EU Fic: RotJ-NJO Era

[Illuminatus Primus]

Why would the Allegiance be a battleship? Its barely larger than the ISD. Maybe a dedicated fleet cruiser or destroyer or something. And why go the "Allegiance"; that's just the only named member of its class. Publius had the more fitting (with its brethren) Autokrator-class Star Destroyer. And why go for 2 x the Executor's length; the comic does not imply that, only the Dark Empire Sourcebook (its arguable they were just accomodating the stated comic length of time miles to their diminished view of Executor). The Eclipse is already many times the volume of the ISD.

And I'm using Saxton unless someone demonstrates where his methodology is superior and how.

[Czechmate]

Why would the Allegiance be a battleship? Its barely larger than the ISD. Maybe a dedicated fleet cruiser or destroyer or something. And why go the "Allegiance"; that's just the only named member of its class. Publius had the more fitting (with its brethren) Autokrator-class Star Destroyer. And why go for 2 x the Executor's length; the comic does not imply that, only the Dark Empire Sourcebook (its arguable they were just accomodating the stated comic length of time miles to their diminished view of Executor). The Eclipse is already many times the volume of the ISD.

And I'm using Saxton unless someone demonstrates where his methodology is superior and how.

You're a bit silly when you drop logic for your preconceptions sometimes.

'Battleship' is not a size bracket of hulls. A battleship, since we are using Earth names, is a dedicated ship-to-ship combatant which the Allegiance essentially is, lacking hangars or extensive troop-landing equipment. I do not want to get stuck in the Saxtonite idea that a given type of ship is defined by its size, but instead define a ship by its' design.

I honestly do not care how big each class is supposed to be in this strange size-based bracketing system. 'Dreadnought' is a poor name and an even poorer descriptor for an Executor, as it is not, in fact, an all-big-gun ship-to-ship combatant but in fact an immense carrier, command ship, and superior fleet combatant based on its' sheer number of weapons.

If we must use Earth-based names, can we at least use them properly?

Speaking of names, I suggest 'Allegiance' because that is the most familiar name for us to work with at this time. Autokrator can be its' official name, but as far as the design team (that's us) is concerned, it can just be the Allegiance, because that's what the majority of people know it as.

---

WRT the Executor and Eclipse; I am going to go for a middle point. 10 miles works out to a smidge over sixteen thousand meters. The Eclipse is far wider in beam and deeper in draft than the Executor. Therefore, without the Eclipse actually being longer, it is in fact 'bigger' by dint of its' sheer bulk. Thus we have the Emperor's commandship being 'bigger' than any Executor, having many times the internal volume. We just need to not specifically mention that the Executor in question is 19km long in that particular statement and we're nearly scot-free.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You're a bit silly when you drop logic for your preconceptions sometimes.

Pardon me sir. May I wipe your ass while you wash your hands?

'Battleship' is not a size bracket of hulls. A battleship, since we are using Earth names, is a dedicated ship-to-ship combatant which the Allegiance essentially is, lacking hangars or extensive troop-landing equipment. I do not want to get stuck in the Saxtonite idea that a given type of ship is defined by its size, but instead define a ship by its' design.

Very well, but not having dedicate role betrayed by pocket carrier and troop transport side-roles does not automatically make it a battleship. A battleship, if we're in the business giving lectures, is a ship of maximum armament and defense which fights on the line against similar ships. You haven't the slightest idea how the Allegiance is meant to be deployed apart from the fact Palpatine press-ganged on into being a live TV relay for him and that a couple served superficially as escorts for his Eclipse, and a couple more served in security duty around Byss. Therefore its a very broad leap-in-logic to say "no hangars" = "battleship," full stop.

I honestly do not care how big each class is supposed to be in this strange size-based bracketing system. 'Dreadnought' is a poor name and an even poorer descriptor for an Executor, as it is not, in fact, an all-big-gun ship-to-ship combatant but in fact an immense carrier, command ship, and superior fleet combatant based on its' sheer number of weapons.

If we must use Earth-based names, can we at least use them properly?

I agree, I don't think it was a good idea to use "dreadnought" and since unlike Saxton I'm not press-ganged into dealing with Ranch stupidity and accomodating stuff like the Lucrehulk "battleship", I don't think we need it.

'WRT the Executor and Eclipse; I am going to go for a middle point. 10 miles works out to a smidge over sixteen thousand meters. The Eclipse is far wider in beam and deeper in draft than the Executor. Therefore, without the Eclipse actually being longer, it is in fact 'bigger' by dint of its' sheer bulk. Thus we have the Emperor's commandship being 'bigger' than any Executor, having many times the internal volume. We just need to not specifically mention that the Executor in question is 19km long in that particular statement and we're nearly scot-free.

Right. Like I said, it is already much much larger, and only the DESB says its longer and it was probably just squaring away what the comic said with its 8 km Executor. I think 38 km is a bit too big. Though I would go if insisted with a bit longer, I think its fine as is.

[Czechmate]

Pardon me sir. May I wipe your ass while you wash your hands?

I just call it as I see it. You stepped out of your (admirable) dedication to logic and sort of flung out a rather kneejerk response concerning the Allegiance's -size- of all things denying it the descriptor of 'battleship'. But I apologize. It was uncalled for.

Very well, but not having dedicate role betrayed by pocket carrier and troop transport side-roles does not automatically make it a battleship. A battleship, if we're in the business giving lectures, is a ship of maximum armament and defense which fights on the line against similar ships. You haven't the slightest idea how the Allegiance is meant to be deployed apart from the fact Palpatine press-ganged on into being a live TV relay for him and that a couple served superficially as escorts for his Eclipse, and a couple more served in security duty around Byss. Therefore its a very broad leap-in-logic to say "no hangars" = "battleship," full stop.

I am only working with the information I have, that being that the Allegiance has no or extremely limited hangars, no (apparent) capacity for large-scale troop deployment, and is not unlike an ISD, except some 400 meters longer. My presumption, therefore, is that it is designed as either a dedicated combatant of the line (given that the vast majority of SW fleet battles will NOT include a super star destroyer or their NR equivalent being present and in the line of battle) or a very heavy escort. Based on its' lack of apparent multirole capacity, it would seem to be a dedicated fleet combatant. Based on its' appearance escorting the Eclipse, it is either a very large heavy escort vessel or a ship of the line that has been earmarked for use as an escort for the immeasurably more valuable Eclipse.

I agree, I don't think it was a good idea to use "dreadnought" and since unlike Saxton I'm not press-ganged into dealing with Ranch stupidity and accomodating stuff like the Lucrehulk "battleship", I don't think we need it.

In Saxton's defense, 'dreadnought' is somewhat of an ironically fearsome word, given our out of universe association between the word and the most powerful gun-armed vessels to ever sail the seas, the all-big-gun Dreadnought and post-Dreadnought battleships of WW1 and WW2. I suppose it could be used, in-universe, as a tongue-in-cheek description of the immensely powerful but relatively rare Executor-class and other SSDs.

Right. Like I said, it is already much much larger, and only the DESB says its longer and it was probably just squaring away what the comic said with its 8 km Executor. I think 38 km is a bit too big. Though I would go if insisted with a bit longer, I think its fine as is.

May I suggest we, by a smidge of fiat, extend the Eclipse's length by a comparatively paltry three kilometers? This would make it equivalent in length to the Executor-class and far greater in bulk, making it the biggest SSD ever comissioned.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I just call it as I see it. You stepped out of your (admirable) dedication to logic and sort of flung out a rather kneejerk response concerning the Allegiance's -size- of all things denying it the descriptor of 'battleship'. But I apologize. It was uncalled for.

That was an assumption on your part. The fact is we never seem them in pitched combat, actually support roles all around.

I am only working with the information I have, that being that the Allegiance has no or extremely limited hangars, no (apparent) capacity for large-scale troop deployment, and is not unlike an ISD, except some 400 meters longer.

So if it is big and has guns, it is a battleship? Would a dedicated destroyer or cruiser similarly be big and have guns?

My presumption, therefore, is that it is designed as either a dedicated combatant of the line (given that the vast majority of SW fleet battles will NOT include a super star destroyer or their NR equivalent being present and in the line of battle)

Why not? What's the point of redoing things if we cannot edit things away from the EU and WEG fetish for the "ISDs are the biggest and toughest ships ever!" model? Why couldn't something larger on the Saxtonian scale (not quite Executor level) be the typical battleship? Why not something like Giel's battleship? There's no reason we can't have big-ship fleets.

May I suggest we, by a smidge of fiat, extend the Eclipse's length by a comparatively paltry three kilometers? This would make it equivalent in length to the Executor-class and far greater in bulk, making it the biggest SSD ever comissioned.

The canonical length is actually 17.5 kilometers, but I don't see why not.

[Czechmate]

Hm. Well, okay. Perhaps the Allegiance is what an American would refer to as a 'large cruiser'; the next step down from a battleship; faster and somewhat smaller, without being as lightly armed as a normal cruiser but not as weakly armored as the conventional 'battlecruiser'.

In the Imperial Navy, these would essentially replace underarmed ISDs in the 'line of battle', providing screen and support elements for squadrons of larger battleships. May i suggest http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#cruiser1 as an archetype for the 'battleship' in Imperial Navy service? large enough (between 3 and 5km) to engage the enemy at hand from squadron formation but small enough to be produced in sufficient numbers to not be overstretched.

Between battleships and the massive 'prestige' ships like Executor and Eclipse we can have a slightly larger class of ship designed to fight in the line/wall of battle and provide task force and fleet coordination, the 'flag battleship'; this is where we can put the the 5-8km ships. above these are the big sector and oversector command ships, which dwarf those beneath them but are accordingly rare.

---

Addendum; in this scale of classes, the ISD would probably be a 'multirole heavy cruiser'. able to engage most ships beneath it with impunity, the smallest type of 'capital ship' generally leads squadrons of smaller vessels or makes up screening squadrons for larger ships. this suits the ISD perfectly, IMO.

[Illuminatus Primus]

First of all, length is a poor judge of value and size. Volume is better. The Executor masses in the 100s of ISDs. I imagine Giel's battleship or perhaps a somewhat lesser sibling being the mid-size battleship (I like to call it a "scaled-up ISD analog", this concept, it is to a properly scaled fleet what WEG and the EU thought the ISD should be). I don't think the Executor should be that special or big.

[Czechmate]

Length is a quick abstract, in my opinion. Given that these are all wedge-shaped vessels of similar angle from bow backward, one can assume they are scaling up in volume as well as length. The Giel works out to, roughly, one of the Flag Battleships I referred to. Larger than its' siblings in the line, but tougher and designed with the capacity for taskgroup/taskforce command.

The Executors are a relatively (keep this part in mind) rare sector and oversector command vessel. Most often, the biggest Imperial ship(s) present in a fleet will be its' Flag Battleship(s), of which Giel's vessel is a fine example. Only in the biggest of battles or under the most meddling of sector commanders will an Executor be present. Of course, Executors are the kind of vessel you bring if you want (or absolutely NEED and are willing to take the risk to have) nigh-total firepower advantage. Just be careful about A-wings.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I think of the Executor less as a practical weapon of war and more as a prestige flagship capable of fighting of any direct challenge but not really for risking on the line directly. I think it should be a continuum that goes all the way up to Executor. It shouldn't be that unique in mere size. I'm sure some have tried to build practical line-battleships in that scale before.

I imagine fleet combat broadly like The Duchess' De Imperatoribus Galacticis or Hull No. 721, on this very front page of Fanfics.

[Czechmate]

I don't think there should be a proliferation of 8 or 9km+ vessels. I could certainly see a battleship on the scale of what we USED to believe the Executor was. I believe the Mandator was around that size, yes?

While they could make decent line combatants, I have my doubts about the sustainability of construction of such vessels in sufficient numbers. For every single eight-kilometer superbattleship you could easily make two or three smaller ones of three or four kilometers in length.

It seems like somewhat of an unnecessary waste to build common fleet combatants of Executor's size. It is, I concede, totally feasible; but with fleets on a scale appropriate to this galaxy's nations, I do not think it would be wise. The New Republic Navy (screw this 'Defense Force' crap), the primary foes of the Imperial Navy, are unlikely to build common fleet combatants of greater than three or four kilometers in length and appropriate volume. Their ideology compels them to avoid the percieved 'terror-ships' which the Empire could easily field in numbers.

The Empire could more easily simply create larger numbers of 3-5km battleships and fewer larger ships, allowing them to maintain coverage across the ever-changing 'borders' of the Empire and New Republic.

In short; superbattleships would be interesting and are certainly feasible, but I do not suggest they play a particularly prominent role aside from fleet command vessels and possible rare 'superheavy battle squadrons' amongst Fleet formations.

And I've not had time to read either of those stories. Too busy debating things with you!

[Crayz9000]

'Battleship' is not a size bracket of hulls. A battleship, since we are using Earth names, is a dedicated ship-to-ship combatant which the Allegiance essentially is, lacking hangars or extensive troop-landing equipment. I do not want to get stuck in the Saxtonite idea that a given type of ship is defined by its size, but instead define a ship by its' design.

I honestly do not care how big each class is supposed to be in this strange size-based bracketing system. 'Dreadnought' is a poor name and an even poorer descriptor for an Executor, as it is not, in fact, an all-big-gun ship-to-ship combatant but in fact an immense carrier, command ship, and superior fleet combatant based on its' sheer number of weapons.

I'm going to be very pedantic here and point out that Saxton considers the Executor to be a command ship, which exactly fits its role.

[Czechmate]

I already explained why I believe Dreadnought is a poor name for it. While it is a command ship, yes, it is also not an all-big-gun turreted ship of the line. anyways. we're past that point now.

The Executor-class is possibly the safest and most dangerous possible ship to command a fleet from; its' sheer size and armament and capacity for fighters (hundreds at the very least, possibly thousands) offers it an immense defensive capability; conversely, it is also going to be THE biggest target around, unless there happens to be a death star or torpedo sphere in the area, and the enemy will surely fixate upon it.

In short, it's got its' ups and downs but it really shouldn't be in a fleet battle where it can be killed by the death of a thousand stings.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I don't think there should be a proliferation of 8 or 9km+ vessels. I could certainly see a battleship on the scale of what we USED to believe the Executor was. I believe the Mandator was around that size, yes?

No, its supposed to be a predecessor of Executor, and probably on the order of the same mass. I don't see why we cannot have a fully-fleshed out fleet. Your concept of the EU doesn't seem to be too different from EU/Wookieepedia consensus. What's the point in redoing if we can't change anything.

While they could make decent line combatants, I have my doubts about the sustainability of construction of such vessels in sufficient numbers. For every single eight-kilometer superbattleship you could easily make two or three smaller ones of three or four kilometers in length.

So what? The Death Star II proves they build billions if they really wanted to. And again, VOLUME. The Acclamator is around half the length of the ISD, but is more like a tenth or less of its volume.

It seems like somewhat of an unnecessary waste to build common fleet combatants of Executor's size. It is, I concede, totally feasible; but with fleets on a scale appropriate to this galaxy's nations, I do not think it would be wise. The New Republic Navy (screw this 'Defense Force' crap), the primary foes of the Imperial Navy, are unlikely to build common fleet combatants of greater than three or four kilometers in length and appropriate volume. Their ideology compels them to avoid the percieved 'terror-ships' which the Empire could easily field in numbers.

I don't see why I must retain this artifact of the New Republic's idiotic behavior. They should've lost the war if they were really fighting based on squeamish superficialities like TIEs and Executors look mean.

The Empire could more easily simply create larger numbers of 3-5km battleships and fewer larger ships, allowing them to maintain coverage across the ever-changing 'borders' of the Empire and New Republic.

In short; superbattleships would be interesting and are certainly feasible, but I do not suggest they play a particularly prominent role aside from fleet command vessels and possible rare 'superheavy battle squadrons' amongst Fleet formations.

I disagree. There is no reason to maintain this old model except to continue the brainbugs of the old EU, and their industrial capacity can obviously tolerate at-will construction of battleships be they three and a half, eight, ten, twelve, nineteen, or twenty-five kilometers in length.

[Czechmate]

I am trying to compromise between your suggestions, mine, and those of others.

I do not see why the Empire would go to the lengths of constructing large numbers of their extremely large (8km+) warships unless the New Republic were constructing equally large numbers of, say, Mediators.

War is a matter of escalation, right? There's nothing to force the Empire to play such a card unless the NR does.

[Illuminatus Primus]

your definition of 'fully fleshed-out' seems to equate to 'consisting of nothing but multimile battleships'. there is no NEED to make such ships unless we also establish the New Republic is doing the same. Is the NRN cranking out hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of Mediators? if so, then the Empire has a reason to make hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of equivalent if not reasonably superior vessels to combat them.

There is a need to build them if the enemy builds them, they're worth more than their weight in smaller vessels in a typical confrontation. The firepower than might kill 20% of a swarm of equivalent smaller vessels might only reach 20% of the dissipation threshold of the single larger vessel, which is fully unharmed.

don't expect me to support the idea of the Empire using more than handfuls of these giant ships. I mean, christ. there's a MINIMUM of -thousands- of Executors if you go by the assumption that they're sector command ships (which I do), and you want them to also make tens of thousands of nine or ten mile ships? why? what are they going to be fighting? what justifies their existence? what could the New Republic possibly be fielding in numbers sufficient to force the Empire to build like that.

If the member states - especially the Great Powers - are as strong as they are implied, then they should have capable navies and leagues of their own. I intend for most Great Powers to sponsor navies like Kuat's with Mandator-level vessels, etc., etc. Furthermore, taking 50 member states per sector (origin of sector according to Imperial Sourcebook), we arrive at 20,000 sectors. That's a lot of Executors not counting forces permanently assigned to regional commands (of which there are three tiers) or the oversectorial commands or the all-Empire commands.

you say there is no reason they should maintain a fleet designed to counter the capabilities of their primary? you say there's no reason they shouldn't blow everything they can on millions of massive battleships, just because they have the capacity?

Because the member states have their own forces and the Empire has considerable detached "colonial" forces. Both are possible sources of power. Furthermore, we're talking about general wartime, not peace. It behooves you to overwhelm the enemy if you can to destroy them.

the Death Stars were only made because the Emperor bid it so. unless Palpatine also commands the Empire to make millions of ISDs in his name, I do not see them doing it, despite their industrial ability to do so.

The Death Stars were built because they were important aspect of the political agenda of the Imperial State, which sought to challenge strong Great Power member states which are capable of fielding defenses comparable to Alderaan, which was able to dissipate the superlaser from the Death Star I momentarily.

just because they CAN, Mssr. Primus, does not mean they WOULD or SHOULD do what you are suggesting. you are saying you want a galaxy based on realism? try actually considering this like it's an escalating war instead of an industrial projection.

I am. We're revamping the EU. The EU says the galactic balance of power is decided like stuff like the Dreadnaught, which the Empire built the ISD to dominate. That's needless minimalism. Even fringe states and groups with only a few systems of a power base can field Star Destroyers (New Rebellion). The galaxy contains over 51 million separate political organization associated directly with the central government. It has billions of worlds.

So you edited your statement. Well your original claims are here and replied to.

[Czechmate]

I did indeed edit my statement. I look at it, reconsidered it, and changed it greatly.

Still. An excessively top-heavy Imperial Navy is unnecessary unless the NRN is equally so. the High Seas Fleet was only built because the Royal Navy built Dreadnought and started the battleship race, and so it should be here; unless one power or the other gives, at some point in the timeline, a good reason to kick off such a massive superbattleship building program on BOTH sides, there is no real reason for them to have navies so excessive.

No matter how much you want to compensate for the previous EU minimalism, your points aren't holding up without real reasoning apart from "they can do it so they should". Now, I beseech you to heed the following.

You do not seem to be taking into account that if, say, the Empire begins to convert to a top-heavy Navy to take advantage of the firepower and durability advantage larger ships have over the NRN's MC8Xs, the New Republic will do its' damnedest to convert to ships even bigger than the Empire's, to regain its' own firepower and durability advantage. The very smaller ships the Empire's new battleships were intended to dominate will essentially cease to exist in the lines of battle, and the Empire's hard-earned advantage will be lost. It will be forced to build -even bigger- superbattleships to counter the NRN's vessels, and so on and so forth back and forth until both navies are made of nothing but Executor-sized ships lumbering into range for duels lasting days if not weeks at a time. Next thing you'll know the GCW will consist of nothing but Death Star duels.

So yeah. Both navies should have -decreasing- numbers of vessels as they get bigger and bigger. Creating, disrupting, and recreating the balance of power again and again tends to lead to downright insane things. Please take this into account. You DO have a point that they should contain ships of all sizes, but I would like you to consider that if you overinflate the number of a given type of ship, the size that's the next step ABOVE it will be decreased in total strategic and tactical value, which will cause a cascade effect eventually rendering all but the most massive ships unimportant in the eyes of the competing navies.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Still. An excessively top-heavy Imperial Navy is unnecessary unless the NRN is equally so. the High Seas Fleet was only built because the Royal Navy built Dreadnought and started the battleship race, and so it should be here; unless one power or the other gives, at some point in the timeline, a good reason to kick off such a massive superbattleship building program on BOTH sides, there is no real reason for them to have navies so excessive.

Navies in the SW galaxy are not strategically comparable to terrestrial navies. At best a tactical analog can be drawn. Due to the disparate and continuous nature of conflicts, they're more like an air force and army in some ways, with the ships standing in for individual men or vehicles.

You do not seem to be taking into account that if, say, the Empire begins to convert to a top-heavy Navy to take advantage of the firepower and durability advantage larger ships have over the NRN's MC8Xs, the New Republic will do its' damnedest to convert to ships even bigger than the Empire's, to regain its' own firepower and durability advantage. The very smaller ships the Empire's new battleships were intended to dominate will essentially cease to exist in the lines of battle, and the Empire's hard-earned advantage will be lost. It will be forced to build -even bigger- superbattleships to counter the NRN's vessels, and so on and so forth back and forth until both navies are made of nothing but Executor-sized ships lumbering into range for duels lasting days if not weeks at a time. Next thing you'll know the GCW will consist of nothing but Death Star duels.

You're acting like there isn't an area of physical and economic point of diminishing returns. It could easily be that inertial compensators make it difficult to build sufficient agile vessels beyond a certain tonnage in a particular configuration. You're using a no-limits fallacy as a strawman of my argument. Furthermore, the galaxy is technologically and developmentally static. The arms races and such that decided the basic form of military tactics will have been determined in the distant past. There are no magic breakthroughs, only alternatives with trade-offs.

So yeah. Both navies should have -decreasing- numbers of vessels as they get bigger and bigger. Creating, disrupting, and recreating the balance of power again and again tends to lead to downright insane things. Please take this into account. You DO have a point that they should contain ships of all sizes, but I would like you to consider that if you overinflate the number of a given type of ship, the size that's the next step ABOVE it will be decreased in total strategic and tactical value, which will cause a cascade effect eventually rendering all but the most massive ships unimportant in the eyes of the competing navies.

See above. There obviously probable technological and economical walls that the arms race would've ran into when the military and political culture of the galaxy was leveling out and becoming static.

[Czechmate]

Navies in the SW galaxy are not strategically comparable to terrestrial navies. At best a tactical analog can be drawn. Due to the disparate and continuous nature of conflicts, they're more like an air force and army in some ways, with the ships standing in for individual men or vehicles.

Space navies are, by definition, both Navy and Air Force. Their purpose is to secure space around a target, secure the atmosphere of a target if applicable, and allow the other major branch, the Army, to land its' forces and secure the object, be it planet, space station, whatever. Nonetheless, a space navy's ability to carry out its' responsibilities is dependent upon possessing either superior brute force (numbers or sheer size) or superior strategic and tacticsical planning.

You're acting like there isn't an area of physical and economic point of diminishing returns. It could easily be that inertial compensators make it difficult to build sufficient agile vessels beyond a certain tonnage in a particular configuration. You're using a no-limits fallacy as a strawman of my argument. Furthermore, the galaxy is technologically and developmentally static. The arms races and such that decided the basic form of military tactics will have been determined in the distant past. There are no magic breakthroughs, only alternatives with trade-offs.

I am acting precisely the same way you are. There IS a physical and economic wall of diminishing return and my example was specifically intended to make you think about that. And the galaxy is NOT developmentally static; it is technologically so, but they do as much as they can to squeeze advantage out of the basic limits of the technology they have at hand. There are no real breakthroughs, only incremental escalations with trade-offs.

And before you go and try to think yourself up a rebuttal, reread what I said and hopefully come to this conclusion; I am trying to agree with you, within limits.

You're totally right about there being a limit on total returns. That limit is why navies, even space navies, generally do well to limit the numbers of their most decisive weapons, lest the enemy take steps to counter them entirely. This is why the Empire or New Republic should be fighting what amounts to a carefully considered (but nonetheless enormous) war of MINIMAL ESCALATION and only involving their heavy, decisive forces at the places where they will make the greatest effort, maximizing the returns they get with the least expenditure of resources.

The alternative is is to simply have every ship of the line be a ten-kilometer superbattleship, but then what do you have to use as a decisive battle-winning force? Executors? It all seems so terribly inefficient, from an industrial perspective, to be so gratuitous. Especially when one is already building thousands of various kinds of <5km ship for service in your main lines of battle.

So, I'll just come right out and say this. Your ships of intermediary size between battleship and prestige command ship have their use, and in reasonably large numbers; they are the decisive force that, if used too much, will make itself worth negating and if used to little will render itself pointless, but if used properly will allow the Empire to fight a reasonably efficient war, for a multimillion-world empire at war with a multimillion-world republic.

In short, I say we compromise. Your big ships have their purpose, as do my larger numbers of somewhat smaller ones. Each purpose is equal in importance and likely to be carried out by, at the least, tens (or fifties? is that even a word?) of thousands of ships of each type with the vast majority, easily the hundreds of thousands, in the lighter end of SDs.

The Imperial Navy, as I am envisioning will rely on great numbers of cruisers and smaller battleships (with escorting frigates, destroyers &c.), and smaller, concentrated, numbers of superbattleships for decisive action. not to say that 'smaller' means much. I envision one of these SBB forces numbering easily in the hundreds of ships, led by an Executor and escorted by hundreds more cruisers of Imperial, Allegiance, and other classes, and aimed at breaking enemy fleet resistance in a given set of systems or, if the enemy is particularly resistant (planetary shields perhaps?) a single system. Or perhaps a single planet, if they're one of the Fortress Worlds Publius spoke of in Sic Transit Gloria.

Does this appeal to you, maybe? I feel it's as good a compromise as we're apt to work out, given that I am reflexively somewhat minimalist lest I be faced with the sort of idiocy I have seen in a certain Star Wars game on SB.com.

EDIT: p-u-b-l-i-u-s, publius. fixed.

[Crayz9000]

As long as we're at it, can we please get rid of the "Imperial-class" naming and all the retconning it created? Imperator is a much better class name.

The whole Imperial-class schtick was created by WEG anyway, based on characters calling them Imperial Star Destroyers (which was a blanket description if I ever heard one).

[Czechmate]

I generally refer to it as 'Imperator' myself.

[Darth Hoth]

As long as we're at it, can we please get rid of the "Imperial-class" naming and all the retconning it created? Imperator is a much better class name.

The whole Imperial-class schtick was created by WEG anyway, based on characters calling them Imperial Star Destroyers (which was a blanket description if I ever heard one).

I much prefer Imperial-class. How did that create the retconning? If anyone is causing retconning, it is Saxton with his renaming of ship classes (Star Dreadnaughts, Imperators &c.). Now, I am not trying to come across as a McEwok, but Imperator-class sounds mildly inappropriate, given the ship's diminutive size (relatively, compared to various battleships &c.). The ImpStar as I see it is essentially some form of peacekeeper/police craft, designed for multitasking and crimefighting, being a warship only as its secondary priority. Given that major conflicts, as opposed to local rebellions and acts of terrorism, would be incredibly rare in the Empire, it makes sense that the bulk of the fleet would be this kind of compromise, with dedicated battleships being decidedly rarer. And "Imperator" - to most synonymous with "Emperor", nowadays - sounds too grand for such a minor vessel.

[Darth Hoth]

Hm. Well, okay. Perhaps the Allegiance is what an American would refer to as a 'large cruiser'; the next step down from a battleship; faster and somewhat smaller, without being as lightly armed as a normal cruiser but not as weakly armored as the conventional 'battlecruiser'.

In the Imperial Navy, these would essentially replace underarmed ISDs in the 'line of battle', providing screen and support elements for squadrons of larger battleships. May i suggest http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#cruiser1 as an archetype for the 'battleship' in Imperial Navy service? large enough (between 3 and 5km) to engage the enemy at hand from squadron formation but small enough to be produced in sufficient numbers to not be overstretched.

Between battleships and the massive 'prestige' ships like Executor and Eclipse we can have a slightly larger class of ship designed to fight in the line/wall of battle and provide task force and fleet coordination, the 'flag battleship'; this is where we can put the the 5-8km ships. above these are the big sector and oversector command ships, which dwarf those beneath them but are accordingly rare.

---

Addendum; in this scale of classes, the ISD would probably be a 'multirole heavy cruiser'. able to engage most ships beneath it with impunity, the smallest type of 'capital ship' generally leads squadrons of smaller vessels or makes up screening squadrons for larger ships. this suits the ISD perfectly, IMO.

You do know that Oversector command ships were to be the Death Stars, right?

Executor-class command ships are common; Han flat out says so in RotJ, and given the scale of the setting there is no reason to doubt him. They would be Sectorial commands, in addition to those kept in regional/federal commands, and in addition to other heavy ships (Imperial-class, Sovereign-class, Giel's flagship &c.).

[Darth Hoth]

And why go for 2 x the Executor's length; the comic does not imply that, only the Dark Empire Sourcebook (its arguable they were just accomodating the stated comic length of time miles to their diminished view of Executor). The Eclipse is already many times the volume of the ISD.

The comic explicitly says ten miles when the Executor supposedly was five. Coincidence? I think not. If Tom Veitch wrote DE today, it would be twenty miles; he clearly wanted it to upstage the Lady Ex, and the DESB went with that. Which makes sense, given Palpatine's evident gigantism and proven narcissism; would he want his ship shorter than Vader's just because it was fatter? No, he would want it to be super-gargantuan for the hell of it. I see no reason why we do not upscale the Eclipse if we do so with the Executor (as per Saxton); that is selective retconning and goes against the spirit of the comic and Palpatine's character. Arguably Eclipse is not supposed to be a dedicated warship in any case, as opposed to a monster ship for the purposes of what is essentially dickwaving.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The comic explicitly says ten miles when the Executor supposedly was five. Coincidence? I think not. If Tom Veitch wrote DE today, it would be twenty miles; he clearly wanted it to upstage the Lady Ex, and the DESB went with that. Which makes sense, given Palpatine's evident gigantism and proven narcissism; would he want his ship shorter than Vader's just because it was fatter? No, he would want it to be super-gargantuan for the hell of it. I see no reason why we do not upscale the Eclipse if we do so with the Executor (as per Saxton); that is selective retconning and goes against the spirit of the comic and Palpatine's character. Arguably Eclipse is not supposed to be a dedicated warship in any case, as opposed to a monster ship for the purposes of what is essentially dickwaving.

I like the idea that Eclipse and Executor lie near the top end of practical construction of combat starships. An Eclipse twice the length of Executor will be considerably more than ten times its volume. I don't want to beg the question of why practical ship designs don't go all the way up. I want Executor and Eclipse to be the gigantic cyclopean designs.

[Darth Hoth]

Perhaps the Eclipse is at the absolute upper limit, twice as long as the Lady Ex and a number of times her volume, and employs very rare and expensive technologies, so that you could build thousands of Executor-class ISSDs for the same cost, and no one bothers with it because it is not economical or military sensible? Palpatine did not build it because it was practical or useful, but because he is a gigantist megalomaniac.

The "downsized" Eclipse is one of my pet peeves; I really like the idea that Palpatine's ego prompted him to build the biggest warship ever, whatever the military thought of it. (As you say, there must be a reson we see nothing similar before or after, and my rationalisation would be that it was not practical, just an obsession of his.)