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

The novel quote only mentions a cargo bay - but in this case, that may be differing terminology for the same thing:

Green Wing was hit.
"I'm losing power!"
"Get clear, you're going to blow!"
Green Wing took it down like riding a rocket, into the Destroyer's front batteries. Tremendous explosions rumbled the port bow.
"Thanks," Blue Leader said quietly to the conflagration.
"That opens it up for us!" yelled Wedge. "Cut over. The power reactors are just inside that cargo bay."
"Follow me!" Lando called, pulling the Falcon into a sharp bank that caught the horrified reactor personnel by surprise. Wedge and Blue followed suit. They all did their worst.
"Direct hit!" Lando shouted. "There she goes!"
"Pull up, pull up!"
They pulled up hard and fast, as the Destroyer was enveloped in a series of ever-increasing explosions, until it looked finally just like one more small star. Blue Leader was caught by the shock wave, and thrown horribly against the side of a smaller Imperial ship, which also exploded. Lando and Wedge escaped.

 

the Carrack class is just so hopelessly boring though

it reeks of that dry period of new ship designs around the time the Thrawn trilogy was wrapping up. No where nearly as cool as the Dreadnought, and not exactly utilitarian either with a giant friggin viewscreen in the front (yes i know its a patrol cruiser not a dedicated warship, and yes, i also know it doubles as a form of armor). At-least that one Tales comic gave it some love.

But for peat's sake, throw us the Tartan or Broadside-class next. After all since the interceptor class made a return, its evident that we are sooner rather than later going to be exposed to authors who played Empire at War and Xwing as teenagers (or maybe its just a cool name that just happened to be shared already)

then again, as featureless as the Carrack class is, it will probably cost less to render and therefor be more likely for a cameo

But yes the Victory class is a MUST

A design which was born for a need to sell miniatures will now be revived for a need to sell miniatures

its like poetry

 

I mean that the Allegiance was the 'Tector' of the class... When they made the Allegiance they sealed up the cargo and hangar bays of the communications ship design, added the reactor bulb to increase overall power... but kept the hull basically the same.

That way the ship would look basically like a big ISD from a distance... save for the lack of reactor bulb.

 

I thought that the Communications Ship would have to be very big - with maybe a Praetor I-class battlecruiser (4 km long) being a starting point, rather than the 2.2km long Allegiance.

Saxton figures it as even larger - as much as 6km:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/dagger.html#commship

 

So, I'm working on a fanfic (I know, I know) where a Carrack-class is central to the plot. Now, Wookiepedia claims it carries 142 troops. How many of those would be stormtroopers and how many regular Imperial Navy troopers?
Off the top of my head I have 45 Stormtroopers and the rest being regular Naval troops? Keep in mind this is just a random Carrack assigned to patrol duty in the Outer Rim around the time of the Battle of Yavin..

While I'm on that question, are there any good resources online with more information on the Carrack-class besides Wookiepedia?

 

if its far enough in the Outer Rim its probably all naval troopers

 

Well he did point out the Allegiance as one possible silhouette.. but looking at his research, I'm now leaning toward something akin to a stripped down Bellator-class? Remove the main guns and add more communications gear?

The communications ship can't be a Praetor-class due to the bridge tower, and the novel mentions the cargo bay reactors becoming accessible after a calamari cruiser attack knocked out a shield. The film shows that cruiser to be above the communications ship, so there would need to be a dorsal cargo or hangar bay for the cruiser's attack to do that. Nothing known has that sort of configuration.

A dorsal hangar or cargo bay does make me consider the Secutor as a starting point, since it shares a lot of the Venator's features, but practically nothing else has those features.

 

Praetor II has a radically different tower - but we don't know what the Praetor I looks like.

The four-domed battlecruisers in Marvel SW have something on its dorsal surface that might be a hangar (or it might be a dorsal dome - it's hard to tell) - and no domes on its belly surface.






A refitted version with a more conventional tower, could work.

 

That apparent oversized bridge the Falcon flew around is just a normal Star Destroyer. The Falcon looked the same width as the bridge as it swung around the Destroyer tower.

It is a normal STAR DESTROYER!

 

Not if you believe this:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Pride_of_Tarlandia/Legends

Shots of the Millennium Falcon passing by the tower also showed it as a bigger structure compared with the Avenger's tower, which theFalcon perched on in the previous film.

 

I just consider it an accident in scaling, like that small Corellian Corvette next to the medical frigate later on.

 

Now that we know there weren't just Star Destroyers + Executor - there were battlecruisers too (even in the newcanon, thanks to @jasonfry's The Levers of Power,) I can't see any necessity to make this a blooper rather than a real different design.


It having multiple bridge nodules:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/towers.html#multinodular

was what gave Saxton at least the idea that it might be the "communications ship" "one of the larger destroyers" in the ROTJ novel.

My guess is that The Essential Guide to Warfare's Pride of Tarlandia, recanonized in The Levers of Power, was conceived with this in mind.

 

I can acknowledge there were battlecruisers at Endor (whether one is actually on screen is up for debate). But making out a Star Destroyer bridge to be big and oversized thus it isn't a Star Destroyer is beyond annoying!

 

In ITW: OT, Saxton and Luceno just wrote that the towers on the Executor, the Imperial and other classes was the same, just very modular in design. From TCW we have a mini-version for the Arquitens and in Rebels there's the Interdictor tower, which incorporates some elements from the Imperial tower model. Of course, if the multi-bridge model ILM made and shot is shown to be a lot bigger, then it is. Either way, I just want a book or an article to just acknowledge it in the movie, so we get up to four canon Imperial ship-classes in it.

I remember for AOTC, there were multiple accompanying books describing various transports of the corporate organizations and out of four, we got to see two in most of the scenes (Trade Federation core ships and Techno Union transports), one shown briefly in one single shot (Commerce Guild transport) and one seemingly cut from the movie (Banking Clan transport). Yet, they all got written profiles and reference pictures for the books. With that in mind, having the same for potentially two classes that show up in one shot each (and where the camera actually focuses on them in those two shots), shouldn't be difficult.

 

Thanks for the answer.

 

I'm hoping someone takes the briefly seen NRDF warships over Hosnian Prime and does the same thing!

--Adm. Nick

 

Indeed.

One of Pablo's recent twitter posts was a jab at Saxton when he said "fans invent things in the movies that were not intended by the creators" (paraphrasing here), but then we get stories with a basis in the EU where suddenly there's a fleet of Interdictors at Endor that we never hear about before. Other than a line in the film that says "We only need to keep them from escaping", which could just refer to the fleet we see in the movie.

It's no better or worse to extrapolate this fleet of Interdictors, than extrapolating the Tector-class or a communications ship based on seeing a physical model that differs from the other models built for the same movie. At least the comm ship has the line "How could they be jamming us...?" and a paragraph in the original novelization. The Interdictors at Endor came out of nowhere.

If Pablo doesn't like fans inventing stuff that wasn't intended, why does LFL go out of their way to point out minute background details like a "hydroponics droid" at the Lars Homestead based on a silver-painted bowl stuck in the ground, or a "hangar droid" based on a yellow box in a junk heap inside the Jawa Sandcrawler?

 

It is a point well taken. I've noticed Pablo's deportment on twitter is rather high condescending on twitter regarding anything he finds nitpicky, and yet responds to criticism of a lack of exposition in TFA with the retort (a la JJ and Kasdan) that fans can figure things out because they are not dumb. He says thisiworld, as you pointed out, that he is paid to fill with little details. Most of which details have been expanded on from the possible implications from the movies. To go on and claim that fans invent many things not intedned by the creators is a little proposterous given the nature of traditions. Traditions and transform as they are handed on in ways that early authors might never have articulated. Some traditions expand of a desire for sytematization. I think Star Wars (like Star Trek, Battletech etc.) are of this sort. In many ways I think their development is not unlike the way Christian doctrine developed, with a concern for consistency with both its canonical sources (scripture and unwritten tradition) and also the later oecumenical councils. This differs from the history of pagan myth in which a systematic unity was never an overarching concern (historically thinking vs non-historical thinking religion... Theolgoy Phd candidate, forgive the digression....).

I think for some star wars fans the details beyond the screen aren't important, to others fans the that appeal to them are facts themselves, whereas for fleet junkies like oursevles, or political junkies, what matters is a systematic unity of those facts. Star Wars is an imagination scape, in which there is room for many kinds of minds to play. For systematizers, at least as I understand myself, systemization is not simply the fitting together all the facts like cars of train, but building a world out of the facts, from which new questions arise. I think criticisms and questions of systemizer can be confused for being nitpicky, "xyz is wrong because abc"),when they are really more concerened that facts are being treated in such a way that seems to close off the imaginative expansions of a world system.

 

Let's be fair to Pablo as well. He gets BOMBARDED with all kinds of questions and random musings and he has to address them as he sees fit. While I feel for people who have some complaints, ultimately we all adopt in our own heads what we "want" to be important and see extrapolated on, but it often conflicts with what others want. Pablo, the world's fanboy representative, isn't immune from this either. However, his job by it's nature it gonna make him extremely popular with some fans and unpopular with others, based on his answers. Comes with the territory, but let's make sure we are respectful of him.

--Adm. Nick

 

Problem is when he and others can nitpick the things they like, and do, in stuff they write for the franchise. It's just a bit hypocritical, imho.

 

The daimyo have denied your request, you will have to live with your shame for the rest of your life, ronin.

 

New FFG material: the Assertor-class dreadnaught, the Maelstrom-class dreadnaught, the Home One-type MC80a heavy cruiser, among others...

 

What's a Maelstrom-class dreadnought - and what does it look like?

 

It's quite possible, even probable, that the Maelstrom-class is an entirely new design, given FFG's penchant for creating new vehicles and vessels without providing an image. That said, it could possibly be a class name for the Maelstrom that served as the flagship of Darrus Jeht during the Clone Wars. Either way, I'm excited to learn more about a new dreadnought!