5 1 vote
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
32 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jango Fett
Jango Fett
3 months ago

This is my favorite star destroyer

PhoenixKnight
PhoenixKnight
9 months ago

On my birthday no less

Kal Skirata
Kal Skirata
2 months ago
Reply to  PhoenixKnight

Happy birthday (only half a year late)

TwoZeroFoxtrot
TwoZeroFoxtrot
9 months ago

As a kid playing games like TIE Fighter, and reading comics, playing the CCG, etc. I wondered why sometimes the VSD didn’t have a consistent design with it’s rear “wings.” I don’t know if it’s always been part of the idea of the VSD, but I love how you’ve done a sort of “S Foil” thing for the VSD where the armament is concealed, and thereby also answering that question I had for so long.

chimeric oncogene
chimeric oncogene
10 months ago

While the stark white of Imperial-era warships is lovely, have you ever considered reskinning the Victory in Clone Wars livery? I’d love to see how they looked in that era.
Also, while I understand the Prequels aren’t quite your thing, I still hold out hope you’ll do a Venator one day.

Aaron Johnson
Aaron Johnson
10 months ago

:

I’ve had this question for a minute and I was wondering if you could give your thoughts.

In Star Wars Rebels Admiral Thrawn conducts an orbital bombardment of the Rebel base, in which we see multiple ISD’s utilizing their main batteries. Now, in your work and calculations (among many others), just a single blast of these turbolaser batteries is rated at way higher than megaton destructive yield (I don’t even know all the terms, but I catch the drift that a each shot from an ISD is stronger than Tsar Bomba).

And yet, in Star Wars Rebels, we see Kaanan speeding through the bombardment on a speeder bike, and the bombardment appears to be much closer in destructive yield to a conventional artillery barrage. Obviously, if turbolasers were even very conservatively carrying megaton yield effects, one shot would have put Kaanan and a 10 mile radius up in irradiated smoke.

I’m new here and have no idea if ya’ll love, hate, or don’t care about shows like Rebels and Clone Wars – but if as a thought experiment we took that scene as a canonical example of turbolaser power…how would that prompt us to rethink everything about space combat in Star Wars? Just feel like this is an interesting case study.

Aaron Johnson
Aaron Johnson
10 months ago
Reply to  Aaron Johnson

Here’s the video clip of the scene I’m talking about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARR0RPrr_rg&feature=youtu.be&t=33

Aaron Johnson
Aaron Johnson
10 months ago
Reply to  Aaron Johnson

For anyone who cares, here’s my rationalization, because it actually plays into why I love this Victory Star Destroyer design:

Assuming that “blasters” and “turbolasers” are operating on a common plasma bolt weapon concept, I rationalize in my own headcannon that this type of weapon delivers its effect through both partical kinetic energy and incendiary heat energy, in a way simlilar to real-life shaped charges. This type of weapon is optimized for space combat, burning through armor and overloading shields, and [aired with a capital ship reactor as a power source, such weapons would have an unlimited magazine and high fire rate. But as a weapon oriented toward penetration of armor, it has a ceiling on its explosive or area destructive effects (this is why you don’t use as an anti-tank gun as a howitzer in real life). I’m guessing that a weakness of this type of weapon is that is bolt dissipates over time to the point of ineffectiveness, imposing a range limit. Additionally, I am imagining that a penalty is imposed on this type of weapon’s effectiveness by atmospheric conditions – so I’m guessing that a capital ship plasma blaster or “turbolaser” is much more destructive in space (lets say in the tactical nuke range, but focused like a shape charge) than it is by the time it gets to the ground, where it delivers conventional artillery effects. This would still be very tactically useful – they seem to arrive promptly, so a Star Destroyer could deliver immediate tactical fire support to a Stormtrooper squad, for instance – but not necessarily the weapon of choice for strategic bombardments. Incidentally, this makes sense of the video – Thrawn’s purpose is to tactically degrade the shield, not irradiate the continent.

So how are Star Destroyers vaporizing astroids or slagging planets? My rationalization is that main batteries like those we see on this Victory model or ISD-I’s are large mass accelerator turrets propelling plasma encased proton torpedo like projectiles (at higher velocities than a starfighter could fire one). These projectiles would still have a heat effect from the plasma encasement, as well as an nuclear explosive effect from the projectile’s payload. They would also not dissipate, so they would have a longer range in space combat, but slower velocity, so they would be more suceptable to evasion by smaller warships. But their warheads would be able to penetrate atmospheres and deliver megaton or higher explosive effects, which in a sustained bombardment, could definitely wreck a planet.

This Victory model really pairs a good balance of these weapons under this completely made up rationalization – 9 dual MAC turrets for long range space combat and bombardment, with a strong secondary battery of quad turbolasers for medium range space combat, and the additional strength of two broadside missile batteries for truly devastating closing barages or planetary meltdowns.

(this is just my own rationalization, I know none of this is “right”)

Anonymous
Anonymous
8 months ago
Reply to  Aaron Johnson

This. This now canon. Not head canon but canon in the EU, OT, PT. (Fuck Disney).

Jonathan
Jonathan
5 months ago
Reply to  Anonymous

The problem is so many people, organizations, and governments are in bed with Disney. However I would not be so quick to dismiss all their work, some of it is quite good in my opinion.

Aaron Johnson
Aaron Johnson
10 months ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Thanks for your thoughts!

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

A thought on this, pulled from the Honorverse: with the SWU demonstrated ability to manipulate gravity, perhaps warheads could use gravitational lensing to focus an omni-directional blast into a cone, similar to a shaped charge, but using a powerful, momentary gravitic pulse to shape the blast instead.

Anonymous
Anonymous
8 months ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

This makes total sense. Thank you Fractal.

Road Warrior
Road Warrior
10 months ago

Looks great. Love these new renders. Say.. A full combat Venator would not be amis in this line up.😉

Gareth Gibson
Gareth Gibson
10 months ago

Is it a Victory I or Victory II

Galvars
Galvars
10 months ago
Reply to  Gareth Gibson

I

InSanic
InSanic
10 months ago
Reply to  Gareth Gibson

You can tell it’s a Victory-I because it has concussion missile tubes on the sides; the Victory-IIs dropped the missiles in favor of ion cannons.

JAMESMCGR
JAMESMCGR
10 months ago

40 Tubes per side?

JAMESMCGR
JAMESMCGR
10 months ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

Those tubes look huge, like ICBM sized? MIRV?

JAMESMCGR
JAMESMCGR
10 months ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

oh damn. big boys then. I wonder if they could do multiple smaller missiles per tube?

Anonymous
Anonymous
8 months ago
Reply to  JAMESMCGR

Solid question. I wonder what sort of payloads besides Concussion Missiles would be loaded. Cluster munitions?

Silvestris
Silvestris
10 months ago

Hi, I just wanted to ask anyone who knows where the two different concepts of the Victory’s superstructure and bridge come from. Most depictions in video games and books show a scaled-down ISD bridge, with a sort of nose tacked on in front. Fractalsponge’s model has a wider, flat bridge, with a much blunter nose. I would imagine the former came from either artists and sculptors recycling components from the ISD, which leaves me to wonder where the latter originated. Is it just a different variation for art’s sake, or is there some other reason?

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Fractalsponge

The original mention was in the Brian Daley novel Han Solo’s Revenge, where the Victory is named and its armament is described in general terms. IIRC, it was never explicitly described as a wedge-shaped vessel, but there was mention of it having a ventral hangar bay. WEG used the Daley novels as the source for a lot of things (the Z-95 Headhunter, bowcasters, swoops, etc), but they were the most likely culprit for deciding to make it a murderwedge. They also were the ones who put the emphasis on making it a planetary attack platform.

Chris
Chris
10 months ago
Reply to  Silvestris

IIRC…this was the inspiration for the Victory-class. Concept art for the SDs in the movies.

comment image?content-type=image%2Fpng

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Chris

Visual inspiration, certainly, but the concept art wasn’t called the Victory until WEG decided to mash it up with the Victory from the Brian Daley novels.

svetoslav
svetoslav
10 months ago

Beautiful … but tell me, aren’t the engines the same as in Fulgor frigate.

Galvars
Galvars
10 months ago

This Victory is a true Victory!