Talk: Immobilizer 418 cruiser/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Immobilizer 418 cruiser

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.

Redirect ?

This article (although a stub) was already made yesterday. It was just a few lines so maybe it should be integrated into this or vice versa? VT-16 09:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I redirected the other articles to this one. --GenkiNeko 11:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Immpbilizer 418 vs Interdictor

I think that this article should be split into two articles: one on the Immobilizer 418 cruiser, the other on Interdictor cruisers in general. Kuralyov 03:13, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • You mean an article about starship build with grav-well interdiction and one about the Imperial Immobilizer 418? I only ask because you still capitalized "Interdictor", which generally refers to the 418. --SparqMan 07:29, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts

1.) Is there any evidence that the Interdictor-class is a "Star Frigate", as claimed here? While Curtis Saxton may have introduced a whole bevvy of non-standard classifications (perhaps with the best of intentions), these cannot countermand the canonical, in-universe, standard system.

2.) The Imperial Sourcebook gives Sienar Fleet Systems' Immobilizer 481 (no italics) as the "craft", and Interdictor-class Heavy Cruiser as the type. (comparable craft designations are:

KDY's Lancer-class frigate
Rendili StarDrive's Dreadnaught
Rendili StarDrive's Victory I
KDY's Imperial II

The matching type designations are:

Anti-Starfighter Screening Vessel
Heavy Cruiser
Victory-class Star Destroyer
Imperial-class Star Destroyer

There's no overall consistency over what goes where, but Interdictor-class Heavy Cruiser looks more like a class-name and less like a manufacturer's designation. Should we consider a title-change?

--McEwok 18:09, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)

It would have helped if I'd read my own notes before I italicized "Immobilizer 481" on the page (thanks for correcting that, Nebulax!)... but is the type ever called an "Immobilizer 481 cruiser" in canon...? --McEwok 03:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Image

As good as it is, isn't this picture fanart? Kuralyov 03:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was from Star Wars: Rebellion (video game). The CEC Gunship and the Bulwark also use images from the game. So it's not fanart, unless you're referring to another picture. YIIMM 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Can someone put in a good image of a four well varrient Immobilizer 418 Cruiser that has color.User:Lucky

  • Does a better one even exist? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The best one I have that's in color and isn't from a comic is the NEGVV picture, which I just posted. What was wrong with the Rebellion picture? —Darth Culator (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I didn't see anything wrong with it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        • It seemed to have been mistaken for fanart and deleted. (With regard to Lucky's request. Immobilisers are grey. The current main image is in colour.YIIMM 20:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Has it been re-uploaded? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
            • No, but I quite like the NEG version, so I'm not too bothered.YIIMM 21:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Twin Well Varient

  • Should there be a seperate page for the twin Well varient there isn't even confermation that it's the same size or has the same compliment.User:Lucky
    • Is there confirmation that they aren't the same size or have the same compliment? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • I think the whole point is that the twin-well version fits the same side profile as the four-well version, so it's extremely likely that they are the same length and have similar specs. If we made an article just for the two-well version, it wouldn't have much to say. So we keep it here for the same reason we have both the BTL-S3 and BTL-A4 on one Y-wing page and the A-wing and the A-wing Mark II on one A-wing page. —Darth Culator (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

More variants?

Similar to the twin well variant, I noticed that the ship's shape is inconsistent with the description of four projector bulbs in the first X-Wing games; there also seem to be different thruster bank configurations.

