Jump to content
Cloaker

Interesting video on Star Wars space combat theory

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Hawkstrike said:

Nah ... rule of cool and needing to gt multiple ships into one shot.

Image result for why can't we have both

 

It's a good video. It's also something I had no issue with in TLJ (unlike a lot of others). Whilst I disliked the movie as a whole, I thought the space combat scenes were great. The only aspect that TLJ didn't pull from the OT was the fuel thing, but I won't get into that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, BVRCH said:

Image result for why can't we have both

 

It's a good video. It's also something I had no issue with in TLJ (unlike a lot of others). Whilst I disliked the movie as a whole, I thought the space combat scenes were great. The only aspect that TLJ didn't pull from the OT was the fuel thing, but I won't get into that.

I think the addition of fuel would be nice, but I'm betting my sweet tooshie on that we won't hear anything about fuel in another feature movie ever again. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Commander Kaine said:

I think the addition of fuel would be nice, but I'm betting my sweet tooshie on that we won't hear anything about fuel in another feature movie ever again. 

 

I don't think its necessary, it really doesn't add anything whether they portray it correctly or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a nice video, but it's coming from a point of positive bias towards the movie, which means they've made several wrong assumptions:

1. That turbolaser range is limited only or mostly by diminishing "punch" as range increases.
2. That fighter craft have the ability to penetrate all capital ship shields. *Anakin coruscant*
3. That larger ships (and death stars) need a large fighter screen to be well protected.
4. Stemming from [3], that capital ships are largely incapable of even attacking snub fighters.

Point 1:

For point 1 it's easy to disprove. Turbolaser (and blaster) weaponry in Star Wars is pretty clearly particle/projectile based, not energy weapons - clearly evidenced by their being affected by gravity. Additionally, it takes the projectiles real time to travel - turbolaser bolts in particular are very slow.

So a ship firing at long range has to take into account the evasive maneuvers of a target ship. As they get farther and farther away more and more bolts will miss. A large ship like the Raddus can shrug off a few bolts, so what Hux is really saying is "they're outside the effective range of our artillery - any attempt to destroy them will prove inconsequential and therefore is a waste of energy". of course, smaller ships can be destroyed in far fewer shots, hence why in TLJ only the Raddus survives so long.

Point 2:

In RotS in the battle over coruscant, Obi-Wan makes it very clear that the can't penetrate the external hangar bay shields with their fightiest of fighters- the ETA-2. So it's pretty clear that smaller capital ships (Grievous' flagship was about 2km long) can equip anti-starfighter shielding. Of course, numerous examples exist of starfighters blowing up larger ships in canon:

The Malevolence (Clone Wars), destroyed by an entire squadron of elite Y-wing pilots commanded by Skywalker himself who were thoroughly prepped for the mission, of which only about a third survive. Even so, they barely manage to temporarily disable the ion weapons and hyperdrive.

The Executor (ESB) was ultimately destroyed by a lone A-Wing (Arvil Crynyd, if I'm not mistaken?) crashing into the bridge. Of course, Ackbar's brillian fleet maneuver had already done massive damage, and the A-wing was the 'straw that broke the Bantha's back"

Numerous Star Destroyers in the old EU were destroyed by snubfighters and other assorted small arms. Most notable were Rogue Squadron who, through feats of piloting brilliance, managed to destroy a VSD by firing 24 Proton torpedoes at a time at the exact same location on the Destroyer's hull, taking advantage of clearly explained and reasonable defensive weaknesses to disable the ship, though rarely destroy it. Later, Rogue Squadron manages to cripple a Super Star Destroyer (The Lusankya) with volleys of 500 proton torpedoes fired simultaneously from small freighters.

Regardless of the circumstances, it's very clear in every scenario except for TLJ that a combination of incredible pilot(or admiral) skill, high firepower (typically expendable munitions) and a high price to pay are necessary to destroy capital ships. TLJ kind of ruins this rule and has three advanced starfighters negate everything, fie two torpedoes, then inexlicably head back to the carrier because plot.

