The most prominent feature was a large ventral dome amidships, thought by New Republic observers to house cloaking equipment, but for the most part the planes of the armored hull were as blank as an expanse of duracrete, interrupted only by recessed weapons mountings. One distinct difference from most Star Destroyers was that the type lacked any obvious command superstructure, apparently in an attempt to deny attackers easy and visible targets.
had they gone with the ISD 1 or 2, it probably would have taken MUCH longer, given that as the size of a ship increases, the systems required to maintain it tend to be more complex.The Chiss Star Destroyer somewhat resembled the 900m Victory-class Star Destroyer design still being used by the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances, but its gray hull was slightly longer and slimmer, giving it an aggressive, needle-shaped appearance. I think with the uprating of the armament might even bring it up to near-ISD-1 levelsĪlso, its said that these ships weren't seen until the Vong war or afterwards, so it may have taken the Chiss up to 20-25 years to get the design to their specifications. its a 60$ solution to a 100$ problem, if you will.
save actions requiring a heavy fighter concentration, which could be remedied by modifying the vehicle compliment, trading Juggernauts and AT-ATs for fighters and the facilities with which to launch them. The VSD-2 is capable of dealing with most threats anyway. anyway, the crew compliment of even the modified ISD's or upgraded models tends to be 2-4 times the crew of a VSD. I've looked at some of the modified ISD stats on RPGGamer and while i know, they're not canon, they do seem to fit in my view. an ISD is almost twice the size of a Victory. for one, you've got a bit of a size disparity.
I think it was Specter of the Past where Talon Karrde stated that there were something like 176,000 flaws in an ISD-2. Reverse engineering and perfecting an ISD is probably a bit more complex than a Victory, especially if its the Imp-Deuce.
0 kommentar(er)
