Since there was only ever one of them (the SDF-23 is an example - well, OK, the only example - of the larger Megaroad class), the question is a bit moot. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

HAHAHAHAAHAHA!!!! :)

hmm... I didnt catch that until I scrolled back up there and looked :)

There's no need to try to be cute, you know. A simple email/privmsg saying "I fear you may have failed to spot a typo during your customary thorough, careful vetting of this absolutely critical document" would have sufficed, and also saved me from starting my week by receiving a horse laugh from WengFook.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/

aww... It was'nt funny until he posted it that way... :)
*ahem* I shall endeavor not to laugh like a horse if it offends you.

Fireball - It's what's for dinner!

An Atlantia-class battlestar actually has an edge over the SDF-17 in the emplaced-weapons category. The SDF-17 has its Reflex cannon, of course, whereas the original battlestar class lacks an Omega-class weapon, but battlestars have significantly more turbolasers, air defense guns, and whatnot. In terms of overall firepower, maneuverability, and weapons effectiveness, an Atlantia-class battlestar stacks up quite well against an Imperial-class Star Destroyer, despite the Star Destroyer's size advantage.

An Atlantia's main disadvantage in a running gunfight with a ship like a Star Destroyer is the fact that the native Colonial tech base does not extend to energy shielding. On the other hand, battlestars are among the most heavily armored, survivable warships in space because their designers had to compensate for that very weakness.

>And given the Battlestar's role as a fighter platform,
>what is the small ship contingent comparison for the two?

I don't usually get too involved in this kind of detail. Heck, even when I was doing obsessively detailed technical readouts for the whole WDF fleet, I didn't get into figuring out the small-craft complements of the carrier classes and what have you. I suppose I'll need to do that sooner or later, but I'm not feeling like getting into it right now. :)

As a basic relative yardstick, though, you can assume that each battlestar fighter bay is equivalent to a single carrier deck. Thus, Galactica would have a fighter complement roughly equivalent to the SDF-17's (because the SDF-17 has two carriers, Daedalus and Prometheus, in permanent dock), or twice the capacity of a single-deck carrier like a Bengal or Confederation.

Star Destroyers don't have conventional carrier equipment, but the compactness of TIE fighters means they have a fighter complement about equivalent to a battlestar's as well. The price they pay for that is, of course, the fact that TIE craft are all but useless in an atmosphere and can't land on their own or be recovered by conventional carriers. If an ISD serving in a combined fleet with a battlestar is destroyed, the battlestar can't take in its orphans. Bit of a drawback, that. Hopefully the Imperial Mark IV will correct it.

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor in Chief, Netadmin
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/