| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
vanir
Jedi
Joined: 11 May 2011
Posts: 793
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 3:16 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The US doctrinal change in performance requirements for fighter aircraft was used as an awry analogue for why Clone Wars era starships are faster or as fast as Rebel era starships with much bigger/more engines.
The thread turned about speed way back when an argument about space allocation for engines in floorplans started.
Someone posted that they'd used some engineering guidelines looking at what the relative performance of starships should be.
I mentioned I revised and cut back the Clone Wars era speeds in our game as it made sense to me. My background is computer flight modelling for some sims, so when it turned military comparisons/analogues I have a lot of research data.
Keep up man, I can't keep updating you people will get annoyed 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Wasn't there supposed to be something in this topic about the cargo capacity of a highly modified light freighter? All this techno-speak is all well and good, but no analogy we apply to the SWU is going to be 100% accurate, for a variety of different reasons. How does this debate on modern military history and aircraft design tie back into light freighter modification? |
Yeah it was. It got sidetracked after I mentioned how tyhe increase in the ship's size and mass would affect it's perfmance, and about how much bigger the engines would have to be to offset this.
THen it got turned into a debate about Clone Rebellion era, and people brought in some modern fighter jet examples. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | It's also possible that the people of the Empire are more like Romans than Americans, and not opposed to conquest plain and simple. |
For cultural and religious reasons the Romans characterized their conflicts as defensive (even when they were clearly offensive). This is in stark contrast to the openly naked aggression and expansion of the Periclean Athens.
Roman expansion in the Republic was driven by the desire for wealth (especially the great wealth of the eastern territories), slaves, military glory (which was a major foundation for political power), and to show up or outdo one's patrician peers. The connection between military success and political success created a feedback loop maintaining Roman militarism.
While one could presume that the Empire is openly expansionist, we don't seem to see that in the EU nor do we enough examples to see a close connection between military success and political power. (Though Vader and Tarkin could be seen as examples.) Rather, since power is centralized in the Emperor, power is gained by being close to the Emperor, not by military success. Additionally the Imperial military seems designed to maintain internal cohesion while defending against any minor external threats.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | atgxtg wrote: |
There are several problems with that analogy. For starters it was the Roman Republic that did most of the conquering. |
I'm not sure why that's a problem? | atgxtg wrote: | | More importantly, the Empire doesn't have anybody to conquer. It took over the Republic and so has control of practically everybody to begin with. The Empire needs a Carthage. |
Wildspace, the unknown regions, the extra-galactic star clusters, and potentially, other galaxies are all valid targets. |
From the standpoint of actually material wealth these regions seem insignificant when compared to the wealth of the core regions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atgxtg
Rear Admiral
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Posts: 2460
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: |
| atgxtg wrote: |
There are several problems with that analogy. For starters it was the Roman Republic that did most of the conquering. |
I'm not sure why that's a problem? |
For just the reasons you mentioned earlier in your post. The Roman Republic was aggressive and expansionist (okay, I've played too much Civ)-and that doesn't seem to match up with the character of the Republic in Star Wars. I don"t believe that the Republic in Star Wars wanted to subjugate thwe rest of the galaxy.
| Quote: |
From the standpoint of actually material wealth these regions seem insignificant when compared to the wealth of the core regions. |
Exactly, and they all come from the EU, so it's hard to try and justify the Empire's actions based upon stuff that Lucas never mentions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
