Did Admiral Ozzel get a bad rap?

Darth Fanboy · Post by **Darth Fanboy** » 2006-08-29 08:07pm

Jade Falcon wrote:
Darth Fanboy wrote:Palpatine knows Luke's identity. During the transmission to Vader in ESB he even says outright :"The Son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi."
While it doesn't mean that its 100%, remember that Vader did say

"We have a new enemy....Luke Skywalker".

While Palpatine may know this is Anakin's son, alternatively it might not be the most common of names.

So you mean to tell me that Vader and Palpatine were chasing a guy with the last name Skywalker who is strong in the Force, after Vader had killed Obi Wan Kenobi on the Death Star, and after the Empire has presumably looked into Luke's background somewhat and you're trying to tell me they didn't know entirely who they were chasing?

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-08-29 09:53pm

Palpatine knows Luke's identity. During the transmission to Vader in ESB he even says outright :"The Son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi."

He divined through the Force that the guy who destroyed the Death Star was the son of Anakin Skywalker. But that doesn't change the fact that in the 2004 version of ESB, Vader's holding out on Palpatine.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2006-08-29 11:59pm

Anguirus wrote:
Palpatine knows Luke's identity. During the transmission to Vader in ESB he even says outright :"The Son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi."
He divined through the Force that the guy who destroyed the Death Star was the son of Anakin Skywalker. But that doesn't change the fact that in the 2004 version of ESB, Vader's holding out on Palpatine.

He's holding out on Palpatine if you take the EU into account, which GL doesn't. He rewrote the line for the Emperor to match what had transpired in the prequels and to have it make sense in the timeline of the films only.

The line; "No. The rebels are there and I'm sure Skywalker is with them. Captain Piett, set your course for the Hoth system. General Veers, Prepare your men!"

Will either A: Be edited in the next TESB release.
Or B: Explained in a way that allows for Vader to know the name but not be 100% sure if it is really a son. Done through the Insider or Hyperspace.

GL probably just missed the line.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-08-30 03:43am

Back on Ozzel I get the sense he truly did screw up. For a number of reasons it was simply a tactically unsound plan for a couple reasons.

1) The Rebels simply lack resources in general and despite the vast amounts of energy that seem to available at all times there simply is no way they could afford to run the shield on constant power (certainly not if they hoped to toally evacuate the base and bring most of the generator equipement with them)

2) The BFC trilogy was very clear that without active sensors in use a star destroyer can be all but invisible as little as 6k km away. Add in all the rest of the crap in the system along with the fact that even active sensing is imperfect and moving in realspace or just drifting into a sytem could have put the fleet (and certainly its TIE complement) with in bombardment range almost undetected.

3) As mentioned elsewhere even if you don't want to creep in the standard tactic is to hold off outside the system and then microjump in to open the attack.

Its not even a matter of Ozzel couldn't choose betwee tactics mentioend in 2) and 3) above because both would have required hypersapce exit well outside the system and yet he didn't do so. It alerted the Rebels and given that transports were launching before the blockade was fully in place probably substaintially contributed to the amount of personnel and gear the Rebels managed to get away with. Even if the battle was an Imperial victory it was far less than the near total victory it could have been.

atg · Post by **atg** » 2006-08-30 03:56am

As mentioned elsewhere even if you don't want to creep in the standard tactic is to hold off outside the system and then microjump in to open the attack.

Doesn't The Thrawn Trilogy mention somewhere that doing this is actually non-standard and risky?

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2006-08-30 05:24am

atg wrote:
As mentioned elsewhere even if you don't want to creep in the standard tactic is to hold off outside the system and then microjump in to open the attack.
Doesn't The Thrawn Trilogy mention somewhere that doing this is actually non-standard and risky?

If it does then there have been a rather remarkab;y large number of such risky actions throughout the EU which would at least indicate it is common enough practice.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2006-08-30 08:10am

atg wrote: Doesn't The Thrawn Trilogy mention somewhere that doing this is actually non-standard and risky?

Blind microjumps yes.

The idea is simple enough, when your traveling through Hyperspace you taking a twisting course around gravity wells like planets, stars-ect. If you aim to hop out a half Light-years from the target planet, your out of active senseor range in deep space beyond the system. Yet you can still SEE the star and planets in question. It becomes might easier to simply caculate out a simple time based jump.

