Minimalism part two

[VT-16]

Uhm, no, it's not. The Encyclopedia has the latest information as best as it could get, according to Stephen Sansweet's foreword. If it mirrors the other Encyclopedia and they're both more recent than the ISB, they take precedence. The ISB is also the same book that continued to specify the Executor as an 8km Super-class, so I'd take any info from it to be suspect at best.

That leaves us with 12,500+ Imperial-class ships in the Core as reserves, and 12,500+ in the sector fleets. Everything else would be subject to other ship-classes, with the outermost portions of the Empire being left to patrols by outdated Dreadnaught-class cruisers and Gladiator-class pocket destroyers.

[Darth Hoth]

Well, yes; I meant that it was not news.

Sourcebooks and supplementary fluff are written in an in-universe style at least partially to make retcons easier (an in-universe scribe can simply have been wrong). In the spirit of harmonising the available evidence and using the least retarded interpretation, it makes more sense to use the ISB. It is not really a contradiction, just a demonstration that the notional in-universe encyclopaedists were canonically wrong on at least one matter.

[VT-16]

Uh, Steve Sansweet is a Lucas Licensing employee, not a fictional character.

Like I said, the mention of SSDs in most sector forces now make more sense if they were created to cover for a gap of several or dozens of Star Destroyers. Since the ISB is both outdated and proven to be less than reliable in certain areas, I'm not going to put too much faith in it on this particular matter. Especially since so much new info has been added to the canon, which could both be used to fill out the Imperial roster and cover any gaps. There's still the issue of when the ISB was first written, which was in the beginning of the Empire's increased armament plans to counter opposition during the new war. What could be standard according to their projections, might have gone south later on. Then there's the thing with larger ships being labled ISDs while have great structural differences, and it might be possible to explain that the ISD-shape was regular, but not necessarily the class.

[Connor MacLeod]

That's true.

Hmm, given some of the re-interpretations I've seen in several sources (ships bigger and smaller than the ISD being given this moniker through upgrades etc.) is it possible the actual 25,000+ number refers to actual ships of this kind built at KDY's main facilities?

Publius I believe had the conjecture that the 25,000 number refers to the "mobile" assets (stuff that you woudl see attached to Death squadron or Scourge Squadron or other stuff that isn't attached to a particular sector) wheras the Sector group idea can be thought of as "static" assets.

In that context I'd guess at least there is maybe at least one Executor per Sector group - or at least intended to be (in the sense you also had Death STars intended to cover at least one per region.) In outlying region or reserves you're bound to have other SSDs types (l ike Mandators or other smaller models of roughly similar magnitude). I'd definitely guess that Executors form the backbone of the mobile elements (IE the "Squadrons") so you could suggest hundreds at a minimum.

Then again there's no erason to assume EVERY SSD HAS to be an Executor class. Other ships of similar magnitude could be built by Corellia or other major shipbuilders (We know about Giel's ship, for example.)

Edit: Besides, appealing to "most recent canon is more valid" is just begging for trouble, especailly given the somewht murky nature of SW canon as it is (And the headaches it causes, since contradictions still crop in like they always do.)

[VT-16]

Publius I believe had the conjecture that the 25,000 number refers to the "mobile" assets (stuff that you woudl see attached to Death squadron or Scourge Squadron or other stuff that isn't attached to a particular sector) wheras the Sector group idea can be thought of as "static" assets.

I know the canon thingy is tricky, but based on the statements of LFL people, that seems to be the case, mostly. I guess you could argue that "50,000" is "over 25,000", which would split the class neatly into the ready reserves in the Core that can be deployed throughout the galaxy, with the remaining 25,000 are divided into the regular sector fleets.

In that context I'd guess at least there is maybe at least one Executor per Sector group - or at least intended to be (in the sense you also had Death STars intended to cover at least one per region.) In outlying region or reserves you're bound to have other SSDs types (l ike Mandators or other smaller models of roughly similar magnitude). I'd definitely guess that Executors form the backbone of the mobile elements (IE the "Squadrons") so you could suggest hundreds at a minimum.

Then again there's no erason to assume EVERY SSD HAS to be an Executor class. Other ships of similar magnitude could be built by Corellia or other major shipbuilders (We know about Giel's ship, for example.)

Yes, that was my line of thinking as well. Giel's ship is attached to a large fleet tasked to travel throughout the galaxy, so it's definitely a mobile asset. The only other non-Executors I know of, are the Praetor-class Star Battlecruisers that are only in limited use (TCSWE), the newer Star Battlecruisers built at Kuat (Bounty Hunter Saga), the Star Cruisers (ITW:OT), the carriers, comm ships and repair ships, built on Executor hulls or not, I'm not sure (SOTGSE). Jerec's command ship, which was definitely attached to a mobile asset, given his quest, is also another example. The unit it led was referred to as a "battle group" (DF:JK).

Interestingly, the SOTGSE also mentions dozens of battle groups controlling "vast areas of space", with many having an SSD to lead them. I assume, given the previous usage of battle groups to mean units that are mobile, this excludes any available to the sector forces. No wonder the Rebels had their work cut out for them after Endor.

[Darth Hoth]

Uh, Steve Sansweet is a Lucas Licensing employee, not a fictional character.

Yes, and? Is the newest edition not given a veneer of in-universe treatment like the other sourcebooks are?

Like I said, the mention of SSDs in most sector forces now make more sense if they were created to cover for a gap of several or dozens of Star Destroyers.

No, it does not; an SSD cannot possibly fulfill the mission profiles of several ISDs. It is a command ship first, a battlewagon second, and neither function is very needed for the local SECTGRUs, which are mostly peacekeepers. The ISD is essentially a "Swiss Army Knife" solution to the problem of having both garrison- and dedicated battle fleets, with emphasis on the former duty over the latter (since it will face it a lot more).

Since the ISB is both outdated and proven to be less than reliable in certain areas, I'm not going to put too much faith in it on this particular matter. Especially since so much new info has been added to the canon, which could both be used to fill out the Imperial roster and cover any gaps. There's still the issue of when the ISB was first written, which was in the beginning of the Empire's increased armament plans to counter opposition during the new war. What could be standard according to their projections, might have gone south later on. Then there's the thing with larger ships being labled ISDs while have great structural differences, and it might be possible to explain that the ISD-shape was regular, but not necessarily the class.

That calling the unnamed class an ISD variant appears troublesome if it is the only mention, given how things work elsewhere (a bit like the old "Star Destroyer-class Battle Cruiser" stuff). Was it a character statement, by someone who might be wrong (or thinking it was an ISD)?

[VT-16]

Yes, and? Is the newest edition not given a veneer of in-universe treatment like the other sourcebooks are?

No, it's not a sourcebook, and no, it's not written like that.

No, it does not; an SSD cannot possibly fulfill the mission profiles of several ISDs. It is a command ship first, a battlewagon second, and neither function is very needed for the local SECTGRUs, which are mostly peacekeepers. The ISD is essentially a "Swiss Army Knife" solution to the problem of having both garrison- and dedicated battle fleets, with emphasis on the former duty over the latter (since it will face it a lot more).

What I meant was, it's good for covering for them, firepower-wise, which is probably good enough for some ho-dum Moff eager to wave his metaphorical willy around. Given what I've read, most of them weren't the most logical people around and with a climate of internal competition, making mistakes like that would be consistent.

That calling the unnamed class an ISD variant appears troublesome if it is the only mention, given how things work elsewhere (a bit like the old "Star Destroyer-class Battle Cruiser" stuff). Was it a character statement, by someone who might be wrong (or thinking it was an ISD)?

No, it was in the Encyclopedia. The book where it appears (Darksaber) only describes it as looking like a bloated ISD, larger than the actual ISDs in the fleet. It was built as a command ship for Harrsk, one of the breakaway Admirals.

[Darth Hoth]

No, it's not a sourcebook, and no, it's not written like that.

Correct "sourcebooks" to "background fluff," then.

Are you certain there is no preamble, like in the earlier edition? No "the 'conceit' behind this Star Wars encyclopedia is that it was compiled by a group of scholars about twenty-five or so standard years after the Battle of Endor" and so on?

What I meant was, it's good for covering for them, firepower-wise, which is probably good enough for some ho-dum Moff eager to wave his metaphorical willy around. Given what I've read, most of them weren't the most logical people around and with a climate of internal competition, making mistakes like that would be consistent.

Are Moffs in control of their own defence spending and military procurement, though? I thought they merely administered the forces the Imperial government deployed?

No, it was in the Encyclopedia. The book where it appears (Darksaber) only describes it as looking like a bloated ISD, larger than the actual ISDs in the fleet. It was built as a command ship for Harrsk, one of the breakaway Admirals.

I meant the one from DE ("Allegiance-class" in Saxtonite parlance). Damn Lucasfilm for not keeping the ISD definition straight, causing confusion like this!

Harrsk's ship could be a private modification; I would be wary of how representative the warlords would be of Imperial practice proper.

[VT-16]

The ISB (heh, it might be somewhat useful, after all ) says that mobile deep docks are being sent out to the sector forces, so they can build their own material. Therefore, it's easier to accept the difference in materials and/or customizations between sectors, when they have the opportunity to make their own, using their own criteria for what they need.

As for the Eclipse escorts in DE, they are called Imperial-class destroyers and Super Star Destroyers by the same people (Alliance personnel) when they appear over the Pinnacle Moon. It could be their own designations but it's the only one available in a canon source. It's very possible the Shockwave was a modified version of these things.

[Darth Hoth]

The ISB (heh, it might be somewhat useful, after all ) says that mobile deep docks are being sent out to the sector forces, so they can build their own material. Therefore, it's easier to accept the difference in materials and/or customizations between sectors, when they have the opportunity to make their own, using their own criteria for what they need.

No, I knew that, but I thought those were for maintenance and repair (makes sense if they are supposed to be "mobile," as opposed to stationary factories)? As well, was not SSD construction concentrated to the larger shipyards and subsidiaries?

As for the Eclipse escorts in DE, they are called Imperial-class destroyers and Super Star Destroyers by the same people (Alliance personnel) when they appear over the Pinnacle Moon. It could be their own designations but it's the only one available in a canon source. It's very possible the Shockwave was a modified version of these things.

Possibly, then (although the chances that that is how KJA intended it are about the same as for us being invaded by aliens . . . ).

[Captain Seafort]

As for the Eclipse escorts in DE, they are called Imperial-class destroyers and Super Star Destroyers by the same people (Alliance personnel) when they appear over the Pinnacle Moon. It could be their own designations but it's the only one available in a canon source. It's very possible the Shockwave was a modified version of these things.

Looking at Wookiepedia's quotes, the "Imperial class destroyer" ID came just as they dropped out of hyperspace, while the SSD ID came somewhat later. Is it possible the initial quick glance misidentified the ships as ISDs, in the same way various German capital ships kept getting mistaken for each other?

[VT-16]

That could be it, given at least another SSD had a top-down profile similar to the ISD (the Aramadia from its rpg illustration in CATCW), it's a possibility.

@ Darth_Hoth: The deep docks are meant to both maintain existing ships and construct new ones, after the sector forces own needs. The shipyards are mobile and modular, being adapted to different sizes of craft. The largest is the Rendili R/M Facility Number Four with 125 modular work bays, which could combine together to hold larger and larger ships.

[Publius]

As regards the Shockwave, one recalls Dr. Saxton's own observation that there was no indication of unfamiliarity or awe on the part of Corporal Daala, who was very visibly taken aback by the Night Hammer. Implicitly, therefore, one is inclined to believe either that the Shockwave's size is not excessively greater than the commonest mile-long Imperial Star Destroyer (which seems unlikely, given that she was able to disable a Victory Star Destroyer with a single volley), or that she is an older class already in service before Daala's banishment to the Maw.

[Connor MacLeod]

I know the canon thingy is tricky, but based on the statements of LFL people, that seems to be the case, mostly. I guess you could argue that "50,000" is "over 25,000", which would split the class neatly into the ready reserves in the Core that can be deployed throughout the galaxy, with the remaining 25,000 are divided into the regular sector fleets.

Not really: The two specific quotes I recall regarding the 25,000 figure are from Spectre of the Past and both versions of the Sanswet Encyclopedia (both of which I have). In context both are referring to the "WEG" type ISD (without heavy turrets) for both 1 and 2. Hell I remember SOTP being more specific hinting ISDs like the Chimera (meaning ISD-2 models.). You can either treat those as separate and distinct classes (the "canon" ISD models being the Imperators, the WEg models being ISDs - variants perhaps, since its not as if we dont know there are a ton of variations on the ISD hull design.) Or it could mean that only 25,000 ISD-2s were built since Yavin (about the time it came into service, so over a 2-3 year period) and that the bulk of ISDs were largely ISD-1 models (which we know predated the Empire by some time, and an unknown number of THOSE could have been built.)

Its not helped by the fact the selfsame encylopedia refers to a "sector" (which includes a sector group) under the Empire having hundreds of worlds. Which means thousands of Sectors easily (and thousands of sector groups, as per the ISB.) Which matches up with the scale of regions (thousands of sectors per some regions, and there are a couple large regions) and we know that there were at least 6,000 sectors as of ROTS (and given the smoothness of transition presented, there's very little changeover in actuall number, unless its upwards.) Which is going to cause headaches with the 25,000 figure as well.

You also have to use some logic here. If we assumed "Star Destroyer" in a comprehensive sense that would include Venators, Victories, etc. and that would fuck things up pretty dramatically. So you almost HAVE to be open ended about it and once you get over that hurdle there's alot of room for interpretation (because out of universe, authors put into sources largely what they want to, and despite the claims about "canon" and "consistency" errors still crop in.)

It may seem odd that only 25,000 ISDs were built in a few years by the Empire, but there's no real reason they WOULD want to build rapidly. There's no real wars, and too many ships are not only expensive, they're a threat (escalation of arms, anyone?) Besides, we know there was MASSIVE corruption in the Empire (IG-88 project, for example, which itself was skimmed off the DS2 project) despite any "efficiencies" it could pull off when it tried, so it wouldnt surprise me if they fucked around with things (and make the US military-industrial complex look positively efficient by comparison.)

Yes, that was my line of thinking as well. Giel's ship is attached to a large fleet tasked to travel throughout the galaxy, so it's definitely a mobile asset. The only other non-Executors I know of, are the Praetor-class Star Battlecruisers that are only in limited use (TCSWE), the newer Star Battlecruisers built at Kuat (Bounty Hunter Saga), the Star Cruisers (ITW:OT), the carriers, comm ships and repair ships, built on Executor hulls or not, I'm not sure (SOTGSE). Jerec's command ship, which was definitely attached to a mobile asset, given his quest, is also another example. The unit it led was referred to as a "battle group" (DF:JK).

The 5-8 mile SSd probably qualifies (visually they're distinct enough from the Executor in terms of arrangement and size of cityscape relative to ship, the dimensions, the sizeo f the hangar, number/style of thrusters, the command tower, etc - and thats in addition to the stats). There were the ships in the Marvel books too. And whatever that TPM-era SSD class was. Not sure how the Arc Hammer fits in, but it probably dos somewhere.

Generally we know KDY and Kuat built big ships (command ships) and there were other sizable industrial/shipbuilding companies (Sorosuub, for example) so its likely that other companie built their own.

Technically the AOTC ICS refers to "miles long" Star Destroyers as well, so there's probably some overlap anyhow (other sources IIRC have referred to multi-km/multi-mile "star Destroyers" too.)

Interestingly, the SOTGSE also mentions dozens of battle groups controlling "vast areas of space", with many having an SSD to lead them. I assume, given the previous usage of battle groups to mean units that are mobile, this excludes any available to the sector forces. No wonder the Rebels had their work cut out for them after Endor.

The Encyclopedia's context is of "mobile-strike" forces (forces capable of deploying rapidly anywhere within the Empire, which is partly why they keep half the forces stationed in the core. )

As I recall a "fleet" in the ISB jargon had some hundreds of ships (including around half a dozen ISDs or so) which matches up with the "death squadron" stuff. If you really want to dig back, the radio dramas refer to "star fleets" as being specific groupings rather than a reference to the entire fleet, and refer to Death Squadron as a "star fleet" as well (in the TESB radio drama. Possibly also in the rOTJ radio drama s well.)

[PainRack]

To be honest, I believe a better rationalisation is that ISDs, the "symbol" of Imperial might was simply the largest, most common standardised and mass produced warship in the Imperial Navy.
An assumption is that each sector could choose to produce/acquire different starships for their sector navies, with a "federal" budget or allocation of ships from the Imperial Fleet. Therefore, each fleet would build up its squadrons with different allocations of ships from different classes. Sectors could customise its fleets by acquiring more custom, low production run warships, this could be done for a variety of reasons, whether it was due to budgetary reasons, different strategic and tactical reasons or staffing reasons.
However, to introduce a standard OOB and exert some form of control and conformity, the Imperial Navy probably has warships that it procures from centralised sources and releases to local sector fleets for purchases. The ISD is simply the largest warship from this shopping list of sorts, that local fleets could acquire. This would allow some form of standardisation that would simplify maintenance and logistics, and gives sectors which might have the wealth but not the industrial/technical ability to build warships like the ISD standard destroyers.

The varying numbers of ISDs is thus a difference between the number of destroyers a sector fleet is expected to have in its OOB, the number of ISDs the fleet does posess and the number of destroyers found either in the central reserve or mobile/oversector commands outside of the sector fleets.

[Seydlitz_k]

Perhaps 25,000 refers to only the ISD's KDY built under commission from the Imperial Navy, and not a variety of license built versions laid down by other smaller shipyards for more local use.

Kind of like how different nations purchase licenses to build their own variations of popular firearms and other military hardware (AK-47 comes to mind. ), or how some car companies buy licenses to build certain popular cars with their own name slapped on.

There might be such a massive amount of ISD variants and rip-offs built and sold both legally and illegally by local system shipyards that 'ISD' could just a catch-all colloquial term for ships that look similair to the official KDY ISD's. So while there where only 25,000 ISD's built by KDY for the empire, there could be hundreds of thousands of rip-off's and copies built by various other smaller companies under license or in locations were KDY can't track them down and sue them.

License built ISD's would probably have found use with private navies, such as with the warlords, or with system and sector security forces who might not be able to afford KDY prices. For publicity reasons, KDY and the empire might try to hide the fact that most ISD's aren't legal or official, and so only cite the official commissioned ISD's in public reports.

So, publicly every ISD is supposedly a KDY built vessel, while in reality only a few were and the others are built by a myriad of other smaller companies (Who might even pass their products to be "official"). This could explain the omnipresence of ISD's, but why the numbers don't seem to match up.

this is just rampant speculation though!

[VT-16]

We have local Moffs buying Venators for their private defense fleets (TFUCG) so I wouldn't look past this option. Since the Harrow was identified as a Victory-class vessel in TCSWE*, despite its structural differences, I assume the regional variance and difference in construction policy makes the different models of the same class possible, coupled with individualized practices for augmenting the sectors.

*Reminds me of Battlefleet Gothic, where the same class could come out looking very different compared to where it was built.