Preferred Ship...

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

Which one is your favorite?

I'm all eyes for pink five! (See Teukros I didn't forget this time)

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

I have to go with a Star Destroyer. it doesn't really matter which class, I just fancy them.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

Well fuck my pink five class x-wing didn't show up... Confounded contraptions... Looks like I forgot again...

[kaja]

Super Star Destroyer, not just becuse firepower, but becuse they look cool.

 

But, there isn't a SSD, so I'll go for just Star Destroyer.

[Paul]

Star Destroyer, Victory Class- they are very useful and cheap. The type II are even better though you lose troop transport unless you edit them.-Grand Moff Conway

[Colonel_Olorin]

i'd have to go with star destroyers aswell best allround ships in the game

[Darth_Officer]

im going to be different here and choose the strike cruiser. they are cheap and pack alot of firepower for the money.

[Krytos]

My favourite ship is an EU ship - The Defender class Star Destroyer.

 

Though, that's obviously not up there.

 

Well the MCs are great cruisers. Moderate firepower for their size, good speed and manouverability, though expensive and hard to maintain.

 

Corvette looks cool, and is an awesome anti-fighter platform. Againt heavier opponents, it takes a beating and usually doesn't walk away.

 

I'm torn between the Strike Cruiser - cheap, and highly effective in combat and the all rounder ISD.

 

Though, considering my choice of play I'd say the Strike cruiser

[BadSamaritan]

After carefull consideration, much deliberation, and some drinking (Im starting my two days off after 13 in a row), I decided that the Nebulon-B was my choice.

 

Why, you ask? Simple. You can get them early on in the game, and the moment you get them they have a habit of becoming essential ships in your starting fleets. Later on, they make a good ship to build on the cheap for a quick boost of a fleet, as they are capable of taking on starfighters with relative ease, and they can take a beating from heavier ships before they go away. Also, three or Four of them can give even a Mark II SD enough of a problem to make sure that at best it limps away from a fight. Five of them can take down a MArk II and most of its fighters, making it a good ship to have in a defensive fleet.

 

That, and the name is cool. Say it with me now. Nebulon-B. Neb-U-Lon-Beeeeee........

[SOCL]

Whoa, ha-ha, are we talking about preference in the game or over-all preference? If in the game, I would go with the Strike-class simply due to its decent firepower, yet relatively low cost. If you simply mean an over-all preference, no doubt the Imperator-class Star Destroyer, Mark II. Nothing beats a battlecruiser that is called a "Star Destroyer" and carries enough firepower to beat the crap out of nearly anything or anyone (yet, for some reason, four of the Mark I's can't catch a single YT-1300 flying relatively slow speed away from Tatooine, nor can a Mark II survive an asteroid collision ).

[Jahled]

I just voted.

 

...Hard choice.

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

Wow, my polls are actually being successful, how splendid.

 

I'd go with the Star Destroyer too, I'm young, and owned Shadows of the Empire for N64 when I was 7, which is where my love for Star Destroyers spawned. I mean the game makes Star Destroyers seem invincible, especially when you spend six hours shooting up the deflector shields on it only to deplete the ship's shields to 98% capacity (Anyone ever play the game and remember that at the end of the game?). So yeah definately the Star Destroyer...

[SOCL]

Wow, my polls are actually being successful, how splendid.

 

I'd go with the Star Destroyer too, I'm young, and owned Shadows of the Empire for N64 when I was 7, which is where my love for Star Destroyers spawned. I mean the game makes Star Destroyers seem invincible, especially when you spend six hours shooting up the deflector shields on it only to deplete the ship's shields to 98% capacity (Anyone ever play the game and remember that at the end of the game?). So yeah definately the Star Destroyer...

Yeah, supposedly if you beat it on a certain difficulty, it would tell you how to destroy it. Does anyone know how?

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

No, there was no way to destroy it, no matter what difficulty you tried on. I beat the game on all levels, unlocking all of the bonuses and whatnot, but no hints.

 

If you really wanted to spice up that last battle, you could also switch over to an X-Wing or TIE Fighter, though with the TIE it was alot harder to take out the stations core...

 

Just a question (ok, maybe a few): first, why is it that many people call it an Imperator-Class Star Destroyer? Every official source I've read refers to it as an Imperial-Class Star Destroyer:?.

 

Second, are Star Destroyers (I'll call them ISDs for neutrality) Cruisers (as han calls them in ANH), Destroyers (as their name would suggest)? There seemed to be some turmoil over this in the Warlords forum at one time.

 

Third, was there two or four ISDs chasing the Falcon at Tatooine?

 

Finally, and completely off-topic, has any one else noticed that Lando stuttered in the hangar bay of the Home One in RotJ when he was talking to Han? I think he says "I know how much she means to you. She, she, won't get a scratch". Sorry, but I noticed this yesterday at work (no, it didn't just occur to me, we had it playing on the TVs ).

[SOCL]

Just a question (ok, maybe a few): first, why is it that many people call it an Imperator-Class Star Destroyer? Every official source I've read refers to it as an Imperial-Class Star Destroyer:?.

If you read Dr. Saxton's site, you'll see that he cites the fact that the ISDs were originally supposed to be called Imperator-class. Additionally, unless the first ship of the line was the Imperial, it wouldn't be the Imperial-class (the same reason I call the SSD Executor-class and not Super-class: the first SSD would have had to have been the Super and it wasn't, it was the Executor). The other issue is, you'll notice that it wasn't until after the Zahn novels that the ISD started to be called the Imperial-class; before that, ISDs were simply referred to as Imperial Star Destroyers (though, incidentally, the credits for ROTJ call them Stardestroyers...). By calling them Imperial and not Imperial, it makes it that the class is not mentioned and instead a ISD is simply a Star Destroyer that is owned by the Empire (i.e. the same as American cruiser and American-class cruiser). This in no way means the ISD's class name is not Imperial, but this wasn't something that was in any movie canon and wasn't adopted until after EU authors (starting with Kevin J. Anderson in the Jedi Academy Trilogy) coined the class name. Before that, it had honestly been known as the Imperator-class and/or simply Imperial Star Detroyer or Imperial-owned Star Destroyer.

 

Second, are Star Destroyers (I'll call them ISDs for neutrality) Cruisers (as han calls them in ANH), Destroyers (as their name would suggest)? There seemed to be some turmoil over this in the Warlords forum at one time.

Given the relative size of a Star Destroyer, we can pretty much say they're battlecruisers. I could have sworn I read somewhere that 'Star Destroyer' was a term developed by the Empire for their ships in order to instill fear in the galaxy. It doesn't mean it's a destroyer that is in space, but that the name 'Star Destroyer' is actually not the ship type (though over time, it seems to have taken on it's unique type). What I'm trying to say is that ISDs are battlecruisers that are called 'Star Destroyers'. This is does not mean that Mon Calamari cruisers are Star Cruisers, nor does it mean that every type of warship in Star Wars is 'Star [whatever type]'. What makes me think this? Han Solo said "space cruiser" in TESB, and in ANH, he refers to Star Destroyers as cruisers, which could be short for battlecruiser. Why a battlecruiser? Simply because of how truly powerful and enormous Star Destroyers are compared to the rest of the ships in Star Wars, leaving room for larger ships like Executor-class and Eclipse-class to fill the Star Wars role of battleships in space. Another justification is that in Vector Prime we are presented to a new New Republic vessel called a "Star Defender". Okay, there is no type of warship called a "defender" as compared to a "destroyer". This is just a name used by the New Republic for this new type of ship in order to avoid such martial names as "destroyer", "battlecruiser", and "battleship".

 

Third, was there two or four ISDs chasing the Falcon at Tatooine?

I could have sworn they were being chased by two, and then Han said in ANH, "There's two more of them coming in, they're going to try and cut us off."

 

Finally, and completely off-topic, has any one else noticed that Lando stuttered in the hangar bay of the Home One in RotJ when he was talking to Han? I think he says "I know how much she means to you. She, she, won't get a scratch". Sorry, but I noticed this yesterday at work (no, it didn't just occur to me, we had it playing on the TVs ).

Perhaps just something tossed in to make the characters more believable?

[Aenivae_Ikeda]

It's not like they need to put it out there that it's an Imperial Star Destroyer, I mean obviously we know it's an imperial ship, it's not like any other faction has them in their fleets...

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Well, not in the movies at least. After the fall of the Empire the New Republic started using them, though some of their new ships are suppose to be tougher (I don't recall reading this in any EU books, but there it is).

[kaja]

My brother says it's stupid to call it "Imperator", and repeat it, when ever I say it. In an anoying tone to.

 

So I just Call it Imperial. I aslo call SSDs "Executor Class Super Star Destroyer" or "Eclipse Class Super Star Destroyer"

 

However, I do Love Eville's Sovoreign Class Super Star Destroyer Card.

 

Sovoreign's are cool, I love the look of Eville's. The others are ok. But I still love the look of the Executor Class the most...

 

Well, Ok, I like both of them the same.

[Mad78]

I voted for the Corellian Corvette. i have always loved those ships.

Otherwise i would have voted for the Strike Cruiser.

I have a love for the smaller ships.

[Krytos]

Just a question (ok, maybe a few): first, why is it that many people call it an Imperator-Class Star Destroyer? Every official source I've read refers to it as an Imperial-Class Star Destroyer:?.

If you read Dr. Saxton's site, you'll see that he cites the fact that the ISDs were originally supposed to be called Imperator-class. Additionally, unless the first ship of the line was the Imperial, it wouldn't be the Imperial-class (the same reason I call the SSD Executor-class and not Super-class: the first SSD would have had to have been the Super and it wasn't, it was the Executor). The other issue is, you'll notice that it wasn't until after the Zahn novels that the ISD started to be called the Imperial-class; before that, ISDs were simply referred to as Imperial Star Destroyers (though, incidentally, the credits for ROTJ call them Stardestroyers...). By calling them Imperial and not Imperial, it makes it that the class is not mentioned and instead a ISD is simply a Star Destroyer that is owned by the Empire (i.e. the same as American cruiser and American-class cruiser). This in no way means the ISD's class name is not Imperial, but this wasn't something that was in any movie canon and wasn't adopted until after EU authors (starting with Kevin J. Anderson in the Jedi Academy Trilogy) coined the class name. Before that, it had honestly been known as the Imperator-class and/or simply Imperial Star Detroyer or Imperial-owned Star Destroyer.

 

Second, are Star Destroyers (I'll call them ISDs for neutrality) Cruisers (as han calls them in ANH), Destroyers (as their name would suggest)? There seemed to be some turmoil over this in the Warlords forum at one time.

Given the relative size of a Star Destroyer, we can pretty much say they're battlecruisers. I could have sworn I read somewhere that 'Star Destroyer' was a term developed by the Empire for their ships in order to instill fear in the galaxy. It doesn't mean it's a destroyer that is in space, but that the name 'Star Destroyer' is actually not the ship type (though over time, it seems to have taken on it's unique type). What I'm trying to say is that ISDs are battlecruisers that are called 'Star Destroyers'. This is does not mean that Mon Calamari cruisers are Star Cruisers, nor does it mean that every type of warship in Star Wars is 'Star [whatever type]'. What makes me think this? Han Solo said "space cruiser" in TESB, and in ANH, he refers to Star Destroyers as cruisers, which could be short for battlecruiser. Why a battlecruiser? Simply because of how truly powerful and enormous Star Destroyers are compared to the rest of the ships in Star Wars, leaving room for larger ships like Executor-class and Eclipse-class to fill the Star Wars role of battleships in space. Another justification is that in Vector Prime we are presented to a new New Republic vessel called a "Star Defender". Okay, there is no type of warship called a "defender" as compared to a "destroyer". This is just a name used by the New Republic for this new type of ship in order to avoid such martial names as "destroyer", "battlecruiser", and "battleship".

 

Third, was there two or four ISDs chasing the Falcon at Tatooine?

I could have sworn they were being chased by two, and then Han said in ANH, "There's two more of them coming in, they're going to try and cut us off."

 

Finally, and completely off-topic, has any one else noticed that Lando stuttered in the hangar bay of the Home One in RotJ when he was talking to Han? I think he says "I know how much she means to you. She, she, won't get a scratch". Sorry, but I noticed this yesterday at work (no, it didn't just occur to me, we had it playing on the TVs ).

Perhaps just something tossed in to make the characters more believable?

 

Well, I'm not going to get right into this debat - I'll leave any of that to GAT and SOCL, the experts. Though here's my 2 cents.

 

First off, I thought there were three ISDs above Tatooine? One chasing them and then the other two trying to cut them off . . . probably wrong, though that's what I'm thinking at the moment.

Second, if you look at any of the class types for Star Wars, you know they have little meaning in the real world. It's sci-fi with its own meanings for ship classes made up by Lucas and other writters who've extended it in the EU. There are obvious simularities based on our definitions, though that's just the writers who probably didn't get the definitions themselves.

Third, is are some points of interest. When GL had the different SD designs made - such as those in AotC, they used German Battleships for their design. Also, in Vector Prime, as SOCL pointed out, there are the new Star Defenders which SOCL suggested is to avoid the varrying defenition problems - yet there's also the Mediator class Battlecruiser introduced in the same book.

I guess that's just to confuse people more

 

And finally, no offence to anyone - though I can't stand Saxton's site. He really sucks the fun out of Star Wars, which is part fantasy anyway. Why try to justify EVERYTHING?

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Well, Dr. Saxton is really just trying to clarify some things (ranks and what not), and to put a real-world spin on some aspects of Star Wars. I personally don't pay his descriptions and names (such as Imperator-Class) any heed. They're listed as Imperial Star Destroyers on StarWars.com, and as Imperial-Class Star Destroyers as well, under the EU tab. Since this hasn't been contradicted anywhere else, I choose to take this as the "truth" so far as it is possible. But, as stated in another post by Jahled, Star Wars is what we each make of it.

 

I don't think there is going to be a debate about any of the points (I contemplated mentioning that the Lusankya was the first SSD constructed, not the Executor). I was simply looking for clarification on some points .

Edited April 10, 2005 by Grand_Admiral_Thrawn

[SOCL]

It's not like they need to put it out there that it's an Imperial Star Destroyer, I mean obviously we know it's an imperial ship, it's not like any other faction has them in their fleets...

Timothy Zahn used it that way.

 

Second, if you look at any of the class types for Star Wars, you know they have little meaning in the real world. It's sci-fi with its own meanings for ship classes made up by Lucas and other writters who've extended it in the EU. There are obvious simularities based on our definitions, though that's just the writers who probably didn't get the definitions themselves.

I agree, and still agree, and will always agree with the fact that not everything in Star Wars can be explained by Earth-based terms, but if you can't explain it to people who are from Earth on Earth-based terms, then how can you explain it at all? The point being, all I try to do is rationalize matters in Star Wars into such a way that we can understand at based on what we have here on Earth. I mean, do you actually believe that if Star Wars is/was real, then Basic would sound like English? Or that Imperial officers would sound British?

 

And finally, no offence to anyone - though I can't stand Saxton's site. He really sucks the fun out of Star Wars, which is part fantasy anyway. Why try to justify EVERYTHING?

Why not? Besides, it serves to provide conclusions to some Star Wars matters which neither LucasFilm nor the movies has made clear. This does not mean that all his conclusions are correct, nor does it mean that anything not disputed by the movies that is on his website is correct, either, it simply tries to make some logic out of otherwise senseless situations (and, again, this does not mean that everything in Star Wars is 'senseless'). Besides, if you don't like the site, don't go there.

 

Well, Dr. Saxton is really just trying to clarify some things (ranks and what not), and to put a real-world spin on some aspects of Star Wars.

Correct. The same idea as what I typed above, only Dr. Saxton sometimes goes to the extreme (for instance, despite everything else said, he still remains adamant that the domes on top of the Star Destroyers are sensors domes and not shields generator domes, or how he believes that every ship in the comic books that does not look like something already known is a new class ). I don't agree with everything he says, and most certainly I have reservations about a great deal of what he says, but I also find his site to be quite useful as a jumping-off point for applying logic and rationale to Star Wars.

 

I personally pay his descriptions and names (such as Imperator-Class) any heed.

So you do heed what he says?

 

They're listed as Imperial Star Destroyers on StarWars.com, and as Imperial-Class Star Destroyers as well, under the EU tab. Since this hasn't been contradicted anywhere else, I choose to take this as the "truth" so far as it is possible.

Well, when it would be Imperial-class Star Destoryers. Besides which, no one is trying to say that Dr. Saxton is more correct than StarWars.com, but then again, much of what he has done has led to much of what we call canon, most especially the vehicles and vessels of AOTC and ROTS. He is, after all, the writer and editor to the Incredible Cross-Section Books for both of those movies, so when it comes to comparing Saxton's knowledge with that of a normal fan, I'd go with what Saxton says...but maybe that's just me. Further, as far as the ISD class name goes, this is all do-in-part to the fact that Saxton sticks with the original to just about everything, and so he remains adamant that the ISD class name is Imperator and not Imperial. This is the same situation with the shield generator domes on top of the bridges of Star Destroyers, as well as Dr. Saxton's tenacious nature to believe--despite evidence to the vice--that 'Star Destroyer' is the ship type and not simply a nickname given to a type of battlecruiser.