Possible Improvements to an ISD

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Everybody loves ISDs. This group seems to be made of up people who not only like Star Wars, but many of which like the Empire. Even if they don't like the Empire, and think the personnel they seen so far are morons, they like Imperial _equipment_!

But many think an ISD leaves something to be desired. It is a multirole vessel, and all multirole vessels are compromises which everyone thinks leaves something to be desired.

So, suggest ways you would customize your own ISD (-I or -II is OK) to make its balance fit YOU better.

[Darth Wong]

Replace heavy gun turrets (8 guns per turret IIRC) with 8-beam compound turbolaser turrets (read: superlaser turrets), for greater penetration.

[Crazy_Vasey]

Having the bridge INSIDE the ship and not on the top of a huge tower.

[SirNitram]

Let's see...

Move the bridge tower down inside the actual triangular hull, use viewscreens. Higher energy requirements, less vunerability.

Replace bridge tower with compound turbolaser mount, IE, a fixed forward Superlaser.

Ditto DW's superlaser turrets.

Employ Mon Cal backup shielding technology.

Two words: Fuzzy Dice.

[Mr Bean]

Also built in cloaking Device and adding another squadren of bombers in the hanger

[Howedar]

Some compound turbolaser turrets on the ventral hull.

[Mr. B]

Stronger bridge shields

More point defence weapons (anti-starfighter)

Gravity well projectors, so no rebel scum can escape.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I don't want to splash cold water on anyone. These are all interesting ideas. I just want to point out some possible practicality problems that you might wish to consider before you actually order your engineers to spend billions of your valuable credits making mods on your ISDs (I'm sure every one of you has one)

Wong wants the octuples replaced with little superlaser turrets. I'm not so sure about installing actual disk shape superlasers, because they'll probably be higher, and block each other's forward LOS to a greater extent. Besides, perhaps it can be a software modification. Just coordinate all the eight beams so they come together and produce one big beam. If you want the "split-beam" mode then, you can have that too - an option harder to arrange if you sprung for a dedicated superlaser.

Many want to relocate the place they'll stand in battle elsewhere. You might want to leave a tower for the sensors, though. SD hulls are somewhat bumpy, and perhaps a higher (relative to main hull) angle for them would be advantageous.

SirNitram wants a huge fixed axial superlaser where the bridge tower used to be. Do consider the enormous cost of rerouting your entire power train for such a huge power load.

He wants extra shield generators to act as alternates. OK, just find good places to put them. I have no idea what fuzzy Dice is.

Mr. Bean wants a cloaking device. OK, but the squadron of bombers? Are you planning to reduce your fighter or shuttle strength to free up the room in the hangar, or are you going to enlarge the hangar. Why don't you go for an upgrade to multipurpose TIE Defenders.

Howedar wants turrets on the ventral hull. That would be useful.

Mr.B wants to keep his bridge tower, but to strengthen his shields. OK, we can rework the power net for that. He wants more PD weapons. OK, but better fire control is also important or you'll wind up like the Yamato.

Grav well projectors. Umm, we have Interdictor Star Destroyers. You might want to see where the big spheres go and see whether you really want that LOS reduction for your weapons, or the weakened shields from the power draw.

[phongn]

Clean up the firing arcs, put more heavy weapons on the bottom. Move the bridge to an interior CIC area. Try and fix the sensor-blind spots if possible.

Otherwise I don't have that many suggestions - the basic design is sound.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Is this a "modify your ISD" thread, or a "modify your ISD and I say it's impossible to do" thread? If I had to modify the ISD, I'd make it an SSD. LOL Ok, I'd add 8 heavy turbolaser batteries and 10 light turbolaser batteries on the bottom of the hull, surrounding, thus protecting, the solar ionization reactor. I'd replace all TIEs with TIE Defenders, besides the TIE Bombers. I would develop more powerful engines, shields using the Mon Calamari principle of being able to quickly be replaced during battle, and a new solar ionization reactor so that that it triples its power output. I would add a second, smaller solar ionization reactor on the bottom of the bow. I'd add concussion missle launchers all along the tower to protect the shield generators from starfighter attack. Should the primary solar ionization reactor go critical, it would be jettisoned, and the smaller secondary solar ionization reactor would be turned on to supply enough power to maintain shields and to make hyperspace jumps. I would remove the command deck and put a command room somewhere inside the armored hull itself. The command room would have holographic interfaces, like what Thrawn had. Here's the big one: I would modify the hangar bays. I would add open sides to them to allow fighters to exit the ship more easily and quickly.

[Mr Bean]

IRG Shields are not in the towers, the are arrys on the surface of the SD

Those are sensors up there

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Oh, I knew this was coming.

I didn't mean that at all. I looked at all of the suggestions, and in truth, they were all possible (as far as we know, anyway) and interesting.

