View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mamatried Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017 Posts: 1850 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 7:24 am Post subject: The Venator's superiority vs any and all ISDs |
|
|
In short the Venator is a carrier with ship to ship comabat capabilties.
The ISD is a heavy ship to ship battleship with very limited carrier capacity to the point of calling it a non carrier even f fitted with a full swuadron 24 ties.
Lets look at why I say the Venator is superior.
ISD in Kuat can not hurt the Vantor that deploys 400+ fighters from the Naboo sysrem.
so looking to ww2 naval warfare we see why and how the battleshop died, and how and why the carrier became superior....range range and range
this is the range of offensive capabilities.......400+ Hyperdive equipped fighters vs 24-72 non hyperdive equipped fighers.
The ventor will win every time...
Now the venator have been used as a destryoer and battleship but this is not relevant...as I can use a hammer as a a saw , but this does not make my hammer bad, only how I used it
So the vantor used "correctly" is superisor due to doctrine always supperior to later ISDs
is there any arguments agains this that does not include "wrong" useage of either ship? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14152 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the venerators weren't as tough, in a head to head fight, as the ISD's were?? _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017 Posts: 1850 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | Maybe the venerators weren't as tough, in a head to head fight, as the ISD's were?? |
Great point and I belive they were not.
I do belive they could go toe to toe with and ISD for a while, but they will loose, the ISD is better armed and armored.
I belive if a ship is used in a role it is not designed for we can not call it bad, not even worse than others in the role, but we have to call it a misused ship.
Venator is a carrier, a carrier with adequate but limited ship to ship comabt capabilities but was desined and built as a carrier, with hyperdive equipped fighters and bombers and with the hyperdrive it has much greater range and can take ut any other ship form across the galaxy....far beyond the range of even the DS death laser
My point is really if we look to naval combat today we see that the carrier is now the main capatial ship supported with much smaller crousers and frigates, the battleship is dead.
Now take an IOWA class and pit it in a bradside against a Nimitz and the battleship wins hands down and most times..
However before the IOWA class Battleshp is even close it is sunk by being overwhelmed by starfighters and bombers..... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pakman Commander
Joined: 20 Jul 2021 Posts: 428
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 2:40 pm Post subject: Re: The Venator's superiority vs any and all ISDs |
|
|
Mamatried wrote: | In short the Venator is a carrier with ship to ship comabat capabilties.
The ISD is a heavy ship to ship battleship with very limited carrier capacity to the point of calling it a non carrier even f fitted with a full swuadron 24 ties.
Lets look at why I say the Venator is superior.
ISD in Kuat can not hurt the Vantor that deploys 400+ fighters from the Naboo sysrem.
so looking to ww2 naval warfare we see why and how the battleshop died, and how and why the carrier became superior....range range and range
this is the range of offensive capabilities.......400+ Hyperdive equipped fighters vs 24-72 non hyperdive equipped fighers.
The ventor will win every time...
Now the venator have been used as a destryoer and battleship but this is not relevant...as I can use a hammer as a a saw , but this does not make my hammer bad, only how I used it
So the vantor used "correctly" is superisor due to doctrine always supperior to later ISDs
is there any arguments agains this that does not include "wrong" useage of either ship? |
While I love the Venators (there was one in my last adventure .... but I digress) - Honestly - I feel the stats (like most stats in our beloved game) are way off.
Honestly - 400 fighters - I think is not at all realistic.
It is not just about the fact that 400 fighters take a lot of crew to manage etc. but that well....most stats in the game are made by folks who are just making stats .... from fuel consumption to guns to crews etc.
I would put it at 120 tops. Based on logistics, real world ships etc.
Now - having said that - if you want venators to have 400 fighters in your game universe - that is awesome. Then I would increase ISD (which are bigger) to 400 as well.
Or dont.
Our game of space wizards is not exactly known for logic or scientific consistency - so use what works for you. Just my 2Cr worth. _________________ SW Fan, Gamer, Comic, Corporate nerd.
Working on massive House Rules document - pretty much a new book. Will post soon.... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16272 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The ISD is only inferior to the Venator in carrier capacity because it devotes a much greater percentage of its carry capacity to its ground assault element, and carry complement is the most easily modified aspect of any carrier. An ISD as written by WEG is more equipped for police actions against light forces in the Rim than a true superiority role, but could very easily offload 3/4’s of its ground complement (leaving the remainder for boarding operations) in trade for another 3-4 wings of TIEs, negating the Venator’s only advantage. Given enough warning (as in, being deployed in response to a Venator destroying an another ISD in a 1v1 battle), this is an easy switch to accomplish.
An ISD’s carry capacity is roughly equal to that of a Venator; a Venator just devotes a much larger percentage of its total volume to the carrier mission. Thus, an ISD has a much greater reactor volume, thus greater power output, thus stronger main battery and defenses, so it will almost certainly win in any gunnery duel against a Venator.
And crucially, the Venator’s “400+ fighters” stat is predicated on deploying huge numbers of small, short-range (as in, no hyperdrive), light superiority fighters that lack any sort of ordnance capability. You can’t swap them out one-for-one with larger, heavier ships like X-, Y- or B-Wings because said fighters take up 2-3 times the square meterage of deck parking space. WEG stats don’t recognize this fact, but it remains a fact.
Ultimately, a properly handled Venator loaded with an appropriate complement of Alliance fighters (as in, adjusted for available deck parking area) could beat a “normally” equipped ISD in a 1v1 fight by staying at range and hammering the ISD with alpha strikes. But the battle is not the war. Eventually, the Empire will deploy one or more ISDs loaded with multiple fighter wings and go hunting for said Venator, at which point the Venator’s best move is to run, because 400+ TIEs on an ISD would negate all the Venator’s advantages.
EDIT: This assumes that the Venator’s fighters can deploy heavy ordnance, Ala what I’ve written up here. If they’re stuck with spam-launching proton torpedoes using WEG’s rules, it gets a lot harder, as WEG has no official rules for easily combining the fire of a dozen fighters (each squadron commander would need a Command of 12D to pull it off). _________________ "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 |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14152 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2024 12:43 am Post subject: Re: The Venator's superiority vs any and all ISDs |
|
|
pakman wrote: |
While I love the Venators (there was one in my last adventure .... but I digress) - Honestly - I feel the stats (like most stats in our beloved game) are way off.
Honestly - 400 fighters - I think is not at all realistic.
It is not just about the fact that 400 fighters take a lot of crew to manage etc. but that well....most stats in the game are made by folks who are just making stats .... from fuel consumption to guns to crews etc.
I would put it at 120 tops. Based on logistics, real world ships etc.
. |
For me, its the size. NOT just for the 400 fighters, i don't see a venerator having, but also the crew AND FUEL for all those fighters... _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mamatried Commodore
Joined: 16 Dec 2017 Posts: 1850 Location: Norway
|
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2024 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
the huge number of fighters/light craft of the venator I agree with is at best meeeh when it comes to things space and resupply etc.
Now where I have an issue is with the role the ship is used in....
I see it as a carrier, a desinated carrier and not something that can double as something else....as to asault ship for the ground forces we had on the republic side the acclamator which is also both in canon and legends coverted to pure carriers in some cases
My point is that the Venator is not a star destroyer, and if used as such it will not be good and overall rate low in capabilities, but if used with the numbers we have, then even with non hyperdrive equipped light ETA fithers it will still overwhelm any defenses of a single ISD.....we see this happen actually, we do not see big claital ships go head to head and win agains the imperial ships, but we do almost in any case of an imperial loss, use light ships and target spesific areas on the ship.
Swarming the battleshipbasically and I belive that the numners and stats we do have of the Venator makes it a "this type" aka a ship to launch fighers and not to be in the front line......
I mean regardless of the number of light craft.......why if armor and weaponry is the "deciding factor" is the battleship obsolete today? becuse it can not defensd against a carrier.......this is history.
So to me I would even go as far as to say that any and all dedicated carriers, meaning something that carries primarily starfighters something the Empire does not have doctrinally....will outfight any and all non carriers in a showdown.....
Range of weaponry.......Turbolasers 20 km, 200 km 2000 km in space, a starfighers, without hyperdive installed has loner range and the pilot's ability to pin targets or fly by and not attack only to change where to attack the target.
So I can not see where a swarm of fighters, hyperdrive equipped or not will loose agaist a ship with heavy armor and weapons, and very little if any in starfigher or starfigher defense.....
So why does not a carrier outfight a Battleship in star wars, when it does so in the real world?
I belive the answer is this: the carrier was never used as a carrier but rushed into a role as a battleship (star destroyer).
Had it been used as a carrier it would have been much more superior.
I can not call a fair comparison with a carrier used as a battleship and a battleship.....but I can comapre the combat effcetiveness of cannons vs "airplanes" and in this case there is nothing that will set the carrier below any other captial ship.
and no a side by side broadside fire is not a comarison...one ship is not designed for that and will always loose, only when used correctly can they be comapred and there is nothing to me other than "name" and role sometimes used that makes the venator a destroyer, and no that is not baout size but a role, in the anaxes sytem it is a mix of role and size, with the dreadnaught classifications also being used on large enough transports and carriers, not just armored cannon ships etc.
So I say that comare the venator we have to not lable it as a destroyer even f it is used as it, but as a catrrier which it is designed as.
Carrier vs Battleship carrier will always win..........
Of course the flotilla compsition is relevant, the warships need support, maybe the carrier more so but still once the attack is executed the range of and weaponry of the fighter is now the "ship weapon" and can then attack o a range even with no hyperdrives at a range far beyond range of the ISD |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16272 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2024 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fighters can only overwhelm a ship if they have the weapons to do so. Hundreds of light fighters firing their laser cannon aren’t going to inflict enough combined damage to get through an ISD’s shields.
Carriers do no automatically win battles simply by existing. Fighters are not overpowering simply because there are a lot of them. You need the right kind of fighters, equipped with effective weaponry (ordnance), piloted by crews with the skill to press the attack home, and commanded and directed by leaders with sufficient ability to coordinate the attack to the greatest effectiveness.
Carriers who don’t have that are just big targets. See HMS Glorious and USS Gambier Bay. _________________ "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: 607 Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 4:19 pm Post subject: Why Not BOTH?? |
|
|
BOTH ships are Strong Platforms. IF used ☼smartly☼, they can have tremendous impact, devastating the hardest targets.
A competent officer with a Venator should beat an idiot with an Imperator/Imperial every time.
You can give Tarkin an ISD & Thrawn a Venator or a VSD (Victory), or even a heavy cruiser, & Thrawn will still win every time. _________________ 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: 10397 Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2024 6:35 pm Post subject: Re: Why Not BOTH?? |
|
|
Inquisitor1138 wrote: | BOTH ships are Strong Platforms. IF used ☼smartly☼, they can have tremendous impact, devastating the hardest targets.
A competent officer with a Venator should beat an idiot with an Imperator/Imperial every time.
You can give Tarkin an ISD & Thrawn a Venator or a VSD (Victory), or even a heavy cruiser, & Thrawn will still win every time. |
Tarkin is not an idiot. _________________ *
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: 607 Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2024 12:01 am Post subject: Re: Why Not BOTH?? |
|
|
Whill wrote: | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | BOTH ships are Strong Platforms. IF used ☼smartly☼, they can have tremendous impact, devastating the hardest targets.
A competent officer with a Venator should beat an idiot with an Imperator/Imperial every time.
You can give Tarkin an ISD & Thrawn a Venator or a VSD (Victory), or even a heavy cruiser, & Thrawn will still win every time. |
Tarkin is not an idiot. |
Yes and no?
In hindsight i should have used a different example before pitting Tarkin against Thrawn.
Canon Tarkin is, imhho, less competent than EU/Legends Tarkin. Canon Tarkin is built up as more of a brutal, psychotic opportunist that hides his mistakes by killing underlings or rivals & blaming them, or at least throwing them under the bus to escape blame. He is certainly less of a military genius than his EU/Legends counterpart, and by that token, is an idiot compared to EU/Legends Tarkin.
He is not a total idiot - if he were he'd never succeed in maneuvering his way to Moff, let alone Grand Moff.
A certain point of view. Tarkin is not an idiot. Tarkin is a psychotic, opportunistic sadistic murder hobo who craves power.
Take two equally competent naval officers, give one an Imperator/Imperial SD & the other a Venator, i'd put the odds at about 50/50. _________________ 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: 10397 Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2024 6:58 pm Post subject: Re: Why Not BOTH?? |
|
|
Inquisitor1138 wrote: | Whill wrote: | Inquisitor1138 wrote: | BOTH ships are Strong Platforms. IF used ☼smartly☼, they can have tremendous impact, devastating the hardest targets.
A competent officer with a Venator should beat an idiot with an Imperator/Imperial every time.
You can give Tarkin an ISD & Thrawn a Venator or a VSD (Victory), or even a heavy cruiser, & Thrawn will still win every time. |
Tarkin is not an idiot. |
Yes and no?
In hindsight i should have used a different example before pitting Tarkin against Thrawn.
Canon Tarkin is, imhho, less competent than EU/Legends Tarkin. Canon Tarkin is built up as more of a brutal, psychotic opportunist that hides his mistakes by killing underlings or rivals & blaming them, or at least throwing them under the bus to escape blame. He is certainly less of a military genius than his EU/Legends counterpart, and by that token, is an idiot compared to EU/Legends Tarkin.
He is not a total idiot - if he were he'd never succeed in maneuvering his way to Moff, let alone Grand Moff.
A certain point of view. Tarkin is not an idiot. Tarkin is a psychotic, opportunistic sadistic murder hobo who craves power.
Take two equally competent naval officers, give one an Imperator/Imperial SD & the other a Venator, i'd put the odds at about 50/50. |
If there was context indicating you were specifically talking about Canon-Tarkin, I admit I missed it. It doesn't hurt to be explcit. Strictly-films or EU tend to be the default canons being discussed if not otherwise indicated.
Regarding specifically Canon-Tarkin being as you describe, I read the canon novel Tarkin, but it was largely meh and I've forgotten most of it. I did not walk away from it with the impression that Canon-Tarkin was especially more idiotic than EU-Tarkin, but maybe you are right. _________________ *
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JohnLydiaParker Ensign
Joined: 13 May 2024 Posts: 35
|
Posted: Wed May 15, 2024 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A Venator's designed compliment for fighters is 36 ARC-170's, 192 V-Wings and 192 Aetias-class interceptors. The latter two are both some of the smallest -and most compact storing- fighters ever built. The V-Wing has weak shields, is highly maneuverable (depending on who you ask), but not only doesn't have any missiles but it's laser cannons are almost laughably small. The Aetias is even faster and more maneuverable, and carries laser cannon heavy enough to pose a real threat to something like a Y-Wing, but lacks but shields, hull strength and torpedoes.
The ARC-170 seems to be a design concept for a very heavy assault bomber relying on defensive guns and carrying three crew. (It also only has a single torpedo tube). By all appearances it was something that seemed good on paper, but in practice turned out to be a disappointment; the guns didn't help enough to keep it from requiring an escort. (See: Me. 110.)
TIE's are actually quite tall, and in the space needed for one you could add an additional deck and double capacity (with Rebel starfighters you can also do that,) and fit three decks for hanger "parking" only with tight overhead clearance.
I planned it out on a deckplan scan; on a single level a space occupying 6 TIE's can fit either two X-Wings, three B-Wings or six A-wings, with the option for one or two additional decks with the same storage in the same space.
Only the 36 ARC-170's are a real threat to other capital ships, and seem to be inferior to the Y-Wing at that job. The rest the fighter compliment of a Venator something the size of a star destroyer can generally ignore. The real anti-ship firepower on both sides are their ship's turbolasers.
Inquisitor1138 wrote: | Take two equally competent naval officers, give one an Imperator/Imperial SD & the other a Venator, i'd put the odds at about 50/50. |
I would put the ISD at a major advantage in odds since (don't forget it's 60% longer and 4 times the displacement) it could win through stronger shields and much heavier weight of fire. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
garhkal Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 14152 Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
Posted: Thu May 16, 2024 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Even with them being that small, i still think over two hundred+ fighters, is a bit much. Even at max capacity a US air craft carrier, still only gets up to 72 fighters... _________________ Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010 Posts: 16272 Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
Posted: Thu May 16, 2024 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
garhkal wrote: | Even with them being that small, i still think over two hundred+ fighters, is a bit much. Even at max capacity a US air craft carrier, still only gets up to 72 fighters... |
A Venator is over 4x longer than a modern aircraft carrier, is similarly large its other dimensions, and likely has at least 20x the volume. In addition, the fighters in question are actually smaller than modern jet fighters and (thanks to repulsorlifts) don’t need runway space for takeoffs and landings. 400+ fighters isn’t implausible. _________________ "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 |
|
|
|