igorimp

Good work, Scathane. On the point and correct as always. By the way, the first picture clearly describes two Mon Cal cruiser at either side of an Imperial Star Destroyer... THAT's point blank range. As in regards to ground battle, here's my input: the battle took place mostly at what was said to be the "back entrance". This would have gone into Rebel favor if their wouldn't be for a fact that the Rebs took the bunker but were captured by the Imps. At this time, the entire base was alert as to the attack and the movie would have us belive the AT-ATs and some 5000+ Stormtroopers just sat at the other side of the bunker and just waited... just like the Star Destroyers in orbit...

I'm interested in your thoughts here. I love older turn-based strategies (disliking RTS because I have poor reflexses ) and would always welcome a good suggestion. Here's my list (Rebellion, naturally is a must-have): Warhammer: Dark Omen Master of Magic Panzer General Share your favorites.

BTW, that's now offically the BIGGEST post I've made in my life... I'm also starting to get a reputation for long posts...

Boy, you sure took this personally, ricepr2001. However, I don't think your arguments were on-the-point in most things. "The Death Star was destroyed by a weakness, not by force" True. It DID help that the outnumbered Rebel commandoes walked into an ambush on a heavily defended planet and managed to take out a shield generator in the process against all possible odds. "The SSD was lost when an Awing crashed into the bridge, causing it to crash into the death star." Again true... It DID help that the Rebel fleet managed to knock out it's shield which is at least five times as stronger as that of an ISD. Not to mention that the A-wing was out-of-control and out of the 8'000 meters length of the most powerful starship in the galaxy... HAD to crash at the exact 2,5 meters of it's bridge, which also happens to be it's most vulunable part. "The ISD's, If i remember right they fled when the death star was destroyed, they were probably shocked since their belief was that the death star was indestructable." Yes, they did fled... Or more correctly, the FEW that survived. At least, that's what Timothy Zahn claims in the Thrawn series. "The emperor died at the hands of vader vader died doing so" You are probbably refering to the casualty list I've mentioned. That was just a way to represent how the ending result of Endor showed low losses on the Rebel side. My primary argument is the fleet engagement, so let's stick to that for now (although I could say a thing or two about the subject). "the rest died from the ships being destroyed, NOT to any direct troop assault by the rebels so they are included in the ship tally." If I remeber well, I came to the casualty list by calculating ship losses. So, basicly, your saying that it's totally allright for a 30'000-crewed ISD to be destroyed while at the same time the Rebels lose a 500-men Corvette. Now, I don't know what you want to claim by this, but that shows some real DISPROPORTIONS. "The ISD's WERE NOT PART OF THE ATTACKING IMPERIAL FLEET. they were ordered to hold fire and were never told (to my knowledge) that they were allowed to fire, the might as well have not been there. a few fought when the DS was destroyed but most ran. " The most faulty statement of the year. At the begining of the battle, Admiral Piett mentions having special orders from the Emperor not to attack, so the fleet stays. However, as soon as the Death Star fires, the Rebel fleet moves in to attack the Imps (because they used their fleet to make it impossible for the Death Star to target their ships - pay attention to Lando-Ackbar dialogs after DS fires). So, you are trying to make us belive the Imperials were SO STUPID that they actually sat around not firing while the Rebel fleet was knocking them out all around. (BTW, have you ever been in a fist fight and kept your hands together while someone was taking swings at your face? Because that's what this looks like to me). In fact, when you look at the battle, you'll see a few ISD's shooting back (the once with the not-so-stupid captains). In fact there is one excellent scene (one of my favorites) where a Nebulon Frigate swooshes past an ISD going in the other direction; BOTH exchanging fire (long before the DS was blown up)... At the end, you won't have us belive that the Rebels attacked and destroyed the Executor without actually TOUCHING the 24+ Star Destroyers that were positioned everywhere around it? "Igorimp, where are these technical manuals.." Death Star technical reference, West End Games (1994) Star Wars Technical Manual, Del Rey Books Star Wars: Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, Del Rey Books The first one was made for the Role-playing game, so it's not really that accurate. The reason I took the one was because it is the only place I've read about the Death Star's recharge rate. It says ONE HOUR, all I did was say what I read. "your math is very elementary" I never tried getting to details since it wasn't needed, I've used the mesurements simply to sketch the problem. However, you went to detailed calculations which we don't really need to go into. However, I'll give you this as a valid point. Let's say Death Star could fire every 10 seconds... How much of a Rebel fleet would be left after 10 minutes of battle if you count them going into the battle..................??????????????????????????????? I think you went on to dispute a minor point of mine only to make the major one seem more plausable. "...they can be easily taken out with lasers..." Ever tried it for real? LucasArts's Imperial-class SD and the one featured in all the manuals seem like two different things, don't they? "if you can not take out an ISD using an x wing, b wing, y wing, or a wing in any of the XWA, XVT, TIE, or X wing games you are a poor excuse for a pilot" Actually, I've played X-wing, TIE, and XvT and I consider myself a rather good pilot. In order to give you some statistics, I've once flown a mission where I destroyed 40 TIE Interceptors in a row and then went on to slaughter an Imperial-class SD flying.... a Y-wing... all alone... without wingmen... without backup... without 78 lives... without a Rebel fleet. Now, I have a good mesure of confidance in my piloting skills, but I think that just points out that LucasArts realism isn't all that much... Perhaps that's why the AI (when attacking you) always attempts to get to you in a straight line. "there are also more rebel pilots who are also better" I think we commented on the sketchy number of Imperial fighters in the battle (something in the line of 7000+). Personally, I don't know what movie your talking about, but when the Rebel fleet enters and exits hyperspace, I couldn't count any more then (let's be generous) 70 fighters. I have all the confidance in Rebel pilots, but A New Hope shows 1 X-wing destroyed for every 2 TIEs. To win at Endor by this calculations, the Rebels would have to kill at least 15 fighters for each of their own in order to have enough ships EVEN TO THINK about attacking that Death Star. "talk bull sh** thechnical crap" I just mentioned a few numbers. You're the one who dragged physics into the forum... "get your facts straight" Take a peak at the last half hour of Return of the Jedi, paying special attention to the 24 ISDs, you might just see what I'm talking about. "your not a half bad debater " Thanx.

Exactly. Just because we discuss this subject, none of us thinks there is something "wrong" with the movies. In fact, I belive their is no greater compliment for a movie then discussing a subject from it when the movie was made 20 years ago. Now, as Trej noted, we are discussing our own interpretations of the story... We discuss that just in a way any normal person would talk about sports, politics or the weather (we don't actually BE the weathermen to talk about weather, do we?)

Dear customer... Hmmm, I'm sorry. For a moment there you forgot you were talking to KDY Incorporated Sales Department. We don't make Strike Cruisers... Try contacting Loronar at sales@lornar-starships.org. You can find their price list at http://www.lornar-starships.org Should you come to your senses, and realize that KDY ships are the only REAL warships in this galaxy contact us again... Sincearly, Dr. Morgan Brallio KDY Sales Department Kuat Drive Yards Incorporated

Sorry! NO fleet buyers, limited to one per order since KDY has only 12 in stock for free retail. HOWEVER, buying it on that TyrantCard gives you a 5 % discount, you can repay the debt in eight payments AND you even get a original GINSU knife thrown in as a free gift! Great for chopping up your favorite Rebels. P.S. Also, now available in free sale: Victory-I class Star Destroyer (own the original), the Nebulon-B2 Frigate AND the Class IV Action Bulk Freighter (no 2-year warrenty on the freighter)...

TODAY! ONLY 14,950,000.99 galactic credits (discount for first time buyers and users of Galactic TyrantCards).

Thanks Scathane for your kind words... As for TIE fighter, what I wanted to say is that even through fighters in large numbers have a good chance against a Star Destroyer, take into account that the ISD-II's 100 turoblaser batteries might have something to say on the subject... As for damage to the shield projectors on top of the Destroyer, take into account something that was displayed in the movies. There is only one occurence of proton torpeados in the movies, during A New Hope when Doddona says "...the shaft is ray shielded, so you'll HAVE to use proton torpeadoes..." At other times (especially during Endor) we see fighters attacking big ships, but none of them use torpeados. LucasArts was the one to introduce the concept of anti-starship torps (as well as anti-fighter missiles) and I think I remember reading somewhere that all ships had two types of shielding: the already mentioned ray-shielding (to protect them from lasers) and partcle shielding for firm objects (like asteroids and torpeados). Now, Death Star I didn't have a shield and when Lando fired torpeadoes at the DS 2 reactor in RotJ, he was deep inside the Death Star, so what I'm saying is that I think all starships have a shield that completely protects them from particles. And without their torpeados, starfighters would have to be VERY persistant against a Star Destroyer. You say that a good pilot could take out a Corvette in LucasArts simulators. I agree, but keep in mind that the standard ISD in those same simulators has only about a dozen laser batteries (you can cycle them in your CMD), so consider that the actual number of people trying to shoot you down would be some 5-8 times greater... and they would be LucasArts's AI rotines, but high-class academy trained top dogs... and I doubt they would be needing glasses to bring down a couple of ten meter long targets even if they do move fast.

Hi, people! Scathane was kind enough to point me this way since I find the subject rather interesting. I voted for Alexander, but I'd like to give my thoughts on the subject. I can already see a big post forming in my mind... Since their are many briliant victories by great leaders throughout history, in order to "filter" them out, we should take some standard for judging. In that, I think the most accurate one would be the number of glorious battles. - While Scipio Africanus is certainly a superb tactician as Zama illustrates, I would not fit him into this category since that is the ONLY really "briliant" victory of his (despite his rather successful campaign against Rome in Spain). - Simulary, Erwin Rommel's fame resides mearly on the two North African offensives in '41. I personally consider him a superb strategical mastermind, but the lack of other notable successes denotes him 'great' military status. - What I know of Robert E. Lee is little by comparison to the others, but I know that the death of his most trusted assistant Jackson robbed him of victory at Gettysburg. Like Rommel, his strength is in strategy instead of tactics and his battlefield manuevers that kept the Union at bay can be said to be brilliant. Still, he lacks real 'battlefield' success, in the same aspect as Rommel. - As for Patton, I don't see him as a real military mind since his entire military manuevering can be cut down to simply "moving forward and firing like hell". - Genghis Kahn has entered legend by carving the greatest empire in history with a little nomad nation in Mongolia. This achivement is not to be held lightly. Still, one-third of Kahn's Empire streched over the Russian steppes and the north Asian wastes (not really populated - or defended heavily). Kahn would definatly fit into the profile of a military mind because of the sheer number of victories fought against different opponents and nations. This is the man that constantly defeated the Chinese, the Indian, the Muslim, the Russian AND the European armies. I dislike his style of 'conquer and devastate', but his achivements cannot be dissmissed. - Julius Caesar is a complicated case. Through his victories over the Gauls can stand as textbook example, his contribution is one of strategy and politics. The reason why I am dismissal of Roman commanders as great (exception to Caesar, Scipio and some others) is because the Roman army of the era was so superior to any other that it was no contest. The Roman Legions were better trained, better equiped and better prepeared for battle the their Gaul, Carthagian or German opponents. - Napoleon cannot be excluded from this list regarthless of any "filter" we use. The reason why I see him as inferior to Alexander is because: a) his battles toward the end of his carrear were a pale shadow lacking any brilliant achivement (unlike Austerlitz, Wagram, Jena, Egypt and so many others in his early carrear), and b) ...well, to put it bluntly... he eventually LOST! Still, I put him at a close third beaten by Hannibal. - Hannibal I consider second to only Alexander. His victories can only be enchanted by what I said regarding the professionalizam of Roman armies... even more so since his army was made up mostly of mercenaries and allied troops of disputable fighting spirit. Had Carthage made a professional army like Rome before the war, things would have been a lot different. Despite being defeated at the end, Hannibal made victory at Cannea and led strong campaings throughout Europe that made the Romans taste fear for the first time since they evicted the Gauls from Italy. Close 2nd place. - As for Alexander, for whome I voted, I can only say that he was never in a favorable position in any major battle (outnumbered at Issus and Gaugamela at least 4:1). Along with battles of Hydaspes and Granicus, one has to concede that Alexander conquered the largest and the most powerful nation in the world in just a few years. People could argue that most of his major battles were based on the same strategy (breaking the enemy by a major central cavalary charge), but that could also be said about Hannibal and his outflanking manuevers (even Napoleon leaned towards the flanks). Still, Alexander fought in small clashes as well as major and fought not only Persians, but also Indians, the dreaded Parthians (whom Rome could never conquer) and other minor nations of the Middle East - the Cradle of the Civilization. Someone mentioned Marshall Zhukov. I agree since his achivements throughout 1941 kept USSR from collapssing, and then from 1943 onwards made the Germans march westwards. There would also be others worth mentioning, like Frederick the Great (who fought on three fronts during the Seven-Year War against most of Europe and STILL came out without being techniclly defeated). Sweden's Gustavus Adolphus would also be notable for his manuevering during the 30-year war. Perhaps even England's Henry V could fit in the profile. Well, that's as much as I have to say on the subject. I'll go and rest my fingers now...

So, the Rebels spoke up... This post was not intended to 'rob' the Rebels of their victory. It was merely started as a place for discussion about how realistic the battle was. Personally, I have no problem with just a handful of fighters destroying a super-weapon becuase of a percived weakness in the design (Yavin). I have no problem with Han Solo's constantly breaking down 'junk pile' escaping hi-tech Imperial super battleships over and over again... most of the time all at once... Ultimatly, I have no problem with the 'good-guys must win' scenario without which the movie would end . What bugs me is what Endor stands for. Lucas *could* have made the last battle to destroy the Empire something Yavin-like (and realistic too). He didn't - he made Endor so he can show the *ultimate* victory over the Empire, one from which they won't recover. Don't get me wrong, I love to watch the battle scenes, but after so many hours in the TIE fighter simulator and the technology room, I've learned that flying against a Star Destroyer is something only people with VERY THICK SHIELDS do. OK, now try putting 24 ISDs instead of one and add the Executor. The Rebel fleet was tiny in all respects by comparison. Like I said before: don't get me wrong, but the battle of Endor suggests that a *tiny ant* went head-to-head against a *hammer*... AND WON!!! A little side note here. I'm a history buff and as such I can tell you some 80 % of history's most important battles were won by armies outnumbered about 2:1 or more. However, each of these battles have a clear distinction why and in each battle, the commander of the winning side made up a superb and intuitive manuever that changed the tide in his favor... Ackbar did... well, NOT! His *winning* strategy at Endor consisted of going one way (towards the Death Star), then stopping for a while (when fighting the enemy fighters) then going back the other way (towards the ISDs). FANTASTIC! A manuever Napoleon Bonaparte would be ashamed of. So, to sum up the Rebel's *winning* formula: - their leadership made no notable turn-the-tide style manuevers, - the fleet had no numerical advantage, - they didn't have the element of surprise since the Imps were waiting, - their fleet was technologicly inferior to the Empire's - and last, but not least we come to the only *possible* explanation for the victory: crew quality. It is perfectly concievable that a bunch of Rebel enthusiasts with unknown level of training managed to defeat academy-trained top-of-the-class-graduates (which they must be to get on a Star Destroyer) trained by the richest organization in the universe... Ha! Take that! Like I said, I like the battle, but the ant-against-the-hammer thing doesn't really sit in my stomach too well. I love Lucas and his work and I would never dream of suggestion REWRITING the movies, but I think Endor as such was a carless attempt to simply *finish off the movie without much thought*...

You may have a point about the Death Star (I haven't really looked through the essential guide), but the question that raises is whether the Essential Guide or the Death Star Sourcebook is more correct on the matter (read: Del Ray Books or West End Games???)... Personnaly, I take it all with a grain of salt if it's not from LucasFilms...

I've ran into this problem as well. The editing in RebEd should do the trick, but it doesn't work too well if you LOAD an old game. To see if there is actual change, try starting a new game. Still, after I've discovered the textstra.dll file, I use only it for editing because I can get rid of those annoying spaces after shorter names and you can also enlong names beyond the space limit... So now, I have eight "Grand Admirals" and a couple of "Grand Generals".

Imperial-II class Star Destroyers! Man, that is a ship - looks like it's worth every credit spent for it's building ... and it is! As for power, let's not discuss examples from movies and books... Rebels seem to be able to take out an ISD with a Corvette...?! Take an example: - Death Star destroyed by ~48 fighters; - an ISD in Empire destroyed by just one asteroid (the size of a bridge section, through); - SSD Executor (cost: 700 trillion space credits) wrecked by an A-wing (50 bucks at the local Hutt market) There are also countless examples in the books. But this is all just Rebel-symphatetic propaganda. After all, it was just one ISD (the Chimaera) who took out an entire task force of about 8 Dreadnaughts - some three would be an even match for it. With all that considered, I still say: ISD-class with it's butt-kicking 100 turbolasers batteries...

For all who are interested, there is a Cult dedicated to the character: http://www.piett.org. The site is wacky!

Yes. You should have seen it actually happen. I found it very amusing that the sector fell apart after Piett left it. I always knew there was a reason for his fast promotion in The Empire Strikes Back. Now we know the truth: Vader knew he was force-capable...

A rather wacky thing happened in one of my Imperial games vs. an AI. I started with Piett immediatly in one of the less important sector where I had only one planet, the rebels had a few and the rest were neutral. With Piett's diplomacy rating, I normally started about to bring justice to neutral planets. I converted 3 planets rather quickly (which I didn't hold as really important) until the Rebels crashed into the sector with a small strike fleet. I had no ships yet there (as it was only about 50 days on) and the fleet bombarded one pro-rebel planet controlled by me. You can imagine what happened - the entire sector went up in flames. The fleet then went away and Piett set about with political damage control. In just 10+ days, he ALONE brought order to 2 planets and incresed my support in the secter from ~40 to ~70 % in just another 20 days (that's speed!). I was shocked by this success, and decided to give him a "promotion" by sending him to Coruscant and giving him a fleet. The reason for his success became apparent as Vader identified him as force capable. The conclussion: Force-capable characters have better stats even BEFORE they start training as Jedi. It is with training that they gain real skill. PS. Soon after the Rebel fleet brought problems to the sector again. But the story has a happy ending: around day 200, Admiral Piett returned with a fleet of 3 ISDs and support fleet and took the entire sector in a matter of days. By then, he was also a Jedi Knight...

I've made a few - all imaginary, nothing to do with Star Wars. When I've done testing and improving them, I'll post them on my web site: http://swrebellion.topcities.com Don't know when I'll be finished, though...

Wow, that's great. I've been doodling around the forums for a while, but never got any evidence that a texture can be added to Rebellion. I know about the BMP converter that makes the files into Reb's format, but my 3d convertion and modelling programs (ALL 12 of them downloaded from the net) either don't support textures OR don't have the option in the trial version. Since I don't have 3d Studio Max, but rather a "lighter" version - Ulead Cool 3d Studio - I could always make a model with texutres, but converting the file into an .X file for SWR loses the texture... That's why all of my models are either ghost white or just plain grey. To make it more interesting, I exported a few models (including ISD-1) and reimported them to another location. I didn't work on the file just so I could retain the textures, and I guess that is when the crashing started.

HELL! For 4 million €: I'll wear a fancy dress and force myself to go to big parties and talk to celeberties... HELL: I'd do it for a nicle. Not the dress part, though...

Yes, probbably. Damn! And I was so close to making an Imperial-III Star Destroyer with textures! S***!

A revalation at last! I have discovered the secret of CRASHING! I have restored my (afore mentioned) ruined game and have pinpointed the error to the Tactical.DLL file. This means that for some reason, SWR models crash the game after a battle. I've narrowed down the list of suspects to two possible causes: 1. I have exported several old models and added them to another location in the DLL file (to make more same models). The thing is that these models use the same texture, so that could be crashing it. 2. I have two-three LARGE models (~0,5-1 MB). Since the originals are cca 40 kBs, that could be the cause... Happy hunting!

HAHHAHAHAHHAA! Yes! I am TRUELY EVIL! And guess what: "I ALSO EJECT BODY FLUID LEFTOVERS THROUGH MY REAR!!!!!" (uses sinister tone): HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

Both of us, naturally, forgot about their little cute puppy called Nibbles. Poor Nibbles chased cars and bikes all days long... until he finally cought one wheel of a bike... You get my point. For most directors, it seems more "natural" to end a movie on a high note - riding into the sunset; rather then wait for the plot to go on a down spiral... That's reserved for Russian movies.

I don't think either of the two is really EVIL in the term. Simply greedy, and very alike in that. Think about it: - Palpatine did everything he did to make himself ruler of the galaxy. - Sauron did what he did to become ruler of the world. They didn't use dissimilar methods at all: - Palpatine used Death Star-like weapons to vaporize people as an example to others (a more practical solution) - Sauron wiped out entire villages, seeking to terminate all life that doesn't suite him (more like Nazi genocide then Palpatine's idea of "subjection" of inferior races). TRUE EVIL is when one sick bastard takes a very small peeling knife and cuts off someones head just because he doesn't like him; and then, while he's still bleeding, he spits down his open throat. That may be more SICK then evil, but it done for pure EVILNESS, not greed for power. Personally, of all the above, I DO PREFER Palpatine's methods (ironically, they seem THE LEAST violent).