Star Destroyers as carriers

[His Divine Shadow]

According to Darksaber an SSD is "worth" 20 ISD's

[Lord Pounder]

According to Darksaber an SSD is "worth" 20 ISD's

Also according to Darksaber a Hutt can build a Death Star.

[Isolder74]

According to Darksaber an SSD is "worth" 20 ISD's

Also according to Darksaber a Hutt can build a Death Star.

Well they didn't do a very good job! Building a Death Star does you no good if it doesn't work! Also they had stripped out most of the extras the Darksaber was mainly just the planet killing superlaser.

[His Divine Shadow]

According to Darksaber an SSD is "worth" 20 ISD's

Also according to Darksaber a Hutt can build a Death Star.

Which I consider to be a very good thing indeed, very informative on the general tech levels in the SW galaxy.
Ofcourse said Hutt also had the blue-prints and one of the chief engineers helping him so your comment is deceptive.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

A stray shot into the hangar during a battle would obliterate the racks and leave the TIEs without a place to land, whereas with the way it is, the ceiling is damaged but no vital TIE racks are lost.

If the shields are down. And if that's the case, your TIE racks are the least of your worries.

[Ender]

According to Darksaber an SSD is "worth" 20 ISD's

Also according to Darksaber a Hutt can build a Death Star.

According to AOTC a few thousand systems can build a DS while fighting a war. The ability of a society of their size with that influence to build an extremely stripped down and smaller one makes sense.

[Illuminatus Primus]

According to AOTC a few thousand systems can build a DS while fighting a war. The ability of a society of their size with that influence to build an extremely stripped down and smaller one makes sense.

The Confederacy of Independent Systems is larger than several thousand systems. These systems were going to "join" the Confederacy. I theorize that they were the sectors' member systems, and not inclusive of dependencies. And a sparsely populated sector like Chommel has 36 members--we're looking at possibly hundreds of sectors--which is definitely implied by the EU and Holonet News articles about the expanse of the Seperatists.

Not to mention the systems which are ruled/have differed their political vote to the corporate consortiums.

Not that it makes a difference: Baktoid Armor/the Geonosians were contracted to be intended to build the Death Star while still being a big contractor for the Trade Federation while in mid-war.

[Publius]

As an aside, it should be remembered that Captain Purdy M. Trico, captain of the Star Destroyer captured in Jedi Knight, mentioned that his Star Destroyer embarked "more than a hundred TIE pilots." Evidently, some Star Destroyers already have been modified in some fashion to embark more fighter craft.

Publius

Or they have more pilots then craft. Most modern carriers have more pilots than aircraft so they can have more than one shift of airplanes for patrols. With only 1 pilot per plane you can only run so many sorties untill your pilots are too tired to fight or fly anymore. The number of pilots can not be used to determine how many craft embarked.

Captain Trico was referring to the pilots currently engaged in dogfighting against rebel starfighters. He objected to an immediate tactical withdrawal by his Star Destroyer as it would require him to leave behind "more than a hundred TIE pilots" in a combat zone, with no means of recovery.

Publius

[Drooling Iguana]

Only 72 fighters on an ISD? I mist've shot down that number myself while fighting Zaarin's forces in TIE-Fighter. And that's not counting all the transports and assault transports he usually had onboard. I know the games aren't canon, but the X-Wing series usually tends to decrease the power of the capital ships (TL power, speed, warhead yield) not increase them.

72 fighters is way too small a number for a Star Destroyer.

[Publius]

Only 72 fighters on an ISD? I mist've shot down that number myself while fighting Zaarin's forces in TIE-Fighter. And that's not counting all the transports and assault transports he usually had onboard. I know the games aren't canon, but the X-Wing series usually tends to decrease the power of the capital ships (TL power, speed, warhead yield) not increase them.

72 fighters is way too small a number for a Star Destroyer.

You are labouring under a false assumption, sir: The video games are indeed canonical. It would appear that Grand Admiral Demetrius Zaarin made use of Star Destroyers modified for greater carrier capacity, à la Captain Trico's Star Destroyer.

Publius

[consequences]

The video games actually qualify as 'barely official'. Unless we are going to say that the big dome on the bottom of ISDs is actually a shield generator, and that Rogue Leader takes precedence over just about everything else.

[Drooling Iguana]

You are labouring under a false assumption, sir: The video games are indeed canonical. It would appear that Grand Admiral Demetrius Zaarin made use of Star Destroyers modified for greater carrier capacity, à la Captain Trico's Star Destroyer.

Publius

What about when the games contradict each other, such as the alternate scenarios for obtaining the Death Star plans suggested by X-Wing and Dark Forces?

[Publius]

The video games actually qualify as 'barely official'. Unless we are going to say that the big dome on the bottom of ISDs is actually a shield generator, and that Rogue Leader takes precedence over just about everything else.

If you would care to provide documentation for the claim that the video games are "barely official," then by all means do so. It would be most interesting to see how you substantiate such a belief, considering that there is no such statement by competent authorities.

Publius

[Publius]

You are labouring under a false assumption, sir: The video games are indeed canonical. It would appear that Grand Admiral Demetrius Zaarin made use of Star Destroyers modified for greater carrier capacity, à la Captain Trico's Star Destroyer.

Publius

What about when the games contradict each other, such as the alternate scenarios for obtaining the Death Star plans suggested by X-Wing and Dark Forces?

What of it? Conflicts between video games are resolved in exactly the same fashion as conflicts between any other sources. Contradictions are examined, solutions are proposed, and the solution that best resolves the contradiction while making the fewest inventions is preferred. This is nothing new, nor is it unusual.

Regarding the the Death Star plans, the seeming conflict between multiple different accounts has already been resolved, as early as April 2000, by Mr. Kevin J. Anderson and Mr. Daniel Wallace, in The Essential Chronology (pp. 46 - 47):

Knowing that the Alliance's only chance lay in obtaining a copy of the station's blueprints and analyzing them for vulnerabilities, Bail Organa and Mon Mothma set up multiple plans for the capture operation. Toprawan rebels, in a raid on a space convoy, stole most of the technical information before it could be be transferred to the Imperial Information Center. On Danuta, an untested Alliance agent and former stormtrooper officer named Kyle Katarn broke into an Imperial facility and made off with another set of plans. When combined, the two readouts formed a complete schematic of the Death Star from pole to pole.

But Imperial Intelligence learned of the leak. Star Destroyers blockaded the Toprawa system while stormtroopers moved in to crush the Rebels and recover the plans. The Alliance's only hope was a risky in-system data transmission. Princess Leia Organa, adopted daughter of Bail Organa, arrived in the Toprawa system under cover of diplomatic immunity. Her consular ship Tantive IV intercepted the Death Star plans and vanished into hyperspace. Tragically, the Rebels on Toprawa -- led by Commander Bria Tharen and Red Hand Squadron -- were all killed.

Publius

[consequences]

The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.'

Oh, and

"Which brings us to the often-asked question: Just what is Star Wars canon, and what is not? The one sure answer: the Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition- the three films themselves ... in a close second we have the authorized adaptations of the films: the novels, radio dramas, and comics. After that, almost everything falls into a category of "quasi-canon"."

To conclude, Thppppppbbbbbbbbbbtttttt!

Quotes taken from the Sticky at the top of this page addressing that issue.

[Publius]

The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play. LucasBooks works diligently to keep the continuing Star Wars expanded universe cohesive and uniform, but stylistically, there is always room for variation. Not all artists draw Luke Skywalker the same way. Not all writers define the character in the same fashion. The particular attributes of individual media also come into play. A comic book interpretation of an event will likely have less dialogue or different pacing than a novel version. A video game has to take an interactive approach that favors gameplay. So too must card and roleplaying games ascribe certain characteristics to characters and events in order to make them playable.

The analogy is that every piece of published Star Wars fiction is a window into the 'real' Star Wars universe. Some windows are a bit foggier than others. Some are decidedly abstract. But each contains a nugget of truth to them. Like the great Jedi Knight Obi-Wan Kenobi said, 'many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view.'

Oh, and

"Which brings us to the often-asked question: Just what is Star Wars canon, and what is not? The one sure answer: the Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition- the three films themselves ... in a close second we have the authorized adaptations of the films: the novels, radio dramas, and comics. After that, almost everything falls into a category of "quasi-canon"."

To conclude, Thppppppbbbbbbbbbbtttttt!

Quotes taken from the Sticky at the top of this page addressing that issue.

Dear sir, you must work to improve your reading comprehension. Neither Mr. Cerasi's remarks nor Mr. Sansweet's foreword supports your contention that the video games are "barely official"; both quotes merely indicate that the nature of the source determines its relative value as evidence. You have, in effect, accomplished nothing save ignoratio elenchi, the irrelevant conclusion.

To wit, your celebration of your own victory is premature. You have yet to demonstrate any support for your allegation that the video games are "barely official."

Publius

[consequences]

You have yet to show any comprehension of the meaning behind the English language. What part of 'an interactive approach that favors gameplay', and 'some windows are a bit foggier than others' is beyond your understanding? Where do you think the games are listed, under 'the films themselves', or 'everything else'.

Video games have constantly made assumptions which contradict everything we know about the canon, and the facts that we can derive from observing it. Is the dome on the bottom of a SD a shield generator?
Can you hit shield generators without first dropping the shields they are projecting?
Can thirty-forty torpedos drop an ISDs shields, even without those plot contrivances?
Is an AT-AT completely invulnerable to all fire, up to proton bombs and torpedos ripple salvoed into its back, so that the only way to destroy it is to wrap a tow cable around it?
Does entering the DS trench magically give an X-wing ten times its normal speed instantly?
Can you just type a series of hidden jokes into your computer in the SW universe, and gain infinite supplies of ammo, or become impervious to all enemy fire?
Is the speed of a space fighter best measured in its acceleration, or a top speed which would take months to travel inter-planetary distances?
Do you really think one bloody X-wing pilot carried the entire Rebellion, while everyone else sat around, and occasionally killed the odd TIE fighter? Do capital ship shields mystically completely cease to function when a ship suffers an arbitrary amount of damage to random hull areas, or as soon as the shields are dropped in the first place, across the entirety of the ship, even if only one facing is under fire?

