Picard wrote:I know. If you want to discuss it, thought, first read my site. Everything is explained there and I don't want to repeat it here in lenght, and it would take a tad bit too much space. Then we can start. Besides, you can't really go any lower than 200 megatons per torpedo ("Rise"), when you accaunt for the fact that torpedoes have variable yield.
I don't really have a desire to argue the point, no. It is sufficent for us to understand we disagree.
Picard wrote:In OT, Needa outright states that Solo iz crazy for thinking that MF - a ship far larger than fighter - can take on an ISD.
Well that is one ship and it hardly could be said it is geared towards combat. Its a freighter.
Picard wrote:Also, A-wing crashed into Executors bridge only after shields were lowered by MonCal fire
Which even assuming the shields were brought down by capitol ship fire still had the A-wing make the killing "shot" instead of a turbolaser bolt. I would say its quite clear thematicly Lucas wanted the action on the fighters strafing and ultimatly destroying the SSD.
Picard wrote:In PT, TF control ship is destroyed from inside
Which I would argue not only has a fighter saving the day, once again underscoring that Lucas thinks they are super, but in universe the various fighter pilots assembled to take down the ship on the assumption they at least had a chance on taking it down.
Picard wrote:and only time I remember seeing fighters being effective against capital ships is when Anakin lowers hangar forcefield on Griveous' ship.
Well the Rebel fleet in ROTJ is implied to be threatened by Imperial fighters as well I'd also spot the taking out the DS1 even if it isn't a capship per say.
Really through I am not seeing how from the movies you can say fighters are ineffective, they are always at the heart of the action and are delivering the crucial blow time after time. You actually need to veer into the EU which slightly tones them down, whole squadron needed to make a Victory shield's flicker opposed to Lucas's two random fighters start blowing stuff off the hull, to make your case.
Picard wrote:But we see that in Dominion War most starbases support at least 10 ships
Possibly but your site didn't cite any of that. I had one data point and a picture of some starbase.
Picard wrote:and given size ratio between them and that not all ships will be docked at all times, it is reasonable.
I would disagree. It still involves making assumptions about hundreds of stations we've never seen. But I've been wrong before so lets see the supporting evidence, the number of stations which keep ten plus ships on tap, and we can go from there.
Picard wrote:And it is certainly more reasonable that there will be more far ships than starbases, than equal number of both, or even opposite.
Well I've never said there should be more starbases than ships. My complaint was in the method you were using to generate a number.
Picard wrote:I based my estimate on screenshot I took of Starbase 375.
Which episode?
Mike DiCenso wrote:Most large starbases and spacedocks have at least three or more vessels docked there for repairs that we know of. At least 10 were at Starbase 11 in TOS' "Court Martial" (as seen on the status display graph in Commodore Stone's office), while at least three or four ships were under repair or for general servicing at Starbase 74 in TNG's "11001001", and in TNG's "Redemption, Parts 1 and 2", there were upwards of 23 vessels undergoing various repairs, layover, or were within a day's range for Starbase 234.
And I would ask sir were these represenative or examplarly. That is could it not be fairly argued that the starbases we see are the ones the ship is being sent to for some repair or overhaul and that these stations are dedicated to this. For example starbase 73 and 75 are devoted to other tasks with starbase 74 taking up the maintence issues for the surronding area.
I don't know...I do thank you for digging up further examples and don't wish to sound too obstructive but...I guess its too phantasmal for my tastes. I like hard, solid figures, we are sending X soldiers in Y minutes, and always feel a bit flummoxed with these more "soft" projections.
Mike DiCenso wrote:So I have to agree with Sonofcnn on that point.
Yeah one point for me one trillion points against.:-)