Guest Ms. Talon Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 This was posted as a reply in another post: People should remember how in ROTJ a pair of A-Wings quickly knocked out the shields generator on the "Executor", then was destroyed by a single A-Wing ramming the bridge. It seems to me that the game IS accurate in how vulnerable cap-ships are to fighter attacks, and how the mighty Star-destroyers are reliant on fighters for protection. Star-destroyers were designed more to transport troops and fighters and to instill fear than for actually fighting a war against determined opposition. Before the rebellion the toughest opponents they had to face were pirates. Also, remember that the B-Wing was specifically designed to take out cap-ships by themselves. Star Wars combat is very closely modelled on WW-2 and Korean-War combat; and in modern real life combat surface warships, despite their size and fire-power are VERY vulnerable to fighter attacks...hence the "carrier combat group" where EVERYTHING is designed to protect the vitally important aircraft carrier. But it only takes a single attack-fighter slipping through the protective screens to sink or disable a multi-billion dollar carrier or warship! Somethings to keep in mind. ------------------ gototalon@home.com http://members.home.net/gototalon [This message has been edited by Ms. Talon (edited March 27, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primarch Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 Apart from the ISD, VSD & SSD there are no visible shield generators on any other capital ship. Now I have to ask the question: Are the Imperials the most stupid people in the entire galaxy or are those globes actually something else entirely? Considering that they had 25,000 years of warship design to fall back on I highly doubt that they are Shield Generators. Think about it...Why would anyone place what is the most important part of a Cap Ships defences right in plain view? The answer is you wouldn't...you'd bury them in the heart of the ship. Personally I'm of the opinion that those two scenes (A-Wings destroying globes then 'Admiral, we've just lost our bridge deflectors!') were placed the wrong way round. If they had have been the other way around then nobody would have questioned it, because up until that point nearly everyone thought they were Scanner Globes. Also, the SSD wasn't destroyed by a single A-Wing ramming the bridge, it was destroyed when it slammed into the Death Star. 1000 A-Wings, loaded up to the teeth with explosives and all hitting it at the same time probably wouldn't even destroy a 16 kilometre SSD. If the Executor had not hit the DS, then in all likelyhood it would have been out of action for a short time before control was regained. At which point it would get back into the action and continue punishing the Rebels... ------------------ 'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky'. Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ms. Talon Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 Whether the Executer was disabled by the ramming or destroyed by crashing into the Death Star the effect is the same. It still goes to my argument that cap-ships in Star Wars are just like those of modern combat of our world...easily put out of action by a few fighters (don't even argue with me on this, I've been married to an expert of modern warfare for a LONG time!) And while the shield generators seems to be put in a vulnerable place, remember my point that before the rebellion the ISDs were designed to intimidate, and the prospect of real war did not exist. History is replete with such design short-sightedness of weapons designed in peace-time, there were indeed many examples of this on warships designed before the Second World War. Also, it is irrelevant where you think those scenes should be; that's how they were written and that's what happened. (No offence). ------------------ gototalon@home.com http://members.home.net/gototalon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Wraith 5 Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 I have found Shield generators on the MC-80, and there is only one generator. When i find more i will tell you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest garyah99 Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 Primarch, have you even played a Star Wars Game? If so, you KNOW beyond a doubt that the globes on an ISD, VSD or SSD are indeed shield generators. And in ANH, one of the Imperial officers (can't remeber which one right now) said something to the effect that the Death Star was not designed to repel fighters. Vader then replies with something like "we'll have to take them ship to ship". Ms Talon is right. It is very conceivable that a capital class ship, in it's roll as a massive, planet scale destroyer, is left vulnerable to small fighter attacks. Don't forget the mighty British Battleships in the Falkland Islands war could be sunk by a single exocet missile! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nob Akimoto Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 The exposed shield gen on the non winged CRS in XWA is BS....why does a ship that supposedly has triple redundant shielding and such have just a SINGLE gen on the outside? The Star Destroyers on the otherhand might be sorta like pre Battle of Jutland Battlecruisers. Armor concentrated along the flanks, while the decks were rather lightly armored. A single high angle shot from a ship had a high chance of punching through the deck, and igniting magazines(the Queen Mary went down that way). Basically shielding/armor built to withstand a certain type of attack. Exposed shield gens might be vulnerable to fighter strikes, but most capships would be slag before they got near the things, and exposing them might give the Impstars and Vicstars and Execstars more protection along their hulls from capship lasers than anything else. I'm sure one or two Imperial admirals have said "There's something wrong with our bloody ships today!" at one point or another. (BTW for those who don't know that line was spoken by Admiral Beatty(commanding officer of the British Battlecruiser fleet) at the Battle of Jutland.) ------------------ Vote for Nob in 2000, Nob the name everyone knows and adores. Vote for the best, vote for the right person, vote for Nob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ms. Talon Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 I'm also sure that Imperial commanders were pretty arrogant,complacent, and inexperienced, before the Rebellion. Remember, the Empire's might was unchallenged. Any design defficiencies would have simply overlooked or thought to be inconsequential. The exposed generators may have been placed there for ease of construction and/or for providing good coverage, and without any credible opposition, their vulnerability was never an issue, and even after the rebellion began, the small size of the Rebel forces must have still seemed to most commanders to be harmless to the massive Imperial forces ------------------ gototalon@home.com http://members.home.net/gototalon [This message has been edited by Ms. Talon (edited March 27, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darth Massacator Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 Here's a couple of more things to think about. Sure in the movie, 2 lonely A-Wings take out a capital ship .......but the combat footage of the movie *probably* didn't show the other ships that attacked it. For all we know, many fighters made a combined effort to take it out. The movie wasn't entirely based on the final battle ...would've been nice in many ways though Secondly, maybe the sheild generators had to be placed outside the ships because they were a health-hazard if us lowly-humans got too close to 'em. Kinda like the warp engines in Star Trek they weren't exactly sitting in Capt. Kirk's lap. So, until we build a real one, I guess we'll never know. My 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Kinnison Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 No they have to be sensor towers we have gone over this many times, even i was conveiced after all of the evidance. The ISDs and SSD state of the art ships. They are designed to go after what they would think thier biggest threat would be...themselves. Imperials were allways talking about how Invicible of pwoerful thier crafts, ships, and vehicles. But a Un-orginized, Gurrilla force will allways have the advantage becasue of one thing...they choose when, and where they want to do battle. They made a stand at Yavin, because they knew they had to eploit the weekness of the death star, before the DS starded rampging thru the galaxy. Once they thought they might be detected, the rebels started evacuating Hoth, the only reason why the but troops out thier and sent Snowspeeders was to delay the Imperial advance. At endor they Again did the same thing as they did at Yavin, only they knew that there was going to be more than the station and its fighters. They outsmarted thier foe, not out fought. One more thing. The reason the Nacelle of a Star Trek craft are so far wawy from the main body of the ship...is because the Warp nacelle are Micro black hole generators, and if anything happens to the engines, like an over load, they can eject them away from the ship. If you look at the Design for the USS Stargazer, the warp fields would create a nice black hole with the converging warp fields right in the middle of the ship. So they end up "Pulseing" the engines to prevent that. In no way do the Warp Nacells ahve anything similar to star wars Shield generators, or sensor globes. Last bit. The Executor was destroyed as in fell into the death star, but it wouldn't have done that unless it lost control. As in a major systems failure. Every ships has a back-up bridge, but niether will work in the computers are not working. ------------------ Two wrongs do not make a right, but three lefts do Official Forum Pun-slinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ms. Talon Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 ANYWAYS...This 'technical' discussion is getting a bit silly! My MAIN point is that it should not be surprising that small fighters can quickly overwhelm, disable and/or destroy large cap-ships in the game, since it has been often the case in our real life world. After the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse" were sunk by Japanese bombers in the Indian ocean early in WW2, no capital ships ever since dares to venture within reach of aircraft strike range without sizable fighter protection. The same applies to the cap-ships in Star Wars; they are reliant on fighters for protection and can be quickly put out of action by small, fast-moving fighters. The game is NOT unrealistic in this. ------------------ gototalon@home.com http://members.home.net/gototalon [This message has been edited by Ms. Talon (edited March 28, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milkshake Posted March 28, 2000 Share Posted March 28, 2000 Talking of intimadation, an ISD has all it's firepower on the front, top. Leaving the rear only protected by the engine wash, and a well angled attack, with real damage physics, would blow the Bridge tower clean off! ------------------ Charlie "Milkshake" Mitchell Black wind squadron/Rouge Aliiance Black 4/Rouge 8 Self proclaimed RAL Drunkard milkshake@milkshake.co.uk I can drink 2 times as Much as any being three times my high! He He! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fondas Posted March 29, 2000 Share Posted March 29, 2000 What Ms.Talon said it's true and the problem is that G.Lucas was probably thinking WWII war ships when designing his universe. Even today, some of this principals apply in modern warfare. The big difference is that in todays fleets , although the flagship, usually the carrier, is vunrable to fighter attacks and stand-off missiles, it and it's escorts have numerous defenses against them, like long and short range SAM's and surface missiles, heavy jamming, either created by vessels or/and AWACS, gun turrets and of course a lot of fighter planes. The main goal is to deny the enemy a fire resolution and even if the enemy gets one, the countermeasure systems are heavy .That's why you'll never get to see a carrier without it's escorts. ------------------ The only place where success comes prior to work, is in a dictionary ! TZG+7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest garyah99 Posted March 29, 2000 Share Posted March 29, 2000 If the globes on an ISD are NOT shield generators, then why is it when you blow them up, the ships shields drop to zero, and your wingman comes out with "You took out a shield generator", or "they're in trouble now"?? And in Star Trek they NEVER eject the engine nacelles, they eject the warp core itself if it becomes unstable. The engine nacelles are an integrated part of the ship's hull and cannot be ejected. ------------------ God gave us one mouth and two ears; try to listen twice as much as you speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Kinnison Posted March 29, 2000 Share Posted March 29, 2000 *achoo* < computer voice > warp core breach emminent, Eject warp core < /computer voice > Aww man, not again. Sorry but the warp core does not propel the ship, it is a chamber to contain and creater a matter/Anti-matter reaction. Besides the main reason the nacelle are dso far away is be cause if the strong warp fields near it. Never once did you ever see a problem in the original Star Trek about Warp Core breach..even in Wrath of Kahn you never had that problem..all you need to do was stop the reation and everything was fine. In XWA the Globes on the top of the SD are Sheild Generators, but in SW they are sensor globes...TG made a mistake, so that the game might be a little more fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ms. Talon Posted March 29, 2000 Share Posted March 29, 2000 According to the "Essential Guide to Star Wars Ships and Vehicles" the globes ARE SHIELD GENERATORS! The sensors is in the long horizontal antennae between them. In ROTJ the "Executor" lost its bridge shields when one of them was destroyed. Why are some people insistent on being so difficult? ------------------ gototalon@home.com http://members.home.net/gototalon [This message has been edited by Ms. Talon (edited March 29, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milkshake Posted March 29, 2000 Share Posted March 29, 2000 This star trek stuff is not new to me, I'm a full on Trekie! I've got the TNG Interactive tech manual. The DS9 Tech Manual The Enciclopediea. The Chronolegy. A TNG uniform The Interactive Board game. Ect Ect... ------------------ Charlie "Milkshake" Mitchell Black wind squadron/Rouge Aliiance Black 4/Rouge 8 Self proclaimed RAL Drunkard milkshake@milkshake.co.uk I can drink 2 times as Much as any being three times my high! He He! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest garyah99 Posted March 29, 2000 Share Posted March 29, 2000 I never heard Capt Kirk saying "eject the nacelles " either. That's just plain ludicrous. But how many times did Scotty say "I can't hold 'er together"? The warp field that forms clearly MUST contain AND effect ALL occupants of the ship as well as the ship itself, or else you'd have the ship disappeaing at warp 9 while the crew stayed put, or became a bug smooshed against the back wall. Besides, if the warp field is so damned dangerous, (now you've got me swearing, something I don't often do!), how do you explain the fact that they are directly adjacent to the ship in a "Runabout" (a very small ship), or the episode where Dr Crusher was actually trapped INSIDE a warp bubble that was created an experiment by Wesley? And that scene you referred to in "Wrath of Khan"? They COULDN't eject the warp core because it was the ONLY chance they had of escaping the Genesis exposion. To eject the warp core was to die. Besides, it wasn't in danger of beaching, it just didn;t work at the time. ------------------ God gave us one mouth and two ears; try to listen twice as much as you speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primarch Posted March 29, 2000 Share Posted March 29, 2000 Just been though this and I have a few comments Also, remember that the B-Wing was specifically designed to take out cap-ships by themselves. The B-Wing was originally designed to engage Escort Warships like the Lancer, Strike, Corvettes etc. (Shantipole Project). They were not meant to take out Capital Ships by themselves but as part of a larger group. I seriously doubt that it was meant to go up against ISD's/SSD's on it's own, other wise what is the point of starships? All you'll need is a fleet of B-Wings Before the rebellion the ISDs were designed to intimidate I can just imagine the Pirate crews converstsion. #1. "Look at the size of that thing...pretty intimidating isn't it?" #2. "Nah...some wally has put the shield generators right out in the open...a good pilot in a fighter could cripple it!!" Not a very convincing argument. Pirates are thieves...not idiots (in most cases ) Also, it is irrelevant where you think those scenes should be; that's how they were written and that's what happened. (No offence). Non taken, it's only my opinion Primarch, have you even played a Star Wars Game? If so, you KNOW beyond a doubt that the globes on an ISD, VSD or SSD are indeed shield generators. Yes I have and I also know that games are the lowest form of cannon material. The only known exeption to this rule is the Wing Commander series. ANH, one of the Imperial officers (can't remeber which one right now) said something to the effect that the Death Star was not designed to repel fighters. This is correct, however, the designers did not realise how big a flaw the reactor vent was. If it did not have that (pretty deadly) flaw, then the DS would have been inpervious to fighter attack. (+ Don't forget the original DS had a fighter compliment of 7,200 TIES). Because of such a large fighter screen, the DS was designed to repel Capital Ships which were believed to be a bigger threat. Don't forget the mighty British Battleships in the Falkland Islands war could be sunk by a single exocet missile! As I recall, the RN hasn't used Battleships since the 1970's and (providing you don't call the rusted hulls of the Russian Fleet a navy) no one uses BS's anymore. Anyway, I don't remember which ship was sunk but at most it was a Cruiser. The exposed shield gen on the non winged CRS in XWA is BS....why does a ship that supposedly has triple redundant shielding and such have just a SINGLE gen on the outside? I completely agree...it doesn't. Armor concentrated along the flanks, while the decks were rather lightly armored. I may be wrong but up until the 40's a good number of warships had wooden decks. The HMS Hood, a cruiser sunk in WWII by the Bismarck, had this problem. Exposed shield gens might be vulnerable to fighter strikes, but most capships would be slag before they got near the things, and exposing them might give the Impstars and Vicstars and Execstars more protection along their hulls from capship lasers than anything else. Unlikely, otherwise this design would have appeared on other warships (Neb B, Lancer etc.) which are better at anti-fighter and faster than heavier warships. I'm also sure that Imperial commanders were pretty arrogant,complacent, and inexperienced. Arrogant and complacent...perhaps...but inexperienced I doubt. Remember, a large number of the early commanders would have been veterans of the Clone Wars and Academy training wasn't easy. How many current day ship captains have even been in combat...a handful, yet you would not call those that haven't inexperianced. Any design defficiencies would have simply overlooked or thought to be inconsequential. That is one hell of a design defficiency. The exposed generators may have been placed there for ease of construction and/or for providing good coverage, and without any credible opposition, their vulnerability was never an issue. No warship would ever be given the go ahead if there was such a vulnerability that could be exploited. For all we know, many fighters made a combined effort to take it out. Not just fighters. All available Alliance vessels were ordered to concentrate on the SSD. Secondly, maybe the sheild generators had to be placed outside the ships because they were a health-hazard if us lowly-humans got too close to 'em. Then why do no other warships used by humans have shield towers? They are designed to go after what they would think thier biggest threat would be...themselves. Yes... Every ships has a back-up bridge, but niether will work in the computers are not working. Unlikely. No SW warship has a centralised computer system. Everything is de-centralised to avoid such a problem, and that is what driods and massive crews are for. The same applies to the cap-ships in Star Wars; they are reliant on fighters for protection and can be quickly put out of action by small, fast-moving fighters. Then explain the Lancer Class Frigate. An ISD has all it's firepower on the front, top. Leaving the rear only protected by the engine wash. Even in the game, without taking out the rear TL Turret, there are actually no angles of attack that leave you clear of fire (unless you like eating engine wash ) That's why you'll never get to see a carrier without it's escorts. Unfortunately the ISD was designed to be both a carrier and an escort. If the globes on an ISD are NOT shield generators, then why is it when you blow them up, the ships shields drop to zero, and your wingman comes out with "You took out a shield generator". Games are the lowest form of cannon. In XWA the Globes on the top of the SD are Sheild Generators, but in SW they are sensor globes...TG made a mistake, so that the game might be a little more fun. Not a mistake on their part, a mistake on whoever incorrectly stated that they were Shield Generators. Plus it does allow for easier game play But think about it, it is so easy to take out an ISD, it isn't actually fun. The sensors is in the long horizontal antennae between them. And your source for this little nugget of info? Now that is out of the way I would like to add one more thing. I read in the SWTC that there was a second ISD with its bridge in flames but it's globes were still intact. Not one to simply take someone elses word for it, I dug out my RofJ and watched the battle. And guess what...there it was...a burning bridge tower with its SENSOR GLOBES still intact... I would love to here someone counter that one. ------------------ 'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky'. Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions [This message has been edited by Primarch (edited March 29, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nute Gunray Posted March 30, 2000 Share Posted March 30, 2000 The great and powerful United States Navy has four battleships in the active fleet right as of this second. They're cruise missile platforms. A battleship was sunk by a Exocet during the Falklands. I watched a documentary about a dive to it. The Executor's globes were destroyed by those A-Wings, simply because it was shown. The model plunging it to the Death Star had intact globes probably because they never thought that anyone would care enough to look. Imperial Class Star Destroyers were designed to intimidate. They say that on the official site, I think. The comm array between the globes is that big horizontal bar. It's the only thing I've ever seen it called. I recommend that anyone reading this hops on over to TF.N's Technical Commentaries and reads the ISD stuff. ------------------ Once we get to the main entrance, Captain Panaka will create a diversion, so that we can enter the palace and pants the Viceroy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primarch Posted March 30, 2000 Share Posted March 30, 2000 I never said that the ISD was not designed to intimidate, I said that the ISD would not be intimidating if it could be taken out by a simple fighter...it would be a joke. The Executor's globes were destroyed by those A-Wings, simply because it was shown. Your point? The great and powerful United States Navy has four battleships in the active fleet right as of this second. Urmm...no it doesn't. To my knowledge the US Navy only has four Battleships that is true, all Iowa Class, but two (New Jersey & Missouri) are museums. The Wisconsin is/was inactive (though it is still in the Naval Registry) and the Iowa is in Class B Mobilisation status as of 4/1/99 (the highest readiness category for inactive ships). During the Falklands there were no Battleships active in the RN. The only Royal Navy surface vessels there were frigates, destroyers & carriers (not including Auxiliary, which didn't include BS's anyway ). Go here for a good technical commentary on the ISD ------------------ 'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky'. Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nob Akimoto Posted March 30, 2000 Share Posted March 30, 2000 I bet the Imps and the Nephilium got the same designers to place shield gens/emitters. BBs haven't been in use for something like the past 5-6 years. They're horribly inefficient against land targets anyway, which is usually what navies fight against these days.(Now if you had something like the Yamato charging into the middle of a carrier task group....that's another matter entirely) During the Falklands, the importance of Aegis cruisers were highlighted by the loss of several conventional destroyers to excocets. Aegis's with their advanced radar detection systems could have been used to intercept those ASMs. The vulnerability of warships to deck hits which went straight to magazines and igniting them was a commonly known flaw within most RN ships, however it was never fully fixed. The Hood was a good example. Despite the "lesson" learned with the battle of Jutland, and even prior, post Battle of Jutland ships were still vulnerable to shots igniting their magazines which could have been fixed with minimal time in dock. Basically they ignored it, due to some unknown reason.(Rather ironic that the HMS Hood went down to the Bismarck. One of the ships that went down to the flaw during Jutland, a cruiser, the Infatigable or something I believe, was commanded by a certain Admiral Hood...) Although I really DOUBT that you can hit shield gens when the shields are still up. Just seems FAR Too unlikely. Games are lower forms of canon though probably not the lowest. Stuff like unofficial spec sheets and comics might rank lower depending on when. WC SHOULD regard games highest, though of course sources like the movie like to contradict game manuals and the game itself(ie Maniac knows Blair from the academy, yet Blair and Maniac only FIRST meet on board the 'Claw during the Vega campaign, according to conversations you have with him.) ------------------ Vote for Nob in 2000, Nob the name everyone knows and adores. Vote for the best, vote for the right person, vote for Nob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ms. Talon Posted March 30, 2000 Share Posted March 30, 2000 Primarch, I know the British had no battleships at the Falklands, it is irrelevany what kinds of surface ships they were...the point is that SW combat is based closely on our wars and cap-ships are vulnerable to fighter attacks, simple as that. After the "Prince of Wales" and the "Repulse" were sunk by Japanese bombers in the Indian Ocean ALL cap-ships from then on had to be protected from fighter-bombers by fighters...just as the cap-ships in Star Wars were. The Lancer-frigates were specifically designed to protect the other cap-ships from fighters after the destruction of the Death Star, and the Imperials were suddenly made aware of how vulnerable their cap-ships were from fighter attacks. (See the "Essential Guide to Vessels and Vehicles" for more info). Throughout history there have been many weapons designed from past combat experience which suddenly became white-elephants as the face and tactics of warfare changed. (the British "Infantry"-class tanks or the high-level bombers of the 1950s for example). Often these weapons' inadequacies were not obvious until a new war was fought, and also as often it was impractical to replace these weapons during the course of the war since it was more important to have the units then lose time and break production to replacing them with new designs. (I betcha there were plenty of pilots in 1944 still stuck flying P-40s who looked at those flying P-51s with more than a little envy.) In fact, historically very few weapons that enters a war were adequately designed to fight that war. One more thing, Imperials with experience in the Clone Wars would be (A New Hope) Obi-Wan's age or older! It's well known through the books that the Empire cranked out millions of stormtroopers and TIE-pilots and commanders with only the most basic of training...they were considered expendable. They just needed millions of them to enforce Imperial law on poorly-defended alien worlds. There was very little opposition...and pirates are not interested in confrontations with the law. ------------------ gototalon@home.com http://members.home.net/gototalon [This message has been edited by Ms. Talon (edited March 29, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest garyah99 Posted March 30, 2000 Share Posted March 30, 2000 Actually Primarch, there are a few things you seem to have overlooked: 1. The comment about the DS being vulnerable to fighter attack was nade BEFORE they analyzed the weakness of the exhaust port. they were talking about a general vulnerability to attack by snub fighters. 2. Battleships have been used as recently as the gulf war. I believe the USS Missouri acctually fired the first shots of the war. AS Ms Talon stated, it is totally irrelevant which type of surface vessel is being discussed. I may not be in the Navy but I AM in the Air Force. I can tell you as a statement of FACT that a P3 Orion (or in our case an Aurora), although primarily used for EW, can also be used for anti-ship or anti-submarine warfare, and 1 single torpedo from this aircraft can disable or sink any size vessel in the world. THIS is the parallel I was trying to illustrate. 3. As far as games being the lowest form of canon (with ONE N) material, at least it IS taken from the movies. Many of the examples and illustrations given here are from comics, books, magazines, unofficial blueprints etc, and are about as diametrically opposite to the original concept as you can get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forceflow Posted March 30, 2000 Share Posted March 30, 2000 Wow, now this is one hell of a conversation here! Let me see if I can add more to the confusion here I can remember more than just one discussions going on like this, and so far none was properly ended. (And I doubt this one will be, but hey, who cares?) Okay, in the movie we see several things happen, for once, we see an A-Wing shoot down a globe positioned on top of the SSDs bridge, in the next scene some Imp captain yells that they have lost their bridge deflector. Shortly after that an A-wing crashes into the bridge and the whole darn thing turns around and crashes into the DSII which causes a nice explosion. Another thing we see is that an ISDs Bridge is burning also the domes are still intact. Now MY personnel interpretation of that: The way it was shown in the movies was that the globes had to do something with the bridge defence (so, in my opinion shields) BUT if it is, the globes ONLY protected the bridge and nothing else. (Unless you think they would call the whole shields of the SSD bridge deflector) Okay, this way the Globes may not even be such a major design flaw, they are simply there to give the bridge enhanced shielding, or so they thought. Maybe the overlapping shield systems tended to cause some sort of hole that made it possible to shot at the generators themselves, but nobody discovered it until the thing was complete. Then they probably decided to leave it as it is since the Empire had no real opponents at that time, and with the amount of fighters available to a SD all attacks should have been repelled far away from the craft itself. (Who would have thought at that time that the empire would actually get attacked by a full fleet) Maybe they also thought that they could keep this design flaw a secret, and thus nobody could exploit it. (Heck, maybe nobody even knew about it and that A-Wing pilot just thought it was a good thing to shot at!) So, I think those things are shields, that’s what George Lucas thought they were. And btw, if you play the game on hard you can’t take out the globes, think about that one! As for the ISD with the burning bridge although the deflectors were still intact. Well, that one is simple, as we all know energy can not simply vanish, it has to go somewhere. Since you don’t see shots deflecting from the shields they must absorb the energy somehow. So, if you pump enough energy into the shields there will be a point were the shields simply can’t take any more. This might have numerous effects, the generator producing the shields may explode, the shields themselves might just collapse (though, then were will the energy go?) Maybe the shields are still there, but to protect the generator (which should be pretty massive, and once it explodes is most likely to take the ship with it) Just stops absorbing energy and lets it through. Then you can actually shot at the bridge also the deflectors are still intact. Sorry to tell you Primarch but that one was countered easily! Ms. Talon, I must say I never thought about the fact that even the biggest ships today can be taken out quite easily. (Most of the time it simply counts who makes the first shot and hits.) So I must say it might even be realistic to have the Cap ships in XWA be just as vulnerable. (Also then all cap-ships should be vulnerable) I still think it’s too easy to destroy cap-ships, but now I only think it’s too easy because the fighter screen (which all cap-ships should have) is often way too weak. Well, just my 2 cents… ------------------ A Jedi seeks for knowledge, a true master possesses it! swguide.cjb.net The home of a Jedi Master's knowledge! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ms. Talon Posted March 30, 2000 Share Posted March 30, 2000 I think the perceived 'ease' in which cap-ships in the game can be attacked is more due to the fact that you are PLAYING AGAINST COMPUTER AI!...and so cannot be meaured realistically. If you were playing against real human players they would damn sure be co-ordinating fighter refences for any vulnerable cap-ships and their weak spots. (btw: to be more realistic, in our battlessets in missions which ISDs are involved there are ALWAYS Ace-level TIE squadrons specifically programmed to PROTECT their ISDs, they either jump to that order if the ISD are attacked or only launches if they are attacked...that's one of the reasons our missions can be pretty tough, those who have played them knows that. I know that even in re-play I have been smoked many times by those defensive squadrons!) Also, remember that in ROTJ it was 2 enterprising A-Wings that made a timed attack to blow the deflector globe. The firat A-W fired on it then broke away as his/her wingman immediately fired on the energy residue on the globe and blew it up. ------------------ gototalon@home.com http://members.home.net/gototalon [This message has been edited by Ms. Talon (edited March 30, 2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.