Tyyr wrote:while all the large bay doors and cavernous flight decks might be a structural weakness if you're planning on going against rebels you're unlikely expecting large scale fleet engagements.
I just don't see how the Vic offers much of anything over the Ven. Unless it just comes down to cost but... the cost of those fighters isn't likely to add up to much compared to a ship the Ven's size. The Empire obviously did go big into the Vic's so there must have been some kind of reason but I'm not really seeing it.
Tyyr wrote:It's certainly possible. However it's Empire vs. Rebels. The Ven gives you a lot of benefits for dealing with COIN operations. If you're expecting warship opposition you call in another squadron of Ven's to help out. Even if your rebels have an assault frigate or two they aren't going to be able to do much if you're bringing 10 or 20 Ven's down on them. Your extra help comes in, helps you waste their capital ships, then leaves and the original two or three Ven's stay to finish off the rebel's groundside. The Ven is obviously not designed with ship to ship engagements in mind but within the context of the Empire and what it needs its ships for the Ven's COIN capabilities, to me, more than off set it's deficiency as a one on one combatant especially given that this is the Empire, I can just toss a squadron or two of Vens at the problem and make it go away.
The Vic would make more sense if it boasted significantly greater ship to ship combat ability. Then you have a mixed navy of Ven's with Vics for backup if you start going ship to ship.
The Vic's could certainly be cheaper which might give them a boost. However for COIN, the empire's primary role, the Ven's huge fighter compliment will be very helpful so while the Ven's more expensive it's also much more effective at what it does. Again, there's no obvious reason the Vic would get the nod over the Ven. There's likely a reason, but it could be corruption as much as anything.
Lighthawk wrote:It could just be the Vic represents the mindset the Empire swung towards, brute force. The Ven is better at COIN operations only if you care about collateral damage. There's a fair deal of evidence that suggests the Empire doesn't give a s**t about minimizing damage. Also it was a government that ruled through fear as much as power. See Death Star and Alderaan.
So the Vic probably seemed like a much better option to the Empire. Smaller but tougher and with more firepower, perfectly able to go hover over a trouble spot and just blast everything to dust before sweeping up with the troops. Much easier than dealing with all those fighters, and it sends a message. "Don't f**k with us, and don't harbor those who f**k with us, or you'll be next"
Captain Seafort wrote:Makes no sense from an operational standpoint.
There's a lot more to COIN, even if you don't give a s**t about hearts and minds, than showing up and trashing the place. The operations are usually intelligence-based, so if possible you want to capture prisoners and computer systems. You need to retain at least a modicum of support, or at least apathy, so you can't simply blast an entire city to get rid of a small house with rebel occupants.
You can't guarantee that any blockade will be sufficiently tight to prevent ships doing a runner, so you have to be able to chase them down with enough firepower to stop them. The Vic is a slow ship, it hasn't really got enough fighters to throw a decent web out, and it hasn't got enough troops to launch serious operations, and it can't deploy a permanent presence on a planet. It is an inferior ship if you look purely at it's effectiveness against targets not worth its main guns.
Ultimately, the correct answer to the question "which is the right ship for the job?" isn't Victory or Venator. It's Imperator.
Lighthawk wrote:Of course not, but a lot of what the Empire did wasn't based on sense, whether of the common or military variety.
This is the same military that built a planet killing super weapon in order to frighten the entire galaxy into complete submission.
And they used it against a human dominated planet with only marginal connection to the rebellion
All true, but the general mindset of the Empire that I've gathered is that just about any target is worth the main guns.
It was a military run by psychos who really seemed to think that the only important factor in a navy was how powerful your capital ships' main weapons were.
One only has to look at how disposable they made their fighters to see how little they cared about them.
The Old Republic fighters had shields and hyperdrive, the Empire tossed those away pretty damn quick in favor of cheap, unshielded, hyperdrive lacking deathtraps that don't even have lifesupport.
They were focusing everything into the capital ships at the expense of everything else.
If the Empire was more concerned with entire planets or groups of planets trying to declare independence, the Vic falls better into the type of fleet that would have been needed to reclaim them.
Deepcrush wrote:Nitpick, while the VicStar did have a pair more guns then the VenStar. The VenStar is specifically stated to be built for ship to ship combat.
Captain Seafort wrote:Some examples please. The EU tends towards the moustache-twirling Bond-villain type, but the average Imperial officer was a very long way from that stereotype.
Partially. The threat of Base Delta Zero, despite the vanishingly small number of times it was actually employed, was just as effective at scaring people into submission. What it couldn't do was punch through planetary shields. As long as a planet could sit under its shields and defy the Empire with impunity the Tarkin Doctrine had a very large hole in it. That was why the Death Star was needed. Not to frighten the population by it's power to destroy a planet, but by its ability to overwhelm even the most advanced and powerful defences.
If by "marginal connection" you mean "single most important source of funds, weapons and political support" that's true.
So why do we never get a good look at an ISD firing its main guns? The only time the heavies were every used in the OT was in a few indistinct background shots at Endor, when they were taking on capital starships of equal size to themselves.
Hardly. Look at Tagge, who realised the threat posed by Rebel possession of the DS plans. Look at Bast, who analysed the attack pattern and realised the danger.
Look at Needa, who deployed his bombers to flush out the Falcon rather than simply vaporising the entire asteroid field.
Look at Vader of all people, who throttled Ozzel for his clumsiness.
Isard. Zinj. Thrawn. Pellaeon. None of whom were of the "blow it all up" mentality you ascribe to the Imps.
Yes, about as disposable as the average X-Wing or Y-Wing if you watched the films.
Unshielded: Proven wrong by ANH and ESB
Hyperdrive-lacking: So? They're never operating away from the mother ship, so they don't need hyperdrive. If anything it's a blessing for the pilots: would you rather sit tight in your nice comfy Star Destroyer until you're sent into action, or have to spend hours in hyperspace in a cramped cockpit and have to fight at the end of it.
Lacks life support: If an X-Wing cockpit gets cracked open, the pilot is in the s**t. If a TIE cockpit gets cracked open, the pilot is in no danger whatsoever.
Other than decent fighters, troops, transports, ground support, etc, etc.
I think the opposite is true. A land campaign such as you're envisaging would require CAS on a vast scale - exactly what the VenStar is best at.
COIN requires a balance between fighter cover, troops, firepower, and above all numbers. The VenStar's numbers would have been over-concentrated. You simply don't need hundreds of fighters in one place. You need them in lots of places, and the lower cost of the Vic, for the reasons I've explained above, allowed them to be in more places.
Captain Seafort wrote:Deepcrush wrote:Nitpick, while the VicStar did have a pair more guns then the VenStar. The VenStar is specifically stated to be built for ship to ship combat.
I don't think we can use numbers of guns for comparison - the stats for the Vic were dreamt up by the same idiots who think the ISD1 has 60 identical turbolasers and 60 identical ion cannon.
Lighthawk wrote:The rebel pilots did wear a suit that had a space rated energy shield just for that situation.
Deepcrush wrote:Lighthawk wrote:The rebel pilots did wear a suit that had a space rated energy shield just for that situation.
Care to point where in which film that happened?
Lighthawk wrote:Fair point, though still hard to justify pouring that much money and manpower into a single vessel just to make up for one issue. Even if they can't break through the shields, the planet is effectively isolated from the rest of the galaxy. Though I can see even that much of a defiance being more than Palpatine would be willing to tolerate.
Source? I'm hardly an expert in SW lore, but I've never come across anything naming Alderaan as the primary backer of the Rebellion. I thought that was Mon Calamari.
We saw SDs in action capturing the Tantive IV, but they wanted the ship captured, not blown to atoms. They couldn't use them on Hoth because of the shield. Couldn't use them on the Falcon in the asteroid field for the same reason as the Tantive. Plot induced situations tied up the big guns in the movies.
Their ability to recognize a threat posed to a specialized platform like the DS isn't mutually exclusive to a "my dick is bigger than your dick" mindset of fleet composition.
Because he knew Vader would throttle him dead if blew up the Falcon
Yes, Ozzel was a hamfisted moron, but his approach to the situation speaks of the Imperial mindset. He was clumsy and gave s**t all for alerting the rebels because he was just going to try and power through with brute force.
Yes, but they were largely post new republic imps, at least as far as when the books seem to give them their attention, and seemed to have learned something from it. If I've missed some books, a high likely hood I'll admit, detailing their service during the imperial years, please let me know.
Unshielded: Proven wrong by ANH and ESB
Of course cruising to the fight in a mother ship is a better option. But if said ship goes down in flames and you don't have a hyperdrive, you're SOL. You can either surrender to the enemy or wait to die in space. Having a hyperdive is a nice backup option.
The rebel pilots did wear a suit that had a space rated energy shield just for that situation.
Since you invoked the movie cannon, I'll give you the fighters, as much as everything else makes them out as little less disposable than a missile.
Troops though, come on. Even just pulling from the movies, stormtroopers are a joke. "An entire legion" of the Emperor's best troops got their asses handed to them by tribal teddy bears.
Ground support, the AT-ATs were pretty badass, as long as they were facing there target's head on. There are some serious issues with those things though.
I wasn't picturing a land campaign actually. I was picturing fleet battles in the space around said planets. Empire sweeps in, smashes the planetary fleet, then issues demands of surrender by threat of bombardment.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests