StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I seriously doubt any true warship would have a maximum burst firepower of no more than its reactor output. The Munificent-class is probably an extreme example, but I don't know of any way to get more specific answers.

Alan Bolte wrote:I seriously doubt any true warship would have a maximum burst firepower of no more than its reactor output. The Munificent-class is probably an extreme example, but I don't know of any way to get more specific answers.

Depends. Capacitors could actually be quite advantageous for the short-term, it would allow you to throw a much heavier "broadside" at least in the short term (first couple of shots perhaps), which could definitely aid in battering down shields (overcoming the heat sink and dissipation rates for shields)

Of course, larger outputs means a greater amount of recoil and waste heat (which must be dealt with), as well as consuming greater amounts of fuel.

Manus Celer Dei wrote:I wonder what those "long guns" are for.

As VT-16 said, probably long range fire, depending on the weapon type/mechanism. At the very least, a longer barrel can correspond to greater ranges (a more concentrated beam less likely to disperse, or a higher velocity if you're talking a non-massless beam..)

Can anybody with Hyperspace, TPM ICS, AOTC ICS, or whatever make an attempt at scaling these weapons? It would be great if we could get an estimate of the size of these long, quad, and heavy guns. Also, am I correct in saying that the 280 point-defense guns on the core ship alone are separate from all these weapons?

Cykeisme wrote:I have a more general sort of question that applies to all capital ships in general. Is the upper limit for a cap ship's weapon energy output set by its reactor, or by the sum total of its guns' yield?

It really depends on the design in question. the ROTS specifies that true warships like the Venator can channel nearly all their reactor output into their heavy guns. This means that the total output of the reactor (or nearlly all of it - inefficiencies apply) is channeled to either all the guns or a broadside (depending on interpretation) and that output is divided among each individual heavy gun (in the Venator's case, you'd have each gun taking either 1/8th or 1/4th the total output of the reactor, depending on if its all eight guns or just the guns on one side.)

That is just one example and something of a simplification. In reality, capacitors can change that (like with the bigass guns on the Separatist ships - extended recharge means bigger punch.) - But engeering limits can also dictate effective yield. Smaller guns (especailly ones like point defense guns or light cannons) by virtue of their smaller size could quite possibly be capable of channeling less energy than bigger guns - smaller guns can have less efficient power transfer or cooling systems than bigger guns. This is quite true of starfighters: Despite the fact they can generate power well into the petawatt range, their guns usually can only output in the terawatt range

This is also true of a vessel that is not a "true' warship but is modified up to warship standard (like Tradefed BBs) - because it is not designed from the ground up as a dedicated warship, concessions may have to be made in its design in order to handle weaponry (it lacks the efificen tpower distirbution networks, the structural bracing, etc. a real warship would have.) So in practice, you could also have a "battleship" in name that is alot less powerful in practice.

I mean, for example, can the hypermatter reactor(s) of an ISD-I provide enough power output to allow firing of all its heavy turbolasers at their hghest yield setting and maximum cyclic rate?

Yes, setting aside for a second the issues of "highest yield" and "refire rate" (varies depending on your source - some like the EGW&T suggest ISD TLs can recharge for up to at least several seconds between shots, which suggests fairly hefty capacitors.)

Likewise, can a Lucrehulk fire all its guns simultanouesly at max for every gun, or does it simply have a large number of guns spread across its hull simply for purposes of covering different fire arcs? The latter may be the case because its hull is not shaped to maximize fields of fire the way many dedicated warships are.

Unknown. In practice, the toilet=seat shape is not really an "efficient" layout for so many guns (one advantage of the cheesewedge of an ISD, even if its heavy guns are not arranged to take advantage of that..) so the larger number of guns may be designed to allow for adequate coverage of all angles.

Presumably it can fire all its guns simultaneously at max - bearing in mind I don't know offhand the max output of the Lucrehulk's reactors (I bet Ender would have an idea) or the max output of the guns. If the design is not a dedicated warship (which is likely) then the "max output to all guns" may mean a fraction of total reactor output (it may also dictate the large number of smaller guns - having to work around the design limits and whatnot.

On the whole, unless this particualr ship happens to be a purpose-designed warship from the ground up which only has an incidental similarity in shape (possible, but I dunno if this is at all likely) its firepower will be a fraction of its total reactor output, even with that manyy guns.

Sexcellent post there, Connor.

Somehow it also escaped me that the very fact that the guns have a cyclic rate probably means that they do in fact have capacitors between the ship's power generation network and each cannon; the refire rate implies that a capacitor is being charged before each shot.
If there were no capacitors, the turbolaser would be firing a constant, lower-powered beam instead of intense bolts with interceding delays. The latter is probably better at overloading the energy sinks and re-radiators of shield systems.

The statement about a VenStar's ability to put its entire power output through its guns seems to imply that this is an exceptional capability.
This in turn implies that most other ships (especially converted cargo freighters!), would not be able to do this.


So... have there been definite official sources regarding a Lucrehulk's combat capabilities, or is it possible that we may have overestimated it based on its number of weapon emplacements?

Speaking of reactor outputs and ship comparisons, what's the latest word on the reactor output of Executor? In the archives, I've seen it compared to five, a dozen, or a hundred ISDs. With the Mandator II now being listed in the 8E26 range, it seems that the latter is becoming more and more likely.

And what about other iconic Star Wars ships, like the Corellian Corvettes, Nebulon-Bs, or Mon Calamari Cruisers? What are the latest good guestimates for them?

Cykeisme wrote: So... have there been definite official sources regarding a Lucrehulk's combat capabilities, or is it possible that we may have overestimated it based on its number of weapon emplacements?

If anything we have underestimated.

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Speaking of reactor outputs and ship comparisons, what's the latest word on the reactor output of Executor? In the archives, I've seen it compared to five, a dozen, or a hundred ISDs. With the Mandator II now being listed in the 8E26 range, it seems that the latter is becoming more and more likely.

And what about other iconic Star Wars ships, like the Corellian Corvettes, Nebulon-Bs, or Mon Calamari Cruisers? What are the latest good guestimates for them?

As Connor mentioned above, yes I have done work on this and others. I have a nifty little spreadsheet I'm steadily filling with notes, estimates, forumlas, etc about cap ships, transports, fighters, and ground vehicles, plus notes on OoBs and such. No, I'm not sharing.

But for those of you interested, here are some rough numbers for peak power of a few faves

Dreadnaught - 1.5*10^23
Acclamator - 2*10^23
Munificent - 2.07*10^23
Vindicator/Enforcer/Immobilizer - 4.17*10^23
Resucant - 7.74*10^23
Providence - 1.08*10^24
Lucrehulk coreship - 3*10^24
Venator - 3.6*10^24
Victory - 4.5*10^24
Bothan Assault Cruiser - 5.4*10^24
Imperator - 2.5*10^25 (Saxton estimates 1*10^25, I'm starting to drift towards this)
Lucrehulk whole ship - 8.6*10^25
Mandator - 7.76*10^26
Executor - 3*10^27 (Saxton estimates 1.8*10^27)
Soverign - 5*10^27
Eclipse - 7*10^27

The Eclipse one comes about less from hard evidence (cuz there isn't much) and more from playing with the numbers until I found some that worked and were self consistent. The Soverign extimate is because its in between the Eclipse and the Executor.

Those look like pretty good numbers. I, probably more than anyone else, under-estimated the power of the Lucrehulk. I was going on TPM era figures, and didn't even take into consideration the fact that they probably were upgraded. I mean, if the Trade Federation had EVERYTHING riding on the war, why wouldn't they upgrade their fleet!? The answer is, of course, they would have upgraded their fleet as much as possible. Where would the Venator, Acclamator, Providence Class (Grevious' ship), Banking Clan frigate (can't spell it's exact name), and the Roucusant fit into the above chart? And for that matter, the Mandator?

updates with more estimates

Thanks Ender.

Although now I'm wondering why Executor alone wasn't enough to send the Rebel fleet packing at Endor; indeed, why they were able to hurt it at all let alone destroy it. Surely they didn't have the equivalent of 100 ISDs present?

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Thanks Ender.

Although now I'm wondering why Executor alone wasn't enough to send the Rebel fleet packing at Endor; indeed, why they were able to hurt it at all let alone destroy it. Surely they didn't have the equivalent of 100 ISDs present?

Because of tactics. Personally I'd estimate that it takes 40 Imperators to bring down an Executor. Seeing as how they had about 20 Mon Cals, at least 3 of which were Independence types, not to mention the rest of the fleet, its believable that they expected to take on the Executor and its Escort Imperators with no problem. Note that when they spotted them Han was not at all worried for the fleet.

Ender wrote:Because of tactics. Personally I'd estimate that it takes 40 Imperators to bring down an Executor. Seeing as how they had about 20 Mon Cals, at least 3 of which were Independence types, not to mention the rest of the fleet, its believable that they expected to take on the Executor and its Escort Imperators with no problem. Note that when they spotted them Han was not at all worried for the fleet.

Ah, I didn't realize that they had that many.

But now I'm interested; what do space combat tactics consist of in A Galaxy Far Far Away?

I may as well get this over with... dumb question time..

I've seen a number of times where a ships Shield heat dissipation is greater than the combined firepower of the ships weapons. Does this mean that if two ships of the same class fought they could never penetrate each others shields? Or have I missed something so obvious I'm about to get flamed?

PayBack wrote:I may as well get this over with... dumb question time..

I've seen a number of times where a ships Shield heat dissipation is greater than the combined firepower of the ships weapons. Does this mean that if two ships of the same class fought they could never penetrate each others shields? Or have I missed something so obvious I'm about to get flamed?

There are a couple of other important factors like intensity (you can get burn throughs), and local shield heat sinks vs total heat sinks, and a couple other factors. But since the only ships I can think of like this are the old style coreships and the Acclamators, yes they pretty much can't hurt each other.

Funny you should mention the Acclamator as that question arose one of the many times I refered to the SW vs ST in 5 minutes page.

Thanks.

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Thanks Ender.

Although now I'm wondering why Executor alone wasn't enough to send the Rebel fleet packing at Endor; indeed, why they were able to hurt it at all let alone destroy it. Surely they didn't have the equivalent of 100 ISDs present?

Bad tactics on the side of the imperials, the rebels being able to concentrate their ships at the important places and the ability for cannons to be charged multiple times with their usual fire-power (see Munificent-Class or the star destroyer in Darksaber that directed all its weapon-power through a single barrel). This would allow smaller vessels to engage larger vessels and - under the right circumstances - would allow them to endanger them.

Ender wrote:

Cykeisme wrote: So... have there been definite official sources regarding a Lucrehulk's combat capabilities, or is it possible that we may have overestimated it based on its number of weapon emplacements?

If anything we have underestimated.

I'm not sure I follow.
It's capable of putting out more firepower than by firing all its guns combined? How does it do this?

At the very least, the fact that the guns can't all fire at the same target must mean something, right?

Cykeisme wrote:

Ender wrote:

Cykeisme wrote: So... have there been definite official sources regarding a Lucrehulk's combat capabilities, or is it possible that we may have overestimated it based on its number of weapon emplacements?

If anything we have underestimated.

I'm not sure I follow.
It's capable of putting out more firepower than by firing all its guns combined? How does it do this?

At the very least, the fact that the guns can't all fire at the same target must mean something, right?

That really depends on the upper limit of the guns' ability to accept power (i.e. how much power can be run through them before A. the conduits melt, B. the gun melts), the storage capacity of their capacitors. The guns may very well be able to take having for example the bottom guns being switched off and their power routed to the top side guns. Or they may not. We really don't know what their high end capability is, only that they probably can, at least on a gun by gun basis deliver 1/58th of whatever percentage you define as "most" or "almost all" of whatever you consider Lucrehulk's reactor output to be.

Gah, if only official sources would release more data.. specifically data that takes these issues into account.

Ender wrote:

The Prime Necromancer wrote:Speaking of reactor outputs and ship comparisons, what's the latest word on the reactor output of Executor? In the archives, I've seen it compared to five, a dozen, or a hundred ISDs. With the Mandator II now being listed in the 8E26 range, it seems that the latter is becoming more and more likely.

And what about other iconic Star Wars ships, like the Corellian Corvettes, Nebulon-Bs, or Mon Calamari Cruisers? What are the latest good guestimates for them?

As Connor mentioned above, yes I have done work on this and others. I have a nifty little spreadsheet I'm steadily filling with notes, estimates, forumlas, etc about cap ships, transports, fighters, and ground vehicles, plus notes on OoBs and such. No, I'm not sharing.

But for those of you interested, here are some rough numbers for peak power of a few faves

Dreadnaught - 1.5*10^23
Acclamator - 2*10^23
Munificent - 2.07*10^23
Vindicator/Enforcer/Immobilizer - 4.17*10^23
Resucant - 7.74*10^23
Providence - 1.08*10^24
Lucrehulk coreship - 3*10^24
Venator - 3.6*10^24
Victory - 4.5*10^24
Bothan Assault Cruiser - 5.4*10^24
Imperator - 2.5*10^25 (Saxton estimates 1*10^25, I'm starting to drift towards this)
Lucrehulk whole ship - 8.6*10^25
Mandator - 7.76*10^26
Executor - 3*10^27 (Saxton estimates 1.8*10^27)
Soverign - 5*10^27
Eclipse - 7*10^27

The Eclipse one comes about less from hard evidence (cuz there isn't much) and more from playing with the numbers until I found some that worked and were self consistent. The Soverign extimate is because its in between the Eclipse and the Executor.

Where do you figure some of the "Star Cruisers" and "Star Battlecruisers" fit? Ships like the Allegiance, hunchback cruiser, Giel's battleship, Giel's battlecruiser, Wermis' battlecruiser?

Cykeisme wrote:

Ender wrote:

Cykeisme wrote: So... have there been definite official sources regarding a Lucrehulk's combat capabilities, or is it possible that we may have overestimated it based on its number of weapon emplacements?

If anything we have underestimated.

I'm not sure I follow.
It's capable of putting out more firepower than by firing all its guns combined? How does it do this?

At the very least, the fact that the guns can't all fire at the same target must mean something, right?

For years the gun count put out for the Lucrehulks was off. This just hows how much it was off. So we have been underestimating it since TPM came out.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Where do you figure some of the "Star Cruisers" and "Star Battlecruisers" fit? Ships like the Allegiance, hunchback cruiser, Giel's battleship, Giel's battlecruiser, Wermis' battlecruiser?

Cruisers the 10^25 range, Battlecruisers low and middle 10^26.

Ender wrote:

Cykeisme wrote:

Ender wrote:If anything we have underestimated.

I'm not sure I follow.
It's capable of putting out more firepower than by firing all its guns combined? How does it do this?

At the very least, the fact that the guns can't all fire at the same target must mean something, right?

For years the gun count put out for the Lucrehulks was off. This just hows how much it was off. So we have been underestimating it since TPM came out.

Not neccesarily. We've had hints for some time that there might be different versions of the craft (the droid control ship is one example. And we know there are others that have core ships, and some do not. ) Apparently, some are more better armed than others, as well.