View Full Version : How many types are there?

Grand Admiral Jason
9 March 2002, 02:57 PM
I have very intelligant questions to ask,
1. How many types of TIE Fighters are there?
2. How many types of Wing fighters are there?
3. How many types of Star Destroyers are there?
4. How many types of Mon Calamari cruisers are there?

9 March 2002, 05:22 PM
when they get to the Q-wing starfighter, i am gonna throw myself out the window.

the y-wing i can understand looks like a Y. the x-wing i can understand looks like an X. the a-wing stretches believability not very A shaped. the e-wing was right out anything with a long body and a pair of wings could essentially be an E-wing. the b-wing while cool doesn't look like a B to me. i have never seen a k-wing, though the thought is something akin to the ridiculous that springs to mind.

i mean honestly, would you be very afraid if they called the star destroyer (big blatantly cool name) the doorstop (its profile kind of resembles one)?

with multiple TIE fighters, i can understand. improving the original design and classifying a modification to reflect a specialized purpose (TIE BOMBER and TIE INTERCEPTOR ).

if i recall correctly there are four different versions of Star Destoyer (err, i mean Doorstop-shaped spaceship) that being the two victory-class (republic built) and the two imperial-class (empire built)

i apologize in advance for the sarcasm that seems to be dripping from this post

9 March 2002, 05:29 PM
1. Five or six types. Ground Attack, Fire Control, Line, Recon, Bomber

2. Four or five. X, Y, A, B (per the movies) and E, K, H and T (I think) via the comics/books.

3. A couple. Imperial, Imperial II, Victory, Victory II. That's about it.

4. Well, this is difficult. There are probably only one type of cruiser, but due to the unique way the Mon Cals make their ships, every single ship is different. So, essentially, there's only one type, but each ship is different in some way.

Those are my thoughts.

Grand Admiral Jason
9 March 2002, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by blitzkreig
when they get to the Q-wing starfighter, i am gonna throw myself out the window.

I entirely agree about the Q-Wing.

Here's a picture of a K-Wing I found of IDN.

Reverend Strone
9 March 2002, 05:36 PM
While letters of the alphabet may have been assigned to the starfighters early on like the Y-wing and X-wings based their similar shapes, I don't know that that analogy was ever ment to be binding. Obviously there was a correlation in the real world, but in the SW Universe, I always figured it was coincidental that they resembled their names, hence it's no surprise that other designs didn't.

Mon Cal Cruisers, well they're all supposed to be relatively uniqu, so I can buy that, and Star Destroyers I can kind of buy into there being some more specialized variations for specific tasks. The one that cracks me up, although being a very nice design, is the Eclipse from comics. That was just a bit silly.

The one that really stretches it for me personally though is the Ties. I can buy the types invented for the movies, but all the crazy variations in the EU; Defenders, Avengers, Scouts and my personal favourite- the Tie Tank just seem gimmicky to me. That's what I voted for anyhow.

Grand Admiral Jason
9 March 2002, 05:38 PM
I've never heard of an H-Wing. There is a T-Wing. How, do I know, because I've flown against them in TIE Fighter.

Frobi-Wan Kenobi
9 March 2002, 11:59 PM
I have only heard of the H-Wing from my little cousin who was talking about TIE Fighters.

10 March 2002, 12:14 AM
Originally posted by Grimace

3. A couple. Imperial, Imperial II, Victory, Victory II. That's about it.

What about Super, Eclipse, and probably some kookier Eu ones.

10 March 2002, 12:37 AM
dont forgett sovereign :) and "executor class" (depending on who you ask)..

ties then?
(dont remember all the standard TIE types there are, + the ugly ones from the games :/ )

10 March 2002, 04:28 AM
On the Mon cal's, you have the standard MC80, the MC82 (medical version), MC84a (troop carrier), MC85 defender, MC90 (the one that ackbar used in the dark empire), i think there was also a MC92 and MC95, but don't quote me on that.

Grand Admiral Jason
10 March 2002, 06:44 AM
Thnks everybody for your comments.

10 March 2002, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Grand Admiral Jason
Thnks everybody for your comments.

Is this finished already? ;)

<h3>Official TIEs</h3><ul><li><b>T.I.E.:</b> official stats:</b> AJ#10</li>
<li><b>TIE/ln:</b> official stats:</b> AJ#10, Movie Trilogy SB Special Edition, nearly in every WEG supplement</li>
<li><b>TIE/gt:</b> official stats:</b> AJ#10</li>
<li><b>TIE/rc:</b> official stats:</b> AJ#10</li>
<li><b>TIE/fc:</b> official stats:</b> AJ#10</li>
<li><b>TIE/D aka TIE Droid aka TIE Drone:</b> official stats:</b> Dark Empire Sourcebook</li>
<li><b>TIE/ad aka Advanced (prototype) aka Vader's TIE aka TIE Mk II x1:</b> official stats:</b> GG1, Movie Trilogy SB, Special Edition</li>
<li><b>Trilogy SB Special Edition</li>
<li><b>TIE/ad aka Advanced (production model):</b> official stats:</b> The Far Orbit Project</li>
<li><b>TIE Bomber:</b> official stats:</b> Star Wars Sourcebook, MovTriSB SE</li>
<li><b>TIE Interceptor:</b> official stats:</b> Star Wars Sourcebook, MovTriSB SE</li>
<li><b>TIE Scout:</b> official stats:</b> The RPG, the RPG R&E, GG8, The Far Orbit Project</li>
<li><b>TIE Shuttle:</b> official stats:</b> AJ#10, Movie Trilogy SB Special Edition </li>
<li><b>TIE Raptor:</b> official stats:</b> Cracken's Threat Dossier</li></ul>
<h3>Homebrewed TIEs</h3><ul><li><b>Assault TIE:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE/ae:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE Boarding Craft:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE/DB Automated Assault Bomber:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE Defender:</b> DLOS/SWRPGDB</li>
<li><b>TIE Devastator:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE Experimental M1:</b> SWRPGNetwork</li>
<li><b>TIE Experimental M3:</b> SWRPGNetwork</li>
<li><b>TIE Flat:</b> HighAdmiral.de</li>
<li><b>TIE/gs Ground Support Fighter:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE/lc Landing Craft:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE/ms Minesweeper:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE/pc Patrol Craft:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE/PG Phage:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE/V Vindicator:</b> DLOS</li>
<li><b>TIE Avenger:</b> ex-SWRPGDB (see SWRPGNetwork)</li>
<li><b>TIE Enforcer:</b> ex-SWRPGDB (see SWRPGNetwork)</li>
<li><b>TIE Vanguard:</b> ex-SWRPGDB (see SWRPGNetwork)</li>
<li><b>TIE Phantom:</b> IDN</li></ul>
<h3>Official #-Wing Fighters</h3><ul><li>A-Wing: SWSB, RASB</li>
<li>B-Wing: SWSB, RASB</li>
<li>B-Wing/E: JASB</li>
<li>B-Wing/E2: JASB</li>
<li>E-Wing/A: DESB</li>
<li>E-Wing/B: DESB</li>
<li>X-Wing T-65B: SWSB, RASB</li>
<li>X-Wing T-65AC4: JASB</li>
<li>X-Wing T-65BR: CTD</li>
<li>Y-Wing BTL-S3: SWSB, RASB</li>
<li>Y-WIng BTL-A4: RASB</li></ul>
<h3>Homebrewed #-Wing Fighters</h3><ul><li>H-WIng: Chaos Crew</li>
<li>K-Wing: SWRPGNetwork</li>
<li>T-Wing: IDN</li>
<li>W-Wing: SWRPGNetwork</li>
<li>X-Wing T-65A3: SWRPGNetwork</li>
<li>X-Wing T-65XJ: SWRPGNetwork</li>
<li>Y-Wing Prototype: HighAdmiral.de</li>
<li>Y-Wing Medium Bomber: HighAdmiral.de</li></ul>
<h3>Star Destroyers (officals only!)</h3><ul><li>VSD I: ISB</li>
<li>VSD II: ISB</li>
<li>ISD I: ISB</li>
<li>ISD II: ISB</li>
<li>SSD: ISB</li>
<li>Republic SD: CTD</li>
<li>Sovereign: DESB</li>
<li>Eclipse: DESB</li>
<li>Bakura SD: TBSB</li></ul>
<h3>Mon Cal Cruisers</h3><ul><li>MC40, PC Game</li>
<li>MC80/MC80A: SWSB, RASB, TTSB</li>
<li>MC80B: CTD</li>
<li>MC90: JASB</li>
<li>Star Defender: SWRPGNetwork</li></ul>

Maybe I missed one or two. ;) I'll post them as soon as I locate them. :)

Grand Admiral Jason
10 March 2002, 01:46 PM
Sorry, I did't think anybody would get that extensive. But one or two questions still remain.
1. What's a Bakura SD,
2. What exactly is an H-Wing!!

10 March 2002, 02:10 PM
<b>H-Wing:</b> <a href="http://www.the-chaos-crew.com/swrpg/ships/hwing.htm" target=_blank>H-Wing Strike Fighter</a>

<b>Bakura Star Destroyer:</b> This warship was developed by the Bakuranian Military some time after the defeat of the Ssi-Ruuk (Truce At Bakura). They engineers used power plants of Imperial MK II Star Destroyers but the rest of the ship was unique. The were 850 meters long and were equipped with hyperwave sustainers (allows travel in an interdiction field) besides its normal weaponry.
RPG Stats can be found in <i>Cracken's Threat Dossier</i> (CTD).

10 March 2002, 07:43 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a Defender class Star Destroyer? It was in the Starships of the Galaxy Source book, I belive. Is it covered under one of the other classes listed? Please tell me if I'm wrong on this, and if I am, I'm sorry to waste your time.


11 March 2002, 01:06 AM
You're correct, <b>Sil7</b>. There is a Defender Star Destroyer. It's a design of the Republic Engineering Corporation, and part of the "new-class" starships of the Black Fleet Crisis. It also is described in <i>Cracken's Threat Dossier</i>.

I <i>knew</i> I missed one... ;)

11 March 2002, 04:09 AM
As you missed my MBC120 mon cal battle cruiser, and I-wing

Grand Admiral Jason
11 March 2002, 03:40 PM
Another question concerning exact defintions of ships
1. What's an I-Wing

11 March 2002, 06:13 PM
definitly too many wings. yes indeed.

11 March 2002, 11:44 PM
Search back in the archives. It is an old design by (ME!), and can also be seen on decks site..

Ash DuQuennes
12 March 2002, 10:34 AM
Functionaly speaking, designs are introduced to fill a perceived tactical/strategic need. In the SW EU, ship designs have been introduced as plot devices, every one trying to outdo the other with "newer, better, faster." This could also be seen as an analogue to our "arms races."

Historically in Earth's history, the ship with the biggest guns was usually the victor, back from the age of sail up to the ironclads and battleships prevalent in the early 20th Century.

The advent of industrial technology to make smaller, faster, weapons capable of delivering devastating payloads with accuracy laid that doctrine only partially to rest. The big-gun ships were replaced with fighter carriers, although there is still an argument to be made for the utility of the Battleship in support of amphibious operations. That our current strategic imperitives mitigate against such operation doesn't preclude their utility in such operation; just that such operations aren't a strategic probability. But imperitives change, and will continue to do so.

As such, I don't see the plethora of capital ships in the SW EU as being altogether ridiculous (some have gone to extremes, like the aforementioned Eclipse- class), but merely reflective of the tactical/strategic "gaps" perceived by various authors/architects of the SW EU. The proliferation of TIEs and Wings, though, may be pushing the envelope of credulity.

OTOH, it can be rationalized that manufacturers are just trying to get a slice of the "defense market share," and political considerations are forcing the adoption of other designs, to keep newly joined/aligned worlds and their manufactories at least content, if not happy.

At least that's how I have played it out in my SW EU Games. It creates political tension that my players, beyond the pure one-on-one combat of the typical game, rather enjoy.

IIRC, the H-Wing was originally introduced in Challenge magazing, a GDW publication that would occasionally allow other systems into their publication as "filler material" as GDW's fortunes waned. The write up on the page Deck linked to earlier is almost verbatim the capsule from the Challenge article I read back in 90 or so. I have a photcopy version of the H-Wing from that article, but it is in WEG's 1ed. format, and I never bothered to update it to either 2ed., 2ed R&E, or WotC's d20.

