Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Tyyr » Wed May 04, 2011 11:53 am

Of course if you're really looking at anti-insurgency ops I'd venture that the Venator's larger small craft compliment would be very useful and 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. Time on station might be a concern but I just... I can't see it being that big a deal. We're not talking about the Federation, we're talking about the Empire. The controlled the entire galaxy. There's likely to be a base within days or at most a couple weeks from any potential trouble spot and at some point in two years you'd think they could schedule a transport to swing by with some supplies for a Venator on station.

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.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 04, 2011 12:26 pm

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.


That doesn't mean you don't expect some form of ship-to-ship combat. Given that the Rebels had plenty of decent-sized warships of their own even before the Mon Cals got struck in, some of which (the assault frigate for example) could challenge even an ISD in fairly small numbers, the Ven might have been considered too vulnerable for the advantage its fighters gave.

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.


It's not just the fighters, it's the ship itself. The Vic's peak acceleration is a lot lower and the basic design is a lot more solid, so she'll need less in the way of bracing to withstand peak acceleration. This should reduce the cost of the ship per unit volume, which will be further reduced by the fact that she's a good 20 per cent smaller. As with the crew figures, these will probably be relatively small savings per ship, but when you've got tens or hundreds of thousands of the things, it starts to add up.
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
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Tyyr » Wed May 04, 2011 12:37 pm

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.
User avatar
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Lighthawk » Wed May 04, 2011 1:09 pm

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 shit 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 fuck with us, and don't harbor those who fuck with us, or you'll be next"
Image
User avatar
Lighthawk
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:55 pm
Location: Missouri, USA, North America, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milkyway Galaxy, Local Group, Universe

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 04, 2011 1:16 pm

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 problem is that you probably won't have that Venators on hand (or any other decent-sized ships for that matter). Even the member worlds of the Empire significantly outnumber the destroyers, let alone the tens of millions of lesser systems. With only 24 heavy ships to a sector group, the fleet is spread far too thinly to be able to employ the tactics you're proposing.

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.


It did - that's how they operated during the Clone Wars.

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.


It's not a question of whether it would be effective. It's a matter of whether it would be sufficiently effective to be worth the extra cost. The Empire evidently doesn't think so.
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
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 04, 2011 1:32 pm

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"


Makes no sense from an operational standpoint. There's a lot more to COIN, even if you don't give a shit 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.
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
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Lighthawk » Wed May 04, 2011 1:48 pm

Captain Seafort wrote:Makes no sense from an operational standpoint.


Of course not, but a lot of what the Empire did wasn't based on sense, whether of the common or military variety.

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 mean you shouldn't simply blast an entire city. 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 because the actual HQ (as far as they knew at that moment) was on a planet that wasn't well known enough to make a good demonstration.

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.


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. Makes perfect sense to me that they'd toss the Ven in favor of something like the Vic.

Ultimately, the correct answer to the question "which is the right ship for the job?" isn't Victory or Venator. It's Imperator.


True

Edit: A thought that just came to me, but there is some similarity between the Empire vs the Rebellion and the Vietnam War. In both cases you have a huge power building up it's military towards being ready to fight large scale open battles, only to find itself in a conflict completely opposite of what its equipment and training was preparing it for. 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.
Image
User avatar
Lighthawk
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:55 pm
Location: Missouri, USA, North America, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milkyway Galaxy, Local Group, Universe

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Wed May 04, 2011 10:41 pm

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.
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 » Wed May 04, 2011 11:05 pm

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.


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.

This is the same military that built a planet killing super weapon in order to frighten the entire galaxy into complete submission.


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.

And they used it against a human dominated planet with only marginal connection to the rebellion


If by "marginal connection" you mean "single most important source of funds, weapons and political support" that's true.

All true, but the general mindset of the Empire that I've gathered is that just about any target is worth the main guns.


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.

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.


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.

