StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Mr Bean wrote: Err no we want the Destroyer classified as a Destroyer because it fits the modern interpretation of a being a destroyer. It fufills the roles and relative tonnage (Compared to a Nebulon-B or the Executor) of what we could expect from either a Destroyer and acts in the role a destroyer requires.

Know how many active Battlecruisers and Battleships the current US Navy has? Zero because they make no sense building that large with present technology, Aegis Cruisers and Nimitz Carriers are the biggest we build at present. In the SW universe dedicated carriers might make little sense if every Star destroyer can throw 72 fighters into the mix in addition to it's guns, even if your dedicated carrier can dump 720 fighters into the mix it might not make sense to do so from either a supply, defense or personnel prospective which is why there are no SW carriers running around.

You think you're bringing up some novel idea? This isn't the first time someone has tried arguing that. The same problem with it remains, however. Why should we choose the "modern" context/definition of warships over some other one, per se? Also, SW HAS battleships, in case you forgot (The intention was deliberate that Executor class and similar were supposed to represent battleships, rather than say carriers), so that makes it unlikely we can accurately apply modern terminology to the Imperial fleet (or at least, no more accurately than you could by referencing any other time period, like Sea Skimmer's "rates".)

We have the visual example of the Death Star on how big they can build ships as well, so yes in context a Star Destroyer is a small unimportant warship if you have Death Stars running around.

The Death Star is not a warship, and there was never any indication they would buidl anything on that scale routinely (even if they could.) so bad analogy.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
You think you're bringing up some novel idea? This isn't the first time someone has tried arguing that. The same problem with it remains, however. Why should we choose the "modern" context/definition of warships over some other one, per se? Also, SW HAS battleships, in case you forgot (The intention was deliberate that Executor class and similar were supposed to represent battleships, rather than say carriers), so that makes it unlikely we can accurately apply modern terminology to the Imperial fleet (or at least, no more accurately than you could by referencing any other time period, like Sea Skimmer's "rates".)

We chose the modern definition because it's the in currant usage. Do you refer to Muslims as "Mohammedans?" I'm guessing you don't but a hundred years ago it would have been acceptable to do so. The modern definition is modern because it's currently in use, which is why we use it.

You can't have this both ways because unless we agree to use the modern definition of things like Battleship, Carrier, and the like you can't have a conversation because if you try to have it both ways you must define what Is... is.

Connor MacLeod wrote: The Death Star is not a warship, and there was never any indication they would buidl anything on that scale routinely (even if they could.) so bad analogy.

So what is the Death Star if not a warship? Is it a transport? A receiving hall? If you want to say space station you'd be incorrect because again our MODERN interpretation of the word space station is something that is... well... stationary. Either in a fixed orbit and it's only ability to maneuver is station keeping.

I contend the Death Star is a Warship the biggest one built to be sure but it fits the current accepted definition of Warship quite well.

Mr Bean wrote: We chose the modern definition because it's the in currant usage. Do you refer to Muslims as "Mohammedans?" I'm guessing you don't but a hundred years ago it would have been acceptable to do so. The modern definition is modern because it's currently in use, which is why we use it.

So by your logic, all sci fi tactics, ship design, classifications, etc. must invariably be analyzed strictly in terms of MODERN? That's a rather curious way to approach it. Or if you're saying that only applies to Star Wars, then how the hell is that not ARBITRARY? Are you telling me we have to shoehorn in SW evidence to fit modern definitions (you know, the battleships existing? Don't forget there's all those "lesser" classes of warships as well. I don't think the modern definition has enough terms to fit them all.)

And what happens if "modern" terminology changes again? Does that magically mean we have to readjust everything in SW just to suit the new terms?

You can't have this both ways because unless we agree to use the modern definition of things like Battleship, Carrier, and the like you can't have a conversation because if you try to have it both ways you must define what Is... is.

I'm not the one insisting that ONE SPECIFIC DEFINITION TRUMPS ALL. I said I like Sea Skimmer's the best because it's both the most ambiguous yet also acknowledging that some level of classification exists.

So what is the Death Star if not a warship? Is it a transport? A receiving hall? If you want to say space station you'd be incorrect because again our MODERN interpretation of the word space station is something that is... well... stationary. Either in a fixed orbit and it's only ability to maneuver is station keeping.

