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

I think the main advantage of the gyro mechanism is that it makes it easier for the crew to move around Slave 1, as they wouldn't have to account for different directions of gravity between sections of the ship. There also might be some technological reason, like it's more energy efficient to have the gravity going in only one direction, but that's just speculation on my part.

Probably the most interesting thing to me is the 3 Ties in one of the bottom hangar bays (the bottom appears to be divided into two separate bays). This means it could fit at least a squadron of Ties, as it can carry at least 7 in the forward hangar (might fit more), and the two bottom bays can have 3 in each, bringing the total to 13 Ties. It also further evidence that the ship is likely to be 325m as the bottom bays wouldn't be tall enough (if it has the same proportions) to fit Ties in if the ship was a 100 metres shorter.

Spoiler

I'm actually hoping that it'll become Din's ship (unlikely, but you never know), especially since he has the Darksaber and the authority it brings. So maybe it'll have his emblem on it

Thanks! I can't believe I forgot to mention that the 1088m length fits nicely within my estimates for the window height, oh well to late now. I'm fine with the ship staying the same size, the only reason I see to scale it up is to get rid of the two different versions of the same ship.

 

So, the Imperial-I and Imperial-II class Star Destroyers came about due to there being two distinct Star Destroyer models in the OT. How did the Victory-class also end up getting split into a Victory-I and Victory-II class?

Also, how did we get the Imperial-II class frigate? I'm assuming an author goofed up somewhere, or why name it so that it can be easily confused with the ISDII?

 

So, for some reason, Wookieepedia is clearing a link dubbed Glimmer of Hope. Apparently its a canon name for a ship according to description.

 

In general, there's some scaling stuff over on Twitter which makes clear that the light cruiser in Mando is designed to be around 320m based on the studio model's hangars as well as the bridge...

But there's a huge problem with the shuttle getting into the forward hangar at that scal, which would require a much larger ship...

But this is a useful comparison to explain what I was saying about the WEG picket, escort and cruiser designations making meaningful sense.

The 215m cruiser from TCW / REBELS is right at the lower end of capital ships that are more than a single-tube hull with engines across the back - like the old WEG Bayonet-class, this still has the speed, flexibility and engine power to justify a cruiser designation, but to achieve that versatility is not particularly strong at anything except pursuit/recon, is fairly limited in terms of numbers for things like TIEs and stormtroopers, and probably has only one meaningful deck - a more capable ship of this size would have to be a more specialised single-role picket, a "frigate".

The 320m cruiser from Mando, is already "a lot more ship", emphatically multi-decked and well-provided with hangar bays. The obvious size comparison is the classic Carrack, but that is faster and narrower-hulled, more optimised to engines and heavy guns with a lot less hangar space. The 300m Strike Cruiser variant used by Prakith in the BFC is another useful comparison..

But to get a ship that can usefully deck park a Lambda shuttle or Sentinel and thus perform a really versatile role beyond space combat, you really need something that's either a lot more specifically dedicated to tall hangar space (a Quasar Fire-class bulk cruiser, for example), or if you want to retain real flexibility, you want a significantly larger ship, at least 400m and potentially in the 600m range... and you're into classic "WEG cruiser" territory, including small Star Destroyers like the Vindicator and Acclamator...

Neat work.

Definitely frigate-sized. But the fact it's called a corvette could be a design lineage thing - hammerhead bow, linear hull, grouped engines at the stern.

I can't speak for what is and isn't canon (except that Wookieepedia isn't ), and even with regard to WARFARE, Word Of Ewok Sidekick is not that binding when it comes to anything beyond my own intentions.

I have no obection to fans who want to imagine a larger variant, and I'd have to check my notes more thoroughly to see what was actually discussed and intended, but I suspect that my own recommendation here was for flexibility, and I think I did actually regard a smaller-than-1088m standard variant as a way to blur the whole thing into ambiguity...

