Wookieepedia

READ MORE

Wookieepedia
Don't have an account?
Register
Register
Wookieepedia
In a galaxy far, far away....
196,522
pages

Talk: MC80a Star Cruiser

Back to page
Add topic
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "MC80a Star Cruiser."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

I haven't read the most recent EU books. Does the Galactic Alliance still use MC80a Star Cruisers? The categorization of this article would suggest that they do. Verification? --SparqMan 09:40, 15 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't think so. When MonCal cruisers appear in NJO books they're simply refered to as "Mon Calamari Cruisers", not "MC40/80/90(a/b)'s". But I think it's fair to say only dedicated warships were used at that time and no more converted starliners. But, off course, this is nowhere officially stated. --BaldFett 20:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

  • If they're only referred to as "Mon Calamari Cruisers", then there's a chance that they used them. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

That's makes sence, especially since the Yuuzhang-Vong destroyed quite a number of "warship"-MonCals, older converted-cruisers would have probably been sent back into service.

And what I meant about the dedicated warships is that those have been built for 17-18 years at the start of the Vong-crisis. Therefore I thought it wouldn't make sense for the NR to use converted starliners when you have dedicated warships at your disposal. --BaldFett 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Difference between MC80?[]

Both this article and the artical about the MC80 give basically the same info. Put the stats and the story next to eachother and you'll see, the only noticable difference is that the a-version has 6 fighter-squadrons in stead of 3. so, are there any other differences? --BaldFett 19:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

  • How about the name? There was a MC80 and a MC80a, so that's enough for two separate articles, no matter how similar. Plus, the "a" must symbolize that there is a difference from the MC80, no matter what it might be. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I was just wondering what other differences there were between the "non-a" and the "a" variant other than the name and amount of squadrons. This is nowhere to be found in either articles. I was not implying that the two articles be merged, merely asking a question. --BaldFett 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Appearances[]

I'm doing a little behind the scenes investigation after MonCal cruisers, and I was wondering in what source the MC80a first showed up. By that I do not mean in Universe (like after ROTJ or something), but in Real World (Heir to the Empire, or the X-wing game for example). I know they’re in X-wing Alliance, but that game is from 1999, and they’re already being mentioned in the first Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels, which is from 1995/95. So, where (and when! :P) do they appear first? --BaldFett 17:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

So, I did a little research on Wookieepedia itself and found a couple of MC80a cruisers mentioned in novels and games and added them here. --BaldFett 10:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Corellian Trilogy and its chapter in Cracken's Threat Dossier, the West End Games stats say nothing about it carrying 72 fighters and I never finished the first book of that trilogy so I dont know if its covered there. Lamont Cranston 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

new image?[]

XWA MC80a

Would this be a better alternative for the black and white image? That one could go to the corresponding Naritus page. --BaldFett 18:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Isn't this picture here a MC90? Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 21:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it is from X-wing: Alliance. That is the game model used for Home One. Game models do not qualify as pics for entries over those published in source books, IMO. AdmiralNick22 21:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, I meant to say that it's Home One's class, which is apparently separate from other Mon Calamari cruisers. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) Imperial Emblem 23:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

1,500 meter subclass?[]

I'm pretty sure that this subclass is in fact not a subclass, this class is (also ;)) from X-wing Alliance, and is the game model for Liberty, in other words a MC80 Star Cruiser (Liberty type). If we really want to be consistant we should start a new article called "winged Calamari Cruiser", for that's it's official designation in the game (this is because the Maria uses the same model). But I think it's very clear that the model is meant to be the Liberty, and not a new class. The fact that the models aren't exactly the samen is because of the limited computer capacities in 1999. (The same goes for the 1,400 meter variant BTW) --BaldFett 14:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you have something more concrete to back up your case, by any chance? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • The operation history info on the individual pages for the Liberty, Independence and Defiance (MC80) are directly from X-wing alliance, which is why XW:A is neatly mentioned in the appearances sections. But, like I said, the game uses "simplified", blockier models because of the limited computers at the time (it's a first that the MC80 in Empire at War actually resembles a Liberty-type "perfectly"). There is a choice to make, and I think that the best thing is to accept the 1,400m and 1,500m variants as limitation "mistake" on behalf of the XW:A game makers (interesting note: in XW:A the Imperial Star Destroyer is 2,000m). As for some visual proof on Liberty [[1]] This is from the Battle of Endor, which is seperated into four phases in XW:A, after a cutscene which shows the destruction of Liberty almost as in the movie (complete with correct model), the player then continues in game and is shown this destruction of the "1,500m MC80a" variant once again. --BaldFett 21:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Hmm, this gets more complicated now. There's dozens of different sources on these ships, half of which seems to talk about MC80s and the other half MC80a's. We could always refer to the in-game models as incorrect due to game mechanics, but what about the sizes and designations? At least the ROTJ novelization refers to the Home One as the largest of the Rebel Star Cruisers, so that takes precedence, being a source that's closer to the films, and the Independence and Defiance seen in the card game (using the HO movie model) are said to be sisterships of HO on the OS, so those are also taken care of. Now, what remains is essentially explaining the lengths as part of game mechanics (if they're presented that way in the gameplay as well) and figuring out if they're MC80 or MC80a. VT-16 14:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not the RotJ model[]

The RotJ Wingless is not an 80a. The source that's being cited to that says the exact opposite of it, and that finally got cleared up before the bot merged them. It does not even mention the 80a.

"The three phases of the MC80 class are designed to correspond with the three VFX models we see in the movies: the big, leviathan-like Home One, which has been established in obscure corners of canon as a relatively old starfighter carrier; the elegant winged Liberty, which has regularly been identified explicitly as the 'cruise liner’ design derived from a specific prototype ship; and the simplified 'wingless’ variant of the same design"

Nolanstar (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Dear all the MC80a is clearly mentioned in The Essential Guide to Warfare. It the combination of the book and the endnotes that identifies the wingless as the Mc80a. Hk 47 (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms