StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Is there any SW ships that have exelent firepower, but little to no battlefield durability and they must rely on other ships to take the punishment or the first salvo to disable and/or destroy the enemy?

really the B-wing. It was made to destroy Star Destroyers but it really cant defend itself to well.

if your asking what i think your asking in the same terms you can say the Star Destroyers have excellent firepower but without its TIEs and other Destroyers it cant really protect itself from Snub fighters and other capital ships

Frigates...not ISDs. While there is a picture of it destroying ISD, that's the same as saying we should accept Stormtroopers had hand held shields and swords.

And there is the inherent problem that if they can utilitze that amount of firepower with guns on a captial ship level, there is a limit given they still need to deal with recoil.

Ghost Rider wrote:Frigates...not ISDs. While there is a picture of it destroying ISD, that's the same as saying we should accept Stormtroopers had hand held shields and swords.

And there is the inherent problem that if they can utilitze that amount of firepower with guns on a captial ship level, there is a limit given they still need to deal with recoil.

And the picture is from The Battle Of Endor after all which is B-Wings WITH Capitol Ship support.


I would figure that the Endor B-Wings were trying not to use they ordinance in order to save the torpedoes for a possible attack on the Death Star.

Actually ISDs aren't a fish out of dry water wthout it's fighters (the VnSD aren't and they have a much larger fighter compliment so there's no reason to assume the ISDs would be) and they have reasonble good combat durability (it takes about 30 mins for MonCal Cruisers to destroy ISDs and a VnSD took a broadside from the Invisible Hand and survived.

A modern Supercarrier is good example of what I mean, they have massive firepower in the form of their fighter, but need a reasonble large fleet to escort them as they wouldn't survive a ship-to-ship encounter (or any other form of combat where the carrier takes hits)

Hapan ships? IIRC, they've got sucky recharge times for their guns, so just have to go batshit insane with an opening volley and pray whatever's on the other side doesn't survive....

Well, going back to the analogy of the modern supercarrier, there are pure carrier ships in Star Wars they require escort. I forget the technical designation, but many of the Star Wars computer games (TIE Fighter in particular) utilizes the Imperial Escort Carrier, which can carry a large load of fighters, but lacks much in the way of protection.

Lord Revan wrote:Is there any SW ships that have exelent firepower, but little to no battlefield durability and they must rely on other ships to take the punishment or the first salvo to disable and/or destroy the enemy?

The Munificent-class star frigate can be seen as one of these. Its main gun can fire a shot powerful enough to take out a 10-km battlestation, but it then requires 20 minutes to recharge the capacitor to full, assuming it puts no power to anything else.

And the Flurry from Bakura. A modified Quasar Fire cruiser IIRC. Anyhow, basically a small bridge closely followed by a huge hangar bay. Actually, that's an awful design, as the bay was all open and pointing forwards. But I digress.

The Lancer clas has excellent anti-starfighter combat ability, but crumples like tinfoil against a capship.

Coyote wrote:The Lancer clas has excellent anti-starfighter combat ability, but crumples like tinfoil against a capship.

How effect was it really though? Do we see any direct evidence of it wiping out large numbers of starfighters in combat?

The Lancer relies on low wattage cannons with a hight rate of fire wich can track a fast vessel. This makes it nearly useless against anything larger then a Corvette.

Well the Lancer is frigate (IIRC) so even if it had proper anti-capship weapons it would be able to deal with anything bigger then a frigate (one step above a corvette) one-on-one

The Lancer is at frigate class, but part of the backstory on it is that the cannons are too weak for anything other than starfighters-- I guess in theory even a Corellian Gunship or a Corvette could give it trouble. It definitely is supposed to be near-useless against any capship.

The Lancer is an odd vessel-- it has numerous low-wattage cannons and is rather small, but supposedly costs as much as a ISD (although this is a WEG backstory, so be warned), hence they weren't built in great enough numbers ot counter the Rebel's fighter superiority. But they have docking space big enough for two shuttles only, and no other suport ships, so I guess the targeting system and othjer electonics are supposed to be what jacks up the price. No satisfactory answer is given (that I found) for the Lancer to be so expensive.

But the damn thing is 100% one-trick-pony.

Coyote wrote:The Lancer is an odd vessel-- it has numerous low-wattage cannons and is rather small, but supposedly costs as much as a ISD (although this is a WEG backstory, so be warned)

And yet one more reason to hate all things WEG...

Lancer = 250 meters
ISD = 1600 meters

Lancer = cost of ISD?

You'd think they could just build a version with less expensive electronics, yeah.

You know, I always just figured the Empire could easily replace a few of those quad-laser emplacements with turbolasers to at least make the Lancer's capable of defending themselves. Always thought the the whole "it only fights fighters and needs a protector ALWAYS" was just more WEG stupidity.

The fact that cost is a factor is stupidf fin of itself... One of the things WEG goes back too time and again is:

"Well, this WOULD have been better then something the Rebels already have... But it was too expensive so The Empire didn't make many"

HELLO??? This is the Empire? The people who made a Death Star! You think the cost of things like Lancers and TIE-Defenders really matter?

The Original Nex wrote:You know, I always just figured the Empire could easily replace a few of those quad-laser emplacements with turbolasers to at least make the Lancer's capable of defending themselves. Always thought the the whole "it only fights fighters and needs a protector ALWAYS" was just more WEG stupidity.

Not necessarily, ships with purely AA and no real anti surface or ASW armament where fairly common as convoy escorts in WW2, in the Allied fleets anyway. They tended to be conversions rather then purpose built ships though.

If they could have a Lancer studded with anti-fighter point defense quad-laser emplacements, why can't they cover an Imperator-class ship with those weapons? There's probably a limit to the effectiveness of point-defense guns, which is why they don't simply mount them by the gazillion, right?

Crossroads Inc. wrote:The fact that cost is a factor is stupidf fin of itself... One of the things WEG goes back too time and again is:

"Well, this WOULD have been better then something the Rebels already have... But it was too expensive so The Empire didn't make many"

HELLO??? This is the Empire? The people who made a Death Star! You think the cost of things like Lancers and TIE-Defenders really matter?

Never mind the stupidity about anythign having a prohibitive cost when it's a galactic government that makes Death Stars.. the whole idea that Imperial starfighters were inferior to Rebel fighters is a damn brainbug in and of itself. Judging from the movie visuals alone, the whole idea that TIEs are less durable than Rebel fighters doesn't gel, but they don't really seem more maneuverable either. Performance-wise they're not that disparate.

The whole "disposable fighter" idea is incredibly stupid anyway. It doesn't make sense for the Galactic Empire to field anything less than the best it can, regardless of the role, whether it's moon-sized planet-killing battle stations, capital ships or starfighters.

Ypoknons wrote:How effect was it really though? Do we see any direct evidence of it wiping out large numbers of starfighters in combat?

I've only read one Lancer vs Fighter battle. The Lancer was destroyed and the fighter group suffered no losses. Of course this was an X-Wing book and if I recall correctly Corran Horn was involved so take it with a grain of salt.

Raxmei wrote:

Ypoknons wrote:How effect was it really though? Do we see any direct evidence of it wiping out large numbers of starfighters in combat?

I've only read one Lancer vs Fighter battle. The Lancer was destroyed and the fighter group suffered no losses. Of course this was an X-Wing book and if I recall correctly Corran Horn was involved so take it with a grain of salt.

About a metric ton's worth. As I recall Corran didn't even get HIT during his attack run.

~20 anti-starfighter cannons. All firing at one inbound X-wing. No hits.

The mind self-destructs trying to understand.

Kuja wrote:
About a metric ton's worth. As I recall Corran didn't even get HIT during his attack run.

~20 anti-starfighter cannons. All firing at one inbound X-wing. No hits.

The mind self-destructs trying to understand.

Presumbly not 20 guns seeing as some must have been the other side of the frigate. And the x-wing was dodging like crazy and wan't trying to anything other than dodge.

Although I know it's a matter of game mechanics, Lancers can be reasonably effective on transport escort duty in Star Wars: Rebellion.

Crazedwraith wrote:

Kuja wrote:
About a metric ton's worth. As I recall Corran didn't even get HIT during his attack run.

~20 anti-starfighter cannons. All firing at one inbound X-wing. No hits.

The mind self-destructs trying to understand.

Presumbly not 20 guns seeing as some must have been the other side of the frigate. And the x-wing was dodging like crazy and wan't trying to anything other than dodge.

And? So? Therefore?


The Lancer failed at its primary purpose: it couldn't shoot down a single fighter coming right in at it. Even with only half the guns being brought to bear, Horn's X-wing should've been shredded.