StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Posted: **2004-11-09 03:10pm**

MC40, MC80, MC80a, MC80b, MC90 and what came next?

Posted: **2004-11-09 03:48pm**

Mediator-class Battle Cruisers, and Viscount-class "Star Defenders" (a battleship or dreadnought type).

Posted: **2004-11-09 04:00pm**

There was also an MC-18 - though this was light freighter as opposed to the massive capships commonly thought of with the designation.

Posted: **2004-11-09 04:40pm**

The Original Nex wrote:Mediator-class Battle Cruisers, and Viscount-class "Star Defenders" (a battleship or dreadnought type).

The Mediators, I belive I saw a number in that book Vector Prime stating the ship was 2800 meters long, but I haven't seen that number on Curtis Saxton homepage.

Posted: **2004-11-09 05:38pm**

Here's what VP has to say about the Mediator and Viscount class ships:

...the battlecruiser was an impressive warship, an updated more heavily armed and armored version of of teh Mon Calamari star cruiser...(pg 4).

That's the only discription of the Mediator in the book. It doesn't really give a hint of size, but the fact that it's repeatedly reffered to as "the great ship," or "the grand battle cruiser" leads me to believe that it's significantly larger than the MC80s and MC90s (2800m is plausible).

The VP has this to say about Viscount:

Like all Mon Calamari ships this one was unique, an artwork, sleek and flowing, and ultimately deadly. It was the largest ship ever produced on that watery world, nearly twice the size of the battlecruiser they had left behind...(pg 77-78 )

This quote provides much more information on the scale of both the Mediator and the Viscount. It says the Viscount was

the largest ship ever produced on that watery world

. If we assume the Home One held the previous record, it places the lower limit of the Viscount's length at ~3.9km. It goes on to say that it was

nearly twice the size of the battlecruiser they had left behind

. So that gives us a lower limit on the Mediator's length: ~1.9km.

Granted, the Viscount's role later in the series has it fighting in the same role as a SSD therefore I would place it's size much larger, maybe around 10km or so. That would make the Mediator about a kilometer longer than Home One (almost 5km), which makes sense given its battlecruiser designation. As to not make the Mediator too large, I would say it would be no larger than 5.2km, which likewise fixes Viscount's length at no more than 10.4km.

So I tentatively say that the Mediator is >1.9km and <5.3km. Viscount is >3.8km and <10.5km.

Posted: **2004-11-09 05:57pm**

Here's another one of my Mediator/Viscount rants, and some more assertions I've brought in the past re: MC ships over at TOS (some of this is kinda redundant with the above post, but there's some other stuff mixed in

).

There was some talk in the fav Cap Ship thread regarding the Viscount-class Star Defender.

We actually know very little about this ship. Only that it's very big, very beautiful and packs quite a wallop.

Mon Calamari ships pose a big size issue. The generic term "Mon Cal Cruiser" seems to be used colloquially for Mon Cal ships as the term "Star Destroyer" is with KDY warships.

WEG figures state that MC-80, 80a, and 80b subclasses are 1200meters long. This is clearly not the whole truth. The MC80-type ships at Endor range in size from 1.5km (the Liberty-class) to 3.8km (the Home One-class). There's also several other Star Destroyer sized wingless classes of MC Cruisers present at Endor.

If so-called "MC80" cruisers can range in size from 1-4km why are they all classed the same?

"Vector Prime" introduces two new Mon Cal warships into the picture. The Mediator-class Battlecruiser and the Viscount-class Star Defender.

The Mediator is said to be; "an updated and more heavily armed and armored version of the Mon Calamari Star Cruiser." This could mean several things. It's ISD sized (as "generic" MC Cruisers are) and has a higher armament and armor. Or it's Home One sized with a larger armament and armor. Seeing as it's a "battlecruiser" the latter is more likely. The Mediator can be presumed at least 4km long, with more armor and weapons than the Home One.

The Viscount must be of considerable size considering the awe Jaina expresses upon seeing it (she's must have seen hundreds of other warships in her life-time, so this one must be exceptional). VP says this: "Like all Mon Calamari ships, this one was unique, an artwork, sleek and flowing, and ultimately deadly. It was the largest ship ever produced on that watery world, nearly twice the size of the battle cruiser they had left behind on Osarian...."

Using our lower limit for Mediator's size, we can determine with reasonable certainty that Viscount is at least 8km long. It seems the New Republic is trying to make their own version of the Empire's infamous Executor-class ships the NR has been using as command ships (Lusankya and Guardian).

The MC-40 is 600 meters long and is called a "light cruiser" though it's true designation should be frigate.

The MC-90 is widely pegged at 1200meters like the MC80 ships. but, since MC80 ships seem to range from 1000-4000meters why can't the MC90's do the same? MC90s ought to be bigger anyways considering they already have perfectly competant MC80's for that combat role, MC90's should be larger. Especially since in TUF Harbinger (an MC90) is one of the main defense ships at Mon Calamari, leading its own battle fleet alongside behemoths like Guardian and Viscount.

Posted: **2004-11-09 06:10pm**

Wow thank guys. I take it the Mediator would be able to stand up to the Allegiance star destroyer and perhaps some sub class above it.

If the Viscount is up to 8 km in size given their redundancy systems and all, I do wonder how it would last against a SSD. Can only speculate.

Posted: **2004-11-09 06:16pm**

The Original Nex wrote:Mediator-class Battle Cruisers, and Viscount-class "Star Defenders" (a battleship or dreadnought type).

Mediator was MC100 wasn't it?

Posted: **2004-11-09 08:24pm**

Praxis wrote:
The Original Nex wrote:Mediator-class Battle Cruisers, and Viscount-class "Star Defenders" (a battleship or dreadnought type).
Mediator was MC100 wasn't it?

*shrugs* It's never specified, though it would make sense. Later sources designate it Mediator-class Battlecruiser rather than assigning it an MC code.

Posted: **2004-11-10 02:45am**

Dark Primus wrote:MC40, MC80, MC80a, MC80b, MC90 and what came next?

Do any of these belong to the three ship-types seen in ROTJ?

Posted: **2004-11-10 12:29pm**

VT-16 wrote:
Dark Primus wrote:MC40, MC80, MC80a, MC80b, MC90 and what came next?
Do any of these belong to the three ship-types seen in ROTJ?

MC80s all, according to fluff.

Posted: **2004-11-10 12:53pm**

Going by the official pictures as shown by WEG's old sourcebooks, none of the cruisers at Endor would be MC80-type. The Liberty, Home One and Anonymous Wingless classes are all too big.

Posted: **2004-11-10 01:37pm**

Are they too big or do they look different than the pics in the WEG sourcebooks?

If it´s just a matter of size-issues, that can be approached like the issue with the Executor´s length. In other words, the names are correct but the sizes follow that of the movie.

Posted: **2004-11-10 04:17pm**

phongn wrote:Going by the official pictures as shown by WEG's old sourcebooks, none of the cruisers at Endor would be MC80-type. The Liberty, Home One and Anonymous Wingless classes are all too big.

The New and Old EGVV state that Home One was an MC80, and it was 4 kilometers long. If WEG stats are to be accepted, then we have to assume that Mon Cal ships have great size variations within their given classes. We could always interpret that the 1200m figure is the most common length, or perhaps an overall average.

Posted: **2004-11-11 11:51pm**

Well correct me if im wrong but Mon Cal ships are all individually made with no standardization on those lumps and stuff. It could be that Mon Cal cruisers are classified by thier engine types and stuff like that over their size

Posted: **2004-11-12 02:23am**

I think only three standard models were used in ROTJ, so they should at least give each of these their own class-names.

Mon Cal ships are all individually made with no standardization on those lumps and stuff.

That´s what´s so stupid about this "unique"-label, people watching the film can clearly make out three kinds of ships over and over again. So they do warrant individual classnames, regardless of EU lore.

Posted: **2004-11-12 04:17pm**

Tychu wrote:Well correct me if im wrong but Mon Cal ships are all individually made with no standardization on those lumps and stuff. It could be that Mon Cal cruisers are classified by thier engine types and stuff like that over their size

Then why did WEG classify all the MC Warships in RotJ as "MC-80s?"

IMHO, the Winged Cruisers should be in their own class, the Un-winged Cruisers should have their own class (if not several, since there are at least two types) and the "Home One" type should have its own class.

Given that newer MC ships have actual class names, neads me to believe that the "MC" designation is more of a serial number rather than a class name, which could nicely retcon this WEG mistake.

Posted: **2004-11-12 05:35pm**

in my opinion Mon Cal ships are named for their engine types

MC-80 may very well be using engines that the Mon Cal called 80 for whatever reason

Posted: **2004-11-12 06:05pm**

in my opinion Mon Cal ships are named for their engine types

But if the rest of the hulls vary in shape and function, won´t that cause a problem?

Posted: **2004-11-12 06:11pm**

Isnt there precedent in the EU for all Mon Calamari ships being built slightly differently? I'm sure I remember reading a quote which said they were all slightly different somewhere, although it might have been one of KJA's pieces.

If they are all based upon a similar component like a power core or engine group and differ only in the design of each hull, then maybe each one gives off a similar power signature, enabling it to be identified as an MC Whatever.

Posted: **2004-11-12 06:44pm**

The more I think about it, the more the "MC" seems to be a serial number rather than an actual class designation.

Like "R2-D2" and "C-3P0" are merely prefixes for really, really long serial codes, I'm betting that the "MC-80" etc. is just that, a designation, a serial identification code, rather than the actual name of the class of ship. Tychu's idea works with that as well. MC-80 ships could well use different components than MC-90s, MC-40s and so on, marking a further difference in serial code.

IMO the the further "apart" the serial codes are signifying a new series of design more broad than class designation.

This would allow both the "MC" and the class names to remain valid, with the "MC" being the prefix to an identification serial code, and the class name being just that, a more formal name for a specific type of ship.

Posted: **2004-11-12 07:57pm**

I seem to remember something about a MC-104 Odysseus from somewhere.

Posted: **2004-11-13 05:11pm**

Aquatain wrote:I seem to remember something about a MC-104 Odysseus from somewhere.

Google is your friend.

All sources I see note the Odysseus as definitely non-canon.

Posted: **2004-11-13 06:53pm**

Ah there it is..could't Remember where i saw that name.

Posted: **2004-11-17 04:24pm**

Wasnt the dauntless mentioned in NJO? I never found out who made it. Or what the stats are from most of the shis from NJO.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What came after the MC90?

What came after the MC90?

Re: What came after the MC90?

Re: What came after the MC90?