Orbital bombardments, planetary defenses, Death Stars, etc.

[Lord Revan]

Probably just removing exact values then as those can cause issues while, vague "does this much damage" descriptions won't cause as much problems, they essentially still saying the same thing just being more vague about it.

[Galvatron]

I think "reducing the upper crust of a planet to molten slag" is vague enough that it doesn't necessarily mean the entire planet anymore. It could be easily interpreted as meaning that a sustained bombardment can only do that to the surface in the vicinity of their target.

[Vance]

In case anyone still cares: the new edition of what used to be known as the ICS has stripped out a lot of the numerical specs from the Acclamator data file, including the 200-gigaton yield for its turbolasers.

Spoiler

Is that from a more recent release?
Some yields and annihilation rates were mentioned in the cross-sections themselves in the callouts. Cross-sections with attached yields included Slave 1 and LAAT gunships,
I had the 2016 British release of "Complete Vehicles" updated to include TFA.
Text on the back of the book stated "This book contains "legends" information, which is not considered canon in the star wars universe"
(disney verse).

Maybe this new edition carries the same caveat for the pre disney movies, or has that been dropped? See the back cover.

[Galvatron]

I don't see any such disclaimer on either cover or in the foreword. This is the book:

https://www.dk.com/us/book/978074402057 ... ew-edition

[Batman]

I think "reducing the upper crust of a planet to molten slag" is vague enough that it doesn't necessarily mean the entire planet anymore. It could be easily interpreted as meaning that a sustained bombardment can only do that to the surface in the vicinity of their target.

It 'could' be interpreted that way, but certainly not 'easily'. 'The upper crust of a planet' indicates 'all' or at least 'most 'of the upper crust of a planet. When you mean 'the few kilometres around the target' you don't say 'the planet'

[Solauren]

I think "reducing the upper crust of a planet to molten slag" is vague enough that it doesn't necessarily mean the entire planet anymore. It could be easily interpreted as meaning that a sustained bombardment can only do that to the surface in the vicinity of their target.

The tech books are usually precise enough that, if they mean 'around the target', they'll say it.

[Vance]

Pedantically then, that book 'canonizes' some of the old yields associated with "maximum power".
I doubt Palo was interested in this, as I'm pretty sure he was one of the guys who hate science in the SW, and those sort of discussions. But gigajoule ground laser weapons and megaton turbolasers are referenced in the cross-sections themselves;

https://i.gyazo.com/652d3d0de7b2afdd12f ... 9f01e6.png

[Batman]

We had fucking 200GT MTLs for the Acclamator on page in those ICSes, it's just that they're no longer canon

[chimericoncogene]

Palo is a moron. Fundamentally, you can get fifty megatons just by dropping a Star Destroyer from 500 kilometers up. Switch off the repulsorlifts and a city gets wiped off the map.
Once you start flying 50-million-tonne spaceships around at high interplanetary speeds (as opposed to taking a month to get to Mars and a year to get to the asteroid belt), you're looking at ludicrous kaboom.

[Galvatron]

Hey guys, get a load of this...

Spoiler

[Gandalf]

Is Vader trapped under some wreckage or something?

[Galvatron]

No, he was just taking shelter inside it while the Executor was raining down biggatons of turbolasers. It's just a toppled water tank (I think).

[Marko Dash]

this is how he should have handled that kaiju thing from the first Vader comic, call in some danger close orbital fire support.