Jump to content
Eagle128

Super Star Destroyer discussion thread

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

The only one that comes to mind would be the Viscount.

Actually, I found some more EU "canon" ships in a EaW mod called Awakening of the Rebellion. Apparently the Rebels got their hands on a Madator class dreadnought. Not sure which version, but the II was 8km, and the III was 12km. It's epic size, but not 1v1 a 19km SSD epic. Still, there were smaller SSDs made closer to 9km. It is possible to size both ships at 8-9km and give one to both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Actually, I found some more EU "canon" ships in a EaW mod called Awakening of the Rebellion. Apparently the Rebels got their hands on a Madator class dreadnought. Not sure which version, but the II was 8km, and the III was 12km. It's epic size, but not 1v1 a 19km SSD epic. Still, there were smaller SSDs made closer to 9km. It is possible to size both ships at 8-9km and give one to both sides.

The old Rebellion game had the Bulwark as a rough equivalent of the SSD, at least in firepower if not size. I can only imagine the complaints that it would generate though. If you thought the AF Mk2 was ugly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Megatronrex said:

The old Rebellion game had the Bulwark as a rough equivalent of the SSD, at least in firepower if not size. I can only imagine the complaints that it would generate though. If you thought the AF Mk2 was ugly...

I'll never understand how the Bulwark Mk III carries the same amount of firepower as a SSD. I know it's Star Wars, but that's really breaking my suspension of disbelief. 2.5km and it has 1300 turbolasers? An ISD II has about 120 turbolasers at 1.6km. Honestly, this seems more like fan fiction laying on top of nostalgia to me.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bulwark_Mark_III

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

I'll never understand how the Bulwark Mk III carries the same amount of firepower as a SSD. I know it's Star Wars, but that's really breaking my suspension of disbelief. 2.5km and it has 1300 turbolasers? An ISD II has about 120 turbolasers at 1.6km. Honestly, this seems more like fan fiction laying on top of nostalgia to me.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bulwark_Mark_III

I never understood it either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bulwark is a lot taller - so has a much higher volume (compared to an ISD) than its length would indicate. Still, it is likely that the SSD in Rebellion is toned down, to match the Bulwark. If it has roughly the same number of weapons, that's less than 1/3 the number of weapons of "the proper SSD"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

Bulwark is a lot taller - so has a much higher volume (compared to an ISD) than its length would indicate. Still, it is likely that the SSD in Rebellion is toned down, to match the Bulwark. If it has roughly the same number of weapons, that's less than 1/3 the number of weapons of "the proper SSD"

The SSD still outgunned it but not by much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

I'll never understand how the Bulwark Mk III carries the same amount of firepower as a SSD. I know it's Star Wars, but that's really breaking my suspension of disbelief. 2.5km and it has 1300 turbolasers? An ISD II has about 120 turbolasers at 1.6km. Honestly, this seems more like fan fiction laying on top of nostalgia to me.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bulwark_Mark_III

Yes, well, the 2.9km-long Resurgent-class from the new movies packs in 'over 1500 turbolaser and ion cannon batteries', so...

(not to mention a full legion of storm troopers and 2 wings of TIE Fighters...how they fit all that in there is...not exactly explained.  Some kind of Time Lord technology??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ironlord said:

The tie-in media (From Star Wars To Indiana Jones) said the Executor's tower was the same size as that of a regular ISD - and some movie images did support that:

 

ssd-2.jpg

 

So I can see why people feel that it needs to be big, even if not exactly to scale..

I can see why some say that it needs to be big, however the scale that you see on screen does not look to be consistent. The SSD is supposed to be 19km long or 11.875 times as long as the ISD ans some images make it look this big, others to me do not. However the DS II is supposed to be 200km around or about 10.53 times as long as the SSD and it does not even look close to that size to me when it collides with it. Now if they stuck with the old size of 9km that to me looks more in line with what it looks like to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, CDAT said:

 the DS II is supposed to be 200km around or about 10.53 times as long as the SSD and it does not even look close to that size to me when it collides with it. 

That's a notable issue - a 19km SSD implying a 900km DS2 (because the horizon has next to no curve, and what curve there is was probably induced via fish-eye lens).

 

Sometimes, what's seen can't be taken too literally. The official size of the Forest Moon (4900km) implies a smaller DS2 than 900 km (and the "nearly twice as big" as DS1 description in the novel, also implies it's not 900 km) - so compromises need to be made.

 

In this case, that one SSD-DS2 crash is what gets "fudged".

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Yes, well, the 2.9km-long Resurgent-class from the new movies packs in 'over 1500 turbolaser and ion cannon batteries', so...

(not to mention a full legion of storm troopers and 2 wings of TIE Fighters...how they fit all that in there is...not exactly explained.  Some kind of Time Lord technology??)

Wow didn't know that. Certainly more fan boy **** from Jar Jar Abrams. Just as bad as the new ship with mass cannons on it.

Also found it weird in the film how they shot a turbo laser towers inside of the ship? It's not even on the **** hull meaning you have a super tiny window to shoot out of from the side of the ship. That's like what, 5 degrees if can move before hitting the itself? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original TFA: Incredible Cross Sections book,  said "more than 3000 turbolasers and ion cannons" 

 

Assuming the reduced figure (made after the book released) is for actual gun barrels, rather than multi-barrel batteries, the idea seems to be that the total number of gun barrels is 1500. Still high, admittedly. Maybe many are very light turbolasers, with only a few for the "main gun battery".

 

The Venator has much higher fighter-carrying capacity than the much larger Resurgent though - so the two wings may not be a problem.

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Wow didn't know that. Certainly more fan boy **** from Jar Jar Abrams. Just as bad as the new ship with mass cannons on it.

Also found it weird in the film how they shot a turbo laser towers inside of the ship? It's not even on the **** hull meaning you have a super tiny window to shoot out of from the side of the ship. That's like what, 5 degrees if can move before hitting the itself? 

Well, that has been a thing as far back as the 1977 movie.

light_turbolaser_firing.jpg

...it's basically why any of the ships in the franchise have weapon counts as high as they are, despite few to no visible exterior turrets.  Most of the openings that look like 'windows' are actually gun ports...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, xanderf said:

Yes, well, the 2.9km-long Resurgent-class from the new movies packs in 'over 1500 turbolaser and ion cannon batteries', so...

(not to mention a full legion of storm troopers and 2 wings of TIE Fighters...how they fit all that in there is...not exactly explained.  Some kind of Time Lord technology??)

So Finn and Poe took out 1500 turbo laser in 30 seconds! Wow either those new TIEs rock, or the First Order is using tissue paper thick armor around the turbolaser emplacements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, xanderf said:

Well, that has been a thing as far back as the 1977 movie.

light_turbolaser_firing.jpg

...it's basically why any of the ships in the franchise have weapon counts as high as they are, despite few to no visible exterior turrets.  Most of the openings that look like 'windows' are actually gun ports...

 

This is a scene from ANH and that's the Death Star. This is different because it's aimed out a hole in the wall it's snug up against. TFA has a turbolaser literally in the bowels of the ship, with the nearest exit point 100s of meters away. The trajectory of any shot made must be within the tiny window, which means the amount of targets it can attack is severely limited. It's the equivalent of sitting at your window shooting birds, or sitting 20 feet back and shooting birds AND not shooting your house. 

I will concede the point of housing guns within the hull of the ship. However, I think that's also a bad idea because it weakens the hull integrity by putting large holes in the armor meant to protect you. Mass Effect jumps to mind...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

So Finn and Poe took out 1500 turbo laser in 30 seconds! Wow either those new TIEs rock, or the First Order is using tissue paper thick armor around the turbolaser emplacements.

That whole scene was lame. Somehow the blasted through the shields (or the shields weren't up for some reason?), destroyed 1 or 2 turrets and then the only way this huge kilometers long ship could fire at the fighter was with one(!) homing missile system.

 

 

As for the SSD firepower being overwhelming, easily solved by making most of its firepower black dice. That way for the rebel player the bulk of firepower can mostly be evaded due to the poor maneuverability and speed of the SSD, while getting into close range with a SSD is suicide as it should be. Basically turns the SSD into an area denial tool, which fits.

Edited by Lord Tareq

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ironlord said:

That's a notable issue - a 19km SSD implying a 900km DS2 (because the horizon has next to no curve, and what curve there is was probably induced via fish-eye lens).

 

Sometimes, what's seen can't be taken too literally. The official size of the Forest Moon (4900km) implies a smaller DS2 than 900 km (and the "nearly twice as big" as DS1 description in the novel, also implies it's not 900 km) - so compromises need to be made.

 

In this case, that one SSD-DS2 crash is what gets "fudged".

So if I understand what you are saying (and it is very possible I am not understanding correctly) then you are saying that the crash we can not use to establish size? So to the best of my knowledge one of only two times we see two objects touch (the other is the A-wing/bridge) we can not use the know size of one object (the DS II) to establish that the SSD is not as big as they say it is now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CDAT said:

So if I understand what you are saying (and it is very possible I am not understanding correctly) then you are saying that the crash we can not use to establish size? So to the best of my knowledge one of only two times we see two objects touch (the other is the A-wing/bridge) we can not use the know size of one object (the DS II) to establish that the SSD is not as big as they say it is now?

Pretty much, yes - the crash scene is the "outlier" .

Newcanon has fixed the DS2 as 200km (which is reasonably compatible with 160km DS1, being just over twice the volume) - and the SSD as 19km (which is compatible with the vast majority of scenes with it in company with ISDs).

 

I think the equatorial trench diameter scenes, where the Emperor's shuttle lands, and the DS2 full sized prop, is also fairly compatible with the 200 km total diameter (trench itself would be a little over 1 km wide).

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

Pretty much, yes - the crash scene is the "outlier" .

Newcanon has fixed the DS2 as 200km (which is reasonably compatible with 160km DS1, being just over twice the volume) - and the SSD as 19km (which is compatible with the vast majority of scenes with it in company with ISDs).

 

I think the equatorial trench diameter scenes, where the Emperor's shuttle lands, and the DS2 full sized prop, is also fairly compatible with the 200 km total diameter (trench itself would be a little over 1 km wide).

Well it looks like there are parts that we agree on and parts that we differ on. First the parts that we agree on, the 200km for the DS II, but the part that we disagree on is that the SSD is 19km, I know that it is the established standard, but maybe it is because I am not an "expert" of figuring size based on two different ships that you do not know the distance between them and saying that it proves the SSD is 19km, the only time we know the distance is when it is touching the DS II and to me that is the only time that we can prove what distance there is so what size things are, and to me that proves that is it is not 19km long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but why use the current Canon size for Armada, when the original Canon size would work so much better. FFG has pulled from sources that predate the 19,000km upgrade already. FFG isn't tied to Canon, the E-wing and GSD prove that. And the E-wing was well after the Disney take over. 

1449501376509.jpg

As you can see, the ISD is the same length as the tail of the SSD & about half the thickness. This extrapolates into a much more playable model when the sliding scale is applied.

Edited by cynanbloodbane
Bad Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the 900 km: 19km ratio, it would be only 4.22 km if scaled to the DS2 horizon. Which would mean a bridge tower only 63m wide. And a bridge section only 3m across. This just doesn't work with what we see on screen.

 

It is far easier IMO, to retcon one scene as exaggerating the DS2's diameter, than to retcon all scenes with the Executor as exaggerating its length.

 

Even the 8km length is problematic.

 

Simplest, I think, to embrace "sliding scale" for games than to actually change the Executor's canon length for movies.

Just now, cynanbloodbane said:

As you can see, the ISD is the same length as the tail of the SSD & about half the thickness. This extrapolates into a much more playable model when the sliding scale is applied.

The WEG SSD doesn't look much like the "true" SSD though - noticeably different proportions, the tower is further back, less engines, etc.

execblue.jpg

 

By contrast, if you dig up pics of the Executor prop - you'll see how different it looks.

Mel's Miniatures did a much better job. Theirs is a little narrow port-to-starboard, but aside from that, much more accurate.

 

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Yes, but why use the current Canon size for Armada, when the original Canon size would work so much better. FFG has pulled from sources that predate the 19,000km upgrade already. FFG isn't tied to Canon, the E-wing and GSD prove that. And the E-wing was well after the Disney take over.

I got the sense (from somewhere) that any old EU stuff that appears in armada (eg EWing) only appears because it’s been in xwing before Disney took over.

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...