Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
That's 100% not what happened in tbr film. In the film, Ackbar orders concentrate firepower on the Executor.
Not half a second later, two A-wings strafe the shield generators and destroy them (lesson 1, Star destroyers are super vulnerable to even light interceptors). We don't see any battering of the Executor from.capital ship fire, none.

It's almost like the movie was edited to keep things exciting rather than to show ships slugging it out at long range.

Then, just a few seconds after that, an out of control A-Wing smashes into the bridge and destroys the ship loses all control (lesson 2, Star destroyers are super vulnerable to even light aircraft impacts).

Yeah, they're so weak to light fighters that we see this happen:




By your logic that should have killed that ISD, so what's your explanation here?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
We see Star wars ships being destroyed by small single crew 'aircraft' multiple times.
We also see their lasers being fired and the results aren't anything close to a nuclear bomb detonation.

Are these 10m+ fireballs caused by laser striking shields not impressive enough for you considering how difficult it is to make a fireball in space? Also, why do you expect to see massive explosions in space when at the energy level these weapons are at would produce most of their light outside of the visual spectrum. Even a nuke detonated in deep space won't make a lot of visible spectrum light, you'd see the pika for a bare fraction of a second and then nothing as there wouldn't be a fireball.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Yeah, they're so weak to light fighters that we see this happen

By your logic that should have killed that ISD, so what's your explanation here?

It appears you stopped reading right before I answered that exact question.

It's all about plot convenience and visual spectacle.
How much damage done a turbo laser do? Thr exact amount that looks right to the director or sounds right to the writer.

In the Prequels we see capital ships duking it out broadside to broadside, including close up shots of direct hits on crew spaces. There's definitely not a large nuclear bomb going off on that gundeck.

Canadian 5th wrote:

Are these 10m+ fireballs caused by laser striking shields not impressive enough for you considering how difficult it is to make a fireball in space?

This statement makes no sense though. You can pump as much energy into a laser as you like. If there is no oxygen there is no fire. If there is oxygen, then you can make a 10m+ fireball pretty easily with sufficiently dispersed liquid fuels or dust. The energy involved depends on the concentration and could run from a simple light burp of flame through to a fuel air detonation that would cause serious overpressures. Also given that fuel air type explosions rely in causing a destructive pressure wave in air, doing the same thing in a vacuum will.have minimal impact on anything.

If there is no fire, then the effect comes from some kind of interaction between the laser and the shield, which cannot be speculated about.

The effect from the film is just a dramatic looking macguffin to show some kind of interesting interaction between weapon and defence mechanism.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
It's all about plot convenience and visual spectacle.
How much damage done a turbo laser do? Thr exact amount that looks right to the director or sounds right to the writer.

Except that we literally see the effects we'd expect to see.

40m asteroids vaporized? Yup.
Planets destroyed? Sure.
Massive fireballs in space? Damned right.

Based on the energies involved we can also say things like:

Shields are extremely efficient at absorbing energy.
Turbolasers/blasters

In the Prequels we see capital ships duking it out broadside to broadside, including close up shots of direct hits on crew spaces. There's definitely not a large nuclear bomb going off on that gundeck.

If your only argument is that things don't look right, you need to detail exactly how you'd expect a turbolaser strike to look and why. Then you need to do the math that proves your theory is correct and that what we see on screen doesn't fit. The only issue with that is that turbolasers aren't real, so the only way we know what their effects look like is to watch the movies.

Based on the movies we can say that:

Turbolasers/lasters/blasters make fireballs when they hit shields.
They tend to blow large chunks out of unshielded objects without releasing a ton of light into the visible spectrum.
They can tear an unshielded ship in half and cause reactor/power core detonations.

As long as these effects stay consistent, and they do, we can say that turbolasers are working as they should in-universe.

 Flinty wrote:
This statement makes no sense though. You can pump as much energy into a laser as you like. If there is no oxygen there is no fire.

Turbolasers aren't actual lasers. For one they don't move at the speed of light; secondly, we can see them which wouldn't be true for high-energy military lasers optimized for use in space; third, we see their effects on rocks and other known objects and they don't act like lasers.

If there is no fire, then the effect comes from some kind of interaction between the laser and the shield, which cannot be speculated about.

In that case, kiro really shouldn't expect to see anything dramatic now, should he?

When do we see a planet being vaporised by a turbo laser? The deathstar is known for its exceptionalism, it's not standard operating procedure.
We see turbolasers bombarding the Hoth base, and it's some way off a nuclear detonation.

When do we see a turbo laser breaking a ship in half? I shared añ example from the Prequels (battle of coruscant) in which shops direct direct, unshielded, hits from turbolasers and they very much don't break in half. In fact crewmen standing very close to the impact are unharmed.

Whereas we see a light fighter crashing and causing comparable damage to a turbolaser impact. So from that instance we can conclude turbolasers have equivalent damage to a fighter crashing.
But in another instance we see a similar fighter crash and cause no damage. There is no consistency.

I agree with Flinty regarding the fireballs, and I don't really know what shot you're trying to take with calling me out.
As Flinty said, you can have as much energy as you like and you wouldn't make a fireball like that. The fireball is for the visual spectacle and doesn't explain anything about how the lasers work.

Due to the lack of consistency, you're kinda left to find a happy medium which makes sense given the use and role of the weapons within the universe, rather than looking at any specific onscreen or inbook instance.
In Stat Wars, a turbo laser containing as much energy as a large nuclear bomb makes no sense. The way they're used isn't consistent with that.

So all of these discussions are great, and can be found all over the internet, even on forums which are geared specifically for these types of discussions.

Which is why I wanted a thread that asks what are YOUR "counts as" not to add a +1 to a debate that has been happening since the internet started.

So, what would your "Counts as" roughly be for an ISD or an Executor in 40K terms? Would you rate a Star Trek ship the same as a high end 40K capital ship?

Lets step away from numbers and debating those numbers, to stepping up and saying "I think an ISD is equal to an Imperial Destroyer...and I think the most powerful Star Trek ships are, at most equal to a 40K cruiser."

While I do think the ISD is "more powerful" than most Star Trek ships, and slower...the ST ships are much more maneuverable, can engage in FTL combat and do micro-jumps in combat...thus Star Trek ships are so much more maneuverable, they can dictate so much more of the fight...and Star Wars ships are almost defenseless in the rear quadrant, which a ST ship can easily get to.

That would make most Imperial Star Wars ships equal to light Imperial 40k ships, and most Star Trek ships equal to light Eldar ships.

As some examples:
Star Wars
MC80 = Firestorm class
ISD Venator = Frigate class
ISD Victory I = Sword class
ISD Victory II = Dauntless class
Executor = Lunar class
Death Star = Ramilles Star Fort
StarKiller Base = Blackstone Fortress

Star Trek
Klingon Bird of Prey (Vo'n'talk-class) = Heavy fighter/bomber?
Romulan Bird of Prey (22-nd century) = Aconite
D'deridex class = Aurora
Constitution class = Nightshade

Your equivalents?

-STS

Back to the thread....

Mass Effect! Love that game, I think that the average mass effect trooper would along the line of a scion trooper in power. Their guns seem to have a fair amount of armor penetration and they are fully armored and can take a few hits even without shields. Geth would probably be fairly similar to a necron warriors in power and durability as well. Reaper stuff gets a little more complex. I would imagine that they sit in the guardsman/cultist range for husks and Necron range for the other line units. Brutes would probably be around where I think a Marine would sit in terms of power and toughness with Banshees being more like a sanctioned psyker (but not quite a Librarian).

I feel like on the battlefield Mass Effect troops would be able to hold their own since they have fairly advanced weapons and shields to most 40k armies but they would get torn apart by things like psykers and anything warp or close combat since even the Omni Blade is kind of a "new" thing

 kirotheavenger wrote:
When do we see a planet being vaporised by a turbo laser? The deathstar is known for its exceptionalism, it's not standard operating procedure.

Except that it kind of is. We see the same technology used for the side guns on the LAAT, then we see the technology proliferate out into the Xyston-class Star Destroyer a 2km long ship capable of cracking planets though probably not through a planetary shield the way the DS and DSII could.

We see turbolasers bombarding the Hoth base, and it's some way off a nuclear detonation.

For most of that time, it was shielded. After the shield fell Vader and other high-ranking generals were on the ground so no gak they weren't dropping the heavy turbolasers onto the base.

When do we see a turbo laser breaking a ship in half?

What do you call this? That blue beam was from a ground vehicle firing from the ship's hold and it still wrecked that cruiser.

I shared añ example from the Prequels (battle of coruscant) in which shops direct direct, unshielded, hits from turbolasers and they very much don't break in half. In fact crewmen standing very close to the impact are unharmed.

Is this what you're talking about? Prove that the shields are down for this exchange. Then if you can manage that explain why you don't expect armor designed to withstand these energy loads to do a masterful job at absorbing turbolaser shots without creating multi-kilometer fireballs.

Whereas we see a light fighter crashing and causing comparable damage to a turbolaser impact.

What's the energy density of that fighter's munitions load and reactor? It may well be that a fighter's payload should be equivalent to a moderate strength turbolaser blast.

But in another instance we see a similar fighter crash and cause no damage. There is no consistency.

The difference is that area's shielding, what if any munitions the crashed fighter had left, the angle of impact, and exactly what the fight struck. An armored section of the hull will react much differently than a window for example.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^The Starship Troopers suits can carry nukes.

Also hand flamers, and their "jumps" are substantial.
Star Trek "trooper," guardsman level accuracy due to targeting systems on the phaser. Phaser counts as plasma gun with no "gets hot" rule.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Back to the thread....

Mass Effect! Love that game, I think that the average mass effect trooper would along the line of a scion trooper in power. Their guns seem to have a fair amount of armor penetration and they are fully armored and can take a few hits even without shields. Geth would probably be fairly similar to a necron warriors in power and durability as well. Reaper stuff gets a little more complex. I would imagine that they sit in the guardsman/cultist range for husks and Necron range for the other line units. Brutes would probably be around where I think a Marine would sit in terms of power and toughness with Banshees being more like a sanctioned psyker (but not quite a Librarian).

I feel like on the battlefield Mass Effect troops would be able to hold their own since they have fairly advanced weapons and shields to most 40k armies but they would get torn apart by things like psykers and anything warp or close combat since even the Omni Blade is kind of a "new" thing

Never played ME, but don't they have psyker-like things...biotics or something like that?

-STS

Yes they do. Basically a slightly different take on force powers.

Canadian you need to give timestamps for this stuff. I'm not watching a twenty minute video then guessing what you were referring to.

But just in general you're presenting all these single exceptional instances as if they're thr norm. The deathstar is the size of a moon, and built around the laser (with an advanced experimental power source) you cannot remotely extrapolate it's power to other weaponry a fraction of its. "It looks similar" is ridiculous, a tank fires a projectile that looks awfully similar to a crossbow bolt, doesn't make the two remotely comparable.

The blue laser you mentioned is particularly problematic. It's a throw away scene that caused a lot of problems with the lore. If that sort of firepower was standard on a cruiser why wasn't it always used?
So the novelisation threw in a justification about it being an improvised use of ground vehicle lasers.
Except that has other problems. We see those same vehicles firing on Geonosis and they don't do anything like that. Secondly, if they can fit that firepower on a ground vehicle, why aren't cruisers packing even more powerful lasers?
The reason is it doesn't make sense, because the director wasn't thinking about the big picture.

Then back to the broadside with the Invisible Hand and the Venator. We see clones and droids right next to the blast. We see the weapon batteries taking direct hits, and the damage it causes.

I genuinely don't know what legs you think you're standing on with this.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Canadian you need to give timestamps for this stuff. I'm not watching a twenty minute video then guessing what you were referring to.

They are time-stamped, bruh. Dakka breaks them because *shrugs* but the link used for each video is set to exactly what I wanted to show.

But just in general you're presenting all these single exceptional instances as if they're thr norm. The deathstar is the size of a moon, and built around the laser (with an advanced experimental power source) you cannot remotely extrapolate it's power to other weaponry a fraction of its. "It looks similar" is ridiculous, a tank fires a projectile that looks awfully similar to a crossbow bolt, doesn't make the two remotely comparable.

Ignoring that the lore says those two weapons use the same principles. Also ignoring the fleet of 2km long ships that can destroy planets.

The blue laser you mentioned is particularly problematic. It's a throw away scene that caused a lot of problems with the lore. If that sort of firepower was standard on a cruiser why wasn't it always used?

Recharge rate, heat dissipation, difficulty in aiming, leaving your bay open might be a defensive weakness. There are myriad ways we can reconcile that scene with existing lore.

So the novelisation threw in a justification about it being an improvised use of ground vehicle lasers.
Except that has other problems. We see those same vehicles firing on Geonosis and they don't do anything like that.

Because they don't have unlimited resupply on the ground or access to the ship's reactor to charge their weapons more quickly, and we know that Star Wars weapons can dial up and down their yields as the situation requires.

Secondly, if they can fit that firepower on a ground vehicle, why aren't cruisers packing even more powerful lasers?

Why don't we slap 16" guns on aircraft carriers or fit every missile with nuclear warheads? Probably because the biggest bang isn't ever the only consideration when designing a weapon of war.

Then back to the broadside with the Invisible Hand and the Venator. We see clones and droids right next to the blast. We see the weapon batteries taking direct hits, and the damage it causes.

Prove that the shields were down and that what we see wasn't just the small portion of the attack that bled through. Prove that the armor didn't do what the lore says it should and absorb the energy from the attack. Then prove that we should see something other than what is on screen. You just keep saying, "Well that doesn't look right so you're wrong!" and "I don't care what the canon material says!" without proving that your claims have any merit. Do the math, prove exactly what these effects that you claim are wrong should look like or feth off.

Except the math is entirely made up-and it's generally not made up by people who have a grounding in math or science.

It's science-fiction. Heavy on the fiction, light on the science, in this case.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except the math is entirely made up-and it's generally not made up by people who have a grounding in math or science.

Except that the math I've quoted has been authored by people like Doctor Curtis Saxton* writer of the AoTC Incredible Cross Sections Book and Michael Wong an electrical engineer who was also acknowledged in the books written by Curtis Saxton. The StarDestroyer.net pages I linked also cover some of the discrepancies and gives a full breakdown of how these numbers were derived.

*https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Curtis-Saxton

Star Destroyer.net reads like a butthurt Warhead who hates Trekkies. The numbers can be all canonical, but the visuals don't support it. Granted, most weapons explosions IRL don't match the visuals expected by laymen.

-STS

slade the sniper wrote:
Star Destroyer.net reads like a butthurt Warhead who hates Trekkies. The numbers can be all canonical, but the visuals don't support it. Granted, most weapons explosions IRL don't match the visuals expected by laymen.

-STS

If this is the case I expect that you'll be able to prove your theory or disprove the theories put forth by others. So go ahead, would you like to tackle the asteroids first, how about the numbers required to perform a BDZ, how about the reactor scaling based on the Death Star firepower figures? If these numbers are as biased as you claim they should be easily debunked.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:
Star Destroyer.net reads like a butthurt Warhead who hates Trekkies. The numbers can be all canonical, but the visuals don't support it. Granted, most weapons explosions IRL don't match the visuals expected by laymen.

-STS

If this is the case I expect that you'll be able to prove your theory or disprove the theories put forth by others. So go ahead, would you like to tackle the asteroids first, how about the numbers required to perform a BDZ, how about the reactor scaling based on the Death Star firepower figures? If these numbers are as biased as you claim they should be easily debunked.

Why would I bother? If someone's ego is wrapped up in their favorite franchise's biggatons...do you think "proof" is going to change their mind? You can't even change people's mind about real things with real facts and evidence...

Now, if you would kindly post some "counts as" ideas, I would gladly debate that with you. I think I asked for that in the OP. If not.. I'll just ignore you like a lot of others seem to be doing.

-STS


Automatically Appended Next Post:
BattleTech stuff, a very rough equivalency
Protomechs = Sentinels, Dreadnoughts
Light Mechs = Armigers
Medium Mechs = Questoris
Heavy Mechs = Cerastus
Assault Mechs = Dominus
Superheavy Mechs = Acastus

I think an AT-ST is just a Sentinel, but an AT-AT might be a Crassus Armored Assault Vehicle with 2 lascannons and 2 autocannons, although I would want to say it is a Gorgon because the AT-AT has 40 troops and 5 scout speeder bikes. It could also be an underarmed Stormlord...

Pretty sure each E-work is akin to a Carnifex, just without any "ranged" weapons

I still have plans on painting up my old Kasrkin as imperial stormtroopers - which is a project that i've been putting off since getting the parts together under witch hunter stormtrooper and inquisitor rules.

Some day...

 Canadian 5th wrote:
If this is the case I expect that you'll be able to prove your theory or disprove the theories put forth by others

You can't really disprove the 'science' because it's all handwaved off with the 'fiction' (i.e. magical hypermatter - the reason why an ISD doesn't need to annihilate it's own volume in deuterium every second in order to meet some of the lower ICS estimates).
So the only recourse is to write a book with different numbers to win the internet. That's pretty much how the original ICS came into existence... Seems like a topic best left to stardestroyer.net.

A.T. wrote:
You can't really disprove the 'science' because it's all handwaved off with the 'fiction' (i.e. magical hypermatter - the reason why an ISD doesn't need to annihilate it's own volume in deuterium every second in order to meet some of the lower ICS estimates).

You can show that the on-screen effects don't match with the claimed power levels easily enough.

So the only recourse is to write a book with different numbers to win the internet. That's pretty much how the original ICS came into existence... Seems like a topic best left to stardestroyer.net.

They could have picked any qualified author for the ICS books. They picked the author whose vision fit their vision.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

So the only recourse is to write a book with different numbers to win the internet. That's pretty much how the original ICS came into existence... Seems like a topic best left to stardestroyer.net.

They could have picked any qualified author for the ICS books. They picked the author whose vision fit their vision.

A.T. wrote:

On the topic of counts as - another 40k model conversion:

Is that a BSG Viper? What is is supposed to count as? A Valkyrie??

-STS


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anyone plays "Rifts" I would say a Juicer would be a Thunder Warrior and a Mind Melter would be a Primaris Psyker.

-STS

slade the sniper wrote:
Is that a BSG Viper? What is is supposed to count as? A Valkyrie??

It is a viper. Stormtalon conversion.