Starcruisers and cruisers, starship rates

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-18 12:05am

So outta boredom the other day, I started a chart for major ship producers and their vessel types. And although I'm not a huge fan of two tier system, I was plugging the ships in with that in mind.

Anyway, most ships (especially the EU ships) are fairly easy to decide which tier or rate they belong in. But then I came to the Mon Cal ships. When ever the Liberty and the wingless (I'll use Independence for simplicity) are mentioned, they're usually described as cruisers.

However, they both clock in at ~1km and the Home One (class?) that is usually said to be in the ~4km range, fits in better as a starcruiser when compared to other starcruisers that we know of. So I started thinking; why not have the (what most people think of as) traditional Mon Cal ships be part of the lower tier. Bog standard cruisers. Crazy right?

If they were just lower tier cruisers (no 'star' prefix) then how in the world could they stand up to a Stardestroyer, or be remotely able to contend with them?

My solution, size and scope. One of the things I don't like about the two tier system was that a Stardestroyer actually became a 'destroyer' rather than a cruiser. However, it makes sense. Anyway, with a two tier system, a ship designed for a galactic scale fleet, could in a small limited area fleet be way more powerful than a bog standard destroyer. So a Stardestroyer in a task force with say...Lancer frigates and Carrack light cruisers, would take on the role of a cruiser if not a battleship.

So with the Mon Cal, who aren't building their original ships for a galactic scale fleet, it would work in the reverse. Their super battle ship *Home One* and their cruisers *Liberty and Independence* are fairly large and powerful in comparison with-say a Dreadnaught or Strike Cruiser.

But, bump them up to an OOB with a galactic scale starfleet, and the ~1.2km cruisers are only comparable with a [star]destroyer rather than larger and more powerful [star]cruisers.

However, the Mon Cal cruisers are still a large bit bigger than other 'cruiser' designs. A Loronor Strike Cruiser doesn't seem to be able to straddle the line between the two rates, nor does the Carrack.

Quadlok · Post by **Quadlok** » 2006-05-18 01:22am

I was under the impression that the name 'cruiser', when applied to Mon Cal ships, was more a recognition that they were converted cruise liners (similar to the way even very small personal vessels are called 'cruisers'), but I like this idea better.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-18 02:15am

Yeah, I've been thinking about this as well, the bog-standard 1200m Star Cruisers would be heavy cruisers or battleships in one system (like the ISD) and destroyers in another. The Home One would probably compare with the Imperial Star Cruisers.

DesertFly · Post by **DesertFly** » 2006-05-18 04:05am

Are you willing to post your findings for the rest of us to peruse?

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-18 04:08am

(I'll use Independence for simplicity)

Unless there are two ships named the same, Independence is a sistership of the Home One, not the wingless Liberty (one of which I think was Reef Home).

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-18 08:40am

VT-16 wrote:
(I'll use Independence for simplicity)
Unless there are two ships named the same, Independence is a sistership of the Home One, not the wingless Liberty (one of which I think was Reef Home).

Hmm, I think the xwa games has a Home One-looking ship that is of comparable size to a Liberty. That was the one I was thinking of for the 'Independence'. I don't know what to call the wingless Liberty.

Which brings up the question of the MC80 -A -B. Nobody seems to know which is which, but we have two cruisers in the movie to plug into them. I guess the Mon Remonda is suppost to be the 'B', though.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-18 09:31am

Apparently, the -B was made one and a half years post-Endor. The difference between MC80 and -A? Have NO clue. :P

Then there's the Home One, Liberty and wingless Liberty, which do not appear to fit into any of the above, afaik. Plus the ROTJ marvel comic adaption which used McQuarrie art and thus gave us yet another class on Endor. :P

General Deathdealer · Post by **General Deathdealer** » 2006-05-18 09:55am

VT-16 wrote:Apparently, the -B was made one and a half years post-Endor. The difference between MC80 and -A? Have NO clue.

Then there's the Home One, Liberty and wingless Liberty, which do not appear to fit into any of the above, afaik. Plus the ROTJ marvel comic adaption which used McQuarrie art and thus gave us yet another class on Endor.

