Jedi Council Forums - Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Books & Comics » Literature »

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 453 | 454 | 455 | 456 | 457 | 458 | 459 | 460 | 461 | 462 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
Dark_Guardian Registered: Apr '04	Date Posted: 6/26 3:12am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Just on a side note, I posted some self-made Imperial Fleet Insignia over at the Fan Art Dept. I thought some of you might be interested. -----signature----- Fleet Junkie of Koornacht Recipient of a -Award Servants of the Empire: http://www.fanfiction.net/u/1169748/ My Art: http://boards.theforce.net/Fan_Art/b10020/17906925/?0
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Rogue_Follower Title: Manager: Literature Registered: Nov '03	Date Posted: 6/26 2:28pm Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Space Station love from WotC.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DaggerSword Registered: Mar '08	Date Posted: 6/26 11:42pm Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	So these military space stations are like coastal defense ships? Me like.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Admiral_Keller Registered: Nov '05	Date Posted: 6/27 12:06am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/27 12:11am (1 edits total) Edited By: Admiral_Keller
	Ok so I have some issues with the discussion up near the top. Where is it proven that we have the Super-class Star Destroyer? Because as I remember from the quote the Super-class was a cover for the Executor project to hide the true scope of it from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Where is proof given that the Super-class existed? And don't quote some vague reference from a game that has a lot of it's info retconned. Oh and I've seen a bit of people confusing the phrase Super Star Destroyer with the reported Super-class Star Destroyer. Realize that these are two entirely different things. I think we have to realize that back in the early days of the books and games that besides the Vengeance an author or character saying the words "Super Star Destroyer" meant Executor-class because back in the day we had one definate ship that had been given the nickname "Super Star Destroyer" and that was the Executor -----signature----- Imperial Hardliner Imperial Holonet Radio Listener Corellians have Seven Hells...Chew on that one Catholicism Creator of the Njophobia Theory™ a sadly common Star Wars fan disorder
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DaggerSword Registered: Mar '08	Date Posted: 6/27 12:43am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Admiral_Keller posted: Where is it proven that we have the Super-class Star Destroyer? Nowhere, it's just an in-universe military term that gained use after the Executor project became more high-profile. Like the SSD term, it's used for different ships bigger than regular Star Destroyers, but not necessarily all of them. Incidently, the wording of the SSD term's use in ITW:OT and SW:CL says that it was used for "many warship classes bigger than Star Destroyers", which means no necessarily all of them were called even that. The Eye of Palpatine, for one. Never heard any term like that associated with it.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Nobody145 Registered: Feb '07	Date Posted: 6/27 12:57am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/27 1:03am (1 edits total) Edited By: Nobody145
	In Invincible, the Megador is tagged as a Super-class Star Destroyer, although I think there was a question mark involved. Also, in SotG 2007, the phrase "Super-class" was used a few times. Like "fewer weapons than a typical Super-class Star Destroyer, it uses", etc., etc., with no mention of the story about it just being a cover-up for the Senate. I know, the official Databank says the Super-class never existed, I'm just citing recent sources that have used the term "Super-class". I know, I know, none of that really "proves" anything, hence the debate at the top of the page. The Invincible reference is in-universe, so just about anything in-universe can be cited as wrong, misinformed, or from a wrong point of view, the character's are just plain wrong, or just completely ignored (like how some parts of Mandalorian history were treated during LotF for example). Not sure what SotG 2007 counts as, but it uses both the Super-class term and the SSD term, though I don't think there's any disagreement on how SSD is a collaquialism. I am NOT starting the SSD debate back up, I'm tired of it at the moment, but just mentioning recent references, not just some years-old game made back when 8-km was still in use. Though honestly, I'd love it if they called the Advanced-class Star Destroyer a Super Star Destroyer. I hope whenever they give it a definite size, that it'll be huge, to justify why Stazi risked a lot to steal it, and so that at least the Mon Calamari will have been dying for a very important ship. So far, its kind of hard to gauge its size, given artistic liscense and all that. Though not sure if DH even has definite sizes for their Star Destroyers. I know they haven't released that info, but not sure if any authors or artists said they even have that detail ironed out yet, not that its all that important, since essentially Star Destroyers are just meant to be big, but this is the Fleet Junkie thread, so ship obsession should be normal for here. -----signature----- Don't mind me, I'm nobody important.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DaggerSword Registered: Mar '08	Date Posted: 6/27 2:07am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/27 2:09am (1 edits total) Edited By: DaggerSword
