48 Responses

  1. Anonymous

    How does the Victory class star destroyer fair against the Procursator class star destroyer?

    • Fractalsponge

      If the Procursator can play keep away, it will win, slowly. If not, the Victory pounds it flat with missile power while there are still rounds in the magazines. The problem with VSDs is that they are supposedly slow. Otherwise, they are well built for slugging matches.

      • Anonymous

        Yeah the biggest flaw for the Victory I is the engines which they fix it for the Victory II.
        By away is this Victory Star Destroyer you created have the armament of the Victory I while having the engines from the Victory II?

        • Sephiroth0812

          Victory I class Star Destroyers, especially Imperial ones, can also have the three-engine design known mainly from the Victory II because they were retrofitted.
          The two-engine variant of the Victory I class are those originally used by the Old Republic during the Clone Wars which didn’t get any upgrades.

          • Anonymous

            Interesting fact but I wasn’t talking about the engine design but more about how underpowered the Victory I’s engines was (which is the LF9 ion engines as seen here at the Propulsion systems parthttp://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_I-class_Star_Destroyer ) so they replace it with the new superior engines of unknown name for the Victory II.

          • Anonymous

            My bad didn’t put the link there properly so here is the link:
            http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_I-class_Star_Destroyer

          • Sephiroth0812

            As far as I know the engines of the Victory II were Hoersch-Kessel Drive manufactured units, but I don’t know if the Empire actually retrofitted some of those into actual Victory I-class vessels (read: those with the massive missile batteries).
            It is also possible that those Victory I’s with the three engine design had just a third LF9 ion engine (which may have been leftovers from scrapped or heavily damaged VSDs from the Clone Wars) added to at least improve their speed a little compared to the original Republic model.

            I doubt this discrepancy was ever firmly explained in the Legends-canon at all, although I did read somewhere that some people designated the two-engine variant as a completely different subclass which also sounds a little fishy.

      • Sephiroth0812

        Even if the VicStar doesn’t have any missiles left, the ten Heavy Quad Turbolaser turrets can blow the Procursator up easily if it stays in range too long.
        The Procursator was described as a sort of “War emergency program”-destroyer which is quick to build and holds medium weaponry with three heavy axial turrets and around eleven medium batteries across its hull and as such it is more like a light star destroyer.
        Even the Venator, which counts as a medium destroyer/carrier hybrid, is likely stronger in terms of overall firepower and shield strength compared to the Procursator.
        The Victory I however counts as a heavy destroyer/space artillery with superb armor (which outclasses the Venator), it’s only weaknesses are its terrible sublight engines which make it slow as a snail and its ridiculously low fighter capacity (as it can carry only 24 fighters/2 squadrons).

        • Fractalsponge

          As designed, the Procursator has basically a slightly modified Venator powerplant. Venators have fighters, Procursators very good “ship” characteristics like acceleration and guns, and Victories have tons of missiles. On average, they are roughly comparable but are variations on the same light destroyer theme.

          • Sephiroth0812

            Which means that a battlegroup comprised of a Procursator, a Victory and a Venator would actually make an effective team which supplements each other well I’d say.

            I also remember some claims made on the net that the Venator and Victory are actually “sister designs” of some sorts and make a good “tag-team” when used by the Old Republic cause the Victory with its bigger and stronger armor can shield the Venator (whose armor is strictly spoken mediocre for a capital ship) while the Venator can help remedy the lack of speed and fighters of the Victory.

  2. The Victory looks beautiful. Such great work.

  3. PanchoRad

    I started to remake this one in Blender from the pictures… The Victory Class 2 is larger, right? Trying to make them in 270:1 scale…

    • Fractalsponge

      Vic2 I think is same size, just different arrangement.

    • Sephiroth0812

      Both classes are 900 meters long and have very similar hull design just like the ISD I and ISD II have only minor differences appearance-wise.

      The main differences between the Victory I which was also used by the Clone Wars-Republic and the Victory II which is an Imperial-only ship are in terms of armament, engines and armor.
      The Victory II doesn’t have the massive missile batteries but some Ion Cannons instead, better armor (due to less storage room needed with no missiles) and most importantly better engines.
      The main “weakness” of the Victory I are its undepowered sublight-engines which make it very slow so most other ships can outrun it if they can’t take it head on.
      The Victory I is very effective though in roles that don’t need speed like i.e. planetary defense, space artillery (with the missiles) or escort duty with slow transports/an Interdictor cruiser.

  4. Anonymous

    so do you think of making a victory 2 class star destroyer which is like this ship but without the missiles tubes and have more turbolasers and ion cannons?

  5. Is the 3d model available? I am tempted to try creating a large papercraft model out of it…

  6. Have you ever considered building a Venator Star Destroyer? Just a thought.

    • Fractalsponge

      Yeah, eventually!

      • this is awesome!

      • Sephiroth0812

        Certainly looking forward to the Venator.
        Design-wise, it’s my absolute favorite capital ship of the Star Wars universe.
        Not overpowered, but very versatile and still packing quite a punch nonetheless.

  7. Hayabusa1138

    Nice work, but it looks a bit off, to be honest. That said, that feeling could very well be from seeing it in a realistic way compared to comic pages, etc.

  8. I absolutely love it!

    Would it be possible to have an updated set of orthos posts from Assertor down to Intersector-class on different scaled images for better size reference with the new additions?

  9. you should do an eclipse class star destroyer

  10. Wow. That’s amazing. I love how the protruding covers on the missile tubes make the outline of the hull reminiscent of that of the Venator. Even if unintentional, I think that’s a nice little nod to the Victory’s Republic heritage. 🙂

  11. Snazzy missile-support & guidance structures, solid energy-weapon battery, evenly-distributed antennae, distinctive bridge & even hull shape (distinctly less bow taper than Impstars), sensibly-proportioned ventral hangar, and some especially neat thruster-nozzle detailing. Successful revision indeed-can’t thank you nearly enough for sharing.

  12. Still trying to get over how good it looks in shots 2, 16, and 19. It’s an exceptionally good representation of this ship. Really nothing else has come close to looking this good.

  13. Amazing work. As always. But I think something is missing….a Gladiator-class to escort her.

    • Methinks a quartet of our host’s Kontos frigates would do at least as well. In the event anyone gets around to rendering that FFG product, I’d strongly suggest some bow-taper revision; as is, the Gladiator’s dorsal/ventral profile seems far too rectangular for my tastes.

      • Fractalsponge

        The basic shape was pre FFG, but yeah if I did one the taper would get more pronounced.

        • Oh, right, Gladiator was introduced by that ‘Droids’ cartoon where some pirate band’s using one. I’ll give FFG props for adding some visible turrets, but their sundry Imp daggership molds have wound up somewhat…well, anorexic (and thruster-sparse in the Immobilizer’s case). At least their OT Mon Cal ships didn’t turn out too bad, though I still think Home One wound up heinously undersized.

          • Not sure who did the art…but the pic on the wook has turbolasers based off the Venator’s that It looks like FS used on the Vic. Nice tie in for the ships of the same era.

          • gorkmalork

            Ah, good eye. I do like the prospect of at least one medium (Gladiator) & economy-size (Impellor) prow-hangar carrier design.

          • I would like to see him finish out that era of ships….Gladiator, Venator, and Acclamator (possibly variants….I see the Imperial II class frigate from Darklighter as a variant of the Acc.)

  14. Adm. Drakkmar

    I like the inclusion of the axial turret emplacements.

  15. Astro1derboy

    Holy crap this is awesome!! Again . . . VERY well done!!

  16. Best representation of this ship I’ve seen. Well done. The turbolift maintenance department might get a lot of overtime with that change plane from main hull to the neck/superstructure though. 😏

  17. its beautiful.

  18. Finally a befitting representation of the Victory Star Destroyer! I do like the idea of the ‘wings’ as protective cover for its missile armament. On my wishlist would be a variant that brings back that elongated feature on the bridge tower, although I have no good explanation of what function it could have.

  19. Anditesh Ordo

    Awesome. Can’t wait to see other ships of your genius!!! Hoping for some EAW FOC ships!, Heck even a Venator or Acclamator would be awesome.

  20. Absolutely glorious.

Leave a Reply