Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Fractalsponge

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm pretty sure that's my design. I didn't sell them anything, nor could I have I imagine, given copyright, but I used the design in my illustrations for the Essential Guide to Warfare, so my design was technically the last canon depiction of the ship before the EU reset.
  2. You guys might like this: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/JGaeA http://fractalsponge.net/?p=2763
  3. Turbo-electric also eliminated vulnerable steam lines and offered much quicker reverse power. Reduction gearing was already well established by this point. I bring up turbo electric not because it uses turbines, but for the discontinuity between the liberation of energy from fuel and the application of motive force to the environment. There's an intermediate (here an electric motor) between the two steps. Had diesels been mature enough in 1918, they would've been a good pick, though heavier. Prinzregent Luitpold had some diesels (I guess it would be what, CODAS?). Large warship sole-diesel drive weren't introduced until the Panzerschiffe, and it's instructive that the Germans did not think the state of the art advanced enough to make Scharnhorst and Bismarck motorships, instead going with higher performance steam. "Regarding that first one, as well as your last quote of me in this block, I think I misstated my point. Yes, overall the additional surface facings of turrets, superstructure, greebles, etc. are minimal on the overall surface area of the ship, and that surface area is much more closely related to the volume and general geometry of the ship. My point here is that handling those greebles, whether the shield is somewhat Star Trek-esque in that it's a standoff bubble around the ship at some arbitrary distance or more directly on the surface, they do add additional area, and more importantly, additional geometry. I can only assume that shields will act similarly to armor, and not at all be happy about corners or sharp angles. (Upon a mental consultation, shields are probably effectively surface hugging, given the distance at which we saw Rebel fighters skim Intimidator and Persecutor in Rogue One, and the range at which the Millenium Falcon evaded the Avenger by skimming her bridge in the Hoth asteriod belt and the Executor by flying down her beam trench at Cloud City.) My point here isn't that necessarily Executor's armor or shields are actually stronger than Wrath's, but that the latter has the more complex geometry that will create more weak points that can be targeted than Executor (excepting that cityscape some moron slapped down her dorsal area). In particular, Wrath's weapon mounts mark areas where the armor has to be compromised, in order for power to reach those weapons. Now, I can only expect she mounts heavy turret armor and barbettes like naval battleships before her, but well aimed fire still poses a sizable threat to those points. I do see how that point got lost in translation between my head and the keyboard though." For guns, weapons fire proceeds through rapidly flickered on-and-off shield windows - I don't think turrets protrude from the shielding. The relative efficacy of armor seems to be quite low also compared to shields. I don't think shields work like that around corners. Even if they do, I doubt those corners would be targetable when ships are manuevering at range. It goes down to how shields work in SW, which is poorly defined. My personal thinking is that shields are slightly stand off from the hull, and projected in panels that can be angled for deflection, and occasionally might open some gaps for fighters to exploit. So I don't think there is a...fractal calculation in surface area for shields, as in things like rivets get their total area summed for shields. Even things like deckhouses etc. probably aren't; I don't think every corner is important, otherwise ships would never have major surface protrusions and just be perfect geometrical solids - why even risk such a fundamental element of warship capability as survival under fire? Also, if we are measuring on a total surface area basis (all greebles and such), Executor is much much higher area. And while we're at surface area, here's a very simplified example. The box on the left and the box on the right have exactly the same volume. The box on the left however has over 2x the surface area as the one on the right. So if we assume that shielding directly depends on power (assuming same number of generators and such), and that reactor size is dependent on internal volume, that means that the flatter box has half the shielding (in terms of power/area) than the box on the right. Same volume, dramatically different surface (and shielding) area. If those boxes were the size of star dreadnoughts, then a heavy turbolaser turret is the size of the small red box on the surface of the box to the left. Do you see it? The difference in surface area between the two big hull shapes is about...15 THOUSAND turrets. It's not a coincidence that I'm choosing a long, wide, thin, flat shape compared to a shorter compact shape - it is similar in principle to the hull form differences of Executor vs Wrath. My scaling curves from existing size comparisons suggest that hypermatter reactors are more efficient (in terms of power/volume) as they get bigger volume wise. So an identical volume high surface area shape is also less able to mount very high volume reactors, compounding its survivability issues. Let's get back to Executor/Wrath for a moment. I think Executor is prettier, but I absolutely do expect Wrath to win. It's just not a hill I'm willing to die on, since I don't know exactly what Executor can do. But I do estimate Wrath is producing about twice the power of Executor, on a hull form that should be more efficient for shielding by about 2x. This depends on what you think Executor is packing reactor wise. I don't expect the difference in power to diverge too much from 2x, but Wrath will have a substantial (if not necessarily overwhelming) advantage in power, and thus firepower, and thus shielding, compounded by hull form advantages. In real life terms I think Executor is a battlecruiser - lethal vs everything smaller because of its speed and firepower, but not so good vs its own size ship, in this case because there really aren't any in the same size group until stuff like Wrath and Sovereign/Eclipse come around. Modern ships seem to be moving towards distributed lethality, with things like CEC and mass Kalibr shooters showing up in different places. But in the real world, no ship can take a hit from the best wweapons available (say a tactical nuke). SW however I think drives ships bigger vs equivalent firepower in a swarm of small ships. Why? Shields. If a ship isn't killed outright, then all it has suffered is shield depletion, and after cooling it is usable again. In a big ship vs a swarm fight, with the same aggregate firepower on each side, the big ship might kill a proportion of the swarm with each exchange of fire (for Executor or Wrath vs ISDs we're talking maybe 200-400:1 for a single ship exchange, so gross overkill per volley). At a reasonable but not 100% hit rate, the dreadnought is never driven past its dissipation rate or shield surge capacity, but a small ship in the swarm gets overwhelmed and destroyed. It breaks Lanchester's relationship quite badly, because one side never loses shooters. So ships get bigger so that they can provide the overmatch in this type of situation. Also, if you like Bellator, you might want to see my latest renders: https://www.artstation.com/artwork/oeOxm
  4. Yes, and I wanted something different. If you need a sharp bow to be considered a star destroyer... Acclamator also had a blunt bow as well. The aesthetic was to build up structures from the basic shape, like the comics ship and the concept sketch with the ziggurats rising from the basic wedge. Extending that to the prow flowed from that. Plus, it's really supposed to look a little out of place as an Imperial ship - close and in the same lineage, but different.
  5. It's deliberately supposed to be a throwback. Here's a reference sheet for when I was designing it. I wanted it to look like it sat early on in the Acclamator -> Venator -> Victory -> Devastator visual progression.
  6. I read that it was supposed to have 6x laser and 4x ion. The games simplified a lot of stuff so I went with the published one.
