Ryu Connor

Thanks for your work on this, Mr. March. I was concerned it had disappeared, glad to see it was just a change of venue.

I'm aware of what you stated and my statement was in no way meant to imply or contradict anything you stated. You read too much into it.

Ground combat training speaks to more than just piloting. There of course is the tactical and squad interaction aspects as well. Macross just has a bad habit of showing everything as operation roll face. It was never about hard with regard to the destroid, my point all along is that they are easy. Easy/cheap to build, easy/cheap to train, easy/cheap enlisted soldiers, and easy/cheap maintenance. Hikaru used one dead easy. Quamzin steals a monster and three of his men use it dead easy. VF-X and VF-X2 show rebel factions, with poor and old gear, and they use cheap and easy destroids. Civilian destroids for construction, probably cheap and easy too. Are we sure we're in disagreeance on this? I almost feel like we got some other debate mixed into this one. Not alot of good sources handy. TIAS #5 doesn't give any of them much love (just a tiny section of p. 97) and trusting the Macross II RPG would be faulty. The Compendium lacks links and your website is down.

That part doesn't really change much for me. The JSDF and US Forces aren't that radically different. In fact they moan about many of the same things. Retention issues, losing exeperience to better paying civilian jobs (contractors), complaints about their recruiting practices, and even a bias against those that volunteer. Issues that all get touched on at one point or another in Frontier. Even the Academy bit is both a US and JSDF thing. The National Defense Academy in Japan is a four year course; Japan's West Point. Alternatively a four year univeristy degree can get you into OCS in the SDF, same as in the US. So officers in the Spacy that didn't attend the academy or graduate from Uni deviate from both the JSDF and US. Along the same line only officers are pilots in the JSDF and US. The JGSDF is also weird in a sense in that they are not allowed to call themselves an army. The anti-militarization beliefs of Japan put them in strange binds (live training excercises is another sore point). Both points at which Spacy distances itself and looks more US like. You can use either to fill holes in operational structure and end up with something that looks very similiar. The bureaucracy of the mess might look different, but government bureaucracy are generally uniform in one thing: retardation. As for the training. I'm a firm believer in specialization. The destroids have a very fixed function and role as part of an armored calvary. Supporting infantry/valkyries with air and ground, taking territory, and participating in police actions are all a basic part of that. Valkyries must learn atmospheric combat, space combat, and ground combat. The Valkyrie pilot in addition to understanding his role and his modes and his weapons in atmosphere and space, must also presumably learn the same thing as the Destroid. Supporting infantry on the ground, assist in taking territory, and even support police actions. You're asking them to be both Destroid pilot and a Valkyrie pilot and in that scenario I see an obvious disparity in training time, training costs, and who is gonna be more skilled at it. You have to wonder how well some Spacy pilots do at shifting gear on that too. Say a posting of six years doing space combat with a Galaxy Patrol and then ending up stationed at some hot spot of a planet with governmental stability issues and you attempting to contain violence through police actions. The only catch I see in that is if the Destroid design doesn't really have anymore fidelity to give. If traditional operation is within a few % of max performance, then it's more money for little gain. In absence of data all that is left is a best guess. We're working at comprehension of translated data without the context and input of its' creator. You're gonna end up staked out in the wild at some point. Gamlin seemed like pretty fresh meat at the start of Mac 7, though I suppose graduating a year early showed us he was supposed to be on the upper end of that skill curve. The whole issue of testing these prototypes just has a weird vibe of inflation and data bias to it all. If you put absolutely amazing pilots who can push the envelope into a Valkyrie that the average pilot can't handle and then ultimately award it the win, seems to me you've sort of missed the bullseye. For that matter if you put amazing test pilots in it and see only the upper end of its' performance, even if the average pilot can fly it, you've still got tainted data. Average is always substantially larger pool than exceptional. With mobility largely sacrificed and the reality that you'll never have enough armor, why settle for anything less than total overkill with your weaponry? Since we're close to heading round and round (if not already there). I'm agreeing to agree to disagree on many of the contentious points, but I appreciate the alternate point of view/debate.

