Trek Ground combat - phasers

[Rob Wilson]

Probably you would have several hits from Proton torps. Though, I see fighters being shredded pretty easily by those things.

I'm not so sure, they have very weak (in terms of numbers) defence weaponry. A squadron would be able to hit it hard, though ofcourse it's amour would be a mitigating factor. A nasty game of attrition there, which is unnecessary by simply adding some extra heavy blaster quads to it, which would suppliment the Anti-personnel set-up.

[David]

Anyway the TIE crawler was crap and I just hope they can get rid of the idea of it somehow.

I never saw enough of it to know if it was crap or not.

[Rob Wilson]

Anyway the TIE crawler was crap and I just hope they can get rid of the idea of it somehow.

I never saw enough of it to know if it was crap or not.

Take a TIE fighter cockpit, suspend it between two tracks (like those on a WW1 tank, so they are as high as the vehicle and extend both front and back beyond the Cockpit length), add a turreted blaster to the underside and keep the fighter weapons already mounted to the cockpit. All told a complete fuck up of a design.

[Doomriser]

Yeah, but you can place TIE Academy washouts in the pods. (That's official, BTW.)

LOL - TIE washouts!

[Sea Skimmer]

Tank Droid: Humans bleed good... humans bleed reeeeeeal good!

Damn but that reminds me of Mek-quake, or the Warwagons from Robohunter. Unfortuntely that's off-topic here.

Still I wonder what the hell they used to kill Tank Droids? ISD's from orbit?

SPHA-T's would work

[Rob Wilson]

Still I wonder what the hell they used to kill Tank Droids? ISD's from orbit?

SPHA-T's would work

I was wondering if the weapon on the Tank droid might not be that on a SPHA-T, or something like it.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I was wondering if the weapon on the Tank droid might not be that on a SPHA-T, or something like it.

The SWEG to Vehicles says the main gun on the Tank Droid is a 'particle cannon.' So it's probably not the same weapon, or even related to it.

[Rob Wilson]

I was wondering if the weapon on the Tank droid might not be that on a SPHA-T, or something like it.

The SWEG to Vehicles says the main gun on the Tank Droid is a 'particle cannon.' So it's probably not the same weapon, or even related to it.

Ah well, it would be a nice weapon to put on one though.

[Silver]

Not necessarily. The SPHA-T is a weapon from an earlier period of time. It would be logical to conclude that the particle cannon the tank droid is more powerful or more efficient than the beam weapon on the SPHA-T.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Not necessarily. The SPHA-T is a weapon from an earlier period of time. It would be logical to conclude that the particle cannon the tank droid is more powerful or more efficient than the beam weapon on the SPHA-T.

That's not necessarily true. The state of technology in SW is such that there doesn't appear to be much technical advancement from one generation to the next.

[Rob Wilson]

Not necessarily. The SPHA-T is a weapon from an earlier period of time. It would be logical to conclude that the particle cannon the tank droid is more powerful or more efficient than the beam weapon on the SPHA-T.

That's not necessarily true. The state of technology in SW is such that there doesn't appear to be much technical advancement from one generation to the next.

Victory to ISD1, Bigger ship, bigger weapons, more firepower.
ISD 1 to ISD2, bigger weapons more firepower.
DS1 to DS2, Bigger, Bigger Weapon, More Firepower.
AT-TE to AT-AT, Bigger vehicle, More powerful weapons.
TIE Fighter to TIE Interceptor and beyond, more firepower, weaponry and tech.


Why exactly wouldn't the Tank droid have a more powerful weapon than the SPHA-T?

[Robert Treder]

It's not that it wouldn't necessarily have more firepower, but the point is valid that technology doesn't change much over the observed generations of Star Wars. All the examples you've given are not technological innovations, just changes of scale.
And the use of AT-ATs doesn't preclude the use of AT-TEs or similar machines; the AT-AT isn't a successor to the AT-TE, it doesn't make the AT-TE obsolete.

[Pablo Sanchez]

Why exactly wouldn't the Tank droid have a more powerful weapon than the SPHA-T?

All the stuff you site are design refinements, not genuine leaps in technology. The ISD-II has more weapons than the first model, not more powerful weapons. There's the added fact that SPHA-Ts are dedicated fire support, while Tank Droids are essentially similar to our modern day MBT (scaled up in every way, though).

And I didn't say he was wrong, I just said that it wasn't necessarily true.

[Rob Wilson]

It's not that it wouldn't necessarily have more firepower, but the point is valid that technology doesn't change much over the observed generations of Star Wars. All the examples you've given are not technological innovations, just changes of scale.
And the use of AT-ATs doesn't preclude the use of AT-TEs or similar machines; the AT-AT isn't a successor to the AT-TE, it doesn't make the AT-TE obsolete.

True about the AT-TE it' why I left it til last, but take a look at the ISD1 and ISD2 compared to the Victory. More tech, more advanced tech and improvements in Armaments, propulsion, sensors, armour. It's a complete move beyond anything the Victory could hope to be.

TIE Fighter to Interceptor shows a similar increase in Weapons (same size main body but it supports 5 times the guns and they all still have the same power per barrel) , plus it manages to be faster despite having more mass so it's propulsion was upgraded. And the Move to Defender was another increase in tech.

They do improve and it can be seen as such.

[Doomriser]

Why exactly wouldn't the Tank droid have a more powerful weapon than the SPHA-T?

Pound for pound, wouldn't a mobile artillery platform have more firepower than a tank? OTOH the Tank droid is probably huge compared even to the SPHA-T.

[Rob Wilson]

Why exactly wouldn't the Tank droid have a more powerful weapon than the SPHA-T?

Pound for pound, wouldn't a mobile artillery platform have more firepower than a tank? OTOH the Tank droid is probably huge compared even to the SPHA-T.

Sizes tend to vary depending on where you go, from 30+m to 70+m. It could easily accommodate the SHPA-T main weapon regardless of which of the scales you use.

Mind you I think this thread may be going seriously off-topic here.

[Mr Bean]

Last time I checked we did not have a STAY ON TOPIC OR DIE forum anywhere

[Nobody]

Which is probably a good thing...

[Robert Treder]

The change between Victory-class and Imperator-class doesn't necessarily indicate a leap in technology. The Victory destroyers reflect the era in which they were constructed...the Republic was more peaceful and in general less militarily-minded, so it's no wonder they opted to produce destroyers that were not as powerful as they could be...but they were cheaper, and got the job done.
When Palpatine forms the Empire, the likelihood of major deep space naval warfare increased, as rebel factions with considerable financial backing were springing up. The government therefore contracted more powerful destroyers, to help secure its space superiority.

Because the political climate of the Empire was conducive to the construction of powerful destroyers does not mean that the Republic could not also have constructed them.
Also, just because we've never been shown them doesn't mean that the local forces of wealthy sectors did not have destroyers on par with Imperators, or even destroyers that were better than ISDs. The AOTC Incredible Cross Sections makes reference to large KDY designs such as the Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser (p.23), which would presumably be greater in size and power than an ISD.

The observed technological change in Star Wars can be attributed to changes in political climate and in fashion more than to genuine technological advances. Or, as the AOTC ICS puts it, "In over 25,000 years since the exploitation of hyperdrive technology finally united the galaxy, the basic attributes of starflight have remained constant...Artistic expression and raw practicality have long been the sole ideals of vehicle design." (p.3), and "The return of truly trans-galactic warships and armies is an ominous innovation." (p.23)

[Rob Wilson]

The change between Victory-class and Imperator-class doesn't necessarily indicate a leap in technology. The Victory destroyers reflect the era in which they were constructed...the Republic was more peaceful and in general less militarily-minded, so it's no wonder they opted to produce destroyers that were not as powerful as they could be...but they were cheaper, and got the job done.

They were produced after AOTC I believe by Palpatine as part of the Military Build up he needed to set the Empire in Motion.

When Palpatine forms the Empire, the likelihood of major deep space naval warfare increased, as rebel factions with considerable financial backing were springing up. The government therefore contracted more powerful destroyers, to help secure its space superiority.

They needed ISD's to deal with Corvette's??

Seriously though, the ISD is Technologically better than the Victory and a completely overhauled design and technology application as it has better engines, sensors and Weaponry, it's like saying the Iwoha is just an upgrade of the Monitor.

Because the political climate of the Empire was conducive to the construction of powerful destroyers does not mean that the Republic could not also have constructed them.

It also does not mean that they could have. There has been a steady progression of Tech seen in the films From ISD1 to ISD2 with it's improved Sensors, increased firepower and better, redesigned engines.

Also, just because we've never been shown them doesn't mean that the local forces of wealthy sectors did not have destroyers on par with Imperators, or even destroyers that were better than ISDs.

And because we didn't see them maybe they also had Giant Mechanical Pelican called Arnold that could eat whole star systems. You can use a lack of something as proof it exists.

The AOTC Incredible Cross Sections makes reference to large KDY designs such as the Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser (p.23), which would presumably be greater in size and power than an ISD.

Or it could be referencing a ship that was smaller and less powerful becuase it was built 20 years before the ISD's. This isn't proof, it's a demonstration of a lack of proof and pure speculation.

The observed technological change in Star Wars can be attributed to changes in political climate and in fashion more than to genuine technological advances.

Except they are genuine technical advances seen in the timeframe of the films, Or how else did Vaders protoype come about, how come the Interceptor had more speed, weapons and sensors than the old TIE inside the same size bodyshell? All this inside the timeframe of the three movies and not a political change to explain them.

Why were Luke complaining about the New Landspeeder that had just come out if it wasn't more advanced than his own? There is technological growth in the SW universe.

Or, as the AOTC ICS puts it, "In over 25,000 years since the exploitation of hyperdrive technology finally united the galaxy, the basic attributes of starflight have remained constant...Artistic expression and raw practicality have long been the sole ideals of vehicle design." (p.3), and "The return of truly trans-galactic warships and armies is an ominous innovation." (p.23)

If it was no real improvements in technology then why was there a need for the ISD2? Surely the ISD1 would have all the relevant tech in it and would not need upgrading or improving in anyway. They'd have got all the tech in there first go, and that would be that. However there were tech improvements, so unless you can give solid proof that the ISD1 and " have the same tech and Engines and Senors and Weapons with no upgrades and improvements, just cosmetic changes I'm afraid your arguement doesn't hold water.

[Cpt_Frank]

In SW, there is no real technological advancement anymore.
Everything is invented, the only thing you need to do is have designers combine the stuff in a manner which fits the purpose.
The VicStar is smaller and features less powerful armament than an ISD, but it can enter planetary atmosphere to land and support ground troops while still being a decent ship for space combat.
The ISD I, with its super heavy guns, is a capship killer and nothing else.
The ISD II features more anti-starfighter weaponry to counter the snubfighter thread.
So, none of these ships is actually 'better' than the other, they just fullfill different duties.

[Robert Treder]

When Palpatine forms the Empire, the likelihood of major deep space naval warfare increased, as rebel factions with considerable financial backing were springing up. The government therefore contracted more powerful destroyers, to help secure its space superiority.

They needed ISD's to deal with Corvette's??

You tell me...did they make ISDs to deal with Corvettes? I don't know, but they sure as hell used them against Corvettes. Did they need them against Corvettes? Probably not. I never said they needed them. I said that the likelihood of major deep space naval warfare increased, which is true, and that rebel factions with considerable financial backing were springing up, which was true, and that the goverment contracted more powerful destroyers, which is obviously true, since that's what we're debating.

Because the political climate of the Empire was conducive to the construction of powerful destroyers does not mean that the Republic could not also have constructed them.

It also does not mean that they could have.

Maybe you're right, but there isn't any evidence either way. I guess we'll never know, so let's not go and say either way.

Also, just because we've never been shown them doesn't mean that the local forces of wealthy sectors did not have destroyers on par with Imperators, or even destroyers that were better than ISDs.

And because we didn't see them maybe they also had Giant Mechanical Pelican called Arnold that could eat whole star systems. You can use a lack of something as proof it exists.

That's not quite the same thing. We know that in Star Wars, they have constructed many types of destroyers, so the existence of more types is not out of the question. We do not know that in Star Wars, they have constructed Arnold, and that is why it is preposterous to propose his existence.
I understand what you're getting at, but I never said that they did build those destroyers.

The AOTC Incredible Cross Sections makes reference to large KDY designs such as the Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser (p.23), which would presumably be greater in size and power than an ISD.

Or it could be referencing a ship that was smaller and less powerful becuase it was built 20 years before the ISD's. This isn't proof, it's a demonstration of a lack of proof and pure speculation.

No, it could not be referencing a ship that was smaller and less powerful than an ISD. It is termed a "battlecruiser," and it is therefore by definition larger and more powerful than a "destroyer." If you want to throw all the terminology out the window, go ahead, but you'll have a hell of a hard time getting people to accept your new interpretation of the English language.

The observed technological change in Star Wars can be attributed to changes in political climate and in fashion more than to genuine technological advances.

Except they are genuine technical advances seen in the timeframe of the films, Or how else did Vaders protoype come about, how come the Interceptor had more speed, weapons and sensors than the old TIE inside the same size bodyshell? All this inside the timeframe of the three movies and not a political change to explain them.

Why were Luke complaining about the New Landspeeder that had just come out if it wasn't more advanced than his own? There is technological growth in the SW universe.

As for the TIE improvements, they may be like I described the destroyer improvements...it's not that they couldn't make them previously, it's that they didn't want to commit that kind of money. The appearance of better craft doesn't necessarily indicate an increase in technological knowledge, only an increase in technological application.
The new landspeeder may or may not have been more technologically advanced than Luke's...on the one hand, take a look at a 199x Toyota Corolla and a 199(x+1) Toyota Corolla. Chances are there are no real technological improvements between the two...sure, maybe improvements of technological application, but no real innovations. But, ceteris paribus, the 199(x+1) Corolla will still demand more money at a used car lot, right? And on the other hand, even if there was a technological improvement between the two speeders, that doesn't necessarily indicate an improvement in technological knowledge...it could be merely an application of existing technology that was not previously a feature of the product line. Maybe I didn't make the difference between application and innovation clear in my earlier post; if so, I apologize.

[Patrick Ogaard]

Another thing to consider regarding the technology available in the Galactic Republic or Empire is that the ability to apply a given technology in a given engineering role can change over time. Two real world examples with military applications follow:

Casting brass and bronze is a relatively trivial engineering task. Producing large castings, like church bells, is left to specialist firms, however. Neither the manufacturers of mass-produced small castings nor the specialized producers of large church bells can currently cast cannon of brass or bronze that were within the capabilities of Renaissance bell founders almost a half-millenium ago. No one had a need for the techniques, and so the techniques were lost over the course of centuries. Successful rediscovery of those techniques would be possible, but no one seems to consider it worthwhile to invest the money necessary to do the research.

The 16-inch guns of the Iowa-class battleships are impressive weapons, weapons we can't make any more of. The necessary steel mills, techniques and facilities simply do not exist. Aside from a few big gun enthusiasts, no one has considered battleship-grade cannon to be something worth producing in a good fifty years, and so the necessary facilities and specialized know-how have disappeared. Now it would likely take a multi-billion dollar redevelopment program to reconstruct those facilities.

I suspect that the Galactic Republic and Empire found themselves in a similar situation: go with what existing engineering facilities can produce quickly and cheaply, or invest the same time and money in trying to recover the ability to produce something theoretically superior farther down the road?

A similar quandary is faced by the developers of modern military hardware. As an example, the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle was originally produced with rather modest armor protection (to save costs) and specialized integrated firing port weapons (to inflate the costs again). Models delivered to other nations' militaries were usually produced with upgraded armor protection and other protection systems, since those smaller militaries considered preventing the loss of a vehicle and crew to be worth the added expense. Later combat experience during Desert Storm convince the US Army to considerably upgrade the armor protection. Every nice-to-have added feature adds to the cost of the system, and the situation determines what features are considered worth including.

[Mr Bean]

Then agian modern day Engineers don't have to worry about the fact that a certain black cloacked figure will come and kill them if they are too slow

And for most of Star Wars everything used by BOTH sides seems to follow the, You get what you pay for idea, unlike say todays thinking of you get what you under budgeted for us because you wasted the money in doing triplict style testing :\

[Patrick Ogaard]

True enough: basically, to paraphrase Darth Wong, it's a matter of political and economic will.

If his Imperial Majesty wishes five moons to orbit Coruscant, one frosted with lemon meringue, one with a nougat core, one made entirely of chrome-plated teddy bears, one made of self-sealing stembolts, and one composed entirely of neutronium, who will say no? Certainly no one attached to breathing would say no.