ICS: Good Representation of the SW Universe?

[Bounty]

I would also question why a shield would be designed to specifically bypass the R2 unit when it apparently has no trouble covering other protrusions like the engine intakes or the greeblies in the rear. Especially when the R2 is a pretty vital piece of equipment.

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, bleedthrough was still possible.

Who said anything about bleedthrough? And what does it have to do with the stupidity of the notion that the X-wing's designers would shield the whole ship except for the droid?

[nightmare]

I would also question why a shield would be designed to specifically bypass the R2 unit when it apparently has no trouble covering other protrusions like the engine intakes or the greeblies in the rear. Especially when the R2 is a pretty vital piece of equipment.

What are you talking about? Last time I checked, bleedthrough was still possible.

Who said anything about bleedthrough? And what does it have to do with the stupidity of the notion that the X-wing's designers would shield the whole ship except for the droid?

Is the possibility of weapon energy leaking through a shield too complex of a concept to grasp? Especially if they are set to "double front" to cover the more dangerous turbolaser fire?

[Bounty]

Is the possibility of weapon energy leaking through a shield too complex of a concept to grasp? Especially if they are set to "double front" to cover the more dangerous turbolaser fire?

Eh? Who or what are you arguing here

[Darth Wong]

I knew that I should have added that disclaimer in Spacebattles. That should be "99% of what I've read/seen".

When you say "What I've read", are you including opinions from other morons at Spacebattles? Because that reminds me of the way creationists debate, where they routinely cite other creationists.

[Murazor]

When you say "What I've read", are you including opinions from other morons at Spacebattles? Because that reminds me of the way creationists debate, where they routinely cite other creationists.

No.

I mean official Star Wars materials I have read, which would include:

-Novels

Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.
The first five books in the horrible Jedi Apprentice series.
Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter
Yoda: Dark Rendezvous
Labyrinth of Evil
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith novel
Now starting with Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader
The Lando Calrissian trilogy
Shadows of the Empire
The Thrawn trilogy
The Jedi Academy trilogy
The Black Fleet trilogy
Ambush at Corellia and Assault at Selonia of the Corellian trilogy
The Golden Globe
Vector Prime, Dark Tide I: Onslaught and the Unifying Force of the NJO

-Comics

Everything in the old "Tales of the Jedi" series from Golden Age of the Sith to Redemption
Jedi vs Sith
The Darth Maul comic series
Jango Fett: Open Seasons
Prelude To Rebellion-Twilight-Emissaries To Malastare-The Stark Hyperspace War-Last Stand On Jabiim-The Last Siege, The Final Truth collections of the Star Wars Republic series, plus Acts of War, Obsession and Star Wars: Purge.

This plus the OT ICS, a couple of sourcebooks of the Star Wars Roleplaying game and I used to own The Essential Guide to Characters, but that one went away after I discovered the CUSWE. And, of course, I've seen all the movies, both Clone Wars cartoons and even a couple odd chapters of that old "Droids" series.

While this is by no means a comprehensive list of all Star Wars media in existence, it is still a sample large enough to state with some confidence that I have a better than passing familiarity with EU materials. Some of what I say might come from hearsay I have picked over several years of debating Star Wars in several different boards, but I am more or less sure that this contamination doesn't overshadow my first hand knowledge of the Star Wars universe.

Oh. And regarding creationism, even when I was a more active Catholic (meaning that I went to mass weekly, while I am now in the "pretty much lapsed and I don't give a shit about the Vatican, but I actually respect a number of priests I know personally to be extremely decent human beings" stage) I considered this 'theory' to be a fucking joke. I wasn't even aware of the kind of problem that it represented in America, until I found a number of sites about creationism (one of which was your own, btw).

I might not be particularly active in this issue (perhaps because it is something that I have never encountered outside the Internet and I am including Religion classes during my schoolyears in this), but you and those like you have my wholehearted support in this particular topic.

[Connor MacLeod]

Darth Bane: Path of Destruction.
The first five books in the horrible Jedi Apprentice series.
Darth Maul: Shadow Hunter
Yoda: Dark Rendezvous
Labyrinth of Evil
Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith novel
Now starting with Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader
The Lando Calrissian trilogy
Shadows of the Empire
The Thrawn trilogy
The Jedi Academy trilogy
The Black Fleet trilogy
Ambush at Corellia and Assault at Selonia of the Corellian trilogy
The Golden Globe
Vector Prime, Dark Tide I: Onslaught and the Unifying Force of the NJO

Then I should point out a fair number of those books actually do mesh up fairly well with what the ICSes posit. The Lando Calrissian novels suggest multi-TT firepower for starships ("continent destroying" weaponry mounted on Imperial vessels), the ROTS novel mentions the town vaporizing TLS at the start of the book, the BFC book has a number of calcable incidents (Mikes covered a few, but there was the thawing of Qella which was hardly a "high end" and offered a firepower comparison to Star Destroyers), I believe the Corellian Trilogy might have had a few calcable incidents (but its been awhile sincee I read them) and there are lots of others I could name.

The problem with "what I've read" as I've always said before is that you're admitting limited exposure or knowledge, so you can't really say *fairly* whether or not something fits with SW or not - or at least not say it as if you are giving a definitive judgement (which I would say is what people take issue with.)

This plus the OT ICS, a couple of sourcebooks of the Star Wars Roleplaying game and I used to own The Essential Guide to Characters, but that one went away after I discovered the CUSWE. And, of course, I've seen all the movies, both Clone Wars cartoons and even a couple odd chapters of that old "Droids" series.

WEG or WOTC? I'm familiar with both (moreso with WEG) and that has stuff that supports the higher end stuff too, though WOTC can do so also.

While this is by no means a comprehensive list of all Star Wars media in existence, it is still a sample large enough to state with some confidence that I have a better than passing familiarity with EU materials. Some of what I say might come from hearsay I have picked over several years of debating Star Wars in several different boards, but I am more or less sure that this contamination doesn't overshadow my first hand knowledge of the Star Wars universe.

I disagree. I'd daresay I've had larger exposure with most things (save perhaps comics) and even then I cant really say I'm "knoweldgable" enough to say what does or doesn't fit with SW, particularily since you have to be aware of the whole "certain point of view" thing (all authors, and fans, have their own views of SW and they tend to impose that to some degree or another.)

And hearsay is always dangerous. I've learned that the hard way more than once. Unless I absolutely trust the person, I always prefer finding it out for myself firsthand if possible.

Oh. And regarding creationism, even when I was a more active Catholic (meaning that I went to mass weekly, while I am now in the "pretty much lapsed and I don't give a shit about the Vatican, but I actually respect a number of priests I know personally to be extremely decent human beings" stage) I considered this 'theory' to be a fucking joke. I wasn't even aware of the kind of problem that it represented in America, until I found a number of sites about creationism (one of which was your own, btw).

I might not be particularly active in this issue (perhaps because it is something that I have never encountered outside the Internet and I am including Religion classes during my schoolyears in this), but you and those like you have my wholehearted support in this particular topic.

I dont think Mike was accusing you of being a creationist (or no reason to really defend yourself or explain yourself in that regard, its kind of a hijack to get into that really) he was just saying that if you WERE going by hearsay, that it would be akin to what creationists do. (Its the mindset of the creationist that he's referring to, and that can exist outside of religious belief quite easily, as I am sure you know.)

[Darth Wong]

Frankly, I recall Murazor demonstrating more than enough ignorance in the past on scientific subjects to declare that his ability to tie ICS figures to specific events (an act which requires the ability to analyze said events quantitatively) is probably near nonexistent. The fact that he can cite lists of novels he's read means precisely nothing to me; he is most likely analyzing those novels using SB-style techniques (you know, the subjective "I read that this happened, and I think that means XX figure sounds, like, totally wrong" style of argument which is considered totally acceptable at SB).

[Connor MacLeod]

Sure he might have, but we all say stupid things in the past that we don't always hold to later. I know there's plenty of opinions or statmeents I've said here that I come to realize are wrong. I guess it depends on whether or not he's changed (and that's for him to answer.)

Edit: That does include ignorance of scientific subjects, I believe. Not that Ireally want to dig into my past for my own stupid comments, but hey.

Mind you, it does occur to me that saying that the ICS doesn't "fit" even in a technical standpoint can encompass more than just, say, the numbers (like acceeleration, or firepower.) And I can point to cases where I've disagreed with stuff in the ICSes, even the things Curtis has written.

[Darth Wong]

Sure he might have, but we all say stupid things in the past that we don't always hold to later.

I know there's plenty of opinions or statmeents I've said here that I come to realize are wrong. I guess it depends on whether or not he's changed (and that's for him to answer.)

Edit: That does include ignorance of scientific subjects, I believe. Not that Ireally want to dig into my past for my own stupid comments, but hey.

Mind you, it does occur to me that saying that the ICS doesn't "fit" even in a technical standpoint can encompass more than just, say, the numbers (like acceeleration, or firepower.) And I can point to cases where I've disagreed with stuff in the ICSes, even the things Curtis has written.

If anyone can provide any example of him actually analyzing anything in a meaningful fashion, I would be glad to see it. He certainly provided no such examples in this thread: nothing more than vague "it doesn't fit" bullshit. Frankly, he's made a claim which he hasn't done jack shit to back up when challenged, and that's not only indicative of incompetence, it's an outright rule violation.

This is NOT SpaceBattles. If someone's going to say "this figure is wrong", he'd better back that up with something other than "I read this novel and I thought it just didn't fit". Gut instinct does not qualify as evidence here, even if it's fine for SB.

[Connor MacLeod]

If anyone can provide any example of him actually analyzing anything in a meaningful fashion, I would be glad to see it. He certainly provided no such examples in this thread: nothing more than vague "it doesn't fit" bullshit. Frankly, he's made a claim which he hasn't done jack shit to back up when challenged, and that's not only indicative of incompetence, it's an outright rule violation.

Well, to be blunt, it wouldnt surprise me if the ICSs don't quite fit with the EU. Its not exactly a shock that some of them, particularily the DK books Curtis wrote, were meant to overrule the EU in certain ways. And we both know very well the EU has been considered subordinate to both the movies and the EU.

Whether or not he meant the ICSes contradicted canon he'll have to explain/defend. But as far as the EU goes, saying that "the ICS books contradict the EU" isnt that far fetched. Especially since the EU can rather easily contradict itself at times.

This is NOT SpaceBattles. If someone's going to say "this figure is wrong", he'd better back that up with something other than "I read this novel and I thought it just didn't fit". Gut instinct does not qualify as evidence here, even if it's fine for SB.

Well, again, is he talking about the figures specifically, ,or what? I'm not exactly clear in what ways he's saying it doesn't fit with the EU. Nevermind how it applies to the canon itself.

Unless I've missed something here.

[Darth Wong]

Whether or not he meant the ICSes contradicted canon he'll have to explain/defend. But as far as the EU goes, saying that "the ICS books contradict the EU" isnt that far fetched. Especially since the EU can rather easily contradict itself at times.

The thread title says "SW universe", not "EU". Frankly, attacking something for being inconsistent with the entire EU is fucking retarded, since the EU is not even consistent with the entire EU. If he thinks "EU = SW universe", then he might as well have asked "Star Wars movies: good representation of the SW universe?" And then he could have gone on to say that ANH, TESB, ROTJ, TPM, AOTC, and ROTS don't "fit" with the books he's read.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yeah, and he clarified the movies, so I can take that to mean that he did mean them to be included. But I'm still not sure what he's meaning as far as his opinion goes. (To which I repeat, he'll have to explain better.)

And I'll still reiterate that technical poitns can cover more than just the statistics. If we're going to crucify people for disagreeing with the ICSes in general, I'm just as guilty as him. (You should know, since you've seen me arguing vehemently with Curtis over various points of the ICSes before.)

Edit: And those ICS arguments also included "interpretation of canon" - and I haven't always agreed with interpretations of canon either.

[Darth Wong]

Yeah, and he clarified the movies, so I can take that to mean that he did mean them to be included. But I'm still not sure what he's meaning as far as his opinion goes. (To which I repeat, he'll have to explain better.)

And I'll still reiterate that technical poitns can cover more than just the statistics. If we're going to crucify people for disagreeing with the ICSes in general, I'm just as guilty as him. (You should know, since you've seen me arguing vehemently with Curtis over various points of the ICSes before.)

I'm going to crucify people for saying that it's wrong without backing it up with anything more substantive than a goddamned list of books. What part of this are you not grasping?

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, if I'm reading you right you're criticizing him for making broad generalizations from limited data (Both EU and movies).

Edit: I can agree with that if that is what you're getting at, but I'm not feeling any partticular urge to crucify him over it because I frankly think its an error born out of ignorance rather than malice and I'm willing to give him some benefit of the doubt for that hoping he might learn something. Call it charity or stupidity or whatever if you want, but I'm sticking to that.

[Murazor]

Then I should point out a fair number of those books actually do mesh up fairly well with what the ICSes posit. The Lando Calrissian novels suggest multi-TT firepower for starships ("continent destroying" weaponry mounted on Imperial vessels), the ROTS novel mentions the town vaporizing TLS at the start of the book, the BFC book has a number of calcable incidents (Mikes covered a few, but there was the thawing of Qella which was hardly a "high end" and offered a firepower comparison to Star Destroyers), I believe the Corellian Trilogy might have had a few calcable incidents (but its been awhile sincee I read them) and there are lots of others I could name.

I am aware of all the incidents/quotes you mention, but destroying towns/continents is something that would require megatons/gigatons-teratons. ICS goes above and beyond this by several orders of magnitude (a rough, quick and dirty volumetric calc would suggest that the Tantive IV ought to have power generation figures in the 1E21 or 1E22 in comparison with other vessels described by the AotC and RotS ICS).

Call it a mental disconnect, if you must. I understand the way Saxton made his calculations and I kind of understand the implications (well, except for tachyonic hyperspace, never was able to adequately understand this one), but I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that the dinkiest excuse for a warship seen in Star Wars still should have enough firepower to turn Earth's surface into cinders in a matter of minutes/hours.

Still, I'll try to do some finer analysis of at least some of those incidents mentioned for the list that I promised Ender. If I find something wrong with it preconceptions, you can be sure that I will acknowledge it openly.

The problem with "what I've read" as I've always said before is that you're admitting limited exposure or knowledge, so you can't really say *fairly* whether or not something fits with SW or not - or at least not say it as if you are giving a definitive judgement (which I would say is what people take issue with.)

Yes, I'd guess so. I am asserting my opinion within the framework of my own limited experience. Said opinion is subject to change if I ever find compelling evidence, but this thread was supposed to be an opinion poll, after all. I was curious, in an idle sort of way about the differences between SDN and SBC.

And, for the record, I didn't plan to use this in future debates as evidence of anything - I know what the Golden Mean Fallacy is and I usually try to avoid logical fallacies when I debate.

WEG or WOTC? I'm familiar with both (moreso with WEG) and that has stuff that supports the higher end stuff too, though WOTC can do so also.

WEG: Galaxy Guide 12: Aliens: Enemies and Allies.
WOTC: Coruscant and the Core Worlds.

I disagree. I'd daresay I've had larger exposure with most things (save perhaps comics) and even then I cant really say I'm "knoweldgable" enough to say what does or doesn't fit with SW, particularily since you have to be aware of the whole "certain point of view" thing (all authors, and fans, have their own views of SW and they tend to impose that to some degree or another.)

Yes. And I know that many of the books I listed are largely considered to be among the worst that the EU has to offer (the Jedi Academy certainly were crap). But there is a difference between claiming expertise and claiming familiarity. I do not claim to be an expert, only to be "pretty familiar" with the materials being discussed here.

For a (hopefully not unfortunate) analogy, I am pretty familiar with the history of the Roman Empire. Doesn't mean that I am an expert or that my opinions about the legions carry the weight of one.

And hearsay is always dangerous. I've learned that the hard way more than once. Unless I absolutely trust the person, I always prefer finding it out for myself firsthand if possible.

I dont think Mike was accusing you of being a creationist (or no reason to really defend yourself or explain yourself in that regard, its kind of a hijack to get into that really) he was just saying that if you WERE going by hearsay, that it would be akin to what creationists do. (Its the mindset of the creationist that he's referring to, and that can exist outside of religious belief quite easily, as I am sure you know.)

Yes, I guessed so, but I know the kind of weight that word has in this board. I felt that it was a point that I had to leave absolutely clear. Now, unless Mr. Wong has something else to say about this, I am perfectly happy to close this minor thread hijack.

And yes, I know some examples of the mindset, including a few unfortunate examples in my extended family (selective blindness is scary to behold in some circumstances).

P.S. Eight posts have been made since I started writing this reply and I do not have right now the time to make a detailed reply to them, so I'll just make a few quick notes.

1- I know that this isn't Spacebattles. I know that there are different rules. I also told Ender that I would provide a list of what I perceived to be EU/ICS contradictions in a week's time (I did not have the source materials immediately available at the time) or that he could consider the point as good as conceded. Is this in violation of the rules?

2- In my own bumbling fashion I have tried to make a number of analysis threads, mostly about Isaac Asimov's Foundation saga: Foundationverse Power Generation, but I've mostly done collections of quotes such as Quantification for the Foundation and Robotic Mechanics (both of which remain unfinished, sadly).

[Connor MacLeod]

I am aware of all the incidents/quotes you mention, but destroying towns/continents is something that would require megatons/gigatons-teratons. ICS goes above and beyond this by several orders of magnitude (a rough, quick and dirty volumetric calc would suggest that the Tantive IV ought to have power generation figures in the 1E21 or 1E22 in comparison with other vessels described by the AotC and RotS ICS).

The town bit was vaporization of the town, which is pretty much (for a beam weapon) going to mean explosively vaporizing the town and a good chunko f the ground beneath. It's just goign to depend on how big you define "Town" (and the context.) But even then, it doesn't specify whether we are talking about the big heavy TLs or smaller ones. The ISD doesn't really carry just one kind after all, does it?

And the Tantive, the big point to remember is that it wasn't a warship really. It was probably armed against stopping pirates, but that's it. Besides, think about it another way. If its weapons aren't throwing out teratons of firepower, that also means the engines have enough power to continue to run away while fending off an enemy.

Yes, I'd guess so. I am asserting my opinion within the framework of my own limited experience. Said opinion is subject to change if I ever find compelling evidence, but this thread was supposed to be an opinion poll, after all. I was curious, in an idle sort of way about the differences between SDN and SBC.

And, for the record, I didn't plan to use this in future debates as evidence of anything - I know what the Golden Mean Fallacy is and I usually try to avoid logical fallacies when I debate.

Well at SD.net, as Mike is pointing out, claims aren't taken lightly and have to be defended. Take that as you will, but I don't think you've given enough thought to how the numbers (or other figures) apply or how they might apply and mesh. As Ender said, they ARE rather consistent if you look hard enough or look at it in the right way. Not perfect, no, but no sci fi analysis will ever be "perfect".

Yes. And I know that many of the books I listed are largely considered to be among the worst that the EU has to offer (the Jedi Academy certainly were crap). But there is a difference between claiming expertise and claiming familiarity. I do not claim to be an expert, only to be "pretty familiar" with the materials being discussed here.

For a (hopefully not unfortunate) analogy, I am pretty familiar with the history of the Roman Empire. Doesn't mean that I am an expert or that my opinions about the legions carry the weight of one.

I'm not an expert at science or engineering but I have reasonable familiarity with both (at least to know I generally know alot less than many people on here.) You have to be careful what you claim, and if someone challenges you on something, you have to be able to defend your point or concede. And if you can't defend it, you're expected to concede.

And to be perfectly honest, I think this is something you need to concede on because the ICS figures CAN work with the EU, and the movies, and all of it. HEll, you have to do juggling to make the EU work too (and sometimes some juggling with the movies.) Again, thats part of sci fi analysis.

Think about it this way: By and large, the EU agrees with the idea that we see in the movies that the Death STar is a brute force "blow planets aparrt" appraoch rather than technobabble. That alone carries certain logical connotations with it (even broadly) in terms of technology, industry, and all that. I mean, it really does stretch credibility that a unvierse can build the Death STar could not field anything more than MT (or kiltoon, or sub kiloton) range weaponry. And no, not all sources may agree with that (and apparent contradictions may arise for whatever reason) but you try to make it work (And generally, "weaker" examples can be made to fit with higher end examples better than higher end examples being made to fit with lower end.)

[l33telboi]

Do I think the ICS is a good representation of the Star Wars universe? And I'm guessing the more specific question there is do I believe Saxton's figures are a good representation of that galaxy far, far away?

Well, no, not really. The whole idea that they could be seems a bit strange to me. Versus debating and technical analysis is just a hobby among fans, and Lucas (or the other 100+ authors that have written for the franchise) doubtfully pulled out his calculator or consulted his nearest astrophysicists whenever he had to make the special effects for a certain scene. Star Wars always was a universe where the rule of cool held sway, I’d go so far as to say this is more true for SW then most other similar Sci-Fi. It’s all about wizards with laser-swords battling evil robots and rescuing princesses. It's fiction and as such inherently contradictory and illogical in places. Especially when you realize the sheer amount of guest-authors involved, all with their own interpretations of how stuff should be.

Apart from that the ICS is nothing more then one EU source among hundreds, so it’s about as valid a contender for the ‘good representation’ award as any given KJA novel. But even setting aside all that, it still doesn’t fit IMO. As it’d mean every single spacebattle ever fought (even the ones deciding the fate of the entire galaxy) were nothing more then small skirmishes amongst groups of ships that didn’t even merit the designation ‘fleet’. And it’s just a bit strange seeing the ground battles where everyone is throwing around gigajoules of energy (with fighters packing anything from kiloton to megaton of TNT equivalent scale stuff) and no one thought to throw something like an air-bursting cruise-missile over the enemy to flatten their entire formation with a single strike. When you end up rationalizing most of the stuff you see and read, then something is obviously wrong.

It’s become even stranger now that the Clone Wars series is out, which Lucas is heavily involved in. Because if anything, that particular series seem to follow in the footsteps of KotOR in terms of ship firepower, etc.

Bottom line: The AotC and RotS ICS books are good reads, so good even that I mostly draw from then when writing the token fanfic. But they also depict something that doesn’t go hand in hand with what we see in the movies or the Clone Wars series.

Anyway, that’s my two cents. So I voted “No”.

[Ford Prefect]

I like the notion held by some here that the ICS is nothing more than a glorified collection of energy outputs and acceleration figures. It's easily one of the most interesting and detailed sources on the universe of Star Wars, providing insight not merely into the technology that appears but the places and people that make use of the various vehicles that appear within. I doubt this question would be asked of, for example, The Complete Locations of Star Wars. It's like people just can't look at the book past its apparent 'worth' to the long dead versus debate. Good grief.

[VT-16]

One of the biggest revelations for me, was that throughout most of SW history, their devices used for dealing with gravity-related problems, originate in refineries encircling black holes (AOTC:ICS). That's one thing most debaters overlook, yet so fundimental to the technology in the universe.

[Darth Hoth]

Apart from that the ICS is nothing more then one EU source among hundreds, so it’s about as valid a contender for the ‘good representation’ award as any given KJA novel. But even setting aside all that, it still doesn’t fit IMO. As it’d mean every single spacebattle ever fought (even the ones deciding the fate of the entire galaxy) were nothing more then small skirmishes amongst groups of ships that didn’t even merit the designation ‘fleet’.

And this was not the case in the pre-ICS EU, with its sources (WEG, in particular, describing an Empire of billions of planets an thousands of SSDs alone; DE with its twelve million systems and large fleets; Lando Calrissian books with likewise "millions" of planets and thousands of ISDs scrambled quickly for a relatively unimportant mission; &c)? This was not the case with the G-canon Star Wars novelisation (the "million systems" of the Galactic Empire)? This was not what the sheer size of the Death Star itself implied? The fleet battles are minimalist by the G-canon's own standards, let alone the EU; how on Earth did the ICS change that? It is, of course, inconsistent with the ultra-minimalist Zahnist depiction of the EU, which makes no sense but got to influence much of the setting, as it was first to establish its view.

And it’s just a bit strange seeing the ground battles where everyone is throwing around gigajoules of energy (with fighters packing anything from kiloton to megaton of TNT equivalent scale stuff) and no one thought to throw something like an air-bursting cruise-missile over the enemy to flatten their entire formation with a single strike. When you end up rationalizing most of the stuff you see and read, then something is obviously wrong.

So how do we explain the damage the X-wing cannon wrought on the Death Star's surface structures in the original film?

It’s become even stranger now that the Clone Wars series is out, which Lucas is heavily involved in. Because if anything, that particular series seem to follow in the footsteps of KotOR in terms of ship firepower, etc.

So what did we see in KotOR that was quantifiable in terms of weapons output or power levels? Apart from gameplay and dialogue, which are very poor evidence, not much. And I thought the animated kiddie series was classified as in-universe propaganda, with an exaggerated and inaccurate portrayal of the Clone wars proper?

Bottom line: The AotC and RotS ICS books are good reads, so good even that I mostly draw from then when writing the token fanfic. But they also depict something that doesn’t go hand in hand with what we see in the movies or the Clone Wars series.

Did you read the entire exchange, above?

[l33telboi]

Did you read the entire exchange, above?

Of course. Then I answered the OP, stating my opinion on the matter just as requested.

[Anguirus]

Didn't KotOR has one sub-Star Destroyer warship casually obliterate a city-planet?

In other words, uh, where's the inconsistency here? And since when does "ICS" mean "the SI units in the AotC ICS"?

[Knife]

Didn't KotOR has one sub-Star Destroyer warship casually obliterate a city-planet?

In other words, uh, where's the inconsistency here? And since when does "ICS" mean "the SI units in the AotC ICS"?

Actually, in game dialogue says that they needed time to deploy the fleet to bomb Taris, indicating it took more than one ship.

[Ender]

Apart from that the ICS is nothing more then one EU source among hundreds, so it’s about as valid a contender for the ‘good representation’ award as any given KJA novel. But even setting aside all that, it still doesn’t fit IMO. As it’d mean every single spacebattle ever fought (even the ones deciding the fate of the entire galaxy) were nothing more then small skirmishes amongst groups of ships that didn’t even merit the designation ‘fleet’. And it’s just a bit strange seeing the ground battles where everyone is throwing around gigajoules of energy (with fighters packing anything from kiloton to megaton of TNT equivalent scale stuff) and no one thought to throw something like an air-bursting cruise-missile over the enemy to flatten their entire formation with a single strike. When you end up rationalizing most of the stuff you see and read, then something is obviously wrong.

Except you only need to rationalize if the fact conflict. They don't. Your personal interpretation of the facts conflicts with the facts, and rather than admit you may be wrong and investigating, you declare the facts that don't give you the outcome you want to be wrong and dismiss them.

It’s become even stranger now that the Clone Wars series is out, which Lucas is heavily involved in. Because if anything, that particular series seem to follow in the footsteps of KotOR in terms of ship firepower, etc.

And KotOR follows with the rest of the EU, including the ICS, in terms of numbers, so there is no contradiction.

Bottom line: The AotC and RotS ICS books are good reads, so good even that I mostly draw from then when writing the token fanfic. But they also depict something that doesn’t go hand in hand with what we see in the movies or the Clone Wars series.

Bottom line: You've claimed a massive contradiction before and never actually shown one, instead only proving the depths of your own ignorance.

[l33telboi]

Except you only need to rationalize if the fact conflict. They don't. Your personal interpretation of the facts conflicts with the facts, and rather than admit you may be wrong and investigating, you declare the facts that don't give you the outcome you want to be wrong and dismiss them.

The OP only asked whether it's my opinion that the ICS is a good representation of the rest of the universe. The stance you're taking now is that 'everything fits, no matter how contrived the explanation to make it fit would be'. If that had really been the intent of the OP, then the question would've been a moot one. And I do indeed try to rationalize any problems that may arise, that much is true in regards to any and all verses I might be debating, but at some point the problem just becomes too big and the contradiction too blatant to not be acknowledged. Such is the case with the ICS, at least in my opinion...

And KotOR follows with the rest of the EU, including the ICS, in terms of numbers, so there is no contradiction.

...And KotOR is a good example of what I said above. During this time-period we've seen as many as five orbital bombardments, Taris (twice), Telos, Serroco and whatever the planet was called where the Mandalorians were mustering their forces, none of those mesh with the petaton per second figures that would hold true for the 1,6km long ISD. I mean, according to the KotOR SE:RPG, the biggest weapons the forces have at their disposal are fission-based nukes, which we see in use on planetary targets on two occasions. Granted the only hard figures provided for any of those bombardments was during the first Taris bombardment, which was said to have seen kilotons rained down on the city during one of the more destructive phases of bombardment. But I think it's safe to say that you don't need to be a professor in order to realize that this isn't the easiest thing to reconcile.

Bottom line: You've claimed a massive contradiction before and never actually shown one, instead only proving the depths of your own ignorance.

From what I gathered from the OP, this thread was never about showing a contradiction, just about stating your opinion on the matter, indeed it says as much - and that's exactly what I did.