| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:53 am Post subject: |
 |
|
The Imperial Assault Transport more properly belongs in the Troop Transport section, as your linked version (and my statted version) carry a full troop regiment. The version with 20 troops is the Imperial Armored Transport.
Also, if you are going to include it on the list, this opens the door for other ships from the Rebellion game, including the CC-9600 in the troop transport section, and the CC-7700 in the Interdiction section.
_________________
"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: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
As far as the Acclamator I and Venator as carriers, since you left the wtf and huh? in place, I feel compelled to point out that both ships were used in combat at a time when the enemy (the Separatists) could flood space with thousands upon thousands of droid starfighters, so the Republic needed a way to counter that. The Venator was planned as a space combatant and starfighter carrier, but it would take time to come into service, while the existing Acclamator already had a massive internal bay used for docking LAAT series shuttles, so it could be used as an interim carrier platform.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | The Imperial Assault Transport more properly belongs in the Troop Transport section, as your linked version (and my statted version) carry a full troop regiment. The version with 20 troops is the Imperial Armored Transport. |
Okay, so is the assault transport the same as the Delta-class. I may be confused about which statted ship you're talking about. You have so many.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Also, if you are going to include it on the list, this opens the door for other ships from the Rebellion game, including the CC-9600 in the troop transport section, and the CC-7700 in the Interdiction section. |
Do you think they're stock enough to include, or are they computer-game plug-ins for game balance's sake?
| crmcneill wrote: | | As far as the Acclamator I and Venator as carriers, since you left the wtf and huh? in place, I feel compelled to point out that both ships were used in combat at a time when the enemy (the Separatists) could flood space with thousands upon thousands of droid starfighters, so the Republic needed a way to counter that. The Venator was planned as a space combatant and starfighter carrier, but it would take time to come into service, while the existing Acclamator already had a massive internal bay used for docking LAAT series shuttles, so it could be used as an interim carrier platform. |
I left those in place because I was just copy/pasting. I suppose I was thinking of these being just that prequel-stuff-iz-kewler ethos, as the fan-converted stats for so many of the prequel era fighters seem to be. You know, the sort of stuff that makes me want to chase kids off my lawn.
So, you're saying we should take those numbers seriously? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Okay, so is the assault transport the same as the Delta-class. I may be confused about which statted ship you're talking about. You have so many. |
No, two different ships. The Assault Transport is from the Rebellion game, while the Delta is mentioned in name only in the ImpSB. The image and stats are solely my own creation.
| Quote: | | Do you think they're stock enough to include, or are they computer-game plug-ins for game balance's sake? |
I think the CC7700 was initially included for game balance, but a properly statted version could represent a previous generation of the Interdictor. IMO, it is worth including, along with the 9600.
| Quote: | | So, you're saying we should take those numbers seriously? |
I am. Compare those numbers to the fighter capacity of comparable Separatist ships, particularly the Trade Federation carriers.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
RexMundiAbu
Sub-Lieutenant
Joined: 17 Feb 2014
Posts: 66
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think that the numbers of fighters carried would severly limit the operational ability of them , by that I mean that the amount of fighter fuel needed and armaments would be massive and I recon the ships would need a lot of resupplying and very often to keep the fighters operational .
I myself never liked how many fighters the Venator carried , I felt it was excessive , but I can get my head around it , if the ship needs constant resupply from cargo ships or frequent trips back to bases or whatever .
We all know that a ship like the Imp star destroyer could carry more fighters than it does , but at least it would have large stores for the ones they carry , well thats my thoughts on them anyway |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | Okay, so is the assault transport the same as the Delta-class. I may be confused about which statted ship you're talking about. You have so many. |
No, two different ships. The Assault Transport is from the Rebellion game, while the Delta is mentioned in name only in the ImpSB. The image and stats are solely my own creation. |
So, you're saying that you also have stats for the Assault Transport?
| crmcneill wrote: | | Quote: | | Do you think they're stock enough to include, or are they computer-game plug-ins for game balance's sake? |
I think the CC7700 was initially included for game balance, but a properly statted version could represent a previous generation of the Interdictor. IMO, it is worth including, along with the 9600. |
Okay - so we should flesh out my list then. Do you want to put the additions together, which I can then add to my list - or, you can grab my list and insert your additions, complete with hyperlinks to the Wook and to the stats. I do think that if you're going to introduce stats that are your homebrew creation, you should create Holocron pages for them, with as much capsule flesh and imagery as possible.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Quote: | | So, you're saying we should take those numbers seriously? |
I am. Compare those numbers to the fighter capacity of comparable Separatist ships, particularly the Trade Federation carriers. |
Okay.
