Talk: Venator-class Star Destroyer/Archive1

Back to page |
< Talk:Venator-class Star Destroyer

This page is an archive of the discussion of an article. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's current talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

Engines

Need some stats on engines etc. anyone got the ICS for ROTS? VT-16 08:52, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

  • The ROTS ICS states that the acceleration is 3,000G. JimRaynor55 17:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

In ROTS there was an interior shot of a Venator-class that showed a battery of large projectile guns that fired huge shells. Any indication what those were? --SparqMan 18:00, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • I assumed in those shots that was the blaster/laser gas being used up. Like what they later mined on Bespin --DarthJaguar 06:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the "thousand VenStars at Cour." thing actually established as more than fanon? And shouldn't we mention the Leviathan and Ravager as prototypes up the top? --McEwok 19:18, 15 Aug 2005 (UTC)

How can completely different ships that existed thousands of years ago be prototypes for the Venator-class? JimRaynor55 23:22, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Yeah, I don't think they developed prototypes for the Venator-class Star Destroyer back in the time when KOTOR took place. Sure, the concept would evolve into the idea of Star Destroyers thousands of years after the construction of the Leviathan. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:53, 16 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Battle of Rendili

This article claims that the Sundiver, Triumph, and Doneeta are Venator-class Star Destroyers. The CUSWE says that they're Acclamator-class transports. Which one is correct? JimRaynor55 09:17, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • The battle is depicted in the 'Dreadnaughts of Rendili' Republic arc. The warships are definately Acclamators - Kwenn

Venators and GCW

Ok it says venators were used in GCw but theres no sign of them so we can't say they were used intill proof they can have all been broken down or maybe sold or melted down for resources. Anyway it sounds like a venator fan wrote the last part.

  • It's already been decided. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:41, 24 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Sadly, they were cut out of Empire at War just a few weeks ago. You can still see screenshots of them from recent previews, but would this count as an appearance or not?
The developers said they took it out because of game mechanics. They couldn't find a way to balance it with rebel craft or something, which imho is stupid, as they could just have made it into a fully-fledged carrier-unit, matched it up with a rebel carrier and had them both be more vulnerable to enemy fire than the Victory-class and the Imperial-class (which is what the devs said to begin with, that it was "outdated tech" and would be easier to destroy).
Now, would screenshots in a magazine constitute an official source, if coupled with the fact that they didn't take it out because of contradiction with SW history, but because of balancing issues in the game (which had nothing to do with "RL" SW, as the Empire always had an advantage of size and strength and kept millions of different ship-designs in their forces.)
This should be good. :3 VT-16 14:21, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say that Empire at War wouldn't be an appearance, because they didn't appear in the game. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:33, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't talking about having the game as an appearance, but the game magazines that printed the pictures, where Venators were seen. I'd did write that any GCW sources were "sketchy at best", maybe that should be enough? Since the reason for it getting cut wasn't that it didn't fit in with the GCW-era Empire, it was just a manner of game mechanics not working out. VT-16 15:13, 11 Jan 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they'll be in the EAW expansion pack, which we all know is going to happen anyways. But my question is: that image from DE really looks nothing at all like a Venator, and is there any reason why it's here? Kuralyov 18:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
The front half of that DE ship has a vague resemblance to a whole Venator, but the rear half makes it completely different. This isn't close enough of a resemblance to bear mention in the Venator article IMO, and it's quite a stretch to suggest that it's a modified Venator. I think it should be removed. JimRaynor55 19:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Venator is in Empire at War - you just have to unlock it. All the coding is there. I have physically fought with a Venator on the demo. --Naylor182 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Interesting. But don't post comments in the middle of a discussion. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The problem is, the demo could have been made before the Venator was axed. I don't know how demos rank on the canon-scale, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's not high. VT-16 09:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd say keep it out of the article, except for the Behind the Scenes section. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Isn't the policy that cut material is not canon?--Lord Zack 15:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
            • It depends. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
              • The problem was slightly confounded by the developers' own statements. First they announced to the community that the Venator was part of the game, then they put it up on the official site, then they took it down again. And they explained that the Venator was taken out, not because it didn't fit in with the GCW-era, but because of "balancing issues". I guess that means they couldn't find a Rebel ship to be its equivilant (even though they had it available for both factions in multiplayer, which would have solved the problem automatically). So the reason it got taken out was not due to any conflicts with continuity, but because of game-mechanics. I guess as statement like this could fit in the BtS section. VT-16 12:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn I saw the Venator in television commercials for "Empire at War", although if they aren't in the finished game, i suppose it doesn't count, but it seems strange that they would advertise something not in the game. Perhaps they are not controllable by the player, but merely appear in cutscenes. --143.229.1.17 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The commercials were probably made before they took it out of the game. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why did they leave it out of the main game anyway? They could have easily solved the problem by giving the Venator to the Rebels, since they thought that the Empire was too overpowered.

That was a completely stupid idea.

Wouldn't the Rebellion eat up the Venator-Class Star Destroyers until the MC80's came into service?

  • What do you mean? If you're saying that the Rebellion would have Venators before they got Mon Calamari cruisers, no, because the Empire would still be using them, although they would mainly have been replaced by Imperials. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 16:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant the Rebellion would probably want them, for their starfighter capacity. With such a craft, space superiority with the Rebellion's X-Wings, Y-Wings, and A-Wings would almost be assured.

  • Er, in theory, the Rebels would want any dedicated warships they could get.--Guy Ruffian 21:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Anyway, I doubt the Rebels would be buying warships from the Empire. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20px 22:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • What about stealing? ;)
    • I don't think they would try that. They probably never got close to having a Venator. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 22:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • While a Venator with a full load of Rebel fighters would be a dangerous foe, keep in mind that for the A- and B-wing at least, the Rebels only had a few squadrons of each class at the time of the Battle of Endor. It's possible that the number of fighters deployable by the Rebellion is more an issue of the number of fighters they actually have rather than a matter of hanger space - in which case, the Rebellion might prefer to spread their fighters around multiple lighter units than having several hundred on one Venator - spreading out their proverbial eggs among their equally proverbial baskets. Draxynnic 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Except from Defectors that had those types of ships in their disposal I suppose.

  • The odds of an entire crew defecting in the limited time that Venators were in active Imperial service somehow strike me as very, very slim. --Guy Ruffian 12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. There's no way that an entire crew of a Star Destroyer would decide to defect. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't say that there's no chance at all, especially in a space opera adventure setting like Star Wars, but it strikes me as unlikely enough that we can safely assume it didn't happen unless explicitly informed otherwise. from a trusted (i.e. official) source. --Guy Ruffian 17:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, unless a bunch of Rebels boarded on and took it over, it's very unlikely. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, since the Venators were going to be available to both factions (in Multiplayer, at least), that would have proven some were stolen. ;) VT-16 19:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
            • Well, "were" is the key word there. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Hey, it happened with a whole lot of Nebulon-B frigates. It could happen with a Venator, too. And about the canonicity, I think it's canon. The reason is that Leland Chee has said on many occasions that content goes into the Holocron well before products are released and stays there, even if it's cut for constraint or mechanics reasons. If the Venator model made it into the game files, it's almost certain that the Holocron mentions its appearance. --Thetoastman 20:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
                • If that happens, I don't think we should count it as an appearance. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
                • It strikes me that there is probably an inverse relationship between the size of a ship and its defection probability. There are two factors against bigger ships defecting. First, the bigger ships are likely to have higher-ranking COs, which probably means COs that the Empire can be more sure of their loyalty (Harkov and Zaarin being notable exceptions, of course - and there's also the issue that a CO intending to defect is probably more likely to do so with their first or second command rather than waiting for a Star Destroyer, even an obsolete one). Second, it's probably a lot more likely for a smaller crew to decide to defect, either by a large number of Rebel sympathisers being assigned to the ship by chance or because a smaller, more tight-knit crew may be more inclined to spontaneously decide as a group to defect. Draxynnic 06:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Fuel Consumption

The page says a Venator can burn 40,000 tons of fuel per second. Without knowing the weight of the fuel, if we assume it is super dense and a litre weighs a ton, a Venator would burn 40,000 Litres per second. Since a litre is 10 cubic CM , that's 4,000 cubic Metres per second. The Venator is 1,137 meters long, 548 meters wide, and 268 meters high including the bridge. If we assume the majority of the hull is 1/3 of that, it's 89m high. Therefore a Venator, at most, has 55,453,764 Million Cubic Metres of space. If we say the entire hull is dedicated to fuel, then the Venator has a grand total of 23.1 Minutes of fuel. Surely Venator's were deployed for more than 23 minutes at a time?

You might want to contest what I'm saying, but let's analyse this:

- 40,000 tons of Fuel that has an unknown weight, if we assume that a litre weighs a ton (IE it's 1000 times heavier than water), and some assumptions must be made, unless someone can show me what Fuel in Star Wars weighs, then 40,000 tons occupies 4,000 Cubic Metres.

- The largest dimensions of a Venator are known, so if a Venator were a rectangular prism we'd know its volume, however it isn't, so I assume, by trimming off some height, perhaps a little too much which is more than compensated for by the maximum of the other two dimensions being used, that the volume is 55,453,764 Cubic Metres.

- By statement one, a minute's fuel occupies 2,400,000 Cubic metres. Therefore 23.1 minutes fuel occupies 55,440,000 Cubic Metres, roughly the Venator's entire capacity. This is assuming the entire ship is devoted to fuel, which clearly it isn't.

So, basically, that figure is insanely over the top. Even if you decrease the consumption by half, by whatever justification, it's still only 46.2 minutes. Even if you then double the capacity, you only get 46.2 Hours (My working out on that one might be wrong; I doubled the Venator Volume, then divided it by half the consumption per second and then divided it by sixty for the number of minutes and sixty again for the number of hours, this is correct?) the Venator has supplies for 2 years, ie 2,515,968,000,000 tons of fuel, which, if we use my first statement's assumption, would occupy 251,596,800,000 Cubic Metres, 251,596,800 Cubic Kilometres. The USA is 9,631,418Km squared (So not in height), so a Venator would need to carry 26122.5 times the size the USA, Cubed, the Earth has 510,065,284.702 km square area. So a Venator would carry enough fuel to cover the earth (Assuming it were flat over sea level, of course) to a height of 125,798,400 km, if the fuel were 1000x the weight of water.

This seems just a tad unreal to me.

  • They invented hypermatter specifically to explain this. Starships can carry fuel equivalent to the mass of a moon without nasty gravitational side-effects. —Darth Culator (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's makes no sense - we've gone from fuel that's amazingly dense to fuel that is essentially anti-matter and for some reason moves faster than the speed of light. It still doesn't fix the volume problem... (Note, I think I dropped a zero in my calculations above somewhere, but all the same, the figures would similar)

":|" I mean it's just, as a kid I loved Star Wars, but even at a very young age the gaping holes in continuity were obvious. Most of it could be fixed by George Lucas simply giving a flying over what is and isn't given the thumbs up; he's turned his universe into something of a whore, it sells itself for money. He's a sci-fi pimp.

And when I saw this, I decided to do the calculations and they make no sense. Then (I know that you're trying to help) I'm directed to a page that made me think, if I may quote Futurama's Hermes Conrad "BUT THAT JUST RAISES MORE QUESTIONS!", because it doesn't explain in any way how the matter could be super-dense, if anything it tries to confuse people with bullshit, all it really does is use technical terms that mean it's essentially anti-matter that's moving faster than the speed of light... and this stuff's supposed to be in a fuel tank of things across the Galaxy? I mean, stuff Exxon Valdez, this stuff has the potential to wipe out a planet if it's not magically stopped from doing that (which is also unexplained).

It's like "Okay, you got me, that's not possible... until I babble at you in jargon so you give up!" I mean I know a little of Quantum Physics and all that crazy stuff but not ever have I heard of Hypermatter outside Sci-Fi. I just don't get it. At least can someone explain why Hypermatter helps, how it is utilised if it's moving faster than light speed and why it isn't annihalating the Universe?

  • "Okay, you got me, that's not possible... until I babble at you in jargon so you give up!" -- Honestly, I think it's exactly like that. The power requirement for destroying a planet was so fantastic that something needed to be said about it, and that's what they came up with. There are relatively few examples of genuine technobabble/handwavium in Star Wars, so this one doesn't bother me that much. I know just enough about physics to sound especially stupid when an actual physics guy joins the party, but there are places you can go where they may be able to explain in more detail, like Stardestroyer.net or the Jedi Council Forums. —Darth Culator (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into that, sorry to use the discussion area somewhat like an IM, but this bothered me. I know that Star Wars has a lot of bable that's meaningless, usually I don't mind too much, sometimes there's actual physics of some form under it, what gets me is that anyone can read just enough to see that quantum physics for example might hold the answers to FTL travel et cetra. I like Star Wars and Star Gate and some other Sci Fi, even though modern science shows that the odds of one planet like Earth are something riddiculous like 146 10x137 (That's 146 followed by 137 zeroes) which I'm told is higher than the odds that either of us will be killed by a sudden reversal of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (though I'm not sure how a reversal of Entrophy would kill someone), but the point is that having even just two planets capable of sustaining intelligent life is virtually impossible (although later Terra-forming by later intelligent life might be possible on some planets) and yet there's supposed to be millions in the Star Wars Universe. And that I can somehow ignore, but the concept of such massive consumption of fuel bothers me a lot, so I asked here and you pointed out that Hypermatter stuff that's just jargon which make the whole connundrum worse.

Anyway, thanks again, I'll look into that.

  • "...sorry to use the discussion area somewhat like an IM...". Hey, you're not the first. ;) Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Not having read up on the subject, the name "Hypermatter" seems to imply a connection with "Hyperspace". Is that used as some sort of explanation? Either matter scavanged/syphoned from the hyperspace dimension or stored in some sort of pocket-universe? (With the engines of a ship being like the Tardis of Doctor Who, greater on the inside than the outside.) VT-16 11:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: Having looked at the wiki-article for hypermatter, they say it burns the equivilant of 40 000 tons of matter per second, not actually 40 000 tons of matter per second. I think that's the difference, that hypermatter of lesser weight expounds as much energy per second as 40 000 tons of ordinary matter. VT-16 11:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was on the verge of taking the stance that, once again, the folks on the inside (those that get to create that which we debate about... Curtis Saxton is one of the rare ones that got to cross over from the outside to the inside) overdosed on some wierd acid and just made some outrageous numbers up, but then I read over some of your previous stuff here (multiple people), and realized — just because it states that it can burn an obscene amount of fuel per second does not mean that it does so all the time! Think of it like an afterburner on a jet fighter, or the reactor on a submarine, where it is capable of dumping X (large number) pounds of fuel per second to achieve this speed, or of going to 105% on the reactor to achieve this speed, but for most normal operations, it's doing so at a scaled back consumption amount. Perhaps the Venator is operating at 30% consumption while in common orbit of a planet, or cruising on patrol, and then works up to 50-60% consumption when in battle, going to full "turbo-afterburner-gonzo-boost" 100% consumption when doing something immensely tasking, such as heavy bombardment, or hyperspace jump (I'm using it as an example, don't know for certain). -- Hawke / Rtufo 14:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps... But what's with the different font color? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • We've had this discussion over and over again. Hypermatter is not ordinary matter. It was invented to show how a big starship can expend massive amounts of fuel without needing a huge volume to contain it. VT-16 16:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
    • To those who disagree with canon figures: Canon is canon, whether you like it or not. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Further on that point, I reccomend people consider doing math instead of making wild assumptions. I've had discussions with Dr. Saxton and contributed to his power page due to my training in the field. The fuel numbers as presented are entirely workable, the thing carries enough fuel for about 4 hours of peak reactor ops. After 4 hours of getting hit by the main guns, there is going to be nothing left, so you don't need that much power. Hypermatter does nto have to be special fuel, it just has to be regualr fuel stored at high densities, similar to those found in the cores of gas giants and brown dwarfs. Lowkey 00:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So you're like a junior Dr. Saxton? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) Imperial Emblem 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So, basically, most capital ships never operate on peak conditions unless it's an extreme situation, to keep going for a much longer time? And afterwards they fill up in a station? That explains the existence of tankers and refueling procedures in SW (like what the X-wings in ANH do before the battle). Since we here on Earth have found ways to simulate extreme astronomical conditions in huge particle accelerators and the like, it stands to reason that much older and advanced societies like the ones in SW, come up with preservation of energy in equally extreme conditions. VT-16 21:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • True. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) Imperial Emblem 01:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to start up an old argument but everyone seems to be missing a big part of the pcture (n offence intended) but all the sources say that a Venator CAN burn 40k of fuel per second. The key wrd here is CAN, Venators probably don't carry that much fuel on board, they're just stating that it CAN do that.Cipher RC1168

Main reactor can burn 40k tons of fuel per second? riiiiight.....

I removed the line that said this, this was either a typo here or where the submitter found it, or a lie/trolling. 40k tons of fuel per second is like 1/8 of what the our sun burns, this massive amount would fuel several 2nd Death Stars at max hyperspace velocity. Someone please, find out what the true value for this is.

  • That's the number that's in print, and it's consistent with the other numbers in the same book. If you don't like it, go whine to DK Publishing or Lucas Licensing, don't go altering facts to fit your opinion. —Darth Culator (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't remove stuff like that again. It's canon. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Canon only in the ICS, not supported by other sources.
        • ICS is canon, and other sources don't cover the subject. You have no grounds for questioning this number. JimRaynor55 20:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not canon. Live with it. - Darth Culator 20:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Well said, Darth Culator. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
          • But I think his point was that that's not physically possible. Are we really supposed to believe it burns twice as much fuel as its entire cargo capacity every second? The thing's not even big enough to hold the fuel it would take to run for a few seconds, let alone jump to lightspeed. --Thetoastman 20:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
          • Have you people even read the book? It says "40k tons of hypermatter fuel". Hypermatter is not the same as matter. VT-16 16:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Semantic Concern Re: Fighter Capacity

I'm submitting a minor edit in the section regarding fighter complement. Currently, it says that the ship "could support 420 fighters in its bays altogether". I'm fairly certain that all published, official sources say that's what it did support as its regular complement, and doesn't mention if that's the maximum capacity. (In fact, I'd assume that the maximum capacity was higher, if only because it's senseless to force yourself to use all of a resource, i.e. fighter berthing space, as part of regular operation; it would leave no easy alternative if something went amiss. Then again, that's military spending and design for you...)

Until we have confirmation either way, I'm going to render the language a bit more ambiguous as to total capacity, leaving the definitive wording only for the standard complement.--216.83.103.138 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I personally think that it was fine before your edit, but oh well. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 15:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Just wondering why you changed the qualifiers for the period in which it carried the specified complement; it really strikes me as worthwhile clarification. For instance, I pretty strongly doubt that whatever Venators the Empire used still carried any Jedi starfighters--and actually would assume that they outfitted them to carry TIEs at some point, but that's just speculation. It makes sense to me, though, that instead of buying more Clone-era starfighters, they's use their TIEs, a cheaper alternative that more of their pilots specifically trained to fly. Again, that's just pure fan-speculation.--216.83.103.138 16:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, when you had "late Republic", it made it sound like it had existed before the end of the Republic. It just didn't sound right. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 16:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Ah, swell. If you don't mind, I'll re-edit with an attempt at greater clarity.--216.83.103.138 16:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Fighter capacity

why would you want 190 jedi starfighters in the hold? Clones didn't fly them and even if the ship was carrying jedi there would only need to be two or three.

