Jump to content
Eagle128

Super Star Destroyer discussion thread

Recommended Posts

Yeah, you're right. So is the Executor of course.

 

It still confuses me, given that Home One is also in the position of being nothing more than a subclass (It's an MC80). So that would make it a MC80 'Home One' and we still don't know the sub-designation of that (by all indications there isn't any, so we'll have to see how FFG tackles it). It would be like we'd have to have an M1A1 mk.2, it's not something we see.

 

Anyhow, I'm still pretty convinced on the 13.5km measurement, but it's true, we're talking about something that's only 2/3rds the size at modest, 1/2 the size at large.... or the same size at the Executor's smallest official measurement.

 

I wouldn't be particularly surprised if we did see a new SSD or a 'galaxy gun' style weapon over another battlestation. So, a list of SSD type ships in the Galactic Civil War era (excluding Clone Wars types).

 

Assertor-class: 15km

  • Pro: it's pretty prototypical and slightly smaller than the larger sized Executor estimates.

  • Con: it's not much smaller, it's got the same command tower problem it not worse as there's little in the way to obscure it (and at a reasonable scale, the tower might not even show up), and it's far-far thicker than the Executor.

Bellator-class:7.2km,

  • Pro: It's unique looking and might actually be possible.

  • Con: It wouldn't be any smaller than the Raider in physical size, but might have to be longer. That's a lot of material. That said, it's no Executor in shape, and while I love its profile, I'm not sure how well the humpback would be received.

Eclipse-class: 17.5km

  • Pro: it's big given its shape, but its bridge isn't actually superimposed from an ISD. It could be any size and work perfectly well.

  • Con: It's got really low detail and it's a sort of strange shape that looks more at home in Firestorm Armada, but it could still work (might be one of the best candidates)

Executor-class: 8-19km.

  • Pro: it's in the movies and thus recognizable and iconic, there's not much competition out there, and its got at least decent structuring from what I saw when it comes to plastic tooling. There's also a prototype confirmed at 12km.

  • Con: the bridge size, people's preconception on how big it should be (whether it's 16” or 36”, there's going to be complaints), unsure how much detail they can put in to the 'city-spine' and still make it look reasonably detailed.

Mandator-class: >8 Km

  • Pro: no one's ever seen it depicted.

  • Con: no one's ever seen it depicted AND it's part of a private fleet from the late Clone War era.

Praetor II-class: 4.4-8km

  • Pro: workable enough size. There's no real 'bridge' or prominant features to scale.

  • Con: There's no prominent features at all, really. It certainly doesn't look like an SSD or anything particularly special. Its got a lot of flat surfaces and some massive looking subwoofers at the back of the 'tower' spine.

Sovereign-class: ?km small scale version of the Eclipse.

  • Pro: no one's seen it, it's described as being smaller and reasonable to mass-produce.

  • Con: only 4 built compared to the 'dozens of command ships' that describe Executor-like vessels, and all built by a splinter faction, Warlord Zsinj in the EU.

Vengeance-class: 19km

  • Pro: ... well, you can see the bridge I guess.

  • Con: Executor but more spindly which makes it harder to scale, only 3 built, tiny slender wings,

 

There are other classes, but then fall into the 'battlecruiser' territory between 2-8km long. We can always talk about those but they're not really SSD-like.

A very well laid out list and I agree with most of it.

Big "Like" here. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the SSD. The other day I was testing scales for the SSD and I do not think it is doable.

This image represents a 65cm Super Star Destroyer next to the 22cm Imperial Star Destroyer

pic2598963_lg.jpg

65 cm is huge for a miniature. Thats about double the size of the X-Wing Corellian Corvette. And it still feels small compared to the Star Destroyer, mainly because its too flat, and the bridge is too recognizable as the same bridge as the Star Destroyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are all silly!

From page 3.

Well said NewTroski. Working on the formula for said scale as well if I can get some exact lengths for current models.

Someone mentioned earlier the ISD is 20cm. A ISD is 1,600m in the Star Wars Universe compared to the Executor SSD's 19,000m.
So if the model was some what to scale with the ISD it would be 2 Meters. How do you scale that down?
So I continue the logarithmic scale that puts corvettes at half th length of a VSD and make the ssd 40cm?

Doesn't seem a difficult proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As an addendum, battle fleet gothic had a weird scale. The book stated that the acctual size of the ship was so small relative to the size of the play space that ships should be considered to take up a tiny amount of space at the top of the Base stem. The models were zoomed in views of the ships you were commanding.

I wonder if ffg put something like this out in an faq, it would be enough for people to get over the scale differences.

Let's be honest, the weapon ranges are way too short if the ships are accurately sized, even on a sliding scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aye Plant, that's absolutely what I was wondering too. The BFG passages that I had been reading fairly recently made reference to point blank range being in the hundreds of kilometers range (that was base to base contact in escort squadrons), where as torpedoes and the like homed in within thousands of kilometers (still touching the base). The more common combat distances were the almost abyssal distances nearly between planets, and heavy weapons being outright interplanetary (I'm thinking the Nova Cannon corona and blast being the radius of a moon). Those were 'the norm'.

 

Star Wars, at least as far as I'm concerned, has always been extremely short ranged in comparison. That said, even with the few dozen kilometer range that we typically see portrayed really isn't remotely to scale. I'm totally okay with it, because as much as I love the models, it's really about the base being its effective point blank radius. Just in this case we might be talking about a distance of a kilometer or two rather than hundreds or thousands. And even then it's an arbitrary abstraction. So I absolutely agree: I

wonder what would happen if they had added that in along with the 'this is not to scale, it would be silly to produce if it was' that is on... what, page 3 of the rule book?

 

Of course, even with BFG people couldn't get that the models were relative and had to put absolutes on sizes, rather than just looking at the picture of the Divine Right and saying 'ah, okay'.

 

 

About the SSD. The other day I was testing scales for the SSD and I do not think it is doable.65 cm is huge for a miniature. [snipped] Thats about double the size of the X-Wing Corellian Corvette. And it still feels small compared to the Star Destroyer, mainly because its too flat, and the bridge is too recognizable as the same bridge as the Star Destroyer.

Heyas Mel, I was sort of hoping to hear your opinion when it came to the SSD's overall structure.  For 65cm that is enormous, but even for something like 50cm, does it look like the SSD would even be feasible to construct as a model with the dual keyhole braces, even on a wide pair of bases?  I mean, that's one thin ship.  The combination of having its incredible length, next to no draft and a fairly minimal width seems risky.  it looks like any amount of torsion could cause a lot of damage, even on plastic molding.

Edited by Vykes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Wookipedia entry lists Home One as 1300 meters. I'm pretty sure the model makers scaled it that way too. Same way the model makers scaled Executor to 8.5 times the length of an ISD.

 

A 3km Home One just seems over sized compared to everything else in the feet. It stands out as wrong.

The wookipedia entry doesnt give a definite size, it says its in contention from 1.3km to 3.4km, depending on the source. I value sources by lucasfilm over west end games which were not part of the canon reset. Read the whole entry on scale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter what the actual size of the ship was in canon? That size won't really matter considering the scale in Armada. It will be large enough to dwarf the Imperial but it will not be so large that it's unwieldy during game play. Can't see it larger than, say, 45~50cm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the SSD. The other day I was testing scales for the SSD and I do not think it is doable.

This image represents a 65cm Super Star Destroyer next to the 22cm Imperial Star Destroyer

pic2598963_lg.jpg

65 cm is huge for a miniature. Thats about double the size of the X-Wing Corellian Corvette. And it still feels small compared to the Star Destroyer, mainly because its too flat, and the bridge is too recognizable as the same bridge as the Star Destroyer.

 

This is a very elegant, visual proof.  I would love to see an SSD.  BUT I want it to look good.

 

Please note how wrong it looks for the SSD to be the same width as the ISD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

About the SSD. The other day I was testing scales for the SSD and I do not think it is doable.

This image represents a 65cm Super Star Destroyer next to the 22cm Imperial Star Destroyer

pic2598963_lg.jpg

65 cm is huge for a miniature. Thats about double the size of the X-Wing Corellian Corvette. And it still feels small compared to the Star Destroyer, mainly because its too flat, and the bridge is too recognizable as the same bridge as the Star Destroyer.

 

This is a very elegant, visual proof.  I would love to see an SSD.  BUT I want it to look good.

 

Please note how wrong it looks for the SSD to be the same width as the ISD.

 

 

I've been playing around with photoshop. I hit the "this looks right enough" sweetspot at about 85cm for the SSD:

 

261kbup.jpg

Edited by Lord Tareq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the SSD. The other day I was testing scales for the SSD and I do not think it is doable.

This image represents a 65cm Super Star Destroyer next to the 22cm Imperial Star Destroyerpic2598963_lg.jpg

65 cm is huge for a miniature. Thats about double the size of the X-Wing Corellian Corvette. And it still feels small compared to the Star Destroyer, mainly because its too flat, and the bridge is too recognizable as the same bridge as the Star Destroyer.

 

This is a very elegant, visual proof.  I would love to see an SSD.  BUT I want it to look good.

 

Please note how wrong it looks for the SSD to be the same width as the ISD.

 

I've been playing around with photoshop. I hit the "this looks right enough" sweetspot at about 85cm for the SSD:

 

261kbup.jpg

85 CM !?!!?! WOW... Big model...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we again have come to the exact same point as we have time and time again. One group says "Its scale would be too off to be playable and it would look bad." and the other half saying "It will work, I really want that ship even if it looks weird."

So can the thread die now? No one has changed their position in months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of wish we could push past the "Will they, won't they" debate and actually lay down some design ideas of what it could be.

You can :)

Leaving the scale aside (my view is plenty clear on that) I don't really think you could give it realistic capabilities either. It so vastly outguns any other ship (to a laughable degree) that it wouldn't be playable.

Instead, I would break it into multiple sections, each with their own shields, hp and weaponry. It'd be so big that maneuvers would be both pointless and impractical anyway, so use it like a multi-part stationary object.

I can't really see any other way...doing it like a single ship would be either crazy OP (1 ship with the canon hull and shields of an SSD...) or horribly underpowered.

My 2p anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I kind of wish we could push past the "Will they, won't they" debate and actually lay down some design ideas of what it could be.

If you want to theory machine it go for it, but we have no idea of the actual direction FFG would take for huge ships. When X-Wing released the Rebel transport its mechanics took everyone by surprise and if Armada got a huge ship its mechanics will be nothing like X-Wing's and it will be different from our current ships.

In other words you can dream up anything you want but it will be nothing like what FFG will do. (An exercise in futility if you will.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing around with photoshop. I hit the "this looks right enough" sweetspot at about 85cm for the SSD:

For those of us who still use the Imperial system, that's 2' 9". That means it would pretty much be end to end on the table. There's no way possible to make something that big work.

The problem with the SSD is the same exact problem with the ISD in X-Wing.

It's too big. Sure you can shrink it down, but at some point it's so far out of scale that it doesn't really look right on the table any longer.

It's too powerful. This is in some ways the biggest issue. How do you balance something that is 10+ times more powerful then the most powerful unit in the game now? Lets say the ISD is somewhere between 90 and 100 points. That would make the SSD around 900-1000 points, which is going to be tricky to do in a 400 point game. A epic game would be in theory possible, assuming they increased the points enough.

Lastly is cost. Sure some people will spend $500 on a model, but that is not typical. I fully expect that FFG considers $100-125 to be the top end they'd ever sell a model for.

Every single argument made here, pro and con has been made in the countless ISD threads for X-Wing. Seeing how we'll never have a ISD in X-Wing I feel fairly confident that we'll never see 19km long SSD in Armada.

However like X-Wing I could see them producing a 15in/38cm long model for Armada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still more interested in the Imperial Battle Cruiser than the SSD. 

I also can't imagine that Armada would be much fun if they build the scale to fit an SSD in the first place. Can't imagine I'd get excited about rebel cardboard counters and pinhead sized Assault Frigates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I kind of wish we could push past the "Will they, won't they" debate and actually lay down some design ideas of what it could be.

If you want to theory machine it go for it, but we have no idea of the actual direction FFG would take for huge ships. When X-Wing released the Rebel transport its mechanics took everyone by surprise and if Armada got a huge ship its mechanics will be nothing like X-Wing's and it will be different from our current ships.

In other words you can dream up anything you want but it will be nothing like what FFG will do. (An exercise in futility if you will.)

 

 

There's an interesting dilemma. "Do it because FFG won't", or "Don't do it because anything you do won't be as good as FFG." Eventually I'd like to create the Battle of Endor when Wave 2 is released... one way or another I want an Executor to have in that event.

 

The problem with the SSD is the same exact problem with the ISD in X-Wing. ...It's too big.... It's too powerful....

 

While I'm in agreement with the ISD being too big for X-Wing I don't think the same logic can be applied for SSDs in Armada.

 

X-Wing is primarily a starfighter-dogfight game. The focus should be on single-seat snubfighters tangling in a furball. Large ships like the falcon are supposed to be guest stars, and huge ships like the CR-90 are supposed to be scenery. An ISD there is a waste. Why bring in a Star Destroyer when something like the Raider fits so much better and is much more agreeable for everyone? Star Destroyers would become so abstracted that they won't be Star Destroyers anymore.

 

This is the same argument being used against Super Star Destroyers, but let's think for a moment.

 

Armada's focus is on capital ships, and the Super Star Destroyer is still one of them. Combat rules operating every other capital ship will work just fine for the Super Star Destroyer. You might need to make more arcs for it, or cut the arcs differently on a longer base. Point is, you don't need to make as many compromises in the rules to accommodate the Super Star Destroyer like you would Huge ships in X-Wing.

 

Next is scale, but again, Armada's scale is representational. The only thing that matters in the game is the base, and even that is representational. A Medium ship base can engulf a small ship base, but the small ship base doesn't have to fit into the hangar of the VSD. As long as the Super Star Destroyer base is significantly longer than Large ships but just as thin, we can call that the SSD and scale the model to look good on that. Nothing more is needed.

 

Then there's armament, but that's a matter of opinion. The Executor did not display the torrent of turbolasers its supposed to be armed with in the EU at Endor. Even if we give the SSD Victory-batteries on several arcs though, the game has some pretty good built-in restrictions to prevent this from being  abused.

 

My pro-SSD stance doesn't come from "We must have it because it's thematic" like I've heard some ISD=X-Wing. It comes from, "What's the most likely Epic-level spaceship possible with the engine?", leading into, "What mechanically stops the Executor from happening?" Even if I think other battlecruisers like the Praetor II are better for the sake of scale and the like, none of them are as iconic as the Executor. After all that's why they started with the CR-90 in X-Wing for huge ships before doing anything else.

Edited by Norsehound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the whole "its too big and too powerful" is because it will probably be a ship that has 300 or 400 points. That means that for any kind of battle you will need to only have the SSD on one side and an entire fleet on the other. Making it the most boring match that there can be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't Epic in X-wing played at 200 points minimum?  Thus, 800-ish seems closer to what we can look at with Armada, with one (or both) sides investing only half their points into the Executor. That still leaves enough to take at least 3 ISD's, which isn't far from what we saw in Empire Strikes Back.  Of course, that's an assumption too and I'm not super comfortable operating on assumptions (or else I'd just say 'Armada: Epicosity- the game of epic fleet battles' at 1,000 points, then go from there). 

 

For the record, I still don't think it's too big: Apocalypse in 'that other' game system has things which might be considered too unweildly.  Now, take three 85cm Executors and stand them on their prows, have them walk around for a bit as a Tri-sectuor, then we might see a problem :P  I'm more worried that the Executor is simply unfeasible from a production and moderate wear-and-tear standpoint. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point is, you don't need to make as many compromises in the rules to accommodate the Super Star Destroyer like you would Huge ships in X-Wing.

No, my point is that the SSD is an order of magnitude more powerful then a ISD. Just like the ISD is an order of magnitude more powerful then a CR-90.

You will have issues trying to balance a ship that is about 80 times more powerful then a ISD in this game. Consider that the Executor class has 4,000 turbolaser canon batteries, vs the ISD's 50.

It's not as simple as 80 times more dice sure. But you also can't just add another 2 red dice to each side and call it good. So the SSD is going to either be a slightly upgraded version of the ISD, or it will cost so many points it won't fit in the standard game.

Myself I'd much rather them create something new like they did with the Raider that fits into the game, rather then turn the SSD into a mockery of the real thing.

 

Next is scale, but again, Armada's scale is representational.

And as people in this thread have shown the Executor will be too large to be usable, unless you shrink it down so small it's no longer really fitting of the name. Which is again the same exact argument people had with the ISD in X-Wing.

Some where willing to have a mini-ISD and others weren't.

 

After all that's why they started with the CR-90 in X-Wing for huge ships before doing anything else.

They actually started with the GR-75, not the CR-90. The transport was in stores nearly a month before the CR-90.

But even then they started with the CR-90 because it was both ionic and because it fit the game. Something that the SSD doesn't do with Armada, for the same reasons the ISD didn't fit in X-Wing.

People keep trying to say it's not the same, yet every argument I hear is exactly the same here that I heard on the X-Wing boards.

Edit: Oh and the other thing this has in common with the ISD debate, is no one is going to change their mind. The only thing that will happen is either FFG will announce a Epic level for Armada with SSD's or they'll come out and say that 2500m is the biggest ship they'll make.

Edited by VanorDM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One way to make the SSD very, very powerful would be to allow it to have duplicate / triplicate upgrade slots.

Anyone feel like ECM and Advanced Shield Projectors, or XI7 and Heavy Turbolasers (looks like it limits brace tokens).

What about giving the ship 3 brace and 3 redirect tokens. Now that is a ship that would be weak against fighters but strong against capitals.

Maybe given them multiple separate command stacks, so you can issue multiple different or duplicate commands (double engineering commands anyone?)

I don't think we need a completely new rule set for an SSD, we would just need to stretch the design space for existing ships.

The only challenge is of course movement. A ship that big is difficult to move reliably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You will have issues trying to balance a ship that is about 80 times more powerful then a ISD in this game. Consider that the Executor class has 4,000 turbolaser canon batteries, vs the ISD's 50.

 

Are those from canon or Legacies sources? And for all that, I only see the Super Star Destroyer firing something like six turbolaser bolts at the Nebulon-B at Endor (Where it never fired a shot in Empire). FFG is not beholden to make something that accurately represents every weapon and emplacement. So long as the ship (with all arcs considered) is noticeably more powerful than an ISD with upgrades equipped, it will probably be a satisfying game piece.

 

So the SSD is going to either be a slightly upgraded version of the ISD, or it will cost so many points it won't fit in the standard game.

 

You don't think a middle ground could be found? I think it's pretty certain when the design was pitched, consideration was given to every canonical ship in the Star Wars lore and where they would fit in the scheme of things. What use is there in designing a game that cannot accommodate every ship that was seen on screen?

 

It would be like X-Wing without the Falcon. You know it's possible in the engine with a small amount of new rules, but for some reason it's not being allowed because it's "too big".

 

Myself I'd much rather them create something new like they did with the Raider that fits into the game, rather then turn the SSD into a mockery of the real thing.

 

This may be the best compromise I can agree, but if you're going to create a relatively huge-scale ship for Armada, it raises the question "Why not the Executor?" It may be easier to make compromises in a system already making size compromises to bring in such an iconic ship over something unknown.

 

For the Raider they needed an Imperial corvette and no existing design was satisfactory. The Customs frigate was too small? and the Lancer and Carrack were too big. There needed to be something to fill that hole. If there is an Epic ship it will be set at the Executor... but I can believe a new super ship would be created for the Rebels.

 

And as people in this thread have shown the Executor will be too large to be usable, unless you shrink it down so small it's no longer really fitting of the name. Which is again the same exact argument people had with the ISD in X-Wing.

 

Do many people also complain about how over-inflated the Corvettes are in Armada? Or about how Fighters are represented with minis instead of cardboard tokens? In the end these are all representational pieces.

 

Even looking at CR-90 movement on the X-wing table, and translating to such in armada, I don't feel it would be too much of a hassle to have that playing piece on the board.

 

 

They actually started with the GR-75, not the CR-90. The transport was in stores nearly a month before the CR-90.

But even then they started with the CR-90 because it was both ionic and because it fit the game. Something that the SSD doesn't do with Armada, for the same reasons the ISD didn't fit in X-Wing.

People keep trying to say it's not the same, yet every argument I hear is exactly the same here that I heard on the X-Wing boards.

 

Nitpicky sure, but the point is they went with canonical spaceships as much as possible before designing new craft. Again, why even consider anything larger than standard play without thinking about how the Executor will fit into it?

 

People keep trying to say it's not the same, yet every argument I hear is exactly the same here that I heard on the X-Wing boards.

 

I suppose I'm weird, because I fervently agree that the Imperial is ludicrous for X-Wing. I do not think my arguments here for the SSD can be used in that other debate. There's too much you need to change in the X-Wing engine to make the ISDs work there. In Armada, you might have a passable SSD by lining up two or three Imperials on one long base and calling it a day, or at least, a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...