StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The West-End-Games derived sources I've read said that a ISD carries 72 fighters. Given the size of the ISD that figure seems rather small; they could easily devote 1 % of their ships mass to hanger space and fit a few hundred fighters.

Most of the other SW ships seem to have low fighter complements for their volume as well (the only exception coming to mind is the Trade Federation Battleship).

My question is - if these numbers are correct, why do Star Wars ships carry such few fighters? I'm wondering what SDNet's take on this is.

It could be because they're more or less useless in battle. But if so, why do they even use them in fleet enagements? Are fighters proportionately much more expensive than capital ships, given their size? Or, are the official sources wrong about the fighter complements? Or are there dedicated carriers in the Alliance and Imperial Navies with thousands of fighters, that we just don't see on film?

Well, the Venator can carry 280 fighters, as she was a more battleship-carrier hybrid vessel... I guess after the CW, the Empire had plenty enough carriers for the job. The ISD was built more as a jack-of-all-trades vessel. It can do EVERYTHING, just about. Like the Victory-class, the fighter compliment is likely for defensive and support purposes.

AirshipFanboy wrote:The West-End-Games derived sources I've read said that a ISD carries 72 fighters. Given the size of the ISD that figure seems rather small; they could easily devote 1 % of their ships mass to hanger space and fit a few hundred fighters.

Most of the other SW ships seem to have low fighter complements for their volume as well (the only exception coming to mind is the Trade Federation Battleship).

My question is - if these numbers are correct, why do Star Wars ships carry such few fighters? I'm wondering what SDNet's take on this is.

Real life answer: The WEG writers are stupid.
SOD answer: Fighters aren't that useful in battle. They're just support craft, and a capital ship could probably do better by devoting more of its volume to its own combat abilities.

Or, are the official sources wrong about the fighter complements?

Unfortunately, an official source is right unless contradicted by a higher source.

Or are there dedicated carriers in the Alliance and Imperial Navies with thousands of fighters, that we just don't see on film?

That's possible, but without any official sources, it's all speculation. WEG writers have committed even more stupidity by creating dedicated Endurance-class fleet carriers that hold a mere two starfighter wings (72 fighters, if they're Republic-sized).

Gildor wrote:Well, the Venator can carry 280 fighters

They carry 420. 192 V-wings/V-19 Torrents, 192 Eta-2 Actis interceptors (I'm still waiting for an official source to say that clones also flew these, since it's ridiculous for so many Jedi to be on one ship), and 36 ARC-170s.

Oops, that's right. 420 fighters. I don't know how I arrived at 280...

You could watch it as a standard-minimum, which is increased should it become necessary.

Jim Raynor wrote:That's possible, but without any official sources, it's all speculation. WEG writers have committed even more stupidity by creating dedicated Endurance-class fleet carriers that hold a mere two starfighter wings (72 fighters, if they're Republic-sized).

288 fighters. New Class squadrons are 36 fighters per the description of the Corona frigate, and four squadrons make a wing.

Only if that wasn't a single slip inside a single source.

In Darksaber, the Knight Hammer is described as launching dozens to squadrons for fighters, when an Executor Class Star Deradnaught is supposed to only have a dozen squads.

FTeik wrote:Only if that wasn't a single slip inside a single source.

It's stated outright, how can that be a slip? Sure, it's special for the NC vessels, but NR squadrons has also been 6 and 12 fighters at times. *shrug* Plus, A) It doesn't make sense unless you read it that way, and B) It takes TWO entries to make it work. One being the entry for the Corona describing a starfighter squadron as 36 starfighters, and another in the same book detailing the Defender-class Assault Carrier with one wing, four squadrons of fighters. Later we have the entry for the Endurance class in the same book which can take two wings, and the rest is maths.

Well, the only ship I can reacall that is soley for starfighters is the Escort Carrier.

Sadly it's numbers are a act of minimalism. Since it basically is only a big, flying hangar, it should hold at lest 200-300 TIE's.

Tribun wrote:Since it basically is only a big, flying hangar

Well, it also features maintenance and repair facilities. I agree that six squadrons is little for a ship this size though.

nightmare wrote:

FTeik wrote:Only if that wasn't a single slip inside a single source.

It's stated outright, how can that be a slip? Sure, it's special for the NC vessels, but NR squadrons has also been 6 and 12 fighters at times. *shrug* Plus, A) It doesn't make sense unless you read it that way, and B) It takes TWO entries to make it work. One being the entry for the Corona describing a starfighter squadron as 36 starfighters, and another in the same book detailing the Defender-class Assault Carrier with one wing, four squadrons of fighters. Later we have the entry for the Endurance class in the same book which can take two wings, and the rest is maths.

No it is not. Not if the squadrons of contemporary designs like the Defender-Assault-Carrier and Endurance-Carrier have 12 fighters per squadron and not 36. And as far as i know the DAC carries only 72 fighters and the Endurance 144.

FTeik wrote:

nightmare wrote:

FTeik wrote:Only if that wasn't a single slip inside a single source.

It's stated outright, how can that be a slip? Sure, it's special for the NC vessels, but NR squadrons has also been 6 and 12 fighters at times. *shrug* Plus, A) It doesn't make sense unless you read it that way, and B) It takes TWO entries to make it work. One being the entry for the Corona describing a starfighter squadron as 36 starfighters, and another in the same book detailing the Defender-class Assault Carrier with one wing, four squadrons of fighters. Later we have the entry for the Endurance class in the same book which can take two wings, and the rest is maths.

No it is not. Not if the squadrons of contemporary designs like the Defender-Assault-Carrier and Endurance-Carrier have 12 fighters per squadron and not 36. And as far as i know the DAC carries only 72 fighters and the Endurance 144.

I'm inclined to consider the original source to be the most correct one for ships invented and listed in the same source unless specifically overridden by later sources and decidedly and outlandish. In this case, it's the opposite, regardless of silly illustrations in Cracken's Threat Dossier. So tell me, where does anything say that the Defender has 48 fighters and the Endurance 144?

The ISD is not an AC. It's a "big universal flying WAAH ship", intended for police domination of the Galaxy, countering various rag-tag forces (Rebels, pirates, etc). So why should it have more fighters? Why should it have bigger hangar? And why should it not have more descent troops instead of fighters in hangar space?
~EDIT: and given the fact that's like 20 years since the last war, the fighter complements for ISD may not be dictated by it's actual technical capacity, rather by simple common sense.

It's worth noting that the fighters of the clone wars era were more utilitarian, and smaller. A TIE is considerably bigger, especially vertically, than a V-wing or even jedi fighter.

I think the troop capacity and fighter capacity of the ISD is just WEG stupidity, it could carry massively more of both while using only tiny portions of its volume. One fucking mile long provides you with an absurd amount of space. The incredibly space inefficient hanger arrangements shown by ICS are even more annoying.

Sea Skimmer wrote:I think the troop capacity and fighter capacity of the ISD is just WEG stupidity, it could carry massively more of both while using only tiny portions of its volume. One fucking mile long provides you with an absurd amount of space. The incredibly space inefficient hanger arrangements shown by ICS are even more annoying.

NecronLord wrote:It's worth noting that the fighters of the clone wars era were more utilitarian, and smaller. A TIE is considerably bigger, especially vertically, than a V-wing or even jedi fighter.

And if you look at ICS, you'll see that the hanger bays shown for them have extreamly high ceilings, twice as high as is needed. Look at a real carrier and there lucky to have a couple inches of spare height, because anything more is a waste of space and material.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Sea Skimmer wrote:I think the troop capacity and fighter capacity of the ISD is just WEG stupidity, it could carry massively more of both while using only tiny portions of its volume. One fucking mile long provides you with an absurd amount of space. The incredibly space inefficient hanger arrangements shown by ICS are even more annoying.

NecronLord wrote:It's worth noting that the fighters of the clone wars era were more utilitarian, and smaller. A TIE is considerably bigger, especially vertically, than a V-wing or even jedi fighter.

And if you look at ICS, you'll see that the hanger bays shown for them have extreamly high ceilings, twice as high as is needed. Look at a real carrier and there lucky to have a couple inches of spare height, because anything more is a waste of space and material.

The height of the ceiling may be related to the need to move fighters around inside the space for launching ect. its hightly possible that the space is needed because, unlike a wet carrier the hanger deck also happens to be the launch area.

nightmare wrote:I'm inclined to consider the original source to be the most correct one for ships invented and listed in the same source unless specifically overridden by later sources and decidedly and outlandish. In this case, it's the opposite, regardless of silly illustrations in Cracken's Threat Dossier. So tell me, where does anything say that the Defender has 48 fighters and the Endurance 144?

Actually, that section reflects off the BFC series, which means BFC should have priority. K-Wing squadrons are IIRC 18 strong (presumably to get a triangular bombing pattern) and E-Wing 12 strong.

I guess I should be trying to be generous, because I should be hating minimalism, but somehow when I talk about the NR, I feel an urge to be a minimalist on them - maybe I just hate them. There is simply no way to make them a decent size, so I might as well shrink them to nothingness to emphasize their stupidity and incompetence...

Hmm. Well, more evidence for altering squadron sizes. I guess I leave things be; you can decide for yourself what you want to consider likely.

Think about it this way; do you really care that the WEG writers were minimalist? If you do care, then it's an issue, otherwise it isn't. Ditto for what you need the numbers for.

(Ex: If using the numbers for the purposes of roleplaying games; the need for game balance is the stated rationale for a lot of the game mechanics of Wizards of the Coast's Star Wars RPG, even at the expense of accuracy -- albeit they have posted a ton of revisions in the Jedi Counseling column intended to reflect Episode III, such as Obi-Wan being the first undisputably "heroic NPC" victim of a Force choke.)

Speaking of what Jim Raynor's SOD explanation, I think that (ironically) if you disbelieve the "Rebel propaganda" that supposedly is the X-Wing series, then the SOD rationale works. Ex post facto, but beats having no explanation, especially if you're not rationalizing it for the purpose of arguing it.

Edward Yee wrote:Think about it this way; do you really care that the WEG writers were minimalist? If you do care, then it's an issue, otherwise it isn't. Ditto for what you need the numbers for.

I do. I understand that they drew up those numbers for roleplaying, and it is fine. The problem is that no one in LFL seems to get it. All those WEG stats tend to become the truth.

Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:I do. I understand that they drew up those numbers for roleplaying, and it is fine.

For roleplaying-with-numbers-and-rules games, there's a big difference -- the WOTC assumption is that canonicity is less relevant than having fun, and sometimes the only way to run a small-group "wargame" is to abstract a lot (the idea that minimalism is necessary for wargaming if there are few players, unless the gamemaster stacks a lot of advantageous numbers on the players' side as well, because the players themselves can only do so much), but a consideration that doesn't exist in canon but only in game rules is the game-rules viability of picking anything else but the best. (i.e. an artificial division between "consular" and "guardian"-type Jedi, as well as the assumption that a Jedi is knighted at 7th level.)

Then again, this is the sort of thing that promotes "loot the bodies!" mentalities... "Hey, gimme that! I'm not dead!"

The problem is that no one in LFL seems to get it. All those WEG stats tend to become the truth.

A self-propagating Internet meme... *sigh* Consider me once-upon-a-time guilty thereof following the numbers; not because they were easier to crunch but because they were simply so much more noticeable.

I handle alot of that when GMing if they start that kind of stuff is to start having lots og gammorans go after them. After all they only have those axes that nobody wants for a while.

nightmare wrote:

Jim Raynor wrote:That's possible, but without any official sources, it's all speculation. WEG writers have committed even more stupidity by creating dedicated Endurance-class fleet carriers that hold a mere two starfighter wings (72 fighters, if they're Republic-sized).

288 fighters. New Class squadrons are 36 fighters per the description of the Corona frigate, and four squadrons make a wing.

432 actually. (12 * 36 = 432) Which makes it about the equivlent of the earlier Venator.