Some questions about the ICS/ Where are the turbolasers

[Mike DiCenso]

Does anyone have good screencaps of the Republic cruisers chasing down the Malevolence from "Shadow of Malevolence"? I recall they were firing quite a few shots from all around the trench areas at the fleeing Seperatist ship.
-Mike

[Mr. Oragahn]

Does anyone have good screencaps of the Republic cruisers chasing down the Malevolence from "Shadow of Malevolence"? I recall they were firing quite a few shots from all around the trench areas at the fleeing Seperatist ship.
-Mike

Bolts are coming from everywhere. Later on, only the dorsal HTLs are firing.

[Lucky]

The ICS is very clear where the twelve quad turbolaser turrets are. There are three on either side of the bridge tower at the rear, and three on either side in the "trenches". There really should be no way to miss the turrets on either side of the bridge.

The ICS do not say the turrets are retractable, and the picture does not show they are retractable. The picture in fact makes it look as if there just isn't any room for the turrets to retract into the hull.

I really have no problem assuming there might be unseen anti-fighter/personel weapons on the Acclamator assault ship, it's not like we ever saw one in a situation to use a weapon, but the quad turrets are just to big to not be seen, and that is the problem. If the ICS can't be relied on to have something as simple as the proper placement of big highly visable weapons correct then how can we trust things we can't see like numbers?

You missed the point of my response, Lucky. All I'm, pointing out is:

A.) We don't see any obvious heavy turbolaser emplacements on the Republic attack ships ala the later Venators or ISDs. See the link t the thread and the images. None of the dorsal views of the Acclamators shows the ICS quad heavy TL emplacements.

Given the ship is only sent in after orbital superiority has been won there is no reason for the troop transports to have anti-capital ship weapons at all.

B.) There is nothing that precludes small AA TLs from being tucked into the sidewall trench areas as we have seen in RoTS and ANH.

It makes reasonable amount of sense for the troop transports to have anti-fighter, and anti-tank weapons. The seem to be designed to at least partly act as a base of operations at least temporarily.

That's all. Now yes, the thing many Warsies keep conveniently forgetting is that Saxton did not have access to the final version of the films, just lots of artist concept material and unfinished footage. For his Slave-I firepower estimates he just took some comic book depictions of the ship in combat and assumed it was vaporizing enemy ships. So no, even without this, there was plenty of reason to disregard his numbers.
-Mike

I seem to recall some using that fact to claim a higher the C-level canon for it. That of course ignores the fact that it has major contradictions with G-canon, and I'm not talking numbers. Invisible guns on troop transports for example.

[Picard]

We can see that with the Munificents' bow superguns, as well as with the example of a SPHA-T firing from a hangar bay, that you can have a fixed and pillboxed gun which has nothing to envy to the HTLs sticking out on the back of KDY/Rendili ships.

Actually I think that SPHAT's main gun was removed from walker and put on ship. If anything, it was shown to be more powerful than ship's turbolasers, taking out Munificient - class frigate in single shot.

[Who is like God arbour]

There was a similar debate at Spacebattles: AOTC: Am I blind ?

Here are a few of the in that thread posted images:

• 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Fact is that neither in the movies nor in the series any quad laser turrets were shown although, if the ICS were correct, they should have been visible.

[Mike DiCenso]

That was amusing watching Point45 try to bullshit his way out of the whole thing there by giving a bunch of low-res pics where you can't see anything at all, just little yellow circles where the guns ought to be, and hope that no one calls him out on them. But of course they did.
-Mike

[Lucky]

There was a similar debate at Spacebattles: AOTC: Am I blind ?

Fact is that neither in the movies nor in the series any quad laser turrets were shown although, if the ICS were correct, they should have been visible.

Yes I'm not going insane! It does exist.^_^

Even someone like Lord Vespasian agrees the ICS are not a trust worthy source?

[Mr. Oragahn]

And his habit of not spelling things properly. Angels for angles. Acculators for Acclamators. That and other weird sentence structures.
You can see the madness of arguing with him though. It's nice that his little sorry arse got handled well. I think one of the most pathetic things is when he started circling stuff on this picture.
Calling the large turbolasers shown in the ICS as medium TLs was just as laughable. Who the heck did he think he kidded?
Or when he pulled l33telboi into his dementia as l33t said he could only see junk and 45 held that as a concession that there were turrets (HA!). WTF? The stuff he circles doesn't even begin to look like turrets. Just because he circled them doesn't suddenly turn random stuff into clearly identifiable turrets. :|
Oh, wait. He didn't draw the circles where he wanted to put them! That explains all, really.
I really wish he could come here. He could be humiliated properly and civilly, of course.

That said I'm not staunchly against the idea that the turrets can be deployed. There is nothing against it. In the TPM:ICS, we see that the Trade Federation battleships have turrets in their circling trench, but the movie shows none. The ICS says that these turrets, which show the same barrel-base as the Acclamators guns, have rotators which allows them to be "withdrawn for concealment"... which I assume also means the tubes must fold into the drum section as well. The drum section remains visible, as we can see on the model used in the movie.
What has to be argued for the Acclamator is that the whole gun piece slides back into the superstructure, that it's mounted on rails or a powerful arm that moves one piece in and out from armour, etc.
It seems the EU also claims that first marks of Acclamators were seen engaging other warships, but that's info from wookieepedia so I wouldn't put it past them that they messed up with the Acclamator-IIs.

However the retractable turret argument doesn't make sense considering that they were not seen in situations they were most expected in the movies or even in TCWS. Same goes for the droid control ship from TPM in fact.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

I have been reading factpile about this Acclamator deal and the warsie on there claims this:

“The Acclamator series of assault ships consisted of two main sub-classes[1] and several modifications to these.[2]”
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Acclamator
Well that sure explains why some would be lacking weapons in different areas. Prove they were of the same class and design.

Now i clicked on the link and BOTH sub-subclasses are claimed to have the Quad turbo lasers so he is screwed on [1], and point [2] in regards to modifications points towards "star wars: republic 64: bloodlines".

So being the diligent dude i am i DL a copy and took a look, at no point are Acclamators mentioned and the only time they are seen is on these pages:

http://a.imageshack.us/img811/1167/star ... 4blood.jpg

http://a.imageshack.us/img225/1167/star ... 4blood.jpg

thats is for them in the entire comic, the rest of it is based back on Coruscant.

PS:

There are also claims that books that predate 2000 are S canon, or at the very least material in them regarding firepower are S canon. After reading more it seems that the person is more interested in trying to use that to support the ICS stats that are actually 2002 by claiming that because saxton was not held to lower stats in the ICS his must be the valid ones.

[Mike DiCenso]

There are also claims that books that predate 2000 are S canon, or at the very least material in them regarding firepower are S canon. After reading more it seems that the person is more interested in trying to use that to support the ICS stats that are actually 2002 by claiming that because saxton was not held to lower stats in the ICS his must be the valid ones.

I've heard the same claim as well, too. Most recently when I was watching debate going on in the Youtube video commentary. However, I cannot find anything that supports that claim, and I would be highly suspect about it since this is not the first time that the more fanatical Warsies have lied about something like this, or completely misunderstood what George Lucas, Steve Sansweet, or Leland Chee were trying to say about what is and is not canon for the Star Wars franchise. Anyone have any idea where this comes from?
-Mike

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

There are also claims that books that predate 2000 are S canon, or at the very least material in them regarding firepower are S canon. After reading more it seems that the person is more interested in trying to use that to support the ICS stats that are actually 2002 by claiming that because saxton was not held to lower stats in the ICS his must be the valid ones.

I've heard the same claim as well, too. Most recently when I was watching debate going on in the Youtube video commentary. However, I cannot find anything that supports that claim, and I would be highly suspect about it since this is not the first time that the more fanatical Warsies have lied about something like this, or completely misunderstood what George Lucas, Steve Sansweet, or Leland Chee were trying to say about what is and is not canon for the Star Wars franchise. Anyone have any idea where this comes from?
-Mike

The comments he seems to keep refering to are in the S canon description:

S-canon is Secondary Canon; the materials are available to be used or ignored as needed by current authors. This includes mostly older works, such as much of the Marvel Star Wars comics, that predate a consistent effort to maintain continuity; it also contains certain elements of a few otherwise N-canon stories, and other things that "may not fit just right." Many formerly S-canon elements have been elevated to C-canon through their inclusion in more recent works by continuity-minded authors, while many other older works (such as The Han Solo Adventures) were accounted for in continuity from the start despite their age, and thus were always C-canon.

This part mostly:

"This includes mostly older works, such as much of the Marvel Star Wars comics, that predate a consistent effort to maintain continuity;"

As the Holocron continuity database was started in 2000 they seem to think that anything prior to 2000 is now S canon, and/or as saxton was not held to prior weapon stats that his now over ride any and all prior ones.

[Mr. Oragahn]

A rather fanciful way of understanding things, as usual.

[Kor_Dahar_Master]

A rather fanciful way of understanding things, as usual.

The C canon description kicks em in the nuts though:

C-canon is Continuity Canon, consisting of all recent works (and many older works) released under the name of Star Wars: books, comics, games, cartoons, non-theatrical films, and more.

Nothing in it sets a date from when C canon must be from, and in fact it says clearly "(and many older works)"...

[Lucky]

And his habit of not spelling things properly. Angels for angles. Acculators for Acclamators. That and other weird sentence structures.
You can see the madness of arguing with him though. It's nice that his little sorry arse got handled well. I think one of the most pathetic things is when he started circling stuff on this picture.
Calling the large turbolasers shown in the ICS as medium TLs was just as laughable. Who the heck did he think he kidded?
Or when he pulled l33telboi into his dementia as l33t said he could only see junk and 45 held that as a concession that there were turrets (HA!). WTF? The stuff he circles doesn't even begin to look like turrets. Just because he circled them doesn't suddenly turn random stuff into clearly identifiable turrets. :|
Oh, wait. He didn't draw the circles where he wanted to put them! That explains all, really.
I really wish he could come here. He could be humiliated properly and civilly, of course.

That said I'm not staunchly against the idea that the turrets can be deployed. There is nothing against it. In the TPM:ICS, we see that the Trade Federation battleships have turrets in their circling trench, but the movie shows none. The ICS says that these turrets, which show the same barrel-base as the Acclamators guns, have rotators which allows them to be "withdrawn for concealment"... which I assume also means the tubes must fold into the drum section as well. The drum section remains visible, as we can see on the model used in the movie.
What has to be argued for the Acclamator is that the whole gun piece slides back into the superstructure, that it's mounted on rails or a powerful arm that moves one piece in and out from armour, etc.
It seems the EU also claims that first marks of Acclamators were seen engaging other warships, but that's info from wookieepedia so I wouldn't put it past them that they messed up with the Acclamator-IIs.

However the retractable turret argument doesn't make sense considering that they were not seen in situations they were most expected in the movies or even in TCWS. Same goes for the droid control ship from TPM in fact.

Even if the quad turrets were retractable in the movies, that would still run counter to the ICS. The book makes it very clear there is no room for the turrets to retract into the ship, nor is there a system even hinted at, and the Quad turrets are even larger then the rectangular bases they are mounted on. They would not fit.

[Lucky]

The comments he seems to keep refering to are in the S canon description:

S-canon is Secondary Canon; the materials are available to be used or ignored as needed by current authors. This includes mostly older works, such as much of the Marvel Star Wars comics, that predate a consistent effort to maintain continuity; it also contains certain elements of a few otherwise N-canon stories, and other things that "may not fit just right." Many formerly S-canon elements have been elevated to C-canon through their inclusion in more recent works by continuity-minded authors, while many other older works (such as The Han Solo Adventures) were accounted for in continuity from the start despite their age, and thus were always C-canon.

This part mostly:

"This includes mostly older works, such as much of the Marvel Star Wars comics, that predate a consistent effort to maintain continuity;"

As the Holocron continuity database was started in 2000 they seem to think that anything prior to 2000 is now S canon, and/or as saxton was not held to prior weapon stats that his now over ride any and all prior ones.

Doesn't this quote imply the ICS are S to N canon given the

and other things that "may not fit just right."

?