Yamato 1/60 VF-17 Nightmare Diamond Force

[m0n5t3r]

I disagree. I think proper integrated landing gears are critical to the 1/60 Valkyrie toys and is a hygiene factor as far as satisfaction in the line, or the particular valk is concerned. Landing gear was always meant to be part of the valk in the series, even though it wasn't used much in the case of Macross 7 valks. Not having it integrated makes the toy incomplete in my opinion.

what he said... in the hangar bays every valk is definitely on its landing gears, even if the angle of the shot doesn't show them.

[Old Man]

I disagree. I think proper integrated landing gears are critical to the 1/60 Valkyrie toys and is a hygiene factor as far as satisfaction in the line, or the particular valk is concerned. Landing gear was always meant to be part of the valk in the series, even though it wasn't used much in the case of Macross 7 valks. Not having it integrated makes the toy incomplete in my opinion.

I concur. To me, it's not a complete aircraft without integrated landing gear. Not to sound cliche, but anything less would be uncivilized.

[raptormesh]

You don't park your valk in gerwalk mode in the hangar, landing gear is important for display options. It's not just for landing .

[Reïvaj]

I concur. To me, it's not a complete aircraft without integrated landing gear. Not to sound cliche, but anything less would be uncivilized.

+1

[anime52k8]

Landing gears are for pussies.

whatever you say, duke.

[m0n5t3r]

I concur. To me, it's not a complete aircraft without integrated landing gear....

yes, VFs are aircrafts first and foremost with a robot mode and a one-of-a-kind in between mode.

i think the guy was thinking Gundam w/ waverider mode when he said "Landing gears are for pussies"... w/c are robots that are docked in their hangars as robots and not like VFs that are docked in their hangars as aircrafts.

[raptormesh]

yes, VFs are aircrafts first and foremost with a robot mode and a one-of-a-kind in between mode.

i think the guy was thinking Gundam w/ waverider mode when he said "Landing gears are for pussies"... w/c are robots that are docked in their hangars as robots and not like VFs that are docked in their hangars as aircrafts.

Yeah the main reason I got into Macross is because it's focused on fighter modes and dogfights, and not super robots giving each other beamjobs.

[EXO]

I disagree. I think proper integrated landing gears are critical to the 1/60 Valkyrie toys and is a hygiene factor as far as satisfaction in the line, or the particular valk is concerned. Landing gear was always meant to be part of the valk in the series, even though it wasn't used much in the case of Macross 7 valks. Not having it integrated makes the toy incomplete in my opinion.

+1 x infinity

[Old Man]

Yeah the main reason I got into Macross is because it's focused on fighter modes and dogfights, and not super robots giving each other beamjobs.

[UN Spacy]

Yeah the main reason I got into Macross is because it's focused on fighter modes and dogfights, and not super robots giving each other beamjobs.

That's sig worthy.

[Nicaragua]

I disagree. I think proper integrated landing gears are critical to the 1/60 Valkyrie toys and is a hygiene factor as far as satisfaction in the line, or the particular valk is concerned. Landing gear was always meant to be part of the valk in the series, even though it wasn't used much in the case of Macross 7 valks. Not having it integrated makes the toy incomplete in my opinion.

Totally agree - landing gear is a necessity.

Im surprised anyone cares about missile bays at all when they havent been included on most valk toys, i can live without them.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Then landing gear is still there. Just that you pop it on. You can still display it in fighter mode in a hangar. It's just that for me at least I put it on a stand flying around much more often than on the ground with the landing gear out.

I like the landing gear but I think having the missile is important too. If yamato can pull off all three that's cool but then it might also look uglier. Remember when people complained about stuff on the 1/48 with the tiny hands and the massive chest in GBP display? Don't you think fighter mode will look worse if they have to compromise vs just leaving one thing out?

