Endurance Mk II-class Fleet Carrier
Name/Type: Endurance-class Mk II Fleet Carrier
Designer/Manufacturer: R.E.C. / Contegorian Confederation
Designation: Fleet Carrier
Crew: 4,295 + 166 Gunners
Length: 1040 meters
Speed: 12 MGLT, 1000 Kph
Hyperdrive: x1
Shield Rating: 6000 SBD + 6000 SBD Backup
Hull Rating: 3200 RU
Weapons: 24 Turbolaser Cannons, 24 Ion Cannons, 20 Rotary Caltrop 5 Launchers, 20 Tractor Beams, 4 Assault Concussion Missile Launchers.
Fighter Complement: 18 Squadrons (216 Medium Fighters or equivalent).
Troops: 5,625 Troopers, 25 Ares-class Heavy Tanks, 50 Sentinel-class Medium Tanks.
Support Craft: 12 Y-4 Raptor Transports.
Basic Description: The Endurance Mk II-class Fleet Carrier is a Confederation-specific upgrade to the Endurance-class Fleet Carrier, originally produced by Republic Engineering Corporation for use by the New Republic Defense Force. As it name suggests, the Endurance Mk II is designed to serve as a mobile base for hundreds of starfighters, much like its New Republic predecessor. However, the Mk II is significantly different because of different emphasis within ship based on standard Confederation Fleet doctrine.
Whereas the Mk I was solely a fighter carrier, the Mk II is essentially an assault carrier; carrying heavier armor, weapons, and significant ground forces at the expense of its fighter complement and shield strength; much like the Venator-class Star Destroyer of the Old Republic. The pride of the carrier is it three half-wings of starfighters. One half-wing is composed of fighters for close-range assault, another for long-range superiority, and another half-wing is mission specific. Also within its cavernous hold is a significant ground force of slightly over two brigades along accompanied by an armored battalion.
Technical Description: The hull of the Mk II is the largest change of the ship compared to its predecessor. In order to make it more battle-worthy and accommodate the new ground forces, heavily reinforced and armored bulkheads were installed throughout the ship. This makes the ship more difficult to damage once the main armor is destroyed and also contains internal explosions if they do occur from sabotage or an ordinance accident. The main armor itself has been essentially doubled, not a difficult task considering how the Mk I was rather thin-skinned, making the Endurance capable of withstanding far more concentrated and powerful attacks. In addition, Confederate engineers have added in Electric Reactive Armor employed by KDI built vessels, making the warship exceptionally durable against explosive attacks. Compounding its resistance to physical attacks, the carrier also employs Anti-Concussion Field generators like the Revanche Star Defenders. The armament of the Endurance Mk II is essentially the same as the Mk I, but in greater quantities. The only difference between the two has been the replacement of the Mk I’s laser cannons in exchange for Caltrop Five Flechette Launchers employed in rotary mounts of five.
Role and Deployment: Endurance Mk IIs are typically employed in larger Confederation fleets to provide extensive, and flexible, fighter support throughout the fleet. In addition, they are also deployed to ferry around ground forces whether it be invasion, simple deployment, or evacuation. It is theorized by Confederation strategists that Mk IIs will act as command ships for smaller squadrons, much like its predecessor.
Comments
#33 3:05am 21/11/07
Discussion and declaration are worlds apart.
Your opinions are welcome, encouraged as Zell said. Quasi-flame nefariousness is not.
More then once, throughout this thread, parties have reduced themselves to making obligatory judgments and personal insults. Where a stalemate is reached, the issue need not degenerate in to attacks on ones character, nor continue in the fashion of beating a long dead horse.
"My ship is blue," says One.
"It cannot be," replies Two. "I will not accept it."
"Screw you, it's blue."
"No, blue does not exist. You cannot use blue," says Two, trite now.
One, exasperated, shoots Two in the groin, "No, you can't use blue," he snaps, "or your penis!"
#32 2:11am 21/11/07
The problem here is not that there was a discussion. Discussion is not only acceptable, it's encouraged. That's the reason we have these types of threads. The problem with this thread is that it turned into a quasi-flame war for no fucking reason.
If you disagree with the design Corise is working in, say so and save the flames. Does anyone here think Corise is such an ass hole that you can't just talk to him like an adult? Drayson, learn to talk to people without being an ass hole. Many times you do have legitimate points but they're overshadowed by the fact that you come across as such a prick.
So, discuss? Yes. Flame? No.
If anyone has any comments to add about Corise's reduction of the troop complement, feel free to discuss whether or not you believe this to be feasible. Like Wes said, this is the place to discuss these things so that they don't blow up in our collective faces later. But be civil, and act like the adults that some of you are.
#31 1:56am 21/11/07
[QUOTE=Beff Pike]This is where, as a member of the Staff and Moderator, I step in.
Stop this inane volley. Read the rules.
Corise could state his 10m ship carries a billion fighters and you, me and everyone else, couldn't do jack flip about it. The reason for this is not to impede creative inspiration by placing regulating ones inspiration.
When do you have the option? Once it becomes an issue In Character. So until Corise actually uses one of these things in an RP, particularly a combative one, it's all so much dust in the wind.
[/QUOTE]
Beff, even though you are a staff member, I do have to bring up one point. I think the reason we discuss these things here rather than after their IC use is because of things like the Hunters & Gatherers thread. Remember the big OOC argument? By defining what they ship is and can do in the R&D thread, where it should be discussed, we avoid the massive, 20-page OOC fights. Still, you are mod, and we obey (or I do anyway).
#30 1:43am 21/11/07
Reduced troop complement by half.
#29 1:39am 21/11/07
This is where, as a member of the Staff and Moderator, I step in.
Stop this inane volley. Read the rules.
Corise could state his 10m ship carries a billion fighters and you, me and everyone else, couldn't do jack flip about it. The reason for this is not to impede creative inspiration by placing regulating ones inspiration.
When do you have the option? Once it becomes an issue In Character. So until Corise actually uses one of these things in an RP, particularly a combative one, it's all so much dust in the wind.
That said; Corise - your ship here is too fucking powerful & Drayson, you know better then to be drawn in and protracted out.
#28 12:07am 21/11/07
I'm going to recuse myself from this discussion. I believe I can state I have a record of tactical and developmental objectivity and I won't squander it in this, which is fast becoming a pissing match.
Drayson, you are a friend and more importantly my superior officer so I will save my comments for the privacy of IM. But we must not let emotions get in the way. We are all - except you, Corise - in agreement that this ship is carrying too much for the size it has. I have proposed a solution which is being chewed on - lovely.
Corise, you must be willing to change your statistics every now and then. It is all in how you use your ship, not in the numbers that support it. The RD or SU points whathaveyou are meaningless in a common sense driven action where the mettle of a writer is concerned - they act only as a relation, a grounding as to why a TIE fighter can't destroy an X wing in two shots - unless the post is very well written and the shots are from a veteran. Sometimes rookiees get lucky, but not often.
#27 11:12pm 20/11/07
My mistake on the Venator, you're right. However, that makes the Venator the most overblown ship one can possibly imagine: it carries hundreds of fighters, is heavily armed, has strong shields, and is as fast as a blockade runner (according to Wookipedia). Basing an R&D on an overblown ship seems like a foolish thing to do, I think.
Note that Acclamator can carry fighters or ground troops, but not both. Your ship, OTOH, carries both, plus more guns, better shields, etc. etc. etc. I still maintain that 18 squadrons on a 1000 meter ship is pushing the limits, especially if that ship is at all armed... even more so when it's a Star Destroyer form factor. A Borg sphere, maybe... but I cannot fathom a Star Destroyer having the interior volume for fighters + troops + guns etc.
#26 10:57pm 20/11/07
In reference to the Armadia, it is a giant sphere, and 240 meters is also it's height and width. Giant globe ship. As said, it's not impossible to cram what you have into a ship that length, but it's width and height would be a bit bigger than portrayed as in the picture.
And the Providence carried droid fighters, which meant no crew quarters were needed. As a matter of fact, most of it's crew complement were droids as well, which meant they didn't need quarters, luxuries, or consumables except for basic mantinence parts.
With a droid army you can cram more into a tight space, but at a cost of fighting efficency.
#25 10:03pm 20/11/07
I've already covered the entire New Class situation, which you seemed to have ignored. My defence still stands.
Errr..Drayson, are you sure about that Venator Figure for the starfighters?
I've looked at the Wookiepedia entry, and it says "complement of 420 fighters: 192 V-wing or V-19 Torrent starfighters, 192 Eta-2 Actis-class interceptors, and 36 ARC-170 starfighters." I'm assuming 12 ship squadrons, so 420 / 12 = 35 squadrons. Yes, I do realize that the Actis fighters are rather small. Let's assume that Two Actis Fighter squadrons equals One normal squadron. That means 192 Actis / (2 Actis per 1 Normal Fighter) (12 ships per squadron) => 8 squadrons of standard fighters, or 27 standard fighter squadrons. Realize that I'm not carryin 40 LAATs (basically 40 shuttles), which also gives me additional hangar space. Admittedly, the Wookiee article does state 2,000 troops under its subheading. However, it is not mentioned elsewhere in the article, and its mentioned elsewhere as being a minimum of 2,000 soldiers. For example, in the [URL=http://insd.swcombine.com/insd.htm]Imperial Navy Ship Database[/URL]. You can find the Venator there under Starships with that shown, as well as another reference to the 420 starfighters and 40 Light Transports.
As far was weapons are concerned, you'll notice that Wookie states that they are 8 Dual Heavy Turbolasers, so basically 16 heavy turbolasers. A Turbolaser cannon is significantly weaker than a turbolaser, and I imagine a turbolaser is weaker than a heavy turbolaser.
I do agree that the Acclamator's shields would be a tip off. I imagine that's why the Endurance Mk II is only carrying half of the upscaled ship's ground complement...
For Reference (taken from [url]www.nifrpg.net.database[/url])...
(They do use a different MGLT System than we do, so the speeds will be off)
Name/Type: Venator-class Star Destroyer
Designer/Manufacturer:Rothana Heavy Engineering
Designatione: Fleet Carrier
Crew: 7,400
Length: 1137 m
Speed: 70 MGLT
Hyperdrive: x1
Shield Rating: 3300 SBD
Hull Rating: 1590 RU
Weapons: 8 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries (4 Barrels), 2 Medium Dual Turbolaser Cannons, 52 Point Defence Laser Cannons, 4 Proton Torpedo Tubes, 6 Tractor Beam Projectors.
Fighter Complement: 35 Squadrons (16 V-Wings, 16 ETA-2, 3 ARC-170).
Troops: 6,912 Troopers, 24 Military Walkers (SPHA, AT-TE, AT-RT and AT-AP).
Support Craft: 40 LAAT/i Gunships, 6 Shuttles.
Name/Type: Acclamator-class trans-galactic military transport ship
Designer/Manufacturer: Rothana Heavy Engineering
Designation: Military Transport
Crew: 600
Length: 752 meters
Speed: 60 MGLT, 950 Kph
Hyperdrive: x0,6
Shield Rating: 1860 SBD (est.)
Hull Rating: 1043 RU (est.)
Weapons: 12 Quad Turbolaser Turrets, 24 Laser Cannons, 4 Strategic Missile/Torpedo Tubes (20+ warheads).
Fighter Complement: None.
Troops: 16,000 Troopers, 48 AT-TEs, 36 SPHAs, 320 speeder bikes.
Support Craft: 80 LAAT gunships.
Name/Type: Aramadia-class Thrustship
Designer/Manufacturer: Nazfar Metalworks
Designation: Medium Frigate
Crew: 6,810 + 49 Gunners
Length: 240 Meters
Speed: 60 MGLT, 950 Kph
Hyperdrive: x2
Shield Rating: 7680 SBD
Hull Rating: 1947 RU (est.)
Weapons: 8 Turbolaser Batteries, 3 Proton Torpedo Launchers, 4 Gravity Bomb Launchers, 4 Missile Launchers, 6 Ion Cannons.
Fighter Complement: 3.25 Squadrons.
Troops: 1,600 Troopers.
Support Craft: None.
From Wookiepedia...
Name/Type: Providence-class Carrier/Destroyer
Designer/Manufacturer: Pammant Docks
Designation: Carrier / Destroyer
Crew: 600
Length: 1088 Meters
Speed: ??? MGLT, 2000 Kph
Hyperdrive: x1.5
Shield Rating: ??? SBD
Hull Rating: ??? RU
Weapons: 16 Quad Turbolasers, 34 Dual Laser Cannons, 2 Ion Cannons, 12 point-defense ion cannons, and 102 proton torpedo tubes.
Fighter Complement: 120 Tri-Droids, 120 Vulture Drones.
Troops: 160 MTTs, 280 miscellaneous Vehicles, 1.5 million battledroids.
Support Craft: None.
#24 6:30pm 20/11/07
[QUOTE]Drayson, it's rather apparent that even I settled on putting one squadron of starfighters on my ship, you'd still be complaining. You're arguing for arguing sakes. I'm done with dealing with you.
[/QUOTE]It's plain from comments like these that you're intent on ignoring the point here. The Defender might carry six squadrons. Great. Six is not [b]eighteen[/b]. It also carries 1500 troops. Not 11 000, and not a full mechanized division, either. So, once again, you've got a ship that carries more fighters and more troops. And while you've reduced the number of weapons, I still fail to see how you've found space for [b]triple[/b] the number of fighters and [b]7.5[/b] times the number of soldiers, plus their ground vehicles. And a decently heavy armament, and strong shields. Oh, and the ship is respectably fast for its size as well.
I don't know where you're getting the stats for your ships, but according to StarWars.com and Wookipedia, the Venator carried 18 squadrons of fighters The majority of those fighters were only six meters long, btw. But it was lightly armed (8 turbolasers, not 24) and carried only 2000 ground troops. It's shields were roughly equivalent to a Victory class.
The Nebula carries 60 starfighters and shuttles combined (which, logically, means 4 fighter squadrons). It also carries only 1600 soldiers. It is well armed, being in the vein of an ISD. This is acceptable.
The Acclamator carried a huge number of both soldiers and starfighters, yes. However, common sense would dictate that basing your design on the one example of an overpowered ship and then crying "but it's canon!!!" is a poor choice. As was pointed out to you when you based an R&D off of the Strike Cruiser. What you've done to support this R&D is cite a number of ships with questionable stats, all of which have differing stats that easily refute your claim.
You have one example of a ship that seems ludicrously overpowered in the Acclamator (although I note no notice of shields on that ship, which would be a decisive trade-off). You've taken these ships at their most-powerful and made no compromise for the fact that you've done so.
And crying "you're biased" is stupid, because whether you think so or not, does not the change the fact that your ship is overpowered.
#23 2:39pm 20/11/07
[QUOTE]And according to the stats I see (the top three hits if you search for "Endurance Fleet Carrier"), your ship has three times as many fighters, more weapons and more ground soldiers. Where, exactly is this space coming from? Advances in technology as an excuse for more powerful R&Ds are a no-no as it is on TRF. Creating space out of nothing? Fighters still take up space, pilots still need to sleep, eat, and have some kind of leisure space.
So what you end up with is a ship that seems to be faster, better armed, better shielded, and carries more fighters and ground troops, than the previous version. Er... what compromises have you made, exactly? Yes, it's not as heavily armed as say, a Star Destroyer. But it's still uber-everything for what it is.[/QUOTE]
You realize that the Endurance uses the same hull as the Nebula-class Star Destroyer (also known as the Defender-class). The Nebula-class already carries 6 squadrons, more troops, stronger shields, 40 heavy turbolaser batteries, and 40 Heavy Turbolaser cannons. Thats' where the space is coming from. In fact, in general, New Class ships are underpowered with the exception of the Nebula-class. We could go with setting New Class ships as the example, so Telan's Curaisseur cruiser could only have as many guns as the Majestic-class, so it would now be out roughly 50 heavy turbolasers plus all of its fighters and most of its ground troops.
[QUOTE]FYI, the Cayman does make some tradeoffs. It's dead slow. Your ship, as I've said, makes no compromise. You've got 68 energy-based weapons. A Victory Star Destroyer has 60, and carries 11% the number of fighters your ship does, has weaker shields, and carries far less troops. You're telling me you found room for 16 more fighter squadrons in 140 meters of space[/QUOTE]
And so it is somewhat slower. Guess what, so is the Endurance. Since you've ignored the comparisons with the Acclamator and the Venerator, I don't know how you can use the Victory-class. And even there you are erroneous in your figures. Yes, the Endurance does have 68 energy weapons. But they're not high-powered energy weapons, and moreover, you state that the VSD has 50 Energy Weapon Batteries(~200 energy weapons) and 10 additional energy, plus the 80 Capital-scale concussion missile launchers, which do take up a lot of space. As well, it's significantly older.
Tell me what's wrong with my comparisons with the Acclamator and the Venerator.
[QUOTE]Except your ship has heavy shields. And way more guns. And thousands of troops. The Interceptor has no turbolasers. And whatever the write-up says about "entering the fray", that ship would get raped by any decent capital ship.
The Venator is one example. There are many more (Escort Carrier, Interceptor, Endurance) that refute your claim. But you've chosen to cling to the one ship that does support it, and base your design on the few versions of the Endurance stats that claim it can take 12 squadrons.[/QUOTE]
I pulled up the Interceptor as another vessel which is somewhat similiar. TFHB has different ideas of how heavy weapons are. If you look at other ships within the Immobilizer-class, you'll notice that ships solely armed with laser cannons are capable of taking on enemy frigates, which is unlikely. I've used the Venator, and I continue to use the Venator because it's the sole ship with inarguable, official stats. The Interceptor isn't canon. And the 6 squadron Endurance doesn't make any sense, unless the NR was intentionally making a very weak, and uneconomical ship. Why design and build a 1040 m ship when you already have a 340 m ship that does the exact same thing?
Drayson, it's rather apparent that even I settled on putting one squadron of starfighters on my ship, you'd still be complaining. You're arguing for arguing sakes. I'm done with dealing with you.
I plan on posting some comparisons with other cruiser-carrier ships scaled up and down to the Mk II's size in the evening. The Acclamator, Venerator, Armadia-class, and the Providence-class Carrier/Destroyer will be covered, plus any ship which seems to fit the same design theory.
#22 5:12am 20/11/07
[QUOTE=Corise Lucerne]
And you just said it was only six squadrons. Now you're saying that twelve is acceptable. The later site I showed you indicated that it was 24. My point is that there aren't any exact representations of how many fighters there are (Except for the vague reference of two wings). What the Mk I carried exactly is unknown to any of us. That's why I suggested those other examples to help demonstrate the reasoning behind the 24 figure given by NIF. And based on that, there are significant tradeoffs in fighters and shield strength.[/quote]Don't assume to put words in my mouth. I never said 12 sqaudrons was acceptable. I accepted that some sites might say 12. That's great. You're not talking about 12. You're talking about a 50% increase in that number with no compromise.
And according to the stats I see (the top three hits if you search for "Endurance Fleet Carrier"), your ship has three times as many fighters, more weapons and more ground soldiers. Where, exactly is this space coming from? Advances in technology as an excuse for more powerful R&Ds are a no-no as it is on TRF. Creating space out of nothing? Fighters still take up space, pilots still need to sleep, eat, and have some kind of leisure space.
So what you end up with is a ship that seems to be faster, better armed, better shielded, and carries more fighters and ground troops, than the previous version. Er... what compromises have you made, exactly? Yes, it's not as heavily armed as say, a Star Destroyer. But it's still uber-everything for what it is.
