This is the talk page for the article "Eclipse (Eclipse-class)."

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.


Eclipse (Eclipse-class) is a former featured article. Please see this article's entry on the Inquisitorius page for the reasons it was removed.


This article was showcased on Wookieepedia's Main Page from 26 May to 1 June 2008.

Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 26, 2007 Featured article candidate Success
September 3, 2007 Featured article
March 20, 2012 Re-featured article candidate Failure
May 20, 2014 Featured article
June 30, 2014 Featured article review Removed
September 15, 2014 Former featured article
Current status: Former featured article

Eclipse IEdit

It is good that we finally have a page on the Eclipse. And not to spoil things, but shouldn't it be at Eclipse I? -- SFH 00:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, it was never specifically called Eclipse I. I think it should stay here. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It's strange, because even though the Death Star I has been referred to as such, it really didn't get a I until the second was built. Am I right? Would the same post-destruction reasoning work here as well? VT-16 07:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Eclipse from EaW: FoC Edit

There was some talk that the Prototype Eclipse-class Star Dreadnought should be merged into this page. Any ideas? (Sirius Shadowflame 16:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Correction Edit

"the near-completed Eclipse activated the superlaser main weapon and utterly destroyed the Executor-class command ship in one blast, followed up by the Consortium fleet mopping up the rest." - This is incorrect. In FoC, the turbolaser was offline when the Annihilator showed up. 07:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Time of construction Edit

Is there anything in FOC that specifically says it started to built around the time of Yavin? The DE Sourcebook specifically says it was started following Hoth. Kuralyov 05:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Tyber Zann learns of the Eclipse shortly after the Battle of Yavin in the game, but I don't think it's stated that it was in construction at the time. -- I need a name (Complain here) 10:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

From Talk:Prototype Eclipse-class Star DreadnoughtEdit

I was under the impression that the Eclipse in EaW: FoC was a singular, unique vessel rather than a class of ship. (Sirius Shadowflame 16:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC))

  • It's a part of the Eclipse-class. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it makes sense to merge them. - JMAS 14:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Now that the game is out, I think we can all agree that the Eclipse in EaW: FoC is indeed the Eclipse we all know and love. (Sirius Shadowflame 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Forces of corruptionEdit

Has it been shown that the vessel in FOC is the same as Eclipse? in that case, we'd better redirect to it. VT-16 10:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No, that Insider issue says it was a prototype. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Problem is, Dark Empire Sourcebook also called it that. And had a later time frame for the design, but that could easily have been retconned now. The Eclipse in the game's storyline, is only used once, during its attempted theft over Kaut, after the battle of Endor. Then Zann abandones it and orders it destroyed. VT-16 13:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • But I take it it isn't destroyed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Apparently, that isn't shown. Which means he just disabled it and set its construction back some years, which then fits neatly into the events of Dark Empire, six years later. VT-16 17:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I still think we should keep them separate for now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
            • The game is out now, and it never calls the Eclipse a prototype. Zann steals the thing in the last mission of the campaign over Kuat when it is still under construction, and then steals the information stored on its computers to further his corruption. He also mentions that he does not want the ship because it will be too big of a target, but it does not mention what he does with the ship afterwards. I would assume he probably sold it back to the Empire remnants, but I don't know. (Sirius Shadowflame 17:21, 29 October 2006 (UTC))
              • One of the developer's comments here indicates that the Eclipse-class in FoC is the Eclipse, not a prototype. -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Oh boy... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, it makes sense, since *the* Eclipse was supposed to be *the* prototype. jSarek 14:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • What do you mean? That solves it and we can merge the articles. VT-16 07:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Powah of the s00perlaserEdit

Star Wars: The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels pg 46:

"The Eclipse was also intended to devastate entire worlds. Its main weapon was a superlaser weapon although its power was only two-thirds that of the main weapon aboard the first Death Star--it was 'merely' powerful enough to crack the crust of a planet rather than destroy it outright."

What is the status of this, and does it only pertain to the Eclipse I itself, or its successor ship class? DarthMRN 10:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is that glowing red thing at the front? Edit

Look at the images at the bottom of the article, you will notice a red box at the front. Does anyone know what it is? Thank you.Wilhelm screamer 21:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That thing is a small hangar. A nearly identical hangar was used by Leia to gain entrance to the Eclipse 1.

Can I use the Eclipse in Forces of Corruption? Edit

Soo, I know that the Executor is a usabe ship, but can I use the Eclipse like any other ship? And if I can, where can I find it? (Drake24 08:23, 15 February 2008 (EST))

  • I'm afraid not. I'm sure a mod somewhere adds it, though. -MPK 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There are over 20 mods that add the Eclipse in some capacity, although their effectiveness varies. For uspecified reasons (probably game balance issues), the developers did not complete the Eclipse in-game. This has been a great source of dissapointment to all those who were led to believe, even in the instruction manual, that the Eclipse was playable. If you are willing to use mods, however, this issue has been addressed, some being very high quality.

The only time you get to use the ship is in the last mission, where you move a shuttle near it. It gets boarded, and you control Eclipse. There are no hardpoints; just the superlaser, which means when if malfuncntions it may as well have been destroyed excepting it working again. Also, it can't move. Imperial Star Destroyer 11:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All that's said, or said and done?Edit

Is the Eclipse ever shown to fire its superlaser at any part of Dark Empire? -MPK 16:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Measurements?? Edit

I thought the Eclipse was bigger than the Executor, not smaller... Once again, the stats contradict common sense... Go figure. 01:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Longer, yes. But given the vastly larger draft of the Eclipse, I'd say in terms of sheer displacement, the Eclipse is bigger several times over. Dangerdan97 18:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont think that the size of the eclipse really matters, i mean it did have the power to crack the crust of a planet...............Could the executor do that? I mean really, it doesnt matter about the size, just it firepower

  • Star Wars The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels (copyright 1996) says "The Eclipse was a new Super Star Destroyer that was a stunning 17.5 kilometers long: it was twice the size of the original Super Star Destroyer and over ten times the size of an Imperial Star Destroyer." The same book stated the length of the Executor as 8 kilometers: "At 8,000 meters long, it was the largest traditional starship constructed be the Imperial Navy-only the Death Stars and torpedo spheres were larger." 17.5/8=2.1875. The E.G.V.V. clearly states that the Eclipse is 2.1875 times longer along the keel than the Executor. I feel that the size relationship should remain when the Executor's length is increased to 19 kilometers. 19km*2.1875=41.5625km. 41.5625km*0.6214=25.8269375 miles. (0.6214 is the conversion from kilometers to miles according to a textbook.) 25.8269375 miles is significant from another perspective: the illustration in Star Wars Complete Cross-Sections of the first Death Star shows the components of the Superlaser. The "Tributary Beam Shaft" appears to be 1/5 the diameter of the Death Star. The first Death Star is stated as being 160 kilometers in diameter on the same fold out. 160km/5=32km. 32km is under 41.5625km. I think the Eclipse would have to be bigger than the Superlaser element and that the "Tributary Beam Shaft" in the first Death Star is the same device in the Eclipse. It is my opinion that the Eclipse is 25.8269375 miles or 41.5625km long.--Admiralhammer2013 (talk) 02:16, August 24, 2012 (UTC)
  • Please pay attention to timestamps. This conversation is four years old and dead topics are not to be resurrected. The other thread you posted to here was dead as well. Just remember to check before posting next time. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 05:29, August 24, 2012 (UTC)
    • If it was you who tried to move this, know that you can't delete the original message. I reverted the whole thing because it was anonymous and I didn't know if it was you or someone plagiarising you. Please sign in. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 02:31, August 30, 2012 (UTC)


The Text says: "The Eclipse had a tonnage of 600,000 metric tons, consumables capable of lasting 10 years" Is it really tonnage that is meant, or as in the box cargo capacity. Tonnage would be really low for ship that size (compare it to the 100,000 tons of a Nimitz class Carrier) Fleetadmiral Jack Ryan 05:21, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

  • Tonnage means cargo capacity. What you're thinking of is displacement. - Lord Hydronium 10:35, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

The hull of the Eclipse is a deeper shape than the Executor. My argument above shows that the Eclipse is also twice as long as the Executor, so the displacement of the Eclipse should be huge.--Admiralhammer2013 (talk) 02:32, August 24, 2012 (UTC)

Superlaser Aim? Edit

Esuper laser2

"The superlaser was difficult to aim, as the entire vessel needed to be aligned with the target for it to do so." However, right next to that quote, there is a picture from Forces of Corruption where the laser is not firing straight ahead, but has been aimed off to the side to hit it's target.

Is the quote outdated information and the game has new features to the ship, or is it just ambiguously written? KievanMereel 22:15, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

  • Quote actually came after the game, and the phrasing is pretty much per the source. Barring any official comment, neither could really be said to be more canonical than the other. However, it's not particularly contradictory, either; while the Forces of Corruption target can be off-axis, the ship still has to be turned to more-or-less face it. Eclipse can't fire over its shoulder, in other words, which is within the bounds of what the SOTG quote is saying. - Lord Hydronium 00:57, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot question. Edit


I'll admit, I haven't played Forces of Corruption, nor have I even seen gameplay videos of it yet, but I must ask you guys this relating to the Eclipse:

At what point does this screenshot occur in the game?

On a semi-related note, when exactly does the current article image take place in the game? Weedle McHairybug 00:28, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.