igorimp

This is what I wrote in for other information: Occupation: Loitering for a while. Builds warships at free time as a hobby. Interests: All things Star Wars, all things war and all things evil (but generally, the combination of the three)

Sorry! But, after watching the first three episodes, you understand if I wasn't too thrilled about wasting huge amounts of materials for a Death 'Destroy-with-one-torpeado-shot' Star. Seriously, I rather build ISD-II's. A fleet of them instead of that one big ball because the Destroy System order lowers your loyalty throughout the galaxy by some 10 %. Ouch.

That's obviously a programmer's bug. The DS has been made to be Imperial, they didn't see a couple of bored men chaning Death Star ownership. But, seriously, how does it work in Strategy window? Can you control it as if you were an Imperial? And if you destroy a planet, who losses loyalty, Rebels or Imperials?

Here's a new one, at least for me... When you try to send a Death Star to a system where there is already one Death Star, your droid says something like: "The gravitational effects prevent us from sending another Death Star to that system." I was shocked because I went through all the sounds with the resource hacker and I don't remeber meeting this one. Needless to say, as evident from the comment, I had a surplus of materials, so I build four DSs. You also can't build a Death Star if their is one already in-system... Nice.

I don't like the whole 'substitute' idea. I mean, the point of the Super Star Destroyer was that it was bigger and more powerful then ANYTHING in the galaxy. The whole point being that the Empire would spend zillions of materials to build the damn thing, while the Rebels would equip a huge fleet for that amount. When you look at it, put 6 Mon Cals and their fighters together and that SSD is history, Bulwark present or not. By matching the SSD, LucasArts just reduced the Imperial achivement to mere ordinary. Thank god they didn't try to match the Death Star (with a 'Life' Star)... otherwise we'd be having some very strange battles...

That's a great idea! It can also be used very deviously. Let say you build a single Lancer Frigate at about day 300, rename it Lancer Frigate 23 and parade across enemy space. The Rebel thinks you've got lots of them and ignores building fighters to build more Bulk Cruisers - when, in fact, what you did build are 8 Imperial Star Destroyers that easily take their Bulks to pieces... Now, THAT'S just plain evil!

Just was thinking the other day - how would the battle of Endor look like in Rebellion? First of, planet Endor has about 10 Advanced Shipyards and a Death Star Shield. There are about 12 ground troops - mostly stormtroopers - on the surface. Apart from the 80 % completed Death Star, there is an SSD and some 20 ISDs in orbit. Aboard the SSD, Piett is an admiral and the fleet is full of TIEs. The DS has the Emperor, Vader and Jerrjerrod (Commander). So, before the Rebel fleet arrives in system, Han Solo, Leia and Chewie with a few commandoes start a sabotage mission on the DS shield generator. At the same time, Luke is dispatched to kidnap Vader on the Death Star. This is where it comes apart. In movie, all of this can happen at once. In Rebellion, the battle runs first (Rebels therefore lose because they can't harm the Death Star with it's shield), and then the missions are resolved. As for the missions, Luke gets captured by the 80+ troopers on the Death Star and is brought for the final battle where he gets wounded and captured (he brought no decoys or support). On the surface, the Rebels manage to blow up the shield and go to the nearest Rebel planet... ONLY it's too late. The fleet's been blown up. THE END??

Weird Al songs? Never considered that option. Bulk Cruisers Ugly Girl and the Beer Song sound nice. Also, liked the Fraiser names (Cruiser Niles ). Well, hope Victory Destroyer Vader's Feet doesn't smell. I also have a tendency to name ships according to the system/sector they were build in. It's not really funny, but it could be a very bad thing in multiplayer where my enemy could see a ship named "Made in Bespin". Gives a preatty big hint about shipyards there...

You know that feeling (about day 600+) when you become so dominant that the enemy can't do anything about it... and you build your 23 Imperial Star Destroyer and just can't think of a name for it? Well, I have a very delicate system of naming ships. All big ships get a prefix based on class (by system from TIE fighter) and a serious name (ie. ISD Crusher for an Imperial Star Destroyer). But, after a certain time, I just can't name my freighters and transports any more, so they either get numerical names ("IE-60" - Internet Explorer 6) or get crazy names. So, I was wondering what are your favorite crazy ship names. Here are my inputs: Almost Evil - Carrack Cruiser Twisted Laugh - Victory-II Garbagebox - Escort Carrier Very Evil Lady - Strike Cruiser Clueless - Dreadnaught (very late in the game) Panda Freedom - Calamari Cruiser Mobile Target No. 1 - Bulk Cruiser (late in the game) Bothan's Nose - any old Rebel Space Invader 1 - First in a series of Assault Transports Wookiee Ride Express 1 - First Rebel transport in a series and, of course, when I get bored with that, I just start making movie star named ships (mostly female - they're ships after all) like (transport) TRN Carrie Fisher... That's NOT sick. Is it?

I've been surfing the net in search of an 11-year old game which I'm sure a lot of people will remember: Day of the Tentacle. Some nostalgia made me look for it for download in the abandonware community (after some years, most companies release their games for free public availability so they can be downloaded for free - check out http://www.abandongames.com). What I found out really disturbed me. After so many years, Day of the Tentacle is still firmly locked out. And it's not just that game, LucasArts keeps almost everything they have locked up: most adventure games (Indiana Jones, The Dig, Sam & Max...), the Star Wars titles (yes, even the early '90s X-wing which works only on DOS these days) and, basicly, everything they've made... Couple that with their distrust towards releasing Rebellion's source code and... there you have it! But there is another mention here. The quality of their games have really sunk low. Such classic and original titles as Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe, Day of the Tentacle, TIE fighter, Monkey Island... have been replaced by First person shootouts... I have nothing against them, in fact, I love playing Jedi Academy, I just think they did much better games when they were doing original ideas, not just refining trends. If nothing, then Knights of the Old Republic, prove this to be truth - decleared as 'a step in a good direction' by most, is it enough to make the company turn to 'the light side'? I, for one, really think they need new menagement. Btw, LucasArts started to make Sam & Max 2, but they cancelled the project. A bunch of enraged fans started to sign a petition against that decision. Check out http://www.savesamandmax.com for more details!

Yes, unfortunatly, most people think Real-time strategy means that Turn-based is simply outdated. No, it isn't - as Civ 3 proves. It's just that the game manufacturers are afraid to make something that would seem outdated by that concept. As for player having no-control of battle it can work, too. If you've seen Master of Orion 2, it's ground combat is done in the same way: you don't do a thing, once the transports land, you see the colony in background and your troopers charge the enemy. Looks very impressive. Orion 3 was a step backwards. Now, all you see is the entire planet slowly spinning, while you issue general orders for the army (like frontal charge, flank attack, etc.). They added control, but took away any representation of the battle there was. Now, battle's just a series of numbers rolling. I honestly think it was better before...

I've played many, many games (mostly strategy, since I adore them) for the last 10+ years and I can tell you that computer games are honestly getting WORSE! Today, all games seem to be about is graphics. For that reason I've installed a 386 computer with DOS in my room, where I dropped all the 'good, old games' that have greater realism, depth and replayability. I honestly think Master of Orion 1 was some 10 levels ahead of the 3rd; I really think no strategy game today even approaches Master of Magic... and I won't even get into all the mid-1990s games. One thing I loved about Rebellion is that same replay value where you can run the game on and on and discover something new in it in your 74th game... That's why I think Rebellion 2 should make the replay value even better by adding things like: - Standard (SW) galaxy /or/ Random galaxy generated by computer - Much more sides - Ssi-Rukh, neutrals, etc. - instead of just the offered two (+ability to add your own custom race) - A standard set of SW characters + a generator that would allow the computer to just make up a character or two as you go along - More developed 'traitors' allowing characters to really switch sides, not just foil a mission. This would be a gaming disaster; to have Luke switch to the dark side and come after you a moment later. - A ship / ground troops designing option that would allow you to add your own ship. - And, of course, an included editor so we can all tamper with it even more. I don't think anything of this is unreasonable. So would it be too much to ask to just have a little more in-game depth instead of just snappy graphics?

I will be very brief, as Vakundok's counterarguments fail to touch on point. Firstly, I try to state as much known numbers and details as their are. You, on the other hand, pull out counterclaims without even backing them up. Not to mention you seem to stick to little facts, ignoring the more prominent one. But, fine, let's forget all counts we ever made. Let's say the Rebels had 99 Mon Calamari Cruisers on Endor. That makes them superior. Yuppy. Happy now? Like it matters if they had four or tweleve Nebulon B frigates. Each one is (about) five-six times weaker in firepower and shielding to a Star Destroyer. Even Mon Cals being near, but still short of ISD strength. EVEN IF THEY WERE, the Rebels would have to have 22 of them (since you claim their weren't 24 ISD's and the Executor is unimportant anyway), so let say they had 99 of them. Hurra. Your claim of there existing ONLY one academy in the galaxy made ME laugh. A Star Destroyer has a crew of 37'000; there are some 17'000 of them. That means that single academy had to train 629'000'000 people just to crew the Star Destroyer force, not to mention millions of other ships, bases, ground troops... etc. That would mean the Empire had the capability of training some 100 million people yearly (or 2 million weekly) in ONE Academy where training courses (at least the one Han Solo went on before he left the Navy - again, proving that academies do exist) last a year... Man, the building where they have classes should be HUUGGGEEEEE. How many such Academies do Rebels have with their (official and public) membership of 0 planets, since they are in hiding? "How can the destruction of ONE cruiser lower that number by TWO?" The other I was refering to was the Liberty, which was destroyed by the first shot, followed by the second shot which took out the other "unnamed" cruiser. That is why I've lowered the number by two before the fleets engaged. But, since we deducted they had 99 cruisers, this would mean that there are 97 of them now. Still enough. "Yes, basically my mind on the subject is set, and it is not open for such thing like 'adding the fighter compliment of the DS again', after I showed that 1700 Ties were not overwhelmengly superior to 500+ rebel fighters based on the fighter loss count of that period ..." I am sorry, did not see ANYONE providing evidance Death Star had no fighters. The fighter loss count? The same one in Return of the Jedi that gives us a 1.84:1 loss ratio? Which means the Imperials would be matched evenly with the Rebels with just 920 TIEs. Statisticly, these two forces would wipe each out evenly leaving no one behind. Now try adding some 800 TIEs more (since you claim DS had no fighters AT ALL). "And, as I said, you underestimate the importance of tactics. Alexander the Great usually won aginst 1:10 to 1:50 numerical superiority with only very slight technological advance ..." Unfortunatly, you stumbled onto an Alexander fan and a history buff. Alexander the Great had three most important and major battles: 1) Granicus (where he won over an army roughly equal to his, just with more cavalary in it) - was won by staging a massive cavalary attack on the enemy flank, braking their line with little problem and then encircling them to finish them off. 2) Issus (where he faced an army of at least 250'000 with his 42'000) - was won because he had superior knowledge of tactics and the enemy carelessly attacked him in a canyon where his numerical ability didn't enter play. In addition, a cavalary charge on the center scared the s*** out of the Persian king, Darius, who fled the field. Discouraged by his escape, his army started to reatreat and the battle was won. The majority of the Persian losses took place during the retreat from the battlefield. 3) Gaugamela (simular odds as at Issus) was the closest to Endor as these battles got, since they fought on even ground. After the battle begun, it went more or less the same way as Issus with Darius retreating. Now I'm sure Endor would have ended like Gaugamela had Executor turned it's back and got the hell out of there. Here are also the list of reasons the Macedonian troops were fighting Persian enemies with ease: 1) Macedonian troops were far better trained and equipped then their enemies thanks to the many military reforms done by Alexander's father, Philip. 2) Macedonian phalanx, their main formation, was equipped with the sarissa (long lance) which made them the most dangerous troops on the battlefield until the appearance of the more verstile Roman Legion which had far better mobility. 3) Macedonian shock cavalry, used at the begining of any battle, had been trained for years and had practice fighting natives west. 4) Persian army, although large in numbers, was composed of multinational armies that had poor communications and cooperations. 5) This was intensified by Persian king's ruling, who treated all non-Persians as slaves (in fact, a part of the Persian armies were slaves - fighting because they had to) There are many other reasons why Alexander won against Persia, there are, however, much fewer reasons, why would Ackbar win against the Empire. With all due respect for the Calamari, he's not Alexander... and neither is Piett a cowerdly King Darius III to run from battlefield every time a battle goes badly for him. I know I said I'll be brief, but you touched a few points here you failed to extend. So, let us sum up our latest Endor analysis: - The Rebels had a fleet of 99 Mon Calamari cruisers (2 of which were destroyed) which were all superior to Star Destroyers - The Imperials had the Executor and three Star Destroyers which were afraid to fire on the enemy (since the Empire is well known to show reluctance to fire when that fire could damage other nearby Imperials), not to mention Star Destroyers are very well known for being unable to destroy any ship in the Rebel arsenal - Admiral Ackbar is, in fact, Alexander the Great in disguse with a silly hat - Admiral Piett is, actually, a cowardly Persian king that flees on sight of battle and has dozens of thousands of slaves fighting for him - Rebel volunteer crews are all experts at their field, while academy trained Imperials are a bunch of blind and incompetent idiots - The Rebels had a large number of fighters, but the Imperials had elected not to equip the Death Star with fighters, as it would be unfair to the Rebels Did I miss anything? Don't bother responding, I think I've had enough of having my numbers and evidance countered with claims you yourself fail to provide evidance for. I also have better work to do then fight around a few silly and minor details you grab on to to argue. Thank you and goodbye.

Regarding the Rebel fleet manuevers, the Mon Cal's position mentioned was not my only evidance. What you failed to mentioned, V. is that in the case you stated (the Mon Cal cruiser going past the Executor), the battle is well nearing it's end. In fact, a few moments later, the Executor is destroyed and plunges into the Death Star which would have been impossible from the distance that was displayed at the begining of battle. In fact, you saw the Rebel fleet come out of hyperspace a long way from the Death Star AND the Imperial fleet. After turning, they went back towards the Imp fleet, engaging them and in doing so left the Death Star very far behind (see it's second shot to confirm this - and this was even before they engaged the fleet). Sometime between that scene and the one you mentioned about Mon Cal cruiser being next to the Executor, both fleets somehow TRANSPORTED themselves back to the Death Star. They were so close, in fact, the Executor's crew had no time to regain control of the ship on the auxilary bridge and the ship was pulled in by the Death Star's gravity well. Had they been enough far away from the DS, the Executor would have been pulled by the much stronger Endor's gravity - but this is pure speculation. What is NOT speculation is the FACT that the Executor lost it's bridge and PLUNGED into the Death Star in a time frame of 3-4 seconds - minimal distance if it was pulled at a speed of 10 MGLTs (130 km/h) is about 150 meters. Feel free to increase that number to anyone you like. The distance will still be laughably small. In concession to your thoughts, perhaps the Rebel fleet didn't turn around. Perhaps they moved BACKWARDS. I won't even get to the part of the movie where Ackbar (just after the Executor was destroyed) and after the DS was attacked ordered: "Move the fleet away from the Death Star." Why? If they were so far away since they didn't turn ever since they departed to avoid Death Star's superlaser? As far as heavy weaponary that destroys an ISD in a single shot, I find it very doubtful considering Imperial Star Destroyer's cannons seemed unable to destroy the Falcon even with a few direct shots in TESB. Even X-wings in A New Hope survived a few Death Star's heavy turbolaser direct shots; Endor also shows a few direct shots from Star Destroyers to Rebel ships, none to the effect you described. What we don't know (since the 2-second shot mentioned shows only the Destroyer exploding on that shot) is what the status of the ship was before. It might have it's shields down, it might have had it's hull crippled, it might have been abandoned, rammed, shot at for 15 minutes, damaged by nearby superlaser explosion, the crew might have been having a cup of tea in the galley... well, you get my point. We have no idea what was the status of that ship upon the moment that shows one blast taking it out. Now, I would be the first one to like such weapons to be in Star Wars (like some ultra-heavy ship blasts), but I have never seen a book, novel or manual mentioning something of the kind. The closest to it (except the superlaser) is the quad-heavy turoblaser battery the kind of which Victory-class Destroyers carry a lot. Does that make them super-battleships? You did not comment anything on any of my other points. Does that mean you've changed your mind?

If you are refering to leadership, let me put this point past you: the Emperor was not in command of the Imperial starfleet, it was Admiral Piett (I assume it was the "force without leading" you were refering to). As for your "genious tactic" on side of Rebels, here's what the Rebels did that was BRILIANT: 1) Arriving out of hyperspace, Admiral Ackbar order the fleet to move towards objective 1 (Death Star). 2) Upon learning of the shield generator's status, they suddenly broke into a 180° turn and stopped (mind you) in space to battle enemy starfighters. 3) Upon learning of the Death Star's status when one of their ships was blown up, they dicided to go back the way they came from and engage the enemy fleet from near suicidal range. 4) They then turned around inside the enemy formation and went back towards objective 1 (again). 5) Once the shield was down, they exited that formation and attacked the Death Star. So, to sum up: they went in one direction, turned, stopped, went back the other direction, turned and went back towards their original heading... You call this tactics? I call it "moving your fleet around for begginers tutorial, part I". Apart from entering the enemy formation, Rebels did nothing out of the ordinary. Now, for the Imperial state of action: 1) Blocking out both escape directions, they gathered their fleet to wait for the ambush. 2) Once the enemy fleet came in system, they launched all fighters to keep the fleet tied until the Death Star started picking them out one by one. 3) Once the enemy threatened them by entering their formation, they moved the entire formation forward to push the enemy closer towards the Death Star. Now, I grant you, the Imperials did nothing out of the ordinary too. But, somewhere along the line of that kind of basic level manuvering, the Rebel 6 Calamari cruisers devastated the 24 Star Destroyers. So much for your tactics. I will not repeat the technological superiority you so despise, but I will point you to the following: 1) My Tactical analysis of the battle providing evidance of the number of ships and fighter: http://www.geocities.com/imperial_military/endor/analysis.htm 2) Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (Del Ray Books) providing all needed starship information 3) The Ultimate Guide to the Star Wars Galaxy confirming this 4) The Official Star Wars site also confirming most of this http://www.starwars.com and last, but not the least 5) Absolutely any site on the Internet with starship / starfighter information where you will find the numbers I've given which you have said to be no evidance. As for Home One's manuverability, is it so high that the ship can outmanuver 25 other ships shooting at it at the same time? Perhaps it has some sort of a cloaking device? Or Imperial gunners just plain ain't worth s*** if they can't shoot a ship some 2000 meters long and moving at 10 MGLTs (or 130 km/h) at a distance of some 500 meters, something an avarage hillbilly with a gun is capable of doing. The dual shot you're refering to must be the ion cannon on Hoth. That ship wasn't destroyed, mearly it's weapon systems were off-line for a few moments. In addition, it had no shields at the moment it was hit by the blast, making the disabling much more easier... Again, even if they did have some sort of a "superweapon" capable of destroying ISD's with a single shot, would not a Galactic Empire with some 50'000'000 inhabitated star systems be able to do much more?! Isn't that what the superlaser is all about?! Ups. Caught me there. Of course, since someone pointed out two pages back that most of the Rebellion are defectors from the Empire, wouldn't the same rules apply to them?? The evidance for superior training (unless you regard the previous statement as true) is: The Empire, spanning many millions of systems, has Space and Ground Training Academies throughout the galaxy (as noted by Luke in A New Hope) with the sole purpose of training such men for starship duty. Rebel Alliance on the other hand, relies mainly of volanteers who came to the Rebellion from planets like Tatooine (being a sandy dot in space) and defects from the Empire (trained at the suposebly "incompetent" Academies). If you claim this isn't true, why don't you provide evidance, because I think mine stand to reason. Do yours? As for the Mon Cal destroyed, you are right. That officially lowers our number for the Rebel fleet during fleet engagement from 6 to 4. Congratulations. You just pointed out that it wasn't 6 Rebel cruisers that devastated Imperial fleet of 24 ISD's. IT WAS 4 OF THEM. As for Imperial fleet losses, they are estimations based on what is seen in the movie. You accuse me of not providing evidance for nothing, yet all YOU do is disagree with my propsitions without providing any your evidance. So, basically, you're mind on the subject is set and you are just stating your point to convince others to it. Unfortunately, Lucas and his crew did not take very much care in creating this battle and we are short of evidance for anything. We can argue about this for ages, but at the bottom line I have no proof the Imperials were treated unfairly any more then you have that the Rebels have won fairly. All we have are tons of numbers from manuals and manuals; and more numbers a person can get by counting the ships seen in the movie itself. If you go by that count, the bottom line is that a fleet of 6 Heavy Cruisers with 13 support ships destroyed a fleet of 1 Super Battleship and 24 Heavy Cruisers, all of them with proportionatly large number of fighters. In that the battle was unrealistic. That's the bottom line. I can't help it if you can't see that.

Imperial-II Star Destroyer (24) - Mon Calamari Cruisers (about 6) Length: 1600 m - 1200 m Turbolasers: 100 - 48 Ion Cannons: 20 - 20 Starfighter squadrons: 6 - 3 Shields: 300 SBD - 240 SBD Hull: 150 RU - 140 RU Speed: 10 MGLT - 10 MGLT While some claim that Mon Cals have "superior" shielding then ISDs beacuse of a supposed "weakness" of ISD's shield generators, I have to point out that some official sources agree, while others don't. Firstly, LucasArts X-wing game says "YES", while the game's two sequels (TIE fighter and X-wing vs. TIE) say a big "NO" to "shield generator destroyed equals shields destroyed". This weakness was only in the Imperial-I class version. The new, Imperial-II class version, has "backup shield generators", at least according to some sources. We can babble about this forever, but if Star Destroyers were so weak due to this weakness, how come the Rebels didn't want to engage them on Hoth (despite the fact they had massive fighters on the surfice? In fact, battle against ISD's is only visible at Endor, where they are destroyed by the cheap - hence the unrealistic part of the battle). In addition, upon the destruction of the Executor's shield generator (which is the only confirmed source in the movies the two domes are in fact shield GENERATORS), the controller on the ship states: "We lost are bridge deflector shield." BRIDGE shield, not the entire ships: so either the generators are only for protecting the bridge or there are enough backup generators to protect most of the ship. Take your pick... A turoblaser fires at an X-wing fighter and hits 10 % of the time. X-wing is 10 meters long and moves at 100 MGLT speed. A turbolaser fires at an Mon Calamari Cruiser that is 1200 meters long and moves at 10 MGLT speed. Basicly, you're saying that they can fire and hit starfighters (as seen in the movie), but are afraid to fire at a target that is 120 times larger and moving 10 times slower. The 500+ Rebel stafighters can have all the torpeadoes they want. To fire them at Imperial ships, they need to get past some 8000 TIEs present at Endor. Even if taking them out at a rate of 1 every three seconds, the battle would last 6,67 hours before the Rebels could have felt confident enough to take on Imperial starships. Regarding "strike" capability, a few TIE bombers would not make any differance as the Imperials had ISD's 100*24=2400 + Executor's 500 = 2900 Turbolaser batteries. More then enough to blast some 5-6 Calamari cruisers to crap. As for Nebulon B frigates: The Imperial fleet had 24 ISD's; the Rebel fleet's most powerful arsenal were 6 Mon Cals which (see point 1) are inferior to ISD's. Basically, the Rebels had FOUR TIMES as less of the most powerful starship. Even if we calculate that the Rebels had ALL ships as Mon Cal cruisers (which WE KNOW they didn't), the ratio would be 24 superior ISD's vs. 19 inferior Mon Cals. You do the math. Mon Mothma: "With the Imperial fleet scattered... in effort to find us... it is relatively unprotected." (RotJ, the Rebel briefing scene) Upon arriving at Endor, Shuttle Tyderium passes by the Executor and ONE Imperial-class Star Destroyer. In a few scenes back, the Emperor said: "Send the fleet to the far side of Endor. There it will stay, until called for..." (RotJ, throne room scene)

The not too important moments being: 1) superior Imperial tehnology; 2) superior Imperial personnel training; 3) superior Imperial fleet numbers; 4) superior Imperial starfighter numbers; 5) Death Star's single blast havock; 6) fact that Endor was an Imperial ambush prepeared for months against an underpowered Rebel fleet that barged into a dangerous situation unready. Gee. You're right. They're not too important. More important is the Rebel winning formula (which I have formulated some 10 pages back): 1) their leadership made no notable turn-the-tide style manuvers; 2) they had no numerical superiority; 3) they had technological superiority in starfighter combat, but not in the fleet engagement; 4) they were expecting to find an underdefended and unpreapeared Death Star, instead found an Imperial fleet with operating Death Star superlaser. Really. Gee. Ingenious.

Just goes to show what sore losers the Imps are. [No comment]

It just goes on... and on... and on... and on... Just when I think I'm out... THEY DRAG ME BACK IN...

Yulleho. I thought we came up with the final ruling, but you guys reopened all subjects again for discussion. Suggestions I'd like to comment: - First, regarding to fighter ratings. Everything's 2:1. The cost of a TIE fighter is half (or less) the price of X-wings, making them Imperial favorites for a galaxy-wide dictatorship. The effectiveness is also 2:1. While Rebel fighters have shields, TIEs have manueverability that takes away much of that advantage (don't forget that a pilot shoting at a TIE fighter from direct front has to hit a small two-meter wide circle with two narrow lines at sides - a daunting task, play X-wing vs. TIE fighter at Hard rating against other humans to demonstrate). In Endor, which was packed with TIEs, the destruction rating was (mentioned earlier by me) 1.7 TIEs for 1 Rebel fighter. The 500+ Rebel fighter force would quickly be reduced to rubble by the TIE fighter/interceptor force counting 1700 (or 8900 if Death Star had fighters). - Second, Mon Calamari cruisers are inferior to Star Destroyers. Although they are excellent ships, they DO have weaker shields, less weapons and lighter hull. This comes from pitting a 1200-meter long converted luxary liner (entire Rebellion's 50+ of them) against a 1600-meter galactic-superpowers prime battleship (the Empire's 17'000+ of them). - Third, someone suggested that Imperial ships dared not to fire within their formation... You people don't have much confidance in Imperial computers, do you? A Death Star superlaser, which requires huge power build-ups, warming up and precise aiming... destroys a 1000-meter ship without much problem. You are suggesting a 60'000 time smaller weapon (a turbolaser) would have trouble hitting the same target. Not to mention ISD's have a little thing called 'Computer Assisted Targeting' (not the human-manned batteries everyone imagines due to the first movie's shots of Death Star's guns. In addition, although it is difficault, these ships CAN hit a starfighter moving at 100 MGLTs at 10 meters length. Why would they have problem taking on targets at 10 MGLTs and 1200 meters???????!!!!! - Luke's escape seems inplausible at best. Even if he had time, he would have trouble dragging Vader's body and armor halfway around the station. As it happened, all manuals state the Emperor's throne room was the top of a one hundred-stories high tower at the absolute top of the station. The hanger of the type shown to end Luke's escape looks suspiciously like the main hangar bay the likes of which is found only at the middle of the DS's ring (the equator). This DOES mean that Luke, in fact, had to run (if the reactor was blown to bits, how DID the turbolifts work?) halfway around the station dragging Vader. This was done for dramatic effort, so Lucas could show Imperials running around confused and in panic. I'm sure the Emperor (being the sneaky bastard he was), had a secret escape shuttle parked two feet from his throne room chair... - Thrawn Theory. Let's get one thing straight for all times. According to this, the Imperials lost heart after the Emperor was killed. The Emperor was killed AFTER Han Solo destroyed the shield generator, AFTER the Rebel fighters started their attack on the Death Star, AFTER the Rebel fleet wiped out enough of Imperial fleet to stay alive for most of the battle, and JUST BEFORE the Executor was destroyed and the fleet retreated. Basically, the Emperor was dead for some two minutes before the Imperial side fell apart. What happened in the previous 20+ minutes? Not the effect of the Emperor's death, it wasn't... So much for me. Fight on.

Good. Then it gives me no greater pleasure then to announce this case finished. The defendant (George Lucas) is aquitted of all charges. In addition, the Rebel Alliance is to pay 15'000'000 galactic credits in war reparation to the Galactic Empire for falseful and misleading propaganda portrying Endor as a flawless victory. If no leader to the later can be found, the money will be donated to charity, mainly orphans of war organization. Case dismissed. ------------------- PS. Regarding to Piett's orders from the Emperor, a Monty Python joke from "The Holy Grail" comes to mind: Castle ruler (leaving the room, adressing the two guards at doorway): You're to keep him here and not let anyone in until I come back. First guard (looking confident): Right, we're not to let him in and keep anyone here. Ruler (stopping): No, you're to keep him here and not let anyone in until I come back. Guard: Right. We will keep him here and not let anyone in. Ruler (waiting, then finishing): Until I come back? Guard (shocked): What?! Ruler: Look, this is really simple, right? You're to keep him inside and not to let anyone come in... until I come back. Guard: Right. We'll keep him here until you arrive at which time we will let anyone in. And so on and on...

In teory, yes. However, do not forget that the shield generator was destroyed before the Emperor's death. In fact, there were only about five minutes of battle after his death in which time the Executor was destroyed. Movie shows the Imperial fleet much dwindled long before that time (in the 10+ minutes of battle before his death). What I'm saying is that the firepower of the fleet would have pounded the Rebels to the point of leaving just a few ships by the time the Emperor "played his harf". The fact that it was the Imperial fleet that was reduced to a few ships is what is unrealistic about the battle...

I've just finished reviewing Return of the Jedi with a notebook, taking note of certain events. This is what I've come up with. When exiting hyperspace, the Rebel fleet is positioned with the Death Star very far, at the left-upper edge of the huge Endor moon. After going towards it, the fleet turns 180° and finds the Imperial fleet right behind them - not hiding on the far side of the moon as the Emperor suggested. Immediatly after this, the Rebel fleet is overrun by TIEs composed of 9 flights of four fighters each. This totals 36, half of them Interceptors, the other half fighters. Keep in mind this only shows how many fighters were heading DIRECTLY for the Falcon. The actual number must have been quite bigger (with the Rebel fleet being more wider in size). Another point here, in the same scene a TIE interceptor right before the Falcon is some 3 cm's in width (and being some 4 meters wide) while the Executor is ~2000 m wide (or 7,5 cm's screen width). I have no idea (and if someone has, please speak up) as to wheather can we calculate the distance between the TIE and the Executor, cause' it would give us some info on the readiness of the Imperial fleet. Next, there is a scene (just before Lando's "Come on, Han, don't let me down..." line) where an A-wing flys over an Mon Cal being hunted by TIEs. This scene shows TWO ISD's in the distance with their engines turned (going away). Although the entire Mon Cal isn't visible, it's wing is definetly getting smaller with distance. This means, short of a possibilty of a Mon Cal cruiser with inverted V-shape wings, that the cruiser was moving after the ISD's. This supports my old claim of the Rebel fleet's actions: in order to negate DS's fireing capability, they had to move inside the first line of Imperial ships and then turn around to follow them, thus keeping them between their ships and the Death Star - but at the same time moving back towards the DS; which is confirmed by Executor being drawn into the Death Star's gravity in short time. This also means that the Rebel's were probabbly successful in avoiding the "back" line of the Star Destroyers, the once who were the most far away back. We can assume some 8 of them at least were never involved in direct combat. As for fighter casualties, I've counted the dead fighters seen in the movie. They total very small: 2 TIE fighters (1 from collision), 10 TIE interceptors (2 from collision), 3 A-wings (1 from collision), 3 X-wings, 1 Y-wing. This is laughably small since we know there were at least 500+ Rebel and 1500+ Imperial fighters present. Still, taking out those dead from collision, we get a very good kill ratio (which is even lower then A New Hopes 2:1). With 9 TIEs / 6 Wings, the ratio is 1,5. Even with those dead form collision (some with Death Star walls, others by various ships, the rating is 1,7. Someone mentioned X-wing novel kill ratio of 7:1. That novel is based on LucasArts highly unrealistic X-wing game where (and I've mentioned this a few pages back) I've destroyed 43 TIE interceptors and a Star Destroyer flying one Y-wing without any other Rebel craft in the area. Either that kind of a rating is just insane, or the Rebel's Rogue squadron is highly incompetent (destroying only 2 TIEs for each their craft lost). Joke aside, that squadron is supposed to be *elite*, so you CAN give them a higher kill ratio, but anything beyond 3:1 can be considered a very poor joke. Another point is that their seem to be much more TIE interceptors then fighters visible in the movie, although this could just mean we saw the more interesting parts of the fight. I wouldn't suggest that there were more ints then fighs there. Last point refers to battle length. Watching the battle very carefully, I was really surprised at how fast everything happens. I talked about 2 hours at the begining, now I'm thinking about 30 minutes. This is how I came to this number: By lining all important events in the speed and order with which they occured, I've created a line of events which goes: 1) arrival of the fleet, 2) Piett's attack position, 3) DS's first shot, 4) DS's second shot, 5) Point blank range attack, 6) Shield generator destruction, 7) Executor's destruction (which we can consider the end of battle). If we follow Technical Guide to Vehicles and Vessels which says DS II recharges at "a matter of minutes" (let's take 5 minutes for sake of argument), I've measured that there were about 6 minutes between the Rebels arrival and Piett's order to hold position. A few more minutes later, DS fires and five minutes later does it again. Just a minute after that, the two fleets join in battle at close range. They remain at that close range for about 9-10 minutes after which the shield is down and in the next five minutes, the Executor is destroyed. By wild estimation that puts the battle length at 25-30 minutes. More intrestingly for me is the fact that this would make both fleets in full battle contact for ~15 minutes. I've also noted two *little* flops on side of the filmmakers which I've saved for the end and your enjoyment. - After he plants explosives in the bunker, Han runs out of the bunker for some three meters and then jumps in the first bushes. The whole bunker explodes followed by an even bigger secondary explosion of the entire shield generator which takes about 50 acres of surrounding woodside. The scene returns to smiling Han Solo. Guess nobody told him his dead, along with everything that was within two kilometers. - Just after the Rebel fleet turns back from the Death Star and TIEs start swarming all over the place there's the big panorama of the entire Rebel fleet (the one I've used in the Tactical analysis) and it shows four Nebulon-B frigates... ALL of them MOVING BACKWARDS. I've rerun the scene in disbelief several times (since it is confusing because of their shape which side is forward), but their is no mistake - THEY MOVE BACKWARDS. Hope you enjoyed the techno-babble. Onwards with criticizm.

Read it and weep. The semi-ultimate analysis of Endor. http://www.geocities.com/imperial_military/endor/analysis.htm God. This is going to provoke more responses then a national broadcast of a puppy being skinned alive...

Irrelevant. Once Luke took up his lightsaber against Vader, the Emperor lost his attention on the fleet as it became irrelevant - Vader was now the one to cause Luke's hate. Effectively, if Timothy Zahn is to be trusted in his novel, the Emperor would have lossened his "force mind grip", thus releasing his fleet of the leash to destroy the enemy, rather then risk having a dangerous fleet destroy his forces by not allowing them to fire. Plus, Piett's "keep them from escaping" order sounds to me like "blast any ship that tries moving away from the Death Star", which is what the entire Rebel fleet did - thus becoming a valid target. You say Piett was scared of the Emperor into not fireing. Since he was there when Ozzel "played his harf" because he underestimated the Rebels, I doubt Piett would have allowed himself the luxury of allowing the enemy to have a chance to destroy his fleet by thinking they were "unimportant". Shots of the battle show Star Destroyers fireing as much as Rebel starships after battle begins at point-blank range. Furthurmore, Piett and the entire Imperial command staff would have to be stupid, and here I mean *REALLY STUPID* to just sit around not doing anything as the Rebel fleet systematically took out one ISD after another, and at the same time blocking the Death Star fireing ability. What you are saying by this is that the Imperials did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! As we see in the movies, the Imperial fleet did, in fact, move towards the Death Star (as the Executor was VERY CLOSE to the DS as it plunged down by the gravity), which suggests that their fleet was fighting them forward to force them into Death Star's fireing field of vision. I've made all this in the tactical analysis you can find some pages back, but I've putten the page down for reconstruction - I'm doing a much more detailed report, which I'll put up soon.