Oh and I am aware that they don't park in gerwalk mode in the hangar but that since majority of the time you see them flying in space this is the image most people have of the valkyries: flying around doing interesting things like shooting and dogfighting.

I've had my masterpiece starscream and SV-51 on stands in fighter mode and never once have I left them displayed with landing gears out on a flat surface. 9 times out of 10 I prefer seeing them look like they are taking off or in a slight dive ready to attack something. Landing gear (but not power armor) is for pussies.

Edited June 29, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[BlueMax]

Then landing gear is still there. Just that you pop it on. You can still display it in fighter mode in a hangar. It's just that for me at least I put it on a stand flying around much more often than on the ground with the landing gear out.

I like the landing gear but I think having the missile is important too. If yamato can pull off all three that's cool but then it might also look uglier. Remember when people complained about stuff on the 1/48 with the tiny hands and the massive chest in GBP display? Don't you think fighter mode will look worse if they have to compromise vs just leaving one thing out?

Oh and I am aware that they don't park in gerwalk mode in the hangar but that since majority of the time you see them flying in space this is the image most people have of the valkyries: flying around doing interesting things like shooting and dogfighting.

I've had my masterpiece starscream and SV-51 on stands in fighter mode and never once have I left them displayed with landing gears out on a flat surface. 9 times out of 10 I prefer seeing them look like they are taking off or in a slight dive ready to attack something. Landing gear (but not power armor) is for pussies.

The discussion is not whether there should be landing gear: We all agree there is a need for landing gear. However, the difference is about whether they should be integrated.

What you are suggesting is somewhat akin to saying: Since you guys don't transform your valks regularly anyway, why don't Yamato simply sell non-transformable VF in each of the 3 modes in a package, might be more convenient since it takes the hassle out of transforming them. Simply swap the display piece in the desired mode when you feel like "transforming" them. While this might not be wrong. but this doesn't really sound acceptable does it? Likewise with the pop-off landing gear.

Just personally, I think having the reaction missle bays is as necessary as the Yamato V2 VF-1 having the small robotic repair arms coming out of its forearms, whereas having integrated landing gear is as important as having a correct Roy figure sitting in the cockpit of his signature valk(s).

Anyway, we are all entitled to our opinions but i think it just just plain rude to call whoever who doesn't agree with you here pussies.

Edited June 29, 2011 by BlueMax

[reeoyuy]

i think the guy was thinking Gundam w/ waverider mode when he said "Landing gears are for pussies"... w/c are robots that are docked in their hangars as robots and not like VFs that are docked in their hangars as aircrafts.

The thing is, all transformable MS or anything aircraft shaped unit in Gundam universe all have landing gears. Not necessary with wheels, most space-borne units replacing it with ski-like thing. Not for conventional take off, but just there to support the unit so it's not lying on its belly during hangar storage. The same with VFs, idea of VF without landing gear is just plain silly. It's common sense that in gravity you'll need landing gears or you'll have them lying on their belly (and VFs are stored in fighter mode), no ground clearance for mechanics maintenance, and don't forget trivial things like towing the fighter out of hangar to runway/catapult, etc. You'll need some wheels. And argument that space-borne units don't need them is also silly and near-sighted. So, one can argue that in zero gravity stored fighter can just "float" there, but you'll need something to fix them in place. Maybe chains will do...but where to fix them? Preferably into something sticking out like...like landing gears .

Aaaand we saw that many of those spaceships hangar has artificial gravity. Which means, all things applied to earth-based hangar also applied to spaceship hangar. I bet someone hasn't think that far, because it's "uncool" .

Then landing gear is still there. Just that you pop it on. You can still display it in fighter mode in a hangar. It's just that for me at least I put it on a stand flying around much more often than on the ground with the landing gear out.

Right. So you're agree that in-universe VF still need landing gears but the toys don't need them. Well you forgot that Yamato rarely include display base with their products. And there are people like me who don't want to spend more money to buy after market display bases. I don't mind with no base included, since I have another method to properly display them. But omitting landing gear and not including the base? That's a rip off.

[Mommar]

Anyway, we are all entitled to our opinions and I can understand where you are coming from. However, just personally, I think having the reaction missle bays is as necessary as the Yamato V2 VF-1 having the small robotic repair arms coming out of its forearms, whereas having integrated landing gear is as important as having a correct Roy figure sitting in the cockpit of his signature valk(s).

I'm surprised nobody has a hang up on the fact he keeps calling those of us who display our Valks on their landing gears "pussies." If he thinks there should be missile bays and not landing gears he can state why, but don't call me a pussy again.

[valhary]

for the price that bird cost us should have the 3 things landing gear and missile bays (the kai have it so is possible)maybe the hard part is the gunpod mechanism but not impossible

[dizman]

Landing gear isn't necessary but it is better than small missile bays I' ll never use. If the 17 doesn't come with landing gear it has a fine pair of legs to stand on (or you can buy a stand).

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Guys I'm not saying those who want landing gears are pussies. Just that majority of the good pilots fly around and land in robot mode to fight seamlessly from fighter to robot. In SDFM sometimes there were scenes of a valkyries parked in fighter mode (this was after the zentradi laser attack on earth) and you'd see robots standing there shooting the giants or guarding fighter mode valks on the ground. The pilots that need them are the pussies because when you fly you should know how to drive/pilot a valkyrie to use all three modes. That's what I meant.

And yes I agree in the actual cartoon landing gears are useful, and I agree with the usage of them for hangar storage (poor destroids don't get landing gears, I wonder why?) just that if given a choice between missile and landing gear to get scrapped I say landing gear, since personally I can deal with popping them off and on just like extra hands, side covers or intake covers.

Whatever...hopefully yamato can decide for themselves based on the limits and go for accuracy of the fighter mode and battroid mode over gimmicks. Missile or not I will still buy. I love the internal gimmicks too, (especially the cockpit being openable in battroid mode for vf-19 for example) but at the end of the day if they have to compromise again I think swappable gear is reasonable. Obviously I'm in the minority but we'll see what they can do. The way the landing gear works for yf-21/vf-22 was well done.

Oh and maintenance crew don't necessarily need to maintain a valkyrie in fighter mode they can do it by walking on platforms to access all the parts of the robot and do their work that way. How else did hikaru fight in the gbp armour? He couldn't fly out the normal way. If the zentradi can deal with no plane mode in space so too can elite pilots aboard macross 7 is my thinking. In DYRL didn't you see how the FAST-pack-equiped valks fly off? They just had robot arms gripping the fighter and those arms would release. And in macross 7 they have "space cars" that fly around in space when someone wants to go to another ship haha. I can think of a few inventions that make landing easier: for instance arms automatically grab the damaged plane and bring it to where it is needed, or just have a zentradi giant push the plane along lol. There is no logical reason why exedol gets to be a giant and nobody else can be one. We see Max Macronised in DYRL. So why not Macronise one of the maintenance crew? lol

The only reason the valks land on the SDF-1 the normal way in the tv series is because of story reasons. (they took parts of deadalus and prometheus and stuck them after doing a fold near the earth's atmosphere and accidentally bringing people on earth with them that were not supposed to be teleported to space.) I think you guys are just looking for reasons to have landing gears because you want "realistic jets" but you forgot that macross is a scifi robot anime too, where the majority of flying is in space. hehe

Edited June 29, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[eugimon]

look, it's never going to happen. Just like yamato will never release a vf-1 with no hands in favor of a pair of tiny manipulators or no pilot in favor of working throttle and joystick, or no arms in favor of integrated side covers.

I'm sure if they can figure out a way to get it all in there and be affordable and durable, they'll do it. And no one is saying they don't want the missiles, just that if we had to choose 2 out of 3, then the gunpod and the landing gear is what most of us want. There now, can we just move on?

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

We are moving on: All I am doing is responding to people who said that landing gears in space are crucial. When in fact many times whenever hikaru had to save minmay or misa's hot butts, he had to come to a virtual STOP which is only possible in the gerwalk mode since fighter mode requires you keep moving in a forward motion while in atmosphere. When a fighter lands it needs lots of space but what if you were in space? It's probably less dangerous imo to leave it floating in a special area where the gravity is not on, and then get out and use grappling gun to exit. (saw something like that in macross II) Big robot arms from the ceiling of the room or whatever can then grab the valk and move it where it needs to go.

As for yamato releasing no hands? Nah. Yamato would never release valks without hands. They took so much abuse for 1/48 vf-1 having such tiny hands that they are focusing on reducing feet now. (yf-21/vf-22 heh) Soon feet will be swappable parts to get acurate proportions instead of hands. /joking

If you were an elite pilot wouldn't you prefer going from fighter, then to gerwalk (slower) then transforming to robot mode? (bot = more stability and probably the most accurate mode to shoot targets in with a gunpod using both hands to hold the weapon).

Not slowly landing in fighter mode, turning into a robot and then moving around after you landed down gently which wastes time. It's not as efficient and you never see this happen in a battle in macross over the former method. Why? Because landing gears are designed more for dedicated fighting aircraft. (my theory is that it's only there to make us believe they can't transform in the tv series until it is revealed that the fighter are robot too) The spacecraft may look similar but it is not as necesary is all I am saying since we only got used to them from visions in the tv series where aircraft carrier were used due to the events in the story. Just like how we got used to seeing the later macross class ships turn into robots when they pretty much only do this because of the original macross. (the sdf-1 "transforming into humanoid mode" thing was another thing that was due to mistakes by the young inexperienced crew. All the cool things are because people make mistakes lol)

But robot mode for massive ships (that incidentally kill the people inside who don't get to the safe zones in time hehe) is not 'needed' is it? It might be useful but not "incomplete" without robot mode. Same logic for landing gears imo. You can still survive without it. (not that this is what I want, just that landing gears are not as crucial as people think - the reason I bring it up is because in the tv series of macross 7 they are seen launching in the similar way to DYRL)

Edited June 29, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[eugimon]

Writing essays on why valks don't need landing gear isn't moving on. They have them, they're shown using them. Maybe that doesn't appeal to you but this isn't the right place to be talking about it.

[anime52k8]

Cool story, bro. The thing is Yamato is in the business of making MACROSS toys, not some dude on the internet's crazy fan-fic toys.

[Lonely Soldier Boy]

We are moving on: All I am doing is responding to people who said that landing gears in space are crucial. When in fact many times whenever hikaru had to save minmay or misa's hot butts, he had to come to a virtual STOP which is only possible in the gerwalk mode since fighter mode requires you keep moving in a forward motion while in atmosphere. When a fighter lands it needs lots of space but what if you were in space? It's probably less dangerous imo to leave it floating in a special area where the gravity is not on, and then get out and use grappling gun to exit. (saw something like that in macross II) Big robot arms from the ceiling of the room or whatever can then grab the valk and move it where it needs to go.

As for yamato releasing no hands? Nah. Yamato would never release valks without hands. They took so much abuse for 1/48 vf-1 having such tiny hands that they are focusing on reducing feet now. (yf-21/vf-22 heh) Soon feet will be swappable parts to get acurate proportions instead of hands. /joking

If you were an elite pilot wouldn't you prefer going from fighter, then to gerwalk (slower) then transforming to robot mode? (bot = more stability and probably the most accurate mode to shoot targets in with a gunpod using both hands to hold the weapon).

Not slowly landing in fighter mode, turning into a robot and then moving around after you landed down gently which wastes time. It's not as efficient and you never see this happen in a battle in macross over the former method. Why? Because landing gears are designed more for dedicated fighting aircraft. (my theory is that it's only there to make us believe they can't transform in the tv series until it is revealed that the fighter are robot too) The spacecraft may look similar but it is not as necesary is all I am saying since we only got used to them from visions in the tv series where aircraft carrier were used due to the events in the story. Just like how we got used to seeing the later macross class ships turn into robots when they pretty much only do this because of the original macross. (the sdf-1 "transforming into humanoid mode" thing was another thing that was due to mistakes by the young inexperienced crew. All the cool things are because people make mistakes lol)

But robot mode for massive ships (that incidentally kill the people inside who don't get to the safe zones in time hehe) is not 'needed' is it? It might be useful but not "incomplete" without robot mode. Same logic for landing gears imo. You can still survive without it. (not that this is what I want, just that landing gears are not as crucial as people think - the reason I bring it up is because in the tv series of macross 7 they are seen launching in the similar way to DYRL)

Save it! You are in my list now so you better watch yourself, you landing gear hater!

[badboy00z]

I always thought the Repulsor lift tech from Star Wars was cool. The crafts just floats, no landing gear needed.

[Mog]

^^But even the X-Wings from that universe have landing gear (and integrated ones on the toy too!).

So what if they've blown up TWO Death Stars?

1/1 LowViz Lurker would still call them pussies.

[reeoyuy]

I think you guys are just looking for reasons to have landing gears because you want "realistic jets" but you forgot that macross is a scifi robot anime too, where the majority of flying is in space. hehe

This is exactly what is wrong with your logic. See, as sci-fi anime rule of cool aesthetic rules over everything else, including logic. Now let's just say that your "valks don't need landing gears and hands" reasoning is logically acceptable (which I found not), VFs will still have landing gears, hands, and "logically unnecessary) things (like, say, a mouth) simply for the sake of looking cool. As for flying in space reasoning, you might as well suggest that streamlined shape, wings, and anything derived from atmospheric aircraft are unnecessary, and valks should look like this instead:

I'll pick a cool-looking superfluous space craft over a functional but ugly craft like that, this is anime after all. I think it's far off-topic now.

[mickyg]

This is exactly what is wrong with your logic. See, as sci-fi anime rule of cool aesthetic rules over everything else, including logic. Now let's just say that your "valks don't need landing gears and hands" reasoning is logically acceptable (which I found not), VFs will still have landing gears, hands, and "logically unnecessary) things (like, say, a mouth) simply for the sake of looking cool. As for flying in space reasoning, you might as well suggest that streamlined shape, wings, and anything derived from atmospheric aircraft are unnecessary, and valks should look like this instead:

I'll pick a cool-looking superfluous space craft over a functional but ugly craft like that, this is anime after all. I think it's far off-topic now.

That's awesome! Does Yamato make that?

[raptormesh]

It's much easier for techs to work and maintain the valks when it's in Fighter mode, panels are accessible and you don't need ladders and extra panels to reach folded areas. This is probably why Fighter mode is the preferred configuration when pilots comes to land, and take off. Unless of course, valks require zero maintenance which I find hard to believe. Again, I prefer to think them as tools of war and not magical rainbow eating super robots.

Not sure why I am responding rationally to this guy, I must hate myself.

On to the topic at hand, I wonder how much die-cast would be used as this valk is quite bulky.

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

It's not me who is illogical, all I'm doing is respoding to weak arguments for why landing gears seem so crucial which they are not for space craft.

Star wars isn't macross. Macross is macross. I don't know why they hell people keep mentioning gundam. Gundam do not transform normally. Macross has robot mode to fight giants. The robot is not meant to be cool in its universe but for fighting at close range so that when a giant soldier rushes toward you you can respond quickly with a giant gunpod and rotate instantly. Not just shoot with fixed forward firing weapons.

Have you people not see those bits in macross zero where roy shoots down incoming micromissiles with his gunpod and head laser? That's what bot mode is for - it's got a purpose in-universe (while also looking cool too). So even though it looks cool they give us a justification for that mode. GBP armour is an example where you don't need landing gears.

If you are angry that it has gone offtopic then fine just PM your reply to me instead of dismissing the argument against landing gears being so important in space. I am not convinced they are. We just got used to them because of the first tv series where the fighters naturally were a government secret and had to act like normal jets until the first zentradi attack.

I'm not against landing gears being integrated guys, Don't put words into my mouth. I said I prefer landing gears being pop-offable (IF yamato has to compromise) and that in the the show a pilot can do without them majority of the time in space. So if you display the toy, many will just use a stand. Is that so hard to understand? For those who like just diaplying them without stand in fighter mode I can understand your concern but a lot of people just want to argue for the sake of arguing. All I did was give reasons why I am ok not having perfect transforming landing gear.

In space there are valks with shortened wings which shows that the designers are aware that it's not as big a deal to make them so long, and in the universe they have FAST packs which can only be used in space because they want to show that there is a difference between a fighter that fights in zero g vs one that will fly in the air. (thrusters are more important for space types)

So please don't say: "oh it's just to look cool" because there is a semi-realism to it as well even though it is still an anime. Showing me pictures of mecha from other shows is not going to strengthen your arguments, it just weakens your own. haha I use vf-17 as example because many times it just takes off the "DYRL style" in a zero g environment. They don't do that to "look cool and elite" - it's because they are in space and it probably save energy! The only reason they did it the old way in SDFM tv series is because they bolted earth-use carriers to the sdf-1 due to an accident. So it still makes sense under that show's reason for making people land in fighter jet mode like they did on earth (while they were in space). But post-space war I, it isn't as needed is all I'm saying. As for the toy having it, I want all 3 options but I will stil buy if only two gimmicks make it in.

It's much easier for techs to work and maintain the valks when it's in Fighter mode, panels are accessible and you don't need ladders and extra panels to reach folded areas. This is probably why Fighter mode is the preferred configuration when pilots comes to land, and take off. Unless of course, valks require zero maintenance which I find hard to believe. Again, I prefer to think them as tools of war and not magical rainbow eating super robots.

No fighter mode is probably easier to store. Think of fighter mode as the long range combat mode,

(they engage enemies in this mode first) gerwalk as the vtol mode of choice, and battroid mode as close combat. (rotating quickly is easier) In DYRL they launch their missiles from long range, they come to a slow speed in gerwalk, then at close range they turn into robot mode to aim at wide angles more easily and catch all the guys that didn't get hit by the misiles.

"Valks required zero maintenance"? WTF??? who said this? This is what I mean by people putting words into other people's mouths and using strawman arguments to make the other side look stupid by creating their own version of the arguments of the opponent instead of using direct quotes.

I've watched all the shows and never do you see people land in fighter mode during heated combat. Why? Because it takes longer and isn't as efficient and smooth to do it that way. It's faster to go to gerwalk mode first. They will most often transform from fighter to gerwalk, and then go into battroid when they get at close range. Never do the landing gears get used for the action sequences. Now I'm not saying they are not useful, (you see hikaru escape from giant by enterting in a valk that is in fighter mode with landing gears out) just not crucial for space. This is where you are confused. You think that I don't want the landing gear, when all I said was that it isn't as crucial as people think it is.

If you want to maintain a valk it is not impossible to maintain it in battroid mode either. How does basara get into his cockpit whenever he feels like leaving it in battroid mode and inspecting its systems in that mode before he goes out into space? Use your brain. Next time use quotes from my posts, instead of making up what I say.

In many ways you could turn the argument around and say "Landing gears are cool" BTW. "The only reason people like them is because it looks cool and makes the fighter seem closer to modern day real world planes." But I didn't say that. I just said if yamato make a compromise, then landing gears not being on it as perfect transformation is ok since rarely will I pose it like that. It's because some people said in their post that "it doesn't feel complete".(without perfect transformation landing gears) But I responded that "some people feel lack of side covers and non-perfect transforming intakes make it not feel complete either. Is it all that much different?" And it is true: Many don't care about the side covers even though the show has them on when in robot mode. So its like they are discriminating on parts that they think are "complete" (ie part of the robot and not extras) based on their own ideas not on what is fact. (ie perfect transformation side covers and perfect transformation intakes are a part of the robot just as much as landing gears are part of the fighter mode to make it feel "complete", yet somehow we all get by without them being perfect transformation still.

Personally I think not having perfect transforming landing gears is like not having perfect transforming intake covers on vf-1 or not having removable intakes on vf-19.

Edited June 30, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[EXO]

Give it up 1:1 LVL. We don't want your anti landing gear talk here. Real men use rubbers.

[Ghost Train]

Further off-topic, but a fictitious design that at least tries to incorporate the realities of space flight can be sleek as well - the Vipers from RDM Galactica puffing away with their RCS thrusters, or the Starfuries from B5 rotating their thrust nacelles.

If we want to take this to the next level, I'd argue that space fighters in general are less useful than previously believed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUhfYIq8i8

[EXO]

Of course I'm messing with 1:1.

[Renato]

Further off-topic, but a fictitious design that at least tries to incorporate the realities of space flight can be sleek as well - the Vipers from RDM Galactica puffing away with their RCS thrusters, or the Starfuries from B5 rotating their thrust nacelles.

If we want to take this to the next level, I'd argue that space fighters in general are less useful than previously believed:

That was cool, right up until he said "Yamoto".

[1/1 LowViz Lurker]

Further off-topic, but a fictitious design that at least tries to incorporate the realities of space flight can be sleek as well - the Vipers from RDM Galactica puffing away with their RCS thrusters, or the Starfuries from B5 rotating their thrust nacelles.

If we want to take this to the next level, I'd argue that space fighters in general are less useful than previously believed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdUhfYIq8i8

Laser may move at the speed of light but scifi animes always have fictional defenses like shields and other things. When luke skywalker flies into the deathstar to destroy an entire planet sized "ship" or whatever it is, he is at such a range that only smaller weapons that are close can get a clear shot. So they had to send others to shoot him down. This is the equivalent to sneaking inside an underground base to blow it up from the inside out (you are within range of giant canons but in a spot it can't get you) or flanking a machine gun nest by trying to get to it from places that it is vulnerable from. (bombing from above or using a heavy armored machine to take it out from further away) You don't always want to take the longest method of doing something. The vf-1 isn't meant to kill larger ship anyway, its to get the enemies in robots.

His argument doesn't take into acount that other bigger ships than the ones that have big lasers might be within range of planetary defenses or even larger ships than the ones that the bad guys use and can't just go anywhere they want unless they want to get pwned by a ship bigger than them. What this will do is allow smaller ships from the good side to go to spots that the defense can cover them. (like a sniper on your side who shoots enemy snipers who can shoot you while you try to enter a building to get to the roof where they are shooting from - they are useless once you get close) So the tactics of the future shouldn't be criticised by people of today who have no battle experience given that they only take into account known technology of today and not things that have yet to be invented. It's a waste of time imo.

In sci fi animes for instance when a robot uses some lasers I think one of the things used to counter it was a smoke bomb to weaken the abilities of it to fight in a room to make it hard to use that weapon. Now imagine if you were folded into the close range of an enemy ship (like what the yf-19 and yf-21 do, and while there you were able to take out the crew by jacking their own weapons? He doesn't take all the possibilities into account. I do agree with the comment that they were all influenced by WWII. George Lucas explains this in dvd commentary I think I remember seeing ages ago for star wars.

Edited June 30, 2011 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker

[eugimon]

are you serious?

stop. just. stop. Go have this discussion where it belongs, which is NOT HERE.