These are collected thoughts, assumptions, and musings based in great deal on spending too much time reading old posts from the
giant nerds fine people on stardestroyer.net and FractalSponge's discord. Full disclaimer, I haven't seen much of any of the cartoons, in part because the comic-book-esque plot armor is so strong. I'm also a prequel and sequel hater.
- Turbolasers are used because they are EFFECTIVE. They represent the most efficient manner of harnessing energy and using it in a destructive manner.
- Shields can be partially penetrated by turbolasers. (ANH) These ‘glancing’ hits can disable equipment, vaporize armor, and do general ‘surface-layer’ damage but are unlikely to be a penetrating ‘critical’ hit.
- The above is why armor exists. Relatively unarmored ships (like MCC’s) are at higher risk of taking serious damage. But the mass trade off means they have more energy and internal space for stronger shields and weapons.
- Lightweight Fighters are used because they are EFFECTIVE, as evidenced by the Droid Army, Grand Army of the Republic, and the Galactic Empire. ‘Quantity has a Quality all its own’ can be part of that reason, of course.
- Tractor Beams are an oft-forgotten aspect of battle. Limiting a targets ability to maneuver is HUGE given literally astronomical ranges. Old EU stuff regularly notes how this was a regular tactic for Star Destroyers.
- Missiles are a short-ranged weapon. Advances in fire control and the sheer destructive power of turbolasers means that point defense is generally effective at range. Missiles are valued because they ignore Ray Shields and can’t miss, and provide a higher power output-per-shot than most TL’s. The Victory-class Cruiser, with its extensive missile battery, limited hanger, and poor engines, was designed to fight a close-range battle with limited maneuvering. Conversely the classic ISD is a much more all-rounder ship.
- Given that the science nerds at stardestroyer have calculated the average acceleration of SW ships to be in the order of 100s or 1000s of G, Particle Shields are either up all the time or there is a tertiary shielding system ALL ships have that wards of basic debris and etc.
- I’d lean towards the former, because it gives Turbolasers even more preference. Whereas missiles and kinetics can always be deflected or mitigated by shields that don’t affect communication abilities, turbolasers must be specifically defended against.
- This also allows to correct for the alarming inconsistencies with ion cannons. It grants that during the Battle of Hoth, the ISD’s had their particle shields up, but no Ray Shields, since there was no Rebel Fleet present and thus allowing for better communication. The rebels exploited this via the big planetary Ion Cannon. Shield Penetration is also a factor here ofc.
- This also means its worth noting that Star Destroyers are pretty fast ships for being mile long juggernauts. Also it probably wouldn't be too hard to convert the current speed/maneuverability system to one that reflects MGLT, though it's also probably not even remotely worth it. I do kinda still miss linear Spd/Man.
- The old EU gives some lip-service to the idea that raising shields came with a trade-off, namely that if something can block the hi-intensity energy of a blaster bolt it does the same to other forms of energy. Tl;dr it fucks with comms, and one of the given reasons for the endurance of the Rebellion in battles against Imperial forces was their rigid adherence to doctrine and lack of capability to make complex decisions in a battle on the fly, something the Rebels were much better at. There’s a lot of logic to that, and it adds a whole element of strategy to things.
- Plot armor is bullshit. But Americans do love their comic-book logic in fiction.
- Video Games, and the West End RPG should probably not be factored into stuff. The latter can be a decent reference tool but the former all sacrifice anything and everything for mechanics purposes. Galen Marek has ruined force-users forever.