ICS 200GT(not a bitching about it trekkie post)

Headshots_Sold_Here · Post by **Headshots_Sold_Here** » 2002-09-04 02:18am

I just realized somehting: ICS lists 200gt for quad turbolasers. Quad < Battery of turbolasers. ISD2 has like 8 batteries of HTLs. Additionally, everyone seems to assume tech stagnating when infact the ISD guns could be far stronger. The ics listed guns seem to be closer to the MTLs or LTLs. The acclamators seem like the have no MTLs, just lasers LTLs and HTLs. Why would someone do that? I propose that the 200GT figure is for MTL not HTL. Assuming the honorable Darth Wong's figures of the LTLs being 125 or so times smaller then the HTLs is correct, then I would aproximate that the ltls are 25 times smaller then mtls. Mtls are 25 times smaller then HTLs, therefor 5 teratons for the HTLs, not accounting for tech growth.
While I realize these "calcs" seem dorkstar like, I think that the teraton range is a correct figure for HTLs.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2002-09-04 03:02am

This isn't the first supposition that HTL's are in the teraton range. HDS had a piece of evidence from WOTC that put them up there, as well.

Me? I keep myself open to the possibility, but for the time being, I'm quite content with using 200GT as a baseline number for ISD weapon strength.

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-09-04 04:19am

How many quads are on the VicStar btw?

Lord of the Farce · Post by **Lord of the Farce** » 2002-09-04 06:00am

Cpt_Frank wrote:How many quads are on the VicStar btw?

From the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia (http://www1.theforce.net/cuswe/) the Victory-I class Star Destroyer has: "10 quad turbolaser batteries, 40 double turbolaser batteries, 80 concussion missile tubes".

Cpt_Frank · Post by **Cpt_Frank** » 2002-09-04 06:05am

Assuming the quads are the of same firepower as the ones on the acclamator, and the duals are 1/2, then we have
10 x 200 gigatons
40 x 100 gigatons
makes 6000 gigatons in total. Not bad.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-04 10:35am

We assume that technology in that area has more or less stagnated because it has not significantly improved in terms of the mechanism for blasters/turbolasers for millenia. However, the ISD's weapons are significantly larger than those on the Acclamator. When I was working on scaling the two weapons (having found a conversion factor by moving from blaster rifles to LTL's up to the Acclamator weapons), I got numbers in the Yottaton range. That is a hell of a lot of energy. It would never hold up in debate, but it was kind of interesting.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-09-04 10:56am

Which is why I say medium guns on ISDs are at least 10 Giga-tons to 250 Gigia-tons giving when I checked ICS, they are near the exact same phyiscal size

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-09-04 04:55pm

I go by the following:

MTL: 200 GT
LTL (1/4 of a MTL): 50 GT
HTL (125x a LTL): 6250 GT

Since you can end up with Petaton level HTLs using WEG scaling, and since my conversion factors are consistent with shot intensities shown in the movies, and since I am arrogant, I think mine are the most accurate, if not somewhat on the conservitive side when you consider the advancements that will be made in 25 years of intense military R&D.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-09-04 04:56pm

Ender wrote:I go by the following:

MTL: 200 GT
LTL (1/4 of a MTL): 50 GT
HTL (125x a LTL): 6250 GT

Since you can end up with Petaton level HTLs using WEG scaling, and since my conversion factors are consistent with shot intensities shown in the movies, and since I am arrogant, I think mine are the most accurate, if not somewhat on the conservitive side when you consider the advancements that will be made in 25 years of intense military R&D.

Petaton was the light scaling. The higher one was Yottaton.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2002-09-04 05:21pm

Really? I guess that would make mine... conservitive

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2002-09-04 06:06pm

Ender wrote:Really? I guess that would make mine... conservitive

Doesn't it feel good to be evil?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2002-09-04 07:50pm

My calcs also wound up in the Yottaton range.

Incidentally, these are all reasonable even in terms of energy cost. Remember that an Acclamator devotes essentially no interior volume to its weapons systems, as it is first and foremost a transport craft. An Imperator class Star Destroyer, on the other hand, will dedicate an enormous amount of space to such weapons and to power generation. Also, power in SW seems to go up exponentially with volume, so the fact that the ISD is far larger even than an Acclamator would easily allow for huge firepowers. Even ones that are literally off the SI scale in terms of exponents could be supported by such a large ship.

Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi · Post by **Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi** » 2002-09-04 10:29pm

Still, I say we take it easy on the Trekkies, and stick with teraton-level HTLs for now. The current BDZ requirements call for the crust of a planet to be melted down to 1m. I was thinking an ISD could melt it down far further, to say, 100 meters.

Smalleyjedi · Post by **Smalleyjedi** » 2002-09-04 10:51pm

Acclamator has a total of .2 x 12= 2.4 terratons.
Using 50 mt per barral, the ISD would have 400 mt per battery, and 3.2 terratons.

Assuming they are similar enough to be scaled up (not accurate, the shapes are different), then the ISD has over 9 times the volume! Plus much more of it is dedicated to weaponry, at the very least ten times more. So roughly 100 times more powerful. 240 terratons, 30 per gun, 3.75 per barrel. Those would be a little high for individual guns since medium and light weapons were left out, but with those numbers even light weapons would have to be in the high megaton range, wth ASF weapons low megaton.