List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3889
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:04 pm

General Donner, the movies and TCW are the heaviest strike one needs against KT-grade fighter weapons... :)

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Lucky » Sat Oct 13, 2012 4:06 am

sonofccn wrote:
Lucky wrote:Read the quotes again.
The DH-17 is meant for shipboard combat: its bolts are capable of penetrating stormtrooper armor, but it can't breach the hull of a starship.
The description of the DH-17 states it is capable of defeating stormtrooper armor, but will not breach a starship's hull. This tells us that there are blasters of similar size that can breach starship hulls.
Well strictly speaking, from that quote, all it tells us is the DH-17 is powerful enough to pierce Stormtrooper armor without piercing the "Hull of a starship". How much more powerful a blaster would have to be and its size in comparison to DH-17 is left unstated. Further since the context is of internal fights between boarding parties there is also the question by what exactly is meant by can't breach the hull. Do they mean a point blank direct hit on the hull, an inner bulkhead or a stray shot which means traveling through several meters at least of metal plate and cushioning air driving way up the "breaching" energy above what is needed to kill a Stormtrooper.
Lucky wrote:Here we get a description of Heavy Blasters. The heavy blasters are clearly more powerful, and the type that would be a threat to a starships hull as the first quote describes.

If the description of the DH-17 isn't talking about heavy blasters being a threat to starship hulls then I have no idea as to what it is talking about.
Well, strictly speaking again, it is talking about how heavy blasters can pierce personal deflector shields and armor, presumbly like Stormtrooper armor but that's only my guess, the former of which presumbly a DH-17 couldn't or have trouble with. It is possible Heavy Blasters are powerful enough to breach starship's hulls, since they are more powerful than a DH-17, but the quote doesn't mandate that they be able to.
Not being able to breach a starship hull is stated to be a feature that is purposely part of the design of a DH-17. That means that there are blasters of similar size that can defeat starship hulls or else not being able to breach starship hulls would not be a feature to boast about.

We know blaster rifles used by the clone army can defeat the armor on an AAT at point blank range at least.

The SWTNEGTW&T goes on to talk about heavy blaster pistols which are described as being more powerful then most blaster rifles. Then the book goes on to talk about Han Solo's DL-44 as an example of a heavy blaster pistols, and that Han Solo has done things to it to make it even more powerful.

So, yes the book does not say Han Solo's gun can shoot down Star Destroyers, but there are blaster pistols that can defeat Starship hulls.

We also know that an E-11 can damage the hull of the Millennium Falcon in Episode 4.

359
Jedi Knight
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by 359 » Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:02 pm

Lucky wrote:We also know that an E-11 can damage the hull of the Millennium Falcon in Episode 4.
Damage might be a bit of an overstatement, it definitely left a scorch mark, but a bunsen burner can scorch ceramics without any damage so there isn't any reason to assume damage was done by the hit.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1642
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by sonofccn » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:28 pm

Lucky wrote:Not being able to breach a starship hull is stated to be a feature that is purposely part of the design of a DH-17.
Sure. But did they accomplish that by dialing down the gun's power or did they simply chose not to build the larger weapon that would be required to "breach hulls". The quote itself is ambiguous, and on the surface I would argue moronic, and open to interpentation.
Lucky wrote:That means that there are blasters of similar size that can defeat starship hulls or else not being able to breach starship hulls would not be a feature to boast about.
Except it isn't boasting of not breaching hulls but of being powerful enough to pierce Stormtrooper armor but not so much that it could breach the hull. Its boasting of a certain level of firepower within two end points and it is not given that something that does have the firepower to breach hulls would be the same size as the DH-17.
Lucky wrote:We know blaster rifles used by the clone army can defeat the armor on an AAT at point blank range at least.
But a tank is not a warship, as a Star Destroyer is, even if that is a pitifully bad showing of armor.
Lucky wrote:The SWTNEGTW&T goes on to talk about heavy blaster pistols which are described as being more powerful then most blaster rifles.
And the fact it talks of defeating personal armor and shields rather than starships should be quite authorative. Barring unreasonable assumptions like the above are superior to starship's eqvuilients of course.
Lucky wrote:So, yes the book does not say Han Solo's gun can shoot down Star Destroyers, but there are blaster pistols that can defeat Starship hulls.
It implies there are blasters which can breach starships hulls, which is itself a feat somewhat muddled and murky within the context of the quote, but doesn't demand that they be pistol size.
Lucky wrote:We also know that an E-11 can damage the hull of the Millennium Falcon in Episode 4.
As 359 was so kind to point out we don't get any data on the damage, if any, inflicted. Compare what the E-11 did to what the laser cannons on the Tie Fighters did to the MF, weapons far larger and which have every reason to be as lethal as possible as an E-11, with the ship shaking and internal systems exploding/overloading.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:27 pm

Lucky wrote:Star Wars The New Essential Guide To Weapons & Technology
ISBN: 978-0-345-44903-0
Page: 6
The DH-17 which was used extensively by the Rebel Alliance infantry forces during the Galactic Civil War, is typical of most blaster pistols. The DH-17 is meant for shipboard combat: its bolts are capable of penetrating stormtrooper armor, but it can't breach the hull of a starship. It can also be modified to fire in short bursts (which drain the power pack in about twenty seconds), and the weapons sturdy construction enables its use on hostile worlds such as the ice planet Hoth.


The most common blaster variants are the heavy blaster, the sporting blaster, and the hold-out blaster. The heavy blaster is designed for extreme close-quarters combat. The bolts are accurate only at ranges of less than twenty-five meters, but they cause incredible damage compared to most blaster rifles, and can easily penetrate personal deflector shields and armor. Heavy blasters require much more energy to fuel their more powerful bolts; often their power pack may contain enough energy for only twenty-five shots. Han Solo's DL-44 is a heavily modified weapon: the blaster includes a motion sensor scope and efficient galven circuitry the allows the pistol to deal more damage without draining additional energy.


This has got to be the lowest showing of Star Wars starship hulls in all of Star wars. Who would have thought that Han Solo could kill Star Destroyers by leaning out a window and firing his heavy blaster?^_^
Regarding the heavy blaster description, it's actually a good explanation of what we get. So it's really meant for close quarter mayhem, mostly inside ships and space stations I'd say, typical stuff for a smuggler.
For example, taking a simple look at the damage done by Han's blaster in Mos Eisley (assuming he had put the gun on max yield, which seems to be the case in comparison to the damage done to Greedo), we'd know that a typical power cell couldn't contain more than 25 shots.
There's quite a level of waste with these weapons but Solo's weapon has better galven circuitry, which limits that and allows him to get more firepower from the same energy expenditure. Quite interesting there as well. Meaning that the usual heavy blaster won't be that powerful.
Looking at the pieces of agglomerated sand that the blasts were blowing off of the wall (and in ways which clearly show a bolt penetration before any explosion had time to actually pulverize the surface of the wall : whole chunks fall from the walls instead), we'd probably get something like a couple dozens of kilojoules per shot.
I mean, even if we were super generous (read: way above even the barely acceptable high end figure), we couldn't put each shot at more than one megajoule.
Ergo the power cell wouldn't hold more than 25 MJ worth of energy, perhaps a bit more depending on how much energy is actually wasted by Solo's weapon.

I would put the real energetic reserve around a fiftieth of that (500 KJ).

EDIT: I really fail to see where it is said that a HB can put holes in the hulls of a starship. Unless it has no armour, in which case it could happen considering the damage done to the sandcrawler, for example.
But when a ship starts to have a modicum of armour, even perhaps just one centimeter worth of anything better than mere iron, I think it's not going to suffer much more beyond the eventual scorch mark or a small hole.
It's not because the normal blasters are said to be incapable of damaging a hull that the heavy blasters have to be automatically assumed to be capable of doing it.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:36 pm

Lucky wrote: TNEGTW&T implies that a single shield can cover an entire planet in theory at least, but such a things is extremely rare if done at all.
Not necessarily.
There's a lot of extrapolation before we get to 1 shield = whole planet from the following sentence:

"Such shields usually protect only a limited area."
There is an old piece of fluff that out right states Alderaan did not have a shield at all. Dark Empire Source Book, page: 125 according to my notes.
"alderaan had no shields"

http://www.starfleetjedi.net/forum/view ... f=8&t=2716


Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Lucky » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:03 am

sonofccn wrote: Sure. But did they accomplish that by dialing down the gun's power or did they simply chose not to build the larger weapon that would be required to "breach hulls". The quote itself is ambiguous, and on the surface I would argue moronic, and open to interpentation.
All the blasters work the same way

SWTNEGTW&T Page: 5 wrote: Blaster technology is relatively easy to grasp, which has allowed the weapon to spread across the galaxy. A blaster relies on two key components: a gas chamber and a power pack. The gas chamber can be filled with any of a number of energy rich gases, including Tibanna gas from Bespin. When the weapon is fired, a small amount of blaster gas moves through a conversion enabler (often called the XCiter), where energy from the power pack excites the gas. The volatile gas then moves through an actuating module, which converts it into a particle beam. This beam moves through a prismatic crystal or some focusing device before emerging from the barrel as a bolt of glowing energy. Blaster bolts can appear in many different colors, dictated by the type of gas and crystal focusing device, although red and green bolts are the most common. All blaster bolts produce a smell similar to ozone.
The book says Laser and Turbolasers are pretty much the same thing as blasters.
SWTNEGTW&T Page: 5 wrote: Blaster power packs, which can provide energy for up to one hundred bolts, are cheap and can be replaced in under ten seconds or recharged at portable generators.
A heavy blaster only gets about 25 bolts while less powerful blasters normally get 100. That would mean a bolt from heavy blaster is about 4 times as powerful as a bolt from a standard blaster pistol.

sonofccn wrote: Except it isn't boasting of not breaching hulls but of being powerful enough to pierce Stormtrooper armor but not so much that it could breach the hull. Its boasting of a certain level of firepower within two end points and it is not given that something that does have the firepower to breach hulls would be the same size as the DH-17.
There is no reason to even worry about breaching a starship hull with a blaster pistol unless there are blaster pistols that can breach a starship's hull.

sonofccn wrote: And the fact it talks of defeating personal armor and shields rather than starships should be quite authorative. Barring unreasonable assumptions like the above are superior to starship's eqvuilients of course.
There is no point in bringing up being able to defeat starship hulls if pistols can't do it.

The quote says personal shields and armor. It makes no distinction as to what grade of armor, but less powerful blaster then the heavy classification can breach stormtrooper armor.

sonofccn wrote: But a tank is not a warship, as a Star Destroyer is, even if that is a pitifully bad showing of armor.
I'd actually expect a tank to be better armored then most starships, particularly ships not intended for combat, but there is also the fact ships make heavy use of shields.

sonofccn wrote: It implies there are blasters which can breach starships hulls, which is itself a feat somewhat muddled and murky within the context of the quote, but doesn't demand that they be pistol size.
The article is about blaster pistols. Blaster rifles like the E-11 and repeating blasters like the E-WEB have their own articles.

sonofccn wrote: As 359 was so kind to point out we don't get any data on the damage, if any, inflicted. Compare what the E-11 did to what the laser cannons on the Tie Fighters did to the MF, weapons far larger and which have every reason to be as lethal as possible as an E-11, with the ship shaking and internal systems exploding/overloading.
The bigger weapon is more powerful facially. When it comes to energy weapons size is not as relevant when it comes to weapons as it does slug throwers. What matters is how much energy cane be released, and how focused it is.

Lucky
Jedi Master
Posts: 2239
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Lucky » Mon Oct 15, 2012 4:37 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: EDIT: I really fail to see where it is said that a HB can put holes in the hulls of a starship. Unless it has no armour, in which case it could happen considering the damage done to the sandcrawler, for example.
But when a ship starts to have a modicum of armour, even perhaps just one centimeter worth of anything better than mere iron, I think it's not going to suffer much more beyond the eventual scorch mark or a small hole.
It's not because the normal blasters are said to be incapable of damaging a hull that the heavy blasters have to be automatically assumed to be capable of doing it.
If heavy blasters can not cause a hull breach then why bother describing less powerful models as being designed not to cause hull breaches?

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Not necessarily.
There's a lot of extrapolation before we get to 1 shield = whole planet from the following sentence:

"Such shields usually protect only a limited area."
Which is why I said "In Theory". We never see anything like a single shield covering a planet just like we never see any sign of turbolasers being used to bombard planets.

An E-WEB is listed as a Heavy Repeating Blaster in SWTNEGTW&T

An E-11 is used as an example of a typical blaster rifle. Which heavy blaster pistols are often more powerful then. I seem to recall some trying to pass the E-11 off as a submachine gun equivalent.

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1642
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by sonofccn » Mon Oct 15, 2012 1:47 pm

