A/V Battlefront II: Campaign Content (spoiler tags required for DLC story)

A part of the Empire in the same way this person is a high-ranking Imperial official.



The moment it was clear the Emperor was dead, I imagine the local militias and forces marched every Imperial they could against the nearest wall and shot them. The Empire believed strongly in casting aside the trust of the people for fear but that only worked as long as the Empire looked invulnerable.

It had sacrificed too much in its two Death Stars to be able to fight the entire universe.

 

Even the PSFs (or equivalents) of, say, Kashyyyk and Mon Cala? Also I remember the Rogue One Visual Dictionary saying some pilots joined the Alliance when the Empire nationalized their planet's security force. Just because a planet is "officially" part of the Empire doesn't mean it's security force is loyal. And just because the Empire is trying to be the only military around doesn't mean it's always successful or that it can replace every mall cop in the galaxy with a Stormtrooper.

It's important to remember that space ships are easily within reach of the common man in Star Wars. In our world it would be unusual to find a fighter jet in the hands of a poor backwater farmer or a member of the mafia, but not so in Star Wars.

 

This is also notably canon as the entire point of "Shattered Empire" isn't the Emperor trying to murder as many people as possible (though that was there) but Princess Leia goes to important planets both symbolic or otherwise like Naboo and gets them to rise up against the Empire. Naboo goes within days of the Emperor falling and it's clear the people there HATE the Emperor. If Naboo goes, how many others in the Chommel Sector will follow since it's their Sector Capital?

People keep trying to treat the Empire as the United States when it's mostly an occupying force everywhere but the Core Worlds.

We also have the canon fact the Separatist worlds LOATHED the Empire and were NEVER loyal so there's another chunk of the galaxy eager to rise up. That's in addition to slave worlds, worlds brutalized like Lothal, and planets which regretted the Empire dissolving their representation. When Charles I didn't call parliament for years, the Barons didn't remain loyal.

 

So?! Leia Organa was a traitor. Most of the Senate was loyal. In the beginning the Alderaanian PSFs defected but that is completely insignificant as nearly all the other PSFs didn't budge.

One man won't make a difference in an empire of quadrillions. Those 25,000s ISDs won't disappear overnight.

We can only speculate.

Ah yes, Operation Cinder. I guess I'm thinking too much in terms of the EU Empire. Canon Imperials are the ultimate mustache twirlers. If the Empire really assaulted it's entire population then of course everyone hated it.

 

1. The Emperor didn't think so as he dissolved it.

2. They all shifted to serving the New Republic within 5 years of Endor but a handful. So, in the EU, no. Canon, even less so. In neither universe did anyone but the actual Imperial Navy and stormtroopers remain loyal.

What is your excuse for why so much of the galaxy sided with the New Republics?

As the Rogue Squadron books showed, the ISDs are really insignificant compared to a missile spam. The Lusunkya was brought down by starfighters.

Lucas' movies show widespread celebration while the EU and canon both show massive Imperial infrastructure collapse post-Endor.

I actually think the canon EU has so far been less mustache-twirly because of Lost Stars. Pryce is certainly a better Imperial than Daala.

 

Both Canon and Legends have shown that while Star Destroyers are tough, they are not invincible. You don't even need capital ships, one man fighters can do the job under the right circumstances. Also Twilight Company makes the case that Star Destroyers drain a lot of resources (fuel, food, manpower ect.). Not to mention that a large part of the fleet fled into the Unknown Regions (I assume that the game will let us see at least the beginning of this first hand), so many basically did disappear overnight.

But I just listed several security forces that weren't loyal (Kasshyyk, Mon Cala, those Rogue One pilots). So it's not speculation.

Operation Cinder wasn't targeted against the entire population, but "dozens" of worlds. And Legends also has several examples of the Empire attacking civilians, the most notable example I can think of is when Toprawa was reduced to a near post-apocalyptic state and it's citizens forced to prostate themselves to the Imps and beg for food. In comparison Operation Cinder is much less "mustache twirling". The weapon of choice, weather satellites, may be a bit theatrical, but the Empire massacring civilians is nothing new to either Canon or Legends.

 

I think the real reason was simply to eliminate a check on Palpatine's power. Installations like Scarif had to be hidden from the Senate. If the Senate was filled with Rebels that would've been an afterthought; It was really just inconvenient for them.

Of course they did. The Empire was effectively dead at that point.

I think that's just the Rogue Squadron books. If capital ships were really such glass cannons they wouldn't have been the predominant force of galactic navies for millennia.

That was continuity spaghetti which was quickly retconned.

Those planets still remained under control of the warlords. Central command was shattered but the Imperial mass never evaporated.

 

Then wouldn't the Rebel fleet be just as vulnerable? Wouldn't the Mon Cal cruisers just get targeted by bombers? By this logic both fleets would've been decimated just leaving starfighters to fight it out.

 

Ok, it does happen, particularly back in legends, but not all that often, and they seem stricter about it now (no imperial nebs or cr90s)

1. Very true (plus there could be a lot of imperials deserting without defecting necessarily, which would also help)

2. Indeed.

Plus, who calls themselves "separatists" - it such an...unromantic (though admittedly not pejorative either) term. It also doesn't sound like a good name for something trying to set itself up as its own government - and as we saw in the clone wars cartoon, they had a parliament and everything - since it is defining itself in opposition to something rather than standing for something, if that makes any sense.

If this was a strategy game perhaps, or if they were fighting another galaxy. In practice though...paramilitary forces not directly part of the central government's army have historically often been said army's most common opponents.

 

A little late but FONDOOOOOOOORRRR

**** I gotta play Rogue Squadron III now.

Sent from Hell--depending on whether or not it exists.

 

Do you have any similar opinion toward Imperials of The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi?

Here was a controversial Lost Stars review.

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1415491622?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1

Basically a reviewer who couldn't get past the fact Ciena Re believed the Death Star was justified and considered her a psychopath.

But yes, basically every Imperial after A New Hope is someone who is either in deep denial about Alderaan (Ciena Re in particular) or they're people who can be like it. Veers, Piett, Ozzel, Jerjerrod, and others are all Imperials who have seen Alderaan's destruction and are clearly comfortable with creating another Death Star for the purposes of destroying other worlds. The First Order attacked a military target with Starkiller base and did so to bring a swift end to the war while the Empire didn't.

Every single Imperial at Endor probably believes what the First Order did was justified as they're protecting the Second Death Star. That includes Inferno Squadron so I don't foresee them veiwing the First Order as substantially different from the Empire. I am hoping for Imperials who show the First Order to be a force for order and stability as well as a hope for the galaxy who are PROFOUNDLY MISGUIDED but still just people on the other side of the war.

Basically people like Arcade Ganon and the Enclave Remnants in Fallout: New Vegas. People who lost their home and wanted to build a new life for themselves and their children. Yes, some of them were scum but the majority were just fighting for their nation.

 

I seem to recall a few Rogue Squadron video game missions that involved defending capital ships from TIE bombers, so yes they probably have the same vulnerability. And no, both fleets would not just be destroyed leaving only fighters, because combat is more than just rock-paper-scissors. Fighters equipped with bombs and torpedoes can damage capital ships, but they're also vulnerable to turbolaser fire and enemy fighters, ect.

My point is not that capital ships are made of paper mache, or that fighters have an advantage against Star Destroyers. My point is, contrary to your statement "One man won't make a difference in an empire of quadrillions. Those 25,000s ISDs won't disappear overnight.", one man star-fighters can and have destroyed Star Destroyers in both Legends and Canon. Usually it's portrayed as a tough fight and difficult accomplishment, but it's not impossible. Or as Tarkin said in Legends "I maintain that the effectiveness of the Star Destroyer stems from not only its massive firepower, but from its size. When citizens look at a Star Destroyer and then compare it to the craft which might be mustered to attack it, they have a tendency to dismiss such a notion as suicidal rather than approach the problem tactically."

Also,
Charlemagne19 said: ↑

Lucas' movies show widespread celebration​

The retcon was that the celebration/uprising on Coruscant was quashed by the authorities, but not that it never happened. So the point that the Emperor's death was widely celebrated still stands.

 

Why would starfighters EXIST if not for attacking capital ships?

 

I understand that argument and thank you for articulating it but for me, I tend to think the Empire is the more evil of the two for almost exactly the same reason. At the end of the day, the Empire's troopers and leadership were living in a fairly open society which was gradually morphing into a more totalitarian one. They KNEW Alderaan was a planet of pacifists, a Core World, and a planet which had a history of nonviolent resistance as well as freedom plus culture. The Empire destroyed it anyway and claimed credit for it.

The First Order, by contrast, is full of people who have been raised to believe the Republic is evil, anarchic, and evil. They don't know anything else and as such can't be called EVIL instead of grossly misinformed.

The Empire's troopers have no excuse.

To an extent, this is why Finn is a character that fascinates me as he's a character who couldn't reconcile the propaganda with the truth. The First Order sent him to murder innocents and get themselves killed doing so versus fighting for a better galaxy.

 

Imperials would have a different mindset than others. Th Imperial is ultimately a cynical character. Imperials believe democracy has failed and thus autocracy is necessary. It doesn't matter if they like it, it's just what must be done. Same with superweapons. It's an awful construct but having a deterrent is much better than actually having to wage war with hostiles. Alderaan was tragic but the Imperial would find it necessary. Same with anyone who found Hiroshima necessary. You could take a third option but why risk it.

 

Mind you, the attitude behind Alderaan is the fact it's not Alderaan was an enemy state. It's that Alderaan was a FRIENDLY state. It's to show no one is safe and the Empire can kill anyone at any time for any reason. Which is a reflection that Palpatine and Tarkin are nuts. It's one of the moments I liked of Rogue One that the Empire blows up Jedha not because there's an insurrection on the planet but because it's there.

VADER is the only one who reacts like they need to have some plausible deniability there.

 

I would disagree strongly with that, simply because there are too many examples in the canon of Imperial characters whose loyalty to the Empire is clearly based on an excess of misguided idealism. Remember, disbelieving in democracy is not synonymous with being cynical. That's as true in real life as it is in fiction - political history is littered with bad causes that were passionately supported by intelligent and principled individuals who found ways to justify what they were doing (or knew that others were doing) in the name of some greater good.

When it comes to Imperial characters in Star Wars, I think they tend to fall into two groups - let's call them the "sympathetic Imperials" and the "villainous Imperials" for the sake of argument - who are distinguished from each other not by allegiance but by the essential worldview that motivates their belief in the rule of Empire as the best available option for the Galaxy.

The villainous imperials are characterized by an outlook that is more or less pure social Darwinism, or to put it in terms organic to the Star Wars universe, the philosophy of the Sith manifested as a theory of government. The "survival of the fittest" and "strong dominate the weak" is pretty much the extent of their moral values, so they don't blink at the atrocities of the Empire - the genocide, the slavery, the decadence, the corruption - because as far as they're concerned, those things aren't "necessary evils", they're the entire point of the exercise. The only limits they acknowledge are "can we get away with this", never "should we do that?"

By contrast, the sympathetic imperials - Ciena Ree, Rae Sloane, Iden Versio, Wullf Yularen, Nash Windrider (pre-Alderaan), Ransolm Casterfo (technically not an imperial, but he has the mindset), and arguably Thrawn all qualify as examples - choose to serve the Empire, because they see it as a mechanism for creating, spreading, and enforcing peace, law, and order throughout a troubled and dysfunctional galaxy. They vary in terms of the degree of ruthlessness and willful blindness that maintains their loyalty to an evil regime (contrast Ciena, who became so disillusioned that she opted for suicide to escape her oath of loyalty, versus Sloane, who stuck with the cause to the point of founding the First Order) but all see the darkness in the system, and rationalize it by either foisting the blame onto "bad imperials" or looking forward to the future when they imagine the Empire will assume its idealized form.

The "sympathetic imperial" is one of my favorite types of Star Wars character to read about, because they are ultimately tragic characters - worthy individuals who for one reason or another fail to understand that they're fighting for an unworthy cause.

Palpatine and Tarkin weren't nuts, they were hubristic. Their strategy was evil, but not irrational.

If the Death Star hadn't contained the design flaws that enabled the Rebels to destroy it, it would have been the perfect tool to enforce a reign of terror across the entire galaxy. We see in Rogue One what the mere hint of its power can accomplish - causing most of the Rebel leadership to think that it's time to throw in the towel and cut a deal with the Empire while they still have the chance. If it hadn't been destroyed at Yavin, the Empire might never have been overthrown.

The Imperials are basically correct in their theory that "invincible planet-killing superweapon + demonstrated willingness to use it against ANYONE who defies us = unassailable dominion of the galaxy". The problem is the "invincible" part - you have to make sure that the superweapon is actually invulnerable against attack, otherwise it doesn't work.

 

I can actually understand where C19 is coming from, to an extent, in that the overwhelming majority of First Order personnel are essentially brainwashed, whereas somebody like Tarkin who does horrible things in the name of the Empire is more of a "conscious" evil. But by that same token, though, characters like the Battleground protagonists who have actually been involved from the Imperial era are going to be very hard to portray as "sympathetic" in any sense beyond that of the somewhat-tragic villain.

 

We don't actually know that for sure.

As of now, we have no reliable info about what sort of empire the First Order built in the Unknown Regions, and on the worlds that have come under their control or influence since Bloodline.

NO MOVIE RUMORS ALLOWED.

 

The idea the First Order is some sort of death cult is bizarre. The First Order didn't destroy Hosnian Prime for revenge or to plunge the galaxy into chaos or some weird Operation: Cinder Part II. They did it because they're going to CONQUER the New Republic and bring its territories in line with First Order ideals.

Hux states the New Republic has engaged in acts of war against the First Order and denied its involvement in funding the Resistance. Then the FO discovered they were going after Luke Skywalker and this terrified them into believing they had to do a pre-emptive strike.

What, exactly, is irrational and chaotic about any of this?

It seems fairly Thrawn like tactics. The First Order was threatened by the New Republic and felt they had to hit first. Conquest is also nothing new. The Empire did it all the time. Heck, the Old Republic did it all the time. It's also stated to be, directly, to bring order to the galaxy.



Hell, the First Order's NAME tells you what they're about. Order.

"All will bow before the First Order" is a statement of dominion not annihilation.

 

Charlemagne19, exactly.

The destruction of Hosnian Prime is basically the attack on Pearl Harbor, except dialed up to eleven. They're working on the theory that if you decapitate the political and military leadership, the New Republic will be toppled.

Ironically, that strategy is reflective of the experience they gained from the downfall of the old Empire being caused by the death of Palpatine. They misread their enemy by failing to appreciate that "cut off the head and the body will perish" just doesn't work as well against a democracy as it does against a dictatorship.