Venators in the Galactic Empire

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm really dubious of these largely artifical and arbitrary "cruiser"/"destroyer" power output boundaries. Its all predicated on a Mon Cal being a cruiser on the Imperial scale, something even Dr. Saxton does not endorse.

[Ender]

I'm really dubious of these largely artifical and arbitrary "cruiser"/"destroyer" power output boundaries. Its all predicated on a Mon Cal being a cruiser on the Imperial scale, something even Dr. Saxton does not endorse.

No, its predicted on the classes of ships and the values given for the Executor and other ships. Remembr the discussion we had when otitw came out?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm really dubious of these largely artifical and arbitrary "cruiser"/"destroyer" power output boundaries. Its all predicated on a Mon Cal being a cruiser on the Imperial scale, something even Dr. Saxton does not endorse.

No, its predicted on the classes of ships and the values given for the Executor and other ships. Remembr the discussion we had when otitw came out?

That does not answer the question. How exactly does one derive precisely where the boundary between "cruiser" and "destroyer" exists? And why should there be a strict boundary. I'm really starting to have misgivings about this Saxtonian system if its just appelling random labels to ranges of max power output.

[Ender]

I'm really dubious of these largely artifical and arbitrary "cruiser"/"destroyer" power output boundaries. Its all predicated on a Mon Cal being a cruiser on the Imperial scale, something even Dr. Saxton does not endorse.

No, its predicted on the classes of ships and the values given for the Executor and other ships. Remembr the discussion we had when otitw came out?

That does not answer the question. How exactly does one derive precisely where the boundary between "cruiser" and "destroyer" exists? And why should there be a strict boundary. I'm really starting to have misgivings about this Saxtonian system if its just appelling random labels to ranges of max power output.

Well, when one ships is 25 times more powerful then the other despite being built at the same time in history with the same tech base, I think its safe to say that one is suppossed to be a bigger class then the other. (Imperator vs Providence). On top of that, I'm not arguing for it to be based of power, just the opposite. I say an Imperator is still a destroyer because of the role it fulfills, despite the fact that its power suggests it should be otherwise.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Invisible Hand is compromised in favor of hangar space and carrier roles, and to boot is not an optimally designed warship (just like the Mon Cals). Besides, there's no room for economy or poor examples of destroyers? And how about the gap from Tector to Executor? That cannot be all cruisers, and I'm sorry, but battlecrusiers should not bridge the gap; that's not what battlecruisers are, and this system again is looking like just contrivances to use modern classifications on top of what is, essentially, a Napoleonic-era rating system.

[Qwerty 42]

LucasArts seems to be retconning this and putting both Acclamators and Venators into Empire at War

note the Acclamator aft of the Victory-class and next to the Interdictor.

the Venator (?) here appears to have launched the missiles seen about in the center of the shot.

[Admiral Drason]

Although I would be apt to say that the Venators made it to the Imperial era I dont see any of them in the screen shots for Empire at War. They may be added later but i dont thik they are in the current game.

[Vympel]

There's no Venator visible in those screenshots. I can assume they'll add the ship to the game since RotS though. Acclamator but no Venator would suck.

[FTeik]

@Ender:

May i ask, how those ideas on the power of the Tector look?

The Imperator is masssivly overpowered compared to where destroyers should and do fall- its in the low cruiser range. Meanwhile, the glimpse we get of the Tector shows that either the reactor is further back, or that it is internal. Its my belief that the Tector is in the high 10^24 range which is destroyer area, but the Imperators are in the low 10^25 range where cruisers fall. I think Impertors are destroyers only because of thier massive multirole capability.

Wait a moment, it has been confirmed, that the unknown SD seen in ROTJ is a Tector?

Because as far as i know, it could be a completly new ship and then the only thing we would know about it is, that it has no hangar. It could be more powerful than an ISD (with more internal reactors), it could be equally powerful, but with larger endurance (same reactors as ISD, but more and larger fuel-silos).

At a totally unrelated note, I figured out the troop compliment of the Venator class. ROTS novel states the Vigilence was carrying 3 batallions (aka regiments), giving it a total of 6,912 troops

Aren't battalion and regiment two different levels in the GAR/GE? 800 men for a battalion, 2,400 men for a regiment?

