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

Discussion in 'Literature' started by AdmiralWesJanson, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    The CC-series of warships has always fascinated me. On one hand, they look nothing like traditional CEC warships, so I have always favored retconning the hull design to be from another Corellian shipbuilder, but with CEC "guts" on the inside. As for why we never see them, I like the idea of the majority of them being part of the Corellian Rebel Sector Force. The Corellians were one of the few Sector Forces to have their own navy, so this could be used as an explanation as to why they are "off screen" so much. We know that the Corellians and Bothans didn't want to give full control of their naval asserts to Fleet Command, so this retcon works for a lot of unseen ships.

    --Adm. Nick
  2. Gorefiend Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2004
    star 5
    I kind of always figured they were refitted larger transport hulls, since CEC also builds tons of those and they do look rather box like and are said to be easy to refit from what I recall.
  3. Gamiel Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2012
    star 5
    Something I hope we will se in coming times are spaceships that are referred to as: clipper, junk, uru, dhow, xebec and/or knarr
  4. Gorefiend Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2004
    star 5

    People in Xim's times might actually have done that

    darthscott3457 likes this.
  5. AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    Well, the ironic part is that they are the proper hull design for CEC warships. Form follows function for CEC. The DP and CR series are small ships designed for speed, while the CC series are proper capital ships.Thus the small corvettes and gunships are rather sparse, with massive engine sections. The CC ships are far blockier because they probably put big sheets of armor and shield generators over top of the "guts."

    And CEC has a lot of hull designs with a few generally shared traits- The YT series are generally all all discs with a conical cockpit. YV series are rather blocky, as are the Action series ships. CR are built for speed, and the DP series looks like a formalization of the design from the Charger c70 refit to the Consular into a warship from the keel up.
  6. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Concerning the Brass Star Destroyer to Executor size ratio (just over 8:1)- it's been argued that it's impossible for it to be consistent with some of the movie shots.

    Has anyone ever tried to recreate some of the movie shots, using simplified computer models of both the Star Destroyer and the SSD- to see if an 8 and a bit to 1 ratio, can work at all?
  7. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    The thing about movie shots is that they aren't always perfectly to scale. Sometimes they are dead on, other times they are wildly off. Scaling based on film visuals is a messy path to walk. The older I get and the more I have argued & reargued these debates, the more I am of the opinion that we are all fighting a futile battle. :p

    Hence why I want LFL to do their best research, publish the official final lengths (odds are fans of both sides will win some and lose some), and then we can all move on and wait to debate the merits of the ships in Episode VII. As I said before, at this point I would be happy with ANY set of lengths, provided they are final. If that ends up being a 17km SSD and a 1.2km Home One, or a 14km SSD and 3.2km Home One or just about anything else, I could care less. [face_dunno]

    --Adm. Nick
    Gorefiend likes this.
  8. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Or, as per the latest Death Star book, a 120km DS1 and a 160km DS2 :D
    Gorefiend likes this.
  9. Tzizvvt78 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2009
    star 4
    That, plus not knowing what techniques are used for each shot, in that case the brass destroyer and the Executor model's respective placements.

    As long as LFL insists on changing numbers per ship per book and still go with hard numbers, no matter what, we're not getting any end to these discussions. How long are those Separatist destroyers, again? :p
    Last edited by Tzizvvt78, Nov 3, 2013
  10. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3
    It is a little ridiculous, but a lot more strange at this point. I guess now I just have to wait for another cycle maybe where they hire another person with an science or engineering background to bring the numbers to where they should be;)
  11. FTeik Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2000
    star 5
    Although you get a problem with a handful of 500 meter long HomeOnes beating a 32 km long Executor. That just stretches credibility. ;)
  12. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    What does "a science or engineering background" have to do with in-movie length estimates?

    Ryder Windham at least has a long career as a Star Wars writer, and has written a great many reference books.

    For those that like maximal estimates of Death Star II power- the book does say that peak power when firing is "equal to hundreds of supergiant stars".
  13. AdmiralNick22 Fleet Admiral of Literature

    Manager
    Member Since:
    May 28, 2003
    star 6
    Well, I would argue against that one. :p

    My hope would be that the final lengths were all within the ranges we all debate (high or low), so that it wouldn't be that jarring.

    --Adm. Nick
  14. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    The 19km Executor, I'm guessing, came as a surprise- because it was even bigger than the "11 times the length of an Imperial Star Destroyer" quote that had been discovered, and that people were arguing for (because it supported movie visuals).

    Come to think of it- the same applies to the 900km DS2 figure- Saxton was arguing for 800km, not 900.

    I believe Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy was the earliest background book to use those figures:

    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Inside_the_Worlds_of_Star_Wars_Trilogy
    Last edited by Iron_lord, Nov 4, 2013
  15. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3
    More for numbers in general, but to some extent in taking a really hard analytical look at something like determining the length of a ship. I would love to see some compromise or in-depth discussion before they come up with the initial numbers, but I have the feeling that doesn't happen. I think the SW verse would greatly benefit from incorporating things from a more scientific or military points of view. A little diversity would help when setting stories about conflicts in space.
  16. Tzizvvt78 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2009
    star 4
    I've seen plenty of examples where some SW authors do employ real life terminology. I don't think there's too much or too little that's the problem, but all the inconsistencies. Death Stars can blow up planets, turbolasers can evaporate asteroids, the Star Destroyer is really big compared to the Corellian corvette, the Executor is really big compared to the Star Destroyer, that's all stuff we get straight from the movies.

    Preferably, there shouldn't be more than that, but if they have to include hard numbers, I wish they'd actually do it thoroughly on the first try. At least when ILM did speed charts, they used fictional terminology and only relative speeds between starfighters.
    Last edited by Tzizvvt78, Nov 4, 2013
  17. Gamiel Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 16, 2012
    star 5
    Hard numbers are the enemy
  18. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    On a totally unrelated note, I just rewatched ANH, and realized something. The entire reason they used Proton Torpedoes was because the shaft was ray shielded, and the torps would go right through that type of shield. Why is this important? Most ships use...ray shields. Or some combination of ray and particle shielding. Thus, this might explain mass-fighter attacks being effective on large ships like Star Destroyers. If they have pro-torps, they would go right through any ray shielding.

    Nice little retcon there I think.
    Gorefiend likes this.
  19. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Makes sense that, if most shielding for warships of any kind is ray shielding, with particle shielding being very much secondary, then torpedoes would be the best ship-killer.

    Interestingly, in I think Legacy of the Jedi (the one where Lorian Nod plays a major role) it specifically says that the ship they're flying can't have both ray and particle shields up at the same time.
  20. Tzizvvt78 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 12, 2009
    star 4
    And then Lucas goes and calls a shield trapping Obi-Wan and Anakin in ROTS a ray shield...
  21. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3
    The only reason not to have particle shielding I think would mean they should have an adequate defense system to intercept projectile weapons or at least they think they do. Though I wish we saw more of a balance between energy and kinetic weaponry, the amount of weapons diversity would mean for a more well prepared military.
  22. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    The only 'pure' projectile weaponry that comes to mind is Zann's Mass Drivers.


    Which, incidentally, are effective for the same reason. Ray shields don't stop them, so they are 'shield piercers', since even if a ship has particle shields they are so secondary that they can't take the hit.
  23. King of Alsakan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 25, 2007
    star 3

    I concur should see them more often. Some other examples are the planet busting Kumauri battleship, the Republic Cal-class battleship, and the Hutt Planechanga. The tech should of been there from earlier on to make some devastating kinetic energy weapons, so for me there no good reason they should be seen in every era unless some great defense exists.
  24. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    Well, out-of-universe its because its well, Star Wars. Blasters and flashy turbolasers are the name of the game :p


    IU, it seems to be a stigma using projectile weapons of any scale. Turbolasers/blasters are so ingrained that Mass Drivers or Slugthrowers are considered a curiosity, unless you are Tyber 'Mary Sue' Zann.

    EDIT: Now, that being said...it doesn't mean that if people started using Mass Drivers to take advantage of this 'flaw' in SW shields it would make them unstoppable. Fact is, that if a big enough faction did this, people would just refit their ships to project a particle shield as their main defense. And if the 'enemy' switched back to turbolasers to counter this, it would just be a matter of switching back to ray shields.


    This is probably why turbolasers are so predominate (other than cultural stigma). If they used kinetic firepower, particle shields would come to the front. And then it would become an arms race with rotating turbolaser--Mass Driver---particle shields---turbolasers---ray shields---so on into infinity. Thus, turbolasers are the accepted norm.
    Last edited by Skywalker_T-65, Nov 4, 2013
  25. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    Possibly it disrupts organic matter that passes through it, doing massive damage.
    darthscott3457 likes this.