Star Wars Discussion Thread contains spoilers (and may contain nuts)

[Barrister]

re: Admiral Holdo jumping to lightspeed into the imperial ship - no it's definitely a plot hole.  Consider if you will that in Episode 7 Han takes the Millenium Falcon into lightspeed from inside the other ship.

[viper37]

re: Admiral Holdo jumping to lightspeed into the imperial ship - no it's definitely a plot hole.  Consider if you will that in Episode 7 Han takes the Millenium Falcon into lightspeed from inside the other ship.

in EP7 the ship was condemned and breaking apart.  But that would likely be the plot hole, since it was deemed impossible prior to that, as well as entering hyperspace from within a planet's atmosphere or gravitational well. 

However, if you pay attention to any SW visual material, you never see a ship entering hyperspace without having a clear sky in front of it.

In Rogue One, when Vader's fleet arrives you see the ship preparing to enter hyperspace veering away (autonav) from the newly found solid object.

In EP8, the ship barely enters hyperspace.  I keep rewatching the scene:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2hM1tyEL0U

It's been known in the EU that you can make a blind jump, but it's extremely risky since you don't know what you will hit.  Figure a normal, seaship with autopilot.  It's great while you are on the open ocean, not so great when you arrive in port.  Imagine if the captain let the autopilot on at full speed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TESKO52YSA

In all likely hood, she made a jump for a fraction of a second.  Say, enter hyperspace for .3 seconds and disengage.  Or hit the lever and manually release it immediatly.

All of this is established as feasible in the SW universe.

the Han Solo scenes had no precedent, but they've been sort of retconned from what I read on Wookiepedia.

[Berkut]

If what she did was possible, then the best possible weapon would be a ship that was just a giant hyperspace bullet. So why don't we see that all the time?

You don't even need to put a person on it, a droid will do - no kamikaze is necessary.

I imagine something pretty small going at hyperspace speed would destroy the Death Star - it certainly could not dodge it, and would be impossible to miss.

The presumption is that it isn't possible, because if it WAS possible, that would be by far the most effective possible capital ship weapon, and the entire mechanics of combat would be radically different.

[Razgovory]

No, I haven't read any of those, as they have zero interest for me. I am talking about the conventions of a genre. If you start with good guys triumphant, you are going against the general conventions of an epic. It doesn't mean you can't write sprawling, convoluted narratives - it means that to make it back into an epic, you have to find a way to bring your hero low again, and invent yet another existential threat. It can be done, but it dilutes the strengths of the genre (and frequently makes for mediocre storytelling).  Similarly, a subtle narrative of political intrigue doesn't fit well with epic, for they deal in absolutes - partly why the prequels had trouble interweaving the corruption of Anakin with the corruption of the Republic. It required a different genre.

I think you're right here.  I also think that's one of the reasons the wooden dialogue worked okay in the first movies.  People in epic literature don't speak the way real humans do.

[Syt]

You can't begin with the good guys triumphant in an epic. Nor can an epic have the moral ambiguity and political manoeuvering that, say, a "let's now win the peace" storyline would have imposed.

Obviously, you have never read anything written in what is now the "Legends Universe" over the last 30 years.

Ugh, the old EU was an inconsistent mess of 10% good stuff, 30% mediocre stuff and 60% hot garbage, with a lot of it being "imperial warlord of the week" or similar nonsense. Don't @ me.

[viper37]

So why don't we see that all the time?

Again, why didn't the Japanese use destroyer to ram US aircraft in WWII?

Answer:
a) because other ships&crafts in the fleet would maul the ship before it gets there.
b) because the attacked ship may have time to move out of the way if it isn't concentrated on other ships.
c) because you need to be very, very close to the other ship, otherwise you are in hyperspace
d) because you need a ship of similar mass&size

You don't even need to put a person on it, a droid will do - no kamikaze is necessary.

I'm not sure droids can do it  They seem to be very limited in what they can do, hence why there is always a biological pilot in this universerse and never fully automated ships.
You need a droid or a computer to calculate the hyperspace route, but they don't seem to fly the ship by themselves in and out of hyperspace.

I imagine something pretty small going at hyperspace speed would destroy the Death Star - it certainly could not dodge it, and would be impossible to miss.

The SSD going through the 2nd death star caused tremendous damage, but it didn't blow up the death star in itself, it was only with the blown reactor that it exploded.

The presumption is that it isn't possible, because if it WAS possible, that would be by far the most effective possible capital ship weapon, and the entire mechanics of combat would be radically different.

Lots of things are possible.  I can have my arm cut and re-attached.  That is entirely possible and there are many examples of re-attached limbs in the world.  Didn't they transplant a human head not so long ago?  Why not do it more often?  I'm super rich, I don't like my head&face, I get another one.  It IS possible.

Being possible and being practical are two different things.

Al-Queada attacked and severly damaged a US destroyer with a small kamikaze boat.  Logically, something just a tad bigger could ram&sink the ship.  Why is the US still building destroyers?  Clearly they should build fleets of fishing ships filled to the brim with explosives and ram their ennemies ships.  It IS possible to sink an ennemy vessel that way.  Why don't all navies of the world do it instead of spending billions on big, bad ships?

Like I said, practicallity.

In the SW universe, unlike Star Trek, they don't have super evolved networked computers and they require tons of personal to operate a carrier or any kind of big ship, really.  Somehow, the creators of the first movies didn't anticipate the power of personal computers in the future

So, to use a really big ship to ram another one, you need lots of people to get it there first.  And then you need a diversion, preferablly not your escape pods that are shot down by the ennemy fleet.  And you need a really cheap ship that you can sacrifice that way, otherwise, well, you risk losing the war when you can't replace them.  And a really cheap ship that can be sacrificed isn't going to resist long to ennemy fire.  You also need a human pilot who can deactivate the safeties and program a microjump. What happenned was the ship entered and exited hyperspace almost immediatly. It didn't magically get away.

The USS Cole was caught off guard.  I do not the specifics of your navy, by I am pretty confident that adjustments have been made to your ships&policies to prevent the success of such an attack in the future, especially when docked at the harbour while refueling.

So if I'm going to attack a US destroyer with a small craft, I need to be able to resist ennemy fire long enough to deliver my explosive package.  Why aren't kamikaze airplanes a thing in modern wars? Because by the end of WWII, the US had already adapted to that strategy and mitigated its success.  Steel deck instead of wooden deck, anti-aircraft defense, better radars on all ships, fighter screen further ahead, etc, etc.

I'm guessing that, eventually, if you use the same strategy over&over, your ennemy would find ways to adapt too.  Maybe they wouldn't be so confident in one huge ship and start having multiple smaller ships so one loss isn't so important (funnily, it seemed to be the strategy of the Rebel Alliance vs Empire in all previous movies).

[viper37]

You can't begin with the good guys triumphant in an epic. Nor can an epic have the moral ambiguity and political manoeuvering that, say, a "let's now win the peace" storyline would have imposed.

Obviously, you have never read anything written in what is now the "Legends Universe" over the last 30 years.

Ugh, the old EU was an inconsistent mess of 10% good stuff, 30% mediocre stuff and 60% hot garbage, with a lot of it being "imperial warlord of the week" or similar nonsense. Don't @ me.

Nah, reverse the proportions

Ok, maybe not that much   I'm not counting comic books.  Never read them, don't know what they're worth.  Maybe you're right after all

Of what I have read:
Shadows of the Empire
Hand of Judgment duology
Thrawn trilogy
Jedi Academy Trilogy
I, Jedi
The Correllian Trilogy
Thrawn duology (Hand of Thrawn)
Survivor's Quest
Maybe 50-75% of the Vong series
Legacy of the Force
Fate of the Jedi
Crucible

I haven't read the pre-Episode IV stuff.  Might be good, might be a mess.

[Berkut]

So why don't we see that all the time?

Again, why didn't the Japanese use destroyer to ram US aircraft in WWII?

Because destroyers dont fly very well.


Answer:
a) because other ships&crafts in the fleet would maul the ship before it gets there.
[/quote]

Assuming you mean why don't DDs attacks aircraft carriers, this isn't comparable since DDs don't have a "hyperspace" setting.

b) because the attacked ship may have time to move out of the way if it isn't concentrated on other ships.

Again, not if the missile is moving at hyperspace speed - by definition, you cannot dodge. Also: See Death Star. Size of a small moon. Cannot dodge, and doesn't even know a hyperspace missile is being lined up on it.

c) because you need to be very, very close to the other ship, otherwise you are in hyperspace

Apparently you don't have to be that close, since the rebel ship was far enough away that it was able to put up with continous fire on it for, what, hours? Days?

d) because you need a ship of similar mass&size

Who says? An object energy is 1/2mvsquared. You do not need comparable size, just has to be moving really damn fast.

You don't even need to put a person on it, a droid will do - no kamikaze is necessary.

I'm not sure droids can do it  They seem to be very limited in what they can do, hence why there is always a biological pilot in this universerse and never fully automated ships.
You need a droid or a computer to calculate the hyperspace route, but they don't seem to fly the ship by themselves in and out of hyperspace.

I've seen droids weild light sabers competently against any human. I am sure they could press a big red button.

I imagine something pretty small going at hyperspace speed would destroy the Death Star - it certainly could not dodge it, and would be impossible to miss.

The SSD going through the 2nd death star caused tremendous damage, but it didn't blow up the death star in itself, it was only with the blown reactor that it exploded.

I am sure if the damage done was only in the range of a SSD crashing into it, that would be an acceptable weapon.

The presumption is that it isn't possible, because if it WAS possible, that would be by far the most effective possible capital ship weapon, and the entire mechanics of combat would be radically different.

Lots of things are possible.  I can have my arm cut and re-attached.  That is entirely possible and there are many examples of re-attached limbs in the world.  Didn't they transplant a human head not so long ago?  Why not do it more often?  I'm super rich, I don't like my head&face, I get another one.  It IS possible.

Being possible and being practical are two different things.

So you think warfare is pretty much similar to having your limbs amputated? That's you best analogy to rebut an obvious glaring deus ex machina writing barf?

Al-Queada attacked and severly damaged a US destroyer with a small kamikaze boat.  Logically, something just a tad bigger could ram&sink the ship.  Why is the US still building destroyers?  Clearly they should build fleets of fishing ships filled to the brim with explosives and ram their ennemies ships.  It IS possible to sink an ennemy vessel that way.  Why don't all navies of the world do it instead of spending billions on big, bad ships?

Errrh, no - that isn't the same thing at all. The US actually does in fact consider ramming attacks a factor, and defends against them (sometimes more successfully than not). But if you had a msall boat capable of going a couple thousand times faster than a DD...oh wait, there are such things. They are called missiles, and they do in fact define the mechanics and tactics of modern combat. Of course, a modern missile's speed compared to a boat is still a fraction of the speed of a ship flying at hyperspace speed.

Like I said, practicallity.

In the SW universe, unlike Star Trek, they don't have super evolved networked computers and they require tons of personal to operate a carrier or any kind of big ship, really.  Somehow, the creators of the first movies didn't anticipate the power of personal computers in the future

Fair point, but in SW, you need lots of people to operate lots of different, and disparate, systems. In this case, you just need one person who clearly is perfectly capable of operating the only system that matters - the hyperspace drive. Everything else is immaterial, if you can destroy ships by simply hyperspeeding into them.

So, to use a really big ship to ram another one, you need lots of people to get it there first.  And then you need a diversion, preferablly not your escape pods that are shot down by the ennemy fleet.  And you need a really cheap ship that you can sacrifice that way, otherwise, well, you risk losing the war when you can't replace them.  And a really cheap ship that can be sacrificed isn't going to resist long to ennemy fire.  You also need a human pilot who can deactivate the safeties and program a microjump. What happenned was the ship entered and exited hyperspace almost immediatly. It didn't magically get away.

The USS Cole was caught off guard.  I do not the specifics of your navy, by I am pretty confident that adjustments have been made to your ships&policies to prevent the success of such an attack in the future, especially when docked at the harbour while refueling.

So if I'm going to attack a US destroyer with a small craft, I need to be able to resist ennemy fire long enough to deliver my explosive package.  Why aren't kamikaze airplanes a thing in modern wars? Because by the end of WWII, the US had already adapted to that strategy and mitigated its success.  Steel deck instead of wooden deck, anti-aircraft defense, better radars on all ships, fighter screen further ahead, etc, etc.

I'm guessing that, eventually, if you use the same strategy over&over, your ennemy would find ways to adapt too.  Maybe they wouldn't be so confident in one huge ship and start having multiple smaller ships so one loss isn't so important (funnily, it seemed to be the strategy of the Rebel Alliance vs Empire in all previous movies).

So now your claim is that this is a New and Exciting strategy that nobody ever thought of before?

[grumbler]

I love it when fanbois fanboi. *pops popcorn*

[viper37]

Assuming you mean why don't DDs attacks aircraft carriers, this isn't comparable since DDs don't have a "hyperspace" setting.

They have flanking speed.

Again, not if the missile is moving at hyperspace speed - by definition, you cannot dodge. Also: See Death Star. Size of a small moon. Cannot dodge, and doesn't even know a hyperspace missile is being lined up on it.

Cannot dodge once it enters hyperspace very close to you.
Can dodge if it's further away: just let it enter the hyperspace lane, it's another dimension, apparently.  A ship would have to exit hyperspace precisely were the target is, or just before it.  Very difficult to do as you get further away.

Apparently you don't have to be that close, since the rebel ship was far enough away that it was able to put up with continous fire on it for, what, hours? Days?

You can see the ship slowing down, turning, facing the ennemy and keep on advancing a little before entering hyperspace.

If you are chasing me with your car and I have a similar speed to you, but then you focus on another target and I vear toward you.  Assuming you keep constant speed and I slowed down before turning and facing you, are you closer to me than before my manoeuver or at exactly the same distance?

Who says? An object energy is 1/2mvsquared. You do not need comparable size, just has to be moving really damn fast.

a) Imagine you are driving on the highway, in your car.  Suddenly, a wasp hits your windshield.


b) Imagine you are driving on the highway, in your car.  Suddenly, a deer crosses the road in front of you and you can't evade it.

Both objects are much smaller than your car.  But which one has created more damages, potentially crippling your car?

So, you do need something nearly as big to create damage.

I've seen droids weild light sabers competently against any human. I am sure they could press a big red button.

I have never seen that in Star Wars.  I have, however, seen some kind of reptilian humanoid life form rebuilt with a robotic shell, but his heart and mind was still there (literally).

A robot can not use the Force.  A non Force sensitive biological life form could not adequately weild a lightsaber.  They can activate it and use it to cut an animal, but trying a fight with this would likely result in serious accidents.  Otherwise, everyone would built lightsaber weilding droids with shields, they would be near unstoppable.

I am sure if the damage done was only in the range of a SSD crashing into it, that would be an acceptable weapon.

If the object is not completely destroyed, can still move and fire, how good is the attack that deprived you of a massive ship?

So you think warfare is pretty much similar to having your limbs amputated?

Nope.  But I think in warfare like in biology, there are lots of things possible.  They just aren't practical.

Errrh, no - that isn't the same thing at all. The US actually does in fact consider ramming attacks a factor, and defends against them (sometimes more successfully than not). But if you had a msall boat capable of going a couple thousand times faster than a DD...oh wait, there are such things. They are called missiles, and they do in fact define the mechanics and tactics of modern combat. Of course, a modern missile's speed compared to a boat is still a fraction of the speed of a ship flying at hyperspace speed.

See, it is more efficient to use missiles and torpedoes than use small man operated objects loaded with explosives.

Hence why they do it in Star Wars.

Fair point, but in SW, you need lots of people to operate lots of different, and disparate, systems. In this case, you just need one person who clearly is perfectly capable of operating the only system that matters - the hyperspace drive. Everything else is immaterial, if you can destroy ships by simply hyperspeeding into them.

Ok, fine.  How do you get the ship to the battle and manage to get it very close to the ennemy ship you want to target with only one pilot?

So now your claim is that this is a New and Exciting strategy that nobody ever thought of before?

No.
I'm saying it was one trick that worked in this case, because there were special circumstances that allowed it.

Are you aware of many attacks similar to USS Cole?
How many airplanes crashed in buildings since 9/11?

Are they "plot holes" or are they something therotically practical that happend due to lots of other circumstances?

What are the odds today of a terrorist group hijacking multiple airplanes and crashing them on many different targets?

Before 9/11, in an hostage taking operation aboard an aircraft, the m.o. was to let the terrorists land the plane, make their demands and then either acknowledge them or storm the plane to free the hostages.

Since 9/11, military fighters will escore any craft slightly deviating from target, and passengers are likely to revolt and cause the airplane to crash in a field instead of a city.

But it was a very valid strategy at the time.  Even though we have airplanes for one hundred years before that, even though kamikaze actions were known since 60 years prior to that, it was the first and only time commercial aircrafts were used in that way.

Is that one of history's plot hole?

When Tom Clancy wrote it in his book, was it a plot hole that Japanese terrorists crashed their plane on the Capitol?

[Berkut]

Uggh, never mind. Fan boys will do their fan boy thing. Your right, this was just like 9/11, and amputating arms. At the same time.

It was totally plausible, and you win.

[grumbler]

Assuming you mean why don't DDs attacks aircraft carriers, this isn't comparable since DDs don't have a "hyperspace" setting.

They have flanking speed.

Sorry, didn't read the rest of the desperate fanboi-ism.  When you lead with your chin, it isn't necessary - the rest is predictable.

[celedhring]

Personally I liked the bombing run scene at the beginning a lot. It pays homage to the tradition of Star Wars space battles as WWII Pacific Warfare in space. Yes, it doesn't make sense - this people have mastered hyperspace travel but for some reason never developed stand-off ordinance - but at least it's consistent with the universe as presented.

[Threviel]

Hyperspace should be several hundreds or thousands times the speed of light. Small stones at that speed ought to put the Death star out of commission.

If hyperspace is magical and you don't hit anything in hyperspace, well then, slab an engine on an asteroid and have a droid or a human drop out of hyperspace inside the Death star. If the alternative is that the Death star kills a planet you will find lots of volunteers.

Or don't open that can of worms with lazy writing.

And flank speed is just all out top speed. A canoe has flank speed. A log has flank speed.

[celedhring]

Something that's always bugged me: why is flank speed called flank speed? Google isn't giving me a satisfactory answer.

My own folk etymology is that it's the kind of speed you'd use when trying to flank or avoid getting flanked in a battle?