The Battle of Bilbringi

[KraytKing]

There is also the distinct possibility that cyber-warfare of the kind you describe simply isn't possible in the SW universe, perhaps because they've had 25 millennia of technology and a lot of warfare to refine things. Perhaps Imperial and Rebel ships simply aren't vulnerable to cyber-infiltration from anywhere other than inside the ship (which is useless in a battle) because they learned from shit like the Clone Wars where armies of droids and supercomputers were the enemy.

Exactly. This is exactly what I want. The discussion came up because someone disagreed with me on how terrible the idea of the Battle of Kuat was. In Legends, Battle of Kuat was resolved bloodlessly (for the Rebels) partially because astromech units were able to hack into certain warships, lock down the hangars, and start firing on other warships. This is patently ridiculous. My railing against the prequels is because Solauren, I think, used the Clone Wars as a defense for why this was possible.

[The Romulan Republic]

Bringing automation to the forefront was one of the worst things the prequels did. The way the hyperspace ramming was one of the worst things TLJ did. It asks the question, why haven't we seen this before? If the Rebel Alliance is so cash poor as they seem to be, but has the computer expertise to write a code that can hijack dreadnoughts, why didn't they do that to the Death Star instead of waste a bunch of ships trying to blow it up? Why didn't the Empire use it all the time, turning Rebel ships on each other left and right?

And here's another thing. Accepting that you're right, that it's because the Clone Wars left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, why do they build ships for human crews that can be completely controlled by the computers? No matter how hard you try to hack it, you can't make a T-34 turn its guns on friendlies, so why didn't they build Star Destroyers with the computers hardwired out of critical systems?

It's another bit of EU that poorly matches the feel of the OT. Just like all those comics where some plucky heroes hijack a whole Star Destroyer and crew it with maybe a couple hundred people, or the time Anakin flew a Venator on his own. Lazy writers think they've come up with something clever and it's just a stupid hack.

There's a pretty obvious explanation for why they don't use certain technologies more, that being political or cultural reasons. Because people are people, not tactical computers programmed for MAXIMUM PRAGMATISM.

We know that there's widespread prejudice against droids in Star Wars, and the Clone Wars, with droids being the ruthless faceless mooks of the losing side, would likely only have deepened that. Add to that the fact that actually effective combat droids are fairly rare (the basic Trade Federation battle droids are even worse than storm troopers, performance-wise). Meaning they're likely high-priced.

Ditto hyperspace ramming. We see ramming used on occassion in canon, sometimes very effectively. One fighter for an Executor class? Why do they not just kamikaze one A-wing into each enemy capital ship? Why are they still using Star Destroyers at all (and why does the OT get a pass on these things, while every possible nitpick is ruthlessly dredged up to "prove" that the Prequels and Sequels are the Worst Movies Ever)? Probably because, as in the real world, a lot of people don't like the idea of using suicide bombers if they can avoid it.

Its like asking why the real world banned poisoned gas as a weapon after WW1 (at least until the Syrian war trampled that precedent underfoot).

Italy used gas weapons in Ethiopia, didn't they? The Empire is a state of total information control. They can use droids and hacking as much as they want and just pretend it never happened. Because unlike our world, there is no other authority. The Empire only has to fight internal insurrection, and any news the terrorists peddle can be discredited as propaganda, assuming it even achieves any sort of spread. We banned gas weapons because we knew the enemy could use them just as effectively, and it would make war unsustainable. The Rebels have no reason to hold back, because their war is already unsustainable. The Empire has no reason to hold back because the enemy can't retaliate in kind.

It should be noted that Palpatine is not entirely free of political checks until mid-way through A New Hope (at which point his regime's first major action was to blow up a major world).

People may also have irrational or sentimental reasons for not using every weapon at their disposal, or be overly-attached to a specific weapon or tactic even if its not the most effective.

The OT gets a pass because it was the original, damn it. It established what Star Wars is, so when other stuff comes along and fucks that up, then OF COURSE we take the original! The prequels on their own would simply be a kinda weird sci fi universe I would probably avoid, except for certain good bits. Added to the OT, I dislike them even more because it leads to discussions like this, where it fucks up a good universe. Of course, it does add good bits. I like the idea of the clone troopers. I dislike the idea of a droid army. I like the idea of a massive Jedi purge. I dislike the way Anakin was turned to the dark side.

Cyber war doesn't belong in Star Wars because nowhere in the original trilogy was anything of that sort even hinted at. It makes for a more realistic, less cinematic universe, and that should be avoided.

But, here's the thing: the OT might have had the privilege of establishing what is possible in the setting first, but that doesn't excuse it for its own internal inconsistencies. The technology shown in the OP is that of a society which logically SHOULD be able to do all these other things, even if its not shown.

[Gandalf]

Cyber war doesn't belong in Star Wars because nowhere in the original trilogy was anything of that sort even hinted at. It makes for a more realistic, less cinematic universe, and that should be avoided.

Why should "hinted at in the OT" be a benchmark?

[KraytKing]

The OT gets a pass because it was the original, damn it. It established what Star Wars is, so when other stuff comes along and fucks that up, then OF COURSE we take the original! The prequels on their own would simply be a kinda weird sci fi universe I would probably avoid, except for certain good bits. Added to the OT, I dislike them even more because it leads to discussions like this, where it fucks up a good universe. Of course, it does add good bits. I like the idea of the clone troopers. I dislike the idea of a droid army. I like the idea of a massive Jedi purge. I dislike the way Anakin was turned to the dark side.

Cyber war doesn't belong in Star Wars because nowhere in the original trilogy was anything of that sort even hinted at. It makes for a more realistic, less cinematic universe, and that should be avoided.

But, here's the thing: the OT might have had the privilege of establishing what is possible in the setting first, but that doesn't excuse it for its own internal inconsistencies. The technology shown in the OP is that of a society which logically SHOULD be able to do all these other things, even if its not shown.

Yes, logically speaking, the technology of the PT fits. But it shouldn't follow logic at the expense of art, or the universe, because it isn't hard sci fi. It's space opera, and therefore a setting that lends itself to cool things is the only priority. A setting where you can ignore the strategies we follow in the real world that are cheaper, because they aren't cool. When you start to open up the door on those cheap, boring strategies like the PT and ST, it's hard to close it again.

[Abacus]

Concerning the chain of command and the lack of additional ranks between Thrawn and Captain Paelleon, I put this down to the fact that Timothy Zahn was writing in the SW universe for the first time. He has greatly increased and changed how the command system works in his latest, new-Canon works. From Ensign up to Grand Admiral.