blasts are double the power and have longer range.
  
• Ion blasts are slower, weaker and have less range than laser blasts, but obviously disable a vessel instead of destroying it. Strangely enough, TIEs explode as soon as they are disabled. Technically this means the target is destroyed but you can fail a mission if the objective is to destroy (not disable) a TIE.
  
• Turbolasers which are mounted on capital ships, have the same power as supercharged lasers but more than double the range and a wide firing arc.
  
• I confirmed that turbolasers have a range of approximately 3.5km - 4km by placing capital ships opposite each other (port side facing starboard) at that distance. Both were assigned to target my X-Wing and I flew between them so their line of fire would hit each other. Capital ships won’t start firing until their target is <2km away so the only method was to “trick” them by flying within their common line of sight.
  
• Some turbolasers have a firing arc that allows a ship to shoot through itself. This obviously isn't a self-destruct mechanism as a ship's weapons cannot inflict self-damage. The blast is able to pass through internally and emerge from another surface of the ship giving the impression that there are more weapon emplacements than actually programmed in the game.
  
• Light craft maintain their default laser armament even if they are flying for the opposing side e.g. a Shuttle will always have Rebel lasers even if flown by the Empire and a Transport will always have Imperial Lasers even when flown by the Rebellion.
  
• Medium and heavy craft will possess their affiliated laser armament e.g. Imperial Corvettes and Frigates will always have Imperial turbolasers and Rebel Corvettes and Frigates will always have Rebel turbolasers.
  
• All laser-based weapons have an equal maximum rate of fire and a fixed speed in excess of 1000 MGLT (tested in flight). Note: According to canon, turbolasers have a slower firing rate but are exponentially more powerful than laser cannons, so this is an inconsistency with the game.

• The Shuttle sports far less armament with just 4 Rebel lasers. Being an Imperial vessel originally we expected Imperial lasers and 10 of them, with some aft facing.
  
• The Transport only lists weaponry in the game literature but even so quotes 8 laser canons, not 4 as in the game.

Laser aramament is consistent with literature specs for fighters but for medium and heavy craft, they are nowhere near. The main reason is a programming limitation. X-Wing only supports 12 weapon emplacements per craft. Here are the findings:

• Corellian Corvette - in almost all sources is quoted to have 6 double turbolasers, but only has 2 in the game. Possibly because it could be overpowered with 6. From TIE Fighter onwards they introduced the Modified Corvette which sports 6 double turbolasers and is far more formidable.
  
• Nebulon B Frigate - quoted unanimously to have 12 turbolasers and 12 laser cannons, this ship only has 12 turbolasers in the game. However it is more than enough to make it the most dangerous capital ship in X-Wing. From a player's point of view you truly can't tell how many weapons dot the surface, though it appears to be a high number to surface area ratio.
  
• Calamari Cruiser - most sources will state 48 turbolaser batteries and 20 ion cannon batteries but this is hardly the case in the game. For starters, ion cannons don't function on capital ships as the mission programming does not have a command for them to utilise ion cannons. Secondly, of the maximum 12 weapon emplacements available per ship, the Cruiser only has 11. Why not use all 12? The ship is exponentially larger than the Frigate yet is comparatively lacking in firepower.
  
• Star Destroyer - quoted to have 60 heavy turbolaser batteries and 60 ion cannon batteries, this ultimate ship only has the maximum 12 turbolasers in the game as explained above. Like the Cruiser, you can visually tell that it is offensively underpowered for a ship of its class. Given you can knock out the shield generators with ease, the Star Destroyer is a far more vulnerable target than the Frigate.
  
• AI Skill Level - like light craft the AI skill level set in the mission file has an adverse effect on starship performance. The higher the AI skill, the more frequent the rate of fire from a capital ship and the higher the chance of hitting its targets. A Top Ace starship is significantly harder to defeat than a Rookie, which is almost a sitting duck.

Note: X-Wing doesn't feature tractor beam weapons, so you don't get to see these in action though most capital ships are armed with them.

I recently conducted a time trial test to compare the offensive capability of the starships in X-Wing. It reaffirmed my stance that the Star Destroyer and Calamari Cruiser are offensively under-powered. We would expect these ships to possess the most firepower in the game, but they don't because of the 12 weapon emplacement limitation.

The test was set up as follows:

• Create a test mission where the target is a group of 3 Freighters in a line astern formation.
  
• Place the freighters to the port side of the starship being tested.
  
• The Frigates and Corvettes were tested as Rebel and Imperial vessels to compare the firepower of Rebel and Imperial turbolasers.
  
• All craft are stationary.
  
• The tested starship has one objective - to destroy the Freighters.
  
• The starship AI is set to Top Ace.
  
• Mission timer is 10 minutes and the clock is "stopped" when the last Freighter is destroyed.

A screenshot of the test mission showing the positioning of the subject starship to the target Freighters. Here we can see the Rebel Frigate firing 7 turbolasers concurrently.

The results of the test are tabulated below:

Notes:

• Time - how long it took for the starship to destroy the Freighters.
  
• Gap - the difference in time taken compared to the fastest time in the top row.
  
• Max Concurrent Lasers - the highest number of lasers seen firing at the same time.
  
• Max Concurrent Targets - the highest number of targets being fired upon at the same time.

Observations:

• As argued above, the Nebulon B Frigates are by far the most powerful ships offensively and are able to fire more than half their turbolasers concurrently. Destroying 3 Freighters in just over 1 minute is impressive.
  
• The Star Destroyer is significantly slower in destroying the targets than its rival, the Calamari Cruiser, even though it was firing 4 turbolasers concurrently against the Cruiser’s 3.
  
• It appears that starships can only fire upon a maximum of 2 targets at a time. This seems like a waste given they are utilising at most approximately 50% of their destructive capability. This is especially true with the Corvettes, which should be able to fire both the top and bottom turbolaser turrets concurrently but are limited to 1 at a time in this test.
  
• The power advantage of Rebel turbolasers is noticeable when comparing Alliance Frigates and Corvettes with their Imperial equivalents.

As we know, X-Wing only features two types of warheads - concussion missiles and proton torpedoes. Surprisingly, the sources match the game in terms of payload, except for the TIE Bomber specs in the Tech Room which incorrectly states payload is 20 concussion missiles and 12 proton torpedoes. What we have learnt from the X-Wing Series is that concussion missiles have a blast rating of 30 BLS and proton torpedoes have a blast rating of 100 BLS. Though the homing capability and speed of missiles is greater, torpedoes home for twice as long. Warheads also have a speed rating (Exit Velocity) which is added on top of the launching craft’s speed e.g. if an X-Wing fires a torpedo while flying at 100 MGLT, the torpedo will fly at 220 MGLT. Therefore:

Warhead Speed = Exit Velocity + Craft Speed


Total Payload by Craft table showing which light craft have the most destructive power

The strategy guides already present fairly accurate (according to my testing anyway) “Hits to Kill Tables” so they won’t be regurgitated here. For the sake of marrying BLS to SBD and RU, I’ll list a few key examples using warheads as a guide:

• 1 missile is ideal for destroying the TIE Bomber with 1 hit as they are matching in units - 30 BLS against 30 RU. 6 supercharged laser blasts would be required otherwise.
  
• A Transport with 40 RU hull (and shields down) proves a missile is 30 BLS as it takes 1 missile plus 2 supercharged laser blasts (10 BLS) to do the job.
  
• Both the Freighter and Corvette have a total durability of 600 units. Hence the convenience of an X-Wing being able to destroy one single-handily with its total payload of 600 BLS. This is often suggested in mission hints to quickly dispose of a pesky Corvette.
  
• A Nebulon B Frigate is approximately twice the size of a Corvette but only roughly 1/4 the size of a Calamari Cruiser. Yet its total durability of 4160 units is 7 times a Corvette’s and about 2/3 of a Cruiser. This does not seem proportional. Once again I believe the game designers had to find a middle ground as there are no other major warships outside the Star Destroyer and Calamari Cruiser in the game. Many missions relied on the Frigate as the principal opponent and it would be too easy if all it took was 12 torpedoes to destroy instead of 42! With the large introduction of other medium-sized starships into the sequels, LucasArts finally decided to bring the Nebulon B back to the ground in XWA with a total durability of 1408 units.

The Nebulon B’s specs in XvT vs XWA, showing a significant reduction in durability from one game to the next

• AI’s never launch missiles at medium or heavy craft. Similarly they don’t launch torpedoes at light craft.
  
• AI’s only launch 1 missile at a time and require another full lock before launching another.
  
• With torpedoes they always launch in pairs using single fire mode (unless they are forced off their attack run).

The third and final part is dedicated to craft specifications that aren’t set in the ship program files but in the mission files. As such, they are not configurable by ship editors like XWSE. Missions can be edited as mentioned above using a program like XMB which can alter a craft’s ability to use hyperspace or launch fighters.


