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

Discussion in 'Literature' started by AdmiralWesJanson, Sep 12, 2005.

  1. blackmyron Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2005
    star 5
    You're probably not far off the mark - but let's not also forget that Lucas was the one who killed any more appearances of the TF freighter-battleships in CWAS....
  2. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    Oh I'm not blaming Lucas for this. I'm blaming the less than creative people who will only use movie ships.
  3. blackmyron Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2005
    star 5
    The Clone Wars is a dead end for EU production only now - prior to the CWAS, Acclamators were showing up as late as Dreadnaughts of Rendili. The HNN articles have a plethora of never-seen ships show up.

    To give credit, they have had the Z-95s and the V-19s show up. And frankly, I don't need the CWAS to "Ryloth" my favorite EU ships - I'm fine with them never appearing on the show.
  4. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I honestly don't mind the Venator being prevalent in TCW. Acclamators, at least Mk 1s, are transports first. I don't mind them showing up in space combat early on when the Republic was still getting its act together, but the Republic not having significant numbers of a dedicated space-combat ship until practically the end of the war strikes me as silly.
  5. blackmyron Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 29, 2005
    star 5
    Agreed. That they were the principal ships in Rendili had always bothered me. Throw some VSDs in there, Dark Horse!
  6. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    Yeah, we need more Vic-Star love!
  7. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I was thinking about the VicStar. The other side of course is that TCW aims more for a general audience; ROTS ships and equipment make sense in that regard. We get compensated with things like the Warfare guide and Atlas.

    This is a total divergent, but Apple, LFL, and Disney all do this. Apple has Idevices, LFL has TCW, and Disney has the parks. It makes it okay for them to produce stuff not a whole lot of people are going to buy because they have the mass-market to fall back on.
  8. AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    I'll give some slack to the creative people on this myself. The point is not that they refuse to use ships like the Vic Star, but that to design and render new designs takes time and money that could be used elsewhere. Once a design is rendered, though, they tend to reuse it, thus the more varied CIS and GAR fleets in newer episodes vs Season 1. If we want specific ships there needs to be a reason more than just "they'd look cool." Doing Dreadnoughts of Rendilli would encourage the addition of the Dreadnought, as well as with a tad of editing, be a decent 2-3 part story.
  9. Gorefiend Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2004
    star 5
    I personally would mind less if the Venator was not such an ugly design [face_sigh]
  10. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    Really? I quite like it! Reminds me a of a sword.
  11. Gorefiend Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2004
    star 5
    A very unwieldy sword :p The double bridge and huge hangars just mess it up for me.
  12. MercenaryAce Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 10, 2005
    star 5
    I think the Venator is more of a carrier than most other SD designs, which I believe is the explanation for both elements.
    rumsmuggler likes this.
  13. Gorefiend Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2004
    star 5
    I know, it still makes it ugly as sin.
  14. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    I've said it before, I'll probably say it again...VSD FTW!!:p
  15. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    Er...is that a Venator or a Vicstar?
  16. AdmiralWesJanson Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 23, 2005
    star 5
    Vicstar is VSD, Venstar is generally VnSD
  17. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    Sadly, I think the Vicstar is much uglier, with the random extra sections hanging out the sides.
  18. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    Their not random. In the original design, the wings (not random extra sections) housed repuslorlifts to allow the Vic to operate in atmosphere.

    EDIT: Or actual wings. I've heard both.:p
    Last edited by Skywalker_T-65, Oct 17, 2012
  19. imiller Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 26, 2004
    star 3
    I mean random aesthetically. I'm sure they have a function. They're just really, really ugly.
  20. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
  21. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    double post- forum lag.
    Last edited by Iron_lord, Oct 19, 2012
  22. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
    I've had a glance at the new Edge of the Empire Beta book- and a couple of things caught my eye.

    First, that Long Range for ship to ship weapons- ranges from a few hundred km to a few thousand (it's abstracted)- which is a significant upgrade from Star Wars D6 which had it as on the order of 160 km maximum (In, I think, the Rebel Alliance Sourcebook).

    Second- that laser cannon, turbo lasers, etc are described as a type of weapon predating blasters, and that they use "focused light" to create "long ranged, accurate, highly damaging blasts of energy" as opposed to blasters which generate "concentrated particle bursts".

    In Essential Guide to Warfare it seemed like laser cannon and turbolasers were simply upscaled blasters- that the name is a misnomer and that, like blasters, they generate bursts of particles.

    Are they retconning that?
  23. Skywalker_T-65 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Nov 19, 2009
    star 6
    Already retconning? Is that a record?

    (if they are)
  24. Iron_lord Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 2, 2012
    star 6
  25. Gorefiend Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 23, 2004
    star 5
    Effective ship weapons ranges have varied as time goes on anyhow ^^ though they generally do seem to lose effectiveness rather drastically over range, expect in the ICS which just once again didn’t really do research.

    It’s all a little wobbly anyhow as Blasters do still have a laser component so you can argue they are based on it that way, though does the book explicitly say one is just energy and the other one partials?