So, I was thinking about what might be some fun stats for a Venator in game.

-Large Base

-9 Hull

- 5 Shield front, 3 shield sides, 1 shield back

Speed 3 (idk about yaw)

Squadron: 3 (maybe 4 on one version?)

brace, brace, redirect, (contain???)

V-1:

Front arc: 2 red, 2 black, 2 blue

Sides: 1 blue, 1 red, 1 black

back, 1 black, 1 red

Title, officer, offensive, support, weapons, turbolaser, ordinance

V-2: 4

Front: 4 Blue, 2 Red

Side: 2 Blue, 1 Red

Back: 1 Blue, 1 Red

Title, officer, defensive, offensive, support, weapons, turbo, ion

I am up for debate on the offensive and defensive retrofits setup and I am not sure about price but these are my thoughts.

Way way back (like circa Wave 2), there was a relatively vibrant custom card group here on the forums that has since drifted apart for various reasons. However, we did have plans for a relatively large Clone Wars set, including the Venator as the GAR equivalent of an Imperial class unit, though mildly less impressive if put side by side. Your proposal is similar to what is usually raised when the ship is discussed, another large, front arc ship with good squadron command, and somewhat lackluster upgrades. (Yours actually departs in that last area, but you are not as kind to armament as some.) We ran several experiments with setups like the one you propose, but ended up settling on a very different design as something much more thematic and fun to fly. If you'd like I can link the thread to about where we discussed the Venator (we had lots of parallel projects), but this was the final version and one I am very fond of. I'm open to being argued that the cost needs increases, given developments of the game since then, notably Moff Jerjerrod, but I think the overall design is still very solid.

hmmm the Yaw values make no sense, I think FFG learned their lesson with the Victory by now. I think 5 dice on side arcs is too much as well. Getting double arc'ed would be catastrophic.

3 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

hmmm the Yaw values make no sense, I think FFG learned their lesson with the Victory by now. I think 5 dice on side arcs is too much as well. Getting double arc'ed would be catastrophic.

The yaw values were where we decided the ship's design had to give, given that it's a very solid ship otherwise. And yes, double-arcs are devastating at close range , but they are extremely difficult to obtain, having flown this ship. The arcs as I recall were originally ISD arcs, subject to later change that never materialized. That could be one area of modification for the design.

The Venator and Interdictor are about the same length, ~1100 meters. So it should be a medium base.

I'd say the Squadron should be at min 4. Venators have over double the squadron capacity of Imperial-class ships. Maybe the first 5 squadron, or even 6 squadron ship.

7 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

The yaw values were where we decided the ship's design had to give, given that it's a very solid ship otherwise. And yes, double-arcs are devastating at close range , but they are extremely difficult to obtain, having flown this ship. The arcs as I recall were originally ISD arcs, subject to later change that never materialized. That could be one area of modification for the design.

then all I can see are people flying it off the board xD

where's gottmittuns when you need him. On the wave 6 thread, there were many venator varients. the best ones I saw had the venator as a broadsides carrier. think a big version of the arquitens. the squads however need to be 5 it was a ship built around its hangar bay. I think an assault frigate type of armament with maybe 2 black die on each side though to suppliment the reds. I'd say have victory type shields and they were fairly manourverable, none of this speed 3 no yaw bs. 100 points and thats a wrap

11 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

The Venator and Interdictor are about the same length, ~1100 meters. So it should be a medium base.

I've read closer to 1200m, which is the length of the MC80. I'd prefer large so Imps have another option.

15 minutes ago, Sybreed said:

hmmm the Yaw values make no sense, I think FFG learned their lesson with the Victory by now. I think 5 dice on side arcs is too much as well. Getting double arc'ed would be catastrophic.

It should be a broadside ship, it's cannon batteries have tall defensive walls protecting them from forward firepower while simultaneously preventing them from firing forward.

I'd argue it should be 3 red then 2 blue/black depending on model.

Just now, Gadgetron said:

It should be a broadside ship, it's cannon batteries have tall defensive walls protecting them from forward firepower while simultaneously preventing them from firing forward.

I'd argue it should be 3 red then 2 blue/black depending on model.

that I can get behind.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I've read closer to 1200m, which is the length of the MC80. I'd prefer large so Imps have another option.

I would too, I just don't think this is it though.

Really the Interdictor should have been our second large ship.

1 minute ago, Gadgetron said:

I would too, I just don't think this is it though.

Really the Interdictor should have been our second large ship.

I think FFG missed the mark on that. I was disappointed because it's nearly the same size as the Liberty.

Let's go Tector Class!

As for its yaw value, that's really up for debate, in the clone wars series it seemed pretty maneuverable, Ashoka was able to bring one about quite rapidly at high speed. At the same time, they seemed easily outmaneuvered by separatist ships pretty often.

So it could be argued either way. I think this is one of the times it needs to come down to gameplay and balance, maybe just give it middle of the road yaw.

Just now, Gadgetron said:

As for its yaw value, that's really up for debate, in the clone wars series it seemed pretty maneuverable, Ashoka was able to bring one about quite rapidly at high speed. At the same time, they seemed easily outmaneuvered by separatist ships pretty often.

So it could be argued either way. I think this is one of the times it needs to come down to gameplay and balance, maybe just give it middle of the road yaw.

By the same token, the series often showed Venator s exchanging fire with Separatist warships at long range over its bow, the design of the main battery notwithstanding. That, combined with the savagery unleashed on Invisible Hand at close range during the Battle of Coruscant, was the reasoning for our armament layout. I could be convinced that the yaw needs to be increased, but that must come with a cost. That ship is delicately balanced as it is with its current cost, and might need a kick anyway. Part of the point here was to make the Venator somewhat less impressive than an Imperial , and to give it a unique playstyle in battle.

3 minutes ago, GiledPallaeon said:

By the same token, the series often showed Venator s exchanging fire with Separatist warships at long range over its bow, the design of the main battery notwithstanding. That, combined with the savagery unleashed on Invisible Hand at close range during the Battle of Coruscant, was the reasoning for our armament layout. I could be convinced that the yaw needs to be increased, but that must come with a cost. That ship is delicately balanced as it is with its current cost, and might need a kick anyway. Part of the point here was to make the Venator somewhat less impressive than an Imperial , and to give it a unique playstyle in battle.

The show also portrayed the Venator as rather squishy, it seemed everytime the separatists got in close, the Venators collapsed.

Maybe the trade off should be lower hull, 7, with 3 shields all around, wide broadside fire arcs with equal forward firepower and speed 2 with one click yaw each.

The ISD is supposed to be faster, so the Venator should be slower, but not necessarily a brick to maneuver, we have the victory for that.

Just now, Gadgetron said:

The show also portrayed the Venator as rather squishy, it seemed everytime the separatists got in close, the Venators collapsed.

Maybe the trade off should be lower hull, 7, with 3 shields all around, wide broadside fire arcs with equal forward firepower and speed 2 with one click yaw each.

The ISD is supposed to be faster, so the Venator should be slower, but not necessarily a brick to maneuver, we have the victory for that.

I never got the impression they were more squishy than any other combatant, just frequently caught in compromising tactical situations to create plot tension. The ship is also significantly larger than a Victory , so I stand by the increased hull. Dropping the Contain could be warranted, as the ship's armor is less effective than a Victory 's due to the large hangar bay. The Brace Brace Redirect is also fairly compromising, as unlike the Liberty , the other ship with that defense token arrangement, the Venator has more balanced shields that could be used with a Brace Redirect Redirect arrangement.

I am unaware of sources stating that the Imperial was significantly faster than the Venator , though a mild speed increase wouldn't surprise me. The Venator is known though as a particularly fast cruiser, and the Legends section on Wookieepedia cite that the Venator is actually the one with the higher sustained acceleration capabilities, 3000G vs >2300G. (Canon does not appear to speak on the subject.) Given that rather few options for speed in Star Wars: Armada, I still feel Speed 3 is warranted for the ship.

I will finally note that some changes for Armada's GCW era are reasonable, since the above design was intended to be the mainline combatant for the GAR, and thus was more intended to be closer to comparable to the Imperial in the event of cross-time battle, rather than scaled against it. Among other things, dropping Contain would be pretty solid, and maybe a tad of yaw added in. However, I have full faith in the overall design and stand by it in general terms.

Drop the contain and add one yaw at speed 3 to the second click.

1 hour ago, Sybreed said:

hmmm the Yaw values make no sense, I think FFG learned their lesson with the Victory by now. I think 5 dice on side arcs is too much as well. Getting double arc'ed would be catastrophic.

Yeah they learned their lesson, just take a look to the MC80 Liberty

Just now, xerpo said:

Yeah they learned their lesson, just take a look to the MC80 Liberty

ehhh it's not as bad although I agree the speed 2 yaw values suck xD

You are not trying to design a brand new ship that fits armada, youre all trying to find a replacement for the VSD.

1 minute ago, xerpo said:

You are not trying to design a brand new ship that fits armada, youre all trying to find a replacement for the VSD.

Hmm, but one can wonder if at some point we won't have ships that overlap each other in terms of roles, although I understand what you mean

I too love the Venator, but see including it and the fight against the Separatists as an entirely different version of Armada.

34 minutes ago, xerpo said:

You are not trying to design a brand new ship that fits armada, youre all trying to find a replacement for the VSD.

I like the VSD. I suppose this would be a more expensive version of it and slightly less than the ISD. It would be a mid range ship I suppose.

As to everyone else. I get that canonically the Venator is a fighter carrier but I question the balance of a single ship being able to naturally activate 5 squadrons without any upgrades or boosts.

Are there any other thoughts on the stats I posted. I know those cards are fun too look at but I hardly think those dice fall in line with the current trend of how ships are balanced in Armada.

Two words: Jerjerrod.