Perhaps this is what AT-ATs wear when they're relaxing aboard Executor, part of the trash dumped before they went to hyperspace...?

Well, what's the evidence that there's a larger one?

In the first instance, this appears to be an attempt to maintain existing continuity references. The Imperial-class ship uses the existing 1.6km length for the on-screen ship, which certainly went back at least as far as Velasco's 1984 Guide to the Star Wars Universe, while the Victory-class designation and the associated 1km length come from the 1979 novel Han Solo's Revenge...

I'm not actually completely convinced that WEG's ISD-I and ISD-II were specifically designed to track to the two on-screen models, though. This may have been deliberately ambiguous, designed to accommodate differing POVs that existed in the fandom about whether the Victory-class from Han Solo's Revenge was supposed to be one of the on-screen types from the movies.

Whatever WEG did or didn't know - @Ton_G nudged me recently with a fun "conspiracy theory" that the New Class ships are actually Joe Johnson designs - I'll point out that the "ESB" type was supposed to have a very small bridge with just three viewports at the front - we see this at "our first catch of the day", with clever use of the Executor's bridge wing, though the swing set was originally designed to move this wall to the back of the set next to the holocom for this purpose.

If the greeblie with triple-openings in the middle of the ESB model's bridge tower front (actually a kitbashed model part, a Kriegsmarine triple turret for 11-inch guns) was intended to represent the triple viewport, then the intention was for a ship much smaller than 1.6km.

Joe Johnson's ANH scaling diagram, of course, has the Devastator at about 600-650m.

I have no idea about the frigate.

- The Imperial Ewok

 

The frigate was first named "Imperial II-class Frigate" in Saga Edition's Rebellion Era Campaign Guide - along with accompanying art that made it fairly clear that it was intended to be the same class as the Rand Ecliptic (later version) and the same class as the ship seen in flashback in the Roons Sewell comics.

The 400m length figure comes from The Essential Guide To Warfare.

For some weird reason, some Wookieepedian has claimed that the Imperial-II class frigate made its first appearance in the very first Marvel Star Wars strip. IMO this is somebody looking at the Marvel-style Vader's Devastator and jumping to conclusions.

 

Wait so was there a time when the on-screen Star Destroyers were called Victory-class Star Destroyers? If so, that would explain how I got it into my head that this was the case.

So did they think the Rand Ecliptic was supposed to be an Imperial-class Star Destroyer...and then maybe threw in the word "frigate" somewhat loosely? Because the name can't be a coincidence, right?

 

Wait, Marvel Star Wars book (#1) drawn by Chaykin or syndicated newspaper strip (drawn by Russ Manning)? Asking because I've just been reminded that both just happen to have weird looking Star Destroyers in their opening panels!

 

The link in the Wookieepedia article, for "First appearance" takes me to Marvel Star Wars book (#1).

Not that I know of - but the first Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels did mix them up, using ISD-II illustrations for VicStars and VicStar llustrations for ImpStars.

 

That's always why I disliked the Victory class. They look so similar to the Imperial class it's hard to tell them apart at a quick glance.

Luckily they never ever made that mistake ever again. Especially not in a major motion picture. Nope, never again.

 

I'm not saying there's no difference but the "wings" or large antanae are pretty much the only thing besides it's size that distinguishes it. Plus those "wings" aren't visible from a side profile. I know I've gotten them mixed up before.

Venators are good "early star destroyers" that look more unique.

 

The tower has a big lump on it, projecting forward:





Some versions of the Victory also have a different engine layout:

 

And I've just been reminded that the Victory-class Star Destroyer is actually a Joe Johnston design:



Since everyone's recycling ANH concept art, I think it's fair to emphasise that we have the "canonical" VSD right here...



Note how the different arrangement of the details add up to a visually distinctive ship - the shift in angle on the side wings gives a sense of power and strength, slightly akin to the blade and guard of a sword, and the superstructure units' use of L-shaped steps and flat verticals creates a distinctive and much sleeker ship.

