Jump to content
Eagle128

Super Star Destroyer discussion thread

Recommended Posts

This debate puzzles me.  *Anything* added to Armada with the designation "SSD" would be so only in name.  The power of such a ship would be need to be toned down so far that it would not be a SSD as we know it based on canon.  Such a ship will not, and cannot, do the Executor (or any other SSD) justice.  

 

Ya'll should be honest and just say you want FFG to make up another ship (ala the Imperial Raider) that is bigger than an ISD, but is separate from the SSD class.  Otherwise you just spit on what the SSD is supposed to represent within the Imperial Navy.

 

But you can say this about every ship in Armada, since Armada is not a simulation!

 

You can have some asking why pitiful fighters can even harm a super star destroyer. You'll have some snickering behind their hands as they ask why a single A-Wing squadron can't take out that super star destroyer. You can have people trying (Fruitlessly) to compare number of guns to x-y-z spaceship and use them to draw conjectures on what future ships will be, even though I think it's very likely these numbers are set arbitrarily by FFG to test a balanced gaming piece.

 

Armada ships are not obsessively accurate ships to the lore. They are playing pieces. As long as they feel the way they should in relation to their power, then they work as playing pieces in this game.

 

With all that said, I can believe in a Super Star Destroyer. Like X-Wing epics it may be an Epic ship only, running with special rules and requiring new command dials and perhaps with sectional damage, but to not include it is going to be disappointing... especially for a capital ship system that it feels natural to be a part of. I also don't feel it would be as forced as trying to jam a kilometer-long star destroyer into a game of starfighters... really, the only other home a Super Star Destroyer piece can have in a miniatures game is if they go up to the strategic scale. If not here in Armada then it's not going to feel at home anywhere else.

 

I also disagree on the issue of scaling disqualifying them, because whenever I look at the CR-90 I know it's not going to fit in a victory Hangar bay. Rather than break out my calculator and establish some ratios to make a 'ceiling', I take this as a sign to say FFG is concerned with things looking right and recognizable for the sake of having fun, than trying to build a simulation to "accurately" re-create screen battles.

 

Besides, if we were trying to do that, Executor would have something like two black dice on each facing. Because that torrential turbolaser broadside players expect out of an SSD was never shown on screen. The only thing I can remember it doing for fighting was shooting occasional broadside turbolasers at a Nebulon-B. Else, it just sat there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my students use PORTIONS of single lines to make their arguments while ignoring even the following sentence which doesn't fit their needs, not only do they lose marks on the paper, they show their lack of a grasp on how to present an argument using sources. This is what I am continually seeing in this thread. I simply stated the actual size needed to get an ISD on an x-wing table, compared to what it would take to get it on an armada table IF we wanted scale to matter, using that as my reason that an ISD wont ever arrive in x-wing even with scaling (unscaled it needs to be 216" long btw), but that scaled to be 2-2.5 times longer a SSD would be fine on the armada table. Oh and I just realized that for table space we can point out that epic xwing doubles the matt width, so what if epic armada does the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When my students use PORTIONS of single lines to make their arguments while ignoring even the following sentence which doesn't fit their needs, not only do they lose marks on the paper, they show their lack of a grasp on how to present an argument using sources. This is what I am continually seeing in this thread. I simply stated the actual size needed to get an ISD on an x-wing table, compared to what it would take to get it on an armada table IF we wanted scale to matter, using that as my reason that an ISD wont ever arrive in x-wing even with scaling (unscaled it needs to be 216" long btw), but that scaled to be 2-2.5 times longer a SSD would be fine on the armada table. Oh and I just realized that for table space we can point out that epic xwing doubles the matt width, so what if epic armada does the same?

 

This isn't school, it's the Internet. I understand your want to guide the conversation towards the points made in favor of an SSD, but, it's probably not going to happen. I agree that the SSD is far to big for Armada. It just is. Blame George Lucas for imagining something so massive in order to showcase the high water mark  of Imperial power.

 

I'm f the opinion that it would be so large that enemy ships would be able to avoid its front arc with ease. Also, a previous argument said the front arc would maybe have 8 dice? We don't know what the ISD has for a front arc, but you can wager it will be more than the VSD's 6 dice. That leaves the SSD only marginally more powerful than an ISD? No thanks 0/10 would not buy. I wouldn't buy it even if it threw 12 dice.

 

Double the playing space of Armada? You do realize that 6x12 is a small bedroom, right? I know I don't have that kind of space in my house. If you do, then go for it, more power to you. FFG would be appealing to a much, much smaller base than Armada itself. That's not wise business for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

However a massive ship like the SSD does belong in a game about massive ships like Armada.

There's already plenty of massive ships in Armada, but more importantly there are massive ships that fit within established range of sizes that can fit on a table. Even with the sliding scale, a SSD is going to be 2.5 to 3 feet long, and that's getting a bit large for a 3x6 table.

Especially when the ISD is only slightly bigger than the Victory.

Expect that isn't actually true, based on everything I've seen the ISD is nearly twice the size of a VSD. The VSD is about 5 inches, the ISD is 8-9 inches. Which is about the correct scale size.

 

According to this picture it appears only slightly bigger.

fantasyflight07.jpg

  looks somewhere between 20-30% bigger than the VSD,  The SSD will probably be about Tantive IV Size (From X-Wing).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare that shot with this:

 

Victory_size.jpgThey are not to scale. They are not approaching scale. So why are some using scale as an argument to say an SSD is impossible?

 

Because of the GI-GAN-TIC difference in size between the SSD most every other ship in the Star Wars universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compare that shot with this:

 

They are not to scale. They are not approaching scale. So why are some using scale as an argument to say an SSD is impossible?

 

Alright - what do you think then is a reasonably well scaled SSD?  Including other factors for movement?  Firepower?  So that is still remains a colossal ship.  Without making it just a bigger than average ISD.

Edited by wjgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An opinion, but I don't think comparing SSDs to Imperial star Destroyers in X-Wing is a valid argument.

 

The equivalent, in my opinion, is saying the Death star should be a playable piece in Armada. Both of them are far too big and really far too beyond the scale of both games to really be considered interesting pieces.

 

In X-wing, Imperial Star Destroyers have far too many guns, far too many starfighter reserves, and is much too big to be considered a legitimate entity. CR-90s and other small ships (The Raider, maybe the Gozanti? The Rebel transport, and so on) are closer to being equal to the small ships and transports X-wing uses for most of their dogfighting.

 

The Super Star Destroyer is massive but it's still a capital ship, and Armada is a game about capital ship combat. It's probably going to be shrunk to put into epic Armada play but as we see, this game doesn't care abotu scale (gameplay stats or model size) anyway. It feels like bringing the CR-90 into an X-Wing environment by being something larger than normal but still something to hang in the background and participate in capital battles.

 

And when it comes down to it the allure of an SSD is too strong to pass up without consideration in Armada. If it's not going to be a playing piece how will the SSD be represented? Terrain? Off-board shooting like Star Destroyers are in some of the X-Wing campaigns?

 

Even if the Executor herself isn't depicted I think there's a strong case to be made for other Star Dreadounghts. I'd love it if the Preator II showed up for instance. It doesn't have the same draw as an Executor but it's still a very powerful (and large) ship for the Imperial navy, which defines its character in huge murder death wedges. And that I can see happening on an equivalent Epic CR-90 length base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Compare that shot with this:

 

They are not to scale. They are not approaching scale. So why are some using scale as an argument to say an SSD is impossible?

 

Alright - what do you think then is a reasonably well scaled SSD?  Including other factors for movement?  Firepower?  So that is still remains a colossal ship.  Without making it just a bigger than average ISD.

 

 

Even just taking the hallmarks from the CR-90 is a good place to start. Sectional damage, dividing the firing arcs between two or three different bases, and maybe a different set of command dials to represent its unique nature compared to every other ship in the game. Thing is, by being something different from every other ship in the game there are going to be special rules to apply only to that ship. So if there is a three-base-long Super Star Destroyer it might consider speed 1 something different like Huge ships do with X-Wing movement.

 

Even if FFG ultimately does not do a Super Star Destroyer it's not going to stop the community from making their own. Huge ships were already being created by the community before FFG released their own (likely inspired by community efforts). Someone is going to make a Super Star Destroyer, and maybe when they do, FFG will decide to follow it and make it better.

Edited by Norsehound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would a Wave 3 Imperial ship have to be a SSD?  I don't know why some say we have to have the SSD.  Its big, but it has to work in a game board.

 

Why not ships like this, that are even bigger than a ISD (but not too much bigger).  In the Star Wars universe, Imperial ship sizes did not jump from ISD to SSD.  There were a lot of in between class ships.  We can get bigger ships, without making an SSD too big, or without excess silliness in making a SSD too small. 

 

These ships range is size from 2,000 meters to 5,000 meters (one of them is unknown, but minimum 4,000)

  1. Invincible-class Dreadnaught Heavy Cruiser
  2. Allegiance-class battlecruiser
  3. Secutor-class Star Destroyer

  4. Praetor Mark II-class battlecruiser

  5. Star Dreadnought-class  (Aurora, 5,000)

 

In the Star Wars universe - Mon Calamari created the Viscount-class Star Defender (3,000 prototype) to counter the Star Dreadnoughts.

 

So - in a Wave 3 - we could get a truly big ship with the Star Dreadnought scaled down to same size as the Viscount-class prototype.  And still have some big ships for the board.

Edited by wjgo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why would a Wave 3 Imperial ship have to be a SSD?

 

Why not ships like this, that are even bigger than a ISD (but not too much bigger).  In the Star Wars universe, Imperial ship sizes did not jump from ISD to SSD.  There were a lot of in between class ships.  We can get bigger ships, without making an SSD too big, or without excess silliness in making a SSD too small. 

 

These ships range is size from 2,000 meters to 4,000 meters (one of them is unknown, but minimum 4,000)

  1. Invincible-class Dreadnaught Heavy Cruiser
  2. Allegiance-class battlecruiser
  3. Secutor-class Star Destroyer

  4. Praetor Mark II-class battlecruiser

 

 

That's exactly what they should do. Going over that length would just be too broken.

 

Even if a SSD was half its proper scale size it still would be too big to play in a game.

 

The SSD is 19km even if you half that you are still getting a 8.5km ship in a game that has ships primarily in the 1km range.

 

It would just make it too hard to have a ship that reaches from one said of the mat to the other.

 

As I said in a previous post the Praetor class would be the maximum size ship for the game without being too big or out of scale.

 

I think the best scale size ship would be the Allegiance-class battlecruiser.

 

At 2.2km it would be a good size as it would mean the Rebels could have a similar sized ship like the Bulwark Mark III which is 2.5km.

 

That to me is the best size as its fair to both factions.

Edited by Yak9UT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha this is interesting, and explosive!

To try to add some creative thought here.

What models of the SSD are currently available, and what scale are they?

also would someone with some photoshop skillz try to do some scale comparisons against current armada models to give everyone a better idea of what this stuff would look like.

or you guys could continue to rant with eachother, i really hope whichever side turns out to be right will come back to give the other a good 'told you so :p'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact the Rebels had no SSD equivalent is also very true. No star ships were made that big before and it was the Tarkin Doctrine that brought about its construction. Even though the Death Star was the final goal of the Tarkin Doctrine the SSD's were also built with the same idea in mind, a ship that large able to devastate a whole planet alone (think bombardment with a SSD) would make any planet unwilling to support a rebellion without fear of being destroyed. A doctrine of fear.

So to play that ship down and weaken it so it can be in the game goes against what that ship is all about.

the viscount class star dreadnought would be the only equivalent to the super star destroyer and it was the new republics so it is technically rebel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got popcorn! *nom nom nom* :)

So let's look at the score.

Pro SSD crowd-0

Not going to happen crowd-0

Yep, still in the same place I last saw it. +_+

Curious, what would it take for one side to "Score" in your opinion?

 

Some of us could say the other side is stubbornly refusing the evidence and suggestions the other side is suggesting. I find I'm in the pro SSD crowd based on, again, all the sliding scale evidence I'm seeing. But I can understand the NO-SSD crowd's sentiments because I was also opposed to a Star Destroyer in X-Wing for somewhat similar reasoning.

 

I'd agree that those Star Battlecruisers would be excellent choices for Armada Huge ships... if the Executor wasn't so high profile. As much as I'd like to see the Praetor II in the Wave 3/4/5 announcement I think FFG is more likely to shrink an Executor because everyone knows what it is. After all FFG started with the Rebel transport and CR-90 before giving us the Raider, which might as well have been an EU entry just like other Star Battle cruisers are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also would someone with some photoshop skillz try to do some scale comparisons against current armada models to give everyone a better idea of what this stuff would look like.

 

 

Lolz, it just looks so bad. Cant even see the bridge at all I had to shrink it down so much.

 

ssd.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I got popcorn! *nom nom nom* :)

So let's look at the score.

Pro SSD crowd-0

Not going to happen crowd-0

Yep, still in the same place I last saw it. +_+

Curious, what would it take for one side to "Score" in your opinion?

 

Some of us could say the other side is stubbornly refusing the evidence and suggestions the other side is suggesting. I find I'm in the pro SSD crowd based on, again, all the sliding scale evidence I'm seeing. But I can understand the NO-SSD crowd's sentiments because I was also opposed to a Star Destroyer in X-Wing for somewhat similar reasoning.

 

I'd agree that those Star Battlecruisers would be excellent choices for Armada Huge ships... if the Executor wasn't so high profile. As much as I'd like to see the Praetor II in the Wave 3/4/5 announcement I think FFG is more likely to shrink an Executor because everyone knows what it is. After all FFG started with the Rebel transport and CR-90 before giving us the Raider, which might as well have been an EU entry just like other Star Battle cruisers are.

 

But as I said, even if they made a SSD for it to be remotely sufficient in size compared Star Destroyer would make it too big or it is completely under scale and look ridiculous.

 

Either option is bad, as it is either too big and unwieldy or its so cartoonishly out of scale that it completely ruins the relative scale of the game.

 

I think I would be more open to the idea of a EU ship like the Praetor class but I could even settle for a FFG purpose made ship to fit the role.

 

all in all a Executor class SSD is a bad idea it just doesn't fit in the game literally and figuratively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

also would someone with some photoshop skillz try to do some scale comparisons against current armada models to give everyone a better idea of what this stuff would look like.

 

 

Lolz, it just looks so bad. Cant even see the bridge at all I had to shrink it down so much.

 

ssd.jpg

 

 

I dunno, you see how much the ISD hangs out over the base? The base might be small, but I'd expect the model to have a lot more overhang than that!

 

Hopefully also being tall enough for the smaller ships to fit underneath...

 

Yak, I still have to disagree. Cartoonishly out of scale is putting a beach ball of a Death Star on the table and calling it a playing piece. Saying the Executor would be something like what, two and a half foot long model? wouldn't. It's still larger than the Imperial at that point and the base would be smaller than the model. It wouldn't be any more ridiculous than an inflated CR-90 next to an Imperial... which is kind of the case now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I the only one bothered by the fact that even at about twice the length of the ISD (which is about 21-23cm long), the ISD is actually wider than the SSD? I just wont work for the shape of the ship, its too dagger shaped to put on the table and be wide enough to look "bigger" and not be too long for the table.

 

ssd.jpg

Edited by MaverickNZ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got popcorn! *nom nom nom* :)

So let's look at the score.

Pro SSD crowd-0

Not going to happen crowd-0

Yep, still in the same place I last saw it. +_+

Curious, what would it take for one side to "Score" in your opinion?

Some of us could say the other side is stubbornly refusing the evidence and suggestions the other side is suggesting. I find I'm in the pro SSD crowd based on, again, all the sliding scale evidence I'm seeing. But I can understand the NO-SSD crowd's sentiments because I was also opposed to a Star Destroyer in X-Wing for somewhat similar reasoning.

I'd agree that those Star Battlecruisers would be excellent choices for Armada Huge ships... if the Executor wasn't so high profile. As much as I'd like to see the Praetor II in the Wave 3/4/5 announcement I think FFG is more likely to shrink an Executor because everyone knows what it is. After all FFG started with the Rebel transport and CR-90 before giving us the Raider, which might as well have been an EU entry just like other Star Battle cruisers are.

My point is that this topic has not moved at all in 12 pages and all the arguments are still the same. What you have said is not "wrong" but just like the other side of the argument it is not convincing enough to sway the other side. Just like after all the evidence from the other side has not swayed you.

The argument has not changed or progressed and we are arguing over the exact same points for 12 pages. Nothing new is really being said. Go back and look at page 3 and you will see what you have been saying is almost the samething as NewTroski and the same goes for the otherside.

So neither side has moved forward in making an argument that can convince the other side that their position is more likely than the other.

So since the argument has been a circular argument no one is "winning" so I am making a little fun of it 'all', not just one side or the other. (I am even finding my earlier arguments kind of funny now. ;) )

Edited by Beatty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

also would someone with some photoshop skillz try to do some scale comparisons against current armada models to give everyone a better idea of what this stuff would look like.

 

 

Lolz, it just looks so bad. Cant even see the bridge at all I had to shrink it down so much.

 

ssd.jpg

 

 

I dunno, you see how much the ISD hangs out over the base? The base might be small, but I'd expect the model to have a lot more overhang than that!

 

Hopefully also being tall enough for the smaller ships to fit underneath...

 

Yak, I still have to disagree. Cartoonishly out of scale is putting a beach ball of a Death Star on the table and calling it a playing piece. Saying the Executor would be something like what, two and a half foot long model? wouldn't. It's still larger than the Imperial at that point and the base would be smaller than the model. It wouldn't be any more ridiculous than an inflated CR-90 next to an Imperial... which is kind of the case now.

 

 

76cm long SSD is going to be too long for a gaming mat.

 

It would be taking up most of the length of the mat, and couldn't turn or be able to move without colliding with other ships on the map

 

A gaming Mat is 3' long by 6' wide it simply would be too big for it.

 

So the other option is to severely under scale the SSD making it completely underwhelming and pointless.

 

This is what you are looking at if FFG make a useable SSD

 

imp-fleet.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also would someone with some photoshop skillz try to do some scale comparisons against current armada models to give everyone a better idea of what this stuff would look like.

 

Lolz, it just looks so bad. Cant even see the bridge at all I had to shrink it down so much.

 

ssd.jpg

That is bad, but its not bigger, just longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

imp-fleet.jpg

 

 

I don't have a problem with this.  We all knew scale wasn't going to be adhered to slavishly from the beginning, so all I'm looking for is a fun game with recognizable game pieces.  I would recognize that as a representation of a SSD, and I'd mentally adjust the scale in my head (my visual cue would be comparing the bridge towers and seeing them as approximately the same size), just like I have to do with a Corellian Corvette and a Star Destroyer.

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...