X-Wing Mission Builder showing the flight groups in Tour 4 Mission 16B

A craft’s ability to enter hyperspace is set in a mission’s arrival and departure parameters. Using XMB you can view every craft’s hyperspace parameters in a mission. Technically one could create a mission that allowed TIEs to arrive via hyperspace, but the game’s missions do a consistent job at adhering to written specs.

Using XMB to examine mission files, we can see exactly how many fighters are on-board a capital ship. A capital ship might only launch a flight group of 3 fighters at a time but have 10 follow up waves for a total of 33 fighters on-board. This is where the mission designers took liberties and usually exaggerated the capacity of Imperial starship hangars.

Most sources are unanimous with the definition of a squadron being 12 fighters. Game literature also explains the breakdown of fighter groups:

• Wing - 3 squadrons
  
• Squadron - 12 fighters
  
• Flight - 4 fighters
  
• Element - 2 fighters

Any other number of fighters deployed together could generically be termed as a “flight group”. Generally a squadron consists of fighters of the same kind, especially in canon e.g. Red - X-Wings and Gold - Y-Wings. In Legends, a squadron could be up to 3 different models of fighters divided into 3 flights e.g. 4 X-Wings, 4 A-Wings and 4 B-Wings as seen in the attack on the Star Destroyer Kotiate.

Game Analysis:

• Anomalies - in mission parameters technically any craft can be a mothership. This is why some Containers can act as hangars. This also allows some special Corvettes to launch TIEs.
  
• Nebulon B Frigate - many strong cases argue that the Frigate is not large enough to carry the stated 2 squadrons. It is observed in canon that the Nebulon B doesn’t even have a hangar. The 2 squadron spec probably comes from the game’s need for the Frigate to fill the massive chasm between the Corvette and the “top of the food chain” Star Destroyer and Calamari Cruiser. In the game series, the Frigate is already bigger than the canon’s 300m, yet it appears to be a literal squeeze when you see craft exiting and entering the hangar. It also doesn’t look like it’s physically possible for Shuttles or Transports to enter the bay. Whatever the case, the game generally loads an Imperial Frigate with more fighters than engineering minds can accept.
  
• Calamari Cruiser - Most sources agree on the starfighter wing of 3 squadrons on-board. Source books and BTM quote Home One (synonymous with the Independence) having 10 squadrons, which does not seem practical for the said 1200m long vessel. If going by SWTC’s calculation of 3800m, then this is believable. One contradicting source is a common publication of the MC80a having “6 squadrons of 36 fighters”. This implies the squadrons are only 6 ships each. Perhaps they meant to say “6 flight groups” instead. Regardless, in X-Wing we never really see more than a handful of fighters deployed by a Cruiser or the missions would be too easy.
  
• Star Destroyer - all sources agree on the 2 wings or 6 squadrons of 72 TIE starfighters. The combination of which TIEs is another issue. Sources state the default is 3 TIE Fighter, 2 TIE Interceptor and 1 TIE Bomber. Older configurations had 4 TIE Fighter and 1 TIE Interceptor instead. Again, in the game we rarely see this spec adhered to. The mission designers even managed to load a Star Destroyer with more than the stated 72 fighters. This really just meant a very high scoring mission for the player.

A single A-Wing stationed in a Frigate’s hangar...nope, can’t imagine 24 of them crammed in there, let alone Y-Wings!

In addition to starfighter complement it is common for capital ships to carry other light craft as seen in the films and Legends.

• We already argued above that a Nebulon B Frigate does not have the capacity to carry Shuttles and Transports and there is no official spec to say otherwise. Yet in the game we see no restriction around this logic.
  
• The Calamari Cruiser has no issues carrying Shuttles and Transports with its massive hangar in the games, though there is no official spec of how many are on-board. I believe this is ad hoc and based on tour and mission profiles. It’s likely there’s always spare room for unexpected light craft boardings too.
  
• The Star Destroyer’s spec is quite defined with exact numbers on Assault Gunboats, Shuttles and Transports. Though there should be 5 on-board, we never see Gunboats launched from a Star Destroyer in the game. We also never see the Shuttle and Transport capacity being overstepped.
  
• I don’t recall seeing Tugs launched from capital ships as their primary purpose is to move objects with their tractor beams. Most capital ships have their own tractor beams so carrying Tugs would be redundant unless for transportation purposes.

