Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 03, 2011 9:03 pm

Since Seafort got us going last week I guess its my turn.

The Venator class Star Destroyer. A prime ship of the line during the Clone Wars and end of the Old Republic. As much a carrier as anything else she transports 420 fighter craft and for her time made a pretty good cruiser. Coming in at the very very bottom of the modern cruiser scale at 1137m never the less sporting 8 (dual) heavy turbolasers; 2 medium dual turbolasers; 52 laser cannons; 4 proton torpedo launchers; 6 tractor beam projectors. A surprising armament for a ship of this size that wouldn't be surpassed for another twenty six years in the MC90. Even then the MC90 would scratch the fighter capacity of the Venator SD.

Several things bothered me about this ship and none of them are in the design. First being why would the Empire replace the Venator with the Victory? That just seemed beyond stupid to me since other then range, two years rather then four, the Venator out performs the Victory in every field. Second is why didn't the Empire continue mass production of this class? OOU its because it wasn't designed yet but that just doesn't work IU. I figured it may have been the Empire wanted to focus on the ISDs and cut the Venator.

If I were to rate this ship, and after rereading everything. I would give it a 10/10. Good but not great range but more then made up for by her fighter and anti-fighter plus ship-to-ship ability.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 03, 2011 9:07 pm

Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 03, 2011 9:35 pm



DITL :P

First being why would the Empire replace the Venator with the Victory? That just seemed beyond stupid to me since other then range, two years rather then four, the Venator out performs the Victory in every field.


Simple answer is that they didn't - the two were complimentary designs, with the VenStar being the carrier (obviously) and the VicStar being the more heavily protected gunship. The fact that the Ven is considered a fast ship while the Vic is sluggish, despite having the same reactor power, is probably down to extra armour and a generally more solid build.

Second is why didn't the Empire continue mass production of this class? OOU its because it wasn't designed yet but that just doesn't work IU. I figured it may have been the Empire wanted to focus on the ISDs and cut the Venator.


There's also their specific roles to consider. The VenStar is a carrier with guns. She's designed and built to provide air cover to ground forces fighting a full-scale galactic war. The ISD is a counterinsurgency platform - she sacrifices fighter capacity for a more robust design, heavier armour, and most importantly her greater troop compliment with all their support (particularly the prefab garrison).
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 03, 2011 9:58 pm

Shit, clearly I didn't remember us doing this ship already.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby RK_Striker_JK_5 » Tue May 03, 2011 10:05 pm

Deepcrush wrote:s**t, clearly I didn't remember us doing this ship already.


It was three years ago, Deep. I daresay it's all right. ;)
User avatar
RK_Striker_JK_5
2 Star Admiral
2 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 9280
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:27 am
Location: New Hampshire

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 03, 2011 10:08 pm

It was two and a half years ago, and I think the ship deserves a bit of a closer look than it got anyway, especially as the initial reaction last time was to modhammer SSM12 for plagiarism.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Mikey » Tue May 03, 2011 10:24 pm

I'm not nearly as expert in this area as the two of you, but it seems to me that the Vic was the preferred model of the Empire over the Ven simply because of circumstance. The Empire - as an empire - was expecting to use its assetts as 1) a display of power, and 2) to mercilessly quell under-funded, local uprisings. To that end, a ship that can stay on station longer, get to a trouble spot faster, and deploy an awe-inspiring amount of boots and armor wins.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 03, 2011 10:31 pm

RK_Striker_JK_5 wrote:
Deepcrush wrote:s**t, clearly I didn't remember us doing this ship already.


It was three years ago, Deep. I daresay it's all right. ;)


Its also around the same time I traveled a lot for work.

Captain Seafort wrote:It was two and a half years ago, and I think the ship deserves a bit of a closer look than it got anyway, especially as the initial reaction last time was to modhammer SSM12 for plagiarism.


Agreed, a closer breakdown would be in order.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 03, 2011 10:35 pm

Mikey wrote:I'm not nearly as expert in this area as the two of you, but it seems to me that the Vic was the preferred model of the Empire over the Ven simply because of circumstance. The Empire - as an empire - was expecting to use its assetts as 1) a display of power, and 2) to mercilessly quell under-funded, local uprisings. To that end, a ship that can stay on station longer, get to a trouble spot faster, and deploy an awe-inspiring amount of boots and armor wins.


True, but of the three, the Vic was only superior in time on-station. They both had Class 1 hyperdrives and they both carried a couple of thousand troops. The Ven would also be the superior ship in running down fleeing ships, due to the Vic's notoriously poor acceleration, while the Ven was considered a fast (i.e. high acceleration) ship - as good as the ImpStar.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 03, 2011 10:41 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:Simple answer is that they didn't - the two were complimentary designs, with the VenStar being the carrier (obviously) and the VicStar being the more heavily protected gunship. The fact that the Ven is considered a fast ship while the Vic is sluggish, despite having the same reactor power, is probably down to extra armour and a generally more solid build.


Very possible explanation.

Captain Seafort wrote:There's also their specific roles to consider. The VenStar is a carrier with guns. She's designed and built to provide air cover to ground forces fighting a full-scale galactic war. The ISD is a counterinsurgency platform - she sacrifices fighter capacity for a more robust design, heavier armour, and most importantly her greater troop compliment with all their support (particularly the prefab garrison).


Reading up, looks to me that the VenStar carries about the same number of troops and ground equipment as the VicStar.

Mikey wrote:I'm not nearly as expert in this area as the two of you, but it seems to me that the Vic was the preferred model of the Empire over the Ven simply because of circumstance. The Empire - as an empire - was expecting to use its assetts as 1) a display of power, and 2) to mercilessly quell under-funded, local uprisings. To that end, a ship that can stay on station longer, get to a trouble spot faster, and deploy an awe-inspiring amount of boots and armor wins.


While the 'on station time" does make a difference. I would think that having five times the number of fighter craft with an equal amount of ground force would make the VenStar a far more effective choice.

I guess for me I just can't see anything that puts the VicStar above the VenStar.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 03, 2011 10:50 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Reading up, looks to me that the VenStar carries about the same number of troops and ground equipment as the VicStar.


Yes, but we were comparing the Ven to the ISD, not the Vic. :?

While the 'on station time" does make a difference. I would think that having five times the number of fighter craft with an equal amount of ground force would make the VenStar a far more effective choice.


Plus superior acceleration, which is a non-trivial consideration given how often Imperial ships got into stern chases with Rebels.

I guess for me I just can't see anything that puts the VicStar above the VenStar.


I can think of a few:

1) As already mentioned, time on station.
2) Crew requirements. You can man three Vic for the price of two Vens, excluding troops.
3) Possible design weaknesses. Those big dorsal and ventral hangar doors must be a weak spot. Potentially quite a serious one given that the Open Circle went to the trouble of jury-rigging SPHA-T guns to cover them. The Vic is a far more solid design.
4) Cost. Purely speculative, but the Empire isn't stupid (Palpatine's stunt at Endor notwithstanding) If they consciously chose the Vic over the Ven then there's obviously something that makes the former the superior choice.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 03, 2011 11:12 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:Yes, but we were comparing the Ven to the ISD, not the Vic.


Sorry but the question I was looking to answer was why was the VenStar replaced by the VicStar. Its not hard to tell the value of the ISD over the VenStar in ground ops, but whats the deal with the Ven v Vic.

Captain Seafort wrote:Plus superior acceleration, which is a non-trivial consideration given how often Imperial ships got into stern chases with Rebels.


Very true.

Captain Seafort wrote:I can think of a few:

1) As already mentioned, time on station.
2) Crew requirements. You can man three Vic for the price of two Vens, excluding troops.
3) Possible design weaknesses. Those big dorsal and ventral hangar doors must be a weak spot. Potentially quite a serious one given that the Open Circle went to the trouble of jury-rigging SPHA-T guns to cover them. The Vic is a far more solid design.
4) Cost. Purely speculative, but the Empire isn't stupid (Palpatine's stunt at Endor notwithstanding) If they consciously chose the Vic over the Ven then there's obviously something that makes the former the superior choice.


Time on station is a clear one. Crew would be a possible one but considering the scale of the Empire it doesn't seem likely. Open Circle rigged the SPHA-Ts because they had the space too, I've seen nothing canon that says they had to do it. Though I do agree the fighter bay ports were to large.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Mikey » Tue May 03, 2011 11:21 pm

Beg your pardon, my fingers were going faster than my brain. I meant, of course, to compare the boots and armor capacity of the Ven to the ISD, not to the Vic.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33315
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Tue May 03, 2011 11:24 pm

Deepcrush wrote:Sorry but the question I was looking to answer was why was the VenStar replaced by the VicStar.


As I said, it wasn't. The two were designed and originally deployed in parallel, with the same reactor output (possibly the exact same reactor). The VicStar was simply weighted much more towards the gunship end of the spectrum.

Crew would be a possible one but considering the scale of the Empire it doesn't seem likely.


These things add up when you've got tens or hundreds of thousands of the things to

Open Circle rigged the SPHA-Ts because they had the space too, I've seen nothing canon that says they had to do it.


Nonetheless, rigging that mount must have taken some doing. IIRC it drew power directly from the main reactor, and matched the output of the main guns. It would have been a phenomenal amount of work just to brace it sufficiently to withstand the recoil, let alone rigging the power feed. It must therefore have granted them a significant advantage to make it worth their while, and trying to mitigate the obvious weakness of the hangar doors seems the most likely answer.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.

Across the Universe - Chapter 2 now up
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 15050
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Tue May 03, 2011 11:28 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:These things add up when you've got tens or hundreds of thousands of the things to


True enough.

Captain Seafort wrote:Nonetheless, rigging that mount must have taken some doing. IIRC it drew power directly from the main reactor, and matched the output of the main guns. It would have been a phenomenal amount of work just to brace it sufficiently to withstand the recoil, let alone rigging the power feed. It must therefore have granted them a significant advantage to make it worth their while, and trying to mitigate the obvious weakness of the hangar doors seems the most likely answer.


They were rigged to add extra firepower without taxing the Ven's power.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Next

Return to Star Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest