NationStates Jolt Archive

News Report:

Darth Trilkan, or Emperor Trilkan, had just released a report from his command center on the Appocalypse battle station that huntaer's future Star Destroyers will be produced without the traditional conning-tower.

The Emperor also announced plans to recommission the Imperator and Victory class Star Destroyer designs- this time, also conning-towerless.
These designs will be similar to those of the older ones seen in the ancient Kirtir empire. The emperor himself had once commanded fleets of these ships before decomissioning them almost 60 years ago(ooc: 60 RL days).

Also on the news, the Paragon Class Star Destroyer will be the last Star Destroyer to have the conning tower as a part of it's design. The Petulant Class Star Destroyer will be the first of many to follow the new conning towerless design. "The Petulant Class Star Destroyer will become the first of it's kind," the Emperor told us. "This time, our enemies must strike from within, or launch powerful lasers at our ships inorder to make them useless."

Indeed, with the command center being inside the new star destroyers it will be a difficult task to take out the bridge. Rather than having the Bridge to be on the top of the Star Destroyer, there have been several design plans for the Bridge to be inside the ship. "This way, we won't be having any more A-wings fly into our bridges and taking out the ship with it," commented Grand Admiral Ushani.

The Emperor has announced a total of 14 future Star Destroyers without the Conning towers. She (Grand Admiral Ushani) also hinted a possible creation of two new Super Star Destroyer designs.

Future Star Destroyer Classes:

Terminator
Superior
Exterminator
Imperator mk IV
Imperator mk V
Imperator mk VI
Nemesis
Terror
Executive
Victory mk III
Victory mk IV
Tyrant Assimilator

Finally, a SD that won't be crippled by a single lucky shot! Who's idea was it to put all the officers and equipment in one place anyway?

Umm... obviously some old fool. I caught on and listened to one of my RL friends, Kyanges, and decided to commission conning towerless SD's for my nation. If anyone is interested in purchasing them, pacients. I will be posting them up through out the summer :)!

bump.

...I caught on and listened to one of my RL friends, Kyanges,...

(OOC: Wai! ^_^. I'm positive that I'm not the first one to think about this though, but I'm honored that you attribute most of the influence upon your decision to me.)

very good idea, you might be surprised how many people accuse me of godmodding when I exploit the weaknesses of the tower.
I also have developed a slight weapons modification that requires a towerless design, more on that later.

Now... if you just put the reactor inside the ship instead of sticking out of the bottom, you'd be set.

(OOC: Wai! ^_^. I'm positive that I'm not the first one to think about this though, but I'm honored that you attribute most of the influence upon your decision to me.)

OOC: I'm glad you are ol' friend.


very good idea, you might be surprised how many people accuse me of godmodding when I exploit the weaknesses of the tower.
I also have developed a slight weapons modification that requires a towerless design, more on that later.

It could be your weapons modification that people scream godmodd (just a suggestion). Ironicly, the first star destroyer design I came up with to be towerless was (as previously stated) the Petulant class star destroyer. The special Regenerative Ablative Armor(which I'm still working on) demanded for a towerless star destroyer inorder for it to look right from my point of view. I was looking for a ship that looked star destroyerish which had no towers on it. I ended up finding one by pure chance. I liked the design a lot, and now I'm making it standard.



Now... if you just put the reactor inside the ship instead of sticking out of the bottom, you'd be set.

Umm... question. What reactor? If you're talking about the semi-sphere at the bottom of an ISD, then yes that to is gone (I never did understand that part of the design).

Woot, death to the towers.

WHAT!?
You can't get rid of the tower, that's what makes them so balanced... without the tower, they are way more powerful and less vunerable for having A-wings crash into them.
Plus you are messing with the looks, they'll just be boring triangles then...

WHAT!?
You can't get rid of the tower, that's what makes them so balanced... without the tower, they are way more powerful and less vunerable for having A-wings crash into them.
Plus you are messing with the looks, they'll just be boring triangles then...

EDITED:

(OOC: Not so imo. You can just make well shaped bumps and ridges that can resemble a con tower or some fancy attachment that will break up the monotonous designs of the triangular Star Destroyer, and you can still make it look cool, without sacrificing survivability. Besides, avoiding further A-Wing incidents was part of the idea...)

(OOC: Not so imo. You can just make well shaped bumps and ridges that can resemble a con tower or some fancy attachment that will break up the monotonous designs of the triangular Star Destroyer, and you can still make it look cool.)

A big-ass gun that fires battleship-sized ammo would be much better than a vulnerable tower, no?

A big-ass gun that fires battleship-sized ammo would be much better than a vulnerable tower, no?

(OOC: Hells yes! See? Things are happier already. ^_^ .)

A big-ass gun that fires battleship-sized ammo would be much better than a vulnerable tower, no?

