StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Your average Destroyer doesn't act on it's own, or lead smaller fleets. It doesn't have a flight deck capable of servicing multiple squadrons, or the facilities to act as a spacedock in a pinch. It isn't built to operate against both warships and against smaller vessels. In fact, the only way to make an ISD a Destroyer is to obsessively cling to it's role as guardian for even bigger ships.. Except ships like Cruisers are also drafted into escort for the big mamas.

Of course, for the intelligent, they will realize that the ISD fufils a role around Cruiser level that doesn't actually exist in the real world.

I always thought it was obvious that a Star Destroyer isn't a Cruiser/Destroyer/Frigate/Battleship/Corvette etc but rather a Star Destroyer. Look at what it is capable of, it spreads throughout many roles and capabilities. Why not that it is a new class designation? Carrier/Escort/Heavy Weapons/Bombardment/Planetary Assault = Star Destroyer. Of course there are different levels of Star Destroyer.

Personally people who claim them to be Destroyers are almost trying to make out the Empire to be what it isn't. If that was the Destroyer where are the tons of bigger ships? As opposed to the few odd we actually see... And what are the small ships then? Cutters? Pinnaces? Doesn't add up to call them Destroyers.

In my view, the Star Destroyers were intended to be the destroyers in the Imperial navy, but ended up as heavy cruisers as the Empire fell. The Emperor intended to build lots of SSDs, and later in Dark Empire, we learn that he was going to make the Eclipse the command ships and build fleets of Sovereigns. Something that never happened.

I always thought it was obvious that a Star Destroyer isn't a Cruiser/Destroyer/Frigate/Battleship/Corvette etc but rather a Star Destroyer. Look at what it is capable of, it spreads throughout many roles and capabilities.

Despite this, it is officially classified as a (star) destroyer. The possibility of building warships like the Imperator class Star Destroyers is likely to change the meaning of 'destroyer', isn't it?

If that was the Destroyer where are the tons of bigger ships?

What about the Executor? If an Imperator class ship is a destroyer, is it logical to assume that the Executor is a destroyer, too? Surely it has enhanced capabilities.

Don't forget that in the original trilogy we only see the Death Star (which doesn't need an escort fleet in the eyes of the Empire) and some SDs in ANH, and the Death Squadron in TESB. All the action is going on in the Outer Rim, so you can't expect seeing big fleets all the time.

Back to the original topic: Of course it is also possible that Han is just BSing, and he thinks that SDs are 'Correlian Cruisers'. But then he's just wrong.
Do you honestly believe the only thing that the empire has at hand are tiny one-man fighters, 1.6km SDs and 17.6km SSDs, with nothing in between?

I've always assumed (although this is from a not having read the novels standpoint), that Han was talking about the standard Correllian Corvettes and possibily other small but fast starships that might be used for customs interception where a star destroyer is overkill or needed elsewhere, after all, the Blockade Runner wasnt called the Blockade Runner for nothing, perhaps Han meant big correllian ships in the sense that the big reffered to their position on the speed record?

It doesn't make sense with CRVs either; ISDs can catch the Falcon, and the Tantive was keeping away from an ISD in ANH. So its fast than the Falcon too yes?

SirNitram wrote:Your average Destroyer doesn't act on it's own, or lead smaller fleets.

This is why I propose a compromise dealing with Marina's fleet calc. The central Navy, with its grandiose fleets and Saxton-dagger-ships over Byss, contracted the Imperial-class with the classical and canonical "Star [type]" designation as a Star Destroyer.

It was later purchased, just as the Victory-class was, to lead the smaller picket fleets of the Moffs' and Grand Moffs' Starfleets into battle as a fast battleship--this secondary mission requirements explain the great multi-role capabilities of the SD, although multi-role capabilities are filled by destroyers.

This also gets a rid of the contradiction between EU ship-scaling and canonical "Star [type]" scaling. Better yet, it draws on some implications from the film and from Saxton's interview.

Plus, its just fucked up to have the entire Allegiance-to-Eclipse line filled with battlecruisers and battleships.

SirNitram wrote:It doesn't have a flight deck capable of servicing multiple squadrons,

But they do carry helicopters for mission support.

SirNitram wrote:or the facilities to act as a spacedock in a pinch.

No wet navy combat vessels can do this to my knowledge, so I guess we'd best throw out a lot of things.

Hell, the supposed cruisers don't have these facilites or multiple squadrons either. Admittably I don't know if you're arguing as Connor has before that they are cruisers, but that's the gist I'm getting.

SirNitram wrote:It isn't built to operate against both warships and against smaller vessels.

Flat-out wrong. Both guided-missile destroyers like DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class and standard destroyers like the proposed DD(X) have anti-vessel offensive capabilities.

SirNitram wrote:In fact, the only way to make an ISD a Destroyer is to obsessively cling to it's role as guardian for even bigger ships.

Wrong. Destroyers are multi-role defensive and offensive ships. The DD(X) even utilizes advanced gun systems for surface support. The Destroyer is not necessarily a "Destroyer Escort." That'd be a different kind of ship. And even so, this is explained by the two-naval scaling systems. Contracted by the old guard from KDY as a "Star Destroyer" and later sold due to its advantages to local Starfleets as a fast battleship, when compared to and fighting along side local picket fleets. However, WEG demands the Moffs' and Grand Moffs' Starfleets are still divisions of the overall Imperial Starfleet, and the same vessel must carry the same designation through the naval services, even if the local governors use her differently.

SirNitram wrote:Except ships like Cruisers are also drafted into escort for the big mamas.

The films call the "Star Destroyers." The novelisations call them "Star Destroyers" and Calamarian warships "Star Cruisers." AOTC ICS confirms that "Star [role]" is a common nomenclature scheme.

SirNitram wrote:Of course, for the intelligent, they will realize that the ISD fufils a role around Cruiser level that doesn't actually exist in the real world.

That's exactly what we're saying. It peforms a semi-analogous role to wet navy Destroyers but there's no true equivalent. There can't be.

EDIT: Is the "for the intelligent" bit really necessary? Do you get off on being a pretentious prick?

Super-Gagme wrote:I always thought it was obvious that a Star Destroyer isn't a Cruiser/Destroyer/Frigate/Battleship/Corvette etc but rather a Star Destroyer. Look at what it is capable of, it spreads throughout many roles and capabilities. Why not that it is a new class designation? Carrier/Escort/Heavy Weapons/Bombardment/Planetary Assault = Star Destroyer. Of course there are different levels of Star Destroyer.

Contradicted by canon sources. You're wrong. Its a valid nomenclature designation and does describe role.

Forget not that under Suspension of Disbelief all the words in the movies are translated from Basic for our convienence. "Star Destroyer" can't be a totally conceptually unique word or it wouldn't translate. It can't be a brand name because its used by multiple companies. And secondary canonical sources indeed indicate that the translation means "Destroyer" of the "Star."

Super-Gagme wrote:Personally people who claim them to be Destroyers are almost trying to make out the Empire to be what it isn't. If that was the Destroyer where are the tons of bigger ships? As opposed to the few odd we actually see... And what are the small ships then? Cutters? Pinnaces? Doesn't add up to call them Destroyers.

No. Those smaller vessels are only seen in local Starfleets, where they're used to support local Moffs and Grand Moffs. Saxton indicates in his interview these small picket vessels and frigates are used as destroyers against the small-fries in the microcosm of the individual sectors.

But observe the central Navy at Byss. Easily many tens of thousands of vessels, none smaller than an Allegiance-class vessel. Easily thousands of the Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers, and Star Battleships.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:And what of "X-class Star Destroyers" like the Victory, Executor, and Eclipse class?

Firstly, canon > official. "Star [role]" is a valid and official nomenclature system in the GFFA, and as outlined above, it cannot be a conceptually unique word from our English nor can it be a brand name (translation deal). Not only this, but the remaining role theory is backed up by secondary canon such as the novelisations and AOTC ICS.

Super-class Star Destroyer is just bullshit, secondly.

Third: "Super Star Destroyer" is, I believe, a colloquialism-cum-semi-official designation. "Super Star Destroyer" refers to the Allegiance-class as well as the Executor-class and the Eclipse-class. Now these ships do not have the same roles. The first is a heavy fleet destroyer or light cruiser, the second is a command ship and supercarrier, and the last is a mobile superlaser, command ship, and dreadnought.

What do they all share? They all have C4I and C&C abilities. It seems to me that once the Galactic Navy realized the Victory was widely popular not only as a destroyer for the central fleet, but also as an ad hoc battlecruiser among local defense forces, they "built-in" the secondary roles for the next destroyer, the Imperial-class, so it could also be sold to Moffs as a fast battleship and more importantly, a fast mothership capable of coordinating a small task force at the sector level.

I believe that "Super Star Destroyer" is the local sector fleet designation for leviathan vessels deployed with local defense forces developed for the navy which were not procured within the fleet scheme of the local Sector Groups.

Witness that the Executor and Allegiance do not fit in the Corvette-Carrack-Dreadnought-VSD-ISD scheme of the Sector Group you will. Why would these vessels be assigned to lower fleet commands? For superior command and control and communication abilities. They performed the Imperial's Sector Group-level role on a much higher scale, hence "Super Star Destroyer."

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:The word 'destroyer' cannot dictate the starships role. More likely it is simply a name given to a certain line of warships by KDY.

Rendili StarDrive would like to disagree.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:It is apparent that the Imperial-class Star Destroyer fills the destroyer role for other reasons, but its name doesn't seem to be one of them.

Primary canon suggests the name does indicate, and secondary canon confirms this. Its not invalidated by lower sources. The WEG SSD and cruiser stuff HAS TO be subordinate and rationalized in a way preferential to the novelisations and AOTC ICS, because they are canonical and WEG's stuff is not.

On ISD being the empire's "destroyers" where is the evidence for this? aside from the fact their called "destroyers" not a lot as far as i can tell.
By that logic we can decide that the Eclipse, Executiors and soverignens were all destroyers as well. Hey maybe all we ever see are the empires smallest ships? Maybe the have proper battleships that make soverigns look like pop guns?.

Actually, I would like to point out that there is no contradiction between a Star Destroyer and an Imperial Cruiser in terms of classifications.

Again, the term Cruiser is the designation given to a fast ship that "cruises" whereas a Destroyer is the short desgination for torpedo boat destroyers, and which was meant to engage and destroy flotillas of small fast ships.

We see that the ISD fulfills both desginations. It is fast, and it can engage and destroy multiple small ships. If you ask me, the reason why this debate has been going on for so long is because many warsies have the anal idea that "cruisers>>> destroyers" in firepower and tonnage. That's true in our modern times, but it wasn't true when the destroyer first came out. Back then, the Torpedo Boat destroyer was larger than the cruiser used to escort ships into harbour.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Rendili StarDrive would like to disagree.

Ahhh, after a quick look through the VSDs profile, I see that you are indeed correct. When I first read the little blurb on Rendili StarDrive in the AOTC ICS, I thought it was just fluff. How very clever of Mr. Saxton to patch continuity together.

Super-class Star Destroyer is just bullshit, secondly.

You will notice, IP, nowhere did I mention a "Super"-class Star Destroyer.

Crazedwraith wrote:On ISD being the empire's "destroyers" where is the evidence for this? <snip>

Perhaps it will do you some good to read the post DIRECTLY before yours, challenging every statement previously made in the thread, before you ask such silly questions.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:

Crazedwraith wrote:On ISD being the empire's "destroyers" where is the evidence for this? <snip>

Perhaps it will do you some good to read the post DIRECTLY before yours, challenging every statement previously made in the thread, before you ask such silly questions.

oops next time i'll just insert my foot directly into my mouth shall i? and leave out the middle gnome.

Crazedwraith wrote:On ISD being the empire's "destroyers" where is the evidence for this? aside from the fact their called "destroyers" not a lot as far as i can tell.

There role and tonnage is semi-analogous to real world wet navy destroyers. Additionally, the vessel does fit a nomenclature suggested by the movies and confirmed by the novelisations and AOTC ICS.

Crazedwraith wrote:By that logic we can decide that the Eclipse, Executiors and soverignens were all destroyers as well.

"Super Star Destroyer" is at worst an error, Rebel slang, and historical inaccuracies in the EU. At best its a semi-official designation derived from a colloquialism for C4I motherships outmassing an ISD which are assigned to Sector Group forces. The Rebels appear to have adopted this for the ships regardless of local or galactic Naval assignment.

Crazedwraith wrote:Hey maybe all we ever see are the empires smallest ships? Maybe the have proper battleships that make soverigns look like pop guns?.

No evidence but certainly within the Empire's industrial ability.

PainRack wrote:Actually, I would like to point out that there is no contradiction between a Star Destroyer and an Imperial Cruiser in terms of classifications.

Again, the term Cruiser is the designation given to a fast ship that "cruises" whereas a Destroyer is the short desgination for torpedo boat destroyers, and which was meant to engage and destroy flotillas of small fast ships.

I agree. In pure role terms, the ISD bridges cruiser with destroyer, even in the "pan-galactic fleet scale" sense. However, much more massive vessels also appear to have supportive roles for leviathans as cruisers, and the AOTC ICS clarifying the nomenclature question, the Imperial Navy seems to feel the ISD is a destroyer. The much more massive vessels more exclusively filling cruiser roles would be the cruisers.

PainRack wrote:We see that the ISD fulfills both desginations. It is fast, and it can engage and destroy multiple small ships. If you ask me, the reason why this debate has been going on for so long is because many warsies have the anal idea that "cruisers>>> destroyers" in firepower and tonnage. That's true in our modern times, but it wasn't true when the destroyer first came out. Back then, the Torpedo Boat destroyer was larger than the cruiser used to escort ships into harbour.

Again, true. But given tonnage is related to reactor volume and hence firepower and shielding, and the nomenclature deal, ISDs are destroyers, their larger cousins are probably pure cruisers.

By the way:

Curtis Saxton's Interview on theForce.net wrote:10. If the clone troopers were created in secret, where did all the gunships and Republic cruisers come from?

"Regional variation" answers most questions of this kind.

The big military hardware came from a very secure industrial world named Rothana. I understand that Lucas named that world himself. I think I proposed that the natives are furry, hippo-sized lobster-like intelligent creatures. Anyhow, they are a regional subsidiary of Kuat Drive Yards, which has good reasons for supporting the galactic government and staying apart from the other major separatist/corporate powers.

Like a handful of wealthy sectors, Kuat Sector is able to manufacture and maintain sectorial defense fleets which are supposed to be comparable in size and power to the ships of the Imperial Starfleet found more widely in the classic trilogy. However because of frustrating trade limitations imposed by the Trade Federation, little of this equipment can be sold elsewhere in the galaxy, and they mostly have short-range hyperdrives. Outer Rim sectors make do with a diminutive scale of "dreadnaughts" which are so ubiquitous in the old West End Games sourcebooks. They're hundreds of metres long instead of kilometres long.

SirNitram wrote:Your average Destroyer doesn't act on it's own, or lead smaller fleets.

Wrong on both counts. Lonestar just went out on a mission like that. His Destroyer was on its own, then lead a small fleet of coast guard ships in one of their missions

It doesn't have a flight deck capable of servicing multiple squadrons,

For its scale, the helicopters it carries suffice to prove equivlence

or the facilities to act as a spacedock in a pinch.

Neither does the ISD, that's why they have mobile Deepdocks

It isn't built to operate against both warships and against smaller vessels.

That is so damn wrong it isn't funny.

In fact, the only way to make an ISD a Destroyer is to obsessively cling to it's role as guardian for even bigger ships.. Except ships like Cruisers are also drafted into escort for the big mamas.

Of course, for the intelligent, they will realize that the ISD fufils a role around Cruiser level that doesn't actually exist in the real world.

The intelligent also realize its is a really bad idea to try and bullshit someone who is in the navy about the navy.

Super-Gagme wrote:I always thought it was obvious that a Star Destroyer isn't a Cruiser/Destroyer/Frigate/Battleship/Corvette etc but rather a Star Destroyer. Look at what it is capable of, it spreads throughout many roles and capabilities. Why not that it is a new class designation? Carrier/Escort/Heavy Weapons/Bombardment/Planetary Assault = Star Destroyer. Of course there are different levels of Star Destroyer.

So, thie idea of what we do here is to compare things to real life to find logical extrapolations and explanations, but your position is "fuck that"? Am I reading that properly?

Personally people who claim them to be Destroyers are almost trying to make out the Empire to be what it isn't. If that was the Destroyer where are the tons of bigger ships?

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html

As opposed to the few odd we actually see...

Yes, if a few thousand can be considered "few" Look at the ship density over Byss.

And what are the small ships then? Cutters? Pinnaces? Doesn't add up to call them Destroyers.

Lets examine, shall we?

The Immobolized hull form, dreadnaught and strike cruiser all fall as frigate.

The lancer, Nebulon B, and carrack were described as pickets.

The corvettes, SPCs and such were specifically stated to be customs and small systems craft.

Not seeing anything close to a contradiction here.

One will also notice how infrequently (except to lead small anti-pirate or anti-Rebel taskforces) the ISD actually leads significant fleets as a flag ship.

Not until Thrawn's era is really treated like that, and that's because Palpy gutted his fleet.

To me it makes sense, Navy destroyers sold to local forces to lead up small taskforces of equivalent basically the equivalent to coast guard and picket vessels. 6 destroyers are needed to pacify any decently industrialized world and can't come close to occupying it.

Consider the modest Chommel Sector: 36 worlds, 30,000 dependencies, and 24 ISDs minimum in the Imperial era. If even only 4 worlds have revolts or coups during this era, the entire ISD complement of the Sector Group is tied-up. They're really a lot smaller and weaker in terms of scale than people seem to think.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Your average Destroyer doesn't act on it's own, or lead smaller fleets.

This is why I propose a compromise dealing with Marina's fleet calc. The central Navy, with its grandiose fleets and Saxton-dagger-ships over Byss, contracted the Imperial-class with the classical and canonical "Star [type]" designation as a Star Destroyer.

It was later purchased, just as the Victory-class was, to lead the smaller picket fleets of the Moffs' and Grand Moffs' Starfleets into battle as a fast battleship--this secondary mission requirements explain the great multi-role capabilities of the SD, although multi-role capabilities are filled by destroyers.

This also gets a rid of the contradiction between EU ship-scaling and canonical "Star [type]" scaling. Better yet, it draws on some implications from the film and from Saxton's interview.

Also explains the line stating they were battleships in the OT ICS.

I think slapping a modern designation on a ISD does not work at all. SW fleet actions seem to revolve around more antiquated tactics. The ISD fits better into a galleon as far as design and purpose.

Large space going fortresses with on board troops and equipment to complement a rather large weapons deck. They are capable of boarding other vessels and assulting beachheads as well.

I repeat, the name "STar Destroyer" does not prove that the mile long warships we saw the Empire using *are* destroyers. The term "STar Destrtoyer" is used for vessels as small as 500 meters (Mandel's blueprints) and up to the 11-mile Executor (as canonical in the TESB novel and script both.) It is not a ship classification, nor can it be. Nor can you just pretend it doesn't apply to certain examples but does to one. Lets *try* to be consistent here.

Connor MacLeod wrote:I repeat, the name "STar Destroyer" does not prove that the mile long warships we saw the Empire using *are* destroyers. The term "STar Destrtoyer" is used for vessels as small as 500 meters (Mandel's blueprints)

Of questionable status, right now that has the same place as the concept art for the Executor

and up to the 11-mile Executor (as canonical in the TESB novel and script both.) It is not a ship classification, nor can it be. Nor can you just pretend it doesn't apply to certain examples but does to one. Lets *try* to be consistent here.

I am being consistent here Connor.

Today it is a very common practice for governments who want to appear more pacifistic to call their destroyers Cruisers or frigates.

The Empire wants to do just the opposite. It wants to frighten the people, so they start to term all their ships "star destroyers". So any ships built after Palpatine ascends to the throne, yes, you cannot go by that.

However, the Imperial class was built at the end fo the clone wars before Palpatine becomes Emperor, so in that case using that as a designation works. It explains everything.

Ender wrote:Of questionable status, right now that has the same place as the concept art for the Executor.

I really don't care whether or not the Mandel blueprints are valid or not, as its not crucial to my point (in fact, its simpler to ignore official evidence for the moment, even though I can find examples to supporrt myy opinion - such as Darksaber and Hard Merchandise.)

I am being consistent here Connor.

Today it is a very common practice for governments who want to appear more pacifistic to call their destroyers Cruisers or frigates.

The Empire wants to do just the opposite. It wants to frighten the people, so they start to term all their ships "star destroyers". So any ships built after Palpatine ascends to the throne, yes, you cannot go by that.

If you want to argue they call them "Star Destrtoyers" just to make them sound more fearsome, I don't mind at all, sincee that agrees with the notion that "Star Destroyer" does not define the ship class at all but more of some (arbitrary/slang?) title, which is largely the point I am arguing. After all, if the logic suggests they did this with ships like the Executor, how would it be different from the mile long ships?l (There still isn't evidence it *is* a destroyer - although it isn't neccesarily a cruiser either - after all.)

The same would be true of the latter-devised "Star Defenders" - which are almost certainly not a ship class, as well as Rebel Star Cruisers (since TESB novel and script refer to the Medical ship were Luke gets his prosthetic as a "Rebel Star Cruiser", as well as the fact that the ROTJ novel describes "dozens of Rebel Cruisers" moving to point blank range with the Imperials.

However, the Imperial class was built at the end fo the clone wars before Palpatine becomes Emperor, so in that case using that as a designation works. It explains everything.

How do you know the canon Star Destroyers from the OT were built at the end of the Clone Wars, neccesarily? And even if it is, how would this reconcile with the later-built "subclasses" we see in the latter versions, anyhow (and thats if we ignore the fact there ARE references to the OT ISD's as cruisers, which despite your blithe dismissal of, cannot be as easily ignored as you may wish.)

Knife wrote:I think slapping a modern designation on a ISD does not work at all. SW fleet actions seem to revolve around more antiquated tactics. The ISD fits better into a galleon as far as design and purpose.

Actually the ISD seems to possess more traits of a battlecruiser/battleship and aircraft carrier hybrid (as Mike has suggested) - I believe he also indicates such variants have existed historically. While I believe they are more close to cruisers than anythign else, I am more than willing to concede they might be something more like a hybrid battleship/battlecruiser and carrier (Hell, there is a cruiser-class that "is" such a hybrid.)

Large space going fortresses with on board troops and equipment to complement a rather large weapons deck. They are capable of boarding other vessels and assulting beachheads as well.

That would be consistent with a battleship/carrier or battlecruiser/carrier hybrid.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:Your average Destroyer doesn't act on it's own, or lead smaller fleets.

This is why I propose a compromise dealing with Marina's fleet calc. The central Navy, with its grandiose fleets and Saxton-dagger-ships over Byss, contracted the Imperial-class with the classical and canonical "Star [type]" designation as a Star Destroyer.

Why not simply use Official data, which leads to a far more sane result? Let's see... 2,000,000 ISD's. Where are these two million ISD's? This would clearly imply every single world in the Empire has at least one Imperator-style ship in calling range. Except.. That's not how it goes down in any of the EU or canon.

Of course, while Marina's estimates are rather appropriate for a Galactic-scale entity at war, anyone who keeps themselves familiar with the source material will realize this isn't what the Empire is. While built up from it's predecessors(Who did not even field an army!), it is not at war with an equal. Ultimately, the Empire in the Trilogy is fighting a police action against terrorists, and that does not require these ridiculously inflated fleet numbers.

It was later purchased, just as the Victory-class was, to lead the smaller picket fleets of the Moffs' and Grand Moffs' Starfleets into battle as a fast battleship--this secondary mission requirements explain the great multi-role capabilities of the SD, although multi-role capabilities are filled by destroyers.

Destroyers are not multirole, and certainly not this multirole. In addition, they never lead fleets.

This also gets a rid of the contradiction between EU ship-scaling and canonical "Star [type]" scaling. Better yet, it draws on some implications from the film and from Saxton's interview.

Plus, its just fucked up to have the entire Allegiance-to-Eclipse line filled with battlecruisers and battleships.

Why? Because it's too many designs? They all fill the roles of heavy carriers/battleships/command ships.

SirNitram wrote:It doesn't have a flight deck capable of servicing multiple squadrons,

But they do carry helicopters for mission support.

A few helicoptors for support is nothing like an entire Wing of fighters. This is more analoguous to the Neb-B's small flight deck, or the Modified CRV's fligth deck.

SirNitram wrote:or the facilities to act as a spacedock in a pinch.

No wet navy combat vessels can do this to my knowledge, so I guess we'd best throw out a lot of things.

Hell, the supposed cruisers don't have these facilites or multiple squadrons either. Admittably I don't know if you're arguing as Connor has before that they are cruisers, but that's the gist I'm getting.

No, cruisers do not. However, ISD's do come closer to cruisers by a long shot than any ridiculous claim they are Destroyers.

SirNitram wrote:It isn't built to operate against both warships and against smaller vessels.

Flat-out wrong. Both guided-missile destroyers like DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class and standard destroyers like the proposed DD(X) have anti-vessel offensive capabilities.

Are they capable of slugging it out for extended periods against both fighters and warships? This is quite different than being built to deliver a nasty punch briefly(Corellian Gunship).

SirNitram wrote:In fact, the only way to make an ISD a Destroyer is to obsessively cling to it's role as guardian for even bigger ships.

Wrong. Destroyers are multi-role defensive and offensive ships. The DD(X) even utilizes advanced gun systems for surface support. The Destroyer is not necessarily a "Destroyer Escort." That'd be a different kind of ship. And even so, this is explained by the two-naval scaling systems. Contracted by the old guard from KDY as a "Star Destroyer" and later sold due to its advantages to local Starfleets as a fast battleship, when compared to and fighting along side local picket fleets. However, WEG demands the Moffs' and Grand Moffs' Starfleets are still divisions of the overall Imperial Starfleet, and the same vessel must carry the same designation through the naval services, even if the local governors use her differently.

So your entire argument is semantical nonsense. Here's a semantical reply, since you've blown off everything relating to observation: Han Solo calls them 'Cruisers' in ANH.

SirNitram wrote:Except ships like Cruisers are also drafted into escort for the big mamas.

The films call the "Star Destroyers." The novelisations call them "Star Destroyers" and Calamarian warships "Star Cruisers." AOTC ICS confirms that "Star [role]" is a common nomenclature scheme.

And yet they have all the duties of a Cruiser-analogue. How curious.

SirNitram wrote:Of course, for the intelligent, they will realize that the ISD fufils a role around Cruiser level that doesn't actually exist in the real world.

That's exactly what we're saying. It peforms a semi-analogous role to wet navy Destroyers but there's no true equivalent. There can't be.

And again we get into your demands it must be a Destroyer-analogue because, and I quote, 'They call them destroyers!'. If I wanted this semantical nonsense, I'd debate Edam.

EDIT: Is the "for the intelligent" bit really necessary? Do you get off on being a pretentious prick?

Do you get off on semantical bullshit?

Connor MacLeod wrote: Actually the ISD seems to possess more traits of a battlecruiser/battleship and aircraft carrier hybrid (as Mike has suggested) - I believe he also indicates such variants have existed historically. While I believe they are more close to cruisers than anythign else, I am more than willing to concede they might be something more like a hybrid battleship/battlecruiser and carrier (Hell, there is a cruiser-class that "is" such a hybrid.)

By being the fortress that it is, troops and fighters and suport craft, it resembles the design principles of the Spanish Galleon. The Galleon's had a hell of a punch for their day and represented the 'ship of the line' but carried troops as well. (Obviously the airwing is lacking for simularly obvious reasons) But you can still draw a parrelel between the two in roles.

The ISD is meant to passify worlds by either blasting them or deploying their troops. Modern battlecruiser/ battleships/ or destroyers do not use troops as a weapon system.

That would be consistent with a battleship/carrier or battlecruiser/carrier hybrid.

It is, but its a hell of a twist to start combining multible ship classes to get a modern day designation out of it. Lets face it, the ISD is a ship of the line. Thats it. Not a destroyer nor cruiser in how we percieve it.

Just something to consider and chew on. Ships ranging from the tiny 'Defender' to the massive 'Eclipse' are called Star Destroyers. Unless we are to beleive every one of these ships is an escort vessel(Rather ridiculous in the Executor/Eclipse cases!), it becomes increasingly clear that 'Star Destroyer' is not a class designation, but something else. IIRC, aren't all the SD's from KDY?

Funny how a Imperator class Star Destroyer out masses a MC-90 Star Cruiser

And the 25,000 number clearly points to it as being a upper scale
capital ship, not a low scale cap ship.