Rethink Star Destroyers?

If your thread needs an OOC thread as well, put it here.

Moderators: VagueDurin, Nichalus

Post Reply
User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Rethink Star Destroyers?

Post by Red Dragon » Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:27 am

Been rereading some material on ships and i feel like i have had a brain fart for a few years. I think its because i, like many others, got obsessed with numbered stats in forum RPs like here. Everything worth anything, when it comes to cannon, pretty much states that Imperial Star Destroyers alone were capable of taking on entire sector fleets of local governments. But this also states that these fleets were likely only made up of Corvettes and Frigates during the beginning/height of the empire.

Now i realize were are well beyond that point, and with constant war breeds new tech and new ships. We have all created smaller ships that are at least able to stand up to the older ISDs, if not out right match them in some way. (My SA's Ra-calium-class mobile Battleships match's them in fire power.) But looking back at our threads we seem to have red shirted these powerful vessels. No one seems to take them seriously. Also the newer classes of the ship, the MK III and MK IV, you'd think would be up to date when it comes to tech and such and would again place them in that area where they would again be able to take on whole slew of frigates and such again. Though they are likely to come across other destroyers now.

What also came to mind is Solo's Command. I can't remember the entirety of the book but he used the brand new Mon Romada, the first Mc-80B, to track down and destroy a SSD. Here we have a military purpose built mon cal ship, and it was enough of a threat to send the SSD running a number of times. Now i know he had an entire fleet backing the ship up, but weren't they mostly support ships, like frigates and such? SSDs were said to be capable of wiping out such fleets no problem... Or is that a misconception? Yes they are large, might have the fire power of multiple ISDs. But how tactically sound is such a ship? People said that the so called cannon stats of it only having roughly 600 weapons isn't enough to cover the vast expanse of the ship, even if it was the 8km variant. One could take into account that the warlord didn't have the resources to repair the ship should it get damaged. But if that's the case then why make himself a problem where the NR sends a fleet after him? Hell if i remember right he was after a 2nd SSD...

Got off track, so i guess here's two points I'm trying to make.

Point 1: I'm going to try to respect star destroyers more should they come up in my threads, because they should have that respect... What do you think?

Point 2: Are SSDs really that powerful? Or are they just a resource drain for those with too much Ego? (talking about original ones, not the modified or role specific ones many of us have created.)
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
Mir
KING OF STRONG STYLE
Posts: 18556
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:43 pm

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Mir » Thu Mar 28, 2013 7:32 am

Personally, I've always utilized the ISD Mk II as the benchmark when it comes to cap ships. A properly utilized ISD Mk II should be able to wipe out a decent sized fleet. The Rebel Alliance was always portrayed as fearful of ISDs even when the Mon Cals came around. They devised tactics specifically to exploit the trench run/starfighter weakness of the ISD. Later, the New Republic devised it's own version of the ISD for multiple reasons, the primary one being that it was/is the benchmark of capital ship warfare.
Everyone knows "Pops and Junior = #Ratings"
Everyone knows "Cazzik and Mir = #Wynning"
#Valkob4Life

Your Reigning, Defending EFL Champion
2x EFL Champion (2014, 2017)

User avatar
Balsa
Balsa is not a lie!
Posts: 9870
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:43 pm
Contact:

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Balsa » Thu Mar 28, 2013 8:40 am

Another thing to consider is that our custom designs tend to be better ship designs than what is found in Star Wars for the primary reason that the artists creating Lucas' designs were not military engineers. They were trying to follow a standard aesthetic based on real naval combat and that means some choices don't make sense in the context of a military design. Since many of us at least try to come up with ship designs that are practical and logical, our designs tend not to have some of the weaknesses found on canon designs. For example, what's up with that bridge design for the Star Destroyer classes?

It's for that reason that I only respect ISDs in so much as they are powerful ships, but chalk full of design errors.

Open hanger bay that's just waiting to be smacked by a run-away fighter. The giant blindspot created by the wedge shape of the hull. Overly exposed bridge. Outdated and bad combat strategy/tactics based on 2-D thinking. Etc.

But this is all OOC stuff and not IC reasoning.

User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Red Dragon » Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:23 am

Well I'm mostly talking bout ic... There's all kinds of reasoning for many of the "design flaws". While the bridges are exposed, there is little to no danger to them unless they are getting the shit blasted out of them. A number of SA's ships have exposed bridges, but those either retract in combat or the crew moves down to a combat bridge... I should probably mention that in their wiki's... But for the Imperial navy, to witch had no equal, the captains or admirals sure did like their panoramic view of everything they knew they could lay waste too with a single order...

The wedge shape of a Star destroyer... so long as the turret's base can raise, lower or even move side to side, would allow for greater forward fire power, or the ability to focus on targets off to port or starboard with nearly the same amount of fire power. The rear? Well... in a lot of cases if the enemy got behind you then you probity lost already.

Thing about shields, in my mind SW shields don't work like ST shields. "Despite all the games and shit that do have them work like that.) SW shields to me have a threshold an enemy need to exceed before those shields start wearing down. Like enemy fire must equal the power output of the shield, but that's only the first hurtle. Then they must out race the recharging capabilities of those shields. So the enemy needs to have significantly greater fire power over the power output of the shields.

Once the enemy meets those requirements, random events happen to the shields as they start getting overwhelmed they become unstable, some enemy shots may start getting though despite shield strength still being fairly high. Shield projectors become strained, suffer short outs or if the enemy fire is very strong, could outright explode. Likely this is an event seen very often during the height of the empire when corvettes or frigates attack a ISD, they literally get taken out in a single salvo which is kinda scary when you think about it.
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
Coal
"Into the flames"
Posts: 931
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:19 am
Location: Perdido Bay, enjoying the view

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Coal » Thu Mar 28, 2013 1:54 pm

For IC reasons, I think it's because they were the Galactic Empire, the all powerful masters of the galaxy (with Sith leading them, to boot). After the Clone Wars, there weren't many military forces that could challenge them, so the ISD's were designed and built to be big, mean BAMF's, with their greatest power being that no one wanted to F with them. For that role, they worked. The only conceivable way to fight them was to build something just as big, and the Empire would find out before you were done, and send in a battle group to tell you 'you need a spanking, kid'.

As for stupid design elements, chalk it up to the vast resources the Empire had. Last time I read up on them, twenty five thousand ISDs alone (never mind Vic's and other smaller warships) were built by the Empire. They could always be deployed in pairs to support each other. And then there should be a small fleet of escorts and support ships with each ISD, just like with supercarriers today.

For the people that used them and the roles they were meant to play (not just subjugation, but defense from supposed extra-galactic threats), they're solid designs. But logically, they're 'jacks of all trade, masters of none', and that's their biggest weakness. Be a battleship, be a carrier, be a troopship or command ship, but don't be all of them at the same time!
Ignorance is its own death sentence.

Reality overrides theory. And intelligence.

The universe is vast, infinite, and full of wonders and miracles to prove just how stupid and unimaginative we really are.

User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Red Dragon » Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:16 am

I don't think any other ship in all of cannon does the "'jacks of all trade, masters of none" better then the ISD, except the SSD.
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
Mir
KING OF STRONG STYLE
Posts: 18556
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:43 pm

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Mir » Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:43 am

RSD?
Everyone knows "Pops and Junior = #Ratings"
Everyone knows "Cazzik and Mir = #Wynning"
#Valkob4Life

Your Reigning, Defending EFL Champion
2x EFL Champion (2014, 2017)

User avatar
Coal
"Into the flames"
Posts: 931
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 6:19 am
Location: Perdido Bay, enjoying the view

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Coal » Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:28 pm

RSD's are still jacks, just smaller. They do have the benefit of a better crew size (8k compared to 40k), but are still setup to fill multiple roles.

And I'd expect the ability to handle multiple roles in something the size of an SSD. It just has the mass and space available.

Best IC thing that could improve the capabilities of star destroyers is use vessels (or upgrades of them) like the Acclamator and Venator (smaller, but much better stats for their roles) and build something like an RSD-sized purebred battleship. But that is of course the logic of a modern day navy and not the logic of a universe with twenty five thousand years of apparently near-static technological and tactical development.
Ignorance is its own death sentence.

Reality overrides theory. And intelligence.

The universe is vast, infinite, and full of wonders and miracles to prove just how stupid and unimaginative we really are.

User avatar
coronhorn
Lord Defender
Posts: 8040
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 11:26 pm
Location: locus vacuus fides
Contact:

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by coronhorn » Thu Apr 18, 2013 9:56 am

Just gotta remember Coal for vast stretches of those 25k years that space was ruled by a single government with little to no warfare above the planetary type. If my memory serves the Clone Wars was the first major interplanetary war in the galaxy for thousands of years. There was no real need to advance technology or even teach military tactics.

Anyway, the primary role of Imperial Star Destroyers (and their larger SSD brethren) was terror, just like the Death Star, they were more strategic weapons and not necessarily designed for tactical use.

As far as tactical weaknesses of the ships You would think that the rear not having any offensive (or defensive) weapons would be an issue but think for a minute about the level of radiation and energy pouring off those drives when they're underway. It would make a tempting if foolish target right up to the point where the drive plasma starts eat your hull before you could get into effective weapons range.
-David W aka Coronhorn... A ghost of Exodus past...
The Lost Holocron

User avatar
Darkheyr
"Certified Local Madman"
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:34 am

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Darkheyr » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:29 pm

Just gotta remember Coal for vast stretches of those 25k years that space was ruled by a single government with little to no warfare above the planetary type. If my memory serves the Clone Wars was the first major interplanetary war in the galaxy for thousands of years. There was no real need to advance technology or even teach military tactics.
Uhm, no. You need to read up the timeline again, Coron. There's been galaxy-wide wars every few centuries/millenia, and I doubt local conflicts (a couple of systems vs a couple of systems) ever really stopped. And at no point in SW history has there ever been only one government - theres always been significant independent factions such as the Hutts.

As for ISDs: ISDs are pretty much one of my benchmark ships when drawing up new designs. They have a crapload of weapons, a significant fighter complement, ground troops, powerful engines. Even a Mark I should still be an enemy you are not going to take on lightly. Same goes for a Venator or Victory SD - there was a reason why they routinely fought off numerically superior CIS forces, after all - and some of those ships were of almost equal size.

Edit: And if an ISDs engines are more dangerous than its weapons (and more long-ranged!); why install guns in the first place?

User avatar
AnthonyL
Renegade Rebel
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:36 pm
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by AnthonyL » Sat Aug 03, 2013 6:21 am

Granted I am new and may not be up to speed on many things in these forums, but it has been my personal beliefe that the ISD was more of a Aircraft Carrier mixed with a Battle Ship. It has the weapons to protect itself from other ships it's size and strength while still being able to field a large amount of fighters. The advent of the ISD MK-2 tells me the designers noted there were strategic weaknesses in the ISD MK-1 design. When the Mon Calamari came into the picture, they brought a large amount of ships that could absorb a great amount of firepower because of their dense hull plating. With this in mind, also remember that many of the Mon Cal Cruisers were not as powerful as even a VSD, so it is unlikely that they could engage a ISD in a 1-on-1 battle. Also, with the Mon Cal ships, each one was designed to be different than others, so some were larger like Home One while others were smaller. It stands to reason that a fleet of 3-4 Mon Cal ships with support vessels could be destroyed by a single ISD. Even though the ISD would be outnumbered, it would not neccessarily be outgunned.

If I were designing a Star Destroyer, I would keep the fighter compliment and the weapons compliment the same, but I would remove the Command Tower and put the Bridge and Shield Generators in a less conspicous space. This is a perfect example of lowering the target profile: http://www.swagonline.net/image/galacti ... er-carrier.

The Star Destroyers biggest weakness from my point of view it the lack of anti starfighter weaponry. As previously stated, this makes them vulnerable to the Trench Run Defense by small fightercraft such as A-Wings. Also as stated, the ISD and SSD were more weapons of terror than designed for warfare, even though they excelled at both. I am not sure if it was ever mentioned in any of the Star Wars movies, but the Rebel fleet did its best to keep from encountering a ISD, even a VSD, because of the amount of firepower it would take to bring one down. It wasn't until the Republic introduced the New Class Program that new, more modern ships were being used in what was once the Rebel Fleet. This includes the Republic Star Destroyer which is said to be able to defeat a ISD MK-1, but not a ISD MK-2. Then we see another type of Star Destroyer in the Republic which is smaller than the ISD MK-1 & 2, but is a match for the MK-2. I think this was called the Defender-class Star Destroyer. Either way, both of these ships were smaller, carried fewer fighters than the ISD MK-1 & 2, yet were still able to defeat their larger counterparts.

Regardless of the design flaws, the ISD was a great weapon to use for subjugating small planetary systems. In all the galaxy, no single star system could build enough ships to prevent themselves from being either wiped out by the Empire or being taken over by their troops. Yes interplanetary wars were fought, and yes other species had ships eual to the size and firepower of a Star Destroyer, however consider how many ISD's were built according to book canon (25,000) and lets not forget the number of VSD's Dreadnaughts, Carrack Cruisers, Corvettes, Frigates, Carriers and smaller picket ships either-which must have been well over 100,000 in number. No government, not even the Hapes Consortium, could hope to builf enough ships to prevent their own downfall. It would take the wealth and capabilities of Hapes, the Hutts, the Corporate Sector, and countless others to build a fleet of ships large enough and powerful enough to challenge the Imperial Navy. After all, the Empire DID span across almost 2/3 of the galaxy at one point.

As far as shields go, I would say that in all my readings, I have found that ships in Star Wars either have only energy(ray) shields or they have energy AND particle shields. The particle shields are nearly always on-line so as to protect the vessel from meteorites and small bits of debris that can be harmful to the craft. The energy shields are typically only raised in combat due to extra power drain. In the books, I have read that larger ships can project their shields further out from the hull, but this also means they cannot fire their turbolasers through their own shields. I read in one of the Thrawn trilogy books were a Mon Cal Cruiser was getting beat up by a VSD and was unable to fire its turbolasers due to its shields being up. When Rogue Squadron pulled off a manuever the VSD stopped firing long enough for the Mon Cal to open up with its own weapons. In the X-Wing series with Wraith Squadron, we see that shield power can be rerouted to keep certain areas more protected, Warlord Zsinj launched all his fighters to attack the Mon Remonda's dorsal shields while his Star Destroyer attacked the ventral shields, this was done to 'keep their shields even'.

As far as using our own designs, we are inventors and creators of our own universes. Why would we want ships and tech that is able to be defeated by canon? Answer is, We don''t. We want our ships and weapons more powerful or at the very least as durable as what is already established. I myself have melded designs and technologies I think are superior to standard Imperial ships and weapons, even those among the Rebel Alliance and the New Republic. My Phantom is no match for a SSD, but it is easliy a match for a single ISD MK-1. My Rapier is no match for the XJ3 X-Wing, but it can outfight any fighter in Imperial space and is able to fight B-Wings to a standstill.

To sum it up, we need our ships to be better than our enemy/friends because we need to win. ISD's are great platforms for planetary assault, ship-to-ship combat, or even carrier duty. Jack-of-all trades is true, but at that time the only thing they could not TRULY defend themselves against was a massive amount of starfighters getting in close to their hull.
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."

User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Red Dragon » Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:01 am

I hate how that writer makes statements that weapons can't be fired when shields are up when thats not true.

As for a small government no being able to match the vastness of the imperial fleet at its height... They didn't need too. They simply needed to out wit or out gun the invading force the Empire sends, which can and has been done. Hapes had the best case senerio when it came to this, but there were other smaller governments that told the empire to take a flying leap and had the bite to back up their bark. A lot of ships in the alliance fleet were donated by such governments to attack the 2nd death star. Empire had a huge fleet, but it wasn't big enough to be everywhere, or big enough that they could send a large percentage of said fleet to one of those governments to "put them in their place", not unless they wanted to leave some other spot open for attack, which someone would attack.

AS for the Mon cals, no two were exactly the same, as you said, but it wasn't just in looks. ISD captains hated attacking one because there was no telling how powerful one really was. There were Mon cals that had massive amount of fire power, rivaling or having more fire power then a ISD. Or even if they had the average fire power of a "typical" mon cal it might have more extensive shields and can take more of a pounding. Looking at early mon cal stats i always took them as an estimate or average. The only hard lined fact about all the mon cals is that thy all had extensive shield systems and back up shields, which allowed them to take on an isd in a slugging match. Their hulls sucked though, the armor plating wasn't military grade thickness, at least not though out the ship. Its why they were rigged with back up shields.

But in the end, losing a ship for either side is devastating on so many levels. If there is a reason to want to avoid one ship type or another, unless it absolutely must come to blows, that would be the reason right there.
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
Darkheyr
"Certified Local Madman"
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:34 am

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Darkheyr » Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:19 am

As far as using our own designs, we are inventors and creators of our own universes. Why would we want ships and tech that is able to be defeated by canon? Answer is, We don''t. We want our ships and weapons more powerful or at the very least as durable as what is already established.
To sum it up, we need our ships to be better than our enemy/friends because we need to win.
This is flat-out wrong. There are vast amounts of stories out there where heroes and/or their companions/spaceships/mounts may be outclassed by their enemies. In fact, as far as the BBEG is concerned, being outclassed is almost the norm. Fights against impossible odds often provide significantly more storytelling options. If you need superior designs to write a compelling story - not want to, for story reasons, but need - there is something wrong with the storytelling.

I even go further and claim that drawing up oh-so-many designs that outclass established ones is both often unrealistic given intent and resources of the designer and greatly devalues established, iconic designs deeply embedded within a setting. If TIEs and ISDs are so easily overshadowed... why the frakk would the Empire use them? I mean, X-Wings outfighting TIEs is fine. Its a different principle behind it. Quality over Quantity. Even imperial rules of engagement require numerical superiority for TIEs. Firepower, speed, and quantity - thats their niche.

Now ISDs? They are the X-Wings of capital ships. The Venators and Vicstars were. They went up against overwhelming odds during the Clone Wars and won. The ISD is better than those two, AND carries a small army with it. Its not the type of ship that is easily outclassed. If everyone could do that, I'd wonder what the R&D guys of the Empire are getting paid - because they obviously suck.

Plus, Star Wars without star destroyers and TIEs (or their Era respective equivalents) is difficult to describe as still 'Star Wars'.

User avatar
AnthonyL
Renegade Rebel
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:36 pm
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by AnthonyL » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:01 am

I made no untrue statements, I really did read that a Mon Cal Cruiser was unable to fire because it had its shields up protecting itself from the VSD's constant bombardments. Perhaps I simply did not accurately state the information correctly.
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."

User avatar
AnthonyL
Renegade Rebel
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:36 pm
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by AnthonyL » Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:44 am

How is my opinion wrong? I am writing a story based on unsung heroes. If I want a character to have ships and wepons better than Imperials that is my choice. Also, if my character comes from an area of space not previously known about, then should it not stand to reason my characters people have access to different weapons and technology? I am not saying fighting against impossible odds does not make for good reading, it does. However, there are undoubtly some out there who want to see the bad guy get his/her butt kicked thoroughly by the good guys. I have always read books where the good guys are less powerful, less sophisticated, and undermanned than there enemy and always prevail. That always makes for fine reading, true enough, yet the story I am telling brings in a different viewpoint.

My character belongs to a group of humans who left the Republic many years before the Empire came to existance. When they finally came into their own, they were found by an Imperial force and were nearly wiped out due to their refusal to join the Empire. With the help of their allies, my charcters people began building new vessels and sent spies into the galaxy to provide intel on the goings on of the Empire. When they found out about the Rebellion, the spies began making contacts with people who were close to the Rebels and used these contacts to steal design plans for many ships used in the galaxy proper. These designs were sent back to my characters people where they were studied, enhanced, and built in quantities enough to send out as scouts and insertion vessels. These ships would ply the trade routes and would never be noticed as their kind were all too familiar.

The size and design of ships like the ISD and VSD were studied and a new home guard fleet was built to counter any threat made by an ISD or VSD. My characters people and their allies then began developing new weapons to protect themselves from further attacks. Now, the ships my character uses personally are in fact ships of older designs and therefore are more easily defeated by actual modern warships. However, this is also where the outwitting comes in. So you see, I can do both, though I prefer to just bludgeon my way through a fight.
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."

User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Red Dragon » Sat Aug 10, 2013 3:43 pm

AnthonyL wrote:I made no untrue statements, I really did read that a Mon Cal Cruiser was unable to fire because it had its shields up protecting itself from the VSD's constant bombardments. Perhaps I simply did not accurately state the information correctly.
Not saying you didn't read that, i simply stated i hate when authors do that, Never in the movies has it been stated or shown that shields needed to be down to fire weapons. As far as i remeber i made no statments on your story, characters or vehicles.
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
Darkheyr
"Certified Local Madman"
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:34 am

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Darkheyr » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:49 am

Sci Fi authors have a terrible inclination to totally mess up the way starship combat works in their respective setting. I tasted bile when I saw how Karpyshyn described Ascendant Spear in combat - far too starfighteresque for an imperial dreadnaught, and far too "one salvo from close range kills everyone" style. It's especially noticeable by authors with prior experience in different SciFi settings - again, like Karpyshyn. The DS9 books have a similar issue for Star Trek.

As for how your opinion is wrong...

It's wrong by definition because its subjective to very specific stories. It's not necessary for ships to be better in a more general, objective context. Proof: The Rebel Alliance. It's entirely possible to write a different story, but everytime you draw up something with the ability to challenge star destroyers head on, you have to be very, very careful not to totally skew the setting context of said ISDs. It's one of the scariest, strongest and most versatile ships of its era, and if ships pop up at every corner with the ability to challenge them directly, it completely invalidates that setting context. Not to mention that quite often, such stories are often magicked up on the premise that some ragtag group can compete on a logistical, technological and military level with a government controlling the vast majority of known populated space. Remember, an ISD is a ship that costs more than many star systems' annual output. Not to mention the logistical nightmare - just read up on whats necessary to keep a modern aircraft carrier running, and then multiply that to a vastly grander scale. Not to mention that its not that easy to build military hardware able to compete with the big players - again, take real life, and look at various attempts by non-first world military technology. Almost everything outside of America, Europa and China is second rate at best, and even there its often concentrated in specific entities - companies like Boeing, EADS in military aviation, for instance. It's very rare that new companies just show up and produce competing products out of nowhere, and even if it does, its often due to experienced personnel going elsewhere.
There were Mon cals that had massive amount of fire power, rivaling or having more fire power then a ISD.
First time I hear that. Unlikely too, given the fact that before the New Republic, Mon Cals were just modified space liners. They simply don't have the power grids and reactor strength for that, which is critical in SW ship combat. There are limits to modifications - at some point building a new hull becomes cheaper than tearing the old one apart so you can fit that new reactor.
As for a small government no being able to match the vastness of the imperial fleet at its height... They didn't need too. They simply needed to out wit or out gun the invading force the Empire sends, which can and has been done. Hapes had the best case senerio when it came to this, but there were other smaller governments that told the empire to take a flying leap and had the bite to back up their bark.
Which ones? And which of those didn't have natural barriers to protect them like Hapes? Just getting through the Transitory Mists is an issue; if it wasn't, Hapes would be little more than a stopgap with its few major worlds. And, even more important - did they truly 'win' anything or did the Empire simply not deem them important enough to throw more resources at? Very, very significant difference there.

You are vastly underestimating the sheer power a government the size of the Empire can bring to a table, and vastly overestimate the ability of smaller governments to do so. Again, a single ISD costs more than many systems annual output. And they produced over 25'000 of those; not to mention older models like the Venator, Victory or smaller escort ships.


Again, I'm not saying its completely impossible to challenge the Empire or an individual ISD - but its difficult to do it logically without skewing the setting, especially without an Empire that focuses on warfare and information control / gathering noticing. You can't just steal some plans, enhance them - however thats done so easily - and build a ship twice the size of an ISD in your backyard. And then train some moisture farmers to fly it.

User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by Red Dragon » Mon Aug 12, 2013 5:42 pm

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Dornean_Navy is the only one I found with a short search. They managed it with 8 small capital ships and an unknown number of smaller ships. The ships they sent to help at Endor were brand new. So not only did they fend off the empire they were building up, a single world. I remember reading others who held off the empire sent ships to the fleet or attempted to lead imperial fleets/ships on wild goose chases to take pressure off Ackbar's fleet.

You bring up real world situations, but i don't think that can really be used as a comparison. First all the 1st world countries don't fall apart into waring warlords when the president, queen are killed off. Also How many wars did the US just simply "walked away from" because it was just costing to much manpower and resources to continue the fight? Vietnam, our "war on terrorism" just two i can pull off the top of my head. North Korea are still being dicks, they are nothing to anyone else's forces but no one hasn't delt with them yet.

You also talk about how a ISD costs more then any one planet in the empire can pay to build and then support... Ok, explain the Mon Cal cruisers. Add in the fact that for the longest time Dac was under imperial rule for so long. And the moment they freed them selves they turned star liners into carrier/cruisers that could and have fought an ISD nearly toe for toe. There is also the fact that governments out side the "known space" don't use the same economics as the empire. In the empire "this, this and this" costs "this much and comes from this planet then must be shipped to that planet". Its not the same for someone or some thing well outside of the economics of the empire. Case in point would be the Hapans, Chiss, Dornea and once freed the Mon Cal. Those Chiss destroyers weren't billed to the Empire.

Hapes was defiantly removed from the affairs of the rest of the galaxy, yet they fielded thousands of ships. It doesn't matter that Hapes was rich, none of that wealth went into companies around the galaxy to build their Dragon's and Novas. A Hapan Fleet held hundreds Dragons, and a honor guard group of 63 MORE dragons, each represented a planet in their government. And who knows how many Nova and beta Cruiser mixed in that lot. They may not hold 70 some fighters or be able to field a invasion force in each ship, but they had respectable fire power and in those numbers

As for the Mon cal's with the same or more fire power, i read this a long time ago and has likely be retconned or something. Hell might be just a thought i had. Which stems from the fact that each ship was converted with what was on hand at the time, that's as close to a fact as mon cal cruisers get, correct? Well while they were converting one of these cruisers they got a hold of a large arsenal, (either it was donated, stolen or whatever.) the ship had the mass to support it so they amped it up with the weapons and did what they needed to support those weapons, which we know they can do.

Its these reasons/examples why I think my Systems Alliance can field a few hundred ships and such. They are outside the "normal" galactic economics. They also had the time and reason to build up such a force. None of their ships match a isd on every level. Nor would i want to put such a ship together. As i think its been said before, such ships are a logistical nightmare.

/shrug, Not looking to fight over any of this.
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
AnthonyL
Renegade Rebel
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:36 pm
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Re: rethink Star Destoryers?

Post by AnthonyL » Tue Aug 13, 2013 7:56 pm

I agree with you Red Dragon, my people are also outside the 'norm' of the Empire/galactic economics and also draw on the resources of 2 non-human governements which is how they built 4 heavy warships capable of defeating a ISD MK 1. The fighters and support craft they built are still few in number, yet their mainstream warships and system patrol craft are more on par with those of the Rebel Alliance and smaller galactic governments which have vessel analogues like Carrack Cruisers, Marauder Corvettes, and even Nebulan-B's.
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."

User avatar
Darkheyr
"Certified Local Madman"
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 1:34 am

Re: Rethink Star Destroyers?

Post by Darkheyr » Fri Aug 16, 2013 2:50 am

You are sort of missing my point, Red. Our opinions aren't really different.

I am not, very, very explicitly not stating that it's impossible. I'm saying it's not easy to make it happen logically without risking radical changes in the setting, or ridiculing established parts of said setting.

Of course smaller governments might be able to field ISD-esque ships - if they have the logistical infrastructure for it, if they have the technological know-how to develop, build and maintain it. If they have the economical strength to finance it. For most small governments, that isn't the case, nor would they have need for it except when fighting similar ships.

Similarily, a smaller government can make conquering them an expensive hassle. The Empire, for all its power, hasn't existed for very long - they still had things to do all over the place, so - as I stated before, so I don't know why you use it as an argument against my post :P - they might decide to leave an opponent alone. For now.
And, even more important - did they truly 'win' anything or did the Empire simply not deem them important enough to throw more resources at? Very, very significant difference there.
This was my important bit about that. Most enemies of the Empire didn't 'win'. They were simply spared because the Empire didn't want to expend the resources at the time because they had better things to do. At best, thats a temporary reprieve until the Empire can spare a full invasion force - which singular ISDs for example aren't.
Its these reasons/examples why I think my Systems Alliance can field a few hundred ships and such. They are outside the "normal" galactic economics. They also had the time and reason to build up such a force. None of their ships match a isd on every level. Nor would i want to put such a ship together. As i think its been said before, such ships are a logistical nightmare.
While I disagree about economics - even if the system is different, you still need the appropriate economical/industrial output - I actually agree about the SA fielding a fleet like that. While I have no clue about your system count - nor do I care much, as vague as all of it is - its entirely feasible that a government with little to no contact to the Empire during the Civil War being able to build up a respectable force. You have that logistical base, the Empire didn't want to smash you all that much, so why not? We have other entities like that; the Jade Empire, the BSC, the Kartanin, and so on. But, as said, they are governments with the appropriate prerequisites to design and maintain destroyer-classes.
I agree with you Red Dragon, my people are also outside the 'norm' of the Empire/galactic economics and also draw on the resources of 2 non-human governements which is how they built 4 heavy warships capable of defeating a ISD MK 1. The fighters and support craft they built are still few in number, yet their mainstream warships and system patrol craft are more on par with those of the Rebel Alliance and smaller galactic governments which have vessel analogues like Carrack Cruisers, Marauder Corvettes, and even Nebulan-B's.
And if they have the logistics, technological know-how, manpower and industrial output to do so, thats perfectly fine. Again, it's possible, but far from simple - especially because ISDs were very high at the pinnacle of combat efficiency in their primetime, so building something their size that can challenge them is not a matter of just going over some plans and adding another powerplant here or there. Ships above their size just add to the logistics and manufacturing problem. It's not something, as I said before, that you can scrounge together on some desolate desert planet using local moisture farmers for crew and construction workers. You need an industrial base, a shipyard and excellent ship designers - and thats not even considering access to the high tech to equip a beast like that. Weapons, engines, power plants, shield generators, life support systems, computer networks and a myriad of other tech products - those need to be produced within that industrial base, or they need to be imported from elsewhere. And if anyone is watching for that type of purchase, especially in bulk, it might cause trouble.

Doable yes. Easy, hell no. And sadly, many authors and writers ignore those logical constraints, and throw new superpowered ISD-types around like candy.

User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Re: Rethink Star Destroyers?

Post by Red Dragon » Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:02 pm

so we are somehow arguing over an agreement? Hate it when that happens... Me and the wife do that a lot these days some how... <.<;
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
AnthonyL
Renegade Rebel
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:36 pm
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Re: Rethink Star Destroyers?

Post by AnthonyL » Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:17 pm

What exactly is the Systems Alliance, and what are their strengths?
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."

User avatar
Red Dragon
Posts: 1215
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 2:59 pm
Location: Behind You!
Contact:

Re: Rethink Star Destroyers?

Post by Red Dragon » Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:07 pm

its in the wiki
"This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then... explode."
--Serenity

User avatar
AnthonyL
Renegade Rebel
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2012 5:36 pm
Location: Jackson, Mississippi

Re: Rethink Star Destroyers?

Post by AnthonyL » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:32 am

Very interesting, I like how you incorporated the governments into the military instead of the military as being part of a government.
"Do, or do not. There is no 'try'."

Post Reply