[QUOTE] Drayson, I realize that we haven't been on best terms in the past. I imagine neither of us will ever really like the other person. But I would prefer for both of us to let the vendetta and flaming go, simply because it isn't good for the community. If you'd like, I could complain about the 4650 SBD shields on your 520 meter long Cayman Escort Cruiser, simply because I haven't ever seen a canon ship that size with that powerful of shields.[/QUOTE]I'm not sure what any personal feelings have to do with this discussion. The fact that you think I don't like you has no bearing on whether your R&D is overpowered or not, and the fact that you would assume it does suggests to me that you don't want to consider the fact that you're R&D [b]is[/b] overpowered.
FYI, the Cayman does make some tradeoffs. It's dead slow. Your ship, as I've said, makes no compromise. You've got 68 energy-based weapons. A Victory Star Destroyer has 60, and carries 11% the number of fighters your ship does, has weaker shields, and carries far less troops. You're telling me you found room for 16 more fighter squadrons in 140 meters of space?
[QUOTE]Ah, just remembered [url="http://hangarbay.tripod.com/td-interceptor.html"]this[/url] too. I think ten is a little low, given the Interceptor here, we're getting at least 14 squadrons linearly, and mind you, volume grows exponentially faster, rather linearly. That's the same reason why I find the Venator model to be the most acceptable, since it's basically the exact size and role as the Endurance Mk II.[/QUOTE]Except your ship has heavy shields. And way more guns. And thousands of troops. The Interceptor has no turbolasers. And whatever the write-up says about "entering the fray", that ship would get raped by any decent capital ship.
The Venator is one example. There are many more (Escort Carrier, Interceptor, Endurance) that refute your claim. But you've chosen to cling to the one ship that does support it, and base your design on the few versions of the Endurance stats that claim it can take 12 squadrons.
[QUOTE]Very true. All of those troops listed won't always be embarked. It's expected that they'll only be embarked for specific missions based on the objectives.[/QUOTE]Which changes nothing. You still need to have space for them when they [i]are[/i] embarked, which amounts to thousands of empty rooms the rest of the time. You might get a couple more squadrons from the space their gear takes up, but that's a far cry from 18.
[QUOTE]Nor do you have any authority of what my R&D can and cannot have. If you're serious about getting me to change my design, try not giving commands or orders, because you aren't in a position of authority over me.[/QUOTE]Nope. Nobody has any authority over R&D approvals. But this comment stinks of "you can't make me do anything, nananananana". I've seen how you play your R&Ds. If you assume that this R&D is "all right" then it's going to be an even bigger mess next time you go to try and RP it.
#21 3:54am 20/11/07
[QUOTE]Which is completely irrelevent to the discussion at hand. We all know about the weapon-fighter-whatever trade-off. Here's the catch: you haven't made any trade-off. You've got more fighters than is reasonable (period) for the size of ship. On top of that, you've got 11 soldiers (and their associated living quarters etc.). Then you've got a decent amount of weapons. And on top of that you've got more powerful shields than a Star Destroyer.
So - cut 12 squadrons of fighters, cut the shields, and you might have a reasonable ship. But what you've got here is a cruiser and carrier wrapped into one with none of the compromises a real Cruiser-Carrier makes.[/QUOTE]
I'd say the weapons would be one of the tradeoffs, considering they're at most on par with some frigates. As for the shields, they're actually less powerful than those of the Nebula-class Star Destroyer, which uses the exact same hull and basic systems. Your other comments appear to be purely opinions, and I've already showed two examples now which you seem to have ignored.
[QUOTE]And, and FYI: "more carrying capacity with secondary regard to weapons" is more or less the definition of what an Escort Carrier is. Even the original Endurance carried (at most) 12 squadrons. Most sources say 6. You've added half again or more than the original fighter compliment without making any compromise.
Magic?[/QUOTE]
And you just said it was only six squadrons. Now you're saying that twelve is acceptable. The later site I showed you indicated that it was 24. My point is that there aren't any exact representations of how many fighters there are (Except for the vague reference of two wings). What the Mk I carried exactly is unknown to any of us. That's why I suggested those other examples to help demonstrate the reasoning behind the 24 figure given by NIF. And based on that, there are significant tradeoffs in fighters and shield strength.
[QUOTE]Corise wishes to make a type of warship that veers from accepted tactical thinking -- certainly it is not my expertise. I am very supportive of new ideas. I would like to see a prototype and its misgivings and it tried and tested over time to work up to the appropriate size.[/QUOTE]
I agree. It probably will get some revision as I toy with. I'm seriously considering cutting down the troops right now, but before I do, I'd like to RP with it for a while. I'm open to suggestions as well about tradeoffs, provided that they are somewhat reasonable.
[QUOTE]That's not gonna fly with me...[/QUOTE]
Drayson, I realize that we haven't been on best terms in the past. I imagine neither of us will ever really like the other person. But I would prefer for both of us to let the vendetta and flaming go, simply because it isn't good for the community. If you'd like, I could complain about the 4650 SBD shields on your 520 meter long Cayman Escort Cruiser, simply because I haven't ever seen a canon ship that size with that powerful of shields. Nor do you have any authority of what my R&D can and cannot have. If you're serious about getting me to change my design, try not giving commands or orders, because you aren't in a position of authority over me.
EDIT:
Just saw your post Telan
[QUOTE]I Agree that if the Mark I carried six squadrons this can carry eight.
For a one thousand meter carrier, I would propose ten squadrons of fighters with complete facilities and the shuttles to match for pilot retrieval and such. [/QUOTE]
Ah, just remembered [URL=http://hangarbay.tripod.com/td-interceptor.html]this[/URL] too. I think ten is a little low, given the Interceptor here, we're getting at least 14 squadrons linearly, and mind you, volume grows exponentially faster, rather linearly. That's the same reason why I find the Venator model to be the most acceptable, since it's basically the exact size and role as the Endurance Mk II.
[QUOTE]Troops however I am opposed to as it would take up too much room - and no one in their right mind would put that many troops on a ship whose purpose is to fight in a battle - explosions suffered during the course of an engagement would kill too many needlessly. Just because our Destroyers can carry a division does not mean they are always embarked. Certainly not![/QUOTE]
Very true. All of those troops listed won't always be embarked. It's expected that they'll only be embarked for specific missions based on the objectives.
[QUOTE]The weapons system would be just on the lighter side of what a comparable heavy cruiser would carry - why light you ask? because too much room for magazines and technicians will be taken up by fighter pilots, fighter crews, technicians, FUEL, spare parts, and of course, fighter munitions.[/QUOTE]
I certainly agree with this. I've actually tried to go with frigate/light cruiser-sized armament to go for more carrying space.
#20 3:33am 20/11/07
Demos, I enjoy your sarcasm as much as the next militant, but here is not the place. We must be constructive to reach a solution. Corise has indeed increased the stats as he can - we have five incarnations of the ISD, of which of course only the last three are in active service. It stands to reason that an ISD IV can outfight an ISD I because it has improved over time even if we don't actively state it in an R and D - weapons improve, recoils, training, manufacturing techniques, etc.
I Agree that if the Mark I carried six squadrons this can carry eight.
For a one thousand meter carrier, I would propose ten squadrons of fighters with complete facilities and the shuttles to match for pilot retrieval and such. Troops however I am opposed to as it would take up too much room - and no one in their right mind would put that many troops on a ship whose purpose is to fight in a battle - explosions suffered during the course of an engagement would kill too many needlessly. Just because our Destroyers can carry a division does not mean they are always embarked. Certainly not!
The weapons system would be just on the lighter side of what a comparable heavy cruiser would carry - why light you ask? because too much room for magazines and technicians will be taken up by fighter pilots, fighter crews, technicians, FUEL, spare parts, and of course, fighter munitions.
#19 3:26am 20/11/07
Telan, the ship he's based this R&D off is a Cruiser Carrier. No one is arguing the feasibility of the ship as a class (indeed, as you point out, TNO and many others employ them). But what Corise has done here is take an existing ship, jack up all of the stats, and call it a "Mk. II" design.
That's not gonna fly with me...
Actually, scratch that. Go nuts. I'm gonna go jack up the stats of the ISD III so that all of its turbolasers are superlasers. I'll call it the ISD III-BS. Carry on...
123>>>