17 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I don't think Starkiller was designed to be fired more than twice. I think the First Order had planned on hitting the Republic, then hitting the resistance and gliding in unopposed as a best case. Worst case, they'd at least take out the resistance's source of resources and the republic's main military. From there it's a planet grab. Take the ship yards, mining planets, find crewers, kidnap more storm troopers, in 5-10 years time the FO could easily reign in the core regions and develop a centralized command structure as powerful or more power than the Empire.

I also don't think Starkiller cost as much as a death star either. They were retrofitting a planetoid (celestial drawf by our standards? It's 1/4 the size of pluto). No life support systems, gravity systems, blah blah... they basically just dug a really big hole and installed a really big gun. That's how they could afford to upgrade weapons and ships. Their fleet is probably still relatively small, but use unconventional tactics to maintain power (IE the dreadnoughts... Go ahead, attack it... they'll kill billions on the surface before you can sink it). While using that power they can build up a real war fleet.

I cede to you the point. But, if I'm not mistaken in the new cannon isn the Galaxy a more divided place? Meaning that the new republic was not nearly as monolithic or as wide spread as it predicessor. Would not more worlds have more fleets to defend themselves with? Logically speaking, you can cow many world's with starkiller, but I would not think enough to build a base infrastructure to fight the now inevitable full scale conventional war, and the now to be almost garenteed insurgency. A weapon like star killer would make enemies of everything. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend rule I think would start to apply real quick. I mean yes the could blow up most of the Galaxy but then it becomes such a phyric victory that it was pointless to begin with. If the goal is domination you at some point have to stop blowing up planets and start with the dirty business of ruling, by force, by appeasement, or by consensus.

This all assumes that the FO was out to rule, not annihilate. If the latter the starkiller makes so much more sense. Because if you want everyone dead, a weapon that blows up many planets in one shot is a good thing.

4 minutes ago, Noosh said:

I cede to you the point. But, if I'm not mistaken in the new cannon isn the Galaxy a more divided place? Meaning that the new republic was not nearly as monolithic or as wide spread as it predicessor. Would not more worlds have more fleets to defend themselves with? Logically speaking, you can cow many world's with starkiller, but I would not think enough to build a base infrastructure to fight the now inevitable full scale conventional war, and the now to be almost garenteed insurgency. A weapon like star killer would make enemies of everything. And the enemy of my enemy is my friend rule I think would start to apply real quick. I mean yes the could blow up most of the Galaxy but then it becomes such a phyric victory that it was pointless to begin with. If the goal is domination you at some point have to stop blowing up planets and start with the dirty business of ruling, by force, by appeasement, or by consensus.

This all assumes that the FO was out to rule, not annihilate. If the latter the starkiller makes so much more sense. Because if you want everyone dead, a weapon that blows up many planets in one shot is a good thing.

I mean, it really depends. Fleets are costly. For one system to build a fleet worth it's weight in a fight they'd have to devote a ton of effort to it. After 30 years of relative peace, the galaxy may not have been preparing for war. That said, with no real command structure small planetary fleets would be unorganized and certainly easy enough to over throw.

21 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

"Dear England, Germany, France, Spain and others. Your governments have failed to protect you from us. Surrender to an Islamic regime under our control and we promise to keep the peace". -ISIS

Real world example of how silly that would be. It would never happen. Not in our world or in a galaxy far far away.

Except the First Order is not anything like ISIS. Lets not forget the FO fleet was built around a Super Star Destroyer and hundreds of ISDs that fled from known space and rendezvoused in the unknown regions. That's more or less the force that Thrawn had in the Thrawn Trilogy and what Palleon was working with in the Thrawn Dulogy.

Given that they probably still have those ships in service and have built a new fleet of improved Star Destroyers, i'm fairly certain they can make a claim for galactic dominance.

The other vital difference here is that ISIS is not the successor state to some hegemony that controlled all of Europe for decades. The Empire controlled the galaxy for decades, a millennia if you're a galactic citizen that considers the Empire a rightful successor to the Republic. The First Order has legitimacy and its established in Bloodlines that there are still a lot of loyalist pro imperial worlds that would welcome a government with the mentality of the FO. Galaxy is a really divided place by the time of the Force Awakens.

You're right, the First Order can't just demand the galaxy's surrender but they can pull a lot of worlds to their cause.

7 minutes ago, Forresto said:

Except the First Order is not anything like ISIS. Lets not forget the FO fleet was built around a Super Star Destroyer and hundreds of ISDs that fled from known space and rendezvoused in the unknown regions. That's more or less the force that Thrawn had in the Thrawn Trilogy and what Palleon was working with in the Thrawn Dulogy.

Given that they probably still have those ships in service and have built a new fleet of improved Star Destroyers, i'm fairly certain they can make a claim for galactic dominance.

The other vital difference here is that ISIS is not the successor state to some hegemony that controlled all of Europe for decades. The Empire controlled the galaxy for decades, a millennia if you're a galactic citizen that considers the Empire a rightful successor to the Republic. The First Order has legitimacy and its established in Bloodlines that there are still a lot of loyalist pro imperial worlds that would welcome a government with the mentality of the FO. Galaxy is a really divided place by the time of the Force Awakens.

You're right, the First Order can't just demand the galaxy's surrender but they can pull a lot of worlds to their cause.

You're right, it'd be more like a a hundred or so tanks and a sub or two from the Nazi regime returning to countries it invaded during WWII promising security. I'm sure there are a bunch of fringe lunatics out there who think that's a great plan, that doesn't mean that they'd have the forces or resources to take over, at least not for long.

I just don't a see a successful long game in guerrilla warfare against the republic.

Certainly seems the more challenging road, as it would undoubtedly end up with a conventional conflict of ship to ship warfare. This whole line of thinking hinges on the idea that the imperial remnant didn't immediately start working on a super weapon to destroy the republic once and for all.

I think Starkiller was the path of least resistance. Especially if there are supporters who believe in the legitimacy of the FO. What better way to scoop those systems up than removing the government that would seek to oppose you? Certainly seems easier than decades of civil war.

11 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

You're right, it'd be more like a a hundred or so tanks and a sub or two from the Nazi regime returning to countries it invaded during WWII promising security. I'm sure there are a bunch of fringe lunatics out there who think that's a great plan, that doesn't mean that they'd have the forces or resources to take over, at least not for long.

I just don't a see a successful long game in guerrilla warfare against the republic.

Certainly seems the more challenging road, as it would undoubtedly end up with a conventional conflict of ship to ship warfare. This whole line of thinking hinges on the idea that the imperial remnant didn't immediately start working on a super weapon to destroy the republic once and for all.

I think Starkiller was the path of least resistance. Especially if there are supporters who believe in the legitimacy of the FO. What better way to scoop those systems up than removing the government that would seek to oppose you? Certainly seems easier than decades of civil war.

I actually wholly agree. Who is going to fight an enemy who can just blow up your entire planetary system from the other side of the galaxy?

I think that if they wanted to go the Starkiller route in the film they shouldve done a twist on the whole thing. The base actually manages to fire at the very end and destroy the Resistance headquarters before being blown up by Poe. They would have to move some players around so Leia didnt die there but it wouldve been a cool spin on it.

For instance Into Darkness did the whole Wrath of Khan bit at the end but at least they flipped Spock and Kirk's roles in a way that fit the movie and characters thematically perfectly, in TFA they just did the exact same thing they were paying homage to.

3 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

There's a good deal of uncertainty involving resources involved, but this is a WMD that can destroy entire systems. The republic fleet patrolling and protecting the core republic system isn't that asinine to me.... especially after 30 years of peace and a disarmament treaty ... it actually makes a lot of sense.

Again, because it wasn't built in space the production costs could have been much less expensive, there's a good deal of uncertainty surrounding costs here. The canon wiki puts the DS2 at 200km and star killer at 660km. It's about 3x bigger. That's not a huge jump considering all they did was install a weapon system and a bunch of surface bases....

All estimations aside, until they release an actual cost, there's no real way to know.... and no way to know how much snoke bankrolled into it. I'm guessing the books released after TLJ will expand on all of this.

I agree with this one, mostly, anyways, I don't know about more plausible. Ole Papa Palpatine had the advantage of being an unknown. No Sith had ever tried to take over from inside before. He came from a backwater planet. It all seemed very real... I think there would be a lot of scrutiny on any senator that tried to rise to power like that again. As for building a proxy army, they'd have to build one heck of a force, easily just as expensive as a super weapon, and even then, the Empire signed a treaty to disarm. I'm fairly sure the republic would just rebuild their own fleet to fight the proxy then swat the empire with sanctions for having weapons at all...

That being said, it is plausible.... but I think if they did that I'd be here defending how TFA wasn't like the prequels instead.... because again....

Star Wars Fans can complain about anything

1) Yes, there would be A fleet presence, but not the who dang fleet. In a galaxy where there are thousands of constituent worlds, and an adversary with a proven record of tyrannical behavior, no one would be stupid enough to not have hidden bases where you keep a significant portion of your forces in reserve or on patrol against pirates and incursions. Also, just because the government was destroyed in the blast, that doesn't mean the government couldn't be reconstituted. It will take sometime, sure.

2) Generally speaking it would seem to me that orbital construction would be less expensive. It appears the world they built that thing on was at least a 1.0 gravity world. The equipment to move the parts into place there would have been much more difficult to work with than to move a super laser dish in orbit like in Rogue One. Gravity just makes things more difficult in that regard. More difficult, more cost.

3) I'm not saying he had to do it exactly the same, but similarly. The sith over the generations, slowly corrupted the Republic, making them susceptible to the plot. by the time of the FO, the pre work is already done. Just burrow several operatives over several years into important positions then when ready, let them loose.

4) Brute force and terror will only get you so far. True, people will fear you, but when that fear turns to anger, it will no longer matter how many atrocities you commit, the people will feel they have nothing left to lose and rebel. Also, one of the themes is how the cycles of light and darkness operate, more or less, like yin and yang.

21 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

They were retrofitting a planetoid (celestial drawf by our standards? It's 1/4 the size of pluto). No life support systems, gravity systems, blah blah.

No, I don't think so. It has enough gravity to support an atmosphere, so either it's an earth-size body, or it's terrifyingly dense, or it's got all the fancy gravity systems installed across the entire surface.

21 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

they basically just dug a really big hole and installed a really big gun.

And don't forget something that eats stars. The R&D budget alone for the bull hyperspace laser should cost a fortune. Then the R&D for the thing that eats stars, and contains it. And of course, you have to build it.

Then, there's "digging a really big hole," which, given what they did, is like comparing a lightsaber to a single LED. The deepest hole humanity has ever drilled is 13 Km deep. To be fair, I suspect it might be easier if you're digging a canyon, rather than just a hole; you can get bulldozers and stuff in there. But while it makes material handling easier, it also means you have to handle a million times more material.

4 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

The canon wiki puts the DS2 at 200km and star killer at 660km. It's about 3x bigger

Well, either the Canon Wiki is wrong, or the Resistance Leadership is lying to it's own people in addition to the galaxy. Check the comparative image from TFA - it's about 6x in diameter, not 3x.

Well its possible that Starkiller Base is the result of Imperial R&D, extrapolated from Galen Erso's research and improved by some other team of geniuses, i'm sure the galaxy is full of them. If Starkiller was built on Ilum then we know the Empire already strip-mined and cored the planet leaving the First Order to simply have to construct the station parts and finish researching the weapon. If thats true who knows how much of Starkiller base the Empire actually built, such as that giant ring, not with the intention of making it a super weapon but to stabilize the planet for whatever reason.

Its possible the First Order only built the weaponry of SB.

47 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

Well, either the Canon Wiki is wrong, or the Resistance Leadership is lying to it's own people in addition to the galaxy. Check the comparative image from TFA - it's about 6x in diameter, not 3x.

That's not the DS2 that's being compared to Starkiller Base - it's the 160km DS1. You can tell because it's complete, not half-complete, in the holo.

I would guess that it might even have been conceived during the period when the DS1 was canonically 120km - it was only after Rogue One, that the DS1 got retconned back up to its mid-period Legends figure of 160km.

56 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

That's not the DS2 that's being compared to Starkiller Base - it's the 160km DS1. You can tell because it's complete, not half-complete, in the holo.

Right. I was unclear. But 6x DS1 is still bigger than 660 KM. Even at the small size.

56 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

I would guess that it might even have been conceived during the period when the DS1 was canonically 120km - it was only after Rogue One, that the DS1 got retconned back up to its mid-period Legends figure of 160km.

Then they need to come up with some way to resolve the issue with the hologram.

Honestly, this is my biggest issue with JJ. He does cool things, then tries to hand-wave them away later. It's not like we, the fans, won't accept hand-waving; I mean the Death Star "superlaser" obeys no laws of physics known to man, but it at least seems to obey its own rules. It doesn't invent new rules at the last second. It doesn't move faster than light while also moving slower than light. It doesn't use the Force (or the vulcan mind-meld) to produce a nice shot for the camera.

I know this **** isn't hard sci-fi. But seriously, can you at least TRY to make sense for a few minutes? Or even just talk to your effects team?

9 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

6x DS1 is still bigger than 660 KM. Even at the small size.

5.5 x DS1 is exactly 660km though. Close enough.

Even at the bigger size - 4.125 x DS1 isn't a huge stretch compared to the hologram we actually see.

The canon sizes of DS2 (200 km) and Endor (4900 km) are a little inconsistent with what we see (DS2 looks more like 1/11 width of Endor than 1/24, in holo) - but it's OK to have the hologram upscale one a little to make it easier to see without distorting the basic idea that there is a big size difference.

In-movie, size of DS2 compared to Endor differs enormously from shot to shot. Some shots support 1/11, some support maybe as much as 1/50 or more.

Sometimes movies are like that.

On 13.9.2017 at 0:06 AM, GalacticFister said:

lack of new Star Wars mythos pieces (is this really true?)

Yes it is. It's just a lazy mysterybox-style of writing that intentionally saves all the reveals "for the next movies". Disney is so determined and sure about making a whole new trilogy that they completely forgot that a movie has to be watchable and good on its own. The first Star Wars was. You can still enjoy Empire on its own because its a great movie. EP1 is a great adventure movie that has a proper ending while still having some hints and foreshadowing for the next movies. Same with Episode 2. Even Episode 3 and that is probably the most depressing/dramatic one in the series that really lacks a typical "happy" ending.

My Point is none of the original (meaning Lucas's) movies had this stupid attitude of not explaining anything but looking cool and copying stuff from better movies to make up for it.

On 13.9.2017 at 0:06 AM, GalacticFister said:

incomplete story (I mean, it is the first part of a trilogy, by definition it is incomplete)

Congratulations. You perfectly fell for Disneys marketing strategy. "Its the first one of many more to come, it does not have to be good on its own, right?"

That is exactly what i mean. EP7 relies so heavily on further movies and improvements over time, because Disney knew they would milk a ton of movies out of the franchise. So they dont have to put much effort into intelligent and GOOD writing. "We dont need good writing, lets just place a lot of unexplained stuff in the movie, copy the stuff people liked from the old movies and make it up as we go along lol. We gotta keep our 2 year deadline for maximum profit!"

Just take a look at Lord of the Rings. I NEVER heard anyone complaining about one of the movies/books beeing "incomplete" because "its part of a trilogy". Same with Harry Potter. Because its proper storywriting.

Disney claiming that EP7 has a "incomplete story" (they never use those exact words of course) because its part of a trilogy is a pretty bull**** excuse for Disneys mass production of Star Wars movies that is already planed out for years. At least Lucas took his time to explain all necessary details in EACH movie and set them in a believable setting. Even though the prequels for some people had TOO much of explaination and exposition (i actually liked it, made the universe more believable and "realistic" if that makes any sense) at least they were UNDERSTANDABLE on their own. I didnt have to read through the offical movie guide to understand the political setting or to actually believe the setting to make sense in the established universe.

EP7 on the other hand just has the whole Ressistance/New Republic schism and the First Order (pretty bad name if you ask me btw) to force everything back into the direction of the Original Trilogy while still trying to make at least SOME sense. Though it fails pretty hard at that. Its a typical move of a director who orientates the whole movie universe on the direction the plot has to take and thats a sign of very bad storywriting as melminiatures has already pointed out. It just makes no sense at all that the New Republic would be even DUMBER and MORE CORRUPT than the Old Republic and demilitarize its forces after beeing under dictatorship for decades *facepalm*

And please dont come with this "we wanted to start over peacefully" retcon-explaination they put into that movie guide because that is EXACTLY what im talking about. Its a stupid and unrealistic (meaning: making no sense in the established universe) fix for the movies lazyness, nothing more.

Yes history repeats itself but not in such a drastic manner. WW2 was so terrifiying that noone really wanted to take the risc of starting a WW3. Europe is now united peacefully and stronger than ever before as a direct result of the terrors of war. Germany is a thriving democracy because it learned from its past under the nazi dictatorship. (Im german just FYI) Doesn't mean there is no danger for any future conflicts and wars but people are not THAT dumb as EP7 makes us want to believe

Already seeing the incoming "HOW DARE YOU APPLY COMMON SENSE AND REAL-LIFE EXPERIENCE TO MY FAVOURITE SPAZEWIZARDS FAIRYTALE UNIVERSE!!!111" comments...

On 13.9.2017 at 0:06 AM, GalacticFister said:

It also seems at some points you make you fault TFA for forcing the viewer to have outside information to understand the story it tries to tell (a valid criticism), but then give the prequels a pass on this. If you take someone who has never watched the original trilogy and is not familiar with any part of Star Wars I think they would be more confused at TPM than they would be with TFA.

Really? Episode 1 has all-new characters that you dont need any other movies to understand or like them and has a understandable setting and complete plot that has actually very few hints for further movies. Thats why some people say its not very important to the whole story of the saga. But that makes it a good stand-alone movie. Of all the 6 movies i'd say EP1 and 4 are the best "standalone" movies to watch if you have never seen a Star Wars movie.

EP7 on the other hand relies extremely on nostalgia and old characters. It even begins with the title crawl. Search for Luke Skywalker. "Eh, okay? I guess he's important?" Than you only see him at the end of the movie and he doesnt even say a single word. So why was the whole movie about finding this guy then hm? Than the death star comparison. The constant jokes and references to older movies. The movie just so blatantly screams at your face: "Watch the sequel and the old movies!!" that i can hardly see how EP7 is a better movie on its own than EP1.

I honestly never have heard anyone complaining about needing outside information to understand the prequels. Its all there, directly in the movies. Because someone has actually taken some time to think about it and make it believable without pushing a time limit to make more money.

As someone said in the comments somewhere, the whole setting of EP7 is a insult to my intelligence Yeah its a fairytale in space, but GOOD stories follow CONSTANT rules. Fiction or not. That's what makes fiction believable. Reference to reality mixed with fictional elements. Breaking fictional rules and logic just breaks the immersion. While the old EU had lots of ... crazy ideas to say the least... at least the political direction the Rebellion/New Republic took was pretty realistic. I really liked that. The new Episodes have all this stupid pseudo-political mumbojumbo to have a reason to move BACKWARDS with history (meaning to Original Trilogy setting, just because people liked that one very much) instead of actually moving FORWARD.

Its just cashgrap strategy at a whole new level and while the Star Wars Universe always had that to some extent, Disney is taking it to completely new levels (need i mention the "Mega" Star Destroyer and "Ultra" AT ATs and SUPER-DUPER SNOKE...?) and thats probably why i dislike the new episodic movies so much. Not hating them as hate leads to the dark side, but just NOT liking them If you like them thats cool. We just appreciate completely different styles of movies and "art" then.

Its just Creativity with some minor execution problems > well executed but uninspired copy for me. And YES, to me those prequel issus are only minor problems.

Anyway, thats my superlong statement about J.J.s "brilliant revival of the franchise" and why i rather prefer George Lucas's original, consistent ideas, even if they are not always executed perfectly. but yeah, its 4 AM in the morning, so please excuse my escalated statement...

13 hours ago, Darth Sanguis said:

I mean, it really depends. Fleets are costly. For one system to build a fleet worth it's weight in a fight they'd have to devote a ton of effort to it. After 30 years of relative peace, the galaxy may not have been preparing for war. That said, with no real command structure small planetary fleets would be unorganized and certainly easy enough to over throw.

Very true. I dont think that it would be that easy although. Seeing as how each new conquest involves streching supply lines thinner and thinner, along with stategic asset denial i am whole heartedly in the camp that the FO is/ will be in deep trouble. They just wont be able to keep a blitzkrige form of attack up forever. I guess my point is that if it were me i would have been preparing for blitz, capture, consolodate, and hold type warfare. Not torror first strike warefare, becase that only works for so long, and makes life miserable when trying to hold territorial gains (also if done wrong can backfire hidiously).

I guess the sam argumant could be made aginst the death star. If you use it enough to keep tge unruly in line, even your allies become wary of you and more likely to turn. This could be easily exasaperated by a derisive use of such a weapon, blowing up a plantet thats not 100% behind you but thats is NOT against you either would certenly bringa mountain of problems.

3 hours ago, Noosh said:

I guess the sam argumant could be made aginst the death star. If you use it enough to keep tge unruly in line, even your allies become wary of you and more likely to turn. This could be easily exasaperated by a derisive use of such a weapon, blowing up a plantet thats not 100% behind you but thats is NOT against you either would certenly bringa mountain of problems.

The biggest difference being that the Empire effectively controlled the galaxy in every way. Had the DS not been blown up, it would have been able to be an effective terror weapon.