It's kinda of central when we're discussing my issue with how it impacts my suspension of disbelief. The absence of direct data is not proof one way or another. We may one day find out that all Destroid pilots are in fact enlisted. We may find out they are all officers. We do not know, therefore I choose to form an opinion based upon the real world. I could of course choose to have no opinion on the matter, but there wouldn't be much to discuss on these forums. Being that we have no data one way or another, I find the statement that my opinion is faulty strange. I want this to be a fun conversation even if we disagree at the end. So when you say faulty, what do you mean? Are you recoiling in horror that in absence of direct data that I'd use the real world as a reference? I didn't figure it was that far a leap, Macross has US Military stuff in it already. Were you saying they are probably officers and have similar cost? I mean either way at this point we're at impasse, I don't really expect us to sway one direction or another, but I'm interested in your view. You detail that timeline is an issue, definitely. The original Macross illustrates that. I presumed that a given and that my discussion didn't impede that. If my words appear to try and deny that reality, then I assume I poorly phrased. Macross, as you note, was abbreviated and we haven't seen that again since. I see no reason to shift it aside or try to hide it, it's the reality of the situation (they needed bodies fast) and I don't see where it makes my point any weaker. An exception doesn't make the rule (an item you note with the difficulty of Valkyries later in the conversation). We've seen both Gamlin and Focker (VF-X2) spend time in the academy. In the fairness of good conversation I'll even concede that Isamu's profile is incomplete, lacking discussion of an academy, but he was an officer and of course a lack of detail to explain his situation doesn't really sway things one way or another. I even went and dug as far back as Roy and Misa. Roy has no data and Misa did go to the academy for two years. Focker (VF-X2) was assigned to New Anderson, I'm guessing that's on Earth, but I don't see a note for its' location. Regardless he shows a pattern similiar to Gamlin who was on a colony fleet. So that gives us two pilots who did, one pilot that lacks data, three pilots who did not under the wartime crunch of SWI, and one who served during the unification wars that lacks data. In my view the wartime crunch three are clearly an exception of the difficult times. I find Misa's two year stint interesting as well. I know where my bias falls in the weighing of that, but to each their own. As for different rules on different worlds? Perhaps, but the Spacy would most likely want to maintain standards for their soldiers regardless of their location. That has important implications if a request for help is made; as is suggested by the Frontier fleet during their more dire days. If Spacy soldiers from different worlds cannot coordinate together then they aren't an effective fighting force. We don't really have any evidence of that one way or another. So I'm left to form an opinion based upon how the US Military works for the answer to that until something canon appears. If the VF-17 was a difficult to control craft, then it not unreasonable to assume that others that came before it and after it might have the same issue. We do not know, we only have two instances of the difficulty of piloting mentioned directly. The original VF-17 article doesn't even mention the difficulty. It was an aspect that suddenly appeared with the introduction of the VF-171. So we either have a glossing over originally or a sudden retconning in depending on your perspective. If it really is a retcon in, then I have to wonder if Kawamori is trying to illustrate a point or if it was merely an execuse to streamling the VF-17. This is another situation where I don't see where either of us can prove it anymore than disprove it. Perhaps the 17 and the 19 do represent the exception and the rest of the models are as easy to handle as a tricycle. More realistically I presume that some models catered well to average pilots and others didn't. I also presume that as Macross progressed closer toward the AVF era and got into Valkyries that were limited in their full potential by the body of their pilots (an item the Messiah denotes) that mastery of them became alot harder and required considerably more flight time for the average pilot. The BDI/BCS system of the YF-21 and the development of the Ghost X-9 I feel actually support this. The former toward expanding the capability of the pilot with these complex craft and the latter bypassing the need for a human to master the process and being much cheaper by not needing to recruit the soldier at all. We could even argue that the 21 didn't necessitate BDI/BCS directly, but that it was a solution that evolved from older craft already not reaching the potential. A gap that would have only been made worse by the AVFs of Project Supernova; actually I suppose it was made worse given the 19 test pilot issues. We have no specific proof for that one way or another and are left to our opinions. I understand your point about the YF-19, but in the way I interpet the text that tradeoff arguably weakened the potential of the Excalibur. The cited point when it says it exceeded the prototype only refers to the average pilot being able to handle it. The tradeoff for engenering it that was at the cost of some amount of that "astounding maneuverability performance" of the prototype. I mention that to say what I apparently failed to convey accurately initially. If the Valkyries has to get weaker in order to accomodate the average pilot (lowest common denominator as I phrased it originally) then it estabilishes a compromise that for me creates questions. The first of course being the breadth of context of control. That the average pilot can keep it moving doesn't preclude that it still wasn't a bitch to fly. Was this the first time a prototype had to go into production with a tradeoff? Does this tie back into solutions like BDI/BCS and the X-9? Was it a large portion of the Valkyries having to be adjusted downward that created the impetus to find a new direction? Or Was it only the 19 and 17 that had to get whacked to afford the lowest common denominator? I suspect the 17 and the 19 represent a more systemic problem, but obviously that's open for debate and I understand your disagreeance. We're pretty much in sync here. Just some clarifications of my views. I do not believe they should be everywhere. If it seemed like my writing implied that, that was in error. I feel they fit well in the original Macross. I can understand why they were missing from 2012 and Plus. I do find it odd that they were missing from 7. I feel Frontier did a decent job with their Destroids and where they were placed and feel that 7 could have had a least a little of that, even if they were merely inside of City 7 for defense. Much like you, I too am a big fan of Macross II and felt they were well placed there as well. My only nitpick for Frontier was that they only had the Cheyenne, but whatever. That it had infantry and armor for the first time in ages was astounding to me. Though I guess we could argue they suffered from not having enough of it when they ended up with a bug problem. Sorry, if I missed something. Big post is big.

That may not be true. I do not know of a cite source to prove it in Macross (though one may exist in one of the various books), but in the US Army you need only be an enlisted soldier to be a 19K. If Destroid teams need only be enlisted that has implications into their cost. Enlisted have a very different payscale than an officer. Even the living arragements between officers and enlisted vary wildly in modern US forces. Senior officers in particular have it quite nice. The difference in payscale ultimately leads to difference in retirement (bigger pension for officers). With exception to the original Macross, I know of no modern Spacy pilot who is not an officer. I use Spacy pilot there purposefully. I don't want to confuse the situation with contractors like Alto (a Warrant, which is still a form of an officer), Basara (a civilian), or Guld Bowman (a General Galaxy employee/private citizen). This actually supports my point. We're both right on this one. Yes, it definitely proves that three years is not necessary, but it also goes to illustrate that even the more complex Valkyrie does not need extensive training to operate. The fixed design Destroids shouldn't be any harder and stand to reason to be easier. This is not the only instance we see of a crash course in piloting. Alto also underwent a training course with SMS that was definitely shorter than three years. Nonetheless, the academy for UN Spacy pilots is three years. A chunk of that three years is no doubt making them an officer. In order to provide a cite for this: http://macross.anime.net/wiki/2041 At 15 years of age, Gamlin Kizaki enrolls into the Air Force School in the U.N. Spacy via special entry. (Macross 7) http://macross.anime.net/wiki/2043 Gamlin Kizaki graduates Air Force School in two years (students normally take three years) and gets assigned as a VF-17 pilot on the Diamond Force. (Macross 7) There is actually another amusing one in 2044. http://macross.anime.net/wiki/2044 Aegis Focker graduates from military academy (after repeating one year) and is assigned as second lieutenant to the VFF stationed at New Anderson Base. (Macross VF-X2) It took Focker four years due to some unspecified failing (misconduct or academic failure). Of course AIT in the Army is in effect a crash course. Obviously our M1 tank teams continue to learn and refine their craft once they leave the school house and head to their gaining unit. That fifteen weeks is only the begining of their years long tour. Not just prototypes had issues though. Some cites: http://macross.anime.net/wiki/VF-171 What the VF-171 aimed for wasn't merely high-performance, but the improvement of control which was the fault of the original craft, by adopting high-reliability, low-output engines and updating the control system avionics greatly reduces the pilot's burden so that it became an airframe that treated even average pilots easily. Even the VF-17 was a difficult plane for average pilots to handle and the VF-171 mass production redsign of the craft aimed to help fix that. http://macross.anime.net/wiki/VF-19 F and S-types replaced engines used in the YF-19 prototype with an engine which has stable output in addition to simplifying the airframe body. Because of these changes, it was completed with the comprehensive performance that allow average pilots to control it, exceeding the prototype unit. We see it again. The F and S redesign of the Excalibur aimed to allow the average pilot to better control it. My statement wasn't constrained to the YF-19. So long as the Compendium isn't citing tainted data, what we're seeing is Kawamori acknowledging that this is a difficult profession. The engineers are having to make compromises in order to support the lowest common denominator. I hadn't really heard of TV Tropes until very recently but this particular one seemed to hit home. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool Macross is definitely about the Valkryies and I enjoy it for what it is. Like I say, it just nags at my suspension of disbelief that he ignores the importance of those armored divisions for warfare when it applies.

