StarDestroyer.Net BBS

irishmick79 wrote:It seems like it would have made sense to develop a few ISDs that reduced the size of troops and garrison equipment on board in order to expand starfighter capacity.

There are some star destroyers which don´t carry ground units onboard (the "fleet destroyer" in ROTJ and the Alligance-class), but these lack bays altogether. The alternative would be exclusive carriers (like the one in Admiral Giel´s fleet).

Praxis wrote:Are you sure? Watch the Clone Wars cartoon, those ships were literally launching hundreds of fighters apeice.

I think some may have only carried LAATs and V-19s (like the one Obi-Wan and Anakin travel in), while others carried ground forces. To split in two groups when they reached Muunilinst (one in space, the other on planet).

This would be why some (including myself and Ender) feel that the carrying capacity of the ISD and the utility of its snubfighters is more comparable in both terms of proportional mass and purpose to a modern destroyer's helicopters - as opposed to an aircraft carrier's air wings.

It kinda falls in its own categaory... it has some fighters, some of which are bombers, as well as special assault craft that on Earth would be most comperable to a amphibious assault ship...

So it's sort of a hybrid between a Battleship, an Escort Carrier, a Destroyer, and an Amphib. And, to confuse the matter, it is called a Star "Destroyer" even though compared to other ships in the universe it is far more powerful than that title would suggest.

Coyote wrote:It kinda falls in its own categaory... it has some fighters, some of which are bombers, as well as special assault craft that on Earth would be most comperable to a amphibious assault ship...

So it's sort of a hybrid between a Battleship, an Escort Carrier, a Destroyer, and an Amphib. And, to confuse the matter, it is called a Star "Destroyer" even though compared to other ships in the universe it is far more powerful than that title would suggest.

Its fulfills everything in the universe from destroyer-cruiser-battleship-carrier-Amphib. And since there are bound to be some instances where we see it on convoy duty, I guess we should tag the title of frigate on it too.Maybe we should just recoin it as the Ubernator.

It does not really have any of the major characteristics of a battleship. Battleships are the largest ships of the battle line (hence the name). ISDs have not been confirmed to fight on a battle line or three-dimensional equivalent (Marina calls it the "wall of battle") and to chase for analogs based on its guns is fruitless - in WW2 everything from a destroyer up provided surface fire support and anything could engage an enemy with her guns - that what they are for.

It should be remembered that the Star Destroyer in all its various types and guises is conceptually similar to what was probably going through the Federation's Star Fleet's design bureau when they were designing the Galaxy-class.

No, hold off the flames and I'll explain that. Both the Star Destroyer and the Galaxy are what I call "GADA" ships, which means "Go Anywhere, Do Anything". Basically, it is a smart budgeting choice to build one major class of vessels that can carry out a wide range of roles with a minimum of refit time needed to swap roles. Just as the Galaxy combines the functions of survey ship, battlecruiser, mobile diplomatic base and planetary disaster response unit, so the Star Destroyer combines the previously seperate roles of carrier, battleship and marine carrier. It does so quite impressively too, if you ask me.

Because of these varying roles, the Star Destroyer cannot reach the maximum level of equipment that would be expected in a specialised ship of that size. A dedicated carrier vessel the size of a Star Destroyer could possibly carry over a thousand starfighters of varying types. A dedicated gunship/dreadnought might even be able to squeeze in a superlaser cannon along its long axis and not have the heavy gun 'blind spot' on its ventral surface.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:It does not really have any of the major characteristics of a battleship. Battleships are the largest ships of the battle line (hence the name). ISDs have not been confirmed to fight on a battle line or three-dimensional equivalent (Marina calls it the "wall of battle") and to chase for analogs based on its guns is fruitless - in WW2 everything from a destroyer up provided surface fire support and anything could engage an enemy with her guns - that what they are for.

Come off it IP. Battleships were the largest ships of the line only because it was neccesary to do so. However, their main roles are anti-cap ship work, and we see the ISD do this in the EU, as well as canon. During Endor, they were forced into the anti-capital ship work.

PainRack wrote:Come off it IP. Battleships were the largest ships of the line only because it was neccesary to do so. However, their main roles are anti-cap ship work, and we see the ISD do this in the EU, as well as canon. During Endor, they were forced into the anti-capital ship work.

Semantics whoring. Capital ship does not functionally mean the same thing in SW. All it means is a ship above a patrol boat or 100 meters.

And your argument is self-contradictory; a battleship cannot be "a ship mostly tasked with destroying other capital ships" while another ship "fills the role of a battleship and many others." Then it would not fulfill the definition of a battleship explicitly.

And besides, the Mon Calamari cruisers are not capital ships as we would use the term both semantically (crusiers), functionally (there are much greater and more important vessels present at the same battle, including 3 Home One-type warships in the Rebel fleet), or factually (their refitted pleasure liners; hardly front-of-the-line warships by Imperial standard in terms of quality or tonnage).