These specs are clear in the literature and the craft databases of the games but are not really a consideration in the gameplay. How many times have you defeated a Star Destroyer and thought, “There goes almost 50,000 people”? Or when a ship is captured, how significant a force is required to overcome the crew and troops? Was the Nebulon B Frigate Anvil plus a few Transports and Shuttles enough to truly evacuate the specified 6,602 crew and troops on-board the doomed Calamari Cruiser Maximus? We can’t truly answer these kind of questions but for the sake of reasonable length missions, LucasArts probably turned a blind eye to them.

Producing this guide would not be possible without the following references, tools and resources:

• The game and all its versions - X-Wing Special Edition (Windows 95), X-Wing Collector’s CD-ROM (DOS 1994) and X-Wing Classic (DOS 1993).
  
• X-Wing Ship Editor (XWSE50)[xwing.rebelsquadrons.org] and X-Wing Editor Pro (XP152)[xwing.rebelsquadrons.org] for reading the actual craft specs directly from the game files.
  
• X-Wing Mission Builder (XMB)[xwing.rebelsquadrons.org] for creating test missions to verify specs and revealing which specs are set by the mission design (e.g. arriving or departing by hyperspace and number of fighters on-board a starship).
  
• TIE Fighter Tech Room and XvT: BOP Craft Database for providing evidence that ship sizes exponentially affect shield and hull ratings and that ship lengths are not exact to literature.
  
• Star Wars Technical Commentaries (SWTC)[theforce.net] for providing useful documentation on standard units in Star Wars and the games.
  
• The Farlander Papers and The Stele Chronicles for excellent sections on spacecraft specifications.
  
• X-Wing Collector’s CD-ROM: The Official Strategy Guide and TIE Fighter Collector’s CD-ROM: The Official Strategy Guide for ship durability and weapon stats.
  
• X-Wing Alliance - Prima's Official Strategy Guide for cannon stats.
  
• Star Wars: Behind The Magic (BTM) for ship capacity and atmospheric flight speed specs.
  
• The inflight camera and The Film Room for verifying weapon range and ship sizes.
  
• Screenshots from Jr786's Star Wars: X-Wing - Mission Database
  
• And of course countless hours of gameplay and experimentation to observe and verify the specs!

The official strategy guides for the 1995 TIE Fighter Collector’s CD-ROM and series finale X-Wing Alliance

That brings the analysis to an end. I hope you have enjoyed delving into the “science” of technical specifications in X-Wing as much as I have. At the end of the day we are dealing with science fiction in a gaming context - a science fiction within a science fiction. X-Wing and its sequels do an excellent job at simulating the Star Wars naval universe whilst making necessary adjustments for challenging and satisfying gameplay. It’s the closest we could ever get to being a starfighter pilot in the comfort of our homes. Thanks to LucasArts, the many terrific references and to you, the reader. If you have any questions, comments, feedback or even disagreements, I would love to hear it. Feel free to give an honest rating. I appreciate the online Star Wars community.

And of course, kudos to George Lucas and may the Force be with you...

Taking this analysis to another level, I created a test mission to visually verify the capacity of capital ship hangars. Once again, the special edition version of the game was used for greater consistency across the series. The following screenshots will demonstrate the findings.



Staying true to canon, the Star Destroyer’s main launch bay can fit a Corellian Corvette within it. The craft model designers should be credited for thIs detail.


Another impressive job at scaling with the Calamari Cruiser. Accepting the starfighter complement spec of 3 squadrons or 36 fighters, these screenshots show 18 Alliance starfighters parked in one half of the hangar. Due to the number of spawned craft limited to 28 at any given one time, I was only able to show 18. However this is suffice to prove that another 18 fighters would comfortably fit in the other half of the bay. Moreover, it shows even the Y-Wings have no problem fitting in the hangar.

Note: With the switch to XvT models in X-Wing Special Edition, the hangar moved to the port side of the ship, but craft still entered and exited from the old coordinates on the starboard side. The XvT model's hangar is also reduced in height, so a Shuttle would technically need to fold its wings before landing, which seems to agree with canon.

Scenes from Return of the Jedi showing a Shuttle parked in the hangar bay of the Mon Calamari Cruiser Home One but requiring its wings to be folded for docking and launching.


Lastly, the controversial Nebulon B Frigate's hangar bay. These screenshots show that even 4 TIE Fighters are a squeeze. Judging from the depth of the hangar, you might be able to fit 2 rows of 5 fighters in a double line abreast formation, but this only equates to 10 fighters. Not nearly half of the claimed 24 fighters spec.