The Jupiter Class Battlestar

The Cylons have rebelled. The alliance of the Twelve Colonies falters. Take control of the Colonial Fleet and save humanity from an endless war.
Post Reply
fisher2000
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:24 pm

The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by fisher2000 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:47 pm

Hello,

I have been following this game since I first heard of it's existance, like many fans of the series I'm counting the days down until launch. Everything that has been presented so far makes perfect sense but one thing that is sticking out like a sore thumb is the Jupiter class battlestar. In the show the galactica (jupiter class) is pretty much defined from the get go of the miniseries. But as myself and many people have noticed is the Jupiter class shown in the gameplay is completley different. The jupiter class in the game has for example; Three arms per flight pod, a much puffed out neck, and two engines missing from the center of the "Engine pod". Also please note that the colonial seal is in the wrong place.

I do not wish this game to fail, I am quite looking forward to it. I feel this issue however, needs to be addressed. I wish to add a massive thank you to everyone involved in this game it really does look beautiful.

(In no way should this post be considered an attack on the game or the devs, I'm just pointing out a consistency issue.)
Attachments
Athena neck.png
Athena neck. (notice the bulky neck and also the location of the colonial seal)
Athena neck.png (2.36 MiB) Viewed 4639 times
Athena flightpod.png
Athena Flightpod. (notice the third arm in the middle)
Athena flightpod.png (2.49 MiB) Viewed 4639 times
Athena Engine.png
Athena Engine.png (2.57 MiB) Viewed 4639 times
Last edited by fisher2000 on Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:53 pm, edited 5 times in total.

fisher2000
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by fisher2000 » Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:49 pm

Galactica stills was taken from the miniseries. Take note of the differences to the Athena.
Attachments
Galactica Neck.png
Galactica Neck.png (2.35 MiB) Viewed 4638 times
Galactica flight pod.png
Galactica flight pod.png (1.34 MiB) Viewed 4638 times
galactica engine.png
galactica engine.png (1.99 MiB) Viewed 4638 times

BlackLabAnthonyS
Black Lab Studios
Black Lab Studios
Posts: 141
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:29 am

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by BlackLabAnthonyS » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:12 am

Hi fisher2000! Yep, this is an intentional design choice by our art team. We're keen to pay homage to what's come before us, and part of that is subtle design shifts to bridge some of the visual DNA between the original series and the reimagined series. So say we all!
Anthony Sweet - Lead Designer - Black Lab Games

fisher2000
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by fisher2000 » Tue Aug 01, 2017 9:52 am

BlackLabAnthonyS wrote:Hi fisher2000! Yep, this is an intentional design choice by our art team. We're keen to pay homage to what's come before us, and part of that is subtle design shifts to bridge some of the visual DNA between the original series and the re-imagined series. So say we all!
Thank you for your swift reply. I can defiantly see the influence the TOS has had on this game, and it is a good thing as I believe the story of the TOS helps understand what Kara is and some of the sub plots etc. Anyways I am curious if this means the Jupiter class line undergoes major overhauls ? since they cut corners in the building of these :wink: :wink: (when Galactica 'breaks her back' in the show). I feel this presents a very nice piece of backstory or the possibility of a 'nod' in future content. The flight pod arms can sort of explain itself as it makes the flight pods sit closer to the hull, perhaps pilots kept slamming into the side of the Jupiter, or to allow bigger ships to dock. So as a countermeasure they removed the third arm to extend the flight pods thus having to draw them in because of the weakened structural integrity during phase jumps. Either way I find much comfort knowing this was intentional, I’m glad that there is movement to tell a story of the Galactica and her class before operation raptor talon and before blood and chrome. Let me point out again, you guys have done a marvelous job. So say we all!
Last edited by fisher2000 on Wed Dec 20, 2017 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mithril2098
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2017 10:42 pm

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by mithril2098 » Sat Aug 12, 2017 12:05 am

could be that they overhauled the design after say, the first 4, reducing the number of arms, and cramming on the extra guns we see in Blood and Chrome. the Athena being a "Jupiter Class Flight I" and the B&C Galactica being a "Flight II" or something. like the Arleigh Burke class in real life, which saw a number of base design changes over its service life, inside and out.

Maddogs1989
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:38 am

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by Maddogs1989 » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:23 pm

Look guys this is how this has been designed I personally like it better. As for all of you saying that they should offer an overhaul package or something let me explain something about how and why overhauls are conducted. Generally speaking when an overhaul is conducted it is done to add new technology or modernize an older ship to modern standards. Never dose this include removing parts built in to the structural integrity of the ship ... i.e. what y'all are suggesting to fix the arm situation. Look at is as an improvement to the original design. Now to the guy that brings up Arleigh Burkes.... as I have stated above refute and overhauls are made for improvements to add better technology or modernize. The Flight I and Flight II are weapon and radar packages of the Arleigh Burke and does not remove anything from the hull of the Arleigh Burke. Look at it this way nothing on a ship is ever removed it is built upon.

Ghawkins
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 10:05 am

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by Ghawkins » Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:49 pm

Maddogs1989 wrote: Now to the guy that brings up Arleigh Burkes.... as I have stated above refute and overhauls are made for improvements to add better technology or modernize. The Flight I and Flight II are weapon and radar packages of the Arleigh Burke and does not remove anything from the hull of the Arleigh Burke. Look at it this way nothing on a ship is ever removed it is built upon.
I raise you the USS Oriskany, an Essex class carrier, who started life looking like this;

Image

And ended looking like this;

Image

They replaced her entire flight deck and added steam catapults, which would require an underdeck rearrangement. Although not as big of an overhaul as removing two pylons from a battlestar, you have to take into consideration... we can't build battlestars to begin with.

A civilization capable of constructing warships with artificial gravity at almost 1.5km in length is undoubtedly able to do overhauls, including removing something from that particular ship.
The aforementioned post is made in accordance with the canon where the Valkyrie-class is a modern battlestar which has no place in the first Cylon War timeline. So say we all.

Maddogs1989
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:38 am

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by Maddogs1989 » Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:21 pm

The Flight deck of the Essex was not the hull of the Essex class but please how about you read about its refit instead of omg it looks different it proves my point because I can seriously just post pictures of ships all day that look different then when they launched because of credits but this was because of improvements to their superstructure new radar equipment more guns different weapon systems and yes new flight decks, but the hulls of the ship are the same that's what defines the class. What you are talking about with the Jupiter class is in fact compromising the hull for the sake of removing an arm because of looks. Furthermore as I said early a refit is for modernizing. In the Essex case a new flight deck. If you want to pull up looks I can sight numerous ships that changed looks over time, but the structure i.e. the hull, which is the actual ship remains. The arm is part of this designs hull. Removing it serves no military purpose and would not only comprise the structural integrity of the design but put a giant weak spot in the armor of the hull on both sides and to each flight pod. It would never be done from any military standpoint
Last edited by Maddogs1989 on Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maddogs1989
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:38 am

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by Maddogs1989 » Sun Dec 24, 2017 6:14 pm

As far as your arguement goes that because they can construct a 1.5km warship with artificial gravity goes .... come on really let's not be asinine here or shall we go into how the colonial haven't improved their ftp tech in 2000 years since the tribes left kobol. The entire notion that an overhaul would be done to remove a arm for no real reason at all as the previous Artemis had 3 and the proceeding Battlestars have 3 is absolutely ludicrous. No you are trying make the tv design fit into this when the Jupiters in this game are redesigns of the ones from the show.

Haveatya
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Private First Class - Wehrmacht Inf
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2018 9:39 pm

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by Haveatya » Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:50 am

Remove an unnecessary arm due to support upgrades or whatnot, add engines due to the freed up mass and advances in energy production, add new guns for the sake of guns. I really don't see an issue here quite frankly. A few years is plenty of time to see advances and changes. Stealth technology was developed, marked advances in Vipers, new munitions, why wouldn't the same advances be applicable to the Battlestars?

fisher2000
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by fisher2000 » Thu Jan 25, 2018 4:37 pm

Maddogs1989 wrote:As far as your arguement goes that because they can construct a 1.5km warship with artificial gravity goes .... come on really let's not be asinine here or shall we go into how the colonial haven't improved their ftp tech in 2000 years since the tribes left kobol. The entire notion that an overhaul would be done to remove a arm for no real reason at all as the previous Artemis had 3 and the proceeding Battlestars have 3 is absolutely ludicrous. No you are trying make the tv design fit into this when the Jupiters in this game are redesigns of the ones from the show.
There are numerous changes to the Jupiter one that is in the TV show. I'm really passionate about BSG and when a new story is considered canon... well boy I on board. I created this thread to seek answers from the devs about the changes to the Galactica, if this story was to be considered as canon then the changes to the Galactica would be considered canon. For those who are unaware In fiction, canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in the fictional universe of that story. It is often contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction. The alternative terms mythology, timeline, universe and continuity are often used, with the former being especially used to refer to a richly detailed fictional canon requiring a large degree of suspension of disbelief (e.g. an entire imaginary world and history), while the latter two typically refer to a single arc where all events are directly connected chronologically. Other times, the word can mean "to be acknowledged by the creator(s). - Wiki.

My concern was that the Athena, which we see in the original post that I made was ether changed for the sake of changing it or made from scratch with pieces missing from it, but the devs responded saying that it was designed that way intentionally to make some call-backs to the TOS Galactica. Now, if you take into account what the word "Canon" means (I don't mean the printer) Then really the changes made don't make much sense in the continuity. An example of a BSG game that was supposed to be canon but found itself in its own alternate.... story ?? was BSG (2003) for original Xbox and ps2. All I simply wanted was the story behind the changes to the ship which in the lore will happen because the TV show has a higher absorption rate when it comes to the views over the game so the show is Prime Canon unless the license holder states otherwise. To ignore this is well to be ignorant to be honest. An example of a franchise where most of the lore is ignored is star trek. With each new episode there is continuity errors. Most of the hardcore fans are not happy with star trek discovery, they have more or less ignored everything ascetically about what made star trek, star trek. I'm aware that people do like it and that is OKAY people can like what they like. So, with BSG which I consider far superior to star trek (that is my own opinion) I would like to make sure everything flows with the lore. I know the show has its own issues but that is beside the point really. So far with B&C there are three iterations of the RDM Galactica which so far needs the continuity, but because of some of the sins from B&C and the lack of explanation many fans dismiss the movie entirely.

It is hinted at that the Colonials didn't have FTL drives or the technology they have by the time of the show during the exodus of Kobol, as the show explains that it is a technological cycle. "All of this has happened before, and all of this will happen again." Not all Battlestar’s have the two-arm aesthetic. The Valkyrie is one that doesn't have any arms on the flight pod. In multiple threads you have focused on the Arms for the flight pod, but this is not what the focus was on THIS thread. The neck of the "crocodile head", turret positions, engine blocks as well as the arms.
The devs have done a wonderful job catching that Battlestar feel. All I would like would be some lore behind it, maybe in an official book?

Haveatya wrote:Remove an unnecessary arm due to support upgrades or whatnot, add engines due to the freed up mass and advances in energy production, add new guns for the sake of guns. I really don't see an issue here quite frankly. A few years is plenty of time to see advances and changes. Stealth technology was developed, marked advances in Vipers, new munitions, why wouldn't the same advances be applicable to the Battlestars?
I actually really like this idea, it would explain the changes and also stick the science narrative the show aims for. let’s not forget they have the know how to create a metal which blocks out radiation, build ships in space, jump drives, refine fuel out of a type of sand? It's not out of the question and has been shown to some extent in the show with the Battlestar Pegasus at Scorpia Fleet Shipyards.

Maddogs1989
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 6:38 am

Re: The Jupiter Class Battlestar

Post by Maddogs1989 » Wed Jan 31, 2018 3:48 pm

This entire topic goes around the entire basis that the Jupiter class in game looks different from the on in the show. I've already stated that the devs have already stated they redesigned it to be as such. I have also stated to make such changes as everyone else proposes would mean the creation of entire new class of battlestar for various reason as previously stated. Yes the Jupiter's in the show have gone through many stages and overhauls. This being adding and removing of guns armor and systems. What you are all failing to grasp is that what you are proposing is entirely structural in nature and removing said arms would compromise the structural integrity of the ship and put giant weak spots in the armor. Again you are all trying to make this ship design fit that of the shows when this is a complete redesign of the ship

Post Reply

Return to “Battlestar Galactica Deadlock”