Is the SSD a flagship?

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 09:03pm

AniThyng 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.
Childish? Then what are "supercarriers"?

An informal referencee to certain kinds of ships. A "Super Star Destroyer" is simply the Star Destroyer design writ large.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2005-07-26 09:05pm

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:It's dreadnought! O, not A! [/rant]

Ah, "dreadnought" it is. Thanks.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 09:15pm

Ender wrote:It means really really big and powerful ship. That's about the long and short of it. A lot of people are debating how if it actually fits into the proper naval role, should it be a battlecruisr instead, etc. But it appears they went with the usual layman idea of it just being one big mother.

Actually tonnage/volume seems to be the primary factor behind classifications (and firepower) according to this scale. In otehr words, the largest ships will generally be battleships with the greatest firepower (represented by the largest number of HTL turrets- in this case hundreds) while the smallest ships - frigates and destroyers, will be the smallest (in this classification scheme, the smallest "proper" naval vessels is not much smaller than an Acclamator. And it only has a handful of turrets (and it takes "hundreds" of such ships to threaten a battleship or dreadnought.)

Technically a Rendili heavy cruiser would be "under" the rates.. which is why Curtis labeled them as "anti-pirate" picket ships instead of actual naval vessels.)

The rest: cruisers and battlecruisers, fall somewhere in between there (battlecruisers are smaller and have less firepower than dreadnoughts/battleships, and cruisers are smaller and have less firepower than battlecruisers, but are larger and have greater firepower than destroyers.) The idea seems to be that the mile long "Star Destroyers" in the movie are meant to be dirt-common and relatively insignificant compared to flotillas of dreadnoughts/battleships like the Executor.

I
About the same difference as a destroyer and a battleship in our world. Grievous only used the Invisible Hand a couple of times from what we can tell. Other times he was in command of a Geonosian Dreadnaught. It appears that he shifted his flag when appropriate - Coruscant was a quick raid, using a star dreadnaught 1) would have made him the focus of the republic's firepower, which is bad from the POV of the plan, and 2) would have made it far more difficult for Kenobi and Skywalker to be lured aboard, again, bad for the plan. At Beledrone they wre taking a planet to hide the seppie leaders on, and a destroyer moving will attract much less attention from Republic Intellegence then a dreadnaught.

Actually by that classification its unlikely they have many consisten real-life analogies to "our" world. It seems to be a blend of the Age of Sail "rates" (battleships are the largest and most powerful ships and carry hundreds of smaller guns.), as well as WW1/2 classifications (the usage of battlecruisers, combat involving little manuver and mostly long-range cannon bombardment, "all gun" ships being the primary combat platform, etc.) and modern classifications (destroyers being multi-role, long-ranged vessels.)

I have had someone suggest to me, incidentally, that the Executor might be best analogous to the USS Mt Mckinley

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-26 09:25pm

Connor MacLeod wrote: 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")

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.)

I'll admit, right here and now that I'm being completely unreasonable about my dislike for it.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-26 11:01pm

Ford Prefect wrote:I'll admit, right here and now that I'm being completely unreasonable about my dislike for it.

Thats fine, but it takes something more than just "dislike" to actually argue against it. I am not overly fond of the "Star-" classification itself, and I feel it creates more problems than it solves, but its there and it has to be dealt with.

If it really bothers you that much, perhaps you should consider looking at only the "letter" of the statements rather than the spirit. Nothing says that it is the "De Facto" or only classification system in use, and it clearly has inconsistencies with the rest of canon that are not easily dealt with.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-26 11:21pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Thats fine, but it takes something more than just "dislike" to actually argue against it. I am not overly fond of the "Star-" classification itself, and I feel it creates more problems than it solves, but its there and it has to be dealt with.

If it really bothers you that much, perhaps you should consider looking at only the "letter" of the statements rather than the spirit. Nothing says that it is the "De Facto" or only classification system in use, and it clearly has inconsistencies with the rest of canon that are not easily dealt with.

I wouldn't actually try to argue against of course. I don't however see the point in adding star to begging of their class. However, this won't change anything and I can easily deal with it, but it won't stop me raving about it if the oppurtunity arises.

My main problem is that Star Destroyer, obviously battleships of some sort, don't need to be called Imperial class star battleships. That's what they are, but again, what's the point of it?

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2005-07-27 12:52am

Admiral Ackbar: "Concentrate all fire power on that Super Star Destroyer!"
Han Solo: "There are a lot of command ships."

There... your trekkie like argument is settled. It's a Super Star Destroyer that is a command ship. There are a lot of them.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-27 12:57am

Ford Prefect wrote: I wouldn't actually try to argue against of course. I don't however see the point in adding star to begging of their class. However, this won't change anything and I can easily deal with it, but it won't stop me raving about it if the oppurtunity arises.

Not everyone adds "star" to the classifiation. In the novelizations (the canon ones not the EU) they constantly refer to "battleships" and "cruisers" without calling them "star", and even in the DK books there aren't always consistently called "Star"-class.

My main problem is that Star Destroyer, obviously battleships of some sort, don't need to be called Imperial class star battleships. That's what they are, but again, what's the point of it?

