In sci-fi debates about games, fluff always beats in-game mechanics, because in-game mechanics must be balanced while fluff only answers to the storyline.
Logic and reason >>>>>>> any fluff
I think someone at [V] put kT instead of T by mistake and other weapon descriptions just propagated from there. This is like SW tech numbers fluff - utter bull****
Not necessarily. If you made a video game or movie that reflects the US president's politics with 100% accuracy, it might not be logical, but it'd be accurate. Most of the time, they don't have fluff just for the sake of having it.
...Admittedly though, in SW if the capships can generate enough power for shields to maintain while being impacted by hundreds of 200 gigaton laser bolts, then the ship can use that power for a weapon to penetrate the shielding of a similar vessel and destroy it in a single shot. Destroy the death star in less than 30 seconds with no friendly casualties anyone?
The Death Star is more powerful than millions of Star Destroyers. It was designed to crack planetary shields instantly that would stymie entire sector fleets. A Star Destroyer can't redirect all its firepower into weapons because enemy ships will then cut through its weakened shields and tear it to pieces, and the Rebel fleet would have just been turbolaser skeet shooting for the Death Star.
maybe they got confused, they thought of payload on a ship and wrought that down.
No, the Harbinger description refers to a yield of 5,000 megatons (5 GT). No one talks about "megagrams"--1,000,000 grams is called a metric ton or tonne.
A literary approach to this kind of debate is futile because it will just be people throwing around their personal interpretations. That's why the universe is taken as it is, weird **** and all.
