Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:19 pm

I understand your meaning, but from here if I'm not counting the trailing burn then they are roughly the same as the PT images I've seen.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:21 pm

Look at the PT image I linked to - the Falcon's CMs (by which I'm only including the blue cone - the tail's probably exhaust gases) are definitely more slender.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14878
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:36 pm

I do see what you're saying, but it's just to close to call. It's putting a lot on a novel set that has proven so untrustworthy over time and banking on a foggy a best image.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:37 pm

Deepcrush wrote:It's putting a lot on a novel set that has proven so untrustworthy over time


What's untrustworthy about it? We're talking about the film novelisation, which is G-canon, not the EU. In any event, each novel should be treated on its own merits. If a given fact does not conflict with either the films or sanity, then that fact should be accepted.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14878
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:41 pm

In your own statement you pointed out they couldn't get Yoda's color right. Then statements not the numbers of cap ships at Endor Moon being in the hundreds. Failure to identify ship classes...

The novels of the films are just as questionable as any other novel in SW.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:44 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Then statements not the numbers of cap ships at Endor Moon being in the hundreds.


Given that cap ships are defined as all combat vessels over 100m, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. The Imps had 40+ destroyers, and the Alliance at least a dozen Mon Cals. There should be many more supporting ships.

Failure to identify ship classes.


Such as?
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14878
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Sun Jun 26, 2011 9:58 pm

1, what there should be and what there was are two different things. If the rebels had as many as three dozen cap ships in total I'd be impressed. The Imps had ISD 1's and 2's with one SSD numbering about fifty. Again it would would shock me if the number of total capships reached triple digits or even close.

2, being the constant mess up of Imp ships. ISDs being called destroyers, no in the sense that it is the design model... But that they are really Destroyer Class. As in being the same scale as the VicStar. This is in spite of three film lines and the databank and GL himself saying otherwise. Another being the toughness of fighters, x-wings shrugging off hits that would have destroyed them times over in ANH. Or the "fodder TIE" issues that later came.

Again, I dont the film novel as being of anymore value then EU. While rated above EU, it remains unreliable at best.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Mon Jun 27, 2011 5:08 pm

Deepcrush wrote:1, what there should be and what there was are two different things. If the rebels had as many as three dozen cap ships in total I'd be impressed. The Imps had ISD 1's and 2's with one SSD numbering about fifty. Again it would would shock me if the number of total capships reached triple digits or even close.


You didn't read my post properly. I'd be surprised if there were more than 60 SDs and Mon Cals. However capships, per the EGVV, are all combat starships over 100m long. Therefore all the blockade runners, Neb-Bs and other ships the Alliance brought along would be counted, as would any Carracks, Strikes, Interdictors, etc, in the Imperial fleet. I would not be surprised, therefore, if there were hundreds of capships present.

ISDs being called destroyers, no in the sense that it is the design model... But that they are really Destroyer Class.


So the novel is referring to them by formal designation, rather than slang as Solo did.

As in being the same scale as the VicStar.


Says who? The A-class was half the size of a Gearing, but they were both destroyers.

This is in spite of three film lines and the databank and GL himself saying otherwise.


One of which was Solo referring to an unidentified class (and referred to as Corellian, not Kuati as ISDs are), another was after a quick glance out of the window which could have been either a case of misidentification or referring to them in the generic sense that any ship capable of independent operations is a cruiser. Which was the third?

In any event, we do not have the explicit contradiction required to overrule the various sources identifying Imperial/Imperator-class Star Destroyers as cruisers.

Another being the toughness of fighters, x-wings shrugging off hits that would have destroyed them times over in ANH. Or the "fodder TIE" issues that later came.


Where, specifically?

Again, I dont the film novel as being of anymore value then EU. While rated above EU, it remains unreliable at best.


Nonetheless, where there is no direct contradiction the books are canon, and more so than the EU, subordinate only to the films themselves.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14878
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:34 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:You didn't read my post properly. I'd be surprised if there were more than 60 SDs and Mon Cals. However capships, per the EGVV, are all combat starships over 100m long. Therefore all the blockade runners, Neb-Bs and other ships the Alliance brought along would be counted, as would any Carracks, Strikes, Interdictors, etc, in the Imperial fleet. I would not be surprised, therefore, if there were hundreds of capships present.


Minus we saw the whole Rebel fleet jump, and two dozen capital ships would be the max that they had. There were not "hundreds" of capital ships, there weren't even one hundred capital ships at the battle.

Captain Seafort wrote:So the novel is referring to them by formal designation, rather than slang as Solo did.


Slang??? He ID'd them by sensor, visual contact and prior reference... thats not slang.

Captain Seafort wrote:Says who? The A-class was half the size of a Gearing, but they were both destroyers.


Great, now show how the Vicstar is only "half" the size of the ISD... otherwise that reference was as pointless as your "slang" bit.

One of which was Solo referring to an unidentified class (and referred to as Corellian, not Kuati as ISDs are), another was after a quick glance out of the window which could have been either a case of misidentification or referring to them in the generic sense that any ship capable of independent operations is a cruiser. Which was the third?


Wow, how much shit did you have to stuff up your own ass to make that up? Solo, reading the sensors says "Imperial Cruisers". The databank and canon tree state the ISDs are Cruisers. The third issue with saying that ALL SDs are Destroyers is that Vader, in ESB, calls for his "Star Destoyer" which was an SSD. Unless you're planning to say that now SSD are only Destroyer sized craft.

Either prove that Solo, GL, Databank are all speaking in slang... or concede the point. You've been crying over this for two years now. Time to grow up a little bit.

One of which was Solo referring to an unidentified class (and referred to as Corellian, not Kuati as ISDs are), another was after a quick glance out of the window which could have been either a case of misidentification or referring to them in the generic sense that any ship capable of independent operations is a cruiser. Which was the third?

In any event, we do not have the explicit contradiction required to overrule the various sources identifying Imperial/Imperator-class Star Destroyers as cruisers.


The films, the cast, the databank and the creator of the Universe... that counts as "explicit".

Where, specifically?


IIRC, thats where the "sheildless TIE" started from.

Nonetheless, where there is no direct contradiction the books are canon, and more so than the EU, subordinate only to the films themselves.


Which is the problem as the Novels are constantly showing their crap, thus I don't trust them anymore then I trust you. Both are wrong more often then they're right.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Mon Jun 27, 2011 8:32 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Minus we saw the whole Rebel fleet jump


No we didn't.

Slang??? He ID'd them by sensor, visual contact and prior reference... thats not slang.


The means by which he identified them is irrelevant. He referred to them using a slang term.

Great, now show how the Vicstar is only "half" the size of the ISD


Why? I've shown that ships can be significantly different in size while still being the same type.

Solo, reading the sensors says "Imperial Cruisers".


So are Blockade runner, so's the Ex. Already covered.

The databank and canon tree state the ISDs are Cruisers.


The DB is lower canon than ESB, which explicitly calls then Star Destroyers. Cruiser is a term for all indepentently operating ships, as I've already pointed out

The third issue with saying that ALL SDs are Destroyers is that Vader, in ESB, calls for his "Star Destoyer" which was an SSD. Unless you're planning to say that now SSD are only Destroyer sized craft.


We know that Exs are colloquially known as "Super Star Destroyers". Given that Vader was pretty upset at the time, it's hardly surprising that correct terminology wasn't his foremost concern.

You've been crying over this for two years now. Time to grow up a little bit.


Projection much? :roll:

The films, the cast, the databank and the creator of the Universe... that counts as "explicit".


No, it's evidence that they're sometimes called cruisers, which they are in the broad sense of the term.

Which is the problem as the Novels are constantly showing their crap


Tough. Unless there's an explicit contradiction (i.e. "Star Destroyers are not destroyer-type vessels") they stand.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14878
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:02 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:No we didn't.


Yes we did, in the film.

Captain Seafort wrote:The means by which he identified them is irrelevant. He referred to them using a slang term.


Prove it then. All of the canon sources confirm what he says, so prove them all wrong. No with your typical dodges, but with real canon. Find in the films where Solo says he was speaking in slang. Find where in the films Vader says he was speaking in slang. Find on Databank where they are speaking in slang. Find an interview with GL saying he's speaking in slang.

Captain Seafort wrote:Why? I've shown that ships can be significantly different in size while still being the same type.


You've shown two ships, from two different powers. Thus it doesn't apply when speaking of the scaling use of a single power.

Captain Seafort wrote:So are Blockade runner, so's the Ex. Already covered.


Really, Solo called the Blockade Runner an Imperial Cruiser... :laughroll:

Captain Seafort wrote:The DB is lower canon than ESB, which explicitly calls then Star Destroyers. Cruiser is a term for all indepentently operating ships, as I've already pointed out


Wrong, the DB is the outsiders view of the Canon tree. As to what you've pointed out, you've only pointed out your opinion based to a modern sense of a "cruising ship" which is worthless when compared against the direct statements from canon about a fictional universe. Solo declares them Cruisers, Script of the film being the equal of GL's own words declares them cruisers, the Databank declares them cruisers. There for they are Cruisers of the Star Destroyer line, just the same as the Victory, Venator, Acclamator, Imperial, Executor designed by the Wessex family.

Either find a statement on the Databank or from Solo that they are both wrong or concede the point.

Captain Seafort wrote:We know that Exs are colloquially known as "Super Star Destroyers". Given that Vader was pretty upset at the time, it's hardly surprising that correct terminology wasn't his foremost concern.


Really... thats your best? Solo and Vader and Databank and GL are all wrong because... they were upset??? :laughroll:

Again, find where they state that they were mistaken or concede the point.

Captain Seafort wrote:Projection much?


Not at all.

Captain Seafort wrote:No, it's evidence that they're sometimes called cruisers, which they are in the broad sense of the term.


Errrrrrrrrr, wrong again. Its evidence that they are CALLED cruisers since thats what they are in fact called.

Captain Seafort wrote:Tough. Unless there's an explicit contradiction (i.e. "Star Destroyers are not destroyer-type vessels") they stand.


There are, as pointed out... Film, Databank, Script, all are canon and all contradict Seafort's wannabe world of Seafor Wars.

Either prove that the Films are no longer Canon, that GL is no longer canon, that Han Solo is no longer canon, that Vader is no longer canon or concede the point. Should I type it in green to help you see it better?
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Captain Seafort » Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:25 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Yes we did, in the film.


No, we didn't - we saw elements of the fleet jump, but since there were far more ships at Endor than in the jump scene, we obviously didn't see all of them jump.

Prove it then. All of the canon sources confirm what he says, so prove them all wrong.


I've already done so many times over. Every single technical description of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer refers to them as such. They are never referred to as cruisers in any technical work

You've shown two ships, from two different powers.


Irrelevant. I have shown that ships of significantly different sizes are both of the same type. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently it is for you.

Really, Solo called the Blockade Runner an Imperial Cruiser...


No, but since they're capable of independent operation, they are cruisers.

they are Cruisers of the Star Destroyer line, just the same as the Victory, Venator, Acclamator, Imperial, Executor designed by the Wessex family.


Vic, Vens, and Imps are all destroyers, and have never been described as anything else in a technical work. Ex is described as a Star Dreadnought in technical works. Accies are described as assault ships in technical works.

Solo and Vader and Databank and GL are all wrong because... they were upset??? :laughroll:


Vader was upset. The others were simply using generic terms.

Its evidence that they are CALLED cruisers since thats what they are in fact called.


Yes, no one's disputing the fact that they've been called cruisers. However, this term covers any ship capable of independent operation. The formal designation of the Vic, Ven and Imp is "Star Destroyer". Vessels smaller than them (such as the Vindicator-class) are desgnated Star Frigates. Vessels larger than them are designated Star Cruisers. Vessels larger than those are designated Star Battleships, or Star Battlecruisers. The largest vessels are designated Star Dreadnoughts.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14878
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Tue Jun 28, 2011 1:00 am

Captain Seafort wrote:No, we didn't - we saw elements of the fleet jump, but since there were far more ships at Endor than in the jump scene, we obviously didn't see all of them jump.