And the ISDs were not tasked with attacking the Rebels in a line - or plane - of battle. Rather, they maintained a perimeter and contained the fleet while it was to be demolished by heavy artillery (the Death Star superlaser). It was the Rebels who attacked them in desperation and unsurprisingly shot back - it hardly determines intended role to harp on the fact that the Star Destroyers responded in a confused brawl (as opposed to battle formation) when fired upon.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:It does not really have any of the major characteristics of a battleship. Battleships are the largest ships of the battle line (hence the name). ISDs have not been confirmed to fight on a battle line or three-dimensional equivalent (Marina calls it the "wall of battle") and to chase for analogs based on its guns is fruitless - in WW2 everything from a destroyer up provided surface fire support and anything could engage an enemy with her guns - that what they are for.

A Battleship as in Big Damn Ship With Lotsa Guns. Lets face it, for most people, that is a "Battleship". George Lucas, not being a Naval historian, does not follow the same rules as Earth navies.

Especially since Star Wars has nothing to do with space-faring people carrying on Earth's traditions. Ships in Star Wars frequently do not follow the Earth-standard "Corvette--> Frigate--> Destroyer--> Cruiser --> Battleship--> Carrier" progression. Their carriers tend to be dinky and impotent, more akin to the US WW2 Jeep Carriers used for escort duty.

There is no "Destroyer" class per se unless you count the "Star Destroyer" series, which would put the Super Star Destroyers in that category, as well as the Eclipse Star Destroyer. In Earth navies, a Carrier would own a Destroyer's ass-- in Star Wars, a Star Destroyer could ram one of their Carriers and maybe scratch the ISD's paint.

The proper term probably would have been Dreadnought-- because the original Dreadnought, the HMS Dreadnought, was designed to be a lone warship that could go forth and kick ass on clusters of enemy ships. In that classical, proper sense of the word, the ISD is a Dreadnought with an air wing atacthed, making it potent to an nth degree.

But in SW, there is already a type of ship called "Dreadnought" so I refrained from using that so as not to confuse the issue. And, oddly enough, there is a type of SW Dreadnought which, when refited, becomes the "Rebel Assault Frigate". They play loose with ship designations in SW.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Semantics whoring. Capital ship does not functionally mean the same thing in SW. All it means is a ship above a patrol boat or 100 meters.

And everybody knows what I meant by that statement. IOW, a battleship is meant to destroy other ships.

And your argument is self-contradictory; a battleship cannot be "a ship mostly tasked with destroying other capital ships" while another ship "fills the role of a battleship and many others." Then it would not fulfill the definition of a battleship explicitly.

Congratulations on your nitpicking, in being able to discover that I said the ISD can destroy ships just like a battleship, has fighters like a carrier, land troops like an amphib, has missions profiles of a cruiser and a destroyer plus frigate.

And the ISDs were not tasked with attacking the Rebels in a line - or plane - of battle. Rather, they maintained a perimeter and contained the fleet while it was to be demolished by heavy artillery (the Death Star superlaser). It was the Rebels who attacked them in desperation and unsurprisingly shot back - it hardly determines intended role to harp on the fact that the Star Destroyers responded in a confused brawl (as opposed to battle formation) when fired upon.

And once they did venture into a brawl, they decided to waltz up and? Destroy enemy ships. What does the EU depict them as doing? Destroy enemy ships. IOW, do they fulfill that portion of a BB? yes. They do. Did I say they were battleships? No, I did not.

Coyote wrote: There is no "Destroyer" class per se unless you count the "Star Destroyer" series, which would put the Super Star Destroyers in that category, as well as the Eclipse Star Destroyer. In Earth navies, a Carrier would own a Destroyer's ass-- in Star Wars, a Star Destroyer could ram one of their Carriers and maybe scratch the ISD's paint.

If you want to take the analogy of a CVN vs DD/DDG, then you have to compare the SW carrier taking on the SD from well beyond turbolaser range. Size-wise, a DDG is peanuts compared with a CVN, but if somehow manages to get within ASM range the CVN is toast.

Coyote wrote:

Illuminatus Primus wrote:It does not really have any of the major characteristics of a battleship. Battleships are the largest ships of the battle line (hence the name). ISDs have not been confirmed to fight on a battle line or three-dimensional equivalent (Marina calls it the "wall of battle") and to chase for analogs based on its guns is fruitless - in WW2 everything from a destroyer up provided surface fire support and anything could engage an enemy with her guns - that what they are for.

A Battleship as in Big Damn Ship With Lotsa Guns. Lets face it, for most people, that is a "Battleship". George Lucas, not being a Naval historian, does not follow the same rules as Earth navies.

I wouldn´t be so sure about that. After all, George Lucas went to great lenghts to orient his battles in SW on the battles of WorldWar I and II, where - surprise, surprise - we have battleships and destroyers.

Especially since Star Wars has nothing to do with space-faring people carrying on Earth's traditions. Ships in Star Wars frequently do not follow the Earth-standard "Corvette--> Frigate--> Destroyer--> Cruiser --> Battleship--> Carrier"

But aside from the switch of the roles of destroyers and cruisers (which is also more ambigous in earth-terms) they follow earth-terminology.

Their carriers tend to be dinky and impotent, more akin to the US WW2 Jeep Carriers used for escort duty.

