Edit: Guess I had this in mind when I first thought of it. It might not be as representative as I thought after all.
![Embarrassed :oops:](./images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
Moderator: Vympel
"A lot" on a galactic scale means something else than on a Tellurian one. Assuming it is merely thousands is, if anything, very conservative.Captain Seafort wrote:He said there were a lot of command ships. I don't recall any statement about there being thousands of them,
Others have commented on this, so I will just add that Sector Commands are not the measly Coast Guard cutter squadrons you apparently assume them to be. That aside, we do know that Executor-class ships have also been used to command special or "pan-Imperial" commands, and are canonically noted as the largest ship class the Imperials built for general use (as opposed to a few highly specialised monsters, such as the Eclipse- and Eclipse-II classes, as well as other superlaser platforms, torpedo spheres and what have you).and if the Ex-class were intended as mere sector command ships then why exactly was Vader using one as his personal vessel? That would be the equivalent of Jellico commanding the Grand Fleet from a destroyer.
There is no evidence that that particular unnamed class* was ever put into regular production. We have seen many more Executor-class ships in the role of SECTGRU command vessels and up (and of course, we have Han's dialogue). Also, the passage I quoted referred directly to Executors:So? It's talking about SSDs in general, not necessarily Star Dreadnoughts. As I commented above, this could just as easily be applied to the Allegiance as the Executor.
Not that this matters much; the statement is retarded no matter what spin you put on it. Executors are just one small example of the Empire's industrial capabilities, which anyone with a brain should be aware of.SOTG, higher up on same page, 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.
Then he is still a moron for comparing a small subset of the Imperial forces to the sum total of capital ship his own zombie Empire has by then (200 ISDs).I believe the most commonly stated rationalisation is that the figure applies strictly to the Imperial Starfleet - i.e. the strategic forces, not the local defences represented by sector fleets.
No big deal, live and learn.VT-16 wrote:Yes, I meant the US and/or Soviet or Russian Navy. Those ships look huge, but they're not meant to see heavy combat, so they're markedly different from most "command ships" in fiction.
Edit: Guess I had this in mind when I first thought of it. It might not be as representative as I thought after all.
This can't be right as there'd be only 1,042 sectors in the whole Empire (24 ISDs per sector, 51,000,000 inhabited planets in the Empire), with a little less than 48,000 inhabited planets in such super-sectors.VT-16 wrote:For what it's worth, TCSWE says that over 25,000 ISDs were built, with half of them stationed in the Core as reserves. The first SWSB also says about 10% of the entire Imperial Navy was in the Core on reserve, so that means about 90% (about 12,500 ISDs and with plenty of non-ISD ships) are stationed elsewhere.
We also know from RotS that there's a bare minimum of 4000+ sectors (probably a lot more) given that the Petition of 2000 [sectoral senators] was a minority of the senate.Lord Sander wrote:This can't be right as there'd be only 1,042 sectors in the whole Empire (24 ISDs per sector, 51,000,000 inhabited planets in the Empire), with a little less than 48,000 inhabited planets in such super-sectors.
Even if we presume only huge Imperial sectors compared to the old Republican '50 inhabited planets per sector', say, 5,000 inhabited planets per sector that gives us 240,000 ISDs. Realistically sectors would vary between 50 - 2,000 inhabited planets.
In terms of what the galactic economy could put out sure, but in terms of what was actually produced it's another matter. Where exactly have we seen an Ex used as a sector command ship, rather than commanding either a roving fleet (Ex, Iron Fist) or an Oversector (Intimidator). Plus we have to consider the circumstances - Ex was guarding one of the most important (possibly the most important) sites in the Empire, so you expect it to have a decent guard force.Darth Hoth wrote:"A lot" on a galactic scale means something else than on a Tellurian one. Assuming it is merely thousands is, if anything, very conservative.
I never said anything of the sort, and I'll thank you to cut out the strawman - I compared them to a frigate or destroyer chasing pirates in the Caribbean. This is not a three men and a rubber boat operation, but neither is it the massive concentration of force a CVBG represents.Others have commented on this, so I will just add that Sector Commands are not the measly Coast Guard cutter squadrons you apparently assume them to be.
There's certainly more than one of them - the Eclipse's escorts appeared to be of the same design, and there were at least three of them in the attack on Pinnacle Base.There is no evidence that that particular unnamed class was ever put into regular production.
Where? The only Ex's I recall were all commanding roving forces or Oversector groups.We have seen many more Executor-class ships in the role of SECTGRU command vessels
Hmm, point, although the fact remains that "SSD" applies to many more ships than the Ex, and indeed the second paragraph leaves the question open by referring to the plural classes rather strictly restricting itself to the Ex class.SOTG, higher up on same page, 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.
Absolutely, but you'll forgive me of being extremely sceptical of applying the label of "incompetent" to an individual who, while certainly not the best of commanders, certainly has never displayed the gross incompetence you attribute to him. This is, after all, the same bloke who held the rump Empire together, conducted a staged withdrawal from the core to the rim over a number of years, and defeated the best the New Republic could throw at him on a number of occasions.Not that this matters much; the statement is retarded no matter what spin you put on it. Executors are just one small example of the Empire's industrial capabilities, which anyone with a brain should be aware of.
Or he simply didn't consider the sector groups part of the "real" fleet, which again would make him parochial, but not incompetent.Then he is still a moron for comparing a small subset of the Imperial forces to the sum total of capital ship his own zombie Empire has by then (200 ISDs).
While the presence of an Executor in the sector command ship is relatively unseen, the sheer numbers of ships that could be found in oversector, black sword command and azure command and etc, these ships aren't exactly rare either.Captain Seafort wrote: In terms of what the galactic economy could put out sure, but in terms of what was actually produced it's another matter. Where exactly have we seen an Ex used as a sector command ship, rather than commanding either a roving fleet (Ex, Iron Fist) or an Oversector (Intimidator). Plus we have to consider the circumstances - Ex was guarding one of the most important (possibly the most important) sites in the Empire, so you expect it to have a decent guard force.
So?The original argument was that if Executors were sector level command ships, why was Vader assigned one. This is nonsensical. Churchill used destroyers and cruisers for his personal transport during WW2. There isn't any evidence to suggest that the Executor shouldn't have been restricted to sector forces. We already know the presence of Kuati battleships and other Clone War era warships that significantly outguns an ISD. If a sector fleet was to be capable of gunning those ships under, it requires a heavier warship, presumably on the Star battleship order, of which the Executor is one. The "communications" cruiser could had been the command ship for the sector fleet at Endor. However, Endor was not situated in the Core. Fleets covering independent worlds like Correllia and the like would had required larger, more capable warships.I never said anything of the sort, and I'll thank you to cut out the strawman - I compared them to a frigate or destroyer chasing pirates in the Caribbean. This is not a three men and a rubber boat operation, but neither is it the massive concentration of force a CVBG represents.
Except it still doesn't make sense, because the best fit for Paelleon is that he was part of the sector fleet, as opposed to Death Squadron at Endor.Or he simply didn't consider the sector groups part of the "real" fleet, which again would make him parochial, but not incompetent.
I'm not suggesting they are, merely that they're rarer than the thousands or tens of thousands required to give one or more to every sector fleet.PainRack wrote:While the presence of an Executor in the sector command ship is relatively unseen, the sheer numbers of ships that could be found in oversector, black sword command and azure command and etc, these ships aren't exactly rare either.
Churchill wasn't a military commander hunting down a well-armed and well-organised insurgency.So?The original argument was that if Executors were sector level command ships, why was Vader assigned one. This is nonsensical. Churchill used destroyers and cruisers for his personal transport during WW2.
That's the sort of thing I'm suggesting - cruisers and battlecruisers on the scale of the Allegiance, "Super-class" or Vengeance operating with the sector fleets while leaving the big ship free to strategic forces.There isn't any evidence to suggest that the Executor shouldn't have been restricted to sector forces. We already know the presence of Kuati battleships and other Clone War era warships that significantly outguns an ISD. If a sector fleet was to be capable of gunning those ships under, it requires a heavier warship, presumably on the Star battleship order, of which the Executor is one. The "communications" cruiser could had been the command ship for the sector fleet at Endor.
We've got at least one example of the sort of forces that would be covering core worlds - Imperial Centre Oversector, supported, IIRC, by Azure Hammer Command. Proper fleets, led by battleships.However, Endor was not situated in the Core. Fleets covering independent worlds like Correllia and the like would had required larger, more capable warships.
Why?Except it still doesn't make sense, because the best fit for Paelleon is that he was part of the sector fleet, as opposed to Death Squadron at Endor.
For something to be "common" among millions of planets, you do not have bare hundreds of them. If they were that rare, Han should have thrown a fit at one being there.Captain Seafort wrote:In terms of what the galactic economy could put out sure, but in terms of what was actually produced it's another matter.
Wrong. The Emperor was there in secret, and the Rebels noted especially that security was weak, which was why they had a shot at him. Deployment of rare superships would upset such a conception, one should think.Plus we have to consider the circumstances - Ex was guarding one of the most important (possibly the most important) sites in the Empire, so you expect it to have a decent guard force.
Size is relative to scale. A single ISD can devastate a world within hours, whereas a Sector usually comprises tens of thousands of inhabited planets and is the basic political subdivision of the Empire. Each Sector has its own forces for military defense, not merely policing; most pirates are not even hunted by the Navy, but by dedicated police agencies (Sector Rangers, Imperial Customs Office).I never said anything of the sort, and I'll thank you to cut out the strawman - I compared them to a frigate or destroyer chasing pirates in the Caribbean. This is not a three men and a rubber boat operation, but neither is it the massive concentration of force a CVBG represents.
And they appear only there, whereas Executors are fairly common and ISDs are ubiquitous. The class does not even have a canonical name.There's certainly more than one of them - the Eclipse's escorts appeared to be of the same design, and there were at least three of them in the attack on Pinnacle Base.
Actually, here I shall concede, as I could not find any mention of a named SSD in such a role; I misremembered a few Oversector-attached ones. My mistake.Where? The only Ex's I recall were all commanding roving forces or Oversector groups.
It also specifically speaks of ships of sizes on the same order of magnitude or larger (which would include both Eclipse classes, and perhaps Sovereigns and some others). It in any case rules out something comparatively measly such as the unnamed class.Hmm, point, although the fact remains that "SSD" applies to many more ships than the Ex, and indeed the second paragraph leaves the question open by referring to the plural classes rather strictly restricting itself to the Ex class.
So how about the tidbit about what his superiors thought of him prior to Thrawn? How about multiple retarded statements and stupid tactical and strategic decisions? And what happened at Bilbringi again; I forget, was he defeated by smugglers after Thrawn's massive fiat plan had caught the Rebel fleet square?Absolutely, but you'll forgive me of being extremely sceptical of applying the label of "incompetent" to an individual who, while certainly not the best of commanders, certainly has never displayed the gross incompetence you attribute to him.
Which blithering idiots like KJA villains Harrsk and Teradoc managed before him. The Black Fleet books said it in very simple terms when they brought up the Deep Core warlords: Anyone with Star Destroyers can intimidate local systems into supporting him.This is, after all, the same bloke who held the rump Empire together,
More like plundering those Core Worlds that Daala had taken by treachery and moving their assets to the Rim. There were non-Pellaeon-aligned Imperial holdouts in the Core as of 23 ABY and even later (see Young Jedi Knights).conducted a staged withdrawal from the core to the rim over a number of years,
Whom did he defeat, on what occasions? The only victory I can think of off the top of my head was at Orinda, where he captured a single planet and forced a group led by Wedge Antilles (a former fighter pilot without any officer training) to retreat. Not very impressive, especially if one considers his track record of defeats.and defeated the best the New Republic could throw at him on a number of occasions.
Even that is unreasonable, given the existance of the Death Star(s) and various other resource-intensive projects. The Imperial Navy developed, what, half a dozen SSD classes or more, few going beyond the prototype stage. Why would one of them be that much more expensive, when we know that large-scale construction was not new to them when work was begun on that one?Indeed, while it's a slight stretch, it's also possible that the statement may have referred to the navy's discretionary budget, which the development costs of the Ex may have overrun, while dismissing the notion that it could have bankrupted the galactic economy. This would certainly make Pellaeon somewhat parochial, but hardly incompetent as is being suggested.
Except that if the ISD Navy was that asininely small a part of the total forces, it would be the equivalent of a soldier considering everything but his own company not part of the forces.Or he simply didn't consider the sector groups part of the "real" fleet, which again would make him parochial, but not incompetent.
Actually, the DE audio drama calls the Eclipse's escorts "Imperial-class destroyers" and "Super Star Destroyers", so, go unimaginative writing?Darth Hoth wrote:And they appear only there, whereas Executors are fairly common and ISDs are ubiquitous. The class does not even have a canonical name.There's certainly more than one of them - the Eclipse's escorts appeared to be of the same design, and there were at least three of them in the attack on Pinnacle Base.
When the Imperial Starfleet has a million capital ships, arguing that there's only a hundred or so Executors is rather unbelievable. Alternately, even if Executors were deployCaptain Seafort wrote: I'm not suggesting they are, merely that they're rarer than the thousands or tens of thousands required to give one or more to every sector fleet.
So? There is still no reason to believe that Darth Vader would had automatically rated the biggest baddest rarest supership just because of his status.Churchill wasn't a military commander hunting down a well-armed and well-organised insurgency.
Errr.... Except that said sector forces MUST be capable of overruning the independent planetary fleets. While Endor and the Outer Rim may not have contained Star Dreadnoughts as the flagship, the Core Worlds must had contained a battleship just so to counter the stronger planetary fleets Kuat, Correllia or any othe rnumber of big prosperous worlds were capable of bringing up.That's the sort of thing I'm suggesting - cruisers and battlecruisers on the scale of the Allegiance, "Super-class" or Vengeance operating with the sector fleets while leaving the big ship free to strategic forces.
There were two task forces deployed at Endor. The Sector fleet, which formed the pincer wing and the few Star destroyers and Executor from Death Squadron, which formed the visible close perimeter around the Death Star.Why?
Considering the ISD is supposed to be the most seen and recognized Imperial warship, that's not likely, as the other classes would then be more numerous.darthscott wrote:I like to interpret that there being only 25,000+ ISD's meant that’s how many Imperial-Class Star Destroyers were built and put into service. I always hoped that the Imperial-class SD's were used in missions, which require more flexibility such as hunting Rebels all over the Galaxy. Then the real bulk of the Imperial fleet was made up of the ships from the Home fleets and other SD classes like Tector-Class SD's, Star Cruisers, and Star Dreadnought better suited to protecting the Core Worlds and fighting more conventional enemies.
However, none of the other classes are defined as the symbol of the Imperial Navy.VT-16 wrote:Other classes are more numerous. The various frigates and corvettes are naturally more numerous given their smaller size and faster construction rate. The CR90 is decades-old itself by the time the first ISDs start rolling out during the CW, for instance.
A willing mind could assume that that implies that the twenty- five thousand are in fact the central reserve, Oversector Imperial Centre's striking force, because- as according to Tarkin in ANH- moffs now have direct control over their sectors, would the local fleets be included in that total? Possibly not.The Imperial Star Destroyer was among the most fearsome weapons of the Imperial war machine. With over 25,000 of these awesome ships at his disposal, it is no wonder that Emperor Palpatine could instill fear in the hearts of the Galaxy's citizens.
The USN could rapidly expand from the nucleus of a peacetime navy to over one thousand warships. Furthermore, you're talking about decades where the requisite investment in training could be made in various training academies and the like.Eleventh Century Remnant wrote: Not in absolute numbers- there's far more than enough warm meat out there- but in terms of command qualified officers and senior noncommissioned officers, I believe that the pool of skill and judgement cannot avoid being spread dangerously thin.
Start with what was left at the end of the clone wars- take the starting point as that the late Republic/Imperial founding era crews had seen a lot of action, and had worked up to a high state of competence.
How well does the fleet hold on to that, and how well does it pass on the knowledge of it's veterans? There are retirals, old clones aging too fast, political infighting, general peacetime decline- all sorts of reasons for de-skilling.
Is that seriously a problem? We seen no such indications in the EU, other than the emphasis on central heroes.One of the worst has to be micromanagement. Assume a destroyer on patrol enounters a small rebel asteroid base; action, excitement, really wild things. Within two minutes, how many people does that captain have looking over his shoulder and kibbitzing- and how many of them is he obliged to take orders from?
Canonically, at least four levels of naval command (squadron, force, fleet, sector group) plus how many political, at least one at Moff or sector governor, plus whatever subsector responsibilities exist.
I take this the opposite way from the OP; the communications technology available is too good, enough that micromanagement and political interference must rate highly on the scale of problems the Starfleet faces.