StarDestroyer.Net BBS

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Vympel wrote:No, it ain't irrelevant. I've seen the two models and I know which one's armament is more sensible. Canon is greater than official. You won't find me any official information that says that the guns on an ISD2 are 'more powerful' than those on an ISD1. They're the same.

Canon doesn't say that the ISD1's armament is more powerfull either, hence it's not canon vs. official, it's your theory vs. official, you loose on those grounds.

The ISD1 might have more sensible design, but the ISD2 has much more firepower.

Canon does. Bigger barrel equals more powerful weapon. Common sense. Don't turn into a WEG phanboy.

SWTC- Saxton's site

Oh thats just a few GB of me to go through-

Because the guns are quite massive- the equivalent notches on the ISD2 are totally empty

Not those turrets, the ones on top, the size of those does not have to be relevant, for all we know, they are smaller because a more internal design was created that leaves most of the weapon systems inside the ship instead of in a large exposed turret where it would be harder to make repairs too.
The division of 2 barrels into 8 proportionally more powerfull ones allows for more fine controll against smaller targets while giving an overall firepower increase.

If that's the case then it's also an assumption that the HTLs are more powerful than any other gun. Bigger barrel means more powerful weapon. What official evidence says those guns are more powerful than the ISD1 weapons?

Official evidence, all kinds of it, I'm not bothered to go look for what everyone already acknowledges to be true.

Have you LOOKED at the models? It's obvious- the front turrets on the ISD1 have no obstruction in front of them- it's impossible for the ISD2 to fire it's guns dead forward without tilting downwards. It's not a major problem, but there it is.

This I have seen, I can't gauge wheter it's possible or not:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbarbi ... r17isd.jpg

The brim trench guns on the Devastator. The ISD2 ones are empty.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbradf ... Side_3.jpg

A better picture.

Bridge face of the Devastator:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdface1a.jpg

Bridge face of the Executor:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/ssdtow1.jpg

Bridge face of the Avenger:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/chron/isdface2a.jpg

Note that while different the Avenger and Executor both have a nodule like 'protrusion'.

His Divine Shadow wrote:
Oh thats just a few GB of me to go through-

Don't whine. I posted links of the bridge faces.

Not those turrets, the ones on top, the size of those does not have to be relevant, for all we know, they are smaller because a more internal design was created that leaves most of the weapon systems inside the ship instead of in a large exposed turret where it would be harder to make repairs too.
The division of 2 barrels into 8 proportionally more powerfull ones allows for more fine controll against smaller targets while giving an overall firepower increase.

While making individual blasts less powerful. Design trade off. I'm going by what I can see. There's no point in making "we don't know" assumptions.

Official evidence, all kinds of it, I'm not bothered to go look for what everyone already acknowledges to be true.

Woah hang on a sec. I've seen official ISD2 stuff as well and there's NOTHING that says that the HTLs of an ISD2 are more powerful, alright? In fact, official evidence has never even acknowledged the EXISTENCE of those dorsal batteries when weapons are actually counted.

This I have seen, I can't gauge wheter it's possible or not:

There are far superior pictures in the Avenger Exhibition section- huge high quality photos- the effort that went into making that model was gargantuan.

But no, they can't fire dead forward without the ship tilting.

Canon does. Bigger barrel equals more powerful weapon. Common sense.

CANON DOES NOT!
Common sense, stop spouting about common sense with that holier than thou attitude, it's a assumption on your part, thats what it is.
You don't know the design, at all, you assume it.

Don't turn into a WEG phanboy.

Up yours
Evidence is evidence, just because it's WEG doesn't mean you get the right to ignore it, you're the fanboy here who chooses evidence as you prefer and then starts insulting people for not agreeing with you, and give up the attitude, I don't take shit from anyone.

His Divine Shadow wrote:
CANON DOES NOT!
Common sense, stop spouting about common sense with that holier than thou attitude, it's a assumption on your part, thats what it is.
You don't know the design, at all, you assume it.