In the case of the ISD I and II: the ISD I was designed and built in the early days of the Empire, and was the thing at the time. However, as the Rebellion spread and the Mon Cals joined with their cruisers, the ISD I was no longer clearly and indisputably superior. Since the Empire ruled in part by overwhelming force projection, it was necessary to upgrade the ISD I design to produce the ISD II, which is inarguably superior in firepower to even an MC 90.

12 March 2002, 11:10 AM
Too many "wings" if you ask me... The ties all make sense. Tie Fighter, Tie Bomber, Tie Interceptor, Tie Advanced, Tie Defender, these all make sense because they are all the basic tie design, just changed for different roles. The "wings" however, start to follow a pattern then just bounce all over the place. The Y and X are the only two that the name makes sense. The A, B, E, T, I, (and any other I missed) completely get away from that whole "shape-determines-name" naming scheme. As for the capital ships, there weren't too many of those either. There are just the four types of Star Destroyers - Victory, Imperial, Super, Defender. I don't count Victory II's or Imperial II's as different ships, more of just refinements of existing ships.

I guess the rebellion (and later the new republic) just wanted to have a standard naming convention to rival that of the Imperials. So the empire had Ties (in all their forms) and the Rebels had Wings (ditto).

I always thought they should just call the wing ships by their numbers instead. I mean, they did it with the Z95 Headhunters (which would make sense to be called a T-Wing if viewed from above), why not with the others?

14 March 2002, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by Jastor
dont forgett sovereign :) and "executor class" (depending on who you ask)..

ties then?
(dont remember all the standard TIE types there are, + the ugly ones from the games :/ )

still voting for ties:


(+ the ones above) or something like that :/

The Admiral
21 March 2002, 02:55 PM
Just to throw my tuppenceworth in,,,

I'm of mixed mind with the TIEs. To me, anything with twin ion engines could be considered a TIE (Y-Wings and A-Wings technically have twin ion engines, ahem,,,)

I think basically the proliferation of the TIEs is due to various 'types of fighter' being needed, and authors not wanted to lose the instant 'imperial fighter' visuals. I'm not happy with all of the TIE variations. I dislike the Avenger intensely, though I'd be hard pressed to pin down why. Part of it is that the computer game designers needed to have fighters that were hard enough to make playing th egames fun, the Empire uses pack strategy, massed numbers, and that's much harder to simulate in a computer game than just throwing in a souped up version.

Then again, I'd not be happy with the Empire fielding anythiong other than TIEs simply because that's one of the key identity visual things of the Empire.

Are there too many TIEs? Well, yeah, Tie crawlers are just bloody stupid, TIE Avenger's and Defenders may look cool, but they don't feel right.

With the letter wings, I'd say there's a tendency to make any alliance fighter have a letter designation. C'est la vie. Once you start a tradition, it's difficult to stop.
The E-Wing, BTW, DOES look like an 'E', it's long engines and fuselage form the horizontals, whilst the wings form the vertical.
The B-Wing has been said to have been named becasue if you look at the front profile, pod down, it looks like a sword, and therefore, the B is short for Blade. personally, I go for the 'it's a bomber, so the B is BOMBER.' approach. It's just named B-Wing to fit in easilly with the other Alliance fighters.
K-Wings do look like K's, but you have to roll the K onto it's side,,,

I've always seen the phrase Star Destroyer as mainly a colloquialism. I've got a whole other thread dedicated to a postulated idea about the term, so I won't rehash here.
Are there too many? No! There aren't enough! There are, however, too many based on the Imperial class hull.

As with the Mon Cals, I'd go with others here, the MC series are all unique, there are only ever one of any given design.The numebrs basically give an idea of size and weapons loadout, rather than designate a complete design,,,

Korwin Blade
27 March 2002, 10:04 AM
I am designing a V-Wing dubed the dragonfly by the test pilots of the craft and later by the aldereen ship yards where it is being made. So for me i dont think that there are to many of any type of craft be it TIE's or _-wings. I like that someone will take the time to make one up that could fit into these the types. How many types of corellian ships like the millinum falcon are there, but no complaints there. I like all of those to but not a chose mind you. That's just my 1/2 cents of non-sense. :D

Ash DuQuennes
27 March 2002, 10:27 AM
The next time any of y'all are in a decent-sized bookstore, look for one of those big, coffee-table books titled something like "Fighter Aircraft of WW II" or "Naval Ships of WW II." You might then reconsider some of your responses here. That is, if you believe there is any possible analogue between the SW Universe and our "real" one (whatever that is; let me know if any of y'all figger it out).

As I said before: people innovate to fill a perceived tactical/strategic need; or quite possibly, in a sprawling coalition-style government, limited appropriation may be granted for purely political-economic considerations. If you look at the dozens of fighters America had in WW II, some only produced in the hundreds, you'll see what I mean.

Of course, the SW Universe does have a better grasp of scientific/engineering principles than our Aircraft Designers/Engineers of WW II did (at least I would hope so), so perhaps the analogy doesn't quite cross-deck. But marketing concepts alone could also account for some entries in the arena (anyone remember the Ford Edsel?).

The Admiral
27 March 2002, 12:49 PM
Ash, I don't think the question is that there are just too many fighters, more that are there too many based on the same thing. Does every Alliance fighter HAVE to look like a ltter? How many different ways can you bolt the pieces of a TIE together? Does EVERY Imperial capital warship have a wedge shaped body and a KDY bridge? it's not that there are hundreds of fighter designs, it's that so many of them follow the same mould.

At least, that's how I read the thread :-)

Ash DuQuennes
27 March 2002, 09:56 PM
Yeah, I grok the general beef, but I either ascribe it to a lack of originality at Lucas Films in naming their fighters, or a naming convention within the Rebellion (or the SW EU writers/editors, or the SW galaxy in general) that caught on for a while, and just hasn't gone away yet.

As far as all of the TIE variants, I've said it before and I'll say it again: people innovate to fill a particular need. Engineers are no exception. With the modular nature of the TIE family and the Empire in general, I'm not surprised that there are TIE tanks and dozens of TIE variants, even straight up TIE Droid fighters (IIRC, those were introduced in the Dark Empire series; retroactively "canonized" [sorry, couldn't resist:p ] as a concept in TPM). Especially after the Empire starts getting pushed back further and further, and don't have the funds for specialty designs (though I'd think some surplus Trade Federation Tanks might be better than a TIE Tank).

Same goes for Kuat; the "look" of their line may be their trademark signature. Check the looks of the ships Harland & Wolfe Shipyard of Belfast built in the late 19th/early 20th century; there's a distinct similarity to their various designs. The Germans at the time were already building ships that wouldn't look much out of place today.

Though it doesn't explain the Nebulon-B; I rationalized it in an adventure that the Nebulon was cobbled together from spare parts from second-hand suppliers to meet a contract deadline for the Empire, and the Kuatis were actually amazed (and dismayed; they were already over committed) that it won the bid.

Personally, as far as all the "letter"-wing fighters goes, it don't bother me none; we can do the whole alphabet of fighters and I won't mind.

As long as each new design isn't one author trying to out-munchkin the other(Eclipse-class, anyone? whoever designed that had some serious Freudian issues), or introduced as "plot devices" simply because some author felt it was time things were changed around a bit.

16 June 2006, 09:35 AM
heck there were over 20 variants of the M4 Sherman tank. longest variant designation from that, that I can remember was the M4A3E14, meaning M4 tank, Variant A3 chassis, with 14th variant weapon configuration. But back to topic at hand. Missing that I didn't see were the:

W-wing built to replace the Z95 in atmosphere by incom.

Star Destroyers: Imps ranged from the 1 to the 6th variant, depending on the website you would go to in the 90's, plus other named ones from those sites.

The Mon Cal cruisers (depending on the sights, again):
MC 80
MC 80a
MC 80b
MC 90
MC 90a
MC 100
MC 110
MC 40
MC 100c (with the cloaking device)

Don't forget the Tie Mauler now from Empire at war.

20 June 2006, 06:19 AM
I can't remember seeing the Tie Raptor in here. Or did I just miss reading it? And even though only in one video game, what about the Tie Hunter?

25 June 2006, 03:06 PM
Don't forget the Tie Mauler now from Empire at war.

That's the previosuly mentioned TIE tank.

And even though only in one video game, what about the Tie Hunter?

The game wasn't out yet.

25 June 2006, 05:11 PM
actually, the first Tie Tank that was mentioned here, is the Century tank. The Century tank and Tie Mauler are two totally different designed vehicles.

Mad Tech
7 July 2006, 06:18 PM
I'd have to say "All of the Above".

8 July 2006, 06:37 AM
actually, the first Tie Tank that was mentioned here, is the Century tank. The Century tank and Tie Mauler are two totally different designed vehicles.

I tell ya, they sure look similar...

8 July 2006, 08:59 AM
the Tie maulers track system is angular, where the Century tank is more of a rectangle design, similar in fact to the Tie Bomber wing system.

8 July 2006, 09:29 AM
Not to put a damper on your enthusiasm, but the TIE Interceptors of the Rogue Squadron games have their lasers mounted in the same spot as the nromal TIE, and ion bolts travel slower than some ships and look like giant blue raindrops. And in EAW, the Accuser mounts a ginat superweapon.

A slight difference in video game tank design doesn't mean it's not the same tank.

(Though if you have proof otherwise, lemme know.)

8 July 2006, 09:55 AM
well, other than the design of the Tie Crawler is in fact about 7 years old now, in Dark Empire Sourcebook, Dark Empire Comic Book, And in Essential Guide To Vehicles And Vessels. Tie Mauler only in EAW, I would say that proof enough they are two different vehicles.

8 July 2006, 10:45 AM
Well, I looked into it, and it turns out that they are different vehicles.

TIE Mauler (http://www.starwars.com/databank/vehicle/tiemauler/)

The Mauler was essentially the limited-production prototype for the Century. (Can anyone say 'retcon'?)

8 July 2006, 06:42 PM
So how many ties are we up to??

9 July 2006, 06:05 AM
T.I.E.: official stats: AJ#10

TIE/ln: official stats: AJ#10, Movie Trilogy SB Special Edition, nearly in every WEG supplement

TIE/gt: official stats: AJ#10

TIE/rc: official stats: AJ#10

TIE/fc: official stats: AJ#10

TIE/D aka TIE Droid aka TIE Drone: official stats: Dark Empire Sourcebook

TIE/ad aka Advanced (prototype) aka Vader's TIE aka TIE Mk II x1: official stats: GG1, Movie Trilogy SB, Special Edition

Trilogy SB Special Edition

TIE/ad aka Advanced (production model): official stats: The Far Orbit Project

TIE Bomber: official stats: Star Wars Sourcebook, MovTriSB SE

TIE Interceptor: official stats: Star Wars Sourcebook, MovTriSB SE

TIE Scout: official stats: The RPG, the RPG R&E, GG8, The Far Orbit Project

TIE Shuttle: official stats: AJ#10, Movie Trilogy SB Special Edition

TIE Raptor: official stats: Cracken's Threat Dossier

Plus Mauler, Century, Defender, those Trips Tavira had, The TIE cruiser, (Battlegrounds: The Clone Campaings-that thing was ugly!) Hunter, ...and

Is that all?

19 models. Betcha I'm missing one.

21 July 2006, 01:35 PM
I don't know if you are missing any, but there are definately alot of them. There are definately alot of all of them in all honesty. Every book they come up with at least something new that falls into one of these catagories.

27 July 2006, 01:06 PM
Remember, the original thread is several years old. Thus, I am sure there are even more types these days. ;)

~ Deck

27 July 2006, 06:17 PM
Remember, the original thread is several years old. Thus, I am sure there are even more types these days.

If only the Imps stuck with Defenders, shielded Interceptors, and shielded Scimitars...and on land, the next gen AT-AT and AT-STs...

Oh well.

27 July 2006, 06:30 PM
I'll agree with ya on that Psyche, that they should have stuck with the things that worked. Unfortunately there were those out there that couldn't be ignored and were too influential to ignore. Therefore Contracts were made and money paid for vehicles and ships that weren't all they were made out to be.

It was along the lines of "buy here cause we can make something better and faster than the other guy" type deals, that more or less proved false at the cost of Troopers and Officer lives.

Admiral Zaarin
1 January 2007, 06:12 PM
As far as Star Destroyers go, there is also the Venator Star Destroyers from Ep III.