FANDOM


AppearancesEdit

Perhaps the subsection Appearances should be taken out since one could list just about every post-Return of the Jedi novel. Perhaps it should be replaced with 'Sources' subsection?--SOCL 03:29, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. If a complete list of appearances would be made, it would stretch from ESB all the way to the Dark Nest Trilogy. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 15:38, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Bridge viewports can resist a concussion missile?Edit

Is this based on of Isard's Revenge? This says that the Reckoning's bridge viewports "resisted the impact at first" when the CM hit, but given the time-delay between the splinters from the shattering "inner layer" lacerating Krennel and the actual explosion, I think it could be read that the missile goes through the bridge, then drives deeper into the tower, and finally detonates. --McEwok 13:52, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I doubt that the bridge viewport can resist a concussion missile. If the shields are down, it could fly straight into the bridge and detonate, similar to the A-wing in RotJ. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:05, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Imperial III-class?Edit

I have found no real hard evidence yet, except for the Gurps Imperial Sourcebook and a few mentions here and there, but does the Imperial III subclass of the Star Destroyer exist in canon? If so, what's the story behind it? - Danik Kreldin

  • GURPS Imperial Sourcebook? It's not in the West End Games verison, that's all I know. — Silly Dan 12:45, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • The GURPS Imperial Sourcebook is unlicensed and non-canon. If there was an Imperial-III in official sources, we'd have had a page for it months ago. —Darth Culator (talk) 13:27, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • It would be very interesting to have an Imperial III-class, though. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:03, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • We could always make a general page for ISD variants seen throughout the comics' histories. ;) VT-16 14:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
        • That would be a monumental undertaking. We'd end up with a page a mile long, with a hundred comic image excerpts, with section titles like Imperial-class Star Destroyer with unusual bridge tower face design and Imperial-class star destroyer with elongated forward hangar and Imperial II-class Star Destroyer with Imperial I-class engine baffles. I'd love to see how many we could come up with. —Darth Culator (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, that hit me after posting that. >P
I guess we could have something either added to the ISD-I page or in a seperate article, generalizing the most common changes/additions a ship could undergo (assuming we utilize SoD and not "This artist can't draw for shit") ;P VT-16 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If we had all those pages... Wow. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I would think the Imperial-III Class would break the mold of the standard Star Destroyer.-Rob
      • "Breaking the mold." I'm not an English-speaker, so I'm wondering what you meant by that??=) VT-16 14:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, Rob suggested that it would be a lot different than the Imperial Is and IIs, I believe. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
          • one of the later NJO novels says that new Imperial Star Destroyers come equiped with built in gravity well generators (like interdictors). I think that kind of upgrade is enough to call them Imperial-III if you like. but only the upgrade had been mentioned not a new class. And I'm not even sure in which novel that would have been. --BaldFett 14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Point Defense turretsEdit

Aren't there also approximately twenty point defense laser cannons on the ISD-II? --128.195.98.134 01:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe so. But we'll need a confirmation first. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

SpeedEdit

Ok i don't get it how can an Imperial class star destroyer able to catch up to the Millenium Falcon even though it have max acceleration of 2300g while the Falcon has a max accerleration of 3000g? It doesn't make sense.

-Darth Tader

  • Please don't delete topics, even if you don't want them here. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • no, I just moved my disscussion to the Millennium Falcon dissussion page Darth Tader
    • Okay, then, but it appears to involve an Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Admiral J. Nebulax 15:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Imperial II in Empire at War?Edit

Doesn't Empire at War take place between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope? Astroview120mm 04:19, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't really look up to EaW when it comes to canon. --Danik Kreldin 04:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • As I always say, games screw up canon. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think it was noted somewhere that the ISD-I model was "fixed" for the production of ESB, so that it could be used alongside the ISD-II model (to save money). This was explained as an in-universe refitting, IIRC. I don't have a source, so don't take my word for it, though. VT-16 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Since Imperial IIs are in both Empire and Jedi, there are more available images in them and the game designers probably just used those as reference. They might not even have known the difference between I and II. I didn't know for awhile, either. --Commander Mike 05:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't think game designers know a lot of things, to tell you the truth... Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The people who make the games don't say "Bwahahaha, let's mess with canon and screw everything up!" They either don't know any better, or they just pick something for ease of programming (the models for ISD-II's may be in better shape or something, or more of them, than ISD-I models) or for gameplay. People playing the Rebels expect to have access to A-Wings, so they stick them in even before they were invented. Most games are made for the casual fan, who may not even know that there are two different ISD subclasses.--Commander Mike 02:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course they don't mess up canon on purpose, but I have a feeling they don't know a lot about the Star Wars timeline and when certain things were made. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they were included to counter the Mon Calamari Cruisers (which, incidentally, the Rebels should not have at this time). The disparity in firepower between the two would be significantly greater had they used the ISD Mark I. Thrawn3.14 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The ISDs in Empire at war are Imperial 1s

Great...Edit

An idiot just vandalized the article. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Reverted. RMF 20:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Now the stupid anon needs to be banned, and all the articles that he vandalized need to be reverted. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Jaymach banned him, and I reverted all his other edits. RMF 20:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you, again. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Jaymach also vandalized the Home One article, can someone unlock it, ban him, and put in the other length which is supported by canon that isn't out dated?
          • Then who was?
            • Just because something was changed that you liked doesn't mean a person is a vandal. Jaymach has a very large list of great contributions to this site. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I was hoping that a reason for the edit was shown. He didn't provide one, at all. I asked him twice if the WEG sourcebook was still valid after 10 years, and he didn't answer.
                • Well, don't call him a vandal because of that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:39, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • Most sites would really call that trollish behavior. I wasn't going to call him a vandal, I would have just liked to see why he chose that figure, and if that source book was still valid after over 10 years.
                    • Yet you said that Jaymach vandalized the article. That's the same as calling him a vandal. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                      • Is it vandalizing if he didn't provide the source? Or answer simple questions to his figure?
                        • No. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                        • I pointed out the HO size problem before and how it not only conflicts with ROTJ, but with other WEG sources as well, and I thought that issue would be solved by a disclaimer in the infobox as well as reasoning in the Bts section. Wasn't that done? At least put the two different numbers up there. (For the record, "canon" eminates from the films, it does not exclude them, like some would like to believe. That goes for the Home One as well as any issue here and on the ISD-I page.) VT-16 13:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

ProtectionEdit

I'm protecting this article due to the ongoing edit war: let an admin know when it's resolved. I suggest resolving it on Talk:Imperial I-class Star Destroyer. —Silly Dan (talk) 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The anon should stop now. And if he doesn't, I think we should ban him for a week. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
    • How about we come to a compromise then?
      • The objective here is the truth, not to compromise. If you think you're right, then explain why, citing sources. Otherwise, too bad. JimRaynor55 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I was trying to explain why until all you jumped down my throat and dogpiled me. Then all I said was ignored and you kept trying to push a figure that doesn't make a damn bit of sense. Really, for such a big ship as a Star Destroyer, does it make sense to be so lightly armed in the big guns? The model is just that, a model, it doesn't show every single encampment on the ISD. The 60 turbolasers and ion cannons, beside the top side main battery could be through that cutaway between the two ships. In the movies, we do see many more guns in that area.
      • And because of the use of the model in this figure, the MC80 cruiser is more heavily armed than the standard ISD. That contradicts the canon.
        • You didn't provide any explanation for me to ignore. You say that it doesn't make sense for the ISD to have so few guns, but compared to what? It has what it has. The visuals are G-canon, and you can't dismiss them. And again, what part of "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" do you not understand? JimRaynor55 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
          • "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" is a lot better than a stupid figure that is different from what is seen in the movies. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
            • Which isn't an accurate figure. Hell, light turbolasers and the main battery really don't make a threat to the shields of a MC80. The EU says the MC80 has 48 turbolasers and 20 Ion Cannons, and it also says the weapons compliment that the movies do not show. And really, light turbolasers do not have enough firepower to perform a BDZ do they?
              • A more general figure is better than one that says something different from the movies. Leave it alone, anon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                • How is it different from the movies? Did one of you go over every inch of the model or something, counting all the turbolasers and/or light turbolasers? And how do you even tell the difference?
                  • Listen, anon, JimRaynor55 is a great contributor to this site. He provides canon material. I have no doubt that he has proof to support what he says. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • So you don't question it? And if he provides no proof, he has more say than someone who prefers to stay anonymous?
                    • So if his analysis comes from fanon(that is the only way I can see the figure), and mine come from the canon EU, I get out voted because you don't see that JimRaynor55 can be caught in a lie? This sounds like a double standard.
                      • JimRaynor wouldn't base anything off of fanon, anon. You're just upset that you're not getting your way. "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons" is perfectly fine. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                        • You sure about that? Absolutely positively sure? Because, you know, he does go to a site that makes fanon calculations and analysis of Star Wars.
                          • And that site would be what? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                            • Star Destroyer.net. They made fanon up, and pass it off as canon. I've been butting heads with them for a hell of a long time.
                              • From "Turbolaser Commentaries": "These pages present a study and quantitative assessment of Star Wars turbolasers." That's not fanon; it's called assessments based off of things from the movies. Real-world calculations are always applied to Star Wars. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                                  • Even though the basis of Star Wars is Science Fantasy, not Science Fiction? Most stuff in Star Wars is not even in the realm of real world physics. Those commentaries are all conjecture. Thus, that is fanon. And really, the turbolaser firepower that is presented there does not fit the movies or the EU, thus it is even more fanon.
                                    • "Most stuff in Star Wars is not even in the realm of real world physics". Not really. Those commentaries provide a real-world analysis of turbolasers, not fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:19, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                                      • And are turbolasers even, I don't know, possible under real world physics? Are lightsabers? Ion Cannons? And really, those commentaries are fanon since they are pure conjecture on the composition and size of those asteroids.
                                        • I'd like to see you give a better analysis then, anon. Real-world physics can be applied to many things in Star Wars. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                                          • So, let me guess, you are an SD.netter as well. There is no convincing you then....
                                          • Oh, I see. You're just some guy who has a problem against Saxton, Wong, or the other people who like to take a rational approach to SW. Look, calculations based on things we see are not "fanon." Neither is taking a look at the actual ship models used in the movies. SWTC has pictures and analysis of all the visible weapons on the ISD, which are canon fact. I also put in "numerous" light weapons because we know that there are a lot of guns that are too small to be seen from a distance, but we don't know the exact number of them. It's better to go with a general statement than it is to go with a clear mistake. Stop carrying on and come back when you have a real argument. JimRaynor55 23:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                                            • There you go, anon. There's the proof. Now, leave these articles alone. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
                                                • "Oh, I see. You're just some guy who has a problem against Saxton, Wong, or the other people who like to take a rational approach to SW. Look, calculations based on things we see are not "fanon."" Rational approach on Star Wars, which is fiction/fantasy genre which most physics don't apply? Now, where has 200 gigatons of firepower ever been shown from one turbolaser? And, to that matter, for Saxton's site has he shown every single weapon encampment in the Star Destroyer's trench like sides?
                                                  • I'll make you guys happy, I'll stop replying and I'll leave the article alone.
                                            • "I also put in "numerous" light weapons because we know that there are a lot of guns that are too small to be seen from a distance, but we don't know the exact number of them." Aren't the WEG figures an exact number? jSarek 02:49, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

