Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

[Abacus]

Based on the rather convincing argument made by NecronLord, I think we can safely say round two has been ended rather more quickly than some might have expected.

ROUND TWO: Munificent-class Star Frigate versus Assault Frigate Mk. 1

Winner: Munificent-class Star Frigate

Separatists are going two for two!

-------------------------


ROUND THREE

Patrol and escort ships matter just as much as the big boys!

Raider-class Corvette

Specifications

V.S.

CR90 Corvette

Specifications[/quote]

[Adam Reynolds]

Could the Dreadnought class defeat a Nebulon B? I believe the answer was yes the last time it was asked.

The idea of a a weapon that charges up in that fashion nicely fits the observed performance in Clone Wars, in which CIS fleets are either extremely effective or worthless. They are often especially effective on the offense, which works nicely from a dramatic standpoint.

As for the current matchup, it largely depends on which version of the CR-90 one is talking about. If it is a version like Leia's that is oriented towards diplomacy and secondary functions rather than combat, it would loose. The predecessor, that of the Consular-class, had similar variation, with one version unarmed and another sufficiently well armed to be used as a frigate in Republic fleets. If one is talking about the warship version it is likely a draw from what I see, with a nearly identical weapon loadout.

Though if one was really interested in cheating, one could make the CR90 the Night Caller fully loaded with X-wings, the Loran spitball might even one shot the opposition.

One downside of the CR90 is that their engines make it vulnerable to being engaged from the rear. Though looking at the Raider class, that likely applies there as well. In general I suspect it would be a draw, given that the Raider class was deliberately intended to be an exact match for a game. The Raider class might have a slight edge as a result of both the dagger shape and the fact that it is a dedicated warship as opposed to a heavily modified design.

The ISD carries a range of other stuff, prefab garrison bases, AT-ATs and their landing barge. Sentinel Landers. A whole bunch more stuff.

True, the ISD was a generalist, with the GAR using a mix of mostly Venators for fleet actions and mostly Acclamators for planetary assaults. It allowed them a vastly larger fighter complement, at least on paper. I also wonder about how effective some of the Clone Wars designs actually were, given that they were likely rush designs. I also wonder if the Empire ever used hyperspace rings, in the random department?

Going with the permeable shield theory, I wonder if smaller planetary assault craft could actually push through planetary shields to some extent, after they were locally weakened by bombardment. It would fit with the similar weakening shown before the droid assault in The Phantom Menace. Such a function might even be what Executor is optimized for.

[Abacus]

I guess I didn't make it clear enough: all ships in question will be warships and outfitted as such. So, no, no diplomatic-versions.

[Batman]

How exactly is the Munificent the winner when the Dreadnaught outpowers it by an order of magnitude?

[Adam Reynolds]

How exactly is the Munificent the winner when the Dreadnaught outpowers it by an order of magnitude?

Perhaps he is thinking about the advantage of the main gun, but that is one of those things that either results in instant victory or is useless. So this match up would go either way, depending on whether the Munificent gets a shot off first.

[Crazedwraith]

Amusing that the only two people who commented on the match up said the Dreadnought would win. Including Necronlord who Abacus cited when saying the Munificent would win.

[Esquire]

*cough*

Let's stay on topic, eh?

*cough*

Let's be a little less condescending, eh? Nobody disagreed with the arguments for the Assault Frigate and there wasn't a new matchup yet. Threads wander.

Anyway: I make it 6 dual heavy lasers mounts on the dorsal hull (no sign of any on the ventral and Wookiepedia lists 6 as the total) for the Raider, plus an indeterminate number of turbolasers - I can only assume that the strange-looking bit amidships is their mounting, making for 2 turrets with extremely strange firing arcs, ion cannon likewise, and based on some pictures Google Images throws up, several torpedo/missile tubes. It's an antifighter design and that shows in the armament.

Meanwhile, the CR90 has either two or six double turbolaser turrets; in the former case it's two doubles and four single emplacements. It's apparently built to fight other corvettes, leading me to give this one to the Rebels unless there's a large power or durability discrepancy.

[NecronLord]

Based on the rather convincing argument made by NecronLord, I think we can safely say round two has been ended rather more quickly than some might have expected.

ROUND TWO: Munificent-class Star Frigate versus Assault Frigate Mk. 1

Winner: Munificent-class Star Frigate

But... the Assault Frigate was the winner?

Separatists are going two for two!

ROUND THREE

Patrol and escort ships matter just as much as the big boys!

Raider-class Corvette
Specifications

V.S.

CR90 Corvette
Specifications

The raider was created to serve a balanced role in the FFG X-wing game as an imperial equivalent to the CR90. As far as I am aware, they are a match in all significant respects.

1:1 parity, crew quality and luck determines outcome.

I also wonder if the Empire ever used hyperspace rings, in the random department?

I've wanted to see a TIE hyperspace ring for a while.

[Abacus]

Revised.

ROUND TWO: Munificent-class Star Frigate versus Assault Frigate Mk. 1

Winner: Assault Frigate Mk. 1


Round Three is still going.

[Elheru Aran]

I also wonder if the Empire ever used hyperspace rings, in the random department?

I've wanted to see a TIE hyperspace ring for a while.

The V-wing did use hyperspace rings, IIRC. See Clone Wars, notably the episode where they try to capture Cad Bane, and he escapes in a V-wing. That's probably as close as you're going to get though. The Imperials seem to prefer built-in hyperdrives. There were (well, at least one) episodes in Clone Wars where Jedi couldn't get away because their hyperdrive ring got blown away.

[Abacus]

Any more debate over Round Three: Raider-class versus CR90?

[FTeik]

Doesn't the Raider-class carry a half or full squadron of TIE-fighters?

Even without I would give this to the Raider - it is a purpose-built warship, not a modified version of an originally civilian design, it has better gun-distribution and - at least in the Legends-verse - the dagger-shaped hull allows for a superior shield-configuration (AotC:ICS). Also with those huge heat-radiators (if they are that) the Raider must have an enormous power-output, certainly a lot more than other vessels of comparable size. Aside from fighters there are no vessels (certainly no capital ships), that have those things.

[NecronLord]

Doesn't the Raider-class carry a half or full squadron of TIE-fighters?

Even without I would give this to the Raider - it is a purpose-built warship, not a modified version of an originally civilian design, it has better gun-distribution and - at least in the Legends-verse - the dagger-shaped hull allows for a superior shield-configuration (AotC:ICS). Also with those huge heat-radiators (if they are that) the Raider must have an enormous power-output, certainly a lot more than other vessels of comparable size. Aside from fighters there are no vessels (certainly no capital ships), that have those things.

They're not heat radiators. They're solar panels.

You and I know that's dumb, but the content creators don't. If anything they indicate inferior power.

[Adam Reynolds]

Even without I would give this to the Raider - it is a purpose-built warship, not a modified version of an originally civilian design, it has better gun-distribution and - at least in the Legends-verse - the dagger-shaped hull allows for a superior shield-configuration (AotC:ICS). Also with those huge heat-radiators (if they are that) the Raider must have an enormous power-output, certainly a lot more than other vessels of comparable size. Aside from fighters there are no vessels (certainly no capital ships), that have those things.

Wasn't the Correlian Corvette also a military design? It seems to be an evolution of the Republic cruiser design used in TPM and turned into a proper warship in Clone Wars. Though I agree the design is less effecient in comparison to the dagger shape.

Though do we know if the Corellian Corvette is faster? It is often known as a blockade runner, which would imply that it is relatively fast in comparison to other ships of similar size.

They're not heat radiators. They're solar panels.

You and I know that's dumb, but the content creators don't. If anything they indicate inferior power.

The fact that this is the official explanation doesn't mean we have to accept it under SOD.

We can always say that it was inaccurate technical information based on either deliberate misrepresentation, classified materials, or a simple mistake. More than one technical book in reality has had foolish errors of this sort. Especially since the ones we read are equivalent to popular books, like the DK nonfiction cross section books. I'm sure they have a few gross errors on that level.

[NecronLord]

Though I agree the design is less effecient in comparison to the dagger shape.

How? If anything it has better fields of fire as it has heavy guns top and bottom, with 360 degree traverse. There's no approach apart from directly behind where it can't put 50% of its heavy guns on you. The raider has no heavy guns; fly under it, it cannot return fire.

Though do we know if the Corellian Corvette is faster? It is often known as a blockade runner, which would imply that it is relatively fast in comparison to other ships of similar size.

Those are some great big engines.

Here are the game-stats; essentially they're both extremely close together, the CR90 has longer weapons range, the Raider a little better armed and shielded.

Core Rulebook
Huge ship rules
(These are legal downloads; they link to the publishers' site)

The Raider is 100 points while the CR90 is 90 (heh), but it all comes down to what commander you put on the ship in-game. There's no clear winner of this matchup, and each has its advantages. It's entirely possible for the CR-90 to keep out of weapons range for the raider and pound it down, or for the Raider to get the jump on it and win through superior shielding, it all depends on the scenario.

[Eternal_Freedom]

As I recall, the OTICS entry for the corvette stated that ti's eleven huge engines gave it "an excellent power to weight ratio" meaning that "what it can't shoot down it can outrun."

[Rhadamantus]

Though I agree the design is less effecient in comparison to the dagger shape.

How? If anything it has better fields of fire as it has heavy guns top and bottom, with 360 degree traverse. There's no approach apart from directly behind where it can't put 50% of its heavy guns on you. The raider has no heavy guns; fly under it, it cannot return fire.

Though do we know if the Corellian Corvette is faster? It is often known as a blockade runner, which would imply that it is relatively fast in comparison to other ships of similar size.

The raider can roll. This is space. Meanwhile, the Corvette can't engage with more than 1/2 of its guns at any point.

[NecronLord]

The raider can roll.

Assuming it's using engines and not repulsors.



Star wars ships push up in a defined direction on their repulsors and can't flip safely in atmospheric combat, which happens fairly regularly. That's concept for a clone wars episode, and yes, that battle took place. The battle of Coruscant happened partly in atmosphere in some accounts, as did Geonosis and several battles in Rebels.

This is space. Meanwhile, the Corvette can't engage with more than 1/2 of its guns at any point.

Except y'know, forward or either side, fuckface.

In point of fact it can focus 100% of its main battery into a broadside while the raider cannot; the raider can only fire all its guns forward or dorsally; the imperial wedges trade 100% heavy dorsal firepower for only having 50% broadside firepower and minimal ventral firepower.

God I hate wedgewankers who don't understand why the wedge design is supposedly good in the first place. The likes of Mon Cals, Seperatist ships and Dreadnoughts are incomparably worse in weapons placement, but this, this is not; it's actually superior coverage on most approches.

[Patroklos]

In point of fact it can focus 100% of its main battery into a broadside while the raider cannot; the raider can only fire all its guns forward or dorsally; the imperial wedges trade 100% heavy dorsal firepower for only having 50% broadside firepower and minimal ventral firepower.

You are not really helping your argument here. You are basically saying the Raider has 100% of its firepower over a good portion of a hemisphere (a bit less to to the wedge masking some portion aft and of course a lot more due to the angle of the dorsal ridge), while the Corvette can only do the same fore a 270ish degree band around its now bow/sides.

I would have to do a more detailed analysis of the volumes where each have 100% coverage, but its going to be hard for the Corvette to beat the Raider unless it has some extreme depression for those turbolasers (from the looks of it, they can depress their barrels maybe ten degrees).

The situation for each is not necessarily a weakness either. The Raider is pretty much all or nothing for most if its arcs, but if it is meant to be an offensive pursuit craft it should expect to be picking battles and having them take place within those arcs. For Imperial wedge warships, where they can expect to have superiority in numbers and pick and choose the nature of engagements, blind spots are less of an issue since they can be covered via formations or picking their attack profile. For the corvette, at least how we see it used, it is the one getting assaulted and it has to be able to respond to an unknown threat axis (though its complete vulnerability aft makes it a poor blockade runner in my opinion). This is basically the story for most Rebel and Imperial warships. They are designed to do different things.

[NecronLord]

You are not really helping your argument here. You are basically saying the Raider has 100% of its firepower over a good portion of a hemisphere (a bit less to to the wedge masking some portion aft and of course a lot more due to the angle of the dorsal ridge), while the Corvette can only do the same fore a 270ish degree band around its now bow/sides.

How damning. If only ships didn't line up on flat planes to do battle pretty regularly.

And no, when checking the movie, it can fire almost directly aft with both heavy guns too. Ventral turret fires and dorsal turret fires; there's some manner of blind spot but at least against larger targets, it's 100% aft too, though you could say that the ship is changing attitude relative to the destroyer in which case it would only be 50%, but that's still 50% more than the other one.

Yes, the 'dorsal hemisphere' argument applies for the raider, but only at the penalty of having a completely weapons-free ventral hemipshere. More importantly in actual filmed star wars, a ship is vastly more likely to need a strong broadside than a strong topside, and where that's not possible the 'roll the ship' argument applies equally well to the CR90.

I would have to do a more detailed analysis of the volumes where each have 100% coverage, but its going to be hard for the Corvette to beat the Raider unless it has some extreme depression for those turbolasers (from the looks of it, they can depress their barrels maybe ten degrees).

The situation for each is not necessarily a weakness either. The Raider is pretty much all or nothing for most if its arcs, but if it is meant to be an offensive pursuit craft it should expect to be picking battles and having them take place within those arcs. For Imperial wedge warships, where they can expect to have superiority in numbers and pick and choose the nature of engagements, blind spots are less of an issue since they can be covered via formations or picking their attack profile.

For the corvette, at least how we see it used, it is the one getting assaulted and it has to be able to respond to an unknown threat axis (though its complete vulnerability aft makes it a poor blockade runner in my opinion). This is basically the story for most Rebel and Imperial warships. They are designed to do different things.

You're aware this is a thread which admits legends evidence, right? And that means that the CR-90 is the most common corvette in Imperial Service. There's even a CR90 called Imperator.

Again, it's a draw, it comes down to the luck, tactics and skill on both sides.

[Patroklos]

How damning. If only ships didn't line up on flat planes to do battle pretty regularly.

What the hell are you smoking? Do these ships look like they are lined up on a single plane here?



This one?



???



Maybe you meant this one...oh wait....



I got it! nope...



This?



How about here?



Here?



What about this one?



I think you are mistaking maintaining a consistent aspect to a plane as the same thing as being on the same plane. They are quite obviously not on the same plane, with every ship in those images having targets above and below them where concentrated firepower in those arcs would be just as target rich as front and back or side to side.

Have the standards of this site degraded so far that someone can just casually try and toss out the realities of 3D space combat? Even in Star Trek, arguably the worst abuser of the unrealistic " we all meet on the same plane/are oriented to the same plane" stupidity, we get the nugget from STII that despite what we see in universe tacticians are not THAT stupid.

And no, when checking the movie, it can fire almost directly aft with both heavy guns too. Ventral turret fires and dorsal turret fires; there's some manner of blind spot but at least against larger targets, it's 100% aft too, though you could say that the ship is changing attitude relative to the destroyer in which case it would only be 50%, but that's still 50% more than the other one.

First, we are comparing full firepower arcs (at least I was and specifically stated this), and these images do not show this. Even the reduced aft firing arcs the CR90 does have are mostly 50% firepower.

Is there a reason to prefer full power fire over less than that? I don't think we have too much canon proof one way or the other, but I feel it would be stupid to assume less concentrated firepower is preferred if you can have one or the other. Why? Maybe it is as simple as a game mechanic with DPS. Maybe shields and armor can shrug off firepower that is under a certain percentage of their overall power outright (like BB armor to low caliber shells). Maybe you can achieve local burn through on an area of a shield. Who knows. Is there a good reason to deliver something less than full power in a one on one fight to the death?

Second, your provided images prove exactly what I said. You will note in the dorsal shot it is clearly having to avoid shooting off its own sensor dish. It can shoot at the Devastator not because it has a good aft firing arc, but because the ISD is so damn big + is so damn close it blots out a significant part of the sky. However, a Raider is not that big and unless it is trying to capture the CR90 in question it has no need to be that close. It, and any ship including an ISD that maintains any reasonably tactical distance of only a couple dozen kilometers will easily hide behind the CR90s ample rear blind spot.



Does that look like a small cone to you? No. Smaller than the Raiders ventral blind spot. Certainly. The question is does that matter to the missions it is expected to take on. In this thread, however, the question is does it matter in one on one combat to the death.

Yes, the 'dorsal hemisphere' argument applies for the raider, but only at the penalty of having a completely weapons-free ventral hemipshere. More importantly in actual filmed star wars, a ship is vastly more likely to need a strong broadside than a strong topside, and where that's not possible the 'roll the ship' argument applies equally well to the CR90.

What the hell are you talking about. There is ZERO evidence to support this. Most of the ship combat we see involves two vessels in chases, and for obvious reasons its the forward and rear firing arcs that matter there.

However, when we see actual filmed broadside exchanges like here again:



and here...



The frames themselves show that there were plenty of targets in other firing arcs, they just happened to be firing in the broadside arc at that moment. Hell, we don't even know if that is the only arc they are engaging in the case of the first one.

As for the rolling, sure it does apply to both. No one said it didn't. But if your intent is to roll for the purpose of bringing 100% of the firepower to bear, obviously having larger arcs where that is possible makes that easier and provides for greater tactical possibilities.

You're aware this is a thread which admits legends evidence, right? And that means that the CR-90 is the most common corvette in Imperial Service. There's even a CR90 called Imperator.

And this proves what? Do we know what percentage of Imperial tonnage or ship numbers is made of of corvettes? For all we know it could be 1% of either. In the US PCs make up far less than 1% of either (that doesn't change if you include LCSs either).

What we do know is that the Imperials have vastly more ships than the Rebellion, and this becomes more true the more you move backwards from Endor. We know at Endor the massed Rebel fleet expected to be boot stomped by a tiny fraction of Imperial conventional fleet power from the words of their own Admiral.

The Empire has more ships, and we know they are the ones chasing the rebels (evidenced in two of three movies). It is reasonable to postulate they build them with the object of offensive pursuit and with the assumption they have ships for formations available? Absolutely. Does the same situation make having ships with more distributed firing arcs? Yep.

Again, it's a draw, it comes down to the luck, tactics and skill on both sides.

Agreed, that doesn't excuse you from making ridiculous statements.

[Simon_Jester]

Given the hullform of the Corellian Corvette with its massive engine block, there is basically no way to avoid having a large blind spot astern where the guns cannot fire. I suspect the theory is that if you are behind the a CR90 at long range, said CR90 will probably escape you fast enough that it not being able to shoot back won't matter... and that if you're behind it at short range to exploit the blind spot as a fighter, you're probably in position to get fried by the engine wash or something.

If the CR90 were being deliberately used as an attack craft, the logical approach would be to use superior acceleration to control the range and fire broadside from both turret guns, although in that case you'd really want some heavier ordnance to throw (think like a torpedo boat). Alternatively, the ship would make a decent antifighter escort, being too large for fighters to kill easily except by expending munitions they would normally use on higher-value targets, and able to support a fairly heavy armament of fighterweight weapons, while probably having power-to-weight as good as if not better than most fighters we see in the series.

The Raider-class looks like it has the same narrow alpha arc as typical Star Destroyer-derivative designs, so I really cannot see any way for it to come out ahead in concentration of firepower. Except for a fairly narrow stripe running from 'straight ahead' up in an arc to 'straight above,' the turrets can't all bear at once. However, the Raider may well win on volume of fire in a pounding match, I don't know. Given that it is designed more or less purely as a warship while the CR90 is a fast transport modified for combat or blockade running, I'd expect that.

[NecronLord]

What the hell are you smoking? Do these ships look like they are lined up on a single plane here?

I think you are mistaking maintaining a consistent aspect to a plane as the same thing as being on the same plane.

Gladly Conceded!

They are quite obviously not on the same plane, with every ship in those images having targets above and below them where concentrated firepower in those arcs would be just as target rich as front and back or side to side.

Have the standards of this site degraded so far that someone can just casually try and toss out the realities of 3D space combat? Even in Star Trek, arguably the worst abuser of the unrealistic " we all meet on the same plane/are oriented to the same plane" stupidity, we get the nugget from STII that despite what we see in universe tacticians are not THAT stupid.

The standards of this site have gone up, in that we're not, or at least I'm not, keen to disingenuously talk about the optimal way for a starship to fight, and then claim that star wars ships do that - remember when it was common to claim that Star Wars battles happen at light-second ranges and that the films just happen to show the exceptions?

Second, your provided images prove exactly what I said. You will note in the dorsal shot it is clearly having to avoid shooting off its own sensor dish. It can shoot at the Devastator not because it has a good aft firing arc, but because the ISD is so damn big + is so damn close it blots out a significant part of the sky. However, a Raider is not that big and unless it is trying to capture the CR90 in question it has no need to be that close. It, and any ship including an ISD that maintains any reasonably tactical distance of only a couple dozen kilometers will easily hide behind the CR90s ample rear blind spot.

Does that look like a small cone to you? No. Smaller than the Raiders ventral blind spot. Certainly. The question is does that matter to the missions it is expected to take on. In this thread, however, the question is does it matter in one on one combat to the death.

Mhm, feel like doing one of those for the Raider? I'm not even convinced its guns can elevate in that they pop out of the hull and have a large armoured plate on them.

Link.

I rather like the Raider, but I'm not sure it's actually got good firing arcs at all.

What the hell are you talking about. There is ZERO evidence to support this. Most of the ship combat we see involves two vessels in chases, and for obvious reasons its the forward and rear firing arcs that matter there.

I was considering engagements where ships of approximate parity meet, where usually it's a meeting engagement.

However, when we see actual filmed broadside exchanges like here again:

and here...

The frames themselves show that there were plenty of targets in other firing arcs, they just happened to be firing in the broadside arc at that moment. Hell, we don't even know if that is the only arc they are engaging in the case of the first one.

As for the rolling, sure it does apply to both. No one said it didn't. But if your intent is to roll for the purpose of bringing 100% of the firepower to bear, obviously having larger arcs where that is possible makes that easier and provides for greater tactical possibilities.

Now that I look at the raider I'm not sure its guns can even elevate so... yeah.

And this proves what? Do we know what percentage of Imperial tonnage or ship numbers is made of of corvettes? For all we know it could be 1% of either. In the US PCs make up far less than 1% of either (that doesn't change if you include LCSs either).

The point of mentioning that was to contrast what they are built for as a mission; the CR90's manufacturers are also counting on having imperial resources and manpower, because it's also an Imperial craft.

The CR90 is a personnel and high value transport; for instance Vice Admiral Thrawn used one to travel. But it's not built to be an insurgent craft.

The Raider is optimised to fight against small-craft; they were originally going to use a Lancer class but realized it was too big for the miniatures game.

[hunter5]

The Armada version of the Raider and CR90 are really only different in three ways the Raider has one more attack dice on its forward arc, the CR90 has overall longer range, and the Raider has one more shield on the rear arc. I call this a draw overall the two craft are almost equal in speed weapons and defence.

[Abacus]

ROUND THREE: Raider-class Corvette versus CR90 Corvette

Winner: N/A, It's A Tie

Based on the arguments presented and extent, I will rule that this contest is a tie. Both ships are agile and capable of, in an even fight, getting the upper hand -- meaning neither can. It's likely that in such a contest both would become far too damaged to affect a favorable outcome.