The ROTJ Communication ship revealed?!!

[Quadlok]

What I find funny is that everybody is bitching about this instead of the fact that that movie that was linked to shows a TIE going directly into a Mon Cal's fighter bay and popping out a Stormtrooper, who then proceeds to steal an X-Wing as if it was the simplest thing in the world.

Its all just fucking game mechanics, same as the ships in X-Wing all going a couple hundred meters a second or the reactor bulb being labelled a shield projector in Rogue Squadron 2. Stupid, yes, important, no.

[MandangoWarrior]

According the novels and the SW:CCG the communications ship in ROTJ was the Star Destroyer Avenger.

[Illuminatus Primus]

According the novels and the SW:CCG the communications ship in ROTJ was the Star Destroyer Avenger.

The novelisation is higher canon than the CCG; it states the communications ship was larger than the other Star Destroyers.

[Connor MacLeod]

Not really, because we know its done for game reasons, and its otherwise inseperable from the ISD standard.

And you know this, because you have quotes to that effect and/or have examined the model, right?

Besides which, Curtis actually has treated video game "models" of warships as separate classes "Anonymous Star Battleship #2", as well as the Mon Cal designs from the games like X-wing Alliance, as well as the TIEs (the TIE x1 relative from the original "X-wing" game and Zaarin's drone TIEs from XWA.) And some of the "comic" models interpreted to exist are based on details far less substantial than some of them (One could just as well claim artistic laziness as "game" reasons. )

Moreover, its at Endor, and we know these don't exist at Endor.

We also know that Luke skywalker did not blast through Leia's prison door with a maximum-setting blaster shot, (as in the novel) but that does not discredit the incident as an example of either blaster firepower OR as evidence of variable settings on blasters.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Fine, if you believe there are ISDs with lateral hangars (a distinctly compromising design), that's your perogative.

It has been stated in this very thread that for game mechanical reasons you could not land a space craft in a ventral bay.

[Connor MacLeod]

Fine, if you believe there are ISDs with lateral hangars (a distinctly compromising design), that's your perogative.

We see lateral hangers on the Rand Ecliptic, too, and thats a fucking comic book. I suppose we should toss that out too right?

I don't see what the hell your problem is. Its not as if we don't have "hangarless" Star Destroyers because of such laziness.

It has been stated in this very thread that for game mechanical reasons you could not land a space craft in a ventral bay.

So just because *someone* says its a game mechanics issue, it automatically becomes that? What the fuck kind of logic is that?

[Illuminatus Primus]

We see lateral hangers on the Rand Ecliptic, too, and thats a fucking comic book. I suppose we should toss that out too right?

The Rand Ecliptic has also been called a merchantman in other sources, and Publius hypothesized it is an armed merchantman as reconcilation, and also to explain the fresh-from-academy Darklighter serving as a first mate aboard a considerable vessel. There's an excuse.

I don't see what the hell your problem is. Its not as if we don't have "hangarless" Star Destroyers because of such laziness.

Hangarless Star Destroyers aren't intentionally stupid designs placing the point of ingress/egress for fighters coplanar with the guns, forcing the ship to align its vulnerable gaps in the hull facing the enemy. The Invisible Hand's large hangars are post facto modifications and alterations, not standardized design. The Mon Calamari cruisers are modified civilian or demilitarized craft for a threadbare and desperate insurgency; it makes sense they'd cut holes whereever possible for hangar space in some ships.

So just because *someone* says its a game mechanics issue, it automatically becomes that? What the fuck kind of logic is that?

I should presume that Stark is lying or stupid? I don't think we'll know for sure until the game is actually fucking released, but its hardly an unreasonable assumption given the poor, cookie-cutter derivative design of these games.

[MandangoWarrior]

[Connor MacLeod]

The Rand Ecliptic has also been called a merchantman in other sources, and Publius hypothesized it is an armed merchantman as reconcilation, and also to explain the fresh-from-academy Darklighter serving as a first mate aboard a considerable vessel. There's an excuse.

Its also treated as a "frigate" or "cruiser" as well. Of course, its not unusual for military warsips in Star Wars to be converted to other roles - including merchant duty (at least temporarily.)

Hangarless Star Destroyers aren't intentionally stupid designs placing the point of ingress/egress for fighters coplanar with the guns, forcing the ship to align its vulnerable gaps in the hull facing the enemy. The Invisible Hand's large hangars are post facto modifications and alterations, not standardized design. The Mon Calamari cruisers are modified civilian or demilitarized craft for a threadbare and desperate insurgency; it makes sense they'd cut holes whereever possible for hangar space in some ships.

First off, that assumes the ship is designed for a "broadside" style engagement, isnt it? Second, it neglects the fact that this is ONLY a weakness if the shields are penetrated (as well as whatever shielding/doorways covering the opening are penetrated.)

