Makes as much sense as any other make believe plastic model space ship......
The AF MK 2 - Makes no sense to me...
not really, I mean a star destroyer is actually a pretty logical design and pretty much everything on it makes sense, the Afmk2 on the other hand semms like... Random parts almost.Makes as much sense as any other make believe plastic model space ship......
I will admit that the star destroyer looks nice(I think it's the best looking of all SF space ships) . But from a physics point of view the things nuts. Any true spaceship is more likey to look like an ugly as sin bolt together nightmare at that would fall to pieces if it looked at an atmosphere, with the most important sections heavy armoured and lots of other bits not so....
So why does a star destroyer not make sense ( barring the tec leap needed to build something like that and it's all made up anyway)
1) Its been stream lined.......
2) it's got massive thrusters at the back and nothing on the sides or front, although this is a fault with all star wars ships..... They would never slow down stop or turn.
3)Its shape is wasteful and would not maximise internal space compared to hull size and materials used. Stream lining does that ( if you did not have drag as an issue you would use a differ shape).
4) Its most effective when heading strait at something.......but would not be able to defend itself as well in manovering fight. That seems a bit bonkers.
5) its command and control is stuck up on a lovely open bridge structure just waiting for an Awing to crash into it and put the whole ship out of the fight. Open bridges are for ships that float on water to aid situational awareness during navigation. If your in a fight your command and control is in the safest most protected area (the middle).
For me the Death Star would seem to make the most sense of all Star Wars ships as its not streamlined, has a sensible efficient shape in regards to internal space vs hull size and clearly has a propulsion system way beyond something as crude as reaction mass, or has thrusters embedded equally on every side.
not really, I mean a star destroyer is actually a pretty logical design and pretty much everything on it makes sense, the Afmk2 on the other hand semms like... Random parts almost.Makes as much sense as any other make believe plastic model space ship......
I will admit that the star destroyer looks nice(I think it's the best looking of all SF space ships) . But from a physics point of view the things nuts. Any true spaceship is more likey to look like an ugly as sin bolt together nightmare at that would fall to pieces if it looked at an atmosphere, with the most important sections heavy armoured and lots of other bits not so....
So why does a star destroyer not make sense ( barring the tec leap needed to build something like that and it's all made up anyway)
1) Its been stream lined.......
2) it's got massive thrusters at the back and nothing on the sides or front, although this is a fault with all star wars ships..... They would never slow down stop or turn.
3)Its shape is wasteful and would not maximise internal space compared to hull size and materials used. Stream lining does that ( if you did not have drag as an issue you would use a differ shape).
4) Its most effective when heading strait at something.......but would not be able to defend itself as well in manovering fight. That seems a bit bonkers.
5) its command and control is stuck up on a lovely open bridge structure just waiting for an Awing to crash into it and put the whole ship out of the fight. Open bridges are for ships that float on water to aid situational awareness during navigation. If your in a fight your command and control is in the safest most protected area (the middle).
For me the Death Star would seem to make the most sense of all Star Wars ships as its not streamlined, has a sensible efficient shape in regards to internal space vs hull size and clearly has a propulsion system way beyond something as crude as reaction mass, or has thrusters embedded equally on every side.
Clon using an atmospheric space shuttle as an argument for space ship design is somewhat flawed.
As is ignoring the idea that space ships are designed for more than movement, but also inhabitation. People tend to like natural light, which is why skyscrapers have atriums arent megolithic.
And finally, not acknowledging that aircraft on this planet come in a vast range of shapes and sizes, thus signifying the range of options available to space transport designers.
Dras is the only person to make a sensible comment so far...
Dras is the only person to make a sensible comment so far...
Don't you go and make me a good guy now...
Clon using an atmospheric space shuttle as an argument for space ship design is somewhat flawed.
As is ignoring the idea that space ships are designed for more than movement, but also inhabitation. People tend to like natural light, which is why skyscrapers have atriums arent megolithic.
And finally, not acknowledging that aircraft on this planet come in a vast range of shapes and sizes, thus signifying the range of options available to space transport designers.
Dras is the only person to make a sensible comment so far...
But I thought the point of this threat was for a bit of inspired bull....
Nice pics of the shuttle, thanks for the link.
Clon using an atmospheric space shuttle as an argument for space ship design is somewhat flawed.
Also habibility is secondary to function because WARSHIP, and the dagger shape is not the most efficient design Internally, however it is incredibly efficient EXTERNALLY allowing vertually the entire surface area of a star destroyer to see and therefore target, a single point. Hence as a Warship it makes a lot of sense
All this Arguments against the practicality of a star destroyer really only hold water in a civilian design NOT a Warship.
That's all I'm saying
It is a terrible warship design.
It cannot turn, stop, do anything other than than fly in a single direction, and space being what it is, that is a poor design.
It's command deck is exposed on the top of the hull....a terrible design in a warship.
the fact that it's guns pretty much all point forwards would be amazing if it was a tank, except its a space ship, and space ships need to be able to shoot in a 360 degree sphere, not just a tiny slice of it, and we see this time and time again play out in our Armada games, Rebel ships just speed past that front arc, and sit in it's side/rear and pummel it with superior batteries.
I humbly suggest if you have access to a P.C. and a steam account, give Space Engineers a play, it is eye opening.
Space ships have no need to follow the design limitations placed on craft orbiting inside an atmosphere, there is no need to make them look pretty, or streamlined, they just need to be able to move sufficiently in 6 directions, and the bigger the ship, the larger amount of thrusters this will take, literally banks and banks of them, facing forwards/backwards up/down left/right.
Space Engineers is great fun, and can be addictive.
Yep, agreeing with Gottmituns, the Mk.II is a horrible abomination of a ship that just doesn't make sense... for Star Wars. Sure, it's all fake, it's all made up, X-wings don't need to swoop, there is no sound, fires don't act remotely similar in micro-G environments, etc. The difference is that the RAF Mk.II really just doesn't fit in with the Star Wars aesthetic, even if the Trekkies, those Andromeda folk, or the delightful sorts down at the Macross convention like 'em. And that's one of the reasons why I hate so much of the EU material, It just feels wrong (I don't much idolize the Mk.I either, but they're still in character). The sad part is that there's a few renders and sketches out there of revamped Mk.II with lessened wings and a more proportionate back, Engine banks and no pogo stick. They look fine.
I don't want that psudeo-'realistic' sci-fi stuff remotely near Star Wars. I don't like those at all. Give me space fantasy over 'sci-fi' any day. And yet, I rather like the MK.II; I can cut them to pieces and never feel bad about it! I can proudly say of the 6 MK.II's that I've worked on, not one has survived the painting process intact
As for the talk on the Star Destroyers: they're big, they're intimidating, they've got lots of guns called 'turbolasers' (which feels like a ridiculous name) in every nook and cranny, and it's protected by super strong 'neener-neener can't touch me' magical shields. It's cool and represents the 'Star Wars' aesthetic.
It looks cool. That's all. Only thing that really gets me is the one engine, it should be slow. Ur maybe it's suped up with stickers and (4 wings). It even has stripes.
It is a terrible warship design.
It cannot turn, stop, do anything other than than fly in a single direction, and space being what it is, that is a poor design.
why cant it turn? manuvering thrusters can be very small and yet turn a ship in space are quite quickly
It's command deck is exposed on the top of the hull....a terrible design in a warship.
the fact that it's guns pretty much all point forwards would be amazing if it was a tank, except its a space ship, and space ships need to be able to shoot in a 360 degree sphere, not just a tiny slice of it, and we see this time and time again play out in our Armada games, Rebel ships just speed past that front arc, and sit in it's side/rear and pummel it with superior batteries.
except its guns dont "point forward" they are not fixed guns, they are all on turrets and a ISD has just as many guns on a broadside as any other ship would except they can also shoot forward, the lack of broadside in Armada is a balance issue and has nothing to do with how it would work IRL
I humbly suggest if you have access to a P.C. and a steam account, give Space Engineers a play, it is eye opening.
I play it, my eyes are open and star destroyers work great!
Space ships have no need to follow the design limitations placed on craft orbiting inside an atmosphere, there is no need to make them look pretty, or streamlined, they just need to be able to move sufficiently in 6 directions, and the bigger the ship, the larger amount of thrusters this will take, literally banks and banks of them, facing forwards/backwards up/down left/right.
you dont need to move in 6 directions you need to move in 1 direction and be able to turn, have the same thrust-or pack in all 6 directions is incredible inefficient and illogical, also as a war ship you want all of you unnecessary parts facing the enemy so having extra thrustor packs is just asking for unnecessary damage
Space Engineers is great fun, and can be addictive.
this is true
its a space gold fish, what more do you need to know and understand??
:) :) 
This would be a good question to ask the designers of Empire At War. Since it was in that game that I first saw the AF MkII
Edited by Ollie124I am with so many others in the "I'll only buy this ugly as hell space guppy, so I can replace it with a proper mk1 from Shapeways" crowd. Fugly personified, that's what the mk2 is.
I actually like the design on the Mk2 better than Mk1 designs....
Clon what you pointed at in the pic of that war ship is its bridge. They are not used for command and control in battle. Floaty boats have these because when navigating around crowded seas the mark one eyeball is still very useful and they have lots of windows in all directions and are up high for the view. command and control will be buried deep in the ship in a room without windows to protect it.
I really wasn't a fan of the design when Empire at War was coming up (why not just use the MK-I?? Why invent this thing?) but it's kind of grown on me as an Armada staple rebel medium. The curved hulls are nice, and so are the wings, even if the one engine is kind of... odd...
and hey, the shape and hull might be weird but I remind you all, this ship is visually more interesting than a space brick.
I also don't understand people avoiding this ship in Armada simply because of appearance. You guys are skipping out on the most flexible ship in the game...
Although I have to say I find it more relaxing playing with visually appealing models.....
Space ships have no need to follow the design limitations placed on craft orbiting inside an atmosphere, there is no need to make them look pretty, or streamlined, they just need to be able to move sufficiently in 6 directions, and the bigger the ship, the larger amount of thrusters this will take, literally banks and banks of them, facing forwards/backwards up/down left/right.
Except the Star Destroyer is expected to fly through the atmosphere (and fight while doing so). The only ship in SW that can't fly around in the atmosphere is the Death Star. This is why all SW ships are streamlined and have wings and stuff.
Clon what you pointed at in the pic of that war ship is its bridge. They are not used for command and control in battle. Floaty boats have these because when navigating around crowded seas the mark one eyeball is still very useful and they have lots of windows in all directions and are up high for the view. command and control will be buried deep in the ship in a room without windows to protect it.
Hi Clon, what you have in modern warships is a CIC ( lots of different names in different navies but all the same thing). These came into fashion during WW2, mainly from learning in the Pacific theatre ( battle of Coral sea etc) as the U.S. Suffered losses due to loss of command and control in some ships.All the information comes into CIC, the command team in CIC then get "situational awareness" and distribute the information to various areas. Capts tend to stay on the exposed bridge and fight the ship from there. But a ship "should not suffer a mission kill if the bridge is hit, although there is a lot in the argument that modern ships are so susceptible to shock damage that almost any hit would lead to a mission kill.
There was earlier work in the form of protected command and control... Battle ships and battle cruisers were generally built with massive armoured conning towers as part of their central protected citadel, the idea being capts would retire to these and command their ships in safety.... This never happened and they all tended to stay on their unprotected bridges ( better situational awareness and making a statement to their commands).
As for wimpy star destroyers, ROTJ would suggest that even super star destroyers lose all command, control, manoeuvrability and everything else if the bridge is taken out by a Divine winding Arvel Crynyd.
Hi Clon, what you have in modern warships is a CIC ( lots of different names in different navies but all the same thing). These came into fashion during WW2, mainly from learning in the Pacific theatre ( battle of Coral sea etc) as the U.S. Suffered losses due to loss of command and control in some ships.All the information comes into CIC, the command team in CIC then get "situational awareness" and distribute the information to various areas. Capts tend to stay on the exposed bridge and fight the ship from there. But a ship "should not suffer a mission kill if the bridge is hit, although there is a lot in the argument that modern ships are so susceptible to shock damage that almost any hit would lead to a mission kill.
There was earlier work in the form of protected command and control... Battle ships and battle cruisers were generally built with massive armoured conning towers as part of their central protected citadel, the idea being capts would retire to these and command their ships in safety.... This never happened and they all tended to stay on their unprotected bridges ( better situational awareness and making a statement to their commands).
As for wimpy star destroyers, ROTJ would suggest that even super star destroyers lose all command, control, manoeuvrability and everything else if the bridge is taken out by a Divine winding Arvel Crynyd.
I will say in defense of the super star destroyer THAT the ENTIRE rebel fleet was shooting at it and we know that those domes on top of the bridge are shield projectors, probably specifically for the bridge, making it one of the Safest parts of the entire ship.
Otherwise I agree with your post
good points!Hi Clon, what you have in modern warships is a CIC ( lots of different names in different navies but all the same thing). These came into fashion during WW2, mainly from learning in the Pacific theatre ( battle of Coral sea etc) as the U.S. Suffered losses due to loss of command and control in some ships.All the information comes into CIC, the command team in CIC then get "situational awareness" and distribute the information to various areas. Capts tend to stay on the exposed bridge and fight the ship from there. But a ship "should not suffer a mission kill if the bridge is hit, although there is a lot in the argument that modern ships are so susceptible to shock damage that almost any hit would lead to a mission kill.
There was earlier work in the form of protected command and control... Battle ships and battle cruisers were generally built with massive armoured conning towers as part of their central protected citadel, the idea being capts would retire to these and command their ships in safety.... This never happened and they all tended to stay on their unprotected bridges ( better situational awareness and making a statement to their commands).
As for wimpy star destroyers, ROTJ would suggest that even super star destroyers lose all command, control, manoeuvrability and everything else if the bridge is taken out by a Divine winding Arvel Crynyd.
I will say in defense of the super star destroyer THAT the ENTIRE rebel fleet was shooting at it and we know that those domes on top of the bridge are shield projectors, probably specifically for the bridge, making it one of the Safest parts of the entire ship.
Otherwise I agree with your post
I will give you that just maybe super star destroyers are not entirely wimpy and even if they are, they still look way cooler that an AFmk2.
I think ackbar should have a different ability: concentrate all fire power: at the start of the round an enemy ship can be designated for destruction. If it is succesfully attacked by all fiendly ships who at the beginning of the round are at range one to five of the enemy ship it will be destroyed if in the fighter activation round a friendly fighter base comes into base to base contact with the designated enemy ship.
What fun rebel players could have..... no more boring conga line, instead they could be trying to box an enemy ship that is desperately trying to escape the fire from at least one ship in its proximity.....