NationStates Jolt Archive

Thanks to the constant efforts of the Imperial Reserve Engineers Guild, a new class of Star Destroyer has been developed. Designed by an Engineer Philips Brosnan, one of the men who helped design a modified Thrashian version of the Imperial Star Destroyer MkIII.

From his own mind and with the help of older schematics and renewed interest in ship building a new model of the Venator Star Destroyer has been made. The Venator Mk II.

Venator-class MkII Star Destroyer
DESIGNER/MANUFACTURER: Philips Brosnan/Julian Imperial Shipyards
COMBAT DESIGNATION: Heavy Destroyer
LENGTH: 1,300 meters
CREW: 5,798; 402 gunners
PASSENGERS: 2,000 clone troops
SPEED RATING: 40 MGLT (Light Years) Space/45,000 mph Atmosphere
HYPERDRIVE: x4
HULL RATING: 2675 U
SHIELD RATING: 6760 U
CONSUMABLES: 4 years supplies
WEAPONS: 36 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
60 Point Defense Cannon
6 Proton Torpedoe tubes

STARFIGHTER SQUADRONS: 2 Tie Interceptor Wings (144)

PLANETARY ASSAULT TROOPS: One clone-trooper division; 10 AT-ATs; 15 AT-STs; 30 AT-PTs; 70 speeder bikes; one prefab fortress

OTHER ONBOARD CRAFT: 4 Victory-Class Thrashian Imperial Shuttles; 25 Imperial Patrol Craft


The Venator II model approached many problems that Brosnon found with the Imperial series. He found the lack of under-hull weapons on the Imperial SD as a drawback, as well as lack of defense against fast fighters in that position; and as such positioned four dual-cannon PD turrets just in front of the under-neath fighter bay, and to add more anti-capital ship power there, put 4 Heavy Turbolaser batteries there.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Star%20Wars/V2.jpg

Philip Brosnan also found that the original Venator, which had its main 'top-side' batteries located to the sides of the command tower-bridge; moved his 24 other heavy turbolaser batteries forward for a better 360 degree horizontal plane of fire for all the batteries.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Star%20Wars/inprogress1.jpg

Besides these repositioning of armaments, Philip added several other key devices. Utilizing the Katana Fleet technology and system he managed to lower the crew requirements considerablly. Another key addition was the positioning of a very advanced and powerful PD turret above and behind the new model bridge to protect against oncoming fighters. Then Philips gave the V2, as it is called around the engineer barracks, the shield generator from the ISD MkIII, making it on par with most larger Imperial vessels.

Another addition to the Venator II is a more powerful turbolaser. All the batteries on the Venator have been upgraded to the newer Jargor Industries model Alpha-44 Heavy Turbolaser turrets; the most advanced targetting computers allow for the Alpha-44 model to target even some fighters.

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Star%20Wars/beefyturret2.jpg

All in all the positioning of weapons, the addition of more PD, the increase of shielding, and the better consructed hull and bridge has made the Venator a major success; and at 1,300 meters is large enough to instill fear. Already the V2 has passed all testing and is ready for mass production. Grand Admiral Ve'ack himself has seen to it that the Venator II will replace all older model ISDs MkI, Venator MkIs, and Victory SDs.

A normal ISD carries a I-a2b Solar Ionization Reactor. Thrashian Engineers used the schematics for this reactor and increased its output capabilties; in essence creating the II-a2b Solar Ionization Reactor. Beside the reactor itself, several other systems within the ship itself are capable of being shut down for more power to be diverted for combat use. Thus cruising combat speed could be kept and at the same time weapon output could remain relatively normal.

Thrashian engineers duly noted this when creating the Venator II. When Imperial Engineers created the ISD they had no extremely useful recoiless system and as a result did not position their TLs as they are on the VII. When the proposition of put the TL batteries beneath and in those locations the use of the Alpha-44 Heavy Turbolaser was first involed. This due not only to its improved sensory arrays but also for its in-built recoil system. But since, as you stated, the recoil was so powrful, a new system of Inertial damper was created; a Inertial damper is normally used to ensure hull integrity of a ship in hyperspace or going at fast speeds, Engineer Philips Brosnan asked quite pointedly why it cant be used as a type of recoil system. As such a design of recoil dampner was created.

As such each of the ships TL batteries and other weapons that are in a position that would, if it were a normal Star Destroyer, upset the balance and possibly be a threat to hull integrity were modified with this recoil system. Thus the moving of main batteries forward to the front of the bridge for a better arc of fire was seen as extremely advantagous.

