tunewalker Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Not sure if this qualifies as a necro or not... For Show: Bridges (spaceship style) They are just so dumb. So, so dumb. You don't need an exposed tower to gaze out over the battleground that leaves you pretty much undefended from all kinds of weapons and dangerous situations. Exposed bridges... yes, But there were quite a few ships that kept their command bridge in more well protected and honestly more intelligent locations. Look at the Mon Cal ships. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Not sure if this qualifies as a necro or not... For Show: Bridges (spaceship style) They are just so dumb. So, so dumb. You don't need an exposed tower to gaze out over the battleground that leaves you pretty much undefended from all kinds of weapons and dangerous situations. Shields and turbolasers Warren. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Exposed bridges... yes, But there were quite a few ships that kept their command bridge in more well protected and honestly more intelligent locations. Look at the Mon Cal ships.Nothing pleases me more than an intelligently located bridge. (not that I am at all one to talk with my faction *hint* *hint*) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Shields and turbolasers Warren.Which if drop for a second or one manages to get past, you are literally screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurbere Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Exposed bridges... yes, But there were quite a few ships that kept their command bridge in more well protected and honestly more intelligent locations. Look at the Mon Cal ships. And that is why Mon Cal ships > all other ships forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfninjajedi Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Which if drop for a second or one manages to get past, you are literally screwed. Never said it was perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenceo Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 I would say it was "revived" since it was only temporarily dead. As for the exposed bridges...look no farther than the Munificent...Glass house, on the prow of a battle ship...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurbere Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 I would say it was "revived" since it was only temporarily dead. As for the exposed bridges...look no farther than the Munificent...Glass house, on the prow of a battle ship...... You don't need to shoot the bridge, the rest of it may as well be made of glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSquirrel Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 You don't need to shoot the bridge, the rest of it may as well be made of glass. Yeah the Munificent is definitely not a warship, and as a spaceship in general it is a pretty bad idea. It's bulky, awkward, and fragile. It has protrusions that make no sense and have no purpose while it exposes its major systems/bridge etc... Into the For Show pile with this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurbere Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 Yeah the Munificent is definitely not a warship, and as a spaceship in general it is a pretty bad idea. It's bulky, awkward, and fragile. It has protrusions that make no sense and have no purpose while it exposes its major systems/bridge etc... Into the For Show pile with this thing. Could not agree more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Yeah the Munificent is definitely not a warship, and as a spaceship in general it is a pretty bad idea. It's bulky, awkward, and fragile. It has protrusions that make no sense and have no purpose while it exposes its major systems/bridge etc... Into the For Show pile with this thing.The design of the Munificent is most certainly for show, but its firepower - for a light cruiser - is nothing to scoff at. Edited July 4, 2014 by Beniboybling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenceo Posted July 4, 2014 Author Share Posted July 4, 2014 The design of the Munificent is most certainly for show, but its firepower - for a light cruiser - is nothing to scoff at. All that firepower isn't much good if it can't take even a few small hits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) All that firepower isn't much good if it can't take even a few small hits.But it can take a few small hits, what it can't take is close range fire from starfighters/bombers or the Venator's heavy turbolaser turrets when its shields are down on one of its rear or side weak spots. But at long range it holds up just fine. Edited July 4, 2014 by Beniboybling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarSquirrel Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 But it can take a few small hits, what it can't take is close range fire from starfighters/bombers or the Venator's heavy turbolaser turrets when its shields are down on one of its rear or side weak spots. But at long range it holds up just fine.And that's dandy, but what you're essentially admitting is that without shields it is hopelessly defenceless. The point is it has so many vulnerabilities built into the basic design. Of the ones you mentioned, at least 2 could be fixed entirely with a suitable redesign that compacts the ship. I should also note, the Munificent-class without rear shields cannot survive the rather mild fire from about 18 or so AT-TE's into its rear (barely a single frigate's worth of guns in terms of overall firepower). Then facing (with all shields forward) a few shots from the Venator. Oh, and I agree, if they were redesigned to be more compact and practical, their firepower would be a monster to try and stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenceo Posted July 5, 2014 Author Share Posted July 5, 2014 The main reason I do not like the Munificent, is actually due to the fact it lacks any compliment at all. If they compacted it to fix the major armor weak points, great, still would never pick it. Even with those weak points fixed its anti-fighter defense is terrible, and to boot it doesn't even have squadrons of its own to defend it. It would be heavily reliant upon dedicated carriers, such as the Lucrahulk. When with one no doubt an upgraded and compacted version would be devastating due to the fighter defensive screen from the lucrahulk. However, fleets are not always perfectly configured. This would be an instance of a specialized ship failing to be able to adapt. Even Star Destroyers which boast impressive armament tend to have at least some fighter defenses as well as fighter screens that they deploy themselves. Granted later models started to get rid of the point defenses *which, historically never really worked...but future tech! yeah!* in favor of bigger guns, around the time they started to produce higher quality star fighters such as the TIE-Advanced. We all knows what happens if you take an Imperial-class and take away a compliment and throw bombers at it... Similar things would still happen to the Munificent despite such an upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) And that's dandy, but what you're essentially admitting is that without shields it is hopelessly defenceless. The point is it has so many vulnerabilities built into the basic design. Of the ones you mentioned, at least 2 could be fixed entirely with a suitable redesign that compacts the ship. I should also note, the Munificent-class without rear shields cannot survive the rather mild fire from about 18 or so AT-TE's into its rear (barely a single frigate's worth of guns in terms of overall firepower). Then facing (with all shields forward) a few shots from the Venator. Oh, and I agree, if they were redesigned to be more compact and practical, their firepower would be a monster to try and stop.I do, but I was merely correcting Silenceo's claim that the Munificent can't withstand firepower that would be expected of a cruiser of its size and purpose, and that it was up against one of the most advanced warships of its time which ultimately, as a Star Destroyer, is completely out of its league - yet a a handful can still cripple one in minutes. But as I said, if outflanked by something that can bypass its shields (or if its shields are down and its outflanked) I agree that the Munificent is basically toast, it can't sustain large amounts of firepower in those regions. That said, perhaps we should consider the reason behind the design. Aside from the stupidly placed bridge I'd hypothesise that it was a matter of cost, the Munificent's don't need much of a crew nor anything in the way of barracks, so their is no need for a big bulky hull that in the end would be a lot more expensive no doubt. So basically, Neimodians and cheap. EDIT: Though that does mean they can be mass produced, and they were, they outnumbered the Republic 4 to 1. Edited July 5, 2014 by Beniboybling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 The main reason I do not like the Munificent, is actually due to the fact it lacks any compliment at all. If they compacted it to fix the major armor weak points, great, still would never pick it. Even with those weak points fixed its anti-fighter defense is terrible, and to boot it doesn't even have squadrons of its own to defend it. It would be heavily reliant upon dedicated carriers, such as the Lucrahulk. When with one no doubt an upgraded and compacted version would be devastating due to the fighter defensive screen from the lucrahulk. However, fleets are not always perfectly configured. This would be an instance of a specialized ship failing to be able to adapt. Even Star Destroyers which boast impressive armament tend to have at least some fighter defenses as well as fighter screens that they deploy themselves. Granted later models started to get rid of the point defenses *which, historically never really worked...but future tech! yeah!* in favor of bigger guns, around the time they started to produce higher quality star fighters such as the TIE-Advanced. We all knows what happens if you take an Imperial-class and take away a compliment and throw bombers at it... Similar things would still happen to the Munificent despite such an upgrade.The Munificent has fighter compliments, it can store Vulture droids in its hull. It also has 38 point defense cannons, however the issue to me seems that these are completely unable to fire at anything above them (likely being positioned underneath that umbrella hull) so if the starfighters manage to get in close range and fly over the Munificent (see the Battle of Ryloth) its incapable of shooting back. All in all the Munificent sucks at short range, but as long as it can keep its enemies at an arms length its quite powerful. But I agree, the only reason it sucks at short range is down to poor design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selenial Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Anyone else care to guess what Beni's Light Cruiser is for this coming Kaggath? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenceo Posted July 5, 2014 Author Share Posted July 5, 2014 Anyone else care to guess what Beni's Light Cruiser is for this coming Kaggath? Oh what ever could it be? Also, how many fighters does it carry? Only mention I've seen of that is sometimes it has vultures on its hulls...Or perhaps I overlooked it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Anyone else care to guess what Beni's Light Cruiser is for this coming Kaggath?Who me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 Also, how many fighters does it carry? Only mention I've seen of that is sometimes it has vultures on its hulls...Or perhaps I overlooked it...No figures are given, but the Recuscant carries 270 fighters, given the size of the Munificent in comparison we might speculate 192, Vulture Droids that is, they could only carry Vulture Droids. But yeah, because Vulture droids can latch on to objects in zero gravity they can latch on to the hull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenceo Posted July 5, 2014 Author Share Posted July 5, 2014 No figures are given, but the Recuscant carries 270 fighters, given the size of the Munificent in comparison we might speculate 192, Vulture Droids that is, they could only carry Vulture Droids. But yeah, because Vulture droids can latch on to objects in zero gravity they can latch on to the hull. So, in a Kaggath setting, they would be unable to carry anything other than vultures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spetulhu Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 But yeah, because Vulture droids can latch on to objects in zero gravity they can latch on to the hull. Even with droids being cheap I'd consider it a bit wasteful to have them outside the hull where they'll be taking hits if something unexpected hits the ship. Sure, it's probably not common, but sometimes you do collide with stuff. Having a few droids latched onto a ship that will launch them as soon as it drops out of hyperspace is ofc perfectly good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beniboybling Posted July 5, 2014 Share Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) So, in a Kaggath setting, they would be unable to carry anything other than vultures? Correct. But fear not, I have circumvented that issue... I mean the guy who took the Munificent has circumvented that issue. Edited July 5, 2014 by Beniboybling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silenceo Posted July 5, 2014 Author Share Posted July 5, 2014 (edited) Correct. But fear not, I have circumvented that issue... I mean the guy who took the Munificent has circumvented that issue. I calculate that you have exploited some loop hole! You never let us get away with any loop holes... :( ... You did exactly as I portrayed above, didn't you? Edited July 5, 2014 by Silenceo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts