Is there a way to have Star Wars space combat make sense?

[Mord]

Ah, crap. I knew I forgot something...

Ion cannons have the same basic properties as laser cannons in terms of range and energy consumption, but their blasts forgo direct destructive power in favor of delivering a focused EMP to their target. Ion blasts rapidly drain ray shields, as compared to a turbolaser blast of equivalent power, and interfere with electrical systems of unshielded targets. An unshielded target subjected to a well-aimed ion barrage can have its weapons, shield generators, engines, or even reactor core forcibly disabled.

Ion cannons are primarily useful against targets you want to leave intact or can't otherwise disable, so they are primarily used against capital ships. There is rarely a good reason to have small-scale ion cannons capable of targeting small craft; likewise there are few good reasons to bother with ion cannons mounted on small craft.

[TheFlatline]

Ah, crap. I knew I forgot something...

Ion cannons have the same basic properties as laser cannons in terms of range and energy consumption, but their blasts forgo direct destructive power in favor of delivering a focused EMP to their target. Ion blasts rapidly drain ray shields, as compared to a turbolaser blast of equivalent power, and interfere with electrical systems of unshielded targets. An unshielded target subjected to a well-aimed ion barrage can have its weapons, shield generators, engines, or even reactor core forcibly disabled.

Ion cannons are primarily useful against targets you want to leave intact or can't otherwise disable, so they are primarily used against capital ships. There is rarely a good reason to have small-scale ion cannons capable of targeting small craft; likewise there are few good reasons to bother with ion cannons mounted on small craft.

You used them pretty much constantly in the x-wing games for boarding missions on shuttles and stuff.

Also Y-wings have ion cannons on them (the turret above the cockpit) so I dunno what you're saying about "no reason to put them on a starfighter". B-wings have a pair under the cockpit too. I think if we're going x-wing game canon then Assault Gunboats have them too, as do Tie Defenders.

They're great for transports, freighters, containers, shuttles, etc... anything that you want to board.

[Mord]

You used them pretty much constantly in the x-wing games for boarding missions on shuttles and stuff.

Also Y-wings have ion cannons on them (the turret above the cockpit) so I dunno what you're saying about "no reason to put them on a starfighter". B-wings have a pair under the cockpit too. I think if we're going x-wing game canon then Assault Gunboats have them too, as do Tie Defenders.

They're great for transports, freighters, containers, shuttles, etc... anything that you want to board.

You're right. I was thinking too much in terms of the films; the only ships we ever saw disabled onscreen were the Tantive IV (Leia's ship) and the Tyrant (the Star Destroyer knocked out by the Hoth ion cannon).

If you're doing a lot of boarding actions against craft that are too small and fast to catch with a capital ship-mounted tractor beam, having ion cannons on your own small craft makes total sense. Makes me wonder why Imperial forces don't have more of them, since the Empire is naturally going to be very much in the business of disabling suspicious vessels (customs enforcement, even before you factor in Rebel hunting).

From a combat perspective, the Rebels have less of a reason to mount ion cannons on their small craft - TIE Fighters are unshielded and made of tissue paper, TIE Interceptors even more so. However, the Rebels are big on cargo thievery; a squadron of B-Wings or Y-Wings could pair up with an unarmed freighter or boarding craft in order to disable and rob an Imperial convoy without the freighter engaging in combat.

Minor note: various Y-Wing configurations had laser cannons mounted in the dorsal turret instead.

[OgreBattle]

In the Fantasy Flight miniatures game Ion Cannons tend to have shorter range than blasters of equivalent size, tiny damage and disrupt enemy movement so you can stick them up the butt.

One of the optimal ways to play was to have a bunch of multi-crew turreted ships with overlapping arcs like WWII American Flying Fortresses

[Lokathor]

Here's a thing: What's the secondhand market value on ships? This question applies to ships of any size, fighters up to capital ships.

Because it's generally pretty easy for players to get a hold of extra ships from people they kill, and once everyone has their own ship, you sorta just sell off the rest if there's people to sell to.

So if ships are "expensive", then players can make bank and you have to be ready to deal with that. And if ships are "cheap" and somehow not worth the cost to drag to a place to sell it, then players won't do that, but then space navies are crazy because you just said ships are so cheap you don't bother with selling captured units.

[codeGlaze]

Here's a thing: What's the secondhand market value on ships? This question applies to ships of any size, fighters up to capital ships.

Because it's generally pretty easy for players to get a hold of extra ships from people they kill, and once everyone has their own ship, you sorta just sell off the rest if there's people to sell to.

