Last Gundam show I've seen is SEED and it was kinda shit. I've seen every gundam show before it. Is anything released after it even worth watching? I tried to watch g-reco when it came, but dropped it after just few episodes and I did same for 00. I also tried to get into Origin but the shit CGI kinda ruined the first one for me. From what I've seen, at least Unicorn looks nice and heard some nice things about build fighters. How are those? Don't even try to recommend SEED Destiny.
00 is probably my favorite AU, if not favorite overall. I'd give it another chance. Build Fighters was awesome, assuming you can enjoy something that's silly and fun and doesn't try to push the "War is hell" narrative. Build Fighters Try was significantly less so. Either stay away from AGE, or drop it after the first half. When the story transitions to the Kio arc, it goes to shit.
I've been thinking about giving 00 second try because it has many nice designs. Guess I'll torrent it and watch it once I'm done with Gasaraki. I even forgot AGE exists.
No it's not. Is this some new meme?
Honestly, if you didn't like G-Reco or The Origin, you probably just don't like Gundam. Those are some of the best the franchise has to offer and frankly, you just seem like someone with very easily-offended taste.
You will hate Unicorn (and probably won't even understand what's going on since I assume you haven't even seen the original, Zeta, CCA, etc) so why even bother? Just go watch something else more suited for your taste like Aldnoah Zero
>you probably just don't like Gundam.
>since I assume you haven't even seen the original, Zeta, CCA
>>I've seen every gundam show before it.
Cant you fucking read? I enjoyed most of Gundam stuff before SEED. I would've just gave up on Gundam if I didn't like it.
>if you didn't like G-Reco or The Origin, you probably just don't like Gundam
Not even him, but you're full of shit. I'm kind of indifferent toward Origin. On the one hand it's fairly unnecessary backstory, and on the other hand it's unnecessary retcons like Amuro not building Haro and Guntanks existing in 0065.
I even managed to finish Wing. I almost dropped it when Wufei just moped his way back home instead of sinking Trieze's ship, but I finished it. I slogged through Destiny. I watched Igloo2 and every last Evolve short. Every bit of Gundam that wasn't SD, and half of what *was* SD, but I dropped Reco around ep20. I'd recommend GBF Try over that shit, and that's no compliment to Try.
But I fucking LOVED 0079, Zeta, ZZ, Victory, 00, 08th, 0080, 0083, F91, X, even SEED. Don't tell me I don't like Gundam because I don't like your favorite show.
Son, G-Reco is shit. The only Gundam series I have yet to see is Victory. I would rank the bottom Gundam productions as
Destiny > G-Savior > A steaming pile of human feces > G-Reco
>How are those?
Unicorn is... fine. It's quite pretty but the message is ultimately non-nonsensical within UC (particularly the last episode), and potentially offensive to the ideals and themes of 0079 (aka. revisionist history)
Build Fighters (the first season) is great if you're a long-time lover of Gundam as the cameos of other properties provide a foil for the other series. It's also moderately decent in of itself. Try, on the other hand, is a horrendously juvenile quick cash-in.
G-Reco is also the best Gundam property since Turn A, and I'm sorry you didn't like it.
My hermano of hispanic heritage
For the most part, yes. There were a few stand-out bad moments, but for the most part it was very well animated. This is probably G-Reco's best point.
>great mobile suit designs
This one's about 50/50. There were some excellent designs and there were also some horrible designs.
Can't agree. While the fights were, for the most part, very well animated they often had no weight or meaning to them. Each faction had such a small force that the story couldn't afford for any of the main factions to actually suffer a significant loss so every battle ended with both sides retreating and no change in the status quo. When you have them on the run, you're supposed to run them down not run away from the people who are running away from you. This killed the show for me.
I can't agree with this at all. Everyone was a twit or a twat. When Raraiya was still brain damaged she was cute to watch but when she regained her IQ she lost her personality.
The entire plot can be summarized as
-Let's find out what's REALLY going on
-Someone is trying to change the status quo
-He dies (maybe)
-Status quo is safe, let's all go home.
No zealots, no like-minded followers, no remnants wanting revenge, everyone just gives up and goes home.
Definitely watch Unicorn.
SEED was ruined when they ruined the best couple.
>Unicorn is... fine. It's quite pretty but the message is ultimately non-nonsensical within UC (particularly the last episode), and potentially offensive to the ideals and themes of 0079 (aka. revisionist history)
It's a pretty heavy fuck you to people wanting to keep the Zeon dream alive while pretending it was still about Spacenoids and not just about getting back at the Federation in an endless back and forth of butthurt that everyone really needed to break out of.
And to that end, it does at least close the book on the Zeon movement in UC, exorcising that ghost once and for all.
Shame it doesn't stop the nonsense that would come in the years after, but hey no one ever pretended stuff like Cosmo Babylonia was legitimate, right?
>When you have them on the run, you're supposed to run them down not run away from the people who are running away from you.
Holy fuck, is this what armchair generals think actually happens in war?
