The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Venator-Class Star Destroyer
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Venator-Class Star Destroyer Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10699
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
So do I think the venator had 400+ fighters, yes and no.

The most likely solution is that, on a real life aircraft carrier, aircraft do not take up the same square meterage. Some will take up more and others less. 192 each of V-Wings and Eta-3's makes more sense when you take into account how small they are, whereas X-Wings, Y-Wings and the like from the classic era might require 2-3 times as much deck space to park.

My solution for using the Venator in the classic era was two-fold. For one, the Empire had clearly moved away from a carrier-based naval doctrine, focusing primarily on big-gun capital ships with starfighters in a supporting or escort role. As such, the Venator's massive carrier capacity wasn't really used because the Imperial mindset was that they didn't really need it. As such, the Venators still in service had been converted into heavily armed troop transports, supplementing the Evakmar-KDY corps transports.

For the Alliance, on the other hand, while they would certainly have loved to fill up a Venator with starfighters and throw it at an objective, their starfighters were in too short a supply, and were badly needed dispersed across the galaxy in squadron-sized lots instead of sitting on a carrier with the main fleet somewhere. As such, Venators in Alliance service acted more as heavily armed small craft tenders, providing landing space for shuttles, transports, barges, etc, in addition to some starfighters.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@CRMcNeill

You make an excellent point here.
Indeed it is about the sizes of the starfighters.

I agree with the rebels being in short supply with their starfighter numbers, but to they still represent another military doctrine.

Using the Venator much after 17BBY, giving it a few years to be phased out, I would assume you do find them at a lower number (compared to the listed 400ish) of starfighters.
The Empire rules now, their doctrine is the dominant one, also they are developing the TIE series, and actually do deploy venators in the early campaigns, mostly they seems to me to be used as assaualt ships, given they are as far as i know the only destroyer to actually be capable of landing.

So I think the compliment carried is anything from a few dozen to 400+
depending on role, era, and user
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10699
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's also important to remember that, for the most part, the Rebels are unable to design and build starships to suit their doctrine until well after Endor. As such, they are forced to make do with whatever starships are available to them, whether it is converted ships like the MC80, Assault Frigate or Bulk Cruiser, or older, surplused ships like the Venator or any surviving Separatist ships.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Thu May 03, 2018 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yes, good point.

Also on smaller capital ships we see some of this doctrine of using starfighters in large numbers.

Now if we look at the corvus, I dare say the internal hangar is part of the special operation configuration.
Despite this, if we look close at the hangar as shown in the game, the x win, is not a repalcement for the tie, but added.

After endor, or at least by 10ABY (5 after jakku) then they could build to fit their doctrine, and looking at the still eu "new" star destroyer the republic designed it had at lest 2x what the imperial counterpart had
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 213
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You both are right with your statements but unfortunately we have exactly the problem that prevails in many roleplaying systems. The stats do not reflect the inner reality.

TIE are produced in masses, have no hypodermic etc. So why not use a carrier like the Venator, which itself is much cheaper than an ISD and not really worse from the annihilation potential?

From my point of view, the whole thing is just illogical


In addition, there is the aspect of balancing I have already mentioned on the last page.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10699
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 8:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Simply counting the numbers of starfighters carried doesn't take into account what type of starfighters they are. Out of 35 squadrons, only 3 of them (the ARC-170's) are "strike capable" (i.e. equipped with ordinance and hyperdrives, which are essential to power projection in the SWU); the other 32 squadrons are all short-ranged light fighters, equipped only with energy weapons. Their obvious purpose during the Clone Wars was to counter the massed waves of droid fighters the Separatists could use to flood a battle zone. After the Clone Wars, the threat of massed starfighter attack was all but eliminated, and thus there was no longer a need for massed groups of light fighters to defend against them.

Again, the RAW is clear, both from fluff and from stats, that the Empire uses starfighters as escort and support for capital ships, not as an independent striking arm. As such, when writing up stats for the Venator, it is essential to explain why the ship is no longer in widespread service, despite the longevity of ship design in the SWU. Apart from the shift in doctrine, an obvious example would be vulnerability to combat damage (a huge hangar bay cuts into structural integrity, and is not conducive to absorbing and surviving combat damage), which is why I made my version slightly more fragile than the Victory I, even though it is over 300 meters longer.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 213
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Simply counting the numbers of starfighters carried doesn't take into account what type of starfighters they are. Out of 35 squadrons, only 3 of them (the ARC-170's) are "strike capable" (i.e. equipped with ordinance and hyperdrives, which are essential to power projection in the SWU); the other 32 squadrons are all short-ranged light fighters, equipped only with energy weapons. Their obvious purpose during the Clone Wars was to counter the massed waves of droid fighters the Separatists could use to flood a battle zone. After the Clone Wars, the threat of massed starfighter attack was all but eliminated, and thus there was no longer a need for massed groups of light fighters to defend against them.



As for the Clone Wars, I agree with you, but that does not mean that it would not make sense in the time of the Empire or later. If I take my Venator as an example and make half of the 192 Starfighter bombers I have exactly the effect that I described first.

It is cost effective and it is easier to produce. That's exactly what I meant by the contradiction in the system.

From my point of view, stats have to be the background and they do not do that from my humble point of view.

Quote:



Again, the RAW is clear, both from fluff and from stats, that the Empire uses starfighters as escort and support for capital ships, not as an independent striking arm. As such, when writing up stats for the Venator, it is essential to explain why the ship is no longer in widespread service, despite the longevity of ship design in the SWU. Apart from the shift in doctrine, an obvious example would be vulnerability to combat damage (a huge hangar bay cuts into structural integrity, and is not conducive to absorbing and surviving combat damage), which is why I made my version slightly more fragile than the Victory I, even though it is over 300 meters longer.







It's also good that the Venator has less Hull than a Star Destroyer otherwise it would be even less balanced than it already is unfortunately and I do not take my version out.

But what exactly is your explanation why the ship is not built anymore (or something similar)?

The Empire has TIE bombers and variants. They can also switch off Capital Ships and the missing Hyper Drive is in my opinion also negligible.


Even if bombers should only make up a small number, masses of laser-powered star fighters can embarrass Capital Ship.

On the one hand, there is a book with Rogue Squadron and Zsinj where hunter Starfighters fire in a line at the Iron Fist and on the other hand we have the debate on Combined Action Rules;)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10699
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

denderan marajain wrote:
As for the Clone Wars, I agree with you, but that does not mean that it would not make sense in the time of the Empire or later. If I take my Venator as an example and make half of the 192 Starfighter bombers I have exactly the effect that I described first.

It is cost effective and it is easier to produce. That's exactly what I meant by the contradiction in the system.

From my point of view, stats have to be the background and they do not do that from my humble point of view.

That's because you're insisting on reading something into the RAW that isn't there. It has long been established that ISDs are primarily a combination of battleships and assault troop transports that also happen to be carriers. Consider that a modern aircraft carrier is roughly the same length as a Nebulon-B Frigate, yet can actually carry more aircraft than the standard wing on an ISD. The reason an ISD carries so few fighters relative to its size is because of the difference in starfighter doctrine between itself and the Alliance (and the Republic, for that matter), in that the Empire has moved away from carriers and towards battleship tactics, with starfighters only playing a supporting role.

Compare, for instance, the difference in composition between an Imperial Starfighter Wing and Alliance Starfighter Wing. The Imperial Wing of 6 squadrons has exactly one squadron capable of flying strike missions, while four are designed for superiority or interceptor duty, with the remaining squadron serving in the scout role. That composition makes it clear that the Empire considers starfighters to be primarily a defensive tool, with the ship's big guns doing most of the strike work, with the bombers being reserved for precision strikes or other targets for which the big guns are not suited.

The Alliance, on the other hand, uses three-squadron wings, of which two are strike-capable, while the other doubles up superiority and reconnaissance. That composition works well with the Alliance's emphasis on independent starfighter operations, using medium and heavy starfighters to attack small capital ships.

It's also noteworthy to consider how an emphasis on big gun ships fits well with the more general Imperial mindset. The Empire is the epitome of authoritarianism, with society tightly regulated from the top down. Independence of thought is discouraged, and conformity and obedience are encouraged. Putting a single person in the pilot's seat of a starfighter and expecting said fighter to jump through hyperspace to another system (out of direct contact with its command structure) is very nearly the polar opposite of that mindset. Ships with hundreds or thousands of crew allow for the infiltration of said crew by covert agents and informants who work to identify dissent and security risks.

The use of big ships is also more compatible with the Empire's doctrine of terror. Note, for example, the AT-AT. It isn't a particularly versatile attack vehicle, but it does have a major psychological effect. An ISD is the same, but writ much, much larger.