  • Interdictors do not appear at all in the classic X-Wing game, but a cutscene during the "Imperial Pursuit" extra missions disk shows three "Interdictor Cruisers" (named so in the descriptive text) leaving dock. It has been over 10 years since I last saw that cutscene but I seem to remember that they had no visible gravity well projector bulbs at all on their fuselage. Don't remember the thruster bank.
  • In TIE Fighter (the first game really featuring them) they have only two domes side-by-side on their ventral and dorsal surface each, but these are not aligned to form spheroid bulbs. Rather, there are four domes (somewhat overlapping on the vertical axis). Another dorsal dome is in front of the command tower, directly above the a similar ventral bulb/dome (reactor?), for altogether six. This model features twin thrusters, like those on the pictures for the twin-well variant. See the inflight pictures of the Harpax and the Harpago from the game, for example.
  • In X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, the in-flight model is much like in the previous game. Hoewever, in cutscenes the Compellor, a INT featuring prominently in the Balance of Power campaign, is shown as a regular four-bulb design (see picture featured in the article, which is from a cutscene and not an inflight screenshot during a mission). The same ship has two dorsal and two ventral projector bulbs as an in-flight model during missions.
  • In X-Wing Alliance, the Interdictor cruisers are finally depicted as we know them for the classic 418 class, with one main and two secondary thrusters, four speroid bulbs protruding through both dorsal and ventral surface. But no reactor bulb. And the thruster bank was re-designed: One central main truster, and one smaller secondary thruster on each side.

Question is, should the model from the TIE Fighter/X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter games, which is explicitly named 418-class, be considered another subtype? Or just a bad in-game model, like the SSD Vengeance in XvT? Frabby 11:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Speed

The Interdictors in EAW move far slower than they do in several other games, such as TIE Fighter, in which you see them zipping around Star Destroyers. Should this be noted--Darth Oblivion 01:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yuuzhan Vong

did the interdictor cruiser (or destroyer) affect the superluminal transport of the yuuzhan vong? Ugluk 17:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Possibly, but I don't believe it's stated anywhere, so we wouldn't know for sure. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Corran Horn mentiones that it works in NJO Final Prophecy, were we also read about Antilles Fleet trapping Vong ships with there Interdictors. User:Warlord
  • Im pretty sure they were stationed on Mon Calimari at leat in the last year of the war. Sith-venator 10:10PM 9-26-08

"Interdictor-class Star Destroyer"?

The page currently claims that the Immobilizer 418 is also known as an Interdictor-class Star Destroyer. The edit was made by User:VT-16 on 12th August, here.

What proof is there for this, please? --McEwok 16:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Most likely Empire at War. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The Empire at War manual. VT-16 11:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I was close, at least. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
      • On which page? My copy only calls it a Interdictor Cruiser or a Immobilizer 418 User:Warlord
        • Well, VT-16 is a very reliable user, so he wouldn't lie. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 10:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
          • I didn’t imply he was lying. I just can’t spot it in my copy of the manual, which I find rather curios. Page 34 in the manual just calls it Interdictor Cruiser (Immobilizer 418 Cruiser) and I haven't found another part of the manual that even mentiones the ship.User:Warlord
            • It's on that seperate chart which lists all the units and buildings and their strengths and weaknesses, what level you can get them at, etc. -- I need a name 13:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
              • Ah yes, just found it on the Quick Reference Chart - very curios indeed. Shouldn’t we chalk that up as a typo, though? I mean the Acci (which it also calls a Star Destroyer) was build before the first Star Destroyers and thus can’t really be one, especially since the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels says Star Destroyers replaced these ships, which wouldn’t make all that much sense if they were in fact Star Destroyers themselves. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels also says that the Immobiliser isn’t a Star Destroyer, just looks like a small one. User:Warlord
                • With even lesser vessels like the Demolisher being called a Star Destroyer, there is a precedence for ships smaller than the Victory-class to be called that as well. Acclamators could even perform a BDZ action on a planet, that's how powerful their guns were. And ISDs didn't really replace the ships, since they served different purposes (troop transports vs. destroyers). As for the Interdictor, it's built upon the hull of a Vindicator-class cruiser, which was used when an ISD was not available, like a "pocket-ISD". VT-16 19:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
                  • How did you get the idea the Demolisher is a “lesser vessel”? We hardly know anything about it, aside from that it is in fact a small Star Destroyer (it could in fact be bigger then the Victory Series), just like the Victory is a “smaller Star Destroyer”, or the Bakura Class Star Destroyers is smaller then a full ImpStar but hardly any weaker. A Dreadnaught or Corellian Corvette can do a BDZ given enough time, as can a hand blaster, I wouldn’t call any of them Star Destroyers just because of that.
                    • it could in fact be bigger then the Victory Series Not really, the only source we have on it, is the one episode in Droids where it appears. It's seen towing in a R-22 Spearhead starfighter, and the hangar area in the middle of the ship is definitely smaller than on a VSD (if the VSD's complement of landing craft and armored vehicles take up the space it does, according to statistics). The main bridge also takes up more space atop the vessel, being internally similar to standard bridge modules on other Star Destroyers, but without any surrounding superstructure. It's so small, it doesn't even have a proper command tower. And the corvettes and Dreadnaught cruisers did not have the capability of the Acclamator, the BDZ was an unprecedented sight in the Republic prior to the CW (ICS:AOTC). They simply didn't have the same kind of power capable of slagging entire worlds. In fact, that's one of the reasons the Dreadnaught cruisers were getting supplanted, because their reactors couldn't keep up with newer warships. VT-16 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
                          • A major Imperial Admiral was running around in one of these things as well, plus the Droids series is hardly know for being all that artistically accurate. I mean we get a scene were the ship shoots beams from the place were its reactor bulb is and other such oddities. We see planets get bombed heavy style in the Sith Wars and the Empire sends 3 Dreadnaughts + a few support ships to Nar Shaddaa and considers them enough for a BDZ on a City Moon with a planetary deflector shield. User:Warlord
                            • Oh yeah, I forgot about those events. Hmm, I think the ships were also generally associated with a wedge-shaped form as well, at least in the beginning. There is no real contradiction between one of its designations or nicknames being tacked on later, especially if you're in a fleet that's filled up with big wedge-shaped ships of different models anyway. They'd start to look pretty much the same. :P VT-16 22:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