Point 3:

The first six movies (Except TPM), The Clone Wars, Rebels and the old EU all make it very clear that capital ships are relatively fine on their own (save against extremely unique situations), and that with an escort of frigates and destroyers are more than capable of holding their own against small fighter forces (less that a flight, or 72, at any rate).

Again, TLJ goes in the face of all previous examples and decides that a single lone fighter with enough plot armour and a non-negotiable 3-movie contract can easily destroy massive capital ships without any plan, previous advantage or extreme skill.

Point 4:

The Malevolence (a Clone Wars Era capital ship) has very clear and very devastating point-defense systems, to the point that it's declared "You [Anakin] can make it, but everyone else will get shot down" when making a single bombing run on a single target - the bridge. In terms or armament, an ISD I (the older, significantly weaker generation) had 120 anti-squadron weapon emplacements, composed of 60 heavy turbolasers and 60 ion cannons. The EU had described the fire as trapping pilots in a rapidly shrinking cone of fire, until the pilot clipped a blast and was instantly vaporised. Capital ships are very capable of defending themselves.

Conclusion:

The video was based on faulty underlying assumptions, hence it reached inaccurate conclusions. The dreadnought was destroyed (and indeed existed in the first place) for the sake of the plot. Kylo reached and destroyed the bridge of the Raddus (and all senior command staff?) because plot. There's no point justifying it, since Disney doesn't. At this point I'm just enjoying the visual effects of the sequel trilogy, while actually anticipating the next anthology movie.

Besides, according to TLJ, fighters, turbolasers and capital ships with heavy shielding are all pointless and always have been, since an engine mounted to an asteroid travelling at hyperspace speed will outmatch any damage a conventional weapon can do, and at a fraction of the cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GreenDragoon said:

You make some nice points, but they are coming from a point of negative bias towards the movie, which means you've made several misrepresentations of the argument:

1. Particle and projectile weapons also have diminishing "punch" as range increases, so I fail to see why that's relevant. Besides, light is affected by gravity, too, so that is not enough to tell they are not energy weapons. It also takes light time to travel.
You add an additional reason as to why range diminishes "punch", but you do not disprove his explanation in any way. In fact we see in the movie that they immediately destroy the frigate once it is in effective range because it can't accelerate anymore. They manage to hit and destroy it at the displayed "effective range".

2. Star Wars knows several types of shields. You misrepresent his argument when you expand his deflector shields to mean "all capital ship shields". As such, the example of RotS does not apply because it is a different shield type. Your other examples only differ from Kylo in that you see their feats as incredible skill and firepower.
But we know that Kylo has incredible skill, and we can only speculate about their firepower.

3. I strongly disagree. It has been established for decades that capital ships destroy frigates/destroyers, who destroy fighters, who destroy capital ships. If what you are saying were true then the only reason to build small fighters was due to practicality (don't want to move thousands if you can move few) and ressources. But fighter screens have been instrumental in every battle.

4. An ISD, yes, but you need to explain how a frontal assault on an ISD with 120 anti-squadron cannons is the same as strafing by from the rear against a Mon Cala ship with only 48 lasers total (18 heavy, 18 ion, 12 point-defense cannons).

1. Particle weapons don't have diminishing "punch"... when fired in the vacuum of space. In the case of TLJ, the projectilles are being fired towards a nearby planet so, if anything, the projectiles will increase in punch. Light is affected by gravity because light bends space-time. Light's actual velocity isn't affected by this phenomenon.
What I'm saying is that there's no precedent for this video's explanation. The frigate is destroyed by a single hit, because it fell into the "relatively accurate" range of the space-wing-thing, and no longer had time to reliably maneuver out of the way of each shot.

2. Deflector shields are, of course, only one type. Ray shields are the other common variety, which can block anything but are more energy-intensive. The point being that, while a large capital ship like the Raddus probably can't, as the video says, project a Ray Shield over the entirety of the hull. However, it could easily project a ray shield over hardpoints, the bridge, the hangar bay ad probably parts of the engines. it has obvious, extreme advantages and would require a tiny amount of power for such a large ship. The Invisible Hand (grievous' flagship) had enormous Ray shields over the gaping entrances to its hangar bay, and was significantly smaller than the Raddus.

We don't actually know that Kylo has incredible skill. He accomplished less than nothing in TFA (coaxing Rey's force powers, disrupting the chain of command, etc) and in TLJ he killed his faction's leader. So his political and strategic skill is garbage. In a fighter he encounters literally no resistance, doesn't shoot and then flies away, so no skill there. Maybe... Maybe you're referring to the royal Guard scene? That was awesome, for sure, but has no bearing on the space-fighter discussion.

Maybe the Silencer has some kind of super-torpedo that can get through deflector shields, which is yet another reason the bridge should be ray-shielded.

3. I believe the first book series that really discussed fighter-based combat was the Rogue Squadron novels. It was made very clear that an ISD II is literally impossible to kill for Rogue Squadron - which is unarguably the best squadron in the Galactic Civil War, with powerful fighters utilising large magazines of anti-ship weaponry.

This was mainly because the shields were so strong that, once proton torpedoes - the strongest munitions available to snubfighters outside nuclear warheads - punched a hole through the shields, the remaining few exploded ineffectually against the heavily armoured hull. Lighter ships like the Lancer-class Frigate were actually extremely vulnerable to a skilled squadron with ordnance, since their light shields and centralised core systems made them very vulnerable to massed fire.

You've got to remember that Imperial ships aren't designed to act as individual units ISDs suppress enemy capital ships and create narrow lanes for fighters to fly through with turbolaser and ion cannon fire. Frigates and destroyers narrow those lanes further while actually engaging enemy capital ships, and Imperial snub-fighters make use of the constricted space and their enormous numbers to overwhelm the opposition.

The reason to build fighters is because if you don't field them the opposition brings in deadly weapons platforms like B-wings, Gunboats and so on that are designed specifically long enough to unload 16+ proton torpedoes or concussion missiles each into a capital ship; game over. So you either have a fighter screen that survives just long enough for superior capital ships to destroy enemy capital ships then flee, or field heavy squadrons with the power to destroy capital ships.

Of course, actual ISD IIs carry a full flight of TIE fighters (72), 8 Lambda Shuttles, 6 Assault Gunboats, Skipray Blastboats and depending on role and notoriety up to another flight or so of Interceptors, Bombers and other ancillary craft.

4. Imagine a guerilla shooting at the front of an M1A2 tank with a pistol. Then imagine the same guerilla firing his pistol at the back of a Sherman. Which of them does more damage? It's a TIE (haha), surprise surprise.

It's a lot better than that for the Fish-ship though, because ISDs are designed for frontal assaults, whereas Mon Cala designes often encompass full protection due to their underwater design philosophy. It's nnsensical regardless of the way you look at it that three small fighters can cripple the alliance without any support when firing against a ship with nearly full shields.

2 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

And this again both misunderstands what happened and why it won't work. There are some nice real-life examples. But whatever helps you sleep at night

By all means, explain what happened. Because I assumed two things:

1. The organic life on board the Raddus didn't affect the damage inflicted (since it had been evacuated).
2. The level of technlogy on board the Raddus didn't matter, since it wasn't a conventional explosion or electrical discharge that did the damage; it was pure velocity.

So what's actually stopping a faction from strapping a hyperspace engine toseveral asteroids and crushing any enemy that comes up against them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going through this point-by-point but here are the things I'd highlight to give some perspective:

1) Comparing 40+ years of EU material to a single movie and the information presented (or not) within isn't even in the same star system as "fair."

2) Star Wars technology has never been presented consistently across every medium or within the movies themselves. "Because plot" has always been the driving force between these inconsistencies for decades. (AT-AT's armor is too strong for blasters--unless they're lying down, in which case it's remarkably thin)

3) Disney put all the old EU into legends for exactly this reason: trying to write a story while carefully avoiding every trap they might fall into with 40+ years of inconsistent material is pretty much impossible. So they started with a clean slate.

@Astech it's not that you're wrong, it's that most of your arguments straight up don't count. The sources you're drawing from are irrelevant. 

For the ones that are relevant, I would just refer you to my 2nd point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sekac said:

Not going through this point-by-point but here are the things I'd highlight to give some perspective:

1) Comparing 40+ years of EU material to a single movie and the information presented (or not) within isn't even in the same star system as "fair."

2) Star Wars technology has never been presented consistently across every medium or within the movies themselves. "Because plot" has always been the driving force between these inconsistencies for decades. (AT-AT's armor is too strong for blasters--unless they're lying down, in which case it's remarkably thin)

3) Disney put all the old EU into legends for exactly this reason: trying to write a story while carefully avoiding every trap they might fall into with 40+ years of inconsistent material is pretty much impossible. So they started with a clean slate.

@Astech it's not that you're wrong, it's that most of your arguments straight up don't count. The sources you're drawing from are irrelevant. 

For the ones that are relevant, I would just refer you to my 2nd point. 

EU material just emphasised my points, because those novels often went into detail about weapons, snubfighters and defensive systems. Most of my arguments were backed up by canon examples.

Inconsistencies in the movie/TV series canon are pretty rare, but novels often contradicted each other in small was, since who has the time to read 1000+ Star Wars novels?

AT-ATs could very conceivably have had weak points when fired at from particular angles, similar to scale-male medieval armour. Even if its a "because plot" moment, it makes an awful lot more sense for a squadron of air-based ships to e able to disable two slow moving, ground-based vehicles. It makes significantly less sense for two ships (Kylo doesn't count, really) to be able to simply fly out and kill 20+ senior Resistance personnel without suffering any casualties, then just turn around and fly back to base.

So sure, there will always be inconsistencies, but a lot of them are inconsistent technology or inconsistent characters (Rey, poe, Finn, Rose...). Inconsistent plot is something that only the sequel trilogy does well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Astech said:

EU material just emphasised my points, because those novels often went into detail about weapons, snubfighters and defensive systems. Most of my arguments were backed up by canon examples.

EU material emphasizes nothing because it's completely irrelevant. Most of your arguments are based exclusively on irrelevant sources.

9 hours ago, Astech said:

Inconsistencies in the movie/TV series canon are pretty rare, but novels often contradicted each other in small was, since who has the time to read 1000+ Star Wars novels?

Rare? Or extremely common? I'd argue the latter. And...exactly. The answer is nobody has time for that. So criticizing writers for not making time to do a thing that people shouldn't do is beyond silly.

9 hours ago, Astech said:

AT-ATs could very conceivably have had weak points when fired at from particular angles, similar to scale-male medieval armour

The Raddus could conceivably blah blah blah too. That's exactly the difference. You give no allowance to TLJ but every allowance to OT. The OT can't be wrong because the OT isn't wrong. Well positioned. 

9 hours ago, Astech said:

Inconsistent plot is something that only the sequel trilogy does well.

Really? REALLY?? 

Remember the time when princess Leia reflected on how her mother was beautiful but very sad? A memory from when she was...oh... 30 seconds old.

Remember when Vader killed Luke's dad. Or was his dad. I can't remember. Something like that.

Remember how asteroids (objects with mass moving with an adverse velocity relative to Vader's ISD) "did not concern him" but A-wings proved objects with mass super, super should have concerned him?

Blaster lasers bounce off garbage compactor walls and nothing else??? Why is every ship not made of garbage compactor walls?!

But yes. Very consistent movies. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sekac said:

EU material emphasizes nothing because it's completely irrelevant. Most of your arguments are based exclusively on irrelevant sources.

Rare? Or extremely common? I'd argue the latter. And...exactly. The answer is nobody has time for that. So criticizing writers for not making time to do a thing that people shouldn't do is beyond silly.

The Raddus could conceivably blah blah blah too. That's exactly the difference. You give no allowance to TLJ but every allowance to OT. The OT can't be wrong because the OT isn't wrong. Well positioned. 

Really? REALLY?? 

Remember the time when princess Leia reflected on how her mother was beautiful but very sad? A memory from when she was...oh... 30 seconds old.

Remember when Vader killed Luke's dad. Or was his dad. I can't remember. Something like that.

Remember how asteroids (objects with mass moving with an adverse velocity relative to Vader's ISD) "did not concern him" but A-wings proved objects with mass super, super should have concerned him?

Blaster lasers bounce off garbage compactor walls and nothing else??? Why is every ship not made of garbage compactor walls?!

But yes. Very consistent movies. 

 

My first point is logical deduction - no EU. My second oroginal point was 2/3 based of canon sources. My third point was strong enough using just the previous movies as an example. My fourth point was based half n The Clone Wars and half on old EU information that has yet to be retold, so still the most accurate source of information available on anti-star fighter weaponry on board an ISD. So where was my argument based exclusively on EU sources?

The difference between EU writers neglecting trivia (like the number of star fighters normally contained withing an ISD) is entierly different, because they're not contradicting themselves, they're minorly overlapping other author's footnotes. I criticise writers for making nonsensical plots where one side is intelligent, and the other incompetent, or an obvious tactical blunder is executed because plot.

Leia could well have seen photos/holograms of her birth mother. Of course, Padme was an incredibly influential and notorious Senator who was friends with a war-hero. There'd definitely be no documentation of her appearance in the public records of a planet like Alderaan with strong ties to Naboo...

Obi-Wan lied; thus developing his own character and eventually Luke's. Of course, from a certain point of view it is true, too.

Asteroids "do not concern him" who flies in an SSD outside of an intense combat zone with the best crew in the Imperial fleet at his beck and call. Asteroids greatly concerned the ISD next to the Executor, which promptly lost its bridge due to a piloting error. Contrast this to an A-wing - possibly with a full magazine of primed concussion missiles - intentionally crashing into the bridge of a flagship in the middle of a war zone after possibly an hour of Ackbar's fleet concentrating fire on it.

That garbage compactor's walls were magnetised. I don't know how much you know about physics, but it takes enormous energy to maintain a magnetic field within a non-ferrous metal. Plus, of course, there's the matter that small arms fire bounces off a great many things, and artillery rounds tend to do more to all targets; hardened or not.

So yes, the original Trilogy was consistent. Sure characters had a bit of plot armour at some points, but "the force" can explain that, and it worked for both sides, too. the difference with the sequel trilogy is that one side employs obvious, amazing strategies that had never been seen before in a galactic history stretching back over 25'000 years, and the other side doesn't immediately do the same. Why couldn't Anakin "the greatest star pilot in the galaxy" solo a fleet in his era's equivalent of a Silencer? Why couldn't the CIS win the war against the republic in a day by crippling all their ships with hyperspace asteroid assaults?

The sequels don't make sense even when compared with themselves, and the first six movies do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys it's simple.

Lasers don't get through shields. Objects do. This is why Fighters exist and why Poe did what Poe did. So they fly under shields and attack exposed stuff.

There we go.

That easy.

The Last Jedi literally showed us that's how it works and nothing we have disproves that at the slightest at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Guys it's simple.

Lasers don't get through shields. Objects do. This is why Fighters exist and why Poe did what Poe did. So they fly under shields and attack exposed stuff.

There we go.

That easy.

The Last Jedi literally showed us that's how it works and nothing we have disproves that at the slightest at all.

Except for numerous previous canon examples:

1. Droideka shields (which are enormous in relation to the body size of the droid) block objects moving at greater than the walking speed of the droid, up to projectiles of the relatively enormous strength of missiles. (TPM, TCW, AotC, EU)

2. RotS hangar bay shields are very capable of preventing ships from at least entering the hangar, and these shields are used over huge areas that could easily be adapted to house hardpoints, even with Clone Wars era technology. (RotS)

3. During the Clone wars, Skywalker outwits a CIS admiral by luring him into lowering his shields, then directing a torpedo towards the bridge. It's pretty clear that the shields were guaranteed to block even the small, fast moving torpedo. (TCS)

4. Rogue One's planetary shield - and the planetary shields of all other planets shown in Star Wars - were capable of preventing anything less than Star Destroyer-sized vessels from passing through. Of course, this was overturned by TFA which created yet another plot-armour loophole by using hyperspace to get through the shields. (RO, EU)

5. The Death Star's shields over the thermal exhaust port could only be penetrated by proton torpedos, doubtless because of their different nuclear composition. (ANH)

6. The Death Star II's shields were capable of blocking fighter entrance. (RotJ)

7. Ray shields could prevent organic beings from moving through them at all in numerous instances. Ray shields could also repulse prevent lightsaber attacks. (TPM, RotS, TCW)

8. Vader's ISD in Rogue One caused a GR-75 travelling at near-lightspeed to bounce off with minimal damage to the hull due to its shields. (RO)

9. Hoth's relatively small shield generator caused the Imperial forces to land a significant distance from the base, probably because atmospheric craft were too vulnerable to pass through such a strong field. (ESB)

10. Even in TFA, starfighters couldn't penetrate SKB's shields, except for the Falcon because plot. (TFA)

11. In TLJ, Finn and Rose are forced to sneak aboard the batwing+ because they were unable to simply fly through the shields on their own. (TLJ)

12. In The Clone Wars, CIS heavy tanks possessed shielding that would prevent entrance from any means except a small hatchway, quite probably used for thermal exhaust. (TCW)

13. It's pretty ubiquitous among land-assaults on hardened areas for assaulting forces to be forced to land a significant distance away, as airborne vehicles simply can't penetrate the shield. (TPM, TCW, ESB, Rebels)

14. In Rebels, guerilla forces never flew into hangers and detonated ther bombs - either subterfuge or alternate boarding locations than shielded areas were always required to get any ship into a shielded area. One explanation is that ships couldn't pass through the shield unless permitted to do so. (Rebels)

15. In the epic nu-EU book where Palpatine and Vader are ambushed on Ryloth by Chan Syndulla's rebels, their ISD carrier is trapped in a setof minefields and starfighter squadrons. Only after the shields fall can Cham's rebels board the ship. (Nu-EU)

Off the top of my head, that's all the canon examples I can think of. Just fifteen of them, from every canon source released to this point including TLJ...

In many of these examples, the shield generators used are self-contained and small enough to be easily housed on a Raddus-sized ship, while providing coverage to the whole thing (1,3,7,8,9,12,14,15).

So The Last Jedi literally contradicted itself and every prior example. At least 15 other canon instances lend credence to my argument, and dozens more old-EU instances to boot. Poe did what Poe did because Disney wanted to sell toys; X-wing models go for high retail value, after all. Kylo did what Kylo... didn't do... because Kylo... hmm...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Sekac said:

If and only if you spend time to rationalize the inconsistencies which you refuse to do with TLJ. 

