| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2014 6:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Judging by size, this looks to me like a light turbolaser. (3D-4D damage) It's not a battery of any kind, by itself. (A battery is a group of similar guns operating in concert.) If I had to hazard a guess, they would be parts of a turbolaser battery, which could have much higher total damage (7D, for example). |
Yeah, we've pretty much ruled out the notion that this turbolaser is a plausible part of the ISD's armament. 
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I don't know about you guys, but I'm willing to throw WEG-cannon stats right out the window. It's pretty clear to me that they were simply made-up, and didn't have anything to do with what was actually portrayed in the movies. The only truly obvious weapons systems on a Star Destroyer weren't even listed. (The 8 turrets bracketing the superstructure) |
That's quite true. At the same time, we're trying to build something that - in the first instance - is for/by gamers and the WEGD6 community. This is one of those places where we need to fudge things a little between the two.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I have a question, though. I thought we were working on the imperator-class Star Destroyer, from the Devastator model. Where is all this ISD-II armament discussion coming from? They differ greatly and visibly in armament. |
No, we're working from the Avenger model, which is the ISD-II version of the Imperator-class, as opposed to the Devastator, which is the ISD-I version of the Imperator-class. Does that make sense?
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I believe that in both the instances where we see the Devastator firing on the Tantive IV, and where we see ISD-IIs from Death Squadron firing on the Millennium Falcon, we are seeing the use of the smallest turbolasers available. They're easier to fire quickly and accurately to hit the Falcon with, and harder to accidentally destroy the Tantive IV with. These would likely be the artillery-piece-shaped canons pictured above with the three gunners seated upon it. Since they are interior-mounted we can assume they could fire from practically any window or opening, but it's not necessary to assume that they would be behind every such opening or window. They could, considering the length of many of these openings, have multiple and varied number of cannon emplaced behind any such port. I also think that these tiny guns are the ones we see in the movies, firing from no known gun port or emplacement. |
You're right that most of the lasers being fired are being fired at smaller targets.
The problem, as you pointed out earlier, is that WEG has made up some arbitrary stuff when it comes to the armament on the two different types of ships. If we were creating something that was solely based on the movies, we'd likely do things very differently than WEG did. Believe me, there are times when I'd like to toss the ImpSB in the trash and start over from whole cloth.
However, Mojomoe and I are working from the premise that we should try to be inclusive of different sources, including the sources that are the most central to the community who we are trying to make our audience.
Also, I kind of like how the ISD-I and the ISD-II have very different tactical roles, which make sense to me. The ISD-I was built at an earlier time, and has more smaller weaponry aimed at small-to-medium size starships, of the sort that were more prevalent in the immediate post-Clone War period. The ISD-II leaves anti-starfighter warfare to its TIE fighters, which is perfectly rational, given the anti-starfighter weapons the ones aboard the ISD-I weren't very good. The main weaponry, meanwhile, allowed for the ISD-II to take down much larger enemies.
Of course, there is even more room for heated debate about the ISD-I's armament WEG vs. model.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | Remember we also get a glimpse of a gunnery officer peering over a gun, and through an irregular hexagonal window, deciding not to blow up an escape pod full of Death Star plans. I think this reinforces the idea of smaller guns fitted behind ports, though the one in question was probably a point defense twin laser cannon, not a turbolaser. |
You're right, and I think that's a great argument against the WEG stats of the ISD-I's armament. However, we're not doing an ISD-I.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | It's also worthy of note that my brother has been creating 3D models of WWII battleships, and can tell you which kits were bashed to get a lot of the parts we see the ISD-II made from, and what parts they were. On the very bow, he identified 3 turret housings from a british King George V battleship (guns removed) 2 twin 5-inch US naval turrets, the guns from the british turrets, extracted and turned backward down the trench, and the entire superstructure of the U.S.S. Northampton. |
Cool - I also built some models when I was a kid, though this is clearly a lot more detailed than my experience.
How are your visual modeling skills. What you put together for the Theta was quite sophisticated.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | | I think it's safe to say that anything that looks like a gun was a gun, at least until it was taken from the original model and attached to a spaceship. More importantly, any instance of anything that looks vaguely like a gun or a window, can reasonably be called a gun if we need it to be. |
Unfortunately, aside from the big guns (that WEG ignored), they're the only things that look like guns. Okay, so there are the battleship turrets here or there, but the way they're glued onto the model essentially precludes them from being guns (IMO).
| Fallon Kell wrote: | --Now--
What can I do to help out at this point? |
I'm really glad you asked.
What Mojomoe and I have worked on up until this point is useful and it will (I hope, still) be integrated into what we're going to be working on next. However, we're in the process of thinking about how to align what we build, and in what software we're going to build it. Your contributions will probably depend on your skillset. Again, what I saw of your Theta shows that you're no slouch in this department. How good are you at vector graphics/Illustrator? This is a way in which we're considering moving forward, because it's probably the best software for the job, even if we are both (me more than him) facing a bit of a learning curve to make it work. It may be that the learning curve is too steep for the benefits, though.
Maybe you can be the deciding vote? If you want to go 'all in' with us, and you're good with vectors, then we will probably go vectors. However, if you're about as backwards as I am with vectors, then we'll probably stick with pixels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | No, we're working from the Avenger model, which is the ISD-II version of the Imperator-class, as opposed to the Devastator, which is the ISD-I version of the Imperator-class. Does that make sense? |
I was under the impression that there was an original Imperator-class, then two versions of the Imperial-class (I and II). To my knowledge, they were all three fairly similar, but no Imperator-I or Imperator-II ever existed.
If I'm correct about the class distinctions, the Devastator would be an Imperator-class, and the Avenger, an Imperial-II. Imperial-I ships have a superstructure more in keeping with an Imperial-II, but retain the Imperator's 6-and-2 arrangement of heavy turrets. | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | How good are you at vector graphics/Illustrator? This is a way in which we're considering moving forward, because it's probably the best software for the job, even if we are both (me more than him) facing a bit of a learning curve to make it work. It may be that the learning curve is too steep for the benefits, though.
Maybe you can be the deciding vote? If you want to go 'all in' with us, and you're good with vectors, then we will probably go vectors. However, if you're about as backwards as I am with vectors, then we'll probably stick with pixels. |
I'm a raster man. I don't have illustrator at all, but I'm not too bad with Google Sketchup. (But no, I don't want to try to assemble a comprehensive 3D deckplan of an ISD.)
And my 3D modeling skills are about this good.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Everything we've seen so far says that the class names are slightly blurry, but that there are a total of two classes:
Imperator or Imperial, later classified as Imperial-I after the introduction of the new class, and Imperial-II, which was never called anything else.
Basically it started being called interchangeably Imperator or Imperial in different sources, then it got re-classified and the term Imperator was dropped once it was clear there were two classes.
Conversely, Imperator and Imperial are still considered holistic names for the class that includes BOTH Imperial-I and Imperial-II, depending on who is writing.
No, it doesn't make any sense  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fallon Kell wrote: | I was under the impression that there was an original Imperator-class, then two versions of the Imperial-class (I and II). To my knowledge, they were all three fairly similar, but no Imperator-I or Imperator-II ever existed.
If I'm correct about the class distinctions, the Devastator would be an Imperator-class, and the Avenger, an Imperial-II. Imperial-I ships have a superstructure more in keeping with an Imperial-II, but retain the Imperator's 6-and-2 arrangement of heavy turrets. |
Hm, if my understanding is correct, Imperator is used by those who feel that Imperial refers too much to it's political affiliation, and they just think the Latin fits better, or is somewhat more correct. I don't have a firm preference either way. But if someone can point to evidence that I'm wrong, I'll happily change my tune on this.
| Fallon Kell wrote: | I'm a raster man. I don't have illustrator at all, but I'm not too bad with Google Sketchup. (But no, I don't want to try to assemble a comprehensive 3D deckplan of an ISD.)
And my 3D modeling skills are about this good. |
Hey, not bad.
When I get back to my computer (I'm on my phone now), I'll forward you an edited (for clarity) version of the discussion I'm having with Mojomoe. Briefly, though, we're debating the following:
- Our mode of collaboration
- Color codes
- Vectors vs. rasters
- Scale
- Format of finished product: one giant single image, or web-based site where you can click your way around the different portions of the ship. Both might be possible, but the question has scale implications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2014 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mojomoe wrote: | Everything we've seen so far says that the class names are slightly blurry, but that there are a total of two classes:
Imperator or Imperial, later classified as Imperial-I after the introduction of the new class, and Imperial-II, which was never called anything else.
Basically it started being called interchangeably Imperator or Imperial in different sources, then it got re-classified and the term Imperator was dropped once it was clear there were two classes.
Conversely, Imperator and Imperial are still considered holistic names for the class that includes BOTH Imperial-I and Imperial-II, depending on who is writing.
No, it doesn't make any sense |
Yeah, what he said. (While I was typing.)
EDIT: Note to self: refresh before replying.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wanted to post another update so everybody knows what our current progress is.
We're still assembling the last data on vector vs. raster. There are a lot of good arguments on either side, so we're proving our methods to make sure we have the most useable version of these deckplans possible once we're done.
Again, I should stress that most of this is organizational, owing largely to the sheer scale of this attempt. For any smaller-scale project, this would be a moot point, but considering the size of the ISD we're having to evaluate our methods cautiously, lest we run up against actual computational or performance limitations when trying to deck this thing out!
Fallon Kell, you mention you don't know vector - are you willing/able to pick it up? If you know raster and 2D, it's fairly easy.
Another option if you'd like to participate is to help out at the organizational level, figuring out where things go and then Mikael and I can do the heavy pixel-lifting (or vector-lifting, as it may turn out  ) What's your level of interest? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fallon Kell
Commodore
Joined: 07 Mar 2011
Posts: 1846
Location: Tacoma, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2014 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mojomoe wrote: | | Fallon Kell, you mention you don't know vector - are you willing/able to pick it up? If you know raster and 2D, it's fairly easy. |
I want to pick it up. Do you know of any free vector drawing applications that will run on an older mac mini and export to a format you guys can use?
| Mojomoe wrote: | | Another option if you'd like to participate is to help out at the organizational level, figuring out where things go and then Mikael and I can do the heavy pixel-lifting (or vector-lifting, as it may turn out ) What's your level of interest? |
If it were any other kind of organizing, I'd warn you away right now, but I've given some thought to starship design and the layout of Star Destroyers, so I think I could be of some use there, too.
_________________
Or that excessively long "Noooooooooo" was the Whining Side of the Force leaving him. - Dustflier
Complete Starship Construction System |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
By the way, I've purchased Starships of the Galaxy, 1st ed. from the Saga Edition. It does have a schematic of the ISD, which I felt should be entered into the record.
(click thumbnail to see large version)
It has some things that we haven't seen before. Some things, like the Flight Control and the AT-AT/AT-ST storage are ... interesting.
It should be said that the drawing is of an ISD-II, while the listed weaponry is of an ISD-I. So, it's not the most well-researched schematic. Still, I think we should respect what we can. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2014 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh! That's a great resource! I'm glad you snagged it.
I agree, let's salvage as much as we can. What from this works with previous research material, and what clashes? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mojomoe wrote: | Oh! That's a great resource! I'm glad you snagged it.
I agree, let's salvage as much as we can. What from this works with previous research material, and what clashes? |
For me the hard one is the Walker storage, given how that clashes a bit with the cross-sections book a little. However, it's (IMV) clearly derived from the Technical Journal, which you'll recall me having posted on pg. 5 of this thread. However, while hard, I'm starting to think about this a bit differently. I think we can try to make it work.
Also, Flight Control being nearer to the dorsal side than inside the hangar is a little different. Maybe we can square this with the idea that Flight Control for the hangar (launches, landings, and internal movement) is in the hangar, but for outside is on the dorsal side. Still, I've got so much real estate to figure out inside that hangar Flight Control, that I don't want to rob from it.
For the rest, I think we can work with it, provided we're a little creative. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Flight Control listed might be for the ISD herself and not Flight Operations for her craft.
As to the AT storage, there was that comic that showed the walkers being moved by crane to a loading area. I believe it was referenced for the folding leg discussion. So there is that option. Or it could be decided to use the grab plate and lift setup to storage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 809
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ral_Brelt wrote: | | The Flight Control listed might be for the ISD herself and not Flight Operations for her craft. |
Hi Ral,
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Are you talking about helm control away from the bridge?
| Ral_Brelt wrote: | | As to the AT storage, there was that comic that showed the walkers being moved by crane to a loading area. I believe it was referenced for the folding leg discussion. So there is that option. Or it could be decided to use the grab plate and lift setup to storage. |
Yes, I recall that one. I'm afraid I've basically dismissed it as being part of the sketchiness of comics (as in being loose with the plausibility of it's details). Yet, if you've got a good idea of how it's going to fit and work, then I'm happy to entertain it. I'll also try to think of ways to incorporate all of these things in a coherent and logical way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Correct on helm away from bridge. As I recall, the areas on either side of the walkway are dubbed the 'Command Pit'. I imagine that a 1600m long craft has more than one guy at the stick. I'd also think that being more forward would be better than at almost the entire aft of this ship. I imagine that a forward crew would 'drive' the ship based on the command pit's directives.
As to the at storage area and crane system...my preference would be grav plate trails that the walkers and other deep storage craft would be moved along to the vaults if you will. I'd imagine this could either use the central spine corridor that material is transported along, or part of that turbolift spine that was talked about previously. If those don't work, it could parallel the spine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dark Empire mentions internal lifts used to move small craft around inside the ISD. Lift platforms could also shift laterally on rails.
There are also tractor pods shown in the Death Star Technical Companion, moving a Floating Fortress and a Juggernaut around in deep storage. That may be a more versatile option than a crane or platform network.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ral_Brelt
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 05 May 2013
Posts: 221
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2014 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Was the Falcon mag-locked to the platform it was on while headed to deep storage? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
