Jedi Council Forums - Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

Post Reply | Active Topic Notification | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

« 513 | 514 | 515 | 516 | 517 | 518 | 519 | 520 | 521 | 522 » - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 6/28 5:11pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/28 6:06pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	The part about the armor? That was from one of the Clone officers complaining. You mentioned literal. Literal as in that's the offensive/defensive capability or literal as in "must produce it in every story"?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Excellence Registered: Jul '02	Date Posted: 6/29 4:02am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	And Galactica survived a nucelear impact direct on the hull... Question: can we take these things serious, and literally? Because something is showed, can it be "right." -----signature----- Rock-a-by baby, on the treetop, Beaming with pride, the filth they hold, But when the wind blows, my temper implodes, High above a pit, filled with sharkticons, Down will come hardcover addicts, beaming no more. ©
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 6/29 4:40am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	There are a lot of things "wrong" with Star Wars, imho, but that doesn't mean I can discard it. That's mostly story- or character-related, though. Btw, that's an interesting BSG reference. There's similar events in SW as well. Thermonuclear detonations go off right outside Ackbar's command station in the ROTJ novel, they are deflected by the shields. The aforementioned Mediator partially survives an internal nuclear detonation in Vector Prime, while an ISD, the Emperor's Revenge, is crippled by a Scimitar bomber's loadout when it internally detonates in CEII. Like in BSG, the hull material used to build the warships are of materials we don't have, so it's a bit unfair to use our material standards to a sci-fi setting. Given the energies involved in propelling each craft, the fact that the engine-thrusters must be built to resist that, it's pretty clear the SW civilization has to have found a way to manufacture coating and armor that surpasses ours. And on top of that, there's all kinds of shielding.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 6/29 6:37am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/29 6:40am (1 edits total) Edited By: blackmyron
	On the other hand, a thermonuclear charge destroys an ISD in the X-Wing video game; the Executor-class has its bridge weakness to its hull once local shields are down in not only ROTJ but the Balance of Terror game expansion; and of course, the ISD-sized ship/factory Arc Hammer was taken out by three strategically placed charges inside. I think that there are two considerations: (a) Hulls and internal structures of these large ships are very strong, but have their weak spots (b) The strength of the ships vary according to the action of the story. Edit: To answer your earlier question, Tzizvvt78, the "1000 Recusants" were used as a number in various algebraic formulae to give us 'exact' comparisons between ships back when the ICS3 was first out. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 6/29 7:41am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/29 7:43am (2 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	I heard about that, the book said about 4-6 Recusants per Victory or Venator and up to 1,000 for one Mandator II. I don't see the controversy about that, given we have enough strange aspects of the SW saga already. Not that we have to see every ship at its peak all the time, though. There's plenty of stories where a ship works at a diminished capacity because the story mandates it, better laid out in some than in others. Internal sabotage is a good one, because the weakness of a hull can be better portrayed from inside the vessel, than the well-armored outside. Then there's the stories where the opposite seems to be true and the heavy ships are usperior or well-used (often on the protagonists' side). What was the size of the opposing Yuuzhan Vong fleet the trio of heavy Alliance warships fired at in the Battle of Mon Calamari in The Unifying Force?
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Thrawn McEwok Title: TFN EU Staff Registered: May '00	Date Posted: 6/29 12:47pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/29 12:48pm (1 edits total) Edited By: Thrawn McEwok
	"Nomad", big ships, and TIEs: I argued that the picture could be a "fast-forward". There's a question of when the "narrator" is speaking - it's actually Darca hmself, quite possibly after the end of the story, since he's apparently concealing his identity from the audience at first, in order to achieve the payoff at the end. There's also the problem that there shouldn't be anything quite so TIE-like in 32 BBY. Other possibilities include "generic visual impressionism", a glimpse back at the ancient Republic or Sith Empire, or even the "big ship" being a Duros-style space-station. Storm Fleet destroyers: Kuat isn't specifically associated with the dagger-hulled design - that's pure fanon. Kuat builds plenty of perfectly useful ships that aren't dagger-shaped (Star Galleons, Nebulon Bs, Escort Carriers), and plenty of perfectly dagger-shaped ships are built that have nothing to do with Kuat (Rendili Victory-class Star Destroyers - and light corvettes, if you'll accept twin-prong bows; Sienar Vindciator-class heavy cruisers; Duro Dagger-D and FreiTek Gladiator starfighters); one thing that most "dagger" ships have in common is that they're military, though: if the Storm Fleet ships are meant to look like transports, something more boxy seems more probable. RAS Leveller: Traviss seems to deliberately avoid specifying her class in No Prisoners - I'm guessing she's not an Acclamator-class ship. Star Destroyer design development: one thing that I think is relevant is that Lira Wessex is said to have designed the Imperial-class Star Destroyer as a response to her father's Victory-class Star Destroyer (she's also responsible for ALL the canonically pointy KDY ships that weren't her father's Delta-series starfighters). The VSD should precede the ISD - could we retcon the "Victory Fleet" as the first VSD-IIs, or would it be better to push back VSD prototypes to before the Clone Wars, in the same way we now seem to have to do with ISD prototypes in the Clone Wars? And what do we mean by ISD "prototypes", too - Executrix and Exactor, or some other ships? Other KDY capital ships: you're saying that ICS:AotC says the Acclamator's bridge-tower is used for "smaller" designs? Good catch! That probably pushes up the Mandator and Procurator to ~1km, or even ISD-sized... but here's a thought: what if these were the original names for the Tector and Imperator prototypes...? The Imperial comes in two variants - the standard "battle cruiser", and a "dreadnaught" version with a much reduced superstructure, usually no ventral dome, and only one small, closed hangar - a ship which we've only seen as an interdictor, but which matches the Tector underneath if we take away the interdiction generators. In short, Mandator = Tector = dreadnaught (= Interdictor); Procurator = Imperator = battle cruiser! Mandator II: I've already suggested before that this could be Eye of Palpatine, which would make it the biggest capital ship EVAR. I don't mind that. And battle stations, at least, usually get bigger as the variant number increases, so there's nothing to say it has to be the same size as the original Mandator. Praetor-class battle cruiser: its generator doesn't have to actually be more powerful than an ISD, since the better shield performance at Echo Base compared with Yavin (where an ISD's generator was used) could reflect Hoth's better ability to act as a heat sink, and we see a Hoth-style ion canon powered off ISD generators in Darksaber; even if it was more powerful, it doesn't have to be faster (since real-world battle cruisers tended to have MUCH bigger engines than similar-sized dreadnaughts, for just 5-10% extra speed - the basic trade-off is weight of engines vs. weight of armour). Star Cruiser "SSDs": all ITW:OC says is that some >1.6km "Star Crusiers" were called SSDs by slang-talking Rebels. Could just be big ships in the standard "cruiser" bracket, and doesn't have to even refer to Imperial ships. Pelagia Star, TFBBs, Invincible-class Dreadnaught Heavy Cruisers, could all fit into that broad bracket. Giel's flagship: I'm calling a pointy-bow variation of the Gladiator/Broadside hull, since those ships seem to be based on the own open-bow variant seen in the same issue. As a Gladiator-class Star Destroyer is good enough as a flagship for Admiral Screed, it's probably good enough for Giel, too. Reasons for prefering this over an ISD could include its much faster hyperdrive compared with an ISD-I, and perhaps better command-ship facilities also. ACME Specplate "Imperator": the "ESB studio model" appearance of the ship here also matches that of the prototype Exactor, raising the question of whether the assumed correlation of the two studio models and the two subtypes is canon. There are a number of other examples to challenge this, such as the ISD-II Errant Venture being shown using the Devastator hull design, and references to Avenger as an ISD-I. I don't think there's even a canon source that says "this is an ISD-I, this is an ISD-II". Capital-ship power: three things are worth mentioning here - firstly, Star Wars tech definitely uses basic principles that are beyond our science, involving direct manipulation of spacetime without the energy input that Newton and Einstein would require - it's about the technology, not (just) the size of the engine; secondly, the standard examples cited to argue for massive shield/structural durability aren't clear-cut enough to use (the Ex shrugs off three ISDs decelerating out of hyperspace, a detail which may affect the situation - especially if shields are manipulating spacetime themselves - and I can't see any reference to Mediator retaining main power, as opposed to some "manoeuvring jets" in what's left of the hull); and thirdly, as Ex pointed out, the equations of destroyer numbers are so arbitrary as to be meaningless. A Recusant could make a mess of a VenStar by ramming it. Focused starfighter attacks tend to make a mess of SSDs. Tzizvvt78 posted: Then there's the stories where the opposite seems to be true and the heavy ships are usperior or well-used (often on the protagonists' side). What was the size of the opposing Yuuzhan Vong fleet the trio of heavy Alliance warships fired at in the Battle of Mon Calamari in The Unifying Force? At the time TUF was written, Viscount could have been as small as 2.4km (a size that fits her design better than the RPG stat of 17km), Guardian was 8km (and I'd argue she should retain that size ), and Harbinger's size is never stated. Nor do we see any of them actually doing more than blowing up some skips and picket ships. *** And on a rather tangential note, can someone check SWAJ #10, and tell me if Kuat were building the Crimson Command VSD-IIs in 1-2 ABY, or just refitting them? - The Imperial Ewok -----signature----- A/T = OTP :===8[#]8===: Kyp/Jaina fans: stand up and be counted!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 6/29 4:25pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Thrawn McEwok posted: "Nomad", big ships, and TIEs: I argued that the picture could be a "fast-forward". There's a question of when the "narrator" is speaking - it's actually Darca hmself, quite possibly after the end of the story, since he's apparently concealing his identity from the audience at first, in order to achieve the payoff at the end. Sounds cool. Is that's what the artist intended? Thrawn McEwok posted: There's also the problem that there shouldn't be anything quite so TIE-like in 32 BBY. There's a series of Advanced Project ships already developed by 29 BBY, going by Wookieepedia. The latest model being a large ship that's obviously a precursor to the TIE, complete with the "bow-tie" side panels. So, there's nothing in any source that goes against the idea if Sienar developed these look-alike designs for years already, even if they don't have a SIE-TIE engine. Thrawn McEwok posted: Star Destroyer design development: one thing that I think is relevant is that Lira Wessex is said to have designed the Imperial-class Star Destroyer as a response to her father's Victory-class Star Destroyer (she's also responsible for ALL the canonically pointy KDY ships that weren't her father's Delta-series starfighters). The VSD should precede the ISD - could we retcon the "Victory Fleet" as the first VSD-IIs, or would it be better to push back VSD prototypes to before the Clone Wars, in the same way we now seem to have to do with ISD prototypes in the Clone Wars? And what do we mean by ISD "prototypes", too - Executrix and Exactor, or some other ships? The Victory II is apparantly a CW ship now, going by the CW Campaign Guide. That would fit the scenario. The Imperator/Imperial-class ships in Republic service would include these two you mentioned, since they were the first. Not sure if there's anything that contradicts them in Dark Lord. Thrawn McEwok posted: Other KDY capital ships: you're saying that ICS:AotC says the Acclamator's bridge-tower is used for "smaller" designs? Good catch! That probably pushes up the Mandator and Procurator to ~1km, or even ISD-sized... but here's a thought: what if these were the original names for the Tector and Imperator prototypes...? wink The Imperial comes in two variants - the standard "battle cruiser", and a "dreadnaught" version with a much reduced superstructure, usually no ventral dome, and only one small, closed hangar - a ship which we've only seen as an interdictor, but which matches the Tector underneath if we take away the interdiction generators. In short, Mandator = Tector = dreadnaught (= Interdictor); Procurator = Imperator = battle cruiser! Given sources like the Complete Encyclopedia mention all these different classes and classifications in the same time frame, I don't think that's an option. The author of the ICS books for AOTC and ROTS also refers to them as much larger than the standard Star Destroyer designs in an old interview on this site, so these other classes would not be the same (though they're all technically Star Destroyers anyway, if they're dagger-shaped). Thrawn McEwok posted: Mandator II: I've already suggested before that this could be Eye of Palpatine, which would make it the biggest capital ship EVAR. I don't mind that. And battle stations, at least, usually get bigger as the variant number increases, so there's nothing to say it has to be the same size as the original Mandator. I seem to remember Dan Wallace saying the same thing about the Bulwark battlecruisers, so you're probably right. As far as capital ships go, I'd prefer the Executor to remain the largest, that or the Eclipse at least. Thrawn McEwok posted: Praetor-class battle cruiser: its generator doesn't have to actually be more powerful than an ISD, since the better shield performance at Echo Base compared with Yavin (where an ISD's generator was used) could reflect Hoth's better ability to act as a heat sink, and we see a Hoth-style ion canon powered off ISD generators in Darksaber I recall that ship was larger than an ISD in design in the original book, though given the same designation in the Complete Encyclopedia. Regardless, the ICS author that worked on the book that first mentioned the class, refers to them as one of the types more powerful and subsequently larger than a Star Destroyer, so I go with that since it's a person who worked on the material. Thrawn McEwok posted: Star Cruiser "SSDs": all ITW:OC says is that some >1.6km "Star Crusiers" were called SSDs by slang-talking Rebels. Could just be big ships in the standard "cruiser" bracket, and doesn't have to even refer to Imperial ships. Pelagia Star, TFBBs, Invincible-class Dreadnaught Heavy Cruisers, could all fit into that broad bracket. I think the name Super Star Destroyer came from Star Destroyer, which was itself used to describe ships of the Clone Wars which were dagger-shaped, so there's the main connection. And calling ships in space after a historic naval term is inherently silly anyway, so why not go all out and make an entire catalogue of terms? If we want to be more precise, SW ships should be called carriers for the amount of smaller craft they carry, if we have to use real-life terms for them to begin with. Thrawn McEwok posted: Giel's flagship: I'm calling a pointy-bow variation of the Gladiator/Broadside hull, since those ships seem to be based on the own open-bow variant seen in the same issue. As a Gladiator-class Star Destroyer is good enough as a flagship for Admiral Screed, it's probably good enough for Giel, too. Reasons for prefering this over an ISD could include its much faster hyperdrive compared with an ISD-I, and perhaps better command-ship facilities also. That doesn't explain why it's bigger than all the Star Destroyers or why it commands a huge fleet. I thought the latter was a reason why the Empire built larger command ships than ever before, to command large fleets of ships. The secret armada there even looks to be the biggest in Imperial history (once again, from the Encyclopedia). I assume it needed a ship of that size to command and coordinate. Thrawn McEwok posted: it's about the technology, not (just) the size of the engine The size of the engine is usually a measure of its power, the bigger the ship, the larger a powerplant it's gonna need. The alternative is to compress engine designs, which causes the cost to go up and subsequently production to be expensive, as was with the MC90 cruiser and the Nebula-class Star Destroyer, apparantly.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 6/30 5:50pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	McEwok:"Nomad", big ships, and TIEs: I argued that the picture could be a "fast-forward". There's a question of when the "narrator" is speaking - Agreed. I'm pretty sure that someone from DHC had clarified that it was, indeed, intended to Imperial times - but since I can't find the reference, consider that hearsay. (I was never sure why anyone considered it to be a "smoking gun" of big dagger-shaped ships prior to the Clone Wars - considering I don't recall anyone denying this, especially in light of their appearance in the KOTOR era). Storm Fleet destroyers: Kuat isn't specifically associated with the dagger-hulled design - that's pure fanon. I do recall you were annoyed that Dan Wallace made his 'Victory Project' retcon to include KDY in the design of the Rendili starship, but I think that was more to explain how a ship that was always said explicitly to be the forerunner of the ISD be made by another company that wasn't absorbed by KDY. Perhaps we can say that KDY was the primary employer of the "Star Destroyer" philosophy of starship design (as outlined in SOTG2) in the Clone Wars/Empire era ? They certainly didn't have a patent on it, nor did they invent it... and, in the NR era, other companies were employing it as well. As far as the Storm Fleet, checking the short story - "They were huge, sheathed in dull black durasteel and and advanced weaponry". Anakin identifies them as KDY-made from "the proportions and the lines of the design"... but, as typical, we never get a real description of the vessels. RAS Leveller: Traviss seems to deliberately avoid specifying her class in No Prisoners - I'm guessing she's not an Acclamator-class ship. It is called an “assault ship” in the third RC novel; and SOTG2 mentions there were “several other variants” of the Acc apart from the Acc-II, but only the Acc-II was used in large quantities – so I’d say it’s probably an Acc-variant. The VSD should precede the ISD - could we retcon the "Victory Fleet" as the first VSD-IIs, or would it be better to push back VSD prototypes to before the Clone Wars, in the same way we now seem to have to do with ISD prototypes in the Clone Wars? My fix would be that the VSD came from a failure by the Republic to adopt the ‘prototype’ Imperators and Tectors, and still precede the ISDs by virtue that the ships wouldn’t be manufactured in large quantities – in finished form – until the Imperial era. And what do we mean by ISD "prototypes", too - Executrix and Exactor, or some other ships? Yes, especially considering that they are referred as “Imperator-class” in Dark Lord. Star Cruiser "SSDs": all ITW:OC says is that some >1.6km "Star Crusiers" were called SSDs by slang-talking Rebels. Could just be big ships in the standard "cruiser" bracket, and doesn't have to even refer to Imperial ships. Pelagia Star, TFBBs, Invincible-class Dreadnaught Heavy Cruisers, could all fit into that broad bracket. Taken by itself, but I think the clairification in SOTG2 about the meaning of the term “Star Destroyer” (and thus Super Star Destroyer) would mean that the term SSD means “Star Destroyer larger than an Imperial-class”. (the Ex shrugs off three ISDs decelerating out of hyperspace, a detail which may affect the situation - especially if shields are manipulating spacetime themselves - and I can't see any reference to Mediator retaining main power, as opposed to some "manoeuvring jets" in what's left of the hull); I’ll check to see if I can find any recent references to the incident; the whole panel smacks of the reason Chee invented “S-canon” and the literal interpretation – the Executor taking 3 ISDs ramming it – may not be the case (like the infamous “Surface” of Bespin). Tzizvvt78: The Victory II is apparantly a CW ship now, going by the CW Campaign Guide. Right, I see it in the list of Republic ships, but directly contradicts the entry it references in the SOTG2. I think we’ll have to wait for further sources for clairification. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 6/30 6:28pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/30 6:39pm (2 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	The Complete Encyclopedia refers to the event in Admiral Amise Griff's entry and in detail in the Executor's entry, so it's still canon. The three Star Destroyers dropped out of Hyperspace, but because of the angle and the shielding on the Executor, only the three were annihilated, while the Executor survived. The AOTC:ICS mentions Rendili as among the ship builders trying to copy Rothana/KDY's Acclamator design, so that's where the Victory will presumably come from. There is confirmation in the Encyclopedia that the Imperator-class was developed and produced after the Venator-class and then renamed Imperial-class (Imperator-class entry). The Venator-class was itself developed and produced "after the Victory-class" and "at the beginning of the Clone Wars" (Venator-class entry).
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 6/30 6:49pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 6/30 7:44pm (1 edits total) Edited By: blackmyron
	Well, the Complete Encyclopedia has been wrong before... But I agree. Griff's entry in the GORW mentions that the ISDs materialized "meters from the Executor's shields". (I should mention that despite the first statement, I do consider the CSWE a reliable primary source - the specific error I'm referring to is the entry on the Sovereign, which stemmed from a mistaken entry in the original SWE) Edit: Well, you're at the heart of the problem. Namely: (a) The original back-history of the VSD and ISD supplied by WEG was that the VSD-I came out at the end of the Clone Wars, the VSD-II afterwards, and after wrangling in the Imperial Senate, the ISD-I. (b) The ICSes pushed back the establishment of the ISDs to the end of the Clone Wars, and hinted that Rendili stole the 'Star Destroyer' design of the VSD from KDY. (Note that this is all implication, never stated directly in the ICS2) (c) The NEC stated that the VSD was actually a joint project by KDY and Rendili - the Victor Initiative Project, and came out about 23 months ABG. (d) The CWAS guide pushed back the ISDs to the beginning of the war, during a broader scrambling of the timeline caused by the CWAS. Which is where we are now. The easiest solution would be just to follow the compression of time and push the Victor Project to the start of the war as well, but it's really getting crowded there. Jason Fry also talked about his writing about the ISDs in the CWAS Guide in this thread. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 6/30 7:27pm Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	The Victory-class entry also contained now-outdated info about the Victory fleet being the first batch of ships and built towards the end of the war. Though that could work if they meant the Victory II model.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
AdmiralWesJanson Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 7/1 2:42am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Especially as the Vic I was a planetary assault type which works well with the Acclamators, but the Vic II was redesigned to combat enemy capital ships, a skill that was more in need near the middle of the war. Hmm. Quick speculation on timelines. Acclamator is Rothana/Kuat, and pre-war. Victory I is Rendilli and built as a competitor. War starts. Imperator was designed and some built to trump Victory I. Imperator is big, expensive, and has a lot of design flaws to start with. Victor Initiative Program lets the two yards trade experience. Acclamator II is a stopgap refit to have a capital warship, as most Dreadnoughts and Dreadnaught cruisers are short range system forces. Meanwhile the Imperator and Victory class are being redesigned, and the Venator added as a multi-role ship so the Acclamator can go back to being a troopship. The Bulwark Fleet shows up, and the Victory II is rapidly pushed into service, before it is fully redesigned. Then Dreadnaughts of Rendilli and system fleets are confiscated, giving a massive boost to the Republic, pushing back the CIS. Victory II gains PR victory at Anaxes, and many are built, while Venators being multi-role show up everywhere making them more common. Imperator is redesigned near the end of the war, taking lessons from the Venator and Victory II, and begins full production thanks to Wessex, and is renamed Imperial class for the production run. At the end of the War, Acclamators are kept as troopships, Victory Is are sold off as surplus, Victory IIs are still in production but more specialized than the Imperial so they are used as System defense, Venators are multi-role but problematic logistics and are replaced by the Imperial class in the multi-role warship job since the Imperial is far more self-sufficient and able to better handle leftover CIS ships out in the galaxy. -----signature----- Duke of Corellia Join the Corellian Browncoats in their fight against the evil Alliance! Fix the K-Wing! No more XJs! Make the next X-Wing a T-65K!
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tzizvvt78 Registered: Jun '09	Date Posted: 7/1 5:11am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/1 5:27am (1 edits total) Edited By: Tzizvvt78
	Well, the Venator is at the beginning of the war as well. No word on the Imperator or Tector until at least a few months into the conflict, which is where the tv series starts and the Visual Guide mentions them. The Acclamator entry in the Database confirms the Victory as Rendili's response to the Acclamator (as hinted at in AOTC:ICS), but still says it came years later. The part about Rendili and Kuat's cooperation over the Victory is interesting, maybe the retcon fix could be that the Victory I comes out at the start of the war, following a faulty production process and plagerized technical designs. Kuat threatens a lawsuit, the Republic offers them the chance to work on refining the design and be compensated for it, given the need to unite against a common foe, and that's how the Victory II comes about. The Victor Development Project would be just a money-trap, taking years to finish, while Kuat keeps the Venator and what-not come off the production line, the Imperator and Tector development teams siphens lessons learned on the Victory II and Rendili bangs its head against the wall. Might even give them some incentive to secede, as seen in Dreadnaughts of Rendili.
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
blackmyron Registered: Oct '05	Date Posted: 7/1 8:54am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II) - Date Edited: 7/1 9:06am (1 edits total) Edited By: blackmyron
	And Nick, as he said the Venator's early appearance is the big problem. (In more ways than one - Jason Fry had mentioned that he hadn't consciously intended to push back the Tectors and Imperators to the early Clone Wars, he had simply moved over information from the ICS3 entry on the Venator directly and hadn't noticed the implications until later) Edit: Making the "Vic-II" the subject of the Victor Initiative Project would make the entire project somewhat meaningless - and we're left, again, with the development of three Star Destroyers within a few months with nothing in the remaining years; the Imperial Era has already been wrecked by this constant push-back. There's also the wall that ICS2 sets up; Rendili obviously isn't working in concordance with KDY at that time, unless you discard the statements made in it. There's too many babies being thrown out with this particular bathwater for me. -----signature----- Omnia mutantur, nihil interit. "Come on Dave, you're taking this stuff too seriously." - George Lucas "Reality can rarely be explained without contradictions." - Karnak
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
patchworkz7 Registered: Mar '04	Date Posted: 7/1 9:12am Subject: Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)
	Thrawn McEwok posted: RAS Leveller: Traviss seems to deliberately avoid specifying her class in No Prisoners - I'm guessing she's not an Acclamator-class ship. Considering that TCW changed all the dates for when ships would have been released she was just being cautious. I know it probably drives FJ's mad, but one thing authors are going to have to deal with in these changes are how to present material to the public without stepping on a timeline that's not pinned down, and conflicting source info that LFL doesn't seem to have pinned down. We know it's dagger-shaped, so it could be anything. The addition of concussion missiles as an add-on to the ship is interesting, but doesn't tell us much either because it's a ship that was being used as a test-bed. The term "assault ship" has been applied to the Acclamator class before, so it could be a variant, or an early design or test bed of another class. -----signature----- Original Fiction & essays "Does God Limp?" in HOUSE UNAUTHORIZED http://www.smartpopbooks.com/allbooks/2007.html#house Now in German and Polish Editions! James A Gilmer
	Post Reply \| Quote Reply \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

« 513 | 514 | 515 | 516 | 517 | 518 | 519 | 520 | 521 | 522 » - Previous | Next | Reload