Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Almost all ships in the Star Wars universe are though. At least thus far.
Almost all ships in the Star Wars universe are though. At least thus far.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Pre-release)
- Thread starter Warpaint
- Start date
Lutso
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
The fact that this was said directly after mention of underwear and wedgies...
The fact that this was said directly after mention of underwear and wedgies...
jme3
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
But the destroyers were there before the Empire took hold and the ships themselves were not evil. They represented a legitimate government and society that were usurped by evil people that were a part of the same government and society as themselves. The (new) Republic would very likely see the Star Destroyers as symbolic of the liberation of the former government and society and would most probably think the military hardware is now back in the hands of its rightful, legally sanctioned government. Plus, they probably cost a fortune so why not use them...?
I see what you're saying, but the Star Destroyers are the scientific and tactical culmination of a military (albeit one made up of many different planets and cultures) that arrived at that design for what were evidently pretty good reasons to them. I'd see it as an apples-to-apples scenario as opposed to an apples-to-oranges, no..., more like apples-to-corn scenario.
lol:lol
But the destroyers were there before the Empire took hold and the ships themselves were not evil. They represented a legitimate government and society that were usurped by evil people that were a part of the same government and society as themselves. The (new) Republic would very likely see the Star Destroyers as symbolic of the liberation of the former government and society and would most probably think the military hardware is now back in the hands of its rightful, legally sanctioned government. Plus, they probably cost a fortune so why not use them...?
I see what you're saying, but the Star Destroyers are the scientific and tactical culmination of a military (albeit one made up of many different planets and cultures) that arrived at that design for what were evidently pretty good reasons to them. I'd see it as an apples-to-apples scenario as opposed to an apples-to-oranges, no..., more like apples-to-corn scenario.
lol:lol
jme3
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Yeah, but the Rebels and the Imperials were all the same people; the Rebels were just reclaiming what was theirs and everyone else's in the galaxy to begin with.
Yeah, but the Rebels and the Imperials were all the same people; the Rebels were just reclaiming what was theirs and everyone else's in the galaxy to begin with.
Solo4114
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I'd figure that you'd see more of a blending of styles. The side that won has the reputation, but there'd be the same kind of "let's make sure we nab those scientists" thing that happened with the German rocket scientists after WWII. Plus there'd be shifts in doctrine.
Again, compare WWII to the present, looking at, say, tanks. The "light, medium, heavy" tank distinction, plus tank-destroyers, plus the UK notions of cruisers and infantry tanks, all underwent real changes in the post-war era, giving way to the notion of the main battle tank. That approach pretty much dominated for 40 years, until relatively recently when we started seeing tank destroyers showing up again.
I'd figure you'd see some elements of imperial technology survive, but plenty of Rebellion tech would, too. I dunno what that'd look like visually, but I'd still expect it. Maybe you'd get cockpit readouts like what Vader has in his TIE, but built into a ship that outwardly hews more towards the rebel starfighter variants.
I'd figure that you'd see more of a blending of styles. The side that won has the reputation, but there'd be the same kind of "let's make sure we nab those scientists" thing that happened with the German rocket scientists after WWII. Plus there'd be shifts in doctrine.
Again, compare WWII to the present, looking at, say, tanks. The "light, medium, heavy" tank distinction, plus tank-destroyers, plus the UK notions of cruisers and infantry tanks, all underwent real changes in the post-war era, giving way to the notion of the main battle tank. That approach pretty much dominated for 40 years, until relatively recently when we started seeing tank destroyers showing up again.
I'd figure you'd see some elements of imperial technology survive, but plenty of Rebellion tech would, too. I dunno what that'd look like visually, but I'd still expect it. Maybe you'd get cockpit readouts like what Vader has in his TIE, but built into a ship that outwardly hews more towards the rebel starfighter variants.
jme3
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I think that sort of fusion would be found if the two sides were of different governmental, social, economic, scientific, etc., systems, but the Rebels and Imperials are all the same family. A feuding family, but the same family still. I mean, the Star Destroyers belonged to the Republic before they belonged to the Imperials, but they're the same destroyers, just updated. All of the craft and armament suppliers are from that same economic system. Some are commercial competitors with one another, but still the same bunch. What I'm seeing is not a vastly differing ideology or culture that could come together and form some greater amalgam as if, say, the US and Russia were to meld things together. It would be like merging Lockheed and Raytheon (or something) in the United States; same product, less competition.
I think that sort of fusion would be found if the two sides were of different governmental, social, economic, scientific, etc., systems, but the Rebels and Imperials are all the same family. A feuding family, but the same family still. I mean, the Star Destroyers belonged to the Republic before they belonged to the Imperials, but they're the same destroyers, just updated. All of the craft and armament suppliers are from that same economic system. Some are commercial competitors with one another, but still the same bunch. What I'm seeing is not a vastly differing ideology or culture that could come together and form some greater amalgam as if, say, the US and Russia were to meld things together. It would be like merging Lockheed and Raytheon (or something) in the United States; same product, less competition.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I have no problem if they do have them, I was just saying they could use that explanation for not using them. I liked in the EU when they had the captured Star Destroyers with Rebel symbols painted on the hulls. In a way you could say that part of rebuilding the Republic would be reclaiming their symbols, which the Star Destroyer's design evolved from the Republic ships. Still, I would like to see more advanced ships as well. I just don't want them to say "Well it's a new movie, so let's completely redesign something new so we can put our spin on it!" Or have JJ Abrams do like he did with the Enterprise and say "Now the Falcon is 400ft long!"
But the destroyers were there before the Empire took hold and the ships themselves were not evil. They represented a legitimate government and society that were usurped by evil people that were a part of the same government and society as themselves. The (new) Republic would very likely see the Star Destroyers as symbolic of the liberation of the former government and society and would most probably think the military hardware is now back in the hands of its rightful, legally sanctioned government. Plus, they probably cost a fortune so why not use them...?
I have no problem if they do have them, I was just saying they could use that explanation for not using them. I liked in the EU when they had the captured Star Destroyers with Rebel symbols painted on the hulls. In a way you could say that part of rebuilding the Republic would be reclaiming their symbols, which the Star Destroyer's design evolved from the Republic ships. Still, I would like to see more advanced ships as well. I just don't want them to say "Well it's a new movie, so let's completely redesign something new so we can put our spin on it!" Or have JJ Abrams do like he did with the Enterprise and say "Now the Falcon is 400ft long!"
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Well, I don't remember underwear or wedgies in the original trilogy, or the prequels, but I'm pretty sure they have underwear in that galaxy. I was hoping for something else new though, lol.
Well, I don't remember underwear or wedgies in the original trilogy, or the prequels, but I'm pretty sure they have underwear in that galaxy. I was hoping for something else new though, lol.
jme3
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
My feelings exactly! I don't want to see a(nother) Star Wars movie I barely recognize. Some evolution is great (again, more chances for more models to work on), but I still want to easily recognize the OT. Even a few ISDs that are completely unchanged would be fine and, of course..., the Falcon!:thumbsup
My feelings exactly! I don't want to see a(nother) Star Wars movie I barely recognize. Some evolution is great (again, more chances for more models to work on), but I still want to easily recognize the OT. Even a few ISDs that are completely unchanged would be fine and, of course..., the Falcon!:thumbsup
Last edited:
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
There's no evidence to suggest that the Star Destroyers were originally Republic ships, the Republic cruisers that we saw in the PT and in The Clone Wars were a completely different ship from a Star Destroyer. The Republic cruisers had smoother hulls, hangars running the length of the dorsal spine instead of two on the bottom, the superstructure was totally different and had two command towers.
It's possible that the Star Destroyers were originally commissioned and designed during the last days of the Republic but they were almost certainly Imperial ships from the beginning. However, that's not to say that the New Republic's navy wouldn't have used some during the early days following the fall of the Empire but by this time they would have almost certainly phased them all out of service and be operating newer designs. By this point in time all remaining Star Destroyers would have been either scrapped, a few kept as museums, or sold off to friendly governments in need of ships for cheap. The first is the most likely, I can't think of any ships from an opposing nation on the losing side being kept as a museum ship and in the case of most rebellions symbols of the old regime are quickly removed. The latter is possible but I'm not sure that there are any or many unaligned governments in the Star Wars universe that weren't part of the Empire and wouldn't now be part of the Republic and thus be protected by the Republic Navy. Not to mention that I doubt that any planet or system that couldn't afford to build their own ships could actually afford to buy and/or operate a Star Destroyer, that would be like us selling a Nimitz class carrier or one of our old Iowas to some Central or South American nation's navy.
There's no evidence to suggest that the Star Destroyers were originally Republic ships, the Republic cruisers that we saw in the PT and in The Clone Wars were a completely different ship from a Star Destroyer. The Republic cruisers had smoother hulls, hangars running the length of the dorsal spine instead of two on the bottom, the superstructure was totally different and had two command towers.
It's possible that the Star Destroyers were originally commissioned and designed during the last days of the Republic but they were almost certainly Imperial ships from the beginning. However, that's not to say that the New Republic's navy wouldn't have used some during the early days following the fall of the Empire but by this time they would have almost certainly phased them all out of service and be operating newer designs. By this point in time all remaining Star Destroyers would have been either scrapped, a few kept as museums, or sold off to friendly governments in need of ships for cheap. The first is the most likely, I can't think of any ships from an opposing nation on the losing side being kept as a museum ship and in the case of most rebellions symbols of the old regime are quickly removed. The latter is possible but I'm not sure that there are any or many unaligned governments in the Star Wars universe that weren't part of the Empire and wouldn't now be part of the Republic and thus be protected by the Republic Navy. Not to mention that I doubt that any planet or system that couldn't afford to build their own ships could actually afford to buy and/or operate a Star Destroyer, that would be like us selling a Nimitz class carrier or one of our old Iowas to some Central or South American nation's navy.
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
There are plenty, even in the Old Republic days. Not to mention warlords in outlying systems.
By the time Star Destroyers become old tech they would certainly be sold off and be MUCH cheaper than building something new from scratch. Ships, planes, tanks, weapons from the more advanced countries are sold off to other nations all the time. Even here in Canada we recently bought some British subs.
There are plenty, even in the Old Republic days. Not to mention warlords in outlying systems.
By the time Star Destroyers become old tech they would certainly be sold off and be MUCH cheaper than building something new from scratch. Ships, planes, tanks, weapons from the more advanced countries are sold off to other nations all the time. Even here in Canada we recently bought some British subs.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
I would absolutely LOVE to have a used Star Destroyer!
Divide it up into condos and put in a shopping mall!
I would absolutely LOVE to have a used Star Destroyer!
Divide it up into condos and put in a shopping mall!
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Hell ya! use the control pits on the bridge as hot swimming pools with a space view... :cool
Hell ya! use the control pits on the bridge as hot swimming pools with a space view... :cool
jme3
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
You're confusing the ships, my friend.
This is a Republic Star Destroyer:
This is a Republic Cruiser:
While there are differences in the two Star Destroyers that you mentioned, such as the dorsal hangar bay, they are both designated as Star Destroyers, albeit with some of the evolution people have spoken about.
You're confusing the ships, my friend.
This is a Republic Star Destroyer:
This is a Republic Cruiser:
While there are differences in the two Star Destroyers that you mentioned, such as the dorsal hangar bay, they are both designated as Star Destroyers, albeit with some of the evolution people have spoken about.
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
While that's true just think of the type of investment that a Star Destroyer would entail for a planet with a small navy in terms of fuel, maintenance, & personnel. The Empire could afford it because it was an empire of who knows how many systems with resources and manpower to spare, a single planet or small system would likely go broke trying to man and operate even a single Star Destroyer, don't mention a fleet of them. There's a reason why most of the world's navies are made primarily of frigates or destroyers at best, it's because they can't afford to buy/build, man, operate, and/or maintain anything larger, at least not in any meaningful numbers.
Sure a planet or system could maybe afford a Star Destroyer in every meaning of the word but fat good a single Star Destroyer is going to do them. Granted that a single Star Destroyer possesses more firepower than a lot of fleets have combined but it's only one ship which can only be in one place at a time and space is an awfully big place and pirates and smugglers can easily avoid one ship once they figure out its patrol route and timetable.
Then there's the matter of maintenance & crew down time to be considered, this is why navies always procure a certain minimum number of ships. That's because, as a general rule of thumb, for every ship you have out at sea you will have at least one or two in port; one will be down for routine maintenance and/or refitting/upgrading that requires a port facility, and another will be likely in port for crew down time at home with friends and family.
While that's true just think of the type of investment that a Star Destroyer would entail for a planet with a small navy in terms of fuel, maintenance, & personnel. The Empire could afford it because it was an empire of who knows how many systems with resources and manpower to spare, a single planet or small system would likely go broke trying to man and operate even a single Star Destroyer, don't mention a fleet of them. There's a reason why most of the world's navies are made primarily of frigates or destroyers at best, it's because they can't afford to buy/build, man, operate, and/or maintain anything larger, at least not in any meaningful numbers.
Sure a planet or system could maybe afford a Star Destroyer in every meaning of the word but fat good a single Star Destroyer is going to do them. Granted that a single Star Destroyer possesses more firepower than a lot of fleets have combined but it's only one ship which can only be in one place at a time and space is an awfully big place and pirates and smugglers can easily avoid one ship once they figure out its patrol route and timetable.
Then there's the matter of maintenance & crew down time to be considered, this is why navies always procure a certain minimum number of ships. That's because, as a general rule of thumb, for every ship you have out at sea you will have at least one or two in port; one will be down for routine maintenance and/or refitting/upgrading that requires a port facility, and another will be likely in port for crew down time at home with friends and family.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Yes, I am that bored.
Yes, I am that bored.
Riceball
Master Member
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that what I was referring to as cruisers were actually Star Destroyers.
Speaking of which, are Star Destroyers a class of ship like destroyers, and , cruisers carriers, etc. or is Star Destroyer the class name like Arleigh Burke class destroyer and Nimitz class carrier? If it's the class name then what is the class type? Heavy cruiser? Battleship? Not battlecruiser because battlecruisers were nothing more than upgunned cruisers; big guns, thin armor. If Star Destroyer is indeed a class type what's the class name then, Imperial & Super?
You're confusing the ships, my friend.
This is a Republic Star Destroyer:
This is a Republic Cruiser:
While there are differences in the two Star Destroyers that you mentioned, such as the dorsal hangar bay, they are both designated as Star Destroyers, albeit with some of the evolution people have spoken about.
Thanks for the clarification, I didn't realize that what I was referring to as cruisers were actually Star Destroyers.
Speaking of which, are Star Destroyers a class of ship like destroyers, and , cruisers carriers, etc. or is Star Destroyer the class name like Arleigh Burke class destroyer and Nimitz class carrier? If it's the class name then what is the class type? Heavy cruiser? Battleship? Not battlecruiser because battlecruisers were nothing more than upgunned cruisers; big guns, thin armor. If Star Destroyer is indeed a class type what's the class name then, Imperial & Super?
Re: Star Wars Episode VII
Ya, because a large threat is never used as a deterant in Star Wars. :lol
The bombarding power of a Star destroyer alone makes it worth it as the head of any smaller fleet.
Ya, because a large threat is never used as a deterant in Star Wars. :lol
The bombarding power of a Star destroyer alone makes it worth it as the head of any smaller fleet.
Similar threads
