StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Empire seeks to intimidate and rule by fear of force, so they took the opposite route

That's quite a leap you made to reach that conclusion. Your entire premise, which you are fighting for tooth and nail, regarding such a silly, insignificant topic - even compared to the relative silliness and insignificance of Vs. debates in general - is based on so flimsy an assertion?

SPOOFE wrote:

The Empire seeks to intimidate and rule by fear of force, so they took the opposite route

That's quite a leap you made to reach that conclusion. Your entire premise, which you are fighting for tooth and nail, regarding such a silly, insignificant topic - even compared to the relative silliness and insignificance of Vs. debates in general - is based on so flimsy an assertion?

Did you bother to read the thread before making quips and calling us blowhards, ironically? Oddly your claim is unseperable from Nitram's.

KDY, during the Clone Wars, and the maker of the dagger vessels of the Galactic Empire classes her ships in the following format: "[ship name]-class Star [role]," as in "Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser," "Mandator-class Star Dreadnought," and presumably "Star Destroyer" and "Star Cruiser," not to mention the intent Dr. Saxton was obviously trying to propogate for any who've read his site and interview.

The question we try to answer are such discontinuities as "Vader's Star Destroyer" and "Rebel Star Cruiser," etc.

The predication of the "Star Destroyer" = destroyer argument is its role as observed versus the definitions for such vessels in the real world. The semantical bits above are just to try and tie the terms used in-universe into that great naval view.

If you have a beef with this premise (the role of the ISD as observed), by all means, challenge it.

Ender: From RotJ? Where was it so specific? Otherwise I thought that the Omega class was classified as a destroyer because it was designed (with hope) to destroy the powerfull allien vessels. Since I do not know about the Hyperion type being reclassified as frigates, it makes no sense to call a smaller vessel as cruiser and a larger one as destroyer simultaneously. Except if that "destroyer" comes from "heavy capital ship- destroyer", not from "torpedoboat- destroyer".

Illuminatus Primus wrote:The predication of the "Star Destroyer" = destroyer argument is its role as observed versus the definitions for such vessels in the real world.

Connor posted the roles of cruisers and destroyers (guided missile destroyers). Was that correct?
As I see, the main difference between the cruisers and the guided misiile destroyers is that the cruisers are frequently deployed independently from large fleet (carrier)groups.

In ANH they appeared to operate in pairs but otherwise independently.
In TESB, they operated as escorts in a fleet group.
It is unclear, whether at the arrival of the emperor there were larger ships or not.
In the battle of Endor they operated as part of a fleet group, but actually they seemed to make up the main part of the group (not in escort duties).

An ISD is said to be able to set up and leave a garrison (by WEG, I do not know, whether it is accepted in the ICS). This is extremely far from the role of a current detroyer which is designed to destroy enemies. They appear to be "one ship task forces" not fleet group escorts.

They are destroyers. OK, but does that "destroyer" mean anything compared to current terran classification system? Especially since cruiser clearly means nothing (ie in the ANH novelisation both the destroyer and the corvette were labelled as such /in the same era, from the same point of view).

Moonshadow wrote:

"Naboo cruisers"

Perhaps they were calling the Naboo ship a cruiser in the same way we call small to mid sized yacht a Cabin Cruiser

Its not a perhaps, its a given.

The Correllian Corvette, Naboo yahct, the courier ship that ferried in Qui Gon and Obiwan, all were cruisers, same as the ISD.

Its obvious that the classifications came from the Age of Sail, where cruisers were simply ships that were fast.

Frankly, the entire debate here continues all because the premise that a destroyer<<< cruiser in firepower and armour is still ongoing.

vakundok wrote:Ender: From RotJ? Where was it so specific?

It wasn't. However, a group of ships that outmass the ISDs (for an equal density) and have a larger number of heavier guns are termed cruisers. This implies a certain range for thins, and that the ISD is outside that range.

Otherwise I thought that the Omega class was classified as a destroyer because it was designed (with hope) to destroy the powerfull allien vessels. Since I do not know about the Hyperion type being reclassified as frigates, it makes no sense to call a smaller vessel as cruiser and a larger one as destroyer simultaneously. Except if that "destroyer" comes from "heavy capital ship- destroyer", not from "torpedoboat- destroyer".

*shrug* I haven't given that part all that much thought, an even better contradiction is the Warlock class Advanced Destroyer.

Honestly the classifying and fleet size things is secondary, I'm far more interested inthe technology and such.

Ender wrote:

vakundok wrote:Ender: From RotJ? Where was it so specific?

It wasn't. However, a group of ships that outmass the ISDs (for an equal density) and have a larger number of heavier guns are termed cruisers. This implies a certain range for thins, and that the ISD is outside that range.

Why is it outside that range, when the ISD has been termed cruiser in canon? Even in lesser cannon, the ISD has been termed a battlecruiser or a battlewagon.

PainRack wrote:

Ender wrote:

vakundok wrote:Ender: From RotJ? Where was it so specific?

It wasn't. However, a group of ships that outmass the ISDs (for an equal density) and have a larger number of heavier guns are termed cruisers. This implies a certain range for thins, and that the ISD is outside that range.

Why is it outside that range, when the ISD has been termed cruiser in canon? Even in lesser cannon, the ISD has been termed a battlecruiser or a battlewagon.

DO NOT COMMENT ON THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE THREAD.

According to filmic canon: Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, the diplomatic courier from the beginning of TPM, and the Naboo Royal Yacht are all cruisers.

The novelisation adds Star Destroyers.

The canon definition of "cruiser" is not consistent with combat roles. At best, they're using the "age of sail" defintion of cruiser.

I'd like the quote calling an ISD a "battleship or battlewagon." NEGtVV refers to Victory Mark II-subclass vessels as "destroyers," flat-out.

According to Vympel, the ISD at the Battle of Hoth and Endor is analogous to modern AEGIS-equipped guided-missile destroyers in role. Keep in mind, the modern carrier group is derived from carrier-based combat of WW2, which saw the fall of the battleship, which is definitely not analogous to SW.

Consider at Yavin, the ISDs persue a corvette and form a light blockade around Yavin IV, and persue a freighter at speed.

At Hoth, they escort a supercarrier (analogous to a Nimitz-class or Admiral Kuznetsov-class modern vessels according the Vympel), and form a blockade to pursue fleeing vessels, while the supercarrier supports ground operations against basically terrorists in hardened facilities, which is somewhat analogous to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM missions.

At Endor, the ISDs escort a supercarrier/battleship/command ship, and form an encirclement/blockade to prevent the second-hand Rebel fleet from escaping. It is the Rebels who attack, and the destroyers who defend.

Consider at Mon Calamari, the ISDs escorted the Allegiance and provided orbital support for the World Devestators groundside.

Consider that "ISDs are battleships" means the Empire designed around a dozen ships across two orders of magnitude in tonnage for the same role.

Jeeze, do you guys have to do this with every thread that concerns starships?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
DO NOT COMMENT ON THESE THINGS IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE THREAD.

According to filmic canon: Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, the diplomatic courier from the beginning of TPM, and the Naboo Royal Yacht are all cruisers.

The novelisation adds Star Destroyers.

The canon definition of "cruiser" is not consistent with combat roles. At best, they're using the "age of sail" defintion of cruiser.

In that case, explains why you said, a class of ships that include cruisers, are so large as to "exclude" ISD. Haven't you read what I was asking to clarify?

I'd like the quote calling an ISD a "battleship or battlewagon." NEGtVV refers to Victory Mark II-subclass vessels as "destroyers," flat-out.

1. It was a battlewagon, in ANH novelisation.
2. It was a battlecruiser in Tales of the Bounty Hunters.
I dig up the relevent quotes later.

According to Vympel, the ISD at the Battle of Hoth and Endor is analogous to modern AEGIS-equipped guided-missile destroyers in role. Keep in mind, the modern carrier group is derived from carrier-based combat of WW2, which saw the fall of the battleship, which is definitely not analogous to SW.

However, those vessels are termed cruisers by the US government. Also, you missed my point.

Why argue over a "modern" combat role, when we all know GL real intentions? It was intended to be a hybrid between a battleship and a carrier, from the Star Wars databank. The reasons why you are being so anal over it being a "cruiser" or a "destroyer" is because you have this idea that a "cruiser" >>> "destroyer" in firepower, speed and mass. There is no proof that the SWU follows this desgination. Remember, prior to the Dreadnaught age, and indeed, the age of steel ships, a cruiser was smaller and less powerful than a destroyer.

Furthermore, the fact that destroyer class vessels are now termed cruisers only make your debating even more pointless, which to my view seems to be based on the idea that "cruiser">>> "destroyer". Our technology has already allowed the partial merging of two seperate classes into one, what makes you think the Galactic Empire can't do that?

Consider at Yavin, the ISDs persue a corvette and form a light blockade around Yavin IV, and persue a freighter at speed.

Also roles committed by a cruiser. Note the use of British battlecruisers to enforce the blockade of Imperial Germany, as well as the use of cruisers to pursue merchant raiders in the Atlantic.

At Hoth, they escort a supercarrier (analogous to a Nimitz-class or Admiral Kuznetsov-class modern vessels according the Vympel), and form a blockade to pursue fleeing vessels, while the supercarrier supports ground operations against basically terrorists in hardened facilities, which is somewhat analogous to Operation ENDURING FREEDOM missions.

Also missions that can be done by a cruiser. Remember the British Imperial expeditionary mission to Egypt?

At Endor, the ISDs escort a supercarrier/battleship/command ship, and form an encirclement/blockade to prevent the second-hand Rebel fleet from escaping. It is the Rebels who attack, and the destroyers who defend.

Also missions committed by cruisers. Remember Jutland and Admiral Beatty?

Consider at Mon Calamari, the ISDs escorted the Allegiance and provided orbital support for the World Devestators groundside.

Actually, destroyers have only taken on the role of ground bombardment in more recent times, and the idea of naval bombardment still lodges its mentality in the idea of cruisers and battleships. And not to forget, also missions committed by cruisers.

Consider that "ISDs are battleships" means the Empire designed around a dozen ships across two orders of magnitude in tonnage for the same role.

So? The role of a battleship is extremely specific, destroy enemy capital vessels. As a result, it possess heavy armour, concentration of firepower and fast speed. The ISD Mk I fulfills all the above obligations.

I fail to see why this discussion has been so anal over the ISD being a cruiser or a destroyer, save that it gives warsies room to claim that there are larger, more numerable classes of vessels out there. Maybe there is. After all, if we were to claim that ISD were destroyers, a class that is mass produced, as opposed to cruisers and beyond which are not, it gives us room and space to argue for one-off ship classes possessing superior firepower.

However, all this ignores what the SWU views ISDs as. It is clear that the SWU views ISDs as either hybrid battleship/carrier(creator viewpoint) or they view ISDs as cruisers, the last defining stage between mass produced warships, and one off class warships like the Shockwave and etc etc.

PainRack wrote:In that case, explains why you said, a class of ships that include cruisers, are so large as to "exclude" ISD. Haven't you read what I was asking to clarify?

Ender is talking about naval practice and our own theory, not the actually quoting, at least to my knowledge. You should ask him yourself.

PainRack wrote:1. It was a battlewagon, in ANH novelisation.
2. It was a battlecruiser in Tales of the Bounty Hunters.

The former is invalidated by the same source calling them cruisers. Not to mention, part of my theory is that the destroyers (as classed by the Imperial Navy's strategic forces like Death Squadron, Giel's armada, and the reserves at Byss) can be utilized to lead the tiny coast guard and picket fleets of local forces as a fast battleship or battlecruiser.

PainRack wrote:However, those vessels are termed cruisers by the US government. Also, you missed my point.

No they're not. DDG means "guided missile destroyer." It is an escort. The fact that they use missiles as armament does not invalidate the role they play respect to other ships, which in this example The CG-47 Ticonderoga-class guided missle cruiser was renamed as such only for political reasons. It started out as a destroyer, and still is.

I cite Sea Skimmer, who posted this in the last thread, which, like this one, you didn't read.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The Ticonderoga's aren't cruisers. They where designed and even originally designated as destroyers, the type was only changed for political reasons. In fact the USN hasn't built a real cruiser from the ground up since 1945, everything since then has been an escort.

PainRack wrote:Why argue over a "modern" combat role, when we all know GL real intentions? It was intended to be a hybrid between a battleship and a carrier, from the Star Wars databank.

GL's extrinisic intent does not change the official reality of Star Wars--it has no impact on Suspension of Disbelief.

Death Squadron and the Sector Group at Endor are rough analogues of modern carrier groups in several ways, and Vympel thinks they are roughly the equivalents of modern DDGs. That is why I think they're destroyers.

PainRack wrote:The reasons why you are being so anal over it being a "cruiser" or a "destroyer" is because you have this idea that a "cruiser" >>> "destroyer" in firepower, speed and mass. There is no proof that the SWU follows this desgination.

This is the same nomenclature bullshit pulled by people who insisted that "Super-class" was a correct term. Under SOD, the Basic in SW is translated for our benefit; ie., it is placed in all our equivalent terminology. Therefore, what's called a cruiser should be a cruiser, and so on and so forth. Making up a system where a destroyer doesn't equal what we know a destroyer does, and so on, creates a totally useless paradigm for explaining anything. It is totally useless.

If it is a cruiser, why don't you explain in detail why Ender, Vympel, and I are wrong, and where it, holistically, more plays the role of a cruiser.

PainRack wrote:Remember, prior to the Dreadnaught age, and indeed, the age of steel ships, a cruiser was smaller and less powerful than a destroyer.

Justify this analog. All I see is irrelevencies.

PainRack wrote:Furthermore, the fact that destroyer class vessels are now termed cruisers only make your debating even more pointless, which to my view seems to be based on the idea that "cruiser">>> "destroyer". Our technology has already allowed the partial merging of two seperate classes into one, what makes you think the Galactic Empire can't do that?

The whole point as illustrated by Sea Skimmer is CGs are still escorts, and still act as destroyers. The political re-terming doesn't mean anything, and doesn't tell you jack-shit about its role. That, is what we're trying to do. If you're saying that they can be "destroyers renamed as cruisers," firstly, prove that's so, and two, concede, because I don't really care about semantics, but the fact an ISD's role is that of a destroyer, not a cruiser.

The whole point is to avoid semantical BS like that USN example, and determine the actual role designation based on observation over meaningless bullshit like the renaming which doesn't tell you anything, and is not useful for prediction.

PainRack wrote:Also roles committed by a cruiser. Note the use of British battlecruisers to enforce the blockade of Imperial Germany, as well as the use of cruisers to pursue merchant raiders in the Atlantic.

Merchant raiders aren't the same thing as corvettes.

PainRack wrote:Also missions that can be done by a cruiser. Remember the British Imperial expeditionary mission to Egypt?

Which has what to do with the fact that the force at Hoth (as in the whole damn thing) more resembles a modern carrier task force, with the Executor as a supercarrier and the ISDs fullfilling the roles of modern destroyers. Can you paint a picture of how the Royal Navy's composition at Egypt is more appropriate an analogy than that and how me, Ender, and Vympel are wrong?

PainRack wrote:Also missions committed by cruisers. Remember Jutland and Admiral Beatty?

You're nitpicking. How do those roles explain the supercarrier Executor (though admittably the Executor is closer to Soviet aircraft carrying vessels than a Nimitz-class)? I'm talking in terms of the entire fleet, which behaves a lot like a modern carrier task force, rather than nitpicking just what the ISDs did and saying, well this can do that.

I want to know why overall, cruiser is a better designation.

PainRack wrote:Actually, destroyers have only taken on the role of ground bombardment in more recent times, and the idea of naval bombardment still lodges its mentality in the idea of cruisers and battleships. And not to forget, also missions committed by cruisers.

Sea Skimmer disagrees that any genuine cruisers exist in the USN anymore. And the DD(X) is equipped with her AGS to bombard surface targets in support.

Moreover, I never said a damn thing about orbital bombardment, and neither does DE. Red herring.

PainRack wrote:So? The role of a battleship is extremely specific, destroy enemy capital vessels. As a result, it possess heavy armour, concentration of firepower and fast speed. The ISD Mk I fulfills all the above obligations.

The ISD Mk. I also has marines for quick drops, small craft for support, and is often performs escort duties.

You're telling me that they have a dozen designs across two orders of magnitude of ISD masses to fullfill a single role?

Furthermore, the ISD Mk. I is never involved in capital ship combat until Endor. Engaging capital ships was accidental there and thereafter. The Rebels developing any kind of capital fleet was a more recent development, and they had so few.

Its precisely because the ISD is so multi-role it doesn't fullfill the purpose of a battleship.

Rather, her TIEs are for defense and support of some of her secondary mission objectives, analogous to helicopter support from destroyers (which is equivalent when you scale things up--scale up the Nimitz and you get Giel's fleet carrier), her guns are firstly for surface bombardment (heavier HTLs, and Ender calc-ed them as being stronger for orbital bombardment, IIRC), the ISD Mk. II has heavier guns and few ions, and she is often leading small picket or coast guard-type fleets against criminals and terrorists. As said before, Ender is familiar with this application of a destroyer. She is almost exclusively dedicated for escort whenever she's deployed with larger vessels.

PainRack wrote:I fail to see why this discussion has been so anal over the ISD being a cruiser or a destroyer, save that it gives warsies room to claim that there are larger, more numerable classes of vessels out there. Maybe there is. After all, if we were to claim that ISD were destroyers, a class that is mass produced, as opposed to cruisers and beyond which are not, it gives us room and space to argue for one-off ship classes possessing superior firepower.

Appeal to Motive. If you don't like the debate, don't step in. Ender and I gave ample examples of an ISD being a destroyer, and no one has really posted anything new about the cruiser shit that wasn't knocked down.

I am curious if you read the thread before demanding specific explanation of the last fucking sentence Ender typed.

PainRack wrote:However, all this ignores what the SWU views ISDs as. It is clear that the SWU views ISDs as either hybrid battleship/carrier(creator viewpoint) or they view ISDs as cruisers, the last defining stage between mass produced warships, and one off class warships like the Shockwave and etc etc.

That tells us nothing about their actual role, and those sources are extraordinarily inconsistent and self-contradictory about vessels and their actual roles versus their designations.

You say that the ISD is analogous to a terran destroyer
a, because it is called star destroyer
AND b, because its role appears to be close to the role of a guided missile destroyer (which is nearly indistinguishable from the role of a cruiser except the more emphasis on fleet escort/independent missions)

Questions:
1. The ISDs were labelled as destroyers in the late 70s. Did the type/classification of "guided missile destroyer" exist that time?
2. In ANH they acted alone. Do (gm) destroyers act alone? (I mean without a heavier ship.)
3. In the Death Squad they were escorts. Do carrier groups contain cruisers in escort duties (escorting the carrier) or only destroyers?
4. You say in the battle of Endor they were escorts. I disagree. Unless you say that the Ties (or the Executor, which before Clarissian's plan remained farther from the battlefield) were so dangereous the offensive power of the group was made up from the ISDs. Does the offensive power of a carrier group is made up from destroyers or the carried fighters?
5. I am not a naval expert, so excuse me for this. Isn't the "Ticonderoga" class renamed because it is over the border between cruisers and destroyers? (Maybe 7000 tons, but there are people with more knowledge about it here.)

vakundok wrote:(which is nearly indistinguishable from the role of a cruiser except the more emphasis on fleet escort/independent missions

The USN no longer has dedicated cruisers. The Ticonderoga-class CG is a escort, and a destroyer. It was renamed for political reasons as both Ender and Sea Skimmer have said so repetatively.

vakundok wrote:(1. The ISDs were labelled as destroyers in the late 70s. Did the type/classification of "guided missile destroyer" exist that time?

DDG-993 Kidd-class was commissioned in the late '70's.

vakundok wrote:2. In ANH they acted alone. Do (gm) destroyers act alone? (I mean without a heavier ship.)

Ender claims that destroyers can operate independently or in support of coast guard flotillas, and I must defer to his knowledge on that.

vakundok wrote:(3. In the Death Squad they were escorts. Do carrier groups contain cruisers in escort duties (escorting the carrier) or only destroyers?

Modern Ticonderoga-class CGs are destroyers, and were renamed only for political reasons. The original vessel was commissioned as a DDG. Again, I defer to Sea Skimmer--no true cruisers have been in service since the WWII era.

vakundok wrote:(4. You say in the battle of Endor they were escorts. I disagree. Unless you say that the Ties (or the Executor, which before Clarissian's plan remained farther from the battlefield) were so dangereous the offensive power of the group was made up from the ISDs. Does the offensive power of a carrier group is made up from destroyers or the carried fighters?

Modern destroyers can act in anti-vessel and anti-ground support, that is part of their role (Harpoon anti-ship missiles and Tomohawk surface-to-surface cruise missiles have been both deployed aboard modern destroyers). However, the destroyers at Endor did not act offensively--the Rebel liners-cum-cruisers attacked the carrier group.

vakundok wrote:5. I am not a naval expert, so excuse me for this. Isn't the "Ticonderoga" class renamed because it is over the border between cruisers and destroyers? (Maybe 7000 tons, but there are people with more knowledge about it here.)

Sea Skimmer and Ender both claim that the term of cruiser has lost value since World War II, and the Ticonderoga-class was renamed for political reasons and in role is still a destroyer (Sea Skimmer refers to her as an escort) despite her new designation.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

vakundok wrote:(1. The ISDs were labelled as destroyers in the late 70s. Did the type/classification of "guided missile destroyer" exist that time?

DDG-993 Kidd-class was commissioned in the late '70's.

Are you sure? All I found was that the sah originally wanted them to be completed by 1982, and that the Kidd was comissioned in jun. 27, 1981. Sorry for nitpicking but I think it is very important to see whether the meaning (the role) of the destroyer you use (actually the role of the guided missile destroyer) existed at the time when GL referenced the ISDs as Imperial Star Destroyers (likely in the (later) published script, jan. 1976). And BTW the Kidd class was referred as a cruiser- sized missile destroyer in my socialist- era resource (and it was somewhat lighter than the Ticonderoga class).

According to the USN, there are two differences between a cruiser (whether there is any real class of it or not is irrelevant to the definition of the category) and a (gm) destroyer:
1. The emphasis on independent missions.
2. Size
According to Ender the destroyers can act alone, so not even the first point can be used. That leaves only the size to judge. Does anyone know the official tonnage border beween cruisers and destroyers?

vakundok wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

vakundok wrote:(1. The ISDs were labelled as destroyers in the late 70s. Did the type/classification of "guided missile destroyer" exist that time?

DDG-993 Kidd-class was commissioned in the late '70's.

Are you sure? All I found was that the sah originally wanted them to be completed by 1982, and that the Kidd was comissioned in jun. 27, 1981. Sorry for nitpicking but I think it is very important to see whether the meaning (the role) of the destroyer you use (actually the role of the guided missile destroyer) existed at the time when GL referenced the ISDs as Imperial Star Destroyers (likely in the (later) published script, jan. 1976). And BTW the Kidd class was referred as a cruiser- sized missile destroyer in my socialist- era resource (and it was somewhat lighter than the Ticonderoga class).

I defer to Sea Skimmer about cruisers and politics in the USN.

The DDG-24 USS WADDELL - Launched February 26 1963 and commissioned August 28 1964.

Does anyone know the official tonnage border beween cruisers and destroyers?

This is why Ender and I believe the ISDs to be destroyers. There are more dedicated and much more massive heavy combatants which more appropriately represent the Empire's cruiser force and are dedicated to strategic fleets.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
The former is invalidated by the same source calling them cruisers. Not to mention, part of my theory is that the destroyers (as classed by the Imperial Navy's strategic forces like Death Squadron, Giel's armada, and the reserves at Byss) can be utilized to lead the tiny coast guard and picket fleets of local forces as a fast battleship or battlecruiser.

How is it invalidated by the same source? A battlewagon can similarly be a cruiser class ship. As for the second, if your argument requires that the "destroyers" can be upgraded in class, why then the anal discussion about "cruisers" and "destroyers", when we both know that their mission profiles overlap so much that it doesn't matter? Again, the class of the ship does not tell us its firepower equivalent in Star Wars. That has been made abunduntly clear in the EU designation of ships. It will be much easier to rationalise that the Empire uses our modern class rating for the roles a ship performs and an additional "ship of the line" rating for firepower,speed and armour.

The only reason why I see you insisting on the "destroyer" outlook is so that one can insist on another massive number of ships in the cruiser range when no evidence exists to suggest otherwise. We do know that a massive number of ships can be found in the Byss stragetic fleet that should fall between the "cruiser" range(if we go by the traditional tonnage classing Skimmer and Ender is using), but there isn't a single iota of proof that the SWU does not regard those ships as battleships, and the same goes to the ISD.

PainRack wrote:However, those vessels are termed cruisers by the US government. Also, you missed my point.

No they're not. DDG means "guided missile destroyer." It is an escort. The fact that they use missiles as armament does not invalidate the role they play respect to other ships, which in this example The CG-47 Ticonderoga-class guided missle cruiser was renamed as such only for political reasons. It started out as a destroyer, and still is.

I cite Sea Skimmer, who posted this in the last thread, which, like this one, you didn't read.

Sea Skimmer wrote:The Ticonderoga's aren't cruisers. They where designed and even originally designated as destroyers, the type was only changed for political reasons. In fact the USN hasn't built a real cruiser from the ground up since 1945, everything since then has been an escort.

And I have read the damn post. However, as I said, the US government terms them as cruisers too. So, its obvious that the tonnage classing you use cannot be used to classify SW ships.

GL's extrinisic intent does not change the official reality of Star Wars--it has no impact on Suspension of Disbelief.

Death Squadron and the Sector Group at Endor are rough analogues of modern carrier groups in several ways, and Vympel thinks they are roughly the equivalents of modern DDGs. That is why I think they're destroyers.

And cruisers also perform escort roles, even in the Age of the Battleship.

This is the same nomenclature bullshit pulled by people who insisted that "Super-class" was a correct term. Under SOD, the Basic in SW is translated for our benefit; ie., it is placed in all our equivalent terminology. Therefore, what's called a cruiser should be a cruiser, and so on and so forth. Making up a system where a destroyer doesn't equal what we know a destroyer does, and so on, creates a totally useless paradigm for explaining anything. It is totally useless.

If it is a cruiser, why don't you explain in detail why Ender, Vympel, and I are wrong, and where it, holistically, more plays the role of a cruiser.

Except that you yourself has noted that the cruiser term, follows our usuage in the Age of Sail, where a cruiser was merely a fast ship, remember? How then can you insist that while their "cruiser" follows the Age of Sail, whereas their "destroyer" follows modern terminology?

Unlike you, I'm not interested in predictability, but in exploring the SWU inerts. And it is clear that in the EU at least, the SWU does not treat ISDs in the same low regard we yield to destroyers in our modern navy.

The whole point as illustrated by Sea Skimmer is CGs are still escorts, and still act as destroyers. The political re-terming doesn't mean anything, and doesn't tell you jack-shit about its role. That, is what we're trying to do. If you're saying that they can be "destroyers renamed as cruisers," firstly, prove that's so, and two, concede, because I don't really care about semantics, but the fact an ISD's role is that of a destroyer, not a cruiser.

That's the whole damn point. The fact is, our technology has now merged to such an extent that destroyer class vessels can fulfill the missions traditionally filled by cruisers. A destroyer can now fulfill ground bombardment, anti-air support, anti-ship missions, escort, serve as the flotilla leader, etc etc etc. Going by mission roles is impossible, because the missions we saw the ISD pull

I'm forced to believe that the EU at least, does not treat ISD with the same low regard we yield to destroyers in our modern navy, but treat them with the esteem formerly regarded to cruisers.

Merchant raiders aren't the same thing as corvettes.

No, they're only of larger tonnage than corvettes and many of them are even better armed than the Flower class.

Which has what to do with the fact that the force at Hoth (as in the whole damn thing) more resembles a modern carrier task force, with the Executor as a supercarrier and the ISDs fullfilling the roles of modern destroyers. Can you paint a picture of how the Royal Navy's composition at Egypt is more appropriate an analogy than that and how me, Ender, and Vympel are wrong?

The Royal Navy transported various British Army units to Egypt and landed them on Egyptian soil. When indig forces rose up to fight against them, cruisers in the employ of the Royal Navy deployed onboard cannon on shore to assist in the defeat of the indig forces. Meanwhile, they similarly performed denial missions in the surronding waters, to prevent enemy supplies and reinforcements from getting in.
To compare this to Hoth, the ISD transported various Imperial forces to Egypt. While it did not deploy onboard weaponery and space vehicles to assist in the battle over Hoth, they performed denial missions to prevent Rebel transports from escaping the battlefield.

You're nitpicking. How do those roles explain the supercarrier Executor (though admittably the Executor is closer to Soviet aircraft carrying vessels than a Nimitz-class)? I'm talking in terms of the entire fleet, which behaves a lot like a modern carrier task force, rather than nitpicking just what the ISDs did and saying, well this can do that.

I want to know why overall, cruiser is a better designation.

Because the EU does not treat the ISD with the same lower end regards as we do to destroyers in our own time.

The ISD Mk. I also has marines for quick drops, small craft for support, and is often performs escort duties.

And Dreadnaughts also carried marines and equipment at Gallipoli and has escorted convoy ships inshore. Not to mention Battleships at Leyte Gulf carry marines as a security force, aircraft for spotters, small craft for support and escorted US carriers.

You're telling me that they have a dozen designs across two orders of magnitude of ISD masses to fullfill a single role?

Guess what? We seen this happen before. In the Age of Sail.

Furthermore, the ISD Mk. I is never involved in capital ship combat until Endor. Engaging capital ships was accidental there and thereafter. The Rebels developing any kind of capital fleet was a more recent development, and they had so few.

Do you know how few capital ship combat during WW1 and WW2? They can be counted using our hands and toes. That's certainly less than the number of escort missions they pulled on the Murmask convoys as well as escorting US carriers in the Pacific.

Rather, her TIEs are for defense and support of some of her secondary mission objectives, analogous to helicopter support from destroyers (which is equivalent when you scale things up--scale up the Nimitz and you get Giel's fleet carrier), her guns are firstly for surface bombardment (heavier HTLs, and Ender calc-ed them as being stronger for orbital bombardment, IIRC), the ISD Mk. II has heavier guns and few ions, and she is often leading small picket or coast guard-type fleets against criminals and terrorists. As said before, Ender is familiar with this application of a destroyer. She is almost exclusively dedicated for escort whenever she's deployed with larger vessels.

Are you aware that the Russian cruiser/carrier hybrid, by tonnage, actually belongs to the Battleship class?

That tells us nothing about their actual role, and those sources are extraordinarily inconsistent and self-contradictory about vessels and their actual roles versus their designations.

So, we choose to discard the entirety of said sources over your observations from canon material? And you call me a canon purist?

Here is my viewpoint on how the Empire rates its ships.


To begin, the various observations from the EU and canon.

1. The ISD has been termed a cruiser, battlewagon, battlecruiser in canon and EU.

2. There are any number of ships where the class name is misleading. Imperial Dreadnaught vs Star Destroyer, Loronar Strike Cruiser vs Dreadnaught.

3. The Empire ( if we choose not to discard any source at will) clearly does not have a fixed designation for the ISD, having termed it many names. This may be a result of Rebel influence on the material, where the ISD has been called anything from a destroyer to a battleship.

4. We do know that the SWU has a class barrier, seperating "warships" from "capital" ships. If Thrawn request for warships in Heir to the Empire is accurate, capital ships are anything more than ten thousand tons, which will indicate warships are of lesser value.



My model on the classification of Imperial ships follows.

The Republic and the Empire that follows, classify vessls based on its roles. As such, the Loronar Strike Cruiser, Escort Frigate, Dreadnaught, Correllian Corvette are named after their roles, even though their firepower and mass difference does not par with the equivalent modern classifications(which relies partially on tonnage).ISD is termed destroyer/cruiser/battleship, due to the excellent design specifications set by Kuat. The ISD, which was designed to replace the Victory class star destroyer, which had been described as being a mobile platform against capital ships, was given excellent speed, firepower and armour. This has allowed it to fulfill many mission roles and classes, as opposed to more limited vessels like the Correllian Gunship and Lancer Frigate. This will be analagous to the navy classifications of ships during the Age of sail, where multiple ship classes based on roles, speed and firepower was obtained.

Similarly, like the British Navy of the times, the Empire also established a seperate rating systems that will gauge ships based on characteristics that are unknown. It is likely that capital ships and warships are two seperate classes in this rating, and tonnage should play a role. The RN system was based on the number of guns a ship could carry, in this way, 3 mast, 4 mast and the like was used to term ships that could vary dramatically in their speed, armour and subsequently, role.

PainRack wrote:How is it invalidated by the same source? A battlewagon can similarly be a cruiser class ship.

No idiot. For one, a battlewagon is an outdated term for what could be called a battleship and isn't a legit. role-designation. Battleships are not cruisers. You may bitch and say "they share characteristics" like you have with cruisers/destroyers. Well obviously they're general terms, but we're trying to make something useful out of them, not try and shoe-horn and warp around them.

PainRack wrote:As for the second, if your argument requires that the "destroyers" can be upgraded in class, why then the anal discussion about "cruisers" and "destroyers", when we both know that their mission profiles overlap so much that it doesn't matter?

The only reason people think they're cruisers are because of useless quotes from the novelisation which are only consistent in terms of the Age of Sail and useless for explaining anything about role as we are interested.

Additionally, cruisers are more dedicated vessels than destroyers, more focused toward working in concert as a group to offensively engage other warships. This is not consistent with the pre-Endor role of the ISD. Furthermore, as said over and over, the USN doesn't have real cruisers anymore, so that point is irrelevent to your argument.

And indeed, if it is semantic nitpicking and being anal, why do care and insist on it "not being a destroyer"? How about alternatives.

PainRack wrote:Again, the class of the ship does not tell us its firepower equivalent in Star Wars. That has been made abunduntly clear in the EU designation of ships. It will be much easier to rationalise that the Empire uses our modern class rating for the roles a ship performs and an additional "ship of the line" rating for firepower,speed and armour.

That makes no sense.

The EU system just doesn't work, with cruisers which do not behave as cruisers, and frigates which don't behave well as frigates. Why not directly compare their behavior and roles in regard to one another, then work on rationalizing the BS. As Ender mentioned, tonnage is relevent to role-designation, and your handwavium just doesn't change that.

PainRack wrote:The only reason why I see you insisting on the "destroyer" outlook is so that one can insist on another massive number of ships in the cruiser range when no evidence exists to suggest otherwise.

There are thousands of multi-mile vessels in orbit around Byss minimum. More likely tens of thousands.

But I don't need to answer to your Appeals to Motive. Back up your shit, asshole.

PainRack wrote:We do know that a massive number of ships can be found in the Byss stragetic fleet that should fall between the "cruiser" range(if we go by the traditional tonnage classing Skimmer and Ender is using), but there isn't a single iota of proof that the SWU does not regard those ships as battleships, and the same goes to the ISD.

Appeal to Authority. Is primary source observation suddenly lost on you? The in-universe EU sources can use whatever crack-addled system they want. I'm interested in using relevent and useful role-designation systems to paint a picture and make predictions regarding the Imperial warfleet.

And idiot, the word isn't "proof that is doesn't" but proof that it does. And the EU sources can say whatever they want: if they're inconsistent with the actual role, they're irrelevent.

PainRack wrote:And I have read the damn post. However, as I said, the US government terms them as cruisers too.

Then apparently you didn't comprehend it.

The Ticonderoga DDG was re-classed as a CG. DDGs as a class are not cruisers.

PainRack wrote:So, its obvious that the tonnage classing you use cannot be used to classify SW ships.

Strawman distortion. Ender has said that role-designation has to do with tonnage, and I'm inclined to believe him. Nothing with Sea Skimmer had to do with that. He simply stated the DDG was a destroyer and an escort and no real "cruisers" are in service since World War II.

Why don't you attack the point, and show how this is wrong.

The EU can make up classes where there are no destroyers and frigates outmass some cruisers, and cruisers aren't performing the role of cruisers. Whatever system that is runned by, I don't care.

I'm interested in the actual role and types as compared to the other ships in space combat, and how they relate, so we can make RL analogies and make some predictions.

Your "theory" is fluff and has no real predictive or explanatory qualities whatsoever.

PainRack wrote:And cruisers also perform escort roles, even in the Age of the Battleship.

Prove how that senario is better described by the Age of Battleship. Ender and Vympel, a sailor and a very knowledgeable military buff both agree with me otherwise.

A better question is, how does cruiser apply better to the ISD than to other ships? And again, if this is so anal, why do you insist the ISD is a cruiser?

PainRack wrote:Except that you yourself has noted that the cruiser term, follows our usuage in the Age of Sail, where a cruiser was merely a fast ship, remember? How then can you insist that while their "cruiser" follows the Age of Sail, whereas their "destroyer" follows modern terminology?

Because the Age of Sail is not analogous to SW fleet combat. It cannot explain anything about SW combat adequately. And quite frankly, the Age of Sail addresses the functions that vessels serve in a general sense, as in strategically.

It is being used as a colloquialism. I could alternatively just say they're mangling their vocabulary, and are just plain wrong. For Christ's sake, the Naboo Royal Yacht and the diplomatic courier aren't even armed.

PainRack wrote:Unlike you, I'm not interested in predictability, but in exploring the SWU inerts. And it is clear that in the EU at least, the SWU does not treat ISDs in the same low regard we yield to destroyers in our modern navy.

That's because ISDs don't do anything but patrol local space and put down terrorists and pirates. There's nothing equal to compare them against, so yeah they're impressive...they're the largest thing the average smuggler is ever going to face. Does that tell us shit about their role? Their quantity? Their function?

The only time the strategic forces come along is when worlds secede or when a local Moff gets too uppity. Goroth: Slave of the Empire confirms this.

But you're only interested in subjective bullshit like "regard" and nitpicking the single use of a word in sources despite the fact it is either not treated as a real role-designation, or isn't consistent with your theory!

You offer no consistent, predictive alternative, and are just there to say "well, there's some irregularities..." Well no fuck Sherlock! We are comparing relativistic mile-long spaceships to floating boats in the modern day! But its better to have some predictive ability and to develop somesort of paradigm. If you're just going to say "fuckit" and offer no constructive addition, then just concede and get this over with.

PainRack wrote: hat's the whole damn point. The fact is, our technology has now merged to such an extent that destroyer class vessels can fulfill the missions traditionally filled by cruisers. A destroyer can now fulfill ground bombardment, anti-air support, anti-ship missions, escort, serve as the flotilla leader, etc etc etc.

Quote mangling. You're just bullshitting now. Sea Skimmer says there haven't been real cruisers since the Second World War. Refute that assertion. The DDG IS an escort. It IS a destroyer.

PainRack wrote:Going by mission roles is impossible, because the missions we saw the ISD pull

Bullshit. No examples. I've provided situations, you nitpick them with "well, another ship could fullfill said role" without addressing the actual claim by either myself, Ender, Sea Skimmer, or Vympel.

Sure Thrawn used them as such, I won't deny that. But DESB says that he relied on tiny ships like Dreadnoughts because the real fleet resources were taken away by Palpatine after Endor.

PainRack wrote:I'm forced to believe that the EU at least, does not treat ISD with the same low regard we yield to destroyers in our modern navy, but treat them with the esteem formerly regarded to cruisers.

"Regard" and "esteem." Please, tell me what makes it no possible for destroyers to be found formidable. Our destroyers patrolling off the coasts of Third World nations are certainly formidable. What do you think the equivalent of several ISDs running about on Tattooine is? The ISD is the movies' smallest Imperial vessel. This is a subjective critique.

PainRack wrote:No, they're only of larger tonnage than corvettes and many of them are even better armed than the Flower class.

I'm going to use PainRack nitpicking tactics: one of the ISD's major roles is chasing down small gunships and freighters and corvettes. It is clearly more analogous to a modern gunboat or patrol ship than a destroyer.

PainRack wrote:The Royal Navy transported various British Army units to Egypt and landed them on Egyptian soil. When indig forces rose up to fight against them, cruisers in the employ of the Royal Navy deployed onboard cannon on shore to assist in the defeat of the indig forces. Meanwhile, they similarly performed denial missions in the surronding waters, to prevent enemy supplies and reinforcements from getting in.
To compare this to Hoth, the ISD transported various Imperial forces to Egypt. While it did not deploy onboard weaponery and space vehicles to assist in the battle over Hoth, they performed denial missions to prevent Rebel transports from escaping the battlefield.

....The Napoleonic Wars are not a superior analogy to SW combat to modern carrier task forces. Ender, and Vympel agree with me. Wow, one U.S. sailors and a military buff with encyclopedeaic knowledge and I'm going to listen to the guy who admits he isn't interested in coming up with an alternative, useful theory? Furthermore, the has precisely dick to do with your modern cruiser assertion, which you have yet to support in detail.

PainRack wrote:Because the EU does not treat the ISD with the same lower end regards as we do to destroyers in our own time.

Subjective bullshit. "They don't treat it small enough." Concession Accepted.

PainRack wrote:And Dreadnaughts also carried marines and equipment at Gallipoli and has escorted convoy ships inshore.

Overall analogy how WWI better explains SW combat groups? Examples?

PainRack wrote:Not to mention Battleships at Leyte Gulf carry marines as a security force, aircraft for spotters, small craft for support and escorted US carriers.