There's a tendency in secondary depictions to default to a scaled-down ISD hull with the most obvious features from the WEG side-view added onto that - the forward-projecting block in the bridge tower and an adjacent horizontal sensor spar, the hull side-wedges, the single hangar bay; but I think the version in Battleground: Tatooine is downright awesome too...

The two-engine arrangement is the thing I'd be most inclined to carry over from Expanded Universe depictions to modify the hull, but that could be retconned as a difference between a (slow-in-realspace) planetary-assault VSD-I and a (very fast all-round) VSD-II...

You can see that the classic Marvel battle cruisers took their engine inspiration from this sketch, too...

Short answer, I'm not sure, but I definitely wouldn't rule the possibility out. There was simply nothing to say otherwise, and imagining that the Victory-class designation related to something seen on-screen when there were visibly multiple Imperial cruiser types in the movies would have been an entirely reasonable fan-speculation...

I don't think the ANH model = ISD-I, ESB model = ISD-II rule has ever actually been clear-cut canon, though I suspect the concept was so widespread by the mid-1990s that no-one really realised...

- The Imperial Ewok

 

Oh yeah, about that...shouldn't having two main engines as opposed to three be considered a major design variant? We should have at least a Victory-I, II and III. I think all the 2-engine ships in Legends were Victory-I's, but not all Victory-I's have two engines.

Also, what about the wings? Kinda seems like some Victory-I and Victory-II's have them, while others don't...when this is probably something that would warrant a separate designation as well.

 

I love Fractal's take on the VSD...especially how the "80 concussion missiles" are not 80 little launchers like the A-Wing has but real deal capital ship missiles.

 

Yeah I got the impression that Lambdas (or similar cumbersome shuttles) aren't usually meant to be stored inside because they completely block the fighters in the front hangar from leaving the cruiser; it's likely that standard configuration includes a TIE shuttle or boarding craft in one of the side hangars instead (or docked at the front in the older model). I think blockades like the one we see outside Ryloth on Rebels, made up of an Arquitens and a Quasar, would be fairly common on planets that cannot afford more versatile, larger cruisers.

 

Huh there was an A-Wing in Solo
Left of the Falcon hidden under a tarp.

 

The Victory-I and the Victory-II have been characterised as having completely different engines ever since the WEG books - slow, reliable Alderanian ones on the Victory-I, which seems to be essentially an orbital-assault platform with just 40 MGLT, and fast, presumably high-maintenance, Hoersch-Kessels on the Victory-II, which has 60 MGLT, and is thus competitive with everything in the capital ship class except the 80MGLT Carrack-class light crusier...

Seems easy enough to connect that to the two-engine / three-engine configurations, or at the very least that provides a context in which a third engine option isn't at all crazy.

I can see what you mean, but I'll admit this makes me frown, because the VSD tower with those forward-thrust sensor spars and the projecting bridge module in the centre is a pretty iconic and consistent signature - a lot of fanboys seem to recognize that, so that should really be there on anything representing the class, except maybe an Esdee Vic-Three like the Ackbar...

Fair point, on several levels.

A Lambda or especially a Sentinel has a lot more habitability and endurance - the difference between an executive jet and a chauffeured car, really... but for the typical ship, a TIE Shuttle's all you need to move small groups of personnel around...

For blockade duty, the bulk cruiser and the light cruiser actually make more sense - they can provide the same TIE numbers and command ability, and have the advantage of a more distributed presence in terms of hulls and sensor platforms, while being a lot more economical in personnel and probably in terms of materiel; they lack the troop-platform capability and the quantity of heavy artillery of a Star Destroyer, but you don't need that in this context...

Well, yes. Just with that big... tractor-beam turret... at the bow?

DROIDS/Jedi-style thrust vectrals, rather than the angled rudders of the REBELS version... really curious what that scales out at...

- The Imperial Ewok

 

I think my vision's getting worse. Instead of a big bright blur, I see a big dark blur.