There is no "Destroyer" class per se unless you count the "Star Destroyer" series, which would put the Super Star Destroyers in that category, as well as the Eclipse Star Destroyer. In Earth navies, a Carrier would own a Destroyer's ass-- in Star Wars, a Star Destroyer could ram one of their Carriers and maybe scratch the ISD's paint.

Maybe because contrary to earth in SW there exists something like shields?

Aside from that, what do you think is Executor with its huge hangar-bays?

The proper term probably would have been Dreadnought-- because the original Dreadnought, the HMS Dreadnought, was designed to be a lone warship that could go forth and kick ass on clusters of enemy ships. In that classical, proper sense of the word, the ISD is a Dreadnought with an air wing atacthed, making it potent to an nth degree.

Watch TESB. 5 ISDs and one Executor can´t scratch the shield of the rebels at Hoth - yet the EU wants to tell us, that 6 ISDs are enough to take on most major worlds. Don´t know about you, but i believe the movie more.

But in SW, there is already a type of ship called "Dreadnought" so I refrained from using that so as not to confuse the issue. And, oddly enough, there is a type of SW Dreadnought which, when refited, becomes the "Rebel Assault Frigate". They play loose with ship designations in SW.

This is not a Dreadnought in the sense of Super-Battleship, but a picket-cruiser, where the first ship was called Dreadnought.

Thanks to ITW:OT we have it now official, that the Executor is a "Star Dreadnought" of the Executor-Class and that the term "Super Star Destroyer" is nothing more but rebel-slang.

Its been suggested a few times that the screwy class designations for various ships is different scales. I.e. what the Empire considers a destroyer would be a dreadnought in the private defense forces of all but the core worlds while a Corellian Corvette to the Empire is a guy in a dingy with an AK-47.

PainRack wrote:And everybody knows what I meant by that statement. IOW, a battleship is meant to destroy other ships.

Now you're appealing an oversimplication. Attack submarines purpose is to destroy other ships. Aircraft carriers' purpose includes the destruction of other ships. Missile destroyers' and gun destroyers' purpose included destroying other ships.

If you meant to function as a ship-of-the-line, again, you lack evidence it does that, and many cruisers are also ships-of-the-line while being neither battleships nor battlecruisers.

PainRack wrote:Congratulations on your nitpicking, in being able to discover that I said the ISD can destroy ships just like a battleship,

Heavy cruisers are not ships of the line? Cruisers in general don't engage other warships? Were not the original [torpedo boat] destroyers tasked with closing on and engaging smaller ships to protect the battle line? The purpose of "blows up other warships" is intrinsically meaningless on its own. That is not a sufficiently descriminatory criteria.

PainRack wrote:has fighters like a carrier,

Proportion doesn't matter now? By strict definition a lot of ships in terrestrial navies are "aircraft carriers" - they carry aircraft.

Furthermore, "carrier" is almost useless to describe any warship in SW with fighters, because almost all ships carry fighters. The ability to support air wings of any kind in terrestrial navies is unique due to size restrictions (in around a few hundred meters and eighty thousand tons displacement) and the structural necessity of a large flight deck.

STAR WARS fields warships in the corvette type exceeding 100 meters with fighters usually smaller than 20 meters. STAR WARS vessels can approach 20,000 meters in length. STAR WARS vessels field tractor beams. Therefore, nearly any vessel can support what we could consider a significant number of fighters with little prohibitive effect on its role. Its is only really useful to describe purpose-built carriers (like Giel's fleet carrier) as such, because that's really all they do (though I'm willing to be that that vessel's primary purpose is actually hauling dropships for armor and troops, like an amphib).

PainRack wrote:land troops like an amphib,

Almost any vessel of appreciable size in SW can, so its pretty meaningless to describe its role in terms of troop landing capability unless it is primarly tasked as such.

PainRack wrote:has missions profiles of a cruiser and a destroyer plus frigate.

Its a convoy escort? I suppose you'll also remark its a torpedo boat since Pelleaon's refurbished Chimaera mounted torpedo tubes?

PainRack wrote:And once they did venture into a brawl, they decided to waltz up and? Destroy enemy ships.

And any warship with guns ever in history has not engaged the enemy? This doesn't apply to other types of warship than the battleship?

I guess you better tell the guys who designed the Alaska and Guam that those 12-inchers were not, in fact, for destroying other warships, since she was not a battleship.

PainRack wrote:What does the EU depict them as doing? Destroy enemy ships.

Yup, like lots of warships besides battleships. I suppose since no battleship are currently in the USN's CVBGs, that they have no "destroy other warships" capability, eh?

PainRack wrote:IOW, do they fulfill that portion of a BB? yes. They do. Did I say they were battleships? No, I did not.

The criteria "destroys other warships" is fucking meaningless to correlate with the role of a battleship because that is part of almost every warships' mission, stupid.

Precisely because the SW ships have advantages such as shields (and the fact that they are maneuvering large mases outside of pesky gravity), the Star Destroyer can be what I and Painrack are pointing out-- that the ISD is pretty much in a class by itself, with no direct analogy to Earth based ships but sharing properties of several different types.

George Lucas studied WW2 tactics and strategies mostly for his fighter dogfight scenes. Earth naval engagements would be useful to a point for blocking out action scenes but for actual in-depth strategy and tactics like one would find taught in a class for Annapolis officers, regarding how ships are best deployed for defense or strike, Earth navy warfare bears only a pale comparison.

It's not an area that can be explored too much as we don't have access to actual Imperial Navy Battle Doctrine manuals, and we have to extrapolate.

Coyote wrote:A Battleship as in Big Damn Ship With Lotsa Guns. Lets face it, for most people, that is a "Battleship". George Lucas, not being a Naval historian, does not follow the same rules as Earth navies.

SoD.

Coyote wrote:Especially since Star Wars has nothing to do with space-faring people carrying on Earth's traditions. Ships in Star Wars frequently do not follow the Earth-standard "Corvette--> Frigate--> Destroyer--> Cruiser --> Battleship--> Carrier" progression. Their carriers tend to be dinky and impotent, more akin to the US WW2 Jeep Carriers used for escort duty.

The role of a corvette predisposes it toward being a rather comparatively small, insignificant vessel. A frigate is a dedicated convoy escort, and for economic reasons, its stupid to put something bigger in such a place. A destroyer is a fleet escort and a bunch of other roles. A cruiser is a scout, and also it directly supports the battle line. A battleship forms the core of the battle line and is tasked with destroying the enemy's largest, most armored warships. A carrier is something simply purpose built to carry fighters. The supreme scale of STAR WARS vessels and the relative impotence of starfighters is responsible for its resultant scale.

Coyote wrote:There is no "Destroyer" class per se unless you count the "Star Destroyer" series, which would put the Super Star Destroyers in that category, as well as the Eclipse Star Destroyer.

Except that "Super Star Destroyer" is canonically (ref: Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy) a colloquialism to describe larger-than-Star Destroyer vessels, and is thus by definition not a Star Destroyer. And yes, I know the novelisation calls Executor "Vader's Star Destroyer", but DK nonfiction and the novelisations lie on the same ring of canon, and newer sources are permitted to retcon or revise previous ones, as per Leland Chee; example in point being the survival of both General Veers and Hobbie Klivian, who are apparently killed in a speeder-walker crash in the selfsame novel. If that resolution is not satisfactory for you than we still just have two source of equal canon level in implicit contradiction.

Coyote wrote:In Earth navies, a Carrier would own a Destroyer's ass-- in Star Wars, a Star Destroyer could ram one of their Carriers and maybe scratch the ISD's paint.

Its better to think if someone actually bothered to built dedicated carriers for WW I aircraft and placed them in a WW I navy for comparative power.

Coyote wrote:The proper term probably would have been Dreadnought-- because the original Dreadnought, the HMS Dreadnought, was designed to be a lone warship that could go forth and kick ass on clusters of enemy ships.

No, HMS Dreadnought was just a battleship with a uniform battery and a host of generalized technological improvements which made it a superior combatant to its predecessors. The entire idea of what HMS Dreadnought was in history is contingent on its sudden leap of technological innovation. In a technologically static galaxy which has been fighting with the same technology base for 25,000 years (ref: Attack of the Clones: Incredible Crosss-Sections), a ship like HMS Dreadnought is not possible.

Coyote wrote:In that classical, proper sense of the word, the ISD is a Dreadnought with an air wing atacthed, making it potent to an nth degree.

A ships' classification is determined by role and tonnage. Both the role of an ISD is far too expansive for HMS Dreadnought and its relative role is definitely on the wrong side of the isle.

(The closest thing to HMS Dreadnought in the SWT is HIMS Executor; an unprecedently large warship that utterly intimidated and outclassed the enemy. Though in terms of role and relative tonnage, it probably matches its most formal semantical classification in canon: battlecruiser.)

Coyote wrote:But in SW, there is already a type of ship called "Dreadnought" so I refrained from using that so as not to confuse the issue. And, oddly enough, there is a type of SW Dreadnought which, when refited, becomes the "Rebel Assault Frigate". They play loose with ship designations in SW.

You're confusing your terminology. First of all, the Dreadnaught-class is not a dreadnought; "Dreadnaught" (not Dreadnought) is the first-of-class. However, it is curiously termed a heavy cruiser. An official interview of Saxton (he was requried, according to correspondence with Wayne Poe, which he has made public, to have it all checked by a LFL rep) stated that many of curiously and contradictingly named vessels from WEG and games and elsewhere in the EU are the result of proud companies catering to highly small, local markets and purposes, and attempting to exaggerate the importance of their product. This is supported by the author of the Dark Empire Sourcebook, who stated that the "Modular Taskforce Cruiser" is not a cruiser, and is actually smaller than a destroyer, and TaggeCo. simply named their hauler that for PR purposes.

Coyote wrote:Precisely because the SW ships have advantages such as shields (and the fact that they are maneuvering large mases outside of pesky gravity), the Star Destroyer can be what I and Painrack are pointing out-- that the ISD is pretty much in a class by itself, with no direct analogy to Earth based ships but sharing properties of several different types.

George Lucas studied WW2 tactics and strategies mostly for his fighter dogfight scenes. Earth naval engagements would be useful to a point for blocking out action scenes but for actual in-depth strategy and tactics like one would find taught in a class for Annapolis officers, regarding how ships are best deployed for defense or strike, Earth navy warfare bears only a pale comparison.

It's not an area that can be explored too much as we don't have access to actual Imperial Navy Battle Doctrine manuals, and we have to extrapolate.

I'd be willing to bet that full battle fleets engaged each other in a three-dimensional analog to WW I combat. Masses of ships-of-the-line side-by-side engaging in long range gunnery against similar forces without obstruction of fire by their own vessels. Essentially two planes facing each other. Sublight speed probably is not very important. Publius once noted that SW combat is probably usually a contest decided by n squared and without manouver.

However there may be smaller formations more equivalent to WW2 fleets or modern CVBGs - in some ways the arrangement of starships immediately surrounding Hoth resembles a CVBG in composition.

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Now you're appealing an oversimplication. Attack submarines purpose is to destroy other ships. Aircraft carriers' purpose includes the destruction of other ships. Missile destroyers' and gun destroyers' purpose included destroying other ships.

Really? Let's go to defining it then.
The purpose of a battleship is sea control, via anti-capital ships operations. The purpose of a attack submarine is sea denial, via "". The purpose of an Aircraft carrier is power projection, as per USN doctrine. The purpose of a missile destroyer,gun destroyer is escort, as you so like to point out.

If you meant to function as a ship-of-the-line, again, you lack evidence it does that, and many cruisers are also ships-of-the-line while being neither battleships nor battlecruisers.

Who said it was meant to function as a ship-of-the-line? We are commenting on the ubiqitous nature of the ISD, not classifying it.

Proportion doesn't matter now? By strict definition a lot of ships in terrestrial navies are "aircraft carriers" - they carry aircraft.

And how interesting........ certain amphibious warships by the USN are considered carriers by other navies standards.

Furthermore, "carrier" is almost useless to describe any warship in SW with fighters, because almost all ships carry fighters. The ability to support air wings of any kind in terrestrial navies is unique due to size restrictions (in around a few hundred meters and eighty thousand tons displacement) and the structural necessity of a large flight deck.

And this invalidate the point that the ISD is ubiqitous?

Almost any vessel of appreciable size in SW can, so its pretty meaningless to describe its role in terms of troop landing capability unless it is primarly tasked as such.

And this invalidate the point that the ISD is ubiqitous?

Its a convoy escort? I suppose you'll also remark its a torpedo boat since Pelleaon's refurbished Chimaera mounted torpedo tubes?

And I suppose that this invalidate the point that the ISD is ubiqitous?

The criteria "destroys other warships" is fucking meaningless to correlate with the role of a battleship because that is part of almost every warships' mission, stupid.

Oh bullshit. The critera was that they fulfill anti capital ship operations, which you so neatly decided to deride by "saying" that capital ships in SW are anything above a few hundred meters. You chose to simplify to that extent, I replied in kind.

PainRack wrote:Really? Let's go to defining it then.
The purpose of a battleship is sea control, via anti-capital ships operations. The purpose of a attack submarine is sea denial, via "". The purpose of an Aircraft carrier is power projection, as per USN doctrine. The purpose of a missile destroyer,gun destroyer is escort, as you so like to point out.

I see, and other ships do not serve the same ship-of-the-line function? Can you really tell me the precise difference between the USS Iowa and the USS Alaska in role?

PainRack wrote:Who said it was meant to function as a ship-of-the-line? We are commenting on the ubiqitous nature of the ISD, not classifying it.

Then don't waste my time with irrelevently ambigious descriptions. A battleship is the largest kind of ship-of-the-line.

PainRack wrote:And how interesting........ certain amphibious warships by the USN are considered carriers by other navies standards.

Dodge. The proportion between the ISD and the Giel fleet carrier is more disparate than that between a Nimitz and the helicopters on a CG.

PainRack wrote:And this invalidate the point that the ISD is ubiqitous?

No, but if you paid attention you'd have caught that fighters can't do much in SW and proportionally the ISD's carrying capacity is nearly irrelevent compared to dedicated carriers.

PainRack wrote:And this invalidate the point that the ISD is ubiqitous?

No, it just makes those remarks rather meaningless. The "surface combatant" roles of the ISD are much more important.

PainRack wrote:And I suppose that this invalidate the point that the ISD is ubiqitous?

You said it was a frigate, moron. I ask you again, the ISD is a convoy escort?

PainRack wrote:Oh bullshit. The critera was that they fulfill anti capital ship operations, which you so neatly decided to deride by "saying" that capital ships in SW are anything above a few hundred meters. You chose to simplify to that extent, I replied in kind.

In other words you're wasting my time with semantical back-and-forth. Ships-of-the-line (not just battleships, and perhaps you'll catch what my ref. of the Alaska is implying at last) destroy capital ships. The definition of capital ships in our sense - which the definition of a ship-of-the-line is dependent on - is not the same as the definition of capital ship in SW. So by saying, "ISDs destroy Mon Cal cruisers" and complaining that "therefore, ISDs' main role is to destroy capital ships because the EU says anything 100 m+ is a capital ships" doesn't say anything, because that means corvettes are capital ships in SW. Not to mention the ISD destroying dedicated, similar-tonnage warships (to say nothing if they're actually REAL capital ships) is a minority event for the ISD, canonically and officially. Even if the Mon Cal cruisers were identified as capital ships in our sense, that still wouldn't suggest the ISD had roles peculiar to a battleship because more than just battleships fulfill that mission.

Boohoo IP. You were the one who decided to wade in and comment on our off the cuff remarks about the ubiqitous nature of the ISD.

PainRack wrote:Boohoo IP. You were the one who decided to wade in and comment on our off the cuff remarks about the ubiqitous nature of the ISD.

Concession accepted. I'll make whatever remarks I want, pinhead. You treated the roles the ISD encompasses as including some peculiar to the battleship, which is not true, and I stated such. The fact you are too stupid to grasp this until after several posts is not my problem, and I don't feel bad.

Boohoo indeed.

The existance of the Bismark did not demand the reclassification of the West Virginia. Just because much bigger fleet brawlers existed(Especially in later periods), does not remove the ISD's similarity to the original Dreadnought.

That being said, the best RL analogue I've found is the Kiev-class 'Battle-carrier', a Russian ship with a carrier deck and heavy guns. The ISD is not a dedicated ship-to-ship brawler, as shown by her heavy troop complement, onboard stardock facilities, fighter wing, and similar. The same can be said of the Eclipse, Sovereign, Expanded ISD(That funky comic one which looks like they stretched an ISD up and along), and Allegiance class.

That being said, they certainly operated as the heaviest fleet combatant according to the description of the Sector Fleet layout(Though it seemed heavily implied by some sources that all the Sector Fleets would eventually get Executors or similar big-ships).

SirNitram wrote:The existance of the Bismark did not demand the reclassification of the West Virginia. Just because much bigger fleet brawlers existed(Especially in later periods), does not remove the ISD's similarity to the original Dreadnought.

Apples and oranges. The ISD is NOT unprecedentally large; it had larger ancestors, as did Executor. (Specifically, an Executor-esque vessel, although structurally distinct, is seen in a recent - and now canonical in status - STAR WARS Tales issue many many times larger than the Acclamators or Venators around it).

And its nice to talk about an addition of ten, twenty thousand tons and compare that to and up-scaling in volume by over a factor of 100.

SirNitram wrote:That being said, the best RL analogue I've found is the Kiev-class 'Battle-carrier', a Russian ship with a carrier deck and heavy guns.

No. First of all, you're not really talking about the Kirov-class guided missile cruiser, which has no fixed-or-swing-wing aircraft. Better yet, its intended to hunt down boomers. Not what you're looking for, methinks.

You're looking for the Kuznetsov-class "heavy aviation cruiser". The fighters do nothing but scout and defend against attack aircraft and missiles, and the SHIPWRECKs are the actual armament for engaging the enemy. The Kuznetsov is a missile cruiser with a ski jump and flat deck to support light defensive fighters. It has no guns and does not engage the enemy like old battlecruisers did, and unlike either the USN's supercarriers or the planned Ul'yanovsk-class supercarrier. Its role is defensive in support of the boomers of the Soviet Navy. Its capable of engaging most targets.

Needless to say, the ISD is not a support craft for strategic weapons platforms. So the role doesn't really line up; its only superficially similar in form and for complications regarding aircraft carrying comparisons with the real world described earlier (to say nothing of comparing the guided missile naval engagement stategy to that of the LOS-gun-dominant warfare of SW).

SirNitram wrote:The ISD is not a dedicated ship-to-ship brawler,

Which ipso facto means it lacks the most definite characteristics held by the battleship or any ship-of-the-line.

SirNitram wrote:as shown by her heavy troop complement,

"Heavy" by what standard? Its easy to throw around qualitative terms without comparisons. Given that the ISD is designed to suppress worlds, the fact its granted only 9,700 Marines makes it proportionally closer to the Marine complement of old ships-of-the-line or even large frigates in the Age of Sail.

Better yet, a makeshift frieghter-cum-fighter carrier/troopship fielded by a corporate consortium fielded 1,500 fighters, 550 APCs, 6,250 tanks, and at least 61,600 troops. And these were fielded in the at least hundreds for a relatively minor politically motivated blockade of a relatively insignificant world. It has the armor capacity to send all of 61,600 troops into combat protected simultaneously, as well. It has the landing barge capacity (50) to land ALL of those APCs at once, and 5,700 of the tanks at once.

Objectively, the ISD's 9,700 Marines, 72 fighters, 20 APCs, and 30 scout vehicles are not "heavy" by any means (the fact the ISD only has a simultaneous landing capacity of 800 Stormies with its AT-ATs; maybe including shuttles and stormtrooper transports they can lift that to 1000 - the "amphib" ISD can only land a tenth of its troops without making its barges and transports make return runs - and other troops lack protection does not bode well for this supposed role.) As I said before, the ISD's Marines are closer to the complement aboard a warship in the Age of Sail then the troops on an amphib.

Even better, let's compare to a REAL SW amphib. The Acclamator-class trans-galactic military transport.

With 80 LAATs of all types, assuming half/half, it can land 1200 troops and 40 armored vehicles or artillery pieces at once. It can land and discharge all of its troops and armor at once. And that is less than half the LOA of the ISD and a tenth its volume.

Given that according to the EGtV&V, that six ISDs are considered minimally sufficient to assault an industrialized world and considering the prohibitive problems they will have with troop landings, I doubt it is designed to function as an amphib in its most common uses.

SirNitram wrote:onboard stardock facilities,

The sheer scale of SW vessels precludes this for any vessel of significant size. Its quite undescriminatory a role, really. If it doesn't make much of a difference

SirNitram wrote:fighter wing,

Very insignificant for its size.

SirNitram wrote:The same can be said of the Eclipse, Sovereign, Expanded ISD(That funky comic one which looks like they stretched an ISD up and along), and Allegiance class.

This is like comparing the ability of the Ticonderoga to support a couple choppers with the Nimitz's air wings proportionally. This is like comparing a slip's ability to handle a fishing boat with one that can handle oil supertankers. The scale means that they have radically different uses in practice and in possible function. The ability of the ISD to enclose small couriers and a blockade runner and the Eclipse's ability to enclose a Victory means they can and will be used very differently in the pursuit of war.

SirNitram wrote:That being said, they certainly operated as the heaviest fleet combatant according to the description of the Sector Fleet layout(Though it seemed heavily implied by some sources that all the Sector Fleets would eventually get Executors or similar big-ships).

You've been claiming that since before our earlier flamewar. The Death Star II is equivalent to building millions of Executors in a matter of months. If that was their intent, it'd simply have already happened. As Saxton noted, the only real constraint encountered is political will. Once a plan for military expansion is undertaken it can and should be completed very briefly, in terms of actual construction of war materiel. It may take longer ultimately therefore (though not the decades ridiculously claimed) to crew and shakedown the constructed vessels, though.

Either way, I want to see the evidence implying that, because that unsupported claim has popped up at least half of a dozen times, and none of my WEG sources say such a thing.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

SirNitram wrote:The existance of the Bismark did not demand the reclassification of the West Virginia. Just because much bigger fleet brawlers existed(Especially in later periods), does not remove the ISD's similarity to the original Dreadnought.

Apples and oranges. The ISD is NOT unprecedentally large; it had larger ancestors, as did Executor. (Specifically, an Executor-esque vessel, although structurally distinct, is seen in a recent - and now canonical in status - STAR WARS Tales issue many many times larger than the Acclamators or Venators around it).

And its nice to talk about an addition of ten, twenty thousand tons and compare that to and up-scaling in volume by over a factor of 100.

Because frankly that doesn't happen. This mindless idea of 'Battleship MUST equal biggest' misses the whole idea of the battleship: Dedicated fleet combatant.

SirNitram wrote:That being said, the best RL analogue I've found is the Kiev-class 'Battle-carrier', a Russian ship with a carrier deck and heavy guns.

Needless to say, the ISD is not a support craft for strategic weapons platforms. So the role doesn't really line up; its only superficially similar in form and for complications regarding aircraft carrying comparisons with the real world described earlier (to say nothing of comparing the guided missile naval engagement stategy to that of the LOS-gun-dominant warfare of SW).

Conceded on the Russian combat-carrier point, I misremembered.

The point I was trying to make is there's no real direct line comparison to the multi-role ISD to modern ships, though this seems to hold true for most of the Imperial fleet(More on this later).

SirNitram wrote:The ISD is not a dedicated ship-to-ship brawler,

Which ipso facto means it lacks the most definite characteristics held by the battleship or any ship-of-the-line.

Isn't this exactly what I said? It's not a battleship. And it can't be a ship of the line, because 'line' tactics have never been shown to be in the Imperial tactics.

SirNitram wrote:as shown by her heavy troop complement,

"Heavy" by what standard? Its easy to throw around qualitative terms without comparisons. Given that the ISD is designed to suppress worlds, the fact its granted only 9,700 Marines makes it proportionally closer to the Marine complement of old ships-of-the-line or even large frigates in the Age of Sail.

Heavy by these reasonings:

1) It carries troops, a prefab base, heavy armour, and IIRC, atmospheric craft. This far outstrips the puny marine complement of the Age Of Sail ships, as those were strictly for boarding ops. A prefab base and AT-AT are not for boarding.

2) This prefab base, even undermanned as we see it, is considered enough for garrison duties, at least on a temporary scale, or for low-population worlds. Obviously, the same cannot be said for capital worlds.

3) Compared to other ships seen often.

Better yet, a makeshift frieghter-cum-fighter carrier/troopship fielded by a corporate consortium fielded 1,500 fighters, 550 APCs, 6,250 tanks, and at least 61,600 troops. And these were fielded in the at least hundreds for a relatively minor politically motivated blockade of a relatively insignificant world. It has the armor capacity to send all of 61,600 troops into combat protected simultaneously, as well. It has the landing barge capacity (50) to land ALL of those APCs at once, and 5,700 of the tanks at once.

I assume you mean the TradeFed Battleship. Yes, these craft carried a buttload more troops. However, there is a serious difference between 'Invasion force' and 'Garrison force'.

[quoet]Objectively, the ISD's 9,700 Marines, 72 fighters, 20 APCs, and 30 scout vehicles are not "heavy" by any means (the fact the ISD only has a simultaneous landing capacity of 800 Stormies with its AT-ATs; maybe including shuttles and stormtrooper transports they can lift that to 1000 - the "amphib" ISD can only land a tenth of its troops without making its barges and transports make return runs - and other troops lack protection does not bode well for this supposed role.) As I said before, the ISD's Marines are closer to the complement aboard a warship in the Age of Sail then the troops on an amphib.[/quote]

Except for the fact it's explicitly stated to be able to set up a, at the very least temporary, garrison. While other craft can haul heavier groups, for a non-dedicated ship, it's got alot, and enough to accomplish most tasks.

Even better, let's compare to a REAL SW amphib. The Acclamator-class trans-galactic military transport.

With 80 LAATs of all types, assuming half/half, it can land 1200 troops and 40 armored vehicles or artillery pieces at once. It can land and discharge all of its troops and armor at once. And that is less than half the LOA of the ISD and a tenth its volume.

Given that according to the EGtV&V, that six ISDs are considered minimally sufficient to assault an industrialized world and considering the prohibitive problems they will have with troop landings, I doubt it is designed to function as an amphib in its most common uses.

No, it is rather obviously not as good as a dedicated troop transport. However, it is considered servicable for day to day duties.

SirNitram wrote:onboard stardock facilities,

The sheer scale of SW vessels precludes this for any vessel of significant size. Its quite undescriminatory a role, really. If it doesn't make much of a difference

The sheer size of heavy warships. The onboard facilities are more than enough for most light craft. Again, I'm going by what's been stated about the ISD. Obviously, if you want the full-service option, you go to the huge hangars of an SSD. I'm trying to demonstrate the multi-role nature of the ISD, and you're nitpicking that it's not the best at each one. NO SHIT! Any competent person realizes a ship doing so many roles is going to be inferior to any kind of dedicated vessel.

SirNitram wrote:fighter wing,

Very insignificant for its size.

Yet it's more than enough to get the job done against most. Congratulations: You've established the long-held common sense assumption that a dedicated vessel is superior at one task than a multi-role vessel. Pat yourself on the back.

SirNitram wrote:The same can be said of the Eclipse, Sovereign, Expanded ISD(That funky comic one which looks like they stretched an ISD up and along), and Allegiance class.

This is like comparing the ability of the Ticonderoga to support a couple choppers with the Nimitz's air wings proportionally. This is like comparing a slip's ability to handle a fishing boat with one that can handle oil supertankers. The scale means that they have radically different uses in practice and in possible function. The ability of the ISD to enclose small couriers and a blockade runner and the Eclipse's ability to enclose a Victory means they can and will be used very differently in the pursuit of war.

The Eclipse can't hold a Victory. Her internal bays have the overall volume, but it don't actually fit through the doors. For this particular comment, try using the Executor, if you must.

And the ISD cannot enfold and capture a ship near her size.. Gee, no shit? She can board her more conventionally, except the outdated ideas of lines and boarding aren't used often.

SirNitram wrote:That being said, they certainly operated as the heaviest fleet combatant according to the description of the Sector Fleet layout(Though it seemed heavily implied by some sources that all the Sector Fleets would eventually get Executors or similar big-ships).

You've been claiming that since before our earlier flamewar. The Death Star II is equivalent to building millions of Executors in a matter of months. If that was their intent, it'd simply have already happened. As Saxton noted, the only real constraint encountered is political will. Once a plan for military expansion is undertaken it can and should be completed very briefly, in terms of actual construction of war materiel. It may take longer ultimately therefore (though not the decades ridiculously claimed) to crew and shakedown the constructed vessels, though.

Yes, it's entirely political that there's not enough Executors for Sector commands. That isn't in contest.

Either way, I want to see the evidence implying that, because that unsupported claim has popped up at least half of a dozen times, and none of my WEG sources say such a thing.

What, that Executors may eventually turn up in Sector Fleets as command? That's conjecture. Maybe I need to neon-yellow the word 'Implied' to make it clear it's not a definate. What's stated is that they aren't in the Sector Fleet listings I've seen. Those list 24 ISD's as the heaviest ships.

At the core of the point you danced around by nitpicking things to death is this: Ships in the Imperial navy, especially big ones, aren't specialized. Even the Eclipse was hopelessly multirole: Hangar bays(As you noted, big enough for a Victory, though I still really fucking doubt you'd get one through the bay doors), heavy weapons, troop compliments.

I certainly don't recall any dedicated fleet brawlers built during the Emperor's Reign, though that doesn't necessarily mean much. Even the hangarless ship in ROTJ, though, has been referred to as the Communications Ship, IIRC, and thus implies a role as AWACS or EW over straight fighting.

This obsession with 'Ships of the line' as the measuring stick is stupid when there's no line(Or square) of battle.

At the core of it, the ISD is built to apply a temporary solution to most any problem. As you so astutely recignized, as a multirole ship, it cannot apply solutions as well as more dedicated vessels. However, it has been stated that it's enough to suppress a world(Most likely, this means it's troops, fighters, and main guns can keep the locals in line until more specialized ships bring in more fighters, more troops, and more permenant solutions, but this is conjecture based on the smaller, specialized craft like Acclamators, Escort Carriers, etc).