Victory-SD Firepower

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

I'd imagine their 'official' firepower would be rather impressive, if not quite BDZ level.

Aren't even Acclamators able to perform a BDZ? Or am I confusing something?

[Vanas]

Really? I haven't got the AotC ICS, so can't say.

*one re-write later*

I'd imagine their 'official' firepower would be rather impressive, if a few notches down from the ISD I

[Imperator Galacticus]

BDZ operations are mentioned at the bottom of the Acclamator page, so it's quite possible Saxton was implying that an Acclamator (or fleet of) is capable of BDZ.

Also, I recall Mike Wong's minimalist BDZ calculations placed an ISD's TLs around 22 gigatons, so even at the very least an Acclamator can accomplish a similar feat.

[Firefox]

This site seems to have good images of various CW-era ships (though some are fairly inaccurate, i.e. two-engined Venator). Plus, there's a size comparison chart showing various ships, including a hypothetical Mandator class Star Dreadnought.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Oh yea, was just looking at that the other day, I have the Warlords Plugin for my Mac (sadly only the orginal version) It lets me play with Victories as 'Real' as I'm ever going to get

Also... I'm curious where he got that image of the Mandator from...

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Tangent: Would this be the "humpbacked cruiser" from the DE comics?

[Firefox]

I wouldn't be too surprised. It's a bit angular, but is probably an interpretation of the DE design.

[Connor MacLeod]

Ok,

While they do not seem to be favourites among everyone, I personally am quite fond of the old Victories. And, while not shown in the last StarWars film, they are at least casually mentioned in the RotS-ICS book. As such, the Question I pose to you is what sort of fire-power did they have?

There’s never a good image of them, so we never get to see what sort of guns they \, but I would imagine they have two banks of four TurboLasers as All SD type ships possessed. Obviously less powerful then the big guns on an ISD-I, but perhaps slightly stronger then those on the Venator Ships.

However, does anyone have any idea of a more substantial list of their overall weapons and what class they are?

Depends on the model. The WEG version presumably doesn't carry the sorts of heavy turrets that a 'canon' warship of that design ought to, but we might infer that the 10 "quad' TLs. The 40 other TL presumably are a more intermediate battery against smaller targets (frigates, corvettes, etc..

According to the ROTS ICS, actual warships should be able to divert nearly all of their available reactor power into their heavy guns (in this case, I'm presuming the 10 quad TLs are the heavy guns. This might be s upported by the fact that the WEG stats list the quads as being mounted on the "sides" - akin to the "flank mounted" heavy turrets in other warships.)

While the Venator and Victory are said to have (roughly) comparable firepower, the Victory also has a protruding ventral bulb that the Venator lacks, suggesting that the Victory's reactor is larger. Scaling them out relative to ship dimensions (using the ICS for the Venator and the WEG/EGV&V schematic for the Victory) suggests the Venator's reactor is around 100-120 meters in diameter, whereas the Victory's is at least 140-150 meters in diamater.) Comparison of approximate reactor volume suggests that the Victory may have anywhere from 58% more power generation capability to more than 3 times the power generation capability. Given the ROTS statements, I'm inclined to lean closer towards the "58%" end of the scale (though having say twice the power generation capability of the Venator is not unreasonable either.)

Power generation is probably then at least 5.7e24 watts.. or 5.7e23 watts per quad battery (the Venator by comparison has eight turrets.. about 4.5e23 watts per turret/battery.) This doesn't account for the "per-barrel" difference (eight twin guns on the Veantor versus 10 quad guns on the Victory), but this does not neccesarily signify anything (ISD-1 twin turrets vs ISD-2 octets)

[Firefox]

There's something that's always nagged me concerning the VicStar's design. I've wondered where and in what configuration the heavy turrets are located. I've always assumed they were in a place analagous to the eight heavy turrets on the Imperator class, but there's nothing to indicate their existence.

Could the existence of those large wing-like wedges have some relation to the turrets? Also, what's your take on the VicStar's acceleration performance compared with the Venator?

[Captain Cyran]

Could the existence of those large wing-like wedges have some relation to the turrets? Also, what's your take on the VicStar's acceleration performance compared with the Venator?

WEG states that the Victory is too slow to keep up with most ships, hence being put on planetary defense and assault (Of course, wouldn't the majority of fights be this? So why would that be such a bad thing like WEG says it is? Stupid WEG...) So I'd assume the Venator is a faster ship.

Being a slower ship wouldn't that also mean that a VicStar has the capability to put more energy into shields and weapons on a constant than a Venator?

[Crossroads Inc.]

I have always doubted the issue that the Victory-SD was slower then other SD, it just didn't make sense, and was yet another one of those WEG brainbugs.

As for the winglits, I really don't think they would do anything to help Fly it in an atmosphere, considering all flying is done with Repulsor lifts anyways. I always thought they held banks of extra Capital ship turrets.

[Connor MacLeod]

Either the turrets are there and the artwork doesnt show them (possible, since the schematics in books liek the EG and such have had some flaws and differ from "canon' drawing in some regards), or they are internally mounted or "retracted" (the latter being more like the guns on a Trade Fed battleship.) Perhaps they're trench moutned (the Acclamators carried some of its heavy guns in the trenches as well as in the traditional "dorsal flank" mounting.)

As for speed/mass? Its slower than an ISD and probably a Venator (the two of them seem to be comparable in terms of acceleration.) I suspect the VSD is more massive than the Venator (and it simply lacks the raw reactor output of an ISD) The "slow speeD" might be due to the VSD-1's "missile heavy" nature.. it carries 80 concussion missiles (which, given that a single volley can knock out the shields of an ISD or MC-80, suggests that the missile yields greater than an ISD's sustained output. However, this also makes such warheads VERY massive, and carrying hundreds of such missiles could contrribute alot of mass to the ship.)

Note that the VSD-2 is *probalbly* as fast as an ISD and Venator, despite having the same approximate volume as the VSD-1. Its possible (though unlikely) the VSD-2 has greater power generation than the VSD-1, but its also possible (actually more likely) that the icnrease in acceleration was due to the removal of the VSD-1's missile capacity.

[Connor MacLeod]

I have always doubted the issue that the Victory-SD was slower then other SD, it just didn't make sense, and was yet another one of those WEG brainbugs.

As for the winglits, I really don't think they would do anything to help Fly it in an atmosphere, considering all flying is done with Repulsor lifts anyways. I always thought they held banks of extra Capital ship turrets.

The VSD as a very HEAVY missile capacity. At a minimum, the a single "heavy" missile volley we know it capable of can knock down the shields of an ISD, which would require each missile to mass (based on the amount of reactant for the warheads alone) 55,000 tons (and thats disregarding propulsion and fuel for the missiles, guidance/shielding, ignoring probable heat sink capacity for an ISD, ignoring the number of reloads, and assuming 100% efficiency of the reactants) Its quite possible for the missiles to account for a substantial portion of a warship's overall mass.

[The Original Nex]

Tangent: Would this be the "humpbacked cruiser" from the DE comics?

Proabably, the SWR guys seem to be very pro-Saxton, taking and using alot of his "anonymous" ships, naming them, and implementing them into the game.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

Nex and Firefox: Thanks. And neat. I always liked that ship's design.

One more question, then I'll drop the tangent. Have they given a name for that class yet? I might have missed it, but all I saw were some indecipherable filenames, like "implac6". Imperial Large Anonymous Cruiser is all I can get out of that, but even if that's right it doesn't help.

[The Original Nex]

Nex and Firefox: Thanks. And neat. I always liked that ship's design.

One more question, then I'll drop the tangent. Have they given a name for that class yet? I might have missed it, but all I saw were some indecipherable filenames, like "implac6". Imperial Large Anonymous Cruiser is all I can get out of that, but even if that's right it doesn't help.

It seems to be "under development" for a future mod, and unnamed.

[Firefox]

I agree that the VicStar is likely a slower ship, despite possessing a larger reactor. Aside from the mass disparity, the engines on the Venator seem larger, and more powerful, enabling greater acceleration. The VicStar's definitely more of a gun- and missile-ship, trading speed for firepower (as I'd postulated before). If appeal were to factor into it, they're apples and oranges, given their different roles.

Meanwhile, I'm still iffy on how to display (or not) the heavy armament. Either the turrets are trench-mounted/retracted, or they're not represented by WEG stats, and I hate making a choice in these matters, as I'd like to produce the best representation of the ship.

... This is probably going off on a tangent anyway, so I should probably start a thread in AMP.

[Firefox]

it carries 80 concussion missiles (which, given that a single volley can knock out the shields of an ISD or MC-80, suggests that the missile yields greater than an ISD's sustained output. However, this also makes such warheads VERY massive, and carrying hundreds of such missiles could contrribute alot of mass to the ship.)

Is that 80 missiles or 80 missile tubes? I don't have the EG, so I don't know the exact armament quote. When you mentioned a heavy missile load, I immediately thought of the huge torpedoes carried by the Acclamator. Is that what you meant?

[President Sharky]

The latest WOTC stats for the VicStar-I stated that it is armed with 80 missiles, arranged into 20 launch tubes.

[Vanas]

One thought about the 'wings' on the VSD series.

In Warlords, the 'wings' on the VSD I (facing >|-|<) seem to have equipment on the inner faces. I vaguely recall them looking like they were missile tubes. If not, possibly some of the repulsor banks?
The VSD II, notably lacking the missiles, has it's wings 'the other way round' (like <|-|>), and the ISD engine arrangement but I dunno if the VSD II has atmospheric capability.

(There's also a modified Victory, withut any wings, that's pretty much a modern ISD)

[Firefox]

(There's also a modified Victory, withut any wings, that's pretty much a modern ISD)

Where was this from?

[Vanas]

Here's one

To be honest, no idea where they're from, I've not really looked into the EU and i don't think it mentions on his site where they're from.

[Firefox]

I'd like to see where it's from myself, since I've never seen a wingless VSD (there's a similar ship shown on SWTC, from DE, however).

[Vanas]

Considering that most background ships seem to be in this mod, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one of them, really.

[Connor MacLeod]

it carries 80 concussion missiles (which, given that a single volley can knock out the shields of an ISD or MC-80, suggests that the missile yields greater than an ISD's sustained output. However, this also makes such warheads VERY massive, and carrying hundreds of such missiles could contrribute alot of mass to the ship.)

Is that 80 missiles or 80 missile tubes? I don't have the EG, so I don't know the exact armament quote. When you mentioned a heavy missile load, I immediately thought of the huge torpedoes carried by the Acclamator. Is that what you meant?

80 missiles, as I recall. And for all we know these warheads could be as large (or lager) than the missiles an Acclamator uses. (It takes alot of reactant to generate the energies required for SW combat, especially for a "one shot trick" like a missile.)