Talk:Victory I-class Star Destroyer

Conjectural Turbolasers
"The Victory-class presumably also had a few heavy turbolaser turrets." Similar to the HIMS debate, why would we include this in the article? If there is a long standing discussion of the probability of VSDs bearing them, perhaps it should be included in Behind the Scenes, or if it's discussed at length on websites, linked to fron External Links. --SparqMan 15:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Because WEG also consistently ignored the HTL turrets on the ISDs in their stats. Even the Venator has HTLs, and it's just a carrier. It wouldn't make any sense at all for the VSD to not have them. -Vermilion 00:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that recent sources have gone back to the Victory I-class Star Destroyer having 80 concussion missile launchers, not simply twenty launchers with 4 missiles each; the New Essential Chronology supports the former case, and the fact that the Providence-class Carrier/Destroyer has 102 proton torpedo launchers makes the VSD having 80 launchers not that unreasonable. --TIEDefenderPilot 00:56, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Not nesesarily (I spelt that wrong, but I'm tired... lol): The Venator and ISDs were built by KDY, whereas the VSD was by Rendili. Plus I'm pretty sure the Victory came before the Venator. --Beeurd 00:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
 * WEG consistently left out the primary armerment of ships in favor of the secondary one. From their POV it makes sense, a hit from one of big HTLs is gonna annihilate the party.  But the weapons still need to be there.  -- Lowkey
 * Visible turrets are not necessarily the sine qua non of heavy weapons. More serious is the question of concussion missiles - as I've noted in the Behind the scenes section, we seem to have a snafu here, if SotG really says four tubes: so, does it? --McEwok 14:01, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * It says 20 tbes, 4 missiles a piece -- Lowkey
 * I agree. If the recent sources support the 80 launchers, then that should be it. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:01, 30 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Victor Project
Please explain to me how what really comes down to an immature temper tantrum about what a book says is necessary? A wiki entry is suppossed to be from a neutral POV, how is bashing what LFL has decided to retcon in anyway shape or form neutral? --Lowkey
 * It doesn't matter; it's information that should be there. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:06, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Why? How is the fact that LFL made a decision that you don't like to change things relevent to the Victory class?  I don't like the fact that Galaxies is canon, you don't see me messing up articles bashing it.  What justification is there for including it?  -- Lowkey
 * Simple: It's information. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:13, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that you don't like it does not make it relevant informaion. --Lowkey
 * I never said I didn't like it. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:33, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why are you so quick to revert information bashing LFL and defedning its inclusion despite being fron a nonNPOV? --Lowkey
 * You know, I don't really care about this anymore. It's out of the article anyway, despite the fact that it provides some information. Admiral J. Nebulax 17:43, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the anonymous edits that brought this diatribe into the article, and they all go back to McEwok. Of course I'm not surprised, but I do wonder how much longer the admins are going to put up with that kind of childish behaviour. And why, oh why, doesn't he pick on other "fan-writers" who got a lucky break. How about them Wizards of the Coast boys, huh? Or Pablo Hidalgo and his WEG team of wonder? Why is it anything that might have had something to do with Curtis Saxton? Saxton had nothing to do with this book, but still, he's the one getting picked on. The only author getting this kind of treatment here, apparently. VT-16 15:59, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * That's pretty sad if he's the only one. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:56, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Battlefront II
I'm not sure why my edit was taken out, but during the space battles of the game Battlefront II, if one checks his or her sensors, one will note that it records the Victory-class vessels as "frigates" and not as "Star Destroyers." I commented on this in the "Behind the Scenes" subsection because it, to me, seemed relevant. Why it was deleted, I do not know.--SOCL 21:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See Victory II-class frigate. They're two completely different warships. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See, this is the point where I apologize and also the point where I ask that in the future such a thing be pointed out to me rather than action simply being taken.--SOCL 04:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if you look at the history, plenty of people had added this kind of thing in before, and I get tired of writing the same thing in the "Summary" box. Admiral J. Nebulax 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Victory III
Would the upgraded ships manufactured after the Vong war be considered a Victory III-class? Generally upgrading the design and adding massive tractor beams seem to me like it's sufficient to define a new class. 68.47.234.131 21:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No. If you add a massive asteroid-tug tractor beam to a ship, that does not make it a new class. Upgrading some other things doesn't make it a new class, either. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The alterations are made during construction, not as refits. If significant alterations to a design's armament and such doesn't constitute a new class, then the Endurance-class carriers also aren't actually a new class. They're just modified Nebula-class Star Destroyers. Besides, what is the Victory II, but a Victory I with upgrades (less substantial than those of the new "Victory Is" seen post Vong war, at that)? 68.47.234.131 03:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No matter what, a source is needed. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Any speculation or mention of it (since it sounds substantial enough) could go in the Behind the scenes section. :) VT-16 16:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't like that idea, though. I don't think we should go around mentioning a possible "Victory III-class Star Destroyer" if we don't know if it exists. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It does at least deserve a BTS mention for being such an extensive modification as to warrant being a possibly new sub-class, even if it was never mentioned as such in-universe. VT-16 21:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine, but someone's going to go make a page on that, because someone usually does. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Victory-class in ANH?
I discovered this interesting card from the SW:CCG ANH set. Having discarded it as non-canon in the past, the recent retcons highlighted (Sariss in ANH, Tectors in ROTJ) made me wonder what the canon status of Victory ships in ANH are.  The card shows the Devastator model from that film, but identifies it as a Victory SD. Now, with the exhibition model of the Devastator showing refitted parts that made the ISD-Is in ESB and ROTJ look more like ISD-IIs, this image could easily be explained as showing an extensively refitted Victory SD. The SDs over Tatooine were never really expanded on, so maybe they could be retconned as Victorys? VT-16 09:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Devastator looks like the other ISD-Is in A New Hope; I think that's just a mistake on the part of WotC. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying the Devastator was a Victory ship, only that its model could have portrayed several classes in ANH, if this retcon is still accepted. I asked about it on the continuity-thread on the OS, so hopefully we'll have an answer soon. VT-16 13:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Now I get it. But still, if the model was used as a Victory, it would look different from the Victory Is and IIs. Of course, if the model was used as a Victory, it could be considered a Victory III... Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, if it was a Victory III, there would probably be "Victory Vs" by the Yuuzhan Vong War. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 15:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like that, or Victory-I A or something, since it wouldn't be a new model in the same series, but an upgrade of an older design. VT-16 15:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But that would make the Imperial II the "Imperial I A". Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I said "upgrade", not "new model in the same series", which is what the ISD-II's were. But, then again, they might just not bother with it. ;P VT-16 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I know you said that, but weren't the ISD-IIs upgraded ISD-Is? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they were a new model in the Imperial-series, but some ISD-Is had a few refits done to be more like the ISD-IIs. VT-16 07:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, that's what I was thinking of. Sorry. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

New Pic
The Victory II had hull hugging "fins" like the one pictured in both articles.--Jerry 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's good, but it's not a pic of a VicI, it's a VicII. I suggest it be moved to the VicII page.--Jerry 22:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's a Victory I. Victory Is had those fins so they could enter atmospheres; the Victory IIs didn't. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Vic Ones had outward facing fins like this: http://moddb.com/images/cache/mods/55/5568/gallery/thumb_31059.jpg
 * Oh. I didn't realize that. My bad. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there any pictures of the Vic-I that isn't fanart? I remember seeing something in a video game, possibly. VT-16 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 07:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There has to be some non-fanart pictures. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I know I've seen it somewhere, but haven't been able to find it online.--Jerry 21:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But was the previous image a Victory I? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * WHich one? The one I posted above? --Jerry 17:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, the one as the main image before this current one. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That was a Victory II, the same picture was the main image for both the VicI and VicII, and still is for the VicII--Jerry 20:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seen it somewhere in a game or in a book? VT-16 20:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Game I think. Can't remember which one though--Jerry 22:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It'd be nice to get one. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's just a matter of finding one.--Jerry 21:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to remove all of that extra stuff on the above image? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's fanmade... :S VT-16 08:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)