Talk: Acclamator II-class assault ship/Legends

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Acclamator II-class assault ship/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Merge

Should we merge Acclamator II-class Assault Ship with Class II Frigate? Aren't they the same vehicle? What class of ship is the Rand Ecliptic?

Zainal

  • They are both completely different starships. Just look at a picture of the Acclamator II and then a picture of the Rand Ecliptic. See? Two completely different starships in numerous ways. And, FYI, the Ecliptic's class is a Class II Frigate. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:55, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC)
    • The Rand Ecliptic has a more slender, Star Destroyer-like form, in addition to "fins" on the command tower and of course, two big hangar-openings on each side. Scaling in regards to the TIE fighters entering/exiting the hangars, have shown it to be about 2 km long, while the Acclamators are 750 meters long. VT-16 13:54, 19 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Changes

What makes the Acclamator II-class assault ship different from the Acclamator-class assault ship extra wepons extra fighters?User:Lucky

  • Canonically, nothing so far. I mean I'm sure there are differences, but we've not been told what they are in any official source. —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The point is, it doesn't matter what changes it has as of now, really. All we need to know is that it was real. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • It was more geared for planetary bombardement according to the CCG card, IIRC. And had enough changes to make it into a "true warship". I would guess less space for troops and equipment and more reactors for guns etc. VT-16 20:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible Acc IIs at Muunilinst

Some of the Acclamators at the Battle of Muunilisnt released clouds of fighters. We know that Acc 1s are not equipped to carry fighters at all, so they must have been some sort of variant of Acclamator. Perhaps they are Acc IIs, or some other version. Not to suggest this be put in the article, but it's something to think about.--Jerry 03:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Acclamators that took the strike force to Muunilinst held at least 156 V-19s each." well I think this suggests the Acclamator class I can carry fighters woudln't you? Jedi Dude 13:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Those Acclamators were probably just modified to carry fighters. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) Imperial Emblem 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • oh well until we know its all speculation Jedi Dude 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Not really. Being modified to carry fighters is probably it. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) Imperial Emblem 13:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • But without an official source we can't say that surely? We don't know for sure the Acclmators couldn't carry fighers do we? Jedi Dude 13:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
          • Jedi Dude, the complement of an Acclamator does not include fighters. And since the Acclamator II didn't make its trading card game appearance yet, the only logical answer is that they were Acclamators modified to carry fighters. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) Imperial Emblem 13:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Exactly. I'm not suggesting to change the article because at this point we can only speculate, but as it stands they cannot be Acc Is, there is simply no room for fighters aboard that ship. They are either Acc IIs or some other as yet unknown Acclamator variant modified for limited carrier duty.--Jerry 04:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Its all just speculation either way, modified or not, but its obvious to me they look like AccIs so its easiest to assume there modified Jedi Dude 12:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Or that they're Acclamator IIs. Either way, we're just guessing. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • How do we know that for sure? It wouldn't be the first time a ship was modified to carry fighters, correct?
          • Bur then it wouldn't be a true Acc I anymore, it would be a variant. In any case, we don't know either way, although it's clear that they are some sort of Acclamator, so I would suggest simply referring to to them in the article as simple Acclamators, not with the "I" or "II" qualifier.--Jerry 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
            • Modifications do not make a ship a different variant. If I had a X-wing and put an extra proton torpedo launcher on it, it wouldn't be a variant of the X-wing. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, but to completely clean out a ships cargo bays, remove specialized loading racks, and alter the loading hatches into hangars bays is more than simple modifications, it's a complete overhaul of the ship's internal structure. If the Accs were portrayed as having a few extra Torp Tubes (as you use in your X-wing analogy) it would, as you say not warrant a variant. But redoing the interior of the ship would.

