superlaser question...

[Connor MacLeod]

Well exploding against a shield requires an extra mechanism. Exploding is just exploding.

the shield IS the mechanism for creating an explosion. Its something to act against, unlike the mythical flak burst (which requires something else to not only trigger it, but to create the spherical detonation. For the most part, this must be done in a vaccuum as well as in contact with other things. In my case, I HAVE proof that shields can trigger bolt explosions. You have yet to prove that the bolts can explode in thin air or in empty space.

Well to be fair we only see one type of 'bolt' in the movie, so one could argue movie>novel.

We see beam weapons used on the Death Star, in Ep2 AOTC, etc. And we COULD argue as you do, but that also assumes that its impossible to have seen the beams offscreen. (By logic we could throw out the majority of elements in the novel because "we didn't see them." - but its only a problem when its a direct contradiction. In this case, you're assuming the beams would look like the bolts, which may not ber neccesarily so.)

And we don't see only one type of bolt. We see a number of types of bolts - least of all ones of varying length (not to mention color. And some are semi-transparent solid bars, and others have glowing bright cores with a "nimbus" around them...) And some have pulses in them.

Now WHAT were you saying about "one type of bolt?"

And since when does minor mean they're backwards savages? They can have up to date technology, just on a much smaller scale.

How the fuck did you jump from "minor" to "backwards savages". This has nothing to do with level, but the KIND of technology. You're the one assuming they employ a single kind of shielding (and that its teh same kind the Naboo use.)

Well that's all fine and good, but it's still is speculation. Even if the novel dictates so, we see no reference to it anywhere in the movie. We know the N-1 and droideka had shields.

Pulling your "we don't see it, its not there" bullshit again. Just because the movie doesnt specifically give them shields doesnt mean they aren't there. Only direct contradictions require overriding. Simply because you didnt see the glowing effects you expected does not constitute a direct contradiction.

By that logic "we see no reference to flak bursts" in the movie - so that means I can toss them out. Case closed

Well the bolt defraction theory is most interesting. I do believe I see this in AOTC with the Geonosian fighters atacking the LAAT. However no such effect is visible in TESB, where the bolts seem to just explode. In light of this it may be posible that this flak is both, well flak, and shield reactions.

Again, you pull the "we dont see it, it doesn't exist" manuver. Not only that, you decide arbitrarily we "don't" see it, so it must mean they're flak bursts. Did you notice where Curtis said:

[quote="Curtis Saxton"
The daughter bolts are necessarily more susceptible to further decay, and when the shield is stronger than the bolt the shower decays into an almost indefinite cascade of branching splinters so that it is dissipated as a mere blink of light.
[/quote]

Some bolts dissipate so rapidly they only appear as bright flashes of light - which we in FACT see in TESB.

I love how you decide to dismiss the analysis of both Mike and Curtis as 'mere speculation' in favor of a theory that is based on mere speculation itself ("we see bright flashes in the movies from the bolts" + "we hear mention of flak and exploding bolts" = "Turbolasers that can explode like bombs at will!" + "plugging one's ears to other theories and problems with flak burst theory.") Deciding to throw up a Wall of Ignorance now, are we?

Deflector shields being different from ray shields? Seems to be a pretty radical idea, seeing as how when TIEs approach the Falcon in ANH Han tells Chewie to "angle the deflectors." But since TIEs don't carry physical warheads, it would seem deflectors are rayshields, and may be a combination of both ray and particle.

Semantics games. He's referring to particle shielding (which IIRC has been sometimes referred to as deflectors, since they deflect physical debris. Few capital shields physically deflect the bolts, most diffuse and absorb.) What the FUCK does this have to do with our discussion, anyhow?

Then it would seem that after a short time in atmosphere starship shields lose their "glow." The Gungans, as you said are primitives and shielding technology is different than that of the rest of the galaxy. The droidekas, ont he other hand, may have something to do with it being a more personal shielding.

Droideka shields are distinct from Naboo and Gungan shields, which are further different from other kinds (Gunship and Falcon shields, both of which have been observed in an atmosphere.)

The Gunships may or may not have had shields. The core ships may have very well had shields, but there color dissapeared after the exposure to atmosphere, like the N-1.

The gunships HAD shields. Just because you demand there be a reference for it to be true doesn't invalidate it. THe Core ships HAVE shields, yet unless they were invisible they WEREN'T in use (which creates a great many problems for rationalization.)

The color is due to interaction with the atmosphere. The only way for the color to disappear would be for that interaciton to cease (Either the shield creating the interaction stops its interaction, or the medium it interacts with disappears.) Of course if this is true, it also helps explain the "gunship shields" if this is the case, so you lose out on claiming "the gunship didn't have shields."

Which again presents the problem of killing your own men. No poin tin letting off an huge blast if its goning to kill your own troops.

So you'd be dumb enough to send your own men in when you have a simpler option available?

Besides which, the ranges involved (as well as the ranges in hoth) were quite distant - they precluded any probability of friendly-fire kills (and even then, clonetrooper armor is resistant to explosions and shrapnel - as per the AOTC VD)

It would have been unwise to throw all your energy away in huge mass atakcs even if they would work, when your going to need them to take out the generator. And since Veers didn't know what the rebels could have cooked up to kill his walkers, he was smart not to throw it all away in an attack, that MAY have been sucessful.

"Maximum firepower" did not drain the AT-ATs of energy. It might have accompanied an extended recharge rate for the guns (or at least some of them). I don't recall Veer's AT AT suddenly stopping in place because it fired a "max power" barrage.

Also, precisely because he didn't KNOW what the Rebels had planned would be reason to wipe them (particularily the snowspeeders) out en-masse, especially when they are grouped together like they were before getting close up. Do you seriuosly think giving your opponent time to execute his tactics is a GOOD idea?

Again Veers had no idea what waas waiting for him out there. To throw all his energy away in one huge attack, only to find that the Rebels had more for him, and he was out of enegy. That would have been devestating

1.) He didn't throw all his energy away in a maximum-firepower burst. The AT-AT did not suddenly suffer a massive power drain the minute it fired off the full-power barrage. This is purely speculation on your part.

2.) As I said before, the fact he DOESN'T know would be reason enough for him to kill the ships quick before they have a chance to execute their attacks.

I if do recall the Ewoks were on top of the walkers, and eventually in them. And the troopers aren't exactly the most reliable in this situation, being fully visible to fight a camoflauged enemy. The Ewoks might hav ebeen stealing At-STs left and right had not aone fired adjacently to itself. And then timber! Bonk, and the AT-ST, and any other troops with it, would have been gone. And its not liek they had that many to spare either.

1 - They only stole one AT-ST, and that was because they had Chewbacca helping them (how the hell would an Ewok know how to operate an AT-ST anyhow? The Ewoks ran the speeder bikes by pure luck!)

2 - Concealment/camoflage has little to do with shooting an Ewok or two away from your mobile artillery.

3 - The AT-ST's can still step on Ewoks, and even then, the ewoks that WERE close were never effective in damaging them.

4 - the traps were all executed at range, as were groupings of ewoks (you MIGHT remember them firing on the catapults, on ewoks running away, etc.) Not once were flak bursts used, when these would easily take out large groups of Ewoks in a single attack.

5 - none of your reasons actually explain WHY the Flak bursts weren't used, or why it would be bad to use them against the ewoks (especially when they were clustered as we saw) In fact, they serve as ample reasons WHY you would want to clear them out as rapidly as possible, to diminish their abilities as threats.

Against enormous targets liek an ISD, flaking is useless. Flak has been seen to be used to target fast moving fighters, not kill capships. I beilieve I've already stated that, anyways.

You also argued they were used against the Falcon by TIEs, which are FAR smaller (and whose firepower for CONCENTRATED bolts has trouble penetrating without repeated/sustained strafing). Flak bursting by TIE fighters would be utterly pointless.

But as I also pointed out, its far more efficient to use "low power/rapid fire" bursts. Not only can you direct the overall energy fire more effectively, you can rely on the concentrated nature of the bursts to penetrate shields (in fact you can more tightly concentrate the bolt, even at low power, to concentrate the energy on a far smaller area. These are called "needle beams" - several blaster types like the Luxan penetrator fire such a bolt, and some blasters have needle beam modes (ref. Han Solo at Stars end.) This is also far more precise than a brute force and energy-wasteful "flak burst".

And we already KNOW such capability exists, unlike with the Flak bursts.

It doesn't help if you can't even hit the intended target ship either. Hence flak bursting, even when concetrated bolts are more powerful.

Flak bursting a energy bolt that already requires many multiple hits to penetrate in a concentrated state is going to be worse than useless. Any "flak bursted" fighter bolt's energy is going to be effortlessly radiated away since only a small fraction of the bolt's energy will be absorbed (Rather than the full bolt.) Even worse, that energy is very broadly dispersed, making it far easier to dissipate and radiate away. The Falcon can easily shrug off several capital scale anti-fighter bolts - what makes you think a flak burst is going to have an easier time penetrating than a concentrated, far more powerful burst?

I fail to see how flak bursting=shooting over the horizon. Sure if a shot detonates and the presice moment it can hit something IMMEDIATLEY over the horizon, but then agian so can a blast that hits the ground near the horizon also. This doesn't prove anything.

Shooting over the horizon is an example of a "non-LOS" use for blasters. As I poitned out, they DON'T have the capability to shoot at non-LOS targets (as per the sources I cited.) Its not the horizon that matters (That is only an example) - its the fact that blasters are *explicitly* called line of sight weapons. That means you NEED line of sight to employ them. A flak burst would NOT require line of sight.

Hmm? How does this discredit that theory?

We didnt see the flak bursts. Your ridiculous assertions about "friendly fire casualties" don't excuse their absence (in fact, they prove it.)

Had we seen flak bursts, we should have been seeing blaster bolts exploding with a tremendous output of energy comparable to the release of many tons of TNT (as I have been saying all along and you have been willfully ignoring.) - something that would have caused quite LARGE and noticible effects in an atmosphere. Hence, they weren't used.

I believe I mentioned that you shouldn't take the quote to seriously, and that it was just something I threw in towards the end. It has no real relevence in this debate I suppose. But like I said, it's worth a try?

None of the BS you are posting is proving your theory. You just appear to be holding on and nitpicking in hopes I might get bored and leave so you can concede victory. But you've lost. I've not only provided more than sufficient evidence to back my side since this debate BEGAN, but I've been supported in this by the independent analysis of both Mike Wong and Curtis Saxton, which only lends FURTHER weight to my side.

You have a poorly defined, vague theory you defend entirely on the basis of your own subjective interpretations of visuals and dialgoue, coupled with deliberate dodging of counterclaims through nitpicking and speculation. I am getting tired of your bullshit, and this pretension that you actually have a case. Continue to refuse concession and I will withdraw even the slightest pretense of civility towards you. I am under no obligation to put up with this inane stupidity.

[Vympel]

The Gunships may or may not have had shields. The core ships may have very well had shields, but there color dissapeared after the exposure to atmosphere, like the N-1.

I'm sorry but this just infuriated me. The LAATS have shields. Period. This is not open to debate.

[Vympel]

In the interests of being as objective as possible in this debate, even though I am firmly on the non-flak burst side, I am compelled to bring up one bit of evidence. In X-Wing Alliance, which is official, turbolasers end their very short (thanks to non-admissible game mechanics) trip with an explosion. This explosion is quite small and is capable of doing minor harm to your shields.

I really don't know if this is worth anything though- for one thing the bolt/shield interactions that were more akin to those in the films in X-Wing and TIE Fighter have changed significantly in X-Wing Alliance, to something that looks nothing like we've ever seen in the film. We could go so far to say that it expressly contradicts canon in a way that X-Wing and TIE Fighter do not.

In fact, the entire thing sounds like inadmissible game mechanics stuff to me.

[Boba Fett]

Yes Vympel, this effect is unique to X-wing Alliance...

I personally think that the TL bolt is not just light.
It is powered by the Tibanna gas and when the bolt reaches it maximum distance, the Tibanna gas is consumed by a flash and that's what they think is a flak burst...

Just an idea don't take my head for it...

[His Divine Shadow]

Yes Vympel, this effect is unique to X-wing Alliance...

I personally think that the TL bolt is not just light.
It is powered by the Tibanna gas and when the bolt reaches it maximum distance, the Tibanna gas is consumed by a flash and that's what they think is a flak burst...

Just an idea don't take my head for it...

We might, it's the plasma brainbug again, it's not workable or realistic, just because tibanna gas might be usable as a way to release lots of raidation for an energy weapon does not mean it fires said gas away, if it did, well then it would not look anything like what the visuals are showing us.
Though it does eject waste gasses from the reaction in a shot like that through the barrel these don't get very far.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Well, I've just have a few quotes from the novelization of TESB (I know, your thing "not more of 'em!," but what are you gonna do?) that I think can help my. Unlike the ANH quotes, which admittidly were iffy at best, these quotes explicity state the word "flak" and explain what we can actually see on-screen. Enjoy.

"Angirly Luke fired his ship's guns at the walker, only to recieve a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak." -P.45. This is Luke firing on an AT-AT at Hoth. It says he took a blast of flak from it. Speeders don't have shields, and walker don't carry physical weapons.

"Explosions rocked the ship, tossing it violently in the enveloping flak." -P.47. Here it specificly describes explosions tossing Luke's speeder, and that those explosions were flak.

"Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcons' engines. The ship was beggining to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters."-P.63 Now before you go screaming shield interactions, read the passage carefully. It states fighters blasting flak at the Falcon. And TIE Fighters do not carry physical warheads. Last one....

"The Millenium Falcon veered away from Cloud City and soared through the thick billowing cloud cover. Swerving to avoid the blinding flak from the TIE Fighters," Again it describes TIEs expelling flak. All the word 'blasted' (or the like) is not stated, it still says the flak is from teh TIE Fighters, and they don't carry physical warheads.

I reiterate that these quotes do indeed describe what we see on-screen. From the AT-ATs to the TIEs, it's all here. Now onto the rest of it here (and I must say its gotten quite long!).

the shield IS the mechanism for creating an explosion. Its something to act against, unlike the mythical flak burst (which requires something else to not only trigger it, but to create the spherical detonation. For the most part, this must be done in a vaccuum as well as in contact with other things. In my case, I HAVE proof that shields can trigger bolt explosions. You have yet to prove that the bolts can explode in thin air or in empty space.

Well see above . Anyways, I suppose the ANH quotes don't matter now anyways, to that end conceded.

We see beam weapons used on the Death Star, in Ep2 AOTC, etc. And we COULD argue as you do, but that also assumes that its impossible to have seen the beams offscreen. (By logic we could throw out the majority of elements in the novel because "we didn't see them." - but its only a problem when its a direct contradiction. In this case, you're assuming the beams would look like the bolts, which may not ber neccesarily so.)

It's not impossible to have anything off screen. But usually it's good to have some indication that it's there. From what we saw of Yavin, there was massive amounts of fire from bolts that appeared all relativley the same. To further, one officer explains to Vader that they were "Evading our turbolasers" unless you'd like to argue that they weren't evading their beam weapons per se, I think it's safe to say there was only one typeof bolt at Yavin.

And we don't see only one type of bolt. We see a number of types of bolts - least of all ones of varying length (not to mention color. And some are semi-transparent solid bars, and others have glowing bright cores with a "nimbus" around them...) And some have pulses in them.

I was speaking more that teh bolts were the same in general. Varying length has described as being fired from heavier canons, the longer the bigger. The nimbus scenes seem to come from turrets firing, I don't think we had a whole lot bunch of shots of that happening close up. Bright cores may vary from differet amounts of gas put into them, as the pulses. All speculation however. Although none of the beams seemed to be too tremedously different to be labeled as a seperate type, in appearence and in function.

How the fuck did you jump from "minor" to "backwards savages". This has nothing to do with level, but the KIND of technology. You're the one assuming they employ a single kind of shielding (and that its teh same kind the Naboo use.)

It is generally thought that in a galaxy that has been developed for 25,000 years, that most technology has standardized. Shields may vary in output, or durability. But they should all function in the same way. Unless Naboo usess some radical untested new shields-type of course. then again, it's stated that that kind of stuff came from the Nubians, whom (by the way Watto, and the ICS tell it) to be a very modern corporation.

Pulling your "we don't see it, its not there" bullshit again. Just because the movie doesnt specifically give them shields doesnt mean they aren't there. Only direct contradictions require overriding. Simply because you didnt see the glowing effects you expected does not constitute a direct contradiction.

Fair enough, conceded.

Some bolts dissipate so rapidly they only appear as bright flashes of light - which we in FACT see in TESB.

Again, conceded.

Semantics games. He's referring to particle shielding (which IIRC has been sometimes referred to as deflectors, since they deflect physical debris. Few capital shields physically deflect the bolts, most diffuse and absorb.) What the FUCK does this have to do with our discussion, anyhow?

It seemed he quite clearly he said they were different things, and I hadn't the slightest clue that 'deflector shields' could mean particle shields, Ive never heard them referenced in this way before.

The gunships HAD shields. Just because you demand there be a reference for it to be true doesn't invalidate it. THe Core ships HAVE shields, yet unless they were invisible they WEREN'T in use (which creates a great many problems for rationalization.)

Further conceded.

The color is due to interaction with the atmosphere. The only way for the color to disappear would be for that interaciton to cease (Either the shield creating the interaction stops its interaction, or the medium it interacts with disappears.) Of course if this is true, it also helps explain the "gunship shields" if this is the case, so you lose out on claiming "the gunship didn't have shields."

The medium it interacts with disappears? Are you suggesting the TF ship let all the air out once the N-1 activated it's shields? Not that I'm exaclty disagreeing with you, but it seems strange the timing would be so perfect as to let the air out right after the N-1 activated its shields...

So you'd be dumb enough to send your own men in when you have a simpler option available?

Besides which, the ranges involved (as well as the ranges in hoth) were quite distant - they precluded any probability of friendly-fire kills (and even then, clonetrooper armor is resistant to explosions and shrapnel - as per the AOTC VD)

I wouldn't, but the Rebulic clearly was. They could've killed the whole kit and kaboodle from space!

Anyways, we don't know presicely how resistant their armor is. An explosion from an SPHA-T would have to be damn powerful (after all, about ten carved up a shielded core ship), it's possible it could have been deadly to the troops.

"Maximum firepower" did not drain the AT-ATs of energy. It might have accompanied an extended recharge rate for the guns (or at least some of them). I don't recall Veer's AT AT suddenly stopping in place because it fired a "max power" barrage.

That's more what I was getting at.

Also, precisely because he didn't KNOW what the Rebels had planned would be reason to wipe them (particularily the snowspeeders) out en-masse, especially when they are grouped together like they were before getting close up. Do you seriuosly think giving your opponent time to execute his tactics is a GOOD idea?

No, but I think that since they didn't hav eproper inteligence, due to the shield being up, that he didn't knwo what to suspect. Had he wiped out the snowspeeders in the beginning,, the Rebels may hav esent reinforcements (and who knows, after a short time doing battle with the walkers, maybe they did.).

1.) He didn't throw all his energy away in a maximum-firepower burst. The AT-AT did not suddenly suffer a massive power drain the minute it fired off the full-power barrage. This is purely speculation on your part.

2.) As I said before, the fact he DOESN'T know would be reason enough for him to kill the ships quick before they have a chance to execute their attacks.

See above.

I if do recall the Ewoks were on top of the walkers, and eventually in them. And the troopers aren't exactly the most reliable in this situation, being fully visible to fight a camoflauged enemy. The Ewoks might hav ebeen stealing At-STs left and right had not aone fired adjacently to itself. And then timber! Bonk, and the AT-ST, and any other troops with it, would have been gone. And its not liek they had that many to spare either.

1 - They only stole one AT-ST, and that was because they had Chewbacca helping them (how the hell would an Ewok know how to operate an AT-ST anyhow? The Ewoks ran the speeder bikes by pure luck!)

And that single AT-ST was enough to stop the Imperial attack wasn't it?

2 - Concealment/camoflage has little to do with shooting an Ewok or two away from your mobile artillery.

My point was that the Ewoks, being clever little buggers, could have snuck up on them, and then the AT-ST would have had fired adjacent to itself to hit them.

3 - The AT-ST's can still step on Ewoks, and even then, the ewoks that WERE close were never effective in damaging them.

Manuvering space was tight, I doubt that it would have been able to turn itself around, had the Ewoks came from behind. And while they didn't damage them they were still potential targets, still a potential threat, even to an AT-ST, adn to the troops around it.

4 - the traps were all executed at range, as were groupings of ewoks (you MIGHT remember them firing on the catapults, on ewoks running away, etc.) Not once were flak bursts used, when these would easily take out large groups of Ewoks in a single attack.

The AT-STs guns weren't very powerful (onscreen evidence supports this) I don't see a flak burst being useful at such low power.

You also argued they were used against the Falcon by TIEs, which are FAR smaller (and whose firepower for CONCENTRATED bolts has trouble penetrating without repeated/sustained strafing). Flak bursting by TIE fighters would be utterly pointless.

They seemed to have an easy enough job in ANH. Anyways, the Falcons shields were constantly on the verge of collapsing through out the movies, it was only luck of the hyperspace kicking in that usually saved them. It appeared to me as those the flak bursts were doing damage, anyways.

But as I also pointed out, its far more efficient to use "low power/rapid fire" bursts. Not only can you direct the overall energy fire more effectively, you can rely on the concentrated nature of the bursts to penetrate shields (in fact you can more tightly concentrate the bolt, even at low power, to concentrate the energy on a far smaller area. These are called "needle beams" - several blaster types like the Luxan penetrator fire such a bolt, and some blasters have needle beam modes (ref. Han Solo at Stars end.) This is also far more precise than a brute force and energy-wasteful "flak burst".

For a TL this may be more useful. They weren't doing this in ANH however, which brings up some questions, since you state that the Rebs TLs in the NJO were doing this. Is it a new Reb modification? Is it a new type of TL? Anyways the main problem with this, even if they can do it, is the TLs physical rotation speed. We saw the TLs in ANH turning to attack the fighters at painfully slow speeds. Although light TLs may have some sucess with this manuever, which may be the bolts that we have seen leaping out to attack fighters throught out the trilogies. Still, heavy TLs it seems still rely on flaking to hit their targets.

Flak bursting a energy bolt that already requires many multiple hits to penetrate in a concentrated state is going to be worse than useless. Any "flak bursted" fighter bolt's energy is going to be effortlessly radiated away since only a small fraction of the bolt's energy will be absorbed (Rather than the full bolt.) Even worse, that energy is very broadly dispersed, making it far easier to dissipate and radiate away. The Falcon can easily shrug off several capital scale anti-fighter bolts - what makes you think a flak burst is going to have an easier time penetrating than a concentrated, far more powerful burst?

I have said over and over and over that flak bursting IS NOT more powerful than a concentrated bolt. Nonetheless, these flak bursts have been still seen damaging the Falcon. As for the TL, those blasts were much farther from teh Falcon than the TIE blats, which were up close.

Shooting over the horizon is an example of a "non-LOS" use for blasters. As I poitned out, they DON'T have the capability to shoot at non-LOS targets (as per the sources I cited.) Its not the horizon that matters (That is only an example) - its the fact that blasters are *explicitly* called line of sight weapons. That means you NEED line of sight to employ them. A flak burst would NOT require line of sight.

A missles can be fired at it can corscrew and chase its targets through dense obsticle fields (as per AOTC). A laser has to be pointed in the direction that it wants to be fired at, and released. The blasts we see through out the trilogies are never in great size, and were still required to be very on target to hit their desired target. We have never seen bolts flying wildly in any direction and bursting to hit their targets, because frankly it doesn't appear possible. I'd still give them a LOS definition.

We didnt see the flak bursts. Your ridiculous assertions about "friendly fire casualties" don't excuse their absence (in fact, they prove it.)

Well I certaintly wouldn't want to be killing my own troops....

Had we seen flak bursts, we should have been seeing blaster bolts exploding with a tremendous output of energy comparable to the release of many tons of TNT (as I have been saying all along and you have been willfully ignoring.) - something that would have caused quite LARGE and noticible effects in an atmosphere. Hence, they weren't used.

I believe I've spoke of concentrating the blasts before. As for an atmosphere, when has a flak burst ever been viewed long enough in an atmosphere to view any effect on the terrain? Hoth is the only time we've seen them and everything their was moving quite fast. Similar to how we never see the AT-ATs guns damage their surrounding too much, I suppose.

You have a poorly defined, vague theory you defend entirely on the basis of your own subjective interpretations of visuals and dialgoue, coupled with deliberate dodging of counterclaims through nitpicking and speculation. I am getting tired of your bullshit, and this pretension that you actually have a case. Continue to refuse concession and I will withdraw even the slightest pretense of civility towards you. I am under no obligation to put up with this inane stupidity.

I do not wish for you to get "bored" and leave. I'm simply upholding my belief, and backing up as clearly as I can. If you lose patience, that will be your problem. And if you feel the need to "lose civility" and flame me until the sun goes down you may. As long as your arguments can still be clearly read and interpreted, I will continue this discussion. I don't take any sort of moral high-ground, ever, in any way. I will continue discussing this with you until the issue is resolved.

[Connor MacLeod]

In the interests of being as objective as possible in this debate, even though I am firmly on the non-flak burst side, I am compelled to bring up one bit of evidence. In X-Wing Alliance, which is official, turbolasers end their very short (thanks to non-admissible game mechanics) trip with an explosion. This explosion is quite small and is capable of doing minor harm to your shields.

I really don't know if this is worth anything though- for one thing the bolt/shield interactions that were more akin to those in the films in X-Wing and TIE Fighter have changed significantly in X-Wing Alliance, to something that looks nothing like we've ever seen in the film. We could go so far to say that it expressly contradicts canon in a way that X-Wing and TIE Fighter do not.

In fact, the entire thing sounds like inadmissible game mechanics stuff to me.

Can you explain how this behaviour was observed? The details are actually important, because if I remember the game at all correctly, you generally only see flashes when your vessel is "hit". The only way I could see htis being unequivocal proof of "flak burst" would be if the flash appeared and you were some distance away from the bolt at the time.

This may or may not be inadmissible, but I prefer t treat it as is unless there is an overriding factor (a direct one) or its absolutely neccesary to ignore it. But at that same time, it needs to be observed (personally, I prefer) and the details learned if at all possible. So if you can explain further, I can attempt to duplicate this myself on my copy of XWA.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes Vympel, this effect is unique to X-wing Alliance...

I personally think that the TL bolt is not just light.
It is powered by the Tibanna gas and when the bolt reaches it maximum distance, the Tibanna gas is consumed by a flash and that's what they think is a flak burst...

Just an idea don't take my head for it...

Err.. so what triggers the tibanna gas to explode? And why does the bolt stop so abruptly (IE totally lose its forward momentum) and then suddenly detonate in an omnidirectional blast?

For that matter there are problems with the "Hybrid" weapon theory. If you combined a laser and a particle beam (one of the theories for blasters) you can create some real problems with the weapon - the photons in the laser pulse will get absorbed by the particles, which will impart random motion to the particle. In the basic sense, the laser will encourage the particle beam to scatter even more - and if its a pulse of uniformly charged particles, its ALREADY inclined to dispersion (mutual repulsion.) Any advantages from such a weapon could be easily derived from two separate ones (and no, you can't make a particle beam flak burst by hitting it with a laser. I dont think a plasma - which is basically a collection of loosley-connected positive and negative particles, will either)

[Vympel]

Can you explain how this behaviour was observed? The details are actually important, because if I remember the game at all correctly, you generally only see flashes when your vessel is "hit". The only way I could see htis being unequivocal proof of "flak burst" would be if the flash appeared and you were some distance away from the bolt at the time.

This may or may not be inadmissible, but I prefer t treat it as is unless there is an overriding factor (a direct one) or its absolutely neccesary to ignore it. But at that same time, it needs to be observed (personally, I prefer) and the details learned if at all possible. So if you can explain further, I can attempt to duplicate this myself on my copy of XWA.

*Goes off to fire up X-Wing Alliance*

[Vympel]

Ok. At about ... 6km away from a capital ship (an Imperator II in this case) the turbolaser bolts will cease to be bolts and continue for a short distance after as an expanding explosion. This explosion is extremely small- smaller than a TIE Fighter even. They do not stop immediately to explode as 'flak', and again, the explosion is quite small.

All bolts do this. If a bolt misses your fighter you can turn around and follow the rest of it's journey- sure enough, it too makes the transition to a small explosive effect- not stellar evidence of a deliberate flak 'setting'.

The explosion is entirely different than observed shield interaction effects when your ship is actually hit in X-Wing Alliance. Depending on the color of the bolt, the result is that the portion of your ship hit will glow that color- red or green. On small fighters, just say, the center aft of the X-Wing, it will look like the entire section went green, wheras on large capital ships the effects are more akin to a small red circle.

However, when your shields are down, the explosive effect of impact is quite similar, if not the same, to the end of the TL bolts journey.

The explosion is also different from previous shield and hull interaction effects seen in the original X-Wing and TIE Fighter- all ships hit by blasts in those games, shields up or not, produced a sparking sort of explosion not so different (graphical advances aside) from those in the original trilogy.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, I've just have a few quotes from the novelization of TESB (I know, your thing "not more of 'em!," but what are you gonna do?) that I think can help my. Unlike the ANH quotes, which admittidly were iffy at best, these quotes explicity state the word "flak" and explain what we can actually see on-screen. Enjoy.

I'm sure I know which ones you know of. They've already been discussed before.

"Angirly Luke fired his ship's guns at the walker, only to recieve a hail of Imperial fire power that shook his speeder in a barrage of flak." -P.45. This is Luke firing on an AT-AT at Hoth. It says he took a blast of flak from it. Speeders don't have shields, and walker don't carry physical weapons.

Again, I refer you to the fact we've already gone over the definitions of "flak" if you've forgotten. I rather thoroughly demolished that issue. Flak can be the "exploding shell" type or simply referred to as "antiaircraft fire" - a point Saxton was clear to make to me when I originally mentioned this. I FURTHER remind you I pointed out that the only definition that fits an "omnidirectional blast" in terms of the definitions provided referred ONLY to physical projectiles.

The chief problem lies in that it doesn't mention it exploding in a spherical effect. By the quote alone, I can simply point out the bolt either hit or grazed the speeder, which would shake it. Either definition of "flak" would work in this instance.

I also point out to you that Saxton mentions this quote and attributes the "flak" during the hoth battle to being "heated air from near-misses."

And lastly, you're probably going to contend that the Snowspeeders would not be durable enough to withstand hits. The EGV&V credits the snowspeeder with "heavy armor" and the SWTJ says it has "durasteel" (if you remember from Mike's site, Durasteel uses neutronium in it) armor plate from Y-wings "angled to provide maximum blaster bolt deflection." - I would point out that it is often credited with outstanding durability (SWICS for one, and IIRC the EGV&V also). This would infer an ability to stand up to starfighter-level weaponry (TJ range blasts).

This armor was so good that it was stated in the SWTJ that it, coupled with the speeder's speed, made "shielding unneccesary".

"Explosions rocked the ship, tossing it violently in the enveloping flak." -P.47. Here it specificly describes explosions tossing Luke's speeder, and that those explosions were flak.

Yet it doesn't say whether the bolts detonated on their own or whether they struck the ship either full on or glancing. No help to you.

As an added point, you have still not explained why we never see these flak bursts creating large, violent explosions equivalent to many tons of TNT (or kilograms, if you believe the bolts were MJ range.) We know readily that SW ground weapons are easily within the MJ/GJ range, yet we see explosions that if they WERE flak-bursting weapons, would indicate some rather shitty energy output.

"Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcons' engines. The ship was beggining to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters."-P.63 Now before you go screaming shield interactions, read the passage carefully. It states fighters blasting flak at the Falcon. And TIE Fighters do not carry physical warheads. Last one....

"blasting" as in firing upon them. I remind you of the prior point you have yet to deal with - as to what benefit flak bursting a TIE laser does against a vessel as heavily shielded as the Falcon (who can not only withstand it, but dissipate the energy faster than it can be delivered)

"The Millenium Falcon veered away from Cloud City and soared through the thick billowing cloud cover. Swerving to avoid the blinding flak from the TIE Fighters," Again it describes TIEs expelling flak. All the word 'blasted' (or the like) is not stated, it still says the flak is from teh TIE Fighters, and they don't carry physical warheads.

And you're still relying on a SINGLE definition of flak, as well as your semantic interpretation fo words like "exploded" or "blasting". You do realize that the english language is flexible enough that most words have more than one meaning, dont you?

I reiterate that these quotes do indeed describe what we see on-screen. From the AT-ATs to the TIEs, it's all here. Now onto the rest of it here (and I must say its gotten quite long!).

The question is not whether or not the scenes fit the visuals, its about which interpretation fits better. Going by the bulk of the evidence provided, its me (You'll note that the evidence I have been providing is difficult to reconcile with the "spherical flak bursting bolt" theory, yet I can rather easily rationalize/incorporate every single quote you have provided in defense of your argument into my theory.)

Also, the reason this debate is going on so long is because you insist on dragging it out. Its not my fault you have no case yet refuse to concede.

Well see above . Anyways, I suppose the ANH quotes don't matter now anyways, to that end conceded.

The TESB quotes don't help either. I fail to see how they are supposed to prove your case.

It's not impossible to have anything off screen. But usually it's good to have some indication that it's there. From what we saw of Yavin, there was massive amounts of fire from bolts that appeared all relativley the same. To further, one officer explains to Vader that they were "Evading our turbolasers" unless you'd like to argue that they weren't evading their beam weapons per se, I think it's safe to say there was only one typeof bolt at Yavin.

More semantics. Again, by the logic "they only mentioned turbolasers" I suppose we should assume they were ONLY firing turbolasers at the ships. Even if other sources indicate the DS HAS other weapons and were firing them. Of course, that doesn't directly exclude other weapons being employed - unless you want to argue we should assume the DS only HAS TLs because thats all the man said they were firing? I would find it hard to imagine the DS having other weapons (especially laser cannons) and not employing them against the Rebels.

And evne if we disregard the other missile weapons, I point out that superlasers, even micro-superlasers, are related to turbolasers (Mike has pointed out teh proof that Superlasers are compound TLs on his beam weapons page - go check it out if you don't believe me.) - So technically "Beam weapons" could be included in the TLs. The DS could simply be firing something like the micro-superlasers we saw in AOTC - simply because we didnt see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

I was speaking more that teh bolts were the same in general. Varying length has described as being fired from heavier canons, the longer the bigger. The nimbus scenes seem to come from turrets firing, I don't think we had a whole lot bunch of shots of that happening close up. Bright cores may vary from differet amounts of gas put into them, as the pulses. All speculation however. Although none of the beams seemed to be too tremedously different to be labeled as a seperate type, in appearence and in function.

Doesn't matter. I already invalidated your "we saw only one bolt, so no other weapons exist." Bullshit. Even if we disregarded the other weapons mentioned, I can still prove that two distinct kinds of energy weapons would be employed.

It is generally thought that in a galaxy that has been developed for 25,000 years, that most technology has standardized. Shields may vary in output, or durability. But they should all function in the same way. Unless Naboo usess some radical untested new shields-type of course. then again, it's stated that that kind of stuff came from the Nubians, whom (by the way Watto, and the ICS tell it) to be a very modern corporation.

I find it rather amusing that you argue about the scope and scale of Galacitc civilization and then take a huge step ass-backwards by claiming "all shields operate under a single, identical principle." We know that for example, power systems operate on vastly distinct principles (black holes, matter/anitmatter, artifiicial suns, fusion, and even exotic things like hypermatter.) We in fact know there are different kinds of shields (shields that can absorb and rechannel energy - ie Molecular shields on Arakyd Viper automadons from Dark Empire 2, anticoncussion fields like in han Solo at Star's end, stasis shields, etc...)

The sublight and hyperdrive engines were Nubian, not the entire ship. I suggest you reread your ICS.

Additionally, I reiterate that the original theory I posited was NOT based on volumetric theory (I was assuming a wall-like construction myself - volumetric shields is Mike Wong's theory - which works equally well) - I simply provided that as an alternative. My original theory worked as well (since I proved shields could extend for significant distances - the only reason you claimed it didnt work was because you demanded that the evidence was admissible only if I could provide a good reason for it.)
If you think the volumetric theory is so inconsistent I suggest you try convincing Wong of it - I certainly have no trouble employing it, or my original one. Either way it still proves you wrong.

It seemed he quite clearly he said they were different things, and I hadn't the slightest clue that 'deflector shields' could mean particle shields, Ive never heard them referenced in this way before.

ITs obvious from his statements. And if you didnt understand, try asking him (he DOES have an email address, after all.)

The medium it interacts with disappears? Are you suggesting the TF ship let all the air out once the N-1 activated it's shields? Not that I'm exaclty disagreeing with you, but it seems strange the timing would be so perfect as to let the air out right after the N-1 activated its shields...

No, Anakin could have shut off the particle shielding (if you READ Saxton's site, you might have noticed this:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/preq/tpmtech.html#shields

The Gungans deploy combined ray and deflector shielding from both large area generators and hand-held personal devices. These shields create striking airglow effects and also appear to refract light along a shell-like volume near the limits of the shield's range. This is probably due to the momentum-damping function of the particle shield. Molecules in the air crossing into the shield tend to be slowed or repelled away more rapidly, depending on the shield's settings. On the macroscopic scale this influence may be felt as a dramatic alteration of the temperature and density of the gas. The visible result is similar to a natural mirage effect formed by air layers of different temperatures near a hot ground.

As I said, however it happened (either the glow goes away after awhiel on its own, not all kinds of shields create a glow in the atmosphere, or the particle shielding was shut off.) it can be used to support MY theory, so I still win.

I wouldn't, but the Rebulic clearly was. They could've killed the whole kit and kaboodle from space!

There's a difference between employing the armaments of the gunships and ground vehicles and using the megaton-gigaton range armaments of a capital ship, particularily in indiscriminate orbital bombardment.

I again add the fact "the Republic did when I wouldn't" either argues incredible stupidity on the part of the Republic, or that their weapons were incapable of "flak bursting" as you try to claim they are. Unless you are going to argue stupidity (and have some proof to back it up) - out the flak bursts go. And even IF we keep the Flak Bursts, this then becomes canon proof of some shitty firepower (since those flak bursts didn't do much, or cause much of an atmospheric disturbance. Think of the equivalency in energy release those bolts are supposed to have.)

Realistically speaking, your argument is an attempt to WEAKEN the Republic's stated capabilities, not improve it.

Anyways, we don't know presicely how resistant their armor is. An explosion from an SPHA-T would have to be damn powerful (after all, about ten carved up a shielded core ship), it's possible it could have been deadly to the troops.

Only three fired on the Core ship. And while its possible the explosion might be lethal to the troops (in one way or another) thats also why I specified that "it would be stupid to send your troops in if you can wipe them out en-masse with flak bursts instead" - unless you are going to argue the Republic was tactically incompetent (I would love to start a separate thread on this and see how well it goes over) -the fact they sent in troops argues AGAINST the existence of flak bursts.

This still assumes that the troops were close enough to have been threatened by flak bursting, of course (they dont neccesarily have to strike from the front ranks, either.)

That's more what I was getting at.

The artillery fire from the Rebels was no threat (although they could have cleared them away handily with flak bursts by the time the speeders appeared) - or they could have wiped out the speeders first and then picked apart the ground troops at their leisure. Either way simply saying "Veers didnt know what they had planned" is not a good enough reason for conserving energy.

No, but I think that since they didn't hav eproper inteligence, due to the shield being up, that he didn't knwo what to suspect. Had he wiped out the snowspeeders in the beginning,, the Rebels may hav esent reinforcements (and who knows, after a short time doing battle with the walkers, maybe they did.).

Again, all the more reason to wipe them out quickly. Use the heavy guns (the chin guns) in mass flak-burst fire to clear out the snowspeeders. Save the medium guns for picking apart the fixed defenses until the bigger guns charge up.

They had six AT-ATs, and each "max fire" shot fired several pulses. More than sufficient to cripple six snowspeeders, even if they ARE mounting fighter-grade armor.

And that single AT-ST was enough to stop the Imperial attack wasn't it?

No, it helped sow confusion and helped to take out some key targets, but it wasnt the only cause. You may have missed all the other tricks the Ewoks employed - the fact they wre fighitng on home territory, and had numerical superiority. Many of these facts have been explained before by others besides myself.

My point was that the Ewoks, being clever little buggers, could have snuck up on them, and then the AT-ST would have had fired adjacent to itself to hit them.

If the walker had trooper fire to cover it, it wouldn't have needed to bother picking off the Ewoks close up - it could have dealt with bigger/more distant threats.

Manuvering space was tight, I doubt that it would have been able to turn itself around, had the Ewoks came from behind. And while they didn't damage them they were still potential targets, still a potential threat, even to an AT-ST, adn to the troops around it.

You concentrate on the potential threats first, and then deal with the rest as secondary. This in no way affects any of my other points or the fact they didnt flak burst their weapon.

The AT-STs guns weren't very powerful (onscreen evidence supports this) I don't see a flak burst being useful at such low power.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html

Check the firepower MW estimated for them (towards the bottom of the page). I also point out that clonetrooper rifles are easily in the low MJ range at max power (again by MW estimates - see AOTC analysis for proof) - flak bursts there should be more than enough to kill ewoks, if nothing else. And its entirely possible that they weren't always firing at full power.

Again, either way, you still failed yet again.

They seemed to have an easy enough job in ANH. Anyways, the Falcons shields were constantly on the verge of collapsing through out the movies, it was only luck of the hyperspace kicking in that usually saved them. It appeared to me as those the flak bursts were doing damage, anyways.

1.) - they required repeated runs in ANH to do so, using concentrated bursts. (I might add they had little trouble HITTING the ship then, so this suggests their accuracy was not so poor they needed to rely on indirect fire to do ANY Damage at all.) This is vastly different than relying on indirect fire, "exploding" bolts that deliver only a small portion of the energy, and do so over a much broader surface area.

2. - You'll note they handily withstood antifighter gunfire from the star destroyers, which is FAR more destructive than the most powerful fighter-scale gun (which contributed to much of the shield failure in both ANH and TESB that you alluded to.)

3. - your "feelings" ont he appearance do not prove anything. I could just as easily point out they were shield interactions (the shields could have been overloaded, and a partially deflected bolt penetrated through to do damage - much as with the Tantive in ANH.)

4.) You still have not addressed the point about how a fighter scale flak burst, which delivers only a small fraction of its energy over a larger surface area, is supposed to be better than a concentrated energy bolt I(that still has trouble penetrating the shields).

For a TL this may be more useful. They weren't doing this in ANH however, which brings up some questions, since you state that the Rebs TLs in the NJO were doing this. Is it a new Reb modification? Is it a new type of TL? Anyways the main problem with this, even if they can do it, is the TLs physical rotation speed. We saw the TLs in ANH turning to attack the fighters at painfully slow speeds. Although light TLs may have some sucess with this manuever, which may be the bolts that we have seen leaping out to attack fighters throught out the trilogies. Still, heavy TLs it seems still rely on flaking to hit their targets.

1.) How do you know they weren't doing this in ANH? What is your proof.

2.) We dont know if its a new modification or not. Its not a difficult thing to do, however, since you're simply trading a lower output for a higher rate of fire (thats the same basic principle underlying laser cannons, I remind you -they trade the raw damage they inflict for vastly increase ROF, even though laser and turbolaser cannons are similar technologies.)
In "Wraith squadron" low powered "targeting bursts" (the lowest output on a laser - B-wings can do much the same thing) was used in a similar tactic as a splinter shot - though the bolts were doing no damage (But resembled laser bolts enough to fool Wedge).

3.) The TLs on the Death Star were specifically stated to be unsuited to tracking fighters (remember Dodonna's briefing?) The TLs on the ISD, according to BTM, are specially designed for targeting fighters. Besides which, according to the revised rules for the ISD in the WOTC SW RPG core book, ISD's have poitn defense lasers (about 40 of them.) Use those to target, if not the bigger guns.

4.) Heavy TLs are not designed to hit fighters. This is why you have LTLS and point defense lasers. Heavy TLS are DESIGNED to attack capital ships.

I have said over and over and over that flak bursting IS NOT more powerful than a concentrated bolt. Nonetheless, these flak bursts have been still seen damaging the Falcon. As for the TL, those blasts were much farther from teh Falcon than the TIE blats, which were up close.

No they haven't. Thats the whole point of contention remember? Whether or not we're seeing flak bursts, or shield interactions. You can't go claiming we "see" flak bursts when thats what we're in fact trying to DETERMINE.

A missles can be fired at it can corscrew and chase its targets through dense obsticle fields (as per AOTC). A laser has to be pointed in the direction that it wants to be fired at, and released. The blasts we see through out the trilogies are never in great size, and were still required to be very on target to hit their desired target. We have never seen bolts flying wildly in any direction and bursting to hit their targets, because frankly it doesn't appear possible. I'd still give them a LOS definition.

If bolts can't explode in a flak burst then, why are we holding this debate? I pointed out their inability to serve as a non-LOS weapon as PROOF they can't flak burst (since a flak burst would represent a kind of "non LOS" means of damaging a target, which was what you were trying to get at as one of the advantages.)

Well I certaintly wouldn't want to be killing my own troops....

Again, unless you are alleging tactical stupidity on the part of the Republic (and are willing to back it up) the only reason they sent in troops rather than use flak bursts is because the flak bursts DON'T exist. You may not have noticed, but the total absence of flak bursting ability has not hampered my ability to effectively rationalize or maintain continuity with the observed (And written) Star Wars universe, nor has it done so for Saxton or Wong (who have pioneered this theory long before I adopted it, and convinced me of it.)

I believe I've spoke of concentrating the blasts before. As for an atmosphere, when has a flak burst ever been viewed long enough in an atmosphere to view any effect on the terrain? Hoth is the only time we've seen them and everything their was moving quite fast. Similar to how we never see the AT-ATs guns damage their surrounding too much, I suppose.

The moment we see the flashes, we should see the effects. You do realize how fast energy (especially massless radiation) propogates, don't you?

I do not wish for you to get "bored" and leave. I'm simply upholding my belief, and backing up as clearly as I can. If you lose patience, that will be your problem. And if you feel the need to "lose civility" and flame me until the sun goes down you may. As long as your arguments can still be clearly read and interpreted, I will continue this discussion. I don't take any sort of moral high-ground, ever, in any way. I will continue discussing this with you until the issue is resolved.

There's a difference between "Defending your belief" and "adhering to it in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence, particularily when you have no real evidence to back you up or counter with." Were it Mike he would have lost patience with you long ago.

As it is, I've given warning, I've explained t othe best of my ability, I've tried to humor you regarding evidence, but you are just either not getting it or you refuse to get the point.

[Boba Fett]

Yes Vympel, this effect is unique to X-wing Alliance...

I personally think that the TL bolt is not just light.
It is powered by the Tibanna gas and when the bolt reaches it maximum distance, the Tibanna gas is consumed by a flash and that's what they think is a flak burst...

Just an idea don't take my head for it...

Err.. so what triggers the tibanna gas to explode? And why does the bolt stop so abruptly (IE totally lose its forward momentum) and then suddenly detonate in an omnidirectional blast?

For that matter there are problems with the "Hybrid" weapon theory. If you combined a laser and a particle beam (one of the theories for blasters) you can create some real problems with the weapon - the photons in the laser pulse will get absorbed by the particles, which will impart random motion to the particle. In the basic sense, the laser will encourage the particle beam to scatter even more - and if its a pulse of uniformly charged particles, its ALREADY inclined to dispersion (mutual repulsion.) Any advantages from such a weapon could be easily derived from two separate ones (and no, you can't make a particle beam flak burst by hitting it with a laser. I dont think a plasma - which is basically a collection of loosley-connected positive and negative particles, will either)

It was just an idea Connor!

BTW how can someone prove that these bolts are really lasers?

They don't behave like lasers and only their names (turbolasers) stands as a proof...

The bolts are slow...

Every bolts has a visible beginning and an end...

The only weapons that shot lasers (and these shots behave like lasers) were the big, walking, heavy artillery vehicles in AotC.

So everything can be possible!

[Connor MacLeod]

First, thank you for answering my request - I appreciate someone at least making an effort to match my own

Ok. At about ... 6km away from a capital ship (an Imperator II in this case) the turbolaser bolts will cease to be bolts and continue for a short distance after as an expanding explosion. This explosion is extremely small- smaller than a TIE Fighter even. They do not stop immediately to explode as 'flak', and again, the explosion is quite small.

Ok.. so how close to you have to be before being damaged by this "explosion"? That's going to be key, because under teh definition of a "flak burst" you shouldn't need to be very close at all.

The fact they don't seem to "stop immediately" seems to hurt this as evidence iof a flak burst.. were I to say what it might be offhand (According to known theories) - it might be accelerated decay/energy release on the bolt's part. That might not work though, its just a preliminary theory.

All bolts do this. If a bolt misses your fighter you can turn around and follow the rest of it's journey- sure enough, it too makes the transition to a small explosive effect- not stellar evidence of a deliberate flak 'setting'.

Interesting. How far doe sthis "effect" propogate for? Any idea?

The explosion is entirely different than observed shield interaction effects when your ship is actually hit in X-Wing Alliance. Depending on the color of the bolt, the result is that the portion of your ship hit will glow that color- red or green. On small fighters, just say, the center aft of the X-Wing, it will look like the entire section went green, wheras on large capital ships the effects are more akin to a small red circle.

Hmm.. so its unlikely to be a shield interaction (which wouldnt work anyhow in the absence of shields- and if I'm reading you correct, this effect appears beyond a set distance regardless of what happens.) This doesnt neccearily prove flak bursts, or invalidate shield interactions, though.

Interestingly enough, does the "flash" in the shield interaction indcate any splintering of the bolt, or "scattering" of the glow? It would be interesting if they appear similar to how Saxton has observed.

However, when your shields are down, the explosive effect of impact is quite similar, if not the same, to the end of the TL bolts journey.

The difference between shield interaction and hull interaction can be explained by the difference in mediums. Whats interesting is the similarity between impact and "end-journy" flashes- could this in fact represent a sudden and massive release of energy? Spontaneous or accelerated conversion to visible light?

How long does the "flash" last when the shield is down? A short time? You implied the "end-journey" flash lasted for some time after it "explodes."

This might very well lend more credence to the notion that the "explosion" at the end of the journy represents some "Accelerated decay" of the particles in the bolt that results in an increased rate of energy/light release - if the bolt also starts "enlarging" or becomes more diffuse at this point, it might also explain fairly close proximity damage. This would be quite different from a near-instantaneous release of energy that a flak-burst requies.

The explosion is also different from previous shield and hull interaction effects seen in the original X-Wing and TIE Fighter- all ships hit by blasts in those games, shields up or not, produced a sparking sort of explosion not so different (graphical advances aside) from those in the original trilogy.

that could be explained as differences in the weapon (internal components/configurations, gas coolant, etc...)

[Vympel]

Ok.. so how close to you have to be before being damaged by this "explosion"? That's going to be key, because under teh definition of a "flak burst" you shouldn't need to be very close at all.

I tried some half assed testing, and you have to be very close- as in, if you were closer in, the bolt would probably hit you directly (if you don't take active evasive action), but since you're far away (by game standards) the explosion will damage you. But not by any significant degree. Your shields will drop by a few percentage points.

I'd go so far to say you'd really have to make an effort to even be hit by these explosions.

The fact they don't seem to "stop immediately" seems to hurt this as evidence iof a flak burst.. were I to say what it might be offhand (According to known theories) - it might be accelerated decay/energy release on the bolt's part. That might not work though, its just a preliminary theory.

Interesting. How far doe sthis "effect" propogate for? Any idea?

Propagate as in spread out, or how long it lasts? From the time the bolt ceases to be a bolt to the time the explosion disappears, I'd say it travels .... two, at the most three X-Wing lengths (watching the bolt from my POV, it was pretty hard to get a good estimate because of the angle, but that's about right).

Hmm.. so its unlikely to be a shield interaction (which wouldnt work anyhow in the absence of shields- and if I'm reading you correct, this effect appears beyond a set distance regardless of what happens.) This doesnt neccearily prove flak bursts, or invalidate shield interactions, though.

Interestingly enough, does the "flash" in the shield interaction indcate any splintering of the bolt, or "scattering" of the glow? It would be interesting if they appear similar to how Saxton has observed.

Unfortunately no, there's no splinter effect in the game (ref: Tantive IV and Alderaan shiled in the original cut of ANH)- this is pretty much due to the limitations of the engine- for all intents and purposes the blasts are striking the hull directly (the effects are 2d).

The difference between shield interaction and hull interaction can be explained by the difference in mediums. Whats interesting is the similarity between impact and "end-journy" flashes- could this in fact represent a sudden and massive release of energy? Spontaneous or accelerated conversion to visible light?

How long does the "flash" last when the shield is down? A short time? You implied the "end-journey" flash lasted for some time after it "explodes."

From the impact of weapons itself, only a brief instant- similar in duration to the effect in the original X-Wing and TIE Fighter. When fighters die in fiery explosions the effect seems to be reused. It's seems to be hull damage.

This might very well lend more credence to the notion that the "explosion" at the end of the journy represents some "Accelerated decay" of the particles in the bolt that results in an increased rate of energy/light release - if the bolt also starts "enlarging" or becomes more diffuse at this point, it might also explain fairly close proximity damage. This would be quite different from a near-instantaneous release of energy that a flak-burst requies.

Yup, the flash from the deteoration of the bolt starts off small at the beginning of its transformation, and then rapidly expands until it disappears into nothing- however, expansion nonwithstanding, the size of the explosion is tiny. Not even the size of a TIE Fighter- I'd go so far to say that it's only slightly bigger in diameter from say the front of a concussion missile/ proton torpedo.

that could be explained as differences in the weapon (internal components/configurations, gas coolant, etc...)

[Connor MacLeod]

I tried some half assed testing, and you have to be very close- as in, if you were closer in, the bolt would probably hit you directly (if you don't take active evasive action), but since you're far away (by game standards) the explosion will damage you. But not by any significant degree. Your shields will drop by a few percentage points.

I'd go so far to say you'd really have to make an effort to even be hit by these explosions.

So we're looking at an "area of effect" of little more than that of the original bolt itself. And in some respects one could be close enough to assume one was hit (assuming a margin for error.)

And, coupling this with the apparent inability for this effect to be controlled (it seems that its meant to occur only at a fixed distance), we seem to find this is probably NOT a flak burst.

Propagate as in spread out, or how long it lasts? From the time the bolt ceases to be a bolt to the time the explosion disappears, I'd say it travels .... two, at the most three X-Wing lengths (watching the bolt from my POV, it was pretty hard to get a good estimate because of the angle, but that's about right).

I meant last.. but spreading out probably is nice (But I think you mentioned that below.. smaller than a TIE, not much larger than a warhead.)

Based on what you said, the "Explosion/flash" seems to propogate no further than a few hundred meters before disappearing - at best, 5% of the overall range. This would fit with an "accelerated decay/dissipation" theory."

Unfortunately no, there's no splinter effect in the game (ref: Tantive IV and Alderaan shiled in the original cut of ANH)- this is pretty much due to the limitations of the engine- for all intents and purposes the blasts are striking the hull directly (the effects are 2d).

Does it look like the bolt is "scattering" at all, or is it just a flash (not that that changest hings - that would just indicate a VERY rapid bolt fragmentation)

From the impact of weapons itself, only a brief instant- similar in duration to the effect in the original X-Wing and TIE Fighter. When fighters die in fiery explosions the effect seems to be reused. It's seems to be hull damage.

Hmm. Any idea of how the "propogating flash" effect of the TL bolts lasts? (or how long does it take before it disappears from the moment of creation?) This seems to be the only important point I can think of remaining.

Yup, the flash from the deteoration of the bolt starts off small at the beginning of its transformation, and then rapidly expands until it disappears into nothing- however, expansion nonwithstanding, the size of the explosion is tiny. Not even the size of a TIE Fighter- I'd go so far to say that it's only slightly bigger in diameter from say the front of a concussion missile/ proton torpedo.

Not much of a flak burst, in other words. The best explanation is probably a very low powered TL bolt with a very low intial coherency (perhaps sacrificed for increased rate of fire) which explains why it decays so fast and why it is so short ranged

[Boba Fett]

That's all true but this feature of the game doesn't prove anything.

This effect happens between 6-5 clicks away from the capital ships.

If it was the fault of the low powered bolts then it would happen all along the field of fire but it doesn't.

If it would be flak bursts -which I doubt- then it would be totally pointless to shoot flak to 5-6 clicks then when the target comes closer try to hit it with single bolts.

That's just a game effect which tries to give a plus element to the game.

Treat it like this.

[Darth PhysBod]

Well since all a turbolaser blast is is light (although to be fair, there are many theories on thesi idea), and light has no mass, thus no momentum. It is still unkown how they are able to detonate mid-flight. It is possible some element of the beam is controlled to 'detonate' after it travels X distance.

Light does have momentum, for photons the three-momentum is related to their energy by E=pc. (I've been told the light pressure from a typical nuclear explosion is sufficent to knock you over). Where do you think the low MT estimates for light point-defence guns comes from?

Where photons differ from massive particles is that they have a null four-momentum (classical momentum is the real part of the four-mometum)

[His Divine Shadow]

Well since all a turbolaser blast is is light (although to be fair, there are many theories on thesi idea), and light has no mass, thus no momentum. It is still unkown how they are able to detonate mid-flight. It is possible some element of the beam is controlled to 'detonate' after it travels X distance.

Light does have momentum, for photons the three-momentum is related to their energy by E=pc. (I've been told the light pressure from a typical nuclear explosion is sufficent to knock you over). Where do you think the low MT estimates for light point-defence guns comes from?[/quote]

Possibly from this

Pg. 355-356: "Or they don't know who we are," Luke answered. The asteroid cluster came into visual range now, the flash of the Star Destroyer's sixty turbolaser batteries lighting up the interior like a tiny red dwarf star. "All X-wings, lock S-foils into firing position. Don't be stingy with those shadow bombs."

"Farmboy, you better hold back a minute," Han commed.

"Hold back?"

"Affirmative, hold-" Hans voice dissolved into static as the asteroid cluster began to explode mountainous rock by mountainous rock, sixty of them in staccato succession, each one spraying millions of tons of superheated stone in every direction at several thousand meters a second.

On her tactical display, Mara saw a boulder split one of the frigates down the spine and glimpsed a cruiser analog tumbling out of the cluster in three separate sections, then Luke was yelling "Break, break!" and ducking them behind the shelter of a city-sized asteroid.

(ref: Star by Star)

[nightmare]

The Gunships may or may not have had shields.

The movie gives a bit of ambiguity on that point, but apparently the AOTC novelization gives them shields.

[Vympel]

The movie gives a bit of ambiguity on that point, but apparently the AOTC novelization gives them shields.

How is it ambiguous? We see blasts impacting the shields when the Geonosian fighters are chasing the ship, and we also see small arms fire striking the armor itself when the shields are down as the craft are taking on passengers in the Arena (not necessary for Clonetroopers- their armor allows them to pass through theater shields- SW2ICS. But it is necessary or Jedi)

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Again, I refer you to the fact we've already gone over the definitions of "flak" if you've forgotten. I rather thoroughly demolished that issue. Flak can be the "exploding shell" type or simply referred to as "antiaircraft fire" - a point Saxton was clear to make to me when I originally mentioned this. I FURTHER remind you I pointed out that the only definition that fits an "omnidirectional blast" in terms of the definitions provided referred ONLY to physical projectiles.

Indeed, but another breif passage I located in the book seems to deny the "anit-aircraft fire" defintion. "The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts adn flak."-P. 47. Why would they be referring to them as seperate entities (ala beams and bolts)? One seems to be mereley anti-aircraft fire, but the is a seperate definiton. So if "laser bolts" define anti-aircrfat fire," then that leaves "exploding sheel" left.

I also point out to you that Saxton mentions this quote and attributes the "flak" during the hoth battle to being "heated air from near-misses."

Hmmm, another quote seems to deny that idea of the this also, "Luke managed to turn and saw that Hobbie's speeder was maintainting its course next to him as they evaded the explosions bursting around them."-P.47. Why would they be dodged heated air from near misses? Furhtermore if there is no flak at all, then what are they dodging?

And lastly, you're probably going to contend that the Snowspeeders would not be durable enough to withstand hits. The EGV&V credits the snowspeeder with "heavy armor" and the SWTJ says it has "durasteel" (if you remember from Mike's site, Durasteel uses neutronium in it) armor plate from Y-wings "angled to provide maximum blaster bolt deflection." - I would point out that it is often credited with outstanding durability (SWICS for one, and IIRC the EGV&V also). This would infer an ability to stand up to starfighter-level weaponry (TJ range blasts).

This armor was so good that it was stated in the SWTJ that it, coupled with the speeder's speed, made "shielding unneccesary".

Nonetheless, to incur that each and everyone of those explosions were attacks on its hull is ludicrous. The Y-Wings, with heavy shields and apparently this armor were unable to stand toe-to-toe wiht no more than two or three TIE shots, but these snowspeeders are able to withstand numerous repeated attakcs on it without even beggining to take damage? Seems a bit outrageus to me.

Yet it doesn't say whether the bolts detonated on their own or whether they struck the ship either full on or glancing. No help to you.

Fair enough, conceded.

"Chewbacca howled over the roar of the Falcons' engines. The ship was beggining to lurch with the buffeting flak blasted at it by the fighters."-P.63 Now before you go screaming shield interactions, read the passage carefully. It states fighters blasting flak at the Falcon. And TIE Fighters do not carry physical warheads. Last one....

"blasting" as in firing upon them. I remind you of the prior point you have yet to deal with - as to what benefit flak bursting a TIE laser does against a vessel as heavily shielded as the Falcon (who can not only withstand it, but dissipate the energy faster than it can be delivered)

With the "anti-aircraft" defintion floating about, conceded. The other point you speak of will be adressed later.

And you're still relying on a SINGLE definition of flak, as well as your semantic interpretation fo words like "exploded" or "blasting". You do realize that the english language is flexible enough that most words have more than one meaning, dont you?

Conceded.

More semantics. Again, by the logic "they only mentioned turbolasers" I suppose we should assume they were ONLY firing turbolasers at the ships. Even if other sources indicate the DS HAS other weapons and were firing them. Of course, that doesn't directly exclude other weapons being employed - unless you want to argue we should assume the DS only HAS TLs because thats all the man said they were firing? I would find it hard to imagine the DS having other weapons (especially laser cannons) and not employing them against the Rebels.

Actually, besides ion cannons (which offical source show as being as bulky as TLs) I do. Would they have needed to deploy TIEs if they had lasers all over shooting at them? He seemed to be speaking with much urgency. Although I cannot deny or prove the exsitence of beam weapons, even if they were there, were not in the least effective.

And evne if we disregard the other missile weapons, I point out that superlasers, even micro-superlasers, are related to turbolasers (Mike has pointed out teh proof that Superlasers are compound TLs on his beam weapons page - go check it out if you don't believe me.) - So technically "Beam weapons" could be included in the TLs. The DS could simply be firing something like the micro-superlasers we saw in AOTC - simply because we didnt see it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

I doubt it, a TL is an element of a "beam weapon" (under your definiton) but alone seems to be an entirley different entity. The Tl alone fires in one short bolt, while a compund TL fires in a steady beam. The fact that we at least see more of the TLs at Yavin (and at Endor, and Naboo, however, not so much Geonosis obviously) proves they must have many advantages over them.

I find it rather amusing that you argue about the scope and scale of Galacitc civilization and then take a huge step ass-backwards by claiming "all shields operate under a single, identical principle." We know that for example, power systems operate on vastly distinct principles (black holes, matter/anitmatter, artifiicial suns, fusion, and even exotic things like hypermatter.) We in fact know there are different kinds of shields (shields that can absorb and rechannel energy - ie Molecular shields on Arakyd Viper automadons from Dark Empire 2, anticoncussion fields like in han Solo at Star's end, stasis shields, etc...)

Conceded.

The sublight and hyperdrive engines were Nubian, not the entire ship. I suggest you reread your ICS.

"The starships unique spaceframe was manufactured at Theed, yet the ship makes use of many high-technology components that cannot be produced on Naboo." I would believe that a shields would be high tech enough that it needed to be imported as shields.

No, Anakin could have shut off the particle shielding (if you READ Saxton's site, you might have noticed this :snip:[/quote] You'd be surprised how large it is.....

As I said, however it happened (either the glow goes away after awhiel on its own, not all kinds of shields create a glow in the atmosphere, or the particle shielding was shut off.) it can be used to support MY theory, so I still win.

I sincerly doubt Anakin would have for some random reason shut down his shields in the face of danger....to that end I assume the second or third suggestion.

There's a difference between employing the armaments of the gunships and ground vehicles and using the megaton-gigaton range armaments of a capital ship, particularily in indiscriminate orbital bombardment.

I again add the fact "the Republic did when I wouldn't" either argues incredible stupidity on the part of the Republic, or that their weapons were incapable of "flak bursting" as you try to claim they are. Unless you are going to argue stupidity (and have some proof to back it up) - out the flak bursts go. And even IF we keep the Flak Bursts, this then becomes canon proof of some shitty firepower (since those flak bursts didn't do much, or cause much of an atmospheric disturbance. Think of the equivalency in energy release those bolts are supposed to have.)

Well Yoda was in charge...

Seriously though, flak bursting any type of weapon seemed to be a bad decision for anyone apparently. Note that we never see the missles on the LAATs of Hailfires ever explode in such a manner, and immediatley home in staright for the targets. Also the AT-TEs projectile launching cannons didn't seem to be displaying this behavoir either. For whatever reason nobody thought it was a good idea.

Only three fired on the Core ship. And while its possible the explosion might be lethal to the troops (in one way or another) thats also why I specified that "it would be stupid to send your troops in if you can wipe them out en-masse with flak bursts instead" - unless you are going to argue the Republic was tactically incompetent (I would love to start a separate thread on this and see how well it goes over) -the fact they sent in troops argues AGAINST the existence of flak bursts.

Again we see no missles engaing in the way a flak bursted laser would either.

The artillery fire from the Rebels was no threat (although they could have cleared them away handily with flak bursts by the time the speeders appeared) - or they could have wiped out the speeders first and then picked apart the ground troops at their leisure. Either way simply saying "Veers didnt know what they had planned" is not a good enough reason for conserving energy

And what of reinforcements? Veers must have at least predicted that! I seem to remeber some X-Wings lying around. If the snowspeeders were all killed in an enormous flak burst as you suggested, the X-Wings, which would be superior to the snowspeeders in many respects would come in, and that would've been bad news for Veers. Not that I'm saying he knew this in paticular, but thtas he didn't know what to expect.

Again, all the more reason to wipe them out quickly. Use the heavy guns (the chin guns) in mass flak-burst fire to clear out the snowspeeders. Save the medium guns for picking apart the fixed defenses until the bigger guns charge up.

They had six AT-ATs, and each "max fire" shot fired several pulses. More than sufficient to cripple six snowspeeders, even if they ARE mounting fighter-grade armor.

There were only six snowspeeders? You must be kidding me! No sarcasm either, I honestly thought that there must hav ebeen more. Any who, I go back to X-Wings, and that Veers must be prepared for reinforcements.

No, it helped sow confusion and helped to take out some key targets, but it wasnt the only cause. You may have missed all the other tricks the Ewoks employed - the fact they wre fighitng on home territory, and had numerical superiority. Many of these facts have been explained before by others besides myself.

My point is that without the AT-ST (along woth the other tricks the Ewoks did employ) they might not have been able to take the shields.

If the walker had trooper fire to cover it, it wouldn't have needed to bother picking off the Ewoks close up - it could have dealt with bigger/more distant threats.

But we never see troopers directly covering the AT-STs, sometimes they're off in the distance I beilieve, btu we never see them activley guarding them.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Power/index.html

Check the firepower MW estimated for them (towards the bottom of the page). I also point out that clonetrooper rifles are easily in the low MJ range at max power (again by MW estimates - see AOTC analysis for proof) - flak bursts there should be more than enough to kill ewoks, if nothing else. And its entirely possible that they weren't always firing at full power.

Well if they weren't firirng their guns at full power, why would a flak burst be that powerful?

they required repeated runs in ANH to do so, using concentrated bursts. (I might add they had little trouble HITTING the ship then, so this suggests their accuracy was not so poor they needed to rely on indirect fire to do ANY Damage at all.) This is vastly different than relying on indirect fire, "exploding" bolts that deliver only a small portion of the energy, and do so over a much broader surface area.

And in TESB they damaged teh Falcon, flak bursts and all. Also in TESB the Falcon was performing much more extreme manuevers, while in ANH it appeared to be moving in astraight line while the TIEs strafed it.

You'll note they handily withstood antifighter gunfire from the star destroyers, which is FAR more destructive than the most powerful fighter-scale gun (which contributed to much of the shield failure in both ANH and TESB that you alluded to.)

Not in the DS escape, where the 4 TIEs defeated the Falcons shielding, without suport of any heavy guns.

your "feelings" ont he appearance do not prove anything. I could just as easily point out they were shield interactions (the shields could have been overloaded, and a partially deflected bolt penetrated through to do damage - much as with the Tantive in ANH.)

Well we aren't discussing shield interactions at thsi paticular point,now are we?

4.) You still have not addressed the point about how a fighter scale flak burst, which delivers only a small fraction of its energy over a larger surface area, is supposed to be better than a concentrated energy bolt I(that still has trouble penetrating the shields).

1.) How do you know they weren't doing this in ANH? What is your proof.

None I suppose, but the oint is they weren't effective at killing fighters in the least (they killed Porkins in the movie, and that is further exlained in the book that his ship was interefered with by an exploding station, any others fighters killed int eh book were due to the restrictions of the trench for manuevers) so why would they replace flak bursting?

3.) The TLs on the Death Star were specifically stated to be unsuited to tracking fighters (remember Dodonna's briefing?) The TLs on the ISD, according to BTM, are specially designed for targeting fighters. Besides which, according to the revised rules for the ISD in the WOTC SW RPG core book, ISD's have poitn defense lasers (about 40 of them.) Use those to target, if not the bigger guns.

They appeared to do a half-decent job of badgering the Falcon in TESB (but more so in ANH), with the apperance of the flak like explosions (which are obviously still in debate), in ROTJ we only see a handful of fighters killed by TLs period, as fighters did the work there. And I don't see the relevance of an ISD having laser cannons...

No they haven't. Thats the whole point of contention remember? Whether or not we're seeing flak bursts, or shield interactions. You can't go claiming we "see" flak bursts when thats what we're in fact trying to DETERMINE.

Well if you aks me what use they are for, I have to answer with something don't I?

If bolts can't explode in a flak burst then, why are we holding this debate? I pointed out their inability to serve as a non-LOS weapon as PROOF they can't flak burst (since a flak burst would represent a kind of "non LOS" means of damaging a target, which was what you were trying to get at as one of the advantages.)

Again, I hav eyet to a gun being pointed in the opposite direction of a target and yet still hit it wiht a flak burst.

There's a difference between "Defending your belief" and "adhering to it in the face of overwhelmingly contradictory evidence, particularily when you have no real evidence to back you up or counter with." Were it Mike he would have lost patience with you long ago.

As it is, I've given warning, I've explained t othe best of my ability, I've tried to humor you regarding evidence, but you are just either not getting it or you refuse to get the point.

I'm not refusing to get the point Conor. I have conceded to debates before, if I understand I am beaten I bow out. As of yet, if I do not feel beaten. Some points I have lost, but I still am holding onto the basic argument. If I do "lose" I will not continue to post rebuttals in a cheap-ass attempt to tire out my opponent, I will simply concede. That is the way of things.

[nightmare]

The movie gives a bit of ambiguity on that point, but apparently the AOTC novelization gives them shields.

How is it ambiguous? We see blasts impacting the shields when the Geonosian fighters are chasing the ship, and we also see small arms fire striking the armor itself when the shields are down as the craft are taking on passengers in the Arena (not necessary for Clonetroopers- their armor allows them to pass through theater shields- SW2ICS. But it is necessary or Jedi)

We've never seen shields quite like those before. People can fall out of the LAAT. If there was no ambiguity, how come Darth Garden Gnome posted his doubts? It's not the first time I've seen arguments been raised against shields either. But of course, it doesn't matter now, does it.. I'd like to know the shield rating of it though.. RPG stats have no shields on it, apparently.

[Connor MacLeod]

We've never seen shields quite like those before. People can fall out of the LAAT. If there was no ambiguity, how come Darth Garden Gnome posted his doubts? It's not the first time I've seen arguments been raised against shields either. But of course, it doesn't matter now, does it.. I'd like to know the shield rating of it though.. RPG stats have no shields on it, apparently.

I see.. so if anyone has "doubts" on something its ambiguous? Does this mean that the DS destruction of Alderaan is "ambiguous" because Darkstar objects to it?

Does that make the ICS figures "ambiguous" because some Trekkies object to it and think it contradicts other instances.

As to the shields, note that you can have a target ray shielded but not particle shielded. And shields can go down or be taken down.

[Connor MacLeod]

Indeed, but another breif passage I located in the book seems to deny the "anit-aircraft fire" defintion. "The walker was firing directly at him, creating a wall of laser bolts adn flak."-P. 47. Why would they be referring to them as seperate entities (ala beams and bolts)? One seems to be mereley anti-aircraft fire, but the is a seperate definiton. So if "laser bolts" define anti-aircrfat fire," then that leaves "exploding sheel" left.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicl ... index.html

Walkers have two separate guns (the heavy laser cannons under the chin as well as the swivel blasters on the sides.) Why are you defining the laser cannons as the antiaircraft fire?

Hmmm, another quote seems to deny that idea of the this also, "Luke managed to turn and saw that Hobbie's speeder was maintainting its course next to him as they evaded the explosions bursting around them."-P.47. Why would they be dodged heated air from near misses?

Because it might buffet the ship and interfere with manuvering? Because they dodged the bolt itself or a glancing hit? Again you are relying on overly narrow interpretations of not only the word "Explosion" but of "bursting" As I understand it, Trekkies and Fivers like to do very much the same thing (usually its attempting to hinge firepower calcs on words like "Destroy" or "devastate" or "level" or "wipe out.")

I suppose we can also point that unlike your "claims" to the contrary, we do not know for certain that AT-ATs have projectile weapons or not. And even if they don't, AT-ST's do mount "concussion grenade" launchers. (This is just a variation of the same "leach onto the narrowest definition" mentality you display - rather than trying to fit your conclusions to the evidence at hand, you're attempting to fit the evidence around your preconceived belief in these "flak bursts".) When in fact if we go by the literal interpretation of the evidence (and definitions) the SIMPLEST answer is a physical projectile is indeed causing the detonations (I might point out this is simpler than believing in an "energy weapon detonating like a bomb" - Occam's Razor and all.)

We can also conclude that the flashes are indicative of shield interactions in that specific event, despite the claims that a given ship might not have shields (it needn't be neccesarily that ALL vehicles in question carry shields - only some may.) But this is simply *one* rationalization among several we have to choose from.

And even IF we accept that these so called "flak bursts" occured from the energy weapons fire, the observed evidence would indicate they are truly pathetic in terms of firepower (again, referring to the lack of severity of effects a MJ-GJ-TJ level energy release would cause.)

And lastly, to wrap this up, lets look at some definitions:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... =explosion

And yet, for some bizarre reason, you choose to ignore ALL of this simply because you want to be able to believe in the ridiculous notion that an energy weapon will explode like a bomb at will.

Furhtermore if there is no flak at all, then what are they dodging?

To make themselves harder to target, and to insure direct hits might only be glancing hits (I remind you that the armor was angled for blaster bolt deflection.)

Nonetheless, to incur that each and everyone of those explosions were attacks on its hull is ludicrous. The Y-Wings, with heavy shields and apparently this armor were unable to stand toe-to-toe wiht no more than two or three TIE shots, but these snowspeeders are able to withstand numerous repeated attakcs on it without even beggining to take damage? Seems a bit outrageus to me.

Jesus Christ, do you EVER think these things through before posting a stupid reply?

1 - there's a BIG difference (literally an order of magnitude or more) between capital scale weapons and vehicle weapons. If the AT-AT's guns were 500 GJ apiece at max output that still makes them 8x less powerful than a Jedi Starfighter's at max output. And this is only for the LASER cannons. The lighter guns could be as little as 5-10 GJ at max output (which would make them about 40-80x less powerful than a Jedi Starfighter's laser cannons.)

2 - what are you basing your estimate on TIE "shots" upon? Although this is only one of the actual objectiosn to your so-called conclusion (and minor- I can demolish your argument while still allowing you this.)

3 - You might have missed the point where I mentioned "glancing" hits and "deflected" shots. You seem to assume every single hit is going to be a direct hit. Snowspeeders rely on the heavy armor as WELL as their speed as a defense. Remember that (as I already said twice already) that the armor on the speeder is angled to deflect bolts. This implies they only absorb a small amount of the overall energy and redirect/reflect most of this away. (Not unusual for durasteel since dura-armor, which is made from the same materials as durasteel is, is noted for its properties of absorbing and redirecting blaster energy. A Guide to the Star Wars Universe, or the SW Encyclopedia)

Actually, besides ion cannons (which offical source show as being as bulky as TLs) I do. Would they have needed to deploy TIEs if they had lasers all over shooting at them? He seemed to be speaking with much urgency. Although I cannot deny or prove the exsitence of beam weapons, even if they were there, were not in the least effective.

Concession accepted, if you cannot prove it. I might add that you can't have ion cannons on the Death Star, since they were never mentioned or shown to be firing (by your bizarre logic) - the DS would ONLY have TLs.
If you are going to argue they have ion cannons as well, you have to accept they have ALL the other stated weapons - this includes the missiles/explosive solids, "beam weapons", etc.

AS for the "laser cannons" - again you delude yourself into thinking there is only ONE KIND of laser cannon, one scale, one grade, one whatever. CApital lasers are different than fighter lasers, and even the capital versions differ. (The ISD-1 has those huge-ass quad lasers that are as massive as the HTL turrets, after all. ) And by the definition of the fighters being hard to target by the DS's weapons, this would ALSO apply to the lasers.

I doubt it, a TL is an element of a "beam weapon" (under your definiton) but alone seems to be an entirley different entity. The Tl alone fires in one short bolt, while a compund TL fires in a steady beam. The fact that we at least see more of the TLs at Yavin (and at Endor, and Naboo, however, not so much Geonosis obviously) proves they must have many advantages over them.

They're STILL turbolasers by definition, just used in a different way. If you have a particle beam cannon that fires a sustained beam as well as one that fires pulsed bursts, does one or the other stop being a particle beam?

The fact we see particular parts or snippets of a battle does not conclude "anything" about Turbolasers versus other weapons, any more than the total absence of large broadsides is indicative about ISD weapons limitations. (I seem to have to remind you constantly about extrapolating highly generalized conclusions from a specific event or series of events.) I suppose we should conclude by this logic there is far more advantage in firing a handful of guns at an enemy rather than a simulanteous barrage from many guns?

I further remind you that with the extensive scale of and timeframe of many of these battles that we generally see only a SMALL fraction of what actually goes on.

"The starships unique spaceframe was manufactured at Theed, yet the ship makes use of many high-technology components that cannot be produced on Naboo." I would believe that a shields would be high tech enough that it needed to be imported as shields.

Not neccesarily. Gungans shield technology is their own specialized variant (the various DK "episode 1" books mention this as well - the VD, the ICS, the Inside the Worlds of Ep1, etc. ) as does the SW.com site:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/techno ... index.html

"Alien cultures have developed their own native analogs of deflector shield technology. The Gungan </databank/species/gungan/index.html>s of Naboo </databank/location/naboo/index.html> adapted their energy bubble containment technology to form a protective umbrella over their Grand Army. "
and:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/techno ... index.html
"For defensive purposes, the Gungans have adapted their hydrostatic bubble technology to form hand-held personal shields. These ovoid frames project a defensive screen of shield energy capable of deflecting blaster </databank/technology/blaster/index.html> bolts back at the firer."

Additionally the Ep1 VD and Ep 1 ICS both mention that the Gungans trade with the Naboo for certain technology items (and other items), and the "Inside the Worlds of Episode 1" book indicates the Naboo trade with the Trade Federation.

It seems likely that the gungans shield technology was similarily developed by Naboo (it should be pointed out much of Gungan power technology, weaponry, and shield technology is based on the "plasma" they mine from the planet. The Naboo mine this plasma as well - it does not seem improbable they would develop the shield technology the Gungans use, or perhaps even trade for it.) The Droideka shields could also employ this special "plasma."

You'd be surprised how large it is.....

Its not that difficult to find the shield page. He keeps the prequel topics fairly isolated from the trilogy ones.

[quoteI sincerly doubt Anakin would have for some random reason shut down his shields in the face of danger....to that end I assume the second or third suggestion.[/quote]

The reason is irrelevant, but the first idea isn't impossible (he would only need ray shields against the battle droids)

Seriously though, flak bursting any type of weapon seemed to be a bad decision for anyone apparently. Note that we never see the missles on the LAATs of Hailfires ever explode in such a manner, and immediatley home in staright for the targets. Also the AT-TEs projectile launching cannons didn't seem to be displaying this behavoir either. For whatever reason nobody thought it was a good idea.

They didn't mount area-exploding warheads. The gunship's missiles all posessed concentrated/directed-yield 100 kiloton warheads. It does not seem unlikely that the other missile weapons might employ similar measures. And before you start ranting on this, think that for such "flak bursting" warheads to be used, they would have to be mounted in the ship (which would cut into their ammo capacities for other kinds of warheads...) The Gunship's missile launchers appear to be outfitted more for heavy targets (like the core ships, the Techno union starships, etc.) which means they could employ other weapons (IE their guns) against other targets while loading up their heavy warheads for big targets (that their guns wouldn't necceasarily be useful against) They CAN use omnidirecitonal blasts (EP2 ICS) - but they dont neccesarily have to (or perhaps they did and we didnt see them onscreen.)

Further, those missiles were a hundred kilotons - nearly seven times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb (whereas the 5 GJ laser cannons are worth less than 1.2 "tons" - 12,500 times LESS powerful than the Hiroshima bomb and OVER 75,000 times LESS powerful than the gunship missiles - a rather HUGE difference in effect.) Where it might make sense to NOT use the hundred-kiloton missiles as "flak bursting" bombs, this in no way applies to the energy weapons (of course, you're only *assuming* they didnt employ them because they didnt think it was a good idea.)

Regardless, this would not explain why they didnt "flak burst" their energy weapons by your logic. The lack of employment of physical warheads as "flak bursts" can be rationalized by ammo concerns that do not apply to blaster weapons. And even if it doesn't, you're still assuming that "if we dont see it onscreen, it didn't happen."

Again we see no missles engaing in the way a flak bursted laser would either.

Because the missiles were "Directed yield" warheads. Unlike blaster weapons, you can have very finite ammo capacities where missiles and torpedoes are concerned, which can limit the number of missiles you can carry - particularily since they were employing those missiles primarily against the larger/heavier targets. Additionally, the vast discrepancy in raw power between the missiles and the guns makes your analogy even more irrelevant.

And what of reinforcements? Veers must have at least predicted that! I seem to remeber some X-Wings lying around. If the snowspeeders were all killed in an enormous flak burst as you suggested, the X-Wings, which would be superior to the snowspeeders in many respects would come in, and that would've been bad news for Veers. Not that I'm saying he knew this in paticular, but thtas he didn't know what to expect.

Those X-wings were supposed to be Rogue Squadron's escape - anyone left to pilot them would have automatically been left behind. Any other pilots not engaged in defending against the ground attack would have been deployed to protect the transports from Imperial fighters.

In fact, in Isard's Revenge, we see X-wngs taking on AT-ATs on rather equal (or better) terms. You can interpret this one of two ways:

1 - the AT-ATs were grossly outmatched by the X-wings. In this case, there is little the AT-ATs could be expected to do to defend against them in attack.

2 - The AT-ATs were able to hold their own fairly well against the X-wings, without suffering extensive energy loss. They may or may not have been employing "full power" shots to engage the X-wings with, but either way, this suggests that either way, they could have handled the X-wings.

Either way, it still helps my arguments. And again, "not knowing what to expect" is not a reason for them NOT to employ it. At the very worst, they lose six AT-ATs and end up sending a second assault wave (its not exactlyt like the force they deployed represented the totallity of their ground forces) - in which case, I STILL win.

There were only six snowspeeders? You must be kidding me! No sarcasm either, I honestly thought that there must hav ebeen more. Any who, I go back to X-Wings, and that Veers must be prepared for reinforcements.

A Rebel Squadron has twelve pilots. Each speeder carries two people. 12 pilots/2 = 6 snowspeeders. As for the rest, I dealt with that already.

My point is that without the AT-ST (along woth the other tricks the Ewoks did employ) they might not have been able to take the shields.

And what relevance is this to the flak bursts?

But we never see troopers directly covering the AT-STs, sometimes they're off in the distance I beilieve, btu we never see them activley guarding them.

Which didnt mean that they weren't guarding them, or it could simply mean they weren't neccessary (or perhaps they used speeder bikes for the scouting/protection) The "guard" doesnt have to be moving along WITH the AT-ST at the same speed to protect it.

Well if they weren't firirng their guns at full power, why would a flak burst be that powerful?

Because killing an organic being does not require a huge amount of energy - a few kj should be sufficient. At the absolute minimum, all that would be required is to kill the ewoks, which even a MJ level Flak burst (especially a barrage of them) should be more than sufficient to do.) A single MJ-level flak burst would be sufficient to kill dozens of Ewoks, easily.

Or did the Ewoks somehow have some sorts of heavy repulsortanks stashed away somewhere that would have shrugged off Walker fire?

And in TESB they damaged teh Falcon, flak bursts and all. Also in TESB the Falcon was performing much more extreme manuevers, while in ANH it appeared to be moving in astraight line while the TIEs strafed it.

Ah.. circular logic - "they damaged the falcon with flak bursts because they were firing flak bursts" This still doesnt explain how a flak burst (Which radiates energy over a larger surface area and delivers far less energy than a concentrated bolt does) is supposed to have any real effect at piercing shields that CAN shrug off concentrated fire from said fighters.

As for the "manuvers" - yes in some respects they were manuvering more, but not by THAT much, and even then, the TIEs had little trouble following them (up until the asteroid field)

Not in the DS escape, where the 4 TIEs defeated the Falcons shielding, without suport of any heavy guns.

1.) He had Chewbacca angling the deflectors remember - doing so would no doubt leave weak spots or even gaps in the defenses with the TIEs swarming all over them (and in this battle the TIEs were coming in from all angles) contrast this to TESB, where it was almost entirely pursuit (with the enemy firing on them from mostly BEHIND - including the Star Destroyer.)

2.) There is a several-year timeframe between ANH and TESB - plenty of time to undergo upgrades to shield strength. This is not essential, as the fact we KNOW capital ship-scale laser cannon bolts were being shrugged off by the Falcon, which were far more destructive than any fighter laser by orders of magnitude.

3.) the ANH novelization describes the shields being "overloaded" when penetrations occur- yet we don't know exactly how many shots it took to overload.

Again, this doesn't disprove how a flak burst is supposed to be a better method of damaging a ship when its shields CAN handle concentrated bolts of the same power. (If oyu're not getting the reason why, I suggest you consider how the INTENSITY of a concentrated laser bolt will differ from the so called "flak bursting" laser bolt"

Well we aren't discussing shield interactions at thsi paticular point,now are we?

Of course we are. Thats one of the alternate explanations to what we see which you inevitably conclude can ONLY be flak bursts. I have been employing multiple theories to rrationalize and match what we see onscreen to sensible conclusions. You on the other hand appear to be trying to twist all the evidence around in a more complex fashion just so you can claim SW ships can detonate their energy weapons like bombs (when there is no logical mechanism or reason for such, and no real need for it anyhow)

None I suppose, but the oint is they weren't effective at killing fighters in the least (they killed Porkins in the movie, and that is further exlained in the book that his ship was interefered with by an exploding station, any others fighters killed int eh book were due to the restrictions of the trench for manuevers) so why would they replace flak bursting?

No evidence, concession accepted.

I might add that once MORE it was already known that the weapons on the Death Star were unsuited for use against fighters. I might add that this would ALSO include a flak burst mode, were such to exist (Which it doesn't.), so flak bursts would be of no particular advantage (not that they are anyhow.)

They appeared to do a half-decent job of badgering the Falcon in TESB (but more so in ANH), with the apperance of the flak like explosions (which are obviously still in debate), in ROTJ we only see a handful of fighters killed by TLs period, as fighters did the work there. And I don't see the relevance of an ISD having laser cannons...

ANH - again, I mentioned that the guns on the ISD seem to have the capability to target fighters (at least the light and medium guns.

ROTJ - remember that the Emperor ordered Piett to not attack? (not that that neccesarily proves they only killed a few fighters - you're still going by that "only what we see counts" bullshit.)

The relevance of laser cannons is that they have them - which would be much better suited to handling fighters than "flak bursting" the bigger guns (and it reserves the bigger guns for use against other targets anyhow)

Again, I hav eyet to a gun being pointed in the opposite direction of a target and yet still hit it wiht a flak burst.

You're getting really good at those semantic dodges. I'm sure there's a nonsensical fanatical trekkie/fiver in you yet somewhere. Non-LOS also includes targets obscured by other targets (hiding behind something, for example) - even IF the target would normally be within the fire arc.

I'm not refusing to get the point Conor. I have conceded to debates before, if I understand I am beaten I bow out. As of yet, if I do not feel beaten. Some points I have lost, but I still am holding onto the basic argument. If I do "lose" I will not continue to post rebuttals in a cheap-ass attempt to tire out my opponent, I will simply concede. That is the way of things.

I have no faith that you will concede, since you do nothing but pull out half assed speculation, "evidence" based entirely on your own narrow-minded interpretations, and more than a few fallacies. I remind you that a GOODLY number of Mike's "opponents" never feel THEY lost either, even when it was blatantly obvious to everyone else they did (Darkstar for one, Edam for another..) Insofar as I am concerned in this debate, I am dealing with someone whose methods are little different than theirs (well, excluding Darkstar - noone is as bad as him except a certain person I know) and your "feeling" you havent been beaten yet is simply more proof of your ignorance.

[Boba Fett]

After 2 hours of search I've found a very good proof on the AotC DVD against the flak idea.

Search for the chapter when the LAAT carrying Anakin and Obi-wan got two fighters on it's tail.

Now wait till the LAAT hits the sandhill with it's belly. Pause the movie.

You will see a bolt heading straight to the LAAT's back and immidiately another one which is almost misses but it explodes at the left side of the craft.

Now if you step the movie the camera view will change to another POV and you will see as the same bolt explode right at the opened left side of the LAAT, right in Obi-wan's face.

Now if there woludn't be shields Obi-wan would meet a very painful dead.
Look at the shape of the explosion. Although it's not the best example examine the shape of the explosion.

Now if you're not satisfied, search for the moment when couple of LAATs flying almost into the camera.

There's heavy AA fire you will find. Again pause the movie and go by step.
Keep your eyes on the closest LAAT.

There you will see a very good example of how the shield absorbs the bolt.
A bolt hits the LAAT's shield almost in the front.
After the impact there's some kind of explosion.
If you examine it you'll see that the shape of the explosion -when it beginning to grow- starts to become rounded.
It's following the shape of the shield.

Another thing there's a scene when we see Mace standing in the opened up cargo bay of a LAAT. In the back there's another LAAT flying and it gets a direct hit at the nose.
There's no flak effect just a simple blow. See it for yourself.

Oh and there's one more interesting thing!

It's not related with this flak theory.

When the LAATs landing in the arena, you can see a LAAT passing by the camera in a turn so you can see the belly of the craft.
The right side turbolaser "sphere" is firing continually.

The strange thing is:

There's two battle droid there at the left bottom of the screen, they both have a direct hit from the gun.
In the previous moments we see the same gun making huge explosions but in the case of the two droid, the turbolaser beam simply cut them in half.
If you step the movie again you can see the glowing edges after the impact.
After it the bolt explodes against the ground, out of screen.

So how does the turbolaser works?