A Star Destroyer vs. YOU

[mutanthamster]

It would be contrary to everything that Star Fleet stands for to attack the Star Destroyer even if it is powering its weapons. I would raise shields and hail the other ship, but I would wait for him to fire first, then take out his weapons system with phasers, lower my shields and beam to captain to my ship for a patronizing lecture on living in peace and send him on his way.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wouldn't even a non-hypermatter powered ISD be vastly more powerful than federation starships?

Depends on the ships in question i imagine. And how much you argue over the numbers. But even if SW ships had an edge in raw power with hypermatter, there's tradeoffs to gain that power. A shorter operational endurance for one. There's also plenty of evidence to suggest hypermatter fuel is not exactly cheap to run, so you wouldn't want to use it casually (probably one reason why a starship still has fusion reactors.)

Why would the Empire build Star Destroyers that were orders of magnitude less powerful than the standard Clone-wars era battleship?

Why would the Empire build millions of planet-destroying starships that are likely to be more powerful than anything they would possibly hope to face? That's an equally valid question, because the Empire (and the Republic before it) had no external threats, only internal ones. You don't want your members running around with unneccesarily huge firepower, nor do you want the pirates you will be facing doing so. So beyond certain tasks or emergencies, you really don't have a need for huge accelerations, firepower, etc. And if your probable threats aren't packing the hgigatonss you can get from a hypermatter reactor (Its unlikely in any even tthat pirates or rebels or whatever could access huge quantities of the stuff that they could just throw it around in any way they want.) you generally don't need the gigatonz. Which actually saves you on money and resources, amongst other things.

This isn't exactly far fetched either. Consider that the GE supposedly has Darktrooper and spacetrooper power armor (nevermind the crazy other "powered" armours WEG and video games and other sources have given them) and personal shields and insane weapons. Yet they give most Stormtroopers or army personnel unpowered body armor (army troops don't even get full body armor!) and a carbine/rifle analogue. Or even use intelligently designed combat droids (EG treads or repulsors, lots of guns, shields, etc.)

[Eternal_Freedom]

Connor, are you suggesting that SW capital ships use fusion reactors for everyday duties and turn on the hypermatter plant as the power-generation equivalent of an afterburner in emergencies?

[Panzersharkcat]

It would be contrary to everything that Star Fleet stands for to attack the Star Destroyer even if it is powering its weapons. I would raise shields and hail the other ship, but I would wait for him to fire first, then take out his weapons system with phasers, lower my shields and beam to captain to my ship for a patronizing lecture on living in peace and send him on his way.

Have fun trying to take out all those turbolaser batteries. And TIE fighters. And ion cannons. And trying to beam the captain through heavy shielding.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor, are you suggesting that SW capital ships use fusion reactors for everyday duties and turn on the hypermatter plant as the power-generation equivalent of an afterburner in emergencies?

Pretty much, although not just "emergencies' but just when you need more power than the fusion reactors could provide. (Kind of like Federation starship powerplant design - UH OH! ) It makes sense when you think about it. Hypermatter is a finite quantity onboard a starship (as a fuel source or used in hyperdrives). The ICS tells us broad limitations (It can go Q far on hyperdrive, it can accelerate X fast or fire its guns at Y level or power its shields at Z rating for this long.) but it doesn't say it always operates at those levels. A Hypermatter reactor cannot power the shields at max, the weapons at max, and the engines at max simultaenously, nor can it provide the hyperdrive range it has on that same fuel supply. There are some pretty hefty tradeoffs involved.

Besides there's stuff like safety margins, wear and tear on the equipment (I doubt the Imperial Navy is totally immune from prosecution from the Imperial Accounting Office over expenditures even if it is a corrupt government. Perhaps because it is a corrupt government, because money spent on supporting warships is money that can't be spent on providing the Moffs and Grand Moffs gold plated Orgy rooms.) and so on as well.

There might be further ways around that (sticking in antimatter production facilities and reactors to supplement the fusion reactors and hypermatter reactors) but that has tradeoffs.

