PDA

View Full Version : Lavos + Lavos spawn v.s Star Wars



DarthArminius
2008-04-23, 09:15 PM
How many Lavos'es (from Chrono Trigger series) does it take to defeat, or challenge the Star Wars universe?

Keep in mind Star Wars has huge ships that are considered very powerful compared to other science fictions. They have an entire galaxy(although a small galaxy).

An entire swarm of Lavos'es, say maybe over 100, spiral toward the SW galaxy. Also, I'd like to mention that if 100 can't do that, then I'd like to know how many is needed?

streakster
2008-04-23, 10:19 PM
Each Lavos can handle one planet (the one in CT wrecked the world in minutes after arising). Then it controls the planet with spawn. The problem with this is that the Lavos, as far as I know, requires 65 million years to charge up and destroy the planet in question.

Each planet that Lavos successfully takes over produces genetically enhanced versions of the original - essentially, Lavos clones with all the useful genetic traits that that planet's inhabitant's possessed. These then travel to other planets and repeat.

So, for my assault on the Star Wars universe, I'll launch one Lavos per planet, 65 million years before the battle starts. Note that even if some planets resist, I now have spawn with genetic force powers. Now it's just my galaxy full of Darth Lavoses vs whatever few planets made it. I win.

As to a straight-out shooting match, ya got me. Lavoses (Lavosi?) have a huge range of abilities - Lavos emulated bosses from the game. Destruction from the heavens ain't pretty either. I don't know how they'd stack up against starships, though.

DarthArminius
2008-04-23, 10:31 PM
Each Lavos can handle one planet (the one in CT wrecked the world in minutes after arising). Then it controls the planet with spawn. The problem with this is that the Lavos, as far as I know, requires 65 million years to charge up and destroy the planet in question.

Each planet that Lavos successfully takes over produces genetically enhanced versions of the original - essentially, Lavos clones with all the useful genetic traits that that planet's inhabitant's possessed. These then travel to other planets and repeat.

So, for my assault on the Star Wars universe, I'll launch one Lavos per planet, 65 million years before the battle starts. Note that even if some planets resist, I now have spawn with genetic force powers. Now it's just my galaxy full of Darth Lavoses vs whatever few planets made it. I win.

As to a straight-out shooting match, ya got me. Lavoses (Lavosi?) have a huge range of abilities - Lavos emulated bosses from the game. Destruction from the heavens ain't pretty either. I don't know how they'd stack up against starships, though.

Lavos survived being the impact which eventually wiped out the dinosaurs, and a nuclear exchange with the entire planet. Note that although we don't know how powerful the forcefields are of the planet's cities, we know they are there and they probably can withstand nuclear weapons since they are all cities on the same planet.

GoC
2008-04-23, 10:37 PM
Lavos only destroyed one planet less than 100km in diameter and it took him 65 million years to do it!
I think you'll need... 10^(10^100)


Lavos survived being the impact which eventually wiped out the dinosaurs, and a nuclear exchange with the entire planet. Note that although we don't know how powerful the forcefields are of the planet's cities, we know they are there and they probably can withstand nuclear weapons since they are all cities on the same planet.
WHAT?!!
A nuclear exchange?! WTF?
I don't even think there was enough plutonium on that tiny place to create a nuke. And even if there was one detonation would cause a nuclear winter.

I even calculated how resilient it was using Luca's bombs as a reference. One MOAB is all it takes.

Ubiq
2008-04-23, 11:01 PM
How many Lavos'es (from Chrono Trigger series) does it take to defeat, or challenge the Star Wars universe?


Wasn't Lavos injured by people hitting it with sharp sticks and shooting it with crossbows?

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-23, 11:24 PM
Even assuming Lavos can produce and survive impacts involving energy of up to 10^23J (equivalent to the Chicxulub asteroid event), any important planet has shields that can withstand much more than that, and low-end capital ships can output much more energy than that (Imperator-class Star Destroyers are estimated to have an output 10^25J per second). And the Empire is listed as controlling 50 million star systems with twelve million inhabited worlds.

Since reproduction is not a factor at all unless you want to give one side a sixty-five million year head start, and even being generous with the energy estimates (how did Lavos cause an impact that would require a ten-km-wide asteroid?), even millions of Lavos-creatures would not be able to destroy the galaxy far far away. Even if they got through to every unshielded planet, it wouldn't be too much worse than one of the pan-galactic wars that tears through galactic infrastructure every once in a while.

The only way for the Lavos-horde to actually win is to send in literally billions and billions, brute-forcing their way through fleets and planetary shields in mass suicide waves.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 12:05 AM
Wasn't Lavos injured by people hitting it with sharp sticks and shooting it with crossbows?

And the most powerful characters in the Star Wars universe wave around shiney swords, yes. Remember, those crossbows and sharp sticks were wielded by people who could /survive an attack that devastated the surface of an entire planet/. Nobody in Star Wars gets that claim, to my knowledge.

Star Wars will win, mind, because Luke is nigh unto a Deus Ex Machina until the NJO, but that doesn't change that it'd pretty much be him and maybe one other Jedi or two who have to solo them.

Talkkno
2008-04-24, 12:21 AM
And the most powerful characters in the Star Wars universe wave around shiney swords, yes. Remember, those crossbows and sharp sticks were wielded by people who could /survive an attack that devastated the surface of an entire planet/. Nobody in Star Wars gets that claim, to my knowledge.
.

Paplatine can just bring him back from the dead if he has a clone handy....not sure if it counts...:smalltongue:

DarthArminius
2008-04-24, 12:25 AM
Lavos only destroyed one planet less than 100km in diameter and it took him 65 million years to do it!
I think you'll need... 10^(10^100)


WHAT?!!
A nuclear exchange?! WTF?
I don't even think there was enough plutonium on that tiny place to create a nuke. And even if there was one detonation would cause a nuclear winter.

I even calculated how resilient it was using Luca's bombs as a reference. One MOAB is all it takes.

The impact apparently did create a long winter. If you'll notice how cold the world is in 12,000 BC. Not only that, consider that the cities in RPGs are supposed to be highly representative. Entire armies in some RPGs have around 15 people.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 02:05 AM
Paplatine can just bring him back from the dead if he has a clone handy....not sure if it counts...:smalltongue:

It's not the same thing, really. Palpatine's soul would still burn, true. The CT kids are still in fighting trim after eating that blast, though. That's why I'm saying, the fact that they used 'low tech' (Especially since the weapons are all effectively magic anyway) isn't really that big.

Oslecamo
2008-04-24, 09:36 AM
No, no, you're geting it wrong.

Lavos doesn't conquer planets by brute force.

Lavos borrows in the core of the planet, and then corrupts the smartest species in the planet to do his biding, and the conquers the planet by force.

After all,Lavos got himself his personal space ships with hordes of lasers and robots.

And then, Lavos is just a shell. The real enemy is inside him. Inside a giant robot.

If you crack Lavo's shell and blow up hte robot inside, you're facing the most badass alien of all times, able to twist time at will, throw meteors with maximum force, release as much blasty energy as it's possible in said universe and all other kind of nasty stuff.

And still the real enemy will be the tiny orb flying at his shoulder, wich can open rifts in reality to bring his master back to life even if he's anihilated and has more life than everything else in the planet.

Did I mention Lavos spent 65 million years in the core of the planet? How can lasers and missiles scare him when he has withstanted pressures and temperatures that can pretty much destroy anything?

It took a group of adventurers with the power to travel time at will to get the ultimate equipment ever to defeat him.

Star wars universe,even if it's really powerfull,stillcan't manipulate time.

One single Lavos goes beyond in time severalmillions of years before there is space travel.He bides his time and corrupts people to get his personal fleet,then unleasheses it resulting in a battle worthy of the Warhammer 40k universe.

GoC
2008-04-24, 09:41 AM
And the most powerful characters in the Star Wars universe wave around shiney swords, yes. Remember, those crossbows and sharp sticks were wielded by people who could /survive an attack that devastated the surface of an entire planet/. Nobody in Star Wars gets that claim, to my knowledge.
A. tiny planet.
B. quite a few other people survived the attack.


The impact apparently did create a long winter. If you'll notice how cold the world is in 12,000 BC. Not only that, consider that the cities in RPGs are supposed to be highly representative. Entire armies in some RPGs have around 15 people.
Yes it did.
Not sure what you meant about cities.
Sorry for the blow-up. It's been a pet peeve of mine for a while.

Oslecamo
2008-04-24, 09:47 AM
Not sure what you meant about cities.
Sorry for the blow-up. It's been a pet peeve of mine for a while.

He means to say in RPG's everything in the worldmap gets severly scaled down in size.

Sure they could have done a map with real scale, but then you would have to spend hours if not days of real life walking to get to your next objective.

Similarly, the biggest metropolis in RPGs has only an handfull or two of habitants because if there were thousands or millions NPCs walking around it would just clog down the game.

Black_Pants_Guy
2008-04-24, 11:33 AM
people that could /survive an attack that devastated the surface of an entire planet/. Nobody in Star Wars gets that claim, to my knowledge.

Darth_Nihilus (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Nihilus) might... thats the bad thing about Video Game Villians, they all die, especially before they show their true power...


Star wars universe,even if it's really powerfull,stillcan't manipulate time.

in theory Jacen Solo's Flow Walking (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Flow_Walking) could allow him to change time.

DarthArminius
2008-04-24, 11:51 AM
Darth_Nihilus (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Darth_Nihilus) might... thats the bad thing about Video Game Villians, they all die, especially before they show their true power...



in theory Jacen Solo's Flow Walking (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Flow_Walking) could allow him to change time.


Those two can't be everywhere at once. The best SW characters get before being Deux Ex Machinas are Kate Fisto, who lasted precisely 3 seconds against Palpatine.

Anteros
2008-04-24, 12:15 PM
So is your point that Palpatine was a Deus Ex Machina? Cause if so then that Jedi's defeat means nothing.

Or is he not? In which case there are clearly more powerful characters in Star Wars.

Either way, you're contradicting yourself there.

DarthArminius
2008-04-24, 12:43 PM
So is your point that Palpatine was a Deus Ex Machina? Cause if so then that Jedi's defeat means nothing.

Or is he not? In which case there are clearly more powerful characters in Star Wars.

Either way, you're contradicting yourself there.


In a way Palpatine was a Deux Ex Machina, he shouldn't have been able to solo both Windu and Kate Fisto all alone unless he made more liberal use of his powers. Anyway, what I mean to say is that there are two few extremely powerful Jedi in SW in order to fight off more than one at a time.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 02:15 PM
No, no, you're geting it wrong.

Lavos doesn't conquer planets by brute force.
Maybe not, but he arrives in that fashion.

He's going to be a meteor heading in to the planet, and if it's anything like what people are saying (equivalent to the Chixculub impactor), it's going to be shot down before it hits any planet with people on it.

Any planet worth anything is going to be literally invincible to anything short of a mass wave of millions and millions of Lavos thanks to its shielding (Alderaan's shield held up for a split second against the Death Star's main weapon, which is calculated to deliver at least 10^38J). If the Lavos is lucky enough to end up at a planet where it won't be automatically destroyed just for heading towards the planet, it's going to end up somewhere like Tatooine. Congratulations. You have a desert wasteland. Have fun conquering the galaxy with that at your disposal. :smalltongue:

Frosty
2008-04-24, 02:24 PM
Yeah. Lavos would die before impact due to planetary defenses.

Infinity_Biscuit, I just noticed your sig :smalltongue:

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 03:05 PM
Yeah. Lavos would die before impact due to planetary defenses.
And again, even if it gets through, Lavos works on timescales in the millions of years. By the time it gets around to doing anything, it won't be fighting the Star Wars galaxy anymore. It's like asking who'd win in a fight between a man and a robot, but the robot doesn't get around to doing anything until five generations later.


Infinity_Biscuit, I just noticed your sig :smalltongue:
What can I say? That exchange cracked me up.

GoC
2008-04-24, 03:33 PM
Sure they could have done a map with real scale, but then you would have to spend hours if not days of real life walking to get to your next objective.
Check this out. (http://www.gamefaqs.com/console/snes/file/563538/28980)
It appears perfectly to scale (bridges, houses, castle).
You have Luca's house at the bottom and the castle at the top of one of the islands yet it appears that the castle isn't more than an hour of "real" time away when walking.
Then there's the problem with the main characters walking tens of thousands of miles.
Let's just go with Occam's Razor and say that due to a different gravitational constant the planet is much smaller. It makes more sense.
If you want to go with the island being just a small part of the planet then I've got a refutation of that too.

Infinity_Biscuit: I'm curious about your sig as well...
I've never heard of 4chan. I'm guessing it's one of those things that only a few people know about but think everyone does.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-24, 04:46 PM
If you wanna know, you can liken 4chan to Cthulhu's Super Saiyan 4 form, only stronger and with much worse grammar.

And no, I'm not providing a link. Mindrape is not fun unless it's the D&D spell on a Zodar.

Oslecamo
2008-04-24, 04:59 PM
He's going to be a meteor heading in to the planet, and if it's anything like what people are saying (equivalent to the Chixculub impactor), it's going to be shot down before it hits any planet with people on it.

Any planet worth anything is going to be literally invincible to anything short of a mass wave of millions and millions of Lavos thanks to its shielding (Alderaan's shield held up for a split second against the Death Star's main weapon, which is calculated to deliver at least 10^38J). If the Lavos is lucky enough to end up at a planet where it won't be automatically destroyed just for heading towards the planet, it's going to end up somewhere like Tatooine. Congratulations. You have a desert wasteland. Have fun conquering the galaxy with that at your disposal.

You didn't play Chrono Trigger did you?

Let me state some important facts:

1-Lavos doesn't only survive the fall of the planet. Imediatily after landing, he proceeds to dig his way to the core, so fast the main characters can't even land a hit(they had traveld back in time to try to kill Lavos before he started absorbing the planet's energy in the first place). If he can get trough solid rock that easily,

2-After that, he spends 65 million years suporting absurdly high temperatures and pressures while he drained the planet's energy. What Star Wars weapons below the Death Star are stronger than the forces inside the core of a planet?

3-Little time after his fall, still during the winter caused by his arrival, Lavos started corrupting some of the primitive human cavemens. In a matter of some human generations, they become an uber advanced civilization thanks to Lavo's help, able to create engineerely modified creatures, robots of all sizes, floating cities, futuristic weapons, psychic powers and even a giant battleship who stood unconquered by all for the next million years, including the future robot civilization(untill the main heros manage to finnally get in). By all means, let Lavos have Tatooine and he'll make of it the biggest planet of the Star wars universe before anyone notices the true danger.

4-Lavos is just a shell. Inside him is an mysterious alien wich can twist the time space at almost will. There's pretty much nothing he can't do, and the heros only manage to defeat him after collecting all kind of uber weapons and armor from all the time line, including leting a special jewel absorb the energy of the sun for a straight 65 million years and then combining it with some other stuff to make the ultimate katana.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-24, 05:08 PM
Actually, apparently YOU didn't play it.

Right off the bat, Lavos is almost powerless. It is only after SIXTY. FIVE. MILLION. YEARS. That he was able to gather enough power off of the planet to threaten the world, and was still defeated by pointy sticks. Twice. And then, Serge danced on his grave and left "PWNED!" signs on it.

And no, Lavos is not a shell. The Bits and the Spaceguy ARE Lavos, it's just that the right bit is a resistant, if pathetically useless parasitic creature, which does things by proxy, I. E. the spaceguy Bit and the outer shell.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 05:40 PM
1-Lavos doesn't only survive the fall of the planet. Imediatily after landing, he proceeds to dig his way to the core, so fast the main characters can't even land a hit(they had traveld back in time to try to kill Lavos before he started absorbing the planet's energy in the first place). If he can get trough solid rock that easily,
So he can dig quickly. How can he dig if he can't touch the ground? He's going to be shot down or just hit the shield before the locals even know he's not just a normal meteor.


2-After that, he spends 65 million years suporting absurdly high temperatures and pressures while he drained the planet's energy. What Star Wars weapons below the Death Star are stronger than the forces inside the core of a planet?
A great many of them, in fact. One Star Destroyer can melt the entire upper crust of a planet in less than a day (at peak power, it could potentially do it in less than a second if not for targeting concerns [EDIT: Sorry, I was using the baseline requirements of melting the crust to only 100m. Melting down to 1000m would take 100 seconds, minimum]). Since Earth still has a solid crust, I'd say that the molten core of the planet's not doing a terribly fast job of achieving the same feat.


3-Little time after his fall, still during the winter caused by his arrival, Lavos started corrupting some of the primitive human cavemens. In a matter of some human generations, they become an uber advanced civilization thanks to Lavo's help, able to create engineerely modified creatures, robots of all sizes, floating cities, futuristic weapons, psychic powers and even a giant battleship who stood unconquered by all for the next million years, including the future robot civilization(untill the main heros manage to finnally get in). By all means, let Lavos have Tatooine and he'll make of it the biggest planet of the Star wars universe before anyone notices the true danger.
Okay. Even if we give you this, it's one planet versus dozens of millions. I think the odds are a little stacked.


4-Lavos is just a shell. Inside him is an mysterious alien wich can twist the time space at almost will. There's pretty much nothing he can't do, and the heros only manage to defeat him after collecting all kind of uber weapons and armor from all the time line, including leting a special jewel absorb the energy of the sun for a straight 65 million years and then combining it with some other stuff to make the ultimate katana.
Let's say the sword gathered all of the sunlight in five hundred square kilometers (for some reason) and that it charged for the entire 65 million years. That sword now has 1.8*10^25J of energy stored in it, which sounds impressive until you realise that that is less than two seconds of peak reactor output for a Star Destroyer.

Not only that, why are you assuming that sword is necessary? You can defeat Lavos with traditional swords and guns and there is no story-based reason to be equipped with all the maxed-out equipment, so it's being disingenuous to say that such things are required to defeat Lavos. Lavos was ultimately destroyed by a small band of people whose greatest powers demonstrated were such that they could destroy a large room. That's insignificant compared to any part of the military of the Empire.

DarthArminius
2008-04-24, 05:51 PM
So he can dig quickly. How can he dig if he can't touch the ground? He's going to be shot down or just hit the shield before the locals even know he's not just a normal meteor.


A great many of them, in fact. One Star Destroyer can melt the entire upper crust of a planet in less than a day (at peak power, it could potentially do it in less than a second if not for targeting concerns [EDIT: Sorry, I was using the baseline requirements of melting the crust to only 100m. Melting down to 1000m would take 100 seconds, minimum]). Since Earth still has a solid crust, I'd say that the molten core of the planet's not doing a terribly fast job of achieving the same feat.


Okay. Even if we give you this, it's one planet versus dozens of millions. I think the odds are a little stacked.


Let's say the sword gathered all of the sunlight in five hundred square kilometers (for some reason) and that it charged for the entire 65 million years. That sword now has 1.8*10^25J of energy stored in it, which sounds impressive until you realise that that is less than two seconds of peak reactor output for a Star Destroyer.

Not only that, why are you assuming that sword is necessary? You can defeat Lavos with traditional swords and guns and there is no story-based reason to be equipped with all the maxed-out equipment, so it's being disingenuous to say that such things are required to defeat Lavos. Lavos was ultimately destroyed by a small band of people whose greatest powers demonstrated were such that they could destroy a large room. That's insignificant compared to any part of the military of the Empire.


The sun obviously has some kind of magical significance since it has a son. *splits hair*

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-24, 05:53 PM
Nah, that was pretty much a jap pun that couldn't make it, I believe.

Lizardfolk Lich
2008-04-24, 06:20 PM
All it would take is one ship. The Sun Crusher. The Sun Crusher had armor that couldn't be damaged by anything less than a direct hit from a Death Star, and had torpedoes that could cause a supernova. C3PO could kill Lavos in it.

streakster
2008-04-24, 08:18 PM
Actually, I just thought of something. A small flying craft is able to crash through the Lavos Shell. This destroys the craft, but hey - now we can just have Tie Fighters doing suicide runs to take out each shell.

Just for my breakdown, and thanks to the info in here, I'd have to give it to Lavos if he gets his head start. Otherwise, the SWU all the way.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 08:46 PM
All it would take is one ship. The Sun Crusher. The Sun Crusher had armor that couldn't be damaged by anything less than a direct hit from a Death Star, and had torpedoes that could cause a supernova. C3PO could kill Lavos in it.
No, C3P0 could not. Lavos is sentient. C3P0 can't break the laws of robotics, which are indeed in Droids. That said, as I said, the EU will produce some DEM monstrosity to destroy LAvos. I'm fine with that, it's what it does.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 09:06 PM
No, C3P0 could not. Lavos is sentient. C3P0 can't break the laws of robotics, which are indeed in Droids. That said, as I said, the EU will produce some DEM monstrosity to destroy LAvos. I'm fine with that, it's what it does.
Emphasis mine

Huh? Where is that ever stated? Droids are treated as slaves, but as far as I know, it takes a restraining bolt to force them to play nice.

And you don't need the EU to destroy Lavos. Half the ships seen in the movies could destroy it, even if we assume Lavos can withstand massive meteoric impacts (except when swords stab him to death :smalltongue: ).

Rutee
2008-04-24, 09:12 PM
Emphasis mine

Huh? Where is that ever stated? Droids are treated as slaves, but as far as I know, it takes a restraining bolt to force them to play nice.
No, a restraining bolt is required to force them to be obedient when you're not recognized as their owner. Droids can't kill or inflict harm. It's stated in various EU tidbits, though I first saw it in the West End Games supplement. Assassin Droids are just as different for their programming as they are for their armor plating and weaponry.


And you don't need the EU to destroy Lavos. Half the ships seen in the movies could destroy it, even if we assume Lavos can withstand massive meteoric impacts (except when swords stab him to death :smalltongue: ).

You can slice through any part of a Star Destroyer with a shiny sword :smallyuk:

But where? I'll buy that their shields don't die to one asteroid, as Tallknno has made that abundantly clear in other threads, but we've never seen evidence that an ordinary shield generator can withstand an impact of that much energy. And Lavos' devastation /also/ had to go through shields. And as Oslecamo points out, Lavos did indeed survive quite happily eating the reactions of the core of the planet; I feel relatively certain that he can handle lasers.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 09:38 PM
No, a restraining bolt is required to force them to be obedient when you're not recognized as their owner. Droids can't kill or inflict harm. It's stated in various EU tidbits, though I first saw it in the West End Games supplement. Assassin Droids are just as different for their programming as they are for their armor plating and weaponry.
Oh.

This is why I hate most of the EU.


But where? I'll buy that their shields don't die to one asteroid, as Tallknno has made that abundantly clear in other threads, but we've never seen evidence that an ordinary shield generator can withstand an impact of that much energy. And Lavos' devastation /also/ had to go through shields. And as Oslecamo points out, Lavos did indeed survive quite happily eating the reactions of the core of the planet; I feel relatively certain that he can handle lasers.
People have looked, for example, at the acceleration of starships demonstrated in the movies and used that to derive estimates for the lower limit of peak reactor output for the ships in Star Wars. These have been found to be consistent with various other feats found in the EU, as well scaling the reactor sizes with that of the Death Star (whose power is derived here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/Alderaan.html)).
Various numbers and many of the derivations can be found at the Star Wars Technical Commentaries (http://theforce.net/swtc/index.html) and the older, somewhat outdated stardestroyer.net (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/).

Or, if you just want to go with the EU saying it itself, the Incredible Cross Sections for Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith give numerical reactor output, shield strength, weapon output, etc. Smaller ships like the Venator-class have reactor outputs in the 10^24W range, are stated to be able to channel almost their entire reactor output through their weapons, and have shields capable of matching. And the Imperator-class is larger than the Venator.

This output is enough to melt the entire crust of an Earth-like planet in minutes*, which is much more energetic than what the innards of the planet are capable of. And if we want to use an impactor, like the Epoch, to break through, any combat-worthy craft has been seen on screen to have literally thousands of Gs of acceleration, more than I'm aware of the Epoch being capable of. And that's ignoring the missiles.

*10^27J to melt one km deep, derived here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/BaseDeltaZero.html), so less than 5*10^28J for the whole crust, since it's 50km thick at its deepest.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 09:46 PM
Yeah, but those sources have all been cast into reasonable doubt (Star Destroyer.net more then the incredible cross sections), and are effectively EU anyway. I was asking for film evidence.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 10:21 PM
Yeah, but those sources have all been cast into reasonable doubt (Star Destroyer.net more then the incredible cross sections), and are effectively EU anyway. I was asking for film evidence.
SWTC and SD.net are flimic evidence. If you want to strip away the sites and just go with the calculations, here they are:
In Return of the Jedi, the Imperial fleet is seen on the tactical screen in the shield bunker to be progressing at a speed such that they would have to accelerate at a few thousand Gs in order to not collide with the the Death Star. The volume of a star destroyer is around 10^8m^3. Giving it a density of 10% iron, 90% air gives us 10^11kg (this is low-balling it by orders of magnitude, but let's just go with it). Since SW ships accelerate with relativistic particle streams, we can find the power usage of the engines to be P = F*c. F = m*a = 3*10^3*10^11 = 9*10^14N, c = 3*10^8m/s, P = 10^23W. This bumps up the time to melt the entire crust to a couple days, but that's still more than enough.

There. Now you have to throw either the movies or physics itself into reasonable doubt. :smalltongue:

Edit: Aw, crap. I mixed up Gs and m/s^2. Acceleration, and thus power output is ten times the number I found above, with the timeframe for planetary melting divided by ten.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 10:24 PM
I would do the physics, if I were going to bother. Namely, that the devastation wreaked by various weaponry likely doesn't match up with what it does to a fairly neutral arbiter (The ground). You can claim the armor on SW units goes up, but the /ground/?

GoC
2008-04-24, 10:28 PM
You can slice through any part of a Star Destroyer with a shiny sword :smallyuk:
You can slice through Lavos with a flint sword.


And as Oslecamo points out, Lavos did indeed survive quite happily eating the reactions of the core of the planet; I feel relatively certain that he can handle lasers.
IIRC lasers have no set limit to how high they can raise temperatures apart from the power output of the reactor being used.


3-Little time after his fall, still during the winter caused by his arrival, Lavos started corrupting some of the primitive human cavemens. In a matter of some human generations, they become an uber advanced civilization thanks to Lavo's help, able to create engineerely modified creatures, robots of all sizes, floating cities, futuristic weapons, psychic powers and even a giant battleship who stood unconquered by all for the next million years, including the future robot civilization(untill the main heros manage to finnally get in). By all means, let Lavos have Tatooine and he'll make of it the biggest planet of the Star wars universe before anyone notices the true danger.
A few generations?
That 64 and a bit million years!
Was that all Lavos? I don't think so. It's just some theorizing the characters do before the final battle.


There's pretty much nothing he can't do
Except get away. Or actualy do anything.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 10:31 PM
You can slice through Lavos with a flint sword.
Wielded by a deific RPG Main Character, yes. Any idiot with a Lightsaber can puncture SD armor, because Lightsabers don't draw their power from or care about their wielder.


IIRC lasers have no set limit to how high they can raise temperatures apart from the power output of the reactor being used.
They don't seem capable of that much damage though, frankly. Not in the films.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 10:33 PM
I would do the physics, if I were going to bother. Namely, that the devastation wreaked by various weaponry likely doesn't match up with what it does to a fairly neutral arbiter (The ground). You can claim the armor on SW units goes up, but the /ground/?
If we're just going by the movies, the heaviest weapons we see fired at the surface of a planet are the main lasers of the AT-ATs at the Battle of Hoth, or possibly the compound lasers of those helicopter-things (I forget the name) at the Battle of Geonosis. The only time capital-grade weaponry hit inert substances was at the Hoth Asteroid Field, where every asteroid hit was immediately vapourised by the point-defense weaponry of the star destroyers. The main guns have never been seen firing at anything but other ships.

Not only that, but Star Wars laser weaponry has been shown to have multiple yields from the same gun. Witness the AT-AT's main lasers, which alternate between pocking the ground when firing at rebel troops to the kiloton-level blast that destroyed the shield generator.

Bleen
2008-04-24, 10:46 PM
Lavos can see itself dying in the past because it already exists in the future and then go back and alter the timeline to prevent or subvert its own destruction. I think that sentence speaks for itself.

GoC
2008-04-24, 10:48 PM
Wielded by a deific RPG Main Character, yes. Any idiot with a Lightsaber can puncture SD armor, because Lightsabers don't draw their power from or care about their wielder.
The damage comes only from strength and the weapon itself. I wonder which is stronger pre-resurrection Chrono or a Star Destroyer...
Anyway unless Luca's first bomb was a nuke then Lavos can be hurt by conventional weaponry.


They don't seem capable of that much damage though, frankly. Not in the films.
Death Star.:smallamused:

EDIT: Was wrong about it just being strength.
Bleen: Contradicted by the game itself. Internal musing: The characters don't actually travel in time but travel from era to era.... hmm...

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 10:59 PM
Death Star.:smallamused:
Even if we just go by their conventional ships, there is a scene at the Battle of Endor (the background as Adm. Ackbar orders all ships to concentrate their fire on the Executor) where a single shot from one of the rebel cruisers absolutely guts a star destroyer, immediately vaporising a good quarter of the top of the ship before blowing out the other side a split-second later as the rest of the ship begins to vaporise. When you remember that these ships are a mile long, that makes the shot seem at least somewhat impressive.

Bleen
2008-04-24, 11:01 PM
No, that was the entire reason Chrono Cross even happened. Lavos sensed his own imminent destruction in the past, and then spat pieces himself all over the timeline in an effort to remain in existence.

And he would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for that meddling wise man.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 11:10 PM
No, that was the entire reason Chrono Cross even happened. Lavos sensed his own imminent destruction in the past, and then spat pieces himself all over the timeline in an effort to remain in existence.

And he would've gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for that meddling wise man.
Well, then an entire galaxy's worth of resources and heroes should be able to stop Lavos with this plan, too, no?

Also, I accidentally mixed up units in my calculation previously, underestimating the power output by a factor of 10. Not that it matters much.

Rutee
2008-04-24, 11:15 PM
The damage comes only from strength and the weapon itself. I wonder which is stronger pre-resurrection Chrono or a Star Destroyer...
STar Destroyers can't devastate a planet in one fell swoop. I'm pretty sure that Lavos holds higher destructive potential, and higher defensive potential. Chrono can beat Lavos. Therefore...



Anyway unless Luca's first bomb was a nuke then Lavos can be hurt by conventional weaponry.

Not sure on that, but that would be one event that is frankly counter to every other event in the game.




Death Star.:smallamused:
Oh, I totally forgot. They're mass produced, and can be come up with in meaningfull numbers every time a versus thread comes up. And every laser is the Death Star, too.


No, that was the entire reason Chrono Cross even happened. Lavos sensed his own imminent destruction in the past, and then spat pieces himself all over the timeline in an effort to remain in existence.

Is that what the Dragons were? :smallconfused:

Or was that the Frozen Flame?


If we're just going by the movies, the heaviest weapons we see fired at the surface of a planet are the main lasers of the AT-ATs at the Battle of Hoth, or possibly the compound lasers of those helicopter-things (I forget the name) at the Battle of Geonosis. The only time capital-grade weaponry hit inert substances was at the Hoth Asteroid Field, where every asteroid hit was immediately vapourised by the point-defense weaponry of the star destroyers. The main guns have never been seen firing at anything but other ships.

Those Asteroids were also not terribly large, nor did they appear to be moving at a speed that would necessitate the PDS guns.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 11:24 PM
STar Destroyers can't devastate a planet in one fell swoop.
Yes they can. 10^24W conservative estimate just from one of the movies: ten times the Chixculub meteor every second.


Those Asteroids were also not terribly large, nor did they appear to be moving at a speed that would necessitate the PDS guns.
They were several dozen meters across, minimum, considering how large they were compared to the mile-long star destroyer. And every shot fired at them came from guns so small they are invisible compared to the ship. The main guns of an Imperator are easy to see; they're the four large turrets on each side of the bridge tower (seen here (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/sdmainguns.png)). They have to be point-defense weaponry.

But that's not the point. The only times we see capital ship guns of any sort fire, they are either hitting shielded targets which dissipate the energy or asteroids which are vaporised into invisible dispersion in a fraction of a second.

Bleen
2008-04-24, 11:34 PM
Rutee: It created Time Devourer, Kid/Schala, and the Frozen Flame(I'm fairly sure), which let the humans build FATE, and thus allowed the Time Crash to happen. Dragons exist because an alternate timeline was created when he first hit the planet millions of years ago where the humans never evolved and the Reptites ruled everything in harmony with nature. He's inadvertently screwing with a timeline he doesn't even exist in.

And Belthasar's plan to save Schala and wipe another piece of Lavos out of the timeline was a Xanatos Roulette (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosRoulette?from=Main.TheXanatosRoulette) of the highest caliber, and still flawed in that it seriously screwed with a bunch of stable time loops that were keeping reality in check.

Basically, a better match for Lavos would be Giygas from Earthbound.. :smallamused:

Rutee
2008-04-24, 11:36 PM
Yes they can. 10^24W conservative estimate just from one of the movies: ten times the Chixculub meteor every second.

They don't have that much power. They'd have done this to Hoth the second the shield generator was down. They wouldn't have needed the Death Star's superlaser on Yavin, because any SD could do it with one shot.

Seriously, what the hell? Occam's Razor; They never devastate the surface of a planet in one Turbolaser Blast because A: They can't, or B: They can, but hid their power for reasons X, Y, and Z

tyckspoon
2008-04-24, 11:39 PM
Is that what the Dragons were? :smallconfused:

Or was that the Frozen Flame?


The Flame is a shard of Lavos; it's what caused humanity to start developing magic, I think. The dragons are a little odder and I'm mostly going on other people's analysis, here- they're the Planets attempt to contain and/or purge the influence of Lavos (kinda like FF VII's WEAPONs.) It seems the Reptites were supposed to win out as the Planet's 'naturally' developed life form, and the Dragons are something of what they might have been if Crono and Lavos hadn't cut off their future and kickstarted human development 65 million years ago. I guess if the Dragons had been left alone the Reptites may have made a comeback? *shrug* I find it best to not think about it too hard, really.. time travel makes a mess of comprehensible stories in the best of circumstances.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-24, 11:57 PM
They don't have that much power. They'd have done this to Hoth the second the shield generator was down.
They wouldn't have done even it if their main guns were WW2-era cannons or each seven Death Stars combined. They were trying to capture the rebel leaders (specifically Luke). Why do you think they didn't fire at all, unless you think that AT-ATs are so more powerful than star destroyers that the latter would have been insignificant?


They wouldn't have needed the Death Star's superlaser on Yavin, because any SD could do it with one shot.
They were using it as a demonstration, like the attack on Alderaan. Even if all of their ships had no guns whatsoever, they could just blockade the moon with fighters and then drop rocks on it from orbit. A ten-ton rock dropped from geostationary orbit is the equivalent of a kiloton bomb. No matter how weak their ships are, they could destroy the rebel base once they found it.

And before you ask, the reason the Death Star was created at all was to punch through heavily-shielded planets like Alderaan. The shields of that planet held up for a fraction of a second against that beam, which itself contained 10^38J (equivalent to 116 million star destroyers firing for a day straight).


Seriously, what the hell? Occam's Razor; They never devastate the surface of a planet in one Turbolaser Blast because A: They can't, or B: They can, but hid their power for reasons X, Y, and Z
I pick C: They never have any reason to. Yavin and Alderaan were the only times in the series where it was at all feasible to wreck a planet, and they were both demonstrations to the galaxy that the Death Star was to be the end of the rebellion (somewhat of a backfire there).

GoC
2008-04-25, 08:35 AM
STar Destroyers can't devastate a planet in one fell swoop. I'm pretty sure that Lavos holds higher destructive potential, and higher defensive potential. Chrono can beat Lavos. Therefore...
You're pretty sure but you need to convince the rest of us.
How many times do I have to say this before it's either challenged or agreed with:
The planet in Chrono Trigger is much smaller than an ordinary planet.
I'd say that if conventional bombs can do damage then his defensive potential is very low.


Not sure on that, but that would be one event that is frankly counter to every other event in the game.
Huh?
It's perfectly fine:
Planet is small and thus had little in the way of weaponry and no nukes. Initial attack was a complete surprise and took out their defences before they could react.
What's the problem here?


Oh, I totally forgot. They're mass produced, and can be come up with in meaningfull numbers every time a versus thread comes up. And every laser is the Death Star, too.
*shrug*
Just giving an example to contradict your statement.

streakster
2008-04-25, 10:33 AM
GOC - the planet isn't at all small. It's just scaled down. I mean, on the map, Crono is almost the size of some mountains.

Rutee
2008-04-25, 01:32 PM
They wouldn't have done even it if their main guns were WW2-era cannons or each seven Death Stars combined. They were trying to capture the rebel leaders (specifically Luke). Why do you think they didn't fire at all, unless you think that AT-ATs are so more powerful than star destroyers that the latter would have been insignificant?
No. They weren't. They were trying to kill them. The "Capture Luke" directive comes in the Asteroid Field, not pre-battle of Hoth. And you still have the problem that /if/ Star Destroyer turbolasers were that powerful, events in the entire movie series and EU would have gone significantly differently. It's not reasonable to think that they are that powerful; Yavin 4 (A Moon, not a full sized planet) wouldn't be around at all, because the Imperials are vengeful jerks. Dantooine probably would be the same. Why keep either? They're worthless planets. Not a single turbolaser is turned on Endor after the destruction of the Shield Generator; You could argue that hte Imperials held their fire to keep the Generator around, and that the Rebels did so to keep from frying their own troops (Since REbels are good and Empires are evil), but /after/ the Generator went down? Not even an FU shot? Really?


And before you ask, the reason the Death Star was created at all was to punch through heavily-shielded planets like Alderaan. The shields of that planet held up for a fraction of a second against that beam, which itself contained 10^38J (equivalent to 116 million star destroyers firing for a day straight).
Alderaan wasn't shielded. Good Game, sir. It was a freaking pacifist planet. Only the police had even the lightest of weaponry, and there was no military grade equipment, with the exception of Bail Organa's guard.



I pick C: They never have any reason to. Yavin and Alderaan were the only times in the series where it was at all feasible to wreck a planet, and they were both demonstrations to the galaxy that the Death Star was to be the end of the rebellion (somewhat of a backfire there).
The evil empire that doesn't care about consequences, besides Victory, /never/ has reason to torch a planet? *EVER*?


The planet in Chrono Trigger is much smaller than an ordinary planet.
Where do you keep getting this from? It's an RPG Planet; The World Map isn't representative of the actual size. Unless you have a direct statement that it is, in fact, a tiny planet, you've got nothing.


Huh?
It's perfectly fine:
If it's simply damageable by any old bomb, and not the Power of Plot, then the nations on Earth at 1999 would have at least dented it, if they were capable of it. The bomb was the Power of Plot, nothing more or less.

GoC
2008-04-25, 02:05 PM
GOC - the planet isn't at all small. It's just scaled down. I mean, on the map, Crono is almost the size of some mountains.
I can understand Chrono not being to scale. But how exactly is it scaled down? Is Chrono's house 100 miles from the fair? Is the castle 1000km from Lucas house? Was Magus launching an inter-continental invasion across a narrow bridge? Did the ferry travel 6000km each trip?
Actually you're right. It is a scaled down version of a normal planet. Everything's smaller. Including the actual planet.


Where do you keep getting this from? It's an RPG Planet; The World Map isn't representative of the actual size. Unless you have a direct statement that it is, in fact, a tiny planet, you've got nothing.

You have Luca's house at the bottom and the castle at the top of one of the islands yet it appears that the castle isn't more than an hour of "real" time away when walking.
Then there's the problem with the main characters walking tens of thousands of miles.
Let's just go with Occam's Razor and say that due to a different gravitational constant the planet is much smaller.
There's also the fact that there are only three or four towns.


If it's simply damageable by any old bomb, and not the Power of Plot, then the nations on Earth at 1999 would have at least dented it, if they were capable of it. The bomb was the Power of Plot, nothing more or less.
Not if the planet is so small that the little weaponry they did develop (no economies of scale) was destroyed in the initial attack (or later shot down by Lavos).

EDIT: Sorry if I sound harsh but this is beginning to annoy me.

DarthArminius
2008-04-25, 02:39 PM
Sorry if I sound harsh but this is beginning to annoy me.

O.k. Think about it this way, how much more memory could the game designers put into Chrono Trigger?

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-25, 03:10 PM
I pick C: They never have any reason to. Yavin and Alderaan were the only times in the series where it was at all feasible to wreck a planet, and they were both demonstrations to the galaxy that the Death Star was to be the end of the rebellion (somewhat of a backfire there).I pick D: The math on stardestroyer.net is complete horse **** made up by someone who wanted to win a debate with Trekkies, based on applying rigorous physics and laughable assumptions to special effects shots from a 1980 fantasy movie.

Anyway, though, what we can say from EU canon is that the Imperial Navy is willing and able to thoroughly scour the surface of a planet using starships. Its usually the work of hours or days for a number of Imperial-class Star Destroyers or one Executor-class (which will typically have ISDs as screens, which would presumably speed up the process). Unless, of course, there is a planetary shield in place, which in terms of Star Wars tech is powerful enough to make the impact of any planetary bombardment short of a Superlaser negligible, especially if backed up by planetary artillery.

How useful is all this power against a Lavos infestation? Who can say? Lavos's initial impact and subsequent rising happen in a matter of minutes; not long enough for a fleet to respond. Lavos buries itself well within the planet, to the point where you'd need to completely pulverize the planet to stop it. A fleet could contain the spawning process, though. Probably. And of course, Lavos just goes splat if it hits a planetary shield.

GoC
2008-04-25, 05:39 PM
O.k. Think about it this way, how much more memory could the game designers put into Chrono Trigger?

That's an OOC point. Bringing OOC points into a media debate wrecks untold havoc. For instance the writers of starwars decided that a moon sized planet destroying ship would be a good idea despite how impractical it is. If we ignore it as being just a writer blunder then SW fans are going to cry foul. The stuff on stardestroyer.net and the extrapolations of thousands of fans become meaningless when considering OOC knowledge.

*Given a choice between a death star and 100 thousand Executers which would you pick? How many crew members would you need for a ship that size? About a billion times more than they had. How many fighters would it reasonably have? At least a few hundred million.

Rutee
2008-04-25, 05:50 PM
Stuff
The Chrono world is demonstrably not representated properly in Chrono Trigger; Remember, Chrono Cross takes place in that one archipelago, and it was there at 1000 AD. Just not shown in the game. Most RPG worlds don't show you anything vaguely resembling all population centers, nor are they designed to a cartographer's sense of rigor in accurate representation. Unless otherwise demonstrated, in clear unequivocal terms, one should assume that a planet in an RPG World is roughly earth size.


That's an OOC point. Bringing OOC points into a media debate wrecks untold havoc. For instance the writers of starwars decided that a moon sized planet destroying ship would be a good idea despite how impractical it is
His OOC point is not the same as the one you're bringing up. You're trying to introduce physics or logic to write out a universe's capabilities, in your example. He's demonstrating why the in-media representation isn't completely accurate to the actual universe's 'reality'.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-25, 05:53 PM
Considering El Nido is an artificial creation, and the result of a mind screw capable of toe-to-toeing with NGE's famous breakdown, it would be a perfectly valid point to say that El Nido is in a Schrodinger state where it both exists and nonexists, and is inaccessible by everyone except certain "scripted" people.

Rutee
2008-04-25, 05:56 PM
Perhaps. But applying the logic he's using, where only demonstrated planets exist, make the GAFFA a very small Galaxy. After all, we only have a few planets that ever get an onscreen presence. :smallyuk:

Also, when did El Nido become a Schrodinger state? The Porre Military didn't have that hard a time getting in.

GoC
2008-04-25, 06:04 PM
The Chrono world is demonstrably not representated properly in Chrono Trigger; Remember, Chrono Cross takes place in that one archipelago, and it was there at 1000 AD. Just not shown in the game. Most RPG worlds don't show you anything vaguely resembling all population centers, nor are they designed to a cartographer's sense of rigor in accurate representation. Unless otherwise demonstrated, in clear unequivocal terms, one should assume that a planet in an RPG World is roughly earth size.
I think the map is clear and unequivocal. Tell me what could be "fixed" in order to make it conform to your view? And how? Would Lucca's house suddenly appear not on an island? Is the bridge non-existent? Is the desert gone?
I don't think your axiom is a good one.


His OOC point is not the same as the one you're bringing up. You're trying to introduce physics or logic to write out a universe's capabilities, in your example. He's demonstrating why the in-media representation isn't completely accurate to the actual universe's 'reality'.
Logic. Without it there can by no vs threads. I didn't use physics.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-25, 06:08 PM
Perhaps. But applying the logic he's using, where only demonstrated planets exist, make the GAFFA a very small Galaxy. After all, we only have a few planets that ever get an onscreen presence. :smallyuk:

Also, when did El Nido become a Schrodinger state? The Porre Military didn't have that hard a time getting in.

See the part where I mentioned "Scripted" people. By that time, though FATE was already breaking down, since El Nido was supposed to be a contained and controlled experiment, so that might not apply.

Rutee
2008-04-25, 06:27 PM
I think the map is clear and unequivocal. Tell me what could be "fixed" in order to make it conform to your view? And how? Would Lucca's house suddenly appear not on an island? Is the bridge non-existent? Is the desert gone?
I don't think your axiom is a good one.
I'm saying the bridge, just because it's as long as Lucca's House on the World Map, doesn't make it as long as Lucca's house. It could be longer, it could be shorter. But its size won't correlate to its appearance on the overworld map in anything vaguely resembling an accurate representation.

Heck, most games have the Castle be at least twice as large as the town.


Logic. With it there can be no vs threads. I didn't use physics.

I fixed that for you. Logic has no place in these threads, because it tends to deconstruct universes on its own, which really just makes it Logic or Physics vs. The universe.

And again: The idea taht only shown population centers exist means that the AGFFA is a very tiny galaxy.


See the part where I mentioned "Scripted" people. By that time, though FATE was already breaking down, since El Nido was supposed to be a contained and controlled experiment, so that might not apply.
Begin from the Beginning; Where was it stated the El Nido was a closed existence? The bit where you fight FATE + Lynx?

GoC
2008-04-25, 06:39 PM
I'm saying the bridge, just because it's as long as Lucca's House on the World Map, doesn't make it as long as Lucca's house. It could be longer, it could be shorter. But its size won't correlate to its appearance on the overworld map in anything vaguely resembling an accurate representation.
I'm talking about Lucca's house being in the south of the island while the castle is in the north. How do you explain that? Or the ferry in the west going from island to island in what is mentioned as a small amount of times (not the months it would require with a world the same size).
Do the characters become 10 years older during the course of their adventures? No, not even a year passes despite them WALKING most of the way around the earth several times.
It's so much simpler just to kill the sacred cow that all worlds are the same size.


I fixed that for you. Logic has no place in these threads, because it tends to deconstruct universes on its own, which really just makes it Logic or Physics vs. The universe.
As you know all arguments are based on logic so this thread just became pointless.


And again: The idea taht only shown population centers exist means that the AGFFA is a very tiny galaxy.
AGFFA? What's that?

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-25, 06:50 PM
Begin from the Beginning; Where was it stated the El Nido was a closed existence? The bit where you fight FATE + Lynx?

Probably. I believe it is there that Lynx turns into Mr. Exposition.

What he says is that FATE/Chronopolis created El Nido, but there was interference from the Dragons. Eventually, it was decided that El Nido was to be closed off for the Dragons and FATE to have their showdown via proxies. Since an outside agent or an inside agent leaving could have caused an imbalance, El Nido was closed off.

Then, FATE went crazy, and everything went downhill, including the countermeasures to entrance from outside agents, among other things.

Ubiq
2008-04-27, 02:47 PM
IIts usually the work of hours or days for a number of Imperial-class Star Destroyers or one Executor-class (which will typically have ISDs as screens, which would presumably speed up the process).

Wrong. The WEG books (The Imperial Sourcebook for one) stated on numerous occasions that a single ISD was perfectly capable of slagging an entire planet by itself.

Oslecamo
2008-04-27, 06:55 PM
Ok, let's try to apply logics(not physics) to Star wars universe for a second.

Imperial soldier:Lord Vader, we have discovered the rebel base! They're in a small moon behind that planet! They are pretty low in equipment also! Orders?

Darth Vader: Take the death Start there and blow them up!

IS: Hmm, Sir, this will take several hours, and the rebel radars will pick us up easily, allowing them to deploy their fighters and try a last ditch attack that may catch our stupidly weak point. Wouldn't it be better if we deploy some smaller faster harder to detect ships whitout weack points and blow up the rebel base with their uber weapons wich suposedly can blow up small planets?

DV:Nonsense! Send the death Star!(kills IS with force)

If the ships were so stupidly powerfull as you claim, the movie would be quite diferent. There wouldn't be a need to deploy troops at all in any planet in the first place, since the ships could blow everything up from orbit, yet we see time and time again troopers and rebels landing and fighting almost toe to toe with each other.


As for Chrono Trigger, well, who said they're human in the first place? Maybe it's a race of giants who walcks that planet. As Rutee said, Chronno is as big as some mountains. And the kid can also take meteors to the head and come back for more.

DarthArminius
2008-04-27, 07:35 PM
Take another example, for instance. Final Fantasy VI has an opera of a war between two countries.... It is safe to assume that the Opera was probably a historical one. Yet the countries mentioned in the Opera with Draco are nowhere on the map.

Talkkno
2008-04-27, 09:34 PM
If the ships were so stupidly powerfull as you claim, the movie would be quite diferent. There wouldn't be a need to deploy troops at all in any planet in the first place, since the ships could blow everything up from orbit, yet we see time and time again troopers and rebels landing and fighting almost toe to toe with each other.



Planetary and therate shields ring a bell?

Rutee
2008-04-27, 09:39 PM
Planetary and therate shields ring a bell?

Planetary Shields /are god damned rare/. Coruscant having shields /at all/ was considered extremely rare, and massively expensive.

If turbolasers are this powerful, why doesn't the Empire ever fire a parting shot that detonates a planetary surface, after losing a battle? Ever? They're evil, sadistic, jerks. It's totally and completely in character for them.

Oslecamo
2008-04-28, 07:06 AM
Planetary and therate shields ring a bell?

Oh, right, they have the money to afford a full planet size uber shield, but they don't have money to afford missiles for their fighters.

Rutee
2008-04-28, 08:11 PM
Oh, right, they have the money to afford a full planet size uber shield, but they don't have money to afford missiles for their fighters.

Er... they do. It's just that Proton Torpedos are saved for the capitol ships, unlike in, you know, real world dogfighting. Only Rogue Squadron really uses them on starfighters.

GoC
2008-04-28, 08:30 PM
Er... they do. It's just that Proton Torpedos are saved for the capitol ships, unlike in, you know, real world dogfighting. Only Rogue Squadron really uses them on starfighters.
Hmm...
Any idea why?
Is it an honor thing?

Ubiq
2008-04-28, 08:52 PM
Planetary Shields /are god damned rare/. Coruscant having shields /at all/ was considered extremely rare, and massively expensive.


If they're so rare, then why does an agricultural world like Ukio have them in the Thrawn Trilogy?

Of the planets we see in the original trilogy, the bulk of them are either backwaters like Tattooine or theoretically uninhabited planets like Yavin, Hoth, and Endor. There's no reason to expect a place like Tattooine to bother with a planetary shield seeing as how most sources say that Imperial presence there was an afterthought at best.

The only time we saw a Core World in them (barring special editions) was when the Death Star went to Alderaan, which most definitely had a planetary shield.



If turbolasers are this powerful, why doesn't the Empire ever fire a parting shot that detonates a planetary surface, after losing a battle? Ever? They're evil, sadistic, jerks. It's totally and completely in character for them.

The fact that the Rebels tended to inhabit planets inhabited mostly by innocent civilians would have a lot to do with that. Prior to Palpatine dissolving the Senate, the Empire wouldn't want the bad PR that would result from such a move. Not that it was likely before then anyway seeing as how Yavin was one of their first clear losses to the Rebels.

They really couldn't afford the loss of popular support that would come from such a move after Endor either.

Rutee
2008-04-28, 09:18 PM
Hmm...
Any idea why?
Is it an honor thing?

Capital scale ships. You can drop a starfighter with laser fire. You can't really dent a capitol with anything smaller then a torpedo. At least, that was the justification... I suspect the real reason is "Dogfighting is cooler"


If they're so rare, then why does an agricultural world like Ukio have them in the Thrawn Trilogy?
If they're so common, then why is it that, Alderaan inclusive, the only planet that had it mentioned for an ungodly long time in the entire EU.. was Coruscant? Even planets that /should/ have had one, if they were only expensive and uncommon, like the prison planet the Corporate Sector Authority uses, don't have it.

And where is this "Alderaan had a shield" nonsense coming from? Because I'm pretty damn sure it didn't have one when Han travelled to it in his backstory trilogy.


The fact that the Rebels tended to inhabit planets inhabited mostly by innocent civilians would have a lot to do with that. Prior to Palpatine dissolving the Senate, the Empire wouldn't want the bad PR that would result from such a move. Not that it was likely before then anyway seeing as how Yavin was one of their first clear losses to the Rebels.

....What bad PR? Who the hell lives on Dantooine? Or YAvin 4? Or Hoth? Or Endor?

And moreover, bad PR? From the propaganda monsters? They'd have just claimed the Rebels did it. They have better information dissemination methods; If they could have easily wiped out a planet's infrastructure in one blast (And there's never an indication that Mon Cal Cruisers have inferior weaponry, just less of it per ship), why /not/ do it, blame it on the rebels, and deny them a planet which they just fought hard for?

Further, You're telling me they had troops destroy the bases' (Yavin, Hoth) insides.. when they could have simply fired a turbolaser at it? THe turbolaser /is more cost effective/ even.

Talkkno
2008-04-28, 09:42 PM
And where is this "Alderaan had a shield" nonsense coming from? Because I'm pretty damn sure it didn't have one when Han travelled to it in his backstory trilogy.
The novelisation stated it has defenses as good as any in the Empire.




Further, You're telling me they had troops destroy the bases' (Yavin, Hoth) insides.. when they could have simply fired a turbolaser at it? THe turbolaser /is more cost effective/ even.
Threate shields cannot be travessed by starships or replsolift craft, thats why the Imperials had no air support, and besides Vader wanted Luke alive at Hoth remember? And no one objects to warhammer 40k having simlair weapon yields yet they don't even have plantary shields....

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-28, 10:19 PM
Hmm...
Any idea why?
Is it an honor thing?Specifically, it's that most of the fightercraft in Star Wars (at least outside of the Imperial Navy) are effectively fighter/bombers, tasked with various aspects of space superiority and given torpedoes for use on medium and capital-scale ships, as well as the occasional hard surface target. Standard doctrine seems to be "lasers are for fighters, torps are for hard targets". TIE Fighters and Interceptors, of course, don't have missiles because a) they are cheaply-produced mooks and b) the Empire's doctrine assumes they have massive capital-ship superiority that can tear apart enemy fleets anyhow. The fighters are a token screen defense against insurgent fighter/bombers, which many commanders don't take seriously anyway...at least not until after the Battle of Yavin.

Rogue and Wraith Squadrons, in the X-Wing series, do use their guided weapons to take down other fighters, because Michael A. Stackpole actually knows something about modern air combat and can apply it to space. Still needs some dialog work, though...

Talkkno
2008-04-28, 10:26 PM
TIE Fighters and Interceptors, of course, don't have missiles because a) they are cheaply-produced mooks and b) the Empire's doctrine assumes they have massive capital-ship superiority that can tear apart enemy fleets anyhow. The fighters are a token screen defense against insurgent fighter/bombers, which many commanders don't take seriously anyway...at least not until after the Battle of Yavin.

.

The TIE Interceptors have a edge in maneuverability and speed over X-wings though, and given shields don't help that much anyway, seeing you still die from direct hit from a laser cannon.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-28, 10:45 PM
Right, but my point was they're still not going to do crap against anything bigger than a freighter, unless its got heavy artillery support and can go in for surgical strikes. I was only explaining why Reb ships don't use their torpedoes on fighters; obviously, Imp ships aren't going to use them at all if they don't have them.

Rebel fighters can take on capital ships if they conserve their missiles, and do so (see: the Executor, although that was largely luck/no such thing as luck). Imperial fighters can only take on other fighters, but are fast/maneuverable enough that they don't need missiles for that purpose.

Ubiq
2008-04-28, 11:26 PM
If they're so common, then why is it that, Alderaan inclusive, the only planet that had it mentioned for an ungodly long time in the entire EU.. was Coruscant?


Could it be the sloppy writing and lack of coordination between writers that has long defined the EU?

Again, the Thrawn Trilogy had several references to planetary shields as well as many other sources (Caasmas for instance, though political skullduggery and outright sabotage rendered their shield irrelevant). It was even a major plot point that many planets had them which is why he went to the whole trouble of drawing up an elaborate scheme to create the illusion that his forces could bypass such shields.



Even planets that /should/ have had one, if they were only expensive and uncommon, like the prison planet the Corporate Sector Authority uses, don't have it.


Why should Stars' End have one? Knowledge of the mere existence of the facility requires extremely high level clearance and it's cast out of a single piece of the strongest armor the CSA could get its hands on.


And where is this "Alderaan had a shield" nonsense coming from? Because I'm pretty damn sure it didn't have one when Han travelled to it in his backstory trilogy.

Watch Episode IV again. You can see the shield resist the superlaser blast for a brief second.


....What bad PR? Who the hell lives on Dantooine? Or YAvin 4? Or Hoth? Or Endor?

Well, first, we don't know what they did on Dantooine in the film, but performing a BDZ on an abandoned base is pointless at best and might eliminate clues to the Rebels' current whereabouts.

I'll have to dig out my copy, but I'm pretty sure that Alan Dean Foster's novelization of the first film says that the defenses of the Yavin base would withstand just about any normal bombardment. Which isn't surprising seeing as how the hastily constructed Hoth base had a shield capable of holding off bombardment by several Star Destroyers as well as the Executor.

Far as Hoth goes, they won that battle and immediately set off in pursuit of the Millenium Falcon. Why bother destroying that planet, especially when, once again, there might be valuable information about the Rebel Alliance still down there?

Far as Endor goes, why would they bother firing on the planet when they're being attacked by a much larger fleet and have already lost almost their entire command structure onboard the Death Star, the Executor, and the communications ship?



And moreover, bad PR? From the propaganda monsters? They'd have just claimed the Rebels did it.


Blowing up a building full of Rebels and people sympathetic to the Rebellion is one thing and could easily be blamed on the Rebels. But an entire planet? Wouldn't people ask where the Rebels got their resources from and why didn't the Empire protect them?

From what I recall, Caasmas was blamed on Confederate holdouts, but if that happens too many times, people are going to start asking hard questions.



They have better information dissemination methods; If they could have easily wiped out a planet's infrastructure in one blast (And there's never an indication that Mon Cal Cruisers have inferior weaponry, just less of it per ship), why /not/ do it, blame it on the rebels, and deny them a planet which they just fought hard for?


So... how many planets did the Rebels conquer prior to Endor? None?

Most of their support came from the Core, most often fairly rich planets that tended to have planetary shields as well as fairly powerful military forces of their own. While any of them would not have stood a chance against the Empire alone, sufficient numbers of them banding together would pose a considerable threat. Look at how much trouble the Republic had with the Confederacy and that was only a few thousand systems that happened to control most of the galaxy's manufacturing capability. If you went out and slagged random planets out of spite, sooner or later systems like Corellia, Chandrila, and maybe even entire political organizations like Hapes, the Centrality, or even Hutt Space are going to say enough is enough. When that happens, a small spark might turn into a forest fire.

Anyway, one blast is likely hyperbole on the part of whoever said it; an ISD is more than capable of doing the job by itself in a short period of time, but not necessarily in one shot.

And, far as the Mon Cal cruiser business goes, no matter what WEG said, it's hard to believe that they have fewer weapons than an ISD. For one thing, ships like Home One are at least twice as long as an ISD and have inferior firing arcs. If anything, they should have far more guns than an ISD.



Further, You're telling me they had troops destroy the bases' (Yavin, Hoth) insides.. when they could have simply fired a turbolaser at it? THe turbolaser /is more cost effective/ even.

Ever consider that they might want prisoners? Or computers, droids, weapons, or any material that might give a hint as to where they were getting their supplies or where they might be headed next?

If you slag the base, you won't get any of that and we know for a fact that Vader wanted Luke alive.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-28, 11:32 PM
If you slag the base, you won't get any of that and we know for a fact that Vader wanted Luke alive.Not until after Hoth. But all of your other points are extremely valid ones.

Now, when I play Empire At War, I just Death Star the hell out of everything, but that's because I can see all the Rebel bases anyway.

EDIT: Oh, and the official Imperial propaganda line for the Death Stars was that they wre asteroid-pulverizing mining facilities, and that Alderaan's destruction was the result of Rebel sabotage. The Emperor is depicted in a museum in X-Wing: Wedge's Gambit as nobly sacrificing himself to destruct the DSII before the Rebels could repeat that stunt. Now, none of this holds up to careful scrutiny, but it served to pacify the masses.

Cybren
2008-04-29, 12:06 AM
Response to "star destroyers can't devastate a planet"
- Base Delta Zero

Response to "deific rpg main characters"
- Jedi.


I mean, seriously. Jedi. (luke is a christ figure if you hadn't noticed. Which would make obi wan moses or something. Moses had a huge friggen boat, lavos couldn't touch that)

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-29, 12:42 AM
Holy crap. You spend a few days sick and the debate doubles in length. I'll try to respond to as many of the points as I can, but there are quite a lot. Sorry that I'm not listing names in the quote boxes, but you know who you are. :smalltongue:


No. They weren't. They were trying to kill them. The "Capture Luke" directive comes in the Asteroid Field, not pre-battle of Hoth.
They were not trying to kill him! Not only could they have nuked the base if their ships had no weapons whatsoever, let alone lacking weapons as powerful as their reactors should allow (asteroid, gravity, etc.), but Vader made the note of going there because Luke was there.

VADER: That is the system. And I'm sure Skywalker is with them. Set
your course for the Hoth system. General Veers, prepare you men


And you still have the problem that /if/ Star Destroyer turbolasers were that powerful, events in the entire movie series and EU would have gone significantly differently. It's not reasonable to think that they are that powerful; Yavin 4 (A Moon, not a full sized planet) wouldn't be around at all, because the Imperials are vengeful jerks. Dantooine probably would be the same. Why keep either? They're worthless planets.
Again, they were making a demonstration.


TARKIN: Princess Leia, before your execution I would like you to be my
guest at a ceremony that will make this battle station operational. No
star system will dare oppose the Emperor now.


Not a single turbolaser is turned on Endor after the destruction of the Shield Generator; You could argue that hte Imperials held their fire to keep the Generator around, and that the Rebels did so to keep from frying their own troops (Since REbels are good and Empires are evil), but /after/ the Generator went down? Not even an FU shot? Really?
Why would either side want to shoot the planet after the shields fell at all? For the rebels, the mission's complete down there and they still have men on the surface. For the Imperials, they still have men down there.

And more importantly, why would it matter how powerful the guns are if it's just a pissy "well F- YOU, REBEL SCUM" shot?


Alderaan wasn't shielded.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/DeathStar6.jpg
Then what's that?


The evil empire that doesn't care about consequences, besides Victory, /never/ has reason to torch a planet? *EVER*?
It never had a reason to torch a planet besides using the Death Star on screen. If we want to bring the EU into this, they've even got a special name for it there: Base Delta Zero.


Logic has no place in these threads, because it tends to deconstruct universes on its own, which really just makes it Logic or Physics vs. The universe.
If logic and measurement and other objective things are thrown out, what purpose do vs discussions have beyond childish "X wins" "No, Y does!" "Nuh-uh!" arguments?


If the ships were so stupidly powerfull as you claim, the movie would be quite diferent. There wouldn't be a need to deploy troops at all in any planet in the first place, since the ships could blow everything up from orbit, yet we see time and time again troopers and rebels landing and fighting almost toe to toe with each other.
This is why all the nuclear-armed nations on Earth have abandoned all forms of military besides the nuclear bomb, since those are so powerful that you can wipe out enemy armies or even cities with a single attack, right? :smalltongue:


Anyway, one blast is likely hyperbole on the part of whoever said it; an ISD is more than capable of doing the job by itself in a short period of time, but not necessarily in one shot.
While the feats I was talking about earlier often involve several seconds' worth of reactor output, Star Wars weaponry has capacitors, so it could very well be one shot. The Munificent-class Star Frigate's main guns can charge up to fire twenty minute's worth of energy in one shot, and the old Imperators have turrets roughly the same size (the newer models have smaller, more numerous main guns, though).


[in response to Vader wanting Luke alive] Not until after Hoth.
Where is this idea coming from that Vader's attitude towards Luke went from "yeah, go ahead and kill him. He's just a rebel" to "I must convert my son to be my disciple!" only after the Battle of Hoth?

Rutee
2008-04-29, 04:00 AM
[quote]They were not trying to kill him! Not only could they have nuked the base if their ships had no weapons whatsoever, let alone lacking weapons as powerful as their reactors should allow (asteroid, gravity, etc.), but Vader made the note of going there because Luke was there.
....Interesting, that, that Tallkno insists that they were going to ground because they had to, and you insist they could have broken through.



Again, they were making a demonstration.
FOR WHO? OF WHAT? You keep saying this; Yavin 4, Dantooine, and Endor have no notable populations to cow. If they were broadcasting the demonstration, /nuking Yavin 4 to dust/ would be far more effective a demonstration then storming empty buildings. That was the entire theory behind the Death Star as a terror weapon! Mass destruction that can't feasibly be stopped is scarier then crushing people on their terms!


Why would either side want to shoot the planet after the shields fell at all? For the rebels, the mission's complete down there and they still have men on the surface. For the Imperials, they still have men down there.
Do you know what the term "Scorched Earth" means? If you can devastate the surface of a planet with a single blast, and you are losing, it only makes sense to execute this policy. Especially if you possess the resources to make the entire galaxy believe the other guy did it.


And more importantly, why would it matter how powerful the guns are if it's just a pissy "well F- YOU, REBEL SCUM" shot?
You claim that a single turbolaser blast can mimic the devastation Lavos wreaks. A "'pissy FU shot", if it were that powerful, /would be a planet ending disaster/. And it'd be extremely easy to have happen in any of a number of circumstances, up to and not including a jackass gunner. And it never happens. Why don't we ever hear about it happening? Which is more likely, based on Occam's Razor:
A: We never hear about planets being casually destroyed because planets can't be casually destroyed
B: We never hear about planets being casually destroyed because the entire Empire is actually good and caring offscreen, and only tiny, tiny parts of it are as evil or selfish as they are while onscreen

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/DeathStar6.jpg
Looks like the laser hitting the planet.


It never had a reason to torch a planet besides using the Death Star on screen. If we want to bring the EU into this, they've even got a special name for it there: Base Delta Zero.
Base Delta Zero isn't executed with a single turbolaser blast. I'm fairly certain that it's generally executed with a fleet, and while doable with a single star destroyer, takes /time/.



If logic and measurement and other objective things are thrown out, what purpose do vs discussions have beyond childish "X wins" "No, Y does!" "Nuh-uh!" arguments?
That about hits the nail on the head.


This is why all the nuclear-armed nations on Earth have abandoned all forms of military besides the nuclear bomb, since those are so powerful that you can wipe out enemy armies or even cities with a single attack, right?
Using Nukes is MAD; Further, we don't have actual defenses to them. Also, due to these facts, *Conventional military action between nuke holders does not happen.* Hence, comparison can not be made; clearly, the threat is not so large as to be a hindrance to conventional military action. You surmise that this is because everyone holds uber defenses to these uber attacks, despite these 'uber defenses' only barely receiving mention onscreen, /ever/, EU or not (And the EU is a cesspool of overpowered fanfiction/deus ex machina, by and large) The way you paint the star wars universe, every planet has these shields, and therefore, never worries about a single turbolaser blast decimating the planet, even though contriving such a circumstance wouldn't be that difficult.


While the feats I was talking about earlier often involve several seconds' worth of reactor output, Star Wars weaponry has capacitors, so it could very well be one shot. The Munificent-class Star Frigate's main guns can charge up to fire twenty minute's worth of energy in one shot, and the old Imperators have turrets roughly the same size (the newer models have smaller, more numerous main guns, though).
I consider it more likely that the special effects creators had nfc about the ramifications of their own effects then that they meant for characters in the universe to have access to it. Basically? You end up left with a problem; If you assume all this hypertech is around, you assume that everyone is so stupid that it never sees use anyway. That's too big to be the standard idiot ball.



Where is this idea coming from that Vader's attitude towards Luke went from "yeah, go ahead and kill him. He's just a rebel" to "I must convert my son to be my disciple!" only after the Battle of Hoth?
Quite frankly, because I said "Skywalker is there" on realizing hte Rebels are at Hoth.

Oslecamo
2008-04-29, 05:52 AM
This is why all the nuclear-armed nations on Earth have abandoned all forms of military besides the nuclear bomb, since those are so powerful that you can wipe out enemy armies or even cities with a single attack, right? :smalltongue:


It's a completely diferent comparison, because we just have ONE planet.

