List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

For polite and reasoned discussion of Star Wars and/or Star Trek.
Post Reply
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 Jan 12, 2014 4:16 pm

Lucky wrote:It's rather funny how no turbolasers are depicted in the ICS.
There's a very obvious cutaway for a heavy turbolaser station in the E3:ICS, on the Venator page.
The text here meshes well with elements present in the E3:ICS when it comes to the way the thing works. It carefully any mention of firepower though, and instead focuses on range.
I suppose that the 2~3 multiplier is based on the heaviest laser cannons found on space ships, not those carried by fighters. This is not even a full order of magnitude up.
Otherwise, you'd either be stuck with spaceships incapable of shooting beyond some couple of kilometers tops, or starfighters capable of engaging large targets at ranges of 30 to 60 km or more, since capital ships can bombard from Low Planet Orbit.

Thx for the quotes btw, but you may want to clear them up a bit.

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 » Fri Jan 17, 2014 10:24 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote: There's a very obvious cutaway for a heavy turbolaser station in the E3:ICS, on the Venator page.
The text here meshes well with elements present in the E3:ICS when it comes to the way the thing works.
You seem to have missed what puts the TURBO in TURBOlaser. If it does not have its own personnel turbine generator to power it then it is just a laser cannon in Star Wars. This has been the way things are since episode 4's first release in any form.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: It carefully any mention of firepower though, and instead focuses on range.
You don't use 200 Gigaton per-shot guns to take out buildings and emplacements.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: I suppose that the 2~3 multiplier is based on the heaviest laser cannons found on space ships, not those carried by fighters. This is not even a full order of magnitude up.

Otherwise, you'd either be stuck with spaceships incapable of shooting beyond some couple of kilometers tops, or starfighters capable of engaging large targets at ranges of 30 to 60 km or more, since capital ships can bombard from Low Planet Orbit.
The quotes talk about maximum EFFECTIVE range, and that some turbolasers have a maximum range that makes it so they can't reach a planet's surface from orbit.

The fact turbolasers can't all reach a planet's surface kind of contradicts the notion that turbolaser, laser, and blaster bolts just keep going until they hit something.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Thx for the quotes btw, but you may want to clear them up a bit.
How should I clean up the quotes?

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 » Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:03 pm

Lucky wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: There's a very obvious cutaway for a heavy turbolaser station in the E3:ICS, on the Venator page.
The text here meshes well with elements present in the E3:ICS when it comes to the way the thing works.
You seem to have missed what puts the TURBO in TURBOlaser. If it does not have its own personnel turbine generator to power it then it is just a laser cannon in Star Wars. This has been the way things are since episode 4's first release in any form.
Sorry? What does any of this have to do with what I said?
I merely pointed out the existence of an official drawing of a turbolaser in a SWEU book.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: It carefully any mention of firepower though, and instead focuses on range.
You don't use 200 Gigaton per-shot guns to take out buildings and emplacements.
And?
Why do you quote me if what you say is totally disconnected from my sentence?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: I suppose that the 2~3 multiplier is based on the heaviest laser cannons found on space ships, not those carried by fighters. This is not even a full order of magnitude up.

Otherwise, you'd either be stuck with spaceships incapable of shooting beyond some couple of kilometers tops, or starfighters capable of engaging large targets at ranges of 30 to 60 km or more, since capital ships can bombard from Low Planet Orbit.
The quotes talk about maximum EFFECTIVE range,...
I didn't speak of any other type of range but the effective one. We have a wide variety of EU facts that prove starships capable of hitting ground targets with sufficient accuracy.

...and that some turbolasers have a maximum range that makes it so they can't reach a planet's surface from orbit.
If that's so, then they're the weakest kind.
Some of the heaviest TLs in the EU are dedicated platforms with ranges in the high three to four digits.
The fact turbolasers can't all reach a planet's surface kind of contradicts the notion that turbolaser, laser, and blaster bolts just keep going until they hit something.
An atmosphere is something.
Considering that TL bolts are more than often likened to physical projectiles, energized and bottled plasma with perhaps a capacity to explode (so they double as bombs), their speed and impact with an atmosphere will obviously generate a relevant amount of problems about projectile reentry at such velocities, especially when they can't benefit from high density structures, contrary to orbital bombardment rods for example.
It's also a good thing that the EU had the Empire use dedicated siege crafts (torpedo spheres for example, also largely meant to punch through shields).
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Thx for the quotes btw, but you may want to clear them up a bit.
How should I clean up the quotes?
By removing some typos and arranging some of the cuts in the middle of some lines.

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 » Sun Jan 26, 2014 3:47 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Sorry? What does any of this have to do with what I said?
I merely pointed out the existence of an official drawing of a turbolaser in a SWEU book.
Where are there Pictures of Turbolaser cannons in any of the Incredible cross-sections books? You directed me to a mislabeled laser cannon in the Revenge of the Sith ICS.

What the Revenge of the Sith ICS say has no bearing on what the Attack of the Clones ICS say as they are two different books.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And?
Why do you quote me if what you say is totally disconnected from my sentence?
"It carefully any mention of firepower though, and instead focuses on range."

The quote I posted clearly stated the level of firepower expected, and that it falls far below 200 gigatons per shot.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: I didn't speak of any other type of range but the effective one. We have a wide variety of EU facts that prove starships capable of hitting ground targets with sufficient accuracy.
EU "facts" are irrelevant to this thread.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: An atmosphere is something.
Considering that TL bolts are more than often likened to physical projectiles, energized and bottled plasma with perhaps a capacity to explode (so they double as bombs), their speed and impact with an atmosphere will obviously generate a relevant amount of problems about projectile reentry at such velocities, especially when they can't benefit from high density structures, contrary to orbital bombardment rods for example.
It's also a good thing that the EU had the Empire use dedicated siege crafts (torpedo spheres for example, also largely meant to punch through shields).
You need to stop posting to your self.

Maximum ranges are facts of life in Star Wars, and have always been so even in the vacuum of space.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: By removing some typos and arranging some of the cuts in the middle of some lines.
I have no idea as to what you mean.

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 Jan 27, 2014 6:36 pm

Lucky wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Sorry? What does any of this have to do with what I said?
I merely pointed out the existence of an official drawing of a turbolaser in a SWEU book.
Where are there Pictures of Turbolaser cannons in any of the Incredible cross-sections books? You directed me to a mislabeled laser cannon in the Revenge of the Sith ICS.
I wasn't aware that the big weapon in the lower right hand corner featured a mislabeled laser cannon.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/teohyc/4028595194/
http://static4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2 ... G_2432.JPG
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/DBY-827_ ... ser_turret
http://www.expanded-universe.eu/wp-cont ... 423140.jpg
http://images.wikia.com/archivesoftheje ... troyer.png

Even the OT:ICS shows a big cannon with large cooling systems (which was one of the things you talked about).
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/46 ... utxw5.jpg/
http://www.stardestroyer.net/tlc/Cannons/heavytl.jpg
What the Revenge of the Sith ICS say has no bearing on what the Attack of the Clones ICS say as they are two different books.
OK, just to make things clear. ICS is an acronym for Incredible Cross Sections, a series of books which covers no less than FOUR volumes.
Although not having "numbers", the E3:ICS contains clear marks of Saxtonian fluff or even barely veiled figures that are easy to understand and make fit with the E2:ICS.
Hence why I also talk about it, because it fits.
In fact, one could also include the OT:ITW since it was largely featuring ideas handed by Saxton himself since he was a contributor to the book, and makes some of its data as fishy as what you could find in E2:ICS.

See: Judging Saxton's official work: which sources are OK?.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And?
Why do you quote me if what you say is totally disconnected from my sentence?
"It carefully any mention of firepower though, and instead focuses on range."

