Talk:Legend of Galactic Heroes Gaiden (OVA)

From Gineipaedia, the Legend of Galactic Heroes wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Article title

I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that we might need to rename this article to Legend of Galactic Heroes Gaiden (OVA). After all, the novels and manga are also called Gaiden, aren't they?  ♥ kine @ 15:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Technically, yes, but I'm not certain it's necessary. I think the manga may have a sub-title, however. Canary 15:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation issues

I dislike some of these translations (most are copied directly from CA — i have made a few changes, but they're small). I don't want to write up a whole thing on the translation notes page, so i'll just quickly make some notes here:

(As mentioned before i have not seen any of Spiral Labyrinth yet, so if i am missing context on these, that's why)  ♥ kine @ 03:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Your re-naming suggestions all sound fine to me, and work because the Japanese is sufficiently open to interpretation. Regarding "Planet POW Camp," I don't remember what the kanji for that was, but I would suggest "The Prison Planet." (Always gotta go for the alliteration after all.
Oh, and I'm not sure if this would require altering templates or crap like that, but I'm fairly certain "Duelist" is spelled with only a single "L." Canary
It's spelt with two L's in UK English — see, for example, The Duellists. As far as the titles, if you're OK with what i've suggested then i'll get around to changing them eventually (i have so many things to do, jc)  ♥ kine @ 20:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
スパイラル・ラビリンス=Spiral Labyrinth is the title of the whole package. Almael 18:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Canon inconsistancy or contradictions

There are probably more. Almael 18:29, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The look of ships could be explained away as as perhaps a change in design philosophy on the part of both sides (perhaps as the result of weapon or material technology progression). Certainly there seems to be a very significant revamping of the Imperial destroyer design from the era of Bruce Ashbey to the more recent missile and railgun armed Imperial destroyer. Speculative but it could reflect a desire to maximize alpha strike and short range capabilities over longer battlefield endurance. The change from angular boxy ships from the Dagon era to the curved hulls of the Bruce Ashbey era and back to the boxy ships of the Yang era could parallel how tank armor started out boxy, then went to sloped curved steel armor, then back to angular slab sided with composite armor
That theory is faulty to begin with because changes in design philosophy always survive in later generations, they do not disappear completely. Logically: There is always the desire to maximize fire power whether in the past or future. So it is a mute point, but designs that help maximize weapon usage will be used forever. There won't be much change from this kind of engineering view point. From an artistic point sure there are all kinds of reasons. The tank comparison is wrong on several points:
  • In the past slopped design were not possible due to primitive manufacture. It has nothing to do with design perse.
  • Today we went back because we want to minimize size.
Battlefield endurance is one major important point. It's the single difference between survival or victory and defeat.
Btw. in Gaiden 1 or the movies designs from the manga were used for the time slot bewteen the main series and Bruce Ashbey's era.Almael 18:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That is what I meant when I said design philosophy change as a result of material technology. We don't know for example whether some new composite or armor was developed after the Ashbey era, that could not be so easily made into curved plates, meaning a return to flat plates, or whether due to the material's properties it actually performed better in flat plates. The old material from the Dagon era may have been able to be manufactured in curved shapes by the Ashbey era due to technological advancement. Alternatively perhaps due to other factors such as economic factors, it was deemed inefficient (too much effort for insufficient return) to continue to make curved armor plates for ships. Nonetheless, the overall main design themes of both the Empire and the FPA are sustained during the series. The FPA ships still have their single huge engine, whereas the Imperial ships have multiple engines, for example. Ship for ship, the FPA tended to continue to mount greater number of frontal guns. Even so not all the changes in look are purely technological. Just as the Empire dramatically changed its destroyer design, the FPA seems to have phased out its high speed cruiser/battlecruiser from the Asbhey era, with no replacement. Clearly there were other considerations at work.

Iracundus 01:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

This may be somewhat lenghtly. I think we should move this discussion to a LoGH Starship technology and Design discussion page. But I will leave this to a higher authority or a second opinion for that matter. I think it's a bit too much interpreting into a story which didn't care much about starship design from the beginning but has been "augmented" over time.However, I don't mind discussing it. :DIt's very unlikely engineers would accept a step back because of manufaturing problems only. For example, the F117 stealth fighter was facetted because computer technology and the russian radar reflection theory were not refined enough for a curved design. It wasn't a manufacturing problem. Anyway, we are talking about big ships here. Even if manufacturing restricts curved form and size, it's still by far no problem to build smooth surface and curvy ships. It would have to be a real incompetent starship builder who wouldn't be able to do this. The Bruce Ashbey's era FPA ship engines are way out of proportion. It's like there is no considering for fuel at all. This has no ounce of any engineering/reality whether fiction or not. The theory of engine number is faulty because the Imperial ships are bigger than FPA ships. One of their engine is big enough for a FPA ship. Some FPA ships do have more than one engine (transport, engineering).Besides the FPA groups engines together to a block so they do seem as one but are not, like the assault ship. The same goes for the cannons. Although, FPA ships have more cannons they are smaller and overall power is the same or less, actually. If this was reality I would say less and the FPA had never had a chance to begin with. Since, we are speculating on other consideration: The reason why the Empire change the destroyer design was probably because it's nearly as big as a FPA cruiser. The FPA phased out the highspeed cruisers because they lacked endurance. It's a waste to have ships that get destroyed instantly. Besides this point is purely rewriting canon. The only consideration of anime LoGH ships that are not class(function) related are the sloped/curvy designs of the Brunhild and Parcival to the advantage of their armor, and the Ahsgrim's transformation for its super cannon. If you ever take a look at the novels you will notice the FPA ship arts are curvy (way better) and have lots of engines. The Empire designs are less sightly. Except for some technologies there are no definitive set differences in the novels. It's all up to the artists. In this Gaiden 2 case they probably wanted "birdy" silhouettes.Almael 09:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see a screencap of "Current FPA standard cruiser wrongly 'drawn' with extra engines which weren't engines before." - I have all the Gaiden, of course, but I don't remember seeing that and wouldn't know where to see it. Vympel 10:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah cool, thanks for that. How odd. I normally have a good eye, missed that! (also sorry Iracundus thought you didn't sign, my bad) Vympel 16:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
With regards to the engine number, I have evidence back from The Data Book which says Imperial ships use multiple engines of moderate thrust, for redundancy and mitigation in case of one being knocked out by being hit (though we see an example in the Gaiden where this fails). We see similar other differences in design that may seem inconsequential but that can rapidly become significant if applied to the mass scale production as practiced by the FPA and the Empire. A small cost saving per ship can translate into a huge total cost saving when applied across the entire FPA fleet. Imperial ships for example are capable of entering atmosphere and landing on a planet directly, whether or not the planet has prepared landing sites or not, whereas FPA ships have to be boarded by shuttle. The Empire affords its commanders large quarters, and has time to create more specialized ship classes like the medical ships or the gunship. It also becomes the first to develop large scale Zephyr particle projection on a ship scale. Over and over we see that the Imperial ships have more streamlined mature technology with frills, whereas the FPA squeezes equivalent battlefield performance in equal or smaller ships with equal or fewer men at the omission or cost of these refinements. This can be explained due to economic and political considerations. The FPA has always been smaller than the Empire, and since from its founding it knew that the Empire would be hostile to it, the FPA had to go for a "no frills" approach of achieving maximum performance with as few resources as possible. Iracundus 17:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
As an observant person I wasn't paying such attention, though, not consciously at least. I was actually fast forwarding through the gaiden series. It's just that I had to see its tail up close that I noticed. lol Redundancy is a good point for normal circumstances but what many forget is that this is space war. Weapons waged by a space-faring civilization are all weapons of mass destruction or such high energies that one hit will cause so much destruction that this will become a mute point... Redundancy mustn't really fail totally in order to gain an advantage. The point is to prevent the enemy from being able to do what he wants as well as restrict his movement. For that creating engine imbalance is good enough. However, in practice this isn't always a good idea especially when you are holding the line. This is something for a highspeed battle. It was actually a bad idea in the anime. Economy and politic aren't really the starting reason for the differences even though they dominate the present. It's rather historic.
  • When the FPA founders fled they weren't able to bring all the technology ever created by humanity with them while the Empire got it all!
  • The FPA's economy is that of a free world so technology is highly sophisticated but also very costly, hence, smaller ships and numbers. Due to economy many technologies will just be dropped because of they have low returns. So the systems produced are rather selected due to political reasons than the "best available". Only a pure military rule could do better but then it's no different from an Empire. LOL
  • Human resources within the Empire is cheap, and selection of the leading "inventors" depends on how they sell their idea and varies over time, too. So people with grand crazy idea are selected but punishment etc. will sooner or later hamper this. Intrigues, back alley deals etc are more or less the same as in the FPA so this can be ignored most of the time. For a short time the Empire will have advances similar to nazi germany but int he long run it end up like the sowjets.
The story doesn't go into these details and only scratches on the surface. Maybe the FPA ships pack the same alpha strike power but due to size they lack endurance. Battle endurance imho is the most significant point. It means to be able to survive and fight as long as possible. This is exactly the true selling point of the F22. Here, firepower was reduced compared to the F15 in favor of endurance. In practice it means a high endurance force can fight more battles and has a chance to win. A low endurance force may win one battle but doesn't necessary mean it can fight or survive another. Endurance is also the main reason in ep1 why Reinhard made a clockwise movement. Not just because he wanted to get in the back but to refill his troops endurance. When you consider distances imho he wouldn't have made it before the FPA forces met in the middle since his move is a way longer route than for either FPA forces left, whether they go for the 4th fleet or meet each other. On technological aspect the FPA sure are more powerful(fighting) due to size but still cannot make up for endurance or reserves or absolute power that comes with size. Here endurance is not just more "armor" or volume but it also includes regeneration or repairs, the fuel that allows longer operation. In short it allows a ship to survive or take more hits and fight longer, and hence, deal a lot more destruction. On equal or near equal technological level size comes with higher total power output. This can be an advantage depending on design choices. But mostly it just means higher firepower and stronger shields. For the FPA to close the gap they would have to be 2x more efficient in regard to energy consumation which is mute due to necessary weapon power. In the end it's a question of size and smart design choices. But as I said, in a free world best technological choices are not the deciding factor but money. As depicted in the anime the FPA had never had a chance. lol Then again the original story never got into such details nor restricts designs as such. All this becomes a mute point. It's all very nice entertainment. :D Almael 12:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
First off, the term is "moot point" NOT "mute point". Mute and moot, 2 different words. Also, whether or not you think it was a good design decision to have multiple moderate engines for redundancy over a large single engine doesn't matter because the Data Book says that was the rationale for the Empire doing so, and that counts for more than any one personal opinion. Whether the rewards of doing so genuinely justified the effort on a large scale is unknown, only that in at least one example in the Gaiden it wasn't enough. However just because designers do something does not mean they are right. We see the Goldenbaum Dynasty had a preference for huge giant battleships as their flagships and we also see the use of such impractical things as "shield ships" for the flagships, both bombastic statements of power of a dynasty in decline. Their subsequent disappearance shows these design choices were outmoded or deemed inefficient.
Finally as for all that writing you made with claims the FPA had ships with lower battlefield endurance, can you present canonical evidence to back up such a claim? All I see are wide sweeping generalizations and far fetched claims of the FPA needing to be 2x as efficient to stand a chance. Sounds like your own personal fan fiction. Nowhere in the anime is there a suggestion that there is any substantive difference in the military performance of the ships of whether it be short term performance or long term endurance, yet from the ship dimension stats we know the FPA cruiser was smaller than the Imperial cruiser. The only viable conclusion is that the FPA cruiser manages to squeeze equivalent performance into a smaller size. Whatever they may be sacrificing to do so, there is no evidence endurance is one of them.
The fact the FPA, a smaller state founded at a later date by dissidents, can hold off the Empire for over a century in direct battlefield confrontation, with less resources and manpower, defeating every major Imperial invasion attempt prior to Reinhard's era, says as much for the FPA's efficiency as the Empire's inefficiency. Of course both systems ultimately decayed but the Empire, with its larger territory and reserves, could better tolerate the drain of long term war and corruption. If the FPA had concluded peace with the Empire as Yang had hoped, or even retrenched and refused to accept the kidnapped Erwin Josef, maintaining the 3-way balance of power, then the FPA could have survived to bide its time and rebuild its civil society and its military strength over generations. Iracundus 12:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

mute=refraining from producing speech. That's why all is moot. As I said long before it's senseless to begin with, but since we are speculating :) FPA ship endurance see Gaiden2 episode 27 and 28. Here they run dry due to excessive action. See databook info on "Airget lamh", "Abai Geser". There it should say these lack endurance due to battery, power usage (same power source for more weapons power). The efficiency number could be anything of course this is simple logic to show the physical(law) point. In any case, since they use similar weapons and since those have similar total power, there is no reason to believe FPA weapons need less energy for the same result. Hence, no matter how better tech the FPA has they need more or less the same power output. The rest is a matter of fuel or munition for that matter. If you think a tanker has the same endurance(range) as a car with the same performance(speed) or that both receive the same crash damage that's your opinion. For one the Iserlohn corridor restricted the Empire from using their power. See Sparta. For the same reason the Empire needn't to enforce either. On the other side having the FPA the Empire could get rid of unwanted people. In any case, they had only two major conflicts in the last 150 years. That's hardly worth mentioning. The first the Empire lost because they simply underestimated the FPA and let themselves trapped. The second time they where betrayed by agent-information networks. So story wise proper reason have been given why the FPA lasted that long. If there was peace between both sides, then there won't be a need for military power. Both will profit from each other by exchange or movement of people between both nation. People who don't like either will move to Phezzan. Balance may not be even necessary anymore just their existence to offer people places and condition they prefer to live. Hence, they would stay stable for some time. Of course this is an ideal condition that's not going to happen. Over time certain people will rise on any side who want more power whether for good or bad. So there will always be conflict. The only means to prevent such is a monarchy which is the most efficient form of government. However, this won't work or last long that's why Julian tried to introduce a means of control via a constitution. Of course that won't work either. The best solution is to educate people and hope they turn out better. For that you need a stable and peaceful environment over several generations. Anyway, even if all three exists only and do no conflict, decay will take place as people get accustom to it and find ways to take advantages beyond their need. Over time this adds up. We end up with unsatisfied people. Then everything starts anew. And we get another age of Heroes. :D Almael 15:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Btw. I didn't say anything against redundancy. By "It was actually a bad idea in the anime." I referred to the tactical decision in the anime. I wouldn't waste a second of thought on something this basic. ;)Almael 17:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you even have the Data Book? You claim the entry for "Abai Geser" 'should' say such things but there is no entry for "Abai Geser" at all. I am asking for proof of your claims about battlefield endurance not what your unsupported opinion on what it 'should' say. That means actual printed quoted textual evidence. Also the crux of the issue was not the individual flagships, which vary greatly in size and armament, but the mass produced ships, which are of comparable size and gun number. Iracundus 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Woah. Big discussions :) Almael, referring to the data book, are you perhaps referring to the Fleet File booklets? That could be the source of the confusion here, Iracundus has a different source. Both Abai Geser and Airget Lamh are in the FFCs. Vympel 01:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I associate that book with seiyus and fancy character info-art than much technicalities. FFC sounds right. For the record I said if it were for real it would be as I said. I didn't say it's a fact. Don't mixup reality with fantasy. I did say at the very beginning "If this was reality I would say less and the FPA had never had a chance to begin with. Since, we are speculating on other consideration:" When asked for reference I gave the places where related information can be found. It doesn't have to mean it's said explicitly, mind you. After all, the main LoGH universe didn't care to put such restrictions or definition or specification to begin with. It's all pointless to be fixated. Anyway, since some people are interested I will venture into it. See Battleships below. Almael 12:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Considering 84 pages of the 191 pages of the Data Book deal with ships and technology, it is completely unwarranted for you to arbitrarily dismiss it as an invalid source. Moreoever, the exact lengths and crew sizes for a FPA battleship are consistent with the FFC sources, with the ship models from Alba Creates, showing they are drawing from some consistent pool of information. However, there is discrepancy in the number of fighters carried with the Data Book showing 12 Spartanian fighters carried. Looking at the underside of the FPA battleship in the anime, there are 2 rows of 3. See LOGH episode 80 near the end, for a good view of this. The model ships may show differently but anime is of higher canonicity than models or sources aimed at justifying the models' details. This means 2 launches per fighter bay, which makes for a more neat and rational setup (2 fighters stacked on top of each other per bay) than the FFC's 9, leading to an irregular layout. Moreover, the Data Book gives actual gun caliber sizes (20cm bore diameter for the particle emitter of a FPA BB main gun) instead of just vague references to large bore size in the FFC. The two books give different specific information on different aspects, but it doesn't allow you to arbitrarily turn up your nose and refuse to accept the validity of another licensed publication.
Also in general, yes, things do need to be said explicitly. Otherwise all you end up doing is creating fan fiction by making speculations and calculations based on speculations, with then more speculations built upon the first speculations until you have a pyramid of speculations and fan fiction that collapses if one of the underlying assumptions proves untrue. Iracundus 13:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I said I do not associate it with tech, not considering it as irrelevant. ;) Anyway, the 12 spartanians are all listed for the modified ships or the ships the FPA intends or plans to have for the future standard BB. As shown everywhere it's 3 rows of 4+3+2=9. As I understand it the additional fighters are launched from extra ports or so. Or maybe not stacked but parked in line. As to bore size, these are nice to have to know how the creators think. I only think it's funny how all these scifi people again and again use bore-size as a value to measure energy weapons like they were gun-powder cannons. Almael 20:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


Something to commone sense and logic... Since the FPA obviously uses the same technology for all their other ships it doesn't matter which ship we look at. We just need to scale properly and end up with something that's very close to what it should be with an error magine of no more than 5-10%. We are talking in terms of relativity not absolute values. Since this is fiction we can't expect the creators to really care for precision or reality. Anyway, flagships are supposed to be better than standard so we are looking at the best available here. Naturally, this comparison is no good if standard ships are better technologically.

Now to the "official" facts. Of course this only applies to the anime fiction not the true LoGH universe. For relevant original japanese text go here and download the sample pdf. Note this link will be removed later!

Abai Geser Length: 685m Width: 65m Height: 280m crew: 732

Standard FPA BB Length: 624m Width: 65m Height: 136.5m crew: 660

As can be seen the Abai Geser has a longer nose and a bit more volume in the middle. The rest are additional long antennas. Notice the official drawings don't match the data, but are consistent regarding their relationship. Well, there is no reason to believe they care anyway. Since the body is mostly the same the additional volume is under 685/624=1.0977=>9.77%; Actually, less if we discount the non-existent extra engine dimension projected by this simple calculation. This is pretty close to the standard ship. And since most of this goes into the weapons-nose fuel reserves should be the same.

The entry for Abai Geser says to the effect of: 'Engine output was increased by 10% percent. 8 larger diameter long-range guns were adopted. With this batter long-range performance is raised. However, the number of uses is reduced. 12 Spartanians, underside It is undeniable that such little increase in mass tended to have insufficient engine output. As the war with the Empire intensified and fleet movement became dynamic beyond conventional comparison, it became difficult to use a ship with such low engine output.'

The creators actually did take the length difference for their simple calculation. Not really surprising. They increased the output by 10%; it can be safely said consummation is close to 10%, too. Same simple logic. With the same amount of fuel reserve and same weapons energy usage the ship would have under same conditions 90.9% operational time +-1% error margin. Nothing is said about how much energy those guns use. In any case, 90% compared to standard is a significant drawback. The last bits have been translated as low 'engine output' which contradicts the increased engine output statement. This is obviously a language specific translation problem, and can simply be interpreted as "not having enough energy" or reserves for that matter, hence, endurance.

Now to the standard FPA BB entry: 'It has 8 long-range beam large caliber cannons in the bow. 9 Spartanians, underside Compared to an aicraft carrier the support equipment can't be simpler. The cost of the flight crew is high. In recent years the use of these have become less due to decreasing crew. Various sensors are located in the central part other than a bridge deck. The big cylindrical structure featuring in the appearance of the allied force war vessel is a super pure water tank to use for a propellent. In the case of the cruiser output, it can use the propellent for 140 hours on one tank. Originally, the tank should have been installed near the engine part, but was put in this position in order to protect the bridge deck block from cosmic rays of outer space and radiation from the engines. In addition, the water absorbs heat from the living area to protect the navigation equipment.' [could be vice versa] 'The fin antenna projected from the lower body is used to receive order from the fleet bases. The fleet during a secret action stops all electric wave emission to conceal own position. The order from the fleet headquarters is carried out by a feeble electric wave towards expected sky area of the fleet. A large-sized wine antenna becomes effective then. By receiving an electric wave with many wine antennas, can know the direction of the electric wave emission source by comparing the phased gap. It can know the position of the fleet base which is the emission source by repeating this several times while moving. Local guard fleets that do not received navigation support from the large-sized flagship type, it often grasp own warship position by this method. Tail wine extending to the tail of the warship greatly is the thing which is common to an allied force war vessel, but has a duty to rectify the jet race from an engine in a magnetic field. In addition, it to moves in the range of tail wine right and left 5 degrees, top and bottom 3 degrees. It was able to lower a turning radius by the sealed pattern battleship matched this movable tail fin with a side thruster vernier located in the warship ship's side a lot, and using it so as to be unexpected. Many possible variants...the general opinion is "each ship should have the same configuration for easy on-site remodeling". It is the capital ship of the free planet allied force, this warship is expected to play an active part in battlefields, and forms the ship classifications with superior offense and defense.'

It's said here in plain sight, 140 hours on one tank. Well, not sure if it's referred to one fuel-tank or one full tank. For their benefit we assume the best possible. Anyway, this probably doesn't include combat nor does it define any movement usage i.e. 4 hours at 12 knotes. However, it's safe to say it's meant for normal cruise operation. Still, 2x140 hours is about 12 days, enough for an operation but not much when battling, though. Not to mention the fuel given for the fighters. Since we got hard data on the BB we only need to get one hard data on any kind of imperial ship to get a good estimate or better a clear cut comparison even.

Standard Imperial BB: Length: 677m Width: 179m Height: 228m crew: 726 relevant Imperial BB entries: 'produced in 796/487 6 long-range cannons Empire prefers long-distance one-hit kills verses FPA prefers sustainability' [presumely fire endurance] 'Two reverse thrust nozzles at the bow using the same energy generator as the cannons, hence, only either one can be used. Very relyable standard engine, tuned over a long time. Engine redundancy, atmospheric flight... Hangars for 48 Valkyries On just the fuel alone the Valkyries can be operated for 72 hours. Despite being an excellent design there have been demands for a new warship class due to recurring stalemates with FPA forces.'

Nice. The creators just gave implicitly the basic operation time. 72 hours for Valkyries. Since the BB transports them and we can expect simple calculations from the creators, the operation time for the BB has to be a multiple of 72 hours. Why? For one they can't use all the fuel for fighters. Two, they wouldn't give half either, but maybe 1/3 is a tolerable limit for sharing. Three, nobody wants partial numbers which would leave some unused Valkyries. Obviously it cannot be 2 as that's too short for any journey. People want to be able to return to base if things go bad. 3 is more reasonable but not enough for any mission. 4 is good as we get 9 days of travel and 3 days of OP. 4x72=288 hours. Note this may or may not be the top limit. Supposedly the FPA BB has two tanks each for 140 hours we get 280 hours. Note this is an absolute top limit based on design!! Let's compare this with size to see if there's any relationship. 677/624=1.0849 and 288/280=1.0285 Doesn't look like it.

Alternatively, the fighters can be used for comparison. However, this introduces greater error due to Spartanian operation time which may or may not be the same. Also it's only most comparable if the operational doctrines are the same. So if both sides plan and specify combined operational requirement the same way then this would mean the imperial ships have 48 fighters / 9 fighters=5.3_ more fuel to spare for both fighters and ship. Anyway, other details are seeded within other entries which may give even a better picture for comparison. Since it seems I'm the only one who does any research or analysis around here, I will leave them for other able people.

Now, to some other easier available data for some alternative comparison as well as check.

(LOGH: 'The Rosen Ritter'): 13th fleet travels a full 2 weeks to the corridor entrance, however, they made 8 stops in total.

(LOGH: 'Farewell, Distant Memories'): Reinhard's forces race back to Odin in 20 days with no stops.

(LOGH: 'War Without Weapons'): Yang needs 4 weeks to get to Iserlohn. This is a multiple of 2 weeks.

It appears FPA ships can't go beyond two weeks without definite refueling. The imperial ships can at least go for 20 days. A rough relation of 14 : 20 which would result in a fuel-time-factor of 6 for the imperial BB. This gives 15 days of travel or one week in each direction enough to conduct an operation. Note these do not include combat consummation which will reduce reserves dramatically. This about concludes our fuel/operation time estimates above.

Now, lets see if food supply contradicts fuel reserves.

(LOGH: 'When the Rain of Grief Comes...'):from August 22, 796 to October 10 => 8+31+30=70 days = ~2 months 10 days

Let's assume a week of invasion/expansion until the FPA forces stop. Then they share their food with 50 million people. This gives: For 63 days 80 million people consume the majority of the supplies. For 7 days only 30 million soldiers consume supplies. Some surplus days can be ignored for now. 63*80+7*30=5250 million days food / 30 million =175 days food / 30 days = 5.83_ months food Obviously the FPA forces have a standard food supply of 6 months for their ship's crew. Obviously this number is related to today's requirement for long term missions. Or the creators could just have taken the short 3 month mission supply standard without care to any calculations. This is quite likely. Almael 12:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: battleship fighter complement, I'm pretty sure its meant to be 9. I know Episode 80 shows six as an extreme closeup, but I believe that's an error. In the various times we see the underside of FPA battleships, its most often 9 - i.e. a row of four, followed by a row of three, followed by a row of two. Vympel 15:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, an example of this is in My Conquest, around 45 minutes in:- Vympel 15:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, one last thing, Iracundus if you'd like the FFC booklets Vol. 1 - 9, I can point you to them. I have Vol. 10 but I need to scan it. Vympel 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The booklets would be useful. Of interest also is which attempts to reconcile data from multiple of these sources, from FFC to Data Book. In particular it makes the argument that the FFC information about Valkyrie hangar size is suspect and improbable since it is vastly more than is seen whenever Imperial battleships launch, and also that such large hangar sizes on standard battleships obsoletes and renders the existence of Imperial carriers irrelevant and illogical. Iracundus 15:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
The Abai Geser has 12, the FPA standard BB has 9, the Empire standard BB has 48 fighters. I dunno how the fighters for the Abai Geser are arranged. We need a picture from it's belly. Your posted picture from the Ulysess is consistent with all sketches in various books and visuals. Note the entry mentions that her hull-numbers are changed from white to black in original and OVA. lol As to Valkyrie hanger size, it doesn't matter how many Valkyries are shown flying off. That's an animation/drawing problem not a consistency problem. What's more important is how many hangar access ports are shown. On each side there should be 24 ports. If I remember right they are arranged in two rows. We need some screenshots. Well, whether such numbers make sense depends on the specific universe and military doctrine. I think the portion of flight crew to ship crew is too high. On the other side it's a BB, having around 24 is fine. However, IMHO on Earth for a carrier you need 40+ to be operable as a carrier, in 3D space you need 110+. These numbers are simply based on geometry and crew fatique. So I don't see a problem in the number of fighters for the BB, but for the carriers since they should have more. However, the LoGH universe has lots of ships to spare so it is excessive when you look at the total number in a fleet. I'm deleting the pdf link. Don't want unnecessary trouble there. Almael 18:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the only pic of Abai Geser from the anime is the one that's already with the relevant article, and there's just not enough detail. Re: Valkyrie fighter complement being too high, its backed up by the anime. In particular, when Fahrenheit's standard battleship launches fighters in ONW, you can count no less than forty Valkyires coming out from either side - so saying this is vastly more is just inaccurate. Vympel 03:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
The picture of that launch shows a mismatched number on either side and one side has less than 24. Are we then to say the Imperial battleship has asymmetrical launch bays? In other words when the animation shows something that disagrees with what the claim is, it is written off as an "animation error" or "mistake" but when it agrees, then it's accepted as not an error? Sounds like picking the evidence to fit the conclusion. The Japanese site makes a reasonable argument, namely that the idea of the Imperial Valkyrie carrier is illogical if it offers less carrying capacity than 3 Imperial battleships, while the FPA carrier becomes equivalent to over 11 FPA battleships. The Imperial carrier does not offer any true additional capabilities and is a relatively insignificant concentration of fighter power. It has no reason to exist, yet it does, and from the Data Book was created after the FPA scored successes with its first carrier design. Instead of wasting time making a new design, the Empire would have only needed to mass 3 battleships together to get the same concentration. Unless there are actual reasons to justify the effort of making carriers, the Empire's actions are simply stupid, and not even stupidity that can be chalked up to arrogance, but stupidity that breaks suspension of disbelief. Iracundus 09:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Why does it need to be symmetrical? There's no reason to automatically assume that every Valkyrie is ready to launch - 100% readiness rates for fighters are unheard of in real life, so why assume that's always going to be the case in LOGH? And I get the website's point, but its simply based on too many assumptions. For one thing, Imperial carrier doctrine might be entirely different and they're just not a big part of the Empire's Order of Battle. Or the carrier's greatly increased size allows for better serviceability of its fighter complement. We just don't know. As for calling the six complement an error - it might not be. It might be a design variant, if we want to be strict about it. But given that all the times we get a really good look at the underside of the standard battleship design, it clearly has space for 9, and the FFCs say 9, I assume 9 is the correct figure. Oh, here's the link to Vol 1-9 FFC btw. Forgot to mention, FFC 1R isn't included, but Asgrim and Brunhild are covered in Vol. 1 anyway. Wish I could read Japanese! Vympel 11:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Also I've seen the battles so many times now, and apart from ONW, the only time we ever see a standard battleship launch fighters that I can remmeber is My Conquest Is A Sea of Stars, with footage reused in the first episode of the OVA. Its not symmetrical there either. That time, it looks to be 24 fighters total, depending on the frame by frame, which is infuriatingly hard to peg down for some reason. Are there any other times? Vympel 11:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Ah-hah! Found it! From Episode 2:-
Also, my count in relation to the above was in error (the shot is reused in the second episode as well). It *looks* like 12 fighters per side early in the sequence, but later on the points of light disperse and the numbers increase above this (again, its hard to tell). I'm thinking more and more that said website's objection to 48 fighters per battleship is without support in the actual show. Vympel 12:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


I'm making a new section to reduce loading etc. Re: "animation error"; I see them as unnecessary or excessive animation. The situation being the same as the way when you say "48 fighters are launching" or just say "all fighters are launching" or simpler "fighters are launching". What ever version it does change the actual facts nor does it have anything to do with error or selective evidence. Such evidence is simply useless. Re: fighter number launched, asymmetry; same reason as above plus readiness as Vympel mentions. In our real world of the regular 12 fighters, 2 are by default not operable and seen as reserves. Re: useless carrier, stupid Empire: Carriers in LoGH don't play a high level role as today as their fleets are so big. They have become regular like any other "smaller" ships this reduces their importance as well as makes the useless claim void since they are needed. lol The FPA produces specific carrier designs while the Empire has carrier add-on for their BB. It seems the Empire made the smarter choice because their BB is still a BB but with lots of fighters. They don't need to build carrier but just upgrade BBs. On the other side a true carrier design may have advantages, like size, mass, maneuverability. I can't tell what else there are with the little information there is. Re: snapshot: I remember the ports being in rows so this seems wrong to me. Will check this later. Almael 19:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well they are in rows - all the close up shots we see of Valkyries launching are too close-up to see what we'd really like - i.e. how they're broken up. That snapshot is the only time I know where we see the Valkyrie bays opening from a distance. Vympel 23:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
That is exactly what I mean by selective evidence. You have just displayed it by arbitrarily dismissing any animation that displays a different number of hangar openings as "unnecessary" or "excessive". You have already made up your mind that your claim and source is "fact" and are simply denying and discarding any animation that may disagree. Just because you keep saying it is "useless" animation doesn't mean it automatically is. A personal opinion stated as declarative fact does not make it fact. The very fact it contradicts the number of stated fighters makes it worthy of being looked at and considered, instead of being summarily dismissed, as it does potentially change the facts and does potentially render your source erroneous. Iracundus 10:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope. What I meant is animators are people, too. They do the least necessary since we are all lazy at some point. So drawing or animating a bunch is good enough to represent what they mean. It's the same when drawing the fleet. Do they draw all 20000 ships? or just a representative number? See, you accept the display of the fleet but not the fighters. You are a hypocrit here and the one who selects the evidence. I value both as the same. And as I said, the representative thing does not change the official fact or whatever has been established or has been accepted. If this were a technical drawing that would be different. The value of any information varies based on circumstances they appear and how they are given. It's the same situation as believing in rumor or some witness report: You are supposed to put 10 chairs into a van. You do this by doing two runs. Now 5 gets stolen, and your witness only saw you getting the last five chairs. What now? Fact is 10 chairs have been taken away. And that's it. Almael 10:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
You are resorting to ad hominem attacks which is the last recourse of the desperate. The size of a fleet is often explicitly given by the narrator in the animation, and not just reliant on a piece of licensed text. One does not need to "accept" any particular frame or drawing. There is no assuming or faith involved. Again you keep repeatedly assuming your source is already unassailable fact and inventing all sorts of justifications why any bit of the animation that contradicts it is somehow not the total picture or merely "representative" or whatever new symantic gyration and spin you want to put on it.
The animation as canon supercedes any printed source. The whole point of this issue is that your source is not necessarily "established fact". It is a claim, and the issue is that there is potnetially contradictory evidence. To use your analogy, someone sees 5 chairs, but another claims there were 10. There is no "fact" that there were ten. There is only the claim there were 10. You need to prove your claim and not simply try to dismiss or shout down any contradictory observations. Your claim cannot be assumed a priori to be true. When the observations contradict the claim, then that is all the more reason where more deliberation and examination is necessary instead of trying to blindly cling to the dogma of any one text. That is the whole basis of the scientific process when observations contradict a claim. Your repeated dismissal of any evidence contradicting your claim is no different from a person dismissing the observations showing a sun centric solar system, because "it contradicts the official facts according to Ptolemy." Iracundus 11:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Guys, don't let it get personal. We're all here for the same reason. I do think Iracundus' approach is the correct one - evidence from the anime shouldn't be dismissed simply because it doesn't fit with what a particular source says. How do I think this applies, practically speaking? On my 'to do' list for quite some time is an entry on the standard Imperial battleship. When I do so, I'm going to matter-of-factly state what the evidence in the anime shows, as well as indicate what (I now know thanks to you guys offering translations) the official sources indicate. There will of course be inconsistencies (just like the FPA battleship fighter count) but I think no one can be faulted for laying out all the facts as they stand and offering various interpretations for why a certain thing is so (for example:- some FPA battleships carry 6 fighters, some carry 9, or alternately its an animation error etc). As you might have gathered, I definitely do agree that animation errors happen, and we should be on the lookout for them and make judgement calls on a case by case basis - but always noting what all the available evidence and sources say. Vympel 12:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't take it personal but I don't think I'm wrong either. I didn't add anything new I just repeated my point in other words. Besides you were the one who started with ad hominem attacks first and that several times: "Sounds like your own personal fan fiction." Iracundus 12:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC). Turning the example backwards won't do. Of course you can check the fact by looking into the storage from where those chairs come from. Chairs don't appear out of nowhere, they have to belong to someone. Find the owner and that's it. They do disappear, though. Again another simple example, someone tells you a box holds 10 pieces and he takes some out to show you the pieces. Does it mean his statement is wrong then? No, not necessarily. If you say it's wrong then only because you already have set your mind that he cannot be trusted. If you want to be sure you check it out. Otherwise you have to trust his statement. Now, in our situation we cannot check inside the box. However, the low number we see is a member of the number-space stated. Does it change anything? No. It's not a contradiction nor is it a confirmation. If the number displayed were to be more than the number-space then it would contradict. It's because of this I rather rely on the ship's port number. Ok, let's just say this is hard evidence. Now what do you say to the other scene who's number neither confirm the official data nor this very scene? You said at the beginning "has less than 24" now Vympel's screenshot shows 39. Now what?