(ALL RIGHTS RESERVED Copyright © 2006 Thrashia)

In accordance with the need for a new fleet command ship, other than the two Executor Super Star Destroyers, the Imperial Engineer Corp has designed a new Super Star Destroyer for Grand Admiral Ver'ack to suit the admiral's specifications and own design that he wished to have.

Taking these designs Head Engineer Tovsky Orlamorra created a true master piece. Having taken heart by his apprentices creation, the Venator II, he created the Arch-Angel Super Star Destroyer.

Arch Angel Super Star Destroyer
Image (http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Star%20Wars/newcommandship.jpg)
DESIGNER/MANUFACTURER: Tovsky Orlamorra/Julian Imperial Shipyards
COMBAT DESIGNATION: Super Heavy Destroyer and Command Ship
LENGTH: 13,000 meters
CREW: 78,798; 4302 gunners
PASSENGERS: 40,000 clone troops
SPEED RATING: 50 MGLT (Light Years) Space
HYPERDRIVE: x6
HULL RATING: 10,675 U
SHIELD RATING: 30,760 U
CONSUMABLES: 4 years supplies
WEAPONS:
-Top-Side Hull: 200 Heavy Turbolaser Cannon turrets
80 Ion Cannon
500 PD turrets
30 Proton Torpedoe Tubes
-Bottom-Side Hull: 150 Heavy Turbolaser Cannon turrets
360 PD turrets
-Side Trenches (http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/Star%20Wars/sideturrets.jpg)
500 Turbolaser Cannon turrets
200 PD Turrets

STARFIGHTER SQUADRONS: 40 Tie Interceptor Squadrons (2,880)

PLANETARY ASSAULT TROOPS: 20 clone-trooper divisions; 80 AT-ATs; 40 AT-STs; 90 AT-PTs; 370 speeder bikes; three prefab fortress

OTHER ONBOARD CRAFT: 30 Victory-Class Thrashian Imperial Shuttles; 100 Imperial Patrol Craft

OOC: If its not too much, I wouldn't mind some FT rp'ers (who are veterans of course) giving their opinions of my new creation: the Venator II. It already mentions some of the improvements on flaws that an ISD has. So, what'dya think?

bump

OOC: If its not too much, I wouldn't mind some FT rp'ers (who are veterans of course) giving their opinions of my new creation: the Venator II. It already mentions some of the improvements on flaws that an ISD has. So, what'dya think?

Adding extra heavy weapons complicates the power distribution system unnecesarily and reduces the overall firepower of all the guns for no benefit. Any vessel that has both the firepower to be a threat to the vessel and maneuverability to stay in line of sight of the ventral side will destroy your ship no matter where you have your weapons.

The placement of the ventral heavy turrets on the wings will increase stress on the main hull and weapon mountings due the recoil when the weapons fire. This same problem will affect the dorsal turrets as their position does not take advantage of the increased mass near the command tower.

Adding extra heavy weapons complicates the power distribution system unnecesarily and reduces the overall firepower of all the guns for no benefit. Any vessel that has both the firepower to be a threat to the vessel and maneuverability to stay in line of sight of the ventral side will destroy your ship no matter where you have your weapons.

The placement of the ventral heavy turrets on the wings will increase stress on the main hull and weapon mountings due the recoil when the weapons fire. This same problem will affect the dorsal turrets as their position does not take advantage of the increased mass near the command tower.

Thanks for commenting btw. I address each point in turn.

1) "Adding extra heavy weapons complicates the power distribution system unnecesarily and reduces the overall firepower of all the guns for no benefit. "

- A normal ISD carries a I-a2b Solar Ionization Reactor. Thrashian Engineers used the schematics for this reactor and increased its output capabilties; in essence creating the II-a2b Solar Ionization Reactor. Beside the reactor itself, several other systems within the ship itself are capable of being shut down for more power to be diverted for combat use. Thus cruising combat speed could be kept and at the same time weapon output could remain relatively normal.

2) "The placement of the ventral heavy turrets on the wings will increase stress on the main hull and weapon mountings due the recoil when the weapons fire. This same problem will affect the dorsal turrets as their position does not take advantage of the increased mass near the command tower."

- Thrashian engineers duly noted this when creating the Venator II. When Imperial Engineers created the ISD they had no extremely useful recoiless system and as a result did not position their TLs as they are on the VII. When the proposition of put the TL batteries beneath and in those locations the use of the Alpha-44 Heavy Turbolaser was first involed. This due not only to its improved sensory arrays but also for its in-built recoil system. But since, as you stated, the recoil was so powrful, a new system of Inertial damper was created; a Inertial damper is normally used to ensure hull integrity of a ship in hyperspace or going at fast speeds, Engineer Philips Brosnan asked quite pointedly why it cant be used as a type of recoil system. As such a design of recoil dampner was created.

