Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

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: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby CALiGeR190 » 28 May 2016, 13:38

Kadaeux wrote:
CALiGeR190 wrote:Armaments:
In terms of raw damage, the Iconoclast weapon batteries are more powerful that phasers by a long shot. While the Type-9 phasers are technically capable of penetrating void shielding based on power calcs, it wouldn't be a quick or easy endeavor; the iconoclasts armor (although thin by 40K standards) also capable of resisting phaser strikes. By comparison, the plasma or laser weapon batteries (while much less accurate) are entirely capable of overpowering the deflector shields (although it may take more than one salvo) and tear through an Intrepid's hull with contemptuous ease.
However, Intrepid has the trump card of having tropeodes, tricobalt devices and a Gravitation beam: all of which are entirely capable of destroying an Iconoclast (even if shielded in a few cases). So no edge to either here, as both can quite easily kill the other.


Incorrect.

The Photon torpedoes the Intrepid packs have 64 megaton warheads. They literally wouldn't even tickle the Iconoclast's hull given it's own firepower is in (overall) approximately the 1.5 Teraton range.

The Intrepid literally can't hurt the Iconoclast with it's weaponry.

Range:
The Iconoclast's maximum engagement range is around 10,000 Km (depending on its armaments) but often engages at much closer ranges. The Intrepid Maximum range isn't explicitly known, but it's safe to assume the two will engage each other at close range. Draw.


This is purely false. In both BFG and Rogue Trader 10'000 kilometres is literally point blank for any warship. Ranges are in fact SIGNIFICANTLY higher than this.

Inquisitor Kard wrote:"In the shooting phase, your ships get to unleash their weaponry against the enemy. The attacks that ships make are divided into two sorts; direct firing and ordnance attacks. Direct fire attacks include weapons such as lasers, fusion beams and plasma launchers which when fired hit almost immediately, even across tens of thousands of kilometres."
Inquisitor Kard, post: 7394747, member: 101437 wrote:
Inquisitor Kard, post: 7394747, member: 101437 wrote:
Instead you used a paragraph of game mechanics...

"Enemies at close range pose a much greater threat than those thousands of kilometres away, so a ship will normally target the nearest enemy ship or squadron. However a ship can always fire at whatever targets you like if it takes and passes a leadership test on a 2D6 first."

But I have no particular objection with that, my own calcs are based off of the game mechanics and their statements within reason..

Namely

"Once a torpedo is launched, the plasma drive propels the torpedo forward at high speed, whilst beginning a buildup which will culminate in its detonation. Torpedoes have a limited ability to detect a target and will alter course to intercept if they pass within a few thousand kilometres of a vessel."
followed by
"If the Torpedo marker contacts a ship's base (friend or foe) it attacks"

This makes it clear, a Ships base represents an area several thousand kilometres around the vessel. (Which is what I recall the White Dwarf saying as well.

Thus whether you like it or not, Short Range (Say 10cm gameplay wise) equals no less than ten thousand kilometres, and may be as high as twenty thousand kilometres or more.

Extreme ranges of 60'000 Kilometres to 120'000 Kilometres or more.

Then we have the Blackstone Fortresses for more range, specifically 75'000 Leagues, which translates to 360'000 Kilometres for a League on Land to 420'000 Kilometres if we use a Nautical Mile.

Using the Nautical figure.

60cm Ranged weapons would have a range of 280'000 Kilometres.
45cm Ranged weapons would have a range of 210'000 Kilometres.
30cm Ranged weapons would have a range of 140'000 Kilometres. (Which is also consequently, the speed of Torpedoes and faster ships per turn)
All of which puts 1cm at 4'666 kilometres.

Using the land figures.

60cm Ranged weapons would have a range of 240'000 Kilometres.
45cm Ranged weapons would have a range of 180'000 Kilometres.
30cm Ranged weapons would have a range of 120'000 Kilometres. (Which is also consequently, the speed of Torpedoes and faster ships per turn)
All of which puts 1cm at 4'000 kilometres.

(Note: Blackstones have a range of 90cm. As do Nova Cannons)

I hereby close my case. :p

Quoting my own Calcs on Imperium weapon ranges.
But here is an addendum with Rogue Trader Figures thrown into the mix for a low end. It has long being established that 1 Void Unit in Rogue Trader = roughly 10'000 Kilometres.


Thunderstrike Macrocannons: Range 4 VU, = 40'000 Kilometres (Weak Obsolete Civilian grade Macrocannons)
Mars Pattern Macrocannons: Range 6 VU, = 60'000 Kilometres
Sunsear Laser Battery: Range 9 VU, = 90'000 Kilometres
Ryza Pattern Plasma Battery: Range 5 VU, = 50'000 Kilometres
Starbreaker Lance: Range 5 VU, = 50'000 Kilometres
Titanforge Lance: Range 6 VU, = 60'000 Kilometres
Jovian Missile Battery: Range 6 VU, = 60'000 Kilometres
Lathe Grav-Culverin: Range 5 VU, = 50'000 KM
Mezoa Macrocannons: Range 5 VU, = 50'000 KM
Pyros Melta-Cannons: Range 4 VU, = 40'000 KM
Sunhammer Lance: Range 9 VU, = 90'000 KM
Bombardment Cannons: Range 4 VU,= 40'000 KM
Disruption Macrocannons: Range 5 VU, = 50'000 KM
Hecutor Patterns Plasma Battery: Range 11 VU,= 110'000 KM
Stygies Pattern Macrocannon: Range 5 VU,= 50'000 KM
Godsbane Lance: Range 12 VU,= 120'000 KM
Las-Burner: Range 3 VU,= 30'000 KM
Mezoa Lance: Range 4 VU,= 40'000 KM
Voidsunder Lance: Range 6 VU,= 60'000 KM
Mars Pattern Nova Cannon: Range 6-40 VU,= Minimum 60'000 KM range to maximum 400'000 KM range.
Ryza Pattern Nova Cannon: Range 6-36 VU,= Minimum 60'000 KM range to maximum 360'000 KM range.
Normal Torpedo: Speed 10 VUs, 100'000km for 30m (55.6 km/s)
Fast-Burn Torpedo: Speed 15 VUs, 150'000km for 30m (83.3 kps)


Speed of Imperial Strike Craft:
Fury Interceptors: 10 VU (100'000 Kilometres) For a 30 minute turn indicated that's a speed of 55.6 kilometres per second.
Starhawk Bomber: 6 VU (60'000 Kilometres) 33.3 Kilometres per second.
Shark Assault Boat: AS FURY.


Captain Hat wrote:Space Hulks turn more slowly but they're not exactly normal ships. Last I checked we didn't have an accurate figure for how long a turn in BFG is though- the only indicator I know of that explicitly states the flank speed of an Imperial warship said something about 0.75C, which always struck me as being rather OTT.

The Gothic rulebook DOES explicitly state in the section about measuring distances for range purposes etc that the base of a ship is, in BFG scale, "a few thousand kilometres" from the stem to the edge. So if you're going to use game mechanics that puts the scale at anywhere from 2cm to 3,000 kilometres up to 2cm to just under 10,000 kilometres for the scale of the game.

At 2cm:3,000km, that gives the shortest-ranged Imperial ships in the game (30cm) a range of 45,000 kilometres and a movement distance per turn (however long a "turn" is) of 37,500km for most capital ships (25cm). Torpedoes actually move at 90,000km per turn because they move in BOTH Ordnance phases. The longest-ranged conventional batteries (60cm) then have a range of 90,000km and the Planet Killer, Nova cannons and Blackstone Fortresses can reliably strike targets out to 135,000km.

At 2cm:9,000km (still in the range of "a few thousand") that puts the shortest weapon ranges at 135,000km and the longest at 270,000km (conventional) and 405,000km (special).

These figures are strikingly similar to the high end and low end produced by Kard's analysis based on (at high end) a fluff reference to the range of the Blackstones and (at low end) another set of game mechanics.



Combat speed:
The two are large similar in terms of mobility, and both are displayed as engaging in sweeping maneuver-based combat. So they are equals here.


Based on what? As much as i'd tell you the Iconoclast would blow apart the Intrepid with the ease of andre the giant standing on an ant, the Trek vessel is more agile.


Durability:
The Intrepid is entirely dependent on its shield. While the multi-spectrum deflector shields are theoretically capable of resisting weapons in the power range of the Iconoclast, they can't do it for long. On the other hand, The escort Void Sheilds are quite capable of resisting phasers for upwards of an hour, and the Iconoclast is armored like a dreadnought compared to the much smaller Star Trek vessel. This goes quite clearly in favour of the Iconoclast.


No, they're not, not even close.

In terms of out of combat speed the two are fairly even in stellar travel, but the Iconoclast using warp travel is at a distinct disadvantage to Intredpid's Warp drives. The Intrepid wins here.


Entirely false. A 40k Warp Drive, while dangerous, can cross the galaxy in a year. The Intrepid expected to be travelling for 70 years.

However, if we assume a 1v1 scenario where both are aiming with killer intent, the battle is actually surprisingly even. While the Iconoclast is has flat out better standard weapons and protection, as well as neither having the edge over the other in speed, the tiny size of the Star Trek vessel and the dodgy targeting equipment of the Iconoclast may well make the Intrepid a very difficult target for the Iconoclast to kill.


Not when you factor in that a single hit will reduce the intrepid to a radiation cloud.

If the captain of the Intrepid is competent and makes use of all the weapons at his/her disposal: there is no reason why the Intrepid shouldn't be able to destroy a lone Iconoclast and escape with little or no damage taken.


You mean, except for lacking the firepower to do so in 100 years?

Overall the Intrepid is a superior vessel considering its size and versatility outside of combat, but the Iconoclast wins in most situations where the two ships meet in combat.
And so, the born-and-bread combat vessel wins out as a combatant (although a 1v1 scenario would be a close battle), but the Intrepid is the superior ship in every other respect excluding cargo space.


The Intrepid is only superior in a scientific role. That is its only point of victory.

I was wondering when someone would post something like this.
Yep, this comparison was always going to be dodgy: ST isn't exactly a strong point of mine and I already knew liberaties may have to be taken to make such a comparison 'fair'.

I've seen the above clacs before, but I've also seen much tamer stuff being thrown around. As is the problem with 40K: it's more a sandbox than solid stats, they can be as OP or tonned down as you like them and you could always find something to justify it.

Basically what I'm saying is that you're right, but at the same time, that doesn't make my attempt at comparing these two ships 'incorrect': just another incarnation of a 40K ship that can be found on the Internet.
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: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby Kadaeux » 28 May 2016, 14:47

CALiGeR190 wrote:I was wondering when someone would post something like this.
Yep, this comparison was always going to be dodgy: ST isn't exactly a strong point of mine and I already knew liberaties may have to be taken to make such a comparison 'fair'.


I wouldn't call ST my strong point, but i've debated it enough over the years :p

I've seen the above clacs before, but I've also seen much tamer stuff being thrown around. As is the problem with 40K: it's more a sandbox than solid stats, they can be as OP or tonned down as you like them and you could always find something to justify it.


Honestly, there really are no "tamer" stuff being thrown around. Unless people you've been debating with (Which on certain forums is a given) have been quite deliberately dishonest, as it is the stuff I posted above is the "middle ground" for 40k. It's also the most consistent across the board.

I mean, we COULD get really silly and bring up some calculations that show 40k as capable of engaging in combat at .75c (Sabbat Martyr quotes it as combat speed) another that claims that 40k ships fight each other at ranges that dwarf a solar system (Which I think everyone can agree is literally ludicrous)

Basically what I'm saying is that you're right, but at the same time, that doesn't make my attempt at comparing these two ships 'incorrect': just another incarnation of a 40K ship that can be found on the Internet.


It does really make it incorrect, it'd be the equivalent of (and i'm not saying you've done it intentionally) going into a debate and saying that so long as you have a packing crate, you're immune to phaser fire, or in a SW vs ST context, that the weakest ship is immune to the Death Star because their deflectors are 'immune to lasers'.

But yeah, don't take what I'm saying as a "shut up you peasant!" debating these things can be fun... to a degree. (When you get people that seriously think Mass Effect has a fair chance against anybody except the New Battlestar Galactica for example it gets really really painful.)

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

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby CALiGeR190 » 28 May 2016, 15:00

Kadaeux wrote:
CALiGeR190 wrote:I was wondering when someone would post something like this.
Yep, this comparison was always going to be dodgy: ST isn't exactly a strong point of mine and I already knew liberaties may have to be taken to make such a comparison 'fair'.


I wouldn't call ST my strong point, but i've debated it enough over the years :p

I've seen the above clacs before, but I've also seen much tamer stuff being thrown around. As is the problem with 40K: it's more a sandbox than solid stats, they can be as OP or tonned down as you like them and you could always find something to justify it.


Honestly, there really are no "tamer" stuff being thrown around. Unless people you've been debating with (Which on certain forums is a given) have been quite deliberately dishonest, as it is the stuff I posted above is the "middle ground" for 40k. It's also the most consistent across the board.

I mean, we COULD get really silly and bring up some calculations that show 40k as capable of engaging in combat at .75c (Sabbat Martyr quotes it as combat speed) another that claims that 40k ships fight each other at ranges that dwarf a solar system (Which I think everyone can agree is literally ludicrous)

Basically what I'm saying is that you're right, but at the same time, that doesn't make my attempt at comparing these two ships 'incorrect': just another incarnation of a 40K ship that can be found on the Internet.


It does really make it incorrect, it'd be the equivalent of (and i'm not saying you've done it intentionally) going into a debate and saying that so long as you have a packing crate, you're immune to phaser fire, or in a SW vs ST context, that the weakest ship is immune to the Death Star because their deflectors are 'immune to lasers'.

But yeah, don't take what I'm saying as a "shut up you peasant!" debating these things can be fun... to a degree. (When you get people that seriously think Mass Effect has a fair chance against anybody except the New Battlestar Galactica for example it gets really really painful.)

Well you seem to understand my standing then.
Yes, I've been involved in many a debate, and the variations of calcs (most of them wrong, some more more than others; Some can actually be justified in the correct context) are vast indeed. I've seen people try to tell me with a straight face that a Deflector shield could hold up to Nova Cannon. Yeah. I may like to take liberates when making comparisons but I'm not stupid.

I'm basically bending the rules a bit to make 'fair' comparisons out of what otherwise wouldn't (although I won't touch ST again any time soon, or anything Battlestar, or Mass effect, that's just stretching it more than I'd like to... I also wont touch anything Anime 'cos thats when the crazy bullshit comes out of the woodworks), allows for more options and variations in comparison.
At least 40K vs SW is alright to compare if you use the high end SW calcs that suggest that SW ships can hit targets from across star systems. But there targeting isn't optimised for it so they rarely, if ever, hit their targets... which is why SW ships fire so many shots from their weapons apparently.
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: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby Kadaeux » 28 May 2016, 15:08

CALiGeR190 wrote:Well you seem to understand my standing then.
Yes, I've been involved in many a debate, and the variations of calcs (most of them wrong, some more more than others; Some can actually be justified in the correct context) are vast indeed. I've seen people try to tell me with a straight face that a Deflector shield could hold up to Nova Cannon. Yeah. I may like to take liberates when making comparisons but I'm not stupid.


"We are the borg resistance is"
*NC Shot*
*Borg Homeworld* "Those guys seem a bit ornery, let's leave them alone..."

I'm basically bending the rules a bit to make 'fair' comparisons out of what otherwise wouldn't (although I won't touch ST again any time soon, or anything Battlestar, or Mass effect, that's just stretching it more than I'd like to... I also wont touch anything Anime 'cos thats when the crazy bullshit comes out of the woodworks), allows for more options and variations in comparison.


About as far as I would go with Battlestar would be a debate on how a Viper (in atmo) does vs say a Lightning. And I avoid anime debates like the plague for the same reasons...

At least 40K vs SW is alright to compare if you use the high end SW calcs that suggest that SW ships can hit targets from across star systems. But there targeting isn't optimised for it so they rarely, if ever, hit their targets... which is why SW ships fire so many shots from their weapons apparently.


SW is always interesting to do. In most debates i've been involved with it comes down to a narrow SW victory in a 40k vs SW debate. Basically the "SW" side claiming that there is evidence the DS2 was built in 6 months "in secret" and Hyperdrive's speed advantage in known ground.

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

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby Rolepgeek » 29 May 2016, 00:02

I've got to say that blanket refusing anime is kinda silly. I mean, yeah, there's some insane stuff with certain animes, particularly things like Yamato or Gurren Lagann, but there's plenty of stuff that stays consistent, too. Robotech is okay with that, Gundam is alright, there's plenty of semi-hard sci fi. Which, granted, won't stand a chance against anything in 40k, because 40k is Space Fantasy, but still.

Giant Cathedrals in Space keeping you safe from Hell-Demons while you hope your Reality Field holds together long enough for you to navigate through literally Hell isn't much better than Minovsky Particles.

Anime's a media method, not a genre.

As a note, though, I don't really think there's any anime in particular that should be compared, I just debate things like that on principle. *shrug*

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

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby Imperator5 » 29 May 2016, 17:05

If anime is in, Megas XLR Will kill everything in Super destructor mode!

Again, most internet forum wars go with 40k calcs being low end, other being high end and flaming going on until that is accepted.

Again, this time the poor Intrepid is 38 thousand years obsolete combat wise. But who needs it, it can go back in time and warn itself to avoid the Iconoclast, or even go to the iconoclast's creation time, and blow it at the shipyard. This is also not fair, since the Intrepid is not a warship at all, it is an armed science vessel.

One is not a warship but a walking... err flying plot device.

Also, Nova cannons I counted when using the neutronium shells, fire around 3,5x10^35 joules. That's around ten times higher than high end superlaser calcs for Deathstars.

Also, it took the whole Talshiar-Obsidian order fleet in DS9 hours to burn the crust off of the "supposed" fake Dominium homeworld, and they were going "full on nuke it" with Galor and D'deridex battlecruisers.
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.

Retrospectus
Posts: 3
Joined: 30 April 2016, 22:39
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby Retrospectus » 20 June 2016, 03:07

yeah, star trek always fares poorly in combat comparisons. star wars and 40k pretty much always lead the pack with all the big guns and crazy numbers.
problem is that trek is on a whole other scale, everything is so small, even a borg cube is roughly the size of a light cruiser with none of the firepower or durability

User avatar
Cryhavok
Posts: 292
Joined: 03 June 2016, 16:02
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby Cryhavok » 21 June 2016, 15:01

I'd like to see a comparison between battletech universe warships and 40,000 warships. Maybe a McKenna class battleship versus one of the Imperium battleships.
Do you hear the voices too?!?

User avatar
Ahzek Ahriman
Posts: 434
Joined: 15 May 2016, 12:51
Location: Krakow, Poland
Contact:

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby Ahzek Ahriman » 23 June 2016, 14:47

Cryhavok wrote:I'd like to see a comparison between battletech universe warships and 40,000 warships. Maybe a McKenna class battleship versus one of the Imperium battleships.


Curbstomp. Plain and simple. Battletech warships are my by far favourite, due to how "realistic" (take it with a grain of sci-fi salt) and practical they are. And they are not only nicely practically thought out but they are based in a setting that's not far away from ours (a millenium) and that doesn't even count lostech from succession wars. They are simply on a whole other level than 40k madness, they don't have any fancy voidshields, materials are not adamantium levels of omg-it's-tough, weapons are not capable of cracking a continental shelf with single salvo.

But yeah, I'd also love to see a more calculated comparison for lulz :D
Though it would be more like McKenna vs Dauntless with its void shielding off.
The sentence below is true
Spoiler : :
The sentence above is false

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

Re: Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Postby CALiGeR190 » 23 June 2016, 17:02

Cryhavok wrote:I'd like to see a comparison between battletech universe warships and 40,000 warships. Maybe a McKenna class battleship versus one of the Imperium battleships.

The McKenna is about 1.2Km long. An Inperial battleship is at the very least least 2 Km long, 8-12 Km long in most sources.

It's not a fair comparison.
Looking at its stats, it compares more favourably to a Sword Class than anything.
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