I think that falls under the animation is expensive quandry. The whole Destroid versus Valkyrie bit is a suspension of disbelief issue for me. The amount of money involved in the construction and maintenance of Valkyries would be staggering and Kawamori hasn't even shied away from stating that and using it as the basis for why certain Valkyries supplanted others. Mentioned in passing is the incredible cost for having pilots for the Valkyries. Three years in an Academy (two apparently if you're exceptional like Gamlin), wages, medical coverage, most likely a pension if you can hit twenty years, and presumably even your food and living are supported; be that eating in the mess hall, living in housing, or living off base and getting Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH). We have no clue if something like benefits for continued education exist as well. It's not an unreasonable assumption as a bennie for getting people to volunteer. With costs like that it wouldn't surprise me that Spacy requires six to eight year contracts just to be a Valkyrie pilot. Piloting expensive Valkyries, some of which are denoted as notoriously difficult to handle for average pilots. To be honest I didn't appreciate how Kawamori treated the Spacy pilots early in Frontier, but that is a tangent. Meanwhile the Spacy is competing against itself now with the introduction of contractors as frontline units. You can now make more money, have access to better equipment, and all you have to be willing to sacrifice is that pension, eductation benefits, and food and housing allocation; of which the extra money you make easily covers the latter two. Now we have to consider Destroids. They're cheaper than Valkyries, they have to be, because the level of complexity isn't even anywhere close to the same. The Compendium denotes the original Cheyenne as being cheap to produce and even was diesel powered. Not that we really needed reinforcement of the cost point, reality made it pretty clear: M1A1: 6.2m USD, F22 Raptor: 142.6m USD. The pilots for them would also be cheaper. You think you need three years to teach someone to essentially drive a tank? The Army MOS for a M1A1 tank crewman is 19K, AIT (training) time is fifteen weeks. Now mix in that infantry and armored cavalry still fill specific niches that Valkyries cannot (and very likely their pilots are not sufficiently trained for) and suddenly we're in a weird place with dead cat girls. The decline of Destroids in Macross is in my view purely because Kawamori likes Valkyries and fighter aircraft more and because Valkyries are in fact cooler. No underlying thought of his actions and how they are in effect a gaping hole in realism was considered.

In lurking deeper I found an old post by him about image snippets. I don't mind translating the blurb (and sharing), but a starting point is an item of difficulty.

Would you be able to provide a digital photo or scan of the blurb?

Out of curiosity how did the glossary define the Bio-neural chip?