As such each of the ships TL batteries and other weapons that are in a position that would, if it were a normal Star Destroyer, upset the balance and possibly be a threat to hull integrity were modified with this recoil system. Thus the moving of main batteries forward to the front of the bridge for a better arc of fire was seen as extremely advantagous.

ooc Yes agreed, I dont use Star wars ships, however my tech could be described a a tad warsie..in a way, however more heavy guns means more power problems. Stick to just simply put, few bigger guns that can keep firing steadily, or a bunch of smaller guns that are easier to power. If you are going by straight out star wars schematics, 40 heavy turbolasers is something like 10 times as many as a regular ISD carries, maybe knock it down to ten. Also, carrying twice as many ties yet being 400 meters smaller? The SSD is all good in my eyes, but its the MK II Venator that seems a bit on the outrageous side.

However say making it armed as a regular SD, and giving it that nice big Laser cannon that was able to one shot a Techno union cruiser in SW III might work out.

Thats pretty much how my fighting ships are designed at least. One large turreted ship killer, one spinal and about 8-16 normal batteries, with between 8-16 missile launchers, and 25=50 fighters [destroyer/battlecruiser]
Oh and lasers dont make recoil. The main issue with weapons layout is the 4 side by side turrets that wouldnt be able to all shoot forwards on the upper hull near the conning tower.

When you consider the fact that the original Venator Star Destroy could carry some 400+ star fighters and is 200 meters shorter than my version; you can see kind of what I did.

I sacrificed the hanger space for a larger compliment of turbolasers. And as I already stated above, the power usage is not a problem, and last I checked an ISD had 60 Turbolaser batteries...but I did scale down the number from 40.

OOC: You can borrow the stackin' method which I use for my star destroyers. Allows much more Tie's. I got the idea from Kyanges.

Also, might I suggest to increase weapon firepower output to match multiple ships?

OOC: You can borrow the stackin' method which I use for my star destroyers. Allows much more Tie's. I got the idea from Kyanges.

Also, might I suggest to increase weapon firepower output to match multiple ships?

Stack method is what I've always used in my Star Destroyers. Thanks though anyway. What do you mean 'increase weapon firepower output to match multiple ships'? How am I suppose to do so? Put in a better reactor or something?

bump/ any more comments?

Stack method is what I've always used in my Star Destroyers. Thanks though anyway. What do you mean 'increase weapon firepower output to match multiple ships'? How am I suppose to do so? Put in a better reactor or something?

Here's what I did for my TSD's:

Instead of having one reactor, have three. Each has the capability of opperating as one, if needed, but they function as one as a group (figure borg colective) durring most missions.

Design the turbolasers to be more effecient (exact details aren't neccessary such as smoother gun barrles, longer/shorter, newer coils, ect) when delivering their "payloads" to enemy starships.

Instead of having one reactor, have three. Each has the capability of opperating as one, if needed, but they function as one as a group (figure borg colective) durring most missions.

If you do this you'll have zero room for anything other than those reactors. Reactors are extremely volume intensive by themselves let alone all the power distribution, waste heat management systems and fuel tanks also required.

Unless you vastly increase the size of the ship you'll have to sacrifice the entire fighter and ground unit complement.

Instead of having one reactor, have three. Each has the capability of opperating as one, if needed, but they function as one as a group (figure borg colective) durring most missions.

Interesting, but then I already added a newer reactor; which I would say would be comparable with 2 normal ISD reactors in over-all output.


Design the turbolasers to be more effecient (exact details aren't neccessary such as smoother gun barrles, longer/shorter, newer coils, ect) when delivering their "payloads" to enemy starships.

Already done it.

Unless you vastly increase the size of the ship you'll have to sacrifice the entire fighter and ground unit complement.
Or ditch the rediculously high crew and automate most of the ship.

Or ditch the rediculously high crew and automate most of the ship.

On an ISD or Venator the reactor systems take up the entire rear third of the ship. Increasing the amount of reactors means you have to give up hangar and troop capacity regardless of crew requirements. Compared to hangar space crew berthings take up a minimal amount of volume.

If you do this you'll have zero room for anything other than those reactors. Reactors are extremely volume intensive by themselves let alone all the power distribution, waste heat management systems and fuel tanks also required.


True. However, since this is FT it is possible to make reactors to be smaller and have them give the same out-put as their larger counter-parts.

It's hard/impossible to do in MT, but not in FT (so far as I know, after all, it is sci-fi).

True. However, since this is FT it is possible to make reactors to be smaller and have them give the same out-put as their larger counter-parts.

The most effecient reactors are matter annhilation reactors. The only way to get more energy is to increase the amount of fuel and that requires a larger reactor.

It's hard/impossible to do in MT, but not in FT (so far as I know, after all, it is sci-fi).

More power = bigger reactor for the same type of reactor. And even all the BS "subspace" reactors or whatnot still boil down to matter annhilation in the end. So if you want more power you need a bigger reactor no ifs, ands or buts.

The most effecient reactors are matter annhilation reactors. The only way to get more energy is to increase the amount of fuel and that requires a larger reactor.


What...You mean anti-matter reactors?


More power = bigger reactor for the same type of reactor. And even all the BS "subspace" reactors or whatnot still boil down to matter annhilation in the end. So if you want more power you need a bigger reactor no ifs, ands or buts.

Well, my ships are bigger than their origonal counterparts anyways so it doesn't matter. Much bigger at that....

What...You mean anti-matter reactors?

Anti-matter is a form of matter annhilation, An annhilation reactor is just a reactor where mass is converted into energy by some means. Technically fusion and fission reactors are also annhilation reactors but they are normally classed seperately as an annhilation reactor in common usages converts nearly 100% of the fuel mass to energy rather than more like .01%

Anti-matter is a form of matter annhilation, An annhilation reactor is just a reactor where mass is converted into energy by some means. Technically fusion and fission reactors are also annhilation reactors but they are normally classed seperately as an annhilation reactor in common usages converts nearly 100% of the fuel mass to energy rather than more like .01%
Ummm... No? Fission and fusion just use the energy stored in atomic bonds. No annihilation involved, you have as many products as reactants.

U235 + Neutron -> Kr92 + Ba141 + Neutrons + Energy

Much though I hate to add to ego, Xess is correct. There is some matter annihilation involved in both Fusion and Fission. In both processes, a very small portion of the molecules' mass is lost, and this is what creates the energy output resulting from the whole thing.

Anti-matter is pure annihilation, though the primary issue with that stuff is in keeping it contained.

Much though I hate to add to ego,

You know, if you want to call me an arogant bastard, I'd rather you'd just say that than these back handed implied insults. I'm not so fragile that I can't take being called a "bad name".

Of course you could not have meant that line as an insult, of course given recent events that seems about as likely as myself quantum tunneling through the floor in the next five minutes. If that is the case, ignore this and have a pleasant time.

Thats enough. If you want to argue about reactors, then do so in another thread. I don't want mine all cluttered up. Besides the point is moot since I already explained that I had put in a more powerful, single, reactor into the Venator II. Any other on-subject opinions?

You know, if you want to call me an arogant bastard, I'd rather you'd just say that than these back handed implied insults. I'm not so fragile that I can't take being called a "bad name".

Of course you could not have meant that line as an insult, of course given recent events that seems about as likely as myself quantum tunneling through the floor in the next five minutes. If that is the case, ignore this and have a pleasant time.

Arrogant? No. Overbearing? Yeh, that'll work, although there is some arrogant in that one's definition its not the biggest. Smartass? There some of that in there too. So, ya overbearing smartass... yer welcome. :D

Arrogant? No. Overbearing? Yeh, that'll work, although there is some arrogant in that one's definition its not the biggest. Smartass? There some of that in there too. So, ya overbearing smartass... yer welcome. :D

Overbearing smartass...hmm, has a nice ring to it.:p

Anti-matter is a form of matter annhilation, An annhilation reactor is just a reactor where mass is converted into energy by some means. Technically fusion and fission reactors are also annhilation reactors but they are normally classed seperately as an annhilation reactor in common usages converts nearly 100% of the fuel mass to energy rather than more like .01%

Ahhh...... Need to do some updatin' then.

Pellaeon-class Super Carrier
DESIGNER/MANUFACTURER: Philips Brosnan/Julian Imperial Shipyards
COMBAT DESIGNATION: Super Heavy Carrer
LENGTH: 4,300 meters
CREW: 15,798; 402 gunners
PASSENGERS: 10,000 clone troops
SPEED RATING: 38 MGLT (Light Years)
HYPERDRIVE: x6
HULL RATING: 20675 U
SHIELD RATING: 60760 U
CONSUMABLES: 4 years supplies
WEAPONS: 36 Heavy Turbolaser Batteries
360 Point Defense Cannon

STARFIGHTER SQUADRONS: 10 Eta-2 Interceptor Squadrons (720), 30 TIE Interceptor Squadrons (2,160), 10 TIE Adv. Line Fighter Squadrons (720), 5 TIE Bomber Squadrons (360)

Picture (http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b184/Upum/New%20Ships/Paelleon-classSuperCarrier.jpg)

OOC: *grubles that I made something like this a long time ago.*

other than that good.