Quote:
But what exactly is your explanation why the ship is not built anymore (or something similar)?

The Empire has TIE bombers and variants. They can also switch off Capital Ships and the missing Hyper Drive is in my opinion also negligible.

Even if bombers should only make up a small number, masses of laser-powered star fighters can embarrass Capital Ship.

And yet, per the RAW, they do not. As such, there has to be a reason why. Regardless of how you feel space combat doctrine should have progressed in the SWU, the evidence indicates that it took a different course, one that made the Venator out of date for the combat situation that attained by the time of the Battle of Yavin. You can either re-write everything to suit how you think things should have gone, or you can analyze the available evidence and come up with a logical way for the Venator to fit into what the EU has already established.

As such, all of the evidence published by WEG shows that, whatever starfighter doctrine may have been for the Republic, the Empire has shifted away from large starfighter groups by the time of the Battle of Yavin. As such, Venators have fallen out of favor, as they are no longer suited to the standard combat doctrine of the Imperial Navy. This doesn't mean the ship itself doesn't have its uses, but the concept of using a carrier to push hundreds of starfighters into a battle is on hiatus.

Quote:
On the one hand, there is a book with Rogue Squadron and Zsinj where hunter Starfighters fire in a line at the Iron Fist and on the other hand we have the debate on Combined Action Rules;)

The problem here is that the combat presented in the Rogue Squadron books is based on the combat system of the X-Wing computer games, not the RAW.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What could be argued is that various officers may personally favor certain tactics and doctrines.

Thrawn was opposed to the death star and the tactics and doctrine it represented, and he leaned more towards large number of star destroyers.

I can see how an admiral could have some customized capital ships to suit his doctrine or tactics, this could include using star fighters in an offensive role, making use of a ship like the venator, equipped with what ever number starfighters that he feels is suited.
If this is the 400+ number for small TIE sized starfighters, then this makes sense on the level of an admiral command, but not as an overall doctrine for the navy.

We have several cases where admirals and moffs "had their own type of crafts, and doctrines"
Some even developed new weapon systems, like GA Zaarin.

So would there be "old" venators with the high 400+ number of starfighters in imperial service around the time of yavin..........yes most likely, but not in numbers, not as a standard part of the fleet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10699
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That can only be argued if you are willing to completely ignore the nature of authoritarian regimes. That sort of individual initiative is going to be frowned upon by a military and government that prize uniformity and conformity. Ships like the Venator are not going to be found in front-line service when thousands of Imperial Star Destroyers are available. They are plausible for use in low-priority sectors, but even then, their hangar decks are going to either be deactivated or severely curtailed, or used for some other purpose. That's why I suggested the Empire converting them into fast assault transports, converting the majority of the hangar decks into barracks and garage facilities necessary for transporting an Army legion.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@CRMcNeill

I fully agree, it was just looking at how we on earth in the various militaries do experiment, make a handful of helicopters, then scratch the project to develop a new targeting system etc.

Given all the experimentation that at least is hinted at going on within the empire, I would not be above some sector or some system a starfighter tactical doctrine could be tried out.

It seems to me that yes indeed the empire is totalitarian and uniform, but also experimental.
I would assume with the size of the empire projects of almost any type can be implemented and both with and without the emperor's direct knowledge.

So yea I can see an old uparmored and up gunned Venator, keeping the "old" large compliment, being part of some unit where this type of tactics and thus ships are best suited, to me this would possibly within a sector only, maybe even in the outer rim and unknown regions, as it would make sense to be at lest versitile in what type of craft is needed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 10699
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri May 04, 2018 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Again, I think that a starfighter-centric naval doctrine is just too antithetical to the Imperial military mindset. All official material up to this point indicates that the Empire considers starfighters as operating in support of Army or Navy operations. While the Alliance's success in that regard has made them reconsider (resulting in later additions to the fleet like the Imperial Escort Carrier, the Nebulon B and the advanced model TIE fighters such as the Avenger and Defender), the main emphasis of their naval doctrine is going to be using them to back up capital ships.

The other issue is cost effectiveness. Even when the Empire does decide to build a true carrier, it produced the Imperial Escort Carrier, rather than refitting older Venators.
_________________
"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.
Amazing. Everything you just said was wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 213
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2018 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
That's because you're insisting on reading something into the RAW that isn't there. It has long been established that ISDs are primarily a combination of battleships and assault troop transports that also happen to be carriers. Consider that a modern aircraft carrier is roughly the same length as a Nebulon-B Frigate, yet can actually carry more aircraft than the standard wing on an ISD. The reason an ISD carries so few fighters relative to its size is because of the difference in starfighter doctrine between itself and the Alliance (and the Republic, for that matter), in that the Empire has moved away from carriers and towards battleship tactics, with starfighters only playing a supporting role.



Just because it was done officially does not mean that those have thought something of this step.

And I'm not denying your statement, I'm just saying that it's an illogical decision on the part of the Empire. For me, the fluff and background must be covered by the rules and it is not. I can gladly provide you with other examples.






1. Blasters should be deadly, according to books and films. If I take Leia's Blaster RAW as an example, I wonder how to kill Stormtrooper (16+ Difference from Damage to Strength).

Here fails the rules and can not reflect the fluff or the "reality" or the background.


2. On Hoth you can see rebels soldiers shot down by AT-AT. RAW not possible because (+ 6D on Dodge or + 8D in your house rules). Again, the rules fail and can not reflect the fluff, etc.

3. And that's my original point ... A Venator defeats an ISD alone because of its Starfighter superiority and that does not form the background either.


That's my point of criticism. I am well able to analyze what the Doctrine of the Empire is, but this doctrine is not supported by the rules and that is my criticism


Quote:

And yet, per the RAW, they do not. As such, there has to be a reason why. Regardless of how you feel space combat doctrine should have progressed in the SWU, the evidence indicates that it took a different course, one that made the Venator out of date for the combat situation that attained by the time of the Battle of Yavin. You can either re-write everything to suit how you think things should have gone, or you can analyze the available evidence and come up with a logical way for the Venator to fit into what the EU has already established.




It's not that I want to change everything but just take the ISD as a base and build the rest. That's a difference.

For this reason, my ISD also have anti-Starfighter Weapons -> Venator does not win anymore;)


Quote:
The problem here is that the combat presented in the Rogue Squadron books is based on the combat system of the X-Wing computer games, not the RAW.



Here I would like to quote from another thread

garhkal wrote:
If a task is very easy and the characters are highly
skilled or experienced, you may even allow a leader to
combine actions for more characters than he has command
skill dice



So apparently it would be possible
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 535
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Mon May 07, 2018 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a one on one fight, a venator would win or loose, not depending on the starfighters, but depending on how the ship is tactically used.

If the ISD comes within range, the venator is done for, however if the venators strike forces manages to harass the ISD preventing it form getting in range, then it would be a draw that the venator would loose when the fighters runs out of juice.

If the venator manages to stay at distance and use the fighters as extended range weaponry, then the venator could win, but not in a long lasting fight, or within gunnery range.

I agree with the venator being phased out and more or less gone by 10BBY
and when the empire later needed to combine starfighter numbers within their doctrine as an answer to rebel tactics, they made the escort carrier, a smaller and more dedicated carrier.
Venators at this time, would be more expensive, as they would in all but a handful if that even be destroyed and the escort carrier thus being a modified freighter (which it actually is).

This being said, I would not be above arguing that if enough venators by this time +/- 0 BBY/ABY, then the empire may have chosen to upgrade and retrofit these to suit a carrier role, but I would still not expect the clone wars numbers.


Another thing with the 400+ compliment as I see it is a number based on the ship's role.
In a pure carrier mode I am sure in that era the 400+ would be considered needed.
If as an assault ship and planet lander, as we have seen the venator, as well as the acclamator do, I would assume the higher number of troops, supplies for the troops, ground and atmosphere air vehicles would take quite a lot of space, at a cost of starfighters.
Considering the starfighters in a large degree would be ground attack starfighters, the onboard offensive/defensive complimet would be greatly reduced.

Add this to the later imperial need for carriers, and the doctrines, both makes sense in their era.

However I would find it interesting seeing what someone like thrawn would do with a fleet of 6 venators vs and imperial fleet of 6 ISDs , I think that would be something
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 213
Location: Vienna, Austria

PostPosted: Tue May 08, 2018 4:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a direct duel, every ship uses everything it has and the ISD is clearly at a disadvantage when it comes to RAW

1. He has only 18% of the number of Starfighters

2. His armament can not compensate at all

But as long as one does not respond to my points in more detail it makes little sense to continue the quite interesting debate;)

I'm mainly concerned with two things

1. Background must be covered by the rules

2. Balancing must be given
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0