StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Vympel wrote:Sorry, but we all know what they were thinking when they made it up- that being the exact same thing they were thinking when those stupid fucking cumstains pulled 'Super-class' out of their arses. They heard someone say it, and attached '-class' to the end. Coming up with obscure, never used forms of it from a dictionary won't change that I'm afraid.

No we don't. The problem here is that the ship's name is defined INSIDE the SW universe and outside considerations do NOT apply. Thus the reasons for naming conventions inside the SW unvierse are the only ones that matter. As we have not been priveledged to yet sit in on the meeting where the class' lead vessel was designated you are merely guessing as to the in continuity reason.

Remember all the information we recieved is filtered to us somehow but the intentions of the filterer can NOT be transposed onto the persons onto which the filter was applied. In other words just because some writer in the real world got lazy and created the Super-class name does not mean that some Imperial desinger (or Rebel tactician) was lazy and chose to assign that name to a vessel. There must be a valid reason which lies within the continuity unaffected by real world considerations.

Since we have no real window into what the reasons for naming a paticualr ship calss might be all we are left with is a the end state information. From that we have veritable MOUNTAINS of evidence that the class of 1600m vessels is known as Imperial-class (and Imperial II - class or Imperial-class Mk II). That evidence mountain is curently topped by a Canon source, thus unless another, senior, Canon source arrives the vlass is Imperial-class.

However since Mandel's blueprits are official and we are bound to rationalize all material unless a direct contradiction exists we are left with on course of action:
1) The 1600m long wedged vessels so familiar to the SW unverse are part of the Imperial-class.
2) There is an unseen, but similair, class of vessel measuring 685.5m long belonging to the Imperator-class. Given the nature of the blueprint most likely at least 15 such vessels were built and possibly many more (this given the model number of the paticular specimen)

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Except the Mandel blueprints were sold merchandise. By extension, yes, they are official, represent intent during the movies, and also remain consistent with nomenclature in general from Star Wars.

Imperial is a perfectly in-line naming convention. It fits perfectly with the later "Republic" class and is similair to, as others have pointed out, ships bearing names such as USS America and USS United States. That a vessel with similair namign convntions was chosen as lead vessel indicates little oddity.

Don't forget the "Majestic" class Heavy Cruisers, and the "Defender" class Carrier/Destroyer (MAybe its a subtype of hte Nebula class.. that Defender seems too much like a super-ship to represent the true Nebula calass I think. Oh well.)

Connor MacLeod wrote:The "Super" class is officially 8 km (or second-tier canon 12.8, depending on ytour source.) The Executor itself is 17.6 km by movie canon (unless you want to get into one of those nitpicky arguments about the inaccuracies of scaling methods.) An "Executor-class" vessel, being of the same class as the Executor itself (like the Intimidator), would be of similar size.

I think it's easier just to throw out the "Super-class" silliness altogether, rather than to make the assumption that they're two different vessels. It is never implied that there are two versions of the vessel; instead just conflicting lengths for the same vessel (SOTE labeling Darth Vader's Executor as a Super-class being a good example).

Connor MacLeod wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Except the Mandel blueprints were sold merchandise. By extension, yes, they are official, represent intent during the movies, and also remain consistent with nomenclature in general from Star Wars.

Imperial is a perfectly in-line naming convention. It fits perfectly with the later "Republic" class and is similair to, as others have pointed out, ships bearing names such as USS America and USS United States. That a vessel with similair namign convntions was chosen as lead vessel indicates little oddity.

Don't forget the "Majestic" class Heavy Cruisers, and the "Defender" class Carrier/Destroyer (MAybe its a subtype of hte Nebula class.. that Defender seems too much like a super-ship to represent the true Nebula calass I think. Oh well.)

The nomenclature bit had to do with canon KDY vessels.

The Defender, the Majestic, and the Republic was not KDY vessels, and not canon.

Super-Gagme wrote:*snip*

American is also a noun, as well as an adjective, but still stupid.

Kuja wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:The notion for an Executor-Class rather than Super-class is rather explicit in official sources. If there is a Super-class, it is probably similar enough to the Executor-class that the two are frequently mistaken as is implied in official literature.

SOTE refers to the Executor as a Super-class.

So do a bunch of novels. Who cares? They're wrong.

Kuja wrote:SOTE refers to the Executor as a Super-class.

They also call it a Destroyer. Something it is clearly not. Apart from the size, both the Emperor and Han call it a Command Ship.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote: I think it's easier just to throw out the "Super-class" silliness altogether, rather than to make the assumption that they're two different vessels. It is never implied that there are two versions of the vessel; instead just conflicting lengths for the same vessel (SOTE labeling Darth Vader's Executor as a Super-class being a good example).

Tell me, is there ANY source in Lucasfilms offical canon that claims the SSD IS named the 'Executor' class? I mean ignoring RL naming conventions (as I'm sure the Emperor could utterly ignore them if he ever wanted to do so) is there ONE source which stands up and says: 'The Executor class Star Destroyer'...?

READ THE FUCKING THREAD.

For Christ's sake Connor posted the BFC quote with "Executor-class Star Destroyer" and there's no reason to assume naming conventions are different, esp. since this is in line with several other ships. And WEG accounts are horridly flawed.

Ask yourself, if we have access to both direct observation, and a secondary book source, and the book source makes claims which are totally divergent from what we see (movie Executor) and know (naming conventions), that it is not a dependable source?

And I just finished saying that ISD data by WEG is flawed, in at least the weaponry if not additionally.

WEG has shown habitual use of ignorance of direct observation (movies), making shit up (stats), and hasty generalization which happened to also be stupid (nomenclature and names--they're Imperial SDs and Super SDs! Well damn they must be Imperial-class and Super-class SDs!)

Oh and can someone determine if the Mandel Blueprints WERE a truely published and officialy sanctioned source? Because I remember the same question came up and someone (I think it was Edam) got an email back from him saying that the blueprints were not any offical Lucasfilm product, but just an early 'draft' he had made.

So realy this whole discussion may well be academic. But if you REALY want a rationalisation between the two (Mandle and everything else) without simply overiding it with number and weight of sources....well....

I'd say the Imperator class SD is an unproduced concept design. The plans were delivered to the Emperor for his approval and when he saw the new improved ship was even smaller then a VSD, he glared at the design team and just said 'Bigger'. Hence the Imperial class.

Chris OFarrell wrote:'The Executor class Star Destroyer'...?

The problem there, is that even if its not Executor class, its still not a Destroyer. Its far too big.

Sharp-kun wrote:

Chris OFarrell wrote:'The Executor class Star Destroyer'...?

The problem there, is that even if its not Executor class, its still not a Destroyer. Its far too big.

"Star Destroyer" does not mean destroyer! My god man. We know for a fact that the Eclipse is the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer. Is it a destroyer? No. Infact if you read official sources the Imp-class Star Destroyer is a Cruiser (or Heavy Cruiser depending on source).

Illuminatus Primus wrote:READ THE FUCKING THREAD.

For Christ's sake Connor posted the BFC quote with "Executor-class Star Destroyer" and there's no reason to assume naming conventions are different, esp. since this is in line with several other ships. And WEG accounts are horridly flawed.

Oh yeah. ONE quote. Ignore the dozens of others. And if you actualy keep GOING with that section of the book you find some rather interesting things:

Page 323 Shield of Lies:

"From the beginning, the new Republic had opted to build a larger number of smaller vessels - Fleet carriers, Republic class Star Destroyers, attle cruisers - rather than adopt the Imperial design philosophy. Mon Mothma had given orders to scrap rather then repair or make a museum piece of the sole SSD captured from the Empire. Consequently, the eight kilometer long behemoth circling N'zoth had anythign in the New republic Fleet badly outgunned.

'Now that, that can only be Intimidator' Nylykerka pronounced. 'All the late production Super class had that additional shield tower located on the centerline' "

Now thats rather weird isn't it? The Book contradicts itself within a couple of pages, in the same situation? The rest of the black fleet books are also in agreement over the class name with numerous examples:

Before The Storm pg 3.

"The key to them all was the massive Star Destroyer Intimidator, moored at one of the open slips. Spaceworthy but completly unbloded, it had been sent to Black 15 from the Core for finish work, to free up a Super-Class shipway at the commands home shipbuilding yard"

"According to Ayddar, the order of battle for Black Sword includes forty four captial ships which we have not seen nor heard of since the fall of the Emperor. None smaller then a Victory class Star Destroyer. Three are Super class vessels."

Tyrents Test:

"From the moment Han knew where he was bound, he had been picturing himself alone in one of the tiny isolation cells of a standard Imperial detention block. A Super-Class Star Destroye had six such detention blocks from crew discipline alone andten additional high security blocks for enemy prisoners"
P 139

"Behind them - thats the bridge of a Super class Star Destroyer"
P159

The uniformed man nodded, Nil Spaar paused and the holo tracked to the right until the view forward out the bridge viewports confirmed that the vessel was Super class. For a few seconds, at least half a dozen other Star Destroyers were visible as well, flying in formation over the limb of a dusty yellow planet"
P 160

Funny how in teh same book and other books in the series there are a heep of refrences to the SUper class ships and none to the Exeuctors. And if you REALY look upon that quote as overiding everything else somehow, then you will note that the quote explictly says 'Imperial class Star Destroyer' not Imperator which should settle THAT debate.

