Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!

Brian Young

Members
  • Content Count

    1,380
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Brian Young last won the day on December 31 2017

Brian Young had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

11,994 Excellent

1 Follower

About Brian Young

  • Rank
    Illustrious Potentate

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.scifights.net

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In Rogue One, I assume you mean the planetary shields. But the Falcon jumped through planetary shields in TFA. They had to be traveling FTL, but they did it. The shield around DSII was probably a similar planetary shield. in TPM, Anakin penetrated the warship’s shields. He flew right in. Yes, they were launching fighters at the time, but this does not counter the argument effectively, since he did do it, and there was no order to lower those shields. Note that fighters launch all the time in Clone Wars and Rebels without lowering shields. They visibly pass right through the visible shields. in ANH, the fighters penetrated any shields the DS had. in TLJ, Poe strafed the hull directly without any warship involvement. In ROTJ, The TIEs strafed Rebel ships without any warship involvement. “Try to draw their fire away from the cruisers.” “Only the fighters are attacking, I wonder what those star destroyers are waiting for.” In Clone Wars, Anakin lead a squadron of Ywings against Malevolence, without any warship involvement until afterward. it goes on and on. And on. At SciFights, amount of evidence rules, and outliers are overruled by weight of evidence. true, there are different shield types, but fighters flying in under capital ship shields is a staple in Star Wars. It is a weakness, and one that is exploited at every turn. In almost every space battle. I feel it was most explicitly demonstrated in TLJ, with little wiggle room for interpretation, as we can see Kylo strafing the hull effectively while Turbolaser pulses splash harmlessly off the shields above him. Simultaneously my friend. Gosh, my iPad is acting weird with capitalization and stuff on this forum. :/
  2. Or put more simply, I would rather have an old plane, than to have NO PLANE AT ALL.
  3. So you haven’t seen the video either? http://www.scifights.net/usefulstarships.mp4 It’s all about logistics. The P51, which actually comes up twice in the video, is but one example I used to demonstrate that, in a lot of situations, having a less capable craft which is ON SITE is far better than having a more capable craft which isn’t. Location, location, location. The Mighty US Air Force, the most advanced in the world, didn’t intercept a single plane. The argument is that even a P51 could shoot down a passenger plane, let alone an F15, assuming it was on site. There are lots of situations where an older or less capable craft can improve the logistical situation. There are lots and lots of things in warfare to do other than taking on the enemy’s most powerful craft head to head. In fact, unarmed freighters did more to win WWII than all the battleships combined. it all leads up to defending older starships used by the Federation in DS9. Sure, Excelsiors and Mirandas can’t handle Jem’Hadar ships head to head, but there are hundreds of things they CAN do just as well as a Galaxy. Like rescue survivors. Like transport troops or supplies. They can be effective in making war, even if not in making combat. Also, there are situations where different capabilities can make a craft superior, and I talk about Starfuries for defending convoys. It doesn’t make it a superior craft OVERALL, but it can certainly be useful, and even better at a thing or two here and there, simply because the capabilities are different. It seems that most discussions revolve around direct head to head comparisons, when that is actually fairly rare in warfare. An awful lot of things happen in a war, and improving one’s logistical situation is usually a good idea. This seems to me a reasonable standpoint, and a reasonably clear commentary in the video. It is probably worth watching, at least as much as it is worth a critique.
  4. http://www.scifights.net/mindset.mp4 The entire project of SciFights is built around this.
  5. That was a high point for me too. I enjoy it more than Clone Wars. It happens on a smaller scale, with a bit more character development. Clone Wars was more cinematic, but some of the characters were just kinda there.
  6. Because nothing you said had anything to do with the video, which you yourself admitted right out of the gate you haven’t even seen. Since you still haven’t seen it, I’ll sum up the point. On 9/11/2001, terrorits attacked the United States. They used 4 passenger planes. The mighty US Air Force only managed to get 4 planes in the air, and didn’t intercept any of the terrorist planes. This is not a technology problem. It is not a capability problem. They were F15’s and F16’s. But they couldn’t get the job done. It is a logistics problem. Case in point, a P51 could shoot down an *unarmed passenger plane*. for the price of 4 modern jets, they could have used 4,000 P51’s, which could have defended the eastern seaboard. Because it flies as fast and as high as *an unarmed passenger plane*. what that has to do with pitting the P51 against modern fighter jets is beyond me.
  7. Gosh, you could have watched the video in question in the amount of time it took to type that wall of text. Then you would have understood what it was about.
  8. Yes, I like Rebels quite a bit. i assume everyone has seen The Last Jedi by now. If not, spoilers ahead. The battle at the beginning proves that heavy turbolasers fire “bigatons.” Those were really, really big guns, but the magnitude can no longer be debated. There it is. but it also proves that turbolasers lose energy exponentially over distance, later in the film. Now, in every franchise there are scenes where the enemy is just out of range, and we cut outside to see them practically nose to nose. But in this case, it was a major plot point. They were in visual range, but on the very edge of effective Turbolaser range for better part of the movie. i feel this solves the continuity problem with Zero Hour, when compared to other examples. The good Captain gave some good examples above. Those were all close range examples. But when we are talking about a few thousand kilometers, they lose energy quickly. In Zero Hour, Thrawn’s fleet was in high orbit. Also, the same middle of the movie battle proves the shield permeability argument. Kylo Ren was strafing the Rebel ships while Turbolaser pulses were splashing on the shields above him. Simultaneously. That’s why they use starfighters against capital ships - they can fly under the shields and hit vulnerable systems directly, like gun turrets, as seen earlier in the movie. It is more effective than pounding the shields for hours from a distance.
  9. Hi everybody, it has been a while, I stay pretty busy. But I thought some of you may be interested in the newest video, which deals with Imperial planetary bombardment, as seen in Rebels season 3. http://www.scifights.net/zerohour.mp4
  10. Howdy Captain, I stumbled in looking for a quote, and saw that you had some questions. The example is not that complicated. I never said that using 70 year old planes was a good thing for NORAD to do in countering modern fighter jets. That's crazy. I said it would have been better on 9/11. The point is effective for these reasons: *It is an effective demonstration of how numbers and location are even more important than technology. It wouldn't matter if those 2 armed planes were X-Wings instead of F-15s, if they were too far away to help *in any way whatsoever*. An old plane that can accomplish the task (somehow you missed this), in greater numbers would be better in such a situation. *P-51s are about 70 years old, which is very much like Excelsior Class ships or Miranda Class ships in the TNG era. Defending the use of those older ships in the Dominion War was part of the point in the video. *As I said, in this situation, the plane could get the job done. You seem to have grown the argument a third arm to make it seem as if I was promoting the use of numbers of *anything*, over *anything*, and in *any* scenario. I said at least twice that the plane could accomplish the task, and of course that is key. I've ALSO said in the past that even the Red Barron couldn't defeat Maverick and Goose in an F-14, because the plane is too far outclassed. *As Ted said, it is *meant* to be an extreme example, in hopes of making a point. *It also sets the proper mindset to discuss TIE fighters, which immediately follows. So, I'm sorry if the point was confusing. All the people who previewed it seemed to understand and approve. Great to see you guys are still on here and still conversing. I'm terribly busy, and I don't know when I'd be able to participate regularly. I do miss you guys. I'm working 10-12 hours a day, and have even supplemented on weekends some. As I've mentioned before, I only get a few hours a week to myself, when the babies aren't here, and have to use it to the greatest effect.
  11. Hi guys, Just followed the link on in, as I'm making site updates. This includes renaming the Misc section "Premise," making it the first page after the "Welcome" one, and separating the links to their own page. And, of course, I'm working on the Federation vs Empire section, in case no one was aware. Speaking of updates, the new layout here looks nice. Anyway, just to chime in on this issue, my take is that the wildly varying examples are why these debates have never been settled. That, IMO, is a major reason to limit myself to canon-only sources. But even in canon, and especially in Star Trek, the canon examples vary too widely to generate logical arguments as it stands. For instance, Geordi said the warp core "usually kicks plasma in the terawatt range." He also said 4.2 gigawatts was enough to power a "small phaser bank." Conversely, Data said the ship was generating "12.75 billion gigawatts per..." and Torres said they needed to add another 5 terawatts to the sensor array. These examples go on and on. I blame the fact that Star Trek is such a cash cow that multiple writers worked on it, with little collaboration. That is really what lead to the publication of the TM, to provide some continuity. Trek supporters support the highest numbers, anti-Trek debaters support the lowest numbers; neither surprisingly. But how do we decide? The highest numbers? The lowest numbers? Arbitrary decision? After I'm done with the current section, Federation vs Empire, and a few more case studies itching to get out, I intend to compile these examples and determine if a pattern can be noted, leading us to the conclusion of what range is the most consistent. The most consistent thing, as I've said from the beginning of this project, wins. I'm not doing it now, because the Federation vs Empire section needs to be done before my son is born in January, being such a massive project. And looking at the Judgement Criteria, I don't think it has a significant effect on the outcome anyway, as it mostly pertains to the ship vs ship combat section, one of the least important areas. And of course, I'll allude to the varying ranges in that section. On the other hand, this might be a perfect project for the combined forces here at ASVS. It would have to involve supporters of both the high and low figures, plus someone to compile them in a spreadsheet, producing bar graphs and pie charts; someone who is good with such things, and impartial. Each example would stand alone, not "if we use the 12.75 billion gigawatts, along with THIS example of .9% used for..." That is a double dip. The .9% is just as dependent on the low figures as it is the high. It would generate traffic, and after all, it will be a lot for me to do alone. And heck, the results could be published in the Geek's Basement for all to see, whether favoring Star Trek or pulling it down. The point is to get it right, not to BE right.
  12. This will be my last post to the forums. when more than one person cannot comprehend that hard evidence: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20522425/droidshields.mov https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20522425/murenshields.mp4 is not superior to a completely arbitrary, made up position (landed on the shields, are you kidding me?) that has no precedent whatsoever, I've failed in my efforts here. These same people refuse to accept the challenge to present a precedent for this, denying Burden of Proof, and argue aggressively that it is equal in stature to almost 50 video examples from canon sources. Wow. If you never learned anything else, learn this now: the data drives the conclusion. If you present a conclusion (landed on the shields), and are asked to present the data that led you to that conclusion, but you refuse to comply, that is a fallacy called Begging the Question. Look it up. Look up Burden of Proof while you're at it. As I've been neglecting my 11 month old daughter to spend hours on here discussing things, it has been a huge mismanagement of time. I'm not inflexible: http://www.scifights.net/commonempireoops.mov I simply don't accept made up bullshit as "evidence." It comes from canon, or it does not, period. I said long ago over in the Misc section that I'm not interested in what you can make up or what I can make up. I don't care if everyone accepts my conclusions or not. But when it comes down to people pushing fabrications as equal to nearly 50 video examples, including descriptions from characters that are so straightforward a child can understand them, I have no interest in wasting any more of my time with that. Your imaginations are more active than my keyboard. I'll stick to canon sources, and you guys can fantasize all kinds of technology into existence without me.
  13. You know...forget it. If you can't understand the difference between observing video evidence, and making shit up in your own imagination without precedent of any kind whatsoever, its a lost cause. I'm out. I've got more fun things to do than argue hard evidence vs whatever you can think up.
  14. By the way, those Separatist ships you referred to earlier use self-contained munitions. They don't need equal reactor power.
  15. Because, as with the rest of the stuff that is made up, it is a fabrication that has no precedent anywhere in Star Wars. Show me one instance of anything landing on or grappling onto a shield in Star Wars. I insist. If you cannot, it is made up bullshit. Period. The permeability hypothesis has lots of precedent, involving both visible and invisible shields. Droidekas. Gungan shields. Anakin's Naboo fighter. All those examples of ships entering or exiting landing bay shields. ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES involve these allegedly "absent" visible shields. So in case none of this has gotten through, as plainly as I can say it, all my claims are founded in observable evidence, and yours is made up in your mind. Show me JUST ONE example of ANYTHING landing on a shield in Star Wars. I say you cannot, because it is made up, with no purpose other than to be argumentative. Consider it a personal challenge.
×