StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Kuja, we are trying to avoid such idiocy...

What? I'm trying to prove that the date on the Super-class is a complete misinterpretation of the ship we saw at Endor.

Let's go step by step:

1. Connor wants proof that the 8km Super-class is a misinterpretation of the Executor class, or he'll go with the assumption that it's another ship.

2. The Lusankya and the Executor were sister ships, constructed by competing companies. (Stated numerous times)

3. The Executor itself is erroneously referred to as a Super-class SD in SOTE: which means that the Executor is supposedly a member of the Super-class.

4. In Isard's Revenge, and (IIRC) in Bacta War, the Lusankya is referred to as being 8km long.


Thus, we have the irreconcilable difference that Connor demanded: If the Executor is indeed ~17km long, the Lusankya CANNOT simultaneously be the Executor's sister ship and a member of an 8km class of Star Destroyer. Thus, the 'Super-class' MUST be a misnomer for the Executor-class.

No we don't. We have you recycling the same inane argument over and over. I already *stated* that the fact that the Executor class is not the Super-class as portrayed in the books. That is completely irrelevant and you would do well to desist in your red herring tactics.

What *IS* up for debate whether or not the difference is irreconcilable, which is independent of the Executor error itself. You have not satisifed this burdne of proof, you simply repeat the same ludicrous argument over and over again.

Next time you present evidence, Kuja, add a conclusion or something.

Alright, disregard my previous posts. I'm going to try this again later, when I have material on hand to help me.

As regards the initial subject, i.e., the proper name of the films' familiar Imperial Star Destroyer...

The chief argument in favour of the designation "Imperator-class" is stylistic; it neatly matches the nomenclature of other Kuat Drive Yards products (e.g., Acclamator, Executor, &c.). Nevertheless, the sole attested use of the designation is Mr. Geoffrey Mandel's "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" blueprints, dated 1978 (there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether or not this source is official). Strictly speaking, this document is not adequate to support the "Imperator-class" identification of the familiar warships of the films; the vessel depicted by these blueprints is explicitly identified as being 686.5 metres long (approximately 43 per cent. the length of the filmic warship).

Nor does the existence of HIMS Imperator as a filmic Star Destroyer in TIE Fighter prove the identity of the classes: HMS Ajax gave her name to the Royal Navy's Ajax-class, and the much larger and much more powerful HMS Ajax was the fourth of the King George V-class battleships. Simply put, there is no substantial evidence in favour of the designation "Imperator-class", except in reference to the 686.5 metre warship.

As noted, the designation "Imperial-class" has been entered into the most authoritative level of canon by its use in the Incredible Cross-Sections. While this designation seemingly clashes with those of other KDY products, it should be remembered that the manufacturer does not dictate designations; that remains the prerogative of the Navy, as demonstrated by the dual designations of the Interdictor-class/Immobilizer 418.

Furthermore, the use of adjectives as names of warships is well established, both in the Expanded Universe and in real life (e.g., the Royal Navy's Majestic-class included HMS Majestic, HMS Magnificent, and HMS Victorious, and HMS Illustrious). In this case, it is probable that Imperial is a reference to the ancillary definition "possessing commanding power or dignity; majestic; magnificent" or "superior in size or quality"; even if one should persist in objecting to an adjectival name, "imperial" is also a noun: an imperial is an article of unusually great size or of superior excellence.

As regards the meaning of "Imperial Star Destroyer"....

"Imperial Star Destroyer" neither designates a particular class nor a broad category.

That Imperial Star Destroyer does not refer to a particular class is clear from the highest order of canonical text. In The Empire Strikes Back, HIMS Executor is identified as "the mammoth Imperial Star Destroyer", "the greatest of all the Imperial Star Destroyers", and "Lord Vader's Imperial Star Destroyer"; in Return of the Jedi, she is called a "Super Star Destroyer" (by the narrator). As this same ship cannot possibly be of the same class as HIMS Devastator and HIMS Avenger, it is clear that drastically different classes of ships can be identified as "Imperial Star Destroyers".

That Imperial Star Destroyer does not refer to a destroyer is equally clear from the highest order of canonical text. In Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, HIMS Devastator is clearly and unambiguously identified as a "lumbering Imperial cruiser" during her pursuit of the Tantive IV; The Empire Strikes Back repeats this by describing the Star Destroyer battle force of Death Squadron as "Imperial Star Destroyers" and "cruisers" (elsewhere it even identifies Star Destroyers as battleships). Based on this evidence, the name "Imperial Star Destroyer" cannot be taken as an indication of what rôle a ship performs.

There are a number of different means of identifying a ship's type; arsenal, tonnage and function are the most significant. It is these three criteria which should be used in judging what, precisely, Star Wars ships are.

The commonest type of Imperial Star Destroyer, the distastefully named Imperial-class, appears to combine several functions into one; she has the shore bombardment capability of a late era battleship (last seen with USS Missouri and USS Wisconsin in Operation Desert Storm), the air combat capability of a light carrier, and the troop and armour capacity of an amphibious transport dock. She appears to have speed proper to a frigate or destroyer -- able repeatedly to run down a heavily, illegally-modified smuggler ship -- and guns proper to a heavy cruiser or battleship (as Star Destroyers formed the line of battle at Endor, they were clearly not battlecruisers). She functions as a cruiser in the first film, as a destroyer in the second, and as a battleship in the third. In essence, the Imperial-class is a factotum.

As regards the Super Star Destroyer controversy....

In order to demonstrate an irreconcilable contradiction between the absolute canon of the films and the subordinate canon of the Expanded Universe on this matter, it must be established that the existence of a Super-class Star Destroyer eight kilometres in length is incompatible with the films' evidence. If the films do not disallow the existence of such a ship, it is left to the evidence of the Expanded Universe to determine whether she does or does not exist. The question of whether such a class exists is independent of whether or not individual ships belong to it, and the question must therefore be considered separately. To wit, proof that HIMS Lusankya is not a Super-class vessel is irrelevant if the question at hand is whether or not there is such a thing as a Super-class vessel.

PUBLIUS

I think i read on Frank Gueaterras ship-index (hope i have the name right, if not, my apologies), that according to the modelmakers at ILM the ISD is Imperator-Class, not Imperial-Class (although i have no idea how much that would count).

As for the Super- and Executor-Class-Issue (and as much as i hate it), i tend more and more to think, that every SSD we have no visuals about, that show the ship to be 11 miles long and is discribed as being eight kilometers long should be viewed as different from the Exekutor.

Following that Executor, Lusankya, Guardian, Terror, Vengeance would be Executor-Class, Iron Fist, Razor´s Kiss, Reaper, Knight-Hammer would be Super (or Superior or Superiority-Class).

Connor MacLeod wrote:
And you have proof for this allegation? Saxton has perhaps been whispering his innermost intentions into your ear? (Not that I'm saying he's telling me anything of course.)

No, but it's obvious. And I like it. Why else would he take the opportunity to name not just the one ship that appears in Ep 2 as 'Acclamator' which is perfectly in line with Imperator as Executor in both form and theme, he mentions two extra ships of the same form and theme (as well as using the 'Star' prefix which he also champions) for no reason at all. Come on, you can't tell me the pattern isn't obvious. He feels strongly on the issue- hopefully he does what I hope he'll try and do it and put it to rest, now that he's been endowed with canon power.

Assuming LFL agrees with the assessment.

Of course.

I find it highly amusing that something as simple as a name can set some of you off so preposterously. I myself am more interested in seeing the canon capabilities maintained in future soures, not silly stylistic "name games."

It's just *annoying*. It does set us off. I can't stand it. I think I want to kill someone *goes off and polishes sniper rifle*

Hey FTeik, I like the Superior-class (adds it down to the leadership-themed names ending with 'or' he's compiling).

Unfortunately, WEG are morons. "Duh, it's Super-class because Ackbar says so, my bwainnn hurtsch. Oooh look, it's 5 miles long. Doctor .... anastheticcccccccccccccccccccccccccc"

Fucktards.

Ender wrote: And as I have said multiple times before, at great length, a "Super class" also has basis in reality, we have "supercarriers" today. In that case all it means is a carrier larger then the typical tonnage for the class. Thus you can quite easily have Executor class Super Star Destroyers.

Actually didn't I say this?

Super-Gagme wrote: And I can now also point out my own theory on "Super" star destroyers. The way I see it is that along with typical Star Destroyers you also have the new type of Super Star Destroyer.

Examples:
Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer
Executor-class Super Star Destroyer
Vengeance-class Super Star Destroyer (Jerecs ship in Dark Forces 2, just guessing but it fits :p)

Personally I think that would fill the void on any argument between the class name of Executor/SSD. Executor IS an SSD but so is an Eclipse and so on. So who likes my theory?

The name Star Destroyer may indicate a family of warships designed by the KDY. This family of warships would cover many of the most well known classes such as Imperators, Executors etc.

The term Super Star Destroyer is probably a slang invented by Rebels for the massive commands ships exceeding 8 KMs in length such Executor and Vengeance class.

The Victory Star Destroyer is no KDY-ship.

The 2.2 kilometer long Allegiance in DarkEmpire was also called "Super Star Destroyer".

The most reasonable explenation would be, that every ship bigger than the typical ISD and/or in command over a fleet can be called Super Star Destroyer.

As for the SuperiOR-Class Star Destroyer, i would prefer the following idea to become reality/official:

There is an entire design-line of ships, that is called super-ships/super star destroyers. The all have a lenght to wide-ratio of 3:1 in commen and a city-like superstructure.

The first type is eight kilometers long, originally a Rendili-Design (to make up for the different command tower), but build by KDY for their bigger shipyard-facilities. This would be WEGs Super-Class-Stardestroyer or Superiority (like Victory)-Class.

The second type would be the twelve.eight kilometer long version, already a KDY-Design and called the Superior-Class.

And as a last we would get the 17.6 kilometer long Executor-Class from the movies.

And while i doubt this is ever going to happen, i can still dream and one day LFL will have to resolve the matter of lenghts and class-names this way or the other (or so i hope) once and for all.

As a last thing, just to add fuel to the discussion about naming-conventions, the Executor was NOT christianed by KDY, but by Darth Vader on her maiden voyage.

evilcat4000 wrote:The name Star Destroyer may indicate a family of warships designed by the KDY. This family of warships would cover many of the most well known classes such as Imperators, Executors etc.

However, the Victory is also called a Star Destroyer, as well as the Republic and Defender. It cannot be merely a KDY warship line.

The term Super Star Destroyer is probably a slang invented by Rebels for the massive commands ships exceeding 8 KMs in length such Executor and Vengeance class.

Almost certainly.

evilcat4000 wrote:The term Super Star Destroyer is probably a slang invented by Rebels for the massive commands ships exceeding 8 KMs in length such Executor and Vengeance class.

Similar to the "Heavy Destroyers" the French built right before WWII. They were classified as Destroyers under the French system, but most other references called them Heavy Destroyers because they were much larger than a standard Destroyer. Same idea for Battlecruisers (cruisers the size of a small battleship) and Armored Cruisers (cruisers with the armor of a battleship).

FTeik wrote:I think i read on Frank Gueaterras ship-index (hope i have the name right, if not, my apologies), that according to the modelmakers at ILM the ISD is Imperator-Class, not Imperial-Class (although i have no idea how much that would count).

I've seen this said also, at strategyplanet.

Publius wrote:Nevertheless, the sole attested use of the designation is Mr. Geoffrey Mandel's "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" blueprints, dated 1978 (there seems to be some uncertainty as to whether or not this source is official).

Saxton regards it as official. They were merely drawn from the prototype art, rather than the model (which was not built at the time). The references to the ship as Imperial-class all occur in later official sources, and at the highest level of canon, there are precisely zero references to class name. Thus, we have two lesser sources arguing with each other in regards to whether it is Imperator or Imperial. One source worked directly with the prototype art and the others drew off WEG's initial claim that Imperial was the class name. The question, in its purest essence, is whether pre-production art or the WEG RPG are higher in canon, since those are the primary sources for all references to class name for the ISD.

The Dark wrote:Saxton regards it as official. They were merely drawn from the prototype art, rather than the model (which was not built at the time). The references to the ship as Imperial-class all occur in later official sources, and at the highest level of canon, there are precisely zero references to class name. Thus, we have two lesser sources arguing with each other in regards to whether it is Imperator or Imperial. One source worked directly with the prototype art and the others drew off WEG's initial claim that Imperial was the class name. The question, in its purest essence, is whether pre-production art or the WEG RPG are higher in canon, since those are the primary sources for all references to class name for the ISD.

its still in debate, however. In any case, the Mandel blueprints cannot override the canon ICS, even if we disregard the more common usage of Imperial over Imperator, and the fact the Mandel blueprints refer to a ship that is far smaller than the mile long Star destroyers.

The Dark wrote:(cruisers with the armor of a battleship).

Armament of a battleship.

Vympel wrote: No, but it's obvious. And I like it. Why else would he take the opportunity to name not just the one ship that appears in Ep 2 as 'Acclamator' which is perfectly in line with Imperator as Executor in both form and theme, he mentions two extra ships of the same form and theme (as well as using the 'Star' prefix which he also champions) for no reason at all. Come on, you can't tell me the pattern isn't obvious. He feels strongly on the issue- hopefully he does what I hope he'll try and do it and put it to rest, now that he's been endowed with canon power.

Stupid or not, its still canonically Imperial. You can't dismiss it without dismissing the validity of the ICS line, which still cuts your argument to pieces. People like Darkstar are the ones who arbirtrarily pick and choose from canon and official (and categorically dismiss things they don't like without good reason), not us. If you are going to dismiss Imperial when it has direct canon and official backing, you need some VERY good evidence to do so.

evilcat4000 wrote:The term Super Star Destroyer is probably a slang invented by Rebels for the massive commands ships exceeding 8 KMs in length such Executor and Vengeance class.

HIMS Executor is referred to as "Super Star Destroyer" by the narrator of Return of the Jedi. Furthermore, HIMS Allegiance (significantly shorter than eight kilometres) is described as "the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer" by the narrator of Dark Empire.

The Dark wrote:Saxton regards it as official. They were merely drawn from the prototype art, rather than the model (which was not built at the time). The references to the ship as Imperial-class all occur in later official sources, and at the highest level of canon, there are precisely zero references to class name. Thus, we have two lesser sources arguing with each other in regards to whether it is Imperator or Imperial. One source worked directly with the prototype art and the others drew off WEG's initial claim that Imperial was the class name. The question, in its purest essence, is whether pre-production art or the WEG RPG are higher in canon, since those are the primary sources for all references to class name for the ISD.

Imprimis, the "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" blueprints, whether official or no, do not depict the same vessel described by the Expanded Universe as Imperial-class; the former show a vessel with a LOA of 686.5 metres, whereas the latter show a vessel with a LOA of 1,600 metres. As stated earlier, the one is roughly 40 per cent. the LOA of the other. They are quite obviously not the same class of ship, and there is therefore no contradiction between the sources: they are describing different classes.

Even if one were to assume that they refer to the same vessel, as in all other cases, a disparity between lesser sources is adjudicated by appeal to the highest order of canon. Which reflects the films more accurately? On the matter of names, the films are silent; which more accurately reflects the model of Imperial Star Destroyer, the "Star Destroyer Imperator Class" or Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections? If we assume (contrary to the evidence) that they both depict the same ship, which is rendered more authoritative by its superior reflection of the films?

Given the enormous amount of detail and research that went into the Dr. West-Reynolds's Incredible Cross-Sections, research that made use of far more extensive -- and more directly film-related -- resources than were available to Mr. Mandel (as you yourself have noted), the answer must inevitably be that the Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections more accurately reflects the films, which is the great arbiter of relative evidential weight. Even if we assume (contrary to the evidence) that it depicts the same ship as the "Star Destroyer Imperator Class", its evidence is superior.

PUBLIUS

Frank Hipper wrote:

The Dark wrote:(cruisers with the armor of a battleship).

Armament of a battleship.

Got me. I was thinking "armor and armament," checked my sources, and deleted the wrong part of the statement.



Solely out of curiosity, is there an official Lucas website with the order of canonicity? I personally am tired of trying to figure out which of multiple sources over-ride each other, and would just like to be able to check a list of order of canon.

Publius wrote:HIMS Executor is referred to as "Super Star Destroyer" by the narrator of Return of the Jedi. Furthermore, HIMS Allegiance (significantly shorter than eight kilometres) is described as "the Emperor's Super Star Destroyer" by the narrator of Dark Empire.

I'm not sure about Dark Empire, but the narrator of RotJ is almost definitely a member of the Alliance/New Republic, given that the reports of Rebel activity are much more thoroughly described than Imperial activity. Thus, their use of Super Star Destroyer reflects Rebel terminology, not necessarily the actual proper designation of the vessel.

The Dark wrote:Solely out of curiosity, is there an official Lucas website with the order of canonicity? I personally am tired of trying to figure out which of multiple sources over-ride each other, and would just like to be able to check a list of order of canon.

The multifarious quotations regarding canonical standing have been quoted here. As you can see, there is no clearly delineated "hierarchy" of the canon, however, and conflicting evidence invariably requires a bit of hermeneutic legwork to resolve. In any event, the first question should always be which source most accurately reflects the films' evidence.

In short, the films are the supreme order of evidence, followed by the immediately related family of sources (the screenplays, the novelisations, the radio dramatisations, the comic adaptations, the Incredible Cross-Sections series and probably also the Illustrated Dictionary and Inside the Worlds series), and then the remainder of the Expanded Universe (novels, guides, video games, comic books, &c.).

Notice that there are a few variations terminology. "Canon" can be used to refer to the films exclusively, to the films and their family of related sources, or to the entire "authentic history" of Star Wars (the Expanded Universe included); official terminology varies as regards the Expanded Universe, which has been called "canon", "quasi-canon", and "continuity" (the now-disused label "official non-canon" was never used officially). Although the labels used vary, the substance of the policy is the same.

The Dark wrote:I'm not sure about Dark Empire, but the narrator of RotJ is almost definitely a member of the Alliance/New Republic, given that the reports of Rebel activity are much more thoroughly described than Imperial activity. Thus, their use of Super Star Destroyer reflects Rebel terminology, not necessarily the actual proper designation of the vessel.

There is no evidence of any kind whatever to suggest the identity of the narrator, and it is therefore treated as being a non-personal omniscient source in the absence of any compelling reason to believe otherwise. The novelisation's usage of "Super Star Destroyer" stands as impartial, especially in light of Imperial commissioned officers having used the term (e.g., CAPT Drysso in The Bacta War).

PUBLIUS

Super-Gagme wrote:

Ender wrote: And as I have said multiple times before, at great length, a "Super class" also has basis in reality, we have "supercarriers" today. In that case all it means is a carrier larger then the typical tonnage for the class. Thus you can quite easily have Executor class Super Star Destroyers.

Actually didn't I say this?

Super-Gagme wrote: And I can now also point out my own theory on "Super" star destroyers. The way I see it is that along with typical Star Destroyers you also have the new type of Super Star Destroyer.

Examples:
Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer
Executor-class Super Star Destroyer
Vengeance-class Super Star Destroyer (Jerecs ship in Dark Forces 2, just guessing but it fits :p)

Personally I think that would fill the void on any argument between the class name of Executor/SSD. Executor IS an SSD but so is an Eclipse and so on. So who likes my theory?

No, you didn't. What you proposed was that it was a variation, an actual class modifing term. What I said was that it was simply to differentiate tonnage, having nothing to do with actual abilities.

FTeik wrote:The Victory Star Destroyer is no KDY-ship.

Yes, it is. Rendelli is a sub corporation of KDY as confirmed by the NEGVV. I pointed this out to you in the first thread about classifying ships this week. The one you ran away from like a coward, remember?

Ender wrote:

FTeik wrote:The Victory Star Destroyer is no KDY-ship.

Yes, it is. Rendelli is a sub corporation of KDY as confirmed by the NEGVV. I pointed this out to you in the first thread about classifying ships this week. The one you ran away from like a coward, remember?

No it isn't.

That's a total fabrication on your part. It says KDY contracted Rendili to build the VSD. By your logic Lockheed Martin is a subsidiary of the Federal Government.

A contractor is not a subsidiary. I pointed out your error in my PM and you ignored it.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Ender wrote:

FTeik wrote:The Victory Star Destroyer is no KDY-ship.

Yes, it is. Rendelli is a sub corporation of KDY as confirmed by the NEGVV. I pointed this out to you in the first thread about classifying ships this week. The one you ran away from like a coward, remember?

No it isn't.

That's a total fabrication on your part. It says KDY contracted Rendili to build the VSD. By your logic Lockheed Martin is a subsidiary of the Federal Government.

A contractor is not a subsidiary. I pointed out your error in my PM and you ignored it.

PM?

*checks*

Fuck, this is what I get for disabeling popups.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:No it isn't.

That's a total fabrication on your part. It says KDY contracted Rendili to build the VSD. By your logic Lockheed Martin is a subsidiary of the Federal Government.

A contractor is not a subsidiary.

The Government and Lockheed are not in the same business. Therefore your analogy is flawed.

Please explain why KDY would subcontract something to a competitor, as opposed to a subsidiary like RHE if it is totally differnet as you say.

Ender wrote:Please explain why KDY would subcontract something to a competitor, as opposed to a subsidiary like RHE if it is totally differnet as you say.

I don't have to. One doesn't contract subsidiaries because they're already part of the same company.

By definition a contractor is not a subsidiary.

And this is in-line with AOTC ICS, in that the shipyard strings throughout the Outer Rim could give Rendili ascendance. KDY needed an escort for her Acclamators and contracted Rendili with her available shipbuilding infrastructure to build it while KDY was busy filling its RHE and sector fleet contracts.

EDIT: And Kuat IS a government as well. Perhaps with her shipyards filled to the brim with contracts, KDY contracted another company to build some destroyers KDY had designed to help with Sector defense and then the Republic in general adopted the vessel.