Jump to content
Crabbok

We will get Super Star Destroyers in 2018 - Prediction

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Beatty said:

And this is a common belief for many people but it is not the entire community. So while it would be "good enough" for you it would be like FFG giving me a middle finger. I would love an SSD (Dreadnaught) if they did it right model and rules wise. If they can't do it right then I pray they don't do it. Because if they did do a model without playtesting it to death for game balance and made sure the model looked like it belonged J can tell you most of those begging for it now would hate it if it didn't meet your expectations. Star Wars fans are not forgiving 90% of the time and I am making a case for it before a mistake is made. 

I dont know know how many times I've seen Star Wars fans beg for something new and then complain on and on forever when it's not done the way they wanted it. Think of Rebels. (which I actually like.) How many fans beg for a new show after Clone Wars was cancelled but are now complaining like mad because it's art direction and story direction didn't go the way they wanted? I still hear people complaining about Rogue One! Hell, people still complain about the Prequels and that was over a decade ago. So if you were FFG and heard wish listing and then read all the complaints about the Squadrons and Flotillas being broken (which I think are fine) would you be ready to drop an element that would change how the game is played that is more game breaking than those elements? 

So in a way I am advocating for those that don't see their own pickiness yet. I am advocating for the game to remain excellent and for them not to rush out a bad product we all would hate after the new plastic smell wore off. I'm advocating for you!

I understand your point of view at least, and find it good. I can understand your desire to have it to your liking and save people from their own disappointment. I will however point out that FFG will probably go with the majority, so if more people want an SSD regardless of scale, it'll happen, and if more people want an SSD in scale, and that breaks the game, it won't. Unfortunately there isn't really a conclusion to this discussion (or my line of thought) so I'll end my post here. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here's my offer. If FFG releases the Executor and it looks awesome and the rules are balanced and it enhances the gaming experience I will raise a Beer and Cheers with the rest of you. That I promise. But as of now I don't see how they could pull that off. It just appears not possible at this time. That's why I come with warnings against wishing too much. 

 

But if it doesn't come out or a different SSD is released let's be cool with it and see if it lives up to our expectations. 

 

Now IF they do release the Executor and it is just awful, like I imagine it would be in my mind, then I won't be making any excuses for it or FFG, because it will be a Colossal Fail. I will still buy the ship for my shelf but I will just have to shake my head at FFG and the Community for not seeing what I see as an obvious problem.

 

I have faith in FFG as of now and that's why I say we won't see the Executor any time soon if at all. I want an excellent game that I love and I don't want it to turn into a cash grab gimmick game that people start mocking like they do GW games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, PartyPotato said:

Offer accepted!  In fact I'll meet you half way... if they release the executor and its not 6' long I'll shake my fist in the air and yell curses upon FFG and their Asmodee overlords... all while they take my money for what will be a sweet lookin model.

So... what if they'll release 6' long Executor playmat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't buy the new "Canon" numbers on that ship's size. I believe in the bronze ISD, 9000m SSD. Even Home One's Canon size is being challenged by the artists working on Rebels. I don't see why the SSD should be left out. 

They are definitely not rushing out the SSD. SWM20 puts it in development before wave 5 and CC. I like that FFG is taking the time to do it right. 

But, if I am wrong, (not about SWM20 being the SSD, that is a given, only that they did it justice) I will happily buy that beer for Beatty... Whenever I find him or he finds me.

I live in North-east Ohio, and attend Origins game fair in Columbus OH almost every year. Just so it is easier to collect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

They are definitely not rushing out the SSD. SWM20 puts it in development before wave 5 and CC. I like that FFG is taking the time to do it right.

I'm not convinced that SWM20 is the SSD (Not that I don't think it is coming). It may end up being something as trivial as 6x3 playmat.

Share this post


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

I still don't buy the new "Canon" numbers on that ship's size. I believe in the bronze ISD, 9000m SSD. Even Home One's Canon size is being challenged by the artists working on Rebels. I don't see why the SSD should be left out. 

They are definitely not rushing out the SSD. SWM20 puts it in development before wave 5 and CC. I like that FFG is taking the time to do it right. 

But, if I am wrong, (not about SWM20 being the SSD, that is a given, only that they did it justice) I will happily buy that beer for Beatty... Whenever I find him or he finds me.

I live in North-east Ohio, and attend Origins game fair in Columbus OH almost every year. Just so it is easier to collect.

Thanks for the offer. I live on the west coast now but I did come from Michigan, born and raised. (We'll not talk about college sports.? Though I haven't rooted for a Michigan team in years.) Hope you didn't get too much snow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, pt106 said:

I'm not convinced that SWM20 is the SSD (Not that I don't think it is coming). It may end up being something as trivial as 6x3 playmat.

I get where you are coming from, but the longer it takes to be released, coupled with when it began (during CC & wave 5), well, the odds get better every day that I am right.

It all makes sense from a development standpoint. Whatever rules they create for it will need extensive playtesting, must be able to mesh with both the standard game and the campaign & will most likely include the Fleet Command upgrade found on the Pelta. 

Now when you look at the nearly 80 pages from the various SSD threads, while it is obvious they will have a tough nut to crack, even the most ardent dissenters admit they would buy one if they have the funds. That alone makes it inevitable in my mind.

The fact that we are 6 waves in & we still have no Admiral Piett, & that 2 of the 3 Fleet Command upgrades feature the SSD in the artwork, make it eminent.

For the record, I do understand most of the argument against. The developers are going to need to walk a tightrope between scale, game balance & thematic authenticity. 

I hope they get it right!

Edited by cynanbloodbane

Share this post


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

I still don't buy the new "Canon" numbers on that ship's size. I believe in the bronze ISD, 9000m SSD. Even Home One's Canon size is being challenged by the artists working on Rebels. I don't see why the SSD should be left out. 

It's based on the assumption that the SSD's conning tower is comparable in diameter to that of the ISD. 289m was the figure given in Complete Locations - which was redone for the newcanon with minimal changes.

 

The 289m figure works fairly well for the A-wing attack scene, and the Shuttle Tyderium bypass scene - if anything, it might be slightly on the low side. And it makes sense, from a "modular design" perspective that the towers would be comparable.

 

According to Curtis Saxton, the Executor prop was 277 cm long with a 4.2 cm wide bridge:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/ssd.html

Model measurements

David West Reynolds has kindly taken some measurements of the actual Executor model. The total length of the model is 277.0cm and the command tower is 4.2cm wide. If we know the absolute width of the tower, we can then determine the absolute length of the ship.

4.2 cm to  28900 cm: ratio of just over 1/6880.


Apply to 277 cm Executor - and you get the 19km Executor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

according to ILM (or as I like to call them I love money) the SSD model is 282cm in length. from what I read on StarWars.com the Brass ISD makes the SSD's length at 13,569 if I remember correctly. as for the beer for Beatty i'm in the Pacific NW so I could honor that.

 

Edited by solaria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that the official "Canon" length of the SSD has, like any great fish story, grown with continuous retelling. From 5 miles/8000m in1984, to 12,800m, to 19,000m. I believe the brass ISD, not modern recalculations as the only reasonable source for the intended SSD lenght of 13,469m.

as for a playable rescale, the original 8000m would be doable, with even a full scale SSD to the FFG ISD. It would be 1.03m in length, with a base approximately half that length. Cumbersome, but as long as the support arm(s) are 15cm, the model will not interfere in game play, except. When it blocks someones view.

 

Mel's SSD is already 65cm, but uses the 19000m lenght for its base, so the command tower looks way to small on the table. If you use the 8000m original canon length, the command tower issue is gone. Then all FFG needs to do, is shorten the SSD to match the same amount of shortening in the FFG ISD. (Really, we all know the ISD is pointier than that.)

Edited by cynanbloodbane

Share this post


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

according to ILM (or as I like to call them I love money) the SSD model is 282cm in length.

It really depends how much you believe Saxton's claim that it's been measured at 277 cm or not.

3 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

My point is that the official "Canon" length of the SSD has, like any great fish story, grown with continuous retelling. From 5 miles/8000m in1984, to 12,800m, to 19,000m. I believe the brass ISD, not modern recalculations as the only reasonable source for the intended SSD lenght of 13,469m.

 

While I believe the brass ISD exists, and that it was used for a few shots, I think we can safely say that it would have a larger command tower than the SSD.

SSD- 4.2 cm. FFG Star Destroyer - 3.5 cm (and is 20.5 cm long)

If the 33.5 cm Brass Star Destroyer was exactly the same shape as the FFG Star Destroyer, its tower would be 5.7 cm wide.

And according to many people here - the FFG Star Destroyer has a too small tower - so the Brass Star Destroyer's tower would be even wider than that.

Which makes no sense in the context of material (From Star Wars To Indiana Jones) saying the Executor's tower was supposed to be the same size, in-universe, as the ISD's.

Thus, I conclude that while the Brass Star Destroyer was used for camera shots - it's still not exactly to scale with the SSD - and a little camera trickery was in use to make it look smaller than it was.

EDIT:

An alternative solution is to have the Brass Star Destroyer only represent the "Devastator-type" (1609m) and have the "Avenger-type" be a lot smaller (1270m) - and have the SSD in ROTJ be a lot larger than the SSD in TESB - discussed at length here:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-lost-pilots-and-scenes-from-the-endor-space-battle-in-return-of-the-jedi.50041047/page-5

Result - the TESB SSD is "11 x length of the Avenger" but only 8 x length of Brass Star Destroyer/Devastator, have a tower the same size as that of the smaller Avenger (203m) - but much smaller than the tower on the Devastator - and have the ROTJ SSD be vastly larger - with a tower even larger than on the Devastator.

 

Personally though, I dislike this solution, since it contradicts a lot of other info that has portrayed ISD-I and ISD-II as being equal-length, and ROTJ SSD and TESB SSD as the same ship.

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what I seem to be getting from the above posts is that nobody seems to know the official size of the SSD, as there doesn't seem to be one. If they filmed the movies with different sized SSD and ISD models, and all of these are therefore cannon, then we have several different scales between the two ships which are cannon. As such, does it really matter which scale FFG goes with? 
I mean, if 8000 fits on the table, and the SSD can be any if 4 lengths, then why not choose the smallest and easiest to manage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what I seem to be getting from the above posts is that nobody seems to know the official size of the SSD, as there doesn't seem to be one. If they filmed the movies with different sized SSD and ISD models, and all of these are therefore cannon, then we have several different scales between the two ships which are cannon. 

I think it's a case of "what's published in a newcanon work, supersedes all attempts to estimate size from various models".

 

Now - since Corvettes are not to scale with ISDs, the SSD doesn't have to be to scale with the ISD either - the debate isn't primarily over how big the SSD should be on the tabletop - but over how big its "official" size should be - what size future reference works should use.

In the context of Armada - regardless of what canon or Legends says - the Imperial Star Destroyer model can take the Avenger and the Devastator titles - so we can safely say that there, they are intended to be the same basic type of ship - no "1609m Devastator, 1270m Avenger" here.

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


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

Oh god, now ISDs are not even the same length!? Argh!

Officially, at the moment, they are - but there's fans who think they shouldn't be, using movie screenshots and ILM drawings to support their opinions.

My vote is to stick with the 1 mile length for all ISD variants - and put any inconsistency as due to the limitations of modelling.

Edited by Ironlord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When talking about SSDs, you have to remember it stands for Super star destroyer- in other words, anything larger than a imperial star destroyer.

When talking about specific SSDs however such as the executor.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DrakonLord said:

When talking about SSDs, you have to remember it stands for Super star destroyer- in other words, anything larger than a imperial star destroyer.

When talking about specific SSDs however such as the executor.......

As I understand it, in canon there is only one class of SSD now. The last remnants of the EU have been swept away.

Share this post


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

As I understand it, in canon there is only one class of SSD now. The last remnants of the EU have been swept away.

The new EU however, references  SSDs as including other classes of huge ship besides the Executor (Complete Locations). The term tends to overlap with "dreadnaught". The Mandator-class dreadnaught has already been mentioned in Rogue One: Mission Files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/17/2017 at 6:39 AM, Ironlord said:

I think it's a case of "what's published in a newcanon work, supersedes all attempts to estimate size from various models".

 

Now - since Corvettes are not to scale with ISDs, the SSD doesn't have to be to scale with the ISD either - the debate isn't primarily over how big the SSD should be on the tabletop - but over how big its "official" size should be - what size future reference works should use.

That's close to the point I am trying to make. Scale is mostly out the window in Armada, in favor of aesthetics and playability. Even though the new Canon lists the SSD as 19,000m, it has had several other official lengths. Why not choose the one that fits the game. Aesthetically the big issue for most people is size of the command tower. 

If the 19000m SSD is scaled for Armada, the command tower will be way too small, but if FFG uses the original official 8000m SSD, then the command tower is visually correct. 

Seems like an easy choice to me.

Share this post


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

As I understand it, in canon there is only one class of SSD now. The last remnants of the EU have been swept away.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/super-star-destroyer

yeah, pretty much in canon terms SSD apparently means "executor" lol

still argue my original point though, a "super star destroyer" (SSD) is named because it is bigger and better than a normal star destroyer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the should pull an Imperial Raider from X-Wing scenario and simply come up with a sweet new style of Super Star Destroyer that in Armada gets a model the size of the Raider in X-Wing.  

 

Put a Raider model on an Armada table, and it's perfectly "awesome"-sized.  

 

I know I said I would really even be happy with a C-Roc sized model of the Resurgent-class from Ep. 7, but it would be wierd to mix timelines.  As far as I know, it's not all that likely to see a good chunk of the existing Armada ship classes in the new trilogy timeline.

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...