(RAR!) Star Wars, the Versus Edit

[Darth Hoth]

If there is any instance of demonstrated multi-gigaton firepower in the films that I have somehow missed, would you please point it out? Granted that I was not active on ASVS, so of that I have only a very limited second-hand knowledge, but looking over the old pages (Turbolaser commentaries; Mr. Poe's contribution, now sadly defunct; SWTC; Mike Wong's own stuff), I see no such arguments based on onscreen firepower. The higher figures invariably appear derived either from EU sources or from indirect methods (scaling or Dodonna calcs), which are vague and do not produce any safe lower limits. Saxton harmonised the evidence and came up with figures that were quite conservative given many factors. I have no problem with this. To me, the EU is canon, as per official policy, and the ICS numbers are by no means outrageous given what we see elsewhere. But the lower limits we can derive from the ICS books are still much higher than those we can from the films.

[Captain Seafort]

There was, IIRC, quite a bit of work done using the ESB asteroid calcs, and scaling up assuming firepower scaled roughly linearly with barrel volume which, while suffering some of same problems as scaling down from DS I, are at least based directly on the weapons rather than the entire ship.

[Batman]

That would very much surprise me as far as I know the guns that killed the asteroids in ESB where so comparatively tiny as to be INVISIBLE (at least on screen, if the barrel sizes were modeled off the models-no pun intended-I'm naturally conceding but I doubt the models were quite THAT detailed).

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not sure what sources were used for the respective sizes of the weapons, but scaling was definitely done:

A Star Destroyer used its light trench-mounted guns to vaporize 40 metre wide asteroids in TESB with 1/15-second bursts (see Brian Young's Turbolaser Power page for more information), resulting in a lower limit of 22,500 TW for light turbolaser output. Note that this only applies to light turbolasers. If the ratio of light to heavy turbolaser output is proportional to the size difference, then heavy turbolasers must therefore output roughly 2.8 million TW.

[Connor MacLeod]

Acceleration and mass figures for a reaction drive are a huge benchmark for the SW firepower figures we have. That and the knowledge that since they sit still they must be diverting a fair fraction of that firepower to weapons. And now with the prquels we have Slave-1's seismic charges against asteroids. I suppose if you believe that the Rebels saved Endor by deflecting/destroying the debris, that migth be an indicator of firepower. So on and so forth.

We also know power generation from the power requirements from hyperspace jumps (tenatively from the EGW&T and refined knowing relatavistic acceleration is needed, though Curtis IIRC postulated this long ago)

We know from Slave Ship figures, Star by Star (relatavistic velocities imply both large fuel capacities and high power generation)

In Rebel Dream you had the Falcon going close to a Neutron Star to save another vessel.

there's also Base Delta zero and a few other related incidents of mass destruction.

In the Lando Calrissian novels you had references to "continent destroying" guns on starships and planet killing missiles.

Ender's gotten some calcs from the canon novelizations as well (REbel bombardments jolting the DS2, for example in the ROTJ novel)

Those are all just examples I can think of off the top of my head.

[Batman]

While I can't of course speak for Darth Hoth I think his point is that while scaling from what we see in the movies easily gives us numbers far exceeding the ICSes, and the EU easily supports that, the movies never actually show firepower on that scale.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well what do you mean by "demonstrated?" There's lots of ways it can be demonstrated to exist, and I've mentioned a few of them specifically tied to the movies - yes, scaling counts here, as do other means of generating power. I fail to see why "logical inferences" should automatically be treated in a separate category because we don't get ultra-explicit examples or some other nonsense. We know the Empire has colossal industrial capacity from the movies too, but we don't scream "we haven't SEEN them building all those starships!".

Really, if your entire criteria for evidence standards is going to be "have we seen it", then no you aren't going to see it. Hell alot of the so called "high end" firepower we might see in much sci fi still fails that standard because the effects don't mesh up (EG The Die is Cast.)

[Vympel]

Acceleration and mass figures for a reaction drive are a huge benchmark for the SW firepower figures we have

Don't forget Gary Sarli's idiotic "mass lightening" crap in the latest Starships of the Galaxy trying to throw a wrench in that, though.

[Darth Wong]

"Mass lightening" technology is a classic example of a really stupid fan idea that certain hack writers latched onto. In Star Trek, we have no choice but to accept it because it found its way into the shows (or it did, before the franchise reboot; we'll have to see if it reappears in the new continuity).

The very name is stupid; it describes a goal but not a mechanism, and the goal doesn't even make physics sense. It would be no less silly to say that a certain fleet's starships have "thrust overthrust" technology to make their ships go faster. Or "weapon kick-assing" technology to give their missiles more punch. Or "light brightening" technology to make their lasers more powerful.

"Captain, how does your ship go so fast?"
"Oh that's easy. We have mass-lightening technology to make the ship easier to push."

"Captain, how does your ship fire lasers with more power than your ship can generate?"
"Oh that's easy. We have light brightening technology to increase their power level."

