Mith wrote:
Not really, no. It's like an infantry man trying hide behind wooden objects while being fired on by bullet piercing armor from several heavily emplaced mini-guns that can easily lock onto your position and tear through said protection within seconds.
Not really. Space is big, and a dense asteroid field would prematurely detonate turbolasers. The inverse square law makes it so that, by the time the turbolaser reaches the ship several kilometers away, it has weakened considerably.
The problem is that in this scenario is that the objects would not provide adequate protection for the ships at the ROF we've seen Venator ships fire at in the series. It would take them less than a minute to punch their way through the field from the one side of it--let alone someone attacking them while they're hiding behind asteroids.
Do you have prove for this? That is, you have yet to quantify the size or density of the asteroid fields.
Unless of course, said asteroid explodes near it and sends small bits of rock flying into your hull at high speeds, which we've already established is rather lethal to SW ships.
Circular reasoning. We are arguing over the firepower; and in relation shielding of Star Wars ship. Your argument in this part of your posts hinges on proving that, IF the ICS is assumed to be right, the asteroid scene would not make sense, hence contradicting the ICS. However, if the ICS is correct, said debris would be harmless and therefore the scene would still make sense, so your argument is a tautology.
Nor of course, was their asteroid thick enough that you couldn't easily adjust your aim to fire directly at said ship, since the ring was rather flat. Any ship could appear over it and start firing at the target--with only a handful of rocks in the way. When your ships can unload dozens of shots per second, that doesn't mean a damn thing.
Yeah, that's an example of Sci Fi writers not realizing that space is 3d. There are plenty of ST examples of this; using a ring of minefields to try and mine a solar system, for example.
So...this is it? You apparently didn't understand me (again). I want the quotes. All of them. And then I want to sit down and show you exactly why you're wrong. Simply quoting the ISB and expecting that to work isn't going to fly. The quote itself is designed to paint an image--the less space you have, the more likely you're going to use hyperbole to get the point across.
Hypocrisy? I have already provided all of the quotes. So much for accusing me of ignoring posts, eh?
The Techinical Journel states that it can reduce a world to "smoking debris in a matter of hours".
The Imperial Sourcebook, the first time in which a base delta zero event was implied:
"The Imperial Star Destroyer has enough firepower to reduce a civilized world to slag"
"A Victory-class star destroyer bombarding an unshielded planet's surface to slag in a Base Delta Zero operation." Star Wars Vehicles trading cards
"Have you ever seen what a Star Destroyer can do to the surface of an unshielded planet? Stones run like water and sand turns to glass."
I'm sorry, what?
That's darkstar's rebuttal of the civilized world quote; to assume that civilized means merely cities, because apparently darkstar thinks that rural communities aren't civilized.
Yes it is. It is entirely unreasonable because you've decided on a literal meaning of the word when said word is not often used literally. Even the description of 'vaporized', 'leveled', and 'obliterated' are rarely used to describe their literal meaning. You willfully ignore that our language is more than just a collection of singular meanings per word--our words can have dozens of meanings depending upon context. That's why it's important to show us a proper, literal description of slagging.
Oh, come on. "to reduce a civilized world to slag" is pretty literal, which happens to fit with the ICS. Saxton chose to take it literally, and in the ICS made it canon. His literal claim is supported by other texts which he chose to take literally. It works, because his canon workings are supported by other EU literature that implies Saxton level ICSing.
And reducing a civilized world to slag is pretty darn hard to claim as figurative, because there is no evidence that it is! Its literal interpretation is supported by several BDZ examples and the ICS, as well as this quote:
"Have you ever seen what a Star Destroyer can do to the surface of an unshielded planet? Stones run like water and sand turns to glass."
The figurative interpretation has no evidence supporting it.
Done.
By your unsupported claim that "slag" is somehow figurative?
Are you saying that the numerous quotes mentioning turning a planet to slag are
all figurative? Are EU writers just fond of the word slag?
And? Where are my quotes? I need the quotes. The actual quotes you claim support your stance. How hard is it, for you to post the actual damn quotes that support what you claim to be 'the honest to God clear cut, inescapable truth!'?! You keep touting how this is true, yet you've been trying to float your entire argument on the ISB. Novel descriptions, where are they? Where is the slagged surface of the planets? Where is the at least five meter or so shedding of the surface?
The ICS,
which is supported by several sources, most of which were written PRIOR to Saxton's book.
I've done no such thing. I've already stated that I haven't at all used the visual limitations of CW against them. I've simply used plot points and actual statements. Of course, you'd know this if you actually knew about the CW episode in general. You clearly don't since you tried to claim that the asteroids hid them (yeah, restating your analogy to mean something entirely different isn't going to make me forget that you had no idea what you were talking about).