What makes a Star Destroyer a battleship necesarily? Because they use them to engage enemy warships in combat? That's hardly proof of anything. WW1 and WW2 cruisers engaged enemy targets with their guns.

Besides even if there WAS a reason to treat an ISD like a "battleship" there are modern day examples of battleships that had displacements little better than cruisers (the so called "coastal defense" battleships.)

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-07-27 01:04am

(the canon ones not the EU)

What the hell does that mean?

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2005-07-27 01:06am

Actually Battleships are an obsolete class of warships, no longer used by any major powers in the world. They were replaced by the Super Carrier or Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which themeselves have been surpassed.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2005-07-27 01:14am

oh yeah these are my first couple of posts on this board... Don't be gentle, I can take it.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-27 01:24am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Not everyone adds "star" to the classifiation. In the novelizations (the canon ones not the EU) they constantly refer to "battleships" and "cruisers" without calling them "star", and even in the DK books there aren't always consistently called "Star"-class.

Fair enough.

What makes a Star Destroyer a battleship necesarily? Because they use them to engage enemy warships in combat? That's hardly proof of anything. WW1 and WW2 cruisers engaged enemy targets with their guns.

Besides even if there WAS a reason to treat an ISD like a "battleship" there are modern day examples of battleships that had displacements little better than cruisers (the so called "coastal defense" battleships.)

I got a hold of a definition: Battleship: Any one of a class of warships of the largest size, carrying the greatest number of weapons and clad with the heaviest armor.

Up until the Executor was built, that was the Impstar Deuce.

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2005-07-27 01:31am

Ford Prefect wrote:I got a hold of a definition: Battleship: Any one of a class of warships of the largest size, carrying the greatest number of weapons and clad with the heaviest armor.

Up until the Executor was built, that was the Impstar Deuce.

You're saying that there were no ships bigger or carrying more guns than an ISD before the Executor was made? Where the hell does that come from? What happened to the star battlecruisers and star dreadnoughts that were said to exist during the Clone Wars (Procurator, Mandator, &c)? What about the Trade Federation battleships in all three prequel movies?

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-27 01:35am

Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:
Ford Prefect wrote:I got a hold of a definition: Battleship: Any one of a class of warships of the largest size, carrying the greatest number of weapons and clad with the heaviest armor.

Up until the Executor was built, that was the Impstar Deuce.
You're saying that there were no ships bigger or carrying more guns than an ISD before the Executor was made? Where the hell does that come from? What happened to the star battlecruisers and star dreadnoughts that were said to exist during the Clone Wars (Procurator, Mandator, &c)? What about the Trade Federation battleships in all three prequel movies?

Within the Imperial Navy. Is that difficult to understand?

Grandmaster Jogurt · Post by **Grandmaster Jogurt** » 2005-07-27 01:39am

Why would the Empire not incorporate the larger Republican ships into its navy? It used Acclamators and (IIRC) Venators.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-07-27 01:42am

Ford Prefect wrote:
Grandmaster Jogurt wrote:
Ford Prefect wrote:I got a hold of a definition: Battleship: Any one of a class of warships of the largest size, carrying the greatest number of weapons and clad with the heaviest armor.

Up until the Executor was built, that was the Impstar Deuce.
You're saying that there were no ships bigger or carrying more guns than an ISD before the Executor was made? Where the hell does that come from? What happened to the star battlecruisers and star dreadnoughts that were said to exist during the Clone Wars (Procurator, Mandator, &c)? What about the Trade Federation battleships in all three prequel movies?
Within the Imperial Navy. Is that difficult to understand?

Don't be an asshole. Not when you're wrong, in any case. The Quaestor-class battlecruiser served before the Executor, as did the Mandator-class dreadnought (of both Marks), the Procurator-class battlecruiser, and definitely several multi-kilometer long battlecruisers (their classification itself precluding vessels of heavier armament and especially greater protection) featured in the Marvel comics under the command of Lord Vader and Captain Wermis and the Baron Tagge. All of these vessels outmass and outgun the ISD Mark II. Since all of the above (with the exception of the Imperial and privately owned (!) Marvel battlecruisers which were undeniably in service) were actively serving in the Republican Navy when it became the Imperial Navy, I find the "Imperial Navy" comment specious. I suppose that they all autoselfdestructed in order to keep your argument afloat?

And the ISD Mark II I believe postdates the Executor, dumbass.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-27 01:47am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Ford Prefect wrote:
Grandmaster Jogurt wrote: You're saying that there were no ships bigger or carrying more guns than an ISD before the Executor was made? Where the hell does that come from? What happened to the star battlecruisers and star dreadnoughts that were said to exist during the Clone Wars (Procurator, Mandator, &c)? What about the Trade Federation battleships in all three prequel movies?
Within the Imperial Navy. Is that difficult to understand?
Don't be an asshole. Not when you're wrong, in any case. The Quaestor-class battlecruiser served before the Executor, as did the Mandator-class dreadnought (of both Marks), the Procurator-class battlecruiser, and definitely several multi-kilometer long battlecruisers (their classification itself precluding vessels of heavier armament and especially greater protection) featured in the Marvel comics under the command of Lord Vader and Captain Wermis and the Baron Tagge. All of these vessels outmass and outgun the ISD Mark II. Since all of the above (with the exception of the Imperial and privately owned (!) Marvel battlecruisers which were undeniably in service) were actively serving in the Republican Navy when it became the Imperial Navy, I find the "Imperial Navy" comment specious. I suppose that they all autoselfdestructed in order to keep your argument afloat?

And the ISD Mark II I believe postdates the Executor, dumbass.

Point conceded then, with apologies.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-27 03:44am

Ford Prefect wrote: I got a hold of a definition: Battleship: Any one of a class of warships of the largest size, carrying the greatest number of weapons and clad with the heaviest armor.

Which might apply if the ISD were that kind of battleship (there are more than one kind you may recall: coastal defense battleships, "light" battleships and fast battleships, pre-dreadnought battleships and dreadnought battleships, and the later "super-dreadnought" battleships.

Up until the Executor was built, that was the Impstar Deuce.

Not necceassrily. There were the Cal-class battleships and the Invincible class (both larger than ISDs AND predating them.) There were hte Tradefed "battleships". The Corellians had their own warships too according to ROTJ (including battleships and carriers.)

The Rand Ecliptic predated the Executor, yet scaled larger (by my estimates) than an ISD. And in some of the prequel comics there are Executor-scale vessels.

And lastly, of course, there is the fact the Separatists were able to begin construction on their own Death Star, which is IMMEASURABLY larger than the Executor. You think that they'd be incapable of building Executor-scale vessels if they can build moon-sized planetoids??

Oh, and moon sized planetoids reminds me. There's the Eye of Palpatine too, which predates ANH. And is WAY larger than an ISD.

Need I go on?

PS: You might have noticed I made a point NOT to refer to DK-derived books, since I am fairly certain you woudl suggest that only Curtis "invented" larger warships, when I have just demonstrated this is patently untrue. And your comment about "In the Imperial Navy" is irrelevant. Do you somehow think they would LOSE the ability to build bigger warships between the prequels and OT?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2005-07-27 03:46am

Before this thread begins to completely resemble threads all over the internet from irrationalist fuckholes, let's not elevate Saxton to Sith-Lord status, shall we?

He is in no position to dictate changes to ship designations. LFL does that. Saxton would be the first person to tell you he doesn't work alone, but with a DK team.

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » 2005-07-27 03:54am

Yes, I know I'm wrong MacLeod.

EDIT: I thought I should add this, but I was being ridiculously stupid and tunnel-minded.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-27 04:17am

Lord Poe wrote:Before this thread begins to completely resemble threads all over the internet from irrationalist fuckholes, let's not elevate Saxton to Sith-Lord status, shall we?

He is in no position to dictate changes to ship designations. LFL does that. Saxton would be the first person to tell you he doesn't work alone, but with a DK team.

Um, yeah.. who are you directing this at, exactly?

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2005-07-27 04:28am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Um, yeah.. who are you directing this at, exactly?

Anyone who thinks the good Dr. can name or change or designate any LFL property at his whim.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2005-07-27 04:39am

Lord Poe wrote:
Connor MacLeod wrote:Um, yeah.. who are you directing this at, exactly?
Anyone who thinks the good Dr. can name or change or designate any LFL property at his whim.

Uh, he can't. He can put his own interpretations and conclusions of canon evidence into print though in licensed publications as a licesned author. (Much as any author can, assuming it survives censorship, contribute their "views" to the SW universe. Up to and including things taht are not directly related to the movies, so long as they don't violate canon or higher sources.)

In the case of ship classification, the "Star-class" stuff is his interpretation of how "Star Destroyer" is/was meant to be. That's not "changing" canon in any way, since it was never all that specific to begin with.

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2005-07-27 04:42am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Uh, he can't. He can put his own interpretations and conclusions of canon evidence into print though in licensed publications as a licesned author.

Uh, yeah, dude, that what I was getting at!

Ultimately, LFL, and ONLY LFL approves those changes. Any blame or praise should be directed at them.

Admiral Drason · Post by **Admiral Drason** » 2005-07-27 10:58am

Admiral Ackbar: "Concentrate all fire power on that Super Star Destroyer!"
Han Solo: "There are a lot of command ships."

Hey dumb shit if you didnt notice we already said that the Super Star Destroyer is rebel slang. Hans quote is more accurate since he used to serve in the Imperial Navy.

Actually Battleships are an obsolete class of warships, no longer used by any major powers in the world. They were replaced by the Super Carrier or Nimitz class aircraft carriers, which themeselves have been surpassed.

No shit the battle ships of Earth have been surpassed. This is in a sci-fi universe where the carrier is turned into a destroyer. Hell even frigates carry fighters so your point about carriers takeing over the role of capital ship is mute.

And what has taken over the role for the Nimitz? It cant be surpassed unless the ship is actually in built. Just because they plan to build ships better then a Nimitz doesnt mean it has been surpassed since you actually have to build it first.