|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:19 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 8:23 pm
Wierd bit of info:
The first Nebula-class Star Destroyer was named the Obi-Wan so the class should therefore be the Obi-Wan class, since the GFFA seems to adere to eartly naming methods.
Yet it's called the nebula clas..
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 10:48 pm
I don't get it either. they should have called all Isd's Imperiator after the first ship of that class. they didn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:04 pm
Thank you Cale. That was the info i was looking for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 11, 2005 11:21 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 7:34 am
Cale Darksun I don't get it either. they should have called all Isd's Imperiator after the first ship of that class. they didn't. They were. THe proper name for the Imperial Star Destroyer, was the ImperatorThey began production of the ISD towwards the end of the CW and the Rebels named them Imperials since they were used by the empire in such massive forces. We're talking about whole armadas of ISDs,g
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 12, 2005 10:08 am
hmm, My notes and calculations state that each sector is assigned 60 ISD's, a base number which may change depending on the importance of the sector and current campaigns. now, although a Star Destroyer is in effect a flying self contained fortress, standard Naval doctrine has additional craft assigned to it to augment its capabilities and provide support. from my research I have found that this deployment includes 34 non combat support vessels and 67 Combat vessels, not includding shuttlecraft and fighters.
we have in effect, the ISD being the center piece of a small armada where ever it goes. as if a single Star destroyer wasn't enough trouble for rebels. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 1:15 pm
that /is/ basically the point. that's why capturing even one ISD is a big deal. they're much more powerful than a Nebulon B, or a Mon Cal cruiser (tho i am loathe to admit it). no matter what any EU books say, there's no way in utter hell that a simple group of fighters can destroy, or even disable one.
you'll notice naval tactics in SW are much more like modern military naval tactics, mixing aircraft carriers with battleships. the cruisers enter point blank range and fire at one another, while fighters support them. gun emplacement there, enemy fighter here, com. station over there, that sort of thing.
the ISDs are a real nightmare. they're bristling with guns and Tie launch stations. they're made to repel fighter attacks, and are pretty well fortified for cruiser attacks. i wouldn't be surprised if it took multiple capitol ships to take down an ISD, assuming the other ships aren't ISDs themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 13, 2005 1:37 pm
The only thing that allows Mon Cals to compete against the ISD are:
1: Back up shields: All mon cal Capital ships have these devices, which save their asses over and over again.
2: More inovative tactics: Most Mon Cal Cruiser captains are not limited to the stagnant ideas of the Academy and are encouraged to think for themselves. they are also better motivated and understand the fact that the odds are against them. also, Mon Cals live often live and fight in a 3D enviroment. unlike humans who often treat space battles in a similar fasion to naval combat, Mon Cal comanders can comprehend and make full use of the 3D terrain offered by space.
3: generally better starfighter support. X-wings and B-wings and A-wings oh my.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:06 pm
I am vindicated! From Star Wars Insider, my arguments are proved correct: Quote: The key thing that movie fans will note about this design [the ARC-170] is its similarity to the iconic X-wing fighter. The resemblance is intentional, and the backstory of the ARC-170 positions it as a product of Incom/Subpro, the eventual manufacturer of the ship that Luke Skywalker will one day make famous. The ARC-170 also has a sister ship, the Z-95 Headhunter, a one-person starfighter originating in the Expanded Universe that is also an X-wing forerunner. See, they can co-exist, and the X-wing is based off both. Case closed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:14 pm
while I agree with your opinion Durzy, I just can't shake the feeling like somone's going to argue against the evidence youve presented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:20 pm
The same article mentions Victory-class Star Destroyers in the Venator SD blurb. Venators are actually 200 meters longer than Victories (900 vs. 1100), and the article says, while only Venators appear in Ep. III, there's no reason why the Republic can't also have some Victories fighting offscreen. The only question is, if Venators are larger than Victories, why are Victories used for decades to come, and the Venators never heard of again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:23 pm
because Victories are more cost effective as warships Because they are smaller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:25 pm
That's not Imperial philosophy. "We're all powerful! We stamp out 1600-meter Imperial Star Destroyers by the dozens and make 5-kilometer SSDs whenever we feel like it!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 9:29 pm
Listen, the Venerator is phased out because they evolve into Imperiators. but with this upgrade comes the problem of deployment. they no longer are capable of atmospheric entry like their predicessors. enter the Victory which can deliver fire within a planet's gravity and atmosphere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
