Page 22 of 32

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 7:29 pm
by RK_Striker_JK_5
It's cool, dude... a lot of multiple posts from you in this thread, here... ;)

Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:04 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Geez, tripple post. And not the first one I've done today. What the hell is up with my computer?

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:02 pm
by Deepcrush
Just thought about these, but they were such crap.

The Old Republic Dreadnaught heavy cruisers from Star Wars.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:04 pm
by Captain Seafort
They're ugly buggers certainly, but they can pack a punch - look at three of them holding down an ISD in DFR.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:07 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Yeah, not too bad considering how old they are.

Hell, two hundred of them can swing a galactic-scale war. :wink:

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:11 pm
by Deepcrush
The ISD's weren't the greatest of ships anyways. That and even having good firepower doesn't help you if your ship breaks down so often that you spend a third to half of your time in repair docks. It only took one Mon Cal HC to stand boot to boot with an ISD. Over all they just failed. Massive crew needed, break downs more then often, one of the worst plot fates in history and just very poorly thought out.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:15 pm
by Captain Seafort
Mon Cals are far larger than Dreadnaughts, and are generally considered inferior to Star Destroyers anyway per Ackbar's statement at Endor that "at that range we won't last long".

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:20 pm
by Deepcrush
Well if you are equal or close to and you're out numbered 2 or 3 to 1 then its a fair bet you wouldn't last to long. But from what I saw they lasted out pretty damn good. I only saw 6 mon cal's in ROTJ, I could be wrong but I thought that there were 40 ISDs there. The fact that the only mon cal losses I saw were from the DS2, makes me think that whole 'inferior' wasn't very well carried out. Also the MC's are far smaller then the ISDs.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:57 pm
by Graham Kennedy
I never liked the ISD design. Poor weapon placement.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:00 pm
by Deepcrush
Neither do I but I already threw a rant about the ISDs so I'll stay calm, for now. 8)

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:02 pm
by Captain Seafort
What's wrong with the weapon placement? Each of the main guns is stepped outboard and slightly above the one in front of it, allowing maximum fire to be concentrated forward and above, and 50% on either beam. Sure it's got a gap in the heavy coverage below (a gap the Tantive IV exploited in the opening scene of ANH), but the ISD can roll quicker than an enemy ship could pursue that blind spot.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:05 pm
by Sionnach Glic
It's a fairly good design for what it does. Remember; at that point the Galactic Empire was the only major power in the known galaxy. The ships they needed were more for use against smugglers and pirate fleets and the occasional low-tech alien race. With all of it's weapons able to fire forward, it would be able to bring a massive amount of firepower to bear on anything ahead of it. Given that most of it's opponents would likely be fleeing the ship, having a lot of it's guns in a forward-firing arc is a pretty good idea.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:07 pm
by Deepcrush
I still just don't like it. For all of the reasons I have said before. The ISD-II was a good jump though.

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:11 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Yeah, the ISD-II kicked ass. :)

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:16 pm
by Deepcrush
If only the New Republic could have mass produced MC90s like the imps did ISDs! That would have been great to see! Those are my favorite ships outside of the Venators.