This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
Sensor Globes or Shield Generators? (Revisited)Edit
I was just wondering how you Wookieepedians finally decided to label those domes as shield generators (as I said from the beginning, citing the Rogue Squadron games and the X-Wing series).--Herbsewell 02:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
They are NOT shield generators primarily. They are sensor globes, with auxillary shield generators installed to protect them, per above. As stated above, GAME MECHANICS ARE NOT CANON! Yes, the events happened- but the mechanics are different. Otherwise, Delta-7 Aethersprites could carry seismic charges. No, they can't. Otherwise a single B-wing could destroy an Imperial Star Destroyer. If game mechanics were canon, A-wings would have regenerating concussion missiles, which defies the Law of Conservation of Mass/Law of Conservation of Energy completely. If by "X-wing series" you mean games, see the argument above. I don't remember reading about that in Mike Stackpole's books. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 03:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that. Unless you have a page reference, I've read the X-wing series numerous times and nothing was ever stated about that. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 00:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Wraith Squadron, page 371-72; "Are our shields up?" "Checking" The officer brought up a diagnostics readout. He winced. "Sir they took out the shield generator domes when they hit our bridge."--Herbsewell 02:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Last time I checked, the X-wing series had two authors. They were Michael A. Stackpole AND Aaron Allston
NOt to mention that in ROTJ they called em shield generator domes so there really isnt a debate. Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Beats Me.--Herbsewell 03:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
When are they called shield generator domes in RotJ? I don't remember it. Plus, I believe the ICS for the Original Trilogy and the Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy call them sensor domes. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 11:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
They are called sensor domes in the ITW:OT and SW:CL books from Dorling Kindersley and further back by Richard Edlund, one of the SFX artists on ROTJ:
"A very large explosion is coming out of the bridge area and it's causing several others to go as well; and one of the big radar domes up on top has been blown away, and that's spewing flames. It's pretty spectacular."
―CINEFEX #13, p.55, 3 February 1983
There's your answer. They built the domes to resemble the real life radar domes on warships. The ITW books also added a slight retcon for the shield-thing, having parts on the dome be responsible for localised shield-generation, a sort of auxillary shield. VT-16 12:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
They couldn't be auxillary shields if once they were taken out from Implacable's bridge tower, the capital ship lost all of it's shields.--Herbsewell 17:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Wraith Squadron, page 374; "Sir, maneuvers?" That was from the man who'd replaced the slain chief pilot. Trigit gave him a frosty little smile. "Do you see a need for it? When our shields are equally down on all facings and every other craft on the battlefield is faster and more maneuverable than we are?"--Herbsewell 20:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
All of Stackpole's books use game mechanics for the battles. That's something he's said publically, as well. It's not a good basis. The loss of "shields everywhere" will have to be figured out some other way. The domes are and have always been sensors, ever since the first film. It's not our fault later second-hand sources decided to make them shield generators vulnerable to starfighters. In fact, even the ROTJ novelization states:
"Concentrate your fire on their power generators. If we can knock out their shields, our fighters might stand a chance against them."
The fighters in ROTJ did not knock out a shield generator, the capital ships did so the fighters could target other sensitive instruments, like the sensor dome which they blew up. Like Richard Edlund from ILM said above, they were for sensor purposes. Be thankful the ITW books just retconned them into secondary shield components instead of nothing. Lower scale books like Stackpole's will simply have to come second on this issue. VT-16 22:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
1. Cite the book where you got that quote. 2. That is confined to only "Stackpole's books". 3. The X-wing series-I can not believe I have to repeat myself-had TWO authors. They were Michael A. Stackpole AND Aaron Allston--Herbsewell 23:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Novelizations of the movies have often been incorect and many instances have been in direct contradiction with films themselves.
Well if I have to spell it out for you... The point that VT-16 made is irrelevant because Wraith Squadron was authored by Aaron Allston, not Michael A. Stackpole.--Herbsewell 00:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is, Star Wars: Complete Locations pretty clearly establishes that the answer is "both." The domes are sensor domes, with the local-area shield emitters mounted on antennae around the globe. If the problem is that some book claimed that an SD's entire shield grid went down, we can assume disruption of the local fields meant shots were able to get through to other areas and take down their shield emitters or power leads, too. jSarek 00:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Just because he's a Lucasfilm official, does that make his word canon?--Herbsewell 01:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
How would you go about doing that?--Herbsewell 01:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No; just because he is in charge of the Holocron continuity database, the official internal database containing canon information in Star Wars, makes his words canon, because they're paraphrases of the Holocron. As for the how, there are message boards he frequents at The Official Site. But he's highly unlikely to get involved in this argument, because he avoids throwing fuel on the fire of fan debates like this. As for the above posted "it specifically said shield generator domes," might I point out that G-canon sources throught the films claim that the ships are going at lightspeed, yet we're willing to accept that that's a figure of speech rather than the literal truth. If you were a fighter pilot in the midst of an attack, would you quibble about whether the domes themselves were the shield generators? Even if you were an omniscient narrator, would you bother bogging down your prose with that detail? jSarek 01:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Why couldn't they go at lightspeed? Thrawn's flagship was able to go 150 light years an hour. Also to correct you, the chief pilot of the very ship who lost it's "shield generators" said that quote. If I were a "fighter pilot in the midst of an attack" I would quibble about how the very ship I was up against lost it's shields.--Herbsewell 02:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I just thought of something. If the Rebels were able to destroy them, wouldn't that mean the shields were already down? If the shields were already down, and these were only generators, why would the Rebels waste there time destroying them?--Darth OblivionComlink30px 02:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Well Admiral Trigit had not activated the shields when they attacked. Possibly attcking them before they were activated would ensure that the ship would be defenceless.--Herbsewell 02:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That's a good enough reason as far as I'm concerned
This issue still isn't resolved--Herbsewell 03:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I see you are unfamiliar with not only LFL canon policy but also the futility of strawmanning someone's argument. The closer to the actual films the sources are, the higher on the scale they are, even with faults that are later corrected (i.e Obi-Wan and Ben being brothers). Allston or Stackpole could both write 1000 books each using game stats as their basis for X-wing combat, and they still would be lower on LFL's canon list than the novelizations of the films. That's simply how it works in LFL.
Second of all, quit strawmanning the argument, whether Allston or Stackpole or Anderson is the one writing books using game mechanics for their depiction of naval combat is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they use it and therefore it's not as valid as the combat depicted in a higher source, i.e a movie novelization. VT-16 05:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
And for your other big question, the Dorling Kindersley books were also made with good help from the film crew and in connection with the actual making of the new films. That's stated in interviews done with Hans Jenssen and Richard Chasemore. The series of Inside the Worlds, Ultimate Dictionary and Incredible cross-Sections guides is higher up on the canon scale than X-wing novels. VT-16 05:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
But you appear to have missed the fact that it is not only the novels identifying them as shield generators, but also other reference books, including the Essentia Guides. Also, it has always been stated that they were shield generators until fairly recently. So, if they are definitely sensor globes now, it is a retcon.--Darth OblivionComlink30px 06:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Essential Guides cover issues not just in the films, but in EU sources as well. The DK line covers only the worlds and events in the films. Steve Sansweet said it best:
"When it comes to absolute canon, the real story of Star Wars, you must turn to the films themselves and only the films. Even novelizations are interpretations of the film, and while they are largely true to George Lucas' vision (he works quite closely with the novel authors), the method in which they are written does allow for some minor differences. The novelizations are written concurrently with the film's production, so variations in detail do creep in from time to time. Nonetheless, they should be regarded as very accurate depictions of the fictional Star Wars movies. The further one branches away from the movies, the more interpretation and speculation come into play."
―SW.com, "Ask The Jedi Council".
Then there's the LucasFilm continuity editors:
"Gospel, or canon as we refer to it, includes the screenplays, the films, the radio dramas and the novelisations. These works spin out of George Lucas' original stories, the rest are written by other writers. However, between us, we've read everything, and much of it is taken into account in the overall continuity. The entire catalog of published works comprises a vast history -- with many off-shoots, variations and tangents -- like any other well-developed mythology."
―SW Insider 1.
But why stop there:
"The first two Incredible Cross Sections books were conceived to explore bold new territory in the Star Wars Universe, taking a rare look inside more vehicles and vessels than we have ever seen before, and doing it in unprecidented detail. These books would represent the most thorough research ever done on these vehicles and would receive Lucasfilm's formal imprimatur as canon. These volumes would henceforth be sent out to licencees as reference guides and would even become useful manuals at Industrial Light & Magic, where some of the artwork influenced details in Episodes I and II"
―"VISION QUEST- The origins of the Star Wars Incredible Cross-Sections", pg. 36, Insider 68.
I can almost do this all day:
"Long after the original Incredible Cross-Sections book revolutionized Star Wars "nonfiction", Dorling Kindersley continues to publish amazing resources revealing the secrets of vehicles, equipment, and locations. The latest offering is Inside The Worlds of Star Wars Attack Of The Clones: The Complete Guide to the Incredible Locations from Episode II. Illustrated by the veteran team of Richard Chasemore and Hans Jenssen, this was written by series editor Simon Beecroft, in consultation with Dr. Curtis Saxton. While this book deals with locations rather than vehicles, the challenge remains the same, in Beecroft's words: "to accurately rationalize what's seen in the film and then extend the universe that little further." Many locations in the Star Wars galaxy are nothing if not big. Fortunately, the artists were prepared for the challenge. "One thing they've learned: never to underestimate the scale of the task," says Beecroft. "Richard and Hans put in hundreds and hundreds of hours doing a vehicles book. For a locations book, they must double that, at least. Some of these artworks are just enormous: look at the Geonosian Droid Factory or the Outlander Club." Beecroft is emphatic about the crucial role of Dr. Saxton's participation. "He worked with me all the way, holding down a day job and then exchanging e-mails with me all night. His academic background, general breadth of knowledge, and understanding of Star Wars lore underpins everything in the book. His work in rationalizing the Geonosis battle map, in particular, must be mentioned. With Dr. Saxton working with us, we can be sure that there is a real scientific basis to all our explanations." Curtis Saxton, who wrote the Attack of ther Clones Incredible Cross-Sections book, has a PhD. in theoretical astrophysics along with a deep knowledge of, and a love for, the Star Wars saga."
―"THE DK STAR WARS LIBRARY" sidebar, pg. 43, Insider 68.
All this, in addition to the ILM employees who worked on the actual Old Trilogy films, should be more than enough to show that features like the globes are primarily sensors, and that the "shield" thingy is the only retcon here. VT-16 07:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm with VT-16 on this. The notion given above that "the novelizations often contradict the movies themselves, therefore we should listen to this X-Wing book" is, needless to say, absurd. It's been made clear over and over that the novelizations are a higher source than the EU. Heck, we know from Matt Stover that Lucas line-edited the RotS novelization personally. Not only is there no contradiction here between Ackbar's order where he makes it clear that the fighters would only stand a chance against Imperial capital ships if they could knock out their power generators to knock down their shields, but the Complete Locations (or Original Trilogy Inside the Worlds, if you have it) makes it clear what those globes are. Funny how Ackbar didn't say "go for their bridge shield generators, that for some reason are completely exposed!" That's an EU fallacy that sprang from erroneous interpretation of the movies (and ignoring the canon novelization), and thankfully it's been rectified.Vymer 09:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd go so far as to say the ITW:OT was more of a partial reversion of a retcon, than a retcon itself. VT-16 10:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. Sensor globes that have "local-area shield projector vanes" sticking out of them. It even shows a cross-section cut of the globe itself, which contained "hyperwave transceiver coils" and "long-range scanners" that "feed targetting information to the ship's weapons systems". When the starfighters hit one of the towers, it impacted on the Executor's ability to target enemy vessels that were far-off. VT-16 14:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Technically the notion that the domes are shield generators does not go against the movies themselves. Only C-canon sources state otherwise, such as interviews, novelizations, reference books, etc.
Even information in official sources can be retconned into being incorrect. I actually typed a list of retconned information in the books I own so if I'm reading one I don't forget what information is no longer true.--Darth OblivionComlink30px 16:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you dense? The Essential Guides are further removed from the films than the DK line of books. That makes them less valid than the ICS. The Dorling Kindersley series contains the most thorough look at the ships, vehicles and locations of the films, as outlined extensively above. And from Echo Station's interview with Mike Stackpole, he mentions the influence of the X-wing computer game  which makes the events in those books even more dubious. Consession accepted. VT-16 17:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
They're sensor globes with local-area shield emitters. Debate over.--Darth OblivionComlink30px 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I find this similar to the armament difficulty, in which the Star Wars Databank says a figure in contradiction with the design given by Essential Cross Sections. I don't want to get into that issue here, but It seems that two supposedly canon sources may say contradictory statements but the issue is still unresolved. Please differentiate between this problem which in your mind is one-sided, and the armament which is unsettled--Herbsewell 19:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
The Databank still doesn't say Rune Haako appeared in AotC, even after Leland Chee stated that he was Gunray's aid. I, myself, still find that hard to believe.--Darth OblivionComlink30px 19:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That has been stated above. As for the article on the ISD-72x shield generator dome, I know full well all about it because I originally wrote it using the New Essential Guide to Weapons of Technology. That does not mean there are any discrepancies in the guide itself. For your reference, it is stated they are sensor globes in this post by VT-16:
They are called sensor domes in the ITW:OT and SW:CL books from Dorling Kindersley and further back by Richard Edlund, one of the SFX artists on ROTJ:
"A very large explosion is coming out of the bridge area and it's causing several others to go as well; and one of the big radar domes up on top has been blown away, and that's spewing flames. It's pretty spectacular."
— CINEFEX #13, p.55, 3 February 1983
There's your answer. They built the domes to resemble the real life radar domes on warships. The ITW books also added a slight retcon for the shield-thing, having parts on the dome be responsible for localised shield-generation, a sort of auxillary shield.
I think it's time we woke up and smelled the Whyren's Reserve. A) Some sources refer to the domes as sensor. B) Some sources refer to the domes as generators C) Retcons have been made to clarify the issue so that the sensor globes have local area shield generators (i.e. around the command tower). D) The sources that define the domes as sensor globes are higher level canon. That's it. End of story. For a long time I thought they were shield generators also, but that originally came out of game mechanics which almost always contradict canon. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Since the research done by Dorling Kindersley for their books was the most thoroughly done on these ships, as stated by LFL above, that settles it. No other book sources would come close on the canon scale. The globes are and have always been sensor domes, as according to their creators at ILM. The only retcons ever done has had to do with the globes being associated with shielding. In the second retcon, only the vanes sticking out on top of them were used for shielding, auxillary shielding. VT-16 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
EDIT: I made a mistake, the vanes are for shield projection, not generation. That would take place in or near the command tower generators, like the ones pictured inside the Executor's tower in ITW:OT and SW:CL. VT-16 08:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's how it happened at Endor: The Rebel fleet takes out Executor 's shields ("Concetrate all your fire on that Super Star Destroyer."—Admiral Ackbar). Then, fighter craft are sent in to continue the attack. But, it's likely that the local-area shield projectors are still protecting the bridge. So, the fighter craft decide to attack the sensor globes, where local-area shield projectors are. Once one is knocked out, a lone A-wing loses control and crashes into Executor 's unshielded bridge, causing the Star Dreadnought to crash into the second Death Star. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 11:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"Like I said above, we can't just pick one." Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax--Herbsewell 11:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes we can, that's what I've been trying to show throughout this entire thread.
So, the fighter craft decide to attack the sensor globes, where local-area shield projectors are.
That, and because they aid the gun batteries in aiming. VT-16 13:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the difference between the armament and the shield generator issue? Try answering the question this time--Herbsewell 16:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking to me or to Nebulax or someone else? The armament and shield question is basically the same, but the threads where started by different people on different dates. As for answers, I've given nothing but answers throughout both threads for days now. That is enough. VT-16 16:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is the "dome" issue settled but not the armament--Herbsewell 19:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think they are pretty much settled. I apologize if it seems like I'm arguing- I just want to get the truth, so no personal attacks were intended- I assume good faith with everyone. This is sort of a confusing issue, and I'm just trying to understand based on all the sources I've encountered. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 19:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In what way is the armament issue settled?--Herbsewell 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that there's currently a compromise. And we cannot choose something if there are conflicting sources regarding it, Herbsewell. Now, this issue has been solved; any further edits would be pointless. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 20:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
What's the compromise for this issue?--Herbsewell 00:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And that didn't include the 60/60 configuration. VT-16 06:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I only call it the "60/60 compromise" to avoid any edits to the armament. I usually say something like "The unknown number of light turbolasers and ion cannons, when added to the rest of the weapons, may come out to 60/60". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's true. :) VT-16 11:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
That's because of the fact that the XX-9 turbolaser figure wasn't in the article. And no, I must oppose this. The models from the films are of a higher canon level. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 01:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I also have to oppose this. And RelentlessRecusant, I've been watching this page for several months. It has been under debate for some time. Basically, if I understand Nebulax correctly, the movie models from the films show X amount of turbolasers and Y amount of ion cannons. Now, there is a total of 60 T/60 IC, but the types of those guns is not known- other than they are not the main battery. Correct me if I'm wrong- I think they also featured point-defense guns. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 04:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't the XX-9 supposed to be those big dual turbolasers on the sides? Sigh. They look nothing like the ones on the Death Star, which were also of that model, I think. Having the multitude of WEG guns as smaller turbolasers would be a good solution and consistent with the details shown on the ICS cross-section. VT-16 12:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
It would almost be easier just to say, "No one in LFL can decide what the official armament of the ISD-I is because there's several different versions, so the heck if we know." (kidding) In all seriousness, I believe VT-16 tried asking Leland Chee a couple of times and didn't get an answer. We could just say "the ISD has lots of turbolasers and ion cannons and can slag a planet from orbit" or something like that. ICS/movie models say one thing, WEG books say another, 2 of the New Essential Guides and several other works say 60/60. Who knows? Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 15:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, cite your source. THe ISD-I is arguably the most important starship in Star Wars...of all time. I refuse just to give it up, because this is important. Cheers, RelentlessRecusant20px 15:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's what the SW:ICS cutout looks like [that shack with images.us/img473/7708/isdcutoutpc2.jpg], showing what the different arrows highlight. The armament composition is the same as with the earlier Acclamator and Venator classes, a few big guns and tractor beams that take up a lot of space and require a lot of logistics support onboard the vessel, then some medium guns and then a lot of small guns. The small guns lining each side-trench. If there's enough of them on the top and bottom trenches of each side on the ISD, that might cover for most of the third-party sources. VT-16 16:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I understand the armament to be a composite of what ICS, the movie models, and everything else says. I.e. (x) amount of heavy guns from ICS/movie models, but the total amount of weapons is 60/60. And I think either the Millennium Falcon or the X-wing are tough contenders for most important starship. There are so many different models of armament that I'm inclined to just list all the different armament discrepanies in a separate section. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Meshing the movie model + ICS count and the 60/60 thing just doesn't work. This is because there's no way you could have those heavy dorsal turrets anywhere else on the ship. They'd be visible. It just doesn't work. Same with the huge ion cannons, as well as the quad TLs in the brim trench notches. The way the armament is listed now is best IMO.Vymer 11:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I point to the LFL blurb about the ICS books above, which said: "These books would represent the most thorough research ever done on these vehicles and would receive Lucasfilm's formal imprimatur as canon." That's it. We follow what the most thorough official research done on the vessels say. If there's 60/60 of anything, it would have to be small guns, not the large ones on the dorsal side. VT-16 13:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As a further point, I note the discussion above that contends somehow that the eight heavy turrets, two quad brim trench guns, the axial defense guns, and the numerous, invisibly small turbolasers distributed along the hull (the brim trench, the surfaces, etc) are somehow too little and reject same out of hand. A Venator's primary firepower are clearly it's eight turrets. It also has two big guns in the brim notches, just like an Imperial Star Destroyer, and numerous smaller guns which we saw in the trench itself in the movie, as well as two-barreled laser turrets in the trench as well. I don't see how anyone can form the view that this the ISD is somehow an underarmed ship. Taking the Venator as as basis, ISDs of both types have the same, but larger (and in the ISD2s case, much more powerful, with numerous barrels) heavy turrets, an uncounted but high number of trench and surface guns. What's wrong with that? It's certainly better than the nonsensical 60 identical weapons claim- especially given these alleged XX-9s are nowehre to be seen anywhere in the films.Vymer 15:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
As an end-point, I have never seen a WEG-inspired cross-section of an ISD showing these so-called 60/60 heavy guns. A proper cross-section vs. none at all is not even a contest. VT-16 17:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I never meant that there 60 identical weapons, just 60 turbolasers of various types/yields/what have you. And Vymer, you should look beyond the Venator to other ships that actually compare in function/firepower to an ISD, which is slightly hard as it is both a carrier and a destroyer. Case in point- an MC80b Star Cruiser, Hapan Battle Dragon or even the Republic-class Star Destroyer. The Venator was a carrier version of the Vic- it wasn't supposed to be as heavily armed. If the ISD only has the main battery, as someone else contended above, it would be underarmed due to limited firing arcs. To VT-16, I would say that we have never based our levels of canonicity on details, to my knowledge. If something is G-level canon, it's higher than other things. Generally, we go with the newer sources. Barring the Ep. III ICS (if it exists- I haven't seen it), two of the New Essential Guides say 60/60 of XX-9s and NK-7s. So yes, the main battery in ICS is the main battery, but as far as we know, the official total number of guns altogether is 60/60. (that would include smaller guns). Until another source is given, I have no reason not to follow that configuration. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 22:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
So far, the highest level of canon sources I have seen show that the other types are subsidiaries. Depending on the size of the XX-9, it is entirely possible that the other turbolasers are XX-9s. The main source on the XX-9 is the NEGTWT, which I have and it does not define the size-although it does say that it has "three times the power of a standard laser cannon." To me, that is not a very large weapon, although certainly capable of planetary bombardment. I would say that the others are XX-9s unless we have a higher level canon source which contradicts it. Ditto with NK-7s on ion cannons. I wrote the articles on one if not both of those, so I know a bit about them. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 02:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The Venator does compare in function and firepower to an ISD, as far as it's armament is concerned. Aside from incorporating a larger fighter complemment and some proton torpedo tubes, the Venator has an almost identical armament scheme- eight dorsal heavies, brim notch mediums, numerous smaller guns. It's also a Star Destroyer. As for saying it's a carrier version of the Vic, that's simply not correct. The Venator is a KDY ship, the Victory is Rendili Star Drive. And the Venator is more heavily armed than a Vic- a Vic has no HTLs like that of the Venator. As for the MC80b, Hapan Battle Dragon, and Republic Star Destroyer, I've seen little evidence that the MC80b etc has have weapons the size of the massive dorsal cannons of an ISD. Whatever their so-called heavy turbolasers are, they're clearly not in the same league (heck, the Hapan Battle Dragon is a sucky little 600m ship with crap turbolasers anyway), or we'd be able to see them. As for the Essential Guides 60/60 being the total thing, they're wrong. It's just that simple unfortunately- there are no less than five different types of guns we an actually see for our own eyes on an ISD- the small gun that tracks the escape pod in ANH, the brim-trench quad guns, the six huge HTLs, the 2 huge ions, and the three axial defense batteries. Not a single one looks anything like an XX-9. That's why the armament as currently listed is best, IMO.Vymer 06:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm repeating my lines above, since nothing more needs to be said, imho: Since the research done by Dorling Kindersley for their books was the most thoroughly done on these ships, as stated by LFL above, that settles it. No other book sources would come close on the canon scale. There are no 60 heavy turbolasers nor are there any 60 heavy ion cannons. If anything, the 120 guns might be small turbolasers and ion cannons referenced as protrusions in the side trenches. End of story. VT-16 08:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
"You should look beyond the Venator to other ships that actually compare in function/firepower to an ISD, which is slightly hard as it is both a carrier and a destroyer....The Venator was a carrier version of the Vic- it wasn't supposed to be as heavily armed."
Actually, the Venator and the Victory are on the same level, it takes between 4 and 6 Recusant destroyers to take down one Venator or one Victory Star Destroyer (ROTS:ICS). The ISD-I wouldn't be underarmed if it had less amounts of heavy weapons, because that would mean each of those had more of the total amount of power devoted to weaponry, than if there were lots of guns. As stated in the ROTS:ICS, true warships like the Venator, could redirect almost their entire power-output into their guns. Since the ISDs require more power than smaller Star Destroyers, that gives them more firepower and with a few heavy guns, each direct much more power than on the earlier models. I agree on the poor fire-arc, though.
"Generally, we go with the newer sources."
Usually, that's the case. But as I've quoted and noted several times on this page already, the Dorling Kindersley line has an advantage over most other book sources, barring the film novelizations. That's what makes them so special, and gives them more authority on issues like this. The ISDs weapons-complement follows the evolutionary path of the earlier Acclamator and Venator. VT-16 09:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the whole "poor fire arc" is really that big a deal in Star Wars space combat. Combat is generally done from broadside, and it is space, not the ocean, so there's no need for extensive maneuvering. Look at Battle of Coruscant- there was no shortage of targets for the Venator's main turrets there.Vymer 09:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
By this point, I'm in total agreement with VT-16. He's proved his point quite well. Saying that there might be 60 XX-9s as the auxillary armament was a mistake, although I still think the total number of guns (of varying types) is 60/60. As for Vymer, you should read the article on the Venator Star Destroyer and look at its armament and role. Several times in the article, its primary role as a carrier is mentioned. Also, I'm confused on how the primary armament is supposed to be similar to an ISDs when it features only 2 medium turbolasers and no other light guns aside from point defense laser cannons- which would not be very effective against larger ships. The Acclamator is a glorified transport ill-suited for space combat- read the article if you don't believe me. And the Vic is much more heavily armed than a Vic, with 10 quad turbolasers, 40 double turbolasers, 20 missile tubes. Don't go off on reactor output- if a Venator can do it, a Vic can do it. Oh, and I find it perplexing that you can claim that you've "seen little evidence that the MC 80b etc have weapons the size of the massive dorsal cannons" when the primary source you use for documenting the ISD's battery- movie models- do not exist for those three ships. What an amazing generalization. As for poor fire arc, that is quite off. "Combat was generally done from broadside?????" The Battle of Coruscant was a confused brawl to say the least. Especially with smaller ships, combat was not always broadside. As a matter of fact, unless your name is Thrawn, combat is highly unpredictable. Have you ever heard that "no plan survives contact with the enemy." On the ocean, naval ships (not submarines) are restricted to two planes- the x and y- or basically the surface of the ocean, and their weapons fire in basically parabolic arcs in all three planes- x, y, and z- but only in the "positive z" or above the water surface, aside from torpedoes/depth charges. Aircraft, spacecraft, etc. move in all three planes, at generally higher speed, and launch weapons in all three planes in both positive and negative planes in all three planes. My point is that they have more area around them to cover than a naval ship. (There are no 16 inch guns below the waterline of a Terran 1940s era battleship.) Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 14:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
This isn't a refutation of the idea that the Venator is primarily a carrier vessel, but here's some interesting scans I've picked up from friends and associates over the net and cobbled together, showing the overall structure of the [that shack with images.us/img163/2875/venatorlz9.jpg Venator] and the [that shack with images.us/img473/7708/isdcutoutpc2.jpg Imperator]. Notice how much more of the overall volume of the Venator is devoted to the hangars compared to the Imperator, and how it adds up to a bigger fighter complement for the Venator, even if the later design is much bigger. Now, unlike the Venator, the Imperator has its own landing barges for the ground vehicles it carries, so that adds to the fighters and shuttles, but still not enough to compete with the Venator. The Imperator also carries more ground troops aboard, thus requiring more crew quarters. However, look at the weapons-complement for the two classes, the biggest guns are placed in the same spots, on each side of the command tower, large secondary guns are also in each side-trench, and the Venator makes up for its lack of axial defense guns (due to the space occupied by the hangar doors) by having larger point-defense guns line the side-trenches in pairs (only broken up by the side-hangars). The text beside the heavy turbolaser also mentions its use as a capable warship in different situations, even though its more geared for carrier-duty. VT-16 16:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
More good stuff from VT-16. I agree with him again. The Venator is primarily a carrier vessel, but I can defintely see how it can be used as a warship also. I do notice the Venator, aside from its main battery, lacks in the medium/light turbolasers/ion cannons used on the ISD, so it would be weaker than the Vic, which has less fighter capacity and more guns. Aside from that, I agree with what VT-16 is saying- he's proved his points well. Vymer on the other hand . . . Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 19:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
My only contention is that the Victory isn't more powerful than the Venator, they're essentially equals. The same power can be channeled through their weapons-systems. The only difference is the Victory is better geared for all-out combat than the Venator and doesn't have its glaring vulnerability (the huge hangar-area that is especially vulnerable when opened). Other than that, I think the case on the ISDs weapons-complement is basically closed. 8) VT-16 21:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he's not disagreeing about the ship's true armament, only about having the 60/60 number, which I also think is ridiculous. The current statistics is sufficient, imho. And the choice of ships to compare with the ISD wasn't very good, at least two of those were noted as weaker than the ISD. The third, the Republic-class, seems to have given up carrying capability for sheer armament and engine power, so it's understandable. VT-16 22:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, VT, the 60/60 figures is currently the compromise only because we have conflicting sources. Unless you can suggest something better that everyone agrees on, it probably won't be changed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 01:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As for Vymer, you should read the article on the Venator Star Destroyer and look at its armament and role. Several times in the article, its primary role as a carrier is mentioned
Well, then the article needs fixing. The RotS:ICS clearly terms it a destroyer, not a carrier. I'll get onto that shortly, if my recollection of the RotS:ICS is correct. I'll check it shortly.
Also, I'm confused on how the primary armament is supposed to be similar to an ISDs when it features only 2 medium turbolasers and no other light guns aside from point defense laser cannons
I've already pointed out how it has the same heavy gun arrangement, similar brim-notch guns, (which are the same rough size as the Venator's medium TLs), and numerous trench cannons. Further, the RotS:ICS doens't list the guns we see firing from the "windows" in the movie, so please consider them. The primary armament is unquestionably similar to that of an ISD.
which would not be very effective against larger ships.
So? That's what the heavy dorsal guns are for, as we saw in the movie.
The Acclamator is a glorified transport ill-suited for space combat- read the article if you don't believe me.
I never brought up the Acclamator.
And the Vic is much more heavily armed than a Vic, with 10 quad turbolasers, 40 double turbolasers, 20 missile tubes
I assume you mean much more heavily armed than the Venator, but no, I see no reason or evidence to think that's the case, unless you can tell me how big these turbolasers are. None of them are listed as heavies.
Don't go off on reactor output- if a Venator can do it, a Vic can do it
If the Vic has no heavy turbolasers, no, it can't do it. The RotS:ICS says that as a true warship, the Venator can put the majority of its reactor output into its *heavy* guns, if required. Not all guns.
Oh, and I find it perplexing that you can claim that you've "seen little evidence that the MC 80b etc have weapons the size of the massive dorsal cannons" when the primary source you use for documenting the ISD's battery- movie models- do not exist for those three ships
You can't? There are no movie models ... so I've seen no evidence. It's really simple. Their are, however, pictures of them, and there are no such huge 50m diameter heavy guns. Therefore, no evidence. If you want to prove they have such massive ISD/Venator type guns, then you'll have to provide that evidence. The burden of proof is not on me to prove they don't have something.
As for poor fire arc, that is quite off. "Combat was generally done from broadside?????" The Battle of Coruscant was a confused brawl to say the least.
Doesn't really matter. This isn't naval combat, ships can roll. Anyway, as for this 60/60 thing- consider this: if we include the eight heavy guns, the two brim notch quads, the three axial turrets, it only has 47 remaining turbolasers. Making it less heavily armed than a Venator, turbolaser wise, even though it's 600m larger. Does that make sense to anyone? I don't see why we should retain the clearly entirely made up 60/60 figure when its obvious that no research was put into it whatsoever and it doesn't match the canon facts in a single respect.Vymer 02:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: I checked the Venator entry, and it's fine as is. It makes full mention of the full scope of the Venator's role, and notes that the Victory-class was certainly not its equal (that's clear already from it's smaller size (200m less), inferior armament (quads and double TLs, no heavies as on the Venator or Imperial/Imperator), and smaller figher complement).Vymer 02:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Vymer, you really have nothing better to do than to pick apart every word I say and argue every little point. The other users and I agree that the current armament compromise is quite encompassing. I'll return the favor and give my rebuttal:
)I agree that the Venator can function as a warship, but is more of a carrier- the dorsal hangars, lack of medium guns, etc. And the VenStar's secondary weapons is composed of point-defense laser cannons- which have considerably less firepower than a turbolaser. A Venator has far less firepower than an ImpStar. Part of that is because the ISD has 60 ion cannons to the VenStar's 0.
)I thought that the guns firing from the hangars on the VenStar were SPHA-Ts, at least on Open Circle Fleet. That could be wrong. As for "not a carrier"- what would you call something that carries that many small craft and has massive hangars?
)I'll address your third and last points at the same time, as both have to deal with firing arc. For a RL example, the American B-17 Flying Fortress bomber from World War II was initially lacking in forward facing guns. Luftwaffe fighters would attack the bombers head on to avoid their multiple turrets. My point? If you have gaps in the firing arcs on a ship- "blind spots"- then a smaller frigate/corvette/gunship could sit in the blind spot and compensate for every time you tried to roll. It's not that hard to do.
) VT-16 mentioned Acclamators. This entire discussion is not limited to just you and me. I was addressing him.
) The current main image on a Victory Star Destroyer appears to have similar dorsal guns to a VenStar or ISD. Vics are in fact more heavily armed than an ISD- on the VSD article it says they were second only to ISDs. Let's also not forget that apparently, there were not as many VenStars as Vics or they got retired fast because there aren't any mentions of them after around 15 BBY. Yes, I know that's from RL issues, but still. And a Victory Star Destroyer is definitely a "true warship." I find it hard to believe that it would not be able to divert main power to its heavy guns- any snubfighter can do that. And the VenStar article says that Vics were on par with VenStars.
) On the other ships, I chose them because all of them have been known to engage ISDs on somewhat equal scale. The Hapan BD is the weakest of those ships as MC 80bs have greater shielding. Anyway, my point about them is that we don't know enough about those ships as far as models and stuff to definitively say they don't have something. The weapons could be arranged in another way besides a dorsal turret. I don't think what drawings we have are enough to say what type of gun they have besides the generic "turbolaser." The same is mostly true on the Vic.
) Finally, the most important point is that, like it or not, a large number of sources say 60/60. Yes, the ICS supercedes that in the way of main battery. I agree with that. But until a higher level canon source than several of the Bantam books and 2 New Essential guides definitively says there aren't 60/60, that's what we go with. There is proof that there aren't 60/60 identical weapons, but there isn't proof that there aren't 60/60. That was a little confusing, I hope everyone understands. Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 03:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Vymer means the guns are placed in a similar arrangement as on the Imperator-class, not that they're exactly the same type. As for the 60/60 number, I will only accept this if they are not called heavy turbolasers and ion cannons, we've already proved this is nonsense. Frankly, I wouldn't change anything about what it currently says in the infobox, it's good enough and informative enough as is.
But until a higher level canon source than several of the Bantam books and 2 New Essential guides definitively says there aren't 60/60, that's what we go with. Actually, you don't need more higher sources, the ones already published already supercedes the lower-scale factbooks, like I've said and demonstrated throughout the talk page. No more is needed. I don't even see any smaller ion cannons mentioned on the cross-section, only turbolaser stations along those trenches, so basically, there's no higher canon backing for the 60 ion cannons. Just let the armament be as it is, is my recommendation. VT-16 07:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Vymer, you really have nothing better to do than to pick apart every word I say and argue every little point If it's worth you saying, then I figure it's worth responding to.
)What do medium guns matter? Heavies determine combat effectiveness. As for ion cannons, I see no reason to believe an Impstar has 60 ion cannons whatsoever, going from the canon facts, just like there's no reason to belive it has 60 XX-9s. If it has ion cannons, the number is completely unknown.
)Of course it is. That sort of tactic is "put me in the perfect spot but don't ask me how I got there". And that tactic was not particularly prevalent in battles we've actually seen (Endor and Coruscant most immediately spring to mind), nor does an ISD have much to fear from the piddly guns of much smaller ships. That's what well-rounded fleets are for regardless. Also, the maneuverability comparison of Luftwaffe fighters and B-17s is hardly on the same order as a random frigate or some such and an ISD.
)I can see no such guns. If they do, then there's a contradiction between the official stats and the picture- which wouldn't be surprising, personally, given the absolutely shocking track record as far as research goes for the books that defined this weaponry. Vics are not more heavily armed than an ISD. That's nonsensical. They're a fraction of the size, and consequently cannot generate nearly as much power, and are not listed as having heavy turbolasers.
)Then since you admit that there's no way of knowing what weapons they're equipped with beyond generic "turbolasers", on what basis do you argue that x or y ship is heavily or lighter armed?
) Numbers of sources have also put forward patent nonsense like 15m AT-ATs, E-Webs that take 15 minutes to set up, and 8km long Executors. It's irretrievably wrong, and it doesn't matter if 100 different sources claimed 60/60, it contradicts the movie, the highest canon. To say that they may be not XX-9s and NK-7s, but they're still 60/60- if it's wrong about the type, and it most assuredly is, why would it be correct about the number?Vymer 09:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
E-Webs that take 15 minutes to set up
I'd like to add that not only does it take a fraction of that time to set up in ESB, but the gunner manages to squeeze off at least two shots as he's killed. You see the bolt in the top right corner (because he pushes the barrel upwards). 8D VT-16 10:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And, something I forgot to say, the point-defense lasers the RotS:ICS is referring to are multiple twin-barreled turrets in the brim trench (not the big medium tls)- the window guns I am referring to are those we see Clone troops manning in the movie when Gualara engages the Inivisible Hand, not the SPHA-T beam from the hangar. The RotS:ICS didn't list them, to my knowledge. Of course, they may not even be turbolasers.Vymer 10:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, the way it is now is fine. It describes the canonical weapons perfectly, but points out that there are numerous other weapons that are uncounted (the OT:ICS points out a typical laser battery in the trench, which is basically a lump).If we acknowledge that the makeup of this 60/60 is wrong, I don't see why the number is being retained. We have no reason to assume it's accurate and good reason not to. It's just a game mechanic number WEG made up, and it's been tainting the EU ever since.Vymer 14:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Leave it as is, IMO. "Numerous lasers and ion cannons" plus the weapons we know for a fact to be there is a hell of a lot better than 60/60 of "god knows what but it sure isn't XX-9s and NK-7s"Vymer 14:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"Fighting" is such a harsh word Admiral. Vymer and I are merely having an exchange of ideas, but I'm slightly tired of it and we basically all agree with what should be on the article, so I guess it's over. It wasn't an edit war and we weren't attacking each other personally, so "fight" is way off and even argument is debatable. We were just running our mouth like irresponsible Star Wars fans do. :-P Atarumaster8820px(Audience Chamber) 14:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly!Vymer 14:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, one can speculate on details not given or canon. Since the only difference between a planet and a ship is the shields, would'nt logically it be completely incinerated?--Herbsewell 00:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
To perform Base Delta Zero, several Acclamators are required. Perhaps if they all concentrated their fire on one ship, it would be incinerated, but in space combat that is probably difficult and risky.--Lord OblivionComlink30px 03:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be pretty hard to miss a ship 11 miles long.--Herbsewell 20:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep insisting that everything must be added at the end? Moving text around like that can make it almost impossible to follow a discussion. He was replying to Lord Oblivion, and it was properly indented and easy to read as it was. -Vermilion 06:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In ROTJ, an ISD was vaporized by a single hit once its shields went down. -Vermilion 10:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Well let's visualize it. Let's take a Acclamator I-class assault ship and imagine that it would fire a 200 gigaton blast on the Executor. Now imagine it taking 4,000 Tsar Bombs and dropping them on a single spot anywhere on the ship, (remember, the shields are down). I can't see the ship actually withstanding the blow. I actually see the entire ship vaporizing within seconds.--Herbsewell 17:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Really? When?--Herbsewell 20:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Fire doesn't burn in space, fire can burn in an escaping atmosphere, however. Although this ship wasn't an Executor-class, Giel's flagship got a nasty hole in it, going through a massive transport area in the back, when Luke used a supercharged shot from a modified TIE fighter (it could only shoot six ordinary shots, then the rest of the laser blast in one shot to penetrate shields and hull) I assume capital ships firing at full power at an unshielded vessel of that size would get similar results, if not worse. VT-16 22:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
I have a feeling that other sources say otherwiseEdit
I don't think you know how it works here in Wookieepedia. If you type a fact, it has to be confirmed by a source, and that source has to be listed. I have, you haven’t.--Herbsewell 23:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all, don't tell me how Wookieepedia works. Second, if VT-16 or whoever said that it was above that number, then there must be a source. And again, having "around" isn't harming anything. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 23:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Last time I checked VT-16 or whoever wasn't God, and you aren't listing a valid source--Herbsewell 23:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I am familiar with the image you speak of. However, I remember only two shuttles, along with an AT-AT.--Herbsewell 01:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, then, since you have the book, you should know that there are launch ranks for TIEs off to the side of the hangar. The gunboats, walkers, etc. probably have their own space. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 12:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they have multiple levels underneath the main hangar, with elevators bringing ships from one level to another, like on an aircraft carrier. VT-16 18:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Hard to visualize but very possible. Is there any official source where this comes from?--Herbsewell 20:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
We do know there was an internal transportation network for carried ships, however, as we saw the Millennium Falcon in transit from the main hangar to deep storage in Heir to the Empire. jSarek 21:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Novel; perhaps "saw" was the wrong word. ;-) But the description is pretty clear about a network of elevators and tubes used for transporting starships within the Destroyer, at least to and from deep storage. jSarek 22:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you even know what recoil is?--Herbsewell 22:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Lasers in Star Wars are supposed to be superheated plasma or somesuch. -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you give me a source? Plasma charges would be possible if you can (1) contain the plasma, which as we know is very hard, (2) accelerate it towards the target like in a magnetic field, (3) contain it after it leaves the laser battery.
Anyway it's been called lasers in more sources, and with lasers it would be much easier to store, accelerate, and transfer the energy. I'd like to see the source for this and see if someone with a degree wrote it, as they do in Star Trek.--Herbsewell 23:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Probably Curtin Saxton. And in the Star Wars Galaxy, plasma could probably be easily contained, a mechanism in the weapon probably helps it accelerate, and perhaps there's a certain type of plasma that can be contained after fired. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 23:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Why would you use it if your ship would be handicapped?--Herbsewell 23:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Well it's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not treating you as if you were a kid. I'm just telling you information you must know to debate this issue.--Herbsewell 00:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well then by definition they're not lasers.--Herbsewell 01:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
From the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary definition of "plasma": a collection of charged particles (as in the atmospheres of stars or in a metal) containing about equal numbers of positive ions and electrons and exhibiting some properties of a gas but differing from a gas in being a good conductor of electricity and in being affected by a magnetic field. Now, the definition of "laser" from that same site: a device that utilizes the natural oscillations of atoms or molecules between energy levels for generating a beam of coherent electromagnetic radiation usually in the ultraviolet, visible, or infrared regions of the spectrum. The problem here is that laser is defined as a device rather than an energy form. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well that's your problem. Most people know what a laser is.--Herbsewell 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well until then I'll just have to assume that they really were lasers and had nothing to do with plasma.--Herbsewell 23:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Many SW authors use the term "spewing plasma" when describing laser fire. .... 23:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well the fact that it's "laser fire" is a direct contradiction of it being plasma.--Herbsewell 23:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Wow. There's a lot of talk going on here at cross purposes. Let me see if I can sort it all out and get everyone on the same page. Laser, in our world, refers to a specific process, already linked above; this process cannot result in a bolt of plasma any more than the process of "burning" can result in a spray of licorice. However, in Star Wars, what everyone calls "lasers" in no way resemble Earthly lasers. There are two possible interpretations for this; lasers themselves work differently somehow in Star Wars, or the term "laser" applies to something that isn't what we know to be a laser. Star Wars has gone with the latter explanation (I believe in one of the Incredible Cross Section books, though as I don't own them I can't be sure). This shift in meaning is not unusual, as weapons terminology often migrates from its source (see "rifle," which originally meant any weapon with spiraling ridges within the barrel to put spin on the bullet, but now refers to a long-arm - thus, you can have "blaster rifles" even though they don't even have bullets to put spin on). At any rate, it's pretty clear from the visuals that Star Wars lasers have at least some recoil to them. jSarek 00:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it was confirmed in one of the books that Curtis Saxton had a hand in, most likely one of the Incredible Cross Section books. As I don't own any (I'm waiting for the big collected edition), I can't say that for a fact, though. jSarek 12:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a completely different ship class with 1.5 times the mass of an ISD, despite a superficial resemblance. This is too big a difference to call the Galactic-class a variant of the ISD on the main ISD disambiguation page. JimRaynor55 17:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I want to know if the Mathayus was modified. I saw how both the bridge and the hangar were quite different. Admiral Cov was just about to say that they were using the most powerful something...possibly his version of the ISD was the most powerful, maybe it was the class of the ship itself as being an ISD.--Herbsewell 18:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it was. From memory, I remember there being an observation deck in the hangar, but that could have simply been further up into the ship and a normal feature. I don't remember anything different about the bridge, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 20:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
It was a little bit bigger I think. It's hard to compare because I don't think I've seen an ISD bridge before. Is there a picture that I can see from the movies, or is it the same as the Executor's?--Herbsewell 20:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay maybe by a few feet, but I don't think so.--Herbsewell 21:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
But just because the ships have different sizes doesn't mean their bridges have to be expanded. That's why Executor's command tower is so small compared to the rest of the ship. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway I've lost track. Should we add in it's summary that Mathayus was a modified ISD?--Herbsewell 21:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
How do you know?--Herbsewell 03:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well anyway it was completely different than the standard ISD. Just look here
Okay, I agree. Perhaps just a "The ship may have been modified, as it appears to have a different hangar structure than other Imperial-class Star Destroyers". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 14:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
You can see how the bridge is different too.--Herbsewell 14:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter. There's no way that shot could be of a standard Imperial Star Destroyer.--Herbsewell 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but no. If that bridge image was taken looking at the, let's say, back right-hand (that is, if you were looking from the back of the bridge) side of the bridge, there'd be nothing to compare it to. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax(Imperial Holovision)20px 14:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The computer terminals are on the side of the bridge.--Herbsewell 14:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it's either 1) A different type of vessel, 2) A modified ISD or 3), a Star Destroyer similar to the ISD with minor differences but still under the class Imperial.--Herbsewell 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)