20 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

Why they upped so much HTT and STT for a stock C-ROC I don't know, I think these designers have to start double checking for the consistency of their ship/vehicles stats.

I too think that with defence 2/1/1/2, speed 3 and handling -2 for the Stock C-ROC Gozanti would be quite realistic, if you downgrade the defence to 1/1/1/2, HTT 35 and STT 20 it would be a very interesting stock Gozanti, maybe even handling -3. This way the Gozanti would be quite on par with the Wayfarer and the HT-2200 which, as freighters, are on the same category in terms of size and cargo capacity, given the main characteristic of the Gozantis were extra weapons, not better handling or durability, you could just add 2-3 turrets instead of just 1, as is typical for civilian ships.

For the record, I questioned the stats pretty heavily almost 1.5 years ago. Here's the thread: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241661-c-rocn-the-night-away/

56 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

For the record, I questioned the stats pretty heavily almost 1.5 years ago. Here's the thread: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241661-c-rocn-the-night-away/

Looking that thread and the stats of the Gozanti Transport Vs. the C-ROC I'd say it makes sense that the C-ROC is more effective in general than the other. It's a transport, a ship designed to haul cargo and only fight if it must, against a cruiser, a ship designed to enter combat on a regular basis. The latter's shields, speed, weapons, and general resilience should surpass the former at least somewhat. The issue is when you get to ships of the same class and get a massive mismatch in capabilities like you do with the C-ROC and the Consular, especially when there's such a drastic difference in cost.

I think it's likely there was a typo with the price, like say instead of 190,000 it was supposed to be 1,900,000, which is much more reasonable. It's still more effective yet cheaper than the Consular that way, but you can't make a small fleet out of C-ROCs for the same price like you could before. Then you'd get to how cheap the Gozanti transport is compared to it's Cruiser cousin despite only a minor decrease in capability...

WILL IT NEVER END!?!

Like I said: This way lies madness

13 hours ago, immortalfrieza said:

Looking that thread and the stats of the Gozanti Transport Vs. the C-ROC I'd say it makes sense that the C-ROC is more effective in general than the other. It's a transport, a ship designed to haul cargo and only fight if it must , against a cruiser, a ship designed to enter combat on a regular basis . The latter's shiel  ds, speed, weapons, and general resilience should surpass the former at least somewhat. The issue is when you get to ships of the same class and get a massive mismatch in capabilities like you do with the C-ROC and the Consular, especially when there's such a drastic difference in cost.

I think it's likely there was a typo with the price, like say instead of 190,000 it was supposed to be 1,900,000, which is much more reasonable. It's still more effective yet cheaper than the Consular that way, but you can't make a small fleet out of C-ROCs for the same price like you could before. Then you'd get to how cheap the Gozanti transport is compared to it's Cruiser cousin despite only a minor decrease in capability...

WILL IT NEVER END!?!

The problem is that the part I highlighted in red is just not true. Saying Gozantis (either standard or C-ROC) is a cruiser doesn't mean they are cruisers in the same sense of military cruisers, like the Consular-class cruiser or the Arquitens-class light cruiser. Both types may share the name cruiser, but they mean very different things. You have to understand some things about the Star Wars lore to understand that, I'll try to explain again.

• In the SWU most civilian ships are either unnamed or armed with just one gun (typically a light laser canon or dual light laser canon). Canonically Gozantis are considered very well armed because they comes with 2-3 laser canons, which is far more than the typical civilian vessel. This doesn't make them war ships or cruiser in the military sense.
• C-ROC Gozanti wasn't designed to be a way bigger and better armed version, but rather one with more cargo capacity and better speed and shields. They are just about 10m longer and a few meters wider than regular Gozanti, but had 3 more sublight engines to give them speed.
• The only 2 C-ROC Gozanti ever portrayed in the SW canon were smuggling vessels, with stronger shields, above average speed and with less armed than regular Gozanti. In fact instead of the standard 2 or 3 laser turrets of regular Gozantis, both C-ROC were portrayed as having just one dual laser turret.
• Both the standard Gozanti-class cruiser and its C-ROC variations are relatively small civilian cargo and transport ships, slightly better armed than regular civilian craft, that could be converted into support role for authorities, specially in system patrol duties.
• The only military use ever portrayed for these ships were either as cargo vessels or as system patrol craft in charge to hunt down smugglers and pirates. They were never portrayed as war vessels, they were never portrayed as going into combat against things that aren't smuggler's freighters, but it was very well portrayed that whenever they encounter a real warship (like a CR90 Corvette), the standard procedure for Imperial Gozanti's is to flee and regroup under the protection of the nearest war vessel.
• As I said before, also in real life we call big pleasure vacation ships cruisers as we call the category of military war ships immediately below an aircraft carrier a cruiser, and it doesn't mean the big party boat and the destroyer or missile cruiser are the same thing.

Even FFG description text for the C-ROC Gozanti in No Disintegrations emphasizes that its role is as transport or cargo duties, as you can see in the quote below:

Quote

C-ROC GOZANTI—CLASS LIGHT CRUISER
The C-ROC is a shypyard custom configuration for Corellian Engineering'sGozanti-class cruiser. Bulkier than the original Gozanti-class ships. the C-ROC was designed more for transport and cargo duties than for combat . Offered initially to the Imperial Navy -- and rejected as inappropriate in the Imperial Navy's order of battle -- as an armed, long range transport, the C-ROC has become popular among both legitimate cargo operations and criminal organizations. These ships are specially popular in the Outer Rim, where the combination of hauling capacity, rugged contruction and respectable fighting capabilities have gained the class many admirers.

Also what Wookieepedia has to say about C-ROC

Quote

The C-ROC Gozanti-class cruiser was a modified Gozanti-class cruiser model manufactured by the Corellian Engineering Corporation. While at first glance the vessel bore little resemblance to the standard Gozanti class ships of the previous decade or so, the underlying structure was largely unchanged, the main differences being the addition of three extra engine turbines fitted above the standard configuration engines, a widened, flared prow and bridge module, and additional cargo loaders on both sides midships.

There isn't any shred of evidence in the Star Wars canon or in the descriptions used in the RPG, that would support this idea that Gozanti were capital ships armed to the teeth and that the C-ROC is a war cruiser designed to be in combat. The only piece of evidence in this direction are their stats.

But as i said before, the Broken Horn was not only the first C-ROC ever portrayed in the SWU, but also the vessel of this type with the greatest amount of screen time, it is the ship from which the whole concept of the C-ROC was created, and its stats are far bellow (and a lot more realistic), than the C-ROC used in No Disintegration. Given that The Broken Horn are more recent and more realistic since they are from the Dawn of the Rebellion sourcebook and that No Disintegrations is a significantly older, I tend to think that the stats in No Disintegrations are wrong, as are the stats for the regular Gozanti.

Another indication that the older books may have it all wrong is the fact that the Gozanti is presented in one book as a transport and the C-ROC which isn't by any means that much different, is presented on a way that implicitly put it on the capital ship category, which would be wrong, and since the same ship frame are presented erroneously in two different categories, I tend to think that their statswould be in error too.

As a side note it is worth to mention that the Broken Horn stats are more on par with the crafting rules than the No Disintegrations ones.

13 hours ago, immortalfrieza said:

The issue is when you get to ships of the same class and get a massive mismatch in capabilities like you do with the C-ROC and the Consular, especially when there's such a drastic difference in cost.

I think it's likely there was a typo with the price, like say instead of 190,000 it was supposed to be 1,900,000, which is much more reasonable. It's still more effective yet cheaper than the Consular that way, but you can't make a small fleet out of C-ROCs for the same price like you could before. Then you'd get to how cheap the Gozanti transport is compared to it's Cruiser cousin despite only a minor decrease in capability...

I'll post this picture again, because it is far more elucidative of the difference in cost.

Look at the difference in size of the Consular-class (top) to the Gozanti-class (botton) and the C-ROC Gozanti (middle). I think it is clear that there is a mistake in the Gozanti and C-ROC Gozanti's stats, their price is right, but their stats are all wrong and the most clear evidence we have of this is the fact that the stats of the most famous C-ROC Gozanti in the Star Wars Universe, Cikatro Vizago's Broken Horn have far lower stats than the Gozanti and C-ROC Gozanti stats presented in older books.

So, that's it! The cost for the Consular, Gozanti and C-ROC Gozanti are right, but the stats of the Gozanti presented in older books are not.

14 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

For the record, I questioned the stats pretty heavily almost 1.5 years ago. Here's the thread: https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/241661-c-rocn-the-night-away/

I hope they revise these stats in future prints of these books. FFG seems to be lacking a lot in care and consistency in their books.

29 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

I hope they revise these stats in future prints of these books. FFG seems to be lacking a lot in care and consistency in their books.

Oh, you must be new here. ?

FFG doesn't revise things once they are released unless it is an obvious error (like the Sentinel -class landing craft from the early printings of AoR). For situations like the Gozanti , they will tell you it is working as intended.

2 hours ago, nichendrix said:

Snip

The fact is the Gozanti transport is designed for cargo transport, a more heavily armed than typical cargo transport, but still a transport nonetheless, while the C-ROC Gozanti is designed to be a cruiser, as in an actual warship. This is why the fact that the C-ROC is sightly better at most everything makes sense, however it is still built on the same general concept as the Gozanti transport, which is why it's still capable of functioning as a cargo ship. The Gozanti however is already designed to be pretty freaking tough and well armed for a transport, it was already meant to double as a escort for other transports and anti-pirate ship as it is, so the C-ROC is really just a slightly boosted version of a ship that wasn't that far off from being a warship to begin with. I agree that both ships should be weaker than they are, but considering their function not much more so.

As for comparing it to the CR90 Corvette, both it and the C-ROC are warships, the fact that in canon the former can easily crush the latter in a fight doesn't change that, it just means that the CR90 is in a different league, just like how a CR90 itself is a capital ship as is an Imperial Star Destroyer but the former would get it's butt kicked in any straight fight with the latter. I think you also used the performance of the C-ROC against the Ghost VCX-100 as an example of the C-ROC's inferiority, which isn't fair because it's a protagonist ship against a bunch of Imperial mook ships, the protagonists always manage to triumph over insurmountable odds and thus beat opponents that should vastly outmatch them, not to mention when they're fighting something that's on their own level which they take out by the score. In fact, it's difficult to judge how Star Wars ships would perform against each other by using canon sources because what matters in any such source is how much Plotanium armor the ship has. Put Darth Vader in a TIE Fighter and put him up against a Star Destroyer for whatever reason and the plot would bend everything so that he'd win just because he's supposed to, not because it would actually make any sense for a TIE Fighter regardless of the skill of the pilot to be able to take out a Star Destroyer. The books don't rely much on canon feats to determine the stats anyway, otherwise both TIE Fighters and X-Wings would go down in a single shot from each other because that's what happened whenever one shot the other and hit solidly in the movies.

1 hour ago, immortalfrieza said:

The fact is the Gozanti transport is designed for cargo transport, a more heavily armed than typical cargo transport, but still a transport nonetheless, while the C-ROC Gozanti is designed to be a cruiser, as in an actual warship .

No, it isn't designed to be an actual warship . There is nothing, absolutely nothing, in Star Wars lore to even remotely imply this -- even in the description used by FFG in the C-ROC Gozanti entry.

I will throw you a challenge, find one single place that clearly states the C-ROC Gozanti was designed to be a warship, a cruiser of sorts, and I'll not hit this key ever again.

In fact the only two C-ROC to have ever been shown in Star Wars were lightly armed smuggling vessels, that are specifically described as having to rely on their shields and speed to avoid combat rather than using their meager weapon systems.

1 hour ago, immortalfrieza said:

The Gozanti however is already designed to be pretty freaking tough and well armed for a transport, it was already meant to double as a escort for other transports and anti-pirate ship as it is, so the C-ROC is really just a slightly boosted version of a ship that wasn't that far off from being a warship to begin with. I agree that both ships should be weaker than they are, but considering their function not much more so.

Gozanti were well armed for a civilian transport, they have a dorsal double light laser cannon turret and a ventral heavy laser canon, which are a lot of weapons compared to most transports who doesn't have any weapons or at most a light laser canon turret. It doesn't make the Gozanti or any variant of it the warships you seem to think they are.

1 hour ago, immortalfrieza said:

As for comparing it to the CR90 Corvette, both it and the C-ROC are warships , the fact that in canon the former can easily crush the latter in a fight doesn't change that, it just means that the CR90 is in a different league, just like how a CR90 itself is a capital ship as is an Imperial Star Destroyer but the former would get it's butt kicked in any straight fight with the latter.

Again, the closest thing you'll see in the lore remotely relating the C-ROC to any military role is in the FFG own text that CEC tried to sell them as cargo vessels to the Imperial Navy, which refused the offer. The key concept is they tried and got refused.

Really you can go to Wookieepedia, you can read the books, you can look for sourcebooks like Star Wars Rebels: The Visual Guide (the first place that identified it as a C-ROC Gozanti), Ultimate Star Wars, Star Wars: The Visual Encyclopedia, Star Wars Encyclopedia of Starfighters and Other Vehicles, Star Wars: Absolutely Everything You Need to Know, Updated and Expanded, Star Wars: The Rebel Files, Star Wars: Complete Locations, etc.

There are absolutely no material from any source supporting this idea that C-ROC Gozantis are warships or that they are somehow armed to the teeth.

Again I thrown you the challenge, prove that C-ROC Gozanti were designed as warships, or at least used as warships in any capacity.

1 hour ago, immortalfrieza said:

I think you also used the performance of the C-ROC against the Ghost VCX-100 as an example of the C-ROC's inferiority, which isn't fair because it's a protagonist ship against a bunch of Imperial mook ships, the protagonists always manage to triumph over insurmountable odds and thus beat opponents that should vastly outmatch them, not to mention when they're fighting something that's on their own level which they take out by the score.

THere was never a showdown between C-CROC Gozanti and the Ghost because the only two C-ROC Gozanti ever shown were owned by smugglers allied to the Pheanix cell. There are no military C-ROC in Star Wars continuity. There are some regular Gozanti, and again, no matter what source you find, at best regular Gozanti were used as gargo haulers and as patrol craft against smugglers and pirates by the Empire, and only once, as a listening post spy vessel for the ISB, not even the Thrawn novel and comics which were focused on the Imperial size of SW, have ever given them any role other than these.

So independent of using the performance of regular Gozanti against the Ghost, there is still no evidence to suport the idea that C-ROC Gozantis were used as warships.

1 hour ago, immortalfrieza said:

Put Darth Vader in a TIE Fighter and put him up against a Star Destroyer for whatever reason and the plot would bend everything so that he'd win just because he's supposed to, not because it would actually make any sense for a TIE Fighter regardless of the skill of the pilot to be able to take out a Star Destroyer.

I bet you never looked around how many aircraft carriers and destroyers were sank or badly damaged during WWII due to Japanese kamikaze attacks (like the USS Bismarck Sea), let alone how many sunk because of regular attacks. In the Navy, one of the main roles of fighters is to sink as many enemy big ships they can. So it makes total sense Vader could destroy a Star Destroyer with a very well planned and targeted attack.

1 hour ago, immortalfrieza said:

The books don't rely much on canon feats to determine the stats anyway, otherwise both TIE Fighters and X-Wings would go down in a single shot from each other because that's what happened whenever one shot the other and hit solidly in the movies .

That's exactly what happen if you activate the Sincronized property of these fighter's on an attack or if you activate the critical. So the system captures the movies just fine.

Cruiser is a term that can apply to civilian vessels too, and pleasure craft are often called "cruisers." This is the definition that some Star Wars ships (like the Citadel ) use. If anything, the C-ROC is an armed merchantman/auxiliary cruiser rather than a proper military light cruiser, and this follows well with the standard Gozanti -class description of "armed transport."

37 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Cruiser is a term that can apply to civilian vessels too, and pleasure craft are often called "cruisers." This is the definition that some Star Wars ships (like the Citadel ) use. If anything, the C-ROC is an armed merchantman/auxiliary cruiser rather than a proper military light cruiser, and this follows well with the standard Gozanti -class description of "armed transport."

I couldn't have explained better!!!!!

People see the therm cruiser and assume that it refers to the military designation, when it really isn't. The Gozanti's in military use we usually see in Star Wars are either freighters (or other types of cargo ships) or anti-smuggling patrol craft. They were never portrayed as warships in any capacity in any kind of media you look at.

4 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

I couldn't have explained better!!!!!

People see the therm cruiser and assume that it refers to the military designation, when it really isn't. The Gozanti's in military use we usually see in Star Wars are either freighters (or other types of cargo ships) or anti-smuggling patrol craft. They were never portrayed as warships in any capacity in any kind of media you look at.

The Imperials use the Gozanti as a combination transport/fighter tender for a quartet of TIE fighters. They do not normally use them as warships, not even as escorts.

1 minute ago, HappyDaze said:

The Imperials use the Gozanti as a combination transport/fighter tender for a quartet of TIE fighters. They do not normally use them as warships, not even as escorts.

The light carrier configuration is used either to patrol the far reaches of a systems or inter-system patrol, since Tie Fighters lack hyperdrive, this way they could be deployed in farther ranges from their base, the other situation they are portrayed was as part of a cargo convoy, so the Tie Fighters could be used as defence against pirates and other assailants. Once we saw a Gozanti used to haul a pair of AT-AT to surface (but this isn't far from their role as cargo ships). One time it was shown that ISB had modified a Gozanti functioning as a surveillance and counter-intelligence craft, but this one was never meant to be used in combat either.

I honestly don't know from where people are getting this notion that Gozanti and C-ROC Gozanti are warships in any capacity.

The neither the C-ROC or base Gozanti is definitely NOT a yacht or motorboat, or rather the starship equivalent of same, so it must be the first definition by any reasonable measure. The C-ROC may be on the weak end of Cruisers, just like how a TIE Fighter and a TIE Defender are both starfighters but the latter is clearly superior in every way to the former doesn't mean it's not a starfighter. The C-ROC is a multi-role vessel but is a Cruiser by classification, therefore it is a warship.

46 minutes ago, immortalfrieza said:

Uh... maybe because it's literally the DEFINITION of the word "Cruiser"?

cruis·er

ˈkro͞ozər /

noun

noun: cruiser ; plural noun: cruisers

1. 1 .

   a relatively fast warship larger than a destroyer and less heavily armed than a battleship.
2. 2 .

   a yacht or motorboat with passenger accommodations, designed for leisure use.

The neither the C-ROC or base Gozanti is definitely NOT a yacht or motorboat, or rather the starship equivalent of same, so it must be the first definition by any reasonable measure. The C-ROC may be on the weak end of Cruisers, just like how a TIE Fighter and a TIE Defender are both starfighters but the latter is clearly superior in every way to the former doesn't mean it's not a starfighter. The C-ROC is a multi-role vessel but is a Cruiser by classification, therefore it is a warship.

Rather than real world, I would think that the Wookieepedia definition might be more applicable here:

With a variety of different ship classifications in use, some of these used the "cruiser" definition for diminutive patrol ships like the Guardian-class customs vessel.

IOW, if you want to call it a cruiser, go ahead, but the term is nebulous in-setting and doesn't mean precisely what you are suggesting it means.

1 hour ago, immortalfrieza said:

Uh... maybe because it's literally the DEFINITION of the word "Cruiser"?

cruis·er

ˈkro͞ozər /

noun

noun: cruiser ; plural noun: cruisers

1. 1 .

   a relatively fast warship larger than a destroyer and less heavily armed than a battleship.
2. 2 .

   a yacht or motorboat with passenger accommodations, designed for leisure use.

The neither the C-ROC or base Gozanti is definitely NOT a yacht or motorboat, or rather the starship equivalent of same, so it must be the first definition by any reasonable measure. The C-ROC may be on the weak end of Cruisers, just like how a TIE Fighter and a TIE Defender are both starfighters but the latter is clearly superior in every way to the former doesn't mean it's not a starfighter. The C-ROC is a multi-role vessel but is a Cruiser by classification, therefore it is a warship.

The problem is that you're willingly ignoring what the term cruiser means in the Star Wars Universe , which is far broader than the definition what's on the dictionary.

In the Star Wars Universe, cruiser does not have just these two meanings, and what really counts for a Star Wars - themed RPG is how they are portrayed in the Star Wars Universe .

That's why I challenged you to find just one example of a C-ROC Gozanti or even a regular Gozanti described as "designed as a warship", inside the bounds of the Star Wars Universe .

Though this is not a very precise classification, this is more or less how warships are classified in the Star Wars Universe ( Anaxes War College System ), ships with less than 100m aren't even considered capital ships, which is the requirement for a ship to be considered a warship in the Star Wars Universe . The C-ROC has 73m long, it would not classify even as a Light Corvette.

28 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Rather than real world, I would think that the Wookieepedia definition might be more applicable here:

With a variety of different ship classifications in use, some of these used the "cruiser" definition for diminutive patrol ships like the Guardian-class customs vessel.

IOW, if you want to call it a cruiser, go ahead, but the term is nebulous in-setting and doesn't mean precisely what you are suggesting it means.

@HappyDaze , The Guardian-class is quite an excellent example, since it performs the same combat role we usually see all Imperial Gozanti ships performing. The difference, as I see is that the Imperial Gozanti are Guardian-class with more room for a boarding party, which is something they've been shown to do from time to time.

In the end Gozanti were usually know as Imperial Freighter, which emphasize the idea they are armed merchantman ships, more than anything else.

6 hours ago, nichendrix said:

...

Again, the closest thing you'll see in the lore remotely relating the C-ROC to any military role is in the FFG own text that CEC tried to sell them as cargo vessels to the Imperial Navy, which refused the offer. The key concept is they tried and got refused .

...

11 minutes into that video you're going to see a familiar shape transporting AT-ATs into the capitol city of Naboo. So the Empire obviously did use them as transports.

6 hours ago, nichendrix said:

...

I bet you never looked around how many aircraft carriers and destroyers were sank or badly damaged during WWII due to Japanese kamikaze attacks (like the USS Bismarck Sea), let alone how many sunk because of regular attacks. In the Navy, one of the main roles of fighters is to sink as many enemy big ships they can. So it makes total sense Vader could destroy a Star Destroyer with a very well planned and targeted attack.

That's exactly what happen if you activate the Sincronized property of these fighter's on an attack or if you activate the critical. So the system captures the movies just fine.

Kamikazee planes are loaded with explosives to make sure they stsnd a chance at sinking a ship, otherwise chances are that they wouldn't.

Fighters don't sink ships, they keep away dive- and torpedo bombers who do sink the ships. A WWII fighter wouldn't do much against a war ship with just their machineguns and light cannons. Warships of the era also usually had less armour on the decks, meaning heavy bombs from above stood a decent chance of taking them out.

15 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:

11 minutes into that video you're going to see a familiar shape transporting AT-ATs into the capitol city of Naboo. So the Empire obviously did use them as transports.

Those are not C-ROC ships but are instead the standard/imperial freighter version of the Gozanti . The line you were replying to comes from the C-ROC text and is specific to that refit not having a role in the Imperial Navy.

13 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

11 minutes into that video you're going to see a familiar shape transporting AT-ATs into the capitol city of Naboo. So the Empire obviously did use them as transports.

Really the best you could do is using a fan made movie based on video-game cinematics?

As @HappyDaze already replied, that is a standard Gozanti, and I've mentioned before that the normal Gozanti was used as cargo vessel by the Empire as an armed freighter, which is why they were sometimes used to transport AT-AT and AT-DP from capital ships to surface, it was also used as customs patrol duty, and once we even seen a regular Gozanti converted into counter-inteligence vessel for the ISB.

The C-ROC Gozanti was never portrayed as a ship used by the Empire , in fact it was never shown to be used by anyone other than smugglers. Even the standard Gozant, which was in fact used by the Empire, was not portrayed as a warship, since a freighter delivering cargo aren't a warship, nor are a customs patrol craft.

13 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Kamikazee planes are loaded with explosives to make sure they stsnd a chance at sinking a ship, otherwise chances are that they wouldn't.

Do you know that since WWI bombs, torpedos and rockets are the standard weaponry of air fighters, don't you?

Japanese Zero's used in kamikaze attacks were usually employed with their maximum bomb payload, nothing more than that. hey just changed the delivery systems. ordinarily the parties involved in battle would fight for battle field control (air, waster or land), and after obtaining it, would either take down the enemy or put on the run. Kamikaze attacks started when Japanese forces were so depleted of ships and planes that they could not really hope to get battle field control, the best they can hope was to make the greatest amount of damage and pray it was enough to make the enemy to give up. For this purpose, they needed another way to deliver their bombs and torpedo payloads that wasn't dependent on getting into a field control position.

But in the end, kamikaze attacks were just regular Zeros with their top payload and pilots willing to die for their country.

13 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Fighters don't sink ships, they keep away dive- and torpedo bombers who do sink the ships. A WWII fighter wouldn't do much against a war ship with just their machineguns and light cannons. Warships of the era also usually had less armour on the decks, meaning heavy bombs from above stood a decent chance of taking them out.

Fighters do sink ships, sincerely it is one of the whole reasons aircraft carriers were created in the first place. Because most of the times, you'll be too far away for regular bombers and fighters to give you support. Since it is not possible to operate a bomber from an aircraft carrier, all air support and air superiority power they need to use have to come from their compliment of fighters, that's why all Navy's attack aircraft were always developed to perform the fighter-bomber role.

As I said above, cannons and machine guns usually were not the primary weapons of fighters in WWII, unless you're talking about air superiority and interceptor fighters.

For the record, even the Imperial Freighter is not the standard Gozanti . The Imperial Freighter version has larger wings and reduced armament.

The only time I recall seeing the standard Gozanti was in the background of one of the prequel films and in use by Black Sun during the Clone Wars cartoon.

5 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

Really the best you could do is using a fan made movie based on video-game cinematics?

As @HappyDaze already replied, that is a standard Gozanti, and I've mentioned before that the normal Gozanti was used as cargo vessel by the Empire as an armed freighter, which is why they were sometimes used to transport AT-AT and AT-DP from capital ships to surface, it was also used as customs patrol duty, and once we even seen a regular Gozanti converted into counter-inteligence vessel for the ISB.

The C-ROC Gozanti was never portrayed as a ship in use the Empire . Let alone a warship, since a freighter delivering cargo isn't a warship, nor is a customs patrol craft.

I used that, which is ftom a cutscene from an officialy licensed Star Wars game, to show that the Empire used Gozantis in a military role. In this case as transports into a hot landning zone. Meaning the navy clearly did pick some up from CeC. Might not be the Dangerous Covenents C-ROC, but it's still a Gozanti.

14 minutes ago, nichendrix said:

Do you know that since WWI bombs, torpedos and rockets are the standard weaponry of air fighters, don't you?

Japanese Zero's used in kamikaze attacks were usually employed with their maximum bomb payload, nothing more than that. hey just changed the delivery systems. ordinarily the parties involved in battle would fight for battle field control (air, waster or land), and after obtaining it, would either take down the enemy or put on the run. Kamikaze attacks started when Japanese forces were so depleted of ships and planes that they could not really hope to get battle field control, the best they can hope was to make the greatest amount of damage and pray it was enough to make the enemy to give up. For this purpose, they needed another way to deliver their bombs and torpedo payloads that wasn't dependent on getting into a field control position.

But in the end, kamikaze attacks were just regular Zeros with their top payload and pilots willing to die for their country.

Fighters do sink ships, sincerely it is one of the whole reasons aircraft carriers were created in the first place. Because most of the times, you'll be too far away for regular bombers and fighters to give you support. Since it is not possible to operate a bomber from an aircraft carrier, all air support and air superiority power they need to use have to come from their compliment of fighters, that's why all Navy's attack aircraft were always developed to perform the fighter-bomber role.

As I said above, cannons and machine guns usually were not the primary weapons of fighters in WWII, unless you're talking about air superiority and interceptor fighters.

Japanese used more than just Zeroes, they built special suicide planes and torpedos.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yokosuka_MXY-7_Ohka

Feast your eyes on the flying Baka bomb.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiten

Gaze in amazement at the suicide torpedo.

If they're a fighter-bomber then they carry a few bombs, enough for some air support and enough to ruin someones day or tear up the launch area of a flat top.

If you want to bring down a ship, best bet is dive bombers, like a Dauntless, or torpedo bombers. Both aircraft that you can station on a ship, both regularly used for that.

Ok, so lets work through ships sunk by aircraft. Ok first up carriers.

Akagi: Torpedo bombers and dive bombers. Some B-17s as well for good measure.

Amagi: 2000 pound bomb from a dive bomber that finishes that one.

USS Bismarck Sea: Kamkaze attacks bring that one down.

Chitose: Combination of cruisers, destroyers and naval bombers.

Hermes: Dive bombers.

Hiryu: Dive bombers again.

Hiyo: Torpedo bomber did it in.

Kaga: Dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

Kaiyo: Medium bombers.

USS Langley: 9 twin engine bombers.

USS Lexington: Torpedo bombers, you know, I'm starting to note a trend.

Nisshin: Hey, guess what? Bombers.

USS Ommaney Bay: Suicide attacks and a destroyer torpedo.

USS Princeton: Dive bomber again.

Ruyjo: Dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

Shoho: Dive bombers.

Soryu: Dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

USS St. Lo: Kamikaze attack.

Zuiho: Dive bombers and torpedo bombers.

Zaikaku: Dive bombera and torpedo bombers again.

I actually intended to go through the entire list of battleships, battle cruisers, heavy cruisers, light cruisers and destroyers. But that's a bit much to do on my phone, so the carriers will have to do.

Fighters are there to provide cover against the bombers who deliver the killing blow. At least in the old times, these days the fighters can do the killing.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

I used that, which is ftom a cutscene from an officialy licensed Star Wars game, to show that the Empire used Gozantis in a military role. In this case as transports into a hot landning zone. Meaning the navy clearly did pick some up from CeC. Might not be the Dangerous Covenents C-ROC, but it's still a Gozanti.

Again I never said the Empire didn't use the Gozanti in the military, just that the C-ROC Gozanti were never used by the Imperial Navy.

Just look at Wookieepedia and you'll see that the only mention of them associated with the Empire is that at some point one C-ROC maybe has been used to transport wookiee slaves to the spice mines of Kessel.

What I also did say was that Gozanti (in any of its variant) were not used by the Empire as warships and certainly not as capital ships. They were always presented as armed transports and patrol craft and in this capacity the Empire used them prolifically, but not as battleships or capital ships.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

If they're a fighter-bomber then they carry a few bombs, enough for some air support and enough to ruin someones day or tear up the launch area of a flat top.

If you want to bring down a ship, best bet is dive bombers  , like a Dauntles   s, or torpedo bombers. Both aircraft that you can station on a ship, both regularly used for that.

Fighters are there to provide cover against the bombers who deliver the killing blow. At least in the old times, these days the fighters can do the killing.

As far as I know most dive bombers are just air to surface attack fighters, and a fair amount of them, like the A-36 are just standard fighters modified to air-to-surface duties (in A-36 case, the P-51 Mustang). I'm far from an expert on this, but most material I have owned or seen always present dive bombers as a specialized category of fighters.

In the end, this discussion is somewhat irrelevant, since the closest thing to a dive bomber present in Star Wars are starfighters armed with proton torpedoes, which is usually the means by which fighters could fight against the big ships. All the times we have seen fighters taking down big ships in SW, they either got an opening to make a targeted proton torpedo attack (or a series of them) to a very specific system whose catastrophic failure leads to the ships's destruction. We have never seen a starfighter destroying anything bigger than a CR90 or Sphyrna-class corvettes with their cannons, they always do it by using proton torpedoes to blow some critical system that in turn destroys the ship.

9 hours ago, nichendrix said:

As far as I know most dive bombers are just air to surface attack fighters, and a fair amount of them, like the A-36 are just standard fighters modified to air-to-surface duties (in A-36 case, the P-51 Mustang). I'm far from an expert on this, but most material I have owned or seen always present dive bombers as a specialized category of fighters.

You're wrong there. The Dauntless, american dive bomber, and the Grumman Avenger, the torpedo bomber, were both purposebuilt as dive bomber and torpedo bomber. Same goes for their japanese counterparts.

Much like a Y-wing or a TIE-bomber is built for the same roles. But there are other ships with proton torpedos, which is what's mainly used if you're in a small ship and want to hurt a big ship. So it doesn't quite hold up over the board, even if pacific dog fights are a thing that inspired Lucas.

One last thing in the C-ROC deal, that model is from the mercenary book. It's something rhat would make an ideal base if operations for a modestly sized merc outfit. It's cheap, sturdy and can mount a heck of a lot of guns on it. Similair to most things found in that book. Stuff in Dangerous Covenents isn't stuff for established militaries so much as stuff for paramilitary forces and merc groups.

20 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

One last  thing in the C-ROC deal, that model is from the mercenary book. It's something rhat would make an ideal base if operations for a modestly sized merc outfit. It's cheap, sturdy  and can m  ount a h  eck of a lot  of guns on  it. Similair  to m  ost  things fo  und  in th  at b  o  ok  . S  tu  ff in Dangerous Covenents isn't stuff for established militaries so much as stuff for paramilitary forces and merc groups.  

Actually the C-ROC Gozanti and the regular Gozanti are portrayed in more than one book, including the AoR Core Rulebook. And in both cases they always have their stats so maximized that they could effectively compete with warships that in universe are always shown to be far stronger than them. The stats for the C-ROC (Broken Horn) on the Dawn of Rebellion book are far more realistic with what is portrayed in universe.

And come on, you can modify a ferry boat all you want, but it would never become a real Corvette or a Frigate, it may become a very tough armed merchantman/auxiliary cruiser at best, but they would not be as tough as a real warship.

This is the problem with the Gozanti and C-ROC Gozanti stats, they have HTT, STT and Defense on par or better than dedicated capital warships, that are not far bigger but, in universe , have far better armour and weapons. That's why the Dawn of the Rebellion stats reflect their role far more realistically than their stats in the previous books.

20 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

You're wrong there. The Dauntless, american dive bomber, and the Grumman Avenger, the torpedo bomber, were both purposebuilt as dive bomber and torpedo bomber. Same goes for their japanese counterparts. 

Look into the history of dive bombers, you'll see that they started as fighters with dive breaks and structural reinforcement, the Blackburn Skua was a good example of this transition from standard fighters doing dive bombing to dedicated dive bombers. There was only one generation of dive bombers that were developed from scratch to fill this role, this generation saw the Dauntless, the Avenger, the Junkers Ju 87 "Stuka" and so on. The few dive bombers developed after this only dedicated generation, were usually back to the idea of modifying heavy fighters to be able to do dive bombing.

In the end, by 1942 the development of skip bombing made it far easier, cheaper and more combat effective to either use fighter-bombers or regular bombers skip bombing ships en masse , than using dedicated dive bombers or torpedo bombers. This allied with the fact that by then most ships were already fitted with proper defences against dive bombers and torpedo bombers, it made the concept to be pretty much abandoned by that time (1942), Midway was the last big battle that relied heavily in the dive/torpedo bombing concept.

In the end dive bombers never strayed too far from their heavy fighter origins to be really set apart as something completely different, in part because the whole concept was shown to be ineffective in long term warfare. With no further development, they never really got to deviate to much from their own origins.

As much as I would love to continue this conversation about dive bombers, if you wish to continue I suggest we do it on inbox, since they are rather off-topic.

The C-ROC is an extreme outlier in the system in terms of cost to performance ratio. If you're looking to create a pocket battleship for your party and aren't interested in doing any fancy flying there is nothing that gives you more bang for your buck. It's low cost, it doesn't require a huge crew, and it can carry enough shields and armor to be practically immune to anything a fighter can carry that doesn't say limited ammo on it.

That said, one huge thing people tend to overlook with ships is sensor range, because that's actually quite a big deal if your GM takes it into account. The diplomatic Consular cruiser has Extreme sensor range, the militarized version has Long sensor range, both of which allow these vessels to spot enemies long before most enemies would be able to see them. That can make a huge difference, because a Consular cruiser can see a Star Destroyer before the Star Destroyer is in firing range, a C-ROC cannot. Basically if you're in a ship with long or extreme sensor range you get to pick your fights, if you're in a ship with short or medium sensor range you just have to deal with whatever crops up.