Yuzzhan Vong vs. the Imperium of Man

[Batman]

You remember a different age of sail than I do. If memory serves they closed the range because that was the only way they could make sure they'd a) actually land hits and b) do any damage worth mentioning.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You remember a different age of sail than I do. If memory serves they closed the range because that was the only way they could make sure they'd a) actually land hits and b) do any damage worth mentioning.

I thought that's what I said, but I apologise if I didn't make that clear. I recall reading of battles where the two fleets would exchange broadisdes in a line of battle for some time and not a single ship was seriously damaged.

[tangent]You remember the age of sail? Damn, Bruce Wayne is older than I thought[/tangent]

[Batman]

Yeah. It's totally not like DC is lousy with time travel. I will, however, admit that I misused the term 'remember' to mean 'remember what I read about it'.

[Connor MacLeod]

I recall various pre-PT EU books saying that Ackbar's tactics (which were really Lando's) at Endor of closing to point-blank range were novel/innovative/unexpected. Of course, that doesn't fit with ROTS and the battle over Coruscant.

I vaguely recall tha ttoo, but it also depends on how/why it was innovative. There was alot more to the overall 'tactical' situation at Endor than just 'getting closer'. Lando sort of started the ball rolling but the management and execution of those tactics - for the ENTIRE fleet - was Ackbar's. and the close range combats involved far more than 'getting in close and shooting people' The novelization described all sorts of things being done, from ramming attacks to extensive use of fighters in various ways. I mean, being able to outfight an enemy that is tougher and outguns you would be pretty impressive, even if they aren't quite firing back at you.

In fact, considering that they did 'point blank' engagements even more point-blanker in ROTS without this being 'innovative', I suspect that there was far more going on with Ackbar's tactics than just 'get up close and shoot'.

I would suspect combat ranges to be tens to hundreds of km based on a few gut feelings from reading some of the books. I have a feeling it is like the age of sail; ships can blast away at each other from a distance for hours with little real effect but if you want a decisive action you close the range.

Uh, why are you defining 'age of sail' specifically in terms of just the ranges? There's lots of factors involved in there than just 'range of guns' (kinds of guns, weapons arrangement/layout, the way they maneuver or the absence of maneuver, etc.) IIRC too world war 1 (and the intermediat eperiod between those two) also had 'short range' combat, relative to modern combat (or even WW2) but there was also more to it than just that.

[Eternal_Freedom]

My apologies if that was not clear, I was not defining the age of sail by the ranges, I was comparing SW combat ranges to those in the age of sail.

[gigabytelord]

There's lots of factors involved in there than just 'range of guns' (kinds of guns, weapons arrangement/layout, the way they maneuver or the absence of maneuver, etc.) IIRC too world war 1 (and the intermediat eperiod between those two) also had 'short range' combat, relative to modern combat (or even WW2) but there was also more to it than just that.

Wasn't it common for warships during WWI and even WWII to engage each other at "visual ranges" even though their guns were capable launching shells at far longer ranges than visual aiming could accurately allow?

Coincidentally this is what hammered the final nail in the coffin of the great naval battleship, as carriers pushed active engagement ranges further and further away from the main fleet.

It seems as though that a similar issue persist in this setting as well, e.g. the weapons themselves are most certainly capable of reaching extreme ranges with a high degree of accuracy, but as soon as the target starts moving all that accuracy goes out of the proverbial window, and you are forced to approach to a close enough distance that the enemies movement speed and the speed of your projectiles cancel each other out.

I.E. It doesn't matter if you enemies' ships are fast and nimble, because if you are able to fire projectiles at, say, .99c, then as long as the enemy stays within 250-300,000 km of you, the travel time for the projectile is damn near instant, at that point the turret tracking speed and automated targeting systems become far more important than the speed of the target or it's trajectory UNLESS the target is moving at speeds equal to the speed of the projectile in question.
In other words your technological ability to track them becomes more important than what they're actually doing simply because of the ranges involved.

And since we never once see an illustrated instant where projectiles fired from turbo laser batteries (or any other type of battery in either universe) are invisible, which may be somewhat difficult to demonstrate, then we can assume that the projectiles are not traveling at c, or, in some cases even a significant fraction of c.

My best guess is that most engagements take place somewhere between 10,000 km and 150,000 km (depending on the speed of the projectiles of course).

Can any one provide cannon supported projectile velocities (I know Conner, WH40k doesn't have a real cannon) so that perhaps we can make logical deductions rather than best guesses?

Also if the target is, say, a planet then technically you could probably land a shot on it from the next solar system over, it's a slow (using that word very lightly) moving target, of a fixed trajectory and speed, so of course exceptions should be made when necessary.

This entire post was built using the logic in my head, feel free to poke holes in it to your hearts content.

[Esquire]

Item 1: "Cannon" is not interchangeable with "canon."

Item 2: This is a whole article devoted to proving that turbolaser blasts do in fact have invisible, lightspeed components. Most of the damage is done by the slow, glowy bit, but still.

The reason for close engagement ranges in SW probably comes down to shield saturation - You can shoot at things from really far away, and hit them, but not often enough to burn through the shields and do real damage. That's going to require concentration of fire on single sections of the shield, which would be difficult under ideal combat conditions but next to impossible when firing at maneuvering sensor dots while trying to avoid their return fire.

As an aside, that's when Star Destroyers as a class start to make a lot of sense, even the nomenclature. You need speed to get into range as well as the guns to dish out punishment and the shields to take it. Fighters let one ship cover more ground, or hold a target in place, or get rid of enemy fighters trying to do the same to you. Sure, it's massively overgunned for anything it's likely to encounter, but for those unlikely proper Rebel warships, the Star Destroyer won't have been whittled down by the dozens of Falcon-esque blockade runners it probably encountered before.

[Batman]

I've been whining about the cannon/canon thing for a decade. Not gonna happen.

[gigabytelord]

I've been whining about the cannon/canon thing for a decade. Not gonna happen.

Hey hey now, people can change.

[Batman]

Which particular part of decade didn't you understand?
But hey, it's your time to waste any way you deem fit.

[gigabytelord]

Which particular part of decade didn't you understand?
But hey, it's your time to waste any way you deem fit.

I'm at work trying to walk an 80 year (I think?) man through the GSP tracking process for his lost phone so anything would be better that what I'm doing right now.

I know what a decade is, and I'm living proof that people can change

[Batman]

I'm not arguing that people can't change. I'm arguing a decade's worth of me trying to get people to recognize there's no double n in canon (up to and including threatening serious bodily harm on occasion, I'm ashamed to admit) without success is a pretty good indicator that you merely restating that isn't likely to sway anybody's mind?

[gigabytelord]

I'm not arguing that people can't change. I'm arguing a decade's worth of me trying to get people to recognize there's no double n in canon (up to and including threatening serious bodily harm on occasion, I'm ashamed to admit) without success is a pretty good indicator that you merely restating that isn't likely to sway anybody's mind?

Duly noted, and in an effort to prevent that stupidity on my part again I have placed a clarification on the difference between the the two in my sig.

Back on topic, anyone have an estimate on the average velocity of turbo laser "bolts"? As they seem to be the actual damage dealer of the weapon.

This is a force-sub after all.

[Connor MacLeod]

Wasn't it common for warships during WWI and even WWII to engage each other at "visual ranges" even though their guns were capable launching shells at far longer ranges than visual aiming could accurately allow?

Technically any gun could do that. What determined range (more or less IIRC) was accuracy, and over time gunnery became more accurate as different technologies were introduced.

It seems as though that a similar issue persist in this setting as well, e.g. the weapons themselves are most certainly capable of reaching extreme ranges with a high degree of accuracy, but as soon as the target starts moving all that accuracy goes out of the proverbial window, and you are forced to approach to a close enough distance that the enemies movement speed and the speed of your projectiles cancel each other out.

Key word being 'starts moving.' There are lots of factors that can influence that sort of thing and affect accuracy quite a bit.

What's more, what is considered desirable accuracy wise is dependent entirely on the setting and circumstances. If you have beam weapons and power/fuel/cooling aren't issues, you could theoretically just 'spray and pray' at long ranges and accept low hit probabilities. Likewise, accelerations/course changes and all sorts of other manuvers and engine-related shit are not neccesarily instantaneous, and the fact that a ship might have hunderds or thousands of gees potential acceleration does not mean they neccesarily ramp up to that output instantly.

I.E. It doesn't matter if you enemies' ships are fast and nimble, because if you are able to fire projectiles at, say, .99c, then as long as the enemy stays within 250-300,000 km of you, the travel time for the projectile is damn near instant, at that point the turret tracking speed and automated targeting systems become far more important than the speed of the target or it's trajectory UNLESS the target is moving at speeds equal to the speed of the projectile in question.
In other words your technological ability to track them becomes more important than what they're actually doing simply because of the ranges involved.

Again it depends on alot of circumstances and assumptions relating to how the combat dynamics work in the setting as well as the technology and other shit. Mike, for example has noted in the past that heavy turbolasers may have tracking/precision problems related to the sheer quantity of energy they output and/or the mass of the turret and other relted factors. Plus as I already explained it can depend on alot of parameters pertaining to starship performance for both the firing vessel and the defending ship. If the ship is already in an evasive manuvers, its bound to be harder to hit.

Your example also seems to assume zero lag and perfect sensor targeting data, which again is a 'depends on' circumstance.
If you need to use active EM sensors to track or target your enemy, then you have the lag time between the signal going out and receiving it, on top of the lag from your weapon. Human factors (relaying orders to fire, or having to hit fire buttons, or whatever.) can also add time on to the situation

And since we never once see an illustrated instant where projectiles fired from turbo laser batteries (or any other type of battery in either universe) are invisible, which may be somewhat difficult to demonstrate, then we can assume that the projectiles are not traveling at c, or, in some cases even a significant fraction of c.

That assumes you believe turbolasers are in fact projectiles, or that the weapons we see onscreen constitute the sole weapons systems STar Wars has access to. Either of which could be contested and even the 'canon' proof is somehwat inconclusive as to the nature of blaster/laser/turbolasers (EG it exhibits properties of both massless and massive phenomena, which only complicates the issue of what the fuck they are.)

My best guess is that most engagements take place somewhere between 10,000 km and 150,000 km (depending on the speed of the projectiles of course).

For 40K or Star Wars? Star wars combat ranges are dictated in part by the combat enviorment they often engage in (around planets, and particularily in close orbits) as well as the performance and precision of hyperdrive (you can get close to an enemy more or less.) Similar logic can actually be applied to Star Trek as well.

Extensive use of ECM/EW can also degrade weapons engagement ranges.

Can any one provide cannon supported projectile velocities (I know Conner, WH40k doesn't have a real cannon) so that perhaps we can make logical deductions rather than best guesses? [/qutoe]

For macro cannon? It varies. We know they move faster than torpedoes (which can move as per The Primarchs upwards of 800 km/s) and there are a few examples of several thousand km/s (Warriors of Utlramar for example) but its not really more precise than that. There is the 'weapon battery' description from BFG but that has been nitpicked over in the past to not include projectile weapons because they aren't explicitly mentioned.

For turbolasers and shit there were a bunch of sources I remember of bombardments taking seconds (or less than a second) to strike the ground after firing from a given range (EG Geostationary.) so if those ar eprojectiles of some kind they would arguably be as capable as macro-cannon.

Also if the target is, say, a planet then technically you could probably land a shot on it from the next solar system over, it's a slow (using that word very lightly) moving target, of a fixed trajectory and speed, so of course exceptions should be made when necessary.

Depends on the parameters and limitations of the weapon. I've heard of X-ray lasers being purportedly designed for such extravagant capabilities, or 'realistic' ship combats with lasers trading accuracy for range (and taking much longer to fight) but again it depends on your assumptions. Technically if your ships are fighting stationary and rarely if ever move, then you could also hit them at theoretically any range.

[gigabytelord]

Technically any gun could do that. What determined range (more or less IIRC) was accuracy, and over time gunnery became more accurate as different technologies were introduced.

Tiss' what I thought.

Key word being 'starts moving.' There are lots of factors that can influence that sort of thing and affect accuracy quite a bit.

What's more, what is considered desirable accuracy wise is dependent entirely on the setting and circumstances. If you have beam weapons and power/fuel/cooling aren't issues, you could theoretically just 'spray and pray' at long ranges and accept low hit probabilities. Likewise, accelerations/course changes and all sorts of other maneuvers and engine-related shit are not necessarily instantaneous, and the fact that a ship might have hundreds or thousands of gees potential acceleration does not mean they necessarily ramp up to that output instantly.

Again it depends on a lot of circumstances and assumptions relating to how the combat dynamics work in the setting as well as the technology and other shit. Mike, for example has noted in the past that heavy turbo lasers may have tracking/precision problems related to the sheer quantity of energy they output and/or the mass of the turret and other related factors. Plus as I already explained it can depend on a lot of parameters pertaining to star ship performance for both the firing vessel and the defending ship. If the ship is already in an evasive maneuvers, its bound to be harder to hit.

Your example also seems to assume zero lag and perfect sensor targeting data, which again is a 'depends on' circumstance.
If you need to use active EM sensors to track or target your enemy, then you have the lag time between the signal going out and receiving it, on top of the lag from your weapon. Human factors (relaying orders to fire, or having to hit fire buttons, or whatever.) can also add time on to the situation

Well in the interest of fairness, I was thinking along the lines allowing both parties to function at maximum theoretical functionality within their stated technical capabilities, if this is to be a fair fight then neither side should be limited by dogmatic stupidities, while at the same time they should be allowed to act within their pre-established dispositions.

Also, assuming for a moment that most of the weapons being used are projectile based, then not only do we have to take into account, heat dispersion, recoil control, stated tracking abilities, ship speeds, the mechanical accuracy of the weapons in question, the average training and effectiveness of the ships gun crews, the traveling speed of the projectiles themselves, but also things such as gravitational effects depending on how close the fighting takes place to the nearest gravitational body...

The problem is, there is absolutely no way we can take all of these things into account, hence the reason why I asked for an average combat range from both parties, but doing so has only brought to light yet another problem, there doesn't seen to be a comprehensive understanding in this area, as we see engagements at a number of different ranges anywhere from a few single digit km to upwards of tens to hundreds of thousands of km, hell even as close as a what appeared to be a few hundred meters in SW Ep. 3 (some one please correct me if I'm wrong, cause that looked really close)

Bah... to much, to many details.

I have an idea maybe we should adopt a point based system for stuff like this perhaps something like this:

First: We should look at average ship toughness, this is an across the board thing, an average comparison, we should compare the two sides and get an average durability assessment from between them, whoever has the higher agreed upon average after much though should get one point.

Second: Would be an average weapons assessment, whoever has the more reliable, longer ranged with a higher agreed upon damage output would then get one point.

Third: Average level of technological advancement and average level of technological capabilities, whoever has the higher agreed upon tech level gets one point.

Fourth: Numbers, and this one pretty tricky, as not only should we look at current numbers/population sizes but potential numbers as well, how fast does either party reproduce? How many are there now? How fast could either party colonize a world and industrialize that world to advance the war effort? etc... one point to the agreed winner.

Fifth: Political/social willingness to carry on what could possibly be an eternal contest of wills, who would break first or possibly sue for peace? Whoever is more willing to possibly have themselves bombed into extinction would obviously be the winner of that agreed upon one point...

Connor tell me what you think, hopefully this might simplify these kind of debates, and also if you think another point or two should be added.

I'm thinking to much...

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

I recall various pre-PT EU books saying that Ackbar's tactics (which were really Lando's) at Endor of closing to point-blank range were novel/innovative/unexpected. Of course, that doesn't fit with ROTS and the battle over Coruscant.

Not necessarily, the Battle of Coruscant twenty-five years ago, and wasn't fought at close range by choice, but rather because the Separatist fleet got trapped under Coruscant's shields. So we're looking at something that may well have only happened once in living memory, and by accident, at that. Contrast with the Battle of Endor, where Akbar's fleet deliberatlely charges in to point blank range at the earliest opportunity.

[Simon_Jester]

Trapped under shields? I thought they were just stuck fighting down low because the whole battle involved their fleet coming in to fly cover for a smash-and-grab on the Chancellor.

Another thought: the Empire probably did not encourage senior officers to be flexible in their thinking; if the Emperor himself had a battleplan in which he had 'foreseen' the Rebels doing this, then a lot of Imperial officers would be surprised by the simple fact of the Rebels doing that instead.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

I don't know if anybody else has pointed this out, but... once you remove everything but the Imperium, this is no longer Warhammer we are talking about. All calculations on the Imperium are done with constant warfare in mind. Comms and travel? Chaos fucks it up. And once messages and the people sending them are prone to getting eaten by demons, nothing is certain. Exact Warp speed? Exact numbers on population, planets and military strength? A single standard to judge Imperial might by? Huh, what's that? Nobody knows and that's the point.

So once you say that all of the Imperium's problems are solved, all we know about it cease to exist; you are effectively asking "what's the Imperium's capability in peacetime"? The lore shows nothing, and doesn't have even the faintest hint of peace. So you could say "I guess they'll be better", and nothing else. Even the firepower calcs are now obsolete; hello, obiquitous lasgun? The Mechanicus has finally found the time to improve upon you and standardise the model to a galactic scale. What's this, better guns? Huh, we've just improved our flak vests. More people? Finally troops can be gathered quickly and at a precise point, we also know exact planetary populations and can raise more regiments; our troops elsewhere have more time to get drilled. Psykers? Our freaks no longer worry about getting possessed if they exert their minds too much, so even limited dudes can mind-fuck an infantry company, and stronger people (like Ravenor) can now probably pull small spaceships from orbit.

If the last paragraph looks like utter wank to you, you are right. But all these are things that could happen in this new Warhammer, and they aren't more preposterous than the idea that you can just have peace in a game whose motto is "only war".

[PhilosopherOfSorts]

Trapped under shields? I thought they were just stuck fighting down low because the whole battle involved their fleet coming in to fly cover for a smash-and-grab on the Chancellor.

Another thought: the Empire probably did not encourage senior officers to be flexible in their thinking; if the Emperor himself had a battleplan in which he had 'foreseen' the Rebels doing this, then a lot of Imperial officers would be surprised by the simple fact of the Rebels doing that instead.

My understanding of the battle, (though it could be wrong, that does happen) was that the Separatists jumped in low, got past Coruscant's defenses by surprise, kidnapped the Chancellor, and then had their escape cut off when the shields came up, trapping them against the planet until Obi-Wan's fleet arrived.

[Connor MacLeod]

Trapped under shields? I thought they were just stuck fighting down low because the whole battle involved their fleet coming in to fly cover for a smash-and-grab on the Chancellor.

I think its less 'stated fact' and more inference as a possible explanation for why Grievous didn't just nab Palpatine and hyperspace away. Its actually quite possible to hyperspace away close to the planet, even by movie evidence. I suppose one could argue they tried using the masses of the ships and/or tractor beams to impede any escape attempts, but its far less certain of success than 'they're trapped under giant space shield.'

[Connor MacLeod]

Well in the interest of fairness, I was thinking along the lines allowing both parties to function at maximum theoretical functionality within their stated technical capabilities, if this is to be a fair fight then neither side should be limited by dogmatic stupidities, while at the same time they should be allowed to act within their pre-established dispositions.

There is no real 'fairness' in a vs debate. You can't have one side win if both sides are perfectly equal, and if you start trying to make things 'fair' you start trying to impose some sort of equalization. A certain amount of equalization in some debates might be neccessary, but its a tricky balance to strike all the same.

There's also the problem in defining 'maximum theoretical functionality' because for some examples we really don't knwo what that is. We have ideas about what it might be, but that's about it, and it would still not neccesarily be 'fair'. How do you, for example, equalize 'warp' travel? Or resource expenditures? Or territory, or whatever? And this doesn't even address the 'ambiguity of evidence' issue, such as 'how big the GE/Imperium of Man' is, both of them have examples that reference 'only a million worlds' as well as 'oh they also have billions, somehow' and everything in between.

Also, assuming for a moment that most of the weapons being used are projectile based, then not only do we have to take into account, heat dispersion, recoil control, stated tracking abilities, ship speeds, the mechanical accuracy of the weapons in question, the average training and effectiveness of the ships gun crews, the traveling speed of the projectiles themselves, but also things such as gravitational effects depending on how close the fighting takes place to the nearest gravitational body...

We're not running ballistics programs, we're just trying to get a rough idea. Some details matter, but others don't. The problem isn't so much 'all the neccessary details' as it is 'sufficient detail', usually because the evidence itself is open ended. I mean with the projectile issue alone its possible to argue that 40K starships score 'hits' simply by proximity, or by actually getting skin-on-skin contact hits. Macro-shells have done both depending on source and parameters (it could vary by range, by ship or weapons type, etc.) But in terms of 'accuracy' there is also a wide difference between 'skin on skin' hit and 'getting it within a few hundred metres/few kilometres of the target so it can explode' hit.

I think the problem is you're looking for/expecting alot more absolute precision in this than actually exists. Things are usually alot more variable than they are with real life science shit and such.

The problem is, there is absolutely no way we can take all of these things into account, hence the reason why I asked for an average combat range from both parties, but doing so has only brought to light yet another problem, there doesn't seen to be a comprehensive understanding in this area, as we see engagements at a number of different ranges anywhere from a few single digit km to upwards of tens to hundreds of thousands of km, hell even as close as a what appeared to be a few hundred meters in SW Ep. 3 (some one please correct me if I'm wrong, cause that looked really close)

well averaging shit out is certainly one way to do it, but the problem is, its basically about as arbitrary as any other approach people would take. you could also (for example) take only 'conservative' calc showings (what people often call 'low end') or you might take upper limit examples only. People have lots of different ways in how they approach (and analyze) fiction, and the problems crop up less from the evidence/universes than it does from the way people look at those universes/evidence. The arguing is just different nerds trying to resolve some sort of hierarchy out of all that shit.

Bah... to much, to many details.

There is no way to simplify it down. We may simply have to say 'we don't know', or 'it depends on how certain factors go.' Its not unreaosnable to declare that it depends on certain factors, its a very big, complicated issue and its genreally outside the bounds of conventional evidence and canon (eg its not something that was planned by the creators of whatever factions/franchises are being pitted together, so all bets are off.)

First: We should look at average ship toughness, this is an across the board thing, an average comparison, we should compare the two sides and get an average durability assessment from between them, whoever has the higher agreed upon average after much though should get one point.

Second: Would be an average weapons assessment, whoever has the more reliable, longer ranged with a higher agreed upon damage output would then get one point.

Third: Average level of technological advancement and average level of technological capabilities, whoever has the higher agreed upon tech level gets one point.

Fourth: Numbers, and this one pretty tricky, as not only should we look at current numbers/population sizes but potential numbers as well, how fast does either party reproduce? How many are there now? How fast could either party colonize a world and industrialize that world to advance the war effort? etc... one point to the agreed winner.

Fifth: Political/social willingness to carry on what could possibly be an eternal contest of wills, who would break first or possibly sue for peace? Whoever is more willing to possibly have themselves bombed into extinction would obviously be the winner of that agreed upon one point...

Connor tell me what you think, hopefully this might simplify these kind of debates, and also if you think another point or two should be added.

If you can get the people involved to agree to its probably not going to resolve it any better or worse than any other approach. Remember though this isn't a definitive, absolute universeal TRUTH we're resolving, we're basically saying 'given a certain set of circumstances or assumptions, this is probably what would happen.' There's a world of difference between the two.

I'm thinking to much...

Well yes, but I can hardly condemn people for doing something I am guilty of far too often.

[gigabytelord]

*snip*

Well yes, but I can hardly condemn people for doing something I am guilty of far too often.

Point taken, I'll try to not focus so hard of this kind of stuff so much in the future.

Perhaps I shall leave this thread be, it might also be a wise choice to do as my mom always tells me in this instance, "Stop thinking so damn much!".

[the atom]

Item 1: "Cannon" is not interchangeable with "canon."

Item 2: This is a whole article devoted to proving that turbolaser blasts do in fact have invisible, lightspeed components. Most of the damage is done by the slow, glowy bit, but still.

There might be an invisible bit, but no matter how you try to spin it there's pretty much no way the invisible bit is anywhere close to lightspeed. In fact, I'd say the discrepancy in that theory is pretty unworkable with what we see in the movies, because otherwise every single weapons discharge would have the target explode at the exact same moment the barrel flashed followed by the glowing 'tracer' arriving seconds (or minutes, hours, days, etc depending on how far away the target was) later.