Page 5 of 5
Re: Imperator III
Posted: 2005-05-13 01:43am
by Stark
The Jazz Intern wrote:Well, i have a strange idea...
Ok, now that the rebels are the New Republic and have some ships of their own to use in combat against Star Destroyers. The Rebel Capital ships (at least the Mon Cal Cruisers) have their sheilds spread out over various generators (occording to the star wars role playing source book) while the Star Destroyers have two main sheild generators.
My Idea is to first of all, get rid of the big, tall brig and put a short, stubby one with a couple of anti-fighter guns on it. (quads'll work
) Next, Increase the power of the tractor beam. Get rid of many of the large turbo laser weapons in favor of smaller Quad guns ect. Also, beef up the Ion cannons and add a few. Keep the large hanger bay, or even enlage it so it can carry large Corvettes and small gunships. Make most of the ship automised (like the rebels) and get rid of the army. Put along the sides of the ship most of the hangers to release fighters. Also, putting in some Droid TIES might be nice.
You all probably think I am insane by now.
Never refer to WEG sources again.
Are the 'quadguns' you're referring to ISD-I style, extremely large notch turrets or Falcon-style pompoms? Why add ion guns, when I personally doubt they exist at all and probably don't add any capability anyway? What makes you think rebel ships are 'automised', and to a greater extent than the far more sophisticated Imperial ships?
Side hangars might be nice though. Similar to the DS style: I guess the downside is that when the hangar shields are down there's a direct shot into the ship.
Posted: 2005-05-13 02:12am
by The Jazz Intern
First of all, I am sorry for my stupidity. When i said Quads, i meant, more of small weak laser cannons. As for the ion cannons, this ship is designed to take prisoner ships. Thats also why i have added to the power of the tractor beam. When I said automation, I meant that the rebel ships aren't as heavily crewed. I don't think the rebels have greater technology, i just think they use more droids because they don't have as many people. Why no WEG sources? If they are not trusted, or if they are troll ridden peices of junk, Please tell me.
Posted: 2005-05-13 02:17am
by Ra
WEG sources are notoriously inacurate, orginating the horrendous 160 km-diameter Death Star and 8 km-long Executor bullshit. Those stats aren't canon, and not to be trusted.
- Ra
Posted: 2005-05-13 02:26am
by The Jazz Intern
thank you.
Posted: 2005-05-13 04:47am
by DavidVCSAndersen
Ra wrote:WEG sources are notoriously inacurate, orginating the horrendous 160 km-diameter Death Star and 8 km-long Executor bullshit. Those stats aren't canon, and not to be trusted.
- Ra
When All lucas sources claims the DS to be 120 km in diameter
http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstar/
and the DSII to be 160 km
http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/deathstarii/
I would say it is pretty "canon". No matter what certain fans measure their scales to be.
Posted: 2005-05-13 05:07am
by Ra
Not going to get into too much of an argument here, since the topic has been done to death and beyond, but I offer this from the
Star Wars Technical Commentaries. It's a comment on the size of DS2.
In the latter case, the Endor moon would be intermediate between Earth and Mars, but closest to the size of Earth. Assuming a bulk composition consistent with known terrestrial planets and a best estimate of 2/3 terrestrial surface gravity, the sanctuary moon's average density would be about 4 - 5 g / cm³ implying a radius of roughly 5200 km (80% that of Earth). This is a very approximate value and might vary by hundreds of kilometres depending on the weighting of the particular assumptions. However this value serves as a strongly indicative lower limit because a light-element composition would imply a greater global radius, and a heavy-element composition is astronomically unattainable (and couldn't shrink the diameter by much better than half). The moon's radius could not conceivably be less than about four-thousand kilometres.
If there is nothing abnormal and artificial about the moon's compostion then the diameter of the Death Star II is scaled to approximately
D = 900 ± 60 km .
This is very much greater than the unsupported estimates that appear most often in the literature (contrived by West End Games and duplicated uncritically in later references). The Death Star Technical Companion and The Movie Trilogy Sourcebook claim that the diameters of the first and second Death Stars were only 120km and 160km respectively. If the Death Star II were this tiny then the sanctuary moon would scale down to be barely larger than half the diameter Earth's moon and it then could not possibly hold a life-sustaining atmosphere. The 160km scaling of DS2 is untenable. Q.E.D.
Emphasis mine. Saxton is well-respected, and this is from an analysis of what is
seen onscreen.
- Ra
Posted: 2005-05-13 08:14am
by Firefox
DavidVCSAndersen wrote:I would say it is pretty "canon". No matter what certain fans measure their scales to be.
And the same site claims the
Executor is
less than its observed size in the movies. The model makers have also stated the DSII was meant to be over 500 miles in diameter, and has been demonstrated to be so through watching the movie.
Posted: 2005-05-13 10:56am
by SVPD
If I may be permitted, what is the time frame and expected role of a new Star Destroyer class?
If we're talking pre-Endor, cost is not a factor, while the enemy Navy is still fairly small in terms of large combatants. Post endor, there's a lot more heavy enemy ships, but less resources to build with.
Posted: 2005-05-13 10:57am
by Shroom Man 777
Ooooh a website ran by an asshole who mocks SW fans who get technical, how official!
Hey guys, why don't we just listen to those guys and disregard those SW technical books that are used by those ILM guys? I mean, who the hell are they anyway? What's a Saxton, anyway? Who cares? Besides, if the asshole running a website says the Executor is five kilometers long and tells us that what is seen onscreen is wrong, who are we to question him?
Aaaanyway, seriously, recent Lucas sources, such as the ICS, confirm the DS2 being 900km wide and the Executor being 17km long. As do the movies.
So we have two lower tier sources that contradict each other, one is made by some shitcock who despises fans who are technical, a shitcock who himself was writing technical bullshit for the WEG. And we have a thing written by an astrophysicist, hired by by Lucasfilm, whose work is used by ILM. And we have the movies themselves supporting the latter, the one written by the astrophysicist.
And? So? Therefore?
The Death Star II is nine hundred kilometers in diameter, or something. And the Executor is a bigass pimp ship that's at least 17km long.
Beat that.
Posted: 2005-05-13 10:59am
by Ghost Rider
Then one should really poke one's head in the latest offical source that says 900 Km. It's called inside the Worlds of Star Wars. It's pretty fucking offical and adhers more to canon then the site does.
Oh and one other canon source obliterates this...it's the novel. It doesn't say the size...but it explicitly tell you that this one is nearly twice the size. 160 is not nearly TWICE of 120 by any math on this planet or any other. It's a low percentile increase.
So I would say that 160 is NOT canon by anything but ignorant little retards who wank of to WEG.
Posted: 2005-05-13 12:28pm
by Ender
Hoo boy.
So the fact that Pablo is too damn stubborn to go back and change the databank despite the holocron and new publications saying different means that those sizes are canon? That you think C level should override G level?
Prepare to stand and deliver on that particularily idiotic position.
Posted: 2005-05-13 12:30pm
by Ender
Ghost Rider wrote:160 is not nearly TWICE of 120 by any math on this planet or any other.
Really? Cuz my math says it is.
Volume dude.
The numbers are still wrong, but a sphere with a diameter of 120 is half the volume of a sphere with a diameter of 160.
Posted: 2005-05-13 03:56pm
by RedImperator
See, this is an opportunity for me. I don't understand this mentality at all, so maybe you could explain it. Saxton's calculations were made by measuring the size of the DSII on screen. Nobody's ever managed to disprove either his calculations or his methodology. This, to me, makes the DSII 900km for the same reason Chewbacca is brown--because that's what the film shows it to be.
So how in the world does any lower level source contradict that? I've asked this before and I've never gotten a satisfactory answer. If the databank said Chewbacca was blue, would that also override what is seen on screen? After all, the arguments "Chewbacca is brown" and "the Death Star II was 900km across" are both derived from the same source material. We can't directly measure either one--EVERYTHING we "know" from the movies comes from our brains processing photons fired from a screen according to encoded instructions on a recording medium. Unless Lucasfilm changes its canon policy or Saxton's calculations are refuted, I just don't see on what you can make a case for a 160km DSII.
Posted: 2005-05-13 03:59pm
by Ghost Rider
Ender wrote:Ghost Rider wrote:160 is not nearly TWICE of 120 by any math on this planet or any other.
Really? Cuz my math says it is.
Volume dude.
The numbers are still wrong, but a sphere with a diameter of 120 is half the volume of a sphere with a diameter of 160.
D'OH...thanks for the correction.
Posted: 2005-05-13 05:11pm
by Star-Blighter
RedImperator wrote:
See, this is an opportunity for me. I don't understand this mentality at all, so maybe you could explain it. Saxton's calculations were made by measuring the size of the DSII on screen. Nobody's ever managed to disprove either his calculations or his methodology. This, to me, makes the DSII 900km for the same reason Chewbacca is brown--because that's what the film shows it to be.
So how in the world does any lower level source contradict that? I've asked this before and I've never gotten a satisfactory answer. If the databank said Chewbacca was blue, would that also override what is seen on screen? After all, the arguments "Chewbacca is brown" and "the Death Star II was 900km across" are both derived from the same source material. We can't directly measure either one--EVERYTHING we "know" from the movies comes from our brains processing photons fired from a screen according to encoded instructions on a recording medium. Unless Lucasfilm changes its canon policy or Saxton's calculations are refuted, I just don't see on what you can make a case for a 160km DSII.
Its simple. The people who argue for WEG and other such incorrect sources are really trekie scum who claim to love SW but are secretly attempting to subvert warsies everywhere by attempting marginalize the evidence that supports big sizes and big firepower for SW craft.
In other words, they have penis-envy...
Posted: 2005-05-15 12:18am
by Grandmaster Jogurt
Star-Blighter wrote:Its simple. The people who argue for WEG and other such incorrect sources are really trekie scum who claim to love SW but are secretly attempting to subvert warsies everywhere by attempting marginalize the evidence that supports big sizes and big firepower for SW craft.
In other words, they have penis-envy...
Not necessarily. I've had to deal with someone who loves Star Wars and hates Trek, but says that movie-based observations are automatically wrong because of insufficient information, that the EU overrides the prequel trilogy because... well, just because, and that the Endor holocaust never occured because we don't know the position of every object in the Endor system and "gravety is never negligible" so we should assume all the material was drawn away from the planet gravitationally before it hit.
So some of them are just idiots.
Posted: 2005-05-15 01:19am
by Crossroads Inc.
Should we get a Thread split for all this DS size debate? Or does this happen anyway all the time?