StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Does anybody know how many: shield projectors, ion cannons, turbo lasers, military fortresses, troops, ATATs, ATSTs, ect. might have been on Coruscant during the Empire's reign? Also what would have been the orbital defenses for Coruscant fully militerized? How long would the shields last against a full bonbardment from a fleet of 100 Star Destoyers? How much damage could the turbo-lasers do against an enemy fleet?

Also, if you were to put up your own defenses on Coruscant, what would you use to protect the planet from everything except the most heavy attacks? What type of fleets would you have near your capital planet? (Please use the Empire's forces)

Corscunt may not be well defended with massive fleets given the nature of the Republic.

evilcat4000 wrote:Corscunt may not be well defended with massive fleets given the nature of the Republic.

Did you read it?

Techno_Union wrote:(Please use the Empire's forces)

Since nobody replied yet, I'll try my best answering your questions, but my knowledge here is sketchy at best.

Techno_Union wrote:Does anybody know how many: shield projectors, ion cannons, turbo lasers, military fortresses, troops, ATATs, ATSTs, ect. might have been on Coruscant during the Empire's reign?
Also what would have been the orbital defenses for Coruscant fully militerized?

I found an excerpt from a book for you.

"Despite [Isard] not being from a military background, she has, in no way, allowed the defenses of the Imperial homeworld to slacken. Outermost we have Golan Space Defense stations. They are comparable in power to a Star Destroyer. They are not mobile, so eliminating them from a section of the sky over Coruscant will give us an area in which to operate, but eventually all of them will have to be neutralized."
"In addition to these defense stations, there are approximately seven Victory-class Star Destroyers on station at Coruscant. There are ground-based fighter groups as well as the fighter wings stationed in and around the ships, shipyards, and orbital factories. The orbital mirror stations and low-orbit skyhooks may have also been armed."
Ackbar clasped his hands behind his back. "As formidable as all that is, the primary problem in taking Coruscant is the overlapping defense shields."
Wedge's Gamble, p.33

This is already during the time of the NR, so I think that the Implerial fleet wuld have a few more ships than just seven Victories.

How long would the shields last against a full bonbardment from a fleet of 100 Star Destoyers?

Indefinitely, I would assume. Planetary shields are made to hold off an invasion fleet, not just attacks by a few capital ships. The trade federation brought thousands of ships to the Naboo blockade. This is pure speculation on my part, though.

How much damage could the turbo-lasers do against an enemy fleet?

As much as they always do. They might be careful to use them, since they have to open their shields to fire, and the invasion fleet might have dedicated firing-computers to wait for something like this to happen.

Also, if you were to put up your own defenses on Coruscant, what would you use to protect the planet from everything except the most heavy attacks? What type of fleets would you have near your capital planet? (Please use the Empire's forces)

I would assign at least a sector fleet to the system and a few extra ISDs to the planet itself. I would also make sure that all ships have to pass through checkpoints outside the system and have an early warning sensor net in place.

Planetary turbolasers and ion cannons should be very powerful and effective.

I mean, You have a LOT of space to put a BIG power plant behind those cannons.

An example of the power of planetary weapons would be in ROTE when the Star Destroyer is disabled by a single shot or volley (can't remember).

About the vulnerability with opening shields in order to fire: You do not have to lower the entire shield, lower a small portion would suffice.

additionally I would expect that the weapons could tie in with the shield generator in order to have the shield lowered for the smallest amount of time possible.

If you would use pure logic, a planet should be very hard to defeat from space (with technology as is available in SW - and just about any other level as soon as you have shields). You have a lot more space to put generators etc on a planet than you would have on a ship.

the only way that you would have a chance would be if you engage the planet from EXTREME range, allowing your ships to dodge the shots while hitting the planet with your own forces (A planets path is predicatble, a ship can change courses).

Then it would depend on what range your weapons have - if the ships have to get relatively close to a planet in order to hit, it might be possible to hit the ships by filling space with shots - you have lots of place to build lots of weapons on a planet.

Alas, in Star Wars ships can attack a planet (or more precisely a ship orbitting a planet) from outside the solar system. This reveals that hitting a planet woudn't be that difficult.

There could be enough and big enough generators in order to effortlessy take that damage though.

My opinion is that any competent commander/ruler/whatever should be able to make a planet invulnerable to attack (if the planet is self-sufficient; If it isn't, hyper in the supply ships close to the planet, under the protection of the planet's weaponry).

Fleet units are very useful however, as being the defender (in a standoff situation) you should have the element of surprise when engaging the attacking fleet with your own ships.

D.Turtle wrote: About the vulnerability with opening shields in order to fire: You do not have to lower the entire shield, lower a small portion would suffice.

additionally I would expect that the weapons could tie in with the shield generator in order to have the shield lowered for the smallest amount of time possible.

An attacker might be able to use dedicated targeting computers to exploit that small hole in your shields. That would depend on the feasibility of predicting shield openings (nanoseconds might be enough).

My opinion is that any competent commander/ruler/whatever should be able to make a planet invulnerable to attack (if the planet is self-sufficient; If it isn't, hyper in the supply ships close to the planet, under the protection of the planet's weaponry).

An attacker will presumably blockade the planet (-> Interdictors), and will make sure he is able to destroy any ships well before they reach the planet.

Fleet units are very useful however, as being the defender (in a standoff situation) you should have the element of surprise when engaging the attacking fleet with your own ships.

That depends on how good the attackers intel is.

Wasn't there a Sector Group tasked with protecting Coruscant during the Empire?

One would expect Coruscant's sector to call on an augmented sector group: ~40 Imperial-class Star Destroyers at least. (24 minimum destroyer complement + 1 battle squadron assigned to HQ + 15 additional battle squadrons).

If Coruscant is part of an Oversector or Priority Sector, which she probably is, other sector groups could also be called.

D.Turtle wrote:Planetary turbolasers and ion cannons should be very powerful and effective.

I mean, You have a LOT of space to put a BIG power plant behind those cannons.

An example of the power of planetary weapons would be in ROTE when the Star Destroyer is disabled by a single shot or volley (can't remember).

It is TESB. It was a single shot, or at most a two-shot burst very close together. No volley there.

About the vulnerability with opening shields in order to fire: You do not have to lower the entire shield, lower a small portion would suffice.

That's precisely what they could do in ROTJ.

If you think merely in terms of power, then yes - a planet will be stronger.

A planet, however, has several minuses that are against it, other than its lack of propulsion. I (and a few others) talked about them here. It is much the same thing - it should apply here.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

D.Turtle wrote:Planetary turbolasers and ion cannons should be very powerful and effective.

I mean, You have a LOT of space to put a BIG power plant behind those cannons.

An example of the power of planetary weapons would be in ROTE when the Star Destroyer is disabled by a single shot or volley (can't remember).

It is TESB. It was a single shot, or at most a two-shot burst very close together. No volley there.

I meant TESB. It was a brainfart of mine.

About the vulnerability with opening shields in order to fire: You do not have to lower the entire shield, lower a small portion would suffice.

That's precisely what they could do in ROTJ.

If you think merely in terms of power, then yes - a planet will be stronger.

A planet, however, has several minuses that are against it, other than its lack of propulsion. I (and a few others) talked about them here. It is much the same thing - it should apply here.

The Death Star (and similarly sized ships) would be an exception as they are so big that you can fit a very large power generator on it - comparable with a planet.

Normal ships (anything under DS size) should not be effective against planets. You can fit so many power generators comparable with a Star Destroyer on a planet that it isn't funny. You can power so many shield generators with this, that it wouldn't be funny.

An example of this would be Alderaan. The shields held off the DS superlaser for a fraction of a second - normal ships should be quite useless against them (IMO of course).

GySgt. Hartman wrote:An attacker might be able to use dedicated targeting computers to exploit that small hole in your shields. That would depend on the feasibility of predicting shield openings (nanoseconds might be enough).

I doubt that this is possible, as it takes longer for the attacking ships turbolasers to reach the planet, than they should be opened (They ships have to stay far from the planet in rder to be able to evade the shots from the planet). Also, if this were the case then you would be able to use this against other ships, as the shields operate on the same principle (planetary and ship).

An attacker will presumably blockade the planet (-> Interdictors), and will make sure he is able to destroy any ships well before they reach the planet.

Oops, I forgot Interdictors. They would complicate the matter a bit, but consider that the enemy/blockading fleet would have to stay quite far away from the planet (to have enough time to evade shots from the planet). This would make the amount of space to be covered with Interdictors extremely big. In order to then make sure that no supply ships or similar could reach the planet you would also have to spread your fleet around quite a lot. This would make it vulnerable to attack.

That depends on how good the attackers intel is.

The people on the planet could observe the blockading fleet, find weak spots and order their fleet to make hit & fade attack at those places. The fleet of the defender's would not have to be as strong as the blockading fleet, as they (the defender's fleet) can choose when and where to engage. This means that the blockading fleet would have to be on constant alert.

It is a huge advantage that the blockading fleet is tied to one place (star system).

D.Turtle wrote:I meant TESB. It was a brainfart of mine.

Better get that brainfart fixed

The Death Star (and similarly sized ships) would be an exception as they are so big that you can fit a very large power generator on it - comparable with a planet.

Not really. The DS1 reactor is about 16km in diameter IIRC. On a good sized (like Earth) planet, you could build so many 16km spheres (assuming you have SW level construction tech so the structural challenge is survivable) it ain't funny either.

An example of this would be Alderaan. The shields held off the DS superlaser for a fraction of a second - normal ships should be quite useless against them (IMO of course).

Yes, that's why I said in terms of PURE power, If you had bothered to click on the link, however, I also pointed out some of the stuff that would limit a planet's advantage over a ship - and I didn't just say mere Concentrate on One Point stuff either.

To put the argument another way...

The KDY v-150 is a very powerful gun. IIRC, the v-180 (mentioned once in the Corporate Sector Sourcebook) is twice as powerful, and some have estimated the KDY-165 (a TL rather than ion cannon) to be 4 times the power of the v-150. That's good, but did you notice the lack of yet more powerful guns?

If you want mere adequacy, a v-150 is effective against up to and including a Star Destroyer. That should pretty much be good enough for anyone, unless your opponent will come at you with SSDs, in which case merely doubling or quadrupling the power may not do you any good. So there is a market for 'overkill' guns.

Here's what I suspect. The guns simply cannot be made any larger. It is not that the power plant can't feed yet more power (at most, you can decrease the ROF to accumulate more power for a killing shot.) It is the PLANET, a very natural object with very natural (and real) limits, that cannot take any more from a gun firing on top of it.

They might be able to build planet destroying superlasers and armor that can take nuclear detonations at the cost of only some surficial paint (and the 'quantum armor' is supposedly immune to multi gigaton or teraton direct hits,) but a planet's still a planet - a Weak link with the nearly divine levels of power we are flinging about.

Short of actually superlasering a planet, the only thing one could do is use a torpedo sphere against it. Although this does require a couple of hours and by then a defense fleet would make short work of you.

D.Turtle wrote:

GySgt. Hartman wrote:An attacker might be able to use dedicated targeting computers to exploit that small hole in your shields. That would depend on the feasibility of predicting shield openings (nanoseconds might be enough).

I doubt that this is possible, as it takes longer for the attacking ships turbolasers to reach the planet, than they should be opened (They ships have to stay far from the planet in rder to be able to evade the shots from the planet).

That is why I said you need to predict shield openings. You would have to fire the TLs so that they hit the shield when it opens. I don't know if that kind of prediction is possible, though.

Also, if this were the case then you would be able to use this against other ships, as the shields operate on the same principle (planetary and ship).

Yes, but the planet's shield are a lot stronger. Ships' guns can't penetrate them, so they have to wait for holes. When firing on other ships it is easier to just hammer away at them and bring them down with brute force.

Oops, I forgot Interdictors. They would complicate the matter a bit, but consider that the enemy/blockading fleet would have to stay quite far away from the planet (to have enough time to evade shots from the planet). This would make the amount of space to be covered with Interdictors extremely big. In order to then make sure that no supply ships or similar could reach the planet you would also have to spread your fleet around quite a lot. This would make it vulnerable to attack.

You don't blockade a planet with just a hundred ships. And anyone who tries to blockade a planet w/o having absolute space superiority is so incompetent I would space them without a second thought. You always make sure first that the enemy doesn't have a fleet to breach the blockade with.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:Here's what I suspect. The guns simply cannot be made any larger. It is not that the power plant can't feed yet more power (at most, you can decrease the ROF to accumulate more power for a killing shot.) It is the PLANET, a very natural object with very natural (and real) limits, that cannot take any more from a gun firing on top of it.

So what if the weapons or shields can only be made up to a certain strength.

You can fit so many turbolasers, ion cannons, shield generators onto a planet, that this limit wouldn't matter If there is a limit (for whatever reason) it would count for ships too, making sure that they don't have weapons or shields stronger than those on the planet.
Again, the superlaser is (probably) an exception, as (like you said) the recoil of it would be immense, and most probably not absorbable on a planet (though it might work if you put the superlaser on large anti-grav pads, quite difficult to do though IMO).

The shields could be made out of several layeres making them all but invulnerable.

GySgt. Hartman wrote: That is why I said you need to predict shield openings. You would have to fire the TLs so that they hit the shield when it opens. I don't know if that kind of prediction is possible, though.

How do you want to predict as too when the defender's will shoot. You might try it with a constant bombardement and hope for lots of luck. Having several layers of shields would help stop against this. Also, additionally shielding the turbolaser cannons (in addition to the planetary shields) would make this type of attack pretty much useless (IMO).

You don't blockade a planet with just a hundred ships. And anyone who tries to blockade a planet w/o having absolute space superiority is so incompetent I would space them without a second thought.

Just a couple of numbers: Take a sphere. Use a radius of 5 lightseconds). Calculate the surface area of this sphere. ( 7.1E12 km² if I calculated correctly). This would give the ships of the blockading fleet 5 seconds to react to shots coming from the planet (turbolasers are light speed). Since a single hit is fatal or severely damaging to most ships (ion cannons have to get through the shields in order to affaect the target, and a single hit from an ion cannon got through the shields of a Star Destroyer in TESB, so planetary turbolasers also shouldn't have problems getting through shields of Star Destroyer sized ships).
Now, 5 seconds is not a lot in order to react and change course a significant amount in order to evade shots from the planet.
Doing the same thing with a lightminute (1.8E7 km = surface area of 2.4E22 km² - also see how quickly the area that has to be covered gets larger) That is a lot of space (and you have to cover all directions with interdictors and enough ships to destroy anything that comes in).

And anyone who tries to blockade a planet w/o having absolute space superiority is so incompetent I would space them without a second thought. You always make sure first that the enemy doesn't have a fleet to breach the blockade with.

The thing is: What if the defender's fleet isn't at the planet and therefore you can't destroy it. Do you simly retreat again? Thats the advantage of having a mobile fleet as the defnder: Your ships are mobile and can strike when and where they wish, while the blockading fleet is bound to the planet.

It does not have anything to do with being competent or being incompetent. It has something to do with what is possible what isn't possible.

And IMO it isn't possible to defeat a properly defended planet with a fleet of space ships when both sides have the same technology level (only under very specific conditions like planet/star destroying equipment, sabotage, or help from people on the planet).

D.Turtle wrote:(turbolasers are light speed)

Actually, turbolasers are decidedly sublight. Watch Star Destroyers firing sometime.

Rogue 9 wrote:

D.Turtle wrote:(turbolasers are light speed)

Actually, turbolasers are decidedly sublight. Watch Star Destroyers firing sometime.

Not under the new theory

You can ask people like Mad how it works.

D.Turtle wrote:You can fit so many turbolasers, ion cannons, shield generators onto a planet, that this limit wouldn't matter If there is a limit (for whatever reason) it would count for ships too, making sure that they don't have weapons or shields stronger than those on the planet.

You agreed that the superlaser will be a little too much for the planet right below! In the absence of calculations of how much the planet could REALLY withstand (trying to quantify that one should be an interesting trick,) why do you insist only a superlaser would be over that limit?

Ships don't have that firm a limit because they are ... ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES! Structurally, in SW, that could make them much stronger.

Every time a frigging HTL (Acclamator sized) fires, due to the sheer energy produced, the momentum is equivalent to a good sized asteroid impact. Now scale up to the main guns and the planetary defense guns.

You can try to jut guns all over your planet, but most planets that can AFFORD to do so probably have some other use for the space they are burning.

The shields could be made out of several layeres making them all but invulnerable.

Several layers won't help when the shield generators are literally shoved down, tearing them away from their conduits. Or when the dissipation attempts leaves the planet glowing like a SUN for prolonged periods.

Multiple layered planetary shields? Sure the shields won't interfere with each other?

How do you want to predict as too when the defender's will shoot. You might try it with a constant bombardement and hope for lots of luck. Having several layers of shields would help stop against this. Also, additionally shielding the turbolaser cannons (in addition to the planetary shields) would make this type of attack pretty much useless (IMO).

You could predict it (in theory) with DER readings. There ought to be some shift in the energy distributions within the shield before they could open a hole (perhaps first they thin it out, then the hole appears, like the hole in the ozone layer.)

You actually prep the shoot even before the shield opens.

Since a single hit is fatal or severely damaging to most ships (ion cannons have to get through the shields in order to affaect the target, and a single hit from an ion cannon got through the shields of a Star Destroyer in TESB, so planetary turbolasers also shouldn't have problems getting through shields of Star Destroyer sized ships).

Here's an idea that should make it easier - ECM. Use active jamming to reduce effective targetting range of the planet, so they can't lock onto your ships easily. You can also hear that warble as they shift onto the false targets constantly. Countering ECM is always a losing game at longer ranges, for the shipboard ECM system only has to overpower whatever reflects off the hull after a journey under inverse square law.

The thing is: What if the defender's fleet isn't at the planet and therefore you can't destroy it. Do you simly retreat again? Thats the advantage of having a mobile fleet as the defnder: Your ships are mobile and can strike when and where they wish, while the blockading fleet is bound to the planet.

How big of a defender's fleet are you talking about? If your 'defender's fleet' is almost as big as the Assault Fleet, then you are talking a fleet action rather than a planetary defense.

If there's that big a fleet to talk about, you will LOCATE and DESTROY it before getting on to your Planetary Invasion phase. Nobody said planetary invasions are easy.

If you are talking a standard planetary defense (which maxes out at maybe 2 Star Destroyers,) and I'm coming with say a Sector Group, it should be defeatable even if I'm in a seige orbit.

When I'm not blockading, I'm probably making another shield breaking attempt. Which means an 'objective orbit' (in SW parlance.)

I thought the actual bolt was lightspeed but the energy trail was sublight. I am probably wrong, but it could be that I am right.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:Multiple layered planetary shields? Sure the shields won't interfere with each other?

Coruscant has overlapping shields:

"As formidable as all that is, the primary problem in taking Coruscant is the overlapping defense shields."
Wedge's Gamble, p.33

With his mention of the defense shields, two spheres constructed of hexagons appeared to encase the world. One moved in the direction of its orbit, the other moved in the opposite direction.
Wedge's Gamble, p.34

If you are talking a standard planetary defense (which maxes out at maybe 2 Star Destroyers,) and I'm coming with say a Sector Group, it should be defeatable even if I'm in a seige orbit.

I believe Coruscant has more ships, but am unable to provide sources at the moment.