  7. I didn't like the look of the neck, so I took it out. Fight me :D.
  8. I didn't like the look of the neck, so I took it out. Fight me :D.
  9. I generally agree with all the points about *sea* warship design (nitpicks about Richelieu's design lineage aside - note that the French naval general staff moved to the Gascogne arrangement and would've done so for Clemenceau had this not involved a major delay). Apart from educational purposes I'm not sure how they are applicable to rules of thumb explicitly intended for the Star Wars setting. I'll definitely say that not every SW fan is going to agree with them, since it depends on certain interpretations of how the technology is supposed to work. Specific comments: I'm going to respond point by point, and hopefully the formatting will be clear enough. Sleek as in slim, correct. "I can achieve the same number of weapons and have a sleeker exterior by deploying all the weapons in retractable turrets. All of those turrets will involve a lot of additional work to not compromise the armor, but I can still get a "sleek"/less greeblehauled look." You can. I'm not sure it would be worthwhile from a complexity, cost, and structural stability viewpoint, but it is possible. However, we basically never ever see retracting turrets in SW, and considering each one can output power to destroy cities (and recoil to match), this doesn't really pass the sniff test re structural strength to me. "Regarding such a slimmer ship. I will make a few points. First, it stands to reason that such a ship would offset its inability to mount a large main engine with multiple distributed smaller engines." Agreed. My mention of the square-cube law does NOT make any special mention of propulsion. Ship power in terrestial (real world) terms is about propulsion, since firepower and protection are "baked in" to the munitions and structure and not actively generated by the ship. However I make the assumption that SW reactors are not explicitly linked to propulsion. Rather the energy generated from the reactors are converted by different ship systems into appropriate outputs: energy weapon fire, shields, and energetic "ions" that are shot out of the ship to provide motive power. Acceleration will be correlated to power, but not actively linked in the sense of a fuel combustion heat being linked to a turbine via steam. In principle, this is sort of like the IEP systems you mentioned in more modern day ships (though turbo-electric drive was a thing a long time ago). "For being underarmed, I will point out that I am not necessarily limited to less weapons output (provided I have equal power generation)" Absolutely correct. There would be other ways to short-circuit the link between power generation and firepower, for instance missile warheads. But you can also have fewer bigger guns. "There is a similar effect for shields. While Executor on the whole probably has less power generation available than Wrath, if she is equipped with the same shield generators she can reactively shunt power from generator to generator, improving the shields selectively." Here's were we will diverge. I posit that shields, being actively generated and maintained, are better when concentrated over a smaller area; the relationship is that strength is inverse to area covered. If we disagree here, then that's that; to my knowledge there is not a canon view on this. A slimmer ship does have a smaller area to cover, but if it cannot reduce its surface area to volume ratio, it will (in this reading) be proportionately more poorly protected. "A sleeker ship will have fewer protrusions, whether weapon mounts or greebles, so its armor and shields do not have to account for these exterior features." No. Turrets are a miniscule contributor to surface area. I'm happy to provide excruciatingly detailed numbers on demand to prove the point. The basic hull shape is massively more of a factor in overall surface area, even for a ship with as many turrets as Wrath. Also, a retractable turret ship would be unable to fire to gain a very small decrease in surface area, while we're talking about retractable turrets. "If shield strength is proportional the surface area of the shield and to shield strength (and if the shields do not have to map exactly to the surface they are shielding), a slimmer ship can get away with shielding a smaller surface area, an edge to the movie ship versus FS's." Again, I think shield strength is proportional, but *inversely* proportional, to surface area. "This means Executor's main armor and shields are, on average, likely harder to penetrate than Wrath's per unit power, given that the latter has far more points where the armor or shields have to break, bend, or otherwise be compromised so that Wrath can mount all her weaponry." Armor strength has nothing to do with surface area. Armor weight will, so (again in my reading of the setting) a ship with a lot of surface area (and hence a lot of armor), but little reactor, will be harder to move at the same acceleration. This all isn't that I have a dog in the fight about the specific Wrath vs Executor arugment. I actually don't care. I think Executor is the prettier ship. But I do think that in general, more concentration of power gives one ship a tactical advantage. It will be an advantage strategically until one side cocnentrates so much that it is no longer efficient, and the other side can in the aggregate bring more firepower distributed across more ships for the same resources. I also think my particular reading of the technical background drives ships towards concentrating more pwoer (energy and firepower) rather than spreading them out. I'm happy to elaborate if anyone is interested.
  10. Best hobby ever. Yes, but the models are totally unsuitable for any game engine. 500k polygons is a small model for me. You have to rebuild them as low-poly models.
  11. Where do you think they got this design from? I can match camera angles and you can look at the panel gaps if you like
  12. No. I'm not upset really, but I wouldn't turn down credit/pay either My Avenger is one of my all-time favorite projects. I don't play this game, but I hope to see the design get used someday like the Vigil did. I'm glad you like the dreadnaught - it was fun to mess about with it.
  13. Yeah that's me I'm glad they used the design, since I obviously think it's prettier than the others. Would be nice if they had me do some of the art using it when it comes time
  • Create New...