Ask yourself, if we have access to both direct observation, and a secondary book source, and the book source makes claims which are totally divergent from what we see (movie Executor) and know (naming conventions), that it is not a dependable source?

The movie does not claim a name for Vaders Command ship actualy. Executor is never said in any of the two movies which have it in it. Thats my whole point. The first time we saw Executor to my knoweldge was IN offical sources, where the weight of evidnece is greatly in favour of the SUper class name.

And I just finished saying that ISD data by WEG is flawed, in at least the weaponry if not additionally.

Indeed but its still the data preaty much the rest of the EU uses including just about all the novels. And regardless of how accurate or not the weapons array data is, we're not talking about that. We are talking about the ship class. So stay on topic please.

WEG has shown habitual use of ignorance of direct observation (movies), making shit up (stats), and hasty generalization which happened to also be stupid (nomenclature and names--they're Imperial SDs and Super SDs! Well damn they must be Imperial-class and Super-class SDs!)

Nice rant but it utterly fails to address the point that Imperial is the class name that Lucas has decided to run with in the numerous other publications, both ICS's and his offical website. On the SSD issue, I grant I could well be wrong about that if another Canon source does state the class/name but the movies I know for a fact don't and I'm not sure about the novels/radio/script sources.

Sharp-kun wrote:

Chris OFarrell wrote:'The Executor class Star Destroyer'...?

The problem there, is that even if its not Executor class, its still not a Destroyer. Its far too big.

"Star Destroyer" is a totaly different naval designation in the SW universe to "Destroyer". Its not saying the VSDs, ISDs, SSDs are Destroyer class vessels, its saying they are Star Destroyer class vessels. Like saying a ship is a carrier or assault ship. The SD design preaty much combines carrier with warship with assault ship into one neat package. In various ratios dependent on the class of course.

Chris OFarrell wrote:"Star Destroyer" is a totaly different naval designation in the SW universe to "Destroyer". Its not saying the VSDs, ISDs, SSDs are Destroyer class vessels, its saying they are Star Destroyer class vessels. Like saying a ship is a carrier or assault ship. The SD design preaty much combines carrier with warship with assault ship into one neat package. In various ratios dependent on the class of course.

By simultaneously claiming "Imperial-class" and "Star Destroyer-class" you just showed your incompetance.

The Star Destroyers ARE destroyers when scaled against duties with the general fleet of the Empire. While the ISD is a multi-role destroyer than can also serve as a commandship and mother ship for token taskforces and local theatres, as well as a base for ground assault, its primary design intention from the KDY/Starfleet perspective is destroyer.

The fact that is CAN serve in other roles doesn't specify it to not being a destroyer. The vessel type doesn't change every time it has a different mission.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Chris OFarrell wrote:"Star Destroyer" is a totaly different naval designation in the SW universe to "Destroyer". Its not saying the VSDs, ISDs, SSDs are Destroyer class vessels, its saying they are Star Destroyer class vessels. Like saying a ship is a carrier or assault ship. The SD design preaty much combines carrier with warship with assault ship into one neat package. In various ratios dependent on the class of course.

By simultaneously claiming "Imperial-class" and "Star Destroyer-class" you just showed your incompetance.

The Star Destroyers ARE destroyers when scaled against duties with the general fleet of the Empire. While the ISD is a multi-role destroyer than can also serve as a commandship and mother ship for token taskforces and local theatres, as well as a base for ground assault, its primary design intention from the KDY/Starfleet perspective is destroyer.

The fact that is CAN serve in other roles doesn't specify it to not being a destroyer. The vessel type doesn't change every time it has a different mission.

Actually how DO you refer to what kind of vessel it is? If someone is describing a Destroyer and they refer to the ship as a Destroyer class vessel it sounds reasonable but I could be wrong. Anyways back to my reply!

There are no sources whatsoever that make out the Imp-class Star Destroyers to be Destroyers. If it is the name itself then why is the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer not also considered a Destroyer? Or are you going to tell me they have planet destroying Destroyers in the Star Wars universe? Also I can point you to multiple sources which are canon and official that clearly state the Imp-class Star Destroyer is a Cruiser (now this could be Heavy Cruiser, Battle Cruiser or whatever but certainly not Destroyer).

I would also like to add that it is more than likely as Chris says that the Star-destroyer is a Type of its own.

Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser
Carrack-class Light Cruiser
Imperial-class Star Destroyer (not just destroyer)

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?

Super-Gagme wrote:If it is the name itself then why is the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer not also considered a Destroyer?

EU screwup, much like a ship identical to Executor being said to be 8km long. When you compare to other captical ships in the fleet, Imperators are destroyers.

Garbage.

Do you even realise what you just said?

Sharp-kun wrote:

Super-Gagme wrote:If it is the name itself then why is the Eclipse-class Star Destroyer not also considered a Destroyer?

EU screwup, much like a ship identical to Executor being said to be 8km long.

So you are saying...
Victory-class Star Destroyer
Executor-class Star Destroyer
Imperial-class Star Destroyer
Allegiance-class Star Destroyer
Defender-class Star Destroyer

All destroyers?

So tell me what a Cruiser is in the Star Wars universe, a Carrier, a Battle Cruiser, a Battle Ship

And if an ISD is a Destroyer then what is a Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser? I mean it is significantly weaker than an ISD in every single respect yet it is a Heavy Cruiser?

Illuminatus Primus wrote: By simultaneously claiming "Imperial-class" and "Star Destroyer-class" you just showed your incompetance.

Oh this should be fun.
What I was saying (and you KNOW what I was saying) was that "Star Destroyer" was the ship type and "Imperial" was the ship class. As saying "Battleship" and "Iowia" for a type and class battleship on Earth would work.

The Star Destroyers ARE destroyers when scaled against duties with the general fleet of the Empire.

The ISD *IS* the Battleship of the Empire moron. There are several clases of much larger command ships indeed but these never went into anything like the scale of production as the ISD did. You have a bare handful of Super class ships, the couple of Eclipse and Soverign class ships and a smattering of in between ships that NEVER went into fleet production. These 'superships' do not detriment the fact that the ISD THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME serves as the Empires ship of the line. It ONLY takes on the Destroyer role in the few times its around a far larger command ship. And even then most of the time it still serves as a major battleship in its own right. Look at Endor. The Executor had the screening force of ISD's but they didn't just sit there, they were brawling with the rebels major battleships without pause.

While the ISD is a multi-role destroyer than can also serve as a commandship and mother ship for token taskforces and local theatres, as well as a base for ground assault, its primary design intention from the KDY/Starfleet perspective is destroyer.

Funny how in just about the ENTIRE EU it serves as a MAJOR command ship and a major battleship of the line which slugs it out with other major capital ships. The ISD is the major fleet unit of the Empire. There are other bigger ships above it true but they were never produced in large numbers, genearly they were one offs for high up officers in the navy as personal command ships. Such as the Eclipse 1 and Eclipse 2. The Executors. And a few other exceptions. In a fleet of at least a million almost certinaly more, the 25,000 ISD's in service were the heavy hitters in almost all the major engagements of the Galactic war.

The fact that is CAN serve in other roles doesn't specify it to not being a destroyer.

Got it backwards. The fact that it can occasionaly serve a sub role to a bigger command ship does not mean it is not the major fleet element of the Galactic Empire.

The vessel type doesn't change every time it has a different mission.

No it doesn't. The fact is teh ISD is the major battleship of the Imperial Navy, used in that role almost exclusivly through the EU and in the movies. The bigger ships the Empire has NEVER were ment to take over this role, they were never built in the numbers or deployed in the numbers to take over the ship of the line role from the ISD.

Super-Gagme wrote: So you are saying...
Victory-class Star Destroyer
Executor-class Star Destroyer
Imperial-class Star Destroyer
Allegiance-class Star Destroyer
Defender-class Star Destroyer[/b]

We only hear an executor called a Destroyer twice. Once by an agiteated character running from it, once in the heat of battle. All other times it is called a Command Ship.

Victory is also a Destroyer. Its a predecessor to the Imperator that fills the same roll.

Allegience was I believe 2.2km long. Not a huge difference over an ISD, when compared to other ships.

From what I recall a Defender is about 1km long, again, in terms of size it fits the roll, I'm not sure about armament.

You don't just have one Destroyer type and leave it at that :rolleyes:

Super-Gagme wrote:And if an ISD is a Destroyer then what is a Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser? I mean it is significantly weaker than an ISD in every single respect yet it is a Heavy Cruiser?

When the Dreadnought was built it would have been a Heavy Cruiser. Times change.

Although I agree with you completely Chris, I must say I wouldn't consider the ISDs to be Battleships of the Empire. I personally would put it at Heavy Cruiser or Battlecruiser. Battleships were very expensive and precious (atleast is my understanding) where as Cruisers were the bulk of the fleet. But this is just a nitpick and makes no real change to what you are trying to put across

Sharp-kun wrote:

Super-Gagme wrote: So you are saying...
Victory-class Star Destroyer
Executor-class Star Destroyer
Imperial-class Star Destroyer
Allegiance-class Star Destroyer
Defender-class Star Destroyer[/b]

We only hear an executor called a Destroyer twice. Once by an agiteated character running from it, once in the heat of battle. All other times it is called a Command Ship.

Victory is also a Destroyer. Its a predecessor to the Imperator that fills the same roll.

Allegience was I believe 2.2km long. Not a huge difference over an ISD, when compared to other ships.

From what I recall a Defender is about 1km long, again, in terms of size it fits the roll, I'm not sure about armament.

You don't just have one Destroyer type and leave it at that :rolleyes:

Super-Gagme wrote:And if an ISD is a Destroyer then what is a Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser? I mean it is significantly weaker than an ISD in every single respect yet it is a Heavy Cruiser?

When the Dreadnought was built it would have been a Heavy Cruiser. Times change.

Then please enlighten me as to what fills the role of...

Cruiser
Heavy Cruiser
Carrier
Battle Cruiser
Battleship

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... index.html
This clearly indicates the Imp-class Star Destroyer to be a CRUISER type.

It is also Canon that they are Cruisers if you watch A New Hope when the yare fleeing the Star Destroyers Han says along the lines "Cruisers, coming right for us"

You can't say this is because he is "running away". There is such a huge difference between a destroyer and a cruiser, he was also at one point in the Imperial academy, that is something you don't mistake. If a carrier was chasing you down in your little speedboat would you say "Destroyer coming right for us" and what if you were also in the Navy at one point? I don't think so.

The ISD *IS* the Battleship of the Empire moron. There are several clases of much larger command ships indeed but these never went into anything like the scale of production as the ISD did. You have a bare handful of Super class ships, the couple of Eclipse and Soverign class ships and a smattering of in between ships that NEVER went into fleet production. These 'superships' do not detriment the fact that the ISD THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TIME serves as the Empires ship of the line. It ONLY takes on the Destroyer role in the few times its around a far larger command ship. And even then most of the time it still serves as a major battleship in its own right. Look at Endor. The Executor had the screening force of ISD's but they didn't just sit there, they were brawling with the rebels major battleships without pause.

Even at the height of their power, battleships were never the most numerous ships in a fleet; you always had a lot more destroyer and cruiser-class ships, which would act as mini ships of the line if fighting equals or play second fiddle in confrontations between proper battlefleets.

None of the battles in Star Wars were full-scale fleet battles; they were small-scale anti-terrorist operations much like the U.S. Navy's operations in Iran -- where you had ONE battleship (the U.S.S. New Jersey) and a bunch of cruisers and destroyers chasing Iranian boghammer speedboats all over the Mediterranean.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote: In-movie evidence contradicts it. The ICS2 would be more in line. The AOTC information would stand.

If "in movie evidene" contradictd it, we would have settled the discussion long before the AOTC ICS came out.

Or Trekkie's refused to accept arguments and lower limits. Feel free to argue with Mike over this, but he said that by logic, gigaton-yields are necessitated by pre-AOTC observations. This is really an appeal to popularity. Their concession has no impact on whether the observations in the movie did in fact show gigaton yields, and Mike's old calcs and arguments support that.

Not based on the films they aren't. Based off the EU certainly, but not from the EU. You can infer things from the movies, but it assumes basic assumptions to do so, like that you could scale down the DS's shields, or that the reactors scale down, etc. Unfortunatly, in the movies themselves there is nothing that makes it clear that you can do that that would withstand a lengthy debate.

Yes, if the technology scales down properly you can justify the stuff from the pure movies. But unfortunatly until AOTC it wasn't clear you could do that. AOTC showed us that megacorporations could build a DS, showing it used common tech, and AOTC showed us that compounded weapons were common, also showing that the dondonna quote now has canon explicit backing that it refers to the SL and not just the TLs. But prior to AOTC (and even after AOTC, though it certainly supports far more) things were not clear enough to hold up without massive assumptions that could be attacked fairly easily.