Wikia

Wookieepedia

Talk:Acclamator-class assault ship

122,474pages on
this wiki

Back to page

Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Acclamator-class assault ship."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Cargo capacityEdit

Not sure why, but cargo capacity is not visible by the stats on the article's page. I looked under edit and saw that all the info was there, but it wasn't displaying. I tried toying around with it but couldn't get it to work, though I'm not very knowledgable. Thanks. Rmfitzgerald50 18:14, 26 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this page should be locked if this anon keeps reverting it with his stupidity, but NOT before we clean up the introduction sentence. There's no need to say things like "also known as assault ship" or "Republic assault ship" or "Transgalactic military transport." That's being WAY too anal about the exact wording, and all of these mean the same thing. Do we go into so much excessive wording for the ISD, saying "the Imperial-class Star Destroyer, also known as Imperator-class Star Destroyer, also known as Imperial Star Destroyer"? JimRaynor55 17:43, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • Alternatively, ban the anon's IP KEJ 17:48, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, so do you guys need a lock, a ban, or both? Going though some examples of his posting history, he seems like nothing but a troll. StarNeptune 17:56, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Just ban the anon for now. There are still some things I would like to edit in this article. JimRaynor55 17:57, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
  • Done. StarNeptune 18:02, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry about the opening sentence. I thought it was necissary. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:43, 28 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Same old crapEdit

If you want to revert it back to the inaccurate and contradictory 200 gigaton calculation without providing any proof, you know you are wrong. And by proof, I mean *feats*, actual examples of one Turbolaser blast taking out an area the size of New York Island, and parts of New York State, since that is how large and powerful a 200 gigaton blast would be.

There is evidence, in both the EU and the movies, of a much *lower* output. During the bombardment of Taris for example, turbolasers had a maximum firepower of around 25 megatons(taking down sections of Taris with ease). Or look at the full powered Turbolaser blast that Thrawn fired near Khadabah(sp.?) Noghri village, it destroyed a hill near the village, that is all. Or Admiral Daala's bombardment of Mon Calamari and Gantoris's Eol Sha Dantooine Settlement, nothing even comes close to a 200 gigaton blast.

So please, by all means, before you edit that post, provide a feat that reflects that amount of firepower. If you do, then I'll shut up.Unsigned comment by 204.167.116.4 (talk • contribs).

  • It's in print, it's a fact. Deal with it. Take your argument to someplace where people care, like the Jedi Council Forums or StarDestroyer.net. Here, we state the facts that are on record, we don't change them just because we don't think they make sense. You show us a source that states what you want the article to say, or leave it alone. That's how it works. —Darth Culator (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The destruction of Caamas may be the feat you are looking for. In order for the Imperials to be able to cause enough damage to the surface that most of the surviving Caamasi left the planet, the devestation must have been exrtemely widespread over the entire surface of the planet. In order for the fleet to be able to cause this much damage in a reasonable amount of time, their turbolaser blasts must have caused damage similar that in size.
    • Nonetheless, this anon has been changing facts in the article to what he/she believes. Admiral J. Nebulax 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NJO useEdit

I see it was noted as appearing in "The Unifying Force". Who was using the Acclamators here, was it the "Federation of Galactic blablabla" or the "Imperial Remnant"? VT-16 14:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd put my money on the GFFA. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Can we get a quote?TIEPilot051999 01:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the way to find out who put it in is check the history. After that, we can ask that person. Admiral J. Nebulax 12:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I can't find any variation of "Acclamator" in any NJO books, and instances of "republic," "assault," or "landing"/"lander" in The Unifying Force don't turn up any references that could be Acclamators. Unless they were placed at the NJO by a secondary source like the New Essential Chronology, I don't think they were there at all. —Darth Culator (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
        • I'll check my New Essential Chronology. Admiral J. Nebulax 13:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I remember reading this from TUF, I'll try to find the page number. What I remember is reading about a ship that has the callsign "Rothana Transport" and is described as having two primary engines and being a possible progenitor to Right to Rule (an ISD). The only problem is that the length of the ship is given at 400 metres. When I find the page number I'll post it.YIIMM 20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Page 337, paragraph 1. Referred to as "Rothana transport" on page 339, paragraph 2. Described as having a pointed bow and cylindrical thrusters on page 340, paragraph 2. YIIMM 20:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
              • That might be an Acclamator, then. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I'm certain it was meant to be, but the length is erroneous. YIIMM 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Unless there was another Star Destroyer predecessor that we don't know about produced by Rothana. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

p 340: "The third was a pre-Empire vessel, almost four hundred meters long, and might havebeen a precursor to Right to Rule herself." Not an Acclamator by name, but I think it's not too hard to see what they're getting at. - lalala_la

