The **** Official **** Stardestroyer Thread

[PeZook]

According to EU Light Second Ranges are easily confirmed(Few hundred examples inculding Thrawn firing on a Submirged Casion Vessel from Orbit)

Firing at a submerged vessel from orbit is a far cry from light second range. The Chimaera probably was on a geosynchronous orbit, that gives an altitude of 37 thousand kilometres for a typical earth-like planet.

It's still anought to refute a "point" made by a guy I was debating with though

Thanks a lot, Bean.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The EU continues the naval nomenclature stupidity. The New Republic Defender-class Star Destroyer's prime vessel was supposedly christened "Obi-Wan."

[AL]

I'm wondering, instead of laser cannons for fighter defense on cs, why not develope a missile system were the missiles home in on the hostile fighters. This would greatly improve accuracy for shooting down enemy fighters. I' ve always looked at point defense lc as like aaa fire in our times, very inaccurate because of a fighters high rate of speed and manueverability.

[Spartan]

AL wrote:

I'm wondering, instead of laser cannons for fighter defense on cs, why not develope a missile system were the missiles home in on the hostile fighters. This would greatly improve accuracy for shooting down enemy fighters. I' ve always looked at point defense lc as like aaa fire in our times, very inaccurate because of a fighters high rate of speed and manueverability.

They most likely do AL. The Mon Cal cruisers use projectile weapons similar to grenade launchers for close in anit-fighter defense. The ANH novelization mentions explosive solids being fired at the Rebel fighters. We know such systems exist and that they would be useful, so in all likelihood they do exist. Check out the flakburst thread for more info, because the flak being fired by ISD's doesn't need to come from the TBL.

[Super-Gagme]

Back on the subject of the Class name of the Stardestroyer. On Starwars.com under the databank entry of the Executor under the "The Movie" tab it refers to the Imperial-Class Stardestroyer. Now if this isn't totally cannon then I don't know what is. Can anyone dispute this with good evidence that the official Starwars.com website under the Movie tab (not the EU tab I stress) is wrong? I'm undecided either way, I just want to find the best proof of either, and this seems it at the moment.

[Super-Gagme]

Forgot to pose the link, here you go!
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... index.html

Oh and here is the Stardestroyer entry, note that under Type it has "Cruiser" so that also proves the Destroyer type theory and that this is the main ship of the fleet or whatever, either way this is a Cruiser

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... index.html

[Sardaukar]

The only literature that mentions Imperator are the Mandel blueprints from 1978, which may or may not be official and suffer from all sorts of scaling and geometry errors.

[Vympel]

The only literature that mentions Imperator are the Mandel blueprints from 1978, which may or may not be official and suffer from all sorts of scaling and geometry errors.

They are definitely official. Everything is official except for SW Infinities and one other which I can't remember right now. You are not allowed to throw it out. Rationalizing: Imperial is Rebel slang (it is easier to say), Imperator is the actual class name- perfectly in line with real life naval nomenclature.

The scaling and geomtery errors of the Mandel blueprints are no different from the scaling and geometry errors of WEG, which IIRC invented the Imperial-class designation.

[Guest]

The only literature that mentions Imperator are the Mandel blueprints from 1978, which may or may not be official and suffer from all sorts of scaling and geometry errors.

They are definitely official. Everything is official except for SW Infinities and one other which I can't remember right now. You are not allowed to throw it out. Rationalizing: Imperial is Rebel slang (it is easier to say), Imperator is the actual class name- perfectly in line with real life naval nomenclature.

The scaling and geomtery errors of the Mandel blueprints are no different from the scaling and geometry errors of WEG, which IIRC invented the Imperial-class designation.

After thinking about the Imperator vs Imperial Class debate I have come to the realization that Imperator makes more sense. For example, would we call a Mon Calamri Star Cruiser a Mon Calamari Class Star Cruiser? Anyways, an Imperator-Class Star Destroyer does sound better than Imperial-Class Star Destroyer.

The problem is though, almost all of the official literature says Imperial Class Star Destroyer. Starwars.com is just further proof that the Imperial Star Destroyers should be referred to as Imperial Class Star Destroyers. The Star Destroyer cards from the CCG also reflect this. In this mountain of evidence supporting Imperial-Class you can't take one set of blueprints and override everything else.

[Vympel]

It's not over-riding. It's rationalization- Imperator is the actual name, Imperial, being easier to say, is the Rebel slang. The numbers of a source saying one thing as opposed to another really don't enter into it.

[Guest]

It's not over-riding. It's rationalization- Imperator is the actual name, Imperial, being easier to say, is the Rebel slang. The numbers of a source saying one thing as opposed to another really don't enter into it.

The problem though is that those sources do not say Imperial-Class is rebel slang. Ar there any officical quotes that show that beyond a reasonable doubt? In fact, Imperial-Class is used quite often. If you are forced to rationalize Imperator-Class then there is obviously a problem with that term. You don't have to rationalize Imperial-Class, therefore, unless something canon comes out that overrules it Imperial-Class is the legitimate term. You can rationalize all day, but that doesn't change anything. Where is the hard evidence? Several sources have been provided that show Imperial-Class (however incorrect that may sound) is the proper term for the Star Destroyers. Besides the questionable Mandel blueprints is there anything else that provides a more solid foundation to your claim?

[Vympel]

You are obviously unfamiliar with canon policy.

Imperator and Imperial class are both EU sources. You are NOT ALLOWED to throw one out, unless it contradicts canon, which NEITHER do. They are both as good as each other. Imperial-class as Rebel slang is a perfectly good rationalization, and considering the point of view the EU is writtern from (New Republic perspective) its perfectly reasonable.

You can call them Imperial-class if you like, but if somone uses Imperator and you say that's wrong- you'll be the one who's wrong- as you'll be ignoring an official source.

[Guest]

Is there more than one source for Imperator besides the Mandel blueprints? That isn't a very difficult question to answer. There are many sources which say Imperial-Class. If Imperator-Class is the real class name then you will obviously have more than just speculation and rationalization that that is the true name. You haven't provided any evidence except that it just sounds better.

Since when does canon policy dictate that you can rationalize the sources in that manner? You do understand that you can rationalize anything if you want to.

I'll respond in greater length when I have the time. I would lilke to agree with you, but you haven't provided any evidence yet.

[Vympel]

Is there more than one source for Imperator besides the Mandel blueprints? That isn't a very difficult question to answer. There are many sources which say Imperial-Class. If Imperator-Class is the real class name then you will obviously have more than just speculation and rationalization that that is the true name. You haven't provided any evidence except that it just sounds better.

Since when does canon policy dictate that you can rationalize the sources in that manner? You do understand that you can rationalize anything if you want to.

I'll respond in greater length when I have the time. I would lilke to agree with you, but you haven't provided any evidence yet.

The Mandel blueprints are OFFICIAL. That's all the evidence you need!!! It's not speculation, it's right there in BLACK and WHITE.

[Stormbringer]

Is there more than one source for Imperator besides the Mandel blueprints? That isn't a very difficult question to answer. There are many sources which say Imperial-Class. If Imperator-Class is the real class name then you will obviously have more than just speculation and rationalization that that is the true name. You haven't provided any evidence except that it just sounds better.

Since when does canon policy dictate that you can rationalize the sources in that manner? You do understand that you can rationalize anything if you want to.

I'll respond in greater length when I have the time. I would lilke to agree with you, but you haven't provided any evidence yet.

I'd believe that they'd be canon. Since they are materials directly from the film.

The Mandel blueprints are OFFICIAL. That's all the evidence you need!!! It's not speculation, it's right there in BLACK and WHITE.

