The Venator's superiority vs any and all ISDs

[Mamatried]

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?

[garhkal]

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!

[Mamatried]

[pakman]

[CRMcNeill]

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

[garhkal]

[Mamatried]

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

[CRMcNeill]

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

[Inquisitor1138]

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.

[Whill]

[Inquisitor1138]

[Whill]

[JohnLydiaParker]

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.

[garhkal]

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!

[CRMcNeill]