Super Macross Mecha Fun Time Discussion Thread!

[Seto Kaiba]

13 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

Why do the VF-17 and VF-171 from General Galaxy lack the battroid head turret-less design of practically every other fighter in the Galaxy design family (SV-51, VF-9. VF-14, Fz-109, Sv-154, Sv-262)?

A quick point of order before I delve into this one... several of the designs you listed do actually have coaxial guns (lasers, beam machine guns) on the monitor turret.  It may not be on all variants, but they do have them.  The VF-14 Vampire animated in Macross 7 PLUS does have visible coaxial guns that, from the spec of the Fz-109F derived from it, are likely a pair of laser machine guns.  The Az-130 has a pair of shoulder-mounted guns that fulfill essentially the same role.  In all three cases, the chest-mounted guns fill the role of the rear-facing gun that monitor turret-mounted ones normally fill in fighter mode.  The Sv-262Hs Draken III also has a pair of laser machine guns on the monitor turret, though the LM-27C railguns fill the monitor turret gun role in fighter mode for the Ba variant.

 

The VF-9 Cutlass's transformation simply didn't make it possible to squeeze the beam machine guns onto the monitor turret, so the "Origami Valkyrie" ended up with them mounted out on the right shoulder.  We don't know anything about the Sv-154's battroid mode, so it may or may not have something.  

As to why the Sv-51 was missing a coaxial gun when it was ostensibly developed using stolen development data from the VF-0 program... your guess is as good as mine.  The role which the coaxial gun played in fighter mode was taken over by the hip-mounted miniguns.  (It's possible the developers of the Sv-51 valued the extra armor-piercing power of the anti-ECA shells over the versatility of a laser.) 

[Seto Kaiba]

3 minutes ago, Sir Galahad® said:

SV-51 wasn't created by General Galaxy, General Galaxy was founded in 2017 

What @SMS007 is getting at there is that one of the cofounders of General Galaxy - indeed, the man responsible for founding the Slayer Valkyrie Works that would one day be spun off by General Galaxy and develop the Sv-262 Draken III for Windermere IV's Kingdom of the Wind - was a design lead on the team that developed the Sv-51 for the Anti-Unification Alliance.  Alexei Kurakin was his name, and once he defected back to the UN Government following the conclusion of the Unification Wars he landed on the Stonewell/Bellcom VF-X-4 project team and thus dodged planetary annihilation by being stationed on the moon for space testing.

[sketchley]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Just on the off chance... d'you have any info on the connection between the Lagrange 5 front line station and the ARMD-class?  Was the latter simply based on the former, or was the front line station the prototype for the ARMD-class?

I'm catching up on a chunk of my translation backlog and was working on one of my favorite hobby horses... SVX-12's VF-0-NF Phoenix testbed unit for thermonuclear reaction turbine engines.  I've got most of its details sussed out (it's a modified VF-0A outfitted with a pair of the FF-1999 engines used by the QF-3000 Ghost) but its markings include an affiliation for ARMD-00 Constitution, which isn't part of the first production lot of ARMD-class ships.  I'm still digging, but I'm wondering if the idea to convert the space platform concept into a ship was tested on the L5 station first for the sake of expediency...

I've collated what little official setting info there is on it here: http://monkeybacon.mywebcommunity.org/Stats/Statistics/ARMD/ARMDalt.php#front

While it doesn't exactly say one way or the other, the gist of the passage I understood when translating is that it's based on the ARMD class.  Now is that creatively based on it (implying that we can consider it a prototype), or merely being used for illustrative purposes?

I'm tempted to go with the prototype angle, because the mass production of equipment is the one thing that the original SDF Macross has consistently portrayed.

 

As for the ARMD-00 Constitution... it's entirely possible that it is a rebuild of that space platform - as the L5 station survived the war.  And based on the precedent of the SDF-2 becoming the Megaroad-01 (among other things), it's consistent that it was given a conversion into a full-blown ARMD while it was being repaired.

In that situation, it's still a prototype of sorts, but not the first of its class (unless if it turned into the DYRL version.  In that case, it just gets really confusing! )

[SMS007]

Aha, I didn't see some of those head turrets from the angle and contrast of the images I was looking at.

