|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 9, 2023 0:03:35 GMT -8
Original EntryAfter some careful consideration and thought, I believe I would like to increase the size of this ship and adjust its weaponry. LengthAfter looking at a discussion here and here, it is my belief that this vessel should be increased to a Heavy Star Destroyer. This is especially considering that in its lore, it is quoted to be longer/larger than a standard Star Destroyer, which we can assume is the ISD at 1600 meters. Right now, it sits right on the fence of a Heavy variant at 1800 meters. So I would like to increase it to be 1850 to 2000 meters to ensure it is in the Heavy category. WeaponryThe Pellaeon-class is reported to be a lesser version of the Imperious. Its armament is quoted to be: Heavy turbolaser (50) Turbolaser (50) Ion cannon (40) Tractor beam projectors (30) Proton torpedo launchers (50) Interdiction field The canon facts of the Imperious state: Heavy turbolaser batteries (5) Medium turbolaser batteries (5) Heavy Ion cannon batteries (4) Tractor beam projector batteries (3) Proton torpedo launcher batteries (5) Gravity mines Now batteries, in our Databank rules, state it is 6 cannons per battery, which means the Imperious armament is: Heavy turbolaser batteries (30) Medium turbolaser batteries (30) Heavy Ion cannon batteries (24) Tractor beam projector batteries (18) Proton torpedo launcher batteries (30) Gravity mines This is different than what is stated in our present entry. Now, knowing how we do Databank entries now (if you say it is a 4, than it is a 4), and knowing the Imperious more efficient at its power regulation, this may be an entry that goes over the 15 points. It is noted that it had the firepower and shields to take on the whole of the Outer Rim Third Fleet, which was several Pellaeon-class ships and nine Ardent-class frigates. With this all said, this is what I believe the updated version should be:
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 14, 2023 20:38:06 GMT -8
I would also like to open this thread up to anyone interested in making suggestions/discussion posts in this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zion Morviael [RETIRED] on Nov 14, 2023 23:27:51 GMT -8
If this was a 2 speed in the Star Destroyer category it would be at least a 2 still in the Heavy SD Category.
As for the Defence... little on the fence as to whether it should really hit a 6 or not...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 14, 2023 23:34:19 GMT -8
As quoted for the defense:
The Third Outer Rim Fleet being:
I can drop it to 5 if that is better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Esthh Krazhmir on Nov 15, 2023 19:36:48 GMT -8
My thoughts are that people who edit Wookiepedia and authors writing these things know even less about any kind of ship than they do about Star Wars...which is impressive to say the least.
I would leave the original weapons numbers as "batteries" is far more ambiguous and misleading.
A battery, in the real world, specifically on ships, refers to all of the guns of the same size.
Example.
Iowa class battleship (WWII Configuration)
4 Batteries.
Sounds rather pathetic doesnt it.
What it would look like is this....
One 9 gun battery made of 16 inch 50 caliber guns in three 3 gun turrets.
One 20 gun battery made up of 5 inch 38 caliber guns in ten 2 gun turrets.
One 80 gun battery made up of 40mm guns in twin and quad mounts
One 49 gun battery made up of 20mm guns in single mounts.
Breaking it down to 3 triple turrets, etc you can do on your own. But this illustrates my point. Battery was decided on the army definition and not navy as far as JvS goes. It also shows why authors think that "groups of guns" equals a battery when they don't actually know very little when they make up a ship and put it in a book.
The exaggerations are another thing that annoys me, like the quote you have above, I don't discredit it as a quote from the material, but the authors claim that the shields are so efficient that it can hold off likely 5 or more times the ships own firepower is a bit silly. It basically contradicts itself. "It can fend off a fleets worth of firepower! It can also overpower any single ship!" As ships are typically balanced, being able to defend (mostly) their own grade of weaponry, that gives a pretty even split of power, becuase it makes no sense to make an Iowa class battleship and cover it with 1000 .50 caliber machine guns and claim its unsinkable. Likewise putting a 36 inch cannon on it, when it can only stop a 5 inch shell.
As the Imperious isnt supposed to be a "Super" class but just the next iteration of the Pelleon I would caution taking the authors quotes at face value, and for (as much as it irks me personally) the balancing aspects on the site.
A compromise might be to come up with a generally agreed upon size for the Pellaeon and the Imperious, and increase the Imperious weapons proportionately from the Pellaeons and then give it a boost of for just a number 10% more in power and weapons owing to the greater efficiency.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 15, 2023 19:51:07 GMT -8
As the Imperious isnt supposed to be a "Super" class but just the next iteration of the Pelleon I would caution taking the authors quotes at face value, and for (as much as it irks me personally) the balancing aspects on the site. A compromise might be to come up with a generally agreed upon size for the Pellaeon and the Imperious, and increase the Imperious weapons proportionately from the Pellaeons and then give it a boost of for just a number 10% more in power and weapons owing to the greater efficiency. Considering the time period, there is a statement made involving the Scythe MC140: "For a time, large multi-kilometer dreadnaughts like the Star Defender saw increased use in Galactic Alliance fleets. However, economic realities changed the Defense Force shipbuilding mindset towards smaller, yet heavily armed and armored vessels." And then, in the Legacy section of the Imperial Fleet article: "Under the Fels, it fought the Galactic Alliance in the Sith–Imperial War of 127-130 ABY. By this time nearly all of the Imperial Navy's arsenal had been replaced. Large battleships had been abandoned almost entirely, though the Navy still favored the Star Destroyer with the Pellaeon-class as its main capital warship. However, it did not build any larger warships beyond the prototype Imperious-class Star Destroyer. Smaller, lighter warships like the Ardent-class fast frigate were more common in its fleets than in the Imperial Period." (Highlighting for the sake of how much text there is). In a ways, yes, it can be meant as the next stage/iteration of the Pellaeon, but it can be considered the "Super" class of this era's fleets. It is unfortunate the time period did not advance further, but it was the largest and most heavily armed ship of the galaxy and only a handful were made. Similar to the Executor-class. Edit: After all, the Allegiance-class Battlecruiser, which could be roughly the same size as an Imperious-class, is considered a Super Star Destroyer. Way I view it, Super is just bigger than the average ISD (<1600 meters). On the matter of the compromise, we do not know what the numbers of the Pellaeon between cannon vs batteries. The article does mention the Pellaeon utilizing batteries, so if that were the case, and going off of the numbers, it would be, for our Databank: Heavy turbolaser (8 - 9 batteries) Turbolaser (8 - 9 batteries) Ion cannon (6 - 7 batteroes) Tractor beam projectors (5 batteries) Proton torpedo launchers (8 - 9 batteries) Interdiction field So roughly just a handful more than the Imperious. Given this, I would say then... 10 Heavy turbolaser batteries 10 Medium turbolaser batteries 8 Heavy Ion cannon batteries 6 Tractor beam projector batteries 10 Proton torpedo launcher batteries 30 to 50 Gravity mines Just double it up in my views. If we went the comprising route. Edit 2: we have also said in the past that if x armaments = say a 4 or 5, then that is what we must believe. We have to remember that this is in comparison to other Heavy SDs, not SDs. After all, the Procurator-class doesn’t have an extensive armament compared to other HSDs but it is still counted as a 4 in offensive. So we could still keep it to the lore armament and keep it at its 5 in comparison to other Heavy SDs. Given its history of having a more efficient way of utilizing that firepower compared to the Pellaeon. |
|
|
|
Post by Esthh Krazhmir on Nov 16, 2023 13:10:36 GMT -8
I hate, with the fiery passion of a thousand sun's, the classification of "Super".
It is honestly one of the dumbest things in star wars. By the scale in the real world comparison, anything bigger than a PT-20 class PT boat at 80 feet in length, would be considered a "super" ship.
I am also against using batteries wherever possible and should only be used in interpreting Canon entries as a translation.
|
|
Mike Frantz
Databank Operations
That Guy
Posts: 712 
Affiliation: The Jedi Order
|
Post by Mike Frantz on Nov 16, 2023 15:04:35 GMT -8
Okay, so a few things to unpack here. First of all I think we might be getting a little bit bogged down by using the term "super". I think you're both agreeing but getting bogged down by specifics that are actually ambiguous. I believe Nic is refering to it as Super in the "look how cool and better this ship is than the other ships are". Those have existed in many eras and so the ambiguous "super" category was created that really runs a huge gambit of size and power scales. The comparison to the Allegiance is a good one though we should probably compare it in JvS terms and start thinking about it as a potential Heavy Star Destroyer and ignore the term super entirely. The specifics about what sort of ships it took down can be ignored to some extent and treated with the same glasses we have to look at lots of technology that was used for story purposes rather than for any sort of actual good balancing purposes.
With that example out of out collective thoughts it's description really does sound like a sized up "better" version of a Pellaeon. Unfortunately this adds to an existing problem with legacy ships where they are generally shorter and stronger than their earlier counterparts, putting the Pellaeon at a light SD level while punching on a regular SD level. the Imperious is likely correspondingly is likely the length of a regular SD and punching on a heavy SD level. Which likely means that with the precedent it should be listed as a regular SD.
Now addressing batteries: Unfortunately real world examples are hard to compare space lasers and force magic to, especially with most of the Star wars ships being on a significantly larger scale than the navies of Earth, and because of the mismatched way Star Wars ships are listed and discussed the term Batteries are more often than not used in multiples implying that ships can have multiple batteries of the same gun. Going off of that and the fact that batteries are ill defined we sort of had to decide a number for JvS purposes and so we chose 6 guns per battery so that we could create as best a semblance of consistency with the inconsistent information we are generally working with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Esthh Krazhmir on Nov 16, 2023 15:52:08 GMT -8
boards.jedivsith.com/thread/5301/custom-pacificador-class-battlecarrierAn example of why I despise the use of batteries. This is not to drag people but the easy confusion that slips through. The ship has 50 heavy turbolaser batteries listed. So extrapolating from my example of the words authors are using being able to take the combined firepower of roughly 5 times the ships own guns (in number becuase we don't know power exactly), then this one Pacificador outguns the Imperious by the same margin even given an upgunned battery of 10 heavy batteries. 300 vs 60. This is my frustration, and has been for years despite my being less involved. Yes Mike you are correct. I point out that the original conclusions to the battery issue was flawed. Example being find me any other group of 6 weapons ever listed on a ship. There is not a single sextuplet turret. Nor is a battery ever given a number. The most correct one would have been 4 for the most common quad turret, becuase then it just goes down from there in number.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 16, 2023 16:06:34 GMT -8
When it comes to different numbers for batteries, then they are labeled so. Otherwise, if any entry states "battery", the Databank has it set to be 6 barrels by default. We have had instances of quad and twin barreled batteries. We just set a standard/default so that its equal across the board and doesn't confuse us and the submitter every entry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zion Morviael [RETIRED] on Nov 16, 2023 16:33:51 GMT -8
I mean, that's a fair criticism of the Pacificador (and which will get some review and probably more speaks to the mindset that honestly, the MAD stats matter a bit more than gun counts).
In terms of why 6 was chosen for a battery of guns, we were presented with a situation where we had to decide on how many of a given gun type made up a battery because, as you have said, it's never been stated. And for the purposes of the Databank, we had to make that decision, and the references we found to gun battery's was around the 6-8 gun mark.
We just gotta make the best informed decisions we can with the information we have available that hopefully works for most people and situations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Esthh Krazhmir on Nov 16, 2023 17:22:24 GMT -8
I am aware of how the number was chosen, and I have always disagreed with how it was reached.
However when trying to compare one ship with another, which is what the MAD does, what the numbers listed in weapo s stats does, speed, shields, Maneuverability, etc is for...numbers and descriptions matter.
An example is this
I make a ship, it has a crew of 1, it has 1 light laser cannon, the picture is a needle coming from a starfighter nose and tail that each reaches 9 kilometers.
It is classed as a SSD in the same realm as the Executor, obviously it can't, but my MAD stats claim it can.
Prove me wrong.
This is a deliberately exaggerated example to clearly show the path that has been trod before, here on JvS. Changes have been made that I don't disagree with the reasons behind the changes, just going to note that the baby has been tossed out with the bath water with some of those changes, which brings us back to the same issues.
Just a quick glance on page 1 of the HSD category reveals the same issue as the Pacificador, it is not unique, knocking on the door of half of the ships I glanced at severely outgunned the proposed Imperious, even upgraded on the stats. Which argues for one of two courses, everything gets reviewed, or we collaborate and come up with a JvS accepted loadout for canon ships that use the battery crutch and get rid of batteries all together to avoid the contradictions that are inherent to Star Wars ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Nov 16, 2023 22:29:49 GMT -8
Just in case that discussion thread in the Roleplay Discussion area goes through, this will be the new Imperious article:
Be good to have an example of what it can possibly look like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zion Morviael [RETIRED] on Feb 10, 2024 16:19:39 GMT -8
Returning to this discussion since we seem to have abandoned any decision regarding the removal of weapon counts from entries, My thoughts are this:
Speed should be a 2, Defence I'd consider a 4, maybe 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicademus Delvardus IV on Feb 13, 2024 18:41:37 GMT -8
Returning to this discussion since we seem to have abandoned any decision regarding the removal of weapon counts from entries, My thoughts are this: Speed should be a 2, Defence I'd consider a 4, maybe 5. So like this? |
|
|
|
Post by Zion Morviael [RETIRED] on Feb 13, 2024 20:27:09 GMT -8
correct.
|
|
![Zion Morviael [RETIRED] Avatar](https://i.imgur.com/WbGOLQP.jpg)
