4.9 64 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
117 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dolph
Dolph
1 month ago

i just love your designs i can just look at them and dream about beeing in a universe where i command one of them for hours.

Merkarion
Merkarion
4 months ago

So First of All: I love your Ships. You are making them with such Detail that every Time i wish they would be Bigger so I can zoom more to see more Detail.

That being said I have a Question to your Venator. How many Laser Turrets are really to be on this Model ?
For Turbolaser it is very Clear…8 Heavy Double Turrets and 2 Double Medium Turrets.
But how Many Laser Turrets ? It is often to be read that the Venator has 52 Point Defend Laser Cannons. Sometimes you read 52 to 64 Point Defend Laser Cannons.

But where are they on the Ship…since they are primarly against Fighters and Missiles it would make sence that they are on turrets so they can be pointed fast in direction of the Fighter or Missile (definetely not inside the Ship with an energy Window..I hate these for Space-Combat unrealistic way of showing Weapons…are they in the Age of Sail with Wooden Ships? ).

In another Video it was said that the Point Defense Laser are mostly in the Trench around the Ship…ok not the best position to put all Weapons…but fitting to the flawed Star Destroyer design.
I would put part in the Trench and part on top and botom of the Ship to have a decend cover.
But that would be my Idea…where did you put them and how many ?

Jonathan Sullivan
Jonathan Sullivan
4 months ago
Reply to  Merkarion

Not Fractal, but I think I can answer your question. I’ve examined all views thoroughly, and found exactly 52 point defense emplacements. Now, based on the official cutaway art and what we see from Revenge of the Sith, most if not all of the point defense guns seem to be comprised of fully encased twin barrel turrets arranged along the trench, which indeed seems to be a bad idea. The Clone Wars also shows small twin guns mounted on articulating arms just outside the windows, not unlike the turrets on the Millenium Falcon. I hesitate to take that seriously, however, as the animated shows deviate somewhat from the live action designs. It would appear that Fractal also finds the placement of guns to be unwise, as he placed a number of pdcs along the ventral hull and dorsal superstructure. If you’re wondering what to look for, start by taking a look at the ventral hangar. On each corner of the opening is one of the point defense guns. They are also found along the trenches, as usual, but also tucked into the sides of the conning towers. These are the same guns Fractal uses on a lot of his works, comprised of a twin gun assembly: one laser cannon and one slightly larger light turbolaser cannon, mounted side by side. They are easier to see on other ships, especially the smaller ones, though they ought not be confused with the light turbolaser batteries he uses, which are the same size, but which simply use two light turbolaser barrels instead of the one linked with the laser cannon. The Aiwah class corvette has some good images showing both gun types if you want to see what I mean. I imagine that it’s a detail missed by all but the more eagle-eyed viewers.

Merkarion
Merkarion
3 months ago

Thanks for your Answer. (This must have been a long search to find all^^)

It would be interresting to see how to Improve the Venator-Design.
Official there is none (only a Venator 2 from an official RPG that is nearly Identical and has a additional Hangar-Gate on top so you dont need to open all of it…Fractals Venator would in this case be a Venator II)

Fractal made a very good move in putting the Batteries on the Tector, Gladiator and Allegiance in a diagonal way.
Since the Venator is a Battle-Carrier I only would decrease the left and right Batteries (made out of the 4 Dual Heava Turbolaser-Turrest) from 4 to 3. place the Turrest diagonal and put the 2 Turrets i took away on the Central Ridge.
This way you can fire as a broadside 5 Dual Heavy Turbolaser Turrets instad of 4 and still able to fire all on front Targets.
Also i would put a few Turrets on the bottom side of the Venator (for now the major weakpoint since you cannot defend to this Side if the Enemy Capital-Ships attack from below)

The other Change would be the Bridge. I would put the Main Bridge inside the Ship, So the Ship has only one Command-Tower (who is Flight Control).

Maybe oneday one creates such a “Improved Venator” 😉

Jonathan Sullivan
Jonathan Sullivan
3 months ago
Reply to  Merkarion

The search was indeed frustrating. Most of the emplacements were easy to find, but a couple of them were hiding in shadows on the finished model, so I checked out the earlier work in progress models. Fewer details, but more uniform lighting.

Scorpio
Scorpio
5 months ago

What’s that ships name on the last images next to the venator., it can’t be an aclamator

J.F.Krol
J.F.Krol
5 months ago
Reply to  Scorpio

Proclamator-class – essentially what if Acclamator was redesigned to be a proper warship

Scorpio
Scorpio
5 months ago
Reply to  J.F.Krol

thanks

Captain M
Captain M
5 months ago

It would be great to also see a side-by-side comparison of the Venator-class Star Destroyer and the Secutor-class star destroyer, since both classes shared the same bridge superstructure.

Jackalope
Jackalope
6 months ago

I love the then Republic Imperator Class. If I remember correctly (but maybe I’m wrong) the first production models were used in battle at the very end of the war and proved scarily effective against relatively weak CIS vessels.

Tea
Tea
7 months ago

Is there a way that I can use this model for a unreal engine 5 star wars project that Im working on?

Evan Connolly
Evan Connolly
7 months ago

The Victory and the Venator side-by-side, sisters in battle.

Christopher Cummings
Christopher Cummings
8 months ago

I really enjoy looking at all of your work. There are so many individuals who perceive Star Wars ships as being cookie cutter and don’t want or know that no fleet of real vessels of any class would ever be exactly alike. We know this to be true with the classes of US Navy super carriers. I’m still having a little bit of trouble trying to perceive how the Republic Imperator class Star destroyer would operate within the GAR philosophy despite the fact that the Republic was moving more towards the declaration of an Empire. I know the ship was designed for space combat but it would be interesting to see how may GAR assault craft could fit inside of the Imperator’s main hanger bay vs the Venator’s.
Just thinking too much about these ships I am!

Kavon
Kavon
9 months ago

Does this model include the 6 lateral AV-7 Artillery Cannons? It’s honestly the best Venator model I’ve ever laid eyes on.

Last edited 9 months ago by Kavon
Stormsword
Stormsword
9 months ago
Reply to  Kavon

No – those were almost certainly improvised mounts on the Guarlara specifically, rather than a fleet-wide mounting. They’re vastly too inefficient next to turret mountings on the surface to really be workable as something built in. The mounts were probably in service bays alongside the lateral hangar bay – the openings would make good sense as ingress/egress points for light utility craft.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
8 months ago
Reply to  Stormsword

The Bad Batch TV series shows however that even first generation Venators already had whole artillery decks with dozens of mounts equipped so it certainly isn’t just a single-ship specific modification.

Truth spoken, these Artillery deck guns remind me much of the casemate cannons of World War I-Dreadnoughts which would make sense as the Venator essentially represents a WW I-era ship while i.e. the ISD represents an WW II-era one.

Stormsword
Stormsword
8 months ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

They aren’t so much casemates as Napoleonic broadsiding guns – the mounts we see on Guarlara are literally bolted to the floor. TCW isn’t exactly the world’s best source, mind you – they have magical rescaling Providences and ground battles that work exactly like how a kid thinks ground battles work. Not exactly a prescriptive source for information.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
8 months ago
Reply to  Stormsword

A more authoritative source for aperture-firing cannon in the SWU would be the films. We see this in the original ANH with internally mounted turbolasers firing through ports in the Death Star’s hull, and in RotS, during the broadside between the Invisible Hand and a Venator during the battle of Coruscant.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
8 months ago
Reply to  Stormsword

Granted, I think it is obvious that these guns are mostly short- to low medium range and probably normally intended to be used against corvettes and frigates, not against cruisers and other destroyers except as support for the main battery. There can be several sources in the SW universe that can be questionable depending on how one looks, but the animated TV Series were long considered to be nearest to movie canon (TCW was also as far as I recall the only piece of work to be taken over into the “new” Disney canon back in 2014 alongside the OT and PT films). As for the “rescaling Providences”, the CIS is known from multiple sources to have re-used the same hull form for different classes of ships by just increasing scale. A Providence Carrier/destroyer is a different ship than a Providence Dreadnought. There exist also two variants of the Recusant, a light destroyer and a Dreadnought.
Back to the Venator though I do think it can be assuredly said that the battery decks of Artillery guns were not just a special feature of the “Guarlara” alone, they were just ignored in most published statistics about the Venator, although there were often some general statements used to describe weaponry beyond the 8×2 HTLs, 2×2 MTLs, 52 PDLs and the Proton Torpedo Launchers like “and several other Turbolasers completed the weaponry”. This was actually the case with the ISD too as for a long time it was stated that the ISD has 60 Dual Turbolasers and 60 Ion Cannons only, omitting the fact that these numbers describe the secondary battery alone.

Lol, ground battles in Star Wars are very often strategic and tactical nightmares in order to generate flashy pew-pew, but the same goes for some space battles as the same ship class can be portrayed as super strong or very weak depending on what the plot dictates.
Concerning the Venators in TCW I remember there being cases where three Venators struggled or outright lost against three Munificents while in other cases a single Venator could handle four Munificents on its own and only suffer minor damage (which is what the Legends-article on the Venator said for the longest time, that three Munificents equal one Venator or Victory I-class in terms of overall power.)

Valoren
Valoren
6 months ago
Reply to  Stormsword

You can actually see the apertures in the film, they’re clearly in the dorsal superstructure.

Jonathan Sullivan
Jonathan Sullivan
4 months ago
Reply to  Valoren

I’ve looked for the apertures to which you’re referring, but can’t seem to find them. Is there a particular shot that best demonstrates this? Based on shots from TCW (to be taken with a grain of salt, for sure), these artillery batteries seem to be along the broadside trench.

Last edited 4 months ago by Jonathan Sullivan
chimeric oncogene
chimeric oncogene
10 months ago

Magnificent work as usual.
3-views of the unpainted spacecraft would have been a nice-to-have, but the comparisons with the Proclamator and Tector are magnificent.

Last edited 10 months ago by chimeric oncogene
Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
10 months ago

Ah yes, the Venator, my absolute favorite SW ship design wise. Very pleased to see this wonderful ship finally in Fractal quality and even with both Imperial and Republic livery. Sweet and very appreciated.
Also amusing to see the old debate of Venator vs ISD still going on in the comments.

Have to say though the Proclamator-class looks pretty dope in Republic colors as does the Victory I-class SD and the Tector-class.

Nathan Ridgway
Nathan Ridgway
10 months ago

Another very nicely rendered destroyer variant! The large hanger bay on this vessel always fascinated me.

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
10 months ago

Forgive me, but remembering that old Venator/Jar-Jar meme, can’t help thinking the bow-on shots resemble that cretin even more now as the command tower/bridge looks even more like eyeballs now…🤔🤣

Lord Drakkmar
Lord Drakkmar
10 months ago
Reply to  DarthCatius

Noooo!! You must not speak his name!! It is blasphemy of the highest order! But you are correct. There is a resemblance. 😂😂

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
10 months ago

That…is…just…amazingly…stunningly…fantastically…badass! This is jumping to number two spot just behind the Bellator. 😍🤩😛

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago

They’ve canonized the existence of the Venator II-class star destroyer, and in my head-canon, I like to think this design is it. It has more point-defense canons in more logical places, shields bulbs on the bridge instead of communications arrays in order to defend an often-exploited weakness, an added miniature hangar door embedded in the massive dorsal hangar doors to avoid constantly opening up the gargantuan doors and creating a weakness, and standardizing the deployment of an SPHA-T in the ventral hangar bay. This ship is a beast.

Darth Dumbass
Darth Dumbass
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

That mini hangar can be seen in ROTS, and Venator-II was created by FFG as they were too lazy to think of another name for a Venator variant

Old Ben
Old Ben
5 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

Actually, though this is an open debate, the Star Destroyer “bridge ball” is part of its primary sensor emplacements. There is a video on YouTube that explains this. Again, it is up for discussion.

Lordfra01
10 months ago

But I admit that this Venator-class Star Destroyer is beautiful, and with the modifications you’ve made this one could be the Imperial version of the Venator.

Lordfra01
10 months ago

Why don’t you try the Resurgent-Class Star Destroyer?
Or the Mandator IV-class Siege Dreadnought or a Gozanti cruiser or maybe some ship from Leggends?

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
10 months ago
Reply to  Lordfra01

I don’t think Fractal will ever do that pizza wedge crap from TLJ…🤔🤮

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
10 months ago
Reply to  DarthCatius

He has begun his version of the Mandator III though…😉

mileee
mileee
10 months ago

I love the way there are point defence cannons on the underside which was something that many ships were missing in the films

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  mileee

I do love the logic behind this design. Between the 3D swivel capabilities on the 2 trench medium turbolaser batteries, the 8 heavy turbolaser batteries all being able to fire forward simultaneously, and point-defense turrets covering the ventral side and engines, this design takes arguably the most well-rounded ship in Stars Wars canon and makes it even smarter. If I could only pick one capital ship for my navy, it’d be the Venator.

Gundamator
Gundamator
10 months ago

This is amazing, just a concept I had but you should make a imperial ship inspired by real modern ship, like the kirov and slava classes.

Lord Drakkmar
Lord Drakkmar
10 months ago
Reply to  Gundamator

He has a model for the Tyrant-class missile cruiser. Similar role to the Kirov-class.

mileee
mileee
10 months ago

you should do an acclamator

DeltaDart
DeltaDart
10 months ago
Reply to  mileee

I wonder what FS’s stance will be on the ICS’s bridge-terrace quad turbolasers…

Eugene
Eugene
10 months ago
Reply to  DeltaDart

Proclamator retains them, so my bet is – should there be an Acclamator model she too would have them.

DarthCatius
DarthCatius
10 months ago
Reply to  mileee

I’d love to see Fractal’s take on the Acclamator, but shh, don’t give him too many ideas at once, we’re waiting for the Mandator III! 😜

Joshua
Joshua
10 months ago

Amazing as always!! Im surprised that the Acclamator hasnt made a depute with you yet Fractal, granted the Proclamator is the Acclamator on steroids.

Imperial Navy Review
Imperial Navy Review
10 months ago

A stunning recreation of the Venator Class Star Destroyer/Attack Cruiser, Victory I Class Star Destroyer, Proclamator class heavy frigate, and ISD I class. Very detailed over all a great piece of work, showing the many details on board the naval ships of Kuat Drive Yards. All of ships seen here would later fall into the Imperial navy, some served long careers with the Empire, others like the Venator class were decommissioned early in the Imperial reign. The size comparison of the ISD and the Venator is something that I have been long waiting for.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
10 months ago

Indeed, indeed. The big guy there however is not an ISD-I,it’s actually a Tector-class vessel. The six main battery guns on the side identify it as such. The ISD, regardless if an I or II-variant always has only four main battery turrets on each side.

Imperial Navy Review
Imperial Navy Review
9 months ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

Thanks for clearing that up, I don´t know how that slipped past me, thanks for correcting me!

Hunter
Hunter
7 months ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

But for scaling purposes, the tector is the same hull size as and ISD, the only differences being in weapons layout, power production and the lack of hangars. Or is there some other differences I’m missing?

Phoenix
Phoenix
6 months ago
Reply to  Hunter

It has more weaponry and just heavier weapons in general.

Then the tector has way more armor then the ISD and the ventral hanger was replaced entirely with armor, bigger reactor.

And that’s pretty much it.

Chaser
Chaser
10 months ago

Oh for what might have been: A modernized Venator (a Venator II?) acting as a fleet carrier with a task force of ISDs.

Steven_Universe_fan
Steven_Universe_fan
10 months ago
Reply to  Chaser

it wouldn’t even need the ISDs! A Venator can take them out itself!

Stormsword
Stormsword
10 months ago
Reply to  Chaser

One doesn’t really need to modernise the Venator to act as a carrier within an Imperial fleet. While it’s relatively ill-suited to the sorts of peacetime intervention work that the Imperator proves more capable in, there’s really nothing wrong with the actual frame – it’s a perfectly good carrier without any sort of modernisation, though you may perhaps see the hangar layout get optimised for operations with TIEs. The Venator wasn’t a bad warship for the Empire, just not the one it needed to perform general patrol and garrison duties. Expect quite a lot of the ones in decent shape after the war to be hanging about in strategic reserve fleets and planetary defensive forces. The rest go to the scrapyard because they’re too worn-out for service.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stormsword
Chaser
Chaser
10 months ago
Reply to  Stormsword

I agree to an extent-Venators probably aren’t good patrol ships where the ISD is ideal. I see them as being excellent trouble-shooters though. Imagine the garrison of a “pacified” system finds that it needs help keeping the peace/putting down people exercising their rights. The sector ISD might be tied up, so why not have a task group on stand by to just drop in, land reinforcements, and stick around until things cool off, allowing minimal disruption to scheduled patrols? I think a Venator would be ideal for that.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
10 months ago
Reply to  Chaser

Well, it isn’t like the Empire completely abandoned the Venator, according to “The Rebel Files” it was still in limited production as far as five years before the Battle of Yavin. Many high profile Imperial supply convoys as well as bases in the Colonies and Expansion Region had Imperial Venators attached as escort ships and quick emergency response reserves. In one comic Vader visits an Imperial dockyard several months after Yavin which has a Venator stationed there as protection.
The Empire still uses the Venator in more limited numbers, just as a second-line vessel however which has no priority anymore for high risk areas like the Outer Rim where they concentrate the by then much more numerous ISDs.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago

In the side-by-sides with the Victory, the difference in length doesn’t seem like the 237 meters it should be per canon. Is it just an optical illusion, or did you go with non-canon lengths for one or the other?

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

I think it’s an optical illusion. The high angle shot has the back of the Victory’s bridge obscuring the area of empty space behind it where the Venator has its hyperdrive assembly. None of the other angles are hugely useful for determining relative length.

Valoren
Valoren
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Yeah, most of those 237 meters are in the hyperdrive assembly at the back of the ship which the victory doesn’t have. That’s why the difference doesn’t appear that drastic even though the Ven is technically longer.

Rex
Rex
10 months ago

Are you going to make an Acclamator-class assault ship or AT-TE, AT-ST walkers in the near future?

Brandon F
Brandon F
10 months ago

I love all the angles, especially the top down images for my games. I also love the scale/comparison images and alternate paint schemes. Beautiful work, as always!

Steven_Universe_fan
Steven_Universe_fan
10 months ago

Beautiful ship! It and it’s fighter squadrons would completely wreck that ISD!

Stormsword
Stormsword
10 months ago

I considered explaining that an ISD’s hangar complex is very easily as large as that of a Venator, and that the hull can swallow an entire Venator without it touching the sides, in detail, but it’s probably better to let you marinate in your own ineptitude

DeltaDart
DeltaDart
10 months ago

Fighters aside, ISDs are the capital ship to end other capital ships of their time period. They have more firepower and shielding than a Venator, plus an even bigger and better reactor to power these goodies.

The Venator will still come out on top in engagements with most ships of its size class or smaller, however, thanks to the same philosophy that enables the ISD to beat the Venator.

Stormsword
Stormsword
10 months ago
Reply to  DeltaDart

Half of it is really that an ISD is just a bigger ship, by a sizeable margin – by volume, the important metric when it comes to these things, it’s 4x larger, and that means that it just gets more of everything. A Venator’s a hybrid carrier – for its size, it has fairly impressive carrying capacity and respectable, though honestly not amazing, capabilities in direct combat. The salient point is really just that the Imperator, is, in the end of the day, entirely out of the Venator’s weight class – even though it dedicates much less of its volume to things like carrier operations, proportionately speaking, it still has so much more volume to use that a proportionally smaller hangar on it is still very easily competitive with a Venator.

Venators are, at the end of the day, just one kind of warship out of dozens used by the GAR and Imperial Navy – effective when used right, but as a total product, probably not much better than average.

mileee
mileee
10 months ago
Reply to  Stormsword

when you compare the venator to the victory, which is more of a direct size comparison, the loss of armament is more than made up for by the fighters.

BoltActionTwig
BoltActionTwig
10 months ago
Reply to  mileee

Eh, 9×70 (VicSD) against 8×70 (VenSD) with the diffecrence mainly coming from fighters/torpedo payload. Overall Victory has more capacity for making spectacular kabooms and Venator’s role makes for different place in line of battle anyway. People tend to dramatically overestimate what fighters (I use word fighters here for all similar scale craft, so Y-Wing, TIE Bombers, etc go here too) are capable of in SW combat. C’mon guys, with direct energy weaponry output is king and there’s simply more of it the bigger you go.

I would go as far as saying that fighters are just giant hole of sunken cost. Theoretically, you want to maximise the damage you inflict on the enemy, which points towards going bigger. Since there are other factors at play and more roles for the fleet than that, you then try to cover different niches for different tasks, but this doensn’t inherently means a need for a fighter. Also, their facilities are additional requirement to the frame, and overall they create a complication in combat, which is undesirable. Systems should be as complex as they absolutely have to.

But then if none of our theoretical fleets have fighters, should one get them, they basically have an uncontested ground for doing stuff with their new strike capability, that really is suboptimal in theory on the relative scale, but since there’s no competition the absolute result should be fine. Now, the other side wants none of it and has to have their own fighters and since we already paid for space to be clear of enemy small craft, lets go for our own strike capability.

This instance then starts a competition, designs get refined, capabilties grow, new countermeasures have to be implemented and this goes on and on.

To illustrate this, lets me go over Empire’s/Rebellion’s fighter rosters.
Imperial fighters are basically min-maxed to reflect the above: TIE Fighters despite the name were always interceptors in role – they impede people’s attempts to bomb capital ships, they ditch the loiter time, sensors and hyper-capability for unparalleled flight performance to ensure they will get through the screen and at least disrupt the strike. Interceptor simply makes more of this.
Bombers on the other hand, are built around maximum possible payload sacrificing a lot to do this. In the fleet brawl there will be a lot of small-craft losses no matter what, and the way to minimise them is to finish it faster altogether, making sure each of the bombers that made it brought the maximum amount of havok.
Starwing is an exeption and rather unique in its role as heavy fighter, to which I’m yet to come up with adequate explanation (baseline – extra capability wouldn’t heart but grounding it in the docrine is somewhat more complex)
We then get a few spealised utility things like Scouts but their place is out of combat so I’ll skip.

Now, Rebellion has a very different approach to this, because they dont wage a conventional war, the dont have a navy to speak of when compared to the Empire, so their designs have to have addtional capabilities stemming from lack of base coverage, hit and run style approach with no actual goal of striking a major defeat (incurring losses and reaching what limited objectives each operation has will do), so they can/have to focus on designs that improve one-on-one capabilities, bringing costlier, heavier, proper space superiority fighters like X-wing, fighter-bombers with much more emphasis on flight performance, etc, etc.(and then there’s A-wing which, same to Starwing, I cant make sense of).

To continue with cost thing, Empire reacted to this by producing stuff like Hunter, Avenger, Defender and on the bomber side of things Scimitar, now rethreading the Alliance way to combat this new threat, when peer-adversary gear proved lacking.
New Republic then rethreaded Empire’s thinking during in later post-Endor period, producing more specialised designs centered around better interceptor capability like Defender, and payloadier bombers like K-wing.

This game has been going since there’s been starfighters in any form capable of delivering worthwhile payload, and the point is – they cannot compete directly with cap-ships. And all of this is just because you cant surrender fighter-scale combat entirely for the enemy to exploit.

Last edited 10 months ago by BoltActionTwig
Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  DeltaDart

Don’t forget that the Venator costs just over 1/3 as much as an ISD. Even with its extra fighter complement, you could still buy 2 Venators and stock them with hundreds of fighters against 1 ISD with a few dozen fighters. I’ll take 2 loaded Venators over 1 ISD every time.

BoltActionTwig
BoltActionTwig
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

Good luck coping with CIS fleet, using 2 VenSDs for every ISD commisioned.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  BoltActionTwig

I like those odds. A Venator can tank anything the CIS can throw at it up to a Providence-class, which is double the Venator’s price and is seen getting punched in the mouth by a Venator in Episode III and plummeting to the surface. The Republic was going to defeat the CIS in canon, and the Venator is a major reason why.

BoltActionTwig
BoltActionTwig
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

“The Republic was going to defeat the CIS in canon, and the Venator is a major reason why.” The Republic also deemed it necessary to develop Tector, Imperator and Secutor, which leads me to believe that no – Venator is not a machine of unholy terror its made out to be. It was on its way out around the war’s culmination, though phasing out process being what it is, it took some time for new genration to become an actual mainstay.

And you’ve discounted what CIS had too early and easily. Even with things like Munificent frigate, while less impressive on paper, its 420 teratonne bolt would be unkind to just about anything. This is improved upon in Recusant’s frame and somewhat diverted from in Providence but the latter has more power in general (and arguably more of a missile boat anyway).

And when I said “CIS fleet”, I did not mean PvP one-on-one or some such. Wars are not waged on that scale, you’ll see fleets working as a system with certain parts of it compensating for other’s weaknesses and providing opportunity for maximum potential as a whole. In other words, have fun facing squadrons of ships that, while being individualy less combat-capable have a fair share of tricks to compensate for this, can use tactics (especially in groups where there’s more importance to it but also more opportunity) and, again, add up each other’s strengths.

Going back to the individual ships, this means that you’re now also have to counter hordes of fighters that will outswarm you, that is a given in any environment with Luckrehulk carrier being present.

As for those price numbers – I dont care, I dont believe them. Pricing in SW has no consistency whatsoever and was conceived by different people, which adds to the previous problem, but on the other hand it has uniformity in the fact no brainpower was put to back up, ground those numbers, their implications to the economic state of the universe, relations to sane or at least real world and so on.

And while we are at it – no, X-wings are not a threat to an ISD in a normal battle (normal means “other than attacking ships at anchor or with an order of providing a setpiece”), no fighter in Venator’s group is, not even in the numbers Venator can bring. Also, as was repeatedly said here – should the need arise, ISD can bring the same, if not bigger fighter wing than Venator, simply by virtue of being a bigger ship itself, and ok, fine, you’ve opted for two Venators against 1 ISD but that’s before you take time to consider that 16x2x70 do not add up to 16×175+8×70 on a faster and better shielded/armoured frame.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  BoltActionTwig

“The Republic also deemed it necessary to develop Tector, Imperator and Secutor, which leads me to believe that no – Venator is not a machine of unholy terror its made out to be.”

Let’s not pretend that the Tector/Imperator was anything more than Palpatine preparing for the Tarkin Doctrine. As for the Secutor, it’s just the Venator’s big brother, except triple the cost with fewer starfighters, about quadruple the armament, and a slower hyperdrive. I’d still take three Venators over a Secutor every time. Those ships were designed to be bigger and scarier to a ragtag enemy, not efficient and successful against a near-peer enemy, like the Venator.

“And when I said “CIS fleet”, I did not mean PvP one-on-one or some such. Wars are not waged on that scale, you’ll see fleets working as a system with certain parts of it compensating for other’s weaknesses and providing opportunity for maximum potential as a whole.”

You’re right, and the Venator still won the war for the Republic. The Republic pretty much only used Acclamators and Venators for the whole war (until Imperators, Tectors, Secutors, and Victors were introduced at the Battle of Coruscant), and yet that was sufficient to be on the verge of victory. Even when going up against specialized ships, the multirole Venator accompanied by ground-assault/escort Acclamators still won.

“And you’ve discounted what CIS had too early and easily. Even with things like Munificent frigate, while less impressive on paper, its 420 teratonne bolt would be unkind to just about anything. This is improved upon in Recusant’s frame and somewhat diverted from in Providence but the latter has more power in general (and arguably more of a missile boat anyway).”

Wookieepedia says it takes 4-6 Recusants to take down a Venator. In the Clone Wars show, when Munificents and Venators, appear in similar numbers, the Venators usually win, so it takes about 2 Munificents to take down a Venator. Providences are at least equal with Venators, but again, they cost twice as much, so I’d hope they could beat a Venator 1v1. And yes, I do take this price numbers at face value.

“As for those price numbers – I dont care, I dont believe them. Pricing in SW has no consistency whatsoever and was conceived by different people, which adds to the previous problem, but on the other hand it has uniformity in the fact no brainpower was put to back up, ground those numbers, their implications to the economic state of the universe, relations to sane or at least real world and so on.”

Since both Legends and Canon list the ISD’s price at 150 million credits, I’m inclined to believe them when they also list the Venator’s price at 59 million credits. Just based on scale and volume, these numbers make sense.

“And while we are at it–no, X-wings are not a threat to an ISD in a normal battle (normal means ‘other than attacking ships at anchor or with an order of providing a setpiece’). No fighter in Venator’s group is, not even in the numbers Venator can bring.”

I’m just going to leave you with this quote from Wookieepedia, “The T-65B X-wing starfighter was envisioned by its designers as a fighter with both the speed and power to take on Imperial Star Destroyers, ultimately delivering on both promises.” I know you think you’re alive these sources, but they’re there for all to see. X-wings in large numbers are a threat to an ISD.

“Also, as was repeatedly said here-– should the need arise, ISD can bring the same, if not bigger fighter wing than Venator, simply by virtue of being a bigger ship itself.”

Except the ISD isn’t customizable like the Venator. The Venator has open hangars, meaning as long as two fighter classes are similarly sized and can land on their own, then they can be used interchangeably on a Venator. However, ISDs use TIE Fighters, which require designated racks. Therefore, no, you can’t simply swap or compartments on an ISD to add more TIE Fighters, because there aren’t TIE racks in other compartments.

“And ok, fine, you’ve opted for two Venators against 1 ISD but that’s before you take time to consider that 16x2x70 do not add up to 16×175+8×70 on a faster and better shielded/armoured frame.”

I don’t know where the 16×175 is coming from, but we all know that having 2 Venators gives you double the primary turbolaser output. Factor in an SPHA-T in each ventral hangar bay, and you have trouble as the ISD. I stand by the claim that 2 Venators can destroy 1 ISD, especially when you consider protection. According to Wookieepedia, Venators have slightly stronger shield and hull strength as Victory Star Destroyers, which are rated at 3200 SBD and 1520 RU. Double that, and you have 6400 SBD and 3040 RU, compared to the ISD’s 4800 SBD and 2272 RU. Venators are really superior all-around ships compared to ISDs.

BoltActionTwig
BoltActionTwig
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

Preparing for Tarkin Doctrine (I see no point bothering with the rest, but this is funny enough)

Снимок экрана (59).png
Last edited 10 months ago by BoltActionTwig
CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

For the Venator’s fighter complement to matter in a one-on-one capital ship duel, it’d need to swap out most of its light fighters in trade for something with the ordnance capacity to get through the ISD’s shields (Y-Wings, ARC-170’s, TIE Bombers, etc), and the physics of deck footprint means that one of those takes up as much room as two or three Eta-2’s, V-Wings or TIE/ln’s. The ISD can afford to keep its fighter complement close-in and load up on light interceptors, especially if it offloads most of the stormtrooper legion in trade for fighter capacity. Starfighter attacks only count if they have the strength to damage their target, and the Venator’s much-touted starfighter capacity is almost entirely composed of ultra-light craft that have no ordnance capacity. A few wings of Eta-2s or V-Wings could make strafing runs on an ISD until they run out of fuel and blaster gas, yet never make it through the shields.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

The standard complement of a Venator was 192 interceptor starfighters (V-wings, ETA-2s), 192 multirole starfighters (V-19s, Z-95s), and 36 heavy strike starfighters (ARC-170s, Y-wings). Torrents and especially Headhunters were just as heavily armed as X-wings (12 concussion missiles or 16 proton torpedoes, respectively). We’d all agree that X-wings in massive numbers are a threat to ISDs. Therefore, 192 Headhunters would be a threat too. That’s over 3,000 proton torpedoes coming at you from just Headhunters. The 36 strike starfighters are just icing on the cake, and the 192 interceptor starfighters make sure the ISD’s TIE Fighters are irrelevant.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

The original standard complement (per the Cross-Section books) was 192 Eta-2’s, 192 V-Wings and 36 ARC-170’s. Torrents and Z-95’s may have been added in add some point, but this was their standard complement as of Revenge of the Sith. Per Wookieepedia, the Z-95 and Torrent could carry a total of 6 concussion missiles (lighter warheads than proton torpedoes), so I don’t know where you’re getting 12 and 16 from.

If you’re going to start customizing fighter loadouts, then the same would apply to the ISD. If the ISD captain knew he was going into battle with a pair of fully-loaded Venators, he would almost certainly off-load most of the stormtrooper legion (including their vehicles and landing ships) and take on every last starfighter unit he could cram in. Considering the deck footprint of landing barges, shuttles, AT-ATs and all the other equipment that comes standard with a stormtrooper legion, putting 6-8 full wings aboard the Imperial is within the realm of possibility. If the ISD wings play defense and nullify the strikes from the Venators, it turns into a gunnery duel, which the Venators lose.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

“Per Wookieepedia, the Z-95 and Torrent could carry a total of 6 concussion missiles.”

No, Wookieepedia says Torrents have 2 concussion missile launchers with 6 missiles each. 2 x 6 = 12 missiles. You were also looking at the specifications for the GCW-era Z-95. If you had looked up the specifications of the Clone Z-95, then you would’ve seen that it has 2 torpedo launchers with 8 torpedoes each. 2 x 8 = 16 torpedoes. That’s more firepower than an X-wing, which in large numbers could give fits to ISDs. I stand by 196 Headhunters being sufficient to readily eliminate strategic targets on an ISD, such as bridge deflector shields, engines, bridge, exposed reactor, primary turbolaser batteries, etc., even if the Venator wasn’t participating in the battle.

“If you’re going to start customizing fighter loadouts, the same applies to the ISD.”

Except it doesn’t. The Venator has open hangar space, so as long as the starfighter is comparable in size (say, a Z-95 compared to a V-19), you could easily customize the loadout. 196 Z-95s easily can be swapped out for 196 Torrents. The opposite is true of ISDs. They had TIE Fighters, which require very specific racks that cannot just be swapped out and used interchangeably. An AT-AT loading bay cannot just suddenly become a TIE Fighter launching bay, because it doesn’t have a TIE rack. Shoot, you couldn’t even use TIE Bomber racks interchangeably with TIE Fighter racks. So no, while the Venator can customize its fighter loadout, an ISD cannot. This just gives the Venator yet another advantage. It’s more customizable than an ISD.

Stormsword
Stormsword
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

I think you have the Venator by entirely the wrong end of the stick – it’s not a more versatile ship than an Imperator, and is, if anything, the more specialised of the two. It’s a hybrid carrier that appears to be optimised for service in peer war – that means it’s likely a high-density, low-lifetime design, analogous to the Wartime Emergency Program destroyers built by the Royal Navy in 1939 and 1940. This spins off into a number of tradeoffs.

  • For one, Venators will very likely have lower service lifetimes than the later Imperators, largely built as peacetime vessels, would – they’re built to survive one major campaign, not 5+ decades of peacetime service, which is understandable, since the loss rates the GAR suffers make it highly likely that Venators would not survive beyond one or two campaigns, meaning that the extra expense required to build them to last isn’t worthwhile.
  • They’re also going to be, by dint of being largely wartime vessels, cramped and unergonomic ships – you’re cramming as many systems into as small a frame as possible, to maximise capability on a limited target profile. This will mean they do not lend themselves to upgrade programs, which is a serious concern for a peacetime navy. Of course, the early GAR Imperators will also suffer from this problem, but the bulk of Imperators, our benchmark for this, will be built in peacetime, to peacetime operating standards – they’ll remain in service on timeframes of decades, or even centuries at the outside, instead of just years
  • Venators are going to be more fragile than a more well-rounded ship of their weight class might be – the entire forward wedge is empty space (hangar), and that probably extends back almost all the way to the superstructure and reactor complex courtesy of the positioning of the lateral bays. In addition, the wasp waist cuts into the frame of the ship’s wedge significantly, which constrains how much structural support can be provided. End result of that is a ship that is significantly less survivable than, say, a Victory would be – that’s your tradeoff for having outsize carrier facilities for a fleet warship of your size
  • Venators are going to be anaemic in direct compared to designs of contemporary size, like the Victory, or the Procursator. This isn’t to say that Venators are bad in direct combat – they’re perfectly serviceable, as is entailed by the design brief of a hybrid carrier. What it does mean is that they punch under their weight – when most of the ship’s frame is hangar instead of useful things like capacitors, slabs of armour, ancillary systems like high-quality sensors, or damage-frontloaded weapons like capital-scale missiles, you tend not to fight within your own weight class very comfortably.
  • Lastly, Venators are not terribly fast, at least for a fleet destroyer. While it isn’t Victory slow, 3000g isn’t a particularly stunning rate of acceleration either – it’s about average for a destroyer. This is, for reference, a full 500g slower than an Imperator – Imperators are admittedly pretty fast for a ship of their weight class, but that’s what you’re benchmarking it against.

Another thing that you should take into consideration is that fighters are by no means the be-all and end-all of a capital ship fight. While they’re situationally useful, and occasionally decisive, they need to be part of a combined-arms strike to see proper usefulness, and in that aspect the Venator is not notably capable. One shouldn’t look at warships in a purely “which ship wins a fight one on one” standpoint – firstly, an ISD would flatten a Venator duo because it’s double the volume of the two put together and has weapons systems to match, and secondly, that’s a fairly meaningless comparison when ships are getting fielded for the capabilities they add to the fleet, not for prowess in meaningless hypothetical fights without context.

Venators are peer war hybrid carriers. Imperators are peacetime intervention platforms. They have very different CONOPS, and use their respective volumes to different ends. Venators are hybrid carriers for use in set piece battles of the sort that would be commonplace during a peer war – drop in at long range, sortie defensive interceptors and bombers, button up, then close to act as a fast wing destroyer for the formation. Imperators are intervention platforms with a side hustle in patrol work – either you spend 3-4 months coordinating frigate patrol patterns through a sector’s myriad uninhabited systems, or you show up over a rebelling planet, charge in at high velocities to waste whatever’s sitting in orbit with turbolaser fire, then land a mechanised walker regiment to flatten the main point(s) of resistance, before the Imperial Army shows up in assault transports or converted cruise liners to mop up any remaining resistance. A Venator would not be able to perform that job, because to spec its hangar complex to handle an intervention regiment, you would have to strip out most of its fighters, which then leaves you relying on a turbolaser armament with a fourth of an Imperator’s output, and a frame that cannot take anywhere near what an Imperator can.

To sum up, the Venator is not concretely better or worse than an Imperator – it’s different. It does not perform the same jobs, nor does it make the same tradeoffs on capability. It occupies a very different role altogether – if you want to make direct comparisons, compare the Venator to the Secutor, or the Endurance, both of which occupy a very similar role within their respective fleet compositions (though the Secutor, as a late-war GAR warship, is notable larger than the Venator courtesy of the general scale increase of GAR warships through the course of the war, which complicates things somewhat). You should not be asking questions like “pound for pound, which platform wins in a fight?”, because A: Venators and Imperators are being fielded by the same navy and will never fight one another under normal circumstance, and B: they are entirely different ships, performing different roles, within what is largely the same military force. Ask questions like “which design was more successful for the circumstances it was fielded in”, and “which design saw the most lasting success within its polity’s militaries?”. You’ll find you get much more holistic answers than the childish “my favourite ship is better than your favourite ship” crusade you seem to be going on.

Tata.

Last edited 10 months ago by Stormsword
Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  Stormsword

“I think you have the Venator by entirely the wrong end of the stick – it’s not a more versatile ship than an Imperator, and is, if anything, the more specialised of the two.”

I don’t believe I said the Venator was more versatile. I believe I said it was more customizable. I recognize that the ISD functions better as a ship-v-ship battleship and as a planetary assault ship. However, people were acting like the ISD could suddenly become a carrier, to which I pointed out how difficult that would be. My point is that the Venator is customizable in its fighter loadout. If it wanted to go all-out against capital ships, then it could pack the hangar with strike starfighters. Its total complement would be less, but it can customize its mission due to its open architecture and starfighter flexibility, just like an aircraft carrier today and unlike an ISD and its TIE Fighters.

Your first and second points were speculative, though I understand why you arrived at those conclusions. Still, I would argue that ergonomic and replaceable are better than boojie and difficult to replace. Like a Nimitz-class carrier, an ISD would be a massive loss of resources and manpower if you are correct. I’d say that’s an advantage for the Venator, which is 1/5 the manpower and 1/3 the price. You can afford to lose them, which means you can afford to use them.

“Venators are going to be more fragile than a more well-rounded ship of their weight class might be–the entire forward wedge is empty space (hangar), and that probably extends back almost all the way to the superstructure and reactor complex courtesy of the positioning of the lateral bays. In addition, the wasp waist cuts into the frame of the ship’s wedge significantly, which constrains how much structural support can be provided. End result of that is a ship that is significantly less survivable than, say, a Victory would be.”

According to Wookieepedia, Venators are a little more durable than a Victory-class Star Destroyer, which is rated at 3200 SBD and 1520 RU for its shields and hull, respectively. This isn’t too far behind an ISD, which is rated at 4800 SBD and 2272 RU. When you consider that you can have two loaded Venators for the price of 1 loaded ISD, you end up with a tougher flotilla than an ISD, at 6400 SBD and 3040 RU, a 33% advantage in both areas. Furthermore, while we’re talking about weaknesses, the ISD has far more weak points than a Venator. The Venator has dozens of point defense turrets, while the ISD does not have any. The ISD has a reactor bulge to target, while the Venator does not. The ISD’s engines are undefended, while the Venator has point defense turrets defending its engines. The Venator also has a smaller target profile compared to an ISD. Furthermore, while both have giant “shoot here” elevated towers, the Venator’s towers are much smaller and harder to hit and have redundant controls to allow the ship to continue fighting even if one tower was destroyed. The Venator’s main weakness is its open hangar bay, which is why they added a smaller, secondary door that releases many starfighters without exposing the entire hangar. It’s still a weakness, but less pronounced. With all that said, for what you’re paying, the Venator is extremely durable.

“Venators are going to be anaemic in direct combat compared to designs of contemporary size, like the Victory or the Procursator. This isn’t to say that Venators are bad in direct combat – they’re perfectly serviceable, as is entailed by the design brief of a hybrid carrier. What it does mean is that they punch under their weight.”

I will agree that the Venator has a lighter punch than, say, a Victory or similarly sized star cruiser, like a Mon Calamari cruiser, but the ICS does say that the Venator’s 8 primary turbolaser batteries can channel the entire reactor’s output into their shots, so I do think the Venator still punches incredibly hard if the situation allows for it to focus on offense instead of defense, especially since according to Wookieepedia its reactor’s output is about half as powerful as the much larger ISD’s output and triple the similarly sized Providence-class’s output. Therefore, if the Venator was able to dedicate its entire reactor output to firepower (normally it can’t since it has to move and power shields), it would hit harder than most ships its size due to its efficient reactor. All in all, the Venator can hit hard, but probably won’t for defensive purposes.

“Lastly, Venators are not terribly fast, at least for a fleet destroyer. While it isn’t Victory slow, 3000g isn’t a particularly stunning rate of acceleration either–it’s about average for a destroyer. This is, for reference, a full 500g slower than an Imperator–Imperators are admittedly pretty fast for a ship of their weight class, but that’s what you’re benchmarking it against.”

In-atmosphere, the Venator and ISD have the same speed: 975 km/h. Out-of-atmosphere, the ISD has a speed of 60 MGLT, while I can’t find a number for the Venator. However, since it’s lighter with only a moderately smaller reactor, I’d assume the Venator is faster than an ISD. This is especially true considering their acceleration. I don’t know where you found the number 3,500 G for the ISD’s acceleration. All I can find on Wookieepedia for the ISD is an acceleration of >2,300 G, which means the Venator’s 3,000 G is a sizable advantage, up to 25%. This is compounded by the fact that the Venator has a class 1 hyperdrive, while the ISD has a class 2. I would argue that in every category of speed, the Venator is equal to or better than an ISD. It’s equal in atmosphere. It’s quicker off the line, and it’s probably faster out of atmosphere. The Venator is also quicker than but slightly slower than a Providence, and faster and quicker than a Munificent or Recusant. Therefore, I’d say the Venator is officially fast and quick for what it’s fighting against.

“Another thing that you should take into consideration is that fighters are by no means the be-all and end-all of a capital ship fight. While they’re situationally useful, and occasionally decisive, they need to be part of a combined-arms strike to see proper usefulness, and in that aspect the Venator is not notably capable. … An ISD would flatten a Venator duo because it’s double the volume of the two put together and has weapons systems to match.”

Let’s test that. First, the ISD is double the volume and double the reactor output of a Venator, but that advantage is nullified by the fact it’s facing 2 Venators. Second, the ISD has the same 8 primary turbolaser batteries as a single Venator, but now it’s going up against 16 of those batteries since there are 2 Venators in this scenario. It also has to contend with 128 heavy proton torpedoes, 4 medium turbolaser batteries, and 2 SPHA-T lasers from the ventral hangars if the Venators can get “above” the ISD. While the ISD still has the weapons advantage due to its trench-mounted turbolaser and ion cannon turrets, it’s not as black-and-white as you’re making it seem. 18 total heavy turbolaser batteries against 8 is a big difference. When you factor in the hundreds of starfighters fielded by 2 Venators, I’d give the firepower advantage to the Republic.

You obviously know your Star Wars orders of battle and statistics and military strategies, and you’re absolutely right that there are lots of missions that an ISD can perform perfectly that a Venator cannot. I just think you had a few stats wrong or ignored a few other stats, and I’m simply arguing that the Venator is a better force projection star cruiser when it comes to space combat. If thrown into combat with 1 ISD, I would say 2 Venators will win 2 out of 3 times if they have equally competent commanders. Personally, I think the Venator is usually commanded and crewed by superior clones and officers and Jedi, but that’s speculation on my part. I love discussing Star Wars combat and doing hypothetical “vs” scenarios, so this has been a pleasure.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

“No, Wookieepedia says Torrents have 2 concussion missile launchers with 6 missiles each.”

No, that is not what Wookieepedia says. Wookieepedia says it has two launchers and six concussion missiles. It doesn’t say “six concussion missiles each”. If you read further down in the armaments section, the closest it gets is saying that it has “at least six concussion missiles”, but at no point does it come out and say that it has more than that.

“If you had looked up the specifications of the Clone Z-95, then you would’ve seen that it has 2 torpedo launchers with 8 torpedoes each. 2 x 8 = 16 torpedoes”

Leaving aside the suspect nature of Clone Wars stats, if you had looked at the dimensions, you’d see that the Clone Z-95 is approximately the same proportions as an ARC-170, which means you don’t have enough deck space to swap it out one-for-one with an Eta-2 or a V-Wing. One-for-two or one-for-three is far more likely.

“The opposite is true of ISDs. They had TIE Fighters, which require very specific racks that cannot just be swapped out and used interchangeably.”

On the contrary. Deck cradles would be laughably simple to manufacture, and almost certainly already exist to allow for open field landing of TIEs where overhead racks aren’t available. Plus, if this theoretical conflict were to occur, it would happen during a time when the Imperial Navy still had Clone Wars era craft in service, and thus the ISD would be able to deck-land the exact same types you are positing for the Venator.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

“Wookieepedia says it has two launchers and six concussion missiles. It doesn’t say ‘six concussion missiles each.'”

I guess I’m using past precedent here. In other instances where Wookieepedia lists the number of launchers with the number of missiles as a subpoint, the number of missiles is per launcher. Examples of this include the Clone Z-95 Headhunter and the BTL-B Y-wing. I’ll concede that it’s not clear, but it’s also not my main point. My main point is that 192 Headhunters packs a massive punch.

“Leaving aside the suspect nature of Clone Wars stats, if you had looked at the dimensions, you’d see that the Clone Z-95 is approximately the same proportions as an ARC-170, which means you don’t have enough deck space to swap it out one-for-one with an Eta-2 or a V-Wing. One-for-two or one-for-three is far more likely.”

I’m not saying they would swap out Eta-2s or V-wings for Z-95s. Eta-2s and V-wings are very small interceptors. I’m saying they would swap out V-19 Torrents for Headhunters, which canonically replaced the Torrents for obvious reasons. The ICS says a Venator can hold 192 V-19s along with 192 V-wings. When landed, a V-19 would be at least 11 meters long and at least 13 meters wide, and that’s being generous with how small its wings can fold. Realistically, I’d guess it’s 12 meters long and 15 meters wide. The Clone Z-95 is 16 meters long and 18 meters wide. Is a Z-95 larger? Yes, but not double or triple the size. It’s also less gangly since it doesn’t use S-foils. I propose a 1-to-1 ratio is possible.

“On the contrary. Deck cradles would be laughably simple to manufacture, and almost certainly already exist to allow for open field landing of TIEs where overhead racks aren’t available.”

If there were examples of ISDs employing this method, then I’d be inclined to believe you. However, we never see any example of this, and Star Wars does often describe modified ships becoming carriers (Acclamator is one example). I’m not convinced this was a possibility for ISDs.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

“I guess I’m using past precedent here. In other instances where Wookieepedia lists the number of launchers with the number of missiles as a subpoint, the number of missiles is per launcher.”

There’s no past precedent there. Wookieepedia is an imperfect site, but it does its best to stick to the facts. And when a ship is known to have a certain number of missiles per launcher, it will specify with words like “each” or “per launcher”. The article on V-19s specifically states that it is not known exactly how many it carries, but that it is “at least six” total. Anything else is an assumption on your part, and considering the limited loadouts of larger craft, putting 12 missiles on something so small is highly unlikely.

“I’m saying they would swap out V-19 Torrents for Headhunters, which canonically replaced the Torrents for obvious reasons.”

That’s not what you said earlier. In your post from yesterday, you said that it would be equipped with “192 interceptor starfighters (V-wings, ETA-2s), 192 multirole starfighters (V-19s, Z-95s), and 36 heavy strike starfighters (ARC-170s, Y-wings).” While V-19s certainly have a small enough deck footprint to swap one-for-one with Eta-2’s and V-Wings, Clone Z-95’s (which somehow gained 4 meters in length from the original WEG Z-95 stats, but I digress) manifestly do not. You could likely fit three Eta-2’s, V-19’s or V-Wings into the deck footprint of a single Z-95.

“When landed, a V-19 would be at least 11 meters long and at least 13 meters wide, and that’s being generous with how small its wings can fold.”

Where are you getting these numbers? Per Wookieepedia, the V-19 is only six meters long. Considering that its wings fold vertically when it lands, its deck footprint is likely something like 5-6 meters wide by 6 meters long.

“If there were examples of ISDs employing this method, then I’d be inclined to believe you. However, we never see any example of this, and Star Wars does often describe modified ships becoming carriers (Acclamator is one example).”

Absence of screen time is not conclusive proof that a thing doesn’t exist. However, if we’re going purely by on-screen evidence, TIE fighters can land on the lower edges of their solar wings, as evidenced by the Rebels TV Series. Personally, I find the use of landing cradles to be more plausible, but either way works.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

“There’s no past precedent there. Wookieepedia is an imperfect site, but it does its best to stick to the facts. And when a ship is known to have a certain number of missiles per launcher, it will specify with words like ‘each’ or ‘per launcher.’ The article on V-19s specifically states that it is not known exactly how many it carries, but that it is ‘at least six’ total.”

My main point still stands that 192 Z-95s would be a menace to any star destroyer.

“In your post from yesterday, you said that it would be equipped with ‘192 interceptor starfighters (V-wings, ETA-2s), 192 multirole starfighters (V-19s, Z-95s), and 36 heavy strike starfighters (ARC-170s, Y-wings).'”

Um, you’re not comprehending my point. The ICS says a Venator can hold 192 V-19 Torrents. I’m saying they would swap V-19s with Z-95s. Eta-2s and V-wings are similarly sized. V-19s are not, which leads me to your next point…

“Where are you getting these numbers? Per Wookieepedia, the V-19 is only six meters long. Considering that its wings fold vertically when it lands, its deck footprint is likely something like 5-6 meters wide by 6 meters long.”

You’ve never watched the Clone Wars show, have you? If you had, then you’d know that when a V-19 lands, it’s “tail” folds behind the main fuselage, almost doubling its length when landed. Hence, its length would go from 6 meters in flight to 10-11 meters landed, which isn’t too much smaller than a Z-95. Likewise, the V-19 is 26 meters wide when flying according to Wookieepedia. When landed, it’s probably about half as wide with its S-foils folded, meaning it’s about 13 meters wide. Therefore, you’re looking at an 11×13 meter space taken up by a landed V-19. That’s not terribly much smaller than a Z-95’s 16×18 square meter space taken up by a landed Z-95. Again, if you’ve watched the Clone Wars, then you know that they’re not lacking for space when they land starfighters. They park them actually surprisingly far apart. I confidently stand by a 1:1 replacement between V-19s and Z-95s.

“Absence of screen time is not conclusive proof that a thing doesn’t exist. However, if we’re going purely by on-screen evidence, TIE fighters can land on the lower edges of their solar wings, as evidenced by the Rebels TV Series. Personally, I find the use of landing cradles to be more plausible, but either way works.”

Fair enough on the Rebels TV Series point. I still stand by needing to see a source that demonstrates it’s possible, whether in written or televised form.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

“My main point still stands that 192 Z-95s would be a menace to any star destroyer.”

As does my main point that the only way you’re going to get 192 Z-95’s on Venator is by off-loading ~400 fighters in the Eta-2/V-Wing/V-19 size-range, which really cuts into the Venator’s ability to perform other starfighter missions.

“The ICS says a Venator can hold 192 V-19 Torrents.”

Where? I’m looking at my copy of Complete Vehicles right now, and I see no mention of V-19s in reference to the Venator. Or anywhere, for that matter. The stat write-up on pg. 191 mentions only V-Wings, Eta-2’s, ARC-170s and LAATs.

“You’ve never watched the Clone Wars show, have you?”

Yes, I have, which is why I know, whatever the V-19’s in-flight wingspan is, it is greatly reduced on landing as all three S-Foils fold vertically, to the point where the ship is now narrower than it is long.

“Hence, its length would go from 6 meters in flight to 10-11 meters landed, which isn’t too much smaller than a Z-95.”

No, it doesn’t, because the middle S-Foil rotates 180 degrees to stand straight up behind the cockpit, which means it doesn’t stick out past the rear thrusters (seen here: https://youtu.be/mbm39vs3xnk?t=55). Thus, the length is unchanged when the ship lands, and the width is greatly reduced. Honestly, I don’t see how anyone could look at a V-Wing and take the 26-meter-width number remotely serious. Half that number would be more believable. Referring to the same video from above, you can count the grid squares (here: https://youtu.be/mbm39vs3xnk?t=83) to generate proportions. It’s either 6 meters (measuring from the laser cannon tips to the ends of the thrusters) long with a 9.75-meter wingspan (measuring wingtip to wingtip), or it’s 16 meters long and 26 meters wide (which, incidentally, would make it about as wide as the Millennium Falcon). Considering the size of the ship seen in the Clone Wars, the 6m x 9.75m measurements are far more plausible. And since the wings fold straight up, the parked width for that V-19 is ~4.125 meters (again, measuring the grid squares, from the outsize edges of the port and starboard engines). Even going with the smaller dimensions for the Z-95 (11.8 meters without folding wings), you can still fit 2-3 6m x 4.125m ships with folding wings into the space you’d need for just one Z-95.

Always take “official” numbers from Lucas or Disney with a grain of salt.

“Again, if you’ve watched the Clone Wars, then you know that they’re not lacking for space when they land starfighters.”

Then the same applies to the Imperator, which has even more meters^2 of deck space to land fighters if it off-loads most of the legion and the landing craft.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

“The only way you’re going to get 192 Z-95’s on Venator is by off-loading ~400 fighters in the Eta-2/V-Wing/V-19 size-range, which really cuts into the Venator’s ability to perform other starfighter missions. I’m looking at my copy of Complete Vehicles right now, and I see no mention of V-19s in reference to the Venator.

So. Many. Errors. First, the Venator carries 192 V-wings/Eta-2s and 192 Torrents according to Wookieepedia and the Star Wars Databank. Second, do you honestly think that you would have to unload all 384 Torrents/V-wings/Eta-2s to fit 192 Z-95s? You’re just nitpicking at this point, and it’s getting old, especially when you’re wrong about the landing space of a Torrent…

“Yes, I have, which is why I know, whatever the V-19’s in-flight wingspan is, it is greatly reduced on landing as all three S-Foils fold vertically, to the point where the ship is now narrower than it is long.”

Yes, the V-19’s landed wingspan is narrower when landed. I’d estimate it’s about half as wide when landed, or about 13 meters wide, since it is 26 meters wide when flying. However, those S-foils have to unfold upon takeoff, so they do have to space the V-19s out far more than 13 meters. Since the Z-95 is 17 meters wide, I’m confident that the Z-95’s footprint is very similar to the V-19 in terms of width. The same is true for length…

“The middle S-Foil rotates 180 degrees to stand straight up behind the cockpit, which means it doesn’t stick out past the rear thrusters (seen here: https://youtu.be/mbm39vs3xnk?t=55). Thus, the length is unchanged when the ship lands, and the width is greatly reduced.”

If you’ll go to this link comment image/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/839?cb=20121214132535], then you’ll see that you are wrong. The “tail” of the V-19 folds backward and almost doubles the length of the craft from 6 meters to about 10-11 meters.

“Honestly, I don’t see how anyone could look at a V-Wing and take the 26-meter-width number remotely serious. Half that number would be more believable.”

First, it’s a V-19, not a V-wing. Second, you don’t supersede the Star Wars Databank, which is the source of the 26-meter statistic. I’m sorry you went to all that trouble measuring a fictional craft when credible sources already told you the answer. With all that said, the Z-95 does not take up double the space of a V-19. You would not need to unload all 384 starfighters to fit 192 Z-95s, especially since that same picture I cited also demonstrates how spacious the Venator’s hangars are, even when all their starfighters are parked. There’s no reason to reject a 1:1 ratio of Z-95s to V-19s other than to be picky.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

“First, the Venator carries 192 V-wings/Eta-2s and 192 Torrents according to Wookieepedia and the Star Wars Databank.”

You didn’t cite Wookieepedia or Star Wars Databank; you cited the ICS (Incredible Cross Sections). When asked for a reference, you moved the goalposts. And Star Wars Databank isn’t the reliable source you think it is (see below).

“Second, do you honestly think that you would have to unload all 384 Torrents/V-wings/Eta-2s to fit 192 Z-95s?”

Yes, I do, because physics matter. Any ship has a limited internal volume, and you can only fill up so much of that volume before you run out.

“I’d estimate…” “I’m confident…”

This is you trying to assert your opinion as fact without hard numbers to back it up.

“However, those S-foils have to unfold upon takeoff, so they do have to space the V-19s out far more than 13 meters.”

The video from the Clone Wars TV series that I linked in my previous reply clearly shows the V-19’s wings fully raised while still in flight as they enter a Venator’s dorsal landing bay. As such, the V-19 would be more than capable of entering and exiting a landing bay without having to extend its wings until it has enough clearance to do so.

“If you’ll go to this link”

The link is broken or incomplete. Try again.

“First, it’s a V-19, not a V-wing.”

Now who’s nitpicking? 

“Second, you don’t supersede the Star Wars Databank, which is the source of the 26-meter statistic.”

The Star Wars Databank is fallible and I can prove it. The Databank entry for Home One cites its length as 1200 meters, when a detailed examination of film evidence (http://www.theforce.net/swtc/mcc.html#dimensions) puts its length somewhere between 3700 and 3900 meters. Just because you found a number in the Star Wars databank doesn’t make it right.

“There’s no reason to reject a 1:1 ratio of Z-95s to V-19s other than to be picky.”

There’s plenty of reason; you just have such blind faith in the Star Wars Databank that you aren’t willing to consider the evidence.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

“You didn’t cite Wookieepedia or Star Wars Databank; you cited the ICS (Incredible Cross Sections). When asked for a reference, you moved the goalposts.”

Oh no, I corrected myself. How horrid. The fact still remains: multiple Star Wars sources confirm that a standard configuration of a Venator’s hangar is 192 V-19s. You can complain about me citing the wrong source and then changing it, but you can’t refute it.

“The link is broken or incomplete. Try again.”

Then get a new computer or something, because my browser doesn’t even make me click the link in order to see the image. If you want to see the original picture, then go to the V-19’s entry on Wookieepedia, look under the “In Combat” section about 1/3 of the way down, and behold the screenshot. A V-19 almost doubles in length when it lands.

“‘First, it’s a V-19, not a V-wing.’ Now who’s nitpicking?”

Are you capable of having a civilized, adult conversation? I said you’re nitpicking because I said a V-19 takes up 11×14 square meters when landed based on visible proof (landed footprint) and cited statistics (26 meter wingspan), and you insisted differently because you think you know more than the Clone Wars show and published statistics. That’s nitpicking. Pointing out your demonstrable error is not nitpicking. It’s just that: pointing out your demonstrable error.

“The Star Wars Databank is fallible and I can prove it. The Databank entry for Home One cites its length as 1200 meters.”

The Databank is not the only source that lists Home One as being 1,200 meters. Both Legends and Canon sources confirm that the length of Home One is 1,200 or 1,300 meters according to Wookieepedia. Furthermore, some other Legends sources say its length was 1,400 meters or 1,500 meters. No one–absolutely no one–says it’s more than 1,500 meters other than people like you who think they’re more authoritative than Canon and Legends sources. Ironically, your citation of Home One’s length *proves* the legitimacy of the Databank’s stats, because Canon and Legends sources both support the Databank’s statistics. Therefore, when the Databank says a V-19 in flight is 26 meters wide, it means it’s 26 meters wide. You can accept it, or you can be stubborn and nitpicky, but those are the only two options.

Therefore, since a Venator’s hangar is so spacious when loaded with its standard complement, and a V-19 occupies an 11×14 square meter space when landed, compared to the Z-95’s 16×18 square meter space when landed, there is no reason to nitpick the assertion that 192 Z-95s can replace 192 V-19s on a 1:1 basis, especially since Z-95s can be parked staggered closer together due to their T-shaped airframe. I’m definitely done with this debate though. Between your incessant nitpicking and multiple factual errors, there’s no point. I’m too busy enjoying this 3D masterpiece of the best ship in Star Wars lore.

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Peterson
BoltActionTwig
BoltActionTwig
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

On a Home One thing,

We know what height the actors are. We know the size of Lambda and can infer size of the hangar and the ship. You may stick to what book says.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

Sigh…

Okay, one last try…

You need to pay closer attention to the images you use as “proof”.

1) The “rear” wing in that photo is not pointing straight back, it’s pointing straight up (which is consistent with the video link I provided above). If it were pointing back, then the thruster on that wing would be vertical, not horizontal.

2) In that position, the ship’s thrusters (which can be seen more clearly on the V-19 in the foreground to the left of the picture) extend past the trailing edge of the center wing. The ship’s length is still 6 meters from the tips of the laser cannon to the back of the thrusters, regardless of whether the center wing is raised or lowered.

3) If that V-19 is 14 meters long in that configuration, then the Clone Trooper standing next to it is approximately 3.5-4 meters tall (11 to 12 ft), rather than the 1.8-1.85 meters clones normally are. If the clone is only 1.85 meters, then the ship in that picture is only ~6 meters long, regardless of the position of the rear wing.

4) If that clone is 1.85 meters, then the wing of the V-19 next to him (measured from the wing root on the engine) is ~2.5-3 times taller than him (an estimate based on the appearance of the wing in other media, since the picture in question cuts off the wing tips), which makes it ~4.625-5.4 meters long). This is proportionally consistent to the 9.75 meter wingspan calculated above, once one factors in the 45-degree cant of the wings in flight position.

5) For context, the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye…
440px-111Sqn_E-2C_Hawkeye.jpg (440×330) (wikimedia.org)
…has a wingspan of 24.56 meters. Can you honestly say that the V-19 in the picture you linked is bigger than an E-2 Hawkeye?

“The Databank is not the only source that lists Home One as being 1,200 meters. Both Legends and Canon sources confirm that the length of Home One is 1,200 or 1,300 meters according to Wookieepedia.”

Both Legends and Canon sources are wrong, as the Star Wars Technical Commentary has conclusively demonstrated. They did so by generating a series of comparisons taken directly from the films, beginning with a human to generate the height of the Lambda-Class Shuttle, which was then used to determine the dimensions of the landing bay on the Home One, which was in turn used to generate an overall length for Home One using a composite shot taken from the Millennium Falcon fly-by in RotJ. The “1,200 meter” source you’re so devoted to was generated arbitrarily by some stat writer at West End Games back in the late ’80’s, as the length for the standard MC80 star cruiser. Due to poor quality control / lack of editorial oversight, that number was then applied to Home One, despite the fact that Home One was visibly much larger than the other Mon Cal Cruisers seen on screen.

“No one–absolutely no one–says it’s more than 1,500 meters other than people like you who think they’re more authoritative than Canon and Legends sources.”

Canon and Legends sources are wrong all the time, as demonstrated by the Star Wars Technical Commentaries (see link above). It’s not that I’m more authoritative than Canon or Legends sources; it’s that THE canon source is the films, and that film evidence demonstrably proves that Home One is ~3,700 meters long. “BUT MUH DATABASE SAYS SO” is not a valid rebuttal.

Last edited 10 months ago by CRMcNeill
CT2222
CT2222
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Also, “no one says it” is wrong. Notably, the Home One in Empire at War is roughly at the 3.7km length. Score one for us.

CT2222
CT2222
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

On the Home One thing; let’s say that I post a picture of a person standing next to a 2004 Honda Accord. You rationally assume that this is a normal-sized person standing next to a normal-sized car, and post saying so for some reason. I respond “No, actually it’s a freakishly shrunken 25” midget man standing next to that totally normal Honda Accord.” You argue that it’s impossible for that to happen, he’s clearly taller than the car which is 55” tall. A bunch of random people respond and say “no that isn’t true look at what he’s saying!”

This is, essentially, the same logic of Small Home One arguers. They point to the precedent of some sourcebook while ignoring on-screen evidence to the contrary. I’m willing to bet that you’d be an 8km Executor Lover back before it was adjusted to a more realistic size. Hell, if a sourcebook said that the Millennium Falcon was smaller than an X-Wing you’d probably believe that.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

I can see where whoever came up with the 26m width may have got it from. If the wings were fully horizontal it would be close to that wide, but that doesn’t mean it’s the correct width for the ship in normal flight.
Also, as pointed out multiple times by CR, the visuals in the movies were always the ultimate canon source in Legends. The new Canon’s insistence that all sources are equally canon leads to problems as the sources disagree on a lot of things which they should not disagree on.
The reason we rely on visuals above stated statistics is that the statistics aren’t even self consistent.
comment image
This image gives the clearest possible views of the V-19 in its known configurations. It is clear to see that in landed configuration the fighter is, at most, centimetres longer than it is in flight. This means that if it is 6m long (as is consistent with both the relative size of clone troopers in other images and the stated stats) it cannot be 26m wide in flight, or 14m wide when landed, as the same image shows that the centre section is not more than twice as wide as it is long.

I love your enthusiasm for the Venator. It’s one of my favourite SW ships as well, and I wish it had the fighter capacity to swarm an ISD to death, but without complete deck plans to overlay accurate fighter footprints onto we simply can’t say that it does.
I am glad that you finally brought up the Z-95’s T-shaped airframe, and associated close packing potential. I’ve been waiting for someone to for a while.

Last edited 10 months ago by TheIcthala
CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

But they wouldn’t get even close to a 26-meter wingspan. If the proportions I calculated from the grid-map in the video are correct (and it certainly looks proportionally identical to the ship you posted above), then the wings are ~4 meters long from the tip to the joint with the engine. Add that to the 4.125-meter body width I calculated from the same grid, and you get a ~12-13 meters, and that only in a position the wings are in momentarily while transitioning from landing mode to flight mode or in reverse.

“I am glad that you finally brought up the Z-95’s T-shaped airframe, and associated close packing potential. I’ve been waiting for someone to for a while.”

But that clashes with something else he mentioned, specifically, that ships in the SWU are generally parked with some degree of space between them rather than being overlapped. I could see Z-95’s being overlapped for deck parking if they were loaded aboard a freighter being transported somewhere (i.e. not even close to being ready for a combat launch), but not when they’re being prepped and readied for an alpha strike (which is what they’d have to be in preparation for dude’s Venator v. Imperator scenario).

Of course, if the Z-95 had stayed true to its original source (Han Solo at Star’s End, by Brian Daley), it’d look something like this…
z95mkIA.jpg (1026×504) (pbworks.com)
…and not what we ended up with courtesy of WEG. But I digress…

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

“If the proportions I calculated from the grid-map in the video are correct (and it certainly looks proportionally identical to the ship you posted above), then the wings are ~4 meters long from the tip to the joint with the engine.”
You are correct. I failed to calculate properly. I have no idea how someone came up with a 26m wingspan for this little thing.

“But that clashes with something else he mentioned, specifically, that ships in the SWU are generally parked with some degree of space between them rather than being overlapped.”
It does, yes. TBH I’ve never been able to make much sense of the official “standard complement” of a Venator vs how much space seems to be wasted every time we see inside the hangars. The only way I can make any sense of it is thinking that the repair bay we see in the final episode of TCW is actually the aft part of a lower hangar deck which runs almost the full length of the main deck and is constantly rammed with ships in storage. There’s no evidence for that being the case though, so it’s pure speculation. It would also be increasingly difficult to fit into the ship’s frame the further forward it extended.

Last edited 10 months ago by TheIcthala
CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

Haven’t seen that episode (not much of a Clone Wars / Rebels fan, tbh), but I do have a tentative theory about starships that might apply here. My thinking is that starships use a combination of three major systems that allow them to fly: 1) the anti-gravity part of repulsorlifts that just provides lift, 2) a kinetic impeller field of some kind that allows a ship to move and maneuver like a helicopter at low speeds, and 3) the thrusters that provide high-speed thrust and allow ships to perform more like aircraft. Ships don’t use thrusters inside the hangar bay (except in special cases where they don’t care about – or are actively trying to cause – damage to the hangar bay itself), and are dependent on the kinetic impeller to take off, land and fly in and out of the bay. Because of the specifics of the impeller’s function (which I haven’t fully fleshed out yet), ships on alert or prepped for take-off are given a landing space so that their impellers don’t interfere with each other. OTOH, ships that are down for long-term repairs or are in storage don’t need to worry about that, and can thus be crammed together as tightly as their shapes allow.

And to tie it in with my above statements about deck footprint, the size of the impeller safety zone would be contingent on the size of the ship itself. A smaller ship would require a smaller safe zone, and thus you could cram more fighters into it. We also see in the prequels and some Clone Wars episodes that fighters are parked in “stalls” which allow them to be packed closer together. The stall walls could also incorporate a shielding effect that protects neighboring ships from the impeller, even if they’re technically inside the safety zone. But then, fixed stalls would also limit the size of fighter you could put in them. A stall sized for a V-Wing or a V-19 wouldn’t fit a Z-95 or an ARC-170, and also wouldn’t allow you to pack smaller ships in in greater numbers.

TheIcthala
TheIcthala
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Good thoughts.
That would also explain why TIE series craft use the racks: with the way TIEs launch, dropping down from the front of the rack, the fighters still on the rack would be above the safe zone when the impeller kicked in. All of which would explain why TIEs can be crammed onto such tightly packed racks when ground landing ships can’t.

Last edited 10 months ago by TheIcthala
TheIcthala
TheIcthala
10 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

That is a nice version of the Z-95. I think WEG may have gone another way because it looked too ‘Earth’ and not enough ‘one generation before the X-Wing’, although I’m not aware of whether the Z-95 was a predecessor to X-Wing in the lore at the time of the book.

Joshua
Joshua
10 months ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

The Z-95 was a forerunner to the T-65B Xwing. According to Legends it goes Z-95 — Arc170 — Z-95 Clone Variant — T-65B. All ships made by the same company, Incom

Last edited 10 months ago by Joshua
TheIcthala
TheIcthala
10 months ago
Reply to  Joshua

I am aware of that. What I was referring to was the possibility that when the Z-95 was first introduced into the lore (in Han Solo at Stars’ End) it did not yet have the backstory of being a predecessor to the T-65.
I do not know whether it has always been a predecessor to the T-65, or whether that relationship is a more recent development. I was not reading Star Wars books at the time, and Wookieepedia contains only the up-to-date lore and so is of little use in this regard.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

I’m almost positive that part was added later by WEG. It’s been a while since I read the Brian Daley Trilogy, but I don’t recall the X-Wing ever being mentioned (which would make sense, as by the point, the X-Wing would’ve been a prototype, if it existed at all).

Chris
Chris
9 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

IIRC…It was introduced in the Han Solo book…then WEG took the name and married it to X-Wing concept art in the Tatooine Manhunt RPG supplement.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
9 months ago
Reply to  Chris

I think it was in the Star Wars Sourcebook first; that was first published in 1987, and Tatooine Manhunt was in 1988.

Chris
Chris
9 months ago
Reply to  CRMcNeill

Probably…but I think the sourcebook is just text with TM being the first time art was shown for the Headhunter.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
9 months ago
Reply to  Chris

I double-checked and you’re right. However, WEG did establish the “family connection” between the Z-95 and the X-Wing in the 1E Sourcebook.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago
Reply to  TheIcthala

There’s also this one, which incorporates the swing wing into a platform more akin to the “official” Z-95
comment image
It needs some work, but the general premise is solid.

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
10 months ago
Reply to  Josh Peterson

As much as I love the Venator the prospect of it defeating an ISD one on one is close to zero. No one denies the Venator being a powerful ship, but the ISD has several advantages over it. Not only does it have much tougher armor, better shields and a stronger main reactor, it also has much more weaponry to throw at the lesser armored Venator. Their main battery might be comparable but when it comes to the secondary battery the ISD hopelessly outguns the Venator. The Venator has 2 Medium Dual Turbolasers while the ISD has 60 Medium Turbolasers and 60 Medium Ion Cannons. It would wreck the older ship, due to the Ion Cannons stripping the shields much faster than the Venator can try to do with the ISD.
Yea, the Venator also has 52 Point-Defense Dual Cannons but they’re only good against fighters and those “Artillery guns” it has in several artillery decks are medium to short range only weapons and the Venator will have its shields down before it comes close enough to use those artillery cannons against the ISD.

They’re both hybrid designs between a destroyer and a carrier, but their roles are switched. The Venator is first a carrier and secondarily a destroyer while the ISD is a destroyer first and only secondarily a carrier.

I’d estimate that to defeat an ISD, even with full fighter complement available, you’ll need three Venators against one ISD and you have to be prepared to lose one of those three if the captain and crew of the ISD have any competence.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

“As much as I love the Venator the prospect of it defeating an ISD one on one is close to zero.”

I agree. That’s why I never said a Venator could triumph over an ISD 1v1. I estimated that 2 Venators could triumph 66% of the time, because 1 Venator costs 59 million credits, while 1 ISD costs 150 million credits. When you fully load and staff them, it’s safe to say that you can field 2 Venators for every 1 ISD. Therefore, it is fair to compare them in a 2v1 scenario, not a 1v1.

“No one denies the Venator being a powerful ship, but the ISD has several advantages over it. Not only does it have much tougher armor, better shields and a stronger main reactor, it also has much more weaponry to throw at the lesser armored Venator.”

First, the disparity is not that stark. According to Wookieepedia, Venators have stronger hulls and shields than Victory-class star destroyers. Wookieepedia rates the Victory star destroyer’s shield and hull at 3200 SBD and 1520 RU, respectively. Meanwhile, Wookieepedia rates the ISD’s shield and hull as 4800 SBD and 2272 RU, respectively. That is a 50% increase in both categories. However, when you consider that this scenario is a 2v1 fight, then we can conclude that 2 Venators are tougher than 1 ISD. It takes 50% more firepower to bring down 2 Venators (6400+ SBD and 3040+ RU) compared to 1 ISD (4800 SBD and 2272 RU). Furthermore, while the ISD has a superior reactor output, when you consider this is a 2v1 scenario, the disparity disappears once again. The Venator’s output is 3,6 × 10^24 W according to Wookieepedia. Meanwhile, Wookieepedia says the ISD’s output is 7.73 × 10^24 W. This is means the ISD has almost the exact same power output as 2 Venators, so in this scenario, they are equal in energy production. So, no, the ISD does not enjoy an advantage in shields, armor, and power output when we level the playing field and pit it against 2 Venators. The Venator actually comes out on top in 2 out of those 3 categories and ties the third.

“Their main battery might be comparable, but when it comes to the secondary battery the ISD hopelessly outguns the Venator.”

This is actually an irrelevant statement, because Wookieepedia notes that the Venator is a true battleship, meaning that it can dump the entirety of its reactor output into its 8 heavy turbolaser batteries if it so desires. We know that damage output is contingent upon how much energy is available. Therefore, since the energy output between 2 Venators and 1 ISD is almost exactly the same, there is no disparity between damage output. The amount of total energy that can be shot at their opponents is the same. To use a real-world analogy, both the ISD and 2 Venators have 1,000 gallons of water to spray at each other, because they both produce the same amount of power. The Venator is aiming 16 firehoses at the ISD, while the ISD is aiming 8 firehoses and 120 super soakers. Yeah, it sounds impressive that the ISD has a lot of super soakers as well as firehoses, but by using all of its weapons at once, the ISD is only weakening the strength of its firehoses since it only has 1,000 gallons to work with. Having extra weapons is only an advantage if your primary batteries can’t channel the entirety of the reactor’s output, when you need to bring more gun emplacements to bear on a target at certain angles, or when you are fighting an opponent who can use precision strikes to eliminate weapon emplacements quickly. In that case, having more turbolasers is better, but for 2 Venators going up against 1 ISD, it’s irrelevant. If anything, this is an advantage for the Venators, which would be able to get better sight lines on the ISD by flanking it and bringing batteries to bear from 2 angles, rather than just 1. So, once again, there actually is very minimal disparity between 2 Venators and 1 ISD. 2 Venators have stronger shields, stronger hulls, equal power output, and therefore equal firepower compared to an ISD. The only difference is that all that firepower is only coming from 16 total batteries, as opposed to 128+.

Where there is a massive disparity between the ISD and 2 Venators is their starfighter complement. Even if the nitpickers above are correct, and the Venator cannot field 192 Z-95s as well as 192 V-wings, 2 Venators can still field an entire wing of Y-wings or ARC-170s, two strike starfighters that hit way above their weight class. Just look at what a few Y-wings were capable of doing to an ISD when its shields were exhausted at the Battle of Scarif. Now, imagine what 72 could do to an ISD. As soon as the 2 Venators whittle away the shields of the ISD, the battle is over. Y-wings or ARC-170s would ion torpedo the ISD into submission. Furthermore, Wookieepedia rates the acceleration of an ISD as 2,300+ G, while the Venator’s acceleration is 3,000 G, making the Venator a quicker, more maneuverable ship, which allows it to take full advantage of the numerical advantage, with at least 1 Venator likely always being able to bring all 8 of its primary batteries to bear on target.

With all that said, I think my estimation that 2 Venators would defeat 1 ISD 66% of the time is too generous for the ISD. 75+% sounds more likely. The Venator is just too well rounded. In pairs, they’re tougher and faster than an ISD and have just as much power to dump into their weapons and shields while fielding multiple times more starfighters.

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

Plus, an ISD Is an absolute bear to staff. 37,000+ crew? No thanks. I’ll take 7,400 crew per Venator every time, especially when a large portion of the Venator’s crew was bred to do their job. Even 2 Venators require less than half as many crew as an ISD. The only category where the ISD enjoys a noticeable lead over 2 Venators is its ground complement. 9,700 stormtroopers, 20 AT-ATs, 30 AT-STs, 15 K79-S80 transports, 8 Lambda shuttles, 12 Sentinel shuttles, and an indeterminate amount of Goaznti cruisers and Theta barges are superior to 2 Venators’ standard total load of 4,000 clone troopers, 48 AT-TEs, and 80 LAATs, but even then, the difference isn’t as pronounced when you consider that clone troopers are undoubtedly superior to stormtroopers, and that the LAAT is superior to any of the Empire’s shuttles when it comes to deploying into an actual combat landing zone. The fact that ground combat is often completely irrelevant in the Star Wars universe unless planetary shields are a factor makes this the least important category of all the categories we’ve considered (shield strength, hull strength, power output, firepower, speed/maneuverability, starfighter complement, ground assault complement).

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

Lastly, we’re completely overlooking the 64 heavy proton torpedoes that a Venator can launch at the ISD. Heavy proton torpedoes are pretty nebulous since they’ve never been seen used in the movies, but the fact that they do not draw power from the reactor only enhances the Venator’s firepower. 2 Venators have almost as much energy output as an ISD. That means their 16 total heavy turbolaser batteries can rival the power of the ISD’s 8 heavy turbolaser batteries, and the 128 total heavy proton torpedoes are just the icing on the cake. At bare minimum, we have to say that 2 Venators have equal firepower compared to an ISD (16 heavy turbolaser batteries putting out up to 7.2 10^24 W and 128 heavy proton torpedoes vs 8 heavy turbolaser batteries putting out up to 7.73 x 10^24 W). It really comes down to whether you think 128 heavy proton torpedoes can compensate for the 2 Venators having 5.3 x 10^23 W less energy output. That’s debatable, but certainly possible if a heavy proton torpedo has the same energy output as a nuclear bomb, which can be 2.1 x 10^24 W in a nanosecond according to a simple Google search. 128 torpedoes exploding with that much force over the course of a battle should more than compensate for the 2 Venators’ slight lack in energy output, especially since the ISD has no means of intercepting these torpedoes due to its lack of point-defense batteries.

Last edited 10 months ago by Josh Peterson
TawneyMiyamoto
TawneyMiyamoto
10 months ago

you just turned my favorite star destroyer into a work of art and perfection. Absolutely love it.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago

Literal perfection. Even its heavy turbolaser batteries can fire simultaneously forward. This is the best ship in the Star Wars universe. The Victor- and Tector-class star destroyers in Republic livery are the perfect cherry on top.

Evan Schultheis
Evan Schultheis
10 months ago

My only real qualm here is the Imperial-style shield bulb on top, which really messes up the bridge profile and aesthetics.

The engines are a bit thick too but I think it’s one of those things that it just depends on the angle of the screenshot.

Regardless, wonderful job as always!

Spaceisfun45
Spaceisfun45
10 months ago

Much prefer bulbs to smokestacks

mileee
mileee
10 months ago

its more realistic than the original design in the films

Sephiroth0812
Sephiroth0812
10 months ago

Tbh I don’t mind the half-domes on top of the bridges too much, as they are strictly spoken Kuat Drive Yards (KDY)-style shield gen domes, not “Imperial” ones as KDY was also one of the three main ship deliverers for the Old Republic.

I remember several guide books, including “starships and vehicles”, mentioning that the Venator’s shield generators were located inside the ship covered by armor layers so they couldn’t be targeted individually but I guess these would be for “bridge-shielding only” just like on other Star Destroyers which is otherwise so often misrepresented in video games where taking out the domes on the bridge tower would neutralize the shields on the entire vessel.

Josh Peterson
Josh Peterson
10 months ago
Reply to  Sephiroth0812

Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. It makes perfect sense to have dedicated shield generators for the bridge of an ISD/bridge and ATC towers of a Venator, since they just scream “Shoot here.”

Zach
Zach
10 months ago

can you release standalone images of the proclamator and victory in the republic livery?

Jaja Inks
Jaja Inks
10 months ago

I expected that. A great new wallpaper.

CRMcNeill
CRMcNeill
10 months ago

<chef’s kiss>

I particularly like the comparison shots showing how it measures up.