So if ships are "expensive", then players can make bank and you have to be ready to deal with that. And if ships are "cheap" and somehow not worth the cost to drag to a place to sell it, then players won't do that, but then space navies are crazy because you just said ships are so cheap you don't bother with selling captured units.

I think capital ships would fall under the "specialty market" category
Specialty items can be very expensive to produce but be worth comparatively little to anyone but the original owner.

Smaller craft probably have better value than huge ships do, though. Ships that require less crew and are easier to hide.

Large/Capital ships probably require a specialist buyer who's already interested/in the market (eg Rebels) inescapable crewing those vests ships as well as willing to accept the massive risks involved in owning said ships. Not to mention the problems with outfitting, repairing and stocking the damn things.

Most people wouldn't touch them, or only deal with them as a scrap resource.

[maglag]

In the Phantom Menace, some pawn shop in the middle of a backwater planet is ready to trade for a luxury royal cruiser.

In a New Hope a fully operational Millenium Falcon is just sitting at another pawn shop. Fastest ship on the galaxy yadayada can take on the Imperial army and win yadayada just sitting there under little vigilance until some spunky kid steals it.

[Surgo]

Mord, the only issue I have with your list is it doesn't quite answer the question of "why Star Destroyers?". It does a pretty good job answering "why everything else?", but it leaves me wondering why Star Destroyers over an equivalently priced group of carriers and floating space guns.

As far as ship costs go, I think it's established in the setting that a reasonably crappy and small ship is only a bit more (1.5x?) than a landspeeder. You'll probably never find a buyer for a ridiculous military ship like a Star Destroyer, but the market is pretty liquid for anything freighter or below. Though once you get to starfighters you might have trouble again; who is really going to want to sit in that cramped cockpit for their journey and deal with all the licensing issues that a military vessel like that has?

In a New Hope a fully operational Millenium Falcon is just sitting at another pawn shop. Fastest ship on the galaxy yadayada can take on the Imperial army and win yadayada just sitting there under little vigilance until some spunky kid steals it.

I think you mean The Force Awakens. It's a good point but I think the in-joke was always that the ship was a piece of crap and the only people that liked it were its owners.

[angelfromanotherpin]

As far as ship costs go, I think it's established in the setting that a reasonably crappy and small ship is only a bit more (1.5x?) than a landspeeder.

In ANH, Luke says that for 10K they can 'almost' buy their own ship (and he's probably talking about a used civilian model), while his used landspeeder sold in haste will reliably fetch >2K. You can definitely work with those numbers.

It's a good point but I think the in-joke was always that the ship was a piece of crap and the only people that liked it were its owners.

The in-joke is that it looks like a piece of crap, but is actually a heavily-modded job that's extremely high-performance.

[maglag]

After helping to destroy not just one but two two Death Stars I would expect the Millenium Falcon to be an icon of pure terror for the imperials and a rallying flagship for the anti-imperials.

[TheFlatline]

Mord, the only issue I have with your list is it doesn't quite answer the question of "why Star Destroyers?". It does a pretty good job answering "why everything else?", but it leaves me wondering why Star Destroyers over an equivalently priced group of carriers and floating space guns.

To be fair, star destroyers may serve more than a military function. They are, effectively, a movable provincial capital for a principate. You can house the entire imperial government for a region inside a star destroyer if necessary, and short of a major, concentrated effort to destroy the Star Destroyer, that government has a reasonable expectation of safety.

Also, military weapons don't *always* make the most sense. Nazi Germany was huge on demonstration weapons. Mega tanks and gargantuan cannons and other superweapons that would inflict terror and supposedly be invincible. They probably would have been better off making more supplies, more bullets, and more basic weaponry, but Hitler was obsessed with demonstrations of the technical prowess of Germany. I always assumed that the Galactic Empire was similar. Even TIE fighters being unshielded is a statement: We're so big and so powerful that our individual fighters are expendable.

[Mord]

Mord, the only issue I have with your list is it doesn't quite answer the question of "why Star Destroyers?". It does a pretty good job answering "why everything else?", but it leaves me wondering why Star Destroyers over an equivalently priced group of carriers and floating space guns.

Short version: because when you have to carry troops into a hot zone, you want them as well-protected as possible.

Any ship capable of carrying the large volumes of stuff needed to invade a planet is going to be big and slow. Specifically, it's going to be big and slow enough to hit with turbolaser fire (including planetary batteries, lest we forget defense systems like the LNR).

You can have a carrier ship full of fighters, troops, and supplies that is not armed or shielded like a fighting ship, but you gamble with everything you put on that ship when you bring it into a hot zone. Any major power will naturally have vessels like this for supply lines, but they are not suited for combat and are vulnerable to raids. You would definitely not want to send one of those into a hostile system with planetary batteries, a fighter screen, and/or a defending fleet.

Fighting ships have to be of a certain size in order to carry a reactor that can pump adequate power into their turbolaser batteries and shields, but if carrying capacity isn't a priority, you can reduce your ship's size dramatically while still getting some combat effectiveness against capital ships. Something on the order of a Bulk Cruiser (600m) or Dreadnought (600m) is about as small as you can go while still A) being able to generate enough power to pose a threat to things larger than a corvette with your laser weaponry and B) having shields that are worth a damn. (Nebulon-B frigates carry a few turbolasers at a length of 300m, but they are intended to dual-function as an anti-starfighter platform.) There's your "floating space gun."

The Star Destroyer simultaneously fulfills the function of a fighting ship and a carrier and is specifically meant to be deployed against well-defended systems that are actively resisting. As such it has the biggest reactor of anything mass-produced, in order to power heavy shields and a pile of nasty guns. A Star Destroyer, even when solving the optimization problem for shielding vs firepower, is likely to have an absolute advantage over an entire enemy flotilla, plus planetary defenses, in its ability to both give and take punches. This level of combat effectiveness makes the Star Destroyer your safest bet if you want to bring troops, small craft, and materiel into a hostile system and can't afford to have them getting blown to bits riding in something fragile like a Galleon or Escort Carrier.

Star Destroyers' firepower makes them good at naval combat, but there are cheaper options if all you need to do is fight a naval battle. Delivering a ground assault to a populous system is the way to make the fullest use of all their abilities.

[Occluded Sun]

It's rather like asking "what value does a car have" and then comparing something you'd pick up at a used lot with something used for racing. They're both highly engineered precision devices, in a sense, but there are significant practical differences. A vintage VW Bug even has some advantages over a Formula One racecar - such as being much easier to repair and more fault-tolerant. But if you're going to be racing in NASCAR, the Bug wouldn't even be a joke.

A very basic spaceship might not be worth the trouble of stealing, while an advanced one might absorb the resources of entire star systems.

[Emerald]

Though once you get to starfighters you might have trouble again; who is really going to want to sit in that cramped cockpit for their journey and deal with all the licensing issues that a military vessel like that has?

People who want the firepower and don't care about comfort or licensing issues, namely pirates, smugglers, mercenaries, etc.

Whether due to Imperial suppression of third-party starfighter production, the Rebellion snapping up any spare fighters they could find, the fact that fighters tend to go from "intact" to "exploded" without much middle ground, or some other unspecified canonical reason, starfighters are apparently hard enough to obtain intact and in good repair that most pirate crews are stuck with second-rate fighters like the outdated Z-95 Headhunter or "Uglies" assembled out of the salvaged remnants of partially-wrecked fighters.

So assuming you don't have any ethical issues providing military hardware to terrible people, it's a seller's market for starfighters as much as (or more so than) it is for freighters.

[norms29]

If only capital ships have enough power to make longer distance jumps then they immediately serve a purpose. In Star Wars tho that doesn't seem to be the case since even tiny x wings have hyperdrive.

I'm surprised no one has pointed this out by now, but it was explicit in the Expanded universe (now Legends), and I thought implied by at least one line of dialog in A New Hope (it's been a while), that while x-wings and other fighters could carry hyper-drives, there is a limiting factor in navigation.

Basically; you don't move in straight lines in hyperspace, you follow a carefully and precisely plotted course. The Droid sticking out the back of an X-wing can store 2 or 3 pre-plotted courses which the craft can make, but calculate new courses on the fly like the implausibly large computers on capital ships.

of course, now that I write it, I realize this wouldn't fit with Luke's last minute trip to Dagoba in ESB...

[Occluded Sun]

I'd assume Luke got pathing instructions from the Rebel Base and passed them to R2D2.

[Surgo]

Though once you get to starfighters you might have trouble again; who is really going to want to sit in that cramped cockpit for their journey and deal with all the licensing issues that a military vessel like that has?

People who want the firepower and don't care about comfort or licensing issues, namely pirates, smugglers, mercenaries, etc.

Some of those groups most certainly should care about one or the other!

A starfighter would be completely useless to a smuggler because it can't carry anything. And landing a starfighter anywhere would make you stick out like a sore thumb. That means "papers, please!". And that's bad news for a lot of that quoted group.

I could see pirate gangs wanting some, but these are also the type to not be able to land anywhere.

[angelfromanotherpin]

A starfighter would be completely useless to a smuggler because it can't carry anything.

It can probably carry a fortune in gems or spice or other ultra-portable valuables. You probably can't get that kind of work reliably as an independent, but if you join up with one of the cartels, you should be fine.

And landing a starfighter anywhere would make you stick out like a sore thumb. That means "papers, please!". And that's bad news for a lot of that quoted group.

The thing is that they can land anywhere. SW ships are ridiculously VTOL and can land on and take off from almost any location or terrain. You land and do your business out in the countryside; yeah, the buyer's probably annoyed that they have to drive a couple hours out of town to get to the meeting, but crime is frequently inconvenient.

They do still need a no-questions-asked facility for refuel and repairs, but that's not nearly as restrictive.

[Chamomile]

Bear in mind that from at least the New Sith Wars on (and probably across the entire timeline), the Outer Rim is barely kept from the brink of anarchy by the presence of the Hutts, who really don't care what you do so long as you don't break their stuff and they get their cut. Government presence throughout is somewhere between minimal (Tatooine in A New Hope) to non-existent (same planet in the Phantom Menace, when there is not so much as a Republic embassy where the Queen and company can hang out while requesting a friend with a starship come pick them up).

[Emerald]

A starfighter would be completely useless to a smuggler because it can't carry anything. And landing a starfighter anywhere would make you stick out like a sore thumb. That means "papers, please!". And that's bad news for a lot of that quoted group.

I could see pirate gangs wanting some, but these are also the type to not be able to land anywhere.

Most pirate crews as depicted have one combat-capable transport of some kind (skipray blastboat, military-surplus shuttle, modified freighter, etc.) that serves as a starfighter carrier, command ship, boarding shuttle, loot hauler, and so forth while starfighters are used to do the actual pirating.

The only pirate attacks really described in detail are false attacks carried out by Wraith Squadron while undercover as pirates, but everyone reacts as if their MO is pretty standard and not suspicious so it's probably a reliable depiction. Essentially, the "pirates" ambush their target with the starfighters engaging and the transport staying out of the combat, any escorts or point defenses are taken out, the target is rendered defenseless (shields down/hyperdrive disabled/etc.), and then the fighters pull back to screen the transport as the bulk of the crew come in, board the target, and take what they want before everyone retreats.

Isolated space stations, asteroid bases, smuggler's moons, and other unsavory places are frequently featured as places for outlaws to buy, sell, and upgrade ships and weapons with no questions asked. Even semi-legitimate mercenaries tend to stick to the Mid Rim and Outer Rim for their bases, avoiding the Empire's attention as much as possible even most they probably have Imperial sanction for their activities.

[maglag]

They do still need a no-questions-asked facility for refuel and repairs, but that's not nearly as restrictive.

Meh, Luke's X-wing went to swamp planet, was buried in slime for days/weeks, then flew away just fine after being dragged out. Clearly a full tank can take you pretty far and they can run with minimum maintenance.

Even TIE fighters being unshielded is a statement: We're so big and so powerful that our individual fighters are expendable.

Actually, the statement for TIE fighters being unshielded is that the Empire will not tolerate cowardice or lack of piloting skill. If you can't dodge the shots from the rebel scum, you deserve to die as far as they care. Similarly they lack warp drives or landing gear of their own so that running away from battle is not an option. Either you defend your star destroyer at all costs or will have nowhere to run.

[OgreBattle]

Modifying a starfighter to carry cargo instead of torpedoes and so on isn't unrealistic:

[GâtFromKI]

Ion cannons have the same basic properties as laser cannons in terms of range and energy consumption, but their blasts forgo direct destructive power in favor of delivering a focused EMP to their target. Ion blasts rapidly drain ray shields, as compared to a turbolaser blast of equivalent power, and interfere with electrical systems of unshielded targets. An unshielded target subjected to a well-aimed ion barrage can have its weapons, shield generators, engines, or even reactor core forcibly disabled.

Ion cannons are primarily useful against targets you want to leave intact or can't otherwise disable, so they are primarily used against capital ships. There is rarely a good reason to have small-scale ion cannons capable of targeting small craft; likewise there are few good reasons to bother with ion cannons mounted on small craft.

Shouldn't such a weapon kill half the crew by de-activating (and then re-activating) artificial gravity (and other life support systems) ? And also, force the ship to pursue its current trajectory - this isn't a problem if the ship is on a stable orbit, but it can be when it changes orbit.

For me, if ion canon are the most efficient way to de-activate systems, it should be the most efficient way to win a fight - in space combat, there's no real difference between "deactivate systems" and "win".

That's especially true against small fighters - how long can the pilot survive without life supports ? Since he's never on a stable orbit (its main way of surviving is its unpredictable trajectory - therefore its always accelerating), how long before it crashes when you deactivate its reactor?


(btw, if turbo-lasers are actual lasers, how comes we are able to evaluate their travel time only using our eyes and a crappy chronometer?)

[Chamomile]

Shouldn't such a weapon kill half the crew by de-activating (and then re-activating) artificial gravity (and other life support systems) ?

No. Why would you think that?

And also, force the ship to pursue its current trajectory - this isn't a problem if the ship is on a stable orbit, but it can be when it changes orbit.

Again, no, and why would you think that? Specifically in reference to this only being a problem if the ship is in stable orbit. Do you think the ship is going to crash after like thirty seconds of being ionized? The only problem regarding trajectory is that it becomes predictable, which is an issue whether it's a stable orbit or not.

Ion weapons temporarily disables enemy systems, other ordinance permanently blows them up. The question is why would you ever use ion weaponry at all, and the answer is going to be one or more of:

A) As mentioned, it's super effective against shields. You'd want turbolasers and photon torpedoes to hit the target after shields have dropped, but if you can only afford one giant anti-orbital mega-cannon, an ion cannon is the one that will most reliably disable ships for at least a little bit.

B) Ion weapons are cheaper. If you're using a giant ion cannon in isolation it's probably because you can't afford a giant turbolaser.

C) Ion weapons are usually for disabling craft for boarding. You usually see them on craft that can't use tractor beams for some reason, like Y-wings that can't tug disabled ships around due to their tiny mass or planets that will catch any ship they're tugging in their gravity well and cause them to wreck on the surface. Plus, a ship caught in a tractor beam can still shoot at you. A ship that's been fully ionized cannot.

[GâtFromKI]

Shouldn't such a weapon kill half the crew by de-activating (and then re-activating) artificial gravity (and other life support systems) ?

No. Why would you think that?

Because being suddenly in zero G can be dangerous - give a strong impulsion and you're strongly propelled to a wall with a high velocity, and no mean to reduce your speed. Let's say you're running in a 1-g environment, suddenly the gravity disappear, there's a high probability you won't stop your run in the instant - and therefore, you'll throw yourself to the ceiling at a high enough velocity to get hurt.

Going suddenly from 0-G to 1-G leads to a free fall - the crew doesn't seems to have security belt or anything, they're just floating around during the 0-G phase. A surprise free fall can cause a lot of injuries, including death, even if it's 1 meter high only.

Of course, "1-meter free fall" is before you take into account all the bottomless pits. "Where do we put the reactor ? - in a bottomless pit ! - where do we build the Emperor's room ? - next to a bottomless pit ! - Someone ordered a carbonite fridge, where do I put it ? - One room away from our bottomless pit ! - where is the switch for the tractor beam ? - on the wall of a bottomless pit ! - where is your server room ? - It's organized around a bottomless pit !"...

Remember the stormtroopers who guard the switch of the tractor beam in A new Hope ? Those guys are so dead if there's any malfunction in the artificial gravity system...

Again, no, and why would you think that? Specifically in reference to this only being a problem if the ship is in stable orbit.

The opposite: it's not a problem if you're in a stable orbit. It's a problem if you aren't.

As you said, in a battle you don't stay in the same orbit. So...

Do you think the ship is going to crash after like thirty seconds of being ionized?

That's what happens to the super-destroyer in Episode 6: no command center = crash within thirty seconds...

Anyway, given the speed of fighters, I expect them to crash on a random shield within a few seconds. Actually, I expect the ion blast not to disable every system exactly at the same time - it's not an emergency shutdown, it's a ion blast. If the artificial gravity is disabled before the engine (~1/2 probability), I expect the pilot to fall unconscious or die (Star Wars features artificial gravity, therefore any fighter should feature accelerations that aren't bearable by humans - or fighters would have no reason to exist, being less maneuverable than ships with artificial gravity).

Against fighters, I can't see why you'd use anything else than ions. It is more efficient against shields, and will surely at least disable the pilot. Yes, you could use a few turbo-laser to finish some disabled fighters, but your main weapon should be ions.

Against destroyers... Again, your main weapon should be ions. Because it's more effective at disabling ship. And your main goal should be to prevent enemy ship from doing their job - especially when their job is to kill you. So you should have lots and lots of ion canons, and a few torpedo to destroy disabled targets when needed - according to Episode 6, a single kamikaze is enough to destroy a super-destroyer with no shields; a single torpedo should be more than enough.

More effective at disabling targets + cheaper = ion >> turbo-laser.