main
side
curve

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. BLemelisk

    BLemelisk Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 19, 2003
    I was always of the opinion that big spaceships stayed in space, including when under construction, but I think we're at the "whatever" point with this one unfortunately.

    @Star_Desperado, is that the ship pulled out of the sky by Darth Vader's Secret Brapprentice?
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2018
    TheRedBlade and Nom von Anor like this.
  2. Star_Desperado

    Star_Desperado Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2017
    No, that was the one over Raxus Prime, not Naboo ;)
     
  3. BLemelisk

    BLemelisk Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 19, 2003
    Good, so my memory purge of that game IS working :p
     
    TheRedBlade likes this.
  4. JediBatman

    JediBatman Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 3, 2015
    But why though? What does it add? What exactly is the problem with Star Destroyers in atmosphere? The two big arguments I've seen against Star Destroyers in atmosphere hovering over cities are:

    1) It's somehow "unrealistic" or "doesn't make sense" for something of that size to be kept floating. To which I say: Repulsorlift technology is fictional, it can be as powerful as we need it to be, so who says there has to be a size limit for ships it can keep afloat? (also *cough* Cloud City *cough*)

    2) People seem to like the extra dimension it adds to combat, giving a ship a disadvantage that other ships can exploit.

    I can actually sympathize with reason #2, but I see a way to have our cake and eat it too. Even if we assume that it is difficult for Star Destroyers to be in atmosphere, or that it uses up a lot of power to hover over a city, isn't this perfectly in character for the Empire? This is the same group that built a planet destroying super weapon, and uses slave labor when they have droids. They value abject lessons in terror over practicality. The Empire putting some extra strain on their repulsorlifts just to terrify the locals in the city below makes sense.

    We've already seen something similar to this in canon IIRC. In Twilight Company a Star Destroyer entered the atmosphere of Sullust, but this made it difficult for it to fight and it had to retreat.
     
  5. Star_Desperado

    Star_Desperado Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2017
    It's also the critical plot point of the Battle of Jakku in the Aftermath books; the Ravager is brought down precisely because of overexertion of its reactor to power itself in atmo, leaving it vulnerable once NR starships break through its picket.
     
  6. Nom von Anor

    Nom von Anor Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 7, 2012
    I used to like the idea that big starships were born(built) in space, lived their entire lives in space, and died in space(either by destruction or maybe eventual scrapping). There was something beautiful about that concept. It felt right. But I know that ship sailed a long time ago, and I no longer take issue with it. It is what it is.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
  7. JediBatman

    JediBatman Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 3, 2015
    . . . I don't get it. I mean, for a real life example, big ships are built at sea, spend their whole "lives" at sea, and never go on land. But that's just a matter of practicality. There's nothing beautiful about it. If I learned that a cruise ship or aircraft carrier was built on land and (somehow) dragged to the sea, I wouldn't think "damn, that ruins the poetry of them only ever being in the ocean".

    And besides, what does that say about all the smaller ships that do go to planets. Are they somehow "less beautiful" or "less pure" than ships that don't?
     
    Vthuil and Snafu55 like this.
  8. Nom von Anor

    Nom von Anor Jedi Master star 2

    Registered:
    Oct 7, 2012
    Eh, it is different for me. Real life is real life, this is just fantasy. Real world ships spend most of their time at sea(they are drydocked when necessary, so they do spend time on land), which belongs to the Earth. But deep space belongs to no planets. This has nothing to do with practicality or anything. Just personal preference. And, as I said, I realize things have changed now, and it's ok. I'm not angry or resentful or anything.

    Nope. I did not say that. It makes perfect sense that smaller ships should be able to easily operate in atmospheres and land on planets. But really big ships are different, reasons can be found why it might be difficult for them to come down.
     
    JediBatman likes this.
  9. Iron_lord

    Iron_lord Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Sep 2, 2012
    A landed Venator can be seen in ROTS on Kashyyyk.
     
  10. BLemelisk

    BLemelisk Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 19, 2003
    It's kind of funny how they tried to reconcile that saying that Venators can land but it's not the primary function. I think that was in the cross sections book for ROTS.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
  11. Chris0013

    Chris0013 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 21, 2014
    IRL...ships are not built on the water...they are built in a drydock and then launched when completed. I can see this with space ships...as well as orbital construction yards.

    It might even be an interesting thing to have experienced spacers be able to know where each one was built due to the effects of gravity on ships build on planet as opposed to ships built in zero g.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
  12. JABoomer

    JABoomer Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Oct 23, 2009
    I've always maintained that it would take a great deal of repulsorlift machinery to enable a capital ship of considerable size to be able to operate in a planetary atmosphere. In Legends where the Victory-class was stated to be one of the largest ships able to operate in atmosphere, I assumed that the designers of the Imperial-class figured equipping it with the required repulsorlift machinery would take up too much space/power and did not include this feature.

    We know from Cloud City that pretty much ANY size of ship/mass can be made to operate in atmosphere, but I still think it's going to be up to the ships' designers whether they deem it worth installing the capability. For example, if you want the atmospheric capability, you have to give up something such as power generation, firepower, endurance, cargo volume, or speed. Each ship class will have to make the determination if the atmospheric operation is required and worth the drawbacks of installing the required repulsorlift machinery.

    In the new canon, I might say that some Flights of ISD have repulsorlift engines allowing them to operate in atmosphere, and some may not.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
    jSarek and Tzizvvt78 like this.
  13. Chris0013

    Chris0013 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 21, 2014
    Do anyone else think that ships may have model year differences like cars do in the real world?? The 1963 Corvette looks nothing like the 1957 Corvette.

    Take the YT-1300 for example...we all know what one looks like....The Millennium Falcon. Specific shape to the cockpit, 6 vents on the top rear of the ship, etc...

    But what about a YT-1300 from 3 years earlier or 3 years later. Would there be a different shape to the cockpit? Maybe the same style as the YT-1000. Or instead of 6 smaller vents would there be 3 larger ones like on the TY-2400.
     
  14. comradepitrovsky

    comradepitrovsky Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2017
    Yeah, I've always assumed that. And while it's never fit canon, I've always sorta taken the Tectors and the one-off ISD variants and assumed that they were just variant flights of Imperial. They're are plenty of interior variation in real life warships.
     
    jSarek, Tzizvvt78 and JABoomer like this.
  15. Thrawn McEwok

    Thrawn McEwok Co-Author: Essential Guide to Warfare star 6 VIP

    Registered:
    May 9, 2000
    Do we actually know yet that the big pointy Imperial cruiser we think of as the "ISD-II" is actually the ISD-II rather than the VSD? :p

    (You can tell I'm not paying attention...)

    - The Imperial Ewok
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2018
  16. Star_Desperado

    Star_Desperado Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2017
    As much as I'd love to see the spectacular flame war from recanonizing the Victory as the same old ISD's we've already seen, the Rogue One Visual Guide mentions the difference between the first-gen ISD-1s and newer -2s, mentioning that Vader's Devastator was the last of the old line.
     
    TheRedBlade and vncredleader like this.
  17. JediBatman

    JediBatman Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 3, 2015
    Isn't there a landed one that picks up Obi-wan to take him to Utapau as well?
     
  18. Senator Wan

    Senator Wan Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Aug 13, 2017
    That was in a landing dry dock sort of thing, so it wasn’t landed on its own landing struts or ventral face.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     
    JediBatman likes this.
  19. Star_Desperado

    Star_Desperado Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Nah, the Venators on Coruscant had landing gear extended, along with loading ramps for the big ole Juggernauts.
     
    JediBatman and vncredleader like this.
  20. Star_Desperado

    Star_Desperado Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Did the Treasure of Count Dooku short story mention that the Crimson Corsair's pirate ship the Meson Martinet was a CSS-1 shuttle? That big beetle-bug shaped one from the end of TPM.
     
  21. Long Snoot

    Long Snoot Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Sounds like so! Kind of weird if you compare it to what we see in the movie, the engines look much smaller. Sure, it's said to have been heavily modified, but would it really make sense to install smaller engines?
    I'm sure that LEGO Star Wars TFA depicted the ship, but I don't recall its look at all. While the game itself is not canon, I'm pretty sure that many of the "original elements" (new character/vehicle designs) are supposed to be. In fact, I guess they had been working closely with Lucasfilm and the story group in order to depict events such as Han's Rathar hunt for King Prana or the "C-3P0/OMR1 adventure".
     
  22. Star_Desperado

    Star_Desperado Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Well I asked because I got that new encyclopedia of vehicles and Starfighters and it said that's what it was. I haven't read that Journey to TFA story yet. Also of interest is the recanonization of Thall Joben from the Nelvana Droids cartoon!
     
  23. jedisor

    jedisor Jedi Knight star 1

    Registered:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Thall Joben? Do tell! What does it say about him?
     
  24. Chris0013

    Chris0013 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 21, 2014
    http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Thall_Joben/Canon
     
  25. Star_Desperado

    Star_Desperado Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Nothing much, just that he's a popular swoop bike racer who produces his own line of speeder bikes, and Kanan has one.