Lit Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

No, he's right on that score.
Cracken's Threat Dossier, p. 40:
"When the Alliance of Free Planets came looking for representatives to send to the Galactic Caucus, Zsinj sent diplomats of supposedly 'free' governments. These agents painted a picture of space that was free from Imperial domination, but wished to remain independent from the new galactic government."
New Essential Chronology, p. 130:
"Within days of the Battle of Endor, the Rebel Alliance became the Alliance of Free Planets, aninterim stage until the details of the government could be worked out." (emphasis mine)
and on p. 131:
"One month after the formation of the Alliance of Free Planets, Mon Mothma formally issued the 'Declaration of a New Republic' on the public HoloNet channels. Though the Battle of Endor is viewed as the beginning of the New Republic era, Mon Mothma's pronouncement marked the official establishment of the true government."
The Truce at Bakura SB has the text of the Declaration of the Alliance of Free Planets, said to have been issued 1 week ABE (p. 36-37), with the Declaration of a New Republic 4 weeks afterwards.
Thus, the period represented by the term "Alliance of Free Planets" is only from 1 to 5 wks ABE.

 

An early Rogue Squadron chapter spoke of a Declaration of a New Republic a month after Endor.

 

Appreciate the clarification on Zsinj?s defection, I missed the Declaration.

This definitely means that Ars Dangor and the Emperor?s Ruling Council were issuing orders to the Starfleet on their authority during Pestage?s reign.

 

Oooh! Our first Starship Battles scenario: Rebel Raiders.

 

Does anyone know of any source that mentions the model number of the MC80's engines other than the pop-up book "The Rebel Alliance-Ships of the Fleet"?

 

Strike that. The info might not really be valid given that it gets the number of engines wrong.

So on a different topic, though this one probably won't get answered either, does anyone know the original source of this image? It looks like a starwars.com or SW Chronicles render, but I don't know where it was originally published.

[image=http://images.wikia.com/starwars/images/8/80/Jedi_Attack_Cruiser_1.jpg]

 

IceHawk: are the Immobilizer-418's anti-starfighter quad lasers, and the point-defense guns of a VenStar, really comparable with the capital-scale weapons of an MC80 (which are, after all, just 1D less than the ISD-I's main guns )...?

And how do the "200GT" guns of the Acclamator-class ships compare with the "DYB-827" turrets on a VenStar, out of interest...?

I've found a conversion from WotC into WEG terminology which gives them as 6D capital-ship weapons... is this legit...?

Even so, twelve 6D guns against 60 5D guns is a distinct difference in size/firepower - especially if, as you claim, those are just the ISD's secondary weapons...

And again, twelve 6D guns represent a comparable firepower to 10 7D guns on the Dreadnaught Cruiser and the 350m Carrack-class light cruiser...

Endor?

And yes, that is the point: it's also the problem - the failure of the Empire to field the sort of overwhelming fleet that it's supposed to have...

Earlier:

No, I merely need to show that it's an option...

Different POVs imply that sixty individual XX9s or six twin mountings represent the ISD-I's most powerful weaponry; how do we resolve the "discrepancy" between the different numbers of individual guns and twin mountings...?

If you want to exclude the hypothesis that the twin mountings simply represent a subset of the individual guns, you need categorical proof, though.

Is it? Rereading the quotes you (eventually) supplied, it's identified as a major distinction, but nothing's said about whether the actual components inside are the same, is it...?

Really? If you take a look here, you'll see just how much smaller than a twin turret they are...

I'm interested to hear other people's ideas about for these guns (my suggestion that they're "spare" ion cannon is quite a blatant kludge, IMHO), but I do think that the bulk of the visible housing (such as it is) could be explained by the complex mechanics of the swivel mounting...

Really? I don't see any barrels of any sort on them here, here, or here...

And I see nothing to say that these "axial defense turrets" are turbolasers/ion cannon - the "base" could be an armoured magazine for physical munitions, for instance, and they're so close together that they have an absolutely stinking field of fire... especially when you bear in mind that the "ridge" of the hull they s

 

Good lord, you have no grasp of the Burden of Proof.

You claim that the Heavy Turbolaser Turrets are XX-9 mounts, the burden of proof is upon you to support that claim.

Your equivocations notwithstanding, you have yet to canonically prove that it is even possible to redesign a Turbolaser mount in its entirety without requiring a designation shift.

Quotes for the 60 XX-9 Turrets being the heaviest weapons onboard and the only Turboalsers?

?which means what?

The Empire did not field the entire Starfleet?that does not in any way mean they lack the numbers?.

Still waiting for the canonical proof behind that one?

Go buy the EGTW&T so you can actually see the diagram?it makes it quite clear, as I havesaid ad nausea.

McEwok..I have the 1984 Guide, what specifically would you like to know?




Who here knows how the WEG scale works?
Specifcally looking for a comparison of 4D, 5D, 7D, and 10D weapons against the same target...

Becasue as we know, D-scale is not apaprently, a linerar 1 to 1 comparison...



And for the record, the Imperial Sourcebook makes it quite clear that a single, standard, average, Sector Group operates 24 Imperial-class Star Destroyers.

 

The "Ships of the Fleet" books have some surprisingly detailed technical information for pop-up books supposedly meant for elementary school children. I'll post some scans and/or transcripts somewhere soon.

I also have the 1984 Guide. I just bought it used on Amazon (at the same time I ordered the SotF books) because I'm developing a dangerous(ly expensive) obsession with obscure canon sources. It actually provides some interesting insight into the origin of certain EU elements (names, mostly, but given that it came out in 1984 and the RPG didn't start until 1987 it might also be the source of some of the things us "maximalists" [aka realists] complain about).

I haven't done much more than flip through it a bit (I now have a backlog of old books I've bought on Amazon and eBay over the last few months) but I know it has entries for "Liberty" and the "Headquarters Frigate." What did you need from it in particular?

 

http://warlords.swrebellion.com/junk/diceroller.xls

there are three tables

1) a current run, used to test for modifiers and other changes to the algorithm

2) the 'to hit table', this means if can you even nick the ship let alone do damage (you need to beat the defense by 3 to do damage) effectively this means nothing more than a hit would be registered and speaks more to the minimum effectiveness of the weapon.

3) the critical damage table, this is important to look at the capability for a weapon to single shot destroy a system with the specified level of protection (essentially breach the shields significantly to cause lasting damage) and speaks volumes about the penetration capabilities of the weapon


the column and row layout is as follows

the first column is blasters, the second is lasers and turbolasers, this corresponds to starfighter and starship scales effectively, use the correct column to identify your weapon and look across the row to identify the chance that you will hit/do damage to a specific armor class the third column is a combined scale.

rows are the starfighter/capital armour values (add shield points to armor to get a maximum arc defense value, IE a ISD has a 7D hull and 3D shields, it can mount a 10D defense in one arc) and a continous scale, to locate an armor value either read directly off the starfighter or the capital scale and then look down the column to see what the hit probabilities are.

bright green areas indicate hull and turbolaser values that are commonly found, blue represents shield augmentation, the relevant table areas are highlighted to demonstrate the probabilities of hitting.



the important part of the analysis is that even though a 7D gun has a 60% chance of hitting a 7D hull and a 10D gun has a 90% chance, the 10D gun is three times more effective at penetrating a 10D hull (on a linear scale the 7D being a 7 the 10D would be a 21), the critical damage ratio becomes 6-1 between the 7 and 10D. IT is more important in some cases to consider what is being hit than what was shot (think bow and arrow vs tank armor, no matter how many arrows you shoot it will never penetrate the armour)

the grain of salt to be taken here is that combat is very fast in WEG because of the way these percentages are scaled up for gameplay reasons, the relative differences between ships are what matters, not the absolute numbers.


there might be a bit of inaccuracy in this because of the fact that is is testing each dice value rather than solving it
explcitly




to use the example a 4, 5, 7 , 10 D vs an unshielded 7D target would have the following chances to do signifcant damage 4%, 9%, 28%, 67%


vs a 10D shielded target it becomes ~0% 1%, 5%, 30%

10D guns are MONSTERS, they can penetrate a star destroyer shielding and armor and still have a 30% chance of blowing off a system or depleting the armor or shields... the simple fact is you can't add two 5D guns together to make a 10D, you need at least 8 if not 16 (thus making it impractical to combine turbines like mcewok suggests, you would chew up all of your turbines in two or three turrets. the point is if you use the WEG armaments you also have to use the implicit math in your argument as well... now if you argued that 60 * 5 barrels = 300 turbines...
)

mcewok, you compare a carrack to a dreadnaught as having equivalent gunnery, yet one says battery and one says cannons, please reconcile the definitions before you make the claim that they are equivalent in your arguement. I have no argument with the capability of the guns being equivalent, only that one ship seems to mount a significantly larger number of them (the carrack being a picket having the ability to deal single shot damage is very useful, the dreadnaught using batteries of these weapons to wear down the defenses of larger ships is equally concievable)

 

No more so than the burden of proof falls to you when you make your claim that the "heavy turbolaser turrets" aren't XX9 mounts... ;

And you have yet to canonically prove that it is in any way impossible to for the standard "twin-barrel" XX8 and the hypothesized twin-turret pairs to represent two different subtypes of XX9, rather than requiring a full designation shift from XX9 to something else...

You have yet to prove that it is necessary for there to be a new designation, given how little we know for sure about what defines an XX9...

Now, before you give the same rote answers as before, I'm well aware that you can make an argument that the twin-turret guns are something other than XX9s... ;
Making an argument, however, isn't the same as disproving another argument (I certainly wouldn't say that my argument disproves your alternative interpretation)...

Ultimately, we're left in canon with a question: how do we reconcile the statements that the ISD-I is armed with 60 XX9s with ICS's claim that the six "twin turrets" are the "heaviest weapons"...

Your answer violates canon by downgrading the sixty XX9s to secondary guns...

Mine... doesn't.

There are almost certianly other quotes along the same lines...

There may well be lighter turbolasers as well. An alternative retcon might be to have the twin-turrets as individually lighter than the XX9s, but heavier as pairs... ;

That's an assumptuon based on the idea that they have the numbers, which is based on rather shakier evidence than you might think...

And I'm waiting for canon proof that the twin-turrets aren't XX9s.

I don't recall you mentioning the diagram before at all...

I'll have to try to find a copy.

What it says about the Star Cruisers, really?

Also, whether it states an armament for the Star Destroyer...

So it seems... I'd be interested as well, actually...

Does it?

 

EvilleJedi, much appreciated, as always.

McEwok, I am not going to spend the time teaching you why I am not required to prove a negative suffice to say that the SWICS makes it clear, through direct Canonical statement, the Flank Heavy Turbolaser Turrets are the largest, and heaviest weapons on the vessel, and that there are only six of them.

Perhaps you failed to notice, none of your sources identified the 60 XX-9 Batteries as the heaviest weapons onboard.

They are apparently the primary armament, all the canon sources agree, but none of these sources identify the XX-9 as the heaviest Turbolasers onboard.

And as we know some Canon sources for the Imperial-class vessels fail to take into account a number of weapon types, including the defensive laser cannons mounted inside the hangar of the ImpStar or the Proton Torpedo launchers on the II-subclass.

Nice assumption?
The 20 Taim & Bak GX-7 Quad Laser Cannons (Tie Fighter Manual) are designed for, ?short range combat against other capital ships.? (EGTV&V)

You mean the mounts that are nearly identical to the XX-9 turret in both visual identification and dimension?

Once again, the D-scale is not a linear scale where 4D cannons are just 20% smaller than 5D cannons.

And yes, accounts seem to indicate that the basic Quad 4D cannons of an Immobilizer-418 are equal in D-scale yield to the 48 4D Turbolasers of the Mc80.

At full power the 53.7 Teraton Heavy Turbolasers are ~269 times more powerful than the 200 Gt Medium Turbolasers.

No, the Order of Battle makes that quite clear.

The basic Sector Group operates 4 Superiority Fleets of 2 Force Superiority Fleets each.
Force Superiority fleets operate 3 Battle Squadrons each specifically identified to contain an Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

In short the Order of Battle accounts for a core force of 24 Battle Squadrons each headed by an Imperial-class forming the backbone of the Sector Group.

Not to mention that the Imperial-class is referenced as the ?standard Star Destroyer? of the Imperial Navy and that Victory-class Star Destroyers operate as the backbone of particular Heavy Squadrons and are being rotated out of service.

Congratulations, you can track down exceptions to the Order of Battle?.

The Imperial Sourcebook: Chapter Eight Sector Group Organization ? page 81

While the organization and Order of Battle of a Sector Group has been outlined according to the numbers in these reports, these numbers can at best be considered averages. And in the wake of the Emperor?s command to mobilize the Imperial war machine, they may even be considered minimum levels of force. Also, the forces deployed in a given sector will depend upon the importance, size, and location of that sector.

Yes, there exist Sector Groups that defy the basic structure of the OoB, however overall the 24 Imperial-class Star Destroyer Sector Group defined in the OoB is to be considered an average, possibly a minimum, and are expected to vacillate based on the importance, size, and location of a sector.

A ?standard Sector Group? is exactly that, the standard?

 

The Guide to the Star Wars Universe, at least my version (2nd Edition), simply identifies the original Mon Calamari Cruiser design, the Mc80, as 1,200 meters in length, with no statements for armament. The Imperial Star Destroyer is simply said to ?bristle with offensive weaponry? including ?Turbolasers and ion cannon batteries?? there is no mention of specific numbers.

The Rendili Star Drive Dreadnought-class Heavy Cruiser.

The Imperial Sourcebook
10 Turbolaser Cannons (2D), 20 Quad Turbolaser Cannons (4D), 10 Turbolaser Batteries (7D).

Heir to the Empire Sourcebook
10 Laser Cannons (2D), 20 Quad Laser Cannons (4D), 10 Turbolaser Batteries (7D).

Dark Force Rising Sourcebook
10 Turbolaser Cannons (2D), 20 Quad Turbolaser Cannons (4D), 10 Turbolaser Batteries (7D).

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels
??ten Turbolaser cannons, twenty quad Turbolaser cannons, and ten Turbolaser batteries.?

The HttE Sourcebook seems to be in error, especially considering that accordingly an Imperial Star Destroyer is armed exactly as a Victory, Concussion Missiles and all, and the other sources all agree.

I do find it interesting that the Quad Turbolasers of the aged Dreadnought are the same D-Yield as the Quad Laser Cannons of the newer Immobilizer-418.


Then again according to Starships of the Galaxy the 75 Turbolasers on the Mc90, 4D-yield, are classified as Light Turbolasers, while the 20 Quad Laser Cannons of the Lancer are also 4D...

The Immobilizer 418's 20 Quad 4D cannons could go either way...although the Vindicator Heavy Cruiser hull is quite capable of being fitted with "a wide variety of weapons", so it doesn't quite matter.

 

Perhaps I have not mentioned the diagram specifically, though I believe I did.

However, I have pointed this out to you numerous times before, in this thread just a page or two back?

and in other threads?

Seeing if I can find the diagram somewhere...

 

hi,

this is the full sector fleet

Sector Group:
2 Mobile Deepdocks
120 Very Heavy Repair Ships
2,260 Noncombatant resupply ships
240 Torpedo Spheres
28,372 Corvettes/Gunships/Light Frigates 101-449meters long
11,902 Heavy Frigates/Light Destroyers 450-1,000 meters long
80 Heavy Destroyers 1,600 meters long

greatings Ketan

 

Yet you think I'm required to prove that the twin-turbolasers aren't different?

Stripped of the surrounding chaff, this is basically an acknowledgement by you that it's impossible to disprove my suggestion - just as it would be impossible for me to disprove yours, of course...

Of course, this means that mine isn't the only possible solution; but it is one of several valid solution, as the evidence currently is...

No, and there are other ways to do it, but the most economical solution is to reconcile the two sets of primary armament into one.

Canon gives 60 XX9s and 60 NK7s as the ISD-I's armament. Which approach then makes more sense:

1.) An explanation which identifies visible guns as part of that total, or else as additional light weaponry which might vary between different ships...

or:

2.) An explaination which identifies visible guns as far more powerful weapons that aren't mentioned in any of these references - even though they're not actually significantly bigger than complete XX8 or XX9 units...

...?

Now, if only I could find an absolute rundown of the ISD-I's weaponry, like there is for the ISD-II in The Bacta War...

Also, to the best of my knowledge, what you call "the defensive laser cannons mounted inside the hangar" are fanon based on "G-canonist" analysis of movie visuals, and what you call "the Proton Torpedo launchers on the II-subclass" are something we see on the Chimaera in 19 ABY that could quite easily be a refit addition to her armament...

Or is there other evidence beyond this?

Interesting. Any chance for a fuller version of that second quote?

I don't think I've ever seen an image of anything resembling an XX9 on the VenStar - do you have one to hand?

On the other hand, a linear scale does make the best sense of the relative firepower of a Republic-class Star Destroyer compared to an ISD-I...

True enough, or so it seems; on the other hand, they're "short range", and they're combining four barrels to get 4D, rather than a longer-range single-barrel mounting...

Thank you.

So, does this mean that the Acclamator's guns have 0.04% the firepower of a VenStar's...?

On the "Order of Battle", your entire interpretation is dependent on "taking on trust" the numbers presented in The Imperial Sourcebook.

Your claim that "The basic Sector Group operates 4 Superiority Fleets" is based entirely on the appended tables (which are different between the two editions), ignoring the fact that these contradict the statement in the text that a single superiority fleet is "sufficient" for a calm sector...

There's a contradiction here, or at least an inconsistency...

However, there's other information that's relevant here: the actual strengths of recorded Sector Groups. Thus far, the largest explicitly attested Sector Group is in Darpa Sector...

... with just eighteen ISD-Is.

And this is in an area comprising twenty senatorial sectors, where one of the two most important hyperlanes in the Galaxy moves into the

 

No, I require you to prove your assertion that the six Heavy Turbolaser Turrets are XX-9 emplacements.

Debate does not occur with you saying, ?The Heavy Turbolasers have to be XX-9s, prove me wrong??

For my part I am willing to prove that the six Heavy Turbolaser Turrets are unique emplacements.

?
I am not going to prove a negative?the onus to prove your claim lies with you, not with me.

Perhaps you have us mixed up, because you are the one who calls into question the validity of all in-universe material.

The guides? internal statements are canon; with the caveats that game-mechanics are highly suspect and game statistics are at times incomplete.

For instance, the Imperial-class Star Destroyer operates unknown single-barrel cannons referred to only as a generic ?computerized energy battery? not mentioned in the WEG statistics.

Thank you for the concession, none of these sources require the 60 XX-9 Batteries to be the heaviest weapons onboard.

Which in turn means that not a single one of these sources actually contradicts the SWICS statements about the Flank Heavy Turbolasers.

You either do not read the posts written in reply to you or you operate a selective memory.

I have twice detailed for you that the entire XX-9 emplacement has an exterior volume of ~7,000 m^3 whereas the Heavy Turbolaser turret mount has an exterior volume of ~17,500 m^3.

The Flank Heavy Turbolasers turrets are ~2.5 times the volume of the entire XX-9 exterior assembly.

Given that the Flank Heavy Turbolaser extends some 40-60 meters deep into the vessel the entire assembly is an order of magnitude larger than an XX-8 or an XX-9.

The cannons are in the movies and the novel, they are canon and not accounted for by WEG, unless you want to claim these are XX-9 emplacements as well?

The Republic is armed with 40 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries (8D) and 40 Heavy Turbolaser Cannons (6D) compared to the Imperial-I?s 60 Turbolaser Batteries (5D). A linear scale has the RSD outgunning its larger predecessor by nearly 200%.

The Vindicator Heavy Cruiser has the power to operate 4 Gravity Well Projectors and 20 emplacements at 4D. Which means that a single Imperial Heavy Cruiser has 42% of the firepower carried by the heaviest Rebel Star Cruiser.

Quite, I do not disregard Canon material without just cause.

 

You've been given a preview of the new ICS book?

Interesting... these numbers fit pretty well with the sizes of fleet in CoPL: 63 Battle Dragons at Coruscant, eighty "destroyers" that Ta'a Chume can bring to Dathomir, and however many are actually said to arrive in Astarta's fleet...

How those numbers relate to the size of the Imperial Navy, of course, is another question...

*nods* I'll need to reread this more closely, but the sense I got was that Corellia just didn't have the resources to take on the Alliance blockade on its own terms...

Which is fine, because what I'm saying is "The heavy turbolasers might be XX9s, and you've acknowledged that you can't prove a negative"...

That'll be a class of 8km Super Star Destroyers, then?

Oh? Where's this?

We know from the SWSB that some of the ISD-I's guns are single-barrelled. I'd identify these as a subtype of XX9...

I've never denied that there's more than one way to do it - though I was actually thinking of the fact that the individual turret guns could be less powerful than individual XX9s and still be more powerful when paired...

My point is that integrating the twin-turrets into the overall armament of sixty XX9s is both possible, and better...

Nothing but chaff.

1.) The exterior volume of the XX9 omits the turbine - and perhaps most of the capacitor/power core, too - though I'm interested to see what the EGtWT image says on this...

2.) We don't directly know how big the XX9's internal section is; we can can calculate the overall dimensions/volume for an XX8, however. This gives us a ballpark idea of the overall size of an XX9, and the proportion of the unit underneath the external turret.

3.) We can see that there's no space between the twin-turrets and the flank engines for a sub-turret unit proportionally comparable to that of the XX8.

4.) There are certainly some systems related

 

Present evidence that the Flank Heavy Turbolasers house a pair of XX-9s if that is that is your argument...

Concession #1 ? None of these sources contradict ICS statements about yield
Concession #2 - Guns are excluded from the RPG statistics.

You?ve very nearly conceded the entire argument without realizing it?.

Those 80 Heavy Turbolaser emplacements are both more powerful than the original 60 XX-9 emplacements on the Imperial-I, representing both a greater number of cannons as well as a greater per cannon yield.

Which leaves us with just the ICS books and the novels for firepower figures.

And its still canon, your protestations notwithstanding?

Six to a Sector Squadron

Squadrons are System level forces, although this excerpt is in conflict with the ISB classifications in 2 ways.

Either it is defining a Squadron as a Sector-level unit or it is defining a Fleet unit as a Squadron.

This appears to be referring to a basic Superiority Fleet; given no other Order operates 6 Imperial Star Destroyers, which is a force sufficient for a calm sector.

A Regional Fleet commands 24 Imperial Star Destroyers, the Sector Group, the fleet under the command of the Regional Governor, has 24 Imperial Star Destroyers per the Order of Battle, the Technical Journal identifies 24 Imperial Star Destroyers to a Sector Group.

There is no contradiction here.

Simple, it does not say that a Superiority Fleet is the standard garrison for a calm sector?anywhere!!!!!

The statement simply says that a Superiority Fleet is sufficient for a calm Sector.

Not that every calm Sector only operates only a Superiority Fleet?

The Imperial Sourcebook 2nd Ed. further states that, ?A Sector Group is the sum total of Naval strength which the Empire expects to commit to a normal sector,? and defines that force as a unit containing ?24 Star Destroyers? which according to the Order of Battle are Imperial-class.

That the Victory plays no role in the Order of Battle except for a possible fixture in a specific Heavy Squadron unit is being completely ignored.

The numbers and the Order of Battle can be considered as ?averages? with the caveat that actual fleet strengths will be dependent upon case-by-case basis.

In short McEwok, the Imperial Sourcebook makes the point that actual Sector Group detachments will not be exactly 24 ISDs!!!!!!!!!111uno.

Amazing?.

An average, McEwok, means that when you take the total number of 25,000 Imperial Star Destroyers in the Starfleet (ref; SWRPG) and divide them by the total number of Sectors, you find a standard Sector Group/Regional Fleet of 24 Imperial Star Destroyers.

Standard

Average

Per friggin capita/sector???

You?re attempting to draw statistically significant conclusions as to the overall size of the fleet utilizing inappropriate population sizes.

You could point out 500 Sector Groups that averaged out to 4 Imperial-class vessels and the Order of Battle would still be correct as an overall average?.

 

The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels: Interdictor Cruiser

Interdictors also have twenty quad laser cannons for short-range combat against other starships?.Designers have used the hull, which can be fitted with a wide variety of weapons, for several heavy cruiser designs.

That is the totality of the statement.
The basic armament for the Immobilizer-418 is 20 Quad Laser Cannons for naval combat, and the Vindicator-class Heavy Cruiser can be equipped with multiple armarments.

The total offensive firepower of an Acclamator would be 9.6 Tt in the Quad Turbolasers and 168 Mt in the Defensive Laser Cannons.
The maximum firepower of the Venator would be 858.8 Tt in the Heavy Turbolasers and perhaps 364 Mt in the Defensive Laser Cannons.

Oh to be inside your head must be dizzying?wtf are you talking about?


Looking at the converted RPG Statistics for the Acclamator is interesting.

Quad Medium Turbolaser Batteries that output 800 Gt of firepower are equivalent to 6D.

Meaning that the 60 XX-9 Turbolasers would have a total output <48 Tt, or roughly 89% the full firepower of a single DBY-827.


Isn?t there a WOTC Imperial-class statistic that mentions 60 or 120 defensive laser cannons?

Also, what are the Venator?s RPG stats?

 

I get the feeling that the Hapan Consortium and the Imperial Remnant posess a unique member status. Afterall, they are basically multi-planet governments allied with the greater Galactic Alliance. That would help expalin why the Imperials and Hapans are allowed to maintain their large forces while most mainstream members (think Corellia) are restricted from maintaining large forces.

Ironically, both sides kinda have some justification. From the Corellian standpoint, they want to maintain a force adequate to defend themselves unaided. On the other hand, the Alliance, having learned from the NR that a galactic gov't cannot last without a fairly sizable (not Imperial standards, but maybe OR at its height) military, pays large sums of credits to have enugh fleets for defense, patrol, aid, etc.

Both are kinda right in their own ways. Hence why Pellaeon's proposal was still the best chance of a compromise- a independent Corellian fleet, so long as they continued to supply and sell ships to the Alliance as well.

Would of worked too, if kriffing Lumiya hadn't screwed things up.

--Adm. Nick

 

It might be an interesting project to see how many Star Destroyers can be accounted up to the Battle of Endor, and what types. Named ones especially, and other specific references. Off hand, there are a minimum of 620 Victory class ships from two sources alone, all of which are distinct from any of the named vessels.

 

But the Corellian system -is- a multi-planet government...