5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
61 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
wusolja
wusolja
1 month ago

How big is this ship?

Bob
Bob
1 month ago
Reply to  wusolja

As I recall, It’s as long as, or a little longer than an ISD, but it has a greater volume. ‘Fatter’, if you will. There is a series of size comparison images of the different ships, if you look under the Galactic Empire that has this compared to some others.

Anonymous
Anonymous
1 year ago

Quick question, how many infantry troopers could this transport?

john quinn
john quinn
8 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

I don’t think its meant as an infantry transport, so probably just a garrison of like a few thousand

Cedric
Cedric
6 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Imperial Sourcebook lists this as a corps transport, so roughly 70-75,000 personnel with 48-49,000 combat troops, depending on the corps type.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
6 months ago
Reply to  Cedric

The same source states that the Imperial Army was in the process of greatly expanding the nominal strength of its units at all levels, and that the capacity for expansion was built into the Corps-level transports. As such, the numbers that we would assign to a Corps may not reflect the actual numbers. It could be 2-3 times higher, and that’s without factoring in all the equipment. An Armor Corps will take up a lot more parking space than an Infantry Corps, so if one were to cram in Corps types that are light on equipment, this should potentially carry the equivalent of a full Army Group.

And even then, the Imperial Sourcebook itself has serious flaws; a lot of the organizational aspects of it just don’t hold up to real-world military requirements.

MaNdO'a 333
MaNdO'a 333
2 years ago

Dang! how many point defense weapons does this thing have? cause that thing must be some great target practice for fighters and bombers.

john quinn
john quinn
8 months ago
Reply to  MaNdO'a 333

If my calculationa are correct, it has around 100 PD weapons

Guest
Guest
2 years ago

Fractal, what is the difference between this and the Evakmar?

STONEhenk
STONEhenk
2 years ago
Reply to  Guest

This IS the Evakmar. If you search on: “evakmar” on this site you get all the WIPs of this ship. Evakmar is actually one of the manufacturers of that ship.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

Regarding landing barges, is it possible that a modified Titan-Class could be used to deploy AT-SPs? Say, for example, if the interior was reorganized around one central bay instead of the subdivided ones seen in the cut-away model?

Also, do you intend to keep the “Theta” designation for the smaller landing barges, seeing as how the Emperor’s shuttle in RotS has been designated a Theta? Since Titan introduces Greek mythology into SWU nomenclature, perhaps Cyclops or Atlas are possibilities, maybe for the unnamed front-loading landing barge seen in the cross-section for the ISD?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Here.
comment image

If you look closely in the background, in the larger bay on the opposite side from the POV, you can make out AT-ATs walking out of / backing into some type of landing barge with a swing-up hatch in the bow. It does seem to bear at least a passing resemblance to the Incom Y-4 Raptor, just with a bow loading hatch instead of side-loading ones for AT-STs. It would be a nice bit of consistency for Incom to provide all of the Imperial Navy’s landing barges, with the above variant being the “medium” to the Titan’s “large” and the Raptor’s “small.”

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Something in this size range could conceivably also serve as your proposed company dropship, using the retractable multi-layered decking from the Chi.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

That makes sense. Incidentally, does the Chi have a hyperdrive? I looked into it once, and most of the “Greek letter” series of ships are hyperdrive-equipped shuttles. For reference, here’s the list of assigned and unassigned Greek letters used so far in the SWU:

http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6810&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Very nice. There was mention in the WEG material of a heavy combat dropship (the Warlord) that paralleled the Chi in many respects, but it lacked a hyperdrive and there were never any official images of it.

Regarding the ATR, I assume you’re referring to the Assault Transport and not the Stormtrooper Transport, correct? I always figured that ship was a better fit for the Beta-Class Assault Shuttle, the modular predecessor to the Gamma. IMO, there’s enough similarity there to see the family resemblance, with enough difference to be two different models. Of course, until you posted yours, I hadn’t seen any renderings of this ship worth getting excited over…

As for the Zeta? Well, yeah. At some point we all have to decide at which point we’re going to bend our own personal view of Star Wars to fit what’s in the latest films. Personally, I like your Zeta and I like the Zeta-Class from Rogue One, so I’m going to have to figure out a way around that.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Yeah, that was the clearest shot I could find, and the pixelization really eats up the details. It’s not that much clearer in the Cross-Section book, but they are specifically labeled as “AT-AT” and “Landing Barge.” The barges appear to be slotted into bays around the perimeter of the hangar, with AT-ATs simply walking into them for loading.

There was a long-running discussion on ISDs over at the Rancor Pit, and the stowage of AT-ATs was one of the biggest hang-ups. The thigh section on each leg seems to be able to adjust its length 2-3 meters, but that’s about it. The closest we ever got to a solution was to speculate that an AT-AT’s knee joints could dislocate laterally, with the lower-leg section moving out, away from the center-line. This would render the leg useless for weight-bearing, but would allow it to scissor-fold the legs while in transit (although it would require some form of crane to hold it up while the legs redeployed).

But, if the Incredible Cross-Sections book is right, it wouldn’t need to; the book shows AT-ATs simply walking in/out of the barge without needing to fold the legs at all.

As for looks, I’d go with a larger, bulkier version of the Y-4 Raptor, except with a sheer bow instead of a rakish one, and a split-hatch in the bow with the lower half serving as a boarding ramp. It’s not a pretty ship, but neither are the Titan or the Theta.
comment image/revision/latest?cb=20081117222102

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Instead of a roof hatch, how about something like the telescoping floor you did with the Chi, but on a narrower footprint, as in just enough to take a crouched AT-AT or a couple AT-SE’s parked nose to tail? That could add to the solution of the height issue in the same way it did with the Chi, by having the cargo “up” behind the command section during flight, but lowered beneath it for loading / unloading.

So, for loading aboard the ISD, the barge extends to full height, the AT-AT walks onto the barge’s deck normally, then crouches down as low as it will go and is secured in place. Then, the barge lowers down around it and closes up for flight, leaving itself with plenty of vertical clearance to exit and leave the ship. Then just reverse the process for landing and repeat for recovering the walkers back to the ISD.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I’ve never considered video game footage to be a serious obstacle to a good idea. What with the visual similarity between the Theta and the Titan (especially now that Theta has been officially used for Palpatine’s shuttle in RotS), I’d just say that the Theta footage from Force Commander is a badly-scaled Titan. Throwing out the Theta in favor of a walk-on/off barge eliminates most of the design headaches, and has official precedent as a bonus, depending on where one ranks the Cross-Section books relative to the video games. Even the lack of detail in the Cross-Section books works in its favor, as liberties can be taken with the design because there are so few clear details to take into account.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

That’s what I’m saying; throw out the Theta entirely – it’s essentially a mini-Titan, and it’s a major contributor to the two biggest headaches you’re having with the design: vertical clearance and deploying carried vehicles through the floor.

Once the Theta is off the table, use the low-detail boxy design from the Cross-Section book to design another barge in the same basic size range as the Theta, but designed specifically to work around the problems.

1). Make it a walk-on/walk-off, so the deck / floor can be heavily reinforced and mount repulsorlifts, without the need to work in a ventral hatch.

2). Use the “elevator” system you put on the Chi to allow AT-ATs to walk on and off at full height, but to crouch down once they are on board, so that the floor can be retracted “up” into the barge.

Basically, have the AT-AT walk on at full height, then crouch down and lock into place. The barge then “crouches down” around the AT-AT before take-off, then uncrouches when coming in to land. Once landed, the AT-AT stands up to full height and walks off, at which point the barge “crouches down” around the now empty bay and takes off.

Just as the Chi is “taller” when landed than it is in flight, so it would be in this case, with the added advantage that the barge is in “short” mode (closed up and ready to fly) at the only moment when height is an issue (fitting through the vertical clearance on the bay doors of an ISD).

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago

How has the ground force complement for the Consolidator changed with the addition of new vehicles like the AT-SW and the Scythe-Class? I assume the Scythe makes up the bulk of the Heavy Armor Battalions, while the Broadsword fills out the Light Armor units, but where would the AT-SW’s go? Personally, I’ve always figured AT-STs were better relegated to providing heavy weapons and sensor support to infantry units than as part of front-line armored assault units. Maybe swap out the Consolidator’s AT-ST complement for AT-SWs?

Charles Spinks
Charles Spinks
2 years ago

Fractal could I possibly get some stats on how many turbolasers, laser cannons, ion cannons, concussion missiles, dropships and TIEs this thing would carry?

Ryadra777
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles Spinks

3 single ball 720 TT heavy turbolasers, 44 quad medium 200 GT turbolasers, lots of point defense cannons, no ion cannons and some concussion missile launchers.

Not much in fighters as this ship mostly carry dropships and land vehicles.

Here the ship’s latter complement: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3912093#p3912093

Also the reason why it have those heavy turbolasers here: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3917972#p3917972

Bob
Bob
2 years ago
Reply to  Charles Spinks

If you look up the original thread, somewhere on there he covers everything this carries.

umbrak
umbrak
3 years ago

love those venerator style brige towers

john quinn
john quinn
8 months ago
Reply to  umbrak

VENATOR, NOT VENERATOR!

Ben Story
Ben Story
3 years ago

Can I get the Specifications, like, length, width, height, armament, complement, and so on?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Ben Story

Length around Imperator’s, Armament lots of duel light turbolasers, a couple of quad medium turbolasers and it’s 3 powerful 720 teraton caliber heavy turbolasers but what really matters is it’s complement which is huge like this many: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=3912093#p3912093

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago

So Fractal how many fighter wings does this ship have as standard and pure fighter carrier? (The latter is what I’m more interested)

john quinn
john quinn
8 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Based on the fact that it IS a land vehicle and transport carrier, I’d say it is probabl only around an Imperial-class complement, 2 wings.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
3 years ago

I notice that the WIP name for this is the Evakmar transport. Was this intending to be the model for the Evakmar-KDY transport?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
2 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I always figured Evakmar-KDY was a KDY subsidiary that specifically manufactured troop transports or cargo ships, sort of like how Rothana Heavy Engineering was a KDY subsidiary that made ground vehicles (and the Acclamator).

Dan
Dan
3 years ago

Hey can you make more heavy repulsor tanks? As in can kill a wh40k Titan with its main gun heavy tank plz?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago

Hey just saw a website that use your Assault Carrier but in the very different way here the link: http://starwarsrp.net/topic/73084-consolidator-class-first-order-carrier/
What your thoughts about it?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Yeah i know this ship is too big to be 700 meters in length.

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

By away Fractal what does both the Light Armor & the Heavy Armor Battalion use to make them different from each other?

john quinn
john quinn
8 months ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Usually, at least in reality, Light Armor is for smaller operations or antipersonnel/light vehicle, whereas Heavy Armor is for taing out starships, fortifications, etc.

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

Oh ok then. Also the broadsword repulsortank is part of the heavy battalion so if that the case then does that make it a heavy tank while the saber repulsortank is light or medium?

john quinn
john quinn
8 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

YES.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

The Imperial Sourcebook says that Light Armor units generally have ~2x as many combat vehicles as Heavy Armor (i.e. a Heavy Armor Platoon will consist of 4 Heavy Tanks plus a Command Tank, whereas a Light Armor Platoon will consist of 8 Light Tanks plus a COmmand Tank). The distinction is made indirectly in the same chapter that Light Armor and Repulsorlift units are generally deployed in an area where there are multiple pockets of light resistance (where the more numerous light vehicles are better equipped to be in multiple places at once), while the Heavy Armor units are deployed against concentrated, well defended targets, where their heavy armor and weaponry will be needed to overcome enemy defenses.

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago

Now that you got the All-Terrain Storm Walker (AT-SW) how many of these walkers can fit inside this carrier with the others?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Like around 100?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

100-200 AT-SW walkers?

Anonymous
Anonymous
3 years ago
Reply to  Anonymous

150?

john quinn
john quinn
8 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

prob about 500-1,000

Hecatomb
Hecatomb
4 years ago

Perhaps not the most elegant design in the Imperial fleet, but certainly one of the most detailed and interesting. And a far superior successor to the Acclamator.

Anonymous
Anonymous
4 years ago

Is this ship sea worthy like an Acclamator?

Hosting
4 years ago

A UNSC frigate flying under an assault carrier. Note the size of the assault carrier and it’s hangar.

LazerZ
LazerZ
4 years ago

Is this supposed to be the Evakmar-KDY Corps transport mentioned in the Imperial Sourcebook? In any case this is an awesome design.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
4 years ago

Cripes, whatta troop-slab. Uneducated guess: shuttles, airspeeders, repulsortanks & strike craft deploy from the side & dorsal bays, whilst grounded vehicle & foot-grunts embark from those ventral cavities.

Ben Story
Ben Story
4 years ago

What are the dimensions and specifications for this vessel?