Something big

View original artwork, poems, etc. that have been created by this forum's members.

Moderator: Beowulf

Post Reply
User avatar
Galvatron
Decepticon Leader
Posts: 6065
Joined: 2002-07-12 12:27am
Location: Kill! Smash! Destroy! Rend! Mangle! Distort!

Re: Something big

Post by Galvatron » 2018-10-04 09:40am

How do you guys feel about this?


User avatar
Imperial528
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1757
Joined: 2010-05-03 06:19pm
Location: New England

Re: Something big

Post by Imperial528 » 2018-10-04 02:33pm

It more or less matches my thoughts. Throughout the OT and the PT, Star Destroyers are presented as being proper capital ships. Larger warships are rarely seen and the only example of a Super Star Destroyer is presented as a specialized fleet leader ship. This relationship holds more or less in the EU and New EU as well.

Given the roles a Star Destroyer performs (sector patrol ship, main line warship, planetary invasion platform, etc.) I don't think they at all fit in the modern paradigm of ship classifications, but they work nonetheless.

fractalsponge1
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1606
Joined: 2006-04-30 08:04pm
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by fractalsponge1 » 2018-10-04 08:47pm

Is there anything new in it? I feel like I'm really tired of this argument.

A ship can do whatever role it can do. That's different from what it was designed for. Like if a destroyer was designed as an escort for bigger ships and a wolf-pack boat, but spends its entire time playing battleship in the boondocks against armed freighters and gunships, it's still the same damn ship, designed for the same damn thing, but just used differently.

Like you know, when destroyers fight motor boats they are battleships, but they are also still destroyers and can be called destroyers. It's what happens when things scale across orders of magnitude.

User avatar
evillejedi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-04-16 05:43pm
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by evillejedi » 2018-10-04 11:52pm

PhoenixKnig wrote:
2018-10-03 07:32pm
Maybe could be a possibility of a modular task force Cruiser hull? I see some similarities in design profile. :wink: :D
partially, that was a piece of the original inspiration, plus a few other oddball Dark Empire background ships. I think my original version was more in the 4-5 KM range, but kept the very narrow profile as to reduce exposed area to planetary defenses.

The concept was a fleet cruiser version of the torpedo sphere, essentially vomiting out hundreds of corvette sized baradium warheads at theater and planetary shields and having a minimal hull and superstructure.


There is also a theory around the class of vessels such as the Vengeance SSD (Veric's from Jedi Knight) and some of the far background ships in Dark Empire employing a different, potentially older cruiser design philosophy of having a very elongated hull in a sword blade design with critical components far in the aft. Eliminating almost everything else of the vessel other than reactor, guns, necessary propulsion and enough superstructure to hold it together. (I can't find the in-universe reference right now) A big gun cruiser with punch, but no endurance, with the essential role of hyper in to the edge of the theater, alpha strike and hopefully no one consequential can shoot back. As long as you can approach the enemy head on and at range, the elongated forward hull gives ample room for armament, heat radiation and redundant shielding and bulkheads without producing a large target. Contrast this with the standard Daggerator class ship that fulfills multiple roles including babysitting systems, carrier functions and providing combat support functions that all take volume and expand the frontal profile of the vessel.

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 275
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2018-10-05 12:37am

evillejedi wrote:
2018-10-04 11:52pm
PhoenixKnig wrote:
2018-10-03 07:32pm
Maybe could be a possibility of a modular task force Cruiser hull? I see some similarities in design profile. :wink: :D
partially, that was a piece of the original inspiration, plus a few other oddball Dark Empire background ships. I think my original version was more in the 4-5 KM range, but kept the very narrow profile as to reduce exposed area to planetary defenses.

The concept was a fleet cruiser version of the torpedo sphere, essentially vomiting out hundreds of corvette sized baradium warheads at theater and planetary shields and having a minimal hull and superstructure.


There is also a theory around the class of vessels such as the Vengeance SSD (Veric's from Jedi Knight) and some of the far background ships in Dark Empire employing a different, potentially older cruiser design philosophy of having a very elongated hull in a sword blade design with critical components far in the aft. Eliminating almost everything else of the vessel other than reactor, guns, necessary propulsion and enough superstructure to hold it together. (I can't find the in-universe reference right now) A big gun cruiser with punch, but no endurance, with the essential role of hyper in to the edge of the theater, alpha strike and hopefully no one consequential can shoot back. As long as you can approach the enemy head on and at range, the elongated forward hull gives ample room for armament, heat radiation and redundant shielding and bulkheads without producing a large target. Contrast this with the standard Daggerator class ship that fulfills multiple roles including babysitting systems, carrier functions and providing combat support functions that all take volume and expand the frontal profile of the vessel.
Are you referring to aggressor class destroyer?
Bullets always have the right of away

User avatar
evillejedi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-04-16 05:43pm
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by evillejedi » 2018-10-05 11:02pm

PhoenixKnig wrote:
2018-10-05 12:37am
evillejedi wrote:
2018-10-04 11:52pm
PhoenixKnig wrote:
2018-10-03 07:32pm
Maybe could be a possibility of a modular task force Cruiser hull? I see some similarities in design profile. :wink: :D
partially, that was a piece of the original inspiration, plus a few other oddball Dark Empire background ships. I think my original version was more in the 4-5 KM range, but kept the very narrow profile as to reduce exposed area to planetary defenses.

The concept was a fleet cruiser version of the torpedo sphere, essentially vomiting out hundreds of corvette sized baradium warheads at theater and planetary shields and having a minimal hull and superstructure.


There is also a theory around the class of vessels such as the Vengeance SSD (Veric's from Jedi Knight) and some of the far background ships in Dark Empire employing a different, potentially older cruiser design philosophy of having a very elongated hull in a sword blade design with critical components far in the aft. Eliminating almost everything else of the vessel other than reactor, guns, necessary propulsion and enough superstructure to hold it together. (I can't find the in-universe reference right now) A big gun cruiser with punch, but no endurance, with the essential role of hyper in to the edge of the theater, alpha strike and hopefully no one consequential can shoot back. As long as you can approach the enemy head on and at range, the elongated forward hull gives ample room for armament, heat radiation and redundant shielding and bulkheads without producing a large target. Contrast this with the standard Daggerator class ship that fulfills multiple roles including babysitting systems, carrier functions and providing combat support functions that all take volume and expand the frontal profile of the vessel.
Are you referring to aggressor class destroyer?
In this case no, I wasn't referring to that directly, though it is an obvious conclusion of the philosophy to just have a massive axial weapon. I was thinking of vessels that follow the Vengeance SSD profile that still maintain batteries of star cruiser scale weapons.

User avatar
Scottish Ninja
Jedi Knight
Posts: 964
Joined: 2007-02-26 06:39pm
Location: Not Scotland, that's for sure

Re: Something big

Post by Scottish Ninja » 2018-10-07 11:22am

fractalsponge1 wrote:
2018-10-04 08:47pm
Is there anything new in it? I feel like I'm really tired of this argument.

A ship can do whatever role it can do. That's different from what it was designed for. Like if a destroyer was designed as an escort for bigger ships and a wolf-pack boat, but spends its entire time playing battleship in the boondocks against armed freighters and gunships, it's still the same damn ship, designed for the same damn thing, but just used differently.

Like you know, when destroyers fight motor boats they are battleships, but they are also still destroyers and can be called destroyers. It's what happens when things scale across orders of magnitude.
I think a destroyer can credibly be a virtual capital ship - if you look at the modern day, an Arleigh Burke is a destroyer, one which is more powerful than 90+% of other warships out there. Only a handful of navies have ships that can match it; many whole navies would struggle to fight one.

I think his definition of a destroyer is definitely the wrong way around, though; I believe what fundamentally defines a destroyer is that it's meant to screen capital ships against asymmetric threats - in 20th century history, first torpedo boats (hence the name Torpedo Boat Destroyer), then submarines, and then aircraft. In the period of the world wars destroyers did also absorb the role of the torpedo boat and played a role in attacking larger warships, but even before the missile age heavy antiship weapons were disappearing from destroyers - note that the Forrest Shermans had fewer torpedo tubes than their WW2 predecessors, and had those replaced by lightweight ASW torpedoes. Modern western destroyers carry a very limited amount of dedicated antiship missiles and even the Russian Sovremennyys carry only eight of their heavyweight Moskits, versus the much larger number of SAMs that predominate.

Now here's the rub: I don't think an ISD is very much of a destroyer by this definition, either! While we see them escorting what is certainly a capital ship, in official materials I don't believe we see much in the way of asymmetric threats beyond fighters, and I don't really see ISDs being effective anti-fighter screening ships. I think they're more properly cruisers (as they're referred to exclusively in ANH), for which I'll offer the following definition: a ship which is able to sail independently and project power (particularly for threatening tin-pot little countries and protecting trade), with a subsidiary fleet antiship role. The ISD fits this definition magnificently, with its firepower, demonstrated independence, and integral air wing and ground assault complement. It should be noted that cruisers are key ships for maintaining an empire, which is why Britain was so keen on imposing limits on their size in the interwar period, in order to be able to afford more of them. (Note that by this definition an Arleigh Burke is a cruiser as well! I don't think it's mutually exclusive with being a destroyer. Curiously enough, Japan has been giving their Burke derivatives their traditional first-class cruiser names.)

Of course the ISD is still officially called a destroyer. Can we think of a real-world ship class labeled a destroyer, but which fits that role badly and fits the role of a cruiser quite well? Yes, it's the Zumwalt-class, 15000 tons of being useless at fleet air defense or ASW and built around guns designed for the sole purpose of bombarding targets ashore - and being useless in that role, being reworked to fight surface ships. Almost a perfect match for the role and description of an ISD except that the ISD isn't just a hot mess.

I should note that in the context of Star Wars I lean towards ship classifications based on role, rather than size, with a number of caveats. Size seems more useful in the context of primarily symmetric warfare, as in the Age of Sail; the number of guns a ship carried was a useful proxy for its size and what it was able to effectively fight. That system decayed as ships trended towards carrying a smaller number of guns (making even battleships technically classed as sloops, with fewer than 18 guns) and the automobile torpedo introduced new opportunities for asymmetric naval warfare, and was replaced with classifications based on roles. However, it's still unclear to me the degree to which space warfare in Star Wars is symmetric or asymmetric; it seems like asymmetric tactics keep getting presented as "really extremely effective, but everyone is absolutely terrible at them". I do have some thoughts on how to square that circle, but I think it needs to wait for another fuckin' essay.
Image
"If the flight succeeds, you swipe an absurd amount of prestige for a single mission. Heroes of the Zenobian Onion will literally rain upon you." - PeZook
"If the capsule explodes, heroes of the Zenobian Onion will still rain upon us. Literally!" - Shroom
Cosmonaut Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov (deceased, rain), Cosmonaut Petr Petrovich Petrov, Unnamed MASA Engineer, and Unnamed Zenobian Engineerski in Let's play: BARIS
Captain, MFS Robber Baron, PRFYNAFBTFC - "Absolute Corruption Powers Absolutely"

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15440
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by Knife » 2018-10-07 06:06pm

I don't agree with him at all. Why any sci fi franchise should be shoehorned into WWII naval designations is asinine. And when talking about huge vessels with massive power output, no sense in NOT having multiple roles like battlehip/carrier. In fact, I always though a Battlestar was pretty common sense. If you have a frame with that much space, might as well toss a shit ton of weapons on it as well.

And though not the first, I'd also point out that the current US fleet's Destroyers are nothing like WWII destroyers and would be pocket battleships in any other era. Destroyers were never really that smaller than Frigates, unless you go back to Torpedo Boat Destroyers. And it would be ridiculous in a 3D environment like space to have ships with only one firing arc.

The space dock dude is totally lost in the over used and tired WWII framework for sci fi fleets.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 275
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2018-10-09 10:08pm

EJ I pm you
Bullets always have the right of away

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 275
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2018-10-17 12:37am

4K VicStar out now
Bullets always have the right of away

User avatar
Abacus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 564
Joined: 2009-10-30 09:08pm

Re: Something big

Post by Abacus » 2018-10-19 10:48am

PhoenixKnig wrote:
2018-10-17 12:37am
4K VicStar out now
It's quite a nice one. I like the details on the VicStar.
"Does the walker choose the path, or the path the walker?"