ISDs don't use aircraft as "spotters," and Giel's flagship is a better analog to the Iowa-class battleship than the ISD. In fact, it is nearly perfect for your analog.

PainRack wrote:Guess what? We seen this happen before. In the Age of Sail.

The Age of Sail is bullshit for usefully describing the roles of SW vessels.

And please name two ships-of-the-line produced and sailed by the same navy simultaneously where one was a hundred times the mass of the other.

PainRack wrote:Do you know how few capital ship combat during WW1 and WW2? They can be counted using our hands and toes. That's certainly less than the number of escort missions they pulled on the Murmask convoys as well as escorting US carriers in the Pacific.

Doesn't matter. Battleships are built for smashing other heavy capital ships with heavy guns and laying withering surface bombardments. That is their purpose. Giel's battleship is exactly this. And we've see large vessels escort important cargoes such as the Arc Hammer and the Executor. The DDG (and DD(X) ) is a better analog for the ISD.

Ships-of-the-line (since you insist in being a moron and comparing SW to the Age of Sail in a literal role-designation analogy) are for the same. ISDs are more analogous to USN superfrigates.

PainRack wrote:Are you aware that the Russian cruiser/carrier hybrid, by tonnage, actually belongs to the Battleship class?

Which is why I used Admiral Kuznetsov-class as one of the better Executor analogs. Its almost entirely dedicated as a supercarrier in support of ground operations in the blockade-to-ground-assault phase of the Battle of Hoth. Vympel both agreed with this general assessment and that of the Executor being the center of the SW equivalent of a modern carrier task force, with ISDs being DDGs, as did Publius.

PainRack wrote:So, we choose to discard the entirety of said sources over your observations from canon material? And you call me a canon purist?

We discard terms which are useless for telling us anything. "Duranium" is canon in ST. Does that explain to us anything? No, Mike disregarded and assumed they renamed uranium because anything else would be moronic.

Cruiser in canon refers to the Corvette, "Republic Cruiser," Nebulon-B Escort Frigate, ISDs, MC80s, Home One, and the Naboo Royal Starship. Is the term cruiser in the canon describe role consistently, accurately, or usefully? Is it even a designation for role in the terms you're arguing at all? Justify this.

PainRack wrote:*snip*

Your theory describes nothing that isn't obvious without making up analogies to the Age of Sail which are poor-to-irrelevent for role designations and types, and has zero predictive or useful ability. Mostly, no examples are still given, and appeals to EU fluff over observed utilization. I'm looking at a consistent, useful theory which looks at the big picture. This fails on almost every count.

EDIT: At Publius' request.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
The only reason people think they're cruisers are because of useless quotes from the novelisation which are only consistent in terms of the Age of Sail and useless for explaining anything about role as we are interested.

Except that we do know that the roles of a cruiser and destroyer can overlap to such an extent that it becomes extremely diffcult to seperate the two, especially in the context of the Imperial Navy which possess vessels which are more immensely powerful than any other notable opposition. So using, first hand observations, and extending that to all other Imperial vessels is a tedious effort and can become extremely subjective when comparing vessels like the Strike Cruiser vs the Republic Cruiser.

Additionally, cruisers are more dedicated vessels than destroyers, more focused toward working in concert as a group to offensively engage other warships. This is not consistent with the pre-Endor role of the ISD. Furthermore, as said over and over, the USN doesn't have real cruisers anymore, so that point is irrelevent to your argument.

And? Pre Endor, we saw ISD engage and destroy a "blockade runner", a corvette which was carrying the plans for the Death Star. Is this any different from RN cruisers engaging merchant raiders?

We saw a group of ISD enforcing a blockade of Tatooine. Again, is this any different from RN and USN cruisers in WW2?

In TESB, we saw ISD blockade a planet and transport forces down to battle. Is this no different from the Imperial expeditionary mission to Egypt?

We also saw 5 ISD serving as an inner screen and escorting the flagship Executor. Is this no different from Jutland, where RN cruisers served as close escorts to the Battleships?

In TESB and ANH, we also saw that the ISD also serves as a flagship or a VIP transport. While small navies have allocated destroyers to carrying VIPs before, the RN and USN traditionally assigned cruisers, battleships and in the modern era, carriers for VIP transport and it is extremely uncommon for a destroyer to serve as a flagship.

Again, relying on first hand observations to determine "class" of ship is worthless when the mission roles can overlap to such an extent.

That makes no sense.

The EU system just doesn't work, with cruisers which do not behave as cruisers, and frigates which don't behave well as frigates. Why not directly compare their behavior and roles in regard to one another, then work on rationalizing the BS. As Ender mentioned, tonnage is relevent to role-designation, and your handwavium just doesn't change that.

It works, if the ship class describe only its role, as opposed to our modern system where a class of ship is automatically assumed to have superior firepower/speed/armour than a lower class. A Dreadnaught is a dreadnaught as it focuses firepower on several turrets only with heavier firepower than on similar vessels.

And while tonnage is relevent to role designation, it can be ignored . Again, the Russian cruiser/carrier hybrid tonnage weights in the battleship class, same goes for the Russian missile cruiser(Kirov IIRC).

Appeal to Authority. Is primary source observation suddenly lost on you? The in-universe EU sources can use whatever crack-addled system they want. I'm interested in using relevent and useful role-designation systems to paint a picture and make predictions regarding the Imperial warfleet.

You still have to address why the EU builds task forces around the ISD as its centrepiece, if its only a "mere" destroyer. This has been the case up to the NJO still. The only possible rationalisation would be to either bump up the ISD into a heavy cruiser, battleship class, which both of us agree is stupid because of the presence of larger ships of orders of magnitude, or to use the model I advocate, where there is a seperate classification of ships based on fighting prowress as opposed to roles.

Again, our modern classification system automatically assumes that vessels of a given role will have superior fighting prowress over vessels of another role. The merging of technology nowadays has rendered that assumption worthless.

A missile corvette can possess the same fighting prowress as a destroyer, even though its outmatched in ammunition capability, sea capability, armour and speed.

Then apparently you didn't comprehend it.

The Ticonderoga DDG was re-classed as a CG. DDGs as a class are not cruisers.

Except that the USN has reclassed them as cruisers. God damn it, you wish to insist that tonnage is the end all of class classifications. Yet, a LST is not defined by tonnage but by role.

Strawman distortion. Ender has said that role-designation has to do with tonnage, and I'm inclined to believe him. Nothing with Sea Skimmer had to do with that. He simply stated the DDG was a destroyer and an escort and no real "cruisers" are in service since World War II.

Except you sending the argument out to left-field. Again, why must tonnage be the end all of class classification? A battleship and a carrier are not classed by tonnage, but by its role. And in our relevent context, it has become impossible to differentiate the roles of cruisers or destroyers from first hand observations of the ISD missions.

I'm interested in the actual role and types as compared to the other ships in space combat, and how they relate, so we can make RL analogies and make some predictions.

Your "theory" is fluff and has no real predictive or explanatory qualities whatsoever.

On the contary, my "theory" discards the unproven assumption that a vessel of a certain role (cruiser vs destroyer) automatically possess more firepower than the other, and instead, place emphasis on the tonnage and size of the ship.

Again, I did not say that tonnage is not a factor in classification of the ships. I merely believe that tonnage is not a factor in the role of the ship, as seen by the SWU. So, a frigate can outmass a destroyer in the SWU system, but that frigate can also have more firepower than the destroyer if the frigate is a "capital" ship as opposed to the "destroyer" warship.

For a more illustrative example, the Alliance Assault Frigate possess more firepower than the Guardian class cruiser, which is used for customs purpose. Under my model, which does not involve discarding the classification systems used by the EU, this disparity as opposed to modern classification is resolved by simply noting that the "Frigate" and "Cruiser" merely refers to the role played by the ship, but the fighting prowress of the ship is determined by an alternate classification system. And indeed, since we do know that the Assault Frigate has been termed a capital ship, that will indicate where the disparity comes in.

A better question is, how does cruiser apply better to the ISD than to other ships? And again, if this is so anal, why do you insist the ISD is a cruiser?

Because the canon novelisation, refers to them as a cruiser. Because the EU holds the ISD in much higher regard than should be accorded a mere destroyer. And using my system, which classes ships by two systems of "roles" and "fighting capability", the disparity is amply resolved. Indeed, for all purposes, the ISD can also be a "destroyer", cause that is its role.

Understand that I'm not opposing you because I believe that the ISD is a "cruiser", not a "destroyer". I'm opposing you because I believe your classification systems, which automatically includes the premise that "destroyer" <<< "Cruiser" is a fallacy.

Because the Age of Sail is not analogous to SW fleet combat. It cannot explain anything about SW combat adequately. And quite frankly, the Age of Sail addresses the functions that vessels serve in a general sense, as in strategically.

How are they not analogous to SW fleet combat, considering that various terms like crossing the T and so on, used to describe Alliance and Imperial Fleet tactics arise from that era?

That's because ISDs don't do anything but patrol local space and put down terrorists and pirates. There's nothing equal to compare them against, so yeah they're impressive...they're the largest thing the average smuggler is ever going to face. Does that tell us shit about their role? Their quantity? Their function?

The only time the strategic forces come along is when worlds secede or when a local Moff gets too uppity. Goroth: Slave of the Empire confirms this (thanks Publius).

But you're only interested in subjective bullshit like "regard" and nitpicking the single use of a word in sources despite the fact it is either not treated as a real role-designation, or isn't consistent with your theory!

Except that this has continued all the way into the NJO. May I remind you that the quotes referring to the large fleets hidden in the Core was "multi-kilometer battleships" and not "multi-kilometer" cruisers and battleships?

You offer no consistent, predictive alternative, and are just there to say "well, there's some irregularities..." Well no fuck Sherlock! We are comparing relativistic mile-long spaceships to floating boats in the modern day! But its better to have some predictive ability and to develop somesort of paradigm. If you're just going to say "fuckit" and offer no constructive addition, then just concede and get this over with.

Except that I shown your system has no predictiability, UNLESS you discard the entire classification system seen and shown by the EU.

If your argument is that the dual type system of classification seen in the age of Sail, where ships were classed by roles and a seperate classification based on fighting prowress is obselete and cannot generate predictions, then let me answer that question.

The larger that ship, the more powerful it is. So, if a 1.6 kilometer "Destroyer" meets a 400 meter "cruiser", the "destroyer" will win.

Quote mangling. You're just bullshitting now. Sea Skimmer says there haven't been real cruisers since the Second World War. Refute that assertion. The DDG IS an escort. It IS a destroyer.

Except that the USN has discarded the importance of tonnage in its classification and reclassify the Ticonderga ships into cruisers as opposed to destroyers.

Bullshit. No examples. I've provided situations, you nitpick them with "well, another ship could fullfill said role" without addressing the actual claim by either myself, Ender, Sea Skimmer, or Vympel.

Sure Thrawn used them as such, I won't deny that. But DESB says that he relied on tiny ships like Dreadnoughts because the real fleet resources were taken away by Palpatine after Endor.

And the actual claim is based on the evidence that a whole range of ships larger than the ISD exist, so, the ISD cannot be a cruiser but be a destroyer.

But we see in RL than tonnage is not the end all in the classification of a ship.

"Regard" and "esteem." Please, tell me what makes it no possible for destroyers to be found formidable. Our destroyers patrolling off the coasts of Third World nations are certainly formidable. What do you think the equivalent of several ISDs running about on Tattooine is? The ISD is the movies' smallest Imperial vessel. This is a subjective critique.

Do you see the USN designating VIPs to a destroyer? Hell, considering the range of ships seen in Byss, do you see the USN assigning the Vice President to what will be a frigate? Cause we saw the Empire assign his right hand man to that.

I'm going to use PainRack nitpicking tactics: one of the ISD's major roles is chasing down small gunships and freighters and corvettes. It is clearly more analogous to a modern gunboat or patrol ship than a destroyer.

Really? To me, I saw your objections as nitpicking and sweating the small stuff too, as opposed to working on the larger question of

"Why is tonnage the end all in role classification when we saw by the USN example that this doesn't matter? And that an alternative system, seen in the Age of Sail also show this doesn't matter and working within the limits of known classification in SW, actually works?"

Again, must I answer your small scale tactics on
"ISD= destroyer due to mission roles?"
Or do we move on to the alternate question, that "tonnage is the end all in classification of a ship type?"


Again, unless you wish to discard the entirity of the EU classification systems and extrapolate every single SW ship based on first hand observations of its type, I see no purpose in sticking to your assumption that the tonnage of the ship defines the type. And I also do not see it as illuminating the inerts of the SWU.

PainRack wrote:*snip handwavium and ad nauseum bullshit* So using, first hand observations, and extending that to all other Imperial vessels is a tedious effort and can become extremely subjective when comparing vessels like the Strike Cruiser vs the Republic Cruiser.

Which is why you compare a single military-complex's ships versus the ships in service at that time, and how they behave compared to one another.

The Russian's aircraft carrier has nearly half the displacement of the Nimitz-class, does that make it -not- an aircraft carrier? Of course not.

Apples and oranges.

PainRack wrote:And? Pre Endor, we saw ISD engage and destroy a "blockade runner", a corvette which was carrying the plans for the Death Star. Is this any different from RN cruisers engaging merchant raiders?

Alright, then how do you explain the force at Hoth in terms of the RN in the Atlantic theatre during WWII? Nitpickery.

PainRack wrote:We saw a group of ISD enforcing a blockade of Tatooine. Again, is this any different from RN and USN cruisers in WW2?

Still waiting. And you admit that cruisers and destroyers are very close. How is your replies any better?

PainRack wrote:In TESB, we saw ISD blockade a planet and transport forces down to battle. Is this no different from the Imperial expeditionary mission to Egypt?

Except they didn't do so. The ISDs escorted a supercarrier which supported basically elite forces being dropped in to capture terrorist leaders. The ISDs supported the Executor, but didn't land forces themselves.

PainRack wrote:We also saw 5 ISD serving as an inner screen and escorting the flagship Executor. Is this no different from Jutland, where RN cruisers served as close escorts to the Battleships?

The Executor is not a battleship.

PainRack wrote:In TESB and ANH, we also saw that the ISD also serves as a flagship or a VIP transport.

The ISD never flies a flag in the canon movies. Ever.

And Ender disagrees that a destroyer can't lead forces. In fact he named an instance of a DDG leading a force of smaller ships and coast guard vessels (highly analogous to the small, not heavy combat-dedicated, police-role WEG ships tied to Sector command).

PainRack wrote:While small navies have allocated destroyers to carrying VIPs before, the RN and USN traditionally assigned cruisers, battleships and in the modern era, carriers for VIP transport and it is extremely uncommon for a destroyer to serve as a flagship.

Ender says otherwise. The ISD is much, much faster than most other vessels. Based on her role and agility, she is best suited for the mission at hand. Utility over ceremonial preference.

And naturally, when Vader becomes Supreme Commander, he has a brand new leviathan for a flagship. You also ignore that under different mission parameters, Vader goes about in a multi-mile battlecruiser in Marvel before the commissioning of the Executor.

PainRack wrote:Again, relying on first hand observations to determine "class" of ship is worthless when the mission roles can overlap to such an extent.

False dilemma fallacy. Do you know nothing about the blurring of "heavy cruiser, armored cruiser, and battlecruiser" IRL? What about some destroyers and cruisers...oh wait you mentioned that. If this isn't a problem for RL classification, why can't we make observations ourselves. You're essentially saying, "I don't like it, and it isn't perfect, so fuck it."

Send me a copy of that Logic Handbook you're using, ok?

PainRack wrote:It works, if the ship class describe only its role, as opposed to our modern system where a class of ship is automatically assumed to have superior firepower/speed/armour than a lower class. A Dreadnaught is a dreadnaught as it focuses firepower on several turrets only with heavier firepower than on similar vessels.

No it doesn't moron. Not only did you totally ignore my examples, but you show none of your own, and continue to ignore things which say you're in error. TTSB says anything over 300 meters is a cruiser. Does that tell us anything? Does that describe role? Hell, wait a second, it is an arbitrary claim based solely on tonnage, mostly.

The Assault Frigate is greater than 300 meters, and is a rebuild of the Dreadnought. Its a more powerful warship.

Again, if we know certain general characteristics and RL analogies, why can't we try to classify ships? You offer no compelling reasons why this should be outright thrown out, and you ignore examples, both stated and unstated, while providing none of your own.

PainRack wrote:And while tonnage is relevent to role designation, it can be ignored . Again, the Russian cruiser/carrier hybrid tonnage weights in the battleship class, same goes for the Russian missile cruiser(Kirov IIRC).

Proof--what "battleship" class? The Russians? I've shown already its vastly outmassed by our own Nimitz. Apples and Oranges.

Although convienently this supports my point, since the hybrid is one of the better candidates for a specific analog to the Executor.

PainRack wrote:You still have to address why the EU builds task forces around the ISD as its centrepiece, if its only a "mere" destroyer.

Because they're planetary navy-scale ships and the equivalent of coast guard and local defense forces.

PainRack wrote:This has been the case up to the NJO still.

The Imperial Remnant and the New Republic provide precisely dick information about the ISD's role-designation in the Galactic Empire at her height.

Moreover, the ISD is an escort for heavier and more effective "SDs" and Mon Cals, including the massive Mediator-class and Viscount-class.

PainRack wrote:The only possible rationalisation would be to either bump up the ISD into a heavy cruiser, battleship class, which both of us agree is stupid because of the presence of larger ships of orders of magnitude, or to use the model I advocate, where there is a seperate classification of ships based on fighting prowress as opposed to roles.

Which you haven't detailed, and I don't see why this works.

PainRack wrote:Again, our modern classification system automatically assumes that vessels of a given role will have superior fighting prowress over vessels of another role. The merging of technology nowadays has rendered that assumption worthless.

USN and her sailors disagree. What does this have to do with the fact a CVN is NOT a DDG which is NOT a FF?

PainRack wrote:A missile corvette can possess the same fighting prowress as a destroyer, even though its outmatched in ammunition capability, sea capability, armour and speed.

Which is why the primary point is role. Tonnage is simply one of many factors.

PainRack wrote:Except that the USN has reclassed them as cruisers. God damn it, you wish to insist that tonnage is the end all of class classifications. Yet, a LST is not defined by tonnage but by role.

What the fuck? False dilemma fallacy and lying. I use tonnage as a factor, like current classification systems, and I don't see what compelling reason there is for this to be ignored.

Nevermind the fact I give multiple examples, you nitpick from wherever in military history suits you to refute, and then don't even do so in detail--most of my examples are still superior. You only superficially mind the point, and do not offer a consistent alternate view.

PainRack wrote:Except you sending the argument out to left-field. Again, why must tonnage be the end all of class classification? A battleship and a carrier are not classed by tonnage, but by its role. And in our relevent context, it has become impossible to differentiate the roles of cruisers or destroyers from first hand observations of the ISD missions.

As said before, it is analogous to modern DDGs in carrier task forces under role.

You're using false dilemma. Because Ender and I consider and do not throw out tonnage, you act like it must be the "end all" of classification. You essentially admit you don't intend to consider tonnage at all, and outright want to discard it entirely.

PainRack wrote:On the contary, my "theory" discards the unproven assumption that a vessel of a certain role (cruiser vs destroyer) automatically possess more firepower than the other, and instead, place emphasis on the tonnage and size of the ship.

Naval tradition and nomenclature, dumb-ass.

PainRack wrote:Again, I did not say that tonnage is not a factor in classification of the ships. I merely believe that tonnage is not a factor in the role of the ship, as seen by the SWU. So, a frigate can outmass a destroyer in the SWU system, but that frigate can also have more firepower than the destroyer if the frigate is a "capital" ship as opposed to the "destroyer" warship.

ISB defines capital ships as anything over 100 meters. TTSB defines cruisers as anything over 300 meters. I've shown the problems, you ignore them and fabricate dual systems which don't tell us anything. Quite frankly I've shown multiple times that most of the EU terminology is wrong. I'm all for accepting it when it is congruent with observation from primary sources (like the Victory II destroyer bit out of NEGtVV).

PainRack wrote:For a more illustrative example, the Alliance Assault Frigate possess more firepower than the Guardian class cruiser, which is used for customs purpose. Under my model, which does not involve discarding the classification systems used by the EU, this disparity as opposed to modern classification is resolved by simply noting that the "Frigate" and "Cruiser" merely refers to the role played by the ship, but the fighting prowress of the ship is determined by an alternate classification system. And indeed, since we do know that the Assault Frigate has been termed a capital ship, that will indicate where the disparity comes in.

Golden Mean fallacy; fabrication. The EU system is not self-consistent, nor does it accurately depict roles and classification as seen in primary sources.

