Practical or For Show?

[Beniboybling]

You sure about that? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW_hGOFukMQ This may change your mind...

 

Oh, and there was that snub fighter that destroyed a battle station with a proton torpedo. What was that again? Oh yeah, the Death Star.

 

We also lack proton torpedoes and energy weapons (for now... mwa hahaha!) The offensive capabilities of Star Wars fighters/bombers certainly match the defensive capabilities of deflector shields.

 

As LadyKulvax pointed out, there are always bombers. However, those are designed more for ground attack, etc. There are heavy fighters/hybrid designs such as the venerable X-Wing and ARC-170 which offer a mix of dogfighting abilities and heavy firepower (i.e. proton 'effing torpedoes, not to be messed with).

 

And before you mention that proton torpedoes are rare and expensive, yes they are. But I'm willing to wager they're still cheaper than a battleship!

That was after the entire flotilla of battleships broke through the shields on the command tower, allowing a group of bombers to take down the shield generator taking down the shields completely. A moot point I feel.

 

The Death Star is not a battleship, not sure why you brought that up.

 

Anyway I disagree, deflector shields can withstand heavy salvos of laser fire - that is their purpose, if we had developed near bullet-proof metal a comparison could then be made. But the fact remains that if a modern day battleship is attacked by a single fighter-craft, the damage is going to be infinitely more devastating. I say infinitely because a single fighter-craft attacking a Star Wars battleship will do zero damage. Only overwhelming firepower can drop shields.

 

Yes, proton torpedoes can bypass shields, but bombers are not deployed en masse, and suffer from being slow moving targets, so they are far from the perfect solution. Without mentioning that many larger battleships (such as the Executor, and the Invincible) have particle shields, almost negating the impact of physical projectiles completely.

 

Then of course we should consider the actual impact proton torpedoes can do, some hull damage perhaps, nothing that is going to cripple a battleship unless it comes under prolonged fire - unless it has major structural weaknesses which are either rare or well protected. In such a case its going to take time to weather the vessel time.

 

Time which can either be used by the battleship to take out the relatively flimsy fighters, or destroy the carrier, a carrier which is likely going to have weak shields and/or firepower due to favoring cargo space over reactors.

 

I'm certainly not denying the benefits of carriers and starfighters, but I think against a sturdy battleship with decent point-defense cannons, and its own starfighter complements the effectiveness is certainly diminished.

 

P.S. On another note however. ISD shield generators, sticking right out on-top of the bridge as easy an target as ever. Certainly not practical, and doesn't look that attractive either, any ideas here? Seems kinda dumb to me.

 

EDIT: Excellent analysis Silenceo, I agree with you completely.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Beniboybling

[Silenceo]

 

P.S. On another note however. ISD shield generators, sticking right out on-top of the bridge as easy an target as ever. Certainly not practical, and doesn't look that attractive either, any ideas here? Seems kinda dumb to me.

 

The only way I could think of for that being even a some what conceivable thing to do is if they had Particle Shields, though I have never been able to confirm or deny if they have any on MK-I or MK-II. I theorize that they are placed there due to design specific requirements that those specific shield generators have, and they could likely be replaced with smaller shield generators spread across or integrated into the hull. If they do have particle shields it still isn't a great choice, but could at least see the reasoning concerning it. Start the New Shield Generators for Star Destroyers petition! GO GO GO!

 

Off-Topic Side Note: I think I have an idea of what I might be able to use as a Flagship, but it could be banned due to what it is capable of doing. Still waiting on suggestions if you have any since those likely will be acceptable by the rules since you are after all the arbiter. Waiting on feedback from the changes I made before I send anymore.

Edited June 12, 2014 by Silenceo

[Beniboybling]

The only way I could think of for that being even a some what conceivable thing to do is if they had Particle Shields, though I have never been able to confirm or deny if they have any on MK-I or MK-II. I theorize that they are placed there due to design specific requirements that those specific shield generators have, and they could likely be replaced with smaller shield generators spread across or integrated into the hull. If they do have particle shields it still isn't a great choice, but could at least see the reasoning concerning it. Start the New Shield Generators for Star Destroyers petition! GO GO GO!

 

Off-Topic Side Note: I think I have an idea of what I might be able to use as a Flagship, but it could be banned due to what it is capable of doing. Still waiting on suggestions if you have any since those likely will be acceptable by the rules since you are after all the arbiter. Waiting on feedback from the changes I made before I send anymore.

The ISD I and presumably IIs had no particle shields, refer to the whole asteroid field business. Though they may have just had them on the generators, I know that the Executor had particle shields however.

 

And I'll get back to you when I can.

[tunewalker]

Ok real quick

 

"The two rival shipbuilders, Rendili StarDrive and Kuat Drive Yards, later embarked on a collaborative design-project while the war was still in its early phases.[16] This was called the "Victor Initiative Project", which resulted in the Victory-class. This design by Walex Blissex became a direct challenge to Kuat's Venator-class.[7]"

 

 

There are several other sources comparing the Venator to the Victory. And as we can see here its clear that the Victory was designed as an alternative to the Venator. To be an alternative they would have to be comparable to one another. In this regard Guns + Compliment the 2 likely had equal firepower and toughness. Ones firepower mainly coming from main guns + fighters the other coming from all guns and fighters acting as screening much like the others smaller guns act as, but overall fire power being the same. Same with overall toughness, the Venators coming from shields armor and swarm of fighters to shoot down, and the Victories coming from just shields and armor.

