Comments - Hyuza

I deemed Imperial conduct a bit more... decorous.

"the Hutts were a [...] form of corruption"

That's a pretty neat and precise textbook definition of our favourite slugs.

Talk of special ability.

Major hero pls

S2.dmcdn.net

I disagree. While battle formations are usually set up in a common angle for display purposes (in the films, and even more so vanilla EAW/FOC with its even fixed vertical one-plane), manoeuvers such as the Falcon's disregard notions of a set up and down.

Ships of fleet and attack formations are usually coming in preset common alignments indeed, but then again what sense would it make to put them deliberately in different angles around a depth axis beforehand - let alone to film them in a different perspective than the (relative) plane and view of the protagonists, or in a universally fixed one instead of switching ones between differently positioned ships, as perspective is entirely relative in space anyway.
I also remember a tactic in the Clone Wars series which turned around a Venator "sideways" (in relation to its former position and camera perspective) to have its bottom hull face attacking frigates to maximally protect the ship's bridge and hangars located on the opposite side.

The relevance of the B-Wing's orientation is in viewer perspective, not in-universe necessity and reason, but if the fighter can be made to even rotate around its own axis, that question would be obsolete anyway.

Well, most of all, as for the theory, there is no "upright" in space.
It could fly at any angle and it doesn't make a difference for the pilot, other than for approaching the target in a suitable way.

It's all a matter of the beholder's perspective - and defining what is supposed to be "up" for and from the view of the pilot (though that's rather irrelevant for the game).

*cue in Imperial March*

Uploads.neatorama.com

That will be quite interesting...

That's why I always wished to further alter a planet's data for after it was destroyed. It doesn't exactly make sense that a location keeps most of its characteristics and bonuses after being turned into a fresh asteroid field. (And that fleets keep battling for it to be king of the rubble.)

You mean predecessor to the AT-AR?
That makes sense.

It's the direct successor, a lot larger and higher, faster, better armor, and a closed cabin.

It has similarities to the AT-AR actually.

Thought the same. At least viewed from above the "tied up" looking segments seem similar.

Probably just a seasonal trend among ship engineers in the galaxy far, far away.

That's a design I hadn't noticed so far... like using the Relentless double tower setup on an Allegiance-class.

It looks like how a Bothan would build a Nebulon B (size ratio aside).

I said Legends-canon, or in other words, the EU-canon, as is the entire Vong storyline...

Reminiscent of the MC104, except that they are on literally opposite sides of the size spectrum.

(Not so sure about the legends-canon status of the 104 and its original source though.)

Heavy Artillery

Though you probably wouldn't need to have a superlaser exactly as strong as one of the Death Stars to destroy the same to begin with. As long as you can melt through the surface and reach the reactor, that ball of durasteel is gone.

Hell, some kid destroyed one with a well placed proton torpedo.

KDY and RSD apparently like to inspire each other.

Rebelsquadrons.org
Starwars.wikia.com

The Kuati do like their pylons...

Pimp my flight, KDY-style.

This kicks arse.

Sry.

Maybe I misinterpret this, being in a tired state of mind, but the view angle on the battle map would be irrelevant to the distance I reckon. The galaxy with its (as for the viewing possibilities of the setting) fixed tilt could alternately be set in any direction of the background (or, conversely, the battle plane be set in any direction from the planet), thus be viewed from any view angle in the map, and the planet's distance from the core would visually and virtually be the same.

It's the tilt in the view of the galaxy here that makes an indeed fringe planet like Dac look to be located somewhat too far above the galactic plane - but anyway it's a fine looking nod to the EP V end shot.

Will this replace the previously implemented galaxy background in Outer Rim maps, or will this be an alternate (more far away) one?

Would work pretty well for Kamino though (if it was in the game).

Actually, there is some story to the speed of light in the Star Wars (expanded?) universe. It basically states that the main hurdle in space travel is reaching and crossing the speed of light, i.e. entering hyperspace. Once that is accomplished, accelerating beyond that point is conceived to be easy.

I roughly did the math once, presuming the Star Wars galaxy is as large as the Milky Way, and AFAIR one would need the speed of light times a factor of at least a million to make it from Tatooine to Alderaan in less than a week.

This is beautiful... haven't seen it in-game yet indeed.

As for the final shot from Episode V, Wookieepedia has this:
"In 2003, Leland Chee confirmed on the StarWars.com Message Boards that the object was indeed the Star Wars galaxy. The film's director, Irvin Kershner, refers to the object as simply "a galaxy" on the Audio Commentary of the 2004 DVD release."

Actually conceiving this as the view of a TIE-Fighter flying / hovering around in a land battle... silently creeping behind people's backs (1:09), lurking hideously over their shoulders...

*sigh* Imagination. :D

Wars may not make *one* great - but they do just that to All Terrain Armored Transports.