Lucky wrote:All the blasters work the same way
I'm afraid I don't see your point. I have made no arguments regarding the mechanism by which blasters operate. I have suggested the possibility that a larger weapon could be more powerful, via more efficent/larger gas chambers/prismatic crystals etc, and that the desired effect, breaching hulls, may require something larger than a pistol.
Lucky wrote:There is no reason to even worry about breaching a starship hull with a blaster pistol unless there are blaster pistols that can breach a starship's hull.
Except the word "worry" over implies what is really just a bit of fluff describing a weapon. At it core it states the weapon can do X but can't do Y. That's it. Anything else is an assumption, perhaps justified or perhaps not, which can and should be tested against the larger evidence.
Lucky wrote:The quote says personal shields and armor. It makes no distinction as to what grade of armor, but less powerful blaster then the heavy classification can breach stormtrooper armor.
Its talking of personal shields and then just says armor. If it meant starship grade armor it would say so. It is an unreasonable assumption to assume its talking around or neglecting to mention starship breaching firepower in an piece focused on firepower.
Lucky wrote:I'd actually expect a tank to be better armored then most starships, particularly ships not intended for combat, but there is also the fact ships make heavy use of shields.
Even if a tank was better armored than merely a civilian "starship" you made claims regarding Star Destroyers which are warships and fairly powerful ones at that.
Lucky wrote:The article is about blaster pistols. Blaster rifles like the E-11 and repeating blasters like the E-WEB have their own articles.
Which has no bearing on this hypothetical hull breaching blaster. Simply because a pistol is described as being unable to do Y doesn't mean there must be a pistol that can do Y.
Lucky wrote:The bigger weapon is more powerful facially. When it comes to energy weapons size is not as relevant when it comes to weapons as it does slug throwers. What matters is how much energy cane be released, and how focused it is.
I presume you mean fallacy. And no. It would be a fallacy if I argued merely because a weapon was bigger it must be more powerful however we must note we are dealing with two weapons in roughly the same tech base, which have equal reason to maximize firepower and thus damage potential, and the Tie laser cannon can be expected to deal with starship hulls, and pesky shields, far more often than a heavy blaster would. There is no reason for starfighter weaponry to be equal to a heavy blaster much less an E-11, which has demostrated no where near the power of Han's blaster for instance, and if the latter could damage the MF's hull the Ties should have went through it like a hot knife through butter.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Oct 15, 2012 9:27 pm

Lucky wrote:If heavy blasters can not cause a hull breach then why bother describing less powerful models as being designed not to cause hull breaches?
But the book would have given an example of what they can do against some kind of ships.
To me thus far it seems like it said blasters can't do X as their category of weapon is not suited for blasting ships, and then expanded on some models of blasters which were built with more power, like going from a handgun to a shotgun.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Not necessarily.
There's a lot of extrapolation before we get to 1 shield = whole planet from the following sentence:

"Such shields usually protect only a limited area."
Which is why I said "In Theory". We never see anything like a single shield covering a planet just like we never see any sign of turbolasers being used to bombard planets.
My point being that depending on the interpretation, there's not even a need to leave the door open for an "in theory" caveat of some kind.
An E-WEB is listed as a Heavy Repeating Blaster in SWTNEGTW&T
Now that is very interesting. Simply joining the dots, we therefore have heavy blasters which are clearly capable of putting holes in the armoured hulls of small cargos. The MF, as per TESB, already was a tough ship.

The problem being that it doesn't say how heavy it is. The New Essential Guide To Weapons & Technology describes heavy blasters such as handguns.
We're a far cry from the bulky piece carried by stormtroopers. Not counting the equally huge power pack.

I recently realized you had started that thread:

Storage capacity of Blaster power packs

I may post firepower figures in it instead of here.

User avatar
mojo
Starship Captain
Posts: 1159
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:47 am

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by mojo » Tue Oct 16, 2012 3:29 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
Lucky wrote:If heavy blasters can not cause a hull breach then why bother describing less powerful models as being designed not to cause hull breaches?
But the book would have given an example of what they can do against some kind of ships.
To me thus far it seems like it said blasters can't do X as their category of weapon is not suited for blasting ships, and then expanded on some models of blasters which were built with more power, like going from a handgun to a shotgun.
well said. i would NEVER have made that massive leap in logic from 'this gun can't penetrate the hull' to an implied 'but this one can'.

User avatar
Trinoya
Security Officer
Posts: 652
Joined: Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:35 am

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Trinoya » Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:41 am

Of note, in the recent Star Wars The Clone Wars episode we have a demonstrated upper limit of shots from a tank before it needs to recharge and a terrible TERRIBLE display in security that makes the death star look like a bastion of safety... The hatches on the tanks can be lifted effortlessly and opened from the outside...

Effortlessly. A human can lift them on their own.

Also: We got to see a fully dedicated power plant in a civilian setting... It was deemed the easiest and most efficient way to kill the droids by taking out the power plant as the droids would ultimately just run out of power and apparently do so quickly enough for this to be a problem.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5776
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Mike DiCenso » Wed Oct 17, 2012 6:19 am

technically speaking, the SW:TCW, is not a part of the EU as such. But even still, wow, just wow. I can't wait to hear the spin on this one.
-Mike

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Oct 20, 2012 8:52 pm

Trinoya wrote:Of note, in the recent Star Wars The Clone Wars episode we have a demonstrated upper limit of shots from a tank before it needs to recharge and a terrible TERRIBLE display in security that makes the death star look like a bastion of safety... The hatches on the tanks can be lifted effortlessly and opened from the outside...

Effortlessly. A human can lift them on their own.

Also: We got to see a fully dedicated power plant in a civilian setting... It was deemed the easiest and most efficient way to kill the droids by taking out the power plant as the droids would ultimately just run out of power and apparently do so quickly enough for this to be a problem.
And on the opposite side of the spectrum, you have this.

Post Reply