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

« 546 | 547 | 548 | 549 | 550 | 551 | 552 | 553 | 554 | 555 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 11/7 7:38pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Tzizvvt78 posted: but the Rendili Dreadnaught is excempt from this rule you made up, apparantly. That's just plain hypocracy. On the contrary, I've never said the Mandators "don't exist" or "aren't there", I'm applying the statements you're making about the Dreadnaughts to other ships to demonstrate the absurdity - and one-sidedness - of your statements. You're the one going on about ships not appearing in the movies or the TV show meaning something - not me. But apparently it only matters for ships you don't like... sounds a little like this 'hypocracy' you're describing... Tzizvvt78 posted: that sounds like a size chart to me. No, an actual size chart sounds like a size chart. And since you addressed absolutely none of the points I made about that particular quote, you've 'proven' nothing. Show a clear statement that says that 'star dreadnaught' and 'Star Dreadnaught' are somehow different ship classifications, or it's nothing more than a fan assumption on your part... which of course you're more than welcome to make. It's just not canon. Certainly the SOTG2 - which was approved by LFL and published after all the sources you mention - says specifically that the term "Star Destroyer" doesn't refer to a naval 'destroyer'-type vessel. Tzizvvt78 posted: Also, eagerly awaiting the numerous appearances of the Rendili Dreadnaught, such a vital and oft-seen Republic ship. But just the Dreadnaught, other ships are exempt, right? -----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
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 11/7 8:09pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	In case some Fleet Junkies missed the thread, Jason Fry's Clone Wars Season One guide has some choice info... including the first named Tector-class! Pammant is said to be the Confederacy's most important shipyard as well. -----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
Thrawn McEwok Title: TFN EU Staff Registered: May '00	Date Posted: 11/8 10:44am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 11/8 10:46am (1 edits total) Edited By: Thrawn McEwok
	blackmyron posted: There's nothing to say what the mis-reported (to oversight committees) size of the Super-class was... Actually, there is - the line is a reference to The Imperial Sourcebook, which "quotes" one of the documents in question: The Imperial Sourcebook posted: Except for the Death Star battle station, the Super-class Star Destroyer is the largest warship ever constructed. Five times the length of an Imperial Star Destroyer... Tzizvvt78 posted: If you're so well aware of that, there was no need to confuse readers by claiming the Humbarine forces used a Rendili Dreadnaught, which is what you seemed to imply. You do have a point, and it is worth clarifying that myron was just amused here (though it was pretty obvious to me too)... Tzizvvt78 posted: Of course I downplay the Dreadnaught and its sporadic references. For example, that battle had the IH surrounded by Venators, and apparantly a task force of one Dreadnaught and some Carracks. Which are apparantly invisible in ROTS. Well, the Carrack-class light cruisers are about the same speed as the Eta-2s, so I'd imagine they're using that to their advantage? And I'd accept the presence of those ships from a novellization line-edited by George, over the visuals of a movie where the Coruscant skyline is playing musical chairs. Tzizvvt78 posted: I also note the stunning absense of the Rendili Dreadnaught in the main source of CW stories, so why not turn things around and demand more appearances of that design, like you've been demanding for others. Unless of course, the ship doesn't actually exist, which seems to be Lucas' position for the moment. I suspect I'm not alone in wanting to see the Dreadnaught Cruiser, the Carrack-class light cruiser, the VSD, and the Z-95. I remember an old-time fan being VERY psyched when he thought that the RotS trailer showed VicStars and Dreadnaughts... Of course, maybe I'm biased, but I see no reason to EXCLUDE those ships. As Eye of Palpatine and the Subjugator-class ship show, there can also be a few superships... but something like the Acclamator or VenStar seems to be a "big" warship by normal standards... I'd also like to see the Leveller design, too, but that may just be a personal quirk? Tzizvvt78 posted: On top of that, you still seem to be constantly missing the point with how Star Destroyer is both a designation (used for a ship that's been downscaled in official documents), and a general term (as per SOTGSE). Actually, no. All we know is that SotG says, the term "Star Destroyer" was not the official designation of the 19km Executor-class; why this was, we don't know - though see my comments to myron below for a speculative theory.... Officially, I believe that HMS Vanguard was a cruiser - not only in designation ("fully armoured battle cruiser", which takes the official "battle cruiser" designation for post-1908 armoured cruisers and adds in "armoured" just to make it clear), but in her colonial-force-protection role... but everyone as a "battleship"... ItW:OT/SW:CL tells us nothing about the limits of the designation, as "a Star Destroyer" here means an ISD... It's very clear that Dr. Saxton had a personal opinion that a "destroyer" should be a small escort, but it's also equally clear that this opinion was based on misunderstanding the terminology, and didn't fit with canon... it's an honest mistake, I'm sure, but do we take one man's gaffe, and magnify it into a big inconsistency running through canon, or do we quietly correct it? I know which option makes more sense to me... but I'd be interested to hear why you think we should take the other option!! Tzizvvt78 posted: As for SOTG's claim that Star Destroyer was always a capitalized term, that's not really consistent with most mentions, which are a mix of Star Destroyer and Destroyer with or without capitalized letters. Can you quote me any examples of "Star Destroyer" in lowercase? There are certainly some references to Star Destroyers (and SSDs) as "destroyers", but they do NOT help your case. The ones in the Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy describe the ships under construction at Kuat Drive Yards, repeatedly contrasing "destroyers" (including Star Destroyers, and including the largest ship in the yards) with "cruiser", here including ships of the 300m Nebulon-B picket class; these are clearly not the standard federal designations - they represent an alternative, non-size-based, function-driven distinction between "cruisers" and "destroyers", in which a cruiser can be 300m and a destroyer >1.6km... These seem, in fact, to be the Kuati designations for capital ships, a usage which debunks the fanon claim that KDY use "destroyer" only for relatively small ships... Sorry. Then we have The Courtship of Princess Leia, where Iron Fist is called a "destroyer". Obviously, this does not mean that Iron Fist is a picket ship - rather, it shows that "destroyer" does NOT mean "picket ship" in Star Wars. In short, the evidence you referred to means your interpretation doesn't work. You're also misunderstanding the difference between optional capitalization for terms like "star cruiser", and automatic capitalization for "Star Destroyer", which is now firmly established as an alternative designation... blackmyron posted: "Star Destroyer", capitalized, is a design philosophy. "star dreadnaught", lower case, is a ship type. QFT. You made clear exactly what I was failing to explain to patch.... Do you think that the comment on the Eclipse and Executor means that they're less Star Destroyers than an Imperial-class battle cruiser, or might it just be saying that "Star Destroyer" is a "generic descriptor" in general? It's worth pointing out that while Star Destroyer is used as a "sub-class" of the cruiser designation, it coexists with the existing subdivisions of the cruiser designation, as we know of both "medium cruiser" and "battle cruiser" Star Destroyers - not to mention 1.6km "dreadnought" ones... The real problem is how to reconcile "dreadnought" with the "cruiser" bracket; I guess we could have "dreadnought cruiser" (where have we heard that before? ) as the PRECURSOR of "battle cruiser", as in real terminology... that would do interesting things to the chronology, but might work... blackmyron posted: But by all means, if you have a reference to an official chart of some kind that shows the definitions and rankings of the terms "Star Cruiser", "Star Destroyer" and their relationship with the apparently 'different' lower case versions, feel free to share it. I'd like to see this, too. I'd also like to see an explanation why it should replace the corvette - frigate - cruiser - Star Destroyer - Super Star Destroyer designations Tzizvvt78 posted: And again, since ITW:OT says Star Destroyers were smaller than Super Star Destroyers like the Star Cruisers, which were again smaller than Star Dreadnaughts like Executor, that sounds like it describes a size chart to me. Shame, then, that the most famous Star Cruiser type, used as the standard ship-of-the-line by the New Republic, is 25% shorter on the keel than an ISD. blackmyron posted: In case some Fleet Junkies missed the thread, Jason Fry's Clone Wars Season One guide has some choice info... including the first named Tector-class! Pammant is said to be the Confederacy's most important shipyard as well. Yep, I rather enjoyed seeing the Tector. - The Imperial Ewok -----signature----- A/T = OTP :===8[#]8===: Kyp/Jaina fans: stand up and be counted!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MercenaryAce Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 11/8 11:30am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	What gets me more than the absence of Victorys and Dreadnaughts in the Clone Wars is just how prominent they are later, while apparently Venators have disappeared completely. -----signature----- "I am no man...I am a space station!" Another star wars ships, droids and troops site: http://armiesofstarwars.com/ It does have info found nowhere Move all sig, for great justice
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
FTeik Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 11/8 1:14pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	MercenaryAce posted: What gets me more than the absence of Victorys and Dreadnaughts in the Clone Wars is just how prominent they are later, while apparently Venators have disappeared completely. Just give the EU the twenty years WEG-inventions got. -----signature----- My first completet story: Pride's Prize: http://boards.theforce.net/message.aspx?topic=22758760 "In the Battle of Coruscant alone, hundreds of millions of battle droids saw action on the ground and in space. " Insider #86 - The story of General Grievous
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 11/8 1:39pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	FUCG had the Venators not meshing well with the Imperial Navy's philosophies and scrapped or sold as fast the ISDs were made to replace them. I am surprised that we haven't seen them show up more in the post-Clone Wars materials made nowadays, though. I've finished going through Vector Prime in an attempt to go back and analyze the Yuuzhan Vong invasion for fleet and war information. Since I'm throwing a little politics in as well, I'll go ahead and make a separate thread - hope to have a post up by tonight. -----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
patchworkz7 Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 11/8 2:48pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Thrawn McEwok posted: blackmyron posted: "Star Destroyer", capitalized, is a design philosophy. "star dreadnaught", lower case, is a ship type. QFT. You made clear exactly what I was failing to explain to patch.... - The Imperial Ewok That does make the issue a bit clearer, and I did say in an earlier post that much of my confusion was from not knowing what the official position on how to apply the capitalization for ship type vs design. Thanks to you and blackmyron for the clarification. -----signature----- Original Fiction & essays "Does God Limp?" in HOUSE UNAUTHORIZED http://www.smartpopbooks.com/allbooks/2007.html#house Now in German and Polish Editions! James A Gilmer
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 11/9 10:02am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 11/9 10:54am (2 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	patchworkz7, Star Destroyer, capitalized, is also a ship type, otherwise the entire paragraph I will now quote makes no sense whatsoever: Complete Locations page 171 posted: Eventually designated Executor-class after the vessel assigned to Vader's personal use and commanded by Admiral Ozzel, it is usually referred to in Rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer" - a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor. The seperation between types is also highlighted elsewhere in the same book: Complete Locations page 143 Walker Dropship paragraph posted: Larger Imperial ships possess hangar apertures of sufficient size to deploy the four-walker dropships, while smaller ships, such as Star Destroyers, deploy single-walker barges. Therefore simply saying the Star Destroyer is only a ship design philosophy and not also a ship type on top of that is incorrect and emits canon fact. The Star Destroyer is a philosophy and a ship type, this is what the canon sources show, and the attempt to problematize this or to pretend the sources mutually exclude each other is unnecessary. EDIT: I also note that pages 142 and 143 of the CL also refer to Star Destroyers with and without capitalization.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
patchworkz7 Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 11/9 9:53pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Tzizvvt78 posted: patchworkz7, Star Destroyer, capitalized, is also a ship type, otherwise the entire paragraph I will now quote makes no sense whatsoever: Complete Locations page 171 posted: Eventually designated Executor-class after the vessel assigned to Vader's personal use and commanded by Admiral Ozzel, it is usually referred to in Rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer" - a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor. The seperation between types is also highlighted elsewhere in the same book: Complete Locations page 143 Walker Dropship paragraph posted: Larger Imperial ships possess hangar apertures of sufficient size to deploy the four-walker dropships, while smaller ships, such as Star Destroyers, deploy single-walker barges. Therefore simply saying the Star Destroyer is only a ship design philosophy and not also a ship type on top of that is incorrect and emits canon fact. The Star Destroyer is a philosophy and a ship type, this is what the canon sources show, and the attempt to problematize this or to pretend the sources mutually exclude each other is unnecessary. EDIT: I also note that pages 142 and 143 of the CL also refer to Star Destroyers with and without capitalization. Ahhh...well, that does explain why I had suspected I had seen it used that way before. I have a feeling that canon usage will be dismissed because of the source, even though any other such attempt to negate any other canon source based on dislike of the quotes would be met with ill-feelings at best. I confess to not really understanding why letting multi-mile ships in is such a big deal, and would think it would be more inclusionist than the other choice of denying them or manipulating quotes, denying canon, or alternative readings of what the "intention" of a piece of canon was. -----signature----- Original Fiction & essays "Does God Limp?" in HOUSE UNAUTHORIZED http://www.smartpopbooks.com/allbooks/2007.html#house Now in German and Polish Editions! James A Gilmer
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 11/9 11:14pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	The 2nd Edition SOTG - which was published after CL and the ICSes - states clearly that the term "Star Destroyer" is a design philosophy... and that the term is often used as a colloquism for just the ISDs. So there isn't really a contradiction, especially since the CL and the ICSes don't give a definition for the various terms, especially "Star Destroyer". As far as 'multi-mile ships', I don't have a problem with speculating that there are - but I tend to be an empiricist, and prefer to have a statement of 'ship x is length y' or one of similar nature for canonical purposes. -----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
FTeik Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 11/10 2:51am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	"A Star Destroyer is named after the idea of a ship that has the power needed to destroy entire star systems, an ominous naming convention that goes back to the days of the Old Republic." Is this a joke? The author of that sentence has obviously never watched TESB. -----signature----- My first completet story: Pride's Prize: http://boards.theforce.net/message.aspx?topic=22758760 "In the Battle of Coruscant alone, hundreds of millions of battle droids saw action on the ground and in space. " Insider #86 - The story of General Grievous
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Thrawn McEwok Title: TFN EU Staff Registered: May '00	Date Posted: 11/10 4:58am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 11/10 5:25am (5 edits total) Edited By: Thrawn McEwok
	Tzizvvt78 posted: patchworkz7, Star Destroyer, capitalized, is also a ship type, otherwise the entire paragraph I will now quote makes no sense whatsoever: Complete Locations page 171 posted: Eventually designated Executor-class after the vessel assigned to Vader's personal use and commanded by Admiral Ozzel, it is usually referred to in Rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer" - a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor. The seperation between types is also highlighted elsewhere in the same book: Complete Locations page 143 Walker Dropship paragraph posted: Larger Imperial ships possess hangar apertures of sufficient size to deploy the four-walker dropships, while smaller ships, such as Star Destroyers, deploy single-walker barges. Therefore simply saying the Star Destroyer is only a ship design philosophy and not also a ship type on top of that is incorrect and emits canon fact. The Star Destroyer is a philosophy and a ship type, this is what the canon sources show, and the attempt to problematize this or to pretend the sources mutually exclude each other is unnecessary. Alternatively, "Star Destroyer" here could refer to the 1.6km Imperial-class design - the sense reads VERY differently when you do that, and after all, as SOTG says, "most references to a Star Destroyer are actually to the Imperial I- and Imperial-II class ships"... WHY might this reading be preferable? Because of the weight of evidence, from ANH to RotS to SotG07, via WEG and the novels, that says that Star Destroyers are large cruisers. As you rightly say, "this is what the canon sources show, and the attempt to problematize this or to pretend the sources mutually exclude each other is unnecessary". (It's also worth adding that the claim about barge size is also misleading, and only refers to barges that can be stowed "below decks" without dismantling; we know of at least two ISD-capable designs that can deploy four AT-ATs - a large 110m design that fits in the capture bay, and a "folding" design that can be stowed away....) Tzizvvt78 posted: EDIT: I also note that pages 142 and 143 of the CL also refer to Star Destroyers with and without capitalization. Now that IS interesting... do you have quotes, or even better, scans? patchworkz7 posted: I have a feeling that canon usage will be dismissed because of the source, even though any other such attempt to negate any other canon source based on dislike of the quotes would be met with ill-feelings at best. Well, it's pretty much a question of "reading around" one set of evidence or the other; my view is that Tziz's evidece-base is far more limited, and far more readable-around... patchworkz7 posted: I confess to not really understanding why letting multi-mile ships in is such a big deal, and would think it would be more inclusionist than the other choice of denying them or manipulating quotes, denying canon, or alternative readings of what the "intention" of a piece of canon was. The problem for me is that by accepting Tziz's reason, I reckon you'd be excluding far more - in the vast majority of canon, multi-mile ships are either explicitly or implicitly NOT THERE - at most, an immense canon-wide military-industrial complex fuelled by the dark side of the Force built just a handful of superships FAR larger than ISD-sized ships... I don't have a problem with superships in that context, mind you. I actually quite like them, flaws and all. It's just that the serious "conquer Coruscant"/"crush the Rebels" fleets tend to consist of something like a couple of dozen ISDs, a few score VSDs, or two hundred Dreadnaught Cruisers, perhaps with one not-built-before-Yavin SSD if you want to go for the real "I'm like Vader" vibe... Also, I want to make clear that I've not denied Dr. Saxton's "intention" at all - it's clear from his comments that he thought there SHOULD be "kilometers-long" ships throughout canon; it's just that I think his authorial opinion, while certainly sincere, didn't really fit with the Star Wars continuity. Compare K-Mac inventing the Western Sea as a natural body of water on Coruscant; thankfully, like the Western Sea, I think it's pretty easy to read the text differently than the authorial intention. I'm also well aware that you seem to be favouring Tziz and FTeik's POV here, which interests me - can you explain how you're coming at this, because it's obviously the exact opposite interpretation from my own, and for whatever reason (stubbornness?), I have a hard time seeing how that argument convinces unless you start by WANTING to diminish the ISD...! Wanting a story about fleets of superships is legitimate, of course; my contention is that it's just not Star Wars... - The Imperial Ewok -----signature----- A/T = OTP :===8[#]8===: Kyp/Jaina fans: stand up and be counted!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 11/10 5:34am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 11/10 6:27am (4 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	blackmyron posted: The 2nd Edition SOTG - which was published after CL and the ICSes - states clearly that the term "Star Destroyer" is a design philosophy... and that the term is often used as a colloquism for just the ISDs. So there isn't really a contradiction, especially since the CL and the ICSes don't give a definition for the various terms, especially "Star Destroyer". But that doesn't contradict the former sources, which say nothing of either origin of "Star Destroyer", "Star Cruiser", "Star Battlecruiser" or "Star Dreadnought", only size relations between the warship types. You're acting as though a definition of the common term has to override all other uses, which is not what the books state. There is no contradiction between the origin of the term Star Destroyer, and whether the word, in capitalization or not, is also used for a mid-sized warship type, like other contemporary SW navies (TF, CIS etc.) or certain incarnations of the rl ones. Of course these ships will be more numerous and generally more used than larger ones, much like the Munificent-class was more seen in the CW than the Lucrehulk-class. That the origin of the term is very specific has no impact on its use, and since we see it used generally for dagger-shaped vessels as well as specifically, that remains its usage. blackmyron posted: As far as 'multi-mile ships', I don't have a problem with speculating that there are - but I tend to be an empiricist, and prefer to have a statement of 'ship x is length y' or one of similar nature for canonical purposes. So the statement of Star Cruiser and Star Dreadnought types larger than Star Destroyers is not something empirical? We know of the Executor, it's larger than the ISD. We know of SSDs that don't look like the Executor and appear to be smaller, and we know there are at least five different ship types that differ from the Executor model (the Star Cruiser and Star Battlecruiser from DK, the starfighter carrier, communications ship and repair ship from WOTC). That their exact dimensions aren't pinned down, doesn't mean there's no imperical values to be derived from some of them. Thrawn McEwok posted: Wanting a story about fleets of superships is legitimate, of course; my contention is that it's just not Star Wars... What fleets? There's no fleets of superships apart from the Yuuzhan Vong, in canon. Maybe the Operation Shadow Hand fleets and the Eclipse and its SSD escorts in Dark Empire, but that's it. Usually superships aren't concentrated in one area, but spread throughout the Empire's sectors in ones or twos, as DESB seems to suggest. And I'd argue that ships with similar dimensions or armament to the Lucrehulk-class aren't quite as super as the Executor-class. And I don't find stories with Death Stars apart from number one or two, or stories with hordes of Jedi in an age they shouldn't be numerous (coughGalaxiescough), to be SW either, but there's little I can do other than complain.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Bravo Registered: Sep '01	Date Posted: 11/10 12:13pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Okay, I got a question. And I figured this was one of the better places to go to get the question answered. I have three questions (all of them go together): 1) In Star Wars The Clone Wars Season 1: Rising Malevolence, the Malevolence is how long? 2) How many and what types of weapons does the Malevolence have? 3) If the Malevolence is longer (bigger) or the same size as an Imperial-class I Star Destroyer, does the Malevolence solve the model debate for Imperial Star Destroyers? On Wikki (and I've heard this debate elsewhere) there is a note saying that the EU listing of (like the Star Wars The New Essential Guide To Vehicles & Vessels) weapons for the Imperial-class Star Destroyer is wrong and that according to models of the Star Destroyers, the ships cannot carry that many weapons (i.e. 60 turbolasers, 60 ion cannons, etc.). What is the fleet junkie word on this? I say what LucasBooks prints and what LucasFilm makes is the ultimate canon, not star ship models. I don't think the model makers were thinking that far ahead into weapon emplacements when they made the models. -----signature----- Believer in Jesus Christ "All right, I'll give it a try." - Luke Skywalker, ESB "No. Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try." - Yoda, ESB "Now, be brave, and don't look back. Don't look back." - Shmi Skywalker, TPM
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
FTeik Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 11/10 12:53pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	1) Malevolence should be around eight kilometers long. 2) Two very large ion-cannons and hundreds of double-barreled turbolasers. 3) According to LFL the movies are the highest form of canon, followed by movie-related material. Consequently the models seen in the movies take precedent over sources like the EGVV. If you need it in print look at the ICS:OT by David West-Reynolds. -----signature----- My first completet story: Pride's Prize: http://boards.theforce.net/message.aspx?topic=22758760 "In the Battle of Coruscant alone, hundreds of millions of battle droids saw action on the ground and in space. " Insider #86 - The story of General Grievous
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 546 | 547 | 548 | 549 | 550 | 551 | 552 | 553 | 554 | 555 - Previous | Next | Reload