The quote I posted clearly stated the level of firepower expected, and that it falls far below 200 gigatons per shot.
See above.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: I didn't speak of any other type of range but the effective one. We have a wide variety of EU facts that prove starships capable of hitting ground targets with sufficient accuracy.
EU "facts" are irrelevant to this thread.
Great. Proof you didn't even bother to read said thread.
Just to quote JMS himself, and the OP:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:I intend to re-edit this first post to include sources mentioned and cited in this thread. The numerous conflicts between the ICS and higher canon have been explored at length elsewhere in numerous individual threads discussing each incident in terrible detail, so let's stick to the EU here.
I'll start with a few from the old Elim Garak Obsidian Order pages, but I suspect it's a woefully incomplete list now.
  • Displayed firepower too low:
    • X-Wing: Krytos Trap
    • X-Wing: The Bacta War
    • X-Wing: Isard's Revenge
    • X-Wing: Solo Command
    • Showdown at Centerpoint
    • Darksaber
    • Star Wars Rebellion #10
    • Heir to the Empire comic book
    • Star Wars: Empire #35
    • Star Wars: Legacy #17
    • Coruscant and the Core Worlds (Caamas details)
    • Allegiance
    • Dark Apprentice
    • Vector Prime
    • Inferno
    • Cutscenes from KotOR
  • Displayed FTL speeds too low:
    • Tyrant's Test
    • Heir to the Empire
  • Displayed STL speeds too low:
    • Vector Prime
  • Contradicts fighter/capital ship firepower relationship:
    • X-Wing: Isard's Revenge
    • X-Wing: The Bacta War
    • The Hutt Gambit
    • Dark Force Rising
    • Legacy of the Force: Betrayal
    • Shadows of the Empire: Evolution
    • Mandatory Retirement
    • Phantom Affair
  • Implicitly places firepower too low via comparison with targets/superweapons
    • Tyrant's Test
    • Vector Prime
    • Dark Empire Sourcebook
    • New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Weapons
    • Death Star
    • Tales of the Bounty Hunters (asteroids vs. bounty hunter guns)
  • Places a fusion/fission generator as the power source for a ship competitive in warfare, or otherwise causes problems for hypermatter reactors:
    • The Truce at Bakura
    • Star Wars Sourcebook
    • Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition
    • Rogue Planet (Death Star concept to use ice asteroids for fuel)
  • Weapons range:
    • X-Wing: Isard's Revenge
    • X-Wing: The Bacta War
    • X-Wing: The Krytos Trap
    • X-Wing: Solo Command
    • Tyrant's Test
  • Misc. other contradictions:
    • Shields too weak vs sun - "Heir to the Empire"
    • Cables used to transmit power - "Vision of the Future"
    • Implicit contradiction of army sizes via the number of clones - "Guide to the Grand Army of the Republic," Republic Commando books, Odds
    • Fuel consumption mismatch - SWRPG.
    • NJO: Star by Star - Vong cruiser blown up by 1,000 kg baradium warhead.
    • Titanium hull plating in Rogue Squadron.
    • Star Wars Technical Journal #2 provides a rare explicit yield figure which can't fit with the ICS - kiloton protons.
... plus all we furnished across the entire thread.
All that in order to prove that Saxton also ignored and distorted large swathes of it to shoehorn his opinions and turn them into facts.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: An atmosphere is something.
Considering that TL bolts are more than often likened to physical projectiles, energized and bottled plasma with perhaps a capacity to explode (so they double as bombs), their speed and impact with an atmosphere will obviously generate a relevant amount of problems about projectile reentry at such velocities, especially when they can't benefit from high density structures, contrary to orbital bombardment rods for example.
It's also a good thing that the EU had the Empire use dedicated siege crafts (torpedo spheres for example, also largely meant to punch through shields).
You need to stop posting to your self.
Geez, stop being such a dick.
I'm talking about *science* here. You know, friction and all that.
Blaster, laser and TL bolts are composed of matter, even if gaseous or plasmic. They can't ignore the rules of friction upon reentry.
Thankfully, as far as I'm concerned, I consider these projectiles to come, sometimes, with some limited burrowing ability, which works very well against dense matter (rock or even armour, see Slave-I's shots) and would do wonders against atmosphere at super or hyper sonic speeds.
Maximum ranges are facts of life in Star Wars, and have always been so even in the vacuum of space.
Care to elaborate on this non-descript statement?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: By removing some typos and arranging some of the cuts in the middle of some lines.
I have no idea as to what you mean.
I just described editing.
Reread your own quotes and you'd spot the format and typo issues.
Never mind...

