Wikia

Wookieepedia

Random Page Wiki Activity
Watchlist Recent changes

Talk:Victory I-class Star Destroyer

Back to page

Wiki-shrinkable.png

This is the talk page for the article "Victory I-class Star Destroyer."

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

Contents

Conjectural TurbolasersEdit

"The Victory-class presumably also had a few heavy turbolaser turrets." Similar to the HIMS debate, why would we include this in the article? If there is a long standing discussion of the probability of VSDs bearing them, perhaps it should be included in Behind the Scenes, or if it's discussed at length on websites, linked to fron External Links. --SparqMan 15:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Because WEG also consistently ignored the HTL turrets on the ISDs in their stats. Even the Venator has HTLs, and it's just a carrier. It wouldn't make any sense at all for the VSD to not have them. -Vermilion 00:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Not nesesarily (I spelt that wrong, but I'm tired... lol): The Venator and ISDs were built by KDY, whereas the VSD was by Rendili. Plus I'm pretty sure the Victory came before the Venator. --Beeurd 00:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • WEG consistently left out the primary armerment of ships in favor of the secondary one. From their POV it makes sense, a hit from one of big HTLs is gonna annihilate the party. But the weapons still need to be there. -- Lowkey
      • Visible turrets are not necessarily the sine qua non of heavy weapons. More serious is the question of concussion missiles - as I've noted in the Behind the scenes section, we seem to have a snafu here, if SotG really says four tubes: so, does it? --McEwok 14:01, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
    • It says 20 tbes, 4 missiles a piece -- Lowkey

I should point out that recent sources have gone back to the Victory I-class Star Destroyer having 80 concussion missile launchers, not simply twenty launchers with 4 missiles each; the New Essential Chronology supports the former case, and the fact that the Providence-class Carrier/Destroyer has 102 proton torpedo launchers makes the VSD having 80 launchers not that unreasonable. --TIEDefenderPilot 00:56, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. If the recent sources support the 80 launchers, then that should be it. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:01, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)


Victor ProjectEdit

Please explain to me how what really comes down to an immature temper tantrum about what a book says is necessary? A wiki entry is suppossed to be from a neutral POV, how is bashing what LFL has decided to retcon in anyway shape or form neutral? --Lowkey

  • It doesn't matter; it's information that should be there. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:06, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • Why? How is the fact that LFL made a decision that you don't like to change things relevent to the Victory class? I don't like the fact that Galaxies is canon, you don't see me messing up articles bashing it. What justification is there for including it? -- Lowkey
      • Simple: It's information. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:13, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • The fact that you don't like it does not make it relevant informaion. --Lowkey
          • I never said I didn't like it. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:33, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
            • Then why are you so quick to revert information bashing LFL and defedning its inclusion despite being fron a nonNPOV? --Lowkey
              • You know, I don't really care about this anymore. It's out of the article anyway, despite the fact that it provides some information. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:43, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • I'm looking at the anonymous edits that brought this diatribe into the article, and they all go back to McEwok. Of course I'm not surprised, but I do wonder how much longer the admins are going to put up with that kind of childish behaviour. And why, oh why, doesn't he pick on other "fan-writers" who got a lucky break. How about them Wizards of the Coast boys, huh? Or Pablo Hidalgo and his WEG team of wonder? Why is it anything that might have had something to do with Curtis Saxton? Saxton had nothing to do with this book, but still, he's the one getting picked on. The only author getting this kind of treatment here, apparently. VT-16 15:59, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"Victor" comes from the Latin vincere, victum meaning "to conquer". Vincere means to win, not to conquer. --Dark Scipio 08:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Battlefront II Edit

I'm not sure why my edit was taken out, but during the space battles of the game Battlefront II, if one checks his or her sensors, one will note that it records the Victory-class vessels as "frigates" and not as "Star Destroyers." I commented on this in the "Behind the Scenes" subsection because it, to me, seemed relevant. Why it was deleted, I do not know.--SOCL 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

  • See Victory II-class frigate. They're two completely different warships. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • See, this is the point where I apologize and also the point where I ask that in the future such a thing be pointed out to me rather than action simply being taken.--SOCL 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, if you look at the history, plenty of people had added this kind of thing in before, and I get tired of writing the same thing in the "Summary" box. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Victory III Edit

Would the upgraded ships manufactured after the Vong war be considered a Victory III-class? Generally upgrading the design and adding massive tractor beams seem to me like it's sufficient to define a new class. 68.47.234.131 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No. If you add a massive asteroid-tug tractor beam to a ship, that does not make it a new class. Upgrading some other things doesn't make it a new class, either. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The alterations are made during construction, not as refits. If significant alterations to a design's armament and such doesn't constitute a new class, then the Endurance-class carriers also aren't actually a new class. They're just modified Nebula-class Star Destroyers. Besides, what is the Victory II, but a Victory I with upgrades (less substantial than those of the new "Victory Is" seen post Vong war, at that)? 68.47.234.131 03:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No matter what, a source is needed. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Any speculation or mention of it (since it sounds substantial enough) could go in the Behind the scenes section. :) VT-16 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't like that idea, though. I don't think we should go around mentioning a possible "Victory III-class Star Destroyer" if we don't know if it exists. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
            • It does at least deserve a BTS mention for being such an extensive modification as to warrant being a possibly new sub-class, even if it was never mentioned as such in-universe. VT-16 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
              • Fine, but someone's going to go make a page on that, because someone usually does. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Victory-class in ANH?Edit

I discovered this interesting card from the SW:CCG ANH set. Having discarded it as non-canon in the past, the recent retcons highlighted (Sariss in ANH, Tectors in ROTJ) made me wonder what the canon status of Victory ships in ANH are. [1] The card shows the Devastator model from that film, but identifies it as a Victory SD. Now, with the exhibition model of the Devastator showing refitted parts that made the ISD-Is in ESB and ROTJ look more like ISD-IIs, this image could easily be explained as showing an extensively refitted Victory SD. The SDs over Tatooine were never really expanded on, so maybe they could be retconned as Victorys? VT-16 09:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. Devastator looks like the other ISD-Is in A New Hope; I think that's just a mistake on the part of WotC. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 12:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I wasn't saying the Devastator was a Victory ship, only that its model could have portrayed several classes in ANH, if this retcon is still accepted. I asked about it on the continuity-thread on the OS, so hopefully we'll have an answer soon. VT-16 13:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh. Now I get it. But still, if the model was used as a Victory, it would look different from the Victory Is and IIs. Of course, if the model was used as a Victory, it could be considered a Victory III... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Of course, if it was a Victory III, there would probably be "Victory Vs" by the Yuuzhan Vong War. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Yeah, something like that, or Victory-I A or something, since it wouldn't be a new model in the same series, but an upgrade of an older design. VT-16 15:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
            • But that would make the Imperial II the "Imperial I A". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
              • No, I said "upgrade", not "new model in the same series", which is what the ISD-II's were. But, then again, they might just not bother with it. ;P VT-16 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

New PicEdit

The Victory II had hull hugging "fins" like the one pictured in both articles.--Jerry 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

For those with a functioning scanner and either the Star Wars Sourcebook or the Imperial Sourcebook, I point you to page 35 of the SWSB, which has the original concept Imperial Star Destroyer art (mislabeled as an actual ISD) that was used for the Esdee Vic Mark I; and page 59 of the ISB, which has a profile view based on that pic (which was later misinterpreted as having fins, resulting in the design of the Vic Mark II). jSarek 08:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • None of the pictures in the article or shown in ISB match the fanart above, all of them have the fin-like structure, but they point toward one another, not away. VT-16 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Too bad. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 12:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I see both VSD I and VSD II have been changed. There *ARE* definitely VSD's with those finlike structures - they're visible in the old The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels and the X-wing line of games. I'd heard that they were the VSD IIs to explain the visual discrepancy (the fins are apparently the result of misinterpreting the profile image in the ISB), but I don't recall if it was canonically stated anywhere. jSarek 13:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Hmm, indeed. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 14:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
          • There's no way to prove it, but I'm fairly certain the fins are maneuverable. In space it doesn't matter whether they're extended or contracted but in an atmosphere to move faster the VSD would tuck the wings in and when slowing down and doing maneuvering, the wings would extend. It's pure conjecture but it makes sense to me while explaining the discrepancies between the wings being extended versus being collapsed. --Anguirus111 01:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • X-Wing Alliance's Victory Destoyer. hXXp:// digilander.libero.it /iuriflagg/fotos/accademia/altro/vsd2.jpg --Unregistered user.

Number of Victorys owned by the CSA. Edit

Okay, let's hear the sources for 250 and 520. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 22:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Atmosphere Edit

  • This question is kinda dumb but I don't get the whole one of the largest ships cpable of atmospheric operations. Does this mean that ISDs, SSDs, and Lucrehulks couldn't enter the atmosphere? If so, why? If they could, then this sentence should be removed. Thanks. Chack Jadson 12:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Larger warships were incapable of entering atmospheres, yes. Some might say that the reason is that they didn't have atmospheric manuevering fins, but Venators didn't have them, yet they could enter atmospheres. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 13:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Sorry for my ignorance but why couldn't they? Did they explode, or fail to respond/didn't function? The Second Battle of Coruscant took place in the atmosphere, so I guess that Lucrehulks, Recusants, and Munificents could function. Thanks. Chack Jadson 14:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
        • No, the Second Battle of Coruscant took place in space, not Coruscant's atmosphere. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 19:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
          • I thought I read somewhere that the battle took place in the atmosphere, allowing for the fire and sunlight (although Star Wars really doesn't care about things like sound in space being wrong) but never mind. Anyway, back to my original question: is there a specific reason why some ships couldn't enter the atmosphere? Thanks. Chack Jadson 01:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
            • I'm not sure if there is. But, just to prove that the Second Battle of Coruscant took place in space, look at Invisible Hand's decent into Coruscant's atmosphere. The entire ship begins to burn up. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 03:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
              • Yeah, I remembered that right after I typed it. I have no clue what I was thinking. Anyway, thanks. Chack Jadson 16:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Large Warships cannot enter atmosphere because they are so heavy they would simply crash.Lowbacca5 03:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:Lusankya_escaping_Coruscant.jpg 67.76.181.251 23:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


Actually, bringing in the Lusankya gives us the answer. If you read the Lusankya article (or RS:the Krytos Trap), you see that the Lusankya was buried with a repulsorlift cradle-and it was that cradle that allowed it to generate enough lift to leave Coruscant. Wedge noted that the jettisoning of the lift cradle as it left meant it wouldn't be able to manage another planetfall and launch, but that it certainly won't need to do that again. So, the answer to "what happens if a larger ship enters atmosphere" is "it needs to use repulsorlifts to leave the planet's gravity well", and ships larger than the Victory-I don't seem to HAVE repulsorlifts. This is a consideration when you need to account both for all a ship's power and all a ship's hull- leaving out repulsorlifts is cheaper, does not split the ship's energy output as much, and leaves the lower hull better-armored. Steel Damascus 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

EaW Edit

Why is the Victory II-class Star Destroyer's picture from EaW in this article? It doesn't appear in the "Appearances" section here but does in the Victory-II's article. Now, I think it's been proven that the EaW model is the Victory-II.

I'm moving the image... if anyone has any objections tell me. JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 03:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Still no results on google for a canon Victory-I... JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 20:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Back to the original topic... The Victory-class Star Destroyer from EaW has ion cannons and no concussion missile launchers, so it has to be the Victory II-class that is featured in EaW and FoC. The screenshots here from Empire at War are misleading and must be moved to the Victory II article or deleted. I am removing both titles from appearances. - Brynn Alastayr 05:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Not necessarily. Have you ever heard of gameplay? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 14:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
    • As I said in an earlier discussion: EaW has names for VSDs that cover both VSD-I and VSD-II series. Crusader, Gallant, Hunter, Iron Fist - explicitly Mark I, Corrupter - explicitly Mark II, Dominator - Totally overhauled by ROTJ and could be either. (The evidence actually points to the EaW model being a Mark I, given that the names are all referred to in other media as Mark I or Mark-unspecified except for two.) - If you cross-reference the ship name list ("%ProgramFiles%\LucasArts\Star Wars Empire at War\GameData\Data\Victory_Destroyer.txt"), it covers both classes, and EaW takes place before many of the references that name the ships' specific classes. And we know from Rebellion that they're visually identical (see here). -- Darth Culator (Talk) 16:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Since Imperial I- and Imperial II-class are visually distinguishable by the command tower, I assume there is no dispute that the class that appears in EaW is the Imperial II. But if you check the unique names for it, it includes the Conquest, Devastator (the classic Imperial I, built before Imperial II, but possibly refitted some time later), and Death's Head (explicitly Imperial I by Thrawn's campaign, which is set after the timeframe of EaW). That makes the name files erroneous. And yes, Nebulax, I know about gameplay; I have a mod[2] for EaW and I know the game inside and out and I wouldn't make this argument if I wasn't absolutely sure. If you are going to argue that they are basically the same thing because they look identical, then by the same logic, Bast survived the Death Star due to his appearance in the Holiday Special. You can't make those kind of decisions; that is creating canon and goes against everything Wookieepedia stands for. If you want me to reinstall X-wing Alliance (if it still runs) to get an infobox shot of something that is explicitly Victory I or Victory II - I don't care if they use the exact same model in-game or not, the point is that the distinction is clearly made in a canon source - then I would be willing to do that. - Brynn Alastayr 23:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
        • You need to calm down. Victory Is are in Empire at War, as Darth Culator pointed out. There's no need to continue this discussion. It's been proven that you're wrong. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 23:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I can see that the value of opinions is proportional to edit counts around here, and further discussion will be pointless. I digress and will revert the page. - Brynn Alastayr 04:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image confusion. Edit

The Victory-class in Empire at War is not referred to by a mark-I or II.
The Victory-I and Victory-II in X-Wing Alliance use the same model.
The Victory-I and Victory-II in Star Wars: Rebellion used the same model.
Starships of the Galaxy says both classes can enter atmosphere.

Visually speaking, they're effectively interchangeable. I doubt we'll find a picture that specifies whether it depicts a -I or a -II, so a pic from EaW is fine in the infobox or anywhere else. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 03:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Well, I deleted it, but, with that logic, I may put it back or have it reverted. JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Where was the Victory I or Victory II described as having hullplates that extended away from one another? People kept saying that was the difference between sub-classes, but I forget the source, if it ever existed. Either way, it seems the two have been treated as mostly structurally similar for so long now, it doesn't matter anymore, but it would be good as background material, or maybe a refit explanation? VT-16 10:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think the Victory I had the outward-pointing fins. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 12:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
      • The only source I've seen with outward fins is X-Wing Alliance (and perhaps its predecessors, but I don't have them installed right now). XWA uses the same model for both the I and II. Literally the same, as in the same .OPT file. The only difference is the shield and hull points it assigns and the firing priority of the hardpoints. And I'm fairly certain the outward facing fins are the result of reading the side view in the Imperial Sourcebook wrong. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 12:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
        • So, is there any way we can find out which is which? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Well, I guess short of asking the game directors, I guess there is no way to fully know... maybe use a guess? I mean, Victory Is were around towards the end of the Clone Wars, whereas the Victory II came later. That's why I figure the Victory II is the one in EaW, because they're later models. Maybe they use similar hulls? JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 23:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
            • The only difference I see is the fins. Perhaps we could use the sources to determine which is which. We could see which one appears the first, and see if it makes an image appearance in it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 02:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
              • My whole point is that there are Vic-I's and Vic-II's with open fins, and Vic-I's and Vic-II's with closed fins. The model in Empire at War has closed fins, but EaW has names for VSDs that cover both VSD-I and VSD-II series. Crusader, Gallant, Hunter, Iron Fist - explicitly Mark I, Corrupter - explicitly Mark II, Dominator - Totally overhauled by ROTJ and could be either. (The evidence actually points to the EaW model being a Mark I, given that the names are all referred to in other media as Mark I or Mark-unspecified except for two.) Any VSD which is named in both EaW and the X-wing series will have been seen in both the open-fin and closed-fin versions. I think the open fins are a mistake, but we may have to explain them as a moving component or a yard retrofit. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 02:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                • I always thought Victory Is had open fins. I never knew that they could move. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 14:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                  • They may not be mobile, but there needs to be some explanation for ships that have appeared in both configurations. Hunter, Protector, and Stalwart have all been seen in the open-fin and closed-fin version. The simplest explanation is that the VSD-II is a VSD-I with different engines and a few turrets swapped out for other weapons, and thus they both look the same at any reasonable level of detail. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(TINC) 17:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                    • But then wouldn't that make the Victory II just a retrofit, like how Victory IIs later on (Yuuzhan Vong War) got upgraded things, yet aren't called Victory IIIs? Does this mean that changing a few things about the ship makes it a new class? JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 17:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
                      • From what I recall, isn't there superstructure between each fin in the closed versions? Can't just say they from that to a version where the fins turn upwards and with nothing in between, if it's the same ship. Unless those sections are detachable.
Does this mean that changing a few things about the ship makes it a new class?
No, it makes it either a subclass or a refit. VT-16 17:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As much as I hate to say this, but since we can't tell which is which, should they be merged? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 19:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it makes it either a subclass or a refit. That's what I thought. I was just saying that hypothetically VT.
From what I recall, isn't there superstructure between each fin in the closed versions? That is correct... there is superstructure under the two fins on the Victory II.
As much as I hate to say this, but since we can't tell which is which, should they be merged? Well, unless we get a definate Victory I picture, then I guess that's the only solution, as unfortunate as it may be... JorrelWiki-shrinkable.pngFraajic 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    • but since we can't tell which is which, should they be merged?
No, they are different subclasses, as is the Imperial I and II, the Acclamator I and II and the Mandator I and II. They all have differences to them. VT-16 10:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Victory-class added to ROTJ articleEdit

Based on the Dominator article (a Victory-class ship made upgraded to look like a mini-ISD) should we put the Victory-class as appearing in ROTJ? With the big scene of the Imperial fleet in the distance, where all you can see is the Executor and dozens of similar looking ships, how can anyone tell the difference between a faraway ISD and a faraway VSD made to look like an ISD? Thoughts? VT-16 15:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Dominator's article doesn't even have RotJ as an appearance. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem.svg 15:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • the fact is that the models used in the filming of RotJ for the Imperial ships were only the Executor and Imperial-class.
If you bother to read the article in question, you'll see that the model used to portray this particular Victory-class ship is one of the ISD models. VT-16 23:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Engines Edit

The article states that the ships had Alderaan Royal Engineers LF9 ion engines and that the VicII was updated with new Hoersch-Kessel Drive ion engines. However, the VicII article says that the VicII also used LF9s. Is one of the articles wrong or is LF9 a broad term for an engine of that size and both the Alderaan Royal Engineers and Hoersch-Kessel Drive made them? Tarvin Calaan 23:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Number of concussion missile tubes Edit

80 or 20?190.196.32.213 23:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Anakinskysolo

Victoria I-class Star Destroyer? Edit

Where is "Victoria I-class Star Destroyer" from? I've never heard of a Victoria-class Star Destroyer. Emperor Roma I 05:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


Known Edit

Could someone make a list of known Victory-I's? I know it's a hassle, but I'd appreciate it. 129.107.81.12 01:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ion Cannons?Edit

The Victory II-class Star Destroyer has 20 ion cannons, and so does like, every other Star Destroyer. I was wondering, does anyone know if the Victory I-class has any ion cannons? i would really appreciate knowing, because i'm trying to find out which star destroyer has the largest armament. Especially seeing how it only has 10 Quad Turbolasers and like, 40 double Turbolasers, whereas the Victory II has 20 Quad Turbolasers, 20 Ion Cannons AND 40 double Turbolasers. Venators 08:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Both Vic I's and II's enter atmosphere? Edit

According to the current Victory I article, Victory II-class SDs cannot enter atmosphere (under 'Propulsion Systems'), but the information is not sourced (nor is it in the article for the Vic II, in fact, the discussion for the Vic II brings this up). I was wondering how accurate this information is, as both 'Starships of the Galaxy' and 'Star Wars: Rebellion' seem to at least allude to the possibility that the Vic II can indeed enter atmosphere.

I do not have Starships of the Galaxy (so I can't quote anything), but I was reading some earlier discussion for this article, and under 'Image Confusion' Darth Culator mentions that the book states both classes can enter amosphere.

I do have Star Wars: Rebellion, however, and in the entry for the Vic II, it mentions "The Victory II works well as a patrol or blockade starship and maintains its predecessor's bombardment capabilities." I would assume 'bombardment capabilities' refers to the Vic I's atmospheric capabilities (although the wording used in both the Vic I and Vic II entries in SW:R don't actually mention anything about entering an atmosphere).

If this is an error, it should be rectified. If it is a fact, it should be sourced and included in the Vic II article.

173.32.3.184 07:45, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Victory X-type Destroyer Edit

Ok kids, time to knuckle down and answer the question: What is the difference between the Victory I and the Victory II? I've seen a lot of answers from a lot of people but NONE of them from lucasfilm/arts or Lucas himself. We know the Victory has outriggers that make it different from an Imp. SD. But should we consider the X-type outriggers the Victory II class or Victory I class or?? Any thoughts on this? Is there a consensus in the community? There are a bunch of outspoken people who tend to force their opinions through, so i would like EVERYONES opinion on this.

Empire at War Edit

So a quick question: is it the Victory-I or the Victory-II that appears in Empire at War? Both pages say that it appeared in that game, but only one variant is there. So which is it? Bear in mind that all the screenshots on the Victory-II page are from EaW, but I won't remove the reference from the Vic-I page until someone says something. Taral, Dark Lord of the Sith -Just shy, not antisocial: You can talk to me!- 15:23, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ghorman Edit

Is there any proof that the ship Tarkin used to land on the protesters was a Victory SD? The article says it is, but I've always thought it was left ambiguous as to what kind of ship it was.

Retrieved from "http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Talk:Victory_I-class_Star_Destroyer"

Pages on Wookieepedia

Add a Page
93,439pages on
this wiki

Latest Photos

Add an Image
49,825images on this wiki
See more >

Recent Wiki Activity

See more >

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki