StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well, at one point authors will finally understand what the Death Star meant in terms of firepower, regardless of their infamous lack of sense of scale, in regard to any other vessel.
I mean it's basic logic: somehow a 100 km ball can oneshot a 10000 km planet, what's the reason a 1 km starship can't do the same to a 100 km rock?
Even if one is an oversized superweapon you have to consider there will be a middle ground somewhere: is it 10 km, 50 km?
That's one reason I'm waiting to see what the new Dreadnought can do, I really hope they don't disappoint on this front.
The Supremacy is big but unless it surprises us with a hidden weapon (big gun below the prow?) I'm only expecting several common weapons and nothing else of note, very good shields maybe? Honestly it's size alone should give it the best defence.

As for Legends, I'm pretty sure the Eclipse and similar were said to crack planet cores (whatever the heck that means) or continents... in other terms they would resemble what the Death Star did to Jedha or Scarif, if not more.

Btw interesting note: whatever's the lowest setting of the Death Star Superlaser if it's the same used against rebel cruisers in ep.6 then we could compare that to the effects on Jedha and obtain a minimum yield that they they can't repel at once, sources would be films canon alone too!
Obviously they could still be shot with less power, but I'm more interested on the consequences as a whole:
if the blast is a petaton and can oneshot a destroyer sized vessel then I won't expect capital ships to exchange fire in that range, with teratons for each big gun, because they'd l be killing each other in no time. Maybe a whole volley could near that, but they would still look more like glass cannons than what's portrayed on screen. From then on you can go as low as you want, higher if the 1 petaton figure is too low (that could very well be, I got definitely bigger figures from Jedha blast with some quick scaling).

They couldn't have just called it Supremacy-Class? Mega-Class is something a six year old would proudly proclaim as his newest lego creation.

I actually like the shape of it though, but sweet Jesus...60km. There's just no reason for it to be that massive.

Actually it being not only a docking port but repair and manufacturing facility for Star Destroyer size vessels kinda does

Batman wrote: ↑2017-09-04 07:29pmActually it being not only a docking port but repair and manufacturing facility for Star Destroyer size vessels kinda does

This.

Besides, for all we know it could be Snoke's permanent command ship from which he rules the First Order. Maybe the FO is like the ID4 aliens and are more nomadic, going from planet to planet and strip mining them for resources with which to build their war machine instead of playing Empire-Lite and trying to govern a paltry sliver of the galaxy.

You know, I'm smart enough to know "Can we sell it as a toy" has been a consideration on some level since at least ROTJ. But I think this is the first time it felt this blatant. Like even in the prequels it didn't seem like a named cash grab on this level. All the different droids in AotC is probably the closest I can think of to this, and even then, the focus was very clearly on a distinct art direction, with the Battle of Geonosis being the culmination of an intense visual metaphor built over the course of the film. Here these things just feel like "yeah, we can sell some shit" and from what has leaked so far, that's all it is (eg Snoke's Honor Guard and the individualized weapons/armor or the new star destroyers)

I guess we will see. But I'm getting a "naked cashgrab" vibe from this just like I did TFA, or lady ghostbusters, or lethal weapon being a tv series. Bay's Transformers movies have more artistic integrity than that.

Ender wrote: ↑2017-09-05 12:12am You know, I'm smart enough to know "Can we sell it as a toy" has been a consideration on some level since at least ROTJ. But I think this is the first time it felt this blatant. Like even in the prequels it didn't seem like a named cash grab on this level. All the different droids in AotC is probably the closest I can think of to this, and even then, the focus was very clearly on a distinct art direction, with the Battle of Geonosis being the culmination of an intense visual metaphor built over the course of the film. Here these things just feel like "yeah, we can sell some shit" and from what has leaked so far, that's all it is (eg Snoke's Honor Guard and the individualized weapons/armor or the new star destroyers)

I guess we will see. But I'm getting a "naked cashgrab" vibe from this just like I did TFA, or lady ghostbusters, or lethal weapon being a tv series. Bay's Transformers movies have more artistic integrity than that.

I think part of the problem is that sequel trilogy has shackled itself too heavily to replicating the visual look and basic story elements for the orginal trilogy. So they have to have similar looking things on the similar side and the "good guys" side has to be the plucky underdog, so you got them being "different" in places that doesn't deviate too much from this formula, hence the "it's only to sell toys" looking designs.

Say what you will about the prequel trilogy at least they were clearly different from the OT for example having the traditionally "bad guy" icography be the look for the republic side who were at least in theory the good guys.

SAAA wrote: ↑2017-09-04 04:06pm I mean it's basic logic: somehow a 100 km ball can oneshot a 10000 km planet, what's the reason a 1 km starship can't do the same to a 100 km rock?

Neither factor scales linearly. Power scales by volume of reactor, so the cube of size assuming same shape and relative volume taken up, while gravitational potential energy scales by (radius of the rock)^5 for uniform density.

Lord Revan wrote: ↑2017-09-05 01:41am Say what you will about the prequel trilogy at least they were clearly different from the OT for example having the traditionally "bad guy" icography be the look for the republic side who were at least in theory the good guys.

In terms of art direction, the prequels TRIED. The sequels so far seem to have the worst of both worlds - they can't deviate too much from the basic world/story pattern, but they've screwed up generally changing the visual aesthetics (at least for TLJ - I think TFA was fine for this).

It wouldn't be so bad if they'd show us these new designs within some sort of familiar context.

For example, when the Executor was first introduced to us in TESB, it was surrounded by the ISDs that we'd already seen in the previous movie. Hell, even the original Death Star was introduced to us only after we'd been given a general idea of the ISD's size in the opening scenes of ANH, which really helped us to realize just how huge it was.

Unfortunately, the Finalizer was not introduced to us in that way. If it had been accompanied by one or two older ISDs, I think it would have been received in a more positive way. I sure hope TLJ goes with the ANH and TESB method and introduces the Supremacy to us amongst a fleet of ISDs. I guarantee that it would be accepted more like a sugar cube and less like a suppository.

Joe Momma wrote: ↑2017-09-03 08:07pm

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-09-03 11:32am The SSD length isn't what I was contesting. That's minor trivia either way, compared to the absurdity of any ship that is less than tens or hundreds of kilometres in length being a major expenditure for a civilization that built multiple death stars.

IIRC, that was from Darksaber. Admiral Pellaeon was amazed that Admiral Daala had a Super Star Destroyer because the construction of the Executor had supposedly almost bankrupted the Empire (yes, that was the actual wording used). As you note, that's pretty ridiculous for a government that can construct Death Stars. It also flies in the face of Han off-handedly noting there are a lot of command ships when Luke is concerned that the SSD at Endor is Vader's, which suggests that vessels that size are not uncommon, at least in the Imperial fleet.

So old EU, and hence thankfully non-canon, unless some unspeakable idiot has reintroduced it.

What I'm wondering (I'm afraid to find out the answer) is weather this idiocy has any backing in the current continuity.

Not that I've seen and I'm sure the Wookieepedia would say so if it did.

fractalsponge1 wrote: ↑2017-09-05 10:23am

SAAA wrote: ↑2017-09-04 04:06pm I mean it's basic logic: somehow a 100 km ball can oneshot a 10000 km planet, what's the reason a 1 km starship can't do the same to a 100 km rock?

Neither factor scales linearly. Power scales by volume of reactor, so the cube of size assuming same shape and relative volume taken up, while gravitational potential energy scales by (radius of the rock)^5 for uniform density.

Well, that just makes things worst doesn't it? An earth-like planet (12700km) has binding energy in the 10^32J range, a 127km asteroid would fall short of 10^22J (they usually have lower density)... 10 orders of magnitude less for a hundredth the radius means the destroyer job is even easier doing the actual math.
So my point still stand, yes I know the Death Star is a sphere so it has greater volume if scaled down to 1.6km than a Star Destroyer of the same length, but that's peanuts compared to the difference in energy involved.

Yet I'm sure if you asked around any random guy would probably argue against starships that can vaporize such asteroids in Star Wars, probably the linear comparison could change most people's mind (because they are more used to figure out lengths than volumes) meanwhile the correct approach only reinforces the argument.
Unfortunately canon showings don't help much here, the films make Star Destroyers look not much better than WW2 battleships scaled up as firepower goes, while as usual the best feats are written ones.

Pushing math aside I don't really get this: why would any director miss the chance of having even bigger explosions and such on screen? At times I think Michael Bay would make for more realistic space battles if he'll ever direct any...

Galvatron wrote: ↑2017-09-05 12:25pm It wouldn't be so bad if they'd show us these new designs within some sort of familiar context.

For example, when the Executor was first introduced to us in TESB, it was surrounded by the ISDs that we'd already seen in the previous movie. Hell, even the original Death Star was introduced to us only after we'd been given a general idea of the ISD's size in the opening scenes of ANH, which really helped us to realize just how huge it was.

Unfortunately, the Finalizer was not introduced to us in that way. If it had been accompanied by one or two older ISDs, I think it would have been received in a more positive way. I sure hope TLJ goes with the ANH and TESB method and introduces the Supremacy to us amongst a fleet of ISDs. I guarantee that it would be accepted more like a sugar cube and less like a suppository.

That's true: when seeing TFA for the first time there was really no clue on the Finalizer size except when they flew right past the turret on the Tie, there you vaguely got the idea it was big. How big exactly was only told later and it surprised me a bit, I didn't figure at all it was almost twice an old destroyer.
Honestly TFA as a whole was a big disappointment in space based aspect, they focused way more on (new) characters and story, TLJ will probably change this with the right mix of people and scenery.

About the resources argument... anyone who speaks of bankrupting a galaxy spanning empire with a single dozen km ship surely has less common sense than I'd ever imagined. All the ships ever shown in star wars, including the future ones in ep.9 unless they go crazy, amount to a fraction in cost/resources of the Death Star alone.

I have no dog in the versus fights, but I've speculated before that Star Wars lasers are less powerful within a planetary atmosphere than they are in space.

I don't think not conveying the scale of the Finalizer made it look worse in the movie. I mean, is it really important if its 2 or 3km long, what does it change? The problem is that Abrams and company must have done an extensive research to find the absolutely worst camera angles to present it... it's a neat design and I don't think it's possible to make it look bad without actively trying.

I have no dog in the versus fights, but I've speculated before that Star Wars lasers are less powerful within a planetary atmosphere than they are in space.

With regards to your post on the thread you linked to. Its pretty clear from the episode that Thrawn had his weapons on lower power considering that Tarkin had ordered Thrawn to take prisoner's.

And the novel? That was the main source of my speculation.

Ah I see I'll have to look that part up again.

Galvatron wrote: ↑2017-09-06 03:20pm I have no dog in the versus fights, but I've speculated before that Star Wars lasers are less powerful within a planetary atmosphere than they are in space.

Honestly, my approach to the vs. debate tends to be towards playing devil's advocate for the weaker side as much as I can short of outright dishonesty, because I find the debate itself more interesting than winning it, and Trek vs. Wars got so lopsided it ceased to be very entertaining.

And yeah, I can see the lasers being weaker in atmosphere, to a point.

To the point that light turbolasers aren't capable of causing Jedha City levels of destruction?

Galvatron wrote: ↑2017-09-10 04:48pm To the point that light turbolasers aren't capable of causing Jedha City levels of destruction?

Well, it would provide an explanation for why we don't see such effects from orbital bombardment in canon, although the "lower firepower to take prisoners" explanation could work too, depending on the specific circumstances.

Though of course the existence of the Base Delta Zero (confirmed to exist in the new canon, at least in passing, on Rebels) would obviously indicate that their are capital ship heavy-turbo lasers capable of doing so.

But yeah, I do think its a bit silly to say that an ISDs light guns can do that level of damage. The big guns, sure, but they would presumably want their lighter batteries to be useful for more precision bombardment, and I'm skeptical about them being able to "dial down" a multi-gigaton weapon to levels that would be useful for precision strikes.

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-09-10 04:57pmThough of course the existence of the Base Delta Zero (confirmed to exist in the new canon, at least in passing, on Rebels) would obviously indicate that their are capital ship heavy-turbo lasers capable of doing so.

The new canon BDZ doesn't necessarily mean "reducing the upper crust of a planet to molten slag" though. The only definition we have of it so far is Sabine's description: "It's a military code phrase, and it means TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF A TARGET POPULATION."

Galvatron wrote: ↑2017-09-10 05:32pm

The Romulan Republic wrote: ↑2017-09-10 04:57pmThough of course the existence of the Base Delta Zero (confirmed to exist in the new canon, at least in passing, on Rebels) would obviously indicate that their are capital ship heavy-turbo lasers capable of doing so.

The new canon BDZ doesn't necessarily mean "reducing the upper crust of a planet to molten slag" though. The only definition we have of it so far is Sabine's description: "It's a military code phrase, and it means TOTAL EXTERMINATION OF A TARGET POPULATION."

We do know that the Resurgent can, canonically, reduce the upper crust of a planet to molten slag. So it's probably still the same definition.

Honestly to do anything close to "total extermination of the target population" in reasonble timeframe and when dealing with a decent sized planet, you'd need firepower several orders of magnitude greater then what was seen in Rebels, where turbolaser bolts didn't cause much more damage then 40 mm mortars. Then there's the issue that hand blasters have been shown to be as if not more powerful then those turbolaser bolts.

Rhadamantus wrote: ↑2017-09-10 05:50pm We do know that the Resurgent can, canonically, reduce the upper crust of a planet to molten slag. So it's probably still the same definition.

I wouldn't be so sure of that:

Upgraded from Imperial-era turbolasers, the Resurgent-class delivered more firepower and had a faster recharge rate. Stemming from kyber focusing crystals harvested from a secret source deep in the Unknown Regions, other captains clamored for upgrades for their warships, only to be denied as military-grade crystals were in short supply.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Resurgen ... tlecruiser

Seems to me the Resurgent-class has far greater firepower than an old ISD.

Lord Revan wrote: ↑2017-09-10 06:03pmHonestly to do anything close to "total extermination of the target population" in reasonble timeframe and when dealing with a decent sized planet, you'd need firepower several orders of magnitude greater then what was seen in Rebels, where turbolaser bolts didn't cause much more damage then 40 mm mortars. Then there's the issue that hand blasters have been shown to be as if not more powerful then those turbolaser bolts.

Agreed. Perhaps they employ high-yield proton bombs or even chemical/biological agents for BDZ operations instead.

Yeah, I suppose they could use something other than HTLs for the Base Delta Zero, though the ubiquitousness of turbo lasers as the primary capital ship armament in Star Wars make them the obvious choice.