StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Jim Raynor wrote:Holy shit! Damn, it's not often that we get such cool official updates/retcons. "Star Defender" minimalism (remember how recently it was implied to be approximate in size to a Star Destroyer?) and the "Super-class" bullshit have been destroyed in one fell swoop.

This is a Mon Cal "STar Defender", those ones in Betrayal were Corellian. Corellians seem to build muich smalle battleships (the corellian BB's mentioned in the ROTJ novelization were smaller than Home One...)

On the other hand, some insist the "Star Defender" is as much slang as the "SSD" designation was (There might even have been some mention of that in some source, I don't recall offhand that it was used to divorce NR ships from their Imperial counterparts.) so there might be some very small or very large "STar Defenders." There is also the fact that the Viscount is evidently also a carrier vessel (The corellian version may be pure battleship.)

Some of the stats are still off though. 144 TIEs on the Executor have been reconfirmed (after Saxton tried to make it more ambiguous by mentioning that the ship carried "wings" of fighters). 216 New Republic fighters (which take up a lot more space than TIEs) being able to fit on a smaller ship because of supposed engineering advances makes little sense. But oh well, this was an awesome update overall. One step at a time guys, one step at a time.

The Knight Hammer in Darksaber carried thosuands of TIEs (possibly only of TIE bombers, I dont remember the reference.)

I still maintain that the "Super-class" was simply the designation for the 5-mile SSD (which is both visually and statistically a distinct vessel.) The fighter complmenet and weapons could be holdover "errors" (we know the Executor has 5,000 TLs/Ion cannons after all.) IT may be that the 8 km SSD was built in some numbers as a smokescreen to substantiate the "misrepresentation" the WOTC entry suggests.

Having the Star Defenders of Corellia and Mon Calamari be the biggest warships these respective systems have ever created gives the "Star Defender as a PC term" more credibility. Soften up the populace and concerned politicians with a nice, cozy name when you ask for money to build Executor sized vessels.

VT-16 wrote:Hah, finally, the Super-class is no more, it was all disinformation. This will be a day long remembered.... on Wookiepedia.

Also, the Viscount?

Err its not really disinformation, the name did officaly 'stick', even to later classes of SSD's.

Still its a very nice bit of writing me thinks.

Err its not really disinformation, the name did officaly 'stick', even to later classes of SSD's.

Disinformation was the whole point of its creation and it in turn led to the SSD meme. That makes it dead and buried for the rest of time as an actual ship in-universe. :P

Though I do like the implication that the Imperial Senate were "realistically" expecting an 8 km long Star Destroyer. Puts a nice upper limit on Star Destroyer designs around 0 BBY.

VT-16 wrote:

Err its not really disinformation, the name did officaly 'stick', even to later classes of SSD's.

Disinformation was the whole point of its creation and it in turn led to the SSD meme. That makes it dead and buried for the rest of time as an actual ship in-universe.

No read again. It got used OFFICALY in later ship designs such as the Eclipse and Sovereign class warships long after such a disinformation campaign was hardly necessary.

It might have started OUT as a cover story, but it grew into a real one and thus stands. Even if it has an 'offical' class/size clasification of Star Dreadaught or something, the 'unoffical' one sticks. There isn't any reason both can't work side by side.

It stuck. Even if it wasn't ment to.

It stuck as slang, that's it. Even then, it was removed from it's original form, Super-class.

the phrase "Super Star Destroyer" stuck, and it was even applied to later vessels such as the Sovereign-class and Eclipse-class.

We already know from ITW:OT and SW:CL that SSD was a slang term for bigger vessel-types. It never said anything different and neither did this article.

Oh, and look who decided to show up:

+http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Sup ... _Destroyer

It's quite feeble at this point.

VT-16 wrote:It stuck as slang, that's it.

It stuck. Period. And the New Republic / GFFA uses the term as the offical calling name.

I seriously don't get why so many warsies go into frigen heart spasams at the name 'Super Star Destroyer'. Jesus Christ get over it, this web page is trying to make everyone happy and still people are foaming at the mouth INSISTING that it has no offical sanction, when it very clearly does on BOTH sides of the Galactic war.

Call it a slang name / fake name that stuck, fine. But it did stick, far more then 'STar Dreadnaught' which (surprise surprise) we never see ANY character on any side from recruits to Grand Admirals using!

still people are foaming at the mouth INSISTING that it has no offical sanction

Where did anyone say the word was no longer official, in this thread?

we never see ANY character on any side from recruits to Grand Admirals using!

The term did not even exist until 4 years ago. WEG-infested novels have no bearing on this. Try to think before writing another tirade, ok?

It's not even officially sanctioned. The WOTC page makes it clear that the official designation was correctly changed to "Executor-class Star Dreadnaught" by the time the ship was operational, and that only the "phrase" stuck around. So what if a few characters (mostly Rebels) used SSD in a bunch of novels. The galaxy is huge, and even though there's dozens of novels, they only cover an insignificant fraction of what was going on. For all we know, "Executor-class Star Dreadnaught" has (and I'm sure it was) been said countless times.

With the construction of the Viscount says alot of Mon Calamari shipyard capabilities. It may soon match the larger shipyards like Fondor.

