4 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

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.

Speaking of the Mandator IV's "weak spot", assuming that it was actually a vulnerable point on the FO dreadnought, what was it? The obvious assumption it's the ship's main reactor. However, it makes no sense why there would be a depression in the dreadnought's hull where its main reactor was located. That's the exact opposite of how all other Star Destroyers are designed! Because Star Destroyers have a heavily armoured "reactor dome" that extends from their ventral hull, which provides extra protection. So why would the dreadnought have less armour protection over its main reactor? (Assuming tat is the location of of its main reactor.) It makes no sense! The only rational explanation is that the Mandator IV was designed by an idiot : Rian Johnson!

The Empire was absolutely dumb for not equipping the Imperial Star Destroyer with any point-defense cannons (or missile launchers), but the explanation has always been that the Empire fully embraced Tarkin's Doctrine of Fear, which is why they maximized the ISD's anti-ship and planetary bombardment firepower. ISDs were supposed to rely on their squadrons of TIE Fighters to defend against enemy starfighters and bombers, which supposedly provided adequate protection prior to the rise of the Rebel Alliance. As we all know, when the Rebel Alliance adopted the X-Wing, it decisively outmatched TIE Fighter. So the X-Wings would engage and defeat the TIE Fighters, clearing a path for the Y-Wings to bomb the ISD.

Inexplicably, the Empire's response to the Rebel X-Wing wasn't to refit the ISD with PD turrets, akin to the Quad Laser turrets on the Millennium Falcon; instead, the Empire rapidly developed the TIE Interceptor and TIE Defender. I understand why the Empire tried to create a match for the X-Wing, but not improving their Star Destroyers made no sense.

4 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

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.

I'm not singling out The Last Jedi for one tactically terrible, non-sensical battle sequence. Literally every battle sequence in TLJ has terrible, non-sensical tactical errors and lapses in logic -- often on both sides -- purely for plot contrivances. It's the sheer number of terribly scripted battles in TLJ that distinguishes it as the absolute WORST Star Wars movie EVER made.

4 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

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.

Some of Star Wars ship and starfighter designs and mechanics aren't rational for space flight and space combat, but they are iconic and exhilarating to watch. They're an integral part to Star Wars' enduring appeal. In comparison to sci-fi series with more realistic space flight/combat, like the 2003 Battlestar Galactica series or The Expanse, I'll take Star Wars every time.

However, TLJ (and TRoS) stands apart from George Lucas' Star Wars films for their battles' sheer stupidity, unbearable contrivances, and lack of originality. That's why the Disney Trilogy is heavily criticized whereas the Original Trilogy is beloved, and even the Prequels can be enjoyed for their spectacular battles.

I think it would be a worthy challenge if someone created a scenario for a battle between two Star Wars factions, specified the location, the outcome, and a few critical events that needed to occur during the battle (like major characters being wounded or minor characters dying). I bet I (and other fans) could write a battle sequence that complied with the canon depictions of established ships, starfighters, weaponry, technology, and characters, with minimal tactical errors and contrivances, and it would be exciting and entertaining to read. This would be for the sole purpose of demonstrating that there is no excuse for Star Wars space battles to be terrible.

49 minutes ago, Revan Reborn said:

Speaking of the Mandator IV's "weak spot", assuming that it was actually a vulnerable point on the FO dreadnought, what was it? The obvious assumption it's the ship's main reactor. However, it makes no sense why there would be a depression in the dreadnought's hull where its main reactor was located. That's the exact opposite of how all other Star Destroyers are designed! Because Star Destroyers have a heavily armoured "reactor dome" that extends from their ventral hull, which provides extra protection. So why would the dreadnought have less armour protection over its main reactor? (Assuming tat is the location of of its main reactor.) It makes no sense! The only rational explanation is that the Mandator IV was designed by an idiot : Rian Johnson!

The Empire was absolutely dumb for not equipping the Imperial Star Destroyer with any point-defense cannons (or missile launchers), but the explanation has always been that the Empire fully embraced Tarkin's Doctrine of Fear, which is why they maximized the ISD's anti-ship and planetary bombardment firepower. ISDs were supposed to rely on their squadrons of TIE Fighters to defend against enemy starfighters and bombers, which supposedly provided adequate protection prior to the rise of the Rebel Alliance. As we all know, when the Rebel Alliance adopted the X-Wing, it decisively outmatched TIE Fighter. So the X-Wings would engage and defeat the TIE Fighters, clearing a path for the Y-Wings to bomb the ISD.

Inexplicably, the Empire's response to the Rebel X-Wing wasn't to refit the ISD with PD turrets, akin to the Quad Laser turrets on the Millennium Falcon; instead, the Empire rapidly developed the TIE Interceptor and TIE Defender. I understand why the Empire tried to create a match for the X-Wing, but not improving their Star Destroyers made no sense.

I'm not singling out The Last Jedi for one tactically terrible, non-sensical battle sequence. Literally every battle sequence in TLJ has terrible, non-sensical tactical errors and lapses in logic -- often on both sides -- purely for plot contrivances. It's the sheer number of terribly scripted battles in TLJ that distinguishes it as the absolute WORST Star Wars movie EVER made.

Some of Star Wars ship and starfighter designs and mechanics aren't rational for space flight and space combat, but they are iconic and exhilarating to watch. They're an integral part to Star Wars' enduring appeal. In comparison to sci-fi series with more realistic space flight/combat, like the 2003 Battlestar Galactica series or The Expanse, I'll take Star Wars every time.

However, TLJ (and TRoS) stands apart from George Lucas' Star Wars films for their battles' sheer stupidity, unbearable contrivances, and lack of originality. That's why the Disney Trilogy is heavily criticized whereas the Original Trilogy is beloved, and even the Prequels can be enjoyed for their spectacular battles.

I think it would be a worthy challenge if someone created a scenario for a battle between two Star Wars factions, specified the location, the outcome, and a few critical events that needed to occur during the battle (like major characters being wounded or minor characters dying). I bet I (and other fans) could write a battle sequence that complied with the canon depictions of established ships, starfighters, weaponry, technology, and characters, with minimal tactical errors and contrivances, and it would be exciting and entertaining to read. This would be for the sole purpose of demonstrating that there is no excuse for Star Wars space battles to be terrible.

Dude, we get it. You don't like TLJ and think Rian Johnson was a failure of a director. Cool. But I think it's time to move on, this is getting a little old and is drifting the discussion away from its original intentions.

It's clear that a lot of people are unhappy with these films and I agree there is definitely issues but no one's bringing anything new to the table anymore, some people just look for any opportunity to mention how much they hate them and to bring up the same tired talking points that have been repeated ad nauseam. I'm sorry if this comes off as a personal attack, I mean no ill will to anyone and at the end of the day this still just is my opinion, I'm just tired of seeing the exact same argument with the exact same points come up time and time again, it gets old.

Remember the Prequels? Yeah, everyone used to say the exact same things about them! But look where we are now.

1 hour ago, Revan Reborn said:

Speaking of the Mandator IV's "weak spot", assuming that it was actually a vulnerable point on the FO dreadnought, what was it? The obvious assumption it's the ship's main reactor. However, it makes no sense why there would be a depression in the dreadnought's hull where its main reactor was located. That's the exact opposite of how all other Star Destroyers are designed! Because Star Destroyers have a heavily armoured "reactor dome" that extends from their ventral hull, which provides extra protection. So why would the dreadnought have less armour protection over its main reactor? (Assuming tat is the location of of its main reactor.)

A smaller, more efficient reactor design that offers no line of sight from most angles, protected from bomber strikes by point defense emplacements.

It took me 30 seconds to come up with that BS, and it works as well as most of the BS we use for similar plotholes that riddle our beloved franchise.

1 hour ago, Revan Reborn said:

I'm not singling out The Last Jedi for one tactically terrible, non-sensical battle sequence. Literally every battle sequence in TLJ has terrible, non-sensical tactical errors and lapses in logic -- often on both sides -- purely for plot contrivances. It's the sheer number of terribly scripted battles in TLJ that distinguishes it as the absolute WORST Star Wars movie EVER made.

No, but you're singling out this one TLJ bombing run as dumb, as though the other bombing runs in Star Wars make any sense at all.

Because even if this sequence is silly, it's perfectly consistent with Star Wars. It's not a "The Last Jedi" problem.

I get it. You hate the sequels. Me too, I think they're terrible. But the things you're choosing to criticize (bombing as though in gravity and impractical ship design) are iconic parts of the franchise. It's like talking about how dumb the lightsaber really is when you think about it, and how dumb TLJ is for including them.

If it's just TLJ and TRoS you hate, I have trouble believing your grievances really revolve around stuff that pops up all over the saga.

As opposed to cheesy lines, severe lack of originality, a disorganized and often pointless overarching narrative, and dragging solutions and plot devices in from nowhere.

2 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

The only rational explanation is that the Mandator IV was designed by an idiot : Rian Johnson!

So you think the director is creating space ships? That's silly.

10 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

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.

They didnt fly down the equatorial trench either and you are also moving the goal posts.

This is what I replied too.

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

About the trench, the battle happens in one of the smaller north/south trenches. There are many and thats why the plans been so important or they wouldnt know which one to attack. There are many exhaust ports but only one connected to the reactor.

The equatorial trench is way bigger as can be seen when the falcon got sucked into the hangar.

Just a note on TLJ bombing run. It states in the visual dictionary that the: "bombs don't technically "drop" in microgravity, but are impelled from their racks by sequenced electromagnetic plates in the clip. The bombs are then drawn magnetically to their unfortunate target."

That is why the bombs deploy the way they do, if anyone cares.

I enjoyed the last Jedi but the sequal trilogy movies are so disjointed. it all together made little sense. I wish they had a cohesive plot. Needs a lot more connective tissue. The novels help but even those struggle because of the changes from TLJ to TROS.

11 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

A smaller, more efficient reactor design that offers no line of sight from most angles, protected from bomber strikes by point defense emplacements.

It took me 30 seconds to come up with that BS, and it works as well as most of the BS we use for similar plotholes that riddle our beloved franchise.

So lemme get this straight, you're suggesting the First Order ship designers had a conversation something like this:

FO Ship Designer #1: "We've created a new, smaller, more efficient main reactor perfect for our dreadnought, which can charge its siege cannons... in only a few minutes."

FO Ship Designer #2: "Great! Since this new main reactor is smaller, we don't have to bother protecting it with a big armoured dome, like all the other star destroyers. In fact, we'll scoop out the dreadnought's dorsal hull and leave the main reactor totally exposed... a 'weak spot' you could say. It would be an conveniently identifiable bullseye for enemy bombers to target."

FO Ship Designer #1: "WTF!?!? Why would we ever do that!?"

FO Ship Designer #2: "Don't worry. We'll protect the weak spot with dozens of PD laser turrets, only on the dorsal side, of course. And a deflector shield that allows X-Wings and proton bombs to pass through it -- it'll be fine."

FO Ship Designer #1: "... Okayyyyy ... but I will NEVER serve aboard this dreadnought."

FO Ship Designer #2: "Neither will I."

11 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

No, but you're singling out this one TLJ bombing run as dumb, as though the other bombing runs in Star Wars make any sense at all.

Because even if this sequence is silly, it's perfectly consistent with Star Wars. It's not a "The Last Jedi" problem.

I get it. You hate the sequels. Me too, I think they're terrible. But the things you're choosing to criticize (bombing as though in gravity and impractical ship design) are iconic parts of the franchise. It's like talking about how dumb the lightsaber really is when you think about it, and how dumb TLJ is for including them.

If it's just TLJ and TRoS you hate, I have trouble believing your grievances really revolve around stuff that pops up all over the saga.

As opposed to cheesy lines, severe lack of originality, a disorganized and often pointless overarching narrative, and dragging solutions and plot devices in from nowhere.

I admit that it's possible to find flaws in most of battle scenes in Star Wars -- and ALL sci-fi movies, TV shows, video games, and novels -- but I genuinely believe that the flaws in TLJ's battles are the most egregious and unforgivable of all Star Wars battles... except maybe the Battle of Exegol.

Arguably the worst offense TLJ made was its battles were BORING! The slow-*** Resistance heavy bombers leisurely creeping toward the FO Dreadnought. The slow-*** chase of the Raddus that dragged on for 90+ minutes of screen-time. The completely pointless side quest to the Casino planet. And the rip-off of the Battle of Hoth on the salt flat planet that once again involved the good guys charging directly into the forward gun arcs of the AT-ATs and new gorilla walkers. At least in the Battle of Hoth, the Rebels succeeded in destroying a couple of AT-ATs, which made the battle exciting and worthwhile. Whereas the Resistance's charge accomplished absolutely nothing... other than getting enough Resistance soldiers killed that the few survivors could fit on the Millennium Falcon and escape.

It's hard to remember what started this Disney Trilogy-hating tangent... I think it started with the suggestion of Disney Trilogy factions being added to Armada some day. I'll reiterate my point that there simply aren't enough FO and Resistance ships to justify those factions in Armada. And for the FO, 2 of their 4 ships would have to be Huge ships in Armada, and I doubt there are enough Disney Trilogy fans who are also Armada players who are willing to pay $100+ for the Mandator IV and $200+ for the Supremacy. And we all know that Asmodee isn't going to allow FFG to make ship expansions that have zero chance of being profitable.

1 hour ago, Revan Reborn said:

So lemme get this straight, you're suggesting the First Order ship designers had a conversation something like this:

FO Ship Designer #1: "We've created a new, smaller, more efficient main reactor perfect for our dreadnought, which can charge its siege cannons... in only a few minutes."

FO Ship Designer #2: "Great! Since this new main reactor is smaller, we don't have to bother protecting it with a big armoured dome, like all the other star destroyers. In fact, we'll scoop out the dreadnought's dorsal hull and leave the main reactor totally exposed... a 'weak spot' you could say. It would be an conveniently identifiable bullseye for enemy bombers to target."

FO Ship Designer #1: "WTF!?!? Why would we ever do that!?"

FO Ship Designer #2: "Don't worry. We'll protect the weak spot with dozens of PD laser turrets, only on the dorsal side, of course. And a deflector shield that allows X-Wings and proton bombs to pass through it -- it'll be fine."

FO Ship Designer #1: "... Okayyyyy ... but I will NEVER serve aboard this dreadnought."

FO Ship Designer #2: "Neither will I."

Heat dispersion; possibly the same dumb reason you would ever have a reactor dome protruding out of a ship instead of building the ship around the reactor. Hey everyone! Giant target! Really bad if you manage to breach this plating that isn't even defended by our guns!

The same reason a moon sized battle station has a catastrophic weak point leading straight to the main reactor, apparently.

My point isn't that it makes sense, my point is that you're throwing stones from a glass house. I called it BS, but what you're missing is that it's 40 years of uniform, consistent BS spanning 11 movies with a cult following that includes you.

1 hour ago, Revan Reborn said:

Arguably the worst offense TLJ made was its battles were BORING! The slow-*** Resistance heavy bombers leisurely creeping toward the FO Dreadnought. The slow-*** chase of the Raddus that dragged on for 90+ minutes of screen-time. The completely pointless side quest to the Casino planet. And the rip-off of the Battle of Hoth on the salt flat planet that once again involved the good guys charging directly into the forward gun arcs of the AT-ATs and new gorilla walkers. At least in the Battle of Hoth, the Rebels succeeded in destroying a couple of AT-ATs, which made the battle exciting and worthwhile. Whereas the Resistance's charge accomplished absolutely nothing... other than getting enough Resistance soldiers killed that the few survivors could fit on the Millennium Falcon and escape.

There you go. Fresh issues completely different from the ones you were complaining about.

You can see the difference, right?

2 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

The same reason a moon sized battle station has a catastrophic weak point leading straight to the main reactor, apparently.

It was an aesthetic choice by the architect... if the Empire would have just boarded it up, maybe put some plywood over it, we wouldn't even be having this conversation...

1 minute ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Heat dispersion; possibly the same dumb reason you would ever have a reactor dome protruding out of a ship instead of building the ship around the reactor. Hey everyone! Giant target! Really bad if you manage to breach this plating that isn't even defended by our guns!

The same reason a moon sized battle station has a catastrophic weak point leading straight to the main reactor, apparently.

Considering that we've never seen a star destroyer's reactor dome being targeted as a weak point, despite that it protrudes from the hull, making it an obvious target, I believe the dome armour is so much thicker than the rest of the hull that it's virtually impossible to penetrate it. For all we know, the star destroyer's reactor dome could be literally 20 metres of solid duralloy, and more than 10 times thicker than the hull armour on the rest of the ship.

I don't believe a star destroyer's main reactor is so large that it physically extends from the bottom of the hull, necessitating the dome to keep it contained. I believe the SD's main reactor would be fully covered if the ventral hull was flat in that area, but the ship designers decided to add extra armour to that spot, in the form of a dome, to make it virtually impenetrable.

Figuring out the internal location of an enemy ship's power plant would not be difficult. Firstly, ships have numerous types of sensors that can identify different parts of a ship, such as its engines, weapons, shield generators, and bridge. A ship's main reactor would emit a tremendous energy signal that would be virtually impossible to hide, so enemy ships and bombers could detect where the main reactor was located and target it. Second, even if sensors couldn't penetrate the ship's hull (or were jammed), there are a limited number of feasible locations where the main reactor could be inside any ship, so the enemy will always know its general location. Third, the Rebels had a knack for getting their hands on the schematics of the Empire's war machines, so chances are they'd know the location of the main reactor anyway. Therefore, visually identifying the location of a star destroyer's main reactor by placing a huge armoured dome over it is not a design flaw.

On the contrary, it's actually brilliant, because they could trick the enemy into targeting the armoured reactor dome, and while the enemy is futilely trying to penetrate the most well protected part of the ship, the star destroyer's more vulnerable subsystems, i.e. engines, weapons, and shield generators, aren't being targeted by the enemy.

Returning to my original point, I believe that the Rebels knew the futility of attacking an ISD's armoured reactor dome -- there were numerous former Imperial Navy officers who defected to the Rebel Alliance and would know the ISD's weakness -- which is why they never tried it. Apparently, it was more effective to target the ISD's command tower with Ion Torpedoes.

1 minute ago, The Jabbawookie said:

My point isn't that it makes sense, my point is that you're throwing stones from a glass house. I called it BS, but what you're missing is that it's 40 years of uniform, consistent BS spanning 11 movies with a cult following that includes you.

There you go. Fresh issues completely different from the ones you were complaining about.

You can see the difference, right?

If you "hate" Star Wars that much, why are you even here and play Armada? Obviously, there must be somethings you like about the franchise, which override your insincere criticisms of Star Wars.

I think you're just trying to make excuses for the Disney Trilogy, similar to how a certain tangerine-skinned wannabe-dictator makes excuses for other dictators, engaging in craven, cynical Whataboutism to marginalize and deflect criticisms.

There are innumerable reasons why the Disney Trilogy is more hated and divisive than the Prequel Trilogy ever was, because they're objectively inferior movies. But perhaps in 5-10 years, the next batch of Disney Star Wars movies will be even worse and I'll ironically have to defend TLJ and TRoS while you claim the new Disney Star Wars movies aren't so bad.

1 hour ago, Revan Reborn said:

Considering that we've never seen a Mandator IV's underside being targeted as a weak point, despite that it lacks point defense turrets , making it an obvious target, I believe the armor is so much thicker than the rest of the hull that it's virtually impossible to penetrate it. For all we know, the Mandator IV 's underside could be literally 20 metres of solid duralloy, and more than 10 times thicker than the hull armour on the rest of the ship.

[...]

Minimal effort to adapt this. You saw the Rebel tactics ("they must have had a reason not to hit the bottom"), then created an explanation to justify it.

You didn't give the Resistance the same benefit of the doubt ("they must have had a reason not to hit the bottom"), but instead decided everyone was stupid this time as a result of bad writing.

1 hour ago, Revan Reborn said:

If you "hate" Star Wars that much, why are you even here and play Armada? Obviously, there must be somethings you like about the franchise, which override your insincere criticisms of Star Wars.

I think you're just trying to [insults, ad homonyms, politics, ugh] engage in Whataboutism to marginalize and deflect criticisms.

I love Star Wars. But I don't pretend it's sensible ; it's an absurd franchise. It's not whataboutism because I openly, consistently accept that WWII absurdity: all the silly bombing scenes and ship designs, even when they happen to be in media I don't like.

What bothers me is the inconsistency I'm seeing. Not where you've wound up, but how you've chosen to get there.

But nothing here is that likely change your mind, and I'm done clogging up this thread.

Well at least we got sorted out that not Only a pretentious film geek like Rian Johnson would believe a WWII bombing run would translate to a sci-fi space battle. 🤭

17 hours ago, spike2109 said:

So you think the director is creating space ships? That's silly.

Just throwing this out there, but it has always surprised me how much input the directors actually DO have on the designs. The behind the scenes stuff for R1 comes to mind strongly. There's a great section in it's extras about how the directors input led to the wing shape being like a "super man" pose. I'm sure there's a fine balance in the SW making process that's never really been 100% hit.

3 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

Minimal effort to adapt this. You saw the Rebel tactics ("they must have had a reason not to hit the bottom"), then created an explanation to justify it.

You didn't give the Resistance the same benefit of the doubt ("they must have had a reason not to hit the bottom"), but instead decided everyone was stupid this time as a result of bad writing.

Your claim that the star destroyer's reactor dome is vulnerable to attack is based on nothing either. There's no on-screen evidence to prove it would work, so you are not giving the Rebels the benefit of the doubt that they knew the best way to disable an ISD.

Whereas at least in TRoS (and countless other Sci-Fi sources), it's demonstrated that blowing up the ship's superweapon will destroy the ship -- or at the very least, disable the superweapon.

Therefore, if the Resistance was smart -- and by that I actually mean Rian Johnson -- they absolutely should have bombed the Mandator IV's siege cannons on its undefended ventral side. Simple.

3 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

I love Star Wars. But I don't pretend it's sensible ; it's an absurd franchise. It's not whataboutism because I openly, consistently accept that WWII absurdity: all the silly bombing scenes and ship designs, even when they happen to be in media I don't like.

What bothers me is the inconsistency I'm seeing. Not where you've wound up, but how you've chosen to get there.

But nothing here is that likely change your mind, and I'm done clogging up this thread.

It's absolutely about whataboutism, because now you're desperately trying to muddy the waters by criticizing Star Wars for not being "sensible".

What Sci-Fi series is "sensible" according to you? I'm certain I would find your answer hilarious .

The only inconsistency is that George Lucas established the "rules" for the Star Wars canon and for decades the writers, artists, directors, and other creatives abided by George's rules -- in large part because GL had to approve their works -- whereas Rian Johnson and J.J. Abrams broke the rules, repeatedly, because neither of them truly understood Star Wars and Rian Johnson definitely did not respect Star Wars. He just wanted to write/direct a Star Wars movie to up his profile so he could get his pretentious "subvert the audience's expectations" movies made. Rian Johnson didn't care about ruining Star Wars, and you're using whataboutism to argue that the ships, starfighters, and battles in TLJ are not worse than the rest of Star Wars, which is a reprehensible argument for any real Star Wars fan.

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

Just throwing this out there, but it has always surprised me how much input the directors actually DO have on the designs. The behind the scenes stuff for R1 comes to mind strongly. There's a great section in it's extras about how the directors input led to the wing shape being like a "super man" pose. I'm sure there's a fine balance in the SW making process that's never really been 100% hit.

Exactly. A director has more control over their movie than any other position, including the writer(s), so Rian Johnson absolutely would've given the ship designers and CG artists his specifications for the FO Dreadnought and it was their job to create the ship he wanted, regardless of how they felt about the design.

Whenever the artists and special effects people appear in behind-the-scenes featurettes, they always have deep insights into whatever they've created and think of every minute detail, whereas when the director is interviewed, they often admit that what they created was an "homage" to other movies or history, and they care more about that than making something original or logical.

On the other hand though, some go backwards on the process. Like the YouTube channel Spacedock has their new content starting to come out and they seem to have gone for a ship design first approach. The Expanse seems to have as well.

End of day though. The ships in SW, especially the capital ships, have to at some point be a stage, or a set if you will. So as usual they make the set and then the action has to imply what's going on and or why. And then we shoe horn in everything else to make the design 'make sense' after the fact. It is a little silly to argue any particular one, regardless where it's roots are. Even one as stupid as the The Last Jokes dread.

Johnson certainly didnt design the ships, thats laughable.The director says I need a big ship for this scene and the designers make one. The Raddus for example is an old concept art from Ralph Mc Quarry. Rick Heinrichs and Kevin Jenkins been the responsible producers. The Mandator is also somewhat based on old concept art.

13 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

And a deflector shield that allows X-Wings and proton bombs to pass through it -- it'll be fine."

Shields have been a consistent plothole throughout all the movies, from X-Wings flying close to the surface of the Death Star to Anakin flying a N1 starfighter into the Lucrehulk Droid Control Ship hanger when the shields weren't allowing anything else in. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of TLJ but some of the plotholes in the movie are classic Star Wars mistakes.

9 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

Shields have been a consistent plothole throughout all the movies, from X-Wings flying close to the surface of the Death Star to Anakin flying a N1 starfighter into the Lucrehulk Droid Control Ship hanger when the shields weren't allowing anything else in. Don't get me wrong I'm not a fan of TLJ but some of the plotholes in the movie are classic Star Wars mistakes.

Yeah it's because they maxed the ray shields to protect against enemy fire. It's Star Wars Tech! 💡

I leave a thread for a couple of days and I come back to this:

6 minutes ago, Rmcarrier1 said:

I leave a thread for a couple of days and I come back to this:

But it never reached the level of dueling monkeys

I do find it funny just to try and say that the ST has bad ship design when it is sort of a hallmark that all the eras and even the EU just to have a mix bag of designs as well as tactics. We could start a thread of everyone's top 5 favorite and most hated designs (looking at you E-wing and V-19). As for tactics a lot of people have pointed out that pretty much every space battle would not really hold up. Like at Hoth the Empire sort of forgot they had hundreds of fighters to take out the transports lol.

Sort of wish Armada/Legion was in the same spot as X-wing. The sequel factions would be out and we would not get every other thread about how the ST is hated so it would never sell, it would kill the game, and they don't have enough of anything.

And its your right to hate the ST. I just sort of think it is crazy to think that FFG would not eventually do the ST. Just for the health of the game it would be a good move.

26 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

I do find it funny just to try and say that the ST has bad ship design when it is sort of a hallmark that all the eras and even the EU just to have a mix bag of designs as well as tactics. We could start a thread of everyone's top 5 favorite and most hated designs (looking at you E-wing and V-19). As for tactics a lot of people have pointed out that pretty much every space battle would not really hold up. Like at Hoth the Empire sort of forgot they had hundreds of fighters to take out the transports lol.

Sort of wish Armada/Legion was in the same spot as X-wing. The sequel factions would be out and we would not get every other thread about how the ST is hated so it would never sell, it would kill the game, and they don't have enough of anything.

And its your right to hate the ST. I just sort of think it is crazy to think that FFG would not eventually do the ST. Just for the health of the game it would be a good move.

Well, X-Wing had a scum faction before it had the others, and I would much prefer to see that in Legion (releasing Maul for the Separatists instead of saving him for a scum faction) and even in Armada, before I see the ST (full disclosure, I am an unrepentant ST hater) but I think from a purely financial standpoint it would sell better as a faction. Although balance could become an issue in Armada as it would definitely be more of a small ship and elite squadron faction with no large ships and very limited medium ships (if sticking to the new canon) so it may struggle to match up with more diverse factions.

Also, you are absolutely correct regarding space battles across all 9 movies. For something literally called "Star Wars" the space battles are by and large abysmal and devoid of tactics or sense.

21 minutes ago, kenngp said:

Well, X-Wing had a scum faction before it had the others, and I would much prefer to see that in Legion (releasing Maul for the Separatists instead of saving him for a scum faction) and even in Armada, before I see the ST (full disclosure, I am an unrepentant ST hater) but I think from a purely financial standpoint it would sell better as a faction. Although balance could become an issue in Armada as it would definitely be more of a small ship and elite squadron faction with no large ships and very limited medium ships (if sticking to the new canon) so it may struggle to match up with more diverse factions.

Well I am a ST defender and hate the PT. How dare you good sir have a reasonable argument and present valid points!!! You truly are not a true Star Wars fan lol.

As for what should come next that is a good debate that I think has no wrong answer. Armada I lean to ST, but for Legion I would not fault them for going Scum first.

9 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

Sort of wish Armada/Legion was in the same spot as X-wing. The sequel factions would be out and we would not get every other thread about how the ST is hated so it would never sell, it would kill the game, and they don't have enough of anything.

I’ve made the argument over in the Legion forums that right now, they lack units such as to make a sustainable force (particularly the resistance). Xwing works because they have the ships. Armada does too in some respects. I mean the ST itself has 4 minimum capital ships a piece plus fighters plus the episode 9 random assortment fleet.

While it wouldn’t be because of it being ST, I doubt legion ST would sell well because of the limitations. Seems to do well enough in xwing.