| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2023 2:10 pm Post subject: Venator RetCon |
 |
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | You're missing the point; in a universe where the Acclamator carrier variants and the Venator-Class exists (the Acclamator variant is basically an interim carrier until the Venators come on line in sufficient numbers), this ship never would've been developed in the first place, which is why I moved it to the Recycling Bin. At that point, the Victory-Series would've been new-build platforms designed for more direct combat, so they wouldn't've been devoting dock space to building carrier variants apart from new-build Venators (which have a far higher carrying capacity than this ship anyway). If these stats stuck around in any form, it'd be as my version of the Acclamator, just with higher carrying capacity. |
IF this was directed at me, i did not miss your point. While you are not wrong, our views & opinions on the matter differ. I get that the issue of redundancy would render a Carrier variant of the Victory unnecessary, i just don't see it as an absolute. Rather, i can see it as a rare variant, less than 1 in 100 Victory SDs built in that configuration. The SWU's wartime needs echoed our own, leading to some ships being converted to carriers from battleships when only partly constructed. Just about every navy in WWII did that.
Ironically, several SW youtubers have made redundancy arguments against the Imperial-class SDs.
The Venator has gotten more interesting, as the canon work, Rise of the Separatists, states that the Venator was introduced around twenty standard years before the First Battle of Geonosis.
With the Venator now ≈20 years old when the Clone Wars began, it now predates the Acclamator. I imagine the bulk of the Venators were 10-20 years old when entering GAR service & it is these we see cannibalized/scrapped to feed Imperial-class SDs' production, while the the newer ones are retained in Imperial service in a variety of roles.
The Victory Carrier variant is, imhho, still a good idea & one i will use.
I will be fixing/overhauling the the Ton-Falk-class Escort Carrier, which in my opinion, should hold 200-220 starfighters.
As i agree with Fractal's assessment of the Secutor, its 'official' capacity is embarrassingly underwhelming, i am already started in redoing it.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | The thing is, if you start digging into what they actually carry, a Venator and an Imperator devote a similar percentage of their internal volume to troop / starfighter transport. It's just that the standard Imperator loadout is weighted more heavily toward ground troops than fighters. It'd be relatively easy to pull off 75% of the heavy equipment (AT-ATs, landing barges, ground vehicles, etc.) and quadruple the size of an Imperator's starfighter complement by landing multiple additional fighter wings in their place. Converting from fighter wings to ground troop units and back again is by far the easiest modification Of "mission" a ship can make.
People mostly think of modern aircraft carriers in terms of how many catapult-launched jet fighter-bombers they can carry, but the US Army and Navy have contingency plans to land the air wing and use a carrier as a Forward Operating Base for an Air Assault Battalion from the 101st. |
That is most interesting & good to know! Probably how the Rebellion & New Republic would use Imperators/Imperials.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
 
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10308
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon |
|
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Rather, i can see it as a rare variant, less than 1 in 100 Victory SDs built in that configuration. The SWU's wartime needs echoed our own, leading to some ships being converted to carriers from battleships when only partly constructed. Just about every navy in WWII did that. |
Battleship or battlecruiser conversion to carriers was the result of the London and Washington Naval Treaties, which don’t exist in the SWU, thus there would be no pressure or need to convert, especially when better, purpose-built hulls were already commissioned. The closest analogy to what you’re proposing is the Independence-Class Light Carriers, which were converted from Cleveland-Class Light Cruisers as a stop-gap until the Essex-Class could enter service, but that’s what the Acclamator carriers were, as an interim until the Venators came on-line.
A far more likely premise would be rebuilding badly damaged ships as transports or support ships, ala what the US Navy did with damaged DDs and DEs, converting them to seaplane tenders, fast troop transports, etc.
It would also have to be rebranded, since I’ve reassigned the Victory III designation to my version of Fractalsponge’s torpedo-spam Victory.