One thing that we should think about, though: Those ships would have to be significantly retrofitted to house TIE fighters. I'm not saying that they couldn't carry as many, it's just that TIEs are such different ships in terms of how they're loaded into a carrier than the Clone War-era fighters were.
Now, that's just a thought. Like so many things, I think of fleshing those ships out as being beyond the scope of our project, because they're such older-generation vessels that have since been superseded by the ISDs and Victories. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2014 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RexMundiAbu wrote: | I think that the numbers of fighters carried would severly limit the operational ability of them , by that I mean that the amount of fighter fuel needed and armaments would be massive and I recon the ships would need a lot of resupplying and very often to keep the fighters operational .
I myself never liked how many fighters the Venator carried , I felt it was excessive , but I can get my head around it , if the ship needs constant resupply from cargo ships or frequent trips back to bases or whatever .
We all know that a ship like the Imp star destroyer could carry more fighters than it does , but at least it would have large stores for the ones they carry , well thats my thoughts on them anyway |
I hear what you're saying.
As I'm giving the Star Destroyer's hangar area a lot of thought, I think you're right, but it would be a headache that would bind up the transfer racks. The thing is that because TIEs don't really 'land' (to my knowledge) - instead they 'hang' - that it's not that easy to think of space as necessarily accommodating TIE fighters. That space also has to be fitted with the racks to hold TIE fighters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RexMundiAbu wrote: | | I myself never liked how many fighters the Venator carried , I felt it was excessive , but I can get my head around it , if the ship needs constant resupply from cargo ships or frequent trips back to bases or whatever . |
I thought it a bit much at first too, but when you compare it to ships like the Lucrehulk-Class Battleship (Trade Federation) which can carry 1500 droid starfighters, it begins to make more sense. After all, Venators are going to have to go up against swarms of starfighters, and are going to need every last ship they can get just for fleet defense. IMO, the Venator was designed for just this in mind, while the Acclamator carrier variant was intended as a stop-gap until the Venator came into service.
A real life example would be the WWII-era Independence-Class light carrier. They were initially rejected for conversion to carriers, but the Pearl Harbor attack made it urgent to get ships in the water fast as an interim measure until the new Essex-Class Fleet Carriers came on line. The Independence carried only 24 fighters and 9 torpedo planes (dive bombers were too big to fit on their decks), but they served well during the war, and many were sold off to other countries after WWII ended.
Another thing worthy of note is that, by WWII naval standards at least, squadron size was not based on a set number of planes, but on the number of planes you could fit into a given area of deck space. For instance, when the F4F-4 Wildcat was introduced, it included a new folding wing design that took up roughly 1/3 less deck space, which in turn allowed the carrier fighter squadrons to be increased in size from 18 to 27 planes. Venators may be able to carry a lot of fighters, but their stats list some of the smallest available fighter types (V-Wings and Eta-2's), so it is possible that squadrons composed of larger fighter types (Y-Wings, X-Wing, B-Wings, ARC-170's, etc) would take up more room than a normal squadron.
Of course, the TIE landing racks on more modern ships changes that dynamic a little, as the racks end up using a uniform volume of space regardless of whether the ship landed in the rack is a TIE/ln, an Interceptor or a bomber...
| Quote: | | We all know that a ship like the Imp star destroyer could carry more fighters than it does , but at least it would have large stores for the ones they carry , well thats my thoughts on them anyway |
My feeling was always that the ISD carried fewer fighters because of a shift in doctrine rather than a limited carrying capacity. By the time of the ImpSB, the Imperial Navy is capital ship oriented, with TIE fighters operating in support rather than as an independent striking force. It may be tied in to the Imperial obsession with control, especially seeing as how even TIE operations are "tied" to their flight controllers like they are on a string...
_________________
"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: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 12:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | So, you're saying that you also have stats for the Assault Transport? |
Yes, here.
| Quote: | | Do you want to put the additions together, which I can then add to my list - or, you can grab my list and insert your additions, complete with hyperlinks to the Wook and to the stats. I do think that if you're going to introduce stats that are your homebrew creation, you should create Holocron pages for them, with as much capsule flesh and imagery as possible. |
The complication there is that, for the most part, homebrew Holocron pages already exist, but are of such low quality that I chose to write up my own. Here, at least, are the Wookieepedia links:
CC-7700 Interdiction Frigate
CC-9600 Attack Frigate
It's noteworthy that the game descriptions don't always match up. Per the Rebellion game guide, the 9600 could carry two full troop regiments, yet in gameplay, it could only carry one. I based my stats off the gameplay as much as possible.
| Quote: | | One thing that we should think about, though: Those ships would have to be significantly retrofitted to house TIE fighters. I'm not saying that they couldn't carry as many, it's just that TIEs are such different ships in terms of how they're loaded into a carrier than the Clone War-era fighters were. |
Sorry, but that seems flimsy to me. If the Navy is expanding by millions of ships (a reasonable estimate), it doesn't really make sense to assume that upgrading existing ships with TIE racks as an interim measure is beyond heir reach.
| Quote: | | Like so many things, I think of fleshing those ships out as being beyond the scope of our project, because they're such older-generation vessels that have since been superseded by the ISDs and Victories. |
Except that, per the ImpSB, there are at least two Clone Wars era ships (the Carrack and the Dreadnaught) still in service. It is likely that such ships will have been removed from service in priority sectors, but still seeing service in less "busy" regions.
Plus, the Acclamator is the only "canon" division-level troop transport available. I've proposed another Vindicator variant (the Invader-Class Troop Transport), but again, there is no canon basis for such a ship.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2014 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | My feeling was always that the ISD carried fewer fighters because of a shift in doctrine rather than a limited carrying capacity. By the time of the ImpSB, the Imperial Navy is capital ship oriented, with TIE fighters operating in support rather than as an independent striking force. It may be tied in to the Imperial obsession with control, especially seeing as how even TIE operations are "tied" to their flight controllers like they are on a string... |
So, does that imply that over the 20 years since the Clone Wars the balance of capabilities has shifted away from fighters towards capital ships? The Rebellion focuses on fighters because they have no choice, due to limited resources? Or, is it just a PsyOps doctrine of fear through size? Maybe it's just a question of necessity. It's probably the case that a full wing of TIEs is all that's generally necessary to perform the mission that's required of an ISD.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I wrote: | | So, you're saying that you also have stats for the Assault Transport? |
Yes, here.
The complication there is that, for the most part, homebrew Holocron pages already exist, but are of such low quality that I chose to write up my own.
It's noteworthy that the game descriptions don't always match up. Per the Rebellion game guide, the 9600 could carry two full troop regiments, yet in gameplay, it could only carry one. I based my stats off the gameplay as much as possible. |
Since you're my partner-in-crime, I'm tempted to suggest that you overwrite what's there and make an argument on the discussion side of the page about why the stats that are there are absurd and why your stats are better. I suppose, however, that from the other author's perspective that would be a pretty douchy maneuver.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Sorry, but that seems flimsy to me. If the Navy is expanding by millions of ships (a reasonable estimate), it doesn't really make sense to assume that upgrading existing ships with TIE racks as an interim measure is beyond heir reach. |
I don't assume that at all. I just assume that the refitting to TIEs happened. I also might suggest that they downgraded the amount of fighters carried on board one of those vessels, but I don't care enough to forcefully argue the matter.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I wrote: | | Like so many things, I think of fleshing those ships out as being beyond the scope of our project, because they're such older-generation vessels that have since been superseded by the ISDs and Victories. |
Except that, per the ImpSB, there are at least two Clone Wars era ships (the Carrack and the Dreadnaught) still in service. It is likely that such ships will have been removed from service in priority sectors, but still seeing service in less "busy" regions.
Plus, the Acclamator is the only "canon" division-level troop transport available. I've proposed another Vindicator variant (the Invader-Class Troop Transport), but again, there is no canon basis for such a ship. |
That's all true. I just don't think figuring out the fighter complements of these vessels really affects the overall balance of capabilities and the overall structure of naval combat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | So, does that imply that over the 20 years since the Clone Wars the balance of capabilities has shifted away from fighters towards capital ships? The Rebellion focuses on fighters because they have no choice, due to limited resources? Or, is it just a PsyOps doctrine of fear through size? Maybe it's just a question of necessity. It's probably the case that a full wing of TIEs is all that's generally necessary to perform the mission that's required of an ISD. |
I think its more an indicator of the Empire's desire for ironclad control from the top down. TIEs are just operationally tied to their base or mothership, they are physically constrained as well, in that they don't even have landing gear, and therefore must return to their base to land. A pilot with landing gear and a hyperdrive might be tempted to run and defect, but by designing the TIE the way they do, they give their pilots nowhere to go. One might even suspect that the Empire would put a stormtrooper in the back seat of every fighter if they could, with orders to shoot the pilot if he went astray.
| Quote: | | Since you're my partner-in-crime, I'm tempted to suggest that you overwrite what's there and make an argument on the discussion side of the page about why the stats that are there are absurd and why your stats are better. I suppose, however, that from the other author's perspective that would be a pretty douchy maneuver. |
I have also been slow to get involved with the Holocron simply because I don't understand the language and etiquette. If you are willing to post my write-ups and credit me for them, I would have no problem with that.
On a related note, it might behoove the Holocron to offer separate designations for its material, making the distinction between official and homebrew stats so as to clarify for visitors. I understand that the individual pages do have reference listings at the bottom, but IMO, it would be simpler to have separate sections so that you would know what you are getting into.
| Quote: | | I just don't think figuring out the fighter complements of these vessels really affects the overall balance of capabilities and the overall structure of naval combat. |
Another point worthy of consideration; Clone Wars ships have a tendency to end up in Alliance service, and ships with the starfighter capacity of the Venator and the Acclamator would make for formidable combat platforms if equipped with Alliance starfighter units.
I also had another thought about the Interdiction units. If you are looking for a smaller Interdiction platform apart from the CC-7700, perhaps a Strike Cruiser variant would work. It is only 150 meters shorter than the Interdictor, and its modular nature could allow it to mount a single gravity well projector (at the cost of its TIE and troop complements, as well as taking a major performance hit when utilizing the gravity well projector).
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2014 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I think its more an indicator of the Empire's desire for ironclad control from the top down. TIEs are just operationally tied to their base or mothership, they are physically constrained as well, in that they don't even have landing gear, and therefore must return to their base to land. A pilot with landing gear and a hyperdrive might be tempted to run and defect, but by designing the TIE the way they do, they give their pilots nowhere to go. One might even suspect that the Empire would put a stormtrooper in the back seat of every fighter if they could, with orders to shoot the pilot if he went astray. |
I'm not sure how the reduction in the number of fighters on the standard carrier (despite the greater size of the newer carrier vessels) follows from your logic of maintaining order.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I have also been slow to get involved with the Holocron simply because I don't understand the language and etiquette. If you are willing to post my write-ups and credit me for them, I would have no problem with that. |
Frankly, I don't know the norms over there either. I've not edited too many pages over there. I have, however, dealt with Andrew (a.k.a. BSDOblivion) on a few things, and I'd say that he's pretty easy-going, and not too bothered about people contributing with gusto. He's certainly been awesome in accommodating my nav computer and dice roller on the server, which also hosts the holocron.
I wouldn't mind posting your material under my name, but I don't want to have to do the coding. I can do it (and can explain it to you), but I think once you get started, you'll catch the bug and I'll be spending too much time coding your additions.
| crmcneill wrote: | | On a related note, it might behoove the Holocron to offer separate designations for its material, making the distinction between official and homebrew stats so as to clarify for visitors. I understand that the individual pages do have reference listings at the bottom, but IMO, it would be simpler to have separate sections so that you would know what you are getting into. |
Yes, that's the downside of the freewheeling character of the Holocron. I'm not sure there's much of a discussion about how this should go. I know there's a facebook identity that I am on, but I don't recall much in the way of organizational discussions there. Maybe there's a core of people who collaborate through a forum that I don't know about. My guess (and it's just that), is that there is very little policing or coordination.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Another point worthy of consideration; Clone Wars ships have a tendency to end up in Alliance service, and ships with the starfighter capacity of the Venator and the Acclamator would make for formidable combat platforms if equipped with Alliance starfighter units. |
Yes - too formidable, if their stats are too be taken seriously.
| crmcneill wrote: | | I also had another thought about the Interdiction units. If you are looking for a smaller Interdiction platform apart from the CC-7700, perhaps a Strike Cruiser variant would work. It is only 150 meters shorter than the Interdictor, and its modular nature could allow it to mount a single gravity well projector (at the cost of its TIE and troop complements, as well as taking a major performance hit when utilizing the gravity well projector). |
I'm a bit ambivalent about this. I think of interdiction technology as being rare and expensive, rather than on tons of different platforms. Now, maybe I just need to change my view on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2014 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | | I'm not sure how the reduction in the number of fighters on the standard carrier (despite the greater size of the newer carrier vessels) follows from your logic of maintaining order. |
That ties in more with the shift toward capital ship doctrine from starfighters.