[Darksider]

Connor, what would you suggest the "average" output in firepower and shielding of an ISD is then? Because if the Trek ships can take one on at those levels, it is lower than nearly any calculations I've ever seen for an ISD. Even if the average power outputs of an ISD are less than the more mid-range calculations on the main site, and ISD would still be equivalent to a Borg Cube in terms of it's ability to shred Federation starships. The armada assembled might be able to pull it off, buy it'd be a close fight.

[mutanthamster]

Have fun trying to take out all those turbolaser batteries. And TIE fighters. And ion cannons. And trying to beam the captain through heavy shielding.

Beaming out the captain through heavy shielding might be difficult; I might need to forego the pleasure of the patronizing lecture and settle for taking out the weapons and sending him on his way. In a normal Star Trek there would be only one star ship dealing with this situation, but since the OP generously specified a small fleet of star ships taking out the weapons ought not to be too difficult, even though there are a lot of them. As for the TIE fighters, I cannot see them even being worth worrying about, they cannot even go above light speed so they will hardly be a threat.

[Batman]

Have fun trying to take out all those turbolaser batteries. And TIE fighters. And ion cannons. And trying to beam the captain through heavy shielding.

Beaming out the captain through heavy shielding might be difficult;

'Might be difficult' in this case meaning' utterly impossible' given that Starfleet ships generally can't beam through AQ level shields and need to exploit frequency shenanigans when they manage to do so,

I might need to forego the pleasure of the patronizing lecture and settle for taking out the weapons and sending him on his way.

How are you taking out his weapons, pray tell, given the massive resiliency discrepancy?

In a normal Star Trek there would be only one star ship dealing with this situation, but since the OP generously specified a small fleet of star ships taking out the weapons ought not to be too difficult, even though there are a lot of them.

You're not particularly good at math, are you.

As for the TIE fighters, I cannot see them even being worth worrying about, they cannot even go above light speed so they will hardly be a threat.

If your fleet is moving FTL and thus can ignore the TIEs because they're STL you can't do beans about the ISD by definition due to being incapable of engaging it in the first place. If you dropped to impulse to engage yes, you bloody well do have to worry about the TIEs, some of which carry weapons that can hurt Star Wars capital ships.

[Panzersharkcat]

Seriously. I had to do some calcs for a nerfed Imperial Star Destroyer once. There were some assumptions made that threw the accuracy off but I think it's good enough for my purposes. Based on the main site's description of the firepower needed to pull of a BDZ, 240 petatons, and its description of an ISD-I having 120 light turbolasers and 12 heavy turbolasers, with the heavy ones 125 times larger, and presumably in the ballpark of 125 times more powerful. Based on the assumption of one shot every two seconds from twenty-five Star Destroyers taking twelve hours to pull off BDZ, I came up with around 274 megatons for light turbolasers and around 34 gigatons for the big guns. I think that's about right, but if anybody wants to check my math for errors, I'll show my work and accept corrections.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor, what would you suggest the "average" output in firepower and shielding of an ISD is then?

What are we defining "average" as? Typical output in general purpose? Or combat? If its the former it probably doesn't need to be much above petawatts (most energetic thing you'll likely do outside of combat is sublight travel and you don't need to be blasting out hundreds or thousands of gees for that). And combat will depend entirely on who they are fighting and probably the era - you don't need to use full power against someone who doesn't have the same tech level or resources you do (like pirates).

But for the sake of argument. Let's say a non-Hypermatter ISD is using some kind of fusion. If it could be designed to achieve efficiencies similar to that as a star (not unreasonable, esp in Star Wars) and marry it to some measure of the ridiculously huge fuel consumption rates of large SW ships (EG thousands of tons per second) you might get ISDs who could toss out megatons or even gigatons of firepower. You could probably fight almost anyone you could conceivably face within the GE (except another Imperial Navy ship or a starship with hypermatter or similar powerplants - but those would be rare becuase hypermatter isnt an easily made or cheap fuel.) Most pirates or lower tier organizations are unlikely to be able to acquire the super-duper huge yields that government ships can (even the Rebellion can't, not without stealing from the Empire.)

