Contents 1 A version in TIEs? 2 "largest" hyperspace field generator? 3 New header for ease of editing 4 Another new section to break up the page 5 What IS a "solar ionization reactor"? 6 Protection

A version in TIEs?Edit

• CUSWE says that a version of the I-a2b is also used in TIEs, apparently citing Star Wars Screen Entertainment, The Stele Chronicles, or The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Anyone able to confirm this? --McEwok 13:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"largest" hyperspace field generator?Edit

• In editing my statement that the I-a2b contained "the largest single hyperspace field generator ever designed" to "one of the largest", VT-16 says this: I'm looking at the hyperdrive on the Death Star, and each individual generator is dozens of km long. You will not be warned again.
• I'm not quite sure what VT's using to define the size of "each individual generator" in the Death Star's hyperdrive, since (as far as I can find) we have no idea of the size of individual hyperspace field generators aboard the Death Star. We don't even know what the "hyperspace field generator" referred to in the Star Wars Techincal Journal is, except that it's a made-up piece of technology: according to canon there's one under the Star Destroyer's ventral dome, it's the heart of the reactor, and it's "the largest such generator ever constructed", and that its size dictated the size of the ISD.
• What we do know is this:

1. In the Death Star Technical Manual schematic, the "Hyper Drives" are shown occupying blocks around the waist of the Death Star, about 8km deep by 40km wide. We don't know what the internal organization of these areas is, but a later plan of "Hyperdrive Station A-226" shows two "Hyperdrive Units" that are no more than 10 metres square.
2. In the Star Wars Technical Journal itself, the cross-section of the Death Star indicates that there are 123 "hyperspace motivator units", one of these is depicted as a sphere about 2km wide. Now since the hyperspace motivator is what generates the hyperdrive field, it's possible that these are the same thing as a hyperspace field generator, but I don't think we can say that for certain. Even if there is a question is, how much of the "unit" is taken up by the "generator", and is there just one in each? The diagram certainly doesn't override the text statement.
3. In Star Wars: Incredible Cross-Sections, we see banks of long, rectangular "hyperdrives" flanking a section of the equatorial trench. These aren't "dozens of kilometers long", as VT says, since that would be one-fifth the diameter of the Death Star. They may be individualy larger than the entire hyperdrive systems of the Imperial-classmdash;each perhaps more than 1km long, but we don't know what each housing contains. There could easily be multiple "hyperspace field generators" in each "hyperdrive", for instance.

• Of course, it's possible that the Death Star's "hyperspace field generators" were actually bigger than those used on the Star Destroyer, since they could have been developed twenty years after the I-a2b; but on the evidence I'm aware of, we can hardly say that for sure. VT, if you have other evidence, please present it!
• In the mean time, I'm editing. I've made the text slightly less certain, but I do think that an acknowledgement of the Star Wars Technical Journal statement about the "largest" generator should stay. I've also edited the reference to a specific fraction of hull volume, since it's hard to estimate the overlal size.
• Lastly, VT, you say you're "warning" me. I'm not quite sure what this means? Do you just mean you're threatening to contact an admin? I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be...? --McEwok 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, I'm not familiar with this argument, can someone from both sides describe their problem to me? Kuralyov 22:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  • McEwok kept reverting information about the ISD reactor which I put in this article. Not only did he remove the description of its location, as shown in the SW:ICS cross-section, but he also reverted my change of "the single largest hyperdrive generator" into "one of the single largest", due to each individual hyperdrive generator onboard the Death Star I being much larger than an ISD in and of itself. He then claimed these weren't individual generators, but consisted of smaller ones in turn, which is not supported anywhere. According to sources written in by other people (which I can't verify, since I don't know where they got it from), there's about 123 individual hyperdrive generators. On the SW:ICS cross-section, it shows rows of generators stacked together, all being hooked up to the main reactor (as posted to the DS I article). I've complained about his behaviour before, but was told nothing would be done unless it affected an actual article. These past weeks have shown him changing not only one article, but two (the Utapau one, where he removed info from ROTS:ICS and I proceeded to complain to another admin). VT-16 22:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• The Star Wars Technical Journal says that: "The ship's huge hyperspace field generator is located within a domed area along the vessel's ventral ridge. It is the largest such generator ever constructed...." The label "hyperspace field generator" on the attached cross-section points to a smaller sphere above the main reactor, maybe 40m in diameter.
• I think this warrants describing the reactor as including "what was said to be the largest single hyperspace field generator ever designed" in the article. I know of no direct evidence for the size of "hyperspace field generators" on other ships (as opposed to complete hyperdrives, etc., which is what VT's claimed evidence refers to). I presume that if the ISD's was the largest single such generator, larger ships would use multiple ones, the same size or smaller.
• Nevertheless, considering VT's objection, I edited the text to say that the generator on the ISD was "said to be" the largest, rather than that that it categorically was.
• As to the description of the reactor's location, VT's first edit said that he reactor was in the "lower half" of the hull, which isn't entirely accurate - only the upper levels of the superstructure are above it; his second edit said that it filled "slightly more than half" the hull, which seemed to me to be debatable, and best toned back to ambiguity. For the same reason, I removed my own original phrasing that the reactor "dominated" the interior of the hull.
• On the Utapau page, I expanded the existing section on the planetary navy, putting some of the information into what I hoped was a more neutral form, and subsequently undid or modified three edits from VT-16, where I felt they overinterpreted the evidence. However, I adopted his changes where they seemed to tone down my own excessive opinion, and I don't think the current version of that page contains anything directly contentious. Except for the removal of the word "self-made" (implying that the Rendili Dreadnaught was constructed at Utapau) it's actually his edit. --McEwok 23:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that any source which disagrees with your WEG wanking is completely irrelevant to you, which is why you try to limit them as much as possible in articles, that's why I've been making sure to add as much as possible, so it wouldn't work.

There's no way to interpret a straight-forward sentence like that, which is one of several written by Curtis Saxton in an official attempt at dividing the different classification systems and make them understandable. You kept removing it and thereby changing what the canonical source said. The administrators told me they wouldn't do anything against you unless you did something to any actual articles and now you've done it multiple times. I hope they finally ban you. VT-16 09:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Why are you focusing on the Utapau page here?
• To reply, though, since I could probably have made this clearer in my previous post: I don't think the text makes it clear that the Rendili Dreadnaught is actually "self-made" at Utapau (your POV), rather than being simply the largest capital ship in a force of mainly "self-made" vessels (which would be my POV). Hence, I think the relevant page should sidestep the issue or leave it ambiguous (which it does). For an example of what's certainly loose grammar in a comparable context, AotC:ICS (by the same author) refers to the Delta-7's "miles-long cousins, the Star Destroyers", which doesn't mean all Star Destroyers are miles long.
• I know of no evidence that Dr. Saxton was making "an official attempt" to redefine warship designations, though I know he's proposed a system at SWTC that's different to canon usage (based on an inaccurate, if presumably sincere, interpretation of real-world usage). But this is getting us away from the topic of this debate.
• If it's necessary to say, I reject your accusations as to my motives. My aim is to do what I can to make Wookieepedia canon-accurate, using only explicit systems found in canon (eg. the "standard Imperial classifications" for starship types) and where this is impossible, leaving things ambiguous (or making "behind the scenes" notes). I'm only human, but my intentions are on the level. --McEwok 12:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I don't trust McEwok's motives here at Wookieepedia. Many of his edits seem to be agenda driven - with that agenda being to promote WEG's stats and other information while playing down canon material in newer (Curtis Saxton's ICS books) or higher ranking (movie visuals) sources. To this end, he has made claims and edits that are purely speculative, and sometimes downright bizarre. As an example, look at how he tries to belittle the Mandator-class Star Dreadnaught into some merely-torpedo-chucking weirdo ship. Not exactly sticking to explicit canon there, were you McEwok? JimRaynor55 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the Utapau article, McEwok somehow twisted this quote

The Trade Federation protects its position in remote galactic regions by placing embargoes on arms sales to planetary governments. As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship.

Into this:

During the Clone Wars, and perhaps earlier, Utapau was one of the worlds restricted by a Trade Federation arms embargo on remote galactic regions. Because of this, the local defence fleet was based around small vessels, many of which were designed and built on Utapau itself—such as Porax-38 starfighters, tough, long-range snubfighters, designed for Utai pilots and capable of extended patrols of up to twenty days.

The largest vessels in Utapau's defensive fleet was a small Rendili StarDrive "dreadnaught", presumably a versions of the 600m Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser. This was capable of offering some protection against marauding pirates, and indeed was the largest type used by the Republic before the outbreak of the Clone Wars, but it was several times smaller than a massive Trade Federation battleship.

Yeah, I'm sure that a passage that mentions the Rendili Dreadnaught as an "anti-pirate" vessel in the SAME sentence describing the Utapaun's use of "downscaled" ships, written by Curtis Saxton, really meant to refer to the P-38 starfighter when talking about the weak locally-made ships they had to resort to. JimRaynor55 19:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• JimRaynor55: Many of his edits seem to be agenda driven - with that agenda being to promote WEG's stats and other information while playing down canon material in newer (Curtis Saxton's ICS books) or higher ranking (movie visuals) sources.
• Not at all. If I have an agenda, it is is to make Wookieepedia an accurate reference website based on Star Wars canon. Of course, I'm not going to get everything perfect first time, but wikis are designed to progress by revision and refinement towards the goal of accuracy. If, on the other hand, you oppose that "agenda", if you actively wish to exclude canon material that conflicts with your personal opinion, then you shouldn't really be here.
• As an example, look at how he tries to belittle the Mandator-class Star Dreadnaught into some merely-torpedo-chucking weirdo ship. Not exactly sticking to explicit canon there, were you McEwok?
• Uhh... how do I "belittle" the Mandator and Procurator in any way by suggesting that they may have been earlier antecedents to the massive Eye of Palpatine and Death Star? How do I "belittle" them by suggesting that they may have carried an armament of torpedos rather than turbolasers? There's nothing "mere" about the torps of an Acclamator or a Victory Star Destroyer. And all this was in a Behind the scenes section, too!!
• To explain myself briefly: 1.) Children of the Jedi indicates that the precursors of the Empire's largest fleet-beating/planetary-bombardment "dreadnaughts" and space-stations were "torpedo platforms"; 2.) the nearest ships to that super-ship role in the Prequel period are the Mandator and Procurator. We're never told that their main armament doesn't consist of torpedoes, so I don't see the problem with indicating the possibility that these might be the same ships, since the article otherwise begs the question "what are these torpedo platforms"?
• I will concede that I made an error in my earlier edits of the page, and later corrected it myself when I found the specific quote I'd been misremembering; but I don't think that affects the basic point. Nevertheless, since the idea that the Mandator could have been a "torpedo platform" seems to annoy JimRaynor55, I have no problem leaving it out.
• Yeah, I'm sure that a passage that mentions the Rendili Dreadnaught as an "anti-pirate" vessel in the SAME sentence describing the Utapaun's use of "downscaled" ships, written by Curtis Saxton, really meant to refer to the P-38 starfighter when talking about the weak locally-made ships they had to resort to.
• Three points here:
• Firstly, there's no absolute implication that the Dreadnaught in question is "self-built and downscaled". This is merely an interpretation, and one that seems odd when every other reference to Dreadnaught Cruisers suggests that they're considered large and powerful warships, and constructed in major shipyards like Rendili and Yaga Minor. Your appeal to authorial intention ("written by Curtis Saxton") has no value here, especially as in this case it's an unsubstatiated claim: we can actually quote K-Mac saying that he intended Coruscant to be non-urban, and Timothy Zahn saying that he intended Mara Jade to be the only Emperor's Hand, and both of these happen to be ideas that I'm favourable to in my own persional fan-vision of Star Wars; but I'd never suggest they ought to be presented as anything like "fact" at Wookieepedia. Similarly, it's entirely possible and understandable that Dr. Saxton might have written his canon work in a way that doesn't contradict the fan theories he proposes at SWTC, but that doesn't mean that his personal POV is canon: the canon meaning of what he writes officially is constrained by the rest of canon, not by his opinion or intention.
• Secondly, the purpose of the section in the Utapau page isn't simply to regurgitate the section in SWTC (though part of my motive for rewriting it was because a lot of what was there previously was almost a direct quote from RotS:ICS). The basic point is to give an overview of Utapau's defense forces. The P-38 deserves a prominent mention, and since it's a locally-built ship, and very small for the interstellar patrol role it's used in, I'm not sure why you object to me connecting it into the general pattern of "self-made and downscaled" ships in use, about the rest of which we know almost nothing.
• And last but not least, I don't understand why you're complaining about my original edit of the page, which went through later changes. On consideration, I subsequently adopted almost all of VT-16's second set of edits, except for the disputed claim that the Rendili Dreadnaught was "self-made" at Utapau.
• This is how Wookieepedia should work, with people refining each other's suggestions to produce a superior finished product. I pay attention to what you and VT say, but you seem to react with unneccessary hostility, because of what you think my personal agenda is. Ultimately, I'll return to my original point: if you don't like specific elements of Star Wars canon, you should refrain from contributing to Wookieepedia. --McEwok 23:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

---

On consideration, I subsequently adopted almost all of VT-16's second set of edits, except for the disputed claim that the Rendili Dreadnaught was "self-made" at Utapau.

Even though that is what the quote says the Utapauns had? It does not say "As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - except for their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught, which was one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship and made somewhere else", it says, QUITE CLEARLY "As a result, Utapauns rely upon self-made, downscaled ships - their biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship." The word "their" points back to the "Utapauns" in the exact same sentence, since not only this part but the entire page is about a representative of the Utapaun space forces. In fact, I find it more impressive on a galactic scale that a state in the galactic outback can essentially aquire and assemble pieces for an entire Rendili Dreadnaught, either from raw materials or from second-hand trade.

Saxton does not hold the same reverence over the Rendili Dreadnaught like some fans do. It's a good ship, but compared to the Empire's entire navy, it is little more than a heavy frigate in comparison. Numerous, spread throughout the Galaxy, and often used in lower-priority sectors. Doesn't really gel with an exceedingly important high-end cruiser or a battleship. In fact, it gets converted into assault frigates when modernized and upgraded. And that's why Saxton made sure to add the blurb of lower scales, so the WEG system would not be retconned away (and the use of cruiser for ships the size of starfighters to ships the size of Star Destroyers and beyond could be properly placed into different standardized systems). You, and others, have of course claimed the opposite and tried to argue that Saxton and other DK writers "erased canon" or whatnot. This is a blatant lie, as anyone who would actually bother to read the relevant sources, would know by now.

As for the reactor in question, and the continued assertion of the ISD having some form of "supremely sized" equipment, that is hogwash. Larger ships have larger versions of everything, as laid out explicitly in SW:ICS. The DS has all its components on multi-kilometer sizes, and even then groups the individual hyperdrives into a cluster, as stated by other sources. I've also found and added that the Executor has one main reactor (as stated in SW:CL) (though it most likely has smaller auxillary reactors spread throughout the vessel, like all the other types). Given the larger size of the main reactor on a larger ship (the DS and DSII) and the smaller one on smaller ships (Acclamator, Venator, Imperial), the main reactor of the Executor is likely to be larger than that of an ISD's and not several ISD-sized reactors grouped together. I noticed you tried to argue that with the Praetor article, but those were just stated to be Echo Base's main reactors, not the ship's main reactors.

It's basically become clear that you don't believe in retro-connecting or adding information when it doesn't suit you. This behaviour has been pretty consistent for the two years you've been here, so I shouldn't really be surprised when it actually starts to pop up more seriously in the actual articles. VT-16 00:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

New header for ease of editingEdit

• VTtheir biggest anti-pirate Rendili Dreadnaught is one-fifth the size of a Trade Federation Battleship." The word "their" points back to the "Utapauns" in the exact same sentence, since not only this part but the entire page is about a representative of the Utapaun space forces
• And? The Utapauans "rely on" ships that are "self-made" and "downscaled", and the "biggest" ship they have is a Rendili Dreadnaught, which is much smaller than the TFBB. The question under dispute here is whether that "biggest" ship falls into the "self-made, downscaled" category—"rely on" doesn't mean "exclusively use". Based on this quote alone, you might think the Dreadnaught was "self-made, downscaled", but based on other canon information, you might not. So, leave it ambiguous. Given the lack of more decisive evidence, I'm not sure what your problem is with making the article neutral here.
• In fact, I find it more impressive on a galactic scale that a state in the galactic outback can essentially aquire and assemble pieces for an entire Rendili Dreadnaught, either from raw materials or from second-hand trade.
• It's an interesting concept, but it depends on the interpretation that the "self-made" ships extend to the Rendili Dreadnaught—and that Utapau is "in the galactic outback".
• Saxton does not hold the same reverence over the Rendili Dreadnaught like some fans do.
• Personal POV is utterly irrelevant. The question is what canon says about the Rendili Dreadnaught, from "the largest vessel of its time" (The Imperial Sourcebook) to "Rendili's latest gift to the militarily obsessed" (Outbound Flight).
• It's a good ship, but compared to the Empire's entire navy, it is little more than a heavy frigate in comparison. Numerous, spread throughout the Galaxy, and often used in lower-priority sectors. Doesn't really gel with an exceedingly important high-end cruiser or a battleship.
• That's a heavily opinion-driven interpretation. The smaller size of the Dreadnaughts may be largely to do with their lack of starfighter and planetary-assault capability, and they still carry heavier guns than a VenStar. Their concentration in Rimward sectors under the Empire was because they were being superceded by Star Destroyers in the Core. They were the largest ships in the Republic Navy—not because the Republic Navy wasn't an effective force, but because smaller ships were regarded as militarily superior. They're capable of carrying out BDZ operations, and the Empire's acquisition of 200 of them could serve as a major shift in the strategic balance-of-power in 9 ABY.
• In fact, it gets converted into assault frigates when modernized and upgraded.
• And that proves nothing. The term "frigate" has been used historically for a wide variety of ships. At times, it's even been appropriate for the largest, most powerful warships in the world. We don't know what the specific context is here, so we can't use the term "frigate" to define how the assault frigate is perceived.
• And that's why Saxton made sure to add the blurb of lower scales, so the WEG system would not be retconned away (and the use of cruiser for ships the size of starfighters to ships the size of Star Destroyers and beyond could be properly placed into different standardized systems).
• I'm not sure what you think is new here? There's been a variety of different scales since The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook; in practical terms, we know that there are "light cruisers" from 42 meters in some systems; the "standard" scale, however, has cruisers from 400 meters upwards—a large category that became unwieldly during and after the Clone Wars due to the Empire's construction of Star Destroyers and Super Star Destroyers.
• You, and others, have of course claimed the opposite and tried to argue that Saxton and other DK writers "erased canon" or whatnot. This is a blatant lie, as anyone who would actually bother to read the relevant sources, would know by now.
• Have I ever claimed this? If so, where? My point has always been that canon can't be "erased", and the "standard Imperial classifications" remain just that.
• As for the reactor in question, and the continued assertion of the ISD having some form of "supremely sized" equipment, that is hogwash.
• Why? In case it's not clear to you, the question isn't about the overall reactor system, but specifically about the hyperspace field generator it contains: if canon says that the ISD has the largest hyperspace field generator ever built, and no other canon evidence countermands that statement, then that statement is undisputed canon, no matter how much you might disagree. It doesn't matter if you personally think bigger ships ought to have bigger units rather than multiple ones (though I don't see the logic of this idea); calling it "hogwash" means nothing. If you have no clear canon proof for the existence of larger hyperspace field generators, then you have no clear canon proof for the existence of larger hyperspace field generators, and the canon statement in Star Wars Technical Journal overrides your fan-theory.
• Larger ships have larger versions of everything, as laid out explicitly in SW:ICS.
• Are you just referring to the Death Star cutaway, or is there some other evidence that "explicitly" indicates a general upscaling of componenit size rather than the use of multiple units?
• The DS has all its components on multi-kilometer sizes, and even then groups the individual hyperdrives into a cluster, as stated by other sources.
• We don't know what the kilometer-long "hyperdrive" housing contain; but the grouping of smaller components into clusters on larger ships supports my POV here, not yours. You've still not proved that any other ship used a larger hyperspace field generator than the ISD, rather than clusters of multiple ones that were individually the same size or smaller?
• I've also found and added that the Executor has one main reactor (as stated in SW:CL) (though it most likely has smaller auxillary reactors spread throughout the vessel, like all the other types).
• Quote, please? If correct, this is interesting. However, one main reactor doesn't imply just one (larger!) hyperspace field generator, which is the question under discussion.
• Given the larger size of the main reactor on a larger ship (the DS and DSII) and the smaller one on smaller ships (Acclamator, Venator, Imperial), the main reactor of the Executor is likely to be larger than that of an ISD's and not several ISD-sized reactors grouped together. I noticed you tried to argue that with the Praetor article, but those were just stated to be Echo Base's main reactors, not the ship's main reactors.
• It's "likely", as you say, that the Ex will have a larger main reactor, if it does have one distinctive "main reactor" (again, the direct quote would be appreciated). However, this is a strawman argument, since what's said to be the largest is the hyperspace field generator, not the whole reactor. Personally, I'm not sure why you think that the innovative hypermatter reactor of the Death Star is directly analogous to a warship's drives, and nor do I see any logic in using a single large reactor rather than multiple smaller ones.
• You're right that the components used at Echo Base aren't specified as the Praetor's main reactors— but this tells us nothing either way about the ship itself. We don't even know anything about the size of the Praetor-class battlecruiser: the (assumed!) superiority of the Hoth shield to the Yavin one could be related to improved energy-dissipation systems, and the ion cannon is certainly comparable to that used by Firestorm.
• It's basically become clear that you don't believe in retro-connecting or adding information when it doesn't suit you. This behaviour has been pretty consistent for the two years you've been here, so I shouldn't really be surprised when it actually starts to pop up more seriously in the actual articles.
• What I oppose is speculative interpretation being presented as if it was undoubted canon in the main text and infoboxes. I have nothing against opinions being indicated in the context that they belong, ie as prominent fan interpretations, but the main text has to be based directly on canon evidence—and where the evidence is ambiguous or unclear, that should be noted, or else the specific detail in question ought to be simply left unsaid. --McEwok 10:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

What is clear is that you keep taking canonical sources that you don't agree with and try to put your own fanonical spin on them. It's not going to work, and you will eventually be banned if you can't keep it out of articles.

The question is what canon says about the Rendili Dreadnaught, from "the largest vessel of its time"

That statement is not valid, with the introduction of the G-canon Acclamator and earlier larger vessels, like the Procurator and Mandator from Kuat, and unnamed warships from Corellia, Humbarine and other heavily industrialized sectors. Even thousand year old ships eclipse it in size (Invincible-class, Cal-class etc.), some of which were still in existence at the same time. So that statement is false. It was not the "biggest vessel of its time", that's a statement originating from earlier WEG materials and no longer valid.

And the Utapauns rely on self-made, downscaled ships. That's it. There's no special clause saying "except for the Rendili Dreadnaught, which was not made by them." From the text it is explicitly clear that their only capital ships were vessels they made themselves, due to the embargo of arms sales. That is why it's impossible for them to obtain a Rendili Dreadnaught from outsiders. The only way they can get it, is if they buy it in inconspicious pieces for assembly in their territory, as THEY CAN NOT BUY THE ENTIRE SHIP.

but the grouping of smaller components into clusters on larger ships supports my POV here, not yours

Provide the evidence that these kilometer long generators each consist of smaller generators in turn. The schematics show them grouped together in clusters, it does not state that each individual hyperdrive generator is smaller than or equal to an ISD's. Since every single other component on this picture is a much larger analog to ISD power components, there is no reason to assume the Empire could construct components of all other types at a much larger scale, EXCEPT for hyperdrives:

image shack dot U S )/img45/3157/dsschematicswi6.jpg DS I schematics and text, image shack dot U S )/img502/421/incrediblecrosssectionshq0.jpg DS I cross-section scans

That's a heavily opinion-driven interpretation.

No, the only opinion-driven interpretations are the ones you keep touting, like using the word "bizarrities" for ships bigger than ISDs and smaller than or equal to Executors. That is never been stated anywhere. The Executor-class is the largest of conventional warships, and it and other SSDs are more numerous than just a few dozen, as stated in Dark Empire Sourcebook and Cracken’s Threat Dossier.

Numerous authors have written about ships larger than ISDs and starting with the Dorling Kindersley series, the very term "Super Star Destroyer" is labeled "colloquial" and used for a variety of larger Imperial vessels, which carry formal labels like Star Cruiser and Star Dreadnought.

Before, Star Destroyers were written about as if they were among the largest vessels in the Empire, barring the Executor-class. That is now no longer the case, as the DK books consistently refer to them as small warships in the Empire, while many different classes of larger Imperial ships are also mentioned, and therefore connect with the older sources pointed out above.

Anything said bombastically about the Imperial-, Victory-, and Dreadnaught-class is therefore no longer as valid as they were before. I don't care what WEG wankers like you label newer sources that don't follow old WEG standards, it is completely irrelevant.

I've asked over and over and over again for evidence every time you spout some bs on these discussions, and most of the time you leave the discussion or fail to provide actual sources and actual quotes, referring back to your own opinion instead. And it is most telling that you keep removing canonical information by claiming you don't see how they add up to the older sources. If they don't, that's because the older sources didn't account for all aspects of published or filmed canon.

Have I ever claimed this? If so, where?

In some of your older discussions on this site, you claimed LFL editors didn't do their jobs when cooperating with Curtis Saxton, that they let his information get into official sources. You've complained about these books erasing or contradicting canon, when most of the time they've been very good at keeping with existing sources, only adding to them or repurposing some of their terms. Even having plenty of larger warships in the Empire, other than the Executor-class isn't something invented by Dorling Kindersley or Saxton. But I've already listed sources in dozens of discussions here already, so I don't feel compelled to continue posting them, to have them dismissed once again.

My point has always been that canon can't be "erased", and the "standard Imperial classifications" remain just that.

Yes, they can. Older material gets superceeded by new, and LFL employees are quoted as saying that they try to keep all things part of official continuity, unless it contradicts higher canon, especially the films. Then they can be ignored. Even Leland Chee says that if game mechanics hinder a story in any way, those statistics can be ignored. And most pre-DK statistics come from roleplaying game-mechanics.

The standard Imperial classifications is not confined to one system. The entire purpose for covering the Executor-class Star Dreadnought by calling it a Super-class Star Destroyer and the fact that "Super Star Destroyer" is a colloquial term that cover non-colloquial terms like Star Cruiser and Star Dreadnought, shows there is more than just one classification system used by the Galactic Empire, and the Galactic Republic which it followed.

When other standards like time measurement gets several different versions used in the Galactic Empire, that shows several standards of something can exist at the same time. There's also different technological scales in the galaxy, as stated:

So the use of different ship-scale standards at once is not contradictory to canon at all.VT-16 11:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

• What is clear is that you keep taking canonical sources that you don't agree with and try to put your own fanonical spin on them.
• No, what I'm doing is pointing out where canon sources contain information that may restrict the meaning of other canon sources.
• That statement is not valid, with the introduction of the G-canon Acclamator and earlier larger vessels, like the Procurator and Mandator from Kuat, and unnamed warships from Corellia, Humbarine and other heavily industrialized sectors.
• The Acclamator is a Clone Wars ship, a later design than the Dreadnaught Cruiser. As to the Procurator, Mandator and the other ships mentioned in AotC:ICS... well, what we actually know about them is this:

• The quotes I've found don't specify the size of the Mandator and Procurator (I thought I remembered them being called "multi-mile", but maybe that was just the "miles-long... Star Destroyers" reference); it's merely implied they're "more powerful", though the clipped prose isn't clear whether that's relative within the Kuati fleet, or compared to the Acclamator. As they don't require the massive troop bays of the Acclamator, they could be smaller ships, smaller than the Dreadnaught Cruiser too, albeit built around a large reactor for their size.
• The second quote shows that in the centuries before the Clone Wars, ships "larger and more powerful" than the 752-meter Acclamator were built. Quite apart from the fact that they don't have to have been outside the ~1km range, these could have been centuries earlier than the Dreadnaught Cruiser—even, concievably, predating the "crunch" in effective ship sizes about thirty centuries earlier (see below). Thus, there's no direct contradiction of the statement that "the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser was the largest vessel of its time".
• Googling around, I've also found Curtis Saxton explaining his own POV in an interview at TF.N:

• This confirms that VT was right about the way he said Dr. Saxton was thinking, but it's a non-canon statement of the man's personal opinion, and it also reveals a couple of assumptions: a belief that warships "comparable in size and power to the ships of the Imperial Starfleet" should have existed in this period, and that the 600m Dreadnaught is "diminutive". This carries the same weight (and respect) as Zahn's statements in online interviews that he thinks of Mara Jade as the only Hand, and K-Mac's argument for a less-urban Coruscant on his own website; but canon evidence overrules authorial POV in all these cases.
• Even thousand year old ships eclipse it in size (Invincible-class, Cal-class etc.), some of which were still in existence at the same time.
• There's a reason that most people stopped building larger ships around 3,000 BBY: they became obsolete because they could be overwhelmed by packs of smaller ships. (Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook; the same passage also says that the Dreadnaught Cruiser was an early stage in a revival of larger warships continued by the Star Destroyers—and I believe that the basic information on the obsolescence of big ships is repeated in The New Essential Chronology).
• So that statement is false. It was not the "biggest vessel of its time", that's a statement originating from earlier WEG materials and no longer valid.
• Why is it not valid? The statement remains canonical. The Dreadnaught Cruiser is "the largest vessel of its time". If you can find me a canonical statement of the size of the Mandator and Procurator, then I'll acknowledge a contradiction that requires explanation. Speculatively, I might point to the reference to things like the TFBB, the Executor and the Kor Chokk as space-stations: there were cetrainly larger space-based weapons platforms in the pre-Imperial period, like Rendili's own 2.5km Bavos-II military space platform, but they weren't really proper spacegoing "vessels".
• And the Utapauns rely on self-made, downscaled ships. That's it. There's no special clause saying "except for the Rendili Dreadnaught, which was not made by them."
• You're overinterpreting the meaning of the phrase. You could say that the New Republic "relies on starfighters and carriers", but that doesn't mean they have no Star Destroyers. "The Rebel Alliance rely on self-made, starfighter-class ships—their largest Mon Calamari Star Cruiser is barely two-thirds the size of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer"...?
• From the text it is explicitly clear that their only capital ships were vessels they made themselves, due to the embargo of arms sales. That is why it's impossible for them to obtain a Rendili Dreadnaught from outsiders. The only way they can get it, is if they buy it in inconspicious pieces for assembly in their territory, as THEY CAN NOT BUY THE ENTIRE SHIP.
• No—again, that's your interpretation. Canonically, we only know that the Trade Federation has instituted "embargoes on arms sales to planetary governments": the precise details aren't specified, but since Utapau has a Rendili Dreadnaught, then we know that cruisers can get through. Even Dr. Saxton's authorial intention, as explained in his TF.N interview, seems to allow that the "diminutive" Dreadnaught (his term used there) can be sold to local fleets.
• Provide the evidence that these kilometer long generators each consist of smaller generators in turn. The schematics show them grouped together in clusters, it does not state that each individual hyperdrive generator is smaller than or equal to an ISD's. Since every single other component on this picture is a much larger analog to ISD power components, there is no reason to assume the Empire could construct components of all other types at a much larger scale, EXCEPT for hyperdrives:
• "The ship's huge hyperspace field generator is located within a domed area along the vessel's ventral ridge. It is the largest such generator ever constructed, and it expends more raw energy in a single hyperspace jump than many planetary nations use during their entire life time." (Star Wars Technical Journal)
• If any other hyperspace field generators were larger, then that would contradict this canon statement. Therefore, the ISD's hyperspace field generator "is the largest such generator ever constructed". Or at least, as I said in my last edit, it's said to be the largest. No canon evidence contradicts this canon statement.
• image shack dot U S )/img45/3157/dsschematicswi6.jpg DS I schematics and text, image shack dot U S )/img502/421/incrediblecrosssectionshq0.jpg DS I cross-section scans
• Thanks. That shows that the individual blocks in the hyperdrive array are ~3km long. It doesn't do anything to contradict the statement that the ISD used the largest single type of hyperspace field generator in use.
• It occurs to me at this point that there's some irony in the implied connection between the hyperspace field generator and the ventral dome in the text of Star Wars Technical Journal. If the Procurator and Mandator are big ships with limited hyperdrives, they hardly need big, powerful hyperspace field generators....
• No, the only opinion-driven interpretations are the ones you keep touting, like using the word "bizarrities" for ships bigger than ISDs and smaller than or equal to Executors. That is never been stated anywhere.
• "With the exception of a few bizarrities like the Death Star battlestation, cruisers are the most powerful ships in space. The biggest cruiser yet built, the Super-class Star Destroyer, carries up to 280,000 crewmen...." (The Imperial Sourcebook, page 51). I assume the Super-class "cruiser" with 280,000 crew is the 8km version (even if no ships of this type ever really existed). The "bizarrities" would thus seem to be ships bigger than an 8km SSD, including Eye of Palpatine, the Death Stars, and presumably the 19km Executor.
• The Executor-class is the largest of conventional warships...
• Or is the 8km Super-class?
• ... and it and other SSDs are more numerous than just a few dozen, as stated in Dark Empire Sourcebook and Cracken’s Threat Dossier.
• Again, misuse of evidence. In DESB, a quote is given from a speech by a known Alliance propagandist: "From Super Star Destroyers to torpedo spheres, it has been nearly impossible to overestimate the amount of destructive force available to the average Moff or Sector Group Commander". The literal sense of this colourful phrase can be dismissed by the "empirical" evidence, which shows that the average Moff or Sector Group Commander had neither SSDs nor torpedo spheres; Cracken's Threat Dossier says that the SSD "was designed to be a sector-level command base"—indicating the megalomaniacal intention of the Empire, not the reality. The same empirical evidence once again illustrates the reality.
• Numerous authors have written about ships larger than ISDs and starting with the Dorling Kindersley series, the very term "Super Star Destroyer" is labeled "colloquial" and used for a variety of larger Imperial vessels, which carry formal labels like Star Cruiser and Star Dreadnought.
• That's an overinterpretation, I think. The DK reference states that the term "Super Star Destroyer" is used in a loose sense "in Rebel slang". It doesn't say that that's the only sense it's used in. A wider examination of canon shows that in fact, the term isn't limited to "Rebel slang", and suggests that it can carry more speficic meanings.
• Before, Star Destroyers were written about as if they were among the largest vessels in the Empire, barring the Executor-class. That is now no longer the case, as the DK books consistently refer to them as small warships in the Empire...
• Can you give me quotes on this, please?
• ... while many different classes of larger Imperial ships are also mentioned, and therefore connect with the older sources pointed out above.
• The only ship in ICS/ITW/CL that's clearly implied to be significantly larger than an ISD is the Mandator II, implied to have the firepower of 200 VSDs or VenStars. This is little different than contemporary the Eye of Palpatine (and, speculatively, may even be another name for the same ship). If there is a description of the original Mandator and the Praetor as "mult-mile" in AoTC:ICS, then it can be compared with the reference to the Delta-7's "miles-long cousins, the Star Destroyers", elsewhere in the same book... but, as I said above, is there really a reference to their size?.
• Anything said bombastically about the Imperial-, Victory-, and Dreadnaught-class is therefore no longer as valid as they were before. I don't care what WEG ******* like you label newer sources that don't follow old WEG standards, it is completely irrelevant.
• It's entirely relevant. Canon is canon. The different sources have to be interpreted in terms of each other. This means that older sources and newer ones have to be interpreted together.
• I've asked over and over and over again for evidence every time you spout some bs on these discussions, and most of the time you leave the discussion or fail to provide actual sources and actual quotes, referring back to your own opinion instead. And it is most telling that you keep removing canonical information by claiming you don't see how they add up to the older sources. If they don't, that's because the older sources didn't account for all aspects of published or filmed canon.
• What are you actually asking for evidence about here? And on the other hand, where, exactly, is it that "the older sources didn't account for all aspects of published or filmed canon"?
• In some of your older discussions on this site, you claimed LFL editors didn't do their jobs when cooperating with Curtis Saxton, that they let his information get into official sources.
• I certainly think that Dr. Saxton has phrased his ICS books in ways that support his own theories, which don't always agree with established canon (which is, ultimately, an understandable thing for him to do). I do think the ICS books would have been better if they'd been more tightly edited to conform to earlier canon; but, having found those AotC:ICS quotes I discussed above, I have increasing respect for the careful phrasing used, whether it's Saxton's own, or the continuity people's.
• You've complained about these books erasing or contradicting canon, when most of the time they've been very good at keeping with existing sources, only adding to them or repurposing some of their terms.
• How is "repurposing some of their terms" not "contradicting canon": if canon says one thing, then using the same terms to mean something else is contradictory.
• Even having plenty of larger warships in the Empire, other than the Executor-class isn't something invented by Dorling Kindersley or Saxton. But I've already listed sources in dozens of discussions here already, so I don't feel compelled to continue posting them, to have them dismissed once again.
• And I've replied in all those discussions, too. I don't disagree that there are other large warships in the Imperial Navy (though the only ones where we have scaling evidence are the 8km SSD and the Vengeance)....
• Yes, they can.
• In reply to my statement that canon can't be "erased", how does this claim square with your preceding statement that "You, and others, have of course claimed the opposite and tried to argue that Saxton and other DK writers "erased canon" or whatnot. This is a blatant lie, as anyone who would actually bother to read the relevant sources, would know by now." In one reply, you claim that it's wrong to argue that Saxton, etc., "erased canon"; in the next, you claim that canon can in fact be erased. You can't have it both ways!
• Older material gets superceeded by new...
• Does an explicit statement in an older source get countermanded by a possible implication in a newer one? No.
• ... and LFL employees are quoted as saying that they try to keep all things part of official continuity, unless it contradicts higher canon, especially the films.
• Where are the statements under discussion contradicting the films?
• Then they can be ignored. Even Leland Chee says that if game mechanics hinder a story in any way, those statistics can be ignored. And most pre-DK statistics come from roleplaying game-mechanics.
• Gameplay statistics are less binding than other canon, certainly. But I fail to see how that category includes the statement that "the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser was the largest vessel of its time" in the text of The Imperial Sourcebook, or the Star Wars Technical Journal claim that the ISD's hyperspace field generator "is the largest such generator ever constructed". This is a false argument on your part, insinuating that evidence you disagree with falls into a lower-value category than it actually does.
• The standard Imperial classifications is not confined to one system.
• No? Why not? I'd have thought that "the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships" would be the system outlined as such in canon, as opposed to other systems.
• The entire purpose for covering the Executor-class Star Dreadnought by calling it a Super-class Star Destroyer and the fact that "Super Star Destroyer" is a colloquial term that cover non-colloquial terms like Star Cruiser and Star Dreadnought, shows there is more than just one classification system used by the Galactic Empire, and the Galactic Republic which it followed.
• Nowhere does it say explicitly that Executor was redesignated as any sort of Star Dreadnought. See here.
• Super Star Destroyer is "used in Rebel slang" to denote a variety of large ship. But it's also a legitimate, specific name for the (8km) "Super-class Star Destroyer" (compare "Imperial Star Destroyer", "Dreadnaught Cruiser", "Strike Cruiser" etc.). The use of the Super-class designation for the 19km Executor led to the term being used more generally, and it remains possible that "Super Star Destroyer" was used formally for the Executor-class design itself, and also for the "Eclipse-class Super Star Destroyer" and the "Sovereign-class Super Star Destroyer".
• When other standards like time measurement gets several different versions used in the Galactic Empire, that shows several standards of something can exist at the same time.
• False analogy—or rather, one that doesn't support your argument. There's a standard year and a standard day. Similarly, there are "standard Imperial classifications of capital ships".
• There's also different technological scales in the galaxy, as stated: [...]
• So the use of different ship-scale standards at once is not contradictory to canon at all.
• This is not, and never has been, under dispute: "Following are the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships; with some variations, these are used by the Alliance and by other space faring species. It should be noted, however, that the distinction between vessel types if often muddy, and individual corporations or navies may give their ships wholly inappropriate classifications" (The Rebel Alliance Sourcebook). A variety of different designation systems are in use; but within the variety of different systems, "the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships" represent a Galactic standard, and one that's clearly-enough explained that it can be used here, in contrast to the system that uses "Star Cruiser" (if indeed this is a different system, rather than simply a closely-linked variant of the "standard" one).
• Now, that's an awfully long reply. --McEwok 19:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

The quotes I've found don't specify the size of the Mandator and Procurator (I thought I remembered them being called "multi-mile", but maybe that was just the "miles-long... Star Destroyers" reference); it's merely implied they're "more powerful", though the clipped prose isn't clear whether that's relative within the Kuati fleet, or compared to the Acclamator. As they don't require the massive troop bays of the Acclamator, they could be smaller ships, smaller than the Dreadnaught Cruiser too, albeit built around a large reactor for their size. Wow McEwok, really. The Mandator and the Procurator could be smaller than your precious WEG-invented Rendili Dreadnaught? You KNOW about the ITW quote about Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts being bigger than Star Destroyers. You KNOW how big the Executor, also a Star Dreadnaught, is. You KNOW that the Mandator mark II can take on hundreds of VSDs. Stop playing these stupid games. JimRaynor55 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're overinterpreting the meaning of the phrase. You could say that the New Republic "relies on starfighters and carriers", but that doesn't mean they have no Star Destroyers. "The Rebel Alliance rely on self-made, starfighter-class ships—their largest Mon Calamari Star Cruiser is barely two-thirds the size of an Imperial-class Star Destroyer"...? The sentence says that the Utapauns had to rely on self-made, downscaled ships, and in the SAME sentence, it belittles the Rendili Dreadnaught as "anti-pirate" and compares it to the much larger Trade Fed Battleship. We know who the author is, and the most straightforward interpretation of the sentence is that the Dreadnaught is downscaled. This fits with the fact that it's a "heavy cruiser" in the "official Imperial" classifications that you just LOVE to keep bringing up, even though that same scale had to be "loosened" to fit in Star Destroyers (which are only mid-sized vessels compared to Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts). Therefore, your precious scale is downscaled (or the apparent Kuati scale is "upscaled," don't even try that dumb semantic game with me). I've been over this with you numerous times across more than one forum. You KNOW all of this. Stop pretending you have amnesia and setting your memory back a couple years so you can repeat your baseless speculations AGAIN like some broken record. JimRaynor55 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Or is the 8km Super-class? There is NO 8 km Super-class. The latest retcon from WOTC has made that a fictional ship, a fraud used to cover up the production of the Executor. JimRaynor55 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The only ship in ICS/ITW/CL that's clearly implied to be significantly larger than an ISD is the Mandator II OH REALLY. Which explains the quote about Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts being bigger than Star Destroyers? And are you actually trying to say that the Mandator II is HUNDREDS of times larger than the Mandator I? JimRaynor55 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is little different than contemporary the Eye of Palpatine (and, speculatively, may even be another name for the same ship). The same Eye of Palpatine that looks like an asteroid? Uh huh, really sticking to canon there McEwok. I hope you realize just how fast you're spinning here. JimRaynor55 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Speculatively, I might point to the reference to things like the TFBB, the Executor and the Kor Chokk as space-stations: there were cetrainly larger space-based weapons platforms in the pre-Imperial period, like Rendili's own 2.5km Bavos-II military space platform, but they weren't really proper spacegoing "vessels". Those ships are all space stations now, and NOT real warships? I don't know how anyone can think of you as anything but a complete BSer. JimRaynor55 14:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

No, what I'm doing is pointing out where canon sources contain information that may restrict the meaning of other canon sources.

There is no restriction of meanings for more recent sources, that's LFL's policy. If more recent sources and more thoroughly researched sources say something different, they take precedence.

The Acclamator is a Clone Wars ship, a later design than the Dreadnaught Cruiser.

Which does not negate the other information about local fleet fielding bigger ships, so the statement about the Dreadnaught-class being the largest is still valid. Don't lie again.

The quotes I've found don't specify the size of the Mandator and Procurator (I thought I remembered them being called "multi-mile", but maybe that was just the "miles-long... Star Destroyers" reference); it's merely implied they're "more powerful", though the clipped prose isn't clear whether that's relative within the Kuati fleet, or compared to the Acclamator. As they don't require the massive troop bays of the Acclamator, they could be smaller ships, smaller than the Dreadnaught Cruiser too, albeit built around a large reactor for their size.

You are once again distorting facts. The Mandator II-class Star Dreadnought is between 167 and 250 times more powerful than either a Venator- or a Victory-class Star Destroyer. Only people with no technical education would suggest that the same type of reactor could be "fine-tuned" to deliver 167-250 times more power than another. In the English language, naval terms like destroyer, battlecruiser and dreadnought have clear meanings, as they do with the ships of the Republic Navy and later, the Imperial Navy. With no other information, that is what these ships are. Everything else is pure fanon speculation.

The second quote shows that in the centuries before the Clone Wars, ships "larger and more powerful" than the 752-meter Acclamator were built. Quite apart from the fact that they don't have to have been outside the ~1km range, these could have been centuries earlier than the Dreadnaught Cruiser—even, concievably, predating the "crunch" in effective ship sizes about thirty centuries earlier (see below). Thus, there's no direct contradiction of the statement that "the Dreadnaught-class Heavy Cruiser was the largest vessel of its time".

Yes, there is, since there was no limit saying these sectors stopped making ships like that long before the CW. That is your fanon again. In fact, judging from the private naval buildup of the Trade Federation in the decade before the Wars, and the arms race between Kuat and Neimoidia during the CW, and the very existence of Providence-class destroyers, Munificent-class frigates and Lucrehulk-class battleships prior to the Wars, shows the exact opposite to be correct.

This confirms that VT was right about the way he said Dr. Saxton was thinking, but it's a non-canon statement of the man's personal opinion, and it also reveals a couple of assumptions: a belief that warships "comparable in size and power to the ships of the Imperial Starfleet" should have existed in this period, and that the 600m Dreadnaught is "diminutive". This carries the same weight (and respect) as Zahn's statements in online interviews that he thinks of Mara Jade as the only Hand, and K-Mac's argument for a less-urban Coruscant on his own website; but canon evidence overrules authorial POV in all these cases.

I thought those kinds of interviews had to be cleared with LFL first? That would basically be official information he's revealing there.

There's a reason that most people stopped building larger ships around 3,000 BBY: they became obsolete because they could be overwhelmed by packs of smaller ships. (Han Solo and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook; the same passage also says that the Dreadnaught Cruiser was an early stage in a revival of larger warships continued by the Star Destroyers—and I believe that the basic information on the obsolescence of big ships is repeated in The New Essential Chronology).

If the Dreadnaught is an early first step, then that only adds to the fact that larger ships, as mentioned, existed in this time and eclipsed it in size and firepower. Which, of course, we see in the films. But then again, you can only bring lies to a dicussion, so you wouldn't acknowledge anything even from the films.

Why is it not valid? The statement remains canonical. The Dreadnaught Cruiser is "the largest vessel of its time".

I've answered that above, troll.

If you can find me a canonical statement of the size of the Mandator'

Answered that one above, troll.

I'll acknowledge a contradiction that requires explanation.

There is no contradiction when newer offical sources (including ships in the films this time) supercede older information. The older information no longer has the protection of canon status.

Speculatively, I might point to the reference to things like the TFBB, the Executor and the Kor Chokk as space-stations: there were cetrainly larger space-based weapons platforms in the pre-Imperial period, like Rendili's own 2.5km Bavos-II military space platform, but they weren't really proper spacegoing "vessels".

One one scale, they are called that, yes. But the first three were all spacegoing, so try not to distort anymore.

And the Utapauns rely on self-made, downscaled ships. That's it. There's no special clause saying "except for the Rendili Dreadnaught, which was not made by them."

You're overinterpreting the meaning of the phrase.

No I'm not. You took away an exact, explicit sentence from an article because you don't like it, little vandal.

Thanks. That shows that the individual blocks in the hyperdrive array are ~3km long. It doesn't do anything to contradict the statement that the ISD used the largest single type of hyperspace field generator in use.

Yes it does. Those are single generators grouped together and recieving power through one feed, coming from the main reactor.

It occurs to me at this point that there's some irony in the implied connection between the hyperspace field generator and the ventral dome in the text of Star Wars Technical Journal. If the Procurator and Mandator are big ships with limited hyperdrives, they hardly need big, powerful hyperspace field generators....

Since that is older material, it is superceded by the AOTC:ICS which states those domes are for reactors too large to be contained within the main frame of the ship. Once again, new source goes before old.

"With the exception of a few bizarrities like the Death Star battlestation, cruisers are the most powerful ships in space. The biggest cruiser yet built, the Super-class Star Destroyer, carries up to 280,000 crewmen...." (The Imperial Sourcebook, page 51). I assume the Super-class "cruiser" with 280,000 crew is the 8km version (even if no ships of this type ever really existed). The "bizarrities" would thus seem to be ships bigger than an 8km SSD, including Eye of Palpatine, the Death Stars, and presumably the 19km Executor.

The Executor-class is the largest of conventional warships...

Or is the 8km Super-class?

Old information about the EXECUTOR is superceded by new sources, so you can't weasel your way out of this one, either.

Can you give me quotes on this, please?

Why don't you buy Star Wars: Complete Locations and look for it on the Y-85 Titan profile?

I certainly think that Dr. Saxton has phrased his ICS books in ways that support his own theories, which don't always agree with established canon (which is, ultimately, an understandable thing for him to do). I do think the ICS books would have been better if they'd been more tightly edited to conform to earlier canon

I have provided older sources that provides a basis for all of this, but you won't listen even when presented with it, troll.

You can't have it both ways!

He might have repurposed some terms, but that isn't complete erasure. You're completely delusional.

Does an explicit statement in an older source get countermanded by a possible implication in a newer one? No.

You are the only one here who thinks these new sources are "ambigious". That's your personal opinion.

This is a false argument on your part, insinuating that evidence you disagree with falls into a lower-value category than it actually does.

But it is, according to LFL canon policy. Newer before older in a conflict, and sources closer to the actual films are more clear than things more removed from the films, like all the West End Games roleplaying rulebooks.

No? Why not? I'd have thought that "the standard Imperial classifications of capital ships" would be the system outlined as such in canon, as opposed to other systems.

Since it didn't originate in the Empire and doesn't cover all the warship terms in use, I fail to see what's so standard about it.

Nowhere does it say explicitly that Executor was redesignated as any sort of Star Dreadnought. See here.

You are once again distorting official information.

in contrast to the system that uses "Star Cruiser" (if indeed this is a different system, rather than simply a closely-linked variant of the "standard" one).

Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are smaller than or equal to Star Destroyers. Imperial Star Cruisers are larger than Star Destroyers. The terms are not for the same type of ships.

Bottom line: You are a bonafide liar, an article vandal and a troll, and your personal opinion means nothing as long as you can only rely on old and outdated sources. I and others on this site are wasting our time bothering with your garbage. VT-16 22:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Another new section to break up the pageEdit

• JimRaynor55: The Mandator and the Procurator could be smaller than your precious WEG-invented Rendili Dreadnaught?
• Technically? Yes, absolutely. There's no direct evidence against it. It's also conceivable that they were relatively new design as of 22 ABY, post-dating the Dreadnaught Cruiser, or else a centuries-old one; but even if they are larger, they certainly don't have to be much bigger than a VicStar.
• And, just to make it clear, all that matters for me about the Rendili Dreadnaught is the canon information on it. I'm not making emotional value-judgements based on what source canon information comes from.
• You KNOW about the ITW quote about Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts being bigger than Star Destroyers.
• I know that the ITW quote says that the term "Super Star Destroyer" is applied in "Rebel slang" to ships "larger than a Star Destroyer", said to vary "from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor". I don't know any indicator that all Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts are "larger than a Star Destroyer". After all, there's a pretty widespread 1.2km Star Cruiser design....
• You KNOW how big the Executor, also a Star Dreadnaught, is.
• I know that Executor is called "Star Dreadnought", "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer"; I know that the Eclipse is called a "Star Destroyer" and a "Super Star Destroyer" (though never, to my knowledge, a "Star Dreadnought" in canon). Given how much larger these monsters are than any other clearly-defined warship (except Eye of Palpatine), I don't think they're a reliable guide to the typical scale of the ships described by these terms.
• You KNOW that the Mandator mark II can take on hundreds of VSDs.
• Not in dispute; but what we know about the Mandator II tells us nothing for certain about the original Mandator.
• The sentence says that the Utapauns had to rely on self-made, downscaled ships, and in the SAME sentence, it belittles the Rendili Dreadnaught as "anti-pirate" and compares it to the much larger Trade Fed Battleship.
• So this passage juxtaposed a remark about "downscaled" ships with one that "belittles" (a purely rhetorical term) the Dreadnaught? Unfortunately, that only insinuates; it doesn't prove anything, and two decades of canon disagrees with that insinuation about the Rendili Dreadnaught, "the largest vessel of its age".
• We know who the author is, and the most straightforward interpretation of the sentence is that the Dreadnaught is downscaled.
• We know that the author holds certain personal opinions, but (as with anything else) those should be relegated to a (respectfu!) behind the scenes note where they clash with canon. Taken alone, your interpretation of the remark might be "the most straightforward"; taken in the context of Star Wars canon, however, it's not. It's at best ambiguous.
• What we know is that Dr. Saxton proposed a fan-theory (perhaps sincere, but based on a misunderstanding of real world usage) claiming that "destroyers" had to be relatively small ships; and he then went on to present Ex as representing the apex of an "acceleration curve" of larger warships (which isn't actually an automatic sequel to the previous point), instead of identifying her as an insanely large supership (which is what canon suggests). But, quite apart from the fact that its fundamental posits are incorrect, none of this fan-theory is canon. I do want to stress that the idea may have been developed with the best intentions, but that doesn't mean it's canon, or anything close.
• We know, from Dr. Saxton's comments in the TF.N interview I mentioned earlier, that he intended the Kuati ships to be "kilometers" long, and chose to ignore (or else was unaware of) the canonical description of the Dreadnaught Cruiser as "the largest vesssel of its age". I don't know why he did this, but I don't think that we can confidently assume that his authorial intentions here are canon, any more than K-Mac's concept of Coruscant, or Zahn's view of Mara's uniqueness in her role.
• This fits with the fact that it's a "heavy cruiser" in the "official Imperial" classifications that you just LOVE to keep bringing up, even though that same scale had to be "loosened" to fit in Star Destroyers (which are only mid-sized vessels compared to Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts). Therefore, your precious scale is downscaled (or the apparent Kuati scale is "upscaled," don't even try that dumb semantic game with me)..
• The "apparent Kuati scale" is upscaled from the "standard" scale, yes (though in fact, there's no canon evidence to define this "Kuati" scale at all—the canonical references in ICS/ITW/SW:CL can be tied to the "standard" scale as easily as they can be to the unofficial system proposed at SWTC).
• All we know from the ITW/SW:CL quote you keep referring to is that some Star Cruisers and the "ultimate Star Dreadnought" Executor are "larger than a Star Destroyer", which doesn't imply anything about the overall meanings of the terms used in the passage.
• And, most importantly of all, there's nothing to say that the "Rendili Dreadnaught" is "downscaled" as a cruiser; why can't it be "downscaled" as a dreadnaught, borrowing the presumably non-standard Mandalorian usage of the term? It seems slightly odd if the "standard" designation system is "downscaled".
• The reason the cruiser designation had to be "loosened", of course, was that the Imperial Star Destroyer was a really large ship by the standards of the pre-Clone Wars period. Of course, the Trade Federation Battleship is larger, but this is a converted freighter (not unreasonable in size when we compare the FSCV designs). I don't entirely know why Dr. Saxton put forward his argument that the Star Destroyer wasn't a big ship—but it didn't fit with canon.
• There is NO 8 km Super-class. The latest retcon from WOTC has made that a fictional ship, a fraud used to cover up the production of the Executor.
• No. WotC has that the Executor was designated as a "Super-class Star Destroyer" to hide her true size; this has no bearing on whether other Super-class ships really existed. Considering the regularity with which Super-class ships are identified as eight kilometers long in canon, I'd say that it makes sense to retain those ships at that size.
• But that wasn't even my point. My point was that it's the 8km "Super-class Star Destroyer" that's described as "the largest warship yet built" in The Imperial Sourcebook, not the 19km Executor. Even if the 8km SSD never "really" existed, this refers to the 8km SSD, and constrains the size of previous ships. Eye of Palpatine is allowed to be bigger, because she's built in secret, and I'm even prepared to allow that there might be some other bigger "bizarrities", too—they're just not real "warships", more like space-stations that might sometimes be given a spaceship design with thrusters at the back.
• OH REALLY. Which explains the quote about Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnaughts being bigger than Star Destroyers?
• See above. The "Star Cruiser" needn't be significantly bigger than the Imperial-class; the Executor is certainly much bigger, but I should certainly have made clear that I was talking about the Clone Wars era, as opposed to the Imperial ships in ITW/SW:CL. Before the Executor, no purpose-built warship significantly larger than an ISD is known, except for the Mandator II-class Star Dreadnought, and the Eye of Palpatine.
• And are you actually trying to say that the Mandator II is HUNDREDS of times larger than the Mandator I?
• I'm pointing out that we know nothing about their relationship except the names, which could be misleading.
• The same Eye of Palpatine that looks like an asteroid? Uh huh, really sticking to canon there McEwok.
• We don't know canonically what the Mandator II looks like. I fail to see why the fact that Eye of Palpatine was disguised as an asteroid means it can't be a ship of this type. It's speculative, as I made clear when I made the suggestion, but there's actually nothing against the idea.
• Those ships are all space stations now, and NOT real warships?
• They're all described as space stations, yes. I can supply the quotes, if you want. --20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

---

• And continuing, with a reply to the replies that VT-16 just added further up the page....
• VT:There is no restriction of meanings for more recent sources, that's LFL's policy. If more recent sources and more thoroughly researched sources say something different, they take precedence.
• If sources directly contradict each other, then the newest one (generally) takes precedence, yes. However, the references to the warship types in the newer sources are ambiguous, even if they're "more recent": their meaning is thus ambiguous, defined where possible by more precise canon information, even if older. With the "hyperspace field generator", you're making a purely speculative interpretation that simply contradicts canon. And please provide evidence to back up the claim that the newer sources are "more thoroughly researched"? With regard to hyperspace field generators, they say nothing, and their author's opinion on topics like the usual size of "big" warships is inconsistent with previous canon.
• Which does not negate the other information about local fleet fielding bigger ships.
• Not in itself, no... but I discussed that, at some length, starting with the next sentence on the same line.
• The Mandator II-class Star Dreadnought is between 167 and 250 times more powerful than either a Venator- or a Victory-class Star Destroyer.
• I don't disagree, My point, which I could probably have made clearer here, is that we can't assume the original Mandator-class Star Dreadnought is the same size—there are arguments for and against.
• Only people with no technical education would suggest that the same type of reactor could be "fine-tuned" to deliver 167-250 times more power than another.
• But I'm not suggesting anything of the sort. I'm pointing out that there's no explicit evidence the two types are anything like the same size.
• You made a similar suggestion on Kuralyov's talk page: Incidentally, I think his insistence on making ship equipment not bigger than on an ISD stems the Trekkie-like belief that any advanced and small piece of equipment can be "modified" or "fine-tuned" to be 1000% more effective
• This was, once again, nothing to do with what I was saying, since I was suggesting the use of multiple units on larger ships (something you've still not replied to, and which in all logic, you must surely concede is possible). I don't know whether these comments are deliberate misrepresentations of my position, or if a preconceived notion of "Trekkie-like" thinking is affecting your ability to interpret the debate; but whatever the reason, you're misrepresenting my position here with some consistency now.
• In the English language, naval terms like destroyer, battlecruiser and dreadnought have clear meanings, as they do with the ships of the Republic Navy and later, the Imperial Navy. With no other information, that is what these ships are. Everything else is pure fanon speculation.
• Firstly, the meaning of terms varies over time in the real word. Secondly, there is other canon information, the sources I'm citing. Third, but by no means least, because we know from this other information that the terminology can often be "wholy inappropriate", this means we can't assume anything about the size of a ship when we only have its designation.
• Yes, there is, since there was no limit saying these sectors stopped making ships like that long before the CW. That is your fanon again.
• No. We're told in one source that ships larger than a 752-meter Acclamator-class assault ship were built "[i]n the peaceful centuries preceeding the Clone Wars", and in another, that the 600m Dreadnaught Cruiser was "the largest vessel of its age". These two canon statements constrain each other. The quote from The Imperial Sourcebook itself is what provides the limit on the timeframe for ships larger than Acclamator. You can't discard canon just because you dislike it.
• In fact, judging from the private naval buildup of the Trade Federation in the decade before the Wars, and the arms race between Kuat and Neimoidia during the CW, and the very existence of Providence-class destroyers, Munificent-class frigates and Lucrehulk-class battleships prior to the Wars, shows the exact opposite to be correct.
• None of this provides evidence for larger warships at the same time as the Dreadnaught Cruiser. The Munificent-class has so many voids in the hull that overall it could easily be smaller than a Dreadnaught, and it may be introduced in the few years immediately before the Clone Wars, anyway. The Providence, as a FreeDac design, must date from the wars, as the heavily-armed Trade Federation Battleship certainly does. The militarized Lucrehulk-class ships in use before the Clone Wars don't have more than 48 quad lasers, which I hardly think qualifies them as genuine combat cruisers.
• I thought those kinds of interviews had to be cleared with LFL first? That would basically be official information he's revealing there.
• I don't believe so, no.
• If the Dreadnaught is an early first step, then that only adds to the fact that larger ships, as mentioned, existed in this time and eclipsed it in size and firepower. Which, of course, we see in the films.
• I'm not sure that I follow your reasoning. The Dreadnaught Cruiser is "the largest vessel of its age", and larger than most previous ships after 3,000 BBY. Ships in earlier centuries were much bigger, but proved vulnerable to pack attacks, and bigger ships appeared again from the time of the Clone Wars (and perhaps before), including many kilometer-sized ships and also monsters like the Eye of Palpatine; but ships contemporary with the Dreadnaught Cruiser cannot be bigger than it.
• There is no contradiction when newer offical sources (including ships in the films this time) supercede older information. The older information no longer has the protection of canon status.
• What has been "superceded"? We see armed freighters in The Phantom Menace, and Clone Wars ships that are larger and later than the Dreadnaught, which is no real surprise, since we've known about the 900m Victory-class Star Destroyer for ages.
• One one scale, they are called that, yes. But the first three were all spacegoing, so try not to distort anymore.
• I don't see what I'm "distorting". The Death Star is spacegoing, but it's definately a battlestation rather than a warship. Similarly, the Trade Federation Battleships, the Kor Chokk, and the Executor are, in terms of role and manoeuvrability, basically space stations that are able to drop out of hyperspace and move slowly through realspace. They can't manoeuvre in battle like real warships (unless they're making uncontrolled dives).
• No I'm not.
• Why not?
• Yes it does. Those are single generators grouped together and recieving power through one feed, coming from the main reactor.
• They're simply identified as "hyperdrives". While they certainly seem to be connected to the main hypermatter reactor, they could contain auxiliary reactors of their own. There's nothing to say that they contain individual hyperspace field generators larger than those on the ISD, and thus nothing to contradict the canon statement in the Star Wars Technical Journal.
• Since that is older material, it is superceded by the AOTC:ICS which states those domes are for reactors too large to be contained within the main frame of the ship. Once again, new source goes before old.
• Overinterpretation. The explicit contrast is purely design-based; what does it mean calling the Mandator and Procurator more powerful—than the '"Acclamator, or within the Kuat fleet? And even if this can be linked directly with a more powerful reactor, what does this mean? Is it because the physical size of the reactor is too big to fit inside the hull (implausible, nowhere supported in canon), or because what that component does can't be done internally on a more powerful version?
• Old information about the EXECUTOR is superceded by new sources
• Which say precisely what? Does it clearly move the division between "cruiser" designation and "bizarrities" from 8km to 19km? Does it prove that earlier warships were larger than the the 8km Super-class?
• Why don't you buy Star Wars: Complete Locations and look for it on the Y-85 Titan profile?
• One reference in SW:CL hardly justifies your claim that "the DK books consistently refer to them as small warships". A "larger"/"smaller" distinction is established in this passage, apparently between ships like Executor and ships like the Imperial, but that can hardly overrule all the references suggesting that the Imperial-class is a relatively large warship. Of course, the "larger Imperial ships" mentioned here could also include massive non-combat assault/landing platforms like the Evakmar-KDY transport, which has about four times the troop capacity of a Star Destroyer.
• I have provided older sources that provides a basis for all of this, but you won't listen even when presented with it.
• Where, please? A link shouldn't be hard to provide?
• He might have repurposed some terms, but that isn't complete erasure.
• Greedo shooting first doesn't change the complete scene, but it's still a change. More to the point, while a contributor to canon might personally want to euphemisticially "repurpose" previous references, that doesn't make their intention canon.
• You are the only one here who thinks these new sources are "ambigious". That's your personal opinion.
• No, it's based on semantics.
• But it is, according to LFL canon policy. Newer before older in a conflict, and sources closer to the actual films are more clear than things more removed from the films, like all the West End Games roleplaying rulebooks.
• Firstly, this wasn't the point. You were attempting to dismiss information as game stats when it wasn't. Secondly, the conflict of interpretation is within the meaning of the more ambiguous references, and "closer to the actual films" is a very subjective phrase.
• Since it didn't originate in the Empire and doesn't cover all the warship terms in use, I fail to see what's so standard about it.
• How do you mean "it didn't originate in the Empire"? What is this based on? And of course, the "standard" system doesn't cover every term; it doesn't have to—just the "standard" ones.
• You are once again distorting official information.
• Then point me to the explicit statement that shows the Executor was formally redesignated as a "Star Dreadnought"?
• Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are smaller than or equal to Star Destroyers. Imperial Star Cruisers are larger than Star Destroyers. The terms are not for the same type of ships.
• Speculation. Star Cruisers (not necessarily Imperial ones) are among the ships "larger than a Star Destroyer" refered to "in Rebel slang" as "Super Star Destroyers"; this doesn't mean that all Star Cruisers are larger than an Imperial-class ship, and I know of no canon evidence to prove that the use of the term for the MC80 is non-standard (although this is suggested at SWTC, that seems to be fan speculation).
• Another rather absurdly long reply, but in summary, but I don't think VT has backed up either of his initial statements:

1. No direct evidence for individual hyperspace field generators larger than the one used on the Imperial-class Star Destroyer. Nothing to override the canon statement in the Star Wars Technical Journal.
2. No conclusive evidence to support the inference from the line in RotS:ICS about whether the Dreadnaught Cruiser used at Utapau was built their. This doesn't mean that it absolutely wasn't, simply that the canon is ambiguous on this, and the page is fine as it is.

• The evidence on the Mandator is, I think, more inconclusive than I thought, but I'm not sure where we go with that. --McEwok 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

You only provide speculation and fanon and can not be trusted around articles.

As for the Mandator-class Star Dreadnought, this large warship wouldn't be much smaller than a Star Dreadnought of the Executor's era, based on their relative power-output, which in turn dictates their size. Likewise, the Venator-class Star Destroyer is comparable to other Star Destroyers, the only generational difference being that in the Clone Wars, most Star Destroyers were medium-sized warships (ROTS:ICS), while in the Galactic Civil War, they were smaller warships (ITW:OT, SW:CL). VT-16 11:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

• VT: You only provide speculation and fanon and can not be trusted around articles.
• In all sincerity, my only aim is to improve the quality, precision and accuracy of this wiki. The way to achieve that is by compromise and civilized cooperation between people of different POVs.
• Last time someone suggested that, over on Talk:MC80 Star Cruiser (Liberty type), your suggestion actually turned out to involve no change, and no compromise at all. I notice you've still not replied over there since I pointed that out and asked you straight to justify your POV.
• As for the Mandator-class Star Dreadnought, this large warship wouldn't be much smaller than a Star Dreadnought of the Executor's era, based on their relative power-output, which in turn dictates their size.
• The Mandator II-class Star Dreadnaught, implied to be able to fight 200 Victory-class Star Destroyers, sounds as if it should be several times larger than the Super Star Destroyer that's "worth twenty Star Destroyers" (Darksaber). Even if you take that line as describing the 8km SSD rather than the 19km Executor, this might well place it in the range of Eye of Palpatine.
• The original Mandator, however, we know almost nothing about. It has a protruding ventral dome, it's relatively "more powerful" than an Acclamator-class assault ship, or maybe simply than most ships in the Kuat defense fleet, and it lent its name to the Mandator II. It may be three thousand years old, or it may be brand new. It may be larger than Executor, but it may be smaller than a Dreadnaught Cruiser.
• Likewise, the Venator-class Star Destroyer is comparable to other Star Destroyers, the only generational difference being that in the Clone Wars, most Star Destroyers were medium-sized warships (ROTS:ICS), while in the Galactic Civil War, they were smaller warships (ITW:OT, SW:CL)
• The Venator-class star Destroyer is described in RotS:ICS as a "medium-weight" warship that can escort "battleships", a term applied in OT:ICS to the Victory"-class Star Destroyer. Something 200 times the size of a "medium" ship, in contrast, is a well beyond "larger".
• And I assume your reference to "ITW:OT, SW:CL" is actually to the two occurrence of the same passage drawing a "smaller"/"larger" distinction between the "Star Destroyer" and Executor when it comes to landing barges? As I already said, I don't think this is enough to prove that the ISD is "small" in any terms except when being contrasted with Super Star Destroyers (and that's a contrast I doubt many would disagre with). --McEwok 16:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Technically? Yes, absolutely. There's no direct evidence against it. It's also conceivable that they were relatively new design as of 22 ABY, post-dating the Dreadnaught Cruiser, or else a centuries-old one; but even if they are larger, they certainly don't have to be much bigger than a VicStar. They don't have to be if you put your fanboy spin on all the evidence instead of going with the direct, obvious interpretation. JimRaynor55 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that the ITW quote says that the term "Super Star Destroyer" is applied in "Rebel slang" to ships "larger than a Star Destroyer", said to vary "from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnoughts like Executor". I don't know any indicator that all Star Cruisers and Star Dreadnoughts are "larger than a Star Destroyer". After all, there's a pretty widespread 1.2km Star Cruiser design.... A Mon Cal ship, not a Kuati/Imperial one. JimRaynor55 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Adding to this, since McEwok's strawman tactic is getting more and more absurd: There are Mon Calamari Star Cruisers (same size or smaller than Star Destroyers) and there are Imperial Star Cruisers (colliquially called Super Star Destroyers). Even if the Home One and her sister-ships were finally acknowledged by LFL as about 3.9 km long, they would still be in the same era as the "miles-long" Star Destroyers mentioned in AOTC:ICS. So at best, Mon Calamari Star Cruisers are comparable to different Star Destroyers, while the Imperial Star Cruisers are bigger than Star Destroyers and therefore referred to as Super Star Destroyers. We already know that different companies and different navies use the same kind of term for vastly different ships (Rendili Dreadnaughts vs. Lucrehulk-class battleships, Nebulon-B frigates vs. Munificent-class star frigates etc.), so there is nothing contradictory with the Mon Calamari having one standard for the term Star Cruiser, while the Empire has another. And since the Imperial Star Cruisers are directly compared with Imperial Star Destroyers (smaller) and Imperial Star Dreadnoughts (larger), they do not represent a "general" term. Likewise, the Trade Federation had their own specific type of cruisers, from AOTC:ICS, which were compared with their battleships, and their destroyers (the latter being smaller and faster than the others). I think I've seen it argued that just about every single rl naval term used in SW (corvette, frigate, destroyer, cruiser, battleship) is a general term which doesn't denote a specific type of warship. That is of course ridiculous, and both West End Games as well as Dorling Kindersley solved that problem by mentioning different standards and practices in the GFFA. VT-16 11:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that Executor is called "Star Dreadnought", "Star Destroyer" and "Super Star Destroyer"; I know that the Eclipse is called a "Star Destroyer" and a "Super Star Destroyer" (though never, to my knowledge, a "Star Dreadnought" in canon). Given how much larger these monsters are than any other clearly-defined warship (except Eye of Palpatine), I don't think they're a reliable guide to the typical scale of the ships described by these terms. The Executor IS a Star Dreadnaught, all that "Star Destroyer" and SSD stuff is slang or outright in-universe fraud, according to recent canon.JimRaynor55 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in dispute; but what we know about the Mandator II tells us nothing for certain about the original Mandator. Because a ship that's hundreds of times larger than another one would be merely called the mark II version, instead of a distinct ship class. Uh huh. JimRaynor55 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

No. WotC has that the Executor was designated as a "Super-class Star Destroyer" to hide her true size; this has no bearing on whether other Super-class ships really existed. Considering the regularity with which Super-class ships are identified as eight kilometers long in canon, I'd say that it makes sense to retain those ships at that size. Stop deluding yourself. Your precious 8km SSD is gone. JimRaynor55 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

McEwok, just stop your blatant BSing. You're only making yourself look ridiculous. JimRaynor55 00:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Venator-class star Destroyer is described in RotS:ICS as a "medium-weight" warship that can escort "battleships", a term applied in OT:ICS to the Victory-class Star Destroyer. Something 200 times the size of a "medium" ship, in contrast, is a well beyond "larger". Stop distorting the facts. The original ICS was written a long time ago, using outdated EU facts like the VSD being the ultimate peacekeeping battleship before the Empire came to power. ROTS ICS puts the Victory and Venator-classes at approximately the same level. Also, on what do you base your claim that the Mandator is "beyond 'larger'"? NOTHING. JimRaynor55 00:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What IS a "solar ionization reactor"?Edit

Are there any sources on what a solar ionization reactor is or how it works? I just want to know.Kadas'sa'Nikto 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Kadas'sa'Nikto

• Well, the process involves annihilation of a substance called hypermatter, which is used as fuel. This allows ships to gain enough acceleration to enter hyperspace. The solar ionization part seems to involve converting solar energy around the ship into usable fuel. VT-16 15:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that require large solar panels to do? By comparison, TIE Starfighters have giant panels for such small reactors. And thats just for sublight propulsion, right? Semith 11:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, here's the real reason: LFL screwed up. There is nothing to indicate the ISD has a giant solar panel gathering energy, despite the name of its reactor. All ships use hypermatter as fuel for an annihilation reaction which provides all the energy for hyperspace travel. VT-16 09:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Apparently, this mistake is related to this. jSarek 10:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
        • Yep. The other two reactors in this series, I-s3a and I-s4d, are only connected to TIE fighter models, though. And all the other capital ships in the ICS book series are described as fuelled with hypermatter and using the hypermatter annihilation chambers. VT-16 10:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

ProtectionEdit

It's been over one and a half years. This can probably be unprotected now. -- I need a name (Complain here) 15:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)