StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Super-Gagme wrote:The amount of weapons on a Victory-class Star Destroyer differs (no not damage) thus we have to rank them and WOTC > WEG standing on it.

But the novels have already decided that a Vic-I got 80 concussion missiles. See Isard's Revenge. That suggests WOTC either twisted the value for gameplay or their research stinks to high heaven.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote: If there is no standard, but a wide variety of weapons of every possible make and function, it would be hard to buy things.
"I want 300 antiship missiles."
"What kind do you want? I've got Shipwrecks, Harpoons, Exocets, Kelts, Kitchens ... all with different characteristics in every respect. Or should I just pick up 10 each for you?"

There does seem to be a kind of standardization. The concussion missiles for antiship use employed in the VSD-I, Executor, and the various NR vessels which choose to employ concussion missiles all have the same rating of '9D.' Capital Ship Use Proton torpedoes are 6D+1. Starfighter protorps are 9D on the 'Starfighter' scale.

That implies there is something of a standard when it comes to yield for particular purposes. They even seem to have the same range (60 space units for the Capital level concussions.) Yeah, there isn't a standard, all right.

Which addresses the fact that th etorpedoes/missiles are unknowns.. how? On top of that, I guess this "standardization" also rolls over to turbolasers and other weapons too, right?

Since I told you standard level weapons won't cut the mustard, to make your plan work, by definition you have to go out of Standard. In other words, to the Exotic.

No, it means that there are different kinds of missiles for different purposes. Even if we assume that there is a "standard" yield for each purpose. Still doesn't change the fact that the kind/role of the missiles and torpedoes purchased is unknown.

How does that change the fact the ship was already neutralized, and if the Rebels so wished, could take it apart piece by piece at leisure?

They took out shields and weapons and hampered manuverability somewhat. It was defenseless and had reduced manuverability, but hardly "neutralized" (THey still had engines, for example. Remember Drysso intended to ram the planet?) Why exactly do you think Wedge contacted the Lusankya to demand their surrender? And they couldn't "take it apart" because they didnt know where the prisoners were located, so they would need to keep it mostly intact. ya

1) That sounds like to me like there was a slight difference in launch timing. I mean, not all the fighters and freighters were at the exact same range. To execute any kind of TOT attack, that means some will launch a little earlier than others.

I can grant the possibiliy of staggered launchings (it wouldn't be precisely near-simultaneous) I would point out the staggered launchings could also be due to differences in acceleration between missiles/torpedoes, and fighter/capital scale weapons, as well as differences in angles and ranges.

2) Even a possible tracking difficulty does not grant you license to randomly add torpedoes. At this rate, we can rationalize this using this absurdity, "They only managed to see 80 out of 1000 missiles, so really a thousand missiles hit."

I'm not "adding" anything. We know that Wedge had Booster buy 250 capital grade torpedo launchers and 50 fighter scale launchers. The only conclusion I am drawing is the natural one - that he used the same number of launchers (or nearly the same) that he originally bought. This is odd... why? Or are you saying Booster got the order wrong? Those 170 other capital launchers had to go somewhere.

It was "a second or two." That means the attack may not even be as well-coordinated as we'd like. And enough local penetrations to allow enough others to kill off the generators sounds like good news to you?

Okay, I stand corrected at most several seconds - how does that change my point any? You think its going to take a second for an explosion to affect the shields and take them down??.)

As for local penetrations, yes. Have I not already pointed out that shields are not uniformly strong (because they're composed of overlapping shields.) Temporary shield disruptions allowing some weapon to slip through and destroy the generator before shields can be reestablished.

Don't shoot the messenger, Connor. When a rationalization doesn't work, it doesn't work. Me getting out of your way does not really make it work.

What message? All you did was apply some arbitrary boundary to analysis and accuse me of crossing over it.

The other hundreds of missiles would apprerently not only neutralize her, but utterly ANNIHILATE her. Or did you not notice the part where it said

P.291 wrote:'subsequent volleys would consume the Lusankya utterly and throughoutly.

Yes, and how does this bear on my previous statement, exactly? For that matter, are we to assume that the Lusankya's hull is vastly more durable than its shielding.

pquote]
Besides, we know Stackpole can't maintain continuity across a page of his own. I mean, if your starboard weapons were 'shot,' but you have 'most' of your port weapons, and you choose to engage a ship more powerful than you are, you would engage with your shot off starboard weapons? Really.[/quote]

Or maybe it was a mistake that slipped past proofreading. It happens in all sorts of texts (even historical ones), after all. Did you also note that Wedge saw the Freedom rolling?

Sadly, the above is no joke. Read P.314-315.

Yes, and its shocking because we've never run across proofreading errors in books before.

And obviously the roll wasn't quite completed yet, so they are still out of elevation. If I were the Freedom, I'd work very hard into staying into any blind spot available myself.

They're firing on the Rogues, though. I might point out the Executor's accelerative abilities are equal to that of a Star Destroyer (As evidenced in ROTJ)

The repairs after Coruscant would probably be arranged for before Wedge even got set up. And there was no evidence it even moved for a training exercise.

You mean like there's "no evidence" Drysso reinforcecd shields, either?

Three guidelines for starters then:

1) Harmonization DOES NOT involve the creation of multiple phantoms.

That assumes that they are, in fact as you say, ,phantoms.

2) Harmonization DOES NOT 'effectively void' a statement. For instance, the TIE 'solar panels' being reduced in function until they can only power something that is such a ridiculously useless fraction of the total power draw that it might as well be powered by the reactor as well.

What am I voiding, exactly? I'm explaining something according to details present in this book and others.

3) Harmonization maximizes the use of relatively REASONABLE actions that might conceivably be done 'hidden.' It minimizes or eliminates making other people total idiots.

And this, of course, depends entirely on your definition of "reasonable."

Everyone can sprout the phrase "Dismissal is the last answer."

Yes, because consistency is important. Do you think otherwise?

Or maybe you've noticed that its rather common for trrolls to want to emplyo that subjective "pick and choose" crap (dialogue over visuals ring a bell?) We try to be better than that, so it requires putting some effort into making sense of things, no matter how distasteful or complicated. Only if it proves to be of absolutely no use do we ignore it, but that requires every effortt be made to rationalize it before dismissing.

It is an easy phrase in theory. In practice, over-rationalization causes someone, like you, to accept a totally groundless, sometimes even contradicted theory as proper.

Only based on the "guidelines" and "boundaries" you provided. Which is about the same as saying its your opinion.

And the fact I am making a Theory on my own suggests that I am willing to reserve a bit of hope for something other than dismissal. That has nothing to do with the probability of your rationalization working. If no good rationalization occurs, I will wait for one. If nothing good is forthcoming, I'd dismiss it. If a rationalization proposed by someone actually sounds good, I have no problem taking any source I've already rejected back out of its bin. But your rationalization DOES NOT apply, not in its present form.

So basically you think we should ignore the theory because... you don't like it.

Some unspoken words are implied. Others don't exist. You've imagined entire events, entire sorties, entire missiles.

Oh yes, everything is just a massive delusion on my part. I guess not everyone can have the concise clarity possessed by one such as yourself.

Let's not make them more incompetent than they have to be. See #3 of the Harmonization stuff above.

Which means we're supposed to believe they deliberaetly weakened shields on all other facings by many orders of magnitude. Gee, that's not incompetence. (Especially with the whole "Trench Run Disease" fear.. remember the reasons for the Lancer frigate?)

Yes. Because we both have the same problem, we have the same orders of magnitude to cross in any plausible rationalization we can make.

And this isn't an incompetent tactic.. why?

Except mine involves a reasonable misjudgment due to lack of information (until the freighters fired, Drysso's data tells him only a few starfighters were threatening his flank and a wimpy War Cruiser on his butt) and a reasonable desire to minimize damage from his most dangerous known threat.

So? This doesn't conflict with my theory in the slightest. The only reason you can come up with for dismissing it is "I don't like it." You act as if he needs to drop shields drastically on all facings to minimize the danger of the Freedom (Even though Drysso does not think it can harm him.. oddly enough.)

Yours involves countless violations of the most basic procedures to check the equipment you got over successive piles until enough degradation could hope to set in.

I like how you exaggerate the whole "sabotage" aspect as if it were the fundamentally crucial point upon which my entire theory was based upon.

Read Rule #2. You've just agreed to what I've said a few posts ago - The net probability of your scenario being replicated that you've effectively voided the scenario without admitting so.

A "Rule" that apparently relies on your opinions in order to be valid. Gee, yeah, I guess that really means I conceded.

If you are comparing your so-called harmonization with that farce required for Kyp Durron, what does that say about the quality of your harmonization?

It says that the only criteria you are willing to judge it by is what you think is acceptable. Gee, wonder why I didnt see that before.

Connor, you've made up phantom missiles within the attack that you admit never showed up on any tracking screen that we know of! That's not exactly an analysis based on evidence.

Again with the "I'm making things up" excuse.

I think Shield Re-establishment attempts are not supposed to be part of normal Shield Allocation.

Err. How are they going to "restore" shields in one section in such a way that it weakens others if not through allocation? They have to re-adjust the coverage of the shields over the ship so that it covers up the gaps as best as possible.

It is not a comprehensive representation of the battle. It IS, however, a quite detailed account of a particular attack on a particular station.

Yes, and this invalidates anything established in TLC.. how? You're remarkably vague on that point.

Yes, it is one-quarter, but the quarter we were shown had no smugglers. Therefore, you cannot insist they were attacking that station, when they had three others to go.

It had no smugglers we were aware of. Gee, its not like we're given 100% total omnisicence about everything that goes on in a battle.

Phantom capital ships and phantom attacks which just happened to hit the one part of the battle that was described in detail without any mention of it?

Yes, because we know that assumign that a parrticular person might not be seeing everything happening in a battle is just ludicrous. I guess we can add Omnisciencee to the list of Corran Horn's superhuman abilities, huh?

See Rule #1.

Or in other words: "I can use my opinions to invalidate everything!" Wow, guess I can't counter that can I?

That must be Stackpole's nod to the smugglers who are attacking another station, so as to stay out of our sight.

Of course, because we have no reason to believe Aves actually parrticipated in the battle (even though he says so in TLC.)

Again. Don't shoot the messenger. It ain't my fault Stackpole barely mentioned the smugglers!

He doesn't need to. For some odd reason you seem to think that every little detail must be spelled out in 100% clarity before it can be even possible.

More like they would be working out of our sight, where they won't create another contradiction.

Gee, and that hampers them attacking the Golan.. how?

You are speculating to dismiss evidence. There didn't even seem to be much time for Ackbar to ever 'press' Antilles about the true identity of the smuggler group. Or are you saying Wedge FALSIFIED his report, to eliminate all traces of participation by the smuggler group on the attack on 'his' Golan Station?

Confusing interpreations of evidence with the actual evidence, I see.

Having used this desperate dodge once myself, I know how cheap it is. Everyone knows that 99.99% of the time, the two terms are synonymous.

LOL. So now we go by "consensus" in judging interpretations? Try visiting the SB vs debates sometime and see just how effectively a "consensus" works. (its also known as the "common sense" excuse.)

In TLC, Wedge seems to think they might be able to kill one of the stations. That has nothing to do with them participating in Rogue Squadron's particular attack. I'm just pointing out if anything, mentioning the bias towards small vessels only hurts instead of helps your case.

Uh huh.

This topic has been locked due a thread hijack. Have no fear, allow me to split the hijacking and then both topics will be re-opened!

The discussion of RPG books prices has been split into this thread.

So, this thread is now officially re-opened!

Perhaps a confession first:
Yes, I dislike your idea. Why? Because it is stupid. Why is it stupid? Because it only has names of measures, without any evaluation of whether they'd realistically be adequate.

I'm sorry that I'm so bold as to demand that 'harmonizations' are really in harmony with the source text involved, rather than twisting them beyond recognition for a Forced Rationalization.

From now on, I'd put Criticizing Your Ideas, My Theory (and your criticisms,) and Isard's Revenge into three separate posts. Hopefully, this would help clear things up. Let's keep attacking your ideas and defending my own separate (and vice versa.)

1) I just told you that known weapons of this class are identical (or close to each other) in relative yield. Bringing up other categories weapons is a red herring.
2) Jeez, you asked for capship missiles for antiship attack. They automatically know to give you various special weapons that are far, far over the common yields in capital-ship antiship missile weapons.
3) To me, if you have to self sacrifice to do any more to your enemy, you are basically neutralized. How did 'they won't' become the same as 'they can't.' We are talking abilities here, which stay from story to story, not intentions, which change on circumstances.
4) The guy counted it four times, pal, which suggests he reports, looks, sees more, reports again, sees more, reports again... And None of what you said contradicts what I said.
5) Oh, so you just wanted to add 170 phantom missile launches instead of a thousand despite the fact you aren't even sure they are having tracking difficulties? That doesn't help you much at all. There are any number of reasons why only 80 were launched. For example: since they were trying to act innocent, it won't do at all if every ship on site is crowding the Lusankya in coordinated torpedo attack formation. The point is that you have no evidence that more than 80 launched, other than your wishes. Thus, your extras are phantoms.
6) They are not uniformly strong. But They've got deviations of say 20%, not orders of magnitude. They are also supposed to be hard to exploit (you need DERs to read the shield.) The weaknesses are like a few meters square out of countless square meters of shield area. So basically we went back to 80 torpedoes managing to punch through and downing the shield.
7) [flippancy]In all Stackpole novels, shields are next to useless. That's why he should be shot (the other reason is Corran Horn, of course.) You didn't know that?[/flippancy] That aside, it shows there's no contradiction in the statement, and thus you have no reason to add 170 phantom missile launches in one particular attack.
8) A proofreading mistake that caused a continuity error is a continuity problem, because from here we can't really tell the difference with certainty. It may not be shocking, but it is sad.
9) What does "They are firing on the Rogues" have to do with Freedom. They are attacking on DIFFERENT fronts. The Rogues could be in angle but not Freedom. ROTJ shows that Executor and ISDs can both do X. When you see a US Treaty Battleship (20 knots) going formation with a destroyer (30+ knots,) do you conclude that the destroyer MUST only be able to do 20 knots?
10) Shield reinforcement is part of usual tactics within a battle. It is a completely different class from adding an entire SERIES of runs.
11) Anything that you created but cannot back (like those 170 extra missiles) are phantoms. Yes, things like those 170 extra launches are your delusions.
12) The fear that led to the Lancer frigate was evaluated by the Imperials to be overrated - read ISB, Chapter 5, Lancer section. Isard's crews don't have excessive fears about torpedo attacks - certainly Yonka thought he could have defeated one, and we all know what Drysso thinks.
13) If Sabotage is your Secondary Idea, then what is your Primary Idea? How much of a contribution are you hoping the Sabotage will give you (in terms of degrading the Lusankya's shield efficiency?) Let's have it in numbers instead of words.

Shield Allocation Theory is not hard to understand at all. It really doesn't even require that much incompetence (especially compared to any Sabotage theory that creates major effects on combat efficiency on a Super Star Destroyer.) All you really have to do is see the situation in Force ratios, not percentages of the whole.

a) Drysso (or whoever is managing his shields) sees 3 threats - Freedom, Rogue, Cruiser, each on a different facing. He doesn't know about the freighters.
b) Being a trained (though not TOO bright) officer, He knows the approximate Attack Power (or Threat Index) of each (FAP, RAP, CAP.) Accordingly, he starts by allocating shield power (SP) adequate to mostly neutralize FAP on his dorsal flank (DSP,) RAP on his side (SSP,) and CAP on his back (ASP.) That sounds like a good and sensible first move , no?
c) He still has a ton left of reserve shield power. So he tacks on a safety margin, of oh, 100% onto each threatened flank (DSP, RSP and CSP doubles.) That sounds safe and competent enough to me.
d) He still got a ton. So he puts some on his unthreatened flanks for good measure. On each unthreatened flank, he slaps on SP less than or equivalent to the weakest threatened side (SSP or ASP, whichever is lower.)
e) He has made all the basic preparations to meet the attack he knows. He probably still got some left over. However much he has He can keep it in Reserve. He can use it to beef up DSP to further reduce the damage the Freedom can wreak, protecting his sensitive command tower, sensor domes and other facilities. He might protect his engines from any chance hits by beefing up his butt. He can try adding yet more margin all around (but really the king's share would STILL go to DSP with Force ratios.) He might try the bow, but the bow really is not a bad place to take a hit. No bridges, no vitals, no solar ionization reactor, no hangar bay, not that many guns, hull shape gives his armor a good geometry against the attack ... etc.
f) His bow then gets overwhelmed with 4x the number of weapons he was expecting, and given the difference betwen capital ship and starfighter weapons, probably at least 10x the combined yield. Unless you postulate he puts a over 1000% safety margin on there (which takes away from other areas,) he will not defeat that initial attack we are fighting over.

And if you accuse me of adding terms (Rule #1,) all this theory really assumes is that the guy in charge of shields actually allocates them, rather than pushing one button for Even Shields and sitting back. That's a lot better than trips, journeys, a substantial fraction of Lusankya being sabotaged, missiles you don't even know whether they exist ... etc.

Aves DID participate in the Battle. TLC never said they would be attacking the same Golan. All TLC ever mandates is that Aves hits a Golan.

In IR, Wedge gives orders that strongly suggest they would be taking on the Golan. It is THEIRS. There is no sign Wedge ever coordinated with anybody else. There is no evidence that the smugglers hit that Golan at all with three others to hit. Therefore, any attempts to insist they were came solely from your imagination.

When a battle is described, it is no longer considered a Gray Area of Uncertainty. It had been described. You need a special reason to put extras like smuggling ships which should have been seen participating in a Described Zone.

As for the idea of capital ships, that's just laughable. Even assuming that the smugglers could SOMEHOW make an attack on the same Golan (which involves weapons of thermonuclear yield or better) without Corran ever noticing, I fail to see how dozens of orange bolts could be coming from any supporting warship and hitting the Golan and nobody thinks to mention or notice it.

You are the person who's twisting evidence. You insist even though there is no evidence they were hitting the same Golan, the smugglers were hitting the same Golan and that Ackbar never worked out that it was the independent smuggler group that made the first attack. That was after he read the analysis which showed Rogue Squadron's credit, which means Sensor Records and all. I fail to see how the sensors could miss large detonations aft as the Smugglers launched a FURIOUS attack that made an appreciable dent in the situation.

Oh, as for your 'consensus' idea, it is just common convention among official Star Wars writers, and you should know that. You mean, you really wonder if they might be discussing say, an Allegiance-class Star Destroyer when you read "Imperial Star Destroyer"? Really, you do.

By the way: the Executor's acceleration is slightly worse than that of the Imperial-class; the Falcon outran the Executor in orbit above Bespin in TESB--the Falcon was caught up to in ANH, and also tightly pursued in TESB.

Which means we're supposed to believe they deliberaetly weakened shields on all other facings by many orders of magnitude. Gee, that's not incompetence. (Especially with the whole "Trench Run Disease" fear.. remember the reasons for the Lancer frigate?)

I would generally say that this is bullshit: the Imperial-class is more than capable of fielding lighter point-defense weaponry, and the Lancer-class was nearly totally tactically useless due to its useless state as a capital ship, and an inability to defend itself.

In fact, the fact that the Lancer-class failed to ever catch on, and by the New Jedi Order we continue to see the tried-and-true ISD formula suggests that this was not a supreme fear of the Imperials. And furthermore, what does "trench run disease" fears have to do with capital-scale launchers on larger frieghters? The whole point of TRD is to close to where weapons have trouble traversing fast enough to hit the fighters or the launched warheads--large slow freighters with large slow weapons (this was actually one of your guesses as to why the weapons were inordinately powerful) have anything to do with that?

And the idea that large quantities of energy could've been shunted to other areas is not totally without basis: Saxton's calculations, and Ender's functions suggest that the vast majority of energy allocation is to engines--the Lusankya was to be able to escape, remember, as Isard demanded? It was only after much fighting did it elect to remain.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:By the way: the Executor's acceleration is slightly worse than that of the Imperial-class; the Falcon outran the Executor in orbit above Bespin in TESB--the Falcon was caught up to in ANH, and also tightly pursued in TESB.

Well its a good thing its a ship of the line/mobile command post rather than a picket boat, eh?