StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The issue does seem to be a political rather than a military one. It seems that the First Order has bribed several members of the senate, and they're downplaying the threat that the First Order represents and blocking any attempts to do anything about them.

I think this is pretty much explained in Poe's section of Before the Awakening. Leia says that she's supported by some senators and officers in the Republic Navy who see the threat the First Order represents, but the First Order's influence in the Senate prevents any official action from being taken. The story is focused around Poe taking down a senator who is actively colluding with the First Order, secretly visiting their territory and getting his marching orders directly from the First Order.

Would make for a decent carrier I suppose, but that bridge configuration really makes it awkward for weapon placement for void-combat.

Galvatron wrote:And I guess I should have known that there would be a Wookieepedia entry for it already.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Maxima-A ... vy_cruiser

Not much of one, though.

Abacus wrote:Would make for a decent carrier I suppose, but that bridge configuration really makes it awkward for weapon placement for void-combat.

How so? I mean, suppose the ship has heavy turbolaser turrets like the ISD. Turrets that that aren't shown in this image because of the art style (or because of relative scale, the same way nobody draws the guns on an Executor).

It wouldn't be hard to place two lines of turrets, one on either side of the dorsal hull, that would have fields of fire about as good as anything on an ISD.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Abacus wrote:Would make for a decent carrier I suppose, but that bridge configuration really makes it awkward for weapon placement for void-combat.

How so? I mean, suppose the ship has heavy turbolaser turrets like the ISD. Turrets that that aren't shown in this image because of the art style (or because of relative scale, the same way nobody draws the guns on an Executor).

It wouldn't be hard to place two lines of turrets, one on either side of the dorsal hull, that would have fields of fire about as good as anything on an ISD.

The one full advantage of a wedge-shaped vessel is that it's capable of firing all it's weaponry in a forward arc, focusing with the kind of concentrated fire power you want in a void-combat vessel. Your average Imperial-class I and II Star Destroyers are also great at handling multiple targets, from numerous vectors. This newer ship, due to the configuration of the bridge tower, has a blind spot. Any starfighter pilot worth his salt would dip into that space and take it out every time.

Not a fan. I don't like the asymmetrical bridge tower, especially with no obvious reason for why they did that. Like I get it on real life CVNs but unless there's a similar justification here, I just don't get it and it looks dumb.

Other than that the art style just isn't doing it any favors, which doesn't help the off-set bridge tower problem. So overall I am quite disappointed in this thing.

Do you guys also hate the Falcon's cockpit?

Abacus wrote:

Simon_Jester wrote:

Abacus wrote:Would make for a decent carrier I suppose, but that bridge configuration really makes it awkward for weapon placement for void-combat.

How so? I mean, suppose the ship has heavy turbolaser turrets like the ISD. Turrets that that aren't shown in this image because of the art style (or because of relative scale, the same way nobody draws the guns on an Executor).

It wouldn't be hard to place two lines of turrets, one on either side of the dorsal hull, that would have fields of fire about as good as anything on an ISD.

The one full advantage of a wedge-shaped vessel is that it's capable of firing all it's weaponry in a forward arc, focusing with the kind of concentrated fire power you want in a void-combat vessel. Your average Imperial-class I and II Star Destroyers are also great at handling multiple targets, from numerous vectors. This newer ship, due to the configuration of the bridge tower, has a blind spot. Any starfighter pilot worth his salt would dip into that space and take it out every time.

Surely that depends on Weapon placement. Where exactly do you think this blond spot is?

Galvatron wrote:Do you guys also hate the Falcon's cockpit?

Yes. Long live the Otana

Galvatron wrote:Do you guys also hate the Falcon's cockpit?

Yes, with the fiery heat of twelve parsecs of the Kessel Run!

Crazedwraith wrote:Where exactly do you think this blond spot is?

I don't really care, as long as collars and cuffs match! (or is it "carpets and drapes"?)
As to blind spot, I would image that is between the main starboard-firing batteries and the port-side tower (inboard of the main port-side batteries). But again, this is based on the limited expectations we have of wedge-shaped Star Wars ships to date.

[edited a tag]

I'll point out that 'has a blind spot' isn't the same thing as 'has no alpha arc.' It wouldn't be hard to place weapons such that an enemy behind that ridiculous tower can be fired upon and there's no reason to assume the designers didn't do so. That I'm aware of, anyway.

Is it unreasonable to theorize that the ship just might have sensors to compensate for any blind spots? And, again, what if that fin-like structure on the starboard side of the ship serves a function that requires the bridge to be where it is?

The falcon's cockpit is a legacy of what the original design was as a cargo carrier during the early phases of SW design.

Abacus wrote:The one full advantage of a wedge-shaped vessel is that it's capable of firing all it's weaponry in a forward arc, focusing with the kind of concentrated fire power you want in a void-combat vessel.

There is no reason that the Maxima-A couldn't do that. I can think of several turret arrangements that preserve this advantage.

Your average Imperial-class I and II Star Destroyers are also great at handling multiple targets, from numerous vectors.

Why so? Sure, their main battery can engage targets to port and starboard at the same time, but that's in part because they can't all target enemies on one or the other side of the ship. They can target fighters, but light antifighter weapons can be dotted all over the hull at will anyway, so the layout of the ship is less critical to maximizing antifighter firepower.

This newer ship, due to the configuration of the bridge tower, has a blind spot.

The ISD has a massive blind spot in that its main battery turbolasers cannot fire toward the ventral surface because the entire hull is in the way. And another blind spot astern, again because of hull in the way, and yet another because the massive, stepped bridge tower superstructure is in the way. And for that matter, except for a relatively narrow arc of sky starting directly ahead of the ship and sweeping up towards 'dorsal,' the ship cannot fire its entire main battery on a single target at once.

So it is ridiculous to complain about the blind spots and limited fire arc of the Maxima-A while praising the 'broad' fields of fire of the traditional star destroyer.

Any starfighter pilot worth his salt would dip into that space and take it out every time.

To which the correct response is to mount light turbolaser turrets on mounts that cover the 'blind spot' behind the bridge, while mounting the heavy turbolasers in specific batteries.

MKSheppard wrote:The falcon's cockpit is a legacy of what the original design was as a cargo carrier during the early phases of SW design.

Et tu, Shep? Am I the only one who likes the Falcon's design?

Galvatron wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:The falcon's cockpit is a legacy of what the original design was as a cargo carrier during the early phases of SW design.

Et tu, Shep? Am I the only one who likes the Falcon's design?

I think he's just saying. It's basically the cone cockpit of the original Space:1999 style craft glommed onto the side of a flying saucer (or 'cheeseburger with a bite out', if you want to buy that story).

The asymmetry did always nag me a bit with the Falcon. For a ship supposedly designated a 'freighter', it always seemed a bit too offset. A central cockpit would have been more logical and prevented accidents in transit and handling due to the massive blind spot-- they can't see anything to their left pretty much. No doubt there are sensors to assist with this (the Star Wars equivalent of a back-up camera, I suppose) but nonetheless.

It's certainly visually distinctive, I'll give it that... just not the most logical of designs.

Speaking of blind spots, don't TIE fighters have massive ones?

Galvatron wrote:Speaking of blind spots, don't TIE fighters have massive ones?

Yep. Only possible excuse is heavy use of sensors.

Galvatron wrote:Do you guys also hate the Falcon's cockpit?

It's always been rather silly, yes. But the rest of the Falcon manages to be cool enough that I can ignore it. Plus in all honesty I grew up with the Falcon from a time before I would have cared about that detail, so there's that.

But the rest of the ship is utterly lacking in anything remotely interesting that really, all that's there to comment on is the lopsided bridge tower...and it's dumb with no obvious use so yeah, it drags it down.

At least the Falcon is an otherwise iconic enough design to make up for whatever grumbles one might have at the off-set cockpit. Plus, it's referred to as a "hunk of junk" any number of times, so a weird design choice doesn't really detract from it as it would a supposedly intimidating and effective ship.

Galvatron wrote:And, again, what if that fin-like structure on the starboard side of the ship serves a function that requires the bridge to be where it is?

If there was a clear and obvious reason for it - like the aforementioned US Navy carriers - that would be different. But there isn't anything that really justifies it offhand based on prior ship designs and what we know of the universe (no need for an unobstructed landing strip, no obvious spine-mounted weapon, etc.) so it just looks out of place and pointless.

If this comic or some other source later on justifies the asymmetrical bridge tower that might be different. Until then, it looks dumb and we're calling it dumb.

Elheru Aran wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Speaking of blind spots, don't TIE fighters have massive ones?

Yep. Only possible excuse is heavy use of sensors.

So the both the Falcon and TIE fighters are dumb designs too?

Simon_Jester wrote:Well yes, but then no Imperial ship really looks anything other than big, nasty, and brutalist. And the art style isn't doing them any favors either. It makes the ship look if anything more squared-off and blocky than it would in a model for a movie.

The Executor looks sleek and graceful and the other ISDs at least have a clearly modelled design that causes awe. This looks....meh.

Simon_Jester wrote:Well yes, but then no Imperial ship really looks anything other than big, nasty, and brutalist. And the art style isn't doing them any favors either. It makes the ship look if anything more squared-off and blocky than it would in a model for a movie.

It doesn't look big, nasty or brutal though. It just looks...vanilla.

I suspect that if the iconic star destroyer had been introduced in this way and with this (rather smoothed-out) art style, we'd be saying the same thing about it. There's no greebles, no texturing. And we see the ship alone in space, so there isn't the sense we get in the movies of the ship being this great menacing looming thing that overpowers our heroes' puny ships.

About the only criticism of this design that I see, which wouldn't equally well apply to the ISD, is that this design is asymmetrical.

Simon_Jester wrote:I suspect that if the iconic star destroyer had been introduced in this way and with this (rather smoothed-out) art style, we'd be saying the same thing about it. There's no greebles, no texturing. And we see the ship alone in space, so there isn't the sense we get in the movies of the ship being this great menacing looming thing that overpowers our heroes' puny ships.

About the only criticism of this design that I see, which wouldn't equally well apply to the ISD, is that this design is asymmetrical.

True, the art style is kind of the main hindrance. If we saw the same thing from fractalsponge I imagine most of us would have a different opinion.

Is this a consequence of the the original SW designs being conceptualized and physically built by model makers, them having extensive experience with models of all type of real vehicles?

I get the impression that if its just a artist going for cool who has never had to worry about structure or the actual dimensions of something or putting it together in the real world you may end up with a ship that really has no basis in form or function. This happens to me a lot when doing ships in 3D software, I realize real quick that how I envisioned something in my head doesn't translate to reality spatially. I imagine this would happy 100 fold if building a physical model where I can't just CTL-Z myself out of impossible or stupid geometry choices and had to think long and hard before I spent hours casting or carving out parts.

To be fair, we'd still be nagging fractalsponge about the asymmetric bridge tower- but we could ask him, and he'd gin up some kind of answer, and most of us would go away mollified even if we thought it looked a bit goofy. It wouldn't be a convergence point for nerd-rage.

And Patroklos, that is an excellent point... although again, this design just plain isn't that impractical. It's basically build along similar design paradigms to numerous successful Star Wars ships in every respect except the asymmetric bridge tower, and given that the bridge tower is relatively small on this hull, it's just not that big of a deal.

I mean, by comparison the bridge tower on the ISD is pretty big. And it IS asymmetric- it's just that the asymmetry is up/down and not left/right. Our eyes are wired to look for left/right symmetry, so we don't notice... but seriously, all that weight on the dorsal surface of the hull almost has to act to put the center of mass of the ship out of line with the thrust from the engine bells.

In fairness, the ISD has a big heavy reactor dome located on the ventral surface, which may act as a counterweight depending on just how dense and heavy capital ship power plants are. But since we just plain don't have much information about the Maxima-A except that it (presumably) carries unusually large fighter and troop complements for its size... It is premature to declare that the offset bridge tower is inherently a bad idea, as opposed to a necessary design compromise.