They also found time to design and construct the Mediator-class in the same time-frame (or earlier), which, going by the comparison in Vector Prime, had it at 8.5 km in length, at minimum (the Viscount was almost twice as big).

So that's two large, mass-produced classes, plus smaller ships like the MC90 Star Cruiser and various frigates and corvettes and support ships. I also recall seeing a "Dread Weapon" being used on what appeared to be a Home One type in the YVW, but those might have just been recommissioned rather than built as new.

EDIT: Wooow. Hodge really went into the lala land of denial this time. It's actually sad, and for once I don't mean that in a sarcastic way.

McEwok is suffering from a state of denial. He knows the text has been rather explicit and well, trying to fudge up something to assuage his sudden panic as the world comes crashing down around him.

LMAO. While we have the latest books and updates, McEwok is still dwelling on that one little fluffy blurb in some figurine collector's catalog, written from an obviously uninformed in-universe perspective

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:McEwok is suffering from a state of denial. He knows the text has been rather explicit and well, trying to fudge up something to assuage his sudden panic as the world comes crashing down around him.

Excerps please?

Some of it can be seen in the link given by VT-16 in the discussion for the Super Star Destroyer thread at Wiki, also you could see some at TF.N in the Fleet Junkie thread.

It's actually quite funny. I'm actually laughing at the irony.

McEwok

As the supporters of the broadly "Saxtonite" agenda have proven over the years, there is absolutely zero obligation for fanboys to kow-tow to official LFL canon where they think it doesn't make sense.

Love it....

...going to suck when they reprint the old West End Games stats for the Imperial I in the new ICS book though, hell with my luck they'll even mention "Super-class vessels" and breath new life into the semantics....

Since the latter name has now been explained, no further mention will make any difference. It's hard to claim victory for seeing the same stuff all over again, if there's already an overarching explanation for its use. Easier than going back and changing all the novel-references, I guess. :)

I also think the SW:ICS cutout of the ISD I explicitly cancels out the WEG armament, since that referenced equal turbolasers and ion guns only.

Tehee.....

"Super-class"

Also known as the Executor, or so says the Original EGTV&V.


Hopefully the ICS will clarify the armarment.
I have always held out hope for 12 HTL & 120 LTL cannons.

Chris OFarrell wrote:

VT-16 wrote:we never see ANY character on any side from recruits to Grand Admirals using!

Of all the people I know who serve in the Navy, I've never heard anyone refer to the aircraft carrier Nimitz as the "United States Ship Nimitz, CVN-68". Does that mean that it isn't a valid designation?

Wow, the fucker has REALLY gone off the deepend there.

Also, sent infor to Dr S

Why can't these people accept that the length that authors found in their referance books from WEG and previous Authors who had used WEG as a source was wrong, but at the same time they MENT to use Executor as the model? If they drew inncorect conclusions about it's length, toughness or somthing else, than that's bad, but it's not the end of the world. Why do they have to defend all these 'super' star destroyers to the death?

IceHawk-181 wrote:Hopefully the ICS will clarify the armarment.
I have always held out hope for 12 HTL & 120 LTL cannons.

Going to mess up the comparative stats though. What I'm saying is that roleplayers will probably still need to use the old WEG, WOTC stats because all the other ships aren't adjusted. So even if there's a retcon just for the ISD, it won't be used much, particularly considering that WEG (and derived WOTC) stats are firmly set since long time.

What we could use is a book with just ships in it... all the ships... and as much corrected data as possible, preferrably in real units. Sounds like an impossible dream... but who knows?

Vehrec wrote:Why can't these people accept that the length that authors found in their referance books from WEG and previous Authors who had used WEG as a source was wrong, but at the same time they MENT to use Executor as the model? If they drew inncorect conclusions about it's length, toughness or somthing else, than that's bad, but it's not the end of the world. Why do they have to defend all these 'super' star destroyers to the death?

I think it is the same mentality that claims various things for SW without any ground for it when it comes to versus debating. Basically, these people seem to have their own perception of what SW is, typically coming from sometime when they watched the OT as kids, and this is somehow holy writ to them (even when they barely remember certain parts). Everything after this has basically destroyed SW for them. The prequels, the EU, Dr. Saxton, which they think spoils the holy writ.

I can see the connection, but I don't understand the mentality of such people. They are a clear hindrance to further SW development, though.

So those still running with "EU said it's 8 / 12 km" bite the dust.
Good. Good. A powerful retcon, this shall become.

nightmare wrote:

Vehrec wrote:Why can't these people accept that the length that authors found in their referance books from WEG and previous Authors who had used WEG as a source was wrong, but at the same time they MENT to use Executor as the model? If they drew inncorect conclusions about it's length, toughness or somthing else, than that's bad, but it's not the end of the world. Why do they have to defend all these 'super' star destroyers to the death?

I think it is the same mentality that claims various things for SW without any ground for it when it comes to versus debating. Basically, these people seem to have their own perception of what SW is, typically coming from sometime when they watched the OT as kids, and this is somehow holy writ to them (even when they barely remember certain parts). Everything after this has basically destroyed SW for them. The prequels, the EU, Dr. Saxton, which they think spoils the holy writ.

I can see the connection, but I don't understand the mentality of such people. They are a clear hindrance to further SW development, though.

I think it also mainly stems from while most people don't like being proven wrong, there are some people who simply cannot accept being wrong.