Norade wrote:Except that I don't care to do calculations for something that has already been done. Hell, even when I do the numbers DXIII makes up some bullshit and tries to pass it off as being a great theory even though it has holes you can drive a truck through. So instead he gets this, show a single weapon, deployable against starships, and in common federarion use that can hit with anywhere near 200GT per shot. Then go find one that puts out even more because that's far less than an ISD can dish.
I have to ask. do you own copies of any of the icses? the complete one? have you actually looked at the numbers in detail and the various references in them, or do you go by what is "generally accepted" on this forum based on that info? have you actually ever looked at ANY of the eu info discussed in this forum or on the website? There's actually a wide gulf between the "generally agreed" on the forum or site and what is actually in the material. I can actually make a claim to having worked with and having knowledge of much of that material I can say with confidence that even HAVING the ICS numbers doesn't solve everything. It helps a great deal and it takes some of the ambiguity out of things (assuming the other side will give the ICS any credence, or can be forced to, at least) but you still have to work the numbers yourself, and you still have to do the research, and make the connections. That's how its ALWAYS been with SW material, and that's what I've always had to do.
On the other hand the ICS has made the vs debates even more retarded by converting discussions almost entirely over to canon debates, which are both tedious and boring, because people treat the ICS as some sort of fucking cornerstone (for or against it, they both treat it as the critical source) and everything else pretty much gets chucked by the wayside, when the ICS should simply represent yet another source (although one of the better ones, although since i am credited in it I can claim to be biased there) amongst the larger picture.
I've come to the point where i actually hate relying the ICSes because it labels you automatically as a fanboy, or people will assume you're part of some vast, nebulous Evil Warsie conspiracy (and I wish I was kidding about that. Use of the ICS can get you labeled as a Saxton cultist in some places.)
For that matter why does ANY of this have to come down to whether single scenes, passages, incidents or whatever are valid or not. Like TDiC. does it really fucking matter whether it was brute force or not? Even if we allowed for them to sling around teratons of firepower to decimate a planet's crust and mantle, as some Trekkies have claimed the "one hour/5 hour' dialogue should be interpeted, how does this neccesarily translate to ship to ship firepower? (Same with BDZ really. tossing billions of megatons at a planet or even melting the crust may be impressive, but that doesn't mean they turn that firepower on starships routinely, either.)
Edit: and a someone who likes to crunch numbers from a sci fi universe (SW, 40k, B5, etc.) I tend to vastly prefer someone who can do their own math and come up with their own numbers, or who will do their own analysis independent or perhaps compatible with mine, than to someone who simply parrots what i say or who just uses my numbers because they can't be bothered to do the math themselves. because I can bet you in most cases those people won't understand how I got those numbers, or the underlying assumptions involved. and if they don't know that, they can't explain it. and there is nothing more annoying to me than someone using my numbers without understanding them (and it happens quite a bit, if you look at 40k debates on Spacebattles.)
.
.