Talk:Imperial I-class Star Destroyer/Legends

For more talk, see Archive 1, Archive 2, and Archive 3

Source
What is the source for the ISD cut-away?--Herbsewell 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like a fanmade modification of the cut-away from Star Wars Incredible Cross-Sections. VT-16 15:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's fanart. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.png|20px]] 15:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Errant Venture
According to X-Wing Novel #4 The Bacta War, the star destroyer which was captured and renamed Errant Venture was a Mk II, or as it is referred to in-book, an "ImpStar Deuce." I believe it would make sense to move the relevent material to the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer article.
 * Not move; just copy and paste. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:29, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you give a quote?--Herbsewell 02:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyway, since this article is also for the main history of both classes, to a certain point, keeping information on Errant Venture would be fine. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

TIE fighters carried
Alrightly, why were my changes reverted? The issue I have with the article at the moment is it says there is a squadron of TIE/sa's, 1 of TIE/In's and 3 of TIE/In's. Huh? Alot of people, including myself who reads a lot of EU, will be confused by this, particularly because you have 1 of A and 3 of A. It is a lot clearer just to use the Interceptor, Bomber and Fighter names. They lead to the same articles and introduce clarity into the article. --Darth Windu 02:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Speaking of which, why are both TIE fighter and TIE interceptorI called 'TIE/In'?? I don't know about you, but i find it confusing MoffRebus 13:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The official names are TIE/sa Bomber, TIE/In starfighter, and TIE/ln starfighter, not TIE Bomber, TIE Interceptor, and TIE Fighter. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, really????? Anyway I am quite well aware they are the official names, but what I am saying is that it is confusing, especially for those who aren't aware of the over-complication of the TIE's names. Again, the issue is that TIE/sa says nothing that suggests they are bombers, but then we have 1 squadron of TIE/IN's and 3 squadrons of TIE/IN's. It's the same thing! Again, all I'm looking for is clarity within the article, nothing more, nothing less. --Darth Windu 02:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want clarity, click on the links, then. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And stop changing that paragraph back to your version. If I have to, I'll get an admin over here. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, the TIE Interceptor is called the TIE/In (with an I, for interceptor), whereas the TIE Fighter is called the TIE/ln (With an L). I think in some source the L is capitalized, but I think it's an older source. 13:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah&mdash;another reason people should click on the article links. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only a pervert would choose two visually identical ways to represent two distinct things, and Yeah, another reason people should find a way to make it easy so that other people don't have to click on the article links. MoffRebus 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) So you're calling people who make canon "perverts"? That's really mature. 2) We use official names here, not what common people call the fighters. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call them perverts, simply misguided at times. As for official names, TIE Fighter for example is an official name. Now if we said an ISD carried 1 squadron of Squints, 1 of Dupes, and 3 of Eyeballs, that would be unofficial. --Darth Windu 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the word I was looking was 'sadists'. And yes, Douglas Adams admitted he was one, when he invented to name 'Slartibartfast' to torture the typist of THHGTG. I see no difference here MoffRebus 10:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "TIE Fighter" is a nickname, not an official name, Windu. Further edits to that paragraph which comprise of adding in these nicknames will be reverted. It's as simple as that. If you want to get banned for breaking the 3-Revert-Rule, go right ahead. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And Rebus, watch what you say. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, someone's on a power trip. Anyway TIE Fighter is an official name. Let's use a real worl equivalent here. 'F-111' is the aircraft's official designation. 'Aardvark' is its official name. 'Pig' is its unofficial nickname. In the same vein, 'TIE/Ln' is its official designation, 'TIE Fighter' is its official name, and 'Eyeball' is its unofficial nickname. --Darth Windu 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "TIE/ln starfighter" is the official Imperial designation. "TIE Fighter" was only a nickname. Deal with it. And if you continue to change that paragraph, I will see to it that you are banned. This is your final warning. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay I've changed the article again. This time I have left the 'official' designations there, but have changed things around so it is less confusing. For example instead of it saying there are 'TIE/In starfighters', 'TIE/sa starfighters' and 'TIE/ln starfighter, it now says 'TIE/In interceptors', 'TIE/sa bombers', and 'TIE/ln starfighters'. It seems like a good compromise to me. --Darth Windu 05:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. And now, I'm informing the administrators. I warned you. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you've informed me. To be honest, I don't see why we can't allow some of the fighter complement to be listed in the form of "TIE/In starfighters (also known as TIE interceptors)" to avoid confusion.  Remember, not everyone reading this article is a hard-core fan familliar with all the technical names. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) We're an encyclopedia. Having it like you suggested it would make it look unencyclopedic. 2) We're an encyclopedia. We have articles linked all over the place for people to click on to learn about something. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 22:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * We are a fan-written encyclopedia who inform other fans about stuff they like to read and pass their time, we are not die-hard scientists who will save the world. If the rule of an encyclopedia is to write in a non-practical manner that will make the readers' life harder, then we should ignore this rule. And no, stopping your reading to click on an article to see what it says about, and then resume the reading is not practical. Being a well-informed and a formalities-loving fan is good for you, but I really don't see why you insist so fiercely for something so impractical, against a more comprehensible and easy solution, my friend. MoffRebus 01:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If we were to have everything so that fans could easily tell what is what, half of the articles on Wookieepedia would be moved to simpler names, including this article (likely becoming simply "Star Destroyer"). And in doing so, we would no longer be an encyclopedia&mdash;something I would never let happen. And I don't know about you, Rebus, but hundreds of normal people do take breaks from what they are reading for a little bit. So whether or not it's practical, people still do that. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Silly Dan, that was why I changed it. Initially I just changed the names to 'TIE Fighter' and 'TIE Bomber' but Jack argued, correctly, that the official designations need to be in the article, however I still felt that more clarity was needed in the article because, as it has been noted, not every fan is hard-core about this sort of thing. Sure, fans learn more by clicking on links, but this site shouldn't exist to confuse casual fans either. For that reason I changed the article so that instead of saying TIE/In starfighters, TIE/sa starfighters, TIE/gt starfighters, and TIE/ln starfighters, it instead said TIE/In interceptors, TIE/sa bombers, TIE/gt starfighter-bombers, and TIE/ln starfighters. I felt that this was the best compromise as it both included the fighters official designations and allowed for a good deal more clarity into the article. --Darth Windu 04:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, the official names are the names of their articles. Everything else is either a partially-official nickname or completely unofficial. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Jack, just allow a little bit of flexibility here. As it has been noted, this site is not and will never be a legit encyclopedia. This site exists to be a more complex and exact database for SW fans. Therefore we do need to allow some flexability in order to inform, but not confuse at the same time okay. --Darth Windu 02:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I object to the overuse of technical designations, on the grounds that we're an encyclopedia, not a technical journal. Encyclopedias use common language, not technical jargon, when discussing such things, especially in passing.  Clarity for the reader is more important than adhering to technical minutiae.  There's an appropriate place for the technical designations - in the articles for the topics themselves, and perhaps also in infoboxes. jSarek 02:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Windu: You compromise. I'm not. jSarek: Encyclopedias use "technical jargon", as you call it. And to the both of you: If people don't understand what a certain thing is, that's what the links are for. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 11:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a mature attitude Jack. Look, if you want to have an encyclopedia that it technical and what you would call a 'pure' encyclopedia, go work for Encyclopedia Britannica. This, however, is a fun, fan-based site, here to inform and not to confuse. --Darth Windu 01:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that, since this is a popular article, that we put the unofficial names (TIE starfighter, TIE Interceptor, TIE Bomber) in parentheses after the link? -- Ryluk Shouja 07:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well this is the third style I've tried. The first was to simply use the terms 'TIE Fighter', 'TIE Bomber' etc. The second was to leave the official names and add (interceptor) and (bomber) after the official names, and the third is how you see it now. The problem is that Jack has rejected all three, and seems hell-bent on leaving it as it was which, as I noted earlier, is just confusing for the sake of being confusing. --Darth Windu 07:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that Wookieepedia is not owned by anyone. Maybe vote? MoffRebus 09:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Then if we're going to have a vote, the paragraph stays as-is until the vote is over. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fair, though I do want to make it clear to people exactly what the changes are. --Darth Windu 01:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep as is (official article names only)

 * 1) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 01:37, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Change to show more common names

 * 1) jSarek 08:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 09:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) JMAS 13:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Sudden change of opinion. After all, the links are still the same links. We'll just add "|TIE Fighter" after the "TIE/ln starfighter" link and so one (except for "TIE/gt" and "TIE/fc"; they don't have any nicknames). &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Also agree about the TIE/gt and TIE/fc. Though "bomber" probably shouldn't be capitalized. Gonk 15:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Change to include a mix of official and unofficial names

 * 1) Ryluk Shouja 10:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Darth Windu 13:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments
My suggestion remains the same as above. We keep the official names and add the unofficial names after the official ones. Ex: TIE/ln (TIE Starfighter) --Ryluk Shouja 10:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I too would like to see a mix, simply because by having something like 'TIE/In interceptor' we both instantly let casual and hard-core fans know what we are talking about, whilst educating and hopefully generating enough interest so people go to those articles as well. --Darth Windu 13:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Ryluk, your suggestion is unencyclopedic. And Windu, not that your suggestion can't be fixed, but the way you were changing it involved changing the links. For example, you made "TIE/In starfighter" have one link to "TIE/In" (nothing else) and "interceptor". &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, my bad. I though I didnt know how to do that but I just realised I do. Anyway ideally the link to the TIE/In starfighter page would be TIE/In interceptor. --Darth Windu 02:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Except "TIE/In interceptor" makes no sense, because that would make it "TIE/Interceptor interceptor". &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 13:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but then as I said it combines the official designation with the common name. It doesn't bother me though if we just use the common names. After all, that was how I originally edited the article. --Darth Windu 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Put it this way: If people are confused by "TIE/In starfighter", they're going to be more confused by "TIE/In interceptor". &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well as I said it doesn't bother me either way, I'm happy enough to see the commonly used names in the article. --Darth Windu 02:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if we don't get any more votes within the next day or so, I guess we could end the vote. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Gonk: While I agree, currently it appears that "TIE/sa Bomber" is its proper designation. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy, all we do is call them TIE Interceptor, TIE Bomber, TIE Fighter, TIE Fighter-Bomber, TIE Reconnaissance, and TIE Fire-Control. --Darth Windu 06:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The last three are completely fanon. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * For those that don't have an official unofficial designation, just use the official designation. Let's not use fanon names. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunter's Guild)10:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As it's been about 3 weeks since the poll opened and we seem to have a definitive response, shall we effect the changes? --Darth Windu 05:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think so. There haven't been any comments for quite a while.--Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)08:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

SW:CL quote
To clear up confusion before it starts and to actively combat article vandalism, I'm posting the quote from Star Wars: Complete Locations that explicitly reveals Star Destroyers to be smaller ships in the Empire:

"Larger Imperial ships possess hangar apertures of sufficient size to deploy the four-walker dropships, while smaller ships, such as Star Destroyers, deploy single-walker barges."

- Star Wars: Complete Locations, page 143 VT-16 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...the 'larger ships' probably refers to the Executor. It doesn't say in any way shape or form that in the context of the entire Imperial navy that the ISD's were small ships. In fact EU constantly states that with the exception of Super Star Destroyers, ISD's are the biggest ships in the Imperial fleet. --Darth Windu 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only with the exceptions of Star Dreadnoughts, Star Battlecruisers, and Star Cruisers. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The same book describes many larger warship classes made by KDY (which use the same type of bridge as the Executor). It's on the Executor tower pages. The medium and large vessels (various Super Star Destroyers) go from Star Cruisers to Star Dreadnoughts and there's plenty of them, according to Cracken's Threat Dossier, Dark Empire Sourcebook, and the Dark Forces trilogy. And of course, visual evidence from Marvel SW and Dark Empire. VT-16 08:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, 'Star Dreadnoughts', love it. Anyway, regardless of what the various reference books come up with, I again direct you to any EU novel. In every EU book I have read that includes the ISD, and that is a lot of books, they are referred to as battleships. Support ships such as corvettes, frigates and cruiser which are part of an ISD battle group include smaller ships like the Carrack, Tartan, CR90, Lancer, Dreadnought classes and others. Sure, there are larger ships around, but they are so few in number the ISD is the primary large warship in service to the Empire. --Darth Windu 08:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "EU books" are not sourcebooks like the Incredible Cross-Sections, the Inside the Worlds of..., the Visual Dictionaries, etc. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ISDs are numerous and widely dispersed throughout the Empire. That is quite different from labeling them "large warships". They're large compared to the cruisers of West End Games, and they're designated as battleships in at least one classification system, but other than that, they are small vessels compared to the many types of SSDs in the Empire, and indeed serve as support ships in larger formations, like the battlegroup led by the SSD Vengeance in the Dark Forces: Jedi Knight novel, which was not an unexpected force in larger missions. Since their main guns are made to be most effective to the sides, rather than up front, this also shows how they are best utilized as destroyers, supplementing larger cruisers and battleships. VT-16 14:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How is the ship having its main guns on the side pointing towards it being a small ship? I'd love to see some reasoning behind that. Anyway sure, of course the ISD acts as an escort to huge ships but, for the third time, go and read any EU novel. They all state exactly what I've been saying, and they are all canon. --Darth Windu 04:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That was simply my personal reasoning, since battleships would more likely have their guns positioned to better hit forward targets (like Piett orders in ROTJ), while smaller escorts and support ships would be better used to take on targets coming from the sides. What am I supposed to read? I've read books and technical journals that call ISDs "destroyers", "Destroyers", "star destroyers", "Star Destroyers", "cruisers", "battleships". What more is there to add? They function as battleships when they're only with the smaller, mostly WEG-based cruisers, but revert to destroyer-roles when they're in a formation with larger vessels, as seen frequently in stories with the Executor-class, in the two Marvel issues with Admiral Giel's flagship, in the Dark Forces II multimedia with Jerec's Vengeance, in Dark Empire, where there's plenty of larger ships participating in Operation Shadow Hand etc. VT-16 10:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Star destroyers DO have forward guns, just not nearly as many of them compared to their sides, this is true of SSDs as well. It's because of their shape; they're bigass triangles, they don't really HAVE a front end, just two sides and a stern.  By your reasoning, the Iron Fist is an escort ship. Semysane 10:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that, I was talking about their biggest guns. VT-16 10:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what one thinks of their commonality, it's clear from the movies and novels alone that there *are* larger ships than ISDs - Executor and the other "command ships" that Han refers to in Return of the Jedi, examples of which from the novels include Lusankya, Vengeance, Intimidator, and Iron Fist. In the context of those ships, ISDs are definitely smaller.  However, I *don't* think the quote implies that they're smaller in a wider, more general sense, just smaller than ships capable of carrying the four-walker dropships. jSarek 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, many sources do have ISDs as smaller ships, even though they don't focus much on larger stuff besides the Executor. There's "large battleships" made by Kuat, Loronar and Rendili in The Illustrated SW Universe (all bigger than ISDs), the "destroyers, cruisers and battlecruisers" made by KDY in the Bounty Hunter Trilogy, SSDs being sector-level command vessels in Cracken's Threat Dossier and Dark Empire Sourcebook, a battlegroup formation with frigates, ISDs and an SSD like Vengeance being large, but not an uncommon Imperial force for larger assignments in Dark Forces: Jedi Knight, Giel's flagship and an accompanying carrier design in Marvel SW 60 and 61, The subgroup of various SSDs from ITW:OT and SW:CL, going from Star Cruisers up to Star Dreadnoughts, various SSDs from Dark Empire, larger Star Destroyer models referenced in AOTC:ICS and Dark Forces: Soldier for the Empire etc. Most wellknown sourcebooks and stories just focus on ISDs and Executors because a) they're more famous, b) it's easier to write established stuff than come up with something new or less-known and c) "lol remember when you were a kid and the ISD went over the camera at the start of ANH? That was awesome". I think it's really that simple an answer. Funny how people can look at ANH and ESB and see all the stuff the Empire creates and the sheer difference in scale between them (ISD --> Ex --> DS) but somehow going in-between those cracks is "unrealistic" to them. VT-16 14:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a good thing that those cracks are somewhat filled in. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:59, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Only if there is reason for it. From the movies, nothing to the contrary is given and we can see the heights of Imperial ship-manufacture. From EU sources, there's been plenty of references. The only real limit on ships has been the Executor, Darth Vader's command ship, and its class. And if you want to be technical, the Death Stars. (Space stations are spaceships in fixed orbits, and the DS I even roamed through the Galaxy). With this in mind, explaining the presence of all these other ships, which usually go unexplored, makes good sense, and finally they did with the DK books. I also forgot to mentioned the massive logistics available as well, with multi-kilometer supply vessels like the FSCV. VT-16 15:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What did you mean by "only if there is reason for it"? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If 30+ years of Expanded Universe material had never been made in the first place, the only thing we would have, is six films with ISDs, Lucrehulks, the Executor and Death Stars as the biggest vessels. People would whine and bitch back and forth about the possiblities of the Empire making Lucrehulk-sized vessels and how there isn't explicit information about it anywhere, because there wouldn't be any sourcebooks or technical journals or novels or comics at all. There would be no reason to add anything, because there would be no other media than the films. >P VT-16 15:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, that's not what happened, and we are still stuck with plenty of references to different kinds of larger vessels (mostly non-WEG based, but some actually came from them, see FSCV for instance). DK publishing expands and categorizes some of them in later years, and we ultimately end up with some bitter people who still believe that WEG were explicit about the ISD being the biggest vessel in the Empire, barring a few Executor-class vessels, oh sorry, "Super-class" vessels (:P), and two Death Stars.


 * Oh yeah, and according to bitter imagination, apparently a certain author (who's "just a fan", that's very important to emphazise in debates) is capable of "ruining canon" by travelling backwards in time and placing all these references there so that his later "fanon" is validated by older sources. He also "enchanted" LFL editors and coworkers, apparently. I wish people would use as much imagination in-universe as they do out-of-universe. VT-16 15:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I know, but who might that be? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want to start up anything again. Sadly, it's not confined to just one person. Or one board. My point is, when someone has to use more excuses and imagined scenarios for a very limited POV of a fictional universe (like claiming propaganda/misinformation/misinterpretation for every source that disagrees with them), than they would have to do for the opposite, it's time to just let it rest. Finding a book from 1984 saying there was only one Executor and the Empire designed it straight after the Imperial Star Destroyer, with absolutely nothing in-between and the entire Imperial Starfleet only consisted of 100 ships, isn't going to be all that relevant or useful any more. Most of the minimalist sources that inspired (lol) some authors were originally just going for pure gameplay scenarios. If you're a spacer in an RPG, the Empire's not likely to send anything bigger at you than an ISD that hunts smaller vessels. Sadly, some people see this as the epitome of SW and how limited that universe should be. VT-16 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if I know who it is, I'm not against him. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoever it is, I don't remember anymore. The point is, if someone has to use more imaginative explanations to account for ISDs and Executors only, than they would have to to just accept more stuff in the SW galaxy and a slightly more complex naval structure, they should rethink if there's much more to gain from harping on these issues. VT-16 16:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * VT, I'm agreeing with you. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * VT we also have the problem of EU conflicting with itself. For example, with the SSD issue one particular source states that the construction of the Executor nearly bankrupted the Empire. Then we get other sources that have the Empire building fleets of them. In regards to ISD's and SSD's, I always saw the Executor as a more practical 'super-weapon'. After all the thing is massive, and in regards to the Death Stars the SSD's are more mobile, likely a lot cheaper, quicker and easier to build, and a lot more useful in a battle. You on the other hand simply see the SSD as a battleship and the ISD as a destroyer. That's just a difference of perspective. Oh yes, one other thing I would like to add is that the roles of destroyer and battleship are NOT interchangable. Even when the ISD acts as a battleship escorting a huge ship like an SSD, the ISD is still a battleship escorting a much larger and much more powerful battleship. --Darth Windu 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I know the EU has a lot of conflicts and contraditions, that's why I try to follow LFL's statements on these things (newer sources above older in a contradiction, sources closer to film production see through a less "foggy window", to paraphrase Chris Cerasi, etc.). That's what I've always had in mind when working here. The Executor-class as a battleship and the Imperial-class as a destroyer, but I also have to see (no matter if I like it or not), the Imperial-class as a battleship itself, and something like the Dreadnaught-class as a heavy cruiser, only on a different scale (as both scales, and more, are given by official sources, like the WEG and DK books. In fact, it was WEG that began this by mentioning different classification systems in the first place). So that's what I'm trying to point out.


 * I know roles are not interchangable, but here we're dealing with a universe where different scales are applied to the same thing, even using different levels of combat (compare the difference between calm sector-level fleets and regional-level fleets and operations). Calling the Imperial-class a battleship at the same time as it's escorting a battleship that's over 100 times more massive and almost 12 times longer, is ridiculous. When the ISD is the largest vessel in a fleet otherwise consisting of heavy cruisers and frigates, the term fits. That's the whole reason for creating the subsystems of SSDs in the first place, which I've been trying to point out for almost two years now. Star Destroyers --> Star Cruisers --> Star Battlecruisers & Star Dreadnoughts. And yet, at the same time, I also have to consider a smaller scale, that has corvettes --> frigates --> cruisers --> Star Destroyers.


 * And if you want to get technical, one could argue that all battleships or any heavy warship in real life is also a "practical superweapon". Their heavy guns can decimate more real estate than any tank. In fact, since ships as small as Dreadnaught-class can perform BDZ missions, even the slightly stronger Acclamator-class (itself mainly a glorified military transport) could be seen as a "practical superweapon" from the POV of the people getting their cities slagged by it. But this is just semantics. VT-16 11:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

What can't be avoided however is that a battleship is still a battleship even if a better vessel comes around. Battleships were used to escort aircraft carriers towards the end of WWII. These carriers probably had the firepower (through their fighters) to take on dozens of battleships. Larger ships such as the Musashi, Yamato, and Bismark were also in existance, with even larger designs on the charts for the German navy. Also, the Russian Navy used battleships that were a generation behind their Japanese counterparts in the Battle of Tsushima. In all these instances, the captains of the other battleships in their respective navies were not told "Okay guys you are now in command of a destroyer". The Venator class was shown to be a ship of the line defending Coruscant during RotS. This would show the Venator to play the role of a cruiser or a battleship. The ISD took the place of the Venator and therefore took over its function in the order of battle. It was the main symbol of Imperial power, it "carried a large stick". The presence of larger ships such as the Executor can still exist while the ISD maintains its status as a battleship because there could easily be tens of thousands of Imperial starships of various types for each "Star Dreadnought" in existance. Given the evolution in size from the Old Republic Dreadnoughts, to the Venators, to the Imperials, it would seem that it would make more sense to call a duck a duck and give the ISD its proper designation as either a cruiser or (more appropriately) a battleship.Ambrosia2431 10:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC) It is fun that Grievous, Obi-wan, Thrawn and even Darth Vader (in ANH) all placed their flags in "smaller vessels", as it is that neither attacking the Republic´s capital, destroying the Death Star II or crushing the Rebellion where found important enough to use more than one full-sized battleship. Of course, there is always the possibility that giant ships, refered as commanding ships, headquarters frigates and similar things, are in fact more mobile bases than ships-of-the-line, but, having so many examples of the tiny-blurred-daggershape-thing #2 Star Battlecruiser in canon, it is very unlikely. Sorry for being sarcastic, but I found this issue a little irritating. I´m sure that there are bigger ships than Imperial-class in the Navy, but it is also true that their general lack of appearances (almost exclusively in Dark Empire and Curtis Saxton´s works) suggest they are very few. Relegating Star Destroyers to escorts (despite the fact that they appear as major fleet combatants in the movies) to make place for those larger classes is forcing the canon to fit with one´s oppinion. It is worth mentioning that real life battlecruisers (which were, in esence, light battleships) were originally designed for long range raiding but also formed part of the line of battle. Maybe that matches the depicted roles of the Star Destroyers.Jon Valerius 12:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since the most recent sources detailing these vessels (ROTS:ICS, SW:CL etc.) say that Star Destroyers are "medium-weight" during the CW era and "smaller vessels" during the GCW era, this analogy is nonsensical. Real battleships were not small nor medium-sized at any point of their existence. It was their size and firepower (which were interlinked) which determined what kind of ship they were. Even the now-cancelled "arsenal ship" was once thought of as a battleship, with its proposed hull number continuing where the cancelled Montana-class had left off. This was due to its heavy armament of missile batteries. Same thing in SW, their fleets have their ships divided into different types and categories, regardless if they're similar to modern terminology, age-of-sail terminology or just make stuff up. For instance, Starships of the Galaxy had a clear definition of ship size being defined by role and power generation. The only place Star Destroyers are battleships, are in classification systems where Dreadnaught-class and Strike-class ships are considered cruisers (downscaled at that). In sectors with relatively little resistence, they make up the heaviest combatants, but that's it. And as for the Venators at Coruscant, they were operating in flotillas against other destroyers, frigates, and the Trade Federation battleships. VT-16 13:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There just isn't much about the ship that actually says "escort". As Valerius said, you wouldn't send the Emperor's envoy or enact the Emperor's final plan to destroy the Rebellion with ships that were not meant to be the main fighting force of the Empire. They were also a main component of the Empire's effort to wipe out the Rebellion at Hoth. Besides the fact that they accompanied the Executor, there is no onscreen evidence showing them to hold the role of escorts and tons showing them as the main fighting force in the Imperial Navy. In any case, what use is a classification system that does not allow a comparison between multiple forces? A destroyer in one fleet should be similar to a destroyer in another, a cruiser with a cruiser. A system that classifies an ISD as a destroyer and an MC80 as a cruiser is inherently flawed.Ambrosia2431 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

 * Is there any canonical information about the price of the ISD-I? --Ryluk Shouja 10:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you check Archive 1 for this discussion page, you will find the source, Strike Force: Shantipole. VT-16 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Atmospheric entry
The article notes that the Imperial/Imperator-class can enter a planet's atmosphere. I was under the impression that it could not, and that the largest vessels capable of this were the Victory I and Venator. Does anyone have a source saying it can or cannot? --Darth Windu 07:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Concept art from The Force Unleashed. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Patrolling the sky of Nar Shaddaa in Dark Empire II, acting as a background element in SW: Battlefront (on ground levels), and in the SW: The Force Unleashed concept art. VT-16 14:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we sure the background element in Battlefront is in the atmosphere? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * They're flying over the rooftops in Mos Eisley (BF) and the skyscrapers in Vertical City (DE II). VT-16 16:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure those are Imperial Star Destroyers?--Herbsewell 18:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The ISD in the skies of Nar Shaddaa even gets a control tower skewered through itself during a botched attempt at tractoring in the Millennium Falcon. VT-16 18:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, it does appear to be breaking up in Nar Shaddaa's atmosphere before hitting a building. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it got skewered by the point of the tower, yes. VT-16 02:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I mean other portions of the hull. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 02:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, here's the event itself:a fatal mistake, crashing through port towers. Based on the Dark Jedi's order, this might indicate they're in low orbit, but the Nar Shaadaa article has a picture from Handbook 3: Dark Empire where an ISD is flying among the clouds. The breaking up of the ISD that's not attributed to the towers it's crashing through, might be explained by explosions in the forward auxillary reactor, at the front of the vessel. But now that I examine the SW:ICS cross-section and compare with the area where the tower pierces the ISD, there appears to be nothing of importance there. Yet the engineers responsible for increasing repulsor-thrust are located somewhere above the hangar opening (since the tower can be seen going through that level in the background). And then it says the moon's gravity takes effect and drags the ship down immediately (which would not be the case in low orbit). So I guess some important repulsor-thrusters get hit, and the ship is unable to stay flying. VT-16 10:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I mistook the pieces of metal by the reactor bulb in the second link there for pieces of the hull breaking off. It seems that they came from either the hangar area or the forward parts of the ship, and not the rear like I had previously suspected. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 15:00, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Although, you would think that if the Lusankya could perform atmospheric maneuvers on Coruscant, maybe an ISD could as well. --Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)10:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I even read a comic once where Vader orders everyone on the Executor to prepare for a possible crashlanding. I'm not sure if he was hoping for the repulsors to get the ship back into orbit, but there seemed to be some security measures in place for that kind of situation. It was either in Marvel or in one of the newspaper stories. VT-16 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryluk: Good point. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 14:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryluk - you're absolutely right, except that Lusankya required a massive repulsorlift cradle to lift her out of Coruscant's atmosphere, and only discarded it after she was in orbit. --Darth Windu 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? I don't remember reading that. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Whis- tler says it appears to be a massive collection of repulsorlift cells grafted together to float the ship free of Coruscant." From X-wing: The Krytos Trap--Herbsewell 23:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Could I get a page number, by any chance? &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 23:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually don't know it. I got this quote from swtimeline.com.--Herbsewell 20:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the issue should take into account whether the presence of such a massive object in the atmosphere will damage the planet. Think of the displaced air... And the heat... Karohalva 21:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a source saying that ISDs can't enter the atmosphere?--Herbsewell 21:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (I think) says that the Victory-class is the largest atmosphere capable ship in the Imperial fleet. Karohalva 21:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait... It says the Vic is "one of the largest capital starships that can operate effectively in a planetary atmosphere". Karohalva 21:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly: It's not the largest. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And "...operate effectively" is also different from "...operate. At all." :) VT-16 12:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true. And the ISD is just a little smaller than the Lusankya, by about 16 km, and only .5 km bigger than the Victory destroyer.  And didn't Grand Moff Tarkin land an ISD on peaceful protestors in the Ghorman Massacre?--Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)19:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he had a Victory-class vessel at the time. VT-16 19:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be it. I remember "Star Destroyer," and immediately thought ISD-I.  Do you know which book I could find where it talks about that so I can look it up?--Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)19:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't remember the source, but it was the one about the Massacre of Ghormen, I think. VT-16 20:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no book 'about' the Ghorman Massacre. There's only appearances.--Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)08:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said there was, I only said whatever source has the Massacre at Ghorman. VT-16 13:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How is ten miles considered "a little smaller"?--Herbsewell 00:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it's called sarcasm. I was being sarcastic.  Let me rephrase myself.  A lot smaller, about 16 km.--Ryluk Shouja(Bounty Hunters Guild)10:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if core ships can enter an atmosphere, and if Acclamators can enter an atmosphere, and if Venators can enter an atmosphere, I don't see why an Imperial-class couldn't. Unit 8311 16:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Especially since sources say they could. ;) &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 20:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me if I missed some sentence now, but, are there any canon information about the vessel's maximum sublight speed in the atmosphere? I can't see anything about that among the facts in the article. Gotipe 19:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Star Destroyer prefix name source...
I was looking through the Star Wars Trilogy Sourcebook - Special Edition earlier today and saw that it refers to the Devastator as the SDS Devastator on several accounts. It's similar to the fanon creation of HIMS Devastator. I assume SDS is Star Destroyer Ship or something. But it seems to be a proper classification of the Star Destroyer ship names... SDS Devastator, SDS Avenger, etc. Personally I like HIMS as it's the most logical one, but I'm just reporting what I found. --Danik Kreldin 23:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool stuff! VT-16 14:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Imperial-class power ratio?
I've heard of the Imperial-class being about 3 times more powerful than the Victory-class. Is there any source that sheds some light on this? VT-16 08:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Weapons?
One small question. According to Star Wars: Complete Cross-Sections has Imperial I-class Star Destroyer 60 turbolaser batteries and 60 ion cannons... Is this wrong or is there any conflict between two canon sources? Xenerix
 * Maybe 60 small turbolaser batteries...do you ask because the armnament section of the infobox has differing stats? Unit 8311 07:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, because now it isn't clear how many exactly turbolasers and ion cannons ISD I has... Xenerix
 * Well, I suppose the 60 turbolasers etc could be the 'numerous light turbolasers' referred to in the infobox. Unit 8311 10:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is correct. But it doesn't only have those 120 guns; it also has what's included in the infobox.  The reason exact numbers aren't listed, I'm guessing, is because it's somewhat disputed between WEG sourcebooks and visual inspection of the actual film prop. - Brynn Alastayr 10:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The actual film prop has more weapons than what other sources list. &mdash;Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Imperial Emblem.png|20px]] 12:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The nonsensical estimate begun by WEG didn't take into account the heavy gun batteries flanking the command tower. There's six twin-turbolaser cannons (for a total amount of 12 heavy guns) and two twin-ion cannons. These were explicitly said to be the heavy guns on the ISD-I in the SW:ICS. There were numerous turbolaser stations noted on the upper and lower sides of each trench going along the ship (they look like little bulges on the model) and one quad-turbolaser on each side (which adds 8 more guns to the count). There was also three batteries defending the tower from the front portion of the tower's base. Tractor beam projectors were located at the bow of the vessel. In addition to tractor beam projectors near the main hangar opening, there were several guns located underneath the ship, as seen in ANH. I assume the 60/60 count can be used to refer to the total amount of guns on the ship. VT-16 07:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the smaller vessels?
"....but in the Imperial Navy it was one of the Empire's smaller vessels."

Yes, I know the ISD is puny compared to the Executors and Eclipses, but those ships are incredibly few and far between. I say we take this out, the ISD is still a killing machine in its own right Lalala la 05:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Lalala, this ship is absolutly not a small ship in the Imperial Navy.

I have replaced it with a more neutral statement, as well as made some minor clarifications about this subject. Ship classes smaller than ISDs are more and more numerous than larger ones, so i don´t think you can say ISDs were "...one of the Empire's smaller vessels."212.0.107.97 12:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and Star Wars: Complete Locations both describe it as one of the Empire's smaller warships. It talks about Star Destroyers in general, who, along with other types of warships in the Empire, are some of the smaller models. The Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers, Star Dreadnoughts and various battle stations constitute the medium and heavy warships in that era, contrasting with Star Destroyers being medium-weight warships in the Clone Wars (as per Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections). By the Legacy era, Star Destroyers are the biggest warships around and bigger in size than the older models, according to Legacy 0, so there's yet another shift. VT-16 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It has been pointed before, in the same discussion but opposite camp, that you can´t give much credit to official sources that clearly contradict canon appearances. In this case, we have lots of appearances (and statements about fleet´s composition, but newer sources can override them) in the EU of much smaller ships than ISDs, even if you don´t count fighters, shuttles and other small craft which are part of the Navy. By contrast, we have relatively few references to bigger ships (and some of them very vague). For what we know, there was a long of time before New Republic felt the neccessity of a ship to counter SSDs, and usually decomissioned those which fell in its hands. I hope the new series will give us more information about fleets, for example showing Nebulon-Bs and/or corvettes in actual on-screen imperial service. Jon Valerius 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A navy which has a 19km long battleship, that's 100 times more massive than an ISD, as its biggest conventional warship class, would still consider the ISD as one of its smaller warships, regardless if there's plenty of ships dwarfed by it in turn. Most of which are either anti-starfighter gunships or pre-CW cruisers and frigates (the conflict which began the rearmament and expansion of the main galactic power). And there's plenty of appearances of bigger vessels, with more appearing each year. Just these past two months have had several new SSD references, and the CW trailer from last Spring showed some type of superlaser-wielding vessel blow up Venators pretty easily. I'd say there's more than enough to not contradict anything, either conventional or non-conventional (i.e Eye of Palpatine, Battle Planetoids like the DS, the exotic alien craft like the Silentium, the Yuuzhan Vong cruisers and world ships, the Dark Nest nestships and Shard-class, even the more commonly seen warships start to increase in size in the LOTF series). VT-16 16:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * While I still prefer previous version, this one seems acceptable, since it speaks about "main capital ships". Just some points:
 * 1- Many of the "problematic" ships are neither CW nor anti-fighter gunships. For example, Strike cruisers and Interdictors/Vindicators.
 * 2- A navy which has a 19km long battleship, that's 100 times more massive than an ISD, as its biggest conventional warship class, would still consider the ISD as one of its smaller warships, regardless if there's plenty of ships dwarfed by it in turn. This is mostly a matter of opinion. I don´t think any argument would change yours, but if ISD is 100 times bigger than the smallest capital ships and 100 times smaller than the biggest, it is likely to be about mid-sized.
 * 3- It is quite questionable to say that the increase in ship size in the LOTF series is an evidence of the sizes in the Imperial Navy. The existence of the Empire as such and the evolution in ship design are factors to consider before doing that. I have tried (most of the time) to exclude Rebel and New Republic ships from discussion for that reason -simply, they do not belong to the Imperial Navy. If we take into account the ships and fleets designed to combat the Empire, there is a strong suggestion that 1-km to 1-mile ships are the main battleships in the Civil War. Jon Valerius 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The Interdictors had their predecessors in the CW era (refr. Dark Lord), but the Strike Cruisers were weaker ISD substitutes, I'll give you that.
 * This is mostly a matter of opinion.
 * No, it isn't. A ship that's 100 times bigger than another, is going to be regarded as 'large' in a navy. That's not a matter of opinion.
 * You make a good point with the dual comparisons. I might make a note of that similar to on the Venator article. :)
 * Ok, let's see, AOTC:ICS mentions multi-mile long Star Destroyers built by KDY for decades, starting with right before the CW and going on through the Imperial Period. So there's no real increase after all, they just have different sizes in the same eras. Sorry for bringing up something from a later period, I should just have said this to begin with. VT-16 21:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

price
The price seems to be a little high, compared to other star destroyers, which cost only something between 50 million and 150 million credits. See german site:,. --62.178.241.80 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Starships of the Galaxy
The new Starships of the Galaxy is already out and I have read that it comes with interesting information about ISDs, specifically that it states that Star Destroyers are not destroyers, but cruisers (more so, "star cruisers"), and that the name comes from the idea of destroying star sistems. Can someone confirm this and actualize the article in consonance? It is likely that we won´t get the book in Spain for some time, and I don´t want to make the edits without access to the original source. But it seems we are going to have some answers :-) . Jon Valerius 12:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC) Isn´t this paragraph in the book?:
 * I put the information in the general Star Destroyer article, might add the fact that the heavy guns on the ISDs don't fit the profiles, given the placement of their heavy cannons, but that later classes like the Nebula and Pellaeon do. :p Also, the book never says "Star Destroyer" isn't an analog to "destroyer" (since a name can have different meanings, and Star Destroyer also refers to destroying systems, which most warships already can), but it does add yet another classification system. Now we have Star frigate (or Star Frigate, which was ironically written that way by WOTC)<Star Destroyer<Star Cruiser<Star Battlecruiser and Star Dreadnought from Dorling Kindersley, and star cruiser<star dreadnought from WOTC. And that's in addition to corvette<frigate<cruiser<Star Destroyer (as a subsection of cruiser) from WEG, and transport<capital ship<space station from WOTC as well. Since DK wrote about Star Destroyers as battleships, that has to go in some kind of system as well, but I'll be damned if I know what that is. Maybe the same that treated Nebulon-Bs as "battlecruisers"? (That was actually written in the old Marvel comics and newspaper strips.) VT-16 15:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * EDIT: Added some examples of systems already in use in SW lore. VT-16 15:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"A Star Destroyer is named after the idea of a ship that has the power needed to destroy entire star systems, an ominous naming convention that goes back to the days of the Old Republic. Any ship that follows the design basics of those early ships (including a combination of massive firepower and a dagger shape to focus that firepower forward) can be a class of Star Destroyer. For this reason, the term Star Destroyer is always capitalized, unlike star frigate or star cruiser. A typical Star Destroyer qualifies as a star cruiser and a Super Star Destroyer qualifies as a star dreadnaught." My apologies if it doesn´t, I thought this was a direct quote. But let me analize its implications.

If we understand that ISDs are "typical Star Destroyers" (and we should), this makes them star cruisers (something they are called in ANH and in the WEG system) along with MC80 Star Cruisers and Venators (AKA Republic Attack Cruisers). There is still place for bigger ships, either star battlecruisers or merely larger star cruisers (the Allegiance, if we take it as a 2km ship).

I don´t think there are so many systems, as most are compatible if you take Star Destroyers as cruisers. Also, for the record, WOTC classified Executor as a space station for scaling purpouses only, because it is so big. A 500m long creature would qualify as a starship in the RPG scaling system, despite not being so. Jon Valerius 16:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the quote. But it doesn't explain where the naval term "destroyer" comes from in the first place. Both the Republic, Empire, CIS and Trade Federation designated their ships according to 'Earthly' customs (which is where all these terms originated in the first place), so they are using some kind of similar system or systems. It's pretty much laid out in canon from the first sourcebooks of the late 1980s, that different classification systems are in use, in-universe. And with the switch from WEG to WOTC, yet another system was created.
 * The SW analogs follow the real-life development of destroyers quite well, beginning with Venators that hunt down blockade-runners, escort warships (ROTS:ICS) and can't travel too far without supply lines (according to the new SOTG book). In the Imperial era, the Star Destroyers are more self-sufficient, yet perform similar roles and increase in size. These later models are essentially similar to real-life cruisers, just as real-life destroyers of today are little more than small cruisers, with the only difference between shiptypes being size and thus how much ammunition and supplies they can carry. With the Trade Federation and CIS, we have systems that follow real-life nomenclature (frigates and destroyers, bigger cruisers and battleships). The Republic and the Empire use similar, but stronger vessels that have a 'Star' prefix, which seems to stem from their power (Star Destroyer, bigger Star Cruisers, Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts). A Separatist destroyer is only a fraction in strength compared to similar-sized Star Destroyers, according to ROTS:ICS. Likewise, a CIS star frigate (or Star Frigate, as written on the WOTC website) is bigger and stronger than most regular SW frigates. There's also been an increase in other, non-combat vessels with a prefix: there's Star Shuttle, Star Skiff, Star Galleon, StarTrain etc. Since all of these follow similar types of earthly vehicles or vessels, the practice on warships shouldn't be much different. On top of that, a word or term can readily mean more than one thing as well. :) VT-16 03:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is also true that, since the beggining, the naval term "destroyer" has been avoided because of the existence of Star Destroyers. In turn, the evolution of the term "Star Destroyer" seems to be very similar to what happened with "dreadnought": first it was a ship that overwhelmingly outclassed any other ships in its category, then in became the designation for a specific configuration of weapons, engines, etc, and finally it was used as a name for the entire category.
 * In reference to the evolution in design, what you say is also aplicable to RL frigates, battlecruisers and battleships (which had a sort autonomy). In the SW universe, Victorys are some of the older Star Destroyers, yet they are among the longest range ships I can remember, while modern Endurance-class has anything but endurance :-P .Jon Valerius 10:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Since what beginning? There's been ships designated 'destroyers' for a variety of organizations and governments, both before and after the CW/GCW era. Even the Rebels used destroyers (according to the Rebellion comics and the ROTJ novelization), and the New Republic/Galactic Alliance continued even using the name "Star Destroyer" until political correctness hit in 40 ABY. I like that explanation of the evolution of the word "Star Destroyer", it makes more sense than the usual "lol Star Destroyer sounds dangerous". Good call.
 * True about the battlecruisers and battleships, the battlecruiser eventually got out of style because of the improvements made to battleships to make them go faster. Even so, the Russian Kirov-class battlecruiser is classified as such in the Western world, due to its size being similar to WWI-era battleships (though the Russians call it a missile cruiser and it doesn't have heavy armor plating). And the old WWII-era Iowa-class battleships were reinstated in the 1980s to counter it, despite most battleships being obsolete by then. In SW, history is a bit different, especially since heavy gun-platforms are more valued due to space having few barriers, unlike 2D battlefields on Earth, which necessitated the evolution of missile platforms. That's the main reason the big warships here went out of use. Even so, there's been talk of making some kind of battleship-analog, only aimed more at missile batteries rather than guns.
 * The Victory II, which came out after the Victory I and the Venator, was the only one capable of long-range pursuits and missions. Also, I don't see what a fleet carrier like the Endurance has to do with destroyers and destroyer evolution.VT-16 15:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I know, I should have said Nebula-class Star Destroyers (they have only 5-6 months worth of consumables, too), but then there was no pun :-) . Other SDs have usually supplies for 2 years, while Victorys (I and II) have 4 years. Also, my fault for not explaining well: there are very few destroyers which are not Star Destroyers, presumably to avoid confusion. Most escorts are called frigates.
 * Thank you for apreciating my theory. Dreadnought sounds dangerous, too, but that´s not the reason to use the term, or, at least, not the only one. And yes, explaining things in-universe "because they sound cool" is silly. I have a problem with that, and with implications that the Imperial ship functions (and naming) should estrictly mimic those of the WWII US Navy (or any other). As you say, history and conditions are different in SW. Jon Valerius 10:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am aware of the irony in calling something Endurance-class, while giving it relatively little "endurance". :P
 * The problem with "destroyers" and "Star Destroyers" is that they often use both terms for the same thing, especially the Imperial-class. There's been instances of every well-known Star Destroyer being called a "Destroyer" or a "destroyer". The KDY-centric Bounty Hunter novels are especially prominent with that, which I thought was interesting, and they also mentioned their "destroyers" in the same breath as "heavy cruisers" and "battle cruisers", which they were also producing for the Empire (I assume that's where authors like Saxton and Luceno got inspiration for Imperial Star Cruiser and Star Battlecruiser designations). Although you're right about frigates doing alot of escort duty, this is also something destroyers often did, and in SW, both the Venator, Victory and Imperial classes were used for escort duty (the ISDs were even called "escort cruisers" in one of the Newspaper strips, the same one that called the Executor variably "very large battle cruiser", "battleship" and "dreadnought". I think it was the one where it's being built). Venators and Imperials were also grouped in flotillas of similar ships, according to the DK books, which is what most warships up to and including destroyers were in real life.
 * As for naval publicity, I'm pretty sure they could have called that battleship anything else and it would still have the same impact. The main thing was its arrangement of guns, not the name itself. The only thing is its impact on naming convention in sci-fi stories as well, including Star Wars. Whether the analogs follow it or not. I think the way both the Dreadnaught-class and the Star Dreadnoughts in SW are portrayed, they each represent innovations in warship construction (one being the first in a gradual rearmament phase following the Ruusan Reformations and the other being the largest conventional warship-type). Of course, this doesn't explain earlier uses of the term, way back to the pre-Sith War CGS Dreadnought, but maybe it's valid for all big naval innovations. VT-16 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)