Republican vs Imperial fleet stragety

[Van Owen]

I've frequently wondered if the Republic had a better idea in splitting its main functions between three classes of ships, the Victory star Destroyer, Venator carrier, and Acclamator transports. It seems the Empire is putting too many eggs into one basket with the ISD, which IMHO leads to their constant losses, as the ISD becomes a target for all the Rebel starfighters. The more roles you assign a vessel, the less good at any single one of them it becomes as a rule. With the improved technology the Empire had at its control, I think advanced versions of the specialist ships might have given them an edge.

[The Guid]

The fewer classes or variations of ship you have though the easier it is to mass produce and train for.

[Noble Ire]

It seems the Empire is putting too many eggs into one basket with the ISD, which IMHO leads to their constant losses

What "constant losses"?

[Mr Bean]

I've frequently wondered if the Republic had a better idea in splitting its main functions between three classes of ships, the Victory star Destroyer, Venator carrier, and Acclamator transports. It seems the Empire is putting too many eggs into one basket with the ISD.

It IS strickley speaking a better idea to have diverse forces, each excelling in their own field, rather then one jack of all trades ship.

That said the ISD is designed for a reason. That being its a first responder ship, its the ship you use to show the flag as it were. It can garrison a city, fight down a pirate attack (Unless those Pirates have dreadnaughts or other capships which seems to be rare.)
And if nessary glass a world all on their own.

which IMHO leads to their constant losses, as the ISD becomes a target for all the Rebel starfighters.

Which outside of the semi-wank X-wing novels are few and far between

The more roles you assign a vessel, the less good at any single one of them it becomes as a rule. With the improved technology the Empire had at its control, I think advanced versions of the specialist ships might have given them an edge.

The Empire does have dedicated anti-ship and anti-fighter craft, but with EU minialism we normaly only see one or two diffrent ship designs per-book.
Lazy writers are the problem.

[Ender]

I've frequently wondered if the Republic had a better idea in splitting its main functions between three classes of ships, the Victory star Destroyer, Venator carrier, and Acclamator transports. It seems the Empire is putting too many eggs into one basket with the ISD, which IMHO leads to their constant losses, as the ISD becomes a target for all the Rebel starfighters. The more roles you assign a vessel, the less good at any single one of them it becomes as a rule. With the improved technology the Empire had at its control, I think advanced versions of the specialist ships might have given them an edge.

The Empire has dedicated ships as well. Kinda makes your argument moot.

[Mr. T]

Besides, when the empire can build something like the Death Star, that's equivalent to millions of Stardestroyers, I doubt that simply building ISD's are putting all the eggs in one basket in comparison.

[Vyraeth]

In my opinion, the Imperator-class Star Destroyer and the various sub-types of it are some of the finest warships in the Star Wars galaxy.

You have stated that generally speaking when a ship attempts to perform multiple roles, it does worse at each one of them (compared to a ship that specializes in one of those covered roles), and while, I agree that this line of thinking is usually true, I think it depends on a few additional circumstances.

The foremost circumstance is the cost of the ship in question. The Imperator-class series of warships is not quite that cheap (this is what I recall from WEG source books, if you want exact figures I'll gladly track them down -- but granted I haven't really calculated the costs on my own), because it's such a massive vessel, stocked full of capability. If you spend alot of money designing a multi-role ship, I think it can be made as effective as smaller ships dedicated to a single role, it's just that, real world Navies don't have quite the command of resources and budget power that the Empire does.

Now one might as why the Republic didn't simply use one type of vessel throughout the span of it's career, my answer would be that certain advances in ship construction, that allowed the size of vessels like the Imperator-class to be developed weren't reached yet, and that for the majority of it's "governing" career, it did use a primary form of capital ship like the Empire, except on a smaller scale. The Rendili StarDrive Dreadnaught-class Cruiser (the Katana Fleet consisted of ships of this model).

Ships like the Accalmator-class, Venator-carrier, and the Victory-class Star Destroyer are recent developments.

Also, I believe another advantage to single-role, smaller warships is that they have a higher cost to productivity ratio. Which, I believe is more in sync with your initial statement (the idea that a multi-purpose ship doesn't perform each purpose as well as a single purpose ship). However, for the Empire, cost effectiveness isn't really an issue for the Empire. Consider the Death Star for example, the Imperial Navy was very capable of performing the same role as the Death Star, in terms of keeping starsystems in line, and a variant of superlaser was already mounted on the Sovereign and Eclipse-class Star Destroyer models.

Lastly, as other people have pointed out. The Imperator is a first response ship, in most cases, and the Empire does have other variants of warship. For instance, the Lancer-class frigate is the anti-starfighter capital ship someone mentioned.

The Loronar-class series of ships is modular, and able to switch roles depending on need (it has troop carryong, anti capital-ship, and cargo modules). Also, the Nebulon-B Frigate model of ship can be modified to act as a medical vessel. The Star Galleon is a transport vessel. And so on and so forth.

Hope this helps.

-- Vyraeth

[Mr Bean]

I
Consider the Death Star for example, the Imperial Navy was very capable of performing the same role as the Death Star, in terms of keeping starsystems in line, and a variant of superlaser was already mounted on the Sovereign and Eclipse-class Star Destroyer models.

-- Vyraeth

Side note, the Death Star DID serve a purpose, that being twofold
The first it was a SYMBOL, the great might of the Imperial Empire in one station.

Second it was designed as a shield-cracker. Plantary shields being plentful and retivley cheap means that a Base Delta Zero operation can't be preformed. Plantary shields are supposed to be able to repel the assault of multiple Imp-star class ships for hours to even days and weeks depending on the power grid. Now they can batter down one section of the shields but that means the defenders only have one area to defend and the attackers only have one area to attack.

With the Death Star one can vape a planet shield or no shield instead of needing the massive fleet it would take for the avarage shielded planet.

[Vyraeth]

I'm sorry, my initial post was abit improperly worded. You're absolutely correct when you say that the Death Star was built as a symbol, and admittedly, it is very effective in that role.

I disagree however, that it was built also as a means to break through planetary shields. Planetary shields were not created just before the Death Star was designed, it is my understanding that they were around for thousands of years (this is a big claim, and I cannot give you a specific source for now, but if you demand it, I'll try to take one down), and during the time period deployed in every major core world.

Interplanetary conflict, and moreso the idea of slagging a world were not new concepts to the Imperials. A planetary shield generator, despite it's capabilities in defense is not infallible. The Rebel base in the Empire Strikes Back was protected by a form of planetary shield, and such a shield was easily broken through by Imperial ground forces (negating the Rebel forces that were positioned as resistance).

I believe it's abit of a stretch in logic to assume that this Death Star, which took so long to construct, and which required a considerable amount of resources to build, was also designed as a shield cracker. I think it's ability to bypass shields is just an added bonus.

It's main purpose, and really, the purpose it was designed for was to instill fear in others, and perhaps showcase the Empire's might. Just as you said. Although arguably, even then it was a waste of resources, because the Imperial Fleet instilled fear in planets as much as the Death Star did, as did the Empire itself. I think it's just more simply assumed that Palpatine wanted to engage himself in a "galactic pissing contest", and showcase his power.

Also, beyond speculation, there is canon support for my statements in the Tarkin Doctrine (the whole "rule by fear of force, and not force" bit from the movie).

Overall, however, I don't really think the Death Star had a useful purpose, when you consider it's overall effiency. Yes, I agree it symbolized Imperial might, but I believe that 25,000 Star Destroyers also symbolized Imperial might, I think the Death Star is 100% Palpatine-Tarkin inspired.

Note to the moderators: After reading, through this, I notice that I talk about the Death Star alot. I have read the forum rules, and specifically thread hijacking. I am not attempting to hijack this thread, and if my explanations about the Death Star are considered thread hijacking, I'll make note of that and be sure not to repeat this offense again. I'm just not sure how much leeway is allowed.

Thanks,
Vyraeth

[Techno_Union]

The Rebel base in the Empire Strikes Back was protected by a form of planetary shield, and such a shield was easily broken through by Imperial ground forces (negating the Rebel forces that were positioned as resistance).

As a side note: Theater shields (like the one deployed on Hoth) have been noted to behave differently than full planetary shields. Anyone can feel free to correct me on this, but if Hoth would have had a planetary shield -- rather than a theater shield -- the Empire would have had to of bombarded the shield and waited till it collapsed to send ground troops and equipment.

[bilateralrope]

Interplanetary conflict, and moreso the idea of slagging a world were not new concepts to the Imperials. A planetary shield generator, despite it's capabilities in defense is not infallible. The Rebel base in the Empire Strikes Back was protected by a form of planetary shield, and such a shield was easily broken through by Imperial ground forces (negating the Rebel forces that were positioned as resistance).

The hoth base had a theater shield. I gather that the main difference here is that a planetery sheild covers the whole planet, while a theater shield only covers part of it. The hoth shield was penetrated by walkers comming in where the shield met the ground, planetary shields dont come down to ground level

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

I disagree however, that it was built also as a means to break through planetary shields. Planetary shields were not created just before the Death Star was designed, it is my understanding that they were around for thousands of years (this is a big claim, and I cannot give you a specific source for now, but if you demand it, I'll try to take one down), and during the time period deployed in every major core world.

Yes, and they are of various grades. Some are so weak that they figure an Imperial Heavy Squadron could smash right through (Nar Shaadaa in The Hutt's Gambit). But those are hardly the problems the Death Star was created to solve. Then there is Alderaan's ubershield.

A planetary shield generator, despite it's capabilities in defense is not infallible. The Rebel base in the Empire Strikes Back was protected by a form of planetary shield, and such a shield was easily broken through by Imperial ground forces (negating the Rebel forces that were positioned as resistance).

It helped that the shield was a theater one conveniently had a limit quite close to the target, so they can land the troops outside that limit. Then they were lucky that they had the equivalent of a heavy mechanized regiment (some say Blizzard Force was of divisional strength) assaulting an understrength infantry battalion. For a full scale planetary shield and a power that could maintain such, that would be rather out of the question.

I believe it's abit of a stretch in logic to assume that this Death Star, which took so long to construct, and which required a considerable amount of resources to build, was also designed as a shield cracker. I think it's ability to bypass shields is just an added bonus.

Actually, its ability to penetrate the shield is a natural consequence of its sheer size, with approximately correlates to generated power for the superlaser.

As horrifying as the Death Star is, equally horrifying is the fact that on the film we already see a shield that provided a good match. From film observations Had Aldie's shield been as little as 2-3x as powerful, it might have absorbed the blow (that observation might have been one of the practical considerations to make the Death Star II so much bigger).

Something like the Eclipse's superlaser, which can't even shatter a planet, would bounce off such a defense, to say nothing of torpedo spheres and regular bombardment.

See Death Star's purpose?

Although arguably, even then it was a waste of resources, because the Imperial Fleet instilled fear in planets as much as the Death Star did, as did the Empire itself.

From the film evidence, Alderaan had little to fear from the fleet. Sure, the fleet can blockade it, but they can't destroy it until the shield some

Also, beyond speculation, there is canon support for my statements in the Tarkin Doctrine (the whole "rule by fear of force, and not force" bit from the movie).

Yes, and to execute that, something that could break the shields of even the strongest planetary powers will give them a new capability, won't it?

Note to the moderators: After reading, through this, I notice that I talk about the Death Star alot. I have read the forum rules, and specifically thread hijacking. I am not attempting to hijack this thread, and if my explanations about the Death Star are considered thread hijacking, I'll make note of that and be sure not to repeat this offense again. I'm just not sure how much leeway is allowed.

I don't think it'd be a problem. The Death Star is very much part of Imperial strategy, and thus is a valid topic for discussion.

[Noble Ire]

As I understand it, Planetary Shields do not always cover a whole planet (just the more important areas, although some actually have complete coverage.) However, they are made up of a system of interlocking tributary generators spread out across the planet which can rienforce each other and cover more ground, while theater shields cover a far smaller area, are possibly weaker, and use only one or two generators.

[Techno_Union]

And there just so happens to be an article about planetary shields and the DS on the main site.

[Cykeisme]

s I understand it, Planetary Shields do not always cover a whole planet (just the more important areas, although some actually have complete coverage.)

By definition, a plantery shield covers an entire planet. If a shield didn't cover the entire planet, it wouldn't be a planetary shield; it would be a theatre shield.

Planetary shields are probably more than simply covering a planet with overlapping theatre shields, too; they likely have some sort of interlocking shared energy handling system built as a planet-wide network infrastructure, which would allow the multiple shield projectors to make use of the pool of energy sinks and disposal units (shunted off as neutrinos, the likely theory is?).

Besides, when the empire can build something like the Death Star, that's equivalent to millions of Stardestroyers, I doubt that simply building ISD's are putting all the eggs in one basket in comparison.

Agreed.
In fact, the Death Star is what seems more like putting all your eggs in one basket.. or shall we say putting all your baskets in one egg, since the Death Star is shaped like a... ok, that's lame, nvm.

[Crazedwraith]

I was just wondering what people meant when they said the Imperators were a 'rapid response vessel.'

As far as I understood from reading the EGV&V, the Imperator had a relatively slow class two hyperdrive. One of the advantages a Vic had over the Imp was its twice as fast class one drive. Aloowing to reach hot spot more quickly.

[Admiral Drason]

Why is it always assumed that the Empire still dosent use the Venators and the Acclimators?

It would seem to me that they would still need large troop transports (Acclimator) and they would also need medium sized carriers (Venators).

These ships are only around 25 years old by the time of ANH. Just because they werent developed until a coulple of years ago and havent been added to the EU every one asumes that they were all scraped.

[Noble Ire]

By definition, a plantery shield covers an entire planet. If a shield didn't cover the entire planet, it wouldn't be a planetary shield; it would be a theatre shield.

What evidence for this statement do you have? The term "planetary" could mean nothing more than a specific strength or type of generator network. Certainly, some planets have full coverage, but there are cases of planets having non-full coverage shielding, but still having a significant network, far beyond a "theater" shield (I believe Bothawui's network behaves in this way).

Planetary shields are probably more than simply covering a planet with overlapping theatre shields, too; they likely have some sort of interlocking shared energy handling system built as a planet-wide network infrastructure, which would allow the multiple shield projectors to make use of the pool of energy sinks and disposal units (shunted off as neutrinos, the likely theory is?).

That is what I was implying.

[Hawkwings]

Why is the ISD a multipurpose vessel? Well, think of it this way. The Empire only had to deal with the tiny Rebel Alliance, and some criminals. None of them had any ships (yet) that could fight an ISD head-on. So why make it specialized? If a carrier/troop transport can handily defeat anything the enemy throws at you, why design a dedicated capship-killer?

[Adam Reynolds]

[quote="Crazedwraith"]I was just wondering what people meant when they said the Imperators were a 'rapid response vessel.'

As far as I understood from reading the EGV&V, the Imperator had a relatively slow class two hyperdrive. One of the advantages a Vic had over the Imp was its twice as fast class one drive. Aloowing to reach hot spot more quickly.[/quote]

that book is generally full of shit, most things like that are wrong. It also says that the sensor towers are sheild towers(EDIT: on Star Destroyers).

[Tiger Ace]

I was just wondering what people meant when they said the Imperators were a 'rapid response vessel.'

As far as I understood from reading the EGV&V, the Imperator had a relatively slow class two hyperdrive. One of the advantages a Vic had over the Imp was its twice as fast class one drive. Aloowing to reach hot spot more quickly.

that book is generally full of shit, most things like that are wrong. It also says that the sensor towers are sheild towers(EDIT: on Star Destroyers).

So because of one problem your throwing out the entire book? Aslong as its not contradicted elsewhere, its cannon.
And Canon says ISD's = slower then VSD's.

[FTeik]

The is no canon VSD.

And given the observed canon speeds even of vessels with high-class hyperdrives (DS1 or Maul's Infiltrator) it is questionable, that an ISD is slower, than other vessels.

What i don't understand is the following: In ROTJ the shield for the DS2 and Endor covers the entire planet yet seems to be generated by a single station on the ground, while in the EU we have hole networks of shield-generators creating planetary shields, that consist of individual sections.

[Tiger Ace]

The is no canon VSD.

And given the observed canon speeds even of vessels with high-class hyperdrives (DS1 or Maul's Infiltrator) it is questionable, that an ISD is slower, than other vessels.

What i don't understand is the following: In ROTJ the shield for the DS2 and Endor covers the entire planet yet seems to be generated by a single station on the ground, while in the EU we have hole networks of shield-generators creating planetary shields, that consist of individual sections.

Fine, EU cannon.

The shield(from looking at the ROTJ briefing scene) only covers the Death Star, maybe the shields only cover a small arc?

[Typhonis 1]

Redundancy and protection? Lets say protection is proportional to area protected like say armor if you have 1 shield generator for one planet it can protect said planet to a degree called N. Two generators allows protection of 2N also you can maintain the N protective value if a generator has to be taken offline.

Multiple genertors in a network means you have a layered shield for said planet that has a value that will not diminish very much if they need to take a generator offline for servicing. Also openiong the nesesarry holes can be accomplished by the generators in preselected areas ...like say round the spaceports and such.

Thats my take on why there are networks.

[Eleas]

Fine, EU cannon.

Presumably, it uses paperback novels for ammo.