Jump to content


Replying to Katana Fleet


Post Options

    • Can't make it out? Click here to generate a new image

  or Cancel


Topic Summary

Phoenix Rising

Posted 09 January 2010 - 10:08 PM

Right - there's no Mark whatever, but at least the first three variants are representative of canonical examples that just weren't named as such (original Republic, Imperial retrofit, and Garm's fleet). So it's more of a taxonomical thing than gameplay; I'd like the EU to be more tech-savvy and I'm just providing standardized names.

Reedek

Posted 09 January 2010 - 09:46 PM

When I read Outbound Flight, I thought of the new Dreadnaughts as being a new model for the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser. What I have noticed is that there has really never been a Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser Mark __ . PR did that for gameplay reasons so he made the first Dreadnaught used at that time as Mark I(I Think that was his reason) For example...look at the Boeing 747 , it has several upgrades throughout its 41 years of being built, but most people still refer to it as the Boeing 747. Think of the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser as the popular name with a more official name for production standards. And think of us using the production line names Mark I, Mark II...just like if you wanted to order a Boeing 747-500 you would say the full name of it.

Kaleb Graff

Posted 23 December 2009 - 06:00 PM

My thought was that maybe .5% of the audience would realize it isn't new. I know it's a kids show, but so many people pay no attention to it (including me). Most of what I know comes from the Clone Wars Campaign Guide, which was actually very good.

Ghostrider

Posted 23 December 2009 - 05:50 PM

In fact, they are about to go into production of the MRA4 - so we are happily building a 55 year old design.

Isn't that the version that BAE fixed, and was scheduled to go into service 6 years ago? I know the Raptor looks similar in delays, but at least that's a new aircraft. I get your point, but it's obvious they could afford something better in those hundred years.
What's really sad is the fact that I'm pretty sure that if you used a dreadnaugt in the Clone Wars TV show, everyone would rush out and buy the toy as the latest new thing, not realizing it originated 20 years ago.


Yeah. 2.3 billion- no 3.8 billion later and it still hasnt gotten off the ground. - and yes - you can't avoid the lemming factor.

Kaleb Graff

Posted 23 December 2009 - 03:38 PM

In fact, they are about to go into production of the MRA4 - so we are happily building a 55 year old design.

Isn't that the version that BAE fixed, and was scheduled to go into service 6 years ago? I know the Raptor looks similar in delays, but at least that's a new aircraft. I get your point, but it's obvious they could afford something better in those hundred years.
What's really sad is the fact that I'm pretty sure that if you used a dreadnaugt in the Clone Wars TV show, everyone would rush out and buy the toy as the latest new thing, not realizing it originated 20 years ago.

Ghostrider

Posted 23 December 2009 - 02:48 PM

Hey, I'm the other side of the pond.

I missed the Tomcat being nerfed! It doesn't make the news over here.

We are dumb enough to keep the Nimrod going, and that design goes back to the deHaviland Comet!

In fact, they are about to go into production of the MRA4 - so we are happily building a 55 year old design.

Perhaps I shoud rephrase my original point.

The best reason for building a 50+ year old design is that you cant be bothered to design something new (or can't afford to)!

Ghost

Kaleb Graff

Posted 17 December 2009 - 08:03 PM

I get your point, but the reasons behind it are wrong. First, the Tomcat went out of service in 2006. Secondly, it was last upgraded majorly in 1991, and spent 15 years in the same configuration. I'm not saying old ships aren't good, but usually you don't build a new fleet out of ships that are of an old design. Actually, shipbuilding is a case where usually the class is all built at once, then left in service. This has become less common lately, but restarting production is very rare (that I know of). If I was going to build a big fleet, I'd just get the latest design, and warship development can't have been that slow.
Basically, stuff stays in service until replaced. However, just because we've used the B-52 for 55 years doesn't mean we've built any in 45.

Ghostrider

Posted 17 December 2009 - 06:16 PM

In outbound flight it said that dreadnaughts were Rendilli's "Newest present to the militarily obsessed," which I interpreted to mean that they originated around 27 BBY. Also, why would you build a fleet with 60 year old ships. Blast the prequels. None of this makes any sense.



If it's a good design - you keep it. If i'm right , the US Tomcat is 40 years old and still going strong. That 's why you build with old designs, cos you know they work. New designs have hidden flaws in them.

Fundamentally the Dreadnaught Heavy curuiser is an excellent design. Retro-fitting modern shielding and adding base fighters still kept in in the running in the Thrawn Era. and they may be old by 200 dreadnaughts pack a punch, especially if you have an unlimited source of crewers!

Kaleb Graff

Posted 17 December 2009 - 02:18 PM

Even then, I disagree that progress has come to a standstill. The dreadnoughts are usually described as old, and only able to match modern ships because of their strong hull. I think they were more recent then was previously believed, as they were apparently new around the time of outbound flight. The original Imperial Sourcebook says that it was introduced before the Clone Wars, but nothing else. Other numbers come later, mostly from Zahn, who apparently revised his opinion for Outbound Flight.

feld

Posted 17 December 2009 - 01:55 PM

Also, why would you build a fleet with 60 year old ships.

heh. I thought the same as you until I realized that I was thinking like a modern person on Earth. To us, technology is advancing ludicrously fast and five years is an eternity (in information technology - it's nothing in propulsion or power). But I don't think that the space technology of the GFFA changes because people discover new ways of doing things. Rather, technology changes like a fad. It's a wierd mix of high technology and Lord of the Rings. Most reasearch appears to be digging into records to finding out how some other race chose to solve a particular problem in the past.

Put another way, the people of the Star Wars galaxy have had hyperdrive for 25,000 years. 25,000 years ago, the human race was painting pictures on cave walls. We didn't even have writingyet. 25,000 years from now, we may just have pushed up against some fundamental physical limit or other on what is "knowable" of the universe from within the universe.

Anyway, that's how I learned to stop worrying and love the non-intuitive way Lucas does tech. There's alittle more on the idea at Saxton's site.
v/r
feld

Review the complete topic (launches new window)