Talk: Liberator-class cruiser

Article milestones Date Process Result February 5, 2013 Good article nomination Success February 25, 2013 Good article by Toprawa and Ralltiir
Current status: Good article

Name

Is there any evidence that it's a "Liberator-class medium cruiser?" As far as I know, its size has never been stated. It's only been referred to as "Liberator cruiser," which could mean its class name, or just a designation (like "Nebulon-B"). JimRaynor55 21:13, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• I'd say Liberator-class cruiser. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:17, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)
• In "Starship Stats" the RPG source book that includes pretty much every starship in the SW Universe it states that the ship is 1040 meters long. JykkE 15:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberator Troopship?

Is there any relation with the Clone Wars era Liberator-class troopship from Paradise Snare? Maybe an older version, like the Acclaimator I and II? --AdmiralWesJanson 03:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article seems to treat it like they were identical. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I doubt they are the same. Star Wars Rebellion describes the Liberator-class as an advanced and state-of-the-art warship, which wouldn't fit in with a decades-old troop transport. JimRaynor55 23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Good point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Unless there's any argument, I'm going to remove Paradise Snare from the Sources list.
• Source for size?75.93.59.214 09:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Armaments

Why armaments were changed from 24 heavy turbolaser batteries and 20 ion cannon batteries to the exact amount of cannons? Where are the info of 10 cannons per battery came? Sudno (talk) 15:43, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

Where did the 240 turbolasers and 200 Ion cannons come from, and was it an official source? Because that gives it 5 times the number of turbolasers, and 10 times the number of Ion Cannons an MC80 has, despite an MC80 having 50 percent higher turbolaser power than the Liberator class in Rebellion, AKA the game that introduced the Liberator, and matching it in Ion Cannon power.

If I had to guess I would say that someone took the Ion Cannon and Turbolaser power ratings from Rebellion and decided each point represented one gun of the appropriate type while ignoring or missing the fact that applying that same logic to ship classes with specifications in older sources gave them far greater armaments than the specifications showed in most, or all cases.

--Roguestar (talk) 07:30, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the 440 cannons are vastly overpowered and can only stem from an misinterpretation of in-game information. I adapted the information in the article by dividing the numbers by ten. This would roughly fit in with the description of an MC80 having 50% more firepower. It also rustles my jimmies that most people seem to be unable to tell apart guns, turrets and batteries. There are various standards of how many turbolasers make up a turbolaser battery, most commonly five or ten. But that could be a matter of how the guns are grouped and vary from ship to ship, or at least from faction to faction. Just as imperial starfighter wings are twice as large as rebel starfighter wings. --PisauraXTX (talk) 23:40, November 10, 2015 (UTC)

Update: I discovered a site which has the ship stats and descriptions from Star Wars: Rebellion. Comparing the stats to the other ships, I found out that every single number in attack strength is divisible by ten, which might lead one to the conclusion that 10 "attack strength" responds to 1 cannon on the ship. This is reinforced when looking up the stats for the Mon Calamari cruiser. It has 360 turbolaser strength and 200 ion cannon strength, which, when divided by ten, would mean it has the turbolaser loadout of the Home One type and the ion cannon loadout of the Liberty type Mon Calamari cruisers. It would be absolutely insane to suggest that it is a MC80 variant of the same size as those models with almost ten times the weaponry. I know gameplay values are seldom a good source for canonical information, but this is the best guess we have. Let's leave the information in the article at the current 44 guns. If anyone wants to check, here's the link to the Rebellion page: http://www.swrebellion.com/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia --PisauraXTX (talk) 12:50, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

My concern with leaving the gun value as 44, or even the 440 as it is written in the article, is that it is based on a in-game rating of firepower. I mean, it has the shields for the Imperial 2 star destroyer at a value of 800 and turbolasers at a value of 500! I feel like the best thing to do to keep this article canon is to only go by the description from Star Wars: Rebellion, which indicates that the Liberator Cruiser has heavy turbolasers, ion canons, carries three troop regiments, and carries six squadrons of starfighters. Anything else seems like speculation unless the new Star Wars rpg Age of Rebellion: Strongholds of Resistance contains new information that can enlighten us. -- Caamasijedi49 (talk) 3:14, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

Update: Here is the link to swrebellion.com that includes the in-game statistics and encyclopedia entry on the ship (as the previous link does not work): http://www.swrebellion.com/modules.php?name=Encyclopedia&op=content&tid=106 -- Caamasijedi49 (talk) 3:27, March 17, 2016 (UTC)

if the current weaponry listing has been shown to be inaccurate, remove it. if there is no specific numbers for the actual weapon emplacements, just don;t list numbers, putting in "multiple" or something to that effect. then use descriptive text to compare it to something that we do have better info on, like say the Mon-cal cruiser used as a comparison in PisauraXTX's post above. describing it as "with firepower similar to an MC80 cruiser" would suffice to give readers a rough idea without having to give hard numbers. certainly works better than the current set up. Mithril (talk) 22:04, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

• Mithril is right about restoring my edit with that reasons - Cavalier One, Exiledjedi, Toprawa and Ralltiir and Lewisr, why are you still making me repeat what I've writen on the Bulwark talk page? See:
• How often is this topic to be addressed til it's accepted to be addressed?! Rebellion weapon attack strength is not equal to the number of emplacements! Look at it:
  • Does the Dreadnaught-class have 200 turbolasers?
  • Does the Quasar Fire-class have 150 lasers?
  • Does the Assault frigate have 310 turbolasers?
  • Does the Bulk Cruiser have 75 turbolasers?
  • Does the Carrack-class have 40 turbolasers and 300 lasers?
  • Does the CR90 have 450 lasers?
  • Does the DP20 have 480 lasers?
  • Does the Ton-Falk-class have 180 lasers?
  • Does the Imperial I-class have 260 turbolasers and 220 ion cannons?
  • Does the Imperial II-class have 500 turbolasers and 380 ion cannons?
  • Does the Lancer-class have 600 lasers?
  • Does the GR-75 have 60 lasers?
  • Does the MC80 have 360 turbolasers and 200 ion cannons?
  • Does the Nebulon-B have 160 turbolasers and 180 lasers?
  • Does the Star Galleon have 90 lasers?
  • Does the Strike-class have 280 turbolasers and 140 ion cannons?
  • Does the Victory I-class have 320 turbolasers?
  • Does the Victory II-class have 360 turbolasers and 160 ion cannons?
• Are you really going to answer any of these questions with yes? Please stop reverting my correction of this false statement! This topic has been addressed by many users over the years, and noone is against the correction towards a general "turbolasers and ion cannons" fact. Same goes for the Bulwark Mark III and the Dauntless-class. Am I to write all of this on their talk pages, too? (Now you make me do it.) At least it's accepted for the Assault transport, the CC-7700 and the CC-9600 frigate. Onicle (talk) 18:41, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid it is probably a lost cause. when i was blocked over the page reversions i did to the corrected info, I was instructed to contact the person who nominated this article for "good article" status and get them involved.. but looking through the history, that person is the same mod that banned me. so it doesn't matter what we do to convince anyone, if we change the page based on this others will immediately revert without reading the notes or the talk page, and we can't go to the mods for help. Mithril (talk) 04:39, May 3, 2020 (UTC)
    • Let's get things straight here: we have rule and protocols. First, you never attempted to contact Toprawa on this issue, second this is a status article, and you don't go around editing them like any articles, and third, if you want to make a argument relevant to several pages, you don't do it on a isolated talk page that you choose arbitrary, you go on the Senate Hall, that way it has better visibility. It's your job to create awareness about something you think there is an issue with, not the other way around (I only saw this message because I patrol recent edits). So don't say you this is rigged when you failed to communicate properly with other editors. --NanoLuuke^{Cloning facility} 11:35, May 3, 2020 (UTC)
      • NB: I didn't saw that you left a message on Toprawa talk page after this, my bad. Still, I would advise you to be mindful of the way you talk to other editors, unless you want to antagonize them, which will really not help your argument... --NanoLuuke^{Cloning facility} 11:42, May 3, 2020 (UTC)