Final variation on the Vindicator – Immobilizer hull. The Enforcer-class cruiser is, as per the commission brief, “a light destroyer in a corset”.
Final variation on the Vindicator – Immobilizer hull. The Enforcer-class cruiser is, as per the commission brief, “a light destroyer in a corset”.
Always did like the Enforcer with it having better systems, stronger weaponry and just having this look of an advanced and powerful warship that can bite off more then you’d think for a ship of it’s size.
The Enforcer is what made me love the Pentastar Alignment. Sure, they’re pretty evil too, like the Empire before it, but they’re competently evil and rich isolationists. If you’re going to be evil, that’s the best kind of evil.
The Enforcer demonstrates that competency. It’s the perfect ship for a fledgling coalition that needs to fill its ranks immediately and patrol uber important hyperspace lanes.
Arguably, the Empire would’ve been better off if it had spammed Enforcers and Immobilizers instead of spamming ISDs. They would’ve covered the Galaxy better and would’ve been a better counter to the Rebels’ emphasis on hit-and-run tactics using hyperdrive-equipped starfighters. 2 Enforcers and 1 Immobilizer should be able to do 90+% of what an ISD could do for fewer credits and crew, plus the aforementioned ability to stop the Rebels from retreating.
I don’t know man, maybe chill it with the anti-ISD stance.
every time I see an anti-ISD argument it’s always purely about their combat ability. one of the top posts on r/MawInstallation theorises that the average ISD was more of a flying bureaucratic pacifier that would spent most of its time going to worlds with insurgency, intimidate the population, then reconstruct local government, before moving onto the next. while the many tactical flaws of the ISD are all completely valid points, it’s tiring seeing people say “the empire should’ve spammed [insert ship name]” on every underrated imperial ship design.
In the Disneyverse at least, the Immobilizer 418 was considered something of a dud by the Empire. In 14 BBY, a prototype Immobilizer 418 malfunctioned, bringing a bunch of civilian ships the Empire didn’t want brought out of hyperspace, out. There were collisions and many civilians died. The prototype was returned to be improved.
And Immobilizer 418s ceased production in 0 ABY.
A scaled up version, looking almost exactly the same but over 1000m long, was tested in Star Wars Rebels a few years later, and there was a fiasco then as well – sabotaged, it drew its own ships into it and was destroyed in the collision.
After that, the Empire brought out the ship that Fractalsponge depicts as the Dominator-class.
now this, is epic
Oh, it’s beautiful. I personally found the original Vindicator a bit too flat, like it’s a big uniform triangular prism with a bridge stuck on it. The addition of the ISD-esque stepped hull below the bridge does wonders to rectify that, as do the multi-barreled turrets and different sloping on the ventral side. Genuinely just filling out the shape a bit more does so much for the design.
I notice the hangar opening is roughly half the size of the Vindicator’s, what are the implications of that?
It’s the same size hangar as on the Immobilizer, which also has the different ventral. Possibly the ship is an “upgraded Immobilizer with the gravity projectors removed” (all four triple turrets are where the projectors used to be) more than an “upgraded Vindicator”.
It makes sense that the hangar is half the size on the Enforcer since it’s based on the Immobilizer, which needed more internal space dedicated to its larger reactor and gravity well generators. It also explains why the Vindicator carries 72 TIE Fighters (1 flight), while the Immobilizer and Enforcer carry only 24 TIE Fighters (2 squadrons).
Yup. Though Starships of the Galaxy Saga Edition, unlike Starships of the Galaxy D20, gave the Vindicator a number of fighters carried as 2 squadrons rather than 1 wing.
This can be rationalised as “designed to carry a whole wing, but at some point doctrine said it should only have 2 squadrons”.
Oddly, while one of the advantages of the Enforcer was that it only needed a smaller crew than the Immobilizer:
Because of the ship’s reduced cost and crew needed for operation, they can operate in pairs, although formations of four or even six have been sighted as their numbers grow.
the actual figures given for the two, give it a bigger crew.
The Pentastar Alignment article for West End Games Star Wars D6:
Enforcer: Crew 3000 (skeleton crew 1000), Gunners 60, Passengers 300 (troops)
Imperial Sourcebook
Immobilizer 418: Crew 2807, Passengers 80 (troops)
Starships of the Galaxy D20
Vindicator: Crew 2551, Passengers 400 (troops)
Starships of the Galaxy D20, which introduced the Vindicator in 2001 as the ship from which the Immobilizers came, calls the Immobilizer “built on a Vindicator-class heavy cruiser hull” but also says that they were converted Vindicators, calling out a specific Vindicator, the Savrip, as “the first Vindicator-class heavy cruiser that wasn’t converted to act as an Interdictor”.
Starships of the Galaxy Saga Edition (in 2007) repeats this concept, describing the Immobilizer as a “refit of” the Interdictor, with lots of turbolasers “stripped out” and the gravity well projectors added, and says “not all Vindicator-class ships were converted”, and “some remain armed and active”
The New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels in 2003 is the biggest outlier – it talks about Sienar manufacturing them and never once about it converting or refitting them from Vindicators.
I actually like this better than the Vindicator, I think it has a more aggressive look than the Vindicator with a more advanced feel to it. The sloping of the underside is clearly more pronounced, much alike to the Interdictor class Heavy Cruiser, and likely serves as heavy armour plating to protect a larger power core. I’ve never seen those new triple turbolaser batteries before. I like them, although I wonder what kind of poundage would they be.
They look like triple barrelled versions of “Vindicator-scale” single-barrelled – and Vindicator ones were 40 teratons.
Vindicator ones also have a lower rate of fire than those of the Imperator class (called the Imperial-class by the novels and West End Games) which has both 8-barrelled turrets (“Imperial II”) and 3-barrelled ones (both the “Imperial II” and the “Imperial I”). These ones look chunkier in the turret shape than the Star Destroyer triple turrets, but similar in the barrel thickness)
I’d speculate that they’re intended to be 40 teraton but max out at 1 shot per barrel per 2 seconds instead of 1 shot per second.
The small quads look identical to the “200 gigaton” turrets – which probably max out at around 5 shots per second. According to Fractalsponge, over time, they’re about 1/5 as powerful as a Vindicator 1-barrelled 40 teraton turret.
That would be consistent with a firing rate of 5 times per second for each barrel of the quad turret, and 1 shot per 2 seconds for the 40 teraton single barrel – little turret is 4 teraton per second, big turret is 20 teraton per second.
It’s also consistent with the reactor power in Incredible Cross Sections given for the Acclamator, which has 12 of the same 200 gigaton turret. Reactor power: 2 x10^23 watts: 2 x10^23 joules per second. Gun power is 48 teratons per second. 48 teratons is 2.008 x10^23 joules.
EDIT: The Carrack ones seem intermediate – perhaps 500 gigaton 5 shot per second. Fractal did say medium turbolasers could be up to 500 gigatons, on Stardestroyer.net. Perhaps these are just a triple-barrelled version of the 500 gigaton gun.
the triple guns are 25TT barrels.
Is that the “official figure” requested by the commissioner of the model? Might work with slow rate of fire. With standard rate of fire the thing ends up with vastly more firepower than the Vindicator – the extra room granted by the slightly deeper hull isn’t that much.
The Vindicator’s main battery I estimated at throwing 80 TT per second based on slow (1 per 2 seconds) rate of fire. And 11 200 gigaton turrets, with high rate of fire (5 per second) produced 4 TT per second per turret, 44 TT per second total, 124 TT per second for the whole ship, combining heavy turret battery with medium turret battery.
Using 25 TT per barrel, the Enforcer’s 12 gun barrels would throw 300 TT per second based on “standard rate of fire” and 150 TT per second based on “slow rate of fire”.
Adding in the three 200 gigaton turrets makes the “slow rate of fire Enforcer” 162 TT per second (moderately plausible for the deep hull – becomes more powerful than the 124 TT per second Vindicator but not vastly so) and the “standard rate of fire Enforcer” 312 TT per second (over 2.5x the Vindicator’s firepower) I find that less plausible.
The Enforcer may be good, but it’s not supposed to be that good.
Yes. They’re 25TT turrets.
You’re also forgetting about the fact that capacitors exist. You’re more than welcome to pop onto the Discord server where these things are discussed, if you’d like =)
I’m aware they exist, I just don’t bother to focus on them. Any ship can have them if the designer wants them to – but they’re not particularly important regarding comparing one ship with another ship, since neither ship is specified as not being able to use capacitor power.
They come into play regarding the question “is this ship overgunned compared to its reactor” – meaning the ship is incapable of firing all its guns at full power and full rate of fire.
I believe Fractal stated on SD.net that the Imperial I in his conception of it, was incapable of firing all its 6 main turbolasers and its 2 main ion cannons at the same time, and must use stored energy from capacitors to do this. (the Imperial II with its more powerful reactor, being able to fire all of its 8 main turbolaser turrets at the same time without capacitor power).
Similarly, his Procursator light destroyer cannot fire all its turbolasers without using capacitor power.
I don’t know if he upgraded the ISD II’s reactor when he gave it all those secondary turrets – did he intend its reactor to be able to generate the equivalent of 4.2 petatons of energy, per second?
I was under the impression that the Enforcer-class was able to be so over-gunned because it kept the extra power generators from the Interdictor; are those extra generators completely interior with this version?
It looks like by using the hull of the Immobilizer 418, which has a larger underside “sloop” and, therefore, a larger internal volume, the Enforcer was able to keep the larger reactor of the Immobilizer without the massive power constraints of the Immobilizer’s gravity wells. Ergo, there’s more energy available for shields and weapons. Hence, the Enforcer has far more and far larger turbolasers than the Vindicator.
It is confusing though, because some descriptions and depictions of the Enforcer online retain the gravity well domes, Empire at War being one prominent example.
And this is West End Games’ version
WEG pretty much just used the Immobilizer art and said “it’s a new ship”. It would have made more sense to tweak the art to remove domes.
Ah, see, I thought that some of those globes were gravity well projectors, and some were extra power generators.
“It looks like by using the hull of the Immobilizer 418, which has a larger underside “sloop” and, therefore, a larger internal volume, the Enforcer was able to keep the larger reactor of the Immobilizer without the massive power constraints of the Immobilizer’s gravity wells. Ergo, there’s more energy available for shields and weapons. “
Fractal’s Immobilizer itself is much more heavily gunned than the original – the original had only quad laser cannon (the GX-7) rather than turbolasers (20 turrets) but his has medium quad turbolasers, (7 turrets) and big ones at that – same gun as he puts on the Carrack, which sort of straddles the line between medium and heavy – not a true heavy turbolaser, but bigger than his 200 gigaton medium.
I’ve been assuming “they’re 500 gigaton medium until I’m specifically told otherwise” since he’s said Medium turbolasers can be in the 200 gigaton to 500 gigaton range.
beautiful.