Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Share your stories about the Gothic Sector and your battle reports.
User avatar
CALiGeR190
Community Moderator
Posts: 1202
Joined: 27 October 2015, 19:03
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby CALiGeR190 » 26 May 2016, 17:01

Rolepgeek wrote:TIE fighters are far smaller than equivalent Imperial Thunderhawks. Star Wars also has a lot more stealth tech, as far as I know. But 96 torpedoes isn't going to cripple a Lunar unless one of them hits something vital. I suppose if you see off a macro shell while it was being loaded, they are supposed to be high explosive, after all.

Plasma warheads, and yes you'd be right if they ever got close enough to fire their torps (they'd also need to get crazy lucky with their hits to pull something like that off). 40K point defence don't work on hitting targets directly, but more on filling a massive area of space with an impassible wall of strike craft-shredding ordnance, so stealth is worthless.

Also what do you mean TIE fighters are equal to ThunderHawks? The two aren't even remotely comparable.
The ThunderHawk could actually survive a cruisers point defence for one.

Rolepgeek wrote:However, comparing 40k to Star Wars will always end in 40k's favor. They're both space fantasy, but 40k is much more over the top. Star Wars has The Force, 40k has The Warp. Canonical size and power comparisons, and range especially because a lot of the reason for the short range on Star Wars ships is aesthetics, mean that 40k hammers Star Wars into the ground, power-wise.

Not always, wait until you see the SSD comparisons, general rule of thumb is that SW ships are much smaller and easier to destroy hulls, but have much greater power in terms of firepower for their size and very powerful shields.
Fair enough, a Lunar is superior to an Imperial I-ISD in nearly every way, but she doesn't compare nearly as well to the equally sized Praetor Battle-cruiser, nor do the IN BCs for that matter. I wouldn't write off SW so easily (legends anyway, the Cannon SW is garbage that gets stomped so easily by 40K its just silly).

Rolepgeek wrote:If you're talking about plotline advancement, however, it's another story.

Not going to argue with that.
Where's your Federation now?
-Imperial Navy

Alpha Tester - Getting the game on its feet
Technical Tester - We had to get the balance right somehow
Community Moderator - Purging spammers and maintaining the realm
BFG Wiki Founding Member

User avatar
Kadaeux
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 November 2015, 05:38
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby Kadaeux » 27 May 2016, 14:19

Beernchips wrote:TIEs are not but a TIE bomber squadron is composed of 12 bombers at full capacity each one loaded with 8 torpedoes with fast reload.
Assuming it is the same than in game, 1 bomber Squadron can unleash 96 torpedoes before going for more ammunitions in the ISD. Even a Lunar will disappear vs 96 torpedoes.
And ISD can have 4 bombers squadrons

SW torpedoes seems to deal less damage than in BFG and can t pass through energy shields but they have a 5km locking range so Bombers won t be destroyed by Lunar turrets (1.5 km range) making them able to use all their guided torpedoes at safe range


Oh that's funny :p

A ten thousand kilometres is considered to be the range that 40k point defence starts firing. Not 1.5km.

Rolepgeek
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 May 2016, 19:10
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby Rolepgeek » 27 May 2016, 20:09

Apologies, I meant bombers. Couldn't remember the Imperial name for them and my mind just grabbed the one it did remember. I will say that I don't know about the saturation fire being a literal wall all around the ship, all the time. Stealth still has it's uses.

Also, plasma warheads is nice and all but they're miniscule. Especially in comparison to 40k tech.

Speaking of which, how 'bout you cite sources when you flat contradict someone. Because there's an awful lot of lore out there, and the two of you could be using different canonical sources, either of which might be right. Considering that so much of it is supposed to be propaganda, I'd use the lower figures, myself, when possible.

User avatar
Kadaeux
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 November 2015, 05:38
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby Kadaeux » 28 May 2016, 04:06

Rolepgeek wrote:Speaking of which, how 'bout you cite sources when you flat contradict someone. Because there's an awful lot of lore out there, and the two of you could be using different canonical sources, either of which might be right. Considering that so much of it is supposed to be propaganda, I'd use the lower figures, myself, when possible.


There is no source that supports a point defence range that short. But for a direct statement of range.

’VANDIRE’S TEETH!’ Milos Caparan cursed, triggering his starboard thrusters and jinking the two hundred tonne attack bomber out
of the path of a kilometre-wide explosive starburst which filled the view out of the cockpit’s main viewing port. All around the
lead Starhawk, the hard vacuum of space was filled with similar explosions and energy bursts. At this range - still almost one
thousand kilometres away from the target - a direct hit was almost impossible, but each energy blast emitted a burst of widespread
and high-intensity radiation lethal to both a bomber’s crew and control systems, while each exploding anti-ordnance missile
warhead or mass-reactive shell threw out a hail of shrapnel that could cover a volume of space tens of kilometres across.

- Execution Hour.

(Which brings up, apologies, the post above was supposed to say a thousand kilometres, not ten.)

ADDITIONS

Elsewhere, he knew, the other squadron commanders in the attack wave would be doing likewise. The cockpit’s open-channel
comm-link squawked to life as the responses came flooding back.
’Nemesis Three to Nemesis Leader. Surveyor systems taken offline by that last radiation burst. Missile targeting systems also
gone. Tech-Adept Eliphas is attempting to effect repairs now+
+Nemesis Five reporting. Heavy energy bleed from our power plant. Shrapnel hit must have severed a feed line somewhere.
Unable to effect repair. We’ll make it to the target, Nemesis One, but it’ll be a slow and scary ride back to the Macharius+
+Nemesis Nine… heavy damage… starboard engine gone… reserve air supply… -ty percent crew casualties… luck, Nemesis
One… kkkkkkkkkkkkkk+
Caparan stabbed a rune on his console, switching comm-link channels. ’Nemesis Leader to Macharius,’ he snarled, unable to keep
the anger out of his voice. ’I’m losing bombers here. Request permission to launch missiles!’
+Macharius to Nemesis+ came back the irritatingly calm-voiced reply. +Proceed to target. Launch order will be given as and
when Macharius deems necessary+

- Execution Hour, continues directly from the last paragraph. One thousand kilometres is also a range it's possible for Starhawks to launch their payloads from.

Further on.

Five hundred kilometres. In space combat terms, this was considered near suicidal, a point-blank range. Down in the nose cone
section housing the navigator and bombardier, the whine of the payload’s locked-on targeting systems rose to an insistent scream
audible over the bomber’s comm-net.

- Execution Hour: Five Hundred kilometres is considered to be a near-suicidal range to launch a bombers missiles from.

Rolepgeek
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 May 2016, 19:10
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby Rolepgeek » 28 May 2016, 04:12

...I see a thousand kilometers. Oh, wait, I see the issue. I was reading Caliger as kkm, and for some reason mentally increasing the range you were talking about by ten. Make the numbers kkm, though, and it works fine.

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby Imperator5 » 29 May 2016, 16:34

This has a lot of errors.

Neither ISD or Lunar is capable of past-light acceleration. 2,5c nor 25c is possible for either.
Imperium warships are capable of around 0,75c (which is very, very, very fast) and I don't think ISDs can put in anything near that (They never do in the films, even when they are chasing the Falcon).

Also, 25km is way too small a range for the Lunar. While i'm not sure on ISD range ( Suffers from authors' differences, can range from 80kms to thousands of kms) Imperium ships are capable of lightminute-range engagements, which is around millions kms at least.

Also, Proton torpedoes usually go through shields, as do mass drivers in SW universe. That means most likely imperial torpedoes and macrocannons would too. Remember, a ramming A-wing took out the Executor, ISDs have little kinetic protection up close. Another ISD gets killed off by an asteroid hitting it in EP 5. As cool as an ISD is, I can't see it surviving a volley of macrocannon fire, which uses shells much bigger and damaging than A-wings and they fly at much higher speeds.

"The Death Star's core is shielded, so we have to use Proton torpedoes" they say in EP 4. Which implies protons go through the rayshield.

Again, this is not fair. The ISD is equivalent to the Sword Frigate. Its like comparing Darth Vader to an Imperial Guardsmen or a Redshirt. Or Kirk to a Stormtrooper or a Gretchin.

