Jump to content
Eagle128

Super Star Destroyer discussion thread

Recommended Posts

On 11/13/2017 at 4:08 PM, Darth Sanguis said:

Man, as much as I hate the idea of it being SO VERY out of scale. I have to admit, mel's looks pretty cool on the table. 

oOFoPOS.jpg

I'd buy it. 


 

But would you buy it for a dollar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest a new design base with a "clock face" insert into it. The ship could "align" itself with the turnstile on turn one of its maneuver (the different movements could be etched or written on the base somewhat like the numbers on a clock face), then adjust the positioning of the base/bases themselves (any forward movement) with the maneuver tool on the following turn. I do think it's fair to make even the smallest of movements or course corrections (save for dead stop yaw, which a turnstile would allow this ship to make) a two turn process to reflect the tremendous bulk you are trying to move. Barring a new base design, maybe just give it a movement 1, and it can either turn in place, or move forward, but never both in one turn?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

What happens when the two bases disagree on the course?  It reminds me of the Pushme Pullyou From Doctor Doolittle.

I do like the way it looks on the table more than I expected, though. :D

I have no idea how the FFG SSD is set up. I'm not sure how others have configured their SSD, but, most seem to use either the double large base, or a single huge base. For mine, it only moves speed 1, wit 0 yaw, and all movement is made from the rear base. This forces a nav dial just to turn, unless run by Jerry, but it can take engine techs to effectively move speed 2.

Making it steer like a brick is one of its weaknesses, and makes sitting in its rear arc and peppering it possible for even a VSD. I also used a third small base stacked on the rear large base to represent the bridge tower being vulnerable to targeted attacks. It is a monster, capable of melting even a Motti ISD in a single round, but it is still killable with concentrated fire. 

1085h.jpg

1086h.jpg

1087h.jpg

1326h.jpg

U6UURXN_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am torn right now... And I have the feeling some of you are going to kill me for this.

I was reading the thread and I decided to try to deform the Executor to fit this image:

SSD-SWE.png.a371306a3678978907dbe6892749
Which I always thought was wrong. The fact that it was outlined made me think that it was part of a photography with perspective and someone poorly corrected that perspective...

How wrong was I....

This is the result of the deformation:
pic3841321_lg.jpg

And here are some comparison pics against shots from the movie

pic3841322.jpg
pic3841323.jpg


So now I wonder...... Should I substitute the Executor I have or should I make it an alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 1:08 PM, Darth Sanguis said:

Man, as much as I hate the idea of it being SO VERY out of scale. I have to admit, mel's looks pretty cool on the table. 

oOFoPOS.jpg

I'd buy it. 


 

Yeah I think it would be best as a 6 hull zone ship (front, 2 each side, rear). Maybe have 2 separate hull dials. One for the body and the other for the command section.

However I think the Executor woudl be best in a campaign as it is in a Green mission (Command Ship Operations). The SSD would likely either be a 6 command ship or maybe even forgo the dials and have some sort of command deck where you pick 6 cards (1 for each turn) and at the start you flip the command and the imperial player carries it out. Rebel goal would be to eliminate it of course so if they are able to cripple it (1/2 hull)  or better yet concentrate all firepower and take it out gives them lots of points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to think that the middle image fitted some of the movie pics slightly better - but it just goes to show, how much tail-shortening can be gotten out of tilting the ship's bow toward the viewer.

 

Blame Empire At War: Forces of Corruption, for the middle image, which IMO Fractalsponge used to create his own higher-detail image, which Mel's derives from as far as I can tell.

 

I'd love to see Mel's updated Executor, in a smaller size - maybe 28 cm long or even 19 cm long - perhaps with Star Destroyers to the same scale.

Share this post


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

I used to think that the middle image fitted some of the movie pics slightly better - but it just goes to show, how much tail-shortening can be gotten out of tilting the ship's bow toward the viewer.

 

Blame Empire At War: Forces of Corruption, for the middle image, which IMO Fractalsponge used to create his own higher-detail image, which Mel's derives from as far as I can tell.

 

I'd love to see Mel's updated Executor, in a smaller size - maybe 28 cm long or even 19 cm long - perhaps with Star Destroyers to the same scale.

I will admit I always thought it was funny seeing it as a fairly good sized triangle on the mini-map where everything else is a series of dots.

936full-star-wars-empire-at-war:-forces-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2017 at 8:44 PM, melminiatures said:

I am torn right now... And I have the feeling some of you are going to kill me for this.

I was reading the thread and I decided to try to deform the Executor to fit this image:

SSD-SWE.png.a371306a3678978907dbe6892749
Which I always thought was wrong. The fact that it was outlined made me think that it was part of a photography with perspective and someone poorly corrected that perspective...

How wrong was I....

This is the result of the deformation:
pic3841321_lg.jpg

And here are some comparison pics against shots from the movie

pic3841322.jpg
pic3841323.jpg


So now I wonder...... Should I substitute the Executor I have or should I make it an alternative?

More movie accurate is always good. I'm assuming this new one will be exponentially more expensive due to having more mass/surface area, so perhaps keep the 'thin' version as well as a cheaper alternative to the more movie accurate version?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On November 17, 2017 at 2:46 PM, melminiatures said:

Also, the bridge is bigger, which makes it more closer to scale with the ISD, and the new shape allows me to put the keyholes more spread appart so the stands will cover more of it's surface.

Actually Mel, the bridge is not bigger.  The Executor is not 19km long.  More like ~13.5km or 8.4 times the size of an ISD. Refer to this article. 

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-mysteries-exacting-executor-measurements

I'm not going to start a canon war but this is based on the filmed models. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mortis Angelis said:

Actually Mel, the bridge is not bigger.  The Executor is not 19km long.  More like ~13.5km or 8.4 times the size of an ISD. Refer to this article. 

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-mysteries-exacting-executor-measurements

I'm not going to start a canon war but this is based on the filmed models. 

 

Problem is - we've already been given some of the figures.

 

According to From Star Wars To Indiana Jones,  the Executor's tower is roughly the same size as a regular ISD's. According to Complete Locations, this bridge size corresponds to 285m. And according to Star Wars Technical Commentaries, the Executor prop has been measured by David West Reynolds, and the bridge tower is 4.2cm wide and the Executor prop itself is 277cm long. Lucasfilm itself gives the length of the Executor prop as 282 cm long.

 

If 4.2 cm = 285m, then 277cm = 18796m, and 282 cm = 19136m. Presumably, the 19000m exactly figure, was a compromise between those two.

 

The idea that the smallest created ISD prop was exactly to scale with the Executor's prop is an interesting one - but perhaps not completely supported. It requires a significantly smaller Executor bridge than ISD bridge.

 

I've seen a case made, that the Executor's bridge tower was a lot bigger than the ISD bridge tower - some 357m wide - producing an Executor that's over 23.5 km long.

 

While I don't accept that case - the 13.5 km Executor with bridge tower only 205m wide, seems to me excessively small. It would reduce the size of "regular Star Destroyers" to a ludicrously small 1150m long. You couldn't comfortably fit a 150m corvette (the most recent size given for it - it's bounced back and forth between 126m and 150m)  in the hangar bay of a Star Destroyer that small.

Share this post


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

Actually Mel, the bridge is not bigger.  The Executor is not 19km long.  More like ~13.5km or 8.4 times the size of an ISD. Refer to this article. 

http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-mysteries-exacting-executor-measurements

I'm not going to start a canon war but this is based on the filmed models. 

 

I meant that it is bigger in relationship with the rest of the miniature. Some people had issues with the older version because the bridge looked very tiny and when you had it next to the ISD, since Armada has a sliding scale, the suspension of disbelief that they might be on the same scale was broken. The sliding scale in Armada is not really that noticeable unless you do things like trying to put the CR90 inside the ISD hangar and it wont fit. That's why people get smaller CR90s or they modify the Executor with a ISD bridge.

Since the bridge of the miniature is larger now (still smaller than the ISD miniature) that feeling is reduced.

I'm talking about miniatures. Not about canon.


But talking about canon, it got me curious and I placed the ISD and the Executor in real size and they are surprisingly accurate (considering I was not thinking about it when I waas changing the size)

pic3843950_md.jpg
(This was done considering the Exectuor 19000m and the ISD 1600m)

15 hours ago, Ironlord said:

I'd love to see Mel's updated Executor, in a smaller size - maybe 28 cm long or even 19 cm long - perhaps with Star Destroyers to the same scale.

I like that idea....

Share this post


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

I meant that it is bigger in relationship with the rest of the miniature.

Sorry for the confusion Mel.  I have been researching building my own SSD on the model builder forums and looking for data on the studio model.  There is a lot of crap data in the fan forums. 

Thanks for the front view.  Answers some questions. 

PlanviewV0a.jpg

Edited by Mortis Angelis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2017 at 7:07 AM, cynanbloodbane said:

I have no idea how the FFG SSD is set up. I'm not sure how others have configured their SSD, but, most seem to use either the double large base, or a single huge base. For mine, it only moves speed 1, wit 0 yaw, and all movement is made from the rear base. This forces a nav dial just to turn, unless run by Jerry, but it can take engine techs to effectively move speed 2.

Making it steer like a brick is one of its weaknesses, and makes sitting in its rear arc and peppering it possible for even a VSD. I also used a third small base stacked on the rear large base to represent the bridge tower being vulnerable to targeted attacks. It is a monster, capable of melting even a Motti ISD in a single round, but it is still killable with concentrated fire. 

1085h.jpg

1086h.jpg

1087h.jpg

1326h.jpg

U6UURXN_d.jpg?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&f

Funny but the three card set up Forward Hull Engineering Hull and command hull was an idea I had for putting a Star Destroyer in X-wing.

https://boardgamegeek.com/image/2215163/marinealver

The front base which would have the forward hull and most of the weapons as well as hull and shields. The back base was both command and engines with the top part being the command that had less hp but more weapons and the bottom that had little weapons but more HP and was the energy. The idea is the trapezoid created in the base will serve as a under over zone where ships in there could use a token to mark if they were over the hull thus exposed to the command section weapons but able to fire upon it or under where they were safe from most of the weapons but can only attack the engineering section of the forward section. 

As for Armada I don't think the Dreadnoughts have to get into 3 section. I am certain 2 bases and 2 cards is enough. They don't even have to be large bases, although I don't think a double small base would be suitable for Executor (might be for the Arc Hammer).

Add_Arc_Hammer.png

Double small for Arc Hammer

Double Medium for Executor and Star Defender Viscount

Double Large for Eclipse.

Edited by Marinealver

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...