So you have the hidden and much loved Episode VII then??? Be lovely of you to show it.

Captain Seafort wrote:I've already done so many times over. Every single technical description of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer refers to them as such. They are never referred to as cruisers in any technical work


Wrong, you've stated your useless opinion many times over. Either show the lines from the films where Solo declares he was speaking in slang or concede.

Captain Seafort wrote:Irrelevant. I have shown that ships of significantly different sizes are both of the same type. This should not be a difficult concept to grasp, but apparently it is for you.


Its not Irrelevant as the whole point is based on the Imperial system of Star Wars, not the Naval system of WWII England and United States. Either prove the point or concede the point.

Captain Seafort wrote:No, but since they're capable of independent operation, they are cruisers.


Going by that as the sole definition would mean that everything including fighters are all Cruiser classed ships. So now you can start bitching that all fighters are Cruisers now too... have fun.

Captain Seafort wrote:Vic, Vens, and Imps are all destroyers, and have never been described as anything else in a technical work. Ex is described as a Star Dreadnought in technical works. Accies are described as assault ships in technical works.


The Venstar is directly listed as the "Republic Attack Cruiser, Type Cruiser, Model Star Destroyer". The ISDs are listed as "Imperial Cruiser, Type Cruiser, Model Star Destroyer". The Blockade Runner is listed as "Corellian corvette CR90"... a corvette, not a cruiser. Technical works do not trump the Films, get over it. Either find real proof or concede the point.

Captain Seafort wrote:Vader was upset. The others were simply using generic terms.


Then prove it, find the line in the Films where they say "We were just upset and were wrong in our script reading".

Captain Seafort wrote:Yes, no one's disputing the fact that they've been called cruisers. However, this term covers any ship capable of independent operation. The formal designation of the Vic, Ven and Imp is "Star Destroyer". Vessels smaller than them (such as the Vindicator-class) are desgnated Star Frigates. Vessels larger than them are designated Star Cruisers. Vessels larger than those are designated Star Battleships, or Star Battlecruisers. The largest vessels are designated Star Dreadnoughts.


Which is listed only in the Wookiee as far as I've ever seen. Which is useless when the Films state otherwise. Another problem is that you've stated that everything smaller then the ISD has to be a destroyer yet the MC80s are Star Cruisers at only 1200m. So you're line that WWII applies to all is either right but that would make the ISDs cruisers, or meaningless as ships of different states would be different. So pick one.

Are all ships the same and you're caught for double speaking and being full of shit yet again.
Are all ships from factions not locked into the 'world of seafort' of course then you are still full of shit but maybe and finally a little honest.

[Post edited to change the use of green font - GK]
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Mikey » Tue Jun 28, 2011 3:05 am

Personally, I don't give a skinny rat's ass if you call the Ex a SSD or if you call it Seafort's mama; however...

#1 - Leave the green type. If you feel like you want to be a moderator, ask Ian and Graham. More importantly,
#2 - A moderator shouldn't - and hopefully, any of the ones here wouldn't - debate using his status as a mod or claim mod ruling over the nature of the debate.

I know you're trying to make a point, Deep, but using the green font isn't making the point you want. Further, while I know that you did it in that spirit, it's a bad precedent to set. Thanks.
"You fought with Captain Reynolds in the war?"
"I fought with a lot of people in the war."
"And your husband?"
"I fight with him sometimes, too."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 32909
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week: Lancer-class frigate

Postby Deepcrush » Tue Jun 28, 2011 6:51 am

Mikey, I don't really give a shit what point you think I'm making or your care for the font color or for the fact that he mods here can't even patrol themselves.

As to being a mod, since they seem to be useless around here anyways... Why would I waste my time with it?

Finally, As to he example it sets. You have a situation of something being in black and white and your fellow mod still can't help but lie about it. When you can handle that come back and talk to me otherwise don't waste your time.

Thank you.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Star Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest