Talk:Providence-class carrier/destroyer

Is there any source for the stats of a regular Providence-class carrier/destroyer? All of these stats come from the Invisible Hand, which is supposed to be a heavily-modified ship. JimRaynor55 08:16, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Number at the battle of Coruscant
Why do people keep changing it? Are there different sources as to the number that fought there? Kuralyov 23:41, 10 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * That was in the Clone Wars mirco-series. There is no proof that there was thirty-forty Providences at the battle. That's why I put the Behind the Scenes section in. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 19:14, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's the reasons why there WERE NOT thirty to forty Providences at the battle. First of all: Why is ONLY ONE seen in the movie? Twenty-nine to thirty-nine cruisers of this class could not have all been destroyed prior to the battle seen in the movie. Second of all, why would the Confederacy send their first wave with only those ships? Why would they waste them? Therefore, there is no proof that there were thirty-forty Providences at the battle. Just because you saw it in the mirco-series DOES NOT mean that that is the truth. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 18:46, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we never saw the full extent of the battle in the movie or the tv series, so there's room for there being more either off-screen in the movie, or destroyed/retreating towards the end. Battlefront II also shows many Providences alongside other Confederacy ships in the background. Either way, I put the speculation under BTS, with all available facts. :) VT-16 19:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason why we see only Providences in the Clone Wars microseries: It's all animated. Why make an entire fleet of different ships when you can only use one model, the model that is the most important Separatist warship in the battle. Battlefront II reason: Almost the same for the mircoseries reason. Why bother putting all of the Separatist cruisers into the game to be boarded? Well, for one thing, no one has ever seen the inside of any other CIS cruiser. Those are the only reasons those two sources made the Separatist invasion fleet mainly Providences. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:13, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * True, but the BFII game also has two other models freatured besides the Providences, as well as Acclamator or Acclamator-IIs on the Republic side. I don't see how several examples of visual evidence can be discarded due to the argument "It's cheaper to do less models". What's proposed in the BTS section seems reasonable enough based on the visuals. :) VT-16 12:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but until an actual hard-core source shows itself, it's only in the "Behind the Scenes" section. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 20:18, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * Now we have at least one other named Providence-class destroyer in the battle, the Prosperous which was conquered by Saasee-Tiin in SW:CW. Not exactly "dozens" but it's still more than one. ;P VT-16 13:48, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe there were more than the Invisible Hand. I don't know. Up until the naming of the Prosperous, it was doubtful, but now it's possible. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:49, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)


 * In the Revenge of the Sith Novel it mentioned when Anakin and Obi-Wan were looking for the Invisible Hand Obi-Wan said there are dozens of cruisers. Anakin then said it is the one crawling with Vulture Droids.User:Lucky
 * He was probably referring to all of the Recusant-class light destroyers and Munificent-class star frigates. Plus, we know of at least one other Providence. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Providence-class carrier/destroyer is the only CIS Capital Ship classified as a cruiser and Anakin would probably not get confused about the ships class and it the only class of capital ship with internal hangers to dock with besides a Trade Federation Battleship witch is not the class of the Invisible Hand and the reason they did not put a lot of Providence-class carrier/destroyer is not to confuse the people watching same they didn't put in the Dreadnaught and Carrack Cruisers User:Lucky (talk)
 * Okay, slow down. They could have very well referred to all of the other CIS captial ships as cruisers. Obi-Wan's probably not going to say that there are dozens of cruisers, destroyers, and frigates when he could sum it all up and say "cruisers". Plus, we only know of two Providences at the battle, and you can clearly see in the movie that the majority are all Recusants and Munificents. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 12:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that should cover it.User:Lucky (talk)
 * Exactly. We only know of four Providences, and we only know that two of them were at Coruscant. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Deck Cannons
In ROTS, the Invisible Hand fires deck cannon at a venator. The ROTS:ICS states that these are ion cannons, but the visual dictionary it indicates that there are mass drivers under the ion cannons. are they part of the ion cannon or a different weapon all together. QX100 14:09, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the Episode III Visual Dictionary shows that there is a small ion cannon attach to the larger cannon. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 23:42, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 * If you go over the image in the ROTS ICS carefully, you see that the ion cannons it refers to are seperate from the mass drivers. Suppossedly some new editor chopped the manuscript all to heck; any statements related to the mass drivers probably got cut. A pity.--Lowkey
 * Well, when it comes to mistakes like that, we cannot use it. But at least the Visual Dictionary provide a much better source. Admiral J. Nebulax 14:21, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Dac 5?
Any source for this supposed ship? Or is this just another rpg fanon creation posted by an anon with horrible grammar? JimRaynor55 07:43, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks suss. I've tagged it. QuentinGeorge 07:48, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * There's no source for "Dac 5", and therefore that page should automatically be deleted. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Move
This article should be moved to "Providence-class carrier/destroyer." It's only a small change, but that's the way it's written in all the official sources. JimRaynor55 18:41, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny, I've always had it as "Providence-class carrier/destroyer" in the articles. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:37, 21 Dec 2005 (UTC)