StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How many Dreadnaughts would it take to down a standard ISD? I don't really know the exact firepower of Dreadnaughts, so I found this difficult to figure. I couldn't find this asked already. I did a search. Sorry if it was.

More then three (in dark fleet rising three Dreadnaughts coverd a NR/rebel agents escape from New Cov and had prolem dealing with one ISD.)

Three is sufficent. While the three in Dark Force Rising were having trouble against a single ISD, this is not unexpected. Three is suficent to destroy an ISD, though you will loose one or even two Dreadnaughts in the process. Five is ideal for taking out an ISD without any losses.

Alyeska wrote:Three is sufficent. While the three in Dark Force Rising were having trouble against a single ISD, this is not unexpected. Three is suficent to destroy an ISD, though you will loose one or even two Dreadnaughts in the process. Five is ideal for taking out an ISD without any losses.

Would the Katana modification change that number?

Most likely no. All the Katana Fleet had were fleet-wide slave circuits that reduced the number of crew required on each ship, nothing more.

Lord Revan wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Three is sufficent. While the three in Dark Force Rising were having trouble against a single ISD, this is not unexpected. Three is suficent to destroy an ISD, though you will loose one or even two Dreadnaughts in the process. Five is ideal for taking out an ISD without any losses.

Would the Katana modification change that number?

Potentialy it would take more Dreadnaughts to defeat an ISD. More crew means more damage control teams to repair combat damage. Katana Dreadnaughts would sustain damage that can not be repaired as easily.

So if about 3 can defeat an ISD, although taking losses, a smaller group might be able to definitly take out a VSD?

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:So if about 3 can defeat an ISD, although taking losses, a smaller group might be able to definitly take out a VSD?

Two should be an aproximate match to a VSD. I would actualy lay better odds for the VSD against 2 Dreadnaughts then I would lay on an ISD against 3 Dreadnaughts.

Alyeska wrote:I would actualy lay better odds for the VSD against 2 Dreadnaughts then I would lay on an ISD against 3 Dreadnaughts.

Would reason be that VSD has only 2 figther squadrons while ISD has 6?

Lord Revan wrote:

Alyeska wrote:I would actualy lay better odds for the VSD against 2 Dreadnaughts then I would lay on an ISD against 3 Dreadnaughts.

Would reason be that VSD has only 2 figther squadrons while ISD has 6?

Reread what I said. The VSD has a higher probability of WINNING then the ISD does.

Alyeska wrote:

Lord Revan wrote:

Alyeska wrote:I would actualy lay better odds for the VSD against 2 Dreadnaughts then I would lay on an ISD against 3 Dreadnaughts.

Would reason be that VSD has only 2 figther squadrons while ISD has 6?

Reread what I said. The VSD has a higher probability of WINNING then the ISD does.

The ISD is about twice as big as The VSD, but has three times figther capacity (6/2=3 and 1600/900=1,77777...). What do think the extra room on VSD is used?

A VSD is a more dedicated warship than the ISD.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:A VSD is a more dedicated warship than the ISD.

Indeed (the extra space on VSD is probaly used by power generation, weapons and/or deflector shields).

That and probably non-fighter hanger space.

Don't VSDs contain loads of concussion missile launchers, too? (80, right?)

Mad wrote:Don't VSDs contain loads of concussion missile launchers, too? (80, right?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't concussion missile launchers weapons?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:That and probably non-fighter hanger space.

VSD has probaly about the same ralative non-figther hangar space as the republic fleet already dedicaded transports(Acclamator-class) so shuttle space on rest of ship doesn't have that large.

Lord Revan wrote:

Mad wrote:Don't VSDs contain loads of concussion missile launchers, too? (80, right?)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't concussion missile launchers weapons?

Uh, yeah, they are.

Lord Revan wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't concussion missile launchers weapons?

Doesn't the "missile launcher" part give it away?

Ok. I see, but the ISD, despite not being a dedicated battleship type weapon, is better than the VSD dedicated?

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Ok. I see, but the ISD, despite not being a dedicated battleship type weapon, is better than the VSD dedicated?

Pound per pound the VSD is a superior platform. However when you consider total combat capability the ISD is superior.

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:Ok. I see, but the ISD, despite not being a dedicated battleship type weapon, is better than the VSD dedicated?

Yeah, basically. While the VSD is indeed better meter for meter compaired to the ISD. It says in the Essential Guide (old one) that the VSD was made for three operations, planetary defense, planetary assault, and ship-to-ship combat. While the VSD is apparently very good at the first two (Hell, look at it's armament, that's enough proof), the last one it was pretty bad at because of it's slow speed and limited fighter capability.

And for a more twisted appeal, it can apparently operate in Atmosphere unlike most ships it's size. That's what I call truly bringing the terror to the enemy.

It can operate in the upper levels of an atmosphere, but that's about it.

Captain_Cyran wrote:Yeah, basically. While the VSD is indeed better meter for meter compaired to the ISD. It says in the Essential Guide (old one) that the VSD was made for three operations, planetary defense, planetary assault, and ship-to-ship combat. While the VSD is apparently very good at the first two (Hell, look at it's armament, that's enough proof), the last one it was pretty bad at because of it's slow speed and limited fighter capability.

And for a more twisted appeal, it can apparently operate in Atmosphere unlike most ships it's size. That's what I call truly bringing the terror to the enemy.

It'd be nice if the EU would thusly stop characterizing the VSD as some obsolete design used only by Espos and backwater fleets.

Frankly, given the age of the Republic, I don't see why starships can't have service lives hundreds of years long. I always thought it would be nice to see X-wings in widespread use as regional defense snubfighters hundreds of years before ANH (yes, I'm well aware of the EU's origin for the X-wing).

BTW, you forget to italicize.

Galvatron wrote:

Captain_Cyran wrote:Yeah, basically. While the VSD is indeed better meter for meter compaired to the ISD. It says in the Essential Guide (old one) that the VSD was made for three operations, planetary defense, planetary assault, and ship-to-ship combat. While the VSD is apparently very good at the first two (Hell, look at it's armament, that's enough proof), the last one it was pretty bad at because of it's slow speed and limited fighter capability.

And for a more twisted appeal, it can apparently operate in Atmosphere unlike most ships it's size. That's what I call truly bringing the terror to the enemy.

It'd be nice if the EU would thusly stop characterizing the VSD as some obsolete design used only by Espos and backwater fleets.

Frankly, given the age of the Republic, I don't see why starships can't have service lives hundreds of years long. I always thought it would be nice to see X-wings in widespread use as regional defense snubfighters hundreds of years before ANH (yes, I'm well aware of the EU's origin for the X-wing).

BTW, you forget to italicize.

You know Galvie, this is the second time I've tried to make reading what I write easy on you guys, I think you've caught me on it both times.

Well, while I do agree that the VSD should really not be considered an obsolete ship. I mean, it does the job of planetary assault very well and is just as good defending.

I think the problem the VSD had was that although it was a good ship, when the ISD was created the VSD was so outdone by the ISD that it was no longer really produced. And the massive amount of money the Empire was putting into the military meant that they weren't going to bother with a VSD when an ISD can be made.

Captain_Cyran wrote:You know Galvie, this is the second time I've tried to make reading what I write easy on you guys, I think you've caught me on it both times.

Your consistent and bizarre use of italics is both unique and distinctive. It also makes what you say look more profound, as if you're quoting some great philosopher. I salute your eccentricities.

Captain_Cyran wrote:I think the problem the VSD had was that although it was a good ship, when the ISD was created the VSD was so outdone by the ISD that it was no longer really produced. And the massive amount of money the Empire was putting into the military meant that they weren't going to bother with a VSD when an ISD can be made.

For the stalwart EU defenders I shall now make mention of the fact that (IIRC) it was suggested in Darksaber that High Admiral Teradoc built a large fleet of new VSDs for some reason. Anyone remember the rationale for this (other than "KJA's a boob!")?