Apparently Starhawks are ten times more powerful then a ISD because of new crystals?

Look I love the idea of the rebels getting a pretty powerful ship thats the Rebel's equivalent of a SSD but only a fraction of the power. However I find the Starhawk is a little OP...Am I crazy?

Googled it, found the Wookiepedia page. It says the tractor beam was ten times more powerful than the one on the ISD. Not the ship in general, just the tractor beam.

Life debt?

Empire's End.

Other good quotes:

p339:

"The other component is that damnable dreadnought. It has ten times the weapons loadouts of a single Star Destroyer - its shadow is deeper and wider than the dark of space beyond it."

p344

"The problem is, the Ravager 's weapons are far greater than those of a single Starhawk. The Starhawk's weapons are prodigious and better than even he has on the Home One . It is the uttermost of their tech: bleeding-edge armament. But by itself it can only hope to wound the dreadnought."

p346:

"But the Starhawks were designed with one thing in mind: upgrade. So long did the rebels endure an aging, piecemeal fleet that when the time came to design something new to serve the nascent Republic, they went all-in. Every internal system, every external design features, every weapon - all of it was upgraded beyond the watermark set by the Mon Cals prior and beyond the known capabilities of the Empire's extant ships."

I recently finished aftermath.... Awful. Are the other two worth it?

It was designed to kill a Star Destroyer. *shrug* They probably thought they would save money by building a couple mega ships.

The galaxy goes through cycles from mega ships, to swarms of smaller hulls.

1 minute ago, Tirion said:

I recently finished aftermath.... Awful. Are the other two worth it?

Aftermath is mediocre, go read Battlefront: Twilight company or the new Thrawn novel when it comes out.

Done and preordered

Loved lost stars, really liked the second half of bloodline, tarkin was good but over hyped, enjoyed catalyst.

40 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

Empire's End.

Other good quotes:

p339:

"The other component is that damnable dreadnought. It has ten times the weapons loadouts of a single Star Destroyer - its shadow is deeper and wider than the dark of space beyond it."

p344

"The problem is, the Ravager 's weapons are far greater than those of a single Starhawk. The Starhawk's weapons are prodigious and better than even he has on the Home One . It is the uttermost of their tech: bleeding-edge armament. But by itself it can only hope to wound the dreadnought."

p346:

"But the Starhawks were designed with one thing in mind: upgrade. So long did the rebels endure an aging, piecemeal fleet that when the time came to design something new to serve the nascent Republic, they went all-in. Every internal system, every external design features, every weapon - all of it was upgraded beyond the watermark set by the Mon Cals prior and beyond the known capabilities of the Empire's extant ships."

Yeah I'm reading this as them doing the SSD is 10 times as powerful

28 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Loved lost stars, really liked the second half of bloodline, tarkin was good but over hyped, enjoyed catalyst.

You have good taste.

32 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Yeah I'm reading this as them doing the SSD is 10 times as powerful

Which led to some complaints from those who think an SSD, being quite a lot more than 100x volume of ISD, should have at least 100x firepower. Possible solution was - it has 10x the "weapons loadout" (total number of weapons) but the individual weapons are 10x as powerful - thus Executor-class is equal to 100 ISDs.

9 hours ago, Ironlord said:

Which led to some complaints from those who think an SSD, being quite a lot more than 100x volume of ISD, should have at least 100x firepower. Possible solution was - it has 10x the "weapons loadout" (total number of weapons) but the individual weapons are 10x as powerful - thus Executor-class is equal to 100 ISDs.

Can't say I like their reasoning. Size doesn't directly translate to firepower, although they are related. I agree that the SSD being about 10 times as effective as a regular ISD is pretty underwhelming, though. It should have room on it for enough guns to make it more dangerous than that.

I'd say a big part of a super-dreadnought is the idea that in addition to increased weapons, which I could see as ten times more powerful, it should also have vastly superior shielding and armored hull. The idea of an SSD being "only" 10x more powerful in terms of armament is handily offset by the idea of also being 10-20 times more durable.

I mean, it's not like you'd ever expect a super-sized battlestation capable of obliterating other ships to be completely annihilated after a minor projectile collision followed by a low-speed impact with another starshi---

49 minutes ago, Hockeyzombie said:

Can't say I like their reasoning. Size doesn't directly translate to firepower, although they are related. I agree that the SSD being about 10 times as effective as a regular ISD is pretty underwhelming, though. It should have room on it for enough guns to make it more dangerous than that.

Saxton's estimate for the number of "weapons blisters" on an SSD was 942. He equated them to the ISD's 8 heaviest, and suggested it would have 118x the firepower of an ISD.

But if they're equivalent not to the heaviest, but also to the 120-plus light weapons on an ISD, that drops it down some.

44 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

I'd say a big part of a super-dreadnought is the idea that in addition to increased weapons, which I could see as ten times more powerful, it should also have vastly superior shielding and armored hull. The idea of an SSD being "only" 10x more powerful in terms of armament is handily offset by the idea of also being 10-20 times more durable.

I mean, it's not like you'd ever expect a super-sized battlestation capable of obliterating other ships to be completely annihilated after a minor projectile collision followed by a low-speed impact with another starshi---

So much for 10-20 times the shield power? Tsk tsk tsk, I guess that's what you get when you hardware every important power and control station through the bridge with no other way to control it.....

(this is sarcasm, in case you couldn't tell)

14 hours ago, Forresto said:

Apparently Starhawks are ten times more powerful then a ISD because of new crystals?

Look I love the idea of the rebels getting a pretty powerful ship thats the Rebel's equivalent of a SSD but only a fraction of the power. However I find the Starhawk is a little OP...Am I crazy?

I think they're preparing for Starhawks v Resurgent Star Destroyers in VIII.

5 hours ago, Ironlord said:

Saxton's estimate for the number of "weapons blisters" on an SSD was 942. He equated them to the ISD's 8 heaviest, and suggested it would have 118x the firepower of an ISD.

But if they're equivalent not to the heaviest, but also to the 120-plus light weapons on an ISD, that drops it down some.

I imagine the SSD also has a harder time focusing all fire on one target, since it's flatter than the ISD and can't possibly angle every gun in the same direction unless they seriously didn't put any guns on the bottom. Hard to say how much fire it can pour into a given target, but I'd imagine it can outpace at least a few ISDs per target, and do that to several targets at once. In Armada terms I imagine it has more than four hull zones and each one would be better than three or four ISDs. But yeah, it probably has tons of smaller weapons for shooting at corvettes and flotillas in addition to the big turbolasers and anti-fighter weapons.

I should probably clarify that I'm usually thinking of it in terms of "how many ISDs do you need to match the effectiveness of the SSD?" since multiple ships can spread out and maneuver in ways that one **** huge ship can't. So there's a lot of ways the ISD swarm can ramp up their effectiveness through strategy where the SSD (without support units) just has "fly through the middle and kill everything to the left and right of me."

12 minutes ago, Hockeyzombie said:

I imagine the SSD also has a harder time focusing all fire on one target, since it's flatter than the ISD and can't possibly angle every gun in the same direction unless they seriously didn't put any guns on the bottom. Hard to say how much fire it can pour into a given target, but I'd imagine it can outpace at least a few ISDs per target, and do that to several targets at once.

It has weapons blisters on the bottom.

I'd say the only thing it could fire absolutely everything at (assuming all the blisters rotate) would be a planet.

3 hours ago, Ironlord said:

It has weapons blisters on the bottom.

I'd say the only thing it could fire absolutely everything at (assuming all the blisters rotate) would be a planet.

But it also has guns on the top, so at best it can fire on two targets. Of course the amount of firepower it has means that actually trying to focus like that is a huge waste of effort when it could be doing something more akin to having every passenger fire an Uzi out a different window. The only thing that seems worth the trouble would be another SSD or equivalent, and as far as I know there was no such ship outside of the Empire and anything comparable would have been too old to take the Executor or its siblings in a one on one.

On 30-3-2017 at 6:03 PM, Hockeyzombie said:

Googled it, found the Wookiepedia page. It says the tractor beam was ten times more powerful than the one on the ISD. Not the ship in general, just the tractor beam.

Yup, which is just a plot gimmick to allow for the ridiculous concept of a single 'starhawk mark one' to drag a 19km long super star destroyer with its tractor beam into Jakku. Heaven forbid the Alliance using superior battle tactics or even superior numbers to win a battle.

4 hours ago, Hockeyzombie said:

But it also has guns on the top, so at best it can fire on two targets.

The bottom guns and the top guns can all be pointed in close to the same direction - belly guns slightly down, top guns slightly up - but if the target is big enough (planets, stations, large asteroids) both fields of fire will hit it at the same time.

3 hours ago, Lord Tareq said:

Yup, which is just a plot gimmick to allow for the ridiculous concept of a single 'starhawk mark one' to drag a 19km long super star destroyer with its tractor beam into Jakku. Heaven forbid the Alliance using superior battle tactics or even superior numbers to win a battle.

Haven't read the book, but that was kind of how I felt when I heard about that. Sounded lazy.

On 3/30/2017 at 0:03 PM, Hockeyzombie said:

Googled it, found the Wookiepedia page. It says the tractor beam was ten times more powerful than the one on the ISD. Not the ship in general, just the tractor beam.

Wasn't just the tractor beam. It said in Empire's End that it had many subsytems 10x more powerful. Doesn't mean EVERYTHING, but I do expect StarHawks to have firewpower superior to an ISD2, at least partially. Like maybe 5 red dice in front but no blue.... something asymmetrical but at least possibly superior.

I also expect a ship like that to COST more than an ISD2. I also expect the game to be heading towards 500 points by then also, to help make way for (hopefully) super star destroyers.

4 hours ago, Lord Tareq said:

Yup, which is just a plot gimmick to allow for the ridiculous concept of a single 'starhawk mark one' to drag a 19km long super star destroyer with its tractor beam into Jakku. Heaven forbid the Alliance using superior battle tactics or even superior numbers to win a battle.

They did though. When the Starhawk engaged the tractor beam, the rest of the fleet attacked the engines of the Ravager - to disable it and allow the tractor beam to work. Combination of Tactics, Ships, AND tractor beam.