Moderator: Vympel
You mean Jedi fighter? The torso doesn't disappear actually, it sticks out the bottom .... or so I heard.Connor MacLeod wrote:
Oh boo-fucking hoo. As if the piddly little name of the Star Destroyer matches up to other ridiculous problems. (like the Incredible Disappearing Astromech Torso with the new droid fighter.)
Actually, it's not OTT at all.Gorefiend wrote:1000 battleships against one ship is none the less a bit over the top… must be something about kdy overclaiming their “super” ships.
"…. enough fighters to blacken the skies!" (Mussolini)Complement: 48,000 V-Wing fighters, 48,000 Eta-2 Actis Interceptors, 9,000 ARC-170 Fighters, 6,000 military walkers, 10,000 LAAT/i gunships and misc. shuttles.
In a galaxy of Death Stars, there is nothing preventing such a vessel being built except the will to build it!Gorefiend wrote:"…. enough fighters to blacken the skies!" (Mussolini)
oh come on that thing could take out a planet by just dropping it’s fighter load from orbit. one at a time. -.-
. The DS itself only had 7,200 star fighters. Widely accepted to be a bullshit number. For once, KJA was accurate, when he listed the Knight Hammer's complement as many thousands of fighters.Gorefiend wrote:the problem is the fighter load out is just way over the top, the executor had 144 fighters + support ships
Wrong. You are using the WEG based stats for the 'super' class vessel, which was five miles long. The canonical Excecutor would eat the thing you're thinking of alive.
and was bigger then that thing you created,
Questionable at best. 942 potential HTL turrets have been identified on the 17 kilometer Excecutor model
with less weapons
Star Wars tech progresses at a snail's pace. You're thinking of modern technological progress, with breakthroughs every few years. I implore you to instead think of say, Ancient Egypt.
and build with far more modern technology.
Yes. And the stats given by the canonical model make it a Mandator eater.
The empire had the will to build a überschiff and we all know what stats it had,
Again. Bullshite. It may have only had that many aboard when it was constructed, but it clearly had capacity for vastly more.
the thing you created is just OTT
ICSes are canon.
I still don’t think the ven’s fighter capacity is official, it it has to be far less, or the empire forgotten everything about shipbuilding.
Widely accepted to be a bullshit number. For once, KJA was accurate, when he listed the Knight Hammer's complement as many thousands of fighters.
i went for the 12,8 one in fact which also has 144 fighters + supportshipsWrong. You are using the WEG based stats for the 'super' class vessel, which was five miles long. The canonical Excecutor would eat the thing you're thinking of alive.
those could be anything in fact -.- your thing still has 18000 weapons.Questionable at best. 942 potential HTL turrets have been identified on the 17 kilometer Excecutor model
It doesn’t go backwards that radically none the less.Star Wars tech progresses at a snail's pace. You're thinking of modern technological progress, with breakthroughs every few years. I implore you to instead think of say, Ancient Egypt.
which stats? your talking about a few hand to eye measurments.Yes. And the stats given by the canonical model make it a Mandator eater.
sure but still nothing like 105000Again. Bullshite. It may have only had that many aboard when it was constructed, but it clearly had capacity for vastly more.
the printed once yes, not some quote in the netI still don’t think the ven’s fighter capacity is official, it it has to be far less, or the empire forgotten everything about shipbuilding.
Second source? The Knight Hammer was not Excecutor Class, just a generic big ship, thus, the other sources do not reffer to it.Gorefiend wrote:That had been overruled by every second source or do we get free picking what is official and not?
According to? G level, or C level? I'm betting it's C. Something like the EGTVW or one of its cousins.
i went for the 12,8 one in fact which also has 144 fighters + supportships
Yes. And the Excecutor should have countless thousands of weapons too. You do understand that when you scale something up, you get more power to put behind it, and more surface area, yes? So, if the Excecutor doesn't have that many weapons, then it has vastly less armament per square kilometer of hull than the ISD class vessel, and its massive power supplies are useless. What would make you think a thing like that?
those could be anything in fact -.- your thing still has 18000 weapons.
Actually it does. The Trade Federaion had cloakable capships even before the Battle of Naboo. The Empire did not regain this technology until the time of Thrawn.
It doesn’t go backwards that radically none the less.
hand-to-eye measurements? WTF? The methodology of Excecutor scaling is clearly explained on SWTC. If you can't understand Saxton's explanation, please at least keep quiet, not make up dismissive terms for a perfectly valid analysis tool.
which stats? your talking about a few hand to eye measurments.
Why not? They couldn't fit? I don't think so? Not enough crew? Again, no. The Death Star could easily carry millions of fighters.
sure but still nothing like 105000
the printed once yes, not some quote in the net
Depends on how the armament goes. Does it have weapons of comparable power to the Venator's heavy turrets, or are they more powerful (Are they as powerful as an ISD's HTL? Or could they be more powerful yet. I hear hints that that "support Destroyer's" Big prow-mounted HTL is supposed to pack a pretty big punch.)NecronLord wrote:Let me put it this way. The Hypothetical Mandator has the same volume as 250 Venators. Why oh why would it have less guns or fighters than the same displacement of Venators?
Well, yes, bigger but less numerous guns work, but the hitting power is generally the same.Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the armament goes. Does it have weapons of comparable power to the Venator's heavy turrets, or are they more powerful (Are they as powerful as an ISD's HTL? Or could they be more powerful yet. I hear hints that that "support Destroyer's" Big prow-mounted HTL is supposed to pack a pretty big punch.)
Its not even a problem.Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:That doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Next.Connor MacLeod wrote:Oh boo-fucking hoo. As if the piddly little name of the Star Destroyer matches up to other ridiculous problems. (like the Incredible Disappearing Astromech Torso with the new droid fighter.)
Ill check in the book once ill find it, I think daala herself calls it a sister ship to the executor..Second source? The Knight Hammer was not Excecutor Class, just a generic big ship, thus, the other sources do not refer to it.
The official star wars database, which if I got the system right is g.According to? G level, or C level? I'm betting it's C. Something like the EGTVW or one of its cousins.
I know it should, but it does not seem to. It seems more likely that economies of scales don’t work all to well in star wars ship building, the executor was a terror weapon because of its size, in tactical value it was pretty low as it seems, as endor and other engagements proved and the only minimal increase in actually armament over it’s smaller cousins shows. I mean all we know it is armed with from the movies is a few random turbo lasers bolts that shoot of from the hull, the only weapon lists are those listed in various other sources. giving it 1040 guns.Yes. And the Excecutor should have countless thousands of weapons too. You do understand that when you scale something up, you get more power to put behind it, and more surface area, yes? So, if the Excecutor doesn't have that many weapons, then it has vastly less armament per square kilometer of hull than the ISD class vessel, and its massive power supplies are useless. What would make you think a thing like that? You claim that the hypothetical Mandator makes Imperial shipwrights look inept. On the contrary, the bullshit statistics you are using make them look incredibly inept. What this is like, is making a ship like a borg cube with one wepon per face. Then scaling it up, and giving it two weapons per face, when it has in fact, increased the size of its reactors, and thus, power supply, and thus, number of wepons it can mount by eight. This is fairly basic geometry. The EGTVW, WEG and similar sources would have us believe that the Galactic Empire's ship designers cannot understand that.
The planet that had the crystals needed for their cloaks blew up, so it’s not a technology thing, just bad luck.Actually it does. The Trade Federaion had cloakable capships even before the Battle of Naboo. The Empire did not regain this technology until the time of Thrawn.
Of course it is valid and it is in fact a very advanced system of hand to eye measurement. ;]hand-to-eye measurements? WTF? The methodology of Excecutor scaling is clearly explained on SWTC. If you can't understand Saxton's explanation, please at least keep quiet, not make up dismissive terms for a perfectly valid analysis tool.
Properly, none the less their must be a reason why they did not carry more fighters, Tarkin properly did not deem it useful.Why not? They couldn't fit? I don't think so? Not enough crew? Again, no. The Death Star could easily carry millions of fighters.
Depends. Bigger guns are slower and require stronger recoil dissipation, but they carry much greater per-bolt "punch", and IIRC this makes them somewhat better at penetrating shields than lots of little bolts hitting all at once. (At the very least, the bigger bolts are going to more easily overwhelm the dissipation threshold.)NecronLord wrote:Well, yes, bigger but less numerous guns work, but the hitting power is generally the same.Connor MacLeod wrote:Depends on how the armament goes. Does it have weapons of comparable power to the Venator's heavy turrets, or are they more powerful (Are they as powerful as an ISD's HTL? Or could they be more powerful yet. I hear hints that that "support Destroyer's" Big prow-mounted HTL is supposed to pack a pretty big punch.)
Yes. Despite the fact that she's never seen the excecutor, and knows of it only from second hand accounts and whatever plans where on the drawing board when she was shipped into exile. She also thought, in the same stream of conciousness, that the Excecutor nearly bankrupted the Empire. Her thoughts on the matter cannot be taken to be factually accurate.Gorefiend wrote:Ill check in the book once ill find it, I think daala herself calls it a sister ship to the executor..
The tab on the database that says "The movies" is G. The other tabs are C. More to the point, I demand a link to the Databank's listing of the Excecutor's fighter complement, as I cannot find such a thing.
The official star wars database, which if I got the system right is g.
Incorrect. Not stygian cloaks, double-blind cloaks. The Trade Federation Ship (a doughnut type) Saak'ak possessed a cloaking device. This technology then dissappeared off to Wayland.
I know it should, but it does not seem to. It seems more likely that economies of scales don’t work all to well in star wars ship building, the executor was a terror weapon because of its size, in tactical value it was pretty low as it seems, as endor and other engagements proved and the only minimal increase in actually armament over it’s smaller cousins shows. I mean all we know it is armed with from the movies is a few random turbo lasers bolts that shoot of from the hull, the only weapon lists are those listed in various other sources. giving it 1040 guns.
The planet that had the crystals needed for their cloaks blew up, so it’s not a technology thing, just bad luck.
I pray you never run into a large group of surveyors and say that.
Of course it is valid and it is in fact a very advanced system of hand to eye measurement. ;]
Real life statisticians deal with outlying values too.
The problem with scaling in sw is often that ships don’t have proportionally right sizes to one another, like the naboo royal star ship measures only some 20 meters in the tatooine scene. Of course it works it’s only the question of how well it generally applies to sw.
So, there is no reason why it didn't have that many, and thus, the number has no bearing whatsoever on the Mandator.
Properly, none the less their must be a reason why they did not carry more fighters, Tarkin properly did not deem it useful.
*does his happy dance* thx necronlord ^^" would have taken me until weekend without you. Well there must be some reason why an isd carries only 72 fighters and a smaller older ship has 420. Maybe they kept blowing up when hit at certain spots because fighter fuel tanks went up, or in fact the fighters themselves etc.I will add that it's possible, maybe even likely, that the TIE fighter is simply a better and higher preformance machine than the V wing and other Clone Wars era fighters, and as such requires more space to keep it operation. Or that the methods used of storing so many fighters aboard the Venator were found to e unsafe for implementation abord later Imperial Vessels, something not without real world preceedent IIRC.
DDGs don't count? DDGs are still escorts. In fact, a DDGs most important role is air defense in a modern CVBG.Connor MacLeod wrote:2.) Destroyers (excluding DDGs which don't count) are primarily defensive/protective in nature, and do not need to manuver/accelerate all that much. Of course, it also has a partial carrier function, ,so its not strictly a "dedicated" destroyer anyhow (if thats in fact what the term "Destroyer" is meant to mean in this instance. (in fact, if it carries hundreds of fighters, it has a far more dedicated carrier function than even an ISD.)
Everything we know about the TIE Fighter from the EU says that it's a small ship that doesn't require a lot of space to store. We always see TIEs closely lined up on racks. I think the ISD just might not be a very dedicated starfighter carrier. The Venator's 420 fighters isn't a ridiculous amount at all when modern day, ~300 meter long carriers can carry about 90 aircraft.NecronLord wrote:I will add that it's possible, maybe even likely, that the TIE fighter is simply a better and higher preformance machine than the V wing and other Clone Wars era fighters, and as such requires more space to keep it operation. Or that the methods used of storing so many fighters aboard the Venator were found to e unsafe for implementation abord later Imperial Vessels, something not without real world preceedent IIRC.
hmm it's just strange that these eu stats for clone wars ships all indicate very high fighter capacity compared to empire era eu ships. You have to take 1 to 5 rations to get about the amounts of fighters that similar empire era vessels have.Everything we know about the TIE Fighter from the EU says that it's a small ship that doesn't require a lot of space to store. We always see TIEs closely lined up on racks. I think the ISD just might not be a very dedicated starfighter carrier. The Venator's 420 fighters isn't a ridiculous amount at all when modern day, ~300 meter long carriers can carry about 90 aircraft.