	Nobody145 posted: In Invincible, the Megador is tagged as a Super-class Star Destroyer, although I think there was a question mark involved. Also, in SotG 2007, the phrase "Super-class" was used a few times. Like "fewer weapons than a typical Super-class Star Destroyer, it uses", etc., etc., with no mention of the story about it just being a cover-up for the Senate. Why should it have to? Why put the exact same information in different sources? We've had enough of that in the EU already. People in general don't have limited memory. Nobody145 posted: I know, the official Databank says the Super-class never existed, I'm just citing recent sources that have used the term "Super-class". Which is true for the past 4 years. The Super-class Star Destroyer never existed. The Executor-class Star Dreadnaught did. The myriad of other SSDs did. The Super-class is nothing more than a colloquial word that originated in falsefied documents, a retcon of the old WEG Executor profile. Nobody145 posted: I know, I know, none of that really "proves" anything, hence the debate at the top of the page. Except that Super-class and Super Star Destroyer are colloquial words and were never actually used as a designation for any specific class of in-universe warship. Which is what Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, Starship Battles Preview 1, the Executor profile on the Official Site and Starships of the Galaxy 2007 points out. Nobody145 posted: The Invincible reference is in-universe, so just about anything in-universe can be cited as wrong, misinformed, or from a wrong point of view, the character's are just plain wrong, or just completely ignored (like how some parts of Mandalorian history were treated during LotF for example). How is it misinformed to use a colloquial word? They're there for a reason. Nobody145 posted: I am NOT starting the SSD debate back up, I'm tired of it at the moment, but just mentioning recent references, not just some years-old game made back when 8-km was still in use. That's fine and all, but I don't see what your point is. Nobody145 posted: Though honestly, I'd love it if they called the Advanced-class Star Destroyer a Super Star Destroyer. I hope whenever they give it a definite size, that it'll be huge, to justify why Stazi risked a lot to steal it, and so that at least the Mon Calamari will have been dying for a very important ship. So far, its kind of hard to gauge its size, given artistic liscense and all that. Though not sure if DH even has definite sizes for their Star Destroyers. I know they haven't released that info, but not sure if any authors or artists said they even have that detail ironed out yet, not that its all that important, since essentially Star Destroyers are just meant to be big, but this is the Fleet Junkie thread, so ship obsession should be normal for here. I'm hoping the ASD is a SSD, as well. As for sizes, not sure if anyone in LFL has been keeping tabs on this, but I know the Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections mentions multi-mile long Star Destroyers being manufactured for decades, so I guess 3.2km at least is a lower limit.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Nobody145 Registered: Feb '07	Date Posted: 6/27 2:38am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/27 2:43am (2 edits total) Edited By: Nobody145
	DaggerSword posted: Why should it have to? Why put the exact same information in different sources? We've had enough of that in the EU already. People in general don't have limited memory. Because its necessary background information? Because its basic information? Because they can't come up with anything new? Because not everybody reading the RPG book has read that story/retcon that says Super-class was just a cover-up, but that its so common by now, everybody just keeps using it? Honestly, aside from the SSD debates, its not like there's anything that new to say about stuff like Impstars, the Millenium Falcon, etc., so they just keep repeating the same information. DaggerSword posted: Nobody145 posted: I know, I know, none of that really "proves" anything, hence the debate at the top of the page. Except that Super-class and Super Star Destroyer are colloquial words and were never actually used as a designation for any specific class of in-universe warship. Which is what Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy, Starship Battles Preview 1, the Executor profile on the Official Site and Starships of the Galaxy 2007 points out. I thought SotG 2007 explained that Star Destroyer didn't literally refer to SDs being naval destroyers? I don't think it said anything about Super-class being collaquial officially, but it didn't say anything about retconning the "super-class was just a cover-up either" so I can't argue against it just being collaquial either. DaggerSword posted: Nobody145 posted: The Invincible reference is in-universe, so just about anything in-universe can be cited as wrong, misinformed, or from a wrong point of view, the character's are just plain wrong, or just completely ignored (like how some parts of Mandalorian history were treated during LotF for example). How is it misinformed to use a colloquial word? They're there for a reason. A character using the term sure. The SotG book also uses the term, but I don't think it was in the collaquial sense, but that's just me. I still prefer not to think of Vergere as a Sith for instance, but again, I AM NOT trying to start another arguement/debate. Its just my own personal view on a few things, which probably isn't canon anymore. No need to quote this and post a rebuttal. Though at this point, I just wish the SotG 2007 book had used something like "Executor-class" just to be absolutely clear once and for all. DaggerSword posted: Nobody145 posted: I am NOT starting the SSD debate back up, I'm tired of it at the moment, but just mentioning recent references, not just some years-old game made back when 8-km was still in use. That's fine and all, but I don't see what your point is. Ouch, ok, I guess I got started up again too. What I just mean is this- I'm not disputing your points, or at least I'm not bothering to majorly disagree with you at the moment, I'm just pointing out the term "Super-class" is still popping up in recent works in answer to AK's question about why there is a debate. As long as it pops up occasionally, the debates will probably never end. Especially with how sometimes canon changes, like from WEG to WotC. And mile-long is about... 1.6km I think? So yeah, Star Destroyers longer than a mile have been common for decades. Though wait, were there any Star Destroyers before AotC? They had Acclamators, but I thought Venator and Victory were the first Star Destroyer classes? But there is a huge difference between an Imperial-class and the Executor for instance. Though its funny that the Pellaeon is shorter, but considering how wide it is, I doubt it loses much in mass, if not exceeds, the much older Imperial-class, but that's just speculation. -----signature----- Don't mind me, I'm nobody important.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DaggerSword Registered: Mar '08	Date Posted: 6/27 3:10am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Nobody145 posted: Because its necessary background information? Because its basic information? Because they can't come up with anything new? Because not everybody reading the RPG book has read that story/retcon that says Super-class was just a cover-up, but that its so common by now, everybody just keeps using it? Well, the article that detailed the Executor's name thingy is free, as is the databank entry. So people who don't buy the books can find out as well at any time. Honestly, aside from the SSD debates, its not like there's anything that new to say about stuff like Impstars, the Millenium Falcon, etc., so they just keep repeating the same information.[/quote] Well, there is that MF novel coming out, detailing some of its early history. And whenever it gets an upgrade that merits some mention. When they run out of things to say about older stuff, they invent new things, like the near-torrent of new Star Destroyer models recently. Nobody145 posted: I thought SotG 2007 explained that Star Destroyer didn't literally refer to SDs being naval destroyers? I don't think it said anything about Super-class being collaquial officially, but it didn't say anything about retconning the "super-class was just a cover-up either" so I can't argue against it just being collaquial either. It just talks about the terms in a colloquial manner, without going into detail. Because that detail is already in the free article from the same company. All the Star Destroyer articles said, was that Star Destroyer doesn't mean destroyer. It doesn't say anything about destroyers not being Star Destroyers as well. There's a difference. We already know that some Star Destroyers get called both Destroyers/destroyers/star destroyers, so aside from the "generally, Star Destroyers = star cruisers" thing, some of the classes are destroyer analogs as well. And calling something a Star Destroyer is also a colloquial term for big warship, which the book also remarks upon. Nobody145 posted: A character using the term sure. The SotG book also uses the term, but I don't think it was in the collaquial sense, but that's just me. Alright, I'll not respond to that particular bit. Nobody145 posted: Though at this point, I just wish the SotG 2007 book had used something like "Executor-class" just to be absolutely clear once and for all. It did. Nobody145 posted: I'm just pointing out the term "Super-class" is still popping up in recent works in answer to AK's question about why there is a debate. No problem with me. Nobody145 posted: And mile-long is about... 1.6km I think? So yeah, Star Destroyers longer than a mile have been common for decades. Though wait, were there any Star Destroyers before AotC? They had Acclamators, but I thought Venator and Victory were the first Star Destroyer classes? That's what the book says. Not significant amount of them to be sure, but the type did exist and gain popularity in the Wars.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Daniel-K Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 6/27 8:14am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	DaggerSword posted: Nobody145 posted: And mile-long is about... 1.6km I think? So yeah, Star Destroyers longer than a mile have been common for decades. Though wait, were there any Star Destroyers before AotC? They had Acclamators, but I thought Venator and Victory were the first Star Destroyer classes? That's what the book says. Not significant amount of them to be sure, but the type did exist and gain popularity in the Wars. They really claim there were no destroyers prior to the clone wars? -----signature----- The real light of the world is Sagan's candle in the dark http://achewood.com/ - Greatest comic ever
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DaggerSword Registered: Mar '08	Date Posted: 6/27 9:49am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/27 9:55am (3 edits total) Edited By: DaggerSword
	Daniel-K posted: They really claim there were no destroyers prior to the clone wars? No, the AOTC:ICS says that miles-long Star Destroyers continued to fill the catalogues of KDY, while starfighters like the Delta-7 were gone 10 years later. The state of pre-CW ship-manufacturers. Basically, prior to the war, KDY and all the others were only allowed to sell their top arms and equipment in their own respective sectors, but when the war broke out, the Republic and CIS chose suppliers of war material and that made the production increase exponentially. So before the war, Kuat produced a few miles-long Star Destroyers, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnaughts, and were only allowed to use their fleets inside their own territory. During and after the war, they got contracts from galactic governments and the reach of warships expanded. This also helps explain the existence of subsidiaries like Rothana Heavy Engineering. What better way to earn extra money in a tradeless climate than by setting up business with other sectors, using their own home-made facilities. The modules on the Acclamator contain parts common to smaller KDY style designs, so they even skimp on some of the expenses by recycling design features.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Senator_Cilghal Registered: Jul '03	Date Posted: 6/28 4:51pm Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	note that wizards's Cardan-class article indicates the stations often worked in tandme with Acclamator II's -----signature----- Include Me in the C & C Mon Cal Jedi Master Compassionate Healer/Amphibious Banshee Author of an "Abeltastic" article that won a MOO award Life-term Fleet Junkie with a Silver FindersFee Waru-class Award
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DaggerSword Registered: Mar '08	Date Posted: 6/29 3:32am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/29 3:32am (1 edits total) Edited By: DaggerSword
	Didn't they get that from the Wookieepedia article? ;P
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Daniel-K Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 6/29 4:03pm Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	DaggerSword posted: Daniel-K posted: They really claim there were no destroyers prior to the clone wars? No, the AOTC:ICS says that miles-long Star Destroyers continued to fill the catalogues of KDY, while starfighters like the Delta-7 were gone 10 years later. The state of pre-CW ship-manufacturers. Basically, prior to the war, KDY and all the others were only allowed to sell their top arms and equipment in their own respective sectors, but when the war broke out, the Republic and CIS chose suppliers of war material and that made the production increase exponentially. So before the war, Kuat produced a few miles-long Star Destroyers, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnaughts, and were only allowed to use their fleets inside their own territory. During and after the war, they got contracts from galactic governments and the reach of warships expanded. This also helps explain the existence of subsidiaries like Rothana Heavy Engineering. What better way to earn extra money in a tradeless climate than by setting up business with other sectors, using their own home-made facilities. The modules on the Acclamator contain parts common to smaller KDY style designs, so they even skimp on some of the expenses by recycling design features. I am well aware of what the ICS say, (there is also the blurb on the coreship page talking about TF star destroyers); I was asking if that is what SotG07 said. -----signature----- The real light of the world is Sagan's candle in the dark http://achewood.com/ - Greatest comic ever
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DaggerSword Registered: Mar '08	Date Posted: 6/30 2:12pm Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/30 2:13pm (1 edits total) Edited By: DaggerSword
	Oh, I thought you meant the ICS. Let's see, the Star Destroyer history isn't really mentioned here, only that the term goes back to the Old Republic and refers to a ship with enough firepower to decimate a star system. In the same paragraph, the actual naval destroyer designation is mentioned as being different. Also, a typical Star Destroyer qualifies as a star cruiser. This is interesting, for the Imperial-class is sometimes called star destroyer with lowercase letters, in some novels. I guess some Star Destroyers are star cruisers, while other are the smaller star destroyers, following the naval term. Also, this makes clear that while star dreadnaught or Star Dreadnaught is the designation for ships like the Executor and Eclipse, Star Destroyer is also the designation for the Imperials and Victorys since they're always written like that in the book etc. No word in this book on whether it was made before the Wars or not, just the lowdown on various classes. And, a specific mention that although some larger ships like the Executor and Eclipse were called Star Destroyers, this was not an official designation but a generic descriptor. The Venator and Imperial classes are also mentioned as being used for escort duties, and the Venator gets described as a multi-role warship, with support duties for specialized warships, like in the ROTS:ICS. Good continuity. Also, the Imperials have long range and this allows the Empire to stretch out into the Outer Rim, unlike the Republic, which used the short-range Venators.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 453 | 454 | 455 | 456 | 457 | 458 | 459 | 460 | 461 | 462 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Books & Comics » Literature »