42 Responses

  1. gorkmalork

    Neat, utilitarian-looking mini murderwedge. I’m liking the bow antennae & bridge-tower PD turrets.

    • Sephiroth0812

      Wasn’t this one the baby which could be easily mass-produced like the CIS-ships during the Clone Wars and everytime the Empire couldn’t spare a Star Destroyer they send one or two of these?

  2. PhantomFury

    I always love the discussion here! Although I would like to ask, where does one get sources for, say, the weapon count? I notice Valoren mentioning that this starship, in particular, got: “4 HTLs, 11 quad-TLs and 10 twin-laser cannons,” a fact that has been stated by Factalsponge himself by stating it got 4 HTLs in several places. But yet the wiki states that it has: “25 LTLs, 20 Quad LTLs, 10 point-defense lasers cannons, and 20 point-defense light ion cannons.” Not to point fingers or accuse anyone, but can someone clear up this inconsistency for me? Thanks!

  3. Anditesh

    Hey awesome job to btw. Do you plan on doing any other EAW ships or even the Gozanti Cruiser? That cruiser is so customizable, and had different variations in the star wars universe.

  4. Anditesh

    You think this would have been the ship used instead of the Acclomator in Eaw for a imperial ship that size.

    • gorkmalork

      Apparently there was a space combat-rated Acc variant Fractal’s in the process of rendering; that thing might’ve retained enough thrust/shielding/punch to edge out most other frigate designs. Plus, there is the ‘ship peeps recognize from films’ factor.

  5. Anonymous

    Isn’t this version of Vindicator a little bit overgunned for Star Wars ship? It should have less weapon than dreadnoughts as I remember but it have more. Are dreadnought’s guns just “heavier” versions?

    • Fractalsponge

      Uh, the Dreadnaught has more firepower (6 vs 4 HTL, missile battery) so not sure what you’re getting at here.

      • Chris Bradshaw

        The Vindicator might still be a fair match for the Dreadnaught in an open space fight because the Dreadnaught’s gun arcs are pretty poor, and the Vindicator’s arcs are excellent.

        • Anonymous

          True and the Vindicator speed is greater than the Dreadnaught but the Dreadnaught have much tougher armour and more weapons than the Vindicator.

        • Sephiroth0812

          I remember some sources in the old Legends EU claiming that a Dreadnaught can fight a Victory I-class SD to a standstill (and three being a match for an ImpStar) so it should have no problems when facing a Vindicator, but the Vindicator certainly has three advantages the Dreadnaught lacks: Ion Cannons, greater speed and better maneuverability.

          It may also have the advantage in fighter craft as a Dreadnaught can carry only a single squadron.

          Then again, one definitive advantage of the Dreadnaught is that it is a very tough cookie. It may be slow and cumbersome, but as a flying bunker it can take one hell of punishment.

          • Fractalsponge

            I think it’s 6 refitted Dreadnaughts to the ISD. I think this is sorta BS, given how small the Dreadnaught actually is – my guess is about 10 to match an ISD. I’d expect it to win against a Vindicator, if it could actually catch a Vindicator.

          • Sephiroth0812

            Agreed, the old EU often has such discrepancies and uneven estimates.
            I’m even inclined to disbelieve the one Dreadnaught = one VicStar claim.
            Granted, they’re both slow as snails and have tough armor, but the Victory-class SD has much more weaponry available than the Dreadnaught and better fire arcs.
            Maybe two Dreadnaughts can match a VicStar while the one match is better against a Venator?
            Although the VenStar could probably overwhelm the Dreadnaught with its massive fighter complement in tandem with its heavy TL turrets.

            Considering how slow the Dreadnaught is catching the Vindi will be quite a difficult task to accomplish.
            Depending on crew competence maybe the Vindi can whittle down the Dreadnaught from afar if the range of its weapons is sufficient and it can maintain a favorable position.

          • gorkmalork

            Yeah, I get the distinct impression Dreads are (much) better suited to screening Victory-style local defense ships & pounding on other frigates than operating independently against any flavor of destroyer. They’re still a marked step up from Nebulons & the like as regards anti-ship action, hence the Alliance stripping ’em down into assault frigates when strapped for heavier vessels.

      • Valoren

        @Fractal
        I have an issue with missiles being a significant game changer in heavy engagements. First, just as does anything, warheads are subjected to conservation of energy. There’s only a certain amount of energy you can get for any mass of matter (9e+16 j per kg at max), but contrary to starships, which are made to hold that matter in large quantity and convert it into energy directly inside a reactor, missiles must carry that mass onboard, converting it on impact, and are therefore limited in there capacity or maneuverability. Another problem is that the annihilation process will necessarily be more random and less efficient in a bomb than in a controlled environment, like the confined chamber of a HM reactor.
        Adding that to the fact that they’re extremely susceptible to countermeasure, like jammers or even fighters for the larger ones, and you get why they were discarded for turbolasers in most Star Wars capital ships.

        • Fractalsponge

          Yeah missiles are high-variance weapons. They either work well or they miss completely, and you only get one shot. But if they do hit they allow for a small ship to have incredibly disproportionate impacts on battles – this is the whole point of starfighters in fleet/squadron actions. Not ideal yes, but potentially decisive. They are weapons for set-piece battles of attrition or for a weaker vessel, but they can be brilliant if used carefully.

          • gorkmalork

            In addition to fleet-melee component strikes & miraculous thermal exhaust-port shots, missiles strike me as a handy means of indirect fire, depending on your evasive-maneuver needs or how close you’re operating to a friendly shielded world/moon/shipyard/doomstation/other obstacle. Plus, convenient means of prosecuting already-maimed targets on the fly if your mains have other priorities (though I suppose “battles of attrition” covers this). On the fighter scale, they’re a solid equalizer against everything from shuttles to medium corvettes.

          • Valoren

            @Fractalsponge
            Yeah, but what i was getting at was more of an inherent limitation of guided artillery in the context of Star Wars. An acclamator can create 200 Gt turbolaser bolts, and to achieve that it needs to annihilate at the very least 9 tons of hypermatter per bolt. Now, it isn’t a problem for sufficiently large warships capable of carrying millions of tons of fuel at once, but it quickly become one for fighters/bombers, limited to a few tons of ordnance at best and relying on higher maneuverability, particularly if their target is shielded.
            @gorkmalork
            I completely agree, missiles still retain some use in combat, like pinpoint strikes, attack of unshielded targets or escort vessels and anti-fighter defenses systems, but my point was that when talking about anti-capship artillery, turbolasers become a safer bet, since they’re, by nature, more efficient weapons.

          • gorkmalork

            @Valoren
            Agreed on the superior efficiency of energy weapons so long as you have line-of-sight; it’s certainly irksome how many novels & fluff-text sources hype up squadron-level torpedo runs as the be-all-end-all of space combat.

          • Sephiroth0812

            What about ships that can fire multiple volleys like i.e. the Victory I-class SD?

            VicStar Mark Is may be very slow and carry few fighters, but they can fire multiple volleys of missiles from their massive missile batteries in addition to their heavy Quad Turbolasers.
            If I recall correctly most sources vary between 20 and even up to 80 missile launchers for a Victory I with each tube having four missiles.

            Of course keeping them supplied can be a small logistical nightmare (and may be a reason why the Republic preferred the Venator over the Victory) but it doesn’t change the fact that such a missile barrage can be very effective in the right circumstances.

          • Fractalsponge

            VSDI has 80 launchers. Why would supply be difficult? You think they’d load stuff like bagged coal via lambda shuttle? My guess is for large ships there are logistics hatches and the ship would just come alongside and directly transfer pallets of supplies from a dedicated stores ship or station.

          • Sephiroth0812

            I was not referring to the act of supplying being difficult but the costs being as such, more so during Republic times than later Imperial use.
            80×4 would be 320 missiles needed per every single Victory I class SD, most of the Republic fighters (V19 Torrent, ARC-170 etc.) also use missiles and each Venator carries a ton of these.

            I just figured this could be an explanation as to why despite being introduced during the Clone Wars the Republic used the VicStar in less quantity than the Venator.

          • Valoren

            I wasn’t really talking about capital scale weapon. Sure, you can circumvent both the issues of jamming and firepower by having a missile the size of a semi-truck equipped with fighter-worthy hardware, but for one : it would be even more easy to intercept than fighters, requiring of them to be fired in massive volleys (like by the vics I/II an the providence) and two : it would augment the cost significantly which, added to the first point, goes to show that they’re just not that efficient as a warship main armament as turbolasers are.

      • Anonymous

        It can concentrate its firepower better and I missed two things as well. I thought quads were about 1/2 “power” of HTL, not 1/5 of it and that Vindicators missile batteries are less powerful than dreadnought ones.

    • Valoren

      The dreadnought has 6 HTLs, 14 quad-TLs, 16 twin-laser cannons and a missile battery, while the Vindicator has only 4 HTLs, 11 quad-TLs and 10 twin-laser cannons.

      • Anonymous

        You do know that the Vindicator also have not just 1 but 2 missile batteries on both the ship’s middle trenches right?

        • Fractalsponge

          Those missiles are orders of magnitude less powerful than the ones on the Dreadnaught.

  6. Jonathan C.

    This is my favorite Imperial Ship. Ships in the 600m have guns that just “look” the right size to my eyes. Speaking of guns, what would the rough difference in output would you say be between the quad turbolasers and heavy single turbolasers used here be? like 2xQTL to 1x HTL ?

    • Fractalsponge

      Per shot, 150-200x MTL to single HTL. I think the firing rate for the quads is reasonably high, and the HTL on this sized ship relatively slow to fire compared to a big ship, so the balance between turrets is more like 5:1 on a sustained basis.

      • Anonymous

        By away Fractal since the Enforcer class was a variant of the Vindicator what weapons would it have?

        • Xeno

          Probably greater. That was it’s whole purpose – Pentastar badly needed something resembling a capital ship in dakka, so they “re-arranged the power grids” and took out the hangar, thereby greatly enhancing shields, speed, firepower, and tractor beams. That’s a relatively small, fast, well-armed, well-armored ship which can be manufactured in greater numbers, meaning that Pentastar could rebuild it’s fleet strength quickly, a key part of it’s growing militarization.

          probably similar armament amount, but either heavier or higher-powered mounts.

          • gorkmalork

            Hm, so you figure the Enforcer was basically a Tector-style ‘pure gunboat’ variant to the Vindicator’s generalist frigate. That’ll make it a little easier for me to distinguish ‘tween those two (and the Immobilizer, though its grav-wells are a can’t-miss detail).

          • Sephiroth0812

            I like the comparison of the pair ISD/Tector to Vindicator/Enforcer as this basically summarizes their differences well.

            The Immobilizer 418, although sharing the same hull as the Vindi and the Enforcer, can’t really be compared to them battle power-wise as the Immobilizer is heavily undergunned to both.

          • gorkmalork

            Right, the 418’s grav wells are such an energy hog they’re stuck with anti-corvette & point defense-yield guns & escorts. Plus, the Immobilizer seems to have a very different engine layout (single nozzle as opposed to Vindicator/Enforcer’s five). The Impstar’s Dominator variant retains enough juice for the usual thruster arrangement & a number of heavy guns (and its domes even seem proportionally bigger), so presumably heavier ships have less trouble supporting interdiction capability.

          • Sephiroth0812

            Indeed.
            If I recall correctly this was the primary reason the Dominator/Interdictor-class Star Destroyer was invented/designed.
            The 600m hull of the Vindicator was simply too small to provide a good interdiction/fighting ship hybrid.
            The Immbolizer 418 might even get problems coming out ahead against a Nebulon B Frigate while i.e. a MC40a Calamari Cruiser could easily defeat it.
            That’s why the 418 often had an escort of either a Vindicator/Dreadnaught or if available even a Victory Star Destroyer.
            I remember in games such as X-Wing Alliance Interdictor Cruisers were almost always escorted by VicStars or VicStar Deuces to deter enemy frigates and cruisers.

            The Dominator/Interdictor-class in the 1600m Imperator hull on the other hand could field a bigger reactor and thus was a much better overall Interdictor that didn’t need a dedicated escort ship all the time (although depending on its PD weaponry it might need a dedicated Anti-fighter escort as its own hangar space is limited).

            Then again though, the Immobilizer 418 is clearly still vastly superior to the CC7700 frigate which is the supposed Interdictor of the Rebels.

          • gorkmalork

            Dominator’s grav-well domes are still beefy enough to mask no small chunk of its forward arcs, but Fractal’s render at least lets it retain enough heavy turrets to give frigate-tonnage attackers a bloody nose. Point-defense mounts might be less compromised by said domes, though in R&D’s shoes I’d be wondering whether you couldn’t just stick Immobilizer-scale projectors on a Dom’s bow and call that a day.

            Oddly enough, Rebels might’ve retcon-upgraded the 418’s offensive ability; while the Legends stats limited its armament to 20 quad lasers, I recall one Interdictor finishing off a Nebulon with (medium)? turbolaser fire during that Thrawn-siege two-parter.

            Gotta second you on the aesthetic front as regards 7700s-that is one Duplo-tastic render even by early-90s CD-ROM standards. Those big bow guns(?) might be handy for fending off corvette/light-frigate attackers, but color me skeptical about a ship that size having the juice for such weapons *plus* its main duty. Might still be handy for all those light-convoy raids that kept the Alliance fleet (barely) running pre & post-Hoth.

          • Sephiroth0812

            The bigger domes of the Dominator-class can probably generate a bigger overall interdiction field but it is indeed strange/ineffective planning to have the domes placed as such that they severely hamper the fire arcs of the remaining main battery of the ship.
            I guess i.e. placing “ballshaped” turrets like the Allegiance-class has ON the domes is impractical/not possible despite those probably having an excellent fire arc.
            On PD weaponry I am not even sure if the Dominator-class (and both of the Imperators as well) even have any PD-worthy mounts as neither Disney Canon nor Legends stats mention any.
            The VicStar Mk I can probably use its massive missile batteries also in an anti-fighter role, but the only Star Destroyer class I definitely know to have official PD weaponry is the Venator with its 52 dual laser cannons (which is HUGE for a supposed medium capital ship, but hey, those pesky Droid bombers were very numerous).

            Yea, the Interdictor in Rebels (which is by now confirmed to be the equivalent to the Legends-418 Immobilizer which got also mentioned in the novel “Tarkin”) has its armament altered.
            The 20 Quad-Lasers of the Legends version got replaced with 20 single-barrel Laser Cannons and in return the new Disney version gets several additional medium Turbolasers that can apparently be used against both fighters and medium capital ships. They’re definitely strong enough in yield to destroy a Nebulon B in two or three salvos.

            My best friend described the CC-7700 on first glance as a “flying cigarette box, even uglier than the Ton Falk Escort Carrier” so make of that what you want, lol.
            According to the in-game Encyclopedia the CC-7700 has 50 Turbolasers (10 forward, 20 starboard and 20 port) and 330 anti-fighter Laser cannons (60 forward and 90 for each of the remaining three sides) which is of course bogus for a ship this small (or the values in Rebellion itself indicate damage and not number of guns), yet one glaring difference is that unlike the Dominator-class or the Im 418 of the Empire, the CC-7700 carries only a single Gravity well generator, so the energy demand should be lower overall.

          • gorkmalork

            Heavy TL/ion mounts seem likely to have enough critical machinery *beneath* the turret itself that wiring ’em up atop grav-well domes would indeed be awkward as kriff. ‘Sides, if your sector group has any sense specialized interdictors would have escorts of at least similar tonnage, or tag along with the battlewagons (assuming *those* don’t get retrofitted with grav-wells themselves; I see no reason a 6+km. ship couldn’t handle Dominator or 418-scaled projectors).

            Regarding destroyer-scale fighter zappers…there’s the published (and occasionally reflexively re-circulated) stats, and then there’s the fairly sublight-speedy Falcon taking its share of near-misses from ESB Imp-Deuces, mostly from bow/dorsal locations that seem nowhere near any of the visible heavy/medium turrets. Plus, tracer fire in addition to the anti-fighter missiles launched by Finalizer after Finn & Poe in Ep 7. The Vic-I’s main-magazine rounds strike me as too expensive (and potentially unwieldy) for point-defense work, but I’d be amazed if it didn’t pack its share of fighter-scale weaponry simply to discourage bombing runs on said magazines. If Venators pack that many PD guns *plus* heavy turbos and ample internal hangar space, a Vic or Procursator with rather less in the way of flight-deck concessions oughta have little trouble with light defensive mounts.

            As for the ‘7700’s in-game weapon count….gah. I can roll with ship designers trading minimal interdiction capacity for conventional weaponry, but *how* big is this thing supposed to be again? That count sounds heavy frigate to light-destroyer tier, and the thing *looks* like an extra-blockish corvette or even heavy gunboat.

          • Sephiroth0812

            That’s what I thought.
            Bigger ships having the grav-wells seems to be overall more effective solution in any case.
            The Dominator-class (ImpStar-hull, thus heavy destroyer range) is stated to be a more effective Interdictor than the Im 418 (Vindi-hull, heavy cruiser range, in Star Wars the Cruiser/Destroyer designation is apparently switched around in terms of size), so I’d wager that an Interdictor ship using a Compellor- or Allegiance-hull would be even more effective, yet of course even more expensive.
            Interdictors seem to be very expensive units in every case, so the bigger the hull the even more bigger the costs most likely get.

            Granted, at least the older films before Ep. 7 do not really differentiate the fire from capital ships. I remember as well from the Battle of Coruscant in Ep. 3 the Venator-class SD “Guarlara” trading broadside fire with Grievous’ “Invisible Hand” and the side cannons fired by the clones in the movie scenes match neither the heavy TL Turrets, nor the known two dual medium turbos or the alleged PD-cannons, hinting at the Venator-class having some additional sideways capital-grade weapons that aren’t reflected in any stat lists.
            So going by these instances, at least ImpStar Deuces are implied to have PD weaponry in the films themselves.

            Regarding the 7700, like said, it could be that the “weapon count” in-game in Rebellion is actually the damage output and not the number of guns.
            For comparison, Rebellion states for the ISD-I:
            fore/aft/port/starboard
            Turbolaser: 100/40/60/60
            Ion Cannon: 100/40/40/40

            Lol, the CC-7700 is described as the “older sibling” of the Corellian Gunship (aka the DP-20 Frigate) which is a 120 meter ship, so I doubt it is bigger than 300 meters at most.
            In one Legends story, Imperial Admiral Natasi Daala managed to “knock out” a CC-7700 by ramming the Imperial frigate “Scylla” (class unknown) into it. “Scylla” was moderately damaged and could make only blind hyperspace jumps afterwards, but it did survive.

            Judging by this, SW authors and planners seem to generally have no sense of scale and practicability when it comes to designing Rebel/New Republic ships.

Leave a Reply