StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I am new here and was wondering is there a listing of ships, with their weapons, armor, shields, engines? Is there also a list that breaks down weapons into damage and distance?

seeker of enlightenment wrote:I am new here and was wondering is there a listing of ships, with their weapons, armor, shields, engines? Is there also a list that breaks down weapons into damage and distance?

Well, the Star Wars Technical Commentarieshas a great deal of information regarding the classifications, types, and dimensions of warships, although weapons specs are a bit harder to come by for ships not listed in the AOTC Incredible Cross Sections.

Yes I have been there, but not really finding what I am looking for there. It's kind of strange... In the world of star trek they attempted to give a break down of ships, and weapons. But its really tough to find that kind of information in the Star Wars universe.

Because it doesn't matter. Who cares what make and model of HTL a ship has? Such accurate information - ST style 'lolz 44,500GW phasers' nonsense - would be made-up bullshit anyway. If you want EU-soaked information that's probably baseless, try wookiepedia.

Stark wrote:Because it doesn't matter. Who cares what make and model of HTL a ship has? Such accurate information - ST style 'lolz 44,500GW phasers' nonsense - would be made-up bullshit anyway. If you want EU-soaked information that's probably baseless, try wookiepedia.

not exactly what I am looking for.. I mean like more general... like Tubolasers do 150 pts damage at 100,000 meters, and 100pts damage at 200,000 meters... and 5 pts damage at 1 light year... I just made all that up... but something like that.

It doesn't work like that. Turbolasers can be effective at ten light-minutes. I'm not sure if there's any concrete data on attenuation, to be honest. Total range is so long as to be irrelevant, basically. They'll get out of the way long before the blast itself dissipates.

yeah, I understand that... getting out of the way thing. But there doesn't really seem to be any info other than speculating what it looks like on film, and extrapolating a scientific answer from the result from what it looks like.

We alsop don't use a 'points' system for turbolaser firepower, unless you're simply asking about attenuation range and using 'points' to stand in for real units like joules or kilo/mega/giga/teratons.

What question? These weapons show no attenuation effects at any observed range. The lateral 'glow' is pretty low-energy compared to the hundreds of gigatons of energy in the bolt itself... so where would the energy go? Particularly at concievable combat ranges out to about 20,000km.

Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:We alsop don't use a 'points' system for turbolaser firepower, unless you're simply asking about attenuation range and using 'points' to stand in for real units like joules or kilo/mega/giga/teratons.

Right, I was just using that as a frame of referance to what I am kind of looking for.

But then even something that states that at regular, concevable battle ranges... a turbolaser does 20,000 gigawatts of damage... i would be happy with that as an axiom

The mid-size weapons on an Acclamator troop-transport fire 200GT blasts. The light anti-fighter weapons are high-kT low-MT, and the enormous weapons on ISDs and Venators are probably low TT. There you go - absurdly powerful weapons all over.

Stark wrote:The mid-size weapons on an Acclamator troop-transport fire 200GT blasts. The light anti-fighter weapons are high-kT low-MT, and the enormous weapons on ISDs and Venators are probably low TT. There you go - absurdly powerful weapons all over.

That's really pretty simple.... it actually sounds too easy. So if I understand you then... a Heavy turbolaser for example would be in the high-kT or low MT range.

Sorry... they would be in the TT (terrawatt) range

Did you even read what he said? A light point-defense gun is in the kiloton-megaton range.

If it was Tera Watt...he would've used TW.

TT is for Teratons.

No, a heavy turbolaser - the main armament of ISDs, on either side of the command tower - with barrels more than 30m long and big enough to live inside, deliver low-teraton energy per shot. Light anti-fighter turbos, like the surface guns on the Death Star, deliver high-kt, low MT per shot. Fighter cannon are low-kt themselves, like Slave-1s waist guns.

Remember, these ships can deliver all their powerplant output through their guns. We're talking 10e24W here. They'll run out of fuel in short order, but their weapons are ABSURDLY powerful.

And an ISD's weapons being low-TT is probably conservative. Given the firepower evidenced in the SWU and the size difference between the Accie MTLs and an ISDs HTLs low-PT firepower per broadside is entirely possible.

Sorry, I'll change units.

HTLs, assuming 1TT, deliver 4x10e21W per shot.

ok, Sorry about the TW, TT misquote.

Weren't the Munificent's main guns calculated to 66,200 teratons? The ISD's cannons won't be as powerful, but yes, low teraton is probably conservative.

Yes, and I just realised working backwards from 64 guns/2second cycle into 10x24W gives middling teratons for sustained fire. Ah well, I'll call it being conservative.

So what determines the damage? If the damage doesn't change over distance. Then shooting a fighter or capital ship at the end of the barrel and at 20,000 km would be the same? or different?

As far as I know it'd be very similar. If lateral bleed is the only loss, then it'd take ages to run down a gigaton blast - but again, at such long flight times it's not very useful in combat. Perfect for striking planetary target from outside a system, though.

cool that actually answers a lot of my questions... I have one more though Stark could you break down your 4x10e21W formula for me. Remember I come from only understanding Trek #. I want to understand Star Wars #'s.