[FTeik]

@Ender:

May i ask, how those ideas on the power of the Tector look?

The Imperator is masssivly overpowered compared to where destroyers should and do fall- its in the low cruiser range. Meanwhile, the glimpse we get of the Tector shows that either the reactor is further back, or that it is internal. Its my belief that the Tector is in the high 10^24 range which is destroyer area, but the Imperators are in the low 10^25 range where cruisers fall. I think Impertors are destroyers only because of thier massive multirole capability.

Wait a moment, it has been confirmed, that the unknown SD seen in ROTJ is a Tector?

Because as far as i know, it could be a completly new ship and then the only thing we would know about it is, that it has no hangar. It could be more powerful than an ISD (with more internal reactors), it could be equally powerful, but with larger endurance (same reactors as ISD, but more and larger fuel-silos).

At a totally unrelated note, I figured out the troop compliment of the Venator class. ROTS novel states the Vigilence was carrying 3 batallions (aka regiments), giving it a total of 6,912 troops

Aren't battalion and regiment two different levels in the GAR/GE? 800 men for a battalion, 2,400 men for a regiment?

[Connor MacLeod]

That does not answer the question. How exactly does one derive precisely where the boundary between "cruiser" and "destroyer" exists?

Its arbitrary, like many real-life designations are. Especially when it comes to odd terminology like "battlecruisers" and the like. And as mentioned before, ,"arbitrary" is not neccesarily bad, as long as it is consistent. (of course its not always consistent in real life either, so I imagine the consistency in Star Wars would be even worse.)

Basically, one classificaiton system is probably as good as any other, depending on purposes. (An ISD could very well be as massive as some small local navies battleshps for example, and thus qualify as a battleship - well as equvialent to a coastal defense battleship, to be exact. Or maybe its armed/armored on a "battleship scale") the Navy might consider it a destroyer simply as a budgeting trick or misdirection - if their budget allows them to build a certain "number" of destroyers, they might build a big ship like an ISD and then call it a "destroyer" just to get more of them. The ISB suggested something like this has happened before (They played around with the OOB classifications to get themselves more ISDs.)

As to what exact characteristics might differ between a 'cruiser" and a destroyer?"

Reactor output (affects overall firepower, engine thrust and acceleration, fuel supplies, and probably reactor size.)

Tonnage/mass/size (in general, bigger ships are going to mass more than smaller ships, but also have more internal volume. In order to increase power, you need to increase volume. But increase in mass decreases accecleration.)

Turret number (speculative.) I can't say Curtis has ever publicly said turret-numbers actually qualify as a factor - but it seems reasonable given his statements on his site that he does consider the number of heavy turrets to be a factor in classificaiton. (IE an ISD has only 6-8 small turrets, and thus is a "Destroyer", whereas a "battleship/dreadnought" like the Executor has around 900 or so, by his estimates.) The fact that the ratio of proposed HTLs on the Executor to the Avenger is similar to his "100x ISD" comment in the OT:ITW book would indirectly lend credence to this idea.

And why should there be a strict boundary.

I'm not sure why, and I doubt there should be (See the reference to "Corellian battleships, cruisers, carriers and destroyers.")

Best guess would be that beyond a certain size/tonnage, its impossible for a small vessel (like a "destroyer" to mount lager reactors (say, like a battleship reactor.) Although whether that refers to just one big reactor or multiple smaller reactors, I'm not sure.

I'm really starting to have misgivings about this Saxtonian system if its just appelling random labels to ranges of max power output.

Its not just "power output" but power output can be a big factor in it, since acceleration/engine thrust is intimately related to firepower (which is why you can use one to determine the other.) Size/tonnage seems to be the other major trait (bigger ships can maintain bigger reactors, and thus are more powerful/tougher.) Apparently its a relationship based off the concept of scaling down from the DS's capabilities, I would guess.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That doesn't answer my challenge. I want to know by what justification the ISD is "out of the destroyer scale" and "in the cruiser scale".

[Connor MacLeod]

Invisible Hand is compromised in favor of hangar space and carrier roles, and to boot is not an optimally designed warship (just like the Mon Cals). Besides, there's no room for economy or poor examples of destroyers?

I don't see why not. I doubt Palpatine automatically ended all the greed and corruption and dishonesty in the Republic when he founded the Empire (if anyything, he probably abetted it for his own purposes. Its not like he needed to exert any actual reforms - when he wanted to get something done, he had ways to do it.)

And how about the gap from Tector to Executor? That cannot be all cruisers, and I'm sorry, but battlecrusiers should not bridge the gap; that's not what battlecruisers are, and this system again is looking like just contrivances to use modern classifications on top of what is, essentially, a Napoleonic-era rating system.

Actually if you look at WW1 era classifications (or a bit earlier) "cruisers" and IIRC battleships were divided up into "classes" according to quality. There were first, second, and third class cruisers (first and second class were also known as armored and protected cruisers, respectively. I think third class were low-end protected cruisers and Armed merchant cruisers.)

Armored cruisers, the 1st class cruisers, were considered the pre-dreadnought equivalent to battlecruisers (if you look up battlecruiser on Wikiepdia, you'll note that there is a term "dreadnought cruiser" applied to them , IIRC.) In a sense, it would be correct in either an Age of Sail or WW1-type classification (which would fit with the whole "battleships the most powerful ships" class anyhow.)

Its also worth noting that this depends on the KIND of battlecruiser you compare them to. Some went with the Jackie Fisher concept (ie like hte Hood - all big guns and very light armor for its size), but other vessels (like the German BC's) tended to favor a more balaned approach ("armored on battleship scale" I think the term is - somewhat smaller guns but a lso greater armor.) Technically with deflector shields you could have both kinds.

Moreover, SW seems to experiment more successfully in "hybrid" types like Flight Deck cruisers and seaplane cruisers (or even battelship/carrier) types than real life navies ever had luck. While such vessels are still less effective than the "specialized" roles, their multi-purpose nature could be quite useful in a number of situations (patrol, defense, whatnot.) Lets not forget the battleship itself (at least the Fisher concept) was something of a failure in any case (which is one reason why the BC evolved into the fast BB - the other being the dominance of Carrier-based combat.)

So if you have different "classes" of cruiser and battleship (or even classes of carrier). And if you factor in the diversity more "hybrid" types add (especially if Star Wars attmepted hybrid types RL navies never built - think of a McKinley class command ship coupled with a heavy fleet carrier that carried a large number of 5 or 8-inch guns - like early Japanese or American carriers - And you could have the Executor.)

[Connor MacLeod]

That doesn't answer my challenge. I want to know by what justification the ISD is "out of the destroyer scale" and "in the cruiser scale".

By the Saxtonian scale? I don't think it is out of the destroyer scale.

If you want evidence its not a destroyer then that's been discussed before. An ISD is a gun-heavy warship that engages in support of larger ships in battles. Its not a torpedo armed boat designed to amke strafing attacks.

Like I said, its ARBITRARY. This is hardly different from real life classification systems.

[Lonestar]

That doesn't answer my challenge. I want to know by what justification the ISD is "out of the destroyer scale" and "in the cruiser scale".

Same reason why Modern American DDGs are periously close to size and fighting power to CGs. Arbitrary. The DD(X) is going to signifigantly larger in size the CGs, yet no one is talking of re-classifying the Ticos

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, when one ships is 25 times more powerful then the other despite being built at the same time in history with the same tech base, I think its safe to say that one is suppossed to be a bigger class then the other. (Imperator vs Providence). On top of that, I'm not arguing for it to be based of power, just the opposite. I say an Imperator is still a destroyer because of the role it fulfills, despite the fact that its power suggests it should be otherwise.

There are some problems I can see with that.

For one thing, I think it disregards the idea that "specialist" ships will be just as capable as multipurpose ships of a comparable tonnage.

ISDs and Executors combine weapons and armor with carrier and ground assault roles (and the Executor adds command and control functions as well!) into a high-speed, long range (both FTL and sublight range) high endurance package. But that is VERY multi-purpose. If you alter one of those variables (setlte for a shorter hyperdrive speed/range/endurance, or drop the carrier capacity or ground troop capacity? What if you settle for higher automation and lower crew complements?) You can probably devote internal volume freed up by that to additional capabitlies (more reactors/fuel, more weapons, etc.) Recall for example, that an Acclamator can carry 3 DOZEN SPHA-Ts, each comparable in size and power to an ISD HTL. If it had the associated reactor capacity, it could be VERY powerful (of course, unless it carried comparable fuel supplies its endurance would be TREMENDOUSLY short. And as a side effect it would have prodigious acceleration - but again, for very brief periods.)

There is also some debate whether they actually would be required to use a single reactor in all cases. Its alot more efficient I'll grant, but it lacks the redundancy of multiple smaller reactors (and smaller reactors can eliminate the "bulb stick out" limitation.)

IOW I suspect that a "specialist" battleship would be alot smaller than the Executor (but probably comparable in firepower and defense.) simply by virtue that it doesn't incorporate all the C&C, hangar, or ground assault capabilities that seem to involve much of its internal space.

There are alot of other factors that could allow for some variation, but in short I do think that the design schemes Saxton devised should be alot more flexible. Its not quite as static as he assumes, I think. (Its also why its alot more arbitrary.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Incidentally, according to Children of the Jedi, the Eye of Palpatine (whose sustained firepower was apparently comparable tot he Death Star - simply using a larger number of guns rather than a single compound superlaser.) was also called a dreadnought (or dreadnaught if you prefer, the terms are interchangable.) despite being more massive than the Executor.

Conversely, the "dreadnaught" heavy cruiser isn't even a frigate (at least by the Saxton-esque definition.) Its not even a proper naval ship. Its a picket and anti-pirate vessel used simply by local, sector defense security forces. (It would be "below the rates" if anything, and probably not even a proper Navy vessel.)

[Connor MacLeod]

which also reminded me.. any proper "Navy" vessel in the Saxtonina sense is ONLY a wedge-shaped vessel. (which I can't quite understand: The logic behind the wedge-shape's firepower concentration capabilities is sound, but the armament of the ISD and other known vessels does not appear to conform to this - IE the heavy turrets are always "lined up" - excecpt for the Acclamator, and thats not neccesarily even a naval vessel. Positioning like that would work just as effectively with the so called "dildo" shapes as well as with others, although the ideal positioning in either case would be ventral and dorsal along the length of the ship, preferrably with successive turrets inclined above each other to allow them to fire over the heads of preceding turrets.)

[Ender]

@Ender:

May i ask, how those ideas on the power of the Tector look?

The Imperator is masssivly overpowered compared to where destroyers should and do fall- its in the low cruiser range. Meanwhile, the glimpse we get of the Tector shows that either the reactor is further back, or that it is internal. Its my belief that the Tector is in the high 10^24 range which is destroyer area, but the Imperators are in the low 10^25 range where cruisers fall. I think Impertors are destroyers only because of thier massive multirole capability.

Wait a moment, it has been confirmed, that the unknown SD seen in ROTJ is a Tector?

IIRC it was. I think someone confirmd it shortly after ROTS ICS came out.

Because as far as i know, it could be a completly new ship and then the only thing we would know about it is, that it has no hangar. It could be more powerful than an ISD (with more internal reactors), it could be equally powerful, but with larger endurance (same reactors as ISD, but more and larger fuel-silos).

Reactor power is proportional to veactor volume. The limits on volume dictated bythe Imperator's shape neuter those objections unless one wishes to propose a far higher power density for the Tector's reactors. In which case, proof is required.

At a totally unrelated note, I figured out the troop compliment of the Venator class. ROTS novel states the Vigilence was carrying 3 batallions (aka regiments), giving it a total of 6,912 troops

Aren't battalion and regiment two different levels in the GAR/GE? 800 men for a battalion, 2,400 men for a regiment?[/quote]No, Mace windu uses the terms interchangably in Shatterpoint to describe the Halleck's troop capacity. A regiment is a battalion in their system. The difference in the number of troops in a regiment/battalion between AOTCITW and Shatterpoint can best be put down to the damage the Halleck has taken, and that most of the regiment is either dead or couldn't get to the shuttles.

[Ender]

Conversely, the "dreadnaught" heavy cruiser isn't even a frigate (at least by the Saxton-esque definition.) Its not even a proper naval ship. Its a picket and anti-pirate vessel used simply by local, sector defense security forces. (It would be "below the rates" if anything, and probably not even a proper Navy vessel.)

I'd have to argue agasint that there - 1) a slightly modified version is clearly termed a frigate (including by those who would be using the galactic scale terminology - Thrawn, Pelleon, etc) 2) Its weaponry Is at least comparable to that on other termed star frigates. Essential Chronology had a pic showing that each of those blisters is a retractable covering ofr a massive HTL cannon. I haven't scaled the blisters, but I'm pretty sure its almost as big if not bigger then the gun on the Munificent class, though it has no statements about the masive capacitors.

[Ender]

which also reminded me.. any proper "Navy" vessel in the Saxtonina sense is ONLY a wedge-shaped vessel. (which I can't quite understand: The logic behind the wedge-shape's firepower concentration capabilities is sound, but the armament of the ISD and other known vessels does not appear to conform to this - IE the heavy turrets are always "lined up" - excecpt for the Acclamator, and thats not neccesarily even a naval vessel. Positioning like that would work just as effectively with the so called "dildo" shapes as well as with others, although the ideal positioning in either case would be ventral and dorsal along the length of the ship, preferrably with successive turrets inclined above each other to allow them to fire over the heads of preceding turrets.)

I disagree there - the seperatists ships are laeled in accordance with it, and they are decidedly unwedgy.

[Ender]

Invisible Hand is compromised in favor of hangar space and carrier roles, and to boot is not an optimally designed warship (just like the Mon Cals).

Then you have the Venator (1/7th), or the Victory (estimated 1/5th). How far do you want to stretch this?

Besides, there's no room for economy or poor examples of destroyers?

I would think those would be the escort destroyers like the Resucant.

And how about the gap from Tector to Executor? That cannot be all cruisers, and I'm sorry, but battlecrusiers should not bridge the gap; that's not what battlecruisers are, and this system again is looking like just contrivances to use modern classifications on top of what is, essentially, a Napoleonic-era rating system.

They aren't. Near as I can figure,
low - mid 10^23 - frigates
high 10^23, low 10^24 - escort destroyers
mid 10^24 destroyers
low 10^25 - light cruisers
mid 10^25 - medium cruisers
high 10^25 - heavy cruisers
low 10^26 - battlecruisers
mid-high 10^26 - dreadnaughts
10^27 extra big dreadnaughts (Executor, Soverign, Eclipse)

[nightmare]

LucasArts seems to be retconning this and putting both Acclamators and Venators into Empire at War

EDIT: That's an Acc, but not a Venator... have to look closer next time. Of course, they may still add Venators now that ROTS is out, but I doubt it. Note, also, that new(?) strange bulbous ship, rebel IIRC. I wonder if it is a new design or one of the ROTJ unidentified ships. It looks like there's a new imperial ship too.

[nightmare]

I'm not asking about a ship that might replace the Venator, i'm asking about the Venator being made into a TIE-carrier. It would take to long for hundreds of fighters to be launched through the small hangar-gate in the bow of the ship and V-Wings stand on the ground until the dorsal side splits up and they fly through those openings - something, that wouldn't work for TIEs since they're hanging down from the same.

No, because the hangars are actually nestled perpendicular to the axis of the dorsal landing strip and are completely covered - thus TIEs could be mounted.

One could also mount them "upside down". No up or down in space. Just switch the local gravity around to make maintenance easier. Not saying that's a better solution, only that it's possible.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That doesn't answer my challenge. I want to know by what justification the ISD is "out of the destroyer scale" and "in the cruiser scale".

By the Saxtonian scale? I don't think it is out of the destroyer scale.

If you want evidence its not a destroyer then that's been discussed before. An ISD is a gun-heavy warship that engages in support of larger ships in battles. Its not a torpedo armed boat designed to amke strafing attacks.

Like I said, its ARBITRARY. This is hardly different from real life classification systems.

I realize this. But if we're throwing about "cruiser scale" and "destroyer scale", I think its preferable that some difference in apparent role is visible in the evidence, as opposed to nothing beyond "its bigger and has more power to feed to its guns." Dr. Saxton's website places even the much more powerful Allegiance in the destroyers.