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

I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure what's going on here; Firestorm does something similar, though, "syphoning off" power from the TLs to the ion cannon; but it's not clear if this means diveting main power, draining the TL capacitors, or actually using the TL generators - and Firestorm mounts a Hoth-style ion cannon, so she's not exactly a "stock" ISD, either...



We know that Saxton thinks that ISDs can use their main drives to power the TLs to get a better sustained firepower than dedicated generators, but what does everyone else think it could mean?

And is there any non-ICS evidence for this sort of trick, except whatever Thunderflare does, and that vague line in Darksaber that could just indicate a power grid between turbolasers and ion cannon?

True, but you've lost your troop/hangar capacity, and you're not likely to be significantly increasing firepower, given the mechanical and physical constraints on ammo and gun barrels, and the complete irrelevancy of drives for missiles...

What you're getting in exchange are stronger shields (always a Mon Cal desire) and a faster hyperdrive.... less sure about ion drives, but I'd imagine there are mechanical/physical constraints there, too...

You're right, though, that such warships are cheaper, and can stand up well to larger opponents in a close-quarters battle... based on comparable torpedo loads, six of them could have the Ex for lunch.

You missed out the capacitor: the power goes into a battery, from which it's used to do something handwave-y to the space jellyfish farts that are the actual ammunition; the variable firepower of TL bolts is thus to do with the power transferred from the capacitor...

We know that the big, new, high-power, long-range turbolasers of "Legacy of the Force" drain power from the ship's entire power network (the lights flicker), but that's clearly high-end firepower, and I'm not sure if we've ever seen it before? They may also not have capacitors, too...?

The question is therefore whether the main drives can increase the sustained firepower of normal turbolasers, while at the same time running engines, shields and gravity systems, or if the power of the gun's own generator and/or the operating tolerances of the actual mechanism limit the role of the main drive...

It COULD just be a matter of having a sensibly networked power grid, and perhaps charging up the turbolasers' capacitors faster before battle...?

The 'settings' for the VenStar's large guns seem a bit strange, though: to accurately target a 6km target - say, the Malevolence - at the maximum effective range ICS claims, a DBY-827 would require accuracy within one ten thousandth of one percent of one degree; and it would take several seconds for the shot to get there, in which time a ship could probably dodge...

That's on a m

 

On Firestorm vs Whirlwind: No need for a Planet Defender type mount. Make it an ISD I, with the single large ion cannon battery on each side along with the heavy turbolasers. Thus if the ship is slightly off center, a single ion cannon makes perfect sense and doesn't require a retrofit.

On aiming: Life becomes a lot easier when you realize that aiming turbolasers and such is not a merely physical process. There are at least two examples of heavily off axis firing of weapons that are not possible with mechanical adjustments: the Death Star II superlaser and TIE laser cannons. Both imply some sort of method of directing the beam outside the end of the physical gun barrel.

On usefulness of light second ranges: No, you aren't going to hit ships that can maneuver from that far. What you can hit are things like defense stations in orbit, or planetary installations, while remaining out of range of return fire.

On missiles: There are three examples in the movies of the abilities of missiles. First, the Proton Torpedo. Programmed with a flight plan, they are capable of making 90 degree turns within a couple of meters. Second, the homing missile from AotC, which has an extreme tracking mode, following Obi-wan successfully through an asteroid field until he destroys it by dropping debis into its path. Third, the Buzz droid missiles in RotS, which fired from one platform at two separate targets, locked on to specific parts of the target craft, and followed well enough until they reached a target point and detonated.
It would not be hard for a missile in the GFFA to have a small droid brain, programmed with targets and being essentially fire and forget. Star Wars computing and AI is far beyond what we currently have, as is their sensor technology. Applying it to missiles is possible, giving exotic designs like the GAM lock versus repulsor craft on the PLX torpedo launcher.

 

It's creative, but Firestorm is apparently a new ship, and you know that I think the turrets are just paired mountings for NK-7s.

True, but with a 1137m VenStar, you still need accuracy of better than 250 nanometres to hit a 6km circular target at that range... and using some sort of angling lens (which depends in itself on mechanical systems) for fine-correction depends on accurately knowing the inaccuracy of the initial shot in the first place...

Are they usually 6km wide? Note also that that's the LONG axis...

Weren't the missiles in the other thread? Do you want me to answer this there?

