Talk:Alliance cruiser (788 UC era)
From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki
Nice article. It looks like you're using the laserdisc rip for the Episode 107 screencaps, though, I'll just replace them with exact copies. Vympel 12:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually I'm using the original Japanese DVD, but my captures seem to end up of lower quality. Iracundus 12:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I was just about to edit myself when I realised the alternative. For some reason they have a grainy artifice. No worries. Vympel 12:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Alliance Destroyer / Cruiser / Battleship / Carrier ratios
Just wondering if the Alliance ratio of ships should be the same as the Empire's.
The Empire actually gives us what can only be a typical fleet composition on episode 27. It shows that the fleet is made up of roughly 55% Destroyers, 28% Cruisers, 14% Battleships and 3% Carriers (the flagship class seems to be considered an upscaled type of battleship, and would logically be put in the Battleship category). Now, it may fluctuate some, but we can assume this is the rough Imperial standard.
The problem with this is the fighter ratio. Discounting the carriers themselves (50 to 100 fighters each, I suppose), the space fighters on each ship is as follows:
Destroyer: Alliance: 0 ... Empire: 2
Cruiser: Alliance: 3 ... Empire: 6
Battleship: Alliance: 12 ... Empire: 48
That comes up to: Alliance: 4,500 fighters ... Empire: 15,000 fighters
Calculating the Carriers for the Alliance Brings up a total of about 8,500 Fighters, and we have to assume that the Imperial Carriers can at least give an additional 3000 fighters. Which would mean 8,500 Fighters to 18,000+ Fighters.
I just don't buy it. The Alliance wouldn't prepare fleets that couldn't equal the Empire's, pound-for pound, fighter screen included. The numerical difference is too large. FPA Forever 12:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Alliance must have comparatively more carriers than the Empire in its fleets. This makes sense since carriers were banned by the peace treaty - if they only made up such a small amount of the Alliance fleet (as the evidence indicates may be the case for Imperial fleets) I'd think that banning them would have next to no effect on their combat capability. Vympel 00:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, that makes sense. The Alliance seems to have gone very early in the carrier field - they did from at least 749 UC, and its shown that the Empire didn't have anything like fighters or carriers by Second Tiamat, which means nothing by late 745 UC and 746 UC. I actually might go as far as to say that this was the field in which the Alliance was ahead. I mean, that the Empire would be ahead would be ridiculous and the sort of plot device I dislike. At any rate, a dedicated ship, and more money for the production of such ship, would mean 120 Carriers instead of the 40 for the Empire. The Alliance might have built a lot less destroyers - its stated somewhere that their most numerous ship was the cruiser - to compensate. FPA Forever 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- The Databook does indicate the Alliance was the first side to develop full fledged carriers. In the Imperial carrier entry in that book, it mentions how the Empire was slow to realize the utility of carriers and concentrated groups of fighters until the Alliance dealt the Empire multiple setbacks. Then to reduce design time and costs, the Empire chose to use the existing large battleships favored by the nobles, such as the Wilhelmina class, as a starting basis for the Imperial carrier design. The Imperial response was essentially reactionary, and certainly their spreading out of their fighters across all their ships is a different doctrine from the Alliance's. Also, although Imperial destroyers might mount 2 fighters each, this doesn't mean they would necessarily be used all that frequently. I see them more as scouts and defensive measures when on lone patrol than as actual strike forces in major fleet battles. A carrier launching 100 fighters organized already into smaller groups allows for easier coordination of the fighters than every little destroyer launching a pair and somehow assembling these into a coherent offensive force. Iracundus 13:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)