An "ICS fact page"
- Mr. Oragahn
- Admiral
- Posts: 6865
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
- Location: Paradise Mountain
An "ICS fact page"
I hesitated posting the link for a while, really. It's unfinished, though it's already starting pretty badly.
ICS "fact" page.
Ultimately, if you feel like adressing certain misconceptions, absurd claims and glaring errors...
ICS "fact" page.
Ultimately, if you feel like adressing certain misconceptions, absurd claims and glaring errors...
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
A good page that mentions the most common disputes with ICS.
It is interesting that people who accept ICS are always accused of being fan boy wankers because of the numbers yet no one had any problem with ICS BEFORE the numbers. It is clear that the very people attacking Star Wars "wankers" are wankers themselves obviously very emotionally attached to the notion that Star Trek can beat Star Wars.
Naturally hardly anyone ever tries to dispute the actual numbers or explain how exactly do they contradict the films preferring instead to declare ICS non canon altogether.
And what people seem to forget is that ICS series were written as a direct tie in with the films and thus should be considered even more reliable than any other EU book.
As for the ridiculous Travissty number one just needs to look at the Coruscant and consider how big of an army you could create simply by issuing a conscription throughout the planet.
It is interesting that people who accept ICS are always accused of being fan boy wankers because of the numbers yet no one had any problem with ICS BEFORE the numbers. It is clear that the very people attacking Star Wars "wankers" are wankers themselves obviously very emotionally attached to the notion that Star Trek can beat Star Wars.
Naturally hardly anyone ever tries to dispute the actual numbers or explain how exactly do they contradict the films preferring instead to declare ICS non canon altogether.
And what people seem to forget is that ICS series were written as a direct tie in with the films and thus should be considered even more reliable than any other EU book.
As for the ridiculous Travissty number one just needs to look at the Coruscant and consider how big of an army you could create simply by issuing a conscription throughout the planet.
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
- Location: Polish Commonwealth
That's because the overblown numbers are the main problem of ICS :)Kane Starkiller wrote:It is interesting that people who accept ICS are always accused of being fan boy wankers because of the numbers yet no one had any problem with ICS BEFORE the numbers.
I like Trek, I like Wars. I don't care which is more powerful.It is clear that the very people attacking Star Wars "wankers" are wankers themselves obviously very emotionally attached to the notion that Star Trek can beat Star Wars.
Just because you say so it doesn't make it true, fortunately :)Naturally hardly anyone ever tries to dispute the actual numbers or explain how exactly do they contradict the films preferring instead to declare ICS non canon altogether.
Substitute that with "ICS series were meant to be written as direct tie in with the films" and your statement will be correct.And what people seem to forget is that ICS series were written as a direct tie in with the films
Which, coincidentally, passed through exact same path as ICS. This is a double standard - that page points out that Dr. Saxtons work was validated by Lucasfilm. And yet, when it comes to Travis' work, it suddenly becomes irrelevant...As for the ridiculous Travissty
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
- Location: Polish Commonwealth
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
- Location: Polish Commonwealth
"Commander! The enemy ship is losing shields!"
"Quick! Power down our weapons! We wouldn't want to finish them too quickly, now, would we?"
I don't believe that people in Star Wars universe are retarded. I don't believe you're retarded either, Kane, so please, stop pretending you are. You know damn well that weapon effects are inconsistant with power levels claimed by ICS. You know damn well that TF ships (and, by extension, Republic ships as well) are not capable of withstanding atmospheric reentry without significant damage. Are you seriously suggesting that every single time one ship loses shields the enemy powers down its weapon accordingly in order not to vaporise it (as in "leaving fragments no more than a centimeter in diameter")?
"Quick! Power down our weapons! We wouldn't want to finish them too quickly, now, would we?"
I don't believe that people in Star Wars universe are retarded. I don't believe you're retarded either, Kane, so please, stop pretending you are. You know damn well that weapon effects are inconsistant with power levels claimed by ICS. You know damn well that TF ships (and, by extension, Republic ships as well) are not capable of withstanding atmospheric reentry without significant damage. Are you seriously suggesting that every single time one ship loses shields the enemy powers down its weapon accordingly in order not to vaporise it (as in "leaving fragments no more than a centimeter in diameter")?
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
I'm not interested in your fictional dialogue. Show how weapon effects are inconsistent with ICS power levels. What is the strength of shields? What is the strength of internal forcefields of the ship?
You use atmospheric entry of a ship that was already heavily damaged by weapons fire as example of what Imperial ships can endure.
Naturally you completely ignore the fact that even relatively fragile TIE fighters can effortlessly enter and exit the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB.
You use atmospheric entry of a ship that was already heavily damaged by weapons fire as example of what Imperial ships can endure.
Naturally you completely ignore the fact that even relatively fragile TIE fighters can effortlessly enter and exit the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB.
-
- Bridge Officer
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 1:45 pm
- Location: Polish Commonwealth
Well you should be, because it explains why the "powered down weapons" explanation is absurd.Kane Starkiller wrote:I'm not interested in your fictional dialogue.
There are no giant explosions whatsoever. One would think that 200 gigatons thrown around would result in hundreds of specatular fireballs, but the're curiously absent.Show how weapon effects are inconsistent with ICS power levels.
Well, yeah, considering that we can see undamaged parts peeling off in atmosphere.You use atmospheric entry of a ship that was already heavily damaged by weapons fire as example of what Imperial ships can endure.
Naturally, I do no such thing. Considering that oridinary human beings can effortlessly survive in "the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB", this doesn't exactly prove your point.Naturally you completely ignore the fact that even relatively fragile TIE fighters can effortlessly enter and exit the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB.
-
- Jedi Knight
- Posts: 433
- Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:15 am
Except you showed no evidence that that explanation is even necessary.Kazeite wrote:Well you should be, because it explains why the "powered down weapons" explanation is absurd.
There are no fireballs in space.Kazeite wrote:There are no giant explosions whatsoever. One would think that 200 gigatons thrown around would result in hundreds of specatular fireballs, but the're curiously absent.
And your evidence that it is undamaged? Oh yeah you have none.Kazeite wrote:Well, yeah, considering that we can see undamaged parts peeling off in atmosphere.
It has a layer of oxygen so what? How does this disprove my point of tiny TIEs easily entering and exiting atmosphere?Kazeite wrote:Naturally, I do no such thing. Considering that oridinary human beings can effortlessly survive in "the atmosphere of a gas giant as witnessed in TESB", this doesn't exactly prove your point.