HAHAH, quit messing with the poor n00b and just get it over with. XD VT-16 18:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: That's better. :) VT-16 21:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Errr..i don't think tartan cruisers are Italic text600 Italic text meters long...

• Why not? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Anyone know the number of crewmen for one of these ships?CaptJim 20:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think that's been officially stated yet, if it will ever be stated at all. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• This can't be right. Kyle Katarn says he served onboard a tartan cruiser he and jaden kor are infiltrating it in jedi knight: jedi academy. 96.3.121.40 23:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)RC

But, he didn't he said Dreadnought. Imperial Eyebrows 00:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• You gotta say the two ships looked similar.

Contents 1 600 meters?! 2 Superiority noted added in Behind The Scenes 3 weapons 4 New Source

600 meters?! Edit

okay we can certainly see a similarity between the Tartan and the Carrack now, 600 meters is WAY off, I can normally allow cannon sources of length to override most questions of practicality, but for the Carrack's ludicrous 350 meter and now the Tartan's even more rediculous 600 meter length, this has got to stop, there is no way this ship is 600 meters long, I think common sense has to kick in eventually and people stop blindly following what someone randomly cooked up, I wonder if the person who came up with this number even played Empire at War much if at all, but from the size of the ship in game, it's role and backstory, it should only be 1/3rd the length stated here, it only looks scale wise to be about 50 meters longer than the Corvette anyhow, and nowhere near as big as a nebulon B.

a far more acurate length should be 200m —Unsigned comment by 65.93.84.233 (talk • contribs).

• Common sense and practicality have no place in Star Wars. -- I need a name (Complain here) 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Canon is canon; it cannot be changed, anon. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. Although it can't be changed by us, that by no means stops us from pointing out the fact that the given length is simply ludicrous. Although it may be canon, whoever was responsible for the databack entry screwed it up bigtime. I hope beyond hope that some other brave and canonical source rises up and splatters the guts of this 600 meter abomination across the cosmos.

Put simply, it may be official, but it is still very, very stupid. 72.179.152.13 21:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

it also woulden't be the first time a canon length or dimension has been changed to comply with sanity and logic, common sense in engineering and design is far more common in Star Wars than in say, Star Trek, (but that's not saying much) however the fact that a ship designed with the proportions as a Tartan, for the role of light anti-starfighter and as the Imperial answer to the Corvette, 600 meters definetly makes it stand out from the other craft that have a far more realistic size and dimension compared to their capabilities and design speficiation and role as a ship.

the main problem is that the reasons given above are the only evidence to use to bring it's size down to 200 meters, while the AT-AT and the Executor (both were once stated to be a rediculously small length/height) could be observed on screen as being much larger, observational scaling cannot be used for Empire at War, however EVERY mod of Empire at war that is designed for realistic scaling, puts the Tartan in at 200 meters long, because 600 meters is just foolish... I wonder if it's possible to actually take this up with people at lucasarts or lucasfilm to have it adjusted.

Hahahahah 600 thats almost as long anything of star trek!! i oh so doubt it!! its size compared to an x-wing isnt very big id say its about 5 x-wings long on Empire at war since Empire at war is where this ship was designed i say the database cannot be canon!!

• But the StarWars.com Databank is a source of canon. Admiral Derek 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I know but saying a patrol cruiser is 600 meters long is just.... stupid and since it only has lasers as weaponry UHHHHH!! (Imperial Eyebrows 21:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

• I agree; I think it is a mistake. Who knows, maybe it will be changed by someone over at the official site. Admiral Derek 00:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I think there going to notice that its probably mistaken identity, maybe they thought it was a larger ship since there have been other ships that resemble it. Imperial Eyebrows 18:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, at least there is a note of "canon" measurement. Hopefully, Lucasarts will get their act together soon. I mean what's with their measurements? They're always so off and completely contradict every other source. They really ought to fire whoever is doing them for them. I mean, really... The Juggernaught, for example, is supposed to be bigger than the AT-AT according to them. 129.107.37.230 22:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. But what can be done? According to this though, it's nearly twice as long as a Carrack, and the same leangth as a Dreadnaught.129.107.81.12 20:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I was doing some reasearch and I found that the size of the Tartan is the same size as the Immobilizer 418 cruiser. There is no way in hell that this ship could be 600 metres long. This should be changed immediately.

• I hate to restart an old conversation, but I was just reading The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide, and in the entry for the Tartan it says: "it's no match for larger vessels, such as the Nebulon-B frigate," which directly contradicts the Databank's assertion that it's 600m in length. It doesn't give an alternate length, but should we go with the more recent source here and change the length to <300m, or should we just put a mention in the Behind the Scenes? Doluk^Talk 17:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It can be longer then the Nebulon-B frigate without having more mass, maybe that explains it? cheers — RC-1136 ^{Hate Mail Here} 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • In theory that's true, but in this particular case the geometry of the two ships makes it completely impossible for the Nebulon-B to have more mass than the Tartan if the Tartan is really 600m long. See here for a comparison of the two ships with the Nebulon-B at 300 pixels long, and the Tartan at 600 pixels long:

link removed, as linking to photobucket causes edit issues. Please consult older version for image. Aplogies, Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith ^{-Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!-} 13:18, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

At this scaling, at best the Nebulon-B would mass about 1/4 of what the Tartan masses. I'm afraid it's a definite contradiction between sources. Doluk^Talk 20:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Superiority noted added in Behind The ScenesEdit

I added that the Tartan is slightly stronger against the Corellian Cruiser rather than being equal to it, a bit unnecessary to say, but if one spends as much time looking at the xml files of the projectile damage and compare the Damage_Tartan to the Damage_Corellian_Corevette, you'll see that the Tartan cruiser would, in a perfectly even fight, win against a CR90. The advantage is, admittedly, not that great, however (I believe the Tartan has both stronger lasers and a longer range - most likely to counter the shields of Rebel fighters, but a greater inaccuracy - barely - against fighters. Naturally, however, the Corellian Gunship still kicks it's butt.129.107.37.230 22:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

weapons Edit

The Laser Cannons look more like Turbolasers in EaW and it's sequel. Admiral Paul 16:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

New SourceEdit

Leland Chee has just posted on TOS forums that the Tartain is 250m long, and that the Databank will soon be updated. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith ^{-Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!-} 13:18, February 22, 2010 (UTC)