StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Oh look, the zealot's back to screech some more. In an effect to cut down on the gigantic posts, I'll cut out the whining, yelling, screeching, strawmanning, insults, and archivist bullshit and see if there's actually an argument in there.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Oh wow. Yes, let's not discuss what a vessel capable of dropping a planetary shield and then shaking a planet to 'Disruption'

First of all, dropping the shields is not an issue of firepower. The weapon uses highly specialized shield-disrupting torpedoes. And I remind you they do not inflict equivalent damage on other targets, to its not brute force - the Torpedo Sphere's torpedos are rated at less than half the damage of each of the VSD II's torpedos, 4D v. 9D. (And from AOTC ICS comparison to RPG sources, we know RPG stats HIGHLY COMPRESS the differences in firepower - several orders of magnitude between light and heavy Acclamator guns to within a single order of magnitude, so its probably the disparity in firepower is actually measurable in factors of ten.) to punch through weak spots in the shield, and then destroy the generator with a turbolaser.

Very good. It's reactor output is minimal for the effect it creates. However, your own words said not to make this about reactor output. So I haven't been looking at it; only the end product effect. You know, when a weapon accomplishes something large without a large reactor output, that's generally considered a good thing.

Ok, so for being over ten times the volume of the VSD the Torpedo Sphere has less than three times the missile firepower.

It has less than three times the energy output of the VSD. Yet, you yourself, stated that we should not look at that. Therefore I'm not going by that.

And you're mixing and matching in your INABILITY TO READ, again, Martin. The "total disruption" (whatever that means, though I assume it means causing geologic activity to the degree that the planet becomes uninhabitable) applies to SSDs only, not to Torpedo Spheres. Accept the gravshock is not mounted aboard SSDs, and I quote, "...but it has no need of such a weapon considering the armaments it packs."

Oh what's that mean? Its hypothetical. So practically, "total disruption" is irrelevent because there's no gravshock being fed enough power to do it.

So the assumption is now that the device cannot do diddly? Funny. I didn't know that not being able to disrupt a planet meant that you couldn't obliterate life on the surface. Because 'Disruption' means to break apart, so 'Total disruption' would heavily imply the planet comes apart at the seams(Probably falls back together again, unless the gravity control in SW is alot more 'cheap' energy wise than I have been lead to beleive). But I'm sure, for actually thinking about what disrupting a planet would mean, I'll be somehow evil and mean or some equal bullshit..

And nice semantics whoring (since the Torpedo Sphere is explicitly not included to be capable of feeding "total disruption," but that doesn't stop you), to buy one of your favorite cliches. The effective (read: existing capability) effects are explicitly described:

Yes, the TS is not capable of rending apart a planet. I never claimed it was. Just that it could bring down a shield and then fuck over the surface.

By localizing a planet’s gravity, the gravshock waves can simulate earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. Unfortunately, time and power make this weapon somewhat impractical on the everyday scale...

...Crushing cities in upon themselves, shaking them to pieces, redirecting waterways to make the most of their destructive power, the gravshock device is worthy of Imperial thinking and use.

This amount of energy is almost certainly sub-BDZ, so I do not see why it is so important.

'Almost certainly sub-BDZ'. There you go again. No evidence to support your claim, but you make it anyway..

In any case, you have no estimate. Would you like to calculate the amount of energy to cause large earthquakes?

Why does it matter? You explicitly said it's not about reactor output. The end result is what matters. And a single station that can bring down planetary shields and then shake the surface until it's full of dead people is a pretty potent end result. What's beyond whacky here is you don't like it because it's not costing masses of energy! The Empire's created a cheap, efficienct weapon/bombard platform, and you think it's a bad thing...

SirNitram wrote:would mean firepower-wise: Discuss only it's reactor output! The hypocrisy is enormous. If you want to discuss reactor-output, then your quoted statement is blatant, burning hypocrisy, and the point about 25,000 ISD's, each capable of BDZing an aqueaous world with their guns, will suffice the standard.

THAN RUN THE CALCULATION, MARTIN.

Why run calculations that have existed for years, kiddo? By the way, since when are you on a first name basis with me? You're not. Sit back down at the little kid's chair.

Anyway, when one simply looks up the BDZ page Mike created(Link), one finds that the energy is 1e27J to produce a BDZ on an aqueaous world, obliterating all life in the oceans and fufilling the requirements of the description.

Now, it turns out I'm not quite correct. 25,000 ISD's won't give us 1e38J(They give us around 2.5e32J, enough to destroy an Earth-type world). I'm sure you're about to do a victory dance, but I'll steal the first half of that phrase and get away with this anyway. Because, as is apparent to anyone who read the AOTC ICS.. ISD's aren't the only Base Delta Zero capable craft. The lowly Acclamator and Victory are capable of this very feat. It's simply a matter of establishing a logical number of these ships deployed.

One could always go with interperating the 'Units' the Kamino spoke of as fully stocked 'Clamators. This gives us over a million to work with. This still leaves the estimate in e34's, even if we assume the VSD run was in between the 'million units' and '25,000 SDs' run, IE, in the 100,000 range.

But wait! We're comitting a serious logical bumble here. An ISD, VSD, and Acclamator aren't the same ship! I honestly don't know the most prevalent calc's for these vessel's and their weapons outputs here, and I'm not in the mood for doing these out by hand just today. Maybe monday, if no one feels generous enough to link me to the calc's here.

Of course, I can safely concede these tangent. Why? Because the whole reason I've been in this thread was the discussion of the SSD-volume vessels. Gee.. I wonder if thousands upon thousands of ships like that might make up the difference.

SirNitram wrote:If you are instead talking about firepower, let's discuss the implications of six vessels capable of de-shielding a planet and then shaking it so hard everyone on the surface is dead, which is a pretty conservative estimation of 'Destroyed', when the text reads 'Total planetary disruption'.

Except "total disruption" is a subjective term and has no qualifiers attached to determine what that actually means, and is a hypothetical proposal regarding if it was mounted on a SSD, which it is not.

Disruption is not some magic word with many meanings. It means rending apart. Obviously there is no reason to assume this surpasses the GBE of the planet without more data, but this 'IT'S SUBJECTIVE' is bullshit I don't accept from Jessie Stamos and his fanclub. I won't accept it from you.

So those six vessels have at least sixty times the mass of a VSD, and have less than seventeen times the firepower. Gotcha.

And you haven't quantified the gravshock effects yet. I'm waiting. And there's no excuse for "accidentally confusing" the hypothetical SSD mount with the described effects for the existing Torpedo Sphere model since I've spoon-fed you it several times now.

You've 'spoon-fed' me nothing, you ignorant little ass-wipe. Quoting the section again and again doesn't mean anything. I'm sure you think it makes you look good, but I got sick of posts with endless crap cut-and-pasted into it for volume when I was debating Dark Star.

The SSD-scale destruction is a fairly clear meaning for those that know the word 'Disruption'.

Websters wrote:\Dis*rup"tion\, n. [L. disruptio, diruptio.] The act or rending asunder, or the state of being rent asunder or broken in pieces; breach; rent; dilaceration; rupture

(Ed. Note: I cut out things that have absolutely no bearing on talking about a planet's disruption, like the medical definition or breaking up a nation.)

SirNitram wrote:But like comic fan-whores and fantasy retards, you run away from anything that isn't easy. Typical.

You're a shitty debator, Martin. Your modus operandi is to compare people to various "evil people" without any substance. There should be a Godwin's Law regarding you and references to "comic retards," "fantasy loonies," "creationists," etc.

Anyway, you proposed it as a gap-closer. So guess what?

You're going to type in big text and throw a tantrum? Whee. Like I haven't seen that a thousand times before.

It's simple for those who aren't retarded: The practical effect of a Torpedo Sphere with one of these is that it can rip down the shield and lay waste to the planet below, killing everyone. You claim it must be 'Sub-BDZ', but that's because you apparently think 'Total disruption' is subjective, when it has a very clear meaning.

A vessel which can tear down a planetary shield and then kill everyone on the ground exceeds the practical firepower of an SSD, a vessel which, as of ESB, couldn't bring down a planetary shield.

Of course, if you want to play with reactor output, simply retract your earlier screech.

SirNitram wrote:Grandstander? You pathetic little worm.

:yawn:

Here I go, breaking my promise to cut all the bullshit. Oh well. For those of us who actually have been around this debate for a while, it has to be said.

Hi Timmy!

Where's my flaming you? Where's my waiting for you? Where's my vendetta.

This thread. Duh. Some of us don't live a year in the past.

You are hot air. Go back to Fantasy where this shit flies.

From someone whose been quoting the fanwhores I regularly boot to the Sewer('Just because there is no evidence, it is not incorrect to claim..' 'It's utter unquantifiable!'), this is too rich. You apparently wouldn't know evidence if it assfucked you.

SirNitram wrote:Oh look, the zealot's back to screech some more. In an effect to cut down on the gigantic posts, I'll cut out the whining, yelling, screeching, strawmanning, insults, and archivist bullshit and see if there's actually an argument in there.

In other words, you just dumped everything vis-a-vis the OOB issue, and try to pass it off as your brillance.

Give me a break.

SirNitram wrote:Very good. It's reactor output is minimal for the effect it creates.

Downing a shield is not a measure of firepower. By your absurd definition, the plan for knocking out the Pointe du Hoc guns before Normandy by Ranger sabotage would have equal firepower to bombing them with B-25s. Afterall, at the end of the day the guns would both be destroyed.

The "effect" of a Base Delta Zero and the Eclipse superlaser blast is to render a planet uninhabitable.

However, the Eclipse has more firepower. So would those B-25s above.

The effect is not what we're arguing; that's strategy. The point is that the Death Star puts around 1E38 watts into Alderaan and that must equal more than half the immediate firepower of the Starfleet.

Like I said, you're tying to turn this into unquantificable bullshit, by measuring "effect" and whatnot.

SirNitram wrote:However, your own words said not to make this about reactor output. So I haven't been looking at it; only the end product effect. You know, when a weapon accomplishes something large without a large reactor output, that's generally considered a good thing.

We're talking about the amount of power injected into a target. Quantify it.

SirNitram wrote:It has less than three times the energy output of the VSD. Yet, you yourself, stated that we should not look at that. Therefore I'm not going by that.

No moron, I was talking about the missiles, and if you'd been paying attention you'd know that.

Missiles OBVIOUSLY have nothing to do with reactor output.

SirNitram wrote:So the assumption is now that the device cannot do diddly?

No, it can do exactly the following. Stop wasting my time with hypothetical bullshit about what happens if it is hooked-up with a SSD, which it isn't:

Housed within the shell of a Torpedo Sphere, the two-wave gravshock - or planetbuster - is designed to do terrible damage on a near-planetary scale.

By localizing a planet’s gravity, the gravshock waves can simulate earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters...

...However, successful tests make this ordnance worth exploring. Crushing cities in upon themselves, shaking them to pieces, redirecting waterways to make the most of their destructive power, the gravshock device is worthy of Imperial thinking and use.

Ok, it can cause floods, earthquakes, and crush cities gravitationally. Quantify this damage and run the calc.

And this is the THIRD TIME I've quoted its effects for you. READ MARTIN.

SirNitram wrote:Funny. I didn't know that not being able to disrupt a planet meant that you couldn't obliterate life on the surface. Because 'Disruption' means to break apart, so 'Total disruption' would heavily imply the planet comes apart at the seams(Probably falls back together again, unless the gravity control in SW is alot more 'cheap' energy wise than I have been lead to beleive). But I'm sure, for actually thinking about what disrupting a planet would mean, I'll be somehow evil and mean or some equal bullshit..

No Martin, you're simply illiterate.

The word "disruption" is used only once and in reference to the hypothetical power a SSD-level gravshock would have, except no SSD has a gravshock by the same sentence.

Of course I already said this to you, but what's repetition to Martin for the nth time anyway? I've already had to repeat most things two or three times.

Maybe you're right about what total disruption means. Its irrelevent to me because the ability is not practically implemented. Torpedo Sphere gravshocks are not described as able to "disrupt" planets. They are described to do the following:

the two-wave gravshock - or planetbuster - is designed to do terrible damage on a near-planetary scale.

By localizing a planet’s gravity, the gravshock waves can simulate earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters...

...Crushing cities in upon themselves, shaking them to pieces, redirecting waterways to make the most of their destructive power....

SirNitram wrote:Yes, the TS is not capable of rending apart a planet. I never claimed it was. Just that it could bring down a shield and then fuck over the surface.

And that's how much wattage in a planet? Are you going to do your calcs yet?

SirNitram wrote:'Almost certainly sub-BDZ'. There you go again. No evidence to support your claim, but you make it anyway..

I've done all the calcs so far, dumbass. ITS YOUR CLAIM. I don't need ANY evidence since you haven't bothered to quantify it yourself. I am not doing your homework for you.

SirNitram wrote:Why does it matter? You explicitly said it's not about reactor output. The end result is what matters.

No, firepower matters. The boilers' energy content on the BB-61 Iowa has diddly shit to do with firepower. But the energy content - both kinetic and chemical - of the 16''/.50 shells has everything to do with its firepower.

Similarly, the Acclamator's peak reactor output is on the order of 10^23 watts. But its firepower is the sum of an Alpha Strike involving twelve 200-gigaton turrets, several missile tubes, and a number of 6 megaton guns.

According to this "effect" bullshit, a .22 LR cartridge has the same firepower as a .50 AE round. They'll both kill you shot through your eyes. Though the .50 will turn your face into viscera and the .22 will not.

SirNitram wrote:And a single station that can bring down planetary shields and then shake the surface until it's full of dead people is a pretty potent end result. What's beyond whacky here is you don't like it because it's not costing masses of energy! The Empire's created a cheap, efficienct weapon/bombard platform, and you think it's a bad thing...

No, I don't. I just don't think it fills this ENORMOUS gap in firepower between 1e38 and the other ships. Quantify the energy in these events, and add it up. Come on, you're an ASVSer. This should be second-nature, old boy.

If you DO THE CALCS AND PROVE IT, I think I'd change my mind.

SirNitram wrote:Why run calculations that have existed for years, kiddo? By the way, since when are you on a first name basis with me? You're not. Sit back down at the little kid's chair.

Really Martin? I've never seen a gravshock energy estimate. Direct me to it.

You made the claim, the homework burden is on you.

SirNitram wrote:Anyway, when one simply looks up the BDZ page Mike created(Link), one finds that the energy is 1e27J to produce a BDZ on an aqueaous world, obliterating all life in the oceans and fufilling the requirements of the description.

1e11. One hundred billion. I've very secure with that figure, numbnuts.

SirNitram wrote:Now, it turns out I'm not quite correct. 25,000 ISD's won't give us 1e38J(They give us around 2.5e32J, enough to destroy an Earth-type world).

1e27 x 25,000 = 2.5e31, actually.

SirNitram wrote:I'm sure you're about to do a victory dance, but I'll steal the first half of that phrase and get away with this anyway. Because, as is apparent to anyone who read the AOTC ICS.. ISD's aren't the only Base Delta Zero capable craft. The lowly Acclamator and Victory are capable of this very feat. It's simply a matter of establishing a logical number of these ships deployed.

But they're not individually - the Acclamator's firepower is too low; it takes roughly 10 hours to accomplish a BDZ.

SirNitram wrote:One could always go with interperating the 'Units' the Kamino spoke of as fully stocked 'Clamators. This gives us over a million to work with. This still leaves the estimate in e34's, even if we assume the VSD run was in between the 'million units' and '25,000 SDs' run, IE, in the 100,000 range.

Except it doesn't, because the EU has consistently said there are only 1.2 million clonetroopers.

And better yet, the Republic only purchased about 1000 or so, known, according to the WoTC Revised Core Rulebook.

SirNitram wrote:But wait! We're comitting a serious logical bumble here. An ISD, VSD, and Acclamator aren't the same ship! I honestly don't know the most prevalent calc's for these vessel's and their weapons outputs here, and I'm not in the mood for doing these out by hand just today. Maybe monday, if no one feels generous enough to link me to the calc's here.

Why would you need to calc the Acclamator? Its given.

SirNitram wrote:Of course, I can safely concede these tangent. Why? Because the whole reason I've been in this thread was the discussion of the SSD-volume vessels. Gee.. I wonder if thousands upon thousands of ships like that might make up the difference.

An Executor only puts out 7.81e28. You'd need about a quarter of a million to reach around 1e38.

Needless to say, we've never seen evidence of much more than dozens, possibly a few hundreds of the really biggish ships. Perhaps a few thousand of the greater-than-ISD vessels.

SirNitram wrote:Disruption is not some magic word with many meanings. It means rending apart. Obviously there is no reason to assume this surpasses the GBE of the planet without more data, but this 'IT'S SUBJECTIVE' is bullshit I don't accept from Jessie Stamos and his fanclub. I won't accept it from you.

That's ok, since it only exists in reference to the SSD hypothetical gravshock which is not an existing ability. Fine by me.

SirNitram wrote:You've 'spoon-fed' me nothing, you ignorant little ass-wipe. Quoting the section again and again doesn't mean anything. I'm sure you think it makes you look good, but I got sick of posts with endless crap cut-and-pasted into it for volume when I was debating Dark Star.

Wow. Hot air and broad war songs about Darkstar. What do you know, the sky is blue.

SirNitram wrote:The SSD-scale destruction is a fairly clear meaning for those that know the word 'Disruption'.

Except disruption is only a reference to the SSD-scale gravshock, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST.

Sorry.

SirNitram wrote:

Websters wrote:\Dis*rup"tion\, n. [L. disruptio, diruptio.] The act or rending asunder, or the state of being rent asunder or broken in pieces; breach; rent; dilaceration; rupture

(Ed. Note: I cut out things that have absolutely no bearing on talking about a planet's disruption, like the medical definition or breaking up a nation.)

The Super-class Star Destroyer, for example, is the only ship with engines powerful enough to pump the massive amounts of energy necessary for a full planetary disruption, but it has no need of such a weapon considering the armaments it packs.

Guess what - the Torpedo Spheres are not described as capable of disrupting a planet, partially, completely, or otherwise.

Learn to read, Martin.

SirNitram wrote:You're going to type in big text and throw a tantrum? Whee. Like I haven't seen that a thousand times before.

Still waiting, oh Ye Olde Debater Master!

SirNitram wrote:It's simple for those who aren't retarded: The practical effect of a Torpedo Sphere with one of these is that it can rip down the shield and lay waste to the planet below, killing everyone.

The practical effect is not firepower. The practical effect of shooting you with a 9 mm and a .50 in the face is the same, but the .50 has more firepower. I can calculate the KE of the rounds and the time in which it is delivered by the round to the target.

Anyway, the Torpedo Sphere causes LOCALIZED gravity shifts. It never says it can kill a whole population. Maybe it can, but you made that up.

SirNitram wrote:You claim it must be 'Sub-BDZ', but that's because you apparently think 'Total disruption' is subjective, when it has a very clear meaning.

No, I think you're probably right about disruption and total disruption. Too bad the former is not used to refer to anything and the latter to a weapons system which is only hypothetical and as such has no influence on this discussion.

SirNitram wrote:A vessel which can tear down a planetary shield and then kill everyone on the ground exceeds the practical firepower of an SSD, a vessel which, as of ESB, couldn't bring down a planetary shield.

Ha! Practical firepower. A pity the ISB directly contradicts you, citing the SSD's weapons as why a gravshock is superfluous.

This "effect" stuff is a way to avoid quantifying the firepower of the fleet and finding it at least equivalent to the Death Star's blast.

SirNitram wrote:Here I go, breaking my promise to cut all the bullshit. Oh well. For those of us who actually have been around this debate for a while, it has to be said.

Hi Timmy!

Ah, the minions are impressed, Ye Olde Debater Master!

SirNitram wrote:This thread. Duh. Some of us don't live a year in the past.

A single thread does not make a vendetta, dumbass.

Admiral Kanos wrote:Activities such as "following someone around" from thread to thread and trying to hijack discussions to focus on the character of the victim are not allowed.

This would seem to agree.

Thread to thread? You mean two threads in the year 2004? Trying to hijack discussions to focus on the character? Oh shit, who dropped the personal accusations and the vendetta claims first?

Silly Martin.

SirNitram wrote:From someone whose been quoting the fanwhores I regularly boot to the Sewer('Just because there is no evidence, it is not incorrect to claim..' 'It's utter unquantifiable!'), this is too rich. You apparently wouldn't know evidence if it assfucked you.

I've quoted everything, idiot. Half the time you've proved unable to even READ what I quote you. The extent of your evidence has been to make up silly, delusional shit about fleets of Eclipses and Soveriegns and imaginary Executor limits.

As for me being the hypocrit...

I suppose in order for you to save face I was supposed to waste my time in a shouting match for two or three pages? How about no.

(Two pages ago)

You did EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE ACCUSING ME OF.

THAT'S OK

Dodonna did not compare "time-averaged reactor output" between the Starfleet and the Death Star. He compared FIREPOWER.

Reactor power estimated from reactor volume places a neat limit on gun firepower on most warships.

(We're of course supposed to totally ignore warheads, despite the absurdly numerous Victory-class having huge ones.)

And when accused of a vendetta? He runs back and back and back into the earliest reaches of the board to say 'I didn't have a vendetta then!'. Apparently, by some magic psychic power, I'm exercising a vendetta when I'm not posting here, as opposed to being the mature one and not sinking into these yelling fits. Yes, folks. Bringing up PM's from over a year ago, dragging someone's entire posting history up, yelling and screaming about previous debates.. That's not a vendetta. Staying out of a forum, posting calm discussions with other people, that's a vendetta. Don't be fooled by the fact only one person in this exchange is throwing the digital equivalent of a tantrum! I'm the bad guy, by some magical effort that Primey-boy refuses to explain.

When you're ready to debate, little boy, you can expect further correspondance. Children who think that it's a sign of weakness not to run off to the administrators at the first rule broken aren't worth my time.

SirNitram wrote:(We're of course supposed to totally ignore warheads, despite the absurdly numerous Victory-class having huge ones.)

Illuminatus Primus wrote:First of all, dropping the shields is not an issue of firepower. The weapon uses highly specialized shield-disrupting torpedoes. And I remind you they do not inflict equivalent damage on other targets, to its not brute force - the Torpedo Sphere's torpedos are rated at less than half the damage of each of the VSD II's torpedos, 4D v. 9D. (And from AOTC ICS comparison to RPG sources, we know RPG stats HIGHLY COMPRESS the differences in firepower - several orders of magnitude between light and heavy Acclamator guns to within a single order of magnitude, so its probably the disparity in firepower is actually measurable in factors of ten.) to punch through weak spots in the shield, and then destroy the generator with a turbolaser.

Ok, so for being over ten times the volume of the VSD the Torpedo Sphere has less than three times the missile firepower.

SirNitram wrote:And when accused of a vendetta? He runs back and back and back into the earliest reaches of the board to say 'I didn't have a vendetta then!'.

Actually, dumbshit, all of those threads I linked, which you obviously did not check before running your mouth like usual, are in the last 9 months, not the "recesses" of the board - specifically they were between the last time we had a flamewar and now, although since I "hound you" its rather surprising such a gap exists.

As it happens, if Martin had any balls to back up his hot air, he'd do some calculations or learn to read. Or at the very least get me in trouble for my vile, troublesome vendetta.

To petty he says. That or none of the administration would agree with him. Hmmm....

SirNitram wrote:Apparently, by some magic psychic power, I'm exercising a vendetta when I'm not posting here, as opposed to being the mature one and not sinking into these yelling fits.

Who tossed the vendetta accusation and consistently upholds it?

SirNitram wrote:Yes, folks. Bringing up PM's from over a year ago,

Martin is a liar.

That is not a PM, but an actual publically debated thread. Anyone who clicks on any of the three links will see that, and it was hardly me and Martin. If any pair were duelists in that thread, I'll admit upfront it was me and Connor, not me and this assclown.

But Martin's is more interested in grandstanding, so instead of awknowledging it as a link to a thread with his same claims being denowned by different people, he makes me sound like I violate privacy by airing PMs.

Fuck the truth, right?

The thread is called "Big Corellian Ships" and is found here. Anyone who clicks the link and finds themself in my PM box can let me now.

SirNitram wrote:dragging someone's entire posting history up, yelling and screaming about previous debates.. That's not a vendetta.

Please, Martin. You say I'm hounding you, and I post ten threads between the now and the last time we even responded to each other, which was ten months ago to prove that you're just flinging lying, slandering shit.

SirNitram wrote:Staying out of a forum, posting calm discussions with other people, that's a vendetta.

No, its not.

That was specifically in response to this:

SirNitram wrote:when you're the one waiting for me to post here,

YOU LIED, MARTIN. And I showed that. But you'll ignore it just like everything else you don't like.

SirNitram wrote:Don't be fooled by the fact only one person in this exchange is throwing the digital equivalent of a tantrum! I'm the bad guy, by some magical effort that Primey-boy refuses to explain.

Because you're a liar, and I've had to go so far as post examples to prove you're simply flinging shit.

If I'm "waiting for you," how come I never responded to any remark of yours, even ones I disagree with in threads I posted in?

Because you're a liar.

SirNitram wrote:When you're ready to debate, little boy, you can expect further correspondance. Children who think that it's a sign of weakness not to run off to the administrators at the first rule broken aren't worth my time.

Right. I've had to quote your back to yourself twice, myself back to your half-a-dozen times, etc., etc. because you ignore and lie at every oppurtunity.

I want you to put your bullshit to a standard, that's all, and you're too much of a craven coward to do it.

DO THE CALCS. SHOW ME WHERE I'M "HOUNDING" YOU, AND GET ME IN TROUBLE.

As it happens, if Martin had any balls to back up his hot air, he'd do some calculations or learn to read. Or at the very least get me in trouble for my vile, troublesome vendetta.

Remember folks, you have balls if you run to the Teacher at the first sign of trouble.

SirNitram wrote:

As it happens, if Martin had any balls to back up his hot air, he'd do some calculations or learn to read. Or at the very least get me in trouble for my vile, troublesome vendetta.

Remember folks, you have balls if you run to the Teacher at the first sign of trouble.

Hey Martin, how about that PM I linked in the thread above, again?

And seriously, yeah, for committing a bannable offense, you think I'd be in a bit more trouble. Then again, maybe its just a bunch of hot air bullshit.

As off-topic as Primus' tantrums went, it did bring an interesting quote to the surface, and one that has implications for any discussion of the 'Big Ships' of the Empire.

The Super-class Star Destroyer, for example, is the only ship with engines powerful enough to pump the massive amounts of energy necessary for a full planetary disruption, but it has no need of such a weapon considering the armaments it packs.

An Executor(Or perhaps the smaller 8 kilometer SSD invented to rationalize the novels and movie) can pull off a 'total planetary disruption'. Given that 'disruption' means to be rent apart, this isn't a small feat! But it also says it's weapons can do the same. Time to see if this pans out.

First, weapons. I'm going to concentrate on the biggest and the baddest: The 250 HTL batteries. These are given identical statistics to an ISD-II's 8-barrel turrets, so I'm going to assume they're the same.

I'm also going to assume, for the sake of a QD analysis, that the difference in barrel size is also the difference in output. IE, these barrels are 125 times as potent as the Acclamator's, already quantified, barrels.

200GT x 125 x 8 x 250 = 50,000,000GT = 5e16GT = 5e25T = ~2e33J.

Someone please check my math here. I think I may have dropped or added an order of magnitude. However, if, for once, my math pans out, an SSD could, with concentrated effort, blow chunks literally 'off the map'(Actually blowing the planet up, like a bomb, is pretty unlikely given the fact this is mean beams hitting over time).

The SSD's guns are roughly comparable to the ISD II's turrets.

There are 5000 to the ISD II's 64.

Based on the ISD's BDZ yield, the Executor can put out 7.81e28 watts.

Size does not well-correlate to firepower; the X-Wing guns are rather comparable to much smaller TIE guns, and the Trade Federation Battleship's guns are larger than ISD II weapons yet anti-fighter in purpose.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The SSD's guns are roughly comparable to the ISD II's turrets.

There are 5000 to the ISD II's 64.

Based on the ISD's BDZ yield, the Executor can put out 7.81e28 watts.

Size does not well-correlate to firepower; the X-Wing guns are rather comparable to much smaller TIE guns, and the Trade Federation Battleship's guns are larger than ISD II weapons yet anti-fighter in purpose.

That'd be why it has the word 'Assume' in front of it, and the letters 'QD', for 'Quick and Dirty'.

Of course, even if we crank down the notches to the 7e28 range, we're still playing with alot of energy when it comes to beating the GBE of chunks of the surface. I'll explain.

GBE for an Earthtype planet is 60MJ/kg. For the sake of shitty math, we'll wind the firepower estimate to 6e28J. I don't feel like precision. 60MJ is 6e7J, so we're left with the juice to play 'catch' with 1e21kg. Crust density is around 2.8e3kg/m^3. Again, for cheap and easy math, I'll round that off to 3e3kg/m^3. 1e18m^3, or 1e15Km^3. Again, it's quite likely orders of magnitude may have been dropped or added.

So. 1e15 Km^3. How big is France, again?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:And seriously, yeah, for committing a bannable offense, you think I'd be in a bit more trouble. Then again, maybe its just a bunch of hot air bullshit.

Vendettas are quite frowned upon. I could emphasize my point if you'd like.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The SSD's guns are roughly comparable to the ISD II's turrets.

Proof?

There are 5000 to the ISD II's 64.

Proof? And just to derail you, that 5000 number included ion cannons as well as turbolasers. And even Saxtons greatest estimates for "probable turrets" was in the hundreds. So where are these many thousands you are claiming coming from?

Based on the ISD's BDZ yield, the Executor can put out 7.81e28 watts.

Actually, thats about an order of magnitude to twenty times greater than what it should be, ,from the estimates I've seen.

Size does not well-correlate to firepower; the X-Wing guns are rather comparable to much smaller TIE guns,

Much of which has to do with barrel length and impacts weapons range, not firepower. (Barrel length has a direct correlation in focusing the weapon, which is a further factor in its range. Longer barrels invariably result in longer ranges.)

There's also the not-so-minor fact that an X-wing is a larger fighter, which dictates a larger powerplant for the accelerations its capable of. Which also means it can support heavier guns.

and the Trade Federation Battleship's guns are larger than ISD II weapons yet anti-fighter in purpose.

The Queen's Yacht is not a "Starfighter." as I recall. And there's nothing that explicitly indicates they are incapable of anti-ship functions.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:

As it happens, if Martin had any balls to back up his hot air, he'd do some calculations or learn to read. Or at the very least get me in trouble for my vile, troublesome vendetta.

Remember folks, you have balls if you run to the Teacher at the first sign of trouble.

Hey Martin, how about that PM I linked in the thread above, again?

And seriously, yeah, for committing a bannable offense, you think I'd be in a bit more trouble. Then again, maybe its just a bunch of hot air bullshit.

Are you done ranting? This is the same shit you pull with me anytime someone dares to contradict one of your precious-held opinions. It gets tiresome listening to you whine just because you feel threatened.

Nitram and I were having a rather nice conversation. Then you come in here and start ranting at him for no apparent reason. Then Duchess comes in to clarify things. Things start to settle down and become interesting again. Then you flare up yet again. (And not on just one topic, but on two - you do in fact seem interested in changing the topic so long as it allows you to continue ranting about Nitram.)

Frankly, this is precisely why I consider you to be such a useless poster and why I don't like you. You treat every little disagreement as if the Barbarian Hordes are battering down the gates.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The SSD's guns are roughly comparable to the ISD II's turrets.

Proof?

They appear to - this is just a casual presumption. Curtis hypothesizes that ISD level turrets may be near the practical limit for turbolaser batteries.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Proof?

ItWotSW.

Connor MacLeod wrote:And just to derail you, that 5000 number included ion cannons as well as turbolasers.

Really? I thought it was just turbolasers.

Connor MacLeod wrote:And even Saxtons greatest estimates for "probable turrets" was in the hundreds. So where are these many thousands you are claiming coming from?

Curtis estimated the density of weapons emplacements at 118 times that of the ISD II.

As for the thousands - I'm not talking about turrets but individual weapons, hence: "5000 to 64." The ISD II has 64 turbolaser cannon, in eight octuple turrets. If the 5000 weapons are turbolaser cannon and they are similar to ISD II batteries, they probably exist in around 625 turrets.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Actually, thats about an order of magnitude to twenty times greater than what it should be, ,from the estimates I've seen.

And Martin's figure that he just posted was even higher by a large amount. This is predicated on the assumption that the ISD II weapon emplacements are similar to the weapons emplacements on the Executor.

It gives the Executor over 78 times the firepower of an ISD, but the ISD is actually less than a hundredth the volume of the Executor. Pound for pound its hardly unreasonable.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Much of which has to do with barrel length and impacts weapons range, not firepower. (Barrel length has a direct correlation in focusing the weapon, which is a further factor in its range. Longer barrels invariably result in longer ranges.)

There's also the not-so-minor fact that an X-wing is a larger fighter, which dictates a larger powerplant for the accelerations its capable of. Which also means it can support heavier guns.

True.

Connor MacLeod wrote:The Queen's Yacht is not a "Starfighter." as I recall. And there's nothing that explicitly indicates they are incapable of anti-ship functions.

Awknowledged, but the ICS would appear to indicate that they're not heavy antiwarship guns as scaling directly on size comparisons to the ISD might indicate.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The SSD's guns are roughly comparable to the ISD II's turrets.

Proof?

They appear to - this is just a casual presumption. Curtis hypothesizes that ISD level turrets may be near the practical limit for turbolaser batteries.

Number of barrels, maybe. But, unless there was some shaking evidence lately, the Superlaser is the same tech as Turbolasers, albeit applied as a longer-duration, composite beam.

SirNitram wrote:Number of barrels, maybe. But, unless there was some shaking evidence lately, the Superlaser is the same tech as Turbolasers, albeit applied as a longer-duration, composite beam.

Hence turret; all larger weapons have been static emplacements.

The Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser illustrated in Anderson/Wallace's The Essential Chronology had the heaviest-barrel turrets ever seen. After that the ISD Mk. I, and then the ISD Mk. II (the Trade Federation war freighter is possibly larger than all, but I've never done the scaling myself).

It seems that the practical limit on traversing, articulated turrets is probably close to these sizes. The technology may allow physically larger turrets, but it may become prohibitive to move them around and have them aim at anything as they get truly huge.

As for consolidated or composite beam weapons, the smallest starship examples start with Terrik's Errant Venture and its Darksaber-like superlaser.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: They appear to - this is just a casual presumption. Curtis hypothesizes that ISD level turrets may be near the practical limit for turbolaser batteries.

So its an assumption. Sort of like what Nitram is proposing then, isnt it?

ItWotSW.

Inside the Words of the Star Wars Trilogy wrote: "Over one hundred times more massive than a common STar Destroyer and almost 12 times as long, the Executor bristles with more than 5,000 turbolasers and ion cannons, and carries wings of starifghters and two pre-assembled garrison bases."

Where exactly does the quote mention Heavy turbolasers?

Really? I thought it was just turbolasers.

Read above.

Curtis estimated the density of weapons emplacements at 118 times that of the ISD II.

In other words, an estimated hundreds. Not thousands.

As for the thousands - I'm not talking about turrets but individual weapons, hence: "5000 to 64." The ISD II has 64 turbolaser cannon, in eight octuple turrets. If the 5000 weapons are turbolaser cannon and they are similar to ISD II batteries, they probably exist in around 625 turrets.

So you're assuming the reference refers to individaul barrels, instead of individual turrets or arrays?

And Martin's figure that he just posted was even higher by a large amount. This is predicated on the assumption that the ISD II weapon emplacements are similar to the weapons emplacements on the Executor.

Which is up for debate. (the SoTE comic and novel suggest Executors do in fact have turrets that are vastly heavier than an ISD's heavy TL. As if one could not realize this by looking at ground weaponry, the Death Star, the Eclipse and Sovereign's superlasers, the Errant Venture's superweapon, etc. For that matter, there are certain artillery vehicles whose firepower suggests that the ISD heavy turret is not an upper limit.)

It gives the Executor over 78 times the firepower of an ISD, but the ISD is actually less than a hundredth the volume of the Executor. Pound for pound its hardly unreasonable.

Nor are Nitram's neccesarily if one factors in an extended recharge rate for guns. Recharge rates longer than a second are not unheard of (again Superlasers, ground based TL weapons.. hell there are ISD models which have TLS that have recharge rates of 2 seconds or more.)

Awknowledged, but the ICS would appear to indicate that they're not heavy antiwarship guns as scaling directly on size comparisons to the ISD might indicate.

The EP1 ICS gives statistics for the Droid Control ship, as I recall. Which suggests that it is not *just* a battleship.

Connor MacLeod wrote:So its an assumption. Sort of like what Nitram is proposing then, isnt it?

Yeah but there is strong evidence that firepower leaps around with turret size (which is why I avoid direct scaling based on size for firepower). But the Executor's guns probably have the most firepower we've seen from similarly sized weapons since the Executor is obviously capable of fighting capital ships. So I used the curiously similar ISD guns.

All of these calculations are ultimately back-of-the-envelope and depend on your assumptions and premises. I find that one too weak for my own use, and listed reasons why.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Inside the Words of the Star Wars Trilogy wrote: "Over one hundred times more massive than a common STar Destroyer and almost 12 times as long, the Executor bristles with more than 5,000 turbolasers and ion cannons, and carries wings of starifghters and two pre-assembled garrison bases."

Where exactly does the quote mention Heavy turbolasers?

Then I'm wrong.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Curtis estimated the density of weapons emplacements at 118 times that of the ISD II.

In other words, an estimated hundreds. Not thousands.

Right, hundreds of turrets. I should've clarified my meaning.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

As for the thousands - I'm not talking about turrets but individual weapons, hence: "5000 to 64." The ISD II has 64 turbolaser cannon, in eight octuple turrets. If the 5000 weapons are turbolaser cannon and they are similar to ISD II batteries, they probably exist in around 625 turrets.

So you're assuming the reference refers to individaul barrels, instead of individual turrets or arrays?

Well I'm being conservative. And I figure Curtis would estimate appropriate to his previous findings - like the possible hundreds of emplacements. For their to be thousands of emplacements you think the densities observed (even in the shade in the Endor shot) would be obviously much greater.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Which is up for debate. (the SoTE comic and novel suggest Executors do in fact have turrets that are vastly heavier than an ISD's heavy TL.

You mean the "beam strobe" quote from the novel? And I don't recall anything in the comic but a single panel showing beams emiting from the Executor.

Connor MacLeod wrote:As if one could not realize this by looking at ground weaponry, the Death Star, the Eclipse and Sovereign's superlasers, the Errant Venture's superweapon, etc. For that matter, there are certain artillery vehicles whose firepower suggests that the ISD heavy turret is not an upper limit.)

But that makes sense IRL. Siege cannon have always been larger than warship emplacements because its more efficient with weight concerns to get the largest single gun possible for your buck. Also, you're firing it at static targets, so its ok if its ridiculously large and has a poor reaction speed or refire rate. All of these things are not ok in a warship.

Its possible that the Executor has larger weapons - I believe Dr. Saxton noted the presence of protrusions which may be tens of meters long in their own right and thus almost certainly larger than ISD guns - I'm just suggesting that which has been most clearly identified with guns on the Executor is appropriate to the size of the ISD gun, so I used it as a benchmark when direct size scaling seems to be suspect. It also would not necessary be inappropriate with regards to examples IRL.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Nor are Nitram's neccesarily if one factors in an extended recharge rate for guns. Recharge rates longer than a second are not unheard of (again Superlasers, ground based TL weapons.. hell there are ISD models which have TLS that have recharge rates of 2 seconds or more.)

Yes, which is one of the reasons firepower is not synonymous with reactor output.

Connor MacLeod wrote:The EP1 ICS gives statistics for the Droid Control ship, as I recall. Which suggests that it is not *just* a battleship.

There is an image of a typical war freighter, and it looks the same to me - guns and all.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Number of barrels, maybe. But, unless there was some shaking evidence lately, the Superlaser is the same tech as Turbolasers, albeit applied as a longer-duration, composite beam.

Hence turret; all larger weapons have been static emplacements.

Actually, no. Larger weapons do include turrets: The planetary ion cannon from TESB, and some land-space guns mentioned elsewhere. Obviously, their a touch bigger than most TL emplacements on ships, but this shows there's no such restriction on the size of the turret.

If we are going to cast around for some sort of physical limitation to assign this to, it would be the recoil which can be supported in any direction on the vessel's frame. But why not simply assume those are the biggest built to date, and they simply haven't tried any bigger? The ISD-II's heavy turrets are extremely good at their job, so why bother with more outside of 'Special Projects'?

SirNitram wrote:Actually, no. Larger weapons do include turrets: The planetary ion cannon from TESB, and some land-space guns mentioned elsewhere. Obviously, their a touch bigger than most TL emplacements on ships, but this shows there's no such restriction on the size of the turret.

Conceded, but I doubt they have the traversing ability and they certainly like the refire rate that would be desirable in a warship.

SirNitram wrote:If we are going to cast around for some sort of physical limitation to assign this to, it would be the recoil which can be supported in any direction on the vessel's frame. But why not simply assume those are the biggest built to date, and they simply haven't tried any bigger? The ISD-II's heavy turrets are extremely good at their job, so why bother with more outside of 'Special Projects'?

I suspect that some of the reasons that SW warships are baised toward "constellations of smaller emplacements" - as Dr. Saxton put it - is because the smaller individual weapons can probably fire more rapidly and the turrets manuver more quickly. Additionally, due to the dynamics of that wonder known as volley fire, having more actual guns increases long-distance accuracy - which is obviously important with LOS c-propogating weaponry.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Actually, no. Larger weapons do include turrets: The planetary ion cannon from TESB, and some land-space guns mentioned elsewhere. Obviously, their a touch bigger than most TL emplacements on ships, but this shows there's no such restriction on the size of the turret.

Conceded, but I doubt they have the traversing ability and they certainly like the refire rate that would be desirable in a warship.

I don't see why they can have the same traversing ability, they have to hit opponents who can manuever across the whole sky. Besides, we know TL-type beam weapons can fire off-axis even without a turret. The DS2, the DS1 fighter battle(Didn't some of those shots also track?), and so on. Whether it's useful 'in a warship' comes down to the ship. If you could strap a planetary ion cannon onto the nose of a ship which could turn a full three-sixty in a heartbeat, you could devastate other capships, despite having a slowly traversing weapon(Hell, it's accuracy would jump up just by being on a maneuvering platform that can assist it in aiming).

SirNitram wrote:If we are going to cast around for some sort of physical limitation to assign this to, it would be the recoil which can be supported in any direction on the vessel's frame. But why not simply assume those are the biggest built to date, and they simply haven't tried any bigger? The ISD-II's heavy turrets are extremely good at their job, so why bother with more outside of 'Special Projects'?

I suspect that some of the reasons that SW warships are baised toward "constellations of smaller emplacements" - as Dr. Saxton put it - is because the smaller individual weapons can probably fire more rapidly and the turrets manuver more quickly. Additionally, due to the dynamics of that wonder known as volley fire, having more actual guns increases long-distance accuracy - which is obviously important with LOS c-propogating weaponry.

Obviously. Many weapons also helps against shields, as it means you won't 'blow your load' dropping his shields and then have no way to hit the exposed side before it maneuvers away. The benefits of bristling with weapons are myriad(Hell, even basic redundancy advocates it).

SirNitram wrote:I don't see why they can have the same traversing ability, they have to hit opponents who can manuever across the whole sky.

Well the v-150 simply had a cannon sticking out of an armored shell; I don't think the sphere could rotate.

SirNitram wrote:Besides, we know TL-type beam weapons can fire off-axis even without a turret. The DS2, the DS1 fighter battle(Didn't some of those shots also track?), and so on.

I don't know if it is a useful quality; I don't think we've ever seen a turret-mounted gun shoot off-axis. The X-Wing cannons have, and the DS2 superlaser.

I think its a special ability; Mike hypothesized this was one of the key selling points of the DS II, since great yield would be pretty useless.

SirNitram wrote:Whether it's useful 'in a warship' comes down to the ship. If you could strap a planetary ion cannon onto the nose of a ship which could turn a full three-sixty in a heartbeat, you could devastate other capships, despite having a slowly traversing weapon(Hell, it's accuracy would jump up just by being on a maneuvering platform that can assist it in aiming).

That's a big if, though.

SirNitram wrote:Obviously. Many weapons also helps against shields, as it means you won't 'blow your load' dropping his shields and then have no way to hit the exposed side before it maneuvers away. The benefits of bristling with weapons are myriad(Hell, even basic redundancy advocates it).

Indeed; its pretty much a given once you remove the reason we favor fewer heavy guns (they throw heavier shells further which penetrate deeper and carry more explosives). In SW, you can simply equal the yield of a larger cannon by slaving together three or four lesser guns with an equivalent sum and firing them in volleys. Not possible with projectile weaponry: a dozen 5.56 hits aren't worth a single .50 BMG.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:I don't see why they can have the same traversing ability, they have to hit opponents who can manuever across the whole sky.

Well the v-150 simply had a cannon sticking out of an armored shell; I don't think the sphere could rotate.

No disagreement there, but that's just one model(And I think the Guide to Technology had a diagram implying the sphere had limited mobility, but not masses of it.).

SirNitram wrote:Besides, we know TL-type beam weapons can fire off-axis even without a turret. The DS2, the DS1 fighter battle(Didn't some of those shots also track?), and so on.

I don't know if it is a useful quality; I don't think we've ever seen a turret-mounted gun shoot off-axis. The X-Wing cannons have, and the DS2 superlaser.

I think its a special ability; Mike hypothesized this was one of the key selling points of the DS II, since great yield would be pretty useless.

Well, if Mike is right, it clears up your doubt in the first paragraph instantly; those guns with it are favored. This may be yet another reason the Empire wanted the X-wing despite it's TIE fetish.

SirNitram wrote:Whether it's useful 'in a warship' comes down to the ship. If you could strap a planetary ion cannon onto the nose of a ship which could turn a full three-sixty in a heartbeat, you could devastate other capships, despite having a slowly traversing weapon(Hell, it's accuracy would jump up just by being on a maneuvering platform that can assist it in aiming).

That's a big if, though.

Powerplant is the biggest if. Depends on how much that big bugger draws.

SirNitram wrote:Obviously. Many weapons also helps against shields, as it means you won't 'blow your load' dropping his shields and then have no way to hit the exposed side before it maneuvers away. The benefits of bristling with weapons are myriad(Hell, even basic redundancy advocates it).

Indeed; its pretty much a given once you remove the reason we favor fewer heavy guns (they throw heavier shells further which penetrate deeper and carry more explosives). In SW, you can simply equal the yield of a larger cannon by slaving together three or four lesser guns with an equivalent sum and firing them in volleys. Not possible with projectile weaponry: a dozen 5.56 hits aren't worth a single .50 BMG.

Actually, we have good evidence there is a superior penetrator reaching 'Technological maturity': The Superlaser. But shipmounted ones are sufficiently rare that we can safely say this is a relatively new innovation, probably spurned on by the conflict period the movies are set in.

This is all getting terribly off track. Are there any more reliable methods for estimating HTL output besides simply scaling the barrel? Without a third point, I really do detest using WEG scaling in any serious debate.

SirNitram wrote:No disagreement there, but that's just one model(And I think the Guide to Technology had a diagram implying the sphere had limited mobility, but not masses of it.).

My point was perhaps planetary weapons are always intended to protect small incoming vectors, and therefore the v-150 implies that agility is not one of their major issues.

SirNitram wrote:Well, if Mike is right, it clears up your doubt in the first paragraph instantly; those guns with it are favored. This may be yet another reason the Empire wanted the X-wing despite it's TIE fetish.

There's a Decipher card showing a shot of a TIE from Yavin firing about 45 degrees off axis, so there's another example.

You can see Vader's TIE's guns track across the screen while the fighter's view remains still, so that's off-axis movement as well.

SirNitram wrote:Powerplant is the biggest if. Depends on how much that big bugger draws.

There's a limit on mass too; they can only build inertial compensators which can deal with a big enough rig jumping around to a point.

SirNitram wrote:Actually, we have good evidence there is a superior penetrator reaching 'Technological maturity': The Superlaser. But shipmounted ones are sufficiently rare that we can safely say this is a relatively new innovation, probably spurned on by the conflict period the movies are set in.

Meh, the superlaser seems faddish or at least specialized to me. Unless the axial models can fire off-axis, I think its pretty useless except as a siege gun.

SirNitram wrote:This is all getting terribly off track. Are there any more reliable methods for estimating HTL output besides simply scaling the barrel? Without a third point, I really do detest using WEG scaling in any serious debate.

Ender really did figure out the relation pretty close to the mark. He sent me his work via Excel but I don't have Excel/I hate Microsoft so I don't have it on me. The assumptions work enough to divine the rough amount of firepower a given ship can put out (its more like a percentage power to weapons).

The relation was a log-log relationship on reactor volume to power output. I don't remember what the fraction to weapons usually is (and it'd vary depending on the type of warship, too). And that still only narrows it down - because the refire rate is highly important; a 2-second refire rate doubles the wattage of the guns.

*bump*

ironically enough, Ive lost the link for the militarization mentioned in the first post. anyone have it in reach?