Lit Fleet Junkie Flagship- The technical discussions of the GFFA (Capital Ships thread Mk. II)

"Last one to the Y-Wing sits in the astromech socket!"

 

From the new squadrons trialer, could this be the new canon version of the XQ Platform?




Also

 

I remember there's a scene in Battlefront II where a Gozanti cruiser incorrectly lands on its docking tubes instead of using its landing gear (which probably wasn't even modeled for the game). Hilariously, here the issue is exactly the opposite:

 

It covers other franchises in addition to Star Wars (as well as real life), but I figured this video might interest some people here.

 

Oh the Electronic Warfare variant of the Gozanti seen in Rebels is in the trailer. It also has its landing gear down.. all of the Gozanti's appear to have them down.

And the Quasar Fire, though it's looking a little stretched/squished, but that might be from lens distortion.


Saw this pointed out on Reddit, the CR-90s seem to be upgraded with a third gun turret on the 'wings', or whatever you want to call them.

 

Another interesting things of note from the trailer (though one which has been discussed a bit before), the Starhawk is clearly a very different model. Aside from the general shape, there's honestly more differences than similarities compared to the Armada model.






Most importantly, beyond all of the aesthetic differences, the Squadrons models seems to be missing shield domes and also seems to be significantly smaller (maybe 1800m?). Since the story seems to indicate that this is the first Starhawk ever built, it's possible that it's simply a prototype that was built more as a proof-of-concept, likely even lacking the necessary salvage material to make it any bigger than it is.

It seems to me that these changes are necessitated by gameplay. It's unknown if the Starhawk will show up in multiplayer, but at least in the campaign there seems to be a mission where a Starhawk and its escort face down a Star Destroyer and its support fleet. The Armada Starhawk would likely be too big for the game, both in the sense that it could never feasibly lose to a Star Destroyer but also purely from a gameplay/performance perspective. So they sized it down, took away its overpowered shields, and will likely just explain it away as a prototype.

I do appreciate that they took the time to make it visually distinct though, would have been easy to just scale down a standard Starhawk and call it a day. The Squadrons version has an entirely different engine array, 4 giant pods on either sides of the main top structure, and additional structure on the "wings" just to name a few things. They really managed to just visually make it look a little unrefined and like a prototype. The "wings" in particular look much more like they were just literally cut off of a Star Destroyer and glued on to the Starhawk.

 

Yeah the prototype part is probably the explanation.

 

I'm guessing it's just meant to be visual feedback for the players.

 

I don't think that's a huge worry in this situation. From what we've seen, at least the first part of the campaign revolves around the Starhawk project, and this being the first Starhawk ever built seems be a pretty big deal within the story. Nobody would really question a bigger and more advanced version showing up in later media. Besides, the two versions are honestly similar enough the average fan might not even notice.

I know the story group isn't perfect, but the Starhawk project has been made to be a huge deal post-Endor. I can't see them ignoring the previous depiction, which they would have likely approved around the same time as this one given development timelines, when there's no real need to. It seems to me that the difference in depictions is pretty purposeful, if you look at the Squadrons model it looks like they've really given the model some thought.

Just look at the AT-AT. They've stuck with the canonical design for the time period regardless of what is more recognizable. Would have been beyond easy to ignore the Rebels depiction as a stylization.

 

Maybe just artistic license like the TIEs in Rebels.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about it. If later works show this other model of Starhawk? Well then I guess it means the kinks in the prototype design were worked out, and they ended up making more of them. It could be a split like the two different Imp Star Destroyer designs.

And the tractor beam showing a visible light beam? Do you realize how many Star Wars video games have shown objects or enemies surrounded with a blue glow when you use Force powers? Video games have always have a bit of artistic license associated with them. It's why sometimes lightsabers come across more as glowing baseball bats or Kyle Katarn can carry 17 weapons at once.

 

Speaking of which, why are blaster bolts so ugly in so many games? Instead of an elongated glowy thing that zips quickly through the air or vacuum, we get these rounded blobs or pellets that sail along incredibly slowly (*cough* KotOR, Empire at War *cough*). It can't be that difficult to make them look just like the movies...

 

I'd be surprised if Starhawks looked identical to each other given their origins, maybe they're like Mon Cala cruisers where there are supposed to be many different variants but on screen we only see the 2 notable ones (although the different size could be an issue). I count at least 16 heavy ISD turbolaser turrets on the game model, that ship's carrying a punch.
EDIT: I checked and the Armada version mounts 10 instead, 6 on the top and 4 on the bottom side.

 

I mean, it could be that for the Starhawk (ortor eventeven thisbthis particular) glow when used as a unique quirk that can be easily explained.

 

I can't remember a specific example off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure at least a few video games have shown the "glowing blue Force push" even during cutscenes. Meaning even if it's not to make gameplay easier it's a depiction different from the films to make something that's normally invisible visible for once. It is a bit of a departure. But for tractor beams we could always chalk it up to some models using more energy or different wavelengths so some have visible beams and some don't.

Actually now that I think of it, couldn't the same thing be said for energy shields? IIRC we don't see shields on the Falcon in the OT, or around either of the Death Stars. Yet in other times the shields are a visible glowing barrier. Is this just artistic license? Or are some energy shields invisible? Has that ever been established?

 

How 'bout the shields on the hangars of the Invisible Hand? Which now that I think about it, is a pretty weird use of shields.