Jump to content
TheBigLev

MC99 Star Cruiser

Recommended Posts

Not very well armed for its size IMO but much better then most of the Resistance capital ships from TLJ. Why do people seem to like making larger successors to the MC80 that aren't as well armed as an MC80? 32 heavy Turbolaser emplacements to the much smaller MC80's 48. 14 ion cannon emplacements to the MC80's 20. The only edge the 99 has in firepower is a much heavier point defense laser array and the torp tubes despite being fifty percent larger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RogueCorona said:

Not very well armed for its size IMO but much better then most of the Resistance capital ships from TLJ. Why do people seem to like making larger successors to the MC80 that aren't as well armed as an MC80? 32 heavy Turbolaser emplacements to the much smaller MC80's 48. 14 ion cannon emplacements to the MC80's 20. The only edge the 99 has in firepower is a much heavier point defense laser array and the torp tubes despite being fifty percent larger.

I think it has a bit to do with generic naming of weapons. Looking at the image, the heavy turbolaser turrets look absolutely massive, larger than anything seen on canon Mon Cals. Perhaps it is akin to how battleships were evolved by deployment of larger guns. Fewer larger guns proved to be more effective than earlier ships with more numerous smaller weapons when used in line battles of capital ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, TheBigLev said:

I think it has a bit to do with generic naming of weapons. Looking at the image, the heavy turbolaser turrets look absolutely massive, larger than anything seen on canon Mon Cals. Perhaps it is akin to how battleships were evolved by deployment of larger guns. Fewer larger guns proved to be more effective than earlier ships with more numerous smaller weapons when used in line battles of capital ships.

Perhaps but Star Wars has rarely if ever gone down that road that I can recall. Yes heavy turbos outclass medium turbos but not to the point where 32 heavy turbo mounts would have significantly greater damage output then 48 medium turbo emplacements. Certainly not enough for a ship fifty percent larger but with the fewer stronger guns to be considered well armed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, RogueCorona said:

Perhaps but Star Wars has rarely if ever gone down that road that I can recall. Yes heavy turbos outclass medium turbos but not to the point where 32 heavy turbo mounts would have significantly greater damage output then 48 medium turbo emplacements. Certainly not enough for a ship fifty percent larger but with the fewer stronger guns to be considered well armed.

Cost effectiveness as well as political stuff. The New Republic Navy was likely told, "You can only have X ammount of guns. We are peacekeepers now, keeping shipping lanes safe. Not a active wartime navy," By dumb polticians.

 

So more bigger guns it is.

Edited by Ling27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ling27 said:

Cost effectiveness as well as political stuff. The New Republic Navy was likely told, "You can only have X ammount of guns. We are peacekeepers now, keeping shipping lanes safe. Not a active wartime navy," By dumb polticians.

 

So more bigger guns it is.

Perhaps but we don't have anything really in the way od stats for fully armed New Republic era warships. We know the Nebulon-C, which was almost the best armed ship in the Resistance fleet, was a medical frigate that had at the minimum had its main guns removed, and by any logic their Command ship and their other frigate had to be running with less then full armaments as well.

 

The cargo frigate, which is supposed to a self escorting cargo ship, has fewer weapons then a much smaller and older transport of similar design lineage (4 single lasers to the GR-75s 4 twin lasers) plus no anti-ship weapons for repelling pirate corvettes or frigates.

 

And the MC85 Raddus is **** close to being outgunned by the MC75 class which is older and less then half its size (The MC75 has double the number of torpedo tubes, and eight additional point defense lasers. The Raddus has 6 additional turbolasers, and fourteen extra ion cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what prompted the canon team to approve all the new designs with the widely varying weapon counts. Thousands on a Finalizer, dozens on a Mon Cal ship. It seems like a rather strange decision (perhaps a mistake?) to make given the drastic difference in the scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/26/2019 at 3:50 PM, RogueCorona said:

Not very well armed for its size IMO but much better then most of the Resistance capital ships from TLJ. Why do people seem to like making larger successors to the MC80 that aren't as well armed as an MC80? 32 heavy Turbolaser emplacements to the much smaller MC80's 48. 14 ion cannon emplacements to the MC80's 20. The only edge the 99 has in firepower is a much heavier point defense laser array and the torp tubes despite being fifty percent larger.

Hey half of those batteries are TWIN heavy turbolasers. So it is really 46 to 48. Less numbers still but bigger guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, TheBigLev said:

I wonder what prompted the canon team to approve all the new designs with the widely varying weapon counts. Thousands on a Finalizer, dozens on a Mon Cal ship. It seems like a rather strange decision (perhaps a mistake?) to make given the drastic difference in the scales.

My guess is the armament for most of the Resistance ships was determined by the same people who thought four capital ships, most of them belonging to smaller types, and four hundred personnel was a reasonable strength for a movement with hundreds or thousands of planets to recruit from. In the OT you were never told how many people or ships the Alliance had. Why the ST writers thought we needed the numbers, and that they  should be so absurdly low is beyond me.

2 hours ago, TallGiraffe said:

Hey half of those batteries are TWIN heavy turbolasers. So it is really 46 to 48. Less numbers still but bigger guns.

If I remember correctly the FFG MC80s stats show that all of an MC80s turbolaser batteries are twin heavies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...