Contents 1 StarViper and KOTOR 2 Manufacturer 3 "Based on Virago?" 4 BTS? 5 Timeline issues

StarViper and KOTOR Edit

in starwars KOTOR :sth lord, when The Exile and his team raid the general from Madalore, they use a starship similar to star viper. and star viper are produced by MandalMotors (madalorians) is it true that star viper is a very old model dating back to the old republic? —Unsigned comment by 202.6.233.6 (talk • contribs).

• I don't think so. Look at the eras. Only the Rebellion era is listed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I may be wrong but I think in the main article there is a picture of the "Virago" and not a StarViper. I thought the Virago is a modified StarViper and the usual one looks like this: images.swcombine.com/artteam/jaret/viper.jpg _{(dead link)}. In Shadow of the Empire, prince Prince Xizor is flying the ship "Virago" and his men are flying in ships like the one on the picture. —Unsigned comment by User:Jaret Byar (talk • contribs).
    • The ship in KotOR II is a Basilisk war droid, albeit a variant that looks very similar to the Virago - Kwenn 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Are we sure that the fighters in the picture are meant to be StarVipers? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Manufacturer Edit

When did the manufacturer get changed from MandalMotors to Mandal Hypernautics? And what is the source? I'm fairly certain (will have to doublecheck when I get home) the NEGVV states that MandalMotors in the manufacturer. - JMAS 00:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that EaW: FoC says Mandal Hypernautics. However, I don't own the game. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't own either of the EaW games either, but I imagine you are right. Assuming that is the case, what source has higher canon value? NEGVV or the game? - JMAS 01:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I'd say TNEGtVaV. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
      • It's quite likely that Mandal Hypernautics is a subsidiary of MandalMotors. -LtNOWIS 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Likely. And also, I think we usually go with the newer source - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
          • LtNOWIS, you're probably right. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
            • EaW isn't eactly the most canon thing you'll ever see (I own and Mod it). If anything in it is contridicted somewhere else, the other source is right. For example: The Empire can produce TIE Phantoms and any Darktrooper (eventhough the plans for 'em were lost).
              • Every game essentially contradicts canon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
                • Not necessarily. Games make canon, after all. Unit 8311 19:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

"Based on Virago?" Edit

Where is the source for this? How do we know that the Virago isn't a modified StarViper? Darth Bassan94 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

BTS? Edit

Based on this Wikipedia article, the cockpit design looks similar to the StarFury from Babylon V. Do you think that it influenced the design, and if so could we use it for a Behind the Scenes section?

• I do see the resemblance, and I'd say that the resemblance is enough for a "Behind the scenes" section. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 18:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Timeline issues Edit

If Xizor has sole production rights to the StarViper, then how does the Consortium get their hands on the ship and well before to his death? At least that's how it is in the game storyline. —Unsigned comment by 24.27.193.29 (talk • contribs).

• Good point, the FoC campaign starts in 1 BBY so the Consortium shouldn't have StarVipers until 4 years later, a clear continuity mistake that this article doesn't even cover. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 18:29, January 27, 2011 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of adding the following statement to the Behind the scenes to highlight the continuity concern mentioned above, "The campaign to Star Wars: Empire at War: Forces of Corruption depicts the Zann Consortium deploying squadrons of StarVipers as early as 1 BBY during the Mission to Mandalore." Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:18, February 10, 2012 (UTC)
    • Sounds good. Go ahead and put it in the Bts section but add the discontinuity that occurs, as well, and make sure you cite the sources involved. Also, please use asterisks ( * ) to post replies. Colons are mostly used to insert block quotes. Gethralkin^Hyperwave 05:18, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
      • I usually use asterisks, won't happen again, and I discussed this matter with Toprawa and Ralltiir on my talk page, among other things, when I made a mistake concerning alternate names for a battle. I already made the above mentioned addition based on the conversation. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 05:39, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
        • I found it... looks great! Funny how it never got caught til now. You might also add this to the EaW page under the Inconsistencies with established canon heading. Gethralkin^Hyperwave 15:13, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
          • No you shouldn't, because it's not an inconsistency in EaW, it's an inconsistency in FoC. -- I need a name (Complain here) 17:04, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
            • INAN is correct, of course. Adding an inconsistencies subheading and listing the StarViper-class discontinuity to the expansion rather than the core game would be more correct. Gethralkin^Hyperwave 05:02, February 15, 2012 (UTC)
            • I have known about this inconsistency since I first looked up more information on the StarViper-class attack platform from here a few years ago, and I thought this wiki was just slow about noticing these things. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 19:20, February 13, 2012 (UTC)