1. That was TEMPORARY
2. That wasn't a planetary shield!
I don't see how it being temporary hurts what I'm saying. A temporary shield should be less powerful or have less capabilities than a permament one. Which would support my claim that a single generator is all that is needed to protect a planet.
And if it isn't a planetary shield, what is it exactly? What seperates it from a true planetary shield?
After doing some calcs, I do realize that in order for the ROTJ shield to cover an area the size of earth it would take about 16 of those shield generators. But I just think that because it was a temporary shield that didn't have to protect the entire planet, and thus most likely underpowered, it shouldn't be used a benchmark for the rest of Star Wars shield tech. Like I feel the EU has used it has.
Consant bombardmant of high firepower can bring down a planetary shield, this is why the debate was started about the Death Stars value. We know the Empire had 25,000 Star Destroyer's built. This was more than enough to take down a planetary shield, but never would the Empire combine all their fleets to make one gigantic fleet so as not to lose control of their system garrisons
But, wouldn't the resources used in creating the Death Star have been better spent creating a dedicating planetary shield destroying fleet?
Consant bombardmant of high firepower can bring down a planetary shield, this is why the debate was started about the Death Stars value. We know the Empire had 25,000 Star Destroyer's built. This was more than enough to take down a planetary shield, but never would the Empire combine all their fleets to make one gigantic fleet so as not to lose control of their system garrisons
But, wouldn't the resources used in creating the Death Star have been better spent creating a dedicating planetary shield destroying fleet?
Yes, but a Death Star is scary. and the Darks side likes killing things
Hapan Battle Dragons Rule!
When you want peace prepare for war! --Confusious
That was disapointing ..Should we show this Federation how to build a ship so we may have worthy foes? Typhonis 1
The Prince of The Writer's Guild|HAB Spacewolf Tank General| God Bless America!
Which is more intimidating, a large fleet that can take down a planetary shield, or a single battle station that can kill fleets of cap ships and destroy an entire planet?
//This Line Blank as of 7/15/07\\ Ornithology Subdirector: SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
Wiilite
It only make common sense that if left un challenged a large fleet should be able to bring down a section of the shields.. Such vessels like a torpedoe shpere and a fleet with a SSD would have enought power, one would think.
But no planet with a shield generator just has a shield generator. they would also have planetary Turbo laser batteries, ion cannons, missiles launcher, obrital battlestations, and defensive fighters/ ship.
Even a single strike from a planetary battery would batter down a a star destroyer shields, a second or third strike cripple or destroy it... while the shield is up the effect make these batteries unhittable and the loses to the attacking fleets would be such that the attack would be force to leave or vulenable to a counter attack from any warships the defenser would be able to muster.
If it was important enought, a massive attacking fleet could be sent, but then it would draw resources from other sectors...
A single vessel that could batter down the shields of a planet and /or destroy it would represent a massive offensive value. It would be like the medievel time when the Trenchbucket ( and later Cannons) gave kings or lords with the resources a means of battling down a castles wall, without having to laid seige, or risk large losses in storming it..
It is possible that a planet with a planetary shield and enough power would be able to hold out almost indefinitely against an ISD or similar, but your point is well taken. Planetary shields make up only one element of a system's defensive capabilities. Granted, they are an important part, but not the only part.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
It is possible that a planet with a planetary shield and enough power would be able to hold out almost indefinitely against an ISD or similar, but your point is well taken. Planetary shields make up only one element of a system's defensive capabilities. Granted, they are an important part, but not the only part.
Plus, a planet under siege can whistle up reinforcments. Maybe even enough to destroy your fleet. The DS, on the other hand can simply obliterate a planet with a single decisive strike.
Stormbringer: It takes 30 mins to raise a planetary shield according to WEG so the DS can arrive and blow a planet away before they have a chance but a fleet can be held off until the shields have a chance to be raised.
Also, the DS would not be in-system long enough to take damage from its defenses. A fleet would have to fight a long battle in orbit and take fire from the ground before being able to engage the planet itself.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
right, the DS can charge the superlaser while in Hyperspace, drop out close to the planet, acquire the planet, then fire. Assuming the hemisphere with the superlaser is "front," the DS will be more or less facing the planet. It shouldn't take more than a few minutes to line up the shot and fire.
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
i find it hard to believe that there was no talk about planetary shields in place for not being able to defend the planet from attack but they can also be used for more "real life" problems. A shiled can act as a buffer for astroids or solar flares or radiation not only to defend lazer bolts from fighters and capital ships. The only reason why the Death Star had such ease at knocking out Alderaan was that it had such a concentrated beam that the shields failed while trying to stop the first impact of the lazer/shield Zone.
"Boring Conversation anyway" Han Solo
"What kinda archeologist carries a weapon........Bad Example" Colonel Jack O'Neil
"My name is Olo... Hans Olo" -Dr. Daniel Jackson
"Well you did make the Farmingdale Run in less than 12 parsecs" --Personal Quote
"Just popped out for lunch" - Rowan Atkinson as Mr. Bean
Thrawn used that to his advantage. Planetary shields can stop asteroids, but if they're cloaked you can't find them and you can't risk one slipping through if you open the shield. Very effective blockade.
Fragment of the Lord of Nightmares, release thy heavenly retribution. Blade of cold, black nothingness: become my power, become my body. Together, let us walk the path of destruction and smash even the souls of the Gods! RAGNA BLADE!
Lore Monkey | the Pichu-master™
Secularism—since AD 80
Av: Elika; Prince of Persia
Stormbringer: It takes 30 mins to raise a planetary shield according to WEG so the DS can arrive and blow a planet away before they have a chance but a fleet can be held off until the shields have a chance to be raised.
And on this point WEG is dead wrong according to pretty all of the rest of the EU. Planetary shields can be raised very quickly, a minute or so at most. Take Rogue Squadron for example. The Blackmoon planetary shield was raised within seconds.
