PDA

View Full Version : More on the vulnerability of cap-ships...somethings to keep in mind


Ms. Talon
03-27-2000, 07:50 PM
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).]

Primarch
03-27-2000, 08:15 PM
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 (http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wcsom/index.html)

Ms. Talon
03-27-2000, 08:31 PM
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

Wraith 5
03-27-2000, 09:12 PM
I have found Shield generators on the MC-80, and there is only one generator.

When i find more i will tell you

garyah99
03-27-2000, 09:40 PM
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!

Nob Akimoto
03-27-2000, 10:37 PM
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. http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/wink.gif (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.

Ms. Talon
03-27-2000, 10:50 PM
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).]

Darth Massacator
03-28-2000, 03:05 AM
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 http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

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.

K_Kinnison
03-28-2000, 01:56 PM
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

Ms. Talon
03-28-2000, 02:35 PM
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).]

milkshake
03-28-2000, 03:40 PM
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!

Fondas
03-29-2000, 04:12 AM
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

garyah99
03-29-2000, 01:35 PM
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.

K_Kinnison
03-29-2000, 01:42 PM
*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.

Ms. Talon
03-29-2000, 02:26 PM
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).]

milkshake
03-29-2000, 03:02 PM
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!

garyah99
03-29-2000, 03:39 PM
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.

Primarch
03-29-2000, 06:45 PM
Just been though this and I have a few comments http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

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 http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/wink.gif

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 http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif)

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 http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

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... http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

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 http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif)

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 http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif
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. http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

------------------
'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky'.

Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions (http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wcsom/index.html)

[This message has been edited by Primarch (edited March 29, 2000).]

Nute Gunray
03-29-2000, 07:31 PM
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

Primarch
03-29-2000, 09:48 PM
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 http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif).

Go here for a good technical commentary on the ISD (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/)

------------------
'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky'.

Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions (http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wcsom/index.html)

Nob Akimoto
03-29-2000, 10:44 PM
I bet the Imps and the Nephilium got the same designers to place shield gens/emitters. http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/wink.gif

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.

Ms. Talon
03-29-2000, 10:46 PM
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).]

garyah99
03-30-2000, 01:46 AM
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.

Forceflow
03-30-2000, 07:29 AM
Wow, now this is one hell of a conversation here! Let me see if I can add more to the confusion here http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

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, thatís what George Lucas thought they were. And btw, if you play the game on hard you canít 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 donít 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 canít 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 itís too easy to destroy cap-ships, but now I only think itís too easy because the fighter screen (which all cap-ships should have) is often way too weak.

Well, just my 2 centsÖ


------------------
A Jedi seeks for knowledge, a true master possesses it!
swguide.cjb.net (http://swguide.cjb.net)
The home of a Jedi Master's knowledge!

Ms. Talon
03-30-2000, 09:00 AM
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).]

Fondas
03-30-2000, 09:16 AM
My point, <u>exactly</u> !

In TG's missions, Star Destroyers don't seem to have commited fighters/interceptors flying DCA CAP ( Defensive Counter Air, Combat Air Patrol) missions or in plain terms protecting a high value asset (like their mothership) from being attacked ! Even if a fighter <u>could</u> get through this barrier screen, it should be constantly locked by torpedos or any other short range SAM's.
(Now that I think of it, there is no such thing as "Long Range Weapons" or "BVR combat" in Star Wars ! http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/wink.gif

So the globes are probably shield generators and Cap-ships are indeed very "vulnerable" but only after you have stripped all of it's defenses and that's not an easy task !

Yes, the game has flaws in that, I always thought it was funny, in the "Skywalker/Rendar" mission, that I was able to take the Interdictor out all alone, flying a Y-wing with no warheads !

------------------
The only place where success comes prior to work, is in a dictionary ! TZG+7

Ms. Talon
03-30-2000, 01:25 PM
Well, the mission designers had to make sure the mission is beatable, I guess. Interdictors aren't that tough in any case.

------------------
gototalon@home.com
http://members.home.net/gototalon

Primarch
03-30-2000, 06:42 PM
Back again...
I know the British had no battleships at the Falklands, it is irrelevany what kinds of surface ships they were...I know that, and you know that, I was just clearing it up for some of the others...sorry to stray from the point http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif
the point is that SW combat is based closely on our wars and cap-ships are vulnerable to fighter attacks, simple as that.If capital ships are so vulnerable to fighters why did the Alliance risk its only capital ships at Endor?
The were under the impression that the DSII would be lightly defended and since fighters would be the only ships capable of flying into the core to destroy the reactor, why send big targets when they are obviously not needed?
The comment about the DS being vulnerable to fighter attack was made BEFORE they analyzed the weakness of the exhaust port. they were talking about a general vulnerability to attack by snub fighters.
They were referring to it's lack of anti-fighter weaponry, not that fighters could take it out. They did not believe that Starfighters were a threat to the Death Star. This is not over confidence, or admission that fighters were in any way a danger, this is a fact. If no weakness had been found, all the starfighters in the Alliance could not have destroyed the DS.
1 single torpedo from this aircraft can disable or sink any size vessel in the world.That's all well and good, but it would take a lot more than one torpedo to sink an ISD, let alone an SSD.
Okay, this way the Globes may not even be such a major design flaw, they are simply there to give the bridge enhanced shieldingThen why were the bridge deflectors knocked out when only one was destroyed? Surely both would need to be destroyed to render the shields completely useless. And even then, if they are extra shielding for the bridge (a sensible thing) what about the regular shields? And why would they have other globes further along the hull?
Maybe the overlapping shield systems tended to cause some sort of hole that made it possible to shot at the generators If there were overlapping shields, how would there be a hole...
that A-Wing pilot just thought it was a good thing to shot at!
It was a good thing to shoot at...knocking out its sensors would make targetting enemy ships harder http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif
if you play the game on hard you canít take out the globes, think about that one!
I never play the game on hard...it's too hard http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/wink.gif, besides I miss my afterburners.
As for the ISD with the burning bridge <--+--> but that one was countered easily
I've read that entire paragraph five times and it doesn't make any sense. Maybe I'll come back to it later!

It's late so I'll leave you with this:
How do we know that the bridge deflectors were not already down when the A-Wings made there attack?

------------------
'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky'.

Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions (http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wcsom/index.html)

garyah99
03-31-2000, 08:28 PM
The bridge shields were NOT down already due to simple logic. A bridge Officer does not notice that a major defence system is down, wait for 5 minutes and then tell the Captain. The Captain is told immediately.

- "it would take more than 1 torpedo to sink an ISD". Very true. That was not my point. It was YOU that brought up the point about cap ships being too easy to destroy. I was simply pointing out that IRL, they CAN be that easy to destroy.

- "why would the rebellion risk their only capital ships..." They didn't. As far as the rebellion knew, the Empire new nothing of their plans, or so they thought. The rebels expected only a minor force to be guarding the DS, as far as they thought, they were risking nothing.

------------------
God gave us one mouth and two ears; try to listen twice as much as you speak.

Primarch
03-31-2000, 09:51 PM
I give up. I'm wasting my time and I'm not in the mood to carry this on.

------------------
'For the World is Hollow and I Have Touched the Sky'.

Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions (http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wcsom/index.html)

Greg
04-01-2000, 03:33 AM
Have you considered the possibility that George Lucas needed to get rid of the Executor somehow. Since it was obiviously so much bigger (and presumably more powerful) than any of the Rebel ships, it couldn't just be ignored. Now, in the first movie (Episode IV), it's established that "the Empire doesn't consider a small, one man fighter a threat," and since this also keys into the heroic David and Goliath theme that Lucas so loves, it makes perfect sense for a single A-wing to take out a super star destroyer. Lucas uses the gimick of a single fighter taking out the invincible bad guy's ship in Episodes I, IV and VI because not only is it convenient, but the only other way to do it would be to make the good guys militarily stronger than the bad guys...what a lousy movie that would be, watching the giant, invincible Rebel war machine run over the puny and unimposing forces of the Empire. http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

Fondas
04-01-2000, 06:16 AM
I'd say that Greg has a very strong point !

------------------
The only place where success comes prior to work, is in a dictionary ! TZG+7

Ms. Talon
04-01-2000, 09:12 AM
Primarch, don't take this the wrong way because I'm really not trying to be insulting or anything to that nature, but it seems to me that you seem intent on holding on to your arguments regardless of anything anyone else says. I think you are frustrating yourself.

