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:
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"
.......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.