"Big Corellians Ships"

[PainRack]

Robert, you're mixing up the movies. What I was describing, was the use of an ISD to transport Lord Vader in ANH. Admiral Ozzel was not on board that ship.



Incidently, from Death, Lies and Treachery, Bobba Fett, the comic series depicts a pirate ship, the Bloodstar, that would be able to stand up to an Imperial Battlecruiser(according to Bobba Fett), which if we compare the escape pod size to the ship and assuming that it isn't of tens and thousands of times magnitude larger than that carried by the MF and Tantive IV, will mean the ship is smaller than a Imperial Dreadnaught.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Incidently, from Death, Lies and Treachery, Bobba Fett, the comic series depicts a pirate ship, the Bloodstar, that would be able to stand up to an Imperial Battlecruiser(according to Bobba Fett), which if we compare the escape pod size to the ship and assuming that it isn't of tens and thousands of times magnitude larger than that carried by the MF and Tantive IV, will mean the ship is smaller than a Imperial Dreadnaught.

EU, colloquial, and local expressions for Imperial ships classes are repetatively inconsistent, and I'd like to see some real scaling.

As for the Marvel battlecruisers; Tagge's battlecruiser roundezvous with a mining explorer--it is on the scale of size of a Victory.

EDIT:

Tonnage:

Tonnage is relevent in ship role classification. Always has been with the Age of Sail (sloop, frigate, and ship-of-the-line), and still is.

No, it is not paramount, but it is relevent, and any theory which incorporates it is preferable to one which discounts and ignores it.

Quite frankly everytime I make an argument, you sweep it away and begin bullshitting about minutae, inconsistent examples, nitpicking, etc. The most positively aggrivating thing is your strawman claiming that tonnage is the deciding factor.

Let's be quite clear. Battlecruisers are pointed out in Marvel in the several-mile range. Cruisers, especially heavy cruisers, are highly analogous to battlecruisers. The original battlecruisers were less-protected, faster battleships.

You claim that cruisers escorted battleships and aircraft carriers in WW2. Good for you. This is nitpickery. Did the WW2 cruisers have communications equipment and such which could allow them to serve as command ships? Could they support small aircraft in support of her other missions? Could they both lead small picket fleets, act nearly exclusively in defensive concert for larger vessels, and act independently? Well the DDGs can, to extents, do all these things.

And the bit about CGs and DDGs being close is because there are no true cruisers in the U.S. Navy. None. (Thanks goes to Skimmer)

The Ticonderoga-class CG was originally classed as a DDG, and its hullform belongs to the Spruance-class DDG (thanks Vymp).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... design.htm Its role, its armament, its capabilities, its tonnage are all consistent with a destroyer (thanks Ender and Skimmer).

The Ticonderoga-class CG is a destroyer. Its CG redesignation was purely political and does not indicate actual role. No, the politicans renaming something to make it sound cuter does not change whether the term accurately depicts role, and a claim to the contrary is an Appeal to Authority. (thanks Ender and Skimmer).

Role:

The Imperial Navy is roughly organized in a hybrid between the fleets of the modern day and the Second World War. There are two distinct types of strategic deployments:

Death Squadron-style Deployments:

The equivalent of the modern carrier battlegroup. The Imperial Command Ship Executor is an oddity, but in this capacity it serves as a rough analogue of modern USN Nimitz-class CVNs. It launches special forces incursions as well as supporting the ground operations. The supporting and escorting ISDs are quite closely analogous to Arliegh Burke-class DDGs. These forces are designed to chase down and suppress insurrectionists and criminals.

Admiral Giel's Fleet-style Deployments:

The fleet centers around a battleship and a fleet carrier, much analogous to WW2. Imperial cruisers are analogous to WW2 USN heavy cruisers in essentially being smaller, lighter battleships. They are dedicated ship-to-ship combat vessels. The ISDs serve as something between DDGs and WW2 destroyers mixing escort and high speed (parity with Falcon) with multi-role support and offensive abilities, and the ability to support light aircraft, yet leaving the heavy ship dedicated combat, and carrying duties to dedicated vessels.

This is mostly a modification of the modern carrier battlegroup, provided the same missions are performed by guns because guns never went out of utility. A logical evolution of the WW2 under that premise, heavy cruisers and battleships never go out, and small craft never become so pivotal. But with the offensive capabilities of our trusty DDG-analog, such vessels are not necessary without heavy fleet combat--ground assaults simply reduce down to the modern carrier battlegroup formula again.

Sectorial (Non-"Strategic") Deployments:

The ISD serves as a modern DDG in supporting coast guard operations and fighting small ships plaguing shipping and making ambushes. DDGs also lead groups of smaller frigate, pickets, and coast guard type non-dedicated combat vessels.

Age of Sail:

Describe the Imperial Navy in terms of sloops, frigates, and ships-of-the-line. Your cruiser bullshit doesn't hold up. Determine that the Royal Starship and Republic Cruisers are particularly quick craft. Explain carriers and small craft and spacefighters.

Subjective Horseshit:

This "regard" and "intimidation" stuff isn't just irrelevent, its wrong. DDGs are major surface vessels and their full complement of cruise missiles can devestate small countries, just like an ISD's HTLs.

Kirov:

You're wrong. Its half the tonnage of any battleship. Take it up with Vympel if you think he's a liar.

Battlecruisers:

You're a tool. Do you have any proof that the battlecruisers are slow, compared to ISDs? Especially since Wermis' participated in a blockade and captured the Falcon? Especially with more engines vs. mass than an ISD, and a thinner profile?

ISD a Cruiser? Battleship/Carrier? Can PainRack be Consistent? Tune in Next Week...:

No bub. The last good cruiser analogues you'll find are WW2, and those sub-battleship combatants fit the multi-mile leviathans. Where are the multi-role cruisers (and no, modern CGs are not cruisers) that can serve as command ships and serve light aircraft, as well as exclusively being defensive in the presence of heavy vessels? Ender already said that DDGs can and will operate independently and at the head of smaller forces. And really, destoryers are faster than cruisers. Even WW2 destroyers were the fastest of the fleet.

Find me a battleship/carrier which escorts.

EU Appeals:

The EU simultaneously considers unarmed yachts and ships IT CALLS FRIGATES as cruisers, and refers to Death Squadron as a bunch of battleships or cruisers and a REALLY BIG BATTLESHIP. Well, that tell us a lot indeed. You bitch and whine about tonnage, and the EU says that cruisers are determined by being over 300 meters.

Give me a fucking break.

Now, you can actually refute the points, but since you've proven already you can't, I'll be taking that nice little "I concede," evasive, bullshitting fucker. I will not respond if you again refuse to address the actual theory and point, rather than strawmanning and nitpicking.

[Robert Treder]

Robert, you're mixing up the movies. What I was describing, was the use of an ISD to transport Lord Vader in ANH. Admiral Ozzel was not on board that ship.

I never said Ozzel was present at Tatooine. What I did say is that just because Vader is on a ship doesn't mean he is its flag officer.

[The Dark]

And the bit about CGs and DDGs being close is because there are no true cruisers in the U.S. Navy. None. (Thanks goes to Skimmer)

Actually, based solely by tonnage, there are no true destroyers in the US Navy. Early post-WWII destroyers massed ~3800 tons. The Spruance class doubles that, massing just under the CA-32 New Orleans, and more than the CL-119 Juneau. The last true destroyer built (by tonnage) was the DD-958 Lynde McCormick, a 3910 ton vessel of the Charles F. Adams class. The DDGs are small cruisers, with the smallest massing nearly double as much as the largest DD.

The Ticonderoga-class CG is a destroyer. Its CG redesignation was purely political and does not indicate actual role. No, the politicans renaming something to make it sound cuter does not change whether the term accurately depicts role, and a claim to the contrary is an Appeal to Authority. (thanks Ender and Skimmer).

The use of Tomahawk and Standard/Aegis combination show that the Ticonderoga is used not just in the anti-submarine/anti-torpedo attack role of the traditional destroyer, but also anti-aircraft and anti-surface. All these roles have belonged to both the destroyer and cruiser. Thus, to suggest that it fits only one role does not match the facts. (and, as a nitpick, an appeal to authority is not logically fallacious, it merely makes the argument formally invalid, though it can be either strong or weak depending on the trustworthiness of the authority).

Kirov:

You're wrong. Its half the tonnage of any battleship. Take it up with Vympel if you think he's a liar.

According to Jane's Fighting Ships 1989-1990 edition, the Admiral Ushakov masses 28,000 tons at full load. Admittedly, this is only 62% the mass of an Iowa class fast battleship. It is 80% the mass of BB-55, the third North Carolina. Kirov's a definite missile battlecruiser, with a mass slightly greater than that of the CB-1 Alaska.

No bub. The last good cruiser analogues you'll find are WW2, and those sub-battleship combatants fit the multi-mile leviathans. Where are the multi-role cruisers (and no, modern CGs are not cruisers) that can serve as command ships and serve light aircraft, as well as exclusively being defensive in the presence of heavy vessels? Ender already said that DDGs can and will operate independently and at the head of smaller forces.

In WWII, New Orleans, Indianapolis, and Atlanta-class cruisers attacked Japanese battleships (as did destroyers). The story is recounted by Admiral Julian Becton in his memoirs of being captain of USS Laffey in the biography The Ship That Would Not Die. Eight DDs and five CLs engaged a pair of Kongo-class battleships, plus escorts. The American forces lost a cruiser and four destroyers, while the Japanese lost a battleship, severe damage to a second battleship, and two destroyers were sunk with two more crippled. The American forces were outmassed by the battleships and outnumbered fourteen to thirteen, yet the cruisers did not hesitate to attack larger ships. By your standard of "completely defensive in the presence of heavy vessels," the last cruiser may well have been sometime in WWI. WWII cruisers, like modern DDGs and CGs, acted independently or as heads of small task forces.

And really, destoryers are faster than cruisers. Even WW2 destroyers were the fastest of the fleet.

True, by 0.4 knots for typical mid-war build vessels (USS Laffey 34 knots, USS Atlanta 33.6 knots). I've seen a single instance (that I can recall off the top of my head) of a 37 knot destroyer, although the 1939 DD-432 USS Kearny was only 33 knots, slower than a cruiser.

[Illuminatus Primus]

And the bit about CGs and DDGs being close is because there are no true cruisers in the U.S. Navy. None. (Thanks goes to Skimmer)

Actually, based solely by tonnage, there are no true destroyers in the US Navy. Early post-WWII destroyers massed ~3800 tons. The Spruance class doubles that, massing just under the CA-32 New Orleans, and more than the CL-119 Juneau. The last true destroyer built (by tonnage) was the DD-958 Lynde McCormick, a 3910 ton vessel of the Charles F. Adams class. The DDGs are small cruisers, with the smallest massing nearly double as much as the largest DD.

Wow. Guess there's no true CVs, since ours mass in the 80,000 tons and WW2 carriers have only served as helicarriers in the recent. Thanks for strawmanning the tonnage question yet again.

Need I remind you that the DD-963 SPRUANCE-class is roughly similar in mass (since they share the same hull) as the CG-47 TICONDEROGA-class? You selectively choose to view this as cruisers shrinking and taking up destroyer duties, rather than destroyers growing and taking cruiser duties. Quite frankly, the heavy cruiser of WW2 (the basis of the Imperial Navy's big cruisers) is just a battleship in miniture, and cannot be applied this stictly, because IRL, big guns are out and battleships and heavy cruisers went out too.

According to Skimmer and their roles in carrier battlegroups, they function more often as escorts for carriers versus other ships than anything else. If one wants to obsessively harp on offensive attacks on surface operations--this was a mainstay even of DDs in the Pacific in WW2.

DDGs are destroyers.

The use of Tomahawk and Standard/Aegis combination show that the Ticonderoga is used not just in the anti-submarine/anti-torpedo attack role of the traditional destroyer, but also anti-aircraft and anti-surface. All these roles have belonged to both the destroyer and cruiser. Thus, to suggest that it fits only one role does not match the facts.

Well that's great. Its currently associated with escorts and destroyers. The use of "traditional" is a red herring; it implies that the meaning of the "destroyer" role is static, which it isn't, and the current and modern understanding of destroyer fits better than the WW2 destroyer, or the WW2 light cruiser.

According to Jane's Fighting Ships 1989-1990 edition, the Admiral Ushakov masses 28,000 tons at full load. Admittedly, this is only 62% the mass of an Iowa class fast battleship. It is 80% the mass of BB-55, the third North Carolina. Kirov's a definite missile battlecruiser, with a mass slightly greater than that of the CB-1 Alaska.

Thank you for proving my point. The Alaska-class were really just big heavy cruisers, as the true battlecruiser (a less protected; faster variant of the battleship) died out after WW1 and Jutland.

It is not a battleship, and does not mass as a battleship.

By your standard of "completely defensive in the presence of heavy vessels," the last cruiser may well have been sometime in WWI. WWII cruisers, like modern DDGs and CGs, acted independently or as heads of small task forces.

What does this prove? The WW2 heavy cruisers acted in groups (Giel's fleet), or lead task forces (Shockwave and Harsk's fleet), or independently (Marvel ships). The problem is that they are much more dedicated to fleet combat than the ISD, which is more like a cross between somesort of special-ops support/transport ship and a DDG.

The ISDs are actually somewhat less independent than DDGs, as shown at Endor. This is why I say they have a bit of WW2 destroyer in them, in their speed and more defensive roles. Its is the leviathan-size cruisers which engage and fight much like WW2 cruisers, while supporting and also escorting battleships or carriers. Like all analogies, it cannot be overextended, because it is not universal. Needless to say, this doesn't show how WW2 cruisers are a better comparison for the ISD than something close to modern DDGs.

True, by 0.4 knots for typical mid-war build vessels (USS Laffey 34 knots, USS Atlanta 33.6 knots). I've seen a single instance (that I can recall off the top of my head) of a 37 knot destroyer, although the 1939 DD-432 USS Kearny was only 33 knots, slower than a cruiser.

This is an analogy, and isn't meant to perfectly explain everything, which is particularly impossible dealing with such different forces. It explains stuff better, and more comprehensively than anything else.

[PainRack]

So, you totally ignore my real objections to your arguments over the ISD being a destroyer as vs the canonical description of it being a cruiser and focus on red herrings. WONDERFUL.


Let me sweep the board clean of IP hubris and state what I believe are his methods in determing the ISD class as a destroyer.


1. The ISD is a destroyer, because it is a Star destroyer

2. The ISD is a destroyer, because it fulfills roles close to what a destroyer will fulfill.

3. The ISD is a destroyer, because there are vastly larger ships than it acting in the cruiser and battleship role.


Note what my objections are once again.

1. Naming is a fallacy, as we know that the EU and even the canon describe any size of ships as cruiser and whatnot, but cannot compare in firepower against the ISD.

2. We cannot differentiate between the roles of a crusier and a destroyer from canon.

3. The fact that the Naboo yahct is a cruiser, the ISD is a cruiser, the Executor is a battleship, the Bloodstar can fight along an Imperial battlecruiser, the fact that in one of Bobba Fett captives once claimed that his battlecruiser was being badly damaged by Rebel starfighters, all indicate that the tonnage, isn't vital to the classification of the ship type, but the role the ship plays instead.

You claim that my objections are nothing more than nitpickery, but you never addressed any of the above points, other than to say that you should discard them. Why is it that my system, which can explain how a frigate can outfight a cruiser, is inferior to yours, which simply sweeps them away and reclassify them instead? The purpose of classifying the ships is to enhance the anaylsis of Star Wars. However, I do not believe we operate like KJA and impose our perceptions into Star Wars. Our goal is to see why it is, not what it should be. Complaining that the EU system displays a frigate outmassing a cruiser, or that the canon uses an outdated role for the cruiser is nothing more than imposing your views of what should be, instead of looking into what is.

Now, on to the "nitpickery" IP brought up.

1. Cruisers in WWII. Did you know that cruisers did command naval task forces in WW2? The naval task force that met the Japanese in the Java sea was, commanded by a cruiser. That various cruisers did sport spotter aircraft? That the rest of the stuff you posted are exactly what cruisers are meant to be? Again, the roles the ISD played can and were played by cruisers.

2. Again, no "true" cruisers in the USN? Do you thus wish by this statement, that tonnage, is the true defining role of class, as with your "destroyers growing to take on cruiser roles" statement?
If that is the case, explain why the Guardian class cruiser is a "cruiser". Explain why the Carrack class cruiser and the Loronar strike cruiser are "cruiser". My system explains it by simply saying that that is their role. It is not their "class". If you wish to attack the "naming" conventions, then please state why the naming convention of the ISD makes it a destroyer, as opposed to the canonical statement of it being a cruiser?

The Ticonderoga-class CG is a destroyer. Its CG redesignation was purely political and does not indicate actual role. No, the politicans renaming something to make it sound cuter does not change whether the term accurately depicts role, and a claim to the contrary is an Appeal to Authority. (thanks Ender and Skimmer).

But the Ticonderoga CG also performed roles a cruiser can and do play. We know that the Ticonderoga took command of a SAG and showed the flag in the Middle East before. Why is it not its role then?


1. Death Squadron deployment= Done by cruisers, as seen in Egypt. Sub Executor for transport ships. Alternatively, WWII, when cruisers escorted fast attack carriers in raids on Japanese islands.

2. Admiral Griel deployment= The ISD role was played by Admiral Beatty battlecruisers in the Battle of Jutland.


3. Sectorial group deployments= Interestingly, we noticed that prior to WW1, cruisers were used to lead lesser warships in anti-piracy raids, as well as show the flag missions in piracy prone areas like the Straits of Malacca. indeed, one of the missions RAN cruisers pulled was this objective.

Age of Sail= Red herring, my argument is that the GE utilise a dual rating for its navy, similar to what the RN used for its ships. The argument of cruiser depicting a fast ship is a seperate argument, one that states that the SW classification system seperates roles from class. IOW, a cruiser need not be more deadly than a destroyer.

Subjective horseshit= Again, answer the question. Does a navy with battleships, cruisers and carriers utilise destroyers for VIP transport and flag command? Does such a navy utilise a single destroyer for show the flag missions? This is a mission role the ISD played, but is not played by a destroyer in a navy with battleships, cruisers and carriers. Stop throwing the words subjective bullshit around. Built into those words is a mission role the ISD plays.

The ISDs are actually somewhat less independent than DDGs, as shown at Endor. This is why I say they have a bit of WW2 destroyer in them, in their speed and more defensive roles. Its is the leviathan-size cruisers which engage and fight much like WW2 cruisers, while supporting and also escorting battleships or carriers. Like all analogies, it cannot be overextended, because it is not universal. Needless to say, this doesn't show how WW2 cruisers are a better comparison for the ISD than something close to modern DDGs.

Considering that we do see ISD engaging enemy capital ships, what is your point? Do destroyers go one on one with enemy capital ships?

[Connor MacLeod]

Painrack, you might as well give up trying to convince him. No matter how hard you try to convince him he's wrong, he's simply going to plug his ears and keep screaming he's right, and any evidence you bring forward is going to either be ignored outright or "interpreted" in some way that is convenient to his theory. This is as bad as having to deal with Marc Xavier or Kazeite.

[Vympel]

1. The ISD is a destroyer, because it is a Star destroyer


Note what my objections are once again.

1. Naming is a fallacy, as we know that the EU and even the canon describe any size of ships as cruiser and whatnot, but cannot compare in firepower against the ISD.

It may be in your preference to stop at 'Star' and just use 'destroyer'- but we know that 'Star ...' is part of the name. See the ICS reference to the Mandator and Procurator Star Battlecruiser and Star Dreadnought, which is taken from Dr. Saxton's view that the 'Star' prefix serves to differentiate them from the piddly ships like the Strike Cruiser etc. This is pretty good evidence that 'Star Destroyer' is a title seperate from that of 'destroyer'.As always there are objections which I don't find especially convincing (like pretending that 'super star destroyer' is something other than vague slang applied to a variety of ships), but that's just my interpretation.

I'd also note that the Mandator and Procurator show that 'Star' is not a purely Imperial convention, so that cuts away any semblance of having a political motivator, say, to intimidate (Galactic Republic? Intimidate? Sure.)

According to Jane's Fighting Ships 1989-1990 edition, the Admiral Ushakov masses 28,000 tons at full load. Admittedly, this is only 62% the mass of an Iowa class fast battleship. It is 80% the mass of BB-55, the third North Carolina. Kirov's a definite missile battlecruiser, with a mass slightly greater than that of the CB-1 Alaska.

Yeah, it's a missile battlecruiser, but it's nowhere near a battleship. The BB-61 is 57,000t full displacement, that's the figure I was going off when I said that. It is of course only fair to compare the Kirov with it's most modernized cousin when making these sorts of comparisons.

[PainRack]

It may be in your preference to stop at 'Star' and just use 'destroyer'- but we know that 'Star ...' is part of the name. See the ICS reference to the Mandator and Procurator Star Battlecruiser and Star Dreadnought, which is taken from Dr. Saxton's view that the 'Star' prefix serves to differentiate them from the piddly ships like the Strike Cruiser etc. This is pretty good evidence that 'Star Destroyer' is a title seperate from that of 'destroyer'.As always there are objections which I don't find especially convincing (like pretending that 'super star destroyer' is something other than vague slang applied to a variety of ships), but that's just my interpretation.

I'd also note that the Mandator and Procurator show that 'Star' is not a purely Imperial convention, so that cuts away any semblance of having a political motivator, say, to intimidate (Galactic Republic? Intimidate? Sure.)

Which only lends itself to my system, which states that the "Destroyer, Cruiser, Frigate" are roles, and that a seperate rating is utilised that differentiate the combat powress of the ship. So, thank you for further fleshing out my system, in addition to the difference between capital ships and warships, there's also the difference between Star "ships" and .... "ships". Probably Star "ships" are intended as the king of the battlefield, corresponding to the descriptive term "capital" ships in WWI, WWII days. This will also explain why the roles of the ISD differ dramatically, capital ships became so well designed that they became multi-task in nature during WW1 and WW2 days. Cruisers were even used for scouting during WW1, and the addition of planes only enhanced this capability. Indeed, the Battlecruiser Repulse Walrus was deployed to scout around Kota Bahru, Kuantan and even inland at Mersing during the Japanese invasion. The Battleship Prince of Wales also pulled scouting roles, when her own spotter planes deployed to scout for Japanese incursions in the eastern coast. She also deployed as an AA battery during the first Japanese raid on Singapore and escorted a convoy during her journey to the Middle East .

[Vympel]

Which only lends itself to my system, which states that the "Destroyer, Cruiser, Frigate" are roles, and that a seperate rating is utilised that differentiate the combat powress of the ship.

EDIT: so you agree that "destroyer" is the role of the ISD then? That seems to be what you're saying. If not, it doesn't make much sense to me to take 'Star' and coopt it into your system, and then jump to 'imperial cruiser' (which seems to have no distinguishing characteristics whatsoever, judging from the references to 'cruisers' in the material, and lacking evidence of what these cruisers capabilities are to warrant the name- if I'm not wrong, you think it's speed but you have to show speed, and in relation to what) right after that.

So, thank you for further fleshing out my system, in addition to the difference between capital ships and warships, there's also the difference between Star "ships" and .... "ships". Probably Star "ships" are intended as the king of the battlefield, corresponding to the descriptive term "capital" ships in WWI, WWII days. This will also explain why the roles of the ISD differ dramatically, capital ships became so well designed that they became multi-task in nature during WW1 and WW2 days. Cruisers were even used for scouting during WW1, and the addition of planes only enhanced this capability. Indeed, the Battlecruiser Repulse Walrus was deployed to scout around Kota Bahru, Kuantan and even inland at Mersing during the Japanese invasion. The Battleship Prince of Wales also pulled scouting roles, when her own spotter planes deployed to scout for Japanese incursions in the eastern coast. She also deployed as an AA battery during the first Japanese raid on Singapore and escorted a convoy during her journey to the Middle East .

A general question, Why does the 'canonical' (as if "Star Destroyer" isn't canonical) term 'Imperial Cruiser' deserve so much merit, and since when does 'canonical' mean anything at all, unless it's contradicting something lower in the heirarchy? By pure preponderance (not to mention an abundance of the name in the appropriate context) "Star Destroyer" wins handily.

Frankly, I don't see why the name shouldn't be taken on its own merits. One can say, "well cruisers did this in such and such, ISDs did too, etc etc" and the other can respond "well, destroyers do this such and such, ISDs did too etc etc", but it doesn't seem to resolve much unfortunately.

[PainRack]

EDIT: so you agree that "destroyer" is the role of the ISD then? That seems to be what you're saying. If not, it doesn't make much sense to me to take 'Star' and coopt it into your system, and then jump to 'imperial cruiser' (which seems to have no distinguishing characteristics whatsoever, judging from the references to 'cruisers' in the material, and lacking evidence of what these cruisers capabilities are to warrant the name- if I'm not wrong, you think it's speed but you have to show speed, and in relation to what) right after that.

I'm willing to accept Destroyer, as the class of the ISD(if we go by purely naming conventions), although I still feel that the "cruiser" statement that's attached to it is still a better definition. My main argument against IP still remains HIS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, which reclassify ships from Dreadnaughts and the like down to picket ships and etc etc.

That's the ultimate limit in egoistim. Who is he to say that him, a fan of Star Wars, is right, that only the canonical statement of Imperial Star Destroyer mentioned in TESB is accurate, whereas all other canonical and EU statements are wrong?

A general question, Why does the 'canonical' (as if "Star Destroyer" isn't canonical) term 'Imperial Cruiser' deserve so much merit, and since when does 'canonical' mean anything at all, unless it's contradicting something lower in the heirarchy? By pure preponderance (not to mention an abundance of the name in the appropriate context) "Star Destroyer" wins handily.

Frankly, I don't see why the name shouldn't be taken on its own merits. One can say, "well cruisers did this in such and such, ISDs did too, etc etc" and the other can respond "well, destroyers do this such and such, ISDs did too etc etc", but it doesn't seem to resolve much unfortunately.

Answer this. Why was the Executor called the Largest, or greatest(can't recall exactly) Imperial Star Destroyer in TESB? You do know that the canonical statement Imperial Star Destroyer, only appeared in TESB, right? If we go by naming conventions, then the Executor is also a destroyer in class.

Furthermore, note the inherent contradictions. IP states that we should consider that the ISD naming convention is accurate in the EU, but all the other naming conventions do not depict the type of the ship. So, the EU is accurate when it states that Victory class and the ISD is a destroyer, but they're all inaccurate when describing the Guardian class cruiser, the Imperial Dreadnaught, the Strike Cruiser, etc etc etc.


Even Curtis Saxton himself did not argue that the rest of the Imperial fleet were actually named wrongly. He stated that they were named for a different scale from the ISD.

[Vympel]

I'm willing to accept Destroyer, as the class of the ISD(if we go by purely naming conventions), although I still feel that the "cruiser" statement that's attached to it is still a better definition. My main argument against IP still remains HIS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, which reclassify ships from Dreadnaughts and the like down to picket ships and etc etc.

Relative to it's non 'star' cousins, the Dreadnought is no joke- compared to a Star Dreadnought (or even a Star Destroyer), I'd say it's not very impressive. That's all IP is saying.

That's the ultimate limit in egoistim. Who is he to say that him, a fan of Star Wars, is right, that only the canonical statement of Imperial Star Destroyer mentioned in TESB is accurate, whereas all other canonical and EU statements are wrong?

You're forgetting the OT ICS though- of much grief to me, it's canon now (stupid Imperial-class, but I digress).

Answer this. Why was the Executor called the Largest, or greatest(can't recall exactly) Imperial Star Destroyer in TESB? You do know that the canonical statement Imperial Star Destroyer, only appeared in TESB, right? If we go by naming conventions, then the Executor is also a destroyer in class.

It's also called a command ship by the Emperor and Han; if we're going to understand the universe, we have to make some judgements for sanity's sake.

Furthermore, note the inherent contradictions. IP states that we should consider that the ISD naming convention is accurate in the EU,

and canon (ICS)

but all the other naming conventions do not depict the type of the ship. So, the EU is accurate when it states that Victory class and the ISD is a destroyer, but they're all inaccurate when describing the Guardian class cruiser, the Imperial Dreadnaught, the Strike Cruiser, etc etc etc.

IP suggested a few pages ago that sectorial or local member-scaled navies may assign roles to smaller, less-dedicated combat ships (ie., relative to a local navy's Strike-class cruiser, the "Star" ships are much more impressive and can act as 'battlecruisers' or whatever) than the galactic government's strategic forces, but among the 'real' forces, they're not so flash- this seems to me to be what 'Star' is there for. I'd hazard that the Byss fleet were probably exclusively 'Star' ships of various kinds.

Even Curtis Saxton himself did not argue that the rest of the Imperial fleet were actually named wrongly. He stated that they were named for a different scale from the ISD.

I didn't read where IP said they were wrong- it's a matter of what they're doing. In the picket fleets, as IP said, an ISD may very well act as a battlecruiser, relative to the smaller, non 'star' vessels.

[PainRack]

Vymepl, he specifically reclassified all the ships in the Imperial Capital Ships thread.

As for the Executor, again, that's the whole point. Why should the Imperial Star Destroyer, be a Destroyer, as opposed to the cruiser statement in canon? In this case, IP judgement and mine, differs.

As for the canon and EU stuff you made, red herring. IP is specifically aiming at the singular statement that ISD are destroyers, as opposed to the whole of the EU leaning.

Again, the mere fact that the Republic "cruiser" exist, should more than sufficiently damn his statement that the SWU does not design an order of ships that differ in size in an order of magnitude, and that the term "cruiser" does not carry relative to it any annotations in size comparisons to other ships but roles instead.

[SPOOFE]

Why should the Imperial Star Destroyer, be a Destroyer, as opposed to the cruiser statement in canon?

Why is one name superior to the other? Everyone spends all their time trying to make analogies to real-life ships... when it should be obvious to anyone with a tenth of a brain that they don't use analogous real life nomenclature.

What, in the Star Wars universe, is the role of a "cruiser", and how does this differentiate, in the Star Wars universe, from the role of a "destroyer"? Note that I ask "in the Star Wars universe", 'cuz, frankly, comparing the terms to real life aquatic vessels is about as useless as comparing the terms to, say, Star Trek.

[PainRack]

Why should the Imperial Star Destroyer, be a Destroyer, as opposed to the cruiser statement in canon?

Why is one name superior to the other? Everyone spends all their time trying to make analogies to real-life ships... when it should be obvious to anyone with a tenth of a brain that they don't use analogous real life nomenclature.

What, in the Star Wars universe, is the role of a "cruiser", and how does this differentiate, in the Star Wars universe, from the role of a "destroyer"? Note that I ask "in the Star Wars universe", 'cuz, frankly, comparing the terms to real life aquatic vessels is about as useless as comparing the terms to, say, Star Trek.

Nevertheless, we know that the fleet uses specialised ships for specific roles. The Neb B Escort Frigate, Lancer Frigate, Carrack class cruiser and whatnot were designed for specific roles. A proper classification system will assist us in knowing which role a specific ship plays in the SWU.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Vymepl, he specifically reclassified all the ships in the Imperial Capital Ships thread.

I'm not entering this shit due to your WoI/ad nauseum tactics (still waiting for a genuine opposition), but I must chime in about your lying shit.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=37234 The Imp Ship Thread.

Unfortunately for asshat here, I didn't even post any real comments in it.

And as Vympel says, I did propose that theory in detail, and as I've shown repetatively to PainRack, he an idiot who hasn't read shit:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... c&start=25 (page 2 of this very thread)

This is why I propose a compromise dealing with Marina's fleet calc. The central Navy, with its grandiose fleets and Saxton-dagger-ships over Byss, contracted the Imperial-class with the classical and canonical "Star [type]" designation as a Star Destroyer.

It was later purchased, just as the Victory-class was, to lead the smaller picket fleets of the Moffs' and Grand Moffs' Starfleets into battle as a fast battleship--this secondary mission requirements explain the great multi-role capabilities of the SD, although multi-role capabilities are filled by destroyers.

This also gets a rid of the contradiction between EU ship-scaling and canonical "Star [type]" scaling. Better yet, it draws on some implications from the film and from Saxton's interview.

Plus, its just fucked up to have the entire Allegiance-to-Eclipse line filled with battlecruisers and battleships.

[Connor MacLeod]

I'm not entering this shit due to your WoI/ad nauseum tactics (still waiting for a genuine opposition),

The irony in that quote is SOOO amusing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm not entering this shit due to your WoI/ad nauseum tactics (still waiting for a genuine opposition),

The irony in that quote is SOOO amusing.

This coming from you who could not come up with an alternative explanation other than "they say this, then this" and appealed to Skimmer's authority on DDGs then ignored it when he said they weren't cruisers, and tried to argue that somehow a DDG isn't really a destroyer because it uses guided-missiles, again ignoring your appeal as Skimmer described it as an escort, and said the Ticonderoga-class CG is also in there. In fact you simply came in here on account of you vendetta even though I already conceded the semantics to you, and don't attack anyone else on it, such as Vymp and Ender, just me. He lied and I have every right to show him for the idiot he is. I suppose you arbitrarily think he's "role" and "combat prowess" (whatever the fuck that means; he certainly doesn't come from the mast-numbers of the Age of Sail, which were essentially the past designations for displacement, but I digress) is rooted in reality. Well good for you.

In fact, all the people you appealed to agree with me.

Funny how that shit is.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes yes, everyone opposed to your view has this great vendetta against you and can do nothign but engage in logical fallacies against your well thought out logical arguments. We'll just let you keep pretending that since it does noone any real harm.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Yes yes, everyone opposed to your view has this great vendetta against you and can do nothign but engage in logical fallacies against your well thought out logical arguments. We'll just let you keep pretending that since it does noone any real harm.

Yup, you and those replies of substance. You didn't have the slightest real knowledge of the subject at hand, and appealed to get around it (fuck, you somehow thought that subclasses would have seperate names rather than the class it belongs to, and tried to refute arguments on that basis). And you still bitch, though I did concede that one cannot rely on AOTC ICS implication too much; though I can't say you've dealt with it either in your nonexistant alternative model.

EDIT: Given that the only rebukes of a certain PM I sent around to big-time posters on this board was you and Nitram, I hardly think I'm paranoid for concluding you simply don't like me.

[Super-Gagme]

Is it just me or did the SW Databank use to have the Star Destroyer as a Type: Heavy Cruiser?

[Stofsk]

Is it just me or did the SW Databank use to have the Star Destroyer as a Type: Heavy Cruiser?

Before or now? Now they merely call it a "cruiser," not heavy, light, battle, strike etc. Just "cruiser."

The SW databank also calls the Super Star Destroyer ... a Super Star Destroyer (ie it's not called an Executor-class Super Star Destroyer). It's also listed as a cruiser. Not too heavy, not too light - but just right.

[PainRack]

And as Vympel says, I did propose that theory in detail, and as I've shown repetatively to PainRack, he an idiot who hasn't read shit:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... c&start=25 (page 2 of this very thread)

This is why I propose a compromise dealing with Marina's fleet calc. The central Navy, with its grandiose fleets and Saxton-dagger-ships over Byss, contracted the Imperial-class with the classical and canonical "Star [type]" designation as a Star Destroyer.

It was later purchased, just as the Victory-class was, to lead the smaller picket fleets of the Moffs' and Grand Moffs' Starfleets into battle as a fast battleship--this secondary mission requirements explain the great multi-role capabilities of the SD, although multi-role capabilities are filled by destroyers.

This also gets a rid of the contradiction between EU ship-scaling and canonical "Star [type]" scaling. Better yet, it draws on some implications from the film and from Saxton's interview.

Plus, its just fucked up to have the entire Allegiance-to-Eclipse line filled with battlecruisers and battleships.

How fucking interesting then, that you so eloquently insisted that your system of classification, which does not involve the dual class type you insist on, which BTW has no historical analogy works, as opposed to mine then.

Tell me again, what is wrong with my system, or even my classification of the ISD as a cruiser? Oh, yeah, the Byss fleet had cruisers and battleships larger than the ISD. So, the fact that the Republic Cruiser and the Imperial Cruiser in canon differed by over a magnitude of 4 does not matter. The fact that Han Solo, the "imperial specialist" called them a cruiser. Of course, it also doesn't matter that names do not co-exist well with the class given to them. After all, the Medical Frigate in TESB, was the Space Cruiser in the script. Home One was of course, a "cruiser", whereas the Executor, was an Imperial Star Destroyer.

Yup, massive contradictions in the EU scaling exist in the canon too. But of course, IP refuses to deal with it and impose his own artificial scaling instead.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're such a fucking idiot.

I already said multiple times I wasn't dealing with how the "in-universe" scaling works, and instead trying to come up with observer's descriptions for usefulness, but you're so fucking stupid you can't read or remember a damn thing.

As for you, you think that the Age of Sail "multiple-mast" thing has diddly shit to do with your crack-addled "let's slop everything together" "system"? Give me a fucking break. Find me how that made some sloops and frigates have more displacement than a ship-of-the-line.

[PainRack]

You're such a fucking idiot.

I already said multiple times I wasn't dealing with how the "in-universe" scaling works, and instead trying to come up with observer's descriptions for usefulness, but you're so fucking stupid you can't read or remember a damn thing.

As for you, you think that the Age of Sail "multiple-mass" thing has diddly shit to do with your crack-addled "let's slop everything together" "system"? Give me a fucking break. Find me how that made some sloops and frigates have more displacement than a ship-of-the-line.

And that would be a fine goal, up to the point when you started throwing your weight around and saying that ISDs are destroyers, because you said so.

Last but not least, when did I say that "sloops" and "frigates" would have more displacement than a ship of the line? Yup, that's right, nowhere. That's your own idealisation. I noted that a ship would have a dual classification, one between

1. Roles

2. Fighting powress

So, a ship that had the role of cruiser, could be dwarfed by a "frigate", because the Guardian class cruiser is dwarfed by an Assault frigate. And of course, since we do know that cruisers were created that were dwarfed by frigates in the Age of sail, you just introducing red herrings across the board.