Questions about SD.net

[Ghost Rider]

I already checked out the ESB scene.
The asteroids I saw took between 350 and 500 KT to vaporize.
Wong and Saxton seem to concur with that estimate, but claims massive asteroids were also destroyed. I agree that this is a low level estimate, but not as low as Wong says it is.

The reason that everybody is flocking to the defense of ICS is that without that 200 GT number the Official yields for Star Wars max out at around 20 GT for heavy weapons. The mid-range would place Star Wars around the mid-megatons, instead of gigatons. That would place SW within arguing distance of the Federation. Nobody wants to argue against ST anymore, so they are all defending the 200 GT "copout". Everybody attempts to rationalize numbers away. For instance, they say that the 500 KT weapons used in ESB were mere anti-fighter platforms. They ignore the fact that these weapons were used against Capital Ships throughout the ROTJ Battle.

I don't care how you people think the 200 GT number came about. You can take the number and try to support Saxton. I want to know what logic Saxton used to find this.

This one...which is nothing more than your subjective view, and thus is pretty much saying Saxton is wrong but I'll explain later?

Please elaborate...

1. The KT asteriod and why you believe it took low KT.

2. The reason most don't argue the Fed vs SW has more to do than just mere weaponry.

3. You complain how Saxton came about without saying why this invalid...ask the man, who knows he may show you or just shrug you off thinking you yet another rabid person thining he's off his rocker.

[Anarchist Bunny]

"There aren't any contradictions in canon to that figure, so it is true. "

The SSD is 17.6 Km by a canon source, so the official is wrong. Or was that what you meant?

The 8km Offical figure is wrong because canon sources contract it, not the entirety of offical is wrong because one of the figures are.

The fact that in the movies we can't see the Acclamator's weapon systems simply shows that, as far as Canon goes, we cannot be sure whether or not the ship is actually armed or not. Official references to give it weapons, and I intend to agree. However the point was that if you were to go by the highest valued information we have absolutely NO IDEA the offensive capabilities of an Acclamator.

It doesn't work like that, offical isn't a window of possiblilty to the movies. Offical is the truth, unless contradicted by canon. The movie doesn't contradict the Acc having weapons or their powerlevels, so the offical fills it in for us. That means that the Acc have weapons with that power level. It fills in for what the movies don't fill in.

I don't wish to dismiss the figure because it's official. I wish to dismiss it because it does not fit in with onscreen firepower. From AOTC we have KT level energy weapons for Slave I.

For a ship the size of a house.

From ESB we have high kiloton to low megaton level LTL's.

Funny, you seem to think that the maximum amount of energy needed to vap that asteroird was the exact figure for the TLs, when it was nothing more then a low end figure before we have 200 gigaton figure that you have yet to disprove.

ROTJ shows us Star Destroyers and Rebel ships using the same type of weapon witnessed in ESB against other Star Ships. Thusly from the movies we are aware that Capital Ships are using weapons in the ranges of low megatons against other ships in order to punch through shields. We don't see HTL's used until later in the battle when all the ships are damaged.

Again, your using low end figures that are disproven by offical figures, also, and if someone would check this out for me, the mininum figure for the vaping of the asteroid in ESB was low gigaton.

So from the movies one can stipulate that the Light Weapons are within the low megaton range (1-10) and the heavy weapons are in the upper (500-1,000). The heavy weapons are very powerful, but not so powerful as to make the Light Weapons obsolete. Thusly explaining a reason why 90 % of the weapons fire we see comes from the light weapons.
Would you not think that a logical assumption from what we see onscreen?

This is all bullshit from your ass. The low end LTL figures are in the gigaton range, while the HTLs are in the terraton range, they are designed for different targets and thats why they have different powerlevels. LTLs are for snubfighter craft, mtls are for larger targets, like Frigates and are used against Cap ships, and the HTLs are for Cap ships which are large enough to hit with slower more powerful canons.
The reason we so much fire from the lighter weapons are because often they are targeting smaller craft, the Blockade Runner and the MF. And even then they are only trying to disable them and capture them. The only Cap ship combat we see is in RotJ and even then, we barely see any of it.

With that knowledge in hand I cannot blindly accept the ICS numbers.

So knowledge == your own made up figures that are disproven by canon and offical figures.

For the ICS numbers to be true the Rebel ships were using 500KT-10 MT level weaponry in an attempt to break through TT level shielding. (Your forums's own theory) Not only that, but the Star Destroyers with 100 MT Turbolasers were using the same weapons in turn against Mon Cal criusers which are said to have greater shielding than the ISD's themselves!!!

Again, your applying your bullshit figures to get incorrect results.

And just so we don't get confused. I am a Wars fan first, Bab 5 fan second. Why don' you try to ease back on the hissy fits. The reason I don't like the ICS numbers is because I'd rather Wars win versus debates because of it's own merits. Not because some fan was given a pinch of authority and decided to give his pals a copout argument.

Ahhh, they old I'm one of you trick. Unfortunately, despite which sci-fi you prefer, your still a moron.

[Master of Ossus]

The truth is that Star Wars ICS books and Star Trek Tech Manuals are the same thing. They both state unsubstantiated numbers that may or may not have supporting evidence from the series and movies.

No they're not. The books written on Star Wars are considered to be "official." The ICS's numbers are based on the estimates for those official figures. Moreover, we know from ESB that there were asteroids that would have taken numerous megatons to destroy. Watch the part with the Falcon flying through the asteroid belt. You can clearly see asteroids that DWARF the Falcon. In order to vaporize those asteroids, the Star Destroyers would have had to impart hundreds, sometimes thousands of megatons worth of energy. The amount of displacement shown when the Falcon was hit by a MEDIUM turbolaser has been shown to be in the gigaton range. That does support the ICS, even with just the movies.

However because someone like Curt has affiliated himself with the ICS those set of books get boosted higher in the canon ratings. That is total bullshit. We never see the Acclamators fire thier weapons, hell I can't even make out any turrets on the vessels from my DVD. Saxton has a webpage dedicated to analyzing technical aspects in the Star Wars Univserse, why doesn't he explain his findings there?

I hardly see why he should have to. It has been shown NUMEROUS times that his estimates are within the range of estimates made before the ICS came out. Moreover, this is a site dedicated to analyzing technical aspects in the Star Wars (and Star Trek) universe. As a poster here, why don't you show us your own estimates for the Acclamator weapons, and discuss how you derived them? The simple fact of the matter is that Doctor Saxton is a very busy man. He is an author, an astrophysicist, and has a life outside of Star Wars. The fact that he has not been able to update his site for some time (and that he hasn't revealed his methods for deriving such figures) does nothing to disprove them. Moreover, to declare his analysis "total bullshit" is ludicrous. Are you honestly suggesting that he made up those numbers without any evidence to back them up? Finally, who cares that the Acclamators never fired on screen? The simple fact of the matter is that it does not matter. The fact that a Y-Wing has never fired its ion cannons, I suppose, disproves their existence to you. Additionally, the fact that you didn't even bother to look for the turrets on an Acclamator does not support your case.

Until Saxton himself comes out and explains how he came to these numbers or Episode II displays an Acclamator using these weapons the 200 GT figure has as much clout as the Yields for Phaser Rating listed in the ST Tech Manuals.

Why not? The simple fact of the matter is that the ICS is official. That says that it is worth something. The ST Techn Manuals have been shown to be "speculation," and it was shown that many of their results were erroneous. None of ICS's other results have been shown to be erroneous, and I see little reason to dismiss one figure when everything else in the book was accurate to what we saw in the film.

[IceHawk-151]

1) The Asteroid
700 KT = Greg Burnet
60 KT - 480 KT = Saxton
60 KT - 16 MT = Wong
380 KT = Forgot the Site
492 KT = Me

The fire that vaporized the asteroids was clearly in the kiloton range. As you can see from the data I've collected from 4 other sources along with my own info the ranges of firepower are between 60 Kt and 16 MT. Saxton himself thought that the weapons were around 500 KT in power and I agreed with that figure.
It sucks that I forgot the site for the 380 KT level firepower. It had a list of possible yields for Light, Medium, and Heavy Turbolasers based on differing data.
I wouldn't neccasarily call 500 KT low, and I must say that after reading Wong's arguments that larger asteroids were varporized as well as some of the arguments from Spacebattles I figured that the Light Turbolasers must range somewhere between 500 KT and 10 MT.

If the Acclamator's weapons are representative of HTL Cannons then something doesn't fit in with the original trilogy. 200 GT Heavy Turbolasers means TT level shielding. Againt those types of numbers these weapons seen in ESB are useless when used against Capital Ships. However in ROTJ we see Rebel Vessels and Imperial Star Destroyers using weapons indentical to those in ESB against enemy capital ships, including the Executor. I've had someone tell me that the reason this happened was because none of the ships were holding back, but that doesn't make sense either. If we use Wong's high end number of 16 MT for the Light Cannons it would take a ship, like a Neb-B with it's 24 Light Cannons 521 shots just to match the power of the HTL cannon. ISD shields are being said to take TT level power. That means a vessel like the Neb-B would never engage a Star Destroyer. Yet for some reason one of those Frigates moved in to engage the Executor. Even if it was acting in support of Mon Cal cruisers those weapons from ESB still make it useless.

If you compare the Bolts from ESB with the Bolts from ROTJ you will find that the majority, if not all of them, are the same type. If the ISD shields can take TT's worth of damage the ESB bolts are only useful against Star Fighters. Yet throughout the ROTJ battle the ISD's only use those bolts against other capital ships.
Either the Shield numbers are wrong, the asteroid figures are wrong, or the bolt classification is wrong. I've watched ROTJ multple times likesthe most of us, and to me it appears the bolt classification is correct.
The asteroid numbers are backed up by multiple people, including Saxton who shows a low-end number. So I have to assume the Shield strength is wrong.
Since the shield strength is based on the number of hits they can take from the HTL cannons there can only be two things that are incorrect. The number of salvos shields can take or the yields of the HTL cannons. When I look at my mid-range megaton numbers and those of other people the salvo idea seems to be ok.
That leaves the yield of the HTL cannons to be in error.

