StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The Empire is suppose to include a huge amount of planets and I don't see crewing of as many stardestroyers as you want as a major problem. Someone on another thread is suggesting that Corescant has 5 trillion cops for example. The US Military had to expand incrdibly fast during WW2 through rapid promotions, the Empire can do the same.

Not crewing. We're talking about monetary costs, remember? Paying.

I think the DS was a statement. A statement that "We can afford it", "We can build it" and "You can't do anything about it".
The Empire already has millions of ISDs. Building the DS was IMO more a political move than a military. Maybe building an equivalent amount of ISDs, Torpedo Spheres and superlaser-mounting ships would have been more effective, but nothing beats the ability to move a DS into the orbit of your world and have it destroy the entire planet while there is nothing you can do about it.
Destroying a planet is overkill, since BDZing it has just the same effect - but it's making a point.

Moving one Death Star about would be less of a logistical nightmare than even 200,000 ISDs. It may be another reason for the Empire's 'bigger is better' philosophy. Sure it has a lot of firepower, but organising it must be hideous.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

FTeik wrote:And i once had a discussion with Crd.Wilson about the millions of ISD one could have built for a single DS and got my ass handed to me (i was the one claiming that 22 million ISDs for the empire were possible because of the DS).

Where? With who? Rob Wilson?

I think two years ago on ASVS. Not my best performance, as i have to admit.

dworkin wrote:Moving one Death Star about would be less of a logistical nightmare than even 200,000 ISDs. It may be another reason for the Empire's 'bigger is better' philosophy. Sure it has a lot of firepower, but organising it must be hideous.

True, but supplying the DS in the first place would be a new classification of logistical nightmare.

consequences wrote: True, but supplying the DS in the first place would be a new classification of logistical nightmare.

Good point. Still only one thing you have to find. But it does bring to mind what sort of 'quartermaster tales' there are in SW.

"This one guy, he smuggled a whole AT-ST home. Uses it to go buy the groceries."

"You need 20 quadrillion tons of hypermatter by when?!"

"Ok, that's the last food delivery, 7E21 Bantha Burgers, 8E22 Mynock Wings, and 6E19 McGornt's. Will that be cash or credit?"

The real surprise about the DS is that the Imperial Quartermaster Corps didn't embark upon a holy crusade against the Rebellion for pissing all over their heroic efforts less than a month after deployment.

"Ok, that's the last food delivery, 7E21 Bantha Burgers, 8E22 Mynock Wings, and 6E19 McGornt's. Will that be cash or credit?"

Credit. That way I get bonus light-years.

At least the distruction of DS spared the Logistic corps the trouble to keep running the battle station. Think of all the ratios spared (or hijacked by logistic officers and said to be destroyed in the explosion)

Be pretty funny if the Logistic branch is the one which provided the information on the Death Star to reduce cost.

I wonder if the Death Star (based on its volume compared to Star Destroyers) would not have actually bankrupted the empire if it had not been destroyed.

Kitsune wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:snip.

Why did they use so few ships when fighting the Rebels in "Return of the Jedi"? I think we can blame Lucas on these numbers more than anybody else.

I think this was because if they'd moved any more ships to Endor, the rebels would've noticed it and possibly called off the attack.

As for logistics, doesn't Wong's site say that evidence indicates that the DS's generator needs no refueling? As for food, perhaps the DS had agricultural areas. It certainly had the room for it.

For purpose, the DS was a terror weapon. It was supposed to be invincible against attack, which by itself would've been very intimidating. Also, a BDZ operation isn't instant death to a world like a superlaser shot is. If a person's lucky enough to be away from where it started and have a serious fast and/or heavily armed ship, they could conciveably escape.

Kitsune wrote:Be pretty funny if the Logistic branch is the one which provided the information on the Death Star to reduce cost.

I wonder if the Death Star (based on its volume compared to Star Destroyers) would not have actually bankrupted the empire if it had not been destroyed.

Obviously not since it was constructed in secret

Howedar wrote:

Kitsune wrote:Be pretty funny if the Logistic branch is the one which provided the information on the Death Star to reduce cost.

I wonder if the Death Star (based on its volume compared to Star Destroyers) would not have actually bankrupted the empire if it had not been destroyed.

Obviously not since it was constructed in secret

I think he means that he wonders if maintaining and fueling the thing would've eventually bankrupted them, not actually building it, which they were obviously able to afford.

Rather unlikely that building would be cheaper than mantaining and fueling...

If the Empire can afford to maintain 25,000 ISDs along with millions of other starships, I doubt DS would even dent the naval budget.

paladin wrote:If the Empire can afford to maintain 25,000 ISDs along with millions of other starships, I doubt DS would even dent the naval budget.

You are not understanding that a Death Star cost materially as much as 20 million ISD based on volume, granted there is some disagreement on this and it is hard to judge, but it sure sounds like the Death Star will cost more to maintain than 25,000 ISD.

Howedar wrote:Rather unlikely that building would be cheaper than mantaining and fueling...

Hmm, there are several historic examples of ships being built and then cannot be maintained. Maintaining a ship may (in the long run) actualkly cost more than building one. Repair Parts, PMS, that sort of thing.

Trogdor wrote: As for logistics, doesn't Wong's site say that evidence indicates that the DS's generator needs no refueling? As for food, perhaps the DS had agricultural areas. It certainly had the room for it.

Remeber, no such thing as a perfect machine. Fuel for the reactor has to come from somewhere. Even if you are correct, repair parts will be needed because all machines break down.

Rogue 9 wrote: Not crewing. We're talking about monetary costs, remember? Paying.

The cost of ordnance and maintance probably dwarfs the cost of crew requirements. In modern examples, the crew of say a destroyer might cost 4 to 8 million dollars a year. What is teh cost of a few missiles, replacing a few systems, and/or in star destroyers case, the loss of a couple of shuttles or fighters per year.

Don't forget mail. While messages are probably done by some high tech gadget the sheer numbers of fruit cakes sent by mothers to various sons on the death star on a weekly basis must fill the cargo hold of a bulk freighter alone

I also shudder to think what would of happened at the Empire equivalents of Valentine's Day or Christmas.

dworkin wrote:I also shudder to think what would of happened at the Empire equivalents of Valentine's Day or Christmas.

There is no such thing. There's only "Flogging Day"

Kitsune wrote:

Howedar wrote:Rather unlikely that building would be cheaper than mantaining and fueling...

Hmm, there are several historic examples of ships being built and then cannot be maintained. Maintaining a ship may (in the long run) actualkly cost more than building one. Repair Parts, PMS, that sort of thing.

Any projects that were small enough to be totally black and have no discernable effect on the galactic economy?

The Manhattan project cost enormous amount of money yet was was at least fairly black. How many wierd black projects did the Soviet Union have and how did the cost in monetary cost. The Germans during WW2 did weaken their ability to fight with many of their side projects.

The real fact is that Lucas didn't know or care how much a Deathstar would have cost. The best "In Universe" explanation is that the Emperor did not care how much it would cost but the project could have actually weakened the Empire's ability to deal with the Rebellion. The Emperor could have actually defeated himself.

You gotta be kidding me.

Given that in SoTE...they gave the movement of material to the DS2 site to ONE shipping company says a lot about the sheer scope of economics in the SW universe.

The DS2 being larger...and more powerful yet can be bulit nearly in 6 monthes in secret without any knowledge aside from what the Emperor doled out for the sole purpose of capturing and drawing Skywalker to the dark side, is not a sign of him bankrupting anything.

Ghost Rider wrote:You gotta be kidding me.

Given that in SoTE...they gave the movement of material to the DS2 site to ONE shipping company says a lot about the sheer scope of economics in the SW universe.

The DS2 being larger...and more powerful yet can be bulit nearly in 6 monthes in secret without any knowledge aside from what the Emperor doled out for the sole purpose of capturing and drawing Skywalker to the dark side, is not a sign of him bankrupting anything.

The problem is that if we go with the number of Star Destroyers as about 25,000 and this taking decades to build, the idea of a Death Star being built in six months is silly. This argument is support by the fact that in the Wraith Squadron novels, it appears that it took years to build a single super star destroyer.

The idea that one company might have supllied all the material is possible by the concept that they really subcontracted hundreds to thousands of other companies but this is not mentioned.