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

« 514 | 515 | 516 | 517 | 518 | 519 | 520 | 521 | 522 | 523 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
AdmiralWesJanson Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 7/1 1:14pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Has RAS been used for anything besides an Acclamator? -----signature----- Duke of Corellia Join the Corellian Browncoats in their fight against the evil Alliance! Fix the K-Wing! No more XJs! Make the next X-Wing a T-65K!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Thrawn McEwok Title: TFN EU Staff Registered: May '00	Date Posted: 7/3 7:58am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/3 8:02am (2 edits total) Edited By: Thrawn McEwok
	First up, an observation on "the big Corellian ships": we do know one thing about them - the Falcon can outrun them. If this means hyperdrive speed, then for it to be a meaningful race, we're looking at a capital ship with a Class 0.5 hyperdrive, or something approaching it. And that is something pretty special: bulk cruisers, Vindicator variants, Strike Cruisers and ISD-Is all have slow Class 2 hyperdrives; the VSD, Gladiator, Carrack and ISD-II have faster Class 1... but that's still many times slower than a Class 0.5. According to the Wookieepedia, the Acclamator has a 0.6, and a 0.75 for the Acclamator II, which makes those ships absurdly fast in hyperspace. Is this accurate? The "big Corellian ships" don't have to be heavily-armed or equipped with massive troop and TIE numbers, though - but they're big, and fast. * Secondly... continuing my project of re-scaling the VenStar, this sketch of the ship's lines from the CW production team has a bridge around 15 pixels wide, and a hull ~630 pixels long, a hull length of 42 bridge widths. Assuming that's even vaguely accurate, then with a bridge around ~10m wide, that gives a length of around ~420m, which fits with my previous scaling calcs... * And now, some rather long replies! Tzizvvt78: Sounds cool. Is that's what the artist intended? No idea. Contrary to what everyone else here is saying, I suspect that if they DID say something, their intention was for it to be around the time of the story. What the others are remembering sounds a lot like what I argued. But authorial intent isn't binding. Canon weighs heavier. The TIE design isn't developed until later, and the 600m Dreadnaught Cruiser is meant to be the largest modern warship in that time-period - and even that represents the start of a period of increased ship-size that leads on to the VSD and ISD. Tzizvvt78: There's a series of Advanced Project ships already developed by 29 BBY, going by Wookieepedia. The latest model being a large ship that's obviously a precursor to the TIE, complete with the "bow-tie" side panels. So, there's nothing in any source that goes against the idea if Sienar developed these look-alike designs for years already, even if they don't have a SIE-TIE engine. I thought the description in the novel actually sounded more like the rear of the Scimitar, with just the general shape of the TIE. No "eyeball" cockpit yet, and I think the vertical "wings" curved inwards. Tzizvvt78: The Victory II is apparantly a CW ship now, going by the CW Campaign Guide. That would fit the scenario. Oh? Useful. Tzizvvt78: The Imperator/Imperial-class ships in Republic service would include these two you mentioned, since they were the first. Not sure if there's anything that contradicts them in Dark Lord. I'd be interested to know what's said there... Tzizvvt78: Given sources like the Complete Encyclopedia mention all these different classes and classifications in the same time frame, I don't think that's an option. The author of the ICS books for AOTC and ROTS also refers to them as much larger than the standard Star Destroyer designs in an old interview on this site, so these other classes would not be the same (though they're all technically Star Destroyers anyway, if they're dagger-shaped). As I said above about "Nomad", I don't think authorial interviews count in determining canon. The storytellers can have ideas which don't fit with existing canon, or which are later contradicted by it - Zahn said in an interview that Mara was the only Hand, K-Mac said that Coruscant isn't all "one big city", but canon countermanded both. Dr Saxton has long been a proponent of a theory that the ISD is a small picket ship and the Executor is a relatively normal-sized large warship. This is a case he's argued with great strength and conviction for many years, and it's clearly reflected in his comments in that interview - but I don't think that that it's a theory that stands up, either in terms of the relative sizes of the ships, or in terms of canon: the ISD is a large warship, and the Executor is a terrifying, out-of-all-sane-scale monster. Tzizvvt78: I seem to remember Dan Wallace saying the same thing about the Bulwark battlecruisers, so you're probably right. As far as capital ships go, I'd prefer the Executor to remain the largest, that or the Eclipse at least. Good point on the Bulwark variants! The Eye of Palpatine has always been canonically larger than the SSDs, though - it's on the way to superweapon territory, a "battlemoon" as well as a "dreadnaught". Tzizvvt78: I recall that ship was larger than an ISD in design in the original book, though given the same designation in the Complete Encyclopedia. Regardless, the ICS author that worked on the book that first mentioned the class, refers to them as one of the types more powerful and subsequently larger than a Star Destroyer, so I go with that since it's a person who worked on the material. Maybe I've got this wrong, but I thought that the relative power of the two designs is only implied by a comparison between the Hoth and Yavin shields. As I pointed out, there are other factors that strengthen the Hoth shield, and engine power does NOT directly correlate to size. A battle cruiser with a Class 0.5 hyperdrive (like the "big Corellian ships" capable of providing real competition for the Falcon), would probably have more powerful engines than a battle cruiser with a Class 1 or Class 2 hyperdrive (like the ISD-II and ISD-I), even if they're the same size. With all respect to authorial intentions, I don't see any canon evidence that many larger warships than ISDs even exist in that timeframe. Malevolence wouldn't really be a threat if it was just a normal-sized "heavy cruiser". Tzizvvt78: I think the name Super Star Destroyer came from Star Destroyer, which was itself used to describe ships of the Clone Wars which were dagger-shaped, so there's the main connection. If George Lucas can call the Invisible Hand a Star Destroyer, I don't think that "Rebel slang" needs to limit the term Super Star Destroyer to pointy ships. Tzizvvt78: And calling ships in space after a historic naval term is inherently silly anyway, so why not go all out and make an entire catalogue of terms? If we want to be more precise, SW ships should be called carriers for the amount of smaller craft they carry, if we have to use real-life terms for them to begin with. The reason why the SWTC catalog is a problem is that it bears no relationship to the canon catalogues of terms. It's fine to make something up, but I'm less sure about presenting it as "right" when it doesn't fit canon. And carriers, as in real life, are dedicated fighter/assault platforms built around a launch-deck. Broadly speaking, it's having an offensive armament that makes a cruiser or destroyer "not a carrier". Tzizvvt78: That doesn't explain why it's bigger than all the Star Destroyers or why it commands a huge fleet. I thought the latter was a reason why the Empire built larger command ships than ever before, to command large fleets of ships. The secret armada there even looks to be the biggest in Imperial history (once again, from the Encyclopedia). I assume it needed a ship of that size to command and coordinate. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here: ISDs and even VSDs seem to work fine as fleet command ships, and as I said, Admiral Screed, one of the Imperial Navy's top commanders, uses a 500m Gladiator-class Star Destroyer... I don't think you need anything bigger than that to carry the required holonet equipmet or communications officers. Superships are designed to carry the equipment of a whole fleet on one hull, and to be scary - and like any Star Destroyer, they can operate alone, as we see at Bespin in the movies and several more times in the novels and comics; they do carry fleet command equipment, but that's not their only role, nor their primary role, and I don't see any evidence that you'd need something bigger than an ISD to act as a fleet flagship. The caption narrative in the comic issue says that Giel's armada the is the biggest ever assembled, but I don't think the depiction of Giel's flagship as larger than ISDs needs to be taken literally: this is the same issue which has a TIE pilot's helmet display a variety of facial expressions. Tzizvvt78: The size of the engine is usually a measure of its power, the bigger the ship, the larger a powerplant it's gonna need. The alternative is to compress engine designs, which causes the cost to go up and subsequently production to be expensive, as was with the MC90 cruiser and the Nebula-class Star Destroyer, apparantly. Firstly, as I said, a fast ship is going to have bigger engines than a slow ship of the same size - and a larger ship can have the same engines as a smaller, faster one. The other problem with this is that Star Wars spaceships don't actually have high-power systems. They have ion drives and mass-lightening/inertial compensator/deck gravity technology, plus "magic door" hyperdrives, and beam weapons that work by zapping space jellyfish farts with ordinary lasers. I suspect that an ability to work round Newton and Einstein's rules on energy is much more relevant here than normal power output. You don't need massive energy to produce massive acceleration when you can dial down the mass of your Star Destroyer to near zero for much less energy and punch it forward with a particle fart. blackmyron: I'm pretty sure that someone from DHC had clarified that it was, indeed, intended to Imperial times - but since I can't find the reference, consider that hearsay. Yep, I don't want to assume I was right here. blackmyron: (I was never sure why anyone considered it to be a "smoking gun" of big dagger-shaped ships prior to the Clone Wars - considering I don't recall anyone denying this, especially in light of their appearance in the KOTOR era). There's no problem with dagger-shaped warships, but more of an issue with >1km and multi-kilometer warships: the 600m Dreadnaught Cruiser is the "largest warship of its age", the ISD is a dramatically large product of Imperial militarization, and the SSDs is an insane monster with no logical relationship with normal warships. An SSD and a fleet of ~750m Star Destroyers in 32 BBY is a problem (as is a "TIE"); a space station or ancient ship and a fleet of ~500m dagger-hulls, less so. blackmyron: I do recall you were annoyed that Dan Wallace made his 'Victory Project' retcon to include KDY in the design of the Rendili starship, but I think that was more to explain how a ship that was always said explicitly to be the forerunner of the ISD be made by another company that wasn't absorbed by KDY. You could be right, but to me, that puts far too much emphasis on KDY, and not nearly enough emphasis on Lira Wessex and her psychological issues. :p We already have a perfectly decent explanation. The next step after the "sane, balanced" 900m VSD and "big and slightly nuts" 1.6km ISD, is the "economy model" 600m Vindicator, which is designed by Tarkin and built by Sienar. That's the graph of big pointy mass-produced warship design under the Empire, and there's nothing KDY-specific about it. Also, Sienar build the bloody great hyperdrive that's the biggest part of an ISD. I say "build", but there's a difference between where the design team is, and where the stuff is actually built - ISDs can be built anywhere. blackmyron: Perhaps we can say that KDY was the primary employer of the "Star Destroyer" philosophy of starship design (as outlined in SOTG2) in the