I don't really consider the Star Wars Universe to be really a good one for crossovers, if for no other reason than that less work has gone into making it realistic than into, say, Warhammer 40k. It is fundamentally a universe designed to tell stories for kids, not for geeks. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just that it means that Star Wars tech is all over the place.
For example, turbolasers are said to be enormously powerful, yet their effects range from instant death to "oh, look, we destroyed one cannon on the side of that enemy ship", as in the opening scenes of Revenge of the Sith. The reality is that the super-high numbers for Star Wars weaponry are derived by someone looking for the absolutely most overpowered example they can find (usually in the books), and then extrapolating off of it, usually so they can then go claim that Star Wars is better than Star Trek.
I have no problems with this, per se, but I think that using it as a baseline for any sort of fictional crossover is pretty much a hopeless case. The reality of the matter is that if Star Wars weapons are as powerful as Esna stipulates, then a lot of the movies don't make sense. And if they aren't, a lot of the movies don't make sense. This is because the ammunition Star Wars weapons fire is not plasma or coherent light, but plot necessity. And, incidentally, any time Star Wars weaponry is put on display in a less-plot focused way, such as in a game, it becomes far less lethal than, say, Eve weaponry.
This isn't to say that Eve is entirely coherent, either, and it's pretty clear that the capacitor juice required to fire a weapon has absolutely no bearing on it's yield. Consider the 1000mm (or one meter) railgun. I assume that Eve railguns are vastly more efficient than our own. In this case, I presumed that they are firing at roughly 50% of the speed of light (a very conservative guess, considering that blasters using the same ammunition fire at something like 99% of the speed of light, and do not do twice the damage of a same-tier railgun). Even assuming that a blaster fires only half the mass of a railgun shot, the 50% guess based on damage ratios is fairly reasonable.
Moreover, let's assume that we're firing a simple, pure iron slug - fortunately one of the actual ammunition options. Let us further assume a fairly short, roughly cylindrical shape, with a total mass of one cubic meter of iron. This is also an extremely conservative assumption, given that it is a one meter diameter railgun, and projectiles are usually longer than wide. But I'm keeping this as conservative as possible.
So, given that we have 7,840 kilograms of iron heading downrange at about 149,896,229 meters per second, we can expect that it will impact with roughly 8.8078 x 1019 joules.
Oh, and I forgot. These are dual 1000mm railguns. So, make that 1.7616 x 1020 joules.
And a Dread, last I checked, carries three batteries. That would be 5.2847 x 1020 joules. This is orders of magnitude above Esna's figures.
I'm not saying that this is ironclad, at all. But it has about as much plausibility as any of the Star Wars calculations. It's certainly reasonable, considering what we know about New Eden technology in terms of advances, and in terms of damage ratios to blasters. And it is very conservative about the mass being thrown at the enemy - I mean, I could have used the anti-matter rounds instead. Exactly how much energy do you think that might contain, if only, say, 10 percent of a 1 meter cube were anti-matter?
This would also explain how, in a rather infamous Chronicle (EDIT: Xenocracy), a capsuleer could threaten to wipe out a city with a couple shots from a comparatively puny 425mm railgun. It also explains how, when Eve fleets get it into their mind to destroy a planet, in the canon, they usually manage a reasonable thorough job.
So it might be wise not to toss New Eden tech into the trash.
Author
Topic: eve online Crossover with ster war (Read 4212 times)