Thanks, I didn't know that

  • Sorry if I sounded a little mean there... I've been having a rough week—actually, more like two or three weeks. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Note that in Battlefront II, they're nicknamed "Republic starfighters", and I believe they're some kind of elite Imperial fighter in Galaxies - Kwenn 19:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because it makes just soooo much sense to call it a 'Jedi Starfighter' when most aren't flown by Jedi. Good grief. As much as I recognise this as being canon, I would guess that there was a mistake which should have been '192 V-wings OR 192 Jedi Starfighters' rather than '192 V-wings and 192 Jedi Starfighters'. Actually having done some calculations I found that it is physically impossible for the Venator to carry its full load of fighters, especially when you consider that the Venator has the same main weapons as the Imperator, is smaller, and yet carries 350 MORE fighters. Saxton has a lot to answer for.

The Venator, as showed in the ROTS:ICS, is a dedicated carrier vessel, more-so than the Imperator (from SW:ICS): Venator - Imperator Despite its size, the Imperator has less volume to store fighters than the Venator. it is not dedicated to hangar facilities. :) The micro-fighters would also not take up as much space as GCW-era fighters. An Eta-2 is much smaller than a TIE fighter, for instance. They are also shown being flown by Imperial pilots in SW: Republic 78. VT-16 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It makes sense because they are not Jedi Starfighters, they are Jedi Interceptors, there's a difference, and they were made famous by the Jedi that flew them because the fact that the ETA 2 had no shields etc, each JSF and JSI had a seperate Colour scheme, which is what the Super Battle droids recognized as them belonging to Jedi, also the Venator does not have the same main armament as an Imperator, just a similar design on the cannons, the Imperator cannons are different (they fire green bolts rather than Blue bolts for one thing) also the Imperator is designed as an All rounder, a self contained Fleet in and of itself, where as the Venator was a Carrier, and the Victory was more of a Battleship. as for them being Elite Imperial Fighters in Star Wars Galaxies, that's SOE's mistake they added in new content but wanted it to be desirable, so they overcompinsated and now it's the most ludicrously unbalanced fighter in the game, imagine if they made World War 1 fighters available in World War II online, and made them the most powerfull fighters in the game. —Unsigned comment by 65.93.90.119 (talk • contribs)

Well, the Venator has fewer guns than the Imperator, as well as a smaller reactor and poorer fuel economy. In addition, the Venator contains more crew-reducing automation, I believe. The hangar makes up the bulk of the Venator. Don't forget that 72 was only the Imperator's standard fighter complement. Several sources state it could hold many more if necessary. As for the Eta-2, whoever decided it should be flyable by clones should have checked the "Jedi Starfighter" databank article, which states that only a Jedi could fly it at speed due to the lack of sensors...But I'm going off an a tangent. ZTS out. ZeldaTheSwordsman 18:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Venator picture

Quick question - shouldn't the main pic of the Venator (the one above the stats) be of one in Republic colours? It just strikes me as odd that the main pic we have for the main Republic warship is of it in Imperial colours. By all means the Imp-coloured pic should be kept, perhaps swap two of the pics?

  • Haven't seen the same complete profile picture of it in the Republic version. I'm sure someone can take a good, comprehensive snapshot from ROTS. VT-16 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • What's the difference? Both the Republic and the Empire used them. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The difference is that being a Republic ship, hence the name 'Republic Attack Cruiser', the main picture of it should be in Republic colours. Darth Windu
        • This is basically a Star Destroyer class and paint jobs seem to be more specific to one cruiser while the Imperial version has no colors at all as if it comes fresh from the shipyards. --RedemptionTalk 15px 16:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
          • "Republic Attack Cruiser" is a nickname. And it's obviously not called that during the Imperial era. Besides, the Imperial version gives a much better view of the ship, which is what is required in infobox images. Leave it at that. - Kwenn 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
          • The Republic pictures that were tried out, didn't show the entire ship, like I feel a good profile picture should do. The Imperial one is like that and the only difference is a paint-job, nothing more. If you can find an equivilant picture for the Republic version, that's good, too. :) VT-16 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
            • But until then, do not change the images around. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 18:23, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
              • I've found another pic of the Venator, uploading now. As I said, the main reason for this is that the main picture of the Venator should be in its rightful Republic colours, whilst of course the Imperial version should be seen as well. Ah there we go, now that is a nice pic :) Darth Windu
                • The picture you uploaded has been deleted. We don't use fan-created images, only images from official sources. -- Ozzel 04:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
                  • Ah okay, didn't know that. I was wondering why it had been deleted when it was clearly superior. Out of curiousity, why aren't fan-made images allowed? Darth Windu
                    • The fact that is was "superior" can be argued (my arguement still stands that the Imperial version looks like it's fresh from the factory and not customized)...And fan-made aren't allowed because they aren't official. If it were allowed, then God knows that the Plagueis page would be filled with it. Also, it's good way to avoid any right violations. Though there are rare cases where they are allowed, but for things like cropping and brightening the image up. Fan-art is not very professional looking on a site where it's trying to be as true and professional as it possibly can be. --RedemptionTalk 15px 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
                      • Fan made images are also allowed on user pages. MyNz 05:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
                        • Ah, well thanks for the clarification. I personally thought the image looked incredibly good, but I'll just have to try harder to find an official pic. Oh, do officially-licensed models count as 'official'? Darth Windu

The picture of the first Venator in ROTS seems like the most iconic picture of the ship, so maybe we should just use that as the main pic? - lalala_la

  • It's not a good shot, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 04:24, 17 October 2006 (PDT)
  • I like the one they have up now, the one who put it up can't remember the source and neither can I, but I'm pretty sure it's official. The CG models of other ROTS vehicles were pictured the same way, with a bird's-eye-view and a slant to the left or right. VT-16 11:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's a source for it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That would be me. :) I can't remember the source because I came across it a long time back and saved it to my hard-drive, and of course didn't save the source. Pretty sure its official because of the detail, plus the quality, layout, and background are identical to the other official pics. Darth Windu
        • I remember seeing it somewhere, but I'm not sure. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Due to the color of the background and the model details this is definitely one of the CG standard model shots taken by ILM. It could have appeared on Art of Revenge on the official site. VT-16 17:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Venator weapons

Alright, I've recently noted an issue with the Venator weapons loadout. The official stats say that she has the 8 turbolaser turrets and two twin medium turbolasers. The turrets are obviously on either side of the ship superstrucutre, and as we can see in the main pic, the two mtwin medium turbolasers are near the front of the vessel. However on the page http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Turbolasers, http://www.starwars.com/episode-iii/explore/sithsnap/2005/08/sithsnap20050804.html, and the picture http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:Turbolaser_explosion.jpg, we can clearly see a turbolaser exploding on a Venator that is just as clearly none of the aforementioned turbolasers. Anyone know what the explanation is? Darth Windu

  • I'm not sure if the internal turbolasers from the film are accounted for on the picture, or if they appear on the overall stat sheet. They might have been part of the point-defense laser cannons, since their line of fire is so limited. If anything, "laser cannon" in this case could just be shorthand for "turbolaser cannon". VT-16 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Forces of Corruption?

Does it really appear in the actual game, no code-fixing necessary this time? VT-16 21:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I think so. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see someone mentioning it in the Skirmish mode and on the demo, one belonged to a Mandalorian leader. Can someone with the game elaborate on this? It's for the article. :) VT-16 10:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'll see if my friend got it yet. Maybe he could help. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's in FoC. Purchasable in Skirmish. Jorrel Fraajic 18:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Yep. It's the ship of the Mandalorian leader, and there are a bunch of them floating in debris fields. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 19:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • So the Mandalorians have their hands on a Venator. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
          • I heard somewhere that they were only purchasable by the Consortium, but that may have been in story mode. So, in Skirmish mode, they can be purchased by all three sides? That would warrant a small addition to the infobox. 8D VT-16 22:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
            • Logically, though, these ships wouldn't be ones that are being actively built. I figure if you're going to translate game mechanics into reality (which is generally a terrible idea, but let's indulge) that the time and cost involved with deploying a "new" Venator or Victory or Acclamator is actually related to refurbishing and crewing a mothballed ship. And for the Rebels, stealing and then refurbishing and crewing a ship. So if we were to change the infobox, we'd have to say "*Rebel Alliance (after 0 BBY); *Zann Consortium (after 0 BBY)" or something similar. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 22:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Of course, the only part of games I mention in articles, are which craft are available to which people at a given time, not what firepower it has in the game or that the size in-game is correct or properly proportioned. The only reason I've been asking about the "future" of the Venator-class, is that despite its major flaw (the hangar-opening providing a good target), the class is just as powerful as the Victory and if that can get reused and recycled, wouldn't this class at least be given work with second- or third-rate Imperial units? So it's nice to see they finally added it and thereby give a certain amount of closure to it. (And I really, really wanted to see it in the GCW era) :P VT-16 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
                • Me, too. The Venator-class is a great carrier; it definitely hasn't had enough time in the post-RotS Galaxy. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • If the Mandalorians had Venators, we have a category to add. --Mr. Perfection 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No the Mandalorians only had ONE Venator and it was Serving as the Mandalorian Leader (Mandalore?s) Ship I(I don't remembe if it was Mandalore him self or a Clan Leader)
    • One Venator or a thousand, it doesn't make a difference. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
      • on foc you can build them in skirmish as the zann consortium but u need a pirate station or space dock and the mandalorian did have a venator as his personnel flagship however they aren't avaliable in gc
        • All of which was already stated above. It does help to read conversations if you are going to revive them after so many months. --OuroborosCobra 21:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Year Introduced

Can we say what year it was introduced?

On Hypermatter - Paging the math and physics guys...

An interesting tidbit from the WotC site may lend some insight into the Hypermatter issue: Jedi Counseling 94

One fuel cell for a "colossal" ship holds 100 tons of actual matter. A fuel cell has enough fuel for "one hour of combat, sublight travel (ramming speed), or atmospheric flight." A Venator-class SD burns 'up to' the equivalent of 40,000 tons of fuel per second.

3,600 seconds in an hour. 40,000 tons per second. 144,000,000 equivalent tons of hypermatter per hour=100 tons of actual matter per hour. 1 actual ton of hypermatter=1,440,000 equivalent tons of actual matter. Probably less depending on the circumstances of full reactor burn, but definitely somewhere in that ballpark.

Now, math and physics guys, tell me how I'm wrong. Or not. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 20:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Uh... I was sort of good at physics, but I'm just confused now. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't it be 1 actual ton of actual matter=1,440,000 equivalent tons of hypermatter?--Herbsewell 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I think that would make more sense. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 19:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't it be 100 tons of Hypermatter fuel (in the fuel cell) produces the same amount of energy as 144,000,000 tons ordinary fuel (which cannot fit in the fuel cell)? VT-16 00:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
        • That's what I meant. Some people have a way with words. Other people just... not have way. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me try to clarify this. The fuel cell holds 100 actual tons. This is enough fuel for an hour of combat. The Venator's reactor expends hypermatter to produce energy equivalent to annhiliating 40,000 tons of matter per second. This would be the equivalent of 144,000,000 tons of matter in an hour. So the fuel cell holding hypermatter, which only masses 100 tons, is equal to annihilating 144,000,000 tons of matter in a pure conversion to energy. So one actual physical ton of hypermatter has the energy equivalent of annihilating 1,440,000 tons of plain regular matter.

Does that make more sense? I'm having trouble converting it from random thoughts in my brain into ideas that other humans can understand. The numbers are probably smaller depending on what percent of maximum reactor burn the ship maintains during a full hour of combat, but it gives us an idea of what ballpark the hypermatter numbers are in. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 17:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It does. "Hypermatter" (Chemical symbol Bs) is a handy invention for when you need to explain how sci-fi ships the size of moons can travel half a galaxy in less than a day without shoving massive red giant stars into a giant furnace for use as fuel. ;P VT-16 17:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Just putting this out there but did u ever think that maybe the star wars people didnt do the actual calculations and just threw out a random number to confuse and piss off fans69.26.85.141 23:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Jack there has to be a better way to end these discussions besides saying ambiguously that it'll be brought up to Chee and he'll sort it out.--Herbsewell 23:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not try to end the discussion. I was just saying that we should try asking Chee. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Well Jack in these discussions it either "ends", (and by ends I mean the issue is almost considered ended) in two ways. (1) We say that we Leland Chee we'll figure it out, or (2) We argue with each other on some personal interest until someone breaks us up.--Herbsewell 11:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe the whole point of hypermatter was to explain all the impossible physics of Star Wars. From my limited understanding of the situation, the destruction of Alderaan required more energy than could be produced if the mass of the entire DSI was converted directly into energy and infused into Alderaan's core. So we invent a form of fuel that's so powerful that the "stellar fuel bottles" around the DS reactor core contain enough to perform the station's otherwise-impossible feats.
I think it's unlikely that the actual statistics of hypermatter have been quantified in canon, but combining the "fuel cell" concept from the RPG with the annihilation rate from the ICS can give us some ideas. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Yeah, that's true. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • My lead-ball analogy earlier (which somebody deleted) came from asking just that question. What is hypermatter. If I had a fist full of it, would it weigh as much as an asteroid? Could it power Minneapolis for a year? I don't expect Lucas to invent every little detail of the stuff, just give us something beyond "40,000 tons/second" If those cruisers are lifting 2 years of fuel, repulsers must be dirt cheap.
      • Well, we need to ask Chee. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I think it's best to assume that the reactors are inefficient and do not completely convert the matter into energy (if they did they would have no exhaust). It may be possible that wile hypermatter converts into energy when it combines with regular matter, the reactors can not completely utilize and store the energy (though I'm at a loss as to what happens to the exhaust because it should be able to destroy an entire planet by itself). The best science fiction authors that write in a technologically progressing universe make the technology seem light years ahead of the current real world technology but always leave room for improvement. That's probably the reason why a lot of fans disliked Dark Empire because it was ridiculous how technologically advanced they had become in only a few years (like tanks absorbing laser fire and aircraft that housed pilot's brains).--Herbsewell 02:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked in the continuity thread on starwars.com, but I doubt there's anything beyond the tidbits in the ICS. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 23:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    • No. If someone had done research I had expected someone to tell me. I expected someone to say that someone had done it and then they would give me a source. If I wanted to know if you specifically had done research I would have asked it.--Herbsewell 23:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Culator: It's unfortunate, because I think you're right. Herbsewell: I don't want a big issue out of this, but you said "No" to my question, and then you said "If I wanted to know if you specifically had done research I would have asked it". It seems like that's yes and no. But, like I said, I don't want another issue. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

As the person who wrote Jedi Counseling 94, I can shed some light on the subject. First, I had to make different sources on fuels and consumption rates match up. Star Wars Adventure Journal #5 first introduced the concept of a fuel cell (specifically, the Imperial Mark IV Fuel Cell) along with what 1 fuel cell could do, how many a tramp freighter (in this case, a YT-1300) would hold, and how much they cost to replace (50 credits). Second, the Star Wars Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (and Revised Core Rulebook) both establish that 1 kg of fuel costs 50 credits. Given this, and starting with the assumption that the fuel in the Core Rulebook is the same as the fuel in fuel cells, it was possible to calculate that a fuel cell holds 1 kg of fuel. After that, I worked from the assumption that for every increase in size category, a ship uses 10 times as much fuel. (A size category is approximately doubled in all dimensions, sometimes a bit more, so it averages out to about a tenfold increase in mass.) From this, and using the rules established in Adventure Journal #6, it was possible to calculate that a Venator would hold 736 fuel cells, a total weight of 73,600 metric tons of fuel.

However, I was keenly aware of the numbers in ROTS:ICS (I'd referenced them extensively when writing the Revenge of the Sith Collection for the Wizards of the Coast website), and I was also aware that the mass annihilation Saxton lists was derived assuming that relatively normal real-world physics were at work (e.g. calculating energy based on the luminance and size of engines, assuming that thrust was emitted at near the speed of light, etc.) -- and, more importantly, his numbers absolutely would not work if they represented "real" weights. (Even assuming that peak power consumption is 24 times faster than normal, meaning it would only have to last 736 hours, it would require fuel stores of 1.06x10^11 metic tons -- that is far too much because the thrust Saxton calculated as being required would no longer be enough to move the ship while it carried that fuel.)

Thus, I concluded that the masses listed in ROTS:ICS were "virtual" mass. Here's how it works (and it's essentially based on the same technology as inertial compensators): The sublight drives on starships (e.g. H-K ion engines, etc.) produce a limited warping of the space-time continuum that makes the starship's mass relative to the rest of the universe much lower than it "really" is; by doing so, the motive thrust provided by a given mass of reaction mass accelerated to a given velocity is multiplied, thereby making absurdly high accelerations (thousands of Gs) over extended periods possible without carrying insane amounts of reaction mass. In this case, the "relative mass gradient" works out to 1.44x10^6-to-1. (As a comparison, this relative mass gradient would allow the real-world space shuttle to reach orbit using about 2.6 pounds of fuel.) So, in conclusion, it's not hypermatter itself at work here -- it's just the complex inner workings of sublight engines themselves that make the relative masses of the ship much lower than that of the reaction mass, and this virtual mass is reported in ROTS:ICS because that's what would traditionally be used for calculating things like specific impulse and so forth.

(Also, in addition to my word as the Jedi Counselor, this is the reasoning I put in comments on the column when it was sent to Leeland and company for approval -- given that they approved it for publication, I'm assuming they agreed that my behind-the-scenes explanation was a reasonable way to justify the two radically different numbers as well as a way to explain the incredibly large numbers in ROTS:ICS.) -- Gary M. Sarli (Jedi Counselor) 00:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to say that the fuel itself is converted at a 1.44e6: 1 mass ratio in the reactor?

Not to be rude, but I think it would be so much better if the authors went with what have already been established and use that as a proper basis instead. Northerner 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • He did. He had two conflicting accounts he had to reconcile, with one of them having serious physical ramifications. He did so rather brilliantly. jSarek 05:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I don't see what needed to be reconciled. There's no reason to believe that the fuel cell above was necessarily a hypermatter fuel cell- if you read JC94, you'll see the rule presupposes that there is simply one kind of fuel in all the galaxy. Starfighters do not all equip hypermatter reactors, as we know from the canon- its the minority, if any. Basically, it's a good illustration of the abstraction and such you'll use for an RPG ruleset, and should not be rigorously applied to the entirety of the canon as a whole (ie. a Venator-class Star Destroyer does not carry 736 100 metric ton capacity fuel cells- check the RotS:ICS). And as a point of logic- a fuel cell costing 50 credits and 1kg of fuel (assuming its the same fuel, which is not guaranteed) costingg 50 credits does not mean that a 50 credit fuel cell carries 1kg of fuel.Vymer 06:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • EDIT Addendum: i.e., the EGV&V, page xv (preface): "Most ships rely on power cells, although the Hoersch-Kessel drive can be converted to use heavy metals, liquid reactants, or virtually any substance as fuel." That's just the HK drive, note. We know that hypermatter reactors don't power every ship in the galaxy (ie. certainly not starfighters, as assumed by the rule), and we also know that fusion reactors are used to confine the hypermatter reactors on large warships (AotC:ICS, page 3): "most starships use fusion systems that confine more-powerful hypermatter annihilation cores" . A fuel cell need not have anything to do with the hypermatter reactor directly whatsoever.Vymer 06:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I should also point out that the mass figures are for the purpose of determining peak power output of the various reactors. These are explicitly listed in Watts in the AotC:ICS. Are the ships annihilating "virtual" mass to achieve this power output? (obviously, that's nonsensical.) This is afterall where the 3.6x10^24W figure on the article comes from. It's a non-explicit tool for conveying power output that's already been explicitly detailed in the same orders of magnitude in other sources.Vymer 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
      • *Paging Dr. Hawking. Paging Dr. Hawking. Your assistance is needed.* -- Riffsyphon1024 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • LOL. Actually I'd say Dr. Saxton, the author :) Vymer 07:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"He did. He had two conflicting accounts he had to reconcile, with one of them having serious physical ramifications. He did so rather brilliantly."

No, he worked from his own assumptions and there aren't any "serious physical ramifications" as those assumptions are flawed and with little regard for established sources. We've also started to see Star Wars being turned into Star Trek. However, it might work as game mechanics. Edit: Also, remember that we see the Falcon and various fighters being refueled in several scenes. Northerner 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

That was my two cents, that's all (we don't see fuel cells being replaced, we see ships being refuelled (see the OT: ICS). It's a very interesting and intriguing idea, but the author should've relied more on what has already been established and also not to use assumptions. It seems as if it has become more common that the various authors rewrites, changes the meaning to what other authors have established and introduces their own take on things rather than to add to what has already been established. I have the highest respect for Mr. Sarli, but in this case, I don't quite agree. Northerner 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for being unclear. Northerner 22:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Sarli's" explanation

I'm going to be posting this at TFN as well, but I'm posting it here at the source too.

I want to preface this by stating it will be a long post, but I would hope everyone will read it through. I've put it through a couple of revisions for clarity, as my schedule is probably not going to let me respond past a couple more days.

As this is a scientific and logic issue, I think the first thing we need to do is approach this from a scientific and logical perspective. If anyone takes issue with that, then I would point out that you cannot consistently state that logic is irrelevant without contradicting your own statement. So pipe down. :)

The first mistake I see people making here is treating this as a canon statement. It isn't.

Firstly, we don't know that this person is in fact Gary Sarli. It's not like lying on a wiki is that complicated. If I register the name "God" over there, I do not gain the ability to damn souls to hell and smite people with lightening bolts (though that would be pretty bad-ass). Neither does someone posting as Gary Sarli gain the authority to make canon statements there. Secondly they are speaking outside any approved channel. Wookiepedia is not a LFL endorsed site, and has no business connection with them. It is by the fans and for the fans. If we treat it as a canon source, then any yahoo who wants can edit whatever they want into canon. Thirdly, the logic that "they approved what they published, therefore they also approved what they refused to publish" is clearly false - if they approved it as well, they would have published it. That they didn't is clear evidence they rejected it. And if you disregard point 3, then the same reasoning would apply to SWTC - after all, it is the supporting argument for everything Dr Saxton wrote. Taking that to the illogical extreme, since Mike Wong contributed to most SWTC pages and is thanked by Dr Saxton in the ICS books he wrote, that would mean that everything on Mike Wong's site is now canon as well. I would like to take this opportunity to then point out I have stated that there are 300 quadrillion clones in the GAR there. Which is now canon. So nyah.

Or, you know, we could realize that what some guy posts in a wiki is just that - what he posted in a wiki, and carries no canon authority and in this case serves only to make him look like a fool. Which is really why the internet exists anyways - making people look like fools. Well, that and for looking at porn.

Now on to the other issue with this - people are claiming that this alters the number in the ICS, dropping the annihilation rates and correspondingly, all the numbers. This is again, false. Read the statement again - the numbers presented are the virtual mass, not the total. He is basically saying that the ships get to carry the fuel for free, not that the numbers there are now to be altered. Besides, the person we know for certain to be Gary Sarli already altered the numbers to his whim on the WOTC site anyways when he put out the gaming stats, there is no need for him to do it again.

If you chose to ignore what the post actually states in favor of your own interpretation, allow me to point out that you have then created a severe set of contradictions: 1) We have the explicit statements of the power of these vessels in the AOTC:ICS. 2) You then have issues with the clear statements in the ROTS:ICS itself - how does the ship repeatedly fire teraton level cannon shots (a 10 Richter earthquake releases 1 teraton or 4.2*10^21 joules) from each barrel of is 14 quad guns when its peak power would be only 7.5*10^17 watts? 3) As the post itself states, the values Dr. Saxton provided come from calculations based off the movies. The movies cannot be disregarded, so the numbers stand firm. Meaning that when push comes to shove this wiki post is the one that has to give.

So the numbers stand. But what of the post itself? Well the problem with this post, like the post from Mr. Sarli on the LFL approved site in JC94 doesn't work.

Firstly, it is based off some bizarre assumptions. As Icehawk pointed out, it is impossible for all ships to use the same number of these fuel cells to get the same performance. The idea that ships massively different in peak power, size, design, and use can accomplish the exact same amount of work with the power extracted from the same amount of fuel is beyond stupid. Even for something as simple a firing a weapon needs to account that different ships have different weapons with different yields that will of course require different amounts of energy to fire! How that got approved is beyond me unless when the continuity department signed off on it they intended it to be game mechanics, which are non-canon.

Secondly, the idea that they scale up an order of magnitude with each class size is simply random. Even ships in the same class size have wildly different fuel consumption rates. Again, I think this points to the fact that LFL expected these ideas about fuel cells to be game mechanics and thus irrelevant.

Third, the use of fuel cells has been retconned away many times over - the X-wing series of books have them using tanks rather then cells. The AOTC:ICS has them using fuel silos. Even the films showed them pumping fuel into the X-wings rather then swapping out sets of fuel cells. The idea that they physically replace fuel cells is contradicted by other higher canon a multitude of times. At best the idea of them, like the broken economy of the RPG and most of Galaxies, should be treated as game mechanics.

Fourth, the idea that the fuel supplies for these ships must allow for peak power operation for days on end is contradicted by canon statements, common sense, and reality. The AOTC:ICS was quite clear when it stated peak power only lasted for hours. This is unsurprising, given the requisite consumption rates. While the consumables undoubtedly will last for weeks or months, most of the time the ship will not be operating at peak power! Like real warships, most of its time will be spent making port calls or in transit. These require very little power - in fact starships have the advantage here as transit requires no power for them. They need only make a brief initial burn and they can coast the rest of the way. These brief burns would be low power ones of only a handful of Gs as high power operations would devastate the infrastructure of the system they were in (oops, our exhaust stream just vaporized your space station! Our bad.) Further, high power operations are unnecessary - a 10 G burn for 10 minutes will get you from earth to mars in 11 days, which is about the duration of a short training session on an aircraft carrier. I would sincerely doubt that even a mighty star dreadnought needs more then a few terawatts or power when idling. This would easily let them stretch the fuel onboard for a few hours of peak operation to weeks or months of normal, low level operation.

Now let us deal with the “scientific explanation” presented in the post itself. The idea, that you can carry the mass for free is pretty far out there. I suppose that one could try to validate it with canon by claiming that the statement in the AOTC:ICS about complex mass meant that the mass itself was complex and thus its “real mass” variable, the sentence makes equal sense read as though the systems are advanced and difficult to understand. To me, the latter is a superior interpretation, but your mileage may vary. However if you tried the former explanation, you then have the contradiction of the source for the missing mass – the engines, or the fuel?

However the idea of missing mass, virtual mass, or complex mass is difficult to reconcile with the rest of physics and what we observe. While the virtual mass may not exert its inertia on the space craft, the ship would still have to pay out the energy to move the mass within a gravity well, as we would see during takeoff or landing. The Venator class would have a “virtual mass” of 4*10^11 kgs. Its total mass including these fuel cells would now be 5.87*10^17 kgs. To remove this much mass to orbit from a 1 G planet would require 3.5*10^25 joules! Releasing that much energy into a viable biosphere will quickly remove the “viable” part of that statement. Even taking a very long time to ascend will barely mitigate the issue. And when compared with observed times for other ships it is hard to make that explanation mesh with canon. If we ignore this “virtual mass” suggestion however and assume that the ships total mass includes its fuel, then the value steeply drops to 2.4*10^18 joules, well within the capacity of its shields to absorb, particularly is spread out over a period of time.

Next you have the problem of thrust. If the effect begins in the engines, that means it is going to affect the fuel. Which means you are still going to have to expend enough to accelerate the total mass, because the mass of the ejecta (and thus its resultant counterforce on the ship) are going to be lowered by a factor of 1.44*10^6. And since you need to accelerate the mass, you need to consume the fuel to get the energy. In other words, this “solution” is nothing of the sort, all it does it arbitrarily inflate the total mass of the ship, introduce several new problems, and leave the original problem it was meant to solve still standing! The comparison to the space shuttle is completely false.

After that you have the fact that this is a field effect. It has to affect everything inside the ship. And that includes people. You can design pumps and turbines and other machines to deal with this sudden change in inertia, but not the body of whatever random recruit you slap in a uniform and put on the ship. The heart evolved to pump a set amount of fluid with a certain amount of inertia against a certain amount of resistance. Drop that inertia and its going to throw the flow out of wack because the same force will be imparted to a fluid that will not react the same way. End result: heart attack, crewman dies. Same for things like trying to stand – fluid in you inner ear doesn’t react well, you have no sense of balance. Respiration? Same problem as the heart, the air now has its inertia lowered by a factor of 1.44*10^6, your lungs deflate. How about basic cellular chemistry. Wait, no, different inertia will alter basic things like protein folding. And there’s no counter for this either – any magic system that would apply inertia to only the things that impact humans would have to operate on a subatomic level, tracking everything and applying just the right amount of counter –effect. Except the Hiesenburg uncertainty principle states you can’t know everything about something, so it is flat out impossible to apply the right amount of force at the right vector at the right time. Since the people don’t all drop dead the second they set foot onboard a starship, we know without a doubt that this system does not exist.

Finally, there is a fuel problem – fitting it into the hull without it initiating fusion. The requisite densities surpass those seen in star formation, but are still less then those associated with degenerate matter. So while the numbers are not contradicted, figuring them out necessitates some very odd tech or fuel silo designs. However, if you try and increase it by a factor of 1.44*10^ this problem is massively magnified. The fuel would have to be denser then neutronium – to the point of a singularity in the case of the Death Stars. This clearly is not the case, as we can see, again, in the movies.

So basically, what this comes down to is a noncanon statement from someone who for all we know has no authority to make canon statements in an attempt to correct a problem that does not exist due to existing canon and previous retcons, that does not in fact correct the problem, but compounds the existing problem, introduces a host of new problems, and is flat out contradicted by canon.

In short, it is crap, ignore it. -- Daniel K

2007 (UTC)

    • Its on a wiki page, not an approved channel. That makes it noncanon. What part of that is difficult to grasp? And the fact that game mechanics are noncanon has been long standing Lucasfilm policy. I'm not determining anything. I'm pointing out the facts of the situation. -- Daniel-K
      • Mr. Sarli wrote that article, so it is canon, whether you like it or not. Don't complain about things you have no control over. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 17:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        • 1) Prove that is Mr. Sarli there. Anyone can register any name on a wiki

2) What he wrote is official. This is seperate from canon. Game mechanics are not now, nor have they ever been canon. This is Lucasfilm policy, so whatever you think is irrelevent. -- Daniel-K

  • Stop it now. It's canon. Get over it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And besides, Wookieepedia is not the place to argue against canon. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
      • The explanation posted here is no more canon than anything you or I might post. The only thing that's official is what is written in a licensed source. And game mechanics are generally ignored unless they are referenced in other works and don't contradict other sources. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
        • By "explanation posted here", do you mean "Daniel K"'s arguement? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
            • No, he means Mr Sarli's explanation, and he's correct- there's no way that's canon. Daniel-K's post is in reply to that.Vymer 02:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Seeing what this truly does (and it's a bit embarassing since I had an education that included physics and matter/energy transfers, but it's been years since I had this kind of stuff), I now retract my support. If it only creates more problems, it's a problem. Since it also only appeared in a set of game stats, it can be counted as game mechanics and nothing is gained or lost by it. Official articles do cover those mechanics as well, Jack. VT-16 11:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, let's see if Mr. Sarli has anything to say about it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Asking a person who's essentially anonymous and doesn't appear to have that kind of background to say even more about a technical issue? VT-16 12:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Fine. I'm done with this. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'm not against reconciling different sources, and I've read plenty of good stuff by Mr. Sarli, but if this particular piece doesn't quite gel with the strictly technical sources (which it appears it doesn't, since there is plenty of different fuel sources in the GFFA and I doubt they all take up the same space at the same prices (which in itself seems to rely on rules from gameplay, again)), then it's less than beneficial. Now, the information by Gary Sarli on the WOTC site, was in a column mostly aimed at answering questions from players, primarily on game play issues. I don't think we should take it as anything more than what's useful for the players themselves to know, given issues with game rules etc. :) VT-16 14:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment to give a lengthy explanation of why Daniel-K's objections aren't correct (I'm finishing the Saga Edition at the moment), but here's the short version:

1) I never said all vehicles use the same fuel, either here or in the article. (Saying I did and then pointing out how ridiculous such an assertion would be is a straw man argument.) The article specifically avoids mentioning types of fuels and their relative densities and so forth because we want to avoid establishing a firm number that can inadvertantly cause continuity problems.

2) I also never said that I assumed that a ship must be able to produce its peak power output for months or years -- in fact, the Jedi Counseling article in question specifically says otherwise. Straw man, table of two.

3) If you really, honestly think that a ship can accelerate at 3,000 Gs for any period using pure Newtonian physics (i.e. no "balonium" adjustment of relative mass), then you have clearly not considered all the ramifications involved. The energy output for such acceleration on something the size of the Venator would be the equivalent of 857.1 teratons of explosives -- and that energy has to go somewhere (i.e. into the exhaust). Such a ridiculously large amount of energy would completely destroy the biosphere of any planet that is anywhere near by -- it's the same amount of energy you'd get from crashing SEVENTEEN 10-km asteroids into the Earth simultaneously (and remember that just ONE killed the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous). And, worse, it would produce that much energy EVERY SINGLE SECOND! If this were the way things really worked, the Millenium Falcon would have incinerated Mos Eisley (and most of that side of the planet) when it took off in Episode IV, and no one would have bothered building the Death Star because any random ship could annihilate a planet in a few seconds or minutes at most.

Now, do you see any reason why you might need to change the laws of physics and assume that the SW universe found a way around this?

4) The idea with changing the mass into a virtual mass isn't to add this to the already-existing masses on the ship -- that's idiotic, and I am forced to assume that it's another straw man argument. Changing the mass has one effect: It lets you say that the ship is able to accelerate and otherwise behave on-screen AS IF it really used that much energy. It doesn't mean the ship's "real" mass changes, just that the effect of reaction mass in generating acceleration is multiplied by whatever factor is necessary to produce plausible results.

5) The source of this problem is ultimately Dr. Saxton -- he's a great guy and very intelligent, but he doesn't think about the nth-degree ramifications of writing a number like that. The simple fact is that in a fictional universe (science fiction, science fantasy, space opera, or whatever), you MUST be aware that "balonium" is going to be necessary from time to time because the people writing the stories and creating the animation weren't thinking about joules and watts and so forth, not even the tiniest bit. Saxton lets himself be a little too beholden to the KNOWN laws of physics without really considering that the Star Wars universe may know a lot of "short cuts" and "cheat codes" that we don't. You can certainly calculate how much energy it would require to accelerate ships of the observed size in the observed manner, but the number will be so unreasonable that you should consider what alternate explanations (read: new laws of physics) would make it fit contuinity better. In this case, it kills planets and requires that the Venator's fuel weigh thousands of times more than the Venator itself. (Go crunch the numbers for specific impulse, delta-v, and so forth -- you'll see what I mean, and it gets to the point where the Venator's acceleration changes astronomically depending on if it just topped off the tank or not.)

6) And, even given all of the above, my comments are not canon -- but they are the internal explanation that I came up with and Leeland approved, so you might expect this to become an official part of continuity at some point. (I can't talk about stuff that I'm working on right now due to non-disclosure agreements.)

In conclusion, is it really any wonder that those of us who do this stuff for Star Wars don't bother coming to discuss these things with you more often? Treating an author who is spending his own time to share a bit of behind-the-scenes information with you like this is nothing short of shameful. Insulting the intelligence or questioning the veracity of someone who is DOING YOU A FAVOR is pretty low, and it's stuff like that that gives fans a bad name. Gary M. Sarli (Jedi Counselor) 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fans are knowledgeable and a resource (I don't see why some authors can't recognize that). Ultimately, it's we who buy the stuff you produce. And to say that "The source of this problem is ultimately Dr. Saxton" was very low IMHO. Dr. Saxton (as well as a multitude of fans) has produced a wide range of calculations and reasoning and while non-canon, these pages here and here are examples of that. But thanks for sharing your thoughts. Northerner 17:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that all indications, not just starship accelerations, point to thousands of tons of fuel annihilated per second. For example, the Base Delta Zero operation, calculated here to require at least 10^22 W of power, will require the annihilation of over a thousand tons of fuel per second -- and that's a lower limit. The upper limit is two orders of magnitude higher. I've not the time to read this whole conversation, so I'll just throw this out there for whomever wants to use it. -- A concerned maximalist fan

Regarding point 3). Yes, if the exhaust stream of a Venator hits a planet it will depopulate the planet, just as blowing up a five hundred mile wide metal sphere over a planet will also depopulate it. This is the inevitable side effect of the power required to accelerate the ship. The solution is for the Star Destroyer's commander to be very careful where he points his ship's exhaust stream. Alternately, this could be one reason many major planets have shields- to protect them from engine wash as much as from attack.
In addendum to this, I believe ships operate on repulsor when they're in gravity wells; this is why, for example, the backwash of the Millenium Falcon's engines didn't depopulate Mos Eisley. Also, in order to produce maximum thrust, the engine exhaust would naturally be vectored into what would be a column on scales measured in less than AUs (it's actually a cone, but it's a reeeealllly stretched-out cone, so up close by the ISD, it looks like a column). It's rather difficult to hit a planet with that, especially when you can do with less than thousands of Gs. - Concerned maximalist returns
Regarding point 5)- Occam's Razor states that when two explanations for a given phenomenom, both of which are consistent with all observations, are offered, the simpler explanation prevails. In this case there is the option between a)"A Venator actually generates enough power to provide 3000G acceleration" and b)"A Venator doesn't generate enough power to provide 3000G, but technobable can do X, Y & Z so it's acceleration is 3000G anyway". Option a) is clearly favoured by Occam's Razor. This is the solution chosen by Dr. Saxton, his solution does not contradict canon, therefore "if it aint broke don't fix it". MartinMcCann 19:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • For the record, there was no Endor Holocaust. The destruction of the second Death Star didn't cause Ewoks to go extinct; therefore, the exaust of a Venator wouldn't do practically any damage. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • What has the Endor Holocaust (which I don't agree with either) have to do with this? That's a red herring. Northerner 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • "Yes, if the exhaust stream of a Venator hits a planet it will depopulate the planet, just as blowing up a five hundred mile wide metal sphere over a planet will also depopulate it". I was only disproving this statement of yours. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, adding some hopefully constructive material here, in my (Norwegian) copy of AOTC:ICS the part about energy sources on the first page says (translated):
"Energy sources: In starships and other craft there is used a variety of different energy-sources that were perfected in past eras. Craft for local use with low combustion are driven by light chemical engines or fission/fusion reactors. They run on whatever fuel can be found in the area. In starships, more powerful annihilation-reactors are the norm. The inner portion of the most powerful warships is dominated by huge reactor-cores and ultracompact fuel-siloes that make them capable of massive planetary assaults and withstanding enormous acceleration for hours before the tanks need refueling. Gravitational-technology: In the modern galactic civilization, gravity has long since been placed under control. Among the most common devices, are the repulsorlifts that make unmotorized hovering possible, tractorbeam-projectors that work at a distance and compensators that prevent passengers and crew from being torn apart by the acceleration during manouvers. The active components in these devices consist of subatomic knots of space-time, manufactured in enormous unmanned energy refineries built around black holes. Hyperspace: Hyperdrives allow travels through the strange world known as hyperspace, which is the regular universe when seen from a ship that's flying faster than the speed of light. Hyperdrive affects the particles of so-called hypermatter (superlight-matter), to make jumps to lightspeed without changing the ship's complex mass and energy."
—AOTC:ICS, p.3
"In the siloes, reaction-matter is compacted into enormous density."
—AOTC:ICS, p.23

Also, an annihilation-reactor for hypermatter is identified on the core ship page, at the center of the vessel. From what I understand, the regular matter is basically used for normal space travel (acceleration/decceleration), while the more exotic hypermatter is somehow tapped into for lightspeed travel. Anything beside this is covered by coasting through space without engine power or repulsorlifts to and from a surface. Please correct me if I'm wrong aboit this.

In conclusion, is it really any wonder that those of us who do this stuff for Star Wars don't bother coming to discuss these things with you more often? Treating an author who is spending his own time to share a bit of behind-the-scenes information with you like this is nothing short of shameful.
This is hard for all of us to evaluate when none of us can be sure we're dealing with an actual LFL affiliate and not just someone pretending to be who they say they are.

And, Jack, I think you're using slightly false analogies. As dumb as some of the old sources may be, some of them provided a partial explanation for why the DS II didn't fry off Han and Leia in the seconds after the blow, or why the moon was still habited years later (I think it was The Glow of Darth Vader, with a wormhole something-something attracting much of the mass and energy and draining it from the orbit). Not the same kind of conditions as with a starship that's operating at full engine capacity near a surface. VT-16 22:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Wreckage still fell to Endor. There was a wormhole, but it still didn't get all the debris. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That's true, and ITW:OT mentions both localized shields being sent to the surface and Rebel vessels blasting or diverting some of it. Still had to be brutal for much of the lands we don't see afterwards. ;) VT-16 22:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, apparently those efforts made by Rebels didn't turn out so good. I remember someone saying the wreck of a Star Destroyer landed on Endor. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets deal with the accusations that I'm incorrect here

1) The type of fuel is irrelevent. 1 kilogram of fuel will still at the most only get you 9*10^16 joules. It could be hydrogen, uranium, or twinkies. You still can't get greater then 9*10^16 joules from a single kilogram of matter.

2) JC 94 clearly states it is going to be burning massive amounts of fuel sitting in orbit, an action that requires no power at all!' So yes, the article does treat the reactors as running at full power.

3) Yes, the power levels to accelerate at thousands of Gs would give a starship the ability to devestate a planet. Amazingly, the ships are also repeatedly stated and shown in canon to be capable of doing this! A Base Delta Zero order gives a ship the ability to melt the crust of a planet to molten rock in a matter of minutes. Standard ships can wipe out all life on a planet without a problem - hence the importance of planetary shields, system patrol craft, and the tight restrictions about using repulsors within 6 planetary diameters that was canonically stated in the 1976 ANH novel. I have a very difficult time believing that the continuity people at LFL would throw out mountians of canon in favor of this.

And no, I see no reason to assume they found a way around the laws of physics since the book that came out in 1976 states that antigravity is used within 6 planetary diameters of a planet. Why invent an explanation when a canon one has been around since the beginning?

4) The idea that the virtual mass was seperate was the only way I could figure that this was not an attempt to proclaim that his vision of canon overroad everything else already established, not a strawman.

5) So basically, since you don't understand it, it must be wrong because your intuition overrides canon evidence. Nice. I find it hilarious that you assert that Dr. Saxton, a man known for meticilous research and explanations, didn't think things through when your "solution" kills everyone as soon as they step aboard the ship. As to the numbers, well Mr. Sarli, I have crunched the numbers. If you want, I can provide them here. And no, it does not create any problems. Peak operation is limited to only a few hours yes, but it all works out. Your assertion that the acceleration must change with the fuel load is blatently at odds with actual rocketry - it doesn't happen in real life because they alter the mass flow rate of the exhaust.

You are doing us no favors here "Mr. Sarli" - you are using a medium (science fiction) that was initially invented to help explain science and its power to promote pseudoscience. You may fell that pointing out the absurdity of any assertions is insulting, but I would suggest you consider how those who have actually done the math required feel to be told that unlike you, with your "kill everyone onbaord the ship" plan, have not thought things through. -- Daniel-K

  • Maybe Mr. Sarli is incorrect on some things, but that doesn't give you the right to speak rudely to him or question his identity. You have gone way out of line, Daniel K. Stop it now. Saying rude things to him is not going to do yourself any good. In fact, it only degrades yourself. If you can't speak kindly in questioning someone else, don't speak at all. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • And Wookieepedia is not a forum. Take your arguement to a forum and keep it off of Wookieepedia from now on. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • And here's an admin voice backing him up. Mr. Sarli was generous enough to bring this here, and whether you like it or not, his proposal went through Licensing and got approval. If you can't discuss things in a MUCH nicer manner, Daniel-K, you can spend some time on time-out. jSarek 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • his proposal went through Licensing and got approval. No, it did not. If it had, it would have been published. This person quite clearly states that it is not canon. And even if it had, it would still be contradicted by the films - which clearly don't show everyone dropping dead - and thus still be every bit as noncanon as the sources saying that Anakin and Vader are two seperate people. -- Daniel-K
        • I don't know. If he brings a reasonable argument on why the explanation is false than he should say it.--Herbsewell 02:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
          • The only thing that got approval was the rule. That explanation is not part of continuity, and hopefully, never will be. Daniel-K is absolutely right when he mentions that SW warships like Star Destroyers clearly *do* have the power to devastate the surface of a planet (and more besides), and I find it amazing that this uncontroversial canon fact beyond dispute didn't figure into Mr Sarli looking at Dr. Saxton's work and deciding to come up with a pseudosceintific absurd "cheat" to get around a non-existent problem (ie. his assumption that warships aren't actually capable of doing so). How servile should Daniel-K be, exactly? I find the whole "gives fans a bad name" thing absurd- I for one will never treat any author for SW different from anyone else- if anyone says something I think is absurd, I will call it absurd, no question. The last thing the fandom needs is a religious clergy who must be deferred to. The evidence, and nothing less, should speak for itself. In this case, it's clear.Vymer 02:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I don't care if Mr. Sarli got it canonized that Star Destroyers are six inches long, if I see another angry "You are doing us no favors here"-type message I'm popping out the ban stick. Disagree with his reasoning all you want, but do it calmly and politely. jSarek 04:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I was only disproving this statement of yours. No, that wasn't my statement. Northerner 05:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Just for the record, jSarek, if you have means to find this out, are you certain this is Gary Sarli posting on this page? I'm not willing to entertain some random internet troll pretending to be an LFL affiliate. Please clarify this person's identity. :/ VT-16 08:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm not certain we have such a means, but I'm asking around about it. jSarek 10:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Here's what Sannse was able to find out for me: 1) the IP he is posting from has had no other edits, including from logged in users, which reduces the chance of it being a regular playing silly games, and 2) the IP suggests a normal connection for someone in the New Jersey. When you add to that the fact that the text of the post seems quite legit with no red flags suggesting an imposter, I'm quite inclined to think it's genuinely him. If that's not satisfactory, you could try emailing Mr. Sarli at jedicounseling@wizards.com or gmsarli@swrpgnetwork.com. jSarek 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • The thing that has me believing that this is someone trying to get others to swallow their fanon as true is that LFL is notorious for their NDAs. That's the reason there is so little from the AOTC:ICS and ROTS:ICS on Dr. Saxton's site and why authors who post at sw.com and TFN are so vague - its not that they are being cagey to increase demand, its because an army of lawyers will eat them alive if they reveal unapproved behidn the scenes information. Now while Mr Sarli works for WotC instead of LFL, and that implies that there different staqndards, they can't be that different. And even if it wasn't a legal issue, it would still be horrible office politics to violate the norm simply because you can. Posting unapproved behind the scenes information here caries with it the risk of losing his job, or being transferred to a different Wizard client. Add to that the fact that this exact argument was put forth a few months ago on TFN by a couple of fans, and the prospect that this is a real post becomes dubious, in my mind at least. -- Daniel-K
        • Northerner: My mistake. I meant to say that to MartinMcCann, who made the statement I had copied. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
          • My point was that, given Saxton's extensive analysis of the Endor Holocaust, it's highly unlikely that he didn't consider the effects of an exhaust stream on a planet when he calculated the 40,000 tons/sec figure. MartinMcCann 12:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I have a feeling this will get mentioned in a thread on WOTC, and we'll look like ingrates for being so harsh. I don't agree with the antagonistic tone of some of the posts here, but it should be said that even if Saxton wrote the book, there are more people who were indirectly involved in figuring out some of this stuff due to their backgrounds with engineering and energy concerns/calculations (some of which are mentioned in the thanks page of the books). I know, because I've both talked to these people and even corresponded with the author a while back. And I've seen both they and Saxton get some of the worst treatment by fans on a regular basis. (The problem as I see it, beginning with wanting technical files for what many people see as a fantasy epic, rather than pure sci-fi. But, if LFL wants it, the company has to deal with it as is.) Sometimes, figuring out parameters of an engine leads to pretty weird calculations, but that comes with territory, in hobbies or in work. That's what LFL wanted five years ago, and that's what they got. And the worst part is, this actually begins with what the movies and books describe in a given situation, so that's what the technical authors had to work with. I appreciate trying to make different sources come together (which is a daunting task for most of the SW universe), but in this particular case, it seems to be to explain some small numbers, which are apparently mostly relevant for gaming purposes, adding the big events referenced in Cross-Sections books, minimizing, say, the fuel involved, but still wanting the same end results. That just seemed unnecessary in this case. And since it goes through LFL editors, this essentially begins and ends with them. It sometimes feels like they want to have their cake and eat it too, like keeping or reconciling some of the older RPG material with new stuff that's been worked on by people with more technical experience (I'm thinking mostly of older WEG, here, not WOTC) and the two don't mix well. :/ VT-16 14:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I concur, VT-16, some posts have been antagonistic. However, I'm sorry, but to say that another author "is the source of the problem" - a "problem" which didn't exist in the first place - seems equally disrespectful to me (I have yet to see Dr. Saxton describing other Star Wars authors in the same way). It seems to me as if Curtis Saxton is fair game, for fans and authors alike. Mr. Sarli's explanation is moot as there's a) nothing at all to explain, b) it opens up a host of other problems which also needs explaining (a famous razor applies) c) some of the assumptions (such as that physics doesn't apply) are taken out of thin air and d) Mr. Sarli seems to have misunderstood the reasoning behind the concepts as well as being unaware of concepts established in the canon. All of this is quite human. Northerner 18:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can we stop saying the author is the source of the problem and, instead, start working toward a solution? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
      • What problem is that? The original source for this is, by the author's own statement, because they felt that certain numbers were too high. The problem is that their feeling on this is because they are either ignorant of existing canon that served as the source for those high numbers, or that they want to see that go away as well. That's not really something we can correct. If the problem is the idea that the numbers for the Venator don't work, that's false and I can provide mathmatical proof showing otherwise. There is no problem with the total mass of the ship, or its operating time. So what problem whould we be looking to correct? --Daniel-K
        • Honestly, I think you should leave this topic before jSarek decides to ban you. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 22:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Thank you for your concern. But I'm using the civil tone He admonished me to use - my use of the term ignorant was in the literal sense that he was simply not aware of it, not as an insult. Now what do you think the problem is that we should be looking to correct? --Daniel-K
          • The best would be to just publish the calculations right here, and try to explain them. Just getting to the point would be more constructive right now. :) VT-16 22:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Can we stop saying the author is the source of the problem and, instead, start working toward a solution? Those were Mr. Sarli's words about Dr. Saxton, I've never said anything to that effect. Northerner 05:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Venator fanon calculations

Breaking this apart due to it getting long, I'm unsure as to how well this will retain the coding once I hit display, so apologies if it looks odd. I'm deliberately empahsising the fanon part - this should not appear in the actual entry.

The Work

Fuel consumed (kg/s)=4.0*10^7

Peak Power (watts)=3.6*10^24

Exhaust Velocity (%c)=99%

Exhaust Velocity (m/s)=2.97*10^7

Ejecta rest mass (kg)=4.56*10^7

Relativistic force (kgm/s^2)=9.6*10^16

Acceleration (Gs)=3,000

Acceleration (m/s^2)=29400

Ship Total Mass (kg)=4.7*10^11

Cruising Speed (%c)=80%

Cruising Speed (m/s)=2.4*10^8

Delta V (m/s)=4.8*10^8

Mass Ratio=5.03

NonEjecta Mass (kg)=3.92*10^11

Length (m)=1,137

Width (m)=548

Draft (m)=268

Volume (m^3)=5.01*10^7

Solidity (%)=10%

Density (kg/m^3)=7874

Dry Mass (kg)=3.94*10^10

Reactant Mass (kg)=3.53*10^11

Reactant Mass Energy (j)=3.18*10^28

Peak Power (s)=8,830

Effective Full Power Hours (EFPH)=2.45

Maximum Acceleration time on full load (hr)=5.09

Formulas and Assumptions

e=mc^2

KEr=MrC^2-MoC^2

Lorentz factor=1/sqrt(1-(v^2/c^2))

Ejecta rest mass (kg)=Mo

F=Mr*v

F=Ms*a

Ms=(Mr*v)/a

Vd/Ve=ln(MR)

MR is Mass ratio, or Mass(fuel)/Mass(ship)

Non-Ejecta Mass=Total Mass - (Total mass/(MR+1))

Volume of a pyramid=(W*D)*L*0.3

Assumed steel construction, 10% structure

Reactant Mass=NonEjecta Mass - Dry Mass

Acceleration time (s)=(C/a)*ln(1+MR)

where a is acceleration in (m/s)^2

Now there are a few problems with canon and this -

  • I went with a mass ratio of 5 because that is, as near as I can tell, what Dr. Saxton uses. It should be closer to 2.24 based off the statements on the Mandel drawings, but those are of dubious standing. So I support 5 until we find out their actual peak cruising velocity. For those who are curious, in reality, the maximum for a single stage engine is 20 before the stress the engine will put on its own spaceframe will destroy it.
  • The rescue scene in Shield of Lies implies the strucutral density to be about 388 kg/m^3, far lower then what I used here, which would increase operating time.
  • The formula for the volume of the ship is only accurate to an order of magnitude - obciously if one wanted to invest the time they could measure a 3d model in lightweave or dunk one of the new Starship Battles minis in a graduated cylinder and scale up. However, since the actual volume, and thus actual mass, would be lower, this increases the peak operating time.

It should be noted that varying the exhaust velocity will vary the lenght of time one can operate at peak power - lowering it to 90% the speed of light will increase the EFPH of the ship to 3.59 hours, and raise the maximum acceleration time to 5.48 hours. As the velocity of the exhaust stream would reflect the power applied to accelerate it, it could easily be controlled at the captain's disgression to find an optimal configuration between operating requirements, efficiency, and engine wear.

As I note above, that these ships are limited to a scant few hours of peak power operation places few restrictions on their actual operating times, as most of the time they will be idling. This is true even for hyperspace travel. The OT:ICS stated hyperdrives were an energy effect rather then force, so it wouldnt' require continual thrusting. And Shield of Lies makes it clear that once you are in hyperspace you stay there. The ships would only need to expend the energy to leap to hyperspace, once there they could lower reactor power to idle conditions. It would also nneatly match Corran Horn's statements in Rogue Squardon about fuel consumption.

It would also accurately match how combat is depicted in the films. Endor lasted maybe an hour at best and Coruscant is stated in the novel to have only been a few hours. During combat consider their movement - running the engines will be the largest consumption of power and fuel, and so we see them mainly drift around or move at very low accelerations. Grievous and Akbar had to directly order the main guns brought to full power in the middle of combat in the movie novels; clearly it is not standard operating porcedure. Heavy fire is sporadic in comparison to the lighter guns, which use far less power, and it provides yet another excellent reason why missiles and torpedos are still used to augment a ships capabilities - they provide a powerful punch that doesn't consume onboard power.

My, I just noticed how much I like the phrase "It would". -- Daniel-K

  • How long are you going to keep this up? And once again, we are not a forum. Keep this off of Wookieepedia. And everything you're saying isn't canon either. So just stop it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)\
    • Dude, you agreed with VT-16 that I should post these here right above a scant 18 minutes ago. Why are you now criticising my doing so? Why ask me to post them to settle this, then complain that I am continuing it? Are there two people using the same computer and one of you forgot to log out? --Daniel-K
      • You're the one who was being rude to Mr. Sarli. I was hoping VT would decided to do it. That's the only reason I agreed with him. You're turning Wookieepedia into a forum where people can dispute canon and starting being rude to people who make canon. That is not what Wookieepedia is for. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Why on earth would VT post my work? Its mine, so he doesn't have it in the first place. If you didn't want the discussion to continue, don't ask that it do so. -- Daniel-K
          • VT has posted calculations in the past and discussed similar topics. And in case you didn't realize it, people can also have the same thing that you do. Those aren't exclusively yours. In any case, we're not a forum, and I take back my "Agreed" post. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Actually, I did want him to post his calculations, sorry for not making that clear. And some of the earlier stuff I've posted have been from the work of others, so I can't take credit for that either (think it was something about CW amount of troops). VT-16 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
            • Jack, there is no better place for this discussion than here. As long as everyone stays civil, there's no problem. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 02:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who was being rude to Mr. Sarli. I agree that people shouldn't be rude, but I think that Mr. Sarli was quite rude himself towards another author. Northerner 05:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Culator: We're not a forum. This has already gone way out of hand. Northerner: Maybe Mr. Sarli was a bit rude against another author, but that doesn't mean Daniel K can be rude towards Mr. Sarli. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd call describing an individual as the problem more than "a bit rude". Moreover there's a big difference between being rude to someone, and saying hang on, that doesn't sound right. Being grateful to Lucas' employees for their work does not extend to not questioning their statements when they don't seem to jibe with previously established cannon (as with the 5-mile SSD or the 3 million clones), so long as you're polite about it. The latter was effective what Daniel K was doing. And the statement "I was hoping VT would decide to do it. That's the only reason I agreed with him" doesn't sound too civil either - the calculations remain the same, regardless of who does them. MartinMcCann 12:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, I posted a lengthy reply to this topic over on the Wizards of the Coast message boards: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=11217497#post11217497 I apologize for not continuing the discussion here over the last week or two, but I really am very busy with other work. Also, given that the post in question is using my official Wizards of the Coast identity (WizO_the_Hutt), it should dispel any lingering questions about my identity.

Also, I want to emphasize this one more time: I never intended to be rude to Dr. Saxton. When says something that I believe to be in error, I will point it out, but that should never be taken to be an insult against that person. When I said that that Saxton was the "source of the problem," the "problem" in question was an apparent contradiction between sources in continuity (Adventure Journal vs. ICS) -- that "problem" did not exist until Dr. Saxton wrote the text in question, so therefore he is the literal source. This is not even remotely similar to saying that Dr. Saxton IS a problem, and that's the only way I can imagine someone thinking that this was rude or insulting. If anything I said implied otherwise, then I apologize for my lack of clarity.

In any event, as Grand Admiral J. Nebulax pointed out, this is not a message board for debate -- the WotC message boards are, however, so I would be happy to discuss this in that venue. (I have to spend X amount of time on those boards every day, anyway.) Gary M. Sarli (Jedi Counselor) 06:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Good to here from you again, Mr. Sarli. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your reply, Mr. Sarli. Some of the posts here went way over the line by being so harsh. Posting calculations and explaining them would have been enough. I have no problem with different sources being reconciled, but if one was made for a technical subject (specifically power generation) by a technically-minded person educated along those lines, who's worked with these things, giving the benefit of the doubt may have been better in this instance, imho. :) VT-16 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Turbolaser locations...

thumb|Just where are they?!

I've always been wondering, just where the hell are those clone-manned turbolaser cannon things that fire through those openings in the hull? I've studied the Rots: Ics thoroughly and other pictures of the Venator class, and yet I cannot find where they are. If someone could help my problem, we could put this information in the article and help solve the problem for other fans. Unit 8311 13:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The trenches on the sides of the Venators, most likely. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I've studied both film and ICS images, and I cannot see a sign of them in the trenches. I can see a big turret-cannon in the trenches, but no openings. Unit 8311 18:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't mean they're not there. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
        • I suppose the CGI animators forgot to put them in. But I can't find them in the ICS. Unit 8311 16:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Just because RotS:ICS doesn't show them doesn't mean they aren't there. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure you understand me. I know they're there (duh), but I'm asking where are they, not are they there. Unit 8311 07:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I'm aware of what you're asking. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Well in that case, could you please find out where these guns are located? Unit 8311 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • I already told you where they probably are. And I can't give you a specific location. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
                    • I managed to capture a screenshot of some of these mysterious turbolasers firing. They do, as Nebulax noted, fire from the 'trench' and seem to do some all along the side of the Venator, except for up around the stem and where the big docking hatches are. Here we go. --Darth Windu 06:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

thumb thumb thumb

Battle cruiser

Interesting. From the ICS Ep. 3, it says that it is medium weight, fast, although able to perform actions on its own. Perhaps this is classified as a Battle cruiser? NeoExelor 21:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, due to different classification systems in use at the same time, the Venator has been classified as both a battleship, assault cruiser, carrier and destroyer. The Republic fielded dedicated Star Battlecruisers, though. And battlecruisers are never "medium-weight" on any scale, they have the firepower of battleships, but less armor. VT-16 22:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Data clash

I'm wondering if we should add something about the clash between the ICS and the Databank about the role of the Venator? The ICS claims the ship is a carrier and operates as a battleship escort (although really if it was a carrier the battleships would be escorting it), whilst the Databank states The Republic attack cruiser, or Star Destroyer, gave this new starfleet its considerable teeth. The wedge-shaped warship was not primarily a cargo transport, troop carrier or other replenishment or supply vessel; it was developed and honed for ship-to-ship combat.

Furthermore, as I mentioned earlier, there are turbolasers on the Venator seen firing and being destroyed during RotS. There is even a pic of this on this main page. The problem with this is that these emplacements are clearly neither the heavy turbolaser turrets mounted neae the bridge towers, nor is it the two dual medium turbolasers near the stem, yet these emplacements are not mentioned in the Venator's armament. The closest thing in the specs would be the point-defence laser cannons, but there is a big different between point-defence lasers and turbolaser cannons. Again, should there be a small piece of text noting the discrepancy? --Darth Windu 06:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know... The Databank isn't always right on everything. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
    • True, but then neither is the ICS. :) Regardless I'm not suggesting we change the whole article, simply that we acknowledge that two canon sources differ on the role of the Venator. --Darth Windu 03:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it's as powerful in combat as the Victory-class and as we see in ROTS, it fights other capital ships in droves. It just has more space dedicated to fighters than other, similar warships, but we have seen dedicated carriers in SW, and they carry less weaponry than Venators do and are more vulnerable. And these point-defence guns could basically be the internal turbolasers we see, just shortening the name. :P VT-16 14:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well then if it's okay I'll make a note in the article about the extra firepower and its combat effectiveness. I just can't reconcile though the difference between a point-defence laser canon, and an anti-ship turbolaser. They just seem to have completely different roles. Anyway. --Darth Windu 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
        • For all we know, those turbolasers in the trenches are point-defense and anti-ship. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I think that's his point- point-defense and anti-ship would appear so different as to require different weapons. You don't have WWII battleships using 40mm AA guns against other battleships, or 16-inch guns against aircraft. MartinMcCann 22:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
          • We're not talking about the low tech (compared to Star Wars) weaponry of World War I. Laser bolts and bullets are entirely different. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Jack, whilst you're right, Star Wars also maintains in both the films and EU that lasers are small, short ranged, fast firing and tracking weapons for anti-fighter use, whilst turbolasers are large, slow firing and tracking, and used for anti-ship. The point that I made in my addition, which has been removed, is that these were anti-ship point defence. It's a stretch, sure, but it's the only explanation that fits both ICS and Revenge of the Sith. If we look at the guns being point defence, there is simply no way they can be anti-fighter or anti-missile due to both their slow rate of fire, and the extreme lack of firing arc. Think of it like the old battleships. Instead of lots of turrets, like their WW2 brethren, the early battleships had fixed, small-arc guns, which is what I would compare the Venator's anti-warship point defence guns to. --Darth Windu 02:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
              • "that lasers are small, short ranged, fast firing and tracking weapons for anti-fighter use, whilst turbolasers are large, slow firing and tracking, and used for anti-ship". Provide a source. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
                • The turbolasers are always depicted as being large artillery pieces, mainly good for capital ships and not quick and small fighters. Just by looking at ANH, you can see the rapid firing of the DS deck lasers and the slow, methodic pounding of the turbolasers. VT-16 18:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • I'd like to see something in writing. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 21:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Here we go. Laser cannons - Starships also eventually began using laser cannons as anti-starfighter defense... These weapons were even engineered to fire beams with such accuracy and power to intercept enemy missiles from long range and turbolasers The resulting beam carried roughly three times the energy of a standard laser cannon beam. Because these weaponse required extra time to build up energy for their powerful blasts, they tended to have a slower rate of fire than their weaker brethren... Turbolasers were the primary weapons of capital ships. They were used for ship-to-ship combat or, in some cases, planetary bombardment --Darth Windu 03:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • and thats the problem, unfortunately in this case Dr. Saxton seems to have made a big mistake. The situation is thus. We have three types of weapons on board the Venator, according to the ICS. These are (1) heavy turreted turbolasers, (2) medium dual turbolasers, and (3) point defence laser cannons. From RotS, we can also see three different weapons systems used by the Venator. These are (1) heavy turreted turbolasers, (2) medium dual turbolasers, and (3) the single-mouting fixed turbolasers firing from the Venator's side 'trench'. Obviously (1) and (2) match perfectly with the ICS, however (3) does not. What we then have is a weapon that is clearly a heavy weapon system, most likely a turbolaser, and yet the only weapon system unaccounted for is the point-defence laser cannons. Therefore, there are four possibilities. Either ICS will be contradicted at some point with a more accurate weapons loadout, these turbolasers are the point defence lasers, the Venator never had point defence lasers and was only listed as such to make the building of the ships more politically acceptable (done frequently in real life), or there are two subclasses of the Venator. The third actually makes sense, seeing as there were two subclasses of its peers, the Acclamator, Victory, and Imperator. This conflict is also why I wanted to add something into the Behind the Scenes section about this. So then, what are we going to do with this situation? --Darth Windu 16:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Er...you don't consider that the ICS artists simply forgot to put them in? Unit 8311 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, that's likely the case. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not talking about the picture, I'm talking about the stats. How, exactly, does one draw in statistics? --Darth Windu 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Never thought that they might be additional armament for the Open Circle Fleet only? Like the SPHA-T turbolaser cannon hanging in the ventral hangar. VT-16 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Exactly. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
            • VT yes I did consider that, but again, THERE IS NO EXTRA ARMAMENT LISTED. Again, THERE IS A CONFLICT OVER WHAT WEAPONS THE VENATOR HAS, AND WHAT IT IS SAID TO HAVE. All I've been asking for is something mentioned about this in the Behind-the-scenes section. Is that really such a difficult concept? --Darth Windu 02:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
              • I see no reason to include this in the "Behind the scenes" section. And yelling won't get you anywhere. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
                • Fine, I'll include it in the main section of the article then. --Darth Windu 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • <sigh> —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Jack, you're not the only one who can add things to the article. Firstly, your theory about the extra turbolasers is just as valid as mine, so stop removing it. Secondly the extra turbolaser link should be there because, as you said, we are here to inform. Thirdly the hasbro link is completely unnecessary. It is just a link to a toy with the same colours that we can see in the film, and which is on the Venator page. Furthermore if we're going to include that Hasbro page, why isnt there a page on the Hasbro republic attack cruiser, or the lego republic attack cruiser, or the revell republic attack cruiser? It's not needed. --Darth Windu 02:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • Because the Hasbro article is the only source that provided info on the grey Imperial Venator's service. VT-16 10:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
                        • And "turbolaser" is already linked, and the "Venator II-class" theory is way far out there. So, I'm reverting. Don't re-add them again, Windu. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
                          • With the turbolaser and Imperial venator, fine. However Jack if you're going to be here you need to repsect other people's opinions. My opinion might seem 'way out there', and yet I consider your opinion to be the same. Again, you aren't the only one allowed an opinion on this site. I am hence re-adding the addition. Now you have two choices that will stop me from editing further. Either leave it alone, or remove your opinion from the article as well. It's your choice. --Darth Windu 01:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Vote

Include only possibility that the additional turbolasers are on modified Venators in "Behind the scenes" section

This would mean only: "In Revenge of the Sith, it appears that the Venator-class is equipped with additional turbolaser batteries that are unaccounted for in the RotS:ICS book. This could possibly be explained by saying that the ships of the Open Circle Armada were modified to include turbolasers not included on a standard Venator."

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. MartinMcCann 10:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. —VT-16 22:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Include only possibility that the additional turbolasers are on a "Venator II-class" in "Behind the scenes" section

This would mean only: "It is also possible that this represents a new Venator II sub-class, placing more emphasis on the battleship role. It could be speculated that this signifies a more aggressive stance by the Republic, building vessels with greater offensive power. This would also bring the Venator into line with its contemporaries, the Acclamator, Victory, and Imperator (later Imperial) classes, all of which had two sub-classes."

Include both possibilities in "Behind the scenes" section

  1. — --Darth Windu 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Include no possibilities, but only the information on the missing turbolasers

This would mean just: "In Revenge of the Sith, it appears that the Venator-class is equipped with additional turbolaser batteries that are unaccounted for in the RotS:ICS book.

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Darth Windu 15:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  3. VT-16 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Include neither possibilities

Comments

Oh yeah, I reverted the page so that it includes both theoreis, though I forgot to log in first. My bad. Anyway if we're going to be voting on this, people need to see the text that we've both put up in order to make an informed decision. --Darth Windu 00:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • For the time being, I'm going to remove both from the article but show them here. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Good idea Jack. --Darth Windu 07:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I voted to keep both as they are equally possible until we get a canon decision on why the extra weapons are unaccounted for. Mind you, lots of other people will have other opinions, so it might just be best to leave it at something like 'There is a discrepancy in the number of weapons, there is no canon explanation why this is so'. --Darth Windu 13:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Or we just word it like this: "In Revenge of the Sith, it appears that the Venator-class is equipped with additional turbolaser batteries that are unaccounted for in the RotS:ICS book." I'll make another option for it. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 13:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, given that the Open Circle Fleet has a track record of installing non-standard weaponry (the SPHA-T guns in the ventral bay), I think we should mention the possibility that the ROTS guns are also OCF-specific additions. MartinMcCann 15:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm going to have to agree with Jack. They might be additions made by the OCF, but they might not. After all, the installation of a SPHA-T cannon in a hanger bay is one thing, but the structural modifications needed to add those turbolasers would require dockyard-level work, which I just can't see happening. Also you have the problem, as we can see, of pretty much everyone having a theory. Until we get an official answer, we should just leave it the way Jack has noted and avoid an opinion-heavy article. --Darth Windu 15:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Unless one of these opinion would be brought up by, say, Leland Chee, they won't be in the article. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 17:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Well I've submitted a question to the official site. I don't expect them to actually answer it, but at least it's out there. --Darth Windu 06:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Since the turbolasers are fitted internally with an atmospheric shield viewport and all guns are accounted for on the ROTS:ICS page, then they're not standard armament. VT-16 22:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
    • And thus, we have a tie. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 23:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Here we go again. VT - I'd like you now to prove using canon sources that these weapons are not standard armament. Okay, the ICS doesn't account for them, but as I've pointed out previously, there are numerous possible explanations for why this is so. The main issue here is that until there is a canon explanation, any theories presented here by any member is fanon, which is specifically banned by Wookipedia's rules. In addition, as the weapons are seen in the film but not accounted for by the book, by the rules of SW canon the book is wrong. Overall however until we have an official explanation, we should just leave it at saying there is a discrepancy, and adding the relevant information when we do get a canon explanation. --Darth Windu 07:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Uh, Wookieepedia, not Wookipedia. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 14:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
        • You're absolutely right, of course. The films take precendence over other sources in a conflict. What was I thinking? @__@ VT-16 19:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Okay, let's end this now. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 20:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Oops, my bad. I really need to check my internet spelling, it's horrendous. Oh yeah, I hope I didn't come across as too confrontational in my last post, I unfortunately have a tendancy to do that. --Darth Windu 04:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Well, that post reminded me of McEwok, someone VT and I have had plenty of conflicts in the past. But you actually convinced VT, something McEwok has tried, but so far has never (to my knowledge) done. ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 15:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Quote from ROTS:ICS

To avoid any confusion and to actively combat article vandalism, I'm posting the quote from Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections that explicitly describes Venator-class Star Destroyers as medium-weight vessels:

"The Galactic Republic's new Venator-class Star Destroyer is fast enough to chase down blockade-runners and big enough to lead independent missions such as the liberation of Utapau. A flotilla of these medium-weight, versatile multi-role warships can blast through the shields of a Trade Federation battleship with ease. The hangars of the Venator-class are much larger than older Star Destroyers like the Victory-class, and can support hundreds of fightercraft. The ship is also capable of planetary landings as a military transport and can be an escort for battleships in the Republic armada. However, the primary function of the Venator-class is its role as a fighting ship and starfighter carrier, making it a firm favorite with Jedi fighter aces."
―Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, page 4.

VT-16 11:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"The Republic attack cruiser, or Star Destroyer, gave this new starfleet its considerable teeth. The wedge-shaped warship was not primarily a cargo transport, troop carrier or other replenishment or supply vessel; it was developed and honed for ship-to-ship combat."
―Starwars.com Databank
. --Darth Windu 03:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Your point? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • My point is that the ICS is not a definitive source, that there are other sources that say different things. The databank for example seems to indicate it is primarily a battleship and 'not any sort of support vessel' which includes starfighter carrier. I'm not saying that the ICS is wrong, simply it's not the be-all and end-all. --Darth Windu 04:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
      • What exactly is this quote for? I don't see anything different. VT-16 07:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
        • That's why I said "Your point?". What Darth Windu provided is not contradicting RotS:ICS. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Exactly. The ICS never said the Venator was only a support vessel. Unit 8311 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, the support larger vessels but are in turn large enough to lead attacks of their own. Just like the Imperial-class does in its career. It's in the book and it doesn't contradict other sources. VT-16 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Shuttles

It says in Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections that the Venator has various shuttles do anybody have any idea what they might be. 216.211.43.38 15:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

  • My guess would be the Theta-class T-2c shuttle, but also possibly the Kappa-class shuttle and Corellian Star Shuttle. --Darth Windu 09:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Frankly, if the Republic and Empire militaries were anything like real-world militaries, they were whatever shuttles they had sitting available at the time the ship was deployed. :P Guy Ruffian 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the kappa is a good guess because I don't think Corellian would be used because it pretty big compared to the theta and the theta is for VIP's and diplomats do you happen to know if there is any mention ever that there ever was a theta used on a Venator because I think that the only reason for a shuttle to be used would be for sending troops down planet side or for conveying an envoy to tell a planet to surrender/negotiate or for ferrying men from ship to ship. That why I think the kappa would be used. Thanks for your answers you cleared up my confusion. 216.26.203.137 22:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well it depends on what the shuttles are for. fter all, as the ship is equipped with Gunships and dropships, is there any need for Kappa-class shuttles? I still think the most likely candidate is the Theta, simply because sometimes it is necessary to have a hyperspace capable shuttle to transport small grounps of people sometimes. --Darth Windu 03:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, the Theta was for VIPs, as the anon said, so I doubt they would be aboard. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Was the Theta only used for VIP's, or as a general military shuttle like the Lambda? --Darth Windu 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
          • VIPs only. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 01:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Then why does the wookieepedia entry for it says it also carries troops? :) --Darth Windu 02:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
              • Wookieepedia's not a source. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 02:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                • Hang on, on the Wookieepedia entry for the Venator, you're saying Wookieepedia isnt a valid source? I admit, I have no idea where the 'Theta carrying troops' info came from, but if it is valid then you're wrong about it only being for VIP's. Besides, as far as I know there aren't any sources that actually state these shuttle are exclusively for VIP use. --Darth Windu 06:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
                  • 1) Wookieepedia is not a source for anything. 2) If it's valid, then I'm wrong. 3) I haven't seen any source saying that Thetas doubled as troop carriers. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 12:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to ask

I forgot to ask. It says in the article that the crew for a Venator is 7,400 does that include pilots-troops-mechanics-walker pilots. Etc-Etc. 216.26.203.137 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe pilots and troops are counted as part of ship's crew. JimRaynor55 01:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It depends on who you ask. I personally would say in this case yes, they are counted as part of the crew. What you want then is a breakdown of crew roles. It's kinda like saying a Nimitz-class ship has a crew of 5000, which includes the aircrew. --Darth Windu 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Role

There seems to be a lot of clash on this topic. I submit that "Star Destroyer" - in the proper, all-caps, original sense - is not a role. HIMS Executor, HIMS Allegiance, Shockwave, HIMS Harrow, HIMS Victory, HIMS Imperator, and according to the Flanneled One, even CISS Invisible Hand are Star Destroyers. In several cases by absolute canon, such as The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi, the Executor occupies an obviously seperate role from her lesser escorts and retinue of commonest one-mile Imperator/Imperial-class Star Destroyers. Therefore, describing the Venator-class' role as a "Star Destroyer" is neither accurate, nor descriptive, nor useful. Furthermore, its purpose in chasing down blockade runners and escorting battleships, its tonnage as a medium-sized warship, and its similarity in role and scale to the Recusant-class light destroyer, the Victory-class destroyer, and the Providence-class destroyer suggest a role of destroyer, if not an exclusive role thereof. Describing destroyers as anti-submarine warfare craft alone is inaccurate, and simply wrong according to canon, by which we have at least the Providence-class, Recusant-class, and Victory-class. In modern navies destroyers are major surface combatants with a diverse set of tasks and roles within a battle group or task force. Battleship escort and blockade runner pursuit have been definitive destroyer tasks. Describing the Venator's role as a destroyer is accurate, useful, and descriptive of canonical tasks and characteristics. Describing it as a "Star Destroyer" with respect to ROLE is not. - IP 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Firstly, for now it will stay as Star Destroyer, as that is how it was listed until you started changing things. If we decide to leave it at Destroyer, that change will then be made. Getting to the point at hand, there is absolutely no evidence that the Venator served a Destroyer role. The term 'Destroyer' originally was created for a small warship designed to protect Battleships from Torpedo Boats - hence the term 'Torpedo Boat Destroyer', later shortened to 'Destroyer'. Getting up to WW1 and WW2 Torpedo Boats weren't so much of a problem, although they were still there, but largely that role had been taken over by Submarines. The Destroyer's job then was to defeat enemy submarines before they could attack Battleships and Aircraft Carriers, whilst also carrying a Torpedo payload themselves which enabled Destroyers to do heavy damage to larger ships. However in recent times, distinctions between 'Frigate', 'Destroyer', and 'Cruiser' are no longer based on role, but on tonnage. Modern day frigates do much the same thing that modern day Cruisers do, they are simply smaller.

In regards to Star Wars, you make my point for me. The Executor-class, Imperial-class, and even the Providence-class ships are called Star Destroyers, as is the Venator class. Why? Surely, especially with the Providence, there is no design similarity, and so it must be role-based. We see in the films that Star Destroyers are the big ships, designed to do battle against enemy fleets, and this is exactly what Venators do. Furthermore the Imperial-class, Venator-class, Victory-class, and Acclamator-class are all referred to as Star Destroyers. Even thought about why that is? The term 'destroyer' itself is actually quite under-used in the Star Wars universe, mainly becuase the EU writers know little about militaries. The fact is though that we have many examples of Frigates and Cruisers, and to say the Venator is a Destroyer would imply it is smaller and less versatile than the Carrack-class or Dreadnought-class Cruisers. --Darth Windu 05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    • First of all, there is no need to be rude, condescending, or imperious in your tone. You do not have overarching authority over the outcome of this article, and conclusions are drawn collectively, by consensus and discussion on wikis. Second of all, I do not require a lecture from you. It is you who turned "ship-to-ship combat" and "fighting ship" into battleship based on nothing but your aesthetic preference. No source described Venator as a battleship, and fighting ships are not ipso facto battleships. Modern navies' surface combatants are notably free of battleships. Do you mean to suggest that modern navies do not engage in ship-to-ship combat? Thirdly, there are many states, with many navies in the STAR WARS universe. Your FALSE dilemma that the Carrack-class or Dreadnought-class cruisers' designation must be paramount over the designation of the Recusant-class, or Providence-class, or Victory-class as destroyers. Prior to the mid-1970s the United States Navy had no cruisers. They had destroyers - and they had FRIGATES that were greater than their destroyers, but no cruisers. Ultimately designation comes down to nothing but observed role, generalization of historical use, and arbitrary fiat from the navy in question. It is simply not a cogent argument and contra-canonical that destroyers MUST be inferior to all cruisers. Do you mean to suggest that because of the diminutive Consular-class space cruisers, that any destroyers must be below 100 m? We know this to be CANONICALLY FALSE - the Providence-class is a destroyer, the Recusant-class is a light destroyer, and the Victory-class is dubbed a destroyer (as is the Venator-class). Second of all, the destroyers' historical role has been fleet protection from similarly-sized-and-smaller opponents of all types: torpedo boats (originally), submarines, aircraft, other destroyers, and smaller warships. The Venators have only been observed to attack vessels beneath their tonnage class (though in flotillas they are said capable of swarming Trade Federation battleships, theoretical capability is not equivalent to in-use role). They are said to escort battleships. They are fast and pursue blockade runners. They match the tonnage class of the destroyers of the navy they were designed to wage war against. Cruisers' role is traditionally independent of the battle fleet. Escort of battleships by fast warships optimized for combat against smaller vessels too agile to be effectively attacked by battleships themselves is the fundamental role of the destroyer - and of the Venator. No one ever said it was a definitive or fundamental or essential role of the Venator. The Star Destroyer "line" whatever it means - is obviously tasked with multi-role operations. However, the simple fact of the matter is that Star Destroyer is used willy-nilly to describe warships of note. The term "capital ship" does not describe role or design (traditionally everything from the Kriegsmarine's Panzerschiff or pocket battleships to battlecruisers to dreadnoughts were terms "capital ships") and neither does Star Destroyer. Canonically it seems to represent combatant warships above a certain tonnage with multi-role capability. The ISD, Providence, Shockwave, and Executor DO NOT share the same role. Star Destroyer - if it accurately descibes the above vessels collectively, better represents a brand name or generalized type or something like the terrestrial term "capital ship." Perhaps it started off as a KDY/RSD brand name and eventually got loaned to describe all major space combatant warships with multi-role capability during the Clone Wars and stayed that way ever since. We've seen fleet scouts, escorts, destroyers, cruisers, command ships, battlecruiser, battleships, and battleship-carriers termed Star Destroyer. In the case of Venator, I see a cogent argument considering its tonnage, contemporary vessels, and its stated tasks and capabilities for describing one of its several ancilliary roles as a destroyer, and I fail to find one that convincingly nails "Star Destroyer" as a definitive role to be listed ALONGSIDE cruiser and troop transport. Rather, its role as a destroyer, cruiser, and pocket carrier/transport combined with its significant tonnage is what makes it collectively a Star Destroyer.

More over, convention across the similar-roled and tonnage Imperial/Republic Star Destroyers is to describe their role as a "destroyer" and not to use their designation as "Star Destroyer" as a role. Decided convention needs a justification to flout. The burden of proof is on you why this article - and presumably all the other SD ones, should be different.-IP 19:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

      • Hey mate, ease up, there's no need to get so worked up over a Wookieepedia article. Firstly I should note that I was never rude, condescending, or any such thing. If you read that in my reply, perhaps you need to read it again.

Now with Destroy's the Venator, Victory, Imperator/Imperial, Executor, Acclamator, and Providence are called Star Destroyers, not Destroyers. Furthermore as I noted, calling the Venator a Destroyer implies it is smaller or less multi-role than a Carrack or Dreadnought. As to the USN, yes, they did have Cruisers before the 1970's, perhaps you need to do some more research in the field. They fielded cruisers during both the First and Second World War's, and continued to do so post-war.

With the Venator only attacking targets beneath it's tonnage - you again make my point for me. One of the roles of a Destroyer is attacking Battleships with torpedoes, and as we never see the Venator attacking a larger warship, clearly it is not performing a Destroyer role. Furthermore there is considerable evidence it performs a Battleship role. After all we have never seen in the films a ship larger than the Venator that is used by the Republic. It is also see engaging enemy ships in a large fleet action - clearly a Battleship role there.

In terms of burden of proof, you are wrong my friend. The SW.com databank calls it a Star Destroyer, EU books call it a Star Destroyer, the ICS calls it a Star Destroyer, and the term Star Destroyer originates from the films. Therefore the weight of evidence of the Venator being a Star Destroyer is significant. As this is how it was portrayed before you decided to get involved, it is up to you to prove that it is a Destroyer. --Darth Windu 03:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • <sigh> The fact that this debate has caused me to come here and solve it is pathetic. Darth Windu, Star Destroyer is not a role. It is a type of ship. Destroyer is a role. As a destroyer, it destroys enemy ships and even performs Base Delta Zeroes. You are wrong, and there can be no compromise here. Now, I tell you, Darth Windu, do not revert it again. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I was wondering were you had disappeared to, Jack. Good to see you back, even if it was for such a stupid need. And since you are absolutely correct, I'll keep an eye on this article and revert it if anyone changes the role from destroyer to Star Destroyer. - JMAS 14:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much. However, from now on, I'll only be editing here if there's a major debate that I believe I can solve. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 21:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Nice analysis of the evidence there Jack, way to keep an open mind. If you want to be a Saxton fanboy, hey, know yourself out. The fact is though that the Venator's official name is the Venator-class Star Destroyer. As I have already noted, Star Destroyer is a term given to many different warships, leading to it being a role. Furthermore the term 'Destroyer' is, as I have noted, no longer used to determine a role but a size of warship. As this is the official designation, I will not stop reverting it. If you don't like it, take it up with the Star Wars canon guys. As for the 'no copromises here' - I recall you saying the same thing before you recognised you were wrong with the ISD article Jack. Good to see you're still live and kicking around the site though. --Darth Windu 08:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
          • I just had a thought. I've removed the Star Destroyer/Destroyer role altogether. 'Attack cruiser' defines its combat role, 'Starfighter carrier' defines it's carrier role, and 'Transport/Assault Ship' defines its transport role. No other definitions are really needed. --Darth Windu 09:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
            • The only one with an axe to grind here is you - railing against "Saxton fanboys" and other nonsense. Why, your own personal page is significantly dedicated to basically emphasizing that you're "anti-Saxton" in technical lookout, which is your perogative - don't get me wrong -, but in terms of indicative attitude, is it really necessary to be so emphatic, and so negative? Anyway, your arguments do not follow from the evidence and fail basic tests of cogency and usefulness. Allow me to quote you: "As I have already noted, Star Destroyer is a term given to many different warships, leading to it being a role." And to reply, quite frankly, simply because several ships are pegged with a term, does not make it a role. Claims must be SUBSTANTIATED, especially in light of evidence to the contrary. Quite simply, any explanation must account for these points: 1.) the Venator-class has been dubbed not only a "Star Destroyer", but also a "destroyer"; 2.) the Venator-class is in the same tonnage class and broadly similar to contemporaneous destroyers in the navy the Venator was built to wage war against, making them broadly applicable; 3.) the Invisible Hand is simultaneously a "Star Destroyer" and a "destroyer/carrier", establishing a precedent; 4.) "Star Destroyers" include Marvel battlecruisers, Star Dreadnoughts, command ships, carriers, cruisers, destroyers and even troop ships - if canon description of definitive role in these examples is accurate, than it does not follow that "Star Destroyer" is a definitive role. Even aside these points, allow me to indulge you with the thought experiment of agreeing with you. Whether or not "Star Destroyer" is a role, "destroyer" definitely is, and even if the use of "Star Destroyer" of a role is CORRECT AND DEFINITIVE, that does not, in of itself, disprove or invalidate the role description of "destroyer" for the Venator-class. You did not delete "transport" or "attack cruiser" to describe the Venator-class. It simply false that Star Destroyer always has represented a role. George Lucas personally describes Invisible Hand, Venator, Imperial/Imperator, and Executor all as "Star Destroyers" despite being a destroyer-carrier, a pocket carrier with multi-role capability and offensive armament, a destroyer-cruiser, and a fleet carrier-battleship respectively within the films. You have consistently engaged in repetition of demonstrably incorrect claims and misleading arguments. Submarine-killing does not make a destroyer (since the conceptual birth of the vessel predates widespread submarine warfare, this claim is particularly fatuous). You claimed that the Carrack-class cruiser and Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser must be greater than any destroyer, essentially proposing somesort of nonexistent, rigid frigate-destroyer-cruiser-battleship heirarchy, ignoring my legitimate criticism that the USN had FRIGATES comparable to foriegn cruisers and greater than our own destroyers. You ignored that the Dreadnought-class heavy cruiser was developed for a different service and classified during peacetime in service to a law enforcement agency, and demanded that chronologically later-developed warships during wartime developed for a new military service must conform to Judicial Forces standards, which is simply a red herring. The Sector Security Forces and Judicial Forces have no control over the classifications employed by the wartime navy. Moreover, this is a unsound way to dispute a basic determination made regarding canonical classification of naval warships. Established consensus and convention provides that for Star Destroyers utilized as the Venator, produced by her manufacturer, in her tonnage class, are used as destroyers (keep in mind, I never deleted "attack cruiser" or "transport" - and never insisted that "destroyer" need be anything but an ancilliary role, something you maintain is unacceptable, against convention). ON THIS VERY PAGE, we find Venator established as a destroyer among KDY's major warship catalog. Victory, Imperial/Imperator, Tector, etc., etc. - it is established that these vessels have served as Republic or Imperial destroyers. If this essential convention is unacceptable, you should challenge in on the KDY classification page, or perhaps the Star Destroyer page, rather than defying convention and consensus to drive "Venator" out of standardization. You have been asked politely to respond to argumentation - rather than repeating your original claims without notice to refutation or clarification. In accordance with basic majorial opinion and in the interest of the "default" for the Star Destroyer and KDY warship pages, I am reverting the role to describe the vessel as a "destroyer." Please show how the Venator CANNOT possibly occupy even an ancilliary destroyer role and how Star Destroyer must be the definitive and most accurate description of role, and what role that must be. I have justified my grounds for a description as a destroyer, given that it escorts battleships and is a fast ship observed to dominate smaller opponents and to pursue blockade runners - in swarms it may be able to assault battleships (contrary to what you said earlier, official material has described flotilla tactics of Venators against CIS battleships and Recusant light destroyers against Mandator dreadnoughts) - all archetypical destroyer tasks and befitting a destroyer role, and I am also bringing this page into standardization with the other KDY ship/SD pages. I want justification to remove destroyer, given that it is CITED as a valid descriptor for this class at the page's beginning. Thank you for your time.-IP 09:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
              • Windu, get it through your thick skull that you're wrong, and the majority is against you. Star Destroyer is a type of ship, and has never been a role. You, in this case, are 100% wrong. You started this edit war. Now, end it by admitting you're wrong and saying you'll leave it alone. Before you came here and started messing with this article, the role was what it correctly is—destroyer. With you here, you've completely changed that, started an edit war, and claimed it's always said "Star Destroyer" there. Knock it off now, Windu. Destroyer is and has always been a role of Star Destroyers. You cannot change canon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • there is absolutely no evidence that the Venator served a Destroyer role

Since it's a fast warship that hunts down smaller threats, escorts battleships and is a mid-sized warship, it's most definitely a destroyer. Just as the Imperial-class in the Empire's glory days. They do exactly the same things. VT-16 20:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll reply to each person's points in turn here.

IP

  • I have nothing personally against Saxton or anyone who follows Saxtonism, what I do have a problem with is when EU material is placed as a higher source than the films. Sure, my page has what I think of Saxtonism on it, it is not dedicated to it, simply my thoughts on where the EU Star Wars universe has gone off track. In this regard however it is unimportant. Now, how is calling ships a term not pegging them with a role. Are you saying that calling a ship class the Ticonderoga-class Guided Missile Cruiser means it's not necessarily a Cruiser? Or that calling a class the Iowa-class Battleship doesn't make it a Battleship? The whole point of adding that information at the end of a vessel's designation is to say what role it is. Now quite clearly the official name of this class is the Venator-class Star Destroyer. What is the point of naming it as such if it does not define a role? It then becomes superflous information that frankly would never have been put there.
  • In regards to Destroyers being smaller than Cruisers and so on, please show me exactly when the USN has had Frigates larger than another nations Cruisers. As a student of military technology I am unaware of this ever occuring, and would appreciate any information you have on the subject. Until then I shall treat that comment as an unsubstanciated claim, and hence put it aside until you provide evidence. As for classificatins being different - hey yeah, why make things easy by keeping to a common classification system when we can make it unnecessarily complex by completely changing the system, and not re-naming old classes. Hey, that's a great idea. In the real world this has happened, but units have been renamed. For example the WW2 M-26 Perhsing heavy tank was later re-classified as the M-26 Perhsing medium tank. As for the KDY page, I will challenge it. All in good time my friend.
  • As for the Venator being a destroyer, I maintain there is zero evidence of it performing this role. RotS shows us the Venator in a Battleship and Assault Ship role, nothing more. The Carrier role can be substanciated by the large number of fighters and large bays seen on the class, but that is all. Destroyers are not, and have never been, used as main fleet units in ship-to-ship battles, certainly not of the sort seen in RotS. Cruisers, Battlecruiser and Battleships - yes. Destroyers - no. The point of the Destroyer is to escort larger ships and protect them against aircraft and torpedo boats/submarines. The Venator has never performed these roles in RotS or EU material except for the flawed RotS ICS. That book is flawed because, as noted on the main page, the information on the Venator is significantly faulty.

Jack

  • Nice to see you're your normal polite self. Frankly, I don't care if the majority is against me, it doesn't make me any less right, nor does it make you and less wrong. I will never admit I am wrong in this, nor will I leave the page alone for the reasons I have already given. Your problem Jack is that you didn't even bother to consider the evidence before you. You've done it before, such as the ISD TIE squadrons issue and the Venator's extra turbolasers, and I have no doubt you'll do it again. I brought you around to see sense those times, and I will do it again. Dr Saxton is a very intelligent man, but he is fallible just like everyone else, and this is another example of that.

In general

  • Now here's why I simply deleted 'destroyer' or 'star destroyer' as a role - it's unnecessary. 'Attack cruiser' as a role is far more appropriate, as it effectively says the Venator is a multi-role warship, which it is. It is primarily a vessel designed for ship-to-ship combat, which a Destroyer is not, yet it can also fulfil various other roles such as escorting larger ships, acting as a command vessel, and leading fleets of its own. It is a far more appropriate tag, and will instantly end the little conflict we have going here. Now I ask you all to go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruiser and tell me, honestly, which category the Venator most fits into. --Darth Windu 05:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Wrong. Before editing this talk page, I did examine both sides of the evidence, only to see that you were wrong. "Destroyer" is both correct and necessary, as it is a role of any Star Destroyer. Remember, real-life definitions to terms do not always apply here. In addition, you should have been blocked for starting this edit war. Continuing it will only assure you getting a block. The facts that a) you can't see that you're wrong and b) you want to continue this, despite the majority opposing you shows that you are thick-headed and completely stubborn, much as I am (so, my "normal polite self" now applies to you). Either you admit you were wrong and agree to stop this altogether, or this continues on forever. That's where the majority comes in. If you had the majority, "Star Destroyer" would be under "Role". But you don't. Therefore, this whole thing is pointless. The majority is against you, and you are wrong. Deal with it, Windu, for your sake. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 13:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The point of the Destroyer is to escort larger ships and protect them against aircraft and torpedo boats/submarines.
Not just that. The destroyer has come a long way since the beginning of its type. It is a multi-role warship meant to perform a number of duties, including battleship escort as well as independently performing a mission. And destroyers usually fight in flotillas, which is basically what we see in ROTS, flotillas of Venators going up against TF battleships.
The Venator has never performed these roles in RotS or EU material except for the flawed RotS ICS. That book is flawed because, as noted on the main page, the information on the Venator is significantly faulty.
What faults? The absence of stories where the Venator performs different kinds of roles is not evidence of the absence of these roles. VT-16 16:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Jack - you thought I was wrong before. Twice. I proved myself to be correct those times and will do so again. Sure, I probably should be punished for being in an edit war, but then we both should have for the ISD edit war, as should IP and myself here, but thats really not all that relevant. Now to your facts.

a) I can't see that I'm wrong because I'm not. b) Of course I'm stubborn, always have been, but I'm not thick-headed. Actually I may be, I bashed my head on a car DVD player screen today. It hurt quite a bit, but I think I did more damage to the DVD than to my noggin. Getting to the point, I'm more than happy to change my views when I am presented with superior evidence and/or reasoning, that however is not the case here. Sure the majority is against me, but I'm used to it, and I'm used to prevailing against the majority. To use a semi-relevant quote here, might doesn't make right.

  • VT - Yes, the Destroyer has undergone a role change, it no longer acts as a specialist escort and instead is a multi-role warship - and you have made my point for me. By no longer having a specialist role and doing the same job a Frigate or Cruiser would, 'Destroyer' has ceased to define a role and instead defines the tonnage of a multi-role warship. again, the 'Cruiser' designator is at least just as relevant as 'Destroyer', and in this case more accurate. Also we didn't see a flotilla of Venators, we saw a fleet. Furthermore it makes absolutely no sense to see n a fleet of Destroyers into a fleet engagement. I should also note, if a Venator is a Destroyer, what does that make the Republic Cruiser (Consular)? A rubber dingy? As for faults in the book, it is the 'only source that says anything about the Venator being a 'Destroyer'. As to specifics the most relevant one is the book making no mention of the Venator's extra turbolasers. The existence of these weapons has been proven on this page, so I won't go into specifics, but it would seem the Venator is significantly more heavily armed than Dr Saxton states, which isn't necessarily his fault, but it would lead him to giving the Venator a more specialist role, such as Destroyer, rather than it's true ship-to-ship role first, such as Cruiser. --Darth Windu 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Windu, you are thick-headed because you can't see that YOU ARE WRONG. Because you can't see you're wrong, you've started an edit war and got the article locked. The majority is against you, and yet you still continue, believing that you are correct. You aren't. If you need four people to tell you you're wrong, that's pretty sad. Now, either you end this debate and admit you were wrong, or the article stays locked until we're all dead. Your choice. And FYI, past debates between us means nothing in this one. So stop referring to them. They are irrelevant, and prove you just want to waste our time even more. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 14:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Besides, look at this, from your first comment in this section: "If we decide to leave it at Destroyer, that change will then be made". Well, since the majority says to keep it as "Destroyer", that will be done. You said so yourself. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 14:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Jack, a few people disagree with me. Aside from being business as usual, this does not constitute a majority. As for the article itself, I'm not interested in wasting anyone's time, after all I'm not forcing you to be here, but I do care about article accuracy. --Darth Windu 08:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • FYI, the majority of people in this discussion, which is everybody but you, says "destroyer". Obviously, you're so thick-headed that you can't even see that as well. And if you cared about article accuracy, you would have left the article alone to begin with. This discussion is over. No matter what you say, Windu, you can't change the role of "destroyer" for this class of warship just because you don't like it. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Sure I can see that the majority within this particular discussion disagree with me. That still doesn't make me any less right. As for 'This discussion is over' - obviously it isn't, or you wouldn't still be here. Furthermore I am more than happy to debate the relative merits of each argument, but I notice you have ignored the evidence in my previous post in favour of summarily and incorrectly declaring the debate over. --Darth Windu 04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Stop assuming things, Windu. Every time you post "evidence", I look it over. But no matter what you say, you can't change the role from "Star Destroyer" to "Destroyer". Your cause is a lost one, my friend. Your evidence is not enough to save it. This discussion is over in the sense that we're not changing the role back to "Star Destroyer", because it's incorrect and everyone in this discussion but you agrees on "Destroyer" over "Star Destroyer". Unless you manage to change everyone's mind, posting any further is pointless, whether or not you know with that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By no longer having a specialist role and doing the same job a Frigate or Cruiser would, 'Destroyer' has ceased to define a role and instead defines the tonnage of a multi-role warship.

Which explains why ROTS:ICS calls it a "medium-weight, multi-role ship" that fights in "flotillas" against TF battleships. TF battleships were the heaviest (that we know of) in the CIS fleets. Venators were medium-weight in the Republic fleets. We see them fight in groups against single battleships.

again, the 'Cruiser' designator is at least just as relevant as 'Destroyer', and in this case more accurate.

Since destroyers and cruisers are approaching one another in sizes in the real world, that might be true, but in SW, "cruiser" is used for every kind of ship. Everything from the Queen's ship in TPM, to the Executor has been called a "cruiser". It doesn't explain anything since it's a term that can be applied to almost everything that flies in space.

Also we didn't see a flotilla of Venators, we saw a fleet.

Flotillas of destroyers that were part of a larger fleet.

Furthermore it makes absolutely no sense to see n a fleet of Destroyers into a fleet engagement.

If they are multi-role like the Venator, it does.

I should also note, if a Venator is a Destroyer, what does that make the Republic Cruiser (Consular)? A rubber dingy?

See above. The word "cruiser" is used for almost everything. And you both need to calm down. VT-16 13:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Hey VT, I'm calm, as I said it's only a Wookieepedia article. Anyway you are right in that everything seems to be called a 'Cruiser' in the SW universe. However it's not all that different here. After all we have Cruise Liners that are often referred to as Cruisers, we have small vessels called Cabin Cruisers, and so on and so forth. That doesn't change the fact that a Cruiser is still a large warship.

Regarding Destroyers being multi-role, my point here is that if they are multi-role, and do the same thing a Cruiser does, how can 'Destroyer' be a role? --Darth Windu 02:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, a contemporary cruiser is able to bring more ammunition to a fight since it is larger then a destroyer. Throughout most of the history of destroyers, they were fast and manuverable, long-endurance warships in support of cruisers and battleships. By WWII, they had increased in size and role and now the main thing separating them from the latter two types is the size. In SW, the sizes of contemporary shiptypes are even more extreme. We start with gunships and corvettes from 90 meters to 150 meters, have frigates go from 250 to 400 meters, then cruisers from 400 and up (with some overlap). And that's just one of the Imperial classification systems. Then there's another system that has star frigates at 825 meters, Star Destroyers from 900 meters to several kilometers, Star Cruisers above that, and Star Battlecruisers and Star Dreadnoughts, with the Executor at an extreme with 19 km. And the fact that its designation was hidden and "Star Destroyer" used in budgetary papers to fool the Senate, shows that previous models of Star Dreadnoughts were also big, powerful ships, so there's a precedence with these terms. Not surprising, since Republic-era Mandator-IIs were 200 times more powerful than a Venator and an Executor is 100 times more massive than an Imperial (which subsequently means it has to have power generation facilities that give at least 100 times more power than the ISD). And since they're both warships, all reactor power can be transferred to the guns, thus leading to an Executor always having at least a hundred times more firepower than an ISD. So size does matter in classification. VT-16 09:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As suggested below, a vote is probably the only answer to this. Therefore, here comes the vote. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well that's great Jack, but my suggestion was to simply leave out both 'Destroyer' or 'Star Destroyer' and leave the warship role defined by 'Attack Cruiser'. Oh yeah, is it just me or does it seem odd that, assuming the vote goes against me, the Venator will be listed as a Destroyer and a Cruiser? --Darth Windu 11:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Actually, it won't. The role category will go back to the way it was before this argument began. Meaning "Attack cruiser" will be removed from the list of roles. - JMAS 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • The ridiculous usage of "cruiser" in the "roles" section for almost every capital ship is basically the idea of WEG. This of course, has every single capital ship over 400 meters long listed as "cruisers", without any kind of thought into what kind of role they serve in their respective fleets. Since we also have "cruisers" going from the Queen's personal transport in TPM up to the Executor, this term is almost completely meaningless. The only times they've been listed in an understandable naval term, has been in the navies of the Trade Federation (with larger battleships and smaller, faster destroyers etc.), the Galactic Empire (with larger Star Dreadnoughts and smaller, faster Star Destroyers) and the Rebel Alliance (mainly the Mon Calamari Star Cruisers, with the bigger ones filling the role of battleships). And as if the situation wasn't confusing enough, WOTC have their own system where ships like the Star Destroyers are "Capital ships" and vessels like the Executor are "Space stations". If we're going to have these two systems included, at least have them separated from the others. VT-16 13:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I'll agree with you there VT. A lot of the problems I have with SW warship classification is that most people, including the vast majority of EU authors, have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to what different types of warships do. As you noted, even the GL isn't immune to this, what with the 'Naboo Cruiser' reference. --Darth Windu 02:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • What is your problem with it being called the Naboo Cruiser? Cruiser is not a descriptive term only delegated to warships. Sure, there is such a thing as a battle cruiser (both IU and IRL). But notice the designator "battle" affixed to it. We also have a thing IRL called a PT Cruiser. It is not a warship, but a normal car meant to inspire people to go "cruising." I'm sure, George had something similar in mind when he decided to call Amidala's ship the Naboo Cruiser. - JMAS 12:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • And now, with the vote clearly showing which side wins, this whole debate is finally over. The page can be unlocked now. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • JMAS - I'm very well aware of the PT Cruiser, Australians have had cars for quite a while you know. Sure, Cruiser can be used for many different types of vehicle, which I actually pointed out earlier, and yes you are right about Battlecruisers. Most of the confusion is that during WW1 and WW2 there were four different types of Cruisers - Light, Heavy, Armoured, and Battle. Now they are just called 'Cruisers'.

Jack - no it isnt. Had you bothered to read what I posted, you would have seen that my proposal was not to change it to 'Star Destroyer', but instead was to drop 'Destroyer' and leave the Venator's roles at 'Attack cruiser', 'Starfighter carrier', and 'Transport/Assault ship' as these three descriptions better defined the role of a Venator - being a multi-role warship (cruiser) with a secondary (starfighter) carrier and assault roles. It's not my fault that you posted a poll that was incorrect. --Darth Windu 03:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The poll isn't really incorrect since the Venator-class isn't described as the second-largest type of warships in the Republic Navy (which would be cruiser-analogs), it's medium-weight and with all the above information, it fits the role of a multi-mission destroyer, rather than a multi-mission cruiser, with the difference being defined mainly by size. And battlecruisers evolved from armored cruisers to rivalling battleships in size. VT-16 10:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Windu, regardless of what you think, this is over. Your proposal has not been accepted. The poll is correct. Just because you're not getting your way doesn't mean you keep it up and say I posted an incorrect poll. If you're going to act like a child over this, go act like one someplace else, because this is over. You lost, Windu. Nothing you say or do will change that. Now, leave this topic alone and find something else to do with your free time. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 14:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
      • There's no need for that kind of language, Jack. At least he explained his reasoning. VT-16 15:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
        • VT, to be honest, I don't care. I came here to prove that Windu's action was wrong and that the majority agreed that his action was wrong. When Windu continues to say that this discussion isn't over and acts like he is still going to get his way, I respond and continue to tell him that this discussion has reached its goal. If you're going to scold someone, VT, scold Windu for keeping this discussion going even after the vote showed that he lost. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 19:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
          • VT - but the point of a cruiser is that it is a medium weight multi-role vessel, whereas the Destroyer is a small specialised vessel. As I mentioned earlier, the Destroyer was a specialised anti-submarine, anti-torpedo boat and anti-aircraft vessel designed to protect large ships like Battleships. Later, it became a generic designation for a warship of a particular tonnage. The Venator has never been a specialist, and fits the cruiser role far more accurately. Jack - so if we were having a discussion over what the best icecream flavour was, and I thought Chocolate and you thought Strawberry, and we then decided to get a poll going to see what everyone else thought, would it be fair for the two options to be Chocolate and Vanilla? Your poll is a farce because it gives the option you prefer, and another. It is not an anywhere near accurate representation of the discussion, and therefore cannot end the dscussion. --Darth Windu 03:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

VT - but the point of a cruiser is that it is a medium weight multi-role vessel, whereas the Destroyer is a small specialised vessel.

Not anymore. Destroyers started out that way, but they're now defined by their tonnage rather than strictly roles, since they have increased in size and can perform multiple roles like the cruisers. If you look at Imperial destroyers in SW, they actually go from being medium-weight in the CW era, to being small in the GCW era (relative to Imperial cruisers and battleships), yet they were multi-role throughout both periods.

As I mentioned earlier, the Destroyer was a specialised anti-submarine, anti-torpedo boat and anti-aircraft vessel designed to protect large ships like Battleships. Later, it became a generic designation for a warship of a particular tonnage. The Venator has never been a specialist, and fits the cruiser role far more accurately.

But it's used for ships of a particular tonnage in SW as well. In the CW, it was "medium-weight", in the GCW, Star Destroyers were "smaller ships". We can keep the "attack cruiser" designation, because it'd have to be there if we're going to note the WEG system anyway. VT-16 10:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Once again, you're wrong, Windu. This discussion was to determine whether or not the role would be "Destroyer" or "Star Destroyer". That issue has been solved. If you want to create another topic on something else, do so. This topic has served its purpose. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 22:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • VT sure, for the most part you're absolutely correct, but again you make my point for me. We've figured out a Destroyer can be two things. (1) A specialised small warship designed to protect high-value assets from attacks by Submarines, Torpedo Boats and Aircraft. (2) A multi-role vessel of a certain tonnage. Now clearly, (1) is a role, but (2) is not. After all how can a tonnage range be a role? That is why it cannot perform a 'Destroyer' role. It does not do those specialist roles, so (1) is out, and (2) is the same as a Cruiser only smaller. Furthermore in the context of the films Cruiser would seem more accurate from the footage of the Battle of Coruscant. --Darth Windu 03:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Real-world definitions do not always apply to Star Wars. In the instance of the role of "destroyer", the real-world definition most certainly does not apply. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
      • But physical characteristics, including tonnage, do have an impact on what kind of roles it can perform, especially if the ship is by itself. So a destroyer now is basically a really light cruiser. I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually drop one of the terms in rl and go with either destroyer or cruiser, since they seem to be closing on one another. But as of now, the two terms are still kept seperate, with destroyer being for the lighter ships. VT-16 19:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Jack, unfortunately real-world terms are used a lot in Star Wars. Besides if you don't want it to be too real-world you could always make the term more 'space' oriented, something like 'Star Destroyer' for example. :-D VT - that's quite possible. After all there are only four nations, I think, who currently operate cruisers. Mind you there have been destroyers, the County-class and Kidd-class, that are effectively cruisers anyway. You are also right, destroyers are the lighter ships, but would you call the Venator a lighter ship? --Darth Windu 03:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Windu, start reading my posts better. I said that the definitions to real-world terms are changed to better suit the Star Wars Galaxy. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Lighter compared with their end-point battleships, anyway. 200 times less powerful in the PT era, 100 times in the OT era. So the "gap" is slowly being bridged. >D And in the PT era, Star Destroyers are medium-weight, while in the OT, they are smaller vessels in the Imperial Navy, so we know the Empire went off the usual chart with their constructions (mostly due to the Executor, Eclipse classes and various superweapons). VT-16 12:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Jack, it was a joke, lighten up mate. VT - well really when you look at it, vessels and vehicles are constantly being re-classified. I mean a Destroyer today is far better armed than Cruisers in the past, today's Amphibious warfare vessels are bigger than WW2 Aircraft Carriers, and so on. You can also see if when you note the WW2 M-26 Heavy Tank was later re-classified as the M-26 Medium Tank. So looking at the differences in how the Venator and Imperator classes fit into their respective force structures, it would seem obvious to me to label the Imperator as a Destroyer and the Venator as a Cruiser :). --Darth Windu 03:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I would disagree due to the Venator class operating in flotillas, according to official sources. Flotillas don't consist of cruisers. VT-16 18:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Well the way I see it, yes, you're right. But for the same token, larger vessels such as cruisers travel in a 'squadron'. As Star Wars fans generally know very little about real world military organisation, it would have been confusing to say that both fighters and cruisers travel in squadrons, and so instead they used the term flotilla which is a unique naval term. --Darth Windu 05:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Just noticed something else. The wookieepedia article for Mon Calamari Cruisers states that they move around in flotillas. Therefore, unless you want to call a Mon Cal Cruiser a Destroyer as well (which wouldn't suprise me), then clearly it is not a Destroyer specific term, and hence we can keep the Venator as being an Attack Cruiser and toss the 'Destroyer' label. --Darth Windu 12:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You're assuming LFL, the same LFL that gave us plenty of Antilles'es to figure out, three or four Vengeances in one and the same Navy, is suddenly going to make it easier for readers? Pardon me if I find that hard to believe. And yes, the Mon Cal cruisers do fullfill the same function as the Imperial destroyers, so they are noted as operating in a flotilla. Because we know different standards exist in the galaxy, and the Mon Calamari are from a civilization far from the Core and from Kuat or Corellia or Rendili, they will have their own standards, just like anyone else. They have cruisers and battleships that are comparable with light and heavy Imperial destroyers, and would be denoted that way in the largest known Imperial system. (The one that doesn't stop at 'heavy cruisers' that are ISD-size or less). VT-16 14:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well yes LFL can be rather inconsistent, and so is Curtis Saxton. Anyway how can cruisers and batleships be destroyers? They're one or the other. Also I should note you mention the Imperial classification system - but the Venator was created before that system was invented, and hence cannot be characterised by the defenitions of said system. --Darth Windu 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Inconsistency isn't an excuse when we already have the in-universe excuse of multiple classification systems. And, no, ships can be classified differently, regardless of what one might think. The Kirov-class was called "heavy missile cruiser" by Russia, but "battlecruiser" by the US, because its displacement was roughly that of WWI battleships. And the Imperial classification system isn't named that at all, from what I've read. It's just adopted by the Empire after the Republic used it. Either way, the Empire also uses other systems that go beyond simply "cruisers" and "Star Destroyers", which are the biggest capital ship classes mentioned in it. There's obviously a need to hide the word "Star Dreadnought" from the Senate budgetary commissions investigating the Executor, and instead use "Star Destroyer" to describe it. And then there's the system seen in WOTC books, where the ISD is a "capital ship" and the Executor is a "space station". And whatever system makes the ISD a "peace-keeping battleship". That's four systems, at a minimum. VT-16 21:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ha, they were probably trying to hide the term 'Star Dreadnought' because it's idiotic. Anyway, if we have so many classification systems then perhaps we just include all. For the Venator that would mean we leave it at both Destroyer and Attack Cruiser. After all if it's only 'Destroyer', then we have a 'Venator-class Star Destroyer' that isnt a Star Destroyer, and a Republic/Imperial Attack Cruiser that isn't an Attack Cruiser. Make sense to you? Certainly doesn't make sense to me. --Darth Windu 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, a designation that's the same as previous vessels known to be hundreds of times more powerful than Star Destroyers, and it's the "silliness" that concerns them. Right. We only put in the roles they serve in their respective fleets. The Venator-class serves as escorts, carriers and destroyers. Destroyers being little more than small cruisers. That's all that's needed for people reading this to understand what they do. If they got more questions, let them look up those terms on Wikipedia. VT-16 07:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Hang on, the Venator is a carrier, destroyer and an escort? Not according to the main page it isnt. Also you say Destroyers are little more than 'small cruisers' - well thats great, but you're wrong. The Destroyer used to fulfil the unique function of protecting large vessels from aircraft and sub-surface threats - it was designed specifically for that role, not to go into ship-to-ship combat. Clearly the Venator does not perform this role. Looking at the later Destroyers, they are called Destroyers simply by tonnage and not by role. Therefore if a Destroyer serves the role of a 'small cruiser', then it's role is that of a cruiser. Destroyers are specialist ships, Cruisers are multi-role surface combatants. I don't know how you can't understand that. --Darth Windu 04:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Look, we've been over this time and again, destroyers began as faster, smaller vessels protecting larger vessels and gradually grew in size and with that, got more roles to fullfill, so today the only thing seperating them from cruisers, is their size. In SW, we have many navies fielding destroyers, even destroyers which represent the analogs of both destroyer eras irl. The Trade Federation has small, fast destroyers, the CIS, Galactic Republic and Galactic Empire have larger destroyers that are multi-mission, the New Republic and Galactic Alliance inherit these types, the Zann Consortium have destroyers as their second largest and second-most powerful warships, the Sabaoth Squadron have destroyers as their largest warships etc. The only reason I had carrier in there, is because it's mentioned in ROTS:ICS and because, well, for some reason, most SW warships have hangar-space, and the Venator-class devotes alot more space to this than most. VT-16 19:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave disputed role as "Destroyer" (and removing "Attack cruiser")

  1. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 11:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. As much as I'd like "Star Destroyer", it's not a term used exclusively for one type of ship. We need something more concrete. VT-16 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Star Destroyer is a type of ship, not a role. JMAS 17:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. I agree, Star Destroyer is not a role --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Clearly, I agree. Star Destroyer is a colloquialism, general type or term, or some kind of brand name. Think "capital ship" or something like that. Its definitely not describing a definitive role, and Venator should meet the KDY vessel/Star Destroyer standardization. - IP 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Change to "Star Destroyer"

Locked

  • Please resolve edit war here. Then I'll unlock the page. QuentinGeorge 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • As the edit war seems to be over, I'm unlocking the page. Don't start again please. Atarumaster88 20:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Like I said, if Windu starts it again, I'm making sure he gets banned. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Record of Imperial Service) 20px 20:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah thats a good attitude there Jack - I have the right to free speech as long as I agree with you. Anyway the issue is not solved. Firstly the vote should have been 'Destroyer' or 'Attack Cruiser'. Secobndly the vote itself was farcical, with it being changed halfway through to delete 'Attack Cruiser'. --Darth Windu 04:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Puhlease. Everyone who voted had the opportunity to change their vote if they had disagreed. - JMAS 05:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, free speech isn't a right on a wiki. It's a privilege that can be taken away. --School of Thrawn 101 05:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I thought we agreed to leave the role alone? Windu, why are you still changing the role? we had a vote and it resulted in "Destroyer and removing Attack Cruiser" so stop adding Attack Cruiser to the article.--Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Windu, I know you think you are right, even though not a single person agrees with you. But there comes a time when you should heed the words of Corran Horn:
"If one guy calls you a Hutt, ignore him. If a second guy calls you a Hutt, begin to wonder. If a third guy calls you a Hutt, buy a drool bucket and start stockpiling spice."
―Corran Horn to Luke Skywalker[src]

- JMAS 15:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Windu, if you go against the vote again, I will see to it that an admin bans you. Knock it off. Stop acting so immature just because you didn't get your way. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No, I will not knock it off. You rigged the poll Jack, you know it and I know it. If you decide to launch a fair poll then I will go with it. Until then I will not stop reverting the page. If you want to try and get the admins to ban me then knock yourself out, I couldn't care less what you do, and threatening me achieves nothing. --Darth Windu 03:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • How the hell did I rig the poll? I took the two options that were being considered at the time, keep it as "Destroyer" or change it to "Star Destroyer", and made a vote. You're just a sore loser, Windu. Stop acting like a little kid and shut up for once in your life. You lost. Get over it. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Because you changed the voting options after the poll had been started. Initially it was just Destroyer vs Star Destroyer. After voting had started, you changed the Destroyer option to removing Attack Cruiser as well. Therefore I accept the result of Destroyer vs Star Destroyer, but do not accept the removal of Attack Cruiser. --Darth Windu 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Locked, again.

This Page is once again locked because of the "role discussion" which was ended after the vote, Windu, could you please accept that you lost the vote and leave the role alone, Thank you. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Oh my God... Admins, ban Windu. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You're lucky, Windu. Next time, however, you will be banned. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Jedicam - I have no problem with accepting the vote, if it was a fair vote. It was changed mid-poll, and that makes it invalid. Furthermore you will note I am paying heed to the results by not removing 'Destroyer'. GAJN - I don't consider myself particularly lucky. I suppose you could say I'm lucky I've supremely intelligent bordering on genius, I'm lucky I've got my health, I'm lucky I've got a great family and good friends. I could care less if I get banned from Wookieepedia from protecting this page from Saxtonism. --Darth Windu 03:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • No, that's not what your doing. What you're doing is breaking the 3-Revert-Rule and vandalizing a certain part of this article that was decided by a fair vote that you yourself didn't even vote on. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Windu, if you accept the outcome of the vote than why are you still changing the role. Changing the vote mid-pol does not make it invalid. It was changed because we agreed that after the vote, if the out come was "destroyer", the page would be reverted to a version prior to the edit war, which included the removal of "Attack Cruiser", anyone that disagreed with the change could have changed their votes, but they didn't. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Windu has been banned for three days. Let's start the celebration now. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It's one thing to disagree with the results, but this was just childish. What a mess. VT-16 17:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree, which is why the admins will be keeping a closer eye on Windu when he returns. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I care, really I do. Now to address these points before I'm permanently banned for something. Jack - you broke the three-revert rule as well, so don't get all high-and-mighty with me. You yourself said we both should have been banned for the incident at the ISD article. As for the vote it was invalid because you changed it after it started. Sorry, but as soon as you did that it became invalid.
              • Jedimac - so I suppose if I then changed the voting options to make it appear like people had voted to keep Attack Cruiser and delete Destroyer, that would then be a fair vote? No, of course not, and the same goes with what Jack did. Furthermore before this whole thing started, as far as I'm aware, the page contained both Attack Cruiser and Destroyer. Sure, people could have changed their votes, but what if they don't constantly check this page to make sure it hasn't been changed? Again, if the voting options were changed, would anoyone have specifically come to this page to change their vote? My bet would be no.
              • VT - I don't disagree with the result of Destroyer vs Star Destroyer. As you will note in every revert I performed, Destroyer was maintained in the role section, nor did I try to change it to Star Destroyer. The portion of the vote I disagree with is Jack's poll-tampering. Make it a fair vote, and I'll leave it alone. --Darth Windu 04:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Oh yes I should add something else too. Originally, my idea was to change it from Destroyer to Star Destroyer. After all it's pretty daft to have a Venator-class Star Destroyer/Republic Attack Cruiser that is neither a Star Destroyer nor an Attack Cruiser. Anyway very quickly I changed to make it Destroyer vs Attack Cruiser. Instead Jack made his poll as Destroyer vs Star Destroyer. After being told four times the poll options were irrelevant, he refused to make a poll that acurately represented the options and ideas that were present. If you don't believe me, go and have a look yourself in the 'role' topic. --Darth Windu 04:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • Windu, I noticed the change and I didn't change my vote because I agreed with it, and it was not Jack that decided to change the vote, please read this:
                    Well that's great Jack, but my suggestion was to simply leave out both 'Destroyer' or 'Star Destroyer' and leave the warship role defined by 'Attack Cruiser'. Oh yeah, is it just me or does it seem odd that, assuming the vote goes against me, the Venator will be listed as a Destroyer and a Cruiser? --Darth Windu 11:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
                    Actually, it won't. The role category will go back to the way it was before this argument began. Meaning "Attack cruiser" will be removed from the list of roles. - JMAS 12:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
                    Jack might have changed the vote, but it was you who didn't want both of them to begin with. The only change made to the vote was made because you didn't want both "destroyer" and "Attack Cruiser" listed as roles, you only wanted one of them, we had a vote, and we didn't chose your idea. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 06:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • First of all, Windu, grow up already. Stop acting like a child. This is over. Second of all, I didn't change the vote option to remove "attack cruiser". Therefore, don't blame me for something I didn't do. That only shows that you are extremely childish. You're blaming me just because I started to vote. You didn't even bother to find out who added that second part to the option. Now, get out of here, Windu. This is over. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • You're right Jack, This is over, Windu has been blocked again and I don’t think he’ll back anytime soon. We can finally get back to improving this article. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • Yep, he'll never be back. The block was the longest he could get. In the words of Nute Gunray: "Ah... Victory!" —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 19:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                        • Oh, great. I just spent time writing yet another reply to him. Well, glad this is over. VT-16 19:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
                          • Especially since he's banned for good. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 11:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
                            • Don't you just hate it when those permanent bans last for a week? lol. You know, Wookieepedia needs to look at a new baning policy, after all the poor sod who now has my old IP address can't participate here, and thats not cool at all. --Darth Windu 04:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hutt Cartel use

This article says that following the Clone Wars, the Venator was in use by the Hutt Cartel. The source given for the is Forces of Corruption. When is that stated in the game? I don't remember ever seeing the Hutts using Venators. I remember the Mandalorians using one, pirate use can be inferred by their availability from pirate stations, and Zann use from the fact that they are the only ones who can purchase them from said stations. Where does the Hutt connection come from? --OuroborosCobra 07:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't remember the Hutts using Venators in Forces of Corruption either, I added a {{Fact}} tag to that claim, perhaps someone else knows the answer to this interesting question. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
    • There aren't even any Hutt factions that I can remember tangling with in a space battle throughout the entire game. The claim is silly and should be removed. Just because some yahoo decided he was working for the Hutts while playing with Consortium units doesn't mean that the Venators he bought during a skirmish count as Hutt hardware. --192.251.125.85 09:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I agree, removing it would be best, at least until we know for sure if the Hutts used them or not. It could also be mentioned in a deferent source, but I think that is highly unlikely. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 09:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You can fight planets in control of the Hutts, like Nal Hutta, but I don't believe they have any Venators in their arsenal. They have V-Wings, sure, but not Venators. As for the anon, I think you are jumping close to violating "assume good faith". Given that the Hutts most definitely ARE in the game, I think it is rather rude to accuse whoever added to this article of being "some yahoo who decided they were playing as the Hutts". I did not create this discussion to attack people, I created it to increase the accuracy of the article. --OuroborosCobra 15:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
          • That was me (School of Thrawn 101)...I couldn't log in for some reason. (And still can't...) And btw...no, the Hutts are not in control of Nal Hutta within the realm of FoC or EaW. There are only three factions within FoC that have the ability to control a planet and operate space-based defenses. Just b/c Nal Hutta is the traditional homeworld of the Hutts does not mean that when you're squaring off against one of the three playable factions within the game that you're facing the Hutts. As for the accusation that I was close to being in violation of the "assume good faith" mantra...you're right. I was dangerously close to a personal attack, and I was wrong. That said, a new source for the claim that the Hutt Cartel acquired Venators needs to be found, because FoC does not support such a claim. If not, I will personally remove it by this time tomorrow. --64.194.103.95 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I hate to tell you, but Tyber Zann specifically says that the corruption mission at Mandalore is to influence the Hutts at Nal Hutta. That establishes that the Hutts control Nal Hutta. The fact that there is not a fourth faction is a matter of game mechanics only, it should not override Tyber's dialogue. I still of course agree with removing the Venator claim, as there is no proof :) --OuroborosCobra 16:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
  • If one is going to cite a game as the source of a certain faction laying claim to a piece of military hardware, when that particular faction, within the realm of the game being cited, does not have the ability to represent a situation where they are in control of said hardware, the only logical conclusion is that the information is flawed. Writing it off to game mechanics and then subsequently dismissing it makes no sense as the core of the topic we're discussing branches from claims made regarding the operation of the game, itself. Sure, Nal Hutta, from a canon viewpoint, is controlled by the Hutts during the particular time-frame that FoC covers, but since it is impossible for the Hutts to control Nal Hutta in this particular game, they are reduced to indigenous inhabitants and treated as such for the purposes of the game. ...aaannnddd since indigenous inhabitants don't command the space defenses, I would say it's an appropriate observation that the Hutts, within the realm of FoC, are not in control of Nal Hutta. In fact, if I remember correctly, Nal Hutta was an Imperial-controlled planet on the galaxy map, was it not? Oh, and as for your quote, I'm not precisely sure what Zann says exactly, but if he's saying that he wants to influence the Hutts at Nal Hutta, how does that establish that the Hutts own Nal Hutta, in and of itself? (Keep in mind that I am, yet again, fully aware that the Hutts do, in fact, own Nal Hutta.) --192.251.125.85 05:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC) (School of Thrawn 101)
    • ehhhh.....I was about to say that.....or at least something like that. anyway, I agree with you, there is no proof in Forces of Corruption that the Hutts use Venators, therefore I say we should remove that claim immediately. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 06:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
      • First off, there are no Venators at Nal Hutta, so who controls it is irrelevant, it cannot be used as evidence. Second off, Nal Hutta is not under imperial control, it is the "fourth" faction, which is considered "pirates" or "black sun". I'd say Hutts qualify as pirates, and the dialogue says they control Nal Hutta. The fact that the game creators didn't waste the large amount of programming and disk space on creating a fifth faction for a single planet is a matter of game mechanics, which is used elsewhere to explain issues like that all over Wookieepedia. --OuroborosCobra 11:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Are there any skirmishes that take place over Nal Hutta? Can you select it as a map? --School of Thrawn 101 06:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
          • When you corrupt Nal Hutta (which is required, if I'm not mistaken), you can see all the forces that are there and the "faction". You can also choose to attack it, the game gives you that option. --OuroborosCobra 18:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Isn't the Venator in the FoC demo controlled by the Mandalorians? --59.100.222.45 06:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes, as stated both in the article, and the start of this discussion. --OuroborosCobra 07:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Are there any Venators in that Battle if you choose to attack Nal Hutta? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I have not attacked Nal Hutta directly, but as I understand it, the game shows you all units present when you corrupt a planet, and there are V-Wings, not Venators. --OuroborosCobra 07:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
                • So the Hutt Cartel used V-wings and not Venators, perhaps someone thought the V-wings were Venators? The "small" icons used to identify individual units could lead to mistakes like that, could they not? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • I doubt it. As far as I'm aware there is no V-wing icon, it uses the Z-95 icon. Besides the Venator icon is very easily identifiable as a Venator. --59.100.161.242 09:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • There is a V-wing icon, how else can one see there are V-wings on Nal Hutta without attacking it? --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 12:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
                      • Oh come on...I refuse to believe that someone could mistake a V-Wing starfighter for a Venator-class Star Destroyer. Seriously though, folks. I'm not even sure that the player can control the Venator unless they are A) The Zann Consortiom and B) Playing in a skirmish. Is there another way? --School of Thrawn 101 13:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
                        • I know it is hard to believe, I don't even believe it myself, but it's the only thing I can think of going wrong, it's either that or it's simply fanon. Although you don't have to play as the consortium, the only way to control a Venator in the game is in a skirmish. And as far as I know there are no Venators at Nal Hutta. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 14:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, well...we've beaten this to death, anyway. Let's move on, people...this matter has been decided. --School of Thrawn 101 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

thumb|Nal Hutta, no Venators, and V-Wings have their own icon.

  • I've uploaded a screenshot I just took in hopes of putting this to rest. As you can see, there are NO Venators around Nal Hutta. There ARE V-Wings, and V-Wings DO have their own icon in FoC (they do NOT use that of the Z-95). In addition, for shits and giggles, I decided to attack Nal Hutta, and I am happy to report that the forces there precisely match what is displayed in that screenshot. No Venators, lots of V-Wings (which I may add are armed with ion cannons, took me by surprise and disabled and destroyed the two Tartans I sent to deal with them). --OuroborosCobra 14:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • In what mode were you playing when you attacked Nal Hutta? (Damnit, you roped me in again!) --School of Thrawn 101 14:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The single player campaign. I would not try to make claims about canonicity from skirmish, galactic conquest, etc. --OuroborosCobra 14:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I've never tried attacking Nal Hutta, I do remember the V-wings though. Thank you for attacking Nal Hutta. I'd say that this proves it, the Hutt Cartel does not use Venators. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 16:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • If I remember correctly, you can buy Venators from Hutt space stations in skirmish...Unit 8311 10:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry to reply an old topic, but the hutt cartel did use Venators in FoC, sort of. In the piracy on Mandalore in the tutorial, there were venators classified as belonging to the hutts by the game, but actually they were part of that Mandalorian guy's private fleet. Or maybe he was allied with the Hutt Cartel and that's why. But whatev, technically I guess his private fleet would not be considered Hutt Cartel no matter what the game files say.--1upD 17:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Did that Mandalorian happen to join the Hutt Cartel? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:33, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, but the game files labeled him "Hutts" so that he would have the right player color and affiliation, which could have caused the confusion. Really, he did not join the Hutt Cartel, so the Hutt Cartel did not use Venators.--1upD 15:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

FA?

Anyone thinks this article could qualify as a featured article? Sure, it's relatively short, but I'm starting to get fed up with only character articles becoming FAs. Unit 8311 17:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I dunno if it's quite FA-worthy. Why not try a GA nom, first...try to expand a bit under the rush to fulfill req's and then submit for FA after we've at least proven it's GA worthy? --School of Thrawn 101 20:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree, there should be more non-character FA's. But I also agree with School of Thrawn 101, it's probably best to try a GA nom first, see it as a way to test if the article's is “ready” to beocme an FA. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 07:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Nominated it for GA. Let's hope it does well...Unit 8311 18:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok guys, we're very close to getting this thing approved for GA, but since Thetoastman is not answering...and Darth Windu doesn't seem to be very helpful for this article, we may need to consider other images. That's the only thing holding Greyman from voting support. --School of Thrawn 101 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been searching for this image on starwars.com but I can't seem to find it, I think it isn't there, so that image is, and will most likely remain, source less, for the rest of the relevant discussion about that image you should look here.
      I agree, other images is the only solution, at least until we can source these images. --Jedimca0 (Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Could a better image though sourceless be used instead?--Herbsewell 17:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I already sourced that particular image, so the answer is no, especially if whatever you're talking about it without a source. --School of Thrawn 101 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the Venator-class Star Destroyer Have Laser Cannons?

Marine117 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)I am a new member. However, I do know much about Star Wars vehicles, starships and weapons, and I have not seen canon information about point-defense laser cannons on the Venator-class line of ships(except on Wookieepedia). There are most definitely 8 turbolaser batteries on either side of the ship's superstructure, 2 medium turbolasers to the front of the ship, and 4 proton torpedo tubes(do not know where they are located, however).I'm not too sure about the laser cannons though, I would like to get that cleared up. Also, any word on where those torpedo tubes are located would be greatly appreciated. Marine117 01:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC) P.S I hope this comment does not have issues with Star Wars canon- it shouldn't.

According to the reference templates, the source is Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross-Sections, p. 4-5. --OuroborosCobra 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Marine117 14:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)I have not read the ROTS:ITS book yet. Is the information I'm looking for in there? please reply. P.S Any extra info on the Venator's weapons and their locations on the ship would be great, thanks.Marine117 14:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Marine117 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Oh dear, I accidentally made an error about the book title. It is ROTS: ICS, not ROTS: ITS. My apologies.Marine117 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You can edit your previous comments. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 20px 22:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The laser cannons on the Venator are a source of constant confusion, and rightly so. While hard to pick out in the movie these guns are located in the trenches of the ship (scroll up the page until you see a series of three images from ROTS to see where), and are possibly (but not certainly) part of the armament of 52 point-defence laser cannons listed in both the ROTS:ICS book and on the Offical Site. As for the torpedo launchers, they are very large and located right on the bow either side of the main hangar launch doors. These are all the weapons that Ventaors appear to have based on both movie and other available canon evidence.

Also, some of the 52 point-defence cannons are located in twin turrets on the lower trench brim. You can see all of the weapons (save the batteries we see firing from the inside during the opening battle) in the ROTS:ICS book. I reccomend you borrow it from somewhere. Hope all that helped! CommanderJB 03:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Bridge: Has it ever occured to anyone?

Has it ever occured to anyone that the Venator-class star destroyer is always shown with two bridges side by side that are completely separate from each other? However, canon sources always show a single, central, bridge for the Republic attack cruisers. This doesn't really make sense to me. How can it appears to be one single bridge in the interior of the ship, but from the exterior it clearly shows two separate bridges side by side each other that are not connected. Can someone please explain this to me? 06:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind; I guess next time I should read the whole article first instead of just skim through it... 06:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clone Wars TV Show

  • If its possible to get pictures from the TV show that would be great because there are a number of quality shots in Clone Wars Steves490 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)