Split: ICS revisited

[Alyeska]

You just killed your position in the debate by admitting your are primarily biased and will not take the situation into account.

Not true, I do take the situation into account. I think the two are fairly evenly matched, but the UFP would prevail in a war with the Empire. I don't think an Excelsior could take on 30 ISDs and win. As for bias, yes I have come to the conclusion that in general ST is more powerful than SW and until I feel that it has been demonstrated that this is not true I will continue to advocate for it. I am of not so set in my ways that I cannot be swayed by logic and fact, but I have yet to see much evidence that is indicative, never mind conclusive of a super powerful Empire.

Using a pure numbers crunch this also means you do not believe anything outside of the movies themselves is canon. The reason I say this is because outside of the movies is clear evidence of millions of ships. This would swamp the 8-12,000 ships that the Federation can muster. As a consequence you also likely don't consider ICS to be canon.

This essentially makes you a movie purist when it comes to Star Wars.

Whats funny is your position on whether or not your Pro-Trek is derived solely on a key issue with Wars, what is and isn't canon. Thats very arbitrary.

[Praeothmin]

The reason I say this is because outside of the movies is clear evidence of millions of ships.

And there are also clear indication that 200 Katana Dreadnaughts would be enough to change the balance of power between the Imperial remnants and the New Alliance.
You also have examples of high end firepower (AotC ICS), and very low ones where an SSD's Heavy guns firing a Full-power in forest only incinerates about a hectare of trees and plants (was it Darksaber?).

And yet, it seems everytime the lower figures appear in a discussion, the Pro-Wars debaters start whining about how bad are the writers that wrote those books, and conveniently dismiss them.

[Mike DiCenso]

Praeothmin wrote:
You also have examples of high end firepower (AotC ICS), and very low ones where an SSD's Heavy guns firing a Full-power in forest only incinerates about a hectare of trees and plants (was it Darksaber?).

Yes, it was "Darksaber". The SSD Knighthammer's turbolasers on "full strength" could not do much more than start forest fires on Yavin 4. A single strike is described as being able to only destroy an acre of old growth forest.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

Praeothmin wrote:
You also have examples of high end firepower (AotC ICS), and very low ones where an SSD's Heavy guns firing a Full-power in forest only incinerates about a hectare of trees and plants (was it Darksaber?).

Yes, it was "Darksaber". The SSD Knighthammer's turbolasers on "full strength" could not do much more than start forest fires on Yavin 4. A single strike is described as being able to only destroy an acre of old growth forest.
-Mike

+ terajoules of energy (coherent light in the book) fired by frigates.
+ a sub gigaton explosion from a supposedly orbital high power shot (comic book).
+ sunbfighters managing to weaken the shields of an ISD (which would be particularily funny with kiloton or low megaton level weapons trying to dent those wanked out near petaton level shields, especially with the sink tank model, which is quite binary).
+ Thrawn's mini armada menacing the New Republic. Or did the super industry suddenly vanish or what?

[Alyeska]

Praeothmin wrote:
You also have examples of high end firepower (AotC ICS), and very low ones where an SSD's Heavy guns firing a Full-power in forest only incinerates about a hectare of trees and plants (was it Darksaber?).

Yes, it was "Darksaber". The SSD Knighthammer's turbolasers on "full strength" could not do much more than start forest fires on Yavin 4. A single strike is described as being able to only destroy an acre of old growth forest.
-Mike

+ terajoules of energy (coherent light in the book) fired by frigates.
+ a sub gigaton explosion from a supposedly orbital high power shot (comic book).
+ sunbfighters managing to weaken the shields of an ISD (which would be particularily funny with kiloton or low megaton level weapons trying to dent those wanked out near petaton level shields, especially with the sink tank model, which is quite binary).
+ Thrawn's mini armada menacing the New Republic. Or did the super industry suddenly vanish or what?

Interesting little fact about SW capitalship shields and snubfighters. Did you read the ICS section on how shields work in relation to wattage? Capitalship shields are very vulnerable to weapons that can generate a large amount of wattage in a very short period of time. I do believe one of the Warsies at SB.com even calced that it was possible to knock out an Acclamators shields with MT level firepower using nuclear weapons. Specificaly the significant release of radiation from the nuclear weapon.

Take a guess what anti-matter weapons released on detonation. And you do know what Trek weapons use anti-matter don't you? Connect the dots and suddenly Wars has a problem and its all thanks to ICS. It technically fits with snubfighters being able to harm capitalships and it is a side concession in the VS debates.

[l33telboi]

Interesting little fact about SW capitalship shields and snubfighters. Did you read the ICS section on how shields work in relation to wattage? Capitalship shields are very vulnerable to weapons that can generate a large amount of wattage in a very short period of time. I do believe one of the Warsies at SB.com even calced that it was possible to knock out an Acclamators shields with MT level firepower using nuclear weapons. Specificaly the significant release of radiation from the nuclear weapon.

You wouldn't happen to have a link handy, would you? Or some hint as to what i should type into the search engine?

[Mr. Oragahn]

Interesting little fact about SW capitalship shields and snubfighters. Did you read the ICS section on how shields work in relation to wattage? Capitalship shields are very vulnerable to weapons that can generate a large amount of wattage in a very short period of time. I do believe one of the Warsies at SB.com even calced that it was possible to knock out an Acclamators shields with MT level firepower using nuclear weapons. Specificaly the significant release of radiation from the nuclear weapon.

Take a guess what anti-matter weapons released on detonation. And you do know what Trek weapons use anti-matter don't you?

If you say so. But are you talking about torpedoes? I'm not that much informed about Trek to know and remember such things.

Connect the dots and suddenly Wars has a problem and its all thanks to ICS. It technically fits with snubfighters being able to harm capitalships and it is a side concession in the VS debates.

This would appear to be a "weakness" to all shields. The higher the wattage, the better.

There are two ways to look at this dissipation rate thing:

1. You defeat a shield only once you managed to present a wattage that surpasses - even by a low margin - the "anti-wattage' (neutrino radiation).
   It's a binary system where you're dealing with a bottomless system with a finite flux, and it's a very simple equation. Firepower is strictly superior to the dissipation rate, or it is not.
2. You defeat a shield once you reach the cap, the threshold, whatever finite amount of energy a sort of energy buffer can take before overloading. Of course, the system still radiates energy at a given dissipation rate, and in order to fill the buffer, you have to surpass that dissipation rate with your fire.

Case 2 is that "SB.com claim" you mentionned (which is wrong, since largely incomplete).

The wattage would be particularily relevant for Star Wars, because if the "heat sink" model, which is more like a "sink tank" model, is right, the only way to burn them is to "fill them" as fast as possible before they can radiate whatever energy they have syphoned.

Say a shield has a bleeding rate of 10 KT per second. That's 1 KT per .1 second.
Now, let's say your weapon is a finite system, has only 2 KT worth of energy, but deals its damage in a fraction of a second. .1 s.

Theoretically, it will overwhelm the dissipation rate of the shield.

In case 1, this will defeat the shield.

In case 2, as I've understood it, it just means that you'll fill the tank faster, but you still need to put in 10 KT of energy before it collapses.

If your weapon deals its damage in an extremely short fraction of a second, it clearly gives it the ability to knock the shields off at once, in one shot.

But it does not undermine the fact that to knock off a 1 TT level shield, you still need, at the very least, to deliver 1 TT of energy, in case 2.
The wattage will only tell you if you need to fire only once, or actually fire more than once to reach the threshold faster than the amount of energy the shield can bleed off.

-> Case 2 in no way makes the shield system weaker. It actually makes it stronger.

Now, case 1 can't be right. For a very simple reason.
If the defeat of a shield is ruled by the sheer act of overwhelming the dissipation rate even only once, and even in a slight excess, then nothing of the battles we've seen in Star Wars could have happened.

No shield could sustain X hits before collapsing. It would either be all or nothing.
All battles in Star Wars, notably the ones where shields weakening or about to fail are mentionned, define shields as being mechanisms which can survive several hits before collapsing.
We're talking load strain here.

The energy is stocked. It piles up.

It's like you have a pool, with a volume V, with one guy filling it (Va the amount of water dropped in) and the other emptying it (Vb the amount of water removed).

So let's see. Each person is allowed only one move.

If Va = V, then the pool is immediately filled, but since Vb > 0, enough is simultaneously removed to keep the volume of water below the cap, so it was quite short, but the shield still holds on.

If Va = V + Vb, then the pool is immediately filled in excess of its volume, and Vb (dissipation rate) being insufficient, the shield fails.

Now, over time, if Va > Vb, then the pool will be filled up soon or later.

That is, of course, if you support the heat sink model and want to make it consistent with the films.
Then, a proper way of associating numbers to shields would be to indicate both the dissipation rate AND the energy threshold.

