Once my ISD arrives (when, damnit?) i'll do some measuring and find a ship that fits the size.

Armada uses a sliding scale, although so far it seems it slides most at the bottom. CR-90s being far to big, but if you compare the MC80, ISD, VSD and AF MK2, they all look close based on the pictures anyway.

But if we could compare a Raider to a VSD we could get an idea what possible max size could be. So if the Raider is 2.5 times longer then the VSD, then it could be that 2,250 could be about the biggest ship we'd see in Armada.

My thoughts exactly. We can then take that size and apply the rough sliding scale to it, which should give us an approximate maximum ship length we can look at.

Simple and effective. Good thinking.

I Have come for the Isb to inform you to shut down this (all ready overlong) thread immediately or suffer the consequences...

Jk:)

They killed any chance of an SSD by not honouring what HOME ONE should be and instead made her a vanilla MC80

Had they made her the proper 3.4km flagship version that old girl should be, there would have been a chance to make an opposing SSD

They killed any chance of an SSD by not honouring what HOME ONE should be and instead made her a vanilla MC80

Had they made her the proper 3.4km flagship version that old girl should be, there would have been a chance to make an opposing SSD

Blame the canon reset. Nobody, maybe not even FFG, knows how long most of the ships are anymore or which fighter type/capital ship class appeared before the other. Too bad "if ain't broke don't fix it" isn't part of the new Story Group's MO.

It. Just. Won't. End.

Noooo! Curse you Jarmus mrawn. The immortal beast topic has awoken once more, and will undo all the works of man (or at least this forum)!

Repent ye sinners, the end is nigh!

Er....yeah. Too big still, it'd be either unusable or look so small it'd be silly and features like the bridge would be tiny.

Awesome ship, beautiful looking design....massively impractical. Which is a damned shame.

You could just make it into your table though.....

This made me laugh until I cried

I believe Force Lightning may be in order?

So without going through 21 pages can someone sum up why we can't get an SSD?

So without going through 21 pages can someone sum up why we can't get an SSD?

"I think its too big."

"We don't know how big it is."

"It would be too big and cost too much."

That quick enough for you?

Those are all silly!

They killed any chance of an SSD by not honouring what HOME ONE should be and instead made her a vanilla MC80

Had they made her the proper 3.4km flagship version that old girl should be, there would have been a chance to make an opposing SSD

I think the SSD counterpart used by the New Republic was the Viscount. HOME one was the rebel flagship but not nearly the size of an imp SD.

They killed any chance of an SSD by not honouring what HOME ONE should be and instead made her a vanilla MC80

Had they made her the proper 3.4km flagship version that old girl should be, there would have been a chance to make an opposing SSD

"Opposing SSD"?

Not much opposition for the SSD. It's 5 times the size, a lot more than 5 times the firepower, and would go through Home One like it wasn't even there.

I really don't see how Home Ones size makes any difference to this.

Those are all silly!

A SSD could make it in the game but the Executor Class is over 10 times the size of a ISD and if they kept to some scale the models would be longer than the board going the long ways.

But if you want the real solid evidence go look it up before saying it is silly.

Those are all silly!

Well said NewTroski. Working on the formula for said scale as well if I can get some exact lengths for current models.

Someone mentioned earlier the ISD is 20cm. A ISD is 1,600m in the Star Wars Universe compared to the Executor SSD's 19,000m.

So in a sliding scale it can be about 6" longer than a Epic X-Wing Raider/Tantive IV and be all good.

So in a sliding scale it can be about 6" longer than a Epic X-Wing Raider/Tantive IV and be all good.

Going from 10 times larger to 1.5 times larger is not even close to scale.

These last three posts sums up the last 21 pages well.

So just to end my point I will give you the exact measurements. The VSD is 14cm and the CR90 from X-Wing is 33cm. The ISD is reported to be just over 20cm. So if they made the Excutor at the same size as the CR90 it would only be 1.5 times the size.

That's the measurements, and that says a lot about how far you can play with relative scale, you may be able to get away with half the size and have it only look somewhat odd but making it less than 15% to 20% of its scale is just wrong.

So from what I can see is the main problem here is size and balance.

The first is very understandable, given that if you line up roughly 11 ISD front to end to be just as long. Armada has everything in "Relative" scale, so we could shrink the SSD to 2 feet like I have suggested a few times and mobilize it.

As for balance, make it a special scenario. This would let the SSD have massive stats, but none the formal play issues that would go with it. Look at the Borg in ST AW, that game nerfed them horribly just so people could have them in a tournament. I ask, "Why?" Why should the SSD be a ship to play outside of special missions. That is my thought on the matter here.

I said 6" bigger than the Epic CR90.

Here is my reasoning. With the ISD at 7.58" if we put the SSD at 28" I think the sliding scale will be appeased. Remember that the CR90 for Armada is no where to scale, in fact all ships have a sliding scale attached to them to make them feasible to play on a board. Once you start adding in dimensions. . . Well it gets crazy.

Can we agree that a 'super epic' ship is not going to be reasonably scaled to a regular ship, given that it patently isn't a regular ship? We compare ships to ships all the time, and we know that the CR90 is enormously sized compared to a Victory, but that's not really the widest margin in Armada, is it?

Victory Class 138mm=900m or 1:6522

X-wing 15mm=12m or 1:800

There's a scale difference of X8.15, which brings us an approximate 'ridiculous limit' on the positive end of 1:53170. With the SSD being 13,469m (not 19,000 which was the inflated number merely accepted after the fact. We can even go right down to 8,000 if you want, like Lord Tareq said on the past page. The brass replica ISD made to scale to the SSD movie models give us the 13.5km measure). So, we can presumably scale up by the same margin, which puts us at 0.253m, or 253mm, less than twice what the Victory is. The ISD is, what approximately 10”? So 254mm.

I'm not advocating for a 1:53,000 scale, I'm just saying that we already have a wide enough range in Armada that it ha a precedent. It makes the idea workable, thus, the SSD is solidly in the workable category.

SSD, yes. Executor, No.

Just from my own experience and gaming it would look bad, that's just that. If they build a different SSD, which there are many, I would be totally behind it.

Why can't anyone let the Executor go?

Executor yes*, by the movie's screening and custom produced models that's the number given.

The point is that others think the fighters look out of whack and want a 1:7,000 consistent scale too, thus they go to Shapeways. I'm saying that's the margin that has already been done to bring the smallest ships in line with the 'regular' small-large base ships, in order to 'looks right' to the FFG team. By the same margin of scale, the minimum size for the Executor is 253mm, or just under 10”.

I'm not saying I want that number, I'm just saying that if they did produce a 253mm Executor, it wouldn't be any more out of scale than a snubfighter is. After all, both have their own bases and scales to make them workable in a standard game of Armada: so there isn't much difference between its 'big' scale compared to the squadrons small scale. Aside from our own personal preference, there's no reason why an SSD can't be done as something that extreme already has been done.

*If we're going by the assumption that Vader was on the Executor in Empire Strikes back in every scene in which an SSD was shown. That would be most reasonable, but naturally not the only explanation.

Post Scriptum: Frankly I'd be totally fine with it just being called a 'Super Star Destroyer' as well, and leaving Executor out of the title. But they didn't do that with Home One, which was always odd to me (they could have just called it an MC80 and left Home One out of it completely). Now, that said, if it was just an SSD and Executor was a title (just like Home One) then I'd be fine with that too. In the end, it doesn't matter to me too much... although I do like the SSD's shape and 'city-like spine' more than the Secutor class or its likes.

SSD, yes. Executor, No.

Just from my own experience and gaming it would look bad, that's just that. If they build a different SSD, which there are many, I would be totally behind it.

Why can't anyone let the Executor go?

The MC30 gives me that "city like spine" but on a smaller scale. . . I love it

I'll admit it Lyraeus, I didn't like the MC30 at first because it has just a weird porpoise look at the bow, but I realized there was something I liked about it. Now that you mention it, it turns out it's the 'city-spine'. I want Manhattan on a ship, or Notre Dame as a bridge, I just think it's cool.

Logic dictates that an SSD can be done as small as 10” (of course, to apply that logic the SSD would still have to be on a customized base or else the statement wouldn't hold) , wisdom suggests that it shouldn't be done. Few would be happy with something that small. I'd be tremendously disappointed with an SSD of any sort under 24”, but I'd l like to see something like that at 24”-30” because it would make for a terrific looking centrepiece.

The SSD is hard to let go of because we've seen it; I personally don't like a lot of the EU alternatives because they tend towards being either big but smooth with a pancake profile or like an overfed ISD. Anything less just wouldn't be the same: It's like forcing people to like the Outrider over the Falcon.