"Big Corellians Ships"

[Illuminatus Primus]

Examine that a minimum Sector Group contains 2,400 ships, 24 of which are Star Destroyers.

A superiority fleet contains 6 ISDs, and 390 other combat starships, and is assigned to "calm sectors" containing "four or fewer worlds confirmed hostile to the New Order."

Taking four superiority fleets--one for each max confirmed hostile world, one arrives at 24 ISDs, and 1590 other combat starships. A Sector Group contains 24 SDs and other 1600 combat starships. This does not strike me as coincidence.

The 2,400--24 ISDs; 1600 other combatants figure is considered a minimum force. Now consider superiority fleets are identical to the planetary assault force listed for a planet in the EGtVV, and "calm sectors" (such as you'd expect minimum force to be assigned to) are defined as containing at most four hostile worlds. Consider a minimum Sector Group likely to be assigned to a calm sector is almost exactly four times the superiority fleets required to subdue her four recalitrant worlds. Consider an additional squadron is always posted to Sector Group HQ, and the smallest possible configuration for the lightest squadron is 12 combat starships which exceeds the minimum Sector Group total by 2 combat ships, to give an idea of just how low-ball that figure already is.

Heavy squadrons are the single unit that are said to often have VSDs assigned. Taking the VSDs as all three of the attack lines (SDs are deployed as lines in of themselves in sectorial forces), the total comes to eight heavy squadrons for a sector plus our super small light squadron attached to HQ. But that's only 240 total combat warships (other combat warships comes to 216)--an order of magnitude under minimum Sector Group strength. Let's adjust it so within our pet heavy squadron, only one of the two heavy attack lines are VSDs. We still only come to 732 total warships, other combat warships at 708. Now our calm sector still lacks the superiority fleets for her four stubborn worlds.

Now recall that there was a sufficient surplus of VSDs to mothball and sell to individual member worlds. Recall that there were plenty laying around decomissioned.

Now, taking the emphasized thousands quote I previously ignored, you have ABSOLUTE MINIMUM (this is quite unrealistic), only two regions, that contain 2,000 sectors each, no more, and all other regions are negligible. 96,000 SDs. Now this is assuming all Sector Groups are at absolute low. That none of their Moffs have the extra 15 squadrons we know some of them, such as Tarkin, did. This disregards reserves, all other sectors and regions, all Oversector forces.

EDIT: For interested parties, Nitram's wrong. No where does Admiral Pelleaon lement about the Chimeara or her class specifically in any way shape or form.

"We still hold eight sectors--over a thousand systems. We have the Fleet, nearly two hundred Star Destroyers strong. We're still very much a force to be reckonned with."

But it was. And down deep, Pelleaon was sure Ardiff knew it as well as he did. A thousand systems left, out of an Empire that had once spanned a million. Two hundred Star Destroyers remaining from a Fleet that had once included over twenty-five thousand of them.

What was that about this being "not exactly a flexible quote"? Perhaps you'll direct me to references to the Chimeara or the Imperial-class?

Because I've gone through, and there's precisely zero, zip, nada references to the Imperial-class. There's precisely one of Pelleaon saying the word "Chimaera," when he commands the Preybirds to return to their hangars.

Interestingly, the remaining fleet resources are refered to as the proper noun "[Imperial] Fleet," not the proper noun "Imperial Navy." Nitpick: he does remark over, and does over-simplify: the Empire certainly spanned over a million systems given her over fifty million depedencies, posessions, and colonies. The Imperial Remnant approaches two-hundred ISDs, but does not reach it. The Empire had "over" 25,000 SDs in its "Fleet." Interestingly, the term "Imperial Fleet" is not used in the WEG Sourcebooks or other materials. Canon uses "Imperial Starfleet," and WEG uses "Imperial Navy."

Well. A totally context-less mention of "Star Destroyers" compared to minimum Sector Group figures that almost precisely line up the fleets that are assigned to calm sectors. Hmm.

Oh, and Executor-class vessels do not fit in the Sector Group OOB; they're neither Destroyers, nor do they fit in any concievable OOB. Some quotes imply they were perhaps to be Priority Sector motherships.

[SirNitram]

Oh, no, the semantics whores are talking about 'fleet' versus 'starfleet' and 'navy'.

I admit I was mistaken, the quote does not specify. So, options as the result..

1. One of the two is wrong.
2. Both are correct; but the Sector Fleet calculations represent something not acheived, due to the sudden overthrow of the Empire.
3. Both are wrong, there's really millions of ISD's.

2 is the most reasonable by including all evidence, whereas 1 is passable, and 3 stinks of Creationist-esque idiocy.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Oh, no, the semantics whores are talking about 'fleet' versus 'starfleet' and 'navy'.

Whine, bitch, whine, bitch. Aren't you the one who came aboard shrieking about "the intelligent" knowing it approximates a cruiser without knowing how to classify naval vessels?

I admit I was mistaken, the quote does not specify. So, options as the result..

1. One of the two is wrong.
2. Both are correct; but the Sector Fleet calculations represent something not acheived, due to the sudden overthrow of the Empire.
3. Both are wrong, there's really millions of ISD's.

2 is the most reasonable by including all evidence, whereas 1 is passable, and 3 stinks of Creationist-esque idiocy.

(Compiled from various sources, including scandocs, datareports, and communiques.)

The might of the Empire has not arisen overnight, although years of planning and preparation by the Emperor allowed the military to expand at a nearly inconceivable rate. From the time of the Old Republic to the opening years of the New Order was a period of rapid change and expansion for the Imperial forces. With the Empire’s loss at the Battle of Yavin, even more changes have taken place - some not even yet announced to the various branches.

The ISB is a post-Yavin analysis by Rebel historians using captured Imperial documents. If it is somehow "unrealized" I'd love to hear information as to why, particularly when a larger-force interpretation both aligns with the Dodonna firepower figures and the industrial capacity realized by the Death Star II (Marina's fleet calc figures roughly come up with a full Naval force massing approximately similar to the Death Star II despite being constructed over an order of magnitude at least longer span of time.

My rationalization allows for everything to stand, as much as you moan over it.

EDIT: Is it "semantics whoring" to insist on the definition of "a generation" in human terms to support the EU in light of Palpatine's "1,000 year" quote, diametrically opposite Obi-Wan's "1000 generation" quote? Terms are important. In fact this entire thread is about terms.

[SirNitram]

Oh, no, the semantics whores are talking about 'fleet' versus 'starfleet' and 'navy'.

Whine, bitch, whine, bitch. Aren't you the one who came aboard shrieking about "the intelligent" knowing it approximates a cruiser without knowing how to classify naval vessels?

When your whole argument is 'Star Destroyer, ignore all Canon references to it as a Cruiser', you have no room to claim otherwise.

I admit I was mistaken, the quote does not specify. So, options as the result..

1. One of the two is wrong.
2. Both are correct; but the Sector Fleet calculations represent something not acheived, due to the sudden overthrow of the Empire.
3. Both are wrong, there's really millions of ISD's.

2 is the most reasonable by including all evidence, whereas 1 is passable, and 3 stinks of Creationist-esque idiocy.

(Compiled from various sources, including scandocs, datareports, and communiques.)

The might of the Empire has not arisen overnight, although years of planning and preparation by the Emperor allowed the military to expand at a nearly inconceivable rate. From the time of the Old Republic to the opening years of the New Order was a period of rapid change and expansion for the Imperial forces. With the Empire’s loss at the Battle of Yavin, even more changes have taken place - some not even yet announced to the various branches.

The ISB is a post-Yavin analysis by Rebel historians using captured Imperial documents. If it is somehow "unrealized" I'd love to hear information as to why, particularly when a larger-force interpretation both aligns with the Dodonna firepower figures and the industrial capacity realized by the Death Star II (Marina's fleet calc figures roughly come up with a full Naval force massing approximately similar to the Death Star II despite being constructed over an order of magnitude at least longer span of time.

So? The Empire at it's height(And therefore best chance to attain these numbers), is not facing any outside foe. There's no need for these massive fleets that you masturbate to without proof. Again, I make the note of Creationist-esque logic, because it's disturbingly similar: When faced with an error within the same order of magnitude, you immediately jump several orders of magnitude and claim it's somehow supported.

My rationalization allows for everything to stand, as much as you moan over it.

EDIT: Is it "semantics whoring" to insist on the definition of "a generation" in human terms to support the EU in light of Palpatine's "1,000 year" quote, diametrically opposite Obi-Wan's "1000 generation" quote? Terms are important. In fact this entire thread is about terms.

It's semantics whoring to think Pelleaon is thinking 'Well, it's a real pity there were only 25,000 SD's in the fleet, but over two million in the other branches', when it would transform what is being said. But hey, I no longer suspect you will behave logically in threads like this.

[Illuminatus Primus]

When your whole argument is 'Star Destroyer, ignore all Canon references to it as a Cruiser', you have no room to claim otherwise.

And you're argument is "ignore role as destroyer and prop up Connor's arguments because I couldn't be bothered to concede all the stupid shit I repeated after Ender knocked it down" and "disregard the fact that canon calls ships like the Naboo Royal Starship a cruiser."

So? The Empire at it's height(And therefore best chance to attain these numbers), is not facing any outside foe. There's no need for these massive fleets that you masturbate to without proof.

I already replied to this bullshit, asshole. Somehow your baseless claim of "no need" turns the ISB into "eh, unrealized speculation"? Sorry, you need more excuse than that for why its just in-universe masturbation, and it should be more conclusive than "well Nitram doesn't see the need."

EDIT: Without proof? An in-universe historical document giving hard numbers and facts pre-Hoth is irrelevent? How? Handwavium? Or just that you totally ignore that which doesn't suit your preconcieved conclusions? Just like you ignored Ender's and my refutations of your garbage. Very telling neither you nor Connor attempt to prop up the "role" side of the debate any longer.

Did you read your WEG materials? The Sector Groups are not for fighting the Rebels. They are for maintaining the Tarkin Doctrine within their own sectors. The member worlds still maintain token defense forces, and some worlds like Kuat and Corellia get even more allowance in this area. The Sector Groups are permanent occupation forces. Interestingly, the NRDF Fifth Fleet during the Black Fleet Crisis measured about equal to a Sector Group, and had the NR members screaming imperialism and accusing Leia of wanting her father's ambitions. Tig Peramis held that the Fifth Fleet was intended to suppress internal dissent.

Each Sector maintains a Fleet Marine Force consisting of primarily 24 expeditionary battlegroups minimum. This isn't adding whatever other crap may be assigned to the Sector's command under the Moff Governor. Additionally, each Imperial-class Star Destroyer's design itself reflects these needs: they're stocked with assault armor and nearly ten thousand elite infantry. It is essentially the minimum expediture platform for being able to cow a single developed world into line.

This is an important reason the New Republic defeated the numerically superior Empire: she had to control her own territory by fear while simultaneously fighting the Rebels.

Are you stupid, obtuse, or both? I see this mental retard tendency to repeat claims already addressed like you did to Ender earlier.

And since you'll bitch and not offer any evidence (or paraphrase it such that you insert your own little caveats to support yourself), I'll quote bits for you.

The Navy has grown enormously since the decline of the Old Republic, but its mission has largely stayed the same: to free the system space of member worlds from hazards to profitable commerce, to assure the safety of member worlds from attack from outside forces, and to bolster the planetary governments in times of crisis. This last mission has grown more difficult since the rise of the New Order.

Note only one of the missions is attack from outside forces, and the minimum Sector Group strength listed above directly correlates with the number of superiority fleets needed to suppress the assumed number of recalitrant worlds in each calm sector. In other words, the minimum Sector Group is only for holding down the Sector itself.

But Nitram's going to bitch and strawman my position, so let's examine a bit deeper.

One of the results of this transformation was the creation of the Sector Group, an organization with greater flexibility and accountability than the military of the Old Republic. The roles of the Army and Navy were meshed more closely. No longer is the Navy able to ignore the Army because it is "groundstuck ... and proud of it," and the Army is no longer able to neglect events in nearby systems as "the Navy’s problem." Each branch is expected to pool its resources in order to achieve a common goal, maintaining Imperial rule within a sector. (bolded emphasis mine)

Well hello, it says flat out: the military resources of a Sector Group are for maintaining Imperial rule within that Sector. Why do you think additional resources are given to crime-infested, or rebel-ridden worlds? The ISB never addresses defense against assault or invasion, yet Nitram thinks this is what these fleets are for? Why? What evidence?

The Navy’s mandate is to secure orbital space around inhabited planets, to investigate any vessels which in the opinion of the commanding officer appear capable of disrupting the security of orbital space, and to engage hostile vessels, destroying or seizing them as deemed necessary. In addition, the Navy is to establish patrols within a sector to locate known enemies or for the early detection of patterns of space activity which could indicate a hostile presence. Space superiority is clearly the Navy’s most important mission, and the one which generates the most enthusiasm from crew and officers.

Does this sound like a force which emphasizes defense against invasion or heavy assault? I suppose you could warp the comment about "engaging hostile vessels," but I thought that warships would be expected to do so.

When operating on a planet considered hostile to the Empire (including hundreds of planets nominally part of the Empire), special missions companies are drop-supplied directly from naval vessels.

The clarification on hostile planets specifically refers to Imperial worlds which are in a state or rebellion or dispute.

In fact, there's no basis at all for assuming the Emperor's plans for Sector Groups had anything to do at all with "equal opponents." Do you have proof for that? What possibly would've suggested there'd be equal opponents to Imperial rule in the forseeable future. And don't give me Argumentum ad ignorantiam "well aliens always could've invaded" bullshit. Show proof.

Again, I make the note of Creationist-esque logic, because it's disturbingly similar: When faced with an error within the same order of magnitude, you immediately jump several orders of magnitude and claim it's somehow supported.

Poisoning the Well. "IP and Ender are like a creationists! The dumbfucks!"

What's with the sudden no numbers; no refutation attitude, Nitram? Surely you can browse Ender's calcs and figures yourself? Attack the actual work and math maybe? But shit, that'd require something other than flames and posturing.

It's semantics whoring to think Pelleaon is thinking 'Well, it's a real pity there were only 25,000 SD's in the fleet, but over two million in the other branches', when it would transform what is being said. But hey, I no longer suspect you will behave logically in threads like this.

Why? The other hundred-odd thousand ships are tied up maintaining the rule of the Sectors--the only vessels the Empire had available for major campiagns would be those not required for this mission. There is in fact specific reserve forces of naval might for just this purpose. This is one of the premises of Marina's calc, if you ever bothered to read it.

But hey, what's there to say about a snooty asshole who won't quote sources, won't concede points, repeats refuted claims, disregards responses, and doesn't bother to fucking do his own homework.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Summary:

Nitram doesn't like the idea of the 25k ISDs being an offensive force despite a different fucking name, and refuses to explain what fucking evidence is there that the ISB is just bullshit and we should just run a fucking Roman Triumph with Pelleaon's comment inscribed in gold, apart from, of course, "I don't see the need." There is an epistemological concept, Nitram, called credulence. You accept evidence at face value unless you have a compelling reason to take it otherwise. You have no offered a compelling reason.

The facts are stubborn things. Deal with the ISB. Deal with the Dodonna Calc. Deal with the ISD's role. Cut the evasive bullshit, lack of evidence, and selective ignoring of refutations. Or concede.

Quit being an evasive, oppurtunistic little fuck who ignores arguments, abandons without conceding, and returns to distort specific slices of evidence to prop up some little quip, and when it turns out that source actually contradicts your agenda, you argue that it should be thought of as hypothetical (irrelevent in semantical window dressing).

[SirNitram]

Oh my, what scathing nonsense. I suppose I should feel slighted.

Accept the ISB, I am told. A source which says, optimally, the SD Fleet should compromise between 48,000 - a few hundred thousand SDs. Of course, this is optimal; not every sector, as the ISB notes, needs a full 24. So, the Rebel Intel report says that, on paper, the SD Fleet should be between 48,000, and, oh, call it 500,000 SD's(Any higher, the quote should be more like Dozens). Yet what's he claiming the fleet must be? Oh yes, Marina's calculations. Several million. I see no evidence for several million here, everyone.

Do I claim we should throw out ISB completely? Of course not. I merely wish it examined next to Pelleaon's quote intelligently! Which do we trust more, Rebel intelligence, or an officer with access to the records?

Deal with the Dodonna calc, he informs me. Yet even a conservative SD count, with the ISB ratio, will yield a fleet of ten million ships, and an average firepower of E26W per vessel. Between big ships like the Executor, and the fact even an Acclamator or VSD can perform a Base Delta Zero operation, there is no pressing need from Dodonna's briefing to up the fleet counts.

Ultimately, there's no compelling need to think Pelleaon isn't talking about the entire SD run. It makes little sense for him not to be. It completely changes the point of what he's saying. I offered a solution that preserved both peices of evidence, his quote and the ISB. It was, of course, rejected, since it doesn't lead the massive fleet numbers.



The ISD's role. The core of this thread. I've explained my position. It doesn't come from obsessively looking at 'Star Destroyer' and saying 'Hey, it says Destroyer'. It comes from looking at it's normal role in the whole of SW, which isn't that of a light combatant. The heavier ships all tend to lean heavily into the Battleship or Carrier directions.

The worst part is how this argument exists only because of semantics, and thrives only on discarding loads of evidence. Every ship weaker than an ISD but given a Cruiser classification must be ignored. Every Canon use of a term other than Destroyer to refer to them must be handwaved off. And when we point out even massive Eclipses bear the words 'Star Destroyer' in their name, we are told 'canon over official', as if someone in the movies said, 'These ships are the equivalent to old wet-navy destroyers, and we call everything bigger cruisers or battleships', or something similar.

Ships from the Victory up to the Eclipse bear the name 'Star Destroyer'. Big ones even the odd, and almost definately not naval 'Super Star Destroyer'. Are we going to be told there's battleships bigger than the Eclipse out there, somewhere? Lurking in the wings?

I'm done. You can appeal to Ender's authority, you can shriek and whine, but the result is pretty clear to the unbiased. Slander me if it makes you sleep better at nights.

[Ender]

Connor - I have a relativly busy week ahead of me, so if we are going to get into this 1) provide a link to all those quotes from last time, I started ignoring that thread once it degenerated to claiming that missiles were a defining part of a destroyer, which was the same tactic ardax tried with brian abnd the word volley and 2) take a position with an alternative theory rather then just stating what it is not. We could sit here til the cows come home listing what it is not, I'd rather do something more constructive.

Nitram - any time you want to either respond to both of my refutations or type the magic little words "I concede" is fine by me, though I'd prefer it sometime soon as, like I said, I look to have a busy week ahead.

[Ender]

Oh my, what scathing nonsense. I suppose I should feel slighted.

Gee Nitram, how about you stop pandering to an audience and address the points. Oh wait, you refuse to do that, and prefer to never respond to refutations.

I'll ignore the ISB and go straight to canon, since the heart of this is that you are trying to use a WEG number repeated in official books to override the results from a canon statement. And since this isn't TFN, that shit doesn't fly here.

Deal with the Dodonna calc, he informs me. Yet even a conservative SD count, with the ISB ratio, will yield a fleet of ten million ships, and an average firepower of E26W per vessel. Between big ships like the Executor, and the fact even an Acclamator or VSD can perform a Base Delta Zero operation, there is no pressing need from Dodonna's briefing to up the fleet counts.

Oh gee, look at that, the "No Math!" argument. By using this, you can downplay the massive difference and make yourself look more reasonable then the fool you are.

Hey numbnuts: Lets be extremely generous here, and say that every ship has a firepower of 1E30 watts.

At a bare minimum the Superlaser was 3.4E38 joules and fired for .21 seconds. Realistically, the energy should be far higher since it was thermal and that number is the resultant kinetic energy.

So converting joules to watts, that is 1.62E39 watts, and with the basic division, thats 1,620,000,000 ships. More realistically, with an average firepower of 1e25 (for every executor there are hundreds of gamma asssault shuttle Nitram) you are looking at 162,000,000,000,000

And you think that the destroyers, the "workhorses of the navy" make up 0.0015% - 0.0000000154% of it respectivly

Ultimately, there's no compelling need to think Pelleaon isn't talking about the entire SD run. It makes little sense for him not to be. It completely changes the point of what he's saying. I offered a solution that preserved both peices of evidence, his quote and the ISB. It was, of course, rejected, since it doesn't lead the massive fleet numbers.

No, it was rejected because it gets overridden by the movies, the higest order of canon. But Lets not let the facts get in the way of your wounded pride, ok?

The ISD's role. The core of this thread. I've explained my position.

And then run away like when it was shown you didn't have the foggest what you were talking about.

It doesn't come from obsessively looking at 'Star Destroyer' and saying 'Hey, it says Destroyer'. It comes from looking at it's normal role in the whole of SW, which isn't that of a light combatant. The heavier ships all tend to lean heavily into the Battleship or Carrier directions.

You keep repeating that you are right and never responding to me showing that your mouth is around your small intestine.

The worst part is how this argument exists only because of semantics, and thrives only on discarding loads of evidence. Every ship weaker than an ISD but given a Cruiser classification must be ignored.

Gee, it must be lovely to totally ignore evidence so you can claim others are doing so.

In Vector Prime 3PO states there are two scales of classifying ships in the galaxy, one of which gives vastly overpowered ratings to ships undeserving. S no, we are using evidence to explain the difference, not ignoring it.

Every Canon use of a term other than Destroyer to refer to them must be handwaved off. And when we point out even massive Eclipses bear the words 'Star Destroyer' in their name,

Jesus, you really don't read your opponents posts, do you? You just spout shit no matter what. I've explained this mroe then once here. No wonder you do so well in the fantasy foruum, the tolerence for bullshit there is much higher.

we are told 'canon over official', as if someone in the movies said, 'These ships are the equivalent to old wet-navy destroyers, and we call everything bigger cruisers or battleships', or something similar.

You are yet to show that they are not, we have put together a very good case that they are.

Ships from the Victory up to the Eclipse bear the name 'Star Destroyer'. Big ones even the odd, and almost definately not naval 'Super Star Destroyer'. Are we going to be told there's battleships bigger than the Eclipse out there, somewhere? Lurking in the wings?

Nice attempt at distortion.

I'm done. You can appeal to Ender's authority,

You could respond instead of being the gutless coward you are.

you can shriek and whine, but the result is pretty clear to the unbiased. Slander me if it makes you sleep better at nights.

Awww, look, he ducked out with the "fuck you, I'm still right" that was always Bobby's stock and trade.


I love this chicken shit behavior, I really do. You never responded to a single counter argument here. You never backed anything up. And in the end you tried to play things up for the crowd and claim victory through reptition rather then through argument, just Like Bobby, Ardax, and every other village idiot before you has tried. Go back to the fantasy forum where this kind of bullshit is allowed.

[Connor MacLeod]

You've not established how stuff like the Shockwave and Harrow (particularly since it falls into the same length and tonnage range as the Victory) and the Kuat of Kuat's ship are quote unquote "Star Destroyers" and how that violates the role and the class-designation nomenclature established by the AOTC ICS.

The Harrow is not specifically called a Star Destroyer (though Saxton describes it as such, which was why I was referring to it) but just "Destroyer," so that may not be applicable to my example. However, the Shockwave and Kuat of Kuat's Star Destroyer are specifically referred to as "Star Destroyers" -

"I was just speaking with your Commander Kratas," Harrsk said. "He seems to be most impressed with my Shockwave." He punched a button, and the scene shifted to show Kratas leaning over a station on the command bridge of a new Star Destroyer."

That's further reinforced by the inclusion of the Shockwave as one of twelve Star Destrroyers, even though it was noticably different (larger and more heavily armed.)

Kuat of Kuat turned and regarded the figure that had entered the bridge of the moored Star Destroyer.

"Where else would you be?" Boba Fett's battle armor was blackened with ash from the fires consuming the construction dock's wreckage, "It suits you; this is the biggest ship in the fleet."

I also like how you ignore mention of say, the Executor-class also being referred to as a "Star Destroyer" in canon literature, even though it is canonically a "command ship." with alot of handwaving about how its an obvious mistake. Ignoring things inconvenient to your argument seems to be somethign you are rather good at (the other thing being shamelessly aping people like Publius.)

And I pointed to multiple incidences of the novelisations calling ships which weren't cruisers, cruisers.

Where, exactly? Your vague reference to the Queen's Yacht? I don't see any mentions from the novelizations in this thread or the past one where the issue came up (where I posted the novel quotes themselves, which you never bothered to respond to.)

And even if by some classification systems the ISD is a crusier, so what? Threepio indicates said alternative systems exist (ref: Vector Prime). How does this help you with claims about VSDs being battlecruisers and ISDs being battleships. Do you have a consistent alternative theory?

Yes, as I mentioned (and as discussed by other such as Mike - another fact I have repeatedly mentioned.), that ISDs may possibly not do not conform to any specific wet-navy classification. In addition, I've made repeated admissions to the fact that the cruiser designation might not be accurate. Try taking your head out of your ass, would you? This debate would be much simpler if you were capable of the basic cognitive capability possessed by a gerbil.

Moreover, they can be used as cruisers and referenced as such, but are never done so as a class-designation. ISDs are never "Imperial-class cruisers."

They're never called "destroyers" either, even though you keep deliberately ignoring the factual mention of the Executor-class as a "Star Destroyer." I also like how you ignored the fact "Star Destroyer" is synonymous with "Imperial cruiser" as stated explicitly on the website.

Actually that's not quite true. The only specific mention of an ISD being a "destroyer" is the ANH novelization, when fleeing Tattooine, but that's hardly uncontestable.

The Nemodian Viceroy calls the Naboo Royal Starship a Naboo cruiser. Now either he's right, and thusly canon descriptions of cruisers are wildly inaccurate (discontinuities in real life objective data are discarded as procedural or experimental error, and the same should be followed under Suspension of Disbelief) OR there is another classification system by which both "Naboo cruisers" and "Imperial cruisers" are both cruisers when the former is a fast private yacht and the second is a destroyer. That classification system should be useless for determining the class-designation of the ISD for obvious reasons.

Or, you ignored the fact that Panaka explicitly stated that the Queen's yacht is not a warship, dumbass (its not even armed!). Who do you think is going to be more knowledgable about the ship? Panaka or Gunray? (And in any case, its stupid to compare a nonmilitary vessel to a military one.)

We could also mention that Naboo is not part of the Empire, so Imperial vessel classifications may not be comparable to Naboo/Republic classifications.

Maybe you should have tried mentioning the fact the Radiant VII is also called a "Republic Cruiser", for all the good it would do you.

Victory II Destroyers are designed with hangar bays large enough for two squadrons of TIE fighters. A recent shortage and high demand for the starfighters has seen the mothballing of several hangars, or the use of non-combat craft as battle platforms. (bolded emphasis mine)

Notice the capitalization, dipshit? Its a fucking title, not a ship classification. And in any case you're trying to dismiss canon sourcees with an official source. Nice try.

None of the "many vessels" you've referenced as "Destroyers" have been proven to not be within the tonnage range and role that ISDs and VSDs occupy. HIMS Harrow is an excellent new light destroyer belonging to the Victory-class's tonnage range actually.

You seem to be under the delusion that I am arguing "Destroyer" as an Imperial ship classification, which I am obviously not. Bringing up the Shockwave, the Star Destroyer Kuat of Kuat occupies in Hard Merchandise, or the Executor is meant to reinforcec the idea that "Star Destroyer" is NOT an Imperial ship class based on known evidence. This remains factual even *IF* ISDs are not cruisers.

It does when the cruiser reference in canon is consistently inaccurate as to the actual military role and purpose of the vessel in question. It isn't a similarity--it is a class-designation nomenclature system known to be in use by the Kuati Sector government and presumably the central government of the Galactic Empire for the Imperial Navy as well as the Mon Calamari's early fleet before the NRDF is founded.

I love how you make a vague claim about it being "inaccurate" without bothering to back it up.

And the "Super Star Destroyer" doesn't disprove the nomenclature system because it is a colloquialism that is not within the nomenclature system. "Super" is a tonnage marker, which in ship classification is tied to the role in destinguishing said vessel class from normal vessels. For the Executor to prove "Star [role]" doesn't apply to ISD, the Executor would have to be a "Star Superdestroyer." The tonnage marker is always attached to the role of the vessel.

I see that you not only decide to ape Publius, but you like to talk like Curtis as well. What other impersonations do you do?

Try to notice that I'm not using "Super Star Destroyer" or "Star Destroyer" as class designations. The fact I mention this in reference to the Executor (or other vessels) is to highlight the very problems with interpreting it as a ship class. You don't get to change the rules just for the "Star Destroyer" because you want to pretend that that applies to the ship roles.

"Star Destroyer" is a consistent class-designation applying to ships of similar roles and tonnages. If it was a class-designation, it would be "Star Superdestroyer." It isn't.

So then explain the canonical reference to the Executor as a "Star Destroyer" in the TESB novelization and scripts for ROTJ and TESB without referring to your selective "This Star Destroyer reference is a ship classification and the rest aren't" bullshit.

And while we're at it, explain how "Star Defenders" are supposed to fit into things, sincec that is obviously not a ship classification either. You might also want to explain why the Medical vessel at the end of TESB is also described as a "Rebel Star Cruiser".

(PS, just to illustrate how fucking stupid you really are, you should have mentioned that reference to "Imperial cruiser" being synonymous with "Star Destroyer" would also suggest the Executor-class could be an "Imperial cruiser" - which would in fact tend to argue against my belief in them being closer to cruisers - but it would *not* be inconsistent with the "hybrid" concept. Apparently the only way you will have an intelligent argument is if your opponent constructs them for you. )

"Super Star Destroyer" is a semi-official colloquialism at best existing outside of the nomenclature system to refer to heavier-than-ISD vessels which are equipped to serve a mothership and command ship role on the Sector-scale picket fleets.

Except that the Executor is referred to as a "Super Star Destroyer" in both the novelization AND the script - and not just in character statements. Its not "official", its a canonical reference, even if it isn't a ship designation.

The Executor, Eclipse, Soveriegn, and the Allegiance all potentially are deployed in this fashon. The "hunchback cruiser," the Marvel Battlecruiser, and the Vengeance are not described as "Super Star Destroyers"; thus they lack this ability or intent. "Super Star Destroyer" doesn't work as a catch-all class-designation for heavier-than-ISD ships as I've heard claimed because the aforementioned vessels do not apply.

Again, get your head out of your ass. I never said "Super Star Destroyer" was a class designation. I am saying it AND "STar Destroyer" (as well as "Star Cruiser") are NOT designations.

Appeal to Authority. Ender is in the Navy, Mike, while knowledgable, is. And there's so many problems with comparing it to the Iowa-class Battleship-Carrier concept I don't know where to start.

Here we go with your ability to invent fallacies where they don't exist. You are committing the error of treating any reference to another person's work as an appeal to authority. Just because I refer to Mike's analysis of ship classifications does not mean it is an "appeal to authority."

I would also point out that the fact Ender being in the Navy does not automatically refute my reference to Mike's page, especially since you have remained remarkably vague about the so called "flaws." How do you know what sort of research Mike did into the topic before making conclusions, exactly?

Wrong. They fit the role ideally, AOTC ICS uses this nomenclature scheme, as does the Calamarian fleet, and also presumably the Imperial Navy.

So then you're arguing that the Nebulon-B is a "cruiser" and that Executors are "destroyers". Brilliant.

And that doesn't even address the fact that you deliberately base your definition of a Star Destroyer's role on modern naval combat, which differs from the "Battleship era" Naval combat SW more closely resembles. For that matter, as I recall, SW combat was in fact modeled after WW2 battle footage.

Canon references to this system as "Star Battlecruisers," "Star Dreadnoughts," and "Star Cruisers." The pattern in the nomenclature of this class-designation protocol is seen to be "Star [role]." Therefore, the "Star Destroyer" is a destroyer.

Canon also refers to the Medical frigate in TESB as a "Rebel Star Cruiser" - I guess that means it is a real cruiser then, isn't it? And that also means the Executor is also a destroyer.

By teh way, what relevance does this have to Imperial classifications? As I recall the "Star" desgination was for Republic-Era KDY vessels.

Even if this is all wrong, you've carefully abandons criticisms of the ISD's role as a destroyer. The ISD's role does fit that of a destroyer working with coast guard and gunboat flotillas.

Based on your twisted defintions of "destrroyer" based on an era that does not accurately represent SW ship combat.

Even filmic canon is consistently inconsistent between references to cruisers and their actual navy role and military usage. As I said, canon is not wrong, and perhaps they use cruiser in a colloquial manner or under a not understood classification system--which by virtue of not being consistent with actual naval role is irrelevent to the discussion at hand.

In other words, you want to be able to twist things around to fit your own view while not being required to deal with things inconsistent to your pet arguments. Oh wait, That's an Ad Hominem too isnt it? I guess I really am not addressing any of your points at all.

No. He's arguing that the canon consistent with secondary sources is valid, and other canon should be reinterpreted in that context.

Which is why "Star Destroyer" or "Star Cruiser" is problematical in an Imperial (and probably Rebel/New Republic) context. Maybe it isn't for the Republic era or the various member worlds of the Republic. I've pointed out the problems in this, and you repeatedly ignore it.

You have ISDs and Naboo Royal Starships as "cruisers" on the first side.

And as we all know, one can compare civilian vessels to military warships.

This contradicts AOTC ICS nomenclature schemes consistent with refering to the Imperial-class as a "Star Destroyer," and also with EU claims of the vessel as a battleship.

Republic era ship designations do not automatically apply to the Empire (much the same way it is argued that Mon Calamari/Republic designations do not apply to the Empire, or vice versa.)

On the other you have "Star Destroyers" fitting in with "Victory II Destroyers," "Star Cruisers," "Star Dreadnoughts," "Star Battlecruisers," from WEG Sourcebooks, the filmic canon, the AOTC ICS, to both canonical and EU novelisations.

And of course, Rebel escort frigates are also "Star Cruisers", as well as the Executor being a "STar Destroyer." I repeat that because a government in one era might use "Star" designations for its navy does not mean it applies across the board. If we followed your logic, then the Executor class becomes a mere "destroyer", and the escort frigates (and quite possibly other vessels, based on statements in ROTJ") become "cruisers.

You wouldn't argue that the "1,000 year" quote from Palpatine should supercede the EU-backed "1,000 generations [ie., 25,000 years]" by Obi-Wan, would you?

No, but you appear to be perfectly willing to ignore canon when it suits your purposes.

Nitpickery and a single corroboration with a known to be oft-flawed source against a corroboration across five different sets of sources, three of which are canonical.

Apparently in your deluded little universe, the evidence I brought up the last time this discussion came up does not exist. Have you bothered checking in with reality lately?

snip redundencies*

Translation: I'm ignoring eveything that is inconsistent with my pet theories because I am incapable of dealing with them.

More of the same. Naboo Royal Starship and ISD are cruisers. Against the AOTC ICS and WEG corroboration, the nomenclature presented in which is still represented in both EU novels, filmic novelisations, and the films themselves. The canon cruiser reference is not even internally consistent.

Already discussed this. Your Wall of Ignorance tactics do not change this one bit. I also like how your efforts at attempting to win by sheer volume. Tactics quite worthy of the worst trolls.

And you've entirely abandoned the role of the ISD as a destroyer. Even without filmic proof of "Star Destroyer" as a "Destroyer," the ISD still matches as a destroyer.

In that vast cavernous space between your ears you so loosely refer to as your mind, that is. I've made my argument clear repeatedly, made specific references, and had it all ignored on the same tired logic you repeatedly mention. I could get more tangible results trying to shoot holes in fog.

So I guess Connor learned how to use the Argumentum ad hominem.

So I guess Illuminatus Primus is trying to pretend he's Publius in addition to inventing more fallacies out of thin air.

This is all bullshit to excuse and dismiss the fact you're wrong, and apparently expect subclasses to take on entirely seperate name-designations from the overall class it belongs to anyway, especially despite obvious EU evidence that the subclasses are designated by "Mark" followed by a Roman numeral.

Translation: I'm going to ignore everything he said and repeat my argument in the hopes he won't notice the repetition and might just give up eventually.

You didn't know what you were talking about, and that line wasn't intended to be inflammatory, but you responded with a spiteful "last laugh" ad hominem anyway. The point is, I was right about it, and still am, and none of that pathetic bitching drivel makes any difference. Why don't you actually refute my argument if it was so wrong.

ROFL. Its not an Ad Hominem when I am addressing your argument, as opposed to ignoring the argument and attacking you directly.

I'll defer to Skimmer and Co.'s points as better informed when I debate them, but you're not better informed, and don't know what you're talking about, so I'll call you up on it. And if we're going to do the Connor and talk about authorities, since Ender IS in the Navy, and agrees with me, I'd take that as a strong sense of reliability, particularly since its his business to know.

I suppose if I interpreted statements as you do, that I would call that an Ad Hominem. I could also point out that you're basing your conclusions on a time period inconistent with SW naval combat.

And as a final note, your DDG bullshit was and is a red herring--not that it matters, since DD(X) follows my argument and isn't a guided-missile destroyer.

Only if you ignore the fact that I have also poitned out that naval era you utilizes does not match SW combat in the slightest. (What era do you think SW combt was modeled after, hmmm?) Care to point out where modern navies still use battleships?

By the way, did you know that the CG(X) are also multi-mission?

EDIT: According to the Navy at the website I fucking linked to both in this thread and in the last thread (here), the CG-47 Ticonderoga-class is indeed a cruiser. Such a cruiser it is designated "CG" for "guided missile cruiser." Yeah, it started off as a DDG, but is the USN not allowed to change their mind? Can you please add the logic by which this somehow means DDGs "don't count" as destroyers?

Maybe because "Guided missile destroyers" and "destroyers" are treated as separate vessels? did the DDG and DD bits fool you somehow? Is the letter "G" somehow transparent to your eyesight?

Maybe it also escaped your notice about the similarities between the Ticonderoga and Arleigh-Burke?

Let's even go by Skimmer's statements (again, from the same old thread), and ignore me entirely.

The Ticonderoga's aren't cruisers. They where designed and even originally designated as destroyers, the type was only changed for political reasons.

Well, by Skimmer, the Ticonderoga-class is a destroyer, and no true cruisers exist. How does this help your argument that guided-missile destroyers somehow "don't count" as destroyers?

Granted, I made an error in stating Sea Skimmer noted they were specifically DDGs, but
have you ever tried comparign the two from your own fucking evidence?

Cruisers:

Modern U. S. Navy guided missile cruisers perform primarily in a Battle Force role. These ships are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants capable of supporting carrier battle groups, amphibious forces, or of operating independently and as flagships of surface action groups. Due to their extensive combat capability, these ships have been designated as Battle Force Capable (BFC) units. The cruisers are equipped with Tomahawk Cruise missiles giving them additional long range strike mission capability

Destroyers:

"Destroyers and guided missile destroyers operate in support of carrier battle groups, surface action groups, amphibious groups and replenishment groups. Destroyers primarily perform anti-submarine warfare duty while guided missile destroyers are multi-mission [Anti-Air Warfare (AAW), Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW), and Anti-Surface Warfare (ASUW)] surface combatants. The addition of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System or Tomahawk Armored Box Launchers (ABLs) to many Spruance-class destroyers has greatly expanded the role of the destroyer in strike warfare."

Doesn't take alot to understand that now, does it?

Then why the long-winded ad hominem attack without the slightest hint of an actual refutation? Saving face? Do everyone a favor and just concede next time. You were wrong, and this bullshit doesn't change a damn thing.

Because you keep inventing fallacies where none exist, that's why. When you get pissy that your opponent doesn't buy your "paper tiger" arguments, you start to incoherently rant and rave about the "fallacies" they commit, whether or not they really *are* commiting fallacies. This is perfectly in line with your Wall of Ignorance tactics regarding evidencec, your semantical nitpicking and evidence distorting, and all the other bullshit you tend to pull. No wonder its considered a waste of time trying to logically debate you. And I'm thoroughly tired of wasting time.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor - I have a relativly busy week ahead of me, so if we are going to get into this 1) provide a link to all those quotes from last time, I started ignoring that thread once it degenerated to claiming that missiles were a defining part of a destroyer, which was the same tactic ardax tried with brian abnd the word volley and 2) take a position with an alternative theory rather then just stating what it is not. We could sit here til the cows come home listing what it is not, I'd rather do something more constructive.

Do what you want. I've presented my case, and this has been debated before. I can concede you have a poitn and this is getting nowhere, and insofar as "doing something more constructive" goes, I can also agree. Since I don't intend to pursue the debate further, and if you are not interested in it, I am perfectly willing to drop it (or if you want, you can just claim victory.) I'm certainly not expecting to claim a victory here.

[Ender]

Connor - I have a relativly busy week ahead of me, so if we are going to get into this 1) provide a link to all those quotes from last time, I started ignoring that thread once it degenerated to claiming that missiles were a defining part of a destroyer, which was the same tactic ardax tried with brian abnd the word volley and 2) take a position with an alternative theory rather then just stating what it is not. We could sit here til the cows come home listing what it is not, I'd rather do something more constructive.

Do what you want. I've presented my case, and this has been debated before. I can concede you have a poitn and this is getting nowhere, and insofar as "doing something more constructive" goes, I can also agree. Since I don't intend to pursue the debate further, and if you are not interested in it, I am perfectly willing to drop it (or if you want, you can just claim victory.) I'm certainly not expecting to claim a victory here.

I have my victory quota for the week already from Nitram and some poor sod on another board who thought it would be a good idea to challenge me on the saftey of a nuclear reactor. If we just want to call it a draw, cool

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor - I have a relativly busy week ahead of me, so if we are going to get into this 1) provide a link to all those quotes from last time, I started ignoring that thread once it degenerated to claiming that missiles were a defining part of a destroyer, which was the same tactic ardax tried with brian abnd the word volley and 2) take a position with an alternative theory rather then just stating what it is not. We could sit here til the cows come home listing what it is not, I'd rather do something more constructive.

Do what you want. I've presented my case, and this has been debated before. I can concede you have a poitn and this is getting nowhere, and insofar as "doing something more constructive" goes, I can also agree. Since I don't intend to pursue the debate further, and if you are not interested in it, I am perfectly willing to drop it (or if you want, you can just claim victory.) I'm certainly not expecting to claim a victory here.

I have my victory quota for the week already from Nitram and some poor sod on another board who thought it would be a good idea to challenge me on the saftey of a nuclear reactor. If we just want to call it a draw, cool

Fine by me. A draw it is.

[Super-Gagme]

Wtf? Is it some kind of game to you or something? Victories? Draws? I shall never understand the "Debating Culture" of message boards. I just come here to try and get a better understanding of Sci-fi.

[SirNitram]

Oh my, what scathing nonsense. I suppose I should feel slighted.

Gee Nitram, how about you stop pandering to an audience and address the points. Oh wait, you refuse to do that, and prefer to never respond to refutations.

I'll ignore the ISB and go straight to canon, since the heart of this is that you are trying to use a WEG number repeated in official books to override the results from a canon statement. And since this isn't TFN, that shit doesn't fly here.

Which canon statement? Oh yea, none. Twisting the Dodonna calc does not mean that Canon says there must be millions.

Deal with the Dodonna calc, he informs me. Yet even a conservative SD count, with the ISB ratio, will yield a fleet of ten million ships, and an average firepower of E26W per vessel. Between big ships like the Executor, and the fact even an Acclamator or VSD can perform a Base Delta Zero operation, there is no pressing need from Dodonna's briefing to up the fleet counts.

Oh gee, look at that, the "No Math!" argument. By using this, you can downplay the massive difference and make yourself look more reasonable then the fool you are.

The calculations to derive the time-averaged firepower of the DS1 and throw it up against a fleet of ten million capital ships are painfully easy.

Time-averaged firepower(From 1E38 shot and the presumed two-shots-per-day from Canon): ~1E33W

From here it's barely even being awake. 25,000 ISD's give an average of 4E28W, a little high. Ten million ships give 1E26W, and ten million is fairly consistant with ISB's '1,400 combat vessels per Star Destroyer'(Actually, 35 million is the result, but the math is trivially easy to do, and 35 million may be counting non-capital ships.).

Hey numbnuts: Lets be extremely generous here, and say that every ship has a firepower of 1E30 watts.

Why?

At a bare minimum the Superlaser was 3.4E38 joules and fired for .21 seconds. Realistically, the energy should be far higher since it was thermal and that number is the resultant kinetic energy.

Of course, here you want to ignore multiple sources pointing out it needs to charge. Canon shows only two shots in a day.

So converting joules to watts, that is 1.62E39 watts, and with the basic division, thats 1,620,000,000 ships. More realistically, with an average firepower of 1e25 (for every executor there are hundreds of gamma asssault shuttle Nitram) you are looking at 162,000,000,000,000

Why exactly are we counting shuttles at all?

Ultimately, there's no compelling need to think Pelleaon isn't talking about the entire SD run. It makes little sense for him not to be. It completely changes the point of what he's saying. I offered a solution that preserved both peices of evidence, his quote and the ISB. It was, of course, rejected, since it doesn't lead the massive fleet numbers.

No, it was rejected because it gets overridden by the movies, the higest order of canon. But Lets not let the facts get in the way of your wounded pride, ok?

The ISD's role. The core of this thread. I've explained my position.

And then run away like when it was shown you didn't have the foggest what you were talking about.[/quote]

What, your 'Destroyers have done that! On occasions!' stuff? Your claims that a helicopter pad is equal to a full flight deck and limited spacedock facilities?

It doesn't come from obsessively looking at 'Star Destroyer' and saying 'Hey, it says Destroyer'. It comes from looking at it's normal role in the whole of SW, which isn't that of a light combatant. The heavier ships all tend to lean heavily into the Battleship or Carrier directions.

You keep repeating that you are right and never responding to me showing that your mouth is around your small intestine.

Say something that doesn't derive from semantics.

Every Canon use of a term other than Destroyer to refer to them must be handwaved off. And when we point out even massive Eclipses bear the words 'Star Destroyer' in their name,

Jesus, you really don't read your opponents posts, do you? You just spout shit no matter what. I've explained this mroe then once here. No wonder you do so well in the fantasy foruum, the tolerence for bullshit there is much higher.[/quote]

I'm sure that makes you feel better.

we are told 'canon over official', as if someone in the movies said, 'These ships are the equivalent to old wet-navy destroyers, and we call everything bigger cruisers or battleships', or something similar.

You are yet to show that they are not, we have put together a very good case that they are.

What case? The best done so far is screeching that on occasion, Destroyers have done alot of jobs. I'll admit that. Yes, destroyers have done jobs I didn't they did. However, this doesn't remove the embarassing little fact of ships smaller and weaker than the Imperator being given classifications like 'cruiser', or that Star Destroyer remains a painfully nebulous term.

Ships from the Victory up to the Eclipse bear the name 'Star Destroyer'. Big ones even the odd, and almost definately not naval 'Super Star Destroyer'. Are we going to be told there's battleships bigger than the Eclipse out there, somewhere? Lurking in the wings?

Nice attempt at distortion.

Then clarify. Since your entire Destroyer argument hinges and exists solely by the phrase 'Star Destroyer', please show how it can coexist with things like the Eclipse holding the phrase?

I'm done. You can appeal to Ender's authority,

You could respond instead of being the gutless coward you are.

you can shriek and whine, but the result is pretty clear to the unbiased. Slander me if it makes you sleep better at nights.

Awww, look, he ducked out with the "fuck you, I'm still right" that was always Bobby's stock and trade.

So was mindless whoring of a single phrase. Mind you, going from evidence of thousands or hundred thousands and leaping to millions, that's other idiots.

[Solauren]

Perhaps in Star Wars, Destroyer is what they call the grade we'd call 'Battleship'

IRCC, the ship grades would be, highest to lowest, for earth
Battleship
Cruiser
Frigate
Destroyer
Escort

Now then, going by our method
the ship ranks in Star Wars should be

Battleships (i.e Executor)
Cruisers (i.e Mon Cal Star Cruisers)
Frigate (i.e Nebulan-B)
Destroyer (i.e Imperator class)
Escort (i.e Corvette)

Clearly, this is not the case. A Imperator class is a match for 2 Mon Cals according to most documentation
We see Star Destroyers working in Cruiser roles (and battleship roles),

I think Star Wars would go like this
Super Battleship (i.e Executer)
Star Destroyers (i.e VIctory, Imperator, Imperial II, etc)
Battleship
Cruisers (mon Cal)
Frigate
Destroyer
Escort


OR
Palpatine was planning bigger ships, right?
Maybe Star Destroyers were the smallest non-escort class he had in mind (scary) and he put that name on them to save headaches later

OR
Star Destroyer was a prototype class the Victory evolved from, and it 'Star Destroyer' stuck as slang

[Ender]

Oh look, he can reply!

Oh my, what scathing nonsense. I suppose I should feel slighted.

Gee Nitram, how about you stop pandering to an audience and address the points. Oh wait, you refuse to do that, and prefer to never respond to refutations.

I'll ignore the ISB and go straight to canon, since the heart of this is that you are trying to use a WEG number repeated in official books to override the results from a canon statement. And since this isn't TFN, that shit doesn't fly here.

Which canon statement? Oh yea, none. Twisting the Dodonna calc does not mean that Canon says there must be millions.

Hey Nitram, just a thought, its not a good idea to accuse me of what you do in this post, ok? Very hypocritical.

Deal with the Dodonna calc, he informs me. Yet even a conservative SD count, with the ISB ratio, will yield a fleet of ten million ships, and an average firepower of E26W per vessel. Between big ships like the Executor, and the fact even an Acclamator or VSD can perform a Base Delta Zero operation, there is no pressing need from Dodonna's briefing to up the fleet counts.

Oh gee, look at that, the "No Math!" argument. By using this, you can downplay the massive difference and make yourself look more reasonable then the fool you are.

The calculations to derive the time-averaged firepower of the DS1 and throw it up against a fleet of ten million capital ships are painfully easy.

Time-averaged firepower(From 1E38 shot and the presumed two-shots-per-day from Canon): ~1E33W

From here it's barely even being awake. 25,000 ISD's give an average of 4E28W, a little high. Ten million ships give 1E26W, and ten million is fairly consistant with ISB's '1,400 combat vessels per Star Destroyer'(Actually, 35 million is the result, but the math is trivially easy to do, and 35 million may be counting non-capital ships.).

