Armament
It would be nice to know how this variant's armament compares to the Jedi Battlecruiser Hasbro dreamed upJustinGann 10:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh dear. The Republic frigate link from Tales of the Jedi index redirects here. That's a mistake!JustinGann 10:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Merge
I can't possibly understand why is this different from Consular-class space cruiser. Mauser 12:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's as different from the Consular-class as it is from the "Republic light assault cruiser". Or how the Interdictor Star Destroyer is different from the Imperial-class Star Destroyer. VT-16 12:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, does it have different characteristics or something? And how can we judge about the differences if there are no sources describing the "Republic frigate"? Don't mention Episode Guides, they refer to Venator-class Star Destroyers as "Jedi Cruisers" but that doesn't make it a different ship. And I'm not trying to vandalize it or something, I'm just trying to understand. Mauser 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The sources describing the frigate are the bts stuff on the offical site. Especially the Ambush episode guide. It has a Corellian-made targetting system for the laser cannon batteries. Even the "light assault cruisers" don't have laser cannon batteries like this "frigate" variant does. It's either a cannon on top with extra armor or just the front salon pod exchanged with various weaponry. If they have their own article, this is warranted for this configuration as well, just like the "Star Destroyer with interdictor globes" has their own article. VT-16 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it would depend on whether this is a heavily modified Consular or a completely new ship built on a similar hull. In any case, I don't think the StarWars.com summary is accurate in calling it a frigate. The Nebulon-B and Munificent class frigates were both much larger warships, whereas this thing is more of a corvette along the lines of the CR70 Lalala la 19:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's the way I see it - it's a heavily modified Consular, which doesn't stop being Consular, just like Millennium Falcon doesn't stop being YT-1300. But I guess we'll have to wait until The Clone Wars Campaign Guide to get the confirmation. Mauser 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I mean, that's all it's been called, and like I've shown in other instances, different variations are given their own articles, like the Interdictor Star Destroyer. This frigate (it's only official name, so far), has several gun batteries lining its sides, that's already a big difference from both the original unarmed Consular and the upgraded military light cruiser variant. And even though it pales as a frigate, compared to the assault frigates and star frigates, it's about the same size as the DP20 frigate. VT-16 20:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's the way I see it - it's a heavily modified Consular, which doesn't stop being Consular, just like Millennium Falcon doesn't stop being YT-1300. But I guess we'll have to wait until The Clone Wars Campaign Guide to get the confirmation. Mauser 19:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I guess it would depend on whether this is a heavily modified Consular or a completely new ship built on a similar hull. In any case, I don't think the StarWars.com summary is accurate in calling it a frigate. The Nebulon-B and Munificent class frigates were both much larger warships, whereas this thing is more of a corvette along the lines of the CR70 Lalala la 19:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- The sources describing the frigate are the bts stuff on the offical site. Especially the Ambush episode guide. It has a Corellian-made targetting system for the laser cannon batteries. Even the "light assault cruisers" don't have laser cannon batteries like this "frigate" variant does. It's either a cannon on top with extra armor or just the front salon pod exchanged with various weaponry. If they have their own article, this is warranted for this configuration as well, just like the "Star Destroyer with interdictor globes" has their own article. VT-16 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, does it have different characteristics or something? And how can we judge about the differences if there are no sources describing the "Republic frigate"? Don't mention Episode Guides, they refer to Venator-class Star Destroyers as "Jedi Cruisers" but that doesn't make it a different ship. And I'm not trying to vandalize it or something, I'm just trying to understand. Mauser 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
All right, just like I guessed, The Clone Wars Campaign Guide refers to it as simply a modified Consular. Commencing merging... Mauser 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Are you going to merge Republic light assault cruiser too? I'm not really opposed to merging this page with Consular-class space cruiser, but if you do, then you really have to merge Republic light assault cruiser as well for exactly the same reasons. Oh, and when you do the merge, could you make sure to put the info from this article into a sub-heading under the proper name from The Clone Wars Campaign Guide (ie. Charger c70 retrofit)? DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The difference between this one and the Republic light assault cruiser is: the latter modification is given a separate name in the Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition). I'm not sure if Charger c70 retrofit counts as such: it is the designation of the retrofit and doesn't look like a proper ship class name. Mauser 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, are you sure it's the Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition) that's the source for a separate name for the Republic light assault cruiser? Because I'm looking at it right now, and it doesn't give Republic light assault cruiser as a proper name, just as a description for the modified Consular-class space cruiser. I would say that the capitalized "Charger c70" retrofit is far closer to a proper ship class name than the uncapitalized "light assault cruiser." I really think that if you're merging one, you need to merge both, since both are equally valid or invalid as separate articles. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Several of the cruisres were modified into Republic light assault cruisers" - from Starships of the Galaxy, page 126. And as a matter of fact, you did make me reconsider the merge. Since this modification actually has a designation, I'll just move it to Consular-class cruiser (Charger c70 retrofit) instead, this should be enough. Mauser 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the quote I was reading, but the way I read it that's just a description for the role after they were modified (the capitalization is just on Republic, which is always capitalized, and it seems to be an informal designation, just like the informal designation of "Republic cruiser" for the basic Consular-class ship). Regardless, I wasn't actually opposed to the merge, I just think that the two pages are equally valid, and we should either merge both or neither. If you want to go with merging neither, that's fine by me. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, and if we're not merging this, then you're right, we do need to move it to the title you've given above. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't it then be Consular-class frigate, given that's what it's been called all along in the show? A frigate. VT-16 18:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so, since The Clone Wars Campaign Guide lists it as "Consular-class Cruiser (Charger c70 Retrofit)." The fact that it gets referred to as a frigate doesn't necessarily mean that its official name includes the word frigate (and yes, the TCW Campaign Guide also calls it a frigate, but not in its name). DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no way. Or we should also move Venator-class Star Destroyer to Jedi cruiser. =) By the way, if we're moving this article to Consular-class cruiser (Charger c70 retrofit), might I also wonder why the Consular-class space cruiser is not at Consular-class cruiser, as most recent sources call it? Which source did that space part come from and shouldn't we move that one to the most recent designation as well? Mauser 19:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I think the "space" part is from the early TPM sources, ICS, VD etc. Like when Solo says "there's not enough life on this rock to fill a space cruiser" it's implied to be a small type of starship. VT-16 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there is no further arguments, I'll move both pages tomorrow, then. Mauser 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Excellent. Before moving Consular-class space cruiser you should probably mention something on its talk page in case anyone has any objections. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 23:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Unless there is no further arguments, I'll move both pages tomorrow, then. Mauser 21:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm. I think the "space" part is from the early TPM sources, ICS, VD etc. Like when Solo says "there's not enough life on this rock to fill a space cruiser" it's implied to be a small type of starship. VT-16 20:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the quote I was reading, but the way I read it that's just a description for the role after they were modified (the capitalization is just on Republic, which is always capitalized, and it seems to be an informal designation, just like the informal designation of "Republic cruiser" for the basic Consular-class ship). Regardless, I wasn't actually opposed to the merge, I just think that the two pages are equally valid, and we should either merge both or neither. If you want to go with merging neither, that's fine by me. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Several of the cruisres were modified into Republic light assault cruisers" - from Starships of the Galaxy, page 126. And as a matter of fact, you did make me reconsider the merge. Since this modification actually has a designation, I'll just move it to Consular-class cruiser (Charger c70 retrofit) instead, this should be enough. Mauser 18:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wait a minute, are you sure it's the Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition) that's the source for a separate name for the Republic light assault cruiser? Because I'm looking at it right now, and it doesn't give Republic light assault cruiser as a proper name, just as a description for the modified Consular-class space cruiser. I would say that the capitalized "Charger c70" retrofit is far closer to a proper ship class name than the uncapitalized "light assault cruiser." I really think that if you're merging one, you need to merge both, since both are equally valid or invalid as separate articles. DolukFurthermore I believe that lists must be destroyed. 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- The difference between this one and the Republic light assault cruiser is: the latter modification is given a separate name in the Starships of the Galaxy (Saga Edition). I'm not sure if Charger c70 retrofit counts as such: it is the designation of the retrofit and doesn't look like a proper ship class name. Mauser 17:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
I believe the reference to frigate in discussion with this retrofit is more of a description to this ships role in the fleet rather than an actual designation.
Frigates are often armed cargo carriers and while the c70 retrofit still carries 6000 metric tons of cargo it now is more heavily armed than it's civilian counterparts. Cec is known for its flexible designs so it is only logical that the Consular-class designation reflect both it's original frame and it's new capabilities. Couldn't happen to a better air frame. Tol-Roken 04:31, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
How many decks?
How many decks the Consular-class cruiser (Charger c70 retrofit) have? Is it one or two? I ask since its not in any part of the description. I also ask since the CEC YZ-775 has two decks and it is 52 meters. Come to think of it, how long is the Consular-class cruiser (Charger c70 retrofit)???? Taliesin2 06:52, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
- I think it's safe to refer you to the Consular-class cruiser page for these questions. Or maybe not. I am under the impression that the Charger c70 is just an upgrade for a Consular cruiser, to make it militarized or something. Which also leads me to assume that the length and how many decks it has would be the same as a normal Consular-class cruiser. But, since I don't have a source on this, I think we can all only assume until something is stated otherwise. TK-299 (Click Here)
07:09, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Article title
Why can't this article simply be moved to Charger c70 retrofit, since the ships themselves are simply military retrofit Consular-class cruisers? The in-article title is Charger c70 retrofit anyway. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:08, August 25, 2011 (UTC)
- The Clone Wars Campaign Guide actually explicitly identifies the ships as such (Consular-class cruiser (Charger c70 retrofit)), so that's what we should use. I'll tweak the article so that it's clear. CC7567 (talk) 02:54, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I could careless about some campaign guide to a continuity nightmare, whose article doesn't even mention the Charger c70 retrofit! We don't call a CR70 corvette or an Imperial I-class Star Destroyer that has been refit to the CR90 corvette standard or the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer standard (like the Chimaera) a CR70 corvette (Vanguard c20 retrofit suite) or Imperial I-class Star Destroyer refit, we call them by their name. We already have a similar problem with the Eclipse-class Star Dreadnought, the Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought, and the Imperial-class Star Battlecruiser; canon has to explicitly state the name when the authors rarely bother to do so. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:10, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you feel so harshly about the problem, but that's simply what we do on Wookieepedia. If a book identifies something as "A," then we make an article for it named "A," unless there is a serious, serious problem or a later retcon. If you have a local bookstore, you can probably check for a mention of the ship in The Clone Wars Campaign Guide, but please note that Wookieepedia is not a reliable source for information. We try to make it one, but that's not a guarantee. As it stands, it's our job to adhere to what canon says. It isn't required to agree with it all the time, but doing so is Wookieepedia policy. CC7567 (talk) 03:40, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I may not like it, but I understand. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 04:27, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you feel so harshly about the problem, but that's simply what we do on Wookieepedia. If a book identifies something as "A," then we make an article for it named "A," unless there is a serious, serious problem or a later retcon. If you have a local bookstore, you can probably check for a mention of the ship in The Clone Wars Campaign Guide, but please note that Wookieepedia is not a reliable source for information. We try to make it one, but that's not a guarantee. As it stands, it's our job to adhere to what canon says. It isn't required to agree with it all the time, but doing so is Wookieepedia policy. CC7567 (talk) 03:40, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
- I could careless about some campaign guide to a continuity nightmare, whose article doesn't even mention the Charger c70 retrofit! We don't call a CR70 corvette or an Imperial I-class Star Destroyer that has been refit to the CR90 corvette standard or the Imperial II-class Star Destroyer standard (like the Chimaera) a CR70 corvette (Vanguard c20 retrofit suite) or Imperial I-class Star Destroyer refit, we call them by their name. We already have a similar problem with the Eclipse-class Star Dreadnought, the Sovereign-class Star Dreadnought, and the Imperial-class Star Battlecruiser; canon has to explicitly state the name when the authors rarely bother to do so. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 03:10, August 26, 2011 (UTC)
Notice
I have seen almost every article on this wiki has a notice or template saying that it needs expansion, or it needs to be cleaned up, personally i think this wiki would look better without all these. you could personally tell the creator to fix it or take another look at it or say it needs these things in the talk page of the article. I think the wiki would be much better off without a good number of articles that require you to scroll down through five notices to look at it, and it also makes it look so much more messy.--Tayd0gta (talk) 18:03, May 6, 2014 (UTC)
Compliment
i thought the compliment referred to the number of small craft carried aboard. Why is a 2-1B surgical droid listed there, and not under Crew?--Bosda Di'Chi (talk) 23:18, May 10, 2015 (UTC)
why is the troop complement sso small for a 135 meter frigate