Universal ship comparisons: Intrepid-Class Starship vs Iconoclast Destroyer

Share your stories about the Gothic Sector and your battle reports.
User avatar
Mr Morden
Posts: 162
Joined: 16 April 2016, 16:41
Contact:

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

Postby Mr Morden » 27 May 2016, 10:53

The Adun is also a one off (I know it wasn't originally, but its the last of its kind), a Tomb ship doesn't always travel alone. Its a very one-sided comparison, Nercrons are potentially THE most OP thing in Si-Fi in space lore-wise, and are pretty broken on the TT (excluding literal gods, like Q, for example).


Or the Culture...........the Necrons (and most Sci-fi ships) would have serious trouble facing one of their vessels - and god forbid its an actual Culture warship............

And of course the Shadows and Vorlons are no slouch in space combat and using hyperspace dimensions to win...........

The Ori and Replicator vessels in Stargate are pretty powerful as well.

I don't know them but apparently a lot of the animae star ships are much more OP than any of these ...........
Imperial - Lady Lukara (8), Chaos - Abraxus (8), Eldar - Flower of Carnage (2) , Orks - Big Bazza (6), Wolve - Floki (6) :mrgreen:

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 » 27 May 2016, 12:27

Mr Morden wrote:Or the Culture...........the Necrons (and most Sci-fi ships) would have serious trouble facing one of their vessels - and god forbid its an actual Culture warship............

And of course the Shadows and Vorlons are no slouch in space combat and using hyperspace dimensions to win...........

The Ori and Replicator vessels in Stargate are pretty powerful as well.

I don't know them but apparently a lot of the animae star ships are much more OP than any of these ...........

Fair play with the culture.
The others would compare favourably against necron vessels as well.

I don't count anime as Si-Fi. Anime is anime, and some of the shit that goes on there is just batshit insane.
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 » 27 May 2016, 14:13

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.

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

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

Postby Rolepgeek » 27 May 2016, 19:53

CALiGeR190 wrote:I don't count anime as Si-Fi. Anime is anime, and some of the shit that goes on there is just batshit insane.

You say that as though 40k was any better. :P

The entire post above mine goes to show this, in fact. Though why he's using Rogue Trader rather than Battlefleet Gothic and related lore (might be misinterpreting) is beyond me.

User avatar
Inspector of War
Posts: 36
Joined: 25 April 2016, 06:54
Contact:

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

Postby Inspector of War » 27 May 2016, 22:01

Battlefleet Gothic has less in the way of solid figures and numbers. Rogue Trader does have those figures.
Emperor DAMNIT, but do I hate autocorrect. :evil: :evil:

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, 03:56

Rolepgeek wrote:
CALiGeR190 wrote:I don't count anime as Si-Fi. Anime is anime, and some of the shit that goes on there is just batshit insane.

You say that as though 40k was any better. :P

The entire post above mine goes to show this, in fact. Though why he's using Rogue Trader rather than Battlefleet Gothic and related lore (might be misinterpreting) is beyond me.


Read it better mate, i've used both BFG and Rogue Trader numbers. The latter to support the former. ;)

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

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

Postby Rolepgeek » 28 May 2016, 04:08

Kadaeux wrote:
Rolepgeek wrote:
CALiGeR190 wrote:I don't count anime as Si-Fi. Anime is anime, and some of the shit that goes on there is just batshit insane.

You say that as though 40k was any better. :P

The entire post above mine goes to show this, in fact. Though why he's using Rogue Trader rather than Battlefleet Gothic and related lore (might be misinterpreting) is beyond me.


Read it better mate, i've used both BFG and Rogue Trader numbers. The latter to support the former. ;)

I'm not sure where you're getting that defensive fire starts at 10,000km though. As far as I know, it's maybe 2,000 at most.

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, 04:11

Rolepgeek wrote:
Kadaeux wrote:
Rolepgeek wrote:You say that as though 40k was any better. :P

The entire post above mine goes to show this, in fact. Though why he's using Rogue Trader rather than Battlefleet Gothic and related lore (might be misinterpreting) is beyond me.


Read it better mate, i've used both BFG and Rogue Trader numbers. The latter to support the former. ;)

I'm not sure where you're getting that defensive fire starts at 10,000km though. As far as I know, it's maybe 2,000 at most.


No, that was a typo. Execution gives us a range of about 1'000km before a Dauntless started trying to shoot down a bomber squadron. (A traitor Dauntless)

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

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

Postby Rolepgeek » 28 May 2016, 04:13

Okay. That sounds about right then. Apologies for misunderstanding. Though, do you know if it's mentioned anywhere in codices or rulebooks? Just as a secondary source?

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, 04:20

Rolepgeek wrote:Okay. That sounds about right then. Apologies for misunderstanding. Though, do you know if it's mentioned anywhere in codices or rulebooks? Just as a secondary source?


It's stated in BFG as being the ships "base" which is about 2'000km-4'000km (Across, not from the centre) (A ships base in BFG = "several thousand kilometres" based on the torpedo guidance remark in the ordnance section.)

Rogue Trader merely uses examples such as a Quad Autocannons, Twin-Linked Bolters and the like as examples of turrets, so we don't have any ranging information from that. (The only impose penalties to Hit'n'Run actions by default, Battlefleet Koronus expands it a little, but that isn't in-reach at the moment.)


Return to “Stories and Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests