Mr March

In context of some of these future histories, a planet buster is NOT mutually assured destruction in the same context of nuclear proliferation like the state in which we exist today. Which is exactly the problem with mass destruction in the age of space travel: mutually assured destruction is no longer possible. To mutually assure destruction requires no escape. But once interstellar travel and the ability to colonize other worlds is a reality, there is no such thing as mutually assured destruction in an infinite universe. Someone destroys your planet, you simply depart for another. Someone destroys the galaxy, you move to the next. There's no way to mutually assure destruction once a civilization is no longer bound to a single world, short of somehow destroying all reality, which is quite beyond the scope of this discussion I would think But this does go back to what was said about warfare and how it constantly changes. The first side to realize the fluidly mobile nature of warfare in space will triumph in open war. It's one reason I've always found most sci-fi rather silly in depictions of space warfare, with their neutral zone, "space border" and territory foolishness. In space warfare any empire chained to notions of static holdings, territory and gains will quickly fall to a mobile empire. In space, a defender could afford to endlessly "give ground" to any potential aggressor with little impact upon their ability to make war. When the aggressor could stretch no further, they'd fall to a defender who can counter attack using the entire galaxy in which to hide. There is no napalm to destroy the "foliage of the wilds" in space. It would be much like Macross; the Zentradi Army and the Supervision Army locked in an unending conflict for hundreds of thousands of years, neither side ever able to destroy the other, a futile fight without end to track down an ever mobile enemy in the limitless jungle of the galaxy. Such is the nature of war in the battlefield of space, in my imagination that is

Well that solves that; the VF-0 Phoenix lasers are pretty much useless for anything except point defense which follows the whole non-thermonuclear powered valkyrie theory. By the time of SDF Macross, the VF-1 Valkyrie was blowing holes through Regulds and Q-Rau's with the head cannons likely due to a far greater power source for the laser cannons. Makes sense.

Yep, that's the Zola forces VF-5000G. Looks like a really nice picture too. Here's the version from my website:

I think a lot of the problem with firepower in Macross stems from the needs of the plot. Various weapons can appear as extremely destructive or extremely ineffective based on the needs of the particular story. Sometimes gun pods are shown doing little damage (Max vs. Milia's Q-Rau, SDFM ep 16) sometimes they are shown doing a lot of damage (same episode, Roy vs. the same Q-Raus). Sometimes head lasers are shown doing a lot of damage (Roy in SDFM vs. Reguld pod, Roy vs. Octos in Macross Zero) while other times they are not (Shin's VF-0D vs SV-51 in M0). As far as I can tell, gun pods, lasers and missiles do comparable amounts of damage in most circumstances. The only factor that appears to mitigate firepower is either the needs of the story or our perception based on the frequency of usage. I've heard fans say they believe the various valkyrie weapons serve different purposes and roles. I agree this makes much more sense, but in practice, the valkyrie weapons are used for every situation and demonstrate firepower beyond any perceived niche function. Even if the creators intended certain weapons on the valkyries to be more powerful/useful than the other weapons (such as the case of the omni-present gun pod being the "main gun" versus the lasers being only "point defense") it's clear the rules will be broken at their earliest convenience. The laser weapon versus beam weapon is an interesting issue, but the more I've thought about it the more it appears the difference is almost insignificant. The only constant seems to be that beam cannons and lasers are almost always small-to-medium bore weapons. Large beam guns like the VF-4 Lightning III, the VF-1S Strike Valkyrie, the YF-19 Heavy Weapons Pack and the VF-27 seem to be heavy weapons that are not required for most combat missions. Especially since gun pods can obviously modified or built to suit any operation requirement, lasers and beam guns are just an optional energy base solution to the same problem. Btw, in the last update of the M3 I made some very basic entries for the weapons in the Macropedia section. It doesn't really go into any detail; it's just basic information that any fan would know wathcing the anime. But perhaps the information is relevant in some way to this discussion. Here they are:

I just can't see planet busting being taboo in any way. But that's me. Perhaps the destruction of a world might be rare, but I just can't see it being forever avoided. Eventually someone will have the power and the will to do it and it'll happen. If the history of war has taught us anything it's that escalation of conflict is inevitable. If humans can achieve genocide, they'll do it. If they can nuke cities, they'll do it. If they can destroy planets, they'll do it. Only question is when and how.

That's probably why they have wing root/intake/hip guns, as I said. The Reguld is roughly one-quarter taller than a Valkyrie (consists largely of very thin legs) yet height is supposed to explain why it weighs over three times as much? At the same time the Reguld is supposedly lightly armored yet weighs 37 tons? Doesn't make sense to me. Regardless, this is driving off topic and we're gonna get told. Make a new thread if you want.

Don't worry, I have faith in you

If the SV-51 is actually taking direct hits from the VF-0D, it's the weakest Macross laser in existence. If those aren't light flashes from near misses and are instead actual hits, the laser impacted right on the SV-51 canopy glass and didn't go through. If I had to go with an in-universe explanation, I'd agree with hobbes that it is likely the fault of the VF-0 being powered by conventional engines. But I wouldn't; I'd call that scene 100% creative license and poor creativity at that. Just the scene before Shin's VF-0 is shown blasting through the main sensor on the Octos. The head lasers on Roy's VF-0S are shown obliterating an entire Octos in the Macross Zero series! Worse still, the energy converting armor of the pre-thermonuclear reaction engine Valkyries used in M0 is described as hard as a tank. So the VF-0 head laser couldn't even take out armor as hard as a tank, yet it took out an Octos. Somehow the Octos doesn't come across to me as lightly armored as a Humvee Shin didn't do jack to the SV-51 because the script demanded it. When it does, Roy's blowing up Octos' in Zero, Regulds in SDF Macross and Max is blowing holes in Milia's DYRL Q-Rau. And if Guld and Brera had as much to worry from the head lasers as Nora's glass canopy, they would have owned Isamu and Alto respectively

LOL! Perhaps more going on inside that wing than we know. Oh the scandal! News at 11:00 Seriously, I understand. My post was mainly to voice my own thoughts, not really to make a point, except where I read some odd interpretations of the Valkyries/Macross universe. I really like it when the Valkyries fire all weapons. Just looks so damn lethal. I noticed an homage to Hikaru's death run on Bodolzaa in episode 14 of Frontier when Alto unleashed "full firepower" on the Vajra Queen. Loves my guns

I find most of the Macross villains entirely disposable and tragically ineffective. Not at all unexpected given that Macross is a children's show. For the most part, the villains only manage to inflict real damage during their final finish in which they themselves die. Kamjin, Bodolzaa, Sharon Apple, Gepernitch, Gigile, D.D. Ivanov/Nora Polyansky, et cetera. They were all tragically impotent and if they did cause any significant damage it was just before they got taken out like punks Generally speaking, the only effective forces in Macross are generally the mass of anonymous armies. The Zentradi as an Army were devastating; they beat the UN Spacy fleet early in the war and then obliterated Earth, nearly killing the entire human race. The Varauta destroyed the Megaroad-13 fleet, the Macross 5 fleet and gave the Macross 7 fleet hell. The Vajra also appear quite lethal, though they are more or less on equal terms so far with the NUNS/SMS. Hell, Roy got taken out by three nameless Queadluun-Raus, not any named villain

If head cannons on the later valkyries were of no danger to another valkyrie, there'd be no reason to bother avoiding them, especially if one loses a superior tactical position by evading. There'd also be no reason to build head cannons if they served no role that the other weapons couldn't accomplish (the YF-21 would be the perfect case in point, given the manner in which the weapons are mounted). Nevertheless, Guld obviously felt his YF-21 threatened by Isamu's rear cannons as did Brera's VF-27 in the line of fire from Alto's VF-25, so they are obviously lethal weapons. The head cannons have been established as anti-mecha weapons since the original series and there's no reason to assume they have become any less. There's nothing to say SWI-era mecha were less/more heavily armored than any other era. In fact, given the Zentradi mecha are 30-40 tons compared to the valkyries that sit between 8-14 tons, the Zentradi mecha were probably the heaviest armored mecha of all Macross until Frontier introduced the Vajra (with the possible exception of the VB-6 Konig or the FBz-99 Saubergeran). Discussing rear versus front facing head cannons, I see very little disadvantage or functional difference for the newer valkyries. Nearly all the valkyries with rear-facing head cannons also have additional forward-facing guns that were not built for the VF-1 Valkyrie/VF-0 Phoenix fighters. Exceptions are the VF-5000 Star Mirage and the VF-11 Thunderbolt, both of which were fighters designed with large micro-missile complements. - The VF-4 has two big beam guns on the outboard engines. - The VF-17 Nightmare has the forward mounted laser cannons on either side of the cockpit; - The YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur has converging energy beam guns in the wing roots; - The YF-21/VF-22 Sturmvogel II has both rear/forward beam guns to the outside of each nacelle; - The VF-171 has the same Nightmare style guns outside the cockpit. - The VF-25 has two forward beam guns on either side of the main intakes. Only real disadvantage I can see is a newer valkyrie would have to roll 90 degrees in flight to use the dorsal-mounted head cannon to mimic the maneuver Max did with his VF-1S head cannon in DYRL. That's not much of a concern to my mind.

Macross II is supposed to be excluded from the time line, isn't it? I thought that was the whole point of placing it in a parallel world; because it's not part of the Studio Nue chronology.

You know what, I was thinking the same thing. That's exactly the kind of crazy thing Sheryl would do. She's like the crazy girls during the Stanley Cup playoffs in Calgary. Never seen so much boobage at once

Honestly, I prefer the lack of a ventral head turret. Granted, the VF-1A was pretty good and as unobtrusive as Kawamori could design it at the time, but I still think the VF-1 head turret (particularly the D, J and S) was an eye sore. I know that's heresy to say about our beloved VF-1 Valkyrie, but the ventral head turret always bothered me. I feel it disturbs the aerodynamic aesthetic. Now functionally, it was damn cool; no argument from me on that. Especially the way the head turret could drop or turn even in Fighter/GERWALK modes. When Hikaru used the head turret to rescue of Misa from the Grand Cannon in SDF Macross it was brilliant and Max's killer head turret shot on Milia's Q-Rau in DYRL was even better; genius, one might say But I have to say I prefer the rear mounted head turrets on the VF-17 Nightmare, the YF-19/VF-19 Excalibur, the YF-21/22 Sturmvogel II and the VF-25 Messiah. Isamu's motion activated shot with the YF-19's rear head turrent on Guld's YF-21 was killer and when Alto opened up with his VF-25's rear head turret, blasting away at Brera in the VF-27, it was fan-gasm at it's finest Of course, it helps that the turrets in the new valkyries are much more seamless and the ventral belly of most modern valkyries are nice and smooth they way they should be.

As far as I've been able to piece together, that appears accurate. SDF Macross was very popular and I understand DYRL was very successful at the box office. From what little I've found in english it appears Macross never took off after the 1982-1984 era partly because it was not followed up, partly because Kawamori refused sequels and partly because Macross was never taken seriously by the owners nor expected to become the success it did. Macross has always been a success story but little more and is probably likened more to something like Serial Experiments Lain or Berserk rather than Gundam. From what I can tell of the franchise itself, Macross is aimed more at hardcore anime audiences than mainstream. Despite it's explosive popularity for those brief few years, Macross is not a top tier staple of popular culture in Japan. Again, this is not to say Macross isn't popular, just placing it within proper context. Macross has apparently maintained a degree of enduring interest outside of the hardcore anime market and successive installments like Macross Plus and Macross 7 have found great popularity and success. There was a 2005 poll called “Nihon Zenkoku Tetei Chousa Suki na Anime Ranking 100″ sponsored by the TV Asahi television network, where Macross ranked 80th out of Japan's top 100 most popular anime titles. Animage, one of the oldest anime magazines in Japan, ranked SDF Macross 31st in a "top 100 most important anime of the 20th century" list published in 2001. This all seems to suggest Macross is low on the mainstream radar for entertainment, but proof of the Macross series' resilience and enduring popularity. There is a tendency, especially by North American fans, to consider Macross a franchise of sequels. Although technically correct, I don't think Macross in Japan is perceived as such a franchise. The Macross sequels are produced so many years apart from each other that a new Macross anime is more akin to a recurring revival of similarly themed anime. I suspect Macross sequels in Japan are thought of more as remakes. Having said all that, it's difficult to examine Macross much more than that. I've tried to accumulate as much information as possible over the years, but it's clear most fans and websites have no reliable information on the subject. Plus, as I recently mentioned in another thread, there's a sad tendency to gauge Macross in direct comparison to Gundam, when it's clear the two shows don't try to achieve the same aims nor necessarily the same market nor comparable potential financial returns.

I repeat, the 1982-84 era, not 25+ years after the fact. And we all know Macross was not Gundam.

And MisaForever is probably more right than he knows I'm usually relaxed when it comes to my Macross fandom, but I admit I can whinge hard core about the tech stuff. But hey, we all have our failings

Yup, it's good to hope. I'm not going to spend time worrying about disappointment. That's life. I'm a fairly smart spender anyway and I'm confident I know what the Macross Chronicle will be. For the most part, I'm not an impulse shopper Though as I understand it, Macross had it's moment on top of Japanese pop culture during the 1982-1984 era with SDF Macross and DYRL. It's just not a "popularity exploitation" franchise. I think most of us fans are rather proud of that

There's a better color picture found on this fan site I know that's probably better for looking at those specific details http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macross7/newmacross/city7.gif Also, there's a rear shot that shows the center peak of the shell lines up with the tallest building above the dome. http://www.new-un-spacy.com/macross7/newma...cross7-rear.gif

It's a great video If I don't directly link (and I usually don't; this was a rare instance) I find it best to at least italicize and wrap any reference in quotations at the very least. That way most people realize you're quoting something and if they don't know there's a good chance someone will ask.

Not at all. It's good stuff and definitely a welcome change. I hope they keep mixing it up because so far the sound track is pretty good for an anime.

I agree. That was always a good method of scaling. A clever visual cue.

Cheers! Good to see another new fan. Watchmen is awesome. Did you just get the regular graphic novel or did you splurge and buy the big Absolute Watchmen hardcover with slipcase? I got the big boy and boy is it worth it "The Smashing Pumpkins suck! I hate you, and I hate the bands you like!" :lol:

By almost any benchmark imaginable, Star Trek is almost near the bottom as far as "thoroughly well created" military fiction. Roddenberry himself acknowledged his refusal to cover all the proper aspects of a future military force and his was arguably the most "militaristic" vision of the Trek universe. One thing I know for sure is, you don't go to Trek when you're looking for good military fiction. Macross 7 looks like a war documentary in comparison. As for weapons of mass destruction, there is no way the annihilation of a world will ever be considered taboo. If a weapon exists to destroy a world, history has made it a certainty that at some point that weapon will be used. Perhaps not if we all live on only one planet (I hope!). However, if we're talking future history genres of science fiction (Star Wars, Babylon 5, Star Trek), with empires spanning hundreds/thousands/millions of worlds, you can be assured planets in such eras are no more taboo than cities in our eras of total war. If the stakes are high enough, there are no rules and there's never a shortage of humans willing to push the button. As for warfare itself, it is true that humans always seem to prepare themselves inadequately for the war already past. But as I understand things, and I'm no expert, it seems that it's not how you prepare or react to war; the trick seems to be in acknowledging that there is only ever one correct way to fight a particular war at a particular moment in time and those rules always change. The side that wins seems to be the side that understands that truth either first OR most effectively embraces that new reality. In that way I suspect war is much like life: it hits you in unexpected ways because we never prepare for it. We categorize war much like life, as events we can't possibly predict or prepare for, so we just dismiss it all and say "that's life", until it bites us in the butt Perhaps the internet is a good analogy; almost no one bothered to consider the impact the internet would have on video/music piracy. Sure there were a few smart ones that did, but most never saw it coming. Though I've never been in a war myself, I assume that's pretty much what it's like at the beginning. I remember the Germans and their "lightning attack" which no one saw coming, but I bet a few non-germans saw it coming when they realized the potential effect automobiles could have on the then modern battlefield. Too bad there's not "war insurance"

hobbes221 Ah. Very rare indeed. Probably won't be seeing any forthcoming scans from that 1/1 LowViz Lurker Yeah, the lack of published Macross Zero line art has me really annoyed. It's basically keeping the Macross Zero section underdeveloped until Big West sees fit to honor us with some damn line art in a published book. Hopefully the Macross Chronicle will eventually fix this problem and I can properly fill out the section. Anyway, glad you're enjoying the site. I liked the Octos as well. If there was one thing Macross Zero did well, it was the destroids and misc mecha. the Cheyenne and Octos are solid designs.