[Publius]

You have yet to show any comprehension of the meaning behind the English language. What part of 'an interactive approach that favors gameplay', and 'some windows are a bit foggier than others' is beyond your understanding? Where do you think the games are listed, under 'the films themselves', or 'everything else'.

In the first place, you misunderstand Mr. Cerasi's statement; he said that one must consider the nature of a medium when judging its accuracy at representing the "real" Star Wars universe. In that sense, the interactive necessities of video games do indeed distort their accuracy. However, Mr. Cerasi proceeds to emphasise that while "some windows are a bit foggier than others", they each reflect the truth, with varying degrees of accuracy. Being inaccurate is not the same thing as being "barely official".

In the second place, it is self-evident that the video games are not classified with the films, and are, in Mr. Sansweet's parlance, "quasi-canonical" (N.B., the prefix "quasi-" means "to some degree" or "in some manner"). Non sequitur that video games being "quasi-canonical" is the same as video games being "barely official," which was your contention. You have yet to demonstrate any evidence that supports your allegation that the video games "qualify as barely official."

Video games have constantly made assumptions which contradict everything we know about the canon, and the facts that we can derive from observing it. Is the dome on the bottom of a SD a shield generator?

Considering that the very same structure has elsewhere been identified as a solar ionisation reactor (The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, p. 81), it seems clear that the identification as a shield generator is a reference to some component of the hemisphere, which is supported by the knowledge that there are in fact six separate shield components (bow, aft, starboard, port, dorsal, and ventral), according to The Bacta War, p. 318.

But it should be noted that this has no bearing whatsoever on the status of video games as "barely official," which was your original contention (at best, it would demonstrate that video games can be factually incorrect, which is not the same thing). You have yet to demonstrate any evidence that supports your allegation that the video games "qualify as barely official."

Can you hit shield generators without first dropping the shields they are projecting?
Can thirty-forty torpedos drop an ISDs shields, even without those plot contrivances?
Is an AT-AT completely invulnerable to all fire, up to proton bombs and torpedos ripple salvoed into its back, so that the only way to destroy it is to wrap a tow cable around it?
Does entering the DS trench magically give an X-wing ten times its normal speed instantly?
Can you just type a series of hidden jokes into your computer in the SW universe, and gain infinite supplies of ammo, or become impervious to all enemy fire?
Is the speed of a space fighter best measured in its acceleration, or a top speed which would take months to travel inter-planetary distances?
Do you really think one bloody X-wing pilot carried the entire Rebellion, while everyone else sat around, and occasionally killed the odd TIE fighter? Do capital ship shields mystically completely cease to function when a ship suffers an arbitrary amount of damage to random hull areas, or as soon as the shields are dropped in the first place, across the entirety of the ship, even if only one facing is under fire?

Can you demonstrate any logical connexion between these and the classification of video games as "barely official"? If not, then these questions are wholly irrelevant. The question is not whether or not the internal gameplay mechanics of the video games are factually correct (in general, they are not), but rather whether or not the video games "qualify as barely official," which was your original contention. You have yet to demonstrate any evidence that supports your allegation that the video games "qualify as barely official."

Publius

[Illuminatus Primus]

72 fighters is way too small a number for a Star Destroyer.

Bzzt.

Unless you saw something from one of the movies, a comic depiction of one of the movies, a novelisation, or a screenplay that said or directly showed "all ISD's carry something other than 72 fighters" than you're simply wrong.

[Drooling Iguana]

72 fighters is way too small a number for a Star Destroyer.

Bzzt.

Unless you saw something from one of the movies, a comic depiction of one of the movies, a novelisation, or a screenplay that said or directly showed "all ISD's carry something other than 72 fighters" than you're simply wrong.

Probably. I didn't intend for that "72 fighters" comment to be a statement of fact. It's just my opinion that 72 fighters is too low a number for a ship the size of a Star Destroyer, and that whoever made that number official made a mistake. Not a factual mitake, just bad writing, which in a fictional universe is just as important.

[consequences]

Very simply, if they get nearly every relevant fact wrong, you can not take it seriously as a source of information. To be honest, I consider the majority of the novels to be in the same category for the same reason.

[RTN]

If you wanted to turn an ISD into a dedicated carrier without losing weapons or armor just remove the AT-AT bays, AT-ST bays, assault landing vehicles bays, and the huge space dedicated for combat troops. There's LOTS of room.

Although, some of the stuff was mentioned earlier.