3 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

Yeah, that was dumb too.

But the dumbest thing about that opening battle of TLJ was: Why did Poe even need to take out the Mandator IV's point-defense turrets?

Based on the visuals and all reference guides, those PD turrets were only on the dorsal side of the dreadnought. Why didn't the Resistance's terrible heavy bombers simply bomb the dreadnought's ventral side, where the cannons were located!? If the Mandator IV had a similar weakness as the Xyston, destroying its siege cannons would've blow up the entire ship. And even if it didn't have that weakness, bombing the siege cannons would've eliminated the immediate threat to the Resistance fleet, because the Mandator IV inexplicably didn't have any anti-ship weapons.

That's why IMO the Mandator IV is by far the worst designed warship in Star Wars history. I place 100% of the blame on Rian Johnson because he contrived that terrible battle sequence and either designed or approved the designs of the ships and bombers to make it play out the way it did, which was completely devoid of logic, reason, or military tactics. I 100% believe that a 5 year-old playing with Star Wars toys and just smashing the plastic ships into each other would've had a more sensible battle plan than we saw on-screen in TLJ.

Well, obviously , the Resistance couldn't bomb the ventral side of the Mandator because how exactly were they going to get their bombs to fall UP??? Come on, this is space, use some science next time, lol.

The Mandator was protected by dorsal anti-fighter turrets because everyone knows that bombers have to be above their target and making an extremely close, slow, pass to drop their payloads....... 🧐

20 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

That's why IMO the Mandator IV is by far the worst designed warship in Star Wars history. I place 100% of the blame on Rian Johnson because he contrived that terrible battle sequence and either designed or approved the designs of the ships and bombers to make it play out the way it did, which was completely devoid of logic, reason, or military tactics. I 100% believe that a 5 year-old playing with Star Wars toys and just smashing the plastic ships into each other would've had a more sensible battle plan than we saw on-screen in TLJ.

Well, you're certainly not wrong. The opening scene, by Johnson's own admission, is a direct homage to Twelve o'Clock High . The Mandator IV was designed to be flat because it's a stand-in for land mass.

10 hours ago, Rmcarrier1 said:

Well, you're certainly not wrong. The opening scene, by Johnson's own admission, is a direct homage to Twelve o'Clock High . The Mandator IV was designed to be flat because it's a stand-in for land mass.

Whatta idiot! Only a pretentious film geek like Rian Johnson would believe a WWII bombing run would translate to a sci-fi space battle.

I know George Lucas used a WWII war movie featuring B-29 Flying Fortresses fighting off German fighters as the inspiration for the Millennium Falcon vs. TIE Fighter sequence, but that made perfect sense because whether it's 20,000 feet in the sky or in space, the Flying Fortress/Millennium Falcon was being swarmed by fighters while the gunners were trying to shoot them down. Whereas depicting slow-*** WWII-style heavy bombers creeping toward a dreadnought made no sense, especially when they could've bombed the Mandator IV's undefended ventral side.

And did Johnson have a lame excuse for why the First Order star destroyers just lingered in the rear, doing absolutely nothing, while the dreadnought was being attacked and the Resistance ships were trying to escape?

That whole opening sequence was so terribly contrived to depict the FO as over-confident morons to try to justify their abysmal naval tactics.

On 8/3/2020 at 2:27 AM, spike2109 said:

. Two large bases next to each other,

That's...a really cool idea actually. How do you handle the shield dials?

1 minute ago, ForceSensitive said:

That's...a really cool idea actually. How do you handle the shield dials?

There are 3 per Base, like on the SSD. 2 Front Arcs maybe and 2 Rear Arcs.

\_|_/

6 minutes ago, spike2109 said:

There are 3 per Base, like on the SSD. 2 Front Arcs maybe and 2 Rear Arcs.

\_|_/

Okay, how about the base plate? If they're not in line you can't do just a long plate like SSD. And the side rails of the plastic base will prevent an insert going sideways across them. Do you actually make it, ironically, donut shaped? Or does this need a custom made plastic base?

I don't know. But FFG saves money on the SSD not making a custom plastic base. To me it would be no problem to have a gap between the bases, simply take a square cardboard over the two bases and it's gone.

@spike2109 so you'll need a second cardboard plate stacked on top and some how attached? The side rails are only half the problem, the flight stand locks the plate down too. So if you tried to run one plate sideways across both bases it will get warped or wobble the base. Though, if they got creative, they might be able to just make an alternate stand peg that didn't pinch the board down. Have it some how fitted to only go to the lucre cardboard. But man that would be funky to deal with.

They have to take a double layer cardboard with a spare for the stand. Perhaps cheaper as a new plastic base.

@spike2109 yeah, you'd have to put a 'blank' in the normal cardboard slot of both bases, then have an alternate peg that allowed for two cardboard layers (X-wing did this successfully for turret indicators) then stack on the main base, and you'd still be a weird one layer up from level... Thing.

I really like the double wide concept, especially for movement. That would make it wheel around in a really cool way that would be different from the kinda tail whip of the SSD. I was wondering how clunky out would be to even lay the tool between the two halves somehow.

For the Lucrehulk I would just have a the cardboard stick out the back and look like a U. That would kinda work for the opening in the middle. Maybe the space between the two bases could be big enough for a few squads. Idk just a possible solution.

10 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

And did Johnson have a lame excuse for why the First Order star destroyers just lingered in the rear, doing absolutely nothing, while the dreadnought was being attacked and the Resistance ships were trying to escape?

I believe his excuse was poor writing. (I actually like TLJ but will readily admit that it is deeply flawed.)

5 hours ago, Rune Taq said:

For the Lucrehulk I would just have a the cardboard stick out the back and look like a U. That would kinda work for the opening in the middle. Maybe the space between the two bases could be big enough for a few squads. Idk just a possible solution.

I really don't think they need to do anything special for the Lucrehulk at all, do they? I mean, it's only as long/wide as an ISD (just...yeah, round ). It's hardly comparable to the SSD. As with the Starhawk, it's a big chunk of plastic...but in this case, it's nearly perfectly balanced around the central command sphere (it's literally round). I think it would work on a single-stand 'large' base just fine. (Although, as with the Starhawk...definitely gonna be a bit 'wobbly' in play)

8 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

That's...a really cool idea actually. How do you handle the shield dials?

You could just use standard, unaltered bases with custom cardboard (think front and rear arcs that angle in toward a central "vanishing point" in the middle of the ship) and six shield dials (left-front, right-front, left, right, left-rear, right-rear). The pegs would slot into the bottom of the donut on either side of the plastic model. The ship would obviously have to be considered Huge for this concept to work, but I think it could with no changes needed to manufacturing processes. Something like this (this being the left cardboard base):

O

--------------------

\ |

\ |

\ |

\ |

\ |

\ |

\|

O

/|

/ |

/ |

/ |

/ |

/ |

/ |

/ |

/ |

-------------------

O

The trickiest thing would be line of sight to the front and rear arcs. I have no answer for you there!

(And yes, that little illustration took a long time.)

3 hours ago, xanderf said:

I really don't think they need to do anything special for the Lucrehulk at all, do they? I mean, it's only as long/wide as an ISD (just...yeah, round ). It's hardly comparable to the SSD. As with the Starhawk, it's a big chunk of plastic...but in this case, it's nearly perfectly balanced around the central command sphere (it's literally round). I think it would work on a single-stand 'large' base just fine. (Although, as with the Starhawk...definitely gonna be a bit 'wobbly' in play)

Lukrehulk is 3009 meters wide and 3170 meters long, according to fandom.com. so yes I think it warrants a special base.

2 minutes ago, Rune Taq said:

Lukrehulk is 3009 meters wide and 3170 meters long, according to fandom.com. so yes I think it warrants a special base.

Ah, bugnuts - well, yeah, that'll be a problem. (It does feel a little ridiculously over-sized, though. Wonder if FFG could just aggressively de-scale it like they did the SSD. It'd still look believably supermassive...)

Nice illustration lol @Rmcarrier1 , I don't know if it still works but some time ago the Imperial Assault forum figured out That there was a font you could type in that line by line would always work because every character had perfect block spacing. So they could show good diagrams. If it makes your life easier might be worth tracking down? Not sure how they did it. Might've only worked on the previous interface though 🤔

I figured the hulk would have six arcs and all that, just like SSD, in a side by side large base configuration. My question which I made about as clear as mud was what do you do with the two non faces that point inwards? On SSD they get conveniently covered by the cross plate that also gives a bit of cross-bar like support to the whole base. The U-shape idea that @Rune Taq mentioned is a cool idea for a great many reasons. When I thought of it I nixed it right away though because for the curve of the U, or the angle if you cut it at like a 45°, will cover up the rear facing shields arcs indicators 😟 at the very least make them really hard to get to. Not to mention how a U shape cardboard would be prone to bending at that size while trying to be stored. All that besides the fact that if you just put it on two separate stands, or have a break in the middle, you don't get a center line to seperate those two front arcs you've created.

I thought of putting a 3rd base back there to support it, which at least got it back one dial for the aft, but also added a third to the center facings 😕 . Assuming you even use those, which as neat as it would be I wouldn't go that route. The main sphere of the model will likely preclude placing an actual stand there anyway. Thought of even a four base ring with an octagon plate, but that's just worse in so many ways, like only 4 dial indicators for one.

I'm really back to just two in line like the SSD, but somehow sideways. That would get you a sturdy base tried and true, that would store stacked with your other Epic stuff, AND be a future base for a Supremacy model. (Screw the sequels, but we're stuck with them) I just don't know what you do about the maneuver tool at that point 🧐 😒 unless the thing is supposed to crab walk around the board lol

🦀 😂

On 8/7/2020 at 6:51 AM, Revan Reborn said:

Whatta idiot! Only a pretentious film geek like Rian Johnson would believe a WWII bombing run would translate to a sci-fi space battle.

Absolutely.

That said the whole trench run is scene by scene taken from the film Dam busters including the briefing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdb03Hw18M

While I dont like the sequels much of the ranting towards them is a bit silly.

3 hours ago, Gräfin Zeppelin said:

Absolutely.

That said the whole trench run is scene by scene taken from the film Dam busters including the briefing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNdb03Hw18M

While I dont like the sequels much of the ranting towards them is a bit silly.

That's a false comparison because the Death Star was the size of a small moon, therefore, taking inspiration from a WWII bombing run made sense. The Death Star's weak point required the Rebel bombers to skim the surface to avoid the majority of the battle station's turbolasers and fly down its equatorial trench to shoot the torpedoes into the exhaust port. The Death Star didn't have a second, completely undefended weak point that the Rebels could've attacked from a different direction.

Whereas the dreadnought was small enough that the Resistance bombers absolutely could've attacked its undefended ventral side, thereby making Poe's attack on the dreadnought's dorsal PD turrets completely unnecessary.

In fact, if Poe had can called in the heavy bombers immediately, they might've been able to bomb the dreadnought's siege cannons before the First Order had scrambled their TIE Fighters. So it was doubly stupid and contrived.

3 hours ago, Gräfin Zeppelin said:

While I dont like the sequels much of the ranting towards them is a bit silly.

I agree. They are very flawed movies but hearing the same criticisms for years is very tiring and people overreact way too much in my opinion.

4 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Nice illustration lol @Rmcarrier1 , I don't know if it still works but some time ago the Imperial Assault forum figured out That there was a font you could type in that line by line would always work because every character had perfect block spacing. So they could show good diagrams. If it makes your life easier might be worth tracking down? Not sure how they did it. Might've only worked on the previous interface though 🤔

I figured the hulk would have six arcs and all that, just like SSD, in a side by side large base configuration. My question which I made about as clear as mud was what do you do with the two non faces that point inwards? On SSD they get conveniently covered by the cross plate that also gives a bit of cross-bar like support to the whole base. The U-shape idea that @Rune Taq mentioned is a cool idea for a great many reasons. When I thought of it I nixed it right away though because for the curve of the U, or the angle if you cut it at like a 45°, will cover up the rear facing shields arcs indicators 😟 at the very least make them really hard to get to. Not to mention how a U shape cardboard would be prone to bending at that size while trying to be stored. All that besides the fact that if you just put it on two separate stands, or have a break in the middle, you don't get a center line to seperate those two front arcs you've created.

I thought of putting a 3rd base back there to support it, which at least got it back one dial for the aft, but also added a third to the center facings 😕 . Assuming you even use those, which as neat as it would be I wouldn't go that route. The main sphere of the model will likely preclude placing an actual stand there anyway. Thought of even a four base ring with an octagon plate, but that's just worse in so many ways, like only 4 dial indicators for one.

I'm really back to just two in line like the SSD, but somehow sideways. That would get you a sturdy base tried and true, that would store stacked with your other Epic stuff, AND be a future base for a Supremacy model. (Screw the sequels, but we're stuck with them) I just don't know what you do about the maneuver tool at that point 🧐 😒 unless the thing is supposed to crab walk around the board lol

🦀 😂

Oh, yeah it would cover the shield dials.

1 hour ago, Revan Reborn said:

Whereas the dreadnought was small enough that the Resistance bombers absolutely couldn't attacked its undefended ventral side, thereby making Poe's attack on the dreadnought's dorsal PD turrets completely unnecessary.

I'm assuming you mean "could have." So I'll agree flying over all the turrets seems irrational... but that's always been the way things have been done. Not having ventral guns is really dumb too.

The bottom line is Star Wars naval combat draws heavily on WWII, and space battles are waged on a single plane, which is silly.

This is a saga-wide plothole, not a TLJ plothole.

3 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I'm assuming you mean "could have." So I'll agree flying over all the turrets seems irrational... but that's always been the way things have been done. Not having ventral guns is really dumb too.

The bottom line is Star Wars naval combat draws heavily on WWII, and space battles are waged on a single plane, which is silly.

This is a saga-wide plothole, not a TLJ plothole.

Yes, I meant to write "could've" -- same as "could have".

The dreadnought not having PD turrets on its ventral side was incredibly dumb, and it was a completely unnecessary oversight. They could've simply added some PD turrets to ventral side and had the ship guide acknowledge that the ventral side had them, and that would've made Poe's attack on the dreadnought justified. Even if the ship guide had just claimed that the ventral side also had PD turrets, that would've been satisfactory. Instead, the guide specifically stated the PD turrets were only on the dorsal side. It's like the writers of the ship guide knew Rian Johnson was an idiot and chose to shine a spotlight on how stupidly designed the Mandator IV was.

As for the Rogue One example, I'd argue that since an ISD-I doesn't have any anti-starfighter point-defense weapons and turbolasers are too slow to shoot down even Y-Wings, it didn't matter what side the Y-Wings attacked because the Star Destroyer had no defense against them. Also, it's possible that hitting the Star Destroyer's command tower with Ion Bombs/Torpedoes was essential to disable the ship, so they couldn't have bombed its ventral side -- unless they swooped up and attacked its command tower from behind, I suppose.

Regardless, in Star Wars, most ships either have no anti-fighter point-defense weapons or they do have PD weapons, which are evenly distributed across the ship. But the Mandator IV was unique because it only had PD turrets on one side, but the Resistance inexplicably chose to take out its dorsal weapons before executing their bombing run instead of simply attacking its defenseless ventral side.

That is just one example of the idiotic tactical decisions in The Last Jedi.

I'm not saying that the tactics in the Original Trilogy or Prequel Trilogy were flawless, but there was generally enough ambiguity in those battle that the tactical errors didn't jump out at you and slap you in the face, and ruin the battle scene -- especially not on the first viewing, like they did in TLJ.

37 minutes ago, Revan Reborn said:

As for the Rogue One example, I'd argue that since an ISD-I doesn't have any anti-starfighter point-defense weapons and turbolasers are too slow to shoot down even Y-Wings, it didn't matter what side the Y-Wings attacked because the Star Destroyer had no defense against them. Also, it's possible that hitting the Star Destroyer's command tower with Ion Bombs/Torpedoes was essential to disable the ship, so they couldn't have bombed its ventral side -- unless they swooped up and attacked its command tower from behind, I suppose.

Regardless, in Star Wars, most ships either have no anti-fighter point-defense weapons or they do have PD weapons, which are evenly distributed across the ship. But the Mandator IV was unique because it only had PD turrets on one side, but the Resistance inexplicably chose to take out its dorsal weapons before executing their bombing run instead of simply attacking its defenseless ventral side.

It's entirely possible the "weak spot" on the Mandator IV was only exposed to a dorsal bombing run as well. Maybe most warships are so heavily armored on one side ventral runs are useless. And if this is true, it's the Empire who are inexplicably dumb, for not using point-defense at all and clearly suffering for it.

If we're assuming there's a lore reason bombers fly over a target's guns (not randomly, this is a consistent pattern with nonzero risk to the pilots) then it seems unfair to single one specific run out just for electing to clear out the turrets first.

Personally, I'd argue this is just what happens when you take warplanes and warships and make them look like spaceships instead. None of it is rational. Not the one-side-has-all-the-guns design, not the exposed command bridges, not waging war in 2D, and definitely not putting engines on only the back of every ship. None of that seems to draw complaints despite taking the same inspiration.

Also, Malevolence=Bismarck. While we're on the subject of borrowed WWII references.