Star Wars: Exodus Visual Encyclopedia
Advertisement

So, in an attempt to better define terms for our starships, I thought I'd come up with a scale that is based on canon. Since the actual canon doesn't do much to address the issue, other than saying that capital ships start at 100 meters, I put together a little something I hope we can use for Exodus. I'll keep the progress tag on it until I get some feedback from other people. Comments and suggestions are welcome. --Halomek 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

  • The names of the classes bother me. Super-capital sounds... cheesy. So does sub-capital. I'm not sure what to replace them with because they describe the class very well. Starfighter, that implies a craft designed for space combat. What about the crafts that are simply transports or the like? Perhaps if we replaced starfighter with personal craft, or something, it'd fit better. --Balsa 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, it's certainly not perfect, and trust me, most of those issues have run through my mind at one point or another... but I haven't been able to think of anything that works better and still gets the idea across. You also have to remember that the scale is just a reference for its size, not what it actually does. Renaming "starfighter" into "personal craft," would actually raise more problems as a personal craft can be much larger than 25 meters. As for the cheesiness factor, I don't really see it when you look at it with a Star Wars context ("Super" Star Destroyer, for example). --Halomek 02:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Mmm... good call on all fronts. Regarding the personal craft, perhaps small craft? I know that's what's used in other systems, such as Battletech. What about simply lumping anything above (for example) 100 meters into the capital class? And then subdividing the capital class based upon role/size? That way we can use the ideas of dreadnought, cruiser, carrier, battleship, etc. --Balsa 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
        • These wouldn't be applied as cut-and-dry categories, right? Because based on non-length dimensions, it's possible to have a realistic gunship (a capital-class vessel) a bit under 100 meters, and a long, narrow medium transport, which would still be a subcapital ship, with subcapital-scale shields and so on, and less mass than the shorter but wider and more densely-built gunship, over 100 meters. Likewise, light transports are often not that different from fighters in length (witness the YT-2400 at 21 meters), but because it's built with a much greater internal volume than a fighter, it's in an entirely different class as evidenced by shield strength, cargo capacity, crew, etc.--AetherWolf
          • "Super"-capital = battleship, warship, mothership? "Sub"-capital = support ship. Simple. :P

            As for the smaller classifications, easy enough. Single- or minimal-manned craft can actually reach up to 100 meters, and in rare cases even larger. Ergo, keep starfighters and cargo ships separate. Starfighters never go beyond 25 meters (impractical otherwise), but any freighter, transport, etc. ship can be simply classified as a cargo ship.

            There, problem solved. ;) --Cadden Blackthorne 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

            • Again, I think we're mixing up trying to classify what a ship does with the much more simple idea of how to classify its size. Although I like the idea of trying to use size to define its type (or vice/versa), much like modern-day navies, it doesn't fit well in Star Wars terms (cruisers in particular run the gamut of sizes in the Star Wars universe). I think what we need to focus on is a better term than "starfighter" for the 25 meters or less category. There would be less confusion that way. --Halomek 23:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Small craft for the "starfighter" class. Easiest that way. :P --Balsa 01:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, but a support ship would be deemed as per size, not necessarily type, though with support ships, their size and their classification are two sides to the same coin, anyway. --Cadden Blackthorne 01:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Not to be difficult, but "small craft" seems a bit redundant. Maybe just "small"? Unless someone can think of a better way to put it...--Halomek 01:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure how it's redundant. Craft simply refers to what the vehicle is, not its size. Small refers to its size. Plus, small craft is the traditional way of referring to the various ships a larger one can hold, such as a transport's ability to mount several small craft. Plus, we don't need to be 100% anal about this. Small craft is simple enough, easily understood, and is generic enough that it fits what you need as a categorical label. --Balsa 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Alright, if no one else has a problem with "small craft" then I'm good for it as well. --Halomek 20:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, technically speaking, under the current revision, "Starfighter" is the only non-redundant usage. So unless we go about making a really weird naming system (which would just not work that well for aesthetic reasons :P), this is one of those rare instances where redundancy should just be overlooked. I mean, any way you look at it, unless we remove "ship", or "craft", or "scale", from each classification, it's going to be redundant. I say throw that caution into the wind this time and just do what "feels" right. Usually when dealing with classifications, you can't really avoid redundancy, anyway. :P --Cadden Blackthorne 20:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
            • Okay, I take it everyone is satisified then? I'll make the changes and put it up. --Halomek 01:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Advertisement