Death Star Possible Upgrade

[ByAsura]

The planets was, for all intents and purposes, depopulated.

That proves absolutely nothing. Not explaining exactly why it was repaired doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, again, I never said the entire crust was gone, so my argument isn't destroyed, especially since you ignore the other links here.

When did Mon Cala have no population? Was this before or after it was bombarded. You can, but it doesn't matter, they still destroyed large swathes of the planet. Like I said, I had no idea what these orbital cannons are, but their existence doesn't just magically wave away this feat.

The Death Star was first created in 1977 when Star Wars had no lore, so it's entirely possible that it wasn't established or even on Lucas' mind. Also, it doesn't because there's planetary shields capable of blocking hits from Star Destroyers, and they don't just instantly destroy a planet's surface, it actually takes time. Destroying a planet is a very efficient method to crush resistance entirely. This single ignition created an enormous explosio and left a city pulverized in orbit, where the planet's curvature is extremely visable.

Canon is not for you to pick and choose.

 

[Idazmi]

The planets was, for all intents and purposes, depopulated.

No, it was not, as the canon shows.

That proves absolutely nothing. Not explaining exactly why it was repaired doesn't mean it didn't happen. Also, again, I never said the entire crust was gone, so my argument isn't destroyed, especially since you ignore the other links here.

I remind you that your entire premise is that Mon Calamarian ships (Rebel Cruisers) can "destroy a planet's surface in minutes". Your evidence is the bombardment of Mon Cala, which you say proves that Rebel Cruisers can destroy the unshielded Death Star 1. And you are wrong:

1. The bombardment is literally impossible without using weapons that do not canonically exist: the "orbital cannons" - which are firing directly from the fighter hangars - simply don't exist anywhere in lore. The official Star Destroyer blueprints show no such weapons, and they aren't used in the main series films, ever.

2. The bombardment of Mon Cala is only shown to affect an area on the planet: not the entire surface of planet. That indicates a yield far below what you'd need to destroy an artificial moon, let alone an armored artificial moon.

3. Mon Calamarians and their ships are shown surviving the bombardment area despite these non-canonical "orbital cannons" being used in the attack, indicating agai far less than the energy needed to destroy an artificial moon.

4. Mon Cala is still an inhabitable and inhabited planet, as shown by the fact that the Rebels used it as a base, and by the Empire's twice referenced desire to blow up the planet after the bombardment of Mon Cala.

5. You have no evidence that any planet can be rebuilt after an attack that blows away any substantial part of the crust: not that that matters, since the above problems are more than enough to tank your argument on their own.

Your argument here is utterly baseless.

When did Mon Cala have no population? Was this before or after it was bombarded. You can, but it doesn't matter, they still destroyed large swathes of the planet. Like I said, I had no idea what these orbital cannons are, but their existence doesn't just magically wave away this feat.

Why not? They were magically waved into existence to perform this feat!

The Death Star was first created in 1977 when Star Wars had no lore, so it's entirely possible that it wasn't established or even on Lucas' mind. Also, it doesn't because there's planetary shields capable of blocking hits from Star Destroyers, and they don't just instantly destroy a planet's surface, it actually takes time. Destroying a planet is a very efficient method to crush resistance entirely.

There is literally no point in Star Wars 1 - 8, Rogue One, or Solo where it's even implied that Star Destroyers can destroy the entire surface of a planet. The fact that Vader didn't melt Tatooine, along with Han Solo's canonical statement that the entire Imperial Fleet can't destroy a planet, is proof positive tat Lucas never intended Star Destroyers to be capable of such a thing. This is corroborated by every demonstration of their firepower in the film series, which I posted above as a compilation video.

This single ignition created an enormous explosio and left a city pulverized in orbit, where the planet's curvature is extremely visable.

Yes: those are Death Star feats, not a Star Destroyer's. The Star Destroyer that's shown in that very scene makes you look positively silly: why not have the Star Destroyer blast the planet instead of the Death Star? After all, the comic says it should be able to!

Canon is not for you to pick and choose.

I'm not going to turn off my rational mind in order to accept blatantly contradicting (and self contradicting!) spinoff media as canon just because the truth makes you uncomfortable.

 

[ByAsura]

It was, as the canonical comic shows. I didn't say just destroying Mon Cala proves my point, I gave a whole selection of canon feats that prove my point, such as a guy actually seeing Star Destroyers bombard continents and "ruin[ing] planets", the Liberation of Kashyyyk and Resurgent-Class Star Destroyers. Here's another where Grievous' ship has ion cannons with heat equal to a 4.8 megaton bomb, turbolasers with the power of a magnitude 10 earthquake, and melted the crust of a planet in an hour. And here's some quotes that say they've destroyed cities (credit to Soldier Blue)

• A fleet of Star Destroyers? Namir had seen the massive ships before - great, wedge-shaped dreadnoughts that dwarfed the Thunderstrike - but never more than one at a time. He'd witnessed a single Star Destroyer bombard a city into a crater of steaming sludge; seen skyscrapers melt and stone burn. One Star Destroyer had been reason enough for Twilight to abandon a planet.
• She didn't have names for what these weapons were, blaster bolts so big they could rain down from space, but she must've known instantly what they would do. The first bolt slammed into the Scyre, and she watched the colors change, the black cliffs disappearing into the sea and great white plumes shooting up. The next bolt hit Arratu, leaving a black smudge across the gray sand where vibrant green had once been.

1. It's possible that Orbital Cannon is a catch-all term for a cannon capable of hitting planets from orbit. But that's conjecture, so I won't argue that. Them being written in randomly doesn't mean only those weapons can do it, after all the author could have used any weapon to the same effect.

2/3. The Mon Calans had time to escape because the planet's curve worked to their advantage, and it takes time to bombard a planet of life, allowing a lot of the inhabitants to escape, even though billions still died.

4/5. Mon Cala is mainly an ocean planet and they didn't vaporize the ocean, so it's entirely possible that they could build rebel bases underwater. These are people who can build fleets of starships, it seems reasonable that they could create a base given a reasonable amount of time.

I was saying they don't destroy Tatooine in a New Hope because it likely wasn't established that Star Destroyers were capable of such a feat back then. That's all. Also, you ignored my entire point about planetary shields. For the last time, Star Wars isn't just films, and we still have the Mandators creating explosions large enough to be seen from space, which actually support my point more than contradict it. Han's comment, stated in a moment of disbelief, is later contradicted by the far more reliable Dodonna stating in a briefing that the Death Star's power only surpasses half the Rebel Fleet.

• Dodonna: The battle station is heavily shielded and carries a firepower greater than half the star fleet. It's defenses are designed around a direct large- scale assault. A small one-man fighter should be able to penetrate the outer defense.

4. The Death Star's Single Reactor Ignition and the Mandator IV's demonstration in the main films give every reason to believe that their demonstrations are beyond the capabilities of a typical Star Destroyer.

You took that whole point out of context, which makes you look even more silly. The quote above is what I was referring to. Wouldn't it be far better to have a weapons test of their newly built superweapon than just use an old ship? Also, not really, this was done by 3 Star Destroyers that weren't using just a single reactor ignition.

 

[Idazmi]

It was, as the canonical comic shows. I didn't say just destroying Mon Cala proves my point, I gave a whole selection of canon feats that prove my point, such as a guy actually seeing Star Destroyers bombard continents and "ruin[ing] planets", the Liberation of Kashyyyk and Resurgent-Class Star Destroyers. Here's another where Grievous' ship has ion cannons with heat equal to a 4.8 megaton bomb, turbolasers with the power of a magnitude 10 earthquake, and melted the crust of a planet in an hour.

Ah, yes, the Incredible Cross Sections books. The ones that put "200 gigaton" turbolasers on the Acclamator Class when they don't exist:


Supposed 200 gigaton guns on Acclamator Class


The "canon" emplacement locations


Where are the guns???

Just like the "orbital cannons" that are somehow fired from the ISD's fighter bays, these "invisible" turbolasers are conveniently far stronger than any other weapons on the ship.

And here's some quotes that say they've destroyed cities (credit to Soldier Blue)

Thrawn Orders An Orbital Bombardment On Chopper Base - Star Wars Rebels Zero Hour

Bombardment of Chopper Base

That's actually canon, by the way. Just wanted to let you know.

1. It's possible that Orbital Cannon is a catch-all term for a cannon capable of hitting planets from orbit. But that's conjecture, so I won't argue that. Them being written in randomly doesn't mean only those weapons can do it, after all the author could have used any weapon to the same effect.

Because He's holding a Thermal Detonator!!

Like say, a single thermal detonator? After all, Jabba respects it's power, and he wasn't threatened by a Jedi knight! We all know that the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant to the Force, so it must be capable of destroying the whole planet at least!

2/3. The Mon Calans had time to escape because the planet's curve worked to their advantage, and it takes time to bombard a planet of life, allowing a lot of the inhabitants to escape, even though billions still died.

Yes, you posted that already. The damage shown there still isn't even within a magnitude of what's needed to support your argument.

4/5. Mon Cala is mainly an ocean planet and they didn't vaporize the ocean, so it's entirely possible that they could build rebel bases underwater. These are people who can build fleets of starships, it seems reasonable that they could create a base given a reasonable amount of time.

I didn't say that they couldn't build fleets or bases. I said: "Mon Cala is still an inhabitable and inhabited planet, as shown by the fact that the Rebels used it as a base, and by the Empire's twice referenced desire to blow up the planet after the bombardment of Mon Cala."

I was saying they don't destroy Tatooine in a New Hope because it likely wasn't established that Star Destroyers were capable of such a feat back then. That's all. Also, you ignored my entire point about planetary shields. For the last time, Star Wars isn't just films, and we still have the Mandators creating explosions large enough to be seen from space, which actually support my point more than contradict it. Han's comment, stated in a moment of disbelief, is later contradicted by the far more reliable Dodonna stating in a briefing that the Death Star's power only surpasses half the Rebel Fleet.