Also, on a rainy day I did some calculations on how much damage a Nova cannon would do with a neutronium shell, using the average neutron star matter density as theorized by modern science, 0,9c and 50m long and wide shell and a lot of online relatististic calculators. The result was around ten times the higher-end calculations of the Death's Star's superlaser in yotta-joules.

Tie's are also notably fragile with a thin titanium hull. Nothing compared to ceramite or adamantium, or even durasteel which a Space marine can "rip like wet paper" .

"Tanks did not slow the Space Marines down. They clambered up on to them, ripped off durasteel hatches as if they were made of paper and dropped grenades into the interior." -Angel of Fire, by William Amazing King, Master of Space Wolves.

TIE Defenders and Assault Gunboats are a different thing, but still I doubt they got hard enough weaponry to make a difference. The only thing an ISD has that could pose a threat to a Lunar would be filling it to the brim with Missile Gunboats (Starwars equivalent of Space marines) , each having enough firepower to blow two ISD-s out on their own.

Image

Even these would be hard pressed, since 40k Point defense are actually hundreds of Turbolasers( and assorted Flak cannons). If one absorbs the damage done by these in warzones (They are also on Titans and Thunderhawks), they tend to be around the same end as "regular" (Not heavy) turbolasers used in Star Wars.
Which means that a Lunar's point defense system would be an actual anti-ship system in SW similar to an ISD's lesser turbolaser armaments.
In fact I read about a fight where two escorts used these "hundreds of turbolasers" to pester each other's hull in addition to their main batteries. Think it was one of the HH novels.

The fact that both sci-fis have their ship weaponry go from kilotons to yottatons depending on the writer does not help the situation. The fact that Void shields are sometimes dimensional warp shields, sometimes something entirely unexplained, sometimes a mix of both also does not help. Nor does that torpedoes sometimes go through shields and sometimes not in both universes.

Though actually,if someone applies common sense, the low and high end weapons can be easily explained because the following things can be done:
Phasers are laser guided particle beams.
Blasters/sw lasers are energized gas or plasma, depending on source.
Plasma and melta weapons are fusion weapons that fire plasma-energized gas at 100 million Kelvins.
Imperium las weapons are "destructive energy channeled along a powerful laser" as Dow2 puts it. Which explains the non-laser like characteristics perfectly.
Macrocannons are railguns.
Photon torpedoes have variable yields.

All of these can have their firepower adjusted by what manner of energy is fed into the sytem, or in case of torpedoes and macros, what type of warhead you use, or how fast you fire them out of the barrel.

It stands to reason that ships would fire at each other with maximum firepower (as AT-AT does against shield generator on Hoth), but they would fire less powerful shots when supporting ground troops. You don't want to glass the Promethium mines, the Dilithium mines, or the Tibanna gas mines you are trying to capture OR the army you try to support by glassing half of the hemisphere, so of course you use less powerful shots to have a more precise and less devastating blasts.
This is done easy with energy weapons by adjusting the power they use, and Macrocannons can fire weaker shells at slower speeds when supporting ground operations.

A fairer fight would be a Sword vs an ISD. I still think the Sword would win in a sheer battle of firepower, with the ISD being more useful and multipurpose since it can also carry troops and fighters to use in patrols.

Of course, 40k is all about WAR, so its "being good" at warfare is no surprise. Starwars, despite its name, is a story-based space opera where good and evil characters fight. Star Trek is a more tech-nerdy and moralising story franchise, so neither is "full on warfare" and thus it takes a backseat to characters and story.

I have read almost all 40k material ever published, around half of the Star Wars Legends storyline, and saw all Star Trek Tv stuff (books are not canon there, only films and series).

A general rule for these is that:
Star trek has low powered ships but poweful superweapons.
Star wars has medium powered ships and medium powered superweapons.
40k has very powerful ships but very mediocre superweapons.

Mind, most 40k ships would be superweapons on their own in most scifi. Also, most superweapons are once-off and than never used/forgotten, like how one The Original Series had a mad Starfleet captain discover an explosive that a vial of could blow up a planet. Sure Palpatine and Abaddon would want that, and sure it would kick the Borg's ass, but it never shows up ever again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom_Gods ... _Series%29
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.

User avatar
CALiGeR190
Community Moderator
Posts: 1202
Joined: 27 October 2015, 19:03
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby CALiGeR190 » 29 May 2016, 19:34

Imperator5 wrote:This has a lot of errors.

Neither ISD or Lunar is capable of past-light acceleration. 2,5c nor 25c is possible for either.
Imperium warships are capable of around 0,75c (which is very, very, very fast) and I don't think ISDs can put in anything near that (They never do in the films, even when they are chasing the Falcon).

Also, 25km is way too small a range for the Lunar. While i'm not sure on ISD range ( Suffers from authors' differences, can range from 80kms to thousands of kms) Imperium ships are capable of lightminute-range engagements, which is around millions kms at least.

Also, Proton torpedoes usually go through shields, as do mass drivers in SW universe. That means most likely imperial torpedoes and macrocannons would too. Remember, a ramming A-wing took out the Executor, ISDs have little kinetic protection up close. Another ISD gets killed off by an asteroid hitting it in EP 5. As cool as an ISD is, I can't see it surviving a volley of macrocannon fire, which uses shells much bigger and damaging than A-wings and they fly at much higher speeds.

"The Death Star's core is shielded, so we have to use Proton torpedoes" they say in EP 4. Which implies protons go through the rayshield.

Again, this is not fair. The ISD is equivalent to the Sword Frigate. Its like comparing Darth Vader to an Imperial Guardsmen or a Redshirt. Or Kirk to a Stormtrooper or a Gretchin.

Also, on a rainy day I did some calculations on how much damage a Nova cannon would do with a neutronium shell, using the average neutron star matter density as theorized by modern science, 0,9c and 50m long and wide shell and a lot of online relatististic calculators. The result was around ten times the higher-end calculations of the Death's Star's superlaser in yotta-joules.

Tie's are also notably fragile with a thin titanium hull. Nothing compared to ceramite or adamantium, or even durasteel which a Space marine can "rip like wet paper" .

"Tanks did not slow the Space Marines down. They clambered up on to them, ripped off durasteel hatches as if they were made of paper and dropped grenades into the interior." -Angel of Fire, by William Amazing King, Master of Space Wolves.

TIE Defenders and Assault Gunboats are a different thing, but still I doubt they got hard enough weaponry to make a difference. The only thing an ISD has that could pose a threat to a Lunar would be filling it to the brim with Missile Gunboats (Starwars equivalent of Space marines) , each having enough firepower to blow two ISD-s out on their own.

Image

Even these would be hard pressed, since 40k Point defense are actually hundreds of Turbolasers( and assorted Flak cannons). If one absorbs the damage done by these in warzones (They are also on Titans and Thunderhawks), they tend to be around the same end as "regular" (Not heavy) turbolasers used in Star Wars.
Which means that a Lunar's point defense system would be an actual anti-ship system in SW similar to an ISD's lesser turbolaser armaments.
In fact I read about a fight where two escorts used these "hundreds of turbolasers" to pester each other's hull in addition to their main batteries. Think it was one of the HH novels.

The fact that both sci-fis have their ship weaponry go from kilotons to yottatons depending on the writer does not help the situation. The fact that Void shields are sometimes dimensional warp shields, sometimes something entirely unexplained, sometimes a mix of both also does not help. Nor does that torpedoes sometimes go through shields and sometimes not in both universes.

Though actually,if someone applies common sense, the low and high end weapons can be easily explained because the following things can be done:
Phasers are laser guided particle beams.
Blasters/sw lasers are energized gas or plasma, depending on source.
Plasma and melta weapons are fusion weapons that fire plasma-energized gas at 100 million Kelvins.
Imperium las weapons are "destructive energy channeled along a powerful laser" as Dow2 puts it. Which explains the non-laser like characteristics perfectly.
Macrocannons are railguns.
Photon torpedoes have variable yields.

All of these can have their firepower adjusted by what manner of energy is fed into the sytem, or in case of torpedoes and macros, what type of warhead you use, or how fast you fire them out of the barrel.

It stands to reason that ships would fire at each other with maximum firepower (as AT-AT does against shield generator on Hoth), but they would fire less powerful shots when supporting ground troops. You don't want to glass the Promethium mines, the Dilithium mines, or the Tibanna gas mines you are trying to capture OR the army you try to support by glassing half of the hemisphere, so of course you use less powerful shots to have a more precise and less devastating blasts.
This is done easy with energy weapons by adjusting the power they use, and Macrocannons can fire weaker shells at slower speeds when supporting ground operations.

A fairer fight would be a Sword vs an ISD. I still think the Sword would win in a sheer battle of firepower, with the ISD being more useful and multipurpose since it can also carry troops and fighters to use in patrols.

Of course, 40k is all about WAR, so its "being good" at warfare is no surprise. Starwars, despite its name, is a story-based space opera where good and evil characters fight. Star Trek is a more tech-nerdy and moralising story franchise, so neither is "full on warfare" and thus it takes a backseat to characters and story.

I have read almost all 40k material ever published, around half of the Star Wars Legends storyline, and saw all Star Trek Tv stuff (books are not canon there, only films and series).

A general rule for these is that:
Star trek has low powered ships but poweful superweapons.
Star wars has medium powered ships and medium powered superweapons.
40k has very powerful ships but very mediocre superweapons.

Mind, most 40k ships would be superweapons on their own in most scifi. Also, most superweapons are once-off and than never used/forgotten, like how one The Original Series had a mad Starfleet captain discover an explosive that a vial of could blow up a planet. Sure Palpatine and Abaddon would want that, and sure it would kick the Borg's ass, but it never shows up ever again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whom_Gods ... _Series%29

Sword is pretty much outclassed by an ISD, that's the problem: the Imperial is pocket Cruiser in terms of its power output but an escort in many other respects... I just decided to compare the two that filled the same roles in the end, but ISDs are dodgy to compare with 40K ships. SSDs, Dreadnoughts and Battle cruisers are easier though.
Where's your Federation now?
-Imperial Navy

Alpha Tester - Getting the game on its feet
Technical Tester - We had to get the balance right somehow
Community Moderator - Purging spammers and maintaining the realm
BFG Wiki Founding Member

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby Imperator5 » 29 May 2016, 20:37

That's because you use the highest end SW calcs and the very lowest end, outdated 40k ones based on decades old stuff.

If you would look at the more modern sources, 40k escorts are pretty much ISD level at least with city-shattering firepower. In fact as I said in the other thread, an ISD, a Sword, and most better Trek ships can still wreck a planet like child's play. They can scour all life from them easily, just can't physically blow it up.


But you know, all the important stuff lives on vulnerable crust, except necron tombs.
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.

Rolepgeek
Posts: 89
Joined: 14 May 2016, 19:10
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby Rolepgeek » 29 May 2016, 22:22

Power creep=/= weaker is outdated.

User avatar
CALiGeR190
Community Moderator
Posts: 1202
Joined: 27 October 2015, 19:03
Location: Manchester, England
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Imperial I-Class ISD vs Lunar-Class CA

Postby CALiGeR190 » 29 May 2016, 22:38

Imperator5 wrote:That's because you use the highest end SW calcs and the very lowest end, outdated 40k ones based on decades old stuff.

If you would look at the more modern sources, 40k escorts are pretty much ISD level at least with city-shattering firepower. In fact as I said in the other thread, an ISD, a Sword, and most better Trek ships can still wreck a planet like child's play. They can scour all life from them easily, just can't physically blow it up.


But you know, all the important stuff lives on vulnerable crust, except necron tombs.

I'm quite deliberately not using more modern and 'powerful' 40K sources or clacs and high end SW calcs for these. It's hardly a comparison otherwise.
Where's your Federation now?
-Imperial Navy

Alpha Tester - Getting the game on its feet
Technical Tester - We had to get the balance right somehow
Community Moderator - Purging spammers and maintaining the realm
BFG Wiki Founding Member


Return to “Stories and Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron