Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

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
Victor_shaw
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:26 am

Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by Victor_shaw » Tue Apr 23, 2019 2:52 pm

If so why did they feel the need to create a whole bunch of new ship classes.
We already have ;
Jupiter (Galactica/Colombia) Class (Heavy Battlestar)For the time
Valkyrie Class (Battlestar)
Orion Class (Pocket-Battlestar)
Loki Class (Heavy Cruiser) Seems to fill the same role as the Minotaur
Berzerk Class (Escort)
Defender Class (Unknown) Probably a destroyer type
Celestra Class (Unknown in the show)
Catamaran Class (Unknown) Looks to be a smaller version of the Orion
Watersled Class (Unknown)
Flattop Class (Fleet logistics/supply)

The BSG show seems to have around 14 ships. (Twice the amount allowed by the game)
1x Jupiter
2x Valkyrie
1x Orion
3x Berzerk
1x Defender
3x Loki
2x Watersled
1x Celestra

On the Jupiter;
The number of Heavy(Battlestar) guns is off even for the series.
All models of the Galactica have 8 turrets on top/ 8 turrets on the bottom/ and 4 turrets foreword (which may be able to shot down not sure) for a total of 20.
This is visible turrets, not including the 4 that I believe are fix mounted 2 left/2 right in the alligator head or Flight pods(Can't remember which).

BossDos
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:02 pm

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by BossDos » Thu Apr 25, 2019 10:55 am

Yes, it is canon and I don't get why you think otherwise.
FIve of the Ships you mentioned are either Civilian Ships (Flattop & Watersled) or in the game (Jupiter, Berzerks, Celestra).
The Orion is just an oversized Atlas, which also eliminates the Catamaran Class from the list. Perhaps the Atlas is the predecessor? We are just in the first years of the war, the ships we saw in Razor and B&C are mostly ships of the later war era.

Valkyrie is not built yet, because it is a design of the later war era.
So why do we not have Loki & Defender? Perhaps they are design's that were not shared with colonial fleet yet or are simply not designed yet. We saw a Defender in the Survivor Fleet of Galactica, which intends, that they were still in use. So it is probably not a design which is super old.

The Number of Heavy Turrets is quite in sync with the series. Well in B&C Galactica was massively over gunned with I think 12 or 16 guns on top?
But we need to bear in mind, that we are currently in the first years of the war, and the Jupiters we see just out of the drydocks.
Warships often get retrofitted so the outfit of the Jupiters might change threw out the war.

Victor_shaw
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:26 am

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by Victor_shaw » Thu Apr 25, 2019 7:58 pm

I ask because it was mentioned in a interview for the game and it was said that the game was semi-canon/ or canon that they where not sure and that it being canon was left vague so they could ignore it if they made a new movie or series.
I was just trying to see if that had changed.
And no the Valkyrie is not a late war ship it was in the Caprica series.
And before you start, the write for Battlestar Galactica has said that all Series: Caprica, B&C, Battlestar Galactica are canon. So if it was in there its canon.

As for the Jupiter I was referring to the Series ship not the B&C ship.
all the official write-ups show it with 24 turrets not the 18 in the game
As I said
8 top
8 bottom
4 front
2 per side (form the scenes in the show I believe they where on the sides of the flight pods just above the launch tubes)
The game turrets are not right. I would except that it was done for balance but the cylons are overpowered as it is so I don't see the balance issue with giving it more guns.

Rebel Yell
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 68
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 6:18 am

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by Rebel Yell » Fri Apr 26, 2019 6:13 am

Cylons OP?

Not even close.

BossDos
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:02 pm

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by BossDos » Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:31 pm

The Valkyrie is a late warship. It is a modern Battlestar and I will not even argue about it.
It only appeared in Caprica, because they reused visual assets just because it was cheaper and they've already got it done for the other series.
Caprica was 58 years before the Fall, 58 years, more than half a fucking century.
It would've been decommissioned long ago if it were that old and wouldn't be state of the art Battlestar
But the Valkyries were always top notch, on a higher technological level than Jupiters, which were built at the start of the first war, on par with even Mercury-Class Battlestars in Technology.

While it is usual that warships got long service times, like the Missouri which was built at the end of the second world war and even participated in the Gulf war after an immense refit, but they all got decommissioned because of technology advancements, which were quite fast during the Cylon War.
So the Valkyrie is definitely a warship of the later war era. And it's just in Caprica because of laziness and saving money.

