Starships of the Galaxy (New)

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Warsie
BANNED
Posts: 521
Joined: 2007-03-06 02:08pm
Location: Chicago, IL USA

Post by Warsie »

Stark wrote: Great source there.
k
Too bad the picture isn't in the movie or even suggested, the game mechanics are irrelevant, and everything we see shows us the opposite (even the fucking huge ARC-170s being 10 times the volume of B-wings and apparently doing the same job). Bah EU sucks, etc etc.
We never see B-wings with secondary weapons in general. Does that mean that B-wings have no secondary weapons as we never see them in movie?

Same with Y-wings and Ion Cannons; and B-wings and Ion Cannons.
Stark wrote: And don't talk about that damn painting again: Stormtroopers were also 'supposed' to have fucking swords, remember? Only what's in the movie penetrates my shitfilters.
There's 2 of the McQuarrie paintings I believe showing that; and that has been done in the SW Manga as well. The Old Essential Chronology has something similar (B-wings taking down ISD)

EDIT: ohh you use the movies. Okay

Also; you know we could interpret that one (stormtroopers w/lightsabers) as something different.
User avatar
000
Jedi Knight
Posts: 638
Joined: 2004-12-04 09:39pm

Post by 000 »

So, um...
the new Starships of the Galaxy wrote:A Star Destroyer is named after the idea of a ship that has the power needed to destroy entire star systems, an ominous naming convention that goes back to the days of the Old Republic. Any ship that follows the design basics of those early ships (including a combination of massive firepower and a dagger shape to focus that firepower forward) can be a class of Star Destroyer. For this reason, the term Star Destroyer is always capitalized, unlike star frigate or star cruiser. A typical Star Destroyer qualifies as a star cruiser and a Super Star Destroyer qualifies as a star dreadnaught.
:D
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Stark »

Warsie wrote:We never see B-wings with secondary weapons in general. Does that mean that B-wings have no secondary weapons as we never see them in movie?

Same with Y-wings and Ion Cannons; and B-wings and Ion Cannons.
Don't be a cocknose. Y-wings have giant guns on them, that may or may not be ion guns and the EU can say what it likes. How does this compare with B-wings having giant bombs in them because some game developer says so, and then another game developer saying 'wait that's retarded' and adding external pods? Taking some production art and making up retarded shit about it is exactly why these stupid starship books suck.

I mean, call me crazy, but I already described how you could get around this sort of thing. The EU doesn't care because it's mass market nonsense for brand slaves. The idea of B-wings as superpowerful strike bombers is canon, and I'm not arguing with it: I'm saying the idea is dumb and based on silliness.

There's 2 of the McQuarrie paintings I believe showing that; and that has been done in the SW Manga as well. The Old Essential Chronology has something similar (B-wings taking down ISD)
So... what?
User avatar
VT-16
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4662
Joined: 2004-05-13 10:01am
Location: Norway

Post by VT-16 »

000 wrote:*snip*
What.

Seems like WOTC missed the whole fucking point of the SSD term and made another continuity error. Both Star Frigate and Star Cruiser have been capitalized, even by themselves.

EDIT: And blackmoron at TFN takes this and says something not stated in the text:
Star Destroyers are not destroyers.
Yes, that's right, it's been said in plain print in a canonical text.
Can someone tell Mr. Palmfucker how most warships can destroy entire star systems regardless of what they're called?
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

Pfft. At this standpoint, the only way to punish these morons is to not buy their stuff. Seems I should have done that instead.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
BountyHunterSAx
Padawan Learner
Posts: 401
Joined: 2007-10-09 11:20pm

Post by BountyHunterSAx »

VT-16 wrote:
000 wrote:*snip*
What.

Seems like WOTC missed the whole fucking point of the SSD term and made another continuity error. Both Star Frigate and Star Cruiser have been capitalized, even by themselves.

*snip*
I'm sorry, VT-16, but I've just *got* to ask. What's the point of quoting '000' if you're going to snip everything that you're quoting?

-AHMAD
User avatar
VT-16
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4662
Joined: 2004-05-13 10:01am
Location: Norway

Post by VT-16 »

"Snipping" is done when the post is too long to quote in its entirety for the brief response, and when most of it is about one specific thing.
BountyHunterSAx
Padawan Learner
Posts: 401
Joined: 2007-10-09 11:20pm

Post by BountyHunterSAx »

Right, that much I gathered - but if you snip the entire post; then what are you responding to? Or is an entirely-snipped post an accepted way of saying 'go back and read this guys post yourself?'

-AHMAD
User avatar
VT-16
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4662
Joined: 2004-05-13 10:01am
Location: Norway

Post by VT-16 »

Yes, it's just to show who I'm responding to when it's in the middle of a discussion.
User avatar
The Dark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7378
Joined: 2002-10-31 10:28pm
Location: Promoting ornithological awareness

Post by The Dark »

VT-16 wrote:
Star Destroyers are not destroyers.
Yes, that's right, it's been said in plain print in a canonical text.
Can someone tell Mr. Palmfucker how most warships can destroy entire star systems regardless of what they're called?
The proper response to that is "So what?"

If anything, it shows Star Destroyer is a generic term for that hull shape, and the actual class type is based off size/mass. It's not exactly a shocking revelation, and it (mostly) fits in with what Saxton has said, that Star Destroyer is basically a slang term with no real meaning with regards to classification.
Stanley Hauerwas wrote:[W]hy is it that no one is angry at the inequality of income in this country? I mean, the inequality of income is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Why isn’t that ever an issue of politics? Because you don’t live in a democracy. You live in a plutocracy. Money rules.
BattleTech for SilCore
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

The Dark wrote:The proper response to that is "So what?"

If anything, it shows Star Destroyer is a generic term for that hull shape, and the actual class type is based off size/mass. It's not exactly a shocking revelation, and it (mostly) fits in with what Saxton has said, that Star Destroyer is basically a slang term with no real meaning with regards to classification.
Er yeah.

It just so happens that the Invisible Hand was also labeled a Star Destroyer though, if you haven't forgotten.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

VT-16 wrote:
000 wrote:*snip*
What.

Seems like WOTC missed the whole fucking point of the SSD term and made another continuity error. Both Star Frigate and Star Cruiser have been capitalized, even by themselves.

EDIT: And blackmoron at TFN takes this and says something not stated in the text:
Star Destroyers are not destroyers.
Yes, that's right, it's been said in plain print in a canonical text.
Can someone tell Mr. Palmfucker how most warships can destroy entire star systems regardless of what they're called?
What they're too dumb to understand is this only means that "Star Destroyer" doesn't intrinsically mean "star destroyer" or "destroyer" - we already knew that. HIMS Shockwave and HIMS Executor were always described as "Star Destroyers" while the former certainly grossly outmassed the Venator-class and Victory-class star destroyers, while the latter we know was a star dreadnought. We know Invisible Hand was a Star Destroyer and a star destroyer, and we know that the Venator-class was also a Star Destroyer and also a star destroyer.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
VT-16
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4662
Joined: 2004-05-13 10:01am
Location: Norway

Post by VT-16 »

Hmm, said in that way, I guess it makes sense. If only they didn't use uppercase/lowercase letters haphazardly. I've seen novels write Star Destroyer/Destroyer/star destroyer/destroyer for the same ship. :P

Also, didn't Lucas call the Home One a Star Destroyer once as well? In DVD commentary?
User avatar
VT-16
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4662
Joined: 2004-05-13 10:01am
Location: Norway

Post by VT-16 »

Hah, I love it. Rodney Thompson (writing as "Moridin") comes on the Fleet Junkies board to respond to complaints and states that since he made the book for RPG fans primarily, he didn't focus that much on technical stuff and can't understand why they're complaining about wrong/stupid technical blurbs since it's mainly a book for RPG gamers.

This after the morons spent pages using the info in the book to slam technical minded fans. :P
Rodney Thompson wrote:Regarding not listing lengths, remember that this is a gaming book, not a technical manual. During play, actual length is less important than how much space the ships take up on a battlefield, and as someone else hinted the more abstract sizes make it possible to avoid continuity debates.

Hope this helps.
Emphasis mine. That was nice and made my day.
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

I am reminded time and time again why I quit that thread altogether long time ago.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

EU Lit in general is totally pointless. No standards of debate or conduct are recognized except "always be nice and 'neutral'; always infinitely tolerate assholes who skirt just under the rules with passive aggressive bullshit." I mean they don't respond to any arguments, they do not recognize any standards of evidence.

Its pointless to debate with kiddies who have no education other than fanboyism and conforming to net nanny forum mores and that lack any sort of responsible administration or moderation. If you have no education in logic, science, history, etc. If you've never had any experience in the world, how can you discern bullshit from what is not? How can divine meaningful standards?
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
Lord Poe
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 6988
Joined: 2002-07-14 03:15am
Location: Callyfornia
Contact:

Post by Lord Poe »

Illuminatus Primus wrote:EU Lit in general is totally pointless. No standards of debate or conduct are recognized except "always be nice and 'neutral'; always infinitely tolerate assholes who skirt just under the rules with passive aggressive bullshit." I mean they don't respond to any arguments, they do not recognize any standards of evidence.

Its pointless to debate with kiddies who have no education other than fanboyism and conforming to net nanny forum mores and that lack any sort of responsible administration or moderation. If you have no education in logic, science, history, etc. If you've never had any experience in the world, how can you discern bullshit from what is not? How can divine meaningful standards?
Holy crap, I wish I could sig all that.
Image

"Brian, if I parked a supertanker in Central Park, painted it neon orange, and set it on fire, it would be less obvious than your stupidity." --RedImperator
User avatar
Darwin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1177
Joined: 2002-07-08 04:31pm

Post by Darwin »

Lord Poe wrote: Holy crap, I wish I could sig all that.
*shiftyeyes*

You could always make a gif out of it.

*runsaway*
User avatar
Connor MacLeod
Sith Apprentice
Posts: 14065
Joined: 2002-08-01 05:03pm
Contact:

Post by Connor MacLeod »

IP's actually got something of a point (though more concise than I am).
Popular as EU bashing is with some people here, it does annoy me when people act as if the fault is more with the source material (or rather, source material of a certain hierarchy) than it is with mentality and analytical mindset (IE people like McEwok, Darkstar, etc.)

For the most part, many people treat the issue more like a political debate (where consensus, rules/manners, pseudo-politeness, manipulation and bakcstabbing, and rhertoric matter more than actual facts: facts are useful insofar as they push an agenda.) or a court room ("innocent til proven guilty" is common, though usually where the ICSes are its "guilty until proven 100% innocent". The concept of "reasonable doubt" crops up here too - ie "a single refutation will automatically and always bring any argument to a complete, crashing failure, irrespective of consistency or rationalization.) rather than any scientific analysis (sciencec requires knowledge that comes from something more than five minute googling, ,and most people can't be bothered to have even a basic/laymens's understanding. Nevermind something like what Mike or Curtis have exhibited.)

Put bluntly, from a purely analytical/SoD standpoint there's not much difference between teh fuckups in the movies and in the EU (The two sources are treated differently from an analytical standpoint, ,given that one is a visual and another is a textual medium, but that doesn't really bear on what I am talking about.). The Movies have more than their fair share of fuckups despite the smaller "volume" relative to the EU, but this makes it no less problematic when it comes to dealing with it (case in point, the Battle of Endor on the ground and in space.). If anything, it tends to complicate matters, because of the whole "canon over EU" aspect. The usage of "canon" itself (as Mike has noted) is also a mindset problem, as it carries religious connotations (IE "canon" is supposed to be better/more pure than EU sources by virtue of being canon.) Moreover, the overly simplistic (or dishonest) type of analysis some people employ tends to favor the "canon over EU" excuse more often than not (or in some cases EU over canon.)

What matters ultimately is not so much who wrote a source or what a single source says, but rather what the bulk of evidence points to. Repeatable "results" (inasmuch as one can have results in sci fi analysis) and consistency are of far greater importance than the supremecy of any single bit of evidence - consistency and coherency is what form the most solid basis of analysis and argument (the fewer the flaws there are, and the easier and more consistently the manner in which they are explained, the harder it is for idiots to debunk it without being overly manipulative.)

a good case in point is the ICSes that Currtis wrote. Since their publishing these sources have become a focal point in SW analysis and debate (both wihtin SW and in crossovers) for both sides, but one consistent fact seems to remain true: the issues are debated mainly from the context of the ICSes and/or movies, in absence of the rest of the evidence..

What's more, it happens on both sides actually. The trolls typically take it as "The ICS is a single or isolated example that does not match up with the rest of the evidencee or the movies." - a specialized form of "The EU doesn't match up with the movies." - something some SW movie purists also argue. But those on the more analytical side will also often ignore the fact that "it's not just the ICS" - as noted before by many veteran debators, the ICS merely codifies what we've already established with legions of evidence.. It wasn't so much useful for bringing anything new to the table, it just put into "canon" in the most direct and irrefutable manner possible. We still had things like the Dodonna calcs, BDZs, the Death Star, ,etc. long before the ICses. It's not the ICS alone that defines what SW is capable of, its the bulk of evidence upon which the ICS is based that SW is capable of.

In a similar vein, look at people like Sarli or Traviss (or their proponents.) They tend to be the types that argue "nwer sources override old" or that "singular sources matter more than multiples" - these are the people who think that with a single "correction" or published work they can overturn a vast bulk of established data. Does that sound even remotely reasonable (much less scientific) to anyone?

There's also an issue of flexibility here. Many people (especailly the idiot trolls) tend to believe that analysis is a "set in stone" all or nothing type thing, that there is no room for adaptability or variation. When in fact, as Mike has demonstarted in more than one occasion, SoD style analysis can allow for obvious errors or inconsistencies (and explain them away) without compromising the essential quality of the analysis (things like outliers and whatnot. Again, consistency and bulk of evidence matter.)

I've done enough analysis to know that it doesn't matter if a single book or a bunch of "average or worse" books come along- most things are explainable in some manner or degree (much as the various and sundry bits of idiocy or insanity in the movies are explainable.) Results come in piecing together the data as best you can and in the most logical and consistent manner possible (which is different than "accepting everything as equal and shoehorning it in no matter what - that is just as bad.)
User avatar
Illuminatus Primus
All Seeing Eye
Posts: 15774
Joined: 2002-10-12 02:52pm
Location: Gainesville, Florida, USA
Contact:

Post by Illuminatus Primus »

The big thing is often that the bulk of evidence might not have a neat, pretty deterministic outcome. You might only narrow yourself to a vague area of possibility and within that fogginess relatively equally acceptable theories or speculation can explain an outcome. This is really prevelent with minimalists; if every wedge orbiting Byss is not named, accounted for, and given RPG stats, than to them it doesn't exist. If its not labeled and accounted for or seen again, they want to say it doesn't exist.

Sometimes in history we fine isolated examples of evidence that do not fit into the better defined evidence and whatnot. We don't assume the physical evidence discovered is not evidence of a new type of seige engine or weapon wielded by the ancient society's armies, or that that they did not have sailing ships because our previous and well-documented research did not account for them.
"You know what the problem with Hollywood is. They make shit. Unbelievable. Unremarkable. Shit." - Gabriel Shear, Swordfish

"This statement, in its utterly clueless hubristic stupidity, cannot be improved upon. I merely quote it in admiration of its perfection." - Garibaldi in reply to an incredibly stupid post.

The Fifth Illuminatus Primus | Warsie | Skeptical Empiricist | Florida Gator | Sustainability Advocate | Libertarian Socialist |
Image
User avatar
VT-16
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4662
Joined: 2004-05-13 10:01am
Location: Norway

Post by VT-16 »

Although this might be seen as necroing, I just had to add some factoids from the book. It's actually very nice and the illustrations are great, even making some of the funkier designs look good.

On the SSD section, they simultanously deny that Star Destroyer = destroyer in space, but at the same time accknowledge the destroyer type of warships. (Since they also call the Recusant-class a destroyer earlier on, this is consistent). And it also means that, since the ISD is called a "destroyer" as well as Star Destroyer in several books and comics, it's both a destroyer, Star Destroyer and (according to this book) star cruiser (lowercase).

They also add that not only were most SSDs serving as sector command ships and mobile headquarters (i.e. the profile of all known Executor-class vessels, the Vengeance and Admiral Giel's flagship) but some served as dedicated starfighter carriers, mobile repair bases and communications ships (ROTJ novel reference?). The comm ships are mentioned in particular as having dozens of Holonet transceivers for this purpose.
On the Viscount's page, the New Republic are said to have captured many SSDs from the Empire, enough to originally give doubts as to the need for the Viscount-class. That's the first time I've ever heard the words "many Super Star Destroyers" and "New Republic" in the same sentence. Groovy. :P

I'll just go ahead and quote the whole SSD passage:
SOTG07 page 136 wrote: The 19-kilometer-long Super-class Star Destroyers were the largest class of ships built by the Empire. (Though a few larger mobile space stations, such as the two Death Stars, were also put into service, they were neither common enough to qualify as a class nor, properly speaking, starships.) Each was equipped to shatter the backbone of enemy fleets, smash planetary defenses, and land enough troops to control important population centers. The only possible weakness of the ships is their lack of point-defense weapons, leaving them potentially vulnerable to massed fighter attacks if they lack escorts.
Some confusion exists about the official name of the Super Star Destroyer classes, much of it rooted in the idea that nothing 19 kilometers long qualifies as a mere "destroyer", super or not. This misunderstanding is based in the fact that the term Star Destroyer does not indicate a Destroyer-class vessel that happens to be a starship (unlike the terms star cruiser and star dreadnaught).
A Star Destroyer is named after the idea of a ship that has the power needed to destroy entire star systems, an omnious naming convention that goes back to the days of the Old Republic. Any ship that follows the design basics of those early ships (including a combination of massive firepower and a dagger shape to focus that firepower forward) can be a class of Star Destroyer. For this reason, the term Star Destroyer is always capitalized, unlike star frigate or star cruiser. A typical Star Destroyer qualifies as a star cruiser, and a Super Star Destroyer qualifies as a star dreadnaught.

Super Star Destroyers sometimes served as mobile repair bases, starfighter carriers, or communications ships (carrying dozens of Holonet transceivers), but most served the standard Super Star Destroyer role of sector command ship and mobile headquarters. Two Super Star Destroyers that fit this model are the Executor and the Vengeance. The latter vessel served as command ship for the Dark Jedi named Jerec, and though visually distinctive it had the same specifications as other Super Star Destroyers.
Some additional trivia: Both Eclipses are mentioned as having begun construction around the Battle of Yavin, massed much more than any other Super Star Destroyer ever built and use 2/3 the power of one of the DS's superlaser components in their superlasers.
The Pellaeon-class Star Destroyer is described as one of the largest and most powerful vessels in the Imperial Fleet, which basically means it's not necessarily the biggest warship in the Legacy era. That's promising.
The Imperial-class is a multi-role warship that can be a assault warship, planetary defender or escort vessel for extremely important ships. Basically, a heavier, more independent update on the Venator-class. Though they seem to wank to it, again, they also wank to SSDs and Star Defenders this time around. That's an improvement.
Post Reply