Because if the Trek ships can take one on at those levels, it is lower than nearly any calculations I've ever seen for an ISD. Even if the average power outputs of an ISD are less than the more mid-range calculations on the main site, and ISD would still be equivalent to a Borg Cube in terms of it's ability to shred Federation starships. The armada assembled might be able to pull it off, buy it'd be a close fight.

Depends on whose calcs you use and what assumptiosn you tie to them. And it isn't definite or as if there aren't limitations to SW defenses (shields are layered and sectioned, but arrangement matters there for coverage.. there can be gaps and weak points because it isn't a magical shield bubble. Also shields typically seem to be double blind - you have to open them to fire projectile or particle beam weapons for example, and that also means that they can block engines if they're up. It's also quite likely you'd have to leave gaps or openings for sensors and comms of some kinds.

Given those it might be possible to use a transporter to beam a munition against the ship or onboard it to damage or destroy it (EG take out the engines). It would owrk probably one time (until they figured it out and either just kept shields raised or developed some countermeasure for it. It's not exactly a game winning tactic when it relies on surprise.) Or force them to angle their shields in one or more directions against some of your attackers, then use warp to drop out behind them and blast them in the engines/command deck with a torpedo barrage.

For my part I still don't think ST ships would win in a straight up fight against Imperial ships, but I no longer believe 'fight to the death' is the immediate or most logical consequence of a meeting between either power either.

[the atom]

They're also a race composed entirely of pompous dicks. For that alone they deserve extinction!

LOOK AT ME, MA. I AM BEING A TOUGH GUY OVER THE INTERNET.

Why yes, yes I am! Can't you see my bulging abs and biceps? I work out at the gym, and make love to dozens of beautiful women all the time.

[mutanthamster]

How are you taking out his weapons, pray tell, given the massive resiliency discrepancy?

I thought I might fire phasers at the Star Destroyer. I am not making the Star Destroyer out to be weak, but you only have to watch Star Wars to see that neither are they are especially tough.

If your fleet is moving FTL and thus can ignore the TIEs because they're STL you can't do beans about the ISD by definition due to being incapable of engaging it in the first place.

I know that Star Wars fans often deny this, but it is clear that Star Fleet ships can and do fight at superlight speeds.

The Imperial Fleet definitely has advantages over Star Fleet, but a one on one fight between an Imperial ship and a Star Fleet ship just is not one of them, and the OP gives Star Fleet nine to one advantage which is game over for the Star Destroyer.

[Skywalker_T-65]

I thought I might fire phasers at the Star Destroyer. I am not making the Star Destroyer out to be weak, but you only have to watch Star Wars to see that neither are they are especially tough.

I normally don't jump into SW/ST debates...but this is just too good. Okay then, here we go...you do realize that even the most generous calcs for ST ships put them at frigate range for SW right? And that's being extremely generous on the ST front. The movies may make an ISD out to be weak...but bear in mind they are fighting ships and weapons designed to fight them. It's not like they were fighting weak enemies after all...like Star Fleet! In all seriousness though...with more realistic calcs you have even a Sovereign only sitting around the Tantive IV on the firepower front (and I think even that is being too generous).

I know that Star Wars fans often deny this, but it is clear that Star Fleet ships can and do fight at superlight speeds.

The Imperial Fleet definitely has advantages over Star Fleet, but a one on one fight between an Imperial ship and a Star Fleet ship just is not one of them, and the OP gives Star Fleet nine to one advantage which is game over for the Star Destroyer.

Yes they can fight at Warp (Voyager and Enterprise confirm this...and maybe TOS, haven't seen it sadly...). But that is fighting when both ships are at Warp. If the ST ship is at warp and tries to shoot at something that isn't in Warp...wow they must have some amazing targeting computers! Just kidding, there is no proof whatsoever that a Star Fleet ship can fire weapons out of it's warp field at a stationary target and hit it.

This would be a more fair fight for the Star Fleet ships (depending on who is in command) but it is hardly 'game over' for the SD. It just has too much of an edge in firepower.