And besides, I already suggested that under the federalized system of the Empire, local Moff Governor's Starfleets may classify the heavier vessels of the strategic fleets in terms of local planetary-defense scale fleets, and term the VSD a battlecruiser, and a ISD a multidude of roles, but both were designed and classed by the central Navy as destroyers. This is seen in canon.

But that's hardly necessary. Ender cited situations with DDGs analogous to sectorial utilization of ISDs.

PainRack wrote:Because the canon novelisation, refers to them as a cruiser.

The same level of canon holds the same of the Royal Starship, the Nebulon-B, the "Republic Cruiser," Mon Cal cruisers, and Star Destroyers.

Why do you get to pick and choose what is "accurately" desired? It is clear they don't intend a cruiser if they cannot consistently use the term.

PainRack wrote:Because the EU holds the ISD in much higher regard than should be accorded a mere destroyer.

Chasing pirates and terrorists around leading tiny vessels which aren't even heavy combat-dedicated? Escorting carriers, battleships?

And your earlier incorrect statements were dealt with.

PainRack wrote:And using my system, which classes ships by two systems of "roles" and "fighting capability", the disparity is amply resolved. Indeed, for all purposes, the ISD can also be a "destroyer", cause that is its role.

Concession Accepted. I don't know what "fighting capability" is supposed to mean, given that there are tens of thousands of heavy combat-dedicated warships which vastly outperform the ISD.

PainRack wrote:I'm opposing you because I believe your classification systems, which automatically includes the premise that "destroyer" <<< "Cruiser" is a fallacy.

Which was shown to be pointless! Sea Skimmer says that there are no true post WW2-era cruisers. The theory basically is that ISDs are roughly equivalent in role to DDGs. That has precisely nothing to do with cruisers!

PainRack wrote:How are they not analogous to SW fleet combat, considering that various terms like crossing the T and so on, used to describe Alliance and Imperial Fleet tactics arise from that era?

Because the terms of carrier, and various tactics are totally ignored by the Age of Sail; they're vastly deficient. Under the Age of Sail the ISD is more like a superfrigate of the post-Revolutionary period, and the Executor and her "strategic fleet" sisters the ships-of-the-line.

PainRack wrote:Except that this has continued all the way into the NJO. May I remind you that the quotes referring to the large fleets hidden in the Core was "multi-kilometer battleships" and not "multi-kilometer" cruisers and battleships?

Except several of the vessels never perform duties outside of escorting and supporting heavier vessels in combat.

Except that Marvel refers to battlecruisers, and not inconsistently--they do so solely in reference to these multi-mile leviathans. Battlecruisers, armored cruisers, and heavy cruisers are all more-or-less synoymous by late WW2, which is the last good comparison for cruisers since the USN abandons the true cruiser thereafter.

You admit that there are intermediate classes between the supercarriers, commandships, and battleships, and the ISD, which you admit in role is a destroyer...and none can be cruisers? We've had the battlecruiser cited as being in that intermediate zone.

PainRack wrote:Except that I shown your system has no predictiability, UNLESS you discard the entire classification system seen and shown by the EU.

The WEG system is garbage. It is not consistent, and their claims of class-designation should be evalutated on a case-by-case basis with primary source analysis.

PainRack wrote:If your argument is that the dual type system of classification seen in the age of Sail, where ships were classed by roles and a seperate classification based on fighting prowress is obselete and cannot generate predictions, then let me answer that question.

Ok, explain the Giel's fleet carrier, the Executor, the Allegiance, the Marvel battlecruiser and the Eclipse in terms of the Age of Sail, being more specific and useful than my paradigm above.

PainRack wrote:The larger that ship, the more powerful it is. So, if a 1.6 kilometer "Destroyer" meets a 400 meter "cruiser", the "destroyer" will win.

The only way to preserve "400 meter cruisers" is that they were designated as such by the local and sectorial defense navies of the Old Republic and early Empire, and those designations stuck for convienence. The ISD is a galaxy-wide, long-range, dedicated-combat vessel. It can easily be explained as classified in terms of the strategic fleets.

PainRack wrote:Except that the USN has discarded the importance of tonnage in its classification and reclassify the Ticonderga ships into cruisers as opposed to destroyers.

Bullshit. Sea Skimmer and Ender both say it is political. Show some proof for once.

PainRack wrote:And the actual claim is based on the evidence that a whole range of ships larger than the ISD exist, so, the ISD cannot be a cruiser but be a destroyer.

But we see in RL than tonnage is not the end all in the classification of a ship.

Dealt with.

PainRack wrote:Do you see the USN designating VIPs to a destroyer? Hell, considering the range of ships seen in Byss, do you see the USN assigning the Vice President to what will be a frigate? Cause we saw the Empire assign his right hand man to that.

Ars Dangor or Sate Pestage is the equivalent of VPOTUS. Vader needed to get out there quickly and efficiently, and be able to chase down anything that got away with those plans, and return to the Death Star quickly. The ISD was perfectly suited for what he wanted to do.

He was made Supreme Commander before TESB. He henceforth has multi-mile battlecruisers and then the Executor, as you'd expect. He had no official government role before then, I believe, just a stooge sent on errends.

PainRack wrote:*snip bullshit*

More handwavium and distortions.

PainRack wrote:Again, unless you wish to discard the entirity of the EU classification systems and extrapolate every single SW ship based on first hand observations of its type, I see no purpose in sticking to your assumption that the tonnage of the ship defines the type. And I also do not see it as illuminating the inerts of the SWU.

And can you please explain how going to the primary source materials regarding said vessels and applying definitions and simple analogies for these terms is inherently wrong, especially why I justified why I did what I did?

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Which is why you compare a single military-complex's ships versus the ships in service at that time, and how they behave compared to one another.

The Russian's aircraft carrier has nearly half the displacement of the Nimitz-class, does that make it -not- an aircraft carrier? Of course not.

Apples and oranges.

Yes, we compare roles, however, the clincher between you deciding it was a destroyer vs a cruiser was the vast jump in size for ships at Byss and other vessels like the Eclipse. I say again, since when was tonnage the sole decider for class, or to be more precise, type of ship?

Still waiting. And you admit that cruisers and destroyers are very close. How is your replies any better?

Fuck it. I'm saying that using first hand observations to determine type of ships is extremely limited due to the extreme overlapping of roles. Stop changing the point.

Except they didn't do so. The ISDs escorted a supercarrier which supported basically elite forces being dropped in to capture terrorist leaders. The ISDs supported the Executor, but didn't land forces themselves.

And not all the cruisers landed troops, but supported the destroyers and other transports which did carry troops. So? Again, using mission types to determine the type of ship the ISD is extremely limited, considering the massive overlap of roles between a cruiser and a destroyer.

The Executor is not a battleship.

Then I will use WWII examples where cruisers escorted aircraft carriers in the Pacific.

The ISD never flies a flag in the canon movies. Ever.

No, Darth Vader, a personnage tasked with the military mission of commanding the force to recover the stolen Death Star plans, with sufficient powers either of his own, or derivived from Grand Moff Tarkin to blockade a Outer Rim planet and conduct military missions on the surface without the consent of the local civilian/military authority and later subordn authority on the planet to enforce a watch for 2 droids does not fly his flag on the Devastator.

And Ender disagrees that a destroyer can't lead forces. In fact he named an instance of a DDG leading a force of smaller ships and coast guard vessels (highly analogous to the small, not heavy combat-dedicated, police-role WEG ships tied to Sector command).

Agreed. But its certaintly not as common as protrayed in the EU, where Admirals themselves, or even Grand Admirals fly the flag onboard ISD. And Thrawn was not the only GAD to fly their flag onboard an ISD.

Ender says otherwise. The ISD is much, much faster than most other vessels. Based on her role and agility, she is best suited for the mission at hand. Utility over ceremonial preference.

Then have him come out here and say that destroyers in a navy with carriers, battleships and cruisers will provide VIP transport for the equivalent of the Emperor Right hand man.

And naturally, when Vader becomes Supreme Commander, he has a brand new leviathan for a flagship. You also ignore that under different mission parameters, Vader goes about in a multi-mile battlecruiser in Marvel before the commissioning of the Executor.

And in the comics and EU, we have warlords, admirals and GAD comissioning their flags onboard ISD.

False dilemma fallacy. Do you know nothing about the blurring of "heavy cruiser, armored cruiser, and battlecruiser" IRL? What about some destroyers and cruisers...oh wait you mentioned that. If this isn't a problem for RL classification, why can't we make observations ourselves. You're essentially saying, "I don't like it, and it isn't perfect, so fuck it."

Send me a copy of that Logic Handbook you're using, ok?

Except that the EU hints, no, infact, it demands that our modern classification methods are totally out of sync with the SWU, where cruisers are smaller than frigates.

No it doesn't moron. Not only did you totally ignore my examples, but you show none of your own, and continue to ignore things which say you're in error. TTSB says anything over 300 meters is a cruiser. Does that tell us anything? Does that describe role? Hell, wait a second, it is an arbitrary claim based solely on tonnage, mostly.

What is TTSB and the quote?

The Assault Frigate is greater than 300 meters, and is a rebuild of the Drednought. Its a more powerful warship.

And it illustrates that the EU class name does not follow our inherent assumption that vessels of a certain class does not have superior fighting prowress over vessels of another class, but instead, the tonnage, the size of the ship is what determines its fighting capabilities.

Again, if we know certain general characteristics and RL analogies, why can't we try to classify ships? You offer no compelling reasons why this should be outright thrown out, and you ignore examples, both stated and unstated, while providing none of your own.

Fuck your no examples bullshit. I have provided my own model and how it works, primarily, the EU classes ships based on roles, and a subsequent rating based primarily on tonnage and other unknown factors then rate the ship on its fighting prowress, evidence of this can be found in the key divider between Capital class ship and Warships dotted in the EU. We know that tonnage is a clear differential based on the HTTE quote where GAD Thrawn ask for warships that are over ten thousand tons.

It works perfectly. Your only opposition is that it prevents predictive abilities, in that a cruiser cannot defeat a destroyer, a dreadnaught cannot destroy a frigate as what our modern classification systems expect. I mean, the tried and tested way of examining number of weapons, size of the ship and so forth just seems to have been thrown out of the window, instead, you demand that a classification system follow our modern terminology and assumptions that vessels of a certain type/role must have superior firepower than another vessel of a certain type/role. This system already breaks down IRL, where a frigate can possess the same firepower as a destroyer, but be inferior in sea handling capabilities, speed and everything else that matters.

Proof--what "battleship" class? The Russians? I've shown already its vastly outmassed by our own Nimitz. Apples and Oranges.

Apples my ass. Again, if tonnage is the end all of type designation, as you so clearly insist on the Aegis "cruisers" "destroyers", then why is the Russian missile cruiser classed a cruiser instead of a battleship, as its tonnage falls within the range of battleships?

Although convienently this supports my point, since the hybrid is one of the better candidates for a specific analog to the Executor.

Of course, we also know that the databank specifically state that the ISD was modelled after a hybrid battleship/carrier.

Because they're planetary navy-scale ships and the equivalent of coast guard and local defense forces.

Except that these are also sector forces, the battle of Endor suggests that other than a "communications" ship, the heavy hitters of the sector fleet are ISD.

Which is why the primary point is role. Tonnage is simply one of many factors.

Then why the fuck are you arguing that the ISD is a destroyer, because of the massive range of magnitude in ships based on Byss? If the ISD is to be classed primarily on role, then we are forced to either state the ISD is a cruiser if we factor in the EU or even a battleship/battlewagon by several accounts. According to the EU, the ISD was meant to intimidate entire star systems. A show of force does not send destroyers when entire cruisers, battleships are available.

What the fuck? False dilemma fallacy and lying. I use tonnage as a factor, like current classification systems, and I don't see what compelling reason there is for this to be ignored.

Stay on target. Which is your primary factor? You argue for tonnage in one, role in another.

You're using false dilemma. Because Ender and I consider and do not throw out tonnage, you act like it must be the "end all" of classification. You essentially admit you don't intend to consider tonnage at all, and outright want to discard it entirely.

I discard tonnage in the classification of the roles a ship can play, same as you do. However, the fact that the EU considers ships of massively inferior size to be cruisers, to the ISD, or Frigates over Cruisers, etc etc etc, all suggest that the SW does not classify ship types by tonnage. Meaning that while tonnage plays a role in the combat powress of the ship, the EU does not consider it to be a role in the role it can play.

Golden Mean fallacy; fabrication. The EU system is not self-consistent, nor does it accurately depict roles and classification as seen in primary sources.

And besides, I already suggested that under the federalized system of the Empire, local Moff Governor's Starfleets may classify the heavier vessels of the strategic fleets in terms of local planetary-defense scale fleets, and term the VSD a battlecruiser, and a ISD a multidude of roles, but both were designed and classed by the central Navy as destroyers. This is seen in canon.

Except that this system doesn't work, because the stragetic fleet of Byss included Guardin class cruisers. Remember?

The same level of canon holds the same of the Royal Starship, the Nebulon-B, the "Republic Cruiser," Mon Cal cruisers, and Star Destroyers.

Why do you get to pick and choose what is "accurately" desired? It is clear they don't intend a cruiser if they cannot consistently use the term.

So? Where is it stated in terminology that a cruiser must have superior fighting powress to a destroyer, a frigate and a PFC?

Chasing pirates and terrorists around leading tiny vessels which aren't even heavy combat-dedicated? Escorting carriers, battleships?

Being meant to intimidate entire star systems and small flotillas of ships? Being meant to engage and destroy enemy capital vessels? Having superior firepower, and parity in shielding with enemy capital vessels?

Concession Accepted. I don't know what "fighting capability" is supposed to mean, given that there are tens of thousands of heavy combat-dedicated warships which vastly outperform the ISD.

Why not? The role of the ship is so similar between destroyer and cruiser that it doesn't even matter. The ISD can be a destroyer when operating with larger vessels, but thats when its role is to act as an outer screen to engage multiple smaller vessels which can threaten the capital ships. Alternatively, the ISD is also a cruiser, as seen in ANH, when it was an independent vessel operating far ahead of the main fleet and fast enough to intercept an enemy blockade runner.

Which was shown to be pointless! Sea Skimmer says that there are no true post WW2-era cruisers. The theory basically is that ISDs are roughly equivalent in role to DDGs. That has precisely nothing to do with cruisers!

Except that the classification of the cruiser was always meant to be a fast ship that cruise ahead. It was meant to be independent in operation, but could work in conjunction with larger fleet forces.

Except that Marvel refers to battlecruisers, and not inconsistently--they do so solely in reference to these multi-mile leviathans. Battlecruisers, armored cruisers, and heavy cruisers are all more-or-less synoymous by late WW2, which is the last good comparison for cruisers since the USN abandons the true cruiser thereafter.

Except that the battlecruisers themselves don't fulfill the role of a battlecruiser, being heavily armoured and lacking in speed when compared with other "cruisers" like the ISD, Republic courier ship, and so on and forth.

You admit that there are intermediate classes between the supercarriers, commandships, and battleships, and the ISD, which you admit in role is a destroyer...and none can be cruisers? We've had the battlecruiser cited as being in that intermediate zone.

The problem is that the ISD itself is also a cruiser, especially when operating in the Outer Rim, where it operates independently. This is a mission role that's more suited to cruisers, especially where its intimidates entire star systems by a show of force.

Bullshit. Sea Skimmer and Ender both say it is political. Show some proof for once.

Fuck, by doing so, they show that tonnage wasn't the factor behind the type of ship. Ender and Sea Skimmer aren't contradicing me idiot. Even something as plain as the politicans will will influence the vessel type.

That means, your claims that the ISD cannot be a cruiser, based on the idea that there are immensely larger vessels in the Byss stargetic fleet isn't valid. The EU and canon calls them cruiser. I find it despicable that you will choose to call me a canon purist, but will discard the EU and rely on first hand observations from primary data, even when canonical data says otherwise. Its clear that if the Naboo yahct and Republic cruiser are cruisers, then the SWU does not follow modern day terminology on the class of cruisers and instead, uses the Age of Sail definition.

Arguing that the Age of Sail does not apply to the SWU is worthless, when we saw that it IS being applied.

PainRack wrote:

The ISD never flies a flag in the canon movies. Ever.

No, Darth Vader, a personnage tasked with the military mission of commanding the force to recover the stolen Death Star plans, with sufficient powers either of his own, or derivived from Grand Moff Tarkin to blockade a Outer Rim planet and conduct military missions on the surface without the consent of the local civilian/military authority and later subordn authority on the planet to enforce a watch for 2 droids does not fly his flag on the Devastator.

You're right, he doesn't. That's why he has an admiral in his task force. It's rather like when George Bush II is on an American ship. He's the most prestigious figure on the ship, but he does not fly a flag.

Robert Treder wrote:

PainRack wrote:

The ISD never flies a flag in the canon movies. Ever.

No, Darth Vader, a personnage tasked with the military mission of commanding the force to recover the stolen Death Star plans, with sufficient powers either of his own, or derivived from Grand Moff Tarkin to blockade a Outer Rim planet and conduct military missions on the surface without the consent of the local civilian/military authority and later subordn authority on the planet to enforce a watch for 2 droids does not fly his flag on the Devastator.

You're right, he doesn't. That's why he has an admiral in his task force. It's rather like when George Bush II is on an American ship. He's the most prestigious figure on the ship, but he does not fly a flag.

Technically, the Devastator was originally Lord Tion's flagship up until his death (Ref: Sansweet's Star Wars encyclopedia). (Tion was a noble and militry officer appointed to lead the task force involved in blockading and subjugating the planet Ralltir, where Princess Leia received the plans for the Death Star. He later died at Leia's hand on the planet Alderaan while visiting in an attempt to court her.)

Vader apparently took the Devastator as his own personal flagship (ref: The Mandalorian Armor, page 122) up until he acquired the Executor, which became his new flagship.

But is it Vader's flag, or is it his Admiral's? If Vader is flag officer of Death Squadron, what is Admiral Ozzel's role? I was under the impression that Ozzel (and later Piett) ran the fleet, but Vader told them where to go and what to do, just in a general sense.
Example: Vader tells Ozzel to take the squadron to Hoth VI, but he isn't even consulted in regards to their tactics. He doesn't find out what the battle plan is until it's already enacted. So if he is the flag officer, he's pretty derelict in his duties.
Furthermore, Vader isn't technically a member of the Navy, but that shouldn't really matter, as I'm sure they could find a way of overlooking any technicalities if they needed to.

My point isn't that an ISD is incapable of raising a flag (any ship can do that if required) or even that it's uncommon for an ISD to raise a flag (there are numerous EU examples), but rather that just because Vader is on board a ship doesn't necessarily mean that that ship flies Vader's flag.

Robert Treder wrote:But is it Vader's flag, or is it his Admiral's? If Vader is flag officer of Death Squadron, what is Admiral Ozzel's role? I was under the impression that Ozzel (and later Piett) ran the fleet, but Vader told them where to go and what to do, just in a general sense.
Example: Vader tells Ozzel to take the squadron to Hoth VI, but he isn't even consulted in regards to their tactics. He doesn't find out what the battle plan is until it's already enacted. So if he is the flag officer, he's pretty derelict in his duties.
Furthermore, Vader isn't technically a member of the Navy, but that shouldn't really matter, as I'm sure they could find a way of overlooking any technicalities if they needed to.

My point isn't that an ISD is incapable of raising a flag (any ship can do that if required) or even that it's uncommon for an ISD to raise a flag (there are numerous EU examples), but rather that just because Vader is on board a ship doesn't necessarily mean that that ship flies Vader's flag.

IIRC Palpatine orders Vader to do exactly that in SotE. In particular the part where Xizor tips paply off to a "Rebel" base. I'll get the quote tomorrow when both my eyes work.

The Devestator didn't have a flag officer. Vader used it as his personal courier, but it wasn't his flagship except for use as misnomer or colloquialism. Lord Darth Vader is not a member of the military, though he is the Supreme Commander by the time he acquires the Executor. The Executor was the flagship of FADM Ozzel and FADM Piett, and ADM Okins (in SOTE when it leads the task force to obliterate the Vergesso asteroid base), before being the apparently newly and again promoted HADM Piett's flagship again in ROTJ (Star Wars: Rebellion depicts him with the insignia of a High Admiral, and the fleet in ROTJ was roughly equivalent to a Sector Group--credit to Dr. Saxton and the TC).

Lord Vader, strictly speaking, doesn't have a flagship, because he is not a flag officer. Vader travels aboard the Devestator, but doesn't raise a flag on it. He also uses a battlecruiser (a couple miles long according to Saxton and presumably from the Navy's "strategic fleets") commanded by CAPT Wermis as depicted in Marvel, before the commissioning of the Executor.

I'll reply to PainRack's stuff in a bit. I have to take care of some pressing stuff, but I thought I'd just clear this up.