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 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:51 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote: Sorry? What does any of this have to do with what I said?
I merely pointed out the existence of an official drawing of a turbolaser in a SWEU book.
Lucky wrote: Where are there Pictures of Turbolaser cannons in any of the Incredible cross-sections books? You directed me to a mislabeled laser cannon in the Revenge of the Sith ICS.
Where in those pictures is the TURBINE even talked about? The TURBINE is the source of the turbo in turbolaser. Without the TURBINE there is no turbo, and you just have a picture of a Star Wars style laser cannon.

It is a contradiction weather the artist made a mistake or if the guy writing the text made a mistake.
What the Revenge of the Sith ICS say has no bearing on what the Attack of the Clones ICS say as they are two different books.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: OK, just to make things clear. ICS is an acronym for Incredible Cross Sections, a series of books which covers no less than FOUR volumes.
Although not having "numbers", the E3:ICS contains clear marks of Saxtonian fluff or even barely veiled figures that are easy to understand and make fit with the E2:ICS.
Hence why I also talk about it, because it fits.
In fact, one could also include the OT:ITW since it was largely featuring ideas handed by Saxton himself since he was a contributor to the book, and makes some of its data as fishy as what you could find in E2:ICS.

See: Judging Saxton's official work: which sources are OK?.
Your doing the talking to the voices in your own head thing again. This isn't a reply to what you are replying to.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: And?
Why do you quote me if what you say is totally disconnected from my sentence?
Lucky wrote: "It carefully any mention of firepower though, and instead focuses on range."

The quote I posted clearly stated the level of firepower expected, and that it falls far below 200 gigatons per shot.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: See above.
You stated the quote I provide avoids talking about firepower, but it clearly states what the Quad guns would be expected to be able to do.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: I didn't speak of any other type of range but the effective one. We have a wide variety of EU facts that prove starships capable of hitting ground targets with sufficient accuracy.
Lucky wrote: EU "facts" are irrelevant to this thread.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: Great. Proof you didn't even bother to read said thread.
Just to quote JMS himself, and the OP:
Jedi Master Spock wrote:I intend to re-edit this first post to include sources mentioned and cited in this thread. The numerous conflicts between the ICS and higher canon have been explored at length elsewhere in numerous individual threads discussing each incident in terrible detail, so let's stick to the EU here.
I'll start with a few from the old Elim Garak Obsidian Order pages, but I suspect it's a woefully incomplete list now.
  • Displayed firepower too low:
    • X-Wing: Krytos Trap
    • X-Wing: The Bacta War
    • X-Wing: Isard's Revenge
    • X-Wing: Solo Command
    • Showdown at Centerpoint
    • Darksaber
    • Star Wars Rebellion #10
    • Heir to the Empire comic book
    • Star Wars: Empire #35
    • Star Wars: Legacy #17
    • Coruscant and the Core Worlds (Caamas details)
    • Allegiance
    • Dark Apprentice
    • Vector Prime
    • Inferno
    • Cutscenes from KotOR
  • Displayed FTL speeds too low:
    • Tyrant's Test
    • Heir to the Empire
  • Displayed STL speeds too low:
    • Vector Prime
  • Contradicts fighter/capital ship firepower relationship:
    • X-Wing: Isard's Revenge
    • X-Wing: The Bacta War
    • The Hutt Gambit
    • Dark Force Rising
    • Legacy of the Force: Betrayal
    • Shadows of the Empire: Evolution
    • Mandatory Retirement
    • Phantom Affair
  • Implicitly places firepower too low via comparison with targets/superweapons
    • Tyrant's Test
    • Vector Prime
    • Dark Empire Sourcebook
    • New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Weapons
    • Death Star
    • Tales of the Bounty Hunters (asteroids vs. bounty hunter guns)
  • Places a fusion/fission generator as the power source for a ship competitive in warfare, or otherwise causes problems for hypermatter reactors:
    • The Truce at Bakura
    • Star Wars Sourcebook
    • Star Wars Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition
    • Rogue Planet (Death Star concept to use ice asteroids for fuel)
  • Weapons range:
    • X-Wing: Isard's Revenge
    • X-Wing: The Bacta War
    • X-Wing: The Krytos Trap
    • X-Wing: Solo Command
    • Tyrant's Test
  • Misc. other contradictions:
    • Shields too weak vs sun - "Heir to the Empire"
    • Cables used to transmit power - "Vision of the Future"
    • Implicit contradiction of army sizes via the number of clones - "Guide to the Grand Army of the Republic," Republic Commando books, Odds
    • Fuel consumption mismatch - SWRPG.
    • NJO: Star by Star - Vong cruiser blown up by 1,000 kg baradium warhead.
    • Titanium hull plating in Rogue Squadron.
    • Star Wars Technical Journal #2 provides a rare explicit yield figure which can't fit with the ICS - kiloton protons.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:
... plus all we furnished across the entire thread.
All that in order to prove that Saxton also ignored and distorted large swathes of it to shoehorn his opinions and turn them into facts.
You're taking what I said out of context. It is at best rather rude.

If someone says something that confuses you, the proper thing top do is to ask for clarification in a polite manner.

What the EU says is irrelavent to the extent of Non-ICS sources in this thread, but you knew that. I don't have to defend any non-ICS quote I post so what the EU says on a topic is irrelevant.


Mr. Oragahn wrote: An atmosphere is something.
Considering that TL bolts are more than often likened to physical projectiles, energized and bottled plasma with perhaps a capacity to explode (so they double as bombs), their speed and impact with an atmosphere will obviously generate a relevant amount of problems about projectile reentry at such velocities, especially when they can't benefit from high density structures, contrary to orbital bombardment rods for example.
It's also a good thing that the EU had the Empire use dedicated siege crafts (torpedo spheres for example, also largely meant to punch through shields).
Lucky wrote: You need to stop posting to your self. The atmosphere in what is considered interplanetary space is so thing no one cares.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Geez, stop being such a dick.
I'm talking about *science* here. You know, friction and all that.
Blaster, laser and TL bolts are composed of matter, even if gaseous or plasmic. They can't ignore the rules of friction upon reentry.
Thankfully, as far as I'm concerned, I consider these projectiles to come, sometimes, with some limited burrowing ability, which works very well against dense matter (rock or even armour, see Slave-I's shots) and would do wonders against atmosphere at super or hyper sonic speeds.
Star Wars blaster, lasers and Turbolasers have a maximum range in the vacuum of space. I'm not aware of Star Wars weapon ranges actually being effected by an atmosphere.



Maximum ranges are facts of life in Star Wars, and have always been so even in the vacuum of space.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Care to elaborate on this non-descript statement?
The Malevolence was out of range even though everyone on the bridge of the Republic Attack Cruiser could see it with their naked eyes, and it was basically parked.

Then you have all the example of the Star Destroyers that suddenly stop firing on the Falcon over Tatooine.

Then you have the Falcon being in visual range of T.I.E., but not being in weapons range.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: An atmosphere is something.
Considering that TL bolts are more than often likened to physical projectiles, energized and bottled plasma with perhaps a capacity to explode (so they double as bombs), their speed and impact with an atmosphere will obviously generate a relevant amount of problems about projectile reentry at such velocities, especially when they can't benefit from high density structures, contrary to orbital bombardment rods for example.
It's also a good thing that the EU had the Empire use dedicated siege crafts (torpedo spheres for example, also largely meant to punch through shields).
You need to stop posting to your self. The atmosphere in what is considered interplanetary space is so thin no one cares it is there.



Mr. Oragahn wrote: By removing some typos and arranging some of the cuts in the middle of some lines.
Lucky wrote:I have no idea as to what you mean.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:I just described editing.
Reread your own quotes and you'd spot the format and typo issues.
Never mind...
[/quote][/quote]
How about explaining what needs to be edited? I tried to copy word for word.

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 » Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:02 am

Lucky wrote:Where in those pictures is the TURBINE even talked about? The TURBINE is the source of the turbo in turbolaser. Without the TURBINE there is no turbo, and you just have a picture of a Star Wars style laser cannon.
I think you miss the point entirely here. You said the ICS doesn't have turbolasers. I proved there are TL in the ICS.
I'm not sure what you want. I didn't disagree with the turbine part either. You mentionned a cooling system. We have evidence of its existence.
Really, let's go back to the crux of it: is there any unsolved issue or what?
It is a contradiction weather the artist made a mistake or if the guy writing the text made a mistake.
A contradiction between what and what?
What the Revenge of the Sith ICS say has no bearing on what the Attack of the Clones ICS say as they are two different books.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: OK, just to make things clear. ICS is an acronym for Incredible Cross Sections, a series of books which covers no less than FOUR volumes.
Although not having "numbers", the E3:ICS contains clear marks of Saxtonian fluff or even barely veiled figures that are easy to understand and make fit with the E2:ICS.
Hence why I also talk about it, because it fits.
In fact, one could also include the OT:ITW since it was largely featuring ideas handed by Saxton himself since he was a contributor to the book, and makes some of its data as fishy as what you could find in E2:ICS.

See: Judging Saxton's official work: which sources are OK?.
Your doing the talking to the voices in your own head thing again. This isn't a reply to what you are replying to.
First of all, it's you're, not your.
Secondly, your second sentence is rather cryptic.
The point is that I figured out that by ICS, you refered to only ONE book, which is a mistake.
"ICS" covers more than one book. Hence why you say ICS has no turbolaers, and why I proved that we do find TLs in the ICS.
This, overall, doesn't seem to be rather useful to this thread.

I'm also sorry but some of your replies are just totally unintelligible.
I'll just skip them.
You're taking what I said out of context. It is at best rather rude.
If someone says something that confuses you, the proper thing top do is to ask for clarification in a polite manner.
Actually YOU should probably bother typing more detailed sentences instead of [EU "facts" are irrelevant to this thread] if you don't want me to correct you.
Time you assume your mistakes.
What the EU says is irrelavent to the extent of Non-ICS sources in this thread, but you knew that. I don't have to defend any non-ICS quote I post so what the EU says on a topic is irrelevant.
What?


. . .


WHAT??

Let me try to decipher that sentence, dammit.

"What the EU says is irrelavent to the extent of Non-ICS sources in this thread,"

Pardon me? EU sources are part of the non-ICS sources.
What is you meant?

"but you knew that"

You mean I knew something I don't understand?
Is this getting religious or something?

"I don't have to defend any non-ICS quote I post so what the EU says on a topic is irrelevant"

Err... what? Who said you had to defend any non-ICS quote?
Geez. And how the hell can you say that the EU is irrelevant after I proved the contrary with the OP????

Is that soup you have in your head or what?
Mr. Oragahn wrote: An atmosphere is something.
Considering that TL bolts are more than often likened to physical projectiles, energized and bottled plasma with perhaps a capacity to explode (so they double as bombs), their speed and impact with an atmosphere will obviously generate a relevant amount of problems about projectile reentry at such velocities, especially when they can't benefit from high density structures, contrary to orbital bombardment rods for example.
It's also a good thing that the EU had the Empire use dedicated siege crafts (torpedo spheres for example, also largely meant to punch through shields).
Lucky wrote: You need to stop posting to your self. The atmosphere in what is considered interplanetary space is so thing no one cares.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Geez, stop being such a dick.
I'm talking about *science* here. You know, friction and all that.
Blaster, laser and TL bolts are composed of matter, even if gaseous or plasmic. They can't ignore the rules of friction upon reentry.
Thankfully, as far as I'm concerned, I consider these projectiles to come, sometimes, with some limited burrowing ability, which works very well against dense matter (rock or even armour, see Slave-I's shots) and would do wonders against atmosphere at super or hyper sonic speeds.
Star Wars blaster, lasers and Turbolasers have a maximum range in the vacuum of space. I'm not aware of Star Wars weapon ranges actually being effected by an atmosphere.
By default they should be affected in atmosphere. They also should have a certain range in space since they cannot be eternal either. Aside from computations that would limit effective range, a bolt doesn't strike me as being as long lived and as robust as a shell that can drift for billions of years. I mean, those bolts are even designed to flak most of the time. They're already built to be volatile.



The Malevolence was out of range even though everyone on the bridge of the Republic Attack Cruiser could see it with their naked eyes, and it was basically parked.

Then you have all the example of the Star Destroyers that suddenly stop firing on the Falcon over Tatooine.

Then you have the Falcon being in visual range of T.I.E., but not being in weapons range.
OK.
OTOH, Echo Base's ion cannon on the ground could hit a star destroyer sitting thousands of km away in space.
I think a "clear sky", a lack of jamming and the path and size of the target matter a lot.
Or are we going to pretend that Solo couldn't even hit the TIE fighter even if he had attempted to aim manually at such a short distance?
Actually, the idea of this short range being an inherent mechanical limitation of the MF's guns seems to be pretty much disproved later in the movie when Solo perfectly lands a few shots on a TIE while diving his Millennium Falcon at the trench, where some mild sensor disturbance is to be found (but apparently not much outside of it).
So his shots even had to account for the somewhat perpendicular course of his target.
Therefore, unless Solo got his ship's guns fixed while on Yavin IV, we can chalk it up to Alderaanian asteroid dust and crap like that. In fact, both ideas are possible.
Mr. Oragahn wrote: An atmosphere is something.
Considering that TL bolts are more than often likened to physical projectiles, energized and bottled plasma with perhaps a capacity to explode (so they double as bombs), their speed and impact with an atmosphere will obviously generate a relevant amount of problems about projectile reentry at such velocities, especially when they can't benefit from high density structures, contrary to orbital bombardment rods for example.
It's also a good thing that the EU had the Empire use dedicated siege crafts (torpedo spheres for example, also largely meant to punch through shields).
You need to stop posting to your self. The atmosphere in what is considered interplanetary space is so thin no one cares it is there.
1. If I post to myself, why do you reply?
2. Why do you repeat the same quotation as above?
3. We were talking about bolts landing on ground targets. Planetary bombardments. You should know that objects coming from space and entering atmosphere at a very steep angle are going to be met with a wall of friction. Of course that's nothing different than what I've already said, but somehow you don't seem to compute that very easy concept.
Really, do get some sleep or something, your latest posts during the past week have been truly terrible.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Mike DiCenso » Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:17 pm

Lucky, Oragahn. Enough with this already. This is my last "friendly" warning on the matter. Stop going at each other.
-Mike

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by 2046 » Tue Mar 04, 2014 2:14 am

Sorry if this is a repeat, but while I usually avoid the noise of Spacebattles I did come across this:

http://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/ ... st-8665947

There's a post of a guy who lists all the examples of SW ground combat not involving ridonkulous yields.

Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3900
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Praeothmin » Tue Mar 11, 2014 10:02 pm

Yeah, Jared's efficient like that... :)

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 Mar 31, 2014 9:01 pm

Wow, his list is like... totally huge. Very good job.
Oh, on the next page (couldn't stop laughing at Leo1's expense), Jared posted an interesting bit which I'm going to use to bump some old thread. :)

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by 2046 » Fri May 02, 2014 4:15 pm

So . . . I guess we can un-sticky this now? Or shall we keep it as a shrine to the foolishness of inflationism?

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 May 03, 2014 2:10 pm

For the fallen and their glorious sacrifice, brave they all were, we shall never forget the infamy we fought against. Let it be held above our minds and remind the future generations of the terrible Beast vanquished, our victory certainly costly in the process.
Nevertheless, this is now our shared memory and elevated to the essence of a sacred relic, our ultimate pride in which any lost webizen shall find relief, peace and faith, which no debator of honour would ever allow to be debased by the foulest rhetoric.
Now, let truth prevail and be heard for eternity!

EDIT: translated as pinned for life
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sat May 03, 2014 6:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Mike DiCenso
Security Officer
Posts: 5797
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 8:49 pm

Re: List of expanded universe sources incompatible with ICS

Post by Mike DiCenso » Sat May 03, 2014 5:05 pm

I agree. Keep it as a shrine to the great effort to maintain truth in the darkness of perpetuated lies and willful ignorance, which as we have seen, is still in full effect.
-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 » Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:54 am

I hope we won't have to freshen up that old tart of a thread. :|

Post Reply