Also, the turrets of the Battlestars are just fine.
They are currently the best weapons in the game with the highest damage output.

Victor_shaw
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:26 am

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by Victor_shaw » Sat Apr 27, 2019 11:51 am

BossDos wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:31 pm
The Valkyrie is a late warship. It is a modern Battlestar and I will not even argue about it.
It only appeared in Caprica, because they reused visual assets just because it was cheaper and they've already got it done for the other series.
Caprica was 58 years before the Fall, 58 years, more than half a fucking century.
It would've been decommissioned long ago if it were that old and wouldn't be state of the art Battlestar
But the Valkyries were always top notch, on a higher technological level than Jupiters, which were built at the start of the first war, on par with even Mercury-Class Battlestars in Technology.

While it is usual that warships got long service times, like the Missouri which was built at the end of the second world war and even participated in the Gulf war after an immense refit, but they all got decommissioned because of technology advancements, which were quite fast during the Cylon War.
So the Valkyrie is definitely a warship of the later war era. And it's just in Caprica because of laziness and saving money.
First I was referring to the class not the individual ship.
I don't care if you don't believe it was that old or if the writes where lazy and reused the same models, but by what was said "everything on screen is canon"
They are that old no matter how much you don't want them to be.
The idea that the fans determine what is canon only works with a dead franchises.
Example: the Prequels are canon even if you don't like them or think Lukas was being stupid or lazy.

As for the them being a higher tech level then the Jupiter.
we have no proof of this statement other then a scene in one of the series episodes that shows the Valkyrie just before the 2nd war.
And if you know anything about naval ships they get updated quite often over their life. If they work it is not uncommon for ships classes to be upgraded with each new ship constructed.
The Arleigh Burke-class destroyer is 31 years old has had 10 versions and is still being built with all ships still in active service.
If the Valkyrie proved to be highly up-gradable and durable it would not be hard to image them still is service and showing the latest tech.
As long as the space frame can handle the up-grades there is no reason to create a new one.
There is also the possibility that the Valkyrie from "Hero" is not the same Valkyrie class ship show in B&C. That one could have been destroyed and this was a later ship named in its honor.
This happen a few times in and post WWII.
BossDos wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:31 pm
Also, the turrets of the Battlestars are just fine.
They are currently the best weapons in the game with the highest damage output.
Again this is your option on the classes play-ability in the game not the canon layout of the ship.
So this does not make the layout of the guns right from a canon perspective just because it works in your opinion in the game.
I for one don't see them being as powerful as the fleet cost would indicate.
during the game in my opinion you have some major disadvantage throughout the game.
1. Even if you know where the fleet is during the setup phase you are limited in the elevations =\- you can set where they are not. (There should be no min/max on elevation less than what the cylons can do)
2. You don't know the Composition/Point value/or make-up of the enemy fleet until you engage it. The colonial fleet has raptors they should be able to scout. It would be as simple as If the fleet has raptors it can see ships one jump away.
3.The fights for a Jupiter (due to the above), tend to be about getting below the cylon ships. (which would not be the case with the proper turret layout)
4. The series showed the cylons to be incapable of hacking the Jupiter classes systems without the crew going out of their way network their system. (so why are my Jupiters getting hacked all the time)

Overall the cylons are given a lot of advantages in the game that seem un-canon or just down right stupid (no raptor scouting) that I don't feel they need.
Most of this has been said before on the steam forums so I'm not the only one bringing this up.
Last edited by Victor_shaw on Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:37 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Victor_shaw
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Lance Corporal - Panzer IA
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2019 1:26 am

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by Victor_shaw » Sat Apr 27, 2019 12:19 pm

BossDos wrote:
Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:31 pm
The Valkyrie is a late warship. It is a modern Battlestar and I will not even argue about it.
It only appeared in Caprica, because they reused visual assets just because it was cheaper and they've already got it done for the other series.
Caprica was 58 years before the Fall, 58 years, more than half a fucking century.
It would've been decommissioned long ago if it were that old and wouldn't be state of the art Battlestar
But the Valkyries were always top notch, on a higher technological level than Jupiters, which were built at the start of the first war, on par with even Mercury-Class Battlestars in Technology.
I wanted to respond to this one separately.
Everyone seems to forget that the Colonies per "Caprica" where highly advanced and that the Jupiters where build in response to the cylons ability to hack the systems on their earlier ship.
So the idea that the Valkyrie class would be of a higher tech level makes perfect sense. They would have been highly hackable and have to be down graded to work during the first war.
This would leave them highly up-gradable after the war, and easily explain their service life and why they seemed more advanced then "Galactica".
To the best of my knowledge there where active duty Jupiter class ships in the the 2nd war that had the same advanced tech as the rest of the fleet and where destroyed.
While it is said that only 3 "original" Jupiters survived the 1st war and "Galactica" is the only one of them left, it is never said that no more where built during or after the war.
It is mentioned in the reimagined series that Adama is the reason that the "Galactica" is still low tech due to tradition and to honor the dead from the first war.

SgtZdog
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:00 pm

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by SgtZdog » Tue Jun 25, 2019 2:30 pm

Victor,

The game is canon and to my knowledge is the only ongoing source of canon at the moment. As you mentioned the Jupiter's turret count and placement does not match the what is seen in the show (as well as many other variations.) In part this is probably game balance, but it is also quite possible that the Jupiters we see are different simply because they are the original deployment and what we see in the show is a later revision to the hull. As the story is still in development with DLCs I would look for answers there where hopefully we will see some light shed on this topic.

tlroff
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 46
Joined: Sun May 05, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Is Battlestar Galactica Deadlock canon to (TRS)?

Post by tlroff » Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:37 pm

I'm going to pop in with one additional note and that is "rights" as in rights to use or portray. Artists like to be paid.. and that includes artists who art is 3D CAD Models, or honest to god physical models. It may be there are other limits that the game devs have to adhere to like it or not. Sometime the raging fan boys need to get a grip. Love ya'll to pieces but the models need to be true to what the "Game" needs.

And just to muddy the waters lemmie tell ya about another long service class of capital ships. The IJN Fuso class of WW-II. These were built originally as battlecruisers not battleships. In their first major refit that added some armor over the vitals, and replaced a good part of her power plant. The classes second refit added the famous "pagoda" superstructure replacing the tripod masts, added yet more armor along with a rebuild of the armor scheme giving better protection, and more engine work was done and the ship reclassified as a fast battleship. Other minor refit happened for all the rest of these ships careers usually involving finding places to put AA defences. The ships looked quite different as initially built, post 1st refit, and post second refit, and prior to final disposition. And thats real world. So a canonizable reason can be found for the differences between whats been on screen and what been in game. It just takes a good writer, or a good lawyer to explain it. (didja see that.. see what I did there? There right picked on lawyers because yea, they need to always remember to be humble.. You might be one! *eye balls you warily*)

Just always remember there are gonna be holes.. really big stupid holes that no one has filled and maybe just never will. But ya know.. that's ok for most of us.
The devs make a helleva effort to be true to the look, and feel and the real world underpinnings behind what we see on the screen, or the page. Sound powered phones on a starship. Ya know... Good idea. More so if its a warship. Might save lives.

As for the gun turrets question.. um I could make up an instant fix for that..

"Why those are the replacements for the old mark 8 twin mounts and the mark 12 quad mounts. These new mounts are heavy but have a much higher rate of fire so we can actually mount less of them which drops the crew and maintenance requirements and allows us to use the saved mass for more armor..always a good thing, and better amenities for the crew (which the crew really thinks is a very good thing) with the additional internal volume freed up by the removal of ancillary equipment for the removed mounts."

Why are they different.. honestly, because they're different. The models were made by different artists. Shortcuts were taken and use of exiting assets to reduce productions costs for both Caprica and Blood and Chrome. And note assets were used unmodified because they didn't want to damage them or modify them because that would have meant hiring a 3D artist (possibly the original artists if available and you know damd well that that isn't going to be cheap!). How do I know this.. I've worked for a props company and we not only got paid to make props, but to also KEEP props maintained and usable. That usually meant NO MODIFYING THE PROPS FROM THE FINAL FORM. And like I mean you could be fired for doing so, and the shop could be sued for breach!

Still, good discussion.. the real answer as to.. "why are they different?" is because they are and there is no explanation for it, but we're real inventive we can make something up to cover it. And who knows.. maybe the dev team boys and girls will be moved to create transitional ships and the back story behind why there so much difference/similarity between X and Y. We should ask them nice.. cuz ya know they got talent.. and us... ummm not so much.. (well me maybe quite much, but I cant speak for you. That would be assumptive and rude!)

Nuff for today!
Peace out!
TLRoff sends

Post Reply

Return to “Battlestar Galactica Deadlock”