Talk:Independence

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Article milestones Date Process Result 17 June 2007 Featured article candidate Success 24 June 2007 Featured article
Current status: Featured article

Contents 1 During the Vong War? 2 MC80A? Whats the source? 3 Expansion casualties 4 Battlefront

[edit] During the Vong War?

What is the source for this? I have seen no mention of any ship named Independence in the NJO. AdmiralNick22 16:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a source for this, it's not in any of the NJO books. But story-wise it does kind of makes sense. but there's no proof. The article should say something like "it's present condition or position is unknown". --BaldFett 18:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• A little late but it's possibly Star Wars Gamer 7. I'm trying to verify that. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Guys, the article lists "Star Wars Silent Death: The New Jedi Order" as the source for the Independence's appearance in the NJO. Silent Death? Sounds like some made up crap to me... 70.231.130.234 00:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It was an article that appeared in Gamer 7 describing an RPG scenario using the Silent Death rules. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 00:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The Indepedence was mentioned in a NJO story in Gamer #7 !?!?! I would love to get my hands on that article. Out of curiousity, does the article mention that the cruiser is the same from the Rebellion or could it be a newer Indy. I would love to see the details! :-) AdmiralNick22 03:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MC80A? Whats the source?

I noticed on this page and the Home One page that both vessels are listed as being of the MC80A class of Star Cruiser. There is no source to this that I am aware of. Hell, even Home One has never been given a official class, though it and Independence have often been assumed as being MC80's. If no one can provide the evidence showing that both cruisers are in fact MC80A's, I will be editing both articles. AdmiralNick22 17:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

it basically comes down to this:

• Home One, Defiance and Independence have been confirmed sister ships by both the Star Wars Customizable Card Game and StarWars.com Questions and anwsers (see Home One page for more on this)
• Defiance and Independence appear in X-wing and X-wing Alliance as MC80a's. The models used for these ships in the games (esspecially in the cutscenes) resemble the orginal Home One model, supporting the sister ship statement even further.
• Since Home One is sister ships with the other two, they must be of the same class.
• The last point (debatable): since Home One seems to be a lot bigger than the "normal" MC80's, it couldn't even have been of the MC80-class, regardless whether or not it's been officially said so. (from the Home One behind the scenes article)

--BaldFett 17:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• • Yet, the game is incorrect in calling them MC80A's. Prior EU sources have only showed the "winged" Mon Cal cruisers of the Liberty type to be MC80As. Furthermore, size and classification in computer games do not count more than published sources. I understand your reasoning, but it would be far more prudent to just list Home One and Independence as Mon Calamari cruisers, while using the Behind the Scences section to explain theories on their class. That way both viewpoints are presented. Fair enough? AdmiralNick22 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Actually the term MC80a originated from X-wing (and was later re-used in XWA), then you have the Naritus which is in fact the only "EU-book-MC80a" ever described (and that she's a MC80a is only in Crackens Threat Dossier). There are no other mentions of the term MC80a anywhere else (unless you can prove me wrong on this, of course).

I know for a fact that Orthavan from The Last Command was classified as an MC80a here, but I sifted trough all the sources (comic, novel and both sourcebooks) and "MC80a" is nowhere to be found. What I did found that the Orthavan looks a lot like the Liberty-type in the comic. I suspect that the Liberty-type being the MC80a is fanon (the -a seems like an addition (the extra wings) to the "normal" MC80). Rather than the Home One-type being MC80a which is based on reason (like I explained above).

Then there's also the cruiser Hope which is also said to be a MC80a, but I suspect that that's made up just in the way of Orthavan since designations like "MC80a", "RZ1" and "T-65" are rarely used inside stories. I'm trying to get my hand on Retreat from Coruscant for more on this. Since X-wing "invented" "MC80a" for the Independence (and thus Home One-type), I think my statement is still correct. --BaldFett 08:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Fett, it has to be changed. The MC80a was not even first referenced until the Thrawn Trilogy Sourcebook, which is right in front of me on my desk. Fans are wrong for calling the Liberty a MC80a. The MC80a was most likely not invented until the New Republic was founded, based on sourcebook references. Therefore, all the Mon Calamari cruisers from the Rebellion were of the MC80 class or some other unknown class. Therefore, Home One and Independence are not MC80a's, since they were around years before the model was produced! I am trying to settle this diplomatically. We should remove the MC80a from each cruiser and include references to them being that class in the Behind the Scences section. The X-Wing: Alliance stuff is not the primary source, but a source in error. AdmiralNick22 15:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to sound arogant, or start a digital fight over this, but I still think I'm right (sorry about that!). But since you have the trawn trilogy sourcebook for real (I only own a (somewhat broken) digital copy, I know it's bad, but I've only got it for the mon cal cruisers), I have a question for you to look op. It should be page 220 or around there: is there ANY mention at all of MC80a's in the Trawn trilogy sourcebook, and if so, could you quote that bit please? -- BaldFett 17:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Oh yeah: if my suspicion (no mention of MC80a) is correct I have something really interesting/weird to tell.

Yes, there is mention. On pg. 220 there is a blurb on Mon Calamari cruisers. The actual paragraph preceding the roleplaying stats makes no mention of the MC80a. Yet, the stats provided are listed as for a "Mon Calamari MC80a" Star Cruiser.

Now, here is where I think you may be getting confused. The paragraph description that precedes the stats is almost an exact copy of the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook MC80 paragraph. In other words, when WEG made the Thrawn Trilogy sourcebook they got lazy and just slightly edited the paragraph from the RASB. In most cases all they did was change the word "Rebel" to "Republic".

So, the wierd thing is that while the stats for the MC80 and MC80a are almost exactly identical, we are left with two ships. The only explanation is that the MC80a was designed after the New Republic was founded, as a sort of easy to produce upgrade.

Now, here is why we need to change this. Up until X-Wing:Alliance made that error, it was basic knowledge that the MC80a was designed either right after the founding of the New Republic or shortly before Endor. Either way, it rules out the possibility of the Independence or Home One being a MC80a. Afterall, both cruisers were around in the early days of the Rebellion, when all they had were MC80s.

I also do not want to have this turn into an argument, but you have to understand that the sourcebooks and novels take precendence over the games. I understand that XW:A shows the Independence as a MC80a, but that is the only mention of that. Furthermore, the game is wrong in several ways, including scale, etc.

This is why I propose a compromise. The entry itself for both Home One and Independence should just say the generic "Mon Calamari Cruiser", while the behind the scences section can eleborate on other possibile designations and sizes. That way the known canon info is primary, while attention is given to other sources and hypothesies in the BtS section.

Is that a fair compromise? AdmiralNick22 17:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I see your point. But I've got one more question: does the entry in the Thrawn book really describe the MC80a as post-Endor? If not, there's still no contradiction. (and: the MC80a thing in the games is also in the original "x-wing" game from 1993 (making the mc80a even pre-yavin), which would precede the thrawn trilogy sourcebook (but not nessecarily the original ones)). but other than the thrawn sourcebook and Cracken's threat dossier there aren't any other sources on the MC80a, right? --BaldFett 20:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the vaugeness of the article. As I said, it is VERY similar to the MC80 entry in the RASB, but it only refers to the New Republic, not the Rebellion. It may not be the most blatant proof, but the fact that the blurb refers repeatedly top the New Republic seems to imply that the MC80a was designed after Endor.

Sadly, the sources on the MC80a (and all Mon Cal cruisers for that matter) are pretty generic or not very informative. In terms of the MC80a, you are correct in saying that only CTD and the Thrawn Trilogy sourcebook refer to the cruiser specifically.

As you can see, we are forced to work with very limited sources. That is why I tend to be cautious in making these articles. I only include stuff that is blatantly obvious. The MC80a could be a Rebel era craft, but it only had a scant mention in a old computer game. Of course, the only other mention is in a old sourcebook. :-) So we are in a bit of a pickle. AdmiralNick22 21:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

If I understand correctly from your previous posts, the mon calamari cruiser entry in the Thrawn trilogy sourcebook: - tells in the story blurb about a "MC80", but only comes up with "MC80a" in the stats blurb - replaced the words like Rebel and Rebellion with New Republic If that's so, the term "MC80a" seems like an error. MC80 in the text bit would still be correct considering the NewRep (like the Rebellion) ALSO made MC80's. Because in the setting of the sourcebook, there is no rebellion anymore, but a NR. what does the original Heir to the Empire or Dark force rising SB say about mon cals? (there isn't anything in the Last command SB)

For the completeness of things: this is a screen from the original X-wing game, the MC80a model used in the cutscenes for the Independence and Defiance. --BaldFett 15:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the blurb only mentions MC80 once. The stats also only mention MC80a once. But, MC80a is not an error. It has appeared in a few other sources (namely Cracken's Threat Dossier) and it has to be a class because of the next model, the MC80b. The HTTE sourcebook is the onyl one that mentions Mon Cal cruisers. Of course, the Thrawn Trilogy sourcebook contains all three previous sourcebooks, so unfortunately that is all the info we have. Sadly we are left with few concrete sources to back up either of our viewpoints that the Independence and Home One are MC80 or MC80a. It is a case of one old source versus another old source. That however is why I think it would be very prudent if we remove MC80 or MC80a from the Independence and Home One articles and just call them "Mon Calamari cruisers". It may be generic, but it fits and it avoids any confusion. Then, as I have said several times before, we can include extra info in the Behind the Scences section. I am trying to find a fair compromise here. AdmiralNick22 15:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I have still a couple of buts, I'm afraid: the Naritus (an MC80a) is described in CTD as an "aging" cruiser. that would mean it's 14 years old maximum in Assault at Selonia, OR: (if following the pre-Yavin-guideline) at least 18 years old, but probably older since it would have been converted to a warship around Battle of Yavin but excisted before that. what makes a cruiser "aging"?

I also found something else on MC80a in the first EGGV: "a number of more powerful cruisers (more powerful than a MC80), including the MC80a, MC80B, and MC90, are being built." alltough this doens't help, since EGGV doesn't specify when the MC80a was built, only it being more powerful than the MC80.

(interesting about the contradicting thing with X-wing is that the gamemakers interpeted the MC80a info from HTTE SB as the ship being quite old since X-wing is pre-yavin. at that time, the only thing about MC80a's was from the HHTE SB)

the way I see it as for now: there are six sources some of them supporting pre-yavin, other post-endor:

• Heir to the Empire SB (1992) - post-Endor (MC80a is New Republic, does not really rule out that Rebel service is also possible (if I understood you correctly?))
• X-wing game (1993) - pre-yavin (game is set before yavin)
• Thrawn Trilogy SB (1996) - post-endor (rehash of the HTTE SB info)
• Essential Guide VV (1996) - post-endor (arguably)
• Cracken's Threat Dossier (1997) - pre-yavin ("aging", arguably)
• X-wing Alliance (1999) - pre-yavin (actually pre-endor, but it has the same Independence from X-wing, somewhat of a rehash)

I feel that the sources tend to lean towards the pre-yavin-side (if you count games and RPG equally). what do you think? --BaldFett 20:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• It boils down to this for me- if the Wookieepedia is to be a awesome resource, all articles should include only information that is confirmed and without dispute. If we don't do this, we weaken the potential that this encyclopedia has. There is a place for speculation and discussing varied sources. That is the Behind the Scences section. I am not saying that you are wrong or I am right. But I am saying that since there are varied sources without a clear explanation we should be cautious in what we put in each articles main blurb. Why not just include all info about the class of the Independence and Home One in the BtS section? It does not lessen it. It just shows how there is some confusion. Is that not fair? Do you understand now why I am so insistent on removing it from the main article? AdmiralNick22 01:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the MC80a article (maybe we should move this debate to the MC80a's talk page) should have a BTS section which explains this. But that still leaves the main content on the article: should that reflect a pre-Yavin MC80a or a post-Endor MC80a? (now it's a mix of both). And also remove the MC80a blurb from Home One, Independence and Defiance, but leave the sister ship mention. --BaldFett 21:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• I think that is an excellent idea. I think that we should definately rework the MC80a page. Other than that, all we need to do is remove the MC80a from the cruisers you mentioned. I also agree that it is important to make clear that the Independence, Home One, and Defiance are all sister ships. It has been a pleasure discussing this with you. It is not often that I find someone with as great an interest in Mon Cal cruisers as my own. :-) AdmiralNick22 23:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• you should see what I'm working on my talk page :P. As you've probably noticed, I removed also the MC80a thing from the cruisers' pages. Let's move this discussion to the MC80a page, and decide what the article should refect. This's is bound to generate more responses on the MC80a page than on this one. We could have an election or something, because both sides are about as strong. --BaldFett 12:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion casualties

Just so everybody knows, Vice Admiral Wirriz has been taken out of the article. Nowhere in his brief mention in X-wing: The Official Strategy Guide does it actually say he served on the Independence. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Its appearance in Star Wars Infinities: Return of the Jedi has also had to go since the comic doesn't appear to mention it at any point and just because it depicts the Battle of Endor doesn't mean we can say Independence appears in it. After all, there were similar ships in that battle. Meanwhile, there's another bit that's likely to go if it doesn't get sourced:

"Later, it came under assault by Merciless, but the efforts of Keyan Farlander saved it from destruction."

This has apparently been in the article from the start and seems to be reinforced by CUSWE which says:

"The Independence was later attacked by the Star Destroyer Merciless, but it managed to survive."

CUSWE does list TIE as a source which can relate to either Star Wars: TIE Fighter or TIE Fighter: The Official Strategy Guide. Having searched through the game files I'm pretty sure that neither the Independence or the Merciless appear in TIE Fighter (there isn't a Star Destroyer called Merciless in any of the X-wing games, only a frigate which doesn't attack the Independence) but I'll have to read through the Strategy Guide to see if its mentioned in there. If anybody has any other thoughts, let me know. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 09:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'll take that as a no. Having now checked the Strategy Guide (though not the Collector's CD version) and not found any reference to this, I'm removing it. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battlefront

Can anyone confirm that appearance in Star Wars: Battlefront II and if so shed any light on what the ship does? Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 23:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'll take that as a no. Removed. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 15:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)