Difference between revisions of "Talk:Imperial-class Star Destroyer"
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
* Several books specifically refer to "''Imperial''-class Star Destroyers." - [[User:Mad|Mad]] 11:01, 7 November 2007 (EST) | * Several books specifically refer to "''Imperial''-class Star Destroyers." - [[User:Mad|Mad]] 11:01, 7 November 2007 (EST) | ||
The books refer to a lot of things that are incorrect ina designatory way. Perhaps the Imperial class is merely a class/model variant of the basic ISD, with the name being used for other models or the base model even when appropiate? | |||
That is, misuse of the class name as a general catchphrase? | |||
Revision as of 16:04, 7 November 2007
Wait, where does this 46,000 personnel number come from?
It sounds damiliar, wasn' it in the ICS? I'll confirm when I get home later. The extra numbers for flagships sounds suspiciously made up/invented
Class name
Isn't "Imperial-class" an artifact of West End Games? It was always my impression that "Imperial" was simply an adjective that identified the vessel's ownership, not its class. After ROTS, all Star Destroyers are Imperial Star Destroyers, whether they're Venator-class, Victory-class, Imperator-class, or Executor-class. --Ted C 10:15, 7 November 2007 (EST)
The Imperator being the class name with imperial justa description was my impression as well... Any confirmation from ICS?
- Several books specifically refer to "Imperial-class Star Destroyers." - Mad 11:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)
The books refer to a lot of things that are incorrect ina designatory way. Perhaps the Imperial class is merely a class/model variant of the basic ISD, with the name being used for other models or the base model even when appropiate?
That is, misuse of the class name as a general catchphrase?