stingerhs Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 hey, i didn't start it. i just said that its a bad example to use WWII comparisons of battleships vs aircraft to star wars. let me spell it out for you: 1. battleships were designed to fight on a two dimensional battlefield. the ships fire salvos of shells at another ship why randomly maneuvering to help prevent direct hits. 2. direct hits are very difficult to land. the same bismark vs hood battle proves this. the hood was sunk by a single direct hit. the bismark took a couple of near misses during the engagement. 3. for the above reason, battleships could take a decent amount of damage depending on the exact ship, but it is difficult for any ship to take repeated direct hits from bombs dropped from aircraft. this is why the battleships were vulnerable to aircraft. a single aircraft can land several direct hits to either the main structure or the deck. 4. since battleships were designed to take mostly near misses, the thickest armor of the ship is on the hull of the ship, not the deck or main structure. the only attack that this protects against is torpedos, not bombs or machine gun strafing. 5. strafing with machine guns is useful in almost any attack on a ship. not because of the damage, but rather the fact that you're killing the crew of the ship. now, having said all of that, the ships of star wars are very different from WWII ships for the exact same reasons that i specified in my previous post. SD's and SSD's just don't have the same weakness against fighters and bombers that the WWII battleships did. they do have weaknesses, but they require precision strikes, not random bombing runs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 21, 2005 Author Share Posted February 21, 2005 for the argument of starfighters vs capital ships: In the first movie, vader asks some guy for a status report on the battle, and he says that the small ships are evading their turbolasers, and vader's response is to release the fighters. That is what should be the strategy here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 21, 2005 Share Posted February 21, 2005 sting - 1. wrong, they were designed to fight in a three-dimensional battlefield, and must because of the ballistic nature of artillery 2. True, and if you notice direct hits are very hard to land in the space battles in SW unless they are at point-blank range 3. So can Battleship guns - the only difference is that aircraft are more accurate and can attack from more directions than a Battleship can 4. Again, Wrong. Shells do not explode if they hit water. The reason for BB's having a lot of armour around the sides is so that they are more stable in the water, and it provides protection from torpedoes which are the greatest threat to a BB. After all, the whole concept of the 'Destroyer' was to be a 'Torpedo Boat Destroyer' (hence the name) because BB's could not defend themselves against small torpedo boats. 5. Not really. While you might get some of the crew, it is generally a waste of time to strafe with Machine Guns, particually a BB. However, there was one recorded instance of a P-51 in the pacific starfing and destroying a Japanese Destroyer. Now having said all of that, the ships in SW are very similar to those in WW2. Look at it this way, in SW the blaster bolts are linear, ie not ballistic, and hence to get the most amount of batteries onto your target you will fire broadsides - so where will most of your armour be? Armound the sides of the ship. In addition, the dorsal and ventral areas of a SW BB would be a lot larger than the sides and hence you would not want to expose them to the enemy as you would be presenting a larger profile. Hence, it makes sense that shields and armour would be weaker on the dorsal and ventral surfaces, and therefore starfighters would be effective because they would be able to hit those surfaces with torpedoes that the larger ships could not. Heavy - quite true, also notice how hard it was for the ISD's to hit the Falcon both at Tatooine and Hoth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Windu Now having said all of that, the ships in SW are very similar to those in WW2. Look at it this way, in SW the blaster bolts are linear, ie not ballistic, and hence to get the most amount of batteries onto your target you will fire broadsides - so where will most of your armour be? Armound the sides of the ship. In addition, the dorsal and ventral areas of a SW BB would be a lot larger than the sides and hence you would not want to expose them to the enemy as you would be presenting a larger profile. Hence, it makes sense that shields and armour would be weaker on the dorsal and ventral surfaces, and therefore starfighters would be effective because they would be able to hit those surfaces with torpedoes that the larger ships could not. Errr, that doesn't make any sence what so ever. We're in space now. There are no restrictions to where you can go, thus, a starship, battleship or not, can attack another ship from pretty much any angel. And the target have no way of positioning their broadside towards alll of it's attacking foes all the time. I'm sorry, but this is the poorest design flaw logic I have heard of for Star Wars so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Originally posted by Jan Gaarni We're in space now. There are no restrictions to where you can go, thus, a starship, battleship or not, can attack another ship from pretty much any angel. And the target have no way of positioning their broadside towards alll of it's attacking foes all the time. I'm sorry, but this is the poorest design flaw logic I have heard of for Star Wars so far. which was my point about the WWII battleships only fighting in 2 dimensions. yes, you have to "lob" the shells in the appropriate trajectory, but that's almost meaningless. consider this, when is the last time you saw a surface ship moving like an aircraft?? to cite a simple example: just think about the coordinate system used in the Battleship Board Game. thus, the battleships were designed for two dimensions, not three. and in star wars, everything is in space where orientation and direction is all based in a three dimensional space. if you don't design it for three dimensions, then it deserves to be shot out of the sky (or space, depending on where you are). Look at it this way, in SW the blaster bolts are linear, ie not ballistic, and hence to get the most amount of batteries onto your target you will fire broadsides - so where will most of your armour be? Armound the sides of the ship. In addition, the dorsal and ventral areas of a SW BB would be a lot larger than the sides and hence you would not want to expose them to the enemy as you would be presenting a larger profile. Hence, it makes sense that shields and armour would be weaker on the dorsal and ventral surfaces, and therefore starfighters would be effective because they would be able to hit those surfaces with torpedoes that the larger ships could not. and consider that a ship with those kinds of weaknesses would be even more vulnerable to opposing capital ships just simply because the capital ship could maneuver itself into the angle and open fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Cain Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 I have only one question....how many of you played the Rebellion game and still fully remember it from '98 ?! I have made an article for a game magazine in my country about EaW....and belive me I've readed all that has been written about EaW. Its quite easy to see 80% of the game and understand it. If The article comes out I will post it here and i will translate it....This way all this disscutions about the "What it will be in the game ?!" will be more focused and productive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Jan - actually, there are restrictions as to where you can go, and particually with reference to the game, having big ships only able to move in 2D makes my example VERY relevant. Also, I can't confirm or deny if ships uses 'angels' but they could attack from any angle. Having said that, if a ship is being attacked, it would logically present the smallest target while bringing the maximum number of guns to bear, which goes back to my previous example. Also, I should point out that just because you fail to understand my argument does not change the logic or truthfulness of said argument. stinger - as said above, since the game only allows big ships to move in 2D, what is your point? By making fighters move in 3D, with the bigger guns only 2D, it is EXACTLY the same situation as how a modern (WW1-present) naval engagement would occur with aircraft involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 ^^^^ even accounting for the game, the concept should be quite simple for someone trying to stay true to form. in a real and truely three-dimensional battle, a ship cannot have the kinds of weaknesses that you described earlier because it just simply wouldn't last a large scale engagement. thus, things boil down to the ship's original design, which was to be able to take hits from any direction and take hits on any part of the ship itself. with you being a 'purist' of sorts, surely you would want something to be in the game that is true to its original design. and the SSD's original design made it nearly invulnerable to fighters. the only reason the Executor was destroyed was by luck (or the Force, depending on your point of view). for those reasons: Originally posted by Sith4ever99 Agreed. Also, if you notice the A-Wing that took out the bridge had been shot down, along with every other starfighter that was attacking. It just happend to fly straight into the bridge. If you are getting this from the A-Wings that took out the shield generators, then maybe the shields could be vulnerable, but the SSD would still have armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 22, 2005 Author Share Posted February 22, 2005 Like I posted before, turbolasers are the main armament of a Star Destroyer and they have a tough time hitting a starfighter. The frequent destruction of starfighters at Endor more likely resulted in TIE fighters and Interceptors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Alec Posted February 22, 2005 Share Posted February 22, 2005 Turbolasers have a hard time hitting small aircraft, ok? They have good chances of hitting medium-big ships and therefor have fighters mainly as anti-fighter/bomber support. They are heavily armed and armored with strong sheilds, but fighters can destroy the sheild generators and bombers go threw the armor of a SSD that's why there are small-medium ships to take them down. Mainly a thieory though, but it does seem likely (atleast to me). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 stinger - the problem here is that we simply do not know one way or the other. From the way I see it, it makes sense militarily and economically to have the most armour and shielding on the sides of the ships, with the least on the ventral and dorsal surfaces. This is because when you engage a big ship, you will present the smallest area while bringing the most number of guns to bear, which is your broadsides. Also note that even in the SW films the big ships only fight in 2D. Economically it would makes sense because it would reduce construction time and cost for the extra armour and shielding. Furthermore, while these areas would be the most vulnerable to starfighters, that is why ISD's carry starfighter squadrons. As for the attack on the Executor, we saw it shoot down what, two fighters? Not a huge success rate. I should point out that while the quote you included was quite correct, but if the SSD's defences were so great how did any starfighters get that close without being destroyed? Furthermore, if you look at the shield generators near the bridge, they are large enough to be a good target for small vessels, but far too small to be hit on purpose by two battleships engaged in anything other than point-blank combat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Oh Ho how rare it is to use Vostok's words against the over pompous Purist Jester. Gameplay > Realism once again your "ideas" show neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Windu As for the attack on the Executor, we saw it shoot down what, two fighters? I don't disagree with everything else you've said, but you simply can't use this as fact. You haven't seen the whole battle, you can't say the Executor only shot down two fighters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by DK_Viceroy Oh Ho how rare it is to use Vostok's words against the over pompous Purist Jester. Gameplay > Realism once again your "ideas" show neither. I am a beta tester for updates for the game "Joint Operations: Escalation." That equation up there, is completely wrong in most of the players' eyes. They would rather have realistic weapons (there's somewhat a netcode problem with the game) and realistic vehicle physics than the ones now, and some things for realism's sake, and some not. I'd be more willing to say gameplay and realism is something more like a slidebar, in which you try to get it going one way and find a balance in which you want to get those who are looking for a fun game and those who want a game that is realistic and you can please both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukeiamyourdad Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 That's not really what Gameplay>Realism means. Games try to be as realistic as possible with totally unbalancing everything. It was a response to most of Windu's proposals that highly overpowered one side over the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stingerhs Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 windu- note that i did say "nearly invulnerable" in my post. i've also stated that you could make the SSD's and the SD's vulnerable to precision strikes to off-set the kinds of off-balancing a SSD can cause. making it so that y-wings can go on bombing runs on random parts of the ship (where it is supposed to have less armor and shields) to destroy it is absurd. having fighters attack a specific spot (such as the large shield generators) makes a heck of a lot more sense to me, and that is what i was trying to point out earlier. as for the SSD's causing a shift in power in a battle, well, isn't that what the SSD's were designed for anyway?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 23, 2005 Author Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by stingerhs windu- note that i did say "nearly invulnerable" in my post. i've also stated that you could make the SSD's and the SD's vulnerable to precision strikes to off-set the kinds of off-balancing a SSD can cause. making it so that y-wings can go on bombing runs on random parts of the ship (where it is supposed to have less armor and shields) to destroy it is absurd. having fighters attack a specific spot (such as the large shield generators) makes a heck of a lot more sense to me, and that is what i was trying to point out earlier. as for the SSD's causing a shift in power in a battle, well, isn't that what the SSD's were designed for anyway?? If you launch a precision strike where there is a structural weakness and break the pressure seal, you can actually turn a SD into a nice paperweight! But it would at least cause extensive damage even if there were seal-doors (which there probably are.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted February 23, 2005 Share Posted February 23, 2005 Originally posted by lukeiamyourdad It was a response to most of Windu's proposals that highly overpowered one side over the others. Indeed like Every of Windu's ideas he tries to make it his own way and un-enjoyable for everyone else he's not buying the game so his Input isn't worth much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Getting back to the topic at hand, if the SSD is going to be included in the game, preferably as a hero unit, it really should be vulnerable to starfighters while easily defeating the larger ships. luke - I didn't say the Executor only shot down two fighters, I said we only SAW it shoot down two, and indeed fail to shoot down two more. In addition to that, the failture of the ships gunners to destroy a starfighter heading for the bridge is another indication of how poorly the SSD works against starfighters. stinger, heavy - ignore viceroy, he was dropped on his head as a baby...many many times... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DK_Viceroy Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 you wish and anyway arn't you going to bugger off somewhere anyway your not getting the game you've sworn off it pronounced it to be crap so why are you still here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heavyarms Posted February 24, 2005 Author Share Posted February 24, 2005 stop fighting, let's keep the conversations peaceful here. Now, as for that SSD... I think it should be the equivalent of a "superweapon" like in C&C generals, although it's just a big powerful unit and only like 2 or 3 can be built. If we have something like that, what you guys think should be a rebel one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 Originally posted by Darth Windu Jan - actually, there are restrictions as to where you can go, and particually with reference to the game, having big ships only able to move in 2D makes my example VERY relevant. Also, I can't confirm or deny if ships uses 'angels' but they could attack from any angle. Having said that, if a ship is being attacked, it would logically present the smallest target while bringing the maximum number of guns to bear, which goes back to my previous example. Also, I should point out that just because you fail to understand my argument does not change the logic or truthfulness of said argument. When you place it in the game context, yes. I was not talking about that. Somewhere along the reading I must have missed that with the connection with star destroyers In-Game, rather than In-Universe, with something real. Point 2: Smartass. 3. Logic: Very true, which would mean the star destroyer would have it's strongest shields forward. It's wedge shaped form allows the maximum number of guns to be pointed at a target when it is moving towards it. If it has its target on one of the sides only (roughly) half of it's armament would point towards said target. Interesting that you refer to the globes as "shield generators"? I was under the impression you were completely against all EU. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonepadawan Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 How is the globes being shield generators EU? You know.. in ROTJ.. they shoot the globes and Lo and behold they reptort they've lost shields. And it's been pretty standard in X-wing games ever since.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Windu Posted February 24, 2005 Share Posted February 24, 2005 heavy - i agree it should be a superweapon, but restricted to only one. The main problem you face is that the Rebellion never had anything that was even close to the power of the SSD, so you would just need to restrict them to one, make them insanely expessive and take a long time to construct, while being vulnerable to fighters. Jan - no. I actually have about 30 or so SW books, many of which i have read more than once and quite enjoy. I am not a huge fan of EU, however, because they tend to go against what appears in the films. For example Films: Boba Fett dies in the Sarlacc Pit (GL confirmed) EU: He survives Films: Jedi are forbidden to love EU: Jedi get married and produce little Jedi Films: Republic Army created just before outbreak of Clone Wars EU: Republic already had an Army (eg. Dreadnaughts) I'm sure I can come up with more examples, but thats not the point. As much as i dislike some EU, I also realise that it is needed for video games, and so I have no problem with things like the AT-PT, Victory Star Destroyer etc. While I don't like the designs of some of them, they mostly fit within the context of the SW universe. Oh yeah, I should also point out that my favourite game, KotOR, is great because it contains the core of the films with EU padding to fill in the rest - which is how games need to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted February 25, 2005 Share Posted February 25, 2005 Originally posted by lonepadawan How is the globes being shield generators EU? You know.. in ROTJ.. they shoot the globes and Lo and behold they reptort they've lost shields. And it's been pretty standard in X-wing games ever since.. What's more important to report? Losing sensor globes? Or report that the shields are gone, which was very obvious since they were able to blow the globes up? EU is the only ones who have gone to the assumption they are shield generators. First time back in -93 I believe. Doesn't really make much sense to place it on the outside, high atop, exposed to enemy fire really, unless it's to make it easier to destroy it in for instance computer games. EU has also called it sensory domes, first time back in -78, which would make tons more sense than putting shield generators in them. It also predates other EU by 15 years. Other EU sources has gone with the -78 reference, while games usually has gone with the shield generator theory. Other's again haven't called them anything. What dreadnaughts are you thinking of, Darth Windu? (when I hear the word I think starship, it's the only thing I can think of. Which would make it the navy then ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.