Questions about SD.net

[Master of Ossus]

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.

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.[/quote]

Hardly. The estimates on firepower of the asteroids are LOWER limits. That indicates that the estimate may be low, but we know that it is AT LEAST that high. What part of this do you not understand?

[Master of Ossus]

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.

So what? It was still done in anticipation of an appeal to motive fallacy.

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.

Recent calculations have shown that photon torpedoes do not impart more than one kiloton worth of energy per torpedo. Explain how 6-7 Galaxy class ships could match an ISD in firepower, even with a mere 20 MT weapon!

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.

No, however your previous posts allow us to use a prior distribution curve to extrapolate your level of intelligence and ability to make proper scientific deduction. Further, your ignorance of the Star Wars universe has already been demonstrated during your previous posts.

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.

He is eccentric, but he is also considered to be phenomenally skilled as a tactician and a strategist. Grand Admiral Thrawn, Kirk, Khan, and Julius Caesar can all be accurately described as being eccentric. This does not, in any way, detract from their talents as military officers. Moreover, Kre'fey MUST have knowledge of the basic abilities of his starships, and the starships his opponents use, in order to be effective as a military commander. The fact that he is eccentric does NOTHING to refute his statements.

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.

Explain how a BDZ is possible, without using GT weapons.

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.

Okay, then, disprove Mike's well publicized calculations on BDZ attacks.

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.

Again, demonstrate that the use of EU material represents "bias." You are, in fact, implying that Doctor Saxton's site is "biased" because it, too, uses EU material explicitly when drawing conclusions.

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 )

We've told you. He came up with them from the required energy levels to perform a BDZ operation.

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.

BULLSHIT. How can you state this? You are so obviously wrong, here, that I find it difficult to believe I'm still involved in this debate with you. Mike's estimates are LOWER limits. They rely on only ONE meter of melt depth (as opposed to the one half mile that I have estimated as being required to kill all life on a planet, and destroy all mines). They rely on a dry planet, with NO oceans. They rely on a planet that does NOT lose heat through radiation or other means. That is a LOWER LIMIT calculation, not an upper limit. You, once again, demonstrate a spectacular lack of ability in terms of physics, reasoning, and science, yet you claim by inference to be gifted in such subjects.

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.

Those weapons appeared to be effective, once the shields of the different ships went down. Because they were at point blank range, in a confusing battlefield, after their energy reserves had been spent from prolonged combat. I did not realize that it would be a good strategy to employ nuclear devices while defending a military installation against an infantry attack, yet that is essentially what you are claiming the Empire should have done. The simple fact of the matter is that in the close quarters battle going on at Endor, the use of very high-power weapons would have done nearly as much damage to the ships firing them than they would have to the target. We see exactly one engagement with a Rebel FRIGATE. The fact of the matter is that the weapons being employed against that frigate were probably more than sufficient to damage it. Against more powerful ships, the different vessels appeared to be jockeying for position, and we saw them utilize such a position once when a Mon Calamari cruiser destroyed an ISD in one shot.

[Master of Ossus]

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.

Again, you ANTICIPATE an appeal to motive fallacy in order to make a worthless point.

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.

These numbers are not in the "upper extreme." An upper extreme estimate for a BDZ would require melting the surface of a world to a depth of at least two miles. This is not possible for one ship, armed with Saxton's weapons. You seem to have difficulty understanding this.

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.

Okay, let's do a little experiment. What is the volume of the firing mechanism of Han Solo's blaster in ANH? That does the equivalent (lower limit) of about one and one half sticks of dynamite to the walls in Mos Eisley spaceport per shot. Now, find the volume of the firing mechanism of the light turbolaser used by the Star Destroyer to destroy the asteroids in ESB. Now compare the two volumes, and find out how much larger a weapon needs to be to produce double the firepower (hint: it is NOT two times). Now, scale up either weapon to the size of the HTL's visible on the ISD models and find out how much damage those can do, based on the extrapolation. You will find Saxton's numbers in the ICS are fairly consistent with the ones that we find from this simple calculation.

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.

So basically you admit to bias, but excuse yourself by claiming that the others involved use bias to justify their opinions. Again, your theory is inconsistent with the simple thought experiment outlined to you, above. Figure that out, and then determine whether or not you believe Doctor Saxton's calculations to be "reasonable."

[Master of Ossus]

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.

Your argument relies on Icehawk's points being "reasonable." In fact they are not.

[Master of Ossus]

When was the Neb-B under fire from LTLs, I can remember TIEs attacking it, but not LTLs.

When the Nebulon-B frigate was moving directly opposite to the ISD, during the scene in which I pointed out to DarkStar (and then he ignored me) another example of damage to a starship before the visible bolt arrived. It did happen.

[Master of Ossus]

The DS and the DS2 are not so much technological advantages, rather they are examples of Industrial Advantages. The ONLY technological advantage the DS and DS2 have is its hyper matter reactors. However these are just scaled up versions of technology already pioneered on ships like the Imperial and Victory class. So the DS and DS2 do not represent technological inovations or advantages so much as they represent raw industrial capability.

[Assuming that you were comparing the DS and DS2 to Star Trek ships] They do represent an enormous technological advantage. The volume of SF ships, scaled up to be DS sized, do not manage to come up with an equivalent firepower. While the industrial advantage you speak of is clearly also present, it is equally clear that the technological advantage is simultaneously demonstrated.

[Master of Ossus]

When was the Neb-B under fire from LTLs, I can remember TIEs attacking it, but not LTLs.

Watch ROTJ again. A few Tie Interceptors and A-Wings fly between the Neb-B and the Executor. (Imperial ship was blue only Executor was blue Imperial ship was executor)
The SSD and Neb-B exchange fire that looks damn near identical to the ESB weaponry. The SSD fires like 4-6 times and the Neb-B 3-5 times. I analyzed this scene for Spacebattles awhile back, but I can't remember te exact chain of events. All I do remember was fire rate and quantity being extremely slow. (However I think more than 90% of all shots hit so accuracy at a range of a few hundred meters is pretty good.)

OT:
Look at the CRC in the scene too. It looks a little shorter than 1/2 the Neb-B.

That was actually just a regular star destroyer engaging the Nebulon B frigate, however it WAS using the LTL's that were also used in ESB.

[Master of Ossus]

"The bolt in ESB that detroyed the infamous asteroid was approximately 4.6 meters in width. The bolts fired by the SSD at the frigate were approximately as wide as 10 meters. " - Phil

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did we actually see any of the bolts from a front view in that scene? I know we saw side views of them, but I can't be sure if we saw a fore view.

Variable Power Settings:
Is there anywhere in the official literature that states Turbolaser's have variable power settings. I've read the majority of the EU books and have yet to run into that idea. Is it possible that one of the other ICS or other source stated this?

Irrelevent, a fore-view is less accurate for determining width than a size view, because you cannot accurately guage distance using such a measure.

Variable power settings: Yes there is. In fact, there is evidence in the movies. Piett calls for his officers to "intensify forward firepower," having already increased the NUMBER of shots fired from the forward ships with the order to "Intensify the forward [firing] pathways." This demonstrates variable yields.

[His Divine Shadow]

Frustrated gunners wasting energy and calling more attention to the Frigate.

Any action against the SSD is a waste of energy nomatter what weapons the frigate would be using.

That vessel, I'm guessing, was the Medical Frigate. I say this because I do not remember seeing any more than that single Nebulon-B. For some reason the Captain of that vessel order his ship into close quarters combat with the biggest capital ship on the enemy side.

Ofcourse IIRC the novel speaks of multiple Frigates.

The shots fired by the Frigate were aimed at the Executor itself. The Executor's shots may have been aimed at the fighters, however the speed of the Rebel ships and the number of tie fighters to deal with them make me doubt it.

The TIE's could not really injure the ships except the weakest ones with missiles, but that wasn't their mission either.

It seemed to be that the SSD was shooting at the Frigate, and the fighters had gotten in the way.

Then why where they aiming for the fighters, why only fire two non-effective shots?

Either way the Frigate itself was engaging the the SSD. It must have thought it could do some damage, other wise it is simply commiting suicide

In that case it thought wrong, or it was simply gunners firing back because they where shot at, possibly a reflex action, the evidence is clear on that even an ISD alone wouldn't stand much chance against an ISD, so why a Neb-B frigate, and in that case it makes the construction of the SSD in the first place very suspect since it's such a worthless ship, ofcourse the SSD did not take any damage either, and the Frigate sure did a shit-poor job in attacking it, the SSD hardly recognized it's presence.

[Alyeska]

The DS and the DS2 are not so much technological advantages, rather they are examples of Industrial Advantages. The ONLY technological advantage the DS and DS2 have is its hyper matter reactors. However these are just scaled up versions of technology already pioneered on ships like the Imperial and Victory class. So the DS and DS2 do not represent technological inovations or advantages so much as they represent raw industrial capability.

[Assuming that you were comparing the DS and DS2 to Star Trek ships] They do represent an enormous technological advantage. The volume of SF ships, scaled up to be DS sized, do not manage to come up with an equivalent firepower. While the industrial advantage you speak of is clearly also present, it is equally clear that the technological advantage is simultaneously demonstrated.

Yet at the same time the Federation can produce planet killing weapons MUCH smaller then eithe DS. So that particular technology is not really a factor. Neither is the power generation. There is no real technological advantage with the DS. None more then general technological advantages already known. The main advantage shown by the DS is pure industrial capacity.

[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.

Your argument relies on Icehawk's points being "reasonable." In fact they are not.

My argument relies on Icehawk's being well thought out, non confrontational, relatively rational (that does not mean correct), and supported. You don't have to agree with him. What you should do is examine what he is saying rather then dismissing it automatically because you dislike it. Right now this thread does not have any free thinking people when it comes to agreeing with ICS. They see ICS as fact and are unwilling to discuss anything else. The furthest they get to discussing Icehawk's ideas is merely disecting them to disagree with them. Not disecting them to see the possible validity of his arguments. A free thinker is open to new ideas to examine, not automatically attack.

[His Divine Shadow]

It was not as much his arguments per se that ticked me off but some of his comments that I took as slander.

[BabelHuber]

Yet at the same time the Federation can produce planet killing weapons MUCH smaller then eithe DS.

Who said the Empire must use such a big weapon? A simple BDZ would also do.
The DS was designed to overcome planetary shields with one shot - as a psychological and strategical weapon of terror.

BTW: Why didn´t the Romulans and the Cardasians simply use a small weapon of mass destruction to kill all the Founders? Seems to me that they thought a simple bombardment would be the better option. A cloaked single ship with a super weapon wasn´t available at this time, so this indicates that a planet killing weapon is not that easy to build for ST powers.

Neither is the power generation. There is no real technological advantage with the DS. None more then general technological advantages already known.

Yeah, the already-known capability for a 160km sized ship to travel through half the galaxy in less than one day. How long would Voy have taken this journey?

If this isn´t a huge technological advantage, then whatelse?

[Alyeska]

It was not as much his arguments per se that ticked me off but some of his comments that I took as slander.

He has done a remarkably good job referring to Saxton's ICS work without slandering him. He merely wants to see Saxton's reasons for these numbers, not other peoples interpretations.

[His Divine Shadow]

Yet at the same time the Federation can produce planet killing weapons MUCH smaller then eithe DS.

And the Empire too, but thats not relevant, such technologies on both sides have used some weird reactions and not something that one could use as benchmarks.

So that particular technology is not really a factor. Neither is the power generation. There is no real technological advantage with the DS. None more then general technological advantages already known. The main advantage shown by the DS is pure industrial capacity.

The advantage of the DS is not that it's technology for it's own sake but that it's a very good indicator of general technology for us who like to quantify and categorize SW technology, as in that it provides good grounds for benchmarking and comparison that ought to be reliable to within a mangitude atleast.

[Alyeska]

Yeah, the already-known capability for a 160km sized ship to travel through half the galaxy in less than one day. How long would Voy have taken this journey?

If this isn´t a huge technological advantage, then whatelse?

Already demonstrated with the Sith Infiltrator. As I said, the DS does not show any technological breakthrough or major technological advantage. Its nothing more then scaled up technology already in use in the SW Galaxy.

[His Divine Shadow]

He has done a remarkably good job referring to Saxton's ICS work without slandering him. He merely wants to see Saxton's reasons for these numbers, not other peoples interpretations.

1) In my opinion he did not do that as well with the comment that I reffered to, ofcourse that did seem to be due to not being specific enough

2) I have provided some reasons that Saxton felt indulged to share with me, but only in their most basic form, Saxton is not permitted to show his actual calculations of say make a page on his site about how he made it, it would be a breach of his confidentiality agreement.

3) Even so, he does have plans to eventually discuss the general logic and such of it, in an indirect fashion, it won't be a "The making of the ICS", even though I'd buy that book if one where to be made.

[BabelHuber]

Its nothing more then scaled up technology already in use in the SW Galaxy.

...that by far exceeds the possibilities of Federation technology.

This whole point is: The Death Star alone, by simply looking at it, disproves IceHawk-151´s theories.

[Darth Wong]

Variable Power Settings:
Is there anywhere in the official literature that states Turbolaser's have variable power settings. I've read the majority of the EU books and have yet to run into that idea. Is it possible that one of the other ICS or other source stated this?

"Target. Maximum firepower."- General Veers.

[Rightous Fist Of Heaven]

Variable Power Settings:
Is there anywhere in the official literature that states Turbolaser's have variable power settings. I've read the majority of the EU books and have yet to run into that idea. Is it possible that one of the other ICS or other source stated this?

"Target. Maximum firepower."- General Veers.

Exactly

[Illuminatus Primus]

"Intensify forward firepower!" - Admiral Piett

[Alyeska]

"Intensify forward firepower!" - Admiral Piett

That quote is misleading. What use would be increasing the firepower of the weapons when your trying to keep enemy fighters from hitting the bridge? The earlier quote was "Intensify the forward batteries, I don't want anything to get through!" That quote clearly indicates he wants increased weapon fire to keep enemies from threatening the bridge. Firepower was not an issue with this instance.

[Vympel]

Just a minor nitpick, but that WAS the Executor versus the Medical Frigate in the ROTJ battle.

Icehawk's entire bullshit reasoning is taking the asteroid scene, assuming it's the absolute maximum, and then declaring all higher numbers false based on this.

[Illuminatus Primus]

"Intensify forward firepower!" - Admiral Piett

That quote is misleading. What use would be increasing the firepower of the weapons when your trying to keep enemy fighters from hitting the bridge? The earlier quote was "Intensify the forward batteries, I don't want anything to get through!" That quote clearly indicates he wants increased weapon fire to keep enemies from threatening the bridge. Firepower was not an issue with this instance.

Or not. If TL flakbursts exist, intensifying the forward firepower could increase the likelihood that they'd take out the A-Wing w/ greater yield, "wider" bursts.

[Alyeska]

"Intensify forward firepower!" - Admiral Piett

That quote is misleading. What use would be increasing the firepower of the weapons when your trying to keep enemy fighters from hitting the bridge? The earlier quote was "Intensify the forward batteries, I don't want anything to get through!" That quote clearly indicates he wants increased weapon fire to keep enemies from threatening the bridge. Firepower was not an issue with this instance.

Or not. If TL flakbursts exist, intensifying the forward firepower could increase the likelihood that they'd take out the A-Wing w/ greater yield, "wider" bursts.

However I didn't see many Flak bursts being used in that battle. The Flak bursts were primarily used against the Falcon in ESB and Flak bursts are more ideal for disabling in those circumstances because they won't get hit by accident with a to powerful shot.