Yes, it does I'm afraid. There is no official evidence that says that the turrets on an ISD2 are 'more powerful'- in fact their existnece is never even acknoweldged in typically poor WEG shit.

There's no reason to assume that the guns on an ISD1 are less powerful, and it's downright silly to do so because the barrels are bigger.

Up yours
Evidence is evidence, just because it's WEG doesn't mean you get the right to ignore it, you're the fanboy here who chooses evidence as you prefer and then starts insulting people for not agreeing with you, and give up the attitude, I don't take shit from anyone.

Chooses evidence that I prefer? What evidence have I ignored? You haven't brought ANYTHING to the table.

I forgot also another strike against the ISD2- the ISD1 also has axial defense turrets with visible gun barrels- no such structures on the ISD2.

From SWTC:

Further medium guns were seen on the dorsal surfaces of the ISD-I design. Three triple-gun turrets are mounted on the ridge of the ship, just forward of the lowest, forwardmost terrace of the dorsal superstructure. The guns appear to be about ten metres long, but may be slightly longer than the barrels of the trench quad guns. They are given the label "axial defence turret" in STAR WARS Incredible Cross-Sections.

Can't believe I forgot about them- I own SWICS.

Don't whine. I posted links of the bridge faces

I never saw any links whatsoever, and loose the attitude, I don't whine.

While making individual blasts less powerful. Design trade off. I'm going by what I can see. There's no point in making "we don't know" assumptions.

Ofcourse it does, thats the point, better fine control, however when the whole turret fires one volley it's irrelevant.
But you make assumptions readily, you assume the size of the turrets is relevant and that the size of the barrels is relevant, we don't know that, and given the fact that the ISD2.

Woah hang on a sec. I've seen official ISD2 stuff as well and there's NOTHING that says that the HTLs of an ISD2 are more powerful, alright? In fact, official evidence has never even acknowledged the EXISTENCE of those dorsal batteries when weapons are actually counted.

They haven't for the ISD1 either, but they are clear that the ISD2 is more powerfull.

There's no reason to assume that the guns on an ISD1 are less powerful, and it's downright silly to do so because the barrels are bigger

It's just as silly to assume the barrel size has anything to do with it, given all the possible factors and that a newer version is supposed to be superior to the old one, or have saving graces, in this case, since the ISD1 has superior weapons layout and bridge location, what does the ISD2 have in contrast to make it the replacement for the ISD1?

Likely factors that I assume, would be:
-Better shields
-Better fine controll of heavy weapons(but atleast equal or better overall firepower)

Those would be it, without it there would be no reason to make an "upgrade" when the first one is superior.
That does not make sense, what I do think makes sense with regards to turret size is that the turrets on the ISD2 are smaller because more of the delicate weapon systems are housed internally and as such better proctected and more accessible, that would also be a major point for the ISD2 getting into production.

Chooses evidence that I prefer? What evidence have I ignored? You haven't brought ANYTHING to the table.

Whilst the WEG evidence is unrelaible the general gist of it is clear, the ISD2 is more powerfull.
I definitly believe there is official evidence that agrees with this too.
The WEG also list these differences, and yes, just because it's WEG doesn't make it moot.

ISD1:
Hull: 7D
Shields: 3D

ISD2:
Hull: 7D+1
Shields: 2D+2

Slightly better shields and for the ISD1, and slightly better hull for the ISD2

And if we discount the indiviual weapons listing, which are false, we can just look at the overall firepower when put together, this ought to be more reliable, the the ISD1 gets: 300D and the total for the ISD2 is: 850D
Ofcourse ISD1 accuracy is total of: 240D whilst the ISD2 accuracy is just 50D

The ISD1 has about 40% of the firepower of the ISD2, but it's weapons are over 100% more accurate.

And as you probably know, there has to be both ups and downs to a design, you can't just say everything about the ISD1 is superior, that would make no sense.

The ISD2 has brute force going for it, while the ISD1 has mor finesse going for it.

The ISD1 also has a superior Ion compliment, strenght of 180D and an accuracy rating of 120D, the ISD2 has a strenght of 80D and an accuracy rating of 80D.


In conclusion, the ISD1 has better shields and better design and more finesse, the ISD2 has more brute force and better hull and faster hyperdrive.

Vympel wrote:I forgot also another strike against the ISD2- the ISD1 also has axial defense turrets with visible gun barrels- no such structures on the ISD2

I believe my latest post has shown the pros and cons of both vessels, I get the feeling you just want to make the ISD1 superior in every single aspect, am I right or wrong, do you want that, or do you want to compare pro's and cons?

His Divine Shadow wrote:But you make assumptions readily, you assume the size of the turrets is relevant and that the size of the barrels is relevant, we don't know that, and given the fact that the ISD2

Op's, forgot that one, what I meant to say is that the ISD2 is supposed to be refinement of the ISD1 class, if it does not have any pro's at all, why bother, your arguments would create definite contradictions if you'd argue the ISD1 is superior in every respect.

Both the Imperial Sourcebook and the EGV&V credit the ISD-2 with greater firepower (the EGV&V credits it with heavier TL batteries and cannons) than the ISD-1.

So now the size of the barrel does not mean anything? Whats the point in even making turrets with almost 10 times larger barrels than the regular turrets if the larger ones cant put out any more damage? It makes no sense, those large turrets take very much space and are very cumbersome.So what is the point in even making huge barrels if the regular sized ones can do the same? Even if the singular barrels on the ISD I heavy turrets are larger than those of the ISD II, it makes no different since the ISD II has 8 HTL turrets with 8 barrels each when the ISD I has only 6 turrets with only 2 barrels each which supposedly are more powerfull than those of the ISD II. The heavy guns of the ISD II would have a better rate of fire than those of the ISD I, so if the heavy guns on the ISD II would be slightly less powerfull, it would make little difference.

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:So now the size of the barrel does not mean anything?

Yes, individually one of those barrels are less powerfull than one of the big ones on the ISD1, but all 4 together have more firepower than one of the big ones, and all 8 more firepower than the 2 big ones.

His Divine Shadow wrote:

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:So now the size of the barrel does not mean anything?

Yes, individually one of those barrels are less powerfull than one of the big ones on the ISD1, but all 4 together have more firepower than one of the big ones, and all 8 more firepower than the 2 big ones.

Yeah, i allready thought that were you stoned or something :p

I don't buy that the ISD2 succeded the ISD1 in production. I think they're both supplement each other in service. We see ISD1s in Death Squadron- if the ISD2 was better in every way, seeing an ISD1 in Vader's fleet would be a bit strange.

A turret of similar size but many more gun barrels may indicate a design more optimized to fighting large numbers of smaller foes.

If the ISD1 was designed to fight against ships of greater size (say, for the Clone Wars or for the "fighting yesterday's war" design syndrome), then high-powered guns make more sense. If ISD2 was designed to take out lots of corvettes, picket ships, etc. (moving into a "global policing" role), then smaller, less powerful but more flexible weapons would make sense. Not that I'm saying they're necessarily less powerful, but it's not as wacky an idea as it would seem.

Id agree with that thought. Perhaps the ISD1 was designed with the role of heavy cruiser in mind, with heavy batteries that pack a bigger punch in a sigle shot. To take on ships its own size and bigger

Whereas ISD2, maybe the designers would find it more effiecent to have replaced the heavy twin barreled HTL with several smaller caliber HTL to be able to engage numerous smaller targets(corvettes etc) where the hitting power of the larger guns was a waste. More capable to deal with smaller numerous threats, yet still be able to handle itself against a larger opponent

Possibly could we class the ISD1 as a heavy cruiser, whereas the ISD2 is more a heavy destroyer? Guess it depends what the real role of the vessel is

Vympel wrote:I don't buy that the ISD2 succeded the ISD1 in production. I think they're both supplement each other in service. We see ISD1s in Death Squadron- if the ISD2 was better in every way, seeing an ISD1 in Vader's fleet would be a bit strange.

I suppose it might have occured to you that they didn't instantly SCRAP all the ISD-1s once they started production? The ISD-2 model came into being approximately a year or two after Yavin, if I remember the sources correctly.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I suppose it might have occured to you that they didn't instantly SCRAP all the ISD-1s once they started production? The ISD-2 model came into being approximately a year or two after Yavin, if I remember the sources correctly.

Who said anything about scrapping?

Rightous Fist Of Heaven wrote:So now the size of the barrel does not mean anything? Whats the point in even making turrets with almost 10 times larger barrels than the regular turrets if the larger ones cant put out any more damage? It makes no sense, those large turrets take very much space and are very cumbersome.So what is the point in even making huge barrels if the regular sized ones can do the same? Even if the singular barrels on the ISD I heavy turrets are larger than those of the ISD II, it makes no different since the ISD II has 8 HTL turrets with 8 barrels each when the ISD I has only 6 turrets with only 2 barrels each which supposedly are more powerfull than those of the ISD II. The heavy guns of the ISD II would have a better rate of fire than those of the ISD I, so if the heavy guns on the ISD II would be slightly less powerfull, it would make little difference.

Barrels only deal with focusing components (ie galven circuits.) - those have very little to do with the power output or damage of teh weapon.

The ISD-2 could accept a longer recharge time (or a longer recharge time on its max-power shots) to power the guns. You do recall that TLs have variable settings, right?

Additionally there's no reason to believe that the power generation elements might be inside the turret.. moving them inside the ship itself not only protects them better against damage, but makes the turret less cumbersome (it turns better) and gives it a smaller profile (making it less of a target).

Vympel wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I suppose it might have occured to you that they didn't instantly SCRAP all the ISD-1s once they started production? The ISD-2 model came into being approximately a year or two after Yavin, if I remember the sources correctly.

Who said anything about scrapping?

You presented the fact that Darth Vader still had a couple (at least one) in his fleet at the time of Hoth as a fact they still used them. I presented an alternate theory.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
You presented the fact that Darth Vader still had a couple (at least one) in his fleet at the time of Hoth as a fact they still used them. I presented an alternate theory.

That's not what I meant- instead I meant that an illustrious fleet like Death Squadron would be unlikely to use a ship that had been superseded in every way by a 'better' design. It would be relegated to second-line duties.

Vympel wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:
You presented the fact that Darth Vader still had a couple (at least one) in his fleet at the time of Hoth as a fact they still used them. I presented an alternate theory.

That's not what I meant- instead I meant that an illustrious fleet like Death Squadron would be unlikely to use a ship that had been superseded in every way by a 'better' design. It would be relegated to second-line duties.

Yes, and illustrious fleet like Vader's would be unlikely to be stuck with a complete idiot like Ozzel too. I guess things don't always work out.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Yes, and illustrious fleet like Vader's would be unlikely to be stuck with a complete idiot like Ozzel too. I guess things don't always work out.

Total stretch, don't you think? An officer and a ship are two different things. It is perfectly possible to have the best ship in the best fleet commanded by someone who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, however to assert that the best fleet in the Empire is equipped with suboptimal ships superseded by an all round better design is different, and silly.

I don't think anyone's arguing that anymore actually.

Hmm, has anyone else considered the possiblility that the ISD II may in fact be a low-budget-fast-and-easy-to-produce ISD subclass?
With less armour and smaller guns perhaps they're cheaper and faster to build, and they were designed so that the Empire could quickly deploy huge numbers of them when the demand was there since at the climax of the civil war you'd obviously want more ships patroling your territory.