The Consular-class isn't really much of a cruiser. I'd say it compares unfavorably to the CR90 Corvette in almost every way (except that it requires a much smaller crew).

I know I got the book today but saw the list here yesterday and somehow missed that. I'm not sure what the problem many people have with the system is. There are two forms of it. The long form is basically a modified version of the old WEG system with some, IMO, badly needed extra classes.

In the WEG system warships 100 to 200 meters were Corvettes, 200 to 400 meters were frigates, and anything longer than 400 meters was considered a Cruiser. In the long form of the Anaxes system ships 400 meters and longer are divided into Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Star Destroyers, Battlecruisers, and Dreadnoughts. Though under both systems there are many ships whose official class name mislabels them. Victories are large heavy cruisers rather than small Star Destroyers for example, and every Assault Frigate or Star Frigate class I've ever seen has been a cruiser under WEG and a Heavy Cruiser under the Anaxes system.

The Essential Guide to Warfare, where both forms of the Anaxes system first appear, explained that the WEG system was the main classification system used between the Rusan Reformation and the Clone Wars era but with the increase in larger warships leading up to the Clone Wars, or possibly in the early days of the war, it was decided to redo the classification system so that there were warship classes larger than Cruisers to accommodate the growing number of larger vessel models in service rather than grouping a 450 meter long ship and a 1200 meter long ship together.

The short form , meant to be used in combat, which the AOR Corebook uses groups warships heavier than fighters into 3 types. Corvettes and armed Transports are classed as gunships. Frigates, Cruisers and some Heavy Cruisers are classed as Cruisers, while more powerful Heavy Cruisers, like the Victories, and anything larger are classed as Battleships.

Yeah, I thought that The Essential Guide To Warfare did a really good job of explaining it. I suppose what I don't understand is why some people dislike the Anaxes War College system so much. Every now and then I'll see someone complaining about how ships are classified in Star Wars, but I don't know enough about real-world ship classifications (or how they think ships should be classified in Star Wars) to really understand the issue.

The fluff text for the MC80 says it can carry ten squadrons of fighters. The compliment lists 36 fighters (three squadrons). I'm fairly certain that three is correct.

I know I got the book today but saw the list here yesterday and somehow missed that. I'm not sure what the problem many people have with the system is. There are two forms of it. The long form is basically a modified version of the old WEG system with some, IMO, badly needed extra classes.

In the WEG system warships 100 to 200 meters were Corvettes, 200 to 400 meters were frigates, and anything longer than 400 meters was considered a Cruiser. In the long form of the Anaxes system ships 400 meters and longer are divided into Cruisers, Heavy Cruisers, Star Destroyers, Battlecruisers, and Dreadnoughts. Though under both systems there are many ships whose official class name mislabels them. Victories are large heavy cruisers rather than small Star Destroyers for example, and every Assault Frigate or Star Frigate class I've ever seen has been a cruiser under WEG and a Heavy Cruiser under the Anaxes system.

The Essential Guide to Warfare, where both forms of the Anaxes system first appear, explained that the WEG system was the main classification system used between the Rusan Reformation and the Clone Wars era but with the increase in larger warships leading up to the Clone Wars, or possibly in the early days of the war, it was decided to redo the classification system so that there were warship classes larger than Cruisers to accommodate the growing number of larger vessel models in service rather than grouping a 450 meter long ship and a 1200 meter long ship together.

The short form , meant to be used in combat, which the AOR Corebook uses groups warships heavier than fighters into 3 types. Corvettes and armed Transports are classed as gunships. Frigates, Cruisers and some Heavy Cruisers are classed as Cruisers, while more powerful Heavy Cruisers, like the Victories, and anything larger are classed as Battleships.

Yeah, I thought that The Essential Guide To Warfare did a really good job of explaining it. I suppose what I don't understand is why some people dislike the Anaxes War College system so much. Every now and then I'll see someone complaining about how ships are classified in Star Wars, but I don't know enough about real-world ship classifications (or how they think ships should be classified in Star Wars) to really understand the issue.

Ship classifications IRL have changed massively throughout history so I fail to see why anyone would insist that Star Wars is obligated to use any one historical classification system.

Look at all the different types of ships called Frigates in history. In the very late 1500s Frigates were basically short range raiders. Than in the 1600s through the age of sail many navies began building larger, longer ranged frigates which were often deployed as scouts, escorts, and independent raiders. Than in the early Ironclad age most heavy Ironclads were frigates, which meant they were the mist powerful warships on Earth at the time. Than most navies stopped using the term frigate for several decades until World War II when the British started calling some of their new escort vessel designs frigates. And after the war while many nations built frigates similar to the British model the US classed many of the vessels it now classes as Cruisers or Destroyers as Frigates while the vessels it now classes as Frigates were classed as Ocean Escorts.

The fluff text for the MC80 says it can carry ten squadrons of fighters. The compliment lists 36 fighters (three squadrons). I'm fairly certain that three is correct.

Well Home One carries 10 but yeah most MC80s carry 3 in most sources though I believe the MC80Bs carry 4.

So any Fighter Carrier variants?

@HappyDaze: The difference in the carrying is i think made up by capacity and availability. While the ship can carry up to 10 squadrons the limited availability results in just 3 being stationed on board. Compared to the Empire the Rebels are very limited in numbers.

So in the AoR Core Rulebook we see the YV-929 Armed Transport, which is almost the same as the YV-929 Light Freighter from Dangerous Covenants. The sole exception seems to be that the Armed Transport has Sensor Range: Medium while the Light freighter has Sensor Range: Short. Both cost the same and have no other differences. Intentional change or error?

Shouldn't the armament be quite different?

The Consular-class isn't really much of a cruiser. I'd say it compares unfavorably to the CR90 Corvette in almost every way (except that it requires a much smaller crew).

That's probably the point. It's an older ship model that's been bootstrapped into serving a role it was never really meant to perform. The CR90 is a more modern design with greater built-in flexibility to perform a number of rolls, where the Consular-class was first and foremost designed as a diplomatic transport for the Old Republic.

A Consular-class going up against most Star Destroyer-class vessels would be akin to putting a jeep with a mounted light machine gun and some steel panels up against a main battle tank.

The Consular-class isn't really much of a cruiser. I'd say it compares unfavorably to the CR90 Corvette in almost every way (except that it requires a much smaller crew).

In the newly de-EUed databank at starwars.com, they refer to the CR90 as the "Alderaan Cruiser"

http://www.starwars.com/databank/alderaan-cruiser

The Consular-class isn't really much of a cruiser. I'd say it compares unfavorably to the CR90 Corvette in almost every way (except that it requires a much smaller crew).

In the newly de-EUed databank at starwars.com, they refer to the CR90 as the "Alderaan Cruiser"

http://www.starwars.com/databank/alderaan-cruiser

Edit: To clarify, of all the names that ship has been given, from CR90, to Corellian Corvette, to Rebel Blockade Runner... I think "Alderaan Cruiser" ranks among the worst. I suppose all of them could be "multiple names for the same thing," but why are they making up new names when it's just going to generate confusion? Or are they trying to divorce themselves from the names that previously existed in canon?

Edit: To clarify, of all the names that ship has been given, from CR90, to Corellian Corvette, to Rebel Blockade Runner... I think "Alderaan Cruiser" ranks among the worst. I suppose all of them could be "multiple names for the same thing," but why are they making up new names when it's just going to generate confusion? Or are they trying to divorce themselves from the names that previously existed in canon?

That's the same thought I have on this whole Anaxes system. Han Solo clearly refers to Star Destroyers as "cruisers", so I don't see how it helps to reclassify them as battleships, nor what good it does classifying them at all. It just makes things more confusing. You've got silhouette already, that's more than enough.

Edit: To clarify, of all the names that ship has been given, from CR90, to Corellian Corvette, to Rebel Blockade Runner... I think "Alderaan Cruiser" ranks among the worst. I suppose all of them could be "multiple names for the same thing," but why are they making up new names when it's just going to generate confusion? Or are they trying to divorce themselves from the names that previously existed in canon?

That's the same thought I have on this whole Anaxes system. Han Solo clearly refers to Star Destroyers as "cruisers", so I don't see how it helps to reclassify them as battleships, nor what good it does classifying them at all. It just makes things more confusing. You've got silhouette already, that's more than enough.

Which do you think is easier and faster to say and process in a battle "Captain we have two battleships closing in." or "Captain we have one silhouette eight warship and one silhouette.nine warship closing in?":The latter is more precise but the extra few seconds to relay the data could be vital in a battle. That's the whole reason the short form of the Anaxes system was ICly created. And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

Star Destroyers weren't originally a specific category as such. The term was introduced for branding purposes by KDY, and was used colloquially to describe ships of similar design, regardless of formal classification, before being formally adopted.

Back to the vehicles themselves, is the AT-AT Silhouette 4 or 5?

And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

Battleship/Carrier/Assault Transport actually. The key point was that a Star Destroyer is supposed to be able to independently cover all roles (excepting picket/skirmish duty). It's a jack-of-all-trades warship, and it does a really good job at all three of its assigned roles. For almost any problem, the question isn't whether a Star Destroyer is the right ship, it's how many are needed based on the scale of the job.

Back to the vehicles themselves, is the AT-AT Silhouette 4 or 5?

The AT-AT is listed as a Silhouette 4.

And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

Battleship/Carrier/Assault Transport actually. The key point was that a Star Destroyer is supposed to be able to independently cover all roles (excepting picket/skirmish duty). It's a jack-of-all-trades warship, and it does a really good job at all three of its assigned roles. For almost any problem, the question isn't whether a Star Destroyer is the right ship, it's how many are needed based on the scale of the job.

True but I still don't see what the big deal about one character feeling it is a cruiser, and a group feeling it is a battleship is a big deal. The classification says that in the short form the term battleship was used for ships whose mere presence could have a major influence on the battle. I would say an ISD qualifies.

Which do you think is easier and faster to say and process in a battle "Captain we have two battleships closing in." or "Captain we have one silhouette eight warship and one silhouette.nine warship closing in?":The latter is more precise but the extra few seconds to relay the data could be vital in a battle. That's the whole reason the short form of the Anaxes system was ICly created. And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

Certainly I'm not suggesting that players use the Silhouette numbers during in-character conversation, just stating that I don't see a point to forcing the use of an arbitrary classification system rather than just letting the GM decide what things are called. Especially since this particular classification system directly contradicts the primary source material.

I don't see the Edge rule that allows large ships mounting anti-starfighter weaponry to fire those weapons as if the vessel is one Silhouette smaller. Has this rule been abandoned in favor of the new firing actions available to Silhouette 5+ ships?

I noticed that too. At first I thought it was being replaced by individual weapon entries as the point defence lasers on the Vindicator have accurate - but that's not replicated on other ships.

Which do you think is easier and faster to say and process in a battle "Captain we have two battleships closing in." or "Captain we have one silhouette eight warship and one silhouette.nine warship closing in?":The latter is more precise but the extra few seconds to relay the data could be vital in a battle. That's the whole reason the short form of the Anaxes system was ICly created. And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

Certainly I'm not suggesting that players use the Silhouette numbers during in-character conversation, just stating that I don't see a point to forcing the use of an arbitrary classification system rather than just letting the GM decide what things are called. Especially since this particular classification system directly contradicts the primary source material.

IMO having a standardized system makes things easier on both players and GMs. If for example the GM says "There is a group of three cruisers closing in." instead of having to wonder just what the GM considers a cruiser the players have a rough idea what is coming their way, while the GM is saved from them asking if he means a Star Destroyer or a midsized warship.

As for why Han called them cruisers I have no clue but we never see them playing a cruiser role in the moves and battleship fits much better than cruiser for the roles we see them playing in the movies IMO. Not perfectly but better then the term cruiser does

Which do you think is easier and faster to say and process in a battle "Captain we have two battleships closing in." or "Captain we have one silhouette eight warship and one silhouette.nine warship closing in?":The latter is more precise but the extra few seconds to relay the data could be vital in a battle. That's the whole reason the short form of the Anaxes system was ICly created. And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

Certainly I'm not suggesting that players use the Silhouette numbers during in-character conversation, just stating that I don't see a point to forcing the use of an arbitrary classification system rather than just letting the GM decide what things are called. Especially since this particular classification system directly contradicts the primary source material.

IMO having a standardized system makes things easier on both players and GMs. If for example the GM says "There is a group of three cruisers closing in." instead of having to wonder just what the GM considers a cruiser the players have a rough idea what is coming their way, while the GM is saved from them asking if he means a Star Destroyer or a midsized warship.

As for why Han called them cruisers I have no clue but we never see them playing a cruiser role in the moves and battleship fits much better than cruiser for the roles we see them playing in the movies IMO. Not perfectly but better then the term cruiser does

Looking at the AoR book, the Cruiser category doesn't narrow things down much at all. A Gozanti-class, Nebulon-B, and Vindicator-class all fall under the Cruiser category.

I'm pretty sure that listing the Gozanti and Consulars as cruisers was a mistake given that the two have the word cruiser in their name but their size and role is that of Gunships

And the size difference between a Nebulon-B and a Vindicator is much less than the difference between a Venator class Star Destroyer and an Imperial Star Destroyer so I fail to see how listing both as cruisers is confusing. Also look at their armaments. Both carry point-defense lasers, turbolasers, and onboard fightercraft so I don't think grouping them together is as big of a stretch as some other ship types that arr grouped together like Lancers and Nebulons.

I'm pretty sure that listing the Gozanti and Consulars as cruisers was a mistake given that the two have the word cruiser in their name but their size and role is that of Gunships

And the size difference between a Nebulon-B and a Vindicator is much less than the difference between a Venator class Star Destroyer and an Imperial Star Destroyer so I fail to see how listing both as cruisers is confusing. Also look at their armaments. Both carry point-defense lasers, turbolasers, and onboard fightercraft so I don't think grouping them together is as big of a stretch as some other ship types that arr grouped together like Lancers and Nebulons.

I can see what you mean, but I still feel that just separating Gunships from Capital Ships might have been sufficient. Capital Ships could cover all of the categories from corvette up, and any given ship's entry already has a space for "Hull Type" written in right before "Class". Otherwise we have, for example, non-cruisers listed in the cruiser category.

Yeah I think I understand what you are saying.

I would have preferred either making the big transports Silhouette 4 or making them 5 than bumping the corvettes to 6. Make frigate size vessels one Silhouette higher than corvettes, cruisers one higher than frigates, heavy cruisers one higher than cruisers, and so forth until after Dreadnoughts. Make Death Stars Silhouette 100.

Group Transport size warships as Gunboats. Make everything Corvette and up Capital ships than divide those into Escorts (Corvettes and Frigates), Cruisers (Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers) and Battleships (Star Destroyers, Battlecruisers, and Dreadnoughts.). Grouping armed transport size vessels and corvettes makes much less sense to me than grouping Corvettes and Frigates but no one asked me.

I don't consider Star Destroyer a class of ships. It is an added descriptor for cruisers, battlecruisers, and dreadnoughts that possess the ability to fulfill the roles of warship, carrier, and assault transport all in one package. In my game, the Vindicator-class cruiser would be considered a (small) Star Destroyer while the Immobilizer - based upon the same hull - is still a cruiser but is not a Star Destroyer.

There is a large picture in the book of three star destroyers fighting a space battle and one of them (Left most ship) has no bridge super structure, What Ship is this???