Newest SW Insider screws Trekkies

[Connor MacLeod]

First, I dont think that the quote neccesarily indicates that an acclamator could do NO damage at all. That seems a rather extreme interpretation. It can just as well mean that the Acclamator is far outgunned by an ISD (since the TLs on the Acclamator are more or less comparable in power to the smaller TLs I call mediums on the ISD, and the ISD has heavy TL turrets that are MANY times more powerful.) Its possible that the broadsides on an Acclamator will not do much to an ISD with shields up(relative to what the ISD could do, anyhow) but thats a far cry from saying the Acclamator's weapons will not "scratch" the ISD at all.

That said, we should point out ISD's are designed for conducting planetary bombardments as well (lacking the missiles perhaps), although the Acclamator, carrying the missile launchers (as Wilklens has pointed out), has a more diverisifed payload - though ISDs have blastboats, gunboats, TIE bombers, and assault shuttles for this purpose. And according to the revised WOTC rules, ISD's do have laser cannons comparable in power to the Acclamators (and which are megaton range canonically anyhow - TESB)

Odds are that TLs and laser cannons are designed to supplement ground assault roles (remember that TL firepower can be scaled... superlasers do not employ even a tiny fraction of the energy they need to blow up planets on starships after all... and there's also the splinter shots.. according to Rebel Stand, the lowest intensity shots on an X-wing laser - the stutterfire - can vaporize Yuuzhan Vong torsos...) That infers that firepower can be scaled down by many orders of magnitude if need be, which would be especially useful in ground assault roles. I dont think its probable they ALWAYS use max power shots in ground attack (precision shots probably require alot less) but in destroying hard targets, or performing a BDZ, probably would.

If you believe some of the statements in the SWAJ (There have been discussions about planetary invasion as well as orbital attacks vs ground vehicles, its been noted that capital ships can be used to support ground attack roles by taking out ground vehicles with their weapons.) We in fact see this in "Rebel Dream" with the Lusankya and "Emperor's Hammer" - and tha was unlikely to have involved tremendous levels of gigaton-teraton level energy (or required it, for that matter.) Especially since they were firing not only on ground targets that are unlikely to be as durable as a capital ship, but also because they were firing around the area containing their base (as well as the fighters they were using to lure the ground forces in.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Depending ont he source you use, ISD-1s can have at least 60 twin TL turrets/batteries of comparable power to the acclamator's quad TLs... to around 120-180 turrets (the five gun/three turret quote from the special edition trilogy sourcebook by WEG for ISD TL batts)... bascially anywhere from 5-15 times as many medium guns, and the heavy turrets significantly amplify ISD firepower. ISDs only seem to have a little more than 50% greater point defense than Acclamators, though.

ISD-2's of course, have much greater firepower and probably more guns (at least 100, possibly 200 or so) and each one is individually more powerful than an ISD-1 MTL.

And of course there are the eight HTL octets...

[Mr Bean]

A single 200GT shot will, over the course of a few months to years, remove most of the higher life forms from the planet. Troops not on the same contient as the strike will be safe, but there'll be nothing within a thousand KM of ground zero left to be worth invading.

Why is everyone assuming they are using the 200GTs in Flack Mode?


Remebe TLs are FOCUSED weapons, In all likleyhood a 200 GT blast will encounter a building, Burn through it, hit the ground and burn through that till it runs out of energy rather than simply exploding(Remeber we have tons of mentions of HTLs burning THROUGH ships and out the other size not simply hitting somthing and auto-expolding unless in Flack Mode)

[His Divine Shadow]

On the contrary, it means nothing of the sort.

Which has more firepower? Iowa class Battleship or a Tinconderoga class cruiser? Which would win in combat? Which is better for bombardment? Traditionally bombardment ships have more powerful weapons that are not optimized for ship to ship combat.

Traditionally yes, but this is not water, this is space, with energy weapons and shields that make firepower advantages imperative.
The analogy is too disimilar to work.

[His Divine Shadow]

( planetary bombardment ranges are greater than normal cap ship ranges)

Proof?
The Lusankya is a space superiority vessel and it did an orbital bombardment withour troubel from a geostationary/geosynch orbit

[Cpt_Frank]

The statement merely verifies that a troop transport armed with light weapons can not compete to a dedicated all-big gun warship (duh).

And of course there are the eight HTL octets...

Only 6. The other two are the ion guns that fry the circuits and computers.
Ah well it's still enough.

[Andras]

The statement merely verifies that a troop transport armed with light weapons can not compete to a dedicated all-big gun warship (duh).

And of course there are the eight HTL octets...

Only 6. The other two are the ion guns that fry the circuits and computers.
Ah well it's still enough.

Not on the -IIs. -Is have 6 HTLs and 2 Ions, -IIs have 8 HTLs

[Andras]

re the Iowa vs Tico.

In the absence of OTH targeting sources, you have

assuming a VLS Tico with 122 missiles, 90 of which are self defense, 20 are ASW, and 12 are Land attack SSMs, and 8 Harpoons, plus 2x 5"

an Iowa with 16 Landattack THawk, 16 ASM THawk, and 16 Harpoons, plus 9x 16" and 6x 5" on a broadside.

Tico does have 2 sources of OTH, the helos, but with only 8 possible anti-ship missiles, won't kill and most likely won't damage the Iowa ( 4 Phalanx)

given radar line of sight, an Iowa will own a Tico. It is just as fast or faster, has greater endurance, and the Tico can't stop 16" shells, even if it does manage to shoot down a mass salvo of 32 ASMs fired at less then 30 miles, any one of which will put a severe hurting on a Tico.

a non VLS tico will be even worse off

Tico's role is area air defense, period

[Connor MacLeod]

( planetary bombardment ranges are greater than normal cap ship ranges)

Proof?
The Lusankya is a space superiority vessel and it did an orbital bombardment withour troubel from a geostationary/geosynch orbit

You forgot to mention they were firing on ground troops/tanks/support vehicles at the time.

[TheDarkling]

HDS: Proof of what? Planetary Bombardment ranges are greater than capship combat ranges? - I would think thats pretty clear.

I didnt mean that capships (ISD's) cant fire on planets since they have done it before simlpy that they arent dedicated to that like the transport ship.

[Smalleyjedi]

designed and built to BDZ but not dedicated? I would hate to see a dedicated assault ship the size of an ISD......it would probobly shatter the planet

[TheDarkling]

To my understanding the BDZ predates the ISD so I doubt the ISD was designed for that purpose.

[Master of Ossus]

To my understanding the BDZ predates the ISD so I doubt the ISD was designed for that purpose.

What kind of reasoning is that? The BDZ does predate the ISD, but that does not mean that the ISD was built without the ability to perform a BDZ. In fact, it may have been specifically designed for that task!

Dynamite predates nuclear weapons, so using your logic nuclear weapons cannot be designed to blow things up.

The fact that the ISD was not the first ship with the ability to perform a BDZ does not mean that it does not have that ability.

[TheDarkling]

No MOO by your logic since I said nothing of the kind - did I say a BDZ cant be preformed by an ISD??? please point to where I said that.

What I said was the ISD was designed as a Space combat vessel whereas the Acclamator was designed for ground assualt (I heard somewhere it was the first ship designed to produce a BDZ effect) thus the Acclamators weapons may be tweaked for long range bombardment not fast refire and covering all firing arcs etc.

[Master of Ossus]

To my understanding the BDZ predates the ISD so I doubt the ISD was designed for that purpose.

This is what you wrote. You said that you doubted the ISD was designed for the purpose of a BDZ, did you not? It may not have been specifically designed for the explicit purpose of BDZing, but that does not mean that the BDZ was not their secondary purpose behind the design. That would explain why so much of their firepower is concentrated on the dorsal side of the ship.

[TheDarkling]

What kind of reasoning is that? The BDZ does predate the ISD, but that does not mean that the ISD was built without the ability to perform a BDZ.

Did I say an ISD cant preform a BDZ??

Simple Yes or No.

[CmdrWilkens]

Only 6. The other two are the ion guns that fry the circuits and computers.
Ah well it's still enough.

Not on the -IIs. -Is have 6 HTLs and 2 Ions, -IIs have 8 HTLs

The difference is actually a bit more interesting.

The ISD-I has 8 turrets (4 port, 4 starboard) near the main rise to the aft of the ship. The forward three turrets on both sides are either single or dual cannon HTL or VHTL turrets. The last two are single cannon Heavy IC turrets.

The ISD-II also has 8 turets located in the same area HOWEVER those turrets are all 8 gun turrets most likely HTLs. The barrel dimensions are different, smaller, than those on the ISD-I. None the less an ISD-II carries 64 heavy guns (call them HTLs) to the ISD-Is 12 HEAVIER guns (call them VHTLs).

[Connor MacLeod]

HDS: Proof of what? Planetary Bombardment ranges are greater than capship combat ranges? - I would think thats pretty clear.

I didnt mean that capships (ISD's) cant fire on planets since they have done it before simlpy that they arent dedicated to that like the transport ship.

I presume you mean because ships can move, unlike planets (or rather, they both move, its that planets move in predictable patterns, while ships don't have to.)

[His Divine Shadow]

HDS: Proof of what? Planetary Bombardment ranges are greater than capship combat ranges? - I would think thats pretty clear.

No it's not "pretty clear", it's a pretty common notion, not one I've seen proven at any lenght, I've seen a bunch of varying range examples being misused as proof of technical limitations when it's actually incidental limitations based on jamming, makeup of area and sensors aviable.

Also, the Lusankya targeted ground vehicles from orbit, thats pretty good accuracy.