Talk:Imperial I-class Star Destroyer/Legends

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

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


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


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

—

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


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

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

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

Weapons
The Databank says, "The Imperial-class Star Destroyer bristles with 60 turbolaser batteries, 60 ion cannon batteries, and 10 tractor beam projectors." How do we explain that it only has 12 turbolasers and 4 ion cannons, alongside "lesser weapons"? --SparqMan 18:12, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC) Now correct me if I'm wrong but why is it so hard to believe that it has 60 and 60 when both the databanks and the Esstial guide, both very cannon sources if I'm not mistaken say so? Why is that so hard to believe?
 * Well, since the Databank is official, we use that information. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:37, 20 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I think someone needs to rewrite the section limiting the main armament to the visible turret weapons. I understand that the OT ICS calls the turrets "heavy blasters", but I don't know whether the precise phrasing implies or allows that they can/should be understood simply as part of the 60-gun main TL battery (my preferred solution), or if they're some sort of supplemental (bombardment?) weapons. Anyone got a link to scans and/or a transcript of the relevant text? --McEwok 14:08, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * The source is SW ICS and the ISD1 model. Pictures of the heavy turrets: . WEG's 60 turbolasers and ion cannons were the "lesser weapons". --Vermilion 03:59, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * WEG may be the origin of the figures in the Databank, but doesn't it outrank even the ICS books? --SparqMan 04:02, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to ascertain whether there's any actual figure in ICS to be dealt with, still less whether the text actually contradicts WEG. So far, I've not got a straight answer. The way I see it is this: the visual prominence of the turret-mounted guns on the ISD-I model in no way legitimizes the claim that they're heavier than any other weapons carried; all the evidence of the model means is that they're the most visible part of the armament. That said, I've been told that ICS says that the turrets carry "heavy blasters", the "heaviest guns" carried. But even then, there are two options here, and I've not gotten a straight answer from people who've read the book on what's actually possible. Depending on how the text is read, this could mean that the turret "heavy blasters" are simply twelve of the ISD's 60 heavy TLs, with the rest being carried in less visible non-turret mountings. Even if the text does require us to limit the "heavy blaster" designation to the turret guns (and I've seen no proof of that it does), I'd say it would be better to find a workaround &mdash; there's nothing to say that the turrets aren't dedicated planetary-bombardment weapons, too slow to aim and fire to be effective in ship-to-ship combat, except perhaps against sitting targets like Star Dreadnoughts... --McEwok 14:28, 28 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Since this counts EU statements of weapon compliment, 60 turbolasers and ion cannons I think should be kept in. If we look around the area in between the hulls, there were a hell of a lot of gun encampments.
 * The movies say otherwise. The 60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons figures are incorrect. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We only get the firepower statements from the EU. Nothing on the weapons comes from the movies. Thus, the movies are superceded because they don't provide the info. In fact, we only see the main battery.
 * Too bad. I suggest you stop before getting blocked for vandalism. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep insisting that the movies don't cover the weapons, and that the number of guns seen in the movies are too low. What part of "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" do you not understand?  The EU books don't say that 60/60 is in addition to the visible guns, they claim that the 60/60 is ALL the ship has.  According to these books, every gun on an ISD is identical.  The books are completely, utterly wrong. JimRaynor55 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Therefore, anon, stop changing it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Way to go, anon. Thanks to you, both Imperial-class Star Destroyer articles are locked. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What does the ICS say on the matter then? I am sure they will have the proper figure.
 * The ICS is sure to point out the existence of the main guns, which refutes the stupid idea that ISDs are armed with 60 identical turbolasers.
 * I'll go check if someone hasn't already. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Hangar Defense Guns
What size are the hangar defense guns? Are they the same size as the heavy primary turbolasers and the heavy trench guns? JimRaynor55 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anybody know the answer? JimRaynor55 21:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the hangar defense guns are as large as the heavy primary turbolasers, but who knows. Really, who knows? ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are the hangar defense guns inside the hangar or outside them? VT-16 22:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say outside, as it would be most pratical (wouldn't it?). Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

25,000 ISDs ?
Sorry if this was discussed elsewhere, but Pellaeon said that there were 25,000 Star Destroyers at the Empire's height. Is this correct, and does it mean any ship called a Star Destroyer or just ISDs? Interestingly enough, if some of my calculations and intepretations are correct, then the Republic should have 100,000 ISDs, which does not bode well with the rarity of other Star Destroyers in the Empire and the lack of ISDs in the Republic. I think that the Republic could still win, but I don't think that the Empire was declining that much. Is it my mistake or Pellaeon's? --172.128.200.86 02:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all: "ISD" stands for Imperial-class Star Destroyer. The Republic only had Victory Is and Venators. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what it stands for, and the Revenge of The Sith Cross Sections book says that the Republic had ISDs, unless I am reading a false work, and I doubt that heavily. ;)Is the signature/timestamp button working properly? I think something is wrong. --172.175.19.88 22:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Republic didn't have Imperial-class Star Destroyers. They only designed them. Admiral J. Nebulax 23:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. The first production ISD is seen in action in Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader, set after the dissolution of the Republic. &mdash;Darth Culator   (talk)  00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So, with this, the Empire (in this scenerio where it faces the Republic) would probably win. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't Pellaeon say that there were 25K ISDs per sector fleet? Kuralyov 00:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where, may I ask, is this from in the first place? Admiral J. Nebulax 00:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There are approximately twenty-five Imperial-class Star Destroyer (Mark I or Mark II) per Sector Group, plus thousands of smaller support craft and an unknown amount of larger cruisers or dreadnoughts (let us not forget what Han Solo said about commandships in RotJ). Now, according to the Phantom of the Menace, there are 1,026 sectors in the Old Republic at the time of Palpatine's rise to power. This number grew a lot larger in the Imperial conquests. There are 250 sector groups hidden in the Unknown Regions by the Empire, an unknown though very large amount hidden in the Deep Core, and numerous fleets like the Death Sqaudron that aren't assigned to sector defense roles. So we can work up a rougj estimate from that, I believe, to somewhere around 30,000 ISDs to 40,000 ISDs. However, if we were to assume that the Empire has a Star Destroyer per member world (the Galactic Empire, at the height of its power, had one million member worlds and 50 million Colonies, Protectorates and Governorships, the number would be even far greater. So it's up to a great deal of interpetation. The fact of the matter is, the Galactic Empire has an -immense- fleet of epic proportions, and an even larger Army, and the only reason the New Republic was ever able to achieve success was because the Empire erupted in civil war. -Danik Kreldin 01:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, 25 ISDs per sector group. I see where I got confused. Kuralyov 01:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems Pellaeon's statement refers to the timeperiod around the battle of Yavin and the fleet soon grew, helping to prove both his statement and the estimate posted here, minus the ISD covering every planet. It also appears that there is insufficient evidence for or against the inclusion of Tectors, Victory IIs, Imperators, and the class to which Shockwave belongs(possibly the ISDs) in the Galactic Republic's Clone army. There is also no way to verify the victor in a war between the Empire and Republic, but if my calculations and "interpretations" are correct, I would bet on the Republic.. Thanks to every one for helping to answer my questions! Sorry if I seem a bit annoying. I think I am, but I am new here.--172.134.183.99 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Why are people even asking who would win between the Galactic Republic and the Galactic Empire? By the time of the Clone Wars, they're the -same- governments. Same rulers, SAME military, though the Empire was exponentially larger and technologically suuperior. It's moot to even bring this up! Also, as for the 25,000 number statement, it is most likely the pre-Yavin statement, also let us not forget that not even Pellaeon would be aware of the secret 250 sector groups hidden in the Unknown Regions (only a very few knew), and the groups in the Deep Core. -Danik Kreldin 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pre-Yavin? He said that during the era of the New Republic. This either signifies that the Empire had 25,000 ISDs at its political height,the number of non-ISDs decreased as ISDs grew more numerous, or that estimates of 50,000 ISDs at its military's height is overkill. The latter fits Pellaeon's mood while saying the number, but the first 2 don't work as well in my opinion. I think the core of this relatively tiny Empire vs Republic debate is my estimate of how many Imperators they had, but this is irrelevant. By the way, where did these 250 additional sectors come from? I don't think I have read the source, but I think I know where it came from. And why would Pellaeon not know of this? Are you certain that they were guarded? Besides the Emperor, who knew? No offense, and please forgive my curiosity.  --172.136.235.92 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Grand Admiral Thrawn was given command of a fleet the size of 250 sector groups to subjugate the Unknown Regions. That's where the Empire of the Hand came from. And, pre-Yavin the Empire most likely had somewhere around 25,000 ISDs, but after the DS blew up, the Empire underwent a drastic military buildup, the largest ever, and beefed up -everything-, including the number of ISDs. Pellaeon wouldn't know about the fleet Thrawn had in the Unknown Regions because it was top-secret. Palpatine, Vader, Thrawn, and probably some Imperial Advisors knew, and obviously those assigned to the fleet. To the rest of the Empire, it was assumed Thrawn was exiled to the Unknown Regions, but in reality was sent there to take control of it. -Danik Kreldin 04:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Mitth'raw'nuruodo. Thanks. Anyway, perhaps I should say more of this quote. It was the book in which the Empire made peace with the New Republic, when Pellaeon was considering a treaty and musing at what they had left. It seems that, as of Yavin, the Empire had the equivalent of 25,000 ISDs. Judging by the prominence of other vessils and their decline as of Hoth, perhaps the Empire reached 25,000 ISDs and the equivalent of 50,000 as of Hoth, but I have no doubt of an increase. It fits virtually everything that I know. It is not as impressive, but it is still worthy to goad about. No offense. --172.175.42.229 14:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

New main picture
Is it okay if I replace the main picture with this one? The current one is blurry.--Alpha Fire 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if it wasn't so blurry then I would say to replace it but its really not that great of quality...what did you use to take the image? - Redemption 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is nothing wrong with the current picture as far as I can tell. But this image can be added elsewhere in the article. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put it somewhere else. Redemption, I used a digital camera and took it off the DVD which was playing on my computer. The current one is much worse quality.--Alpha Fire 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe it's different on your computer, but this current one looks very good on mine. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a screen capture button on all PC DVD players, ya know...comes out perfect quality (or the quality of the DVD) Redemption 03:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, this current one shows more of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since this article is about the ISD-I, any pic of an ISD-II would not suffice. VT-16 19:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point, VT-16. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Cost?
"A single Imperial-class vessel cost the Empire at least 3.88 billion Imperial credits—the equivalent of several star systems' annual economic output."

Source please? This seems flat-out wrong, even if the star systems are 1 planet large and the planet is the size of Pluto.
 * Well, 3,880,000,000 credits is a lot of money by our standards, at least. However, I'd also like to see a source. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's from the "194 million credits per Nebulon-B frigate" in Strike Force: Shantipole (West End Games, 1988), which was "less than one twentieth of the price of an Imperial Star Destroyer". In other words, 3,88 billion credits per ISD. Hard to fathom for us, not so hard for a galactic economy. VT-16 23:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, VT-16. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, don't equate SW money with Dollars. It took over 10 000 credits to by your own starship (according to a certain farmboy in ANH), something which would cost a ludicrous amount of money in our society. And that was for a small, civilian ship. ;) VT-16 23:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking about the cost, I was asking about how the cost was the equivalent of "several star systems' annual economic output." That's the line that seems wrong to me, especially when you consider how a small civilian craft is 10k credits.
 * It would have been helpful if you would have said it like you just did in the first place. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I figured it was obvious when I included the blurb about the star systems. Moot, in any case. Is there a source for this?
 * Well, who put that bit in? We could ask him/her for the source. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the source is Strike Force: Shantipole (West End Games, 1988), which I pointed out above. VT-16 09:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, many star systems are also sparsely populated, more sparsely than some nations on Earth. Garos IV only has 24 million inhabitants, Thyferra has less than three million, Crondre less than three thousand, Endor 10 million, Generis two thousand, Kashyyyk 45 milliion . . . with such sparse populations on so many worlds, it's quite reasonable to think that median planetary economic output would also be substantially lower than one might expect. jSarek 00:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Long info box
The long info box combined with the huge TOC makes this article a nightmare to behold. Is there any information that we can prune from the info box? --SparqMan 22:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There number of different roles listed in the info box is ridiculous. Many ships in SW are multi-role, and the fact that the ISD carries starfighters, troops, etc. doesn't need to be said. I'm also going to cut out the stupid game mechanics stats (speed in MGLT, hull RU). JimRaynor55 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, other that the roles part, I think the infobox is good. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ISD II pictures
Not that it's even easy to tell the difference without looking very closely, but shouldn't we replace all the ISD II pictures with images of the ISD I? JimRaynor55 06:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they stayed in the article because the ISD-II was mentioned so often. It's hard to find a good ISD-I pic that doesn't have its nose turned up or anything. :P VT-16 08:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, is the ISD-II article big enough for all these pictures? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Sensor Globes or Shield Generators?
I always thought that the globes on top of the IDS were shield generators. Becoming a usual to this wiki I found out that it was canon that the globes were sensor globes, while on other wikis it is stated that it is a controversial issue. This can't be determined becasue there are various sources stating diffrent theories to the issue. What source exactly does this wiki confirm that the globes are in fact sensor globes?
 * Numerous, I believe. The reason people call them shield generators is because of the issue at the Battle of Endor; however, the sensor globe exploded due to the fact the shields went down, I believe. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What about video games? The theroy that they are in fact shield generators is mostly confirmed by the Rouge Squadron series


 * I also don't see why just because the shields on the ISD went down that the so-called "sensor globe" exploded


 * I also don't see why just because the shields on the ISD went down that the so-called "sensor globe" exploded.
 * I also don't see why just because the shields on the ISD went down that the so-called "sensor globe" exploded.
 * First of all: Games go against canon. Second of all: Someone else had said that. And third of all, don't post something three times. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * God, It was a mistake, Jesus
 * And who had mentioned that?
 * "God, It was a mistake, Jesus". What's your problem? I'm just telling you that they're sensor globes. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not all games go against canon. According to the LucasFilm canon tree, storyline from games, that includes cutscenes and dialgoue are canon, part of the C-Canon branch.
 * yeah and what's your sources
 * One, the fact that games go against canon, and two, the fact that it has been stated here many times by other users. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Person who's not Nebulax, please sign your comments (four tildes, ~ ). As for this issue, Star Wars: Complete Locations specifically establishes them as sensor globes with local shield projection vanes. - Lord Hydronium 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. There's a source. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all: Please don't post in the middle of a discussion. Second of all, most games do, especially when they show things different from what are in the movies. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * C-canon is pretty much everything in the Expanded Universe: Star Wars books, comics, games, cartoons, non-theatrical films, and more. Games are a special case as generally only the stories are C-canon while things like stats and gameplay may not be. C-canon elements have been known to appear in the movies, thus making them G-canon. (This includes: the name "Coruscant," swoop bikes, Quinlan Vos, Aayla Secura, YT-2400 freighters, Salporin, and Action VI Transports.)
 * "Games are a special case as generally only the stories are C-canon while things like stats and gameplay may not be". Exactly. There's my point. The stories of the games are C-canon. For instance, the storyline in Battlefront II&mdash;all those battles really happened in the Star Wars Galaxy. But here's the thing: Each time you play that battle, you change it, which is why only storylines of games are C-canon. But the point of this dicussion is that there are sources that the globes are sensor globes, not shield generators. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, ok, ok. Here's how I think the whole problem started. The WEG books named them shield domes, because of what we see in ROTJ. But it really doesn't make sense for a shield generator to not be shielded, and to be stuck way out in the open where it can be easily blasted. Secondly, the games used information from the WEG books, and they were made destroyable to make destroying a Star Destroyer something other than suicide, because that wouldn't be any fun. Notice that the domes look almost exactly like the radar domes you see at TV stations and airports. Plus, having them up on top of the tower like that makes sense, it keeps most of the ship's bulk out of the way of the scanners. As someone said, the dome blew up in ROTJ because the shields were out, not causing the shields to go out. It was to show the audience the huge ship had become vulnerable. --Commander Mike 05:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, and if you compare them with real-life shipsensors, they're practically the same shape. Furthermore, Richard Edlund, one of the ILM technicians responsible for the Executor explosions in ROTJ, mentions in a 1983 CINEFEX interview that part of their shot is one of the "radar domes" on top of the command tower being in flames (as seen in the finished film). So ILM's position on what they were working with is perfectly clear on this issue. They're scanners, not shield generators. (Incidently, they do have auxillary generators for the protection of the domes themselves, shown in a cut-out in ITW:OT and SW:CL.) VT-16 09:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, Commander Mike. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that they put those little shield generators there as a concession to people who refuse to believe that they are scanner globes. Before I read that little piece, I expected them to be the ubiquitous static discharge vanes.--Commander Mike 14:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some people went "localized shield-generators"? Mumble grumble when they read that. Still, it's better than WEG's "OMGZ they protect the whole ship and they're on the outside! lol" VT-16 14:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What other craft have sensor globes? I'm pretty sure the Telgorn shipyard does too (I included it in that article anyway - if it's wrong just delete it). I'd actually quite like to see an article on sensor globes, written by somebody knowledgable about them. -- Dengar Antilles 05:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (talk)
 * Actually, it's apparantly both, according to Star Wars: Complete Locations. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 05:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure "local-area" means just for the sensor globe, not the entire ship. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 10:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that one of the repair yards (I think the Swin Suns Station one in that insanely hard, final family mission) also has sensor globes. Plus, the Falcon has a great big sensor dish, and Corellian Corvettes have sensor dishes top and bottom. I know they're not globes, but they show that ships often do have big external sensors. --Commander Mike 22:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now we're not talking about Star Destroyers either. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I know, but someone asked if other ships had sensor globes.--Commander Mike 04:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) Admiral Correct me if I'm wrong but did not the edition of a thermal exhaust port that would allow a battlestation the size of a small moon to be destroyed by a pair of proton torpedoes prove that yes, they are in fact VERY stupid. I fail to see what that has to do with anything, if anything the Kuat shipyards people wouldn't be as smart as the empires top scientists.
 * True. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * On all ships noted as having sensors of come kind, you always see them sticking out somewhere on the vessel, either as small or big vanes or dishes (Falcon, droid control ship) or globes (Republic and Imperial warships). Thankfully, the ridiculous assumption that the Empire somehow went completely against most common design-knowledge and put their shield generators outside the main hulls, has been rectified. Maybe not completely as hoped, but reasonably enough. VT-16 12:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt the shipbuilders would place shield generators on the hulls of ships anyway... Unless they were stupid, of course. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Death Star wasn't produced by Kuat Drive Yards, though. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Being smart and having common sense are two different things. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 01:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it
There's just something I don't get about the launching of TIE Fighters from an ISD. If somebody has an explanation then help me out. Better yet would be picutre of one expalining the anatomy.
 * Are you kidding me? They're launched from racks out throught the hangar bay at the bottom of the ship. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

are there any pictures? and how many can you fit?
 * 1)There might be, but I doubt it. 2)See Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections for the compliment. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

well all im saying they have to be more specific on how ties are lanuched from the hangers and how there returned Remeber of course that in the Star Wars Essential Guide that they are shield generators, and that the Y-Wings shield generator in the guide is identical (if smaller) than the ones on the star destroyer. Also does anyone remember what happened in ROTJ to the Executor? If those were sensors then it wouldn't have been destroyed. Finally it is a stupid idea for them to be in such an exposed place, but that is forgetting the many other stupid ideas the Imperials have had, can anyone say "thermal exhaust port"?
 * They're launched from racks inside the hangar, exist through the hangar bay, come back through when they're done, annd re-attach to the racks. That's it. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * We see two taking off from an ISD-II in ROTJ. I assume when in a big conflict, all the TIEs being sent out, detach from their racks, hang in mid-air and zoom out in pairs, going in steady waves. VT-16 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose so. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They're sensor globes. And yes, they could have been destroyed if they were sensors, which they are. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Protection
This article and Imperial II-class Star Destroyer have been protected. Let me or another admin know when the edit war is over. Note that I have no metaphorical "dog" in this fight: as far as I'm concerned, Star Destroyers were "big" and were armed with "lots of weapons", and that's as much as I'd be willing to bet money on. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the anon doesn't seem to get "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is someone trying to argue "books >> movie" evidence again? *rolls eyes* VT-16 13:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish I could be a real dick and go back to being a "purist" again. Just ignore everything outside of the movies and their production statements. Things were easier back then. ;P VT-16 16:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * If we were all like that, this site would be a lot smaller... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And we wouldn't have great Jedi or Sith like Revan, the Exile, Malak, Sion, Nihilus, or Traya if it was like that. Or we wouldn't have pre-NJO Jacen, Jaina, Zekk, Anakin, Lusa, Raynar, Tahiri, and Lowbacca(regretfully the last Wookie Jedi in the EU).
 * And we'd still have tedious canon arguments over technical details, I'm sure of it. 8) &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Added what we agreed on.-Rob
 * Thank you. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise?!
Look, VT-16 may have agreed to this "compromise," but I did not. Like I said before, Wookieepedia should not be about compromise, it should be about truth. Medium turbolasers are visible from a distance, as you can see on the Venator and the ISD. Therefore, smaller guns would logically be light cannons, or as the ICS puts it, "point-defense." Adding in "numerous" medium cannons is wrong, and has NO basis in canon whatsoever. It's just you clinging to the WEG stats in a bizarre way, trying to beef up the number and size of the guns because you think that the G-canon armament isn't as big as the 60/60 WEG armament that it's "supposed" to be. JimRaynor55 23:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to once again agree with you. I would just like to note that I just wanted to edit the edit war. However, this is the place to solve it&mdash;not the article itself. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your 'truth' really can't show which are light and medium turbolaser cannons, in fact the only cannons that are visible on an ISD are the *heavy* cannons, not medium or light. How can you tell them apart? You have no canon source to support that medium cannons are visible. And I am not clinging onto the WEG stats, I am clinging onto logic. For such a large ship, there is no way of telling medium cannons from light from models. The Venator's heavy cannons we only see in the shot of the movies, and I repeat, there are no way the rest of the armanent of a mile long craft like the ISD to be so sparsly armed, meaning medium cannons must be put in the numerous catagorey due to the fact we can't tell them apart from the light ones.

point out the different calibers of guns:

  

There, three pics. Point out the light turbolasers and medium turbolasers. Tell them apart.-Rob
 * Once again, Rob, he used pictures of models of ISDs, not the images from the movies themselves. Once again, physics can be applied to Star Wars. JimRaynor has been a big contributor to the site. I don't see why you can't just trust him. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Analyzing the models isn't a canon source. He never backs up his information. And real life physics again can't be applied to a fantasy setting(lightsabers are not possible under real-world physics). I don't trust him because he never uses a ccanon source, the models of ISDs are just that, models, things that don't show all the armanent on such a large ship. No offense, but you're pulling a double standard. If I neglect to provide a canon source, I get called for it. But if Jim doesn't provide one, he is automatically trusted for no reason. That's a double standard if I've ever seen one. And from his edits, it shows he cannot be trusted because he doesn't use canon sources, just his on POV. Jack, you need to realize that and think about the information Jim is trying to post. The canon dictates the MC80 cruiser was lighter armed than the ISD, yet with the armanent that Jim keeps posting, the MC80 has the higher degree of armanent. Plus, if he analyzed the model of the MC80, he'd find no armanent, thus he would edit the post to get it unarmed to conform to that analysis. That isn't canon information, nor is it using logic. That is defying canon.

   

This is a model of the ISD, point out the different calibers of turbolasers Jim. If he backs up his statements with G-Canon quotes, then that would be a source. But no, all he has is an "analysis of a model" which is done by a fan. Fan analysis are not canon sources.

Oh and only the *heavy* cannons are visible on an ISD or Venator. Does that mean other heavy cannons or medium types can't be in the trenches of the ships? Does what Jim say sounds logically possible for a mile long ship, to be armed with mostly small weapons that aren't suitable for ship to ship combat?-Rob
 * Rob, physics can be applied to certain things in Star Wars, like turbolasers and the superlasers. And another thing, he could have very well analyzed a close-up shot of an ISD model, not the images you provided. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, what don't you get? You actually think it is logical that an ISD, an mile long ship is so sparsley armed with large weapons? And I put a closeup of a model up, didn't you look at it? Plus, how the hell can you see a physical difference between light and medium turbolasers *from a model*. He has *no source*, just speculation. Jack, quit pulling this double standard and think for yourself. Is it logical that an ISD is so lightly armed? Even though canon says that they outgun MC80's? According to Jim's analysis, the MC80 outguns an ISD. That does not sound logical and defies canon.-Rob
 * Not really. ISD-Is were maily used when there weren't many major threats to Palpatine's Empire. When the Alliance came along with the Mon Calamari cruisers, the Imperial Navy realized that the MC80 outgunned an ISD-I, so they started to make ISD-IIs. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to the canon, ISDI's outgunned the MC80 class. The only thing that made the MC80s a contender was their prodigal shielding. ISDI's were the mainstay of the Imperial fleet for over 20 years, and were heavily armed. It doesn't make sense that they only had a large number of light weapons. Plus, according to Jim's edits, the ISDII isn't even a contender for the MC80 class.-Rob
 * Where does it say that the ISD-I outgunned MC80s? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It was said in the article here, and the databank. It wasn't until the Republic Star Destroyer and MC90 class were developed that the Rebellion/New Republic had realistic ships to combat ISDI's and II's.-Rob
 * Could we get an exact quote from the Databank? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't give an exact number of turbolasers like the article does, but they were converted *passenger liners*. Not intended for the military role as well as the ISDI, and nor did it have enough firepower to contend with them, it's main advantages against an ISDI was it's sublight speed and it's powerful shielding. The Republic Star Destroyer and MC90's were warships built from the ground up, with realistic requirements for a battleship. Thus, the Rebellion/New Republic had two ships that could realistically counter the Imperial's. A lot of EU books also pointed out the MC80's weakness in firepower compared to the ISDI.-Rob
 * The sources from the article itself were the The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and Rebel Alliance Sourcebook:
 * "These cruisers were the first line of large capital ship deployed by the Rebel Alliance. The entry of the Mon Calamari into the Alliance ensured that the undergunned and outnumbered Rebel fleet would posess the firepower capable to dealing with Imperial-class Star Destroyers.

While their armaments were less than those found on the Empire's Star Destroyers, the shielding capability was far more advanced. The multiple backup shields and multiple shield generators ensured that a Calamari cruiser could last in combat against more heavily armed opponents."

For the record, I only agreed believing the model had been thoroughly checked beforehand. If it hasn't, we need to analyze it. VT-16 21:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC) 
 * It's pretty impossible to tell what is a light turbolasers and what is an heavy one from a model. Fan Analysis is also non-canon.-Rob
 * Okay, stop adding the pictures that aren't helping this. And to end this, let's have JimRaynor double-check the model. And Rob, the analysis of the model of something that was in the movies is not fanon at all. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll stop adding pictures, but an model isn't an accurate source since there is no basis on how to tell the guns apart. What a fan says should not be made applicable here, we should only take a canon source, which is a book, or a quote from the movies themselves, etc. And again, is it logical for such a large ship to be armed so sparsley?-Rob.
 * Again, the ISD-Is were used in a time of relative "peace", without a lot of uprisings against the Empire. And if there is a distinct difference between guns on an ISD-I model from the movie, then it is a canonical source, no matter who notices it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 02:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that the Venator-class Star Destroyer explicitly only has 2 medium turbolasers, so there is precedent for having very few medium weapons. The medium turbolasers on a Venator are also fairly obvious. -Vermilion 03:22, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the exhibition shots taken for Tech Comm, it's hard to make out any gun details on the Devestator and the Avenger. Looking at the pictures there, you can see the 3 heavy twin turbolasers (only one side had any details, because the other was used to attach to the crane that moved the model) and one heavy ion cannon. There is also a quad-cannon turret in the small brim notch, as well as at least three guns on the dorsal side of the ship (beneath the first terrace). These were all identified in SW:ICS, along with the small "bulbs" inside the brim being turbolaser stations. I'll have those pages online later today.
 * For the Avenger, there is no cross-section piece. The only discernable things on the model itself, are the four 8-gun batteries and a twin-turbolaser on the rear brim notch. There's towers similar to the XX-9 turbos, but it's difficult to tell anything concrete from them.
 * This all adds up to 6 heavy turbolasers, 2 ion cannons, 3 axial defense turrets and 2 quadguns on the ISD-I + a multitude of brim turbolasers that weren't counted up by the ICS, only mentioned, and 8 heavy turbolaser batteries and 2 turbolasers identified on the ISD-II. And looking at that ISD-II model, there's at least one axial defense turret on it.
 * In addition to those seen on the model, are those seen firing in the films, many of which are located in the brim and some on the ventral side (most famously seen firing in the opening scene of ANH.) VT-16 09:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The examination of a piece of plastic as a basis for a definitive argument of the ship's armament is an extreme example of shoddy methodology. It assumes that every weapon is visible on the model (which is not guaranteed), and that every weapon type is clearly distinguishable and definitively identified (which they aren't). If the examination of the model is the definitive source, then it needs work, as a visual interpretation is, after all, only an educated guess, and some significant details could very easily be missed or misinterpreted. Accepting someone's work, even when in doubt, based on the quality or quantity of previous work, is a hideous, corruptive practice. Also, if this ship is indeed armed so lightly, then it is one of the worst designed ships ever. It needs weapons of significant firepower in great quantities, down most of its length on either side, that can at least threaten another, similar ship, if it is to be significant in naval combat, let alone perform all the other offensive functions ascribed to it. The armament described here is possible, but fails to make the ship a powerful offensive weapon. Even if the ship was designed during a time of relative peace, it is designed to be a warship. Little immediate need for it doesn't mean that any power can afford to build sissy warships. If warships were designed for peacetime, they couldn't very well serve during wartime. - Ren
 * So, VT-16, in your opinion, should JimRaynor look over the ISD-I and ISD-II models? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you're saying that examining a model of something from the movie isn't good enough to be canon? That makes no sense, since it was used in the movie itself. The movies are the highest forms of canon, not the Databank, not the Essential and New Essential Guides, etc. If a model can clearly show the entire armament for the ISD-I, then that's the armament for the ISD-I. Plus, Palpatine was overconfident. He didn't consider anything a threat after most of the Jedi were killed. At the time when the ISD-Is were produced, there was no Alliance to Restore the Republic&mdash;therefore, no major threat to Palpatine's Empire. The Mon Calamari hadn't donated their Star Cruisers to the Rebel Fleet yet because there wasn't a Rebel Fleet yet. The ISD-Is didn't have to be heavily armed during the time when there weren't many threats. Plus, take the line from A New Hope: "Dangerous to your starfleet, Commander, not to this battlestation." What does that suggest? It suggests that the Rebel Fleet outgunned the Imperial warships. This entire argument is pointless. Even without the model being used as a canonical source, that one line suggests that the ISD-Is were outgunned already. And remember, that was before the Mon Calamari cruisers were even thought up of for the Original Trilogy. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the ISD-I was basically meant to keep the peace, and did so for almost 20 years. It was after the threat of the Alliance was taken seriously, that they started producing ISD-IIs and big dreadnoughts like the Executors. I need to hear Jim's explanation for "medium turbolasers" before I say anything else. Afaik, the port and starboard batteries were heavy turbolasers and ion cannons on the ISD-I. VT-16 19:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The ISD-Is were meant to keep the peace, not fight wars. The ISD-IIs were meant for war. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Why were they used extensively as warships? As *flagships* to the fleet then? And again, is it logical for such a large ship to be so sparsley armed? And, according to Jim, the ISDII was *lighter armed* than the ISDI. Does that sound logical?

From the article itself: "They were massive, powerful warships capable of laying waste to entire worlds (provided those worlds did not have planetary shields). The Imperial-class became infamous as the prime enforcer of Imperial rule."

How can a ship of this size and so lightly armed lay waste to an entire planet? And again, how does a fan determine the armanent, differentiating from the guns of an ISD from just looking at a model? What this is isn't logical, it isn't following canon. And again, if you just look at the models, most fleet ships *won't even appear to be armed*.-Rob
 * Nonetheless, the time when ISD-Is were produced was a time of "peace" with no major threats to the Empire. They didn't need to be heavily armed to be flagships at the time. Rob, you are so focused on proving everyone wrong that you're ignoring things from the movies&mdash;the highest sources of canon. And stop constantly editing your paragraph. I just got about twenty edit conflict messages. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to many sources, the ISD I was heavily armed and armored. And again, according to Jim's analysis, the ISD-II was *lighter armed* than the ISDI. You still haven't answered if this is logical or not. The movies also don't give any regards to the firepower or weapons compliment, none at all. The movies don't give any direct quotes. Thus, analysing the model won't do.-Rob
 * The model CAN'T clearly show the armament. That is, in fact, the entire point of that section of my post.  The fact that there were no threats to the Empire at that point doesn't change the fact that it was a warship, even when used to keep the peace.  If the fact that warships today are used to keep the peace isn't enough of an example for you, there's also the philosophy of peace through overwhelming firepower that the Empire adopted early on - see Death Star for more details.  Also, the line that's being cited...  A little girl with a kitchen knife is dangerous to the greatest martial artist alive.  It doesn't mean she's superior. - Ren
 * Yet you're neglecting this: "Dangerous to your starfleet, Commander, not to this battlestation." The Empire knew their Star Destroyers weren't armed enough to deal with the Rebel Alliance! Why can't you realize this? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Except how I'm not forgetting it, and there's nothing to realize. Just because the Rebels were DANGEROUS doesn't mean they had more or bigger guns. - Ren
 * How did you make that connection? Jack, again, is it logical for such a large ship to be so sparsly armed? And the fact that many, many canon sources say that the ISDI was more heavily armed than the MC80, it doesn't make sense to be so lightly armed. And again, with such a small armanent, how can an ISD I, alone, decimate an entire planet?-Rob

Here's the pages from SW:ICS I promised:  

They apparantly went through the models while gathering info on what to write. Now, there's many of those smaller turbolaser "bumps" on the ship, but they're not counted up in the book. Doesn't say anything specific about their smaller weaponry. VT-16 20:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Un, those pictures won't show.-Rob
 * Photobucket POS. I'm gonna try something else. VT-16 20:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. :) VT-16 20:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's logical to assume a Star Destroyer is more heavily equipped than it may appear in the movie. I mean, if you want to use the movies as the only reference for what is canon and what isn't, then we must heavily edit the Battle of Endor article. The movie only shows a dozen or Star Destroyers, whereas it has been established there were far more vessels, on both sides of the conflict. To say the Star Destroyer is only lightly equipped with turbolasers and other weaponry is nonsense: the vessel is behemoth, and if it doesn't have enough weapons to at least cover itself, what purpose does it serve? You can't have huge gaps in your defense - and due to the size of the Star Destroyer, it requires more weaponry. Let's also take the Base Delta Zero arguement - do you really think a single Star Destroyer can lay waste to an entire planet in the matter of a few hours with such light armament? It would take a substantially longer period of time. So few turbolasers wouldn't be able to cover as much ground. Finally, the Star Destroyers were not developed during a time of peace - in fact, the first Imperator was under production at the time of the Clone Wars, no, and was rolled off just afterwards. Not to mention, Palpatine knew there would not be complete peace - he was well aware his military would have to continue onward and subjugate a countless number of systems, and bring them under Imperial domination. Also, wasn't Palpatine aware of the existence of the Yuuzhan Vong long before the Clone Wars, and was making preparations to combat them? Why wouldn't he want the baddest, most powerful weapons available to him? --Danik Kreldin 20:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not about disregarding EU info, just the parts that contradict the movies. VT-16 20:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * About the armanent, there is nothing to contradict since the movies don't tell us how heavily armed or armored an ISD is. And again, if you just analyzed the models, the Nebulon-B Frigates and MC80 cruisers in the movies wouldn't be armed at all.
 * Thanks for posting those scans, since it proves a point. True, there are eight heavy turrets seen on a Star Destroyer, but that also says that it is bristling with turbolasers and ion cannons. Nothing saying light weaponry at all.-Rob
 * Can we end this pointless discussion now? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you want to end this? Accepting the canon and logic or accepting the fan analysis?-Rob
 * We should have the models re-analyzed and then compare it to what other sources say. If there are images of the models from the movies that have images of all the weaponry on it and have the analysis confirmed by others, then it should be accepted as the weapons count. Remember, this isn't about saying what's canon and what's not, it's about finding the correct weapons count by using canonical sources. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And Models usually don't show all the weapons, Battleship and Carrier models sometimes do not give every single solitary armanent of the ship. And again, if we only analyzed the models, every single Rebel ship would appear to be unarmed.-Rob
 * But we're not analyzing the Rebel ships. We're going to re-anyalyze the ISD-I and ISD-II models and compare the figures to what other sources say. For God's sake, let us try this, Rob. Don't just disregard a plan if you don't like it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Fan analysis can only show so much, and I've gone over the photos and they don't yield anything else external that's unambigious. If anything, most of the other weaponsystems are internal, like some on the Venator in ROTS. Additionally, There are also the two parabolic cannons in front of the main hangarbay, which shot after the Tantive IV. VT-16 17:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What photos? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Photos taken during model-exhibitions and donated to the Tech Commentaries: VT-16 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry I haven't posted over the last couple of days, I've been busy with other things. Can anybody tell me what exactly is the issue right now? The SWTC site already points out all the large visible weapons that Saxton was able to find by examining the ISD model (he also acknowledges that small bumps, etc. may be laser cannons). This anon who is disputing it hasn't actually raised any actual point from what I see, he just says that Saxton's analysis isn't canon (as if we can't use our eyes and just look at the G-canon model). As for whether the ISD is lightly armed, I don't believe it is. The Venator only has 8 dual heavy turbolasers and 2 dual medium turbolasers. The ISD I has 6 dual (very) heavy turbolasers, 2 heavy dual ion cannons, 2 quad heavy turbolasers (approximately the same size as the main turrets flanking the bridge), 3 triple medium turbolasers, and two more medium turbolasers near the hangar. That's significantly more than what the Venator has. Furthermore, the number of guns doesn't matter as much with energy weapons, since the ship's entire reactor output can be diverted into the heavy weapons (ROTS ICS). The WEG style of armament (dozens and dozens of identical weapons all over the ship) is just wrong. G-canon shows that Star Destroyers and other ships have several heavy weapons, and a number of medium weapons. JimRaynor55 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course you agree with him, you always do. For a 1600 meter ship, that is not enough heavy weaponry. And no, I am not clinging onto the WEG, logic ditates it has a lot more heavy and medium weapons. And, the ICS scans we see above show no indication of light weaponry. Meaning, an ISD-I is only armed with heavy and medium weapons. And again, Jim, according to you, the ISDII is *lighter armed* than the ISDI and Victory-class Star Destroyer. And, the ISD-I according to you isn't as heavily armed as the MC80 cruiser, which defies canon.-Rob
 * Where are you getting this idea that a ship has to be covered wall-to-wall with guns? A lot of the inside of the ISDs are dedicated to support ships and ground craft, then there's troop quarters and reactor-areas. Going by the model and SWICS, the ISD-I has a few big guns, a few medium guns and many small guns lining the brims. With the possibility of putting all its power into the guns, that seems to be enough. It's a versatile destroyer, not a main battleship or battlecruiser, the few ships of this kind the Empire's got, are gonna have a greater need for weaponry than tens of thousands of destroyers. As for the number of guns, the weapons-slots on the Home One model count more than a dozen on one side, and being elongated horisontally, they most likely hold more than one cannon each. Problem is, this slot-arrangement give them lesser firearcs than Imperial ships. VT-16 07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Rob, stop saying what you want to have in the article already. You don't need to have weaponry on every single spot on a Star Destroyer. And the fact that it has less weapons than a MC80 means nothing. As said above, a Star Destroyer could divert all power to its weapons when needed. Therefore, you don't need a million weapons to have a large firepower. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Famous And Known Imperial-class Star Destroyers
mr. nebulax asked whether this list should be removed and replaced by a category:Imperial-class link. I think we should keep a SMALL list of ISDs which are well known in the real-world, like Avenger, Devastator and Chimaera. plus a link to the category with the 100+ ISDs. --BaldFett 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with keeping some. By keeping some, someone will, without a doubt, start adding more. It's best to get rid of the list and have the category at the bottom. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * good point, how about

"==Known ships==

For a complete list of Imperial-class Star Destroyers, both mark I as II see category:Imperial-class Star Destroyers."

--BaldFett 12:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not even needed. All we need is the category at the bottom. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * the "known ships" or "known vessels" thing is done on a lot of ship type pages. just a category on the bottom is not very easy to find for general visitors who quicky want to find a list of known ISDs. it a simple gesture and more in line with other ship types (BTW, the details from the list on the Executor-class Star Dreadnought page should be removed too then) --BaldFett 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While the lists are done on a lot of article, most are being replaced with the proper category. And yes, the Executor-class should definitely be removed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * but just a category at the bottom of a very large page seems so anonymous for such an important part of ISD information. or ship types in general, I think that if there's just a few ships known, like with the Firespray it's okay with a little list, otherwise a mention of a seperate category. --BaldFett 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not many known ships: List and no category. Many known ships: No list and category. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Turbolaser bolt tracing results
I was just rewatching the relevant scenes in ANH and TESB to count actual fired guns and matching things with the model photos on SWTC. Here are my results

ANH:

In the overflight sequence (the first pass), the first couple of shots come from off screen; the next half dozen appear to come from a pair of invisible guns below the bow (in the differently textured section); long pause (relatively); then two bolts from each side fired from *aft* of the hangar aperture; two that must come from the starbord forward corner of the hangar bay, and one from the opposite side location. This gives me at least six ventral guns, none of which have actual model features that can be distinguished.

In the front angle sequence, the first shots come from somewhere ahead of the hangar aperture (each side), possibly a little further forward than the previously mentioned hangar guns, but definitely aft of the forward guns. Next shots are from the aft end of the major brim notch, specifically the top edge of the starboard side and the lower edge of the port side; then two bolts from the extreme tip of the bow (one appears to be from the upper edge, and one from the lower); then an interesting one from near the forward end of the reactor bulge, just off center the centerline to the port side; then another bolt from each major notch; one from the bow tip again; one from each *minor* notch; two from the ventral guns near the forward  corners of the hangar, then two from the lower edge of the bow tip and one from the upper; one more bolt from each side of the hangar corners (a little further aft than the last set); one more from the bow (nearly off screen); and finally two more from the center (?) of the major notch.

Direct observation of the film gives me at least nine brim trench guns, arrayed three to a side and three at the bow; and at least nine ventral surface guns, one of which is off the centerline and may be matched by a symmetrical unseen gun.

The next opportunity to see a similar ship in action is when the Millennium Falcon is outrunning the blockade - two guns with a rapid rate of fire are targetting the Falcon and shoot at least eleven bolts each (most in discrete pairs) in the three seconds of this sequence - they're placed at the extreme tip of the bow and are possibly different from the previously observed bow guns.

No further observation was possible in ANH, since the ships do not appear again.

TESB:

In TESB, in the initial star destroyer chase, only two star destroyer guns fire, and they're either off screen or from very near the bow, ventral side. The next opportunity is when the Avenger is chasing the Falcon after Vader meets the bounty hunters: One bolt from near the reactor bulb, one from the top edge of the bow, two from near the starboard major notch, one from the bottom edge of the bow, one from just aft of the bow, port side, another from near the port major notch, more from the bow, one from the starboard aft corner of the hangar aperture.

In the head-on shot, there are discretely disstinguishable guns firing: on the dorsal centerline just aft of the bow, starboard of the bow just aft of the tip, port side a little further aft.

I counted six, possibly seven minor guns firing at the Falcon, between the forward edge of the starboard major notch and the tip of the bow in the hyperdrive failure external shot; another eight bolts from at least five emplacements on the port side in the same area (bow not visible in shot), plus one from the center of the major notch in the next sequence. Finally, two guns fire at the Falcon from the bridge structure or the teraces (same guns firing multiple shots). Note that inspection of the model yields inconclusive results regarding exactly what is a gun - the only things I can almost certainly guarantee are guns are a pair of turrets on ach side of the extreme tip of the bow, in the trench.

An estimate, assuming roughly equal distance between guns for the whole length of the trench minus notches, would be 24-25 light guns per side, plus some medium weapons (4/side?) in the major and minor notches. At least five guns on the ventral surface, and an unknown number on the dorsal side. As is, I can confirm the existance of nearly twenty guns on each ship outside of the main battery and the minor trench guns...

I'm leaving ROTJ out for the moment, since there's just too much action and too many different ships to count everything...--Winchester 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not to be rude, but could you please sum that up? I don't have enough time to read it all. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 03:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, at least for the Devastator: At least nine ventral guns, plus three at the bow, one in each minor notch and two in each major notch, all used against Tantive IV in ANH. Two bow-mounted rapid-fire guns (fire linked) used against the Falcon, also in ANH. Total of 20 guns observed. I'll need to re-study the Avenger sequence, it seems, since I couldn't summarize what was seen myself after reading what I wrote...--Winchester 14:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, remember that the ANH Star Destroyers were ISD-Is, and TESB Star Destroyers were mainly ISD-IIs. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's also the small matter of the targets in the two films being of a completely different scale - in ANH, the target is a 150-meter corvette, which would pretty much shrug off any weapons capable of disabling the Falcon without destroying it. What we're seeing in ANH is likely medium turbolaser fire, with the guns in TESB being lighter anti-starfighter weapons. Winchester 22:45, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-starting the armament debate...
Several cannon sources such as novels (Jedi Search for instance) and supplements like Essential Guide all list the ISD-I's weapons as 60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons. Nothing contradicts this except for hypothetical model comparisons. How can we still list the weapons complement at around a dozen heavy weapons? Yes, yes, I know. It was debated quite thouroughly above. I just can't get over the point of EU references. Besides all the WEG stuff, the Essential Guides, and all the technical manuals, we have a specific reference in KJA's Jedi Search that explicitly says the ISD-I is armed with 60 TB and 60 IC. The arguement over the Star Dreadnought term was made many times using a much more obscure EU reference than that, how can we ignore such a wealth of material that points to the traditional 60/60 armaments scheme? I_am_Nerd While I greatly respect your additions to Wookipedia and admire your ability to sign your name much better than me, I have to resist this viewpoint. The model was analyzed by people not officially affiliated with LF based on pure speculation and conjuncture. To me this strikes of the same kind of "evidence" based on examination of still photos that belongs purely in the realm of fanon speculation. While the weapons placements that are visible may be limited in number, we have direct film evidence (ie the Millenium Falcon and some Prequal ships) that recessed weapons are common. Therefore, until a liscened representitive flatout states, "This is it," we should rely on the overwelming EU evidence towards the 60/60 loadout. On the other hand, I don't know how to signature my own name so what do I know. I_am_Nerd Excellant point.--I am Nerd 14:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Whoa, didn't mean to imply Saxon-bashing earlier. I am strictly talking terms of cannonicity. Jedi Search clearly says, 60/60 on the weapons. Are they all the same? Who knows. I would be willing to shut up if the weapons box was modified to say something like, "60 Turbolasers, likely of different sizes and functions." Or some such. As a "retcon nerd" myself, I think if I can admit Star Dreadnoughts exist because they are backed by cannon then I hope others can accept a ISD-I has sixty turbolasers. SPOON!!--I am Nerd 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC) I would vote barrells. That would be a rough split between heavy and medium/light guns for the TB's. It seems to be implied in most sources that the TB's are the primary punching power and the IC's tend to be used on smaller ships and possibly fighters. Medium to light range IC's with just under 30 medium/light TB's ought to fit under the "numerous other weapons" listing right? We could highlight the heavy weapons and then add afterwords "along with numerous other such-and-such to equal such-and-such a number of guns." Or something. --I am Nerd 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to say only light turbolasers not medium and light turbolasers.--I am Nerd 14:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC) I think your right about not changing the box. I propose adding "Among its 120 weapons emplacements were" in front of "Numerous smaller and medium guns / were mounted around the ship to ward off attacks against lesser ships..." and then splitting into a new sentence at the hash mark I inserted. This is in the section covering secondary weapons. Also, does anyone have a scan of the complete SD cross-section? I haven't seen it. Peace. --I am Nerd 13:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not this debate again... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But these current figures came from the model used in the movies, if I am not mistaken. And considering the movies are the highest form of canon, it's only logical that what is shown on the models used in the movies is the exact number, regardless of what other sources say. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While the way to sign a post is described on the edit-page (below the "Save page" button) I'm afraid the argument about the number of weapons on an ISD might be harder to solve. I agree with you compleately, canon is canon. The analysis of in-movie models can not be taken as definite. The issue of hidden emplacement (sheilded would be a better word) aside, who can judge what a turbolaser enplacement looks like on a model with a scaling factor of ~500. Charlii 14:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Just want to make something clear: I do not want to make this a new pointless dabate over Saxtons work. No, I don't support many of his theories. Yes, I consider his published works as canon as everything else, and in their own way very well done. What I oppose in this article is the comment in the BTS section that simply says "all the old sources are wrong, just because" which really stings in the eyes of a retcon nerd like myself. Has it ever been directly stated that these 60 tb are identical, or is that just conjecture for the sake of gameplay mechanics? Remember to not say that they are different is not the same thing as saying that they are identical. Certain point of view... If so, then there is really no continuity error, we just don't know where the last 20 or so turbolasers are placed. Charlii 15:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Those stats are as canon as it gets, from the Original Trilogy Incredible Cross-Sections. Maybe the 60/60 total should be mentioned in the box, it should be mentioned in some way at least. And that BTS is just plain wrong. I wont try to edit anything before more people have commented on it, since the topic is somewhat disputed. Charlii 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This topic is disputed because no one knows what is what. But do you really think an Imperial warship would only have 60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons? This is why we don't use those figures, because they make no sense. Plus, if someone at Lucasfilm managed to tell us the weapons count from the models, that would count as canon from the movies. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * maybe a section behind the scenes could be written but face it, as Jack said no imperial battle cruiser would have such a small amount of weapons, no way. And as it is this is just speculation, there is no point un it contiuning because it will not get anywhere Jedi Dude 17:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And another thing: Have you ever considered that the 60 turbolasers/60 ion cannons could be the total amount of heavy, medium, and light turbolasers/total amount of heavy and other ion cannons? Also, Jedi Dude, I think I might have been wrong about the "small amount of weapons" thing. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * unthinkable? surely becasue that would mean, well it would mean a ISD isn't exactly a battle cruiser, more like a large chunk of metal with a few guns on it..Jedi Dude 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I only suggested what I said as an end to this topic once and for all. "Numerous" could be any number, really. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 17:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Too lazy to really put in my opinion just now but you say 60/60 is too little yet the numbers we have just now are fine? Odd...I coulda swore 60 turbolasers was more than 20 heavies and 11 medium, with "numerous" smaller ones...as we have it now...strange logic that you're using there. &mdash;Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly, the number of weapons does not indicate firepower in any way. We know that the main canons of a VenStar can use all the power from the reactor in one shot, I don't see why the ISD should be different. I agree that it must have more point-defense weapons, but those aren't neccesarily turbos, and would have little inpact on the actual firepower. I don't see why the 60/60 figure can't be true. Charlii 17:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I admitted I was wrong about that, for God's sake! That's why I said "I think I might have been wrong about the "small amount of weapons" thing". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, does anyone agree with my theory that the "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" could be a number that, when added to the others, comes up with 60? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the best way to keep all statements canon and thus most people happy. The question is: are we counting barrells or emplacements? Charlii 19:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you think we should count? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know. We have 31 guns in 15 towers/emplacements if I count correctly. Charlii 20:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions from anyone on what to use? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What we have now for the "Numerous..." is fine, though. I don't think that should be changed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 14:32, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In order to prevent further conflicts, I think we should remove the "120" part for now. So, it would look like: "Among its weapons emplacements were..." Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Plenty of EU also referenced 8 km Executors. There, that's going to be my standard answer to everything from now on. I've had enough of these kind of debates. :P VT-16 09:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm compromising. ;) Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Taking a step back and looking at this, I really don't understand what the problem is here. Or at least, I can understand the problem... but I don't see why it's hard to deal with it...
 * 1.) The movie FX model has four twin turrets along one side of the superstructure - three of one design, one of a different design - plus two things that could be four-barrelled guns in the trenches, and a row of things that might be guns up the centerline in front of the superstructure. But in the films, we also see bolts coming from all over the hull.
 * 2.) Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections identifies the visible types of weapon respectively as "Heavy turbolaser turret" (the three turrets); "Heavy ion cannon turret" (the sungle turret); "Lateral quad-laser battery" (the trench guns); and "axial defence turrets" (the centerline guns). The turret guns are also described in attached text as "heavy blasters", and the "heaviest guns" carried.
 * 3.) Numerous other EU sources before and since ICS have said that the ISD-I's main armament consists of 60 TLs or TL batteries, and 60 ion cannon; the Star Wars Sourcebook describes TL batteries of five guns, with two in double mounts and one in a single, while the TLs are defined in the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology as XX-9 heavy turbolasers. I suspect that we're talking about something along the lines of 12x5=60 individual guns, rather than 60x5=300 individual guns, but I'll have to check all the sources to be completely sure about this.
 * The problem comes when we attempt to resolve these three different pieces of evidence; but in terms of this wiki, this shouldn't be a problem. The nature of the canon material is quite simple: the movie FX model shows big turrets and some small guns; ICS says the turret guns are the ISD's "heaviest weapons"; but all other sources cite a homogenous battery of sixty XX-9s, not really discussed on ICS. And that's it. We can note that we don't know how to reconcile the ICS claim about the turrets being "heaviest" and the sixty XX-9s in all other sources, but in the absence of any official evidence, it would be fanon to do more or less than simply citing the canon evidence as it is, and maybe note the opposing fan interpretations neutrally in Behind the scenes.
 * I simply don't understand what the problem is, or what viable alternatives there could be to this approach... but I'm prepared to listen to other POVs. --McEwok 18:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is, we have the movies (the ISD didn't fire from "all over the hull", it was primarily from the two parabolic guns on the underside in the opening scene of ANH, for example), the models used in the movies, the sources that investigated the models, and sources that didn't and made the statistics up on their own. Treating them all equally, as you seem to suggest, is not viable, imho. The cross-section of the ISD-I movie model does not give credit to the same armament shown in WEG's sourcebooks. I think that should either take precedence, or the WEG guns should be considered as showing smaller, secondary guns, along the hull and side-trenches (since they were only mentioned, not counted in SW:ICS). VT-16 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * he EU sources that state that the ISD has 60 turbolasers (with some sources claiming them all to be heavy XX-9 turbolasers) aren't saying that it's part of the ship's armament, they quite clearly state that as the total armament. Stop trying to support WEG numbers that were apparently pulled out of thin air. JimRaynor55 19:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, can't we just compromise already? And by the way, not everyone counts the models used in the films as sources. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a fictional universe, everything is pulled out of the air. Sometimes thinner than usual, I can agree with you there. But as long as nobody from LFL slaps a N-canon label at the old WEG sources, they should be considered as canon as everything else. They don't really match the models in the movies? That is were the retcons come into play! Charlii 20:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Except that the WEG stats can't really be retconned. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A partial retcon (using the number 60 as the total amount of turbos and calling some of the batteries XX-9s) is better than nothing, IMHO Charlii 20:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But will it be retconned? Who knows. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: How about someone who regularly contributes on the starwars.com forums ask "Tasty Taste" aka Leland Chee about the armament. May not lead to anything, but it's an idea. Atarumaster88 20:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what if he sides with the WEG stats? But it's worth a try. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as SFH would say, canon is canon. At least it would settle the issue for all of us "fleet junkies." I mean, I don't like the WEG either, having seen 60/60 in practically everything, but at least it would be definitive . . . unlike that stupid 8 km SSD debate. Atarumaster88 20:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I also say "canon is canon". ;) And still, Leland Chee could probably help end this once and for all. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, that stupid SSD debate was definite, so it's a good example of getting a final answer. :P
 * A problem with asking Chee, is which set of armament will be archived in the Holocron? The one from WEG or the one from DK? I think they treat sources closest to the films as "higher on scale", which would mean the ICS numbers. I'll try asking anyway. VT-16 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I arrived late to the SSD debate and just watched/skimmed through it. Who knows? As long as we get an answer. Thanks. Atarumaster88 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Go ICS!! Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt Chee will give a straight answer. This is not to say that he has an agenda or is dishonest in any way. However, he has shown in the past that he's reluctant to elaborate on situations where C-canon EU is poorly researched and contradicts G-canon. Likely, he's under instructions from his superiors at LFL not to do or say anything that can make the EU look bad. JimRaynor55 23:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought of a way Chee could be asked without putting him in the position of choosing between the EU and films: Ask him if the full appearance of costumes, sets, and of course models used in the films, but only seen partially, not seen very clearly, or only seen from certain angles, is considered G-canon. Don't mention any contradictions, just try to find out how LFL regards these things. The answer to this question could also be useful for other things beyond this one little issue. I would ask myself, but Dark Moose froze my account following a debate. JimRaynor55 23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * But what if he says those aren't sources? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Then so be it. We're just looking for the "truth" of SW canon, as defined by the people who have the right to do so (LFL). That doesn't mean whoever is going to ask should give up questioning if he says "no, those aren't sources," these kind of questions might be confusing to someone who doesn't care about these little debates. Just politely ask him again to clarify if the appearance of props, etc. seen in the films (but maybe not clearly) is considered separate from the movie's visual G-canon. JimRaynor55 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And if he says no, this debate continues. It's better to ask him both questions. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)