Kaggath Battlegrounds Final: Republic Resistance vs Imperial Droid Division

[Wolfninjajedi]

Tune, the Imperial Star Destroyer class 1 had a total of 60 main Taim & Bak turbolasers not 6. Edited April 26, 2015 by Wolfninjajedi

[tunewalker]

Tune, the Imperial Star Destroyer class 1 had a total of 60 main Taim & Bak turbolasers not 6.

 

I thought it was 6 "Main guns" with another 54 "none main guns" they HAVE more guns then JUST their main guns, but their Main guns I thought were just the 6.

 

Ya see

 

Armament

Dual heavy turbolaser turrets (6)[1] (main guns)

Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2)[1] (other Main guns)

Quad heavy turbolasers (2)[1]

Triple medium turbolasers (3)[1]

Medium turbolasers (2)[1]

Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers (60)[1]

Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60)[1]

Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)[5]

 

The Taim & Bak's are the "Main guns" they are the other guns that the calculation DOESNT account for, as far as my reading understood it.

 

The Imperial I-class Star Destroyer possessed a main battery of six heavy turbolasers and two heavy ion cannons

 

Further Proof of what I am talking about, just noticed that the Imperial 1 ALSO had 2 heavy Ions as part of its "Main guns" as such 8 Venator Guns= 8 Imperial guns, but the Imperial has another 60 guns... this idea that the Venator's guns are some how better then the guns that were used during hte Galactic Empire seems a bit .... misplace, maybe more accurate, but certainly not more firepower.

Edited April 26, 2015 by tunewalker

[Wolfninjajedi]

I thought it was 6 "Main guns" with another 54 "none main guns" they HAVE more guns then JUST their main guns, but their Main guns I thought were just the 6.

 

Ya see

 

Armament

Dual heavy turbolaser turrets (6)[1] (main guns)

Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2)[1] (other Main guns)

Quad heavy turbolasers (2)[1]

Triple medium turbolasers (3)[1]

Medium turbolasers (2)[1]

Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers (60)[1]

Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60)[1]

Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10)[5]

 

The Taim & Bak's are the "Main guns" they are the other guns that the calculation DOESNT account for, as far as my reading understood it.

 

The Imperial I-class Star Destroyer possessed a main battery of six heavy turbolasers and two heavy ion cannons

 

Further Proof of what I am talking about, just noticed that the Imperial 1 ALSO had 2 heavy Ions as part of its "Main guns" as such 8 Venator Guns= 8 Imperial guns, but the Imperial has another 60 guns... this idea that the Venator's guns are some how better then the guns that were used during hte Galactic Empire seems a bit .... misplace, maybe more accurate, but certainly not more firepower.

 

Sourcebooks say different.

 

The Imperial Star Destroyer's primary weapons system included 60 Taim & Bak turbolasers equipped with advanced targeting computers for use against fast moving starfighters.

 

- Taken from New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.

 

Standard Imperial Star Destroyers have 60 turbolasers for ship to ship combat and planetary assault

 

- Taken from Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels

 

So on and so forth.

 

They do have 6 heavy turbolasers yes, but the Tiam & Bak are the main guns. The Wookiee is in the wrong about the 6 guns, as they aren't stated to be the main weapons in the Cross Sections.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Wolfninjajedi

[tunewalker]

Sourcebooks say different.

 

 

 

 

 

So on and so forth.

 

They do have 6 heavy turbolasers yes, but the Tiam & Bak are the main guns. The Wookiee is in the wrong about the 6 guns, as they aren't stated to be the main weapons in the Cross Sections.

 

The Imperial Star Destroyer's primary weapons system included 60 Taim & Bak turbolasers equipped with advanced targeting computers for use against fast moving starfighters.

 

- Taken from New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels.

 

This is NOT the same thing as "In terms of firepower, these weapons rivaled the main battery on the later Imperial I-class Star Destroyers."

 

Primary Weapons System do not neccisarily = Main Battery. It just means their overall primary WEAPONS package. Fighter defenses (even though these ARE NOT fighter defenses) can technically be apart of the "Primary weapons SYSTEM" with out being the "Main Battery" Specifically it is Battery Singular not plural, since as far as I know the 60 Tiam guns are noted to be more then 1 single Battery.

 

Seriously I am calling Bull, on a Venator able to match the Energy output of an Imp I who's reactor strength is DOUBLE. 20% on the Imp II vs the Imp I is enough to make a huge difference, DOUBLE should make the Venator's overall shield and firepower laughable by comparison.

 

Again there is a REASON these things were phased out, MONEY was not it since its cheaper to keep it then it as is then put an ENTIRE new ship model in production and scrap the old one.

 

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]

 

 

mostly seen as inferior to the more powerful Imperial-class ships, some thought that the Victory-class would be decommissioned following the newer design's entry into service. The growth of the Rebellion eventually would lead the Galactic Empire to keep the ships in service as they needed every available capital ship for duty.[2]

 

And yet where was the Venator, oh right still in the dump because at that point is was considered basically to be garbage by the empire. The Victory did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do, it supplanted the Venator as it was the better capital ship, and they had carriers in OTHER areas to bring in TIES so the fighter space wasnt needed. Then the Victory itself got Supplanted entirely by the Imperial class, but when the Empire needed more ships which "decommisioned" ship did they turn to... not the Venator.

 

Here is a thought for you guys, the main "failing" of the Victory I was its lack of speed against the NEWER ships that were coming out, it had NO issue with things like Dreadnaught class heavy cruisers (the main type of ship that the PROVIDENCES, that matched the Venator's were based on. So the Victory I could basically fight the same ships as the Venator... if its weakness was NEWER ships being to fast, you think maybe the reason the Venator didnt see action in the Galactic Civil was was the SAME problem?

 

The Victory II was obviously "fixed" by becoming faster against these "newer ships" but after the clone wars. Only 1 squad of Victory I's even saw action during the clone wars, and while the Imp I MAY have been designed during the clone wars, all the information I can dig up on the Victory II and the Imp I both say the first ships did NOT see action till the war was over.

 

The amount of hate for the Galactic Civil War era of ships, Force Users, and honestly I feel the Rebellion in general is not justfied.

[Wolfninjajedi]

This is NOT the same thing as "In terms of firepower, these weapons rivaled the main battery on the later Imperial I-class Star Destroyers."

 

Primary Weapons System do not neccisarily = Main Battery. It just means their overall primary WEAPONS package. Fighter defenses (even though these ARE NOT fighter defenses) can technically be apart of the "Primary weapons SYSTEM" with out being the "Main Battery" Specifically it is Battery Singular not plural, since as far as I know the 60 Tiam guns are noted to be more then 1 single Battery.

 

Seriously I am calling Bull, on a Venator able to match the Energy output of an Imp I who's reactor strength is DOUBLE. 20% on the Imp II vs the Imp I is enough to make a huge difference, DOUBLE should make the Venator's overall shield and firepower laughable by comparison.

 

Again there is a REASON these things were phased out, MONEY was not it since its cheaper to keep it then it as is then put an ENTIRE new ship model in production and scrap the old one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

And yet where was the Venator, oh right still in the dump because at that point is was considered basically to be garbage by the empire. The Victory did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do, it supplanted the Venator as it was the better capital ship, and they had carriers in OTHER areas to bring in TIES so the fighter space wasnt needed. Then the Victory itself got Supplanted entirely by the Imperial class, but when the Empire needed more ships which "decommisioned" ship did they turn to... not the Venator.

 

Here is a thought for you guys, the main "failing" of the Victory I was its lack of speed against the NEWER ships that were coming out, it had NO issue with things like Dreadnaught class heavy cruisers (the main type of ship that the PROVIDENCES, that matched the Venator's were based on. So the Victory I could basically fight the same ships as the Venator... if its weakness was NEWER ships being to fast, you think maybe the reason the Venator didnt see action in the Galactic Civil was was the SAME problem?

 

The Victory II was obviously "fixed" by becoming faster against these "newer ships" but after the clone wars. Only 1 squad of Victory I's even saw action during the clone wars, and while the Imp I MAY have been designed during the clone wars, all the information I can dig up on the Victory II and the Imp I both say the first ships did NOT see action till the war was over.

 

The amount of hate for the Galactic Civil War era of ships, Force Users, and honestly I feel the Rebellion in general is not justfied.

 

There's no source saying that the Venator ever rivaled that of the Imp Class 1 SD.

 

Regardless, the 6 heavy turbolasers aren't the main guns, the quote on that is wrong.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Wolfninjajedi

[tunewalker]

There's no source saying that the Venator ever rivaled that of the Imp Class 1 SD.

 

Regardless, the 6 heavy turbolasers aren't the main guns, the quote on that is wrong.

 

"The Venator-class's eight heavy dual turbolaser turrets were its main weapons and had two tracking modes. In its precise, long-range tracking mode, the DBY-827 could hit a target vessel at a range of ten light minutes. During close-range fights, the turrets could rotate in three seconds with their fast-tracking mode.[1] In terms of firepower, these weapons rivaled the main battery on the later Imperial I-class Star Destroyers."

 

Which is what people have been using as Justification for a Venator = an Imp Star Destroyer WITH OUT its compliment which is straight up HORSE CRAP.

 

First we have history of Star Wars telling a different tale, then we have the Tarkin Doctrine

 

"Doctrine links theory, history, experimentation, and practice. Its objective is to foster initiative and creative thinking. Doctrine provides the military with an authoritative body of statements on how military forces conduct operations and provides a common lexicon for use by military planners and leaders."

 

Which the Tarkin DOCTRINE states

 

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.

 

yes Size is also Listed, but that is NOT an excuse for why the Victory (smaller then the Venator) was in use later and the Venator was not in use. Also we see through out the Galactic Empire a VERY large focus on Firepower rather then defensive strength, so Defensive capabilities are ALSO not it.

 

This idea that Venator can match an Imp Star Destroyer, or even a Victory in Pure ship to ship WITH OUT strategic use of its compliment has quite simply been miss presented.

 

It is a CARRIER/ Destroyer, not a "Pure" Destroyer like the Victory or the Imperial. If it faced either of those with out its compliment, history and statements tell us it would LOSE. its just not designed to fight with out its compliment, while the Victory was designed to fight along side a Dedicated Carrier allowing for MORE capital ship firepower at the expense of fighter space and Fighter defenses.

 

Ultimately I DO still put the Venator over the Vindicator, but not by some huge 3 x margin, I only do it by a 2 margin as both ships are MULTI Roll War ships, the Venator being a Star destroyer and the Vindicator being the smaller Heavy Cruiser, and we all know the standard order of battle. Am i saying the Venator WASNT a dedicated warship? no absolutely not... Am I saying it DOESNT have strong capital ship firepower no absolutely not, I am also not saying the Vindicator wasnt a dedicated war Ship, or that it has weak capital ship firepower, but by comparison to Puritan roll ships that are DESIGNED in a way to do 1 job and do that 1 job REALLY well, they arent going to stand up to them in that weight class. If its a Star Destroyer around the same size of the Venator and its dedicated to ship to ship and built around the same time OF COURSE its going to blow the Venator out of the water in its dedicated roll. Is the Venator better set up with fighter and fighter defenses thus not having to rely on another ship for that by comparison to this Dedicated 1 job Ship... well ya Duh, thats kind of the point. Can a Venator beat a Victory? Yes, can it beat an Imperial? Yes, can it beat either of those in a straight up fight with out its compliment, hell no it doesnt stand a ghost of a chance in hell, it will be lucky to drop the shields before the entire thing is turned into a cloud of Space Vapor.

[Wolfninjajedi]

Tune I seen the quote, the Venator doesn't rival an ISD, there isn't even a source reference on that bit at all. The Wookiee is wrong. Edited April 26, 2015 by Wolfninjajedi

[tunewalker]

Tune I seen the quote, the Venator doesn't rival an ISD, there isn't even a source reference on that bit at all. The Wookiee is wrong.

 

Great so that's 1 person... help me convince every one else (I just quoted you for ease, I wasnt really talking TO YOU, just to the forums in general sorry if that wasnt clear)

[Selenial]

God, you type an unbelievable amount in the attempt to get your point across.

 

I've seen a lot of mistakes however. They needed every ship, and scrapped Venators, yes. They did that because the Venators were a sign of the Republic, the victory's however were rarely used in the clone wars. Secondly, those 60 Turbolasers... That's 60 Turbolasers in total, the Wookiee has listed it entirely wrong. The entire ship had 60, pretty much every sourcebook I've seen has that number, even if they disagree on the manufacturer. That rivals the Venator, since the venator has 8 DBY's (Far stronger than regular Turbolasers) and a lot of point Defense turrets to back itself up with.

 

But I don't particularly see why this argument is relevant. Either way you put far too much stock in the fact Venators were decommissioned, when the only reason they were was because they were the shining beacon of the Republic navy.

[Wolfninjajedi]

Great so that's 1 person... help me convince every one else (I just quoted you for ease, I wasnt really talking TO YOU, just to the forums in general sorry if that wasnt clear)

 

I don't see how it's hard to understand, the ISD is the Venator's superior in every way save for fighter compliment numbers, but even still they make up for that with having better crews and pilots and some of the fighters holding advantages over the Venator's compliment anyway.

 

The ISD is just superior, there's a reason why the Venator was decommissioned and the ISD was brought forth.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Wolfninjajedi

[tunewalker]

God, you type an unbelievable amount in the attempt to get your point across.

 

I've seen a lot of mistakes however. They needed every ship, and scrapped Venators, yes. They did that because the Venators were a sign of the Republic, the victory's however were rarely used in the clone wars. Secondly, those 60 Turbolasers... That's 60 Turbolasers in total, the Wookiee has listed it entirely wrong. The entire ship had 60, pretty much every sourcebook I've seen has that number, even if they disagree on the manufacturer. That rivals the Venator, since the venator has 8 DBY's (Far stronger than regular Turbolasers) and a lot of point Defense turrets to back itself up with.

 

But I don't particularly see why this argument is relevant. Either way you put far too much stock in the fact Venators were decommissioned, when the only reason they were was because they were the shining beacon of the Republic navy.

 

"Need EVERY Ship"

 

The Galactic Empire IS the Republic, if it was as good as the Victory it would have been used, simple as. It makes no sense to decomission a ship when the DOCTRINE introduced favors Larger, and More Firepower (Read Tarkin Doctrine) Your explination simply is BULL ****. and Not Supported by canon Facts or History of the Star Wars universe.

[Wolfninjajedi]

God, you type an unbelievable amount in the attempt to get your point across.

 

I've seen a lot of mistakes however. They needed every ship, and scrapped Venators, yes. They did that because the Venators were a sign of the Republic, the victory's however were rarely used in the clone wars. Secondly, those 60 Turbolasers... That's 60 Turbolasers in total, the Wookiee has listed it entirely wrong. The entire ship had 60, pretty much every sourcebook I've seen has that number, even if they disagree on the manufacturer. That rivals the Venator, since the venator has 8 DBY's (Far stronger than regular Turbolasers) and a lot of point Defense turrets to back itself up with.

 

But I don't particularly see why this argument is relevant. Either way you put far too much stock in the fact Venators were decommissioned, when the only reason they were was because they were the shining beacon of the Republic navy.

 

How are 8 DBY turbolasers better than 60 Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers?

[ShadowMudkip]

God, you type an unbelievable amount in the attempt to get your point across.

 

I've seen a lot of mistakes however. They needed every ship, and scrapped Venators, yes. They did that because the Venators were a sign of the Republic, the victory's however were rarely used in the clone wars. Secondly, those 60 Turbolasers... That's 60 Turbolasers in total, the Wookiee has listed it entirely wrong. The entire ship had 60, pretty much every sourcebook I've seen has that number, even if they disagree on the manufacturer. That rivals the Venator, since the venator has 8 DBY's (Far stronger than regular Turbolasers) and a lot of point Defense turrets to back itself up with.

 

But I don't particularly see why this argument is relevant. Either way you put far too much stock in the fact Venators were decommissioned, when the only reason they were was because they were the shining beacon of the Republic navy.

 

This, the Venators weren't decommissioned because they were somehow inferior, but because their role and intended use was not what the GE needed during its days in power. The Venators were carriers/destroyers and the Empire had no need for the carrier portion since, up till the rebellion, there was no force that used star-fighters enough to warrant the use of Venators. The Venators were simply phased out as a result of Palpatine not liking the symbolic ties it had with the Republic. Anyways I doubt anyone is seriously doubting that an Imp 1 is better than a Venator, so I don't really so the point in this argument.

Edited April 27, 2015 by ShadowMudkip

[tunewalker]

This, the Venators weren't decommissioned because they were somehow inferior, but because their role and intended use was not what the GE needed during its days in power. The Venators were carriers/destroyers and the Empire had no need for the carrier portion since, up till the rebellion, there was no force that used star-fighters enough to warrant the use of Venators. The Venators were simply phased out as a result of Palpatine not liking the symbolic ties it had with the Republic. Anyways I doubt anyone is seriously doubting that an Imp 1 is better than a Venator, so I don't really so the point in this argument.

 

EXACTLY that is my entire point, people have been claiming the Venator's firepower is much greater then it is. A DEDICATED Destroyer of the same Caliber (Victory vs Venator in this case) would easily defeat the "Multi Roll Ship" at the Destroyer Roll.

 

The Vindicator thus would NOT lose 3:1 against the Venator only 2:1 as both are Multi Roll Ships of a different weight class, the Venator being a Multi-role ship of the Star Destroyer Weight class (the Role Being Destroyer and Carrier) and the Vindicator being a Multi Role ship of the Heavy Cruiser Weight Class. ( the Role being Destroyer and Escort ship, capable of taking on both Large ships and smaller) Given the Standard of battle for ships of Different Weight classes is 2 Heavy Cruisers per Destroyer, it is more then believable to say 2 Vindicators can be equal matches to 1 Venator.

 

Further, it may be good to say that the Defined roles of the 2 ships actually FAVORS the Vindicator since one of it's role for defending convoys against Rebel Frigates (Such as the Nebulon B or even the Assault Frig Mark II) AND Fighters at the same time means that the ship was designed to essentially counter Carrier/ Destroyers. (Basically by what we see in roles of ships is Carrier/ Destroyer > Destroyer (Lack of fighters or fighter defenses causes destroyer to fall to fighters) > Destroyer/ Escort (Escort in this case meaning intended to kill fighters and freighters commonly used by pirate groups and the like) > Carrier/ Destroyer. As far as Destroyer types go.) But of course this is WITH their compliment, pure ship to ship, no Compliment Includeded Pure Destroyer> all sub-classes of Destroyer.

[Wolfninjajedi]

This, the Venators weren't decommissioned because they were somehow inferior, but because their role and intended use was not what the GE needed during its days in power. The Venators were carriers/destroyers and the Empire had no need for the carrier portion since, up till the rebellion, there was no force that used star-fighters enough to warrant the use of Venators. The Venators were simply phased out as a result of Palpatine not liking the symbolic ties it had with the Republic. Anyways I doubt anyone is seriously doubting that an Imp 1 is better than a Venator, so I don't really so the point in this argument.

 

The ISDs were carriers aswell, only difference is the capacity of fighters they could hold, but the weapons, durability crew and so forth of the ISD more than make up for that.

 

But yes, that is why the were decommissioned really.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Wolfninjajedi

[ShadowMudkip]

The ISDs were carriers aswell, only difference is the capacity of fighters they could hold, but the weapons, durability crew and so forth of the ISD more than make up for that.

 

This is true. In fact, the Venators were dedicated warships as well, they just had the capacity to also act as a carrier role.

[ShadowMudkip]

EXACTLY that is my entire point, people have been claiming the Venator's firepower is much greater then it is. A DEDICATED Destroyer of the same Caliber (Victory vs Venator in this case) would easily defeat the "Multi Roll Ship" at the Destroyer Roll.

 

The Vindicator thus would NOT lose 3:1 against the Venator only 2:1 as both are Multi Roll Ships of a different weight class, the Venator being a Multi-role ship of the Star Destroyer Weight class (the Role Being Destroyer and Carrier) and the Vindicator being a Multi Role ship of the Heavy Cruiser Weight Class. ( the Role being Destroyer and Escort ship, capable of taking on both Large ships and smaller) Given the Standard of battle for ships of Different Weight classes is 2 Heavy Cruisers per Destroyer, it is more then believable to say 2 Vindicators can be equal matches to 1 Venator.

 

Further, it may be good to say that the Defined roles of the 2 ships actually FAVORS the Vindicator since one of it's role for defending convoys against Rebel Frigates (Such as the Nebulon B or even the Assault Frig Mark II) AND Fighters at the same time means that the ship was designed to essentially counter Carrier/ Destroyers. (Basically by what we see in roles of ships is Carrier/ Destroyer > Destroyer (Lack of fighters or fighter defenses causes destroyer to fall to fighters) > Destroyer/ Escort (Escort in this case meaning intended to kill fighters and freighters commonly used by pirate groups and the like) > Carrier/ Destroyer. As far as Destroyer types go.) But of course this is WITH their compliment, pure ship to ship, no Compliment Includeded Pure Destroyer> all sub-classes of Destroyer.

 

Except for the fact that the Venator is a dedicated destroyer as well as a dedicated carrier. Duel roles does not mean that it is half carrier half destroyer, it simply means it functions as both.

[StarSquirrel]

Except for the fact that the Venator is a dedicated destroyer as well as a dedicated carrier. Duel roles does not mean that it is half carrier half destroyer, it simply means it functions as both.

 

Dedicated: exclusively allocated to or intended for a particular service or purpose.

 

That, good sir, is the definition of dedicated in case you've forgotten it as there seems to be some confusion. Dedicated means it does that single job well, if it does more than one job equally well it is Multi-Role, and as with anything that is Multi-role it will do each job to a reduced degree to that of a ship truly dedicated to a single role.

 

To argue that something can be (at once) a destroyer and carrier and do both jobs well is to delude oneself. The Venator is a carrier. That is its role. It can act as a destroyer, but when it does so without proper fighter support you encounter a whole host of issues.

Edited April 27, 2015 by StarSquirrel

[tunewalker]

Dedicated: exclusively allocated to or intended for a particular service or purpose.

 

That, good sir, is the definition of dedicated in case you've forgotten it as there seems to be some confusion. Dedicated means it does that single job well, if it does more than one job equally well it is Multi-Role, and as with anything that is Multi-role it will do each job to a reduced degree to that of a ship truly dedicated to a single role.

 

To argue that something can be (at once) a destroyer and carrier and do both jobs well is to delude oneself. The Venator is a carrier. That is its role. It can act as a destroyer, but when it does so without proper fighter support you encounter a whole host of issues.

 

Thank you Star....

[raandomname]

What the hell is even going on right now?

1. The current discussion is COMPLETELLY IRRELEVANT to the actual debate as ISDs are not even present.

2. Its pretty damn obvious that the ISD outguns the Venator. Why is this even a debate?

[tunewalker]

What the hell is even going on right now?

1. The current discussion is COMPLETELLY IRRELEVANT to the actual debate as ISDs are not even present.

2. Its pretty damn obvious that the ISD outguns the Venator. Why is this even a debate?

 

I also Said Victory Class Out Guns the Venator as well, since it was intended to and DID replace the Venator in the Imperial army, its relevant because the over estimation of the Venator means they are getting more credit against the Vindicator then they should.

[Beniboybling]

I don't think its that relevant to be honest, not gonna lie.

 

Still, the point that the Venator is a multi-role warship is valid, but that's not a bad thing as it means the Venator is an effective carrier, and can field hundreds of fighters to make up for the missing firepower. So in light of that while the Venators may have their hands full with the Droid Divisions capital ships, its fighters will not, and then can be given the responsibility of targeting and eliminating the more agile Tartans.

 

I think the TwinTail fighters could be effective in this respect. It has already been pointed out, but I would like to reinforce the point, the TwinTail fighter has a shield strength equivalent to that of a transport or a light frigate and has a hull superior to that of most shuttle. The Tartan is not designed to deal with these kinds of defenses.

 

On the other hand the TwinTail is armed with 4 heavy laser cannons, in comparison to the Tartan's 20 standard laser cannons if faced by a squad of these fighters it is already outgunned, on top of that it has 16 proton torpedos which in all likelihood should be able to destroy a Tartan with one salvo, they are after all a threat to capital ships.

 

On top of that in regards to maneuverability they are unmatched, which means they'll be able to outmaneuver other threats on the battlefield to reach their targets. The Imperial Droid Division has 24 Tartans at its disposal, as explained previously a squad of 12 TwinTails should be a sufficient match for them, requiring at least 288.

 

That is a mere 6% of the 4,600 fighters the Resistance has at its disposal. I am confident they can fulfill this quota and more. So I think that should definitely be taken into account when discussion Tartans vs RR fighters.

 

On that topic I think we should revisit a point made earlier on by Lady concerning fighter tactics:

The standard protocol would be this: TwinTails form the spearhead to tank all of the point defense turrets(They have Freighter class shielding and armor), Ionizers come in behind their cover and make bombing runs to immobilize enemy systems, including perhaps shielding and the long-range weapons on that flagship. Meanwhile the Crossfires use their sheer speed and firepower to overwhelm enemy fighters.

 

Once the fighter superiority is established, then the Ionizers leave the enemy ships void of shielding as TwinTails cause heavy close range damage, whilst the Venators from long range pound enemy ships and only move in to secure the kill.

The TwinTails are indeed designed as effective front-line fighters, designed to soak up damage in this manner. And assuming more than 6% of their fighter force is comprised on these units, they should have plenty to spare.

[Selenial]

How are 8 DBY turbolasers better than 60 Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers?

 

Nowhere have I seen a quote that says they have 60 Taim and Bak XX-9's, only Taim and Bak turbolasers (Taim and Bak being a famous manufacturer). Or quotes that they have XX-9's, never has it said they had 60 XX-9's.

 

Even if they did, the Venator has more than the 8 DBY's. By my sourcebooks they have two turbolaser batteries too, which brings the total closer. The power settings on a DBY allowed a flotilla of ships to punch through the shields of a Lucrehulk battle cruiser, "with ease."

 

Just in case you're unaware, the shields on a Lucrehulk are about 10x stronger than those on an Imperial. The DBY's packed a punch...

[Selenial]

"Need EVERY Ship"

 

The Galactic Empire IS the Republic, if it was as good as the Victory it would have been used, simple as. It makes no sense to decomission a ship when the DOCTRINE introduced favors Larger, and More Firepower (Read Tarkin Doctrine) Your explination simply is BULL ****. and Not Supported by canon Facts or History of the Star Wars universe.

 

Lol someone's getting angry. It's actually supported by a lot, namely Tarkin himself...."Rule through the fear of force rather than through force itself." why use the ships that have liberated a galaxy from the Seperatist cause when you're trying to instill fear in systems?

 

More proof?

"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"

"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."

"the average citizen deals in symbols, not rational analysis."

"then that weapon shall become the symbol of the Empire"

"Sweep away the last remnants of the Old Republic and let fear keep the local systems in line—fear of our ultimate weapon."

 

Jesus did you even read it before replying?

Edited April 27, 2015 by Selenial

[Wolfninjajedi]

Nowhere have I seen a quote that says they have 60 Taim and Bak XX-9's, only Taim and Bak turbolasers (Taim and Bak being a famous manufacturer). Or quotes that they have XX-9's, never has it said they had 60 XX-9's.

 

Even if they did, the Venator has more than the 8 DBY's. By my sourcebooks they have two turbolaser batteries too, which brings the total closer. The power settings on a DBY allowed a flotilla of ships to punch through the shields of a Lucrehulk battle cruiser, "with ease."

 

Just in case you're unaware, the shields on a Lucrehulk are about 10x stronger than those on an Imperial. The DBY's packed a punch...

 

The model most often used aboard ISDs were Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy Turbolasers. Imperial Star Destroyers employed 60 such turbolasers, making them among the deadliest vessels in the galaxy.

 

- Taken from Fact File 45

 

Now where are you getting a Lucehulk's shieldings are 10x stronger than an ISD?