Wikipedia.org (don't know how official their info is) says that the MC80A is a production streamlined version of the MC80. The MC80s are custom made, and thus take a long time to make. The MC80As are probably standardized to reduce production time. It also says that the MC80B is basically an MC80A with better sheilds and a stronger hull, making it able to fight on more even terms with an ISD.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-05-18 11:30am

I'd be willing to accept that first statement, and the latter seems to stack up as long as you accept that better shields and general combat upgrades equate to massively enlarged wings and tail. I don't recall seeing many references to a ship as an MC80, MC80a seems much more common. I would suggest, as others have in the past, that both the winged and wingless ships are MC80a's, and that the number represents a tonnage range, within which are multiple classes. The MC90 is said to be similar in size to the smaller cruisers, but appears bulkier, while the Home One type is far larger, and has not to my knowledge been referred to as a MC## outside of some obscure fanon.

The letter may be some indication of combat performance, though the only additional support I can think of at present is the fluff text from X-Wing Alliance stating that the winged and wingless ships are "identical," or at least very similar in performace. I would ignore the fact that the ship labeled as the wingless type resembles a scaled-down Home One in XWA, because the game was clearly left unfinished in some respects, and cutscenes show a full-size ship. A rushed Home One model was probably shoved into the slot reserved for the wingless.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-18 11:37am

While posting in the story-debate "Star Wars Rebuilding of Empires" over at SB.com I have taken on the unofficial duty of cataloging as many ships as I could to facilitate game needs for production time, cost, size, etc. In categorizing hordes of ships I've noticed one thing over and over again: the term "cruiser" in Star Wars seems to be a very non-specific and generalized term for any starship that does not readily fit any easy description.

For the purposes of our game on SBcom, we've generally adopted the Cruiser classification to represent ships of a 500 to 800 meter size-- Vindicators, Chariots, etc. In this sytem, "Destroyer" is actually a larger, more powerful ship class due to the way it is used in canon (the Providence class is described as a "Destroyer").

In SW, it seems that the terms "cruiser" and "destroyer" have been flipped. In RL, a Cruiser is just shy of a Battleship while a Destroyer is a small, fast escort vessel. I suspect that George Lucas and his staff were probbaly not Navy veterans or made an effort to mix up the classes so as to be more "imaginative". The title "Destroyer" also sounds a bit more robust and destructive than "Cruiser", which sounds like some sort of patrol craft.

The term "cruiser" has been used to describe the small, unarmed Old Republic ship in TPM that first docks with the Trade Fed vessel. The term has also been used to describe the Allegiance Star Destroyer as well as the 418-class cruisers such as the Vindicator and Immobilizer/Interdictor, the ones that look like mini Star Destroyers (triangular shape, bridge tower aft, etc).

It is also a term used to describe the Carrack, which truly is, at best, a patrol vessel of some sort IMO...

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-18 01:05pm

I think Saxton worked it out in ROTS:ICS, having cruisers like the Dreadnaught be downscaled. He essentially managed to work out a two-tier system, combining both his own ideas about the larger vessels of the galaxy as well as the WEG "cruisers". In theory, this would appease everyone, but the bitching continues.

Another source, EAW, also follow this, with having ships like the Immobilizer and the Acclamator be called "cruisers" but designated "frigates", and the Broadside and Tartan designated "corvettes".

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-18 01:16pm

Alan Bolte wrote:I'd be willing to accept that first statement, and the latter seems to stack up as long as you accept that better shields and general combat upgrades equate to massively enlarged wings and tail. I don't recall seeing many references to a ship as an MC80, MC80a seems much more common. I would suggest, as others have in the past, that both the winged and wingless ships are MC80a's, and that the number represents a tonnage range, within which are multiple classes. The MC90 is said to be similar in size to the smaller cruisers, but appears bulkier, while the Home One type is far larger, and has not to my knowledge been referred to as a MC## outside of some obscure fanon.

The letter may be some indication of combat performance, though the only additional support I can think of at present is the fluff text from X-Wing Alliance stating that the winged and wingless ships are "identical," or at least very similar in performace. I would ignore the fact that the ship labeled as the wingless type resembles a scaled-down Home One in XWA, because the game was clearly left unfinished in some respects, and cutscenes show a full-size ship. A rushed Home One model was probably shoved into the slot reserved for the wingless.

I can agree with that; Liberty and the wingless liberty being MC 80 and 'a', except that they say the 'a' came post Endor.

General Deathdealer · Post by **General Deathdealer** » 2006-05-18 01:28pm

The MC80 would have been all of the Mon Cal Cruisers up to Endor. The Mon Cal Cruisers built up to that time were just coverted cruise ships. They were not originally designed to be warships. Once the Mon Cals started building purpose built warships, that is when they would have switched to the MC80a, after they started standardizing them.
Each MC80 was a little different from the others, as they were basically custom made cruise liners. When the switched to the MC80a, each of the new ones ware now identical (production could have started pre-Endor).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-18 01:42pm

That doesn't explain the broad similarities between Liberty-type ships and multiple Home One-type ships (Independence etc. confirmed on the OS as being sisterships of the HO).

General Deathdealer · Post by **General Deathdealer** » 2006-05-18 01:54pm

Most Mon Cal cruise ships were similar. It was just the customizations that made them different. For example, Reef One looks a lot like Liberty except that Reef One lacks Liberty's wings. Home One looks a lot like Liberty, except that Home One is longer than Liberty. Home One must have been converted from a cruise ship that was just bigger than Liberty, but looked a lot like Liberty.
That is the only way I can come close to explaining the similarities bewteen the ships. They look a lot a like on the outside, but they are customized differently (pre-warship).

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-18 02:18pm

Home One looks a lot like Liberty, except that Home One is longer than Liberty

I'd say Home One is more pickle-shaped while Liberty is more "flat manta"-shaped... Home One is also painted in grey-bluish hue while the other is gray with orange-brown blots. :P

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2006-05-18 03:40pm

Home One looks a lot like Liberty, except that Home One is longer than Liberty

I'd say that you might want to look at the actual film models as the two look nothing alike regardless of the color scheme.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-18 05:55pm

DesertFly wrote:Are you willing to post your findings for the rest of us to peruse?

It's just a chart man. I listed; carrier/corvette/frigate/destroyer/cruiser then the same with *star* in front and on top listed a bunch of manufacturers.

One of the reasons that I got hung up on the Mon Cal ships is that in the lit and games they're constantly refered to as 'cruisers' yet with the exception of the 'Home One' style ship, they're to small to be compared with Starcruisers (taking ships like the Allegiance or the Sovereign in mind).

So I listed them as 'cruisers' on the lower tier of the system. However, since even in that category, they're still a 'cruiser' yet can still be roughly comparable to the first category of the upper tier ( a stardestroyer and/or Starfrigate).

Which brings up another issue; in RotJ, durring the space battle at Endor, there is a line where they're talking about a flight of Tie's heading for the 'Headquarters Frigate'. Most people take that to mean 'Home One' which would make the ~4km ship a Starfrigate. But, IMO the Home One is a little big to be shoved into the Starfrigate range, rather she's more of a Starcruiser.

So what if it wasn't Home One they're talking about. Wasn't one of the Liberty types also in the scene? Perhaps the Liberty equates more with a Starfrigate on the upper scale than a Stardestroyer when you bump it up from the lower tier.

Really all I'm talking about, the imaginary line between a Cruiser and a Stardestroyer/Starfrigate would be size and scope. Atleast when dealing with a bog standard cruiser that happens to be pretty high up on the cruiser list. Both the examples of Mon Cal cruisers at Endor are ~1km and stand up pretty well against SD's. Not being originally designed as warships nor galacitc wide fleet combatents would be what makes it a lower tier cruiser, not that it isn't powerful enough to be in Stardestroyer range, which it obviously is.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-18 06:10pm

General Deathdealer wrote:Most Mon Cal cruise ships were similar. It was just the customizations that made them different. For example, Reef One looks a lot like Liberty except that Reef One lacks Liberty's wings. Home One looks a lot like Liberty, except that Home One is longer than Liberty. Home One must have been converted from a cruise ship that was just bigger than Liberty, but looked a lot like Liberty.
That is the only way I can come close to explaining the similarities bewteen the ships. They look a lot a like on the outside, but they are customized differently (pre-warship).

That is the mantra, but it never made sense and still doesn't. There are atleast three types of cruisers at Endor. One is ~4 times larger than the other two. The two that are ~1km are actually very simular in size and shape.

