Why the ISD isn't a Clone Wars SHIP (not Design)

[Ello]

Zare:

 

Do they ever actually get rid of ships? They cease to mention them, but I thought that they were never destroyed.

 

Also, I think the reason they change SSD length is that Lucas gives a wonderful statistic which is so mathematically beautiful, and then realizes oh crap, in the movie I made it look twice as large as I said, so he changes it from 5 times an ISD to 8 times an ISD (8km and 12.8km respectively), to make it more reasonable, but the film reels still show it at 11 times an ISD (17.6km) and that's where we get all our measuerments[/i]

[DarthFelth]

perhaps Zare i was being rude because of this one comment

 

o SHADDUP already. Sarcasm won't convert me

 

un called for and thus my tone changed. Anyways my point i invalid, what that it is 17.6km long and many sites have gon into comparing ISD against a SSD showing that it is a SSD is much more than 8 times longer. My point was i take no notice of sites that mention it having any other length. So sorry whats invalid again?

 

You dont use that site either, ok, so why post it?

 

data changes all the time, well then how can you quote a source that you know has faulty data (my point being that how much more data could be wrong).

 

Side note i used to play the west end star wars RPG, i have a nice collection of teh books thanks, yes it stats 8km long but bare in mind when it was printed thats what lucus was saying its size was.

 

on the VenSD and ISD, the differences, even in weapon tech would suggest something inbetween. The VenSD and ISD have as much in common (% wise) ad the VSD, im stilll waiting for proof of the relation, not here say

[Ello]

Look, I apologized for the Shaddup. It was rude, and I wasn't thinking.

 

Second, I posted the site for ZARE, because he asked a question about the Howlrunner. It had nothing to do with anything else.

 

Third: Just because a site contains faulty data doesn't mean that all of it is wrong. Just that you need to treat it more carefully. Take for example the recent discoveries about menopause: that women do actually grow eggs, and its not that they simply "run out". If you had an old medical book that mentioned that theory, does it mean that you can't trust anything else about it? No, it just means that you have to be more careful, and double check. Invalid was a bad word for it, but my point was that your argument: "one thing on it is wrong, ergo everything else is suspect at best" seemed to be foolish to me.

 

I want to make it clear that I do understand your stance of "I don't trust a site that uses any statistic other than 17.6 km," as I don't trust any site that does use 17.6.

 

But I feel that it is pointless to argue about that. It's the sort of thing that we'll never agree on.

 

And finally. The VenSD has a different mission than an ISD. Its weaponry is different for that reason, and that reason alone. It doesn't imply something in between.

 

The Endurance class fleet carrier (New Republic "New Class" ship) has the same spaceframe as a nebula class destroyer, but far less weaponry. It doesn't mean that they are built at different times.

[DarthFelth]

ok, we will call it quits, peace, hehe. Anyways what i said was (and actually the main reference was to the book, but includes the site) is that if the infomation on the length is wrong what else is wrong? its a question It is also a very valid point.

 

My stance, sorry i was on my lunch from work and was trying to eat and type at the same time. My stance is dont trust sites that say a SSD is less than 17.6km at all. My view is most fan sites tend to bias towards the empire or republic.

 

You point about the about those republic ships is well and good until you mentioned they share a space frame, the ISD and VenSD dont share a space frame and look very, very different. Different mission but the designs are so to different. Nothing implys from i have seen that the VenSD and ISD are related other than being made by the same company. The Neb-B is also made by Kuat drive yards and performs a very different role.

 

The ISD was designed to replace the VSD, not the VenSD, to me its more like "this ship does this, what if we do this". By appearance, weapon tech etc the ISD and VSD have alot more incommon, this is fact, not specualtion. Your views on the VenSD seem more based on heresay than actual evidence. Im sorry but i dont agree one bit with you on this and you have provided nothing.

 

BTW that site you provide was about the only fan site i trust, hehe i had lost the link but now have it again. But you must admi that being in a post about VenSD, ISD, VSD was asking to be turned against yay

[Ello]

I really think we had a huge missunderstanding, b/c I've been trying to say that pretty much the whole time--and doing a very bad job of it. Been a pleasure talking to you.

[zare]

Same here with both of you

[DarthFelth]

lol, ahh well, i was enjoying that

[Admiral_Sarn]

The victory and Venator are not related. They are made from two different companies.

[Admiral_Sarn]

You guys could just read the databases in theforce.net you know. It provides accurate info. Also try Wikpedia, they have a lot of info as well.

[chr0n1x]

The victory and Venator are not related. They are made from two different companies.

Both the Victory and Venator are made by Kuat Drive Yards, so they are actually made by the same company.

[Eko]

I was under the impression that all Star Destroyers were created and built by Kuat Drive yards...that and a numbe of support craft.

[JanGaarni]

The Victory is a Rendili StarDrive design.

 

The Venator is KDY.

[DarthFelth]

Jan, we already stated this ages ago if he is un willing to except this then let him get on with it (i found playing the SWCCG i useful source for that kinda interest)

[Garm_Bel_Iblis]

I wasn't going to bother creating an account, but I feel I have to interject here

 

Ok, basically what you have to consider is the concept of canon: What is and what isn't "official" Lucasarts-ratified information, and degrees of canon. Lucas' official policy on the authenticity of information regards the movies as the #1 resource, followed by the resource books (cross sections etc), then the EU: works of fiction and then games, rpgs etc.

 

Keep in mind the Victory Star Destroyer doesn't appear in any films, nor the first X-wing game(as far as games go this one seems to deviate the least), and, although until AOTC was released, it had an entry in the starwars.com databank, it no longer exists there.

 

The Victory class destroyer was first, as far as I can remember, referred to in Heir To The Empire, the first of the Thrawn trilogy. As you all know, Tie Fighter and the following games drew on those three books for warship design, almost exclusively. Until AOTC those were canon. Now they are not (a shame, I prefer Zahn's work to Lucas').

 

From what I can see, Lucas has committed yet another one of his great inconsistancy blunders. He does this a lot, sacrificing the painstaking efforts of his loyal team of developers and writers to keep the universe as consistant and interweaved as possible, because he cbf sticking with it. He could have called the Venerator a Victory - the only images we have of the VSD are from TF and the later X-wing games. But he couldn't be bothered. Now his elite team of "mythology managers" from LA have to run around and clean up the mess.

 

So you have a choice. You can go with Lucas and start pretending that the VSD never existed, but a very similar craft, the Venerator, did.

 

Or you could follow the EU, and fill in the blanks yourself. The VSD, dating back into the old republic, was a relatively large craft, possibly even a flagship for a sector fleet back then. Such a thing would be extremely expensive to produce in the quantities they needed without the resource-raping tactics of palpatine's war machine. I really doubt the Old Republic would choose them over a smaller cheaper and more easily deployed warship. Cue the Ven. class.

 

Notice there were no Dreadnaughts seen in any of the engagements portrayed in AOTC either. With a crew requirement of 16000 and a limited supply of clones, with the Katana fleet long gone by then, they surely existed in great number, but it probably worked out more efficient to build more... specifically designed craft (such as the Acl. class and Ven. Class.

 

Later on, with the advent of conscription and the tightening of the reigns by Palpatine's new order, VSDs would have become a more practical solution, as would Dreadnaughts, and later ISDs and other larger craft.

 

This notion of manpower also explains why the second death star took only 2 or 3 years to construct, whereas the first obviously took a lot longer. (Although the Technical Commentaries will tell you that the example seen at the end of ROTS is not the same size and shape as the one that destroyed Alderaan. I suggest this might in fact be the prototype later relocated to the Maw).

[Garm_Bel_Iblis]

I thought that post was too big to start with, so I'm adding this into a different one entirely.

 

Note the bridge seen at the end of ROTS. It's a KDY bridge, much like the one on the Executor, and those seen on the other ISDs seen in TESB. Sources indicate that the bridges on KDY ships differed from the Rendilli-made VSD.

 

I myself have trouble believing that two rival companies would build two competing warships with the same bridge interior, even under a military commission, and especially not pre-Empire.

 

So this indicates that the destroyer pictured was a KDY design - either a Venerator class, or an Imperial class. Given the presence of Palpatine on board, as well as his chief lieutenant and warlord, Vader, I would expect this to be a flag ship also.

 

Could this be the Imperator, the very first ISD?

 

Or perhaps even the ISD Devastator, Vader's flagship in the period leading up until the Battle Of Yavin (as seen in the opening scene of ANH), after which Palpatine gave him the Executor.

 

Guess until Lucas starts working with the New Order time frame (From ROTS to ANH) we'll never know.

 

-edit- it has come to light that the VSD was first referenced in a star wars scource book in the 1980s. Also, before you jump on me, I am aware that the Ven. Class is longer than the VSD - it also has a much larger hanger bay, and IMO would require a smaller crew loadout than a regular VSD I.

 

Obviously they had some major deficiency compared to the VSD as they appear to have been completely defunct by the time of the civil war, wheras Pellaeon was still using VSDs in Darksaber.

[JanGaarni]

Heh, nice post, Garm Bel Iblis.