StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Someone just claimed that according to that the globes on ISD's are shield generators.

So... I need to know,
1) Is that bull shit?(not the globe thing, that SW:EGV says that)
2) If not, is SW:EGV offical?
3) IF so what canon info proves that wrong?

anarchistbunny wrote:Someone just claimed that according to that the globes on ISD's are shield generators.

So... I need to know,
1) Is that bull shit?(not the globe thing, that SW:EGV says that)
2) If not, is SW:EGV offical?
3) IF so what canon info proves that wrong?

Unfortunately, yes it does. On page 81, the shcematics of the IMPERIAL STARDESTROYER has the domes labled as "Deflector-Shield Generator Dome" with a line pointing right to the domes.

As far as official, well it doesn't say but Dougy Chiang has a credit on the cover. I don't think its official and there are alot of documented error's in it, so take it with a grain of salt.

Numerous EU sources differ on the accounts, however almost all agree that the EGVV is wrong on this matter. Read Dr. Curtiss Saxton's excellent analysis of this on the SWTC. The X-Wing game actually presents one of the best explanations for the discrepency, which is that they actually were shield generators until the destruction of the Devastator after which all the ships were refitted with internal shield generators. Sensor globes would be the best explanation for what they actually are.

I don't buy into what X-wing says. Why would the Empire build ISDs with easily destroyable external shield generators in the first place, then easily correct it with internal generators only after losing a ship? Why would they do this on one of their most prominent ship classes, if every other ship ever built already had it inside? I think that they ARE shield generators, however you must first punch through the actual shielding before you can get to them. Destroying the generators would only mean the ship can't recharge its shields, since the shields would have to already be down.

yeah i have it. Its a neet book but it has some wacky errors. The VSD and the ISD pics are mixed up for example

"neet"? ugh... neat

i must be very tired

Moonshadow wrote:yeah i have it. Its a neet book but it has some wacky errors. The VSD and the ISD pics are mixed up for example

They're correct in my copy. A friend of mine had the same problem as you, though.

The Essential Guide to Weapons, and Tech, even has an entry for Deflector-Shield Generator Dome. To be honest before I started comming to this site, I thought the Domes were shild generators too. But I never really gave much thought to how dumb it would be to make the generators such an easy target.

It s insane to think of those globes as shield generators. No designer in their right mind would ever place such a critical system in a place where enemy fire could easily target it.

Personally I have always believed that they are sensor arrays used for targeting or long range scanning, seeing as the globes are very similar to modern warship arrays...Ill have to look for an example..

perhaps the whole "shield generator" idea of the globe is just rebel propoganda

Or I could just go with a reliable source
http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html

check out "sensor globes"

Jim Raynor wrote:I don't buy into what X-wing says. Why would the Empire build ISDs with easily destroyable external shield generators in the first place, then easily correct it with internal generators only after losing a ship? Why would they do this on one of their most prominent ship classes, if every other ship ever built already had it inside? I think that they ARE shield generators, however you must first punch through the actual shielding before you can get to them. Destroying the generators would only mean the ship can't recharge its shields, since the shields would have to already be down.

hm in x-wing vs tie
if you play on hard you must schut down the shilds befor you can destroy the shield generators

(only trekies play easy )

I have it. It's a huge source of info, and I think it gets things right 95% of the time.

They're shield generators. It is unimaginable that the designers of the ISD would build external generators on the ship if every previous and current design already had internal generators. That isn't just a design flaw, that's plain retarded. If it were possible to build internal shield generators they would have done it.

The official sources say they're shield generators, and the EGTVV even has external generators on other ship classes as well. Many people oppose this because of the original Mandel blueprints and hatred for stupid fanboys who think Rebel fighters can crush ISDs by popping a pair of fragile generators. However, the Mandel blueprints are outdated and contain several contradictions to canon and official sources, making it a highly suspect as a source of information. Also, I believe an official source (can one of you tell me which one?) already reconciled Mandel and the current official sources by stating that the domes are sensors AND shield generators. The idea that the Empire would never make shield generators so vulnerable is also flawed. External generators are no more vulnerable than anything else on the ship, since canon shows that the shields have to already be down before you can attack the ship itself.

Ok, well then what would be the reason for the Empire placing their shield generators on the outside? Particularly as the shields generated are considered to be a hull hugging type and not a bubble. Why make them so exposed and therefore be a prime target to attack during an outage? Make more sense to have them internal, protected by layers of armor than sitting exposed.

All ship's shield generators are on the outside. The EGTVV shows external generators on Mon Cal Cruisers, Nebulon-B frigates, and I believe a few of the shielded fighters as well.

Seems silly to me Jim, thats all Im saying. Ill have to check my EGtWT when I get home. I seem to remember something about shield relays... So Ill agree to disagree

I have it too, great source of info and filled with starships

i have it too a good source accept when it is wrong on some things other wise good