Still, if I hadn't read the Mecha Manual, I wouldn't have guessed the VF-17 / VF-171 is a General Galaxy design on the grounds that it doesn't have the distinctive topward-pointing (sometimes angled backwards) spade-shaped head when viewed from the front of battroid mode. From that view (especially of the 171), I would have guessed that the VF-17 / VF-171 was closely related to the YF-24 family.

Huh. It must be some really weird coincidence or Kawamori was thinking years in advance in having an economized VF-17 become General Galaxy's first Spacy mainstay. Either way, I guess the VF-1 battroid head tradition really symbolizes success.

Meanwhile, Kawamori-sensei certainly has a battroid design in mind for the Sv-154, if this Macross Δ Blu-Ray liner note is any indication.

https://www.reddit.com/r/macross/comments/70tqne/is_this_official_art_or_just_fan_art_of_the_sv154/

And which episode of Macross 7 is it that features the VF-14? At what point in the storyline of the Protodeviln War is there time to feature the VF-14 in action?

Edited January 3, 2018 by SMS007

[Mommar]

Macoss 7 PLUS featured the VF-14, not the original television program.

[Seto Kaiba]

12 hours ago, sketchley said:

While it doesn't exactly say one way or the other, the gist of the passage I understood when translating is that it's based on the ARMD class.  Now is that creatively based on it (implying that we can consider it a prototype), or merely being used for illustrative purposes?

I'm tempted to go with the prototype angle, because the mass production of equipment is the one thing that the original SDF Macross has consistently portrayed.

Macross Chronicle's wording in the case of the TV series ARMD-class suggests the change of design intent from a "space airbase" meant to operate in geostationary orbit and out at the Lagrange points to a mobile space aircraft carrier came while the design was still under development.  Leaving out Master File and its ARMD-00, that suggests to me that the L5 Front Line Station was probably the proof-of-concept for the space station design concept and constructed before OTEC reimagined the concept as a space carrier.  Adding in those extra details is where it got a bit wooly for me.

 

12 hours ago, sketchley said:

As for the ARMD-00 Constitution... it's entirely possible that it is a rebuild of that space platform - as the L5 station survived the war.  And based on the precedent of the SDF-2 becoming the Megaroad-01 (among other things), it's consistent that it was given a conversion into a full-blown ARMD while it was being repaired.

From what I've gleaned, ARMD-00 Constitution was a prototype for the ARMD-class (TV ver.) and thus was probably (in Master File's version) gutted and turned into the L5 Front Line Station after it was done serving as a test platform for the VF-0-NF and VF-X-1.

 

 

9 hours ago, SMS007 said:

And which episode of Macross 7 is it that features the VF-14? At what point in the storyline of the Protodeviln War is there time to feature the VF-14 in action?

It's the Macross 7 PLUS episode "Spiritia Dreaming", a sort of after-episode omake that was sometimes a comedic short (e.g. Milia the President, Macross 7 Bridge) and sometimes a tiny backstory mini-feature (e.g. TOP GAMRIN, Spiritia Dreaming).

The episode "Spiritia Dreaming" depicted the Special Research Unit dispatched to the 4th planet of the Varauta 3198XE system to investigate the Protoculture ruins there carrying out their landing op, discovering the Protodeviln, and subsequently spiritia-drained after its leaders, Ivano Gunther and Cpt. Otolmauer, were possessed by the Protodeviln Gepernich and Gigile respectively.

[SMS007]

1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

It's the Macross 7 PLUS episode "Spiritia Dreaming", a sort of after-episode omake that was sometimes a comedic short (e.g. Milia the President, Macross 7 Bridge) and sometimes a tiny backstory mini-feature (e.g. TOP GAMRIN, Spiritia Dreaming).

The episode "Spiritia Dreaming" depicted the Special Research Unit dispatched to the 4th planet of the Varauta 3198XE system to investigate the Protoculture ruins there carrying out their landing op, discovering the Protodeviln, and subsequently spiritia-drained after its leaders, Ivano Gunther and Cpt. Otolmauer, were possessed by the Protodeviln Gepernich and Gigile respectively.

Aha, now that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. 

[Sildani]

Did the VF-4 Master File ever get into what the conformal missiles were, or the caliber of its beam cannon? 

[Mommar]

1 hour ago, Sildani said:

Did the VF-4 Master File ever get into what the conformal missiles were, or the caliber of its beam cannon? 

It had four different types listed but you'll need somebody who can read Japanese to explain what they're all about. 

[Sildani]

And, fortunately, that’s exactly the resource we’re able to have here!

[Seto Kaiba]

13 hours ago, Sildani said:

Did the VF-4 Master File ever get into what the conformal missiles were, or the caliber of its beam cannon? 

Yes and No, in that order.

The book describes the semi-conformal missiles as the AMM-3 Flechette¹, an all-purpose² medium-range³ missile design descended from the AMM-1 Arrow⁴ that was the VF-1 Valkyrie's multipurpose modular missile.  It follows the actual physical models in that it says the fighter can take twelve of them, where some official coverage is inexplicably wooly on the actual number.

Like pretty much every other source, Variable Fighter Master File: VF-4 Lightning III dodges the question of the bore on the VF-4's beam cannons... the closest it gets to giving an answer is the claim that the VF-X-4 and other prototypes were outfitted with a variant of the VF-1's laser guns there instead (the Mauler ROV-20K laser cannon).  It takes a turn for the weird when the book's description turns to the production version though, as the production unit is described as having mounted an OTEC XX-1 heavy quantum reaction beam cannon⁵ there instead of the official spec charged particle beam cannon.

 

11 hours ago, Mommar said:

It had four different types listed but you'll need somebody who can read Japanese to explain what they're all about. 

Well, more like four variants of the same missile... IIRC in high explosive, incendiary, high-maneuver, and thermonuclear reaction flavors.  No word on when seasonal variants armed with pumpkin spice or peppermint warheads will be available.  

 

1. "Flechette" is its name, it is not a flechette warhead.  It borders on a punny name, as the AMM-3 is slightly smaller than the AMM-1 Arrow, the French word "flechette" meaning "little arrow".

2. Air-to-air, air-to-surface, air-to-ground... really, more an "air-to-anything-that-looks-at-me-funny" missile at this point thanks to the integrated multiple guidance system and OTMat high explosive warhead.

3. The term "medium range" was used rather loosely for the AMM-1 Arrow, since it was so heavily modularized you'd swear they contracted it out to LEGO and could have an engagement range of anywhere from 50km to several hundred km depending on how it was equipped.

4. The standard all-purpose medium-range missile the VF-1 Valkyrie was depicted using in the original Super Dimension Fortress Macross series... the ones on the pylon triple-rack.

5. Described as derived from Zentradi overtechnology, and apparently meant to be a predecessor to the OTEC XX-2 heavy quantum reaction beam cannon mounted on the VF-22's monitor turret.

[Sildani]

And there you have it. Many thanks Seto! I suppose the various warheads also explain the missiles’ varying lengths and subtly different shapes. 

As for the cannon: too bad we have to reach for info. I suppose each packs more punch than a GU-11, though. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Sildani

[Seto Kaiba]

34 minutes ago, Sildani said:

And there you have it. Many thanks Seto! I suppose the various warheads also explain The missiles’ varying lengths and subtly different shapes. 

If you think that's bad, you should see the VF-1 book's gallery of all the different versions of the AMM-1... long range versions, short-range versions, high-maneuverability versions, versions for special warheads, versions that your VF-1 only wears to fancy dress parties...

The section in the VF-4 book about its equipment is pretty sparse outside of the coverage of the AMM-3, and for good reason... as most of the VF-4's equipment is shared with the VF-1.

[Seto Kaiba]

2 hours ago, Sildani said:

As for the cannon: too bad we have to reach for info. I suppose each packs more punch than a GU-11, though. 

Probably not the Master File prototype version cannon that was just a variant of the VF-1's coaxial laser... but yeah, the official charged particle beam cannon and Master File heavy quantum reaction beam cannon both probably had a bit more stopping power than the GU-11, though that didn't stop the VF-4 from having the option to carry the GU-11.

(Disappointingly, Master File also ignored the other, official mounting for the forearm gun... a 30mm rotary cannon.)

Edited January 5, 2018 by Seto Kaiba

[JB0]

6 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

versions that your VF-1 only wears to fancy dress parties...

I thought the Virgin Road valks were animatien errors!

[Seto Kaiba]

3 minutes ago, JB0 said:

I thought the Virgin Road valks were animatien errors!

It is, and it isn't.

The Virgin Road VF-1 Valkyrie was supposed to be a VF-1D specially repainted in Max's signature colors for the occasion, and is actually referred to as such in Macross Chronicle.  However, an animation error put a VF-1A monitor turret on it.  This is still very much a thing that can happen, since the VF-1's cockpit block and monitor turret are modular. 

[JB0]

I was thinking of the ones that did the beamgun salute, actually. I seem to recall them having a REALLY weird head.

But surely a wedding is a fancy dress party!

[Sir Galahad®]

Sometimes it makes me wonder how big are those micro missiles that you can fit 100 plus in a YF-29. Or 280 in an armored VF-25. How destructive is the power of these missiles and what is their range.

And why does the Chronos carry only 36?

[Seto Kaiba]

2 hours ago, Sir Galahad® said:

Sometimes it makes me wonder how big are those micro missiles that you can fit 100 plus in a YF-29. Or 280 in an armored VF-25. How destructive is the power of these missiles and what is their range.

While I could answer all of these individually with a great deal of wasted verbiage, the honest answer is that all three have the same answer: "it varies significantly depending on the model, variant, warhead filler, and intended use of the micromissile in question".  In practice, they're as flexible and modular as the larger missiles.

That said, most micromissiles seem to average around 1-2m long, with most hovering between 20cm and 50cm in diameter.  Very little information exists on yield for micromissiles.  Range-wise, Macross Chronicle describes them as being predominently meant for use on targets within visual range.  Old sources like the Sky Angels book put maximum ranges of 5-12km on most models that were meant for use on the VF-1.  Presumably with time and improvements in engine technology, range and acceleration have both improved.  Yield is a sticky question since some micromissiles, like the VF-19's, seem to be little more than medium-range missile designs with a smaller modular motor bolted on while others are much smaller.  Most seem to be a fraction of the strength of the medium-range missiles, something presumably compensated for by quantity.  Of course, if you stick a thermonuclear reaction or MDE warhead in there, all bets are off.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Galahad® said:

And why does the Chronos carry only 36?

The YF-30 Chronos's multipurpose ordnance container has 36 micromissile launch ports... that doesn't necessarily mean that it has just 36 missiles.  Usually, you can count on a micromissile launcher port having somewhere between 3 and 6 missiles in the bay feeding it¹, which conservatively speaking would suggest 108 micromissiles in a container that is essentially about the size that the YF-29's external launchers are, combined.  The YF-29's twelve launchers hold an average of 8 missiles apiece.

1. e.g. the VF-1's FAST packs, YF-19's FAST packs, YF-21's internal launchers, the VF-31's internal launchers, etc.

[SMS007]

If the VF-31's beam gunpod is not MDE-equipped as with the YF-29 and YF-30, then is it basically a less powerful version of the VF-27's?

[Seto Kaiba]

13 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

If the VF-31's beam gunpod is not MDE-equipped as with the YF-29 and YF-30, then is it basically a less powerful version of the VF-27's?

Apparently significantly so, since the VF-31's beam gunpod also seems to lack the "beam grenade" charged shot mode.

[SMS007]

A couple thoughts occur to me: does the VF-31 have any particular advantage in having completely internalized weapons in fighter mode, including the gun pod, compared to previous fighter models?

Though by that factor, wouldn't the forward-swept wings of the VF-9, YF-19 / VF-19, YF-29, and Siegfried VF-31 be un-aerodynamic? And yet we have seen all of those models operate in atmosphere.

[ManhattanProject972]

30 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

Though by that factor, wouldn't the forward-swept wings of the VF-9, YF-19 / VF-19, YF-29, and Siegfried VF-31 be un-aerodynamic? And yet we have seen all of those models operate in atmosphere.

Well it isn't that FSW's aren't un-aerodynamic in fact due to FSW's post stall characteristics it allows for a craft to retain higher controllability at extreme angle of attack making them very maneuverable at low speeds and more controllable at no speed which for a transforming Valkyrie that can stop and fall at will I feel is an ideal setup for them. 

One of the main reasons FSW's are never really used in fighter aircraft is due to there not being materials strong and cheap enough to resist the twisting forces inherent in a FSW. That and FSW's tend to be geared very heavily toward maneuverability and dogfighting that today's doctrine of BVR, stealth, and near inescapable missiles sorta makes them unneeded.

[sketchley]

41 minutes ago, SMS007 said:

A couple thoughts occur to me: does the VF-31 have any particular advantage in having completely internalized weapons in fighter mode, including the gun pod, compared to previous fighter models?