Nuclear bombs leave behind anoying radiaction that eventually spreads along thousands of kilometers and lasts for decades. If the countries would go using nuclear bombs nilly willy the surface of earth would be a nuclear desert in no time.

Nowadays it's even forbiden to test new nuclear devices in the surface of the earth due to that.

The empire has thousands of planets. They can surely afford to lose a handfull. We can't afford to lose our only habitable planet right now. So atomic bombs are a last resort weapon, because if we use them, everybody loses.

Mind you, the only two atomic bombs that were actually used in a war were before we knew all those consequences. There are still people in China that suffer cancer problems due to the radiation particles from those atomic detonations that were carried by the wind from Japan.

Rutee: yes, they had proton torpedos, but they specifically said in the movie their supply was very low and thus each fighter would only carry two of them, and they were specifically to try to hit the weack poing of the death star.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-29, 08:18 AM
Where is this idea coming from that Vader's attitude towards Luke went from "yeah, go ahead and kill him. He's just a rebel" to "I must convert my son to be my disciple!" only after the Battle of Hoth?Okay, I'll admit, I thought capturing Luke was the Emperor's idea, and that Vader didn't know Luke's identity until the asteroid field conversation. Re-reading the script (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Wars-The-Empire-Strikes-Back.html), I see that I was completely misremembering. I surrender the point.

WalkingTarget
2008-04-29, 09:39 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/DeathStar6.jpg
Then what's that?

"That" is a 1977 special effects shot that has been superseded when Lucas updated the films years later (as the newer versions overrule older versions, by Lucas's rules).

Here's a comparable shot from the special edition (taken from this (http://www.st-v-sw.net/STSWalderaan.html) site with an analysis of this particular argument.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/AlderaanBlast-1.jpg

Pardon me as an EU noob, but when were "planetary shields" first mentioned (by which, I mean what year was that book published)? Having only seen the films, I hadn't even realized that there was a debate on their existence until a few months ago as planet-wide shields are never mentioned in that context (imagine the Balrog-wing debate for someone who had only seen the recent LotR films and therefore hadn't seen the ambiguity in the original text).

Rutee
2008-04-29, 01:35 PM
Pardon me as an EU noob, but when were "planetary shields" first mentioned (by which, I mean what year was that book published)? Having only seen the films, I hadn't even realized that there was a debate on their existence until a few months ago as planet-wide shields are never mentioned in that context (imagine the Balrog-wing debate for someone who had only seen the recent LotR films and therefore hadn't seen the ambiguity in the original text).

I'm not sure on year, honestly, but it'd have been either the Thrawn Trilogy, if Ukio did indeed have a planetary shield (I genuinely don't recall) or the X-Wing series, with Coruscant. At least, I'm pretty sure that's it. Should be early to mid 90s?

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-29, 03:57 PM
....Interesting, that, that Tallkno insists that they were going to ground because they had to, and you insist they could have broken through.
Oh, right, sorry. I'd thought you meant after the shields had dropped. Tallkno's right; they needed the ground assault to destroy the generator (VEERS: My lord, the fleet has moves out of light-speed. Com-Scan has detected an energy field protecting an area around the sixth planet of the Hoth system. The field is strong enough to deflect any bombardment.). After the shields fell, though, if they truly wanted to destroy the base from afar, they could have done so with their ships, unless you want to argue that their mile-long ships have less firepower than their hundred-foot-tall walkers.


FOR WHO? OF WHAT? You keep saying this; Yavin 4, Dantooine, and Endor have no notable populations to cow.
The rest of the galaxy. The Tarkin Doctrine involves keeping the galaxy in line with force, and the Death Star shows that they have the ultimate force concentrated in one battlestation. And even if we couldn't think of anyone to show it to, Tarkin explicitly said that the targeting shots were a "ceremony".


If they were broadcasting the demonstration, /nuking Yavin 4 to dust/ would be far more effective a demonstration then storming empty buildings. That was the entire theory behind the Death Star as a terror weapon! Mass destruction that can't feasibly be stopped is scarier then crushing people on their terms!
Hence why the used the Death Star. Making the moon disappear is more impressive than simply melting the crust. Not to mention the shielding that someone mentioned earlier (I was unaware of it, but considering the rebels had shielding on Hoth, it is not implausible).


Do you know what the term "Scorched Earth" means? If you can devastate the surface of a planet with a single blast, and you are losing, it only makes sense to execute this policy. Especially if you possess the resources to make the entire galaxy believe the other guy did it.
But what use is Endor to either side? The Empire build the Death Star there precisely because it was so useless that no one lived there except some primitive bearfolk.

Not to mention that a 900km-wide moon violently detonating less than half a planetary radius away is going to solve the problem of wrecking the planet in and of itself, making any shots superfluous.


You claim that a single turbolaser blast can mimic the devastation Lavos wreaks. A "'pissy FU shot", if it were that powerful, /would be a planet ending disaster/. And it'd be extremely easy to have happen in any of a number of circumstances, up to and not including a jackass gunner. And it never happens. Why don't we ever hear about it happening? Which is more likely, based on Occam's Razor:
A: We never hear about planets being casually destroyed because planets can't be casually destroyed
B: We never hear about planets being casually destroyed because the entire Empire is actually good and caring offscreen, and only tiny, tiny parts of it are as evil or selfish as they are while onscreen
You honestly think the Empire would be so carelessly evil as to randomly destroy its own planets? Not even as shows of force, but casually, for no reason? Not only is such Snidely Whiplash-style evil not seen in the movies (or literature, from what I know), but that in and of itself is implausible. Why would the rebellion be so small if it took place in a galaxy where planets would go up in smoke because some gunner got dumped that day?


Looks like the laser hitting the planet.
The laser stopping for multiple frames and spreading over the hemisphere before any sign of destruction on the planet looks like a normal impact? If you look at other SFX shots, it's actually consistent with laser-shield interactions in the rest of the movies, where shots will pause, spread out, and then if there is any energy bleedthrough, then explode.


Base Delta Zero isn't executed with a single turbolaser blast. I'm fairly certain that it's generally executed with a fleet, and while doable with a single star destroyer, takes /time/.
While the literature makes it clear that warships can launch nearly their entire energy output into its heaviest guns, there are actually good reasons why one usually would not. It can produce extensive wear on the guns, capacitors, and heat sink systems, and such wear would only be worth it when time is of the essence, like in fleet engagements.

Regardless, it's irrelevent. If it takes one shot or ten hours, the Star Destroyer can still deliver more destructive energy to a target than can be found inside the Earth.


That about hits the nail on the head.
Then why not apply logic and measurements? Don't debates that can come to an actual conclusion have room in this "field"?


Using Nukes is MAD; Further, we don't have actual defenses to them. Also, due to these facts, *Conventional military action between nuke holders does not happen.* Hence, comparison can not be made; clearly, the threat is not so large as to be a hindrance to conventional military action. You surmise that this is because everyone holds uber defenses to these uber attacks, despite these 'uber defenses' only barely receiving mention onscreen, /ever/, EU or not (And the EU is a cesspool of overpowered fanfiction/deus ex machina, by and large) The way you paint the star wars universe, every planet has these shields, and therefore, never worries about a single turbolaser blast decimating the planet, even though contriving such a circumstance wouldn't be that difficult.
I'll address this with Oslecamo's point.


I consider it more likely that the special effects creators had nfc about the ramifications of their own effects then that they meant for characters in the universe to have access to it.
Possible. But does that matter? Many designers probably do not understand, say, evolutionary theory, but does that mean we should assume that creatures in non-magical universes did not undergo evolution as we know it?
It's easier and more consistent to look at the movie itself when possible, only looking to the people who made it when all else fails.


Basically? You end up left with a problem; If you assume all this hypertech is around, you assume that everyone is so stupid that it never sees use anyway. That's too big to be the standard idiot ball.
The only possible place in the movies where I could see planetary bombardment being preferable to what occured is the Battle of Naboo. Maybe it would have been better to bomb the Gungan army, but then again, not only did they win that battle anyway, but they spent the entire movie trying not to provoke a galactic incident. Keeping the battle conventional helps in that regard. Other than that, the only times it would come up would be little gunners or captains firing on planets to get their jollies, and in militaries as structured and disciplined as the Republican Clone Forces and the Imperial Starfleet, that seems unlikely.

And why is it less believable to you that characters can be stupid or not use all their options than that the universe has one more facet that breaks physics that isn't even important at all to the story?


Quite frankly, because I said "Skywalker is there" on realizing hte Rebels are at Hoth.
I'm not understanding this. Could you elaborate?


It's a completely diferent comparison, because we just have ONE planet.
And the Empire has ONE galaxy (well, also two dwarf galaxies, but you get my point).


Nuclear bombs leave behind anoying radiaction that eventually spreads along thousands of kilometers and lasts for decades. If the countries would go using nuclear bombs nilly willy the surface of earth would be a nuclear desert in no time.
Airbursts actually leave behind negligible fallout, which is the primary concern for radiation. Yes, it irradiates those in the area, but the point of the bombing is to kill those people, so that "works". The fallout problems arise when you do surface-level or subterranean detonations to destroy hardened structures, but overall, the effects of nuclear war are usually vastly overstated. The main problems come from the destruction of infrastructure and farmland, with "nuclear winter" effects only causing a small drop in temperature for a year at most.


Nowadays it's even forbiden to test new nuclear devices in the surface of the earth due to that.



The empire has thousands of planets. They can surely afford to lose a handfull. We can't afford to lose our only habitable planet right now. So atomic bombs are a last resort weapon, because if we use them, everybody loses.
We also have thousands of cities, which is really the more honest comparison.


Mind you, the only two atomic bombs that were actually used in a war were before we knew all those consequences. There are still people in China that suffer cancer problems due to the radiation particles from those atomic detonations that were carried by the wind from Japan.
Care to source that? As far as I know, the only people suffering from radiation-induced sickness from the military bombings were in the cities at the time of the strikes.

And remember, the Empire running the galaxy is more like, say, the United States running its own land, not the US on the world stage. The fighting in the original trilogy is police action fighting down a rebellion. This makes the figurative nukings even less palatable.


Rutee: yes, they had proton torpedos, but they specifically said in the movie their supply was very low and thus each fighter would only carry two of them, and they were specifically to try to hit the weack poing of the death star.
I'm still not seeing why this means they shouldn't have shield generators. The rebellion got much of its equipment from old ships (the power generator on Hoth was taken from an old battlecruiser), and either way, a shield generator lasts for a while, and can even be packed up and moved elsewhere. Torpedoes are used once each, and considering the rebels are shown to like fighter tactics, are likely used up very quickly.


Here's a comparable shot from the special edition (taken from this site with an analysis of this particular argument.
Ignoring the analysis from that site (since apparently the work of astrophysicists and engineers on this subject is to be ignored), let's just take a look at those pictures. Look at the first, three, especially.

The beam, which is traveling at several planetary diameters a frame, stops, and I mean STOPS, for three solid frames with no visible damage to the planet. How is this even possible without a shield? Not only that, but if you look at the third frame (which is a better source of comparison than the second one, which you linked to)...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/AlderaanBlast-2.jpg
...we again see the telltale signs of laser-shield interaction. They're not as blotchy as in the original cut, but we still have the beam spreading out while stopped before any damage occurs. This is very consistent with shields seen in the rest of the movies.

And if planets such as Alderaan did not have shields, I have a question. People are saying that high-powered weaponry does not fit, since it implies the characters are stupid (somehow). If planetary shielding is not widespread, it definitely shows that the characters are stupid. What purpose does the Death Star, with its beam that delivers literally a million times the energy necessary to blow apart a planet, have in a galaxy with unshielded planets? Even assuming their starships have insignificant weaponry, you can bombard unshielded planets into destruction by simply towing large rocks around the system.

[hr]
Sorry for the long, quote-filled post. I just have a lot to respond to. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/Smilies/icon_smile.gif

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-29, 04:42 PM
Then why not apply logic and measurements? Don't debates that can come to an actual conclusion have room in this "field"?No.

What? I can't be the only one to realize how bloody pointless these heated, endless, time-and-life-consuming arguments over fiction are, can I? It's not like we're even performing proper literary analysis here, which is still useless, but is for some reason an employable skill. We're just comparing two entirely different fictional properties to see which one's metaphorical **** is bigger. It's done for laughs, and for nostalgic enjoyment. You can't actually bring facts to bear about something that never happened in physical reality, nor can either side actually "win" a battle between stories that are entirely mental constructs backed up by some flashy description on film or silicon. Why do people expect to be able to do this? It boggles the mind.

GoC
2008-04-29, 05:16 PM
No.

What? I can't be the only one to realize how bloody pointless these heated, endless, time-and-life-consuming arguments over fiction are, can I? It's not like we're even performing proper literary analysis here, which is still useless, but is for some reason an employable skill. We're just comparing two entirely different fictional properties to see which one's metaphorical **** is bigger. It's done for laughs, and for nostalgic enjoyment. You can't actually bring facts to bear about something that never happened in physical reality, nor can either side actually "win" a battle between stories that are entirely mental constructs backed up by some flashy description on film or silicon. Why do people expect to be able to do this? It boggles the mind.
I admit it does get a bit difficult with universes like SW, Middle Earth, DC comics and quite a few others but some universes can be logically debated. A pity I haven't found one yet...

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-29, 06:03 PM
It takes years of observation, a keen sense of self-awareness, and an unusually level-headed demeanor to logically debate reality in any meaningful fashion. With fictional universes, you've got no chance at all.

Ubiq
2008-04-29, 06:26 PM
Pardon me as an EU noob, but when were "planetary shields" first mentioned (by which, I mean what year was that book published)?

Far as the EU goes, they were definitely in the Thrawn Trilogy. I don't know about the comic strip or Marvel's various comics.

Not that it matters much seeing as how the Tydirium couldn't even land on Endor without the Imperials opening a hole in the shield for them.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-29, 06:51 PM
No.

What? I can't be the only one to realize how bloody pointless these heated, endless, time-and-life-consuming arguments over fiction are, can I? It's not like we're even performing proper literary analysis here, which is still useless, but is for some reason an employable skill. We're just comparing two entirely different fictional properties to see which one's metaphorical **** is bigger. It's done for laughs, and for nostalgic enjoyment. You can't actually bring facts to bear about something that never happened in physical reality, nor can either side actually "win" a battle between stories that are entirely mental constructs backed up by some flashy description on film or silicon. Why do people expect to be able to do this? It boggles the mind.
Why are you even in this discussion, then? I thought the entire purpose was to, indeed, find out which has a "bigger ****" between Lavos and the Star Wars galaxy. If this isn't your cup of tea, why are you coming in and saying that no, we can't do this, it's wrong and useless?

And you only can't "win" these things in two ways, if the source material is too vague to come to any conclusions, or of one or both sides choose to not go with objective measures. Why can't we look at a situation where, given material A shown in media X and material B shown in media Y and match them up in a way similar to real-life matchups? Why is, say, Star Destroyer vs Lavos any worse than, say, Napoleon vs Grant? In both cases, neither interacted and any facts we want to find about them must be found through media. It's just hypothetical scenario modeling, one of the primary functions of the human brain. Why is it impossible, besides because you say it is?

Edit: Whoops, that wasn't the general I meant to list.

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-29, 09:24 PM
Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong or bad with this sort of thing. It's all in good fun, and a way to pass the time. I'm just asking everyone to calm down and stop expecting reasoned scientific debate and objective conclusions based on fantasy stories. There's no objective truth to things that don't happen in reality. Fictional works are based on entirely different physical and metaphysical precepts than how (we think) reality works, ones that are entirely distinct from each other. Grant and Napoleon obeyed the same laws of physics and were involved with roughly the same sort of military. Star Wars and Chrono Trigger have no laws of physics except "the writer thought this would look awesome," let alone any points in common whatsoever.

Go on with the debate. I'm enjoying it, others are enjoying it, you could be enjoying it for all I know, but don't get offended by the idea that maybe not everyone will agree on the conclusions to be drawn from an arbitrary (if exhaustive) assemblage of trivia about half-baked science fiction.

Talkkno
2008-04-29, 11:13 PM
"I encounter civilians like you all the time. You believe the Empire is continually plotting to do harm. Let me tell you, your view of the Empire is far too dramatic. The Empire is a government. It keeps billions of beings fed and clothed. Day after day, year after year, on thousands of worlds people live their lives under Imperial rule without ever seeing a stormtrooper or hearing a TIE fighter scream overhead."
-Capitan Thrawn :smallwink:

Innis Cabal
2008-04-29, 11:14 PM
Firstly, Nerd-o-Rama, your not the only one that thinks that, most of us just dont say anything when reading these things because of the ensuing ammount of nerd-rage and aggro we get, with that said, bravo for standing up and saying something.

On topic, With the numbers, at least one Lavos will win out and survive, which means that a million more will sometime, somehow win out and survive as temporal reality is warped to its whim, and thus, Star wars never existed, thus Lavos never came to it, and, in the end, this debate never happened

Oslecamo
2008-04-30, 05:31 AM
Well, if the emperium has so freacking uber weapons, why on earth it can't even take care of some small primitive tribe that fights with rocks and sticks?

This would be like saying that the US soldiers got defeated by some random african primitive naked tribe wielding spears and leather shields.

The emperium has giant robots for god's sake! They have shields who can resist the strenght of world devastating powers, but can't resist a tree trunck falling over them? WTF?

Fictional theory:Star wars machines have uber weapons that can devastate planets and uber shields that can resist those uber attacks.

Fictional fact: Star wars machines get OWNED by little race using hand made weapons and traps out of wood and stone.

So I think this is unquestionable proof that the whole talck about uber weapons and shields is nothing more than emperium propaganda, since they can't even effectively fight some super primitive species wich can't even worck metal.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 06:33 AM
Look, I'm not saying there's anything wrong or bad with this sort of thing. It's all in good fun, and a way to pass the time.
First it's "pointless, heated, and time-consuming", now it's "good fun and a way to pass the time"? Pick a side; we're at war!


I'm just asking everyone to calm down and stop expecting reasoned scientific debate and objective conclusions based on fantasy stories. There's no objective truth to things that don't happen in reality. Fictional works are based on entirely different physical and metaphysical precepts than how (we think) reality works, ones that are entirely distinct from each other. Grant and Napoleon obeyed the same laws of physics and were involved with roughly the same sort of military. Star Wars and Chrono Trigger have no laws of physics except "the writer thought this would look awesome," let alone any points in common whatsoever.

Go on with the debate. I'm enjoying it, others are enjoying it, you could be enjoying it for all I know, but don't get offended by the idea that maybe not everyone will agree on the conclusions to be drawn from an arbitrary (if exhaustive) assemblage of trivia about half-baked science fiction.
It does rely on assumptions, yes. "What we see on the screen at least a reasonable approximation of the 'reality' of the fictional universe", and "unless explicitly contradicted, known laws of reality hold in the fictional universe, and any new ones should be examined in an objective, scientific manner" are the big ones. I agree that they're not universal, but they're the only (or at least easiest) way to try do this sort of thing objectively. Not everyone wishes to grant these assumptions, I agree; and that's okay. I prefer to try see these sorts of things as objectively as possible, and do hope that anyone who does wish to argue points of this sort objectively will grant those assumptions or give better ones, if they have them.

And I am enjoying this. It's been years since I've been involved in a discussion of this nature, and triple-checking my understanding of the equations to derive the power output was a blast.


Well, if the emperium has so freacking uber weapons, why on earth it can't even take care of some small primitive tribe that fights with rocks and sticks?

This would be like saying that the US soldiers got defeated by some random african primitive naked tribe wielding spears and leather shields.
Since you're calling it the "emperium" and are saying that the Ewoks soundly trounced the Imperial forces on Endor, I'm going to assume that you haven't seen the movie in some time.

If you remember the events, the Ewoks launch a surprise attack, killing many unarmoured targets with arrows before retreating into the woods. They attacked from cover, with premade traps and superior numbers, and only managed to down stormtroopers by braining them with large rocks (remember Conservation of Momentum: a rock to the head will hurt someone wearing a literally invincible helmet) and they took down two scout walkers, failing in their later attacks on them. They were taking large casualties (the novel goes into detail here), though, and the momentum of their attack faltered until Chewbacca hijacked one of the walkers. That was the turning point of the battle (well, that and the Imperial commander being a complete doofus and opening the door so easily).


The emperium has giant robots for god's sake! They have shields who can resist the strenght of world devastating powers, but can't resist a tree trunck falling over them? WTF?
Again, were we watching the same movie? AT-STs have no shields. Ever. They're also the equivalent to Hum-Vees with feet, and those tree trunks were huge. And even if they had super-duper shields, we have pesky Conservation of Momentum popping up again, and tree trunks larger than the walker hitting the walker are going to do bad things to it, no matter what.


Fictional fact: Star wars machines get OWNED by little race using hand made weapons and traps out of wood and stone.
Real fact: US Military machines get OWNED by things as simple as mudholes. This is unquestionable proof that the talk of effective weapons and armour of is just US propaganda. They can't even fight dirt; how could they even hope to stand up to mice, or worse yet, troops of monkeys?
(If this doesn't work for you, replace "mudholes" with "meteors" and "dirt" with "rocks")

Reality and (most) fiction don't operate on RTS-style tech trees, where when you reach higher tech, all the stats go up. No matter how primitive it is, a large flying rock has its requisite momentum and energy, and a large flying tree has its own requisite momentum and energy. Do you think that once people mine enough Gold and Stone and reach the Iron Age, they get a +2 resistance to attacks made by people still in the Stone Age epoch? :smalltongue:

Oslecamo
2008-04-30, 07:23 AM
Real fact: US Military machines get OWNED by things as simple as mudholes. This is unquestionable proof that the talk of effective weapons and armour of is just US propaganda. They can't even fight dirt; how could they even hope to stand up to mice, or worse yet, troops of monkeys?
(If this doesn't work for you, replace "mudholes" with "meteors" and "dirt" with "rocks")

Reality and (most) fiction don't operate on RTS-style tech trees, where when you reach higher tech, all the stats go up. No matter how primitive it is, a large flying rock has its requisite momentum and energy, and a large flying tree has its own requisite momentum and energy. Do you think that once people mine enough Gold and Stone and reach the Iron Age, they get a +2 resistance to attacks made by people still in the Stone Age epoch? :smalltongue:

You can kill an ewok with a blaster shot.

It would recquire an absurd number of blaster shots to "kill" a mudhole/dirt.

Thus you are right. Mudholes/dirt are great weapons, mainly because they simply don't "die".

If there was some kind of weapon wich allowed you to instantly create mudholes/dirt anywhere in the battlefield, you can be sure every army would want several of thoses.

If the emperium forces are so advanced, they surely should be able to call an air strike, or have some kind of napalm to burn down the forest, or at least some kind of bunker system with shooting holes wich would allow them to shoot down the ewoks whitout fear of rock/spear/tree truncks retaliation.

People stoped using rocks as a primary weapon some millenias ago because padded armors(hard in the outside, soft inside) wich absorbed the impact were developed. Even nowaday super advanced helments worck in that basics.

If it was, let's say, a SWAT team with nowaday equipment fighting the ewoks, even whitout walckers or blasters, if they had an regular army flame thrower and some armored modern transports, my money would surely be on the SWAT team.

The emperium may have uber weapons, but in this case somebody should warn them, because they didn't seem to have realized this yet.

WalkingTarget
2008-04-30, 10:27 AM
I too enjoy discussions of fictional settings. I hope nobody takes disagreement on certain points as animosity in any way. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled program, already in progress. :smallwink:


Ignoring the analysis from that site (since apparently the work of astrophysicists and engineers on this subject is to be ignored), let's just take a look at those pictures. Look at the first, three, especially.

Which part of the analysis in particular do you have problems with? The main point as I read it is that the visuals of the frames themselves do not support there being a shield (not that they necessarily disprove the existence of any shield, just that there isn't anything in particular that shows up that says "look, here's a shield!").


The beam, which is traveling at several planetary diameters a frame, stops, and I mean STOPS, for three solid frames with no visible damage to the planet. How is this even possible without a shield? Not only that, but if you look at the third frame (which is a better source of comparison than the second one, which you linked to)...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/AlderaanBlast-2.jpg
...we again see the telltale signs of laser-shield interaction. They're not as blotchy as in the original cut, but we still have the beam spreading out while stopped before any damage occurs. This is very consistent with shields seen in the rest of the movies.

My explanation for how that works? The beam takes a while to have an effect. Even a real life laser cutting something doesn't work instantaneously. It takes a short, but finite and measurable amount of time to heat the target material and there is a just-as-plausible explanation of the film taking this into account. Raise your hand if you know how many frames of film it takes for a DS superlaser to show visible damage to an unshielded planet. The Alderaan example might be "normal" for either shielded or unshielded, we have a single data-point and no control group so it's impossible to prove anything by looking at the time alone. Hell, you can't even say that there's no damage to the planet during frames 2 and 3 as you're too far away to see what's happening on the surface. By frame 4 we're able to see widespread damage from what seems similar to lunar distances (assuming that Alderaan is Earth-sized).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg/600px-NASA-Apollo8-Dec24-Earthrise.jpg

I'm going to switch from the Special Edition frames that we've been linking from there to the DVD versions that they did the main analysis on (since I probably should have linked to them anyway if I'd been more rigorous; they're analogous to the SE ones in any event).

Frame 1 (http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldbeamprehit05sm.jpg): beam hasn't reached planet yet.

Frame 2 (http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldblow01sm.jpg): beam hits planet surface, local cloud cover is illuminated by beam. This is important, the brightest glow here matches the position and shape of the clouds from Frame 1 at the point of impact. Therefore, either the beam is intersecting with the clouds in some meaningful fashion (illuminating them directly or they are being backlit by reactions at ground level) or the proposed shield "spread" effect is somehow dependent on local weather phenomena.

Frame 3 (http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldblow02sm.jpg): Roughly half of the globe is lit up by the diffraction of light through the atmosphere. The brightest parts of this glow match where the clouds were in the initial frames. This includes parts of the globe that weren't visible in the initial, pre-impact shot as the sun is off to the left and not directly behind the camera (i.e. the terminator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_%28solar%29) is visible in the initial few frames). The glow on the right side of the planet is consistent with where the atmosphere would be around a spherical planet (which is what all of the fancy contrast fiddling they do further down the page is pointing out). The glow around the planet doesn't extend past where the atmosphere is, so it's not evidence of anything. These films have been very (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7f/Tatooine.jpg/300px-Tatooine.jpg) consistent (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Coruscant.png/290px-Coruscant.png) about showing atmosphere's around their planets.

http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldbeamprehit00sm-wcirc.jpg
http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldblow02sm-wcirc.jpg


That's the major point of contention in the whole discussion. Where some people see "obvious" beam/shield interaction, others simply see the atmosphere lighting up when a giant laser intersects with it (ever seen a large patch of clouds light up during a lightning strike?).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/LightningOverMiramareDiRiminiItaly.jpg/800px-LightningOverMiramareDiRiminiItaly.jpg

I don't recall seeing the level of irregularity seen here in the "spread" effect in other parts of the films. The "spread" tends to be very localized around the point of impact and doesn't cause large portions of the shield to become visible (like they do in Star Trek). We don't see that the beam has "stopped", only that it is striking the planet and happens to be longer than will fit on a single frame and takes a few frames for the whole thing to reach the planet. If you spray somebody with a long blast from a water gun (like a Super Soaker) has the water "stopped" because it has hit them but you're still pulling the trigger? No, the stream just is being absorbed by the target at the rate that the water is moving.

Frame 4 (http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldblow03sm.jpg): the entire hemisphere on which the beam connected has gone incandescent. There is a small sliver on the left side that looks about the same as the preceding frame, but this is about the same sized "slice" that was missing from the opposite side at the beginning (where it would have been night initially). This is the first frame in which the planet is seen to be exploding.

Frame 5 (http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldblow04sm.jpg): The entire (visible) surface of the planet has gone incandescent. The "end" of the beam appears in-frame. Planetary explosion becomes more pronounced on the right side.

Frame 6 (http://www.st-v-sw.net/images/Wars/Special/SF/DVD-Aldcrop/ANHDVD-Aldblow05sm.jpg): Explosion ring beginning to form, beam still not completely absorbed by the planet yet. The "sharp" edge of the planet on the left has finally started to go fuzzy as the explosion covers the visible portion of the planet.

So, it takes 3 frames (2-4 inclusive) from impact until the explosion becomes visible. I don't know which framerate the DVDs use (NTSC can be either ~24fps or ~30fps), but is 1/10 to 1/8 of a second too slow for you for destruction of a planet? Even destroying ships in RotJ takes more than a single frame, otherwise the SFX crew wouldn't get to animate any effects for the interaction between beam and ship (this hypothetical shot would be frame 1: pre-impact, frame 2: massive explosion with no ship/planet to be seen), it's more interesting visually if there's an actual progression instead of that sort of discontinuous jump even if it's faster than the average viewer can consciously notice.

The point is that the film footage itself doesn't "prove" the existence of a shield and is ambiguous at best. There is a way to interpret the film footage that a) adequately explains the evidence (as taken from the visual effects on-screen only) and b) is simpler since it doesn't add otherwise unmentioned entities (i.e. a planetary shield). Classic Occam's Razor.


And if planets such as Alderaan did not have shields, I have a question. People are saying that high-powered weaponry does not fit, since it implies the characters are stupid (somehow). If planetary shielding is not widespread, it definitely shows that the characters are stupid.

Yeah, that's pretty much the point people make. :smalltongue: It can be said of characters in a lot of fictional settings, Star Wars isn't unique there.


What purpose does the Death Star, with its beam that delivers literally a million times the energy necessary to blow apart a planet, have in a galaxy with unshielded planets? Even assuming their starships have insignificant weaponry, you can bombard unshielded planets into destruction by simply towing large rocks around the system.

I'm guessing that the power output is given in a technical manual somewhere (otherwise, I wonder how the power output has been computed) and the physicists you mentioned earlier are the ones that say it's "a million times" more than is needed. Towing large rocks around would probably be simpler, but it's not as cool as giant death-rays. This goes back to people pointing out that Star Wars characters do things in non-optimal ways (i.e. behave stupidly), but enjoy it anyway because it's still a fun story.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 11:03 AM
And if planets such as Alderaan did not have shields, I have a question. People are saying that high-powered weaponry does not fit, since it implies the characters are stupid (somehow). If planetary shielding is not widespread, it definitely shows that the characters are stupid.
No. That's the point. That's /beyond/ stupid. I think it shows /they don't have high weaponry/, since the level of stupid implied by having death rays that can annihilate planets, then never using them ever. No, not even then, goes completely against characterization of a /lot/ of characters, who are shown as being remarkably intelligent in every other aspect.

We /know/ they're smart. We know they never use their turbolasers to annihilate a planet's surface in one shot. We know they would have to be freaking stupid to have never, ever, ever, ever done so, if possible. Which fits more: Either A) The power yields you produced are far, far higher then they actually are, or B) The characters are all freaking stupid, counter to characterization?

Nerd-o-rama
2008-04-30, 01:08 PM
First it's "pointless, heated, and time-consuming", now it's "good fun and a way to pass the time"? Pick a side; we're at war!This is the attitude that bugs me. I know you're being sarcastic now, but earlier, it just seemed like everyone was taking their need to be right and prove everyone else wrong a little too seriously. My point is, you can't prove a winning result in discussions as generic and founded on pure fantasy as this, so stop getting all worked up over it.

But everyone (including me, and I got way too hostile earlier, for which I should apologize) seems to have calmed down and gotten some perspective now, so no worries.

Innis Cabal
2008-04-30, 01:08 PM
Its gotta be B since this is a versus thread

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 06:13 PM
If the emperium forces are so advanced, they surely should be able to call an air strike, or have some kind of napalm to burn down the forest, or at least some kind of bunker system with shooting holes wich would allow them to shoot down the ewoks whitout fear of rock/spear/tree truncks retaliation.
You honestly think the same Empire that builds starships the size of moons has not mastered such technology as "fire" and "buildings"? They didn't do it, because they're stupid. They could do it, because they aren't without any technology. They relied on the secret entrance being secret rather than defensible against attack (they were only expecting commandos, too, so that sort of makes sense). They didn't have access to the bunker because they were locked out so as to keep the rebels from slipping in and blowing the place. They didn't have air support because if they dropped the shields to allow stuff to come down, the rebel ships would have just torched the shield generator.


People stoped using rocks as a primary weapon some millenias ago because padded armors(hard in the outside, soft inside) wich absorbed the impact were developed. Even nowaday super advanced helments worck in that basics.
Seriously, watch the movie again. The Ewoks are tossing around rocks bigger than peoples' heads. If you really think super-helmets will prevent against that in defiance of physics, I actually won't invite you to go get a helmet and have someone throw a rock like that at your head, since that would involve you suffering extensive neck damage and a concussion.


If it was, let's say, a SWAT team with nowaday equipment fighting the ewoks, even whitout walckers or blasters, if they had an regular army flame thrower and some armored modern transports, my money would surely be on the SWAT team.
Any of the traps that destroyed an AT-ST would destroy or stop modern vehicles. Any attack that felled a stormtrooper would drop the SWAT member, and some that didn't there would here (arrows).

And why are you trying to show that non-invincible foot troops means that the Empire can't have any good technology anywhere?


The emperium may have uber weapons, but in this case somebody should warn them, because they didn't seem to have realized this yet.
Because, of course, stormtroopers are ships?


Which part of the analysis in particular do you have problems with?
People were dismissing the works of Mr. Wong and Dr. Saxton outright earlier in the debate. It only seems honest to ignore all outside analysis equally if it's going to be ignored for no good reason.


My explanation for how that works? The beam takes a while to have an effect. Even a real life laser cutting something doesn't work instantaneously. It takes a short, but finite and measurable amount of time to heat the target material and there is a just-as-plausible explanation of the film taking this into account. Raise your hand if you know how many frames of film it takes for a DS superlaser to show visible damage to an unshielded planet. The Alderaan example might be "normal" for either shielded or unshielded, we have a single data-point and no control group so it's impossible to prove anything by looking at the time alone. Hell, you can't even say that there's no damage to the planet during frames 2 and 3 as you're too far away to see what's happening on the surface. By frame 4 we're able to see widespread damage from what seems similar to lunar distances (assuming that Alderaan is Earth-sized).
That is definitively not how lasers work. Lasers take time to heat things up when the total effect is a slow melting of the target. Alderaan did not slowly melt. It was instantaneously exploded to 2% the speed of light. For three frames we see ocean and clouds unaffected aside from a green glow. If they were indeed interacting with the laser, they would be, at the very least, vanishing under the incredible energy.


That's the major point of contention in the whole discussion. Where some people see "obvious" beam/shield interaction, others simply see the atmosphere lighting up when a giant laser intersects with it (ever seen a large patch of clouds light up during a lightning strike?).
No offense is meant by this, but the second group of "others" either has not thought about the issue much or does not understand physics. Clouds glow from lightning because lightning contain approximately along the order of 500MJ of energy. Clouds do not simply glow from the Death Star beam, because that contains 2*10^26 times as much energy. Think about this honestly for a second. The same beam that brings the whole planet from "untouched" to "glowing ball" in three frames (four through six) takes the same time to turn clouds from "normal" to "slightly greener than normal"?


I don't recall seeing the level of irregularity seen here in the "spread" effect in other parts of the films. The "spread" tends to be very localized around the point of impact and doesn't cause large portions of the shield to become visible (like they do in Star Trek).
This is also the only time we see a solidly-visible beam interact with shields, too. Turbolasers have only the small visible component. I agree that they're not identical (pulse spreads into rough sphere vs beam spreads over surface), but they are somewhat different effects. And irregularity actually is seen in turbolaser-shield interactions. The shot that explodes over the Tantive IV spreads downward in several rays as it punches through the shields.


We don't see that the beam has "stopped", only that it is striking the planet and happens to be longer than will fit on a single frame and takes a few frames for the whole thing to reach the planet. If you spray somebody with a long blast from a water gun (like a Super Soaker) has the water "stopped" because it has hit them but you're still pulling the trigger? No, the stream just is being absorbed by the target at the rate that the water is moving.
If frame-by-frame analysis showed that the water "struck" the person but they were not getting wet for a period of time, that does mean the water stopped.


The point is that the film footage itself doesn't "prove" the existence of a shield and is ambiguous at best. There is a way to interpret the film footage that a) adequately explains the evidence (as taken from the visual effects on-screen only) and b) is simpler since it doesn't add otherwise unmentioned entities (i.e. a planetary shield). Classic Occam's Razor.
(a) is not true, though, for your theory. There is no possible way for such a destructive beam to have no effect on the planet aside from a green glow for that long unless there is something else absorbing the energy for a period of time.


I'm guessing that the power output is given in a technical manual somewhere (otherwise, I wonder how the power output has been computed)
The energy to entirely destroy a planet is found by determining how much energy it would take to accelerate the mass of the planet to its escape velocity. The formula is U = 3*G*M^2/(5*r), and the derivation of that formula can be found here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/DeathStar.html) (If you do not like that site, I do implore you to at least look at the physics involved, because it is just physics, regardless of who points it out). The result is ~2*10^32J.
The actual destruction caused by the Death Star accelerated the planet to an average speed of 6*10^6m/s, so even ignoring gravity, it takes a minimum of 10^38J.


No. That's the point. That's /beyond/ stupid. I think it shows /they don't have high weaponry/, since the level of stupid implied by having death rays that can annihilate planets, then never using them ever. No, not even then, goes completely against characterization of a /lot/ of characters, who are shown as being remarkably intelligent in every other aspect.

We /know/ they're smart. We know they never use their turbolasers to annihilate a planet's surface in one shot. We know they would have to be freaking stupid to have never, ever, ever, ever done so, if possible. Which fits more: Either A) The power yields you produced are far, far higher then they actually are, or B) The characters are all freaking stupid, counter to characterization?
You keep saying this, but I still do not see any point where slagging a planet with a starship would have been a better idea than what they did at the time in the movies. If you would, please, point one out, it would help at least give evidence to your claim here.


it just seemed like everyone was taking their need to be right and prove everyone else wrong a little too seriously. My point is, you can't prove a winning result in discussions as generic and founded on pure fantasy as this, so stop getting all worked up over it.
Well, again, it's a vs thread. If you don't care about them or think they're unsolvable, you're not really in the debate, so this shouldn't really matter, right? But if you are actually trying to argue a side, then (I think) you're trying to show that your side is right, and the best way to do that is for your arguments to be objective. I do realise that fiction is less objective or real than reality, but that's why I try for "as objective as possible".

Rutee
2008-04-30, 06:22 PM
You keep saying this, but I still do not see any point where slagging a planet with a starship would have been a better idea than what they did at the time in the movies. If you would, please, point one out, it would help at least give evidence to your claim here.

Movies only? Endor. Luke's already on the Death Star II, and the shield generator goes down? Somewhere there's a Star Destroyer arrayed like this;


O T Rebel Fleet

O being Endor, T being the Destroyer (the flat end is the aft). T has no reason to not launch an FU shot on Endor.

Never mind. We don't need it to be a Star Destroyer. The Death Star II should have more powerful turbolasers, or at elast equally powerful, and it's /definitely/ got /one/ turret that has nothing better to shoot.

EU? Every single planetary invasion the Empire loses.

Why in Gods name shouldn't the Empire play Scorched Earth? It /has/ money. IT can /afford/ to lose this moneymaking spot, and in the grand scheme of things it's probably not that important. It has the resources to bring forth and disseminate convincing doctored 'evidence' of the Rebels doing it, building stronger anti-rebel sentiment. It is win freaking win, dear. Why is it never done?

nothingclever
2008-04-30, 06:24 PM
No. That's the point. That's /beyond/ stupid. I think it shows /they don't have high weaponry/, since the level of stupid implied by having death rays that can annihilate planets, then never using them ever. No, not even then, goes completely against characterization of a /lot/ of characters, who are shown as being remarkably intelligent in every other aspect.

We /know/ they're smart. We know they never use their turbolasers to annihilate a planet's surface in one shot. We know they would have to be freaking stupid to have never, ever, ever, ever done so, if possible. Which fits more: Either A) The power yields you produced are far, far higher then they actually are, or B) The characters are all freaking stupid, counter to characterization?
Gosh Rutee all your slashes are intimidating /me./ I feel like I'm on 4chan and I'm about to get b& by /b/tards.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 06:27 PM
It's mostly just that I do most of my chatting on IRC. IRC lacks an italics, so emphasis is placed, where I'm from, with / /.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 06:40 PM
Never mind. We don't need it to be a Star Destroyer. The Death Star II should have more powerful turbolasers, or at elast equally powerful, and it's /definitely/ got /one/ turret that has nothing better to shoot.
I just watched the scene where the Executor gets shot down just over the surface of the Death Star. No lasers are seen firing from the surface of the battlestation to the rebel ships, despite the fact that they're hovering right over it. Remember, aside from the superlaser, the ship is still under construction.

And as for the other ships, remember, these aren't shell-firing turrets. They all draw their power from the same reactor. Any shot you fire at the planet just to torch it 'cause of REBEL SCUM is one less shot you're firing at the enemies who are themselves concentrated entirely on killing you, regardless of whether or not the gun is pointed at a particular enemy at the moment.


EU?
If we do wish to bring the EU into this, I repeat Base Delta Zero. Canonical depictions of Star Destroyers melting the crust of a planet so hard that it becomes cheaper to terraform new planets than to rebuild the destroyed one.


Why in Gods name shouldn't the Empire play Scorched Earth? It /has/ money. IT can /afford/ to lose this moneymaking spot, and in the grand scheme of things it's probably not that important. It has the resources to bring forth and disseminate convincing doctored 'evidence' of the Rebels doing it, building stronger anti-rebel sentiment. It is win freaking win, dear. Why is it never done?
Because it is. Base Delta Zero.

The EU proves that Star Destroyers can do this.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 07:01 PM
If we do wish to bring the EU into this, I repeat Base Delta Zero. Canonical depictions of Star Destroyers melting the crust of a planet so hard that it becomes cheaper to terraform new planets than to rebuild the destroyed one.
And I repeat:

Base Delta Zero IS A FLEET ORDER. Fleet! As in "Many Star Destroyers"! It isn't generally given to single STar Destroyers, and it sure as hell is not carried out in one fragging shot. It is not proof in any sense that one shot can devastate the surface of a planet.

You know what? Where, in any freaking Star Wars Media, does one shot from a turbolaser battery devastate the surface of a planet? Ever?

And you know what? EU again, and Wookiepedia reminded me of this.

Base Delta Zero is ordered on Nar Shadaa. Nar Shadaa has no planetary shield (Lunatory shield?). According to you, one shot would devastate it. Nobody takes that shot? *EVER.* *When ordered to.*


I just watched the scene where the Executor gets shot down just over the surface of the Death Star. No lasers are seen firing from the surface of the battlestation to the rebel ships, despite the fact that they're hovering right over it. Remember, aside from the superlaser, the ship is still under construction.

The Emperor also points out that it's fully operational. The movie, I believe, points out that the DS II is built with a stronger PDS Grid. We're given no indication that they removed the anti-capitol turrets. I'm more apt to think that they didn't have the Death STar with any turrets where the Executioner goes down so as to not detract from the focus of the scene.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 07:15 PM
And I repeat:

Base Delta Zero IS A FLEET ORDER. Fleet! As in "Many Star Destroyers"! It isn't generally given to single STar Destroyers, and it sure as hell is not carried out in one fragging shot. It is not proof in any sense that one shot can devastate the surface of a planet.
Dankayo was destroyed by three Star Destroyers. Bothawui had greater destruction ordered for it with only three desteroyers allocated for the job. Emberlene was destroyed by a mercenary company that utilised resources so mundane they weren't noticed by the government.

It doesn't take a huge fleet to do this.


You know what? Where, in any freaking Star Wars Media, does one shot from a turbolaser battery devastate the surface of a planet? Ever?
It's not even necessary for one shot to do this. While I do wish to reiterate that there are mechanical concerns that would make it prudent to spread out shots unless time is of the essence, I am entirely willing to drop that point, because it is irrelevant to this thread. I listed previously one occasion where three star destroyers managed to, in a span of hours at most, cause more damage to a planet than its core ever hoped to do, thus showing that star destroyers can put out more energy than Lavos is possibly shown to withstand.


Base Delta Zero is ordered on Nar Shadaa. Nar Shadaa has no planetary shield (Lunatory shield?). According to you, one shot would devastate it. Nobody takes that shot? *EVER.* *When ordered to.*
So, people disobeying orders is evidence for weak weapons? I'm not following.



The Emperor also points out that it's fully operational.
And yet when you look at it, a good 40% is missing. He was referring to the superlaser that he was ordering to fire in the next seconds.


We're given no indication that they removed the anti-capitol turrets.
Except for, while the first Death Star was said to be able to hold off "any attack" of capital ships, the second one didn't even fire a shot at the rebel fleet when they were only a mile away?


I'm more apt to think that they didn't have the Death STar with any turrets where the Executioner goes down so as to not detract from the focus of the scene.
This may hold more water if we didn't have the same movie show a rebel cruiser destroying a star destroyer in the background when the focus of the scene was supposed to be on Adm. Ackbar and the Executor.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 07:20 PM
So, people disobeying orders is evidence for weak weapons? I'm not following.
Okay, we're done. You are far too much of a star wars fanatic for me to continue botherring. This again showcases "If you are right, everyone in the entire freaking Star Wars universe is so /stupid/ as for it to not make a difference"

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 07:28 PM
Okay, we're done. You are far too much of a star wars fanatic for me to continue botherring. This again showcases "If you are right, everyone in the entire freaking Star Wars universe is so /stupid/ as for it to not make a difference"
I'm sorry; I'm unfamiliar with the scene and could not follow your description of it. I read what you said as "nobody fired the shots that could destroy the planet, despite being ordered to". I am apparently misunderstanding what you said, and I hope you'll correct my understanding rather than simply dropping the entire discussion because of it.

Indon
2008-04-30, 07:50 PM
Forget Lavos fleets.

I think one, fully matured Lavos would be an interesting challenge for Palpatine's Galactic Empire (and/or the New Republic after it), provided it had landed on Tattooine.

Why? Because Lavos would have Vader's DNA, making it the most powerful force entity in the galaxy in addition to (and in combination with - its' ability to regenerate, for instance, is what puts it definitively ahead of Vader) its' existing innate powers.

So we're talking about a being with magical power including the ability to manipulate time, but also so much force power that it is literally immortal, without even needing to use any other ability in its' array of supernatural powers.

So, in conclusion, it would take precisely one Vader-Lavos to challenge the Star Wars universe, given a 65 million and change year head start.

In fact... A near-lifeless desert would seem to be an appropriate environment for a Lavoid that has fully matured, in terms of before and after photos.

So, forget all this junk about Alderaan shielding - how many Jedi does it take to get to the center of Darth (well, not necessarily, but really likely) Super-Lavos? (Well, not necessarily a Lavos in shell-form. The Lavos could be free-coring it across the galaxy rather readily)

Edit: and one CT oddity: Lavos is at his most powerful in 12,000 BC, after having been drained of an immense amount of magical power (which it facilitated the use of).

Deadmeat.GW
2008-04-30, 07:59 PM
Rutee is simply pointing out that given the energy outputs from a single, as in a singular, one, turbolaser (and just a turbolaser according to the SW fanfic calcs) you should have been able to crack or do exceedingly serious damage with one shot to a planet without shields as the BDZ scenarios state.

This singular shot would have an energy output over 20 times the effect of the Karakatoa focused on a surface of several square feet...

More power on less surface...

The result should have been catastrophic immediately, you could have cracked tectonic plates with that and transformed the planet to a huge fireball in a matter of minutes firing the whole battery an SD has.

Yet when ordered to do this they don't...

Why?

Because they feel like disobeying in the Imperial fleet?
I doubt it somehow.

I am going to go with the statement these weapons are exceedingly powerful but EU fanfic wants bigger numbers without considering the full consequences of what that means.

At 0.1% of the power output of these guns (and fighter scale weapons are pretty much that) you are still talking about megaton+ firepower.
As evidenced by the film when Anakin in a fighter shoots at Droidekas the weapons are not that powerful and that the fanfic supporters are just in love with exagerating the weapon outputs in far too many cases.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 07:59 PM
So, in conclusion, it would take precisely one Vader-Lavos to challenge the Star Wars universe, given a 65 million and change year head start.
That does seem like a somewhat unfair advantage, though, doesn't it? :smalltongue:

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 08:14 PM
The result should have been catastrophic immediately, you could have cracked tectonic plates with that and transformed the planet to a huge fireball in a matter of minutes firing the whole battery an SD has.
Sounds like a Base Delta Zero to me.

Unless by "huge fireball" you actually mean "exploding", in which case actually using physics and math shows you're wrong. The output I'm trying to demonstrate for a star destroyer is 10^25W, which would require 278 days of constant bombardment to explode the planet and 278 million days to destroy it like the Death Star, assuming perfect energy transfer and no reradiation of energy away from the planet.


Yet when ordered to do this they don't...

Why?

Because they feel like disobeying in the Imperial fleet?
I doubt it somehow.
If this is about the Nar Shaada attack, I'm unfamiliar with that event, and have no idea why they didn't fire.


I am going to go with the statement these weapons are exceedingly powerful but EU fanfic wants bigger numbers without considering the full consequences of what that means.
But they're still in the EU, right? Which means that they're in the universe. And as I've been trying to show earlier, the films do demonstrate massive energy outputs for their ships, so don't say the films contradict that.


At 0.1% of the power output of these guns (and fighter scale weapons are pretty much that)
Uh, no. Fighters are actually millions of times smaller than capital ships and have much smaller reactor output for their size, except for engine output.


As evidenced by the film when Anakin in a fighter shoots at Droidekas the weapons are not that powerful and that the fanfic supporters are just in love with exagerating the weapon outputs in far too many cases.
And Star Wars lasers have variable weapon output (VEERS: Target, maximum firepower!). Look at the film where Luke shoots up the surface of the Death Star, causing kiloton-level explosions.

Indon
2008-04-30, 08:19 PM
That does seem like a somewhat unfair advantage, though, doesn't it? :smalltongue:

Well, he is outnumbered.

Zeful
2008-04-30, 09:08 PM
This really all depends on how Lavos got there. If the Lavos attacking the SW galaxy came from the same 'parent' as the CT one, the it goes the same as the SW supporters say (vaporised before planetary impact). But If this Lavos was the one from the end of CT using it's powers to escape death after the final battle, than Starwars is boned.

Why? Because Lavos has all the potential of the CT cast as well as the experience not to make the same mistakes again.

Lavos gets owned in the opening engagements and escapes in the Time Rift, like he could have in CT1. He then gates back to Corusant: 65 million years before the engagement. He subsumes all genetic and technological advancements made by anyone on the planet during his 65 million year charge time. Then strikes, this time with the peek power of all of Corusant's generators, trubolasers, and every force user on the planet.

1: There is no definitive evidence given by Chrono Trigger that Lavos is dead. He doesn't use the same death animation of other enimies. This means that Lavos could very well still be alive. Lavos could also be truely dead, but maybe he's still alive.

So there's a 2/3 chance that Star Wars wins, but a 1/3 chance they have no hop of winning.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 09:15 PM
It's been a bit since I've played CT and I've never played past the intro area in CC. Does Lavos actually have time-travel capabilities? I know he has wonky abilities related to time, but can he actually go in the past? I don't remember him actually having that power.

Zeful
2008-04-30, 09:33 PM
It's been a bit since I've played CT and I've never played past the intro area in CC. Does Lavos actually have time-travel capabilities? I know he has wonky abilities related to time, but can he actually go in the past? I don't remember him actually having that power.

We don't know either way really. But the final battle occurs in an area of time flux. You are shown scenes of the time periods with gates in them and it cycles. When you 'kill' lavos all the time periods flash by in a montage before Lavos vanishes, presumably dead.

Also when Janus (Magus) summoned Lavos large gate appeared sucking the four characters in forcebly. This suggests Lavos opens the gates and control time (The gate's appearance in the first place may have been caused by his death throes/defeat).

With this assumption in hand it becomes possible that Lavos is unbeatable. Time travel and clairsentience do give some really unfair advantages.

WalkingTarget
2008-04-30, 11:01 PM
People were dismissing the works of Mr. Wong and Dr. Saxton outright earlier in the debate. It only seems honest to ignore all outside analysis equally if it's going to be ignored for no good reason.

Fair enough. I was just bringing up that particular site because it didn't try to get overly technical - it just looked at the film itself and walked through the lack of a visible shield external to the planet atmosphere (or at least that's the part I'm interested in; and the fact that they have screen caps of the appropriate frames).


That is definitively not how lasers work. Lasers take time to heat things up when the total effect is a slow melting of the target. Alderaan did not slowly melt. It was instantaneously exploded to 2% the speed of light. For three frames we see ocean and clouds unaffected aside from a green glow. If they were indeed interacting with the laser, they would be, at the very least, vanishing under the incredible energy.

So real life weaponized lasers don't have to deal with a cloud of vaporized debris exploding in a cloud after the first strike that refracts/otherwise disrupts further attacks? I must get this information to SDI so they can rest easy on that point. Maybe the cloud glowing and "ineffectiveness" of the beam in the first few frames is due to blooming (or the superlaser equivalent) and it simply takes a frame to burn through the atmosphere enough to transfer full power to the surface. Maybe the clouds immediately surrounding the beam are eliminated, but how wide is the beam and how far away is our viewing point? Would we be able to tell that a section of cloud that wide has disappeared from that distance? There are many possibilities here as to why we see what we see and it all comes down to the fact that we're still talking about a fictional weapon that makes a planet explode fairly uniformly from a point-impact rather than punching right through it or at least causing a lopsided explosion. Who knows what the actual mechanism for it is? We can't make assumptions as to how it interacts with any type of matter as it doesn't exist for us to experiment with. All we know is that it can make planets or space ships explode.


No offense is meant by this, but the second group of "others" either has not thought about the issue much or does not understand physics. Clouds glow from lightning because lightning contain approximately along the order of 500MJ of energy. Clouds do not simply glow from the Death Star beam, because that contains 2*10^26 times as much energy. Think about this honestly for a second. The same beam that brings the whole planet from "untouched" to "glowing ball" in three frames (four through six) takes the same time to turn clouds from "normal" to "slightly greener than normal"?

Yup, but it might just as easily take 5 frames to go from "'untouched' to 'glowing ball'". Also, the clouds go from "beginning to glow" in frame 2 to "entire hemisphere is glowing" in frame 3, to "entire planetary disc is incandescent" in frame 4. That's more than just "'normal' to 'slightly greener'". You keep insisting that nothing is happening at the surface during frames 2 and 3, but you can't see the surface from this altitude so can't definitively say this either way. I'd say that there is just as plausibly something going on prior to the orbitally-visible explosion in frame 4 (say, frame 2 the explosion is the size of a city [which would be a pretty good "instant" explosive effect in my opinion], frame 3 it's as big as a small country, and by frame 4 it's the size of a continent and the ejected debris is already visibly leaving the planet, frame 5 it's a hemisphere and frame 6 the whole planet is coming apart). As for lightning, a lightning strike can make part of a storm system glow. This beam is making the entire atmosphere glow. Setting the sky on fire is more impressive than lightning.


(a) is not true, though, for your theory. There is no possible way for such a destructive beam to have no effect on the planet aside from a green glow for that long unless there is something else absorbing the energy for a period of time.

Ah, and here we get to the crux of it. You are saying that there is "no possible way" for the beam to take 3 frames to show a visible explosion from orbit. My question to you is "where is your proof of that?" Neither you nor I know the exact mechanism by which the superlaser works (as people have been at pains to point out in various other threads I've seen where people argue SW stuff, turbolasers, blasters, and the superlasers aren't actually lasers). You're taking a position on the matter and then assuming that all of the data fits your hypothesis while not seeming to consider other possibilities. The fact that there does seem to be such contention over this point (and not just local to this board) means that it's not as cut-and-dry as you insist that it is.


The energy to entirely destroy a planet is found by determining how much energy it would take to accelerate the mass of the planet to its escape velocity. The formula is U = 3*G*M^2/(5*r), and the derivation of that formula can be found here (http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Beam/DeathStar.html) (If you do not like that site, I do implore you to at least look at the physics involved, because it is just physics, regardless of who points it out). The result is ~2*10^32J.
The actual destruction caused by the Death Star accelerated the planet to an average speed of 6*10^6m/s, so even ignoring gravity, it takes a minimum of 10^38J.

Ok, fair enough. Assuming that physics in the SW galaxy operates in the same exact way as ours (which any H. P. Lovecraft fan will tell you isn't necessarily a safe assumption to make), what does this prove, exactly, other than the DS is perfectly capable of exploding planets much larger than Alderaan if they need to? Maybe they want the level of overkill this is (Alderaan was an demonstration after all).

Please note this I.B. - I'm not saying that any of this "proves" the lack of a shield. I'm just stressing that there is insufficient evidence to "prove" its existence either as you are making as many assumptions for your premise as I am for my counter-examples (you assume that the delay until frame 4 means something was getting in the way on 2 and 3 - I assume there's something happening at the surface that simply isn't visible from the distances involved, for example). Hell, I've even been trying to remain within the premise that things even make any kind of sense if real physics are considered.

A lot of your points talk of impossibilities, but as we're in a speculative fiction (with as many, if not more, fantasy elements as science fiction) what is imaginable as an explanation is greatly expanded from "normal". I keep coming back to statting the superlaser effect in my head (upon successful ranged touch attack, target object explodes, no save). It doesn't do a trillion d6 damage, it just causes the target to explode in a fairly uniform way. This explanation makes just as much sense in a fantasy context as any other and fits all relevant data from the films. It's not the only explanation, but neither is your own.

I'm done with this one. I've presented a case that explains the evidence as I see it. Nobody has to agree with me, but continuing to say "Look at this," for the same thing I've already been looking at probably won't change my opinion on what "this" indicates. It's like this picture.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/My_Wife_and_My_Mother-In-Law_%28Hill%29.png

With the assumption I only see an old lady and you only see a young one. We're looking at the same picture, but we're interpreting the data differently. I see how you could think that that is her necklace, but that doesn't make me not see it as her mouth and me pointing at her eye won't make you stop seeing her ear.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-04-30, 11:49 PM
So real life weaponized lasers don't have to deal with a cloud of vaporized debris exploding in a cloud after the first strike that refracts/otherwise disrupts further attacks? I must get this information to SDI so they can rest easy on that point.
But what vaporised debris is it punching through in those first three frames? If there is no shield there, the only thing in the way is atmosphere.


Maybe the cloud glowing and "ineffectiveness" of the beam in the first few frames is due to blooming (or the superlaser equivalent) and it simply takes a frame to burn through the atmosphere enough to transfer full power to the surface.
Again, I'm having a hard time understanding a viewpoint where the beam takes an equal time to punch through clouds as it does the rest of the planet combined. It's in contrast to how real weapons work, and if it's the case in Star Wars, maybe they should invest in Cloud Seeding technology. :smalltongue:


we're still talking about a fictional weapon that makes a planet explode fairly uniformly from a point-impact rather than punching right through it or at least causing a lopsided explosion.
Why would it punch right through the planet? Exploding it relatively uniformly is actually very consistent with how dumping that much energy onto one point of the planet in that short of time would act. The more energetic the energy transfer, the more explosive it will be and thus the less possible a "drilling" effect will be.


Who knows what the actual mechanism for it is? We can't make assumptions as to how it interacts with any type of matter as it doesn't exist for us to experiment with. All we know is that it can make planets or space ships explode.
Right, which is why Occam's Razor stipulates that it simply dumps the requisite energy onto the target.


Yup, but it might just as easily take 5 frames to go from "'untouched' to 'glowing ball'". Also, the clouds go from "beginning to glow" in frame 2 to "entire hemisphere is glowing" in frame 3, to "entire planetary disc is incandescent" in frame 4. That's more than just "'normal' to 'slightly greener'". You keep insisting that nothing is happening at the surface during frames 2 and 3, but you can't see the surface from this altitude so can't definitively say this either way.
Right, we can't see portions of the planet thanks to cloud cover and the beam itself; all we can see is parts untouched and a green glow. It is therefore an added assumption that there is invisible damage taking effect unless there is evidence brought forth for it.


As for lightning, a lightning strike can make part of a storm system glow. This beam is making the entire atmosphere glow. Setting the sky on fire is more impressive than lightning.
Are you grasping the numbers involved, though? 2*10^26 times more energy means two hundred million million million million times more. It wouldn't be just lighting up an entire hemisphere; assuming the cloud bank lit up by the lightning bolt was one square kilometre, it would be lighting up 4*10^17 entire Alderaans. Point-four million million million planets.


Ah, and here we get to the crux of it. You are saying that there is "no possible way" for the beam to take 3 frames to show a visible explosion from orbit. My question to you is "where is your proof of that?" Neither you nor I know the exact mechanism by which the superlaser works (as people have been at pains to point out in various other threads I've seen where people argue SW stuff, turbolasers, blasters, and the superlasers aren't actually lasers). You're taking a position on the matter and then assuming that all of the data fits your hypothesis while not seeming to consider other possibilities. The fact that there does seem to be such contention over this point (and not just local to this board) means that it's not as cut-and-dry as you insist that it is.
The theory I'm operating under is that it operates via direct transfer of kinetic energy. This is the simplest model and holds up to parsimony, unlike theories which require exotic reactions caused by the beam.


Ok, fair enough. Assuming that physics in the SW galaxy operates in the same exact way as ours (which any H. P. Lovecraft fan will tell you isn't necessarily a safe assumption to make), what does this prove, exactly, other than the DS is perfectly capable of exploding planets much larger than Alderaan if they need to? Maybe they want the level of overkill this is (Alderaan was an demonstration after all).
The energy output is circumstantial evidence for the widespread use of shields, I know. I was just throwing it out to try to corroborate the more direct evidence I'm also trying to give.


Please note this I.B. - I'm not saying that any of this "proves" the lack of a shield. I'm just stressing that there is insufficient evidence to "prove" its existence either as you are making as many assumptions for your premise as I am for my counter-examples (you assume that the delay until frame 4 means something was getting in the way on 2 and 3 - I assume there's something happening at the surface that simply isn't visible from the distances involved, for example). Hell, I've even been trying to remain within the premise that things even make any kind of sense if real physics are considered.
Well, if I can't convince you, then I can't convince you. I think my premises are more parsimonious and consistent with physics, but then I'm assuming you also believe the same for yours.


A lot of your points talk of impossibilities, but as we're in a speculative fiction (with as many, if not more, fantasy elements as science fiction) what is imaginable as an explanation is greatly expanded from "normal". I keep coming back to statting the superlaser effect in my head (upon successful ranged touch attack, target object explodes, no save). It doesn't do a trillion d6 damage, it just causes the target to explode in a fairly uniform way. This explanation makes just as much sense in a fantasy context as any other and fits all relevant data from the films. It's not the only explanation, but neither is your own.
Star Wars does contain fantasy, and it's a space opera, but it keeps the overtly fantastic elements contained fairly well in the Force, with the less overtly fantastic elements simply being cases of supertech. Treating the phenomena of the universe as parsimoniously and as close to reality as can be done makes the conclusions more objective, which I prefer and think is necessary to come to any actual answer in a debate like this.


I'm done with this one.
Very well. I hope you don't begrudge me making this response, then. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v162/Chibigami/Smilies/icon_smile.gif

Nerd-o-rama
2008-05-01, 12:31 AM
Well, again, it's a vs thread. If you don't care about them or think they're unsolvable, you're not really in the debate, so this shouldn't really matter, right? But if you are actually trying to argue a side, then (I think) you're trying to show that your side is right, and the best way to do that is for your arguments to be objective. I do realise that fiction is less objective or real than reality, but that's why I try for "as objective as possible".Sure, I think it's not possible to actually resolve a debate like this. But the back and forth can be fun. The result doesn't matter in the slightest, but that doesn't mean we can't kill time by thinking about it.

Anyway, my original point was that I don't hold with the numbers established by stardestroyer.net. I think they're not only biased in favor of Star Wars, but that you can't come up with "hard, scientific conclusions" based on special effects shots in the first place. A turbolaser blast takes out an asteroid because it looks cool, not as a scientific demonstration of its energy output.

If we want to take everything we see in each source as hard, scientific fact, I submit to you that Chrono Trigger's planet does not exist in the first place. A simple look at the world map and how the characters traverse it shows that it is, not spherical as you see in cutscenes, but rather a torus. Not only a torus, but one with equal interior and exterior diameters, meaning it has a volume of zero and, therefore, can be said not to exist in Euclidean space.

My point is, just because something shows up on-screen in one of our sources doesn't mean that it makes sense to use it as a basis of argument.

EDIT: Huh, skipped a page. Fortunately, that page was just two enormous walls of text so I didn't miss all that much data.

Oslecamo
2008-05-02, 07:51 AM
Wait, if all those huge numbers come from analyzing the movie scenes, then they're all fake.

Why? Because Star wars galaxy clearly has diferent rules of physics than our galaxy.

After all, there is sound in freacking space.

So if you see a rock being vaporized by a laser, then it may just be because there is a law that says that random asteroids actually have the same properties as paper, wich also explains why nobody bombards the enemy with meteors.

On the other hand, main characters exude a special deflective field wich makes them much harder to hit than regular soldiers.

And if you say it's all normal physicis, then I can say everybody at Chrono's trigger universe carries special devices wich make impossible for more than 8 beings engaging in a single battle, and when the battle starts nothing outside of it can affect it, so Lavos can destroy the entire space fleet of th SW universe by ganking them in little 8 groups while the really long range weapons are rendered completely useless.

If nothing else, I think it has been showed the SW guys are so retarded that when warned that Lavosis aproaching their planet the only thing they'll manage to do is run in circles clucking like chickens, and that is strecthing their intelegence quite a bit.

Infinity_Biscuit
2008-05-02, 09:28 AM
Wait, if all those huge numbers come from analyzing the movie scenes, then they're all fake.

Why? Because Star wars galaxy clearly has diferent rules of physics than our galaxy.

After all, there is sound in freacking space.
Unlike Star Trek or Wing Commander, said sound in space doesn't play any role in the series except to give the audience something to listen to. The books even go as far as to explain it, saying the sensors of ships actually relay information from outside the ship aurally.


So if you see a rock being vaporized by a laser, then it may just be because there is a law that says that random asteroids actually have the same properties as paper, wich also explains why nobody bombards the enemy with meteors.
Yes, because randomly making up nonsense with no evidence certainly is the sign of a rational mind.

Or we could decide to at least try to follow the rules of logic. I'd like to choose B, please.


On the other hand, main characters exude a special deflective field wich makes them much harder to hit than regular soldiers.
No, you have main characters who exude certain properties that ensure that enemy commanders order that they not be shot most of the time. On the Death Star and in Cloud City, the main characters were being deliberately herded so they could be used. On Endor, Leia got shot.

In the prequel trilogy, most of the main characters are trained Jedi. They do have magical powers.


And if you say it's all normal physicis, then I can say everybody at Chrono's trigger universe carries special devices wich make impossible for more than 8 beings engaging in a single battle, and when the battle starts nothing outside of it can affect it, so Lavos can destroy the entire space fleet of th SW universe by ganking them in little 8 groups while the really long range weapons are rendered completely useless.
Here we go again with the randomly making stuff up. Do you honestly think you have a case here?


If nothing else, I think it has been showed the SW guys are so retarded that when warned that Lavosis aproaching their planet the only thing they'll manage to do is run in circles clucking like chickens, and that is strecthing their intelegence quite a bit.
Have you ever actually seen the movies? Or is this just more of the same from the rest of the post where you simply make stuff up?

Ubiq
2008-05-02, 12:08 PM
I'm sorry; I'm unfamiliar with the scene and could not follow your description of it. I read what you said as "nobody fired the shots that could destroy the planet, despite being ordered to". I am apparently misunderstanding what you said, and I hope you'll correct my understanding rather than simply dropping the entire discussion because of it.

As it just so happens, I am familiar with the scene as it's from The Hutt Gambit.

First, the Base Delta Zero against Nar Shaddaa would have been performed by a handful of scrub cruisers and pickets that most certainly did not include Star Destroyers and was not the massive fleet Rutee insists is necessarily (contrary to numerous explicit statements that a single ISD can reduce a planet to a smoking ruin) to perform such a task. A full two-thirds of the fleet were custom ships that don't even have turbolasers, but have laser cannons for weapons.

Secondly, the BDZ task force was opposed by a mercenary/smuggler force that, while having fewer capital ships than the Imperial side, was comprised of far more smaller ships. The Imperial Fleet was deployed in such a way that their lighter ships came in first with the heavier ships behind, which was perfect for the Nar Shaddaa forces.

Third, the Admiral in charge of the task force was both paid off by the Hutts and ordered to fail by the Empire. The Emperor's goal of the operation was to create an excuse to remove the extremely incompetent, but extremely popular Moff Shild. The fact that the Hutts became much more congenial as a result of the battle was only a bonus.

The fact that they didn't get a single shot in on the moon isn't surprising in light of all that.