Is the SSD a flagship?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-07-24 07:41pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Ender wrote:No, its a modified Providence class star destroyer.
Star Destroyer? Since when is the Providence-class a Star Destoyer?

Since Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross Sections came out.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-24 07:55pm

IP basically already answered that, but thanks.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-07-25 01:30am

Ender wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Ender wrote:No, its a modified Providence class star destroyer.
Star Destroyer? Since when is the Providence-class a Star Destoyer?
Since Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross Sections came out.

Technically its merely a "destroyer/carrier" - sans "star."

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-07-25 04:22am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:He means a lowercase "star destroyer", i.e., a Saxtonian destroyer-amongst-the-stars a la the "star cruiser" or "star dreadnought" as opposed to the canonical proper noun "Star Destroyer."

I think the lowercase usage of "star destroyer" cropped up in the ItWoSWT. The Hoth page, specifically.

This sounds interesting. Can anyone post the exact quote? Something like this could be useful against WEG fanboys who argue against the existence of Saxton's huge "star" tier warships.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-07-25 04:25am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Ender wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote: Star Destroyer? Since when is the Providence-class a Star Destoyer?
Since Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross Sections came out.
Technically its merely a "destroyer/carrier" - sans "star."

It doesn't have "star" in its name, but it's probably a star level warship. Remember the old WEG system didn't mention destroyers at all, and had cruisers as short as 350 m, and 600-m-long "heavy" cruisers. All the Separatist ships in ROTS are longer, and arguably more powerful than any of WEG's tiny ships.

18-Till-I-Die · Post by **18-Till-I-Die** » 2005-07-26 02:00am

Just for the record, i agree with the sentiment that Super Star Destroyer sounds better than Star Dreadnaught. It rolls of the tongue, it sounds badass, and it looks cool written down.

No real military reason, also, to give a spaceship naval terms as long as the name you give them is decsriptive. Mauler, for example: big ass ship that beats stuff up, Super-Maulers are even biggger. No need to ask weather it's a deadnaught or a battleship, it's a Mauler, capital 'M'. Why not?

Just my two cents, forgive the rant.

Techno_Union · Post by **Techno_Union** » 2005-07-26 02:23am

While slightly off-topic...

18-Till-I-Die wrote:Just for the record, i agree with the sentiment that Super Star Destroyer sounds better than Star Dreadnaught. It rolls of the tongue, it sounds badass, and it looks cool written down.

To me, it sounds too childish. "Star Dreadnaught" sounds much more ominous.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2005-07-26 04:58am

Super Star Frigate
Super Star Destroyer
Super Star Cruiser
Super Star Battlecruiser
Super Star Carrier
Super Star Battleship
Super Star Dreadnought
Super Star Super-Dreadnought
.
.
.

Well, why not?

AniThyng · Post by **AniThyng** » 2005-07-26 05:12am

Techno_Union wrote:While slightly off-topic...
18-Till-I-Die wrote:Just for the record, i agree with the sentiment that Super Star Destroyer sounds better than Star Dreadnaught. It rolls of the tongue, it sounds badass, and it looks cool written down.
To me, it sounds too childish. "Star Dreadnaught" sounds much more ominous.

Childish? Then what are "supercarriers"?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-26 05:49am

While I think Saxton's great and all, I think he went a bit far with his literal interpretation of the words Star Destroyer. No Saxton, it is not a destroyer type ship in the stars, for the love of Pete, it was a name designed to intimidate - Star Destroyer. I could be afraid of that, destroyer of stars. But not star dreadnaught. There isn't anything particularly imposing about that?

Why must they have star tacked onto their types? Why did it have be a such and such a class star frigate, or so and so class star battleship? Why do we need the fucking star as a prefix? We know they travel in space you idiot! YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASSURE US OF THE FACT! God damn your eyes, Curtis Saxton, and your fucking class system.

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2005-07-26 06:08am

Regardless if you like the Star- system on a subjective level or not, it is one of the better rationalisations for having heavy cruisers be smaller than frigates (Dreadnaughts vs Munificents). Even the "each company has its own size classifications" system doesn't work, since Rendelli Stardrive makes both the Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser and the larger Victory-class star destroyer.

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-07-26 07:11am

Ford Prefect wrote:While I think Saxton's great and all, I think he went a bit far with his literal interpretation of the words Star Destroyer. No Saxton, it is not a destroyer type ship in the stars, for the love of Pete, it was a name designed to intimidate - Star Destroyer. I could be afraid of that, destroyer of stars. But not star dreadnaught. There isn't anything particularly imposing about that?

Well, the Swedish translators went with Saxton's interpretation when they translated "Star Destroyer" (this was a few years before he started his commentaries though, I think). When you translate it back it will mean, not "Destroyer of Stars", but "Star Destroyer". Furthermore, wouldn't the literal interpretation actually be "Destroyer of Stars", just like the literal interpretation of "Turbo Laser" is that it is a laser?
I think the Empire knew how Star Destroyer would sound, so they went with the name, both for the terror-inducing ring it has to it, and for easier classification.

And then, when the random backwater planet gets a visit from an ISD, and the random local dad sees it through his electroscope (it's an electric telescope used on backwater planets) he can tell his son:
Dad: "Son, a Star Destroyer is approaching!"
Son: "OMF, dad! It's going to destroy our star!!"
Dad: "Don't worry, son! It's just the type of ship. It can't destroy our star."
Son: "Oh! Phew!"
Dad: "It'll just turn our planet into molten shit..."

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-07-26 07:43am

"Dreadnaught" does indeed sound rather ominous.

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2005-07-26 07:53am

It's dreadnought! O, not A! [/rant]

Personally, I think "dreadnought" and "battleship" sound a lot more ominous than "destroyer". Destroyer just brings to my mind a small escort, when it deals with ships.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-07-26 08:51am

Techno_Union wrote:While slightly off-topic...
18-Till-I-Die wrote:Just for the record, i agree with the sentiment that Super Star Destroyer sounds better than Star Dreadnaught. It rolls of the tongue, it sounds badass, and it looks cool written down.
To me, it sounds too childish. "Star Dreadnaught" sounds much more ominous.

I agree. "Star Dreadnought" sounds more realistically grounded, dynamic, and expressive of military might. "Super Star Destroyer" sounds like something you'd think is "cool" when you were twelve years old.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-07-26 10:45am

Ford Prefect wrote:While I think Saxton's great and all, I think he went a bit far with his literal interpretation of the words Star Destroyer. No Saxton, it is not a destroyer type ship in the stars, for the love of Pete, it was a name designed to intimidate - Star Destroyer. I could be afraid of that, destroyer of stars. But not star dreadnaught. There isn't anything particularly imposing about that?

Why must they have star tacked onto their types? Why did it have be a such and such a class star frigate, or so and so class star battleship? Why do we need the fucking star as a prefix? We know they travel in space you idiot! YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASSURE US OF THE FACT! God damn your eyes, Curtis Saxton, and your fucking class system.

Hey dipshit, he didn't create the system. Star cruiser appeared in the ROTJ novel, setting the star - series designation. How about you know the facts of the situation before you verbally attack someone, ok?

Admiral Drason · Post by **Admiral Drason** » 2005-07-26 11:12am

On the topic of classifications will people stop calling every Mon Cal ship a fucking cruiser. The Indepence was a star cruiser. Liberty was a god damn star destroyer. The MC-40 is tiny so its a star frigate so stop calling all those damned ships cruisers.

Saxtons classification method works. Look at the huge size gap between the ISD and the Executer. That would pretty much mean that there are ships that fit in between those two classes of ships.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-07-26 12:46pm

Admiral Drason wrote:On the topic of classifications will people stop calling every Mon Cal ship a fucking cruiser. The Indepence was a star cruiser. Liberty was a god damn star destroyer. The MC-40 is tiny so its a star frigate so stop calling all those damned ships cruisers.

Saxtons classification method works. Look at the huge size gap between the ISD and the Executer. That would pretty much mean that there are ships that fit in between those two classes of ships.

Liberty was a star cruiser. Look at the difference in volume between it and a star destroyer

Admiral Drason · Post by **Admiral Drason** » 2005-07-26 07:10pm

Ender wrote:
Admiral Drason wrote:On the topic of classifications will people stop calling every Mon Cal ship a fucking cruiser. The Indepence was a star cruiser. Liberty was a god damn star destroyer. The MC-40 is tiny so its a star frigate so stop calling all those damned ships cruisers.

Saxtons classification method works. Look at the huge size gap between the ISD and the Executer. That would pretty much mean that there are ships that fit in between those two classes of ships.
Liberty was a star cruiser. Look at the difference in volume between it and a star destroyer

If I recall the Liberty was only 1200 meters long and even if it has more mass then an ISD its still a destroyer since it wasent originaly built as a warship makeing it have far fewer weapons then a destroyer or cruiser of equal size. The only thing the Liberty has over an ISD is the sheilds and even with that the ISD beats out the Liberty with Armour.

As a side note would an Alleigence be considered a destroyer or a cruiser? I'm leaning on it being a light cruiser but I could be wrong.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-26 08:41pm

Ender wrote:Hey dipshit, he didn't create the system. Star cruiser appeared in the ROTJ novel, setting the star - series designation. How about you know the facts of the situation before you verbally attack someone, ok?

