Talk:Viscount-class Star Defender

Designation
I'm actually rather surprised that the designation "Star Defender" hasn't brought up controversy, especially in regard to the "Star Destroyer" issue. Basically, one can tell that when Salvatore named this class of warship, he was trying to make a happy version of the Imperial Star Destroyer (not that specific class): a large, intimidating warship, but without the bad contations "Star Destroyer" carries. If anything, I think the strange designation of this warship opens up the table to discussion as to whether "Star Destroyer" truly refers to warships analogous to our real-life sea-farring destroyers, but rather is simply a term used to identify a type of warship. In other words, it's possible that the fact Star Defender is used to describe a warship about the size of a battlecruiser or battleship, Star Destroyer might be used as a name of intimidation for warships from the size of Victorys to Executors... In other words, using Star Defender as an example, Star Destroyer may merely be a propoganda name than a true designation.--SOCL 03:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That could be, but I doubt the Galactic Republic would use the propoganda name. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? It's a government; ALL governments use propoganda in some form or another, even in the Armed Forces.  Why do you think the USA's Department of War was changed to the friendly-sounding Department of Defense despite the fact most military actions are offensive?  The point being, Star Defender is not an official vessel designation, but a sort of propoganda nickname to counter the bad connotation of Star Destroyer.  Again, it's a battlecruiser or battleship designate with a Star Defender name as a way to keep it sounding "nice."  This lends to the theory that Star Destroyer is not analogous to our real-world sea-faring destroyer, but rather a nickname used by the Empire for intimidation.--SOCL 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It probably is. Then again, the Star Wars Galaxy might have had a different definition of destroyer than we do. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite true. I'm arguing it from the perspective of us using real-world termonology and understanding to rationalize the Star Wars universe, which is&mdash;I believe&mdash;the only true way to be able to understand something that is complete fantasy.  I'm basically trying to make a rationalization by making one assumption rather than going as far as Curtis Saxton and making numerous assumptions to draw a conclusion...--SOCL 23:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose applying real-world terminology could work. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny thing is, the old WEG sources went straight from corvette to frigate to cruiser, bypassing destroyers altogether. They did mention battleships, though (with the Victory and Imperial class getting that designation at least once before DK's SW:ICS, among others). Besides having battlecruisers in the old Marvel SW and the comic strips, they didn't really try to systemize things on a larger scale until the mid-to-late 90s, with Kuat, Rendili and Loronar battleships mentioned in Illustrated SW Universe and the Kuat-centric Bounty Hunter trilogy talking about their destroyers, cruisers and battlecruisers. (Yep, some old and new sources have treated the ISDs as actual destroyers, it's not something Saxton came up with.)
 * It was only after all this, in recent years, that Dorling Kindersley even got hired and did a good job with reconciling WEG-based information with stuff that wasn't mentioned by them (i.e the multitude of different SSDs pictured and mentioned over the years). They could have removed the SSD-term altogether and even the notion of cruisers smaller than Star Destroyers, but didn't. They found ways to keep the old info and at the same time bring something new to the table, even systemizing different navies explicitly into the destroyers<cruisers<battleships category (the Trade Federation Navy in AOTC:ICS, the Republic Navy and Confederacy Navy in ROTS:ICS and the Imperial Navy in ITW:OT), and also bring in different classification systems (like Dreadnaughts being cruisers, but only when down-scaled, otherwise they'd be more comparable with Munificent frigates).
 * On top of all of this, you still have the double meaning of Star Destroyer, both describing destroyers, as well as being a general term for many of the big warships in SW. (Imho it's not really good as a general term since it a) doesn't destroy stars and b) any offensive warship can destroy things, yet they're not all called SDs. But, hey, I don't decide LFL policy ;p)
 * The use of the term to sound intimidating is also a bit strange, since other historic terms like "battlecruiser" and "dreadnought" also sound "intimidating" and could easily have been used for the same purpose. But, this is most likely the reason why it was chosen by GL in the first place, which makes the Mon Cal's use of "Star Cruiser" and the New Republic's use of "Star Defender" logical, since they were always trying to distance themselves from the historically evil Empire.
 * Sorry for the essay-length, I just felt like mentioning this once and for all. ;) VT-16 22:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rather exactly my point, VT-16. Glad we agree!  Though indeed the term Star Destroyer could describe true destroyer-tasked warships (perhaps best shown with the Victory II-class), it seems more often used as a sort of propoganda name.  This would explain the reason everything from the size of a Venator-class to an Eclipse-class despite the fact the Venator-class is designated a "cruiser" under the Galactic Republic classification and the Eclipse-class is clearly not a destroyer.  To help support this is the New Republic's Star Defender designation.  Clearly a Star Defender has no analogous real-world designation as has been hypthesized for the Star Destroyer&mdash;there isn't a real-world "defender"-type warship.  The Star Defenders featured thus far seem to be large cruisers/battlecruisers in the same sort of manner ISDs seem to be large cruisers/battlecruisers.  Of course, this would depend on the classification system, but a Star Defender is very clearly not a designation of warship and is very clearly simply a form of propoganda by the New Republic to distance themselves from the "bad sounding" warship designations ("Star Defender" does sound nicer than "destroyer" or "battleship").  Again, I think the existance of "Star Defender" defends the notion that "Star Destroyer" is more likely a nickname for warships rather than an actual ship designation.--SOCL 22:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Viscount in the GCW?
Since we see Viscount in battle in the miniature game coming out, both against ISDs on the cover and being matched up with the Executor in-game, does this mean the whole development of the class is going through a big retcon? I'm not complaining, but if true, it will somewhat big, since the lead ship, Viscount, was commissioned in 25 ABY, according to Vector Prime. VT-16 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wait, when does that miniature game take place? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Judging from the cover, there's Executor (which also comes as a miniature in the pack, along with Viscount), so it seems it might possibly contain a pre-Endor scenario with these ships! That would be quite a retcon! 0__o VT-16 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * With the advent of the Infinities series and the general non-canon material in that (I suppose we could call them "alternate futures"), isn't it possible this may extend into other Star Wars material? Basically, I don't think we should jump at anything and trust what has an established level of canonicity before trying to give everything canon, especially something like a game whose level or canon is not yet known/has not yet been determined.--SOCLcomm 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How do we know that it's Executor and not another of its class? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Uh, there is absolutely no need for a retcon for the Viscount. They probably just included it in the game for balance. The game includes stuff from all SW movies, with the VIscount being the only EU craft. I would not start planning a recon based on a piece in a game. ;-) AdmiralNick22 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is all true. I didn't mean to raise any alarms, just thought what might be the alternative to just Infinities-based gameplay mechanics. When they post a bigger, better looking picture of the miniature and cover, I'll switch these pictures to that, to save space. At least now the class is being explored. ^_^ VT-16 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And at least we have a picture. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is a hell of alot more than we can say about other ships from the NJO series. AdmiralNick22 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Never understood why there's so much coverage of the Yuuzhan Vong's vessels while the NR/GA stuff gets left out. VT-16 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We really need a The New New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Worst of all was the fact that the Bothan Assault Cruiser was not listed in the NEGVV. Hell, the freaking Ralroost gets ton of screen time in the series, becoming the Home One of the NJO books. The list of NR/GA ships that we have no image for is real, real bad. Mediator-class, Ranger-class, Republic-class cruiser, etc, etc, etc. :-( AdmiralNick22 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said, a TNNEGtVaV. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The WOTC preview article makes it quite clear - The Viscount-class star defender was designed after the Black Fleet Crisis. --Azizlight 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That settles it, then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the length?
What is the typical length of ships in this class? I don't see it. I also don't see any class member lists. I assume the class was only mentioned as a class, not as specific ship(s). Will (talk -- contribs) 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm pretty sure there is a length of it somewhere. 2) There was Viscount, the first ship of the class. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)