Ender wrote:2) You are incorrect about the broadside. You are thinking 2 dimensionally. The ISD can invert or roll, bringing more HTL batteries to bear.
The ISD1 barrels cannot traverse vertically enough to have a full dorsal face HTL fire. They are too close together and all the same elevation, so they cannnot all fire forward. The greatest concentration of guns in the ISD1 is the post/starboard broadside. On the ISD2, it is a full ventral firing of all the HTL turrets.
Ender wrote:3) You are using the Guns on an ISD1 as the same as the guns on the Executor class, when that does not work. Saxton says that those are ISD2 type HTLs, which are smaller and have 8 barrels, not 2. thus your total firepower from the Executor would go up. I'm aware I made the same mistake in another thread, I found out my error the other day when researching canon weapons counts for my BDZ calculator.
While the octuple HTL ISD2 turrets are more powerful than the double HTL ISD1 turrets, I did specify I was rounding down.
I am unsure as to the proportion of firepower from the double ISD1 turret to the octuple ISD2 turret. HDS probably has a ratio unfortunately derived from WEG, but each of the octuple turrets' barrels are not equal to the barrels of the ISD1 turrets.
The total firepower of an ISD2 dorsal turret is greater than the ISD1 dorsal turret, but the relation between firepower is deeper thans simply the number of barrels in the turret. Like I said, the best idea is to go to WEG firepower estimates for the ISD1 vs. estimates for the ISD2 and use that as a ratio.
Ender wrote:4) The ISD2 turret is NOT more powerful then the ISD1 turret. The reverse is true. The ISD 1 turret is something like 20X more powerful.
Evidence? There was a lengthy debate on this subject, and the ISDII is nearly universally said to be more powerful than the ISD1 turret.
Ender wrote:5) Your math is jacked up. If 8848 TT is 10% of the main reactor, then the main reactor would be 3.6E26 watts, not 6.648E23 watts. Well above what ESB indicates it should be.
My mistake. Although, according to the number of ISDII turrets on the
Executor model, which is in-movie, and more canon than an off-hand comment in the novelisation about the grandeur of the
Executor.
I still think if we can get a good estimate based on its proportionally greater firepower compared to the ISD from the number of turrets, we'll be more accurate than the 5 x as powerful statement.
The shields appear to be around 5 x as powerful or so, but the firepower is much greater. And the ISD (esp. the ISDII, according to most official sources) is much more of a ship-to-ship combat vessel than the Executor, which dedicates most of its volume to troopship/carrier duties. The massive hangar and the extensive internal structure revealed in Rebel Assault II suggest this, as does the fact that is mounts weak shields in proportion to its size and only destroyer-level guns.
Ender wrote:I have a few thoughts on how to hammer out a new formula. The thing is that while My current one works for the DS and Acclamator, I dont think it works on the TF coreship. More disturbingly, the power densities are all over the place, when they should be constant. I have a few ideas on new methods to try to hammer out a better formula, but that will have to wait until comp and finals are finished.
Indeed. We really need more front-line warships. I know I want a new Saxton OT ICS (or ICS's).
Personally, I'm most interested in firepower/shielding/reactor figures for the Executor, based on canon evidence alone, to give an idea of what is realistic in regards to numerous ECCS battles in the EU. I'm also interested in what kind of a vessel (reactor wise) could hold its own and outgun an ECCS in the forward arc with a broadside and survive.