Historically almost no battle EVER went down this way. Remember, the point of a battle is to remove enemy resistance, not to kill the opponent (depending on the era and place it was usually preferable to NOT kill the enemy as prisoners are both leverage and a useful economic boon).
Attacking a retreating enemy is extraordinarily dangerous, for a number of reasons. Firstly, a panicked human is still a panicked animal and is extremely dangerous when cornered. The risk to your own soldiers is much higher when the enemy knows it cannot retreat or surrender. Secondly, retreats are very rarely as disorganized as they are portrayed in media (historical routs stand out so much more than general retreats precisely because they are rarer). Almost certainly retreating forces are pulling back to better defended territory.
>to actually suffer a significant loss
Again, extraordinarily realistic. For example, we are told that the D-Day landing at Omaha beach was particularly hellish for the landing parties due to both heavy defenses and a number of significant tactical botches. Now, of the troops that landed on Omaha on the first day (obviously not counting those that landed after the beach was secured), how many casualties do you think there were? 20%? 30%? Try 7% (Source: US War Department's account, 1945). And that's dead and wounded.
Battles can be atrocious slaughter, of course, but their depiction in G-Reco is quite appropriate for technologically advanced forces that have a variety of ways to re-position and maneuver across a great distance.
>Remember, the point of a battle is to remove enemy resistance
You have no clue. We're talking about battleships here. Why even bring up Normandy? The Pacific Theater would be a much more apt analogy. And what do battleships do? They sink other battleships, that's what. Destroyers were not designed to chase people away, they were designed to ram ships in half. Remember Pearl Harbor? Did the Japanese scare the US Navy away and then return home? Fuck no, they destroyed as much as possible of the enemy force. Remember the Yamato? Did we chase it back to its harbor and then go home?
This is not exclusive to naval battles. Ever hear about how the Oda clan dealt with the Takeda cavalry?
HINT: NEITHER SIDE RETREATED
Ever hear about the Santa Anna attacking the Alamo?
HINT: NEITHER SIDE RETREATED
Ever hear about the Persians attacking the Spartans?
HINT: NEITHER SIDE RETREATED
Anyone conquering anyone, ever?
I could go on and on, but you won't listen anyway.
>Santa Anna attacking the Alamo
Not the same guy, but are you fucking serious? The Texan forces were surrounded at the Alamo and got wrecked by the Mexicans. Sam Houston told them to escape beforehand because he knew it was a dumb battle.
One side obliterated the other side. They did not do what the idiots in Reco did and let every named character run away because the plot needed them later. Anon's assertion that eliminating a defeated enemy is unrealistic is...unrealistic.
There was no retreat because there was no chance of escape at all. Houston wanted the Texan forces to take the supplies, burn down the fort and retreat from the advancing forces.
As for G-Reco, the goal of the Megafauna was never to obliterate and kill everyone.
And therein lies the problem. Here you have a group with no stated enemy they're trying to defeat, and other armed groups which even when they were trying to defeat them they were harmlessly inept, yet every episode had to have a battle for the sake of PEW PEW which made the whole thing just feel hollow. No one ever made any headway against anyone else, so there was no tension to the battles at all. We all knew that it would be a requisite light show for a couple of minutes and that it would be over with no significant consequence, every time.
You're pretty much just missing the point. Skirmishes don't need to be high-stakes "everyone must die" scenarios. In most cases, the battles all had pretty obvious strategic purposes (capture the G-self, occupy Capital Tower, bring Gusion to the Pope, etc.) The skirmishes are the inevitable result of the tensions between the different sides, and it scales outward to full-blown batttles as the series progresses.
>I could go on and on
Every single one of those battles are remembered specifically because they're exceptions that prove the rule.
The Alamo and Thermopylae were both notable precisely because of the sacrifices therein, but neither were particularly consequential to their respective wars. Following the Alamo, there was quite an exodus of Texans in advance of the advancing Mexican Army, partially leading to the Mexican-American war; for Thermopylae, Xerxes did withdraw, but left Mardonius in Greece to continue the fight. It wasn't until the following year that the Greek army was able to decisively beat the Persians at Plataea (the battle, not the siege, which lots of people get mixed together). That decisive battle, by the way, is estimated to have cost the Persians maybe 10-15% of their forces.
>And what do battleships do?
Mostly provide shore bombardment and interdiction of a fleet in being. You must remember, most naval battles between battleships were negligible affairs. The Battle of Jutland, for example, the largest naval battle of WWI and the only full-scale class of battleships in the war (and the only one ever in which you had fairly even distribution of ship masses that also involved battleships) did see quite significant human losses but you'll note that both sides loss less than 10% of their ships, men, and tonnage.
>No one ever made any headway against anyone else
While you can certainly argue that it makes for a boring showing, this is also very true to history. William the Conquer, the Bastard Norman King who conquered England. How many battles did he fight during his conquest of England? ONE. He fought a single battle at Hastings (which everyone remembers), then merrily seiged cities (which all promptly gave up because fighting really, really sucks) and was crowned king.
Please read Sherman's letter to the political officials of Atlanta. This one is in quite decent font:
General Sherman was quite clear about the intent of the mission and very prominently asked the city to be evacuated prior to the arrival of Union forces. Certainly his mission was to destroy the agriculture and economy of the South in order to both cripple their war industry as well as force conciliatory actions, but in battle itself, retreat was almost always allowed.
I think you're confusing the difference between fighting the battle itself and what to do when there is a rout. During what historically is termed a pitched battle (that is, one where both contenders acknowledge that a battle is to take place at a particular location and time, which is fairly common because, especially in pre-industrial times, it's fairly easy to just not make battle) you would obviously engage with the enemy and attempt to break their ranks, maybe kill or take some of their folk, whatever.
However, when one side retreats or routs, that's when you would pursue, right? Cavalry runs out or whatever. But both records of battles and texts on the subject suggest (chapters 4 and 6 of Sun Tzu's Art of War specifically point this out) that attempting to run down an enemy who is in retreat is extremely dangerous business and often counterproductive.
Also, pic very much related.
>Anon's assertion that eliminating a defeated enemy is unrealistic is...unrealistic
That's why during the 2003 invasion of Iraq the US Army killed the roughly 405,000 Iraqi troops that were defending Baghdad in April, right? Oh wait, no, there were only 6,000 reported fatalities (so probably closer to 20 or 30,000 killed, depending on which partisan study you'd prefer)
So, not that anon, but you definitely pursue in the rout - just not very far. The rout is, typically, your one chance at inflicting disproportionate casualties against an opponent, so it would be foolish not to exploit it.What you don't want to do is force anyone against a wall or chase the enemy far enough that their forces consolidate while yours spread out - which is the natural tendency for any army advancing at speed.
That said, the ability and window to exploit a rout is a very contextually dependent thing. Technology and cultural practices often serve to impede or promote a pursuit.
>Destroyers were not designed to chase people away, they were designed to ram ships in half
Naval vessels during WWII certainly did ram U-boats, but they certainly were not A) designed to do so (in almost all cases that you'll read about (U405, U100, U224, etc) the U-Boat was rammed because the sub was within the optimum range of the ship's primary gun or B) more commonly, the ship carried no anti-submarine weaponry.
For instance, after USS Borie rammed U405 it had to be abandoned and deliberately sunk due to the damage it took.
Ships haven't been designed to ram another ship since the 1860s. Pic related. The 1870s thought ramming ships was dumb.
>you definitely pursue in the rout - just not very far
Indeed. I had too hastily finished that paragraph. The other anon was positing that a retreating enemy be completely hunt down and destroyed (possibly to the last man), which is, of course, historically inaccurate.
>he has different opinion about this japanese cartoon than me so he must be retarded
>positing that a retreating enemy be completely hunt down and destroyed (possibly to the last man)
Not at all. I was positing that "the enemy is retreating, we should do the same" isn't really victory, just maintaining the status quo. I don't expect everyone to be MOST DANGEROUS, I'm just saying that when every single battle amounts to
>they want to stop us
>we don't stop
it gets old quickly, even if it weren't for the egregious overuse of "new backpack + rayhunton code = genki".
There are only so many times you can watch an episode of G.I. Joe or Transformers and still feel like the battles have meaning. The villains are going to turn tail and run as soon as the odds are no longer in their favor, and the heroes are never going to pursue them. Compare this to Mobile Suit Gundam.
-Garma attempts to crash the Gaw into the White Base
-Icelina rushes into battle which she's totally ignorant of to avenge Garma
-Ramba Ral chooses suicide over capture
-Hamon undertakes a suicide attack to avenge Ral
-Joe average tries to blow up the Gundam so he can go home to his wife and kids
-M'Quve prefers a nuke to surrender
-All Swagger suicides against the Big Zam
-Dozle attempts to destroy the Gundam with an assault rifle because he WILL. NOT. GIVE. UP.
Compared to MSG, Reco is weaksauce with extra water. Since we could both cherrypick historical battles until we can see the time, let's bring this discussion back to Gundam. The franchise was founded on "war is hell" but Reco comes across as "not-quite-war is a fun field trip!"
>And to that end, it does at least close the book on the Zeon movement in UC, exorcising that ghost once and for all.
>He actually thinks that Banrise will actually put an end to the Feddie-Zeon conflict
There already is a post-Unicorn side story that has some Zeon remnants taking the Laplace Box to mean 'Zeon was right and therefore did nothing wrong' (which it basically does) and plan to cause some cataclysm to melt the polar ice caps and make Earth uninhabitable.
Not to mention that Unicorn sequel novel planned, that will almost certainly have Yet Even Moar Zeon Remnants pulled out of Fukui's ass.
Tomino tried to save us from the curse of never ending Zeon with Late UC, but sadly he failed.
>Compare this to Mobile Suit Gundam.
Funny you mention that, because "Lover dies in dramatic situation" got boring very quickly in the original anime. It worked with Icelina, but Hamon and Woody already felt forced.