The winged ship (Liberty) and the wingless ship that is extremely simular to the Liberty, minus wings and add another engine nozzle. Besides the movie, the only ones we see again in games are the Liberty and the Home One style. The wingless Liberty type isn't seen again. A smaller ~1km version of Home One is used in the games too but it could be a scaleing gaffe.

The MC80 would have been all of the Mon Cal Cruisers up to Endor. The Mon Cal Cruisers built up to that time were just coverted cruise ships. They were not originally designed to be warships.

Yet oddly enough, they stood up to SD's pretty damn well at Endor. Their reactor output must have been on par to an Imperator or atleast some where in the neighborhood for them to withstand or deal with weapons output of the SD's.

What probably made the less capable than a SD was probably weapons placements. The rebels pretty much just strapped on weapons to the first Mon Cal ships, so the firing arcs probably weren't all that great. It's happened before in SW history, look at the Trade Federation converted freighters. Very powerful, but not the greatest weapons coverage.

Once the Mon Cals started building purpose built warships, that is when they would have switched to the MC80a, after they started standardizing them.

For all we know, the MC 80a's were just the MC 80's that they sat down and thought out the weapons placement better, and added a few more upgrades; like comscan systems, military grade [insert here], etc.

The MC80a's didn't necessarly have to be a new hull design, come to think of it. Just a better put together cruiser from an exsisting design. That would lead the way for the MC 80b (Mon Remonda) where the hull was created/modified to maximize firing arcs like a SD.

Just some thoughts.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-18 06:27pm

After seeing AOTC, I started comparing Acclamators with the Liberty ships in ROTJ. They have some broad similarities, imho. And more geared towards forward firing arcs than the wingless variant and the Home One.

General Deathdealer · Post by **General Deathdealer** » 2006-05-19 06:23am

Knife, I agree with what you say. I was just stating that the MC80A was were they started to standardize them. This would mean that they thought through the best weapons scheme and upgraded everything so that they would all be alike and the Rebel Techs would have an easier time of maintaining them. And yes this would definitely lead to the MC80B with the better hull and better sheilds.

knightwire · Post by **knightwire** » 2006-05-19 01:23pm

wow. I've heard you guys are the experts on the SW capitals (I signed up to get the skinny on the MC-80s and the Tector) and here you are talking about the Mon Cals.

One of my questions is do you guys subscribe to the notion that the MC-80 Reef Home type hull was the most numerous in the Rebel Fleet? (Or just at Endor?) It seemed like the Liberty types were more scarce in the movies. When you go outside the movies for info all bets are off.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-05-19 01:39pm

Speaking just for myself, I seem to recall an almost equal number of Reef Homes (if they are the wingless versions) and Liberty cruisers. In addition to that, there's the Home One ships (Home One and Independence, Defiance from the SW:CCG etc.), and the stubby McQuarrie cruisers (in the marvel adaption of ROTJ).

That's at least four seen either in the film or in a media connected with the film. With the Liberty and Reef Home types being the most common, imo.

As an aside: The Liberty models were made by glueing wings to the original Reef Home model. Maybe this could somehow be incorporated into their IU history, with regards to which ship-type came first? ;P

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-19 06:01pm

knightwire wrote:wow. I've heard you guys are the experts on the SW capitals (I signed up to get the skinny on the MC-80s and the Tector) and here you are talking about the Mon Cals.

One of my questions is do you guys subscribe to the notion that the MC-80 Reef Home type hull was the most numerous in the Rebel Fleet? (Or just at Endor?) It seemed like the Liberty types were more scarce in the movies. When you go outside the movies for info all bets are off.

Depends on what the 'Reef Home' is and what exactly an MC 80 is. There seems to be three classes at Endor, Home One, Liberty and the wingless Liberty.

Home One is easy to pick out due to it's size, but I'm pretty sure there are ~1km versions out there. The Liberty and wingless are practically the same ship, minus the wings and add an engine.

knightwire · Post by **knightwire** » 2006-05-19 06:31pm

The Reef Home type as I am referring to it is the wingless MC-80.

An equal number as the Liberty type eh? I'll have to go back a watch I just don't seem to remember a lot of the Libertys.

Three Home One types? Thanks. I thought there were two, but I can easily see how there could be three. (and I didn't know the name of the third was the Defiance either.)