User avatar
Abacus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 564
Joined: 2009-10-30 09:08pm

Re: Something big

Post by Abacus » 2018-10-19 10:53am

Speaking of awesome stuff, that Tyrant missile cruiser is looking siiiick AF! It's awesome.
"Does the walker choose the path, or the path the walker?"

User avatar
PhoenixKnig
Padawan Learner
Posts: 275
Joined: 2017-08-28 10:34pm
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by PhoenixKnig » 2018-10-19 11:21am

Abacus wrote:
2018-10-19 10:53am
Speaking of awesome stuff, that Tyrant missile cruiser is looking siiiick AF! It's awesome.
Thanks
Bullets always have the right of away

User avatar
mr friendly guy
The Doctor
Posts: 10139
Joined: 2004-12-12 10:55pm
Location: In a 1960s police telephone box somewhere in Australia

Re: Something big

Post by mr friendly guy » 2018-10-19 12:18pm

I have a question about the video. The author thinks ideally a carrier should be purely to carry strike fighters and relies on other ships to protect it. I have very little knowledge of naval warfare so try not to kill me for this but here goes... while the US certain deploys carriers like this with battle groups, don't Russian carriers have the ability to operate somewhat independent of battle groups due to the fact they don't have the cash to create that many ships to accompany the carrier? If that's true, then doesn't that sort of run counter to his narrative that sci fi ships should sort of match the functions of modern naval ships if SOME modern naval ships are designed with different duties to those he thinks they should do.
Never apologise for being a geek, because they won't apologise to you for being an arsehole. John Barrowman - 22 June 2014 Perth Supernova.

Countries I have been to.
Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, USA.
Always on the lookout for more nice places to visit.

User avatar
Imperial528
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1757
Joined: 2010-05-03 06:19pm
Location: New England

Re: Something big

Post by Imperial528 » 2018-10-19 01:34pm

As far as classifying starships goes I got the sense that he follows a role-leads-to-design convention for what he ultimately ascribed to narrative desire. E.g. he believes that strictly noncombatant or reluctant combatant carrier designs are more narrative interesting even if they are not necessarily built that way for doctrinal or technological reasons the way surface carriers are.

Which is valid enough in his own works but I did get the feeling that he projects this desire onto other works where the reasons he uses to justify this convention do not hold water.

For clarification of my earlier post, I was agreeing with his specific point that Star Destroyer=/=DD in space, rather than the entire video.

ACupOfDarjeeling
Redshirt
Posts: 2
Joined: 2018-10-21 08:32am

Re: Something big

Post by ACupOfDarjeeling » 2018-10-21 08:46am

I know this is a rather abrupt change in the conversation, from the debate of classifications of ships and the like, but I'm rather curious as to what Fractal's take on the Vengeance-class would be. Or any of your takes on the Vengeance, actually, seeing as it's a ship we never really knew much about before the Legends Decision happened.

User avatar
evillejedi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-04-16 05:43pm
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by evillejedi » 2018-10-21 05:20pm

I can't speak for fractal, but Here's something I've had on the back burner for a while, that is very unfinished that might give you an idea of how weaponry might be arranged. The gun batteries shown here are the same size and shape as the Assertors primary batteries, all the guns have a clear forward alpha arc and the reactor space should be enough to power this number of weapons, though it would not handle anywhere near the secondaries, ion canons and the axial laser and other weapons. Other than on the hull trench there really isn't clearance or room for more large gunnery, so point defense systems or missile batteries might be the option in the forward hull. the wings could support another battery, but in this case they are on the underside, there isn't enough thickness to stack them top and bottom.

https://imgur.com/a/MykU8Ua

fractalsponge1
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1606
Joined: 2006-04-30 08:04pm
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by fractalsponge1 » 2018-10-21 06:55pm

I will say that I find the Vengeance to be a very attractive ship, but I find it hard to believe that it is a very efficient ship. In many respects it seems to be doubling down on speed and firepower and maybe hangar capacity (do we have a decent reference of that at all?) rather than durability or sustained power output like Executor, but without the sheer size of Executor to make up for it. Though the size may have changed... I vaguely remembering it being in the 10-12km range, with almost zero depth so barely any reactor volume. So particularly bad for the surface area/power ratio. Wouldn't be surprised if it had true destroyer acceleration though. O-class battlecruiser concept - wouldn't want one in a slugging match, but probably terrifying for destroyers.

User avatar
evillejedi
Padawan Learner
Posts: 195
Joined: 2007-04-16 05:43pm
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by evillejedi » 2018-10-21 08:44pm

I originally thought it was 12km as well, however more recent books put it at 19km, which looking back at the size of the Arc Hammer next to it in cutscenes is a possibility, but 12.9KM is the number I always had for it. I would also add that it would be terrifying to anything that wasn't prepared, essentially a first strike or bust. Given that there are multiple ships similar in Dark Empire with varying profiles I would hazard that it is a hull form that has different classes based off the same principle.

User avatar
Abacus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 564
Joined: 2009-10-30 09:08pm

Re: Something big

Post by Abacus » 2018-10-22 10:21am

@Fractal

I was going through the battlecruisers again and happened to wonder: which is the more powerful -- that Procurator-class (or Procurator II as you likened it in a comment on your website) or the Allegiance-class? They both seem to be in a similar role, but judging by weapon emplacements, it seems as if the Procurator-class outguns the Allegiance by a fair margin.
"Does the walker choose the path, or the path the walker?"

User avatar
Galvatron
Decepticon Leader
Posts: 6065
Joined: 2002-07-12 12:27am
Location: Kill! Smash! Destroy! Rend! Mangle! Distort!

Re: Something big

Post by Galvatron » 2018-10-22 03:38pm

fractalsponge1 wrote:
2018-10-21 06:55pm
I will say that I find the Vengeance to be a very attractive ship,
Will you model it? I always wanted to see a properly textured Vengeance.

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12478
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Something big

Post by Elheru Aran » 2018-10-22 03:42pm

Galvatron wrote:
2018-10-22 03:38pm
fractalsponge1 wrote:
2018-10-21 06:55pm
I will say that I find the Vengeance to be a very attractive ship,
Will you model it? I always wanted to see a properly textured Vengeance.
As opposed to the low poly flying sheet of glass the Jedi Knight FMV's rendered it as? :P
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

ACupOfDarjeeling
Redshirt
Posts: 2
Joined: 2018-10-21 08:32am

Re: Something big

Post by ACupOfDarjeeling » 2018-10-23 10:36am

fractalsponge1 wrote:
2018-10-21 06:55pm
I will say that I find the Vengeance to be a very attractive ship, but I find it hard to believe that it is a very efficient ship. In many respects it seems to be doubling down on speed and firepower and maybe hangar capacity (do we have a decent reference of that at all?) rather than durability or sustained power output like Executor, but without the sheer size of Executor to make up for it. Though the size may have changed... I vaguely remembering it being in the 10-12km range, with almost zero depth so barely any reactor volume. So particularly bad for the surface area/power ratio. Wouldn't be surprised if it had true destroyer acceleration though. O-class battlecruiser concept - wouldn't want one in a slugging match, but probably terrifying for destroyers.
I'm rather sad to say that the only images I could find of the Vengeance in its entirety are both non-official. The first comes from the Thrawn's Revenge mod for Empire at War. The other comes from an Eckhartsladder video on the ship- which was actually thing that reminded me the Vengeance actually existed at all, really.

I'll keep looking, see if I can any other attempts at a full-body shot.

fractalsponge1
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1606
Joined: 2006-04-30 08:04pm
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by fractalsponge1 » 2018-11-01 12:12am

Allegiance getting a redux version with visible PD guns

Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Crossroads Inc.
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8950
Joined: 2005-03-20 06:26pm
Location: Defending Sparkeling Bishonen
Contact:

Re: Something big

Post by Crossroads Inc. » 2018-11-01 01:27am

Nice!
tasty tasty PD guns! Always a plus!
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!

Post Reply