Talk: Super Star Destroyer/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Super Star Destroyer

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.

Page title

Move to Super-class Star Destroyer? --Imp 13:56, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Doesn't seem to be any such class. This article's title refers to several different ship types (a class of classes?) which can be summed up as "Star Destroyers, but big." However, almost all of the text is specific to the Executor-class Star "Dreadnought", and should be moved there. Meanwhile, Star Dreadnought and possibly Star Battlecruiser should redirect here, as alternate terms for the same thing. (Which one is the most correct term is a debate I will stay well away from.) — Silly Dan 14:09, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • The CUSWE entry calls it Super-class, and I've seen it mentioned a few times in the NJO series. --Imp 14:18, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • I created a page for such a class in the conjectural category, just in case. Thanos6 06:01, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Just heavily edited this Wiki. The canonical evidence for "Star Dreadnaught" as a classification for SSDs is poor and ambiguous, but some disambiguation between the various classes may be useful.

-TMcE

  • All that rambling text about what its "correct" classification is should really go in another article. QuentinGeorge 06:36, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
    • Additionally, the article is pretty much a rambling mess, full of OOU and POV. Can someone with some knowledge of this here clean it up? QuentinGeorge 06:41, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
      • And for that matter, move about half the text to Executor-class Star Dreadnought or whatever we're calling it? This spends too much time on not just one class, but on one example of one class. — Silly Dan 12:23, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Anyone got any thoughts on the latest anonymous changes? There seems to be some OOCism to me, but I am biased the other way. --McEwok 19:14, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC) 

Its the Executor-class Star Destroyer, part of Kuat's proud Star Destroyer tradition

The Rebels call it a Super Star Destroyer because , its triangular, and it has an Imperator Star Destroyer bridge tower and why "Super because its "it's freakin huge!"". The Rebels simply call the Imperator-class Star Destroyer an Imperial Star Destroyer, another simplified name just like North Korea, would you rather call it the Peoples Democratic Republic of Korea, probably not. Now I don't know about this Dreadnaught thing, Kuat Drive Yards was producing ships called "Star Destroyers" since Anakin was getting pimples, its their tradition which carried on for over 20 years. There was the Venator-class Star Destroyer, the Victory I and II-class Star Destroyers, the Imperator I and II-class Star Destroyer, and the Executor-class Star Destroyer. Most of the Star Wars characters use the simplified-down Star Destroyer term to refer to all the types, such as at the Battle of Hoth, when the Imperial Fleet approaches, an officer says "There's a fleet of Star Destroyers coming out of sector 4". In the Special Edition Vader tells an officer "Alert my Star Destroyer to prepare for my arrival." or when the Millenium Falcon is escaping Bespin and Leia warns Lando of the Executor's approach calling it a "Star Destroyer"

  • Yes, they might be referred to as "Star Destroyers" even if they are Star Dreadnoughts by people, but another slang term would be "Super Star Destroyers" for everything from around a Gauntlet-class Star Cruiser and up. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • That, and the possibility that most mentions of "Star Destroyers" bigger than the ISDs are simplified slang from that again. Either that or that all the different Imperial destroyers, cruisers, battlecruiser and battleships mentioned throughout the decades of EU publication, belong to a big design family known collectively as "Star Destroyers", getting secondary terms to differentiate their roles in the fleet. VT-16 14:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

A general comment

Seeing as we're either removing or redirecting several ship-related articles that describe the same thing, I think it's time we stop pretending that we don't "understand" the differences in SSDs. It's clear to anyone who's read about Naval warfare and history what the different terms mean and I don't think it should stay as a "mystery" what the difference between Star Destroyer, Star Cruiser, Star Battlecruiser and Star Dreadnought is. I know an extreme minority has been trying to muddle the issue and create problems where there are none, but I'm hoping we can look past that and move on. The English language and it's naval terms still stands, and so far I've seen nothing that dispells this notion. Yes, there are vastly different sizes for ships called the same thing, but there's nothing that can't be explained easily with different cultures and manufacturers using different standards. In recent years, enough work has been done with reference books to explain most of the discrepencies, and I think it's time to accept that and just move on. I'm not advocating any change in articles, as I don't find it necessary with the limited info we have so far, I'm just saying we should stop shying away from using the only thing that's applicable when nothing else is available: the English language. VT-16 11:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, we shouldn't "shy away" as you put it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I didn't want to "enflame" or "restart" any kind of debates with this, just noting that, with what limited info we have, and with the aging of even the most recent additions to ship-tech-related books, I think any further debate on "what something means" is pretty pointless. Where it's appropriate, we have bts info on what something most likely is, based on its appearance and use, and where there's no doubt what something means, I see no need to keep the info out of the main article. Take Procurator and Mandator for instance. One is a Star Battlecruiser, the other is a Star Dreadnought. We only know that they guard Kuati space, and that they're bigger than an Acclamator. I see no problem with explicitly writing that one has less defensive capability than the other (be it shields and/or armor plating), simply based on their RL naval counterparts. It's just small stuff like that. And preferably keeping most info on the old fandebate out of specific ship-articles and into the Super Star Destroyer article or the ones on rl naval terms and their use in SW. It save space and gathers everything together. VT-16 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Has a name ever been given to the SSD that was destroyed during the rebel raide on the Fondor Shipyards? (In Rogue Squadron III: Rebel Strike)

Super Star Destroyer Rebel slang?

Loyalists like Pellaeon and fanatics like Daala called at least Executor-class ships SSDs. Were they using Rebel slang in their formal statements? I'd understand if it was just Zsinj or some other self-styled warlord, but right now it sounds rather weird. Now, before you start typing in angry replies, let me finish. I'm not out to start another endless argument or something like that, and I'm no spamming Saxton-hater. If the term Star Dreadnought is canon, it stays. I just wanted to point out the discrepancy. Evir Daal 12:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, the term Super Star Destroyer is two things: A type of Star Destroyer larger than normal Star Destroyers but smaller than Star Dreadnoughts, Star Cruisers, and Star Battlecruisers; and a slang term for standard Super Star Destroyers, Star Dreadnoughts, Cruisers, and Battlecruisers. While I personally don't like the term, I think it was applied to Star Dreadnoughts and such only before there were a lot of different classes of them. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Daala used it in 13 ABY, when most of the types had already been designed. I still think they could have come up with a better explanation for the after-retcon continuity glitch than designating the term "Rebel slang". Evir Daal 09:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I think that the Jedi Academy Trilogy was made before the term Star Dreadnought. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Out of universe, the term "Star Dreadnought" is of very recent origin and, of course, invented after the JAT. I thought you were referring to in-universe construction dates and designations of the various models. And apropos nothing, I was talking about Darksaber, not the JAT. Evir Daal 11:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    • A type of Star Destroyer larger than normal Star Destroyers but smaller than Star Dreadnoughts, Star Cruisers, and Star Battlecruisers
No, SSD is a popular term for those three types of warships. If anything, a "heavy" Star Destroyer would be the term for a big Star Destroyer. Like the type Jerec thinks about in Dark Forces: Soldier for the Empire.
As for the wording in the article, we haven't adjusted everything after the information in the new WOTC ship-article, but it will be corrected.
The in-universe chronology of the different terms goes something like this:
"Star Battlecruiser" and "Star Dreadnought": pre-Clone Wars, among the largest ships around (Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross Sections). Clone Wars, same thing (Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections). Galactic Civil War, same thing (Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, Star Wars: Complete Locations). Super-class SD used as cover for the Executor-class in particular, becomes a popular phrase for many different ships (SC, SBC, SDN) (Starship Battles Preview 1, Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, Star Wars: Complete Locations).
Procurator-class SBC (pre-CW, CW, post-CW)
Praetor-class SBC (post-CW, GCW)
Mandator-class SDN (pre-CW, CW, post-CW)
Mandator II-class SDN (CW, post-CW)
Executor-class SDN (GCW, YVW)
Eclipse-class SDN (GCW)
Sovereign-class SDN (GCW)
"Star Defender": Galactic Civil War, Yuuzhan Vong War, designed as a counterpart to the Star Dreadnoughts towards the tail-end of the Galactic Civil War, particular designation most likely made to distance itself from the historical terms used by the Empire (Starship Battles Preview 1, Vector Prime).
Viscount-class SDF (GCW, YVW)
Strident-class SDF (YVW, SCU)
"Star Cruiser": Galactic Civil War, used by Mon Calamari for their biggest classes, (Rebel Alliance Sourcebook). Used by the Empire for the type of ship in the size-class above Star Destroyers and below Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts (Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, Star Wars: Complete Locations)
MC80 SC (GCW)
MC80a SC (GCW)
MC80b SC (GCW)
MC90 SC (GCW)
Gauntlet-class SC (Empire) + Other Imperial classes, primarily seen in Dark Empire or referenced (without names, in ITW:SWT, SW:CL) (GCW)
"Star Destroyer": Clone Wars, medium-sized, multi-purpose vessels, (Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections). Earlier "destroyer" term used for at least a thousand years (Darth Bane: Path of Destruction). Galactic Civil War, still medium-sized vessels, the SDs are the most visible type of warship in the Empire and their sizes have increased (Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections, Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy). Yuuzhan Vong War, pretty much the same thing. However, in the Legacy-era Empire, it appears that "Star Destroyer" is the designation of the largest ship in the Imperial fleet. How big it is, has not yet been decided. Presumably, there's been a major shift in designations in the 100 years between Empires (Star Wars: Legacy 0).
Victory I-class SD (CW, post-CW, GCW, YVW) + other SD classes (ROTS:ICS)
Venator-class SD (CW, post-CW)
Victory II-class SD (post-CW, GCW, YVW)
Tector-class SD (post-CW, GCW)
Imperial I-class SD (post-CW, GCW)
Imperial II-class SD (GCW)
At least one multi-mile SD class (DF:SFTE) (post-CW, GCW)
Republic-class SD (GCW)
Nebula-class SD (GCW, YVW)
Rejuvenator-class SD (YVW)
Galactic-class Battle Carrier (really a SD, but renamed for PC reasons) (SCU)
Pellaeon-class SD (SIW, post-SIW)
"Star frigate": pre-Clone Wars and Clone Wars, a heavy frigate (Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections)
Munificent-class sf (pre-CW, CW)
Presumably other comparable vessels in the Republic/Empire. (CW, post-CW, GCW)
The ship-types named without a "Star"-prefix have been in use throughout most of the SW timeline and in most societies. The reason why "star frigate" is written without capital letters is not clear, it could be to divide between the truely independent capital ships, as in real life, where destroyers and cruisers of today are the only ships capable of operating independently, far from support. The purpose of having ships designated with a "Star"-prefix, is also not explained. It might be to seperate larger vessels of one type from smaller ones, i.e destroyer << Star Destroyer, dreadnought << Star Dreadnought etc. VT-16 13:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actual combat performance

Has anyone else noticed that the actual battle performance of Super Star Destroyers is totally abysmal? Although they are freqently described as near-invincible battleships, both the Executor and the Vengeance were destroyed in their first real combat engagement by what should be vastly inferior rebel forces. Other SSDs were fatally sabotaged with apparent ease (Whelm, also the Arc Hammer if you consider it a SSD) or otherwise destroyed by tiny starfighters, obviously capitalizing on design flaws rivalling the Death Star.

I have also noticed that SSDs (Executor-class) alledgedly carry staggering numbers of troops and equipment such as pre-fabricated bases. Carrying these around (and all the supplies needed to keep that equipment operable...) means a lot of payload space is eaten up for bunks and cargo space, not to mention hangar space for support craft (as opposed to combat craft). SSDs are said to act as command ships and fleet support ships. Overall, their combat potential relative to mass, size, cost and crew required is probably worse that that of regular Star Destroyers. All KDY ship designs seem to suffer from being designed to fill all roles (battleship, support, fighter carrier, troop transport, garrison) at once, and thus performing only average in any. (Compare to designated combat ships like the Loronar Strike Cruiser; I also suspect that the Tector class Star Destroyer finally is worth its price in space combat!)

My conclusion is that SSDs are not primarily supposed to be front-line warships, but rather very large and well-armed baseships. They definitely are not the big-bore super-battleships some make them out to be. They can probably withstand a lot of punishment and dish out some as well. But to me it is obvious that SSDs are too big to be effective to run. Investing the same amount of money and crew in Star Destroyers would give a far superior fleet. That may be a reason why SSDs were never built in large numbers. It seems that across the board, the ISD was the biggest design that made sense to have. Frabby 12:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Super Star Destroyers were designed to perform all roles, yes. But that doesn't mean they were average in performing those roles. They could easily decimate a planet's surface, carry a large ground-based or space-based attack force, and be used as command ships. Out of all the times I've read about Super Star Destroyers, not once have I seen anything that makes me think they were a waste of time and money. Their weakness was their commanders, not the ships themselves. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And in FOC the Executor is pretty much capable of pwning everything short of hero capital ships. :-) Unit 8311 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Let me put it the other way round: An SSD is roughly 11 times the length of one ISD, but can it do anything that 11 ISD cannot do? Okay, I only know the movies, the X-Wing series, SW: Rebellion the Thrawn trilogy and stuff from this site but I stand by my above comment. I fail to see a true niche for SSDs between the ISDs and superweapons such as Torpedo Spheres and Death Stars (except superlaser ships such as Eclipse), and assume the imperial superweapon-mania was the reason for building them. Much like WWII battleships were built when airplanes and submarines had a clear and obvious edge over them because the admiralty refused to accept that. Back to the article at hand, I feel the combat record of known SSDs leaves so much to be wanted (compared to their grande technical readouts) that it perhaps deserves a notion in the article... Frabby 21:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • No. Your dislike of Super Star Destroyers and your theories that go along with that will not be placed in any article on Wookieepedia. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it is fact (not opinion) that there is a remarkable discrepancy between the alledged power of SSDs and their combat performance. Don't get me wrong. I positively like SSDs (or I wouldn't give so much thought about the topic). That's why their underperformance bothers me. If they are so terrific, how come the Executor was brought down by what, two MonCals and a couple of starfighters (disregarding even the huge support fleet it had). The Vengeance bit the dust against 1 CRS, 1 CRL, 3 Dreadnoughts, 1 CR90 and a (non-combatant) STRKC modified as Interdictor, plus heavy fighters. In both cases the opposing force roughly equals 3 or 4 ISDs at best. It just does not make sense. I know the oou reason is that a big ship downed makes the movie/game actions of the protagonists so much more heroic, but SSDs are wasted left and right whenever Rogue Squadron or a main cast character is nearby. If you were the Admiral responsible, how would you excuse that to Palpatine? Perhaps I am the only one to believe this just does not figure out, that's why I brought it up here to discuss it. Frabby 11:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
      • First of all, "I think it is fact" means opinion. Second, gameplay is a key factor in the destruction of Super Star Destroyers in games. LucasArts wouldn't put the player up against a full-strength Super Star Destroyer. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I take that as agreement that they in fact do perform below expectations (at least as opponents/targets in the games). Question is, is it worth mentioning/explaining in the article or should we silently accept that the Rebellion scored an incredible string of lucky hits where SSDs are concerned? Frabby 10:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, that was not an agreement. I merely said that LucasArts made the Super Star Destroyers easy to destroy in the games only so they could be destroyed by the player. That's what gameplay is: Changing canon to make a game easier or more enjoyable. And no, it's not worth mentioning. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I believe it might be worth a sentence in the "Behind the Scenes" section.--SOCLcomm 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Plain and simple, the facts that I mentioned above are canonical. Simply doing away with them by calling them "Gameplay" does not invalidate them. I also do not think "Gameplay" reasoning explains the losses of SSDs in RotJ or any of the novels. Frabby 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Gameplay just shows how the Super Star Destroyers are dulled down so the players can defeat them easily. That is not canon. As for RotJ, do you really think that Lucas was going to let the Empire win? That's an OOU reason, yes, but the IU reason was simply that the Rebel fleet pounded Executor's shields, and then an A-wing flew into the bridge. That doesn't mean the Super Star Destroyers performed badly in actual combat. As for the novels, there's a simple explanation for that: Most novels have inaccurate, and therefore non-canon, depictions of Super Star Destroyers. For example, the length of the Executor-class Star Dreadnought in some novels and games is incorrect. As for the "Behind the scenes" section, it's not worth it. The three examples provided by SOCL were only added because there was a big, noticable difference between those in the game and those in the rest of canon. This isn't, for if it was, someone would have said something about it a while ago. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Forget about it, Frabby. "De facto admin" Nebulax won't let it go because he doesn't think it goes there. I argue, though, that there is a noticable difference between gameplay and canon are quite significant in the same way as the examples I gave, among numerous others. Of course, if I present those, Mr. Nebulax will scoff at those to. Still, Nebulax, you should consider purging those articles, too. It simply doesn't do to be a "de facto admin" and be inconsistent.--SOCLcomm 20:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The examples you've already provided are much different than this, SOCL. Let it go. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't see how they're different or why it should be let go. They remain inconsistencies between gameplay and canon. It's the same as the conversation over having Star Defenders fighting Executors in the Star Wars mini game. Sure, Star Defenders weren't around when the game takes place, but that's just gameplay and still receives a mention. I can provide more examples, "de facto admin", if you so wish.--SOCLcomm 21:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't need any more of your examples that have nothing to do with this. And if you're so insistant on putting this in the "Behind the scenes" section, I want to see a draft. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Nebulax, you don't seem to realize the parallels, do you? I won't keep trying to explain it to you. In regard to the draft, I don't need to give you anything, kid. Besides, I'm defending Frabby's well-thought-out position on the matter. Frabby, you have my full support on adding commentary regarding game inconsistencies (e.g. Rebellion), other's opinions notwithstanding.--SOCLcomm 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point something out in real-life history. Several times, the Germans during WWI and WWII sent super guns to the front line. None proved any more effective for their manpower than many smaller guns. Most needed 20 men to move one shell around. In fact, by WWII, the Americans had developed Time on Target. This was so effective that if the really big guns of the German army fired one shot, by the time they could fire again, the Americans would have hundreds of shells either enroute or already detonated. TOT worked by 10 or more guns firing at the same time at the same target. In fact, each gun would fire its first shell at a high trajectory followed more more rounds at lower trajectories. The system got its name because all of those shells would arrive at exactly the same instant. You can see it in use in Tom Clancy's book The Bear and the Dragon.

As far as I know, TOT is still in use, at least when we resort to howitzers rather than MLS. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The problem with that comparison, is that the Executor-class isn't a supergun, i.e doesn't have one big artillery piece. They consist of thousands of individual guns and missile launchers. Given this, your TOT scenario would really be coming from the larger combatant here. There's also the issue with game mechanics and how authors conveniently make most Executor's be attacked in a weakened state or have sabotage done to them. VT-16 19:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed that the actual battle performance of Super Star Destroyers is totally abysmal?

Please show me an actual example where a fully operational, battle-ready Executor-class, Eclipse-class or Sovereign-class ship gets taken out by a significantly tiny naval force, as supposed to being destroyed/captured within a game i.e. non-canon game mechanics (Vengeance, Terror, the unnamed cloaking device vessel, Annihilator, though they might be story-driven), in a vulnerable state i.e. undergoing repairs or undergoing construction (Guardian, Intimidator, Razor's Kiss, Sovereign and the other three Sovereigns at Byss) or by sabotage (Eclipse II, Knight Hammer, Palpatine losing control over his powers and destroying Eclipse). In the events where they participate in fleet battle and get destroyed, the numbers stacked against them are not always known (Aggressor, Lusankya, Iron Fist, Intimidator, Reaper). And at least several Executors participated in multiple fleet battles and survived (Lusankya, Guardian, Reaper). Notice how the ones in NR/GA use get hero-shields? ;P There's also the question of why the NR would bother to make Mediators and later on Viscounts to gain heavy firepower (which the Viscount's profile in WOTC mentioned) if the Executors and other SSDs supposedly weren't impressive or threatening. Even the Yuuzhan Vong had ships that were comparable to them. Then there's the ships and classes who's fates are unknown, like Jerec's Vengeance, Giel's flagship, the Whelm, the Mandator I and IIs, the Procurators, the Praetors, the Star Cruisers and Star Battlecruisers used by the Empire etc. VT-16 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Although I can see where you and Nebulax are coming from, I have a problem with the concept of "non-canonical game mechanics". The games, as far as I am aware, contribute C-Canon. The loss of the Executor (despite over 40 other star destroyers at their side) against a tiny rebel fleet at Endor is even G-Canon; then there is the "Communication ship" SSD at Endor which is also lost (C-Canon from the novel). "Hero shields" are canon in that they are part of canonical storylines - otherwise you end up with a "credibility check" that would render 90% of Star Wars "non canon". :-) I'd say there are actually two issues here:
    • What are the canonical circumstances of known SSD defeats?
    • Following up on this, how can it be explained?

Frabby 12:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

      • In case you haven't noticed, not everything in games are canon. Gameplay is one of those. While it is part of a canonical storyline, gameplay is less canonical because it distorts established canon, therefore contradicting higher canon. In order for it to fit into canon, we have to take the core idea there. For example, it would become something like "The Super Star Destroyer (name) was destroyed by Rebels at the Battle of (name)." Sure, sometimes it goes into more detail, but even then, it's very limited, as one can destroy the same Super Star Destroyer many different ways in one game. Therefore, there is really only one way it can happen. Listen, I'm not saying your theory is crap. I'm just saying that there have been so many times where the portrayal of Super Star Destroyers in sources go against canon, and I really think it should just be ignored. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Calm down, but you're still missing the point, Nebulax. The fact that in other articles the starships have commentary addressing canon inconsistencies regarding gameplay sets a very strong precedent for adding it here. If not, then all those other articles should be purged of their commentary. I don't see why you just dismiss those examples, likely because they don't agree with your stance, but they remain valid. Indeed, there are articles that comment on the differences in something as menial as firepower, not something as vague or reaching as strength or durability, but a detail like firepower between sources, included among them gameplay. I am not stating that in any way the game should necessarily be considered canon information, no more than a V-wing starfighter is a bomber (in an example you so readily dismissed, "de facto admin" Nebulax), but that's why I'm saying put in "Behind the Scenes", not in the article-proper. C'mon, kiddo, that's not so bad.--SOCLcomm 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • In case you haven't noticed, not everything in games are canon.

Your mistake is that you are mixing up technical details (which I agree are far off in the games) with C-Canon history information. No matter what game mechanics stand behind it, the canonical fact is that the Vengeance was defeated by the aforementioned tiny rebel force. The game mechanics behind it may be arguable, but it happened. You cannot dispute that. There is not even a conflict between any canonical information here so what exactly is your issue? Frabby 15:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The games, as far as I am aware, contribute C-Canon.

Correct, stories, characters, vehicles and locations are C-canon. The mechanics of defeating an enemy vessel, the exact complement of weapons used and the "hard points" are all non-canon mechanics to ease the game play.

The loss of the Executor (despite over 40 other star destroyers at their side) against a tiny rebel fleet at Endor is even G-Canon; then there is the "Communication ship" SSD at Endor which is also lost (C-Canon from the novel).

Correct, apart from the "tiny Rebel fleet" part. The Rebels amassed a fleet larger than the eye could see, according to the novelization. It was not "tiny". In the movie itself, there's several scenes depicting gun fire with bolts so large, they're several hundred meters long each, and capable of pulverizing an ISD with a few shots.

"Hero shields" are canon in that they are part of canonical storylines - otherwise you end up with a "credibility check" that would render 90% of Star Wars "non canon".

That's true, just keep in mind that ships belonging to the "good guys" have a tendency to survive under conditions that would usually destroy "bad guy" ships.

What are the canonical circumstances of known SSD defeats?

Aggressor: Rammed into torpedo sphere of unknown size, commanding officer killed. Unclear whether the ship was unsalvageble, as another Aggressor SSD was mentioned in operation at a later date.

Annihilator: Fought against Tyber Zann's fleet and was destroyed after loss of shields to capital ship fire (the Eclipse can be used against it in the game, IIRC, but if this is the "true" destruction is unclear, either way, it's destroyed).

Executor: Fought against a Rebel fleet and was destroyed after loss of shields to capital ship fire and ramming into Death Star II.

Guardian: Fought against a NR fleet and was damaged. Later captured during repairs. Served in NR and GA fleet, fate unknown.

Intimidator: Captured by Yevetha before completion, used as flagship during their species "cleansing", recaptured by Imperials, later found by NR adrift and wrecked, cause unknown.

Iron Fist: Command tower hit by Millennium Falcon's concussion missiles, the shieldless ship was later pummled by a Hapan fleet.

Knight Hammer: Jedi sabotage led to TIE bombers stored within to unleash their payload into the sublight engines, causing ship to drift into Yavin's gravitational well and be destroyed.

Lusankya: Used as prison structure on Coruscant for many years, later captured during a battle by a seemingly peaceful fleet of freighters armed with heavy torpedo launchers and several turncoat ISDs. Served in the NR fleet, destroyed when rammed into world ship during Yuuzhan Vong War.

Razor's Kiss: Unfinished ship attempted stolen by Zsinj, bridge section destroyed during transit by stowaway TIE interceptor, NR fleet arrived to destroy the rest. Hulk used to create the Second Death decoy ship.

Reaper: Fought many battles against the NR, even one going head-to-head against Lusankya. Destroyed in later fleet battle.

Terror: Destroyed from within by Rebel operatives while docked. (The specifics of how they managed this, might be subject to game mechanics.)

Vengeance: Destroyed by multiple kamikaze ramming attacks from Dreadnaught-class cruisers and one CR90 corvette. (This is debated, since it's one of two endings in the game Balance of Power.)

Whelm: Served as part of Azure Command. Fate unknown.

Following up on this, how can it be explained?

Most instances of incompentence is due to commanders being non-naval personnel who simply try to "wing it" as best they can. Lusankya´s capture might also be attributed to its weakening state following years of idleness underneath the surface of Coruscant. The Aggressor´s loss can be explained by psychosis or overconfidence on the part of Grand Admiral Grunger.

On top of all this, is the fact that other governments before and since fielded large warships as well, so the concept isn't flawed more than any thing else seen over the millennia of SW history. VT-16 16:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The list of how each Super Star Destroyer was destroyed shows that there is no need for a mention in the "Behind the scenes" section. Now, Frabby and SOCL, you can keep complaining all you want, but it's not going to happen. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 16:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I seriously think Frabby's point has been missed. He's not stating that in canon SSDs are destroyed quickly. I think he's stating that a comment might be in order for games like Rebellion where Executors are "dumbed down" for the sake of gameplay in the same way that we comment on V-wing Starfighters not being bombers (like they are in Battlefront II). Then again, "de facto admin" Nebulax has spoken—that must make it right and final...--SOCLcomm 00:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you all just stop this sorry debate right now? (That includes you as well, Nebulax.) The OP asked for a reason for the abysmal performance of SSDs, and I showed how that's an incorrect statement. If you want to comment on how SSDs are incorrectly portrayed in games, fine, put it in the bts. Also make sure to point out that some early authors used the game mechanics in their books when writing. (That's an actual quote by Stackpole, I believe.) VT-16 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I don't know if it'll help or if I am too late to add this, but I think Giel's Flagship deserves mention on the "fate of SSDs" list. It was shot down by a couple of TIE Fighters while commanding one of the largest Imperial armadas ever... IMHO, some SSDs have been shown as way too weak for their class. Commander Daal 20px 10:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I asked for a draft of what Frabby wanted to put in the "Behind the scenes" section, but SOCL quickly shot that idea and keeps acting like a child over this. I was actually ready to admit defeat in this, but SOCL's and Frabby's atitudes are horrible towards me on this topic. If I get a draft that I can work on, then I might just say, "Go ahead and put it in". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Nebulax, I felt the discussion was turning personal between you and SOCL, at which point I was willing to drop the issue (I am helping out here for the fun of it after all). It was not my intention to go personal myself and I apologize if I overstepped the line somewhere. I presented an opinion backed by facts, I vindicated these facts when you disputed them, and tried to explain my point of view. I concede that my knowledge of the Star Wars universe is far from complete and it turned out to be a fruitful discussion because it helped me to adjust my position on the issue a little. I was working on a draft already but found that it contained much repetitive information; the SSD main article probably needs a little restructuring. I will be back on this when I have a little more time on my hands. Frabby 13:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
            • You're right: This discussion is turning personal, but it's not my fault. As for the topic at hand, we both presented opinions backed by facts, we both disputed each other's facts, and we tried to explain our points of view. That's the whole purpose of a discussion, though, isn't it? ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, Giel's ship was not disabled, the cage on the back was hit by a TIE fighter configured to fire six shots and then empty its ammunition in one giant blast and the Teezl was killed. Afterwards, Admiral Giel ordered the gun batteries to fire on the TIE and they did, so it wasn't destroyed or seriously disabled. VT-16 23:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It wasn't? Sorry then for wasting your time. I'd better go check the comic. Commander Daal 20px 09:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Thanks for mentioning it, though. :) VT-16 12:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Now that I checked it, the drawing shows most of stern exploding, presumably including engines, while the narration (in my re-translation from the Swedish version) says something to the effect that it "[took] a good chunk of the ship with it". I guess it's a matter of definition whether it was disabled or not, but you were right about Giel, so it must have retained at least some combat capabilities. Thanks for noticing and helping to clear this up. Commander Daal 20px 12:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
          • And as a note, I'd like the draft from Frabby. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
            • And take your time, Frabby. No rush. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
            • What I prepared is a complete overhaul of the article, including the deletion of much that I felt does not belong here. Lots of you are probably going to hate it so I won't upload it yet but rather pass the draft around to get opinions. Being a Wookieepedia newbie, how should we handle that? I would prefer emails but have been unable to find the button to send messages to Nebulax and others. Or should I just upload the article and see if somebody is going to restore? Frabby 10:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
              • I'm not so sure that's necessary at all, given the exhaustive amount of references and sources noted already. Some parts can be cleaned up and some unsourced material dropped, but other than that, it's a good article as is, imho. VT-16 15:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
              • If you really do want to go ahead with this, the best method is to post your version as a subpage of your user page (e.g. User:Frabby/SSD), and then provide the link here and/or on the talk pages of users you'd like to see the opinions of. jSarek 21:21, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
                • A "complete overhaul"? I've got a very bad feeling about this... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'm against a complete overhaul. That would probably completely ruin the article. I don't mind a few tweaks here and there, but people will probably disagree against a total rewording. Unit 8311 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)