Imperial Star Destroyer Quantification Thread

Essentially, whether they house only shield generators or shield generators and sensors, they are still highly visible, easily targettable domes on top of the structure...

Praeothmin · May 6, 2010

Awww, Enigma, did you NegRep me for telling the truth?

I must've hit a nerve there...

Tyralak · May 6, 2010

Awww, Enigma, did you NegRep me for telling the truth?

I must've hit a nerve there...

Enigma block.

enigma · May 7, 2010

Nah I just find it funny when someone thinks that ST is completely superior to SW.

Praeothmin · May 7, 2010

Nah I just find it funny when someone thinks that ST is completely superior to SW.

But I don't think ST is completely superior to SW.

I just think it's superior in certain aspects, that's all.

I've acknowledged SW's superiority with Droids.

They have a much bigger industrial capacity.

Hyperdrive is better on long distances.

See, the difference between you and me?

I'm honest enough to admit ST isn't the best in everything.

You should try it for SW sometimes, it would do you wonders...

Oh, and also:

I believe that the Empire would indeed defeat the Federation, or even a Fed-Rommie-Klingon alliance, because I believe the DS is the shit, SSDs are very dangerous opponents, and a few other factors.

But they'd definitely get a bloody nose in the fight, and it would not be as lopsided as Rabid Delusional Warsies like to think...

Tyralak · May 9, 2010

This is a direct scan from the book I have. It's kind of hard to argue with. Especially considering, what this book says is consistent with the movies and the rest of the EU. Saxton's claims that shield generators are housed inside the hull aren't backed up by either one. He's trying to re-write the SW canon the way he wants it to be, not the way it is. The plain fact that so much of his shit is directly contradicted by other sources, and the fact that a good portion of other EU authors can't stand him, should render most of what he says suspect. At the very least.

Questor · May 9, 2010

This is a direct scan from the book I have. It's kind of hard to argue with. Especially considering, what this book says is consistent with the movies and the rest of the EU. Saxton's claims that shield generators are housed inside the hull aren't backed up by either one. He's trying to re-write the SW canon the way he wants it to be, not the way it is. The plain fact that so much of his shit is directly contradicted by other sources, and the fact that a good portion of other EU authors can't stand him, should render most of what he says suspect. At the very least.

I thought you didn't like the EU?

Tyralak · May 9, 2010

I thought you didn't like the EU?

<BFGDRVF>

I never said that. The EU is fine, when kept in it's place. It's third in the pecking order. Some of the EU is total shit (KJA, Traviss, Saxton) but a lot of it is very, very good.

Questor · May 9, 2010

I never said that. The EU is fine, when kept in it's place. It's third in the pecking order. Some of the EU is total shit (KJA, Traviss, Saxton) but a lot of it is very, very good.

Hey, I have no problem with cherry picking, but you have to be consistent about it. EGs are fun, along with anything else, but if people are going to insist that common sense needs to be considered in ST (Torpedoes being more powerful than nukes) than people need to apply that same logic to SW.

You are using a seriously ambiguous event (they blew up the sphere - whatever it was, then said that the shields were down) which is open to multiple possible interpretations and proclaiming that yours is correct because it is supported by a part of the EU that you like. Others interpret the scene differently and claim support from a different part of the EU - that you don't like.

As for the Saxton bashing, we were both there, and I would be very surprised to find any times Curtis even set foot in ASVS - and you know it. Curtis thanked the people he did because we were the ones doing the math and poking holes in some of his ideas. Go after Curtis for a lot of things, but to say he wrote the book to affect a debate he was only a part of on the periphery is ridiculous.

Do you remember the guy who tried to work out the deck plans of the Millennium Falcon? He was never part of the VS debate at all, but he was hounded by participants of it until he took his page (the only good one on that controversy) offline. VS fans were - and are - rabid lunatics.

If Curtis had used Mike's Death Star calculations (to take something that was referenced in the ICS indirectly) without acknowledging him, wouldn't that be wrong? Does anyone here argue that Mike did the math wrong when calculating the amount of DET we that it would take to do what we saw on screen? Was there any evidence (when the calculations were done) - that was visible to sane people - that anything other than DET was going on?

Tyralak · May 9, 2010

Hey, I have no problem with cherry picking, but you have to be consistent about it. EGs are fun, along with anything else, but if people are going to insist that common sense needs to be considered in ST (Torpedoes being more powerful than nukes) than people need to apply that same logic to SW.