Clone Wars/Empire era ? They certainly didn't have a patent on it, nor did they invent it... and, in the NR era, other companies were employing it as well. The primary employer of the "Star Destroyer" philosophy is the Empire. :p KDY just gave Palpatine's favourite cruiser-designer a job. Heck, when we see them in the middle of the Galactic Civil War, what's Kuat filled with? VicStars... blackmyron: As far as the Storm Fleet, checking the short story - "They were huge, sheathed in dull black durasteel and and advanced weaponry". Anakin identifies them as KDY-made from "the proportions and the lines of the design"... but, as typical, we never get a real description of the vessels. Well, depending on context, that either means they're pointy in some distinct way that makes them look Kuati, or else they look like big KDY bulk freighters. :p Given that every major design feature of the ISD is paralleled on non-KDY ships, I'd go for them looking like bulk freighters. :p blackmyron: It is called an “assault ship” in the third RC novel; and SOTG2 mentions there were “several other variants” of the Acc apart from the Acc-II, but only the Acc-II was used in large quantities – so I’d say it’s probably an Acc-variant. Possible, but a refit so early in the war suggests a pre-war design. Perhaps that's the answer to the problem: the Acclamator wasn't new, but was developed between TPM and AotC? :p Do we know who designed her? And what was Rothana's history? Were they always a KDY subsidiary, or did that happen after they designed the GAR ships? blackmyron: My fix would be that the VSD came from a failure by the Republic to adopt the ‘prototype’ Imperators and Tectors, and still precede the ISDs by virtue that the ships wouldn’t be manufactured in large quantities – in finished form – until the Imperial era. Doesn't satisfy the need to build the ISD around Lira Wessex's issues with Walex. :p blackmyron: Yes, especially considering that they are referred as “Imperator-class” in Dark Lord. Any indication of age? Ever called the only two in service? blackmyron: Taken by itself, but I think the clairification in SOTG2 about the meaning of the term “Star Destroyer” (and thus Super Star Destroyer) would mean that the term SSD means “Star Destroyer larger than an Imperial-class”. Formally, yes, but this is "Rebel slang", remember - at a time when probably the only SSDs in the strict sense are the original Super-class/Executor design(s). blackmyron: Right, I see it in the list of Republic ships, but directly contradicts the entry it references in the SOTG2. I think we’ll have to wait for further sources for clairification. What does SotG say? Tzizvvt78: The Complete Encyclopedia refers to the event in Admiral Amise Griff's entry and in detail in the Executor's entry, so it's still canon. The three Star Destroyers dropped out of Hyperspace, but because of the angle and the shielding on the Executor, only the three were annihilated, while the Executor survived. And they were coming out of lightspeed at the time, which may explain the situation. Tzizvvt78: The AOTC:ICS mentions Rendili as among the ship builders trying to copy Rothana/KDY's Acclamator design, so that's where the Victory will presumably come from. There is confirmation in the Encyclopedia that the Imperator-class was developed and produced after the Venator-class and then renamed Imperial-class (Imperator-class entry). The Venator-class was itself developed and produced "after the Victory-class" and "at the beginning of the Clone Wars" (Venator-class entry). Aha! That works. As I asked above, though - do we know who designed the Acclamator, or even if Rothana belonged to KDY at the time? blackmyron: Well, you're at the heart of the problem. Namely: (a) The original back-history of the VSD and ISD supplied by WEG was that the VSD-I came out at the end of the Clone Wars, the VSD-II afterwards, and after wrangling in the Imperial Senate, the ISD-I. (b) The ICSes pushed back the establishment of the ISDs to the end of the Clone Wars, and hinted that Rendili stole the 'Star Destroyer' design of the VSD from KDY. (Note that this is all implication, never stated directly in the ICS2) (c) The NEC stated that the VSD was actually a joint project by KDY and Rendili - the Victor Initiative Project, and came out about 23 months ABG. (d) The CWAS guide pushed back the ISDs to the beginning of the war, during a broader scrambling of the timeline caused by the CWAS. Which is where we are now. The easiest solution would be just to follow the compression of time and push the Victor Project to the start of the war as well, but it's really getting crowded there. Jason Fry also talked about his writing about the ISDs in the CWAS Guide in this thread. Thanks. As I said, the canonical reason KDY has big pointy ships is because the Rendili designer's daughter is working out her psychological issues on their design team. :p I'll need to take a look at the old sources and see what we can "wiggle" with the VSD, but I think that if the ISD prototypes are now in place around the start of the Clone Wars, the VSD prototypes have to be (and can easily be) even earlier. If we're separating the prototypes from the actual class in the case of the ISD, there's no reason give the VSD a matching wiggle. That's better than messing up the class's well-established design relationship to the ISD, IMHO. :p Tzizvvt78: The Victory-class entry also contained now-outdated info about the Victory fleet being the first batch of ships and built towards the end of the war. Though that could work if they meant the Victory II model. "Now outdated" because they're meant to precede the VenStar? AdmiralWesJanson: Especially as the Vic I was a planetary assault type which works well with the Acclamators, but the Vic II was redesigned to combat enemy capital ships, a skill that was more in need near the middle of the war. This is a very cogent point: the VSD-I isn't really designed for fighting the Bulwark Fleet. :p But canon may make this difficult... On the other hand... the Victory-class Star Destroyer fought against Opertaion Durge's Lance, and Wookieepedia says that took place before the Bulwark Fleet... so we already have to push the design back. :p AdmiralWesJanson: Hmm. Quick speculation on timelines. Acclamator is Rothana/Kuat, and pre-war. Victory I is Rendilli and built as a competitor. War starts. Imperator was designed and some built to trump Victory I. Imperator is big, expensive, and has a lot of design flaws to start with. Victor Initiative Program lets the two yards trade experience. This part certainly works for me. AdmiralWesJanson: Acclamator II is a stopgap refit to have a capital warship, as most Dreadnoughts and Dreadnaught cruisers are short range system forces. Meanwhile the Imperator and Victory class are being redesigned, and the Venator added as a multi-role ship so the Acclamator can go back to being a troopship. The Bulwark Fleet shows up, and the Victory II is rapidly pushed into service, before it is fully redesigned. Then Dreadnaughts of Rendilli and system fleets are confiscated, giving a massive boost to the Republic, pushing back the CIS. Victory II gains PR victory at Anaxes, and many are built, while Venators being multi-role show up everywhere making them more common. Imperator is redesigned near the end of the war, taking lessons from the Venator and Victory II, and begins full production thanks to Wessex, and is renamed Imperial class for the production run. At the end of the War, Acclamators are kept as troopships, Victory Is are sold off as surplus, Victory IIs are still in production but more specialized than the Imperial so they are used as System defense, Venators are multi-role but problematic logistics and are replaced by the Imperial class in the multi-role warship job since the Imperial is far more self-sufficient and able to better handle leftover CIS ships out in the galaxy. The Venator seems to be in place from the start, at least in very limited numbers, and I'm not sure if the Acclamator II needs to be a "stopgap" ship. Part of the reason we see these ships is that they're the fast ships - a Dreadnaught Cruiser can match an ISD-I (or, later, a Strike Cruiser or Vindicator), but the VSD, VenStar, Acclamator and Carrack have the Class 1 (or above?) hyperdrives that allow them to leap around the Galaxy. Because of that, the prominence of the VenStar and Acclamator in the story might be WELL out of proportion to their numbers. At the start of the Clone Wars, there are just are a few dozen Acclamator-class ships, joined quickly by at least a handful of VenStars - and perhaps the first VSDs, also; these are the ships carrying the GAR and the Jedi Generals, which is why we see them in the story, but they're NOT the ships bearing the brunt of the fighting. The fleet in Jedi Trial was very different. :p Soon after Geonosis, orders are placed for a thousand assault ships; we know that hundreds of VicStars were built, and probably no small number of VenStars, too - but they all take a while to enter active service. Tzizvvt78: The part about Rendili and Kuat's cooperation over the Victory is interesting, maybe the retcon fix could be that the Victory I comes out at the start of the war, following a faulty production process and plagerized technical designs. Kuat threatens a lawsuit, the Republic offers them the chance to work on refining the design and be compensated for it, given the need to unite against a common foe, and that's how the Victory II comes about. The problem with this is that KDY's big-pointy-ship design is largely the work of the VSD designer's daughter and her psychological issues. Trying to make Rendili the plagerizers doesn't really fit well with the canon presentation of KDY, who seem to owe most of their Star Destroyer success to imitating Walex Blissex, and not being as tied to the good-guy political oposition as Rendili... blackmyron: Making the "Vic-II" the subject of the Victor Initiative Project would make the entire project somewhat meaningless - and we're left, again, with the development of three Star Destroyers within a few months with nothing in the remaining years; the Imperial Era has already been wrecked by this constant push-back. There's also the wall that ICS2 sets up; Rendili obviously isn't working in concordance with KDY at that time, unless you discard the statements made in it. There's too many babies being thrown out with this particular bathwater for me. I can see your point, but we're losing the actual narrative if we allow the ISD to precede the VSD... and I think we want to keep that. patchworkz7: Considering that TCW changed all the dates for when ships would have been released she was just being cautious. I know it probably drives FJ's mad, but one thing authors are going to have to deal with in these changes are how to present material to the public without stepping on a timeline that's not pinned down, and conflicting source info that LFL doesn't seem to have pinned down. We know it's dagger-shaped, so it could be anything. The addition of concussion missiles as an add-on to the ship is interesting, but doesn't tell us much either because it's a ship that was being used as a test-bed. The term "assault ship" has been applied to the Acclamator class before, so it could be a variant, or an early design or test bed of another class. The think that surprised me about Leveler is that she's emerging from refit relatively early in the war. That makes it sound like she's a pre-war design. Yes, there's nothing to stop her being an Acclamator, but Rex's dialogue to Ahsoka suggests more than one "assault ship" class in service, which I found interesting. Although "We know it's dagger-shaped, so it could be anything" is my new favourite Fleet Junkie quote. :p AdmiralWesJanson: Has RAS been used for anything besides an Acclamator? I'm not even sure if it's used for Leveler, but it just seemed to fit. :p - 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
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/3 11:01am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Thrawn McEwok posted: There's no problem with dagger-shaped warships, but more of an issue with >1km and multi-kilometer warships: the 600m Dreadnaught Cruiser is the "largest warship of its age", the ISD is a dramatically large product of Imperial militarization, and the SSDs is an insane monster with no logical relationship with normal warships. We do have the Invincibles - the "of its age" probably only covers the design philosophy of the capital ships in the immediate pre-Clone Wars Republic. Thrawn McEwok posted: The primary employer of the "Star Destroyer" philosophy is the Empire. KDY just gave Palpatine's favourite cruiser-designer a job. Heck, when we see them in the middle of the Galactic Civil War, what's Kuat filled with? VicStars... When was this? Thrawn McEwok posted: Perhaps that's the answer to the problem: the Acclamator wasn't new, but was developed between TPM and AotC? It would almost have to be, as they were said to be designed specifically for the rapid deployment of the clones to the battlefield... but the first appearance outside the yards has always said to have been the Battle of Geonosis. Thrawn McEwok posted: Do we know who designed her? And what was Rothana's history? Were they always a KDY subsidiary, or did that happen after they designed the GAR ships? I don't know about "always", but it was certainly during the period between TPM and AOTC. There's a whole point that KDY used them for secrecy because of their "impossible to spy upon" nature (and closeness to Kamino), but it was said that after the war began they wanted anything new to come under the "KDY" label. Thrawn McEwok posted: Any indication of age? Ever called the only two in service? No, apart from being 1st and 2nd and being called "brand-new", IIRC. Thrawn McEwok posted: Formally, yes, but this is "Rebel slang", remember - at a time when probably the only SSDs in the strict sense are the original Super-class/Executor design(s). The Executor is certainly the first ship to be called an SSD, true (considering the WOTC article specifically states the colloquism was derived from the original name of the Executor-class.) I've had looong discussions about the actual in-universe usage of the term in this thread, but the DESB did set that the usage probably applied to the "descendants" of the Executor, like the Sovereign or Eclipse. Thrawn McEwok posted: #-o What does SotG say? That the VSD-II was designed after the end of the Clone Wars. Thrawn McEwok posted: If we're separating the prototypes from the actual class in the case of the ISD, there's no reason give the VSD a matching wiggle. That's better than messing up the class's well-established design relationship to the ISD, IMHO. Well, the ISD prototypes haven't (currently) done anything during the Clone Wars stories; the VSDs were being used right out of the gate, with the implication that they were being tested under fire. Thrawn McEwok posted: On the other hand... the Victory-class Star Destroyer fought against Opertaion Durge's Lance, and Wookieepedia says that took place before the Bulwark Fleet... so we already have to push the design back. Wookiepedia has been known to wrong a time or two... The easiest solution (prior to the timeline shuffle) was to have the Core Campaign happen over a couple months, with the Battle of Anaxes happening in Mth 23 (the date of the entry in NEC) but the breakout from Foerost happening prior to the fall of Duro. Of course, now who knows what's when... [quote=Thrawn McEwok]The Venator seems to be in place from the start, at least in very limited numbers, and I'm not sure if the Acclamator II needs to be a "stopgap" ship.[/quote] I'm pretty sure the CWAS Guide says they were the "newest" Republic ships... but I don't have direct access to it to check. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]I can see your point, but we're losing the actual narrative if we allow the ISD to precede the VSD... and I think we want to keep that.[/quote]Honestly, I'd like to keep the ISD's original story as well, which is why the 'retcon' that caused most of the problems - Saxton pushing its establishment back to the Clone Wars - never set well with me. The Databank entry on the Venator always implied to me that they were keeping the original story, and the Force Unleashed CG mentioned that the VSDs were the dominant Star Destroyer in the early Empire anyways. -----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: 7/3 12:47pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/3 12:57pm (3 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	Thrawn McEwok posted: No idea. Contrary to what everyone else here is saying, I suspect that if they DID say something, their intention was for it to be around the time of the story. Yeah, the Prequel era had enough grand places to depict as is. Thrawn McEwok posted: But authorial intent isn't binding. Canon weighs heavier. The TIE design isn't developed until later, and the 600m Dreadnaught Cruiser is meant to be the largest modern warship in that time-period - and even that represents the start of a period of increased ship-size that leads on to the VSD and ISD. I start to rub my temples when the phrase "is meant to be" and "Star Wars" get together. Continuity is a harsh mistress. From what I've seen, the Dreadnaught-class actually gets shortchanged in more recent years, so I wouldn't go so far as to use it as a benchmark. The AOTC:ICS even mentions modern cruisers and lighter destroyers that use the Trade Federation coreship at their core, which itself is a larger construct than a Rendili Dreadnaught. And that's also from before the Clone Wars kick off. Then again, there's a reference to homemade models of Rendili ships in ROTS:ICS, which also seems to imply they have different sizes. Maybe it's like the Mon Calamari, they build a design to different scales? Thrawn McEwok posted: I thought the description in the novel actually sounded more like the rear of the Scimitar, with just the general shape of the TIE. No "eyeball" cockpit yet, and I think the vertical "wings" curved inwards. There's no eyeball cockpit, but I seem to remember a spherical fuselage with large, vertical sidepanels from the description in the book. Basically, an overgrown, stock TIE, but less a starfighter and more a tiny capital ship. Thrawn McEwok posted: As I said above about "Nomad", I don't think authorial interviews count in determining canon. The storytellers can have ideas which don't fit with existing canon, or which are later contradicted by it - Zahn said in an interview that Mara was the only Hand, K-Mac said that Coruscant isn't all "one big city", but canon countermanded both. Or in some cases, retconned their explanations. Artifical lakes and forests for K-Mac's example. When there's nothing directly contradicting an author's explanation, especially regarding their own books, I tend to just go with their explanation. Thrawn McEwok posted: Dr Saxton has long been a proponent of a theory that the ISD is a small picket ship and the Executor is a relatively normal-sized large warship. This is a case he's argued with great strength and conviction for many years, and it's clearly reflected in his comments in that interview - but I don't think that that it's a theory that stands up, either in terms of the relative sizes of the ships, or in terms of canon: the ISD is a large warship, and the Executor is a terrifying, out-of-all-sane-scale monster. From the fansite of his, I got most of the remarks on specific things in his books, but there's no real sense of the Executor being normal from what I've read on his site. The only time I remember anything, is usually related to smaller ships, like the Old Republic Invincible-class dreadnaught. Besides, some of the stuff seen or described in SW is similar to tech in Warhammer 40,000, and since I like both franchises, I don't mind an increasing comparison. The Imperium of Man has some battleships 5 or 6 kilometers long and most other types go in-between that and a Star Destroyer size. I see no reason why the Galactic Empire can't keep up with that, minus the slave pits, that is. Thrawn McEwok posted: The Eye of Palpatine has always been canonically larger than the SSDs, though - it's on the way to superweapon territory, a "battlemoon" as well as a "dreadnaught". Yeah, still wish they'd scale it down a bit. Or at least give out actual statistics. Thrawn McEwok posted: Maybe I've got this wrong, but I thought that the relative power of the two designs is only implied by a comparison between the Hoth and Yavin shields. As I pointed out, there are other factors that strengthen the Hoth shield, and engine power does NOT directly correlate to size. No, but it's often used as a factor in SW. And it's not the shields alone, it's the all the defenses as well as power for the rest of the respective bases. A Star Destroyer power plant would have problems against multiple of the same, not to mention a massive command ship like the Executor on top of that again. Regardless, even a ship with a larger size and a bigger power-supply doesn't necessarily have to be "better" or "irreplaceable". The Complete Encyclopedia mentions that the class was outdated during the Civil War and only saw limited use at that point. I think that might explain why even a spotty book like the Imperial Sourcebook mostly just talks about ISDs and Victory Star Destroyers. They're the stock forces in the local naval forces, for all we know there could be all kinds of local ships that are too old, too rare, too "local" to be counted as ordinary. Even bigger constructs. Thrawn McEwok posted: A battle cruiser with a Class 0.5 hyperdrive (like the "big Corellian ships" capable of providing real competition for the Falcon), would probably have more powerful engines than a battle cruiser with a Class 1 or Class 2 hyperdrive (like the ISD-II and ISD-I), even if they're the same size. Yeah, but again, SW does have an amount of internal logic with this, either the engines are made larger, have multiple units, or are made smaller, but to a higher cost. Even though the technology is beyond anything we can muster, the internal logic is similar to real-life constructs. Thrawn McEwok posted: With all respect to authorial intentions, I don't see any canon evidence that many larger warships than ISDs even exist in that timeframe. Malevolence wouldn't really be a threat if it was just a normal-sized "heavy cruiser". That's just speculation. Since it's not called anything more flamboyant shows it's not completely out of the ordinary. Otherwise they'd call it a "super-dreadnought" or "battle fortress" or something. "Heavy cruiser" is consistent with real-life terms and even some larger SW designs (the curiously named Invincible-class Dreadnaught Heavy Cruiser for one), and the production team even compared it to the Bismarck. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, but I rank authors and directors at LFL as having a slight authority when they give answers to questions like this. A Star Destroyer blows up so easily, it's good to have a challenge in a story once in a while. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]If George Lucas can call the Invisible Hand a Star Destroyer, I don't think that "Rebel slang" needs to limit the term Super Star Destroyer to pointy ships[/quote] The same George Lucas that also thought Jar-Jar Binks was a brilliant idea. I'd like to see an actual source for Rebel ships being referred to as such, Lucas is a bit of an unreliable source at times. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]The reason why the SWTC catalog is a problem is that it bears no relationship to the canon catalogues of terms. It's fine to make something up, but I'm less sure about presenting it as "right" when it doesn't fit canon. And carriers, as in real life, are dedicated fighter/assault platforms built around a launch-deck. Broadly speaking, it's having an offensive armament that makes a cruiser or destroyer "not a carrier".[/quote] Well, they seem more like the Russian cruiser-carrier if that's the case. And "fitting the canon"? Most of the Expanded Universe doesn't gel with the movies and the movies don't always gel with themselves. That's what's so fun. No-one knows what's next. And that's how I like it. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]I'm not sure I follow your reasoning here: ISDs and even VSDs seem to work fine as fleet command ships, and as I said, Admiral Screed, one of the Imperial Navy's top commanders, uses a 500m Gladiator-class Star Destroyer... I don't think you need anything bigger than that to carry the required holonet equipmet or communications officers. [/quote] Well, that seems to contradict the need for larger command ships, ships that were meant to be larger, more heavily armed, have larger command and control complexes, etc. And the only time I saw Screed travelling in that Star Destroyer, it seemed all alone and with no real support ships to command around. The Gladiator-class also seems to be geared for remote areas where it's the biggest ship around. This Marvel command ship had Star Destroyers almost crawling around it. And it didn't have a forked front. Another tell-tale difference. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]Superships are designed to carry the equipment of a whole fleet on one hull, and to be scary - and like any Star Destroyer, they can operate alone, as we see at Bespin in the movies and several more times in the novels and comics; they do carry fleet command equipment, but that's not their only role, nor their primary role, and I don't see any evidence that you'd need something bigger than an ISD to act as a fleet flagship.[/quote] No, but you do need larger hulls to physically carry more guns. There's enough examples in SW to justify building bigger and bigger weapons-platforms. ROTS:ICS hints at Imperial knowledge of Yuuzhan Vong, Separatist survivors etc. as justification for expanding and maintaining the massive Imperial Navy. Given the spirit of competition and weapons-craze it's an ideal setting for shipyards and designers to expand their visions, and I find that more fun than just seeing ISDs and VSDs all the time. Since the Executor's amount of firepower is sometimes compared to a "small fleet" (Starships of the Galaxy, original edition), ships inbetween that and the Imperial seem even less of a big deal now. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]Firstly, as I said, a fast ship is going to have bigger engines than a slow ship of the same size - and a larger ship can have the same engines as a smaller, faster one.[/quote] Yes, but there's the problem of ship layout. The same engine on a smaller ship is going to take up more space. Even SW doesn't brush that away. From Starships of the Galaxy's 2001 edition, the Nebula and MC90 designs are described as relatively small and compact (even compared to the ISD), but they surpass it in power (either from increasing the reactor-size or compressing the design of a larger one, the book doesn't say) and consequently are more expensive to build and don't get big production lines. They're both kept in fleets near the Core to avoid risking their deployment into battles they can't be guaranteed to win. If the size-to-power ratio was no big deal at all, that kind of statement wouldn't be found in any SW book. Parts of SW is fantasy and parts is down-and-dirty mechanics, some of which are based on real-life technical problems. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]Perhaps that's the answer to the problem: the Acclamator wasn't new, but was developed between TPM and AotC?[/quote] I think it flat-out says that in the KDY section of The New Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology. The Acclamator was a pre-war design. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]And what was Rothana's history? Were they always a KDY subsidiary, or did that happen after they designed the GAR ships?[/quote] They worked for Kuat on the GAR assets, same source as the above. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]"Now outdated" because they're meant to precede the VenStar? [/quote] Yep. I find this poor work on the part of the writers of the book. If they can compile so much info, is it too little to ask for consistency on some of the entries that take on so iconic designs? [quote=Thrawn McEwok]But canon may make this difficult...[/quote] There is less "canon" and more "a series of retcons" at this point. [quote=Thrawn McEwok]The problem with this is that KDY's big-pointy-ship design is largely the work of the VSD designer's daughter and her psychological issues. Trying to make Rendili the plagerizers doesn't really fit well with the canon presentation of KDY, who seem to owe most of their Star Destroyer success to imitating Walex Blissex, and not being as tied to the good-guy political oposition as Rendili...[/quote] Well, given he works for a company who wants to capitalize on the Acclamator design's success by industrial espionage and plagerization, I'm tempted to take KDY's side on this. Phew, I hope posts don't go like this all the time.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Havac Title: Lit Mod of War Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 7/3 2:15pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Thrawn McEwok posted: Tzizvvt78: There's a series of Advanced Project ships already developed by 29 BBY, going by Wookieepedia. The latest model being a large ship that's obviously a precursor to the TIE, complete with the "bow-tie" side panels. So, there's nothing in any source that goes against the idea if Sienar developed these look-alike designs for years already, even if they don't have a SIE-TIE engine. I thought the description in the novel actually sounded more like the rear of the Scimitar, with just the general shape of the TIE. No "eyeball" cockpit yet, and I think the vertical "wings" curved inwards. Rogue Planet posted: Tarkin used a small hand scope to look over the details on the new ships. Each was twenty meters wide, with broad, flat cooling vanes terminating their wings. The compartments were compact, spherical, hardly luxurious. They're later called "advanced fighters" -- though the large size is obviously odd; they'd seem to be more patrol craft. Personally, I suspect Bear (or his editor) was stumbling over the metric system. But the important thing is, the wings are flat, not curved, and the eyeball is there. -----signature----- "Is there a captain's hat involved in this?"
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/3 6:30pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	WOTC updated their site - the Rebellion Era Campaign Guide is on track for Jul 21. Naturally there will be new starships, but what I found interesting is that it promises to draw from the "books, comics and games" of the era. Might this mean we'll get stats-a-plenty on ships from the X-Wing games? And Empire at War? What Rebellion Era ships from books, comics, and games of the era hasn't been covered yet? Despite the misstep that was the recent Jedi sourcebook, I still have high hopes for this one, as the Campaign Guides have usually been well-written... -----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: 7/4 4:58am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	There's loads of potential Marvel stuff, the limpet ships and some personal transports from the Rebellion comic, possibly a follow-up on the Phase 0 Dark Trooper (with stats on the Arc Hammer, maybe?) I certainly hope for no more Imperial or Executor stats, we have them for WOTC's Starship Battles and the SOTG starship book already. On top of that, there's the Galaxy at War book in September. That's gonna focus on war-related additions for different eras, including starships. Could hold a lot of surprises.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
AdmiralNick22 Registered: May '03	Date Posted: 7/4 11:31am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	blackmyron posted: WOTC updated their site - the Rebellion Era Campaign Guide is on track for Jul 21. Naturally there will be new starships, but what I found interesting is that it promises to draw from the "books, comics and games" of the era. Might this mean we'll get stats-a-plenty on ships from the X-Wing games? And Empire at War? What Rebellion Era ships from books, comics, and games of the era hasn't been covered yet? Despite the misstep that was the recent Jedi sourcebook, I still have high hopes for this one, as the Campaign Guides have usually been well-written... I agree with you 100%. The Jedi sourcebook is the expection to the rule. Both the Knights of the Old Republic and the Legacy-era campaign guides have been exceptionally well written and researched. I can only hope that the Rebellion Era Campaign Guide follows the trend set by those books. For me personally, it would be awesome to see the section detailing the Rebel Alliance military and leadership draw heaviliy on the old WEG RASB. I would love to see references to Sector Forces, line admirals, secret bases, Supreme Allied Commanders, and the like. --Adm. Nick -----signature----- Fleet Junkie Founding Father Official Greatest Admiral Ackbar Fan "A peaceful Galactic Alliance is the strongest pillar of a peaceful galaxy." - Luke Skywalker "I will surrender, Admiral, when I can no longer fight!" - Admiral Gar Stazi A New Hope
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/4 6:25pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	I'd assume they would do the same for the Empire, focusing on the post-dissolution of the Imperial Senate and drawn from the old ISB. Maybe a significant section on the "Fringe", to cover the Hutts, Black Sun and the Zann Consortium? (I'm not sure if they would have the room, but the ships from Forces of Corruption would be a nice addition). Maybe they'll also settle exactly what Giel's ship actually was... -----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: 7/6 12:03am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	For any FJers who might care; this is what the Bes'uliik (Mando starship from LoTF) pretty much was imagined to look like. Just square off the tail and change the cockpit around a bit. I shared the article with KT and she said that was pretty close to what she had the Bes'uliik looking like and she was going to pass it on to several artists who had asked what the fighter looked liked. -----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
Nobody145 Registered: Feb '07	Date Posted: 7/6 5:11am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	I'm hoping the Rebellion Campaign Guide makes up for the failure better known as the Jedi Academy book. Even as a Jedi fan, I didn't have to think too hard about not buying that thing, not after reading a few pages of it at a bookstore (the Halcyon article alone was sad). I'm only a minor fleet junkie, but I wonder if they'll add any Confederacy ships stats to the Rebellion fleet, although just having more Mon Cal ships would be awesome as well. Although I'm expecting they'll probably have "refer to SotG pg. x" for some of the more famous ships too. I think the recent Rebellion comic series had some of that, with Rebel One being a... Providence-class ship, I think? An outdated ship by then, but still I liked seeing the Rebel fleet have what used to be a frontline ship. -----signature----- Don't mind me, I'm nobody important.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/6 6:33am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/6 6:34am (1 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	I think most of the movie-Confederacy capital ships have been shown in Rebel service. Even a few Lucrehulks were taken and used in the book Death Star. Many Munificent frigates filled out the Rebel fleet (Starships of the Galaxy Saga Edition) and at least one Providence and Recusant destroyer was there as well, going by the Rebellion comics.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/6 9:42am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	They'll probably mention the usage of old Confederacy ships - of course, they were also using old Republic ships and captured Imperial ships as well... With limited space (and a lot of possible source materials to cover) they probably won't do much else but mention it, although I could see stats for the Rebel One being given, considering its importance in Rebellion. Thanks for the heads-up, Patch. Does this mean something will be coming out with images of the Bes'uliik relatively soon? -----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: 7/6 10:07am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	blackmyron posted: Thanks for the heads-up, Patch. Does this mean something will be coming out with images of the Bes'uliik relatively soon? Unknown. I do know that several artists, from the sounds of it, fan artists and perhaps some who've worked on LFL projects before, were asking Karen what the Bessie looked like and she didn't want to lock anything down in case an official image came through, but when I showed her the story she commented that the airplane was really almost dead on what she'd pictured the Bessie as looking like, with the exception of a more squared off tail and a slight cockpit redesign. She was going to point fan artists at the craft if they got a hold of her again in case an artist needed a look at something that was very close to the design she had in mind. The only thing I forget is whether she intended the Bessie to have internal or external hardpoints. I know it used hardpoints and mounts rather like K-Wings instead of having a standard outfitting, but don't know if they were meant to be internal hardpoints or external. -----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
Vrook_Lamar Registered: May '08	Date Posted: 7/14 12:48pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/14 12:55pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Vrook_Lamar
	Already posted this somewhere else but: http://www.wizards.com/starwars/downloads/RPG_RebellionEra_Preview2.pdf Can anyone tell me what the giant TIE advanced thing that's just visable in the picture on the second page is? + Does the TIE Experimental M3 seriously only have twin missile launchers and 8 missiles, so it runs out of ammo after firing four times? It's remote controlled, so maybe it's expected to be blown up before it needs to fire a fifth time, but if that's the case, why does it have shields? What were those scientists thinking?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 514 | 515 | 516 | 517 | 518 | 519 | 520 | 521 | 522 | 523 » - Previous | Next | Reload