One only has to look at how disposable they made their fighters to see how little they cared about them.


Yes, about as disposable as the average X-Wing or Y-Wing if you watched the films.

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.


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 shit. If a TIE cockpit gets cracked open, the pilot is in no danger whatsoever.

They were focusing everything into the capital ships at the expense of everything else.


Other than decent fighters, troops, transports, ground support, etc, etc.

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.


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.
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
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Wed May 04, 2011 11:08 pm

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.
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
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Lighthawk » Thu May 05, 2011 12:15 am

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.


Average for an Imperial officer tends to vary from author to author. As for examples, it's been at least 5 years since I've read anything Star Wars, so the hell if I'm going to remember anything beyond impressions.

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.


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.

If by "marginal connection" you mean "single most important source of funds, weapons and political support" that's true.


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.

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.


Because aside from the battle of Endor, big fleet on fleet combat wasn't the focus of the OT. 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. Less so in the books.

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.


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.

Look at Needa, who deployed his bombers to flush out the Falcon rather than simply vaporising the entire asteroid field.


Because he knew Vader would throttle him dead if blew up the Falcon

Look at Vader of all people, who throttled Ozzel for his clumsiness.


Yes, Ozzel was a hamfisted moron, but his approach to the situation speaks of the Imperial mindset. He was clumsy and gave shit all for alerting the rebels because he was just going to try and power through with brute force.

Isard. Zinj. Thrawn. Pellaeon. None of whom were of the "blow it all up" mentality you ascribe to the Imps.


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.

Yes, about as disposable as the average X-Wing or Y-Wing if you watched the films.


Well if you want to stick to the movies, then yeah, those shields seemed to did jack shit for the wings and they blew up as readily as the ties. The books, games, and comics make a much bigger deal about them having shields, though the cannon hierarchy pisses on their view point.

Unshielded: Proven wrong by ANH and ESB


Oh?

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.


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.

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.


The rebel pilots did wear a suit that had a space rated energy shield just for that situation.

Other than decent fighters, troops, transports, ground support, etc, etc.


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. Transports...all I recall was that Y shaped personal transport. I guess it did it's job alright, though we hardly saw them do anything strenuous. 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 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.


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.

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.


That is agreeable, though I'm not sure that was the goal in mind when the Vic was phasing out the Ven. But that's just pure guess work anyway.
Image
User avatar
Lighthawk
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:55 pm
Location: Missouri, USA, North America, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milkyway Galaxy, Local Group, Universe

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Deepcrush » Thu May 05, 2011 12:43 am

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.


IIRC, the ICS stats the VicStar at ten heavy guns where the VenStar has eight. Thats what I was drawing from. As to the 60/60 end of it, I've never seen anything that stated they are the same and the model clearly shows the eight dual turrets.
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 » Thu May 05, 2011 12:48 am

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?
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 Lighthawk » Thu May 05, 2011 1:03 am

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?


Care to point out where in which film you got the numbers for the Vic's and Ven's guns?

The space shield thing is EU of course. Are we really going to start going down the anal cannon path with this discussion? I know the EU is lower cannon, but it still cannon, and nothing in the movies contradicts the EUs claim of the rebel pilots having such a shield on their flight suits.
Image
User avatar
Lighthawk
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4632
Joined: Fri May 22, 2009 6:55 pm
Location: Missouri, USA, North America, Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milkyway Galaxy, Local Group, Universe

Re: Ship of the Week : Venator Class Star Destroyer

Postby Captain Seafort » Thu May 05, 2011 11:37 am

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.


This wouldn't just be a single planet posing the threat, but dozens or hundreds of them. More to the point, being shielded doesn't mean they were cut off. Windows could be opened in the shield to allow ships to leave without compromising its defence, allowing the planet to maintain contact with the rest of the galaxy and with any insurgent groups it was sponsoring. A huge fleet would be needed to prevent such action (look how ineffective Death Squadron was at Hoth - they were only about 50% effective.

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.


Bail Organa was one of the key organisers of the Petition of 2000 towards the end of the Clone Wars (RotS), and when that failed began organising to take on the Empire. He was one of the three signatories of the Corellian Treaty that formed the Rebel Alliance, along with Mon Mothma and Garm Bel Iblis. (Dark Force Rising) Since he was head of state of Alderaan, he was able to covertly steer the resources of the entire planet towards supporting the rebellion, and used Alderaanian diplomatic ships (such as the Tantive IV) to conduct courier missions for the rebels. (ANH)

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.


Those "plot induced situations" are typical COIN ops. Incidentally, they could have used the big guns at Hoth - liquefy the ice field around the base and flood it. However, the objective was to capture the rebel leadership, not obliterate it, so that was out.

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.


It demonstrated that "rar, Hulk Smash!" is not the be-all and end-all of combat, and that the potential existed for a threat to be posed without having to deploy overwhelming firepower.

Because he knew Vader would throttle him dead if blew up the Falcon


Demonstrating that blowing stuff up is not the be-all and end-all of Imperial tactics.

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.


And Vader's reaction demonstrated that such an attitude is unacceptable in the Imperial Fleet.

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.


With the exception of Pellaeon they were all senior commanders during the Imperial period, and are unlikely to have altered their style simply due to slightly changed circumstances. If you believe that they did so I'd like to see some evidence.

Unshielded: Proven wrong by ANH and ESB


Oh?


The Falcon struck a glancing blow to a TIE's shields while escaping from the Death Star, and another's shields are visible when it hit an asteroid while chasing the Falcon.

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.


That's one possibility. A very unlikely one given the Imperial fleet's clear superiority in the vast majority of combat situations.

The rebel pilots did wear a suit that had a space rated energy shield just for that situation.


1) Relying on active measure rather than a reliable proper suit is stupid (have you missed the E-D discussions. In this case it's probably explained as a jury-rigged measure due to the alliance's poor resources.

2) They didn't work half the time, at the very least. Wes Janson's first kill was an alliance pilot - he got spooked on a raid, bugged out, and Janson had to shoot him down to prevent the Imps spotting him. The shot cracked the canopy and killed him.

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.


As I've already pointed out, their kill:loss ratio is about equal to the wings in open combat, and in the films is far superior (mainly due to the stern chases while attacking the two Death Stars).

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.


ANH: Cleared the T4 in short order, despite assaulting a defended chokepoint. Took down a sandcrawler with only small arms and light support weapons, due to being able to hit specific key structural supports. Attacked the detention block through a chokepoint and were clearly winning the firefight when Leia took charge. Fulfilled their orders to make the rebels' escape look hard fought, but to allow them to leave, despite the fact that the restriction meant they had to deliberately miss people who were trying to kill them.

ESB: Cleared Echo Base rapidly, through tight corridors well-suited for the defence. Again shepherded the rebels through the corridors of Cloud City in order to ensure that they reached the Falcon for Vader to pick up with the Ex.

RotJ: Were surprised by vastly superior numbers of opponents in close-quarter forest fighting who were much smaller targets than they were used to, were much stronger than humans, had good natural camouflage, knew the terrain well, and had prepared the ground. They were still winning the battle until Chewie nicked an AT-ST and turned it against them.

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.


Such as? They were clearly intended to engage the target with heavy firepower at long range, then close and deploy their troops. Yes, their flanks are vulnerable, and they can be tripped under the right circumstances. That's why they should have AT-ST's, disembarked troops, or other lighter combat elements in support. Given that they shield denied them the air support they would receive under other conditions they did extremely well, lets not forget the fact that they won, very quickly and with only two losses.

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.


And if they refuse, what then? The objective is to capture the planet, not destroy it.
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
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
 
Posts: 14941
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:44 pm
Location: Blighty

PreviousNext

Return to Star Wars

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest