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

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

« 517 | 518 | 519 | 520 | 521 | 522 | 523 | 524 | 525 | 526 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/19 11:12am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/19 11:32am (6 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	blackmyron posted: There is no case within the SOTG2 where they are used "interchangably". No, but they're mentioned as part of the "last generation of Super-class Star Destroyers" in the Official Databank, in the article on Gravity Well Projectors, which you referred to. I don't see what its age has to do with its validity, though. Seems perfectly straight-forward. blackmyron posted: Then there is the Megador, which was first identified as a Super Star Destroyer by LFL at the sw.com message boards, and then referred to as a Super-class Star Destroyer in Invincible, and its uniqueness has been mentioned as proof that the Super-class has to mean a variety of terms. Unfortunately, the only description has been that it has more engines and (by the LOTF era) souped-up weapons, and it is never given its own "class name" (or length, for that matter). Given that the above reference exists, and multiple designs were thereby already affiliated with different generations of Super-class Star Destroyers before that book was published, I see no problem using it interchangeably with Super Star Destroyer. blackmyron posted: It could (for example) just be an upgrade to the unnamed Executor-class that appeared at Bastion in the NJO era; or a custom "variant" like the Vengeance, which is still technically the same class as the Executor. The command ship used by Jerec looks nothing like the Executor. There's no similarities in hulls, engines or, from the CG cut-scenes of the Dark Forces II game, no similarities in command towers. It is mentioned several times as a SSD, never as an Executor-class vessel, not even in SOTGSE. As for the Executor ship with a different "shield projector", its one and only profile shot shows no discernable difference with the Executor, so the differences are not like the ones mentioned for these other ships, which go a little beyond an extra piece of equipment placed somewhere on the existing super-structure. blackmyron posted: For me, explicit references outweigh any circumstantial ones; and "x-class" will always have the meaning of one class of ships. Then the mention of Destroyer-class ships in SOTGSE should also refer to a single class as well, rather than a variety of designs or a specific ship type (like the book seems to say)? I don't think that's what you mean, so therefore there's a precedence for using a class name to refer to both specific and general designs, which leads to there being no real problem with using SSD and Super-class interchangably for various designs. We have a source for the Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign all being part of different generations of Super-class Star Destroyers and sources for SSD being used for different designs and even individual ship types (Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts in ITW:OT, command ships, carriers, comm ships and repair ships in SOTGSE). I don't see any problems for this anymore. The only real difference would be to which degree Super-class was used, if it was for designs more similar to the Executor, or to all SSDs.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthBoba Registered: Jun '00	Date Posted: 7/19 11:12am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Random question: Has there been much use of "modular" ship design in the EU? Like, using the same basic hull for different things-for example, it wouldn't be particularly hard to "modularize" the ISD design and have dedicated starfighter carrier, battleship, command ship, and troop carrier hulls as a result. -----signature----- Only a Prime can defeat Vader and his Emperor.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/19 1:24pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	DarthBoba posted: Random question: Has there been much use of "modular" ship design in the EU? Like, using the same basic hull for different things-for example, it wouldn't be particularly hard to "modularize" the ISD design and have dedicated starfighter carrier, battleship, command ship, and troop carrier hulls as a result. There's the good old Modular Taskforce Cruiser from the Dark Empire Sourcebook as the prime example. The Pelta-class frigates from the CWAS are also "modular" in nature, as well as the Providence-class cruisers and the Strike-class cruisers. Tzizvvt78 posted: No, but they're mentioned as part of the "last generation of Super-class Star Destroyers" in the Official Databank, in the article on Gravity Well Projectors, which you referred to. I don't see what its age has to do with its validity, though. Seems perfectly straight-forward. The fact that the Databank had to dredged to find a supporting statement in an older article when there's an article for the Super Star Destroyer already there makes it weak supporting evidence. As far as for age, traditionally newer sources are taken to override older ones - so the age of the article, and last time it was updated, is important. Note that the usage of "Super-class" in the gravity well projector article matches the older version of the SSD article, for instance - the part that was removed in the last few years. Tzizvvt78 posted: Given that the above reference exists, and multiple designs were thereby already affiliated with different generations of Super-class Star Destroyers before that book was published, I see no problem using it interchangeably with Super Star Destroyer. Unfortunately again, it doesn't offer much in the way of proof itself. Unless Megador is given a distinct class name or mentioned specifically to be separate from the Executor-class, it offers little in its favor. Tzizvvt78 posted: The command ship used by Jerec looks nothing like the Executor. There's no similarities in hulls, engines or, from the CG cut-scenes of the Dark Forces II game, no similarities in command towers. Moridin posted: As for the Vengeance, the various cinematics from Jedi Knight seem to give no clear angle for comparison. In some shots, the surrounding Star Destroyers look much bigger than in others. It's clearly intended to be comparable to the Super Star Destroyer, and I don't think it's that much of a stretch to consider it a reconfiguration of the standard SSD, especially given that the resources would likely be more readily available to build a modified SSD than a whole new starship design. That would be Rodney Thompson, one of the designers of the SOTG2. Tzizvvt78 posted: It is mentioned several times as a SSD, never as an Executor-class vessel, not even in SOTGSE. "The latter vessel served as the command ship for the Dark Jedi named Jerec, and though visually distinctive it had the same specifications as other Super Star Destroyers." - p. 136. Note that the entry doesn't refer to "Executor-class star dreadnaught" at any point in that article - although that name shows up in other entries in the SOTG2 - and is labelled "Fondor Shipyards Super Star Destroyer". So, either all SSDs have the same specifications as the Executor regardless of size - which is directly contradicted by the entry on the Eclipse in the same article - or "Super Star Destroyer" is being used in the 'standard' sense that Rodney used above. Considering that the ISD entry mentions how "most references to a Star Destroyer are actually to the Imperial-I and Imperial-II class ships", this shouldn't be surprising. The Lusankya entry also shows a Executor-class that is certainly different than the standard yet still considered in the class. Lastly, the NEGC has stated it is a SSD "variant" which would also match with its presentation in SOTG2. Of course, as stated before the SOTG2 article also makes the distinction that Super-class Star Destroyer refers to the Executor-class only. Tzizvvt78 posted: As for the Executor ship with a different "shield projector", Interestingly, the note on the picture on Wookiepedia - sourcing it to Fact Files - had this added: "Appears to be a recycled model shot of Executor." Certainly I doubt a new model was constructed just for the Intimidator, so it's unlikely there's any "third tower" to even find in the shot. In any case, it's clear enough that an IU Fleet Junkie used it to identified the ship: "'Now, that, that can only be Intimidator,' Nylykerka pronounced. 'All of the late-production Super-class had that additional shield tower located on the centerline-'" - Shield of Lies, p.323. Tzizvvt78 posted: Then the mention of destroyer-class ships in SOTGSE should also refer to a single class as well, rather than a variety of designs? I presume you refer to this: "This misunderstanding is based in the fact that the term Star Destroyer does not indicate a Destroyer-class vessel that happens to be a starship (unlike the terms star cruiser and star dreadnaught)." - p. 136, SOTG2. Apart from being a negative example to demonstrate what 'Star Destroyer' was actually meaning, there's nothing in it to take literally as a 'class' instead of a 'type' as is implied by the rest of the sentence; certainly I haven't seen "Cruiser-class vessel" around, and "Dreadnaught-class vessel" is a specific class name of a type of heavy cruiser. In RL, the distinction between 'class' and 'type' of naval vessels is clear; I don't see any reason why it should be abandoned in Star Wars. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/19 1:40pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/19 1:48pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	I agree most instances refer solely to the Executor-class and most of the focus of SSD references is on it, however I disagree with the dismissal of certain official sources simply based on their age and perceived "changes", which haven't impacted their articles. The Projector profile in particular, there's nothing to refute it in canon, and it provides a nice connection between classes and IU terms. No need to dismiss it when it's helpful and simplifies things, imho. The Destroyer-class reference I already changed, hope you saw that. The Rodney quote is helpful, but also doesn't respond to the problems of the Vengeance's engines, which are markedly different to the Executor-class. Even if changed from the Executor-class design, the changes and differences are markedly striking and extensive, even with using similar modules and construction methods. As for the Megador, the only references to its class, type, any classification whatsoever, uses two terms which so far are used to describe different types of heavy warship designs constructed by the Galactic Empire. It's interesting that the Projector article refers to the Eclipse and Sovereign being among the last generation of Super-class vessels. That might help pinpoint the Megador's history, unless that's been changed by LFL internally.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Alpha-Red Registered: Apr '04	Date Posted: 7/19 2:44pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	DarthBoba posted: Random question: Has there been much use of "modular" ship design in the EU? Like, using the same basic hull for different things-for example, it wouldn't be particularly hard to "modularize" the ISD design and have dedicated starfighter carrier, battleship, command ship, and troop carrier hulls as a result. Now that I think about it, the Venator looks like it would make more sense if it were a modular design. The current statistics or whatever was made up says the ship can carry some 400+ starfighters along with troops and various ground assault vehicles....which can't possibly leave much room for weapons. Also, I can't imagine having a massive hangar door on the dorsal side holds up very well when enemy capital ships are bombarding your hull. If instead only one out of five Venators were dedicated carriers, then this would make more sense.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/19 2:46pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Tzizvvt78 posted: I agree most instances refer solely to the Executor-class and most of the focus of SSD references is on it, however I disagree with the dismissal of certain official sources simply based on their age and perceived "changes", which haven't impacted their articles. I stated the evidence for the opposing view and why I felt it was weak - in that case, there's the fact that it was in a secondary entry that had no direct connection is more important than the "age" or perceived "changes". However, considering the amount of retcons and sorting out of the SSDs, I do feel "age" and "changes" are important, especially when dealing with contradictions with other sources. However, YMMV. I do understand your viewpoint and your backing of the gravity well article as an example of harmonizing the terminologies. But we do agree that the Executors are 19km, so that's something... Tzizvvt78 posted: The Destroyer-class reference I already changed, hope you saw that. Apologies, I did miss that. Ignore my response, then... -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Vrook_Lamar Registered: May '08	Date Posted: 7/19 2:59pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	The Gladiator-class Star Destroyer and the Broadside-class (heavy?) cruiser were built on the same hull design.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/19 3:02pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	@blackmyron: Sure thing! I'd like to add the CR70 and CR90 corvettes into the "modular" design category. There's also the Consular-class space cruiser, which was given an upgard package to make it into a light warship.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Nobody145 Registered: Feb '07	Date Posted: 7/19 3:15pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Hm, modular designs... weren't the Nebula-class Star Destroyer and Endurance carrier built on the same hull? Then again, most New Class ships are pretty obscure, so not sure they count. Does the Shashore-class frigate from the Legacy era count as modular, with how its front fins can change, depending on the mission profile? I thought it could have extra sensors or torpedoes or something swapped out. And yeah, we rarely get to see big ships really go all out in the EU. The closest example I can think of was TUF where they had the Guardian, Viscount and maybe the... Harbinger together, but TUF's battles weren't exactly easy to follow though. Although in the Bacta War, when Rogue Squadron took on the Lusankya, was it supposed to 8km or 19km back then? I know (right now) the official length is 19km, but back then, an 8km ship vs. an Impstar MKII... oh well, short of them getting Stover to write the Battle of Orinda, I doubt we'll ever get a good star dreadnought battle. Even in the Clone Wars TV series, I'm sad that we didn't get to see Venators engage the Malevolence, since usually the Malevolence knocked out any ships with its ion cannon long before they could attack it, and then by the last part of the arc, the Venators were just slowly pounding away at that huge ship. Though speaking of modular, the Malevolence and Devestation were both Subjagator-class ships, but I think the Devestation looked pretty different, though it was also being used as the platform for a new superweapon. -----signature----- Don't mind me, I'm nobody important.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/19 3:19pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	I think a distinction can be made between "modular" and "variant" - for instance, while the Nebula-class and Endurance-class are built on the same hull, it would probably take a good amount of work to convert one into the other. "Modular" ships, by design, can be easily modified into different configurations. In addition, the class stays the same. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthBoba Registered: Jun '00	Date Posted: 7/19 4:20pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Ahh okay, thanks-I just had a theory that the ISD was actually conceived of as asingle hull that could be built to different uses, perhaps-hence the ISD with no hangar bays at Endor, and the seeming-ISD "communications ship" that gets destroyed in the ROTJ novel. What follows is just my fanon musings: And hey, we could always find out that the EOTH was building ISD-3s with the following basic designs: -battlecruiser, with an ISD-2's gun fit and no hangar bays, designed for blowing stuff up -troopship, with 10,000-16,000 troop capacity and guns designed for more for orbital bombardment and support of troops on the ground. -starfighter carrier, with a complement of around a Venator's and multiple types of clawcraft -general-purpose destroyer, with the same general specs as an ISD-2. Also: The last NRDF Executor-the Guardian- I've always wondered if she got a rebuild to bring her more in line with the Viscount-IE, a lower required crew and better shields. -----signature----- Only a Prime can defeat Vader and his Emperor.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/19 4:46pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	The hangarless ship at Endor has been canonically stated to be Tector-class on the sw.com forums by Chee, IIRC; however, the linking of the development to the ISD probably indicates it's another "variant class" pairing, like the Broadside-Gladiator and Endurance-Nebula. So I think you're still on the mark for that. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthBoba Registered: Jun '00	Date Posted: 7/19 4:51pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Sweet. Another random question: Would Mustafar qualify as a fortress world? it's not listed as one on the Wookiepedia, but as I recall it's described as being very heavily defended in the ROTS novel. -----signature----- Only a Prime can defeat Vader and his Emperor.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/19 6:45pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Considering it's the home of the Separatist Council's bunker, I'd say yes... Complete Locations stated that the place was constructed during the early days of the war as a 'final redoubt'. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
DarthBoba Registered: Jun '00	Date Posted: 7/19 6:52pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Okay. I was fairly certain it'd qualify as one, just wondering why it's not listed as such on the Wook. -----signature----- Only a Prime can defeat Vader and his Emperor.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 517 | 518 | 519 | 520 | 521 | 522 | 523 | 524 | 525 | 526 » - Previous | Next | Reload