StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Dark wrote:

Ender wrote:Now if you want them to be seperate companies, you need to explain why a "highly predatory" (ref NEGVV) company would hire a seperate company instead of subcontracting to a subsidiary to do a job for them.

Government mandate. For an example of something similar, the government was considering requiring Lockheed Martin to allow Boeing to help construct the F-35. It ended up not happening, but similar things have happened before. In WWII, Grumman Avengers were built by Ford because Grumman's factories were busy cranking out Hellcats and (later) Bearcats. If KDY's yards were full working on other ships, the VSD may have been sub-contracted to Rendili to prevent breach of contract on other deals.

Minor nitpick: GM subcontracted the Avenger, not Ford. The two models were TBF (Torpedo Bomber, Grumman, first design of type) and TBM (Torpedo Bomber, GM, first design of type).

Ah found it!

Thanks to Edam for keeping all this.

First, Mandel's response to the question. And I quote:

"Yes, I did do the Star Destroyer blueprints, but I've never heard of the Technical Book of Science Fiction Films (another Geoffrey Mandel?!). The blueprints were NOT sanctioned by Lucasfilm or anyone else; just something I whipped together in my spare time. Hard to believe that anyone still remembers them after all these years...

Best,
Geoff Mandel

THAT alone is from the horses mouth as it will saying the blueprints are not offical in any way shape or form. Funny thing, he also pointed me to a previous thread where this happened:

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=26182

Interesting how the only thing said about them being offical is that it was in a box of sources that were marked as Lucasfilm copyright...which doesn't say in the slightest if its an offical SOURCE, just that it acknowledges Lucasfilms intelectual property on SW. Hell our Fanfics aknowledge that, doesn't make them offical sources.

Chris OFarrell wrote:
Ah found it!

Thanks to Edam for keeping all this.

First, Mandel's response to the question. And I quote:

"Yes, I did do the Star Destroyer blueprints, but I've never heard of the Technical Book of Science Fiction Films (another Geoffrey Mandel?!). The blueprints were NOT sanctioned by Lucasfilm or anyone else; just something I whipped together in my spare time. Hard to believe that anyone still remembers them after all these years...

Best,
Geoff Mandel

I e-mailed Mandel possibly a year before Edam, and he was even more vague. Since the guy that drew them doesn't think they merit a mention on his official resume, they should be dismissed as unofficial.

And....why IS "Imperial" class that bad? Aren't we seeing "Republic"-class ships in the prequels?

Lord Poe wrote: I e-mailed Mandel possibly a year before Edam, and he was even more vague. Since the guy that drew them doesn't think they merit a mention on his official resume, they should be dismissed as unofficial.

And....why IS "Imperial" class that bad? Aren't we seeing "Republic"-class ships in the prequels?

Its ALWAYS one up with you isn't it? I post an email from almost a year ago, you post saying you got one from a year before that? I say they should not be considered offical, you say they should be dismissed as unoffical......

FTeik wrote:
Congragulations, since that was such a big step in creative thinking (and it is still wishful-thinking on the side of us fan-boys, so it has no effort on the official or canon stand of LFL).

I apologize for making that seem possessive--it was more in the sense of bringing back an old memory.

Iceberg wrote:It's getting remarkably tiring to watch the Mandelists argue their case by committing endless ad hominem on the writers of SW-WEG, who produced a remarkably excellent product over nearly fifteen years, and both maintained and increased the visibility and viability of the Star Wars license, which had lain fallow for over three years when they picked it up in 1987.

They were massively incompetent in their analysis of the movie data, forcing a huge amount of time to be spent on reconciliation. It is indeed unforgivable, regardless of how nice of a RPing Game they came up with or the final status of the blueprints.

Lord Poe wrote:And....why IS "Imperial" class that bad? Aren't we seeing "Republic"-class ships in the prequels?

The RSD Republic-class Star Destroyer and the KDY Republic-class Cruiser are both post-Endor NRDF vessels.

"Empire"-class would've been much better. Imperial-class, combined with the "Super"-class fuck up, are clearly the work of incompetent WEG writers assume the placement of said words before the words "Star Destroyer" in the movies automatically meant that was a class designation. That's why its fucking annoying. Naturally they're fuck up is out-of-continuity-and-universe, and is thusly irrelevent to the point.

But that's why it is annoying.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
No, it can't, unless you're arguing Saxton is of higher canon than the ICSs themselves (which you obviously are not.) At best, it would be equal to the previous ICS, and create two unpleasant contradictions (since it denies one canon classification already and steals from a separate vessel already classed Imperator-class.)

That's if you want to invent a new vessel from a size error in the first place- which I'm very reluctant to do in all cases because it's just asinine.

Aside from that, how the hell is Imperial-class slang? We're given no indication whatsoever that its wrong in ANY source (The MAndel blueprints technically don't count as a mile long destroyer.)

By that logic, the Imperial-class doesn't count either- the stats it's given by WEG certainly don't correspond to canon at all.

And if we started allowing authors to "override" each other by slang, t hat means that we'd have ot accept any author (say of another ICS or VD or ITW book) who overrode another source just by calling it "slang", INCLUDING Saxton.

It'd have to be in a canon source to override any prospective Ep III ICS.

Besides that, have you ever even looked up what "Imperial" means?

Yes I have, and obscure dictionary definitions do not change how they thought it up (nonsense about that not being 'in universe' aside- the same moron argument was deployed by TFNetters to object to evidence of what the size of the Executor was from the very people who constructed the model). It also is totally out of whack with KDY naming conventions established by Saxton (convenient eh?- this goes back to my views of what Dr. Saxton was trying to do)

Interesting how the only thing said about them being offical is that it was in a box of sources that were marked as Lucasfilm copyright...which doesn't say in the slightest if its an offical SOURCE, just that it acknowledges Lucasfilms intelectual property on SW. Hell our Fanfics aknowledge that, doesn't make them offical sources.

There is a huge difference between commercially sold blueprints and a fanfic cooked up and distributed freely on the internet I'm afraid. Unless you can find a Lucasfilm source that says explicitly that they're not official, you don't have a case.

"The blueprints were NOT sanctioned by Lucasfilm or anyone else; just something I whipped together in my spare time." - Geoff Mandel

Iceberg wrote:"The blueprints were NOT sanctioned by Lucasfilm or anyone else; just something I whipped together in my spare time." - Geoff Mandel

I was under the impression they were sold. In which case they had to be de facto sanctioned in such that they're not in violation of copyright.

Iceberg wrote:"The blueprints were NOT sanctioned by Lucasfilm or anyone else; just something I whipped together in my spare time." - Geoff Mandel

Thank you for completely missing the point. Again: There is a huge difference between commercially sold blueprints (which they were) and a fanfic cooked up and distributed freely on the internet I'm afraid. Unless you can find a Lucasfilm source that says explicitly that they're not official, you don't have a case. I'm also highly leery of relying on the memory of someone who did the thing in question well over 20 years ago.

Vympel is right. For them to be legally sold they had to be within the constellation of LFL copyright, and thusly are part of the EU by default. And if they are and are not marked Infinities or directly declared apocryphal by LFL, they're a legitimate part of the Official Star Wars Saga.

While I consider Edam to be a fundamentally untrustworthy troll, I am willing to give Wayne the benefit of the doubt, even though I still question whether an author has right to deem whether or not a source is valid. In any case, the Mandel blueprints are totally irrelevant to the canon/official name for the Mile-long star destroyers. At best, they are official and thus subordinate to canon, and in any case refer to a vessel whose known characteristics are *distinctly* different from even the strict-canon STar Destroyer, much less the official interpretations. At worst, they are unofficial and cannot be used. Either way they have no bearing on this discussion.

Imperial is canon until overriden by a higher source. Those of you who can do little more than bitch about it, tough. Live with it.

Vympel wrote: That's if you want to invent a new vessel from a size error in the first place- which I'm very reluctant to do in all cases because it's just asinine.

This even assumes the blueprints are official, which they may or may not be -and the topic of which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I remind you that if you use the excuse of "Scaling errors", then the blueprints still fail because they go for a vessel that is far smaller htan the canon vessel itself (much like how some of you argue there is no "Super"-class because the given stats conflict with what is established in canon.)

I can argue this however you want to, and it still comes to the basic conclusion that you cannot ignore the fact Imperial is the canon distinction unless some higher-order material comes to light to override it.

And I remind you further that just because you don't like something is not sufficient reason to toss it out. Darkstar does that. Are you saying that Darkstar's methodology is perfectly valid?

By that logic, the Imperial-class doesn't count either- the stats it's given by WEG certainly don't correspond to canon at all.

For the WEG materials that can be true, but you're still forgetting the ICS (which also quite clearly calls it Imperial-class.) I am perfectly happy to treat the WEG STar Destroyer as a different vessel though anyhow.

It'd have to be in a canon source to override any prospective Ep III ICS.

The ICS's are canon. Which means by definition the best that doing as you wish, you would simply introduce greater contradiction (which despite what you may think, is bad.) But consistent analysis doesn't seem to matter all that much to you, I'm sorry to say.

Yes I have, and obscure dictionary definitions do not change how they thought it up (nonsense about that not being 'in universe' aside- the same moron argument was deployed by TFNetters to object to evidence of what the size of the Executor was from the very people who constructed the model). It also is totally out of whack with KDY naming conventions established by Saxton (convenient eh?- this goes back to my views of what Dr. Saxton was trying to do)

It doesn't change the basic fact is that you're throwing a tantrum over a silly issue of names and will go to any lengths to toss it out, no matter how irrational the excuse.

Imperial is canon, so live with it. Nothing short of higher-order canon is going to change that. AT best, you can just complicate things by introducing a mess of contradiction, which is NOT what the point of rational analysis is.

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:

Iceberg wrote:It's getting remarkably tiring to watch the Mandelists argue their case by committing endless ad hominem on the writers of SW-WEG, who produced a remarkably excellent product over nearly fifteen years, and both maintained and increased the visibility and viability of the Star Wars license, which had lain fallow for over three years when they picked it up in 1987.

They were massively incompetent in their analysis of the movie data, forcing a huge amount of time to be spent on reconciliation. It is indeed unforgivable, regardless of how nice of a RPing Game they came up with or the final status of the blueprints.

Except that source materials, no matter whether canon or official, are not categorically ignored or judged based on who produces them (even though this is in fact what MANY people do, even if they do not admit to doing so.) Evidence is judged on an individual basis, and handled in accordance with its status in relation to other materials (particualrily that in supposed conflict.) ITs also worthwhile noting that often "contradiction" is a convenient excuse used by people who want an easy way to ignore something they don't like (EG, certain fanatics who did not like the AOTC: ICS would invent l udicrous arguments designed to create apparent "contradictions" with other source materials in order to dismiss it.)

Even if we grant the notion that, say, the WEG material is generally inaccurate (in some ways it is, but this is hardly in the majority), this hardly proves the general assumption that it must be ignored until proven otherwise (which seems to be the rule among many, despite the irrationality of such logic.)

Connor MacLeod wrote:This even assumes the blueprints are official, which they may or may not be -and the topic of which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. I remind you that if you use the excuse of "Scaling errors", then the blueprints still fail because they go for a vessel that is far smaller htan the canon vessel itself (much like how some of you argue there is no "Super"-class because the given stats conflict with what is established in canon.)

I thought scaling errors was being used *against* the Mandel blueprints? That's all I'm saying. The weaponry of the WEG ship doesn't correspond to the canon ship is what I meant.

I can argue this however you want to, and it still comes to the basic conclusion that you cannot ignore the fact Imperial is the canon distinction unless some higher-order material comes to light to override it.

And where did I argue against this, exactly?

And I remind you further that just because you don't like something is not sufficient reason to toss it out. Darkstar does that. Are you saying that Darkstar's methodology is perfectly valid?

Nice strawman and ad hominem.

For the WEG materials that can be true, but you're still forgetting the ICS (which also quite clearly calls it Imperial-class.) I am perfectly happy to treat the WEG STar Destroyer as a different vessel though anyhow.

Fine.

The ICS's are canon. Which means by definition the best that doing as you wish, you would simply introduce greater contradiction (which despite what you may think, is bad.) But consistent analysis doesn't seem to matter all that much to you, I'm sorry to say.

I've already said how it can be done in a no-contradications way.

It doesn't change the basic fact is that you're throwing a tantrum over a silly issue of names and will go to any lengths to toss it out, no matter how irrational the excuse.

Your no-rebuttal rhetoric about 'irrational excuses' aside, like it or not, Imperial is still

1. Clearly inconsistent with KDY naming convention
2. Clearly based on the same erroneous, lightly researched crap that gave us 'Super-class', no matter what obscure dictionary definition you pull out to defend it.

Imperial is canon, so live with it. Nothing short of higher-order canon is going to change that. AT best, you can just complicate things by introducing a mess of contradiction, which is NOT what the point of rational analysis is.

I've already laid out how the issue can be resolved with no contradictions at all.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Vympel is right. For them to be legally sold they had to be within the constellation of LFL copyright, and thusly are part of the EU by default. And if they are and are not marked Infinities or directly declared apocryphal by LFL, they're a legitimate part of the Official Star Wars Saga.

And overridden by the canon ICS, which explicitly refers to the ISD as Imperial-class. Thank you, please drive forward.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Except that source materials, no matter whether canon or official, are not categorically ignored or judged based on who produces them (even though this is in fact what MANY people do, even if they do not admit to doing so.) Evidence is judged on an individual basis, and handled in accordance with its status in relation to other materials (particualrily that in supposed conflict.) ITs also worthwhile noting that often "contradiction" is a convenient excuse used by people who want an easy way to ignore something they don't like (EG, certain fanatics who did not like the AOTC: ICS would invent l udicrous arguments designed to create apparent "contradictions" with other source materials in order to dismiss it.)

Even if we grant the notion that, say, the WEG material is generally inaccurate (in some ways it is, but this is hardly in the majority), this hardly proves the general assumption that it must be ignored until proven otherwise (which seems to be the rule among many, despite the irrationality of such logic.)

I think you're confusing the differences in people's methodology with a full-on 'tossing out' of WEG. Your approach is to create new ship classes in the case of size errors, for example. My approach is to correct the sizes- i.e. there is no 'Super-class' 8km ship. Not only do we know exactly what kind of ship they were talking about when they put that in there in the first place, there are certain plot points that cannot work either because e.g. it contradicts what we know about the ship in terms of how it's related to the Executor etc. I also will not create 15m AT-ATs, or 160km Death Star IIs. They just got the size wrong. It's not throwing out the source, it's correcting it.

Iceberg wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Vympel is right. For them to be legally sold they had to be within the constellation of LFL copyright, and thusly are part of the EU by default. And if they are and are not marked Infinities or directly declared apocryphal by LFL, they're a legitimate part of the Official Star Wars Saga.

And overridden by the canon ICS, which explicitly refers to the ISD as Imperial-class. Thank you, please drive forward.

Does being dense come naturally to you? I was refuting your argument that Mandell blueprints weren't official, not the class designation of the ISD.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Ender wrote:I have proof that this is the case.. and this is not enough because you refuse to concede your argument? God this is fucking pathetic.

BULLSHIT Ender.

It is not a subsidiary. KDY contracted another company to build a single vessel. That does not make said company its subsidiary.

The burden of proof is on you to justify that RSD is a subsidiary of KDY, that it continued to be for years, and is as of NJO. You HAVE NOT justified your leap in logic.

Provide me a reason that they would just flush money down the toilet by giving away contracts to other corporations then.

Ender wrote:Oh, how cute, passive aggression since you can't create anything close to a decent flame.

*snip quotes*

Walter Jon Williams, Author of [i]The New Jedi Order: Destiny's Way[/i] wrote:I reckoned the Republic-class cruiser to be slightly smaller than the MC80s, highly standardized and with fewer appointments.

Walter Jon Williams clarifies that the KDY Republic-class Cruiser has a LOA of under 1,200 meters, by virtue of the official LOA of the MC80 Cruiser (1,200 meters is the LOA of the Republic-class Star Destroyer, by the way), and is a "new type," unlike the RSD Republic-class Star Destroyer, which predates the New Class program.

Except the movies show that MC80s are 1500 meters long. So you don’t prove a thing, again. And as for it being new, new relative to what? I know that sounds like picky semantics, but ships that predate the new class are still new relative to the movie era Mon Cals he compares them to.

You have failed to explain why KDY being aided in the production of the first Star Destroyers at the end of the Clone Wars or that KDY contracted another company, with a strategically placed string of shipyards in the warzones to construct the Victory-class requires that Rendili StarDrive be KDY's subsidiary. They have NOT specified such, and your circumstancial evidence does not require RSD to be KDY's subsidiary. It is a leap in logic.

Option 1: KDY was busy with full shipyards, so they subcontracted a major job to a subsidiary to build the ships. This means that they still get to keep all the profits by keeping the job in house.

Option 2: KDY was busy with full shipyards, so they subcontracted a major job to a competitor to build them, thus making their competitor the big name in warships until KDY got the Imperial line rolling.

One of these requires gross incompetence on the part of KDY executives as it gives a huge advantage to a competitor while costing them money at the same time, Incompetence is an explanation not allowed.

Not that it matters. The KDY Republic-class Cruiser is not the Republic-class Star Destroyer.

Still debatable.

He doesn't need to explain anything to you. You're making the claim (RSD must be KDY's subsidiary) now certainly it can be argued that RSD could have been one of KDY's subsidiaries during the Clone Wars, but it is not necessary, and is certainly debatable, and you haven't a scrap of information to claim that RSD was owned by KDY as of the NJO (keep in mind KDY split in many directions and lost much of its holdings according to the NEGtVV and the fact that factions both remained with the Empire, fled to Byss, and stayed on Kuat).

So now I have to prove a negative that they didn’t loose control of Rendili?

Now, Fteik and I don't HAVE TO fall on that conclusion, because there's nothing that says it. And any claims that it does are an unjustified leap in logic.

Provide an alternative then; and one that does not require you to misunderstand the meaning of “contracted” or assume gross incompetence.

Provide explicit proof that RSD is KDY's subsidiary during the Clone Wars.

I feel like I’m a broken record here: Provide an alternative, complete with an explanation as to why they would flush money down the toilet. Its not like I’m going under a wall of ignorance here, but it is the most reasonable thing I see and no one has provided a reasonable alternative.

Prove this continued onto the NJO.

You want me to prove they did not split. This is demanding I prove a negative. Do you not understand burden of proof?

Ender wrote:It shoots down a large chunk of your evidence. Infact the only thing I've seen that would point ot seperate ships was provided by UIP, not you, and I have written WJW for further clarification

Quite simply I've provided far more conclusive proof that the KDY Republic Cruiser is not the RSD Republic Star Destroyer. Different lengths, designed years apart, by different companies. They're NOT the same ship.

Except for the fact you haven’t shown any of those, I’d agree.

You're relying on circumstancial evidence and assumptions at best (the latter of which is based on an absurd all-post Endor NRDF ships-inclusive OOB, going against the letter of the text and outright ignoring many statements on the purpose and nature of the New Class).

You couldn’t defend that argument last time, what would make you think you can this time?

Ender wrote:Still you, because not only are you stupid, you are now a liar as well because you never posted a link to TFN.[emphasis mine]

Don't be a hypocrite, Ender deary. Its not right to claim someone's a liar by lying yourself.

The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels

FTeik (10th Post from the Bottom) wrote:The thing about the Republic-Class-Cruiser as an easily mass-produced vessel was on theforce.net in the Authors and Artists-Section, Walter Jon Williams. The link is http: //boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=5816776&page=27.

Unfortunately it doesn´t say anything about the lenght of the vessel, but i´m sure i´ll find that again, too, given enough time. [emphasis mine]

I think you owe Fteik an apology for being an asshole and slandering him.

You are right, I do.

I apologize for my jumping the gun and insulting you as a result.

I still want a response myself, to both my PM and posts.

I responded to your post, you didn’t return and I went against connor until I gave up because after I said that ships are measured in tonnage, he started going on about length.

Ender wrote:Translation: I refuse to concede about the fact I lack any evidence, so claim victory and walk off.

Why should he concede? You're wrong. And to boot you've been slandering him and lying to facilitate it.

You still need to prove I am wrong.

And you still have yet to respond to your total bullshit about the New Class. Connor bitchslapped you with it here (which amusingly shows you didn't read the sources before pontificating on your own agenda), but I'm sure you're too busy to respond... ...which, of course, is why you don't respond to my PM or posts, and instead pick on Target here, by lying about what he's done.

Lets go over the conclusion of that thread briefly:

Ender:Ships are measured in tonnage, the statement that the NR was following a philosophy of building smaller ships is in error, and there will still be older ships serving because phasing out is a slow process

Connor:The ships are smaller because their length is shorter, the NR was following a philosophy of smaller ships, and it is disproved because there are older ships still serving.

This is after I had been repeating myself for over a page with you. Of course I gave up. I was getting extremely frustrated at that point and didn’t want to vent my spleen at one of my better friends at this place.

Ender wrote:And I proved that your oversimplification was wrong, they all fell into seperate roles. What part of this do you not get?

Many of which were wrong, such as your Republic-class BS, which totally ignored and contradicted official evidence which you threw out because it didn't fit your agenda in the CTD. WEG's XX-9 batteries are called "HTLs." Your absurd "Star Cruiser" assertion (which I find incredulous--a ship smaller than an ISD is supposed to support a dozen times as many guns? Aren't you the one who did the reactor volume to power output calcs?)

Which has a greater volume assuming same basic dimensions: an ellipsoid or a pyramid? The ellipsoid, by a factor of about 12. What does this mean? That if some of the dimensions of the ellipsoid are smaller, it can still have greater volume then the pyramid. Only know picture of the RSD shows it to be an ellipsoid style Mon cal cruiser (if I am recalling Frank Gerratta’s old pic of it properly). Thus it will have a greater volume, and thus by applying density garnered by dividing a derived upper limit on ISD mass by its volume, we can generate tonnage for the craft. Further, its greater volume would allow more internal space for a stronger reactor, thus allowing for more power. Assuming that the basic design ratios observed in movie ships (WRT to draught and width relative to length) still apply, it ends up being about double the tonnage. Which also puts them very close to the tonnage of the star cruisers in the movies. (greater or less then depending if you look at winged or non-winged ships), making them in the cruiser range for tonnage.

And if you choose to dismiss the official design, then you lack the other dimensions, thus making it impossible to determine volume and tonnage since the lack of consistent design properties is common among dagger ships (is the thing single bank or multi bank? Does it have a raised honeycomb, or integrated one? Does the tower protrude, or is it integrated?)

is based on the unjustified assertion of assuming the RPG HTLs are the same type as the ISD HTLs on the ISD model, thus extrapolating the vastly-higher-than ISD firepower. You're playing the name game. "Heavy Turbolaser" doesn't say dick about firepower, which you need if you're going to claim quantitatively the RSD has as much firepower as a multi-mile long KDY Star Cruiser.

No, but it has to be in the same order of magnitude as it. Sheer number of them would give it a greater total firepower then the Mon Cals we see in the movies, which are labeled as star cruisers. Thus without knowing the exact yield, I can still make conclusions. Do you honesty think I don’t consider all of this when I go through and attempt to classify shit? Based on my posting history, do I not always hedge my bets unless I have investigated something through and through? Hell, you have a copy of my BDZ calculator, I allow for varying factors in planet size, gravity, city coverage, ocean coverage, degree of devastation, time, cannons brought to bear, etc and that was one of my early, more cursory investigations. I never even bring up some of my stranger theories because there is insufficient evidence for them (EG that the HTLs on an ISD draw directly from the mini reactors the ICS shows, thus greatly increasing their yield)

And again, that totally contradicts explicit information comparing the RSD to the ISD IN the CTD from which the HTL counts were extrapolating for your absurd calc. Picking and choosing, anyone?

Try not owning a copy of CTD and going off the stats I found on an RPG website.

And incidentally, the NEGVV thread has me and Connor showing why comparisons like that are hardly good evidence.

Ender wrote:We debate. I shoot down all your claims. You then return, repeating shot down claims, and saying I just didn't get it. By any chance, do you live in Mississippi?

Except that you're wrong, and haven't conceded to me,

Unless you came back after my last post, you left the debate, not me.


And as a total aside, why the blazes do you keep referring to him as the "target"?

PS: Don’t expect a prompt follow up to this; I’m going to NYC for the weekend.

EDIT: altered sentance from "within order of magnitude" to "in the same"

The Dark wrote:

Ender wrote:Now if you want them to be seperate companies, you need to explain why a "highly predatory" (ref NEGVV) company would hire a seperate company instead of subcontracting to a subsidiary to do a job for them.

Government mandate. For an example of something similar, the government was considering requiring Lockheed Martin to allow Boeing to help construct the F-35. It ended up not happening, but similar things have happened before. In WWII, Grumman Avengers were built by Ford because Grumman's factories were busy cranking out Hellcats and (later) Bearcats. If KDY's yards were full working on other ships, the VSD may have been sub-contracted to Rendili to prevent breach of contract on other deals.

Link? Though given that KDY seems to be in bed with Palpatine & co that seems like an odd move; though desperate times call for desperate measures.

And saying that KDY contracted them instead of saying they worked in conjunciton seems to be an odd way of expressing it. Course the author also says recoil from firing moves a craft forward, so that very well could be what he meant and just can't express himself.

Ender wrote:Option 1: KDY was busy with full shipyards, so they subcontracted a major job to a subsidiary to build the ships. This means that they still get to keep all the profits by keeping the job in house.

According to the Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook (Mr. Michael Allen Horne, 1993):

Rendili StarDrive. An aging company that has seen better days, Rendili pioneered the Victory-class Star Destroyer, as well as the famed Dreadnaught heavy cruiser. In recent years, the company has focused on more efficient designs, but has lost most of its market share to KDY.

Rendili StarDrive is quite clearly in direct competition with Kuat Drive Yards; what sense does it make for a subsidiary corporation to operate in direct competition with its parent corporation? If the one is a subsidiary of the other, then why are both signatory sponsors of the Corporate Sector Authority?

In fact, it is quite significant that KDY and RSD are listed separately among the signatory sponsors of the CSA, as the prefatory remarks to that very list specifies that each signatory sponsor and "selected subsidiaries" are being listed. Were RSD a subsidiary of KDY, it would not appear separately on the list of sponsors.

Ender wrote:Option 2: KDY was busy with full shipyards, so they subcontracted a major job to a competitor to build them, thus making their competitor the big name in warships until KDY got the Imperial line rolling.

Rendili StarDrive was already a "big name" in warshp manufacturing, thanks to its Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser, which appears to have been the dominant warship in the starfleets and navies of the old Republic until the introduction of the Victory-class Star Destroyer. In fact, both RSD and KDY were both members of the Galactic Corporate Policy League.

Furthermore, KDY need not necessarily have had a choice in the matter. As The Dark and Iceberg have noted, such an arrangement is not unprecedented in the real world. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Supreme Chancellor Palpatine has dictatorial control over the economy, applying as much to warship production as to other aspects of the galactic economy. According to Kinman Doriana in "Hero of Cartao I: Hero's Call" (Mr. Timothy Zahn, 2003):

"Desperate times call for desperate measures," Doriana countered, pulling a datacard from an inside pocket. "Senate Directive 3591, authorizing Supreme Chancellor Palpatine unlimited authority to commandeer any resource or group of resources he feels necessary for a swift conclusion of hostilities."

You might find some amusement in the fact that Mr. Doriana's sentiments echo your own.

PUBLIUS

How did I know when I saw your name it would be providing evidence to end this debate?

Very well, conceded on the idea that they are one and the same ship. I thank Dark and would thank the Ubiqtorate, if such a poster did infact exist and was posting under a new name.

And now I really need to get my ass to bed or I am going to be dying tomorrow.

I'm pretty sure our resident Publius and the non-entity conveniently referred to as "The Ubiqtorate" are two different people.

If I'm wrong, I'd love to be corrected seeing as how the two are my favorite posters after DW/AK.

Robert Treder wrote:I'm pretty sure our resident Publius and the non-entity conveniently referred to as "The Ubiqtorate" are two different people.

The theoretical identity known as "The Ubiqtorate" has a similar posting style to Publius.