Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27375
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by NecronLord »

Models are expensive. And Accies are in the later seasons, battle of Ryloth, Umbara, etc, but I don't recall them ever firing.
Elheru Aran wrote:
Esquire wrote:The ICS numbers, as far as I know, were arrived at by scaling down from film calculations; they ought to at least be in the right order of magnitude. Another vote for the Acclamator.
Amusingly, IIRC the Acclamator never fires a shot in either of the two films as far as I know...
Brian Young exhaustively breaks down how the ICS figures work.

It's not due to scaling fireballs, or scaling down from the Death Star. It's due to the speed ships move - the thousands of gravities come first, then work back to calculate the powerplant's oomph.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
U.P. Cinnabar
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3845
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by U.P. Cinnabar »

Elheru Aran wrote:Clone Wars was almost entirely Venators for some reason. No idea why.
Cool factor.
Don't recall seeing many Acclamators, though I think there was one that transported the Zillo Beast.
I recall just that one, and a couple others myself.
"Beware the Beast, Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone amongst God's primates, he kills for sport, for lust, for greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of Death.."
—29th Scroll, 6th Verse of Ape Law
"Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.”
---Doctor Christine Blasey-Ford
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Elheru Aran »

I think most of those were background bits though. Ships landing to deploy troops and vehicles, that kind of thing.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
User avatar
U.P. Cinnabar
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3845
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by U.P. Cinnabar »

Which was why I asked. I haven't seen all the episodes of TCW, and scarcely any of Rebels.
"Beware the Beast, Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone amongst God's primates, he kills for sport, for lust, for greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of Death.."
—29th Scroll, 6th Verse of Ape Law
"Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.”
---Doctor Christine Blasey-Ford
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Elheru Aran »

Thinking about it... it actually sorta makes sense to not actually see Acclamators at the forefront of things very much. They're *transports*. They do have something of a 'combat lander' role as well, but in the majority of Clone Wars, we're seeing front-lines action. Beach-heads aside, there honestly weren't a whole lot of space combats where we would have seen Acclamators in action. So it works, I guess, that we mostly saw Venators.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Adam Reynolds »

NecronLord wrote: Brian Young exhaustively breaks down how the ICS figures work.

It's not due to scaling fireballs, or scaling down from the Death Star. It's due to the speed ships move - the thousands of gravities come first, then work back to calculate the powerplant's oomph.
That is interesting, I had always assumed it was the Death Star.

Now the question is about whether there is any real wiggle room as far as acceleration is concerned.

The underlying problem is the assumption of real time in scenes involving a trip into orbit. But I don't necessarily see why we should assume this. Looking at war movies, you can find plenty of examples of such cuts being done. For a particularly bad example, look at the Transformers series. Aircraft take off in one scene and are providing air support in the next. They would often have to be hypersonic in order to pull this off.
eMeM
Padawan Learner
Posts: 236
Joined: 2016-02-21 11:50am

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by eMeM »



At least one Acclamator taking part in the Battle of Kamino, I don't think we see it firing, but I think we can assume it has some use in space combat, considering that it is in formation with Venators and the Republic is on defence.
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Adam Reynolds »

If we are going by legends evidence, Republic Commando featured a mission in which a pair of Acclamators take out a TF battleship. One of them had previously been captured and the titular commando squad reactivated its weapons battery. Though it was likely an armed transport rather than proper battleship model of the TF ship.

As for the Kamino example, it was something of a desperate defense, meaning that an Acclamator would be worth using in this context even if it wasn't very effective in space battles.
User avatar
CetaMan
Youngling
Posts: 113
Joined: 2015-08-28 02:44am
Location: Alberta, Canada (Eh?)

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by CetaMan »

Just as a note, the space battle in the intro to the "Nightsisters" episode in clone wars has a republic fleet, with a pelta and an acclamator both participating in the combat.
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16329
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Batman »

What in Valen's name is a Pelta an there were several Nightsisters' episodes even in the parts of TCW I've seen?
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Pelta (which the computer autocorrects to Peta :D) class frigate:

https://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Pelta-class_frigate
The Pelta-class frigate,[1] also known as the Republic medical frigate,[6] was a model of frigate manufactured by Kuat Drive Yards.[1] During the Clone Wars, they were used by the Republic Navy to safely ferry injured Clones to medical stations for treatment.[7]

During the Age of the Empire, the early rebellion against the Galactic Empire repurposed one Pelta-class frigate, which they named Phoenix Home, as a Rebel capital ship.[1]
It was featured in The Clone Wars and Rebels, I believe, and is thus still part of canon.

Sounds like its the ship Vader crippled in "Siege of Lothal" on Rebels.
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27375
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by NecronLord »

Adam Reynolds wrote:That is interesting, I had always assumed it was the Death Star.

Now the question is about whether there is any real wiggle room as far as acceleration is concerned.

The underlying problem is the assumption of real time in scenes involving a trip into orbit. But I don't necessarily see why we should assume this. Looking at war movies, you can find plenty of examples of such cuts being done. For a particularly bad example, look at the Transformers series. Aircraft take off in one scene and are providing air support in the next. They would often have to be hypersonic in order to pull this off.
It's not an assumption because some of the time numbers are stated on screen by technicians (IE in-universe experts).

This is the biggie:



"Standby Alert! Death Star Approaching! Estimated Time to Firing Range: Fifteen Minutes!"

Then in the next shot, they're closing in on the Death Star surface. Then they fight (and they fight and they fight and they fight) and Tarkin is eventually informed:

"Rebel base three minutes and closing!"

That means that the rebel ships must be able to accelerate past Yavin, hit mid-point, then decelerate, then 'accelerate to attack speed', all within at most, twelve minutes.

That's where the thousands of Gees comes from, and that's where the oomph of the powerplants comes from.

The only way to avoid the general tone of ICS calcs without throwing Star Wars, as in the film, out as evidence is to invoke some sort of mass-lightening technology like Star Trek has, but there's no evidence of that.

More than that, the speeds are consistent. One of the things Lucas is known for is being a director who says 'faster, quicker, zoom zoom' a lot. There's almost no examples where astounding speed isn't implied or shown. For instance the Endor battle has the rebel fleet go from this outside the window to this while they're responding to Lando's order to check in; you're quite right with what you'll say next, they could have built up momentum before they dropped out of lightspeed, but then they also manage to decelerate to an almost relative stop with the death star in that scene, and deceleration ability is also calc-able in exactly the same way and again yields stupendous figures.



You can for this one imagine there's six hours of different rebel fighter wings checking in that are cut, but that makes very little sense, given that the imperials walk Han & co out of the bunker in the next few scenes and 3PO doesn't shift from his spot, etc.

Comparatively there's almost no scene in star wars where there's grounds to think navigating around a world takes more than minutes and some extremely quick examples I've omitted.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
Adam Reynolds
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2004-03-27 04:51am

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Adam Reynolds »

Just in case you were wondering, I actually have no problem with such numbers. I merely enjoy being a contrarian on such things.

In terms of pure firepower, another option is that there is a gross inefficiency in SW weapons, but there is also no reason to assume that, apart from a desire to make SW weaker.

Though it is problematic that we often see examples of much lower firepower, even when we should see the maximum being used. In particular, we would expect to see stronger atmospheric effects if that level of energy were dumped into the atmosphere. Though there is Saxton's clever solution of neutrino generators, as well as the possibility that the physical bolt also shields the atmosphere.

Another factor to consider is that the numbers listed are the maximum, and much lower figures are commonly used out of the desire to save fuel when higher levels aren't necessary. There is also the question as to whether the ship can fully run every system at the same time. Something like a Star Destroyer might need to run at a lower speed to maintain shields and full weapons, while starfighters do not.

Though there are two problems I cannot shake. How is it even possible for human gunners to hit such a fast target? While it is obviously difficult, it is possible. With that sort of acceleration, it shouldn't be.

The second problem is from Luke's Death Star run. With an acceleration of only 1000Gs(which is a mere third of what an X-wing can likely pull), he would have traveled the entire length of the trench, from one side of the Death Star back to the starting point, in a mere 5 seconds. This is despite the fact that the dialog clearly states he is at full throttle.
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Simon_Jester »

Luke may have been on 'repulsor' power, which Star Wars small craft canonically use to operate in atmosphere and near celestial bodies.

It would be incredibly unsafe to use a 1000g acceleration rocket engine in close proximity to a large body, especially when flying down something like the Death Star trench. There is simply no way to avoid smacking into something if your speed is changing by 10 km/s every second.

Therefore, "full throttle" may in this context apply to the repulsor drive, not the ion engines.

...

In general, human pilots being able to usefully control craft with such high accelerations is always problematic. This suggests a few possible explanations:

1) The computerized support for the pilot's gunnery and navigation is more sophisticated than we think. This is probably not supported by the overall evidence.
2) When both sides are committing to action, they may both cut back their acceleration to make combat possible. The limitation here is that either side should easily be able to escape by firewalling their engines.
3) This is in my opinion most likely- that when a ship or fighter's engines are operating at accelerations of hundreds or thousands of gravity, maneuverability suffers. The power levels involved may prohibit fast or drastic changes in the direction of thrust. Therefore, the ship may be accelerating very quickly but it is not agile, and as a result can be easily targeted with computer assistance using light-speed weapons or guided missiles.

So you would use high-acceleration 'sprints' to cover long distances between celestial bodies, or to accelerate into battle quickly... but you would have to use lower accelerations during combat, to preserve your own ability to dodge and maneuver and make multiple attack runs rather than a single firing pass.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Elheru Aran »

Simon_Jester wrote:Luke may have been on 'repulsor' power, which Star Wars small craft canonically use to operate in atmosphere and near celestial bodies.

It would be incredibly unsafe to use a 1000g acceleration rocket engine in close proximity to a large body, especially when flying down something like the Death Star trench. There is simply no way to avoid smacking into something if your speed is changing by 10 km/s every second.

Therefore, "full throttle" may in this context apply to the repulsor drive, not the ion engines.

...
So you would use high-acceleration 'sprints' to cover long distances between celestial bodies, or to accelerate into battle quickly... but you would have to use lower accelerations during combat, to preserve your own ability to dodge and maneuver and make multiple attack runs rather than a single firing pass.
High acceleration might be an option in open space combat (though you might run into issues with turn radiuses, albeit in 'real' space versus Star Wars space, there should be the option of a zero turn radius...) but flying a few metres over the surface of the Death Star, with walls of steel on either side? Hell yes you're not going to go full-out. Go fast enough that the guns can't just swat you out of the sky, fast enough that you're not a sitting duck for enemy fighters... but not so fast that your reflexes can't keep up. They were still manually firing the proton torpedoes when the targeting computer told them to, not letting the computer fire them (Red Leader distinctly presses a trigger, as does Luke). Presumably that might have to avoid jamming sending signals like "fire all weapons" to deplete enemy stocks.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
User avatar
NecronLord
Harbinger of Doom
Harbinger of Doom
Posts: 27375
Joined: 2002-07-07 06:30am
Location: The Lost City

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by NecronLord »

Adam Reynolds wrote:Just in case you were wondering, I actually have no problem with such numbers. I merely enjoy being a contrarian on such things.

In terms of pure firepower, another option is that there is a gross inefficiency in SW weapons, but there is also no reason to assume that, apart from a desire to make SW weaker.

Though it is problematic that we often see examples of much lower firepower, even when we should see the maximum being used. In particular, we would expect to see stronger atmospheric effects if that level of energy were dumped into the atmosphere. Though there is Saxton's clever solution of neutrino generators, as well as the possibility that the physical bolt also shields the atmosphere.
The man himself can answer this.
SWTC wrote:Many fighters demonstrate firepower much less than their engine (kinetic) power (considering their accelerations and likely estimates of ship's mass). For example a fighter that fires kiloton-scale laser cannon shots up to several times per second may actually exhibit engine power equivalent to a thousand of these shots per second. The reasons for this apparent discrepancy are due to the differences between the scales and internal structures of a tiny fighter and a flagrantly spacious naval vessel. In small-scale ships the reactors may really be inseparable from the engines, with tenuous plasma emerging from the reactor feeding into the ion drives. As such the reactor power and engine power are linked directly. However the power feeds to the weapons are indirect. They may carry lesser power fluxes than the conduits in a warship, due to inefficiencies of the compact scale. Heat dissipation is likely to be a crucial limiting factor in starfighter weaponry. Machinery and conduits that are only centimetres thick may be unable to pass power at multi-megaton-per-second rates. The tiniest inefficiencies would quickly lead to the accumulation of enough heat to melt the entire structure. The prevalence of radiators and unfolding wings in many starfighter designs demonstrates the critical importance of heat disposal. It is also possible that the energy weapons' recoil forces are a structural challenge on starfighter-scale craft (especially for guns mounted on thin wings).
Source here.

I like this explanation well.
Adam Reynolds wrote:Another factor to consider is that the numbers listed are the maximum, and much lower figures are commonly used out of the desire to save fuel when higher levels aren't necessary. There is also the question as to whether the ship can fully run every system at the same time. Something like a Star Destroyer might need to run at a lower speed to maintain shields and full weapons, while starfighters do not.

Though there are two problems I cannot shake. How is it even possible for human gunners to hit such a fast target? While it is obviously difficult, it is possible. With that sort of acceleration, it shouldn't be.
Inapplicable. An unaided human pilot couldn't fly such craft at all without lots of computer assist. Watch Apollo 13:

This is a dramatization of literally the only reentry ever attempted on manual and it was an amazing feat of flying, done by the best pilots in the world. You couldn't fill an air force with Jim Lovells. There must be comprehensive computer assistance in all star wars space fighters at all times.

Han was not kidding; shutting down the computer was literally one in a million and proof positive that Luke possesses supernatural power beyond doubt. Han never doubts him again, notice.
The second problem is from Luke's Death Star run. With an acceleration of only 1000Gs(which is a mere third of what an X-wing can likely pull), he would have traveled the entire length of the trench, from one side of the Death Star back to the starting point, in a mere 5 seconds. This is despite the fact that the dialog clearly states he is at full throttle.
Attack speed is clearly less than maximum velocity. Happily the Brian Young explanation of shields (that fighters get away with so much because they travel below the shield trigger threshold) explains this too. If he opened up the throttle, he would run a serious risk of hitting something that'd splash him instantly, and his torpedos would never have passed through the ray shield due to their initial velocity.
Superior Moderator - BotB - HAB [Drill Instructor]-Writer- Stardestroyer.net's resident Star-God.
"We believe in the systematic understanding of the physical world through observation and experimentation, argument and debate and most of all freedom of will." ~ Stargate: The Ark of Truth
User avatar
Abacus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 597
Joined: 2009-10-30 09:08pm

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Abacus »

ROUND FIVE

Winner:

Acclamator-class Assault Ship
Image
Specifications



ROUND SIX


Liberator-class Cruiser
Image
Specifications

V.S.

Venator-class Star Destroyer
Image
Specifications
"Does the walker choose the path, or the path the walker?"
User avatar
RogueIce
_______
Posts: 13385
Joined: 2003-01-05 01:36am
Location: Tampa Bay, Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by RogueIce »

We can't say because those Liberator stats are bunk. What they did was take the game weapon ratings and act as if they were a literal count, which is clearly not the case - otherwise the ISD II would have 500 heavy TLs and 500 ion cannons, which is not reflected by any other source.

All that could really be said is that it can carry six squadrons of fighters. Everything else is game mechanic nonsense and vague fluff about "advanced" engines, sensors, etc.
Image
"How can I wait unknowing?
This is the price of war,
We rise with noble intentions,
And we risk all that is pure..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, Forever (Rome: Total War)

"On and on, through the years,
The war continues on..." - Angela & Jeff van Dyck, We Are All One (Medieval 2: Total War)
"Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgment that something else is more important than fear." - Ambrose Redmoon
"You either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." - Harvey Dent, The Dark Knight
User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37389
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Being a pure carrier it is rather hard to see how the Liberator would stand up to ships which have similar numbers of fighters, but also heavy main batteries for ship to ship battles. Don't really need specifications to determine this. Its simply a lesser scale of warship. Meanwhile the Venator replaced the Acclamator, and it seems very unlikely that its ship to ship capabilities were downgraded in the process.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Esquire
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-11-16 11:20pm

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Esquire »

Purely as a thought exercise - if ISD game stats : ISD technical specs :: Liberator game stats : Liberator technical specs, then the Liberator ought to have thirty 'heavy' turbolasers with no geometrically-possible alpha arc, as compared with an ISD's sixty and a fairly good one. However, since it's significantly smaller than an ISD, (and since we can't see a even a proportionally-large reactor bulb) it must have much less energy available to put through its barrels. This is in keeping with the Liberator's stated antipiracy mission which, while almost certainly a cover story for Rebel activities, couldn't have been deviated from too obviously lest Imperial watchdogs notice that the Sullustans were building a battlefleet to challenge the Imperial Navy.

In comparison, the Venator has sixteen heavy guns, but can, per its Wookiepedia page, divert nearly its entire (much greater than the Liberator's) reactor output through them. If I were guessing, I'd say that the Venator is designed for concentrated fire against one (or a very few) relatively close-range targets, relying on its vast fighter complement for defense against lighter enemies or, conversely, providing an extremely threatening distraction for component strikes on the offensive. The Liberator, meanwhile, appears to have been designed for simultaneous engagements against numerous individually-weaker opponents, or else long-range duels where a larger number of barrels means a higher chance of doing any damage at all. A raiding cruiser against a monitor, (minus their respective fighter forces), if you will. I give this to the Venator in any plausible single-ship engagement, and its margin for victory would only increase in larger actions.
“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Elheru Aran »

It's also worth noting that Republic fighters seem to be slightly 'harder' than Imperial fighters; they've got Y-wings, ARC-170s, V-wings, Z-95s, and LAATs (okay, the LAAT isn't a fighter, but presumably the Venator might be able to use it in a boarding action...) on hand, all (IIRC) of which have shields. So it's possible that even if the Venator carries less fighters, they might come out better against the Liberator due to their fighters being able to take more damage.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
User avatar
Esquire
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1581
Joined: 2011-11-16 11:20pm

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Esquire »

A Venator carries several wings' worth of fighters, to the Liberator's six squadrons. Why pick quality or quantity when you can have both?
“Heroes are heroes because they are heroic in behavior, not because they won or lost.” Nassim Nicholas Taleb
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Elheru Aran »

Well I couldn't recall exactly how many fighters the Ven carries, plus I was in too much of a rush to click the link, so :P but yes, if the Ven has a bunch of fighters, no reason they couldn't keep the Liberator's squadrons tied up with ease.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16329
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Versus Series: Ship Combat in Star Wars

Post by Batman »

Elheru Aran wrote:It's also worth noting that Republic fighters seem to be slightly 'harder' than Imperial fighters; they've got Y-wings, ARC-170s, V-wings, Z-95s, and LAATs (okay, the LAAT isn't a fighter, but presumably the Venator might be able to use it in a boarding action...) on hand, all (IIRC) of which have shields. So it's possible that even if the Venator carries less fighters, they might come out better against the Liberator due to their fighters being able to take more damage.
Um...the Liberator is a Rebel Alliance craft.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Post Reply