I figured it out! This dreadnought is 4 of 8. They all fit together to create a large pizza deathstar laser thingy.

25 minutes ago, Swusn said:

I figured it out! This dreadnought is 4 of 8. They all fit together to create a large pizza deathstar laser thingy.

Do you think the will play Captain Planet, Voltron, or Power Rangers? Imthinkin Power Rangers.

1 minute ago, Noosh said:

Do you think the will play Captain Planet, Voltron, or Power Rangers? Imthinkin Power Rangers.

Well, of those, only the Power Rangers went as high as needing 8 to do anything.

Just now, Drasnighta said:

Well, of those, only the Power Rangers went as high as needing 8 to do anything.

How many mega-,super-,utra- prefixes do you think the will use? Also let us not for get a gratitious use of battle in there. I think at least, Utramegaubersuper Star Battle Destroyer, now with kung fu grip!

9 minutes ago, Noosh said:

How many mega-,super-,utra- prefixes do you think the will use? Also let us not for get a gratitious use of battle in there. I think at least, Utramegaubersuper Star Battle Destroyer, now with kung fu grip!

Well, if they go for the super mega, the final battle will end up having well over 100 of those...

/not gonna lie, the final episode of super megaforce is ultra nostalgic/

5 hours ago, Derpzilla88 said:

I'll join on the minority side here and say that I actually like the design of the Dreadnaught. It took a little bit but I can see it fitting into Star Wars fairly well. The big guns on the bottom took some getting used to though, but it looks better when they're stored away in the ship and only come out for orbital bombardments. I'm actually surprised that it's smaller than the Super Star Destroyer, I thought the First Order would have gone just as big, if not bigger, than the Super Star Destroyer. Seems to be their typical theme.

Though maybe my liking for the ship is coming out of pure spite for the raging forum posters who are judging the ship and/or the whole movie based on a handful of stills of a single ship and walker.

I'll save judgement on the new walker until I see it in action. It looks a bit silly in the stills, but I'm not bothered by it. It could easily end up appearing much more functional and cool on screen.

I suspect most of the spite a lot of forum users have for this ship(aside from its red rocket style lasers) is that what it does would make more sense on a small ship the size of an Arq. ISD's have ALWAYS been able to destroy a planets surface w/out much of a problem with lasers alone(ignoring the impact a tractor beam + asteroid would be for a planet) so making a ship that's bigger with the same purpose just doesn't really make practical sense. however, if you made a small ship that could do the same for next to no resources would pose a substantial threat.

Which actually reminds me of the Sun Crushers that were used for a while in the extended universe(though it was dumb that those were ships instead of just missiles). /shrug, I'll see the movie and the hate the forums give it before hand will lower my expectations which will hopefully increase my enjoyment of the movie, because that's how humans seem to work.

Lately I was surprised to find out that the Starkiller base is only 660km of diameter.

I guess they first did that hologram of the Starkiller base next to the Death Star without thinking through how big an actual planet should be compared to the Death Star and they just did something similar to the proportions between the Earth and the Moon.

But it's a ludicrous size. Considering the moon is 3500km.

I guess they took the same astronomical knowledge to do this planet that they used for the hyperspace laser or the idea that you would be able to see the destruction of a planet from a planet on the other side of the galaxy.

59 minutes ago, dominosfleet said:

I suspect most of the spite a lot of forum users have for this ship(aside from its red rocket style lasers) is that what it does would make more sense on a small ship the size of an Arq. ISD's have ALWAYS been able to destroy a planets surface w/out much of a problem with lasers alone(ignoring the impact a tractor beam + asteroid would be for a planet) so making a ship that's bigger with the same purpose just doesn't really make practical sense. however, if you made a small ship that could do the same for next to no resources would pose a substantial threat.

Which actually reminds me of the Sun Crushers that were used for a while in the extended universe(though it was dumb that those were ships instead of just missiles). /shrug, I'll see the movie and the hate the forums give it before hand will lower my expectations which will hopefully increase my enjoyment of the movie, because that's how humans seem to work.

I will admit it is not the best Star Wars, nor best Star Destroyer, design I've seen. Despite Star Destroyers traditionally being triangles in space, the Dreadnaught took the triangle aesthetic a little too far. The flat top bothers me a bit (though for some reason I think the whole bridge structure looks really cool).

I'll also agree that it would make more sense for the giant guns to be on smaller ships, but that's just not how the First Order does things. They're all about doing things bigger and that seems to be their general design aesthetic. And for all we know, these orbital bombardment guns could cause immensely more damage to the a planet's surface than the original ISD or the Resurgent-class could ever do with just lasers alone. Again, it'll come down to seeing how it's used and what it does in the movie.

8 minutes ago, melminiatures said:

Lately I was surprised to find out that the Starkiller base is only 660km of diameter.

I guess they first did that hologram of the Starkiller base next to the Death Star without thinking through how big an actual planet should be compared to the Death Star and they just did something similar to the proportions between the Earth and the Moon.

But it's a ludicrous size. Considering the moon is 3500km.

Indeed. I once did the calculations for the somewhat larger Iego, and concluded it would need to be pure osmium (densest stable metal) to have a half-decent surface gravity.

Starkiller Base is a quarter the size of Iego - it would need artificial gravity to support an atmosphere, and those trees.

All these new giant ships for the tiny squadrons to destroy! Let's see there's the Lucrehulk in episode I, Invincible, two Star destroyers in the battle of Scarif, Death Star I and II, Executor, Star Killer Base, and prolly a ton more I'm forgetting. Why are large ships built again?

2 minutes ago, BaBaBaBen said:

Why are large ships built again?

They enabled the battle for Hoth, maybe?

That was an Empire victory, after all.

3 minutes ago, BaBaBaBen said:

All these new giant ships for the tiny squadrons to destroy! Let's see there's the Lucrehulk in episode I, Invincible, two Star destroyers in the battle of Scarif, Death Star I and II, Executor, Star Killer Base, and prolly a ton more I'm forgetting. Why are large ships built again?

Movies need big explosions.

1 hour ago, melminiatures said:

Lately I was surprised to find out that the Starkiller base is only 660km of diameter.

I guess they first did that hologram of the Starkiller base next to the Death Star without thinking through how big an actual planet should be compared to the Death Star and they just did something similar to the proportions between the Earth and the Moon.

But it's a ludicrous size. Considering the moon is 3500km.

I guess they took the same astronomical knowledge to do this planet that they used for the hyperspace laser or the idea that you would be able to see the destruction of a planet from a planet on the other side of the galaxy.

My biggest gripe with The Force Awakens was JJ Abrams making the Star Wars galaxy look so small. Fin seeing the destruction of Hosnian Prime was just absolutely ridiculous. How someone didn't mention to JJ that someone could never see that and if they did it would be thousands of years later at best boggles the mind. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew that but didn't care because it worked for his story....also the Falcon jumping from lightspeed inside the starkiller bases shield was also just way too easy....

The large Dreadnought is growing on me however. It does match First Order designs which seem to be more industrial and to the point designs. The Finalizer and now this both look like warships. The Executor was great but it looked more like a giant command ship rather than a true warship. I will reserve judgement on the giant guns to see how they are utilized in the movie but I can see them working out. I'm sure the people doing the news story calling the 24 cannons anti-aircraft cannons are mistaken as those cannons are larger than ISD turrets. Either way if that think gets destroyed by a starfighter or someone planting a bomb in the reactor I'm going to just roll my eyes. Give us a decent battle where the New Republic brings something with enough firepower to actually destroy ISD's. Lots of Star Hawks?

8 hours ago, BrobaFett said:

Yeah I really liked the interview initially linked by @Ironlord, it explained away a lot of my fears. I don't know if the ship measurement is off, but in the interview in this article it says the Dreadnaught is "2-3 times the size of a Star Destroyer" which puts it way more in line with the size of the finalizer, just a little bigger.

Also, it shows a picture of the guns tucked up underneath in a the dorsal position, and that it was based off WWII battleships whose main guns would raise and lower into the hull.

I like this design, and if it doesn't make the finalizer look like a corvette, than I will be totally sold on this.

Here is the link to the interview with designers:

http://www.starwars.com/news/inside-two-deadly-new-first-order-vehicles-from-the-last-jedi

Here it is for any not interested in reading it (which you should!)

Ok, now that I'm home on my desktop, I read the article. I skipped over the All-Terrain Megacaliber-6, because the only way that name is redeeming itself to me is onscreen. I did read the section on the dreadnought, and I was somewhat very underwhelmed. It reads like someone skimmed the readings on Wikipedia, let alone anything else. "Yeah, we thought about Flash Gordon and radar dishes, but let's just do guns." Invoking Yamato in the same thought as the idea that a 14" naval rifle is big is baffling to me, and the whole comments about training the guns only kind of applies in space, since there was a lot more that went into that. (Side note, if anyone is interested, go look up the Iowa class battleships' mechanical fire control computers, that were fed by the earliest of fire control radars. Those weapons were our most accurate weapons until the advent of laser and GPS guided ordnance in the 1980's. Here's a good article.) But I understand I'm nitpicking, and that the ship's design was very much driven by story requirements. I'll see what Rian has in store for the film as a whole, but color me unimpressed and a bit worried.

EDIT: I know this is the definition of a nitpick, but not all navies fired broadsides (140+ years ago when that was relevant) on the up roll. The Royal Navy made a point of firing on the down roll, figuring at close ranges upper deck batteries could take out the heaviest guns of the other ship, and the heavy guns would smash the hull below the waterline, sinking the enemy much faster than smashing the upper works.

I think people are forgetting just how large a planet actually is.

You want a weapon capable of doing more than just fusing the top surface layers into glass via heat induction, then you need monumentally sized ballistic weaponry, and the actual round/shell needs to be accelerated to a fair old velocity

Looking at the images / size quotes, 50 mtrs for the barrels radius, is a truly paltry thing when compared to say Earths 127,140 mtrs radius, and Earth is an average sized planet.

I like the look of it, and I do not think it is too big either, it's actually pretty dang small when you compare it to its environment and what it is actually for, Space is pretty inimical to life, so you want to make sure your ship has everything it needs to support that life in that environment, then add in it is a fighting vessel, so you need all the things to make it a fighting vessel that takes up space, lots and lots and lots of it.

If anything most of the ships we see in Sci Fi are far too small, and don't get me started on things like X-wings making interstellar trips.

14 minutes ago, TheEasternKing said:

I think people are forgetting just how large a planet actually is.

You want a weapon capable of doing more than just fusing the top surface layers into glass via heat induction, then you need monumentally sized ballistic weaponry, and the actual round/shell needs to be accelerated to a fair old velocity

Looking at the images / size quotes, 50 mtrs for the barrels radius, is a truly paltry thing when compared to say Earths 127,140 mtrs radius, and Earth is an average sized planet.

I like the look of it, and I do not think it is too big either, it's actually pretty dang small when you compare it to its environment and what it is actually for, Space is pretty inimical to life, so you want to make sure your ship has everything it needs to support that life in that environment, then add in it is a fighting vessel, so you need all the things to make it a fighting vessel that takes up space, lots and lots and lots of it.

If anything most of the ships we see in Sci Fi are far too small, and don't get me started on things like X-wings making interstellar trips.

I'm worried about the size compared to star destroyers, mostly for the games sake. I guess if we ever see it it will be even more sliding of a scale.

5 hours ago, GiledPallaeon said:

Ok, now that I'm home on my desktop, I read the article. I skipped over the All-Terrain Megacaliber-6, because the only way that name is redeeming itself to me is onscreen. I did read the section on the dreadnought, and I was somewhat very underwhelmed. It reads like someone skimmed the readings on Wikipedia, let alone anything else. "Yeah, we thought about Flash Gordon and radar dishes, but let's just do guns." Invoking Yamato in the same thought as the idea that a 14" naval rifle is big is baffling to me, and the whole comments about training the guns only kind of applies in space, since there was a lot more that went into that. (Side note, if anyone is interested, go look up the Iowa class battleships' mechanical fire control computers, that were fed by the earliest of fire control radars. Those weapons were our most accurate weapons until the advent of laser and GPS guided ordnance in the 1980's. Here's a good article.) But I understand I'm nitpicking, and that the ship's design was very much driven by story requirements. I'll see what Rian has in store for the film as a whole, but color me unimpressed and a bit worried.

EDIT: I know this is the definition of a nitpick, but not all navies fired broadsides (140+ years ago when that was relevant) on the up roll. The Royal Navy made a point of firing on the down roll, figuring at close ranges upper deck batteries could take out the heaviest guns of the other ship, and the heavy guns would smash the hull below the waterline, sinking the enemy much faster than smashing the upper works.

This sort of touches on my issue with it.

I mean, they make a big noise - full of sound and fury - in the article about how they were looking to older designs and trying to 'evolve' them. Seeing what they came up with, and their reasoning, though? They simply failed, as they were trying to evolve them in a 'what would look cooler' or 'man, there was this one weakness exploited one time amongst tens of thousands of battles...let's change the ENTIRE DESIGN TO REVOLVE AROUND THAT!' It...just...no.

Particularly the new starship, though - the surface area is vast wastelands of empty space, which is completely ridiculous. The original ships - Star Destroyers, CR90s, Nebulon-Bs, even SSDs and into the prequel movies....they at least looked like naval ships tend to look. Every part economized - if it didn't have an obvious function, it wasn't there. (And by definition 'empty space' has no function) So details on the hull just tended to bump into each other, and overlap, and come off as 'noisy' in the design...and that's right and proper. That's how naval ships look. They don't look like massive PLANKS with a few details on them in the corners unless the 'plankiness' of them had a specific design function (IE., aircraft carriers). And even then - it was minimized as much as possible because space is always at a premium.

This whole 'well it'd look cooler if we added some detail here...let's try radar dishes!...eh, those aren't cool enough...maybe adult toys?...ahhh, no, still not cool enough...hrmmm...well...how about guns?...ehhhh...that's not bad....HEY, WAIT, LET'S COMBINE THOSE LAST TWO IDEAS!!' And not, for even a fraction of a thought, what the actual design to its mission of the ship is.

All-Terrain Megacaliber-6

But.... Why?

13 minutes ago, Doppelganger said:

All-Terrain Megacaliber-6

But.... Why?

It walks in all terrains and it's purpuose is to provide heavy artillery fire with its Megacaliber 6 cannon, don't see anything specially unusual there

Except that name

Megacaliber-6 ?

Well I guess.... DEATH STAR was a thing too...

Still, it seems rather rediculous for a name.

14 minutes ago, Doppelganger said:

Except that name

Megacaliber-6 ?

Well I guess.... DEATH STAR was a thing too...

Still, it seems rather rediculous for a name.

Well, follows the logic of the AT-AT, which the purpuose was to be an armoured transport that carries through all terrains, but now instead of a transport it takes the name of the big cannon on its back

6 minutes ago, Visovics said:

Well, follows the logic of the AT-AT, which the purpuose was to be an armoured transport that carries through all terrains, but now instead of a transport it takes the name of the big cannon on its back

Sure but it seems rather heavy handed, don't you think?

Like AT-AW

All Terrain - Assault Walker or along those lines would play of a bit better of the designations so far? Or maybe HAW (heavy assault walker) like they call it in the article could have been a thing.

Or invent some measurement that starts with M so you'd get something akin to a:

All Terrain - '6 "Pounder"'

Well, I think the design itself looks kinda sweet despite the silly name. Can't wait to see those in action.

1 minute ago, Doppelganger said:

Sure but it seems rather heavy handed, don't you think?

Like AT-AW

All Terrain - Assault Walker or along those lines would play of a bit better of the designations so far? Or maybe HAW (heavy assault walker) like they call it in the article could have been a thing.

Or invent some measurement that starts with M so you'd get something akin to a:

All Terrain - '6 "Pounder"'

Well, I think the design itself looks kinda sweet despite the silly name. Can't wait to see those in action.

yeah, I really want to see the 'scout' walkers they talk about in the interview as well, with so many big guns, the film HAS to have a gigantic battle with many explosions

15 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Well, of those, only the Power Rangers went as high as needing 8 to do anything.

Vehicle Team Voltron had 15.

5 hours ago, Doppelganger said:

Except that name

Megacaliber-6 ?

Well I guess.... DEATH STAR was a thing too...

Still, it seems rather rediculous for a name.

Everything about these new films has been almost Jar Jar Binks rediculous. Rey knowing how do things it took others years of training to learn, the First Order building ANOTHER Death Star, Kylo Ren's sparkly lightsaber, the fact that NO ONE seemed to learn anything from RotJ and just went back to doing "what they were good at". Kinda undermines the character development of the entire OT (mostly Han)