Questions about SD.net

[His Divine Shadow]

Noooo.... flakburst brainbugs ahoy

[Vympel]

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.

I'm not even convinced that flak exists. Those used against the Falcon were shield interactions by all indications. Reference TPM and AOTC as well.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

I can only interpret that line the same way Alyeska does. Theonly thing it could mean is pretty much "shoot more in the forward direction!".

If he wanted them to increase weapon output, he would have said something like "Increase weapon output!" or such.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I can only interpret that line the same way Alyeska does. The only thing it could mean is pretty much "shoot more in the forward direction!".

If he wanted them to increase weapon output, he would have said something like "Increase weapon output!" or such.

You mean like Veers said "Maximum firepower"?

Firepower is the power of your fire, not the volume of the fire. Oh well, he was panicking and about to die. I'm not going to get anal about it, because he most likely did mean to increase the volume of the forward fire like you and Alyeska said.

Noooo.... flakburst brainbugs ahoy

Eh...I was playing Devil's Advocate. I don't believe in flakbursts at all except perhaps the Geonosian fighters' guns, and there I think it was just probably a special built in to their laser cannons...some sort of plasma burst affect add-on by the Geonosian engineers. They liked odd tech anyway: sonic/repulsor gun thingies, exotic solar sailer craft, etc. Wouldn't suprise me.

[Vympel]

Eh...I was playing Devil's Advocate. I don't believe in flakbursts at all except perhaps the Geonosian fighters' guns, and there I think it was just probably a special built in to their laser cannons...some sort of plasma burst affect add-on by the Geonosian engineers. They liked odd tech anyway: sonic/repulsor gun thingies, exotic solar sailer craft, etc. Wouldn't suprise me.

The Geonosian guns against the LAATs were definitely shield interactions. Some may occur a distance from the LAAT, but it's not surprising considering that shield interactions are harmful (Tantive IV hit by the Devastator in ANH) and you have an open crew compartment.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I said perhaps. Personally I don't think flakburst lasers actually exist, but I think they'd make an interesting specialty weapon, but it'd be too brain-bug-ish and technobabble-y for my preferences. But I don't personally believe in the flakbursts.

[His Divine Shadow]

I said perhaps. Personally I don't think flakburst lasers actually exist, but I think they'd make an interesting specialty weapon, but it'd be too brain-bug-ish and technobabble-y for my preferences. But I don't personally believe in the flakbursts.

On the flakburst theory, if the quanta of the bolt degenerates into light
and/or plasma and it might be so that the degenration is not always at a
constant rate, say if the bolt comes too close to the weak outer edges of a
shield boundary, maybe there's some destabilzation that increases the rate
enough for it to release enough light/plasma to act like a flakburst, though
it would only be a small fraction of the bolt(which would fit with visuals
since those flak bursts are definitly not KT ranged), one could even use
this a deliberate tactic if so, to soften up a target with less risk of
destroying, explaining certain passages in the novellizations that speak of
flakbursting in a deliberate manner.

I'd like to point out that it doesn't have to be on purpose either, the
novels seem to imply as such, but it's not explicit so we don't need to
conform to that, "flak-bursting" as it is, is probably just bolt/shield
interactions that might as well be accidents, but could colloquailly be
described as "flak", which they are in the novel's

[Master of Ossus]

The problem with Icehawk's claim is that it relies on maximum firepowers being depicted in the movies. He is trying to prove a contradiction between the EU's firepower levels and the ones depicted in the movies, but to do so he must first demonstrate that the firepower shown in the asteroid belt was the maximum possible firepower of Imperial ships.

[Master of Ossus]

"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.

So, what's your rationalization of the quote? What do you think it means?

Besides that, we CLEARLY and COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUSLY hear General Veers state that several firepower levels were possible when he ordered his gunner to "Target the Main Generator. Maximum firepower." Clearly AT-AT's have variable power settings, and it makes little sense for that technology to be available to AT-AT weapons and not to starship weapons, also.

[Master of Ossus]

My argument relies on Icehawk's being well thought out, non confrontational, relatively rational (that does not mean correct), and supported.

It is relatively non-confrontational, but the confrontationality of a claim is irrelevent to its validity and rationality. It is not well thought out, and not 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.

I have examined it, and found it to be incorrect. It relies on incorrect assumptions, incorrect premises, and a lack of evidence that has since been supplanted.

Right now this thread does not have any free thinking people when it comes to agreeing with ICS.

Who cares? Oh, it's clear that we should be examining evidence presented, but the fact is that Icehawk has presented NO evidence to disprove the ICS's numbers. He uses appeal to ignorance fallacies as his MO, and disguises this with a thin veil of consistency that does not fit with what we know from either the movies or the EU. Now, it does not matter that no one is agreeing with him (ie. it doesn't hurt how reasonable either argument is). You are subscribing to the theory that the "middle ground" in a debate is correct.

They see ICS as fact and are unwilling to discuss anything else.

That's not what was said and you know it. If someone shows that the ICS's numbers are demonstrably wrong, you know DAMN well that this board will change tunes. The simple fact of the matter is, though, that they are consistent with other EU evidence, and with what has been shown in the films.

The furthest they get to discussing Icehawk's ideas is merely disecting them to disagree with them.

Okay, so that demonstrates that they are examining the evidence and concluding that it is incorrect. That's kind of what I did with his claims, which all rely on serious logical fallacies and incorrect assumptions.

Not disecting them to see the possible validity of his arguments. A free thinker is open to new ideas to examine, not automatically attack.

Okay, an appeal to motive fallacy. This is essentially what has appeared in this thread since Icehawk first began posting his alternative theory. If you go through and look at what's being said, Alyeska, I'm confident you'll find it clear which theory is better supported by the evidence.

[IceHawk-151]

It appears Vympel hasn't been paying attention.

The problem with Icehawk's claim is that it relies on maximum firepowers being depicted in the movies. He is trying to prove a contradiction between the EU's firepower levels and the ones depicted in the movies, but to do so he must first demonstrate that the firepower shown in the asteroid belt was the maximum possible firepower of Imperial ships.

Actually my claim is that a reasonable minimum firepower is portrayed in the movies. Nowhere have I said we have seen maximum firepower being depicted in the movies. (Although we have seen HTL fire) My theory is based on the idea that the weapons used to vaporize the asteroids were in fact the standard Light Turbo Lasers the ISD supposedly has 120 of. It also appears that weapons of the same type were used in the ROTJ final battle against other capital ships. This would imply that these weapons are used to engage other ships and dangerous objects. With that information on hand one can make a couple of conclusions about them. (and possibly scale up to the heavier turrets)

[His Divine Shadow]

Your problem is going around talking about "reasonable" things, thats a purely subjective viewpoint from you about what you feel is reasonable.

Well it's not reasonable I think for ships that have shown the ability to make thousand-g accelerations and the power generation tech that shows(like ICS level justified) and that drops GT ranged mines from ships no bigger than 2-3 fighers, and then say that the heaviest weapons on capital ships don't even have 10% of the firepower(your 500MT idea for HTL's) of what a small 1-3 person ship can do.

[His Divine Shadow]

It also appears that weapons of the same type were used in the ROTJ final battle against other capital ships. This would imply that these weapons are used to engage other ships and dangerous objects.

No, it appears that they where not seriously used in the ROTJ final battle, what we see is limited to a few shots that looks like they where fired out of anger, even so, the size of bolts does not matter, we see bolts in TESB fired from the light weapos positions that are several times longer than the bolts in ROTJ.

Even so we have no idea on the possible firepower on the ISD laser cannons.

[IceHawk-151]

No, it appears that they where not seriously used in the ROTJ final battle, what we see is limited to a few shots that looks like they where fired out of anger, even so, the size of bolts does not matter, we see bolts in TESB fired from the light weapos positions that are several times longer than the bolts in ROTJ.

Even so we have no idea on the possible firepower on the ISD laser cannons.

That ofcourse depends on your definition of "seriously" used. In the ROTJ battle scene we see the majority of the capital ships using smaller cannons to battle each other. We have one example of the use of HTL turrets. Only 4 bolts were shot, maybe 5, and the Imperial Vessel involved was so damaged it was destroyed after taking a direct hit. Other than that all of the weapons fire we see from the Capital ships are within the range of the smaller types. Were I to be basing my conclusions on the movies alone I would have to believe that those were the main weapons used in capital ship battles. I could also refer to the attack on the Tanitive VI, where the largest bolt used against it was within the 20-50 meter long range.

[2000AD]

Is it me or has this thread gone off topic

[Isolder74]

Is it me or has this thread gone off topic

No it's not just you

[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.

So, what's your rationalization of the quote? What do you think it means?

Besides that, we CLEARLY and COMPLETELY UNAMBIGUOUSLY hear General Veers state that several firepower levels were possible when he ordered his gunner to "Target the Main Generator. Maximum firepower." Clearly AT-AT's have variable power settings, and it makes little sense for that technology to be available to AT-AT weapons and not to starship weapons, also.

I am not disputing viarable firepower for turbo lasers. I am showing how that particular quote is misleading when not shown in context.

[His Divine Shadow]

That ofcourse depends on your definition of "seriously" used. In the ROTJ battle scene we see the majority of the capital ships using smaller cannons to battle each other

Majority? We see one example, the rest is one ISD firing it's heavy weapons and scenes at large distances where we cannot see anything for sure and large flashes here and there.
And out of the battles total lenght I believe we saw less than 2% of the battles totality.

We have one example of the use of HTL turrets. Only 4 bolts were shot, maybe 5, and the Imperial Vessel involved was so damaged it was destroyed after taking a direct hit. Other than that all of the weapons fire we see from the Capital ships are within the range of the smaller types.

And we have one example of what _might_ be LTL's or HTL's being fired from a Neb-B.
And ofcourse the rest of the battle is mostly like that since the imp ships where not to engage and because fighters where everywhere fighting in and around the ship formations.
The ROTJ battle is not really usefull for any solid with regards to weapons or tactics, but propulsion.

Were I to be basing my conclusions on the movies alone I would have to believe that those were the main weapons used in capital ship battles. I could also refer to the attack on the Tanitive VI, where the largest bolt used against it was within the 20-50 meter long range

The ISD1 chasing the Tantive-IV fired a shot from it's heavy trench gun too, it was not very long, so obvoiusly lenght is not important to power, it might have to do with distance to the target maybe.

[Master of Ossus]

That ofcourse depends on your definition of "seriously" used. In the ROTJ battle scene we see the majority of the capital ships using smaller cannons to battle each other. We have one example of the use of HTL turrets. Only 4 bolts were shot, maybe 5, and the Imperial Vessel involved was so damaged it was destroyed after taking a direct hit. Other than that all of the weapons fire we see from the Capital ships are within the range of the smaller types. Were I to be basing my conclusions on the movies alone I would have to believe that those were the main weapons used in capital ship battles. I could also refer to the attack on the Tanitive VI, where the largest bolt used against it was within the 20-50 meter long range.

And you would be wrong. We SAW HTL's used against a Star Destroyer in RotJ. We saw that the ONLY shots that did any significant damage in and of themselves to a starship during the entire battle were fired from HTL shots. Now, that Tantive IV situation was obviously a small ship that they were trying to capture against an Imperator class Star Destroyer that was never seriously threatened by its smaller but apparently slightly faster opponent. It's an irrelevent example of evidence that has nothing to do with anything.

[IceHawk-151]

And you would be wrong. We SAW HTL's used against a Star Destroyer in RotJ. We saw that the ONLY shots that did any significant damage in and of themselves to a starship during the entire battle were fired from HTL shots. Now, that Tantive IV situation was obviously a small ship that they were trying to capture against an Imperator class Star Destroyer that was never seriously threatened by its smaller but apparently slightly faster opponent. It's an irrelevent example of evidence that has nothing to do with anything.

Yes, the HTL damage was the only actual weapons fire that we saw destroy a Capital Vessel. However that vessel's destruction came moments before the death of the Executor, which signaled the begining of the Imperial Fleet's retreat. As we have seen from the Tanitive IV scene and the Neb-B vs SSD scene each ship uses it's lighter weapons, even when facing a much stronger opponent. For all we know about that particular ISD it's shields could have been weakened by concentrated lighter weapons fire before the HTL's brought in the final blow.

[Master of Ossus]

Yes, the HTL damage was the only actual weapons fire that we saw destroy a Capital Vessel. However that vessel's destruction came moments before the death of the Executor, which signaled the begining of the Imperial Fleet's retreat. As we have seen from the Tanitive IV scene and the Neb-B vs SSD scene each ship uses it's lighter weapons, even when facing a much stronger opponent. For all we know about that particular ISD it's shields could have been weakened by concentrated lighter weapons fire before the HTL's brought in the final blow.

Appeal to ignorance fallacy (among others). More importantly, you are destroying your own argument. By admitting that light weapons are ONLY useful for weakening the shields of opposing warships, you are also admitting that the HTL's are vastly more powerful weapons, and are necessary for capital ship combat. However, your entire argument is based around appeal to ignorance, and thus is fallacious in premise.

[Vympel]

It appears Vympel hasn't been paying attention.

I've read over your arguments. They're stupid. Moving on ...

Whether you think the firepower is 'reasonable' or not is completely irrelevant. Here's a little exercise for you. Why don't you go to Mike Wong's turbolaser section in the technology section of the main site- and disprove Mike Wong's gigaton calcs?

Until then, shut the fuck up.

[Master of Ossus]

Quiet, Vympel. Your last post made no relevent points.

Icehawk, on a much more serious note, have you performed the simple calculations I suggested to you yet, and found that the ICS is actually somewhat conservative?

[IceHawk-151]

I lost track of your original idea, I believe it was the one about using the official numbers for reactor output to find suggestive power amounts for the weapons, or was that HDS?
Either way I have yet to do those calculations. It's monday and I'm lucky I can think straight.
However I have been bouncing back and forth between SD.net and the ST vs SW site to gather some information. Whoever runs the latter site, Darkstar is int?, puts forth a few good points. However he also has a massive bias gainst SW and clearly shows that bias in some of his figures. Same thing with Wong, but less so with the bias showing through with the numbers. Wong based his high-end calculations on the DBZ quotes. Strangely enough though there is an EU situation Wong listed that matches my figures almost perfectly. So I have to take a better look at that before I start throwing exact numbers about.

[Vympel]

However he also has a massive bias gainst SW and clearly shows that bias in some of his figures. Same thing with Wong, but less so with the bias showing through with the numbers. Wong based his high-end calculations on the DBZ quotes. Strangely enough though there is an EU situation Wong listed that matches my figures almost perfectly. So I have to take a better look at that before I start throwing exact numbers about.

You think Darkstar and Mike Wong's work are the same standard? Please identify the 'bias' Mike Wong is guilty of, in your opinion.