Talk:Eclipse-class dreadnought

Nomenclanture
Should this article be titled Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer? This is the way it appears in both versions of the EGVV, new and old. The Super Star Destroyer article does refer to the Eclipse as an SSD. If we do go with that, the names of the Executor and Soveriegn classes would need to be changed too. Shadowtrooper talk 17:08, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC) Um... a lot of that is fan interpretation. All we know from canon about Star Dreadnaughts is what the ICS books say about the Mandy ("multi-mile") and Mandy-II (regarded in some unspecified context as having the combat value of 200 VenStars, 160 VicStars, or, by inference, about 80 ImpStars or 300 Strike Cruisers), coupled with the assumption based on ItW's "ultimate Star Dreadnaught" line the that the term is now 'correct' for the Ex. It can be noted that the battlecruisers seen on screen (Marvel comics) are significantly smaller, and are also called "Star Destroyers", without qualification (as indeed are Executor and Eclipse).--McEwok 15:54, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) Speaking personally, I'd also be in favour of removing "Star Dreadnaught" from at least the Eclipse and Sovereign articles. Yes, anyone who knows me here probably knows I think the whole Saxtonian "can't be a destroyer" idea is based on several non-canon assumptions and a deliberate misreading of canon evidence. But varying attitudes exist to the "Star Dreadnaught" and "Super Star Destroyer" classifications, involving different interpretations of the LFL canon policy, official publications, fansites, and common sense. If we're adhering strictly to canon evidence I know of no direct canon reference to any of the Dark Empire ships as Star Dreadnaughts: we do not know their technical designation for certain; but "Super Star Destroyer" remains at least the "popular" term, as used in the DESB, EGtVV and the NEGtVV (anyone know what the Dark Horse DE Handbook says?). For comparison, the Wiki page-titles for the Kirov-class and Deutschland-class use the 'popular' designations "battlecrusier" and "pocket battleship" in place of the more technically correct "cruiser" and "Panzerschiffe"... --McEwok 15:54, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC) Of course the Eclipse and Sovereign-classes were never called Star Dreadnaughts, because they came out a long time before Saxton got to put that term into canon. However, an analysis of canon information shows that they are Star Dreadnaughts. The term "Super Star Destroyer" is just useless slang. Star Dreadnaughts are the ultimate warship classification according to ITW, and the Executor is a Star Dreadnaught. Both the Eclipse and Sovereign are larger and more powerful than the Executor, which they replaced as the ultimate warships in the Empire. JimRaynor55 16:48, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Technically, any starships larger than a standard Star Destroyer is referred to as a Star Dreadnought. But these classes can still be called "Super Star Destroyers" because both titles are very similar to each other. So, the article's title should remain the way it is. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:29, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * "Super Star Destroyer" has been used for everything over 1.6km long. Star Dreadnought seems to be reserved for the very largest warships; the smallest Star Dreadnought size known is 15km. -Vermilion 04:37, 5 Aug 2005 (UTC)
 * SSD seems to refer more to a design-line than a proper classification (since there are so many varied types of ships called this), just like 'Star Destroyer' is not only a classification of a certain type of ship, but a general reference to the design-line of wedge-shaped ships developed first by the Republic, then by the Empire. IRL, 'Dreadnought' would refer to the most heavily armed battleships. It fits in nicely with what we see of the Executors and Eclipses, only with a 'Star'-prefix. There are also several canonical 'Star Battlecruisers', which fit in between that of Cruiser and Battleship (going by RL terms). Funny enough, the old Marvel SW also called the Executor a 'Star Battlecruiser', but that was before it was decided by Lucas Licensing how big and how well-armed ships of this class really were.VT-16 15:17, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * "Without classification"? I just told you what it was called in the story! I know from debating you before that you´re 'slow', but this is just retarded. Take your semantics bulls**t and cram it up where the sun don´t shine. VT-16 13:47, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Um... "witout qualification" doesn't mean "without classification"; it means that these "battlecruisers" are called "Star Destroyers", and simply "Star Destroyers", as opposed to "Super Star Destroyers", "Pocket Star Destroyers", etc. I'm sorry if you didn't understand my meaning. --McEwok 13:45, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * All argument, not proof. Other sources show that "Super Star Destroyer" is not limited to "Rebel slang", which means you can't use the ItW to dismiss that term outright. Other sources aslo call Eclipse-class and Sovereign-class ships simply Star Destroyers. And there is no way to know whether the phrase "ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like the Executor" means that some or all "Star Dreadnoughts" are ex definitio "ultimate" in some sense, or whether the ships like the Ex are both "ultimate" and "Star Dreadnoughts", without the two concepts being linked. Quite apart from the fact that the idiom of ths paragraph is demonstrably rhetorical rather than clear and technical, designation systems are not fixed and immutable - note, for instance, the "Attack Cruiser" / "Star Destroyer" alternates for the VenStar. --13:45, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, since both the Eclipse and the Sovereign are more heavily armored and armed than even the Executor-class, they do deserve the title 'Star Dreadnought''. VT-16 13:47, 2 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * So? As I said here: The firepower of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer exceeds that of an MC80 Star Cruiser. The "frigates" built by the USN in the '60s and '70s were larger than contemporary destroyers, and some of them employed the state-based naming-pattern traditionally the preserve of battleships: although reclassified as cruisers in 1975, this only serves to prove that warship designation schemes are not fixed according to any one peramenent system. This means that we must base the designations we accord these ships on specific evidence, not, abstract theories. And there is no canon evidence for the Star Dreadnought classification being applied to Sovereign-class or Eclipse-class ships. The latest reference I know of, dating from April, describes the Eclipse and Sovereign as "Star Destroyers", and as larger than "Super Star Destroyers". This may change, or it may not. In the meantime, is there some formal procedure I should go through to propose changinmg these titles round to avoid these pages being headed by a fanon designation, which is the situation at present? --McEwok 13:33, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * The firepower of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer exceeds that of an MC80 Star Cruiser.
 * Since Mon Calamari and the Galactic Republic/Empire do not follow the same classification systems, I don´t see any relevance in mentioning this. I think your brain´s been overworked recently. VT-16 18:02, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Post. Proof. Or. Retract. --McEwok 19:26, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. Would you rather that I gave you "destroyers" larger than cruisers? Or the canonical WEG definition of "cruiser" as a basic term for all ships 400m and upwards? Or cruisers reclassified as frigates? Or, simply, the fact that an alternative designation for the Ex exists, namely (Super) Star Destroyer, and we regularly find that applied to the later classes? --McEwok 19:26, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * Post. Proof. Or. Retract
 * Home One-style ships are called 'battleships' in the Star Wars Trilogy Scrapbook: The Rebel Alliance, but most of the time they are referred to as 'star cruisers'. In fact most Mon Cal ships are called just that, similar to every Imperial ship being called 'star destroyer'. The smallest Mon Cal cruiser, was just 500 m long, half the length of the more common 1200-1300 m long MC-80/MC-90 cruisers. It was called a 'light cruiser'. They´ve ranged in size from 500 m to a couple of km, the largest of which was called a 'battle cruiser'. Generally, their classification system sits in the middle, between the common Galactic scale with 'cruiser' describing most warships that focus on guns over fighters, and the Imperial scale, which has Star Frigates at 600-700 m, Star Destroyers at 900-2200 (since the Allegiance-type ships perform standard escort duty for a larger ship, like RL destroyers), Star Cruisers above that (according to ITW:OT), Star Battlecruisers and eventually, Star Dreadnoughts at the top. VT-16 01:43, 17 Sep 2005 (UTC)
 * So, um... how does that prove that the Mon Cal "Star Cruisers" and Imperial "Star Destroyers" aren't part of the same classification system? It's just fanalysis! And, more on-topic... does anyone have canon citations to show that Eclipse is a KDY design.... --McEwok 16:57, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The Eclipse's stats from the Dark Empire Sourcebook...

The Eclipse

Craft: KDY’s Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer

Type: Super Star Destroyer

Scale: Capital

Length: 17,500 meters

Skill: Capital ship piloting: Super Star Destroyer

Crew: 708,470. gunners: 4,175, skeleton: 88,500/+10

Crew Skill: Astrogation 5D, capital ship gunnery 5D, capital ship piloting 6D, capital ship shields 4D+2, sensors 4D+1

Passengers: 150,000 (troops)

Cargo Capacity: 600,000 metric tons

Consumables: 10 years

Cost: Not available for sale

Hyperdrive Multiplier: x2

Hyperdrive Backup: x6

Nav Computer: Yes

Maneuverability: 1D

Space: 4

Hull: 15D+2

Shields: 11D+1

Sensors:

Passive: 250/2D

Scan: 350/3D

Search: 500/4D

Focus: 75/5D

Weapons:

Axial Superlaser

Fire Arc: Front

Crew: 75

Scale: Death Star

Skill: Capital ship gunnery: superlaser

Fire Control: 5D

Space Range: 5 25/75/150

Damage: Gradational output can fire once every minute at minimum energy (1D damage). It can also build a charge of 1D per minute up to 8D. Current reactor can only generate 11D total per day.

550 Heavy Laser Cannons

Fire Arc: 200 front. 150 left. 150 right, 50 back

Crew: 4

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 2D

Space Range: 3-15/35/75

Atmosphere Range: 6-15/72/150KM

Damage: 8D

500 Turbolaser Batteries

Fire Arc: 150 front, 125 left. 125 right. 100 back

Crew: 2

Scale: Starfighter

Skill: Starship Gunnery

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: 3-15/36/75

Atmosphere Range: 600-1.5/7/15KM

Damage: 5D

75 Ion Cannon

Fire Arc: 25 front. 25 left. 25 right

Crew: 4

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 2D+2

Space Range: 1-10/25/50

Atmosphere Range: 2-20/50/100KM

Damage: 3D

100 Tractor Beam Emplacements

Fire Arc: 55 front, 20 left. 20 right, 5 back

Crew: 5

Skill: Capital ship gunnery

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: 1-5/15/30

Atmosphere Range: 2-10/30/60 KM

Damage: 6D

10 Gravity Well Projectors

Fire Arc: 3 front, 2 left, 2 right, 3 back

Crew: 10

Skill: Capital ship gunnery: gravity well projector

Fire Control: 4D

Space Range: 1-5/15/30

Damage: Blocks hyperspace travel*

See pages 18-20 of Wanted by Cracken for complete rules.

I know you didn't actually -ask- for all of that...but I thought different parts would be relevant other than the fact that it says KDY in it. :) --Jaymach Ral'Tir 18:26, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So that's KDY established for this 'un - same for the Sovvy-class? And does anything else (NEGtVV) say any different on any of the stats (eg. length, armament)? --86.140.250.74 20:49, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Why have the Eclipse and Sovereign articles been moved to "-class Star Destroyer"? Even ignoring the whole Star Dreadnaught thing and trying to stick to ONLY what we see in canon, they're both called "-class Super Star Destroyer". The Super is important, because even though we know it's slang, it says that these classes are not regular Star Destroyers. JimRaynor55 16:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Size of the Eclipse
It is noted that the Eclipse is larger than the Executor, but starwars.com lists the Executor as being 19 km long.--Swali 05:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Eclipse-class is not longer than the Executor-class, but it is much more massive (compare an Eclipse and Executor side-by-side). An Eclipse-class is 17.5 kilometers or so, and an Executor-class is 19 kilometers or so, give or take a few hundred meters. -Danik Kreldin 06:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Dark Empire Sourcebook (by WEG), as it says above, the length of the Eclipse-Class is 17.5 km. However, in the Imperial Sourcebook (also made by WEG), it states that the Executor is 8 km. It has now been reasoned that Executor-class / Super-class Star Destroyer were in fact much longer than this, appoaching 19 km. Could it not be assumed, then, that this reported length is greater than 17.5 km? Another logical thread: Would the Emperor really build a shorter ship that reqires nearly three times the crew (280,000 vs. 700,000)? -Nick2253 04:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Not the stupid "Super-class Star Destroyer" nonsense again... And the Eclipse-class definitely has to be larger than Executor. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Executor is 19km because the movies show it at that size. There is no alternative scaling available for the Eclipse, so there's no basis for changing her length. The reason Eclipse has more firepower and more crew is because the class has significantly more volume than the relatively skinny Executor-class. (I must admit, though, that I like the idea of scaling her up proportionally. The 19km Executor is 2.375 times longer than the old 8km measurement, so scaling up by the same factor would make Eclipse 41.6 km long. http://media.ign.com/boardfaces/4.gif) -- Darth Culator 12:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, think about it: The Emperor's flagship? It should be huge. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources, WEG seemed to always equate Super-class Star Destroyer with Super Star Destroyer, so that Super-class article serves no real purpose, imho. And the mention of Super-class Star Destroyers being 8 km long in "Dark Nest" doesn't automatically mean there is such a separate class. More than likely the author in question didn't bother to check for revisions. (If there's anything I've learned from the clone-debacle, it's that authors do admit to not reading up on everything before writing.)
 * Anyway, back on-topic, the Eclipse is much like the XR-85 tank droid. When the statement of it being twice the height of an AT-AT was put into question, it was due to the old 15 m height being changed to 22.5 m. The only visual evidence (Dark Empire) had AT-ATs right behind it, and it sure didn't look twice the size of them, so it would still be 30 m tall. Same would apply to Eclipse. The only thing is, that there's hardly any frames that help compare the Eclipses with known ships. The only one I can think of, in Empire ' s End, has a ship that might be an ISD going behind its enginebank. (But its siluoette doesn't exactly fit the ISD-profile). VT-16 22:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you supply us with an image? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the Eclipse II profile image, actually. :D VT-16 22:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Split
Eclipse and the Eclipse-class should be seperate. --SparqMan 08:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm really not sure... there are only two ships, the differences between them need to be discussed in full on this page, and their careers comprise the entire service history of the class. Also, it's not totally clear which of them was the KDY one, and which was the Byss one. All in all, I'd say it's best to handle them all on this page rather than triplicate stuff. --McEwok 15:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've created a redlink for Eclipse (ship). If someone could fill in the information, I would be grateful. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
Forgot to label my edit, but it was to de-POV a section referring to whether or not to call the ship a "Star Dreadnought". It was pretty thoroughly biased, and it compels me to note:

If you really are that emotionally invested in what someone else calls a fictional space ship with many lasers, you need to close your eyes, take a deep breath, and remember that Star Wars should be a hobby, not a lifestyle. We all should probably close the wiki browser window and remember this once in a while.
 * That's what you think. Don't tell people what they should or shouldn't do. People work hard here, and you shouldn't tell them to "close your eyes, take a deep breath, and remember that Star Wars should be a hobby, not a lifestyle" just because they're trying to make the article better. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish you could use the same arguments against TFN trolls who use this encyclopedia as their personal soapbox. VT-16 19:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Me or him? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since there's only one '*', it's for him. I've never seen people either on TFN or hailing from their little "TFN cliques" be told to "cool off" and "treat it like a hobby". VT-16 20:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just checking. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To be frank, this is effectively an encyclopedia. It's not meant for endless debates because one individual doesn't "like something" or "has a problem with it". If I behaved like that while working, I'd never get anything done, just because someone thinks that "the text in this book can be interpreted in several, and equally valid ways and we can't be sure..." Pfff. VT-16 20:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "It's not meant for endless debates...". Exactly. We have enough of those already. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing "a certain person" screwed up big time and I found out about it. Now, because of that, I can effectively ignore any suggestion or addition to any article he makes that I don't find in a book or inferred from a book. :P VT-16 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "A certain person"? I think I know who he is... VT-16, would you mind telling us all who he is? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's just say "E-Mail Suggestion Boy" TMcE could do with some people doublechecking any articles he works on, just in case. VT-16 20:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And I guessed correctly, just to let everyone know. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, I'm not running wild with this, I'm still going with what can be found from canon sources, so there's not going to be any influx in articles being changed to "Star Battlecruiser" or "Star Battleship". Any inferences to that in articles with "conjectural titles", are strictly non-canonical, and that's how I'll treat it, just as before. VT-16 20:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Since (at a skim; I'm at the office, here!) the Eclipse article attached to this talk page still has a fair bit that looks rather POV to me, want to tackle it first in what appears to be a Mighty NPOV Crusade for Justice? I try to operate under a philosophy that an encyclopedic wiki article should try to inform, not persuade. A huge chunk of the "Behind the Scenes" section here seems intent to persuade. Want to just add a conjectural title tag to the top of the article, with a very small explanation to the BTS section? I'm totally up for wholesale decimation of the BTS section as it is, if the community agrees with me that it has little of value at the moment.
 * There's no need for a conjecture tag. If you think that the Behind the scenes section "seems intent to presuade", why not change it to inform? A Behind the scenes section is needed; there's no need for a "wholesale decimation" of it. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 18:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * You could erase the whole damn thing as far as I care. Most of it is either McEwok's ramblings or refuting him. I'd prefer it if it only listed the size-inconsistency (without the pointed "some fans think" garbage). VT-16 06:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me, VT-16, especially if it's mostly "McEwok's ramblings or refuting him". Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)