Page 2 of 4

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

Posted: 25 May 2016, 20:36
by ImperialDream
this isn't really a fair comparison given that the Lunar is a far, far larger ship than an ISD.
The ISD is about the same size as an imperial escort

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

Posted: 25 May 2016, 20:37
by CALiGeR190
ImperialDream wrote:this isn't really a fair comparison given that the Lunar is a far, far larger ship than an ISD.
The ISD is about the same size as an imperial escort

Size isn't everything.

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

Posted: 25 May 2016, 20:41
by MysticForce
Why is there even a "maximum speed" for starships? Only acceleration is relevant - any sub-light speed can be achieved, eventually.

Also, "maximum speed" for these two ships are listed at 2.5c and 25c outside of hyperspace/warp. Multiple times the speed of light, really? >.>

They wouldn't even need to have guns. Just accelerate to .9c, drop a garbage bag out of the launch bay, and you've got a kinetic missile with far more destructive power than any ship based weapon in any setting >.>

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

Posted: 25 May 2016, 20:55
by CALiGeR190
MysticForce wrote:Why is there even a "maximum speed" for starships? Only acceleration is relevant - any sub-light speed can be achieved, eventually.

Also, "maximum speed" for these two ships are listed at 2.5c and 25c outside of hyperspace/warp. Multiple times the speed of light, really? >.>

They wouldn't even need to have guns. Just accelerate to .9c, drop a garbage bag out of the launch bay, and you've got a kinetic missile with far more destructive power than any ship based weapon in any setting >.>

I basically mean maximum noted speed.
You're right of course, acceleration is what counts, and Lunars are noted as having greater acceleration (judging by the speeds they can achieve in short periods of time) but no exact figures are ever given.

As for the light speed-bending stuff: it's Si-Fi. Probably just written in to look cool.

As for the garbage bag enology... I wouldn't be so sure, a several hundred ton warhead shouldn't certainly do more damage accelerated at the same speeds.

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

Posted: 25 May 2016, 21:08
by Inspector of War
Here is Memory Beta with specs on the Intrepid Class cruiser (aka USS Voyager):
http://memory-beta.wikia.com/wiki/Intrepid_class

and here's Memory Alpha:
http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Intrepid_class

finally, here's the Iconoclast via Rogue Trader specs:
https://campaign-32103.obsidianportal.com/wikis/iconoclast-class-destroyer

comparing size alone, the Iconoclast Destroyer is practically a battleship compared to the small Intrepid. From my initial readings, however, the Voyager might be able to best the Iconoclast if equipped with either quantum torpedoes or tricobalt devices. Not sure about the ranges of these weapons.

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

Posted: 26 May 2016, 09:50
by Beernchips
You didn t take in account the carrier capacity of SSD. ALso TIE bombers or gunboats can use torpedoes/rockets/bombs from high range which are guided. Not sure they can pass through Lunar shields because those weapons are stopped by energy shields in SW universe

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

Posted: 26 May 2016, 10:06
by CALiGeR190
Beernchips wrote:You didn t take in account the carrier capacity of SSD. ALso TIE bombers or gunboats can use torpedoes/rockets/bombs from high range which are guided. Not sure they can pass through Lunar shields because those weapons are stopped by energy shields in SW universe

I did mention it.
I pointed out that the point defense capacities cancel it out as an edge for the ISD (it is an ISD after all, not an SSD, think you made a mistake there :P). Possibly if mass enough of them, but generally I doubt TIEs are a threat to the Lunar.

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

Posted: 26 May 2016, 10:35
by Beernchips
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

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

Posted: 26 May 2016, 11:05
by CALiGeR190
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

All of my calcs are lore based, not the bastardized and heavily nerfed/downscaled versions seen in the game.
Lunar defensive armament engages at 5,000 Km, the missile batteries alone can create clouds of near-light-speed velocity shrapnel a kilometer in diameter each. TIEs would never get close enough to do anything to the Lunar.

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

Posted: 26 May 2016, 15:26
by Rolepgeek
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.

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.

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