Imperial Star Destroyer Discussion (Open) [Archive] - Page 2

Xessmithia

28-05-2006, 21:40

What misconceptions? The Canon information is the movies, and there are no quantified figures discussed in the movies. Take your little complete guides and throw them out the window because they have no justification here.

You can objectively analyze the movies to get quantification. The EU is still Star Wars and stands so long as it doesn't contradict the movies. None of my figures ever contradicted the movies so they stand.

Being such a dick about a piece of fiction IS. As is ruining the spirit of a movie that would be better enjoyed with that one thing... oh... what was it called... suspension of disbelief? Yeah that's it. Its easier to enjoy if you let the PLOT take precedence.

SoD doesn't mean you can't quantify it, it means you treat it as real despite the stuff that defies known laws of physics.

A vessel diving into a star is subjective?

No, but asking what your gut reaction to such an event is.

Your figures are subjective.

Which is why I derived them objectively, oh wait.:rolleyes:

Try to answer one simple frickin' question without relying on 'em for once.

My gut reaction to an ISD being thrown into a star is that it survives until it runs out of fuel. Why? Because my gut reaction is based off all of what I know about the power of ISDs.

Godular

28-05-2006, 21:49

You can objectively analyze the movies to get quantification. The EU is still Star Wars and stands so long as it doesn't contradict the movies. None of my figures ever contradicted the movies so they stand.

Bullshit. Seriously bullshit.

SoD doesn't mean you can't quantify it, it means you treat it as real despite the stuff that defies known laws of physics.

Suspension of disbelief means you shouldn't give a frickin' shit about the details.

No, but asking what your gut reaction to such an event is.

Further bullshit.

Which is why I derived them objectively, oh wait.:rolleyes:

No, you derived them subjectively. You took crap that happened in the movie and tacked real values to it, even though the MOVIE itself did not. It just did 'em. It didn't say how much energy went into it, it just says it did it. The movie itself was subjective. Can one really say that one has unbiased figures by sitting there looking at a piece of fiction and squirting science into it. Its like Creationism.

My gut reaction to an ISD being thrown into a star is that it survives until it runs out of fuel. Why? Because my gut reaction is based off all of what I know about the power of ISDs.

Bullshit again. A single asteroid in Empire Strikes back knocks out an ISD. Straight through the shielding, bridge tower goes kersplat. Huh. I'm pretty DAMN certain that a sun pumps out more energy than a single asteroid impact.

Xessmithia

28-05-2006, 22:38

Bullshit. Seriously bullshit.

OK then, show me where my figures contradict the movies.

Suspension of disbelief means you shouldn't give a frickin' shit about the details.

Wrong. SoD means that you, you know, suspend disbelief about what your watching. It means that when watching X-Men you suspend your disbelief of Magneto's metal controlling powers and it means when watching Star Wars you suspend your disbelief and treat Star Destroyers, the Force and the Death Star blowing up planets as real.

You're not describing SoD, you're describing watching movies with your brain turned off.

Further bullshit.

Asking what you think would happen without consulting anything other than your gut reaction is as subjective as it gets.

No, you derived them subjectively. You took crap that happened in the movie and tacked real values to it, even though the MOVIE itself did not.

Let's look at how this works. We see the Death Star blow up Alderaan. Since humans live on Alderaan it's reasonable to treat it like an Earth-like planet. Earth has a mass of 5.97x10^24 kilograms and a radius of 6.37x10^6 meters, so Alderaan should be similar.

To blow up a planet you need to give all of its mass escape velocity, which is given by the formula v=(2[GM/r^2]r)^(1/2)

For our figures this translates into:

v= (2*[6.67e-11*5.97e24/(6.37e6)^2]*6.36e6)^(1/2)
v= (2*9.8*6.37e6)^(1/2)
v= 11,200 m/s

Kinetic energy is KE=(1/2)mv^2

So we get a bare minimum energy requirement to blow up a planet of:

KE=(1/2)*5.97e24*(1.12e4)^2
KE= 3.7e32 Joules or 89.152 quadrillion megatons or 5.87 quintillion Hiroshima bombs.

At this velocity it would take 9 minutes for the planet to double in size, something that did not happen in the movie.

In fact Alderaan explodes much much faster. So fast that the main edge of the debris cloud travels 10,000km in 0.83 seconds. For a velocity of 1.2e7 meters/second, for comparison light travels at 3e8 meters/second.

This gives the Alderaan destruction an energy of

KE= (1/2)5.97e24*(1.2e7)^2)
KE= 4.3x10^38 Joules, or 6.8 billion quintillion Hiroshima bombs.

Sources say that the Death Star requires a day to build up that charge. Since this is not contradicted by the movies it stands. So we get a reactor power of P=E/T

P=4.3e38/(24*3600)
P=4.9e33 Watts

Now since the Death Star and an ISD have the same type of reactor we can compare them. The ISD model has a reactor that is 100m in diameter at full scale, the Death Star's technical readouts show the reactor to be 16km in diameter. An upper limit on ISD reactor power using this method is given by assuming a linear relation to power and reactor volume.

The reactors are spheres so volume = 4(pi)r^3/3

Death Star reactor = 1.93e13 m^3
ISD reactos = 5.24e5 m^3

The Death Star reactor has 3.68e7 times more volume which means 3.68e7 times more power with a linear scale. 4.9e33 Watts/3.68e7 = 1.3e26 Watts for an ISD reactor.

This fits with their acceleration, ability to reduce the surface of a planet to slag (BDZ operation) and the ICS figures. It is a reasonable figure derived from canon information.

It just did 'em. It didn't say how much energy went into it, it just says it did it. The movie itself was subjective. Can one really say that one has unbiased figures by sitting there looking at a piece of fiction and squirting science into it.

Yes, see above.

Its like Creationism.

No it is not. I started with the evidence then derived a conclusion from it, the scientific method. Creationists start with a conclusion and then find evidence.

Bullshit again. A single asteroid in Empire Strikes back knocks out an ISD. Straight through the shielding, bridge tower goes kersplat. Huh. I'm pretty DAMN certain that a sun pumps out more energy than a single asteroid impact.

We have sources that say ISDs can't have their shields up and communicate with via hyperwave, as that ISD was doing as evidenced by the hologram talking with Vader. Thus the bridge tower was unshielded when struck.

This is consistent with the other data we have for SW power so it is the most rational explanation.

Animarnia

28-05-2006, 22:51

Your asuming that 1) the Reactors are 100% Efficent (which they arn't, no reactor is) and 2) that every ISD has half the power of a death star?

and don't SW shileds like...not stop solid objects, as also disolved from the cannon as fighters were launched without ever having to drop the shields, both Rebel and Empire fighters danced around the ISD's without crashing into them.

Thirdly, I agree with Nova, but for the purposes of this debate; please answer the above

Godular

28-05-2006, 23:11

Xess, cut the shit. Just plain stop. As I mentioned previously numbers mean jack shit so you can just quit the frickin' quoting. Halt. Access Denied. Verboten.

And yes it frickin' IS like creationism because you are taking information from a fictional source with multitudes of contradictions drifting through it and trying to treat it as a legitimate source of information in order to argue your case. This is very much a colossal logical fallacy. You are taking conclusions given in the >>STORY<<, "PLANET BLOWS UP" "DEATH STAR = HALF THE POWER OF THE IMPERIAL FLEET" and tacking evidence that 'supports' these conclusions into it. No. It is not the scientific method.

No, there is no difference between suspension of disbelief and 'turning your brain off'. One is the other. We watch Star Wars to see big explosions and 'Space Opera', not debate on how one universe compares to the other. That's like another step down from electronic dickwaving. Just cut that crap the frig out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Animarnia: Yet in Episode III, Anakin and Obi-Wan had to shoot out a shielding preventing them from entering a docking bay. And why was it in Return of the Jedi that so much fuss was raised to bring the shields back up, only to have one of them shout "Too late" when a single fighter ambled its way into the Executor's bridge to say hi to everybody?

Shields stop matter.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 00:07

Godular: the only way to debate Sci-fi is to assume that whatever is in that universe works, and then figure out reasons why. Otherwise, logic goes out the window, and no debate is possible. Granted, it's not exactly the scientific method, but we have no way of conducting experiments in a sci-fi universe, so observing is all we can do.

Inconsistencies are addressed by levels of Canon. At the top are the movies of course, and the radio programs, the novelizations, etc. This overrides everything else, but doesn't mean that this is all there is. EU is canon too, but only if it doesn't contradict what is in a higher level of canon. This means that some things in an EU novel are canon, and some may not be.

About the shields thing: there are two kinds of shield. One of them stops matter, and the other stops energy. In Episode IV, the Death Star reactor chute thingy was ray-shielded, meaning you can't shoot lasers down it, but it wasn't particle-shielded, meaning you can shoot torpedoes down it.

Godular

29-05-2006, 00:12

And once again I say: Star wars = one universe. Star wars =/= this universe. Star Wars was meant to be a good story, not fodder for people to sit around a table going "but how does that work?" In that universe, it WORKS because the plot requires it.

Don't try to rationalize away why so many other people focus so bloody much attention on how such and such works and why, because the movie sure as heck didn't.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 00:27

Who cares what Star Wars was meant to be? People will discuss the technical aspects of fiction, there's no getting around that. To do that, they assume that the fictional universe has the same basic laws of physics as our universe. That's like the "ground rules" of sci-fi debating. Without these ground rules, no debating could happen, because you could say "Well, X piece of equipment doesn't work in this universe, so my side wins by default!" or something.

Chronosia

29-05-2006, 00:38

Yes, but how can frankly fantastical things like FTL travel, immense world destroying lasers, lightsabres, the force, etc etc; be judged by real world physics. Their meant to be unbelievable and implausable; thats the point. To try and force fiction to abide by real physics is just retarded

Technokratishe Staaten

29-05-2006, 00:39

Xessmithia, you really need to give up. Even though you are correct, you aren't going to get through to them. I know what you are trying to say, and your general argument is solid. It's like pounding sand.

1. Despite what they say, the only admissable evidence is not the movies. The movies are just high grade material in the SW universe. They trump anything that contradicts it. Anything approved by Lucas Film that is not contradicted by the movies is valid. This is the lucasfilm policy.

An excellent source of information ( I didn't read the whole thread, but I have seen the last few pages of what you have written), is Dr. Curtis Saxton Incredible Cross-sections for the various movies in the franchise. Are you familiar?

2. They are going to try to belittle you and call you a nerd for talking about the subject and trying to quantify, but really, that behavior speaks for itself, especially since they are here as well talking about fantasy. There's nothing wrong with trying to quantify, and it is possible if you have a passing familiarity with physics, chemistry etc and something beyond basic algebra.

3. From what I have read in the beginning, people actually think that B5 weaponry can harm a Stardestroyer. That's laughable, really. Since one turbolaser emits over 200 gigatons of energy, anything b5 ships can magic out of their ass will do all of squat. I am pretty sure that ships which take entire broadsides from such vastly more powerful weapons will be fairly immune.

PS. You wouldn't happen to be from SD.net, would you? ;)

Animarnia wrote:

and don't SW shileds like...not stop solid objects, as also disolved from the cannon as fighters were launched without ever having to drop the shields, both Rebel and Empire fighters danced around the ISD's without crashing into them.

No. SW shields DO stop solid objects. They are called partical shields. Ray shields stop non-physical weapons. How? Magic. I don't know. It's not real. It just does. I'll suspend disbelief here.

Rebel and Empire fighters can "dance around" the ships because the ships do not have bubble shields ala Star Trek. They are hull-huggers.

Again, you mention cannon, but I think you have a misunderstanding of what that means. According to Lucas' company, cannon goes beyond movies. This is a fact. Both the EU and other sources claim they drop their shields to release ships. That is logical, since particle shields prevent physical objects from moving in and out.

The fact that SW ships have shields, though, even if they DID stop physical objects, does not logically mean they can stop ANYTHING physical. It depends. Just like a really power energy weapon WILL down a ray shield. For example, take the Asteroid scene. There is much more going on in that scene that the movie betrays. Read the cannon novelizations, EU, and other sources. Don't tell me it's not cannon either. It is. You all don't make up the cannon rules. Lucas business enterprise does.

Godular wrote:

Xess, cut the shit. Just plain stop. As I mentioned previously numbers mean jack shit so you can just quit the frickin' quoting. Halt. Access Denied. Verboten.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

And once again I say: Star wars = one universe. Star wars =/= this universe. Star Wars was meant to be a good story, not fodder for people to sit around a table going "but how does that work?" In that universe, it WORKS because the plot requires it.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH. The above's not a logical argument, just so you know. It's especially ironic, though, comming from a guy who pretends he controls a nation-state, yet talks about starwars on the game's forum. If you aren't interested, don't post here and go back to pretending you are a president.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 00:46

"Yes, but how can frankly fantastical things like FTL travel, immense world destroying lasers, lightsabres, the force, etc etc; be judged by real world physics. Their meant to be unbelievable and implausable; thats the point. To try and force fiction to abide by real physics is just retarded"
-Chronosia

How is it retarded? Many things in SW can be explained by real-world physics. Granted, the Force can't be explained, but that's only because we don't have enough information, and can't conduct experiments. Or maybe it's just "magic". That's allowed in fiction you know.

For example: the giant Death Star Superlaser. It's a giant beam of energy. Nothing fantastic about that except the amount of energy, and that's plausible i the SW universe.

Chronosia

29-05-2006, 00:49

We can't do any of it in reality; thus we can't know. Quantifying and bitching about stats and tech does my nut in; it detracts from what actually matters; the quality of the RP. hence why I don't use any. People want to know about my tech, I'll link them to codexes.

Godular

29-05-2006, 00:50

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH. The above's not a logical argument, just so you know.

On the contrary, it is very much a legitimate argument. Star Wars is a different universe than the Star Trek universe or this universe or the NS universe or any other universe. Different universes have different rules. In the Star Wars universe I would indeed say that Star Destroyers are indeed very powerful vessels, but the situation we consider is whether ISDs would be capable of defeating vessels from other universes to which I say that to even attempt such a thing is a fallacy. They are different universes, and when such things are considered together such as they are in Nationstates FT RPing, there must be a balance as one's power only goes as far as others are willing to allow.

It's especially ironic, though, comming from a guy who pretends he controls a nation-state, yet talks about starwars on the game's forum. If you aren't interested, don't post here and go back to pretending you are a president.

I do not pretend to be a president. I do not pretend that I am any of the characters I conjure. I write stories to practice my writing. Perhaps when this argument is done you could go back to pretending you know what the hell you're talking about.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 00:57

Granted, different universes may have different rules. However, for the purposes of comparing them, you assume they have the same rules, typically, RL physics. This allows a level playing surface for comparison.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that this is the way a lot of people do this.

Chronosia

29-05-2006, 00:58

Rl physics have no place in 40k; so I adhere to none of it :)

Godular

29-05-2006, 01:00

And you would be incorrect to do so, Molynia, for if Xessmithia's figures were to be true, then ISD turbolasers would have an output more than four orders of magnitude higher than the total energy output of the sun.

That is the Star Wars universe, not ours. Our universe has rules preventing spaceships a kilometer in length from having more energy than a dyson sphere.

Huntaer

29-05-2006, 01:05

Rl physics have no place in 40k; so I adhere to none of it :)

That's sooo true, especially with The Warp and Psykers/Chaos Psykers. Same with the Force. Both break all of the laws of physics.

Hurtful Thoughts

29-05-2006, 01:17

Intro
Wow, this debate went to the topicality of "How the ^@#$^ are we supposed to rate these things if they have so many glitches in physics!"

That is sad. A poll would have worked just the same and would maybe stayed on topic longer.

Raw Info
A star destroyer could easily be outfitted to fight with the best. It has Obvious ECM, yet couldn't detect the Millienium falcon among its own garbage.

It has plenty of close in PD, but it only takes one "Luke Skywalker" to go in and blow all the guns off and then send some kamakazi rookie into the bridge(though he could just use the jedi mind trick and convinv\ce all the Ties to attack the SD, or even command the general to activate the ship's Self Destruct Sequence).

The SD is fast, but not fast enough to catch the rusting old Millenium Falcon and other "fast ships". But a SD does have range, endurance and many stormtroopers.

Lastly, in Episode VI, the SDs and SSDs got mauled in space by the rebels until the timely intervention of the second Death Star, which then shot up the rebels capital ships with near impunity.

Summary
The Star destroyer sounds more like a Kiev class cruiser/carrier than a battleship. Terrified the other countries, massive crew, massive potential, but when swarmed they sank. SDs are also intended mostly as a planetary assault craft, for which it excelled at in Episode V, destroying the generator and supplying the entire ground force in one terrifying self contained package.

A SD is good, but not great, and if used for anything other than what was originally intended, it will be destroyed. It is not a "space tanks" or "superdreadnaught". Those titles belong to the AT-AT/AT-ST and Death Stars respectively.

Endnote
Sorry to lower the SD on the Empirial Navy heirarchy, but it was rather simple that it was no uber gunship, that title belongs to the DS. And it definately didn't suck at wat it was meant to do, the defect was that the Empire focused so much on them that they didn't have anything in an escort class to make much differance in Episode VI, the Millenium Falcon got through and blew up their linchpin to their plans and the Empire was crushed shortly after.

