5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
95 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jack
Jack
1 year ago

Six months??? Friggin slacker. How about maybe a little less having a real life and job and supporting yourself and your loved ones and get this baby finished? Sheesh. Get some priorities!
ps. It’s awesome.

Jack
Jack
1 year ago

ack. double post. whups.

Keilerbie
1 year ago

Would you ever do a redux on someone elses fanon work like Jannik Mewes’ ridiculous Annihilator?
image link for reference

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  Keilerbie

Weird thing is, that lump was apparently somewhat inspired by our host’s early supercapital designs in the first place.

Minecreep JAB
Minecreep JAB
1 year ago

Wow! That’s really unbelievable! All those Details… How much time do you Need / How Long do you work on it per day? That really look GREAT, PHENOMENAL, AMAZING and I just don’t know how to describe your whole work in words :thumbs_up: 😀

CFletch
CFletch
1 year ago

I love how that engine cluster is better armed than many system defense force fleets. Appropriate, no obvious blind spots on this warship for small craft to hide in.

I am loving the progress.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  CFletch

I’ll admit to recurring annoyance with peeps who figure Impstar-and-larger ships are basically zero-mobility backdrops for fighter & Hero Shuttle/Freighter action. Even Legends’ X-wing books allowed capitals to *roll* now & again.

CFletch
CFletch
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

I absolutely agree. Given the acceleration given for some ships it is logical to assume even these big warhorses can twist around with frightening speed.

I really hope inertial compensators have amazingly redundant designs. I can’t imagine the carnage from even a microsecond failure during maneuvers of any kind. The ship would probably shatter, to say nothing of the poor crew.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  CFletch

Factors like that might make ion cannons damned lethal beyond the ‘zaps organics and/or shorts out unshielded stuff within X radius’ element. There’s a number of onscreen indicators (like the Imps’ Endor ambush in ROTJ) that undamaged compensators enable ludicrous feats of deceleration at the very least.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

The Honor Harrington Universe played around with that idea, where a ship’s acceleration compensator could “flicker” and instantly turn the entire crew into paste on the closest aft bulkhead. As such, most ship speeds were limited not by how fast they could go (theoretically, their gravity drives could push all the way to lightspeed) but by how much energy their acceleration compensators could absorb. It was also standing procedure to not run their compensator over 80% of its maximum capacity except in emergencies. Of course, that didn’t help against battle damage…

Personally, though, I’d probably go with it being designed around a system that spins down over time rather than instantly dropping out. One of the better technobabble ideas I’ve seen for artificial gravity involved a “graviton centrifuge” that created a localized directional gravity field, and that if the centrifuge lost power, the gravity field generated by it faded away slowly rather than disappearing instantly. From a narrative perspective, it makes it easier to explain why the character’s ship still has gravity during the few seconds between when the engine conks out and backup power kicks in.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Agreed, but it is nice to have the tech explanation as a framework to provide a sense of realism to what we see on screen. A big example for me was the “why is there sound in space?” question; I eventually explained it by saying that ships in the SWU are equipped with “ears-up displays” that are essentially surround-sound systems in the cockpit tied into the sensor systems. Passive sensors pick up the energy output from a target and interpret it as audio frequencies, which are then broadcast over the “ears-up” system, allowing a pilot to keep track of other ships by ear instead of by sight.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I wonder about the ergonomic value of something like that vs. simpler collision/missile/sensor-lock alarms, but maybe SW sapients can manage such input for the same reason even middling-Force-mojo farmkids (hi, Biggs!) can moonlight as bush pilots.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Not sure if you know, but that is canon (in Legends) under the name of aural sensors.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

If it’s any consolation, thusfar I’ve not seen much onscreen backup for that kyberlaser fluff. There’s the siege pizza’s anti-theater-shield phallocannon, but that hardly says much about Resurgents or the Doomerang’s main armament (which can…one-shot shuttles. Whoo). Ep 9 might prove me six kinds of wrong, of course.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I’m pretty sure that ion-torped Impstar was also Hammerheaded into the other one, which is funny since said (relatively) undamaged destroyer lost a heinous amount of superstructure to that collision. Possible combination of (1) main hull vs. comparatively tender ‘office space’, (2) Dune’s ‘slow blade penetrates’ mechanism also applying to particle/deflector shields (which might optimize for stopping warheads/split-second impacts, not continuous-pressure stuff) and (3) tensors/compensators on one or both ships failing gradually?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

(2) is the one with precedent from the films, specifically the battle of Naboo, where the droids were able to shove through the shield even though their earlier bombardment couldn’t penetrate it.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

That would be from the fact that Gungan shields are energy shields and not particle shields, so it doesn’t stop solid objects. As for the Scariff scene…I am pretty sure I raised this problem before and there was several reasoning given by you guys (and Fractal) but I can’t recall it right now.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

There’s also the Falcon glomming onto Avenger’s aft command tower, which seems like it would at least involve landing gear/particle deflector interaction. As for Scarif, all I figured prior to this ‘wait, what effect *would* ion weapons have on tensors & compensators?’ angle was that capital ship hulls were denser than the attached superstructure.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

And yet, the Trade Federation tanks were equipped with projectile launchers (the holes in the leading edge of the tanks’ base section). If the shields were energy-only, why didn’t the TF switch to non-energy weapons?

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I think can be disproved by cinematic evidence. If you look at the explosions following the impacts of the tank main guns on the Gungan shields, you’ll notice the blasts splintering into fragments, which means the AATs were firing shells from the main gun, thus necessitating a close attack from ground contact infantry.

Besides, why would the Gungans ever procure a battalion level shield that would be vulnerable to slugthrowers? Even they’re not that stupid.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Also, when the battle droids crossed through the shields, they had to shoulder their way through it, complete with a slight stumble at the moment they break through.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I’d imagine that the rolling hills of the Naboo terrain prevented the AAT from having a clear line of sight onto their target, a problem with such a low fixed emplacement. As for why the shields weren’t made with projectile in mind, remember that slugthrowers are a novelty in the SW galaxy, with a select handful in the hands of bounty hunters, Wookiee bowcasters, and a miscellaneous outher places. And if Canon information is to be trusted, Thrawn Alliance novel suggested that particle shielding also blocks air molecules so to have it lowered all the way to the ground would eventually suffocate the people within.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

Projectile weapons are ludicrously common in the SW universe and not just in the EU. We see the AATs, LAATs, Juggernauts, AT-TEs, Hailfires, HMPs, and those Octuptarra tri droids fire off guided missiles and railgun rounds in the prequel trilogy as well as Baze’s shoulder fired ATGM in Rogue One. Plus, pretty much all of Fractal’s vehicles have variants with either missiles or large indirect fire artillery pieces.

Any doctrine that depends on close order infantry marching under a pure ray shield that doesn’t take steps to address incoming projectile fire deserves a quick yet painful death by Katyusha.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Now, by slugthrower weaponry, I mean specifically at guns and not missiles and the like. For larger mass drivers like the one on the AT-TE, those aren’t very commonly seen. But back to the point about warheads, I’d imagine that the concept just didn’t quite occur to them and their focus was more in line of hold the line until the enemy are in the effective range of their primitive weapons, and until then, defend against ranged energy weaponry.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

And yet, in the film itself, the AAT’s didn’t open fire until they had a direct line of sight for their laser cannon, so I fail to see how “clear line of sight” would apply here. And its not like projectile weaponry isn’t a thing – proton torpedoes, concussion missiles, poison darts, mass drivers, etc. The main advantage to projectile weaponry in the SWU is that it allows the shooter to tailor the effect based on the projectile fired. The AAT, for example, has six projectile cannon in its base plate, carrying three different types of shells (“bunker busters”, armor piercing, and HE for use against personnel and light vehicles).

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I don’t exactly follow the point raised since I did clear up misunderstanding between guns and warheads. As for the line of sight thing…the first statement sounds contradictory and covers the laser cannon when the subject is the six lauchers at AAT’s base?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

At what point in the battle – particularly during the initial bombardment of the shield – did the base-mounted launchers not have line-of-sight to the shield? The AATs were parked on a hillside with their launchers pointed directly at the shield with nothing in their way. The only thing that ever got in the way of the launchers was the droid troops themselves.

Daib
Daib
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Am I the only one who rewatched the scene to catch the clips of the AATs using their hull ordnance launchers but only came away with the conclusion of how comically ridiculous that entire battle was?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Daib

Nope. The only positive takeaway from that battle, IMO, is that an active shield is the only thing that makes Napoleon-era set-piece battles even halfway plausible.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Ah, I got what you mean now. Aside from the obvious answer of the said droid troop because Trade Federation don’t know how to deploy their infantry, perhaps – and I’ll admit this is more of an asspull than anything – it might have something to do with the plasma enveloping the warhead? It was said that it greatly helped penetration power of the ordinance so perhaps the energy shields negate that and the momentum alone wouldn’t carry it farther than just a grenade lob? Sure, it’d disrupt the Gungan ranks considerably, but not enough to take out the shield generator to unleash your primary energy weapons.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

My thinking is more that the whole “energy shields only stop energy” thing was another overly-simplistic WEG screw-up. It all stemmed from Dodonna’s “the shaft is ray shielded, so you’ll have to use proton torpedoes” line, but the statement itself is not conclusive. Note, for instance, that Ray Shields were used to trap Anakin, Obi-wan and Palpatine aboard the Invisible Hand in RotS. If ray shields are only effective against energy, why couldn’t a pair of Jedi have just “forced” their way through it?

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Perhaps ray shields would be very effective against a conventional kinetic projectile like a railgun round, but a proton torpedo might also have some sort of penetration aid? Not decoys like IRL Chevaline, but rather an energy field projected by an onboard generator that would allow for limited burnthrough.

Regarding the Gungan tech, we first see their shields not on the Naboo battlefield, but rather in their underwater cities, constantly repelling thousands of kPa of water pressure for decades on end. It’s safe to say that those shields are fairly effective against physical matter.

Also, seconded on the absurdity of the TPM battle. Sometimes I find it difficult to believe that the same guy created the Hoth walker assault.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

This is exactly the route that I went, with the combination of relatively low speed and an energy sheath that helps penetrate shielding. Decoys and jamming missiles would be an effective addition to a mass missile or torpedo barrage, though…

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Whether it be an oversimplification on WEG part or not, coming from a generally conformist backgroud (until Disney Magic tech, because the reasoning they gave was far from satisfying) I feel like the distinction between particle and energy shielding is one of the fundamental basics of SW’s technology. That said, the fact that ray shields were used to trap Obi-Wan and Anakin on the Invisible Hand too was a source of confusion for myself. A brief examination into the wiki pages (which lead me to canon section by default) revealed the notion that while physical objects could go through, it’s not without the dangers of a potentially lethal electrocution. As for the Gungan city, it’s not either particle or ray shields, but rather something apparently bioengineered by the name of hydrostatic bubble.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

I don’t see what’s fundamental about it. There isn’t even anything in the films to directly support the premise; all we know is that ray shields necessitated the use of proton torpedoes. And if “ray” shields are intended to block just energy, it’d be pretty silly to use them on a /thermal/ exhaust port.

And this is the only time “ray” shields are mentioned in the OT. Starship shields were all called “deflectors”, while the Hoth and Endor shields were “energy shields.”

I enjoy the WEG game very much, but just because they wrote it down doesn’t make it true.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Besides DS1’s exhaust port, the main onscreen example I can recall supporting any difference between energy & particle defenses would be Executor losing its ‘bridge deflector shields’ in ROTJ and *not* getting the command module slagged by Home One & friends (srsly: 6-7 cruisers with what *looked* like a point-blank shot, and no further damage ’till the A-wing hits?). Plus, I’m fairly sure Palpy referred to DS2’s shield as a ‘deflector’, though technical quibbling was never anywhere near his first priority. Still, fair point WRT reassessing grandparented game-mechanic assumptions.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

By fundamental, I don’t always mean something from the highest avaliable canon source, but rather something that have been long standing information that the world was build upon. For an example, while never explicitly mentioned, hyperspace is now generally understood as being in a different dimension from realspace; or that blasters require blaster gas as well as energy cells to function. This is the case with the distinct two shield type avaliable to the SW universe, with the term “deflector” and “energy” shields being general vernacular of such a defense (i.e “bazooka” for a variety of rocket launchers) That said, you do bring up a good point about why they used energy shields on the thermal exhaust port,

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

But this “foundation”, as it were, was built by the same people who canonized the 5-Mile Executor fallacy, in spite of clear film evidence that it was wrong. IMO, it’s far better to take an empirical approach than to adhere to tradition established by a non-primary source. There’s plenty of evidence that WEG got things wrong, so there’s no real reason to assume they are right by default.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Thusfar, the empirical approach *seems* to suggest planetary/theater-scale shields which stop energy *and* kinetics (or separate bubbles of the same dimensions), vaguely hull-conforming ship shields which *might* be split into energy & particle departments, and vehicle/personnel-grade stuff which doesn’t always have the energy budget for both.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

I concur. For starships, I went with the idea of navigation shields that conform to the hull, and steerable energy barriers (deflector screens) projected a short distance away that serve as mobile cover that must be penetrated separately in order to inflict damage.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I do know that as Legends go, retconing is common and the flexibility it provides is essential in such a vast media, though the shield discrepancy seems to be one of the constants (again, foundation) regardless of source. That said while I don’t personally energy shields of your description of an energy screen like something from Star Citizen and more along the lines of simply a hull conforming field (as you’d point out in your navigation shields) that simply fades in strenth the further away from source. This would explain shields on different sections of the ship and is tied in to the examples you find in expanded material to “divert power to [section] shields” and also Mon Cal ships’ overlapping shield gimmick.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

It’s more derived from the brief glance of Chewie “angling the deflector screens” during the escape from the Death Star. TFA retconned it as the gunsights for the quad-lasers, but in the original, it looks a lot more like a pair of flat-plane energy shields projected above and below the Falcon, which are then “angled” to counter incoming attacks.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Do you mean the two gridded panes that came up on the targeting display? I’ve always assumed those to be some targeting visual. An alternate to a hull-conforming shield would be the bubble shield like the case with the Raddus, where it extend so far out from the hull, the “support” (aka totally-not-sacrificial-lamb) vessels could slip in to protect themselves from the Supremacy’s underwhelming bombardment. Then again, this might be in part due to the Disney Magic powered shield generators.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

The second option fits better with multiple instances in the EU where ships in close formation can combine shields to better defend against attacks. An additional possibility is that a skilled shield operator can fine-tune the plane angling and pulse frequency of the shield to increase its effectiveness.

Another likely application for the hull-conforming navigation shields is a “virtual aerodynamic shape” effect that creates a low-drag, heat-absorbing cocoon around an otherwise unaerodynamic platform (like pretty much all Star Wars ships).

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Actually on your point about particle (navigation) shield aerodynamics, I do believe there’s a level of validity to be taken into account here in existing canon, as there are actually statements from reference sources that states the atmospheric speed of a craft drastically increases with the shield present.

Valoren
Valoren
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

I can confirm that. In TPM they were apparently loaded with incendiary ordnance, but they’re generally described as bunker busters. As far as I know the munitions are neither guided nor intended for long range engagement.

Daib
Daib
1 year ago
Reply to  Valoren

An attempt to combine tank and assault gun on the same chassis, eh?
We might be looking at a corporate Char B1 or M3 Grant analogue.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Daib

There is some precedent for this: The AT-AP from RotS featured a dorsal laser turret, a ventral defense blaster cannon and a forward firing mass driver cannon.

I actually rather like the idea of a tank being distinguished from an IFV/APC by mounting a mass driver along with energy weapons: different shell types allow the gunner to tailor the desired effect by switching rounds, and the need for more volume for ammo storage explains why it can’t/doesn’t carry troops (or at least not a lot of them).

Daib
Daib
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

That criteria would exclude some of Fractal’s heavier tanks along with canon vehicles like the TX-130 and 2-M though. Sure ammo switching gives you a little versatility, but there’s also something to be said for just filling the hull with reactor, capacitor, and heat sink and brute-forcing the target with an LTL.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Daib

Fractal did say that a combo main armament was possible for the Scythe, but he wasn’t going to model it. However, the fact that missiles, torpedoes and mass drivers exist at all as front-line military equipment suggests they have some utility or advantage that blasters don’t, and that that advantage outweighs the cost and volume of ammo storage. Considering what blasters can do with a whiff of blaster gas, I can only imagine the sort of bang-for-your-buck available in a solid shell, like a pocket nuke, perhaps.

Daib
Daib
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

A laser gives you the ability to dial whatever output you choose as well, from a light antipersonnel spray all the way up to Veers’ power generator killing hammer blow, plus perhaps the flak effect if the crew can consistently pull that off.

Besides, extremely high yield warheads are available IRL in the form of tactical nuclear weapons like the old Davy Crockett or W48. The same reasons that discouraged their use on terrestrial battlefields may carry over to SW ones, namely that ground forces tend to only be committed to taking populated areas that neither side wants to reduce to a radioactive wasteland.

I suspect that the Trade Federation chose to add mass drivers to their tanks because they wanted the ability to fire nonlethal payloads. As a corporation rather than a military, they probably have to deal with situations like trade riots, upset indigenous populations, and disgruntled strikers more than enemy armies. Thus, the ability to fire tear gas, flashbangs, and other incapacitants gets used a lot more than laser fire.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  Daib

Yet there are at least two Republic vehicles on-screen in the prequels equipped with mass drivers as their main armament.

And none of the three rounds available on the AAT were non-lethal: AP, HE and “Bunker Busters.”

I’m not convinced most blasters are “dialable” as you suggest. It’s equally likely that Veers’ “maximum firepower” was just rerouting discretionary auxiliary power to the guns.

Also, there’s no reason to assume that warhead tech has stagnated while Blaster tech has progressed. “Pocket nuke” was a metaphor for a solid shell whose peak damage potential exceeds that of a max firepower energy weapon exceeds that of a laser weapon on an equivalent frame. Clean nukes w/ gravity-lensing to focus the blast in a specific direction, anti-matter, hypermatter, plasma incendiary, neutron radiation (kills crew / troops without harming structures or equipment), concussion/seismic, etc. The list of possibilities is endless.

Blasters definitely pack more of a punch than firearms of equivalent size, but IMO, they also have a huge advantage in ammo capacity, with blaster gas storing far more compactly than its equivalent weight of fire in solid bullets. The only way bullets can compete is by doing things that blasters can’t do, especially if they’re going to be primary armament on an armored vehicle.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Offhand, one major edge projectiles (‘specially guided ones) might retain is indirect fire, be it lobbing mortar/artillery rounds over a hill or missile barrages around your stellar obstacle of choice (or through a planetary shield window). Energy weapons have an obvious speed (and *probably* upper-yield) advantage in space combat, but at infantry/armor level terrain adaptation becomes a crucial factor.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

That too. Guided missiles in particular would be useful for orbital fire support, as a ship in orbit could potentially fire around the curvature of a planet and hit targets on the opposite side, so long as it had a forward observer calling the shot or some other form of terminal guidance.

Guided weapons do potentially have a range advantage, as well, depending on endurance. Energy weapons would certainly have the “reaction” advantage close-in, but a guided warhead with a flight time measured in minutes or more could very easily exceed the maximum effective range of an energy weapon if given enough time to get there.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

The main mitigating factors WRT long-range missilespam would seem to be ECM, losses to PD & the targeted ship jumping out if confidence in the first two nosedives. Which would be where interdictors and/or pulse-mass minefields come in.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Mixed in with its various other plot lines, the Honor Harrington series provides a pretty detailed map for how missile tech might evolve; home-on-jam and other penetration aids to defeat ECM, jammer and decoy missiles mixed in with the missile spam to defeat point defenses, followed by high-tech upgrades like multi-drive missiles for hitting at extreme ranges, and command & control missiles fitted with FTL comms to provide real-time control over the missiles even at several light-minutes’ range. and so on and so forth. All that would really need to be changed would be the basic tech, like swapping out the gravity drives from the Honorverse for something a bit more conventional SWU.

Jumping to hyperdrive would be an option, but that would require either the ship’s nav department having an emergency escape jump course plotted in and ready to go at a moment’s notice, or an emergency blind jump. Not unfeasible, but the films do seem to suggest that jumping to hyperdrive requires at least some prep time. And even if a targeted ship dodges the attack by jumping into hyperspace, it’s still technically a short-term mission kill; by leaving the battlefield, it can no longer perform its mission and influence the outcome.

Honestly, I think the biggest obstacle would be political and economical. The Empire would have the resources to go with a missile-heavy armament, but they already have a pretty overwhelming winning formula, so why would they need to? The Alliance would probably love to field a weapon system that would allow them to pummel an Imperial fleet from far beyond their effective range, but lack the resources to develop and deploy something like this in usable numbers.

Much like in the initial books of the Honorverse series, I expect long-range missiles and torpedoes in the SWU are going to be used more for the initial sparring and probing attacks, feeling out the strengths and weaknesses in the enemy’s ECM and point defense by tossing missiles at them to see how they react, and maybe getting in a lucky hit against something important early-on.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

AT-TE has that mix as well but it also carries troops.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
1 year ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

I should clarify that I meant that the main armament would be mixed energy and mass driver. The energy armament on the AT-TE is secondary / defensive in nature. Oddly, though, the cannon on the AT-AP and UT-AT look exactly the same as the one on the AT-TE, but are energy weapons, so the possibility of an AT-TE with a main armament laser is certainly there. But I digress…

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
1 year ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

One more 2 add to your list above
HAET-221

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Yep, one such roll maneuver is the famous Marg Sabl (And no, I won’t accept that Canon made Ahsoka the creator of that move)

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

Eh, if you gotta launch small craft under heavy fire, masking your working hangar(s) (assuming you’re not already flanked/englobed/whatever) seems rather no-brainerish. I’d buy some Old Republic/Sith Empire/Mando fleet wonk figuring that out well before any current-ish named character entered the picture.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  gorkmalork

Usually capital ship preservation would suggest not giving your broadside (in star destroyers’ case, your dorsal/ventral surface) towards the enemy to make yourself a bigger target.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

The films and cartoons all have capital ships firing within a few kilometers of each other, but there’s good reason to believe that most engagements occur at orders of magnitude greater ranges where target profile matters a lot less.

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

Perhaps so, but it’s also worth noting that Marg Sabl do offer a far thinner line of defense towards the bridge in the case of ISD, and the ventral hanger opening (and as a ventral surface, has less weaponry to bring to bear) in the case of Venator, both of which are undesirable targets.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

I also get the impression that whole ‘broadside or dorsal surface?’ thing (for ships whose mains are distributed Impstar/Allegiance-style) is rather case-by-case. For peer-ballpark targets, might as well present the main arc; for superheavies you’re (hopefully) engaging as part of a wolfpack, stick with one side or another & focus more on a non-closing parallel course with plenty of evasive dips & twists. Corvette-scale pests can usually just be engaged with whichever light/medium TLs happen to bear, though you still wouldn’t want ’em shooting at launching craft.

Chris Bradshaw
Chris Bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Warship battery arrangement seems to be very contextual based upon what kind of threat environment they’re designed to face. A Mandator II designed to endure swarm attacks from thousands of CIS frigates and destroyers is going to have a very different HTL layout than a Viscount aimed at winning 1v1 duels with peer ships like Executors.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris Bradshaw

I do wonder how much Viscount’s gun distribution would’ve been driven by the Mon Cals’ thing for blister spray (very much apparent in the model & illustrations I recall) & midship flight decks (ditto). A superheavy dorsal/ventral/broadside battery could certainly work c/o sheer beastly mass, but general anti-destroyer/cruiser coverage seems crucial for a battlewagon with such a relatively anemic engine block (its best chance at something like Ex would likely *not* involve much running action).

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

So you’d suspect that most ranged engagements have warships turning around each other as they bank into their turn to offer the most favorable amount of firepower to pour into the enemy? It’d make a lot of sense, would it mean that the Marg Sabl is ubiquitous among the battles starring ventral-hangar crafts? I still don’t see it with the Venators though, since it just kinda shows off your soft underbelly.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago
Reply to  PhantomFury

The Venator’s sheer number of hangar cutouts does complicate full-bore flight-deck activity under fire-seems like sticking to one launch facing at a time would make said masking *somewhat* safer. Safer *still* would be scrambling small craft prior to engagement & having them jump in as needed, though initiative is never a given.

gorkmalork
gorkmalork
1 year ago

Welp, enough staring into the thruster glow like a suicidal mosquito: time for some nitpicking! Er…guess I’ve always been curious about those light(or medium?) dual-tower turrets(?) lined up parallel to the brim trench/engine region. Extra line-of-sight for PD duty?

PhantomFury
PhantomFury
1 year ago

Oh man, the site went down for me for like a day and I got worried, but luckily I found this on your artstation profile. Anyway, glorious work as per usual!

countvertex
1 year ago

That looks pretty amazing! He bought an extra large bottle of thick greeble sauce and poured the whole bottle onto it!

Proton
Proton
1 year ago

My Lord… Is that Legal?

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
1 year ago
Reply to  Proton

No it just awesome

Admiral Friggoris
Admiral Friggoris
1 year ago
Reply to  Proton

I will make it legal…

gthompsn
gthompsn
1 year ago

Absolutely amazing work as always.

Road Warrior
Road Warrior
1 year ago

Now that is some proper detail work. Bravo, Ansel. Bravo.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
1 year ago

Turret Count Update:

PD Turrets: 1182 (I’ve probably missed some, it happens a lot)
Quad Medium Turbolaser Turrets: 157
Quad Heavy Turbolaser Turrets: 54
Octuple Heavy Turbolaser Barbettes: 30
Twin UltraHeavy Turbolaser Turrets: 27
Quad Ion Cannon Ball Turrets: 14
Missile Launch Tubes: 108

As always, corrections are welcome.

Ryadra777
1 year ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

OK I don’t understand why you’re calling the Bellator’s primary batteries ‘Ultra Heavy’. What make them ‘Ultra’ to be exact?

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
1 year ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Maybe they look and act bigger by a lot than the HTL. FS does say UHL and UHTL.
Just a thought

Ryadra777
1 year ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

I don’t think Fractal say ‘ultra heavy’ on laser cannons and turbolasers. the only time Fractal say ‘ultra’ was ultra light turbolasers.
An example from Scout/Courier WIP#1: ‘Ultralight turbolasers – good against starfighters and transports, totally useless against capital ships.’
Also at some time ago Fractal used to call the Bellator’s main batteries ‘super heavies’.

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
1 year ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Maybe TL/LC ( in some cases IC) come in both with ‘Super’ < 'Ultra'
IIRC
But you may have a point as they maybe SHTL not UHTL

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
1 year ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

Fractal doesn’t use ‘ultra heavy’ as a standard term; when dealing with heavy turbolasers he tends to state the muzzle energy in terms of TNT equivalent yield.
I use “UltraHeavy” as a shorthand for ‘I’m no good at estimating turbolaser yield but these are some of the biggest guns I’ve seen Fractal use and “SuperHeavy” doesn’t seem big enough somehow.’ It is very much an unofficial term, and if Fractal gives me a better one to use, I’ll use it.

Ryadra777
1 year ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

Fractal did the TNT equivalent yield for each different type of turbolasers, laser canons and ion cannons.

Dual Main Heavy Turbolasers:
For anti-capital like star battlecruiser, star battleships and star dreadnoughts. (720 Teratons each per shot)

Quad Secondary Heavy Turbolasers and Quad Ball Heavy Ion Cannons:
For anti-fleet like star destroyers and star cruisers. (240 Teratons each per shot)

Oct Tertiary Heavy Turbolasers:
For anti-escort like star frigates and ships that are agile. The Imperator’s main guns. (40 Teratons each per shot)

Quad Medium Turbolasers:
For anti-corvette (200 Gigatons each per shot)

light Turbolasers:
For anti-heavy fighter and bombers. (50 Megatons per shot)

Long Barreled Heavy Laser cannons:
For anti-fighter (Properly around 100 kilotons per shot)

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
1 year ago
Reply to  Ryadra777

Could you provide a link for the 720 Teraton yield, please? I remember the figure, but as I recall it came from before Fractal used any turrets quite as large as the Ballator’s mains.

Ryadra777
1 year ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

Sure here one from bbs.stardestroyer.net: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?p=2911419#p2911419

Yeah I know that post is over a decade ago and it is on the old Bellator but the yields are still the same.
But if that doesn’t convince you, Fractal did post ‘720’ and ‘teraton equivalent’ in this website on ‘Bellator Redux WIP#1 and Notes’ and it is on the fourth paragraph.

Hydra638
Hydra638
1 year ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

I have a question; when you say “pd turrets: 1182” for instance, do you mean that there are 1182 barrels or 1182 actual turrets with 4 barrels each?

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
1 year ago
Reply to  Hydra638

1182 turrets, each of which has 1 light turbolaser cannon and 1 heavy laser cannon. It’s a standard design of PD turret for Fractal, which he’s used since at least as early as his Crusader-Class Corvette.
For a better look at the turrets, here’s the Crusader:
http://fractalsponge.net/?p=1538

Keilerbie
1 year ago

By the looks of things we’re only missing the tail and the underside…
Color me excited!

Cdr. Rajh
Cdr. Rajh
1 year ago

Oh my~ She’s lookin’ mighty fine~! Not much missing now huh?