Republic Units for SWGB2 - Poll

[Admiral Vostok]

Windu, I mean no offense, but it seems you have either failed to read, ignored, or failed to comprehend my post. As such I'll repost it in a very simplified format.

 

1. Windu's idea: valid since we haven't seen Wookiees at war, yet makes them exactly the same as every other civ.

Vostok's idea: valid since we haven't seen Wookiee's at war, and sets them apart from the crowd with a unique fighting style.

 

2. I might have contradicted myself on the Bowcaster's power issue, I don't know why I said they were more powerful than the Clone Trooper's rifle, it probably isn't, but the fact remains that the Bowcaster is bbigger than a normal blaster rifle, so it stands to logic and reason it is also more powerful.

[DK_Viceroy]

I looked up the specs for the wookie bowcaster and the Clone Trooper DC-15 rifle

 

1. Wookie Bowcaster High Power firing ammo called "Quarels" long reload times firing range of about 50 meters dual function of being able to switch to firing metal or wooden bolts like a crossbow Though When Firing Quarrels A Second Shot Is Rarely Required.

 

2. Clone Trooper DC-15 Blaster Rifle Poor Accuracy due to firing Blue Plasma Bolts which Are very Unstable Makes Up For This In Sheer Weight In Numbers But Plasma Bolts Pack More Of A Punch Then A Standard Blaster Rifle Ammo A 500 Shot Tibanna Gas Cartridge which is Replacable. The Blaster Rifle Comes Equipped With Power Control And Larger Elctromagnetic Accelerator Coils Of The Rifle Giving It A Better Range Than The Average Blaster Rifle The DC-15 Also Could Be Fitted With A Detachable Sniper Scope

 

 

 

 

 

In Future With Regard To Technical Details CHeck With Me I Have All Kinds Of Stuff Like This Ranging From The Black Fleet Crisis To Designs For The TIE Defender To The Technical Specifications FOr Ligghtsabres And Blasters I Have Nearly All Of It.

[Darth Windu]

Vostok - i never suggested that the Bowcaster was no different, simply that it didnt seem different. I would prefer it to be different to the other weapons, as they are in my idea, i was simply pointing out that there is no evidence to back up any claims about power, accuracy etc. Thats all.

As for the second point, you're probably right.

 

Viceroy - will not respect to EU, i dont care what it says. No offense.

[DK_Viceroy]

what i am saying though isn't exactly EU i'm getting it from an official source. one more thing I don't mean to be nasty PLEASE explain to me how explaing how 2 weapons that are in the film work is EU i would love to know and for evidence you've got that it just doesn't entirely agree with you that's all but it is all official.

[Darth Windu]

No its not. Anything that isnt in the movies is EU, and not official. It has been shown numerous times that the movies and EU can contradict each other-

Example 1-

movies - Geonosians design Death Star

EU - engineers in 'Maw Installation' design death star

 

Example 2-

movies - Boba Fett dies at Pit of Carkoon

EU - Boba Fett survives Pit of Carkoon

[DK_Viceroy]

come now windu where i get it from they can't call it official if it isn't official you'd propably say any infromation on the battle of endor that isn't in the film is eu but where i am getting this tuff from is official and here's a link where star wars.com is showcasing it.

 

http://www.starwars.com/eu/news/2001/03/news20010317.html

 

and if you check carefully enough it's not a contradiction because the death star designs were supposed to be floating around for a while were the geonosians came closest to making a viable version of the death star but the engineers at the Maw made it a reality and the film doesn't show you what happens after he falls in boba fett only FALLS in and we know from episode 5 that you don't die by falling

 

and you STILL haven't explained how something that is in the films and explaining how it WORKS is EU i don't get it it's in the film and i've explained how it works so how is it EU please explain that in your next post and NOT AVIOD ANSWERING THE QUESTION.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Now now let's not turn this into another eu vs movie debate. what should be considered unnofficial is the story in any eu book etc.

HOWEVER, I've had an eu vs movies debate myself at the Star wars forum and we have come to the conclusion that weapons stats or vehicle stats are neither eu nor canon because it DOES NOT contradict anything.

 

To state an example:

See the ISD(Imperial Class Star Destroyer)? Everyone these days considers it to be 1.6 km long due to various sources such as games and stuff. NOWHERE in the movies it is said that the ISD is 1.6 km long but does anyone really care? No.

 

Thus Windu your arguments against Viceroy cannot be taken into consideration since all he explained are weapons stats.

You're taking the storyline into consideration here which at all costs must not be considered a fact(such as the Boba Fett thingie).

[Admiral Vostok]

Now now Windu, I hate EU just as much as you, but I think since DK_Viceroy is un-initiated as such I fell we owe him/her (clear this up, DK_Viceroy?) an explanation. Luke and Windu should also take a gander, as from your recent posts it seems you two need a refresher.

 

Here are the definitions of Canon and EU. These two words are thrown around a lot, but as the Lord of Purists I believe I have a fairly in-deph understanding of the terms. I'll also include some of the terms I myself have coined, which are in semi-common usage on this forum.

 

Canon: Anything explicitly stated or seen in the movies.

 

EU (Expanded Universe): Anything not explicitly stated or seen in the movies. However, due to confusion surrounding this area I (being the scholar I am) have subdivided EU into two categories:

 

PEU (Pure Expanded Universe): EU that is totally independent of the movies. Examples include the Yuuzhan Vong, Talon Karrde, Mara Jade, Nohri, Grand Admiral Thrawn, etc... Much of PEU conflicts with the movies.

 

EEU (Extrapolated Expanded Universe): EU that is based at least in part on the movies, but is still not evidenced in them. Examples include the length of a Star Destroyer, the events surrounding the Battle of Tanaab, even the name All Terrain Armoured Transport. Very little, if any EEU contradicts the movies and therefore most EEU is taken as fact, but that doesn't make it Canon (which it is often mistaken for): it is still subject to be altered in Episode 3 without disrupting continuity with he other movies.

 

It is important to note that all of the above, even PEU, can be termed "Official". They have a lot of info from PEU on the official website, but that doesn't make it Canon in any sense of the word.

 

However, when making any Star Wars-related product other than the movies themselves, it is best not to contradict EEU. PEU is okay to contradict, but in general don't contradict EEU. But using EEU to prove an argument about how the Star Wars Universe works is flawed: only Canon is so powerful.

 

So how does this relate to our argument? Luke's Dad, your conclusion on the other forum is wrong: weapon and vehicle stats are EU. Granted they are EEU, but EU none the less. Viceroy, you can't use EEU to prove a point, which is what Windu is trying to say. Yet Windu, you can't throw EEU completely out the window. Viceroy's sources should be considered, but by no means do they prove anything.

 

Now back to the topic: Windu agrees the power of a Bowcaster is somewhere between that of the Clone Trooper long-barrelled rifle and the common blaster rifle in use by Stormtroopers and Battle Droids. So that argument is over. As for Wookiee fighting style, either me or Windu could be incorrect, but as my way makes the Wookiees more unique I think it is a winner.

[DK_Viceroy]

Thanks for Clearing that up. Some of the stuff on the star wars site you have termed PEU has been said to be in episodes 7 8 and 9 IF george Lucas decides to make them so could we give them maybe a different term like FC { Future Cannon }? Anyway back to the topic if this is gonna be a new game why only have 1 new unit when there's have to be a lot more units to make the game different from SWGB 1 maybe for starships give them the accilmator maybe give them sensor stealhing to give them a run up to the empire and the cloaking device they develop.

 

and btw i am a him

 

{ are names found in the factfile for things in the film like the republic troop carrier which the factfile calles the Acclimator Class EU }?

[Admiral Vostok]

No, we can't have a term "Future Canon", because the fact is there will be no Episode 7, 8, or 9. George Lucas has said he definitely will not do them. The saga is about Anakin Skywalker, so once he's dead there isn't much of a story.

 

Thought you were a him but didn't want to offend on the off-chance you weren't

 

Yes, those names are EU, though they are EEU. Anything not in the movies (including the credits, I should add, or "Ewok" would be an EU term) is not Canon, and therefore EU.

 

Those who have seen my website may have noted how incomplete and falling into disrepair it is. As such I've decided to transform it into a page that hosts my Trivia, and several discussions about the in-validity of EU and the righteousness of Star Wars Puritanism. Yes, I am a zealot.

[Darth Windu]

Viceroy - actually, George Lucas said that Boba Fett DID die in the sarlacc, and there wasnt one ip ep5, you're confusing yourself.

 

As for EU, i have little respect for what it come sup with, and as you can see from my examples, has, and will be again, been wrong.

 

There is NOTHING to support the claim that the Clone rifle is inaccurate, or that it can be used as a sniper rifle, the latter actually goes against everything a sane person knows about weapons (before you argue here im actually a weapons expert and know what im talking about, i know its star wars but its based on real weapons)

[DK_Viceroy]

In episode 5 they did mention that no ship that small could have a cloaking device so therefore in the star wars universe they do have Cloaking devices so that's cannon i'm not saying anything else about it or putting any reasons why they didn't use it so that this can be classed as pure cannon and if you don't beleive me watch episode 5 and watch the escape from hoth scenes. Just before the millenium falcon attaches it self to the garbage disposal hatch the aptain of the star destroyer says " No Ship That Small Could Have A Cloaking Device".

[Admiral Vostok]

Yes, I'm well aware of that line, unfortunately I use that as the evidence for not having a cloaked unit in SWGB2. If the Millennium Falcon is too small for one, most other war machines are too, except for Assault Mechs - but having a cloaked Assault Mech is way too overpowered.

[DK_Viceroy]

yeah i thought about that and came to the conclusion that it needed a lot of power to operate maybe it could be used on a star destroyer or other capitol ships but there would have to be some disadvantages as well fortunatly i've already done some reaserach on that it is EU but it's better than nothing what i found was that cloaking devices are very expensive blind the ships sensors and the ship is detable by it's drive emiisions if it starts to move while under the cloak it might be in the game if it decides to go for space combat elements as well as ground elements.

[Darth Windu]

lol, a cloaked AT-AT, id like to see that, especially if i was a Rebel!

[Admiral Vostok]

lol, funny one Windu!

[lukeiamyourdad]

OMG Windu made a joke!

 

I think that those cloaking devices are actually makes the ship undetectable to radar(like our real life stealth fighters). It doesn't make them invisible to anything but radar and possibly targeting systems(I've played a lot of Star Wars flight sims and I can tell you that when you lose the radar, you can't target anything unless you're a damn good pilot).

[Admiral Vostok]

It's quite possible, Luke's Dad, that is exactly what a "Cloaking Device" does, and that makes sense to me or else they would put one on an AT-AT. However, EU would have us believe Darth Maul's Sith Infiltrator is fitted with a Cloaking Device, which they claim makes it invisible. If that is the case I would think he might have used it while approaching Tatooine - though apart from being terribly unexciting for the audience, you could argue that because it is an unpoliced planet he didn't need to... personally I don't like the idea of cloaking devices making things invisible, if they did make stuff invisible I think we would have "seen" that by now.

[DK_Viceroy]

haven't we've seen that joke before or was it invisible like the reasoning for not having it i've read about it and they are very expensive stop all sensor beams from seeing it including the users ship so that unless you had a jedi co-ordinating the assault it would be pretty useless if you hadn't thought about how to use it like concealing a fleet or using it in a siege like cloaked asteroids in orbit of a planet perhaps?

[Admiral Vostok]

Actually you make a good point, Viceroy... if I read your incredibly-hard-to-read post right...

 

According to EU, viewscreens on Star Destroyers are supposed to be images relayed from external sensors, not actual windows themselves. This is because there is no immediately obvious external equivalent to the command bridge visible. So the sensors that relay the images of the surrounding space to the viewscreens could be jammed, making a vessel with a cloaking device effectively disappear, without the vessel actually becoming physically invisible.

 

There are a couple of problems with this theory though... the Star Destroyer is the only ship for which this is true - all others have an external part that is identifiable as a window in the cockpit/bridge. So unless someone created a device purely to evade Star Destroyers (which is possible however unlikely) the cloaking device is virtually useless.

 

Also the EU theory of viewscreens could be wrong - we see in Return of the Jedi an A-Wing crash into the bridge of the Executor, which bursts through the viewscreens. If the viewscreens are just relays this seems unlikely to happen.

 

Interesting thought, however.

[Darth Windu]

On a side note, the current 'stealth' aircraft used by the USAF are NOT invisible to radar, contrary to popular belief. The problem for the enemy is that, for example, the F-117 will actually appear on radar, but only the size of small bird, and that is far too small to get a target lock, and hence missiles cannot be lauched to destroy it (the issue of one being shot down in Serbia is another matter).

 

Hence, with cloaking devices, you could have them invisible on radar, but visible to the mk1 eyeball.

[Admiral Vostok]

Sounds good to me! This is what I'm going to believe a cloaking device does from now on. Nothing in the movies suggests otherwise. CorranSec won't be happy, he was bent on having a cloaked Rebel ground transport for some reason.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Huh? When did he say that?

 

Perhaps a rebel transport who can't be targeted by mechs and turrets...

[CorranSec]

Ah, the eternal argument about cloaking devices. Hurrah.

Note that I do not want another EU vs Canon debate. However, we need to consider all the possible applications and appearances of cloaking devices.

 

Okay, so the Imperial lad (Admiral Piett, was it?) said 'No ship that small could have a cloaking device.' First thing is that he could be WRONG. Didn't Mon Mothma say 'The Death Star is not yet fully operational'? We all know how that one turned out....

 

Second thing is that most everything depends on your definition of a 'cloaking device.' In movie/book terms, there are all sorts of technical things, plot points and so forth. In a game, it is simply a thing that makes a unit unseen onscreen. As such, the archetypal 'cloaking device,' a sci-fi invention that by some strange power makes a thing invisible to the human eye, doesn't need to be included at all.

We could have sensor jammers, radar scramblers, really small units, special plating that reflects light... the only important thing is that the unit is 'invisible' on our game screens.

 

Not too sure where the whole viewscreens thing came from. I see no mention of it in Viceroy's post. But anyway, it seems obvious that on a Star Destroyer we have windows and computers. Windows are those big things on the walls that let you see out, what the A-Wing flew through. Computers can show radar, data and so on. Either of these could be called viewscreens in the SW universe.

Sure, we could have cloaked units which are entirely visible onscreen but couldn't be fired upon... yet that wouldn't be fun, would seem forced, and would generally detract from the experience.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Indeed it would seem really forced but...hmmm...we have to live with the purists...