Star destroyer qualities

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2005-12-08 02:20pm

Possible, but role is important in addition to size. These ships seem to serve primarily as escorts. It's definitly on the dividing line between heavy destroyer and cruiser.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-12-08 02:23pm

Hey VT-16, can you write up the summary of our position in the Ship classification article that Sparqman wants? Right now, I'm mired in a retarded ass debate with McEwok (Arkady Hodge) at TF.net (+http://boards.theforce.net/literature/b ... 63/p1/?113), with manners whores jumping on me for flinging such brutal excuses as "liar."

I'll be willing to help you write it.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-12-08 02:35pm

I sent an email two-three days ago, still haven't seen any reply.

Btw, here was my post (it only covered my personal views and arguments, so I'm sorry if I only spoke for myself):

From my point of view, the article as I made it the last time, before lock-down, is mostly complete, in regards to what I want it to be about. There are some points that still need a little fine-tuning and places where I've not been clear enough. However, it seems there's at least one other person who's willing to help in this regard (and I'm not talking about my opponent in this edit-war).

The most contentious issue was the 'Star Destroyer' part, as it introduced terms not mentioned in the WEG system, but in earlier and later official sources.
The only one used in the WEG books was 'Star Destroyer'.

However, 'Star Destroyer' has been used as a term for a wide range of ship-types throughout canon history, from tiny frigate-sized vessels like the Demolisher (SW: Droids) to Executor-class Star Dreadnaughts (AOTC:ICS, ROTS:ICS, ITW:OT, CLOSW), and is more like a brand name for a production line in the Imperial Navy. This information doesn't actually contradict the old classification system (which only said SDs were bigger than other warships), and it seems more fair to incorporate this as I've done in the article, rather than dismiss it like my opponent did.

The the search for sources and relevant quotes was extensive, and barring any new discoveries, I'd say they are mostly complete, and should be allowed to stay in their section (for added information).

Now, my main pet peeve with this whole ordeal, is the seeming incapability of my opponent in using all available sources, rather than just two of his favourites (where he also leaves certain parts out that don't support his view), and the twisting of quotes that goes against his personal views.

He also seems incapable of accepting revisions to his personal subjects, although judging by his lack of edits to other similar articles, he has no problems with this practice outside of 'Star Destroyers' and 'ship classification'.

I also don't see the point in denying ship-terms following more conventional naval use, as 'destroyer', 'cruiser' and 'frigate' all came from RL navies, last time I checked. Having the scale (even an internal one only used by KDY) end with 'SSD' covering a variety of ships, rather than use adequate additional terms that have been presented in several post-WEG sources, seems just down-right silly to me.

Finally, in my defense, I've turned around from my previous militaristic stance on the issue. Having studied more of the sources myself, I find that there is little contradiction, like McEwok (Arkady Hodge) claims and that I used to believe.

Regards,
VT-16

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2005-12-08 05:56pm

VT-16 wrote:
Allegiance SD
The Allegiance ships are SSDs, I'm afraid.

I always considered them to be Light Star Cruisers, but it is muddy enough that I decided to put the Allegiance up because people requested it. Besides, the best designation would be: destroyer leader (DL). A ship between a destroyer and light cruiser in size designed to command destroyer flotillas.