Dispensing with the ventral hanger also allows for the possibility of mounting heavy turrets ventrally (An associate of Curtis and Mine, Andrew Tse, once suggested that the reason ISDs lack ventral heavy turrets is because those weapons would interfere with the launching and recovery of fighters.)

Side-mounted hangars also minimize the weaknesses of the "large ventral hangers" that destroyed the Communications ship (IE having its "power tree" attacked by Rebel fighters in the ROTJ novel - Curtis describes this in his power technologies page.)

I should presume that Stark is lying or stupid? I don't think we'll know for sure until the game is actually fucking released, but its hardly an unreasonable assumption given the poor, cookie-cutter derivative design of these games.

Last time I checked, just because someone said something doesn't make it true (up to and including GWL.) - speculation even from "behind the scenes" people does not automatically become evidence. This is even more true here.

Besides, even if it WERE true, its still does not change anything. Aristic laziness or fuckups still get treated as separate ship classes, not as "mistakes that should be ignored." And its not as if we don't have to rationalize scaling inconsistencies in the movies too (IE the disparity in "escort Frigate" size between TESB and ROTJ",) or other such fuckups (the various Tantive IV/blockade runner screwups, the "where the fuck does ARtoos body go in the Jeid interceptor" question, etc.)

[nightmare]

I'm more interested in the ship you can spot for a split-second at the bottom of the screen when the X-Wing takes off.

[VT-16]

(IE the disparity in "escort Frigate" size between TESB and ROTJ",)

Wasn´t that retconned as a "carrier"?

[Cykeisme]

I don't know about the ship being "designed for broadside-style engagements". If you've got guns, you're going to have to point them toward the enemy ships, and if it also means pointing your hangars toward them, it doesn't sound like a good idea. Just because shields are far more effective protection than armor doesn't mean that such a vulnernerability isn't a flaw.

There's also the issue of launching your starfighters directly into the streams of turbolaser fire going back and forth between ships.. doesn't sound like a good idea, either.
With the ventral bay you could still launch fighters even while engaged with another capship without having them vaporized on launch.

[Connor MacLeod]

(IE the disparity in "escort Frigate" size between TESB and ROTJ",)

Wasn´t that retconned as a "carrier"?

that's not the problem. Its the exact same ship, its just MASSIVELY bigger (like some 700-1000 meters long, as opposed to the 200-300 meter logn one)

[Connor MacLeod]

I don't know about the ship being "designed for broadside-style engagements". If you've got guns, you're going to have to point them toward the enemy ships, and if it also means pointing your hangars toward them, it doesn't sound like a good idea. Just because shields are far more effective protection than armor doesn't mean that such a vulnernerability isn't a flaw.

Its a flaw regardless. To carry fighters requires that you have openings into the interior of the ship - either a big ass hole in one or more sections (like the underside of an ISD) or a number of smaller ones on the sides (Rand Ecliptic and these "battlefront' ships.)

Same with the reactor bulb thing, actually, as well.

There's also the issue of launching your starfighters directly into the streams of turbolaser fire going back and forth between ships.. doesn't sound like a good idea, either.

Thats why the ISD doesn't mount heavy turrets on its ventral side (and I might point out that IS a flaw in and of itself.. firepower in the bottom arcs isnt what it is in the upper arcs.)

With the ventral bay you could still launch fighters even while engaged with another capship without having them vaporized on launch.

And with a huge hangar bay on the bottom of your ship wide enough to accomodate corvettes, you leave your ship exposed to damage also (again, the communications ship in ROTJ - the hangar exposed the main power distribution networks of the ship to attack - take those out and you can greatly damage if not destroy the ship.)

The Side-mounted bays have the advantage of making that power tree harder to hit (the openings are narrower, and they aren't as nearly exposed to open space. AND, you can discuorage people from attackin g in those arcs by heving your heavy weaponry able to hit targets in that arc (whereas there are no heavy turrets to hit in the ventrla arc.)

[Chris OFarrell]

Its a game mechanic; they thought it'd be too hard to fly up into an ISD bay and into one of the hangars, so they just moved the hangar.

Fuck that. I wanted them to zone a half dozen 'docking' ports which an assault transport could grapple to and blast through. Areas that when they land, they are clear of the ships defensive batteries (although the approach is hell). Then you clamp on and YOUR engineers have to work the cutting equipment to blast open a breach point. But like in Enemy Territory, the engineer class inside can reinforce the docking point, so it takes much longer to cut through, meaning troops have time to rally to the docking point for a defence.

Each docking point should correspond to a target. Example, one on top of the bridge for assaults on the command centre. One aft just above the sublight engines for attacks on the engine rooms...

It would have KICKED ASS to have a group of transports on a good team fight their way through the star fighter screen and defence guns, then dock and have troops poor onto the enemy ship, blast their targets, then get the hell out...

[VT-16]

Its the exact same ship, its just MASSIVELY bigger (like some 700-1000 meters long, as opposed to the 200-300 meter logn one)

I know, it got retconned into a 'carrier'-status. And in an issue of Empire, there´s a weird, "sleek" Neb-B about the same size, so it seems to have siblings in design.

[Spartan]

Nitghtmare wrote:

I'm more interested in the ship you can spot for a split-second at the bottom of the screen when the X-Wing takes off.

Do you mean that Mon Cal ship with the huge double turrets?

I also noticed that in some of the screen shots their is a smaller corvette dagder-style ship. Its lookes somewhat like this:

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics ... igate1.jpg

Just has to primary engines from the veiws I could make out.

[Spartan]

Connor Macleod wrote:

Its a flaw regardless. To carry fighters requires that you have openings into the interior of the ship - either a big ass hole in one or more sections (like the underside of an ISD) or a number of smaller ones on the sides (Rand Ecliptic and these "battlefront' ships.)

I'd count the Venator class in the same boat. If you look at the video cutscenes, there show the brim mounted hangar doors wide open in the middle of a fleet engagement.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:

Hangarless Star Destroyers aren't intentionally stupid designs placing the point of ingress/egress for fighters coplanar with the guns, forcing the ship to align its vulnerable gaps in the hull facing the enemy. The Invisible Hand's large hangars are post facto modifications and alterations, not standardized design. The Mon Calamari cruisers are modified civilian or demilitarized craft for a threadbare and desperate insurgency; it makes sense they'd cut holes whereever possible for hangar space in some ships.

That may or may not be true of the designs you mentioned; but with dagger-shaped warships the ideal firing position is not broadside, its the ships' forward arc. With the bow slightly down the forward arc should allow all the weapons that can fire forward to engage. Broadside brings far fewer batteries to bear as the bridge tower and terraces prevent all of the main batteries from firing on either beam.

If the design is intended to keep the enemy off the bow, then those hangars are actually in the line of fire.

[Connor MacLeod]

Its the exact same ship, its just MASSIVELY bigger (like some 700-1000 meters long, as opposed to the 200-300 meter logn one)

I know, it got retconned into a 'carrier'-status. And in an issue of Empire, there´s a weird, "sleek" Neb-B about the same size, so it seems to have siblings in design.

Does it look EXACTLY identical, though? Making two identical vessels of two completely different sizes is problematic at best (same problem occurs with Minbari cruisers in B5.)

(Besides we get this scaling problem with some of the Blockade Runners in ROTJ as well..

[Connor MacLeod]

I'd count the Venator class in the same boat. If you look at the video cutscenes, there show the brim mounted hangar doors wide open in the middle of a fleet engagement.

Yep, but then the bottomside hangar is usually open as well during combat. Look at it this way: Do the hangars run completely through the ship? (IE are they open from one side to the other like the IH? From the clips I'd say no. In that case there's not really much of a problem. Yes, they're exposed to space and to gunfire.. but so? As I pointed out, its unlikely that they expose the "power tree" the way that a ventrally-mounted hangar does.

And so what if its exposed? You lose use of one hangar, tops. Its not crucial (unless they happen to be consistently fueling or arming fighters while fighting a broadside action in a fleet engagement, I don't think the hangar blowing up is going to represent quite the same danger that it does to a modern carrier.)

It might be pointed out that the Eclipse (by Dark Empire) also apparently has side-mounted launch bays (As well as one ventral mounted, at least according to the EGV&V.)

[Stark]

A ventral hanger allows a ship in 'nose down' or a fully dorsal attack posture to launch and recover fighters with the entire bulk of the ship protecting and potentially concealing them.

[Connor MacLeod]

A ventral hanger allows a ship in 'nose down' or a fully dorsal attack posture to launch and recover fighters with the entire bulk of the ship protecting and potentially concealing them.

Sure, but that only works if you can keep your opponents facing in one direction. (In a large-scale fleet battle how likely is that, especially since the ranges are much closer in the bigger engagements?)

And that still doesn't address the whole "Exposed power tree" vulnerability either.

[Spartan]

Connor MacLeod wrote:

And so what if its exposed? You lose use of one hangar, tops. Its not crucial (unless they happen to be consistently fueling or arming fighters while fighting a broadside action in a fleet engagement, I don't think the hangar blowing up is going to represent quite the same danger that it does to a modern carrier.)

Well, looking at the ICS entry for the Venator, the rear bulkhead for the side bays is rather thin. And directly behind that bulkhead are the: reactant pumps & ducts, followed directlyby the annhilation reactant silos.

I'm not saying its a serious vulnerability, because as you say once the shield go down your most likely done anyway. But would have killed them to offset the fuel silos, so that you don't have a direct line of fire through the cargo bay doors.