StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ender wrote:With the same rate of fire and hour long timeframe, the 3 ISDs still have to have a heavier yield per each shot in all categories.

In other words, you are basing this whole thing on your assumptions regarding ROF and how long it took, see the problem with this?

Ender wrote:And "more powerful" does not translate directly into "stronger HTLs". I can make a ship more powerful by increasing the power routed to shields, by swapping out my LTLs for MTLs, or any number of ways.

And now you're nitpicking, or just trying to side-step the issue since you ought to know what the material says: "The Mark II has improved shields, more guns, and has proton torpedo launchers"

RPG values also show that the ISD2's weapons are more powerfull than those of the ISD1.

Also note Sea Skimmers objection, and realize that your BDZ calculator is not the end all, be all of debates either, your examples hinges on certain assumptions.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

PainRack wrote:
Also, isn't the fact that the ISD II was reconfigured to have a heavier gun emplacement due to the threat of Rebel starfighters? This would seem to suggest that the ISD II guns were more numerous, rapid firing but had less firepower so as to deal against small craft, whereas the ISD I was configured to be a ship killer.

No that's not why and its always been stated to be simply more powerful overall. There's no point in converting the main battery for such a heavy ship to fight star fighters when its already got hundreds of individual anti star fighter mounts. Adding sixteen more that fire a million times more energy gains you nothing but losses a lot.

But it isn't. ISD I only had 72 guns, as compared to the ISD II 200.

The ISD I clearly had a shortage of guns to deal with enemy starfighters. Considering that the ISD II had nearly 3 times as many guns as the ISD I model, I would say that would definitely be of more use than loss.

PainRack wrote:The ISD I clearly had a shortage of guns to deal with enemy starfighters. Considering that the ISD II had nearly 3 times as many guns as the ISD I model, I would say that would definitely be of more use than loss.

But why are then the ISD2's heavy turrets weaker?

You use the RPG info here right? It should be only 60 if you are going to use RPG info you know, not 60 + 12 more.
Same info says the heavy weapons on the ISD2 are stronger than any weapon listed on the ISD1, unless you think the ISD1's heavy weapons wheren't listed.

Sea Skimmer wrote: After all just look at the USN's Blue Ridge class command ships, they displace almost 19,000 tons and mounts a number of self defence missile and gun mounts. But pit one against a 4000 ton frigate or an even smaller corvette and the small ship wins because its designed and armed to kill people and break things rather then telling others what to break and kill.

This isn't a perfect answer, though. Blue Ridge is designed to command entire fleets. We'll assume that thats perhaps 50 ships easily commanded by a Blue Ridge. Now, Executor by all rights should be able to command thousands of major combatants, if not tens of thousands. We'll call it 20K just for fun. So thats 400 Blue Ridges. Now, herein lies the problem. One could quite easily lose the volume of 400, or 4000 Blue Ridges inside Executor and barely notice. For reference, being generous, 4000 Blue Ridges would take up a volume of 2x1x1km. Thats a small fraction of the volume of Executor.

The amount of volume required to command a ship should not be dependant on the size of the ship commanded, or at least the correlation should be a small one.



While surely a great deal of Executor's volume is devoted to C4i, a comparison to Blue Ridge is not entirely accurate.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Ender wrote:With the same rate of fire and hour long timeframe, the 3 ISDs still have to have a heavier yield per each shot in all categories.

In other words, you are basing this whole thing on your assumptions regarding ROF

Its a measured rate from the movies, hardly an assumption

and how long it took, see the problem with this?

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that an ISD 2 can preform a BDZ at a faster rate then an ISD 1?

I won't hold my breathe waiting for it.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Ender wrote:And "more powerful" does not translate directly into "stronger HTLs". I can make a ship more powerful by increasing the power routed to shields, by swapping out my LTLs for MTLs, or any number of ways.

And now you're nitpicking, or just trying to side-step the issue since you ought to know what the material says: "The Mark II has improved shields, more guns, and has proton torpedo launchers"

Thank you for disproving yourself. This shows the ways in which it is more powerful. Note the absence of any statement about the HTL strength being the factor

RPG values also show that the ISD2's weapons are more powerfull than those of the ISD1.

Gameplay mechanics, not valid.

Also note Sea Skimmers objection, and realize that your BDZ calculator is not the end all, be all of debates either, your examples hinges on certain assumptions.

How about some evidence that either of thoise are wrong rather then just nitpicking to try and support you position

Its a measured rate from the movies, hardly an assumption

First off, we see maybe one heavy TL fire in the movies, there's nothing there that can help us get any usable rates of fire.

Anyway, BDZ calculations are very iffy and doesn't really prove anything since it requires assumptions on their rates of fire and the time frame each ISD requires, which is only loosely implied as hours in official sources anyway and seems to vary per incident anyway.
I personally would think the ISD2 is only like 20% stronger overall per broadside(to allow for it to take down the shields of other ISD2's who has stronger shields), weapons would be individually weaker.

A much better source is Isard's revenge, official evidence says the Mark. II has upgraded shielding, and in Isard's revenge, one ISD2 can down the shields of another ISD2 with one broadside, making the shield rating around that of the ISD2's broadside, due to the nature of SW shielding, this can mean that an ISD2 has more firepower in order to be able to take down the stronger shields, as it has to exceed the shield rating.

Or if an ISD1 could also exceed it, like say if they have equal overall firepower, it means the ISD1's shields where far weaker than the ISD2's which can barely stand up to a broadside from an equal ship, this would put an ISD1 in real danger of being destroyed in the first salvo if it had to face up to an ISD1 or ISD2 in combat.

Secondly, the ISD1 is more well rounded too, it has far heavier ion cannons, whilst the ISD2 has replaced it all with heavy turbolasers, to me that suggest the ISD2 is designed for broadside combat with other heavier ships, the ISD1's heavy weapons also could point in more directions than an ISD2.

Maybe it's not the solid evidence you'd like, but I don't find the BDZ argument you use to be that solid either, since the nature of a BDZ is so nebulous and seemingly changing from time to time in both duration and damage inflicted.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that an ISD 2 can preform a BDZ at a faster rate then an ISD 1?

I've never claimed it would or should, the whole BDZ issue is so nebulous with regards to how long it ought to take due to differing planets and how violent the commander wants it and such.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Its a measured rate from the movies, hardly an assumption

First off, we see maybe one heavy TL fire in the movies, there's nothing there that can help us get any usable rates of fire.

Do you have any evidence that the refire rate would be different between the two, and that the ISD1 would fire much faster? Because if not then your bitching is irrelevent.

Anyway, BDZ calculations are very iffy and doesn't really prove anything since it requires assumptions on their rates of fire and the time frame each ISD requires, which is only loosely implied as hours in official sources anyway and seems to vary per incident anyway.

Unless you have any evidence that they are different, it doesn't matter for the purpose of determining which is stronger.

HDS, I am comparing 3 ISD 1s here to a single ISD 2. That is a huge fucking advantage for the ISD 2 and it still has the weaker HTLs. At this point you are just trying to nitpick to prove your pet theory in face of contradictory evidence.

I personally would think the ISD2 is only like 20% stronger overall per broadside(to allow for it to take down the shields of other ISD2's who has stronger shields), weapons would be individually weaker.

A much better source is Isard's revenge, official evidence says the Mark. II has upgraded shielding, and in Isard's revenge, one ISD2 can down the shields of another ISD2 with one broadside, making the shield rating around that of the ISD2's broadside, due to the nature of SW shielding, this can mean that an ISD2 has more firepower in order to be able to take down the stronger shields, as it has to exceed the shield rating.

Or if an ISD1 could also exceed it, like say if they have equal overall firepower, it means the ISD1's shields where far weaker than the ISD2's which can barely stand up to a broadside from an equal ship, this would put an ISD1 in real danger of being destroyed in the first salvo if it had to face up to an ISD1 or ISD2 in combat.

So you want to disregard a simple, straightforward calculation in favor of a much more subjective approach?

Further, Isards revenge is horrible for determining anything because first you have to determine shield strenght, then account for exactly how shields work when Saxton has specifically said there is alot more to it then what he could cram in the book (meaning alot of unaccounted for variables).

Secondly, the ISD1 is more well rounded too, it has far heavier ion cannons, whilst the ISD2 has replaced it all with heavy turbolasers, to me that suggest the ISD2 is designed for broadside combat with other heavier ships, the ISD1's heavy weapons also could point in more directions than an ISD2.

Well I'm glad you think your opinion is as good as hard facts

Maybe it's not the solid evidence you'd like, but I don't find the BDZ argument you use to be that solid either, since the nature of a BDZ is so nebulous and seemingly changing from time to time in both duration and damage inflicted.

Unless you have any evidence that an ISD 1 fires at a much higher rate and takes far longer, the exact figures don't matter for this debate. So your claims that a simple and hard calculation should be thrown out is bullshit.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever that an ISD 2 can preform a BDZ at a faster rate then an ISD 1?

I've never claimed it would or should, the whole BDZ issue is so nebulous with regards to how long it ought to take due to differing planets and how violent the commander wants it and such.

Bullshit. Definiton of a BDZ as a crust melting operation is now canon. Thus for the purpose here of determining which is more powerful, you would have to provide evidence that there is a vast discrepency between the ISD varients abilities. Because otherwise it doesn't matter: No matter the time or refire rate, if the same variable is plugged in for both the ISD 1 has stronger HTLs

Do you have any evidence that the refire rate would be different between the two, and that the ISD1 would fire much faster? Because if not then your bitching is irrelevent.

I was under the impression that it was your claim that they where similar, not that I really have a problem with that, still, I don't really see why you need to say that I am bitching, whats with the attitude anyway? C'mon now...

HDS, I am comparing 3 ISD 1s here to a single ISD 2. That is a huge fucking advantage for the ISD 2 and it still has the weaker HTLs. At this point you are just trying to nitpick to prove your pet theory in face of contradictory evidence.

It's hardly a pet theory, stronger shields means it has to have weapons atleast as strong as the shields themselves to down them, which an ISD2 is capable of doing to another ISD2 and to an ISD1 since they have weaker shields, this is not subjective, it's pretty solid.

This either means an ISD1 has shields so weak that it cannot take a broadside from another ISD1 or ISD2 without being destroyed, if the ISD1 has a stronger broadside as you say it would fare really bad against another ISD1, one broadside would waste another ISD1.

Further, Isards revenge is horrible for determining anything because first you have to determine shield strenght, then account for exactly how shields work when Saxton has specifically said there is alot more to it then what he could cram in the book (meaning alot of unaccounted for variables).

We know that it has to exceed the shield rating, which means more energy, I got this directly from Saxton, you're just hinting at unknowns here that might not even exist or that you might interprept totally different, you act as if you got some special knowledge on what saxton thinks, something he's said you do not over e-mail to me.
Unless you have some proof or atleast some vauge idea of what these unknown factors and variables might be, there's no need to bring them up, unless you're a mind reader.

Bullshit. Definiton of a BDZ as a crust melting operation is now canon. Thus for the purpose here of determining which is more powerful, you would have to provide evidence that there is a vast discrepency between the ISD varients abilities. Because otherwise it doesn't matter: No matter the time or refire rate, if the same variable is plugged in for both the ISD 1 has stronger HTLs

Definition of a BDZ is pretty explicit yes, but the time isn't, and we have seen official accounts of BDZ that are described differently, I don't see a reason for a BDZ to be so narrowly defined.
And while I think it's likely the ISD1 has stronger HTL's, I still would say the overall firepower for an ISD2 is higher due to Isards Revenge, since I don't think an ISD1 has that bad shielding.

Oh yeah, I forgot, concession accepted:

Imperial Sourcebook 2nd Edition - Chapter 5 wrote:Since its introduction, an improved version of the Star Destroyer has begun to see action. The Imperial II is an upgraded model featuring increased hull shielding and heavier firepower.

Feel free to continue with your stuck-up overly arrogant attitude now.

Howedar wrote: While surely a great deal of Executor's volume is devoted to C4i, a comparison to Blue Ridge is not entirely accurate.

I wasn't attempting to create a direct mathmatical comparison, merely providing an example of what the disparity could be.

PainRack wrote: But it isn't. ISD I only had 72 guns, as compared to the ISD II 200.

The ISD I clearly had a shortage of guns to deal with enemy starfighters. Considering that the ISD II had nearly 3 times as many guns as the ISD I model, I would say that would definitely be of more use than loss.

What your ignoring is that the ISD II has already gained a vast number of lighter guns to deal with star fighters, your very numbers show it so there's no reason to reduce the power of the main ship to ship battery to also due that task, its an inefficient waste of just about everything.

Anyway the WEG weapons numbers are clearly loads of crap anyway. No that long ago someone brought up photo of the ISD model that showed far more then 72 simply covering the aft arc.

Nope. Those little things were electromagnetic panels or something to guide thrust; they certainly were not small guns.

All I've seen of the ISD II model says 8 octuple heavy guns, and tiny guns you can't see.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Anyway the WEG weapons numbers are clearly loads of crap anyway. No that long ago someone brought up photo of the ISD model that showed far more then 72 simply covering the aft arc.

The fluff however is pretty damn clear on the matter.
Heavier firepower, 'nuff said.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Oh yeah, I forgot, concession accepted:

Imperial Sourcebook 2nd Edition - Chapter 5 wrote:Since its introduction, an improved version of the Star Destroyer has begun to see action. The Imperial II is an upgraded model featuring increased hull shielding and heavier firepower.

Feel free to continue with your stuck-up overly arrogant attitude now.

It says heavier firepower. It does not say HTLs are stronger. Further, the quote you provided above shows exactly how the ISD has more firepower.

It's a good idea to be right when you claim you won with a "concession accepted".

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Do you have any evidence that the refire rate would be different between the two, and that the ISD1 would fire much faster? Because if not then your bitching is irrelevent.

I was under the impression that it was your claim that they where similar, not that I really have a problem with that, still, I don't really see why you need to say that I am bitching, whats with the attitude anyway? C'mon now...

You are needlessly nitpicking without any evidence to back you. Yes, that is bitching.

HDS, I am comparing 3 ISD 1s here to a single ISD 2. That is a huge fucking advantage for the ISD 2 and it still has the weaker HTLs. At this point you are just trying to nitpick to prove your pet theory in face of contradictory evidence.

It's hardly a pet theory, stronger shields means it has to have weapons atleast as strong as the shields themselves to down them, which an ISD2 is capable of doing to another ISD2 and to an ISD1 since they have weaker shields, this is not subjective, it's pretty solid.

[/quote]
It's based on the strength of the shields, which can be argued across the spectrum. Then there are the mechanics of Ion Cannons and their effects, the role on the energy reserve, and anything else that would take up "pages" of explanations.

This either means an ISD1 has shields so weak that it cannot take a broadside from another ISD1 or ISD2 without being destroyed, if the ISD1 has a stronger broadside as you say it would fare really bad against another ISD1, one broadside would waste another ISD1.

I have never claimed it has a stronger broadside numbnuts, just that it's HTLs are more powerful. There are far more guns in a broadside then just the HTLs.

Further, Isards revenge is horrible for determining anything because first you have to determine shield strenght, then account for exactly how shields work when Saxton has specifically said there is alot more to it then what he could cram in the book (meaning alot of unaccounted for variables).

We know that it has to exceed the shield rating, which means more energy, I got this directly from Saxton, you're just hinting at unknowns here that might not even exist or that you might interprept totally different, you act as if you got some special knowledge on what saxton thinks, something he's said you do not over e-mail to me.
Unless you have some proof or atleast some vauge idea of what these unknown factors and variables might be, there's no need to bring them up, unless you're a mind reader.

Then you can explain the exact results and mechanism of an Ion cannon barrage? You can explain how the energy reserves work?

Bullshit. Definiton of a BDZ as a crust melting operation is now canon. Thus for the purpose here of determining which is more powerful, you would have to provide evidence that there is a vast discrepency between the ISD varients abilities. Because otherwise it doesn't matter: No matter the time or refire rate, if the same variable is plugged in for both the ISD 1 has stronger HTLs

Definition of a BDZ is pretty explicit yes, but the time isn't, and we have seen official accounts of BDZ that are described differently, I don't see a reason for a BDZ to be so narrowly defined.

Unless you have evidence for a vast disparity in the time frame, it doesn't matter.

And while I think it's likely the ISD1 has stronger HTL's, I still would say the overall firepower for an ISD2 is higher due to Isards Revenge, since I don't think an ISD1 has that bad shielding.

STRAWMAN

Never have I said that an ISD 1 is stronger overall. Just that it's HTLs are more powerful. You swap out all the LTLs on an ISD1 for MTLs on an ISD2 the deuce will have higher firepower and a stronger broadside. But BDZ calcs (and sicne Saxton uses only HTLS in BDZ work I also only factor those in) results show that the HTLs on an ISD 1 are stronger. That fits with all the evidence: The role they play (Escort vs Dedicated destroyers), the fact that in every single other case the size of the gun makes for a stronger puch, the technological stagnation that the smaller guns advancements would violate, etc.


I love this, I really do. You are getting pissy and offended as all fuck because you strawmanned the hell out of my position. Way to be asshat.

Never have I said that an ISD 1 is stronger overall.

Thats exactly what I have under the impression of you saying and what I have been contending.

That fits with all the evidence: The role they play (Escort vs Dedicated destroyers), the fact that in every single other case the size of the gun makes for a stronger puch, the technological stagnation that the smaller guns advancements would violate, etc.

This is just a point, nothing I really wish to content but it's possible the mechanism we see in the turrets has been moved internally on the ISD2, making a smaller target profile, and possibly easier to service as well, wheter what might be inside is more powerfull or not is irrelevant though.

I love this, I really do. You are getting pissy and offended as all fuck because you strawmanned the hell out of my position. Way to be asshat.

If we look at the debate, I was being quite friendly in my tone, I was hoping for a nice exchange of ideas here, not you calling me a bitching whiner, yes I got offended, at your attitude to my inquiries.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

PainRack wrote: But it isn't. ISD I only had 72 guns, as compared to the ISD II 200.

The ISD I clearly had a shortage of guns to deal with enemy starfighters. Considering that the ISD II had nearly 3 times as many guns as the ISD I model, I would say that would definitely be of more use than loss.

What your ignoring is that the ISD II has already gained a vast number of lighter guns to deal with star fighters, your very numbers show it so there's no reason to reduce the power of the main ship to ship battery to also due that task, its an inefficient waste of just about everything.

Anyway the WEG weapons numbers are clearly loads of crap anyway. No that long ago someone brought up photo of the ISD model that showed far more then 72 simply covering the aft arc.

Thats assuming that the ISD didn't scarifice anything in order to mount more guns, of a smaller calibre in.

Furthermore, the WEG weapons number is of paramount importance, because it is due to the heavier number of weapons the ISD II had that it classified the ISD II as having heavier firepower.

Doesn't matter why, only that it's there and official.

Just for comparison, here are the total damage points of an ISD's weaponry combined according to the WEG stats:

ISD1:
300D worth of Turbolasers
180D worth of Ion cannons

ISD2:
850D worth of Turbolasers
80D worth of Ion cannons

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Howedar wrote: While surely a great deal of Executor's volume is devoted to C4i, a comparison to Blue Ridge is not entirely accurate.

I wasn't attempting to create a direct mathmatical comparison, merely providing an example of what the disparity could be.

Okay. I have a habit of overarguing points that need none.

His Divine Shadow wrote:Doesn't matter why, only that it's there and official.

Just for comparison, here are the total damage points of an ISD's weaponry combined according to the WEG stats:

ISD1:
300D worth of Turbolasers
180D worth of Ion cannons

ISD2:
850D worth of Turbolasers
80D worth of Ion cannons

Quite frankly, HDS, why should we give a shit since these stats are based on a delusional account of the weapon systems aboard an ISD anyway?

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Never have I said that an ISD 1 is stronger overall.

Thats exactly what I have under the impression of you saying and what I have been contending.

I really don't see how. If you read the thread it has been about the idea thatthe HTLs of which are more powerful.

I love this, I really do. You are getting pissy and offended as all fuck because you strawmanned the hell out of my position. Way to be asshat.

If we look at the debate, I was being quite friendly in my tone, I was hoping for a nice exchange of ideas here, not you calling me a bitching whiner, yes I got offended, at your attitude to my inquiries.

My apologies, I have been unnecessarily aggressive lately.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Quite frankly, HDS, why should we give a shit since these stats are based on a delusional account of the weapon systems aboard an ISD anyway?

I'm just listing them incase people wanted to know.

As for the weapons systems, according to MW's site, an ISD has 12HTLs and 120LTL's(or laser-cannons I suppose) and he lists the SWICS as a source for this, I asked Macleod about the quote for this and he said that the SWICS only mentions the heavy weapons.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Quite frankly, HDS, why should we give a shit since these stats are based on a delusional account of the weapon systems aboard an ISD anyway?

I'm just listing them incase people wanted to know.

As for the weapons systems, according to MW's site, an ISD has 12HTLs and 120LTL's(or laser-cannons I suppose) and he lists the SWICS as a source for this, I asked Macleod about the quote for this and he said that the SWICS only mentions the heavy weapons.

12 from the ICS, 120 from somewhere else (I believe it's an old ASVS calc based off the BTM cd or something.)