Yes, I know that.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 08:43pm

Ender wrote:Liberty was a star cruiser. Look at the difference in volume between it and a star destroyer

We've been over this before Ender. The actual volumetric difference isnt all THAT substantial, if it is in fact there. Besides which, there are canon examples of "star cruisers" being labeled as vessles far smaller than an ISD (the medical ship at the end of TESB, for example. Its quite simply not as consistent as made out to be.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 08:45pm

Ender wrote:Hey dipshit, he didn't create the system. Star cruiser appeared in the ROTJ novel, setting the star - series designation. How about you know the facts of the situation before you verbally attack someone, ok?

Actually he did create the system. At least in the sense he formalized the interpretation of "Star Destroyer" into referring to distinct and specific ship classifications. However, the fact is that its still an arbitrary classification. (though its no more or less arbitrary than any other than can be devised for SW, apparently.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 08:53pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:He means a lowercase "star destroyer", i.e., a Saxtonian destroyer-amongst-the-stars a la the "star cruiser" or "star dreadnought" as opposed to the canonical proper noun "Star Destroyer."

I think the lowercase usage of "star destroyer" cropped up in the ItWoSWT. The Hoth page, specifically.

Its a good idea, but its not quite that clear-cut. The DK books consistently use the capitalized designations for classifications as well as the lowercase (eg the Separatist "star frigate"). And the novelizations/scripts tend to be just as inconsistent (referring to the Executor as a "Star Destroyer", yet also referring to the medical ship at the end of TESB as a "star cruiser".)

Incidentally, the DK Prequel ICSes seem to have misspelled ""Dreadnought" as well (Ie "Dreadnaught". The only time they get it right is with the Executor. The Mandator is referred to in both the Ep2 and Ep3 ICS as a "Dreadnaught.")

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 08:58pm

Ford Prefect wrote:While I think Saxton's great and all, I think he went a bit far with his literal interpretation of the words Star Destroyer. No Saxton, it is not a destroyer type ship in the stars, for the love of Pete, it was a name designed to intimidate - Star Destroyer. I could be afraid of that, destroyer of stars. But not star dreadnaught. There isn't anything particularly imposing about that?

Its no worse than any other classification system that might exist in Star Wars (even if I have issues with it. I'd simply drop the "Star" bit and refer to them as frigtes, cruisers, destroyers, etc. Although which is which is still a huge object of contetion) Besides, do you have anything better to propose? Its not as if real life naming conventions can't be just as inconsistent or arbitrary (The Alaska class "Large Cruisers")

Why must they have star tacked onto their types? Why did it have be a such and such a class star frigate, or so and so class star battleship? Why do we need the fucking star as a prefix? We know they travel in space you idiot! YOU DON'T HAVE TO ASSURE US OF THE FACT! God damn your eyes, Curtis Saxton, and your fucking class system.

It doesn't really matter if you call it a "dreadnought" or "Star Dreadnought." Its not as if there's actual proof its consistently or uniformly used by EVERYONE (or that everyone obeys the same scales.) Most people on here use it simply for consistency's sake and by preference (like they use "Imperator" rather than "Imperial.")

besides, sincec its likely arbitrary, its not like the SW definition of a "dreadnought" or "destroyer" has to fit our own meaning (in all probability it doesn't.) Alternately, they might label ISDs "destroyers" to pass them off as much more minor than their size/firepower might suggest (thereby allowing them to get more of them. What is arbitrarily labeled a "destroyer" in the Imperial Navy might be equal to a smaller "cruiser" in a different navy - IE the Mon Cals or the Corellians. Its worth noting that Corellian "battleships" are apparently no larger than Home One, according to the ROTJ novelization. Cruisers are apparently much smaller.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 09:01pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:
Techno_Union wrote:While slightly off-topic...
18-Till-I-Die wrote:Just for the record, i agree with the sentiment that Super Star Destroyer sounds better than Star Dreadnaught. It rolls of the tongue, it sounds badass, and it looks cool written down.
To me, it sounds too childish. "Star Dreadnaught" sounds much more ominous.
I agree. "Star Dreadnought" sounds more realistically grounded, dynamic, and expressive of military might. "Super Star Destroyer" sounds like something you'd think is "cool" when you were twelve years old.

They might use "Super Star Destroyer' in the same nature that some dreadnoughts with larger-bore guns were (informally) refered to as 'Super" dreadnoughts.. or the way some battleships like the Yamato were referred to as "Super" battleships. Or the Alaska-class has been referred to as a "Super" cruiser.