(Or in other words you know that planet X is 60 million miles away, and you know a 1.9 second jump will carry you 50 million miles closer, so you add another .4 seconds to that and end up within spitting distance of the planet)

EnsGabe · Post by **EnsGabe** » 2006-08-30 08:35am

CmdrWilkens wrote: 2) The BFC trilogy was very clear that without active sensors in use a star destroyer can be all but invisible as little as 6k km away. Add in all the rest of the crap in the system along with the fact that even active sensing is imperfect and moving in realspace or just drifting into a sytem could have put the fleet (and certainly its TIE complement) with in bombardment range almost undetected.

On a side note, I'm going to call BS on this- a star destroyer at 6000 km would appear to be ten to twenty times larger than the largest star in the sky. I'd be hard-pressed to believe that A) optical sensors wouldn't notice that or B) even if they couldn't, enemies of the Empire wouldn't know that and consequently wouldn't use their eyes.

glass · Post by **glass** » 2006-08-30 08:50am

atg wrote:
As mentioned elsewhere even if you don't want to creep in the standard tactic is to hold off outside the system and then microjump in to open the attack.
Doesn't The Thrawn Trilogy mention somewhere that doing this is actually non-standard and risky?

I thought what was risky was doing precision jumps with largish fleets in fairly close formation, because of the risk of their crashing into one another at the far end.

glass.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2006-08-30 09:26am

TTT didn't say microjumps were risky, they were practically impossible to coordinate. Having your formation reappear in realspace scattered over several lightminutes is both embarrasing and counterproductive.

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2006-08-30 10:49am

Darth Fanboy wrote:So you mean to tell me that Vader and Palpatine were chasing a guy with the last name Skywalker who is strong in the Force, after Vader had killed Obi Wan Kenobi on the Death Star, and after the Empire has presumably looked into Luke's background somewhat and you're trying to tell me they didn't know entirely who they were chasing?

Sorry, it was late last night when I typed this and I might not have worded it correctly. What I mean is that Palpatine didn't make any mention of Luke's name until Vader said the

"We have a new enemy" line.

Straha · Post by **Straha** » 2006-08-30 12:50pm

I think Ozzel and Vader had two very different plans. If we go from Ozzel's idea it seems like he wanted to smash in, catch the rebels with their pants down, and then invade forcing them to run on short notice like roaches out of a burning motel letting him pick off as many transports as he can while disrupting the Rebels for a good time to come. And if he turned out to be right about them just being smugglers it goes a lot quicker for them, with a lot less time wasted. Vader, on the other hand, seems to be thinking not BDZ (Why BDZ when the man who might be your son is on the planet?) but to jump in, set up a micro-jump for a blockade, and then either catch the rebels as they run off the planet or assault the planet with the Rebel Command still on-site and with no chance for escape due to the Blockade. Both plans are sound strategies, but Vader's plan requires a lot more work and if you force the Rebels into a last stand scenario, a lot more men. If Ozzel and Vader had anything like the rapport (if you can call it that) that he seemingly had with Piett this never would have happened.

This begs the question, though, if Ozzel and Vader would obviously never get along, why the fuck was Ozzel Vader's Admiral?

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2006-08-30 12:55pm

Perhaps Ozzel is there as a measure to limit Vader's total control of the fleet. The Emperor may have assigned Vader an cheif admiral that won't follow Vader's every order to keep the fleet in line. Who knows maybe Ozzel's dad was someone high up the the Empire and used his push to get Ozzel assigned as admiral comanding the 'best' command in the Empire.

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2006-08-30 01:07pm

One of the character books (whether it was one of the WEG books or one of the Essential guides) stated that Ozzel was essentially one of those who had his rank by a combination of brownnosing and wealth. Though that still begs the question as to why he's in Vader's task force as I can't see either Palpatine or Vader being impressed with that.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2006-08-30 01:24pm

Jade Falcon wrote:One of the character books (whether it was one of the WEG books or one of the Essential guides) stated that Ozzel was essentially one of those who had his rank by a combination of brownnosing and wealth. Though that still begs the question as to why he's in Vader's task force as I can't see either Palpatine or Vader being impressed with that.

From the movie, he always seemed more to me of a Rebel sympathizer. Everything he did helped the Rebels despite what he should have done. The way he said that "there are so many uncharted settlements" sounded like he was actively trying to steer Vader away from Hoth.

The EU, of course, disagrees with me.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2006-08-30 02:32pm

Yeah, I prefer to think of Ozzel as a rebel sympathizer, if anything. Fuck the EU.

Jade Falcon · Post by **Jade Falcon** » 2006-08-30 03:14pm

What part of the EU are you referring to?

The Original Nex · Post by **The Original Nex** » 2006-08-30 07:21pm

havokeff wrote:
Anguirus wrote:
Palpatine knows Luke's identity. During the transmission to Vader in ESB he even says outright :"The Son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi."
He divined through the Force that the guy who destroyed the Death Star was the son of Anakin Skywalker. But that doesn't change the fact that in the 2004 version of ESB, Vader's holding out on Palpatine.
He's holding out on Palpatine if you take the EU into account, which GL doesn't. He rewrote the line for the Emperor to match what had transpired in the prequels and to have it make sense in the timeline of the films only.

The line; "No. The rebels are there and I'm sure Skywalker is with them. Captain Piett, set your course for the Hoth system. General Veers, Prepare your men!"

Will either A: Be edited in the next TESB release.
Or B: Explained in a way that allows for Vader to know the name but not be 100% sure if it is really a son. Done through the Insider or Hyperspace.

GL probably just missed the line.

Or, C: GL intended to have Vader lying to Palpatine during the following exchange:

Palpatine: I have no doubt he is the child of Anakin Skywalker [paraphrase]

Vader: How is that possible?

Vader is just lying to Palpatine about not knowing about Luke, as he clearly already knows who he is chasing from earlier dialogue. Remember, "treachery is the way of the Sith." I don't think GL missed anything.

Anguirus · Post by **Anguirus** » 2006-08-30 09:38pm

^ Yeah, that's just what I figured, coupled with the fact that Vader was trying to get Luke as his apprentice to turn on the Emperor. He has every reason in the world to lie to the Emperor, since he apparently can't or won't disobey a direct command from him. Keeping the boss in the dark gives him a little wiggle room.

Havok · Post by **Havok** » 2006-08-30 11:16pm

The Original Nex wrote:
havokeff wrote:
Anguirus wrote: He divined through the Force that the guy who destroyed the Death Star was the son of Anakin Skywalker. But that doesn't change the fact that in the 2004 version of ESB, Vader's holding out on Palpatine.
He's holding out on Palpatine if you take the EU into account, which GL doesn't. He rewrote the line for the Emperor to match what had transpired in the prequels and to have it make sense in the timeline of the films only.

The line; "No. The rebels are there and I'm sure Skywalker is with them. Captain Piett, set your course for the Hoth system. General Veers, Prepare your men!"

20 bucks says it will be edited out or explained away like I said.

Will either A: Be edited in the next TESB release.
Or B: Explained in a way that allows for Vader to know the name but not be 100% sure if it is really a son. Done through the Insider or Hyperspace.

GL probably just missed the line.
Or, C: GL intended to have Vader lying to Palpatine during the following exchange:

Palpatine: I have no doubt he is the child of Anakin Skywalker [paraphrase]

Vader: How is that possible?

Vader is just lying to Palpatine about not knowing about Luke, as he clearly already knows who he is chasing from earlier dialogue. Remember, "treachery is the way of the Sith." I don't think GL missed anything.

20 bucks say that "And I'm sure Skywalker is with them." gets edited out or explained away like I said.

Skylon · Post by **Skylon** » 2006-08-31 10:54pm

havokeff wrote:20 bucks say that "And I'm sure Skywalker is with them." gets edited out or explained away like I said.

There's also the opening crawl which mentions "Vader...obsessed with finding Skywalker..."

Guess that'll need to be edited too.

Danny Bhoy · Post by **Danny Bhoy** » 2006-09-01 03:33am

Galvatron wrote:Yeah, I prefer to think of Ozzel as a rebel sympathizer, if anything. Fuck the EU.

I remember reading a Star Wars fanfic must be almost 10 years by now which had Ozzel like a Ramius/Filitov character from Clancy.

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2006-09-01 06:42pm

You know the idea that Ozzel's family bought his way into the command of the Death squadran might actually make his being a Rebel Sympathiser better. Perhaps it was even a way for a Rebel faction to work a man high into the Empire's command structure.

What ever Ozzel was, he did not live for very long under the eyes of Lord Vader.

NeoGoomba · Post by **NeoGoomba** » 2006-09-05 11:13am

Isolder74 wrote:You know the idea that Ozzel's family bought his way into the command of the Death squadran might actually make his being a Rebel Sympathiser better. Perhaps it was even a way for a Rebel faction to work a man high into the Empire's command structure.

What ever Ozzel was, he did not live for very long under the eyes of Lord Vader.

If thats true, it was simply bad luck for him to be stationed onboard the SSD that Vader took for his personal use then, especially after he no doubt heard about Admiral Haarkov and what Vader did to him for "sympathizing".

Publius · Post by **Publius** » 2006-09-05 06:36pm

Admiral Harkov's execution took place after the Battle of Hoth. All missions in TIE Fighter take place between The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi.