This is the talk page for the article "Cruiser/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


A while back, another fan threw me out a couple of quotes on cruisers from the old WEG Heir to the Empire sourcebook:

  • A specific sub-division of the classification combat starship is that of cruiser. Cruisers were once the backbone of the Old Republic Fleet. The original designation was for the largest class of ships in service, and as a general guideline, they were equipped with heavy weapons, tractor beam projectors and at least one squadron of starfighters. Now, as the Imperial Star Destroyers completely outclass the cruisers, the definition has been loosened to accommodate any combat-oriented ship over 400 meters long and emphasizing heavy weaponry over starfighters (Star Destroyers technically fit within this definition, but due to their enormous firepower, they are considered their own sub-category). Still, some cruisers are quite large, and many types fill important roles in both the Imperial Fleet and the New Republic.
  • An old, yet reliable ship finding its way back into the Imperial Fleet is the Carrack-class Light Cruiser. The vessel is among the smallest ships classified as a cruiser (in fact, it only falls into the classification due to its high proportion of weaponry compared to its size). Its armament is formidable enough to give it a chance when engaging larger vessels, although its primary mission is to handle smaller capital ships such as corvettes.

By my reading of that, "cruiser" as a generic military term during the Galactic Civil War refers to all heavily-armed warships over 400m. The designation has evolved over time, and there are exceptions to the rule - notably the tendancy to call all Star Destroyers "Star Destroyers" and the classification of the 350m Carrack as a cruiser (as well as the proliferation of civilian and police "cruisers", which is ignored here). The only exceptions I can think of immediately, the Assault Frigate and Headquarters Frigate, are themselves a modified Dreadnaught Cruiser and a Mon Cal Star Cruiser. Obviously, that's not necesssarily the only definition of "crusier", but it does seem to be a reasonably orthodox one. I'd suggest something like this:

  • According to one influential classification system introduced duiring the Galactic Civil War period, a broad "cruiser" designation referred to all large combat warships designed primarily as heavy weapons platforms rather than starfighter carriers. The lower size-limit was fixed at 400m long, apparently with no upper cap. This rule allowed some exceptions - most notably, the seperate "Star Destroyer" sub-category and the inclusion of some smaller ships like the 350m "Carrack-class light cruiser, designed to overpower pickets; but if these are born in mind, the system remains intelligible: apparently contradictory terms such as "Assault Frigate" and "Headquarters Frigate" certainly existed, but they were applied to ships built on what were unarguably cruiser hulls.

I'll leave someone else to make the actual edits, though, since I seem to annoy VT-16 (whos created this page) no matter how hard I try not to: see here and here... --McEwok 14:24, 7 Sep 2005 (UTC)

"In addition, there is also a mention of Imperial Star Cruisers which were bigger than Star Destroyers." What exactly is the source for this? -LtNOWIS 04:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and The Complete Locations of Star Wars. "Eventually designated the Executor-class after the vessel assigned to Vader's personal use and commanded by Admiral Ozzel, it is usually referred to in rebel slang as a "Super Star Destroyer"—a term that covers many warship classes bigger than a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor." -Vermilion 19:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Behind the scenes... Edit

Do we really need such a massive behind the scenes? It just reads like some sort of history lesson, and we could easily just make links to the appropiate information on Wikipedia. Unit 8311 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I think it's an important corrective to the inaccurate representation of real-world systems that's given at Star Wars Technical Commentaries, and which has misled many fans. But then, maybe I'm biased too. --McEwok 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for latest rv/editEdit

  • An explanation of my latest edits.
  • Rv (again) from: rich, industrialized sectors such as Kuat, Corellia and Humbarine built big warships for their own defence in the centuries before the Clone Wars,
  • Why? The text is too close to AotC:ICS: "In the peaceful centuries preceeding the Clone Wars, many larger and more powerful warships were built to defend rich industrialized sectors of Corellia, Humbarine, and Kuat, but their hyperdrive jump ranges were local". This is what I meant by "phrases taken directly from source texts" in explaining my previous edit.
  • I have, however, edited my replacement statement, from saying that these Core sectors "may have continued to build larger warship" to saying that they "retained" them, which I think might be more neutral. We can't quite be sure that the "centuries" in which Kuat and Corellia built their big ships are actually after 3,000 BBY, but we know that some ships, like the 2km Dreadnaughts acquired by the CSA, remain in use over the next 3,000 years, and "retained" is ambiguous enough to cover both old ships and new building.
  • Retained the added mention of the Acclamator, but removed: Still smaller than most sector-based warships, but with a transgalactic hyperdrive, this class ushered in a new era for warships in the Republic Navy, and the Imperial Navy that supplanted it.
  • Saying that the Acclamator is "smaller than most sector warships" definately seems too strong: it may be smaller than some of the "more powerful" ships then in use in a handful of Core sectors, though we don't actually know for sure that "more powerful" is relative to the Acclamator rather than other ships in the sector fleets.
  • Also, although AotC:ICS says that the Acclamator represents "the return of truly trans-galactic warships and armies", it's not really a major departure in scale compared with a Dreadnaught Cruiser, and may be weaker as a combat warship (its size is partially dictated by the massive main troop bay). What we do know is that it has an impressive troop-deployment capability, and a faster hyperdrive (though Class 0.6 is out of proportion with any other hyperdrive given to a capital ship); both these details have been added.
  • Restored, and clarified: these may have been grouped with the Death Star among the exceptions [to the cruiser category], but there is no direct evidence either way.
  • VT's is misunderstanding when he says this is overruled by Executor being "mentioned as largest of regular warships". This reference is about possible exceptions to the standard cruiser category, and is an attempt to accurately reflect the ambiguity canon information we have about the upper limit of the designation. The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook refers to the "Super-class" as "the largest cruiser yet built"; it's not entirely clear whether we should still read this as indicating the 8km SSD as the largest cruiser (even if it was never actually built), or if it should be re-interpreted to refer to the 19km Executor—so it's clear that ships up to 8km are cruisers, but not certain either way whether the larger ones are or not. --McEwok 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Though I can't say I'm particularly surprised, I'm disappointed to see you two going at it yet again. I'm tired and have class in the morning, so this is going to be the express version; let me preface it by noting I don't own the ICS books in question and thus am relying on quotes given here. 1) VT-16s first part is not "too close" to the quoted text by any standard I'm aware of; if it is, we're going to have to rewrite every article I've ever made, because it's more varied than many of my paraphrases. 2) "Retained" seems to be a good word - accurate but vague. 3) Agree with McEwok on comparisons of ships - while the premiere sector warships totally own an Acclamator, the numerical bulk of sector warships most likely consists of smaller vessels. 4) I read the "return of truly trans-galactic" line to be more about role than size - I think even the Judicial Forces didn't do a whole lot of traveling about. 5) I think it's safe to assume that the Executor, which is recognizable as a ship and possesses a proper ship name, is not an anomaly in the same vein as the Death Star, and thus calling it a cruiser is permissable. 6) The page is currently locked per 3RR. If the above doesn't solve the conflicts to either of your satisfaction, you need to work out your differences here, not in page histories. Try and keep it concise (especially you, McEwok), and try not to let animosity cloud your view of acceptable compromises (especially you, VT-16). As I may be busyish tomorrow, you may need to ask another admin to unlock it once you can reach agreement. jSarek 11:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I am not going to allow him to put fanon in this or any other article simply because in his personal view (of a book he has not read), he thinks the text is "too close" to the book, which is absurd. Translated from my Norwegian copy of AOTC:ICS: "In the peaceful centuries prior to the Clone Wars, many larger and more powerful warships were built to defend rich, industrialized sectors, like Corellia, Humbarine and Kuat, but only with local hyperdrive-range. Really transgalactic warships and armies is a disturbing new development." And of course, on the Acclamator diagram: "Bridge tower-module is standard on Kuat's smaller ship-constructions.", "Main reactor is hidden in the hull, unlike the ventral domes on more powerful ship in Kuat's sector fleet, like the Mandator-class Star Dreadnought and Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser". I also consider hilarious the "absolutist" attitude to ship-tactics and design, as if the entire galaxy would all come up with only one kind of ship "fast, short cruisers" to combat one another, rather than doing things differently. And for millennia, no less! What is clear from canon is that some thought so, while others eventually designed simply bigger and more powerful ships in contrast. VT-16 08:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.