Imagine a MAC in starwars... that would kick such ultimate tail. Just mount a giant MAC where the tower should be.
"Sir, we are gaining on the Star Destroyer"
"Wait a minute, that's no conning tower... that's... EVASIVE ACTION!"
"TOO LATE!"
"AAAAAAAAAAAAA-"
::static::

I think the thing on the bottom is a warp interdicter. At least the Dominator (the specialized inderdiction model) had a lot of large ones.

No, I have a book that describes the different parts of like, 100 different vehicles in the SW universe, and it labels that as a reactor.

Imagine a MAC in starwars... that would kick such ultimate tail. Just mount a giant MAC where the tower should be.
"Sir, we are gaining on the Star Destroyer"
"Wait a minute, that's no conning tower... that's... EVASIVE ACTION!"
"TOO LATE!"
"AAAAAAAAAAAAA-"
::static::

Haha, thatd be great. Im trying to work a MAC into my next ship design, hopefully with similar results :)

[OOC: Well, the idea behind a conning tower, especially when dealing with warfare in space, is that in the midst of a melee you're going to need all your communication centers high above the area of battle, so that there are no interferences. For all the technology you guys have in the future, there will always be interferences - so I suggest you keep your conning towers.

However, you can do what the modern navy does. Although technically command sits in the bridge, it's really in the center of the ship, protected by thick belts of armor and such - while electronics sits in the conning tower.

Just my two cents.]

[OOC: Well, the idea behind a conning tower, especially when dealing with warfare in space, is that in the midst of a melee you're going to need all your communication centers high above the area of battle, so that there are no interferences. For all the technology you guys have in the future, there will always be interferences - so I suggest you keep your conning towers.

However, you can do what the modern navy does. Although technically command sits in the bridge, it's really in the center of the ship, protected by thick belts of armor and such - while electronics sits in the conning tower.

Just my two cents.]

(OOC: Hmmm, I understand where you're soming from, but in space, there's no real higher ground above anything. You can always go "higher", so there's no real point in making it any taller beacuse it wouldn't do any good anyway.)

(OOC: Hmmm, I understand where you're soming from, but in space, there's no real higher ground above anything. You can always go "higher", so there's no real point in making it any taller beacuse it wouldn't do any good anyway.)


[OOC: Well, let's say you're in a type of melee you saw in Episode III of Star Wars. It's important that you have those conning towers on those ships because all the transmissions from the fighter aircraft are moving back and forth - technically - you don't see it much in the movie. However, it's there. I think that a lot of future tech nations seem to forget that laws of physics and general laws of communication, whether it be tele or whatever you use, apply.

So, having higher conning towers with transmitters and receivers is always a good thing to have, whether modern tech or future tech. Moreover, just because you have a conning tower doesn't mean it has to be like Star Wars, and not have a shield around it - normally those are the most armored parts of the ship, save the armored belts.]

[OOC: Well, let's say you're in a type of melee you saw in Episode III of Star Wars. It's important that you have those conning towers on those ships because all the transmissions from the fighter aircraft are moving back and forth - technically - you don't see it much in the movie. However, it's there. I think that a lot of future tech nations seem to forget that laws of physics and general laws of communication, whether it be tele or whatever you use, apply.

So, having higher conning towers with transmitters and receivers is always a good thing to have, whether modern tech or future tech. Moreover, just because you have a conning tower doesn't mean it has to be like Star Wars, and not have a shield around it - normally those are the most armored parts of the ship, save the armored belts.]

(OOC: Actually, the Episode III type of ship warfare was exactly the type of fighting I was thinking about. There's always going to be something above you, as you can always go higher.

In SW though, they seem to use radio, or at least something like it, a lot, and that I understand needs to have large antennas and such to receive the transmission properly. But it's not really necessary for it to be set up, with everything else of importance all in one place. Don't get me wrong though, I believe, like you do, the more exposed a receiver is, the better the signal's going to be, FT or not. I just didn't like how SW goes about the tower, and shoves everything worth shooting at, in there.

I however, use quantum entanglement, for my comms, so antenas don't really add or take away from is capabilities as far as I know. (I know I could be way off on this.))

ooc: Linky (http://web.archive.org/web/20010617172720/http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes)

The bridge spheres are sensors. The only way that they were destroyed was through the rebel bombardment of the bridge shields. The shields were lost, and then the rebel fighters came through and destroyed those scanners to lower the fighting effectiveness of the ship. Oh well, enough of me cluttering up the thread. But please read the link, it's very interesting.

ooc: Linky (http://web.archive.org/web/20010617172720/http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes)

The bridge spheres are sensors. The only way that they were destroyed was through the rebel bombardment of the bridge shields. The shields were lost, and then the rebel fighters came through and destroyed those scanners to lower the fighting effectiveness of the ship. Oh well, enough of me cluttering up the thread. But please read the link, it's very interesting.

(OOC: Just to let you know, I've responded on that Diplomacy RP.)

It could be your weapons modification that people scream godmodd (just a suggestion).

not likely, because I have yet to have an opportunity to deploy it, the 20,000,000,000,000 rearming cost is one factor, another is the fact that, if one takes a ship already capable of exterminating all life on a planet within a few hours, and adds more weaponry, what you end up with is something the average nation will only need once evry third century or so.

No, I have a book that describes the different parts of like, 100 different vehicles in the SW universe, and it labels that as a reactor.

Was that the Star Wars Technical Manual? It had a lot of inaccuracies in it. I'm betting most of the other semi-official material does also.

Well, I couldnt tell you the title without running downstairs and actually getting the book. However, I do remeber it had an orange cover with all manner of SW vehicles on it.

Was that the Star Wars Technical Manual? It had a lot of inaccuracies in it. I'm betting most of the other semi-official material does also.

To be fair, that is the reactor, it's just that it has to be partially exposed like that due to sheer size. The thing wouldn't fit entirely within the ship.

...which is another sign of the inferiority of the entire SD concept.

...which is another sign of the inferiority of the entire SD concept.

Not necessarily. That part is also one of the most heavily armored parts of the entire ship. One heavily shielded SoB, too.

Oh please, the whole ship is a disaster waiting to happen. It has way too few weapons for its size, an exposed reactor, exposed engines, exposed bridge, exposed shield generators, and a gapping hole for a hanger bay that just anyone can fly into.

Well, I couldnt tell you the title without running downstairs and actually getting the book. However, I do remeber it had an orange cover with all manner of SW vehicles on it.

That is the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, '96 edition. It screwed up the length of the Executor and screwed multiple other things. The '03 version isn't any better, instead leaving out the Death Star among others, and screwing up the Eclipse. IMO, the guides are only good for getting a general feel for the ships configuration, size (when the info is actually accurate), and what types of ships there are.

Oh please, the whole ship is a disaster waiting to happen. It has way too few weapons for its size, an exposed reactor, exposed engines, exposed bridge, exposed shield generators, and a gapping hole for a hanger bay that just anyone can fly into.

The fewer weapons, the more power can be fed to each weapon. Maybe an SD could support 500 turbolasers... they'd all be pitifully powered though.

Yet agian, those are sensors, not generators. (http://web.archive.org/web/20010617172720/http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#globes)

For some reason, my comp screwed up and the big reply I had been writing for the post above was lost. To save time, im going to skip all the fancy quotes and whatnot I had, and just get right down to the meat.

In regards to the manual: I bought it at a garage sale for $0.69, plus im not a fan of SW, so it doesn’t really matter if it’s just a little bit off. At least, not to me.

In regards to the weapons: That’s just it, that’s the problem. The few weapons the ship has are underpowered, and because there are not many, they are extremely susceptible to being destroyed and leaving the ship defenseless.

In regards to the link: My apologies. I will revise my statement to say "Horribly exposed sensors." I mean really, why would you place them on stilts on the top of the conning tower?! A few smaller, scattered domes would be much better and harder to knock out.

For some reason, my comp screwed up and the big reply I had been writing for the post above was lost. To save time, im going to skip all the fancy quotes and whatnot I had, and just get right down to the meat.

In regards to the manual: I bought it at a garage sale for $0.69, plus im not a fan of SW, so it doesn’t really matter if it’s just a little bit off. At least, not to me.

In regards to the weapons: That’s just it, that’s the problem. The few weapons the ship has are underpowered, and because there are not many, they are extremely susceptible to being destroyed and leaving the ship defenseless.

In regards to the link: My apologies. I will revise my statement to say "Horribly exposed sensors." I mean really, why would you place them on stilts on the top of the conning tower?! A few smaller, scattered domes would be much better and harder to knock out.

(OOC: Better sensor coverage traded off for survivability? *Shrugs*)

Lol

In regards to the weapons: That’s just it, that’s the problem. The few weapons the ship has are underpowered, and because there are not many, they are extremely susceptible to being destroyed and leaving the ship defenseless.

Alt-0133

Underpowered? Upper force limits in the hundreds of gigatons and they're underpowered?

In regards to the link: My apologies. I will revise my statement to say "Horribly exposed sensors." I mean really, why would you place them on stilts on the top of the conning tower?! A few smaller, scattered domes would be much better and harder to knock out.

Losing coverage and increasing the chances you'll be caught in an ambush or other kind of sneak attack, completely negating this advantage?

Sure.

Yes, they are underpowered. I need not remind you that there are far too few again, do I?

As for the ambush thing, well, your wrong. It seems to me, that having your sensors spread out over a larger area would give you extended range, not limited

Yes, they are underpowered. I need not remind you that there are far too few again, do I?

As for the ambush thing, well, your wrong. It seems to me, that having your sensors spread out over a larger area would give you extended range, not limited

(OOC: Alright, I think I have the way of thinking. If you have domes of sensors scattered throughout, these domes will invariably have worse sensor coverage than single exposed array simply because they are far less exposed than a full array. In order to compensate, you would need far more sensor domes (as you have suggested.) than large exposed arrays to cover the same area with equal effectiveness.

But obviously, the large exposed arrays are very vulnerable, but offer superior sensor coverage per array than the many domes, which are more survivable, but offer poorer sensor coverage per dome.

So, imo, the real question is which is worth more to you. Survivability with the need for more domes, or superior sensor coverage with horrid vulnerability?)

underpowered? 3.3*10^21 watts not enough?
note that's just the minimum figure, assuming 100% of the reactor's power was transferred to the target, this is clearly not the case: turbolaser discharges leak enough EM energy to be visible to the naked eye.

the following are also logical assumtions:
turbolaser batteries are not 100% efficient
something more than iron gunsights are used to aim.
not all the reactor's power is used by weaponry

Yes, they are underpowered. I need not remind you that there are far too few again, do I?

As for the ambush thing, well, your wrong. It seems to me, that having your sensors spread out over a larger area would give you extended range, not limited

I'll repeat the previous statements.

Underpowered?!

A single ISD can reduce a planet's crust to molten lava in under a day. This is a ship with upper gigaton/lower teraton level firepower, and you call it underpowered?!

And there isn't "a few guns", there's over sixty on the ship. Those eight turrets on either side of the superstructure are the really heavy turbolasers, which have multiple decks devoted to firing control and power management.

If you have a model of an ISD, or find a good picture of one, notice all the tiny bumps and ridges along the main hull. Most of those are light and medium gun batteries, contained inside like we saw with the Venators. Those are typically kiloton-megaton range. There's also a couple heavy turbolaser turrets in the aft trench notches.

Anyway, back to topic. This is OOC of course, but the conning tower is what makes the ship immediately recognizable. It's also meant for intimidation, in that while other ships tuck away their bridges, they place their's in full view, safe behind powerful shields, which as someone already pointed out, are not the domes. And if it gets taken out, well, there are secondary control centers tucked away in the hull. The Executor was only lost because the secondary centers failed to regain control before it was pulled into the Death Star.

I'll repeat the previous statements.

Underpowered?!

A single ISD can reduce a planet's crust to molten lava in under a day. This is a ship with upper gigaton/lower teraton level firepower, and you call it underpowered?!

And there isn't "a few guns", there's over sixty on the ship. Those eight turrets on either side of the superstructure are the really heavy turbolasers, which have multiple decks devoted to firing control and power management.

If you have a model of an ISD, or find a good picture of one, notice all the tiny bumps and ridges along the main hull. Most of those are light and medium gun batteries, contained inside like we saw with the Venators. Those are typically kiloton-megaton range. There's also a couple heavy turbolaser turrets in the aft trench notches.

Anyway, back to topic. This is OOC of course, but the conning tower is what makes the ship immediately recognizable. It's also meant for intimidation, in that while other ships tuck away their bridges, they place their's in full view, safe behind powerful shields, which as someone already pointed out, are not the domes. And if it gets taken out, well, there are secondary control centers tucked away in the hull. The Executor was only lost because the secondary centers failed to regain control before it was pulled into the Death Star.


(OOC: Sheer size is intimidation enough for most. (Note: "most".) AS pointed out earlier, there can also be many more intimidating things to put out there, like a huge gun, or what not.

Plus, now there will be no lag between the transfer of controls, so there is far less chance of another event like that happening again.)

So, imo, the real question is which is worth more to you. Survivability with the need for more domes, or superior sensor coverage with horrid vulnerability?)

Well, you also have to wonder if the sensors are heavily shielded. They aren't armored, since that'd block off the signals. It would make sense that the sensors, having little to no armor and being in such close proximity to the bridge would be shielded excessively, but not to the point that it blocked signals from getting through.

IMO you can take down the shields, but you can't exploit some achilles heel to do it. IF those were shield arrays, they would be projecting the strongest part of their shield around themselves, and they'd be a bugger to get at. (doubly so if we assume those are the only shield generators)

BTW, I have seen your response in the thing, but I'll make a response later

So, imo, the real question is which is worth more to you. Survivability with the need for more domes, or superior sensor coverage with horrid vulnerability?)

Couldnt have said it better myself.

A single ISD can reduce a planet's crust to molten lava in under a day. This is a ship with upper gigaton/lower teraton level firepower, and you call it underpowered?!

I am not talking about taking on a defenseless planet. Im talking about a heavily shielded, moving starship thats firing back.

And there isn't "a few guns", there's over sixty on the ship

...and there are that many on a WH40K ship half the ISDs size. The fact is that, although the ISD is large, it is underpowered for its size

I am not talking about taking on a defenseless planet. Im talking about a heavily shielded, moving starship thats firing back.


Um, yes even a heavily shielded planet. An ancient Sith Star Destroyer(or so it's dubed) destroyed Taris, and Telos both of which had planetary shielding.


...and there are that many on a WH40K ship half the ISDs size. The fact is that, although the ISD is large, it is underpowered for its size

yes, there are 40k ships half the size with that amount of fire power. The newer ships I'm producing without the conning towers will have more cannons than the normal SD.

Um, yes even a heavily shielded planet. An ancient Sith Star Destroyer(or so it's dubbed) destroyed Taris, and Telos both of which had planetary shielding.

But they were not moving or firing back, so the ISD could just sit there and pour fire into it. That’s like standing over an anthill with a magnifying glass while all the ants were unconscious. Ok, bad euphemism, but you get the point

The newer ships I'm producing without the conning towers will have more cannons than the normal SD.

I never said they weren’t. I see the fact that you have removed the tower and amped up the guns shows that you understand the ISD's weaknesses and are moving to correct them. I think we all have to face the fact that ISDs were built to amuse the general movie-going public, and not stand up to the rigors of NS.

...and there are that many on a WH40K ship half the ISDs size. The fact is that, although the ISD is large, it is underpowered for its size
Here is something that we can borrow from standard MT roleplays. If you look at how many guns there are on WH40K ships, you must realize that there's a HUGE reactor load. This means that the ships must have larger/more powerful reactors, be much slower, and/or have less power going to each weapon.

A Star Destroyer could support thousands of weapons if it wanted to IMO. The few weapons they have are powerful though (quality over quantity), since each one has a much larger power feed. Also, you want your shields to be very strong, so a good portion of the power goes to that. Finally, there is quite a bit of power going to the engines. If you add more weapons, then you're sacrificing something. So IMO there may be 60 weapons onboard an ISD, but 60 weapons will have much more power each than they would if there 120 weapons on the ISD.

If you want to add something, you have to make sacrifices somewhere, be it weapons, shields, engines, or essential systems. If you want more without sacrificing, throw a better reactor in.

...If you want more without sacrificing, throw a better reactor in.

*Starts to shove more reactors in his own ship design...*

"You...will...fit!"

Well, all things considered, this is a very smart move, considering the somewhat faulty design of the weapons system.

Ok, hypothetically, lets say a ship was armed with four ultra-powerful guns that could take out a ship in, lets say, 3 hits. Now, a second ship comes along, this one armed with 8 guns, but of less power. The first ship sees the second and fires its forward facing gun. It impacts, sending the second ship reeling. Recovering from its hit, the second ship surges forward and fires it's two frontal guns, both impacting the 1st. The first ship can’t retaliate yet, because it is still recharging its only forward facing gun. The second ship quickly destroys that gun. The first ship comes about and fires its side gun, which misses. The second ship fires its two side guns. One misses, one doesn’t. Now the first ship is the one reeling. The second can now fire its front guns again, which both hit. The first is almost destroyed, and unable to attack because the only two guns facing the second ship are down. In a brilliant tactical move, the first ship's captain rolls to the side and destroys a gun on the second ship. The only problem is that there is still another gun on that side. Now the first ship can take only one more hit. It rolls again and brings its aft gun to bear. Suddenly it explodes due to sabotage. At the same time, one of the second ships guns blows up by sabotage as well, but since it has another, it can still fire. The first ship, with the ultimate, 1337 cannons that can melt a planet, died because it had too few.

Ein, don't forget about the figher squadron typically based on most Star Destroyers. a TIE's guns are rather small, but they can do some damage, not to mention the psycological effect.

I know, but that simulation was just those two ships. I did design a carrier, after all.

Ok, hypothetically, lets say a ship was armed with four ultra-powerful guns that could take out a ship in, lets say, 3 hits. Now, a second ship comes along, this one armed with 8 guns, but of less power. The first ship sees the second and fires its forward facing gun. It impacts, sending the second ship reeling. Recovering from its hit, the second ship surges forward and fires it's two frontal guns, both impacting the 1st. The first ship can’t retaliate yet, because it is still recharging its only forward facing gun. The second ship quickly destroys that gun. The first ship comes about and fires its side gun, which misses. The second ship fires its two side guns. One misses, one doesn’t. Now the first ship is the one reeling. The second can now fire its front guns again, which both hit. The first is almost destroyed, and unable to attack because the only two guns facing the second ship are down. In a brilliant tactical move, the first ship's captain rolls to the side and destroys a gun on the second ship. The only problem is that there is still another gun on that side. Now the first ship can take only one more hit. It rolls again and brings its aft gun to bear. Suddenly it explodes due to sabotage. At the same time, one of the second ships guns blows up by sabotage as well, but since it has another, it can still fire. The first ship, with the ultimate, 1337 cannons that can melt a planet, died because it had too few.
But you miss one assumption: what if the 1st ships bow gun can take out the two bow guns on the second ship? You see, the second ship should only have 2 guns with 1/2 the power of each single gun on the 1st, and MOST well-designed ships are shielded and armored against their own guns. Therefore the more powerful ship will be more likely to penetrate the shields and damage armor, while the weaker is more likly to bounce off shields.