Now, explain to me what I did supposedly claim? Because I don't remember claiming anything. Or are you putting words into me again? However, I did say this does not mean the official facts are wrong. Is that my claim or what? Or maybe better define what claim means to you. I'm certain I didn't make any statement of facts of my own. I did cite facts from the offical sources just as you demanded. And I did hypothize. You demanded proof for my hypothesis based on official sources which was needless to begin with. I delivered them proofing your presumption was wrong. Now we are discussing an action scene. Now, I have been the only one who made researches, who has made analysis from any possible angle, who has made calculations, who made examples and explanations while you didn't bring up anything except starting to tell me to bring up official data: "I am asking for proof of your claims about battlefield endurance not what your unsupported opinion on what it 'should' say. That means actual printed quoted textual evidence." Iracundus 21:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC) , and now you say: "blindly cling to the dogma of any one text" Iracundus 11:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC) is wrong. Weren't you the one starting with clinging to official data and now reversing it? And you are telling me I didn't do any scientific research? Sorry, Sir, I have to disagree strongly here.
I do agree with the approach of confirming stuff based on visual evidence. But I also do not believe all visuals have the same informative quality to be considered. This being the case we have been discussing this round. As I already said it all depends on the situation they appear and how they are represented. They can be hard facts or just random. And that's the very reason to make case to case judgement. Almael 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
You are conflating several things together. First when you make declarative statements about the FPA Fleet's technology or endurance, and other such intangibles that are not directly shown in the anime or stated by the anime's narrator, then you will need textual proof from other sources to back up such statements. The other issue is when you make statements about concrete things such as number of fighters for which there are at least some anime scenes depicting such a topic. In such a case, the anime scene has to be looked at and compared with any other textual source. The textual source cannot be assumed a priori to be true and anything that disagrees with it dismissed out of hand. With regards to the Valkyries, the textual source from FFC3 claims 1 Valkyrie per launching port, and 24 Valkyries on a side, for a total of 48 (further implying that the layout is symmetrical). Therefore the anime scene depicting more than 24 hangar ports on one side is a serious contradiction of the textual source, in numbers and symmetry, if there is an asymmetrical layout. Thus far no actual anime scene has been found to support a 24 per side position. This is contrasted with the FPA fighter number issue, where there are conflicting anime scenes showing ships with 9 and 6 fighter ports on their ventral surface, but there is at least 1 anime scene that agrees with the text. So far we have 0 anime scenes that directly support the Valkyrie claim of 24 per side.
In short, if there is a topic, the anime should first be used as reference. If there is nothing shown or said, or there are conflicting portrayals, then other licensed textual sources should be looked at, to see if there is any consensus with any existing anime portrayal. Yes there is the possibility of animation error, but that is not something that can or should be judged by taking one textual source as proven established canonical fact, and judging anything that disagrees with it as error, lazy animation, non-representative, or whatever other terminology one wants to put on it. Iracundus 01:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
You still seem to mix things up again so I will repeat again. I did say "if it were reality" then the technological difference would be in endurance. I didn't claim it to be "true" in the anime or in the official data. It was you who put that claim onto me. I also didn't claim any number of Valkyries, and I didn't deny nor said the official number was right or wrong either. However, I did say that the case you brought up is in short meaningless or useless. Why? To put it even simpler; every time the animators recreate such a scene the number will always differ. It just becomes a thing of statistics or randomness and will only contradict when the number of Valkyries is more than stated in the official sources. It's something most artists would not care for. Hence, I said right away we need picture for the ports. Now, the official source say 24 on each side, that equal division is sysmmetrical. Yes, the number of ports contradicts the number of Valkyries. However, since there are more ports than Valkyries it doesn't necessary contradict the number of Valkyries given for several reasons: 1. some are shuttle ports 2. some are other maintenance or cargo access ports. 3. the writers/creator/animator messed up. We can't check this since the creators didn't care to go into these details. If the animators where just doing it simple and the writers would care to check the (anime) source to write their books consistently then there would be no problem (neither here or in any given show in the world). In the end everything stays open to discussion but not really hard enough evidence to support changes. Or we will just have fanfic information. The way how creators, animators or writers work as well as the original novels, I don't think anyone should care too much about any official technical facts. The story and the thoughts behind it is what is important in LoGH. Tech are there to flesh it out nothing more or less.
It doesn't matter from where the information comes from I always do a case to case judgement, based on the circumstances they appear, the way they appear, and some more depending on the importance. The source priority is just a matter of convention it doesn't change the value of the information itself. It only changes the order of priority or consideration. The way creators think, the way they do things and common sense is also important to determine how valueable an information is. Even errors yield something in this area of understanding. So in our fighter case whether it's an error or not, no matter how many angle of consideration I ever bring up with, it's not relyable for any purposes. That's why it can be safely ignored. But if you still want to investigate and proof my theories for this kind of cases wrong then try with the number of Spartans launching, since you got more scenes. To be fair to the Empire case ignore the visible Spartans on the bellies and count the launching ones only. Ignore the reused scenes if you want. See if you don't get any statistics consistent with a gaussian curve. The long running LoGH is ideal for this. In any case, it would be interesting as the only research of this kind or case available for any show. Almael 19:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The very existence of more than 24 ports contradicts any claim to symmetry if the ship is still to have 48 Valkyries. If you are reaching for more far fetched explanations that they are not really Valkyrie ports, then you need to explain why shuttles or maintenance ports would open for a fighter launch in the midst of combat. You need to provide positive proof for why such a thing is not ludicrous. One could just as easily claim they are launching ports for pink elephants. If I were to try to claim that, the responsiblity would be on me to prove they are elephant launching ports, not the responsibility of others to prove they are not.
Also you are once again just arbitrarily acting as judge jury and executioner in just ruling out the animation as meaningless and useless. Sorry but you don't have such arbitration powers to rule that the animators will always differ. If the animators can get the numbers of guns and antenna on basic standard ships consistently right over so many episodes, why should we suddenly believe that the moment it comes to launch ports they are completely incorrect and we should disregard them? It is a completely arbitrary decision. Your attempts to ascribe lack of caring or effort on the part of the animators and artists is just pure speculation, not evidence. All I see over and over again in this thread repeated, is the faulty reasoning of judging the animation useless because you personally think it is useless (and declare it useless) and then making all sorts of assumptions about what the animators/artists/creators would or would not have wanted. The use of that phrase "common sense" is especially flawed as it is all too often used to mean "What I believe is common sense, therefore anything else that disagrees with what I believe is not common sense and should be dismissed." Your personal opinions do not determine what is or is not common sense in the LOGH universe, and simply declaring by fiat "This piece of anime is meaningless and should be disregarded" carries no weight whatsoever. There are no things that can be just summarily dismissed as being able to be "safely ignored" Iracundus 13:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools
Tool box