StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Illuminatus Primus wrote:In my opinion, most warships should share basic forms, at least in principle. They should all be kind of wedge/arrowhead/cone shaped for the advantages discussed many times before.

You propose that every Mon Calamari, Imperial, Republic, etc. ship frigate size and up should all be wedges? I suppose from a certain stand point it makes some sense, but I'm really not seeing it. More goes into ship construction than simple military utility, the astetic and cultural concerns of each species and corporation also play a significant role (this might not apply for the Empire, but it does for most everyone else, including the OR, under which the ships were first constructed.)

Sorry buddy, but the USN and the PLAN have very different cultural and philosophical backgrounds, but when it comes to kicking naval ass, everyone toes the line of functionality, and most Mon Calamari warships are irregular vessels that simply lack the efficiency in surface area, weapons and sensor distribution, etc. that the wedges have. The hot dog shape sucks.

You'll find that the Workers' and Peasants' Red Air Force fielded a B-29 copy bolt-for-fucking-bolt when they needed a strategic bomber, as opposed to working for something "Russian."

It could be true for the Republic/Imperial designs. So far, we've seen the CIS and Rebel Alliance field ships that look nothing at all like the capital ships the Empire/Old Republic use, aside from a few exceptions. The OR/GE prefer wedge-shaped ships of various types and roles (see this page for examples). Everyone else builds ships according to other philosophies, be they Mon Calamari, Trade Federation, Techno Union, Corellian, or whatever.

EDIT: Urgh, IP brings up a good point.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Sorry buddy, but the USN and the PLAN have very different cultural and philosophical backgrounds, but when it comes to kicking naval ass, everyone toes the line of functionality, and most Mon Calamari warships are irregular vessels that simply lack the efficiency in surface area, weapons and sensor distribution, etc. that the wedges have. The hot dog shape sucks.

You'll find that the Worker's and Peasant's Red Air Force fielded a B-29 copy bolt-for-fucking-bolt when they needed a strategic bomber, as opposed to working for something "Russian."

Very well, point conceeded.
Nevertheless, I like the design diversity (although it doesnt work as well with the Empire) that ships like that entail. It is symbolic of the size and age of the galaxy, and the many varied designs and military theories it has produced. I wouldnt want a Dreadnaught or other "hot dog" ship on the front line's, but as backwater defensive forces and patrol ships, they work just fine for me.

Vympel wrote:1. Lancer Frigate
2. Loronar Strike Cruiser
3. Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser

These three ships represent the worst of the ugly, small, hot-dog mediocrity foisted upon us by WEG all those years ago. That these are supposed to be Imperial ships is a joke, and the part that irks me about them the most. The only good thing they ever did was the Interdictor Cruiser and the Victory-class Star Destroyer.

What's wrong with the "ugly, small, hot-dog" ship style so often seen in sci-fi? Granted, it's definetily not something you want doing front-line cap-ship to cap-ship fighting, but for hauling cargo, acting as carriers, and doing light picket duty against ships of lesser capability, I'd imagine it'd do fairly well: that it's cylindrical in shape means it has equal distribution for the faces of the X and Y axis', so in instances where a ship'd normally be unable to bear all of its weapons on a single target - fighter swarms being the big example - it can't get whacked from those surface faces that have the least armorment, and, again, the larger size means you can have larger hangers, more ships and cargo flying in and out, etcetera.

That, and I like those designs - though, to be honest, I'd prefer something more along the lines of a shoebox.

5. TIE Crawler/ TIE tank

What the fuck, really? Who in their right mind would take a TIE cockpit ball and put huge bloody treads on both sides of it? It's an incredibly stupid design for ground combat.

[Query]KJA?[/query]

6. Every -Wing fighter invented by the EU, ever.

Does that include the T-Wings seen in TIE Fighter and the other flight sims? 'cause I like that design.

Sharpshooter wrote:

6. Every -Wing fighter invented by the EU, ever.

Does that include the T-Wings seen in TIE Fighter and the other flight sims? 'cause I like that design.

I liked them, as well. Easy as hell to blow up.

I'm suprised that nobody mentioned the Hornet Interceptor. Unless I missed it.

THEHOOLIGANJEDI wrote:I'm suprised that nobody mentioned the Hornet Interceptor. Unless I missed it.

No no... I think no one just wanted to mention that POS... "Look! lets build a fighter that looks like a bumble bee!"

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You'll find that the Worker's and Peasant's Red Air Force fielded a B-29 copy bolt-for-fucking-bolt when they needed a strategic bomber, as opposed to working for something "Russian."

Not so good an example. A better one would be to note how many Soviet planes that aren't copies nevertheless share so many similarities in appearance to Western planes that they are accused as copies nevertheless. They really aren't - they look similar because certain shapes and features work.

Jim Raynor wrote:I would also like to nominate the New Class "ships" from the Black Fleet Crisis novels and Cracken's Threat Dossier. They represent EU starfighter/New Republic bias and minimalism at its worst.

CTD is a collation of various New Republic documents, at least SoDwise - RADM Kursk Mal'ia on the ships section.

They are not only biased, but incompetent. Never mind that they think a Warrior could ever fit enough weaponry to threaten a ship countless times its size in the technological stasis of Star Wars (the stats they provide also do not favor this conclusion). They also never read Hextrophon (even though we in the far future can), or they would have realized that 500 vessels at 25 Star Destroyers is not an "augmented Sector Group", but one badly understrength in supporting vessels (Gulek, p64)!

Mal'ia also doesn't realize size is volume. Not length. He says that a Warrior can taking down a ship nine times its size (about a 400m frigate) on P.75, then he says it can cripple a Star Destroyer on the next page, which is nine times the length and hundreds of times the mass if not much more.

When I first read the preview for Before the Storm, which mentioned fleet carriers disgorging fighters, bombers, and gunships, I imagined a huge, multi-kilometer ship with hundreds, maybe thousands of fighters, that carried 120-meter-long Corellian Gunships.

You must have been dreaming. This is a 90s era stick-to-WEG-to-death publication. It won't happen. If he made something like that, WEG simply won't support him, ensuring the rapid emasculation of the ship...

Instead, the Endurance-class fleet carrier was a gutted Star Destroyer barely larger than a VSD. For a dedicated carrier, its fighter wing of 72 was ridiculously pathetic. And this thing was STILL supposed to be this badass command ship.

It is the a little like Stryker, you see. The programs are probably bloated (note that only ten of the supposedly wonderful DSDs were commissioned, and only one new one per year - which is a crappy rate even for the NR) pork. The doctrrinal concept reeks of turning the fleet into a weak, codependent navy. The performance claims show signs of inconsistency and reeks of exaggerations. Yet the clueless admirals who want the status-quo support it. The NR is already decaying almost before it got organized...

I can already imagine a "holosite" in NR called www.newrepublicnavyreform.com. For its general style and tone, click the link. Substitute stories about Stryker with the New Class, the cases of American general incompetence with NR admirals ... etc.

From reading the profiles of the ships in CTD, it seemed like the author really had it in for the ISD.

He's a New Republic Rear Admiral (SoDwise). What did you expect?

And even though their pictures are probably invalid (the artist was apparently too stupid to understand the concept of shared hulls), these ships were drawn ugly as hell:

No function and no form!

What's even stupider is that these supposedly wonderful ships were promptly disappeared after BFC. If they are so great, why did they disappear? (The real SoD reason, of course, is that they didn't work out so well, but it runs counter to the intent).

I'd vote for the class of shuttlecraft used in the Jedi Knight: Jedi Order game. With its boxy shape and its engine pods it looked more like a design out of Star Trek. And its performance was about as good...both times it was featured it crashed.

I like wedge designes and I like sleek and curved designs but I can't stand boxy stuff.

Vympel wrote:1. Lancer Frigate
2. Loronar Strike Cruiser
3. Dreadnought Heavy Cruiser

These three ships represent the worst of the ugly, small, hot-dog mediocrity foisted upon us by WEG all those years ago. That these are supposed to be Imperial ships is a joke, and the part that irks me about them the most. The only good thing they ever did was the Interdictor Cruiser and the Victory-class Star Destroyer.

4. TIE Defender

Don't get me wrong- it's a kickass fighter and I love flying it. But in terms of looks and design, it makes absolutely not a jot of sense. The centre ball is little different from a regular TIE, and it has those three radiator panels (presumably it requires the increased surface area due to the improved performance)- yet its supposed to have warhead launchers, ion cannons, lasers, shields and hyperdrive? Give me a break. Compare to the much better design of the TIE Avenger and Vader's TIE/X1- there's actually space to put some of this stuff.

5. TIE Crawler/ TIE tank

What the fuck, really? Who in their right mind would take a TIE cockpit ball and put huge bloody treads on both sides of it? It's an incredibly stupid design for ground combat.

6. Every -Wing fighter invented by the EU, ever.

Dark Empire's E-Wing, the K-Wing (don't remember where?), and the V-Wing (also from DE). They're ugly. The wanked out upgraded X-Wings also suck (fear the XJ-Wing! It has three torpedo launchers, not two!).

The Lancer frigate I also thought was wimpy. I've never heard of a loronar.
The Dreadnought was simply old. I don't like the fact that there seem to be a lot of them still around. The weaponry for the tie defender looks like its mounted on the tips of the radiator panels from the firing angles in the video game "Star Wars X-wing Allience". The Proton torpedos/concusion missle firing tubes could have been on the thing that connects the radiator panels to the cockpit. The tie Crawler Sucks Supremely and Seeing as I don't swear... Is crappy and sucks darned butt. I don't know about many of the fighters created in the EU but I thought V-wings were Okay. They didn't seem overpowered, With weakend sheilds. The E-wings shouldn't have proton torpedo or Concusion Missle firing capabilities, and the whole "R-7 only works for the E-wing" Sucks. Why would a primarily Empire and Civilian Company switch over to the Republic when the empire is still alive and well?

The Dreadnought was simply old. I don't like the fact that there seem to be a lot of them still around.

In a galaxy where a forty year old droid model is considered "new", warships can still be a formidible and in active use 50+ years after their construction, and where there hasent been a major technological breakthough in four thousand years or more, its hardly suprising that there still in use. What about this bothers you?

If they're still producing them, Then it's fine. But when a ship blows up, and yor not building more, Methinks your gonna run out.

The Jazz Intern wrote:If they're still producing them, Then it's fine. But when a ship blows up, and yor not building more, Methinks your gonna run out.

How many Dreadnaughts do you think it would take to maintain peace in a Republic that spanned more than half a galaxy, 1.2 million heavily populated worlds, and vast reams of unpopulated space ripe for smugglers pirates, and all around malconents? Even if they stopped producing them as soon as the CW started (not a reasonable assumption) there would still be hundreds of thousands of them around even factoring in Clone Wars losses. Considering the fact that SW ships can last well over a century in active use, thats more than enough to be a significant backbone for backwater defense forces and Outer Rim support fleets the galaxy over.

Admiral Felire wrote:Isn't it true that a wedge-shaped hull allows maximum field of fire for its weapons

Theoretically it does. In practice the actual locations and nature of the mountains of the weapons on Imperial ships often leave them with quite poor fields of fire.

The Dark wrote:

Firefox wrote:Speaking of, are there any real estimates on the Dreadnaught's age, or material from which to derive such estimates? I can't imagine the ship is any older than a hundred years by the Clone Wars.

WotC's Starships of the Galaxy simply mentions that they were large starships from "the latter years of the Old Republic," and that they began to be phased out when the Victory-class was developed. It also states they were the backbone of fleets for "decades," so they were at least twenty years old when the Victory was introduced (otherwise it would be a decade). Victory-class was supposed to be designed near the end of the Clone Wars. The Katana fleet was lost almost 45 years before Endor (according to the Star Wars Databank), so that also provides a latest possible time of introduction to about ten years before Episode I, or (again) about twenty years before the Clone Wars begin. Note that this is a latest possible introduction, and the fact that Katana was designed to reduce crew needs suggests the Dreadnought had already been in service for some time before the incident occurred.

It sure is too bad the prequels pretty much defenestrate all that bullshit by never showing a single one of those flying space dildoes as a mainline combat vessel for either side at any point during the Clone Wars, huh? Real tragedy there.

(Edit: My ire is not directed at you, Dark.)

The Dreadnaught has such a boring design. It's not so much ugly as it is dull.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:You'll find that the Worker's and Peasant's Red Air Force fielded a B-29 copy bolt-for-fucking-bolt when they needed a strategic bomber, as opposed to working for something "Russian."

Not so good an example. A better one would be to note how many Soviet planes that aren't copies nevertheless share so many similarities in appearance to Western planes that they are accused as copies nevertheless. They really aren't - they look similar because certain shapes and features work.

Let's see. Off the top of my head, I can think of three extremely similar yet unrelated aircraft pairs:

Buran and Space Shuttle

Tu-144 and Concorde

Tu-160 Blackjack and B-1 Lancer

[quote="Admiral Felire"]Isn't it true that a wedge-shaped hull allows maximum field of fire for its weapons. I mean for a war-like government such as the Galactic Empire the ability to target the maxiumum amount of weapons at a single target would be a lot nicer to have than ships that can only target certain regions cause it looks like a hot dog. Just a thought.

Dreadnaught was built by the Old Republic Non war like people
Lancer was rushed thru developement and production by Imperial because of fear of further rebel fighter attacks had been stated as being a piece of crap everyone makes mistakes
Strike cruiser was a attempt at making one ship that could fill mulitiple roles with little modification (modular designe)
IMO it has been proven that the Empire was curroupt and so was its leaders the Lancer frigate and Strike cruiser are most likely the result of Individual pet projects by companies attempting to build something they couldnt just to meet the current needs of the empire planning to work out the bugs after the government has purchased them.

RedImperator wrote:

The Dark wrote:

Firefox wrote:Speaking of, are there any real estimates on the Dreadnaught's age, or material from which to derive such estimates? I can't imagine the ship is any older than a hundred years by the Clone Wars.

WotC's Starships of the Galaxy simply mentions that they were large starships from "the latter years of the Old Republic," and that they began to be phased out when the Victory-class was developed. It also states they were the backbone of fleets for "decades," so they were at least twenty years old when the Victory was introduced (otherwise it would be a decade). Victory-class was supposed to be designed near the end of the Clone Wars. The Katana fleet was lost almost 45 years before Endor (according to the Star Wars Databank), so that also provides a latest possible time of introduction to about ten years before Episode I, or (again) about twenty years before the Clone Wars begin. Note that this is a latest possible introduction, and the fact that Katana was designed to reduce crew needs suggests the Dreadnought had already been in service for some time before the incident occurred.

It sure is too bad the prequels pretty much defenestrate all that bullshit by never showing a single one of those flying space dildoes as a mainline combat vessel for either side at any point during the Clone Wars, huh? Real tragedy there.

Yeah, although it could be argued that this pushes the date earlier, making them older ships in the Clone Wars, relegated to secondary duty (after all, they were originally intended to hunt pirates, according to the same sources). Also, all I remember seeing of the Clone Wars in space is the assault on Geonosis, where we couldn't see Dreads if they were there (not atmosphere capable, AFAIK), and the Battle of Coruscant where they're already supposed to be mostly replaced (and the Confed seems to like those huge converted merchantmen).

(Edit: My ire is not directed at you, Dark.)

I was pretty sure it wasn't, given that none of the names were preceded by "you". It would have been nice if even one appeared, though.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:Not so good an example. A better one would be to note how many Soviet planes that aren't copies nevertheless share so many similarities in appearance to Western planes that they are accused as copies nevertheless. They really aren't - they look similar because certain shapes and features work.

My point is that culturally and philosophically distinct cultures are not above open copying of foriegn designs in order to capture ability over aesthetic, 10 times out of 10.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Admiral Felire wrote:Isn't it true that a wedge-shaped hull allows maximum field of fire for its weapons

Theoretically it does. In practice the actual locations and nature of the mountains of the weapons on Imperial ships often leave them with quite poor fields of fire.

He's right. The ISD Mark I can only fire its brim trench quad turrets, and its forward most double topside turrets forward, only two double ion cannons aft, and one quad, three doubles, and one double ion port and starboard.

ISD Mark II can theoretically dip its edges and field all of its guns in any direction, but it cannot rotate ANY turrets forward without dipping the nose. None.

It sure is too bad the prequels pretty much defenestrate all that bullshit by never showing a single one of those flying space dildoes as a mainline combat vessel for either side at any point during the Clone Wars, huh? Real tragedy there.

ROFL. In the movies, you'd be right. However, both Dreadnoughts and Carracks were present at Coruscant in the RotS novelization, though I'm tempted to throw them out on their arse since they take part in an attack on Invisible Hand that sure as hell didn't happen in the film.

I just remembered, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the escort carrier. It's little more than a flying brick with a gaping maw at the front. Even less imaginative than the Dreadnaught. And I've been tempted to build one.

less imaginative, and weaker than putting it on the bottom like on a ISD.