Empire at WarEdit

Weren't the ones in Empire at War Acclamator IIs? They were assault ships, not transports (plus it makes sense that ones built during the time of the civil war would be later models). Kuralyov 16:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It seems that they would be, but it depends on what LucasArts had in mind. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • It's possible, but even the transport versions had 12 quad turbolaser cannons, which is enough for a "frigate".YIIMM 20:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Plus, are the people at LucasArts aware of the Acclamator II? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Somehow, I doubt it. The interesting thing, though, is that the EAW Acclamators function as "frigates", in other words true warships, rather than military transports. That was the big difference between the Mk. I and the Mk. II. VT-16 09:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, if that's true, then we'll have to call them Acclamator IIs. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Bear in mind that by the time the Empire was using them, Acclamators were obsolete. Presumably all the dropships in EAW are deployed from the Star Destroyers, so the Acclamators are deployed instead as frigates and picket ships. That's my take on it. YIIMM 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
              • So confusing... Why can't they just call them what they really are in the first place? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Both an Acclamator frigate (EAW) and the more conventional transport (SW:Empire) are seen in the OT-period, and would correspond well with the two different models in the CW-period.
"Bear in mind that by the time the Empire was using them, Acclamators were obsolete." Not really. The Acclamator and the Imperial have two different roles, one being primarily a military transport while the other was a fully fledged warship (also capable of carrying troops and equipment, but this was secondary). Just because one design is younger, doesn't mean the older one is automatically obsolete (with the different roles and all). And even with the Mk. II model being a frigate, this still makes it slightly different from the larger destroyer/cruiser. VT-16 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

GunshipsEdit

The artical does not mention how many LAAT/C the Acclamator-class Assault Ship can carry I think it sould be changed.User:Lucky

  • Wouldn't it be included under Low Altitude Assault Transport? It definitely didn't carry just LAAT/i's. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes does any one know how many LAAT/C gunships it carries?User:Lucky (talk)
      • Check Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections. It probably won't be the actual number, but it could be close. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
        • On a different not should we also put the number of V-19's the ship could hold instead of Gunships?User:Lucky (talk)
          • I believe that that's still disputed, thanks to the mirco-series. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
            • I'll accept that but did the V-19 appear outside the clone wars micro series?User:Lucky (talk)
              • Yes, as you'll see on the V-19's article. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                • I think someone went through the SW:CW frames and actually came up with a reasonable number for both the LAATs and the V-19 fighters exiting. Which was funny because people said this big amount was "too unrealistic" when they first saw the episode (chapter 2). >D VT-16 10:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                  • Well, what is that number? And let's not forget that that might not be the actual number. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                    • Finally found it. Apparently, counting V-19s that pour out of the Acclamator in one scene, a guy on SD.net found 156 fighters. There might have been more hidden in the crowd, but that was the highest he found (Anakin's starfighter not included). That would make "13 full squadrons of 12 fighters each", according to him. It also seems as the same ship held a smaller than usual number of LAATs, with 22 exiting it. VT-16 16:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                      • Well, this might not be the standard compliment. The numbers could have been adjusted for the battle. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                        • I have no idea what the standard compliment might be, I just reported the numbers in this battle. The ship would probably have less ground craft with all those fighters taking up space, anyway. VT-16 20:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                          • I'd say that the total number of V-19s would be less than what we saw in the mirco-series. Maybe around a couple squadrons less. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
                            • Why? If they take out some of the other vehicles from that specific ship, so they can have more fighters, that seems reasonable enough. VT-16 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
                              • Sorry, I meant to say for a standard compliment of V-19s. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then I have no idea. For all we know, the standard Acclamator loadout could be too filled up to include any V-19s. VT-16 18:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the standard compliment was changed after the fighters were created. I don't know. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 19:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

200 gigatons?!Edit

the 200 gigaton figure which to my knowlage is only supported by one book in the expanded universe, is probably one of the most discredited "facts" in the starwars universe. anyone who has seen the movies should that there is no way these things could create a 200gigaton blast. its also not in keeping with other articles on this site. it the interest of this article not being laughable, somone should take it down

  • In the interest of not looking like a total idiot, please read Star Wars canon. QuentinGeorge 09:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, as can be seen above, this has already been discussed. It's in print, it's a canon fact - deal with it. QuentinGeorge 09:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. I'm sick of these anons saying that canon is wrong. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

its not a Gcannon fact, and watching the movies shows that this power output is extremely unrealistic, do you even know what a 200gigaton blast would do to a city? even if it was consitrated into a beam the heat it would release would cause rapid expantion in the air which would create a huge explosive shockwave. and since we are going by EU lets take a look at the time Darth Malak destroyed Taris. the blasts you see as they escape the city could not have had possibly had that kind of power. please dont cling to one statement in one book as absolute, as you know some sourses contridict each other.

  • Point 1: Please learn how to spell and punctuate correctly. Point 2: It's a C-Canon fact, and not contradicted by the movies, so that's why it's here. Point 3: Your Taris example is irrelevant since that occurs 4,000 years before the Acclamator ever existed. Point 4: I know what a 200 gigaton blast would do - it's called a Base Delta Zero - and that's exactly what the Acclamator is capable of doing, just like the CIS did to Humbarine. QuentinGeorge 22:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
  • First, the fact is canon whether or not you like it (and "cannon" go boom). We record C-canon right alongside G-canon here, so deal. Second, the fact has never been "discredited," just desperately contested by idiotic Star Trek fans. Third, we have several examples of Base Delta Zeros (Caamas, Dankayo, Humbarine) and we've seen the effect of a turbolaser in G-canon (Hoth asteroids) and in C-canon (Riv Shiel's fully-shielded X-wing being liquefied in one shot springs to mind, but I know there are others). 200 GT turbolasers are so not unrealistic that this whole argument is amusing. —Darth Culator (talk) 23:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Why do so many people disregard canon? That's truly a mystery. Someone's proven wrong with actual canon, and they refuse to believe it. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Probably because...it's unbelievable? Base Delta Zero, for example, is the result of a continuous bombardment, not a single shot, and a 200 Gigaton single shot for a SMALL turbolaser on an ISD makes nonsense of Han's "The whole fleet couldn't destroy the whole planet, it would take a thousand ships with more firepower than I've..." (Presumably he was about to say something like "Ever heard of.") If a single shot from the SMALL guns does 200 gigatons, it wouldn't take more than a hundred or so such single shots from ONE ship to completely pulverise a planet down to asteroid-sized chunks. Deathstar totally redundant. So, you see, it IS contradicted by the very FIRST movie made. It should also be noted that the source that brought out the 200 GT number was written by someone who was SPECIFICALLY targetting the poor Trekkies, who don't stand a chance anyway, with their hands tied behind their back by Trek's lack of an expanded universe. Red Elven 04:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet, from the firepower we've seen in both the EU and the Movies, the 200 gigaton calulation doesn't hold water. The most a single turbolaser obliterated was a mountain, which doesn't reflect 200 gigatons of firepower. If there was that much firepower from a turbolaser, an area the size of New York Island, New Jersey, and half of New York State would be obliterated with one single blast. Yet, from the movies, we have turbolasers that are used as artillery pieces,(SPMA for instance) which never produced that amount of firepower. So really, even if it is canon, there has to be some common sense and some disregard of canon when it comes to this firepower arguement.

How was it used in canon? And, isn't there a canon rule that if an EU feat of a Jedi or technology contradicts the movies, it is thrown out? I'll check it over.

  • No, when canon is stated, it's canon from that point on. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 23:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So the ICS falls under C-Canon? That means Mike Wong's calculations(he helped write it) fall under C-Canon...damn...

Wasn't there a time when these Source Books, like the ICS fell under S-Canon?

  • If there was, it's different now, because they're C-canon. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 00:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
  • S-canon is reserved for older material, like the Marvel comic books from the 70s and 80s, and the SW newspaper strips (same period). If things from them are referenced, they become part of C-canon (which is everything outside of the movies, aside from old material). VT-16 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • We have seen ships that can charge up turbolasers to immense levels of firepower. It would be an easy solution to say that the 200 Gigatons is the maximum level of firepower, assuming either full reactor output (neglecting other things such as shields, which in a BDZ are not really needed) or due to charging capacitors prior to combat.

--AdmiralWesJanson 04:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

i agree massive amounts of energy can be charged up by turbolasers over time and using smaller scale weapons to counter the destructive capbilites as being unrealistic compared to those of capitol ship scale weapons is stupid


This is a galactic power that could destroy planets at relativistic velocities, do you really think generating 200 gigatons of energy is an overwhelming feat? Seriously?

This Subject interests me, as nothing in the films shows Turbolasers being able to cause anywhere near that level of devastation, and the 400-metre asteroid that shears off the bridge of an ISD in the Hoth asteroid field, if made of iron and moving at 40,000 m/s, would impact with 122.5 gigatons, meaning the shields and hull armour of the ISD would be severely compromised by a single shot and yet we know that the empire is a type III civilisation, and such energies would be well within the capabilities of their most mediocre of weapon systems.

The Guns are generating 200,000,000,000 Tons of TNT equivalent.... Multiply that times the 12 Quad Turbolaser Turrets(this assumes it is the combined power of the entire quad turbolaser)thats 2,400,000,000,000 TNT tons. In case if any of you don't know, the Sun produces 91,000,000,000 Tons of TNT per second in energy. Interestingly enough it also produces the same amount of energy as the Executor(wonder how that happened). So therefor this ship, which is only 750 meters long, if producing 26.37362637362637 Times as much energy as the executor produces. This number is somewhat innacurate of course, Turbolasers would probably not have an exact one second fire time, there are the shields, there are the other weapons, there is the hyperdrive, there is the life support. This ship would probably be generating 50 times as much power as the Executor. This is when the ship is 25 times smaller than the Executor. Whats the more, if you take 50 Gigatons as the average power of a turbolaser then you can calculate exacly how much energy the Imperial Navy Star Destroyers will put out. Lets go for the simple place of , Alderaan and conveniantly ignore the millions of other vessels other than 12,500 Star Destroyers. Then lets just ignore all of the Heavy turbolasers, the fact that star destroyer Turbolasers will probably be heavier than those on Assualt ships made couple decades before(not to mention that Star Destroyers are specifically designed for fleet actions), and go with 82 Turbolasers per star destroyers. I have left out so much firepower it litterly makes my brain hurt, but lets go with what we have. I'm also using the Imperial one Star Destroyer, it has a lot more precise details than just saying Turbolaser Battery. So our 12,500 Star Destroyers Besieging Alderaan woould put carry 1,025,000 Turbolasers onboard. Each of those Turbolasers fires 50,000,000,000 tons worth of TNT. So that means the Alderaan shields would be going up against 51,250,000,000,000,000 Tons of TNT firepower. Thats in the Qunitillion range isn't it, or are my eyes playing tricks on me? But it said Aldeeran would fall to that Firepower, so lets divide it in half and come up with a number that would be resisted by Aldeeran's shields. 25,625,000,000,000,000 Was the sum i got. That means that Aldeeran, a single planet, that isn't even that important in the Empire really, is supposed to have a shield cabable of resistng that amount of firepower. And lets all not forget just how much i left out of this equation, both in ships, ion cannons, proton torpedos, starfighters, so on and so forth. Star Wars is more advanced, i give them that. But this is just gone too far.... --75.111.36.13 21:36, March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Hey and i just realised something else too. If they had Weapons this powerful, Starfighters wouldn't exist. Imagine a massive blast in space 4,000 times more powerful than the Tsar Bomb! That could wipe out any unshielded fighter that has ever existed! It would make the very idea of unshielded units totally insane. I know that TIE Interceptors aren't designed to hit enemy Capital Ships, but what about Hapan Hetrinar assualt fighters? Not to mention unshielded ships of any type couldn't survive.--75.111.36.13 05:07, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Where to start? Well if the sun produces 91x10^9 tons of TNT equivalent per second that's equal to 3.8x10^20 W but you're wrong of SIX orders of magnitude. It's clear that the Executor is indeed much more powerful also because it is a war-ship, not a transport. Second people tend to ignore the fact that gigatons and teratons do nothing relevant to planets like earth: you think I'm wrong don't you? Simply look at the energy released by the Dinosaur era asteroid: 190 Teratons! And it didn't blew up the earth at all; even assuming hundreds of those impacts simply means death to the beings and total destruction on the surface (even one i admit) but nothing close to destroy a planet. --82.56.33.107 16:20, July 13, 2012 (UTC)

Possible Dark Empire sightingEdit

I have the TPB of Dark Empire I, and on the front cover of my version there appears to be an Acclamator. It is in the background and is to the left (our left) of Luke's head, under the word "Dark" A link to the full cover's spread is right here. I know a lot of stuff in the comics, especially images in the Dark Empire series, are simply eye candy and fillers. But the publication date of my edition is 2003, so it could be a possible retcon. Should it count as an appearance for the Acclamator? Your thoughts?

  • That's definitely an Acclamator, and, therefore, an Acclamator appearance. I'll add it in. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 20:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Acclamator-class Star Destroyer?Edit

Where does this come from? Kuralyov 21:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Quadlaser TurretsEdit

Was 200 Gigatons the yeild rating for one barrel of the cannon of all four barrels firing together? Thep 21:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hangar bay on the AcclamatorEdit

The article mentions that a ventral hanger bay, much like that on later Star Destroyers, exists on the original Acclamator. I've never seen this, so I was wondering where this info comes from? The only sources I've seen, such as the Hasbro 'action fleet' toy and the Clone Wars game show only the two side hatches. --Darth Windu 16:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • I take it you haven't seen Star Wars: Clone Wars. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean the mini-series? I have, but obviously didn't pay enough attention. Regardless, no Acclamators are referred to by name in the series, so why is it listed as being the original Acclamator? As I said, these bays don't appear in any other source I've seen. --Darth Windu 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Acclamator IIs weren't around yet. So, they're Acclamator Is. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
        • Perhaps so, but the article doesn't say they are Acclamator !'s, it refers specifically to a ship named Acclamator. --Darth Windu 02:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • "a ship named Acclamator "? I doubt that. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
            • Try reading Jack. From the article There was no large downward-facing hangar bay as seen on the Acclamator. This clearly states that it is a vessel called the Acclamator being referred to, not the class. --Darth Windu 04:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
              • We often write the classname without "class" after it. That is not a specific ship, and the original Acclamator-class did not have hangars underneath. The ships seen in SW:CW with this feature are modified from stock. VT-16 10:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
                • I get that VT, but what you're saying and what the article says is different. As I mentioned earlier, the phrase There was no large downward-facing hangar bay as seen on the Acclamator is singular, not plural. So effectively we're saying that on the Republic Ship Acclamator, there is a downward-facing hangar bay. --Darth Windu 04:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                  • What that is saying is "There was no large downward-facing hangar bay as seen on the Acclamator-class". We don't have to put "-class" after each time "Acclamator" is used. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
                    • Yet again it is singular, not plural. This is how things are done with naval terminology. It you say something is similar to the Acclamator, you are saying it is similar to a vessel named Acclamator. However if you say something is similar to the Acclamators, you are saying it is similar to the Acclamator-class. Basic english my good man. --Darth Windu 04:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
                      • No, you're wrong (again). "-class" is understood. There wasn't a ship called Acclamator. Your flawed intereptation of English grammar has no place here. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Jack. How much do you know about naval terminology? Just accept that the sentance refers to a ship and not a class, and move on. --Darth Windu 02:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
    • It does not refer to a single ship, Windu. Besides, I don't care what you think it refers to. You're wrong. Get it through your thick skull. Now, unless you have anything more to contribute to this discussion, it's over. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm glad you were able to see the point of what I was saying Jack. It's good to finally co-operate on an issue rather than constantly butting heads. Anyway what I was thinking of was altering the article to mention that some Acclamators had the large hanger bay, and some did not. After all, as I noted earlier, the only source that shows this large bay is the Clone Wars cartoon - all other sources only show the two side doors. However as the article stands at the moment, it states that all Acclamators had the large bay. --Darth Windu 05:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Assault shipEdit

Why was the info about it being an assault ship rather than just a transport removed? After all there is a big difference between vessels designed as transports and vessels designed as assault craft. --Darth Windu 02:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Uh, read the first line of the "Characteristics" section. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 13:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. What's your point? --Darth Windu 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It says "assault transport". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • And stop moving the 16,000 figure to the "Complement" section. In addition, provide a source for removing "point defense". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 11:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • On the 'assault ship' thing it just seems the 'assault' bit is more or less ignored. As I said, there is a big difference between a transport and an assault ship. On the Clones, it strikes me they should be in the 'complement' section because they are part of the forces carried for assaults, not passengers. Finally with the laser cannons the starwars.com databank states they are simply 'laser cannons' and I believe this comes from the AotC ICS. Not 100% though as I don't have the book. --Darth Windu 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
            • 1) Let's not forget the title of the article. That clearly states "assault ship". 2) As in all articles, troops fall under passengers. 3) Well, if you don't have AotC:ICS and you don't know what it says, you shouldn't be changing anything. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The Acclamators function pretty similar to rl amphibious assault ships. They carry the SW equivilant of military helicopters, and land and support ground forces, which is what amphibious assault ships do. VT-16 19:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Jack, I will change the laser cannons section, as it explicitly states in the starwars.com databank that they are simply 'laser cannons', not 'point defence laser cannons'. Now if you can provide a source that says they are point-defence, lets see it. --Darth Windu 04:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
      • In the Norwegian version of AOTC:ICS they are (translated) "frontal defence laser cannons". I don't know what the English version says. VT-16 10:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
        • AotC:ICS says point-defense laser cannons, Windu. Next time, don't revert it, especially since you've been proven wrong here. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
          • and yet I refer you to starwars.com which states about the Acclamator class Weapon:

12 quad turbolaser turrets, 24 laser cannons, 4 missile/torpedo tubes. Jack, could you possibly provide photographic evidence that the ICS refers to these weapons as 'point-defence'? --Darth Windu 04:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The Databank has been wrong before, and it is now. Problem is, page 23 of the AotC:ICS, which states it having point-defense laser cannons, later shows in the box "24 laser cannons". Now, either these are the same, or the box isn't including the point-defense laser cannons. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 14:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see the problem. So even AotC:ICS isnt sure if they are point defence or not? Interesting. --Darth Windu 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • It does call them point-defense laser cannons, but either discludes them in the box or drops the "point-defense". —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
        • As for the name, remember that Assault Ship was originally an informal classification(It was labeled as Republic Assault Ship and the class name was developed later). This is also seen with just about every other ship from the movies. The Venator is in the ROTS script as 'Republic Attack Cruiser,' for instance. ZeldaTheSwordsman 19:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

HyperdriveEdit

Apparently, the Acclamator is given a Class 0.6 and a Class 2 hyperdrive in different sources - I suspect that these will be ICS and WotC respectively. Anyone got direct quotes? --McEwok 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't the ICS one be higher canon? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Of course it is, RPG game statistics are for gaming purposes only. The AOTC:ICS has Class 0.6. VT-16 08:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

WindowsEdit

This article says that the bridge of an Acclamator has now windows. However, on Republic Commando, it is shown that the bridge does have windows. Should this be changed?

Also, Acclamators, are much smaller than Venators, right?

  • This is an interesting point as they are also shown as having a classic Star Destroyer-style bridge with triangular forward viewports in the menu of Star Wars: The Clone Wars video game. It is possible that KDY took a standard bridge deck design, replaced the viewports with tactical holograms and exterior camera feeds, and placed it inside a separate standard bridge tower module. Either that or the windowed bridges are in Acclamator-IIs, and the Acclamator-Is are the ones with the enclosed bridges. Keep in mind this is just wild speculation on my part. And yes, Acclamators are much smaller than Venators. CommanderJB 07:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
    • It would seem silly not to have windows. I don't see anything camera feeds would gain you, and if you lost the cameras, you'd be looking at a solid wall. Is the Prosecutor an Acclamator-I or II?
      • The possible advantage of not having bridge windows is dramatically demonstrated in Episode VI, where the exterior positioning of the bridge on the Star Dreadnought Executor allows a single lucky A-Wing to take it out, sending the entire ship careening into the Second Death Star. Basically, if you lose the cameras at least you've still got a bridge to receive other sensor feeds, but if the bridge gets hit by weaponry thanks to its being on the exterior of a starship then it's much more likely to be damaged or destroyed, taking with it the highly-trained officer crew and robbing the ship of most of its ability to fight thanks to a lack of co-ordination. To the best of my knowledge the Prosecutor is an Acclamator-I, due to the fact that I believe the mission takes place before the introduction of the more combat-oriented Acclamator-II subclass, but once again I'm not certain of this. It would be interesting to get someone else's opinion on this. CommanderJB 03:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The windows would be made out of Transparisteel, not glass, though, so they wouldn't be THAT weak. Plus, if the camera feed thing was so practical, then the Executor would have definitely had it. There must have been extenuating circumstances that allowed the Executor to be crippled so easily.
  • Well... I would call (I) full bridge shield collapse after being pounded by the entire Alliance Fleet, (II) loss of forward defence gun co-ordination following the destruction of the long-range scanner globes and (III) being hit by one of the fastest starfighters in the Galaxy that also happens to carry a payload of concussion missiles and has a highly explosive fuel system 'extenuating circumstances' leading to the destruction of her bridge.

There was a discussion recently on the forums about the need for starships to have bridge windows in a galaxy that possesses advanced sensor technology, and it was eventually sort of concluded that due to the commonplace nature of ion weaponry relying on cameras only to steer and control a ship with was foolhardy, at least for first-line combat starships. An Acclamator I, however, is not a first-line combat starship - its armament is mostly geared toward orbital bombardment, and two Acclamators were unable to defeat even a single Core Ship at the Battle of Rendili due to a lack of weapons power. They also have a vital ground combat command tactical centre in the bridge module that would likely warrant additional protection. Well, I know that's complicated and more than likely not all correct, but I hope it makes some sense. CommanderJB 09:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Getting back to Republic Commando, two Acclamators WERE capable of destroying a fully functional Lucrehulk battleship, coreship and all. The element of surprise might have had something to do with it, but as far as I know, Acclamators were quite heavily armed. Before the Venator and Victory classes came out, the Acclamator was the Republic's primary attack vessel. They would have had to be a very important part of the Republic military for for the CIS to go to all the trouble as to capture one. I would say that the Acclamator did have transparisteel windows with all the integrity of the rest of the hull. The bridge was further protected by the shields and defense cannons. There was also secondary command centers as evidenced by the final part of the Prosecutor mission. If everything was taken offline, you'd probably be best abandoning ship in any case.75.67.142.56 15:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have Republic Commando - I wish I did, as there's some stuff (such as the mission on-board the Prosecutor) which I'd really like to check out. Anyway, I just checked the thing about the Battle of Rendili again, and actually it says there were two 'modified' core ships, most with extra weapons and shielding to the standard, and they were an 'equal match' in firepower for the two Acclamators. My mistake. With this in mind, I do realise that Acclamators were the Republic's primary space combat ships in the early Clone Wars - however, I would still maintain that they are not built for space combat, merely that they carry enough armament, are of sufficient size and were built in enough numbers to allow them to be used a combat role. Their primary mission is still to carry and support troops, however.

With regard to the windows - well, it looks like we have two contradicting Canon sources for this. The Attack of the Clones: Incredible Cross-Sections book explicitly states "Main bridge and battle operations rooms are windowless but furnished with sophisticated holographic displays", which is pretty definitive. There's also no exterior bridge windows visible on any of the pictures of Acclamators out there - AOTC:ICS says the large smooth canopy on the bridge module is a "Conning tower scanner and communications housing".

However, there are at least two separate video games (both Star Wars: The Clone Wars in the menu and Star Wars: Republic Commando in a mission, or so I understand) which show classic Star Destroyer-style bridges complete with what are almost certainly exterior viewports. Unfortunately, no-one else seems to have noticed this (I'd put it down to sloppy research on the part of Pandemic and LucasArts, but anyway), so we have no explanation. I believe that the standard thing to do in these circumstances is to put a note in 'Behind the Scenes', so I'll do that now. CommanderJB 01:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I concur. However, personally I believe that a game developed by lucas arts which lets you explore an Acclamator is a better cannon source than an outsourced book. In the words of HK-50, "They're notoriously spotty."
    • Removing the bts due to complete speculation. The Acclamator-class does not have exterior bridge windows, it has camera feeds to an interior bridge. No source has said otherwise, and no amount of speculation will make it canon. As for using in-game mechanics to justify windows, it's called game mechanics for a reason. Not a canon source at all. VT-16 13:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Umm, sorry, it's most definitely not speculation; it's hard fact. There have been two separate sources where the inside of the bridge of an Acclamator-class Assault Ship has been portrayed, and in both of those sources it has exterior windows. You can't put it down to game mechanics as it has no effect on the game (one is a menu screen, so it's not even in-game, and the other is environmental background, and game environments are hardly discounted from being canon simply because they're in a game), so the developers must have done it either out of ignorance or to show that some do in fact have windows. I'd like very much to revert that change, so would you mind clearing up why exactly you think neither of these are true? Edit: Since there has been no response, and I still believe you cannot discount the environments of two separate games as merely mechanics, I'm replacing the Behind the Scenes note. CommanderJB 07:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
        • So the fact that they're not windows but holoscreens doesn't mean anything? It's the only canon source that describes any visual aides on the bridge. Holoscreens kinda need to be visual in order to work. VT-16 08:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
          • They're definitely windows and not holoscreens. They're identical to the ones seen on the Venator and Executor-classes in the movies. Calling them holoscreens is incorrect, unless every bridge window on a Star Destroyer is now a holoscreen (such a retcon would be impossible, anyway). VT-16, you need to think logically here. Perhaps there is an interior bridge, separate from the main one, where the holoscreens are. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 11:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
            • How are they definitely something that contradicts the only official source on what is in the bridge? There are plenty of viewscreens seen throughout the movies, including one inside the escape pod in ANH that everyone thought was just a circular window. These window-like screens are for the camerafeeds of the outside. That is the only canonical explanation given for this class, whose bridge is in the interior of the command tower, unlike some of KDY's designs. photo bucket dot com )/albums/a242/CptK/acctower.jpg Here's the scan from AOTC:ICS, where the main bridge is shown located in the middle of the arrow-shaped tower. Communications systems and sensors are to the front. VT-16 19:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
              • I'm aware of what the book says, but it seems that the author paid no attention to the Clone Wars microseries and Republic Commando, which both seem to have the bridge at the front of the structure, and with windows. And notice that the book doesn't actually say "holoscreens," just "holographic displays." It appears that someone is wrong: Either the writer of the book, or the person who put windows on the bridge in the Clone Wars series and the person who put windows on the bridge in Republic Commando. Of course, there's no point debating it now, as we have it in writing that they aren't windows. Someone should keep their eye out for future instances of windows on an Acclamator's bridge. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 20:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                • You have to actually prove those are windows and not screens. Saying people are walking inside the bridge and these things are in the back, does not prove anything unless there's an outside view of the windows. There's even some screens onboard the Executor- and Imperial-class bridges, they're sometimes seen on and sometimes off, but they show the view to the sides of the vessel, something that would be impossible from the angle of the bridge outside the tower. I think the guys looking at the colliding Star Destroyers in ESB are looking through one of them, for instance. VT-16 21:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                  • Very good point. I know I still don't have proof, but I think the ICS got this wrong. That's just my personal opinion, of course. Anyway, I'll be keeping my eye out for anything saying that the Acclamator has windows (if there is anything that says that). Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 22:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
                    • Well, the Venators, Victorys, Imperials and Executors have the same style of windows on their command towers, it's just the Acclamators that have the bridge safely inside theirs. Being of similar companies, they probably use similar bridge modules for ease of use, with the window frames being used even if there's no actual outside view, only through cameras. VT-16 06:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
                      • Well, look at it this way. My last revision of the note didn't even lock them down as being windows, merely that they looked like them. These panels have no image enhancements suggestive of the 'sophisticated holographic displays' outlined in ATOC:ICS and overall act in exactly the same way as windows, so you at least have to admit the possibility. It's really no more canon for you to say that they are than for me to say that they aren't, which I'm actually not, I'm just noting the fact that they have the standard module which in all previous iterations has had windows and not viewscreens, and so it's possible they are in fact windows. A BTS note isn't canon, it's just comments, which is all this was. So can I put it back please? CommanderJB 04:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If the bridge is outside the main hull then I think it probably has windows. Why else would it exposed there? That's a bad design though, very vulnerable.--92.251.228.73 12:58, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Acclamator appearance in Revelation?Edit

I was re-reading Revelation yesterday and I noticed on page 307 it states "A Venator and two Republic class ships" emerge from hyperspace as part of Daala's Maw Irregular Fleet. Would they be referring to the Acclamator or another vessel?


Red stripesEdit

In the trailer for the clone wars movie I saw an acclamator with a red strip desing like the Venators. Should I add that somewhere.User:admiral James Kaizer

3,500 MGLT!!!!!!!!?????Edit

There is no way that that is canon, check it please, and it is the same as the acceleration (in Gs) right above it, looks very suspicious.Nebulon B freak 19:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Just looks like a typo. I removed it, if someone can find a canon-supported mglt speed they can put it up, otherwise I think it looks cleaner without a glaringly obvious mistake on the article. Other ships that have an unknown MGLT have none posted as well, so I just followed this pattern. I've seen numbers all over the place for the actual speed, all very low (4-15). So it may not be published at all, yet.--Round Robin 04:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

the MGLT system, along with RU and all that, has been largely abandoned in favour of real world terms, it's actually 3,500g or 76,778 miles per hour per second with no top speed indicated (due to there being no top speed in sublight, and the Temporal shielding keeps time dilation from occurring at relativistic velocities as well as in hyperspace.) Instead, Acceleration is measured, rather than speed (except in atmosphere)

Pic with republic colour schemeEdit

Can someone find a pic of this from the Clone Wars tv series/movie?--Governor Jerjerrod 20:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Weapon layout?Edit

How were they laid out? Just wondering is there anything out there to help with a game mod.

How do 36 140-meter SPHA walkers fit in a 750-meter starship?


New Canon Edit

Just thinking ahead to the "canon" article for this ship... Where is the model of ship named? I know it is named in the Cross Sections book, but I am not sure if reference books will still be canon (hoping I am wrong). Admiral James Kaizer (talk) 13:54, May 14, 2014 (UTC)

  • No, past reference books are not canon. And looks like past novelizations aren't canon either. Wookiepedia is still working on how to deal with this kind of stuff, but looks like vehicles that aren't named in the movies or new canon books wil NOT get a canon article (to avoid proliferation of unidentified-X articles). See Wookieepedia:Notability_policy, Forum:CT:Tab_system and Canon_(Star_Wars)#2014_reboot. Star Wars: The Clone Wars (TV series) are canon, someone will have to watch all the episodes and check if someone names the Acclamator (either as Acclamator or with any other name).

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki