Talk:Victory II-class Star Destroyer

From Wookieepedia, the Star Wars wiki.

Contents 1 Issues 2 Bottom Picture 3 Atmospheric flight 4 Appearances 5 Engines

[edit] Issues

I take issue with this sentence:

Not in service until after the end of the Clone Wars

From Dark Lord:

"I hate the look of these new mass-produced Imperator-class Destroyers," Gayn continued. "None of the artistry that went into the old Acclamators and Venators--even the Victory Twos." He shook his head in dissapointment. "So goes elegance."

It seems to me that ol' Brudi here is referencing the Victory II with the Venator and Acclamator, which were certainly around before the end of the Clone Wars. And considering that this is only 4 weeks(20 days)after the war ended, it makes that sentence even more unlikely.Commodore Axilon 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• This could be an error on the part of Dark Lord's author. I believe established canon already said that Victory IIs were produced after the Clone Wars. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 00:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• I noticed that as well. He could just be saying that even the new Vic-IIs didn't look as bad as these bigger SDs. VT-16 10:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • True. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • I disagree. How do you know he isn't referring to the Victory II-class frigate? - Brynn Alastayr 05:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Because frigates are never referred to as Star Destroyers. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• As long as I remember, the Imperial Sourcebbok says that Victory Twos didn´t enter service until the final days of the Clone Wars and so they didn´t saw much action, but that means that they participated in the war and so the sentence is incorrect. I don´t know is there is a newer source that contradicts this, but it makes sense with the quote from Dark Lord EDIT: Forget about it, It says that about Victorys in general- Jon Valerius 11:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bottom Picture

• Does anyone else think the picture at the bottom of the page is too big? On my screen it covers some of the text. I tried to fix this but it got reverted. Maphisto86 06:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • While the picture isn't causing me trouble at my resolution, the article does seem to have template squishing problems for me (the infobox pusing the Kuat box to the left, for instance). jSarek 06:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I don't have problems with either of those. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The picture isn't causing me trouble either, but the infobox is pushing the Kuat box to the left. But that's not a big problem, right? --Jedimca0 ^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 14:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atmospheric flight

Where is stated that Victory Twos can´t enter atmospheres? Knowing that both Victory I and Imperial Star Destroyers are capable of atmospheric flight, it seems odd that Victory II can´t, especially as they have atmospheric maneuvering surfaces. - Jon Valerius 12:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Good Point. User:Ayla Secura

[edit] Appearances

How can the Victory I and the Victory II both be in Star Wars: Empire at War? Shouldn't it be one or the other?--CT-1987 14:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but it's hard to tell them apart. VT-16 14:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Engines

Bit of a problem here, the text in the body of the article states: "the designers fitted the ships with powerful Hoersch-Kessel Drive, Inc. engines, as the Victory I's LF9 ion engines could not produce sufficient acceleration to engage faster and newer vessels in ship-to-ship combat.", but the panel to the right lists the engines as being the original LF9 ion engines. Obviously one of these is wrong, and it seems to be the panel. I have changed this info once, but have had it reverted, however the research I've done does seem to indicate that the information in the panel is wrong, and the information in the body of text is correct. Unless anyone has any objections I will change it back.--Stunteddwarf 23:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• "Hoersch-Kessel Drive, Inc." is not a type of engine. That's why it's been removed when you add it. I see what you mean, though. Therefore, I've removed the LF9 from the infobox. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aha, that explains it. Can the engine template be changed to Engines/Engine Manufacturer, or would that take up too much room in the panel?--Stunteddwarf 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go messing around with templates. I don't think engine manufacturer is all that important for a ship infobox. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 10:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, no I wasn't going to touch the templates, don't know enough about them, it was more of a technical question of could it be done, rather than anything else.--Stunteddwarf 14:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)