1. As of the completion of the first actual Imperial I-class Star Destroyer, the name was solidified as Imperial-class; the Imperator-class is considered a predecessor/the unofficial name of the first Imperial I-class line destroyers. (You may see the Wiki entry for reference)
II. The Imperial I-class Star Destroyer mounts Six Quad Heavy Turbolaser Battery, Two Quad Heavy Turbolaser Battery Deck Guns, and most likely Two Lateral Quad Laser Batteries, along with three Axial Defense Turrets, as per ICS and the Star Wars Technical Commentaries, both of which are considered canon. EGVV also accepts this, noting them in its technical schematic. (SWTC, EGVV pg 81-82, ICS)
III. After the loss of the Imperial I-class Star Destroyer Kotiate all Imperial-class line destroyers went through the lengthy and expensive process of 'internalizing' their Deflector Shield Generators, replacing the domes with sensor projectors to continue to fool Rebel Pilots. It is a common misnomer that the domes are indeed shield generators, as the detonation of one on the Executor-class Super Star Destroyer (Star Dreadnought) Executor, was accompanied by a declaration that the bridge shields had been dropped. Were this true, that would indicate that the [Executor]'s entire shield grid for the vessel was controlled by a single exposed dome on top of the command spire; with the bridge's shields projected by a second independant generator directly next to it. Obviously, this is physically misleading since the two generators could then be considered to be overlapping protection over each other; and since the domes are the same size of those on an Imperial Star Destroyer, it would therefore be logical that the shield strengths of the Executor-class Super Star Destroyer and Imperial Star Destroyer line would be identical; which of course is impossible. It is of a reasonable assumption that the domes on the Executor-class Super Star Destroyer were designed in the same style as those on the Imperial-class to fool Rebel gunners into targeting them; and that the loss of one in RoTJ was indictive of enough damage being done to the shielding to allow the warheads from the bombing Rebel starfighters to breach them; damaging and destroying what the dome represents (likely a sensor node/projection aparatus). Potential references may be found on the Galactic Empire Databank reference entry to the Imperial Star Destroyer line, and are too numerous to list here.
First off, are you new here? Or is this an existing account of an already established member? I can't say I made any of these entries, but I believe I can attempt to explain them.
I believe that should be the other way around. It is said that the first ISD was completed before the fall of the Republic, when it was then known as the Imperator-class. Emperor Palpatine supposedly had the class renamed as the Imperial class, most likely for propoganda purposes. Thus, actual engineers and starship officers would have most likely called it by its technical name, instead of the propoganda name, which would most likely be used by the common populace.
Star Wars Technical Commentaries is not considered to be canon. It is based on the observations of the acclaimed Dr. Curtis Saxton, and it uses canon sources, but that does make his work officially endorsed or supported by Lucas Arts or Lucasfilm. I do not currently have my original copy of EGVV on me, but I will get it have it back shortly to check it out. But you are right, the movie model does not match the statistics provided WEG. However, as an RP site, we do accept those statistics as they are the basis for the stats of other starships which we use.
Interestingly enough, WEG does actually account the difference between model's weapons and their own stated ones. It states that the Devastator, as the flagship of Lord Vader, recieved modifications for "increased firepower via having its structure altered to allow more armaments and munitions to be carried." As noted here under "known modifications."
I think that nearly everyone is aware of your third point, and everyone as far as I know already plays it according to that interpretation. I generally note domes like that as being sensors domes, which incidentally resemble those of modern-day warships.
I am new here, and noticed the discrepencies; figured I would attempt to see them corrected.
I believe that should be the other way around. It is said that the first ISD was completed before the fall of the Republic, when it was then known as the Imperator-class. Emperor Palpatine supposedly had the class renamed as the Imperial class, most likely for propoganda purposes. Thus, actual engineers and starship officers would have most likely called it by its technical name, instead of the propoganda name, which would most likely be used by the common populace.
"Following the Great Jedi Purge and the establishment of the Galactic Empire, the class was renamed Imperial-class."
Even assuming that you are precisely correct, if the Emperor of the Galactic Empire renamed something, it is effectively the new name, permanently. Calling it by its previously held name would be incorrect, it would be the same as me changing my name to 'Bob' yet someone still calls me 'Michael' because it was my original name.
Star Wars Technical Commentaries is not considered to be canon. It is based on the observations of the acclaimed Dr. Curtis Saxton, and it uses canon sources, but that does make his work officially endorsed or supported by Lucas Arts or Lucasfilm. I do not currently have my original copy of EGVV on me, but I will get it have it back shortly to check it out. But you are right, the movie model does not match the statistics provided WEG. However, as an RP site, we do accept those statistics as they are the basis for the stats of other starships which we use.
Interestingly enough, WEG does actually account the difference between model's weapons and their own stated ones. It states that the Devastator, as the flagship of Lord Vader, recieved modifications for "increased firepower via having its structure altered to allow more armaments and munitions to be carried." As noted here under "known modifications."
Correct, I was typing quickly when I made the note, and only merely wished to add it as an additional reference. The EGVV notes the locations of the Deck guns, but they do not appear on the design diagram; which is not indictive of the models used. ICS still maintains the deck guns on the Destroyer. Strangely, another reference I just thought of would be the cutscene in X-wing vs Tie Fighter when the pirate base is obliterated by the forward deck guns of Avenger squadron's flagship.
I think that nearly everyone is aware of your third point, and everyone as far as I know already plays it according to that interpretation. I generally note domes like that as being sensors domes, which incidentally resemble those of modern-day warships.
Welcome to TRF then. I hear you're a friend of one of my friends.
True. And I'm sure people would call you Bob to your face or in official communications, but people, when talking to each other, might still refer to you as Michael, which is the point. Alternatively, it could be assumed that the Empire here at TRF renamed it back as the Imperator, as the Empire here prefers to call it the Imperator-class.
Yeah, I think I do remember that cutscene. And that contradicts both the model and the WEG stats. I think the reason there were only two heavy turbolasers, or "all forward batteries" as the cutscene says was because of game mechanics. Having multipe ISDs each with a minimum of 120 firing turrets would not only seriously tax a computer's processor when XvT designed, but also make it very hard to survive in a snubfighter.
I've just noticed. There's another entry for the ISD Mk I which doesn't note that. That would be the more correct entry then. This usually isn't much of a problem, because most factions use original designs more than canon designs.
I should advise you that we use a significantly different MGLT scale than most sites, where an ISD has a speed of 10-15 MGLT. Carracks get 20 MLGT. The larger a ship gets, the less MGLT it gets. Fighters and shuttles, of course, have the same MGLT speed as in XvT and other games. It's kind of odd, but it's an attempt to make things more balanced for the starfighters, since they can't instantly destroy ISDs with a volley of torpedoes as in the videogames.
Affirmative, I have noticed that. I just read the ISD entry and a few red flags raised in my head. If the 'Empire' here wishes to call it Imperator-class that is their perrogative, but I saw no evidence to the point that they renamed it BACK; which just seems strange to me. If so, then I apologize on that point.
The XvT cutscene actually has multiple batteries firing, the flashes of light come from the center of the deck guns, indicating that likely the larger blast is a combination of the smaller ones for the purposes of ease of animation. (I just fired up XvT and checked it out to verify.)
The Imperial Fleet here uses the Star Destroyer in its various incarnations as its ships of the line. The Marks I and II have been phased out of frontline service though it is possible to find a Mark II as the flagship of our more remote regional commands or training groups; the Mark I can only be found in scrap yards awaiting deconstruction. The Marks III and IV are 9o percent of the Empire's primary battleship force with the remainder being the newly christened Mark V, known after its prototype as the Astrus-class Destroyer but redesignated when accepted for general combat service.
Secondary battleships in the Fleet are the Marks IV and V Victory-class Destroyer and the Aurora-class Star Destroyer which is more of a battlecruiser in its weak armor, powerful weaponry, and appreciable speed for a ship its size. There are other, less known incarnations of ships using the general configuration of the Destroyer-family of battleships which can be found in our R and D section.
Welcome to TRF - - I am Telan Desaria as my name states on the right and act as the forum's resident expert on battleships. Anything I can do to aide your entry, please feel free to seek me out.
