![Sad :(](./images/smilies/icon_sad.gif)
Well that's my existential rant for the day.
Moderator: Vympel
I suppose. I just don't understand why Trekkers always pick fights they can't handle. When they aren't wanking against ST they generally wank against 40k or something similarly powerful. Why not wank against something more realistically beatable like Starcraft or nBSG?barnest2 wrote:Because the world hates you...
Not but more seriously, I think it's because there are two groups of people in existence. The first are obsessed with their 'side' being the best, and cannot accept that their 'side' could be inferior. They see it as a battle, and something that is very important.
The second group are simply those people who are new. Some of these, when presented with old debates, accept it and are happy. Others, they become the above. These people are retarded.
And yet this particular forum still existsTritio wrote:What debate?
As far as the majority of the main questions are concerned (e.g. ST and SW fight, who wins?), these questions have already been settled long ago.
Mainly because we have found plenty of other things to talk about. Have you noticed that the SW V ST forum is now a sub forum? We have history debates, new and politics discussions, we have a gaming forum, And our sci-fi board gets much more chat than SwvSt. So it's not really a massive thing anymore...the atom wrote:And yet this particular forum still existsTritio wrote:What debate?
As far as the majority of the main questions are concerned (e.g. ST and SW fight, who wins?), these questions have already been settled long ago.
That's definitely the best reason for this subforum's continued existance.Destructionator XIII wrote:e) There's still a lot of detail that can be legitimately debated
Because they're crusaders for a cause! Because it's all a big Warsie conspiracy that must be exposed!the atom wrote:I just don't understand why Trekkers always pick fights they can't handle.
In the Incredible cross sections that saxton wrote, he lists either the fire-power or the generator capacity for a clone troop transport, the acclamator. The figure is insane, and it means the troop transport has fire-power levels several powers of ten higher than a star trek warship.the atom wrote:What Saxon ICS impact?
Small nitpick: Technically, at least according to what I remember Curtis telling me, its actualyl 50 GT per shot. that's 200 GT for the whole turret (which is of course, four barreled.) No idea on ROF but I'm guessing it's not too fast at max firepower (or if it is it can't be sustained for long, like with AT-ATs)Destructionator XIII wrote:For the Acclamator, he lists the guns... with the power in a fucking parenthetical.
When I first heard about this, I figured there was a block of prose that explained it. But, I looked it up and, nope, it's a little aside. I kid you not.
From page 23, with some irrelevant parts snipped (the transparent part of the picture is there to show where I snipped some stuff).
So that little (200 gigatons per shot) added a lot of bullshit to the debate.
Well I was there at least for some of the latter parts of the "Great Debate" and I'm considered unoffically one of the Lesser Evils of the Warsie side, so...Now, I'm a relative newcomer so take what I say as hearsay.
Actually only a few people did the frame by frame stuff, the rest of us pretty much went along with what the smarter people (or at least those we considered smarter) did. The vast majority were more or less grunts or cannon fodder of varying degrees of intellect (I more or less fell into the latter position for the vast majority of it, and even then I tended to go more for research and looking up EU sources rather than dealing with the movies/visual data. I was good at picking out obscure tidbits and piecing it all together, because I've always enjoyed doing that. I still do.)Once upon a time, people would watch the movies and do frame by frame shit to draw their conclusions. Then the ICS came out with that parenthetical.
Pre-ICS you replace those with various figures on Mike or Curtis' site and it means the same. Trekkies had their own champions at various points in time. Vast majority of the time was spent trying to either bolster or demonstrate why one side's numbers were valid and/or possibly undercutting the other side's numbers.Now, debates go like this:
Warsie: 200 gigatons. Canon. Deal With It.
Trekkie: <spends half his time nitpicking this - is it canon? Do I have to deal with it? What is the context of that statement?>
Warsie: 200 gigatons. Canon. Deal With It.
rinse
spin
dry
I can't really answer for other people, but at least for me the ICS represented something that couldn't be easily nitpicked away. I got tired of trying to do calcs, piece together facts, and generally wasting hours and hours upon an argument only to have some smug twit come along and try to poke holes in it with shitty-ass logic. I felt it was essentially cheating, not "playing by the rules." I was at least (trying) to have a consistent and somewhat logical approach, and others just tried to rules lawyer their way to a win. Different, conflicting mindsets I suppose.repeat for the other portions I left in that picture too. The effective thing here for the warsie is he can stay in the offensive with a single message, which means the other guy is liable to trip up first.
The real problem with the "debate" is that it's been something of a tribal phenomenon much like a football or baseball time. Each side is more concerned about its own side winning, and some will go to any lengths to do that. It' and general inertia/tradition is probably what keeps it going along like some shambling zombie corpse. It's not that SW vs ST can't be interesting, its just that the way its 'traditionally' been done has no more value, and trying to continue to pit a full Empire against a full Federation (or full ST) in a duel to the death (hah! TRADITION) is silly and pointless.But the analogy comes in - if the hypothetical vs movie was made, I think it'd follow that same pattern. Play the one hit kill clip. Canon. Deal With It. Then the battles over each part...
a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
But we've never seen that type of firepower used before! Even during a BDZ where there's absolutely no reason to hold back. The highest legitimate figure I can think of for Danyanko is maybe in the high GT range. Using those numbers from that SD essay, along with some sloppy conversions(I'm not very good at math), I figure the BDZ of Danyanko was maybe around 400-500 TT spread out over multiple guns, over the course of several hours (as I my understanding of the event went). However there's still a few variables I don't yet know, (such as the amount of guns used in bombardment, length of bombardment, energy distrution between guns)so I'll have to do a bit more work before I can say much for sure.Batman wrote:Teratons per gun absolutely works if you go with the ICS/CCS figures. ISD1, 7.73E24W, 16 guns, say 50% going to guns (they're supposed to be able to route most of their power to guns) gives you not quite 58 TT. Cutting it to a more conservative 10%, that's still 5.8TT.
Of course, that leaves out refire rates, wear and tear on the guns and their mounts, how deeply this cuts into their fuel supplies (and whatever else consumables turbolasers need) etc.
PT per gun I find a bit overboard (per broadside, maybe) but with massive use of capacitors for one single alpha strike I guess it may be possible, but I don't think I've ever seen those numbers in anything official, at least not for anything below an SSD.
Sure, there may still be other unexplored areas; that's why I specifically said "As far as the majority of the main questions are concerned (e.g. ST and SW fight, who wins?)". Those questions have pretty much been repeated and answered many times over via RARs, force subs and other discussions drawing upon the movies, books, ICS, and other grades of canonised material. And they were settled long ago.Stofsk wrote:It's still a pretty arrogant attitude to dismiss it all as 'these questions were settled long ago'. Like Adam said, there are plenty of trolls on both sides, and plenty of areas of discussion that nobody really touches upon because it's not a part of The Great Debate.
The inhabitants of Alderaan I think would disagree, except they're no longer there.the atom wrote:But we've never seen that type of firepower used before!Batman wrote:Teratons per gun absolutely works if you go with the ICS/CCS figures. ISD1, 7.73E24W, 16 guns, say 50% going to guns (they're supposed to be able to route most of their power to guns) gives you not quite 58 TT. Cutting it to a more conservative 10%, that's still 5.8TT.
Of course, that leaves out refire rates, wear and tear on the guns and their mounts, how deeply this cuts into their fuel supplies (and whatever else consumables turbolasers need) etc.
PT per gun I find a bit overboard (per broadside, maybe) but with massive use of capacitors for one single alpha strike I guess it may be possible, but I don't think I've ever seen those numbers in anything official, at least not for anything below an SSD.
Because-you say so. All of the reasons why they may not go full power DO apply.Even during a BDZ where there's absolutely no reason to hold back.
That's funny, and here I thought I said them being capable of that would require unusual circumstances and could you point me to the part where I said that (completely hypothetical) firepower figured into them doing a BDZ?What I can say for sure, is that if a ISD was capable of a PT broadside, the BDZ of Danyanko would have taken seconds. There would been no even cratering. I doubt there would have even been a crust. Sending a mop-up team would have been irrelevant because there's no point investigating a sea of lava.
In case you forgot, the inhabitants of Alderaan were hit by the Death Star, which is irrelevant to the discussion.The inhabitants of Alderaan I think would disagree, except they're no longer there.
Such as?Because-you say so. All of the reasons why they may not go full power DO apply.
I pulled up the BDZ because it's their highest known firepower showing. All I'm saying that statements of higher firepower are unproven and have never been shown or implied in canon.That's funny, and here I thought I said them being capable of that would require unusual circumstances and could you point me to the part where I said that (completely hypothetical) firepower figured into them doing a BDZ?
Actually, the ICS got attacked the same as Mike or Curtis did - legalistic nitpickery or "reasonable doubt" tedium-inducing shit. Indeed, some considered the ICS into a questionable status because Curtis had written it, and some argued he had some evil, anti-Trek ulterior motive in doing so (or that people like Mike and Wayne had influenced Curtis to stick those numbers in.) That's not really true though - Curtis is completely uncaring about vs debating or ST and his only connection to it was via Mike or Wayne largely. Sad really since he's become such a infamous and much-maligned figure as a result of the ICS and his work. One of the reasons (other being real life) that put his site into indefinite hiatus. Hell even now the ICS is regarded as being inherently suspect despite being a published SW work, just because Curtis was involved - a bit ironic considering how some other authors like Karen Traviss get relegated into that category for similar reasons, but eh.Destructionator XIII wrote:A big difference there is you can attack their reasoning and their facts (in theory at least); there's actually something to debate against a reference to that. With the ICS number, it's primary evidence, so you can't argue its validity in general, even if you tried. Sure, you can say it doesn't apply in this situation, or there must be some interpretation/nuance you're missing, but you can't say outright "this is wrong/fallacious" (without doing canon bullshit anyway) like you can to something Mike or Curtis say on their websites, forcing the warsie back on the defensive.
When you get down to it it really is about the interpretations of evidence. (is it just special effects, or not?) My advice to people who dislike the ICS is to read it. It gives us some hard data, but it doesnt explain everything, and that leaves the 'wiggle room' you allude to. Ex: 200 GT quad TLs are at "maximum firepower", and we dont know what drawbacks or what uses those are for (They aren't likely to be standard combat settings.) heavy TL turrets may be able to throw out TT bolts, but that doesn't mean they're effective in all circumstances - if TLS were physical projectiles, I'd assume a higher energy "bolt" might actually move slower than a lower energy one. At the very least, a higher output is going to cause more recoil problems which can hamper tracking/targeting.Thankfully, the interpretation/nuance angle has a lot of wiggle room, so there's some stuff to talk about.
I'm sorry, you said we've never seen that kind of firepower used, and we definitely didthe atom wrote:In case you forgot, the inhabitants of Alderaan were hit by the Death Star, which is irrelevant to the discussion.The inhabitants of Alderaan I think would disagree, except they're no longer there.
The same ones I already mentioned, perhaps? You know, wear and tear, consumables usage, that kind of thing?Such as?Because-you say so. All of the reasons why they may not go full power DO apply.
Err yes they have. Nevermind downscaling from the DS1 (which gets you massively higher firepower-as in orders of magnitude higher-than the ICS/CCS state), both the ISD reactor power and ability to direct 'most' of its output to weapons are canon. Which, I'd like to remind you, I already mentioned.I pulled up the BDZ because it's their highest known firepower showing. All I'm saying that statements of higher firepower are unproven and have never been shown or implied in canon.That's funny, and here I thought I said them being capable of that would require unusual circumstances and could you point me to the part where I said that (completely hypothetical) firepower figured into them doing a BDZ?
Ah yes I should have been more specific with my wording thenBatman wrote:I'm sorry, you said we've never seen that kind of firepower used, and we definitely didIf you meant we never saw that kind of firepower out of a Star Destroyer, you should've said so.
And yes, that was a nitpick.
That's true I supposeThe same ones I already mentioned, perhaps? You know, wear and tear, consumables usage, that kind of thing?
Err yes they have. Nevermind downscaling from the DS1 (which gets you massively higher firepower-as in orders of magnitude higher-than the ICS/CCS state), both the ISD reactor power and ability to direct 'most' of its output to weapons are canon. Which, I'd like to remind you, I already mentioned.