I do not pretend to be a president. I do not pretend that I am any of the characters I conjure. I write stories to practice my writing. Perhaps when this argument is done you could go back to pretending you know what the hell you're talking about.
BTW: I wouldn't want to ever get stuck next to Godular in an RP.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 01:18

Godular: Xessmithia's figures assume certain things like reactor output being linearly related to size, which we don't know is true. In any case, what's wrong with a ship having more energy output than the sun? We already know that The Death Star generates far more energy than is possible with what we know of physics, but they probably have other forms of generating energy.

EDIT: addressing some points:

"A star destroyer could easily be outfitted to fight with the best. It has Obvious ECM, yet couldn't detect the Millienium falcon among its own garbage."

As I recall, the Falcon was powered off, and happens to be composed of the same materials as a lot of the SD's garbage.

"It has plenty of close in PD, but it only takes one "Luke Skywalker" to go in and blow all the guns off and then send some kamakazi rookie into the bridge(though he could just use the jedi mind trick and convinv\ce all the Ties to attack the SD, or even command the general to activate the ship's Self Destruct Sequence)."

How many Luke Skywalkers are there though? One. He can't go fighting every SD in the galaxy. Besides, blowing up the bridge won't cause the ship to loose combat effectiveness. They do have a backup bridge in the hull.

"The SD is fast, but not fast enough to catch the rusting old Millenium Falcon and other "fast ships". But a SD does have range, endurance and many stormtroopers."

The SD also has a lot more mass to move than the Falcon.

"Lastly, in Episode VI, the SDs and SSDs got mauled in space by the rebels until the timely intervention of the second Death Star, which then shot up the rebels capital ships with near impunity."

As I recall, the Emperor didn't want the SDs to engage the rebel fleet. He wanted the DSII to do so, and he ordered his fleet to not destroy the rebels.

"The Star destroyer sounds more like a Kiev class cruiser/carrier than a battleship. Terrified the other countries, massive crew, massive potential, but when swarmed they sank. SDs are also intended mostly as a planetary assault craft, for which it excelled at in Episode V, destroying the generator and supplying the entire ground force in one terrifying self contained package."

Then again, the SD was basically a multipurpose vessel anyways. It packed enough guns to shoot down anything it might face, enough troops to enfore Imperial Law on planets, and even destroy stuff.

Hurtful Thoughts

29-05-2006, 01:44

Short reply:
True.
I Agree.

PS: Entirely.
----------------------
Long:

I haven't looked at SW in ages, so bear with me if I get some fuzzy reasoning every now and then. I believe the SD is a great ship, but if not used properly it often would fail in spite of its great design. It is not an Uber bombardment ship, that is a Death Star; the DSII was much better designed and protected than the origunal yet it still blew up, maybe the'd get the design right by the time they made a DSVI, and by then learned also how to use one right.

The DS that took the hit to the bridge in Ep VI didn't last very long afterwards, and even started "sinking" out of orbit, colliding into another SD, slicing it in two. Lossing a bridge appears like a good indication that your ship is going to crash very soon unless they immediatly stop shooting.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 01:47

Xessmithia, you really need to give up. Even though you are correct, you aren't going to get through to them. I know what you are trying to say, and your general argument is solid. It's like pounding sand.

In due time, for now I still want to have some fun.

An excellent source of information ( I didn't read the whole thread, but I have seen the last few pages of what you have written), is Dr. Curtis Saxton Incredible Cross-sections for the various movies in the franchise. Are you familiar?

Own every ICS book save the one for TPM and have read much of Dr. Saxton's site.

PS. You wouldn't happen to be from SD.net, would you? ;)

How did you know.:p

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 01:51

Your asuming that 1) the Reactors are 100% Efficent (which they arn't, no reactor is) and 2) that every ISD has half the power of a death star?

I never said the reactors are 100% efficient, I was giving order of magnitude figures.

and don't SW shileds like...not stop solid objects

Particle shields stop solid objects, ray shields stop energy.

Thirdly, I agree with Nova, but for the purposes of this debate; please answer the above

You mean the asinine question about the Star Destroyer being tossed into a star?

Long answer, it depends entirely on the star. The more massive the star the more energy the ISD will absorb and the less time it can last. Since any point in a star will be far less radiant than the star in total an ISD could survive until it runs out of fuel in most stars as it would only be absorbing a tiny fraction of the star's total energy output.

Godular

29-05-2006, 01:53

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 02:02

Xess, cut the shit. Just plain stop. As I mentioned previously numbers mean jack shit so you can just quit the frickin' quoting. Halt. Access Denied. Verboten.

Numbers are the best way to objectively compare two universes. Just because you lack the mental capacity to understand why that is doesn't mean it isn't so.

And yes it frickin' IS like creationism because you are taking information from a fictional source with multitudes of contradictions drifting through it and trying to treat it as a legitimate source of information in order to argue your case.

No see, we have evidence in the form of the movies, namely the visuals. Under the correct interpretation of SoD and not your whiney bitch version, that means that those visuals represent real events, like a planet exploding.

We assume the laws of physics as we know them apply if they didn't humans wouldn't exist afterall. We just say they added more to it to make their tech work. That doesn't mean we can't calculate the energy needed to blow up a planet using RL physics.

So we look at the visual evidence and derive figures from that. The same way scientists start with the evidence and then work from there. No one decided to say "the Death Star releases 1e38 Joules" they examined the explosion and determined that is how much energy such an event would take.

And the beautiful thing about this method is that it can be independently verified. Any person can run the numbers themselves and get the same answer.

Unlike creationism which can not be independently verified.

This is very much a colossal logical fallacy. You are taking conclusions given in the >>STORY<<, "PLANET BLOWS UP" "DEATH STAR = HALF THE POWER OF THE IMPERIAL FLEET" and tacking evidence that 'supports' these conclusions into it. No. It is not the scientific method.

Not exactly, but it is far more scientific than relying on subjective impressions. What you're saying is like stating that Luke Skywalker didn't destroy the Death Star because you don't see how he could make the shot despite what the movie shows.

No, there is no difference between suspension of disbelief and 'turning your brain off'. One is the other. We watch Star Wars to see big explosions and 'Space Opera', not debate on how one universe compares to the other.

As mentioned before, people like quantifying things so they do it. And SoD lets us do it as it means we treat the film not as a piece of fiction but as a documentary.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 02:08

When one tries to compare universes, particularly in NS, the key thing to do is not to consider the rules the same, but to consider the two universes BALANCED. I.E. All numerical figures go flying out the window because all they're useful now is birdcage lining. That way, both sides can dispense with the technical babble and get to what really matters: the RP.

And this subjective literary method of comparison is exactly why people get into fights about what their ships can and cannot accomplish. If people used objective numerical stats no one would ever doubt what a device or ship can anc cannot do as it would be right there in black and white for the whole world to see.

Godular

29-05-2006, 02:18

I more than have the capacity to understand the numerical figures you belch out on a consistent basis to make yourself look 'smahrt'.

The key thing you seem unwilling to understand is that when one is working to compare things in NS, numerical stats and technical data mean two things, as I have oft repeated in this thread: Jack, and Shit.

In other universes, it may well be possible for a vessel the size of a star destroyer to pack more punch than a star. In other universes it may also be possible to destroy a planet by throwing a brick at it, and spitting at enemy ships is a legitimate means to disable it. Thing is, that shit only works when you remain insular. You only consider the one universe. You 'remain canon'. NS is so far from Canon ANYTHING that attempting to keep such a thing in consideration is pure folly.

So once again I tell you right now: Cut the shit. Just plain stop. It does not work here. Maybe on 'Star Wars Only' rp boards, but not frickin' HERE. Here, reasonability and balance hold sway, not some dick spouting numbers.

Technokratishe Staaten

29-05-2006, 02:27

How did you know.

Lucky guess and psychic powers. Well, that and the Serenity ditty reminds me of one of the sigs there. ;)

For disliking this nerding topic so much, the tard can't seem to pry his whiney little fingers from the keyboard, can he?

Animarnia

29-05-2006, 02:35

I never said the reactors are 100% efficient, I was giving order of magnitude figures.

*nods* ok fair enough; but it just seems a bit of a strech to assume a fusion reactor, since ISD's use those too don't they? has a order of magnitude of energy output about 4-5 times greater than a star which is the most efficent energy -fusion- reactor currently know to us. maybe if it used an artifical qusar or a quantum singularity.

it just seems more logical to say that different size ships put out different energy outputs; like an SSD would put out more than and ISD. which brings up another interesting point of fuel. wouldn't a fusion reactor with that kind of output burn though an Assload of fuel very very quickly? and given size to volume, factoring in cargo, hangers, fighters, troop space etc, is there actually enough left for fuel at that output?

Particle shields stop solid objects, ray shields stop energy.

Fair nuff, just something I heard, can they have both up at the same time if they are two seperate systems as they seem to be? and would weapons out of phase with matter breach both?

You mean the asinine question about the Star Destroyer being tossed into a star?

Long answer, it depends entirely on the star. The more massive the star the more energy the ISD will absorb and the less time it can last. Since any point in a star will be far less radiant than the star in total an ISD could survive until it runs out of fuel in most stars as it would only be absorbing a tiny fraction of the star's total energy output.

Actually I meant apply Common sense and put the plot before technical specifics...but..thanks for that I think

Godular

29-05-2006, 02:40

I never said I didn't care. Truth be told the mathematics behind everything is quite an amusing thing to look at. But that's really all it is. Its when people such as yourself try to put weight to such things in an attempt to make their e-peen look big.

The simple point I am trying to make is that this is not a Star Wars Only RP board. The numbers and figures being thrown out are simply not useful here.

So Xessmithia has proven he is proficient with the concept of scientific notation. So what? Here, those numbers mean nothing. So Xessmithia can extrapolate quantitative data from watching late 70's to early 80's special effects. Mmm. Spiffy. Yeah.

Completely pointless here.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 02:45

I more than have the capacity to understand the numerical figures you belch out on a consistent basis to make yourself look 'smahrt'.

I "belch out" numerical figures to support my arguments, not to make myself look smart.

The key thing you seem unwilling to understand is that when one is working to compare things in NS, numerical stats and technical data mean two things, as I have oft repeated in this thread: Jack, and Shit.

Read my post above this one here.

In other universes, it may well be possible for a vessel the size of a star destroyer to pack more punch than a star.

Oh, the sun outputs ~3e26 Watts, an order of magnitude greater than the most cited figure of ISD reactor power of ~1e25 Watts. I remember you saying that an ISD outputted "four orders of magnitude" more energy than the sun. Just thought I should let you know you were wrong.

In other universes it may also be possible to destroy a planet by throwing a brick at it, and spitting at enemy ships is a legitimate means to disable it. Thing is, that shit only works when you remain insular. You only consider the one universe. You 'remain canon'. NS is so far from Canon ANYTHING that attempting to keep such a thing in consideration is pure folly.

I have no problem if someone wants to RP with vastly more powerfull than canon Star Trek technology. If they're conisitent with it you can assign numerical figures to that too and compare it objectively to other universes. With no common ground any comparison is impossible even on NS.

So once again I tell you right now: Cut the shit. Just plain stop. It does not work here. Maybe on 'Star Wars Only' rp boards, but not frickin' HERE. Here, reasonability and balance hold sway, not some dick spouting numbers.

And that's why we get massive OOC threads for RPs where people argue over what their ships can do. If people used numeric figures like rational people such fights would be easily resolved. Gun outputs 1e15 Watts, shield dissipates 1e12, gun beats shield. No two pages of arguing about whether your "Advanced tachyon stream ion pulse" goes through the other persons "Multi-phasic tri-axelated shield grid".

Kilani

29-05-2006, 02:45

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 02:48

*nods* ok fair enough; but it just seems a bit of a strech to assume a fusion reactor, since ISD's use those too don't they? has a order of magnitude of energy output about 4-5 times greater than a star which is the most efficent energy -fusion- reactor currently know to us. maybe if it used an artifical qusar or a quantum singularity.

Star Wars ships use hypermatter reactors. Which use hyper-dense fuels for annhilation. They provide much much more energy than fusion reactors would.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 02:49

I find it inane to assume that Dodanna was speaking literally when he said the Death Star has "half the firepower of the Imperial Fleet". There's nothing technical about that statement. You're ASSUMING that he's not exaggerating. He could be. We don't know. Sar Destroyers are powerful, but they aren't t3h uber god weaponz of doom.

And yet that method combined with the Death Star/ISD reactor scale down provide results within an order of magnitude. Signifying that an ISD reactor is indeed in that range of power output.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 02:52

Well this thread has just been freaking spectacular. One the one hand we have the ever vigilant defenders of a poorly designed interstellar warship that was only suppossed to be a plot device in some movie; and the ditractors, who for whatever reason, (and yes I will admit to being in this category, and for anyone I have offended or been an asshole to, sorry. moving on) have to be just as rabid about it. What have you all accomplished? Nothing, nothing at all. You've just derailed a thread because you can't see around your own bloated egos to go "Hmm, maybe I'm right... or maybe, just maybe the OTHER people are right." That goes more towards you and your feirce ... whatever you want to call your yelling and insulting people who look at your favorite universe the wrong way, than anyone else Xess; to wit, you can't seem to remain civil during these discussions. This is not to say though Xess is the only one, he just right now appears the most vocal about his position. So I suggest everyone step back and calm down before this thread degenerates down into a flame fest.

Now, if we want this thread to get back on track, let me ask you all this: If the ISD - with all its mass - can turn on a dime, what makes any of you think a ship of similar size and power, can't do the same and remain behind and under the ISD (where the WEAK spots are) and destroy it? No starship designer worth the ink on his diploma would A) Add a hanger bay that only holds around 70 paper thin tie fighters instead of a big freaking gun to protect the underside; B) Have a raised and exposed bridge that just screams TARGET! to every ship in the area, and C) Have the rear so damned unprotected a surprised attack on the ass would probably be fatal if the attacking ship managed to stay behind the ISD at all times.

Are ISDs powerful? Sure I guess so. Though in all honesty these facts and figures that get lobbed around seem to serve no other purpose in these discussions other than to end the argument with "LOOK AT NUMBERS! THEY BIG! WIN!" But still we must ask ourselves: is the ISD a good design, or is it a psychological weapon that only seems to work against some orange jumpsuit wearing insurgents? Honestly it seems to fail no matter where you stick it.

Godular

29-05-2006, 02:55

And that's why we get massive OOC threads for RPs where people argue over what their ships can do. If people used numeric figures like rational people such fights would be easily resolved. Gun outputs 1e15 Watts, shield dissipates 1e12, gun beats shield. No two pages of arguing about whether your "Advanced tachyon stream ion pulse" goes through the other persons "Multi-phasic tri-axelated shield grid".

Except for when considering whether it goes through a shield when the user doesn't really give a crap about the numerical values, such that when he takes one hit with blah blah blah weapon his shields go down by blah blah blah percent.

Trying to throw numbers at people in such situations actually constitutes a form of wanking.

Animarnia

29-05-2006, 03:00

Star Wars ships use hypermatter reactors. Which use hyper-dense fuels for annhilation. They provide much much more energy than fusion reactors would.

Still Fuel would be a concern; given the amout of mass already taken by everything else including the make up of the ship, how much could it really dedicate to fuel for the Hypermatter reactor, not to mention at full combat conditions an ISD would be expected to operate for maybe months without support, and firing the weapons would use more energy. given the energy stated wouldn't it run out of fuel in a short space of time?

and if you could answer my other question about the shields?

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 03:07

Except for when considering whether it goes through a shield when the user doesn't really give a crap about the numerical values, such that when he takes one hit with blah blah blah weapon his shields go down by blah blah blah percent.

Trying to throw numbers at people in such situations actually constitutes a form of wanking.

Which is why I rarely use numbers in RPs. I use "enough energy to do x lances towards ship y". It's far more informative and interesting than "The fleet fired all of its death beams in a brilliant flash of light."

Maybe I'm just unique on NS in that I actually want to know what the fuck the enemy shot at me so I can figure how to respond consistently, rather than just knowing he hit me with 30 death beams.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 03:12

Still Fuel would be a concern; given the amout of mass already taken by everything else including the make up of the ship, how much could it really dedicate to fuel for the Hypermatter reactor, not to mention at full combat conditions an ISD would be expected to operate for maybe months without support, and firing the weapons would use more energy. given the energy stated wouldn't it run out of fuel in a short space of time?

A ship's fuel silos are orders of magnitude more dense than the rest of the ship and fuel makes up most of their mass. They can operate for long periods as they are not always at full reactor output. An ISD doesn't need to be at 100% power when just cruising space. When at full power most ships have enough fuel for a few hours at most.

and if you could answer my other question about the shields?

Particle and ray shields are different systems but they are both active at the same time. SW shields have also been shown to stop higher-dimensional things like hyperwaves so out of phase matter would still probably be stopped.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 03:28

"Now, if we want this thread to get back on track, let me ask you all this: If the ISD - with all its mass - can turn on a dime, what makes any of you think a ship of similar size and power, can't do the same and remain behind and under the ISD (where the WEAK spots are) and destroy it? No starship designer worth the ink on his diploma would A) Add a hanger bay that only holds around 70 paper thin tie fighters instead of a big freaking gun to protect the underside; B) Have a raised and exposed bridge that just screams TARGET! to every ship in the area, and C) Have the rear so damned unprotected a surprised attack on the ass would probably be fatal if the attacking ship managed to stay behind the ISD at all times."

Who says these things are true? Maybe the hangar bay is useful? For, say, troop transport? Maybe the bridge is shielded and armored? Maybe the rear is shielded and armored?

"Are ISDs powerful? Sure I guess so. Though in all honesty these facts and figures that get lobbed around seem to serve no other purpose in these discussions other than to end the argument with "LOOK AT NUMBERS! THEY BIG! WIN!" But still we must ask ourselves: is the ISD a good design, or is it a psychological weapon that only seems to work against some orange jumpsuit wearing insurgents? Honestly it seems to fail no matter where you stick it."

The ISD is meant to enforce the rule of the Empire. The Empire's only threats are poorly-armed insurgents with very few space assets. The ISD isn't the best ship-to-ship fighter it could be, that is true. If you stripped out the hangar, and added more guns, it would be better at destroying enemy ships. But what's the point? The ISD already outclasses any non-imperial ship out there, and if it doesn' the Empire has lots of ISDs. THe ISD is a multipurpose ship. It's a jack of all trades, and good enough for pretty much any role the Empire needed.

And numbers do win. If you can logically show that your weapons and armor are better than your enemy's, then your chances of winning just shot up.

Godular

29-05-2006, 03:43

Which is why I rarely use numbers in RPs. I use "enough energy to do x lances towards ship y". It's far more informative and interesting than "The fleet fired all of its death beams in a brilliant flash of light."

Maybe I'm just unique on NS in that I actually want to know what the fuck the enemy shot at me so I can figure how to respond consistently, rather than just knowing he hit me with 30 death beams.

Why bother? Just get on with the story. Take yer lumps and give the enemy a few shiners in return. Keep the RP going by not demanding that everybody quantify their technology just so you can nitpick everything they do.

SeaQuest does that, niggling away at every little piddly thing in a petty attempt to get ahead against impossible odds, and despite all this arguing I hold you to a higher standard than he. Please don't prove me wrong.

And numbers do win. If you can logically show that your weapons and armor are better than your enemy's, then your chances of winning just shot up.

And in almost every case, you 'Show' that with your RPing ability, not how many contrived estimates you can zip about like a ping pong ball. Trying to use 'numbers' in an RP detracts from the RP itself. When hit by a broadside from an enemy vessel, its better to just say 'ow, blah blah blah happens' rather than starting an argument about how many percentage points the shields dropped in on specific hit. Here's the key thing though, there are other considerations when calculating strength, but none of them actually have to do with power output.

Namely: The ability to field such power, technological and military strength restricted by nation size, and RP capability.

So no, numbers don't win. In fact, sometimes numbers will actually cost you.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 03:53

In comparable universes, RPing damage actually works. However, if there's a massive disparity, then saying "Your ISD's Turbolasers shoot off some armor and barely jolt the crew" when the "armor" is a meter of steel and titanium, then some numbers need to come into effect. It's not fun, but neither is RPing with someone that won't acknowledge that their ships are getting beaten.

Animarnia

29-05-2006, 03:53

A ship's fuel silos are orders of magnitude more dense than the rest of the ship and fuel makes up most of their mass. They can operate for long periods as they are not always at full reactor output. An ISD doesn't need to be at 100% power when just cruising space. When at full power most ships have enough fuel for a few hours at most.

Not so sure on that an ISD is what? 1700m's long? and yeah they obviously wouldn't be on full power all the time only on combat conditions but with the amount of fuel the ISD burns though with a reactor like that it couldn't last long against an entrenched oponent given the aledged weapons power, shield power, the fact those huge ass engines will take power, sensors, life support artifical gravity. it all takes power. think of a mordern fighter jet in a dogfight afterburning; it goes through its fuel very fast.

if you factor in space for armour, weapons, cargo bays, troop ships, fighters, troop space, crew quaters, equipment; the reactor itself, matinence bays, medical bays, everything else a ship needs a 1700meter craft running on full power with a reactor as fuel efficent as an SUV can't actually carry much fuel..

Particle and ray shields are different systems but they are both active at the same time. SW shields have also been shown to stop higher-dimensional things like hyperwaves so out of phase matter would still probably be stopped.

hyperwaves?

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 03:54

Why bother? Just get on with the story. Take yer lumps and give the enemy a few shiners in return. Keep the RP going by not demanding that everybody quantify their technology just so you can nitpick everything they do.

I do it so I can be consistent with myself and because I like describing high energy events. If no one tells me I just take a look at their other posts and make a rough estimate of power off of that. I don't ever ask anyone to quantify there stuff, I do that myself based off of their standard RP portrayal of their tech base. I also give them the benefit of the doubt and go with the highest estimate.

So no, numbers don't win. In fact, sometimes numbers will actually cost you.

NationStates is the only place I've come across where that actually applies. So I'd say that in 99% of cases the one with bigger numbers will win.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 03:57

Who says these things are true? Maybe the hangar bay is useful? For, say, troop transport? Maybe the bridge is shielded and armored? Maybe the rear is shielded and armored?
Maybe, maybe, maybe. What kind of argument is that? You haven't actually rebutted my agument, you've just stated the irrelevantly obvious in question form. Of course the hanger could be useful for troops, but then again that is limited somewhat by the fact so much space is taken up by 70 fragile space fighters. And of course the read and underside are armored and shielded, the problem is they are both horrible blind spots for weapons because there is no deterrence in the form of weapons.

"Are ISDs powerful? Sure I guess so. Though in all honesty these facts and figures that get lobbed around seem to serve no other purpose in these discussions other than to end the argument with "LOOK AT NUMBERS! THEY BIG! WIN!" But still we must ask ourselves: is the ISD a good design, or is it a psychological weapon that only seems to work against some orange jumpsuit wearing insurgents? Honestly it seems to fail no matter where you stick it."

The ISD is meant to enforce the rule of the Empire. The Empire's only threats are poorly-armed insurgents with very few space assets. The ISD isn't the best ship-to-ship fighter it could be, that is true. If you stripped out the hangar, and added more guns, it would be better at destroying enemy ships. But what's the point? The ISD already outclasses any non-imperial ship out there, and if it doesn' the Empire has lots of ISDs. THe ISD is a multipurpose ship. It's a jack of all trades, and good enough for pretty much any role the Empire needed.

Ok, so the ISD is meant to enforce the rule of the empire. We must then ask if it does a good job, or if something more sensible could do something better. Which is neither here nor there really, since Galaxy the Empire lives in isn't the only one in the universe (I think the Vong proved that), so any competant Empire would design their ships around defended from extragalactic threats (Since you know, they're probably not the only ones in the universe who can traverse those distances in a matter of days).

Also something to keep in mind about the jack of all trades mindset, to wit being a jack of all trades just means you're a master of none. It is a poor transport, battleship, and carrier if you could compare it to a ship in any of the afformentioned classes from any other galactic empire with some design sense.

And numbers do win. If you can logically show that your weapons and armor are better than your enemy's, then your chances of winning just shot up.
No, numbers on this scale in an RP environment ruins story telling.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 03:57

"Not so sure on that an ISD is what? 1700m's long? and yeah they obviously wouldn't be on full power all the time only on combat conditions but with the amount of fuel the ISD burns though with a reactor like that it couldn't last long against an entrenched oponent given the aledged weapons power, shield power, the fact those huge ass engines will take power, sensors, life support artifical gravity. it all takes power. think of a mordern fighter jet in a dogfight afterburning; it goes through its fuel very fast.

if you factor in space for armour, weapons, cargo bays, troop ships, fighters, troop space, crew quaters, equipment; the reactor itself, matinence bays, medical bays, everything else a ship needs a 1700meter craft running on full power with a reactor as fuel efficent as an SUV can't actually carry much fuel.."

There's also another theory that the ISD actually pulls power from an external source, perhaps hyperspace.

"Maybe, maybe, maybe. What kind of argument is that? You haven't actually rebutted my agument, you've just stated the irrelevantly obvious in question form. Of course the hanger could be useful for troops, but then again that is limited somewhat by the fact so much space is taken up by 70 fragile space fighters. And of course the read and underside are armored and shielded, the problem is they are both horrible blind spots for weapons because there is no deterrence in the form of weapons."

Space fighters are useful. ISDs can't chase down tramp freighters by themselves. Troop transports can't escort themselves. You can't tie up enemy starfighters with nothing. And who says there aren't any weapons on the underside?

"Ok, so the ISD is meant to enforce the rule of the empire. We must then ask if it does a good job, or if something more sensible could do something better. Which is neither here nor there really, since Galaxy the Empire lives in isn't the only one in the universe (I think the Vong proved that), so any competant Empire would design their ships around defended from extragalactic threats (Since you know, they're probably not the only ones in the universe who can traverse those distances in a matter of days).

Also something to keep in mind about the jack of all trades mindset, to wit being a jack of all trades just means you're a master of none. It is a poor transport, battleship, and carrier if you could compare it to a ship in any of the afformentioned classes from any other galactic empire with some design sense."

What would a more "sensible" design be? ISDs have everything you need to defeat the small navy of a rebellious planet, chase down escapees, and enforece Imperial law on the planet. All in one convenient package. Why change things when you can fulfill all your mission requirements with one ship? You have to remember that ships are designed based on what their enemies are. If there's a galactic war going on, I think you'd see more ISDs with no ground troops, no hangar bay, reinforced shielding, and more guns.

Also, the Empire could have easily defeated the Vong with ISDs and support ships. The NR was a group of hippie beuracrats.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 04:03

Not so sure on that an ISD is what? 1700m's long? and yeah they obviously wouldn't be on full power all the time only on combat conditions but with the amount of fuel the ISD burns though with a reactor like that it couldn't last long against an entrenched oponent given the aledged weapons power, shield power, the fact those huge ass engines will take power, sensors, life support artifical gravity. it all takes power. think of a mordern fighter jet in a dogfight afterburning; it goes through its fuel very fast.

Only a few hours at full power, maybe a dozen for an ISD I haven't run through the math for that. Ships store fuel at neutron star densities so they can carry a lot of fuel.

hyperwaves?

Faster than light communication system.

Animarnia

29-05-2006, 04:27

Only a few hours at full power, maybe a dozen for an ISD I haven't run through the math for that. Ships store fuel at neutron star densities so they can carry a lot of fuel.

Faster than light communication system.

Didn't they have to drop the shields for that, hence the infermous Asteroid incident?

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 04:29

Space fighters are useful. ISDs can't chase down tramp freighters by themselves. Troop transports can't escort themselves. You can't tie up enemy starfighters with nothing. And who says there aren't any weapons on the underside?

This all works under the assumption that strike craft are a threat to bigger ships. In reality, an acclamator has the shield generating capabilities to waltz through an X-wing formation unhindered. It would also be faster than X-wings, as their big engines offer much more acceleration in the nigh frictionless and gravitiless vacuum of space.

On the note about weapons on the underside... well I don't doubt it has a FEW weapons down there, but none enough to deter an enemy ship from take pot shots from down below.

What would a more "sensible" design be? ISDs have everything you need to defeat the small navy of a rebellious planet, chase down escapees, and enforece Imperial law on the planet. All in one convenient package. Why change things when you can fulfill all your mission requirements with one ship? You have to remember that ships are designed based on what their enemies are. If there's a galactic war going on, I think you'd see more ISDs with no ground troops, no hangar bay, reinforced shielding, and more guns.
Also, the Empire could have easily defeated the Vong with ISDs and support ships. The NR was a group of hippie beuracrats.

Because an ISD does all of those things POORLY. Hybridized designs almost always do poorly against specialized ships. An acclamator is a BETTER troop transport, a Carrier is better for transporting men and supplies, and a the Mon Calamari is a better battleship (unless it too has the same design flaws(exposed bridge, unprotected rear and underside)).

The Empire is incompetent, that is what it gets down to. No empire would design ships in such a way as to have 50% of its surface area unprotected.

Squornshelous

29-05-2006, 04:40

On the note about weapons on the underside... well I don't doubt it has a FEW weapons down there, but none enough to deter an enemy ship from take pot shots from down below.

Keep in mind that unless that ship wanted to close to within 500-200 meters of the ISD, most of the turbolasers along the edges would be able to depress enough to fire on it. I know that in the movies that capital ships engaged at extremely close ranges, but let's look at those instances more carefully.

Episode VI:
Space Battle Over the Sanctuary Moon:
Lando Calrissian suggests a bold tactic of engaging the Imperial Death Squadron (the group of star destroyers including Executor that Vader Commanded following the Battle of Yavin) at point blank range. Admiral Ackbar initially sees the idea as suicidal, but then agrees to it, mostly because the confusion will make it difficult for the Death Star to target rebel ships among their own vessels. With a little luck, and superior starfighter pilots, the rebels are able to destroy the death star, and a few star destroyers, including Executor. Two star destroyers are captured and repaired, but the majority of the Imperial Death Squadron escaped the battle, under the command of Captain Pellaeon on the Chimaera.

Episdoe III:
Space Battle over Coruscant
Count Dooku and General Grievous have staged a surprise raid and are now attempting to break the way out away from the planet after kidnapping Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. Defending Republic Ships mass on their exit vector and the Seperatists have to push right through the middle of their formation to get out.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 04:43

"This all works under the assumption that strike craft are a threat to bigger ships. In reality, an acclamator has the shield generating capabilities to waltz through an X-wing formation unhindered. It would also be faster than X-wings, as their big engines offer much more acceleration in the nigh frictionless and gravitiless vacuum of space."

Well, maybe you're escorting smaller ships that are vulnerable to fighters. Or maybe the fighters are actually bombers.

"On the note about weapons on the underside... well I don't doubt it has a FEW weapons down there, but none enough to deter an enemy ship from take pot shots from down below."

...and the shields will hold long enough for the ISD to turn and blast it to pieces. The ISD will send its bombers to take care of it.

"Because an ISD does all of those things POORLY. Hybridized designs almost always do poorly against specialized ships. An acclamator is a BETTER troop transport, a Carrier is better for transporting men and supplies, and a the Mon Calamari is a better battleship (unless it too has the same design flaws(exposed bridge, unprotected rear and underside))."

Hybridized designs are worse than specialized ships. But why use the resources to build 3 seperate ships when you can build one ship that does all the jobs adequately? The point of the ISD is *not* to be the best battleship, carrier, and troop transport there is. It's a balance of all three. They could design a ship better than the ISD at any of those roles, but what enemy has the resources to do so? And the Empire *does* have dedicated battleships, troops transports, and carriers.

Also, Mon Cal ships are worse armed, plus they also carry fighters. The only way they're better than ISDs is because their shields are better.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 04:54

Well, maybe you're escorting smaller ships that are vulnerable to fighters. Or maybe the fighters are actually bombers.

In that case it makes sense to possibly have an escort squadron (70 ships is not an escort squadron) or possibly have some smaller carriers around to send out waves of strike craft (or hell, maybe put some PD on these ships and bombers become a moot point) to deter the Rebellion et al. from raiding them?

...and the shields will hold long enough for the ISD to turn and blast it to pieces. The ISD will send its bombers to take care of it.

This assumes that the marauding ship isn't as manouverable, lacks comparable fire power or shielding, and that by the time the ISD swings around (again assuming the attacking ship isn't as manouverable, it got under / behind it in the first place didn't it?) its shields aren't low enough already from the initial barrage that the battle isn't a foregone conclusion.

Hybridized designs are worse than specialized ships. But why use the resources to build 3 seperate ships when you can build one ship that does all the jobs adequately? The point of the ISD is *not* to be the best battleship, carrier, and troop transport there is. It's a balance of all three. They could design a ship better than the ISD at any of those roles, but what enemy has the resources to do so? And the Empire *does* have dedicated battleships, troops transports, and carriers.

As I have said numerous times it is a POOR balance of all three. You actually waste resources and logistics on hybridized ships than you do simpler specialized ships. It doesn't matter if the rebellion existed or not, the Empire is not in a vacuum. The Vong are from another galaxy, and all the resources of the Empire's galaxy will not be there forever, so they eventually have to expand and conquer other galaxies.Why would they do this with stupendously horrible ships like the ISD and their offshoots? The ISD is a poor design. It is as simple as that.

Also, Mon Cal ships are worse armed, plus they also carry fighters. The only way they're better than ISDs is because their shields are better.
Yes but from what I can see (I do not yet have stats at hand) the Mon Calamari ships do not have inadequate firing arcs; to wit, they do not lack guns on their rear and underside, a key difference.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 04:57

Didn't they have to drop the shields for that, hence the infermous Asteroid incident?

They did, that was bad luck on that ISDs part.

Colros

29-05-2006, 05:02

...

where to begin...

firstly, 3 ISDs and an executor is a very, VERY low number.
some have hypothesized that there are thousands of Executors.
it is written that there are over 10,000 (way over) ISD's out there.
remeber, the star wars galaxy that is contoled by the empire is over a million planets, quite easily!
and there are things much larger than an executor.
for instance:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/Bakustra/allegiance.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/Bakustra/ssd-and-isd-comparison.gif
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/Bakustra/eclipsessd.jpg
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/Bakustra/eclipse5.jpg

and finally, a little comparison chart:
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y267/Bakustra/daggermap.gif

so, while these mommas are big compared to us...

they're nothing in comparison to some models of stardestroyer! :D

Godular

29-05-2006, 05:02

I do it so I can be consistent with myself and because I like describing high energy events. If no one tells me I just take a look at their other posts and make a rough estimate of power off of that. I don't ever ask anyone to quantify there stuff, I do that myself based off of their standard RP portrayal of their tech base. I also give them the benefit of the doubt and go with the highest estimate.

Well go ahead and describe "High energy events" thing is you don't need precise values of the energies involved. A flashy explosion is just as cool whether you know how much energy is involved or not.

NationStates is the only place I've come across where that actually applies. So I'd say that in 99% of cases the one with bigger numbers will win.

But not all people RP with numbers. Some prefer quality over quantity, and can blow up an enemy fleet just as easily with three vessels as with three hundred or three thousand. Granted in this case it is more often required to describe how things are executed, but then throwing bajillions of ships at the enemy isn't exactly a very complicated tactic. Numbers may indeed matter, but in the same consideration, numbers take a definite back seat to RP skill, because RP skill defines how effective those numbers are.

And the same goes for firepower.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 05:17

In that case it makes sense to possibly have an escort squadron (70 ships is not an escort squadron) or possibly have some smaller carriers around to send out waves of strike craft (or hell, maybe put some PD on these ships and bombers become a moot point) to deter the Rebellion et al. from raiding them?

Fighters are useful. Like I said before, in policing duties, ISDs simply can't chase down small, fast ships. Plus, there's a certain psychological implact when there's dozens of fighters zipping through your lines, and bombers taking out your smaller capital ships.

This assumes that the marauding ship isn't as manouverable, lacks comparable fire power or shielding, and that by the time the ISD swings around (again assuming the attacking ship isn't as manouverable, it got under / behind it in the first place didn't it?) its shields aren't low enough already from the initial barrage that the battle isn't a foregone conclusion.

If it's that maneuverable, send bombers after it. Plus, ISDs don't necessarily operate alone.

As I have said numerous times it is a POOR balance of all three. You actually waste resources and logistics on hybridized ships than you do simpler specialized ships. It doesn't matter if the rebellion existed or not, the Empire is not in a vacuum. The Vong are from another galaxy, and all the resources of the Empire's galaxy will not be there forever, so they eventually have to expand and conquer other galaxies.Why would they do this with stupendously horrible ships like the ISD and their offshoots? The ISD is a poor design. It is as simple as that.

Each ship requires its own reactor, as well as all the parts that go with it. Each ship requires its own captains and crew, which take time to train. Also, the Empire does not control the entire galaxy, just a large part of it. There's tons of resources in the Empire that they haven't tapped yet, and they can always expand into the unknown regions before looking past the galaxy.

The ISD is effective at what it was designed to do.

Yes but from what I can see (I do not yet have stats at hand) the Mon Calamari ships do not have inadequate firing arcs; to wit, they do not lack guns on their rear and underside, a key difference.

Sure they don't lack guns on their rear and undersides. They just lack guns overall. The ISD is designed for frontal assaults, hence, most of the guns pointing forward. It's not designed to be a defensive ship. Mon Cal ships are converted luxury liners, not military ships (until the MC-90 series anyways).

Otagia

29-05-2006, 05:22

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 07:03

Fighters are useful. Like I said before, in policing duties, ISDs simply can't chase down small, fast ships. Plus, there's a certain psychological implact when there's dozens of fighters zipping through your lines, and bombers taking out your smaller capital ships.

Er, no they are not. An ISD can chase down small ships, and if it can't, it makes more sense to send something like a Corellian Gunship to take care of them. You also need to get off the psychological soap box; honestly it doesn't add to the discussion and actually detracts from the ISD's value as a warship.

If it's that maneuverable, send bombers after it. Plus, ISDs don't necessarily operate alone.

Bombers are a none issue. Namely PD will shread them to pieces before they get close enough to drop heir bombs, and the ISD doesn't carry enough of them for it to matter. I also fail to see how "ISDs don't necessarily operate alone" is a valid argument.

Each ship requires its own reactor, as well as all the parts that go with it. Each ship requires its own captains and crew, which take time to train. Also, the Empire does not control the entire galaxy, just a large part of it. There's tons of resources in the Empire that they haven't tapped yet, and they can always expand into the unknown regions before looking past the galaxy.

Er, no. This is a clear example of you not undertstanding logistics at all. Each hybridized ships requires special engineers, facilities, and parts to make all of those systems compatible with each other. Where as you had simpler facilities making simpler ships, with engineers and mechanics working on simpler systems, you now spend more money trying to do the same thing at a lower return trying to make things more compatible. Example: You need to train flight crews, mechanics, and install the required facilities on the ISDs. All at a much, much, lower effeciency than if it was a straight up carrier.

It also gets to a point in growth where having a quarter of the galaxy left to mine isn't enough, because you have three quarters of it bone try demanding resources. They have to expand, eventually, and the ISD is not conducive to that end.

The ISD is effective at what it was designed to do.

What is it designed to do? Be a carrier? Nope, sucks royally at that, and at transporting troops. A patrol ship? Nah, far to large and cumbersome to do that. A battleship maybe? Possibly, though in all honestly the fact it totally lacks adequate firing arcs and has that nasty exposed bridge that just means more surface area to armor, kinda means you would be better off trying a different design. That is the cost of hybridization, minor effeciency in some areas, but never totally adequate, at least nothing beyond that.

Sure they don't lack guns on their rear and undersides. They just lack guns overall. The ISD is designed for frontal assaults, hence, most of the guns pointing forward. It's not designed to be a defensive ship. Mon Cal ships are converted luxury liners, not military ships (until the MC-90 series anyways).

So they are designed BETTER than an ISD as far as warships go. Yes they lack guns but atleast the ones they have are in the appropriate place, and no one can get the jump on them without paying for it.

Hurtful Thoughts

29-05-2006, 08:02

What is it designed to do? Be a carrier? Nope, sucks royally at that, and at transporting troops. A patrol ship? Nah, far to large and cumbersome to do that. A battleship maybe? Possibly, though in all honestly the fact it totally lacks adequate firing arcs and has that nasty exposed bridge that just means more surface area to armor, kinda means you would be better off trying a different design. That is the cost of hybridization, minor effeciency in some areas, but never totally adequate, at least nothing beyond that.

Rapid Planetary assault ship, kinda like an LPH/cruiser in MT. See Kiev class.

See, when rapidly expnding, you can't go about making massive death stars and waiting for them to come lumbering up to you, you need something reletively fast, and a good self contained ship full of pain and suffering.

It is designed to be mostly used to hover over a planet with an 'unstable' government, make its influence known, and move onto the next.

When one to 5 of these fail, then they start sending in the purpose built battle fleets, but alas, the rebelion didn't really make a stand for the most part, hence the predomminance of these things. Also, from the looks of it, the intirior of a SD looks modular for rapid refitting, so that, yes, you can have it all on one hull, just after you change its guts.

If you need a police perspective, think of the SD as a padi wagon with a swat team inside. That massive bridge is to hold massive electronics so it apparently can operate far from home base and also pick up enemy activities from afar.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 08:58

Rapid Planetary assault ship, kinda like an LPH/cruiser in MT. See Kiev class.

See, when rapidly expnding, you can't go about making massive death stars and waiting for them to come lumbering up to you, you need something reletively fast, and a good self contained ship full of pain and suffering.

It is designed to be mostly used to hover over a planet with an 'unstable' government, make its influence known, and move onto the next.

Yeah, ya see I don't see any evidence of that. Even if it were true it still does a poor job. 70 TIEs and not enough troops to hold a real planet for any decent period of time. It sucks even as an assault carrier.

When one to 5 of these fail, then they start sending in the purpose built battle fleets, but alas, the rebelion didn't really make a stand for the most part, hence the predomminance of these things. Also, from the looks of it, the intirior of a SD looks modular for rapid refitting, so that, yes, you can have it all on one hull, just after you change its guts.

Instead of say, putting some of these fleets with the appropriate equipment around these sectors to make sure NO ONE causes problems? The battle of Hoth and the ships guarding the death star somewhat disprove your theory as ISDs were dominant in those battles. I also fail to see what makes it seem modular at all.

If you need a police perspective, think of the SD as a padi wagon with a swat team inside. That massive bridge is to hold massive electronics so it apparently can operate far from home base and also pick up enemy activities from afar.

If an ISD (which it isn't by the looks of things) is just some sorta grandoise police cruiser, then no wonder the Empire fell.

Hurtful Thoughts

29-05-2006, 10:23

If an ISD (which it isn't by the looks of things) is just some sorta grandoise police cruiser, then no wonder the Empire fell.

Why did they give it a tractor beam then? Boarding parties, holding cells, and, as you so nicely put it, miniscule amounts of TIE fighters and their deriritives. (though 70 can hardly be called miniscule in comparision to what current carriers have)

Episode IV may prove you wrong, but that would make the death star a prision. And that just sounds wrong no matter how you look at it.

In episode V, they use it to carry the troops and their gear, which then had to be offloaded via shuttle. They then stormed Hoth to round up Luke, fail, then go racing after him to culminate with the "Luke, I am your Father!" scene.

Episode VI, they where there, they just didn't do much. Except for get knocked about like cars during a mass riot.

They look like heavy long range patrol craft of some sort actually, whith some heavy weapons stashed on the gun rack in the trunk, er, turbolasers.

Something about the bridge looks like the lights on top of a police cruiser now that you mention it...

Modular:
Massive intirior spaces, means room to expand like an AGEIS cruiser.

Swap the fighters, new role
Swap the crew, new role
Swap the electronics, different abilities
Add turrets, more power

Mationbuds

29-05-2006, 14:29

The ISD isn't at all frightening. It slow, armed in a mediocre manner at best, and has crappy defenses.

How is an ISD going to stop an Honorverse level broadside? How will it stop a Legacy-style fighter swarm? How will it stand up to a Supermonitor? How would it deal with a Posleen Battleglobe? It doesn't have the sheer NUMBER of powerful guns to take out a Globe, or a Supermonitor, it doesn't have the PD to stand up to the broadsides of an Honorverse SD(p). It has almost NO advantages other than its being well known.

I disagree . Honoverse Tech is almost totally useless against SW shields and the SW shields can easily rip apart Honoverse ships .

Nova Boozia

29-05-2006, 17:01

You rip apart wedge-equipped ships with hull-hugger shields? If you're going to comment on the quality of Honorverse tech, read "On Basilisk Station". It and "The Honour of the Queen" are free on Baen.

And on behalf of my centauroid puppet, a Posleen Battleglobe is not at all Honorverse. I could have its component B-Decs quantum tunnel in right under or aft of an ISD, and "roll" them to expose all sorts of nasty weapon systems. What fun.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 17:10

Rebuttals not in order, sorry!

"If an ISD (which it isn't by the looks of things) is just some sorta grandoise police cruiser, then no wonder the Empire fell."

Think about it this way. You control an EMPIRE. There are no external threats to your empire. However, there are internal threats, like criminals and terrorists. Guess who you send to take care of them? That's right, internal security forces, AKA the Police.

"Instead of say, putting some of these fleets with the appropriate equipment around these sectors to make sure NO ONE causes problems? The battle of Hoth and the ships guarding the death star somewhat disprove your theory as ISDs were dominant in those battles. I also fail to see what makes it seem modular at all."

You propose to build millions of ships to just sit there and look tough? The Rebellion is going to happen whether or not you have big indimidating ships sitting over planets.

As for the battle of Hoth, what battle? The battle was on the ground. The only space-based part of that was the Rebel ships trying to escape, and that giant ion cannon. Hardly a battle. ANd remember, this is Darth "I want him alive" Vader. He wanted to capture his son, not kill him. If he wanted to kill them all, he could have slagged the base as soon as the shield generator was destroyed.

The ships guarding the Death Star mkI were specialized for anti-capship work. There was no "battle" besides Vader's TIEs going out there and shooting up the rebel ships. For the Death Star MkII, the Emperor specifically ordered his ships not to destroy the rebel fleet. He wanted the DSII to superlaser pwn them.

"Yeah, ya see I don't see any evidence of that. Even if it were true it still does a poor job. 70 TIEs and not enough troops to hold a real planet for any decent period of time. It sucks even as an assault carrier."

I disagree. 9700 troops and armor is more than enough to depose the leader, set up a garrison, and enfore law in a city long enough for troop transports to get there.

"Er, no they are not. An ISD can chase down small ships, and if it can't, it makes more sense to send something like a Corellian Gunship to take care of them. You also need to get off the psychological soap box; honestly it doesn't add to the discussion and actually detracts from the ISD's value as a warship."

How will the ISD chase down a Millinium Falcon type ship? The ISD is far too big to chase down such a small. It doesn't have the acceleration required. As for stuff like the Corellian gunship, that's *still* too big to chase down illegally modified tramp freighters. TIEs are not.

"Bombers are a none issue. Namely PD will shread them to pieces before they get close enough to drop heir bombs, and the ISD doesn't carry enough of them for it to matter. I also fail to see how "ISDs don't necessarily operate alone" is a valid argument."

What PD? Star Wars ship don't have any PD, remember? Besides, unless the ISD has it's sensors turned off and everyone blind or sleeping, you can't sneak a ship up to it. It'll just turn its trench guns on you and blast you to pieces.

"So they are designed BETTER than an ISD as far as warships go. Yes they lack guns but atleast the ones they have are in the appropriate place, and no one can get the jump on them without paying for it."

What are they designed for though? Defending from attacks from all sides? Defending seems like a really nice way to lose a war. ISDs are designed to *attack*, hence, most of its weapons facing forward. The Mon Cal cruiser can only turn a fraction of its weapon to face any single oncoming threat.

"Er, no. This is a clear example of you not undertstanding logistics at all. Each hybridized ships requires special engineers, facilities, and parts to make all of those systems compatible with each other. Where as you had simpler facilities making simpler ships, with engineers and mechanics working on simpler systems, you now spend more money trying to do the same thing at a lower return trying to make things more compatible. Example: You need to train flight crews, mechanics, and install the required facilities on the ISDs. All at a much, much, lower effeciency than if it was a straight up carrier.

It also gets to a point in growth where having a quarter of the galaxy left to mine isn't enough, because you have three quarters of it bone try demanding resources. They have to expand, eventually, and the ISD is not conducive to that end."

What you get with that is also more ship captains that may have loyalty problems. The Empire has enough resources that it can afford to be inefficient. Besides, with an ISD, solving pretty much all problems are easy. Got a pirate base? Send an ISD. Got a rebellious planet? Send an ISD. Got smuggler problems? Send an ISD. It's the multitool of the Empire. Sure a leatherman costs more than a knife, 6 screwdrivers, a set of wrenches, scissors, and whatever else, but it's so much more handy than carrying all those seperately.

Also, there may be millions of inhabited planets out there, but there are many millions more that are *uninhabited* and perfect for mining. Not to mention asteroid fields, nebulae, etc, etc, etc. They're not going to run out of resources soon. And they're going to start expanding into the unknown region sooner than that. Plus, *eventually* they're going to run out of resources in this galaxy, but then again, *eventually* the galaxy is going to end because of heat death.

Mationbuds

29-05-2006, 17:22

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 17:30

True . The older MKIIs and MKIs have crappy TIE Fighters . But thats the old times . Now the MKIIIs have TIE Interceptors which are much much better than TIE Fighters . And they also have increased firepower , speed , shielding and of course starfighter compliments .

Since when did a fighter determine the carrying ship? After the battle of Endor most Imperial fleets were equipped with Tie Advanced fighters or Inteceptors. A MKI is just as capable of carrying Interceptors as they are original Tie Fighters. Thinking otherwise is just being daff.

----

Anyway, I wish to present this to the general audiance of this redundant thread: ISD Evolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485069)

Mationbuds

29-05-2006, 17:42

Since when did a fighter determine the carrying ship? After the battle of Endor most Imperial fleets were equipped with Tie Advanced fighters or Inteceptors. A MKI is just as capable of carrying Interceptors as they are original Tie Fighters. Thinking otherwise is just being daff.

----

Anyway, I wish to present this to the general audiance of this redundant thread: ISD Evolution (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485069)

Nah . I'm just saying that MOST of the MKIs and MKIIs carry odinary TIE Fighters but MKIIIs usually carry TIE Advanced or Interceptors . And actually the battle of endor was a well planned one except for thr accursed Luke Skywalker who ruined everything .

Molynia

29-05-2006, 17:47

actually, regarding that ISD evolution page... the domes on top of the tower are sensors, not shield generators, as certain SW games would lead you to believe...

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 19:00

Think about it this way. You control an EMPIRE. There are no external threats to your empire. However, there are internal threats, like criminals and terrorists. Guess who you send to take care of them? That's right, internal security forces, AKA the Police.

The police then (assuming there are no external threats, which has been proved patently false) should be given a decent police ship with large troop transport facilities instead of some half-battleship with its meager troop compliment.

You propose to build millions of ships to just sit there and look tough? The Rebellion is going to happen whether or not you have big indimidating ships sitting over planets.

No, I propose building flexible fleets able to take care of any number of problems effeciently instead of what the empire does now.

As for the battle of Hoth, what battle? The battle was on the ground. The only space-based part of that was the Rebel ships trying to escape, and that giant ion cannon. Hardly a battle. ANd remember, this is Darth "I want him alive" Vader. He wanted to capture his son, not kill him. If he wanted to kill them all, he could have slagged the base as soon as the shield generator was destroyed.

You miss the point entirely. The empire in all its glory and wisdom, used ISDs to capture hoth instead of specialized assault ships. Had Vader used any of this specialized ships I've been told exist, to fight the rebels on Hoth, then they would have had more armour and troops on the ground, and perhaps the Ion Cannon wouldn't have gimped everyship in orbit.

The ships guarding the Death Star mkI were specialized for anti-capship work. There was no "battle" besides Vader's TIEs going out there and shooting up the rebel ships. For the Death Star MkII, the Emperor specifically ordered his ships not to destroy the rebel fleet. He wanted the DSII to superlaser pwn them.

It doesn't matter what the ISDs were doing, it just matters that they were THERE. The Empire chose to utilize poorly designed ships to guard its most important tactical resource, instead of using specialized fleets of ships made specifically to annihilate incoming threats.

I disagree. 9700 troops and armor is more than enough to depose the leader, set up a garrison, and enfore law in a city long enough for troop transports to get there.

Uh, no. It isn't. 9,700 troops is enough for a massacre once the army on a planet with 3 billion people, equiped with all sorts of anti-armor and infantry weapons murders them all in orbit.

How will the ISD chase down a Millinium Falcon type ship? The ISD is far too big to chase down such a small. It doesn't have the acceleration required. As for stuff like the Corellian gunship, that's *still* too big to chase down illegally modified tramp freighters. TIEs are not.

The ISD has far more acceleration than does the damn Falcon. This is not the water where weight matters; in the vacuum of space an ISD has the engines to move faster than anything smaller than itself. TIEs are shittly little fighters with the engine burning capabilities of a damned bottle rocket.

What PD? Star Wars ship don't have any PD, remember? Besides, unless the ISD has it's sensors turned off and everyone blind or sleeping, you can't sneak a ship up to it. It'll just turn its trench guns on you and blast you to pieces.

Assuming that the empire wasn't incompetent and put potent PD guns on their ships (another design flaw say) any PD you do have WILL destroy the slower moving strike craft, who by all rights shouldn't be able to do any damage at all. And still, STILL you assume that the attacking ship(s) (hunter killer pairs would own an ISD) aren't as manouverable as the ISD, and can't remain away from its effective firing arcs.

What are they designed for though? Defending from attacks from all sides? Defending seems like a really nice way to lose a war. ISDs are designed to *attack*, hence, most of its weapons facing forward. The Mon Cal cruiser can only turn a fraction of its weapon to face any single oncoming threat.

Defending seems like a nice way to lose a war? What do you know about war then? Having only offensive capabilities just means you're dead when you HAVE to go on the defensive, which is exactly what happens to ISDs in all their infinite glory.

What you get with that is also more ship captains that may have loyalty problems. The Empire has enough resources that it can afford to be inefficient. Besides, with an ISD, solving pretty much all problems are easy. Got a pirate base? Send an ISD. Got a rebellious planet? Send an ISD. Got smuggler problems? Send an ISD. It's the multitool of the Empire. Sure a leatherman costs more than a knife, 6 screwdrivers, a set of wrenches, scissors, and whatever else, but it's so much more handy than carrying all those seperately.

You can never have enough resources to be inefficient. That kind of thinking leads to the rise of design flaws... like the ISD. The ISD does a POOR job, that is right as I have said a million times by now in as calm a manner as possible but you REFUSE to get it, A POOR JOB of doing everything all at once. It lacks adequate fire power; it's ridden with design flaws, lacks troop transport and TIE transport capabilities.

Also, there may be millions of inhabited planets out there, but there are many millions more that are *uninhabited* and perfect for mining. Not to mention asteroid fields, nebulae, etc, etc, etc. They're not going to run out of resources soon. And they're going to start expanding into the unknown region sooner than that. Plus, *eventually* they're going to run out of resources in this galaxy, but then again, *eventually* the galaxy is going to end because of heat death.

Most of those which could easily be mined dry ind ays, especially given the Empires constant wartime production quotas which can probably leave a planet try in a day. They will run out of resources in a few centuries, and then what? Launch an attack on another galaxy with the Enterprises fat, retarded cousin?

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 19:05

Why did they give it a tractor beam then? Boarding parties, holding cells, and, as you so nicely put it, miniscule amounts of TIE fighters and their deriritives. (though 70 can hardly be called miniscule in comparision to what current carriers have)
Tractor beams repel missiles and capture escape pods, you don't have to be a police cruiser to need that. Holding cells obvious for those people in those escape pods, and boarding parties because Lucas thinks boarding actions work in FT.

70 is also horribly miniscule, considing they drop like flies and are comparible to WWII era zeros.

Episode IV may prove you wrong, but that would make the death star a prision. And that just sounds wrong no matter how you look at it.

In episode V, they use it to carry the troops and their gear, which then had to be offloaded via shuttle. They then stormed Hoth to round up Luke, fail, then go racing after him to culminate with the "Luke, I am your Father!" scene.

Yeah, because the Empire has a notion that trying to make an ISD a carrier, battleship, and troop transport all in one is a good idea. This does not make it a police cruiser, it makes it a cheap swiss army knife.

Episode VI, they where there, they just didn't do much. Except for get knocked about like cars during a mass riot.

They look like heavy long range patrol craft of some sort actually, whith some heavy weapons stashed on the gun rack in the trunk, er, turbolasers.

Something about the bridge looks like the lights on top of a police cruiser now that you mention it...

Now you're just being silly.

Modular:
Massive intirior spaces, means room to expand like an AGEIS cruiser.

Swap the fighters, new role
Swap the crew, new role
Swap the electronics, different abilities
Add turrets, more power

Yeah.... yeah... any sources for this or are you just ripping it out your ass?

Nova Boozia

29-05-2006, 19:10

Boarding actions can occasionaly work in FT, mainly with small craft or teleporters, but when your shields are down, the ammo's up, the FTL just went to hell, and the enemy admiral takes his flagship in close and does the hey-nonny-no dance, what do you do? I make the final sacrifice: ram, board, blow the reactor. Very heroic, good writing material, and it can really turn the enemies victory sour.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 19:29

70 is also horribly miniscule, considing they drop like flies and are comparible to WWII era zeros.

Where do TIEs drop like flies? Please enlighten me on this point.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 19:33

Where do TIEs drop like flies? Please enlighten me on this point.
The Falcon annilihated a squadron of TIEs (video games also point to the fact they drop like flies for a reason) with two manned turrets.

Molynia

29-05-2006, 19:41

Video games are not canon. They are balanced so that it's fun for the player.

Also, for the Falcon, the gun turrets are being manned by Han Solo, a very famous veteran smuggler, and Luke Skywalker, a freakin JEDI. Not very good odds for the TIEs, don't you think? Plus, I don't think it was a whole squadron of TIEs, and I recall the Falcon getting quite banged up in that encounter.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 20:30

actually, regarding that ISD evolution page... the domes on top of the tower are sensors, not shield generators, as certain SW games would lead you to believe...

Dude, did you not see my source? I got it from STAR WARS: THE NEW ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO VEHICLES AND VESSELS(Page 142-143; 'Imperial Star Destroyer'). Find yourself a copy and educate yourself young man. Something that is sanctified by G.L. and his entire crew of staff that came up with the SW universe is pretty much going to be fact (which is kind of an oxymorone when you consider than its a fact about fiction).

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 21:09

Video games are not canon. They are balanced so that it's fun for the player.

They are weak canon yes, but they are canon nonetheless. TIEs are as fragile as they are in videogames because the movies lent themselves to being such. Do you honestly think a ball attached to a pair of solar pannels is sturdy?

Also, for the Falcon, the gun turrets are being manned by Han Solo, a very famous veteran smuggler, and Luke Skywalker, a freakin JEDI. Not very good odds for the TIEs, don't you think? Plus, I don't think it was a whole squadron of TIEs, and I recall the Falcon getting quite banged up in that encounter.
It was a damned freighter being attacked by highspeed fighters against manned turrets at close range. I don't care if Solo was a veteran or a rookie, or if Luke (who hadn't yet developed his Jedi abilities mind) was a jedi knight or not, in that situation the fighters should have won. But they didn't, because TIE fighters are SHIT.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 21:09

Dude, did you not see my source? I got it from STAR WARS: THE NEW ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO VEHICLES AND VESSELS(Page 142-143; 'Imperial Star Destroyer'). Find yourself a copy and educate yourself young man. Something that is sanctified by G.L. and his entire crew of staff that came up with the SW universe is pretty much going to be fact (which is kind of an oxymorone when you consider than its a fact about fiction).

The Original Trilogy: Inside the Worlds, based directly on the films so much so that the people making the films use them along with the ICS books as a reference, call the domes sensor/communication globes. The Executor also has the local bridge shield projectors located there.

Sorry, but the domes are sensors/communications.

And the Imperials already have a much better destroyer role ship than the ISD, it's called the Tector-class Star Destroyer. It has no hangar and no external reactor dome. It likely also hs more powerfull shields and weapons. You see it in ROTJ.

Spizania

29-05-2006, 21:10

Lets see an image please, ive never heard of that thing before

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 21:14

They are weak canon yes, but they are canon nonetheless. TIEs are as fragile as they are in videogames because the movies lent themselves to being such. Do you honestly think a ball attached to a pair of solar pannels is sturdy?

Game mechanics are never canon. In the movies a TIE can knock out an X-Wing with one blast, in the games they can't. Games are wrong.

And the panels are radiators, not solar panels. ANH shows that at least scout ties have shields as evidenced by the blue/white shield flashes seen in the MF attack and they have to be rather sturdy to survive ~5000 Gs of acceleration.

But they didn't, because TIE fighters are SHIT.

Or maybe Vader and Tarkin had put a homing beacon on the Falcon and wanted to track them to the Rebel base and couldn't do that if the Falcon was destroyed? You know, they way it happened in the movie where Leia says things like "That was too easy" and "They let us go" and "They're tracking us."

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 21:16

Lets see an image please, ive never heard of that thing before

Look here (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#destroyer5) for a blurb and lots of screencaps.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 21:18

They are weak canon yes, but they are canon nonetheless. TIEs are as fragile as they are in videogames because the movies lent themselves to being such. Do you honestly think a ball attached to a pair of solar pannels is sturdy?

It was a damned freighter being attacked by highspeed fighters against manned turrets at close range. I don't care if Solo was a veteran or a rookie, or if Luke (who hadn't yet developed his Jedi abilities mind) was a jedi knight or not, in that situation the fighters should have won. But they didn't, because TIE fighters are SHIT.

Or maybe it's because the plot line would have gone to hell, since after all, they were the main characters...*waits for a light bulb to appear above ElectronX*

*doesn't hold breathe waiting*

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 21:21

Game mechanics are never canon. In the movies a TIE can knock out an X-Wing with one blast, in the games they can't. Games are wrong.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are canon. The weakest of canon maybe, but nonetheless they are canon.

And the panels are radiators, not solar panels. ANH shows that at least scout ties have shields as evidenced by the blue/white shield flashes seen in the MF attack and they have to be rather sturdy to survive ~5000 Gs of acceleration.

I don't care what they are. The TIE design is about as strudy and sensible as taping paper wings to a brick and expecting it to fly.

Or maybe Vader and Tarkin had put a homing beacon on the Falcon and wanted to track them to the Rebel base and couldn't do that if the Falcon was destroyed? You know, they way it happened in the movie where Leia says things like "That was too easy" and "They let us go" and "They're tracking us."

... Which they could have easily done without losing a squadron of TIEs to manned turrets.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 21:22

Or maybe it's because the plot line would have gone to hell, since after all, they were the main characters...*waits for a light bulb to appear above ElectronX*

*doesn't hold breathe waiting*
We're not talking about plotlines you idiot. We're talking about the soundness of the ISDs design (which is not sound in the least) and the shittiness of the TIE fighter (now anyway), which are indeed, shit.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 21:32

Sorry to burst your bubble, but they are canon. The weakest of canon maybe, but nonetheless they are canon.

And thankfully contradict the movies so much that they're worth shit for analysis.

I don't care what they are. The TIE design is about as strudy and sensible as taping paper wings to a brick and expecting it to fly.

The SWTC article on TIE fighters. (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/tie.html)

Which they could have easily done without losing a squadron of TIEs to manned turrets.

They lost an amazing FOUR TIES, out of which the Empire has billions that can easily be replaced pilots and all. Color me impressed.:rolleyes:

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 21:33

We're not talking about plotlines you idiot. We're talking about the soundness of the ISDs design (which is not sound in the least) and the shittiness of the TIE fighter (now anyway), which are indeed, shit.

Ho, ho, ho. My but aren't you wading into an ever rising river of shit, boy. Maybe you should read a link in my sig concerning the design of the ISD and you might learn something, or you can continue to speak with your head up your butt.
---

Concerning the Tie Fighter

Everyone here does realise that this thing is 6.3 meters meters in height right? Thats pretty small in comparison to other models of fighters such as the A9-Vigilance or the V38 Devestator. And you know why? Because Imperial engineers tried making the best possible space superiority fighter they could. The Tie is a master piece when it comes to the advancement of mass produced type fighers. Its both cheap and reliable.

The only reason that you would consider them cheap was due to the way in which Imperial fleet officers used these fighters; there were always more and if you lost a few then no problem. That was a bad way to go about using resources, even if you have an entire galaxy to draw upon.

After the fall of the Emperor and the Empire's collapse many Imperial commanders started to realise the need to make their Tie fighters and their experianced pilots last a bit longer; and as such their tactics concerning them grew in more dignified other than just sending them as a swarm at the enemy.

Also, this who topic is irrelevant since no one can really compare an ISD to other techs and their ships; or rather do so in a way that would solve the issue. The ISD is acually a very sound and reliable ship, within the SW universe. The Trekkie ships are very sound and reliable ships, within the Trekkie universe. You get the point? Its on NS here that people have tried rp'ing these two opposing forces against each other, with a wide range of different and varried other technologies (ie, Stargate,B5, etc).

So think about what your sayin, read my link on SD evolution, and you might just gain some insight to why an ISD is what is; and why its hard to come to a conclusion on a matter than concerns things that you cannot entire comprehend.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 21:37

And thankfully contradict the movies so much that they're worth shit for analysis.

When they contradict the movies or anything else, they're nothing yes. But up till that point they are still considered canon, even if WEAK canon.

The SWTC article on TIE fighters. (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/tie.html)

Mass produced, overepowered pieces of cheap filth. They lack shields, they lack survivability, they have no range, they have nothing that makes them worth a crap UNLESS they are spamming in numbers, which they need to be worth their weight in scrap metal. And 70 TIEs is not enough.

They lost an amazing FOUR TIES, out of which the Empire has billions that can easily be replaced pilots and all. Color me impressed.:rolleyes:

Yeah, four fighters against manned turrets.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 21:44

Ho, ho, ho. My but aren't you wading into an ever rising river of shit, boy. Maybe you should read a link in my sig concerning the design of the ISD and you might learn something, or you can continue to speak with your head up your butt.

I don't care how or why the ISD was designed the way it was, it is a shit design as it stands.

---

Concerning the Tie Fighter

Everyone here does realise that this thing is 6.3 meters meters in height right? Thats pretty small in comparison to other models of fighters such as the A9-Vigilance or the V38 Devestator. And you know why? Because Imperial engineers tried making the best possible space superiority fighter they could. The Tie is a master piece when it comes to the advancement of mass produced type fighers. Its both cheap and reliable.

It's cheap, yes. Reliable? Only in mass numbers. On its own I don't see a TIE as much more than an overpowered fly buzzing about the infinite void.

The only reason that you would consider them cheap was due to the way in which Imperial fleet officers used these fighters; there were always more and if you lost a few then no problem. That was a bad way to go about using resources, even if you have an entire galaxy to draw upon.

After the fall of the Emperor and the Empire's collapse many Imperial commanders started to realise the need to make their Tie fighters and their experianced pilots last a bit longer; and as such their tactics concerning them grew in more dignified other than just sending them as a swarm at the enemy.

I consider them cheap because well, they are cheap. They're mass produced fighters that are outclassed one on one by real fighters if only because other fighters are large enough they can atleast sport shields and some armor that will keep them in a fight longer than after one hit.

Also, this who topic is irrelevant since no one can really compare an ISD to other techs and their ships; or rather do so in a way that would solve the issue. The ISD is acually a very sound and reliable ship, within the SW universe. The Trekkie ships are very sound and reliable ships, within the Trekkie universe. You get the point? Its on NS here that people have tried rp'ing these two opposing forces against each other, with a wide range of different and varried other technologies (ie, Stargate,B5, etc).

So think about what your sayin, read my link on SD evolution, and you might just gain some insight to why an ISD is what is; and why its hard to come to a conclusion on a matter than concerns things that you cannot entire comprehend.

Thrashia, silence. The thread asked if the ISD was a sound design. It isn't. I've layed out all the reasons why it isn't, and the only defense anyone can rip from their asses as of right now is "LOOK AT WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO!" Well that would be a valid defense if it could do what it is designed to do better than specialized ships or an ISD without the exposed underbelly and rear and that god awful exposed bridge that as I have said a million times before, just screams TARGET!

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 21:48

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 21:51

Mass produced, overepowered pieces of cheap filth. They lack shields, they lack survivability, they have no range, they have nothing that makes them worth a crap UNLESS they are spamming in numbers, which they need to be worth their weight in scrap metal. And 70 TIEs is not enough.

If you've read the Thrawn Trilogy, you'd see that in the opening pages Grand Admiral Thrawn manages to take out a fairly good sized New Republic taskforce made up of several frigates and fighters. Yet due to his command abilities and intuative tactical sense his Tie fighters are able to best a group of X-wings. All done and said with A single ISD (with a newbie crew) and 70 Ties (half the pilots most likely new as well).

That does give me the impression of being 'pieces of cheap filfth'. They lack shields because it was decided that speed was more important and with that extra speed could be used to avoid laser fire. Why do you think the US army has light armored vehicles? They are less armored, making them faster, and thus can be very effective against other sometimes heavier tanks. (its a simpel concept really, I'm hard put to see how your not gettin that concept)

They don't have range because they are a 'Fighter'. Key word there. I mean, why can't F-16s fly across the atlantic? Oh, thats right, their fighters and need a base to launch from. Oh! Thats right! Aircraft carriers!

As I said in my first paragraph, numbers does'nt always mean anything, and the only reason you have massive numbers used is because of commanders using them en masse, like I said in my previous post.

Yeah, four fighters against manned turrets.

You got this part right? Oh good. No need to discuss how targetting computers work or how good marksmanship helps, or even how a little luck helps in battle as well.

@ Xess: No need to waste any more time with him man. Let him sit and stew.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 21:52

Yet they hold their own against X-Wings in ANH and in ROTJ.

If by going out in droves you mean they held their own, then fine.

Do you not understand that the fighters were told to let the Falcon escape but still make it seem like they wanted to destroy the Falcon? That they were told to suck so the Falcon could get away? And that the fight still lasted close to five minutes?

You still don't have to lose 4 TIE fighters to manned turrets. If youc annot grasp this then you are beyond help.

And it was so obvious an attempt that Leia, a diplomat, saw through it?

Nothing about that scene makes TIEs suck except your idiotic bitching about "OMG TIEs are teh suxxorz."
You're an idiot Xess, an angry idiot who was banned fromt he draftroom because your ability to keep calm is nonexistent. Unless everyone agrees with your mass spewing of numbers and ranting about how superior starwars shit is, you start yelling and bitching and calling people morons like you did earlier in the thread.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/tiefighter/index.html

That's all I will say on the matter concerning TIE fighters.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 21:58

If you've read the Thrawn Trilogy, you'd see that in the opening pages Grand Admiral Thrawn manages to take out a fairly good sized New Republic taskforce made up of several frigates and fighters. Yet due to his command abilities and intuative tactical sense his Tie fighters are able to best a group of X-wings. All done and said with A single ISD (with a newbie crew) and 70 Ties (half the pilots most likely new as well).
No, I haven't read thr Thrawn trilogy. I have only seen the movies and played some games that all point to the fact TIE fighters are cheap, and worthless unless they are in huge numbers.

That does give me the impression of being 'pieces of cheap filfth'. They lack shields because it was decided that speed was more important and with that extra speed could be used to avoid laser fire. Why do you think the US army has light armored vehicles? They are less armored, making them faster, and thus can be very effective against other sometimes heavier tanks. (its a simpel concept really, I'm hard put to see how your not gettin that concept)

Don't try and compare the TIE fighter to the bradly (something that isn't exactly the pinnacle of design itselt) or other US army vehicles. Such a comparison is illogical, stupid, and only proves you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

They don't have range because they are a 'Fighter'. Key word there. I mean, why can't F-16s fly across the atlantic? Oh, thats right, their fighters and need a base to launch from. Oh! Thats right! Aircraft carriers!

X-wings have hyperdrives, and they are fighters.

As I said in my first paragraph, numbers does'nt always mean anything, and the only reason you have massive numbers used is because of commanders using them en masse, like I said in my previous post.

Because trying to use them otherwise generally ends up bad for said commanders.

You got this part right? Oh good. No need to discuss how targetting computers work or how good marksmanship helps, or even how a little luck helps in battle as well.

Sorry, but the days of sitting behind a turret on an Iowa aiming at oncoming Zeros is over. The TIE fighters are fast, I will give them that, no targeting computer hindered by the slow response time of a human would ever hit a TIE fighter unless it was spraying and praying into a massive cloud of them.

@ Xess: No need to waste any more time with him man. Let him sit and stew.
Oh, bravo. :rolleyes:

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:00

I don't care how or why the ISD was designed the way it was, it is a shit design as it stands.

Compared to what? If you don't mind me asking.

It's cheap, yes. Reliable? Only in mass numbers. On its own I don't see a TIE as much more than an overpowered fly buzzing about the infinite void.

Your opinion old boy, and quite valid; thank you for your insight.

I consider them cheap because well, they are cheap. They're mass produced fighters that are outclassed one on one by real fighters if only because other fighters are large enough they can atleast sport shields and some armor that will keep them in a fight longer than after one hit.

And you know why their massed produced? Because nations cannot afford to spend years on a single ship making it the perfect little baby. You design something that is good, reliable, cheap, and can generally take on any other figher around. Sounds like a good deal to me, since I want to have an actual military instead of a bunch of outnumbered 'pretty boy I spent three years building this one ship' fighters.

Thrashia, silence. The thread asked if the ISD was a sound design. It isn't. I've layed out all the reasons why it isn't, and the only defense anyone can rip from their asses as of right now is "LOOK AT WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO!" Well that would be a valid defense if it could do what it is designed to do better than specialized ships or an ISD without the exposed underbelly and rear and that god awful exposed bridge that as I have said a million times before, just screams TARGET!

You can shut your own trap right now. If anyone needs reading comprehension at this point, its you. And you cannot understand anything unless you know its history and the path that history took. How else do you understand something? You don't condemn a retarded person to death because of what he/she is, you study their genetic information and past and discover what might have gone wrong.

Your entirely missing the concept here. I suggest finding the nearest body of water, cooling you head, and then return and then really read what is said here by older and wiser people.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:02

No, I haven't read thr Thrawn trilogy. I have only seen the movies and played some games that all point to the fact TIE fighters are cheap, and worthless unless they are in huge numbers.

----

Don't try and compare the TIE fighter to the bradly (something that isn't exactly the pinnacle of design itselt) or other US army vehicles. Such a comparison is illogical, stupid, and only proves you don't know what in the hell you're talking about.

--------

X-wings have hyperdrives, and they are fighters.

-----
Because trying to use them otherwise generally ends up bad for said commanders.

---

Sorry, but the days of sitting behind a turret on an Iowa aiming at oncoming Zeros is over. The TIE fighters are fast, I will give them that, no targeting computer hindered by the slow response time of a human would ever hit a TIE fighter unless it was spraying and praying into a massive cloud of them.

Oh, bravo. :rolleyes:

You are so obtuse and short-sighted that I cannot begin to describe it.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 22:05

Compared to what? If you don't mind me asking.
Something that lacks all the afformentioned flaws.

And you know why their massed produced? Because nations cannot afford to spend years on a single ship making it the perfect little baby. You design something that is good, reliable, cheap, and can generally take on any other figher around. Sounds like a good deal to me, since I want to have an actual military instead of a bunch of outnumbered 'pretty boy I spent three years building this one ship' fighters.

I wont grace whatever this is with a response beyond, "Are you serious?"

You can shut your own trap right now. If anyone needs reading comprehension at this point, its you. And you cannot understand anything unless you know its history and the path that history took. How else do you understand something? You don't condemn a retarded person to death because of what he/she is, you study their genetic information and past and discover what might have gone wrong.

So here you go again on your little soap box making illogical assumptions and statements I can drive a mack truck through; to wit, the ISD could have been designed the way it was because Palpatine liked its Pizza shape, I don't care; it's a BAD design.

Your entirely missing the concept here. I suggest finding the nearest body of water, cooling you head, and then return and then really read what is said here by older and wiser people.

Nothing you've said has lent to the 'fact' that you're any older or any wiser.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 22:06

If by going out in droves you mean they held their own, then fine.

Lets see in ANH five TIES managed to destroy most of the 30 Rebel fighters. What was that about going out in droves again?

You still don't have to lose 4 TIE fighters to manned turrets. If youc annot grasp this then you are beyond help.

No they didn't need to lose 4 TIEs, the Empire chose to in order to give the Falcon some sense that it was a valid attempt to destroy them. It didn't work anyway, but that was the point.

You're an idiot Xess, an angry idiot who was banned fromt he draftroom because your ability to keep calm is nonexistent.

Like I give a fuck I was banned from that place.

Unless everyone agrees with your mass spewing of numbers and ranting about how superior starwars shit is, you start yelling and bitching and calling people morons like you did earlier in the thread.

I still think its hilarious that my being able to support my arguments with cold hard math is thought of as being stupid by most NSers I meet.

Godular

29-05-2006, 22:09

Cold hard math derived from fictional sources frought with contradictions. Hence my comparison to creationism.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 22:10

Cold hard math derived from fictional sources frought with contradictions. Hence my comparison to creationism.

You didn't listen to a damn thing I said did you?

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:13

Something that lacks all the afformentioned flaws.

Compared to what? Your claim of us backing our facts up with bogus crap is rather distasteful. You've played Star Wars Rogue Squadron? I've also played F-15 Strike Eagle II, and in that game, an F-15 can take a half-dozen direct hits from SAM's before it goes down (in reality, one proximity hit will kill it easily). Can we agree that it's silly to use computer gameplay as a basis for technological assessments? As is your use of Starwars.com. That site is devoted to the more 'merchandice' function of SW than actual facts about the SW universe. Oh, it does have some, but nothing highly reliable and not a single NSer would recommend it...well, besides you.

I wont grace whatever this is with a response beyond, "Are you serious?"

I'm not sure, I mean common sense usually defines that a nation wishing to have an actual military will come to a 'guns or butter' situation, hence the need to find a cheap and reliabel massed produced weapon.

So here you go again on your little soap box making illogical assumptions and statements I can drive a mack truck through; to wit, the ISD could have been designed the way it was because Palpatine liked its Pizza shape, I don't care; it's a BAD design.

So you proved my point. You've done it! "the ISD could have been designed the way it was because Palpatine liked its Pizza shape". You've made a possible hypothesis on why the ISD is like it is. Congratulations.

But again, I have to ask you see, COMPARED TO WHAT. Since you seem so keen on this subject I would like to hear what it is you think were be a more preferable and effective design that would allow for cost-effectiveness and fulfil certain political policies of the ruling regime that existed when the ISD was coming into production.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 22:17

But again, I have to ask you see, COMPARED TO WHAT. Since you seem so keen on this subject I would like to hear what it is you think were be a more preferable and effective design that would allow for cost-effectiveness and fulfil certain political policies of the ruling regime that existed when the ISD was coming into production.

He wants a triangle with no hangar, tower or engines.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:22

He wants a triangle with no hangar, tower or engines.

Then you have the damned Tector-class Star Destroyer. My god.

The existence of the Tector-class was established in the Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross-Sections fact book, and was presumed to have existed prior to that due to observations of a singular ship in Return of the Jedi. When asked, Lucas Licensing continuity checker Leland Chee confirmed that this ship was a Tector-class Star Destroyer.

The identified vessel appeared similar to the Imperial-class, but lacked the ventral hangar bay and a visible reactor-bulb. For this reason, it is hypothesized that ships of this class were dedicated attack ships, and not hybrid carrier/transport/attack ships like those of the Imperial-class. Tector-class Star Destroyers would labor on for decades in Imperial service, alongside Imperial-class Star Destroyers. They supplanted the former roles of the Venator-class, causing it to become phased out of frontline duty.

@ ElectronX: My friend, I suggest, and I say this with adject humility, that you read more on the subject that you are discussing. Having your knowledge claims based on the movies and a few games is grossly innacurrate and leaves you looking like a blind fool. Just because you don't like a ships design, doesn't mean that its a bad design. It exists, so deal with it, or just go about being as you have been.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 22:22

Compared to what? Your claim of us backing our facts up with bogus crap is rather distasteful. You've played Star Wars Rogue Squadron? I've also played F-15 Strike Eagle II, and in that game, an F-15 can take a half-dozen direct hits from SAM's before it goes down (in reality, one proximity hit will kill it easily). Can we agree that it's silly to use computer gameplay as a basis for technological assessments? As is your use of Starwars.com. That site is devoted to the more 'merchandice' function of SW than actual facts about the SW universe. Oh, it does have some, but nothing highly reliable and not a single NSer would recommend it...well, besides you.

Oh I don't know, compared to a design that lacks all thinks marked here: http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/82/isd1qw.gif would be a good design. I can't compare it to anything, you want to know why? Because most canon designs are absurd.

Also the games are based ont hings we see/saw in the movie (to a degree), TIEs go down in droves because in the movies that is pretty much what they did. TIE interceptors and the much better higher quality ships are tougher in the games because they are tougher in the movies. There is a connection there if you LOOKED for it.

And also, it is starwars.com, pardon me if I thought that would carry reliable information :rolleyes:

I'm not sure, I mean common sense usually defines that a nation wishing to have an actual military will come to a 'guns or butter' situation, hence the need to find a cheap and reliabel massed produced weapon.

Which fails utterly when total numerical superiority is not in your favour and the enemy decided to go with quality.

So you proved my point. You've done it! "the ISD could have been designed the way it was because Palpatine liked its Pizza shape". You've made a possible hypothesis on why the ISD is like it is. Congratulations.

:rolleyes:

But again, I have to ask you see, COMPARED TO WHAT. Since you seem so keen on this subject I would like to hear what it is you think were be a more preferable and effective design that would allow for cost-effectiveness and fulfil certain political policies of the ruling regime that existed when the ISD was coming into production.

http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/82/isd1qw.gif <---Something lacking those flaws, which I have pointed out to you numerous times.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 22:28

Then you have the damned Tector-class Star Destroyer. My god.

@ ElectronX: My friend, I suggest, and I say this with adject humility, that you read more on the subject that you are discussing. Having your knowledge claims based on the movies and a few games is grossly innacurrate and leaves you looking like a blind fool. Just because you don't like a ships design, doesn't mean that its a bad design. It exists, so deal with it, or just go about being as you have been.

My knowledge comes from common sense, namely having no guns on your rear or underside means you're fucked in the ass royally if ever a more manouverable enemy catches you with your pants down; that having an exposed bridge like that on an ISD means you have more surface area to armor and a big target for Jimmy the Gun monkey; or having a hangar with a meager 70 TIEs only acts as another target, makes logistics harder and construction costlier at the cost of lower efficiency, and using cheap, easily destoryed TIEs in such a low number (they are weak based on the games, which are based on the fact in the MOVIES they were easily dispatched by better fighters) is innane.

And incase the point of this thread tital has gone over your head (obviously it has or you wouldn't make a statement like that), this thread is about the ISDs design. Is it feasible, is it good, that is the point of this thread. If you don't know that then you've less intelligence than you give yourself credit for.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:32

Oh I don't know, compared to a design that lacks all thinks marked here: http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/82/isd1qw.gif would be a good design. I can't compare it to anything, you want to know why? Because most canon designs are absurd.

You realise that the hangers are heavily shielded right? And that several powerful and very accurate laser cannons are under the ship to fire at oncoming enemies? The exposed hanger could also be closed, as shown in SW: ANH when the Tantive IV was taken in by Darth Vaders ISD. So thats one problem solved.

Also the games are based ont hings we see/saw in the movie (to a degree), TIEs go down in droves because in the movies that is pretty much what they did. TIE interceptors and the much better higher quality ships are tougher in the games because they are tougher in the movies. There is a connection there if you LOOKED for it.

Again, I am just astounded by your obtuse-ness.

And also, it is starwars.com, pardon me if I thought that would carry reliable information :rolleyes:

Oh, its sometimes reliable. But only if your interested in paying cash and submitting a subscription to their fan-letter.

Which fails utterly when total numerical superiority is not in your favour and the enemy decided to go with quality.

Example being?

http://img331.imageshack.us/img331/82/isd1qw.gif <---Something lacking those flaws, which I have pointed out to you numerous times.

Again, the Tector-class.

Xessmithia

29-05-2006, 22:34

A did a few searches on SDN for good threads on this topic.

ISD. A serious design flaw (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=18626&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=isd+flaws&start=0) is the best one I found.

EDIT: Foolproof way to screw an ISD? (http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=91697) is another good one.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:37

My knowledge comes from common sense, namely having no guns on your rear or underside means you're fucked in the ass royally if ever a more manouverable enemy catches you with your pants down; that having an exposed bridge like that on an ISD means you have more surface area to armor and a big target for Jimmy the Gun monkey; or having a hangar with a meager 70 TIEs only acts as another target, makes logistics harder and construction costlier at the cost of lower efficiency, and using cheap, easily destoryed TIEs in such a low number (they are weak based on the games, which are based on the fact in the MOVIES they were easily dispatched by better fighters) is innane.

If you'd actually watched the first five-ten minutes of SW: ANH then you would see laser fire coming from turrets beneath the ISD in that part of the film. The vast majority of the laser cannon were on the axis of the ISD meaning that they could cover both the top and bottom.

And have you ever tried looking up the word 'shield'? Those rather attractive looking targets as you called them, towers, are shield generators; ones that are some of the strongest in the SW galaxy.

Up to the point in SW:ANH, ISDs usually worked in squadrons, meaning that usually you wouldn't find a single ISD unless it was in some backwater system, and then usually the locals weren't able to put up much effort against you.

And incase the point of this thread tital has gone over your head (obviously it has or you wouldn't make a statement like that), this thread is about the ISDs design. Is it feasible, is it good, that is the point of this thread. If you don't know that then you've less intelligence than you give yourself credit for.

And the fact that the Tector is based on the Imperial means nothing what-so-ever to you, or the fact that it addresses your design flaws? Yeah, thats being obtuse.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 22:38

You realise that the hangers are heavily shielded right? And that several powerful and very accurate laser cannons are under the ship to fire at oncoming enemies? The exposed hanger could also be closed, as shown in SW: ANH when the Tantive IV was taken in by Darth Vaders ISD. So thats one problem solved.

Hangars could be the most heavily shielded part of the ship, but it is still a weak spot. It's hallow, there is no mass behind the suppossed armor plate to reinforce it from being blown apart if ever an enemy gets below it. Also as I am aware, and because I do not have a screen cap I could be wrong, those shots came from the sides of the wedge, not from down below.

Oh, its sometimes reliable. But only if your interested in paying cash and submitting a subscription to their fan-letter.

Your point?

Example being?

X-wings.

Again, the Tector-class.
The Empire should have built those instead of the piece of shit ISDs.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:48

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 22:48

If you'd actually watched the first five-ten minutes of SW: ANH then you would see laser fire coming from turrets beneath the ISD in that part of the film. The vast majority of the laser cannon were on the axis of the ISD meaning that they could cover both the top and bottom.

Look at what I said above regarding the bottom guns, and yes many were on the axis; but not most as I recall, I will hunt for schmatics in the mean time.

And have you ever tried looking up the word 'shield'? Those rather attractive looking targets as you called them, towers, are shield generators; ones that are some of the strongest in the SW galaxy.
And when those shields go down and they take out the bridge and the ISD is useless?

Up to the point in SW:ANH, ISDs usually worked in squadrons, meaning that usually you wouldn't find a single ISD unless it was in some backwater system, and then usually the locals weren't able to put up much effort against you.

This doesn't mean the ISD isn't a bad design (it is). It means that the Empire utilized them effectively (kinda) and made up for their GLARING weaknesses with numbers. However, had they just gone with the Tector or something similar without the exposed rear and underside, then they wouldn't have needed to worry about that. More ISDs could go solo without having to worry about 50% of their surface area having adequate protection.

And the fact that the Tector is based on the Imperial means nothing what-so-ever to you, or the fact that it addresses your design flaws? Yeah, thats being obtuse.
You're an idiot Thrashia. A bonafide idiot. This thread is about the ISD, and it's design. The Tector could be based ont he ISD, or somethign else entirely, but I don't care. The ISD is a bad design, the Tector is a good design. The only saving grace for the ISD (as I have previously mentioned atleast once in this thread) is its wedge shape. Which does allow it to bring most of its firepower to bear on an enemy, however this only applies if they are infront or above, not if they're behind or below, which is bad.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:50

Do you actually listen to the words you type? I wish Parlim were here, he'd tear you apart as it is.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 22:52

The simple fact that you refuse to listen objectively to our comments concerning your own claims on the Imperial Star Destroyer is highly annoying, ElectronX. In most common forums you would have been either banned or possibly silenced for a short time due to your unwillingness to accept another point of view.

You have pointed out flaws in the ISD design. Very well. I presented you with a viable alternative that fit better. You denied it as viable without consulting the information. That is an insult to both me and the person who created that knowledge.

I find you highly stubborn, more so than is healthy for a person. Good day to you sir, and may you find wisdom in the near future. I hold nothing against you for your beliefs nor your views. I simply find them, on my own opinion, short sighted.

Are you so inept that you think I am not being objective because I refuse your point of view and fight it wrong?
"O MA GAWD HE DONT LEIK YM POYNT OF V3IW! HE WRONG! ME RIGHT!" Yeah, like that is objective.

You've failed to grasp the point of this thread many times. Is the ISD a good design? That was the point. I've said no, so have others. You rebut with "But there are reasons for it!" and we reply with "So it is still a bad design?" and then you again go "Yes, but there is a REASON!" as if that fucking matters. What drugs are you on?

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 22:57

Are you so inept that you think I am not being objective because I refuse your point of view and fight it wrong?
"O MA GAWD HE DONT LEIK YM POYNT OF V3IW! HE WRONG! ME RIGHT!" Yeah, like that is objective.

You've failed to grasp the point of this thread many times. Is the ISD a good design? That was the point. I've said no, so have others. You rebut with "But there are reasons for it!" and we reply with "So it is still a bad design?" and then you again go "Yes, but there is a REASON!" as if that fucking matters. What drugs are you on?

I think you are not being objective because you are not accepting the fact that in order to successfully have a discussion concerning the Imperial Star Destroyer, it requires to 'step out of the box' so to speak. It means that bringing in other Star Destroyer class designs is highly relative, that looking into the history of the class is highly relative, and that I have already stated, many pages back, that I thought the ISD a over-all good design; I am simply writing back in response to your own posts concerning the ISD.

You said that no the ISD is not a good design. There are reasons. My ISD evolution pages explains them in detail. The fact that you seem set on simply stating the flaws and going no further than that, is why I said you were short-sighted. And insulting me does you no good either really.

Hurtful Thoughts

29-05-2006, 22:58

ElectronX, you are looking more of a fool than I am.

Even I recall the horrific losses during the raid against the first death star, keep in mind the only people who apparently came back alive where Luke, Solo, Chewie, and those 50 or so Rebel pilots at the coranation party.

I could probbably quote that of Luke's own wing he lost all but himself and R2-D2, and only with the timely surprise intervention of Han Solo.

Luke's wing of 5 planes was shot up by 3 standard TIEs and Vader's TIE. Looks like X-Wings drop like flies when they take supercharged TIE fire to their engines, 1 or 2 laser hits geneally blew them up.

Keep in mind that the rebels sent something in the area of 500 fighters at the Death Star and then hyper jumped out as soon as they blew up the Death Star. It was a raid, not a battle, and they still had horrific losses.

Now back to the ISD, they are patrolers, capable of doing some light offensives and counter-terrorist raids. Albeit these terrorists have last week's model of military hardware and perhaps the best training available.

ElectronX, you are entitled to your own opinion, perhaps a universal Uber long range Patroler doesn't fit under your "good ship" philosophy. Keep in mind it was dreamty up by George Lucas when the USS-Long Island and the Kiev were coming out. Plus, Lucas went to UCLA and didn't really like war all that much. He did have an understanding of it and most likely had a crazy militant roommate who touted the latest cold war propoganda. I'm most likely wrong about all of this, especially ElectronX's right to forcing his opinion onto others just because they plan to use them for what they are better at than what they suck at.

An ISD would make a good first responder to a (minor) crisis when the leader's really have no clue what to expect. Even if they do fail, they'd tie the enemy up long enough for appropraite reinforcements to arrive.

Genites

29-05-2006, 23:01

ICly, we have a rabid hatred for all things "warsie" being a race that romed the stars for 10,000 years and were planet bound even longer we've got advanced technolgy but I'm curious, how would YOU go about quickly and efficentl killing an ISD and its brethren in as few shots as posable given the figures you stated?

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 23:04

I think you are not being objective because you are not accepting the fact that in order to successfully have a discussion concerning the Imperial Star Destroyer, it requires to 'step out of the box' so to speak. It means that bringing in other Star Destroyer class designs is highly relative, that looking into the history of the class is highly relative, and that I have already stated, many pages back, that I thought the ISD a over-all good design; I am simply writing back in response to your own posts concerning the ISD.

I don't care why the Empire decided to go with a design that lacked adequate firing arcs, I only care that it sucks, and lacks adequate firing arcs. We could trace the design back to the days of the first star ship designer who lade out the foundation for what the ISD is today, but does that matter? Does that take away from the fact the design is not that great? No. It just means we have an understanding as to why, when we didn't need one in the first place.

You said that no the ISD is not a good design. There are reasons. My ISD evolution pages explains them in detail. The fact that you seem set on simply stating the flaws and going no further than that, is why I said you were short-sighted. And insulting me does you no good either really.

Read above.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 23:08

Then please sir, give me a better design. Now. I am through with rehtorical bickering that you seem set upon. Give me a viable alternative that is better and I will yield.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 23:08

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 23:09

Then please sir, give me a better design. Now. I am through with rehtorical bickering that you seem set upon. Give me a viable alternative that is better and I will yield.
A better design would be the afformentioned Tector; or anything else that can bring more than two of its weapons to bear on a target while accelerating at any one time. I think I've said this about a dozen times before really.

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 23:11

But wait, you can't invole the Tector. This discussion is about ISDs. Not Tectors. You'll have to do better than that.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 23:14

But wait, you can't invole the Tector. This discussion is about ISDs. Not Tectors. You'll have to do better than that.
You asked for a design that is better, Thrashia. The Tector is better, as would be any other ship lacking the afformentioned flaws (assuming it didn't gain some different glaring flaws in the process).

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 23:18

You asked for a design that is better, Thrashia. The Tector is better, as would be any other ship lacking the afformentioned flaws (assuming it didn't gain some different glaring flaws in the process).

Ah, but then the Tector is based upon the design of the ISD. Without the ISD you wouldn't have the Tector. And without the Venator or Victory, you wouldn't have the ISD. Different flaws continually working themselves out through a long process.

Do you see it now? Why I said that you need to look at the history of it?

The Tector is a better design, if you want a ship designated for anti-capital ship work. The ISD is a troopship/space combat destroyer/carrier. The Tector concentrates upon space combat. Thus two different designs based upon different battlefield roles.

Are you seeing it!? Its what I've been saying the whole time. The design and everything. Its based upon evolution.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 23:25

Ah, but then the Tector is based upon the design of the ISD. Without the ISD you wouldn't have the Tector. And without the Venator or Victory, you wouldn't have the ISD. Different flaws continually working themselves out through a long process.

Do you see it now? Why I said that you need to look at the history of it?

The Tector is a better design, if you want a ship designated for anti-capital ship work. The ISD is a troopship/space combat destroyer/carrier. The Tector concentrates upon space combat. Thus two different designs based upon different battlefield roles.

Are you seeing it!? Its what I've been saying the whole time. The design and everything. Its based upon evolution.

Maybe it is that you don't get it, or maybe I do not explain myself adequately, probably a combination of the two, I don't know. But what I do know is that the ISD is a bad design, the Tector is a better design without the flaws of the ISD. This doesn't take away from the fact the ISD is a bad ship, it just means that someone went "Hmm, obviously Joe and Bob are fucking idiots and should be shot for designing... THIS piece of underarmed FILTH!" and took the wedge shape, the good part, and put more guns and imbedded (I think, I can't tell exactly) the bridge. Does this mean the ISD is a good design? No. It means that someone kept the wedge shape and added the needed guns for us to get the Tector.

Genites

29-05-2006, 23:25

Ah, but then the Tector is based upon the design of the ISD. Without the ISD you wouldn't have the Tector. And without the Venator or Victory, you wouldn't have the ISD. Different flaws continually working themselves out through a long process.

Do you see it now? Why I said that you need to look at the history of it?

The Tector is a better design, if you want a ship designated for anti-capital ship work. The ISD is a troopship/space combat destroyer/carrier. The Tector concentrates upon space combat. Thus two different designs based upon different battlefield roles.

Are you seeing it!? Its what I've been saying the whole time. The design and everything. Its based upon evolution.

Each Ship breeds a better one correct? the fact is with the ISD the Empire got complacent (as did the later new repbulic) they belived themselves unbeatable and undefeatable ruling through fear; ISD's are a weapon of terror not war; this Tector Destroyer sounds more like a WARSHIP than a Terror ship

ISD's will always lose out to dedicated warships of equivilent or supirior technology, a Tector would stand more of a chance. indeed?

Thrashia

29-05-2006, 23:30

Each Ship breeds a better one correct? the fact is with the ISD the Empire got complacent (as did the later new repbulic) they belived themselves unbeatable and undefeatable ruling through fear; ISD's are a weapon of terror not war; this Tector Destroyer sounds more like a WARSHIP than a Terror ship

ISD's will always lose out to dedicated warships of equivilent or supirior technology, a Tector would stand more of a chance. indeed?

Indeed it is. I am simply attacking ElectronX's lack of willingness to 'step out of the box'. Each ship bred a better one, correct. And indeed Genites is pefectly correct.

Simply put, ElectronX's conclusions concerning the ISD were not valid in that they did not achknowledge the situation that the ship in question was made in, and even after stating flaws (which I agree with) did not accept my alternative: if you don't like it, who cares, deal with it.

ElectronX

29-05-2006, 23:34

Indeed it is. I am simply attacking ElectronX's lack of willingness to 'step out of the box'. Each ship bred a better one, correct. And indeed Genites is pefectly correct.

Simply put, ElectronX's conclusions concerning the ISD were not valid in that they did not achknowledge the situation that the ship in question was made in, and even after stating flaws (which I agree with) did not accept my alternative: if you don't like it, who cares, deal with it.
That wasn't the point of this thread, which I can't seem to get nailed into your head no matter how many times I repeat myself. Is the ISD a good design? No. It is a bad carrier, a bad troop transport, a bad battleship; if you had something like the Tector or an SW-esque empire with equivalent technology the ISD would be destroyed. We can go into why, and worry about historical details, but for what? So we can all agree at the end of the day the ISD is a bad design, only there is a reason for it?

Godular

29-05-2006, 23:46

You didn't listen to a damn thing I said did you?

Yes, I did. I just don't give a shit. You're still wrong to bring that crap here.

Genites

29-05-2006, 23:48

That wasn't the point of this thread, which I can't seem to get nailed into your head no matter how many times I repeat myself. Is the ISD a good design? No. It is a bad carrier, a bad troop transport, a bad battleship; if you had something like the Tector or an SW-esque empire with equivalent technology the ISD would be destroyed. We can go into why, and worry about historical details, but for what? So we can all agree at the end of the day the ISD is a bad design, only there is a reason for it?

I don't think anyones saying it isn't a bad design but its like the saying goes, to make an omlet you gotta crack a few eggs. it took the empire losing ISD's to realie how bad they were so they made a better one in the Tector.

Godular

29-05-2006, 23:50

That's also against the point of this thread.

Genites

29-05-2006, 23:59

That's also against the point of this thread.

What is exactly? acknowledging a better design? do I think the ISD is bad; sure, it has too many flaws that cannonically speaking the rebels never really exploited to the fullest but it took the empire losing ISD's to admit its 'greatest assit' was its bigest liability

ICly..we have a rabid hatred of Warsie tech, we see it as cheap and dirty

Godular

30-05-2006, 00:11

The point of this thread is supposedly 'Comparing' the Imperial Star Destroyer to the strength of battleships from other universes. I think this thread was supposed to be some sort of Star Wars Fans Patting Themselves on the Back thread or somethin'.

Really, y'all are engaging in a conversation based on the notion that the ISD is pure crap (I agree!), but the OP and Xess are sorta trying to pull a rah rah siss boom bah bit.

Molynia

30-05-2006, 01:02

The problem with coming up with a better design is... Maybe there's an in-universe reason why they can't do whatever it is you want them to do. Maybe the bridge tower is sticking up and out because the sensor domes need to be away from the main body of the ship or something. Call it interference.

All your talk about the ISD being a bad design is valid. I'm just saying that the ISD fulfill's it job adequately, so the Empire saw no need to change it. Can someone design a better ship for a specific role? Yes, they probably can. Can someone design a better ship for *all* the roles that the ISD fulfills? That's up for debate.

Also, on the topic of a more maneuverable ship staying in the blindspot area, all the ISD needs to do is roll over to engage the ship. And if you say that the smaller ship will ujst stay in the blindspot area, realize that the ISD can just keep rolling faster, while the smaller ship must turn, accelerate, and roll to stay in that area.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 02:30

Yes, I did. I just don't give a shit. You're still wrong to bring that crap here.

Here is what I responded too

Cold hard math derived from fictional sources frought with contradictions. Hence my comparison to creationism.

That does not refer to numbers on NS but deriving numbers from fiction. Under the correct method of SoD if there is a contradiction you rationalize it, you don't give up analyzing the work of fiction.

Most contradictions in SW are in fact because EU sources ignored the movies and pulled numbers out of their ass.

Since I described all this too you before, and you admit it, you just ignored me. Thank you for proving you're a moron.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 02:32

Just curious....But where does the movie give numbers?

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 02:34

Just curious....But where does the movie give numbers?

You can derive numbers from the movie visuals. I've shown how you can do so in this very thread. The movie doesn't need to say "This battlestation will release 1e38 Joules" for to determine that it did.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 02:36

.....So you're deriving numbers for sci fi movies, to use in real physics, from special effects....?

Genites

30-05-2006, 02:37

You can derive numbers from the movie visuals. I've shown how you can do so in this very thread. The movie doesn't need to say "This battlestation will release 1e38 Joules" for to determine that it did.

Can you answer my question from earlier? might be one or two pages back..

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 02:38

.....So you're deriving numbers for sci fi movies, to use in real physics, from special effects....?

Yes, because using SoD we assume that what we see is a documentary. So the planet isn't a stick of dynamite exploding, but a giant laser blowing up a planet. We use RL physics because that's all we know, and if the rules were too much different humans wouldn't exist.

People much smarter than you use this method. Deal with it.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 02:40

Can you answer my question from earlier? might be one or two pages back..

The fastest way to blow up an ISD is to shoot it with more firepower than it can handle with a more powerfull ship. Or from multiple ships whose combined firepower is greater than the ISD can handle.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 02:42

No need to be snide.

I'm just saying that suspension of disbelief is one thing; splicing our own knowledge of physics with visual observations of special effects that are hardly meant to be physically possible, but to look cool, is hardly grounds for producing hard numbers.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 02:47

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 02:49

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 02:54

The fake visuals that someone built with computers and models? The faked visuals your using to produce hard numbers, before converting them over to yet another universes physical systems where most of what is shown is scientifically impossible?

Jesus christ on a pogo stick are you dense. You can do it because of fucking SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. You treat the explosion as an actual explosion rather than as special efects. It's like watching test footage of nuclear weapons from the 50s except it's Star Wars.

I think I'd much rather be wrong if that makes sense.

And you are also an idiot. Congratulations.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 03:00

An idiot in the midst of a university education; yes. It's comfortable for you to denounce my lack of acceptance for your absurd hypothesis, because you want people to agree with you. Your talking about suspension of disbelief of things that were never meant to be scientifically correct, to try and force them to scientific correctness in the vain hope of pinning an imaginary numerical value on an imaginary concept, that we then have to accept as canon fact, because you've reverse engineered numbers from a special effect.

This is why I don't do stats. Trying to put numbers on things that have never been accurately stated in canon, is forcing your own view upon the canon. I accept my tech as it is; it works because it works in the universe I embrace; its not a question of how or why; its not a question of figuring out exact values; its a question of how well you use it, how effectively you Rp it, and both sides learning that things have strengths and weaknesses, but nothing is invulnerable.

People are too obsessed with using stats and tech to auto-win or avoid losing. The game has become too robbed of soul. Of course, what would I know; you don't seem to appreciate others opinions or criticisms of a singular system as anything other than idiocy. I think thats a far more telling sign of zealous, conceited self-serving idiocy in itself :)

IDF

30-05-2006, 03:04

Jesus christ on a pogo stick are you dense. You can do it because of fucking SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF. You treat the explosion as an actual explosion rather than as special efects. It's like watching test footage of nuclear weapons from the 50s except it's Star Wars.

And you are also an idiot. Congratulations.
It is you who is the idiot my friend. The fact is that it isn't a real explosion. It is a special effect. I doubt that the men who created the special effect meant for it to be used to come up with numbers on the power output of the weapon. They made the exposion because it sold tickets. If you still don't see the fact that you are trying to draw real physics on fiction, then take this discussion to a physics professor and see how long it takes for him to laugh at you for trying to draw real numbers from special effects of a 1970s movie. The fact that you don't realize that it's pointless to draw numbers from old special effects shows that you are the ignorant one who lacks any amount of common sense. Besides, the energy outputs you have would be impossible even in a Sci Fi world. Your numbers have an ISD having more power than a star. That is completely impossible.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:08

An idiot in the midst of a university education; yes.

You can be an idiot and in university.

It's comfortable for you to denounce my lack of acceptance for your absurd hypothesis, because you want people to agree with you. Your talking about suspension of disbelief of things that were never meant to be scientifically correct, to try and force them to scientific correctness in the vain hope of pinning an imaginary numerical value on an imaginary concept, that we then have to accept as canon fact, because you've reverse engineered numbers from a special effect.

Get this through you're tiny lump of neanderthal gray matter. Of course Star Wars wasn't meant to be scientifically correct, but that doesn't mean we can't derive figures from it by treating it as real. We know it's not real, but we assume it is for the sake of analysis. Just because you think it's stupid doesn't make it invalid, it just makes you an idiot who knows jack shit about analysis.[/QUOTE]

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 03:11

yes, but it was never meant to be realistic; so how can you treat it realistically? its counter-productive! Your making idiot figures based on idiot physics. Your talking about analysing something that cannot ever be realistically analysed or quantified.

Honestly...I don't have to poke holes in this theory anymore, because there are others (Like IDF) that support the idea that its stupid. You can call me an idiot all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that trying to treat Star Wars as realistic in a physics sense is retarded.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:13

It is you who is the idiot my friend. The fact is that it isn't a real explosion. It is a special effect. I doubt that the men who created the special effect meant for it to be used to come up with numbers on the power output of the weapon. They made the exposion because it sold tickets.

No fucking shit sherlock. You can treat it as real and still get a number for analysis by assuming all you see is real and behaves according to physics. We can't explain FTL or magic energy beams, but we can sure as hell figure out how much energy it takes to vapourize an asteroid or blow up a planet.

If you still don't see the fact that you are trying to draw real physics on fiction, then take this discussion to a physics professor and see how long it takes for him to laugh at you for trying to draw real numbers from special effects of a 1970s movie.

Which is why Dr. Curtis Saxton, PhD Astrophysics does this. Oops. Looks like you're wrong again dipshit.

The fact that you don't realize that it's pointless to draw numbers from old special effects shows that you are the ignorant one who lacks any amount of common sense. Besides, the energy outputs you have would be impossible even in a Sci Fi world.

In any realistic sci-fi world numbnuts. You can easily generate that much energy if you have the ability to annhilate fucking huge amounts of mass like Star Wars does.

Your numbers have an ISD having more power than a star. That is completely impossible.

Of course it is fucktard, but as you so often point out Star Wars isn't real. But that's what the analysis gives us so we assume that Star Wars has a way of generating that much energy.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:15

yes, but it was never meant to be realistic; so how can you treat it realistically?

This is all of your post that matters as it shows that you are purposefully ignoring everything I said because I have explained how we can do so many times.

Let me guess, you're a philosophy major aren't you?

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 03:18

Not in the least; Forensic Biology.

I don't bother with numbers anyway, so I don't really care; you obviously do though, to be getting so connected to the subject that you have to punctuate with insult and expletive :)

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:21

Not in the least; Forensic Biology.

Ahh, so you have no fucking idea about physics and you're just blowing shit out your ass.

I don't bother with numbers anyway, so I don't really care; you obviously do though, to be getting so connected to the subject that you have to punctuate with insult and expletive :)

Style over substance fallacy. Just because I swear doesn't mean my points aren't valid. But its obvious that you are simply ignoring my many explanations of how this works, so I congratulate you on your sheer ignorance and asshattery.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 03:24

I didn't say that I knew anythign about physics, I just questions how you can extrapolate actual numbers from special effects; suspension of disbelief or not, you end up with insane figures. I've heard how it works, and I'm sure its all very nice; I'm not doubting that it works, but the method and the result both seem tenuously daft and so I chose to focus on what I know; which is writing.

Make of that what you will, but the only one whos making an asshat of themselves is you with your biased and choler filled zealotry over one persons opinion of a system.

Squornshelous

30-05-2006, 03:27

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:28

Vernii

30-05-2006, 03:29

just dosn't messure up, its too slow and while it's 'bristling' with guns there pretty low powered compared to say Mimbari weapons or even the firepower of Earth Alliance b5 weaponry

Um, B5 firepower sucks. A Minbari warship was taken out with a 2 MT nuclear device....

Compare this to the Acclamator assault transport in SW which has 200 GT shots from each heavy turbolaser, and the 8 KT point defense guns on a Lucrehulk, and B5 is out of it's league like a small child vs a semi.

basically fire a single A-wing sized projectile at the bridge and you win

Or it just transfers control to a secondary command center, which was what the Executor was in the middle of doing when it was destroyed.

And that is another weakness. On the towers there are two ball shaped Shield Genrator. Just sticking out screaming " BLOW ME UP!" They are fairly easy to get to and destroy with a A-Wing do to its speed.

Christ, I get tired of that retarded argument. Those weren't shield generators, they were sensor domes. Shield generators are not going to be placed outside their own protective field.

Link to canon stats please or I say bullshite. As it stands I got a Wikipedia that says only 750KT per Heavy Turbolaser blast.

Oh noes, not a wikipedia! Link me and I'll make sure that's corrected.

Originally Posted by Draconic Order
Why do people here in NS think that the orbs on the command tower are sensors? They are not sensors, they are shield generators. Find me one reference that is supported. In all the sites I've visited, the people who worked on the movie say that they were shield generators.

The ITW book entry on the Executor not only says they're sensor domes, but even shows what they look like on the inside.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:30

If you don't have anything to add to the debate apart from simply repeating that you don't think the figures that other people have calculated from canon material the you really don't have any reason to be in this thread.

He obviously does care or he wouldn't have posted so much.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 03:30

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:33

It's not that I don't understand them. I just don't think its sensible to extrapolate idiot numbers from something fake, based on trying to make a visual effect into a scientific reality.

Fair enough, if you want to hold an inane opinion that's your right.

I suggest you take a step back and calm down before you go screaming "idiot" at everyone who doesn't agree with you. It tends to put people off dealing with you.

I only call a person an idiot when they do something idiotic. There just happens to be a lot of idiots in this thread.

Last I checked this discussion was about more than just the numbers surrounding an SD; maybe we should get back to that part of it.

That's been discussed to death already. No reason to rehash it.

IDF

30-05-2006, 03:33

No fucking shit sherlock. You can treat it as real and still get a number for analysis by assuming all you see is real and behaves according to physics. We can't explain FTL or magic energy beams, but we can sure as hell figure out how much energy it takes to vapourize an asteroid or blow up a planet.
You can't really treat it as real numbers. It's near impossible. That is why Star Trek invented units as there is no true way to accurately convert the output of their weapons to our current scales for measuring energy. They invented units to probably stop people from doing what you are trying to do. The fact is that it's fiction. You are trying to treat it as if it were real life. That is where you are truly wrong here.

Which is why Dr. Curtis Saxton, PhD Astrophysics does this. Oops. Looks like you're wrong again dipshit.
That's one professor. He's a professor, but it doesn't mean he is always right. I can find professors who say the government performed the 9/11 attacks with drones and cruise missiles. Now any person can logically tell you that isn't the case, but by your standard it must be true because a professor said it. Oh and please don't flame. It only shows a lack of cool and intelligence when you resort to name calling.

In any realistic sci-fi world numbnuts. You can easily generate that much energy if you have the ability to annhilate fucking huge amounts of mass like Star Wars does.
Did I read that right? "In any realistic sci-fi world"? Talk about an oxymoron. Oh and please don't flame. The name calling just shows you know you have been refuted and see no other way to get your point across. It also shows very little class and self control. If you want people to take you seriously, please don't continue to flame.

Of course it is fucktard, but as you so often point out Star Wars isn't real. But that's what the analysis gives us so we assume that Star Wars has a way of generating that much energy.
Yes Star Wars isn't real, but it's still not possible to generate more power than a star. The fact is I doubt George Lucas looked at the numbers of how much power it takes to destroy a planet. The lack of work done by Lucas as it's Sci Fi and not real. For you to take it as real physics is just a dumb waste of time. Oh and please stop the name calling. It's really getting old.

Squornshelous

30-05-2006, 03:34

It's not that I don't understand them. I just don't think its sensible to extrapolate idiot numbers from something fake, based on trying to make a visual effect into a scientific reality. I suggest you take a step back and calm down before you go screaming "idiot" at everyone who doesn't agree with you. It tends to put people off dealing with you.

Last I checked this discussion was about more than just the numbers surrounding an SD; maybe we should get back to that part of it.

The problem is, when it comes to canon, you can't pick and choose which bits you're going to accept as legit. Canon, by nature and definition, is all legit, unless it contradicts higher level canon. Now, the Star Wars movies are absolutely the highest level canon there is on the subject, so when we are adressing, the Star Wars reality we have to accept anything portrayed in the movies as very possible, and very real.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 03:36

Otagia

30-05-2006, 03:37

Yes, because using SoD we assume that what we see is a documentary.
And documentaries don't use pretty special effects to sex up their visuals and sell better?

Squornshelous

30-05-2006, 03:41

These numbers aren't portrayed in the movies, thats my whole problem. I don't accept something as canon unless its specifically stated; not a bunch of numbers pulled from an outside literal translation of fake special effects.

If anything thats just a fan opinion

If you will go and read through the reasoning and figures behind all of the information pulled from special effects, you can see that it makes perfect logical sense in accordance with all known laws of physics, and most of the estimates are on the conservative side in order to avoid ridiculously huge numbers.

I think you're just being willfully ignorrant in this case, the number clashes with your perception of the figure, and so you refuse to accept it, because you can't bring yourself to accept that for the events seen in the movies to take place, minimum energy levels do exist. So it is realistic to pull at least a rough figure of the energy output of several of the weapons and ships in star wars.

Chronosia

30-05-2006, 03:45

If you will go and read through the reasoning and figures behind all of the information pulled from special effects, you can see that it makes perfect logical sense in accordance with all known laws of physics, and most of the estimates are on the conservative side in order to avoid ridiculously huge numbers.

I think you're just being willfully ignorrant in this case, the number clashes with your perception of the figure, and so you refuse to accept it, because you can't bring yourself to accept that for the events seen in the movies to take place, minimum energy levels do exist. So it is realistic to pull at least a rough figure of the energy output of several of the weapons and ships in star wars.

Which still doesn't make it canon; which is my point. People can use fan-made figures, be they figured out by a PhD professor or Cleetus the slack jawed yokel, but if its not confirmed by the canon or the creators thereof, then it basically isn't canon.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:48

You can't really treat it as real numbers. It's near impossible.

It takes x Joules to vapourize an asteroid like we see an ISD do in the Empire Strikes Back. Thus we can assign a lower limit value using real numbers to that event even though that event never actually happened.

That is why Star Trek invented units

Which is why they so often use realy units like Joules and Watts. Oops. Star Trek does make up units and it also uses real ones wrong. But you can still figure out how much energy a photon torpedo generates when it blows up a rock.

as there is no true way to accurately convert the output of their weapons to our current scales for measuring energy.

Ahh but there is. You look at the effect a weapon has on a known object, like say an asteroid. Look at what happens to the asteroid when weapon hits it and then figure out the firepower. It's not hard unless you're dumber than a flatworm.

The fact is that it's fiction. You are trying to treat it as if it were real life. That is where you are truly wrong here.

You have to treat is as real to get numbers. If you want to compare to universes beyond "I think Star Trek would win because it looks cooler." you need to get numbers. People do it for a hobby.

That's one professor. He's a professor, but it doesn't mean he is always right.

You said any professor, I showed you one. I disproved your point.

I can find professors who say the government performed the 9/11 attacks with drones and cruise missiles.

Go to your local university, ask a physics professor if you can derive how much energy it takes to do an event based on remote observation, like a film. Every single one will say yes. In fact that's how the entire field of Astrophysics works dumbfuck.

Oh and please don't flame. It only shows a lack of cool and intelligence when you resort to name calling.

Style over substance fallacy.

Did I read that right? "In any realistic sci-fi world"? Talk about an oxymoron.

I see you've never heard of Hard Sci-Fi.

Oh and please don't flame. The name calling just shows you know you have been refuted and see no other way to get your point across. It also shows very little class and self control. If you want people to take you seriously, please don't continue to flame.

Style over substance fallacy.

Yes Star Wars isn't real, but it's still not possible to generate more power than a star.

Which is why quasars, black holes and supernova's don't put out more energy than even the most massive stars. Oh wait, I guess those don't exist since accodring to you nothing can generate more power than a star.

Come back and talk when you leave grade school.

The fact is I doubt George Lucas looked at the numbers of how much power it takes to destroy a planet.

I'm sure he didn't. That doesn't change the fact that it takes x amount of energy to blow up a planet like the Death Star did to Alderaan.

The lack of work done by Lucas as it's Sci Fi and not real. For you to take it as real physics is just a dumb waste of time.

So is arguing with me over this on the internet. Shouldn't you be out building houses in Africa?

Oh and please stop the name calling. It's really getting old.

You're just one big steaming pile of style over substance fallacies aren't you.

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:51

And documentaries don't use pretty special effects to sex up their visuals and sell better?

Some do. But we have no reason to assume that's the case. If you didn't know about nuclear weapons or 50s era special effects ,would you say that the explosions in test detonation videos from the 50s are just special effects because you can't see how there can be an explosion that big?

Xessmithia

30-05-2006, 03:53

Which still doesn't make it canon; which is my point. People can use fan-made figures, be they figured out by a PhD professor or Cleetus the slack jawed yokel, but if its not confirmed by the canon or the creators thereof, then it basically isn't canon.

Which is why they put into canon with the ITW and ICS books. Oh I guess I can't say that because it DESTROYS YOUR ARGUMENT!

Squornshelous

30-05-2006, 03:54

Which still doesn't make it canon; which is my point. People can use fan-made figures, be they figured out by a PhD professor or Cleetus the slack jawed yokel, but if its not confirmed by the canon or the creators thereof, then it basically isn't canon.

The point I'm trying to get across is that while we can't calculate an exact number, we can come up with something very close, that can be used as a ballpark figure when estimating the effectiveness of Star Wars weapons against other tech.

If a Star Destroyer can vaporize an asteroid, which we can approximate the mass of, with one turbolaser blast, in a measurable time span, it stands to reason that we can calculate a rough number of how much energy was required to vaporize the asteroid. That then gives us a rough low end number for the energy of the turbolaser.

This isn't the creation of new, non-canon figures, this is simply the interpretation of canon material. We are shown a star destroyer doing something. We know, immediately that this is something that a Star Destroyer can do. With this in mind, whether you agree or not, it is possible to come up with approximate figures that would make the ISD's actions in canon material possible.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Imperial Star Destroyer Discussion (Open) - Page 2