77 replies to this topic

[feld]

This entire discussion reminds me of the time a couple years ago I wrote a paper on the organization of the New Republic Fleet. Yes, I am that big of a geek.

<grin>
I'm right there with you. I've just spent way too many nights lying awake in bed thinking about the possibility of applying a fusion reactor confinement idea I read about five years ago to proton/anti-proton mixes in the refit 1701's intermix shaft and where dilithium fits into that whole mess...of course...that's a thread for a different board

v/r
feld

[Tropical Bob]

where dilithium fits into that whole mess.

v/r
feld

Silly feld, fusion reactors are extremely outdated.

Unless it takes the power of a fusion reactor or something to start up a hyper-matter reactor.

[SpardaSon21]

He's talking Star Trek and how to apply fusion containment methods to matter/anti-matter reactions. Not easily would be my guess since the energy released from an annihilation reaction is far greater than that released through nuclear fusion.

[Casen]

A tanker, isn't very likely. The Republic/Empire doesn't need a tanker, because there is virtually no evidence of any ships needing refueling it that manner.

Erm...

http://starwars.wiki.../wiki/Black_Ice

[Zeta1127]

A tanker, isn't very likely. The Republic/Empire doesn't need a tanker, because there is virtually no evidence of any ships needing refueling it that manner.

Erm...

http://starwars.wiki.../wiki/Black_Ice

Ok, let me rephrase that, what I meant to say was, the Republic/Empire doesn't need a Star Destroyer variant that is a tanker, they have dedicated ships like the Black Ice.

[Phoenix Rising]

First of all, thanks for posting this thread. We should really do more of these debates (especially when I'm invisible).

I know that back when Phoenix released the new star destroyers there was some discussion on the Tector-class regarding its unknown function; there is no source material on the ship, nor is it mentioned in any official EU book.

The last part isn't true... it's very obviously mentioned in Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, otherwise it'd have no name. Also, it appears that it's now showing up in new material.

The ship is an armed supertanker

This explanation doesn't make much sense to me, mainly on the point that anything designated "star destroyer" is going to be a front-line combat ship. On top of that, Imperial ships are almost always very specialized.

The ship has advanced computation or communication equipment

Maybe, but Saxton seems to point to the one in the Battle of Endor being larger than a destroyer. I guess from reading this, there's some justification in the novelization for this reasoning, but I can't independently confirm that. There is, however, an intermediate-sized dagger seen from the throne room that isn't otherwise explained.

The ship is a dedicated gun platform

I'm not sure the reactor is bigger so much as it's armored. It would be difficult to fit a larger globe-shaped reactor into the hull without a protrusion.

The ship has some kind of special ordinance

I don't know that something along the lines of a miniature superweapon would work in what's supposedly a mass-produced ship.

But, to add to the mix: What if TECTOR came first?

Both classes seem to have been placed in 22 BBY. Argh, how I hate launch date creep... your explanation is much better. If they were around in 19 BBY, why use Venators to defend your capital???

Truth is that the Tector is really a mistake/error/choice that some ILM guys decided to put on screen in the Battle of Endor.

I don't buy this explanation (besides the fact that it's total speculation). That's like saying winged Liberty-type MC80s are a mistake because the wings were added on during shooting. The fact is, without the EU, most of the stuff in the film has no meaning. You'd have aliens called Cyclops, Prune Face, and, yes, even Don Rickles. It's in the film and confirmed to be a Tector; that's all that matters.

IMO the Tector was just an happenstance of the reality on the set of RotJ, but since it is now an official SD class and next to nothing is known about it; I would recommend one of two things: treat it as fannon and do with it what the blazes you want, or wait for more canon info to come our way.

The point of us doing something with the Tector now instead of later is to impact fan consciousness in such a way that it becomes canon, like the DP20 designation. As far as I'm concerned, we have the best quantitative take on something that looks very much like an Imperial star destroyer, yet has a completely unique behavior and role. All that remains is to assign an appearance to it.

the cost of building and outfitting a TIE Fighter is minuscule compared to that of a capital ship

You also have to remember, we're dealing with a cost mechanic in-game and not literal costs (otherwise everyone would swarm gunships). The Tector is a more expensive ship, but the Imperial costs a ton in complement. That's why the former is cheaper.

Maybe the entire armament is rigged to behave more like a CoMar Tri-tracker

I had originally considered giving it flak cannons as an upgrade...

Pff. A slideshow is nothing compared to the documents I've had to write for UEAW

He's not a modder though, evilbob.

PR lists the length as 1600m, identical to the Imperator. Saxton also seems to think that it is the same scale as a traditional star destroyer (though all of our evidence is based on a belly shot; the hull could be much shorter and we would not be able to tell the difference, so I suppose this response is a moot point).

It should be quite possible to confirm the scale against the Falcon in that shot. I'm assuming Saxton did that.

Silly feld, fusion reactors are extremely outdated.

They're still in common use though. Starfighters aren't going to annihilate hypermatter; hell, the Digger Crawler even uses steam technology as a means of operating away from civilization.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 02 June 2010 - 07:54 PM.

[P.O._210877]

Ok, I guess that I was feeling more critical than analytical the day I posted, so let me get into the spirit of things.

If we play a little bit with naval terminology, we could see the Tector as a dedicated front line destroyer with maximum armor (an escort vessel for bigger ships in a task force or fleet); armed to the teeth with multiple weapons to be as versatile as can be. While the Imperator, built from the same hull, is a cruiser (probably a battlecruiser), a long range force deployment vessel. Now I know that we have Star Cruisers and Star Battlecruisers already but I'm thinking more along the lines of mission based nomenclature, i.e. a cruiser is a force projection vessel, fast and operating outside the main fleet. While a destroyer is a fast task force/fleet vessel tasked with the eradication of enemy ships while taking hits that were intended for the ships they escorted.

[Tropical Bob]

Perhaps we should, despite the classification, think of it less like a destroyer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer), and perhaps more like a World War II era battleship (http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Battleship). Destroyers are smaller and quicker, and meant to protect larger, slower ships against other small ships. Battleships are the true guns of the fleet, and dish out and take the most damage.

The Imperial-class seems more to take the former role of the SD twins, with the inclusion of Fighters/Bombers and tractor beams. The Tector just seems more like it would be (If the design had actually taken off) the front-line ship taking the hits and taking down the enemy, with the Imperials giving it the anti-fighter/bomber/gunship protection it would need.

Edited by Tropical Bob, 03 June 2010 - 04:52 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

I find it a less-than-useful exercise trying to apply real-world naval terminology to starships. The end result never seems to quite fit the history if a star destroyer is literally taken as a destroyer (exception: Dark Empire). Look at the Dreadnaught-class as an example - in someone's navy at some time, it was the biggest and best there was (bearing in mind its backstory has suffered several retcons to accommodate a coherent timeline since its addition to the canon in 1989). The point is, classifications change, and they're only (hopefully) consistent within a given organization.

I prefer to just take the in-universe designations at face value. My point about a star destroyer not being a supertanker is based on the fact that every other known star destroyer type performs a combat-oriented role. To break that precedent would seem blatantly fanon.

[Tropical Bob]

My point about a star destroyer not being a supertanker is based on the fact that every other known star destroyer type performs a combat-oriented role. To break that precedent would seem blatantly fanon.

I was thinking along the lines that 'Star Destroyer' was more of an impromptu designation, based on it being akin to the Imperial-class. It seems accepted only because of that mention, and its visage, rather than its role. Just the same as the Hajen-class Fleet Tender and the Sacheen-class Light Escort: they're built on the same hull design, but as a result of their armaments and, therefore their roles, they are given wildly different designations.

I believe that something similar should be done with the Imperial's and Tector's classifications. Despite the armaments being more or less similar, the defined roles of them seem separated enough to warrant different classifications. You could say, perhaps, that since there are larger and more powerful ships than the Tector (Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnaughts), that its role is still to be the destroyer role relative to them. However, the amount of larger ships doesn't seem to be enough for such a thing to be, and the Tector would have been the start of the heavy capital ships requiring support from destroyers.

I'll yield to your judgment on this, but my stance will probably still remain on the side of re-classifying it 'P-canonically' to be the Tector-class Star Battleship.

[Kaleb Graff]

On launch date creep, I can see prototypes being put into service much earlier than the rest of the class, as using modern airplanes for our model is probably the best way to look at production. Still, you can just de-canonize the 22BBY source. From Wookie, it's actually a visual guide, so that shouldn't be a problem. What are the P-canon rules for this anyway?
Also, I don't see large ships as really needing escorts. Anything a Tector can hit can be hit even more effectively by an Executor. It's possible that it's an antifighter ship, but I think that it's more likely they use TIEs for that.

[Tropical Bob]

Also, I don't see large ships as really needing escorts. Anything a Tector can hit can be hit even more effectively by an Executor.

There is such a thing as overkill. Would you want to commit a full Executor-class to destroy a minor Rebel garrison rather than keep it in the Core or leading fleet actions and having a Tector hit the minor garrison?

Edited by Tropical Bob, 03 June 2010 - 05:10 PM.

[Kaleb Graff]

Yes, but that's not an escort. An escort will accompany the larger ship, not go in it's place. I'm not saying that it wouldn't be useful, but that it wouldn't be useful as an escort. Plus, why didn't we see any at Hoth?

[Phoenix Rising]

I was thinking along the lines that 'Star Destroyer' was more of an impromptu designation, based on it being akin to the Imperial-class. It seems accepted only because of that mention, and its visage, rather than its role.

GL called the Invisible Hand a star destroyer though, so I think we can finally retire the old "star destroyer = dagger" fallacy.

If anything, I think the designations are descriptive of relative firepower opposed to size or role. The Independence-class is a star cruiser despite being several times larger than its Liberty cousin, but if you compare armaments, they're relatively in line. A Munificent-class Star Frigate certainly can't go head-to-head with a Bothan Assault Cruiser, even though they're roughly the same size. I just don't see the Tector having firepower on par with something like a Bulwark or Allegiance. It's definitely a destroyer, but if you want to call it something else, I'd propose "assault destroyer".

On launch date creep, I can see prototypes being put into service much earlier than the rest of the class, as using modern airplanes for our model is probably the best way to look at production. Still, you can just de-canonize the 22BBY source.

I try not to override canon unless it absolutely needs it. Creeping the dates plays havoc on the tech tree and our campaigns though. They've now done it in varying degrees of credibility with the AT-AT, Nebulon-B, Lancer, Strike, and Imperial, to name a few. Oh yeah, and they put the Corellian Treaty in 2 BBY.

Edited by Phoenix Rising, 03 June 2010 - 07:24 PM.

[Tucker]

Wouldn't it be difficult to resupply a ship the size of a Tector class if it did not contain hangars? Let alone get a full crew complement on?

Edited by Tucker, 04 June 2010 - 02:28 AM.

[Phoenix Rising]

The thought is that there are small lateral docking bays or umbilicals. The cargo throughput would be relatively poor compared to a cruiser-carrier, but an Imperial-class is supposed to have consumables for six years, so it's probably not much of an issue.

[Kaleb Graff]

I try not to override canon unless it absolutely needs it. Creeping the dates plays havoc on the tech tree and our campaigns though. They've now done it in varying degrees of credibility with the AT-AT, Nebulon-B, Lancer, Strike, and Imperial, to name a few. Oh yeah, and they put the Corellian Treaty in 2 BBY.

But most of those could be assumed to be prototypes. The YF-22 first flew in 1990, but the F-22 wasn't operational until 2007. We can just explain away the author's mistakes. I've tried to concoct a reasonable view of the military, but authors have an awful habit of mixing army and navy ranks, among other things.
On the Corellian Treaty, that doesn't make sense when looked at against the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook, which give the impression of a much longer-running rebellion,as does Dark Force Rising. Then again, Interlude at Darkknell suggests it only happened a few months before Yavin. I tend to go with the first interpretation. Then again, we could say that the Cantham House meetings were the real birth of the rebellion. On the other hand (I know that I do this quite a bit, but I'm kind of in stream-of-consciousness mode here), the Rebellion Era Sourcebook says that it was less than two years before Yavin, and it dates back to 2001.

Edited by Kaleb Graff, 04 June 2010 - 04:33 PM.

[Tropical Bob]

GL called the Invisible Hand a star destroyer though, so I think we can finally retire the old "star destroyer = dagger" fallacy.

That's good to hear. The "Star Destroyer = dagger" still probably had a lot of influence in earlier years though.

If anything, I think the designations are descriptive of relative firepower opposed to size or role. The Independence-class is a star cruiser despite being several times larger than its Liberty cousin, but if you compare armaments, they're relatively in line. A Munificent-class Star Frigate certainly can't go head-to-head with a Bothan Assault Cruiser, even though they're roughly the same size. I just don't see the Tector having firepower on par with something like a Bulwark or Allegiance. It's definitely a destroyer, but if you want to call it something else, I'd propose "assault destroyer".

The Bulwark is a Star Battlecruiser (Battlecruisers are supposed to be more heavily armed, though not necessarily armored, than a battleship), and Wookie lists the Allegiance as a Super Star Destroyer (Another example of the Star Destroyer issue).

[Phoenix Rising]

I've tried to concoct a reasonable view of the military, but authors have an awful habit of mixing army and navy ranks, among other things.

This is why I use rank "classes" for heroes as a means of bypassing the actual mess of a chain-of-command they have. Chalk it up as poor translation between Basic and English?

Then again, we could say that the Cantham House meetings were the real birth of the rebellion.

This is a good compromise, especially since the whole basis of the mod is having an armed resistance, albeit without inter-system coordination, shortly after the Declaration of a New Order.

I think LFL internally made the decision on 2 BBY several years before it was set by TFU, since the later materials seem to line up. I look at the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook as some kind of holy grail though - I have a copy right next to me and I reference it as much as anything - so it's hard to ignore. The EU has done horrible injustice to the structure of the Alliance (some of which I can hopefully correct in v1.2)... but that's another thread.

I'm cool with the AT-AT being a CW prototype and Nebulon-Bs being in response to CIS shipping raids opposed to Rebel. (If they were new to the GCW, how were so many of them captured?) However, I'm pretty dead-set against moving the Lancer or Strike. Have them retcon the errors as different classes; these are modern warships!

The Bulwark is a Star Battlecruiser (Battlecruisers are supposed to be more heavily armed, though not necessarily armored, than a battleship), and Wookie lists the Allegiance as a Super Star Destroyer (Another example of the Star Destroyer issue).

Yeah, I had a hard time finding a reasonable comparison class. As I alluded to before, no one really wants to deal in big starships. I guess why bother when you can have the Executor-class blown away with jury-rigged torpedoes or Force push.

[Kaleb Graff]

I like the translation error part, but it still makes rationalizing difficult. As I mentioned earlier, the 2 BBY decision was in place by 2001, when Rebellion Era Sourcebook was published. It was written by Bill Slavicsek, among others, who was also one of the developers of D6. I'm not sure what that means, but we may be both misreading Rebel Alliance Sourcebook. At a guess, there was some loose coordination before 2 BBY, but no formal structure. The only relevant passage is on page 12, when it says, after the Corellian treaty, "Within a few short years, the Alliance was recognizably the same organization it is today." The book is set shortly after Yavin, so this suggests a much longer history. Also, it says that the alliance's agreement with the Mon Cal was "several years" before Yavin (pg. 14). There are several other references to "years" of history, generally in ways that I would only expect of a unified alliance.
EU has done a horrible injustice to the structure of everything. I've attached the current draft of my essay on the New Republic Fleet. I apologize for the writing quality, but I started it four years ago, then picked it up again recently.
The stuff on the Lancer is just wrong. You control P-canon. Remove it. It's a kids book, and most Star Wars authors don't know a Lancer from a guy on a horse. Canon would be a lot better if LucasArts hired one of us to proofread this stuff.
I'm not sure how to explain the Strike, or even where it's found early.

Attached Files

•  NewRepublicFleet.doc   30.5KB   72 downloads