StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Anyone want to take a shot at trying to explain how they function in function, if not in principle? I'm in a Star Wars role playing game that also involves multiple other fandoms, and one idiot is focused on my shields -- saying he can fire rail gun rounds straight them them.

Point out the scenes from ANH and ROTJ where stuff slamming into shields at high speed dies.

Where was there a shield impact in ANH that destroyed anything?

Abacus wrote:Anyone want to take a shot at trying to explain how they function in function, if not in principle? I'm in a Star Wars role playing game that also involves multiple other fandoms, and one idiot is focused on my shields -- saying he can fire rail gun rounds straight them them.

Point out how frantically the pilots from Return of the Jedi maneuvered to avoid smacking into the large shield around the Death Star- or how in The Force Awakens the only way to get a ship through a planetary shield was to jump into hyperspace and materialize inside of it.

Star Wars definitely has two types of shields, "ray shielding" and "particle shielding." Ray shielding may permit physical objects to pass, but "particle shielding" does not. This is the kind of force field that they use to contain intruders (Obi-Wan and Anakin run into one on Grievous' flagship in Revenge of the Sith), for instance.

A shielded craft would normally have both types of shields.

Abacus wrote:I'm in a Star Wars role playing game that also involves multiple other fandoms, and one idiot is focused on my shields -- saying he can fire rail gun rounds straight them them.

The idiot may be right. This is exactly how the rebels destroyed the Death Star.

Simon_Jester wrote:Star Wars definitely has two types of shields, "ray shielding" and "particle shielding." Ray shielding may permit physical objects to pass, but "particle shielding" does not. This is the kind of force field that they use to contain intruders (Obi-Wan and Anakin run into one on Grievous' flagship in Revenge of the Sith), for instance.

You mean ray shields, yes? Because that's what Grievous and Anakin both called it.

Simon_Jester wrote:A shielded craft would normally have both types of shields.

Based on what?

Just out of curiosity, what system are you using and what are the other settings?

Simon_Jester wrote:Point out how frantically the pilots from Return of the Jedi maneuvered to avoid smacking into the large shield around the Death Star- or how in The Force Awakens the only way to get a ship through a planetary shield was to jump into hyperspace and materialize inside of it.

Is it just me or was that second idea actually quite clever if one things about it? If shields refreshed faster than the speed of light, they would be impermeable to visible light.

Simon_Jester wrote:Star Wars definitely has two types of shields, "ray shielding" and "particle shielding." Ray shielding may permit physical objects to pass, but "particle shielding" does not. This is the kind of force field that they use to contain intruders (Obi-Wan and Anakin run into one on Grievous' flagship in Revenge of the Sith), for instance.

The shielding in ROTS was named ray shielding in the movie. This leads me to believe that the two types of shields idea is a myth created by the EU. We see no indication in the films or all of Clone Wars that any other sort of shielding exists. We never see any indication that a capital ship is vulnerable to enemy fighters but still immune to turbolasers. By all appearances, it is all or nothing.

The only other issue is that of the "ray shielded" exhaust port that was still vulnerable to proton torpedoes. I would argue that this is because it was an exhaust port, and it was left with a limited vulnerability due to the fact that it had to vent exhaust. Because shields are not one sided, that flaw had to work both ways. I would also argue that fighter attacks work in a similar sense, by getting in close and attacking weak spots as shields are opened and closed at a fractional rate to fire their own weapons.

More generally, there is a half truth here. Shields are better against energy weapons than physical impacts, a result of the fact that with a physical impact, the momentum is transferred from the shield to the rather small shield generator itself. While they are undoubtedly designed to absorb a significant impact, they would mechanically fail in this sense long before they would fall to an energy bombardment. But it would require a sufficiently large impact to do so. You can't wear it down in this sense.

Despite the fact that he is incorrect when it comes to internet debate Star Wars, whatever technical details don't work for whatever story you intend to run, you should throw out. Put the game and story before technical details. I would definitely put things like firepower on a closer level for the sake of drama. The classic idea of one Star Destroyer vs the entire UFP might have been amusing, but it is certainly not very dramatically interesting. Though it is also an exaggeration in any case. With the new canon we see much less evidence of that sort of firepower on a regular basis, which has led most to conclude that it was too high. Amusingly, we have never actually seen that ship even fire its weapons in the new canon. The Venator class has entirely replaced it as a combat vessel.

Galvatron wrote:Based on what?

Based on the idiotic EU assuming that if the Death Star's exhaust port had ray shields that didn't stop torpedoes, then there must be a second shield that did. The more obvious answer of it being akin to a software setting never occurred to them. Especially since we also see sheilds that stop planetary bombardment but not AT-AT walkers or one that stops literally anything and must be sabotaged.

Adam Reynolds wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Based on what?

Based on the idiotic EU assuming that if the Death Star's exhaust port had ray shields that didn't stop torpedoes, then there must be a second shield that did. The more obvious answer of it being akin to a software setting never occurred to them. Especially since we also see sheilds that stop planetary bombardment but not AT-AT walkers or one that stops literally anything and must be sabotaged.

I meant his general statement about ships having both kinds. I don't see why most fighters would, for example.

Adam Reynolds wrote:Amusingly, we have never actually seen that ship even fire its weapons in the new canon. The Venator class has entirely replaced it as a combat vessel.

That's not true:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTN3FIzvgEA

but yeah, the Imperial-class situation in Rebels is... strange. We see them multiple times, and despite numerous opportunities, this is the only time they actually open fire... and why would the bolts be red?

My (not so serious) theory:
The starship we see in Rebels is actually Imperial-0 class Star Destroyer, a not well known member of Imperial-class family, very prevalent in the corner of the Galaxy in which Phoenix Group operates. The main difference between vessels of this class and Imperial I and II models is that it is unarmed. It shouldn't be viewed as a design flaw - the sheer presence of such a large vessel should dicourage any attempts to oppose the will of the Emperor, and the lack of any battlefield value is compensated by greatly reduced manufacture costs.


@topic
If the shields don't stop physical objects, there has to be a reason why isn't every starship built around a huge railgun, like in Mass Effect... or why most of them don't use any kind of railguns at all. The technology exists - LAAT gunships and AT-TE walkers were equipped with mass drivers. Maybe the armor has some propeites that make it highly resistant to kinetic energy based weapons?

Adam Reynolds wrote:Based on the idiotic EU assuming that if the Death Star's exhaust port had ray shields that didn't stop torpedoes, then there must be a second shield that did. The more obvious answer of it being akin to a software setting never occurred to them. Especially since we also see sheilds that stop planetary bombardment but not AT-AT walkers or one that stops literally anything and must be sabotaged.

The ray/particle shield split comes directly from the ANH novelization - Dodonna explicitly stated that the port wasn't particle-shielded because it would defeat the object of it .

eMeM wrote:If the shields don't stop physical objects, there has to be a reason why isn't every starship built around a huge railgun, like in Mass Effect... or why most of them don't use any kind of railguns at all. The technology exists - LAAT gunships and AT-TE walkers were equipped with mass drivers. Maybe the armor has some propeites that make it highly resistant to kinetic energy based weapons?

Maybe they're too easily evaded or defeated with heavy armor to be worth the cost of manufacturing them. After all, outside of the trench run, how many times did we see torpedoes used in combat during the OT?

Also, the Falcon landed on the Avenger only moments after Captain Needa ordered his crew to raise the shields. Presumably, the Falcon was able to land because the Avenger's shields were only ray shields, not both ray and particle.

Any ship flying around in a space battle can be struck by physical debris, shrapnel from exploding missiles, or the like. Because Star Wars spacecraft have extremely high acceleration and tend to move at high speeds, it would be suicide to operate a fighter (or anything else not armored to withstand hits from antitank weapons) without shields capable of stopping particles.

How much good did they do the star destroyer that had its conning tower obliterated by an asteroid?

Adam Reynolds wrote:The only other issue is that of the "ray shielded" exhaust port that was still vulnerable to proton torpedoes. I would argue that this is because it was an exhaust port, and it was left with a limited vulnerability due to the fact that it had to vent exhaust. Because shields are not one sided, that flaw had to work both ways.

I neglected to reply to this earlier, but Luke's strafing run against the Death Star did visible damage so it's possible that the rest of its surface actually lacked shields of any kind.

Galvatron wrote:

eMeM wrote:If the shields don't stop physical objects, there has to be a reason why isn't every starship built around a huge railgun, like in Mass Effect... or why most of them don't use any kind of railguns at all. The technology exists - LAAT gunships and AT-TE walkers were equipped with mass drivers. Maybe the armor has some propeites that make it highly resistant to kinetic energy based weapons?

Maybe they're too easily evaded or defeated with heavy armor to be worth the cost of manufacturing them. After all, outside of the trench run, how many times did we see torpedoes used in combat during the OT?

I was talikng about kinetic energy based weapons, like railgun projectiles, you can't count torpedoes as kinetic weapons, they are physical objects, so they bypass the shields jusrt like a railgun projectile would (if we assume that this is how it works here), but it's the explosion, not the impact, that is supposed to damage the target. And based on how Red Leader's torpedoes have shaken the Death Star, I'd say they seem to be pretty dangerous (but then there is Episode VII in which proton torpedoes seem to have yield in the range of a stick of dynamite).
We don't see them used often because we don't see starfighter vs capital ship action at all.
And we can apply the same logic as above - if they are used, they have to be effective, and "destroying Death Stars" is waaaay to specialized task to design a weapon around

Torpedoes might be why the rebels are a threat to the starfleet, as Motti put it. They can hyperspace in a squadron or two of X-wings and Y-wings to attack a warship, fire off a salvo or two of torpedoes and then hyperspace away in the hope that enough of the torpedoes hit their target to cause significant damage.

Perhaps the type of railguns that would penetrate Imperial warship armor are simply too large and/or cost-ineffective to be mounted on fighter-sized ships.

I think it is too large to be mounted on a 1,2km long cruiser, otherwise... well, otherwise it would be mounted on a 1,2km long cruiser instead of all those turbolasers that have to disable the shield to do any damage

Galvatron wrote:How much good did they do the star destroyer that had its conning tower obliterated by an asteroid?

What obliterated conning tower? All we see is the asteroid crashing into the ship and it losing holocomms. For all we know there was no damage beyond a bent antenna.

Adam Reynolds wrote:The only other issue is that of the "ray shielded" exhaust port that was still vulnerable to proton torpedoes. I would argue that this is because it was an exhaust port, and it was left with a limited vulnerability due to the fact that it had to vent exhaust. Because shields are not one sided, that flaw had to work both ways.

I neglected to reply to this earlier, but Luke's strafing run against the Death Star did visible damage so it's possible that the rest of its surface actually lacked shields of any kind.

It's equally possible that Luke managed to do damage because he was already under the shields. We know Wars does bubble as well as hull huggers.

According to the TFA ICS, 'most' starships have both ray and particle shielding just like in the old EU, and as S_J mentioned if you run around at the speeds and accelerations common in Wars you pretty much 'need' particle shielding (interestingly enough implied to be a separate system called 'concussion shielding' in the ICS). Naturally the actual starship CSs just have generic 'deflector' components without breaking down whether they're ray, particle, both, or whatnot.

Batman wrote:

Galvatron wrote:How much good did they do the star destroyer that had its conning tower obliterated by an asteroid?

What obliterated conning tower? All we see is the asteroid crashing into the ship and it losing holocomms. For all we know there was no damage beyond a bent antenna.

Ah, yes, I forgot about that. This must have come up quite often during all those SWvsST debates so I must concede that the explosion followed by the horrified body language of the ship's captain and the subsequent fizzling out of his hologram could mean that the ship was actually fine.

Batman wrote:It's equally possible that Luke managed to do damage because he was already under the shields. We know Wars does bubble as well as hull huggers.

So the exhaust port used a hull hugging shield, but the rest of the Death Star used a bubble shield. Got it.

Galvatron wrote:

Batman wrote:

Galvatron wrote:How much good did they do the star destroyer that had its conning tower obliterated by an asteroid?

What obliterated conning tower? All we see is the asteroid crashing into the ship and it losing holocomms. For all we know there was no damage beyond a bent antenna.

Ah, yes, I forgot about that. This must have come up quite often during all those SWvsST debates so I must concede that the explosion followed by the horrified body language of the ship's captain and the subsequent fizzling out of his hologram could mean that the ship was actually fine.

You no doubt have the screenshots of the bridgeless Star Destroyer handy.

Batman wrote:It's equally possible that Luke managed to do damage because he was already under the shields. We know Wars does bubble as well as hull huggers.

So the exhaust port used a hull hugging shield, but the rest of the Death Star used a bubble shield. Got it.

Yeah. Valen forbid the most powerful weapon system ever built have multilayered defenses.Why would anybody do such a thing?

Batman wrote:

Galvatron wrote:

Batman wrote: What obliterated conning tower? All we see is the asteroid crashing into the ship and it losing holocomms. For all we know there was no damage beyond a bent antenna.

Ah, yes, I forgot about that. This must have come up quite often during all those SWvsST debates so I must concede that the explosion followed by the horrified body language of the ship's captain and the subsequent fizzling out of his hologram could mean that the ship was actually fine.

You no doubt have the screenshots of the bridgeless Star Destroyer handy.

Of course not. That's why Star Wars always won that debate.

Batman wrote:Yeah. Valen forbid the most powerful weapon system ever built have multilayered defenses.Why would anybody do such a thing?

Well, then the the Death Star's surface apparently didn't have a hull hugging layer under the bubble or else Luke's strafing run should have caused little or no damage.

Who's Valen?

Not much of a B5 fan I take it.

Galvatron wrote: You mean ray shields, yes? Because that's what Grievous and Anakin both called it.

That always struck me as pretty weird too, 'cause I had been familiar with the particle shield/ray shield thing before that. I guess we could assume Ray shields wouldn't physically stop Anakin and Obi from walking through them, but would kill them if they tried. Starships are at least shielded from the nasty stuff a Ray shield would do to an unarmored Jedi Knight.

Although it does kind of raise the question of why you can't just put Ray shield generator walls everywhere and bar access to human troops entirely.

Abacus wrote: I'm in a Star Wars role playing game that also involves multiple other fandoms, and one idiot is focused on my shields -- saying he can fire rail gun rounds straight them them.

If I was GMing that game, I'd tell said player that if he wants railgun rounds to go through shields he will need to point at something from the game rulebook(s) saying that they can penetrate shields. I'm not changing the rules for some obscure bit of canon because I view keeping the game rules consistent through the campaign as being more important than trying to have the game stick to canon.

bilateralrope wrote:

Abacus wrote: I'm in a Star Wars role playing game that also involves multiple other fandoms, and one idiot is focused on my shields -- saying he can fire rail gun rounds straight them them.

If I was GMing that game, I'd tell said player that if he wants railgun rounds to go through shields he will need to point at something from the game rulebook(s) saying that they can penetrate shields. I'm not changing the rules for some obscure bit of canon because I view keeping the game rules consistent through the campaign as being more important than trying to have the game stick to canon.

I would do more or less the same since with any long running franchice you're bound to find something that at very least implies what you want to do. So it's better for the campaign that the rules are consistent even if they're not 100% canon accurate.

Adam Reynolds wrote:The shielding in ROTS was named ray shielding in the movie. This leads me to believe that the two types of shields idea is a myth created by the EU. We see no indication in the films or all of Clone Wars that any other sort of shielding exists. We never see any indication that a capital ship is vulnerable to enemy fighters but still immune to turbolasers. By all appearances, it is all or nothing.

The canonical The Force Awakens ICS establishes three types of shields:

• Ray Shields (Do not stop physical projectiles, but may burn living flesh)
• Deflector Shields (Do both?)
• Concussion Shields (Protect against high velocity impact)

New EU, same as the old. As time passes the Disney change in technical terms wasn't to ditch the old EU and let people use film evidence, it was to ditch the old EU, and re-print most technical works (the 120km Death Star) under an imprimatur that sets them as coequal canon with the films. It's now rapidly becoming safe to assume that any non-plot technical thing (say tibanna gas powers blasters) from WEG and other old EU sources can be found in the nu-EU.

I also believe you are wrong on the idea that a capital ship hasn't been attacked by fighters while still having shields; not least, the ur-example of this is the Death Star. Anakin also attacked the Malevolence using Y-wings and destroyed one of its primary shield generators, which ostensibly means it was running, unless Grievous was practically non-sapiently stupid.

That said, Abacus, if you want a detailed rebuttal or confirmation of the railguns argument, you really need to quote as directly as possible this guy's argument. He might be saying that it works on the Ray Shield argument, or he might be referring to say, Brian Young's well substantiated proposition that Star Wars warships suffer the 'slow blade penetrates the shield' weakness that Droidekas do.

Maybe he played Empire At War: Forces Of Corruption, mass drivers totally bypass shields in that game
The Zann Consortium use them on a bunch of their ships, which was a big part of them being so stupidly OP
I'm pretty sure it was a game mechanic (the Mando capship has them, and I don't recall Mandos being said to use them anywhere else)
I'm also pretty sure it isn't canon anymore anyways