Thusly in my opinion the 200 GT number does not fit in with what I have seen in the Movies.

It is 11:50 here, and I am done for the night. See you guys tomorrow.

[Master of Ossus]

I am well aware of Saxton's interpretation of Star Wars. Infact I value his site far above Mike's. Curt is one of the few people who designed a Star Wars site without showing any bias in his anaylisis. However the reason we don't see any Bias in Saxton's work is because he doesn't state any numbers as fact.

Okay, let me get this straight. If Doctor Saxton were to turn around tomorrow and state that the lower limit for his asteroid vaporization energy was a "fact," you would take that as bias? What if he were to tell you tomorrow on his website that the length of a Star Destroyer was a "fact" at 1.6 kilometers? Are you saying that to do so would be biased? How the hell can you justify such an assumption? How can stating results be considered "bias?" Seriously, what are you talking about, here?

There is one set of numbers for his take on the ESB scene. He gave a range of possible yields, not a number, and he stated his theory. Between the fact that Saxton has put so much effort into taking a subjective look at Star Wars and that he has done so in a very detailed manner I can understand why Lucasfilm hired him for the job.

Since when is Doctor Saxton's site considered "subjective?" When has he EVER measured something in subjective terms, and concluded his analysis like that, when the term could be quantified?

However I do not believe that Saxton was given the job and then told, "We'd Like you to make up figures for these ships". If you look at Saxton's view on Star Wars form his Webpage alone you can see that his strength is not in inventing things. His strength is in looking at the facts, and then deriving plausible, logical, and reasonable answers to various questions. That is why I would like to know how Curtis himself came up with these numbers. Blind Faith is not my strong point. I require proof before I put stock into something. Dr. Saxton seems to be a credible man, and if he can present a case for how he derived these yields I may well agree with him. Yet, without Saxton's presentation of the facts that he used to derive these numbers from, the listed yields in the ICS are arbitrary numbers in an official book. They can be as flawed as the listed length of the Executor throughout the Star Wars universe.

A wise choice, but you've already seen much of the evidence. The fact of the matter is that ISD's must be able to melt the surface of a world to some depth. An ISD was shown to be able to fire weapons in the multi-gigaton range in ESB, and those were its medium weapons firing. An Acclamator would logically have a mere fraction of that firepower. Again, where is your disagreement with this?

Grand Admiral Thrawn.
Just because something is stated to be official does not mean it is true. Official statistics must be scrutinized most carefully in order to verify that they are a true representation of what we see in the movies.

Only if they are contradicted by canon. By this token, we should believe that the New Republic was never formed, or that it MIGHT never have been formed. Why? Well, part of the EU story is that the NR was created following RotJ. Part of the EU story is that ISD's can, and have, melted the surface of planets in the past. In order for you to believe that the ISD does not have the firepower revealed here, it is necessary to abandon all semblance of using the EU. Mr. Anderson, in his site, has taken a similar stance. We happened to disagree with his stance, but it is clear that to admit only parts of the EU into the debate is a dishonest method of making calculations.

By your first point may I assume you accept the length of the Executor as 8 Km? It doesn't matter whether or not that number was created without any reasearch because it is official.

No, it's been contradicted by canon. What part of this are you having problems with?

And the ICS is equal to the rest of the EU literature and you know it. If the book only stated, as fact, what we see and hear in the movie then it could be considered higher than official. However the ICS stipulates about things that we have never even seen nor heard of from the movies. As far as the movies are concerned we cannot even be sure that the Acclamators are truely armed.

Yes we can. If you look more closely, you can see turrets that look surprisingly similar to those on TF battleships.

I will say this however. If Episode III shows Acclamators firing thier weapons, and if something is done to prove thier power is in the upper GT range I will concede my argument. Untill then however the ICS is purely an official document with no more clout than the Thrawn Trilogy.

What? Who says that it has more clout than the Thrawn Trilogy? It SUPPORTS the Thrawn Trilogy, and it derives firepower estimates from that. The simple fact of the matter is that it does not need to be considered "higher" than any other EU material to prove the point. It just makes thing even easier than they used to be, because we now have a specific and easily referenced number, rather than having to go through fairly lengthy calculations on BDZ firepower estimates.

[IceHawk-151]

I don't have any calculations for the Acclamator's weapons because I've never even seen them used, nor have I read about them being used. If I had some sort of dialogue which describes the Acclamator's weapons in use I would be able to give you an estimate anarchistbunny.

Ok, if I don't stop now I'll be up all night.
I'll respond to the rest on the morrow.

[Ghost Rider]

But that's the point.

Saxton goes 200 GT...none of which is contradicted by the movies, and is official...so unless you can dispute just that...it's basically saying that he was wrong and is just spewing out of his gourd.

[Master of Ossus]

"There aren't any contradictions in canon to that figure, so it is true. "

The SSD is 17.6 Km by a canon source, so the official is wrong. Or was that what you meant?

That part of the official literature is incorrect. That does not give us the right to throw out the entirety of the official literature, except by personal preference. To claim that only one possible interpretation is correct is to over-simplify. I respect many people who only accept the movies. There are others who also accept the radio-plays, scripts, and novelizations. Most, however, have accepted that the story told in the EU is accurate.

"Really, did you freeze frame the one or two scenes with the Acclamators and look at where the TLs are, the only scene I remember with them is from a considerable distance away, and the concept sketches or even the accualy models we see in the movie, up closer, do have the TLs, but again, the fact that Acc have TLs is shown in offical, and not contradicted by canon. Sorry you lose again."

BULLSHIT. You can clearly see turbolasers when the LAAT's are flying over the Acclamators. I didn't even need to freeze the image to see them, they are clearly there, though small in comparison with the Acclamator.

The fact that in the movies we can't see the Acclamator's weapon systems simply shows that, as far as Canon goes, we cannot be sure whether or not the ship is actually armed or not. Official references to give it weapons, and I intend to agree. However the point was that if you were to go by the highest valued information we have absolutely NO IDEA the offensive capabilities of an Acclamator.

We DO see the Acclamator's weapons. The fact that you are misremembering does not alter the substance of the films.

"Hey stupid, offical is canon unless something else higher on the "canon ladder"(novels, movies and maybe the radio dramas) contradicts it. You can't simply dismiss it because it's offical, you have to prove that canon contradicts it."

I don't wish to dismiss the figure because it's official. I wish to dismiss it because it does not fit in with onscreen firepower. From AOTC we have KT level energy weapons for Slave I. From ESB we have high kiloton to low megaton level LTL's. ROTJ shows us Star Destroyers and Rebel ships using the same type of weapon witnessed in ESB against other Star Ships. Thusly from the movies we are aware that Capital Ships are using weapons in the ranges of low megatons against other ships in order to punch through shields. We don't see HTL's used until later in the battle when all the ships are damaged.

It DOES fit the canonical demonstrations of firepower. The fact of the matter is that it would have taken gigatons worth of energy striking the Falcon to displace it by as much as we saw in ESB.

So from the movies one can stipulate that the Light Weapons are within the low megaton range (1-10) and the heavy weapons are in the upper (500-1,000). The heavy weapons are very powerful, but not so powerful as to make the Light Weapons obsolete. Thusly explaining a reason why 90 % of the weapons fire we see comes from the light weapons.

Erm... WWII battleships had 16'' guns, but did that make the .50 caliber weapon obsolete?

Would you not think that a logical assumption from what we see onscreen?

No. It's evident that you cannot draw a conclusion based on the evidence you are pointing out. The fact that light guns exist does NOTHING to demonstrate the firepower of heavy guns, or to disprove their existence. It may, merely, mean that they are used for different things. If, however, we look and see that medium weapons in Star Wars impart several gigatons worth of energy at their targets, we soon find that the heavy guns (which are several times bigger) would need to impart several times the energy, or they would be obsolete. There would NOT be a reason to have ineffectual heavy weapons when an equal volume of medium weapons would do the same amount of damage (in fact, it would be counter-productive since the heavy weapons cannot divide their fire the way several medium weapons could).

With that knowledge in hand I cannot blindly accept the ICS numbers.

No, and no one asked you to. The fact that you have ignored the explanations given to you, on the other hand, does not instill me with confidence about your logical and mathematical computational talents.

For the ICS numbers to be true the Rebel ships were using 500KT-10 MT level weaponry in an attempt to break through TT level shielding. (Your forums's own theory)

This is, quite possibly, the worst appeal to authority I have EVER read. The fact that you did not even appeal to an authority, but merely to another poster (without even citing who it was, or given any VAGUE indication as to which thread you are referring to), is a horrible method of debate.

Let's see what the ICS actually says. It says that, if the Rebels had been using 10 MT weapons, they could not have destroyed the Star Destroyer as we see them doing when the Rebels fired an HTL blast at one. The thing was engulfed by a MASSIVE explosion, that was taller and wider, respectively, than the ISD's bridge tower. From ONE SHOT. The ICS states clearly that thermonuclear weapons have little or no effect on the structural integrity of the hull of the Acclamator transport. Quite frankly, this theory is laughable. It wouldn't matter if Einstein or Curtis Saxton advanced this theory. It would STILL be wrong.

Not only that, but the Star Destroyers with 100 MT Turbolasers were using the same weapons in turn against Mon Cal criusers which are said to have greater shielding than the ISD's themselves!!!

What "100 MT turbolasers?" First of all, ICS has NEVER given us the yield of an ISD's turbolaser. More importantly, however, the only weapon I remember in ICS being anywhere near that level of destruction (with several weapons both above and below it) were the Slave-1's projectile weapons.

Oh, and Ender.
I agree, many of the rabid trek fans do resort to arguments like that. I however have not. I am battling the ICS numbers because I think Saxton was giving a wink back at all the fans of his site with the 200 GT number.

What fans of his site? Why would he care? This is a CRAPPY appeal to motive fallacy. Demonstrate its validity or stop disparaging the Doctor.

And just so we don't get confused. I am a Wars fan first, Bab 5 fan second. Why don' you try to ease back on the hissy fits. The reason I don't like the ICS numbers is because I'd rather Wars win versus debates because of it's own merits. Not because some fan was given a pinch of authority and decided to give his pals a copout argument.

I have found that this claim is usually the first retreat of complete idiots. To declare your allegiance to a particular science fiction has NOTHING to do with the validity of your arguments. The fact that you chose to do this in an attempt to justify yourself and your flawed views (which was in ANTICIPATION of an appeal to motive fallacy being used against YOU) demonstrates an inability to think logically about this given subject.

[Master of Ossus]

Strange how he doesn't try to disprove Saxton but instead screams that obviously Saxton pulled them out of his ass because he doesn't like them.

He never goes back to the whole TNG TM being equal to AoTC: ICS as well...hmmm.

One cannot disprove the result of a calculation when he doesn't know the orignial numbers. SHow me exactly how Saxton got the 200 GT number and I WILL attempt to prove him wrong. You can't show me how he got the numbers, so I can't do that. So I am forced to find another way to discredit it. The only way I can do that is by falling back on the old calculations I remember from SB.com and the other Wars sites I've found.

He probably derived it from the observed effects of the ISD's turbolasers on the Millenium Falcon in ESB, and from the energy estimates REQUIRED for a Base Delta Zero operation to be successful.

Oh and LMSx.
Look at the other forums. There is already talk about how the 200 GT is a "lowend" figure. Most of those posters are already trying to scale up from 200 GT LTL cannons. Believe me, ICS is a copout meant only to defeat all debates.

Who CARES? Why do you insist on appealing to the authority of OTHER POSTERS ON THIS BOARD? DarkStar was a poster on this board. I am a poster on this board. Mike Wong is a poster on this board. NONE OF US ARE PERFECT. To appeal to our authority is, quite frankly, laughable. Moreover, I have never ONCE seen someone claim that 200GT is a low-end figure for an Acclamator. It is a low-end figure for an Imperator class Star Destroyer, to be sure (because the ISD is MUCH larger, volumetrically, and has a larger proportion of the ship dedicated to power generation, whereas the Acclamator sacrifices this for troop-capacity), but to claim it as being low-end for an Acclamator's HTL's without citing reason for the belief is to be simply dishonest.

[Ender]

One cannot disprove the result of a calculation when he doesn't know the orignial numbers. SHow me exactly how Saxton got the 200 GT number and I WILL attempt to prove him wrong. You can't show me how he got the numbers, so I can't do that. So I am forced to find another way to discredit it. The only way I can do that is by falling back on the old calculations I remember from SB.com and the other Wars sites I've found.

This paragraph says it all right here. Whether it is a "wink back" as you described it when you attacked his integrity or nhot, it doesn't change the fact that it is totally uncontradicted. Accept it because all you are doing now is being a whiney bitch about it.

Besides, if you really look at the numbers and mechanics, it is not as far out as some believe.

[2000AD]

Couldn't the Empire still wipe the floor with the Feds with these low figures icehawk is suggesting?

[Ghost Rider]

Yeah, it would just take longer.

Just because he rates power figures where the LTL are seemingly in comparison to starfighter cannons...sure, the Empire's industrial capabilities alone would rip the Federation a new one.

The matter though is that the ICS has not been contradicted by canon and is regarded as official...and he's basically attacking Saxton by saying he did the ICS in a way to somehow pay back the warsies, to which he has yet to prove otherwise on either the ICS being contradicted by canon, or that Saxton just seemingly manufactured calculations.

[His Divine Shadow]

I do so enjoy how the EU novels are simply "Official" and display a maximum of "multi-gigaton" recoils and that the ICS (Which BTW is complete speculation based on absolutely NO Oncsreen evidence when it comes to Captial weapons) states 200 GT Turbolasers and it is thought of as Quasi-Canon.

Bull-shit

The rest of your arguments are also bullshit, unsubstansiated crap.

And this max out at 20GT what flamboyant piece of shit notion is this? The 17GT BDZ calcs where painfully low-end, unrealistically so, and we had 50GT calcs or more atleast 6 months before the ICS.

And Saxton has stated how he did most of his calcs, or part of the reasons, and I was allowed to quote it:

Where do the figures come from? There were several independent
approaches. For example:

1. Estimate the reactor power of a large warship at maximum acceleration
demonstrated in the movies (on the order of a few thousands of G); assume
that at least a modest fraction of that power can be dedicated to weapons
instead of engines.

2. Interpolate the exponential relationship between power and size from
man-sized devices up to the Death Star; take account of the size of the
reactor or power source.

3. Lower limit estimates from Base Delta Zero and asteroid vaporisation
requirements; upper limit estimates from (for instance) the inability of
modest numbers of star destroyers to demolish a planet.

4. A ladder of comparisons of capabilities relative threats of different
types of vehicles, eg. star destroyer outruns Falcon in straight-line
chase; Aethersprite shields dampen or endure a few shots from Slave I,
which would vaporise much larger asteroids.

He's used much of the same technuiqes as we have, he's just not gone and made unrealistical low-end figures and gone for the accurate ones instead or given two shits about popular opinion of some vs. forums.

[His Divine Shadow]

One cannot disprove the result of a calculation when he doesn't know the orignial numbers. SHow me exactly how Saxton got the 200 GT number and I WILL attempt to prove him wrong. You can't show me how he got the numbers, so I can't do that. So I am forced to find another way to discredit it. The only way I can do that is by falling back on the old calculations I remember from SB.com and the other Wars sites I've found.

1. Saxton is not allowed to show the exact calculations

2. Even if you had access to them, your lack of knowledge of SW, it's size and scope, basic scientific deduction and all things important means you couldn't disprove them on a workable ground in a thousand years.

This whole thing is born to begin with from your lacking information on Star Wars and the ability to see things as a scientist would.

[His Divine Shadow]

Believe me, ICS is a copout meant only to defeat all debates.

You're so full of shit you make me sick, you dishonest lying bastard.

[Vympel]

Oh and LMSx.
Look at the other forums. There is already talk about how the 200 GT is a "lowend" figure. Most of those posters are already trying to scale up from 200 GT LTL cannons.

Of course it's not the absolute maximum firepower, those are quad turbolasers at 50GT per barrel, and are a mere fraction of the size of the heavy turbolasers on both the ISD and ISD2 designs.

Believe me, ICS is a copout meant only to defeat all debates.

What lovely unsubstantiated slander.

If you had read Mike Wong's own work, you would see that before ICS even came out he had gigaton level firepower. It is based, IIRC, on Base Delta Zero calcs.

[His Divine Shadow]

The movies themselves with their many thousand G accelerations for ships massing many millions of tons gives us a rather unpenetrable figure with regards to reactor power and reliability, shortly, if you disagree with the ICS reactor figures in general you pretty much disagree with the movies themselves.

Not to mention the fact that the Death Star is built on conventional technology on a larger scale, and that it's a good yardstick of imperial technology, noone of the anti-ICS people seems to fucking get this, nooo, they think it's some abherration, twats...

And what about the various BDZ figures and quotes, and the planet who's atmosphere got blown off by three ISD's bombarding it and the fact that the Emperor prior to the DS could still wipe out whole planets and that even the Bothans have in the past shattered planets in wars.

The fucking bigger picture supports the ICS, people who do not know the bigger picture, has all the info, or lacks a scientific mindset or are clueless morons in general do not tend to get this.

[IceHawk-151]

1) Apparently I misused the word subjective. I had meant that Saxton's site was an "objective" look at Star Wars, and that was why I liked it... Just a small gramatical correction.

2) Master of Ossus
The reason that I mentioned the fact that I'm a Warise was because I didn't want to hear Ender (Or atleast I think it was Ender) complaining about the way certain Trekkies debate in an effort to classifiy my opinion on a subject he had yet to ask me about.

3) Seeing the Acclamator weapon Turrets in AOTC.
In my memory I did not see the weapons, but I'll take your word that they're there.

4) 2000AD
Yes, the low figures I've always suggested would allow the Star Wars univerese to trump the Trek one, it would just be a closer fight. I think it was like 6-7 Galaxys = 1 ISD in weapons output or something like that.

5) An actual attack (EI: flame) and a response
HDS, all due respect but you have absolutely no idea to what level I am capable of scientific deduction nor to what extend I have knowledge in the SW universe. The simple fact is that our two methods of deduction give us seperate conclusions.

6) Bothans
HDS, you must realize that even the characters in the book believed the Bothan Admiral to be a bit to eccentric. To interprate the quote from the Admiral as the total fact, and not the ramblings of a pridefull and overzealous commander, is to give the qoute to much credit in my opinion.

7) "Are you honestly suggesting that he made up those numbers without any evidence to back them up?"- Master of Ossus
No, I'm not. I am simply saying that the possibility that Saxton did make those numbers up without any hard evidence is a reasonable theory. We have seen no evidence as to how Saxton derived those numbers. Sure we have theories on how Saxton got to the numbers, but in the end those are just theories.

The Numbers and Mechanics
"Besides, if you really look at the numbers and mechanics, it is not as far out as some believe." - Ender
Actually you are correct, if you look at the way a person like, let's say Mike, did calculations you can find the ICS numbers well in the range of possibilities. However Mike is just a single man with an opinion. The reason why tackling that opinion is so hard is because over the years Mike has become famous in the VS world. He is mentioned on varous websites, and his site is always one of the first to pop up on a search engine when you look up "Star Wars". Now the reason, as far as I can tell, that Wong himself and those who use his numbers agree with the ICS is because Mike has been using high-end calculations the entire time. It has also occured to me that Mike, when doing calculations, values the EU Literature above the movies.

The Concept of the BDZ is never even heard of in the movies. It is a totaly EU creation. The idea that an ISD can melt the crust of an entire planet in one hour is the biggest "high-end" situation in the entirety of Star Wars. That is the reason that Wong has been called bias, that is the reason that his numbers work with the numbers from the ICS. Mike took an EU situation, which shows the highest possible power for a single ship, and he made it the baseline rule to take calculations from. His numbers of 138 MT LTL and 17 GT HTL (or whatever) are based on a high-end situation. Onscreen evidence hinting towards lower power levels, the ESB scene, are rationalized away by a play on words. The bolts that vaporize the small asteroids are said to be either Laser Cannons, or they are said to have variable settings, or some other excuse is made up in order to keep the original BDZ-inspired calculations. Those calculations were then used as another baseline, and you got people doing thier own math and coming up with numbers approaching the upper gigaton range. Thus when Saxton wrote the 200 GT number in the ICS, those people who had been doing math based on things such as the BDZ found it easy to fit the 200 GT number into thier range of posibilities.

Once again, if I knew exactly how Saxton came up with his estimates I would be able to challenge them on an equal grounding. However because I, nor any of you, know how Saxton came up with the numbers I am working from a disadvantage. (Hell I knew that the moment I signed on here )

Wong's numbers are based on an upper limit from the EU literature. Those who agree with his numbers, or those who used the BDZ quote to find thier own numbers, started off by acknowledging that ISD's had tremendous fire power. They used multiple arguments to rationalize what we see in the movies so that thier numbers can work. The difference between those calculations and mine are simple. I used the movies to derive a set of numbers, and I'm rationalizing things in the EU to keep my numbers working. Same idea, just a different overall starting point.

And I have yet had anyone tell me a logical excuse why Star Destroyers with main weapons in the hundreds of MT to GT range were using 500 KT laser cannons against enemy capital ships.

[His Divine Shadow]

5) An actual attack (EI: flame) and a response
HDS, all due respect but you have absolutely no idea to what level I am capable of scientific deduction nor to what extend I have knowledge in the SW universe. The simple fact is that our two methods of deduction give us seperate conclusions.

Oh I think I have a pretty good idea, you have to ignore the movies for your deductions to work, you have to ignore alot of stuff just because you think the numbers are "too big".

The simple fact is that your method is flawed, I haven't seen you come up with any calculations, measurements or intricate study of the movies and the majority of written SW material or been in contact with the guys at LFL or been to Skywalker Ranch to write and discuss the book in question with the guys behind the movies.
Your method is not to find out yields, your method consists of you have some yields to begin with and squeezing in the universe around it into your constraints.
And also I recently begun to dislike you, alot, your post about Saxton, your slanderous post disgusted me and every moral fibre I have, you must be a pretty low person in order to make up shit like that behind someone's back.

6) Bothans
HDS, you must realize that even the characters in the book believed the Bothan Admiral to be a bit to eccentric. To interprate the quote from the Admiral as the total fact, and not the ramblings of a pridefull and overzealous commander, is to give the qoute to much credit in my opinion.

I realize that you are trying to discredit the admiral, ofcourse you fail, there's too much of the SW universe thats too solid in backing up the Admirals comments on the basis of general capabilities for that to work, however much you'd like it not to be what it is.

[Anarchist Bunny]

And I have yet had anyone tell me a logical excuse why Star Destroyers with main weapons in the hundreds of MT to GT range were using 500 KT laser cannons against enemy capital ships.

Oh, thats simple, you obviously dillusional. You ignore offical figures, and then try to use your bullshit calcs in a hypothosis. And I think your confused with what a capital ship is. We never see any real Cap Ship to Cap ship combat.

[Alyeska]

How interesting. Someone tries to give their rational reasons for not accepting or not like ICS and all the responses are flames or simply calling the person an idiot.

Wars didn't really win the firepower debate so much as scream so loudly that anyone with a differeing opinion just doesn't bother with the debate anymore because its pointless.

To quote someone I know.

"Do not confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."

This is not an open discussion. You people are not open to interpretation of the facts. You have already made up your minds as to SW firepower and you are refusing to hear anything contrary to that no matter how well thought out the arguments are.

[IceHawk-151]

Quick point about Saxton.
If you'll check I've said I think Saxton's work is very good. Hell, I think Saxton's webpage is one of the best looks at the Star Wars Universe out there. However I've also said that I think Saxton may have had reason to come up with the 200 GT number. But until I see his reasoning I have to look at his number and compare it with my own conclusions. What I find is that Saxton's new numbers don't jive with what I've found. Saying someone is wrong, or may have allowed his own opinions to leak out through his work is not slander. It is acknowledging human nature. Saxton thought something was right, so he wrote it down. I disagree and I challenge the widely held beliefs here.

1) Ignoring the Movies.
Actually that is what you guys do, to an extent. What you call ignoring I call rationalizing. You guys agree with Saxton's numbers and the calculations based on the BDZ quote. You think that the yields are in the upper extreme. You can logically support this by creating theories on why things like the 500 KT weapons exsist. The theory that the weapon is a Anti-fighter cannon, that it has a variable setting, or whatever is the way, in your mind, what you see onscreen matches with what you see on paper. In effect you find ways to make the onscreen evidence match and work with your theories.
I do the same thing, but in the opposite manner. I saw the ESB scene and used that as a baseline to scale up from. I came up with conclusions that matched with other peoples over at SB.com. I then looked at my numbers an rationalized the EU. When you say TL's have variable settings I say you're interpetting a quote differently. WHen you say the TL was in fact a Laser Cannon I say that the Admiral in question was on an adrenaline rush.

2) The Admiral
I do not wish to discredit the Admiral. In fact I classify his quote right along in the same category as Han's fanous Starfleet quote. Interpretation is everything. I thought Han was exagerating when he was talking about that in ANH. I also think that the Admiral from Destiy's Way was suddenly being filled with ideas of honor, patriotism, and bloodlust. A sentiment shared by characters from the book itself. (Though KYP didn't think the Admiral was in a "bloodlust") I think the Admiral was just spouting out big words in order to seem heroic and important. Your interpretation of his quote is a literal one because that most conforms with your calculations. My interpretation is a loose one because that most conforms with mine.

[IceHawk-151]

And I have yet had anyone tell me a logical excuse why Star Destroyers with main weapons in the hundreds of MT to GT range were using 500 KT laser cannons against enemy capital ships.

Oh, thats simple, you obviously dillusional. You ignore offical figures, and then try to use your bullshit calcs in a hypothosis. And I think your confused with what a capital ship is. We never see any real Cap Ship to Cap ship combat.

Nice copout Bunny.

What would you classify a Nebulon-B Frigate as?

[His Divine Shadow]

How interesting. Someone tries to give their rational reasons for not accepting or not like ICS and all the responses are flames or simply calling the person an idiot.

I haven't seen anything rational so far.

Wars didn't really win the firepower debate so much as scream so loudly that anyone with a differeing opinion just doesn't bother with the debate anymore because its pointless

No, that was how it was before, when people screamed like that at warsies if they dared speak up and go against the majority.

To quote someone I know.

"Do not confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."

Fits aptly here, facts have been given, they didn't work.

This is not an open discussion. You people are not open to interpretation of the facts. You have already made up your minds as to SW firepower and you are refusing to hear anything contrary to that no matter how well thought out the arguments are.

Hmm, wrong, the claims have definitly not been rational, thats the whole problem, thats just what you claim it is, doesn't make it true.

[His Divine Shadow]

However I've also said that I think Saxton may have had reason to come up with the 200 GT number. But until I see his reasoning I have to look at his number and compare it with my own conclusions.

I've posted parts of it, and for fucks sake, mail him.

What I find is that Saxton's new numbers don't jive with what I've found

What you've found has often been shown to be in error, so I'm not suprised.

Saying someone is wrong, or may have allowed his own opinions to leak out through his work is not slander. It is acknowledging human nature. Saxton thought something was right, so he wrote it down. I disagree and I challenge the widely held beliefs here.

Thats not what you said.

1) Ignoring the Movies.
Actually that is what you guys do, to an extent. What you call ignoring I call rationalizing.

We haven't ignored them yet, you however have to ignore things like multi-million ton ships doing thousands of G's of accell and observed technologies and feats, ofcourse given how much the signifigance of that has been downplayed, ignored and shouted down over the years by less than honest vs. debaters.

You guys agree with Saxton's numbers and the calculations based on the BDZ quote. You think that the yields are in the upper extreme.

Nope, don't think the yields are extreme.

You can logically support this by creating theories on why things like the 500 KT weapons exsist. The theory that the weapon is a Anti-fighter cannon, that it has a variable setting, or whatever is the way, in your mind, what you see onscreen matches with what you see on paper. In effect you find ways to make the onscreen evidence match and work with your theories.

No, what has been seen here is that onscreen evidence is observed, it is observed that a Star Destroyer MUST be able to put out 1e23w atleast to do the accelerative feats shown in the movies.
This fits in with scaling of the DS, which is based on normal technology on a larger scale and other evidence, then also take in all the other cleared evidence and THEN make a theory, or atleast thats along the lines of what Saxton did.

I do the same thing, but in the opposite manner. I saw the ESB scene and used that as a baseline to scale up from. I came up with conclusions that matched with other peoples over at SB.com. I then looked at my numbers an rationalized the EU. When you say TL's have variable settings I say you're interpetting a quote differently. WHen you say the TL was in fact a Laser Cannon I say that the Admiral in question was on an adrenaline rush

In other words you disregard evidence, we don't.
As has been shown the actual mega-figures are dervied from the movies, many EU quotes are in agreement so it's not a problem, you OTOH have not factored in all the evidence or implications.

2) The Admiral
I do not wish to discredit the Admiral. In fact I classify his quote right along in the same category as Han's fanous Starfleet quote. Interpretation is everything. I thought Han was exagerating when he was talking about that in ANH. I also think that the Admiral from Destiy's Way was suddenly being filled with ideas of honor, patriotism, and bloodlust. A sentiment shared by characters from the book itself. (Though KYP didn't think the Admiral was in a "bloodlust") I think the Admiral was just spouting out big words in order to seem heroic and important. Your interpretation of his quote is a literal one because that most conforms with your calculations. My interpretation is a loose one because that most conforms with mine

Here's our logic:
The Admirals sentiments and words are technologically possible given the large majority of evidence so far shown, and even similar sentiments are echoed in

Your theory:
The Admiral is unreliable because his words imply that my theory, which disagrees with the majority of evidence, is incorrect.