- ROBERTO jh
- |
- Fabled Heroic Member
Posted by: mojeda101
Posted by: ROBERTO jh
And to mojelda: you say a single shot from KotoR's Leviathan was more powerful then a MAC?
So you mean to tell me each one of those shots was 256 kilotons? Because thats 4 times more powerful then a ship board MAC.No, I'm saying a Turbo-laser is four times stronger than a MAC, which it is.
If you're referring to the calculation cmdr posted, then you would duely note it specifically says it is four times stronger then the Hiroshima bomb, which is a quarter of the power of a shipboard MAC, plus change.
Hiroshima went up in a 15 kiloton blaze; a MAC hits with 64 kilotons. So in that regard, they are equal.
And you're generalizing turbolasers into one be-all weapon. The cannons in Attack of the Clones that shot down the Core Ships are considered turbolasers, yet they caused the same damage a rocket fired from a gunship did did, just fired longer, causing more damage. Not really impressive.
Obviously ship turbo-lasers are stronger, I would hope, because those 12 legged walkers are weak compared to a MAC.
Still, they brought down a Core Ship.
You always boil down to that, so I'll just boil it down to the same -blam!- thing.
A fuel rod cannon, in the games, does not vaporize a marine. Therefore, it cannot.
Same mechanics, CGI/graphical restraints prevent it.
If you are going to pull a bull-blam!- line and ignore the canon technical data of one side, we'll do the same for both sides. Since we have not seen a forerunner ship's weapons fire, they can't be that powerful right?
No need to get angry, cmdr, for both our sakes. Its clouding your sense of reasoning and ability to read what I wrote.
I never said that the Destroyer could not have vaped that 'roid due to lack of special effects, not this time. No matter how much that IS the reasoning for why it seemed so strong, it never the less was depicted as such, so remains fair game.
However, other factors must be considered. I was pointing out you have one example of a Wars weapon being that strong. I have thousands proving they aren't.
But I'll throw you a bone and show you one other example of a powerful Wars weapon. A Correllian starcruiser one shots a Destroyer at point-blank in Episode 6. It is hard to see, but if you go frame by frame, you'll see it, when Ackbar order the fleet to converge on the Executor.
But even that example has its flaws. I you'll note, the Destroyer explodes not in a singular detonation, but rather goes up in a flame of several, smaller explosions, as if whatever forced it to die was not the shot itself, but rather an internal explosion, likely a reactor failure.
Anyway, my point of the Coruscant battle has, in a way, just been proven. I have yet to see you, or mojelda, through out the entirity of this thread, explain to me why none of those shots fired were cataclysmic, country demolishing blasts.
Because you can't answer me that, for in order to do so would require you to try and explain something that would, given your way, defy the laws of physics,
And even though I've brought it up countless times, I Instead, get equally persistant evasion remarks, ignoring my question entirely, and instead throwing out the Star Destroyer.net calculations. And not to denounce the validity of that calc I assure you!
But rather, why does that calculation have any superior authority over my own plethora of examples? So now we have an internal canon contradiction. So, we, naturally, refer to the canon rules to see what it may say. According to the Holocron Continuity Database:
"When the matter of changes between movie versions arises, the most recently released editions are deemed superior to older ones, as they correct mistakes, improve consistency between the two trilogies, and express Lucas's current vision of the Star Wars universe most closely. The deleted scenes included on the DVDs are also considered G-canon (when they're not in conflict with the movie).[1]"
Similar to how if something in Halo contradicts, the newer canon supercedes the old.
Now lets look at the facts. The most recent release of Ep. V was with the remastered original trilogy in 1997, the one I have. The most recent G-canon installment, and thusly the most accurate current portrayal of Lucas' vision, however, is the 2005 release of Star Wars Episode III, Revenge of the Sith.
This is why I always primarily use the Coruscant battle in my examples.
The only other conclusion that can be drawn is that it is impossible to discern the power of the weapons because of their being to many contradictions. The power of an ISD is contradicted in the final battle of Ep. VI, where the medical frigate and an ISD are trading blows. But like the Venator vs the Invisible Hand, only smaller-scaled explosions occur.
So we are either at a complete impass, and will for all eternity be shouting "I'm right and you're wrong" at each other, or we take the initiative, man-up, look at the canon, look at the facts and come to a logical conclusion.
I vote for the second option.