Talk:Viscount-class Star Defender

Back to page

1 Designation
2 Viscount in the GCW?
3 What is the length?
4 Images
5 Size
6 Weapons
7 Crew
8 Engines
9 Viscount-class?

DesignationEdit

I'm actually rather surprised that the designation "Star Defender" hasn't brought up controversy, especially in regard to the "Star Destroyer" issue. Basically, one can tell that when Salvatore named this class of warship, he was trying to make a happy version of the Imperial Star Destroyer (not that specific class): a large, intimidating warship, but without the bad contations "Star Destroyer" carries. If anything, I think the strange designation of this warship opens up the table to discussion as to whether "Star Destroyer" truly refers to warships analogous to our real-life sea-farring destroyers, but rather is simply a term used to identify a type of warship. In other words, it's possible that the fact Star Defender is used to describe a warship about the size of a battlecruiser or battleship, Star Destroyer might be used as a name of intimidation for warships from the size of Victorys to Executors... In other words, using Star Defender as an example, Star Destroyer may merely be a propoganda name than a true designation.--SOCL 03:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That could be, but I doubt the Galactic Republic would use the propoganda name. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
- Why? It's a government; ALL governments use propoganda in some form or another, even in the Armed Forces. Why do you think the USA's Department of War was changed to the friendly-sounding Department of Defense despite the fact most military actions are offensive? The point being, Star Defender is not an official vessel designation, but a sort of propoganda nickname to counter the bad connotation of Star Destroyer. Again, it's a battlecruiser or battleship designate with a Star Defender name as a way to keep it sounding "nice." This lends to the theory that Star Destroyer is not analogous to our real-world sea-faring destroyer, but rather a nickname used by the Empire for intimidation.--SOCL 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  - It probably is. Then again, the Star Wars Galaxy might have had a different definition of destroyer than we do. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
    - Quite true. I'm arguing it from the perspective of us using real-world termonology and understanding to rationalize the Star Wars universe, which is—I believe—the only true way to be able to understand something that is complete fantasy. I'm basically trying to make a rationalization by making one assumption rather than going as far as Curtis Saxton and making numerous assumptions to draw a conclusion...--SOCL 23:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
      - I suppose applying real-world terminology could work. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
  - Funny thing is, the old WEG sources went straight from corvette to frigate to cruiser, bypassing destroyers altogether. They did mention battleships, though (with the Victory and Imperial class getting that designation at least once before DK's SW:ICS, among others). Besides having battlecruisers in the old Marvel SW and the comic strips, they didn't really try to systemize things on a larger scale until the mid-to-late 90s, with Kuat, Rendili and Loronar battleships mentioned in Illustrated SW Universe and the Kuat-centric Bounty Hunter trilogy talking about their destroyers, cruisers and battlecruisers. (Yep, some old and new sources have treated the ISDs as actual destroyers, it's not something Saxton came up with.)

It was only after all this, in recent years, that Dorling Kindersley even got hired and did a good job with reconciling WEG-based information with stuff that wasn't mentioned by them (i.e the multitude of different SSDs pictured and mentioned over the years). They could have removed the SSD-term altogether and even the notion of cruisers smaller than Star Destroyers, but didn't. They found ways to keep the old info and at the same time bring something new to the table, even systemizing different navies explicitly into the destroyers<cruisers<battleships category (the Trade Federation Navy in AOTC:ICS, the Republic Navy and Confederacy Navy in ROTS:ICS and the Imperial Navy in ITW:OT), and also bring in different classification systems (like Dreadnaughts being cruisers, but only when down-scaled, otherwise they'd be more comparable with Munificent frigates).

On top of all of this, you still have the double meaning of Star Destroyer, both describing destroyers, as well as being a general term for many of the big warships in SW. (Imho it's not really good as a general term since it a) doesn't destroy stars and b) any offensive warship can destroy things, yet they're not all called SDs. But, hey, I don't decide LFL policy ;p)

The use of the term to sound intimidating is also a bit strange, since other historic terms like "battlecruiser" and "dreadnought" also sound "intimidating" and could easily have been used for the same purpose. But, this is most likely the reason why it was chosen by GL in the first place, which makes the Mon Cal's use of "Star Cruiser" and the New Republic's use of "Star Defender" logical, since they were always trying to distance themselves from the historically evil Empire.

Sorry for the essay-length, I just felt like mentioning this once and for all. ;) VT-16 22:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather exactly my point, VT-16. Glad we agree! Though indeed the term Star Destroyer could describe true destroyer-tasked warships (perhaps best shown with the Victory II-class), it seems more often used as a sort of propoganda name. This would explain the reason everything from the size of a Venator-class to an Eclipse-class despite the fact the Venator-class is designated a "cruiser" under the Galactic Republic classification and the Eclipse-class is clearly not a destroyer. To help support this is the New Republic's Star Defender designation. Clearly a Star Defender has no analogous real-world designation as has been hypthesized for the Star Destroyer—there isn't a real-world "defender"-type warship. The Star Defenders featured thus far seem to be large cruisers/battlecruisers in the same sort of manner ISDs seem to be large cruisers/battlecruisers. Of course, this would depend on the classification system, but a Star Defender is very clearly not a designation of warship and is very clearly simply a form of propoganda by the New Republic to distance themselves from the "bad sounding" warship designations ("Star Defender" does sound nicer than "destroyer" or "battleship"). Again, I think the existance of "Star Defender" defends the notion that "Star Destroyer" is more likely a nickname for warships rather than an actual ship designation.--SOCL 22:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose so. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Viscount in the GCW?Edit

Since we see Viscount in battle in the miniature game coming out, both against ISDs on the cover and being matched up with the Executor in-game, does this mean the whole development of the class is going through a big retcon? I'm not complaining, but if true, it will somewhat big, since the lead ship, Viscount, was commissioned in 25 ABY, according to Vector Prime. VT-16 19:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, when does that miniature game take place? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Judging from the cover, there's Executor (which also comes as a miniature in the pack, along with Viscount), so it seems it might possibly contain a pre-Endor scenario with these ships! That would be quite a retcon! 0__o VT-16 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
With the advent of the Infinities series and the general non-canon material in that (I suppose we could call them "alternate futures"), isn't it possible this may extend into other Star Wars material? Basically, I don't think we should jump at anything and trust what has an established level of canonicity before trying to give everything canon, especially something like a game whose level or canon is not yet known/has not yet been determined.--SOCL^comm 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- How do we know that it's Executor and not another of its class? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  - Uh, there is absolutely no need for a retcon for the Viscount. They probably just included it in the game for balance. The game includes stuff from all SW movies, with the VIscount being the only EU craft. I would not start planning a recon based on a piece in a game. ;-) AdmiralNick22 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    - I agree. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    - This is all true. I didn't mean to raise any alarms, just thought what might be the alternative to just Infinities-based gameplay mechanics. When they post a bigger, better looking picture of the miniature and cover, I'll switch these pictures to that, to save space. At least now the class is being explored. ^_^ VT-16 22:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
      - And at least we have a picture. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        Which is a hell of alot more than we can say about other ships from the NJO series. AdmiralNick22 01:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        Never understood why there's so much coverage of the Yuuzhan Vong's vessels while the NR/GA stuff gets left out. VT-16 07:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        We really need a The New New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        Worst of all was the fact that the Bothan Assault Cruiser was not listed in the NEGVV. Hell, the freaking Ralroost gets ton of screen time in the series, becoming the Home One of the NJO books. The list of NR/GA ships that we have no image for is real, real bad. Mediator-class, Ranger-class, Republic-class cruiser, etc, etc, etc. :-( AdmiralNick22 20:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
        Like I said, a TNNEGtVaV. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
The WOTC preview article makes it quite clear - The Viscount-class star defender was designed after the Black Fleet Crisis. --Azizlight 00:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
- That settles it, then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What is the length? Edit

What is the typical length of ships in this class? I don't see it. I also don't see any class member lists. I assume the class was only mentioned as a class, not as specific ship(s). Will (talk -- contribs) 02:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

1) I'm pretty sure there is a length of it somewhere. 2) There was Viscount, the first ship of the class. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- It's 17,000 meters long. jSarek 12:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  - And I just realized that was in the article... Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

ImagesEdit

I've got a model of this ship and the current article images don't really do it justice (top-down angles). Would there be anything wrong with people taking their own pictures of the model and uploading them (seeing as the main image is of a model at the moment)? 81.86.76.6 12:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right; it is just a model. I don't see any harm in you taking a picture or two of it. However, make sure that there's only the Star Defender in the image. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
- Best I could do [[1]]YIIMM 16:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Well, that's probably the best one we'll be able to get for the time being. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  - Wonderful! Could you also do one looking directly down at the ship? The birds-eye-view we have now is incredibly small. :D VT-16 20:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
    - Really, really small. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
      - Sure, I'll do one now. YIIMM 14:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        Here we go [2]. YIIMM 14:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        Great! Nice job. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        Excellent! Damn, now I remember I should have asked if you could do a sideways pic to go with this, like we have of the Home One. If it's not too much trouble. If you get that kind of picture, stick it in below this one and reupload them as the picture you did now to save space. 8D VT-16 20:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        Yeah, that's a good idea. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        I could, the only problem is that pre-made models can be of varying quality, and with my one, where the two main hull pieces come together, there is a noticable gap. If that still sounds ok, just let me know and I can do one. YIIMM 23:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        All of the models of the Viscount have a gap. They did not fit the upper and lower half together that well. Perhaps someone with Photoshop skills could use a similar shade of gray to fill the area so it is not noticable? AdmiralNick22 23:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        I'm doing an image now, to be honest, for a Home-One-esque angle, you can't really see it at all, I misread the first time.YIIMM 23:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        DoneYIIMM 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        Actually, what I meant was both side and top view in one picture, to give a full look at it. And then save that over the previous file. But it's ok, I've done it now, so all your pictures can now be seen. Thanks alot. This was great! :D VT-16 23:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        Ah, sorry about that one. Still, glad you like them. My little Vikey's famous.YIIMM 23:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        Yup, you've given people the first good look at it from all angles! :D And the only gaps noticable are actually consistent with models used in the movies, the MC80 cruiser, which had gaps inbetween engines and different parts of the superstructure (possibly areas for hangar doors). I also like the "underbite" on the Viscount, makes it stand out from other Mon Cal ships. VT-16 23:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        To tell you the truth, when I first got the model, I thought it could be taken apart. Well, a couple of hand aches later, I found out they just molded it a bit poorly. ;) Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

SizeEdit

Are they really "smaller" than Executor-class ships? Viscount-class Star Defenders are clearly shorter and thinner, but they appear a good deal taller. I'd imagine that in terms of mass and volume, a Viscount and an Executor would be very similar. Red XIV 21:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

That's only based on your fan calculations. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
They do appear taller, even on the artwork for the cover. Probably utilizes the three dimensions better than the Executor-class. :) VT-16 00:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  - Not just apparently. In both the non-game model pictures (the sketch on the Mon Cal cruiser article and the box art on this article), the ship is shown as very massive and bloated, compared with the much sleeker Executor. Overall, I'd say it's got more mass than the Ex, but it's shorter in length. VT-16 13:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    - I meant "Apparently" as "Obviously". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 15:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Weapons Edit

Hey, for the Turbolaser batteries and Heavy Turbolasers, you guys say that they are 2000 each, but if you look at the firing arches, i count only 400 heavy turbolasers and 500 turbolaser batteries, whats up?

I suppose someone screwed up the stats. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

that's how many BATTERIES there are. a battery consists of multiple cannons, if i remember correctly.66.42.173.161 18:03, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

CrewEdit

It's become pretty common to see Rebel/New Republic forces building or modifying vessels to require significantly less crewmen than their Imperial equivalents (for example, Assault Frigates compared to original Dreadnaughts, MC80 cruisers of all types compared to Imperial Star Destroyers, etc). And again, Viscount-class vessels have a crew of 68 thousand, compared to Executor-class crews of 279 thousand. I think a mention should be made here of NR efficiency and/or Mon Cal engineering prowess allowing NR ships, even of this magnitude, to have consistently far smaller crews than Imperial ships. Thoughts? Jenosidanian 05:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Engines Edit

How many engines does it have, and what type are they? i could count the engines on the stern, but Malevolence also had forawrd engines, and as it was only 5+ kilometers in length and it had all those rear engines, hooo, boy, 14 rather small rear engines seem like nowhere near enough power to move this thing. Unless they are a super powerful type, we need to include pix of any forward engines it may have, as well as number and type. thanks.66.42.173.161 18:00, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Viscount-class? Edit

I remember coming across this vessel in one of the New Jedi Order books and I am fairly certain that "Viscount" was the name of the ship and the class was simply "Star Defender". I don't have the books anymore so I can't quote it but i'm certain it didn't say "Viscount-class Star Defender". I've seen this ship named this way before in a mod for Star Trek Armada 2 and that was the only time. If I had the books I would verify but I don't so... someone who has the books and cares should verify it.—Unsigned comment by 71.202.50.100 (talk • contribs).

I went ahead and double-checked in SOTG '07, and it, at least, names the class as Viscount, and the type as Star Defender. I'm pretty sure that's how the Starship Battles set has it, too, but I'm not about to dig that out. Dangerdan97 03:02, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Viscount-class_Star_Defender"

Wikia