Much clearer, and I agree with you. Sorry for the misunderstanding.Batman wrote:I have, apparently, not made myself clear. Changes in mass will affect accelleration only if accelleration is limited by available thrust. If your ship can accellerate at 250,000 g but your accelleration compensator can only handle 750, an increase in mass even of several orders of magnitude will NOT affect available accelleration.
Wether or not any of this applies to Elite 2 is of course up for grabs because I can't recall the accleration rates or if they had compensators in the first place.
The EGVV says alot of crazy stuff. And no, I've not read any EU, and I don't have anything to disprove it (unless you figure looking and saying 'nope, no turntable is proof). I guess they could be retracted slightly? I'm certainly not arguing SW weapons are boresight-only; merely that if these weapons are fixed they are plainly for ground attack. Whats the go with unmanned turrets; it'd be one for the books if the Y really has an unmanned remote ion turret... and indeed, what would such a thing be for?Batman wrote:The official EGVV says its a turret. So IIRC does the EU. Do you have visuals that show it CAN'T be?
Unless you're claiming SW guns can't be fired off-axis
Where you point your gun in transit configuration is totally irrelevant.
Unless you have screenshots showing them being fired that way...
Yes, its likely a long and consuming procedure.Batman wrote:Does EVERY starfighter need ions? Hell no. But they're certainly not useless.
Which does not mean that customisation need be as easy as Slarty wants it to be. Should it be technically possible to put two ion cannon on an X-Wing? Propably.
Does this mean it should be as easy as in Elite/Privateer etc? HELL NO.
Foe all we know, switching lasers for ions requires extensive refurbishing of the supportive equipment, they may require a completely different type of 'ammunition' (some liquid as opposed to Tibanna gas or s. th.) ...
Yeah, because ions are so useful (uh) and can be fitted to fighters (uh) so of course the battleship wouldn't have one (uh) OR decide to use them against the Queens personal ship (uh) because disabling with turbos is so dangerous (uh).Batman wrote:Yes. Your point being? OF COURSE you can disable a ship with lasers. Why should you WANT to if there's another option? Like,maybe, taking it intact?
And that's assuming the TradeFed ships had ion guns in the first place.
Okay... the only reason to use ions is to disable ships. All SW instances of ship-disabling, bar one involving a plantary defense gun, use turbos. And while I can handle Vader (his ship, remember) not rolling the ship to use the Ubercannons, I can NOT see him refusing to use the 100% undamaging magic bolts of ship disabling.Batman wrote:Because everybody is always prepared to blow the ship to hell to prevent capture.
NTM that they can do THE EXACT SAME THING when you disable them with lasers...
...
I dimly remember the name. I also remember her always staying BELOW the ISD where to my knowledge she'd be out of the field of fire of the ISD's ion cannon (unless some smart captain got the brilliant idea to roll the ship but since he didn't oh well...)
True, anyone can blow the ship; my point is that magic ions of disabling (as seen in all the puter games) which then allow the ship to be boarded are superfluous since they use other weapons for this anyway. They can plink of R2 units, for chrissakes. Boarding in space will always be dangerous; I imagine thats why they took the T-IV into the hangar bay. I just don't see a role for ions, given the uses of TLs.
But I'm just being an anal purist; the EU is indeed full of ion cannon silliness. You like it and I don't... but I'm sorry about missing your point about the acceleration.
