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

[Darth Wong]

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.

Slave-1 indicates that weapons ranging from hundreds to thousands of megatons are available to civilians. Military fighters and bombers are useless against capships without capship fire support to bring down the big ships' shields. Figure it out.

[Alyeska]

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.

Slave-1 indicates that weapons ranging from hundreds to thousands of megatons are available to civilians. Military fighters and bombers are useless against capships without capship fire support to bring down the big ships' shields. Figure it out.

Well... Slave 1 was described as having been able to take on 40 Tie-Fighters without any problem. Furthermore we know that someone with power was funding Jango. He had access to some non standard weaponry.

[Alyeska]

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.

Trekkies AND Warsies used the lower figures. And when these Warsies who claim to have ALWAYS thought it was more powerful suddenly state this for a fact even though for years they had been "preaching" the lower figures they act surprised when the Trekkies weren't all that pleased with the apparent "switching of sides". I never ONCE heard any Warsie claim that the figures they were using 2 years ago were conservative just to give Trek a chance. They always claimed that Wars could trounce ST and they stuck to the highest figures they could get reasonably.

As I said, ICS is bullshit, but its canon/offical bullshit and I follow the rules.

[AdmiralKanos]

Well... Slave 1 was described as having been able to take on 40 Tie-Fighters without any problem.

Hyperbole. He did a pretty good job against a single Republic starfighter, but he hardly demonstrated the ability to kill 40, unles they're idiotically flying in a tight group.

Furthermore we know that someone with power was funding Jango. He had access to some non standard weaponry.

Non-standard for a civilian craft, perhaps, but obviously not beyond what the Imperial military can put on its own craft. Are you suggesting that Slave 1 is a threat to an ISD, or that ISD weapons are not much more powerful than Slave-1's weapons?

You have tried to claim that Saxton's numbers are "bullshit" because they are presumably unreasonable given the data that already exists. I have not yet seen any reason to interpret this claim as anything more than sour grapes on your part, since you are merely evading the obvious reasoning that an ISD must carry much more firepower than Slave-1.

[Howedar]

I for one always treated the calcs used as lower limits, since we saw what weapons could do but not what they could not do. Perhaps some "debators" were less clear.

[AdmiralKanos]

Trekkies AND Warsies used the lower figures. And when these Warsies who claim to have ALWAYS thought it was more powerful suddenly state this for a fact even though for years they had been "preaching" the lower figures they act surprised when the Trekkies weren't all that pleased with the apparent "switching of sides". I never ONCE heard any Warsie claim that the figures they were using 2 years ago were conservative just to give Trek a chance. They always claimed that Wars could trounce ST and they stuck to the highest figures they could get reasonably.

Find me one incident anywhere on my website where I state that 2 gigatons is an upper limit for turbolaser firepower. Most of it hasn't been updated for years and almost none of it incorporates the SW2ICS, yet the BDZ figures still lead right to that same destination, as does scaling of the DS. Take a look at what you're doing, Alyeska: you are basing your argument entirely on your perceptions of other peoples' past motives now! Don't make yourself look foolish.

[Alyeska]

You have tried to claim that Saxton's numbers are "bullshit" because they are presumably unreasonable given the data that already exists. I have not yet seen any reason to interpret this claim as anything more than sour grapes on your part, since you are merely evading the obvious reasoning that an ISD must carry much more firepower than Slave-1.

Actually I didn't "Try", I did claim that Saxton's numbers were bullshit. And I also fully admit that this is partially sour grapes, but not completely. And I also see the logic in a front line warship being significantly more powerful then a bount hunters ship. I just happen to disagree with it being more then 3,000 times more powerful is all.

And before you demand my proof of my "claim", I have none hence I never actually dispute ICS. I just make my feelings of it very clearly known.

[Alyeska]

Trekkies AND Warsies used the lower figures. And when these Warsies who claim to have ALWAYS thought it was more powerful suddenly state this for a fact even though for years they had been "preaching" the lower figures they act surprised when the Trekkies weren't all that pleased with the apparent "switching of sides". I never ONCE heard any Warsie claim that the figures they were using 2 years ago were conservative just to give Trek a chance. They always claimed that Wars could trounce ST and they stuck to the highest figures they could get reasonably.

Find me one incident anywhere on my website where I state that 2 gigatons is an upper limit for turbolaser firepower. Most of it hasn't been updated for years and almost none of it incorporates the SW2ICS, yet the BDZ figures still lead right to that same destination, as does scaling of the DS. Take a look at what you're doing, Alyeska: you are basing your argument entirely on your perceptions of other peoples' past motives now! Don't make yourself look foolish.

Well actually up until 4 hours ago I was under the impression that 2 GT was the upper limit you stated for HTLs. That was the impression most of the warsie debaters left upon me when citing you for information back at SB. There was one debater who claimed 17 and 22 GT HTLs and he was considered nuts for thinking such things, but people did not say the same things about you.

[Master of Ossus]

I also fully admit that this is partially sour grapes, but not completely. And I also see the logic in a front line warship being significantly more powerful then a bount hunters ship. I just happen to disagree with it being more then 3,000 times more powerful is all.

Have you ever compared the volume of the two ships to see if the analysis is reasonable?

[Alyeska]

I also fully admit that this is partially sour grapes, but not completely. And I also see the logic in a front line warship being significantly more powerful then a bount hunters ship. I just happen to disagree with it being more then 3,000 times more powerful is all.

Have you ever compared the volume of the two ships to see if the analysis is reasonable?

If this were true then it would be impossible for 6 squadrons of X-Wings to take down an ISD.

You want to know how I figured an ISD as being more then 3,000 times more powerful then Slave-1? I took 64 HTLs and multiplied it by 400 (for the GT power) and got 25600 for the total. I devided that by 9 (for Slave-1s most powerful weapon) and that gives you 2844. Figure the MTLs and LTLs push it over 3,000. So according to that, 72 X-Wings couldn't take down an ISD because 3,000 Slave-1s would barely equal an ISD (if that).

[AdmiralKanos]

Well actually up until 4 hours ago I was under the impression that 2 GT was the upper limit you stated for HTLs. That was the impression most of the warsie debaters left upon me when citing you for information back at SB. There was one debater who claimed 17 and 22 GT HTLs and he was considered nuts for thinking such things, but people did not say the same things about you.

When I used the phrase "at least [2 gigatons]", perhaps I should have more clear? That is not normally how one phrases an upper limit.

As for someone being "considered nuts" for claiming 22 GT HTL's on ASVS, I would like to see Google links for this group consensus to which you refer, although I would like to point out that appeals to popularity do not affect the question of whether the ICS figures are "bullshit".

[Alyeska]

Well actually up until 4 hours ago I was under the impression that 2 GT was the upper limit you stated for HTLs. That was the impression most of the warsie debaters left upon me when citing you for information back at SB. There was one debater who claimed 17 and 22 GT HTLs and he was considered nuts for thinking such things, but people did not say the same things about you.

When I used the phrase "at least [2 gigatons]", perhaps I should have more clear? That is not normally how one phrases an upper limit.

As for someone being "considered nuts" for claiming 22 GT HTL's on ASVS, I would like to see Google links for this group consensus to which you refer, although I would like to point out that appeals to popularity do not affect the question of whether the ICS figures are "bullshit".

Oh come now, you should know that when I say something it bullshit its quite clear that my personal feelings are being expressed at the same time. Thats why I am not even bothering to try and find any proof to back up my claims, I don't really need to since that isn't the point.

[AdmiralKanos]

If this were true then it would be impossible for 6 squadrons of X-Wings to take down an ISD.

In ROTJ, hordes of fighters do not cause a single Rebel capship casualty, not even of a light frigate. That is canon, by the way.

Besides, let's say we have 72 fighters carrying high-yield gigaton-range weaponry, say, 4 torps apiece. Let's say they launch 4 x 72 x 12 GT at one spot. That's roughly 3500 gigatons in one spot.

So how does this contradict 200 GT TL turrets? If it takes 15-20 MTL turret blasts to take down another ISD and a smaller number of HTL turret blasts, that's consistent, is it not?

You want to know how I figured an ISD as being more then 3,000 times more powerful then Slave-1? I took 64 HTLs and multiplied it by 400 (for the GT power) and got 25600 for the total.

Actually, the SW2ICS gives 200 GT for a quad-gun turret, so that's 50 GT per barrel. 72 X-wings carrying 4 12GT warheads apiece would be equivalent to 70 shots. If they all hit at once, that would be a heavy whammy. If they're spread out over a long period of time, the shields can probably dissipate the energy.

[Alyeska]

If this were true then it would be impossible for 6 squadrons of X-Wings to take down an ISD.

In ROTJ, hordes of fighters do not cause a single Rebel capship casualty, not even of a light frigate. That is canon, by the way.

Besides, let's say we have 72 fighters carrying high-yield gigaton-range weaponry, say, 4 torps apiece. Let's say they launch 4 x 72 x 12 GT at one spot. That's roughly 3500 gigatons in one spot.

So how does this contradict 200 GT TL turrets? If it takes 15-20 MTL turret blasts to take down another ISD and a smaller number of HTL turret blasts, that's consistent, is it not?

You want to know how I figured an ISD as being more then 3,000 times more powerful then Slave-1? I took 64 HTLs and multiplied it by 400 (for the GT power) and got 25600 for the total.

Actually, the SW2ICS gives 200 GT for a quad-gun turret, so that's 50 GT per barrel. 72 X-wings carrying 4 12GT warheads apiece would be equivalent to 70 shots. If they all hit at once, that would be a heavy whammy. If they're spread out over a long period of time, the shields can probably dissipate the energy.

I was under the impression that X-Wings didn't carry such high GT rated torpedoes.

[AdmiralKanos]

I was under the impression that X-Wings didn't carry such high GT rated torpedoes.

Are you suggesting that missile load-out is fixed for all X-wings and cannot be altered for a particular mission profile? If Slave-1 can carry 12 GT mines, an X-wing can carry 12 GT torpedoes.

[Phil Skayhan]

Micheal January's BDZ Calcs as posted July 7, 1999.

Initial
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l ... africa.com

follow-up
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&l ... africa.com

While even M. January had doubts as to his figures and methods used , no one (save for Edam perhaps) thought of his results as "nuts".

I'm not sure if this was what you were looking for but from a quick search, most other earlier posts referenced Saxton's BDZ calcs.

[Master of Ossus]

Minor nitpick, Mike: in ICS:II, the yield for the quad guns is "per shot." Throughout the rest of the book "per shot" seemed to indicate each individual shot from each individual barrel.

[Alyeska]

I was under the impression that X-Wings didn't carry such high GT rated torpedoes.

Are you suggesting that missile load-out is fixed for all X-wings and cannot be altered for a particular mission profile? If Slave-1 can carry 12 GT mines, an X-wing can carry 12 GT torpedoes.

IIRC the Slave-1 mines were far larger. That and I never heard of such massively powerful torpedoes that X-Wings could carry.

[AdmiralKanos]

I was under the impression that X-Wings didn't carry such high GT rated torpedoes.

Are you suggesting that missile load-out is fixed for all X-wings and cannot be altered for a particular mission profile? If Slave-1 can carry 12 GT mines, an X-wing can carry 12 GT torpedoes.

IIRC the Slave-1 mines were far larger.

Their length is about the same as that of a man, shoulder to shoulder (based on the ICS drawing, which is fairly faithful to the film). Their diameter is obviously much smaller.

That and I never heard of such massively powerful torpedoes that X-Wings could carry.

If they could take down an ISD while hordes of fighters couldn't even take down the smallest frigade in the Rebel fleet in ROTJ, you should have been able to connect the dots and see that they were obviously carrying unusually heavy weapons.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

And when these Warsies who claim to have ALWAYS thought it was more powerful suddenly state this for a fact even though for years they had been "preaching" the lower figures they act surprised when the Trekkies weren't all that pleased with the apparent "switching of sides".

If that's directed toward me, then I don't appreciate the implication of dishonesty. Flaming and foul language I engage in and relish, but that's worlds apart from calling someone a liar.

[Alyeska]

Are you suggesting that missile load-out is fixed for all X-wings and cannot be altered for a particular mission profile? If Slave-1 can carry 12 GT mines, an X-wing can carry 12 GT torpedoes.

IIRC the Slave-1 mines were far larger.

Their length is about the same as that of a man, shoulder to shoulder (based on the ICS drawing, which is fairly faithful to the film). Their diameter is obviously much smaller.

That and I never heard of such massively powerful torpedoes that X-Wings could carry.

If they could take down an ISD while hordes of fighters couldn't even take down the smallest frigade in the Rebel fleet in ROTJ, you should have been able to connect the dots and see that they were obviously carrying unusually heavy weapons.

There is a SLIGHT difference between Tie-Fighters and Interceptors compared to X-Wings and Y-Wings. One side has missile systems, the other does not. That might provide just a small clue as to why the Tie's weren't taking down the Rebel ships.

[AdmiralKanos]

There is a SLIGHT difference between Tie-Fighters and Interceptors compared to X-Wings and Y-Wings. One side has missile systems, the other does not. That might provide just a small clue as to why the Tie's weren't taking down the Rebel ships.

And all of the TIE bombers (specialized weapon platform for delivery of heavy ordnance) were either carrying low-yield weapons or just sitting around doing nothing, right?

[Alyeska]

There is a SLIGHT difference between Tie-Fighters and Interceptors compared to X-Wings and Y-Wings. One side has missile systems, the other does not. That might provide just a small clue as to why the Tie's weren't taking down the Rebel ships.

And all of the TIE bombers (specialized weapon platform for delivery of heavy ordnance) were either carrying low-yield weapons or just sitting around doing nothing, right?

Well, the Imperial fleet was only spending a half ass job dealing with the Rebels to begin with, wouldn't surprise me.

[AdmiralKanos]

Well, the Imperial fleet was only spending a half ass job dealing with the Rebels to begin with, wouldn't surprise me.

yet another excuse, eh Alyeska? The situation is simple:

1) We know gigaton-level fighter warheads exist from AOTC, which is canon.
2) We know that hordes of fighters can be totally ineffective against even light warships, from ROTJ.
3) We know from certain official sources that many dozens of fighter warheads may be enough to overwhelm an ISD's shields if they simultaneously hit at one point.

Starting from these three facts, what would most people conclude? Perhaps that starships must have much more powerful weapons and shields than fighters, so mid-GT range for starship heavy weapons is perfectly reasonable, although a shitload of fighters carrying heavy weapons might do the job.

However, you conclude from these two facts that mid-GT range HTL's are "bullshit", by using a variety of excuses to pretend that factoid #1 and factoid #3 cannot possibly go together. Do you honestly think you're making sense?

[Alyeska]

Well, the Imperial fleet was only spending a half ass job dealing with the Rebels to begin with, wouldn't surprise me.

yet another excuse, eh Alyeska? The situation is simple:

1) We know gigaton-level fighter warheads exist from AOTC, which is canon.
2) We know that hordes of fighters can be totally ineffective against even light warships, from ROTJ.
3) We know from certain official sources that many dozens of fighter warheads may be enough to overwhelm an ISD's shields if they simultaneously hit at one point.

Starting from these three facts, what would most people conclude? Perhaps that starships must have much more powerful weapons and shields than fighters, so mid-GT range for starship heavy weapons is perfectly reasonable, although a shitload of fighters carrying heavy weapons might do the job.

However, you conclude from these two facts that mid-GT range HTL's are "bullshit", by using a variety of excuses to pretend that factoid #1 and factoid #3 cannot possibly go together. Do you honestly think you're making sense?

Your putting words in my mouth and you know it. You also changed the topic.