Base Delta Zero

[Mike DiCenso]

All discussion regarding "The Pegasus" have been split off into the "Pegasus Redux" thread since it is not germane to the discussion about the Base Delta Zero operation.
-Mike

[Mith]

No, they aren't. Nowhere in G canon does a turbolaser ever hit and fail to destroy an unshielded object.

I cited T canon. Which does show us that the asteroids are presented as a obstacle to the warships. Especially when Grievous gloats how the asteroids would protect their flank.

By three, to be more specific. There are far more than three authors citing Base Delta Zero's.

As per what? BDZs aren't denied to exist, we simply deny that they literally slag planets.

That was not the point that I was responding to. I was responding to a claim that the hour timeframe was a farce.

How is it a farce? It provided no accurate information whatsoever. How about you post an actual BDZ operation, its effects, the time span, and so forth? Because honestly, the stuff I've read is not at all impressive.

No, that was simply the highly conservative calculation. It's actually the upper mantle of a planet.

...That's it? They only destroy the upper mantle and you think this is some sort of miracle firepower compared to high end Trek? ST ships were going to destroy the entire mantle and crust of the planet--the crust requiring one hour and the mantle five.

Oh, were they? Is that why it took the entire photon torpedo payload of the Enterprise to consider destroying a 10 km asteroid?

Which ignores several facts.

1) It wouldn't require the entire payload of the Enterprise D. Riker stated it would require roughly half of their armament.

2) Said asteroid was stated to have a rather high gravity. Higher gravity means that the asteroid would be tougher to destroy.

3) The asteroid in question was referred to as a 'planetary body'.

How so? Nowhere is an upper limit in ESB established; we do know that theater shields can withstand "any bombardment" from several star destroyers and the freaking Executor.

I'm referring to the asteroid field. You know, the one that would be crazy for the Empire to follow them into? The one that the navy officers balked at following them into? The one that caused sever damage, it not loss of one of their ships?

Downfall of a Droid,

Details please.

An asteroid field surrounding a planet is used by Anakin to flank General Grievous by placing ATs on the rocks. Anakin correctly guessed that Grievous would try to use the asteroid field to get in close. In said episode, Grievous also gloats how the asteroids would protect their flank should an enemy attack them from behind.

and the Ryloth Trilogy.

Details please.

Several bomber droids are loaded up with bombs and are sent to perform a carpet bombing of numerous locations on the planet to make the Republic look bad (for some reason). Rather than using your claimed nuclear firepower blasters, they instead drop multiple bombs that do severe damage to a small village.

No you don't. All of these so called "contradictions" are simply very vague, sketchy ones, hardly the "direct contradictions" that you claim.

I find having the entire bridge of one of your largest, most powerful ships sheered off by a slow moving asteroid something of a contradiction go gigaton firepower.

Call me crazy.

[Mr. Oragahn]

All discussion regarding "The Pegasus" have been split off into the "Pegasus Redux" thread since it is not germane to the discussion about the Base Delta Zero operation.
-Mike

I'd say let's make a general announcement regarding ANY reference to Trek.
Why is it so damn hard just to refrain from saying "oh but in Trek they did this so ha!" ?
Let's just cut the Trek irrelevancies and focus on Star Wars and the Base Delta Zero. Let's keep that thread clean.

And less confetti quoting dammit, this thread is starting to look like the aftermath of a crash test.
SWST, since YOU are the one who had something supposedly original to bring, may you please condense your points and make your post readable, in some organized and intelligible fashion?

It will be easier to address your points and eventually point to older posts which I or other deem relevant to your claims.

Thank you!

[Admiral Breetai]

Whose statements and calculations are directly contradicted by G/T canon.