Well see here's the thing Nitram; see, since unlike you I know what I am talking about (as was wonderfully demonstrated earlier in the thread where you tried to bluff your way about the navy, I notice you still lack the balls to concede that bit), I know what is said in the movie: He says FIREPOWER not Time averaged reactor power. The latter was used to derive exceptionally low end estimates and does nto reflect the movies.

In otherwords, I was right, and you don't know how to use a dictionary.

Hey numbnuts: Lets be extremely generous here, and say that every ship has a firepower of 1E30 watts.

Why?

Because part of your original argument was that Executors and the rest skewed the value to the high end. Or are you trying to get away from that argument now?

At a bare minimum the Superlaser was 3.4E38 joules and fired for .21 seconds. Realistically, the energy should be far higher since it was thermal and that number is the resultant kinetic energy.

Of course, here you want to ignore multiple sources pointing out it needs to charge. Canon shows only two shots in a day.

No, here I want to use what the movie and supporting literature says, not distort what the canon says to hide the fact I can't debate for shit.

We are talking about the power of the superlaser, not the power of the reactor. Not a very difficult difference for most to grasp.

So converting joules to watts, that is 1.62E39 watts, and with the basic division, thats 1,620,000,000 ships. More realistically, with an average firepower of 1e25 (for every executor there are hundreds of gamma asssault shuttle Nitram) you are looking at 162,000,000,000,000

Why exactly are we counting shuttles at all?

Because he says the entire fleet Nitram. You have seen the movies haven't you? Or is this just more of the fast that you know nothing about the navy and don't realize that landing craft count?

The ISD's role. The core of this thread. I've explained my position.

And then run away like when it was shown you didn't have the foggest what you were talking about.

What, your 'Destroyers have done that! On occasions!' stuff?

I never said it was on occassions. The United Startes navy conducts such missions on a matter of routine. Amazing that you are down to lying about what I said now.

Your claims that a helicopter pad is equal to a full flight deck

An ISD does not have a full flight deck, the equivlent of a full flight deck would be an Executor with its thousands of fighters (Darksaber) or what this craft would carry.

72 compared to 2000 is indeed on the same scale as 4 to 82

and limited spacedock facilities?

The ISD lacks such a feature. Hence the existance of Mobile Deep Docks.

It doesn't come from obsessively looking at 'Star Destroyer' and saying 'Hey, it says Destroyer'. It comes from looking at it's normal role in the whole of SW, which isn't that of a light combatant. The heavier ships all tend to lean heavily into the Battleship or Carrier directions.

You keep repeating that you are right and never responding to me showing that your mouth is around your small intestine.

Say something that doesn't derive from semantics.

Awww, look, still no proof!

Every Canon use of a term other than Destroyer to refer to them must be handwaved off. And when we point out even massive Eclipses bear the words 'Star Destroyer' in their name,

Jesus, you really don't read your opponents posts, do you? You just spout shit no matter what. I've explained this mroe then once here. No wonder you do so well in the fantasy foruum, the tolerence for bullshit there is much higher.

I'm sure that makes you feel better.

Still no proof, still no argument, just wounded pride!

we are told 'canon over official', as if someone in the movies said, 'These ships are the equivalent to old wet-navy destroyers, and we call everything bigger cruisers or battleships', or something similar.

You are yet to show that they are not, we have put together a very good case that they are.

What case? The best done so far is screeching that on occasion, Destroyers have done alot of jobs. I'll admit that. Yes, destroyers have done jobs I didn't they did. However, this doesn't remove the embarassing little fact of ships smaller and weaker than the Imperator being given classifications like 'cruiser', or that Star Destroyer remains a painfully nebulous term.

And if you would read replies rather then running, you would not I explained the lower groups being called cruisers using evidence in the novels.

And that you think "Destroyer" is a "painfully nebulous term" says it all.

Ships from the Victory up to the Eclipse bear the name 'Star Destroyer'. Big ones even the odd, and almost definately not naval 'Super Star Destroyer'. Are we going to be told there's battleships bigger than the Eclipse out there, somewhere? Lurking in the wings?

Nice attempt at distortion.

Then clarify. Since your entire Destroyer argument hinges and exists solely by the phrase 'Star Destroyer', please show how it can coexist with things like the Eclipse holding the phrase?

I have done so already in this thread Nitram. One of my first responses. Scroll to the bottom, and click the "back page" arrow and read the posts where I handed you your ass. That's a good boy.

I'm done. You can appeal to Ender's authority,

You could respond instead of being the gutless coward you are.

you can shriek and whine, but the result is pretty clear to the unbiased. Slander me if it makes you sleep better at nights.

Awww, look, he ducked out with the "fuck you, I'm still right" that was always Bobby's stock and trade.

So was mindless whoring of a single phrase. [/quote]So evidence from several sources is a single phrase now?

Mind you, going from evidence of thousands or hundred thousands and leaping to millions, that's other idiots.

Tell you what, you keep thinking you are right, I'll keep having the evidence showing I'm right.

[Illuminatus Primus]

On Nitram..

Marina's Theory:

Nitram loves the false dilemma fallacy. Observe. He takes my statement "ISB says that there must be much more than 25,000 SDs" and strawmans it into "he thinks there must be millions of ISDs."

Let's see what I really said (again, I have to quote myself because Nitram can't read)

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.

I said nothing about the numbers. I suppose I should've clarified, but it was a leap in logic to assume merely because I cite the originator of the dual-naval-force fix concept that I must subscribe to everything they said. I don't know how many ISDs there are. All I know is WEG says there are 96,000+ SDs. I see this as the cleanest way to fix Pelleaon's figure without discounting anything entirely.

His claim that the quote should be "interpreted intelligently" (again, snooty asshole chickenshit comments, but I digress), which is really just semantical whoring, to use his own sad buzzwords for "the Sector Fleet calculations represent something not acheived." In other words, hypothetical nonsense. The WEG figures dismiss his preconcieved conclusions, so he dismisses them out of hand.

This assumption is based on no evidence save for the particular reference to Pelleaon's quote when the man is obviously generalizing and doesn't get the number of Imperial worlds at its height correctly, and refers to his forces as part of a Naval branch unreferenced in prior sources. The predication for Nitram's assumption is absurd: the Empire couldn't achieve those figures yet could build the Death Star II 60% in six months in secret?

My fix takes canon and official implication, and extrapolates for a fix which includes ALL sources in their intent and is more in-line with absolute canon Imperial industrial capacity. Nitram's entire argument is based on nitpicking to diminish the value of certain sources despite the fact that they're intrinsically more sensible in a overall worldview of the SW galaxy.

The Chommel Sector and Galactic Scale

Let's examine the "modest" Chommel Sector, which Nitram describes as "poor" and warranting VSDs. She contains over 40,000 settled dependencies, and 36 full-member worlds.

Now consider that the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels describes the six-Imperial-class Star Destroyer superiority fleet as the common force for assaulting a settled world. Consider that "calm" sectors only contain up to four recalcitrant worlds! In a supposedly modest sector, the number of overall worlds is greater than four orders of magnitude above the number of recalitrant planets in a calm Sector. A Sector Group is almost exactly four superiority fleets--the expected force for holding down four out of forty-thousand, thirty-six worlds!

Consider Nitram's approach takes statements implying the Naval OOB is a guideline and that assignments vary, and setting the interpretation in direct opposition to other quotes in the same text.

The WEG ISB itself says that merely competant Moffs could expect extra assignments in the neighborhood of fifteen extra squadrons. The Sector Group quote depicts it as what should be considered the minimum force dedicated to a Sector, beneath the expected fleet assignments to hold down four troublemaking planets, in a galaxy where a modest sector contains over forty thousand. Moreover, the entire premise of the crisis in The Hand of Thrawn Duology is the fact that the Empire's local military might kept local conflicts down. This is cited countless times. Where did that might come from? This is not logical.

Furthermore, Nitram's assumptions would have it be that the large, perhaps even vast majority of the galaxy's sectors contain are below "calm" status, and have vastly underpower Sector Groups. But nearly the entire Outer Rim Territories are containined in the Oversector Outer, which is assigned many extra Sector Groups by virtue of, and many of those trouble sectors are Priority Sectors, granting Augmented Sector Groups in great surplus of the listed minimum. Furthermore, this Oversector supported the Death Star I construction in addition to these forces?

Where else? The Core and Colonies were to be augmented with extra forces and reserve fleets. Observe commands like the BLACK SWORD COMMAND, and the incredible fleet at Byss.

The Dodonna Calculation

Again, Nitram dismisses this out of hand.

Pelleaon's Thoughts and My Fix

Pelleaon's thoughts deal with the "Imperial Fleet" of which "nearly two hundred" ships are left of an original "over twenty-five thousand."

I already quoted bits of the cited information which Nitram couldn't be bothered to read himself. I shall requote it.

"We still hold eight sectors--over a thousand systems. We have the Fleet, nearly two hundred Star Destroyers strong. We're still very much a force to be reckonned with."

The Sector Groups deal with holding the Empire together. They're an internal, permanent occupation force designed to faciliate the Tarkin Doctrine (which calls for even higher organization and further sectorial fleet assignments under the Oversector scheme). This is why the appearance of a seemingly superfluous Fifth Fleet analogous in scale to an Imperial Sector Group stimulated fears that Leia was intending to use it to squash dissent.

The two-hundred Star Destroyers remaining are "a force to be reckonned with." Can someone explain to me how forces which belong to Sector Groups tied to their local theatres and designed to hold the regime together present an offensive threat to the Republic? Can someone explain the tens of thousands of spare SDs as of Dark Empire?

Nitram's fix does not include all information because it assumes the ISB text does not represent reality within SW and thusly disregards in terms of the size of the fleet, regarding solely on the Pelleaon quote despite massive historical corroboration and specific data on the other quote.

Both can be preserved this way: Pelleaon was refering to ships which represented the offensive military might of the Republic--a force to be reckonned with: the Sector Groups not inclusive since they were a bare minimum requirement to hold the Empire together. Pelleaon was talking about the core group of naval power which was reserved under the command of Imperial Centre (the Sector Groups are all under the command of regional and sectorial governors) and constitutes the missing ships recalled from Thrawn, resulting in an Empire which was still held together by constituient Sector Groups but highly deprived offensive naval forces free of those constraints. Explains how in Darksabre enough fleet resources were left to threaten the New Republic. Explains where all the ships Saxton found and in DE are from. Explains the reserve forces by WEG and BFC. Explains the discrepency between Pelleaon and known Imperial industrial capacity.

The Role of the Star Destroyer

Little to say here. Nitram shows he understands the Argumentum ad nauseum fallacy by using it. About light combatants, he negates the fact that there's no need for heavy vessels most of the time, and there's tens of thousands of Saxton-style heavy vessels in orbit around Byss.

Nitram offers no refutation of the quite myriad proofs that he lacks a basic grasp of naval classification. His entire argument is "the EU and RPG depicts combat where the ISD is a heavy ship." Well gee, most of the vessels in both are light vessels with short range and are admittably tied to local forces. This is like comparing the Battle of the Atlantic with Jutland and concluding that because in most engagements, the heaviest ships are destroyers that heavier cruisers involved in true fleet battles must be battleships. In fact this entire thread is mostly Nitram backpeddling, followed by insults, and pandering to the crowds.

Nitram doesn't deal at all with the multiple refutations of his claims about destroyers, which are invalid and irrelevent.

Semantics and Evidence

Nitram appeals to a fleet system which lists battlecruisers outmassing dreadnoughts, and disregards destroyers all together. I remind that Saxton's interview is official, and he explains regional variation and fleet scalings as a reason.

Nitram's argument about fleet figures is predicated on rendering the WEG multiple quotes, specific numbers, and details all as having no real bearing on SW reality.

I refuted the SSD nonsense ages ago. All "Star Destroyer" ships fit the "destroyer" role in SW. Super is a tonnage marker in naval nomenclature, and if it were refering to class designation, it'd be linked as "Star Superdestroyer." Furthermore, no Imperial officer ever refers to an SSD as a class-designation. "Super Star Destroyer" is seperate and distinct from "Star Destroyer" by example and even by etymology and nomenclature.

And to boot, the same vessels are listed as "destroyers" and "Destroyers." This is ignored.

Let's ignore all semantics. The refutations offered before on the class-designation of ISDs came up as destroyers. In fact, Connor is one of the first references to "semantics" bringing up canon quotes on "cruiser" which does not fit Nitram's whining about ignoring inconsistent WEG class-designation. Neither offer alternative, comprehensive systems to bring the whole deal together and explain adequately. The ISD is portrayed as a destroyer. This has not been refuted.

Yet Nitram continues to claim that somehow its all hinged on the name, which it isn't. It is hinged on the role, an argument Nitram wholely abandoned actual refutations for when they were first offered and continues, as on page two, with ad nauseam bullshit.

I'm done. You can appeal to Ender's authority, you can shriek and whine, but the result is pretty clear to the unbiased. Slander me if it makes you sleep better at nights.

Well, I was entirely civil. It was Nitram, who, on page two, began the smartass comments, which I called him on, then.

Of course, for the intelligent, they will realize that the ISD fufils a role around Cruiser level that doesn't actually exist in the real world.

Ender then refuted all his bullshit, from a position of relevent authority, ie., being in the fucking United States Navy. Nitram outright disregarded this, on page three:

Nitram, all you have done so far is ignore counterpoints and repeated your claim that they are cruisers without offering any hard proof. So shut the fuck up.

Then, he showed up, evading refutations and points to warp some comment I'd made into supporting him. When that was shown to be bullshit, Nitram continually backpeddled until he tried to throw out the WEG information he'd originally triumphed, until his sad Darkstar-like state left him to attempt to throw out all evidence but one quote. Same backpeddling with the Destroyer argument, which he actually outright abandoned, only to return to continue his ad nauseum bullshit.

And so we're here, where Nitram accuses me of "Appealing to Ender's Authority."

Argumentum ad verecundiam

The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:

"Isaac Newton was a genius and he believed in God."

This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:

"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"
and

"Penrose has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"

Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence. (underlined emphasis mine)

Ender's in the U.S. Navy. Nitram has his debunked opinion by multiple sources across the board, with ad nauseum to back it up.

Then he tells me stuff about the "unbiased." Well I'll chalk that up under the a whole host of bullshit Appeals to Popularity.

Maybe this thread will change when Nitram offers some actual evidence as Ender and I have reams of, rather than handwaving and ad nauseam, DS "I already dealt with that" horseshit.

All I can say is: sore loser.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The Harrow is not specifically called a Star Destroyer (though Saxton describes it as such, which was why I was referring to it)

Which has what to do with what? Why isn't the Harrow a destroyer like the Victory, despite nigh-identical tonnage and the fact that the NEGtVV calls it a destroyer, and not to mention the repetative fact its role is that of a destroyer. What at all does that have to do with "Star Destroyer" as a term?

That's further reinforced by the inclusion of the Shockwave as one of twelve Star Destrroyers, even though it was noticably different (larger and more heavily armed.)

Somehow the fact that its stronger than ISDs is a end-all refutation of the term?

Kuat of Kuat turned and regarded the figure that had entered the bridge of the moored Star Destroyer.

"Where else would you be?" Boba Fett's battle armor was blackened with ash from the fires consuming the construction dock's wreckage, "It suits you; this is the biggest ship in the fleet."

The Kuat of Kuat has the most powerful ship in the Kuati fleet, which must not be an Imperial destroyer? Why? Do you have -any- role evidence whatsoever? And since when does tonnage become all-important to your argument, when Battleships occupy across two orders of magnitude in ISD masses?

I also like how you ignore mention of say, the Executor-class also being referred to as a "Star Destroyer" in canon literature, even though it is canonically a "command ship." with alot of handwaving about how its an obvious mistake.

Never addressed that. A Super Star Destroyer is distinct form the "Star Destroyer" which is really tangental to the central, role argument.

Ignoring things inconvenient to your argument seems to be somethign you are rather good at (the other thing being shamelessly aping people like Publius.)

Argumentum ad hominem. I'm an acquaintance of the poster known as Publius, and have corresponded with him since I began posting here. At times I am preferential to his style and use of formal protocol to get across his points. Again, what's this have to do with anything, and how is ignoring things any different than your ignorance of the verbatim "cruiser" ad nauseam argument which is inconsistent throughout the canon, even filmic canon--a point you still do not address, handwaving it away as you have with Ender as well.

Your vague reference to the Queen's Yacht?

Is it wrong? Are you refuting it, or just bitching?

Ignoring things inconvenient to your argument seems to be somethign you are rather good at

Pot. Kettle. Black. The filmic canon is paramount.

(and as discussed by other such as Mike - another fact I have repeatedly mentioned.)

Pointless Appeal to Authority. And Ender's in the Navy, what's your point?

that ISDs may possibly not do not conform to any specific wet-navy classification.

Then what's the point of your novelisation whoring, which you fail to deal with inconsistencies present in the filmic canon, if you're not proposing an alternative theory?

Moreover, the premise of SW under Suspension of Disbelief is the dialogue is translated for our benefit. And since stuff like "command ship" and "cruiser" can translate, how are wet-navy analogies irrelevent?

In addition, I've made repeated admissions to the fact that the cruiser designation might not be accurate. Try taking your head out of your ass, would you? This debate would be much simpler if you were capable of the basic cognitive capability possessed by a gerbil.

If you weren't an idiot maybe you'd see that I'm saying that evidence already present elsewhere suggests that the canon inconsistency in "cruiser" references is not necessarily wrong, but just may reflect a system which is not part of the naval warship class-designation, since, y'know, canon refers to ships as cruisers which are wildly different in combat roles, even as far as some noncombat starships.

They're never called "destroyers" either, even though you keep deliberately ignoring the factual mention of the Executor-class as a "Star Destroyer." I also like how you ignored the fact "Star Destroyer" is synonymous with "Imperial cruiser" as stated explicitly on the website.

Ignoring of the dual-class-designation/scale system proposed, ignoring the "Super Star Destroyer" is never an Imperial class-designation, nor is it within "Star Destroyer" nomenclature, and ignoring multiple posted quotes.

As for the website, it calls the Dreadnought a heavy cruiser. Does it outmass or outperform the "Imperial cruiser"? You're missing my point. Many of these sources do not use class-designation consistently or respective to demonstrated role.

Actually that's not quite true. The only specific mention of an ISD being a "destroyer" is the ANH novelization, when fleeing Tattooine, but that's hardly uncontestable.

Look, I'm not saying that the implied nomenclature in the AOTC ICS is proof in of itself, I'm saying there's evidence each way, and the EU does not paint a picture of a consistent class-designation system which invalidates the ISD as a destroyer. The key argument is her role.

Or, you ignored the fact that Panaka explicitly stated that the Queen's yacht is not a warship, dumbass (its not even armed!). Who do you think is going to be more knowledgable about the ship? Panaka or Gunray? (And in any case, its stupid to compare a nonmilitary vessel to a military one.)

What the fuck do you think is the point? The filmic canon doesn't even descriminate against noncombatant vessels when terming things "cruisers" and you want to use novelisation inconsistencies as if it contradicts other equal-tier nomenclature systems. How is it stupid to compare noncombatant vessels with combatant vessels? That's entirely the point. Do you know of noncombatant cruisers?

Gunray should've known it didn't have weapons, commonplace penetrative sensors could detect this in Tales of the Bounty Hunters for the Falcon, and HK Probots could peer through dense hulls to find vessels, and you're saying the TradeFed couldn't do that, or couldn't figure it out when no fire was returned? You're saying no one gathered intel during a planetary invasion which captured the vessel?

Let's say Gunray's an idiot and he thought it really did have weapons. That still means filmic canon has cruisers believed to be 76 meter vessels. That even falls below WEG ISB limit for capital ship tonnage.

The Episode I ICS heads its entry on the diplomatic courier which landed Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon aboard the Droid Control Ship as a "Republic Cruiser." It describes it as such over a dozen times. The only reference as anything else is under armament description, where she's called a "unarmed diplomatic vessel". Her make is "Space Cruiser." Same canon level as the novelisations you cite.

We could also mention that Naboo is not part of the Empire, so Imperial vessel classifications may not be comparable to Naboo/Republic classifications.

That's great. Now you could prove the Imperial classification if the class-designation was "Imperial cruiser." It isn't.

Maybe you should have tried mentioning the fact the Radiant VII is also called a "Republic Cruiser", for all the good it would do you.

How does that make it wrong. Secondary canon says nothing of the class-designation of the ISD but the SW ICS' "Imperial-class Star Destroyer." Descriptions otherwise describe her as a term heavily inconsistent within that canon tier, which also contains the AOTC ICS "Star [role]" nomenclature system.

And in any case you're trying to dismiss canon sourcees with an official source. Nice try.

Idiot. Your tier of canon referenced calls unarmed 76 meter yachts "cruisers." Your nitpickery about "Imperial classification" is pointless, because it ignores the fact that "cruiser" never shows up in the ISD's class-designation.

I like how you reply to this, and not to the lower-case quote from NEGtVV about "Victory destroyers and subsequent models" in the fucking Star Destroyer entry.

You seem to be under the delusion that I am arguing "Destroyer" as an Imperial ship classification, which I am obviously not. Bringing up the Shockwave, the Star Destroyer Kuat of Kuat occupies in Hard Merchandise, or the Executor is meant to reinforcec the idea that "Star Destroyer" is NOT an Imperial ship class based on known evidence. This remains factual even *IF* ISDs are not cruisers.

And presented zero evidence those vessels are out of destroyer role or tonnage.

I love how you make a vague claim about it being "inaccurate" without bothering to back it up.

I cited Gunray, and now did so above. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

I see that you not only decide to ape Publius, but you like to talk like Curtis as well. What other impersonations do you do?

Ad hominem. I suppose bringing up the terms Suspension of Disbelief, objective, etc. are aping Wong? Pathetic.

Try to notice that I'm not using "Super Star Destroyer" or "Star Destroyer" as class designations.

Idiot. The whole [ship name]-class [role] is a class-designation. The class designation of an Imperial-class vessel is "Star Destroyer." It is the Imperial class of "Star Destroyer."

You don't get to change the rules just for the "Star Destroyer" because you want to pretend that that applies to the ship roles.

You brought up "Super" as if it belonged within the nomenclature in AOTC ICS assigned to the Kuati sectorial fleet. I pointed out "super" in naval nomenclature is a tonnage-marker which is combined with the class designation, ie., a heavier-than-standard tonnage carrier is a "supercarrier," a heavier-than-average tanker is a "supertanker" and so on. If the "Super" was part of the "Star [role]" nomenclature, it wouldn't be in front of the "Star", now would it, because it is a tonnage modifier for ship roles means it applies to the "role" in the class-designation, in this case, destroyer. Its part of naval nomenclature. I don't see anyone arguing over the "first ship of the class defines the class name" bit. Get it?

So then explain the canonical reference to the Executor as a "Star Destroyer" in the TESB novelization and scripts for ROTJ and TESB without referring to your selective "This Star Destroyer reference is a ship classification and the rest aren't" bullshit.

I concede on the novelisations. They're not consistent with AOTC ICS' nomenclature. But they're not consistent with other references either.

And while we're at it, explain how "Star Defenders" are supposed to fit into things, sincec that is obviously not a ship classification either. You might also want to explain why the Medical vessel at the end of TESB is also described as a "Rebel Star Cruiser".

A Star Defender is easily a PC term for "Star Battleship", and I concede on the novelisations. They're not consistent with the AOTC ICS' nomenclature system.

(PS, just to illustrate how fucking stupid you really are, you should have mentioned that reference to "Imperial cruiser" being synonymous with "Star Destroyer" would also suggest the Executor-class could be an "Imperial cruiser" - which would in fact tend to argue against my belief in them being closer to cruisers - but it would *not* be inconsistent with the "hybrid" concept. Apparently the only way you will have an intelligent argument is if your opponent constructs them for you. )

I suppose if a creationist IMs Wong that he didn't include a possible argument on his evolution page, this makes him a fucking moron. Gee, I lose the logic on that, but I'm sure you have it.

Except that the Executor is referred to as a "Super Star Destroyer" in both the novelization AND the script - and not just in character statements. Its not "official", its a canonical reference, even if it isn't a ship designation.

Conceded. Its a vessel term, perhaps analogous to role within a certain kind of deployment, rather than a generalized class designation throughout for all vessels of that type. Just a guess, but I don't know.

Again, get your head out of your ass. I never said "Super Star Destroyer" was a class designation. I am saying it AND "STar Destroyer" (as well as "Star Cruiser") are NOT designations.

Conceded.

Just because I refer to Mike's analysis of ship classifications does not mean it is an "appeal to authority."

Than why bring it up?

A common fallacy is the belief that Star Destroyers are exceptionally large even by the standards of the Galactic Empire, when in fact they are unremarkable vessels. The Invincible-class dreadnaughts which patrolled space generations before the first Imperator-class Star Destroyers were commissioned were over 2km long, like the one that Han Solo encountered when he traveled to the Stars' End prison facility.

Can you direct me to Mike's comparison of the ISD to the Iowa-class Battleship-Carrier, or whatever vessel you speak of?

So then you're arguing that the Nebulon-B is a "cruiser" and that Executors are "destroyers". Brilliant.

Not really. I've conceded.

*snip redundent references to "Star" thing*

Conceded.

So I guess Illuminatus Primus is trying to pretend he's Publius in addition to inventing more fallacies out of thin air.

Ah, I see. Using the word "Argumentum" is a total rip-off.

Translation: I'm going to ignore everything he said and repeat my argument in the hopes he won't notice the repetition and might just give up eventually.

No, that pertained particularly to that argument, and you were wrong about subclasses.

You didn't know what you were talking about, and that line wasn't intended to be inflammatory, but you responded with a spiteful "last laugh" ad hominem anyway. The point is, I was right about it, and still am, and none of that pathetic bitching drivel makes any difference. Why don't you actually refute my argument if it was so wrong.

ROFL. Its not an Ad Hominem when I am addressing your argument, as opposed to ignoring the argument and attacking you directly.

*snip crap about CGs and DDGs

Conceded.

Granted, I made an error in stating Sea Skimmer noted they were specifically DDGs, but have you ever tried comparign the two from your own fucking evidence?

You're the one who mentioned him in opposition, so I'm somehow at fault for quoting what he actually said in response to the referenced arguments?

*snip more CG and DDG shit*

Conceded.

I withdraw on the semantics debate in the novelisations and such. You were right, and I was wrong. Withdrawl on the CG/DDG red herrings to SW combat.

I think there's more to debate, but since you're leaving, I'll leave it at this and if the other bases get dealt with, they get dealt with. Pure role and starship quantity figures.

I'm fine with a ceasefire if you are.

[Moonshadow]

"Naboo cruisers"

Perhaps they were calling the Naboo ship a cruiser in the same way we call small to mid sized yacht a Cabin Cruiser

[SPOOFE]

Good Christ, has there ever been such a greater set of windbags to grace this green Earth?

[Uraniun235]

What about the "Super Star Destroyer", as referred to by Admiral Ackbar? It seems pretty bizarre that you'd have a "super destroyer" in a navy.

But then, it seems pretty bizarre to assume that a futuristic space fleet would necessarily carry over the traditions and conventions of today's wet navy.

[vakundok]

Personal opinion:

The Executor was referred as a command ship (Rotj), super star destroyer (Rotj) and if I remember well, as a star destroyer (Tesb) in the movies. It was also referred as Vader's star destroyer in the scripts and as the largest among the imperial star destroyers in the novelisation (Tesb).
The ISDs were referred as cruisers and as star destroyers.

The weak point of one of the opinions is that nearly every ship (not clearly a freighter) was referred as cruiser, so the ISD doesn't have to be a cruiser in the terran sense.

The weak point of the other opinion is that the destroyer when it refers to the Executor is not the same as when it refers to an ISD, because it is super star destroyer, not star super destroyer, right?
I think the references are clear (especially the "Vader's Star Destroyer" being the most numeruous). The Executor is a star destroyer just as the ISD. Since TPM battleships were smaller than the Executor we can state that "star destroyer" is not the same size category as the terran destroyer, or not a size category at all.

I think there is no exact answer (for the question "What is the ISD?"), since we do not have such independent ships with such a large difference in size relative to a fleet command vessel. I think if you judge by size, it is closer to a destroyer, if you judge by function, it is closer to a cruiser.

[Ender]

Ok, I've said this before in this thread, lets say it again.

THe fact that all large ships in the Empire use the term Star Destroyer does not negate the fact that we know from the AOTC ICS and ROTJ that "Star whatsit" is the class.

In modern navies it is common for countries that want to appear more pacifistic to call their Destroyers Cruisers or Frigates even though they are still destroyers. The Empire seeks to intimidate and rule by fear of force, so they took the opposite route, since most people don't know much about ships and hear "destroyer" and figure its bad as they come. (As an aside, I suspect this may also be the case for the Omega class in B5, explaining why it was a cruiser until midway through season 2)

Thge "Super" part is probably the same as how today we have Supercarriers and supertankers - they are just ships of that class over a given tonnage.

[Super-Gagme]

Ok, I've said this before in this thread, lets say it again.

THe fact that all large ships in the Empire use the term Star Destroyer does not negate the fact that we know from the AOTC ICS and ROTJ that "Star whatsit" is the class.

In modern navies it is common for countries that want to appear more pacifistic to call their Destroyers Cruisers or Frigates even though they are still destroyers. The Empire seeks to intimidate and rule by fear of force, so they took the opposite route, since most people don't know much about ships and hear "destroyer" and figure its bad as they come. (As an aside, I suspect this may also be the case for the Omega class in B5, explaining why it was a cruiser until midway through season 2)

Thge "Super" part is probably the same as how today we have Supercarriers and supertankers - they are just ships of that class over a given tonnage.

Alright don't take this the wrong way, I saw the light of it earlier and agree with you but isn't that just a bit of an opinion? To say:

The Empire seeks to intimidate and rule by fear of force, so they took the opposite route, since most people don't know much about ships and hear "destroyer" and figure its bad as they come.

Seems a bit of a stretch since there is no proof that they do that? Just thought I would comment on that. I don't see what they are fighting for anyways, it is obvious that the role of a Destroyer can make it quite easily a ship of the line and quite easily more powerful than a Cruiser.