Contents 1 Issues 2 Bottom Picture 3 Atmospheric flight 4 Appearances 5 Engines 6 Citations 7 VSD-II Armament 8 Battlefront 9 First Appearence Issue

IssuesEdit

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)

Bottom PictureEdit

• 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)

Atmospheric flightEdit

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

AppearancesEdit

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)
• The Victory II wasn't in either games, only in mods

EnginesEdit

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)

CitationsEdit

This article is extremely lacking in citations.

VSD-II Armament Edit

I'm curious,what's the source of the Victory-II's listed armament? --Kuat80 21:58, April 23, 2010 (UTC)

BattlefrontEdit

What is the Victory Class that appears in the Battlefront series? It looks nothing like the Victory I or Victory II. Llamaman201 (talk) 16:21, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

a Victory II-class frigate. ASDF1239^-DISCUSSION- 01:48, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

First Appearence Issue Edit

For some reason Star Wars: Rebellion is listed as the first appearance for this Victory-II, which came out in 1998, yet it also appeared in TIE Fighter, which was around 1994. Is there any reason for this discrepancy? Celestial Oblivion 22:17, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

• Yep: somebody screwed up. :P Based on the release dates given in the sources' respective articles, there were actually several appearances listed that were released before Rebellion, but you're correct that the first one was TIE Fighter. I've moved the {{1st}} tag to reflect that. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Monday, September 5, 2011, 22:22 UTC}