Iwiki and EU stuff...

SWvST: the subject of the main site.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 28453
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Iwiki and EU stuff...

Postby MKSheppard » 2007-11-10 05:43pm

I've been wondering.

Should we have rules on what Expanded Universe material can be put in?

I'm leaning towards a quasi restrictive policy; as seen by the TIE FIghter page by me:

Shep wrote:Unlike many other authors, I don't consider many of the insane TIE designs, such as the Interdictor, Hunter and Oppressor to be part of Star Wars; but rather the result of idiot game designers with too much time on their hands, who instead of logically thinking out the progression of technology, and what a unit would be likely to use, instead create a new one-shot craft which we never ever see again in the Expanded Universe, ever; and essentially being Penis Envy designs.

You may call this elitism; but I call it using a brain.


Image
TIE Interdictor

Image
TIE Hunter (seen only in Rogue Squadron III)

Image
TIE Opressor (made up for SW Galaxies)

Examples of the idiocy I don't like.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
Kane Starkiller
Jedi Master
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2005-01-21 01:39pm

Postby Kane Starkiller » 2007-11-10 06:26pm

Maybe a link to "Other TIE designs" or something where obscure craft could be put. I don't think that EU sources should be dismissed simply because someone thinks they are crap (even though they are :P ).
But if the forces of evil should rise again, to cast a shadow on the heart of the city.
Call me. -Batman

Eleventh Century Remnant
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2361
Joined: 2006-11-20 06:52am
Location: Scotland

Postby Eleventh Century Remnant » 2007-11-10 06:28pm

I am a relatively quiet member, so feel free not to take this seriously, but what I would want to see from the Imperial Wiki is a comprehensive yet rational take on the material; in other words, Include and Condemn.

For completeness' sake, I don't want to look for these things and not find them; but what would the point of coming to the Imperial Wiki rather than Wookiepedia be, if it didn't include the SDN "traditional values" of rigorous analysis and merciless mockery?

So include them, and go to town pointing out exactly how illogical and unnecessary they are.



On the matter at hand, the Interdictor and Oppressor, I'm not even going to try to defend, but the Hunter, I think there might actually be a rationale for.

The TIE Bomber is a maximum efficiency fleet bomber, am I right? Slow (in all but G-canon, where admittedly we see it in a situation where slow and steady made perfect sense), moderately agile, heavy payload- what I reckon is that it was designed in the light of Clone Wars experience.
Target rich environment, most shooting back. It seems to me to be designed to do as much damage as possible in a fleet melee.

It might not be perfectly adapted for the relatively sparse, open running fights we see in the Rebellion- era EU. What the Empire needs there is more of a fighter-bomber, capable of engaging rebel fighter screens and fighting their way through to a target.

So, basically, it looks like a Sienar variant of the X- Wing because it is. That is precisely what it's for, and also what it's mainly designed to go up against.
It's lack of further appearance probably means that it was turned down, and probably in favour of the superior missile capable later production runs of the TIE Avenger.

User avatar
General Schatten
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5461
Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am
Location: Beverly, WV

Postby General Schatten » 2007-11-11 05:31am

I don't think that disclaimer needs to be said. Anyhow, yes, the TIE Hunter and Oppressor should be added as they are described in the canon and by people licensed by LFL to do so.
Wolf Ritter
A Certain Clique, HAB, The Chroniclers
Why would you celebrate the slowly tightening grip of Death?~Hans Beinholt, German Ambassador to the UN, on Children's Birthday Parties.
"When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." -C.S. Lewis

User avatar
Mange
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4007
Joined: 2004-03-26 01:31pm
Location: Somewhere in the GFFA

Postby Mange » 2007-11-11 06:37am

One may not like the designs, but the TIE Oppressor, Hunter and Interdictor are canonical (though the TIE Hunter looks pretty nice though they are wanked out).

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 28610
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Postby Vympel » 2007-11-11 06:42am

Include and criticize as crap.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Postby Illuminatus Primus » 2007-11-11 12:29pm

Someone make fun of the Galaxy Gun. I hate that fucking thing; it can penetrate shields to destroy planets like the Death Star and while being a tiny missile but they can't equip all their other ships with its magic shield-penetration tech or uber-shielding relative to volume? And what about its superduper hyperdrive?
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 9891
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Location: What's the bonus for shooting bad guys from behind?

Postby Elfdart » 2007-11-11 01:17pm

Maybe you could do a three-tier system like they do on the official site. You could have Movies/TV/Radio, followed by EU, followed by Wank. These TIEs would fall under Wank.
Image

FTeik
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1996
Joined: 2002-07-16 04:12pm

Postby FTeik » 2007-11-11 05:01pm

Perhaps the articles should be divided in what can be taken from movies and movie-related material (novels, radio-dramas, ICSs and VDs) and then you have in a seperate section what the EU says.

For the DeathStar it could say: "movie-wise the DS was first seen in its planning stage in AotC as the ultimate weapon developed by the Geonosians ... ". And then later on: "EU-wise what would become the DS appeared first in RoguePlanet in the form of a battleplanetoid concieved by Raith Sienar ... ."
The optimist thinks, that we live in the best of all possible worlds and the pessimist is afraid, that this is true.

"Don't ask, what your country can do for you. Ask, what you can do for your country." Mao Tse-Tung.

User avatar
Coalition
Jedi Master
Posts: 1237
Joined: 2002-09-13 11:46am
Contact:

Postby Coalition » 2007-11-11 07:08pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Someone make fun of the Galaxy Gun. I hate that fucking thing; it can penetrate shields to destroy planets like the Death Star and while being a tiny missile but they can't equip all their other ships with its magic shield-penetration tech or uber-shielding relative to volume? And what about its superduper hyperdrive?


I'd argue that the reason the GG missiles were so powerful was that the systems were designed for one-use operations. If you only need to run a shield once for a few hours and it would be scrapped afterward, you can get higher performance out of it.

But that is my opinion, and not reflected in anything.

Still, whenever we make a page, there could be a list at the top that tells what the sources are for that page; movie, books of movies, etc, along with a link to the exact sources at the bottom, and a link to a page saying what is canon, and the order to be taken in.

User avatar
Lord Relvenous
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1501
Joined: 2007-02-11 10:55pm
Location: Idaho

Re: Iwiki and EU stuff...

Postby Lord Relvenous » 2007-11-11 08:57pm

MKSheppard wrote:Image
TIE Opressor (made up for SW Galaxies)


Whoever designed this piece of shit is a dumb ass. The TIE-Interceptor originally had the cut outs, and that was to increase visibility to the left and right of the pilot, a severe problem of the original TIE. Having the cut outs in the back makes absolutely no fucking sense, and whatever "LAWL new TIE" idiot came up with this should be burned at the stake for heresy.
Coyote: Warm it in the microwave first to avoid that 'necrophelia' effect.

User avatar
Drooling Iguana
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4975
Joined: 2003-05-13 01:07am
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha

Postby Drooling Iguana » 2007-11-11 09:04pm

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:It might not be perfectly adapted for the relatively sparse, open running fights we see in the Rebellion- era EU. What the Empire needs there is more of a fighter-bomber, capable of engaging rebel fighter screens and fighting their way through to a target.

That's what the Assault Gunboat was for.
Image
"Stop! No one can survive these deadly rays!"
"These deadly rays will be your death!"
- Thor and Akton, Starcrash

"Before man reaches the moon your mail will be delivered within hours from New York to California, to England, to India or to Australia by guided missiles.... We stand on the threshold of rocket mail."
- Arthur Summerfield, US Postmaster General 1953 - 1961

User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Postby Illuminatus Primus » 2007-11-12 01:44am

Coalition wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:Someone make fun of the Galaxy Gun. I hate that fucking thing; it can penetrate shields to destroy planets like the Death Star and while being a tiny missile but they can't equip all their other ships with its magic shield-penetration tech or uber-shielding relative to volume? And what about its superduper hyperdrive?


I'd argue that the reason the GG missiles were so powerful was that the systems were designed for one-use operations. If you only need to run a shield once for a few hours and it would be scrapped afterward, you can get higher performance out of it.


You might get more intense performance, but you shouldn't get ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE better radiation of absorbed heat or heat sinks, and that only covers it shielding. What about penetrating planetary shields? What about its uber-wank magic matter-annhiliating chain reaction warhead? The beauty of the Death Star is that is simply manages its feats of strength through mere scale. No magic or one-of-a-kind, one-off technology never seen again and perfectly insulated from consequences in the larger tactical balance of power. No, just a really large ship with a really large power source and fuel stores with a really big shield with a really big set of drives with a really, really big gun essentially like all the others.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image

Eleventh Century Remnant
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2361
Joined: 2006-11-20 06:52am
Location: Scotland

Postby Eleventh Century Remnant » 2007-11-12 07:39am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eleventh Century Remnant wrote:
It might not be perfectly adapted for the relatively sparse, open running fights we see in the Rebellion- era EU. What the Empire needs there is more of a fighter-bomber, capable of engaging rebel fighter screens and fighting their way through to a target.

That's what the Assault Gunboat was for.


My pet theory here, and a general explanation for some of the more freakish TIEs, is that the Defender is pretty much the end of the line as far as performance goes. The Sienar design team have reached the natural limit of the technology, and they are painfully aware of that.

What actually happens after the Advanced/X7 leaves the drawing board is a mixture of searching round for another way forward, deliberately exploring possibilities previously rejected, and outright silly season. After all, they have the answer. Between the omnipresent /ln, the elite Interceptor, the long-range standard Avenger and the silver bullet Defender, there's nothing more the Imperial Starfleet actually needs.

So the overwhelming majority of the late- model freaks, like the Vanguard, Assault, Sentinel, Raptor, Aggressor, et al, are at best solutions looking for problems, usually some designer's private job creation scheme, at worst nothing more than industrial-grade goofing off.

Even the best of them- and the Sentinel/V38 (YT style cockpit with TIE wings) and Hunter probably are the best of the bunch- are competing for roles already filled. I reckon the Hunter is pretty much an F/A-18 equivalent, a light to medium multirole, and it's fatal flaw is payload. It may be slightly faster and more agile than the Starwing, but it can't take nearly as much abuse, nor do as much when it gets to the target.

The fact that the Starwing is a Cygnus design, not Sienar, is another reason for the thing. Sienar would want to get that lost market segment back. Presumably, they didn't.


Return to “Star Wars vs Star Trek”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests