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

« 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
Excellence Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 9/17/05 4:04am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	I vote Fleet Junkies--Your Capital Ship Harbour -----signature----- My utilisation of complex locution to ask what's more pathetic, fans who worship their movie actors, or the actors who couldn't give a damn, is more a reflection of my own superincumbent mental actuity than any circumscribed lexicon. Don't you agree?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Thrawn McEwok Title: TFN EU Staff Registered: May '00	Date Posted: 9/17/05 5:35am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II - Date Edited: 9/17/05 5:38am (1 edits total) Edited By: Thrawn McEwok
	Springing off finally being able to take a proper dekko at the old WEG material... we need to sort out class designations... The standard WEG system was introduced on pp. 50-53 of the RASB, and maintained by them reasonably consistently thenafter: Following are the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships; with some variations, these are also used by the Alliance and by many other spacefaring species. It should be noted however that the distinction between vessel types is often muddy, and individual corporations or navies may give their ships wholly inappropriate classifications The classifications given are: starfighters (crew 1-2); (hyperspace-capable) fast attack craft and (sublight-only) patrol vessels (crew 4-20); corvettes (crew 40-200); frigates (crew, up to 1,000); cruisers (everything larger, up to and including the Super-class, "with the exception of a few bizarreties such as the Death Star battlestation"). It's implied that frigates have a support role, while cruisers are designed to frighten enemies, and where that fails, for ship-to-ship combat. The ISB (p. 51) gives a length-bracket for system patrol craft at 100-250m, while the HttESB apparently defines Star Destroyers as a distinct "large" subclass of cruisers, and pegs the standard minimum length for a cruiser at 400m, though noting the 350m Carrack as an exception (I can only find the Carrack reference in the combined TTSB, though; p. 214)... Out of all this, we seem to be able to infer the following (figures in italics are inferred from those stated explicitly, underlined figures derive from the statistics of specific classes): patrol craft - 100-250m; crew, 4-20; sublight only fast attack craft - 100-250m; crew, 4-20; hyperspace-capable corvettes - 100-250m; crew, 40-200; multi-purpose scout/pickets frigates - 250-400m; crew, 200-1,000; support/escort ships cruisers - 400m->20km; crew, >1,000; psychological impact and fleet combat [Star Destroyers - >900m; crew, >5,000; large, arrowhead-hulled modern cruisers] Now while some of the RASB/ISB narrative may have been redefined as "certain point of view" stuff by the Prequels, this is still the canoncal "standard Imperial system" of the movie era, also adopted in outline by the Rebellion. There are, of course, wobbles at the edges of the classification-brackets, like the Carrack-class; and there are "muddy" exceptions - why are the Alliance's modified Rendili Dreadnaughts and largest Mon Cal cruisers described as "frigates"; and where do carriers fit in? Also, the "corvette" designation seems to covers a lot of different type-names - blockade runners, destroyers, gunships. But as an overall system to help classify and simplify things... well, this works, doesn't it? For those who I know will object to the fact that the "cruiser" bracket extends 50x in length alone, I merely observe that that's why we have the terms "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer" (even if ItW cites the latter only as "Rebel slang"; at the least, the term is also used by non-Rebels). Given that the ISB (p. 57) calls the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser "the largest vessel of its time", we might infer that the cruiser bracket was stretched to breaking point by the construction of ever-larger ships during and after the Clone Wars. Of course, we know that there are larger, older ships, but would it be too much to classify the old multi-km dreadnaught/battleship/warship designs as obsolescent, and to include the Mandator-IIs among the "few bizarreties"? As to the TFBB, I merely note that the ex-TF "heavy munitions cruiser" Admiral Korvin is bigger. While there may be tweaks and minor twists, I think it remains canonical that this is the standard system used by the Empire (and apparently the Alliance/NR). Anything that doesn't fit - Rebel Assault Frigates and Headquarters Frigates, Seperatist Communications Frigates and Light Destroyers, and Kuati Star Dreadnoughts, can be reconciled with a simple remark: individual corporations or navies may give their ships wholly inappropriate classifications. Discuss? - The Imperial Ewok -----signature----- A/T = OTP "To write one Solo twin as an angstbunny, Master Skywalker, might be considered unfortunate. To write BOTH that way looks like carelessness."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Sinrebirth Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 9/17/05 6:27am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	It makes sense, Ewok, but one has to note that Star Destroyer is no longer synonomous with 'dagger-shaped big'un' as of TJK. the Chiss Star Destroyer, as AdmiralWes pointed out elsewhere, is actually coned shape.... So its not your standard dagger design but its a Star Destroyer - does that imply its a designation, rather than a class, as in Star Frigate, Star Destroyer, Star Cruiser, Star Battlecruiser, Star Dreadnaught???? However, you do have a good point - some ships just don't fit in the system, which is expected of a galaxy of shipbuilders. May I ask where you discovered the Munitions Cruiser is larger than the TFBB?? -----signature----- Sey's Sinre The First Canon Apologist The Missing Chapters of LotF: Invincible http://boards.theforce.net/Message.aspx?topic=28933751&brd=10477&replies=10 Chapter 4.5 is up! Now Featuring: Niathal, Daala, Syal, Wedge, Winter & Tycho!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Thrawn McEwok Title: TFN EU Staff Registered: May '00	Date Posted: 9/17/05 7:13am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II - Date Edited: 9/17/05 7:18am (1 edits total) Edited By: Thrawn McEwok
	Sr: the Chiss Star Destroyer, as AdmiralWes pointed out elsewhere, is actually coned shape.... Well, they're called Victory-class Star Destroyers, but Troy Denning has indicated in his A&A thread that these are Star Destroyer analogs rather than VicStar variants; either way, though, they don't affect the definition - they're either simply Chiss analogs, or they're a modified version of a dagger-hulform design... IMHO? Star Frigate, Star Destroyer, Star Cruiser, Star Battlecruiser, Star Dreadnaught???? Is what Curtis Saxton would like us to think. But standard Mon Cal Star Cruisers are smaller than standard Imperial Star Destroyers, and I don't think there's a single canonical "Star Frigate"... it is possible that "Star Destroyer" represents a term originating in a different (Kuati?) designation-pattern, but there's no explicit evidence either way... and in any case, "Star Destroyer" has become enmeshed in the standard system as a "super-crusier" designation... However, you do have a good point - some ships just don't fit in the system, which is expected of a galaxy of shipbuilders. Thanks! May I ask where you discovered the Munitions Cruiser is larger than the TFBB?? Actually, you're right. That turns out to be hopeless fanon. Korvin, apparently a purpose-built warship, is the largest ship of Sienar's squadron, but Tarkin's flagship, the "converted hauler" Rim Merchant Einem is compared favourably with her, as "a larger vessel filled with many more weapons"; given the makeup of Tarkin's force, she must be one of "two converted midsized Hoersch-Kessel Drive cargo haulers - smaller than the ungainly craft that had blockaded Naboo, but of the same type". Ergo, the scale runs Korvin => Einem => TFBB. Nevertheless, "battleship", if it's even a formal designation, isn't a standard one according to the WEG (Imperial) system; firstly, they're converted cargo haulers, and more to the point, they should presumably be cruisers, or perhaps carriers, by the standard system... Of course, you could argue from this that what we're dealing with is an Old Republic system that stopped at 600m cruisers, small by other people's standards; but nevertheless, this is the canonical standard system, and it was extended with Star Destroyers as "super-cruisers"... arguments in favour of lots of big ships (or their being any use at much) remain sketchy at best... - The Imperial Ewok -----signature----- A/T = OTP "To write one Solo twin as an angstbunny, Master Skywalker, might be considered unfortunate. To write BOTH that way looks like carelessness."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Sinrebirth Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 9/17/05 7:48am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	I must have missed Troy Denning saying that, but I suppose that works. Analogs implies that they are related in terms of mass or weapons ratio, however, like Vong warship analogs being 1600m long. I still think you should think of a TF Battleship as a Battleship-carrier. It explains why its so lightly armed, and why its not really a battleship, but a battlecarrier, like the Chiss variant introduced in TJK. So Star Destroyer = Super cruiser?? Yet we have Mon Cal cruisers that are tougher than certain SDs, and these Star Defenders, equivalent to SSDs. And just because a Mon Cal cruiser is smaller than an ISD and more than a match means nothing. Technological capability increases, so ships are smaller with more powerful reactors. The Majestic cruiser, a 700m ship, is as heavily armed as a 1600m ISD. Arguing that Star Destroyer = uber ship, doesn't work in my opinion. It depends on the political bodies biast. Empire was biast to dagger ships, whether Star Destroyers or Vindicator cruisers or Enforcer pickets, Rebels to lumpy ones, and so forth. -----signature----- Sey's Sinre The First Canon Apologist The Missing Chapters of LotF: Invincible http://boards.theforce.net/Message.aspx?topic=28933751&brd=10477&replies=10 Chapter 4.5 is up! Now Featuring: Niathal, Daala, Syal, Wedge, Winter & Tycho!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MercenaryAce Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 9/17/05 8:14am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	Once again, I am ignored. oh well, i'll put my 2 cents in. I the movies, it frankly sounds like they are "Star Destroyer-Class Crusier" but I geuss we can't go on that. It sems simply that Crusier, destroyer and dreadnaught (and all variations thereof)are used interchangigbly. However, only crusier is ever applied to unarmed ships. So crusier means large ship, while destroyer and dreadnaught mean large war ship -----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
Sinrebirth Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 9/17/05 8:19am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	MercenaryAce posted: Once again, I am ignored. oh well, i'll put my 2 cents in. I the movies, it frankly sounds like they are "Star Destroyer-Class Crusier" but I geuss we can't go on that. It sems simply that Crusier, destroyer and dreadnaught (and all variations thereof)are used interchangigbly. However, only crusier is ever applied to unarmed ships. So crusier means large ship, while destroyer and dreadnaught mean large war ship I didn't ignore you - I didn't have the answers to your questions. And that is a possiblity, as we do have Naboo cruisers. Curious. Most curious. -----signature----- Sey's Sinre The First Canon Apologist The Missing Chapters of LotF: Invincible http://boards.theforce.net/Message.aspx?topic=28933751&brd=10477&replies=10 Chapter 4.5 is up! Now Featuring: Niathal, Daala, Syal, Wedge, Winter & Tycho!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Pelranius Registered: Apr '03	Date Posted: 9/17/05 8:25am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	Maybe cruiser in the Naboo cruiser referred to a hyperspace capable, mid sized craft? (ie, a civilian cruiser) So if some civilian ships are referred to as cruisers, perhaps that's why the Star Cruisers are named so (the early models were originally civilian liners, at least according to official NR info) -----signature----- Fleet Junkie and Proud! Fics: Destiny's Inferno (TTT/DE AU) And the Skywalker Saga KOTOR Style Updated 7/24/06 see bio for details
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
MercenaryAce Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 9/17/05 8:32am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	I apoligise for my rudeness then. By the way, is there a two pic per post limit? Cause I wonder the picture of the warlord heavy crusier didn't work. -----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
EvilleJedi Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 9/17/05 8:33am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II - Date Edited: 9/17/05 9:01am (3 edits total) Edited By: EvilleJedi
	so the estimated 25K-50K ISDs in the empire in the empire were all super cruisers, including all varients of them like dominators, tectors etc along with smaller newer ships like the harrow and the defender/nebula/rejuvenator classes, not to mention the thouands of reserves and left overs from the clone wars that encompassed venstars and vicstars and whatever other ships carried the 'star destroyer' moniker should be called 'super-cruisers' on their blueprints? Personally this seems more like the norm for large ships and saying they are 'super' is just saying 'my SUV is bigger than your SUV marketing bullcrap' Granted, they are in comparison much more powerful than anything else below them in tonnage. also most of the time star destroyers seem to be dispatched for piddly missions like commerce raiding (a lot of what thrawn did with them) attacking star fighters and rogue transports (a lot of what they do in the movies and many books), holding blockades and doing customs inspections (again books), drop off troops or fighters and act as a support base, sit around a planet waiting to one of the above(this is essentially what weg suggests) and when possible acting as intimidation tools (either through existing or by actually going somewhere). however we do know that they are capable at engaging in large scale battles (endor, coruscant, bilbringi, most NJO) I short they do all the above daily because they can, you can't send 10 strike cruiers or 6 dreadnaughts or 100 gunships to do the same job, they would fail on one or more of the above accounts. So why aren't they in their own class because of their capabilities? if we go by the ewoks weg model the classification tells us nothing about them because it is too broad and doesn't seperate their utility from other ships with more dedicated roles and observed usages. the common definition for class/classification is: a group, set, or kind sharing common attributes a division or rating based on grade or quality systematic arrangement in groups or categories according to established criteria super-cruiser does none of this other than add a pretty title that confuses the issue and broadens the scope of the heavy ships group rather than refines it. In fact destroyer is the best term for day to day observed usage of SD's until you move them into a fleet engagement with similar tonnage ships, then they necissitate a much heavier classification (hmmm star destroyer makes a good arguement for a class type...) and your reference for the Heir to the mpire source book seem to further indicate that the standard star destroyer is a unique class (a subclass of a larger braket yes, but definately not a super-cruiser) additionally on a side note, your own wording of the cruiser bracket indicates that the executor is the top range of normal warships and the bizarrites are the stuff thats bigger --> "up to and including" if you want to rephrase that feel free, but otherwise I think you are slipping :-p also mcewok, could you find justification for between 500 and 1000 2km+ ships in the entirety of the empire? with the executor class holding a number of around 10 at any one time (due to attrition)? This number would give us one heavy larger than an ISD per sector group with some of the ships being assigned dedicated defense roles and special fleets/kingpin egotrip status (IE we never see them most of the time) and ISDs taking flag position in less important sectors. This would also allow us to say that the Byss fleet could possibly be a recall of the sector group flagships/defense forces and special fleets/king pins and would easily add up to the ships seen in DE and not neceessitate millions of random big ships we cannot account for. this 500-1000 would also include all of the documented ship types seen (executor kin, possible 8km weg SSD variant, jerec's veneagence, geils armada and carrier, shockwave, allegiances, tagge and wemis cruisers, praetors, mandators, procurators, at least 3 major distinct classes seen around Byss (6.4km, 4-5km, 3.1km)) any of which could be the same class when no visual reference is provided etc. Since you are the most vocal opponent of big ships existance and utility (despite a lot of evidence to the contrary that you ignore by FUD and creative wording) I'm curious where your middle ground is... -----signature----- Work In Progress online ship comendium http://warlords.swrebellion.com/shipindex.php Realtime 3d Tactical Fleet battles http://warlords.swrebellion.com
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
FTeik Registered: Nov '00	Date Posted: 9/17/05 10:51am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	The problem with the system WEG (and McEwok] propose is, that a) it ignores everything ABOVE the level of sectorgroup (like oversector and combatcommands, BlackSword anyone?), b) is by its own admission incomplete and biased towards the rebels point-of-view. -----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: 9/17/05 11:25am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II - Date Edited: 9/17/05 11:30am (1 edits total) Edited By: Thrawn McEwok
	Sr: Yet we have Mon Cal cruisers that are tougher than certain SDs, and these Star Defenders, equivalent to SSDs. Oh, undoubtedly (though to be fair, we don't know what a Defender's actual armour/speed/big-gun/fighters/planetary-assault balance is)... And just because a Mon Cal cruiser is smaller than an ISD and more than a match means nothing. Technological capability increases, so ships are smaller with more powerful reactors. The Majestic cruiser, a 700m ship, is as heavily armed as a 1600m ISD. Is a Mon Cal "more than a match" for an ISD? I'm not entirely convinced... Likewise, the Majestic, with only 30 heavy TLs against 50/60 doesn't have the weaponry to attack an ImpStar head-to-head - I suspect she's designed to use her armour to go in close and grapple. But yes, there's no easy solution - that's the point I'm trying to make, I guess. We can manipulate the information on design and designation several ways to construct different classification systems, but as it stands, we have a corvette-frigate-cruiser-Star Destroyer classification system (plus "bizarreties") that's identified as the Empire's formal way of doing business, and which works. Arguing that Star Destroyer = uber ship, doesn't work in my opinion. It depends on the political bodies biast. No? I'm not saying that only SDs are überships; but that, within the Empire's (and NR's) classification system, they represent a class above common cruiser classes (Strike, Dreadnaught, Vindicator, Majestic) and in terms of military strategy, they fulfil a "ship of the line" role - previously held more by Dreadnaught Cruisers than Star Dreadnoughts. Is there a problem with that? MercenaryAce: It sems simply that Crusier, destroyer and dreadnaught (and all variations thereof)are used interchangigbly. However, only crusier is ever applied to unarmed ships. My interpretation would be that "dreadnaught" is an old term for "ship of the line", now superceded by "[Star] Destroyer" for newer ships; "cruiser", I'd say, has a wider application, and is used in several distinct usages... four of these define increasingly precise size/role brackets: 1.) capital-scale spaceships, civilian and military that can cruise - ie operate unsupported over long distances. (idiomatic) 2.) capital warships that can cruise - ie operate unsupported over long distances. (idiomatic) 2.) front-line warships over ~400m (the formal meaning in the Imperial classification system). 3.) front-line warships of approx. 400-900m (the practical meaning in the Imperial classfication system, because of Star Destroyers). Two others don't really refer to capital ships: 4.) smaller civilian ships (cf. "cabin cruiser"). 5.) smaller police ships (cf. "police cruiser"). But that's all just my interpretation... EJ: I think you've misunderstood what I was trying to say - which is simply this: in the official, formal, canonical terminology of the Empire and NR, "Star Destroyer" is not fully detached from a wider "cruiser" designation. To all intents and purposes, "Star Destroyer" is a distinct designation for larger ships, 900m and above, but it's not quite detached from the wider "cruiser" bracket; "super-cruiser" is simply a term I came up with to help explain how SD stands to the 400m-900m "cruisers" within this bracket. That’s all. But for what it's worth, only four hullforms are seen in any great numbers - VicStars, VenStars, ImpStars and DefStars; and three of these date from the Clone Wars. also mcewok, could you find justification for between 500 and 1000 2km+ ships in the entirety of the empire? with the executor class holding a number of around 10 at any one time (due to attrition)? If you mean front-line warships, I'm not sure I see any canon evidence for the Empire using large numbers of such ships, or any real use for them. Unless you have significantly heavier guns or heavier armour (for which there is next to no canon evidence), all you’re doing is aggregating ImpStar hulls, reducing flexibility and increasing cost, complexity, and the amount of damage a single catastrophic incident can do. Admittedly, there's the Ex-class SSD, huge great toy that it is... but that’s designed to serve as a prestige king-piece, and even people in charge of sizeable chunks of the GFFA, or fighting major battles, only have one each… Apart from the Ex-class, we have to my knowledge canon evidence for only 12 ships that may have been larger than ImpStars and the Allegiance type, of which only eight were certainly larger, of which only eight were ever completed, and of which no more than four are known to have been in service at any single time: 3x "battlecruiser"-type Star Destroyer 1x "larger Destroyer" (Endor communications ship) 1x Admiral Giel's flagship 4x Sovereign-class 2x Eclipse-class 1x Eye of Palpatine These can be dividied into two groups: the command ships for major military figures commanding massive fleets and/or sizeable chunks of the Galaxy; and ships with specialist equipment that requires a larger hull. Not all these ships are very big: Ulrich Tagge and Darth Vader’s “battlecruisers” aren’t much bigger than ImpStars, and the size of the Endor communications ship is very unclear – what, exactly, is a "larger Destroyer"? Giel’s flagship is the centrepiece of the largest fleet-formation ever assembled – in which we see nothing else bigger than an ImpStar. And Eclipse is built as the largest battleship ever because nothing less is acceptable for Palpatine. But, most of the larger ships are also built around something that requires a very large hull – the Endor comms. ship’s size (if indeed it’s significant) may be to do with the requirement to carry speciallist comms equipment; Eye of Palpatine was built to carry new, super-heavy TLs; the Sovereign-class mount axial superlasers. Of course, I’m not just saying that there were only ever twelve such ships; simply that there needn’t be very many, nor need they be evenly distributed among sector fleets. They could all owe their size either to a major command role, or else to the need to accommodate specialist equipment not designed for conventional fleet combat. As to Byss – I’m afraid I don't trust number-counting, because: (a.) we rarely see the fleets close-to enough to make identification or estimate size; (b.) we have no means of knowing what the few "larger" ships we see are (possibilities include things like depot ships, hospital ships, troop transports and starfighter carriers, as well as front-line warships); (c.) if you compare the size of the ships, the angles of their orbits around Byss, and the necessary size of the planet itself, you find that reconciling them is impossible. For what it’s worth, the latest source says there is "An entire sector fleet is spread throughout the Beshqek system, with a ring of Star Destroyers encircling the planet itself". What we do see in DE are a sizable number of ~2km Star Destroyers; Allegiance, Shockwave, and the ships with Eclipse all belong to this class, as do at least some of the "Gauntlet Star Destroyers" orbiting Byss. Since we see none of these ships before DE, and only one afterwards, my personal fan-interpretation is that they're most likely to represent a new "common" design, but that they were limited to squadrons based at Byss and a few command ships - a few hundred at most. You certainly can’t, and shouldn’t, insist that they must be older, heavier designs…. Since you are the most vocal opponent of big ships existance and utility (despite a lot of evidence to the contrary that you ignore by FUD and creative wording) I'm curious where your middle ground is... I'm not an opponent of the existence of big ships; I simply think that there's neither need, nor reason, nor canon evidence, for mass-production warship classes between ImpStar and SSD sizes... you can do everything and more with multiple ImpStars... FTeik: a) it ignores everything ABOVE the level of sectorgroup (like oversector and combatcommands, BlackSword anyone?), Umm… even if there are strategic forces separate from sector groups (rather than, say organized into distinct sector groups of their own – "Coruscant Sector Feet", anyone; or "an entire sector fleet" guarding the Byss system? ), why should that imply additional types/classifications omitted in the separate chapter on ship-types? Does the USN have heavy-tonnage battleship squadrons separate from its carrier battlegroups around the world? b) is by its own admission incomplete and biased towards the rebels point-of-view. Nevertheless, the system extends through the RASB, the ISB, the TTSB, and the novels. Unless you have not simply an alternative hypothesis, but explicit evidence of an alternative, organized system, your critique remains mere suggestion. Should evidence for such an alternative system ever appear, it would not necessarily trump the WEG one, but merely operate alongside it. And, for one final Molotov - what's wrong with "Super-class Star Destroyer", anyway? Slainté!! - The Imperial Ewok -----signature----- A/T = OTP "To write one Solo twin as an angstbunny, Master Skywalker, might be considered unfortunate. To write BOTH that way looks like carelessness."
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
The2ndQuest Title: : -Games -LACWAC -Lit Mod of Death Registered: Jan '00	Date Posted: 9/17/05 11:41am Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	Here are the voting results: 3 titles got two votes and 3 titles got one vote. The three that got two votes are: 4. Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA 8. The Capital Ships Thread, Mk. II - The Mess Continues!! 12. Pan-Era Omnigalactic Fleet Junkie Chamber of Madness, Mayhem, and Unmitigated Chaos -----signature----- K'Kruhk, 140 ABY: "Why haven't I come forth earlier to share my Jedi knowledge with Skywalker? Well, it's kinda a long story, see, I had this freaking sweet hat..." Is your Death Magnetic?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
EvilleJedi Registered: Jul '04	Date Posted: 9/17/05 12:13pm Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II - Date Edited: 9/17/05 12:17pm (1 edits total) Edited By: EvilleJedi
	I don't see at all why the byss armada couldn't have mandators, praetors or procurators floating around, we don't know their distribution other than single comments to their existance. We also don't know what they look like. We, like you said. can't rectify scale issues, but we know that some of the ships are larger than normal ISDs, if nothing else I'd say you can't say either way if they are or are not older designs because like many things introduced with the prequels they make OT fans heads hurt... We never see most of the defense forces of the core and we almsot never see an entire sector group at once (especially pulled away from its defense duties) mostly what we see is rimward usage of a star destroyer as a patrol vessel and personal transport for god awful EU plots. Personally it makes more sense to retcon the DE ships into the CW era ships because then we A) eliminate trying to explain new ship classes B) eliminate the necessity for massive turnover of large vessels when we know that ships have functional lifetimes of over 100 years if well maintained and retrofitted C) show some degree of consistancy across what is considered by all to be a jumble of EU author shenangins -----signature----- Work In Progress online ship comendium http://warlords.swrebellion.com/shipindex.php Realtime 3d Tactical Fleet battles http://warlords.swrebellion.com
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Sinrebirth Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 9/17/05 12:40pm Subject: RE: Fleet Junkie-class thread Mark II
	The2ndQuest posted: Here are the voting results: 3 titles got two votes and 3 titles got one vote. The three that got two votes are: 4. Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA 8. The Capital Ships Thread, Mk. II - The Mess Continues!! 12. Pan-Era Omnigalactic Fleet Junkie Chamber of Madness, Mayhem, and Unmitigated Chaos So we have to revote for the above three?? Is a Mon Cal "more than a match" for an ISD? I'm not entirely convinced... Likewise, the Majestic, with only 30 heavy TLs against 50/60 doesn't have the weaponry to attack an ImpStar head-to-head - I suspect she's designed to use her armour to go in close and grapple. But yes, there's no easy solution - that's the point I'm trying to make, I guess. We can manipulate the information on design and designation several ways to construct different classification systems, but as it stands, we have a corvette-frigate-cruiser-Star Destroyer classification system (plus "bizarreties") that's identified as the Empire's formal way of doing business, and which works. I have nothing against that system - but it should carry on upwards. Nothing says a Praetor or a Questor is a bizarrity - Kuat, Corellia and Humbarane all had larger-than-the-norm ships in their systems - till they were co-opted by the Empire or destroyed by the CIS. No? I'm not saying that only SDs are überships; but that, within the Empire's (and NR's) classification system, they represent a class above common cruiser classes (Strike, Dreadnaught, Vindicator, Majestic) and in terms of military strategy, they fulfil a "ship of the line" role - previously held more by Dreadnaught Cruisers than Star Dreadnoughts. Is there a problem with that? There is no problem, but there is a problem once you add Mon Cal cruisers to the mix. We have another brand of cruiser running alongside Star Destroyers Star Destroyers - 700m to 19km (Assuming SSDs are counted as Star Destroyers) Cruisers - 350m to uber big Battlecruisers Do destroyers and cruisers run side by side, with different roles? -----signature----- Sey's Sinre The First Canon Apologist The Missing Chapters of LotF: Invincible http://boards.theforce.net/Message.aspx?topic=28933751&brd=10477&replies=10 Chapter 4.5 is up! Now Featuring: Niathal, Daala, Syal, Wedge, Winter & Tycho!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 » - Previous | Next | Reload

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