| Quote: | | I wouldn't mind posting your material under my name, but I don't want to have to do the coding. I can do it (and can explain it to you), but I think once you get started, you'll catch the bug and I'll be spending too much time coding your additions. |
We'll see. Learning new coding is not something that sounds all that attractive when trying to sandwich it into downtime on the rig out on the road. My recent surge in posting content was mainly because I was out sick with a viral infection for a month and had time on my hands...
| Quote: | | ...too formidable, if their stats are too be taken seriously. |
This ties in with my earlier post about squadron sizes being affected by a ship's footprint (i.e. how much parking space it takes up). An X-Wing or Y-Wing is likely to take up twice as much deck space as the smaller V-Wings and Eta-2's.
| Quote: | | I think of interdiction technology as being rare and expensive, rather than on tons of different platforms. Now, maybe I just need to change my view on that. |
If you like...
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Mikael Hasselstein
Line Captain
Joined: 20 Jul 2011
Posts: 810
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2014 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, so where are we in this discussion?
We've come to a consensus that Imperial naval doctrine shifted from starfighter combat to capital ship combat. The capital ships were built bigger more impervious (or so is believed) to starfighters, and Imperial fighters were essentially reduced to escorts.
Even carriers carry fewer starfighters than they used to, even if the starfighter doctrine is to swarm the enemy with massive amounts of cheap (and disposable) fighters. Also, ASW ships are either relics (the Tartan) or an afterthought (the Lancer).
However, because any potential enemy of the Empire is going to be starved for capital ships, I suggest that the point of building large capital ship fleets is not one was actually intended for much actual combat use. The Empire probably did not anticipate the rise of the rebellion to the degree that it did develop a capital ship navy. As such, I suggest that the Imperial Navy was mostly envisioned as a Great White Fleet, whose purpose was as an overwhelming deterrent and symbol of prestige. Also, to line the pockets of the cronies in the naval-industrial complex.
That said, the fleet would also have the focus of shutting down interstellar commerce and travel to certain portions of the galaxy - basically an A.T. Mahan understanding for galactic supremacy.
Does this sound about right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16283
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2014 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mikael Hasselstein wrote: | We've come to a consensus that Imperial naval doctrine shifted from starfighter combat to capital ship combat. The capital ships were built bigger more impervious (or so is believed) to starfighters, and Imperial fighters were essentially reduced to escorts.
Even carriers carry fewer starfighters than they used to, even if the starfighter doctrine is to swarm the enemy with massive amounts of cheap (and disposable) fighters. Also, ASW ships are either relics (the Tartan) or an afterthought (the Lancer). |
Agreed.
| Quote: | | However, because any potential enemy of the Empire is going to be starved for capital ships, I suggest that the point of building large capital ship fleets is not one was actually intended for much actual combat use. The Empire probably did not anticipate the rise of the rebellion to the degree that it did develop a capital ship navy. As such, I suggest that the Imperial Navy was mostly envisioned as a Great White Fleet, whose purpose was as an overwhelming deterrent and symbol of prestige. Also, to line the pockets of the cronies in the naval-industrial complex. |
There is also EU evidence indicating that Palpatine was at least somewhat aware of the potential Yuuzhan-Vong threat. As such, the galaxy would require a large and battle-ready military to counter that threat once it ultimately presented itself. This is not to say that Palpatine's goals were altruistic; his plans were simply such (as with all his plans) that they achieved multiple objectives simultaneously.
| Quote: | That said, the fleet would also have the focus of shutting down interstellar commerce and travel to certain portions of the galaxy - basically an A.T. Mahan understanding for galactic supremacy.
Does this sound about right? |
Agreed, and this also ties in with the Alliance naval strategy, in that knowing they lacked the force to challenge the Empire directly for control, they chose to cede superiority while denying supremacy, in effect, waging a guerilla war in space. This is similar to the projected naval combat strategy of the Soviet Union if conventional warfare had ever broken out in Europe. Knowing that they lacked the power to directly contest the US Navy for control of the Atlantic, they went instead with submarines and bombers armed for anti-ship combat. Rather than fighting a battle on Mahanesque terms, their intent was to choke off supplies and reinforcement coming from the US to continental Europe. The Alliance in the SWU would be using a similar strategy, but on a far grander scale, attacking not just military supply and reenforcement, but commerce shipping and isolated military units.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
