ISD. A serious design flaw.

[Mad]

That's not very practical when you are trying to gain a locational advantage. Sure, it drastically increases firepower per target, but it negates an already limited mobility if you have to move the entire ship to bring more guns to bear. Rolling helps because it doesnt stop you from going forward, but re-angling your pitch would -- unless ISD's can perform sliding movements.

Well, it would retain the same forward velocity (no significant friction to slow the ship down), but any new acceleration would send the ISD in a slightly "down" direction. That is, unless ISDs can redirect their thruster exhaust to maneuver the same way TIE fighters do.

[JodoForce]

Any ship in space is able to slide / strafe / what-have-you by default. The movie producers like to make things look 'good' by eliminating it.

Um... sorry, but no. A ship if it was pushed by something else (like getting slammed by a broadside, or using its own manuvering thrusters that actually allow for lateral thrust) can slide / strafe. Best case scenaro the ISD hurls itself forward, perfoms a sharp turn -- causing it to fly backwards because its mass is to high to redirect its net direction right away. Unless I see some sort of manuvering jets, port/starboard/ventral/dorsal engine assembly, or they claim inertialist of gravimetric drives the ISD cannot controllably slide or strafe. The only visible engines on an ISD are aft.

My idea of 'strafe' is just to move in a direction that you're not pointing to, not to accelerate

@Frank Hipper:
You could address the 4 points I put up...

[RTN]

Each HTL by itself have fine firing arcs, it's just that their firing arcs all happen to mostly overlap...

Points you need to address:
1. Can targets worthy of HTLs manoeuvre away from their current firing arcs?

2. Is it more important to cover all quarters and all targets than to defeat each target more rapidly?

3. Value of having a few guns down there to engage your enemy at say 30% firepower as opposed to having to roll 180 deg and then engaging at 100% firepower, and presenting a tougher side at that?

After all it's not as if your enemy would stop firing at your belly as soon as you bring one or two HTLs to bear...

4. While modern warships may be able to cover their rear with 30-50% of their firepower they are also able to engage with 100% firepower in a wide arc. If it's a choice between having 30% firepower at the rear and 70% elsewhere in front or having 0% at the rear and 100% elsewhere, what would you choose? What if your ship happen to be able to rotate 180 degrees in half a minute?

If you mean these 4 points....

**relooks them over**

I don't have anything wrong with them. They're good.

1. For the most part anything large enough to carry HTL are slow enough to hit with HTL.

2. Trade-off. The ideal is to eliminate the highest damage per target set first. If 6 small ships put out more damage than a large one does in a given time and you can take them out with one shot -- shoot the little ones. If the opposite is true, frag the big ones first. You will need balanced weapons for both.

3. Greater coverage is more reliable in unstructured combat (newbie captains or verterans). By the book people are predictable and anything will do.

4. A lot of crap can happen in 30 seconds. I'd want 360 degrees of coverage with the following firepower disribution: 30% firepower in the strong fire arc, 14% firepower in all other arcs. If its an armored slab, make the stong arc the front so it can spearhead an assult. If it's a nimble or lighter ship make the strong arc broadside or ventral/dorsal to do respectively powerful indirect attacks on flyby.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

That can only give THIRTY percent even on its STRONGEST fire arc. Not counting its tactical advantages and disadvantages, it is hard to even foresee a combination of hull and gun arrangement that would produce that kind of result.

As a comparison, the current ISD can give at least 90% on one arc and almost 50% on two others.

[JodoForce]

4. A lot of crap can happen in 30 seconds. I'd want 360 degrees of coverage with the following firepower disribution: 30% firepower in the strong fire arc, 14% firepower in all other arcs. If its an armored slab, make the stong arc the front so it can spearhead an assult. If it's a nimble or lighter ship make the strong arc broadside or ventral/dorsal to do respectively powerful indirect attacks on flyby.

Surely even Frank wouldn't propose such a diffuse distribution Even if you spread your guns completely evenly throughout the ISD you still get 50% firepower at almost all angles...

[RTN]

My distribution assumes that the weapons are restricted to a single fire arc. Since most weapon systems are turrents, each arc actually has a much higher coverage -- depending upon vessel shape. These were merely minimum coverage.

Edit:

Although, I must concede the wedge design is brilliant. The fact that you can get double-broadsided because both port and starboard can be aimed forward is very cool.

On a second note, most ship designs with my distribution (carrying turrets) would be able to achieve 84% firepower in forward arc (28% base forward, 14% redirected from both port/starboard, and 14% from both ventral/dorsal -- leaving out only 14% from the aft). Similarly broadsides could also achieve 42% (14% side, 14% ventral, 14% dorsal), assuming half of both the forward and aft can't shoot left or right. If they can redirect a portion to port and starboard, then my broadsides are greater than 42% coverage.

Edit2: The above is without a wedge.

[JodoForce]

And you assume that ALL your weapons from dorsal, ventral, port and starboard can bear forward? WITHOUT a wedge?

[Frank Hipper]

Each HTL by itself have fine firing arcs, it's just that their firing arcs all happen to mostly overlap...

Points you need to address:
1. Can targets worthy of HTLs manoeuvre away from their current firing arcs?

2. Is it more important to cover all quarters and all targets than to defeat each target more rapidly?

3. Value of having a few guns down there to engage your enemy at say 30% firepower as opposed to having to roll 180 deg and then engaging at 100% firepower, and presenting a tougher side at that?

After all it's not as if your enemy would stop firing at your belly as soon as you bring one or two HTLs to bear...

4. While modern warships may be able to cover their rear with 30-50% of their firepower they are also able to engage with 100% firepower in a wide arc. If it's a choice between having 30% firepower at the rear and 70% elsewhere in front or having 0% at the rear and 100% elsewhere, what would you choose? What if your ship happen to be able to rotate 180 degrees in half a minute?

Point 1-That would depend on what you consider worthy of HTLs, Were I in command, I would target anything larger than a freighter with the main battery, but I would think that anything with a modicum of manouverability would be able to achieve some survivability. But my point in criticising the limited arcs arises from a fleet sale encounter. Hence:

Point 2-Cramming all the HTL turrets together the way they are gives a false concept of concentrated firepower. Were they distributed ventrally and dorsally, you would not lose broadside fire, you would have an all-round fire capability to improve flexibility in unforseen situations, and you would not have an enemy dictating how you manouver your ship.

Point 3- The all-or-nothing concept presented does mean that the dorsal side of the ship is practically unassailable, but that presumes that your opponent will always behave and will always be at the disadvantage you hope he will be in. What would you do if an attack is designed to take advantage of your rolling your vulnerable underside into a pre-planned attack?

Point 4-In choosing between having 0% firepower in one arc and 100% in another, I again say that the wily enemy commander should plan to take advantage of that with decoys and ambush.
And actually, with modern guided munitions, a typical frigate of today has all it's arcs covered. With it's gun, that would be another story.

And one more thing, the HTL turrets only have overlapping arcs at their upper elevation, at ten degrees or so, your going to blow your neighboring turret off.

[JodoForce]

It seems that in fanfics ISDs often work in pairs, with their dorsal side pointing in opposite directions when they are expecting the unexpected, but pointing to the same side when the enemy is coming from a certain direction.

[phongn]

That's not very practical when you are trying to gain a locational advantage. Sure, it drastically increases firepower per target, but it negates an already limited mobility if you have to move the entire ship to bring more guns to bear. Rolling helps because it doesnt stop you from going forward, but re-angling your pitch would -- unless ISD's can perform sliding movements.

Well, it would retain the same forward velocity (no significant friction to slow the ship down), but any new acceleration would send the ISD in a slightly "down" direction. That is, unless ISDs can redirect their thruster exhaust to maneuver the same way TIE fighters do.

The ISD1 had three thrust deflectors on each major engine and the ISD2 had a deflector ring.

[JodoForce]

But being on one end of the SD, the engines can't be used to propel the SD continuously in any direction other than forward without the SD starting to turn end over end...

[nightmare]

IIRC, the turrets can elevate.

[RTN]

And you assume that ALL your weapons from dorsal, ventral, port and starboard can bear forward? WITHOUT a wedge?

I've drawn several of them that way... Hell, even homeworld destroyers can do that.

[Frank Hipper]

IIRC, the turrets can elevate.

A full 90 degrees, I believe.

[Master of Ossus]

I don't have anything wrong with them. They're good.

1. For the most part anything large enough to carry HTL are slow enough to hit with HTL.

2. Trade-off. The ideal is to eliminate the highest damage per target set first. If 6 small ships put out more damage than a large one does in a given time and you can take them out with one shot -- shoot the little ones. If the opposite is true, frag the big ones first. You will need balanced weapons for both.

In SW, the larger ships are exponentially more powerful than the smaller ones. Thus, the greatest threat to a large ship is always another large ship, as opposed to several smaller ones, probably justifying the weapons placement, which is designed to maximize firepower in a single arc.

3. Greater coverage is more reliable in unstructured combat (newbie captains or verterans). By the book people are predictable and anything will do.

But far less powerful for the primary role which an ISD was meant to play--namely, that of wiping out a planet quickly. ISD's have secondary roles of engaging and destroying more diffuse targets.

4. A lot of crap can happen in 30 seconds. I'd want 360 degrees of coverage with the following firepower disribution: 30% firepower in the strong fire arc, 14% firepower in all other arcs. If its an armored slab, make the stong arc the front so it can spearhead an assult. If it's a nimble or lighter ship make the strong arc broadside or ventral/dorsal to do respectively powerful indirect attacks on flyby.

Frankly, if you don't have thirty seconds in capital ship combat, you're pretty well screwed regardless of what your capabilities are. I find your firepower distribution to be INCREDIBLY diffuse, and incapable of sufficient concentration of firepower--especially for BDZ's and similar operations.

[Master of Ossus]

And you assume that ALL your weapons from dorsal, ventral, port and starboard can bear forward? WITHOUT a wedge?

I've drawn several of them that way... Hell, even homeworld destroyers can do that.

That doesn't seem possible. What range were you using? At extremely long ranges, yes, the incremental difference between the barrels and the hull of the weapon will allow the weapon to fire straight forward, but that is only for very long ranges and is impractical for engaging maneuvering targets--the very ones you initially wanted to defend yourself against.

[RTN]

That doesn't seem possible. What range were you using? At extremely long ranges, yes, the incremental difference between the barrels and the hull of the weapon will allow the weapon to fire straight forward, but that is only for very long ranges and is impractical for engaging maneuvering targets--the very ones you initially wanted to defend yourself against.

It's freaking easy. I'll scan a schematic in a day or two, and it will have better coverage at point blank as well.

[RTN]

In SW, the larger ships are exponentially more powerful than the smaller ones. Thus, the greatest threat to a large ship is always another large ship, as opposed to several smaller ones, probably justifying the weapons placement, which is designed to maximize firepower in a single arc.

My design assumes that not all races encountered will be configured like they are in SW. And as I stated, it was a case-dependent configuration that I gave both options.

But far less powerful for the primary role which an ISD was meant to play--namely, that of wiping out a planet quickly. ISD's have secondary roles of engaging and destroying more diffuse targets.

Easily remedied by having a special orbital bombardment system or attack craft that would allow the assult to continue and not take away firepower from defense.

Frankly, if you don't have thirty seconds in capital ship combat, you're pretty well screwed regardless of what your capabilities are. I find your firepower distribution to be INCREDIBLY diffuse, and incapable of sufficient concentration of firepower--especially for BDZ's and similar operations.

If you don't have 30 seconds in combat you're screwed... true. And that is why I said a lot of crap can happen in 30 seconds. As for diffused firepower, I already showed the breakdown that let my firepower allocation to be similar to an ISD's with only about 10-15% lower in the larger areas.

[Master of Ossus]

In SW, the larger ships are exponentially more powerful than the smaller ones. Thus, the greatest threat to a large ship is always another large ship, as opposed to several smaller ones, probably justifying the weapons placement, which is designed to maximize firepower in a single arc.

My design assumes that not all races encountered will be configured like they are in SW. And as I stated, it was a case-dependent configuration that I gave both options.

You can't judge a design based on a scenario that cannot possibly exist. The fact of the matter is, that in ALL observed races and cultures in SW, the larger ships are exponentially more powerful than the smaller ones, leading me to believe that the reactors, weapons, etc. scale upwards extremely well, leading to a distribution curve heavily weighted to the right. This is like claiming that the P-51 Mustang was a poor fighter because it was not well suited to dodging SAM's. The technology did not exist at the time, to build a SAM. In SW, the technology may simply not be possible to design smaller ships with enough firepower to harm a ship the size of an ISD.

But far less powerful for the primary role which an ISD was meant to play--namely, that of wiping out a planet quickly. ISD's have secondary roles of engaging and destroying more diffuse targets.

Easily remedied by having a special orbital bombardment system or attack craft that would allow the assult to continue and not take away firepower from defense.

Red-herring. Imperial STRATEGY is not being criticized here (ie. To use ISD's to subjugate planets, as opposed to even more specialized craft). You are essentially building a fleet around an ISD, instead of building an ISD as part of a fleet.

Frankly, if you don't have thirty seconds in capital ship combat, you're pretty well screwed regardless of what your capabilities are. I find your firepower distribution to be INCREDIBLY diffuse, and incapable of sufficient concentration of firepower--especially for BDZ's and similar operations.

If you don't have 30 seconds in combat you're screwed... true. And that is why I said a lot of crap can happen in 30 seconds. As for diffused firepower, I already showed the breakdown that let my firepower allocation to be similar to an ISD's with only about 10-15% lower in the larger areas.

And I said that that was substantially too diffuse, and would favor a more heavily concentrated arc because it was better suited for most combat in SW. You ignored me.

[RTN]

You can't judge a design based on a scenario that cannot possibly exist.

To not account for an unlikely scenario when designing a vehicle or vessel is ignorant, in my opinion. Precautions against the unknown is what determines survivabilty in combat and emergency.

...was better suited for most combat in SW. You ignored me.

And you have once again missed the fact that the ship design was not ment for strictly the SW universe. **points below**

My design assumes that not all races encountered will be configured like they are in SW.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Actually you design based on projected threats.

Hence the ISD Mk. I being closer to a proper destroyer, whereas the ISD Mk. II is really a destroyer shoehorned into acting as a heavy cruiser against technologically inferior foe.

[RTN]

Actually you design based on projected threats.

Hence the ISD Mk. I being closer to a proper destroyer, whereas the ISD Mk. II is really a destroyer shoehorned into acting as a heavy cruiser against technologically inferior foe.

I can agree with that.

[Master of Ossus]

You can't judge a design based on a scenario that cannot possibly exist.

To not account for an unlikely scenario when designing a vehicle or vessel is ignorant, in my opinion.

That's the point, though. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to design a group of smaller ships to have the same firepower as a volumetrically equally-sized larger ship in SW, so long as the larger ship is of approximately equivalent technological development. The technology DOES NOT WORK that way.

Precautions against the unknown is what determines survivabilty in combat and emergency.

But it isn't an unknown factor. It simply is not possible to design such a starship. Could something be more powerful than an ISD, if it has the same volume? Of course, but it would have to be either much more expensive or much more advanced. If the Empire DOES run into such an enemy, no single ISD is likely to stand up well against the ship, anyway (and you have to seriously question the strategic abilities of another race that pumps so much money into an ISD-sized spaceframe as to make it significantly more powerful).

...was better suited for most combat in SW. You ignored me.

And you have once again missed the fact that the ship design was not ment for strictly the SW universe. **points below**

What do you mean? Of course the ISD was designed for combat in the SW universe.

My design assumes that not all races encountered will be configured like they are in SW.

So, how does this make the ISD's weapons placement a design flaw? The ISD is meant to battle other ships in SW. You have acknowledged that its design is effective at doing so. WHERE IS THE DESIGN FLAW? You are essentially claiming that the ISD should be designed to accomplish a mission that it will almost certainly never have to face. That's a ludicrous way of designing a starship. Designs are judged on how well they fulfill their mission parameters and design specifications. The ISD does so effectively. You cannot call it a "design flaw" when something happens that no one ever thought was possible. Was it a design flaw that made Plate-mail armor worn in the Middle Ages vulnerable to high-caliber firearms?

[IRG CommandoJoe]

Was it a design flaw that made Plate-mail armor worn in the Middle Ages vulnerable to high-caliber firearms?

Eh...not the best analogy...I'd say wooden ships not being able to sink ironclads, as it happened in that time period and not centuries later.

EDIT: Unless you mean the first high-caliber firearms made near the end of the Middle Ages...

[RTN]

That's the point, though. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE to design a group of smaller ships to have the same firepower as a volumetrically equally-sized larger ship in SW, so long as the larger ship is of approximately equivalent technological development. The technology DOES NOT WORK that way.

You're overlooking the manuverabilty advantage of smaller ships when abusing an overlyfocused weapons configuration. And claiming the ISD would have backup is pointless too because the opponents would have backup as well.

But it isn't an unknown factor. It simply is not possible to design such a starship. Could something be more powerful than an ISD, if it has the same volume?

It could have longer range weapons like a Victory, or better shielding systems like Mon Cals that would let them fight just as long as a bigger ship.

So, how does this make the ISD's weapons placement a design flaw?

Did I ever say that the ISD had a major design flaw in its weapon configuration?? NO.

I only stated what I would want on my ship and have only been defending the design for debate purposes.

[/i]By RTN
4. A lot of crap can happen in 30 seconds. I'd want 360 degrees of coverage with the following firepower disribution: 30% firepower in the strong fire arc, 14% firepower in all other arcs. If its an armored slab, make the stong arc the front so it can spearhead an assult. If it's a nimble or lighter ship make the strong arc broadside or ventral/dorsal to do respectively powerful indirect attacks on flyby.

Next time you feel the need to debate with yourself on the weapons configuration of a ship Im not talking about, do so somewhere else.