For those particularly interested in the SW-Wiki:

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-12-11 10:25am

In case anyone has any need for shiplengths and gun-stats, here's a rough job I did. (Note I'm not sure all weaponstats are 100% correct, as there might have been more sources used for the wiki article).

http://img456.imageshack.us/img456/74/s ... ats6tn.jpg

The lines above the weapon-stats are the lengths (10m per pixel).

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-11 01:28pm

For the Executor, I'm pretty sure its suppossed to be 5,000 turrets. Look as the analysis of how many turrets on SWTC

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-12-11 01:44pm

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:That place is already too badly corrupted from TFNers. We are lucky that we got our shots on the Main Wiki first - which is the only reason why it contains so many of our ideas.

Yes, and the deletionists are after our stuff over there, saying to put it on Wookieepedia.

Glimmervoid · Post by **Glimmervoid** » 2005-12-11 02:12pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:That place is already too badly corrupted from TFNers. We are lucky that we got our shots on the Main Wiki first - which is the only reason why it contains so many of our ideas.
Yes, and the deletionists are after our stuff over there, saying to put it on Wookieepedia.

Which articles in particular?

SCVN 2812 · Post by **SCVN 2812** » 2005-12-11 02:39pm

Ender wrote:For the Executor, I'm pretty sure its suppossed to be 5,000 turrets. Look as the analysis of how many turrets on SWTC

You realize of course that the main armaments of the ISD1 (12 UHTL, 8 HTL, 4 H Ion cannon) can all be multiplied by 130 and still leave room for a modest secondary battery of medium turbolasers and ion cannons without exceeding 5,000.

I.e.
1,560 UHTL
1,040 HTL
520 H. Ion Cannons

with room for 1,880 turbolasers and ion cannons for dealing with smaller than ISD combatants.

Not every blister has to be a weapon emplacement nor does every weapon emplacement have to be on a blister. Also the quote is specifically for turbolasers and ion cannons, it leaves to speculation the specifics of the ship's point defense lasers and ballistic weaponry.

Obviously if you were to take the ISD2s main battery and do the same it wouldn't fit nicely within the 5,000 turbo-ion estimate but then using twin as opposed to octa weapon groupings is less of a problem for a ship than can effectively defeat through attrition all but armada sized formations of corvette and frigate sized vessels as opposed to the ISD1-2 where larger vollies and quicker rates of fire are more useful.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-12-11 03:28pm

Glimmervoid wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:That place is already too badly corrupted from TFNers. We are lucky that we got our shots on the Main Wiki first - which is the only reason why it contains so many of our ideas.
Yes, and the deletionists are after our stuff over there, saying to put it on Wookieepedia.
Which articles in particular?

The Endor Holocaust article was the last one. It survived the VfD, though the admin marked it as "no consensus," meaning it could be up for another one later.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-12-11 05:09pm

I don't see why you bother on the regular Wikipedia, they kept telling me the SW parts were only for general information, not minutia. Then I found the SW wiki and never looked back. The more of us on there is in one place, the more weight we can throw around. 8)

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-12-11 05:21pm

Because Star Wars isn't my only interest.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-12-11 05:38pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Because Star Wars isn't my only interest. :P

I meant "when it comes to SW issues", sillykins. :P

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-12-11 05:54pm

VT-16 wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:Because Star Wars isn't my only interest.
I meant "when it comes to SW issues", sillykins.

Because whatever "they" told you isn't official Wikipedia policy. Hard and fast rules are few and far between there.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-12-11 06:18pm

Thanks.

Though it's a few months too late now. ;)

EDIT: On the Executrix talk-page:

She's an Imperator - here's why...

Dark Lord, p. 235, says: "The Star Destroyer Exactor and its older sibling, Executrix, drifted side by side, bow-to-stern, forming a parallelogram of armor and armament."

Now the opposite sides of a parallelogram are the same length. That means that the two ships are the same size.

Follow that link to wiki and look at the diagram. The two Star Destroyers represent the triangles ABC and ADE... as Exactor is a 1600m ship, this means that the Executrix must be too; she cannot be a 900m VicStar or an 1137m VenStar. It's possible that she represents an older class built on the same hull as that later used for the Imperator... but I doubt it!

I know this means that the name ship of the Imperator-class wasn't the Imperator, but rather the Executrix, but there's no problem with that: warship class-names, both in Star Wars and the real world, can describe the type of things ships of the class are named after: thus, Defender-class Star Destroyers are named after people that defend, and the lead ship is the Obi-Wan, and in the real world, the Royal Navy's Duke-class frigates are named after duke(dom)s, And the lead ship is HMS Norfolk.

Similarly, the names Executrix and Exactor both describe imperatores in the broad sense of people with authority - hence, Imperator-class...

As to evidence for the Trix being a VicStar... well, there's none. VicStars dropped into the atmosphere as part of the attack, as VicStars do. She commands the attack, but doesn't drop into the atmosphere....

Hope that clears things up!! --McEwok (Arkady Hodge) 22:47, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-12-11 06:23pm

Remind me if I ever get off my ass to do a Gundam or Eva Wiki to make sure it's members only and unanonymous. As good as the pure Wiki format works for general stuff, it just doesn't for more smaller range stuff like this.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-12-11 06:57pm

How typical. McEwok (Arkady Hodge) is being a moron. Notice how he just assumes that because the Executrix is older, it must be the first of the class? Fucking idiot.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-11 08:28pm

Responded to Hodges Bulllshit.

I see you failed geometry Hodges. Two Impstars end to end would be a hexagon. Look at them from above - due to the part above the engiens it would look something like <___> when the two of them are together. Thus your argument from a flawed description fails. Particularily in light of explicet statements later in the book. And again, if the book itself saying Victory clas sis not a source, the entire entry needs to be deleted, making this a null issue. --Lowkey
Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Executrix"

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-12-11 08:38pm

Vympel wrote:How typical. McEwok (Arkady Hodge) is being a moron. Notice how he just assumes that because the Executrix is older, it must be the first of the class? Fucking idiot.

Exept that Exactor is the second Imperator-class Star Destroy. So if Executrix is an Imperator that is older than the Exactor it can only be the first Imperator. The only explanations for this are: 1) Executrix is not an Imperator and the "parallellogram" wasn't perfect. 2)McEwok (Arkady Hodge) is right, the Imperator-class is not named after the first ship. 3) Executrix and Exactor are the first two production ISDs. The Imperator was the prototype.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-11 08:40pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:
Vympel wrote:How typical. McEwok (Arkady Hodge) is being a moron. Notice how he just assumes that because the Executrix is older, it must be the first of the class? Fucking idiot.
Exept that Exactor is the second Imperator-class Star Destroy. So if Executrix is an Imperator that is older than the Exactor it can only be the first Imperator. The only explanations for this are: 1) Executrix is not an Imperator and the "parallellogram" wasn't perfect. 2)McEwok (Arkady Hodge) is right, the Imperator-class is not named after the first ship. 3) Executrix and Exactor are the first two production ISDs. The Imperator was the prototype.

We know for a fact the parralellogram was not perfect, by definition it would be a hexagon, so any conclusions based off a flawed description are by default flawed.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-12-11 08:41pm

They were bow to stern not stern to stern. So it would form a paralellogram. Think of the scene in ESB were the two ISDs bumped into each other while chasing the Millenium Falcon. The scene being described was like that, exept the two ships did not bump into each other.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-11 08:43pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:They were bow to stern not bow to bow. So it would form a paralellogram.

< \
< /

Nope, still a messed up hexagon!

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-12-11 08:46pm

They are still not bow-to-stern in the above 'picture'.

<
>

Put those things toguether.

EDIT - On second thought it is a hexagon, but only because the rear of an ISD when seen from 'above' or 'below' is not straight.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-11 08:50pm

Adrian Laguna wrote:They are still not bow-to-stern in the above picture.

<
>

Put those things toguether.

EDIT - On second thought it is a hexagon, but only because the rear of an ISD when seen from 'above' or 'below' is not straight.

Exactly my point.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2005-12-11 09:06pm

and round and round dipshit and I go...

EDIT= link to the discussion page http://starwars.wikicities.com/wiki/Talk:Executrix

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2005-12-12 12:53am

McEwok (Arkady Hodge) has answered back in our debate at TF.net. Guess he's not done yet.

I skimmed through his post, and I'm pretty sure it's a bunch of BS. However, I'm not going to bother replying right now, because it usually takes more than an hour go through all that bullshit, and I have some real life things to take care of at the moment. Right now, I just want to ask you guys for help with one thing.

One of the little side issues this debate has spawned is McEwok's delusion that Carrack/Dreadnaught <= Venator. This is based entirely on rpg stats that don't give those two smaller ships that much less main turbolasers. It probably goes without saying, but I want to ask Leland Chee or any other LFL employee at the official site whether other sources trump game mechanics in the case of disputes. It's retarded, but McEwok (Arkady Hodge) won't believe it any other way. Since we know from ROTS ICS that Venator = 4 to 6 Recusants, I'm going to use that as my example of a contradiction. Now, can somebody who knows the WOTC rpg tell me how many Recusants are typically needed to take on a Venator, and how a Dreadnaught fares against a Recusant?

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2005-12-12 05:38pm

Not factoring in starfighters, according to the WotC stats it's 1-1 for VenSD vs. Rec, and 2-1 for Dread vs. Rec. However, factoring in starfighters a VenSD could probably face at least 4 without breaking a sweat, and a Dread approaches parity with a Rec. Though the game stats aren't very reliable considering they have a Recusant cost more than a VenSD.
Edit: Though these ratios are for straight up slugging matches against the opponents' most powerful firing arc. Also, according to the RPG stats an ARC-170 can take 1/4 the damage of a Venator before being destroyed.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2005-12-12 06:12pm

NRS Guardian wrote: Edit: Though these ratios are for straight up slugging matches against the opponents' most powerful firing arc. Also, according to the RPG stats an ARC-170 can take 1/4 the damage of a Venator before being destroyed.

The RPG stats are less than great, but on the damage issue you have to factor in Damage Reduction when talking about how tough a ship is in D20 Star Wars. Fighter DR is about 10 and Star Destroyer DR is 50+.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2005-12-13 12:08am

Imperial Overlord wrote:
NRS Guardian wrote: Edit: Though these ratios are for straight up slugging matches against the opponents' most powerful firing arc. Also, according to the RPG stats an ARC-170 can take 1/4 the damage of a Venator before being destroyed.
The RPG stats are less than great, but on the damage issue you have to factor in Damage Reduction when talking about how tough a ship is in D20 Star Wars. Fighter DR is about 10 and Star Destroyer DR is 50+.

Scale difference also plays in, I believe.