------------------
gototalon@home.com
http://members.home.net/gototalon

garyah99
04-01-2000, 08:40 PM
I agree with Fondas. Greg has a VERY good point. Lucas loves an underdog story, Star Wars is probably the perfect vehicle for that.

------------------
God gave us one mouth and two ears; try to listen twice as much as you speak.

Raptor
04-02-2000, 03:38 PM
Given the overall philosophy of the Empire, and taking into account some of the other design choices they made (no shields for TIEs), it's pretty obvious that at the time of the design and contruction of the SD they didn't consider outside forces to be much of a threat, if any, and they also planned heavily on the mutual support of the other facets of their forces.

I'd wager from their point of view that it was inconceivable that anyone would have the gall to stand up to and attack a capital ship, and if they did, the 'invincible' TIE fighter shields would protect them from all incoming fighters, because as we know, the imperial pilots are the best in the galaxy. So, small ships are not a threat. When you look at the firepower that an SD can bring to bear on a large target such as another capital ship or space station, the threat from enemy capital ships would also be considered small. The SD would outgun them, so it could rather easily kill an opponent before any siginificant damage was done.

If you look at what kinds of imptech were being produced after the Rebellion picked up some steam you'd see that many of these initial flaws were quickly being covered. TIEs were becoming faster or shielded, or both. Gunboats were being produced, Interdictors made their debut. These were all created to cover huge, yet previously unforseen deficiencies in the Imperial forces. Theory is great, but until you have actual combat experience the gaping holes in your plans my not come to light.

SDs are incredibly vulnerable to starfighter attack when they don't have their own starfighters out there to provide cover. Interdictors are even worse. I remember the mission with Luke where you got pulled out of hyperspace by the Interdictor, I went right for the blind spot, dodged all fire from the Interdictor as I closed, and once I was there I practically sat still in space and drilled my way through the hull until it ran off (At 1% hull). If there had been any appreciable fighter cover coming after me I couldn't have just hovered there behind the bridge in the TL shadow and just above the engine wash and slowly drilled my way through the backside of the bridge. Just one or two missile equipped TIEs could have stopped me from doing that, but because the fighter screens ignored me, I was free to exploit the glaring weakness of the captial ship. Get in close and they can't hit you, stay in close and they can't outmanuever you.

I see no reason why the globes on the top wouldn't be shield generators. They're mounted high over the widest point (nearly) of the ship to provide maximum coverage, so from that standpoint, it's a good engineering decision. The Empire believed they were invincible and nothing would ever get close enough to even get a passing shot off at the ship, let alone the generators, so putting them up there wasn't considered a problem. You can even see shades of this in modern ship design. Look at an aircraft carrier. One could argue that the island sticks way out and is very vulnerable to attack and that putting so much critical equipment there is a stupid thing to do. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but it's assumed that the aircraft that the ship is carrying will keep anything small and agile enough to get close in from getting close in. Same idea with the SDs. It's all about fighter cover. Without it, you're dead.

Nute Gunray
04-02-2000, 04:06 PM
It takes five concussion missiles or proton torpedos to destroy an ISD. It was in the first issue of Shadows of the Empire: Evolution. Guri destroys an ISD after launching a series of missiles or torpedoes at one chasing her. I was very surprised that they were that powerful.

------------------
Drive fast, but not fast enough for a high-speed hearing

K_Kinnison
04-02-2000, 04:15 PM
First of al lthe Aircraft carrier Island is there because of the radar needs to be abel to see over the horizan..the radar may be powerfull enought to cover half of the globe..but you can onle see the part that is above the curve of the earth...that brings the question "Why do you need to cover so much area..in space? and why wouldn't you put snsor globes on the nose of the ship? The X-wing has it sensor in the nosecone, so does the Gun-boat, and probly the E-wing.

Autors tend ot tak a few liberties when writing books to forward the plots. 200 torpedoes wasn't enoght to take out a SSD in the X-wing series. It was damaged..but it was still flying...so to speak. so why would 10 missles be able to do the same to a ship that wat 1/12 of its size? if you place those 12 all on the bridge..maybe..or the sensors globes/comm array.

Darth Massacator
04-02-2000, 06:07 PM
Good gawd enough already!! http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif Can't we just drop the technical stuff and enjoy?? Why must everything be technical, I'm glad I'm not like this. Now don't make me break out my lightsaber and start dueling the lot of ya.

....say, how exactly does the lightsaber remain a constant, set distance? I mean, what keeps it in place?? http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

Yes, I'm a smart-ass http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

Fel Crynyd
04-03-2000, 04:33 PM
Try to rember the first time you saw the Movies...

I was seven at the time and i watch them in backwards order So i saw ROTJ first and at that time i didn't care if the shelid generators or any thing else they might be worked. I just enjoyed the movie with the explosions and the terbile Death Star... and how our cool and weird looking good guyes (no offence Neil Numb) Flew into this mosnter thing and the Firere explosion and the light sabers battling and the emperor being throen down the shaft to his death.

We were all young at the time (most of us) when we saw the movies and rember Mr. Lucas did not make te ships that way because of the tecanal data! he made them that way to tell a stroy! To empose thing on the vewier. Hell I was scared and feared for the lifes when i saw the immp fleet close the trap in ROTJ. That why i preach NOT to MAKE THE MOVIES THE BIBLE!!! It was just to start the crase. Now the new movies i view that in a diffrent light. now that Mr. Lucas has the time and can make all the tecnal data then go ahead! In fact i would love to see a scene where they explane the Star Destroyers and there design!!! but we have to wait to 2006 i think for the last movie.

Amen reven http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

------------------
Commander Fel Crynyd
XO of Hope Squadron
New Republic Marines
Wow, General, I never considered you the frontal assult type!
-Starcraft

Fel Crynyd
04-04-2000, 09:45 PM
Ah it feels good when you bring clam to the Storm

Scoundrel67
04-04-2000, 10:32 PM
Yes, they are the shield generators and, yes, their vulnerability makes the ISDs too easy to destroy. Imperial arrogance may have been a factor in not hiding/armoring the shield generators, but the older VSDs from the Old Republic also had exposed shield generators. One wonders why this defect wasn't discovered and exploited in the Clone Wars.

After a few VSDs were taken out because of this flaw, the next generation of capital ship, the ISDs, certainly would've been upgraded. Why wasn't this design changed? Who knows?

Remember, this story was created by the same erratic mind that gave us Episode I, the Pretty Mediocre. That says it all...

garyah99
04-05-2000, 01:54 AM
That's it...I'm never clicking this thread again!

K_Kinnison
04-05-2000, 01:32 PM
D'oh!!!!

XWA has the globes being shield generators, but on SW that are SENSOR globes.

Okay, now im starting to get annoyed at the apparent density of some ppl. Might be a good i dea for last comments, and close the thread up

AceAzzameen
04-05-2000, 09:52 PM
Just wanted to add to Fondas & Ms. Talon's talk about the SD defense in XWA. You're both correct, about many missions lacking fighters to protect their ISD/VSD. And I think it's just another mistake of XWA, another effect of it's rushed & poor production.

Everyone remember X-Wing? The first game, that started all this. EVERY VSD/ISD in that game had fighter protection! Missions where you weren't supposed to destroy the capital ship, there would be multiple squads of T/Fs & T/Is that launched if you so much as hit the cap ship with a stray laser blast. And then they were on your ass until you were destroyed, or you stopped what you were doing & fought them off. You had to eliminate several waves of fighter screens before even attempting to take out a SD in the original game. And that's just one of the many problems & missing things with XWA... http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/frown.gif

------------------
"With the blast shield down, I can't even see. How am I supposed to fight?"

Rogue Leader 3
aceazzameen@yahoo.com

OMEGA_ANUBIS
04-05-2000, 11:25 PM
this may have been said already, but i couldnt be bothered to read the entire message:
The shield generators would probably be outside to disperse the shield around the body.. think about it. If it was inside the shield would be too.
There are probably small devices to reflect the shield around the entire ship, something that would be taken for granted and not that important...
but if this were the case, they would be important as you could take a few out and cripple the shields from one side.. perhaps the undeside in a certain area was not shielded anymore as there was no shield being reflected there.
This would make a game more tactical if it was included and I agree that bigger ships should be weaker to fighters.
This can also be seen in games in the real time strategy genre. Soldiers are so unimportant in the likes of C&C... but in real life they are very important.. a few soldiers would be able to knock a tank out given the proper resources.
A grenade to the tracks or something..
This has been slightly rectified in Force Commander, and soldiers are more important to your strategies... after all, when has a general just sent in a hundred tanks and nothing else? Its the same as star wars. You cant just send in a hundred Star Destroyers with no backup... its unrealistic.
The idea of all the varying units isnt to look pretty.. they are all designed for a purpose, thats why we need a task force with a wide spread of variety...
this should be represented more in games, alas, at the oresent, it simply isnt.
Hopefully this new SW Ep1 flight game (Europa is what ive heard its code called) will rectify the situation.
and be better on multiplayer than xwa was too =) (prays)

------------------
Fear attracts the fearful, the strong, the weak, the innocent, the corrupt. Fear......Fear is my ally
http://omega.clanpages.com/

Toscan
07-04-2000, 02:27 AM
Yeah!

Marril
07-04-2000, 03:23 AM
1. in X-Wing, there WAS one mission where there wasn't an ungodly amount of fighters in a mission where you weren't supposed to take out the ISD (there were no Vicstars in X-Wing... such a shame). And in the mission where you had to annihilate an ISD, there wasn't that much as well (granted, it took a STUPID amount of missions to get there, but still... http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/biggrin.gif[/img]]).

2. Forgetting the Assault Frigate, anyone? I skimmed over every reply that had the shield generator problem, and not once had I seem anyone mention the Assault Frigate. It's shield generator is the huge ball underneath it. To prove this, I loaded up a Missile Boat with torps and blasted the generator. Before the thing's shields got to zero, the ball was destroyed, and the thing's shields fell to the ground (err... whatever). I could be wrong about the no replies on that, though...

------------------
[i]Why is it that whenever someone says SOL I am always in trouble... whether it be Standards of Learning or (the other version). I'm always screwed.
--Tyais

Fondas
07-04-2000, 04:44 AM
How on earth did this thread revive ??? http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/confused.gif

JC_DeadEye
07-04-2000, 06:08 AM
It's alive! Kill it, quick!!!!!

------------------
X-Wing Alliance Upgrade member.

Primarch
07-04-2000, 04:35 PM
If I wasn't going out in ten minutes I might be tempted to have another go...but I am, so I won't http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

...By the way, as far as I can recall, the Assault Frigates mentioned in any of the novels has never had visible 'shield generators' until the game (though why they bothered is beyond me)...oh yeah, the Bulk Cruiser has them as well.

------------------
'Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it...'

Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions (http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wcsom/)
The Fanfiction Archives (http://phobos.spaceports.com/~archives/)
New British Empire (http://nbe.firstones.com)

MonkeyLight
07-04-2000, 08:41 PM
Does anyone remember Admiral Piett. Do you remember the line "Intensify forward fire, we don't want anything getting through...."

and the bridge officer said earlier"we've lost bridge deflectors"

the awing crashed into the bridge and they had no bridge deflectors that's why it got nuked... Piett's last line is "INTENSIFY FORWARD FIRE POWER" and then someone says "TOO LATE"

Malcor Brashin
07-06-2000, 08:16 AM
i gotta agree with MS. Talon protecting the capital ship is paramount from enemy fighters i mean hell look at the bismarck it was crippled by 2 torpedoes dropped from swordfish same thing with the ssd in rotj
then you have to look at world war 2 just over 200 aircraft sunk or crippled 7 of 8 battle ships and gave the japs dominace int eh pacific for almost 2 years
200 pilots against several thousand american naval personnel and the japs achieved a clear victory, then you look at the battle of midway 4 jap carriers sunk with in 5 minutes due to lack of fighter cover and in a background shot in rotj you can see a star destroyer exploding and several fighters breaking away so ya i think MS. Talon makes a very valid point http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

Gold leader
07-07-2000, 11:58 AM
By Kinnison:
XWA has the globes being shield generators, but on SW that are SENSOR globes.

I'll send you some material which proves you're wrong. Please don't hit me for that. http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/wink.gif

oldmansteve
07-07-2000, 07:22 PM
Here are some things to keep in mind about capital ships' relative strengths and weaknesses, especially as it relates to starfighter attacks.

First, one must remember that George Lucas did model the starship combat of his far away galaxy on historical precedent: the battleship combat of the second World War. Here is what history teaches us about naval combat in this conflict:

1. It could be argued that before World War Two, no capital class ship (let alone a battleship) which has been fully alerted and under steam at sea had EVER been sunk by any number of aircraft. The British admirality realized their error when they lost all of their naval presence in the Far East to two coordinated Japanese air strikes. The British, who had ruled the seas for centuries leading up to this conflict, could be put on the ropes so easily by attack aircraft simply because they did not consider planes a threat to their ships. It is conceivable the Imperials (for whom arrogance is a definite trait) would also consider fighter attacks a secondary concern. It stands to reason that any Imperial admiral would believe his TIE squadrons are more than adequate for point defense. At least until the Rebellion began blowing up Star Destroyers, Imperial Navy ships were probably unchallenged in space by any sizable force. Hence, a potentially fatal design flaw (much like the lack of AAA on British ships) was allowed. As for the "what about Lancer frigates?" argument, you must remember Lancers were developed after Rebel starfighters had already won several significant victories. This parallels the British reaction to the U-boat - the development of an entirely new ship, the destroyer. Don't let this confuse you: the Star Destroyer, as with many starships in the Star Wars catalogue, is misnamed. It is at least a heavy cruiser.
2. It makes perfect sense to install shield globes on the superstructure of an Imperial Class Star Destroyer. I don't care if redundant systems are in place, any combat ship needs to have a tightly integrated bridge and combat information center to operate efficiently. If these two are located in the superstructure, it makes sense to provide that particular section of the ship with extra shielding. The towers serve this purpose. Before I get flamed with the "only the towers were destroyed when the Executor lost bridge shields, so how could they just be a redundant system?" argument, remember the Executor was the focus of an entire fleet's firepower, and the other shields were undoubtably taking a severe beating. It's not hard to imagine damage control crews having a busy day aboard that particular ship.
3. Recall the "bridge shields are too exposed" argument. I agree the shield towers are woefully exposed to accurate starfighter attacks. However, I don't think this is a "stupid" decision on the part of the Imperial admiralty. If I am correct in assuming TIE squadrons were considered completely up to the task of repelling starfighter attacks (invitation to criticism here :-)), no starfighter should ever get close enough to the towers for pinpoint targeting. That leaves only the heavy guns of other capital ships in the equation. If you remember the first scene of ANH, these haevy guns are pitifully inaccurate. Even at a range of only several kilometers, the Star Destryer did not land all of its shots on a fleeing corvette. How realistic is it to assume, then, that at a standoff range of hundreds of kilometers (I make this assumption because Star Destroyers are capable of blasting the surface of a planet from orbit) a stray turbolaser blast will connect with a bridge shield?
4. Finally, remember the Imperial Star Destroyers are a heavy cruiser at least. Therefore, their purpose in life is to mount as many heavy guns as possible, neglecting secondary and tertiary armament. Again, there is historical precedent for this in the Dreadnought class battleships. The Star Destroyers' mission description was to make life hell for enemy capital ships and conduct planetary bombardments. Think of it; the Bismarck (one of the most powerful battleship types ever built) was doomed to its fate by a flight of VERY obsolete Swordfish torpedo bombers mere hours after destroying the Hood with a single salvo. Purpose-built ships have extreme strengths and weaknesses. Its vulnerability to starfighter attack and its dominance over any enemy capital ship ("We can't withstand firepower of that magnitude") are hallmarks of the Imperial class Star Destroyer.
Just as in the real-life wars Lucas' combat is modeled on, design weaknesses are the result of assumptions. In this case, it is the assumption that fighters are not as significant a threat as other capital ships.

Now, on to the "why are frigates harder to take down than a Star Destroyer?" question. One need only look at the purpose of these ships to answer that riddle. Frigates are designed to escort convoys of cargo ships. A cargo ship is generally not armed, slow and has inferior shield and armor protection. Therefore, starfighters are a realistic threat to them. The capital ship built to counter them would have fast-tracking turrets and more complete coverage. If you can't read between the lines and see why a Star Destroyer, according to its mission profile, would not require heavy turbolaser protection from the rear, I'll let someone else explain it. In addition, the cap-ship feature at hand, the shield tower, would be absent on these convoy excort ships as they would make a prime target for starfighter attacks. Again, it becomes a question of mission profiles.

This could also explain why these shield towers are conspicuously absent on Rebel starships. The Rebellion primarily used guerilla tactics and leaned heavily toward disruption of supply lines via starfighter attacks. With this approach to combat in mind, the Rebellion would surely protect their ships from starfighter attack. After all, you can tell a lot about the tactics any military favors by looking at their weapons design. Go find a history book or a Jane's reference and see for yourself.

At last, some food for thought on the subject of capital ship vulnerability:

1. The shields of a combat starship would necessarily be extremely powerful. If we are to believe the statement made in many Star Wars publications that a Star Destroyer can wipe any trace of life off of a planet, we must assume the strength of a turbolaser is measured in the millions of tons of TNT. A capital class starship in a battle would then necessarily withstand the equivalent of several nuclear explosions every minute. The earlier comment about the Exocet missile becomes a sort of moot point against this level of strength. At the very least, successful Star Destroyer raids involve many squadrons of starfighters packing extremely powerful weaponry (again, much like the massed fighter raids of WW II).
2. However (evil grin), in ROTJ we see a shield tower destroyed by a mere two A-Wings. Of course, it was probably weakened by earlier attacks, but this is still a stretch considering shielding on a scale we are talking about. Think about this, though: those shield towers are designed to protect the superstructure. The shields would be projected downward. The A-Wings in question came from a high angle and fired down onto the shield generators. Perhaps a lucky shot managed to find a gap in the shield coverage? I don't know, but it's something to think about.
3. Last, but not least, comes the question of starfighter superiority. If starfighters are the arbiter of fleet actions (as fighters in World War II became), then why don't we see purpose-built fleet carriers? Also, the tendency of Imperial starfighter design is toward short-range interceptors and bombers not equipped with hyperdrives. With these things in mind, we can see that the emphasis of space combat is NOT the starfighter. Otherwise, we would see much more capable starfighters employed in greater numbers than we see here. By using fighters which operate independently of capital class ships, the Rebels threw the Imperials a curve ball. The threat the Imperials were expecting - a massive fleet of capital ships - did not surface. Instead of a stand-up brawl, they found themselves stung in many places at once by vastly superior starfighter design and tactics. Until the Rebels began their guerilla war, Imperial strategists never considered a starfighter attack a serious threat. Neither the Lancer frigate nor the Nebulon B frigate were in service before the Rebellion began. Think of it - if all the enemy had were Y-Wings (like the Rebellion in its infancy) and you had TIE fighters up the wazoo, would you be in a rush to build Lancer frigates and cover up your shield towers?

By the way...considering the many parallels with World War II built into Star Wars, it is interesting to note the complete lack of a "stealth" corvette or frigate to mimick the submarine. How cool would that be? A special sensor would be needed to find out where the bastard killing all your cargo ships is hiding, then BOOM!




------------------
why don't you just throw rocks next time?

K_Kinnison
07-07-2000, 07:37 PM
Huh? you sent me a BMP that proved that the ISD had Sensor globes on the top. ANd i say again. XWA and all the X-wing series games have those round things on the top being Shield generators..BUT in the SW universe they are SENSOR GLOBES, like RADAR

Primarch
07-09-2000, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by oldmansteve:
If you remember the first scene of ANH, these haevy guns are pitifully inaccurate. Even at a range of only several kilometers, the Star Destryer did not land all of its shots on a fleeing corvette.
Just a little point you may not have noticed...the ISD was not attempting to destroy the Tantive IV, simply disable it before it reached Tatooine. The shots that missed actually exploded (flack) at the side of the Corvette, indicating that they had the range correct, and even those misses shook the corvette. Also, every shot that hit the ship, hit at nearly the exact same spot every time (the generator/reactor) dead centre.
Another thing to note is that in most cases, when you see Imperial Gunners firing on another ship, they tend to be carrying main charactors...do not underestimate the power of a character shield, they are more powerful than you can possibly imagine http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif

Finally, remember the Imperial Star Destroyers are a heavy cruiser at least. Therefore, their purpose in life is to mount as many heavy guns as possible, neglecting secondary and tertiary armament.
Personally I don't really think you can give a specific designation to the ISD, it's part carrier, part transport, part assault craft, part Battleship...It has also been proven (after many arguments at Spacebattles.com) that the ISD has Light, Meduim & Heavy Turbo Lasers. All were seen firing at the Battle of Endor if you look closely enough.

Oh and K_K...I'm so glad I'm not the only one who knows that they are not Shield Generators...it makes me sooo happy http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/smile.gif


------------------
'Seen it all, done it all, can't remember most of it...'

Wing Commander - Secret Ops Missions (http://saturn.spaceports.com/~wcsom/)
The Fanfiction Archives (http://phobos.spaceports.com/~archives/)
New British Empire (http://nbe.firstones.com)

oldmansteve
07-09-2000, 06:45 PM
Primarch -

You had some really good points there, and spotted the biggest hole in my argument (the presence of smaller turbolasers on an ISD). But, just for the sake of overanalysis, let me add some dimension to your claims.

1. *The guns are not as inaccurate as I tried to lead others to believe*

Yes, there was flak exploding all around the corvette, indicating the ISD had her bracketed. As part of your accuracy claim, however, you mention that all of the shots landed about dead-center of the corvette's hull. If you think of the angle of fire for the ISD (slightly above and behind), and the extremely short range (based on the maximum range for a turbolaser of hundreds of kilometers), the center of the target might be the easiest spot to aim for. Anyone with a velocity vector and a heading could fire for the "center of mass" and score significant hits. This is analogous to aiming for the largest point on a target when firing with a pistol. If I hit my targest's left ventricle, does it mean I meant to? Just some food for thought.

2. As for my claim about the ISD being a heavy cruiser, I think this must be true. Even if a Star Destroyer packed weapons smaller than a full-on turbolaser battery, it was certainly not up to the task of repelling mass starfighter attacks. Remember, the Lancer frigate (in every publication I've read) mows through starfighters like they didn't exist, on a chassis which paks significantly less weaponry than a Star Destroyer. I spoke of a neglect of secondary and tertiary armament, not a complete lack of them. Early battleships did pack AAA, just not enough to protect them from harm. This massive concentration of firepower coupled with respectable speed (remember, the ISD had no trouble keeping up with a fleeing corvette) is a trait shared by all battle cruisers. If you can find a publication from our history which refutes this definition, show it to me and I'll bow out gracefully. Yes, the ISD does haul cargo and troops, but it is primarily a platform for heavy guns.

Anyway, remember the primary point I am trying to make, and never mind the shield towers, is that starfighters were not considered the crucial factor in fleet engagements, like Ms. Talon said they must be. Capital ships are simply too powerful to be taken out by anything less than a carefully coordinated and massive starfighter attack. Just for future reference, and if anybody spotted my reference to "purpose-built fleet carriers" and decided that an escort carrier is a fleet carrier, no dice. A fleet carrier is larger and would ferry around hundreds of starfighters, not just fifty or sixty.

Anyway Primarch, I'm just trying to show you what I was thinking. Unfortunately, not much control has been asserted over the information contained in various Star Wars publications. This forces us to choose one publication as "true" and the others as "mistakes." I happen to think those ugly little things are shield towers, but you're entitled to your own opinion, and both of our claims have legitimacy. Let's instead concentrate on the original message in this post. It will make for much better discussion, anyway.

Gold leader
07-11-2000, 05:57 PM
Again, by K_K:
Huh? you sent me a BMP that proved that the ISD had Sensor globes on the top.

But the text with the pic clearly states:
"ISD-72X deflector shield generator dome"

But enough about this subject. Tis an endless debate.

K_Kinnison
07-11-2000, 06:02 PM
And who says that is a valid source?

Wedgey
07-11-2000, 07:07 PM
Does it really matter?? Can't we all just be friends?!?! http://www.xwingalliance.com/forums/biggrin.gif

RAF_Corran
07-11-2000, 09:10 PM
What he said heheheheeheheheh

------------------
General Corran Horn