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.
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..
"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."
"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.