Krall's Fleet vs. an ISD

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27267
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Krall's Fleet vs. an ISD

Post by NecronLord » 2016-10-31 07:13pm

I'd assume they act like they do in the movies, of course. The whole concept of the 'found footage' analysis requires that; in the same way as stormtroopers are actually shit in many cases, I assume that one side isn't vastly more competent than it is in the canon; just as I don't assume the Star Trek side will do the really smart thing and wait for the Imperials to start investigating the planet before trying to kidnap them.

The 'narrative tropes' concept you're talking about can be used both ways. Almost always in film when someone tries to board a starship, it works; Kraal's drones are trying to board the ISD, therefore they'll succeed. Stupid, isn't it?
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer-'s resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth

User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37387
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Krall's Fleet vs. an ISD

Post by Sea Skimmer » 2016-10-31 07:56pm

Almost always, but not always, and at least its a known fact an ISD has troops who are supposed to fight a ground battle. Trek has traditionally lacked this out of its in universe premise of more peaceful relations, and has the best police helicopter starships ever. But you know with a boarding that's not the end of the world most of the time either. Humans are in fact that stupid sometimes, you loose a ship, it was once the way of things. On the other hand poorly aimed and rapid firing gigaton yield weapons are a problem with a lot more direct implications then any one ship, and something we never see evidence for in any of that found footage. People don't massively crater planets by mistake, and they do decide ground battles without even using tactical nuclear weapons. Megaton range weapons can be proven for certain things out of the movie, sure, but that really can't tell us anything about what a much larger main battery can output either. We also don't know if scaling laws apply to blaster bolts themselves. Is a bigger one just more of a smaller one, or does it become proportionally more penetrating like a bigger shell does in real life?

Some of the SWTC arguments though are based on specific ideas about fictional ship engine and reactor design that don't have to be true concerning power diversion, or for that matter common to all Wars engines given the differences in scale. And of course even if they are true, and a heat limit is true, basically nothing is now known about true sustained firepower in a ship to ship battle with the shields up anyway, one shot could actually max out a gun for a long time. Nothing is specified on this at all except implied hours. Anyway if you think this is way more one sided then I projected that's fine. But I kinda think mismatches like this are silly anyway. Trek ships kind of are meant for the unknown, but easily overpowered. Imperial ships are meant to plain over power but they are by design elements of a fleet and may simply be outmatched in specific scenarios by a much weaker force. That's how war goes. But one side has to be able to hurt the other to matter, and ICS would almost rule that out.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

Post Reply