StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ahh, but so would the older measurements be as well, and the rule seems to be: newer info overrides older info about the same subject.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Pablo doubtless knew about it and hence posted his little "preview" on SW.com... the only difference was, as we saw from the quote on the site, he slanted the quote in favor of HIS interpretation of things.

That showed a ridiculous lack of integrity, on Pablo's part.

The comment on Endor's fate is not really all that specific in the book. Its ambiguity leaves alot of openings for the Anti-Holocaust crowd to wiggle in. In fact, the total absencec of any mention of global-scale destrtuction could be arggued as proof it didn't occur, and that any hazardous debris heading towards the moon was taken care of by the Rebels.

However, it indicates clearly that the debris existed and was a serious problem. It precludes the use of planetary shielding by either the Alliance or the Empire (since the Rebels wouldn't have bothered screening the correct area if they had a planetary shield ready to go). It correctly points out that the Alliance fleet didn't even know about the Ewoks, and was concerned only with extracting their commando team. It resolves any lingering difficulties with fitting the Holocaust-scenario into the film itself by explaining how the Alliance could've been partying later (nuclear winter effect hadn't set in, yet). Frankly, it strikes me as destroying the fan-whore position for these things.

As it is, alot more corrections got pushed through than I would have imagined (like with the Executor, the DS2, etc.) , so that is a minor point, but I obviously would not consider the fanwhores defeated (at least where Endor is concerned.)

True, but life just got harder for him and his chronies.

Another point that was poorly handled was the Executor's shield rating. That too is kind of too ambiguous to be precisely useful (what kind of star,? are we talking about instantaneous dissipation or overall energy absorption capability? Or is it referring to power requirements? Does surface area matte,r etc.) Quotes like that are already too common as it is, and they tend to leave too much room for nitpickers to manuver in. (EG Slave ship, Dodonna quote, BDZ discussions, etc.)

I imagine it's talking about instantaneous dissipation rates, since that's the format that was used by the Acclamator and comparisons between the relative strength of the shielding of the two ships make sense that way. Surface area may or may not matter, but that's the maximum theoretical shielding of all of the different shield sections combined.

Valiento has begun the smear campaign. We should counter this with "Great vengeance and furious anger"

+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jsp?f ... 25#7416234

+http://boards.theforce.net/Literature/b ... 96/p5/?118

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I must say however I personally disagree with the assertion by Dr. Saxton that the Executor is a Star Dreadnought; it is far more dedicating of its mass and volume to carrier and command operations than to outright ship-to-ship fighting.

I would refer to Giel's flagship as an example of an Imperial Star Battleship, and perhaps the Soveriegn and Eclipse as proper Star Dreadnoughts.

Also, the classification of the Executor as a Star Supercarrier or Star Commandship made it much easier to justify some of the incidents it got spanked in the EU with wimpy force.

The term probably comes from Luceano and not Drl. Saxton, as he has always used the term "command Ship" prior to this.

About the canon issue, it really doesn't matter if the book is C or G-level canon as Chee today made it clear that C and G level form an overall, not separate, canon (and don't forget that it's closer to the films). While we already knew that, I think it was good that we got it spelled out:
+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jsp?f ... msRange=25

It sounds as if this book is worth a look judging from Icehawk's description.

Hmmm, that gun count for the Executor is still way too low. We saw almost a thousand turrets on it, and that translates into over 7000 HTLs (though some could be ion cannons), and then you have all the PD guns.

Two steps forward, one step back.

Icehawk wrote:The only way they will detail the ships is if they make a revised version of the ICS for the original trilogy or make a Return of the Jedi ICS. I personally don't see them doing an ICS for each of the original movies at all, but an updated and revised version of the original ICS with Curtis Saxton as consultant could easily be done.

And Original Trilogy Volume II ICS or something. There's plenty of ground uncovered by OT ICS I that it wouldn't be a problem. The ISD II, Mon Cal cruiser types, Executor, Nebulon-B, Communications Ship, DS II, etc.

Some rough calcs, this puts the executor at about 1.2e27 watts for power generation, and Mon Cal cruisers with a firepower of 4-5 times that of the ISD

Makes some sense. The ISD is rather heavily biased in favor its luxurious amounts of hangar and carrier space.

The Mon Calamari Cruiser, while using a less ideal hull form in terms of soft target placement and armor strength, as well as gun arcs, is more dedicated toward combat and can accomodate a much larger main reactor and heavier/more guns. Incidentally, while the notches allow for less up-down traversement, they probably endow the vessel with better protection from light gun and fighter attacks against her batteries (EU indicates common fighter-bomber tactic is to bomb TLs on Imperial ships' surfaces).

Ender wrote:Hmmm, that gun count for the Executor is still way too low. We saw almost a thousand turrets on it, and that translates into over 7000 HTLs (though some could be ion cannons), and then you have all the PD guns.

Two steps forward, one step back.

Arguable that those are turrets, especially since they're assymetrically placed. I'd argue the turrets are probably heavier but fewer and located in the ventral cortex.

Ender wrote:Some rough calcs, this puts the executor at about 1.2e27 watts for power generation, and Mon Cal cruisers with a firepower of 4-5 times that of the ISD

Wouldnt mon cals firepower be higher then this, if the Executor shields are 5000 times an Acclamator that makes them around 80,000 TT per second (16 TT for the Acclamator IIRC) there was what a dozen mon-cals at endor of various types, they would each need to put out over 6,000 TT a second each to drop the shields of the executor, thats if the shields were fully down before the Executor hit the DSII

Executor wrote:

Ender wrote:Some rough calcs, this puts the executor at about 1.2e27 watts for power generation, and Mon Cal cruisers with a firepower of 4-5 times that of the ISD

Wouldnt mon cals firepower be higher then this, if the Executor shields are 5000 times an Acclamator that makes them around 80,000 TT per second (16 TT for the Acclamator IIRC) there was what a dozen mon-cals at endor of various types, they would each need to put out over 6,000 TT a second each to drop the shields of the executor, thats if the shields were fully down before the Executor hit the DSII

My rough number were more along these lines:

1e26 for shielding.
10 Moncals
=1e25 watts firepower. An ISD has ~2e24, and with a margin of error for smaller ships and more cruisers, its about 4-5 times stronger.

That said, I'm starting to think our current interpratation of shields is a bit off. I'll explain that more if I ever get a chance to sit down & write out my thoughts and break them down.

Ender wrote:

Executor wrote:

Ender wrote:Some rough calcs, this puts the executor at about 1.2e27 watts for power generation, and Mon Cal cruisers with a firepower of 4-5 times that of the ISD

Wouldnt mon cals firepower be higher then this, if the Executor shields are 5000 times an Acclamator that makes them around 80,000 TT per second (16 TT for the Acclamator IIRC) there was what a dozen mon-cals at endor of various types, they would each need to put out over 6,000 TT a second each to drop the shields of the executor, thats if the shields were fully down before the Executor hit the DSII

My rough number were more along these lines:

1e26 for shielding.
10 Moncals
=1e25 watts firepower. An ISD has ~2e24, and with a margin of error for smaller ships and more cruisers, its about 4-5 times stronger.

That said, I'm starting to think our current interpratation of shields is a bit off. I'll explain that more if I ever get a chance to sit down & write out my thoughts and break them down.

Would be intrested in reading them if you do

Come on, guys, no hotlinking SW.com threads.

Sorry to divert the thread, but where does this four-hour battle against a Grand Admiral after the DSII blew up come from and which GA was it?

Ender wrote:Hmmm, that gun count for the Executor is still way too low. We saw almost a thousand turrets on it, and that translates into over 7000 HTLs (though some could be ion cannons), and then you have all the PD guns.

Two steps forward, one step back.

Remember that the AOTC:ICS refers to the 24 point-defense weapons of the Acclamator as "laser cannons". They wouldn't be included in a quote that says "5,000 turbolasers and ion cannons".

Also, why does one thousand turrets translate to 7000 HTLs? If they were all Avenger type; yes, but we don't know that for sure.

Master of Ossus wrote:Come on, guys, no hotlinking SW.com threads.

Sorry, Master of Ossus, I simply forgot to insert the +.

It's too bad that Dr. Saxton wasn't one of the writers, only consultant. I can't say that I like the new Executor designation. Clearly the role of the Executor is to work as a command ship (it's also identified as such in the script).
I'm also not to keen about the introduction of new vehicles in the Hoth-battle. Of course, just because more vehicles aren't shown, doesn't mean that they couldn't be there at a later stage, but again...
Otherwise, this book sounds great, and could be worth picking up.

Vympel wrote:

Ender wrote:Hmmm, that gun count for the Executor is still way too low. We saw almost a thousand turrets on it, and that translates into over 7000 HTLs (though some could be ion cannons), and then you have all the PD guns.

Two steps forward, one step back.

Remember that the AOTC:ICS refers to the 24 point-defense weapons of the Acclamator as "laser cannons". They wouldn't be included in a quote that says "5,000 turbolasers and ion cannons".

Also, why does one thousand turrets translate to 7000 HTLs? If they were all Avenger type; yes, but we don't know that for sure.

It also doesn't mention the missile launchers, or the tractor beams. So it's not so bad in my opinion.

Does the Executor-class have missile launchers?

Also, it's not clear whether "5,000 turbolasers and ion cannons" refers to turrets or individual barrels.

Vympel wrote:Does the Executor-class have missile launchers?

Also, it's not clear whether "5,000 turbolasers and ion cannons" refers to turrets or individual barrels.

From the roleplaying materials, yes.

Ender wrote:That said, I'm starting to think our current interpratation of shields is a bit off. I'll explain that more if I ever get a chance to sit down & write out my thoughts and break them down.

It's clear that they are. It doesn't add up to have the Mon Cals ten times more powerful than ISDs in firepower, and shielding to boot. Maybe H1, but Liberty-class and similar? No way.

The only way I can reconcile this at the moment is in a way I loathe to do... using some really nutty official material about the rebels using some kind of unique crystals to weaken the Executor's shields. The other cases like the Mon Remonda vs the Iron Fist etc. all have special circumstances as well, although they are still hard to swallow.

Maybe it can fit in with the whole "less vs. more" ideologies between the Rebels and the Imperials:

Imps: Loads of fighters and capital ships, less overall firepower and protection.

Rebels: Few fighters and capital ships, more overall firepower and protection than the Imperials.

Keep in mind, that there seem to have been three ships like Home One at the battle of Endor:

Home One, Independance and Defiant (forgot, if that was the right name of the third one).

And all they managed was to bring one section of the shield down, not the entire shield.

Well, it's the 5th, and my Amazon pre-order still says "Estimated Ship Date: Aug 3"

But BN.com doesn't list the book as pre-order anymore, so I'll give their stores a second look.

FTeik wrote:Keep in mind, that there seem to have been three ships like Home One at the battle of Endor:

Home One, Independance and Defiant (forgot, if that was the right name of the third one).

And all they managed was to bring one section of the shield down, not the entire shield.

The [Home One]-type Defiance was destroyed by the Death Star II, I think.

But yes, there were two [Home One]-type vessels, which should be accounted for in any calculation of firepower for average vessels.