I'm willing to rationalise some minor things, like DJ existing at all, and somehow managing to set up a betrayal. But what I can't rationalise is the following:

The existence of a superweapon that can be constructed from commonly available materials galaxy-wide that can be constructed cheaply and in a decentralised manner using an unskilled workforce. This weapon can target any location across the galaxy, and can penetrate planetary shields. I'm of course referring to the hyperspace ramming here. It's so ludicrously powerful that if the screenwriters had been aiming for even the semblance of reason they'd have slapped the guy who suggested it.

Luke dying. Yoda made a sort of sense, because he was really old and weird. but Luke was in his Jedi prime - the golden time of grey-flecked beards and long robes. Mark Hamill nailed him, and pretty much every fan of the series will be sad to see him go.

The entirety of the salt planet situation was ludicrous. Rose acted out of character and failed anyway. The attack plan of the FO was bizarre, and not limited by topology or shielding the way the attack on Hoth was. Planetary bombardment would have ended it. More than a third-world countries defense force would have done it. Kylo not being a moron yet again would have done it.

Every single person in a position of command on both sides making every wrong decision possible, while demonstrating their inability to inspire troops and general incompetence.

Finn and Rose's less than pointless side-arc, that ends up killing more Resistance personnel because of their incompetence. That's an hour of screen time more skippable than Anakin and Padme's cringe-worthy love story - and at least the love story had context.

They're the big five that that make an impact, the first four on the previous works, and the last on the appeal of the movie itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there are ray shields and particle shields, both combined make deflector shields.  hangar bays on ships are typically ray shielded.  a secondary particle shield can be raised to stop ordinance/enemy ships from entering.   raddus bridge was destroyed because the raddus had it's shields double back, leaving the front exposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Astech said:

I'm willing to rationalise some minor things, like DJ existing at all, and somehow managing to set up a betrayal. But what I can't rationalise is the following:

The existence of a superweapon that can be constructed from commonly available materials galaxy-wide that can be constructed cheaply and in a decentralised manner using an unskilled workforce. This weapon can target any location across the galaxy, and can penetrate planetary shields. I'm of course referring to the hyperspace ramming here. It's so ludicrously powerful that if the screenwriters had been aiming for even the semblance of reason they'd have slapped the guy who suggested it.

Lol, the guy who tried to explain the difference, using physics, between energy and particle weapons is suddenly unwilling to accept F=MA as a weapon?

Luke dying. Yoda made a sort of sense, because he was really old and weird. but Luke was in his Jedi prime - the golden time of grey-flecked beards and long robes. Mark Hamill nailed him, and pretty much every fan of the series will be sad to see him go.

Kylo Ren thought the effort to project across the galaxy would kill Rey so why is it so bad that Luke died doing it?

The entirety of the salt planet situation was ludicrous. Rose acted out of character and failed anyway.

Rose has acted in defense of others the whole movie. Also she succeeded because Finn lived.

 The attack plan of the FO was bizarre, and not limited by topology or shielding the way the attack on Hoth was. Planetary bombardment would have ended it. More than a third-world countries defense force would have done it. Kylo not being a moron yet again would have done it.

What has given you the impression Kylo isn't a crazed dude blinded by rage? Was it him not noticing the blue light-saber? Was it when he threw Hux around to establish himself as supreme leader? Was it in the last movie where he just chops up a computer? Kylo is an impulsive guy who doesn't think about what he's doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, JediSamurai said:

there are ray shields and particle shields, both combined make deflector shields.  hangar bays on ships are typically ray shielded.  a secondary particle shield can be raised to stop ordinance/enemy ships from entering.   raddus bridge was destroyed because the raddus had it's shields double back, leaving the front exposed.

Shouldda pressed "S"

Edited by FourDogsInaHorseSuit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, FourDogsInaHorseSuit said:
  Quote

 The attack plan of the FO was bizarre, and not limited by topology or shielding the way the attack on Hoth was. Planetary bombardment would have ended it. More than a third-world countries defense force would have done it. Kylo not being a moron yet again would have done it.

wasn't the vast majority of the FO ships destroyed anyways?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...