Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - HobbesHurlbut

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 8
1
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/IM-S-653_Orbital_Garrison
I was reading my copy of Imperial Handbook and I came across this little gem.
It's produced by http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rothana_Heavy_Engineering  (look at the products it produced ;) )
It is basically made by putting two Peacekeeper together http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/IM-455_modular_garrison.

According to my book, a Peacekeeper has 3 twin turbolaser turrets, 6 heavy laser cannon turrets, and 36 TIE among other things.
The Hexostar would have at least 6 twin turbolaser turrets, 12 heavy laser cannon, and 72 TIEs.
It is similar to the Hive of Empire of the Hand.
It is no Empress or Validusia, but it is something Imperials could deploy quickly and the heavy laser cannons with the complement of an ISD's TIE wing make it more suitable against factions like NR. It certainly can not stand up against real warships bigger than a Nebulon-B or two though.

2
Forum Games / Re: Last Person to Post Wins
« on: May 21, 2017, 01:41:51 PM »
You know, this explain how democracy can become a bad thing without anyone higher up corrupting/dismantling the gears of the system to favor themselves.


So that show Palpatine didn't need to use the Dark Side much to sway the senate so well...

3
oh damn, you're right, my bad.

But Dual is even more powerful oh god.
By the way. the fire rate or rather the reload time for the turbolaser hardpoint is same as the laser hardpoint; 4 seconds. That's per hardpoint. Each hardpoint represent a PART of the armament. Like 10 turbolaser batteries would be represented by 5 pulses firing from 2 hardpoints for 10 pulses (halved now in 2.2 but increased damage to make up for it. Resolving the strain by SFX effect).

4
Yes, Four of them. I know that is true according to the EU, but I believe they fire too much too quickly
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Arquitens-class_light_cruiser/Legends  Where does it say they are heavy?

5
Wait, the light cruiser has heavy turbolasers?

6
Forum Games / Re: Last Person to Post Wins
« on: May 16, 2017, 01:55:48 PM »
Yeah Family Guy, Simpsons, and South Park have lost there luster. I don't know what it is, they just got old.
Not just that, but you are different from the person you were 5 or 10 years ago.

7
Discussion, Suggestions & Feedback / Re: 2.2 Demo Feedback
« on: May 12, 2017, 02:44:51 PM »
Didn't modify the turbolasers, set the difficulty to Admiral.
So you didn't correct the error in the NR turbolaser data that halved their firepower compared to the imperial factions?

8
Star Wars Discussion / Re: Favorite Ship
« on: May 08, 2017, 07:51:21 PM »
Assault Frigate Mk I because she has her own charm.  8=)

9
And the ARC 170s in the Maldrood rooster will be switched to the Clutch, we just don't have it done yet.
*Looks at the entry* Oh YES YES. I love the Tri-Wing feature on the TIE series; the TIE Phantom, less so the TIE Defender, and now Clutch. Two laser cannons and an ion cannon, some shieldings, slightly slower than X-Wing but more maneuverable. I'm surprised Sienar didn't offer a production model of this!

Also, the unofficial picture is missing something; the cutouts of the cockpit for side view field.

10
Star Wars Discussion / Re: New Battlecruiser vs Old
« on: May 07, 2017, 06:33:58 PM »
Sorry dude, that isn't official canon. http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Canon#2014_reboot

::trollface::

11
Consider this; the Eclipse SSD's super laser is capable of cracking through a planet's crust not unlike like oh... a single reactor firing of the super laser on Death Start in Rogue One....yeah I would bet on Eclipse winning in a straight up fight.

12
Star Wars Discussion / Re: New Battlecruiser vs Old
« on: May 07, 2017, 11:25:28 AM »
The Praetor would easily win, because the Resurgent doesn't exist in real canon. So if a real ship fights an imaginary fanon ship the real ship would obviously win.
Sorry but Praetor is Legends while Resurgent is OFFICIAL, "real" canon. I mean wow such "strong" logic you have there.  8=)

13
Star Wars Discussion / Re: New Battlecruiser vs Old
« on: May 07, 2017, 08:22:31 AM »
Okay bad example well lets look at the Zumwalt class destroyer it displaces 14k tons, it could easily take out a battleship. My point is size doesn't really matter in terms of combat power
And the Treaty cruisers used to be capped at 10k tonnage.  ;D

14
Star Wars Discussion / Re: New Battlecruiser vs Old
« on: May 06, 2017, 06:10:53 PM »
I didn't expand on the battleship thing, but yeah some carriers can be smaller than battleships. But have much more power than a battleship because like you said the range, and Airplanes can be designed to have way more uses than a couple huge turrets.
The newest amphibious assault ships which are technically classified as carriers displace around 46K tons so smaller than those battleships. The French Carrier called the Charles de Gaulle displaces a similar amount.
Um....Iowa was one of the biggest battleships in the 40s. And the London Naval Conference and Washington Naval Treaties in the InterWar peroid limited new battleships to 35k tonnages... your amphibious carriers happen to rival or outweigh almost all of the Treaty Battleships....

15
Star Wars Discussion / Re: New Battlecruiser vs Old
« on: May 06, 2017, 04:43:21 PM »
See there was a great project called the Death Star that used get this kyber crystals! Anyway sarcasm aside size doesn't really mean power, if you look at modern Navies that's why no one uses battleships anymore. They're way too big and not needed since they wouldn't be useful in modern naval warfare.
Even going back to the interwar period you had the Washington Naval Treaty between the US, UK, and Japan limiting the size of ships to prevent a "Naval Arms Race." This had the opposite affect and made it so smaller ships had a lot more firepower than before.
So its completely in the realm of possibilities that a smaller ship could have the power of a SSD given the proper upgrades
Looks at USS Iowa's Displacement (57k tonnage) and then looks at Nimitz's Displacement (+100k tonnages)*.
Er the battleship "disappeared" because
1. At the time (40s-50s), it was very manpower intensive and well....very capital investment-intensive (why only major nations ever built them, though a few minor powers purchased them in the Age of Steel Warships (1890s-1940s)
2. the Carrier eclipsed it....and the battleship could not damage it in return (thank airplanes for your long reach!) is the major reason

16
Star Wars Discussion / Re: New Battlecruiser vs Old
« on: May 06, 2017, 11:27:47 AM »
This honestly sounds like the Disney writers are just First Order fanboys, with bad writing.
But Thrawn could have been so proud of them if only they didn't build the Starkiller Base and just give the khyber crystal upgrade to the new Star Destroyer fleet!

Not all of the resurgent star destroyers got the upgrade; Finalizer is one of the few that did.

17
For those days when a Phalanx just isn't enough.

Also Hobbles the MC90 has two spinal based Proton Torpedo launchers and those work in ICW. Unless I misunderstood your comment.
Slornie has the right of it though.

18
The Lounge / Re: Stellaris Mod proposition
« on: May 06, 2017, 08:11:55 AM »
It's not because there's already a mod that's as good as ICW/Ascendancy?

19
Wow, nice. A spinal mounted armament, does that mean it would be only for Ascendancy mod?

20
Star Wars Discussion / Re: New Battlecruiser vs Old
« on: May 06, 2017, 08:07:43 AM »
Resurgent with the kyber crystal upgrade has firepower equal to the Executor SSD.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 8
Those working on this mod do so in their own free time and for no pay.
Show your support for them by enabling ads on this site!