| Quote: | | The Venator has gotten more interesting, as the canon work, Rise of the Separatists, states that the Venator was introduced around twenty standard years before the First Battle of Geonosis. |
Roleplaying game books are not canon, and I’m disinclined to accept something as fact on FFG’s say-so. Considering the Venator is a superior design to the Acclamator, Venators would’ve been at Geonosis in place of the Acclamators if they’d been available.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Sat Jan 27, 2024 12:55 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2023 11:09 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | They would use them if they could, but in the canon universe all Imp SDs were disassembled for parts. Impractical and silly. |
Indeed. The amount of manpower alone needed to scrap every ISD would be hugely wasteful, particularly at a time with the NR would be badly in need of an expanded fleet to perform all the duties of a legitimate government during wartime. Far more cost effective to paint blue stripes on the hull to designate the ISDs as NR Navy vessels and get maximum use out of them until they can be replaced with new-build construction.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10308
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:45 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Roleplaying game books are not canon |
For the sake of complete correctness, this statement is technically inaccurate. Virtually all RPG books are designated to be in one of the two canons. WEG and WotC works are all EU/Legends. FFG is an odd situation where some books are considered Legends and others are Disney Canon. Rise of the Separatists is indeed Canon. At first all FFG were Legends (showing that the EU is not closed to new continuity), but then along the way some have started to become designated as Canon.
I'm guessing the criterion for a Canon designation is if it includes references to definitively Disney Canon. FFG's Dawn of Rebellion was a no-brainer Canonhood because that includes references to Rebels and Rogue One which definitely contradict the EU's rise of the Rebellion/pre-ANH events. Rise of the Separatists focuses on the early Clone War so I'm not sure off the top of my head what about it is definitely Canon, but then TCW was not considered part of the EU as it was, by official policy, designated with a unique canon-status ("t-canon") that was above (and blatantly disregarded) EU continuity (c-canon). For all intents and purposes, Disney Canon is an expansion of t-canon, which the Rise of the Separatists book is loaded with.
All that being said, I don't feel that Rise of the Separatists status as a Canon work at all invalidates the rest of your point. Canons can be stupid...
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | The Venator has gotten more interesting, as the canon work, Rise of the Separatists, states that the Venator was introduced around twenty standard years before the First Battle of Geonosis. |
I’m disinclined to accept something as fact on FFG’s say-so. |
Me too. But it is helpful to mention for the sake of discussion that we each have different criteria for our SWUs. Inquisitor1138 seems inclined to want to incorporate as much reference to both canons as possible, while you lean heavily on the EU side of things. We can all reject things that don't make sense, but Inquisitor1138 is the least likely to reject anything from either canon and you are more likely to reject Canon than Legends (and I am more likely to reject both).
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Considering the Venator is a superior design to the Acclamator, Venators would’ve been at Geonosis in place of the Acclamators if they’d been available. |
I completely agree, and I feel this sole point makes FFG's Canon "Venator RetCon" silly. We should all keep in mind that there is very little stopping some RPG contributing author from just adding a single sentence that makes no sense with established continuity and thus becomes a massive retcon. Fans can easily ignore those single sentence retcons if they are stupid.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10308
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:49 pm Post subject: New Republic Imperators |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | They would use them if they could, but in the canon universe all Imp SDs were disassembled for parts. Impractical and silly. |
Indeed. The amount of manpower alone needed to scrap every ISD would be hugely wasteful, particularly at a time with the NR would be badly in need of an expanded fleet to perform all the duties of a legitimate government during wartime. Far more cost effective to paint blue stripes on the hull to designate the ISDs as NR Navy vessels and get maximum use out of them until they can be replaced with new-build construction. |
I agree, but Canon's justification is that "wartime" only continued for one year after RotJ. In the Mandoverse timeline, the New Republic has enjoyed galactic peace (except for some minor skirmishes) for four years leading up to it. Canon reasoned that the only way the First Order and Final Order would eventually become the threats there were to the New Republic would be if the New Republic experienced decades of peace leading up to these conflicts, so they had to be at peacetime and dismantle all the Empire's warships in the name of it being evil technology.
It makes sense that an Empire suddenly without the Emperor and Vader would fall into chaos and be severely weakened by that, but it makes no sense to me that the awesome power of the Empire would be almost completely defeated (except for a handful minor warlords) by a brand new Republic only one year after the death of the Empire's Sith leaders. I reject Canon's nonsensical post-RotJ timeline in favor of something that makes more sense. Post-RotJ, I see the Empire as becoming fractured into a few Empires as a still-rag-tag Alliance struggles to even become a New Republic, and these goverments will be at war with each other for decades as a new generation of Jedi rises to eventually help bring true peace to the galaxy. But that's just me. The NR would indeed repurpose captured Imperators for use in this struggle.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Last edited by Whill on Mon Nov 13, 2023 7:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2023 11:37 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | I feel this sole point makes FFG's Canon "Venator RetCon" silly. We should all keep in mind that there is very little stopping some RPG contributing author from just adding a single sentence that makes no sense with established continuity and thus becomes a massive retcon. |
Or very little stopping an author from mistaking the Battle of Geonosis and the Battle of Yavin (since "introduced twenty years before the Battle of Yavin" fits with the existing canon), or having the editor make the same mistake. I've lost count of how many errors on WEG's part we've sniffed out over the years; there's no reason to assume FFG won't do the same.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:11 am Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | A far more likely premise would be rebuilding badly damaged ships as transports or support ships, ala what the US Navy did with damaged DDs and DEs, converting them to seaplane tenders, fast troop transports, etc. |
With this point in mind, I can see modifying the Victory Carrier's fluff to match and moving it out of the Recycle Bin.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 4:34 am Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon, Victory III, New Republic Imperators etc |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | Rather, i can see it as a rare variant, less than 1 in 100 Victory SDs built in that configuration. The SWU's wartime needs echoed our own, leading to some ships being converted to carriers from battleships when only partly constructed. Just about every navy in WWII did that. |
Battleship or battlecruiser conversion to carriers was the result of the London and Washington Naval Treaties, which don’t exist in the SWU, thus there would be no pressure or need to convert, especially when better, purpose-built hills were already commissioned. The closest analogy to what you’re proposing is the Independence-Class Light Carriers, which were converted from Cleveland-Class Light Cruisers as a stop-gap until the Essex-Class could enter service, but that’s what the Acclamator carriers were, as an interim until the Venators came on-line.
A far more likely premise would be rebuilding badly damaged ships as transports or support ships, ala what the US Navy did with damaged DDs and DEs, converting them to seaplane tenders, fast troop transports, etc.
It would also have to be rebranded, since I’ve reassigned the Victory III designation to my version of Fractalsponge’s torpedo-spam Victory.
| Quote: | | The Venator has gotten more interesting, as the canon work, Rise of the Separatists, states that the Venator was introduced around twenty standard years before the First Battle of Geonosis. |
Roleplaying game books are not canon, and I’m disinclined to accept something as fact on FFG’s say-so. Considering the Venator is a superior design to the Acclamator, Venators would’ve been at Geonosis in place of the Acclamators if they’d been available. |
The London and Washington Naval Treaties would have no bearing on the Japanese, Italian, & several other nations' navies. I have a few volumes of the Weapons and Warfare encyclopedia, vol. 22 has many examples of carriers & carrier hybrids. Most of the ones in vol. 22 were converted, whether in the initial construction or years of service as anything but a carrier.
I'd have rebranded the Victory III anyway, as i have it as concurrent with the Victory in my SWU's CW, predating the Victory II.
As for the Victory III designation i am undecided. While i do like the version you created, it is essentially a hybrid of the Victory II & Victory I. There are numerous 'Victory III SD' concepts & stats, but in the end there can only be One. Yours is one of the top contenders though, time will tell.
I have not revised my plans completely on FFG's say so; i found the idea intriguing, & it lit up my overactive imagination. I've tentatively linked it to Rugess Nome/Darth Tenebrous, but i am holding off for now, as the idea that i either have to make Lira Wessex & her father Walex Cantwell Blissex I 20-ish years older or make up some other explanation, rather irksome. I'm tabling the issue for now & work it out later. (having been sidetracked several times since i began this post, i've peeked in the other tab & seen your 2 posts, you make a good point & i am losing affection for the 'retcon'.)
| Whill wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | They would use them if they could, but in the canon universe all Imp SDs were disassembled for parts. Impractical and silly. |
Indeed. The amount of manpower alone needed to scrap every ISD would be hugely wasteful, particularly at a time with the NR would be badly in need of an expanded fleet to perform all the duties of a legitimate government during wartime. Far more cost effective to paint blue stripes on the hull to designate the ISDs as NR Navy vessels and get maximum use out of them until they can be replaced with new-build construction. |
I agree, but Canon's justification is that "wartime" only continued for one year after RotJ. In the Mandoverse timeline, the New Republic has enjoyed galactic peace (except for some minor skirmishes) for four years leading up to it. Canon reasoned that the only way the First Order and Final Order would eventually become the threats there were to the New Republic would be if the New Republic experienced decades of peace leading up to these conflicts, so they had to be at peacetime and dismantle all the Empire's warships in the name of it being evil technology.
It makes sense that an Empire suddenly without the Emperor and Vader would fall into chaos and be severely weakened by that, but it makes no sense to me that the awesome power of the Empire would be almost completely defeated (except for a handful minor warlords) by a brand new Republic only one year after the death of the Empire's Sith leaders. I reject Canon's nonsensical post-RotJ timeline in favor of something that makes more sense. Post-RotJ, I see the Empire as becoming fractured into a few Empires as a still-rag-tag Alliance struggles to even become a New Republic, and these governments will be at war with each other for decades as a new generation of Jedi rises to eventually help bring true peace to the galaxy. But that's just me. The NR would indeed repurpose captured Imperators for use in this struggle. |
While i do like the Mandoverse it cannot exist in my SWU's timeline. Some of it conflicts with the meta & history of my SWU. That said, there characters & elements i wish to include, in some form...
I'd characterize my current SWU/headcanon as a soft reboot of the one i had pre-Disney; 98% EU up until the NJO, at which point my campaign diverged, as my players unanimously voted "NO!" to the Yuuzhan Vong. The biggest difference from EU canon was i had Shaak Ti & Aayla Secura survive & had a hidden enclave on Felucia.
At present my current SWU/headcanon is ≈75-80% EU/Legends, 10% or less new canon, the remaining 10-15% being my ideas.
My campaign had the majority of the CW era ships mothballed at secret Imperial Weapons Depots, & it became a race, New Republic vs. Imperial Remnants & Imperial Remnants vs. each other, to find all the Depots & claim the ships.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 11:24 am Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon, Victory III, New Republic Imperators etc |
|
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | The London and Washington Naval Treaties would have no bearing on the Japanese, Italian, & several other nations' navies. |
I’m honestly a little stunned that you could be this wrong on the matter. The summary paragraphs of the Wikipedia articles on the Washington and London Treaties specifically mention as signatories nations you just excluded. Every nation that would matter in the near term was a signatory; Germany wasn’t included because the Treaty of Versailles already limited their Navy (they would later renounce the treaty in the run-up to WW2). Major aspects of warship design at all levels leading up to WW2 were hugely limited by the restrictions of the inter-war treaties.
| Quote: | | I have a few volumes of the Weapons and Warfare encyclopedia, vol. 22 has many examples of carriers & carrier hybrids. Most of the ones in vol. 22 were converted, whether in the initial construction or years of service as anything but a carrier. |
In that case, you need to look at the design history and chronology of individual ships. A lot of the earlier carriers were experimental conversions using the hulls of colliers, seaplane tenders or ocean liners and the like. The larger fleet carrier conversions were almost all subject to the treaty restrictions (see below for the two exceptions), with a specific clause allowing the conversion of two battleship / battlecruiser hulls to carriers. That’s how the US Navy got the Lexingtons and the IJN got the Akagi and Kaga (interesting side note: originally, the Japanese were converting the Akagi’s sister ship Amagi, but the hull was irreparably damaged in an earthquake, so the battleship Kaga was converted instead).
As near as I can tell, only the Brits did actual conversion of capital ships into carriers prior to the treaties taking effect (see [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eagle_(1918)#]HMS Eagle[/url] and HMS Furious), and in both cases, there was a huge element of “let’s try a bunch of different ideas and see what works best”. The Furious’ sister ships Glorious and Courageous (the class namesake) were subsequently converted as part of the Washington Treaty’s carrier conversion allotment for the Royal Navy.
Note: Can’t get the Eagle’s Wikipedia link to work with the url code, so submitting as-is.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon, Victory III, New Republic Imperators etc |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | | The London and Washington Naval Treaties would have no bearing on the Japanese, Italian, & several other nations' navies. |
I’m honestly a little stunned that you could be this wrong on the matter. The summary paragraphs of the Wikipedia articles on the Washington and London Treaties specifically mention as signatories nations you just excluded. Every nation that would matter in the near term was a signatory; Germany wasn’t included because the Treaty of Versailles already limited their Navy (they would later renounce the treaty in the run-up to WW2). Major aspects of warship design at all levels leading up to WW2 were hugely limited by the restrictions of the inter-war treaties.
| Quote: | | I have a few volumes of the Weapons and Warfare encyclopedia, vol. 22 has many examples of carriers & carrier hybrids. Most of the ones in vol. 22 were converted, whether in the initial construction or years of service as anything but a carrier. |
In that case, you need to look at the design history and chronology of individual ships. A lot of the earlier carriers were experimental conversions using the hulls of colliers, seaplane tenders or ocean liners and the like. The larger fleet carrier conversions were almost all subject to the treaty restrictions (see below for the two exceptions), with a specific clause allowing the conversion of two battleship / battlecruiser hulls to carriers. That’s how the US Navy got the Lexingtons and the IJN got the Akagi and Kaga (interesting side note: originally, the Japanese were converting the Akagi’s sister ship Amagi, but the hull was irreparably damaged in an earthquake, so the battleship Kaga was converted instead).
As near as I can tell, only the Brits did actual conversion of capital ships into carriers prior to the treaties taking effect (see [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eagle_(1918)#]HMS Eagle[/url] and HMS Furious), and in both cases, there was a huge element of “let’s try a bunch of different ideas and see what works best”. The Furious’ sister ships Glorious and Courageous (the class namesake) were subsequently converted as part of the Washington Treaty’s carrier conversion allotment for the Royal Navy.
Note: Can’t get the Eagle’s Wikipedia link to work with the url code, so submitting as-is. |
i sit corrected. i was ignorant of the treaties & too exhausted to fact-check before i responded.
Thank you for the links, i look forward to reading them.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10308
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon, Victory III |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | Or very little stopping an author from mistaking the Battle of Geonosis and the Battle of Yavin (since "introduced twenty years before the Battle of Yavin" fits with the existing canon), or having the editor make the same mistake. I've lost count of how many errors on WEG's part we've sniffed out over the years; there's no reason to assume FFG won't do the same. |
Point. I am also reminded of how an error in the artwork on a Rebels children book set in 5 BBY lead to the Imperator-IIs being retconned to 5 BBY. I just checked the Canon resource Star Wars Timelines (a book I've barely cracked open since getting it), and sure enough, the SD timeline in there has Imp IIs coming out 5 BBY now. So there does seem to be a general "canonize errors" policy.
| CRMcNeill wrote: | | CRMcNeill wrote: | | A far more likely premise would be rebuilding badly damaged ships as transports or support ships, ala what the US Navy did with damaged DDs and DEs, converting them to seaplane tenders, fast troop transports, etc. |
With this point in mind, I can see modifying the Victory Carrier's fluff to match and moving it out of the Recycle Bin. |
So you're saying that Victory-IIIs are actually just refit Victory-Is that were produced when the Empire finally got around to doing something with a depot of damaged Victory-Is, at some point after Victory-IIs came out?
| CRMcNeill wrote: | As near as I can tell, only the Brits did actual conversion of capital ships into carriers prior to the treaties taking effect (see [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Eagle_(1918)#]HMS Eagle[/url] and HMS Furious), and in both cases, there was a huge element of “let’s try a bunch of different ideas and see what works best”. The Furious’ sister ships Glorious and Courageous (the class namesake) were subsequently converted as part of the Washington Treaty’s carrier conversion allotment for the Royal Navy.
Note: Can’t get the Eagle’s Wikipedia link to work with the url code, so submitting as-is. |
The URL BB code doesn't like URLs with parentheses in them. The closest you can come is posting HMS Eagle (1918) which gets you close to it on the list of HMS Eagles, and then you have to click on the 1918 ship there
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10308
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2023 8:38 pm Post subject: Re: New Republic Imperators, etc |
|
|
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | While i do like the Mandoverse it cannot exist in my SWU's timeline. Some of it conflicts with the meta & history of my SWU. That said, there characters & elements i wish to include, in some form...
I'd characterize my current SWU/headcanon as a soft reboot of the one i had pre-Disney; 98% EU up until the NJO, at which point my campaign diverged, as my players unanimously voted "NO!" to the Yuuzhan Vong. The biggest difference from EU canon was i had Shaak Ti & Aayla Secura survive & had a hidden enclave on Felucia. |
So just curious. In your SWU, did Aayla Secura's Order 66 happen as it appeared on screen and she somehow survived being shot a hundred times, or did it not happen as on the screen and she escaped?
| Inquisitor1138 wrote: | At present my current SWU/headcanon is ≈75-80% EU/Legends, 10% or less new canon, the remaining 10-15% being my ideas.
My campaign had the majority of the CW era ships mothballed at secret Imperial Weapons Depots, & it became a race, New Republic vs. Imperial Remnants & Imperial Remnants vs. each other, to find all the Depots & claim the ships. |
OK, that's CW-era ships. Where do you stand on New Republic Imperators?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 604
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2023 1:37 am Post subject: Re: New Republic Imperators, etc |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | While i do like the Mandoverse it cannot exist in my SWU's timeline. Some of it conflicts with the meta & history of my SWU. That said, there characters & elements i wish to include, in some form...
I'd characterize my current SWU/headcanon as a soft reboot of the one i had pre-Disney; 98% EU up until the NJO, at which point my campaign diverged, as my players unanimously voted "NO!" to the Yuuzhan Vong. The biggest difference from EU canon was i had Shaak Ti & Aayla Secura survive & had a hidden enclave on Felucia. |
So just curious. In your SWU, did Aayla Secura's Order 66 happen as it appeared on screen and she somehow survived being shot a hundred times, or did it not happen as on the screen and she escaped? |
*heavy sigh* Hrmmn...
I gotta think on it..
1999, 2002, 2005...
Aayla Secura was one of my favorite characters from the comics & i was ecstatic when she appeared in AotC. Her Order 66 scene was brutal, shocking & horrifying.
Without the original, physical notes i had made, i can't be 100% certain, but what i *think* i did was, she sensed & dodged a few seconds sooner. Also the inner conflict her troopers had about shooting their perceived 'mother' made their aim unsteady & some couldn't pull the trigger. She'd taken a few shots, not 'a hundred'. She'd moved fast & erratically, quickly disappearing into the dense foliage.
Her former troops' efforts to pursue her were half-hearted at best.
| Whill wrote: | | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | At present my current SWU/headcanon is ≈75-80% EU/Legends, 10% or less new canon, the remaining 10-15% being my ideas.
My campaign had the majority of the CW era ships mothballed at secret Imperial Weapons Depots, & it became a race, New Republic vs. Imperial Remnants & Imperial Remnants vs. each other, to find all the Depots & claim the ships. |
OK, that's CW-era ships. Where do you stand on New Republic Imperators? |
They used what they could get. Even when they eventually got to the point when they could pay shipyards & shipwrights to design & build new ships specifically for the New Republic Navy, they were still using Imperators & anything else they got their hands on. Some were stock, but many were modified to some degree or other. The Liberator and the Emancipator in Dark Empire are fine examples.
▐ε■╝αrÜ▄▌▐▀αßΓ
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16187
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 14, 2023 12:12 pm Post subject: Re: Venator RetCon, Victory III |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | So you're saying that Victory-IIIs are actually just refit Victory-Is that were produced when the Empire finally got around to doing something with a depot of damaged Victory-Is, at some point after Victory-IIs came out? |
The timeline of my adding to and editing the Index can be a little confusing. I originally called this ship the Victory III, then reconsidered its existence in light of the Venator being a superior carrier in effectively the same scale. When I moved it to the Recycle Bin, there was no need to remove the Victory III classification.
Later, I decided to stat out Fractal’s Victory model with the speed of the Victory II, but swapping out the ion cannons and carrier capacity for massed torpedo broadsides. Since I’d already retired the Victory Carrier concept, I called the Torpedo Spam Victory the Victory III, but never bothered to rename the Victory III Carrier in the Recycle Bin.
Then, in light of Inquisitor1138’s interest, I came up with a new headcanon for the Victory Carrier that merited moving it out of the Recycle Bin. However, since I had already repurposed the Victory III tag, the Carrier needed a new designation, so I came up with another headcanon that, because the Carrier was a modification of the existing Victory (as opposed to a planned design), it didn’t get called a Victory IV, but was designated a Victory/c (for Carrier).
My overall headcanon for the Victory Series has the I, II and III Classes developed at the same time as the Venator, using the same hull to meet different needs:Victory I - Optimized for orbital fire support and troop insertion (effectively functioning as a giant drop ship that could land a Walker Assault Battalion directly from its own bays without needing barges).
Victory II - Optimized for Superiority, with a full six-squadron fighter wing and a Marine Battalion for boarding actions.
Victory III - Optimized for Torpedo runs against larger vessels, with the Victory II’s speed, but no ion cannon and only two squadrons of fighters. The Victory/c Carrier, in turn, is a follow-on modification of the I/II/III classes, with badly damaged models being refitted as carriers when full restoration was considered uneconomical.
I haven’t fully resolved how a Victory I’s lower Space performance is improved to II/III levels in the process, but I am working on it. There’s potentially room for a Victory/t Assault Transport that drops the Victory I’s fire support capability in favor of being a pure troop lander.
| Quote: | | The URL BB code doesn't like URLs with parentheses in them. |
Thanks. Silly codes.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
