Star "Dreadnaught" vs. Star "Destroyer"?

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-03-30 09:00pm

Jim Raynor wrote:Saxton likes to dismiss it because it doesn't look like a Victory-class, even though it's also a Rendili Stardrive design.

Actually, Saxton doesn't have any coverage for it because it isn't an Imperial craft. He doesn't have a topic covering New Republic ships.

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2005-03-30 09:08pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:
The Original Nex wrote:Here's a slightly better representation of the Republic-class

Though it still looks like shit. . .
Ah.. I rember that ship from playing the Homeworld2 Mod I have. Interesting concept, it looks more like a StarDestroyer... If it had been built by the MonCals

My thoughts exactly, still looks better than the WEG version though. . .

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-03-30 09:18pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Actually, Saxton doesn't have any coverage for it because it isn't an Imperial craft. He doesn't have a topic covering New Republic ships.

He has the Republic-class under "Warships of the Empire," where he covers all dagger-shaped warships.

I just discovered more EU stupidity on the theforce.net boards, which I confirmed by checking the Unofficial Star Wars Encyclopedia site. Apparently, the first Defender/Nebula-class Star Destroyer was named Obi-Wan.

Gorefiend · Post by **Gorefiend** » 2005-03-31 01:42am

Apparently, the first Defender/Nebula-class Star Destroyer was named Obi-Wan.

Ähh, a lot of things in the NR fleet get called after important people or places in the galactic civil war.

The New Class crap gets dismissed because of the simple fact that they're supposed to be built on the same hulls as each other, but they look completely different. I wish we had something like that on the Republic, or a retcon like Starships of the Galaxy did with the Defender/Nebula

Care to pass pictures of the others? I don't think I ever saw any.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-03-31 02:20am

Gorefiend wrote:Ähh, a lot of things in the NR fleet get called after important people or places in the galactic civil war.

The name itself doesn't bother me. It's the fact that the name was used on the FIRST ship of a class that already has a fucked up name. Now it could be the Obi-Wan/Defender/Nebula-class Star Destroyer.

Care to pass pictures of the others? I don't think I ever saw any.

Ships that supposedly share the same hull are posted together.

Agave-class Picket Ship and Warrior-class Gunship

Sacheen-class Light Escort and Hajen-class Fleet Tender

Majestic-class Heavy Cruiser and Defender-class Assault Carrier

Obi-wan/Defender/Nebula-class Star Destroyer and Endurance-class Fleet Carrier

The only ones that look like they might be built on a similar hull are the Star Destroyer and the Fleet Carrier, and their look was recently retconned. Notice that although "Defender" was one of the screwed-up names assigned to the Star Destroyer, there is also a Defender Assault Carrier and short-range Defender starfighter in the New Class lineup. I think Wizards of the Coast recently made a half-baked retcon attempt to organize all of these ships under the "Defender Program," but this mess should never have happened in the first place.

The ugliness of these ships makes me want to puke...

Thirdfain · Post by **Thirdfain** » 2005-03-31 02:24am

My god, those things are fucking disgusting. I don't even like posting in PSW, and I was moved just by their ugliness to post.

God, what a mauling of the actually fairly cool idea of the Black Fleet Crisis-era Republic fleet....

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-03-31 02:25am

Yeah, the whole book those are from is kind of messed up like that.

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-03-31 02:28am

Jim Raynor wrote:Ships that supposedly share the same hull are posted together.

Agave-class Picket Ship and Warrior-class Gunship

Sacheen-class Light Escort and Hajen-class Fleet Tender

Majestic-class Heavy Cruiser and Defender-class Assault Carrier

Obi-wan/Defender/Nebula-class Star Destroyer and Endurance-class Fleet Carrier

The ugliness of these ships makes me want to puke...

Dually noted...

Whoever drew thos... 'Things' as well as whoever approved of them being drawn, deserves the harshest, most sevear form of Re-Education one can imagine, those, are a travisty to StarWars ships!

Gorefiend · Post by **Gorefiend** » 2005-03-31 03:29am

omg o.O

Usually the art is quite nice in WEG books, but that…. ugh… that’s even worse then the bit messed up SSD in the Imperial Sourcebook…

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-03-31 03:31am

That book came out around the tail end of WEG's legacy.

Gorefiend · Post by **Gorefiend** » 2005-03-31 03:41am

Cracken's
Threat Dossier
1997
WEG40139
0-87431-288-4

Hmm the other books I own from the same year are all quite fine. Especially the Pirates and Privateers sourcebook, the best WEG book ever in mho.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-03-31 04:00am

Yeah, I actually own both of those, too.

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2005-03-31 12:26pm

Ugh...though ships designs look more like Zentradi designs (where the could potential be cool), but for SW......

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-03-31 12:45pm

Spartan wrote:Ugh...though ships designs look more like Zentradi designs (where the could potential be cool), but for SW......

Hey now! Don't insult Zentradi like that

Seriously, those are some messed up ships for ANY universe, StarWars or otherwise.

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2005-03-31 03:35pm

Crossroads Inc. wrote:

Hey now! Don't insult Zentradi like that Wink Seriously, those are some messed up ships for ANY universe, StarWars or otherwise.

True....okay maybe Macross 2...shudders!

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2005-03-31 07:29pm

Gorefiend wrote:omg o.O

Usually the art is quite nice in WEG books, but that…. ugh… that’s even worse then the bit messed up SSD in the Imperial Sourcebook…

Actually, that doesn't even hold a candle. That was just a picture created using wrong assumptions. These are just plain ugly. I bet the crews secretly felt shame in serving on such ugly ships, and that affected morale, which the Rebels see as particularly important (when they aren't attributing their victories to the Force).

lordmakalpine · Post by **lordmakalpine** » 2005-04-09 03:35pm

I've always been confused by this Destroyer vs. Dreadnaught argument. I always thought of Star Destroyers not in the nautical terms, but more akin to the 'Sun Crusher' and other Imperial superweapons

Crossroads Inc. · Post by **Crossroads Inc.** » 2005-04-09 03:40pm

AArrrgg!! It's the Return of the Dead Thread! Quick! get wooden stakes and Garlic!

Post by **Ghost Rider** » 2005-04-09 03:52pm

Ummm little more then 1 week is not resurrecting a thread, so don't spam it saying it's thread Necro.

Most mods take a time of minimal two weeks before saying anything of the sort.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-04-09 05:38pm

Spartan wrote:Crossroads Inc. wrote:

Hey now! Don't insult Zentradi like that Wink Seriously, those are some messed up ships for ANY universe, StarWars or otherwise.
True....okay maybe Macross 2...shudders!

Nothing deserves to be compared to Macross 2. Nothing. To bring up that hated name is like accusing something of war crimes....

Vanas · Post by **Vanas** » 2005-04-09 06:03pm

o.0 Those things are... nasty.

I do wonder why we don't get a Dreadnought in SW though. Get an ISD hull, strip off all the MTL and anti-fighter stuff and tool it up with HTL through the roof. Might be a tad expensive but hell, when you're a Galactic Govenment, a trial run never hurts.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2005-04-09 06:04pm

Gorefiend wrote:Maybe they don’t have class names, after all each of them is a “piece of art” and the ships in ROTS were build by the Quarren not the Mon Cal, as it says somewhere on the Indivisible Hand picture from the ICS. That is another thing they need to change in the ICS’s books for me to enjoy them, don’t bloody hide part of the ships past and construction history on the little annotation arrows.

Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers are each unique but their differences aren't great enough to make them different classes, heck each warship ever built is rather unique, if only due to human variability.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2005-04-09 06:18pm

Vanas wrote:o.0 Those things are... nasty.

I do wonder why we don't get a Dreadnought in SW though. Get an ISD hull, strip off all the MTL and anti-fighter stuff and tool it up with HTL through the roof. Might be a tad expensive but hell, when you're a Galactic Govenment, a trial run never hurts.

Actually, SW does have a combat optimised ISD you can get a glimpse of it in RotJ it has neither a hanger bay nor a reactor bulge, and it was recently classified by Saxton as a Tector-class SD. Also, the Executor is a Dreadnought.
Yes all the BFC ships in the CTD look ugly about the only ship that looks even close to what it should is the Corona Frigate. Also I don't mind the Warrior Gunship.
I never really accepted those ships as correct what with all the errors, ugliness, and inconsistency. And with the retcon of the Defender SD by WOTC, I feel good about throwing out most of the other stuff.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2005-04-09 06:55pm

I don't think some people really know the roles of the warships classes.
Below is the best breakdown of warship roles I've ever seen, it came from
++http://www.worldwar1.co.uk/warship.html

Below is an outline of the different types of warship that served in world War 1. It should be noted that these are not formal and there can be quite a bit of blurring between types for certain ships but hopefully it does give a general idea of what the different types were.

Battleships

The name is derived from line of battle ships and they were the most powerful and usually largest warship type designed to fight other large warships. Emphasis was usually on heavy armament and armour protection with only a modest speed.

Dreadnought Battleships
Named after the British battleships HMS Dreadnought which unlike previous battleships had a main armament of uniform gun type and a light secondary armament primarily for defence against torpedo craft.

Pre-Dreadnought Battleships
A term used to describe battleships built before HMS Dreadnought that had a mixed armament usually of 4 main guns and a heavy secondary armament. By the time of WW1 many no longer served with the main battle-fleet as they were too weak and slow to fight with Dreadnought battleships and were relegated to secondary roles such as shore bombardment and coast defence.

Semi-Dreadnought Battleships
A term sometimes used to describe the last generation of pre-Dreadnought battleships that had a heavy intermediary gun battery (usually 8-10 inch guns) as well as the normal main and secondary guns.

Cruisers

Jack of all trade warships that were considered the smallest type capable of sustained independent operations. Sizes varied from quite small to in some cases as large or larger than battleships. Speed was important for most cruisers whilst armament and protection varied considerably. Roles were many and including trade protection, scouting, showing the flag, police work, patrol, raiding, leading destroyer flotillas and supporting battleships in a fleet action.

Battlecruisers
Originally a type of large and powerful armoured cruiser designed for similar roles - trade protection, scouting, support the battle-line. As large as battleships and with a similar main armament, although slightly fewer guns, they had much weaker armour but high speed. As time went on they became more like fast battleships and less like large cruisers.

Armoured Cruisers
Large cruisers capable of most cruiser roles. The name is derived from the usage of belt armour in the ships, a feature that had not been practical until the 1890s when new armour types were developed which were light enough to make belt armour of useful thickness practical in a cruiser. The type were superseded by the battlecruiser although many served in WW1

Protected Cruisers
Cruisers that lacked belt armoured but relied on a curved armoured deck to protect the vitals of the ship.

Scout Cruisers
Small, fast cruisers many to act as flotilla leaders for destroyers and to act as scouts.

Light Cruisers
Originally light armoured cruisers indicating the use of belt armour in smaller cruisers. The term was later used to cover most small and medium cruisers.

First/Second/Third Class
Certain roles such as trade protection or colonial police work required a large number of ships that didn't need to be the most powerful types possible. Because of this often the quality of a warship with designated by calling them first, second or third class. First class was the best but most expensive.

Destroyers

A shortening of the original name for this type which was Torpedo Boat Destroyer (TBD). Originally a larger, faster type of torpedo boat with more emphasis on gun armament and less on torpedo and designed to destroy torpedo boats. by the end of WW1 were used for many roles including screening larger warships against enemy torpedo craft (including submarines), convoy escort, patrol, offensive torpedo attacks etc.

Torpedo Boats

Originally small fast torpedo carrying craft. Mainly superseded by destroyers by the end of WW1.

Monitors

A warship used for coastal bombardment. They were slow, lacked protection, were armed with a few large guns and had a shallow draught. Not suitable of fighting against other warships.

Now, something I thought of bringing up in the past, is that it seems to me that the Imperial Navy is actually more similar to the early 20th century American than the early 20th century British or Japanese navies. I say this because the Americans built tons of large destroyers and enough battleships to make them the second most powerful fleet behind Britain, and had only a few cruisers. Although, they sometimes had to press destroyers into cruiser roles their large size meant they were as powerful as some light cruisers. Because America had few imperial possessions the USN could afford fewer cruisers than Britain or Japan. The Empire with hyperdrive and secure supply bases across the galaxy can also afford to use large destroyers rather than cruisers in their navy.