Seto wrote:Eh... they kind of were, because they were developing Robotech: the Shadow Chronicles as a sort of conclusion to the unfinished Robotech II: the Sentinels storyline.
True, but again this comes back to a choice HG makes. It's like they want to make things hard on themselves. After all they could have also thrown out RT2 completely in the reset, or enough to give them some freedom (like the OVA, but keep some of the general details but leave specifics out).
Seto wrote:Eh... remember, Tommy tried that first one. It was called the VF-13 Delta Fighter and it never made it past the rough draft stage because, well, Tommy is no mechanical designer. Designing a fighter that transforms sensibly into a robot with a minimum of anime magic and that can be readily adapted into toys and models is HARD, which is why there are so few designers who can do it well and is also why so many of them moonlight in toy design as well. It's a skill that comes with a high price tag, which is why Robotech has never been able to afford it.
They couldn't use something like the fanmade VF-7 Sylphid either, because it just copied the VF-1's transformation practically whole-cloth and that'd get them sued for copyright infringement.
I thought it was called the Gamma Fighter and not the Delta? But in any case to use the YF-4/Conbat merging is unlikely if for nothing else than legal? Now adays they are likely better off going with the fighter that appeared in Col. Wolfe's Flashback* (not the Sylphid from TRM saga). Getting a transforming design is possible with either candidate, I am not saying it's easy or hard, but it seems like HG if they are going to do new projects with new mecha (especially veritechs) they really needs to add someone to the staff who can do this sort of thing.
There was a discussion some time ago on the old RDFHQ message boards about WFbF being a possible Veritech given design elements that could be discerned in the still shot coupled with a Toy from another line that shared similarities. This isn't the place to discuss that option though, but it has been looked at in the past in the fandom atleast once.
*Robotech Research's Picture Archive classifies it as REF Type 1 aircraft (picture archive), the uRRG calls it the AF-4 Volcano.
Seto wrote:Considering they were convinced it was utterly impossible until they found Dr. Zand's Haydonite data-based notes indicating it wasn't? They'd probably never have gotten there, since they would have been wiped out attacking Earth in 2044.
A. The UEEF thought it was impossible because of Zand (prior to his disappearance)
B. Science does come with independent testing to confirm the results, which AFAIK has not happened for whatever reason.
Seto wrote:That doesn't really make sense when you think about it, but then each of them is independently even worse against the Invid than the Alpha is..
Actually it does make some sense. As you point out independently the Conbat/Condor are worse against the Invid than the Alpha, so if you can replace two mecha with one design better suited to the enemy...
Seto wrote:Given what we've seen, I don't think a shift in doctrine is a viable explanation there. What we see is not a shift in priorities but an across-the-board decline in capability in every role, sharp increases in the number of roles that AREN'T properly filled, the emergence of designs that are clearly overspecialized, and a rise of designs with frankly obvious fatal flaws.
I do not think doctrine is a perfect explanation (RT being what it is), but to me it makes far more sense than some technology backslide that is non-existent given various things one can point to that show technology has either (at worst) stagnated or (more likely) advanced.
While it is also true there is a capability gap from 1st Gen from certain POV, that capability gap does not have its origin in the absence of technology that humans lost. We know they can produce Earth-SSTO designs, BVR missiles, use of external hard points, etc. That means the capability gap is really not driven by a technology backslide in terms of what the UEEF/ASC CAN PUT OUT, but what it CHOOSES to put out. And there is a big difference in what can be done vs what one chooses to do. This means that the Doctrine of the ASC/UEEF is what is driving the technology they choose to put out and in what form and even how they chose to use the hardware.
I do not dispute that there are flaws in the designs of some mecha or needless designs. However the driving factor here is not technology, the issues in terms of flaws we know can/could be addressed. What we do not know is why the "flaws" are introduced in the first place. There could be reasons those "flaws" exist, and they only seem like flaws because we are looking at it from an incorrect POV based on incorrect assumptions. Can these "flaws" be given plausible explanations (perfect explanation is unlikely given RT's nature)?
The needless designs I suspect is more politically driven, each ASC "branch" wants its own take on mecha (even though a variant based on existing design likely could be done quicker and cheaper).