They're an exact number that's wrong. As I've said before, the 60/60 or 100/20 numbers aren't in addition to the large visible guns, they're supposed to be everything. And according to the poorly researched rpg books, all these guns are the same. JimRaynor55 02:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I think it's best to leave it as "Numerous" for now. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • If the book here mentions them as smaller guns, just have their number as "unknown" for now, if the model permits their placement anywhere. (Could be on the inside, for all we know, like on the Venator). VT-16 14:03, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, I'm getting a bit sick and tired of all the WEG tards that come in here and pass off what is essentially fanon writings paid for by LFL, as somehow superior sources to the films, which are the sole origin of the SW universe. They don't seem to get it through their heads that what they are supporting, is fanon made canon that contradicts the highest sources, namely the films. Falling back on "SDN is stupid" or "Saxton writes fanon" is the cheapest and most numerous excuse next to "it's all fiction, so it doesn't matter".

Listen up, this is an encyclopedia, and is meant to provide as accurate information as possible. Just like encyclopedias for real life things. If the models used in the films, show different amounts of weaponry to that stated in spin-off books (the disputed number claimed to be a "total amount", right?), the numbers in the books should be sidelined for accuracy's sake. This is not about "convincing" people, this is about being accurate and true to LFL's rules about canon. LFL states that the movies go first. The movies. Not WEG's RPG sourcebooks. No matter how influential those may be on their own.

WEG is fanon made canon, the movies are the ultimate canon (of course the filmmakers are fans of what they are doing, but that's different until the things are actually made). Recent books, like Saxton's are also fanon made canon, but they are fanon based on what the ultimate canon (the movies) show. That's the main difference. WEG sourcebooks were primarily made for gaming purposes and trivia on the side. If we wanted to be dicks, we could label it all "game mechanics" and discard them. But we don't do that, only the parts that conflict with the films. VT-16 14:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The information I've just added comes from a mixture of the Starships of the Galaxy (2001) and Imperial Sourcebook, Second Edition (1993). While the old WEG book gives the Fire Arcs for each individual cannon, the WotC book provides the Fire Arcs I've added to the article (notice, every cannon is in a battery). I'm not too sure if this is a retcon or not, but please provide any feedback and I'll look over it when I get back from work. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • How nice of you to change the article back to those incorrect WEG stats, after we all explained why WEG is wrong, Jaymach. JimRaynor55 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • How did Jaymach even make an edit, after the article was protected? And why is it protected again, after he made his edit? JimRaynor55 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Admins can edit protected pages. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • How wonderful. Looks like we have an admin who thinks that rpg sourcebooks trump the G-canon films, and didn't even bother reading the entire debate explaining why WEG is wrong. JimRaynor55 15:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • I'll revert his edit (since it may come off as abuse of admin powers), but I'll urge you to be a bit more willing to compromise with other viewpoints here. Like it or not, WEG is not just a random fanonical source, and visual and physical analysis of the films is not necessarily accepted as overriding all other sources (see Endor Holocaust). —Silly Dan (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Like it or not, WEG is not just a random fanonical source

You're right, they're the main fanonical source. It's nice that they managed to do so much throughout their 11 years and expand upon the universe first shown in the films (and get paid for it), but to validate their shoddy research of those same films, is doing a disservice to the fanbase interested in learning more about that universe. At least be fair to the authors that didn't follow their exact lines of reasoning or that expanded further upon their works, rather than treating WEG as an end-all, be-all source of information (not saying you do that personally, just that this site often caters to their numbers, regardless of the sense that makes).

and visual and physical analysis of the films is not necessarily accepted as overriding all other sources (see Endor Holocaust)

I wasn't aware that was still disputed. Judging from almost every single source depicting Endor post-ROTJ, the event was at least marginalized (extensive terraforming and monitary support from Alliance-friendly sources would accomplish something, I'd reckon). This is one of those instances where I disagree with the ideas of people like Curtis Saxton, who postulate that Endor must be destroyed/the Ewoks die out. (Then again, the post-ROTJ source could be depicting a "New Endor", were Ewok survivors were brought ;P) VT-16 16:20, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I appologize for editing the article to put in the published stats, but as I tried to say above, I was only doing so to see what the feedback would be...so that they can be discussed, I'll instead post them here.
  • Heavy turbolasers (50)
Fire Arc: 4 batteries front, 3 batteries left, 3 batteries right
Crew: 1 (20), 2 (30)
Space Range: 75 km
Atmospheric Range: 150 km
  • Turbolasers (50)
Fire Arc: 4 batteries front, 2 batteries left, 2 batteries right, 2 batteries rear
Crew: 3
Space Range: 75 km
Atmospheric Range: 150 km
Fire Arc: 2 batteries front, 1 battery left, 1 battery right
Crew: 1 (10), 2 (10)
Space Range: 50 km
Atmospheric Range: 100 km
Fire Arc: 6 front, 2 left, 2 right
Crew: 1 (2), 4 (2), 10 (6)
Space Range: 30 km
Atmospheric Range: 60 km
  • Sigh* I thought an agreement on the armament was already reached. I come back to find the WEG stats reinstated. Looking over the edit history, it looks like it was done on July 14 by McEwok. Claiming "So far as I'm aware, the hangar and centreline guns appear only on the ANH model," he actually COMPLETELY changed the armament back to WEG's stats, except that he left the 8-barreled guns. A couple of points:
1) Some evidence would be nice; perhaps some movie screenshots?
2) If there's a problem with some of the weapons stated, that's not justification to go back to WEG's clearly incorrect claims.

Somehow, I'm suspicious of McEwok's intentions. Furthermore, it looks like the "Behind the Scenes" section has been edited to be more favorable to WEG. It now states "Movie evidence is generally considered superior to other canon, but this does not amount to an instant override, so various hypotheses are current in fandom to explain the apparent discrepancy. According to Leland Chee in the Holocron thread at the SW.com forums, this is technically true; contradictions are supposed to be handled on a case-by-case basis. However, he also stated that the general rule was that G-canon overrides C-canon. In the absence of any actual proof of a C-canon override here, I think it should be assumed that G-canon is right, as it is >99% of the time. JimRaynor55 23:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Behind the Scenes section also states "Alternatively, a Star Destroyer's heaviest weapons emplacements need not be those that are most easy to identifiy on a visual inspection and "There certainly seems to be no direct canon indication of exactly what sort of weapons the eight-barrelled guns are," even going as far as to compare them to anti-aircraft guns! I find this silly. While I can't think of an example where "bigger turbolaser=more power" is explicitly stated, we SEE numerous examples of light to heavy guns, and the "size=power" rule seems to hold true. It's common sense; how could the same kind of weapon, using the same technology, be more powerful in a smaller package? It's ridiculous to think that the largest guns BY FAR on the ship might not be as powerful as some unknown, too-small-to-be-seen weapon. JimRaynor55 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about the number of weapons? If so, C-canon goes, because no one says in any of the movies what an Imperial I's or Imperial II's number of weapons are. And there's no way that one person can count them from using the movies. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Are you talking about the number of weapons? If so, C-canon goes, because no one says in any of the movies what an Imperial I's or Imperial II's number of weapons are. And there's no way that one person can count them from using the movies. You can count the number of weapons based on visual evidence, at the very least this gives you a lower limit. And obviously there aren't dozens and dozens of heavy turbolasers all over the ship, if heavy turbolasers are large enough to be easily seen, and you don't see them all over. The films never mention ISD-I or ISD-IIs; however C-canon ascribes those designations to some of the specific ships seen in the movies (like Devastator and Avenger). Combining this information, we can use the movie visuals to get stats for the ISD-I and II. JimRaynor55 00:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Except that if you examine the images from the movies, you can't tell a light turbolaser from a heavy turbolaser. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
        • The ICS books (both original and prequel trilogy) were written consistently with the models used in the movies, and they point out which are the heavy and light guns. JimRaynor55 00:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As the person who wrote most of the Behind the scenes section, I welcome constructive criticism on how to make it more neutral in its POV. I agree in outline with JimRaynor55's point that the reference to Chee isn't necessary—but this is because there's actually no canon evidence at all about what the eight-barrelled guns are, so canon policy doesn't come into play. We have a model that shows 8 eight-barrelled guns, canon references (novels as well as RPG) that say an ISD-II has 50 heavy TLs and 50 TL batteries, and a number of illustrations (The Star Wars Sourcebook, p. 29; The Imperial Sourcebook, p. 62) that show ISD-IIs without any eight-barrelled guns. There are various ways that these different pieces of evidence can be reconciled, but JR55's comments seem to be to do with an irrational opposition to the approach that tries to reconcile all the canon evidence. "I find this silly" is not a rational argument, and I'm not sure exactly how he's "suspicious of my intentions"; he says I'm "favourable to WEG" as though it's automatically a bad thing: as far as I'm aware C-canon (an ISD-II's main armament is 50 heavy TLs and 50 TL batteries - see The Bacta War) has priority over fanboy speculation (the big, visible guns must be the main armament, and all of it).
  • True, JR55 does make a case on the grounds that that the eight-barrelled guns are "bigger" than... um. Well, what? If the ISD-II's heavy TLs are mounted in less visibly obvious emplacements somewhere else on the hull, we can't actually comment on the relative scale of the emitters, can we? The fact we don't know what heavy TL projectors looks like doesn't mean we can assume that the actual mechanism is small. To take a parallel, counting obvious, visible cannon on a model of a sailing warship with the gunports closed would reveal only the quarterdeck and forecastle cannon.
  • And anyway, the eight-barrelled guns only come from looking at FX models, not the movies: how much weight do these model details carry, when the movies are inconsistent on details a lot anyway, and the detail on the Star Destroyer models shades through kitbashing of questionable 'accuracy' to culminate in things like this...? --McEwok 02:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And aren't the totals in those books 60 turbolasers (light, medium, and heavy) and 60 ion cannons (all types)? Not that I'm aware of. AFAIK, 60/60 (all the same, not including different types) is a pure WEG invention. JimRaynor55 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • "I find this silly" is not a rational argument Yeah, completely leave out what that statement was referring to, which is that it's silly to say that turbolaser size isn't related to power (canon shows otherwise) and to compare the largest weapons seen on the ship to anti-aircraft guns. JimRaynor55 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • C-canon (an ISD-II's main armament is 50 heavy TLs and 50 TL batteries - see The Bacta War) has priority over fanboy speculation (the big, visible guns must be the main armament, and all of it). I'm "speculating" when I just want to stick to what's seen, but you're not when YOU are the one who's trying to argue for dozens and dozens of invisible heavy turbolasers? JimRaynor55 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If the ISD-II's heavy TLs are mounted in less visibly obvious emplacements somewhere else on the hull, we can't actually comment on the relative scale of the emitters, can we? The fact we don't know what heavy TL projectors looks like doesn't mean we can assume that the actual mechanism is small. To take a parallel, counting obvious, visible cannon on a model of a sailing warship with the gunports closed would reveal only the quarterdeck and forecastle cannon. This is a HTL on an ISD-I, from the original ICS. The cross sections also show how they fit into the hull. As you can see, a LOT of space is taken up by power cells, control stations, cooling systems and room for what looks like numerous gunners. There are only 6 such heavy turrets according to the ICS; this is consistent with movie visuals. You say that the dozens of heavy guns on the ISD-II might be concealed; in that case not only are the power cells, cooling systems, etc. held inside the ship, but the gigantic cannons are as well. If we're to believe WEG, then the ISD-II carries many, many times more HTLs than this, ALL internally. In basically the same hull, with the same number of crew and carrying capacity. Yeah, right. And strangely, the C-canon sources that you love DON'T claim that the ISD-II is as powerful as many ISD-Is. JimRaynor55 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • And anyway, the eight-barrelled guns only come from looking at FX models, not the movies: how much weight do these model details carry, when the movies are inconsistent on details a lot anyway, and the detail on the Star Destroyer models shades through kitbashing of questionable 'accuracy' to culminate in things like this...? There you go again, trying to nitpick inconsistencies in movie visuals, as if that makes all of it inaccurate. When you're arguing for the model of consistency that is EU text. When specifically you're arguing for rpg game stats that in different cases, couldn't even get it straight if a Star Destroyer had 60 turbolasers or 60 turbolaser batteries. And obviously bloopers in the material aren't supposed to be canon. JimRaynor55 05:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rational approach on Star Wars, which is fiction/fantasy genre which most physics don't apply?
We can not assume that "physics do not apply" when investigating something in SW. Each phenomenon is looked at and compared with rl analogues, it's called "Suspension of Disbelief". Without it, not even tech book writers could do anything, since they would have no point of reference to begin with, i.e our own universe and how it works. (Yes I know this is a response to a very old post, but still, give that "argument" a rest.)

"Alternatively, a Star Destroyer's heaviest weapons emplacements need not be those that are most easy to identifiy on a visual inspection and "There certainly seems to be no direct canon indication of exactly what sort of weapons the eight-barrelled guns are"

Even though they replace heavy turbolasers from the ISD (noted in SW:ICS) and fire giant turbolaser bolts that are almost 1 km long? I'm adjusting the weapons-numbers (the ion cannons and tractor beams aren't described in size, so they could very well be present, the other WEG guns are bundled together until we can get actual diagrams that show where they are on the ship). Removing bts speculation and fan-debate. VT-16 09:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Let me just note that what I said by "And aren't the totals in those books 60 turbolasers (light, medium, and heavy) and 60 ion cannons (all types)?" is what I used to help solve an issue here. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately for the C-canon, it shoots down this possible rationalization by claiming that all of the ISD-I's 60 turbolasers are of the XX-9 variety, which they claim is also the type of large turbolaser seen on the first Death Star. That's completely wrong. JimRaynor55 14:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • JimRaynor55: Yeah, completely leave out what that statement was referring to, which is that it's silly to say that turbolaser size isn't related to power (canon shows otherwise) and to compare the largest weapons seen on the ship to anti-aircraft guns. Um... my first point was that the most visible weapons on a ship aren't necessarily the most powerful, which isn't quite the same thing as size. We'll get onto the question of exactly how "big" the eight-barrelled guns are below, both in themselves and compared with any putative "internal" guns; but for now, I'll simply note that you admitted yourslf in your earlier post that you "can't think of an example where "bigger turbolaser=more power" is explicitly stated". You're tweaking your language to downplay the fact (something I'm sure I do too), but basically, you're speculating—and while your argument is coherent, it's well short of proof or canon. As to why I'm comparing the eight-barrelled guns with anti-aircraft guns - it's because the nearest real-world parallels for their appearance are anti-aircraft guns. And if you want another parallel for a warship with light secondary armament as its most visible gun armament, how about the Kirov-class battlecruiser (here)...? Yes, I know that these ships' main weapons aren't guns, but we don't know enough about the fictional technology of turbolasers to know how their operation dictates the appearance of heavy emplacements... except that the largest beam weapons we've seen (superlasers) are housed internally with no protruding surface emitters.
  • I'm "speculating" when I just want to stick to what's seen, but you're not when YOU are the one who's trying to argue for dozens and dozens of invisible heavy turbolasers? "Invisible"? I see them clearly enough in The Imperial Sourcebook and The Bacta War.... So no, I'm not speculating that it's canonical that the ISD-II has this armament. What we all have to speculate about is how this information relates to the visible weaponry we see on the FX model.
  • This is a HTL on an ISD-I, from the original ICS. The cross sections also show how they fit into the hull. As you can see, a LOT of space is taken up by power cells, control stations, cooling systems and room for what looks like numerous gunners. There are only 6 such heavy turrets according to the ICS; this is consistent with movie visuals. You say that the dozens of heavy guns on the ISD-II might be concealed; in that case not only are the power cells, cooling systems, etc. held inside the ship, but the gigantic cannons are as well. If we're to believe WEG, then the ISD-II carries many, many times more HTLs than this, ALL internally. In basically the same hull, with the same number of crew and carrying capacity. Yeah, right. And strangely, the C-canon sources that you love DON'T claim that the ISD-II is as powerful as many ISD-Is.
  • Those turrets are pretty heavy chunks of armour, and there's no evidence that the additional equipment associated with them is to anything do with the firepower of their weapons, rather than actually moving them: "turret traverse motors" are certainly designed to turn the turrets, while "turbolaser turret auxiliary power cells" could be purely to keep them moving; so could "power cells" and "cooling system pumps", but these don't necessarily have anything to do with the turret guns at all (they could be connected with the parts of the engine immediately underneath, for example). As to the vast gunnery room in the superstructure behind the turrets, with its "firing control", "targeting level", and "power feed and modulation control". True, its positioning in relationship to the turrets might be suggestive, but its role doesn't necessarily have to be limited to the turret guns.
  • In short, it's impossible to conclusively identify a large firepower-producing mechanism here. The visibly large elements of the turret/barbette guns, on both the ISD-I and the ISD-II, are mountings, which are nothing to do with firepower, simply to do with aiming. All the external components could be entirely to do with the operation of these massive pieces of machinery, and even the sizeable external gun-barrels are part of the aiming mechanism - they're much easier to elevate or depress than internally recessed ones. In short, we don't know how large the firepower mechanism of the turret guns is, and it's entirely possible that both the ISD-I and ISD-II have heavier guns (or more guns of the same type) in far less visible (far less complex, heavy, and vulnerable, too) recessed mountings in the hull. If we look at the ISD, and ask what that vast hull volume is full of, "lots and lots of really big guns" seems to be a pretty credible answer.
  • There you go again, trying to nitpick inconsistencies in movie visuals, as if that makes all of it inaccurate. When you're arguing for the model of consistency that is EU text. When specifically you're arguing for rpg game stats that in different cases, couldn't even get it straight if a Star Destroyer had 60 turbolasers or 60 turbolaser batteries. And obviously bloopers in the material aren't supposed to be canon. My point, delivered with my tongue firmly in my cheek, is that there's no clear dividing line between what's canon and what's silly when it comes to the movie FX stuff, so it's possible to argue that we shouldn't place too much weight on the appearance of these guns on the Star Destroyer models. But anyway, it's irrelevant: there is no prima facie contradiction between "eight turret mountings" and "a total of 120 primary weapons emplacements".
  • VT-16: We can not assume that "physics do not apply" when investigating something in SW.' False logic. We can't assume that real-world physics do apply, either, given the existence of repulsorlifts, hyperdrive, artificial gravity, gravity-well generators, inertial compensators and relativistic shielding, and the holonet. But we can certainly suggest that there are places where things don't happen the way we'd expect if we limited ourselves to real-world physics.
  • Even though they replace heavy turbolasers from the ISD (noted in SW:ICS) and fire giant turbolaser bolts that are almost 1 km long? We see the replacement of twin turrets with eight-barrelled barbettes, which aren't necessarily the same sort of weapons - the most immediate parallel is that they're carried in external mountings with wide angles of fire. This ability to track and train may be the key thing about the turret guns - especially as C-canon implies that most of the Star Destroyer's main weapons aren't carried in big, manoeuvrable turrets. As to the RotJ image—if memory serves, those bolts pass in front of the fighters in the foreground: until I see frame-by-frame screencaps, I'm not even convinced that there's anything resembling a ~1km bolt there in the first place. If I can see full screencaps, I might have more to say on this one: but not until then, I'm afraid.
  • I'm adjusting the weapons-numbers (the ion cannons and tractor beams aren't described in size, so they could very well be present, the other WEG guns are bundled together until we can get actual diagrams that show where they are on the ship). Removing bts speculation and fan-debate I'm going to re-edit it, since IMHO you've prioritised your POV. This is something that everyone does up to a point, but to explain my reasoning in advance: there is no proof that the eight-barrelled guns are "heavy turbolaser batteries", and there are canonically 50 heavy TLs and 50 TL batteries - not just "possibly". And I definately think that there ought to be an outline in BtS of the range of fan interpretations of the evidnece - including yours!
  • JR55: ... all of the ISD-I's 60 turbolasers are of the XX-9 variety. Well, as VT-16 suggested here, just because the turret looks different, that doesn't mean they're a different sort of weapon under the chassis, does it? --McEwok 15:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Pure bullshit from you as usual. Real-life is the only basis we have. Unknown technology or physical phenomenon can't be handwaved away, they must be rationalized as best we can with what examples we have from real life. Which is why SW "lasers" are not actually lasers as we know it. I've had these debates with you for almost a year. I do not wish another year of it. Not from an internet stalker. VT-16 16:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • This is probably a very stupid question, but: It's McEwok, correct? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I thought he signed his comments? Anyway, yes, it is, and that pretty much ends this conversation for me. I knew it would happen eventually, he'd come back to starships and start the process all over again. He's done it for years, and with the same pattern over and over again, so I'd rather not get caught up in another quagmire. VT-16 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Good, because I was just about to ask you to back off and/or watch your tone. Arguing is fine; calling his argument specious is fine; using the term "bullshit" or accusing him of being an internet stalker is walking a very fine line that I really don't want to see be crossed. He may be an annoying gadfly at times, but that doesn't mean things need to be taken to a personal level. jSarek 20:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll simply note that you admitted yourslf in your earlier post that you "can't think of an example where "bigger turbolaser=more power" is’’ explicitly stated. You're tweaking your language to downplay the fact (something I'm sure I do too), but basically, you're speculating What you call “speculation,” everyone else recognizes as ‘’’observation’’’. Heavy turbolasers are a lot bigger than point defense cannons, which are in turn bigger than hand-held blasters. The w-165 planetary turbolaser, capable of engaging entire ISDs, and the main guns on the ‘’Munificent’’-class star frigate (which can blast apart 10 km space stations), are larger than any normal starship weapons. The Death Star’s superlaser is bigger than all of these. JimRaynor55 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Those turrets are pretty heavy chunks of armour, and there's no evidence that the additional equipment associated with them is to anything do with the firepower of their weapons, rather than actually moving them: Do NOT try to twist things around. My point is that heavy turbolaser turrets need all this space-consuming stuff to operate. Are you actually going to say that the ISD II has dozens of heavy turbolasers that magically don’t have all this? Knowing you, I wouldn’t be surprised. JimRaynor55 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

My point, delivered with my tongue firmly in my cheek, is that there's no clear dividing line between what's canon and what's silly when it comes to the movie FX stuff, so it's possible to argue that we shouldn't place too much weight on the appearance of these guns on the Star Destroyer models. But there IS a clear dividing line between the EU text that’s okay, and the EU text that’s poorly researched and at odds with the higher G-canon. JimRaynor55 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

But anyway, it's irrelevant: there is no prima facie contradiction between "eight turret mountings" and "a total of 120 primary weapons emplacements". Yes, there is, because the WEG stats claims a full 50 of the heaviest type of turbolaser on the ISD-II. Even the 50 non-heavy turbolasers on the ISD-II have higher in-game damage ratings than the 60 turbolasers on the ISD-I. So we’re supposed to believe that the ISD-II packs one hundred turbolasers, EACH one larger than this inside its hull. Yeah, sure. JimRaynor55 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought he signed his comments? Anyway, yes, it is, and that pretty much ends this conversation for me. I knew it would happen eventually, he'd come back to starships and start the process all over again. He's done it for years, and with the same pattern over and over again, so I'd rather not get caught up in another quagmire. Don’t give up so easily, VT-16. That’s what McEwok would want. If nobody kept his edits in check, SW Wiki would end up becoming WEG-over-films propaganda. JimRaynor55 20:46, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  • jSarek: He may be an annoying gadfly at times Thanks for posting, and so noted.
  • JimRaynor55: Heavy turbolasers are a lot bigger than point defense cannons, which are in turn bigger than hand-held blasters. The w-165 planetary turbolaser, capable of engaging entire ISDs, and the main guns on the ‘’Munificent’’-class star frigate (which can blast apart 10 km space stations), are larger than any normal starship weapons. The Death Star’s superlaser is bigger than all of these. Are these differences in size mainly to do with barrel length, though - and might that not represent something other than firepower? Each example cited here probably has a considerably greater range than the previous one, which may explain the way they're designed. Incidentally, has anyone done a scaling comparrison on emitter/barrel diameter for the DS superlaser and the w-165? But even so, I don't see the size of the turret guns as prohibitive for "recessed" guns with far narrower fields of fire.
  • Do NOT try to twist things around. My point is that heavy turbolaser turrets need all this space-consuming stuff to operate. Are you actually going to say that the ISD II has dozens of heavy turbolasers that magically don’t have all this? Knowing you, I wouldn’t be surprised. Heavy turbolaser turrets have ancillary acquipment around them, yes. Turrets. If the actual firepower-generation equipment rather than the turret motors does require large volumes of space (which is something you've not shown), I still see no reason why it would be too large to be set inside the hull for guns with recessed mountings. Basically, I'm arguing that the key reason for turrets is their wider field of fire, rather than the firepower of the guns they carry. And I'm only saying that this is one possible POV (although obviously it's one that I prefer, because it allows us to maintain the canon statement for the numbers of heavy TLs/TL batteries).
  • But there IS a clear dividing line between the EU text that’s okay, and the EU text that’s poorly researched and at odds with the higher G-canon. Is there? Canon is canon, at least in this instance. I have no problem with people holding the opinion that the turret guns should be the primary weapons, but this is just an interpretation, just like my suggestion that they're only part of the main armament. And canonically what we have are two sets of evidence, regarding turret guns and overall armament, that don't clearly reconcile into one integrated conclusion, but which certainly don't actually have to contradict each other in the first place.
  • Yes, there is, because the WEG stats claims a full 50 of the heaviest type of turbolaser on the ISD-II. Even the 50 non-heavy turbolasers on the ISD-II have higher in-game damage ratings than the 60 turbolasers on the ISD-I. So we’re supposed to believe that the ISD-II packs one hundred turbolasers, EACH one larger than this inside its hull. Yeah, sure. Well, the sixty guns on the ISD-I are supposed to be XX-9 heavy turbolasers, and I only see the "blast canon" and equipment set immediately behind it as the operational weapon. I could easily imagine fifty TLs the size of the Death Star's XX-9s or larger, plus 34 clusters of four ISD-II barbette guns, and 20 ISD-I ion cannon barrels, plus power/generation equipment, recessed inside the hull, yes. That's just 5 ion cannon, 12 "heavy TLs", and 8 clusters of four guns on each of the four main slopes of the hull. --McEwok 22:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Good lord... If someone has some criticism they wish to say to someone else, post it on that user's talk page. Please. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If nobody kept his edits in check, SW Wiki would end up becoming WEG-over-films propaganda.

Don't worry. I wasn't talking about the articles, only the discussion page. If anything, I'm going to watch ship-related pages even more intently than before. Which is a shame, because I thought this was finally over with and I could concentrate on other things. I will be removing alot of "clarification points" I've made in the past, though. Nowadays, I doubt most people disregard non-ISD/Ex ships as easily as him, so there's no pressing need for it anymore. VT-16 10:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If you need any help watching over ship-related pages, I'm available to help. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I don't think anything will happen, just hearing and reading about ME's antics online even prior to his time here, he seems to have an unnaturally long history of ignoring/changing info he doesn't like, or getting others to do it for him. (I've also noticed his tendency to ask his opponents to provide evidence for both his view as well as their own. That's a very creative way of running a debate, I must say. :P) Either way, I'm keeping an extra eye on things. VT-16 13:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, after hearing that, I'll be keeping an eye on things as well. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • It's pretty obvioius that McEwok's arguments are nonsense. He keeps trying to claim that heavy turbolasers aren't that big, trying to make all that space-consuming stuff seem extraneous and not always used. We know these guns need large capacitors, cooling systems, and room for entire crews of gunners from the ICS books. McEwok also tries to use the incorrect claim that the ISD-I has 60 XX-9 HTLs to support his ISD-II "theories," and isn't even being consistent (even the non-heavy turbolasers of the ISD-II are more powerful than the ISD-I's supposed XX-9s). Face the facts, WEG is wrong. JimRaynor55 19:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Simply looking at the ICS cutaway of the ISD reveals that the ship's reactors take up much of the space, almost the entire terrace area is devoted to reactor space and even then it still sticks out underneath the vessel as the "bulge". Then there's a small middle part devoted to the hangars and ground-assault staging areas, some storage bays for water and food, and finally some big tractor beam generators at the front. No wonder the Venator got it beat in fighter-carrying capacity. image shack dot U S )/img466/2894/isdcutoutxw5.jpg ISD image shack dot U S )/img466/8823/vensdcutoutup0.jpg VenSD
The big guns are pushed out onto the hull because the engines, hangars, crew compartment and storage takes up most of inner space. VT-16 22:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I apologise if I'm intruding here - first time I've responded to something like this - but I noticed that the armament was changed and I was curious, especially when comparing it to other ships (including the ImpStarI, Pellaeon, even the Venator and Executor) as to why it's so low? It stikes me as odd that, whether the guns are more powerful or not, an ISD-I would have almost ten times as many weapons emplacements as an ISD-II. That would, for one, imply that the weapons emplacements on the Deuce are over ten times more powerful than those on the original, which seems almost absurd to my mind. I'm also a bit confused as to how it says it can have the Octuples -or- the other armament. Just having octuples, no matter how powerful they are, is beyond stupid as far as military strategies go. It would be impossible for the ship to target, much less shoot down, anything smaller than a CR90. And it leaves the entire underside of the ship undefended. I realize that the Imperial military has been proven time and time again to be made up of a bunch of idiots, but this seems beyond even them. Is there some overriding canonical source that says those numbers are the absolute truth? Or should they be changed back at all? (I have more arguments for the changing back if I need to throw them out there, but if it's unnecessary I won't bother.) (ApolloTaren 06:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

Range of guns...Edit

...isn't those a bit low compared to other Science Fiction/Fantasy universes?

  • Possibly, but that's only an issue for Star Wars vs. Star Trek-type questions. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • We're not comparing Star Wars to Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica here, anon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • It's not only Star Trek that seems to have a greater range. I mean, other universes have a range of their guns from Jupiter to Pluto for example. Sure, Star Wars'ranges are far beyond visual range, yet they are not very impressive for a 25,000 year old civilization. And this is just a question why the range is so low, Nebulax.
        • Again, we're not comparing Star Wars to other sci-fi universes. The range in Star Wars has nothing to do with the range of guns in other sci-fi series. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:07, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • The damaging component of turbolasers moves at lightspeed, and against certain targets a SW ship can time their shots to hit at a distance of ten light minutes. I fail to see why this is low. And if you think ST is better (which isn't the point of this site), go read SD.net. JimRaynor55 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • He wouldn't do that, because he thinks that SD.net has only fanon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Not that BS from SD.net again. You ever thought they are very biased there(Wong has been caught in *many* lies about Star Wars and other things, and even creates fanfics where he either kills or beats up his opponents in debates)? And you're trying to make an excuse for a movie special effects error. If the visual portion is not the damaging, why is it the one that causes the damage? Why do Jedi bother to block the visual portion? And SD.net did make up fanon, since it didn't use actual feats, only *pure* conjecture to make those firepower estimates.
                • Shut up, anon. What ever happened to "I'll make you guys happy, I'll stop replying and I'll leave the article alone". Your sense of canon is twisted. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
              • I am leaving the article alone, and I was just asking a simple question why the ranges were so low. And, I have gone to the canon tree plenty of times, and according to it, Wongilations *are* fanon. And what is your problem?
                • You. Come back once you've learned to deal with the fact that things are canon even if you don't like it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • How are Wong's Calcs canon? Did he get them published, and Leeland Chang accepted them?
                    • Again, real-life physics can be applied to Star Wars. When will you learn? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                      • No, it can't accurately. Wong's calcs rely on pure conjecture, they ignore what really counts, feats of the explosions of turbolasers, and nothing is solid on them. Wong's calcs are pure fanon, they haven't been published at all in a Star Wars books, thus fanon.
                        • You really don't get it, do you, anon? Physics can be applied to Star Wars. Then, even if it isn't pusblished, it becomes a source, which is canon. You fail to see that. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                          • The ICS flat out says that the damaging portion of turbolasers moves at lightspeed, and that they can hit targets at 10 light minutes. It's canon, whether you like Wong is wrong or not. JimRaynor55 15:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                            • So Turbolasers have to be targetted 10 minutes in advanced to get that lightspeed portion correct? And nothing from the books or movies supports that. So why is the ICS canon? Oh, please stop addressing me in such a rude manner Nebulax.
                              • No, not until you realize that you're wrong, anon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                                • You're really setting a standard Nebulax. I really thought you were more polite. And still you're dodging many parts of this arguement.
                                  • Turbolasers don't have to be targeted so long in advance if you're not trying to shoot at 10 light minutes. God, it's not that hard to figure out. As for the movies, they DON'T contradict these ranges at all. In pretty much every battle, the objective was to contain or capture enemy ships, which meant getting close. In fact TESB supports long ranges, since Vader wanted to drop out of hyperspace far from Hoth and bombard it from a distance. I also find it funny how you're suddenly trying to use the movies, when before you were arguing for the superiority of the rpg books. JimRaynor55 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


There are no scenes in the movies where an ISD fired on a target outside visual range. And unless the target is a planet or some other body in space that moves in a fixed path, you can't hit a target 10 light-minutes away with TL's even if they did move at the speed of light. It would take the TL bolt ten minutes to cross the distance and they would have to be aimed where the target would be 10 minutes in the future-CrossoverManiac

  • Did you not understand my point about how all the battles in the movies involved trying to capture enemy ships, which meant getting up close? And why did you ignore my point about what Vader tried to do to Hoth? And of course that 10 light minute thing can only be done to stationary targets or targets moving in a predictable path, what's your point? And aren't you the same CrossoverManiac troll that got banned from SD.net? JimRaynor55 15:38, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You're calling CM a troll just because he won't accept the turbolaser firepower and this lightspeed portion? Man, that is low. Did Wong start a blog against him too?
      • No, I vaguely remember a guy called Crossover_Maniac acting like an idiot at SD.net. As for you, I don't think you know what the hell you're even talking about. This is Wong's blog, and it has nothing to do wit hpeople he debates and hates. He also hasn't been caught in numerous lies, or write violent fanfics about killing other debaters, as you have alleged. JimRaynor55 15:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • The who wrote the one about him killing/beating up Darkstar? According to the link that I saw, he wrote it along with Poe and others. KK also caught him in a bunch of lies in the Obi-wan Kenobi vs Scarlet Spider debate. And I've read through the threads where he's been caught in lies in the Star Wars vs Star Trek debate, and whoever disagrees with him he bans. This is a guy you want to affiliate yourself with?
                • Don't mind JimRaynor, he's just another Wong-whore, and like any other Wong-whore, the only thing between his ears is the feces that Wong stuff in that empty skull. And because Vader never did fire on Hoth, there is still no proof of TL's with 10-light minute range.-CrossoverManiac
                • Now since the question got derailed, I pose the question again and won't reply until I get a straight answer why the ranges are so low. Why is 150 kilometers the limit in turbolaser range?
                  • I'm a Wong whore now? You're pathetic. And are you actually saying that Vader intending to shoot Hoth from far away doesn't count as evidence that he can? So Vader doesn't know the basic capabilities of his own ships? JimRaynor55 15:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                  • The question didn't get derailed, it got answered. You have no proof that SW ships are limited to ranges of 150 km. JimRaynor55 15:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • "I'll urge you to be a bit more willing to compromise with other viewpoints here.—Silly Dan (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)" Uh, CM and Jim, can we be a little more civil here?
                      • If you want to accuse Wong of lies, point out specifics rather than 19 page threads, and do it someplace other than SW Wiki. Wong had NOTHING to do with the question of how far turbolasers can shoot (which is answered in the ICS), and all you Wong-haters are just trying to hijack this and bash him. JimRaynor55 16:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                    • Weren't you the one who brought up Wong and SD.net in the first place?
                      • No, I answered the question using the ICS. Someone else (you?) brought up Wong and started ranting about how SD.net sucks. JimRaynor55 16:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                        • "The damaging component of turbolasers moves at lightspeed, and against certain targets a SW ship can time their shots to hit at a distance of ten light minutes. I fail to see why this is low. And if you think ST is better (which isn't the point of this site), go read SD.net. JimRaynor55 15:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)" First one to bring the SD.net tirade on this part of the topic was you. You brought it up first.
                          • Vader never said he was going to shoot at Hoth from that range. All he said was Admiral Ozzel came out of lightspeed too close to the system. And the burden of proof is on you to prove the range is greater than 150 km. As I said, there are no scenes in the movies where an ISD fired on a target outside visual range.
                            • OK, I forgot about that. But I stayed on topic, instead of hijacking this to rant about SD.net. JimRaynor55 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                          • We would have stayed on topic if you didn't bring up SD.net first :p.
                              • The ICS SAYS that they can shoot at more than 150 km. And are you slow or something? I've already explained several times that all the battles you see in the movies involved containing and capturing enemy ships. JimRaynor55 16:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                            • Containing and capturing? It looked like the Imperials during Endor were more focused in destroying Rebel vessels, ditto on the Coruscant battle. And Nebulax, please stop being so rude. It is like you have a superiority complex or something. Remember what Silly Dan said above about being civil.
  • "G-canon is "George"-absolute canon; the six Episodes and anything coming directly from George Lucas (including unpublished production notes from him or his production department that are never seen by the public). Elements coming directly from Lucas in the movie novelizations, reference books, and other sources are also G-canon, though anything created by the authors of those sources (it's possible that movie novelizations contradict the movies or other EU sources) is C-canon (see below).

When the matter of changes between movie versions is brought up, the remastered editions are deemed superior to the theatrical ones, since they correct mistakes and 'improve' consistency between the two trilogies. They also express Lucas' "original" intention (although not plausible at the time of their filming) and also final word. C-canon is "common" or 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 (they also offer non-canonical options to the player, like choosing female gender to a canonically male character). 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.)

S-canon is "secondary" canon; the story itself is considered non-continuity, but the non-contradicting elements are still a canon part of the Star Wars universe. This includes things like the online roleplaying game Star Wars Galaxies and certain elements of a few N-canon stories. Many of the materials labelled as S-canon are older sources which may or may not fit within the continuity, but which have not been fully evaluated prior to inclusion in the Holocron database.

N-canon is "non-canon." What-if stories (such as stories published under the Infinities label), most game stats, fanon, fanfiction (eg. custom made movies like Revelations and Pink Five), and anything else directly contradicted by higher canon ends up here. N-canon is the only level that is not considered canon by Lucasfilm. " Tell me where SD.net fits onto this canon tree? And remember what Silly Dan said about being civil, stop insulting me. Your behavior on this site would get you banned on others.

Did you even watch the movies? Piett keeps his Star Destroyers from attacking because he had specific orders only to stay their and contain the Rebels so that the Death Star could finish them off. At Coruscant, the objective was to find Chancellor Palpatine and rescue him. JimRaynor55 16:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All Piett said was to keep a wall in front of the Rebels, and once they got close, they made every effort to destroy the Rebel Vessels.

“Tell me where SD.net fits onto this canon tree?” and tell me what dose SD.net have to do with 10 light min range when the source is ROTS:ICS.--Elfwood 16:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said the ROTS:ICS isn't canon, I was saying SD.net isn't canon. Nebulax earlier posted that it was a canon source of information.

  • Yes, because real-life physics can be applied to Star Wars, producing a level of Star Wars canon that can be used to solve technical stuff, like the power of the Death Star's superlaser. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

All Piett said was to keep a wall in front of the Rebels, and once they got close, they made every effort to destroy the Rebel Vessels. Once they got close. That means you can't use the Battle of Endor to "prove" that SW capital ships have short ranges. JimRaynor55 17:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Excellent point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Then where does it fit on the canon tree J. Nebulax? G canon? C Canon? S Canon? N Canon? Face it, fan made calcs do not fit on the canon tree, they are the equivalent of fanfiction.
      • Wrong again, anon. Physics can be applied to Star Wars whether you like it or not. What's so hard about that? Nothing. You have no case, anon. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • They were made by a fan? Check. They were not published in any Star Wars tech book and Leeland Chang doesn't acknowledge them? Check. They are fanon, thus N-Canon. And again, you keep being rude when Silly Dan told us to be civil. You think you're untouchable or something?
          • Calculations are not the fans making things up. It is simply following what we see in canon to its logical conclusions. For example, if the Death Star blows up a planet, that means it has enough power to do that. Figuring out what that power is is not fanon. JimRaynor55 17:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Than you admit WEG stats are fanon as well, then? Good that we're clear on that. VT-16 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • And the exchange from ROTJ was: "Hold here." "We're not going to attack?" "I have my orders from the Emperor himself, he has something special planned for them. We only need to keep them from escaping." Even before that dialogue, Lando was observing the fleet and noticed no fire coming from them. "Only the fighters are attacking, I wonder what those Star Destroyers are waiting for?" VT-16 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Yet calculations can be off. According to Wong, the Death Star has enough power to destroy an Earth Size planet a hundred times over. What is the need of the Sun Crusher then? Calculations can be flawed and biased, especially if they are made by a fan. Anything that is fanmade classifies as Non-canon material. And aren't WEG Stats made in the canon tree and published material, thus falling under C-Canon?

  • Yes, WEG is C-Canon. However, if it disagrees with the films, or it is revised by newer C-canon material, it can be rejected. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. That means another article needs to be editted because it is using a WEG source. Yet, the point still stands: fanmade calcs are non-canon material and shouldn't be used as canon material. Can you also stop Nebulax from insulting me Silly Dan?
    • If you think a certain calculation is wrong, then explain why. Calculations are not inherently wrong. Also, what is your point about the Death Star being overkill against a single planet? That's obvious. What does that have to do with the Sun Crusher, which is far smaller, and is used to take out stars? JimRaynor55 17:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Which is the problem here, fundamentally: are detailed fan calculations from frame-by-frame inspections of the film interpretations of G-canon, which are therefore necessarly correct, or are they non-canon, and therefore able to be overwritten by EU materials? —Silly Dan (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the need of the Sun Crusher then?

Ask Kevin J. Anderson, he thought it up.

Calculations can be flawed and biased, especially if they are made by a fan.

Then you admit WEG is fanbased material, since by their own admittance the staff were big fans of SW to begin with. Anything derived from them would be fanon,by default. The difference between fan-authors like Saxton and people in WEG, is that one tries to derive numbers from the films, and the others did not. It's as simple as that. WEG primarily made RPG Game material. In other words, stats based in role playing games, and thus subject to game mechanics. They simply grew so popular, some authors included stuff from them and looked through their material when needing info for things in their stories. I believe Mike Stackpole (writer of X-wing books) said he even based tactics in his books on X-wing game mechanics, i.e taking out ISDs with starfighters by hitting the sensor-globes (written as shield generators by WEG). VT-16 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

    • A compromise should come up here saying, you can accept the calculations, yet you have to acknowledge they are fanmade and non-canon. And the WEG RPG thing is still C-Canon after all, since it is a liceneced property of LucasFilm. SD.net calculations are still fanon, and will stay that way until they are published by LucasFilm.
    • VT-16, WEG is licensed material. Therefore, it is not fanon. At worst, it is canon with elements which are either retconned away or overridden by a higher level of canon. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Since we are talking about stuff from the films, they do not fall under N-canon, whatsoever. I'm sorry, but if this is the approach to stuff from the films not directly adressed in film dialogue (like, say, Luke's blonde hair. We can only trust our eyes with that), then that is, quite frankly, ludicrous. We are accepting C-canon information over G-canon information with this approach. And WEG is fanon made canon. They were fans, just like Saxton was, who got a chance to expand upon SW and be paid for it. By going through the movie-models and scenes relevant to their writing, they wouldn't have made the same kind of assumptions they ended up making in the first place. That's the real "tragedy" here, for people wanting to go into details. VT-16 17:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I'm not saying they're infallible (if they had said Luke had red hair, for example, that would be rejected from canon.) I'm just asking you to stop talking about it like their sourcebooks are completely outside of canon. All WEG information on subjects from the film which doesn't contradict the movies and isn't explicitly overridden by newer material is canon. —Silly Dan (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • But, you see, most of their information is simply thought up outside of canon (which, by their earliest books, was the movies, the Marvel comics and newspaper strips and a few Han Solo/Lando Calrissian novels). They made up some stuff that sounded nice, and ran with it. Hell, most of their illustrations of movie ships weren't even accurate! So it is, by default, fanon information (since it came from them, the fans) made into canon. VT-16 17:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • You're being a purist again. Remember, we make no attempt to separate film canon from EU canon which doesn't contradict it. (As for being originally fanon because fans made it: you'd prefer people who didn't like Star Wars worked on the sourcebooks, maybe? 8) ) —Silly Dan (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • So can this compromise I suggested go into the works now? Until SD.net is put into a canon source like a sourcebook or an author acknowledges using it in his/her books, it'll be N-Canon material for the time being?
        • Tell you what, here's a better compromise, for accuracy's sake. We list the official stats in controversy cases as being different than the "real" ones, and expand upon the problem in a bts section. The infobox of say, the Home One gets the WEG number in () with the mention of "actual length bigger, but not defined". How's about that? :) VT-16 17:50, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Sounds good. And, just for the sake of the SD.net arguement, we also keep that in too, VT-16?
            • If there's something that's explicitly thought up by anyone on fansites like SDN and not taken from the films, then, yes, that goes in the bts section. :) VT-16 17:55, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. Just wanted to get things straight here.*Shakes his hand* I knew this could be solved civily.
    • I already pointed out that the rpg books state a different number of weapons that differs from G-canon in the "Behind the Scenes" section. JimRaynor55 17:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Yet we still didn't get a definite number from the G-Canon did we? Lucas tend to leave things like that out.

We don't have a definate number for the light guns in G-canon, but we know that the number of guns stated by WEG are definately wrong. Hence the "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons." JimRaynor55 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

      • Less than the number of guns seen on the models? VT-16 18:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, you could also say, "Numerous light and medium turbolasers and an unknown number of Ion Cannons". Heavy and Medium turbolasers are used in bombardments as well as for ship to ship combat.
          • Sounds good to me. :) VT-16 19:06, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
            • The medium turbolasers are large enough to be seen. They're the guns guarding the hangar, and the 3 triple "axial defense turrets." The only guns in question are the light guns that can't be seen from a distance. JimRaynor55 19:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
              • Therefore, it should remain as "Numerous light turbolasers and ion cannons". We went through all of this nonsense just to end up at where we started. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                • If there's room, an abbreviated summary of the WEG/WOTC/ICS/"Look, I analyzed every frame of the movie and counted the laser turrets and all the books are wrong!" weapons fits could and should be put in the behind the scenes section. —Silly Dan (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
                • Just one more thing, we do not know the number of normal medium turbolasers. Medium Turbolasers do not all look alike, do they?
  • There are no scenes in the movies where an ISD fired on a target outside visual range
Maybe not, but there is at least one where a Rebel ship fires outside visual range: image shack dot U S )/my.php?image=longrangeshot8qj.jpg peow peow
The giant bolt eminates from a ship in the center of the image, yet so far away it can't be seen. VT-16 22:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ion cannonsEdit

  • The WEG number of turbolasers is certainly disputed, but is their count of ion cannons? Should that be left in at the fixed value they've given, since it doesn't seem to be affected by the films? jSarek 21:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Hehe, since it's virtually impossible to tell which guns are meant for ion shots and which are for laser shots, I would reckon so. XD VT-16 21:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Psycological EffectEdit

Perhaps a detailed description on the Star Destroyer's effect on the observing party?

  • What do you mean? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Star Destroyers were intended to instill fear in current and/or future enemies; "Fear will keep the local systems in line..."Thrawn3.14 00:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  • "Your Majesty, it has long been my contention that your New Order needs one undeniable and overwhelming symbol to impress and, yes, frighten the masses. The average citizen has no grasp of numbers nor a head for calculation. I maintain that the effectiveness of the Star Destroyer stems from not only its massive firepower, but from its size. When citizens look at a Star Destroyer and then compare it to the craft which might be mustered to attack it, they have a tendency to dismiss such a notion as suicidal rather than approach the problem tactically."
                                                - Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin
                                                 Thrawn3.14 13:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Gravity GeneratorsEdit

Why should people have to stare at a big white space?Edit

I'm seeing a big white empty space--Herbsewell 00:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Books: Star Wars Encyclopedia or somethingEdit

I just wanted to point out that I go by the Star Wars Encyclopedia of Starships. I forget what its really called, but I think that this book would be better to go with than anything... and I mean anything, on the internet. Too much editing done by people like us on the internet lol.

  • Printed Star Wars srouces might become obsolete all in a sudden. Internet content can continuously be updated. - TopAce 19:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • West End Games' Starships of the Galaxy claims that the Imperial II sacrificed shielding for its increased armamaent. Do other sources disagree? 75.8.50.28 05:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How much shielding did the Imperial II sacrifice, according to Starships of the Galaxy? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know about WEG, but WoTC's Starships of the Galaxy says on page 98 that the ISD II has 250 points of shields, as opposed to the 300 points of shield that that ISD I has, as described in the Revised Core Rulebook on page 232. Starships of the Galaxy also has a short discussion of this change and why the Empire found the drop in shielding to be an acceptable trade off on page 97. I am also very curious to see what sources confirm or conflict with this. Can anyone provide a citation from non-RPG material?63.24.122.228 22:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Robust?Edit

"These warships were robust enough to stay operational after being hit by all the ion cannons of an Executor-class Star Dreadnought during a broadside exchange."

Whaaaaaaat?!??!?! So they're saying here that an Imperial II-class Star Destroyer wouldn't not be disabled from a broadside ion blast from the Executor. I find that hard to believe. Source? 216.203.6.11 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If they can survive all of the ion cannosn on the executor, then how come the star destroyer Tyrant is diabled by 2 blasts from the rebel ion cannon on Hoth? 81.107.156.182 19:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)KK

ImpStar Deuce?Edit

Someone keeps adding in that the ISD II was also known as ImpStar Deuce. Maybe thats a real world abbreviation or sumething but it's not in-universe. I reverted it twice in 5 minutes - Xaarga 19:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Try providing an edit summary like the rules say. It was called that a couple times in novels like the X-wing series. -Fnlayson 21:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Appearance in The Force Unleashed?Edit

Well, if you look closely at the Imperial Star Destroyer brought down from the sky by the Secret Apprentice in the newest trailer, I think there is a communications tower of an Imperial II-class there, is it not? I might be wrong, after all there seems to be facts that this version wasn't in action until after 0 BBY. And then there is this about atmosphere entry, but anyway, I don't think it looks like a... tractor beam array. Gotipe 22:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Games always screw up canon. Might as well add those things to the list. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, sorry. Just wanted to know if it maybe was some kind of prototype, or just as you said.Gotipe 16:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Hey, I may be wrong about this. After all, the A-wing and the TIE Interceptor appear in games set before the time they were first produced. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the ISD-I class is seen with similar equipment mounted in ESB and ROTJ, having this be a refit is the most likely explanation. VT-16 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions relating to the defences of the ISD-IIEdit

Can someone tell me the RU and SBD of the Impstar deuce? Unsigned comment by 76.168.93.229 (talk • contribs).

SchematicsEdit

Those are Imperial I schematics!--The All-knowing Sith'ari 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

IntroductionEdit

The Imp-II is listed as being introduced 0 ABY, therefore, by definition, after the destruction of the first Death Star. But isn't there an Imperial-II that blows up due to a malfunction in the book Death Star? That book, of course, deals with the construction of the first Death Star, so...that incident would have to occur before its destruction, and therefore, at least, 0 BBY.

  • 0 BBY and 0 ABY is the same year. There is no such thing as "introducing" a ship/ship upgrade, so I'm not sure what everyone means by this. Imperial I's were upgraded to Imperial II's, such as Chimaera. The only thing I can think of is that the Imperial II in the article was referring to the newly launched vessels, weren't completed until after the failure of the first death star, but there may have been refitted vessels already out (Imperial I's in service since right after the clone wars). Its common to upgrade and refit older vessels to extend the service life before launching programs for replacement. It also allows you to test-bed the upgrades before building whole new ships based on them. 20yrs is about right.--Round Robin 04:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

MaintenanceEdit

Is the fact that the Errant Venture breaks down a lot really sufficient evidence to say that Imp II's have maintenance issues? I thought that was primarily due to the fact that Booster was short on crew and cash, making maintenance difficult for that ship in particular. Now, the statement concerning the ships' thousands of design flaws is valid, but may be referring to maintenance difficulties OR defensibility issues. Jenosidanian 09:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Not sure where the number 174,000 came from (another book?), but the reason stated by Booster is that he didnt even have a skeleton crews worth of personnel to run a ship of that size, much less maintain it. Not to mention it was held together by smugglers, not trained navy personnel. Not sure how the Errant Venture can possibly be compaired to an properly crewed and maintained vessel from either the Republic or the Empire Remanent, much less why its even listed under Characteristics section.--Round Robin 04:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Name ListEdit

Is there a list of names of individual ships available? If not, could one be generated?--75.48.5.147 22:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

SizeEdit

What are the diminsions of a star destroyer. We know its 1,600 meters in length but whats the height and width.


DaehockDagonson\stapuft-I stumbled into answering a question simmilar to this on YouTube and I am kind of a little proud of the math I found a great resource in theforce.net  the question was how much paint would it take to paint an impstar duce red. This is my copy paste of my comment from there.

Using the measurements here

www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/kdy/blueisd3.gif  Factoring up to the standardly recognised legnth found here 1,600 m (1.6 km)

With this equation

1600 m÷686.5 m= 2.3306627822 m conversion factor

I the found the other sides sizes

 2.3306627822 m×297.5 m= 693.372177713 m (width) 2.3306627822 m×147.5 m=343.7727603745 m (height)

And then found the rough area of each side

  1600 m× 693.372177713 m= 1,109,395.4843408 m² (top\bottom)

 1600 m× 343.7727603745 m= 550,036.4165992 m² (side section)

 693.372177713 m× 343.7727603745 m= 238,362.46749927 m² (rear)

And then treated as a regular 3d pyrimid to find it's rough area

(1,109,395.4843408 m² + 1,109,395.4843408 m²)+( 550,036.4165992 m²+ 550,036.4165992 m²)+ 238,362.46749927 m²

I'm too lazy to actually do this math I am not suicidal m.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%281%2C109%2C395.4843408+m%C2%B2+%2B+1%2C109%2C395.4843408+m%C2%B2%29%2B%28+550%2C036.4165992+m%C2%B2%2B+550%2C036.4165992+m%C2%B2%29%2B+238%2C362.46749927+m%C2%B2

We get

~3.56 km²

As a rough area Then I used the information found here  www.glidden.com/how-much-paint-do-i-need

And a little math to find out that

1 gallon of paint can cover 37.161 square meters or 0.037161 km²

So then you finally do the last bit of math

0.037161 km² ÷ ~3.56 km²

To roughly, approximately, based on my math get the answer of

 95.7247186405 gallons of paint needed to coat an impstar duce ( far less than I expected)



Did I seriously just do all that math......for fun......I need to go to bed......or do I need to wake up???

Why not let's go all the way and find out the cost

But that's only one coat of paint so based on info from here

garage.eastwood.com/tech-articles/how-much-does-it-cost-to-paint-a-car/

At least 3 coats are needed so we need to alter the numbers a bit

 287.1741559215 gallons total are needed minimum (that's closer to what I thought it would be starting out)

And then for even more fun the cost

A base coat ($100-$400 a gallon)

An enamel coat  ($100 - $250 a gallon)

And a clear coat ( $100 - $250 a gallon)

Using $1.52=1 credit as found here using food as a way to calculate the value

 youtu.be/V02924KCrZQ

A base coat (152-608 gc a gallon) ( 14,550.157233356 - 58,200.628933424 gc total)

An enamel coat  (152- 380 gc a gallon) ( 14,550.157233356 - 36,375.39308339 gc total)

And a clear coat (152- 380 gc a gallon) ( 14,550.157233356 - 36,375.39308339 gc total)

So all three coats together would cost around  28,717.42 To 86,152.25 us dollars Or  43,650.47 to 130,951.42 standard galactic credits for the minimum of 3 coats it would need of standard paint

Cost?Edit

If I read this correctly, the Imperial I is more than 3.88bil credits...and the Imperial II is 147mil? Did I read it wrong, or did someone screw up somewhere..? Just wondering...

Shield Generators vs Sensor Globes Edit

Could someone please explain to me the meaning / source of all this talk of "sensor globes" atop the SD's command tower? I'm not sure what the current canon regarding these devices is, but every piece of technical information I have encountered regarding Star Destroyers identifies them as shield generators. This includes game mechanics from just about every Star Wars game depicting these ships, as well as schematics, diagrams, and official descriptions. --118.210.106.69 21:58, October 19, 2011 (UTC)

Millenium Falcon and Star Destroyer Easter Egg in "The Dig"? Edit

So I was playing "The Dig", the 1995 Point and Click adventure game by LucasArts. When I stumbled across this control panel:

Star Wars Easter Egg The Dig 1

Star Wars Easter Egg in LucasArts' "The Dig"?

I think it's pretty safe to say that its a Star Wars Easter Egg of the Millenium Falcon and a Star Destroyer. Should this be added to the behind the scenes section with the other easter eggs? --Logan Felipe 21:01, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think that it is an Imperial II-class Destroyer? Gulomi Jomesh 07:26, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
I honestly don't think the creators of the easter egg were being that specific. I just figured it made more sense to put it here than on the "Star Destroyer type warship" page. If you can think of a more appropriate page, then by all means, please put it there. --Logan Felipe (talk) 03:06, June 27, 2012 (UTC)

Height of the ISD-II Edit

Using the image MC80svsISD.png as a reference, drawing a line from end to end I found that the ISD-II is 592 pixels long and 157 tall with that, dividing the length by the height i got 3.7707. Then using the 1,600 meter length I divided by the 3.7707 and got 424.3244, I'm thinking we could approximate that the height of the ISD-II, and possibly the ISD-I, could be around 424.3244 meters by a very rough estimate. Andrew.D.Hester (talk) 07:11, September 9, 2012 (UTC)

I was reading The Bacta War earlier and the given armament of an ISD II seemed to be a little different from the actual figures given on the page, I thought ISD IIs had the same armament as ISD Is im confused??. Gazc5 (talk) 16:38, June 24, 2013 (UTC)

I found a slightly different number Using the measurements here

www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/kdy/blueisd3.gif Factoring up to the standardly recognised legnth found here 1,600 m (1.6 km)

With this equation

1600 m÷686.5 m= 2.3306627822 m conversion factor

I the found the other sides sizes

2.3306627822 m×297.5 m= 693.372177713 m (width) 2.3306627822 m×147.5 m=343.7727603745 m (height)

DaehockDagonson

ComplementEdit

I just edited the number of AT-STs from 20 to 30. The original citation (for 20) was from the Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition), which I'll admit I do not have on hand. I'm referencing the Imperial Sourcebook (p. 61) and the Star Wars Sourcebook (p.34) from WEG, 2nd ed. My apologies if this has been altered, I pray it won't be altered any further. --Mikael Hasselstein (talk) 07:43, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Nine trillion terra-watts Edit

Where is it stated please that the reactor puts out so much power? That's almost 3% the power of a G2V main-sequence star! Seems like an awful lot... plus the fact it'd use 1.1 million tonnes of metallic hydrogen per second to power a reactor like that. 90.200.105.85 10:58, January 31, 2016 (UTC)

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

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection