Boy, Carracks have BIG windows.

Seydlitz_k · Post by **Seydlitz_k** » 2006-05-17 08:58pm

Yeah, they seemed to have mixed the two carrack together. They took the front of the XWA carrack and merged it with the back of the Star Wars Rebellion one essentially. Least it's what it looks like

chitoryu12 · Post by **chitoryu12** » 2006-05-17 11:26pm

It still seems like a good idea to have a big window. Sure, it's a big target, but so is a hanger or a reactor. One shot from a Star Destroyer in ANH took down the reactor and disabled the ship. I doubt they would miss it on another unless it was buried in the damn thing.

Don't we all want a clear view? The eyes may not be perfect, but show me an electronic device that jams your eyesight. Big viewports are the exact opposite of Star Trek, where the only view on the bridge is from a screen on the front. If that thing messes up, the whole bridge is blind. You would have to toss something on a window or put up a smokescreen to block your view through it.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-17 11:47pm

Meh, a lot of SW designs have over sized windows. The standard KDY bridge pretty much has floor to celing sized windows, the Corellian corvette has a huge ass forward window which isn't floor to celing but still pretty dominate. The Flurry carrier has a huge ass window up front, as does the Marauder corvette. The Lancer frigate has em (well, it has two prominant windows in the bow). The Corellian Gunship has a big square window that is the majority of the flat bow.

It seems a trend that even goes into the smaller vessels. Lamba shuttles, and Sentinel shuttles. The YT series from CEC has huge window sets, etc.

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2006-05-18 06:46am

Meh I always liked the more angular design, more industrial & Imperial looking, organic curves have always suggested evil rebel liberal thinking to me.

One thought that occured to me is that on a Star Destroyers bridge, the windows curve round, presenting a bubble from the hull, but the exterior looks pretty flat, now I know from the shear scale of the ship you probably wouldnt be able to tell if there was a slight bump where the bridge was but surely they are just asking to be shot at if they are putting themselves outside the line of the hull.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-05-18 08:41am

The exposed bridge is simply arrogance. The A-Wing crashing through the bridge in ROTJ wasn't entirely by accident.

For your reference, the Executor tower face.

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2006-05-18 09:03am

wow, that really brings the ship into scale!
very impressive that they actually bothered to model details like that onto the ships tower

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-18 11:44am

Carracks are pathetic. A 350-meter ship that carries 4 TIE fighters-- and has to do it on external racks? Feh. It's a Coast Guard ship.

Alan Bolte · Post by **Alan Bolte** » 2006-05-18 12:11pm

IIRC, the Carrack is said to do fairly well for its size. I wouldn't judge it by its TIE capacity, not every ship is a carrier. I would assume that the TIEs aren't standard for every mission, probably only for lone-wolf patrols.

Elheru Aran · Post by **Elheru Aran** » 2006-05-18 12:25pm

Darth Tanner wrote:Meh I always liked the more angular design, more industrial & Imperial looking, organic curves have always suggested evil rebel liberal thinking to me.

One thought that occured to me is that on a Star Destroyers bridge, the windows curve round, presenting a bubble from the hull, but the exterior looks pretty flat, now I know from the shear scale of the ship you probably wouldnt be able to tell if there was a slight bump where the bridge was but surely they are just asking to be shot at if they are putting themselves outside the line of the hull.

It's there. Just hard to see for the most part. They model it like that because there are viewers who WILL see the disrepancy. Also, they have to match exterior to the layout of the interior sets...

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » 2006-05-18 12:53pm

The Carrack is said to be powerful for its size due to its large ion cannon complement, presumably for its reactor size. This means it can disable much larger ships for boarding etc by other vessels. This is obviously a very useful property for a patrol vessel, as it can then disable criminal ships and take them into custody. However, I'd say the Carrack would provide a useful role in fleets: if you deploy a few of them with larger vessels, like say a Vic, then the carracks can focus on diasbling the enemy whilst the Vic curbstomps it with TL's and warheads.

Post by **Coyote** » 2006-05-18 02:36pm

The Carrack is a very survivable ship; every source I know of goes on at length about its compartmentalized construction, durability, armor, etc. The thing is, these are hallmarks of a defensive vessel, not a strike vessel, although I'd be happy if someone with an actual Navy background would correct me if I'm wrong.

For 350 meters, it is small, close to the 300 meter Nebulon, which is a frigate. A small, heavily armored vessel with virtually no fighter capacity-- and whose most impressive weapons load are ion cannons, a disabling rather than a destroying weapon-- the Carrack just seems more fitting as a system patrol boat and not a frontline ship o' the line.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-05-18 02:40pm

I don't believe the ion cannons are the Carrack's best weapons. The Carrack has 10 supposedly heavy turbolasers (going by what WEG came up with, I don't see anything nearly as big as what the ISD has). The ion cannons can be easily swapped for anti-fighter lasers, which leads me to believe they're just point-defense weapons.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2006-05-18 02:42pm

Many Carracks doesn't even HAVE ion cannons. You missed two things; it's very fast and carries heavy turbolasers way bigger than on Neb-B.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-05-18 02:45pm

I think the Carrack makes an ideal replacement for the Corellian Gunship/Corvette, the Lancer-Frigate and the Nebulon-B.

Spartan · Post by **Spartan** » 2006-05-18 03:34pm

Darth Tanner wrote:

Meh I always liked the more angular design, more industrial & Imperial looking, organic curves have always suggested evil rebel liberal thinking to me.

Its always a pleasure to meet another Right-thinking individual...damn tree-hugging rebel hippies!

One thought that occured to me is that on a Star Destroyers bridge, the windows curve round, presenting a bubble from the hull, but the exterior looks pretty flat, now I know from the shear scale of the ship you probably wouldnt be able to tell if there was a slight bump where the bridge was but surely they are just asking to be shot at if they are putting themselves outside the line of the hull.

I wouldn't mind it so much if was just a conning bride that the use for docking etc. Hell the bulk of the ship and the design of the tower block the view of everything except dead ahead anyway. Why bother with windows? Put the CIC well inside the primary hull inside the armor belt.

FTeik wrote:

I think the Carrack makes an ideal replacement for the Corellian Gunship/Corvette, the Lancer-Frigate and the Nebulon-B.

Yeah, the Carrack is one of the few EU designed ships I like. Hell I like the design far more than the Neb-B; that ship is fugly. As a rebel ship its fine, but then stupid WEG had to make it an Imperial ship. Manufactured by KDY, I mean as if....

Now if only we could get a retro-con with the ROTJ MonCal ships being mothballed CIS ships. Anyone else notice the strong resemblance between the Munificent and Recusant classes and the MonCal ships in the ROTJ Sketchbook?

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

To be fair, the window on that Carrack model is small, compared to the original (better) model or the pair of windows on the less durable [/url=http://ourworld.cs.com/Toryu%20Nanashi/ss00038.jpg]Lancer[/url].

As for use, I use them as a nasty surprise in small fleet actions. They're tough, fast and dangerous. Screw the fighters.

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

FTeik wrote:I think the Carrack makes an ideal replacement for the Corellian Gunship/Corvette, the Lancer-Frigate and the Nebulon-B.

Except the Carrack is old, Old Republic old, while Lancers are newer. I'm not sure about the Neb B though. But Greg is right, they're probably more in line with a patrol boat, cutter or sloop meant to fuck up pirate craft with it's heavier guns.

Darth Tanner · Post by **Darth Tanner** » 2006-05-18 07:45pm

Except the Carrack is old, Old Republic old, while Lancers are newer

They arnt that old are they? I know Thrawn said he was forced to use Carracks as frontline ships but I always thought that was because of thie mainly police/counter raid role rather than them being obsolete.

damn tree-hugging rebel hippies!

Damm right! if the New Republic had their way they would let the Ithorians design their warships, with a nice selection of trees along the main hull.

I know modern aircraft carriers have bridges that are pretty exposed, mainly for operational reasons to oversee landings and such (and also if a carrier is taking fire some one really screwed up!), but do modern warships have bridges in more secure locations? those new missile frigates the USA bought dont seem to have any windows at all so either its really good camo or they are better protected.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-18 08:32pm

Darth Tanner wrote:
Except the Carrack is old, Old Republic old, while Lancers are newer
They arnt that old are they? I know Thrawn said he was forced to use Carracks as frontline ships but I always thought that was because of thie mainly police/counter raid role rather than them being obsolete.

There were Carrack cruisers at the battle of Coruscant durring the Clone Wars, per the RotS novel.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2006-05-18 10:16pm

I do recall in some novel somewhere that Caracks very dangerous to underestimate because their ion cannons gave them the knockdown punch of a far larger ship.

Really its a well designed ship. The ion cannons mean it is much more effective against larger ships despite its size. Its speed means its useful in a battleline for flanking attacks on larger ships and its turoblasers mean it can either pound much larger ships when their shields go down or duel effectivly with other escort ships (which again its ion cannons give it an advantage over). Its tough construction also means it can soak up more damage then any ships its size should be able to take...

Its speed means it can also work in system patrol role. Its only real vunrability is to enemy strike fighters as 'Rogue Squadon' shows. Which is why one was paired with a Lancer class Frigate.

So really its an excellent ship. I sued them all the time in the old WEGRPG and a skirmisher in my fleet battles, they smackdowned the Neb-B's and took a great deal of firepower from a MonCal to destroy, letting my ISD's move into position...

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-18 10:50pm

How do ion cannons make it more effective than you'd expect from it's size/reactor output? Or do you mean being able to run those guns outclasses similar-sized ships and their shielding system?

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2006-05-18 11:12pm

Stark wrote:How do ion cannons make it more effective than you'd expect from it's size/reactor output? Or do you mean being able to run those guns outclasses similar-sized ships and their shielding system?

I don't know, however, if it is quicker and able to sport more guns than a normal ship in it's tonnage, then perhaps it does have a bigger reactor than others in it's range.

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2006-05-19 12:46am

Carracks are VERY fast escorts and patrol vessels. Lancers are VERY slow anti-fighter capships.

If it were up to me, I'd take out the facilities for the 4 external-mounted TIEs, and add some anti-fighter weaponry. That would pretty much complete the ship.

For windows... I would tend to think that they want a good view, and sensors can be jammed.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-05-19 01:37am

Knife wrote:I don't know, however, if it is quicker and able to sport more guns than a normal ship in it's tonnage, then perhaps it does have a bigger reactor than others in it's range.

That makes sense. I don't see the logic in saying 'ion cannons allow it to do this', however, when any old warship can run it's full powerplant output through it's weapons. Are people basically saying ion cannons are better? I was under the impression it didn't matter.

In what way are Lancers 'slow'? What use is a screen ship fighters can just zoom past?

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2006-05-19 01:37am

I think pairing a Lancer and a Carrack might actually offer some degree of synergy.