So, got the ROTS ICS, hope this hasnt been posted already.

[white_rabbit]

Um, Yea, so, eh, rying to steal things BACK toward the subject of the ICS book? Has anyone done calculations on the Merchant Clan Frigates main guns? It was reported those two HeavyTurbo Lasers are FAR More massive then any seen on a starship yet. How do they compare to the Heavy TL on an ISD I or II?

IIRC they have a potentially quantifiable bit of info concerning them. something about "blast melting" a 1000km diameter ice moon"

[Jim Raynor]

The energy released by those BFGs on the Banking Clan Frigate was calculated in this thread using the asteroid destruction calculator on Wong's site. Assuming that it could melt the 1,000 km-wide ice asteroid in one shot, the energy released by the turbolaser is 6.62 * 10^7 gigatons. Those are really, really powerful cannons (the ICS even says they can pierce the shields of a 10 km-wide battlestation), but it was found that they take a long time to charge up, based on the energy output of the Frigate.

[Crossroads Inc.]

(the ICS even says they can pierce the shields of a 10 km-wide battlestation), but it was found that they take a long time to charge up, based on the energy output of the Frigate.

Hrmmm Curious how useful they would be in a long range pelting of Heavy Starships, Imagine how useful they would be mounting some on an old Victory-SD.

Thanks for the power Calcs by the way.

[Tribun]

Frankly, Tribun has the air of a major me-tooing kiss-ass suck up in regards to the versus debates.

This is not the place for attacks on my person.

[white_rabbit]

Frankly, Tribun has the air of a major me-tooing kiss-ass suck up in regards to the versus debates.

This is not the place for attacks on my person.

Clearly you don't read too well then, because frankly, the place is about attacking persons. in addition to everything else.

[18-Till-I-Die]

The energy released by those BFGs on the Banking Clan Frigate was calculated in this thread using the asteroid destruction calculator on Wong's site. Assuming that it could melt the 1,000 km-wide ice asteroid in one shot, the energy released by the turbolaser is 6.62 * 10^7 gigatons. Those are really, really powerful cannons (the ICS even says they can pierce the shields of a 10 km-wide battlestation), but it was found that they take a long time to charge up, based on the energy output of the Frigate.

How many like gigatons or teratons is that, in like numbers? Like 20gt or 4000gt or what? I'm sorry but i cant read that stuff with the *s and ^ and stuff and i dont know what it means, embarassingly.

[Jim Raynor]

* is just a multiplication sign, and ^ indicates an exponent. So that means you just take the 6.62, and move the decimal point 7 spaces to the right. That's 66,200,000 gigatons, or 66,200 teratons.

[18-Till-I-Die]

* is just a multiplication sign, and ^ indicates an exponent. So that means you just take the 6.62, and move the decimal point 7 spaces to the right. That's 66,200,000 gigatons, or 66,200 teratons.

Many thanks, my math limitations are sometimes an irksome flaw.

Wow. 66,000 teratons....thats incredible, even for Star Wars weaponry. I almost fucking fell out of my chair.

Is this number cannon or...

Cuase if thats cannon...wow. I mean, if the ST vs SW debate wasnt sealed up long ago, that right there fucking seals this shit, you know. Some Trekkie is reading that number somewhere and having heart trouble.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Plus it would really really change your thinking about using these guns... Imagine having a few on a Battle Station to snipe at Warships from way, WAY far away... Or maybe strap one to a Starship.

Ever since I saw these and thier power calcs, I have been thinking of incorporating two into the sides of an old Victory-SD. One on each side would turn that old ship into something that could holds its own... As long as it stayed far away from heavy battle, would make excellent 'artillery' for space battles.

[apocolypse]

* is just a multiplication sign, and ^ indicates an exponent. So that means you just take the 6.62, and move the decimal point 7 spaces to the right. That's 66,200,000 gigatons, or 66,200 teratons.

Holy fucking shit....I hadn't actually gotten around to calcing it out, or even finish reading it all yet. Thanks for the info.

[White Haven]

Remember, that's a high-end estimate, based on the assumption that the 'roid was vaporized in one shot from a single cannon. Call me crazy, but I'm dubious about the existence of a single weapon that has 66.2 petatons of firepower...quite a good deal ABOVE the ISD broadside scalings. I hope we get to see some more information, to nail the number down more firmly.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I believe it was estimated to take 20 minutes to recharge after a shot like that. Perhaps it's there mainly as a do-or-die alpha strike?

[White Haven]

But that's a reactor limitation, not a weapon one. That begs the question of why that flavor of weapon is never seen on larger warships... (to my knowledge)

[NecronLord]

But that's a reactor limitation, not a weapon one. That begs the question of why that flavor of weapon is never seen on larger warships... (to my knowledge)

Eclipse Superlaser?

[White Haven]

...point. Actually, going by the name and such, that's an odd loadout for a merchant-run warship. I'd expect something more suited to dealing with raider swarms and such, not something designed to punch neat little holes in dreadnoughts.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way, maybe it's not as massive as we think. Maybe, just for 'looks' and to frighten others, they just built a really REALLY BIG TurboLaser. maybe its no more then a few times more powerful then a normal one, but looks really really evil... It could have been far to difficult to use, like those 'Rail Guns' from WW-II which where several times bigger then the guns on a Battleship, but too unwieldy. It would make good sense why we never see them elsewhere.

[18-Till-I-Die]

Or maybe we have. Werent those 'bulges' on the Executor presumed to be weapons of a sort. Maybe they're related. This could be an important part of the armament of latter-Empire big ships like the Eclipse, Executors and Death Stars. Using that logic, maybe even some Rebel vessels and moncal cruisers, and probably heavy fortifications too.

The Merchant Guild retrofitted it to a much smaller ship, with the obvious reactor limitations. But on a Deathstar tower or the Executor with no such reactor limitation...see where i'm going? Maybe it's the equivilent of a 16in gun on a battleship, and the Merchant ship is the equivilent of a monitor. And fortresses and planetary guns would have them too, like old coastal batteries.

Honestly, while it's a big number, it's not that hard to rationalize. An ISD is a small ship compared to a star battleship like the Executor, so maybe it's broadside is, indeed, not very impressive in the big picture.

[nightmare]

I would call that ship type a monitor, not a frigate. Anyway, I think it's pretty clear why these large guns aren't all that useful as weapons of war. Very long recharge time, and if you miss, it's like missing with a whole lot of several broadsides. On a regular warship like an ISD it would be a serious power drain. I think it comes down to what size is practical for a given job. Larger guns have longer refire rates, smaller ones have higher rates.

Hitting with a single large gun should work better than multiple smaller ones with the same power output. But having several gives you redundancy, and it's not as likely that they will all miss.

[Crossroads Inc.]

All I know is the more I think about it, the less practical those big guns seem, and the less powerful I think they are.

[White Haven]

Now for, say, antifortification work....such an element to a fleet would be obscenely potent. And that's not even mentioning what a small group could do to a planetary shield at ten light-minute range...

[apocolypse]

Maybe we are looking at this in the wrong way, maybe it's not as massive as we think. Maybe, just for 'looks' and to frighten others, they just built a really REALLY BIG TurboLaser. maybe its no more then a few times more powerful then a normal one, but looks really really evil... It could have been far to difficult to use, like those 'Rail Guns' from WW-II which where several times bigger then the guns on a Battleship, but too unwieldy. It would make good sense why we never see them elsewhere.

It would be rather daft to build gun that are many times larger than standard, just so they can fire a slightly higher than normal round. This would be where the "variable yields" bit factors in IMO. If you build uber-big guns, then you better have the firepower to back it up, otherwise there's no point to it.

[Sriad]

Aw, every time white rabbit is called on his bullshit, he defends it by "taking the pisss guv'nah!" Why don't you EVER stand by your fucking statements, asshole? Motherfucking coward...

I don't recall EVER even talking to you dickhead, sorry, you aren't that notable for me.

Were the FUCK, have you gotten this impression from...wait, no, I don't give a flying fuck where you've gotten the idea I'm a trekkie and always post statements that are deliberately engineered so I can claim they are jokes.

did another loudmouth arsehole like yourself mumble it while they were sucking the cock protruding from your forehead, or is it a prepackaged retort, ribbed with crap for the extra pleasure of some tosser sychophant to lick it off ?

I may easily have missed something, but why is this person not a VI?

[Connor MacLeod]

Isn't this only around 10.5 GT? That's awfully low.

We don't know the rate of fire of the ship in question. And in general the idea seems to be to note that Separatist vessels aren't really (dedicated) Warships like their Republic conetmporaries.. for vessels of a comparable size, a "Separatist" warship is going to have less firepower than a Republic one.

Ms is "surface wave magnitude" according to the site. I'm pretty sure Saxton meant ML, or Richter scale magnitude.

*snip info*

This looks repudable and more specifically, it describes energy compared to Richeter magnitude, which is almost certainly what Saxton meant. And 1 teraton (1000 gigatons) seems to make more sense. Five times the Acclamator gun max output would be commiserate with your Venator gun estimates as well.

*Shrugs* It works that way too I suppose. I'm not going to comment on what Curtis' intent was, but I don't see any reason why he would disagree with that interpretation. (not that its *that* problematical either way, given the absencec of Rate of Fire. Even at 1 TT per barrel per "bolt", you're talking only about some 2e23 watts of sustained firepower.. the IH would not likely be able to scratch the shields of a Venator unless you at least quadrupled the above ROF. On the other hand, one could argue thats why the IH has so many protorp/projectile launchers, or why the separatists might be using "particle" weapons.)

Anyhow, I suppose if you wanted to look at it that way, the *actual* firepower of the ships would probably be along the lines of how its derived for the Venator (or others.) That is, if the Separatist vessels are dedicated warships (which is open to debate.)

[Firefox]

Has any estimate been made yet on the volume/density of the fuel used on the capships? I'm still wondering how long a Venator could function at full reactor output (40K tons/second).

Also, could this have implications for the mass of smaller ships, from light transports to starfighters?

[Jim Raynor]

This information has been posted already, but I haven't seen anyone discussing it yet. According to the Venator's Data File in the ICS, it's starfighter complement is "192 V-wing fighters; 192 Eta-2 Actis Interceptors; 36 ARC-170 fighters." The logical assumption is that the Data File is giving the typical complement for the ship.

However, everything I've read about the Eta-2 suggests that it's specifically designed for use by the Jedi. The ICS even goes so far as to say:

(Emphasis mine:)
Their spacecraft's compact design is suited to the Force-assisted tactical abilities of Jedi pilots-heavy flight instruments, sensors, and shields are unnecessary. Over the last three years, the distinctive Interceptor profile has become a symbol of authority and hope for the Republics's clone forces, and a frustrating appartiion to the Separatists.

This suggests that the Eta-2 isn't a common ship.

The ICS also states that the "modest capacitors" for the Eta-2's laser cannons "limit continuous fire-though this is not usually a handicap for Jedi pilots, who rarely waste a shot."

All of this suggests that the designers of the Eta-2 sacrificed many standard and necessary systems so that they could make the smallest possible fighter, expecting the Jedi's Force abilities to make up for all of the ship's weaknesses. It certainly doesn't sound like a ship that would be given to a normal pilot. The Eta-2's descriptions seemingly contradict the Data File's stated complement. 192 Jedi pilots on a single standard warship is also a bit hard to swallow, when there's only about 10,000 of them in the entire galaxy.

Don't get me wrong, I love the huge fighter complement of the Venator. All of the Venator's features dedicated towards its carrier role wouldn't make sense if it didn't carry a huge amount of fighters, and I'm sick of the minimalistic fighter complements that seem to be based on current day ~300 meter-long aircraft carriers. However, all of these facts about the Eta-2 just don't fit together. I've talked to some minimalist-minded fans, and they've already brought up the above mentioned arguments. Some of them believe that Saxton really intended to say 192 V-wings OR 192 Eta-2s.

Of course the Data File is set in stone canon unless their is definate proof that it's wrong. However, I'm starting to wonder whether the minimalists are right on this issue, and if there was a typo or editing error in the Data File. What do you guys think? Can anyone find out what Saxton truly meant to say? I would love it if there was some quote out there about how non-Jedi pilots can also fly this thing.