@Assault Ship - NEGVV specially states that Star Destroyers were modelled after the Acc and made them obsolete. I mean if the Acc was a Star Destroyer how could it make itself absolute? @ Vindicator - How can it be a Star Destroyer if it is used when you don’t have a Star Destroyer available? User:Warlord

  • You seem to miss the fact that the Acclamators were referred to as Star Destroyers during the time of the Empire since they were so closely related to the other Star Destroyer classes. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I am just pointing out that it is very likely to be typo, because other sources go to great lenghts to avoid calling the Acc and Immo Star Destroyers (stating they are lesser vessels) and aside from them no source ever did call them that. User:Warlord
  • Not all Star Destroyers are actual destroyers, just as not all "cruisers" in SW serve as cruisers. It's a dual term, describing both the destroyers of the Republic/Empire and the general design-lineage, producing all kinds of ships. The Acclamators weren't made "obsolete", they were still serving the Empire in the Galactic Civil War, as assault ships and frigates. It's impossible to makes something obsolete, when the ships in question have different roles. The Imperator is a destroyer, while the Acclamator is an assault ship, and could also serve as a frigate (at least in the GCW). If anything, the Acclamator could only be made obsolete by another assault ship that did its job better. We've not seen anyone do that in the first 20 years of its service, so that didn't happen (at least not then). The Vindicator was designed to be able to do most of the work expected by an ISD if one wasn't present, so that at least puts it on par with the smaller Star Destroyers. VT-16 21:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The Imperial Class is also an assault ship and doess the Accis job better then the Acci, it is more battle worty, better able to conduct plantary occupation and the only place we see them outside of EAW (were they serve as lesser Frigates, doing what Dreadnaughts and Nebulons do) in the Imperial Era is as Slave Transports. @Vindicator - Non the less they Imperials consider it a Heavy Cruiser not a Star Destroyer, more on scale with the Dreadnaught and send most of them back to the works to refit as Immos.
      • No. Don't use words that you do not understand the meaning of. An assault ship is for carrying flying troop transports and attack helicopters until they get close to shore. Similar to the Acclamators and the LAAT gunships. The Imperator carries landing craft that have to take care of their own flight from space to the ground. It is primarily geared for capital ship combat and planetary bombardement, like genuine capital ships from destroyers and upwards. It can't do a better job, when its job profile is different. Since your only real argument for not noting this "alternative designation" is that you "think it is a typo", that's not really cutting it. And the Vindicator is not severaly downscaled on the weapons-front compared to the Immobilizer 418 that is derived from it, so the term is fitting. "Guilt by association" and all. VT-16 22:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
        • If you don't have a good reason for disputing what the craft is sometimes called, please don't bring up an arguement. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
          • And it's such as small deal, they're just alternate names, we put them on alot of things which pop up with different names. I mean, sure, you could erase those based on what might be the most likely explanation, but is there really a pressing need to? It's not even in the article name. :) VT-16 07:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
            • It just irks me, because as mentioned other sources keep saying they are not Star Destroyers and I would consider those just a bit more accurate that a game that’s know for not being all that “canon orientated”. Plus we already have a Interdictor Star Destroyer, which is meant to be a very different ship then the Immo. Just place it in behind the scenes or something unless we have another source that actually calls them a SD as well. Otherwise if we just go for potentialy similar abilities we would have to eventually call all star ships Star Destroyers. User:Warlord
  • I disagree, just keep it where it is. We have one source for the Carrack-class as a gunship, so that got on the article without much fanfare. It's not different from this case, and that was also outside of a game environment, so it's not that big a deal. Also, it's possible the Empire started calling some Acclamators that, whereas the Republic stricly used the "assault ship" moniker. VT-16 10:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Compliment?

According to the Victory-class Star Destroyer article a Victory-class carries two squadrons of fighters. This article says the inderdictor also carries two squadrons of fighters. However in X-Wing: The Bacta War, Rogue Squadron is attacked by an interdictor cruiser and a Victory-Class ship and the book says the two ships together had a total of three squadrons between two. Which one is correct? The book or the article?

Current test.

What's the purpose of it? Because it's certainly not doing anything helpful on my screen. Without the frames, it's messing with the text. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • The pictures are overlapping the text in IE7 for me. -- I need a name (Complain here) 14:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to figure out how to get the frame to displace the text rather than overlap it. It's not going well so far. But if I can figure it out, it will be easier to arrange pages that have too many pictures. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 15:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, I think it's a bad idea, and should be removed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 16:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
      • What a helpful comment, thanks. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Watch it, Culator. I said it's a bad idea only because of the problem users are having with it. Apparently, you don't care about those problems users are having. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Oddly enough, nobody other than you has reported a problem. As far as I can tell, you seem to be the only one who ever has problems with new formatting ideas. It seems to me that out of all the things you've complained about, some other people would be reporting the same problems. But they don't. I believe in formatting pages to suit the lowest common denominator, but that's pointless when the lowest common denominator is only one person. Now, your opinion on this issue has been registered, and you don't need to continue to participate unless you have productive comments to make. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 03:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
            • So I take it you didn't pay attention to what I need a name said. And just because I was the only one who reported a scroll box issue does not mean I was the only one to have it. Stop acting like I'm only doing it because I don't like it. Granted, I didn't like the scroll boxes, but with the issue fixed, I'm adding them onto articles. Get your facts straight, Culator. I may never become an admin, but that doesn't mean you can treat me like dirt. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
              • And now, I find my edits reverted and the page shielded only because I'm trying to improve the problem. People have claimed that I make it either my way or the highway. Well, Darth Culator, you're doing the same thing with this. Unlock the page, and let me try to improve it from I need a name and myself. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I haven't looked in IE, but I only use Firefox for Wookieepedia, so it looks really good to me. - JMAS 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem here is that moving the pictures around isn't an actual solution. I need to find some way to make things not overlap in every case, not just in this case. This means that I need the tables to stay in spots where they *cause* problems so that people who have better coding skills can figure out why they cause the problem and how to fix it. I'll unlock the page now, but please keep this in mind. The purpose of this exercise is to make things look good at resolutions from 800x600 (lowest res likely to be used) to 1920x1080 (HDTV res, probably the highest likely to be used) in IE and Firefox. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Listen, Darth Culator, I'm sorry about that outburst. Anyway, the reason I was moving it was 1) the navigation table was covered and 2) the "Appearances" section is partially covered. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • My take: crowded, cramped, looks screwed-up. Parts of the picts are uncomfortably close to the text. I think that the standard version was batter. (using IE). Comment made by 82 Airborne