24 Responses

  1. The Profundity’s armament comes from the R1 Visual Dictionary, which has in my opinion the best technical data for an ISD-I I’ve seen. The Profundity is just over 1200 meters and while its armament may seem underwhelming, it basically the armament of an ISD-I without the heavy quads, medium TLs, and only 1/6 the point defense; but has like 12 torpedo tubes in compensation. So really it manages to pack all of an ISD-I’s heavy armament plus torpedoes, while forgoing the ISD-I’s secondary armament and point defense, which considering its size relative to an ISD its armament makes sense.

    From R1 VD:
    ISD-I:
    6 dual HTL turrets
    2 dual HIC turrets
    2 quad HTLs
    3 triple MTL turrets
    2 MTLs
    60 TLs
    60 ICs
    10 tractor beams

    MC75:
    12 HTLs
    4 HICs
    12 torpedo tubes
    20 PD TLs
    6 tractor beams

    The lack of point defense is probably a conscious design decision since it seems with all the frigates and corvettes a Rebel fleet typically has the Rebels MC Star Cruisers concentrate on heavy anti-ship armament to take on Star Destroyers since they’re the only ships the Rebels really have to fill that role, and leave anti-starfighter work to the frigates and corvettes.

  2. Jackalope

    Where’s the bridge?

  3. Anonymous

    How many fighters can this calamari cruiser carry?

  4. This looks like a really neat a ship in-between the MC80 and MC90. One of the great features on here is the hangar bay… It’s very well protected from all sides.

  5. AralesBloodmoon

    Love this design and I’d love to fly my T-65 out of her main hanger bay.

  6. Heck with the way every Mon Cal ship was an MC80 (MC80 Liberty, MC80 Home One which was like 3 times the size) this can be an MC80 ____ class.

  7. mr.oneshot

    Wonderful work!
    When designing starships, do you ever come up with some technical details (size, armament, hyperdrive, crew, hangar capacity, etc)?

  8. Got any name for this class? It’s bigger than good old MC40 and and about MC80 size.

    • gorkmalork

      Fractal mentioned it’s a later-Alliance/early-NR design, so…MC8(insert number from 1-9)?

      • Fractalsponge

        Well that assumes that MCxx is chronological. I think probably role or class based. Given that, since this is in between full Star Destroyer MC80/90 equivalent and MC40/60 frigate, go MC70?

        • gorkmalork

          Hm, so ‘your’ star-submarine categorization would be ‘MCxx ___ class’? That flagship from R1 was apparently an MC75 (incidentally, holy frak is its ‘pedia-listed armament underwhelming), and I suppose in roughly the same scale ballpark at 1.2 km…MC75 (your name here) class, as opposed to MC75 Profundity (the R1 ship)?

          • Fractalsponge

            Not sure about the MC75 scale. Need better references to be sure. Its bay accommodated Tantive, same as an ISD main bay, so we’ll need some references to scale the bay to full ship length to be sure.

            For naming I mean MC70 or MC75 would be the class (type) name.

          • gorkmalork

            Whoops, apologies for the excess complication then. I’d be tempted to go with MC77, but that’s assuming a certain degree of chronology *within* role/class. Do whatever lightens your migraine. Plus, fair point re: waiting for footage/screencaps over taking Official Stats(C) at face value.

          • Anonymous

            I was thinking MC85 because it look like it is more advanced than the MC80 but not as much as the MC90 IMHO.

  9. Awesome Job. Love the underbelly hanger bay.

    • atleast it looks like a Hanger bay, unless its a engine, with the glowing color

  10. Admiral Drakkmar

    Do you think that this ship would be able to go toe-to-toe with an Imperial-II class?

    • Fractalsponge

      It’d be close. 2/3 the firepower but probably similar shields. The odds are an ISDII would win most of the time, but it’s nowhere near a guarantee.

    • gorkmalork

      Apparently this puppy’s *slightly* smaller & packs thirty HTLs to an Impstar Deuce’s forty-eight (plus those last two heavy ion batteries), so you’d probably need two for a decisive advantage. Certainly seems to have enough thrust for a running fight, though.

  11. That looks amazing. I wasn’t sold on it at first (in the WiP posts), but now… that model looks amazing.

    It’s also neat to see you try something non-Imperial, too (as much as I love your Imperial ships, though).

  12. The MC looks wonderful, the hullplating looks reall good, I bet it takes forever to make these.

    I have to criticize only a trifle, these engines do look oversized. I like to compare them with the ISD engines, without the round blastshield things, ISD engines are actually pretty small, what makes them advanced and still believable for me.
    The oversized engines on the MC do look a bit cartoonish for me, I donĀ“t wanna imagine how much fuel they consume^^

    • gorkmalork

      The exact particulars of Star Wars vehicles’ fuel demands re: thrust are damned hard to say, but I get the distinct impression shields & energy weapons (plus possibly lightspeed) are rather more demanding for a ship’s reactor than sublight antics.

  13. With all the guns mounted on blisters like that, head on it makes me think of some many-eyed monster.

    Brilliant job, would you say there are any more things to iron out with the method and do you think you’ll be doing any more Mon Cal ships in the future?

Leave a Reply