Page 3 of 4
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 10:40 pm
by McAvoy
Perhaps. Going by the Essentials is said something about either burning off the crust or shattering it. Don't know if there is any other references other than that on it's power.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 2:59 am
by Deepcrush
Most common is the ISD/ISD2 type cruisers, most powerful is the Eclipse class SSD.
With personal favorites, Venator is top for me. Great cruiser for her time.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:02 am
by Deepcrush
Captain Seafort wrote:Aye, there's a fair few, even if some of them (almost exclusively the bigger ones) only turn up in the background of DE.
As a quick run down we have:
Victory-class: Clone Wars era line destroyer, 900 metres long, weighted towards ship-to-ship combat but with decent fighter a troop contingents.
Venator-class: Clone wars era line cruiser, 1137 metres long but about the same volume as the Vic, and the same power output. Heavily weighted towards the starfighter carrier role.
Imperator/Imperial-class: The standard Imperial line cruiser, 1600 metre long counterinsurgency platform, with an excellent balance of firepower, fighters and group troops. The definitive symbol of the Galactic Empire.
Tector-class: Imperial fleet cruiser, 1600 metres long, based on the Imperator hull, but much more heavily armoured, and orientated towards ship-to-ship combat.
Allegiance-type: About 3000 metres long, fits into the gap between heavy destroyers and proper Star Cruisers. Like the Tector it's orientated towards ship-to-ship combat.
That's just a quick run down of the smaller ships. As you can see, they run from the small (by Imperial standards) Victory up to the light cruiser/flotilla leader Allegiance, and from designs optimised for ship-to-ship combat, to almost pure starfighter-carriers.
Corrected for you since you still can't get it right.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:04 am
by stitch626
Deepcrush wrote:Captain Seafort wrote:Aye, there's a fair few, even if some of them (almost exclusively the bigger ones) only turn up in the background of DE.
As a quick run down we have:
Victory-class: Clone Wars era line destroyer, 900 metres long, weighted towards ship-to-ship combat but with decent fighter a troop contingents.
Venator-class: Clone wars era line cruiser, 1137 metres long but about the same volume as the Vic, and the same power output. Heavily weighted towards the starfighter carrier role.
Imperator/Imperial-class: The standard Imperial line cruiser, 1600 metre long counterinsurgency platform, with an excellent balance of firepower, fighters and group troops. The definitive symbol of the Galactic Empire.
Tector-class: Imperial fleet cruiser, 1600 metres long, based on the Imperator hull, but much more heavily armoured, and orientated towards ship-to-ship combat.
Allegiance-type: About 3000 metres long, fits into the gap between heavy destroyers and proper Star Cruisers. Like the Tector it's orientated towards ship-to-ship combat.
That's just a quick run down of the smaller ships. As you can see, they run from the small (by Imperial standards) Victory up to the light cruiser/flotilla leader Allegiance, and from designs optimised for ship-to-ship combat, to almost pure starfighter-carriers.
Corrected for you since you still can't get it right.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:06 am
by Deepcrush
Its only been pointed out in the films, canon tree and main site... and he still just can't face it. Its really sad.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 8:46 am
by Reliant121
From what I can understand, the "Star" prefix seems to bump it up a class. A Star Frigate would be a powerful destroyer, a Star Destroyer being a powerful Cruiser, a Star Cruiser being a battleship type thing and a Star Dreadnaught being "holy mother of god that thing's the size of a moon and just tore a fleet apart" sized.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 9:11 am
by alexmann
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:39 pm
by Deepcrush
Reliant121 wrote:From what I can understand, the "Star" prefix seems to bump it up a class. A Star Frigate would be a powerful destroyer, a Star Destroyer being a powerful Cruiser, a Star Cruiser being a battleship type thing and a Star Dreadnaught being "holy mother of god that thing's the size of a moon and just tore a fleet apart" sized.
Only that doesn't work since the Star Dreadnaught is in fact... a Dreadnaught and the thing the size of a moon is called a Battle Station.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:41 pm
by alexmann
Take out the "that thing's the size of a moon" and it would work.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:54 pm
by Mikey
I've got a bad feeling about this...
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 3:58 pm
by alexmann
Why? (Massive Laser Blast)
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:04 pm
by Deepcrush
He means he ISDs coming back up.
Truthfully its not even worth arguing about anymore. Seafort knows he's lying about what he says and the mods and admins are useless as is. Generally it just turns into a merry-go-round of crap.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:09 pm
by Mikey
Actually, I was just trying to toss in a Han Solo quote when "the size of a small moon" was mentioned.
However, you're right - the ISD/IS"C" issue is quickly becoming a new TR-116.
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:12 pm
by alexmann
Thats no moon, thats a melon! (Sorry)
What about the TR-116?
Re: Star Destroyer
Posted: Tue May 31, 2011 4:12 pm
by Deepcrush
Mikey wrote:I've got a bad feeling about this...
Well of course you meant Han Solo...
.
.
.
.
.