Just that they entail tradeoffs. If I were the Engineer doing their mod work, therefore, I'll have reminded them of that, and let them see whether they still want it. If they do, I'll gladly take their creds and modify it. I just don't want them coming back and telling me to revert to the old configuration because they realized that something else (that they lost when they opt to modify) was more important to them after all.

I believe that it is the duty of every good and conscientious engineer to advise his clients on what they're getting into, rather than just greedily taking their creds without thought to their future happiness.

Now, I'll see your mods. They are POSSIBLE. They'll cost you a pretty penny, and I can see some tradeoffs that you may or may not want to take, but do you want to hear them?

[Doomriser]

A tactical-scale "galaxy gun" type launcher might be nice.
And a minelayer in the aft section that drops swarms of seismic charges.
No more fucking "go in behind and shoot a torpedo up the engine" strategies from the Trekkies then!

Some suprise blisters that explode into hundreds of thermal detonators like NR ships have would be advisable as well, same for a slug-firing CIWS. A massively scaled-up lightsaber on the bow would be nice for ramming...

[IRG CommandoJoe]

What trade-offs are there? With a new upgraded solar ionization reactor that produces triple the amount of power, I don't think extra HTLs, LTLs, concussion missile launchers, shields, and engines would suck up all of the power. Or just upgrading to one that produces sufficient power for all of the other upgrades. The extra smaller solar ionization reactor on the bow also sort of plays a tactical role in luring starfighters into those LTLs in the front. But go ahead, I guess it's better hearing what your ideas of trade-offs are rather than ignoring them.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Oh yes, the fact that the two globes on top of the ISD tower aren't generators. I assume they are generators because they wouldn't show the globe blowing up right before he said shields failed. Why the hell would GL do that? That would be like saying the Trade Federation battleship wasn't really controlling the droids, that the droids falling down was due to their batteries running out. Despite the fact the ship blew up, and then you see the droids fall down. I've heard the arguments that they are sensor globes. But I think it makes more sense that they were shield generators. Either way, whether they are sensor globes or shield generators, they are pretty vulnerable to starfigher attack, so the concussion missile launchers protect them.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I'd probably change it from a multi-purpose combat and patrol vessel to a fleet destroyer. Remove the hangar bays altogether, because fleet carriers can take over for that purpose. Use the increased space to enlarge the reactor. Then I'd greatly increase the number of light and medium gun mounts, and add a few more heavy emplacements. If possible, I'd move the bridge to a safer position inside the hull. With whatever power I had left over I'd up the shields.

Essentially I'd make it the basic damage dealer and reciever for fleets.

[MagicHateBall]

Sticking with equipment that is currently on the ISD, I would:
- Move the bridge to a better-armored position deep inside the ship, but I'd leave the tower still in place as to not tip off my enemies as to the lack of a weak spot
- Move two of the heavy turrets to positions behind and to the sides of the main docking bay, and scatter some of the lighter turrets along the underside of the ship
- Fix the sensor blind spot behind the bridge tower
While these would not boost the overall firepower of the ship, it would, I think, boost effectiveness somewhat, especially in engaging multiple targets coming from different directions.

[Crown]

This is kinda superficial, okay it is very superficial, but I would love to see a ISD to have a 'slicing' beam aka Shadow Battle crabs. I mean tell me it isn't cool to see enemy ships being sliced in half!

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Increase the efficency of the hangarsd so more ships can be stored, add small sensor dishes to cover blind spots, and make a backup ridge that can quickly (a few seconds) be taken control of after the main bridge is destroyed.

Cut the necessary number of crew members, and have some ISDs modifie with some rapid-fabrication factory for construction of more bases, and stuff like that.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Personally, I think that the whole shield dome thingee is an official brain bug, but I digress...

To everyone else, I don't mean to be that much of a party pooper, but these concerns are potentially real.

Generally, the main problem is that by the time we incorporate all your modifications, we are not modifying an ISD, we're building a new ship.

The original SFS-4 plant is a military design. As such, it is probably a state-of-the-art system itself for a particular set of tradeoffs (power versus consumption and reactor life within a reasonable cost are just some of the tradeoffs). I'm on the side of relative technological stasis in SW. That means that if you want THREE times the power for about the same size reactor, you have to give something up for it. Certainly your fuel consumption goes up, and that means either extra room for fuel (decreasing all the space left) or a sharply decreased time between refuelling. Your reactor will be forced to run far closer to the safety limit given by the materials limitations. That sharply increases maintenance requirements, reduces the time between overhaul, and all. And please don't ask me what happens if there's a mishap. You may just have turned your ship into an Alfa-class hotrod.

You will notice that New Republic ships often manage to match ISDs even with a much smaller hull. If we assume it isn't major tech advancement, the only thing left is that they paid for it. With what? With their consumable life. Notice how they only have perhaps 2 years or so (the DSD runs for FIVE MONTHS) rather than the 6 of ISDs. I suspect it really isn't all only the reduced space (which is compensated for by less personnel and equipment), it is also because they run closer to the edge, reducing the time they can safely go out before the reactor needs to be looked at.

You casually say that you want more powerful engines. First I have to check whether the engine cones can take the extra thrust. Even if they do, for the same engine cone, you either pay a lot more for new materials (assuming they exist) or pay with decreased burn time before the cone is too badly damaged to continue safely. After that, I have to check whether the magnetic baffles can compensate and continue to thrust-vector the thrust. If not, you'll pay for it in maneuverability. After all of that, I have to check whether the hull would like the new strain from your brand new super engines. If not, you'll pay extra (in money and in other things) while I shore up the weak spots so your frame doesn't crack from you running your new engines at flank.

You're doing the equivalent of hot-rodding your engine. Generally, the effects of safety, longevity and other such values are decreased as a price. Are you sure, dear Commando, taht you can PAY for the increased maintenance?

Your extra weapons are pretty easy to arrange. In fact, supposedly the ISD reactor has a reserve of power in most situations already, so you may even get the extra weapons without the new reactor!

The planes, jeez, that's a loadout. Go ask SFS to give you. I suggest investigating the feasibility of using shielded Assault Gunboats to replace unshielded TIE Bombers

Your secondary reactor. I have to put it somewhere. You want it put in the front. You are aware that as you go further front, there is less room. The reactor MIGHT draw fighters towards it, but one thing is for certain - Your turn maneuverability will go down like a ship that ships a couple thousand tons of water in its bow due to the extra mass. Your balance and trim might also be negativity affected.

Your new hangar doors are going to increase the fighter rate, but you trade it off with lessened structural integrity. Every opening in the hull is a weakness.

Finally, your shield/sensor tower concussion missiles. Umm, OK, but there's a lot of circuitry there already, so I'm not sure there will be room. You might also consider that the missiles firing off might produce shock and blast, right next to valuable and delicate equipment. Do you want to run the risk of you protecting your valuable domes, only to have someone say they had put themselves into Reset from all the defensive rockets firing off?

May I suggest the possibility that a new, custom-built ship may be cheaper? Ask Kuat Drive Yards what their price for making this custom built destroyer for you. If there is a reasonable profit, sell your old destroyer second hand. With these refits, starting from scratch may very well not only be cheaper, but using factory-built parts might save a lot of reliability headache.

[Mr Bean]

Oh yes, the fact that the two globes on top of the ISD tower aren't generators. I assume they are generators because they wouldn't show the globe blowing up right before he said shields failed. Why the hell would GL do that? That would be like saying the Trade Federation battleship wasn't really controlling the droids, that the droids falling down was due to their batteries running out. Despite the fact the ship blew up, and then you see the droids fall down. I've heard the arguments that they are sensor globes. But I think it makes more sense that they were shield generators. Either way, whether they are sensor globes or shield generators, they are pretty vulnerable to starfigher attack, so the concussion missile launchers protect them.

Your assuming if A happened B resulted
The point is HOW could the shield Generators be attacked if the SHIELDS WHERE UP
Those are Sensor Globes, ICS states this, it was changed for the X-wing games to offer the Ships an acutal chane to kill the ISD

On the SSD on the other hand they are exposed apparently and you can nock out the shields that way but the ISD those are Sensors not shields

Thus the cannon states, thus the cannon shows
The globe expolsiuion was to illstrate the Shields WHERE down not that they had just fallen

Also the acutal shields are emmiters on the surface of the ISD you can kill the shields by killing them or the links that bring them power

[SirNitram]

As to the question, 'Am I Sure I Want To Send That Much Power Up', the answer is yes.

A spinal superlaser mount will be dangerous, and cut into usable volume.. This proposed ISD is in serious danger of not having enough space as-in, and will probably need to ditch most of it's army contingent. This pop-up one means that, while it is exposed, a concentrated attack to disable it does not cripple the rest of the ship.

The power-draw is a major problem, but if nothing else we can cut the service life. These would not be ISD's in the main sense, but a HWP to join them for cracking hard targets.

I might even sacrifice some of it's fighter loadout for more reactor space, since this is a ship designed to have heavy support at all times.

[Master of Ossus]

I would move the hangar to a more guarded position either along the top of the ISD or to the very bow of the ship so that fighters could launch forward.

[MKSheppard]

Double the armor, add more HTLs, LTLs, and turn it into a cruiser.

[RayCav of ASVS]

www.daltonator.com/fuq

go to starship galleries and read about the Imperial Star Destroyer Demeter (my baby!)