No, they aren't. Nowhere in G canon does a turbolaser ever hit and fail to destroy an unshielded object.

the invisible hand got hit by a TL not in the armor but literally inside the ship then ate a full on broad side IIRC..oh and before that we saw an unshielded venator get peppered with TL fire and we see minor explosions and nothing else

this certainly backs up the malevolence and what not

[Mike DiCenso]

1) It wouldn't require the entire payload of the Enterprise D. Riker stated it would require roughly half of their armament.

2) Said asteroid was stated to have a rather high gravity. Higher gravity means that the asteroid would be tougher to destroy.

3) The asteroid in question was referred to as a 'planetary body'.

1.) Riker said "most of", not "half".

2.) It had gravimetric and magnetic fluctuations that could affect a starship, and especially a shuttlecraft.

3.) When was it ever refered to as a "planetary body" by anyone?

-Mike

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

Those guns were loading SHELLS; obviously they were not turbolasers.

Grevious ships guns were loading shells, IT WAS BEING SHOT BY VENATORS.

AOTC ICS.

Awaiting ad hominem in three...two...one...

So none then huh...

Stupid conclusion. How did you come to the conclusion that a theater shield withstanding any bombardment means that said ships' firepower sucks instead of, you know, the shield being very strong?

WRONG, firepower of the scale you claim means a single turbolaser bolt could strike the ground just outside the shield and still effect all within it.

Therefore crap firepower is supported not strong shields.

All of my sources, of which are numerous and made by various authors, have the same gist:

Star destroyer or a few atomizing/slagging/blowing the planet's surface/crust into molten slag/smoking debris in an hour/a matter of hours with no survivors.

Cherry picking effects, quantities and durations and combining them into a single event that is ooms above anything they can do.

Oh, that incident. This is a counter example of a claim that has been debunked over and over again being restated. The "30% of the planetary crust" claim was blatantly contradicted by the visuals, which showed neither 30% of the planet's crust gone nor the effects that one would see from such an event.

And yet in the same breath those who try and debunk it (and fail) also go on and on about trek weapons achieving disintigration and destruction WITHOUT one would see from such events (NDF effect).

FYI that is called hippocracy.

[Mr. Oragahn]

1) It wouldn't require the entire payload of the Enterprise D. Riker stated it would require roughly half of their armament.

2) Said asteroid was stated to have a rather high gravity. Higher gravity means that the asteroid would be tougher to destroy.

3) The asteroid in question was referred to as a 'planetary body'.

1.) Riker said "most of", not "half".

2.) It had gravimetric and magnetic fluctuations that could affect a starship, and especially a shuttlecraft.

3.) When was it ever refered to as a "planetary body" by anyone?

-Mike

Wholly wrong thread perhaps? ;)

[Mr. Oragahn]

Oh, that incident. This is a counter example of a claim that has been debunked over and over again being restated. The "30% of the planetary crust" claim was blatantly contradicted by the visuals, which showed neither 30% of the planet's crust gone nor the effects that one would see from such an event.

And yet in the same breath those who try and debunk it (and fail) also go on and on about trek weapons achieving disintigration and destruction WITHOUT one would see from such events (NDF effect).

FYI that is called hippocracy.

We also happen to have a TDIC thread, you know. *sigh*

[StarWarsStarTrek]

I cited T canon. Which does show us that the asteroids are presented as a obstacle to the warships. Especially when Grievous gloats how the asteroids would protect their flank.

Yeah, the asteroids would protect their flanks, the same way high grass protects snipers. What's your point?

As per what? BDZs aren't denied to exist, we simply deny that they literally slag planets.

Except that many sources quite literally say that.

Turning a planet's surface into "smoking debris" and "reduce a civilized world to slag" are hard to deny or refute.

How is it a farce? It provided no accurate information whatsoever. How about you post an actual BDZ operation, its effects, the time span, and so forth? Because honestly, the stuff I've read is not at all impressive.

I was saying that it is not a farce. Thank you for agreeing with me.

...That's it? They only destroy the upper mantle and you think this is some sort of miracle firepower compared to high end Trek? ST ships were going to destroy the entire mantle and crust of the planet--the crust requiring one hour and the mantle five.

And the visuals blatantly contradict this. Do we see 30% of the planet's crust being blown off? Do we see the massive side effects you would expect from such an event? How is the atmosphere still there?

Which ignores several facts.

1) It wouldn't require the entire payload of the Enterprise D. Riker stated it would require roughly half of their armament.

No, Riker said that it would require "most" of their torpedos, which is >50% and <100%.

2) Said asteroid was stated to have a rather high gravity. Higher gravity means that the asteroid would be tougher to destroy.

When was the asteroid stated to have a rather high gravity? The asteroid was quite obviously made of rock, as footage of it shows.

3) The asteroid in question was referred to as a 'planetary body'.

Well then, clearly the Federation's definition of 'planetary body' is anything larger than a few kilometers. What is your point? Are you claiming that the asteroid was actually several thousand kilometers long, and the asteroid we saw was an optical illusion?

I'm referring to the asteroid field. You know, the one that would be crazy for the Empire to follow them into? The one that the navy officers balked at following them into? The one that caused sever damage, it not loss of one of their ships?

Severe damage? One star destroyer out of the task force got destroyed/damaged by a lucky hit to the bridge.

The star destroyers were tanking "multi megaton" asteroids for over a day.

An asteroid field surrounding a planet is used by Anakin to flank General Grievous by placing ATs on the rocks. Anakin correctly guessed that Grievous would try to use the asteroid field to get in close. In said episode, Grievous also gloats how the asteroids would protect their flank should an enemy attack them from behind.

This contradicts nothing. I suppose that an assault rifle cannot penetrate grass because infantry lie down under tall grass for cover?

Several bomber droids are loaded up with bombs and are sent to perform a carpet bombing of numerous locations on the planet to make the Republic look bad (for some reason). Rather than using your claimed nuclear firepower blasters, they instead drop multiple bombs that do severe damage to a small village.

Contradicted by even higher canon, the film novels, that describe the torpedos on starfighters as thermonuclear warheads.

Not to mention that this is related to fighter weapons, not turbolasers.

I find having the entire bridge of one of your largest, most powerful ships sheered off by a slow moving asteroid something of a contradiction go gigaton firepower.

Call me crazy.

And guess what? In Voyager, the Voyager was penetrated by a small, spherical object the size of an escape pod moving at about the speed of one Voyager length per second or so. Janeway specifically says to brace for impact, after they had been attacked by photon torpedos.

Granted, the shields were down, but you don't seem to take that into account, do you?

[Mith]

Yeah, the asteroids would protect their flanks, the same way high grass protects snipers. What's your point?

What? Last I checked, US marines don't wear grass to protect themselves from bullets.

Unless you're actually naive enough to suggest that the asteroids would hide them--in which case you're wrong considering that both fleets were effortlessly able to track each other throughout the entire affair.

Which suggests that any ship attacking from behind would probably detect them too. And even if they were to have trouble, any of the three ships currently tracking the fleet would be able to give them the exact coordinates.

Nor does that solve the fact that Grievous used the asteroids as effective shields to get his ships within effective firing range.

Except that many sources quite literally say that.

Really? Alright then. In order to successfully argue such a thing, we will require all involved quotes and of course, the contextual paragraphs and we'll need to look over the grammatical and contextual atmosphere in order to determine the nuances of the statements in question.

I warn you, I am very, very good with the written language. Want to see just how good I am?

Turning a planet's surface into "smoking debris" and "reduce a civilized world to slag" are hard to deny or refute.

I at no point denied them. I've denied your conclusions. Conclusions based on someone whose concept of our language is so clumsy that if told to 'break a leg', you'd logically jump off a two story building with one leg firmly aimed downwards.

I was saying that it is not a farce. Thank you for agreeing with me.

You know, the sad part was that I was actually going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that I had somehow mad a mistake in replying to you, somehow misremembering a portion of our discussion.

Then of course, I was about to point how you could think I was agreeing with you--or that trying to be too clever for your own good doesn't do you any favors...and then I remember to check out my response to you...and I suddenly realize that no, I didn't make a mistake.

I was echoing your basic stance. I was essentially re-asking the question of how it could be a farce. Perhaps an unwise method of response, given the limitations of internet communication and some of the subtly lost in translation, but the fact of the matter is that my intent was made clear and you could not have possibly have misunderstood the intent of my response--so you clearly were either trying to intentionally misunderstand me in hopes to make me look like a fool or you're actually stupid enough to think that by responding to what amounts to fumes of the debate would actually somehow get you by.

So I'll put it so that your delicate sensibilities won't overreact with some sort of self-inflated delusion of wit: post an actual DBZ operation that clearly and vividly supports your argument of a literal slagging of the planet.

And the visuals blatantly contradict this. Do we see 30% of the planet's crust being blown off? Do we see the massive side effects you would expect from such an event? How is the atmosphere still there?

It was the 90s, the VFX for such a thing would be outright impossible. I've already well put aside the issue of nitpicking primitive or limited VFX. That's an infancy that I've grown well past. It's one thing to use it as a base for calculations supported by character comments or plot points, but it's another thing entirely to try and hamstring an entire franchise relying solely on petty bullcrap.

You think the VFX problem is a mess for Star Trek? Guess how long it would take for me to bump down your entire franchise from kiloton firepower to a few dozen pounds of TNT via the visuals in the movies and the Clone Wars saga?

Allow me to tell you: about fifteen minutes. Even your precious ESB asteroid field display of firepower fails given that said asteroids tended to explode upon impact with each other, despite moving at velocities too slow to cause such explosions.

So if you want to try and toss around VFX limitations, be my guess. You twist my arm at worst and mutilated Star Wars at best.

No, Riker said that it would require "most" of their torpedos, which is >50% and <100%.

Yes, hence 'roughly half'. It was a vague number. He was likely referencing 60% of their armament, though of course he could have meant more. My point being, that it didn't require their entire argument as you tried to claim.

When was the asteroid stated to have a rather high gravity? The asteroid was quite obviously made of rock, as footage of it shows.

I never claimed it wasn't made of rock. However, we are then hit with the problem of higher gravity--which cannot be projected by an asteroid of that size and of just normal rock composition.

Well then, clearly the Federation's definition of 'planetary body' is anything larger than a few kilometers.

Why would it be? Attempting to redefine Data's comment to fit anything you want it to makes the statement worthless. Nor does it address the issue of the gravity issues the shuttle would face.

The only logical conclusion is that the object was larger than the VFX showed it to be, which would explain the gravitational problems and the issue regarding Data's comment. To claim otherwise is just silly mind gymnastics designed to strap one down to what is admittedly flawed VFX.

A child could understand that. Why do I have to repeatedly explain it to you?

What is your point? Are you claiming that the asteroid was actually several thousand kilometers long, and the asteroid we saw was an optical illusion?

Do you know what a special effect is? Or do you need me to explain to you that while it is rather amusing to point to Star Wars and point out that I could probably escape their weapons range in a Ford Mustang, that maybe the interstellar warship might actually have an effective aiming range that exceeds a few hundred meters and require it to be the width of a barn?

Severe damage? One star destroyer out of the task force got destroyed/damaged by a lucky hit to the bridge.

Lucky? Yeah, it's lucky when the enemy hits your weak spot and cripples your ship. It's lucky when an asteroid floats in the way of the torpedo about to vaporize you.

It isn't exactly 'luck' that has anything to do with an entire bridge tower being blasted into a shower of metal via a love tap that according to your claims of firepower, would have bounced off like a water balloon hitting a US tank.

The star destroyers were tanking "multi megaton" asteroids for over a day.

Evidence? Under what claims do you make these? The asteroids in the provided scenes weren't moving that fast to provide such explosions, no absurdly large asteroids should have gotten close--assuming anything remotely competent about their weapons and crew--, and there isn't any information that I know of from the characters or the plot that would suggest that these asteroids were moving at those speeds.

Citations are your friend.

This contradicts nothing. I suppose that an assault rifle cannot penetrate grass because infantry lie down under tall grass for cover?

Again, this requires that the asteroids hid the CIS fleet. They did not. Both fleets knew exactly where the other was. And even if somehow they had lost sensor contact when they entered the asteroid field (which they didn't as we clearly see Ashoka tracking them throughout the entire trek through said field), then it would have been rather easy to target the asteroids they were using to hide themselves and blast them away.

That's sort of the problem with claiming absurd amounts of firepower; it means that anyone with any basic grasp of sense or combat tactics would use said firepower to fix their problems. In this case, Anakin would have just mass scattered the entire asteroid belt in that section, either vaporizing the rocks or causing the rapidly shifting debris to move out of the way in order to locate the ships.

So even if we were to accept your absurd claim (which we won't because it's not true), it still fails.

Contradicted by even higher canon, the film novels, that describe the torpedos on starfighters as thermonuclear warheads.

I never claimed that they couldn't carry thermonuclear warheads, please pay attention. I am pointing out that if their weapons were so powerful that capital ships deal out gigatons for their military transports--then surely their fighters would be at least armed with kiloton level firepower, would they not?

And yet instead of utilizing this for a carpet bombing, which would have reduced the weight of the craft and saved on gas, they decided, by your logic, to load them down with heavier, inferior bombs compared to their lasers and drop those instead of firing from a greater distance (since you wouldn't need to be above them--oh yeah, learn the difference between bomb and a warhead of a missile or torpedo).

The fighters would not have only have been more effective in carrying out their missions from a speed/gas perspective, but they could have also moved in smaller packs, making it harder to intercept all of them since so many of them wouldn't have been required to make an effective attack run.

Not to mention that this is related to fighter weapons, not turbolasers.

Except fighters and bombers are weapons used against warships. We even see Y-Wings dealing significant damage to frigates during Storm Over Ryloth.

And guess what? In Voyager, the Voyager was penetrated by a small, spherical object the size of an escape pod moving at about the speed of one Voyager length per second or so. Janeway specifically says to brace for impact, after they had been attacked by photon torpedos.

And again, even if I were to acknowledge this as a genuine case (as if this would be the first case of Star Trek lower end display), why would it matter? Trek doesn't rely upon a layer canon policy that means that just because x contradicts y, that y is no longer valid. That's Star Wars.

Granted, the shields were down, but you don't seem to take that into account, do you?

--And here we already see the cracks in your argument. So let me get this straight. Your argument relies solely upon the flawed VFX that never properly shows ST STL speeds correct (you know, in the case of the Enterprise D moving at least near the speed of light in BoBW to catch up with the Borg, yet is trudging along at the usual gliding speed we see in every episode, right past Jupiter) and crashing through an unshielded shuttle bay door, is somehow comparable to an ISD's command bridge being torn off by a random asteroid that may have very likely have torn its way through shields?

Do you see now why no one here takes you at all seriously? Even me responding half ass to your arguments was more effort than was necessary to match your arguments and I've just shown to everyone how horribly messy and poorly parroted these arguments are.

[General Donner]

Dankayo BDZ

This one is the one that has the least objectionable stuff about it, I believe. And even then there's quite some, but it does actually say the attack blew the topsoil and atmosphere off the planet.

Actually, I pointed out that Dankayo is both used to describe either the planet or the base. At least twice in the book, in the few bits of background fluff relevant to this, the name Dankayo is specifically used to identify the base. Or, in other words: the base is called Dankayo twice.
Plus nothing about the damage that is identified in details fits with the claims.

I know all that -- I actually own the sourcebook in question. (I did mention I used to be a Warsie didn't I?) It still says Dankayo's atmosphere was blown off and the surface "evenly cratered", and nothing indicates this was talking about the base.

The damage done to the base was rather less extensive than you'd expect from a Saxtonian BDZ of course (go figure), which I sort of alluded to but perhaps too subtly. I'll still say Dankayo is the best non-ICS example of huge firepower the Wars side has, or close to it. Although wonky and arguably an outlier even if "true".

* Taking literally flavor text descriptions such as "reducing a civilized world to slag", and then assuming that this means a star destroyer is actually melting the crust.

What's "flavor text" mean in this context? Speaking English as my second/third language I'm not always aware of all its nuances.

Furthermore, in the case of the BDZ carried out on the Smuggler's Moon, Nar Shaddaa, as described in "The Hutt Gambit", it was expected that mop-up operations on the surface would have to be carried out as well as the capture or destruction of droids. In addition, an experianced Imperial officer in charge of the operation, Soontir Fel, was haunted by visions of burning buildings and bodies indicates what the commander expected to see during the surface mop-up operations after the bombardment was carried out. All this indicates a vastly less energetic bombardment.

Fel wasn't an experienced officer at the time. Or he was, but he'd only just then transfered from Starfighter Command to the Navy proper. He'd never seen a real BDZ and never commanded a capship.

The Essential Chronology spoke about the fleet's mission as turning Nar Shaddaa's surface into molten slag. Which fits the Saxtonian context better.

Otherwise I mostly agree, the BDZ definition in the EP2:ICS is "inflated" compared to previous examples. Just pointing out some minor discrepancies/flaws ;)

[Praeothmin]

And the visuals blatantly contradict this. Do we see 30% of the planet's crust being blown off? Do we see the massive side effects you would expect from such an event? How is the atmosphere still there?

Ah, you do love that "visuals contradict" game, don't you?

Well, two can play at it, then:
AotC, visuals show us planetary Sphat-T cannons shooting down Trade Federation ship Spheres, with nowhere near even low KT firepower, yet these ships can take many hits from Venators.
Where are the vaunted GTs now?
Nowhere, because the AotC visuals blatantly contradict this...

In TESB, an ISD gets its tower destroyed, completely obliterated by a high KT impact.
Where is the GT/PT resistance of the ship or its shields?
Nowhere, because the TESB visuals blatantly contradict this...

In RotS, a TL shot fired by a Venator penetrates the interior of a Trade Federation ship, hits some Trade Federation ammo, and explodes with the force of a full case of TNT.
Where are the GTs firepower of the Venator?
Nowhere, because the RotS visuals blatantly contradict this...

See how easy it is to play the visuals blatantly contradict this game?

Tell you what, I give you your ICS calcs, even your wankfest Saxton and Wong calcs, but I keep my TiDC calcs...

[Mr. Oragahn]

Turning a planet's surface into "smoking debris" and "reduce a civilized world to slag" are hard to deny or refute.

Flowery language, hyperbole, etc.
Like "I'm powerful. If I want to, I can crush this rebellion right there" or "my tank will pulverize your house". Only a fool would take those statements literally, yet they're not very different from one piece of text that says a ship can turn a civilized place to slag. The only difference there is that it is possible, since we don't know the properties of said ship, that it could indeed to what is claimed there. But the point is rather clear nonetheless: it is not a definitive answer, because it does not need to be taken literally. That is why it is much prefered to go with a documented and sort of technical description of what the effects are.

On this other hand, we have Soontir Fell, who does know what a BDZ is, has detailed knowledge of what to expect to see... and it does not correspond to what you think.
Now you can keep going on, but it's not going to make your claims any better.

The star destroyers were tanking "multi megaton" asteroids for over a day.

That piece of EU does not fit anywhere in the movie. Fortunately, I already got into that rather long winded debate with Leo1, so I know what I'm talking about.


And please, stop derailing the thread with more Trek, thanks. Especially about Pegasus. We do have a new thread for that and you do know it exists.

Actually, I pointed out that Dankayo is both used to describe either the planet or the base. At least twice in the book, in the few bits of background fluff relevant to this, the name Dankayo is specifically used to identify the base. Or, in other words: the base is called Dankayo twice.
Plus nothing about the damage that is identified in details fits with the claims.

I know all that -- I actually own the sourcebook in question. (I did mention I used to be a Warsie didn't I?) It still says Dankayo's atmosphere was blown off and the surface "evenly cratered", and nothing indicates this was talking about the base.

The damage done to the base was rather less extensive than you'd expect from a Saxtonian BDZ of course (go figure), which I sort of alluded to but perhaps too subtly. I'll still say Dankayo is the best non-ICS example of huge firepower the Wars side has, or close to it. Although wonky and arguably an outlier even if "true".

I don't see anything huge about it.
Check out the Dankayo quotes, and you'll see that it's very easy to conflate the references to the planet with those to the base of the same name.
With an artificial atmosphere, the question isn't evenworth asking anymore.
And if the surface was so damaged to the point where a lot of it would be turned into some viscuous liquid, you couldn't see shit, and certainly not easily get out and have a walk on the surface. Yet the rebel agent did, used binoculars and could look at the base's buildings on the surface without any problem.
Plus sending TIEs into the newly created atmosphere of planet, due to copious amounts of teratons injected into the ground, would also render any fly by TIEs to detect anything completely impossible. SW sensors aren't particularly stellar to begin with, in the context of supposedly advanced SF.

Fel wasn't an experienced officer at the time. Or he was, but he'd only just then transfered from Starfighter Command to the Navy proper. He'd never seen a real BDZ and never commanded a capship.

The Essential Chronology spoke about the fleet's mission as turning Nar Shaddaa's surface into molten slag. Which fits the Saxtonian context better.

Otherwise I mostly agree, the BDZ definition in the EP2:ICS is "inflated" compared to previous examples. Just pointing out some minor discrepancies/flaws ;)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Soontir_ ... al_service
Fel was born in 28 BBY. He became a captain at the age of 24-25, so 4-3 BBY.
The blockade took place in 2 BBY.
Not only it's quite absurd to believe that one would be put at the helm of a warship without having the slightest idea of what it's capable of, but he certainly had commanded the dreadnought he'd used for the blockade for more than a year. More than enough to, again, know what it can do, even when pushed at full.

[Mith]

Actually, I pointed out that Dankayo is both used to describe either the planet or the base. At least twice in the book, in the few bits of background fluff relevant to this, the name Dankayo is specifically used to identify the base. Or, in other words: the base is called Dankayo twice.
Plus nothing about the damage that is identified in details fits with the claims.

The damage done to the base was rather less extensive than you'd expect from a Saxtonian BDZ of course (go figure), which I sort of alluded to but perhaps too subtly. I'll still say Dankayo is the best non-ICS example of huge firepower the Wars side has, or close to it. Although wonky and arguably an outlier even if "true".

The problem though, is that the statement cannot be literal in order for the observed damage to be true. Therefore, the first statement must be figurative rather than literal. People regular refer to us as having vaporized Hiroshima or flattening the city with our 10 kt bomb at the end of WWII. However, this did not literally happen as many building remains stood and the entire town was far, far from being properly vaporized.

The point of using colorful descriptions as such is to help people imagine the sensation. Stronger, more vivid descriptions gets stronger, more vivid responses from people. Therefore, it is often a tool to overstate something to get the point across.

That doesn't mean that say, all descriptions cannot be literal, but one must be careful.

What's "flavor text" mean in this context? Speaking English as my second/third language I'm not always aware of all its nuances.

Flavor text means essentially what makes it sounds cool. For things like RPGs or cards, flavor text may often be ignored because it can often be inaccurate in favor of sounding cool. Mike's argument doesn't always apply to every situation, in fact, not many since the problem still comes back to the issue of it probably not being literal.

Fel wasn't an experienced officer at the time. Or he was, but he'd only just then transfered from Starfighter Command to the Navy proper. He'd never seen a real BDZ and never commanded a capship.

The problem with that is far more staggering than you'd think. Anyone today in charge of a nuclear weapon is taught on just what happens when you push that button--all the way up to the people who make that choice. Radiation dangers, yield capabilities, range, and so much more. To believe that a navy officer isn't taught at least the basics of what a BDZ is would be downright shocking--especially given just how serious the Imperial Navy takes BDZ operations. It's the one code they will never, ever change out of fear of what will happen if they mess it up.

The idea that a commanding officer within the imperial navy has no idea what is going to happen is terrifying and goes against the cautious nature regarding the order.

The Essential Chronology spoke about the fleet's mission as turning Nar Shaddaa's surface into molten slag. Which fits the Saxtonian context better.

Again, this doesn't have to be literal. Why do you think certain sources repeat the word 'slag'? It's not because they've done a well researched investigation to ensure that this is literally the correct description. It's because it sounds cool.

As I noted earlier, 'slag' is an alternate description for 'cinder', which suggests something similar, but is not as strong of a word as slag.

[StarWarsStarTrek]

Ah, you do love that "visuals contradict" game, don't you?

Well, two can play at it, then:
AotC, visuals show us planetary Sphat-T cannons shooting down Trade Federation ship Spheres, with nowhere near even low KT firepower, yet these ships can take many hits from Venators.
Where are the vaunted GTs now?
Nowhere, because the AotC visuals blatantly contradict this...

The SPHAT's were firing at a shielded craft, so any visual explosions are unreliable in determining damage. Similarly, the new Star Trek movie shows photon torpedos and starship phasers having sub kiloton yields.

In TESB, an ISD gets its tower destroyed, completely obliterated by a high KT impact.
Where is the GT/PT resistance of the ship or its shields?
Nowhere, because the TESB visuals blatantly contradict this...

The collision did not show the glowy effect that happens when Star Wars shields are impacted by objects, so its shields were down.

In RotS, a TL shot fired by a Venator penetrates the interior of a Trade Federation ship, hits some Trade Federation ammo, and explodes with the force of a full case of TNT.
Where are the GTs firepower of the Venator?
Nowhere, because the RotS visuals blatantly contradict this...

Blatant lie. Those "TL" shots were using loaded shells. Turbolasers do not use shells. Therefore, those weapons are not turbolasers.

See how easy it is to play the visuals blatantly contradict this game?

Tell you what, I give you your ICS calcs, even your wankfest Saxton and Wong calcs, but I keep my TiDC calcs...

Ok then, let's agree on that, shall we?

Deal. Time for you to lose.

Even using your TIDC calcs, you do not rationalize the borg cube battle, in which Federation starships move within a few hundred meters of the borg cube to attack it. This is a scene in which most pro Trek debaters don't even bother to try and refute, because you can't. It shows, quite absolutely, that the Federation's attack range is terrible. The new Star Trek movie reinforces this, with battles being fought within ridiculously close ranges.

The ICS states that star destroyers can hit objects from light minutes away, although this is a maximum range. However, there exist heavy missiles designed to bust capital ships; if medium turbolasers are gigaton range, then said missiles would have to be gigaton range to have a noticeable effect on shielded capital ships. The range of missiles in space is theoretically infinite; given that high end Star Wars has very advanced FTL sensors, they could lob gigaton level missiles at a Federation fleet from an astronomical unit away, while traveling at 100,000+kph and making several thousand G turns to avoid the 10km effective range photon torpedos.

In industrial production, Star Wars's advantage is sealed as enormous. Mining corporations individually mine billions of planets; a single corporation in Star Wars therefore has the industrial production dwarfing the Federation and its comparative neighbors combined.