Though by that factor, wouldn't the forward-swept wings of the VF-9, YF-19 / VF-19, YF-29, and Siegfried VF-31 be un-aerodynamic? And yet we have seen all of those models operate in atmosphere.

Both questions can be answered by looking at real world fighter aircraft.

The advantage of completely internalized weapons is an increase in stealthiness (as can be seen with the F-22 et al), and the true aerodynamic performance of the fuselage - all the doodads strapped to the bottom of the aircraft and its wings increases drag (F-18 pilots, among others, are on record for preferring the fighter in a 'clean' (unequipped) form, as it performs much better).

Forward swept wings are not only aerodynamic, but they give the aircraft much more manoeuvrable than rear-swept wings.  However, without some serious computer processing in the avionics for fine tuning the control surfaces, the aircraft cannot fly as effectively - as the wings are inherently unstable.  But the same holds true for pretty much every aircraft after the F-16... (see X-29, Su-47).

 

ManhattanProject972 beat me to the punch explaining why they are so rare in the real world.

[Seto Kaiba]

8 hours ago, SMS007 said:

A couple thoughts occur to me: does the VF-31 have any particular advantage in having completely internalized weapons in fighter mode, including the gun pod, compared to previous fighter models?

Others have explained this, but there are a few points I want to clarify.

Namely, that fully internalized weaponry offers improved aerodynamic performance and improved passive stealth performance... but, in the tradeoff, the aircraft sacrifices some of its operational payload versatility, capacity for ammunition or internal stores may be reduced, and some weapons may experience reduced field of fire or become unavailable or difficult to use in one or more modes.  Whether this tradeoff is worth it or not is one of the persistent back-and-forths that, like whether to have one all-regime VF or several regime-optimized VF designs, seems to come and go between fighter generations.

The VF-31's not actually a fully-internalized weapons type though... it has underwing pylons meant for carrying medium- or long-ranged ordnance, and some ordnance containers are set up in such a way that the gunpod has to be mounted separately.  They just don't use the pylons because Xaos is deliberately sending its VF-31s into combat under-equipped in an attempt to minimize the potential for collateral damage and civilian injury. 

The 4th Generation's keystone VF designs, the VF-19, VF-22, and VF-171, prioritized internally-mounted missiles and bombs because, at the time the first designs in the generation were drafted, active stealth technology had not caught up to the latest advances in detection systems, making the airframe's passive stealthiness more important.  With the VF-19's 2nd mass production type and the VF-171's Block II upgrade, the latest active stealth systems had caught up to the detection systems and passive stealth was no longer as important, making carrying more ordnance externally a more attractive option again.  

 

 

8 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Though by that factor, wouldn't the forward-swept wings of the VF-9, YF-19 / VF-19, YF-29, and Siegfried VF-31 be un-aerodynamic? And yet we have seen all of those models operate in atmosphere.

Not un-aerodynamic, but rather deliberately unstable... increasing the available angle of attack for maneuvering.

It's that increase in maneuverability stemming from the deliberate sacrifice of stability that the FSW VFs are after, and which also proved to be the achilles heel of the VF-19, making it a barely-controllable mess due to the high g-forces it could impose on the pilot.

[Sildani]

Seto, when you have a chance, think you could post a pic of where the VF-4’s hardpoints supposedly go? Thanks!

[Seto Kaiba]

18 minutes ago, Sildani said:

Seto, when you have a chance, think you could post a pic of where the VF-4’s hardpoints supposedly go? Thanks!

This image from the old Musasiya 1/72 VF-4A Lightning III kit is accurate for the placement of the outer wing pylons.

The pylon stations inboard of the wings are a little different from what's shown there in more recent works, which show one pylon inboard of the nacelle instead of two, positioned centrally between the centerline and nacelle just in front of the thrust-vectoring nozzle for the in-wing ramjet.

Variable Fighter Master File: VF-4 Lightning III shows that placement appropriately (will grab a pic when I get home) but also has an unofficial extra pair of pylon stations directly fore of that official one.

[Sildani]

Thanks, and that reminds me-what’s the purpose of that ramjet? It seems to me it would only work in atmosphere, since its propellant needs would probably be super-high. Does the design really need more thrust than the turbines and rocket boosters provide?

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, Sildani said:

Thanks, and that reminds me-what’s the purpose of that ramjet? It seems to me it would only work in atmosphere, since its propellant needs would probably be super-high. Does the design really need more thrust than the turbines and rocket boosters provide?

Essentially, each of the VF-4's three main propulsion systems is suited for a particular job:

• Its FF-2011 thermonuclear reaction turbine engines are the all-purpose main engines meant to operate at all altitudes and in space.  As their output isn't much improved over the FF-2009s in the VF-1, their ideal operating conditions are in traditional atmospheric service where they can leverage the monstrous fuel efficiency of the gravitationally-moderated fusion reactor.
• The wing-integral ramjet engines exist to supplement or stand in for the VF-4's thermonuclear reaction turbine engines in atmospheric service to achieve higher speeds or operate at higher altitudes where the ramjets are more efficient and capable of achieving greater thrust than a conventional turbofan jet engine and with significantly greater endurance than a rocket.
• The rocket boosters in the engine nacelles are for use in space and fulfill much the same role that the rockets in the VF-1's FAST packs did.  Thermonuclear reaction turbines consume fuel orders of magnitude faster in space because they're using plasma siphoned off the reactor for propellant in the absence of the air they'd be flash-heating in atmosphere.  Those rockets are there principally to extend the fighter's maximum operating time by reducing thrust demands on the thermonuclear reaction turbines and thus reducing fuel consumption.  Left without the rockets, a VF-4 could eat through its onboard fuel stores at maximum thrust in under half an hour.

 

Basically, the VF-4 has such variety in its engine systems because it's trying to be as fuel-efficient and versatile as possible.

[Sildani]

Find the pic, sir?

[Seto Kaiba]

10 hours ago, Sildani said:

Find the pic, sir?

Yeah, sorry... I ended up a little distracted last night.  Had to clean the lizard terrarium, and that's not a task for the faint of heart.

So this is the image I was talking about.  The pairs of circles are the attachment points for the pylons, at least according to Master File.  The positioning of the inboard pylon attachment points are more or less in line with the model kits WRT the placement of the pylons dead-center between the center body and nacelles.  There's some variation in how far forward they're depicted as being, I'm inclined to suspect the two pairs of attachment points shown here are another Master File attempt to rationalize most versions.  In the art in Master File itself and the few kits that actually support pylon attachments, the most commonly used position is either the forward pair shown in the art here or one that's directly between the two positions shown (on top of the cover plate for the hip joint actuator).

Six pylons is the official number, but I confess I rather like this eight pylon configuration idea.  It wouldn't work with large ordnance on the inboard pylons, but something smaller like triple racks of AMM-1s or Mk-82 bombs would work fine.

[Sildani]

That’s excellent. Many thanks Seto!

[Seto Kaiba]

1 hour ago, Sildani said:

That’s excellent. Many thanks Seto!

No problemo... despite its obscurity in Macross proper, the VF-4 seems to be a favorite of most of the people who've worked with me on various Macross projects, so we're always happy to dig into it.  (Enough so that I keep an Arcadia VF-4G done up to look like Hikaru's VF-4A-0 on my desk at work.)

Weirdly, while the VF-4 has had a few high-profile appearances, I don't think it's ever had a canon appearance where it was actually using its pylons for something.  The VF-4A-0 in Flash Back 2012 was running in the "naked" configuration, so was Mahara Fabrio's VF-4G in Macross 7 Trash, and Maximilian Jenius's VF-4G in Macross M3.  We've seen the beam cannon-less version in the Macross R materials though, and one with a colossal Zeta Gundam-esque beam gunpod in Macross: Eternal Love Song...

(... and I've just realized I still have to finish that translation of the YF-19-3 manual for cypherzero.  I dunno WTF is wrong with me these days, I've become so forgetful...)

Edited January 9, 2018 by Seto Kaiba

[Sildani]

If you’re of my generation, Seto, it’s just plain age. I’ve never had a mind like a steel trap, but over the last year I’ve noticed I’m forgetting stuff I meant to do. 

[azrael]

 

4 hours ago, Sildani said:

If you’re of my generation, Seto, it’s just plain age. I’ve never had a mind like a steel trap, but over the last year I’ve noticed I’m forgetting stuff I meant to do. 

As my doctors say, you’re getting old. Just wait till you go to the doctor for injuries that don’t heal as fast or that you use to laugh off. Or the best one, a wear-&-tear injury.