Dissilusioned with the ICS (Or: The good old days)

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-03 08:37pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Even without ICS multi gigaton, up to 70 in one case Turbolaser calculation existed along with teraton shielding. Still one-shot killers, and it was still possibul, if quite difficult for one ISD to defeat the Federation.

ICS really just made what we already knew offical.
No, ICS makes it more then absurd. Prior to ICS a small task force of ST ships could theoretically take on an ISD. I saw some at ASVS saying that a dozen GCSs could take on an ISD with realistic chance of victory. Suddenly with ICS and now a THOUSAND Borg cubes are considered a minor nuicance. A single ISD can suddenly destroy the entire Federation.

Don't even try to say ICS confirmed what you already knew. I never saw a single rational debater ever claim anything higher then 2 GT. ICS completely changed the game and its affects are much more far reaching then your "it confirmed what we already knew" claim your making.
Really, do explain the 22 gigaton HTL's Wong's had on his site for years then. Higher then 2-gigaton calculation got used constantly on ASVS; many just didn't bother because there was no need.

So your admiting that people were choosing firepower based solely on allowing it to defeat Trek. Not exactly an unbiassed way to come up with figures.

starfury · Post by **starfury** » 2002-12-03 08:59pm

what about the constant use of low-end estimate for SW vs the high-end estimate for ST, I think the ICS just made the SW low-end much higher, or at least confirmed suspusions of a much higher end.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-12-03 09:03pm

I fully admit that prior to ICS I would have put HTLs at 37 GT high end. I also have issues with a few assumptions people are making, such as that the HTLs on an ISD would be the same power as those on, say a Carrack.

However, I think that when you really examine it, ICS is not as sturdy as it seems. Once I get some hard data, I may have found enough info to write something on how to kill ISDs easily (relatively speaking).

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2002-12-03 09:19pm

Firepower calcs for SW in the low gigaton range (1 or 2 digits) were made to be absurdly conservative, assuming that only the top 1 meter of a planet's crust is melted in a BDZ. This is not enough to destroy all of a planet's resources, nor is it enough to destroy deep underground survival shelters. When Saxton was chosen to write a book that would be accepted as official, his job was to portray SW as it should be, not in a way that is ridiculously powered down. I see nothing wrong with the increased firepower from the ICS.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-12-03 11:01pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Even without ICS multi gigaton, up to 70 in one case Turbolaser calculation existed along with teraton shielding. Still one-shot killers, and it was still possibul, if quite difficult for one ISD to defeat the Federation.

ICS really just made what we already knew offical.

Star Destroyers Rampant was ahead of its time. Kaz {of ASVS} must be very pleased

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-03 11:02pm

Alyeska wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
Alyeska wrote: No, ICS makes it more then absurd. Prior to ICS a small task force of ST ships could theoretically take on an ISD. I saw some at ASVS saying that a dozen GCSs could take on an ISD with realistic chance of victory. Suddenly with ICS and now a THOUSAND Borg cubes are considered a minor nuicance. A single ISD can suddenly destroy the entire Federation.

Don't even try to say ICS confirmed what you already knew. I never saw a single rational debater ever claim anything higher then 2 GT. ICS completely changed the game and its affects are much more far reaching then your "it confirmed what we already knew" claim your making.
Really, do explain the 22 gigaton HTL's Wong's had on his site for years then. Higher then 2-gigaton calculation got used constantly on ASVS; many just didn't bother because there was no need.
So your admiting that people were choosing firepower based solely on allowing it to defeat Trek. Not exactly an unbiassed way to come up with figures.

So you're saying the 22 GT HTL calcs are "irrational" and biased because they are on Mike's Empire site, and that negates their validity at all?

What next, the fact Mike got mentioned in the ICS makes it "biased" against ST and other universes? Or maybe you'd like to drag up Capt Larraq's old Saxton "quote?"

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2002-12-03 11:22pm

To be honest, as far as I see all ICS did was provide upper-limit firepower. I can't think of an instant offhand when SW weaponry was insufficient to destroy an unshielded target, so we never really had said upper limits.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-03 11:50pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Really, do explain the 22 gigaton HTL's Wong's had on his site for years then. Higher then 2-gigaton calculation got used constantly on ASVS; many just didn't bother because there was no need.
So your admiting that people were choosing firepower based solely on allowing it to defeat Trek. Not exactly an unbiassed way to come up with figures.
So you're saying the 22 GT HTL calcs are "irrational" and biased because they are on Mike's Empire site, and that negates their validity at all?

What next, the fact Mike got mentioned in the ICS makes it "biased" against ST and other universes? Or maybe you'd like to drag up Capt Larraq's old Saxton "quote?"

I never said his calcs were irrational. You stated that people only used 2 GT because thats all they needed. What do they need only 2 GT for at ASVS? Is it possible thats all they needed in order to defeat Trek? Your statement indicates that people weren't in search of the truth as so many claim, but just using calculations with the sole intent of beating the other side. Reminds me of one person at ASVS who stated ASVS was in search of the Truth. Then he stated that SW was superior to ST regardless of what the calculations were and that you must interpret the caclulations to mean only one thing. It seems people weren't really in search of the truth. They merely wanted to bend reality around what they believed in instead.

ICS changed things to an extent. While shooting the firepower figures through the roof, it also set things in stone onfirepower (for the most part) and prevented them from pulling figures out of their ass with the intent on beating Trek.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-04 12:19am

Alyeska wrote: I never said his calcs were irrational.

Yes you did. You said:

"Don't even try to say ICS confirmed what you already knew. I never saw a single rational debater ever claim anything higher then 2 GT."

I don't recall the "22 GT HTL" remark being a recent site addition either, so you're either claiming ignorance about Mike's TL figures or you're inferring he is NOT a rational debator.

You stated that people only used 2 GT because thats all they needed.
What do they need only 2 GT for at ASVS? Is it possible thats all they needed in order to defeat Trek?

You're confusing me with someone else. Sea Skimmer, I believe, said that.

Your statement indicates that people weren't in search of the truth as so many claim, but just using calculations with the sole intent of beating the other side. Reminds me of one person at ASVS who stated ASVS was in search of the Truth. Then he stated that SW was superior to ST regardless of what the calculations were and that you must interpret the caclulations to mean only one thing. It seems people weren't really in search of the truth. They merely wanted to bend reality around what they believed in instead.

And you're dodging the issue. You're arguing that "bias" makes any high end figure unreliable (which included both Mike's estimates as well as any ASVS ones.) and that when it appears someone has an "Agenda" their calculations should be tossed out wholesale, regardless of whether or not despite the bias they did an accurate job.

In other words, you're assuming bias automatically means someone is deceiving and manipulating data to suit their own ends. Which INCLUDES Mike Wong AND Curtis Saxton and several others, for that matter.

ICS changed things to an extent. While shooting the firepower figures through the roof, it also set things in stone onfirepower (for the most part) and prevented them from pulling figures out of their ass with the intent on beating Trek.

Actually, it set the firepower for light-medium guns (the Acclamator's turrets are still VASTLY smaller than the heavy turrets on the ISD.) Its just commonly assumed the 200 GT applies to the heavy guns

The fact is that for the most part, the ICS figures not only validated the majority of firepower figures being tossed around, they in fact were orders of magnitude GREATER than what most calcs estimated.

It sets a "roof" to certain extents (as I said with the medium guns and fighter weapons mostly where firepower is related), but this nowhere means that "All TL are 200 GT and no higher."

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2002-12-04 01:29am

Alyeska wrote:No, ICS makes it more then absurd. Prior to ICS a small task force of ST ships could theoretically take on an ISD. I saw some at ASVS saying that a dozen GCSs could take on an ISD with realistic chance of victory. Suddenly with ICS and now a THOUSAND Borg cubes are considered a minor nuicance. A single ISD can suddenly destroy the entire Federation.

Well, I started writing my fanfic before the ICS came out, so it's "grandfathered" and more equalized

Andras · Post by **Andras** » 2002-12-04 11:33am

This was my estimate pre-ICS for an ISD
Weapon System Specifications ( 1e18= 1 million teraX)
6 Twin HTL=5,000Mt/sec 3.0 sec refire rate= 15,000Mt/salvo ea(62.85e18J)
2 Quad HTL=3,200Mt/sec 3.0 sec refire rate= 9,600Mt/salvo ea(40.22e18J)
3 Triple MTL=1,200Mt/sec 2.0 sec refire rate= 2,400Mt/salvo ea(10.10e18J)
2 Single MTL=400Mt/sec 2.0 sec refire rate= 800Mt/shot ea (3.36e18J)
120 Single LTL=100Mt/sec 1.5 sec refire rate=150Mt/shot ea (0.63e18J)
peak broadside= 71,600Mt/salvo (300.00e18J)
time-avg broadside= 28,200Mt/sec (118.16e18W)

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-04 12:56pm

I believe Alyeska is confusing the common pre-ICS practice of using over-conservative and therefore more easily defended figures with an actual pre-ICS belief that the figures really were that low.

A lot of Trekkies are loathe to recognize how consistently conservative we have been in such matters; there is a broad tendency to assume that both sides are acting similarly, when this just isn't the case.

And all the furor over the ICS obscures revelations from AOTC the movie, where we saw the firepower of Slave-1 which put a lot of those old Trekkie claims about weak ISD firepower to rest (unless one chooses to believe that Slave-1 can take out an ISD).

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2002-12-04 02:43pm

Darth Wong wrote:I believe Alyeska is confusing the common pre-ICS practice of using over-conservative and therefore more easily defended figures with an actual pre-ICS belief that the figures really were that low.

I think your definition of "over-conservative" differs from Alyeska's.

A lot of Trekkies are loathe to recognize how consistently conservative we have been in such matters; there is a broad tendency to assume that both sides are acting similarly, when this just isn't the case.

I'm not so sure. I agree he's confusing the inherent "numbers game" in any debate with an effort of objective analysis - which leads to his assumption that because he's defining "high end" differently from you, he's treating anyone who uses large figures as biased (possibly true to a certain extent, but irrelevant if the figures itself are sound.)

Alot of debates like to emphasize ambiguity and efforts to redefine the other side's lower limits (such as Isil'Zha's TESB asteroid calcs) and to a large part the ICS removed those sorts of tactics for the SW side. Some people do obviously resent that. Some people choose to not acknowledge the existance of the ICS unless its use is specifically mentioned (and sometimes not even then) and others simply treat it as an anomaly in the EU universe (IE they treat it as if its the first real example of high end firepower, ignoring the prior claims as irrelevant.)

And some just try to circumvent the book in other ways.

And all the furor over the ICS obscures revelations from AOTC the movie, where we saw the firepower of Slave-1 which put a lot of those old Trekkie claims about weak ISD firepower to rest (unless one chooses to believe that Slave-1 can take out an ISD).

A good point, not to mention the missiles on Slave-1. But the ICS only made things more concrete and easier for the SW side - it helped to clarify a number of technical points in debate (including firepower and defenses) but it was hardly a comprehensive technical guide - once you get past all the figures, there are still plenty of ambiguities in SW to deal with where analysis is concerned.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-04 03:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:I believe Alyeska is confusing the common pre-ICS practice of using over-conservative and therefore more easily defended figures with an actual pre-ICS belief that the figures really were that low.

A lot of Trekkies are loathe to recognize how consistently conservative we have been in such matters; there is a broad tendency to assume that both sides are acting similarly, when this just isn't the case.

And all the furor over the ICS obscures revelations from AOTC the movie, where we saw the firepower of Slave-1 which put a lot of those old Trekkie claims about weak ISD firepower to rest (unless one chooses to believe that Slave-1 can take out an ISD).

Funny, no one ever called this practice over conservative before ICS. I even remember many warsies calling 17 and 22 GT figures as flat out absurd with 2 GT being an upper limit.

Claiming pre ICS numbers as intentionally being conservative is merely rewriting history. Fact is no rational debater ever accepted anything beyond the low GT range.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-12-04 03:14pm

Alyeska wrote:Funny, no one ever called this practice over conservative before ICS. I even remember many warsies calling 17 and 22 GT figures as flat out absurd with 2 GT being an upper limit.

Claiming pre ICS numbers as intentionally being conservative is merely rewriting history. Fact is no rational debater ever accepted anything beyond the low GT range.

I did. I never voiced those claims for fear of being shouted down, but after reading Wong and Commander Wilkens' asteroid calcs, I suspected a realistic reading could easily push firepower into the teratons for HTLs.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-04 03:21pm

"Rewriting history?" Alyeska, with all due respect, that's bullshit. And don't try to misrepresent common pre-ICS practice with proof that the numbers were irrational. Do you think Curtis pulled those numbers out of his ass? You appear to believe that the numbers are unsupportable without the ICS, which in turn implies that you think that's precisely what he did.

Look at my Base Delta Zero page, where I estimate BDZ is in the 1E24 to 1E26 J range. That's from 200,000 gigatons to 20 million gigatons, Alyeska. How many 2 gigaton shots would it take to rack up 20 million gigatons? Your refusal to recognize that the ICS numbers were based on already-existing information does not represent proof that 2 gigatons was not conservative before the ICS came out, nor does your silly attempt to appeal to common practice, ie- "but all the Warsies agreed". They didn't fight for higher figures more accurate to the stated capabilities because they were tired of fighting Trekkies and if they could get a majority to concede 2 GT, then they were happy with that because it would crush a GCS. Doesn't mean it was a high-end figure based on the facts at hand.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-04 04:56pm

Darth Wong wrote:"Rewriting history?" Alyeska, with all due respect, that's bullshit. And don't try to misrepresent common pre-ICS practice with proof that the numbers were irrational. Do you think Curtis pulled those numbers out of his ass? You appear to believe that the numbers are unsupportable without the ICS, which in turn implies that you think that's precisely what he did.

Look at my Base Delta Zero page, where I estimate BDZ is in the 1E24 to 1E26 J range. That's from 200,000 gigatons to 20 million gigatons, Alyeska. How many 2 gigaton shots would it take to rack up 20 million gigatons? Your refusal to recognize that the ICS numbers were based on already-existing information does not represent proof that 2 gigatons was not conservative before the ICS came out, nor does your silly attempt to appeal to common practice, ie- "but all the Warsies agreed". They didn't fight for higher figures more accurate to the stated capabilities because they were tired of fighting Trekkies and if they could get a majority to concede 2 GT, then they were happy with that because it would crush a GCS. Doesn't mean it was a high-end figure based on the facts at hand.

I have stated more then once I think that Saxton pulled those numbers out of his ass and are bullshit. But the thing about the ICS numbers is that they are offical bullshit. If I were to be given canon status to write the next ST TM, I could write all the numbers I wanted to for any reason I wanted to, but it would not change their status.

As I have said many times. I do not like ICS and I do not agree with it, but because of the rules of canon I will use it. Hell, even if I could find EU material that disagrees with ICS its meaningless because ICS is directly tied to AOTC which gives it a near canon status. The only way to disprove ICS would be to find contradictions in the movie, which there are none.

In other words I will live with ICS even if I don't like it.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-12-04 05:05pm

Alyeska wrote:I have stated more then once I think that Saxton pulled those numbers out of his ass and are bullshit. But the thing about the ICS numbers is that they are offical bullshit. If I were to be given canon status to write the next ST TM, I could write all the numbers I wanted to for any reason I wanted to, but it would not change their status.

As I have said many times. I do not like ICS and I do not agree with it, but because of the rules of canon I will use it. Hell, even if I could find EU material that disagrees with ICS its meaningless because ICS is directly tied to AOTC which gives it a near canon status. The only way to disprove ICS would be to find contradictions in the movie, which there are none.

Or to find contradictions in TPM or the original trilogy, or any of the novelizations, which there also are none. I'm not sure where you're going with this or how you can possibly justify your claim that Saxton pulled the numbers out of his ass while simultaneously admitting that there are no contradictions in canon material.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-04 05:23pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
Alyeska wrote:I have stated more then once I think that Saxton pulled those numbers out of his ass and are bullshit. But the thing about the ICS numbers is that they are offical bullshit. If I were to be given canon status to write the next ST TM, I could write all the numbers I wanted to for any reason I wanted to, but it would not change their status.

As I have said many times. I do not like ICS and I do not agree with it, but because of the rules of canon I will use it. Hell, even if I could find EU material that disagrees with ICS its meaningless because ICS is directly tied to AOTC which gives it a near canon status. The only way to disprove ICS would be to find contradictions in the movie, which there are none.
Or to find contradictions in TPM or the original trilogy, or any of the novelizations, which there also are none. I'm not sure where you're going with this or how you can possibly justify your claim that Saxton pulled the numbers out of his ass while simultaneously admitting that there are no contradictions in canon material.

There is a difference between supporting material and contradictory material.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2002-12-04 05:23pm

Alyeska wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:<snip>
Really, do explain the 22 gigaton HTL's Wong's had on his site for years then. Higher then 2-gigaton calculation got used constantly on ASVS; many just didn't bother because there was no need.
So your admiting that people were choosing firepower based solely on allowing it to defeat Trek. Not exactly an unbiassed way to come up with figures.

No he was stating that we were using numbers lower than those we believed in to give Trek a chance. You might try to actually fit your accusations to what he is saying.

As an aside the numbers bantered around as mid range calcs (such as the BDZ numbers, Andras's numbers, etc) were consistently in the multi gigaton range we just didn't use them because they'd be overkill. Sure the ICS puts numbers out that would make HTLs into the 300-350 GT range (they're bigger than the Acclamator's guns) but that means high end is only an order of magnitude greater than where we've always thought mid-range was...in other words the ICS was a vindicaiton of long held numbers that were simply unused.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven · Post by **Rightous Fist Of Heaven** » 2002-12-04 05:27pm

About this EU material that is in contradiction with the ICS, the only pieces of which i am aware of that could imply lower levels of firepower than the ICS gives are Darksaber,Krytos Trap and the Terajoule quote from Isards Revenge.

Darksaber tough in many points is so damn absurd that i dont understand how KJA came up with most of the text he put there, i mean the Yavin IV attack with the Nights Hammer at the first glance seems to be in direct contradiction with every single EU source talking about Base Delta Zero. Anyways i have mostly loathed KJAs work,altough there were some points in his Jedi Academy trilogy that i liked of.

Then there is the Krytos Trap kilojoule quote for X-Wing lasers, another completely absurd sentence where the writer could have stopped to think
before writing.

Anyways these are just examples how writers flat out ignore other EU and pull stuff out of their asses that are in complete contradiction with other pieces of EU.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-12-04 05:27pm

Aleyska wrote:There is a difference between supporting material and contradictory material.

True, but in this case, the figures are supported by the asteroid calcs, by the BDZ calcs, and by Slave One's firepower.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-04 05:57pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
Alyeska wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:<snip>
Really, do explain the 22 gigaton HTL's Wong's had on his site for years then. Higher then 2-gigaton calculation got used constantly on ASVS; many just didn't bother because there was no need.
So your admiting that people were choosing firepower based solely on allowing it to defeat Trek. Not exactly an unbiassed way to come up with figures.
No he was stating that we were using numbers lower than those we believed in to give Trek a chance. You might try to actually fit your accusations to what he is saying.

To give Trek a chance? You mean by being SOOO generous that on a good day they said that 12 GCSs would have a chance.

That is not bein generous, that is being condesending.

Alyeska · Post by **Alyeska** » 2002-12-04 05:58pm

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote:
Aleyska wrote:There is a difference between supporting material and contradictory material.
True, but in this case, the figures are supported by the asteroid calcs, by the BDZ calcs, and by Slave One's firepower.

Some of the calcs are. I don't really have a problem with Slave One because missiles, bombs, and mines are traditionally very powerful for their size.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-12-04 10:32pm

Alyeska wrote:I have stated more then once I think that Saxton pulled those numbers out of his ass and are bullshit. But the thing about the ICS numbers is that they are offical bullshit.

Oh, puh-lease. The figures derive naturally from already-published BDZ descriptions and are consistent with a scaled-down lower-limit Death Star. There was always a huge range of possible TL firepower figures, and all the ICS did was pin down a number in that range.

Trekkies invariably took the lower limits of this range and assumed that they were upper limits, and then acted shocked when told that they weren't.