StarDestroyer.Net BBS

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 01:43am 

The first picture: What do you expect to happen going through thin leather wings?
The second picture: Fired from a holdout blaster pistol barely bigger than my hand. The grip of that pistol only accommodates two fingers. Similar to what Starsword noted, comparing that thing to an E-11 would be like comparing a Ruger MK II to a Mauser 98K.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 02:31am 

If we cherry pick high end examples of one and low end examples of another have we proven anything, y/n?

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 02:42am 

First off, regarding the second image, I'm going to repost what I said in the other thread.



Not sure what you were trying to prove here, but I agree that incident was pretty stupid. Though not as stupid as an Ewok standing on said AT-ST's foot later on and banging on it with a hammer. (No idea what he was trying to achieve there.)


You clearly don't understand how little energy a megajoule actually is. I read somewhere in the canon database that the low megajoule-range starship weapons of another faction in TNG released the same amount of energy as burning a few gallons of gasoline.


A brilliant deduction! Obviously the troops that did start shooting at the Rebels got confused and disobeyed orders.

No, you unrepentant idiot. The troops came under attack from an unexpected quarter, the Ewok archers. Some took off into the woods to hunt them down. Others stuck around at the bunker and tried (and failed) to kill the Rebels.


As I said, I was joking when I originally quoted that line. But think about it: would you rather kill somebody with a gun when he's twenty meters away, or when he's close enough that you can kill him with a sword? Assume he died either way. I'd rather he be dead over there than over here, because it lessens the chance that he could hurt me before I got him.


It's no stupider than Starfleet vessels' habit of bringing civilians, particularly children, on military missions. Also, despite being retrofitted as a hospital, the Redemption was still a capital ship armed with turbolasers, and the Rebels needed every ship they could get their hands on for Endor.


I believe I read that Artoo's computer probe was shot off. That certainly qualifies as a mark, and might explain why he went haywire immediately afterwards.


That's something which is colloquially known as a "judgement call." The guy thought it was just an Ewok playing games, so he thought he could just pop the hatch and get rid of the Ewok himself. He had no idea there was a Wookiee involved.


Considering the Imps only had four AT-STs to begin with...


Let's see you try to keep your footing with logs rolling around under your feet. I have, and it's not easy. That's one weakness, and a weakness that every creature (never mind machine) with legs possesses. Who are you going to prosecute? God?

The Galaxy-class cruiser has dozens of severe design flaws if TNG is to be believed, and dozens of people have been hurt or killed because of them.


They lost to a Stone Age tribe because said tribe had help from people who were decidedly not Stone Age, and because their supreme commander put together an insanely overcomplicated plan that gave almost every conceivable advantage to the Rebels. This plan also had no room for error, such as when help from an unexpected quarter fucked up the Rebel ground team's capture, or when Lando decided to use Death Squadron as cover from the superlaser. An old military adage states that "no battle plan survives contact with the enemy."

And while it's true that blasters have a wide range of effects, just like phasers, we arrive at the high end more consistently with blasters than with phasers.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 02:47am 

It's pretty hard to say that the battle is all-round pretty embarrassing, but the Imperials clearly had really bad coordination.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 03:23am 

The Rebellion's Medical Frigates were very good at keeping their people alive. Given their limited pool of resources, especially trained combat personnel, it was imperative for them to be able to keep their pilots alive. Even if they didn't get back into the fight right away. Given the number of pilots concentrated in the battle and the number of high ranking officers that could have required medical attention, it would have been foolish for them not to bring one.



Is this a knock against SW small arms firepower or a credit to R2-D2's design? He has survived quite a bit, especially the DS1 Trench Run in Episode IV.



Outnumbered and in unfamiliar terrain, and also caught by surprise. This does not excuse the mistakes they made, but I'll echo Stark's sentiment about using the land battle of Endor as the standard by which to judge SW ground forces.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 08:15am 

This is just stupid - if you have a fiasco amongst a small unit in unfavorable terrain, this is clearly and indisputably the standard by which to judge an entire military in any situation and with any level of force. That's reasonable.

Excuse me while I now judge Starfleet solely on their inability to prevent the flagship of the Federation from being taken over by two BoPs full of Ferengi in TNG's "Rascals".



That's simply not the case:-



This is reflected in the chronology of the film for those who pay attention - the tide only turns after Chewie steals the AT-ST, and for all the Ewok's traps, it was Han's idea to get the Imperials to open the bunker door that handed them victory.

The Rebels won, the Ewoks helped.



I guess that explains all those times that battles in close quarters devolve into poorly choreographed melee fights with flashing bath'leths and Kirk-fu chops and double-fist-punches, as opposed to using their superior holdout weapons to effortlessly annihilate the enemy, right?

For all the Imperial's obvious incompetence at the bunker battle (which you can easily write off as overconfidence- the Ewoks were after all considered "harmless non-belligerents" according to the RotJ novel), they at least had the excuse that they thought they had already won, they were grossly outnumbered, and in unfavorable terrain surrounded by almost all sides, with no prepared defences. What was the Federation excuse at AR-558? You know, where the the Federation troops were in prepared positions, the enemy was coming at them from a fixed choke point, announced their arrival well before they appeared, they all had Type 2 rifles, and somehow the battle still devolved into a fistfight?

Its the same story in Way of the Warrior, when the Klingons board DS9. Fistfights abound.

EDIT: I also like it how you refer to "Imperial rifles" yet your examples are a Scout trooper's ankle-holster blaster and an E-11 carbine. Rifles are more along the lines of these:-

- the Imperial equivalent of which we saw a lot of in A New Hope, on both Tatooine and the Death Star. For giggle's sake, I'll also just note that no phaser, of any size, ever, has ever been used at such a range (probably several hundred metres).

Of course, pistols can be plenty more powerful than your cherry-picked examples, as can carbines.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 08:45am 

An MK2-A4 antipersonell hand grenade releases ~1MJ of energy (thanks to Connor for correcting me on my maths when I worked that one out). So it isn't exactly an energy level to be sneezed at, in the right context.

That said, phaser rifles are rated in megawatts, they usually fire half or full-second bursts, and they rarely have any impressive effect on the environment. Considering they are a chain-reaction based weapon, they should do a lot more.
I've actually said quite a few times before that energy level /= visual effect. We have megajoule lasers IRL, and they don't cause grenade-sized shit to happen.
Lightning bolts carry megajoules, and when they hit sand all you get is a little glass, not grenade-level KA-fucking-BLAMMO.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 10:13am 

Seriously? For me its the natural response to bring this up only in response to people who go on about Endor. In my experience, Endor is way more infamous than Star Trek examples. The continuous bringing up of Endor as the be-all-and-end-all of Imperial capabilities is a massive cliche. People ragging on Trek is more prevalent here though.

In my view, Imperial / Star Wars combat capability goes up the larger the forces involved are. Their strength is in huge set-piece battles with vehicles and shit and masses of men. Small unit engagements, its very very dicey and not really impressive in the least.



There's also Chewie blasting Imperial troops directly, and shooting another AT-ST, mind.



Well I'm glad you can have fun with it



I don't remember Shakaar (series), but I do remember Rocks & Shoals - 100m is probably about right, it is hard to gauge distance accurately because the lens of the camera can distort distance.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 10:39am 

This is why I don't think ground vehicles have nuclear level firepower. On the other hand, when people scoff at the firepower of AT-AT's at Hoth, they're not paying attention - the AT-AT's are shooting pot shots at the trenches, but their shots against the Rebel base buried under the mountain are making the base visibly shake. Its not small potatoes.

There's also the question of what is and isn't permissible - we have dial-a-yield nuclear weapons today, and their use is strictly verboten. Collateral damage etc and all that are still a factor, IMO. Especially when say the Jedi Knights are leading battles, and your nuclear weapons are inaccurate (dumb fire, line of sight) compared to a guided missile or bomb or artillery shell.



Have a look at Chewie's POV on Han from the top of the AT-ST - you'll see some dead Rebel troopers around the bunker (interesting how the Stormtroopers managed to kill them and not the named characters, lol). Also, something you may not have noticed - the Rebel soldier dressed as a scout trooper in the clearing (he took the captured scout's clothes), hands on head, when they're led out.



The thing that made Conspiracy completely comical was how obvious it was that they had sloowwwwwed down the beam so that Picard could credibly dodge it. The effect didn't work at all. Of course, same episode you've got the freaky aliens that explode when shot.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 10:54am 

I saw this exchange as Lando pushing for the Rebels to accept the casualties they were going to take in a fleet engagement in exchange for the opportunity to destroy the Death Star. The Rebels felt if the Death Star became fully operational the Rebellion was effectively doomed anyway so it made sense to risk everything on the chance to destroy it.

Admiral Ackbar had called for a retreat as soon as he found out the Death Star weapon was operational and a significant Imperial fleet was present. Lando argued that this was their best shot at destroying the Death Star -- assuming the ground team could take out the shield generator, which may not be an option in a hypothetical future engagement. At that point Lando suggested they get in close and "...engage those Star Destroyers at point-blank range." Ackbar pointed out "We won't last long against those Star Destroyers," yes, but I'd argue that's because they were at a disadvantage in the actual fleet engagement regardless of the range and that's why Ackbar's initial response was to retreat. Lando is arguing that the Rebels need to get in close to the Star Destroyers to make it harder for the Death Star to take potshots with the superlaser, which will hopefully delay the fleet's destruction long enough for the ground team to knock the shield out -- at which point the fighter squadrons can at least try to blow up the Death Star and kill the Emperor.

The phrase "point-blank range" doesn't imply "we need to get this close so our crappy accuracy isn't an issue." It implies that's a range that normal fleet engagements wouldn't take place in because it's suicidally close -- no room to manuever and the possibility of limited engagement arcs for the weapons.

Think about the situation for a moment. If the Rebels retreat and the Death Star becomes operational, the Empire as the ability to destroy any world that supplies the Rebels with ships, troops or financial support despite the presence of planetary shields. The Rebellion is doomed, but it will potentially take a while and a lot of innocents may die if the Emperor starts blowing up planets in job lots.

If the Rebels don't retreat, accept massive casualties in a fleet engagement, and the ground team fails to knock out the shield generator, the Rebellion is doomed due to the loss of its fleet and military leadership. The rebelling planets may still be destroyed, but the Emperor may accept their surrender.

If the Rebels don't retreat, accept the casualties of a fleet engagement and the ground team succeeds in knocking out the shield generator, then the fighters successfully blow up the Death Star, they've destroyed the Empire's greatest weapon and killed the Emperor. The Rebellion may still get wiped out but the loss of the Emperor and DS2 may at least weaken the Empire enough and cause enough infighting that those worlds that have already gone over to the Rebellion may be able to maintain their independence. And as it turned out the loss of the Emperor caused the Imperial fleet present to fall apart and retreat, creating an overall victory for the Rebels.

The Rebellion was faced with options of a "slim chance at victory" and "no chance at victory." On those terms their tactics were quite acceptable for the fleet engagement.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 11:34am 

Sorry for the HUGENESS of the pictures, but just to illustrate the difference in the guns that has been mentioned a couple of times:

Here is an E-11 (standard Stormtrooper issue).


And here is a Scout pistol.


And for a bit of out-of-universe trivia, the E-11's were made by slightly modifying a WWII Sterling SMG, while the Scout pistol had to be scratch-built. The larger rifles some Stormtroopers are seen with are DLT-19's, which were made from MG-34's. There was also a Stormtrooper pistol, (called an SE-14R), but it only appeared in promo shots and was not used by Stormies in the films. It was however, used by the pig-nosed guy in the Mos Eisley cantina, with an extra scope slapped on it to make it look different.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 01:09pm 

"Dozens" is probably an exaggeration, but...

• Emergency shut downs of the warp core consistently fail.
• The warp core ejection system never works.
• The antimatter storage pods have no automatic safety mechanism to eject them when containment failure is imminent.
• All of the ship's weapon systems can fail at once due to a single combat hit that causes no visible damage.
• Every transporter pad on the ship can fail due to a single system fault.
• Any fault in the main computer is likely to cripple the ship, because the main computer runs everything with no backup.
• There is no isolation of code in the computer, so a virus or other hostile code can easily invade all systems.
• Information security on the ship is very poorly designed.
• Manual overrides generally aren't manual, so they frequently fail when needed.
• The holodeck safeties are extremely unreliable.

That's just what I can come up with off the top of my head.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 01:43pm 

For the pride of the Federation the Enterprise sure was at times quite a rickety old rustbucket, yet I think any failure coming about through deliberate hostile action should not be counted. They might have been exploiting little-known quirks and backdoors for it to work, and that's how most of Trek's weapons and other exotic doohickeys work anyway.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 02:56pm 

While Ted included warp core failures and so on, I'll add another screamer from "Cause and Effect" - the poor design that allows a low-velocity glancing hit on the starboard nacelle to destroy the ship. (Even if the core shutdown/ejection worked, it would still have been crippling. That starboard nacelle was wrecked).

Also, a note on core ejection. If they plan to eject their main power source seconds before it explodes, surely that just leaves them with a super-size photon torpdeo beneath their ship with nothing to power the shields?

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 03:10pm 

What I find most jarring is the already mentioned manual overwrite or rather the fact that it is nothing of the sort. It has been consistently shown that the function is nothing more than a command to turn off the autopilot. And when all your controls are fly by wire than that is pretty much useless in an emergency. After all, the only reason why you would want to issue an emergency manual overwrite is becouse the computer systems that control the system have failed. And at that point you really want a system that will let you control the system without having to go through the computer whose failing made you engage the overwrite in the first place.

The more I watch star trek the more I get the feeling that the manual overwrite was newer designed for emergencies but instead for situations where everything is fine but the operator just wants to do it by hand for lulz. Like for example if someone wants to take a shuttle for a joy ride he flips the manual overwrite on and takes control him self for the fun of it.

Now this is all wild speculation. But I always had a feeling this was intentional, or rather that this showed a patten to the way their engineers think. They are so confident in their technology, so over the top sure that it's infallible that they don't expect their designs to fail ever and so they don't install actual safeguards. And those safeguards that are installed feel like they are nothing more than an afterthought. It's almost like their engineers are looking at the safety systems and thinking "Why am I even putting this thing in. Its never going to be used anyway. Let's just snap something together real quick get it over with."

Anyone else feel like this?

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 03:52pm 

The would still have the fusion reactors in the impulse engines to power shields, and given the way shields seem to be degraded in combat over time even when main power is available, they may have some kind of independent battery or capacitor system running them.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 04:03pm 

EU Events show that Rebel Shuttles are used to recover pilots from damaged craft or pilots who have ejected. I believe those shuttles can tow escape pods but I believe it is reasonable to assume the pods capable of maneuvering would be able to head for the medical frigate. According to the Star Wars Technical Journal, The Medical Frigates were armed but had a reduced armament (little more than half of a fully armed Nebulon-B Frigate, which the medical frigate is a variant of).

I think that the reason it got so closely engaged in combat during the Battle of Endor was for its own protection. At a great range it would have been an easy target for the superlaser, and it did need to stay with the rest of the fleet. So when the fleet moved in, so did it. Keep in mind that the presence of the Imperial Fleet was not anticipated by the Rebel Fleet (It's a trap!) and the destruction of the DS2 was supposed to be up to the starfighters, with the capital ships creating a perimeter.

The entire Battle of Endor was an example of insufficient preparation on both sides. The Rebels didn't anticipate a space battle, the Empire didn't anticipate a significant ground battle, and the Empire certainly didn't expect the Emperor to die. Dumb as it may sound his presence was canonically having an effect on the battle, and his ridiculous plan hinges on his survival. The Death Star II Shield Generator will still be destroyed thanks to the combined Commando/Ewok effort on the ground, and it is possible the Death Star II is still destroyed, but even if the Death Star is destroyed, if the Emperor survives then the detrimental effects of his death do not occur and the Imperial fleet still has an opportunity to cripple the rebellion it would not have had, and despite massive collateral damage the objective is accomplished and Palpatine has all the time in the world to pursue his next agenda relatively unchallenged.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 04:12pm 

I do not recall if gravity well projectors were in use, or if the Death Star had them. But it is established that there is a lot of ECM jamming and other countermeasures of that type in use during SW space battles. Given the number of ships and the pre3sences of the Death Star, plus an enormous Shield Generator there could have been enough going on that the only reliable way to hit was to get that close.




Perhaps the Empire wants to keep the Rebels at a distance where the Superlaser could come back into play, Ackbar doesn't think the Empire would fire that close with their own ships in play, but its directly under Palpatine's command and that regard for safety might be less of a factor than we would like to think.




I think the Empire didn't care how close the Rebel got to the Death Star because they didn't expect the shield generator on the Forest Moon to go down, as long as the shield was up they had no chance of harming it. Closer to the Death Star, even without a shield generator, pins the Rebels between the Imperial Fleet and the Death Star itself, making escape less possible.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 04:14pm 

I'm not sure, but I think the warp core just powers the warp drive. (I've heard conflicting data on this.)

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 04:42pm 

Not to be a stick in the mud but can you provide more detail on each of those that you listed? It might be valuable to go through it and pick it apart and so on because there may be extenuating circumstances.

In any case, as I've said before in other threads, how come nobody ever talks about how resilient the Enterprise was in 'Best of Both Worlds' when it got the shit kicked out of it by the Borg cube?

A lot of the things on your list are bad, don't get me wrong. But a lot of them are as a result of stupid writers doing stupid things, like the 'Cause and Effect' example; basically Brannon Braga being 'cute' with a really stupid episode. If the Enterprise was really that easily destroyed I can't fathom how it stood up so well to the Borg. Besides which, Stark's post above can apply to this topic as well. If we cherry pick the low-end and ignore the high end, do we really learn anything? (and yes the reverse is true as well, but part of why I'm posting is because the reverse rarely gets a look at all, which bugs me. Too many people give the Enterprise-D an undeserved bad rap IMO) Many of the failures you list are basically a plot contrivance, without which the episode in question could not function. The example I am thinking of is the Moriarty episodes as they relate to the question of holodeck safety systems.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 04:54pm 

Supplying power to the warp drive is its main purpose, but power from the warp core can definitely be used by other systems.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 05:26pm 

Emergency shut downs of the warp core consistently fail.
In TNG "Cause and Effect", they tried to both shut down and eject the core, and both efforts failed, resulting in the destruction of the ship (repeatedly).

In Star Trek: Generations, damage to the ship caused reaction containment to start failing. Attempting to shut it down failed; ejecting it may or may not have been attempted (I don't recall it being specifically mentioned). They were eventually forced to evacuate the drive section and try to escape in the saucer before the warp core blew.

The warp core ejection system never works.
We know it works on Sovereign-class and Intrepid-class starships, but it has never been seen to work on a Galaxy-class starship. Granted, it's only been needed a few times, but it has never worked.

The antimatter storage pods have no automatic safety mechanism to eject them when containment failure is imminent.
TNG "Disaster" is the culprit here. They can tell from the bridge that the force-fields containing the antimatter are slowly failing, but they can't do anything from there to stop the decay. It's pretty obvious that nothing will happen automatically to eject the pods before it's too late, so the few people on the bridge end up debating whether to separate the saucer and flee or divert power to the control boards in engineering, hoping someone there will be able to correct the problem.

All of the ship's weapon systems can fail at once due to a single combat hit that causes no visible damage.
Every transporter pad on the ship can fail due to a single system fault.
TNG "Peak Performance" is a prime example. The Enterprise sustains a few hits from a Ferengi ship, and all of the weapons systems go down. This may be tied to having the controls for all of the ship's weapons integrated into a single console on the bridge; if something happens to the control linkage, every weapon on the ship is useless.

Any fault in the main computer is likely to cripple the ship, because the main computer runs everything with no backup.
TNG "Contagion" has a virus get loose in the computer and rapidly infect every system on the ship. The USS Yamato (another Galaxy-class starship) was destroyed when the virus shut off the containment field in the warp core.

There is no isolation of code in the computer, so a virus or other hostile code can easily invade all systems.
See the previous example. The Enterprise crew eventually had to shut off everything on the ship to purge the system.

Information security on the ship is very poorly designed.
Apparently anyone can walk up to a console and ask for restricted information and get it (TNG "The Drumhead"). The system will log the request, but it won't refuse the information or send an alert to security. A Klingon exchange officer got military information that way.

Similarly, in "The Hunted", escaped prisoner Roga Danar was able to deactivate security forcefields, access ship schematics, and control the power feed to the transporter system, all without legitimate credentials.

Manual overrides generally aren't manual, so they frequently fail when needed.
"Peak Performance" is also an example of the lack of manual backups. If weapons can't be fired from the tactical console on the bridge, there's no way for anyone stationed at a phaser bank to aim and fire the weapon manually.

Likewise, in "The Naked Now", when an intoxicated engineer removed control chips from a computer in engineering, there was no way to manually fire the engines to move the ship out of the path of an approaching chunk of stellar debris.

And, to my knowledge, it's generally impossible to get a door open if the power is off. I recall them trying to do that in a Voyager episode (can't remember the title), but the manual release failed.

The holodeck safeties are extremely unreliable.
Do I really need to list the assorted holodeck disasters?

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 05:57pm 

Recall the order Palpatine gave before the Death Star destroyed the Liberty: "Fire at will, Commander." This indicates the crew were in full control of the superlaser, and Imperial officers have often been more careful than their Sith overlords (for instance, Piett didn't want to pursue the Falcon into the Hoth System asteroid field, but Vader made him). And note that despite blasting two ships during the space battle (that we saw), after the Rebels engaged Death Squadron the Death Star didn't fire any more shots, indicating that Lando's gamble worked.

It also indicates that using the superlaser requires Palpatine's authorization (they didn't start firing until after Palpatine ordered them to), which speaks to the chain of command: a planetary depopulation event requires commands from on high.


If the '09 movie is any judge (and it might not be given the altered timeline), it also works on Constitution-class vessels, which predate the Galaxy-class by over a century.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 07:32pm 

No, it indicates that Palpatine enabled them to use their discretion. I doubt that the crew would have done anything without his specific say so.



And if Palpatine calls them back up and says "start firing on the Rebel Fleet, I don't care who is in the way" do you think that some junior officer is going to say "Sorry Your Majesty I can't do that"?




Does it indicate that the crew were in full control or does it indicate that Palpatine's authorization is required? Pick one you dumb fuck. Of course they didn't start firing until he told them to, the whole plan was his idea not just as a battle plan, but as a demonstration for Luke to try and turn him o the Dark Side. If someone started shooting too soon and cocked that up for the Emperor they wouldn't have lived very long.

 Post subject: Re: Star Wars firepower: embarrassingly bad, like their tact

Posted: 2011-08-30 07:34pm 

Yes but that location is in a jefferies tube on the other end of the ship just barely wide enough for Data and Geordi to crawl through together while musing about human behavior .