Talk:Imperial I-class Star Destroyer/Legends

Should there be an individual entry for both the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer and the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer? --SparqMan 17:09, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I´m not sure, since there isn´t much to say about the Mk. II other than the few cosmetic differences. It´s why I feel they should just be mentioned on the original page. Same with Acclamator Mk. IIs and Victory Mk. IIs. VT-16 10:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They are differently armed, though I don't think they deserve seperate articles, I think they deserve mention.--Gen.d 12:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think that with the Acclamator and Victory series they should have their own pages because the purpose of the ship changed. The ISDII was just an upgrade from the ISDI with more weaponry and heavier armor plating. I wouldn't be opposed to giving it its own page, but a lot of the content would be redundant. --SparqMan 13:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * They changed armament, iirc; they removed proton torpedoes or something. Must go dig out my books. --Gen.d 15:21, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Walabio has chosen to go rogue, alter the name and move the article. Can we take a serious look at the sources to make a decision on this? As far as I see it, the films call them Imperial Star Destroyers, which is backed by a good number of sources. Curtis Saxton seems to be the only person related to Lucasfilm in any way that supports the Imperator name. --SparqMan 03:00, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * ¡Rogue! How dare you insult me‽  ¿Do I insult you?  ¡No!  Even your editsummary is insulting.  The editsummary for the mainpage claims that I exaggerate.  I merely applied logic:  Surely, Palpatine did not commit only one starship for every one hundred systems.  ¿How would the Empire hold together under those conditions?  People should not just believe whatever people tell them.  It is good to examine everything critically.


 * Certainly, people call them Imperial Stardestroyers. Also people call the  Enterprise  over in Alameda an American Aircraftcarrier.  ¿Is it an  American-Class?  No.  American is just a descriptive adjective.  The Enterprise is a  Constitution-Class — on wait, that is a different  Enterprise.  Imperial is just an adjective.  An Imperator is no more  Imperial-class than the  Enterpise  is  Federation-Class.

—

— Ŭalabio‽ 04:09, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * Even Saxton finally acknowledged the power of quantity over quality in canon terminology and invented a plausible reason why it is Imperial class for ICS.
 * It's logical to go with the latest name for the class, just like we do with peoples' "legal" vs. birth names (Lumpawarrump vs Lumpawaroo, Leia Organa vs Leia Organa Solo, etc.). The Empire called them "Imperial" at some point after KDY started building them, and it stuck.
 * And it pains me to say this, because I used to be a vocal advocate of using "Imperator" exclusively. At least common sense prevailed on most of the various "Executor" debates.
 * I think the lesson here is that logic isn't canon until someone in Lucasfilm licensing agrees it is.
 * -- Darth Culator 04:16, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * I have reverted Walabio's edit and moved the article back to it's original name. Walabio: As far as I see, Imperial is canon, no matter how stupid you may think it sounds. If you seriously wish to have these changes made, try asking people about it first. – Aidje talk 04:52, 3 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Close-Range Fighting Ability
"The weapons systems are not very capable of targeting at point-blank range, a weakness exploited by the Rebel fleet at the Battle of Endor." What source makes this claim? I thought the Imperial fleet fought poorly at Endor because they had their hands tied by the Emperor, and then went into mental withdrawal when they suddenly lost the aid of his battle meditation. JimRaynor55 14:47, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) Turbolasers and ion cannons are really general terms that can cover weapons big and small. Some sources also mention quad laser cannons, and the latest WOTC rpg stats added point defense guns. JimRaynor55 15:12, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure of the source, but ISD's possesed only turbolasers and ion cannons, which are geared toward freighters and capital ships, so it may have been targeting issues. -- SFH 14:58, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Calrissian advises Ackbar to engage the Star Destroyers at point blank range, since they'll last longer than they would at their present range. This could mean that the Imperials had a hard time training their guns close in, but it may also be interpreted as them not being able to shoot because of the risk of hitting friendlies. --Winchester 11:59, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the only reason Calrissian advises Ackbar to due so is because of the second Death Star's operational superlaser. The reason why Ackbar moved the fleet into the position is so the superlaser couldn't just destroy an Alliance ship one after the other. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 00:02, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Mark I and Mark II
As far as I understand, a ship's class is different from that of its subclass. In most ship class naming, the class remains the same despite the subclass. Naming some Imperial-class vessels Imperial I and others Imperial II makes two completely separate classes of ships, which they are not. The Imperial-class has two subclasses, the Mark I and the Mark II, the latter being the more advance version of the former, not completely separate classes. Many of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer entries are being changed to Imperial I and Imperial II, which is not the same thing as saying Mark I and Mark II. I believe this should be standardized and, thus, made uniform.--SOCL 12:28, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC) There should be a separate page for the Mark I and II, if we are to be consistent. There are separate pages for the Acclamator I and II and for the Mandator I and II. SHould do this for the Victory's also. Maybe keep most info about the ships on the Mark I page? VT-16 13:10, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * They are not completely separate classes. The Imperial II was an upgraded version of the Imperial I. Therefore, it should remain that way and not "Imperial-class Star Destroyer, Mark I", etc. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:43, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * More importantly, that's how the sources (Imperial Sourcebook and The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook, among others) deal with it. jSarek 02:27, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Therefore, SOCL, you are incorrect. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:45, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Cmdr. J. Neblax, you really need to calm down. If you have a personal grudge/vendetta against me, you need to suck it up and keep it out of the discussion locations.  Now, I'm looking at the Imperial Sourcebook and The Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook and neither one states the class as being Imperial I-class or Imperial II-class, they instead name them as "Imperial I Star Destroyer" or "Imperial II Star Destroyer".  The difference may not seem important, but it truly is.  In both situation, the lack of italization by grammatical following does not make the class Imperial I/II, but instead designation that there is a Star Destroyer called Imperial I and another called Imperial II.  This is not the same thing as a class designation since class designation are done after the first ships of the class, i.e. why the class was originally called Imperator class--because the first ship of the class was the Imperator (the class, as you know, was renamed at the start or after the Jedi Purge as stated by Dr. Saxton in the Episode III Incredible Cross Sections book).  By stating that the class is Imperial I-class or Imperial II-class suggests that there once existed or exists two ships, one named the Imperial I and the other Imperial II.  Further, having the Roman numerals as part of the class name DOES suggest a completely separate class.  IN the real-world's navies, you'll find that there are ship classes with alterations to their names by a simple Roman numeral, yet these are not ships of the same class, they are completely separate ships.  Likewise, you'll find vessels that are of the same class but have upgraded to be a II subclass of the vessel, and they are thusly designated Mark I, II, III, etc.  I do not mean to suggest that the real-world is the only standing of how to understand Star Wars, it is simply one way to present an example.  By the way, I never stated they were separate classes, what I said was that by writing Imperial I-class and Imperial II-class, it is being suggested that they seperate ship classes, which they are not.  The I and II designate subclasses of the same class of warship, and this is known.--SOCL 23:11, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I just research the point further and found that The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels cofirms what was stated by JSarek; indeed, the article in it concerning 'Star Destroyer' names a class called Imperial I-class (though, for some reason, makes no mention of the Mk. II). I can be the bigger man and have proved myself wrong, something I can be proud of since I didn't have to resort to simply saying "You're wrong, I'm right".  In any event, this article still contains the linger affects of the Mark I and Mark II idea, something I am surprised no one has yet spotted (no, I did not place them there at any time, not even in the very far past, much less recent).  You'll notice it in the Star Destroyer description box and as the text to a picture; I'm sure there are more all over the article.  In brief, I do not believe this in any way lessens what I have said about suggesting a separate class in the traditional of Naval warship class names, but The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, nonetheless, confirms the point of Imperial I-class and, in doing so, implies Imperial II-class.--SOCL 23:19, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Now SOCL, I do not have a grudge against you. As for this, as I had explained earlier, the correct usages are Imperial I and Imperial II, as you have found. This means exactly the same as "Imperial-class Star Destroyer, Mark I" and "Mark II", however, in a shortened form that is easier to read. From a certain point of view, you were never wrong, it's just that is wasn't the preferable way. You're a good person, SOCL. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 11:45, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I am sincerely sorry for that rather bad outburst.--SOCL 17:06, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, SOCL. Things get tense every so often. There's no need to apologize. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 17:41, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. While they were both Imperial-class Star Destroyers, the Imperial II was an upgraded version of the Imperial I and therefore have its own page. The same should happen for the Victory-class Star Destroyer page, as well as the Bulwark-class battlecruiser page. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:15, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I can see why this would be done, but because it's the same class of ship and the I and II are only subclasses, I think this should simply be a lengthy article rather than split, with a major subsection for each subclass.--SOCL 02:31, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It should be two separate pages so it makes this page shorter and with two pages, it helps finding the information needed a little faster that if they were on the same page. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:22, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And if we were to have the other as a standard, we'd have to merge several articles about other subclasses. The Mark-concept exists specifically to differentiate between various models, like say IRL tank terms: the Panzer Mk. II being different from the Panzer Mk. III VT-16 13:33, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. We'll have to have a Imperial I-class Star Destroyer page, an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer page, a Victory I-class Star Destroyer page, a Victory II-class Star Destroyer page, etc. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 21:21, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I might do something on this later today to kick-start the process. Will link to the Mk. I pages for general info on each main class. (Like with the A6 Juggernaut page). VT-16 14:41, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Now we just need the Imperial I page and the Imperial II page. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 16:02, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Working on it. My only problem is the number of cannons. In some of the profiles I'm using as source, they state 60 heavy turbolasers and 60 ion cannons for the ISD-I, while the ISD-II has 100 heavy turbolasers and 20 ion cannons. The first conflicts with the profile here, and the second would be an upgrade of ten times as many cannons. What should I do? VT-16 16:27, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, whenever something doesn't seem right, just find an official source that clearly shows it. If one cannot be found, then go with what the majority of the sources say. If that is wrong, it could always be fixed. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 01:25, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Weapons
The Databank says, "The Imperial-class Star Destroyer bristles with 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannon batteries, and 10 tractor beam projectors." How do we explain that it only has 12 turbolasers and 4 ion cannons, alongside "lesser weapons"? --SparqMan 18:12, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, since the Databank is official, we use that information. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:37, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I think someone needs to rewrite the section limiting the main armament to the visible turret weapons. I understand that the OT ICS calls the turrets "heavy blasters", but I don't know whether the precise phrasing implies or allows that they can/should be understood simply as part of the 60-gun main TL battery (my preferred solution), or if they're some sort of supplemental (bombardment?) weapons. Anyone got a link to scans and/or a transcript of the relevant text? --McEwok 14:08, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The source is SW ICS and the ISD1 model. Pictures of the heavy turrets: . WEG's 60 turbolasers and ion cannons were the "lesser weapons". --Vermilion 03:59, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * WEG may be the origin of the figures in the Databank, but doesn't it outrank even the ICS books? --SparqMan 04:02, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to ascertain whether there's any actual figure in ICS to be dealt with, still less whether the text actually contradicts WEG. So far, I've not got a straight answer. The way I see it is this: the visual prominence of the turret-mounted guns on the ISD-I model in no way legitimizes the claim that they're heavier than any other weapons carried; all the evidence of the model means is that they're the most visible part of the armament. That said, I've been told that ICS says that the turrets carry "heavy blasters", the "heaviest guns" carried. But even then, there are two options here, and I've not gotten a straight answer from people who've read the book on what's actually possible. Depending on how the text is read, this could mean that the turret "heavy blasters" are simply twelve of the ISD's 60 heavy TLs, with the rest being carried in less visible non-turret mountings. Even if the text does require us to limit the "heavy blaster" designation to the turret guns (and I've seen no proof of that it does), I'd say it would be better to find a workaround &mdash; there's nothing to say that the turrets aren't dedicated planetary-bombardment weapons, too slow to aim and fire to be effective in ship-to-ship combat, except perhaps against sitting targets like Star Dreadnoughts... --McEwok 14:28, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Crew compliment
The Shane Johnson Star Wars Technical Journal (p. 90) says "The standard Star Destroyer carries a complement of 37,085 (4,520 officers. 32,595 enlisted)", with 37,085 being specifically linked to the ISD-I in the statistics on p. 88; where are the differing figures on the page from? --McEwok 14:08, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Imperator and "Imperial I" again
This article elides together the Imperator-class and the ISD-I. So far as I know, there is zero canon evidence for this. The databank implies a distinction between "the Imperator-class Star Destroyer" and "the final Imperial-class". It would seem that Imperator-class, ISD-I and ISD-II are three seperate subtypes of the 1.6km design, with the Imperator being an early prototype variant (precise capabilities unknown) produced in limited numbers. --McEwok 14:08, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Some technical notes to the above:
 * 1.) I'm pretty much convinced that the 1978 Imperator-class blueprint is fan-art.
 * 2.) Luceno's Dark Lord seems to say that the lead ship of the Imperator-class was named Exactrix.
 * 3.) Ship classes can be named after a unifying concept rather than the lead ship. This happens in the real world (Duke-class frigate, for example) and in Star Wars (Defender-class Star Destroyer, for instance).
 * 4.) The Imperial Sourcebook uses the terms "Imperial Star Destroyer", "Imperial-class Star Destroyer", "Imperial I" and "Imperial II". Of these, only "Imperial-class Star Destroyer" is a proper class designation, but Imperial I-class Star Destroyer goes back to the Shane Johnson SWTJ (p. 88). I don't know where "Mark I" and "Mark II" designations (as opposed to "Imperial I" and "Imperial II") come from, though... Bueller? --McEwok 14:08, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In conclusion: in OOU terms, the "Imperial-class Star Destroyer" designation was presumably based on "Imperial Star Destroyer", but the term is canonical; there is nothing to rule out a ship called Imperial as the first "Imperial I", but that's really secondary. A name ship is not strictly required. Imperator-class may be so named because the names of the initial ships (Exactrix and Exactor being known) indicate types of people who give orders (imperate). If we were insisting on a lead-ship naming pattern, the three types would apparently be, Exactrix-class, perhaps Imperial-class, and Empire-class. Obviously, this isn't the usage... though it's not impossible that Empire was originally Imperial II like Lusankya was Executor II... --McEwok 14:08, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought the 'Mark' distinctions were used interchangably with just the numbers, 'Mk. I' or just 'I'. One of the definitions of 'Mark' is "A particular mode, brand, size, or quality of a product, especially a weapon or machine." Fits in with military ship-subclasses, if you ask me. VT-16 21:14, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, technically, the Imperator was only a prototype. The first actual Imperial Star Destroyer was the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer, followed by the Imperial II. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:12, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought it was originally called Imperator-class and then they switched names to Imperial after the Jedi Purge (which is the explanation given in the ROTS:ICS). Doesn't Dark Lord: Rise of Darth Vader call the Exactor an Imperator-class Star Destroyer? VT-16 21:10, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Checked with someone who read Dark Lord, the Exactor is the second Imperator-class Star Destroyer built. And Geoffrey Mandel's 1978 blueprints were part of the early official reference material, before WEG. VT-16 21:36, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, considering this information, would there possibly be a separate Imperator-class, that is, separate from the Imperial I and Imperial II? Admiral J. Nebulax 22:13, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * There could very well be some minor modifications done from the Imperator design to the Imperial, but I've heard nothing that contradicts the ROTS:ICS quote (will have to ask if the ship is described in detail in Dark Lord.) And the OS databank sometimes makes iffy statements like "TX-130T tanks were Republic only", when they're clearly featured as Imperial vehicles in Battlefront I and II. Or that the "AT-PT can be considered an AT-ST model". I take Hidalgo's comments (and his bias for WEG, which is also known as his former working place) with some grains of salt. VT-16 07:46, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Quick notes. In DL:TRoDV, Exactor is explicitly the second Imperator-class ship, Executrix implicitly the first &mdash; and I'm pretty sure that the Mandel blueprints are fan-art. The Databank is as solidly canon as anything else, and it imposes a distinction between the Imperator-class and the "final" Imperial-class. Now, I quite like Imperator-class as a name; but the point I'm making isn't that Imperator-class aren't ISDs, but that if we're seperating out Imperial I and Imperial II, to say nothing of other subtypes, we should really seperate out Imperator-class, too --McEwok 13:24, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It's possible "final Imperial design" refers to the Imperial II destroyers, as they seem to be quite improved upon from the Mk. I model. And the only official source to shed light on the subject says the Imperator class changed name to Imperial after the Jedi Purge, which for all we know, could take years, maybe even decades. If these were to change one more time, we'd end up with Imperial I, II and III, of which there's no evidence. VT-16 16:09, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Except for various fan-made pictures of an "Imperial III-class Star Destroyer", which we all known does not exist. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:59, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I think someone attributed that to the Allegiance-type ships, still, ain't official. And as much as I like the work of Saxton and other tech-minded fans (remember, he gets submissions for most of the stuff on his site), I get sick and tired of seeing "slightly poor Imperial-class drawing #18" be automatically turned into a new class, just because one frame shows it without three engines or something... =/ VT-16 23:07, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. I say Lucas should just be presented with every Star Destroyer design and say which ones are actual Star Destroyers and which ones aren't. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:10, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Horror of horrors, VT-16, we're agreeing again!! --McEwok 02:29, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Only under certain conditions, mind. ;) It's nice to see analyses of different ships, but when it's painfully obvious the ship is a product of an artist who can't draw them, then I regard it as a waste of time. And if there's a canonical reason behind it, it could often be a product of post-production revisions in individual ships, if a Captain or Admiral wants an ISD converted to a more specialized vessel. VT-16 23:11, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That's true. Many Imperial officers could have easier upgraded their Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:13, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Profile pic
Why was the original pic changed to one showing a Mk II destroyer? VT-16 22:21, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Apparently someone thought wrong, as that was the picture on the Mk. II page that had been replaced. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:44, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)