>>97751387Yeah, but the point is that half your argument is "you don't know how would it work, you're assuming!", which is a pointless position to take when discussing fiction because you can practically dismiss any criticism towards said fiction.
>you're making intuitive assumptions that are not necessarily supported by the actual textPerhaps, but using real life mathematics to argue against fictional assumptions is pointless.
I know that FTL is a hard limit in our universe and we cannot know if the connotations of something above the speed of light hitting something in STL would be linear. But the point is that FTL is NOT a hard limit in Star Wars, and we can use what we have seen in the franchise to reach the logical conclusion inside this fictional universe without the need to having to argue with "FTL wouldn't work like that because it does not exist in our universe".
Let me clarify myself, I'm not criticizing that SW is being unrealistic, I'm criticizing the huge blow to his internal consistency that this last movie has made.
>you do not know that fighter size hyperspace missiles could viably take down Star DestroyersBut it's not far-fetched to consider that such a kind of projectiles would be more powerful weapons than non-FTL ammo, is it?
That is my point, even if FTL torpedoes does not take down Star Destroyers, by what we have been shown in all of SW canon they're clearly better weapons than what they normally use and there's literally no known reason for why they're not taking advantage of this technology.
Which is why they'll be forced to introduce a cop-out (anti FTL shields or something like that) in the next movie to explain why an entire class of (clearly superior) weapons has not ever been used in all of the franchise.
And if you find the idea of FTL torpedoes stupid, you still have the "FTL-pods with droids piloting them" hanging around.
Even if they find a good explanation for the third movie, I can say that they fucked up with that scene.
