Are the Empire's actions legal?

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Deepcrush » Thu Nov 08, 2012 12:26 am

Atekimogus wrote:snip on starship classes.


Aki, something important to note on ships is the way in which they are titled is a constant problem for many. Seafort places the statements of wiki over that of the films and will go so far as to right state that he believes wikis over rule the Films. But that isn't just due to his ignorance on the topic but too the huge list of terms used in describing the ships. The ISD, the most commonly seen ship in the OT, is titled the "Imperial Stardestroyer class Cruiser." The common escort ship is the VicStar1 which is titled the Victory Class Stardestroyer Destroyer. The VicStar2 is titled the Victory Class Stardestroyer Frigate. The SSD, Vaders personal ship is called Stardestroyer and Super Stardestroyer and Command Ship. Its clearly a super sized battleship/carrier but that is never stated openly in the films but by Lucas because he didn't think to write it in.

When this topic comes up, just stick to the films and databank and things will be a lot easier for you. Avoid the wikis and fan pages as most of what they post is just their ranting for not understanding the films themselves.

Atekimogus wrote:snip on fleet sizes


The films aren't minimal, you have to remember that what we saw at Endor Moon was a single Imperial Sector fleet. Not even an important sector but an outer rim fleet so it was likely much smaller then some of the core sector fleets. The Empire was made up of anything of 4,000 to 40,000 sectors. So that fifty ship fleet even if normal means the Empire is fielding between 200,000 and 2,000,000 ISD level ships not counting their support ships. The issues with scale are more trouble in EU then in the films.

Captain Seafort wrote:No, the fact that it does a destroyer's job (escorting the big ships, establishing a blockade of a fourth-rate shithole like Tatooine, chasing down random smugglers, etc) makes it a destroyer.


It also does the job of battleship, carrier, troop transport, CAS ship, supply ship and command ship. So saying its a tug boat because it towed a ship to port isn't meaningful to the ship's classification.
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: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Deepcrush » Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:27 am

Captain Seafort wrote:
Deepcrush wrote:Well seeing how one was formed by a population who wished to leave the British Empire and the other was made up of the surviving sectors of the Galactic Empire. The analogy is simply meaningless to topic as such I'll just accept this being as close as you can come admitting you concede the issue.


The precise political situation was different but the overall gist was the same - subdivisions of a larger political entity broke away from central control and later came together to form a new political entity that bore a superficial resemblance to the one they broke away from, but was nonetheless distinct from it.


Gist was the same??? :laughroll:

Are you fucking kidding me??? One is a faction within breaking away and the other is the lead of said faction being pushed aside by another power. Its not the same in any fashion other then people shot at each other. Seriously, even by your standards as low as they are that is purely pathetic. If thats the best you can come up with just get back under GKs desk where you belong... :lol:
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: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Atekimogus » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:05 am

Captain Seafort wrote:Yes and no. The warlords were senior Imperial commanders (mostly of sectors, oversectors and independent fleets) who went rogue after Endor (mostly in two waves immediately after Endor and after the fall of Coruscant). They continued to run their areas and fleets on Imperial lines, and continued to fight the New Republic, but also fought the other walords, and the forces still loyal to what remained of the core Imperial government: the Ruling Council. During Thrawn's War they supported his campaigns, but it was a much looser arrangement than it would have been had they still been part of the Empire proper.


Thank you for the explanation. Might I say that it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense? Mainly because as long as Thrawn would allow the continuation of this state of affair his leadership of the Empire would remain in constant question and from what we know of Thrawn - who is really big on order and discipline - the first thing he would do on returning from the unknown region finding this chaos would be to clean up house. As long as there are Warlords who think they can refuse him his whole authority is in question and he could never allow that.


Captain Seafort wrote:No it isn't. The movies show the backwaters of the galaxy - the only areas the Rebellion can safely operate in. It's still crawling with Star Destroyers, best shown when Vader was able to deploy something like half a dozen of them over Tatooine at almost no notice, and when the Tyrant was disabled by the Rebel's
black market ion cannon at Hoth.


True, but then - and that is my point - the whole galaxy is a backwater. There are maybe a dozen developed worlds we know of and even the loss of one of those developed worlds always puts a huge dent in their capability. (Like they lost Fondor I believe, one of the shipyard worlds during the Vong Invasion). Sure, there are thousands and thousands of life-bearing worlds but most are either wild or just have a few small settlements.

Captain Seafort wrote:Moreover, look at the heavy guns of the fleet - the Ex, which utterly dwarfs the ISDs, and the two Death Stars, big enough to produce millions or billions of ISDs from the same resources.


Well now I am unsure how to argue this since I am not sure what is considered canon or fanon or whatever. Do the novels count, the video games? That being said, it was a plot point in X-Wing that they only discovered about the Death-Star simply because basically all the Empires resources were drained from shipbuilding into who knows what.

Another point actually, why I find it unlikely that some backwater Warlords would be able to run Super-StarDestroyers let alone BUILT them. Those things were a huge drain on a galactic empire and yet, in the novels, every small crimelord can build a death-star cannon or run his private custom-painted Star Destroyer.


Captain Seafort wrote:That was covered in Mothma's briefing in RotJ - "with the Imperial fleet spread throughout the galaxy in a vain effort to engage us..." In a galaxy of hundreds of billions of star systems, and tens of millions of major inhabited systems, the notion of an Imperial fleet of less than hundreds of thousands of Star Destroyers is ludicrous.


Again, where does the millions of inhabited systems come from? Even on the most complete EU-maps of the star wars galaxy there are just a few hundred noteworthy worlds and from those I would say a good 80% are basically totally unimportant except some of our heroes travelled there at one point or another.

If you are right, how would one explain the extreme manpower shortages Thrawn had during his entire campaign? Heck this isn't the Imperium of Mankind with a million worlds :wink:

Captain Seafort wrote:This lot


Weeelllll........first almost all of those ships seem to appear years and years after the movies and Thrawn campaign and second...again being completely ignorant as to what is held true and what is fandom........those ships seem to fall completely into the later category.

Captain Seafort wrote:No, the fact that it does a destroyer's job (escorting the big ships, establishing a blockade of a fourth-rate shithole like Tatooine, chasing down random smugglers, etc) makes it a destroyer.


What Deepcrush said. They also are battleships, ship of the line, drop a garrison on your head and are troop transports, bombardment ships and have fighter and bomber wings and appearently they even have a small civilian population providing the small-city sized crew with necessary services. They are the ultimate jack of all trades. There isn't a single game in which they are not the biggest and baddest ships there are, with exception of the Executor.

Captain Seafort wrote:Dreadnaught-class heavy cruisers, not dreadnoughts in the sense of the ship type.


I see...still, if the dreadnaughts really are heavy cruiser than they should still be bigger than a Star Destroyer who is a destroyer. Again, a point that Star Destroyer is probably more the Kuat Drive Yard slogan for every wegdy ship they built. "Only a Star Destroyer is a Star Destroyer!" Kuat Drive Yards...that sort of thing.


Captain Seafort wrote:Nope.


You should. It definitly is one of the better Star Wars games. :wink:
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Atekimogus » Thu Nov 08, 2012 11:10 am

Deepcrush wrote:When this topic comes up, just stick to the films and databank and things will be a lot easier for you. Avoid the wikis and fan pages as most of what they post is just their ranting for not understanding the films themselves.


Yeah..it seems you almost need a degree to even know what is permissable in a discussion and what is just fandom:)



Deepcrush wrote: The issues with scale are more trouble in EU then in the films.


Well that is exactly my point. One could probably argue about the exact size and scale of the Star Wars galaxy for ages, all I am saying is that the books are not consistent to the point where things don't make much sense in hindsight and THAT is what I find most annoying. Personally I don't care much if they have a fleet of a few hundred or a few thousand ships, as long as they are consistent with it.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Praeothmin » Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:15 pm

Didn't the Empire have a million worlds, as of ANH?
This brings up the question:
Of this million worlds, how many are like Tatooine, and how many are like Coruscant?
How many even, are simply colonies with only a few souls living there?

And as Akitemogus said, if the Empire had so many ships, then why would they even feel threatened by the two dozen ships of the Rebels?
Why feel threatened by the few thousand Rebels if you control millions upon millions of worlds?
Would the USA as a whole feel threatened by a few dozen rebels?
Did the country feel threatened by the guys at Waco?

Look at 9/11...
Before, the USA didn't feel threatened, but then 9/11 happened, and then they created more stringent rules, and today, life is back to where it was before, even though the Taliban are still there, terrorists hating the US still exist...
But they aren't an internal threat anymore, at least not in anyway serious, because, knowing they exist, the current security measures allow them to feel safe...
Most people no longer fear them, and if they were to assemble in one place all at once, then the army would make short work of them...
If the Empire had as much resources as some EU sources say, then the small Rebel forces seen in the movies would never have even been a threat to the Empire...
And since the Rebels don't want to destroy planets, and "kill the infidels", the Empire would be even less threatened than the USA currently is by terrorists...
At least, that's the way it appears to me...
The truth always depends on which side of the fence you're standing... ;)
User avatar
Praeothmin
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
 
Posts: 609
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 3:04 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Tyyr » Thu Nov 08, 2012 5:53 pm

It's not about feeling threatened, it's about control. The Rebels represented a lack of control, a group that's actively rebelling against Imperial rule and getting away with it. What the rebels can do is of no real concern to the Empire. What the could inspire in others is. The Empire is not a wonderfully happy place. They have quite a few worlds under their control only through threat of force. If a group like the rebellion is active and successful in defying the Imperials then it could result in other groups, even entire worlds, deciding that maybe they could rebel and get away with it too. That's why the Empire is eager to squash them and be rid of them.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Captain Seafort » Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:37 pm

Atekimogus wrote:Thank you for the explanation. Might I say that it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense? Mainly because as long as Thrawn would allow the continuation of this state of affair his leadership of the Empire would remain in constant question and from what we know of Thrawn - who is really big on order and discipline - the first thing he would do on returning from the unknown region finding this chaos would be to clean up house. As long as there are Warlords who think they can refuse him his whole authority is in question and he could never allow that.


The warlords were willing to accept his overall strategic directions. That was good enough until the real enemy - the rebellion - was dealt with.

True, but then - and that is my point - the whole galaxy is a backwater. There are maybe a dozen developed worlds we know of and even the loss of one of those developed worlds always puts a huge dent in their capability. (Like they lost Fondor I believe, one of the shipyard worlds during the Vong Invasion). Sure, there are thousands and thousands of life-bearing worlds but most are either wild or just have a few small settlements.


There are billions of those minor worlds, tens of millions of mid-level worlds, and a million full members of the Empire. Fondor was exceptional due to its shipyards - they're spoken of in the same breath as Kuat, and their yards fill the entire star system.

Well now I am unsure how to argue this since I am not sure what is considered canon or fanon or whatever. Do the novels count, the video games? That being said, it was a plot point in X-Wing that they only discovered about the Death-Star simply because basically all the Empires resources were drained from shipbuilding into who knows what.


On the contrary - the supply requirements for the DS II project were fulfilled by a single shipping company (XTS) and, as Palpatine stated, the only reason the rebellion found out about it was because he deliberately leaked the information. This is for a starship the size of Texas.

Another point actually, why I find it unlikely that some backwater Warlords would be able to run Super-StarDestroyers let alone BUILT them. Those things were a huge drain on a galactic empire and yet, in the novels, every small crimelord can build a death-star cannon or run his private custom-painted Star Destroyer.


No, they weren't. The entire DS project was a rounding error for the galactic economy, small enough to be built in secret within six months without anyone noticing, and the resources required for a fleet of Exs would likewise be a rounding error with the DS project.

Again, where does the millions of inhabited systems come from? Even on the most complete EU-maps of the star wars galaxy there are just a few hundred noteworthy worlds and from those I would say a good 80% are basically totally unimportant except some of our heroes travelled there at one point or another.


The ANH novelisation states the number of one million full member worlds. The SW RPG 2nd Edition gives the fifty million "colonies, protectorates and governorships" and Tales of the Bounty Hunters gives the hundreds of billions of systems total.

Weeelllll........first almost all of those ships seem to appear years and years after the movies and Thrawn campaign and second...again being completely ignorant as to what is held true and what is fandom........those ships seem to fall completely into the later category.


Nope - all canon. SW follows a system of levels (or "tree", as Deep calls it). Novels, comics, and various sourcebooks are "C-canon", which means they're taken as "real" unless they're directly contradicted by either of the two levels above them: the Clone Wars series (T-canon) and the films (G-canon).

What Deepcrush said.


Deep isn't stupid, but he frequently gives a good impression of it when talking about the ISD's role. Look at what they do in the films, and you'll see that the roles they perform are those of pretty minor ships. They're tough, well built, and so their job well, but against the true heavies, of which there are many, with the Ex on;y the biggest and best known, they'd get the shit kicked out of them.

I see...still, if the dreadnaughts really are heavy cruiser than they should still be bigger than a Star Destroyer who is a destroyer.


There are two scales used - the sector scale, in which Lancers are Frigates, Carracks are cruisers, and Dreads are heavy cruisers, all dwarfed by the ISDs, and the galactic scale of the Imperial Starfleet, in which they're pretty small, weak ships.
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: 14943
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Atekimogus » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:12 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:The warlords were willing to accept his overall strategic directions. That was good enough until the real enemy - the rebellion - was dealt with.


If so they should not have had a problem with providing Thrawn with a few Super-Star Destroyers which seemed to have come in handy when going out conquering planets while the role of patrolling and defense could probably be better fullfilled by smaller ships.

I guess we could discuss this point till the end of times or just accept that the EU is inconsistent in that regard.

Captain Seafort wrote:There are billions of those minor worlds, tens of millions of mid-level worlds, and a million full members of the Empire. Fondor was exceptional due to its shipyards - they're spoken of in the same breath as Kuat, and their yards fill the entire star system.


True but how many capital shipbuilding worlds do they have? Kuat, Fondor, Correllia, Mon Calamari...and a few smaller ones like Sullust, Bilbringi and Sluis Van. Now even with the whole system dedicated to shipbuilding..that is NOT much for a galaxy of a million worlds.

Captain Seafort wrote:No, they weren't. The entire DS project was a rounding error for the galactic economy, small enough to be built in secret within six months without anyone noticing, and the resources required for a fleet of Exs would likewise be a rounding error with the DS project.


Hard to imagine and it is definitly contrary to the story told in X-Wing. Also I distinctingly remember reading in one of the novels how the higher command echelon of the fleet was against the DS-project not only because it was a stupid idea to begin with but also because it pretty much drained the military ressources of the Empire and brought shipbuilding to a halt.

But then this is probably just the EU being inconsistent again.

Captain Seafort wrote:The ANH novelisation states the number of one million full member worlds. The SW RPG 2nd Edition gives the fifty million "colonies, protectorates and governorships" and Tales of the Bounty Hunters gives the hundreds of billions of systems total.


Ah okay...having seen the movie I have never bothered with the novelization. Point taken.

Captain Seafort wrote:Nope - all canon. SW follows a system of levels (or "tree", as Deep calls it). Novels, comics, and various sourcebooks are "C-canon", which means they're taken as "real" unless they're directly contradicted by either of the two levels above them: the Clone Wars series (T-canon) and the films (G-canon).


Well that leaves a hell of a lot open to speculation and discussion imho. In case of the ships you pointed out - for example - where we don't even have a picture or only a small background speck without size reference etc.etc. . I guess I will stay clear of THAT since there is no way to reach an accord if one doesn't want to.

Captain Seafort wrote:
What Deepcrush said.


Deep isn't stupid, but he frequently gives a good impression of it when talking about the ISD's role. Look at what they do in the films, and you'll see that the roles they perform are those of pretty minor ships. They're tough, well built, and so their job well, but against the true heavies, of which there are many, with the Ex on;y the biggest and best known, they'd get the shit kicked out of them.


Again - and I had my own share of discussions with deep - he IS right though in this case. I look what they do in the films and I look what they do in the books and they are DEFINITLY more than just destroyers and just because they are also used as patrol ships and for the locals to keep their heads down doesn't dimnish their capability. They ARE troop carriers, have fighter/bomber wings, act as capital/command ships, they assault space stations and attack/bombard planets which they also conquer.

As for the true heavies. I again stand by statement that there isn't anything much bigger than an ISD2. There hardly isn't anything which can challenge an ISD one on one in the rebel arsenal so what need would there be for such ships? And the Executors are just the Emperor again compensating for something. (Well a point could be made for the squid-dildo-ships but come on, despite their size they are reporpused transport ships. Fine to appease the calamari-fanbois let's say those space cucumbers "might" be on par with an ISD2 :laughroll: ).
Now despite Deeps advice I ventured to wookepedia and see what they have to say about ship-classification and here is what they come up with:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Capital_ship

As you can see there is only one class of ship between normal ISD2 and Super Star Destroyers like the Executor called battlecruisers. And in this class there are only two ship classes, one of which was designed for a 1998 computer game and the other is an old Mcquarry sketch which was recycled for a marvel comic.

If that is sufficient for you I am ok with it. I am not really opposed to accept some ships as canon we never see in the movies but then they should have a view more appearances. Like the Victory Star Destroyer for example. That one is pretty popular, is in all computer games and quite a few novels with a fairly consistent background. However, I never heard of a Bulwark Mark III or Preator Mark II and also those posted by you in your last post (shockwave, anonymous cruiser #1, 2, 3, 4 etc.)...sorry, that's not good enough for me, C-canon rules or not.


Captain Seafort wrote:There are two scales used - the sector scale, in which Lancers are Frigates, Carracks are cruisers, and Dreads are heavy cruisers, all dwarfed by the ISDs, and the galactic scale of the Imperial Starfleet, in which they're pretty small, weak ships.


Well, see my previous point but I think we must agree to disagree on that one since I rather go by the most commonly known and accepted movies and novels and not every C-canon game and comic which had delusions of grandeur :wink: : (C-canon usage correct here? Boy oh boy....)
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Deepcrush » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:18 am

Aki, if you refer to the film the titles are used for them where their class and type are openly spoken. Also, the databank which is the public word of Lucas also titles the ships in use.
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: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Deepcrush » Fri Nov 09, 2012 1:20 am

Cancel the databank, its under repair.
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: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Atekimogus » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:38 am

When you say databank do you mean this site?

http://www.starwars.com/explore/encyclopedia/

At least that's what came up googling star wars databank. Seems rather uninformative though and links to wookiepedia for more information. Not sure this is what you meant.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Captain Seafort » Fri Nov 09, 2012 8:00 pm

Atekimogus wrote:If so they should not have had a problem with providing Thrawn with a few Super-Star Destroyers which seemed to have come in handy when going out conquering planets while the role of patrolling and defense could probably be better fullfilled by smaller ships.


They weren't just patrolling and defending - they had to play an active role in the campaign, which meant pinning down the NR right along the line to prevent them reinforcing the targets of Thrawn's major pushes.

the EU is inconsistent in that regard.


The EU is inconsistent as hell in every regard. However, I suspect that it's only got a few more years to go in its current form.

True but how many capital shipbuilding worlds do they have? Kuat, Fondor, Correllia, Mon Calamari...and a few smaller ones like Sullust, Bilbringi and Sluis Van. Now even with the whole system dedicated to shipbuilding..that is NOT much for a galaxy of a million worlds.


Those are just the really big ones - we'd never hear of the countless small yards because they're not important enough.

Hard to imagine


Yeah - that's what happens when you start trying to do things on a galactic scale. Nonetheless, those are the facts of the matter.

Well that leaves a hell of a lot open to speculation and discussion imho.


Given how much the EU's covered, I'm surprised there's anything left to speculate about.

They ARE troop carriers, have fighter/bomber wings, act as capital/command ships, they assault space stations and attack/bombard planets which they also conquer.


All things destroyers have done on a small scale (except fighters, obviously, and pretty much every decent sized ship in SW has attached fighters). The Germans invaded Norway using destroyers as troopships, a destroyer was the RN flagship at the Battle of the Barents Sea, and it was Admiral Kirk's destroyers (albeit supported by the Enterprise) that bombarded the German positions on Omaha beach.

As for the true heavies. I again stand by statement that there isn't anything much bigger than an ISD2.


Then go back and read that page again. There are dozens.

There hardly isn't anything which can challenge an ISD one on one in the rebel arsenal


There aren't many Somali pirates who can take on an Arleigh Burke either.

what need would there be for such ships?


Ssi-ruuk, Chiss, the few species (such as the Mon Cals) who can build proper warships, and possibly the Vong, depending on how good Palpy's precog is.

Fine to appease the calamari-fanbois let's say those space cucumbers "might" be on par with an ISD2 :laughroll: ).


Some of them are a lot more than par - a couple of Home Ones and half a dozen Liberties killed the Executor, and they're small compared to the big boys - the Mediators and Viscounts they built later.

As you can see there is only one class of ship between normal ISD2 and Super Star Destroyers like the Executor called battlecruisers. And in this class there are only two ship classes, one of which was designed for a 1998 computer game and the other is an old Mcquarry sketch which was recycled for a marvel comic.


Two classes that are mentioned as examples. I've already pointed you to Saxtons collation of dozens of others.

However, I never heard of a Bulwark Mark III or Preator Mark II and also those posted by you in your last post (shockwave, anonymous cruiser #1, 2, 3, 4 etc.)...sorry, that's not good enough for me, C-canon rules or not.


Tough. If you're not interested in the books I have no problem with that. However, disliking them doesn't mean you can ignore them.

Well, see my previous point but I think we must agree to disagree on that one since I rather go by the most commonly known and accepted movies and novels and not every C-canon game and comic which had delusions of grandeur :wink: : (C-canon usage correct here? Boy oh boy....)


Not quite - C-canon is effectively everything except the Clone Wars series (T-canon) and the movies (G-canon).
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: 14943
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Atekimogus » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:10 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:The EU is inconsistent as hell in every regard. However, I suspect that it's only got a few more years to go in its current form.


How so? Simply because it's bad (heck I am a fan but even I stopped somewhere during the Vong Invasion...) or you recon because of the new movies they will bring it to an end?

Captain Seafort wrote:Those are just the really big ones - we'd never hear of the countless small yards because they're not important enough.


Well I would imagine that those countless smaller yards don't play a role in capital ship building? It's not that every small yard can build a Nimitz class carrier now, is it?

Captain Seafort wrote:All things destroyers have done on a small scale (except fighters, obviously, and pretty much every decent sized ship in SW has attached fighters). The Germans invaded Norway using destroyers as troopships, a destroyer was the RN flagship at the Battle of the Barents Sea, and it was Admiral Kirk's destroyers (albeit supported by the Enterprise) that bombarded the German positions on Omaha beach.


So how do you distinct then any difference? So an ISD has done every role a warship can fullfill, why do you insist on it being a destroyer? I could claim it's a battleship, another could claim it's a carrier, another one says it's a troop transport able to drop a whole prefabricated garrison base on your head and we all would be in the right. Your real life example are mostly examples of destroyers used when nothing better was available and I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. No naval destroyer ever had more fighter/bomber wings than their rivals carriers nor did they carry troops and offensive machinery on that scale.

As for Norway, it's a bad example, first germany didn't have much else with which to invade and secondly it's simply not true. They also used 2 (small) battleships (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau), 3 heavy cruiser (Admiral Hipper, Blücher and Lützow), 4 Light Cruisers (Köln, Königsberg, Karlsruhe, Emden) and 1 ship of the line (Schleswig-Holstein) with a whole bunch of support ships.

Captain Seafort wrote:There aren't many Somali pirates who can take on an Arleigh Burke either.


Bad example since todays warships are not built with Somali pirates in mind. However, which kind of enemy had the Empire in mind "other" than the republic or it's own people?

Captain Seafort wrote:Ssi-ruuk, Chiss, the few species (such as the Mon Cals) who can build proper warships, and possibly the Vong, depending on how good Palpy's precog is.


Well Thrawn roflstomped the unknown regions with a few victory-class star destroyers so big challenge there. And arguing for bigger ships decades before the Vong invasion?..........Depending on how good Palpatine precog is?..........You have had stronger arguments to be honest.

Captain Seafort wrote:Some of them are a lot more than par - a couple of Home Ones and half a dozen Liberties killed the Executor, and they're small compared to the big boys - the Mediators and Viscounts they built later.


Well first, didn't a freak accident involving an A-Wing kill the Exector? Honestly I would say that ship offed itself by driving into the DS2 rather than the Home ONe or Liberty having anything to do with it.
I feel like we are discussing trough each other so as to avoid further misunderstandings. My point was that during the movies and Thrawn triology there is no evidence of bigger Imperial ships around than the ISD with exception to their command ships (executor etc.). You say- "Sure there where tons of them" and then point to ships which were all built long after the Thrawn triology. I guess that is were we permanently collide.

Captain Seafort wrote:Tough. If you're not interested in the books I have no problem with that. However, disliking them doesn't mean you can ignore them.


Well sorry, I read those pages again and for me, these look completely like the works of fanbois. I don't see how I can NOT ignore Anonymous Cruiser 1, 2, 3 etc. when all we have are flimsy sightings with arbitrary size numbers attached to them? It might be evidence...but not really strong one. For most of those ships we have next to no information except small background drawings of wedge-like ships.....that is a rather shakky thing to base an argument on imho. I mean look at this and the information we have on it:

Image
The size of this ship's command tower relative to the rest of the superstructure indicates dimensions which are more comparable to a destroyer or cruiser than one of the greater multi-mile battleships or command ships.


That is not evidence, that is a joke. I could just as easily write: "The size of the ship's command tower indicates a more durable and integrated bridge design - a direct result of a proven weakness on previous Star Destroyer generations while the smaller and more advanced ventral shield generator indicates a ship comparable in size to the Victory-Class Star Destroyer!"

See? Just as easy. Prove me wrong. I mean just do a word-count on that page for "suggest", "indicates", "hints at", "possibly" and "probably" :roll: :lol: .......that is NOT evidence I would like to use in a discussion.

Captain Seafort wrote:Not quite - C-canon is effectively everything except the Clone Wars series (T-canon) and the movies (G-canon).


But both the movies and Clone wars series trump C-canon when in contradiction, did I get that right?
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite store on the Citadel.
User avatar
Atekimogus
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Vienna

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby stitch626 » Fri Nov 09, 2012 9:55 pm

I feel deja vu here... Seafort and ISDs...


Also, this bit made me laugh:
and it was Admiral Kirk's destroyers (albeit supported by the Enterprise) that bombarded the German positions on Omaha beach



Anyway, I personally view ISDs as not being destroyers, since they are called capital ships in Death Star. Last I checked destroyers were not considered capital ships. They also are much more consistently carriers (which they have also been called in one of the Legacy comics).


And the Mon Cals had some massive ships, ones that would make an Ex cry.
No trees were killed in transmission of this message. However, some electrons were mildly inconvenienced.
User avatar
stitch626
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9518
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 10:57 pm
Location: Romulus

Re: Are the Empire's actions legal?

Postby Captain Seafort » Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:01 pm

Atekimogus wrote:How so? Simply because it's bad (heck I am a fan but even I stopped somewhere during the Vong Invasion...) or you recon because of the new movies they will bring it to an end?


Because of the new movies. Look at the way Lucas upended the existing EU on on the Clone Wars and Fett's backstory in the PT.

Well I would imagine that those countless smaller yards don't play a role in capital ship building? It's not that every small yard can build a Nimitz class carrier now, is it?


No, but the Exs were built at Kuat and Fondor. During WW2 there were vast numbers of yards churning out escorts.

So an ISD has done every role a warship can fullfill, why do you insist on it being a destroyer?


Because you might use a destroyer as an ad hoc troopship or bombardment platform, but you don't use battleships to chase minor pirate vessels.

They also used 2 (small) battleships (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau), 3 heavy cruiser (Admiral Hipper, Blücher and Lützow), 4 Light Cruisers (Köln, Königsberg, Karlsruhe, Emden) and 1 ship of the line (Schleswig-Holstein) with a whole bunch of support ships.


So?

Bad example since todays warships are not built with Somali pirates in mind.


And? The majority of rebel ships fall into the same category.

Well Thrawn roflstomped the unknown regions with a few victory-class star destroyers so big challenge there.


Thrawn barely

And arguing for bigger ships decades before the Vong invasion?


You can't magic up a battle fleet out of thin air, and strategic precog has never come with an exact date.

Well first, didn't a freak accident involving an A-Wing kill the Exector?


After a couple of HO-based task groups had brought down its shields.

My point was that during the movies and Thrawn triology there is no evidence of bigger Imperial ships around than the ISD with exception to their command ships (executor etc.).


The Ex is a hundred times the size of an ISD. To claim that it was the only ship bigger than them is the equivalent of saying that in WW2 the US Navy had nothing but convoy escorts and Iowas.

You say- "Sure there where tons of them" and then point to ships which were all built long after the Thrawn triology.


No, I point to ships that were observed after Thrawn's War, but were obviously constructed long before it (unless you think the fleet around Byss, for example, was spammed out in less than a year, with virtually no industry whatsoever).

Well sorry, I read those pages again and for me, these look completely like the works of fanbois. I don't see how I can NOT ignore Anonymous Cruiser 1, 2, 3 etc. when all we have are flimsy sightings with arbitrary size numbers attached to them?


Like I said - tough. You may not like the evidence, but it exists nonetheless, and has been analysed based on extrapolating from known details of more frequently and clearly depicted ships (the consistent size of the bridge and sensor domes for example). The fact that they're rarely an indistinctly seen is no reason to dismiss their existence.

See? Just as easy. Prove me wrong. I mean just do a word-count on that page for "suggest", "indicates", "hints at", "possibly" and "probably" :roll: :lol: .......that is NOT evidence I would like to use in a discussion.


Then you're an idiot. When you're interpreting images that, as you point out are somewhat indistinct, such qualifiers are a vital part of any analysis.

But both the movies and Clone wars series trump C-canon when in contradiction, did I get that right?


Correct.
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: 14943
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

PreviousNext

Return to Star Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest