Given that the ISD itself was developed during the Clone Wars, I always view it as the Republic answer to CIS's more heavily armored ships like the Providence-Class or the Lucrehulk-Class battleship. Ships which the Venators are having trouble dealing with alone. Thus the Imperator-class (as the ISD was called during the Clone Wars) as I see it is to complement the then Republic Fleet by giving it more firepower, rather than a replacement of the Venator-class.

I liked the Venator better as a ship until I started getting into Empire at War and watched Rogue One. There's something indescribably beautiful about the sheer destructive power an ISD can unleash.

I think the Venator vs the ISD is a classic case of a nation basing strategy off of the tactics of the last war. The Venator had a serious problem with being outgunned by CIS ships, so it was forced to use it's large star fighter compliment to compensate. The Empire, after fighting a whole war wishing they had large capital ships, decided they needed something larger than the Venator to better deal with large scale engagements. The empire failed to factor that tactics might change in the next war, so when the rebel started using star fighter based tactics, the empire was unprepared.

I’ve always thought of the ISDs as a floating Castle, and generally thought of Star Wars space combat to be more like older medieval combat rather than modern naval combat. As such the ISD is a Imperial Lords castle complete with a standing army and primarily for defence. It’s purpose to maintain Imperial Authority, like you said, and the ISD did this very well. The Venator is much more like a medieval army pavilion/tent that is used as a forward mobile camp for its troops and commanders. Something seen in groups and close at hand when assaulting an enemies territory and castles. You need a hell of a lot more units/groups of “pavilions” together to have a viable chance. As was the Venator’s excellent role as an attack cruiser with more attack cruisers. Anyway the analogy is weird, but I think it works.

One thing to point out with this argument is that the Nebula and Endurance, notably, were proven to be less effective at battling the kinds of vast warships still in enemy hands. Their losses in the Black Fleet Crisis ultimately led to the creation of the Star Defender line with the Viscount and Mediator. The advantages of the Venator are undone when you consider just how lethal these larger vessels are. Famously the first Endurance got blasted to shrapnel in the Battle of Orinda before even launching its starfighters. This goes to show that many Imperial era ships sort of existed in a way that would easily counter the supposed advantages ships like the Venator would bring to the table.

I've never understood why people say the Empire should have kept the Venator. What, was Palpatine supposed to say "Keep these ships because in around 20 years time we're going to start having larger fleet battles against a faction that primarily uses starfighters and some extra fighters of our own might be useful"? A lot of people say that they should've used Eck's fleet thing, with a Venator, ISD, and a bunch of smaller ships. That simply isn't practical. The Empire only ever needed a single ISD, even then that was complete overkill most of the time. The Empire was hardly even at war until Endor. Granted this reformed battlegroup would have been useful for fighting the rebels, but is it necessary? We've never actually seen proof that the Venator was needed. We see all the time in Rebels and the OT that even a few ISDs is enough to cause the rebels to retreat, and destroy them if they decide (or are forced) to stay. If you want to look at things completely objectively, the entire role of a Venator is pointless when you consider the TIE Defender or Advanced. We've seen how even a single one of these fighters is strong enough to turn a fairly large Rebel Battle-group into ribbons. Besides, the Empire never really runs out of fighters. I can't actually remember a battle where Venators may have been more useful. Endor and Scarif both would have been complete wipeouts for the Empire without ISDs. In any minor engagement we've seen in the OT or Rebels, a single ISD was enough to scatter the fleet, or just destroy it entirely.

Honestly, IMO what the Empire should have done once it encountered the Rebellion fighter superiority was to modernize the Venators and push them into service as support carrier for the ISD-based fleets. basically do the same thing they tried to do with Ton-Falks but better. More expensive sure but given the amount of Venators available, not by that much. Second thing would be to make better snubfighters (at least give TIE Interceptors some shields and make them ino the primary fighter craft) but that is a separate point.

Honestly I think the empire should’ve paired the two ships together giving more star fighters and more point defense guns

Seems like a lot of people forget the substantial difference in cargo and troop carry capacity between the two ships. The Venator was only able to carry some 2000 troops, in comparison the ISD was able to carry 5 times that amount with 10'000 troops, and double the vehicle capacity. War aren't just fought in space and the fact that a single ISD had the carrying capacity for an entire division to quickly put down an insurrection and establish a garrison is another big point that people seem to miss when it comes to Imperial doctrine. Yes starfighters were important but so was securing a planet itself, and the Empire, more focused on policing systems rather than big pitched naval battles with lots of starfighters was still better off with the ISD, and if anything should've just focused more on providing it sufficient support vessels such as the Raider or Lancer to make up for its lack of anti starfighter capability.

The ISD is on a whole different level, and the Venator doesn't even come close.

I prefer the ISD. Its just too iconic.

The psychological aspect is very important and is something a venator can't really match. You could maybe instil that kind of fear if you were to equip them with large numbers of high quality fighters like defenders and scimitar bombers but that's more down to the fighters themselves than the ship. Even with 20 years of advances in power generation to refit and increase the quality and number of weapons and shield strength it would never be able to match an ISD in a 1vs1 fight as the ISD simply has more power, weapons and shielding due to the size of the reactor it can fit into its frame. The ISD might not have been able to defeat the rebellion alone but it was a good enough ship that the rebels weren't able to gain much ground and even keep them on the backfoot for the most part.

I'm gonna be the taco girl on this; "why not both?"

I curious what you think of the Tector-Class. Basically, the ISD with more amour but deleted the Starfighter hangar.

The ISD II was just beastly at what it was made to do, so I have to go with that one

Should have used Victory IIs. Can crew 6 Victory's for 1 Imperial.

I wish they made a true battle for the Imperial Navy. Show off as many different size ships the empire has. We see on rebels and books they used a variety of ships but movies only show large capital ships. I know the original trilogy had model limitations but RoS showed they can have a lot of variety now.

I agree with you. It looks cooler, but logistically, the ISD is better.

I would prefer the ISD. It's literally 1.6 km's and 270 degrees of "Screw you" Its TIE casualty problem could be solved by changing the TIE's into better TIES (the interception for example) or if not give the humans the advanced TIEs and go with the confederacy route if you really wanna swarm: have a large stockpile of Vulture droids or something similar for support to give the general better-trained TIE fighters the backup they need.

Why not use both? They complement eachother beautifully

just before watching I'd like to say that while the ISD's role of a fully fledged battleship that could perform independant actions on its own is a good role, various content outside of the movies has really made them out to be the worst designed ship of all time with all sorts of design flaws that really they shouldnt have (like terrible turret traverse and awful massive blind spots.) The ISD's purpose could easily be fulfilled by a ship with a more rational design. I dont mean the shape, the shape of the star destroyer makes perfect sense to me, mostly just... turret placements. More superfiring turrets, make the turrets on the sides able to fire up and down, place at least a few point defense turrets around the bridge. I understand the fighters were the main point defense system, but just a few turrets just to dissuade attack on the most vital part of the ship couldnt hurt, it doesnt need to be a full point defense system covering the entire ship. Having said that, I dont mind the exposed bridge people keep talking about. Thats completely realistic in a setting that relies heavily on line-of-sight to direct their forces. Good visibility is important. Edit: It just occurred to me, a Lucrehulk would actually fulfill the ISD's purpose flawlessly. Excellent resilience, can carry massive amounts of supplies and troops, not overtly expensive relative to its size, and can boast alot of firepower in any direction.

I hate it when people say the Venator should replace the ISD because somehow it’s better in every way. The Venator was dated with limited armament, it would’ve gotten smacked by Mon Calamari cruisers. iirc the ISD II could still fight it out pretty effectively with MC-80b’s. The Venator should complement ISDs, not replace them, even then keeping hundreds of Venators around to aid imperial fleets would be expensive and there’s no reason to keep them around. Some people call the ISDs shit for no reason

I always believed they could have upgraded Venators whilst building ISDs. Remove the dorsal hanger, some of the hanger space new reactor, extra weapons etc. Could have given the bridge an overhaul, match the aesthetic of the Imperial doctrine. I dont believe it should replace the ISDs but it was a valuable ship to have

The real question is why they weren't paired together in fleets. Two Venators acting as carrier-frigates alongside an ISD would be far more effective than an ISD alone. And while we're talking about diversifying the navy, where were the gunships, frigates, cruisers, and carriers? Everything we saw from the Imperial navy was just destroyers. You can't build a fleet out of destroyers alone.

The Venator didn't have the firepower or the shielding to match the ISD. It's hyperdrive was also extremely resource hungry and needed refuelings quite regularly. Whereas an ISD had enough supplies to operate independently for more than two years. The hangar deck for the Venator was vulnerable in a fight - it was big, there werent heavy weapons around it, and it had weaker shields and armor. Without opening it hte Venator could only launch fighters via the smaller launch bays to the sides. While effective, they couldn't pump out dozens of starfighters in minutes. So to effectively deploy her full wing the venator had to open the hangar bays, which left a massive gap in shielding and defenses. The thing was operationally the Venator was thrown into firefights as a front line starship due to being the largest capital ship commonly deployed by the Republic. It wasn't shielded or upgunned enough for that. It was a multi-role cruiser/primarily carrier. The ISD was designed as a battleship that could operate independently for extended periods and act as battleship, carrier, planetary invader.. The Venator worked well in large task forces where so long as it wasn't put in the front lines of capital ship combat it could use it's turbolasers at long range to hit enemy formations and let it's fighters swarm in mass numbers. The ISD was meant to operate fully independently. They had different designs and functions.

Mixed fleets were the way to go, a modernised Venator carrier with a full fighter load escorted by at least two ISDs and some smaller picket ships for anti fighter defence, with Lancer frigates once they get designed. These carrier groups wouldnt need to be everywhere, and the fighter compliment could be lowered for additional ground forces. Only give them to the most competent commanders, adjust the composition based on the mission, and you have a tasknforce that can take on almost anything. If the imperial fleet at Endor had beeb composed this way, say a dozen fully loaded Venators, and they had all carried full loads of fighters, thats 4800 fightercraft. They would have countered the rebel fighter advantage pretty much from the start, and the bombers would have inflicted maasive losses on the rebels in the opening rounds of the fight.

I think the either/or question is the wrong one to have. Fundamentally a single Venator could do 90% or more of the jobs the Empire typically would dispatch and ISD out to go do, it's a perfectly capable cruiser, it's even a bit faster than an ISD so it could respond to threats even faster. Retaining the Venator in service filling out those roles lets the Empire reserve the firepower of their ISDs for more important duties and even if they pair their Venators up with Victory class Star Destroyers, they're still saving money and manpower while creating well rounded and flexible mobile battle groups that all but the most powerful separatist holdout fleets or rebel cells could engage on even terms and support these battle groups using the extensive network of bases inherited from the Clone Wars and was continually being built up by the Empire anyway along with fast assult ships like Acclamators to maintain occupation forces on planets when needed rather than tying down valuable capital ships essentially babysitting an occupation force. At the same time the Empire could keep their ISD fleet (optimised for battle rather than long term occupation missions) in reserve to act as a hammer where ever it's needed and to defend crucial locations. Sure the later adoption of Man Calamari cruisers by the Rebels would sorely test the proposed battlegroups, but the the ISDs held in reserve can be sent out on dedicated missions to root out and destroy Rebel forces containing these more powerful ships. It's a matter of not having a one size fits all approach, and the use of smaller cheaper ships lets the Empire field more of them to cover more territory.

While I agree that the Venator is not a great ship to keep in production after the clone wars, neither was the Imperial 1 or Imperial 2. Personally I would favour a modernised version of the Venator (Venator 2) in order to address its shortcomings in the following ways: 1) There is the issue of crew as for a moderately sized vessel the crew size of the Venator was relatively large. As such a slightly larger vessel based around the same functions with more automation would make a lot of sense. Also the increased size (I am thinking on a similar scale to the VSD or Liberty) would help with the other issues the Venator had. 2) The Venator was limited as to how powerful a generator could be housed within its hull. This was the reason why the Venator couldn't be up-gunned enough for the costs of doing so to be financially worthwhile. Expanding the size of the vessel to make room for this makes sense so a larger reactor can be fitted. 3) Updating the weapons systems. By the end of the war the Venator was struggling to hold its own against similarly sized enemy ships once they got into firing range (assuming the fighter fleet couldn't make up the difference in firepower and/or armour) which was one of the reasons the VSD's and later ISD's were called for. Unlike what happened with the ISD's though I would concentrate on the quality/calibur of the main armament (rather than just upping the amount of turrets) so that it could have a decent amount of point defense weapons across the hull. 4) With a larger design it makes less sense to keep the proportion of the ship dedicated to servicing fighter squadrons the same, as such I would look to use some of the left-over space to create a significant forward torpedo battery. Obviously this couldn't be on the same scale as a VSD but I am thinking four to five photon launchers towards the bow would give the vessel enough of a punch that an enemy vessel might think twice about getting within range.

It's a matter of being different from the republic, the imperials hated relying on the carriers and star fighter approach. They went with a to me at least more balanced approach (battle) ship of the line, carrier (secutor class) and escorts. The imperial II? Ditching point defense for more guns. Not bright Which means most of the TIE fighters have to stay behind to guard the ship and not enough escorts for the bombers.

Also speaking of Context, the Rebel Alliance focused on starfighters, primarily BECAUSE it was an exploitable weakness of the Empire. Asking the Empire to have the foresight to keep around a ship that wouldn't have fit into their battle doctrine in preparation of a fight they didn't know they were going to have would have been asking for a bit much. And Even then, if they DID focus more on starfighters than battleships, the Rebels would have focused more on corvettes with heavy emphasis on anti-starfighter laser cannons. And if the Empire tried that, then the Rebels would have focused on frigates meant to counter those. The problem with the argument that the Empire should have kept a ship around to counter the Alliance was that the Alliance was always going to focus their fleet on exploiting the largest weakness they could find in the Empire at the time, and this was never not going to be the case.

Topic: would the V-wing have been better than the TIE Fighter for the Empire? They were only used for five years by the Imperial Navy before being dispensed with.

The empire went into the new era with the mentality of their next major war would be fought against another super power, not a small group of “hit and run” style of fighters. The ISD-II should have focused more on this issue considering its production and release time but I can definitely excuse the Empire for having the ISD-1 be so large scale oriented.

People seem to forget what star destroyers are. Destroyers. Escorts. Second line support ships to the line of battle, made up of the absolutely humongous star dreadnoughts like the executor or Mandator.

Was the ISD a better ship for the Empire's doctrine? Yes. Should they have doubled down on it as hard as they did? No.

From a Doylist perspective the difference between the two ships is pretty obvious, the adoption of the ISD represents the Empire doing away with the last vestiges of the Republic's ideals and consolidating everything under a unilateral military aristocracy. The Venator is basically the ideal centerpiece warship for a star wars polity that is, generally, peaceful and freedom loving. By star wars standards it is reasonably sized for a large capital ship, with roughly 1/3 to 1/4 the volume of an ISD and proportionately scaled armament. Flexible enough to operate on its own, but powerful enough to serve as the building blocks for a battle line, its strike fighters provide both long range punch and the means for a small peace time force to patrol a wide area, providing security and anti-piracy patrols without coming off as a terror weapon. Heck, it's not difficult to imagine a squadron of Venators being deployed to provide timely humanitarian relief, their holds packed with supplies and their hangars filled with shuttles and emergency rescue craft. The ISD, on the other hand, is a tool of Totalitarian oppression. It consolidates all of the Empire's firepower into a (relatively) smaller number of nearly impregnable big shooty boxes, each of which is under the totalitarian control of an officer-aristocrat. Even its small craft are far more dependent upon the mothership than those of its Republic predecessor.

Nebula, Endurance and MC90 FTW I would say. But back to the topic, the Empire could clearly eliminate all the flaws of the ISD by just pairing It with an Acclamator and some Carracs. Palpatine was technically preparing the Galaxy to the Vong, so the way the Imperial navy was set up is kind of ridiculous, they were quite unprepared for the type of fleet the Vong had. The Empire would not win this war just with superweapons, and It's hard to believe that someone as smart as the Emperor would think so.

I can't help but wonder if their could've been a more efficient ship for policing systems than the ISD, while also having the ability to invoke compliance through a strong show of force as it. Then again, the ISD I was actually quite a rounded ship as it had laser-cannons to defend itself unlike its successors, the ISD II and the Tector. I suppose having a best of both worlds situation would be having the policing forces with something like the New Republic's "5th fleet" to respond to immediate threats, and a reserve fleet that can be mobilized in case of full on war. Standardization might suffer quite a bit with that plan as it requires entire fleets with different design doctrines, and not every system can make or maintain it's own defense force. The dilemma faced by large SW factions to how their vast territories should be protected is so interesting.

The Venator also had broadside guns. The heavy ion cannon turrets have only ever been seen in the Incredible Cross Sections books and nowhere onscreen.

1:35 Actually a lot is lost if we take the comparison of the lengths to be equal to the comparison of the volumes since the Imperial is about 1.4 times longer than the Venator while being around 3 times as larger in volume.

Its hard to say which one is better when they were built for different reasons. The Venator was a attack/support ship, intended for fleet battles of the clone wars. While the ISD was a mobile fortress, intended to occupy and suppress entire sections of the galaxy. Now, the problem of the empire was never numbers of fighters, but the readiness and quality of those fighters, so having venators would not solve this issue. The empire needed more corvettes and frigates, as well as better patrol/interceptors fighters to deal with hit and run tactics of the rebels.

wasn't the hangar bay for the ISD and Venator the same dimensions so they have the same carrying capacity but the ISD just tends to use that space for other stuff apart from strike craft so the Venator is a just smaller and weaker a ship.

It would have been even better if they gave the Venator a mayor upgrade, making it bigger, giving it better shield and armor and weapons.

I mean.... they could easily have used both? Its essentially battleship vs carrier. But BOTH are an option.

The Empire should of made better use of the Gladiator class since they were designed as support carriers by Welix Blisix during the Victory initiative during the clone wars. A fully stocked Gladiator could carry around 220 fighters but most were stocked with 24 fighters and used to patrol the mid and outer rims when it would make an excellent support for the larger ISD's since it could hold it's own in a fight and field more fighters than an ISD but instead they were used as patrol craft for the Mid and Outer rims

I mean, it's not like the Empire was strapped for cash. Why not have both?

I'd say use the venator to suppliment ISDs for high value locations and operations. For example, put a venator over scarif, it would be able to help screen for starfighters with all it's point defence cannons while still bringing some more fire power against the rebel capital ships. The ISD definately did its job to scare people into submission, but once the rebellion really started to become dangerous, having a couple venators would give great support to the standard imperial fleet.

I think a fleet made of majority ISD and Venators as support/dedicated carriers would work. Given, as you said, the Rebels could go toe to toe with a Venator, they could use that primarily as a carrier. Even if all the hanger spots weren't filled as you said, say they stacked the Venator with 200 fighters. The rest of the space could be used to house spare parts, munitions, repair facilities etc. While the ISD would be the big gun/ battleship role, the Venator would support it with fighters and still pack a decent punch. Also, the Empire could retrofit the Venator, adding more lasers or ion cannons to make it a better support ship.

I think they should have made a mk2 version of the venator with a bit more fire power and as a escort with the light cruiser. To escort ISD and to have more fighter support.

The Venator should have never been completely decommissioned. The ISD is necessary but, the Venator would have been an excellent escort. Lighter, faster, heavily armed for it's size and full of fighters, it's a decent light cruiser for an ISD. Some battles against the rebels could have been changed had they had lighter, nimbler ships with similar firepower I think, for destroying lighter craft because that's something I think the ISDs properly lacked. Sure they're imposing and huge, but smaller ships can dance around it if they're lucky. And the more ISD firepower focusing down the large Mon Cals while the Venator(s) could help escort and deal with the smaller ships.

Your argument is flawed in two ways the first is that the Empire turn around and built an escort carrier in the tan Falk. Second the flaw was not in either ship. The flaw was in the doctrine. The Tarkin Doctrine relied on overwhelming Force to be applied at any point of dissent. This didn't leave room for balanced Fleet composition. Thrawn noted this and was not a fan of the talking Doctrine. A balanced Imperial Fleet would have retained the venator as a second line capital ship for use implead actions or situations where large numbers of starfighters needed to be deployed or moved. Then the Empire would not have needed they're expensive and under gunned flying hangers.

They should have kept both. The isds should still have been the main capital ship, and use the venator as a dedicated carrier that could give a bit of turbolaser punch if needed.

Also it is not like the Empire was short on carriers. They already had carriers like the Quasar, the Escort carrier and the heavy Secutor carrier.

ISD 1 was not the wrong choice. ISD 2 was the wrong choice

Honestly the Republic had pretty much the perfect navy doctrine in comparison to the Empire. They had destroyers, dreadnoughts, frigates, cruisers, battleships, carriers and not to many of either one class either. I would kept the exact same navy doctrine as the Republic with the same ships including the Imperial 1 but maybe adding in some heavier ships like the Bellator and Assertor. I would have at the very least used Venator's as escort ships for Imperial 1s since they had effective point defense systems and a lot of starfighters which would allow them to provide fighting screening for the imperial 1 while having enough fighters to also attack enemy capital ships or enemy fighters. Honestly I'd personally prefer a Victory 1 a Venator and a Gladiator over a single imperial class any day which by the way those 3 ships together still cost less then a single Imperial 1.

I'm my honest opinion Every single republic era equipment should have co-existed with Imperial Era equipment. It would allow the empire to deploy troops at a faster rate. Allowing them to control the galaxy with a stronger fist. It would also make it more difficult for the Rebel Alliance to grow into a major threat. Cause while it may have symbolized The Republic at one time. The Empire could have housed them with AT-RT's AT-ST's AT-AP's and AT-DP's to where it was feared instead. Similar to what occurred with irl the Swastika which was originally Peace. But now in most of the world except in the Asian Continent, it's still seen as a sign of peace except that one specific angle was used. From my understanding.

rebel forces were namely made up of star fighter's, so if facing a Venator with its complement of tie fighter's, since they're smaller than clone war's ship's, they could field many more tie's in it, maybe 600 of them, and with 52 point defense laser's, the Venator would be feared more by the rebel's since it's capable of fending off starfighter's easier, and since they only had frigate's and corvettes in the beginning, the Venator would be more than enough to take down one standard rebel fleet until the Mon Cala come and aid, in which they would need more firepower then

The Venator should've never been discountinued, just scaled back.

As the Venator is a carrier cruiser...both. The ISD provided the firepower while the Venator provided the starfighter protection

I prefer the Venator because of looks and the fact it could be far more multi-role than the ISD-series. Much of it's space can be used to load troops, refugees, fighters, or cargo as needed, and the fact it could go toe-to-toe with nearly any other capital ship from up to the New Republic era meant it could operate in any of those roles with few worries.

My favorite capital ship is the Victory I. Sadly, it doesn't get much attention.

The Venator was a heavy carrier while the ISD was a capital attack ship.

VENATOR FOR LIFE BABY!!!!! But I agree Corey, the Venator would not have fit the role nearly as well. They should've kept them as their secondary ship type, but, well, that's the empire's loss.

The Venator isn't superior to the ISD. The latter is a specialised battleship designed in response to the experience of the Clone Wars. The former is a power projection tool, a glorified patrol platform designed in peace time and hastily shoved into a role it wasn't designed to fulfill. Yet, excluding Legends stuff like the Yuuzhan Vong, the very inferiority of a Venator in a battlefield is exactly what makes it much better for the Empire needs post Clone Wars, without large fleet engagements or enemy superbattleships to worry about. The ISD is an overwhelming force, but can only be at one place at a time, turning policing and insurgency suppression into a galactic game of whack-a-mole, doomed to be lost because there were simply not enough Star Destroyers to avoid rebels or pirates or criminals slipping through the fingers of the Empire's far too tight iron grip. The Venator instead only has enough firepower to adequately deal with ships one or two weight classes below its own, yet if paired with a large complement of FTL capable fighters or other such smaller vessels, it allows the ship to police several star systems at a time, which combined with its lower cost and faster hyper drive would have improved the Empire's fleet coverage more than ten fold. Imagine if instead of 25000 ISD 1s & 2s, the Empire had 75000 Venators that would already mean a major Imperial presence in triple the amount of systems. If each Venator fighter complement was say 288 FTL capable small crafts, about 2/3rds full complement to make space for more supplies and groudtroops, and if atleast half of these were operating at all times, with 2 squadrons per star system, including the one where the Venator is currently stationed, it would allow a single Venator to police 6 star systems at a time. Whereas a Star Destroyer would only be able to do one at a time.

An ISD supported by at least one Venator is my dream team

It comes down to the argument of fleet carrier vs. multi-role battleship

Lemme answer this question in one word: yes. The VSD is versatile. Against the Rebels such ships would have been a constant thorn in their side. But the Empire decided to be stupid and chose going big (Death Star) and scaring the fear of death into their enemies instead of having a flexible force capable of doing the job required of it. That's what happens when you put brute force ahead of brains. And the fight the Empire didn't want, it got. Failure of a doctrine.

You definitely did a good job of explaining why the Venator didn’t fit with Imperial military doctrine, but i feel that there is one thing you didn’t mention. The Imperial military doctrine didn’t work. The more carrier-focuses doctrine of both the Old and New Republic one the other hand, did work

I would say the Venator is objectively a superior ship for any mission that wasn’t a pure slugfest between capital ships or planetary bombardment. The logistical issue of managing its fighter corps was no worse than the logistical burden of an ISD, and its extensive small ship support capacity actually gave it greater tactical flexibility as various designs of craft could be assigned to support a variety of missions. That said, the ISD 1 & 2 get a lot of unnecessary hate because their design takes the blame for Imperial naval failures which were actually a product of bad doctrine. Every ISD in the fleet would have been more dangerous if the navy hadn’t embrace a doctrine of psychological and capital ship warfare. Each ISD carried a full fighter wing, but they neglected carrier operations as a serious part of their doctrine. Better training for launch and recovery crews and the zealous use of combat space patrols would have made the ISD dramatically more effective.

The Venator can’t take or give as big a punch as an ISD, but they are a more versatile ship overall. I wonder how many of the Republic’s Venators survived to the Battle of Yavin or beyond?

Corey, when it comes to Imperial ships, are you more a minimalist or maximus?

another point why people say the venator is better is becuase it cost 3x as much to build one isd than it did one venator meaning they could have had 3x more venators than they had isd's

I think the Venator is cooler, but only in the context of the classic ISD. The Venator sort of seems like a more noble and heroic ship versus the cold and terrifying ISD, probably as intended.

I think the trap that both the Republic and Imperial regimes fell into was they were focused too much on one thing. For the Imperials it was projection of power. For the Republic it was only using one design for everything. I think the Republic should have invested in creating a capital ship like the ISD. The Venator was weak without it’s Star fighters (i.e. Ryloth) and couldn’t hang in a ship to ship battle. If there had been an ISD or a capital ship like it at Ryloth it probably would have been a different story. The problem with the Imperial ships is they are simply too focused on projecting power. Fear works until someone figures out a weakness that could be exploited. The particular weakness of the ISD was point defense, we see it multiple times that rebel ships dart around these ships like it’s nothing. Both of these problems could have been solved if either side had deployed balanced battle groups. Similar to how the US Navy operates, One Aircraft Carrier and a bunch of escorts. In Star Wars this would look like one Venator, 1-3 ISDs, and 6-7 Aquitens style escort ships. All of the Star fighters would be on one Venator and the ISDs would be covered point defense-wise. Then the ISDs could obliterate any capital ships standing in the way.

Look, if the _Imperials_ had a more effective anti-fighter tactic available to them besides 'hope the TIEs can handle it' or 'hope we have some _Lancers_ in the flotilla' there'd be a lot less argument. The _Venator_ vs _Imperial_ thing comes up because the _Imperial_ (and the way it's deployed) seems designed to be weakest against the sort of shoestring budget fighting force the Empire spends all of its screen time fighting, and the _Venator_ covers those weaknesses, both by flooding the zone with massive numbers of fighters _and_ having shipboard weapons capable of engaging snubfighters. And a _Venator_ with a fighter wing loaded for a shipping strike can still take on enemy capital ships. Of course, the difficulty in maintaining a fighter wing the size of a _Venator's_ is not to be underestimated; even in peace time fighter operations are dangerous; if you want your pilots to stay trained, you're going to be regularly needing replacements... and you'll nearly always lose some of your fighters if you're forced to actually fight anything, while in many situations the _Imperial_ can keep all its personnel safely inside the star destroyer's shields and hull.

Tbo i think the venitor is the perfect capital ship for the rebellion use more as a mobile base. If you had 120 fighters think of the supply space. You can launch 10 hit and run attacks on 10 targets

ISD 1 was better than ISD 2 and a reason the empire fell. Getting rid of laser cannons on a ship that mostly fights star fighters was a dumb move. But Venator could of countered better. But lacked heavily in firepower

Hey but if we can convert ISD to carry more fighters why can we simply store supplies for crew inside the Venator hangar? It would solve the problem. Second thing is the fact that Venator could be easily converted to a battleship of some sort if this is what Empire needs. I think that Venator would be much better warship for the Empire because it was battle tested, cheaper, had lots of hangar space which could be used for carrying other things like gunships, supplies, troops or power generators for new weapons.

One on one, the isd beats the venator, but 3 venator can definitly beat a ist (the isd is 3 Times lore expensive than the venator

Both ships were the right ship for the wrong wars. ISDs in The clone wars and Venatord in the Empire would be perfect.

If i was making a task group i would have 1 tector 1 venitor an a sprinkling of lancers or carracks depending on mission

All the empire needed to do was choose the tie defender over the Death Star and they would’ve won.

Carriers over Battleships any day....

I think the Venators would've been an awesome support ship for an ISD.

Also the ISD wins if is supported by a Lancer Frigate or a Tartan Patrol Cruiser (best ship)

*Venator or Imperial?* "Is it too much to ask for both?" All joking aside, Eckhart's fleet redesign showcases how both the Venator, as a Carrier, and the Imperial, as a Battleship, could easily compliment each other and function in the same fleet. No need to pick one over the other when you can just have both do what they do best.

One thing that I would prioritise that is better with the venator over the isd is that it has a superior Class 1 hyperdrive which for policing an extraordinarily large Empire is essential if the isd had a class 1 hyperdrive The Empire would have been nice unstoppable with the tactics the Rebels used at the time

Love both ships, but I don't understand why you wouldn't place a similar amount of those dorsal turbo lasers on the ventral side ?

YES THEY DID!! lol No but they needed a lot more fighters and better fighters. If they had gone with the Venator then that would have been a done deal for the tie defender and this would have beat the rebels. The mother options would have been build 2/3 of the ISD's that they did and use the 1/3 resources left to build lancer frigates. This in itself would have made the difference. They didn't need that name ISD's even 2/3's of them. You could have build more Victory's and saved the ISD's for harder points and have way more Victory's for the 2/3 of the ISD's built and then still replace the resources used for the SISD's for ISD's. This would have been perfect to deal with the rebels and then after they had been no more you could have shifted production to the Tarkin doctrine.

I prefer the venator, I like that Its more specialized into being a carrier first. isd feel is just to Swiss army knifed in its role.

Why not use both the Venator and the ISD? I do think the Venator would have been due for a re fit or maybe a mk2.

People always seem to point out how the star destroyer always seem to get destroyed while the venators are always portrayed to be amazing in the clone wars, when in the clone wars the venator is ally depicted to have problems, hell three venators could barely go against 3 munificent class frigates, the imperial class is always depicted to have better capital ship weapons than the venator even in rebels or rouge one. The imperial class, in rebels at least, isn't usually destroyed due to improper weaponry or even by star fighters, but usually due to imcompitent leader ship and bad placement.

The Empire would’ve wiped the floor with the Rebels if ISDs had TIE Defenders instead of non shielded tie fighters. Doesn’t matter how many fighters you can carry if they’re all crap.

I think they should supplement each other, to make a more versatile evenly armed fleets to crush the Rebel alliance and their criminal allies.

ISD is better, but the Venetor is a ton better than the quasar fire.

The ISD (and the Imperial Navy) was better for broadsides like in the clone wars but for a battle against the rebel Alliance before the battle of yavin especially, the venator and the republic navy were better suited for the job.

As anyone who studies military technology knows: The army is always preparing to win the last war. The ISD would have done wonderfully against the Separatist droid fleets. It was a flying fortress designed to handle many smaller capital ships, and that was the Separatist MO for almost the entirety of the Clone Wars. The massive Lucrehulks were the only thing that could possibly go toe-to-toe with it, and they weren't a centerpoint of Separatist fleets. However, it floundered against the Rebellion's superior starfighters and willingness to run away when they were losing. Because the next war is rarely like the last war. So to answer the question posited: Did the Empire make the wrong choice? No. Not because the ISD is better or worse, but because they were planning on how to defeat the Separatist threat, and didn't foresee how long range hyperspace capable starfighters would change naval battles. Much like how the navies of countries after WW1 focused more and more on battleships and battlecruisers, and were blindsided by carrier based airpower.

Why not use both?

I don't like either ship, so I don't really care, but I like videos like this.

Doesn’t the ISD serve as proof the failings of the Tarkin Doctrine? Yes these ships were imposing and spread fear across the galaxy and had large armies to deploy as garrisons. Their Resurgent descendants did the same thing too. However what about dealing with pirates and insurgents? As we all know fear doesn’t always work. Now I’m not talking about a war against rebels, just what would happen say a group of criminals or insurgents went on a spree against planets. These groups would use smaller ships that are still armed, but also fast. Such ships have the advantage against Tie Fighters because they are usually shielded while these ships would also outmaneuver and outrun Star destroyers. Again, not speaking of a wartime scenario, speaking of something that could happen in peace time such as an isolated incident. Venators solve this problem by having starfighters squadrons to send out in longer patrols than Tie fighters. Now granted this is coming down more so to Republic starfighters being better equipped than Imperial ones, but with the advantage of the space on a Venator even if not fully stored, the insurgents would be hunted down and the system would be locked down. I honestly feel the Venators would make better policing ships, though I must admit that this would have to be under a different organization that doesn’t use the Tarkin Doctrine. In the case of a Venator, it has the numbers within and the complement of starfighters to maintain order without spreading fear. It would be able to handle small threats like pirates and have starfighters powerful enough to take on capital warships as proven in the Clone Wars and the Galactic Civil War. Now people would say it’s unable to have the ground troops large enough to maintain a planetary garrison which is where I have to admit the Venator is incompatible with the Tarkin Doctrine. A regiment of clone troopers is pretty small compared to a legion of stormtroopers by a couple thousand. Such a force would be better suited for anti-pirate operations or as military strike forces than garrisons who could be overwhelmed by the local population. However this still makes the Venator one of the best ships for policing and peacekeeping. It’s just meant to be used by a democracy instead of an autocracy. The Venator’s “weak” state compared to its descendants makes it warm and welcoming. It serves as a sign of hope. It may not be intimidating and won’t scare off enemies, but it can still pack a punch. Fear won’t always work, and when it didn’t the Imperial ships would get overwhelmed by starfighters squadrons. The Venator is best able to handle the small ships that are common to have among pirates and insurgents and it can make use of its squadrons to take on larger capital ships. You may even say that the Venator would be better in peace time than in war time.

The Venator is a screwdriver and the ISD is a hammer. The Imperial navy threw away their screwdrivers and tried to hammer screws in.