StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Good to see you two are starting off the new year with a pissing contest

Ender wrote:Good to see you two are starting off the new year with a pissing contest

Welcome.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Jesus. Lighten the fuck up.

Buzz off. I'll emphasize that which should've been blindingly obvious as I want. You can put the complaints in the complaint box where they belong, friend.

If you have anything to say to me, have it be about the content of my post, please.

NecronLord wrote:That is of course, bullshit, and can only be explained by the Lusyanka being a piece of crap that hadn't received proper maintainance.

Exactly. Lusyanka had been buried under the surface of Coruscant for a good few years being used as a high security prison and escape vehicle . The ship didn't even have a proper crew. IIRC the Captain of one of the Star Destroyers, Captain Drasko i think, was made Admiral of the Lusyanka which i consider to be a good indication that it was insifficiely crewed and therefore under maintained.

The best explanation to date is that the Executor simply does not have the fuel capacity and range to operate indefinitely at full capacity and the infrastructure of Thyferra was not capable of sustaining Lusankya's operations.

Crossroads Inc. wrote: The ISD-II does have 64 guns, but I maintain they are lower powerd Turbo lasers specialized in taking on many Many smaller ships, while the ISD-I is specficlly designed to take on Capital and equal sized Warships.

Didn't see this, but here we go.

First, the 'class' of turbolaser is purely for the Warlords HW2 mod.
Second,I stated that the the ISD-II's heavy guns are smaller than those of the ISD-I. Also the -II has less sheilding than the -I, (At Mon Calimari, 2 MC90 escorts and a ISD were able to pretty much destroy 2 ISDs and an Allegiance in a single salvo, apparently), so maybe that's where the power comes from? 'Screw the heavy shields, we'll just make sure that the other guy can't fire back' kinda logic.

Vanas wrote:

Crossroads Inc. wrote: The ISD-II does have 64 guns, but I maintain they are lower powerd Turbo lasers specialized in taking on many Many smaller ships, while the ISD-I is specficlly designed to take on Capital and equal sized Warships.

Didn't see this, but here we go.

First, the 'class' of turbolaser is purely for the Warlords HW2 mod.
Second,I stated that the the ISD-II's heavy guns are smaller than those of the ISD-I. Also the -II has less sheilding than the -I, (At Mon Calimari, 2 MC90 escorts and a ISD were able to pretty much destroy 2 ISDs and an Allegiance in a single salvo, apparently), so maybe that's where the power comes from? 'Screw the heavy shields, we'll just make sure that the other guy can't fire back' kinda logic.

The Allegiance's shields were down for the Rebels' first salvos according to the omniscient narrator.

Noble Ire wrote:Indeed, I knew I read it somewhere here. I suppose it's a good question to ask Chee, for those who can still post on the OS, that is.

Already done, sort of:

Leland Chee wrote:

Person on OS-board wrote:Are game mechanics (video games or rpg) canon? For example, does a rpg damage rating like "7d" mean anything? If a C-canon source (like a novel or reference book) contradicts what the game mechanics say, will the book win out?

Game mechanics are designed to try to match continuity to fit the purposes of the game for which they were created. They can serve to provide a scale from which to compare how one character or piece of technology stacks up against another. Because RPGs use dice, there is always the element of random chance involved, which isn't quite applicable to a book.

But stats themselves aren't created randomly; they are based on what is already known. As such, we can always look to them as a basis when writing books. I often look to RPG stats to see for example, what type of Force powers a character may have. Or if we haven't determined the stats of a particular vehicle, we can look to RPG stats for a basis of comparison.

Conversely, I think it would be a determinent if books were artificially limited by game stats. So I would agree that a book is going to overrule a stat if there is a contradiction.

This would put books using game-stats on a lower canonical level than other books.

The person who asked about the game mechanics on the OS is me. I was looking for an official quote to refute McEwok's delusion that Carrack = Venator (which the rpg stats don't even support). That quote from Chee is great. While common sense should tell you that game mechanics shouldn't be canon, there are a lot of retards/denialists/fanwhores out there who wouldn't believe it unless it was stated from an official source.

To answer the question in the OP, how powerful is an ISD compared to other ships, the design of the ship is verstile and functional enough to still be in use after more than 35 years of service and is used as the basis of new classes of ship that are being introduced by the GFFA and the Chiss.

The GFFA have based two new designs on the stardestroyer design, the Mon Mothma class Interdictor/Destroyer and the new Ackbar class pirate hunter. This is on top of the standing designs, including the Republic class (can someone confirm there is such a class, I've heard about it somewhere but can't remember where).
The Chiss have also designed their own stardestroyer, however they've changed the profile slightly by making it narrower and making the bridge tower more understated and therefore less of a target.

In all the ISD design allows the ship to bring more guns to bear on a target than say a MC90 can, this alone makes engageing one in the SW universe daunting with most commanders going for destroyer against destroyer, or putting multiple ships against one.

In X-wing Wraith Squadron they destroyed an ISD with a crellian corvette. but most of the major damage was caused by a captured TIE fighter that got into the hole that the corvette made, but the tie "vaped" most of the power cells

In X-wing Wraith Squadron they destroyed an ISD with a crellian corvette. but most of the major damage was caused by a captured TIE fighter that got into the hole that the corvette made, but the tie "vaped" most of the power cells


ISD

Type: Capital starship
Weapons: 60 Turbolaser Batteries, 60 Ion Cannon Batteries, 10 Tractor Beam Projectors
Number of Crew: 37,085 individuals
Passenger Capacity: 9,700 Troops
A terrible menace for the Rebellion, a Star Destroyer is capable of mass destruction. Along with it's arsenal of weapons, a Star Destroyer holds AT-AT and AT-ST walkers. A single Star Destroyer holds a full Storm Trooper division and many squadrons of TIE fighters.

Major Disaster wrote:In X-wing Wraith Squadron they destroyed an ISD with a crellian corvette. but most of the major damage was caused by a captured TIE fighter that got into the hole that the corvette made, but the tie "vaped" most of the power cells

Remember, in that incident, they had surprise thoroughly on their side, and used the opportunity to take out the shields, the bridge, and drop a bunch of proton torpedos into the Star destroyer's hull before it even began to try t fight back.

It worked didnt it?

Major Disaster wrote:It worked didnt it?

But its not something that you can use to extrapolate its normal capabilities. It also shows that even with total surprise against a nearly helpless target, a corvette can't take out a Star Destroyer on its own.

Noble Ire wrote:

Grand Admiral Mango wrote:Ultimately, it depends on the Commander. In The Battle of Endor, the Imperials had dozens of Star Destroyers and the Executor and STILL managed to lose to the rebels wheras Thrawn caused massive devastation without having an Executor-class.

Making a comparison to the Battle of Endor is unfair. Even without the Death Star, the rebel fleet could have never faced the number of ISDs there. The combined confusion caused by Palpatine's death, the collapse of that Grand Admiral's Battle Meditation, and the destruction of the Second Death Star saved Ackbar's fleet, even if he did make a good showing, destroying the Executor and all.

Is this a mistake? What Grand Admiral are we talking about... and he had Force powers? Thanks, was curious!

The "lack of knowledge" on the part of Ackbar could be chalked up to the same reason why an Imperial official was mistaken about cloaking ship capabilities.

Is this a mistake? What Grand Admiral are we talking about... and he had Force powers? Thanks, was curious!

Nial Declann

Thanks to Publius for the info, obviously.

Interesting, thanks. But doesn't this (largely game derived) info contradict the G-level novelisation, and thus can be safely thrown out? Or is this one of those semantical things since the novelisation is somewhat vague about ideas that were later fleshed out with the "battle meditation" crap (which I first heard about in in a TOTJ comic IIRC)?

Kurgan wrote:Interesting, thanks. But doesn't this (largely game derived) info contradict the G-level novelisation, and thus can be safely thrown out? Or is this one of those semantical things since the novelisation is somewhat vague about ideas that were later fleshed out with the "battle meditation" crap (which I first heard about in in a TOTJ comic IIRC)?

What are you talking about? Could you provide a quote or something that even vaguely contradicts anything in that entry? I certainly don't recall reading anything of that nature in novelization.

Sadly I don't have the novelisation with me (it's in another state than me, along with all of my other Star Wars books), but here's from Wong's canon database:

Source: ROTJ novelization p.172

For the first time, the Death Star rocked. The collision with the exploding Destroyer was only the beginning, leading to various systems breakdowns, which led to reactor meltdowns, which led to personnel panic, abandonment of posts, further malfunctions, and general chaos.

Smoke was everywhere, substantial rumblings came from all directions at once, people were running and shouting. Electrical fires, steam explosions, cabin de-pressurizations, disruption of chain-of-command. Added to this, the continued bombardments by Rebel Cruisers- smelling fear in the enemy- merely heightened the sense of hysteria that was already pervasive.

For the Emperor was dead. The central, powerful evil that had been the cohesive force to the Empire was gone; and when the dark side was this diffused, this nondirected- this was simply where it led.

Confusion.

Desperation.

Damp fear.

The Force: The Force: iIt is explicitly stated that it was the death of the Emperor that caused the general collapse of an effective Imperial defense near the end of the battle- from the disorganized response to the Rebel fighter attack on the Death Star, the sequence of events that led to the loss of the Executor, to the naval defeat in general, Imperial efficiency was drastically reduced. The Emperor was possibly practicing Battle Meditation.

This passage also suggests that the Emperor's death caused the Dark Side Force powers that had presumably been accumulating within him to "diffuse", perhaps having a direct negative effect on the "state of mind" of the Death Star's occupants.

Contributed by Vympel

Now the novelisation was written long before any of the sources that Publius (sp?) cited on his page, so maybe it's been changed, but that's what I was referring to.

Another thing is that when compared with "other ships" we are not certain about the compsoition of the Imperial fleet - we know that there are smaller and larger ships, we can guess at the numbers, but of their function and armament, we know very little, especially of smaller ships. Even if we are familiar with the Neb-B and the Lancer there are so many other types in Imperial service.

Now the novelisation was written long before any of the sources that Publius (sp?) cited on his page, so maybe it's been changed, but that's what I was referring to.

Well, it certainly could be interpited that way, yes. However, Nial could be included in the scenario with out too much discerpancy with the written work, as long as one is not overly zealous to eliminate EU whenever possible (as some are.) The Emperor's death was a direct cause of the loss of Battle Meditation, even if he wasn't the one doing it himself, and it has been speculated that his death would have a further negative impact on the Imperial fleet. Perhaps when he "died", the dark force energies in him that were expelled so violently served to subconciously demoralize the local Imperial forces, adding to their confusion; The Force is known to have powerful empathic effects.

IIRC the Battle Meditation idea was first trotted out in HTTE. Thrawn said that the reason the Imperial Fleet was routed because the Emperors influence was gone. He goes on to further show how a his own pet Dark Jedi was helping improve efficiency in all departments of the Chimera during battle. Battle Meditation is proven and demonstrated however Palpatine could not have been providing the BM as he was busy trying to turn Skywalker so another must have been providing it.

The sources the Publius may have been low level canon, however nothing at a greater level contradicts it so it's official.

Ah, but there's also Enhanced Coordination available to darksiders, it's "Battle Meditation Light", that doesn't require as big an effort. I also recall that Joruus C'baoth didn't sit and meditate while improving Thrawn's fleet, so he was likely using EC and not BM.

KOTOR1/2 use of BM shows both forms of it, with two events requiring the BM user to sit down and concentrate, Bastila on the Star Forge, and Exile in the Onderon palace revolt. Player/Party use of BM in-game doesn't require you to do that, though you could possibly call that a game mechanic requirement. Alternatively, you could interpret it to be a less deep form of BM. This does seem to match the game events as well, since character use of BM only gives you combat bonuses, while cutscene BM wins the battle in question in a much more definite way.

EDIT: Ah, and I forgot. In the old game Rebellion, all your imperial naval officers get strong leadership bonuses if the Emperor is on Coruscant.

ISD-I has 6 VHeavy TL, 2 Heavy Ions and a large number of medium turbolasers (60+)

According to the Incredible Cross Sections the heavy weapon emplacements on each side of an ISD 1's superstructure (at least on the Devastator, they may have been upgraded later) consist of four turrets per side. Three on each side are heavy turbolasers, the other is a heavy ion cannon. However, each heavy turbolaser turret has 2 barrels, meaning it has 12 heavy TL's. Concerning the ion cannons, they appear to have 3 barrels, however 1 is shorter than the others, so perhaps this is some form of rangefinder. Either way I'm inclined to belive this means there are four heavy ion cannons in these 2 turrets. Also shown are 3 'Axial defense turrets' each with 2 barrels and 2 'Lateral quad laser batteries' (presuming symmetry) each with four barrels. However, no other weapons are shown.
Obviously if this were it for weapons the ship would be ridiculously under armed. Hence, I suggest that the smaller turbolaser turrets and ion cannons (of which 60 of each are included on an ISD II according to the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology) cannot be seen on this diagram due to their small size. So why can these quad lasers and axial defense batteries be seen? I would assume logically it is because they are more powerful weapons than the smaller turrets, perhaps further heavy turbolasers, however without evidence describing them as either light, medium or heavy weapons this remains a theory.