How do we know the Theta-class barge from New Essential Guide to Vehicles is the same as the one from Force Commander? VT-16 22:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say it's a safe bet that they're the same. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I looked at its profile on CUSWE, it matches the job description of this one pretty well. VT-16 08:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that's good enough for me. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 21:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Empire at War Edit

Just to dissuade any future reversions of my changes: These are the vessels in Empire at war.

Comparison:

AT-AT Barges contain 1 AT-AT and are small. Y-85s contain 4 AT-ATs and numerous AT-STs and are quite large.

In Empire at war, the barges carry 1 AT-AT and are small. They are also called "AT-AT Barges" if you click on them, so I'm not sure what more proof is needed. So to conclude, there are no Y-85s in Empire at war.

• It's called gameplay. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Could just be later-model Thetas that take some design-cues from Y-85s. I've seen Juggernauts that look like A6 models, but they're the size of A5s. This might be something similar. VT-16 12:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • True... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Your gameplay argument is flawed. To compare: The developers wanted A-wings in a time where there were no A-wings. That is called gameplay. So, we must reason that they are in fact Retconned A-wings (Spearheads). Well, the developers of EAW and Force Commander wanted Y-85s, but they could not fit, so to enhance gameplay, they simply changed the Y-85s to suit their needs. This is where the Theta-class AT-AT barges come from. They are to Y-85s, what Spearheads are to A-wings. Explanations for gameplay contradictions to canon. So you can see that, there are A-wings in the game that are Spearheads.. and Y-85s that are Theta-class shuttles. Either way.. I won't bother changing this anymore, cause I know that even if you see that it is Theta-class AT-AT barges in EAW, some other person will just come and revert it again to the incorrect info. Trucidar 23:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
      • If they wanted Y-85s and made them look like Y-85s, they're Y-85s, even though they're enhanced as you said yourself. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, from the discussion page on the Y-85 page. It says that only very large ships carried Y-85s, while smaller ships such as Imperial Star Destroyers (the largest fleet ship in EAW), carried AT-AT Barges. Combine that with the fact that the ship we are talking about in EAW is called the AT-AT Barge, and does everything the AT-AT Barge does.. (while conversely not doing the things the Y-85 does, like deploy 4 AT-ATs and support vehicles) I really don't know how to convince you anymore. This would be like me showing someone a Spearhead and trying to convince them it's not an A-wing. It may look like an A-wing, but other factors make it impossible for it to be an A-wing. Personally I think this is simply a case of the game companies not knowing enough about something, then creating it wrong and forcing us to classify or retcon it into the universe properly. Anyway, if you're still convinced it's Y-85s, don't worry about me changing it. It's too minor of a difference for me to really worry about it. Trucidar 03:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
          • If they wanted to make a Y-85 in the game, it's a Y-85. Games have messed up canon numerous times before, and EaW has done some things like that, one of which is showing Wayland as already discovered before it is actually discovered. It's all gameplay. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• It's not a Y-85 even if you think it's not an AT-AT barge. That rear fin isn't in the Y-85 design. VT-16 12:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

In Force Commander, the AT-AT Barges could carry 2 AT-AT's, however, they deployed only 1 at-at in the cut-scene.