I just want to say I have a long background in designing SW games in a text-based environment (MUDs) And a vast amount of my specialty lies in the design and implementation of Star Wars starships, including balancing and whatnot. Staying as close to canon as possible is important in not to ruin feel, but the movies are EXTREMELY lacking for useful information (Aside from aesethetics) when designing a game. A lot of things are shown in the movies for cinematic purposes.

The "EU sh*t* as you put it is incredibly important.  Without rattling on too much I'd say a good source of info going forward on the design of your ships would be Wookieepedia. I didn't have this site when designing my games, but I did scour the net, and own many rpg sourcebooks, and of course played the X-Wing games.  Wookieepedia has appropriate armaments listed for every ship. This is not to say a ship cannot be loaded to a specialty purpose. Typically the B-Wing and Y-Wing were bombers. Both were very capable at anti-fighter duties though. Especially the B-Wing.  In fact ships such as the B-Wing and TIE Defender for example are not wise choices to implement in competitive games because to get them right leaves them wildly unbalanced. They are all capable of loading a various armament of lock-on missiles (on the Rebel side of things)

I'd also go so far to say as not to even bother implementing the TIE Fighter, yes its an iconic ship but it was not meant for singular ship to ship combat. I'd go with the TIE Interceptor for that, the Interceptor would also be without missiles (and without shields!), but I'd design it similarly to the A-Wing (and the A-Wing would have minimal shielding too), speed and agility would be paramount. Of course for the most 'fun' solution I'd just go with TIE Advanceds for air-to-air and TIE Bombers for ground pounding. While both the Interceptor and Fighter are iconic and highly desirable, they certainly will not be fun unless they spawn in larger amounts than the available rebel ships on maps or are obnoxiously more agile.

It's certainly a delicate balance, but missiles are important, and I am curious as to why the 'lock on' is troublesome. 2142 has this natively, couldnt you simply work off the existing missile lock ons from the gunships?

Anyways, yeah I digressed a bit and touched on some other issues there.

Anyways heres the link: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

by no means does lore go over gameplay. we pride ourselves on having built a fun and really well balanced game. while still staying as true to lore as possible. something that lucasarts has yet to achieve. gameplay is our first and foremost priority. but i do admit there have been some cases where lore triumphed over gameplay but these are minor things. in gameplay that would have made a big difference in the overall star wars feel. for example we will not make a star destroyer square just because it would be better gameplay wise.

Compulsive doodler

lol - no no, not at all

I think the devs are spot on by not including JEDI and "The FORCE"

All I was saying is that to get good gameplay the 2 sides need to be "balanced" and sticking strictly to "LORE" may not make this possible due to the inherrent un-balanced nature of the EMPIRE and REBELS (which in the films was balanced by the 6 heroes and the force)

So my point was that if the 6 heroes, the force (and jedi) are excluded (which I think they should be be) then the "lore" may have to be "bent" to ensure balanced gameplay - especially in relation to ships, gun kills and missiles!

What HaVoC373 has posted is absolutely music to my ears and is exactly the approach I thought (and hoped!) was being taken

Good job!