You are using a seriously ambiguous event (they blew up the sphere - whatever it was, then said that the shields were down) which is open to multiple possible interpretations and proclaiming that yours is correct because it is supported by a part of the EU that you like. Others interpret the scene differently and claim support from a different part of the EU - that you don't like.

It's not simply because it's a part I like. Saxton is literally the ONLY one claiming the shield generators are inside the hull and not in those spheres. The other technical manuals, the novelization and the films agree that those are shield generators, not sensor domes.

As for the Saxton bashing, we were both there, and I would be very surprised to find any times Curtis even set foot in ASVS - and you know it. Curtis thanked the people he did because we were the ones doing the math and poking holes in some of his ideas. Go after Curtis for a lot of things, but to say he wrote the book to affect a debate he was only a part of on the periphery is ridiculous.

No. He never posted at ASVS. At least not under his own name. And I have no reason to suspect he used a sock puppet, given the size of his ego. However, I have personally debated trek/wars with him (briefly) on RASSM (I believe, I'll have to hunt the posts down, which is easier said than done) over a decade ago, so I know he's interested at least in part. There's some supporting info at Darkstar's site. Of course it's heavily biased, but then again, so is SDN Here's the link to that: Regarding the ICS books

Do you remember the guy who tried to work out the deck plans of the Millennium Falcon? He was never part of the VS debate at all, but he was hounded by participants of it until he took his page (the only good one on that controversy) offline. VS fans were - and are - rabid lunatics.

Oh, I do remember that, and I agree.

If Curtis had used Mike's Death Star calculations (to take something that was referenced in the ICS indirectly) without acknowledging him, wouldn't that be wrong? Does anyone here argue that Mike did the math wrong when calculating the amount of DET we that it would take to do what we saw on screen? Was there any evidence (when the calculations were done) - that was visible to sane people - that anything other than DET was going on?

Of course it would have been wrong, however ask yourself this: Saxton is an astrophysicist. Why would he be using the calculations of someone like Wong instead of doing his own? Also, it's been a long time since I looked at any of the debate regarding Mike's calculations, but I seem to recall some substantial challenges to the assumptions he used in his calculations. But Mike wasn't the only one Saxton credits. He also consulted with Wayne Poe when writing the EP 2 ICS. Now, Wayne of course has changed his spots. He wants nothing to do with Trek or Wars, and I'm still on good terms with him personally. However, this and the fact that I've personally seen Curtis involved in the debate, at least somewhat in years past make this a bit troubling.

Questor · May 9, 2010

It's not simply because it's a part I like. Saxton is literally the ONLY one claiming the shield generators are inside the hull and not in those spheres. The other technical manuals, the novelization and the films agree that those are shield generators, not sensor domes.

Which are all secondary sources. Wouldn't the shields have to be down for them to be blown up? Also, if they are shield generators, there needs to be a mechanism for shielding the underside. Another think I'd point out (while this is neither here nor there) is that they look almost exactly like certain radar sites being built around the time Star Wars was released.

Once again, if you are just going to insist on the supremacy of the films, you need to apply some logic.

No. He never posted at ASVS. At least not under his own name. And I have no reason to suspect he used a sock puppet, given the size of his ego. However, I have personally debated trek/wars with him (briefly) on RASSM (I believe, I'll have to hunt the posts down, which is easier said than done) over a decade ago, so I know he's interested at least in part. There's some supporting info at Darkstar's site. Of course it's heavily biased, but then again, so is SDN Here's the link to that: Regarding the ICS books

Easier said than done is an understatement, but I think we can agree that he was pretty peripheral, especially around the time the books were written.

Of course it would have been wrong, however ask yourself this: Saxton is an astrophysicist. Why would he be using the calculations of someone like Wong instead of doing his own? Also, it's been a long time since I looked at any of the debate regarding Mike's calculations, but I seem to recall some substantial challenges to the assumptions he used in his calculations. But Mike wasn't the only one Saxton credits. He also consulted with Wayne Poe when writing the EP 2 ICS. Now, Wayne of course has changed his spots. He wants nothing to do with Trek or Wars, and I'm still on good terms with him personally. However, this and the fact that I've personally seen Curtis involved in the debate, at least somewhat in years past make this a bit troubling.

It was an example, but even if he did his own, he would have been expected to give credit to Mike as he knew about Mike's calcs.

The problem with the challenges to Mike's assumptions (and i seem to recall that many of them were to the DET assumption) we that even my own meager physics background makes it relatively easy for me to duplicate them. One of the challenges was that the Death Star MUST have started a chain reaction with the heavy elements in Alderaan's core. The hilarious part about that one is that it actually required more energy than DET.

And no, Mike wasn't the only one acknowledged:

I would also like to thank: Pete Briggs, Robert B.K. Brown, Elwyn Chow, Albert Forge, Adam Gehrls, Martyn Griffiths, Frank Geratana, Michael Horne, Ethan Platten, Wayne Poe, Andrew Tse, Anthony Tully, Michael Wong, and Brian Young, who where prominent among the hundreds of people contributing to constructive debates about Star Wars technicalities over the years, resulting in the consensus of conceptual and physical foundations applied in these pages.

Let's take a trip down memory lane (some of these had to be assisted by google searches, and if I can't remember handles then there may be a problem):

Pete Briggs - Took the last known pictures of the Millennium Falcon set pieces before they were sold at auction.

Robert B.K. Brown - Canon purist who threw a massive fit over the EP2 ICS and disappeared. I seem to recall a lot of his contributions being about lightsaber fighting. Don't recall him being big on VS

Elwyn Chow - Photo survey of props and ships, used extensively on Curtis's site. The only USENET references to him seem to be in relation to the ICS.

Albert Forge - Lightsabers again. Only references to VS I can find on the net are deputizations.

Adam Gehrls - active in vs. Can't really remember him. He actively assisted with Curtis's site.

Martyn Griffiths - Analysis of models - Cited on Curtis's site

Frank Geratana - Starfleet Ship Designs, I seem to recall some vs there as well (can't remember the side). SFSD was a great site with a catalog of every ST ship variant

Michael Horne - Author of Dark Empire Sourcebook

Ethan Platten - Cited on SWTC

Wayne Poe - Duh

Andrew Tse - Cited on SWTC

Anthony Tully - Cited on SWTC

Michael Wong - DUH

Brian Young - Author of "The Turbolaser Commentaries" among others, active Vser - Warsie

One thing you run into is that while the SW side of the debate liked to use numbers and logic, aside from yourself, there was very little of that on the ST side. There was simply so much of the ST to use that numbers were impractical, and comprehensive analysis were almost never done. Cherry picking of evidence was very common, and dishonesty, sometimes on the level of Jason was regularly practiced. There was a reason we were exiled to ASVS.

Praeothmin · May 9, 2010

You are using a seriously ambiguous event (they blew up the sphere - whatever it was, then said that the shields were down) which is open to multiple possible interpretations and proclaiming that yours is correct because it is supported by a part of the EU that you like. Others interpret the scene differently and claim support from a different part of the EU - that you don't like.

How ambiguous was it?

They blew up the sphere, then the officer shouts that they lost the bridge deflectors.

If I see a guy shoot at someone in a movie, and the next image shows me the guy being aimed at getting hit by a bullet, would you call my conclusion that the shooter was successful ambiguous?

The standard in a movie is to show things in order, so that by showing A and then B, the viewers understand that A happened before B.

Only rarely wil we see this detracted from, and usually by much better filmmakers then Lucas...

So I have to disagree, this scene isn't ambiguous at all, and the globe that was bown off was indeed a shield generator.

I have no issues with other generators being present under the hull of the ship, but these globes remain shield generators...

One thing you run into is that while the SW side of the debate liked to use numbers and logic, aside from yourself, there was very little of that on the ST side. There was simply so much of the ST to use that numbers were impractical, and comprehensive analysis were almost never done. Cherry picking of evidence was very common, and dishonesty, sometimes on the level of Jason was regularly practiced. There was a reason we were exiled to ASVS.

If you want cherry picking at its best, read the "Empire vs Federation in under 5 minutes".

I can't believe you're writing about ST cherry picking when one of the worst offenders in that department, Mike Wong, gets thanks from Curtis Saxton, in the very book that "set" the supremacy of SW in the vs debate...

Questor · May 9, 2010

How ambiguous was it?

They blew up the sphere, then the officer shouts that they lost the bridge deflectors.

If I see a guy shoot at someone in a movie, and the next image shows me the guy being aimed at getting hit by a bullet, would you call my conclusion that the shooter was successful ambiguous?

The standard in a movie is to show things in order, so that by showing A and then B, the viewers understand that A happened before B.

Only rarely wil we see this detracted from, and usually by much better filmmakers then Lucas...

So I have to disagree, this scene isn't ambiguous at all, and the globe that was bown off was indeed a shield generator.

The sequence can be interpreted as:

Target all firepower (SHOT 1)

Attack globe (SHOT 2)

Shields go down (assumed) (SHOT 2)

Globe destroyed (SHOT 2)

BEAT

Shields are down (SHOT 3)

It can also be interpreted as:

Target all firepower (SHOT 1)

Attack globe (SHOT 2

Globe Destroyed (SHOT 2)

Shields go down (assumed) (SHOT2)

BEAT

Shields are down (SHOT 3)

A third interpretation, which I like, especially since dumbass had to check after the explosion

Target all firepower (SHOT 1)

Shield goes down (assumed) (SHOT 2)

Attack globe (SHOT 2)

Globe Destroyed (SHOT 2)

SSD bridge shakes (SHOT 3)

Dumbass looks surprised (SHOT 3)

Dumbass looks over at monitor that he had not been watching (SHOT 3(

"OMG, Shields are down! CAN I HAZ ASSKICKING?" (SHOT 3)

There is just as much evidence (not to mention common sense) involved in assuming that the shields went down, They showed us the shields went down, and then they told us. I do not agree that filmmakers intent has much place in this debate. We should only look at what we see and what we can infer from it. There are other methods, but I like mine best. Completion cannonists (like myself) in the old debate were much more common on the SW side than the ST side, simply because of the amount of work involved in bringing in every single event of a type out of over 300 hours of programming.

Another interesting note is that sensors (in an engagement like that) are as important a target as weapons.

This is one of those events that is open to multiple (legitimate) interpretations. I choose one, but I can see your argument for the other. Can you see mine?

I have no issues with other generators being present under the hull of the ship, but these globes remain shield generators...

So the generators under the hull are a different design than the dorsal ones? Why on earth would you do that?

If you want cherry picking at its best, read the "Empire vs Federation in under 5 minutes".

I can't believe you're writing about ST cherry picking when one of the worst offenders in that department, Mike Wong, gets thanks from Curtis Saxton, in the very book that "set" the supremacy of SW in the vs debate...

Did you just completely ignore what I said? Curtis acknowledged a list of people who'd done major calcs or favors for him. My guess is that Mike was acknowledged for doing some of the fundamental work for the scale down method of calculating firepower in Star Wars, which - while applicable to the debate - is also highly relevant to the book, as it is one of the methods by which Curtis comes to his conclusions on firepower. Whether I think linear reactor scale down is the appropriate way of calculating firepower* is, frankly, irrelevant to the fact that Mike pioneered it and that it is the one of the only ways we have of calculating firepower without seeing impacts on objects with a calculable mass.

EDIT: If he had decided to include the calculated size of the Imperial Starfleet, I would expect to have seen Marina's name in the acknowledgements as well.

ESPECIALLY since Curtis was making a profit.

I also never said that ST cherry picking was necessarily a bad thing - in fact - it is almost required. There is too much trek to make comprehensive surveys an easy task. I simply said that it happened and did not jive with the way the SW groups tended to do things.

EDIT: And you will find very few SW debaters who acknowledge that it was EP2ICS that ended the debate. Many of them who use it now simply do it because it is simpler to use that than to do the calcs.

Have you ever seen me quote the ICS for firepower numbers?

* For the record, I prefer barrel diameter within a class.

Ali-Sama · May 10, 2010

How ambiguous was it?

If you want cherry picking at its best, read the "Empire vs Federation in under 5 minutes".

I can't believe you're writing about ST cherry picking when one of the worst offenders in that department, Mike Wong, gets thanks from Curtis Saxton, in the very book that "set" the supremacy of SW in the vs debate...

one issue i have with mike wong's calculations is he assumes a 40 meter diameter asteroid where if you compare shots with the falcon and the tl. the rocks being destroyed look to be 1-2 meters in diameter at best. This inflates the numbers greatly.

Praeothmin · May 10, 2010

The sequence can be interpreted as:

Target all firepower (SHOT 1)

Attack globe (SHOT 2)

Shields go down (assumed) (SHOT 2)

Globe destroyed (SHOT 2)

BEAT

Shields are down (SHOT 3)

It can also be interpreted as:

Target all firepower (SHOT 1)

Attack globe (SHOT 2

Globe Destroyed (SHOT 2)

Shields go down (assumed) (SHOT2)

BEAT

Shields are down (SHOT 3)

A third interpretation, which I like, especially since dumbass had to check after the explosion

Target all firepower (SHOT 1)

Shield goes down (assumed) (SHOT 2)

Attack globe (SHOT 2)

Globe Destroyed (SHOT 2)

SSD bridge shakes (SHOT 3)

Dumbass looks surprised (SHOT 3)

Dumbass looks over at monitor that he had not been watching (SHOT 3(

"OMG, Shields are down! CAN I HAZ ASSKICKING?" (SHOT 3)

There is just as much evidence (not to mention common sense) involved in assuming that the shields went down, They showed us the shields went down, and then they told us. I do not agree that filmmakers intent has much place in this debate. We should only look at what we see and what we can infer from it. There are other methods, but I like mine best. Completion cannonists (like myself) in the old debate were much more common on the SW side than the ST side, simply because of the amount of work involved in bringing in every single event of a type out of over 300 hours of programming.

Another interesting note is that sensors (in an engagement like that) are as important a target as weapons.

This is one of those events that is open to multiple (legitimate) interpretations. I choose one, but I can see your argument for the other. Can you see mine?

I can see yours, except that mine is supported by lower cannon (tech books and ISC).

So, when trying to figure whether they are only sensors or sensor/shields, mine takes everything into account (film pacing and scene order plus Tech books), while yours uses only scene order and ignores the rest...

So the generators under the hull are a different design than the dorsal ones? Why on earth would you do that?

I don't believe such a big ship would only have two Shield Generators, so the ones used for ventral shileding could be under hull, or simply less protuberant then the globes...

Did you just completely ignore what I said? Curtis acknowledged a list of people who'd done major calcs or favors for him. My guess is that Mike was acknowledged for doing some of the fundamental work for the scale down method of calculating firepower in Star Wars, which - while applicable to the debate - is also highly relevant to the book, as it is one of the methods by which Curtis comes to his conclusions on firepower. Whether I think linear reactor scale down is the appropriate way of calculating firepower* is, frankly, irrelevant to the fact that Mike pioneered it and that it is the one of the only ways we have of calculating firepower without seeing impacts on objects with a calculable mass.

And the problem I have with that is that if you use the scaling method to calculate firepower, then we get hand weapons in the Kiloton range, which is absurd at best.

And the fact that a PhD holder in Astrophysics doesn't seem to notice or care is suspicious at best, if not indicative of someone wanting to inflate these figures to illogical and unseen levels...

I also never said that ST cherry picking was necessarily a bad thing - in fact - it is almost required. There is too much trek to make comprehensive surveys an easy task. I simply said that it happened and did not jive with the way the SW groups tended to do things.

Except when that cherry picking is done as Wong does it:

Take lowest examples in ST and compare to highest examples in SW...

EDIT: And you will find very few SW debaters who acknowledge that it was EP2ICS that ended the debate. Many of them who use it now simply do it because it is simpler to use that than to do the calcs.

And when shown how ridiculous they are, they reply with:

It doesn't contradict the movies, and we winnnzzzzzzz....

Even when the movies clearly show no capabilities of Firepower remotely comparable to the ISC figures...

Have you ever seen me quote the ICS for firepower numbers?

Nope, but you are far from a Rabid Warsie, you are a SW and ST fan with a penchant for SW, who likes for things to make sense, and argues logically about it...

Questor · May 11, 2010

I can see yours, except that mine is supported by lower cannon (tech books and ISC).

So, when trying to figure whether they are only sensors or sensor/shields, mine takes everything into account (film pacing and scene order plus Tech books), while yours uses only scene order and ignores the rest...

I'm flaking here, what's ISC?

OK, lets try another tack. Can lower cannon be contradicted by the laws of common sense? Anyway, I'd argue that this is a case of higher canon contradicting.

Why does only the port globe cover the bridge? Isn't one of the advantages of symmetry some redundancy? For sensors, having two makes sense, as they can use parallax to get more accurate results from passive sensors.

I don't believe such a big ship would only have two Shield Generators, so the ones used for ventral shileding could be under hull, or simply less protuberant then the globes...

I don't think we disagree on this, just on whether the globes are shield generators. My argument hinges on three things. 1. The dialog is ambiguous. 2. Shield Generators make zero sense in that location, but targeting sensors DO make sense there. 3. Even McNamara his own self wouldn't put two different models of the same thing on one ship to do the same job - it's just that stupid.

And the problem I have with that is that if you use the scaling method to calculate firepower, then we get hand weapons in the Kiloton range, which is absurd at best.

And the fact that a PhD holder in Astrophysics doesn't seem to notice or care is suspicious at best, if not indicative of someone wanting to inflate these figures to illogical and unseen levels...

I never said he used Mike's old linear scaling (which I'm pretty sure even Mike doesn't use anymore). However a quadratic scaling does yield numbers that make sense along the entire spectrum of weapons. The same scaling works for projectiles, by the way.

Except when that cherry picking is done as Wong does it:

Take lowest examples in ST and compare to highest examples in SW...

If it's good enough for Jason...

And when shown how ridiculous they are, they reply with:

It doesn't contradict the movies, and we winnnzzzzzzz....

Even when the movies clearly show no capabilities of Firepower remotely comparable to the ISC figures...

What about all the trekkies who when confronted with the reality of the moral black hole that is the TNG interpretation of the prime directive start talking about something that is basically a "noble savage?" Do people really thing that condemning millions to die is a moral choice?

Praeothmin · May 11, 2010

I'm flaking here, what's ISC?

Incredible Cross Section.

The AotC one started the 200Gton nonsense and Saxton's association to the Great Evil^tm by Rabid Trekkies...

Me, I just think he didn't gat all his facts straight...

OK, lets try another tack. Can lower cannon be contradicted by the laws of common sense? Anyway, I'd argue that this is a case of higher canon contradicting.

Why does only the port globe cover the bridge? Isn't one of the advantages of symmetry some redundancy? For sensors, having two makes sense, as they can use parallax to get more accurate results from passive sensors.

How about this:

They have two sensor packages in those globes for better sensor sweeps (for all the good it did when chasing the MF), well why not have two Shield Generators protecting your most inviting target on the whole ship:

The big ass tower where the bridge is located, you know, the one protuberating waaayyyy above the main hull, screaming "Hit me, Hit me"...

We know shields in SW need to (or can be) "angled, so what if by losing one such Generator, the "angling of the remaining shield wasn'T sufficient to protect the bridge?

Or perhaps the remaining shields weren't able to repel the fire from the lone fighter...

I don't think we disagree on this, just on whether the globes are shield generators. My argument hinges on three things. 1. The dialog is ambiguous. 2. Shield Generators make zero sense in that location, but targeting sensors DO make sense there. 3. Even McNamara his own self wouldn't put two different models of the same thing on one ship to do the same job - it's just that stupid.

We know for a fact that SW shield Generators aren't always palced in the most inteligent location (RotS's hangar shields), so since SW forces do seem to place them anywhere easily targettable, then why couldn't those globes be Generators?

I find it funny that the vaunted Ãœber powerful shields of an ISD wouldn't keep their Generators safe...

And if these globes are Shield Generators, then they have overlapping fields making them even more powerful...

All I've been saying since the get go, is that these Shield Generators are easily targettable, not that they are easily destroyed...

I never said he used Mike's old linear scaling (which I'm pretty sure even Mike doesn't use anymore). However a quadratic scaling does yield numbers that make sense along the entire spectrum of weapons. The same scaling works for projectiles, by the way.

Really?

Has someone done the math on this?

If we scale down the Acclamator's 50Gton guns quadratically, we get hand weapons' power results in accordance to the movies?

If it's good enough for Jason...

But I thought we all agreed Jason is a Troll and that we're all better then him?

So no, even if it is good for Jason, it shouldn't be good enough for us...

What about all the trekkies who when confronted with the reality of the moral black hole that is the TNG interpretation of the prime directive start talking about something that is basically a "noble savage?" Do people really thing that condemning millions to die is a moral choice?

They're just as bad.

I've had many issues with the way the Prime Directive was "used" in TNG as well.

And I've had many issues with Warsies saying that the Transporters were an invention of the Devil, but then praising the technical prowess behind the Death Stars...

But see, we aren't, you and I, either of them, so their standards shouldn't be ours...

Sign In

Imperial Star Destroyer Quantification Thread

Recommended Posts

enigma 521

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

enigma 521

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

enigma 521

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tyralak 12,068

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

enigma 521

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tyralak 12,068

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

enigma 521

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tyralak 12,068

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Praeothmin 532

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Praeothmin 532

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tyralak 12,068

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

enigma 521

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Praeothmin 532

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tyralak 12,068

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Questor 501

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tyralak 12,068

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Questor 501

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Tyralak 12,068

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Questor 501

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Praeothmin 532