Again, you have failed to quantify the size of the asteroid field, its durability, its density, etc.
Yes, because the stated distances, speeds, and so forth directly contradict the visuals. So either we must assume that everyone in Starfleet is incapable of reading the distance readout on their bloody consoles, or maybe we can suspend disbelief and assume they know what the fuck they're talking about.
So we can assume that:
Some people in Starfleet do not know what they are talking about (and many plot relevant points show blatant stupidity on their part), and that they make routine mistakes, just like how they make routine mistakes in military tactics, moral judgment, safety procedures, etc.
or
Occasionally, the laws of physics in Star Trek have a bad day and decide to mess with the reflection of photons from light sources such as the sun, instead bending space-time and messing with the speed of light to make the starfleet ships
look like they were approaching 10 km's of a borg cube when they were really a gazillion kilometers away. They also messed with the timeframe of the borg weapons, having them near instantly hit a starship in a split second like you'd expect in the depicted 10 km ranges. But since it's really 100,000 km ranges distorted, one would expect to find the starships to be able to dodge even light speed beams, but some random omnipotent being not only warped space-time, but warped the speed of borg and Federation weapons.
In addition, this ROB decided to mess with the electrical impulses and chemical reactions within the brain of all of the starfleet officers to not notice something weird when they find the Federation fleet right next to the borg cube, and come up with the idea to "prepare for ramming speed", something which without ROB intervention would be impossible at 100,000 km out.
However, not letting yourself being hamstrung by visuals does not mean that visuals are worthless. So when we see some sort of special fluid, we will try and determine what it is. Now, if a character says it's x and characters constantly treat it as x, even if it's y, then there's a good chance I'd say 'if the story is treating it as x, then so should we, even if that's wrong'.
And the story clearly intends for the Death Star to be so uberly powerful and frightening that it can destroy a planet, because it's so powerful. The halo rings are obviously fancy VFX visuals. By the literary method you use, this chain reaction would have been mentioned by some character or some reference guide somewhere in Star Wars continuity.
There might be reasons to override this of course. I mean, if someone says something is '10 feet away!' and it's closer to say, twelve, then I wouldn't mind. Because that's not all that uncommon in real life for people to round to the best of their abilities because of limitations in our biology.
So if Picard says that the borg cube must be a million km's away, and one looks out the window and sees the borg cube right outside scraping the Enterprise's hull, what would your explanation be?
Or according to Nute Gunray, nothing can penetrate a TF battleship's shield, yet the visuals show one being destroyed.
Not it doesn't--and even if it did, it's on the lower order of the scale. It's the minimum energy needed to fulfill what Riker was stated to intend to do. Since we in fact, did not see the quantification of it, we cannot accurately claim either way. In fact, if one were to be honest, they'd go the middle road between the highest and the lowest interpretation.
Yes, it's the minimum energy needed to fulfill the mission; and in a mission, you try and effectively accomplish your goal with the least amount of energy and resources.
What brings you to that conclusion? That gravity and magnetic fields suddenly stop existing when it becomes inconvenient for you?
How does the asteroid having a strong magnetic field make it resistant to antimatter warheads?
...
I never claimed it was really several hundred to several thousand kilometers long, stop trying to make things up. We could be looking at a small planetoid here. Something on the order of a 20-40 kilometers could be correct-fullfilling Data's statement of 'planetary body' since planetoids are indeed fitting of that requirement. It would also more likely have the sort of gravity and magnetic shifts that might cause a shuttle to be overloaded.
Of course, we do still come to the problem of the collapsing cavern on the Enterprise D, but by adjusting the size to a more realistic setting, we can scoot on by.
20-40 kilometers is no more believable as a planetary body than 10 kilometers is.
The Star Trek VFX specialists can portray planets and even stars from orbit with decent scale. There is no reason to believe that they made the object a 10 kilometer asteroid instead of a 1000 km asteroid (and no, 20-40 kilometers is some aributrary figure, because it's no more believable as a planetoid).
I'm Mith.
I am not stating that visuals should be ignored. I am supporting what supports the story. A small, 10 km asteroid doesn't match up to what the story is saying it is. Similar to how I wouldn't start screaming like a banshee how everyone in Star Wars is crazy for believing they have hover cars when we see the wheels at the bottom of them.
You know, stuff like that.
And the Death Star being DET supports the David vs Goliath allegory better than a chain reaction weapon that is mysteriously never mentioned in the films, the film-novels, any reference guide or any novel.
Star Wars having 50 million C hyperdrive supports the story intent of the galaxy having already been explored long ago, and wars taking place over entire galaxies within years, with our heroes dashing across said galaxy within hours.
See? The literary method can support Star Wars too.
I disagree. I have absolutely no reason to support such an absurd, silly belief as that. VFX is just as often fucked up as character statements.
Barring a very blatant VFX feature that necessitates dropping SoD (such as the Enterprise changing size, or TCW cartoon having an animated universe), the SoD method:
1. Allows for technical analysis. The problem with analyzing merely the story is that typically the writers don't bother to test whether or not the Enterprise busting that asteroid is 10 megatons or 100 kilotons, so therefore all technical readings would not be within the spirit of the story.
2. Treats both universes as if they were real, instead of fictional universes, because the latter mindset includes character shields and the act of plot, which is
all that matters if the two were crossed over in a movie. Again, this eliminates realistic, technical analysis of them.
3. Relies on the reflection of photons instead of the claims of fallible, in universe characters with biases.
Except of course, you ignore the fact of reality; that VFX isn't perfect. You can scream 'suspension of disbelief!' all you want, but the fact of the matter is that this is simply a poor man's way of ignoring what the story is saying and focusing simply on what is in reality, a flawed showing of the story's vision.
Take for example, Vader's force choke. We see that when he chokes one poor shmuck and he drops to the ground, that the two men helping him up are assisted by the dead man himself.
So what, does that mean the guy isn't dead and Vader doesn't actually have any force powers, they just all collectively fuck with him? Or again, the fact that the asteroids explode as if they're already rigged to do so, therefore vastly reducing any sort of firepower claim you could get?
Those are all valid points by your draconian claims of 'unbiased, perfect and infallible science'.
Because your examples of violating SoD are clearly rigged. You refuse to believe the visuals depicting the Federation fleet within 10 kilomters of a borg cube...why? It's essential to the plot, because at 100,000+ kilometers there would not be the sudden destruction of the flagship.
There is no reason to drop suspension of disbelief here.
So what? It was clearly a boarding vessel that was moving at the high sublight speeds that we're told they move at in Trek. What's your deal?
The deal is that it penetrated the Voyager's hull through its pathetic kinetic energy, and Janeway was fully expecting this, not even attempting to use point defense or banking on the hull stopping it.
I really don't care since the Voyager crew is not only half filled with civilians armed with guns, but a rather incompetent crew to begin with. To the point that where even the dumber TNG and DS9 crew clearly draw conclusions that the entire crew can't think of.
Like revoking the traitor's access codes.
And you think think that the rest of Starfleet is any better, when the Voyager is among the premier starships of the Federation?
Here's a hint for the future: when I say I want a citation, I mean the quote, not just the book. I'm not going to the library to read a dreadful SW book because you can't provide what you're required to.
Dreadful? What makes you think it to be dreadful?
"turbolaser gunners blasted the largest rocks; those they missed impacted against the bow shields like multi-megaton compression bombs."
But that's not what you said. Stop trying to pretend that you were trying to imply something else when you clearly weren't. No one is that stupid.
Since when would asteroid fields hide star destroyers? Even the chemical engines of Apollo 11 could be detected from Pluto.
...And? There would be, at best a half dozen rocks between them and any ship that tried to hyperjump from behind to strike at them (since they'd appear over the asteroid field). A single volley would not only remove the asteroids in the way, but they'd also strike the unshielded rear.
What do you mean half a dozen? There were far more asteroids than that.
Except they clearly don't as they clearly never use them in higher canon when logic would dictate that they would.
More examples of TCW being taken above G canon; you use the term "higher canon" (higher means MORE high) to describe a scene in TCW in contrast to a quote from the ROTJ novel, which is G canon.
And in what instance is there that their guns have nuclear firepower? I never claimed that they can't arm their ships with nuclear missiles or bombs. I never said that at all. So again, where is the evidence that their blasters are kt level?
Nowhere did I claim kiloton level blasters or even laser cannons, except maybe the large quad turrets on star destroyers, so this is a strawman.
I have never at any point said that. Stop drawing conclusions based on faulty arguments.
You take the bombing of a village in TCW over the statements in the G canon ROTJ novel.
Allow me to be very, very clear:
WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT PROTON TORPEDOES. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BOMBS. BOMBS ARE NOT TORPEDOES. THEY FALL AND BLOW UP. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LIMITATIONS OF THE BOMBS AND THE LASERS ATTACHED TO THE FIGHTERS. YOUR ARGUMENT IS NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT.
Oh, then maybe those bombs used by the CIS bombers were not proton torpedos (as you have acknowledged, "we are not talking about proton torpedos), but some other weapon. Why are they weaker? Perhaps they are chemical bombs, as an off screen treaty between the two sides to not use nuclear weapons on civilian targets.
It hardly matters; G canon sides that proton torpedos are at least kiloton level, and proton torpedos are far more relevant than some random bombs.
Oh yeah, and just because something is a thermonuclear warhead, doesn't mean that it's kiloton. Tactical nukes the size of footballs have the yield of 10-40 tons.
Those are modern nuclear fission warheads far less efficient than what a space age society using nuclear fusion could produce, and are handheld. A nuclear fusion weapon fitting on a starfighter would be far larger and more powerful.
...So what? There's a difference in not being able to present a naval threat and not being able to harm something period. These fighters do not have even ton level firepower in their lasers, yet we see that in the Clone Wars, they can harm capital ships with them. Whether that applies to ISDs or SSDs twenty years later when combat technology has significantly changed from the more peaceful Republic has no implications upon that fact.
We see in TPM that even proton torpedos are harmless against a TF battleship, or at least the ones used by Naboo starfighters. Presumably heavy, capital ship busting proton torpedos that the Nabooians did not have in large quantities would have helped.
So what? Just because some fighters are helpless in one case does not make them useless in all other cases. It depends upon armament, durability, and other assets. A Munificient is not the same as an ISD. A handful of Naboo fighters is not the same as a wing of heavily armed Y-Wings.
Right; starfighters designed and equipped to take out capital ships can do so. But their mounted laser cannons cannot in G canon, where the Naboo starfighters even with their proton torpedos could not take out the shields of a TF battleship. Heavy gigaton level missiles/torpedos can harm capital ships, small ones cannot.
No I don't.
Yes you do. You take the short range showings in TCW as fact (even though Lando considers point blank range to be a few dozen kilomters, and Ackbar considers it crazy to get in so close), yet take the short range showings in ST as just VFX.
I do dismiss high end trek feats. I typically assume that the TDiC fleet had some sort of subspace weapons or something with them when they wanted to bomb the Founder homeworld. I assume that subspace weapons were used in Booby Trap instead of ancient conventional ones. I take conservative calculations in regards to Apocalypse Rising. I assume that when Garak said "This ship [Defiant] has enough firepower to turn this planet into a cinder!" I don't assume he's speaking literally and that the Defiant literally has enough firepower to reduce an entire planet to a small burning cinder in space or that it's going to literally slag the surface--no, I assume that he means heavy bombardment of a Class M world that would render said world uninhabitable and ensure planet-side population centers and life all but--if not totally exterminated.
That is what I assume. And that is what I uphold.
Yet why do you take low end Star Wars feats as more valid than upper end, higher canon Star Wars feats? TCW shows point blank range combat, yes; but the higher canon ROTJ shows hundreds of kms combat, and a few dozen km's is considered to be a huge gamble and point blank range.
Why?
Because the Rebel fleet went from Yavin 4 to right next to the Death Star, which was beyond orbit, in a few minutes?
Again, why?
Because of the size of the Death Star, and pressure?
But you would need evidence to support they're moving that fast, not simply because you want them to be that fast in some sort of petty attempt at trying to level the playing fields to fit your version of events.
The Rebels attack the Death Star 2 in ROTJ. The next moment, they find an imperial fleet right behind them, having hidden beyond Endor. From behind a planet to right next to a fleet and within visual range so fast that no Rebel officer happened to notice the ships until they were there?
Why? Please post evidence supporting your claims.
As another example, since I have posted evidence above, the Falcon was able to reach Bespin using only its sublight drives. Even if the Bespin system was only a light year away, the Falcon would have had to travel at relativistic speeds to have reached there before Luke grew old.
You need a reason to make these assertions, you just can't use it as an attempt to hand wave the holes in your argument. That's no better than embracing your draconian stance on VFX being always right.
The Falcon traveled to a separate star system using sublight drives, and none of the characters noticeably aged.
Since when do asteroids travel at relativistic speeds? Why would we believe it would be traveling that fast? You can't just pick and choose evidence and methods of determining truth just because it suits you.
Since when are asteroid fields so dense? The asteroid field in ESB was clearly extremely high collision and intense, for whatever reason. There are examples of very high velocity objects, including asteroids, today. Relativistic might be a stretch, by hypervelocity is not.
You need to explain your claims and then support them. What makes you think it wasn't a jump-cut? Or that they performed a small hyperspace jump? Or that, if going the route of a VFX error, that they simply weren't closer than what they had been originally shown? Where is the logic to support these sudden claims of yours?
It can't be a jump cut because there was a Rebel display console showing the time. It isn't a hyperspace jump, because why wouldn't the Death Star use it to get right next to Yavin 4? It couldn't have been a VFX error because the Death Star and the fleet had to circumnavigate Yavin 4 in order to reach the Rebel moon; this is essential to the plot.