[Guest]

http://www.trek-wars.info/Images/blueisd3.gif

I found a link to an Imperator Class Star Destroyer blueprint. Are you kidding Vympel? The only thing that this shares with an ISD is the general shape. The scale is way off. The crew complement is way off, the weapon locations are way off. In fact, this is not one of the Imperial Star Destroyers that we see in the movies. How can you possibly use these blueprints to say all Imperial Class Star Destroyers should be called Imperator Class Star Destroyers. All of the newer "official" evidence overrides these completely inaccurate blueprints anyways. If the case for the Imperator doesn't get any more solid than this you have to do a lot of rationalizing.

I would be willing to agree that in the EU (not canon) there are such things as Imperial and Imperator Class Star Destroyers. The Imperator Class being a smaller class, different from the Imperial Class.

[Vympel]

"The prototype model created early in the production of A New Hope has guns and other features which imply a size of only a few hundred metres. This is supported by an early starship scale comparison diagram. The final detailing of the film model was much finer, including proportionately tiny turbolaser batteries and viewport lights. The size of the interior sets of Princess Leia's blockade runner implies that this vessel is of a size which requires the destroyer to be on the order of a mile long (in order to fit it into the docking bay). Nevertheless, the original smaller dimensions were accidentally reproduced in the otherwise excellent published blueprints by Mandel."

Of course, if you want to argue that because the dimensions are off, it's obviously a different type of vessel- I could point to all the inaccuracies in WEG and other materials concerning ISDs and call them different ships as well. Or you could use COMMON SENSE.

[Guest]

"The prototype model created early in the production of A New Hope has guns and other features which imply a size of only a few hundred metres. This is supported by an early starship scale comparison diagram. The final detailing of the film model was much finer, including proportionately tiny turbolaser batteries and viewport lights. The size of the interior sets of Princess Leia's blockade runner implies that this vessel is of a size which requires the destroyer to be on the order of a mile long (in order to fit it into the docking bay). Nevertheless, the original smaller dimensions were accidentally reproduced in the otherwise excellent published blueprints by Mandel."

Of course, if you want to argue that because the dimensions are off, it's obviously a different type of vessel- I could point to all the inaccuracies in WEG and other materials concerning ISDs and call them different ships as well. Or you could use COMMON SENSE.

There are other sources that name the Star Destroyers as Imperial-Class Star Destroyers besides WEG. Besides, what makes Mandel's blueprints more official than the WEG material. In fact, I would say that most of the writers of the EU use the WEG material for reference. Just because you like Imperator more than Imperial doesn't mean you get to override the term that is more commonly used. Where did you get the idea that that is rebel slang? Do you have a source for that? If you do, I would be more inclined to accept your point of view.

As far as the common sense issue is concerned, is it more reasonable to go with the more commonly accepted term or to rationalize the way you are doing right now. To my knowledge, there is only one source that says Imperator-Class and it is completely inaccurate. There are multiple sources that say Imperial-Class. They may be inaccurate, but they are more numerous.

[Vympel]

Noone is arguing for the throwing out of a source but you. No one is arguing that one source is "more official" than another but you. Both are legitimate. The *numbers* of a source saying one thing compared to another is completely irrelevant- and has no basis in canon/EU policy. The only arbiter of whether EU information material is admissable is whether it contradicts canon.

My argument is the following:

Imperator-class appears in the Mandel blueprints, first generation official material, 1978, created from the quite detailed cutaways and sketches of the Star Destroyer made by Lucasfilm during the filming of A New Hope. The only flaw in them is scale- aside from that, there is no canon information that contradicts them whatsoever: and it is obvious that the intent of Mandel was to depict a Star Destroyer.

Imperial-class appears in second generation official material. It is not 'higher' or 'lower' than Imperator- both are official. There are no 'levels' of official material. However, 'Imperial-class' represents a quite obvious misunderstanding of naval nomenclature. It implies that the first of class vessel was named 'Imperial' which makes absolutely no sense- this is like saying you can have a 'German' class Battleship. It most likely stems from the common "Imperial Star Destroyer" label- which is entirely different from "Imperial-class". This is like seeing something called an American aircraft carrier and saying it is "American-class".

Because neither source can be thrown out, we must rationalize. Saxton came up with this rationalization; Imperial is slang- it is inaccurate naval nomenclature, but it is easier to say in the heat of battle than Imperator. Although it has no 'official' basis, this is irrelevant. The contradiction definitely EXISTS, and so MUST be rationalized. Again, you are NOT allowed to dismiss either.


(I think most of the members of this board use Imperator because they have official justification for doing so, and quite frankly because Imperial-class is damn amateurish and smacks of a total lack of research/ common sense- which is common in the current generation EU.)

[Sardaukar]

'Imperial-class' represents a quite obvious misunderstanding of naval nomenclature. It implies that the first of class vessel was named 'Imperial' which makes absolutely no sense- this is like saying you can have a 'German' class Battleship. It most likely stems from the common "Imperial Star Destroyer" label- which is entirely different from "Imperial-class". This is like seeing something called an American aircraft carrier and saying it is "American-class".

How is it a misunderstanding of naval nomenclature? Maybe the first ISD was called Imperial. Where does it state that the first ISD was called Imperator?
Or maybe the Empire doesn't name their ship classes after the first ship? I know you may think this sounds crazy, but it's not impossible.

Also, the Mandel blueprints' geometry is completely off, it is most likely based on memory and not the undersized cutaway diagram made for ANH.
The guy obviously did not do much research before he made the blueprints!

[Vympel]

'Imperial-class' represents a quite obvious misunderstanding of naval nomenclature. It implies that the first of class vessel was named 'Imperial' which makes absolutely no sense- this is like saying you can have a 'German' class Battleship. It most likely stems from the common "Imperial Star Destroyer" label- which is entirely different from "Imperial-class". This is like seeing something called an American aircraft carrier and saying it is "American-class".

How is it a misunderstanding of naval nomenclature? Maybe the first ISD was called Imperial. Where does it state that the first ISD was called Imperator?
Or maybe the Empire doesn't name their ship classes after the first ship? I know you may think this sounds crazy, but it's not impossible.

A Star Destroyer called Imperial? That's stupid. No one names a ship the USS American, or the HMS British This literature was written by people in the real world, remember?

Also, the Mandel blueprints' geometry is completely off, it is most likely based on memory and not the undersized cutaway diagram made for ANH.
The guy obviously did not do much research before he made the blueprints!

What bullshit. Because they're not 100% accurate we throw them out? Because of their errors we do not go to them for crew numbers/weapons etc, but there is nothing that contradicts the name Imperator. You do NOT throw out an entire source because ONE aspect of the source is inaccurate; this is a ridiculous approach and as Darth Wong pointed out, a lot of people in canon/official debates favor an approach that would eliminate all of real life history! Suetonius made a mistake? Heck throw the whole thing out, its useless!

Because in official literature there is the name Imperator-class and Imperial-class. It's that simple. How hard is it to understand that you are NOT ALLOWED to throw a source out?!

[Sardaukar]

What bullshit. Because they're not 100% accurate we throw them out? Because of their errors we do not go to them for crew numbers/weapons etc, but there is nothing that contradicts the name Imperator. You do NOT throw out an entire source because ONE aspect of the source is inaccurate; this is a ridiculous approach and as Darth Wong pointed out, a lot of people in canon/official debates favor an approach that would eliminate all of real life history! Suetonius made a mistake? Heck throw the whole thing out, its useless!

Because in official literature there is the name Imperator-class and Imperial-class. It's that simple. How hard is it to understand that you are NOT ALLOWED to throw a source out?!

i'm NOT throwing a source out, I am overriding it with newer, officially accepted, material.
It's not just ONE aspect of the Mandel blueprints that is innaccurate, it's everything except the name of the ship (Star Destroyer) and the general shape!
If newer novels can override older ones, why can't newer blueprints override older ones that are so obviously full of many flaws? And I am not talking about the WEG blueprints, but rather the EGVV ones, which are a hell of a lot more accurate than the Mandel blueprints.

The only real rationalisation you can make is, as LeoRo has pointed out, that the Imperator-Class is a different, lighter version of the Imperial-Class.

[Vympel]

i'm NOT throwing a source out, I am overriding it with newer, officially accepted, material.
It's not just ONE aspect of the Mandel blueprints that is innaccurate, it's everything except the name of the ship (Star Destroyer) and the general shape!
If newer novels can override older ones, why can't newer blueprints override older ones that are so obviously full of many flaws? And I am not talking about the WEG blueprints, but rather the EGVV ones, which are a hell of a lot more accurate than the Mandel blueprints.

The only real rationalisation you can make is, as LeoRo has pointed out, that the Imperator-Class is a different, lighter version of the Imperial-Class.

What do you think overriding is? It is the same as throwing out: Youre denying the legitimacy of one in favor of another, and whats more, you have no support for it. There are NO classes of EU material. One is as good as the other.

Newer novels do not override older ones. Who contends that? There are no classes of official material- official is official. You can't override official with official.

As long as the Mandel blueprints are official- there is excellent justifiaction for saying Imperator. End of story.

[Vympel]

i'm NOT throwing a source out, I am overriding it with newer, officially accepted, material.
It's not just ONE aspect of the Mandel blueprints that is innaccurate, it's everything except the name of the ship (Star Destroyer) and the general shape!
If newer novels can override older ones, why can't newer blueprints override older ones that are so obviously full of many flaws? And I am not talking about the WEG blueprints, but rather the EGVV ones, which are a hell of a lot more accurate than the Mandel blueprints.

The only real rationalisation you can make is, as LeoRo has pointed out, that the Imperator-Class is a different, lighter version of the Imperial-Class.

What do you think overriding is? It is the same as throwing out: Youre denying the legitimacy of one in favor of another, and whats more, you have no support for it. There are NO classes of EU material. One is as good as the other.

Newer novels do not override older ones. Who contends that? There are no classes of official material- official is official. You can't override official with official.

As long as the Mandel blueprints are official- there is excellent justifiaction for saying Imperator. End of story.

[Guest]

A Star Destroyer called Imperial? That's stupid. No one names a ship the USS American, or the HMS British This literature was written by people in the real world, remember?

Well, Star Wars takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. Space-faring navies probably have different nomenclature conventions.

Also, the Mandel blueprints' geometry is completely off, it is most likely based on memory and not the undersized cutaway diagram made for ANH.
The guy obviously did not do much research before he made the blueprints!

What bullshit. Because they're not 100% accurate we throw them out? Because of their errors we do not go to them for crew numbers/weapons etc, but there is nothing that contradicts the name Imperator. You do NOT throw out an entire source because ONE aspect of the source is inaccurate; this is a ridiculous approach and as Darth Wong pointed out, a lot of people in canon/official debates favor an approach that would eliminate all of real life history! Suetonius made a mistake? Heck throw the whole thing out, its useless!

Because in official literature there is the name Imperator-class and Imperial-class. It's that simple. How hard is it to understand that you are NOT ALLOWED to throw a source out?![/quote]

Talk about a red herring. We are not talking about historical documents here.

Your only reasoning behind calling Imperial-Class rebel slang is based on the personal opinion of Saxton. Hm... Last time I heard anything about canon policy Saxton's opinion weren't listed as having any official status. If you are going to use Imperator as your personal preference that doesn't bother me. If you are going to try to say Imperial-Class is slang and not the official name of the Star Destroyers you are way out of line. You have ZERO evidence to support that. I don't care what Saxton thinks about that. His opinion doesn't mean squat. Maybe he will do the EP III ICS and mention that Imperator is the proper term. If GL allows him to do that then the situation would be different. As it stands you have nothing to go on. You are using really bad blueprints and you are doing a whole lot of unreasonable rationalizing.