[the atom]

Seriously. I had to do some calcs for a nerfed Imperial Star Destroyer once. There were some assumptions made that threw the accuracy off but I think it's good enough for my purposes. Based on the main site's description of the firepower needed to pull of a BDZ, 240 petatons, and its description of an ISD-I having 120 light turbolasers and 12 heavy turbolasers, with the heavy ones 125 times larger, and presumably in the ballpark of 125 times more powerful. Based on the assumption of one shot every two seconds from twenty-five Star Destroyers taking twelve hours to pull off BDZ, I came up with around 274 megatons for light turbolasers and around 34 gigatons for the big guns. I think that's about right, but if anybody wants to check my math for errors, I'll show my work and accept corrections.

That's generally the ballpark I imagine SW firepower to be at, although you do seem to make the same assumptions that a lot of other people seem to do when calcing SW firepower: First, you assume an arbitrary timeframe, and then you assume an arbitrary amount of ships. Perhaps for better clarity it would be best to assume a general range of ships, and then work out the firepower requirements for a variety of timeframes (sort of what Conner does for some of his calcs).

[Cesario]

Yes they can fight at Warp (Voyager and Enterprise confirm this...and maybe TOS, haven't seen it sadly...). But that is fighting when both ships are at Warp. If the ST ship is at warp and tries to shoot at something that isn't in Warp...wow they must have some amazing targeting computers! Just kidding, there is no proof whatsoever that a Star Fleet ship can fire weapons out of it's warp field at a stationary target and hit it.

Starfleet does have amazing targeting computers. It's one of their best attributes.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Starfleet does have amazing targeting computers. It's one of their best attributes.

Point taken. I was just saying that it would take God like accuracy to hit something that is stationary while moving at FTL. Besides, doesn't a warp field play around with space? So would it even be physically possible to shoot out of a warp field? Unless you are being sarcastic (taking into account how often they miss...).

[Eternal_Freedom]

If you are being sarcastic: hooray. If not, would those be the awesome targeting computers that take 8-15 seconds to target a probe, travelling from a planet to it's star in a straight line?

[Panzersharkcat]

Seriously. I had to do some calcs for a nerfed Imperial Star Destroyer once. There were some assumptions made that threw the accuracy off but I think it's good enough for my purposes. Based on the main site's description of the firepower needed to pull of a BDZ, 240 petatons, and its description of an ISD-I having 120 light turbolasers and 12 heavy turbolasers, with the heavy ones 125 times larger, and presumably in the ballpark of 125 times more powerful. Based on the assumption of one shot every two seconds from twenty-five Star Destroyers taking twelve hours to pull off BDZ, I came up with around 274 megatons for light turbolasers and around 34 gigatons for the big guns. I think that's about right, but if anybody wants to check my math for errors, I'll show my work and accept corrections.

That's generally the ballpark I imagine SW firepower to be at, although you do seem to make the same assumptions that a lot of other people seem to do when calcing SW firepower: First, you assume an arbitrary timeframe, and then you assume an arbitrary amount of ships. Perhaps for better clarity it would be best to assume a general range of ships, and then work out the firepower requirements for a variety of timeframes (sort of what Conner does for some of his calcs).

It was a 25 Star Destroyers in twelve hours for the calcs I did, versus something like 3 Star Destroyers in a much shorter timeframe (I think only 3-6 hours) from what I remember being stated in canon. It is also a conservative figure for the nerfed ISDs as it assumes 100% efficiency in doing their jobs in blowing shit up. The reason it's a bit of an arbitrary number of ships and an arbitrary time frame was because it was something arbitrary somebody in my NationStates role-play group came up with to placate somebody who was annoyed by the fact that I insisted that her newest Defiant-sized ship should not be able to take on an Imperial Star Destroyer, which is what I use for my fleet, what with the 300+ to 1 size disparity. She just kept insisting "It's their most advanced ship" as if that meant anything against such a massive size disparity when all her previous ships were merely matched or slightly better pound for pound than mine. It'd be like talking about having the most advanced patrol boat around and expecting it to duke it out and win against a WWII-era destroyer.

[Connor MacLeod]

Everyone has done a SW calc of some kind or another at some point, either by calcing the same incidents Mike did (the way Brian did - I know a number of other people did like CmdrWilkens) using different assumptions (or similar in some cases) or by using other instances (like the ones for Nar Shadaa, or whatever.) I've done my share of calcs and I don't personally find GT or TT level sw weapons impossible. I suppose my calcs could be called bullshit too. woudln't be the first time

Having the yields is one thing. those yields translating into something else is another. Bombarding a stationary planet with gigatons or teratons is one thing, but how does that translate into ship to ship firepower? Sure in theory they can throw that at teh enemy, but starships move (for one thing) and they fire back. And that can sort of require you to move, to fire back, or to power shields... it gets alot more complicated when you factor in targeting considerations, recoil issues, and so on.

In the ST example you could have ISDs that have heavy TLs that can blast off gigaton or teraton level blasts. But we konw from Slave Ship that unless an ISD is properly "braced" even a GT range shot would tear the ship apart. This could mean that GT range shots are dangerous without shields or forcefields (the only sort of bracing that could handle it i suspect.) It can also mean that if your enemy's forcefields aren't able to handle the shot properly (distribute the force imparted to teh ship by the impact of the shot on the shields - even if it is a massless beam) the ship could destroy itself without knocking down shields. Which carries some limitations for high yield firepower. having to brace the guns means it can't turn or track as well - hell it may not even be able to track at all without firing off axis or turning the ship. The ship's engines might have to fire (or the ship brace itself against something else, like a planet) to fire off long range shots. REcoil may impose some delay between firings (depending on recoil handling mechanisms). And so on.

That means heavy guns at higher yields would only be useful against relatively slow moving or stationary targets (crippled or immobilized somehow). More agile targets would require reduced yields or even smaller guns - it's quite possible that Star Wars anti ship weapons are too large or cumbersome to effectively track some kinds of targets because the high firepower potential requires it (or because turrets need to be armored, braced, etc.) High firepower can come with some hefty drawbacks.

Of course in a 'war' situation the Empire wouldn't be stuck using the same design if they were under serious threat. They might abandon 'current' ISD designs and go for a starship packing numerous smaller, less powerful guns (not unlike an Age of Sail 'broadside') Or they might opt for some sort of guided projectile (turning a starfighter into a bomb isn't a big leap).

analysis-wise, There is also a sort of symmetry going on with calcs. If one side argues one set of calcs are invalid this can invalidate other sets of calcs (EG TESB asteroid calcs vs voyager Rise calcs - botha re based on similar premises and methods.) so you have to have some consistency of method there across both universes or things degenerate into nitpicking. Or else you just declare all calcs are shit and say Star Trek wins because its computers are smooth shiny plastic rather than dull plastic or something equally arbitrary.

[Connor MacLeod]

Like I said.. its not the first time any of my calcs have been called shit...

so shall we go by the "how shiny is your console" debate benchmark?

[Connor MacLeod]

Probably as many who have said ST is more realistic because.." I used to think in terms of "realism" in sci fi until I realized how fucking retarded I was. Realism is just another penis compensation factor, and I can remember trying to make up or find alot of those in vs debating when I was being retarded.

I know what you're getting at though. Sci fi calcs are treated as alot more precise than they actually are, and that is silly. but that sort of precision is impossible forthe most part, unless you get someone creating a Mass-Effect like Codex for the universe (and even then that probably isn't precise enough.)
But if you don't set some sort of standard, debate is impossible and all you're left with is arguing (or posturing, as the case may be.) Some will come for that, others won't.

The kicker is, using 'less precise' analysis calcs generally requires some sort of consensus amongst those involved, so it actually becomes a matter of negotiation. So I'll trade you TDIC as long as we get the Dodonna calcs!

[Cesario]

If you are being sarcastic: hooray. If not, would those be the awesome targeting computers that take 8-15 seconds to target a probe, travelling from a planet to it's star in a straight line?

The one that's less than two meters wide, yes.

[Connor MacLeod]

If we were going to say America vs Canada, would we spend very much time on shit like "the American rifle has a peak firepower of 5 KJ per shot but the Canadians use a blah blah blah"?

