|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:41 pm
I wouldn't call it a star destroyer either...
Just because it isn't long doesn't mean that it's small either. I mean, consider the firespray class. That thing is short, because it flies upright, but we don't call it a fighter....
Same idea with the palleaon. Its only the size of an ISD, but I'm guessing its twice its girth.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:43 pm
Nelowulf I wouldn't call it a star destroyer either... Just because it isn't long doesn't mean that it's small either. I mean, consider the firespray class. That thing is short, because it flies upright, but we don't call it a fighter.... Same idea with the palleaon. Its only the size of an ISD, but I'm guessing its twice its girth. thats why I call it a Battlecruiser.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:44 pm
Exactly. I mean, this fatass ISD isn't exactly what I'd call a destroyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:48 pm
Nelowulf Exactly. I mean, this fatass ISD isn't exactly what I'd call a destroyer. But it would match up with either the Heavy SD or the Star battlecruiser from Stellar's article on capital ships in the oGG...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:48 pm
I think it technically falls under the star Dreadnaught Weight Class
Example: In an interview for Star Wars Insider 89, designer and illustrator Sean Cooke described the design of the Pellaeon-class as a new way to look at Super Star Destroyers
SSDs are Dreadnaughts
Example 2: It was noted as having the most powerful weapon systems and starfighter components in the Galaxy
That implies something much heavier than a Battlecruiser
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:50 pm
Cale Darksun Nelowulf Exactly. I mean, this fatass ISD isn't exactly what I'd call a destroyer. But it would match up with either the Heavy SD or the Star battlecruiser from Stellar's article on capital ships in the oGG... His captial ships and such are also during the NR at best. Not the legacy era. Once again, linguistics has a unique way of changing. Just look at advertising over the last 50 years. Need I say more?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:52 pm
Blech.
Only a couple of posts on this arguement and already I'm sick with Legacy Era Cap ships.
Seems I need more time to recover than I thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:53 pm
I know what you mean. With all the fanon controversies, its not hard to ruin a canon discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:55 pm
with the way the war looks like its going to shape up, I can only wonder if we'll beable to stay on course to match up with the comics' depiction of the Galaxy 7 years after the Sith/Imperial war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 6:59 pm
Shouldn't be hard unless the gelfers or loyalists get a boner for big time battle.
Though with the defeat at AR, the gelfers should pretty much be nullified for the full year and the loyalists are still rebuilding from the last four.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:04 pm
My research into the matter states that the GA and loyalist forces wont break any real bread until 138 aby.
Not that I'm complaining, but there wont be a happy ending in this RP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:05 pm
not in the time scale we're thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 7:07 pm
Interesting.
CotGCW "Ended" happily.
The Sequal, legacy, will end unhappily.
Its the reversal of the Star Wars movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 9:20 am
So how are we doing on the starship front? anything new that bears mentioning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:54 pm
RRRRRAAAUUUGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!
I had a s**t load of ships ready to post!
And then Gaia went and ******** the whole operation over!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
