The latter design is closer to existing Imperial designs...

I don't necessarily see that as a plus. The Rebels get variety in their ships, so why does every single Imperial starfighter have to be a ball with solar panels attached, while every capital ship's a flying slice of pizza? If both sides did it, then maybe I'd buy the whole, "ships on the same side should look similar," argument, but as it is, it just doesn't make sense.

Look at nations with significant navies, sovereign ship design and build capacity ( like the imps). Their ships and fleets are distinct, you always know a Royal Navy ship or an American naval ship will have specific characteristics required by their navies. This is because they have specific cultures and requirements around ship design needs and get bespoke designed ships just for them ( within cost limits ). Most less well funded navies ( or from poorer nations) have a mixed bag of off the shelf and second hand ships from different nations and design pedigrees ( just like the rebels).

The latter design is closer to existing Imperial designs...

I don't necessarily see that as a plus. The Rebels get variety in their ships, so why does every single Imperial starfighter have to be a ball with solar panels attached, while every capital ship's a flying slice of pizza? If both sides did it, then maybe I'd buy the whole, "ships on the same side should look similar," argument, but as it is, it just doesn't make sense.

Look at nations with significant navies, sovereign ship design and build capacity ( like the imps). Their ships and fleets are distinct, you always know a Royal Navy ship or an American naval ship will have specific characteristics required by their navies. This is because they have specific cultures and requirements around ship design needs and get bespoke designed ships just for them ( within cost limits ). Most less well funded navies ( or from poorer nations) have a mixed bag of off the shelf and second hand ships from different nations and design pedigrees ( just like the rebels).

Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten that most modern militaries work this way. Like how an aircraft carrier is really just a scaled-up missile destroyer, and how a B-2 and an A-10 are clearly based on the same basic design.

Facetiousness aside, this analogy doesn't really work. Yes, you can tell the difference between an American aircraft carrier and a British aircraft carrier, but the ships will still look more similar to each other (and to other nations' aircraft carriers) than they do to each country's respective smaller craft. Same with aircraft. There are no single, defining characteristics of aircraft (apart from roundels and other markings) that would tell you, "if you see this, it's definitely a MIG."

Now, I'm not saying I want the game to reflect this and have both sides have ships nearly indistinguishable from each other, but it's just not a good argument for making all these craft too similar.

Armada's fine, the cartoon Interdictor is pretty, flotillas look cool from strategic standpoint so the rebels cartoon caused no harm.

Man that looks like a lot of small details.

The latter design is closer to existing Imperial designs...

I don't necessarily see that as a plus. The Rebels get variety in their ships, so why does every single Imperial starfighter have to be a ball with solar panels attached, while every capital ship's a flying slice of pizza? If both sides did it, then maybe I'd buy the whole, "ships on the same side should look similar," argument, but as it is, it just doesn't make sense.

Look at nations with significant navies, sovereign ship design and build capacity ( like the imps). Their ships and fleets are distinct, you always know a Royal Navy ship or an American naval ship will have specific characteristics required by their navies. This is because they have specific cultures and requirements around ship design needs and get bespoke designed ships just for them ( within cost limits ). Most less well funded navies ( or from poorer nations) have a mixed bag of off the shelf and second hand ships from different nations and design pedigrees ( just like the rebels).

Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten that most modern militaries work this way. Like how an aircraft carrier is really just a scaled-up missile destroyer, and how a B-2 and an A-10 are clearly based on the same basic design.

Facetiousness aside, this analogy doesn't really work. Yes, you can tell the difference between an American aircraft carrier and a British aircraft carrier, but the ships will still look more similar to each other (and to other nations' aircraft carriers) than they do to each country's respective smaller craft. Same with aircraft. There are no single, defining characteristics of aircraft (apart from roundels and other markings) that would tell you, "if you see this, it's definitely a MIG."

Now, I'm not saying I want the game to reflect this and have both sides have ships nearly indistinguishable from each other, but it's just not a good argument for making all these craft too similar.

What Imperial ship (with pictures from a canon source) is not some variant of a space triangle.

If you need to refer to an obscure source (that 99% of the general public won't know), then why would LFL want to include that? everybody knows imperial ships are triangles and fighters have pointless solar panels, so that's what LFL is going to approve.

Does it make "logical" sense from a ship building/in universe pov? Maybe not, but then, it's ninja space wizards, ww2 dogfighting, and Napoleonic naval ship warfare. Unless something changes for some reason in rogue one or episode viii, expect more of the same. Angry space triangles vs a ragtag group of odd ships - because that's whats on the movie screen.

The latter design is closer to existing Imperial designs...

I don't necessarily see that as a plus. The Rebels get variety in their ships, so why does every single Imperial starfighter have to be a ball with solar panels attached, while every capital ship's a flying slice of pizza? If both sides did it, then maybe I'd buy the whole, "ships on the same side should look similar," argument, but as it is, it just doesn't make sense.

Look at nations with significant navies, sovereign ship design and build capacity ( like the imps). Their ships and fleets are distinct, you always know a Royal Navy ship or an American naval ship will have specific characteristics required by their navies. This is because they have specific cultures and requirements around ship design needs and get bespoke designed ships just for them ( within cost limits ). Most less well funded navies ( or from poorer nations) have a mixed bag of off the shelf and second hand ships from different nations and design pedigrees ( just like the rebels).

Oh, yeah. I'd forgotten that most modern militaries work this way. Like how an aircraft carrier is really just a scaled-up missile destroyer, and how a B-2 and an A-10 are clearly based on the same basic design.

Facetiousness aside, this analogy doesn't really work. Yes, you can tell the difference between an American aircraft carrier and a British aircraft carrier, but the ships will still look more similar to each other (and to other nations' aircraft carriers) than they do to each country's respective smaller craft. Same with aircraft. There are no single, defining characteristics of aircraft (apart from roundels and other markings) that would tell you, "if you see this, it's definitely a MIG."

Now, I'm not saying I want the game to reflect this and have both sides have ships nearly indistinguishable from each other, but it's just not a good argument for making all these craft too similar.

For evidence just look at the ships you would get in British task group of the early 1980s, the type 21 ( small asw frigate) type 42 ( AAW destroyer) and invincible clas carrier all have remarkably similar features. Yes the carrier has a flat top but look for common features and they stick out like a sore thumb. Compare then to any American ship of the time and you will see what I mean.

It's when you start to compare British warships of different generations you start to see changes beyond those driven by utility ( as in a carrier needs a flat top).

The latter design is closer to existing Imperial designs...

I don't necessarily see that as a plus. The Rebels get variety in their ships, so why does every single Imperial starfighter have to be a ball with solar panels attached, while every capital ship's a flying slice of pizza? If both sides did it, then maybe I'd buy the whole, "ships on the same side should look similar," argument, but as it is, it just doesn't make sense.

It makes perfect sense. The Empire has a design and strategic philosophy that they comply with fleet wide. They have dedicated engineers that design their ships and they are all built with standardization in mind.

Rebels get whatever they can wherever they can. Each cell is different with different tactics and different goals and are working together to overthrow the empire but they may want different things after it is gone. Rebels will fly anything that they can get their hands on because that is their only choice.

It makes 100% perfect sense that Imperial ships all look the same while rebels look completely different.

For evidence just look at the ships you would get in British task group of the early 1980s, the type 21 ( small asw frigate) type 42 ( AAW destroyer) and invincible clas carrier all have remarkably similar features. Yes the carrier has a flat top but look for common features and they stick out like a sore thumb. Compare then to any American ship of the time and you will see what I mean.

It's when you start to compare British warships of different generations you start to see changes beyond those driven by utility ( as in a carrier needs a flat top).

I'm sorry, but looking at your examples and comparing them to American ships from the same era, I see the British destroyer looking more similar to American destroyers than it does to the British frigate, and similarly for the British frigate to American frigates. I can see enough differences that someone could tell what class they are, but not so many that someone could look at the hull of a destroyer class they had never seen before and say, "that's definitely British".

What Imperial ship (with pictures from a canon source) is not some variant of a space triangle.

If you need to refer to an obscure source (that 99% of the general public won't know), then why would LFL want to include that? everybody knows imperial ships are triangles and fighters have pointless solar panels, so that's what LFL is going to approve.

Does it make "logical" sense from a ship building/in universe pov? Maybe not, but then, it's ninja space wizards, ww2 dogfighting, and Napoleonic naval ship warfare. Unless something changes for some reason in rogue one or episode viii, expect more of the same. Angry space triangles vs a ragtag group of odd ships - because that's whats on the movie screen.

Your demand for canon sources comes across as a bit biased and arbitrary in light of the fact that non-canon ships actually exist in-game. Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what is "LFL"?

The whole point I'm trying to make is that they've already included non-canon ships. They've also already included ships from the EU. To my knowledge, no casual fan has freaked out about not recognizing a TIE Punisher or an E-wing. Sure, casual fans are the least likely to recognize non-canon ships, but they're also the least likely to care. ("Huh. This Carrack cruiser doesn't look exactly like all the other Imperial ships. Must be from something I haven't seen or read.")

However, for those people who insist on maintaining this simplistic, "faction trademark" policy, I will point out that most of the non-wedge Imperial capital ships still have very boxy, angular shapes, as opposed to the Rebellion's preference for rounded hulls, and fighters like the gunboats look far more similar to the Lambda shuttle than they do to Rebel craft.

For evidence just look at the ships you would get in British task group of the early 1980s, the type 21 ( small asw frigate) type 42 ( AAW destroyer) and invincible clas carrier all have remarkably similar features. Yes the carrier has a flat top but look for common features and they stick out like a sore thumb. Compare then to any American ship of the time and you will see what I mean.

It's when you start to compare British warships of different generations you start to see changes beyond those driven by utility ( as in a carrier needs a flat top).

I'm sorry, but looking at your examples and comparing them to American ships from the same era, I see the British destroyer looking more similar to American destroyers than it does to the British frigate, and similarly for the British frigate to American frigates. I can see enough differences that someone could tell what class they are, but not so many that someone could look at the hull of a destroyer class they had never seen before and say, "that's definitely British".

What Imperial ship (with pictures from a canon source) is not some variant of a space triangle.

If you need to refer to an obscure source (that 99% of the general public won't know), then why would LFL want to include that? everybody knows imperial ships are triangles and fighters have pointless solar panels, so that's what LFL is going to approve.

Does it make "logical" sense from a ship building/in universe pov? Maybe not, but then, it's ninja space wizards, ww2 dogfighting, and Napoleonic naval ship warfare. Unless something changes for some reason in rogue one or episode viii, expect more of the same. Angry space triangles vs a ragtag group of odd ships - because that's whats on the movie screen.

Your demand for canon sources comes across as a bit biased and arbitrary in light of the fact that non-canon ships actually exist in-game. Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what is "LFL"?

The whole point I'm trying to make is that they've already included non-canon ships. They've also already included ships from the EU. To my knowledge, no casual fan has freaked out about not recognizing a TIE Punisher or an E-wing. Sure, casual fans are the least likely to recognize non-canon ships, but they're also the least likely to care. ("Huh. This Carrack cruiser doesn't look exactly like all the other Imperial ships. Must be from something I haven't seen or read.")

However, for those people who insist on maintaining this simplistic, "faction trademark" policy, I will point out that most of the non-wedge Imperial capital ships still have very boxy, angular shapes, as opposed to the Rebellion's preference for rounded hulls, and fighters like the gunboats look far more similar to the Lambda shuttle than they do to Rebel craft.

No other nation built in the same way, so yes can tell you if a ship was a British built war ship from this time period even if I don't know the type.

The ghost is an ugly ship. I have 0 desire to have it on my shelf...

I didn't notice it until I got the Ghost, but the Ghost mini actually reminds me of a ship I would expect to see in the Aliens universe. It's a bit of a cross between the lifeboat ship Ripley used in Alien and the Colonial Marine's dropship in Aliens. For this reason the ship really grew on me.

I'm terribly sorry, but that's likely to elicit 'oh you're one of those guys, eh?' responses more than anything else, JD. To a military analyst or someone aware of the shipbuildng practices, then yes, they are alike. But that's almost strictly because they know what traits they're looking for in identification. It's the same thing as the T-64 vs. T-72 comparison. Lets face it, most people won't be able to pick up on those things and it's not likely their fault for overlooking the nuances and subtleties that the designs belie.

Long story short: a battleship doesn't look like a fleet tender. Saying they are is going to have nine out of ten people in the room looking towards the 'reasonable' sounding person even if you're technically correct.

And yet, I do appreciate the Empire having a similar design aesthetic as it ties things together with what we've seen. It's uniform and the psychological side of it says 'faceless baddies' quite well. Sure, the realities of it are that different shipyards will produce different models for different reasons: off the shelf consumer parts in a CR-92 for low-budget systems who have only a few hundred staff to spare, compared to big shiny super-ISD's for those fancy-pants core worlds who have Moffs, barons, and governors that want 'more Dakka' and want to know if it comes in Tuscan Red. Similar design hallmarks are fine, but I'd still like to see some additional variety in Imperial ships. Battleships aren't typically built like carriers after all, even if a destroyer might look pretty close to a frigate.

Post Scriptum: For the record, more Rebels content is always awesome, and the ARC170 looks great to me (where as I can't decide whether or not I would be embarrassed to have a Lancer on the table. At least the name Bad Dragon would be decided for that unsightly thing). I'm more baffled at having only unique pilots on that thing though. 4 named pilots, no generics.... truly surprised at that one. I can't imagine Armada ever doing that for anything aside from an R&V style fighter pack of some kind.

'Jumping the shark' is fine, start to worry when they are 'Nuking the fridge'

I actually quite liked that scene!

Your demand for canon sources comes across as a bit biased and arbitrary in light of the fact that non-canon ships actually exist in-game. Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what is "LFL"?

The whole point I'm trying to make is that they've already included non-canon ships. They've also already included ships from the EU. To my knowledge, no casual fan has freaked out about not recognizing a TIE Punisher or an E-wing. Sure, casual fans are the least likely to recognize non-canon ships, but they're also the least likely to care. ("Huh. This Carrack cruiser doesn't look exactly like all the other Imperial ships. Must be from something I haven't seen or read.")

However, for those people who insist on maintaining this simplistic, "faction trademark" policy, I will point out that most of the non-wedge Imperial capital ships still have very boxy, angular shapes, as opposed to the Rebellion's preference for rounded hulls, and fighters like the gunboats look far more similar to the Lambda shuttle than they do to Rebel craft.

Really sorry but all British built warships of the 70s and 80s all had very specific and obvious design features that are common to all types. They are unique signatures of British built hulls, even off the shelf British ships designed privately for export had these. So they are absoluty identifiable as British built.

No other nation built in the same way, so yes can tell you if a ship was a British built war ship from this time period even if I don't know the type.

I have to side with JJ here. The ships within a certain national fleet at a certain era almost certainly have some shared aesthetics that an expert or just a fan would notice, but they're weren't all the exact same shape were they? As JJ says, I'm pretty sure a British aircraft carrier looks more like a Fench aircraft carrier than it does a British nuclear submarine, or even frigate.

Not so in Star Wars Land.

Which is fine, nobody expects realism and logic in Star Wars land.

Your demand for canon sources comes across as a bit biased and arbitrary in light of the fact that non-canon ships actually exist in-game. Also, please forgive my ignorance, but what is "LFL"?

The whole point I'm trying to make is that they've already included non-canon ships. They've also already included ships from the EU. To my knowledge, no casual fan has freaked out about not recognizing a TIE Punisher or an E-wing. Sure, casual fans are the least likely to recognize non-canon ships, but they're also the least likely to care. ("Huh. This Carrack cruiser doesn't look exactly like all the other Imperial ships. Must be from something I haven't seen or read.")

However, for those people who insist on maintaining this simplistic, "faction trademark" policy, I will point out that most of the non-wedge Imperial capital ships still have very boxy, angular shapes, as opposed to the Rebellion's preference for rounded hulls, and fighters like the gunboats look far more similar to the Lambda shuttle than they do to Rebel craft.

LFL is lucasfilm licensing - the people that have to approve all this stuff.

All of those EU ships happened before the new movies (And a lot of it was probably even designed / tested before Disney nuked the EU and maybe before they bought lucasfilm.) That makes a huge difference. Add to that the sheer number of ships currently in X-wing, and they'd run out of other canon options. With Rebels and a slew of new movies, do you really think they're going to dig into into the defunct EU at this point? They likely dont need to.

The argument that a carrier and battleship shouldn't look the same is irrelevant when external landing areas aren't necessary. An ISD functions as both specifically because fighters, landing craft and more are stored entirely within the hull.

Guys what I'm trying to say and not getting across is, ignore the obvious requirements of function, yes all carriers will have a flat top and need be large, in the same way as all floaty boats have a hull shape that is broadly the same. These are common to their function.

Look at the design philosophy and ascetic, these are areas of choice made by the design teams that are driven by culture, the British war ship building industry took its experience from one ship to the next, the same teams of people drove the designs ( and trained the new generation) so they do tend to "as much as their functions allow" look the same, they also have similar load outs of kit. Even different companies built to the same ascetic.

Just look at a type 82 destroyer and a picture of invincible ( carrier) in the early eighties, now look at the superstructure, funnel shape etc they are very similar to look at, the ascetics of the ship are the same, it's just function that drives the diffences ( one is bigger and has a flat top) take an American carrier of the same period, nothing apart from having a flat top and the need to be boat shaped is the same.

So what I'm trying to say is if you source your ships from the same design teams they will tend look the same unless function drives a change, so the empires ship designers all worked in a team ( and were trained by a team) that likes pointy triangles, so as they design ships the pointy triangle ascetic doninates unless they need to change for a reason, like adding a flat top for a runway.

Mon calls like their ships organic so they have a particular design bias........

I'm terribly sorry, but that's likely to elicit 'oh you're one of those guys, eh?' responses more than anything else, JD. To a military analyst or someone aware of the shipbuildng practices, then yes, they are alike. But that's almost strictly because they know what traits they're looking for in identification. It's the same thing as the T-64 vs. T-72 comparison. Lets face it, most people won't be able to pick up on those things and it's not likely their fault for overlooking the nuances and subtleties that the designs belie.

Long story short: a battleship doesn't look like a fleet tender. Saying they are is going to have nine out of ten people in the room looking towards the 'reasonable' sounding person even if you're technically correct.

And yet, I do appreciate the Empire having a similar design aesthetic as it ties things together with what we've seen. It's uniform and the psychological side of it says 'faceless baddies' quite well. Sure, the realities of it are that different shipyards will produce different models for different reasons: off the shelf consumer parts in a CR-92 for low-budget systems who have only a few hundred staff to spare, compared to big shiny super-ISD's for those fancy-pants core worlds who have Moffs, barons, and governors that want 'more Dakka' and want to know if it comes in Tuscan Red. Similar design hallmarks are fine, but I'd still like to see some additional variety in Imperial ships. Battleships aren't typically built like carriers after all, even if a destroyer might look pretty close to a frigate.

Post Scriptum: For the record, more Rebels content is always awesome, and the ARC170 looks great to me (where as I can't decide whether or not I would be embarrassed to have a Lancer on the table. At least the name Bad Dragon would be decided for that unsightly thing). I'm more baffled at having only unique pilots on that thing though. 4 named pilots, no generics.... truly surprised at that one. I can't imagine Armada ever doing that for anything aside from an R&V style fighter pack of some kind.

Vykes, yes the tone of my response was not great and was a bit in your face, but this was due to the unpleasant tone of a previous response to one of my posts early in the thread that had, shall we say irritated me.

It's relevant in the same way that a carrier can be a submarine (and was); it can be done but certain aspects of it won't function as well due to the nature of the design itself.

(Real world tangent ahead, keep right) There's that old Gulf war story about M2 Bradley crews needing to be told specifically that they aren't driving 'tanks'. Sure it looks like a tank, has a gun like a tank, same size as a tank, but it was more a troop carrier. It puts them in necessary danger when other designs are just as functional and less likely to get them blown to bits for appearing to be something outside their class (not that it mattered much in that particular situation, and it is a simplification of the role).

(Back on track) It's up to you if you think the Quasar holds to the Imperial 'delta' design or not. The 'Rebels' Imperial cargo ships are like that too, being essentially flying flying D4's. So whether it's the flat top Quasar or the Terrible Tetrahedron, they have similar 'Imperial' design features without them looking like traditional Imperial warships. Then there's the Gozanti and Imperial Light Cruisers which don't quite hold to the Imperial standard.

I'm just being a bit testy JD, I agree with the sentiment just not that particular example I'm just testy and tired, apologies on that one. I do agree that it's nice to see a recognizable Imperial aesthetic, and I do think there is one and should be one. But I also think that the way that FFG has handled things thus far has been a little rigid for the Imperials in both X-wing and Armada. TIE Insert dangernym here and flying pizza slices for Armada. Easing up with something like a Quasar might be nice, but I do think there could be the potential for a second Imperial 'look' much like the Rebels have their organic Mon Cal section and the blocky 'Corellian/Kuat' group. You could give the Imperials their flying boxes, Dreadnaughts, Gozanti (debatably) Lancers, Carrack cruisers (which both apparently are in one of the new books and said to be First Order ships), and maybe the Ton Falk. They're hard to mistake for Rebel ships which are often more 'greebled' if that makes sense. But I think there will be one defining point that could tip the balance in favor or against 'divergent' Imperial styles: Episode VII if it shows these supposed Nebulon-K's and they're notably different. That might be something of a tipping point.

It's relevant in the same way that a carrier can be a submarine (and was); it can be done but certain aspects of it won't function as well due to the nature of the design itself.

(Real world tangent ahead, keep right) There's that old Gulf war story about M2 Bradley crews needing to be told specifically that they aren't driving 'tanks'. Sure it looks like a tank, has a gun like a tank, same size as a tank, but it was more a troop carrier. It puts them in necessary danger when other designs are just as functional and less likely to get them blown to bits for appearing to be something outside their class (not that it mattered much in that particular situation, and it is a simplification of the role).

(Back on track) It's up to you if you think the Quasar holds to the Imperial 'delta' design or not. The 'Rebels' Imperial cargo ships are like that too, being essentially flying flying D4's. So whether it's the flat top Quasar or the Terrible Tetrahedron, they have similar 'Imperial' design features without them looking like traditional Imperial warships. Then there's the Gozanti and Imperial Light Cruisers which don't quite hold to the Imperial standard.

I'm just being a bit testy JD, I agree with the sentiment just not that particular example I'm just testy and tired, apologies on that one. I do agree that it's nice to see a recognizable Imperial aesthetic, and I do think there is one and should be one. But I also think that the way that FFG has handled things thus far has been a little rigid for the Imperials in both X-wing and Armada. TIE Insert dangernym here and flying pizza slices for Armada. Easing up with something like a Quasar might be nice, but I do think there could be the potential for a second Imperial 'look' much like the Rebels have their organic Mon Cal section and the blocky 'Corellian/Kuat' group. You could give the Imperials their flying boxes, Dreadnaughts, Gozanti (debatably) Lancers, Carrack cruisers (which both apparently are in one of the new books and said to be First Order ships), and maybe the Ton Falk. They're hard to mistake for Rebel ships which are often more 'greebled' if that makes sense. But I think there will be one defining point that could tip the balance in favor or against 'divergent' Imperial styles: Episode VII if it shows these supposed Nebulon-K's and they're notably different. That might be something of a tipping point.

I also think it would mix it up a bit if the rebels could fly a captured or turned imperial pizza or two ( maybe as a unique ship card) . Maybe give imps access to stock of the shelf designs, we know the Neb b was imp, I'm sure the CR90 would have

Also seen imperial service. It would give use loads more option without any major model designing, bit like a most wanted pack......

we know the Neb b was imp,

Do we?

Now?

I know we did before.

But do we know now?

we know the Neb b was imp,

Do we?

Now?

I know we did before.

But do we know now?

We do not. It was so in the EU but nothing in canon suggests the Neb-B was ever in service for the Empire.

Edit: I guess you could extrapolate it's service to the empire because one Canon short story says the Neb-K was in service to the first order. But I have not seen anything specifically stating the Neb-B was in the Imperial fleet.

we know the Neb b was imp,

Do we?

Now?

I know we did before.

But do we know now?

We do not. It was so in the EU but nothing in canon suggests the Neb-B was ever in service for the Empire.

Edit: I guess you could extrapolate it's service to the empire because one Canon short story says the Neb-K was in service to the first order. But I have not seen anything specifically stating the Neb-B was in the Imperial fleet.

Ohhh canon vs EU, how could Disney do this to me ( I expected it of games workshop), but Disney..... You gave me bambi then did this to me.

Guys what I'm trying to say and not getting across is, ignore the obvious requirements of function, yes all carriers will have a flat top and need be large, in the same way as all floaty boats have a hull shape that is broadly the same. These are common to their function.

Look at the design philosophy and ascetic, these are areas of choice made by the design teams that are driven by culture, the British war ship building industry took its experience from one ship to the next, the same teams of people drove the designs ( and trained the new generation) so they do tend to "as much as their functions allow" look the same, they also have similar load outs of kit. Even different companies built to the same ascetic.

Just look at a type 82 destroyer and a picture of invincible ( carrier) in the early eighties, now look at the superstructure, funnel shape etc they are very similar to look at, the ascetics of the ship are the same, it's just function that drives the diffences ( one is bigger and has a flat top) take an American carrier of the same period, nothing apart from having a flat top and the need to be boat shaped is the same.

So what I'm trying to say is if you source your ships from the same design teams they will tend look the same unless function drives a change, so the empires ship designers all worked in a team ( and were trained by a team) that likes pointy triangles, so as they design ships the pointy triangle ascetic doninates unless they need to change for a reason, like adding a flat top for a runway.

Mon calls like their ships organic so they have a particular design bias........

Maybe, I suppose we've no way of knowing the physical requirements these spaceships have. I think the difficulty some of us have is in believing that there are next to no requirements that make the different ships have to have significantly different shapes.

You know. You guys could post some pictures of naval ships of various nationalities in the same time frame and those of us who don't know anything about the subject could judge whether they look similar or different.

You know. You guys could post some pictures of naval ships of various nationalities in the same time frame and those of us who don't know anything about the subject could judge whether they look similar or different.

Fair enough.

United States Nimitz-class, left; United Kingdom Invincible-class, right

Two things about them. One, I wouldn't really expect a nuclear-powered carrier to look identical to a diesel-powered carrier. Two, can we just agree that the UK carrier simply looks like a cruiser with a flat deck? I don't particularly care which country's, but the the thing's superstructure simply looks like an off-center cruiser's.

Now on to destroyers!

US Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer

UK Sheffield-class guided missile destroyer

Not much to say here. CLEAR differences between the two, but personally, I think they look more similar to each other than either does to their respective carriers.

Now the frigates:

US Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate

UK Amazon-class frigate

Well, if this thread accomplishes nothing else, at least now it has some cool pictures of (ocean, not star) ships.

Not able to cut and paste with my pad.

Will do when I can get to my PC, it best to get side shots of an invincible class to compare the supastructures. But you can see the funnel shape of the RN ships are rounded. It the same with the supastructures of the RN ships of the time they have a rounded shaping to corners. Bows tend to be more rounded ( apart from the type 21, which was commercial venture the RN purchased, it had sharper bows than other RN ships of the time, but not as smart as the American vessels) if you look at the American vessels from carrier to frigate they are blockier, funnels are squared, bows are very sharp, there are almost no curves in the superstructure.

If you look at Russian vessels of the time they look far more cluttered then any RN or American vessel, they also tended to have a more tiered supastructures, but the look is always a bit cobbled with far less commonality of look.

So as a rule for late Cold War warships if its superstructure , funnel and bow looks curvy it's probably British, if it's bow is sharp, with a boxy angular supastructures and funnel with very clear empty looking decks it's American. If it's a tiered nightmare of aerials, Radars and weapons all looking like they have been randomly fitted into whatever space it's eastern block.

I'm sorry, I am going to nit-pick. Yes, they absolutely could have done something about this monstrosity. They (appear to have) ditched the Neb-B2 or Lancer in favor of pulling the Raider out of someone's backside somewhere, they sure as heck could have done the same for the K-Wing.

Don't get me wrong, I am not dissing the Raider design, I like it. I'm saying if you can replace one "bad" design, you can sure as heck replace an even worse one.

Well, the Raider was invented because the existing EU Imperial ships were too big to play a similar role as the Corellian Corvette in X-Wing. The Neb B is twice a corvette's length, and the B2 and Lancer are both not all that much shorter.