Demiurge13 Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 whatever their reasons its still idiotic. They chose to keep the victory, which is an invented ship, but they remove a ship that was actually in one of the movies. I say keep the ven and get rid of the victory, have the ven fit the role of the vic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Dodgers Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 I think the Venator should be in and i have a few real life examples why. The F-15 a 20 year old fighter and still 1 of the best air supereoity fighters avalable and the aircraft carrier the U.S.S Enterprise has been in service since WW2. So why would the empire scrap a ship that is about 10-20 year old in this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 whatever their reasons its still idiotic. They chose to keep the victory, which is an invented ship, but they remove a ship that was actually in one of the movies. I say keep the ven and get rid of the victory, have the ven fit the role of the vic. That would require changing a huuuuuuge part of the Star Wars history. I think the Venator should be in and i have a few real life examples why. The F-15 a 20 year old fighter and still 1 of the best air supereoity fighters avalable and the aircraft carrier the U.S.S Enterprise has been in service since WW2. So why would the empire scrap a ship that is about 10-20 year old in this game. I don't know, but they did. It was too specialized perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(TAG)Rebel_Stri Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 The Venator could even be a Rebel only ship because the Imps already have too many units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRF_Vader Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 If the rebels ever had the ability to produce Venator's, i'm pretty sure the Galactic Civil War would have gone a lot differently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BattleDamage Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 I think the Venator should be in and i have a few real life examples why. The F-15 a 20 year old fighter and still 1 of the best air supereoity fighters avalable and the aircraft carrier the U.S.S Enterprise has been in service since WW2. So why would the empire scrap a ship that is about 10-20 year old in this game. The F-15 has undergone extensive upgrades and refittings,i.e. F-15 A,B,C models. The U.S.S. Enterprise is a name that has been given to multiple aircraft carriers. Also, the Empire had the manufacturing might and money to make these changes. Entire planets were dedicated to starship manufacture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggie_john Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 That would require changing a huuuuuuge part of the Star Wars history. I don't know, but they did. It was too specialized perhaps? Define a huge change? The Victory class sd is a EU thing and no offense to EU fans but its all made up nothing is offical except what we see in the movies....ie the Venator is a real ship, in the movies, the victory is not. Now if I was forced to chose one I would pick one I have seen in a movie over a EU concept ship. Also there is a good point to be made about the F-15. The reason it is still around is because its a great design and tech has not changed that much. What changed in the Star Wars Universe that would render the Venator so out dated that its like a spitfire in a seath bomber world? I dont see any change in tech so advance that anything in the clone wars could have not survived to the Civil war era. Space travel, same... laser fire basically the same, fighters ability.. more or less the same... a few up grades and you cant tell the stuff apart. ISD's are just bigger, more guns, maybe abit fast who knows, in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRF_Vader Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 i can name a pretty good reason for the change. The Emperor wanted nothing left of the old republic, NOTHING, armor, uniforms, ships, all changed. Everything was also made more aggressive, he didnt just change it to remove all thought of the republic, but to make the Empire more intimidating with the vicious Star Destroyers and Stormtrooper armor, and all ground vehicles were made to be more intimidating and powerful as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
popcorn2008 Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Define a huge change? The Victory class sd is a EU thing and no offense to EU fans but its all made up nothing is offical except what we see in the movies....ie the Venator is a real ship, in the movies, the victory is not. Now if I was forced to chose one I would pick one I have seen in a movie over a EU concept ship. Ehhh.... actually George Lucas has been known to endorce EU material from time to time. Not all EU is fake . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Define a huge change? The Victory class sd is a EU thing and no offense to EU fans but its all made up nothing is offical except what we see in the movies....ie the Venator is a real ship, in the movies, the victory is not. Now if I was forced to chose one I would pick one I have seen in a movie over a EU concept ship. It's all Official. All EU is Official, and these days it is also pretty much all canon. To read up on the newest revised Star Wars Policy (which neither you nor me can challenge), go here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkodeon Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I read somewhere, I think it was Wikipedia, that by the time of the Empire, the Victory Star Destroyer Mark II was being phased out in favour for the more advanced, highly efficient newer model, the Imperial Star Destroyer. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm just saying that in the span of, what, 19 years? I believe the Empire could have phased out the Victory as well, AND the Acclaimator. I do not see any reason that the Emperor would keep something that would remind him of the Republic, or even manufactured these repeatedly. I am pretty sure the Emperor would come up with a newer, more efficient design that wasn't so outdated. Remember, by the time of Episode IV, they are almost 25 years old, while the Venator, a Carrier, was only 20-21. It is said that the Three complimented eachother; the Acclaimator was the Troop Transport, the Victory Star Destroyer was the Jack-of-All-Trades, and the Venator was the Fleet Carrier. It appears that the Imperials lack the Carrier now, since with the Venator being phased out, they are left without the Carrier. The Imperator was not designed to replace the Venator; rather, the Victory. It doesn't make sense. Define a huge change? The Victory class sd is a EU thing and no offense to EU fans but its all made up nothing is offical except what we see in the movies....ie the Venator is a real ship, in the movies, the victory is not. Now if I was forced to chose one I would pick one I have seen in a movie over a EU concept ship. Four Words. Aayla Secura Quinlan Vos. i can name a pretty good reason for the change. The Emperor wanted nothing left of the old republic, NOTHING, armor, uniforms, ships, all changed. I partly agree, but I have one question. Acclaimator Class? There is an edit button, use it next time. ~Phreak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRF_Vader Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I read somewhere, I think it was Wikipedia, that by the time of the Empire, the Victory Star Destroyer Mark II was being phased out in favour for the more advanced, highly efficient newer model, the Imperial Star Destroyer. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'm just saying that in the span of, what, 19 years? I believe the Empire could have phased out the Victory as well, AND the Acclaimator. I do not see any reason that the Emperor would keep something that would remind him of the Republic, or even manufactured these repeatedly. I am pretty sure the Emperor would come up with a newer, more efficient design that wasn't so outdated. Remember, by the time of Episode IV, they are almost 25 years old, while the Venator, a Carrier, was only 20-21. It is said that the Three complimented eachother; the Acclaimator was the Troop Transport, the Victory Star Destroyer was the Jack-of-All-Trades, and the Venator was the Fleet Carrier. It appears that the Imperials lack the Carrier now, since with the Venator being phased out, they are left without the Carrier. The Imperator was not designed to replace the Venator; rather, the Victory. It doesn't make sense. Four Words. Aayla Secura Quinlan Vos. I partly agree, but I have one question. Acclaimator Class? There is an edit button, use it next time. ~Phreak Since there is no replacement for the troop transport Acclaimator, they might have needed it longer. Unlike the venator, of which more suitable replacements came out. (the empire focused less on fighters, and used them merely in numbers, and got the numbers by having nearly all of their fleet capable of carrying fighters. The need for a carrier did not exsist, and the empire focused more on all-around ships) but the acclaimator is probably not an often used ship, a cheap "just in case" ship perhaps, and only kept out of mere necessity, but overall, the emperor probably wants all republic items removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggie_john Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 It's all Official. All EU is Official, and these days it is also pretty much all canon. To read up on the newest revised Star Wars Policy (which neither you nor me can challenge), go here. Ok I am sorry I shouldnt have said all EU is fake. What I ment is that it can be fake and should not alway be taken seriously. If nothing else taken as less important to stuff seen in the movies. ie Victories vs Venators. Also in response to the need to remove the old republic stuff. I dont agree. Palpatine had his stamp on the Republic. Clones, acclamators, Venators, may have been "republic ships" but in reality they were his. When the time came they all fallowed order 66 without question. So the idea that Venators were decommisioned because they reminded people of the Republic is as dumb as saying that they discontinued clones because people saw they and thought of liberty and justice??? Empire stuff is just bigger. I get the impression that palpatine had a need to create very big things like ssds and the DS. Venators were most likely just not grand enough for main stream imperial use thus there not in the movies but the Acclamator and Venator have no reason to be decomissioned. Remember the tech used at this point in Star Wars has been around for thousands of years what could have changed to warrent such large scale decoms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T10 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Since there is no replacement for the troop transport Acclaimator, they might have needed it longer. Yes there is. It's called the Venator. No offence, but please watch EP3 more carefully next time. Notice that, during the first few shots of Kashyyyk, it is a Venator, and not an Acclamator that is landed in the background, unloading an entire army onto the beach. Venator is greater than the Acclamator in very single way. I just don't get why people can't figure that out......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRF_Vader Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 No, the venator is NOT a troop transport. it can carry troops, but its not built for that. Not to mention, it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, that a ship of that mass would most DEFINETLY take a long time to land and unload troops, which makes it a feature the Empire would most rarely use. The empire is about speed, efficiency, overhwelming your enemy quickly. The acclaimator is small, it can land fairly quickly and drop its load, unlike the Venator. Also, since the Venator is replaced by the Imperator/Victory thats one less ship capable of dropping off troops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jan Gaarni Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 I just don't get why people can't figure that out......... Because the history behind the ships states otherwise. And that overrides anything you assume about the movies ... or any other sources you assume stuff about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aggie_john Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 To be fair the Accalamator does not land in EaW. Troops and vehicles are dropped by shuttle we have seen it in the screen shots so who cares what ship gets them there. Accalamator or Venator, in a way its just a light cruiser, tech one ship that carries your ground forces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athanasios Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 I guess 3 pages of discussion is enough for this, but i just spotted the EaW game feature related to the poll, which we can find at LEC's site (in game's features link): Begins several years before the events of episode IV: A New Hope, including vehicles and locations from both the classic timeframe and episode III Two words: several, episode III. List the units from EpIII below if you want. Anyway, i don't know if DMUK will send (or sent) the results, but i think the outcome of poll is -now- pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(TAG)Rebel_Stri Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Ya, send it to them, it wont be in for the demo, but they might put it back in the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.