Or, would we talk about the readiness of the military industrial complex or the longest undefended land border in the world the two countries share or whatever things like that?

Ideally we'd talk about all of it, including the nonmilitary aspects. Or at least as much of it as we have information for.

"but lol ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE", well, if, hypothetically, Canada invented a gun that could kill American soldiers with one bullet, would that mean they would just steamroll America?

(and moreover, another fallacy that annoys me, just because this Canadian has a gun that can kill someone in one hit, that doesn't mean Canadians can easily survive being shot!)

The source of contention isn't with the calcs, it's with the fact people use the calcs as precise figures and assume there are absolutely no drawbacks tied to having stupidly huge firepower. Things like "gigaton turbolasers would have tremendous recoil and consume tons of fuel which cuts into the endurance of the ship" and so on. Hell most of those conclusions are based off canon (The Slave ship quote says an ISD can't take a multi-GT TL hit unless its properly 'braced', we know they consume huge amounts of fuel from the ICS, etc.)

Half the firepower? Take it.

That's something about the sense of scale... this is a Galactic Empire, but Han talks about "a thousand ships". Ben says "a million voices". We're supposed to believe that just one battlestation, as beefy as it is, is going to make a difference... by blowing up just one moon.

Well some sources I recall actually said the beam was EQUAL to the superlaser. thing is, what setting are we talking at? Its not like the DS doesn't have variable settings form "vape starship" to "vape planet" so the analysis has to be a bit more in depth - the recharge rate alone skews things if you don't remember it. Besides, that only shows what might be possible with ISDs built using DS technology - it doesn't reflect on 'current' designs - the ones that might run on 'primitive' fusion.

Oh, it gets better! Yeah, those two three are just coincidentally related. OK, I can buy that since they might have reason to find each other. Same with the robots.

But Chewie totally knew the one great jedi who survived the slaughter.... yeah, small world.

You just found a great story hook for the EU. HOW CHEWBACCA LOST HIS MEMORY! I imagine it may involve a moon dropping on his head.

[Connor MacLeod]

Fun example I was playing around with:

The WW2 era 16" naval gun turrets according to here had a turn rate in the ballpark of 4 degrees per second. Which means to cover a a 90-120 degree arc is some 20-30 seconds. What does that say about the tracking speed and precision (conservation of momentum plays in here) of the fuckoff huge 50 metre diameter turbolaser turrets, which without doubt will be larger and doubtless heavier?

by that same token, we hear about the targting/tracking ability of phasers, but under what context is that occuring under? The nature of the target, the speed, the range, the firepower settings, etc.

[the atom]

The firepower calcs have shitloads of posturing behind them, too. There's plenty to discuss without going into that though.

If we were going to say America vs Canada, would we spend very much time on shit like "the American rifle has a peak firepower of 5 KJ per shot but the Canadians use a blah blah blah"?

Or, would we talk about the readiness of the military industrial complex or the longest undefended land border in the world the two countries share or whatever things like that?


"but lol ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE DIFFERENCE", well, if, hypothetically, Canada invented a gun that could kill American soldiers with one bullet, would that mean they would just steamroll America?

(and moreover, another fallacy that annoys me, just because this Canadian has a gun that can kill someone in one hit, that doesn't mean Canadians can easily survive being shot!)

That analogy doesn't quite hold though. Infantry are still capable of minimizing the effects of any superior firepower through use of cover and strategy. Naval combat doesn't work like that, especially in space based sci-fi settings like SW or ST where ships are expected to handle more then what they can dish out. You're expected to take the damage and keep on trucking, which is why firepower discussion matter so much in this is because it kinda determines just how well one side will be able to handle getting hit from the other and how much punishment they can give out in return.

For example, if we were discussing the modern U.S. Navy vs. the British Royal navy circa 1750, there wouldn't be any sort of discussion about naval tactics or readiness of the military industrial complex, because one side would horrifically mangle the other with casual effort just by firepower alone. There's absolutely nothing a fleet of 1st rates could do to hurt or impede an aircraft carrier or battleship any way you spin it.

Now the disparity between SW and ST isn't quite that big, but it's big enough that the Empire holds most of the cards.