The Venator's superiority vs any and all ISDs

[pakman]

[CRMcNeill]

I agree that the numbers are just made up, but that doesn't make them implausible. If anything, considering the number of droid starfighters Separatist ships could deploy, it may not be enough. I'd certainly swap out the Eta-2's for something in more common use (like a V-19 which has some ordnance capability packed into a similar footprint), but the overall aerospace group size works. If nothing else, the Fractalsponge Discord (which is waaaaay more science-heavy than we are) doesn't dispute it.
_________________
"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

[garhkal]

[Inquisitor1138]

[garhkal]

True, they could essentially put six carriers side by side and long to equate a victory or such. BUT then take a look at the crew. 140,000+ for the venerator.. COMPARED to 5.5k x 5 = 33k...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

What’s a Venerator? The Venator only has 7,400 crew, plus 2,000 troops. There’s plenty of room for them and a lot more besides.
_________________
"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

[CRMcNeill]

[garhkal]

DOh. Was thinking of victory isds.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[Impaler]

Wanted to weight in on the discussion and in agreement with McNeill's main point about the ISD's normal complement being mostly taken up by landing craft and the Venators fighters being smaller. I even did the maths and tried to determine the aproimate hanger size and TIE fighter squadrons that both ships could potentially carry.

I took around 2000m^2 as the hanger area for one squadron of TIE's and then estimated the footprint of other craft and how many could fit in that same area to give a equivilent squadron count and the vehicles per squadron in ().

6 TIE Squadrons (12 each)

2 Lambda Squadrons (4 each)
6 Sentinel Squadrons (2 each)
3 Delta-8 Squadrons (5 each)
1/2 X-G1 Squadron (12 each)
1/2 Gamma Assault Squadron (2 each)
1 Skipray Squadron (4 Each)

5 Theta Barges (6 each)
1 milianious Repair/Recovery Squadron

Total 25


Venator

12 V-wing Squadrons (16 each)
4 1/2 ARC-160 Squadrons (8 each)
8 Eta2 Actis Squadrons (24 each)

Total 24.5

As you can see once compensating for the unusually small size of the fighters said to be used on the Venator, and even being quite conservative at it we end up with basically identical hangar space.

And that makes sense in universe. The designers of the ISD are going to want to say that their new design dose everything that the Venator can do PLUS improvements. Yes they de-emphasized hangar space by simply keeping it flat, but that's often the path of least resistence because your not triggering any feelings of loss in the client.

All that being said I think their is one aspect of the Venator which will trump the ISD, the rate of fighter launching, which if you know your Carrier warfare is a VERY important aspect. The huge forward doors should allow the Venator a launch rate many times greater the the ISD's such that even with both vessels filled fully with fighters of comperable quality the ISD might find itself dribbling out fighters that are immediatly overwhelmed by a huge swarm that's pounched on the ISD, that could give the Venator the lead in the starfighter battle.

But.. doing so likely only works if the Venator hyperspaces in directly ontop of the ISD, well within weapons range and thus immediatly setting itself up to lose the capitol ship gunnery fight. If on the other hand the Venator attempts to maintain distance and just utilize a wave of fighters then ISD will have launched and massed most of its fighters in a defensive screen before the Venators fightes can arrive. So the Venator can't really utilize its launch rate effectivly on the offense against an ISD.

[CRMcNeill]

Worth noting that there’s also parking space needed for the stormtrooper division’s ground vehicles, which vastly outnumber the Venator’s similar complement.
_________________
"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

[FVBonura]

You might also wanna consider space for captured/impounded vessels. Princess Leia’s ship, if they didn’t decide to stage a fake distress call, might’ve been held aboard for impound.
_________________
Star Wars Deckplans Alliance
Star Wars Prequel Commentary

[Impaler]

[Mamatried]

First I would like t say lets get away from the "destroyer" label on the ships in question here, the ISD is a battleship if we compare to the real world navies. so a destoyer would be a much smaller and more specialized ship.

Now to the venator, yes it is one of my favorite ships.
I see a lot of arguments on the armament loadout of the shaips, and the presumption they will be will be equipped with only short range non hyperdrive fighters, which is not the case as the arc-170 did have hyperdrive as well as "shiled busting" weaponry.

I can see the huge compliments of 400+ fighters to be out of this world exaggerated but I belive I know where it comes from.
COmpliment variations, have been ixed togheter into one number.

Seeing the size fo the ship and what we have seen of the inside from shows lke the clone wars, we do see that there are "more" than just light fighters but a compliment often based on the maission....heavy long range fighters and bombers when needed with a support of short range support fighters is not out this world.
Star wars warfare is t me a mix of today and ww1 and ww2 and here we see large groups of long range bombers ebing escorted parts of the way to the target and later in the war with the inventon of long range fighters we saw a complete level of escort by fighters.

now the difference here is the weaponry and the technology as well as the doctrines and the roles for each ship.

A lone venator is that a lone ship that can stand it is ground for only so long and compared to a much stronger ship it will loose out every time....BUT.

Seeing the actual role played by the venaors in the clone wars shows we see them deployed as a carrier, a stad off and capable carrier but a carrier non the less, with a swarm of sratfighters deplyed.

The onboard troops are not in a very large number and I can even logically see them as on board security more than any deployable landing force, they are I belive 2000 ish?
the smaller attack/assult/transport dedicated Acclamator is the ship carrying most if not all the deplyable ground troops.

The 400+ compliment I belive is way too high, I belive the numbers have been doubled.

Normal is 196 light fighters
mission spesific is 196 mixed fighters and bombers.

so outside the huge 400+ number which I belive can easily be reduced to to about 200-250 at the most and even lower depending on the size and type of the carried fighters.

I would argue there would room for less ARC-170 compared to V-wings .

However I do belive that the weaponry and armor we see on the venator is made to survive crousers and corvettes, not battleship broadsides.

Second I belive we see the ships used in both deperation as in the battle of courscant and in a non-ideal combat role as a forward attack ship, mostly becuse we see on screen the ships, but there is little actual tactics used in the screen battles.

Now I would say that a carrier with 200+ fighters, mixed between close range light protection fighters and longe range "heavy" fighrers owuld indeed take out a IDS type ship.

The venator compliment of light fighters are enough to normally overwhelm and neuralize a TIE fighter comoliment in the 50-70s number range with relaive ease.

The heavy "slow firing" guns of the ISD type ship are not very effective against fast manuvering fighters, not even a "slow" Arc-170, leaving them to be faced with the anti star fihter guns and they are not that numnerous as to make the task impoissble to out manuver.

Secondly there is nothing that prevents ships form being armed according to task, with things like proton torpedos, even "shiled busting" weapons, all very possible to do.

Again with something,iie the Arc-170 and no not in the extreme 400+ nymber but I would as far as allow 1/2, we have more than eough crew on the venator.

A main operating crew to operate the venator and the weapon systems, then we have service personnel like engineers and technicians.

Secondly we have a relaitvely small (1/6 of an ISD) troop compliment, basically indicating onboard marines.

This leaves much crew slots for the hangar crew and the polits, with many of the needed upkeep jobs done by both the hangar crews and the overall ship crew.

And yes in a ship a kilometer long has more than enough internal space to house 200+ mixed starship compliment of fighters and bombers.

I see the ISD in a role as a battleship, but actually find it in its properties mre akin to a assault transport, a heavy gun support platform that deploys groud troops and uses fighers in a support role. much like an expeditionary assault ship ( some are mixed carrier transports like the us marine ones)

so again I say that the Venator is the best ship of itis class out there, maybe the onely one before the later secutor class, that I see being pretty similar but slightly larger...both being excellent and even superior carrier but not that good if good at all being broadside battleships.

I would say that proton torpedos are "shield busters" and to repalce the weaponry on some fighters is also quite common, seeing how some fighters have been outfitted to serve different roles, like the mosquito, serving in any role from unarmed photo reconnaissance to chin mounted aoutocannons for "tank" hunting, to normal machinguns and bombs confiuration.

So a squadron or more of "shiled busting" fithers is something all ships should have, and what the venator would have.

So again I defend my stands that the VEnator is superiso when used in the right role, but only then.

I is a carrier, the interal ships and theur load is what decides the outcome of a shild being breached or not.

We even see a single A-wing kamikaze the bridge of a SSD in the movies, even though it is small light and have weapons that will not even scratch paint, however it is a specialized craft with si\hiled busing capabilities still, as we can read from various scourses that ther A wing can be fitted with shiled penertating torpedoes etc.

so if the ships onbooard are both capable of hyperspace travel and capable of breaking an ISD's shileds then I would give the battle to the Benator once more unless they are in a ship to ship to fight that the venator will always loose.

same we see from out own world, not one carrier would survive a ship to ship match against a battleship or even a cruiser, but they will sink both from afar before that happens.....ideally.

Secondly both a battleship and a carrier should have and to a degree rely on smaller support and protecion ships, like corvettes and frigates and the like.....maiing the clos up fight with the battleship and carrier be even more difficult scenario.

So deployed tactically and with a "carrier" based tactics in mind, using the right carried mix of light and heavy fighters, inclusing hyperspace capable ones, I will say that the ISD will not get close enough to take on the venaor directly.

But again pitted against eachother in close combat the venator will always loose......

I see it his way, a carrier used as a battlesship is a bad battleship, but it is still a wastly superisor ship when used right.

[Impaler]

With respect to the 'Destroyer' term. In StarWars is has no corelation with the wet navy destoryer term. I know this can be confusing because the use of Frigate, Cruiser Dreadnaught and a bunch of OTHER ship clases in an identical way as wet navies do. Remember our wet navy destroyer name evolved from a contraction of 'Torpedo boat destroyer' aka small ships which screened battleships from the newly invented very fast and cheap Torpedo boat. If history had been different we might have called them 'Screeners' or 'Pickets' or 'Defenders' and in modern navies the Destroyer has grown to such enormouse size and lost nearly all distinction with Cruiser, Frigates and Corvettes that it's now just common to refer to them them all as just 'surface combatants'.

My head cannon is that the StarWars Destroyer terminology is a contraction of "Fleet Destroyer" or "Capitol ship Destroyer" aka they are ships intended to destroy entire Fleets or atleast other capitol ships like themselves. Which makes them the functional equivilent of Battleships, which if you think about it is a very redundant name, don't ALL warships engage in battle? You have have the historical context of how a name came about to really understand it and StarWars has it's own in universe history.

Lastly I also think the use of the word 'Star' to prefix a bunch of ship types is just the in universe way to say 'greater', 'bigger' etc. A Starfighter is bigger then a Snubfighter, a Star Cruiser is bigger then a Cruiser and a Star Destroyer is just a very powerful Destroyer.

[Impaler]

Now back to the Venator vs ISD debate.

Mamatried it sounds like your even a little more pesimistic on Venator capacity then I am. As I'm willing to take the 400+ complement seen in Phantom Menace ICS as valid for this argument (though I deeply loath all of Saxtons works and his defenders). I just insist on doing fighter size correction as I posted above to arrive at the number of 'nominal' common (TIE, X-wing etc) fighters for both ships this would be equivlent too and get 300 (25 squadrons) on the Venator. This is slightly more generous then your 200-250 so their dose not seem to be much disagreement here on the Venator itself.

Also I have no problem beliving the Venator could be given a complement of larger heavier fighters, it already carries the large ARC-170 and all the hanger space looks to be in comperable bays with adaquate clearance to admit them. Likewise if the Venator KNOWS that it will fight the ISD then logically it would load the appropriate bomber type fighters, even if we restrict that choice to the clone wars era fighters which would have been available to the Venator in it's glory days that still means 300 Y-wings. And I have no doubt that 300 Y-wings can destroy an ISD that's only protected by the ISD's standard fighter complement.

BUT to have a FAIR fight you must ALSO allow the ISD to shift out of it's normal complement and to load an optimal screening and or counter-stiking force. And per my analysis of ISD hanger capacity it can ALSO hold 300 fighters. As a Carrier the ISD has the same capacity as the Venator. The ISD is not just a space-Battleship, it is a Battleship WRAPPED AROUND it's predasessor the Venator. If carriers should in principle be given optimal fighter craft load out then so should the ISD as it is just as much a carrier as the Venator is.

And when you do that the fight becomes I think a forced withdraw of the Venator as both sides fighter complements mutually destroy each other and the Venator must escape the direct gun fight that the ISD will try to initiate. The Venators one superiority of higher launch rate due to the forward doors is moot because it would require a surprize hyperspace jump near the ISD to swarm it rapidly before it can launch it's own fighter screen, but this would see the Venator equally destroyed by the ISD's broadside firepower, a mutual destruction senario at best.