He's referring to the Imperial Fleet in that scene. Also no, the Mandator IV contradicts your argument because it needed a gun as big as an entire ISD to do the damage that you say an ISD can do alone.

You took that whole point out of context, which makes you look even more silly. The quote above is what I was referring to. Wouldn't it be far better to have a weapons test of their newly built superweapon than just use an old ship? Also, not really, this was done by 3 Star Destroyers that weren't using just a single reactor ignition.

You are trying to compare an ordinary ISD's reactor (which, by the way, it has only one of) to the Death Star's multiple Khyber crystal powered reactors and Superlaser. Just so you know how far your argument has fallen. At this point, further debate is just a courtesy: you tried to defend a silly premise and failed.

 

[ByAsura]

Is that just one random error, or are those books riddled with mistakes? Genuine question here. I'll try to avoid using it in the future if its so contradictory.

Thank you.

Yeah, but guess what? Star Destroyers actually have supporting feats for this kind of thing to work.

I've already adressed that (I've removed the ICS stuff)

I didn't say just destroying Mon Cala proves my point, I gave a whole selection of canon feats that prove my point, such as a guy actually seeing Star Destroyers bombard continents and "ruin[ing] planets", the Liberation of Kashyyyk and Resurgent-Class Star Destroyers. Here's some quotes that say they've destroyed cities (credit to Soldier Blue)

• A fleet of Star Destroyers? Namir had seen the massive ships before - great, wedge-shaped dreadnoughts that dwarfed the Thunderstrike - but never more than one at a time. He'd witnessed a single Star Destroyer bombard a city into a crater of steaming sludge; seen skyscrapers melt and stone burn. One Star Destroyer had been reason enough for Twilight to abandon a planet.
• She didn't have names for what these weapons were, blaster bolts so big they could rain down from space, but she must've known instantly what they would do. The first bolt slammed into the Scyre, and she watched the colors change, the black cliffs disappearing into the sea and great white plumes shooting up. The next bolt hit Arratu, leaving a black smudge across the gray sand where vibrant green had once been.

My entire point was that it could have been reinhabited by the Rebels or Mon Calans, who could've build bases.

Han just says the Starfleet (a term later brought up for the Rebel fleet), and that it would take a thousand ships with more firepower than he'd every seen. Also, if anything the Rebels having this kind of firepower proves my point. Wrong, it's what three ISDs took to do with an orbital bombardment.

I'm not, my original point was that the Death Star's reactor ignition is incredibly powerful, and you shouldn't be comparing that and the Star Destroyers feat. Do you know how much power it takes to launch a city, even most of one, into space? No, nothing has failed here, as you've haven't even adressed my other feats aside from the Mon Cala and city destruction one.

 

[Idazmi]

Is that just one random error, or are those books riddled with mistakes? Genuine question here. I'll try to avoid using it in the future if its so contradictory.

They are utterly riddled with "mistakes", such as the Slave One's smallest blasters having a one kiloton yield (one-fifteenth of Hiroshima). If that were true, Jango's backpack rocket would be a WMD because it fired just before the blasters did and had the exact same effect - it just tossed Obi-Wan around a bit from point-blank. A one kiloton blast from that range would have vaporized Obi-Wan and Jango Fett, and tossed the Slave One a mile out into to sea. It also claims that the heavier blasters have a 2 kiloton yield, even though they barely scratched Obi-Wan's unshielded fighter. That droid is literally inches away and survived without a scratch.

Thank you. Yeah, but guess what? Star Destroyers actually have supporting feats for this kind of thing to work. (...)

No, they don't: they have errant claims from secondary media that are simply not in line with the film canon. That was the point of showing you the Chopper Base bombardment. Those were the heavy turbolasers, and they didn't do a fractio of what you claim they can do, or what those books you posted claim. You ignored that bombardment (barely acknowledging it with a little "thank you") because it puts a giant hole in your argument.

My entire point was that it could have been reinhabited by the Rebels or Mon Calans, who could've build bases.

Only if there was enough planet intact to do so, thus tanking your argument.

Han just says the Starfleet (a term later brought up for the Rebel fleet), and that it would take a thousand ships with more firepower than he'd every seen. Also, if anything the Rebels having this kind of firepower proves my point. Wrong, it's what three ISDs took to do with an orbital bombardment.

No, it took three non-canon made-up-on-the-spot-and-instantly-forgotten aircraft hangar guns: they are never referenced elsewhere, never seen again, and do not line up with the canon.

I'm not, my original point was that the Death Star's reactor ignition is incredibly powerful, and you shouldn't be comparing that and the Star Destroyers feat. Do you know how much power it takes to launch a city, even most of one, into space?

Apparently, Star Destroyers are already Death Stars. Who knew?


Rogue One A Star Wars Story - Jedha City Destruction

Death Star destroys Jehda

Why shouldn't I compare them? They're literally the same feat! They are at the same scale: the same level of destruction. So, why is the Death Star's attack on Jedha so amazing? So awe-inspiring? We saw three ISD's "orbital cannons" do the same thing in the comic!

Because the comic exaggerated itself beyond lore. There are no guns as powerful as the Death Star's single reactor ignition, in the fighter hangar of an ISD. They do not exist.

No, nothing has failed here, as you've haven't even adressed my other feats aside from the Mon Cala and city destruction one.

I don't need to address things that don't line up with canon when discussing a canon topic. If you want to do that, we can talk about different key-dividers for canon and non-canon.

 

[ByAsura]

I'll respond on Sunday (in my time of course) because I'm pretty busy, also I plan to watch the Star Wars films.

I didn't watch the bombardment video because I don't have a lot of time in the morning.

 

[TheMerchant66]

The death star single ignition blast was expanded upon in the comics where it blasted apart a chunk of the planet itself after Luke visits the planet years later. The blast we saw in the movie was but the mere beginnings we never saw the aftermath until in the comics aka Jedha.

 

[Idazmi]

The death star single ignition blast was expanded upon in the comics where it blasted apart a chunk of the planet itself after Luke visits the planet years later. The blast we saw in the movie was but the mere beginnings we never saw the aftermath until in the comics aka Jedha.

Yeah, just like the Starkiller created a giant storm that's visible from thousands of lightyears away but is never once seen in the film where the weapon is actually fired. You've just confirmed that the writers of the comics aren't following lore: they're abusing their position as "official" writers to inflate canon firepower to levels far beyond the actual canon demonstrations. That's a very good reason to disregard them as a source for calcs: they're little more than licensed fan-fictions. Just like giving the Dragonball fandom control of the actual lore.

 

[ByAsura]

Alright, I won't use the Incredible Cross Sections books. Looking into it, the books do seem less and less credible, such as the Supremacy rivaling the Death Stars and Starkiller Base.

First of all, I did not ignore the Chopper Base bombardment because it puts a hole in my arguments, I just said thank you because I didn't watch the video when I wrote that comment. I had very little time and thought you were just giving the scene for context. Second of all, neither of those characters were actually referring to the Chopper Base bombardment (I didn't know that at first, by the way), and it didn't even destroy the city. Although, I'm unsure if you were being sarcastic. Lastly, those are Star Destroyers creating absolutely tiny explosions barely larger than a human with these heavy turbolasers. This clip is just as contradictory as you make my points out to be.

The reactor ignition flung a pulverized city, and probably a lot of the continent, into space, a feat which far surpasses the yield of all three Star Destroyers. According to a calc done by Soldier Blue, the Star Destroyer's explosion was 113 km, whereas the tiniest part of one on Jedha (a moon with a diameter of 11,263 km) is 189.881987578 km. So not even those three Star Destroyers were comparable to the smallest portion in size, not even yield, and the explosion actually continues to spread even further.

In this shot (slow to 1/4th speed), there's a bunch of blasts that come from the Star Destroyer's reactor and secondary launch bay or its adjacent underside, so it's not like canon is infallible. This is the design of the Soverig, Moff's ship, compared with a regular Imperial Class I Star Destroyer. The differences are quite noticeable. And here, these "hangars" and the dimensions of the Star Destroyer do not fit at all with any Star Destroyer shown in canon. It's clearly an artistic choice done because the illustrator (not the writer) is too lazy, and orbital cannon is probably a catch-all term for a weapon that fires from orbit. Although, this also puts the whole feat into question because the explosion's scale now leans towards your opinion that it's just an art mistake. So I'll drop this whole entire point about Mon Cala.

I said I'd watch the films and tv shows for some feats, but the audio on my computer has been acting up. I'll try and get this done by Sunday-ish.

 

[Idazmi]

Alright, I won't use the Incredible Cross Sections books. Looking into it, the books do seem less and less credible, such as the Supremacy rivaling the Death Stars and Starkiller Base.

You'll find that sort of exaggeration distressingly common throughout nearly the entirety of Star Wars' secondary media.

First of all, I did not ignore the Chopper Base bombardment because it puts a hole in my arguments, I just said thank you because I didn't watch the video when I wrote that comment. I had very little time and thought you were just giving the scene for context. Second of all, neither of those characters were actually referring to the Chopper Base bombardment (I didn't know that at first, by the way), and it didn't even destroy the city. Although, I'm unsure if you were being sarcastic. Lastly, those are Star Destroyers creating absolutely tiny explosions barely larger than a human with these heavy turbolasers. This clip is just as contradictory as you make my points out to be.

No it's not: look at the sheer distance between the ISD's and Chopper Base. It's known that turbolasers lose power as they travel, and even at maximum power and close range they rarely put more than a 30 foot hole in their targets. Expecting the Empire to level a continent with such weapons is just out of scale with their demonstrated power. Chopper Base fits: the comics don't.

The reactor ignition flung a pulverized city, and probably a lot of the continent, into space, a feat which far surpasses the yield of all three Star Destroyers. According to a calc done by Soldier Blue, the Star Destroyer's explosion was 113 km, whereas the tiniest part of one on Jedha (a moon with a diameter of 11,263 km) is 189.881987578 km. So not even those three Star Destroyers were comparable to the smallest portion in size, not even yield, and the explosion actually continues to spread even further.

We don't see the fullest extent of the ISD's blast in the comic, either. 113 km vs 190 km is not enough of a difference to justify the comic: you're telling me that a khyber crystal powered laser cannon multiple times the size of the Supremacy doesn't even do twice the damage of an ISD's single shot. There needs to be a difference at least a few hundreds of times beyond that for the scene in Rogue One to make any sense.

In this shot (slow to 1/4th speed), there's a bunch of blasts that come from the Star Destroyer's reactor and secondary launch bay or its adjacent underside, so it's not like canon is infallible. This is the design of the Soverig, Moff's ship, compared with a regular Imperial Class I Star Destroyer. The differences are quite noticeable. And here, these "hangars" and the dimensions of the Star Destroyer do not fit at all with any Star Destroyer shown in canon. It's clearly an artistic choice done because the illustrator (not the writer) is too lazy, and orbital cannon is probably a catch-all term for a weapon that fires from orbit. Although, this also puts the whole feat into question because the explosion's scale now leans towards your opinion that it's just an art mistake. So I'll drop this whole entire point about Mon Cala.

Exactly. The Sovereign, by the way, is a regular Star Destroyer. That's how off-model the art in these comics can get. Add that to the blatant exaggerations and you get a complete mess.

I said I'd watch the films and tv shows for some feats, but the audio on my computer has been acting up. I'll try and get this done by Sunday-ish.

You could also just look at the compilation video I posted before: it's literally every single scene where an ISD is ever seen in the entirety of the Star Wars films until The Last Jedi. As a Star Wars fan who has seen every film in theaters (and one of them twice) and owns a copy of every film in the series (including Rogue One and Solo) and can even quote the films without a reference, I can tell you outright that there's not one Star Destroyer that performs a planetary bombardment or continent-obliterating feat in any of the movies. Don't take my word for it: watch the films yourself and see what you can find.

 

[ByAsura]

Secondary media may not be consistent with films, but you've got to admit there is a large influx of feats that say Star Destroyers are capable of this throughout all of it.

When were turbolaser blasts ever implied to be weaker in atmospheres? Like before this is a genuine question. This feat would make it weaker than many of the blasters and basic bombs within Star Wars, which is completely non-sensical and contradictory in all forms of Star Wars media. It'd also make these Star Destroyers trillions of times weaker than the First Order's Mandator VIs, even just assuming that their blasts were 20 km.

It probably was, and you'd need to give some sort of evidence to prove it isn't. It seems you didn't listen: this is the tiniest part of the blast. Look here at the thinnest part of the base and compare it with the thickest. It's barely even half the size, and explosions aren't even linear, making the power output exponentially higher. Also, you keep forgetting that there's 3 Star Destroyers.

There's not just Star Destroyers to scale, and the TV series probably has a lot of feats.

 

[Idazmi]

Secondary media may not be consistent with films, but you've got to admit there is a large influx of feats that say Star Destroyers are capable of this throughout all of it.

Star Destroyer Supercut

All Star Destroyer scenes from the Star Wars movies.

There aren't.

When were turbolaser blasts ever implied to be weaker in atmospheres? Like before this is a genuine question. This feat would make it weaker than many of the blasters and basic bombs within Star Wars, which is completely non-sensical and contradictory in all forms of Star Wars media. It'd also make these Star Destroyers trillions of times weaker than the First Order's Mandator VIs, even just assuming that their blasts were 20 km.

And again, you seek an explanation for a statement I did not make. I said "It's known that turbolasers lose power as they travel, and even at maximum power and close range they rarely put more than a 30 foot hole in their targets." Not a word about atmosphere. Are you doing this on purpose or by accident? At this point it looks intentional.

It probably was, and you'd need to give some sort of evidence to prove it isn't.

Evidence does not work that way. It's up to you to prove that it does, not to me to prove that it doesn't.

It seems you didn't listen: this is the tiniest part of the blast. Look here at the thinnest part of the base and compare it with the thickest. It's barely even half the size, and explosions aren't even linear, making the power output exponentially higher. Also, you keep forgetting that there's 3 Star Destroyers.

1. I'm not forgetting the number of Star Destroyers when I personally posted an image of them firing. The feat is still millions of times out of scale.

2. The comic page only shows a freeze-frame of the literal first seconds of the bombardment: stop using the free movement of film as an argument point.

There's not just Star Destroyers to scale, and the TV series probably has a lot of feats.

The TV series is where the Chopper Base bombardment comes from.


Clone Wars Space Battles

Compilation of Space Battles from The Clone Wars


Rebels Space Battles Season 1 - 4

Compilation of Space Battles from Star Wars Rebels

You won't find what you are looking for, in any ship in any of the films or shows. Feel free to look, but I'm warning you ahead of time: Star Wars' canon firepower is exactly like I said: turbolasers lose power as they travel, and even at maximum power and close range they rarely put more than a 30 foot hole in their targets. Expecting the Empire to level a continent with such weapons is just out of scale with their consistently demonstrated power.

 

[ByAsura]

I was talking about secondary canon only.

I meant as they travel, don't know why I wrote atmosphere, but can you please stop acusing me of intentionally taking things out of context, making a few mistakes doesn't mean I'm outright lying. I know this is kind of hippocritical of me, so I'll also avoid doing the same. Anyway, the point still stands.

Evidence does work that way. You're the one who's making the claim that it hasn't spread out that far. The comic showing the first few seconds of bombardment doesn't automatically mean its at its smallest, and either way its still far smaller. Hence why I dropped this argument in the first place.

There's scaling, like I said. I've heard of ships that have busted massive asteroids, although this might be the comics.

 

[Idazmi]

I was talking about secondary canon only.

You just admitted that key-dividers are needed. One key for the films (canon) and another for secondary media (non-canon).

I meant as they travel, don't know why I wrote atmosphere, but can you please stop acusing me of intentionally taking things out of context, making a few mistakes doesn't mean I'm outright lying. I know this is kind of hippocritical of me, so I'll also avoid doing the same. Anyway, the point still stands.

No, it doesn't, because your question had to do with atmosphere, which was not mentioned. Stop trying to pull the wool over my eyes: it won't work.

Evidence does work that way. You're the one who's making the claim that it hasn't spread out that far.

I didn't say that either: I almost said the opposite.

The comic showing the first few seconds of bombardment doesn't automatically mean its at its smallest, and either way its still far smaller. Hence why I dropped this argument in the first place.

Because you cannot prove that it's far smaller, which is what's demanded of your argument.

There's scaling, like I said. I've heard of ships that have busted massive asteroids, although this might be the comics.

Kid, I just uploaded three compilation videos of Star Wars combat that you can look through yourself. You don't need to go and rent a bunch of Star Wars films for evidence: the evidence is literally right here. I can guarantee that those videos were made by Star Wars fans, and were thus not cherry-picked to create the illusion of low-power Star Destroyers. I can guarantee that I'm a Star Wars fan myself, from a family of Star Wars fans, and thus have no vested interest in making any false statements about the franchise. And I can absolutely guarantee that you won't find any evidence supporting your position in the canon media: 8-A is the high average for turbolasers in direct-from-Lucasfilm Star Wars media, and that's being generous. You'd be lucky to get as high as 7-C from any feat that didn't involve an exotic, one-use weapon.

 

[ByAsura]

No I didn't.

I'm not pulling "the wool over your eyes". This was my entire question "When were turbolaser blasts ever implied to be weaker in atmospheres? Like before this is a genuine question." It makes no difference if I were to say "When were turbolaser blasts ever implied to lose energy when traveling?" Stop manufacturing these false arguments to make me look bad.

Can you be more specific about which part you're referring to? And you absolutely cannot prove its larger. It'd be up to you to prove that. Assuming it's the same size is the default assumption here.

I'm not offended, but you have absolutely no idea how old I am, so don't call me kid. I don't care, I'm still going to look for evidence. Also, those videos are a tiny fraction of what's in Star Wars.

I did a calc on the Mandator bombardment. I calculated that it would take around 150,000 - 440,000 of those blasts to fully cover a planet's surface. Even assuming it has that many, it'd take days (assuming 2 blasts per second) for a full bombardment. So I admit I'm wrong here, albeit the results I gave were somewhat high-balled, so it might take less.

 

[Idazmi]

I'm not pulling "the wool over your eyes". This was my entire question "When were turbolaser blasts ever implied to be weaker in atmospheres? Like before this is a genuine question." It makes no difference if I were to say "When were turbolaser blasts ever implied to lose energy when traveling?" Stop manufacturing these false arguments to make me look bad.

It makes a very big difference.

Can you be more specific about which part you're referring to? And you absolutely cannot prove its larger. It'd be up to you to prove that. Assuming it's the same size is the default assumption here.

And again: I never said the blast was larger OR smaller. I'm not angry: I'm dissappointed.

I'm not offended, but you have absolutely no idea how old I am, so don't call me kid. I don't care, I'm still going to look for evidence. Also, those videos are a tiny fraction of what's in Star Wars.

The first was every scene where a Star Destroyer of any variant was ever seen in the films, from Star Wars Episodes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Rogue One, and Solo. The animated media from Lucasfilm differs very little in overall demonstration.

I did a calc on the Mandator bombardment. I calculated that it would take around 150,000 - 440,000 of those blasts to fully cover a planet's surface. Even assuming it has that many, it'd take days (assuming 2 blasts per second) for a full bombardment. So I admit I'm wrong here, albeit the results I gave were somewhat high-balled, so it might take less.

And an average Rebel fleet of say, a couple MC-90s, 5 Nebulon Frigates, 8 Corellian blockade runners, and 4 hammerhead corvettes would do nowhere near enough damage in a full bombardment to destroy an armored moon covered in turbolasers before they got shredded by the return fire.

 

[ByAsura]

I didn't mean functionallity in the franchise, I was just talking about how I wrote it.

You may not have said its larger, but this "We don't see the fullest extent of the ISD's blast in the comic, either" and the context of that argument really makes it seem like you implied it was.

Again, I'm not looking for Star Destroyer feats, just feats in general. And the search isn't going too badly.

 

[Idazmi]

You may not have said its larger, but this "We don't see the fullest extent of the ISD's blast in the comic, either" and the context of that argument really makes it seem like you implied it was.

...Do you even know how explosions work?


That's literally the first three shots of the barrage, in the first second, and the blast has already breached the upper atmosphere, throwing millions upon millions of tons of visible shattered crust into the sky. If this wasn't a still frame the debris would be flung well into low orbit at least.

Again, I'm not looking for Star Destroyer feats, just feats in general. And the search isn't going too badly.

I certainly hope this isn't like that time you tried to put the Enterprise at Small Planet level because it destroyed a planet's atmosphere.

 

[ByAsura]

The debris have been launched across the screen, and Soldier Blue calculated the visible section of the planet as 5515 kilometers, so that means they were launched 2757.5 kilometers or so, depending on the fragment. They might well be into Low-Orbit, which is only 2,000 km at a minimum. Its kind of difficult to see exactly though, because of the stars and glow of the turbolasers (just calling them turbolasers for the sake of ease).

First of all, stop being so condescending. Sorry if that sounded rude, but it's really getting annoying. Second of all, I already proved that the method I used was exactly same as the original calcer, who based it on Kinetic Energy. Lastly, I made a small mistake in the speed and it actually became Multi-Continent level. So they're not at all comparable, and you were definitively wrong there.

The film quotes and all that might also come later. I haven't had a lot of time today to watch the films.

Edit: Also I remember scenes where Turbolasers are ineffective against crafts at a distance. So never mind there.

 

[TheMerchant66]

Disney's policy is everything is equal in canon, and considering nothing contradicts the aftermath of Jedhas explosion then the comic is valid.

 

[Antvasima]

FanofRPGs asked me to link to the following calculations, in case you find them useful:

https://civilization-versus.fandom..../Star_Wars:_Turbolaser_and_Laser_Cannon_Calcs

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

Ant lets kick Idazmi out is not being kind or cooperative and yes all stuff under disney is canon. He is just trying be derail a ligament star wars conversation. he just wants star wars to be weaker than it is. shocking how I think phasers can destroyer counties and torpedoes and blow up moons. and even then star wars ships are still many tens of thousands of times faster. and imperial star destroyers are 1 mile long. Ray and Particle Shields exist one stops projectile based weapons one stops energy based weapons. star wars lasers are electromagnetic plasma and particle based weapons not real lasers. most federation phasers fire solid continues beams like a real lasers. and microwave lasers can stun people like handheld phasers. lasers and paper were still being used when antimatter warp drives and teleportation were used. Gene Roddenberry wanted lasers to be a much more primative weapon that phasers. rivals means a lot of things . and He was the one who put the enterprise d at large planet level when it is much weaker. there is about at 6-8 orders of magnitude different in the moons gravitational binding energy and Jupiters gravitational binding energy.

 

[Idazmi]

FanofRPGs asked me to link to the following calculations, in case you find them useful:

https://civilization-versus.fandom..../Star_Wars:_Turbolaser_and_Laser_Cannon_Calcs

The problem is, those feats are massively out-of scale with everything seen in the Star Wars movies and TV shows by several orders of magnitude: I've posted multiple evidences for this already in the comments above. Just FYI, "Enterprise NCC-1701-E" is "Supreme-Emperor-Over" from this thread under a new username.

 

[Idazmi]

Disney's policy is everything is equal in canon, and considering nothing contradicts the aftermath of Jedhas explosion then the comic is valid.

Jedha wasn't destroyed by Star Destroyers, it was destroyed by the Death Star - a moon-sized superweapon made with rare, power-boosting khyber crystals. The comic shows Star Destroyers doing damage on the same scale as the Death Star itself does in Rogue One: that shouldn't be possible.

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

that is a new account are you are not being cooperative all stop picking and choseing you the facts. I stopped my mad behavior and you have not.Supreme Emperor Over is Deleted account. and you are being way to sensitive everything deisney puts out is star wars cannon not just the mvoies and tv shows are. You are necroposting. Because the is a perfectly reasonable augment. just leave you do not care about star trek or star wars just you own agenda. And I apologized for that inappropriate behevior are you just a troll because I stopped that behavior Je nothing will please you take a mile for every inch we give you. just go away

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

Ant We need to ban him right now he is just trolling right now and Star Wars Vs Star Trek is Fan made website and has been dead for over 10 years. I am also subscribed to your Youtube channel under the name Supreme Infinity Imperial Endgame.

 

[Idazmi]

Ant lets kick Idazmi out is not being kind or cooperative and yes all stuff under disney is canon. He is just trying be derail a ligament star wars conversation. he just wants star wars to be weaker than it is. (...) Ant We need to ban him right now he is just trolling right now (...)

I'd argue the opposite: the writers of the comics are abusing their position as "official" writers to inflate canon firepower to levels far beyond the actual canon demonstrations: they can essentially do whatever they like because the secondary media isn't being monitored for canon violations by anyone. This was also a recognized problem in the old Expanded Universe, in which characters like Palpatine and Boba Fett being handled illogically. This extended to firepower, too with things like Base Delta Zero operations making the Death Star practically irrelevant.

Despite a large number of people saying otherwise, it wasn't Disney that made the Expanded Universe non-canon: we have direct confirmation that even while George Lucas was in charge, the Expanded Universe wasn't canon to the Star Wars movies.

"There are two worlds here," explained Lucas. "There's my world, which is the movies, and there's this other world that has been created, which I say is the parallel universe—the licensing world of the books, games and comic books. They don't intrude on my world, which is a select period of time, (but) they do intrude in between the movies. I don't get too involved in the parallel universe. (...) I don't read that stuff. I haven't read any of the novels. I don't know anything about that world. That's a different world than my world." - George Lucas

Yet, plenty of vs sites like Stardestroyer.net used and continue to use the Expanded Universe for feats. This site did as well.

What I'm suggesting in all of this, is that the same continuity issues still exist now in the Disney licensed media. The feats for turbolasers in the comics are firmly millions of times in excess of what's demonstrated in Lucasfilm's content - literally all of it. You can't find a Star Destroyer, or any mainline warship in Star Wars' films that can shatter a mountain with it's standard turbolasers, or melt an entire planet's crust. The Mandator IV has excessively gigantic cannons that are shown doing what the comics are saying a normal turbolaser can do, while the films are treating this feat as an excessive amount of firepower from a very special ship. No matter how you cut it, that's a contradiction.

The fact that Enterprise NCC-1701-E is motioning to have me banned outright actually supports my theory.

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

I am not supporting it i just brought it up mike wong is a horrible and disgusting person. You know nothing about star wars clearly. Ray shields are explicitly mentioned in revenge of the sith by general grievous on the invisible hand. an SPHA-T spilts a frigate Munificent class star frigate in half. have you not sean that movie. the death reactor core is protected by a particle shield that is why prtoton torpedoes are particle based weapon are used and they maybe hundreds of such ports. have you not seen that movie. Death Stars capital grade weapons were not a threat the alliance it was the tie fighters. At At walkers are able to blow up a regional grade deflector shield meaning both ray and particle shields are used. In 1 Salvo it is vaporize. and vehicle grade artillary can not damage them in the same movie. Small craft routinely go in and out of planetary atmopheres and gravity wells in mere minutes. and faly a hundreds of kilometers per second with zero issue. and can make turns in the thousands of earth gravieis in mere seconds. star treks weapons make be more accture but star wars is multiple orders of magnitudes larger in terms of territory and population. you are not reading my words very well. Idamzi stop trolling you are only derailing your own agument by being mean and not respectful ignoring and warping other peoples words that have more know how than you do and shot them down repeatedly and consistently

 

[ByAsura]

I've found a more accurate method that might increase the Mandator's yield substantially.

Edit: It now takes 24389.3186 - 146335.912 for a full bombardment. But these results were low-balled. A high-balled one gets 3117.10162431 - 18702.6097458.

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

what i want to know can we ban him he is just trolling and not being helpful

 

[ByAsura]

I'm not a Staff member, but I'd say probably not. And being not helpful is an incredibly subjective term. I don't see it that way, for example.

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

okey man I will clam down

 

[InfiniteSped]

The problem here seems to be that the expanded materials make the tech look far more powerful than it actually is in the movies.

 

[ByAsura]

These aren't EU comics.

 

[InfiniteSped]

It's not Legends, but it's still the expanded universe for the Disney canon, no?

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

most likey not. the mvoies are not the only or most important cannon

 

[InfiniteSped]

Anyway, whatever the name is, the feats shown there seem to always be ridiculously better than the ones in the movies

 

[Enterprise_NCC-1701-E]

Again the movies show very little capital ship combat with the main heros hence the extremely heavy plot armor and no orbital bombardment either and the first 3 were made with the technology at the time and not ultra high definationgraphics or realism in terms of power numbers and the star destroyers brigde blowing up and lack of orbital bombardment and capital ship combat can be answered in to books and comics themselves they only have a limted amount of time and money fater all star wars was extremely new and not well established and only a 11 million dollar buget a moderate ammount in 1977. so take the feats with a grain of healthly ammount salt .

 

[Idazmi]

Anyway, whatever the name is, the feats shown there seem to ways be ridiculously better than the ones in the movies

Exactly.