 

The question then becomes. Why werent the Victories favored? To which the awnser is simple and we see it plain as day in the Tarkin Doctrine. Tactical Options. The Venators Compliment allows more options in combat, along with the Victory I's flaw that came about.

 

"The Victory I-class Star Destroyer's biggest disadvantage was its underpowered LF9 ion engines, which could not produce sufficient acceleration to pursue newer and faster ships, allowing them to escape ship-to-ship combat."

 

This flaw meant fighters were generally better suited for giving pursuit, giving the Venator even more tactical options.

 

 

Next lets look at the Tarkin Doctrine itself

 

"Your Majesty, it has long been my contention that your New Order needs one undeniable and overwhelming symbol to impress and, yes, frighten the masses. The average citizen has no grasp of numbers nor a head for calculation. I maintain that the effectiveness of the Star Destroyer stems from not only its massive firepower, but from its size. When citizens look at a Star Destroyer and then compare it to the craft which might be mustered to attack it, they have a tendency to dismiss such a notion as suicidal rather than approach the problem tactically."

 

As we see here the Star destroyer is still noted as having "Massive firepower" and that attacking its strong armor and heavy firepower would be to most "suicidal rather than approach the problem tactically." And there we see that word again, Tactics.

 

The Imperial Stardestroyer and its compliment have much tougher armor and Massive Firepower, but it lacks tactical options in combat, and energy efficiency. Can a Venator beat this ship? yes. Does it have more firepower compliment included? no. Is it tougher? no. Does it have more tactical options and efficiency? Yes. It needs to play to its strength and keep its distance while using its larger compliment to fight off the fighters and use trench disease to their advantage. They can win, but in a slugging match the Imperial will rip the Venator Apart. If the Imperial can catch it and rip it to shreds before it finishes fielding its fighters then again the Imperial will rip it to shreds.

 

 

Modern Carriers vs Destroyers is not a valid arguement as Modern Carriers are bigger then destroyers. Destroyers in navies are meant for their speed + fire power instead of toughness + firepower. A squad of fighters doesnt stand a chance against a destroyer if that sqaud doesnt have torpedoes as they would have to get into range of the Destroyers massive anti-air guns.

 

 

As for fighters hurting larger ships I believe they can depending on the fighter. Like the naboo fighters clearly could do nothing to the Lucrehulk battleship, but the military fighters could do minor damage.

 

 

In light of this topic beni, my suggestion on handling the Universal tech rule. When dealing with ships from the Clone Wars into the NJO era instead of using comparisons to what they "similar" to in that time for the most part all we need to do is update their compliment, shields, armor and tracking.

 

For Example in an arguement of Venator-class vs Majestic-class one could not say the Majestic has better fire control systems as the Venator was designed to be able to handle the state of the art firing control as such it would likely have been updated had it remained in use and probably was updated by the few that did keep it in use. Same with its compliment we know that was updated for use.

 

The Imperial SD if facing people from the NJO would probably have shield equipped TIE's as that was one of the major upgrades made to it at that time, so on and so forth. The years are close enough and the tech advancements are small enough, or just taking things in a different direction that they are comparable just each having different tactical advantages.

Edited June 13, 2014 by tunewalker

[tunewalker]

That was after the entire flotilla of battleships broke through the shields on the command tower, allowing a group of bombers to take down the shield generator taking down the shields completely. A moot point I feel.

 

The Death Star is not a battleship, not sure why you brought that up.

 

Anyway I disagree, deflector shields can withstand heavy salvos of laser fire - that is their purpose, if we had developed near bullet-proof metal a comparison could then be made. But the fact remains that if a modern day battleship is attacked by a single fighter-craft, the damage is going to be infinitely more devastating. I say infinitely because a single fighter-craft attacking a Star Wars battleship will do zero damage. Only overwhelming firepower can drop shields.

 

Yes, proton torpedoes can bypass shields, but bombers are not deployed en masse, and suffer from being slow moving targets, so they are far from the perfect solution. Without mentioning that many larger battleships (such as the Executor, and the Invincible) have particle shields, almost negating the impact of physical projectiles completely.

 

Then of course we should consider the actual impact proton torpedoes can do, some hull damage perhaps, nothing that is going to cripple a battleship unless it comes under prolonged fire - unless it has major structural weaknesses which are either rare or well protected. In such a case its going to take time to weather the vessel time.

 

Time which can either be used by the battleship to take out the relatively flimsy fighters, or destroy the carrier, a carrier which is likely going to have weak shields and/or firepower due to favoring cargo space over reactors.

 

I'm certainly not denying the benefits of carriers and starfighters, but I think against a sturdy battleship with decent point-defense cannons, and its own starfighter complements the effectiveness is certainly diminished.

 

P.S. On another note however. ISD shield generators, sticking right out on-top of the bridge as easy an target as ever. Certainly not practical, and doesn't look that attractive either, any ideas here? Seems kinda dumb to me.

 

EDIT: Excellent analysis Silenceo, I agree with you completely.

 

 

The generator's on the bridge were done for a very simple reason. The shields are strongest at the location of the generators. The bridge was one place the Empire did not want to get hit in and have it be destroyed with it having some of the weaker armor. They also set up extra guns and defenses around the bridge to help prevent things from getting in. The overall effect and purpose was to make both the Shield generators harder to get to with fighters (not impossible but harder) as well as make the bridge the most well defended part of the ship.

[LadyKulvax]

All of that is off Wookieepedia whereas I have legitimate sources stating that the third year Venator-class had better armour which was dropped because it was too expensive for the ISD line, (see previous quotes).

 

The same is said about the DBY-827 Dual Heavy Turbolaser batteries which had firepower sufficient to penetrate any shielding and just four of them clearly outgunned broadside to broadside the Invisible Hand which has massive firepower.

 

Until presented with a legitimate source not a Wookieepedia article that states any of the ships had superior hull and armament then I stand by the sources I have infront of me.

 

Venator-class vessels from the Open Circle Fleet equipped with the SPHA-T would certainly equal an Imperial II-CLASS Star Destroyer.

Edited June 13, 2014 by LadyKulvax

[Ventessel]

That was after the entire flotilla of battleships broke through the shields on the command tower, allowing a group of bombers to take down the shield generator taking down the shields completely. A moot point I feel.

 

The Death Star is not a battleship, not sure why you brought that up.

 

Anyway I disagree, deflector shields can withstand heavy salvos of laser fire - that is their purpose, if we had developed near bullet-proof metal a comparison could then be made. But the fact remains that if a modern day battleship is attacked by a single fighter-craft, the damage is going to be infinitely more devastating. I say infinitely because a single fighter-craft attacking a Star Wars battleship will do zero damage. Only overwhelming firepower can drop shields.

 

Yes, proton torpedoes can bypass shields, but bombers are not deployed en masse, and suffer from being slow moving targets, so they are far from the perfect solution. Without mentioning that many larger battleships (such as the Executor, and the Invincible) have particle shields, almost negating the impact of physical projectiles completely.

 

Then of course we should consider the actual impact proton torpedoes can do, some hull damage perhaps, nothing that is going to cripple a battleship unless it comes under prolonged fire - unless it has major structural weaknesses which are either rare or well protected. In such a case its going to take time to weather the vessel time.

 

Time which can either be used by the battleship to take out the relatively flimsy fighters, or destroy the carrier, a carrier which is likely going to have weak shields and/or firepower due to favoring cargo space over reactors.

 

I'm certainly not denying the benefits of carriers and starfighters, but I think against a sturdy battleship with decent point-defense cannons, and its own starfighter complements the effectiveness is certainly diminished.

 

P.S. On another note however. ISD shield generators, sticking right out on-top of the bridge as easy an target as ever. Certainly not practical, and doesn't look that attractive either, any ideas here? Seems kinda dumb to me.

 

EDIT: Excellent analysis Silenceo, I agree with you completely.

 

I'm crushed with work right now and have maybe 5 min to write this up, so let's just say that I'll look into that but my gut feeling is that multi-role fighers like the B-Wing or X-WIng are capable of presenting a threat to capital ships and that a carrier will present a more flexible and powerful combat option than an individual battleship.

 

HOWEVER, warships are not deployed in a vacuum! So assessing the individual case doesn't seem to be the most efficient. This conversation may be more suited for one of your Kaggaths, but I think the core analysis will come down to this:

 

As a warmongering maniac in the Star Wars Universe is confronted with the choice of spending his ill-gotten credits on one weapons platform or another. Does he choose to purchase an equal value of carriers and their fighter wings, or does he purchase battleships with it?

[Silenceo]

I'm crushed with work right now and have maybe 5 min to write this up, so let's just say that I'll look into that but my gut feeling is that multi-role fighers like the B-Wing or X-WIng are capable of presenting a threat to capital ships and that a carrier will present a more flexible and powerful combat option than an individual battleship.

 

HOWEVER, warships are not deployed in a vacuum! So assessing the individual case doesn't seem to be the most efficient. This conversation may be more suited for one of your Kaggaths, but I think the core analysis will come down to this:

 

As a warmongering maniac in the Star Wars Universe is confronted with the choice of spending his ill-gotten credits on one weapons platform or another. Does he choose to purchase an equal value of carriers and their fighter wings, or does he purchase battleships with it?

 

That scenario won't work. Most War Mongering maniacs go for the biggest apparent threat that inspire fear and terror. Battleships tend to do that much more so than carriers, the Imperial class was essentially designed to do just that. Now, if it was something like if you asked a well respected fleet admiral what he would choose, it would be severely different. They likely would tell you neither. He would likely order some combination of both, since they are intended to be used in unison instead as individually to compliment the others weaknesses. Most military leaders that are not looking to strike out right fear into their enemies also tend to not stick all of their eggs in the same basket, so that they can not be countered easily. Though, if you asked say, a New Republic fleet admiral they likely would go for the carrier, since they love fighters/bombers so much. Curse you varying military preferences!

 

Side Note: A Battleship accompanied by a corvette or two as they are intended to be would likely have very little chance of being overwhelmed by fighters, unless multiple carriers ofc, and even then heavy casualties. *Say perhaps 1 battle ship 2 corvettes vs 1 carrier 2 frigates* (corvettes for fighter weakness, and frigates for the ship-to-ship weakness* Typically the fleets that the ships are deployed in speak volumes about their effect, weaknesses, strengths, ect ect.

 

Pondering: One thing that shouldn't be overlooked is that the MK-I and the MK-II are vastly different regarding the weapons that they carry. For example, the MK-I has a decent amount of laser point defenses to use against star fighters. The MK-II on the other hand replaces those with more ship-to-ship batteries. What this means is that the MK-I was designed to be more self reliant whereas the MK-II was essentially an adaption to how they intended to use the ship, as part of a fleet of star ships, likely with corvettes and carriers of their own in the mix. So, they decided to specialize the MK-II in ship-to-ship farther than they did the MK-I so that over all their effectiveness in their fleets would be dramatically improved. Granted, this entire after thought is just a theory, though it makes sense to if you consider the changes between the Venator, MK-I, and MK-II. The Venator was the generation before the MK-I and they were in a war where they were spread thin, so they used/created a warship that could operate independently by itself without losing much of its capabilities. When the Empire was formed they had enough resources as well as the right frame of mind to start focusing on fleet cohesion. So instead of trying to pack everything into one ship what they appear to have done is divided it quite a bit more than before so that each ship had a specific job. Instead of *this ship will deploy its fighters before engaging the enemy fighters* it became *these ships will deploy these fighters, and these ships right here will focus on eliminating the enemy fighters*. Granted, they still had a bit of hybridization with almost every ship having fighters/bombers to deploy, but it also made it so that they didn't require quite as many pure carriers and avoided the hit of ship-to-ship weaponry. What this shift in military doctrine caused is that essentially they made their ships strength multiply exponentially in their fleets that are designed to work together, but in so doing caused them to be much less flexible when they are alone.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Silenceo

[Beniboybling]

On the whole Venator vs Victory thing, I think I have to impart agree with Lady.

 

I mean we've invalidated the notion that the Venator's main batteries merely rivalved the ISDs, so that's out.

 

Which leaves us with a quote that states the Victory was designed to challenge the Venator - making no mention of whether it actually succeeded in surpassing or equaling it. And another quote that says models inspired by the e.g. the ISD - surpassed the Venator. This is not solid evidence to state that the Victory equaled the Ventator in any respect.

 

Instead lets look at the actual facts, the Victory has more turbolaser battiers than the Victory but as Lady has pointed out the Venator has those supremely powerful DBY-827 heavy dual turbolaser turret that the Venator can divert almost all its output into. A single shot from just one of these cannons can knock out an enemy warships shields

 

That is superior to anything the Victory can output, even with all its turbolaser batteries I've never heard of a vessel of such armament being able to punch through shields in one shot. And that is one of eight cannons.

 

The Venator wins this category IMO.

 

Then we have armor, the Venator is covered in neutronium which it seems even the prow cannons of the Confederacy couldn't punch through, and those things are collosal. Whereas before when I assume the Venator was coated in a similar plating to the Victory, it could. So the Venator wins hands down in this category as well.

 

And finally, as Tunewalker pointed out the Venator is faster than the Victory and has a larger fighter complement, increasing its firepower capabilities to even greater levels. The way I see it the Venator outstrips the Victory totally and the Victor Initiative project failed, after all they never replaced the Venator's with Victorys after the Empire had been formed did they? No they replaced them with ISDs because the Victory just isn't in the same league.

 

The same goes for the Victory-II which really didn't increase on armament that much.

 

Now, concerning how the Venator fairs against the ISD. I'd say the ISD has superior firepower but the Venator superior shielding, and the Venator closes the gap with its modifications and starfighter complement.

[Silenceo]

I might disagree with the shielding comparison at the end there, but otherwise nice write up. I think that perhaps we could try going at this from a different angle, by perhaps looking at what they regularly faced and judge their enemy quality. It is not a perfect way to do it, but it does help show how effective both designs were in practice.

 

For example, the Venator often went up against the Munificent frigate as well as Providence class destroyer/carriers. Both of these vessels are alright, not beastly, but they get the job done. The Munificent is basically the perfect target for the Venator. Even if the Venator is severely out numbered the frigate has a hull that is easily able to be exploited by fighters/bombers and on top of that it has little to no fighter/bomber compliment of its own. Due to this it took 3-6 or so to defeat 1 Venator, all things considered I think that the Venator has every single advantage in such a match up due to how they fight, and due to how they defend it easily leaves the Venator the victor against Munificent's.

 

Next up is the Providence class destroyer/carrier which quite often was able to fight Venators mono-on-mono as well as field a comparative amount of fighters as we see in TCW. (Though, considering how few fighters/bombers venators deploy in TCW this is up in the air in my books). This is the match up where if there is a single opening for the Venator it can relocate all of its power to its powerful turbolaser batteries to land a victory. If it however tries to do so before it has an advantage it will backfire due to the lack of power to the shields and lead to the Providence's victory. Overall a very balanced match.

 

I merely think we should look at it as we have seen/read it rather then we note in technical books, since they often do not show the full picture. One thing that always bothers me is that we never see a Venator deploy that many fighters/bombers in one engagement. While this might merely be due to the slow process of replacing lost craft, it still should be considered. I know for the purposes of a Kaggath or some such that they will have full compliments in the beginning at least, but I just thought I should mention it.

 

As for the MK-I comparisons I shall leave that to someone that is not as Empire-biased as myself.

 

Side Note: Remember, this is to try and get some idea of how they performed in the conflicts they were in by getting a good base for the quality of their opposition.

[Beniboybling]

When I said shielding I mean armor.

[LadyKulvax]

I would agree with Beni, I think with an SPHA-T attached, the Venator may be a match for the IMP2 but that's another argument altogether, but I am glad to see the Venator won't be relegated to carrier roles only, it is a multi-role warship and even has the ability to land on planets to act as a massive HQ for ground forces whilst pounding the snuffing out of any particularly hard defenses planetside after the Acclamators have taken care of the Planetary Shields(with ease that is).

 

The Republic Navy was masterful at planetary sieges.

[Beniboybling]

I would agree with Beni, I think with an SPHA-T attached, the Venator may be a match for the IMP2 but that's another argument altogether, but I am glad to see the Venator won't be relegated to carrier roles only, it is a multi-role warship and even has the ability to land on planets to act as a massive HQ for ground forces whilst pounding the snuffing out of any particularly hard defenses planetside after the Acclamators have taken care of the Planetary Shields(with ease that is).

 

The Republic Navy was masterful at planetary sieges.

Did they ever actually land those things on planets? That would be a sight to see.

[LadyKulvax]

Did they ever actually land those things on planets? That would be a sight to see.

 

I don't think we saw them land but I am certain we saw them lift off on Coruscant in RotS.

[tunewalker]

When I said shielding I mean armor.

 

I also disagree with the armor and your comparison with the Victory vs Venator, but I will get into that.

 

 

Few things to begin with these quotes arent just from wookie

 

"This was called the "Victor Initiative Project", which resulted in the Victory-class. This design by Walex Blissex became a direct challenge to Kuat's Venator-class."-New essential Chronology

 

And finally the easily confirmed not just from wookie

 

"Your Majesty, it has long been my contention that your New Order needs one undeniable and overwhelming symbol to impress and, yes, frighten the masses. The average citizen has no grasp of numbers nor a head for calculation. I maintain that the effectiveness of the Star Destroyer stems from not only its massive firepower, but from its size. When citizens look at a Star Destroyer and then compare it to the craft which might be mustered to attack it, they have a tendency to dismiss such a notion as suicidal rather than approach the problem tactically.

 

This natural state can be exploited to a far greater degree, as the average citizen deals in symbols, not rational analysis. If we present the galaxy with a weapon so powerful, so immense as to defy all conceivable opposition against it, a weapon invulnerable and invincible in battle, then that weapon shall become the symbol of the Empire. We need only a handful, perhaps as few as one, of these weapons to subjugate a thousand worlds. It must have force enough to dispatch an entire system, power enough to shatter planets. The fear such a weapon will inspire will be great enough for you to rule the galaxy unchallenged. What do you need with the Senate when you can give direct control of territories to your hand-picked regional governors? Sweep away the last remnants of the Old Republic and let fear keep the local systems in line—fear of our ultimate weapon."

 

 

Next lets cover some things that were purely wrong.

 

"The way I see it the Venator outstrips the Victory totally and the Victor Initiative project failed, after all they never replaced the Venator's with Victorys after the Empire had been formed did they? No" *buzzer* wrong.

 

The Victory-class completed development during the clone wars but full production on them didnt really start till after the clone wars where they would eventually outstrip the Venator in Popularity.

 

"Within the Imperial Navy, Victory-class Star Destroyers were considered second only to Imperial-class Star Destroyers for most operations in the Outer Rim Territories against pirates and Rebels."

 

 

Next you talk about the Venator's toughness and imidiately

 

 

."Bah, I'd rather fight those Star Destroyers than the Troop Transports, Acclamators are too tough for the main batteries, perhaps we can simply bypass those vessels with speed." said the Cyborg "It would be much easier and faster to simply engage the Venators sir, destroy the flagships and the Acclamators will pull out." in a dull tone the commander droid stated the obvious, as programmed. "Very well, bring us about and do not draw the fire of the Acclmators, send in our banking clan frigates to buy time whilst we deal with Kenobi." with that the General set his sights on the Jedi..."

 

 

The acclamator was tougher then the Venator as clearly stated here. While yes it improved by 64% when they changed over armor, this shows that the Venator's armor was not that strong to begin with and it only became as tough as the Acclamator after the change over.

 

"Despite being several decades old at the time, the shields and hull armor of Victory I-class ships were still quite heavy compared to the other vessels used during the Galactic Civil War."

 

Meaning that while the Venator likely had stronger armor then the Victory, its durasteel was still likely thicker and stronger then teh Venator's durasteel was so its not a total "64% stronger" and had the Victory been equiped with the same type of armor it would clearly be stronger.

 

 

Next we talk about Firepower

 

"The power of the DBY-827 turbolasers was unmatched by it's later cousins, they were replaced by the less effective but also much less expensive standard dual batteries to make mass production of the Imperial Star Destroyers far cheaper."

 

This is all I have seen when it talks about firepower. Great so information says 1 DBY-827 heavy turbolaser is > 1 Dual heavy turbo laser that doesnt mean overall firepower is better. As far as the whole piercing in one shot, I have no idea what you guys are talking about exactly going to need to specify because as far as I know Turbo lasers pierce shields with every shot all the time. Just look at every star wars fight when a direct hit is made, they take armor/hull damage so I am not sure whats being talked about. That being said lets compare Victory to Venator.

 

8 DBY heavies (already noted 1 is > 1 standard dual heavy) vs 20 Dual heavies: while 1>1 there is no where that says 1>2 that is to large a stretch for me, I would give maybe 1.5=1 thus Victory wins by 12:20

 

Medium dual turbo vs Light quad turbo. Well quads are > dual, but Mediums> light. For this reason I call them even in this catagory. per firepower, especially since we have nothing pointing to the medium guns on the Venator being anything special it seems only the Heavy main guns were special thus:

 

2 Medium Dual vs 10 Light quad... winner Victory

 

52 Point defense lasers + 4 Proton torps vs 20 Assault concussion: again I have to give the firepower advantage to the Victory, Protons and Assault concussions seem to have similar yeild and obviously both outperform Point defense guns, not to mention they 8 extra dual heavies (12:20) or the 8 extra mid guns (2 vs 10)

 

Finally 420 fighters vs 24 fighters: clearly winner here is Venator, by 400 I feel it takes 8 fighters to make up for 1 dual heavy turbo laser (fire power wise not tactics wise) thus 8 extra means around 64 taken away from that 400. Down to 340 . To make up for the medium guns probably only 3 fighters or around 24 leaving 310 fighters or around 30 Dual Heavies of fire power.

 

Overall firepower winner..... Venator by a fair degree.

 

Now you may mention SPHA's which were not taken into account.... well. Thats really quite simple really

 

"At the suggestion of Anakin Skywalker, a heavy SPHA turbolaser cannon was installed within the ventral hangar bay of some Venator-class ships of the Open Circle Fleet. These weapons were meant to protect the Star Destroyers while they opened their long ventral doors to the army complement bays.[8]"

 

Which means the doors were open when this cannon was in use, meaning it lost its armor completely on that ventral side when these guns were in use something as a warship you dont want to be vulnerable. SO while these guns would be in use during deployment or recall of its fighters at no other time would it be used.

 

Also shielding Shielding

Equipped (roughly equivalent to that of a Victory I-class Star Destroyer)

 

 

 

So overall Victory I vs Venator:

 

Shielding: Equal

Armor: Venator by at least 30%

Firepower: Venator by a fair degree (likely around 30-40%)

Tactics and speed are unneccisary to compare we know Venator wins.

 

 

The Victory II doubles the amount of quad turbo's uses the same number of heavy turbo's and replaces Assault Conc's with HEAVY ion's increasing its firepower to be only a small degree behind the Venator (likely around 25%), the Venator still wins in Armor and equals in shields.

 

 

If we want to compare Imp I vs Venator lets do it nice and easy now. First Imp I is about 70% more armored then the Victory was because Size.

 

Next firepower

 

 

1 Dual DBY heavy> 1 Standard Dual heavy

 

 

 

8 Dby vs 6 Standard (again I call it 1.5=1) winner by a total of 6 standard (12 vs 6 with conversion) is the Venator

 

+ 2 Dual Heavy Ion's. These likely have equal firepower against shields as the DBY's but less firepower against hull. so vs Shields winner is still Venator but now only by "3 Standard dual heavies"

 

+ 2 Standard QUAD dual heavies. Now again a Quad> dual similar to how the DBY's are well congrats against shields The Imperial is now tied with the Venator, but against armor the Venator is still winning.

 

2 Medium Dual vs 2 Medium: Venator takes the lead again by another 1 Heavy Turbo (total heavy turbo lead against hull, note: not dual heavy turbo lead just heavy turbo lead, 5-7)

 

4 Proton torp vs 60 Heavies: winner Imp I hard taking the lead against both by 40 Heavy turbo's

 

+60 Ion Cannon's: taking massive lead against shields and a larger lead against hull.

 

 

Compliment 420 fighters vs 72 fighters: Venator clearly takes the lead here with another 370 left. To overcome the Imp I's lead I believe it would take half a squad per Heavy turbo for equivlant firepower (again firepower NOT tactical) this would require around 240 fighters to bring equal hull damage without accounting for Ion hull damage. Leaving the Venator with 130 fighters left. This is not enough fighters to overcome the lead the Imp I has against shields.

 

 

Overall performance.

 

Shields: Imperial

Armor: Equal when doors shut, Imperial when open

Overall Hull Firepower: Venator by around 5-10% (10-15% when ventral doors open)

Overall Shield Firepower: Imperial by around 10-15%(5-10% when Venator's Ventral Doors are open)

Speed: Venator Maximum acceleration

3,000 G[1] wins against Imperial Maximum acceleration

>2,300 g by an unknown degree

Tactics: Venator has greater options in combat Venator wins

 

 

Overall: the 2 ships are equivlent to one another.

 

 

Further overall: I agree 100% with Ladies statement that the Venator is a Multi-role Class ship. HOWEVER, this does NOT mean that it is better at carrier roles then designated Carriers, nor does it mean its better then Destroyers at being a destroyer. A Multi-role ship will be better then a Designate Destroyer at being a Carrier, but wont neccisarily be better at being a Destroyer. Vice Versa at being a Destroyer vs a Carrier.

 

The Venator Makes a better Destroyer then the Lucrehulk but as we can see by the Hulk's compliment the Hulk makes a better Carrier. The Venator Makes a Better Carrier then the Victory or the Imperial, but again as the Calcs above show the Victory and the Imperial make better Destroyers (the victory has more OVERALL firepower with out the Venator's compliment, but its weaker armor means the Venator might take the edge in a slugging match.)

 

All-in-all the Venator is an EXTREMELY well balanced ship that could likely take on just about anything through out the GCW as long as used properly, but if its used like a destroyer against the Empire's dedicated destroyers it will not win.

 

 

Also Beni once more going to say. I do not for 1 second believe we need to use the Tech rule when it partains to 19 BBY- 25 ABY only thing needed is "modifications" being made to targeting systems, updating shielding and compliment and that's it, and maybe just compliments honestly. The rest of the differences are all just differences in design all of which are valid. As just shown .

Edited June 16, 2014 by tunewalker

[tunewalker]

I don't think we saw them land but I am certain we saw them lift off on Coruscant in RotS.

 

They have an atmosphere speed listed for them, so ya... flying through air is a probable thing.

[Aurbere]

I don't think we saw them land but I am certain we saw them lift off on Coruscant in RotS.

 

I think the Utapau assault was planned on a Venator.

[LadyKulvax]

Whilst I agree somewhat, DBY-827s had the ability to draw on almost all of the reactor output which gave one DBY the ability to penetrate any shielding with one full blast, which is immense, combine all eight and enemy ships will be dropping like flies, with seven intensity settings, three different patterns and a variation on power output and well you can see why these things were so good.

 

I mean the Gaulhara(Spelling?) which was a third year Venator managed to OUTGUN the Invisible Hand with just four of these turrets, the Invisible Hand was a very very powerful flagship with a ton of modifications and the fact a Venator, a regular third year at that, managed to take it out is very impressive.

 

What is clear is that a single DBY outstrips pretty much any other turbolaser turret by a mile, the adaptability, power and over-all performance of these things is exemplary, they like the ship they were installed upon served multiple purposes, from trashing enemy capital ships to obliterating planet side fortifications, to making walls of flak so as to protect against enemy fighters.

[tunewalker]

Whilst I agree somewhat, DBY-827s had the ability to draw on almost all of the reactor output which gave one DBY the ability to penetrate any shielding with one full blast, which is immense, combine all eight and enemy ships will be dropping like flies, with seven intensity settings, three different patterns and a variation on power output and well you can see why these things were so good.

 

I mean the Gaulhara(Spelling?) which was a third year Venator managed to OUTGUN the Invisible Hand with just four of these turrets, the Invisible Hand was a very very powerful flagship with a ton of modifications and the fact a Venator, a regular third year at that, managed to take it out is very impressive.

 

What is clear is that a single DBY outstrips pretty much any other turbolaser turret by a mile, the adaptability, power and over-all performance of these things is exemplary, they like the ship they were installed upon served multiple purposes, from trashing enemy capital ships to obliterating planet side fortifications, to making walls of flak so as to protect against enemy fighters.

 

If they are channeling all of the power into the 1 gun, then there is no more energy for the other 7. They went for a single peircing shot rather then spread damage. (this falls under tactical options in combat, not overall firepower for me). Heck I love that they have multiple settings in that gun, its part of the reason it has so many tactical options, but options do not equal overall firepower something can have greater firepower, but still fall to better tactical options (IE range, redirecting energy for a concentrated shot into a vulnerable location so on and so forth.)

 

Sending all energy means their shields might drop which if their bay doors are open that is extremely risky and they likely wont do so especially since the SPHA is making up for that firepower when the doors are open, so on and so forth, but it is still an option. thats the point it provides more options in combat, and it is very possible for it to beat an Imp I and MAYBE even an Imp II in combat if it uses all its tactical advantages provided to it by the ship.

Edited June 16, 2014 by tunewalker

[Silenceo]

isn't it stated that the reason the Venator can redirect so much of its power to its weaponry due to it being a dedicated warship? If so, isn't it, in theory, possible that the later dedicated warships could do the same? Possibly they haven't in the past due to not having as strong of a fighter screen, but I just thought I should ask regarding this point

[LadyKulvax]

Actually what it means is that they could draw almost all power from other ships systems, including other weapons.

 

Effectively in the case that they were for example fighting head to head, they would turn off the shield generators to the rear of the forward shields, turn off the other weapon systems and engines and redirect all that power into all eight batteries, making them very powerful turrets.

 

In a case where they fought broadside to broadside, they would turn off the other four turrets not in range and redirect their power into the four that are.

 

I could give many other examples but you see how useful this feature really was, Venators can quite literally punch above their own weight.

 

Once you introduce the tactical edge, and numbers, that's when these options truly shine.

 

Say for example you have four Venators, the forward venator will redirect most of it's power into shields, boosting them considerably, whilst the other three, not taking the brunt of fire redirect pretty much all of their power into the main batteries and decimate the opposition with their highly accurate long range shots(another great feature of the DBY-827), even outnumbered this makes them a strong match for most fleets.

 

Much more effective than say another four Imperial-class vessels which have little to none of these options and simply rely on brute force to get the job done.

 

It should also be noted, just in the case of hull armour, that Venator armor withstood 'massive energy blasts' and was effectively immune to even fusion rockets, which were essentially of the same power as nuclear weapons but at a smaller yield.

[LadyKulvax]

isn't it stated that the reason the Venator can redirect so much of its power to its weaponry due to it being a dedicated warship? If so, isn't it, in theory, possible that the later dedicated warships could do the same? Possibly they haven't in the past due to not having as strong of a fighter screen, but I just thought I should ask regarding this point

 

It's because their hypermatter reactors had cut off points to different systems, they essentially shut a 'valve' of sorts to redirect the energy to other systems, the turbolasers for example were basically really big versions of heat sinks, that ejected the energy going into them, which is why they were so frakkin' powerful.

 

No such thing is described on any of the IMP star destroyers nor is it seen in any of the ship specification maps.

Edited June 16, 2014 by LadyKulvax

[Silenceo]

I know it's from a wiki so the information might be incorrect, but this exert does mention that it is due to being a warship that it can redirect its power in such a manner, which would mean that other dedicated warships farther down the line likely had the same ability.

 

"The DBY-827 had seven different power settings. This allowed the Venator's pilots and gunners to select a range of destruction, from a small strike to a vaporizing blow. As a true warship, the Venator-class Star Destroyer could divert almost all of its reactor output to its heavy turbolasers when needed. As a result of this, a flotilla of Venators could break through the shields of a Trade Federation battleship with ease.[8]"

 

The key phrase is "as a true warship" and I might question your sanity if you consider any of the larger imperial ships as not being a true warship. I am not saying that the Venator doesn't get more damage from its heavy weaponry even if this is the case, I am merely saying it might be possible that a MK-I might be able to retaliate in kind. I mean, shifting power from one system to another isn't even really that special. It is even done by the Millenium falcon if I remember right.

Edited June 16, 2014 by Silenceo

[tunewalker]

Actually what it means is that they could draw almost all power from other ships systems, including other weapons.

 

Effectively in the case that they were for example fighting head to head, they would turn off the shield generators to the rear of the forward shields, turn off the other weapon systems and engines and redirect all that power into all eight batteries, making them very powerful turrets.

 

In a case where they fought broadside to broadside, they would turn off the other four turrets not in range and redirect their power into the four that are.

 

I could give many other examples but you see how useful this feature really was, Venators can quite literally punch above their own weight.

 

Once you introduce the tactical edge, and numbers, that's when these options truly shine.

 

Say for example you have four Venators, the forward venator will redirect most of it's power into shields, boosting them considerably, whilst the other three, not taking the brunt of fire redirect pretty much all of their power into the main batteries and decimate the opposition with their highly accurate long range shots(another great feature of the DBY-827), even outnumbered this makes them a strong match for most fleets.

 

Much more effective than say another four Imperial-class vessels which have little to none of these options and simply rely on brute force to get the job done.

 

It should also be noted, just in the case of hull armour, that Venator armor withstood 'massive energy blasts' and was effectively immune to even fusion rockets, which were essentially of the same power as nuclear weapons but at a smaller yield.

 

Like I said shifting power settings in combat gives them a tactical edge, but does nto give them an over all firepower edge. If they are surrounded vs if an Imperial is surrounded and both are fighting the enemy at point blank range and need spread damage rather then piercing damage the Imperial will just preform better. It has stronger over all shields comparable armor and more overall firepower. Heck the Invisible hand which is a modified Providence-class Carrier/destroyer (again same class as the Venator) of which its primary modification seems to be proton tube's (largely used for orbital bombardment not ship to ship matches), and flak guns (largely used for missile defense) and a rearangement of assets to allow for more fighters. It was able to match the Guarlara almost blow for blow and it was a third year Venator with Anakin's suggested modifications. While the Guarlara came out on top it took serious damage and time before doing so. An Imperial certainly could do the same put in those point blank ranges, and has in fact taken down hardier ships such as the Mon Cal ships just as quickly.

 

Other then that I agree with silenceo to a degree about shifting powers. I mean "intensify forward firepower, I dont want anything getting through" does that sound familiar at all.

Edited June 16, 2014 by tunewalker

[LadyKulvax]

I know it's from a wiki so the information might be incorrect, but this exert does mention that it is due to being a warship that it can redirect its power in such a manner, which would mean that other dedicated warships farther down the line likely had the same ability.

 

"The DBY-827 had seven different power settings. This allowed the Venator's pilots and gunners to select a range of destruction, from a small strike to a vaporizing blow. As a true warship, the Venator-class Star Destroyer could divert almost all of its reactor output to its heavy turbolasers when needed. As a result of this, a flotilla of Venators could break through the shields of a Trade Federation battleship with ease.[8]"

 

The key phrase is "as a true warship" and I might question your sanity if you consider any of the larger imperial ships as not being a true warship. I am not saying that the Venator doesn't get more damage from its heavy weaponry even if this is the case, I am merely saying it might be possible that a MK-I might be able to retaliate in kind. I mean, shifting power from one system to another isn't even really that special. It is even done by the Millenium falcon if I remember right.

 

It is made celar that this ability by the Venator is NOT common and was special for this ship, being able to change a few power settings here or there is one thing but being able to put almost all reactor output into one set of weapons so much so that they could break through ANY shielding are two very very different things.

 

Shifting power from one overall system to another is one thing but the Venator could do so to a far greater degree and with ability to even specify between different sets of weapons and shield generators.

Edited June 16, 2014 by LadyKulvax