As it is, I think we're arguing semantics. We both agree that the are Acclamators (the NEC says as much) we simply disagree over "modified" or "variant." We aren't going to get anywhere with this because there's not corroborating source.--Jerry 00:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Why wouldn't the V-19s be able to fit on the racks used for LAATs? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for everyone's information, the Candaserri had starfighters as well, as of 1 month into the war. Whether it's a Acc. I or II is unknown. -LtNOWIS 00:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Didn't Anakin's Acclamator at Muunilinst launch its fighters from a rear-ward hangar? It doesn't exist on the regular model, only sideways walking ramps. VT-16 09:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I think so. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
      • VT-16: Yes, that's what I mean, they've undergone a complete overhaul (if indeed they were ever standard Accs to begin with). To Nebulax: I concede that the LAAT racks might be able to accomodate fightercraft, but the point at Muunilinst stands as the fighters were released out of hangars that Acc Ones don't have.--Jerry 15:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • I keep forgetting that. My bad. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
        • From the episode, I can remember seeing LAATs hanging above Anakin's speeder, and later flying out from the vessel. Then Anakin exits with over 100 other fighters (someone put up the number shown) from a downward-facing hangar. Now, did the LAATs come out the same way and can this opening be seen from afar? Could be refitted Acclamators using walker-space for starfighters instead and having specialized exits for them. VT-16 19:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Here's some caps I got from the net: image shack dot U S )/img489/5707/cwacc1ko1.jpg Arriving over Muunilinst
The main opening is not on the stock Acclamator and the opening where the fighters come out seems to be a secondary opening, possibly from inside the main gap. VT-16 19:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

--72.91.188.247 16:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Eaol- How can an Acclamator I Class Assault Ship or II Assault ship contain that many fighters or LAAT's anyway? It's far too small. I've found and created numerous 3d Acclamator models and scaled them appropriately, and they don't have the dimensions to accommodate so many fighters, nor are they big enough for the dimensions of the hangars in Star Wars: Republic Commando to be even remotely possible. In the game, the port and starboard hangars are shown to be over 20 meters in height to the ceiling, but in my models, they appear to only be about 12.3 meters. Any larger than that, and the hangar won't fit. And 12.3 meters isn't big enough for an AT-TE in part of the hangar AND a second floor, with room to spare. With the height of the back of the hangar (18.3 m), it still isn't possible.

--- Maybe it's Bigger on the inside? *Joking* Dav Man'Sell 00:10, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Tilde ~?

Why is the tilde in the infobox in front of the year the ship was introduced? I saw this on an diffreent page, but have yet to see it on that many other pages. I am wondering if it is supposed to be there, and why? TK-299 (Click Here) Imperial Emblem 06:51, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

End of the first full paragraph

Shouldn't that be "Troop carrying Acclamator Is" rather than LAAT/i's? - Dav Man'Sell 00:11, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

Attack of the Clones

If I am not mistaken, this type of ship was in Attack of the Clones. Correct me if I am wrong. Matt Seay (talk) 20:14, August 4, 2012 (UTC)

Crew in Legends need some logic

The crew in Legends claims 20,141 personnel, while the passengers are decreased from 16000 (Acclamator I's passengers) to 3200 to make room for more ship to ship and bombardment equipment. The Acclamator I has a crew of 700, shouldn't the Acclamator II have the same crew of 700 (maybe a few hundred more depending on the additional weaponry requiring gunners and loaders). The 20,141 crew currently listed is from the D20 Star Wars Saga but if that is one of the differences then even though it gives up passenger space for more armaments, it still carries about 29% more personnel than the Acclamator I. So maybe change it to say,'700-20141 crew' and change the Acclamator I's crew to the same thing, as it too is listed as 20141 crew in the D20. It would be using the same references and make more logical sense. CTYCrono900 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi; I did go ahead and check that source, and it does directly claim the Acclamator II has 20,141 crew. Per attribution and sourcing policies; Wookieepedia only presents information as it is published by licensed sources, unless two licensed sources contradict each other—then we'll document both in the "Behind the scenes" section. We don't use our own logic/deductions since we can't define them as canon, unfortunately, so that info does have to stay unless another source gives a different specific number for the crew count.—spookywillowwtalk 05:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)