- The Imperial Ewok

 

Funny that the RASB states that the Rebellion used the same nomenclature as the Imperial Navy, and yet each and every explicit Star Cruiser--with the debatable exception of Home One--is smaller than the ISD, TSD, Dominator-type, and Allegiance-type Star Destroyers. We also know that both the Broadside-class cruiser and the Gladiator-class Star Destroyer literally share a keel, but are differentiated based on mission profile rather than tonnage. Also funny that there's a Star Cruiser of identical size (the MC40a).

Post the quote again. If memory serves, it simply made reference to 'the larger Star Cruisers,' not flatly state that Star Cruisers were larger than Star Destroyers. That some Star Cruisers are larger than some Star Destroyers is to be expected. But that doesn't mean that they are defined by the tiny minority that may be.

I've not done any in-depth examination of what defines a 'Star Dreadnaught' as yet (and doing so will be problematic, given the fact that only one to three vessels of the type are explicitly named as such), but a giant Star Destroyer is still a Star Destroyer so long as it retains the general capabilities of such a vessel. Command & control, space combat, air wing, ground assault capability.

Where's that quote, again?

Stop trying to weasel out of the fact that the only known actual Star Cruisers are smaller than most Star Destroyers...? The RASB citation provided earlier firmly establishes that the Alliance used the Imperial Navy's classification conventions. The Star Cruisers that they fielded are almost universally smaller than ISDs, TSDs, Dominator-types, and Allegiance-types. And again, we have examples of Star Destroyers, vanilla cruisers, and Star Cruisers all occupying the same tonnage bracket and length.

Certain things are better at their roles than others. A 42m Guardian may be excellent at fighting pirates (and is actually classified as a picket ship in The Hutt Gambit if I recall correctly), but not at combating ships of the line. One could make the same argument that it'd be silly to

 

Light Cruiser, not a Star Cruiser



The Star Cruiser designation for class type has only been used by the Mon Calamari, and the largest Star Cruiser is the MC90 which is only 1,255 meters according to WEG. It wasn't till the Mediator and the Viscount that Mon Calamari ships surpassed the size of Star Destroyers, those two being a Battlecruiser and Star Defender respectively. The only time a Standard sized Star Cruiser has surpassed a Star Destroyer is in the case of the Defender, and Republic Star Destroyers. The Defender being called a "Pocket SD" and the Republic SD only 5 meters under a MC90 (And the VicStars of course as well).

 

Home One is 1300 meters officially and the Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia may have retconned it into being bigger.

Bakura Star Destroyer - 850 meters
Chiss Star Destroyer - 1000 meters
Gladiator Star Destroyer - 500 meters (assumed)
Victory Star Destroyer - 900 meters
Venator Star Destroyer - 1137 meters
Republic Star Destroyer - 1250 meters
Nebula/Defender Star Destroyer - 1040 meters

MC80 Star Cruiser - 1200-1500 meters varying by unique individuals
MC90 Star Cruiser - 1255 meters

So the average Star Cruiser is larger than the average Star Destroyer, just not the highly prominent Imperial-class ships.

 

The MC80 Liberty type has had ships 500 (Kuari Princess: TCSWE), 1,200 and 1,500 meters (Xw:A) long, the Home One type 1,200, 1,400 (Xw:A) and larger (Home One: ROTJn, TCSWE). Since there's no record of Rebels referring to their Calamari cruisers as "Super Star Destroyers" nor is their majority larger than the Imperial-class Star Destroyer, that particular Star Cruiser production line is not Rebel in origin.

 

Those were not the average Star Destroyer. The average SD was the Imperial-classes and then later the Imperious-class and Pellaeon-class Star Destroyers.

The Standard size of a MC80 was 1200 meters, but yes there were cases of the ship reaching up farther then that. But besides that no Star Cruiser has surpassed the length of the most common Star Destroyer in the Star Wars Universe, the Imperial-class.

I hate that the Bakura-class got Star Destroyer slapped onto it's name. It has not place being there. Besides having the same reactor as an SD I don't see the reason. Why can't it just be a Cruiser?

[image=http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/b/b8/MC80svsISD.png]

There's no reason the Rebels would ever refer to a Calamari Ship as a Super Star Destroyer. As evidenced by the Mediator and Viscount-classes the Rebellion/NR/GA stayed away from that class name distinction.

 

Is there a canonical source that states the Imperial-class is the most common type of Star Destroyer? It's used in the movies for task forces created by Darth Vader and the Emperor's fleet at Endor, but those would use the best ships available. Thrawn however was quite starved for Imperial-class ships.

 

Thrawn was starved for ships because of the number of Warlords still prevelent if I remember correctly. The New Republic demolished a fair number of the Imperial fleets as well. There were a lot of forces at Coruscant when the NR took it back.

Also we saw multiple Star Destroyers at Tatooine as well. All the fleets we saw in the Movies were heavily Star Destroyer dependent, as well in the TIE Fighter game (I can't speak for XvT or X-wing cause I haven't played those in forever).

 

The Star Destroyers in Rebellion era-sources are usually the same as the Imperial-class, according to SOTGSE.

 

There were essentially three causes for Thrawn's lack of ships, each weighted differently depending on the source, but none mutually exclusive.

1. Combat losses. The three-way skirmishes between the Empire's forces under Admiral Rogriss, the New Republic fleet, and Teradoc's dominion took a huge number of ships out of commission for all sides; The Essential Chronology indicates this was the primary reason that both the Empire and New Republic had to make ship acquisition a top priority just before the return of Thrawn.

2. The Reborn Emperor. The clone of Palpatine was secretly recalling many of his ships and personnel to the Deep Core in preparation for his return. The Dark Empire Sourcebook cites this as the reason Thrawn had to find ships to carry out his war.

3. Logistical demands resulting from the Mount Tantiss Project. Thrawn's cloning program was jump-starting his offensive, but the ship supply simply couldn't keep up with the increased troop supply. Thrawn needed ships of any sort that would allow him to get these forces into position to carry out his offensives. The Essential Atlas leans on this as the casue for Thrawn's need for ships.

The Essential Atlas gives us a fourth reason, though it doesn't weigh it heavily as a cause for needing ships: warlordism. While Thrawn was able to bring several major warlords into his fold, he couldn't bring them ALL into his coalition, so he had to marginalize the rest and do without their resources, including ships.

So, if we take all these together, we get a pretty good picture of the situation. Both the New Republic and the Empire's fragments have battered each other repeatedly, leaving both critically short on ships; further, the Empire's fragments are losing ships mysteriously, as the reborn Emperor recalls them to the Deep Core. Thrawn returns and unites several powerful warlord factions with what remains of the Empire proper, but several warlords stay out, denying Thrawn access to their materiel. Thrawn starts his Mount Tantiss project, but the ships he has are stretched thin just carrying out his orders and patrolling what remains of Imperial space; he needs ships that can either transport his new personnel into position, or that can free up other ships to do so. His first attempt, to capture New Republic ships in dock at Sluis Van, is a failure, though it does take yet more New Republic ships out of commission.

Now, *any* warships will be valuable; he's got thousands of clones of his most capable personnel sidelined, and even inferior ships will allow him to get those clones into the action. So even though the Katana dreadnaughts are less powerful and decades out of date, they're still able to change up the balance of power, because they're filled with top-flight crews and troops, they can be deployed anywhere, and because the New Republic is experiencing a paucity of ships itself. As The Essential Atlas mentions, Thrawn doesn't have to take a lot of territory; he simply has to prove the New Republic can't keep him at bay to crush member worlds' faith in it and get defections. A brand-new, highly experienced fighting force with no pre-existing responsibilities or mission profile can do just that, particularly against an enemy that's hurting for ships itself.

 

As a nod toward what I think Tziz is trying to get across, some of those examples aren't Imperial or Alliance ships (the Bakuran and Chiss examples), so their naming conventions may not be the same as the Imperial Navy or Alliance (though it seems unlikely). That said:

Imperial-class Star Destroyer - 1,600m
Imperial II-class Star Destroyer - 1,600m
Tector-class Star Destroyer - 1,600m
Dominator-type Star Destroyer - 1,600m
Allegiance-type Star Destroyer - 2,000-3,200m (estimate)

For the purposes of simplicity, I'm considering Shockwave as a member of the Allegiance-type.

Both groups include small examples that seem to bottom out at about 5-600m, usually hover around a bit over a kilometer long, and can include ships substantially larger than that. No matter how you approach this, there's no evidence that tonnage is a determining factor in the classification of the ship, let along the determining factor. Similarly, look at interdictors. We know they're interdictors because of their primary intended role, but there can be diminutive ones like the little ones used to trap Daala's Scylla or huge ones like the Dominator-type that share a keel with the gargantuan Imperial Star Destroyer.

Keller:

The MC40 is described as a smaller member of the family of Star Cruisers that include the larger MC80--I would assume that the same principle applies equally to the MC40a. This sounds like similar conventions in which smaller members of the same ship family are compared to the more mainstream previous generation's larger examples (Turbulent and Nebula-class ships being "pocket Star Destroyers" for example). She's still a member of that family, but the bigger ones are a lot more famous.

 

Good point.

I wouldn?t be surprised, if the ISD didn?t originally start out as a Star Cruiser at the end of the clone wars, but slid then into the Star Destroyer-range, either for budgetary reasons (remember the entire ?Super-class?-confusion) or because the empire continued to build bigger ships at the top-end of the spectrum (with increasing Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts) leading to ships like the VSD being classified a frigate in some sources.

Concerning the Allegiance, we don?t know if her class is still a Star Destroyer or if she is already a (light) Star Cruiser.

 

I hate it when they classify the VSD as a Frigate.

 

The Allegiance-type is referred to as an "Imperial Star Destroyer" in the audio drama for Dark Empire. Shockwave (which, I admit, I'm only assuming is one of these vessels based on her description) is explicitly a Star Destroyer in Darksaber. Nothing published has ever even suggested that the aforementioned vessel class was a Star Cruiser.

As for Victory-class Star Destroyers "classified as a frigate in some sources," I'd be very curious as to what sources these are, because frigates aren't designed for the missions that a VicStar is (planetary assault, space superiority, ship-to-ship combat, system defense, command & control, and ground troop support). Also fascinating is that apparently the vessel's designers, manufacturers, and end-users can't be counted among these sources, because KDY, RSD, the Republic Navy, Imperial Navy, Rebel Alliance, CSA, Alliance of Free Planets, NRDF, and GADF have consistently categorized the venerable old VicStar as a Star Destroyer ever since the first keels were laid all the way through the newest class variants commissioned more than half a century later.

If you're obliquely referencing the Battlefront 2 "Victory II-class frigates," it's painstakingly obvious that this is a completely different ship altogether. Aside from kinda-sorta looking like a flying wedge if you squint really hard, the warships bear no resemblance to each other whatsoever.

 

Sorry, but canonical, direct references are hardly 'irrelevant'.

But by all mean, enlighten us - you've been dancing around the WOTC quotes using the meaningless term "WOTC scale" for some time now. How exactly, then, is this supposedly 'separate' scale used in the Star Wars universe? Why would they give us Imperial ships and then give a scale used by someone else - and also not make that clear? Do you any supporting quotes whatsoever from the SOTG to support your views at all? How about something from the CL or ICSes that gives specific definitions like the RASB or the SOTG does? No? Fan scaling doesn't override canon.
Considering the inclusionist philosophies among many SW authors nowadays, I'd assume they would be wanting to harmonize the various sources. But if something has to go, a scale that applies to one particular corporation's ships would be it - and the RASB already mentioned how accurate those are...

 

Just a sidenote on the Firestorm:

When Daala rerouted power from the other weapons to the ion cannon (Or Ion cannons), they may have been more powerful ion cannons than we are used to seeing: In one of the Adventure Journals (The Story is called Relic by George R. Strayton, in AJ #6 and in the Classic Adventures Volume 4), they talk about a post-Endor Imperial splinter group that was experimenting with new ion technology (Nice to see a fragmented Imperials still inventing or refining weapons, instead of just using the plain vanilla stuff we are used to). The experimental ion cannons did 7D damage, as opposed to the usual 3D or 4D we see with most ion weapons; if you use the reroute power ability explained in the Far Orbit Project, you can add an extra 2D to your weapons role (Drawing from other systems of course) so you could theoretically pump out 9D ionization damage, which following WEG rules bypasses shields as well. It is entirely conceivable that an ISDII with "super-ions" could knock out another ISDII (7D+1 Hull) with one blast. The only issue with the "super-ions" was that they were experimental at the timeframe of the story, and could possibly misfire and disable whatever ship was armed with them.

 

Since WOTC already has a ship chart depicted on SOTGSE pages 52 and 53, none of which include "star cruiser" or "star dreadnaught", I'd be interested in knowing how this is related to the fanon idea that Star Cruisers larger than Star Destroyers are actually "star cruisers the same as or smaller than Star Destroyers".

Again, the stock ship types on the WOTC chart go as follow: Light fighter < Interceptor < Superiority fighter < Bomber < Light freighter < Shuttle < Gunship < Heavy freighter < Corvette < Frigate < Cruiser < Battlecruiser.

The original SOTG divided ships into size-classes, from Starfighter (Fine < Dimunitive < Tiny) to Space transport (Small < Medium-size) to Capital (Large < Huge < Gargantuan < Colossal), and Space stations on a separate chart (With the Executor being one).

 

For game purposes for setting up "stock ships", which isn't the same as what's referenced in the SSD entry - which you clearly knew, since you then go on to state that.

Again, you just dance around the actual questions asked.

 

Per AdmiralWesJanson's suggestion, continuing the discussion from the "Fleet Strengths" thread here:

What's 'special' about the Trax Sector is that we're given the actual strength of the Sector Group, and the reference is a fairly obscure one compared to others usually mentioned (Elrood, Kathol).
Thanks to the Essential Atlas, we have confirmation that the Trax Sector is indeed a full-sized sector rather than a subsector. It is a Mid Rim sector, but as Classic Campaigns says it is a strategic one.
As far as the strength goes, the Rebellion Era Campaign Guide (reiterating from the old RASB) states that a Sector Group consists of at least 24 Star Destroyers and 2400 other vessels, of which 1600 are combat-ready ships, which is close to the stated Trax Sector Group forces (which I'll repeat here for this thread) - 19 VSDs and 5 ISDs, 2573 other ships of which over 1500 are combat-ready ships.
These are the expected values, of course. For the Outer Rim - especially for remote and unimportant sectors like the Minos Cluster and the Kathol Sector - they would probably be passed over for strengthening other locations like the Core systems. Considering that we now have a total count for the full sectors in the Outer Rim being a little over 100 (which includes a few additional sectors created by the Empire, so not included in the original 1024), despite the vastness of the Outer Rim the overwhelming majority of sectors are within the Coreward regions.

As far as the quote about how much of the Imperial Navy is held in reserve, the last edition of the SWSB states:
"Much of the Imperial Navy is permanently deployed in reserve in the Galactic Core, ready to swiftly respond to any threats, anywhere." - p.138

Interesting quote on the facing page I hadn't noticed before - "Naturally, most Imperial Star Destroyers carry TIE fighters to deal with small opponents; this fiscal year's Imperial budget provides funds to retrofit the remainder with TIE flight decks. However, in light of the disaster at Yavin, funding may be diverted to more vital purposes."
Could this be a reference to what was eventually termed the Tector-class?

 

Um...the Tector-class was created long before Yavin.

I'd hazard a guess that it's referring to the Lancer-class frigate and probably the Executor.

 

That would explain the armored flight bay on the Tector. Is the Tector the onlt Star Destroyer so far without TIE capability?

 

The Allegiance and the other SSDs seen escorting the Eclipse, appear to have no ventral bays. No way of telling whether they have them elsewhere.

Blackmyron, since you're so interested in using role playing game rules elsewhere in the debate, I find it amusing you stop whenever the opposition provides evidence for other rpg classification models. You're the one dancing around the issue. Last I checked, you weren't an LFL employee and certainly not its continuity checker. If you'd stop claiming that WOTC somehow retconned "Star Cruisers larger than Star Destroyers" into "star cruisers the same as or smaller than, Star Destroyers", I'd appreciate that instead of your humorous dismissals of canon evidence.

So far, the non-rpg derived information shows that Star Destroyers were smaller than a type of Star Cruiser and that said type was called a SSD by Rebels. The book series from the same publishers also have as canon that some capital ship designs were downscaled, thus explaining the rpg-derived cruisers that are typically smaller than most known Star Destroyer designs.
No need to interject with some assumption that WOTC changed canon in order to minimize the amount of Rebellion-era ship designs larger than the Star Destroyers.

Speaking of non-rpg classifications, I'm looking over the Official Site Databank's starship articles now. They use mostly movie-based info (Imperial and Venator as cruiser types) and have some peculiarities of their own.

I like how the site bothers to at least provide more role-specific designations than most other sources, though since some info was put in the databank a long time ago and others are more recent, the level of detail varies.

 

It is significant that the Imperial Sourcebook states that "A Sector Group is the sum total of naval strength which the Empire expects to commit to a normal sector." If the standard twenty-four Imperator/Imperial-class Star Destroyer deployment is considered normal, then the sectors that possess a lower or higher number of identical or analogous vessels deviate from the normal Sector Group deployment, and are presumably less common then the normal deployment.