There's really no difference, except that we've heard the former example so many times that it no longer sets off our WTF alarms.

[Darth Hoth]

While I can't of course speak for Darth Hoth I think his point is that while scaling from what we see in the movies easily gives us numbers far exceeding the ICSes, and the EU easily supports that, the movies never actually show firepower on that scale.

Essentially, yes. Scaling (and EU) gives us figures that at either line up with or exceed the ICS numbers easily. My point all along has been that if we use only the films, we cannot establish any safe lower limit on firepower, beyond what was demonstrated in TESB. Logically, the figures should be greater, but taking the movies-only approach, we cannot be certain by how much they would be so.

[Connor MacLeod]

Essentially, yes. Scaling (and EU) gives us figures that at either line up with or exceed the ICS numbers easily. My point all along has been that if we use only the films, we cannot establish any safe lower limit on firepower, beyond what was demonstrated in TESB. Logically, the figures should be greater, but taking the movies-only approach, we cannot be certain by how much they would be so.

And why the hell is it that only "What we see" should matter as far as the movies only calcs go?

[Darth Hoth]

Because only directly demonstrated capabilities give us safe lower limits. If we go by scaling or indirect calcs, there will always remain a certain ambiguity - not so if we see directly the action and the results.

[Solauren]

Quite frankly, instead of altering the Star Wars films, I think it would be more productive to give the collect intelligence of the world a 20% increase (retroactive), combined with an increase in education standards (retroactive to 1900).

Anything else is a waste of a perfectly good divine intervention/soul-sale.

[Connor MacLeod]

Acceleration and mass figures for a reaction drive are a huge benchmark for the SW firepower figures we have

Don't forget Gary Sarli's idiotic "mass lightening" crap in the latest Starships of the Galaxy trying to throw a wrench in that, though.

Ugh. Wasnt that where we was claiming the ICS figures were just "virtual" energy and somehow the "real" energy was alot less? God that was nonsense. Its amazing how hard that guy tries to make shit up just so he can treat his RPG statistics as acutal facts.

[Connor MacLeod]

Because only directly demonstrated capabilities give us safe lower limits.

Right. so the Death Star isn't safe? Nor are power figures derived from starship acceleration? Why the hell are logical inferences from existing capabilities somehow not considered valid simply because "We don't see them?" This is the bullshit argument I've been hearing for years as to why SW doesn't have firepower "WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT!" even though ample evidence exists in the fucking movies that it does.

If we go by scaling or indirect calcs, there will always remain a certain ambiguity - not so if we see directly the action and the results.

It sounds as if you're just playing semantics games here. There are people who still fucking believe the DS did not blow up Alderaan, for fuck's sake.

[Darth Hoth]

Right. so the Death Star isn't safe?

Why would it not be? We see it used, and can establish a lower limit on its power from the effects it has on Alderaan.

Nor are power figures derived from starship acceleration?

These show us the power generation and thrust they are capable of, for lower limits on such matters. Acceleration tolerances give us approximations for data on materials/tensor fields. And so on. But it does not provide a specified lower limit for what amount of the power they generate that they can put directly into their guns, for example.

Why the hell are logical inferences from existing capabilities somehow not considered valid simply because "We don't see them?" This is the bullshit argument I've been hearing for years as to why SW doesn't have firepower "WE'VE NEVER SEEN IT!" even though ample evidence exists in the fucking movies that it does.

I would, with my understanding of engineering and science, which I freely admit is much less than yours, rather say that we have evidence strongly implying the power levels (and directly demonstrated capabilities for absolute lower limits, such as asteroid vapourising or armour-vapourising on the Death Star trench run). But until we had stated canonical figures or calculable examples, we could not establish, say, the lower limit on HTLs for certain.

It sounds as if you're just playing semantics games here.

Then I am sorry; such is not my intention. Perhaps I am expressing myself unclearly; English is not my native tongue.

There are people who still fucking believe the DS did not blow up Alderaan, for fuck's sake.

They are either wilfully dishonest or do not use scientific methods in their analysis. I was naturally referring to those who are prepared to accept canon and interpret it intelligently. Those who choose to be blind cannot have their eyes opened.

[Connor MacLeod]

Why would it not be? We see it used, and can establish a lower limit on its power from the effects it has on Alderaan.

Because its inconceivable that SW would somehow be able to build something like the DS and not have it have a significant impact on its technological capability. Even if a scaling was a million times inaccurat,e or even a billion times, you would still get GT range firepower for an ISD from the DS' established capabilities.

These show us the power generation and thrust they are capable of, for lower limits on such matters. Acceleration tolerances give us approximations for data on materials/tensor fields. And so on. But it does not provide a specified lower limit for what amount of the power they generate that they can put directly into their guns, for example.

You're only going to use tht power generation for two purposes really guns or engines. And given the "sit there and fire" mentality we see in the movies alone, logic dictates that the firepower must be going SOMEWHERE.

Besides, even if we assume somehow they utilize onyl a tiny fraction of that firepower for output (say 1/1000th) its still going to be well into the gigatons range at a minimum.

Besides, if we go by modern evidence its likely that munitions and warheads would be ROUGHLY consistent with firepower in terms of performance (likely greater) and we KNOW missiles aren't a dominant antiship weapon. That should tell us something.

Again you seem to have this idea that the only way something in the movies has validity is if we are told flat out explicitly. Which is fucking stupid, because there's a SHIT TON of stuff we dont know but we can infer from the movies. (fleet sizes, troop numbers, etc. are ALL going to be inferences. Nevermind scope/size of the Empire itself.)

I would, with my understanding of engineering and science, which I freely admit is much less than yours, rather say that we have evidence strongly implying the power levels (and directly demonstrated capabilities for absolute lower limits, such as asteroid vapourising or armour-vapourising on the Death Star trench run). But until we had stated canonical figures or calculable examples, we could not establish, say, the lower limit on HTLs for certain.

you're just nitpicking. You're never going to have absolute certanties in sci fi analysis - it just doesn't work that way. So if yuo're going to hold out for "only things we know for absolute sure as being true" then you're going to have a long bloody wait.

Then I am sorry; such is not my intention. Perhaps I am expressing myself unclearly; English is not my native tongue.

Is it really difficult to figure out that based on certain established capabilities we can infer others? At he very least we can do real life analogies and apply them (much like the nitpicking of naval classificaitons in SW was based on RL analogies.) I would have though the existence of the Death Star is ample proof of that.

They are either wilfully dishonest or do not use scientific methods in their analysis. I was naturally referring to those who are prepared to accept canon and interpret it intelligently. Those who choose to be blind cannot have their eyes opened.

So? By oyur logic its still a matter of "interpretation" and its not definitively proven, even though we see it happen. By your logic we are not expressly told HOW the DS blows up a planet, therefore we can't ever be absolutely sure that its brute force and not technobabble (and an argument could be made either way.) Do you not realize how absurd this sounds?

[Darth Hoth]

Sorry, it appears that I am not getting across what I am trying to say. What I mean is that while scaling will provide evidence and indicate power levels on a rougher scale, it gives us readings with much less precision than analysis of direct effects, which provide more certainty for a lower limit. Scaling readings can be off by orders of magnitude, while direct effects analysis will be more precise (within an order of magnitude, hopefully). Scaling is not wothless, just less useful for absolute limits as opposed to generalisations. And no, we cannot be entirely certain about anything, but some methods are better than others in that respect.

It seems to me that we are broadly in agreement, but talking past each other. I really cannot express it more clearly than above. If this, to you, means that I am still contending the point, that is not my intention. Consider it conceded, if so.

[Emperor of Mankind]

The first type consists of newcomers to the debate, who've never put much thought into it and just assumed that Trek would beat Wars because it's all nice and shiny. These ones are usualy easy enough to educate, and they quickly realise the truth. (Hell, I'll even hold my hand up and admit I used to be one of these lot until someone showed me how I was wrong)

I fell in this group, too. I initially assumed that the Federation could beat the Empire. I didn't realize, though, just how vast the scales in terms of numbers were between them (I'm still shocked by the power of Slave-1 versus the Enterprise). And while I knew that Star Wars ships were bigger, I didn't know just how big they were til I saw scale comparisons of them.

The second type consists of those who are, for whatever reasons, in denial about it and continue to insist that the evidence presented proves nothing. Anything you change still wouldn't convince them, because they refuse to be convinced.

These people I don't get. In general, I like Star Trek. Overall, I like it more than Star Wars. That the Federation can't beat the Empire in a mythical match-up doesn't take away from that in the slightest. But apparently, for some fans, it appears that the belief that the Federation is the all-consuming power in all of sci-fi literature is a key component of their fandom.

And to the poster who said that Storm Troopers should be shown to be better, I agree absolutely. I don't watch the Clone Wars cartoon regularly (though I did see the five-minute Genndy Tartakovsky series in its entirety. Man, that was awesome!), but I did catch one episode of it. And in that episode, they had a squad of Storm Troopers who were absolutely hard core, including one guy with a minigun equivalent who ends up giving his life to complete the mission. I saw that and all I could think was "Wow. Why couldn't we have seen more of that in the live-action movies?".

As for changes to the movies when it comes to the debate, I wouldn't make any. It's unnecessary. Now, changing the movies to make them better? That would certainly be nice. God knows that a new trilogy with Jar Jar excised from the films, Anakin recast, and his scenes with Padme completely rewritten in Attack of the Clones would be nice. I also wouldn't mind Darth Maul getting a bit more depth in the first one, doing more with Qui-Gon Jinn, and cleaning up a few other things here and there.

[Ghost Rider]

...*sigh* Thank you for necroing a topic so you can give your scintillating commentary at where you were for a dead debate.