Except they call it a battlestation onscreen. Simply saying "its not stationary" does not change that fact. Or are you going to tell me now Turbolasers really ARE lasers simply because they call them lasers? Or maybe they're literally cannons because they're called cannons?

I contend the Death Star is a Warship the biggest one built to be sure but it fits the current accepted definition of Warship quite well.

Source?

Have we forgotten the idea of peacetime and wartime ratings, then?

As I recall it, one relatively easy way out of the confusion was to assume that a lot of it existed in universe. The Bureau of Ships and Services maintained a system that was very bureaucratic and hidebound, and reacted to galactic change very slowly; what they called a ship, what the press called a ship, what the manufacturers called it and what the end users called it could be four completely different things.

Broadly speaking the confusion resolves itself down into what the average being in the cantina says when he looks up at one of these things, and what the fleet says about it. Han is an outlier- he's Corellian, and the Corellian Navy tended to the light fast and numerous, attack boat tactics, so by his standards it probably was a cruiser.

To blow my own trumpet here, some time ago I tried to tie it all together and came up with this as the Starfleet version of the classification ladder;

Dreadnoughts; Mandator- I, Mandator-II, Executor, Sovereign, Eclipse

Battleships; Giel’s Star Battleship (“Prolocutor”?), Anon battleship II “Defensor”, III “Conducor”, IV (still thinking about names)

Anon (“Aquila”?)Star Carrier

Battlecruisers; Vengeance, Procurator, Praetor, Ultor (?)/Tagge’s, Wermis’s/(“Adversor”)

Cruisers; Anon- I “City”, Anon-III “Senator”, Anon-II “Admiral”, Anon- IV “Starburst”, Anon-V “Sector” classes


Heavy Destroyers; Invincible, Allegiance, Anon SD VII “Ordinator”, Anon SD III “Proelium”, Shockwave

Line Destroyers; Tector, Imperator-I, Imperator-II, Anon Interdictor SD “Dictator”, Dominator, Anon SD IV “Retexor”

Light Destroyers; Venator, Anon SD II “Arrogant”, Anon SD VI “Spoliator”, Karu, Harrow/ “Excrucior”, Victory-I, Victory-II, Anon SD I “Victory-III”


Heavy Frigates; Acclamator, Ecliptic, “Meridian”/Acclamator-II, Vindicator

Medium Frigates; Centax, Demolisher, “Pabulator”/Neutron Star, Broadside, “Verberor”/Strike, Dreadnaught

Light Frigates; Fulgor, Interdictor, CC-2200 Detainer, “Comitor”/Escort Carrier, Anon Prison ship II “Moderator”


Heavy Corvettes; Anon prison ship I “Quaestor”, Anon Corvette II “Servator”, class 1000, Carrack

Medium Corvettes; Bayonet, Anon Corvette I “Vagor”, Anon Star Monitor “Oppugnator”, Nebulon B, Nebulon B2

Light Corvettes; Marauder, DP20 Corellian Gunship, CR90 Corellian Corvette, Assassin mod corvette, Lancer, Prosperity “Praecurror”, Rendili Light Corvette

It was a long time ago and there may be a couple of things needing filled in, but you get the idea- there is a long continuum of warship types that Imperator/Imperial- class end up pretty much in the middle of. (Incidentally, I agree with the idea that there simply isn't enough variety around, but convergent evolution of designs might squash some of that anyway- a good design for a job is a good design for a job, they all tend to end up looking alike. That and local license building of proven types. And what a headache for the special effects crew.)

That does make them the median swing types, small enough to escort large ships and large enough to dominate enemy small ships, maids of all work for the fleet. Which is not far off the modern definition of a destroyer, actually.

Although I am unconvinced too of it's absolute meaningfulness, given the whole flight, helicopter, sea subsurface and air thing modern naval warfare has going on. (Translation; too many fators of nonsimilarity, too many separate dimensions of threat and purpose.) At most we're borrowing the names as indicators of relative weight and throw-weight, which is just as well because the suggestion of meaning they carry is more dramatic, more story-worthy, to me than something more technically accurate than the cold war russian navy's alphabet soup- RKRs and BPKs and PLARBs and all sorts. If a good story can be written entirely in pentagonese, go for it.

The universe- internal evidence does suggest that they sit essentially at that median point, with enough layers above and below to fit the destroyer role- as well as presumably being titled something in Basic that translates to we the audience as Destroyer, of course. General purpose medium multirole, light and flexible enough to be used as the upper, reaction element in space control, heavy enough to be meaningfully useful in major engagement. What else would you call that?

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Mr Bean wrote: So what is the Death Star if not a warship? Is it a transport? A receiving hall? If you want to say space station you'd be incorrect because again our MODERN interpretation of the word space station is something that is... well... stationary. Either in a fixed orbit and it's only ability to maneuver is station keeping.

Except they call it a battlestation onscreen. Simply saying "its not stationary" does not change that fact. Or are you going to tell me now Turbolasers really ARE lasers simply because they call them lasers? Or maybe they're literally cannons because they're called cannons?

I contend the Death Star is a Warship the biggest one built to be sure but it fits the current accepted definition of Warship quite well.

Coming at this from the OP, where would you squeeze in the Death Star's class and role next to a Star Destroyer? It's certainly called a battlestation onscreen, just as the Star Destroyers are called "Imperial Cruisers" by Han in the same movie, and not called Star Destroyers until ESB. Both are mobile, both have guns, and both carry fighters. I'd classify by role no matter it's shape or what it's called, just because of what it's doing.

If you're talking about how the Imperial fleet would designate ships in universe, I highly doubt the Venator is a considered a Light Destroyer. It is described in the TV series The Clone Wars as a cruiser, as I recall. Weather it fits the cruiser or destroyer role better can be debated, but it is explicitly called a cruiser in-universe.

Edit: Granted, it might have just been called this by the Confederacy, so maybe they call it a cruiser and the Republic calls it a destroyer?

Could well be- I think we have to accept that different peoples' and organisations' spectra of definition are different and divergent to make any sense at all. By Mon Cal definitions, the MC80's are cruisers, but toe to toe they're a fair match for an Imperial destroyer, for the prime example.

The Venators fall into a lighter category than Imperator- class and variants because they have about thirty-five, thirty six percent of the mass and firepower of their larger brethren- they're clearly at least destroyers, they're nowhere near in the fighting class of a 3.1- kilometre ship which is probably a "true" or galactic- class cruiser;
on balance I'd say they do fall into the same broad category as the Victories and variants in the 900m-1Km range, as a destroyer, but not one which constitutes a fleet- formation Line in itself.

On the Venator issue, does not the ICs describe it as a jack of all trades, able to enforce blockades, act as escorts for larger warships and if necessary lead indepedent operations in small groups?

So perhaps it's an Escort/Support Destroyer rather than a Light or Line Destroyer

Mr Bean wrote:If I show you this picture *snip image* And I describe it as "A Machine Gun" does this make the term Machine Gun a bad term that's not helpful? Or does this make me incorrect in my usage of the term.

Are you seriously trying to represent yourself as a more qualified expert in the field of fictional spaceship designation than the authors writing about them?

As we understand the concept and term "Destroyer" in modern current 2012 military parlance a Star Destroyer can best be described as a Destroyer because it is designed as a jack of all trades vessel used to hunt down gunboat style vessels, defend other ships and itself against fighters and escort other ships.

...and to serve as centerpieces of fleet engagements, deploy fighter craft, and as a platform for ground invasions. Just like today's destroyers?

Interesting. So what role do today's battleships fill?

I suppose if you're arguing that it can't be a battleship because they no longer exist in any modern naval function, there would be a certain consistency to that. Otherwise it's just incoherent garbling. Like Connor, I fail to see why your assertion that modern classification must be used has any greater merit.

TOSDOC wrote: Coming at this from the OP, where would you squeeze in the Death Star's class and role next to a Star Destroyer? It's certainly called a battlestation onscreen, just as the Star Destroyers are called "Imperial Cruisers" by Han in the same movie, and not called Star Destroyers until ESB. Both are mobile, both have guns, and both carry fighters. I'd classify by role no matter it's shape or what it's called, just because of what it's doing.

Command ship and/or bombardment platform are all you could really call it. Properties of a nuclear sub as well (since it carries a WMD, but then again all Imperial warships do that.) Command ships don't need to be the biggest or most powerful ships, though.

