Anaxes War College System vs. Kuat System
Why in George Lucas's name is the Anaxes War College System being used to name every new ship from EGTW, save Fractalsponge's work, even when they are clearly derivatives of previously known Star Dreadnoughts and Star Battlecruisers, like the Mandator III and the Praetor II. The Praetor II-class Star Battlecruiser is even worse, because it is being called the Praetor Mark II-class battlecruiser. What is with this, its like the Kuat System is being ignored. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 21:24, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- I would assume it's because the EGW is the latest source, and that's what we use when the sources have the same level of canonicity. <-Omicron(Leave a message at the BEEP!) 21:47, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- The Anaxes War College System is not a replacement for the Kuat System. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:09, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- It's not. Both are in the book, the names are in for existing designs (Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser, Executor-class Star Dreadnought etc.), but we don't embellish the new names in the book when they're not stated outright to have 'Star' in their names. That's how canon works. That's why the Praetor and the Praetor Mark II have different names. The first was named in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and the Mark II in this book, without prefix. It's kinda implied by the author that the nomenclature and classfication system of KDY have 'Star' prefixes, but not in the book itself. Thrackerzod 22:28, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- That's it, I am done with this nonsense. You people insist on having Lucasfilm spell it out for you, well guess what, EU minimalism is their policy, so they do a terrible job of spelling it out. Please stop worshiping published material. How about trying to find out how they are written in the Holocron continuity database? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:44, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's what's in the book. I'm just happy Star Battlecruiser was named once, as tedious as it is to pronounce. :p Thrackerzod 06:39, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- I really hope they spell it out better next time, because this has got to stop. One instance of Star Battlecruiser is not good enough. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:54, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Zeta, I appreciate the enthusiasm about your opinions, but please calm down. Don't make this personal, and do not be insulting to others. The Wook isn't a place to express your displeasure with the canon and the EU. Cade Calrayn
13:13, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- What am I supposed to do, settle for the inferior? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 17:35, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Zeta, I appreciate the enthusiasm about your opinions, but please calm down. Don't make this personal, and do not be insulting to others. The Wook isn't a place to express your displeasure with the canon and the EU. Cade Calrayn
- I really hope they spell it out better next time, because this has got to stop. One instance of Star Battlecruiser is not good enough. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 06:54, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that's what's in the book. I'm just happy Star Battlecruiser was named once, as tedious as it is to pronounce. :p Thrackerzod 06:39, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
- That's it, I am done with this nonsense. You people insist on having Lucasfilm spell it out for you, well guess what, EU minimalism is their policy, so they do a terrible job of spelling it out. Please stop worshiping published material. How about trying to find out how they are written in the Holocron continuity database? Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:44, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- It's not. Both are in the book, the names are in for existing designs (Procurator-class Star Battlecruiser, Executor-class Star Dreadnought etc.), but we don't embellish the new names in the book when they're not stated outright to have 'Star' in their names. That's how canon works. That's why the Praetor and the Praetor Mark II have different names. The first was named in Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy and the Mark II in this book, without prefix. It's kinda implied by the author that the nomenclature and classfication system of KDY have 'Star' prefixes, but not in the book itself. Thrackerzod 22:28, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
- The Anaxes War College System is not a replacement for the Kuat System. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 22:09, April 19, 2012 (UTC)
"Star Cruiser" and "Star Battlecruiser" being lumped together as "battlecruisers"
While I can understand the complaints about how KDY's system is "recognized by few others"- it must be said that the Mon Calamari didn't use Star Cruiser as "ship bigger than Star Destroyer"- instead they seem to use it as a substitute- Mon Calamari Star Cruisers fit into the Star Destroyer size class (1km - 2km) and are comparable in ability.
So, in order to produce a consistent system, combining both WEG's ships of sizes from corvettes up to "cruisers" with KDY's "Star Destroyers" "Star Battlecruisers" and "Star Dreadnoughts"- they had to drop "Star Cruisers" entirely as an official term. -- Hamish 109.144.180.193 19:59, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Suggested change- Victory-class ship should be moved from Heavy cruiser to Star Destroyer
Reasons- the book states that ships could be moved up (or down) if they are unusually heavily or lightly armed for their class. The page already gives as an example of this the Carrack-class cruiser. The book states that the Victory-class was more heavily armed than the larger Venator class. And the Victory pages on this wiki class it as a Star Destroyer.
Conclusion- it should be moved to Star Destroyer on this page as well -- Hamish 109.144.180.193 20:04, June 17, 2012 (UTC)
Classification Contradictions
What exactly justifies the list of ships on this page? There seems to be listed two ships under each class, even though there is only a single craft of each “class” depicted in the EG to Warfare book. For example this here page places the Victory-Class Star Destroyers under heavy cruisers and not Star Destroyers? I think this is speculation and contradicts everything said about Victory-Class Star Destroyers up until now.
Not to mention the Executor and Eclipse Star Destroyers that are called “Dreadnaughts”? Go to the Dreadnaught page and one will see a list of movie and Expanded Universe “Dreadnaughts” that are mostly a couple of hundred meters up to 2 kilometers long. Actually go to any “ship class” page and one will find the ship class system on this here page pretty unreliable and misleading.
I know this page's info is only based on the EG to Warfare book (and maybe a little saxtonism), but even the book itself is a bit contradictive, as it (as the first and only source) names the Vigil-class corvette a corvette (100-200 meter long ships according to the book), even though the Vigil-class is listed as 255 meters on the same book’s endnote webpage.
It seems to me that the list on this page is misleading and not reflecting the different ships’ original descriptions, calcifications and names. Any ship not specifically depicted on page 33 should not be listed here on this page IMHO. --Davidvcsandersen 18:20, June 25, 2012 (UTC)
Carrack
- The Carrack-class light cruiser, which would fall into the Frigate classification with its length of just 350 meters. Due to its armament and role, however, it was moved up into the Cruiser category.
- http://www.theforce.net/swtc/novels/d.html
- 375
- ...Lornoar Strike Cruisers, Carrack-class gunships -- an overwhelming force.
- It is interesting to see the Carrack vessels (from ) described as gunships rather than "cruisers." A cruiser is supposed to be a vessel larger than a destroyer, and the relatively tiny dimensions and the anti-fighter role of the Carrack make "gunship" a much more justifiable designation.
Syalantillesfel (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2024 (UTC)