As Curtis Saxton puts it himself on his own site (and thus his ICS definition would fit with his former beliefs), relative to Alderaan's case (let's not focus on Alderaan, but on the shield principle described there):

The superlaser beam strikes the planet and a bright glow spreads away from the point of contact and expands to cover the entire globe within a few frames of the movie. Let's consider several possible explanations for the nature of this time-varying glow.

• [...]
• Beam/shield interaction: According to Lord Vader [ANH novel, pp.129-130] Alderaan's defences were as good as any in the Empire. That implies a full planetary shield system like that of Coruscant [e.g. The Last Commmand]. Every ray shield attempts to limit the damaging effecs of an incident beam by inducing it to split into a cascade of less intense daughter rays, which are scattered through large angles, and also by direct absorption and re-diffusion of incident energy. Absorbed energy is dumped into internal heat sinks for later, gradual irradiation (e.g. in the form of relatively harmless neutrinos from some starships [AOTC:ICS]). The spreading glow on the face of Alderaan may be the visible consequence of superlaser beam power being partially diffused away from the point of contact. After this momentary effort, the shield is overwhelmed (both in terms of its diffusive and absorptive capacities) and the planet explodes.

So to make this fit with films, the dissipation rate should be the threshold divided by a given number, per second, to allow several hits before shield failure. Or:

Dissipation Rate = (Threshold / X) /s

(With X >>> 1)

[Who is like God arbour]

Using a pure numbers crunch this also means you do not believe anything outside of the movies themselves is canon. The reason I say this is because outside of the movies is clear evidence of millions of ships. This would swamp the 8-12,000 ships that the Federation can muster. As a consequence you also likely don't consider ICS to be canon.

This essentially makes you a movie purist when it comes to Star Wars.

Whats funny is your position on whether or not your Pro-Trek is derived solely on a key issue with Wars, what is and isn't canon. Thats very arbitrary.

I have never read ICS or EU. I know from it only, what I have read here or on SDN.

I have no problem, to accept it as canon. But, as all canon, it must not contradict the higher ranking movies or change the whole tenet and vibes of Star Wars.

And the most from what I have read, is not only contradicted by sources of the same rank, but - and that is really deciding - by the movies (and the observations and conclusions from them) too.

Then, it may be canon, but it is contradicted canon and therfore invalid.

If you have a book, in which is described a scene, which violates higher ranking canon - and you can't interpret it otherwise and make it compatible with the higher canon - you have to come to the conclusion, that this scene is invalid. If the book makes no sense anymore with one or several invalid scenes, you have come to the conclusion, that the whole book violates higher ranking canon. It has never happened in Star Wars. (You could define it as alternate universe, but even an alternate universe ought to be geared to the original in some extent. Otherwise it wouldn't be an alternate- but new universe.)

The book may be canon, but it is contradicted canon and therfore invalid.

You can have your fun, reading it, but you can't use it to argue for Star Wars.

Interesting little fact about SW capitalship shields and snubfighters. Did you read the ICS section on how shields work in relation to wattage? Capitalship shields are very vulnerable to weapons that can generate a large amount of wattage in a very short period of time. I do believe one of the Warsies at SB.com even calced that it was possible to knock out an Acclamators shields with MT level firepower using nuclear weapons. Specificaly the significant release of radiation from the nuclear weapon.

I don't think, that makes sense. If the shields would have such an Achilles' heel, why would it not be exploited? Surley, in Star Wars, they are able to construct nuclear weapons. Or are they all to stupid to diagnose and use it?

[Mr. Oragahn]

I read a quote years ago, some time in 2002 that clearly defined that certain elements of the EU were above others. From a source as equally reliable as Chee.

It's a bit vague, don't you think.

Under the presumption that TMs and other material derived directly from the movies hold more weight then the rest of the EU, yes. Though a contradiction between ICS and a Novelization where the movie itself doesn't give insight cannot be claimed victory by one side. Under said presumption, novelizations and ICS have equal weight. Even without that presumption they still have equal weight. That said, TMs offer one potential. Consistent answers. Even if TMs are equal to the rest of the EU, they are potentially consistent throughout. This gives greater credibility.

That would be forgetting disagreements between technical manuals, which I know exist, though I'm not EU centric enough to remember them by name. Those TMs aren't as immaculate as some people think.

Slave-1s seismic charges strongly support ICS and the firepower of the LAAT missiles also agree with ICS. Even still, when the contradictions exist within an order of magnitude below, your let with two choices. Average the results (which is likely to make everyone unhappy) or take from another source that might have fewer contradictions.

Actually, one of Nonamer's links show me well how people can reach gigatons of energy for the mines (1).
It does look completely flawed. And dividing the energy by four as the distance increases may be a flawed application of the inverse square law when we're talking about a weapon that could be synthetized as a totally planar mechanism.
That and the extraordinary levels of energy thrown left and right to support that figure.

As for the LAATs, I question the numbers, again. I've seen the movie. I've seen the droids being destroyed by those missiles. Nothing spectacular there.
The biggest explosion to remember was when one or two missiles stroke the energy/fuel cells of a (banking clan?) ship. Which, again, is a nono in calculation. Don't calculate firepower figures based on the extent of an explosion of a system that may be partially or fully mechanized, up to the point where one or more components would likely enhance said explosion (various generators and fuel tanks being the regular traps in there).

- Which as a Stargate related side note, makes me giggle when I hear people claim teraton yields for the gatebusters in First Strike. -

Well looked at from a reasonnable perspective, no matter how ridiculized you will get by certain people at SB.com, you quickly see, once again, that none of those yields support the figures from the ICS. They're soooo many orders of magnitude below.

ICS isn't crazy high end. You should be well aware that there are calculations that go far in excess of what ICS has spawned.

Well, I don't think I should be well aware of such calcs, especially since they seem hard to trace back, but I've seen some crazy ones, for ISDs, which are actually relying on the following basis:

If warships which are several decades older already have a firepower of X, then the ISD would logically come with a firepower of X multiplied by a lot.

Anyway, some of my discussions with a few Warsies has created a potential new line of thought that doesn't expressly lower ICS values but does decrease the overall capability significantly.

Apparently Saxton wrote an escape clause of sorts into one of his recent works. The generic power generation statement for the Executor class SSDs indicates that is peak power potential and peak power potential can be maintained only for a limited amount of time. Taken into consideration with firepower and shield statements from ICS we learn these are maximum capability and that use of maximum capability actually decreases overall capability of the ship.

I've read this. It seems rather odd to cite a peak consumption as part of a set of technical details about a mechanized system.
Nonetheless, where can we find this escape clause? If it's not in the books, it holds no value.

Combine this with known weaknesses in SW shields and suddenly you have new ammo in the VS debates.

I don't think so.

[Mr. Oragahn]

Another thing. The seismic weapon looks like some sort of collapsing gravitational field, like a quickly forming mini black hole releasing a quickly expanding accretion disk (though it does not seem to spin, or it does but extremely fast).





Now, there's the lack of attraction once the sphere has collapsed... maybe the black hole itself vanishes quickly after that. Maybe immediately after the sphere collapse, so the disk has been created, started to expand, but the "destruction" of the mini black hole propels the disk even more, and at the same time, explains why we're talking about a ring rather than a disk constantly fueled by whatever energetic matter.

[l33telboi]

- Which as a Stargate related side note, makes me giggle when I hear people claim teraton yields for the gatebusters in First Strike. -

Why exactly are you so opposed to them being teraton bombs anyway? Secondary explosions caused by other things in the area? I suppose it could be, but the explosions didn't look like they were caused by several smaller ones, they just look like one big boom. And there were six of these booms, all equally big.

Wouldn't it require quite the extraordinary set of events for these explosions to all look exactly identical, if they were all caused by secondary explosions?

And though the initial "Beachhead" example was a bit funky, what with the shield over the planet and all, it did look like the explosion there meshed well with what we saw here.

[Alyeska]

I have never read ICS or EU. I know from it only, what I have read here or on SDN.

I have no problem, to accept it as canon. But, as all canon, it must not contradict the higher ranking movies or change the whole tenet and vibes of Star Wars.

And the most from what I have read, is not only contradicted by sources of the same rank, but - and that is really deciding - by the movies (and the observations and conclusions from them) too.

Then, it may be canon, but it is contradicted canon and therfore invalid.

If you have a book, in which is described a scene, which violates higher ranking canon - and you can't interpret it otherwise and make it compatible with the higher canon - you have to come to the conclusion, that this scene is invalid. If the book makes no sense anymore with one or several invalid scenes, you have come to the conclusion, that the whole book violates higher ranking canon. It has never happened in Star Wars. (You could define it as alternate universe, but even an alternate universe ought to be geared to the original in some extent. Otherwise it wouldn't be an alternate- but new universe.)

The book may be canon, but it is contradicted canon and therfore invalid.

You can have your fun, reading it, but you can't use it to argue for Star Wars.

So your opinion is formed on incomplete information. Reading the EU makes it very clear just how large the SW Galaxy is. Sheer force of numbers means that SW ships of inferior firepower to Federation ships are still going to win. When your outnumbered 416-1 and your enemy has a significant speed advantage, your not going to win.

I don't think, that makes sense. If the shields would have such an Achilles' heel, why would it not be exploited? Surley, in Star Wars, they are able to construct nuclear weapons. Or are they all to stupid to diagnose and use it?

High wattage weapons by contrast don't necessarily have heavy firepower. With such weapons you can take down a ships shields but then are capable of doing relatively little damage to the ship itself. So Snubfighters can be armed with shield breakers or armor breakers, but not both. Snubfighters are usualy shown to be incapable of taking advantage of a unshielded ship unless supported by capital assets. The few ocassions that Snubfighters took down ship shields on their own or outright destroyed a capitalship is when they had surprise conditions.

[Alyeska]

It's a bit vague, don't you think.

I read it 5 years ago, give me a little slack.

That would be forgetting disagreements between technical manuals, which I know exist, though I'm not EU centric enough to remember them by name. Those TMs aren't as immaculate as some people think.

Some disagreements are retcons (the good old Executor length debate). Anyway, from what I've glimpsed the new TMs are fairly well structured and mostly contradict older TMs and the likes of WEG.

Actually, one of Nonamer's links show me well how people can reach gigatons of energy for the mines

I'll leave that to them. I've not touched that subject in a while and am far from current.

As for the LAATs, I question the numbers, again. I've seen the movie. I've seen the droids being destroyed by those missiles. Nothing spectacular there.
The biggest explosion to remember was when one or two missiles stroke the energy/fuel cells of a (banking clan?) ship. Which, again, is a nono in calculation. Don't calculate firepower figures based on the extent of an explosion of a system that may be partially or fully mechanized, up to the point where one or more components would likely enhance said explosion (various generators and fuel tanks being the regular traps in there).

External fuel sources on a warship, not a pleasant thought. There were scenes with the missiles fired purely at droid targets? I am not really aware of such scenes. I thought that was just general weapons fire from the clone troops.

Well looked at from a reasonnable perspective, no matter how ridiculized you will get by certain people at SB.com, you quickly see, once again, that none of those yields support the figures from the ICS. They're soooo many orders of magnitude below.

As a canon source you do not get to toss it outright. Only the segments directly contradicted or by extension contradicted.

Well, I don't think I should be well aware of such calcs, especially since they seem hard to trace back, but I've seen some crazy ones, for ISDs, which are actually relying on the following basis:

If your going to make claims on the subject its best to be somewhat familiar with it.

If warships which are several decades older already have a firepower of X, then the ISD would logically come with a firepower of X multiplied by a lot.

Firepower does not automatically multiply. Is there anything between the PT and OT to indicate a significant change in technology? The ships may be more powerful, but that could be in percentages, not multiples.

I've read this. It seems rather odd to cite a peak consumption as part of a set of technical details about a mechanized system.

Nonsense. Its normal from an engineering standpoint. You write what the thing is capable of at 100% rated capability.

Nonetheless, where can we find this escape clause? If it's not in the books, it holds no value.

Section of the book that created the term Star Dreadnaught from what I was told.

I don't think so.

A previously unknown potential weakness does not have implications on the VS debate?

[Alyeska]

Further replies to this thread by me will be made in the original thread only. This split does not belong here.

[Mr. Oragahn]

It's a bit vague, don't you think.

I read it 5 years ago, give me a little slack.

Ok. Please try to find what it is though.

That would be forgetting disagreements between technical manuals, which I know exist, though I'm not EU centric enough to remember them by name. Those TMs aren't as immaculate as some people think.

Some disagreements are retcons (the good old Executor length debate). Anyway, from what I've glimpsed the new TMs are fairly well structured and mostly contradict older TMs and the likes of WEG.

Just like they contradict older novels, like the X-wing stuff and Darksaber...
Things appear more structured than ever right now, yet it seems that not everyone follows the ICS to the letter. I've read *things* on internet, I think about recent works, stories, giving a couple of hints about such contradictions.
I wouldn't assume they were willingly placed there, but, considering what happened with the whole talifan fiesta, good or bad, and seeing how Sarli, in severe disagreement with Saxton, got his hand and got approved by LFL, I strongly believe that those contradictions will probably be painted as republishing of some recent sources, to correct a few things here and there.

Actually, one of Nonamer's links show me well how people can reach gigatons of energy for the mines

I'll leave that to them. I've not touched that subject in a while and am far from current.

So you said that the films agreed with the ICS, brought two examples, one of them being a subject you have not touched in a while and you leave to others. You, well, just accept it or what?
Honestly, don't you think the criticism of the figure strikes any point, at the very least?
The only thing I see is Leo1, as usual, plugging his ears, going lalala, possibly insulting people, deforming one's words and chanting teh miracles of the ICS without evn trying to defend the figure.
The lad is completely missing the point, which is to actually check if the figure is right, not say it is by virtue of its presence in an official book.
Vomiting official data by name is not interesting, nor the purpose of the discussion.

As for the LAATs, I question the numbers, again. I've seen the movie. I've seen the droids being destroyed by those missiles. Nothing spectacular there.
The biggest explosion to remember was when one or two missiles stroke the energy/fuel cells of a (banking clan?) ship. Which, again, is a nono in calculation. Don't calculate firepower figures based on the extent of an explosion of a system that may be partially or fully mechanized, up to the point where one or more components would likely enhance said explosion (various generators and fuel tanks being the regular traps in there).

External fuel sources on a warship, not a pleasant thought.

There seems to be various odd design ideas in Star Wars. They stroke slightly above them.

There were scenes with the missiles fired purely at droid targets? I am not really aware of such scenes. I thought that was just general weapons fire from the clone troops.

"If your going to make claims on the subject its best to be somewhat familiar with it." :p

You have less excuses. We're not talking about a thread lost in a sea of threads, on some murky forum or whatever. We're talking about the film, and it's particularily hard to miss.




Another false claim from the ICS? The shock!
It only hurts the credibility of the source.
That said, knowing that all figures are overly exagerated, and seeing that Saxton couldn't give one side peashooters and the other weapons of doom, he evened everything up to wank grade weaponry, of course.
So even if we can show that half the firepower claims are wrong and vastly inflated, the rest that can't be verified will be likely and equally wrong because of what I said just above.
It's, however, largely sufficient to doubt the whole batch of firepower figures.

Well looked at from a reasonnable perspective, no matter how ridiculized you will get by certain people at SB.com, you quickly see, once again, that none of those yields support the figures from the ICS. They're soooo many orders of magnitude below.

As a canon source you do not get to toss it outright. Only the segments directly contradicted or by extension contradicted.

Exact. At least, for someone who accepts the all encompassing canon policy, that is.

Well, I don't think I should be well aware of such calcs, especially since they seem hard to trace back, but I've seen some crazy ones, for ISDs, which are actually relying on the following basis:

If your going to make claims on the subject its best to be somewhat familiar with it.

Links to those super calculations wouldn't hurt you know. I try my best to keep tracks of the calcs.

If warships which are several decades older already have a firepower of X, then the ISD would logically come with a firepower of X multiplied by a lot.

Firepower does not automatically multiply. Is there anything between the PT and OT to indicate a significant change in technology? The ships may be more powerful, but that could be in percentages, not multiples.

So on what basis the ISDs are said to be able to fire teratons per shot, if it's not the increase of caliber and firepower between the Acclamator and the Venator, and then the Venator and the Imp-whatever class?

I've read this. It seems rather odd to cite a peak consumption as part of a set of technical details about a mechanized system.

Nonsense. Its normal from an engineering standpoint. You write what the thing is capable of at 100% rated capability.

Huh, a much more logical spec list would actually put forth the regime at which the engines can run on endlessly, and mention "max power output", or "peak output" as an extra. That would make sense.
When we buy cars, we don't get info about what the car can do for a limited amount of time. We get the info about what it can do as long as it's functional and has fuel.

Nonetheless, where can we find this escape clause? If it's not in the books, it holds no value.

Section of the book that created the term Star Dreadnaught from what I was told.

I will have to see it to believe.

I don't think so.

A previously unknown potential weakness does not have implications on the VS debate?

The problem is that there's no weakness. I explained why on this page.

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... =3254#3254

Further replies to this thread by me will be made in the original thread only. This split does not belong here.

This thread was specifically created to avoid any side tracking. This is where you can talk about the ICS, figures and such.