What is the Worst act of minimalism?

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-11-05 02:58am

What is more ludicrous:
1) the Ridicolously under armed and staffed Deathstar1

Scattered across the Death Star's surface were thousands of weapons emplacements: a total of 10,000 turbolaser batteries, 2,500 laser cannons, 2,500 ion cannons and 768 tractor beam projectors. The station carried a crew of 265,675, plus 52,276 gunners, 607,360 troops, 25,984 stormtroopers, 42,782 ship support staff, and 167,216 pilots and support crew. The station also carried 7,200 starfighters, four strike cruisers, 3,600 assault shuttles, 1,400 AT-ATs, 1,400 AT-STs, 1,860 drop ships, and more.

2) the Clonetrooper nembers that have then so low that they couldn't staff the ships at the battle of Coruscant and would have to control every world in the republic/war with 1-3 troopers each against quadrillions of droids.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-11-05 03:15am

KJA claiming that the construction of the Executor nearly bankrupted the Empire. What an idiot; doesn't it occur to him to ask how the fuck they built two Death Stars?

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-11-05 03:28am

Darth Wong wrote:KJA claiming that the construction of the Executor nearly bankrupted the Empire. What an idiot; doesn't it occur to him to ask how the fuck they built two Death Stars?

I thought of that, but it's far more mutable than the other statements, it could easily be rationalized as a metaphor (Such as Tarkins "No power in the known universe can resist this battle station" quote).

We also have the counter-argument/example of one of many imperial remnant warlords (Kratos) building a SSD on his own, and the NR has multiple Defender class ships that are more powerful and expensive than SSDs just for the defense for Coruscant.
In short the Executor quote is easily rationalized as hyperbole, while the population of the deathstar being too low even if they could merely inhabit the surface rather than having a 3-d space to populate is "set in stone" in the databank.

Invictus ChiKen · Post by **Invictus ChiKen** » 2005-11-05 03:45am

I think the one I hated most was this one line in I believe it was Courtship of Princess Leia or Black Fleet Crisis. Where they commented about how a Star Destroyer is always on the verge of falling apart and is VERY poorly deisgned.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-11-05 03:53am

DEATH wrote:I thought of that, but it's far more mutable than the other statements, it could easily be rationalized as a metaphor (Such as Tarkins "No power in the known universe can resist this battle station" quote).

Nitpick: that was Motti, and he actually said "This station is now the ultimate power in the universe."

And I agree with Mike; the notion of constructing Executor bankrupting the Empire is the most hideous example of minimalism ever.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-11-05 05:08am

I'd say the "total clone number = 3 million" is by far the worst. Most other bullshit can be easily explained away but this is too much. And contradicts most other sources, which makes it all the more grating.

Not that the Executor-quote isn't bad enough...

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-11-05 07:48am

KJA's bit. It made no fucking sense how many they have in the EU, how the fuck does the Emperor with a SMALLER Empire create a LARGER captial ship, and then there is the final nail of the Death Stars.

I could take the 3 million Clones because we can come up with some silly, other troops aren't clones, and 1 million for the DS is just the minimal crew for the DS...but giving a bizarre economic thought to the Executor is far more stupid.

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2005-11-05 09:40am

Invictus ChiKen wrote:I think the one I hated most was this one line in I believe it was Courtship of Princess Leia or Black Fleet Crisis. Where they commented about how a Star Destroyer is always on the verge of falling apart and is VERY poorly deisgned.

It makes sense if you view the books as Rebel/Republic propoganda. They'd want to make the Empire/Remnant look too incompotent to even take care of their ships, and an unsurprising reluctance from Republic people to use the technology of their enemies could unconsciously contribute to the "poorly designed" classification.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-11-05 10:44am

Invictus ChiKen wrote:I think the one I hated most was this one line in I believe it was Courtship of Princess Leia or Black Fleet Crisis. Where they commented about how a Star Destroyer is always on the verge of falling apart and is VERY poorly deisgned.

That's not really minimalism, that's just an attack on the ISD design. And well, the ISD is a very poor design, compared to say, the Munificent. Look at the placement of its heavy guns for Christ's sake!

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-11-05 11:02am

NecronLord wrote: That's not really minimalism, that's just an attack on the ISD design. And well, the ISD is a very poor design, compared to say, the Munificent. Look at the placement of its heavy guns for Christ's sake!

The Munificent? It's heavist gun is mounted at the front, and it has only one of them. Hardly a sterling design, I like the KDY style much better. There's nothing wrong with the placement of the ISD's guns, unless you feel that the ISD should have unlimited HTL firing arcs along every angle for some reason.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-11-05 11:09am

I'd say the "total clone number = 3 million" is by far the worst. Most other bullshit can be easily explained away but this is too much. And contradicts most other sources, which makes it all the more grating.

Technically, the 3 Million number is not canonical, so it doesn't bother me (Traviss and Kuafman admitted that no solid number has ever been given for the GARs size.)

For me, the most dire instances of minimalism are the various depicted fleet engagements, especially during parts of the NJO, where fleets of less than a dozen captial ships are considered major task forces. The Executor quote, the DS numbers, these can be rationalized, but fleet numbers so small are hard to reconcile, even with depictions given a few books before.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-11-05 11:16am

Vympel wrote:The Munificent? It's heavist gun is mounted at the front, and it has only one of them. Hardly a sterling design, I like the KDY style much better. There's nothing wrong with the placement of the ISD's guns, unless you feel that the ISD should have unlimited HTL firing arcs along every angle for some reason.

Well, one has to admit that it'd be better (of course, barring unknowable technical problems) to have put the guns along the dorsal centerline, and space them out a bit so they can superfire each other without having the ship dip.

The fact that they were still building ISD-IIs in Bilbringi all the way in Star by Star suggests that ISDs overall don't suck that bad.

vakundok · Post by **vakundok** » 2005-11-05 11:56am

TESB novelisation labelling the Executor + five ISDs as being the largest and the most awesome power in the galaxy.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2005-11-05 12:43pm

The BFC should certainly get an honorable mention for the sheer number of examples. A NR of ony 10,000 systems with a navy of only 500 ships, Curuscant with natural forests and coastlines, and a single species with only a dozen planets being a significant threat to Galactic stability.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2005-11-05 12:55pm

What's the BFC?
NR minimalism really is painful especially considering how consistant and ludicrous it is (4 imp stars being able to cause damage to the NR when used by someone who's decades behind the times

)

Bounty · Post by **Bounty** » 2005-11-05 01:07pm

What's the BFC?

Black Fleet Crisis, I think.

Edward Yee · Post by **Edward Yee** » 2005-11-05 01:07pm

Civil War Man wrote:It makes sense if you view the books as Rebel/Republic propoganda. They'd want to make the Empire/Remnant look too incompotent to even take care of their ships, and an unsurprising reluctance from Republic people to use the technology of their enemies could unconsciously contribute to the "poorly designed" classification.

Where's the "source" and "validity" of viewing the books as Rebel/Republic propaganda while viewing only the movies -- if even them -- as factual?

B.t.w., it seems that the usual sources (i.e. Star Wars Wiki) do accept that the New Republic did essentially make political decisions in the designs of its capital ships. I don't know if the "six months" duration is one or not, or if it simply breaks suspension of disbelief... but if the New Republic was that bent on not looking like the Empire, all bets are off!

Civil War Man · Post by **Civil War Man** » 2005-11-05 01:41pm

Edward Yee wrote:
Civil War Man wrote:It makes sense if you view the books as Rebel/Republic propoganda. They'd want to make the Empire/Remnant look too incompotent to even take care of their ships, and an unsurprising reluctance from Republic people to use the technology of their enemies could unconsciously contribute to the "poorly designed" classification.
Where's the "source" and "validity" of viewing the books as Rebel/Republic propaganda while viewing only the movies -- if even them -- as factual?

IIRC, the propoganda argument is usually used during debates using SOD where there are factual inconsistencies between the books and movies. For example, someone mentioned BFC where Coruscant was described as having natural coastlines and forests, where the movies clearly showed this not to be the case. Obviously due to Lucas canon policy, the movies take precedence. To explain the inconsistency without breaking SOD, it is usually argued that the BFC story was "written" by an in-universe author some time after the fact, but due to either mistakes or fabrication, got the contradictory part wrong.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2005-11-05 02:07pm

Vympel wrote:The Munificent? It's heavist gun is mounted at the front, and it has only one of them. Hardly a sterling design, I like the KDY style much better. There's nothing wrong with the placement of the ISD's guns, unless you feel that the ISD should have unlimited HTL firing arcs along every angle for some reason.

It would be nice to be able to fire more than one quarter of the ISD's heavy weapons in the direction of travel, no? The Munificent, and for that mattter, the Recursant has the nice characteristic of being able to shoot the thing they're headed towards with most of their firepower.

The ISD isn't quite as bad as the Venator, which appears to be completely unable to shoot a target it's travelling towards with its main guns. The 'broadside' style of gun placement on Republican and Imperial Ships strikes me as insane. They'd never get used as intended except in a total scrum like the Battle of Coruscant. Look at Endor, where the Star Destroyers only get to fire off a single HTL bolt on screen!

A better placement, in my opinion, would be that of this fanship/Venator prototype, but a little more pronounced. So that the turrets form a V shape, pointing towards the enemy. This would at least allow the main guns to be pivoted forwards while accellerating towards an enemy, in order to shoot it.

EDIT: Also, if we use Dr. Saxton's supposition that the blisters on the SSD model represent HTLs (under gun-hatches of some sort?) then it has a vastly superior layout for shooting things in the direction of travel.

Example

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2005-11-05 04:52pm

The size of the NR in BFC can be explained by the smack-down the NR recieved during Shadowhand as well as the "re-decoration" of a vastly destroyed and depopulated Coruscant after DE.

If you look for minimalism you can't ignore Stackpoles X-Wing-novels: There you have a Carrack and a Lancer as the sole ships in a sector, a planetary garrison having only 24 TIEs (prefabricated garrisons have 40) and a major strategic position like Borleias consisting of nothing more, but already mentioned garrison.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-11-05 06:51pm

NecronLord wrote:-snip-

The Imperator Class Star Destroyer is designed to fire it's guns 'upwards' in the same the direction the conning tower is jutting out to. If a Star Destroyer wishes to approach a target while still firing all its guns at it it will do so in a manner that would look like this from the target's viewpoint. This also makes it easier to undertake evasive manouvers while still pointing the guns at the target, something that is kind of hard to do if all your guns have a forward arc.

There is also a picture, which I now can't find, of a Star Destroyer seen from the front (the Millenium Falcon is at the forground). However, I can't find it. That picture shows that the Destroyer can point a lot of its guns forwards.

I do agree that the Star Destroyer could be better designed, starting by making the heavy batteris take advantage of the wedge shape. They're supposed to be in staggered so they all can fire forwards at the same time rather than only two batteries being able to do so.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-11-05 07:03pm

You mean this one, the main page of this very website?

Edit: I woudn't think so, since you can't even see any of its HTLs.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-11-05 07:04pm

No, it's an image where you see the Star Destroyer with it's nose pointed directly at your face, so to speak. You can also draw a vertical line of symmetry right down the middle of the Destroyer.

Ypoknons · Post by **Ypoknons** » 2005-11-05 07:47pm

Of peripheral interest is the quote in Vision of The Future by a Rebel operative that than an ISD is 100,000 design flaws waiting to be exploited. Obviously in a 1km long ship there are design flaws, especially for the operative, for whom a design flaw could just be elevators can jammed using wrench, stopping a turbolift shaft or some other thing that isn't important to the ship's operating ability.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-11-05 07:58pm

NecronLord wrote: It would be nice to be able to fire more than one quarter of the ISD's heavy weapons in the direction of travel, no?

Why? It was never done in naval combat (with guns anyway) for a reason- you arrange your firepower in broadside fashion, you can deliver more firepower to the target than head on, while retaining the flexibility to defend yourself from other threats that might appear during the engagement. The direction of travel doesn't really matter- what tactical advantage does it afford? If an ISD wanted to do so, it could merely point its nose slightly downward and point all guns forward. It's space, it doesn't matter where it's pointed, no?

The Munificent, and for that mattter, the Recursant has the nice characteristic of being able to shoot the thing they're headed towards with most of their firepower.

Most of their firepower however is unfortunately not much.

The ISD isn't quite as bad as the Venator, which appears to be completely unable to shoot a target it's travelling towards with its main guns.

Sure it is- it's heavy guns have freedom of swivel forward- more so than the ISD2, actually.

The 'broadside' style of gun placement on Republican and Imperial Ships strikes me as insane. They'd never get used as intended except in a total scrum like the Battle of Coruscant. Look at Endor, where the Star Destroyers only get to fire off a single HTL bolt on screen!

We see hardly capital ship combat at Endor to speak of- you've got basically the HTL firing ISD before it explodes, a Mon Cal firing at another ISD visible from Executor's window (one measly bolt), and of course Executor and the frigate. Endor is hardly a good example since we see so little of the battle compared to the novelization's account. Endor and Coruscant were both scrums, the difference is that the focus is a lot more on capital ships.