Also, the recharge time of the second ship's two bow guns should be the same as the first ship's single gun, since there's the same ammount of power available.

Lastly, this is why an ISD has different classes of guns. They're not all uber 1337 guns, some are starfighter class, some are corvette class, and some are capital ship class.



This is a nice set of ships Huntaer. I just see technical problems with the regenerative armor. How would that function?

I didnt write that little battle scene very well, and i apologize. I meant to have the second ship staggering its fire and whatnot. didnt really come off well... Twas too busy writing the champa thing.

Anywho, ive never even heard of corvette class guns, but the fighter class arent going to do much against a real ship's shields, let alone hull

the smaller guns could still be effective for sensor suppression, even if they are usually not quite the achille's heel an imperator or executor-class vessel's are.

I didnt write that little battle scene very well, and i apologize. I meant to have the second ship staggering its fire and whatnot. didnt really come off well... Twas too busy writing the champa thing.

Anywho, ive never even heard of corvette class guns, but the fighter class arent going to do much against a real ship's shields, let alone hull

t3h ub3r class weapons aren't going to do much against something like an A-wing that can dance out of the way. Most large weapons are either axial or on large slow moving turrets. You need anti-fighter weapons. A REAL ship is large, slow, and can be hit with your uber weapons that you've armed your craft with, even the axial weapons, but a fighter is a lot smaller and faster. Remember how the Death star's anti-capital ship weapons did nothing against snub fighters? It was like using a 16" gun against an F14.

Ok, ill put it a different way:

Say, a Firebat battlecruiser (a ship of my own design, so you know it be rockin'! lol) enters a system where an ISD (the regular kind, not SSD or any of Huntaers) is sitting. Both ships launch their fighters. The ISD's wing of 72 meets the Firebat's wing of 100 (lets just say that all the fighters are regular tie fighters, because I haven’t made a fighter design yet :p ). Now, based on numerical superiority, the Firebat would win. Of course, if by some miracle some ties make it to the hull of the Firebat, the 1,200 PDGs would open up and easily destroy the tie's with their overlapping fields of fire. If the Firebat's ties closed on the ISD, the ISD's PDGS would also fire (I couldn’t find the # of PDGs the ISD has, so I’m guessing its less than the Firebat), and destroy most of them. However, a few fighters might chip away at the shields and their wrecks might damage the ship a little. By this time the Firebat has closed to extreme weapons range. It's 12 Lance Arrays open fire, and 36 beams of intense light slam into the ISD's shields. It holds for most of the barrage, but then they overload, and a few of the beams score direct hits against its armored hull. The ISD returns fire, but lacking a sufficient number of "big punch" guns, it has to resign itself to chipping away at the dense shields. Next the Firebat opens up with its torpedo banks, which decimate the ISD, blowing holes in the internal framework and generally wreaking havoc. Finally, the Firebat is in range to use its main weapons; 40 minivan-sized shells streak from one of the Firebat's set of Naval railguns. These tear straight through the enemy ship's hull, explode in brilliant flames, and gut the ISD. By this time, the ISD's lasers have punched through the shields of the Firebat, and are slowly melting the thick armor off of the smaller vessel. The Firebat counters by launching 3,000 of its 4,000 Marines in Boarding Torpedoes. The fast moving, hollowed out Railgun shells are moving too fast for the ISD's few PDGs to take many of them out. The Marine’s capsules burst through the weakened hull plating and burry themselves deep within the ISD. The ISD's remaining stromtroopers (there were originally 9,700 onboard, but a good deal were killed by the Railgun shells) fight valiantly, but within minutes the ISD's engine room, fighter bays, and bridge fall to the determined Marines.

Now consider this: the Firebat is only 960 meters long, as opposed to the ISD's 1,600 meters. I was careful not to have any weapons hit the ridiculously exposed bridge or sensor domes, as that would have been too easy. Now, which ship is inferior?

-snip-

Let's look at another side of it. The ISD has much fewer weapons for its reactor size, and has a MUCH larger reactor. Also, it is very heavily armored, and has a crazy size advantage. Lastly, the shields would be higher due to the higher reactor output. The ISD can take out fighters more efficiently due to more powerful PDGs, and has much stronger main weapons.

This is what annoys me. A small ship can't hold more 18" guns than a large ship holds 16" if the large one is loaded to the brim. There are no specified stregnths for the ISD guns, and it has a HUGE reactor. (I'm ignoring non-cannon sources) Let's put it like this: large power source produces more power than a small power source. This means more power available for other systems. You may have 1200 PDGs, but that is a HUGE reactor load even when you're not firing. (assuming you're using laser weapons) If you have a more powerful/efficient reactor, then your craft will win. But since we have no conclusive evidence what the output of an ISD is, I'll defer to the general idea that a larger reactor is usually stronger. This is the entire point of the argument, the power output of an ISD, and the equivilant of an RU or SBD in Star Wars. There is no CANNON stat for either besides the fact that an SD can level a planet, and it's reactor is like a small star.

Oh well, sry for filling your thread Huntaer. Looks great, I'll buy some probably in August when I get home.

Yea, I agree we gotta stop arguing on Huntaers thread, so this will be the last post I make not related to his ships going towerless

Im gonna be blunt, and answer your provocations on each subject:

The bigger the ship, the slower and larger the target.

So the ISD has more powerful PDGs. The tie gets killed by a single hit no matter what attacks it, lol. If the ISD was facing a swarm of ties, its more powerful PDGs could destroy several, but not all because there are not enough.

The Firebat has three reactors: one for each engine and one for the weapons system. The extra energy from these three is funneled to the other systems. This ship can devot an entire reactor just to weapons. Can the ISD say the same?

I just want to say ive got nothing against you NE, just the ISD. Its been fun arguing with you

-snip-
Yeah, great debate! Tis my last post too. Also... it appears that we've hit the quality vs quantity problem. 3 small reactors or one large one? Oh well, that one won't be solved anytime soon.

three reactors, three times the risk of failure, one third the risk of unexpected complete power loss.

I think we can all agree that the ISD was designed for opression, not combat.

three reactors, three times the risk of failure, one third the risk of unexpected complete power loss.

I think we can all agree that the ISD was designed for opression, not combat.

(OOC: How true that is. I would go for multiple reactors as well, to a certain point. More reactors means more redundant systems, but also more that could go wrong, so two or three would be the limit for me. I wonder... Huntaer, will you decide to change around the SD's reactor layout in the future too? As in more rectors, instead of only moving it deeper into the hull I mean.)

Actually, if anyone has the first Star Wars ICS book, you'll find the Imperator MK I has three reactors. There's the huge ventral one, and two smaller backup reactors for the engines.

I think the ISD captain used bad tactics. Knowing that he had fewer fighters, he should not have sent them to engage the enemy in deep space. He should have kept them close and combined their fire with that of the PDGs if the Einhauser fighters moved to attack. The logical response for Einhauser would be to keep his own fighters close: his superior PD and fighter complement would overwhelm that of the ISD. Plus ISDs really don't expect to be engaged at close range by capitol ships - they were caught completely off-guard at the Battle of Endor.

But as much as it has it's flaws, the ISD is a very powerful ship. I'll reiterate what others have said: it's not the size of the gun, it's the packin' of the reactin'. The relatively small number of small guns is supplied with a vast amount of power, which is quickly inserted directly into the enemy ship.

Verdict: The Firebat charges directly at the ISD, hoping to bring it's fighters and short-range weapons to bear. The two ships first duke it out a bit at long range, the firebat loses more of it's shields than the ISD, but is by no means taken out of the fight. The firebat fires it's torpedos, most are destroyed, but some manage to impact on and damage the ISD's shields. The fighters begin to dogfight in the outer pickets, the Einhausers have the advantage here: the silly Imperials always underestimate fighters and use TIEs merely as a force-projection instrument. The firebat, taking serious damage to it's shields, reaches close range. The large (and therefor slow) railgun shells fail to penetrate the ISD's shields. By this time, the fighters are in the "Hell of Sharp Angles": the Einhausers are beginning to win here. However, the Firebat canot withstand the intensity of the ISD's turbolasers. It's shields fail and it is ripped to shreds by molten starlight. The fighters and stray boarding torpedos are slowly mopped up.

Of course this could be in error. For example, the Firebat seems like a prized possession of yours, how much did you spend on it? The ISDs on the other hand are designed for mass-production, and it may be a question of quantity vs quality.

The emipre doesn't really have much in the way of military hardware, the TIE fighter is well, I've seen more reliable-looking machines on the red green show.

I think the ISD captain used bad tactics. Knowing that he had fewer fighters, he should not have sent them to engage the enemy in deep space. He should have kept them close and combined their fire with that of the PDGs if the Einhauser fighters moved to attack. The logical response for Einhauser would be to keep his own fighters close: his superior PD and fighter complement would overwhelm that of the ISD. Plus ISDs really don't expect to be engaged at close range by capitol ships - they were caught completely off-guard at the Battle of Endor.

But as much as it has it's flaws, the ISD is a very powerful ship. I'll reiterate what others have said: it's not the size of the gun, it's the packin' of the reactin'. The relatively small number of small guns is supplied with a vast amount of power, which is quickly inserted directly into the enemy ship.

Verdict: The Firebat charges directly at the ISD, hoping to bring it's fighters and short-range weapons to bear. The two ships first duke it out a bit at long range, the firebat loses more of it's shields than the ISD, but is by no means taken out of the fight. The firebat fires it's torpedos, most are destroyed, but some manage to impact on and damage the ISD's shields. The fighters begin to dogfight in the outer pickets, the Einhausers have the advantage here: the silly Imperials always underestimate fighters and use TIEs merely as a force-projection instrument. The firebat, taking serious damage to it's shields, reaches close range. The large (and therefor slow) railgun shells fail to penetrate the ISD's shields. By this time, the fighters are in the "Hell of Sharp Angles": the Einhausers are beginning to win here. However, the Firebat canot withstand the intensity of the ISD's turbolasers. It's shields fail and it is ripped to shreds by molten starlight. The fighters and stray boarding torpedos are slowly mopped up.

Of course this could be in error. For example, the Firebat seems like a prized possession of yours, how much did you spend on it? The ISDs on the other hand are designed for mass-production, and it may be a question of quantity vs quality.

This is the general idea of proper fighter-warfare. An ISD has alot of guns. The idea should have been to deploy as many fighters as possible; send a partial compliment to engage enemy ships, using the SD's guns as supression fire against oncomming fighters; the rest of the fighters to remain close to the ship, to engage the oncomming enemy units which make it through the supression.

I think the Empire has suffered, both in tactics as well as generally ideology, with a superiority complex. They suffered most of their defeats purely from considering themselves overly superior to enemy forces (and thereby "undercutting" themselves in battle readiness and tactics). This can be seen in their combat tactics, as well as their classic ship designs (note that not only is the "conning tower" elevated... but the officers maintain an "elevated" position over the crew in the bridge itself).

It's almost impossible for an SD to reliably engage fighters at close range (they lack any form of "point defense" against fast moving, and small targets)... Their assumption (which keeps failing) is that no fighters can make it through their thick skin... So they end up dispatching all their fighters into rogue missions, leaving the SD's practically "defenseless" and open to exploit of the SD's vulnerabilities (which the empire historically ignores) by the smaller enemy fighters.

Once the SD's shield are down, it's own guns become target to fighters.... Assuming the battle went on long enough, by the time enemy capital ships made it to the area; you could make all the SD's nothing more than large targets; No shields, no working cannons.

I would also guess (from the most part) that most of the Command personnel are "elitist" types, appointed their positions through familial ties, with very little in the way of real hard combat experience, except mostly in curtailing small rebel alliance operations (merely through superior numbers). And, given enough small rebel activity; the empire ends up (as well) with its fleet spread thin, merely trying to keep the "Empire" together through force (and thereby unable to actually condense assets in an area, to make much of a difference [in the long run]).

All in all. SW Empire is more or less an old bully, incapable of much adaptation or function. Destined to die. (FT SW nation using Imperial tech, on the other hand, seem to recognize the flaws...).

(FT SW nation using Imperial tech, on the other hand, seem to recognize the flaws...).

(OOC: Except Huntaer of course...)

Yeah, great debate! Tis my last post too. Also... it appears that we've hit the quality vs quantity problem. 3 small reactors or one large one? Oh well, that one won't be solved anytime soon.

3 small reactors or so. Better to have 1 out of 3 fail then to have 1 out of 1 fail.

Great idea removing the towers Huntaer!

*Coughidansweryourguys'squestions,butisworenottopostaboutanythingbutthetowerlessISDs*

This is the general idea of proper fighter-warfare. An ISD has alot of guns. The idea should have been to deploy as many fighters as possible; send a partial compliment to engage enemy ships, using the SD's guns as supression fire against oncomming fighters; the rest of the fighters to remain close to the ship, to engage the oncomming enemy units which make it through the supression.

This is the fighter-warfare of WW2. The general idea being to engage as much of the enemy forces as possible with as few of yours as possible: a tactic caused by a) strong offensive capabilities, b) weak defensive capabilities. In the modern world, offensive tech has become more powerful, causing an intensification and refinement of this basic idea. I hate to generalize, but in FT NS, and most sci-fi, there has been a swing back to strong defenses, IE shields and futuristic armor. Now it is more advisable to concentrate your strength and engage a small, relatively isolated section of the enemy fleet with a larger force, as per the older man-o-war naval strategy. It would be different if heavy bombers were being used, but the simulation didn't include them.

I think the Empire has suffered, both in tactics as well as generally ideology, with a superiority complex. They suffered most of their defeats purely from considering themselves overly superior to enemy forces (and thereby "undercutting" themselves in battle readiness and tactics). This can be seen in their combat tactics, as well as their classic ship designs (note that not only is the "conning tower" elevated... but the officers maintain an "elevated" position over the crew in the bridge itself).

It brings a smile to my face when someone appreciates the 'mythic' elements of a society. The Imperials live in an environment of angles, oblique colors, and technological devices of refined ugliness. One failing on Lucas' part may be that, although the Empire was the Juggernaut of the galaxy, it came into existence during a period of war against a vague and shifting threat. When the separatist movement collapsed, it seems likely that the Empire could not have lapsed into overconfidence even if it had wanted to, but would have developed a developed a general paranoia of small rogue groups: in other words their ships should have been bristling with point defense weapons.