The Death Star could be fitted quite well into Sea Skimmer's rates system without much modification - Age of Sail quite often had large, one-of-a kind vessels that were the commands of the fleet commanders.

The problem with trying to assign SW to any one particular era is that it doesn't really borrow from just that era. It borrows (thematically) a little bit from everything, partly because of the multitude of sources involved and partly because, well, SW borrows shit from all over (alot like 40K really.) It has lots of elements of Age of Sail, WW1/WW2, and even more "modern" (snort) combat, and even some stuff that doesn't quite fit into those categories depending on where you look.

Modern combat doesn't fit because of various reasons (unless things have changed in recent years we don't put armor on ships or expect them to resist or ignore hits the way we did in WW1 or WW2.) Also missiles and fighters play a key, dominant role in warfare. That isn't what we really see in STar Wars either.

That could mean that, as I have long argued, a WW1/WW2 approach fits better. Except that really doesn't either. Battleships were in decline by that time, as were gun battles (Carriers were coming into prominence) and "hybrid" ships (those that combined warship with carrier roles) while they existed, tended to be rare or even experimental designs. So that doesn't quite fit either.

Hell Age of Sail quite obviously isn't a perfect fit, since it lacked stuff liek fighters, missiles, and long range gun battles. But it is still one of the better fits simply because "rates" are very open ended and vague as far as classification though, and that means the approach is highly adaptable to fit the unique/inconsistent way SW 'classification' arguably goes.

I don't expect it to change much though, ISD= destroyer has been argued over and defended for so long I think its become pretty entrenched regardless of the rationale you bring for or against it.

I always found it worth noting that older material made a habit of calling them "Star Destroyers", and pretty much anything else without modifier or lower case as in "battleship" or "star cruiser". (No one says "Imperial Cruisers", it's always "Imperial cruisers". And it's always "Imperial Star Destroyer", not "Imperial star destroyer".) It seemed clear that they could be battleships or cruisers or destroyers or what have you, but regardless of actual role or size, Star Destroyer is the unique proper-noun-ed designator for jack of all trades *wedge-shaped* warship.

The answer lies in the Imperial sourcebook. ISD's serve in the fleet flagships and battleship roles in the rim/frontier forces or just the typical sector forces, whereas they have more of a support role in forces that have star dreadnoughts. So the classification would depend on the local circumstances.

I have never really liked the two tier system, but have learned to accept it. Anyways; it does solve this problem. Where as a ship high on the low tier, say a cruiser, would place very low on the galactic side of the tiers, say a Star Frigate or Star Destroyer.

So the Imperator could fall into this by being both a heavy cruiser on the low tier and a Star Destroyer on the high tier.

Or, ship classification is just very arbitrary in the STar Wars universe. Millions of cultures, lots of room for variation and conflict and competition in ship classification. Nevermind "political" considerations (The Empire might classify STar Destroyers as a smaller warship when they are in fact a much larger vessel simply to get more ships or to evade some sort of treaty or ban. It's happened historically IIRC.)

I'm sure there is probably some economic incentive too: you just know some shipbuilder would love to charge cruiser-scale prices for something they built on the destroyer scale, or something like that.

If you were going to go with some sort of "unified" scale or classification scheme you want to keep it as deliberately vague and broad as possible to account for potential inconsistnecies anyhow.

Connor MacLeod wrote: The Death Star could be fitted quite well into Sea Skimmer's rates system without much modification - Age of Sail quite often had large, one-of-a kind vessels that were the commands of the fleet commanders.

Funny enough in the age of sail First Rate was unlimited on the upper end number of guns , so you could correctly place anything giant into it. But no rational reason exists why a one off super weapon needs to fit into the normal designation system in the first place. It could fall under a special 'First Rate Plus' category which would be an unlimited if people really wanted; but this is like demanding a complete revision of the way we classify field artillery just to accommodate the 800mm Nazi Dora supergun. It isn't necessary to do that in ordered to have a useful system. Lots of auxiliary vessels, fortress tenders, supply ships and that sort of thing might be armed and even carry fighters without truly fitting this system either but it shouldn’t matter when the point is broad comparisons, not nit picking the details of ships whose capabilities can’t be nailed down past order of magnitude estimates at best. The very point is we can't do that, nor can anyone predict what a ship is actually doing to do vs. what it was designed to do vs. what it was built to do in the building program which would all be affected by numerous external factors.

Personally I just wouldn't even consider the Death Star a line ship; I'd classify it under auxiliaries alongside torpedo spheres or mobile bases or something like that. I mean the USN still has the Constitution as an active warship. Quick do we call it a frigate or a destroyer under modern designations!?!!>!

Call the Death Star a siege train. Yes a siege train is typically a land-based system, and trains usually move fast. But when this train arrives the siege is pretty much over.

Er, a medieval "siege train" moved quite slowly as a rule, since most of the hardware traveled on ox-carts.

I would argue that the Death Star is simply unlike anything out of our military history, even when we scale up to galaxies; the only things that are remotely 'like' it so that we can reuse a name are things with names that are inaccurate technical terms. A ballistic missile submarine has the same kind of destructive power and nigh-invulnerability relative to cities that the Death Star has relative to planets, but it would be ridiculous to call the Death Star a ballistic missile submarine.

The Death Star is what it is, and we shouldn't waste time trying to force-fit names that don't apply to it.

Whereas some of the more generic wet-navy terms are at least roughly applicable to ordinary starships in Star Wars and other SF settings. We can talk intelligently about superheavy warships designed mainly to engage heavy defenses or other ships of their own class ("battleships,"). Or medium warships designed for long-range expeditionary warfare, capable of overpowering anything less than large-ish dedicated warships ("cruisers" or "frigates," depending on which era you prefer among other things). Or light warships designed for fleet escort and support roles ("destroyers," "corvettes," "sloops," and assorted other terms).

The closest we can come to (and we have to make some compromises for that, I think) is a command ship, especially given as Death STars were envisioned (supposedly) to be regional commands (with Executor-class as Sector level command ships.) But in reality, its combining traits of a command ship, supercarrier/amphibious assault ship, battleship, and ballistic missile vesel.

I wouldn't call it a command ship either, because it's not specialized for the command-and-control role. It's just so damn big that it happens to be able to do that along with its numerous other roles: superweapon, fleet-smashing gun platform, troop barracks, logistics base, Mimas impersonator...

It simply is what it is- a mobile platform of extreme size, which acts as both heavily fortified base and devastating offensive weapon.

Simon_Jester wrote:Er, a medieval "siege train" moved quite slowly as a rule, since most of the hardware traveled on ox-carts.

Well, when moved overland it would be slow. But they moved heavy siege guns and mortars by sea whenever they could which made them as fast as anything else around. Its also worth remembering that back before the 1830s or so, anything heavier then a 12pdr was a siege gun which is pretty puny all things considered as warships at sea already mounted 64pdr and even 80pdr guns. The standard for a siege weapon was merely that it was too big to move with a team of six or eight horses.

They also did have specialist siege warships called bomb ketches from the 1600s onward. Such vessels were small, but they resemble the Death Star in certain respects in that they were completely designed around transporting and firing a single (usually, sometimes two later on) very heavy mortar that dwarfed any other weapons onboard. They also were fully ocean going vessels; unlike later monitors which eventually took over the same general role. So Death Star = Mega Bomb Ketch? I'd call it an auxiliary and be done with it. We might as well argue if the Executor is a trireme or an ISD a longship.

In my opinion, the ISD II is a destroyer. A powerful one, but still a destroyer.
I'd classify the Executor/Eclipse classes as battleships and the ships between them as cruisers/battlecruisers depending of the amount of heavy weaponry they have.
The problem with this are those ships smaller than a destroyer that are classified as cruisers -the Loronar strike cruiser or the Carrack-class light cruiser to cite two examples-.

As a side note, in the ST game Star Fleet Battles, the battleship is considered superior to a dreadnought in everything, and in fact are nearly a conjetural ship; I think only two races -Klingons and Andromedans- had or were building one; if we're going to use that, the Executor would be a dreadnought and the Eclipse -that seems to be more massive and having heavier weaponry- a battleship.

Historically a dreadnaught is a sub-category of battleship, typically having higher speeds and more big guns of the largest available caliber.