Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Ok, you were warned. If youa re reading this I guess you saw it or don't care.

WTF!!! Boomer is a Cylon sleaper agent? Oh my! Didn't see that one coming at all. So I wonder does she get killed when she's discovered, or does her life as a human make her susceptable to turning over to the "good side". Can't wait to see more about that. Nice touch there Ron.

And what was the deal with the note left in Adama's quarters saying there were only 12 cylon models? Who wrote that? And Adama calmly sticks it in his safe like it's no big deal. Huh? I think I missed something there.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Baltar wrote the note because he is the only one who knew there wre 12 models.

I too was both ticked and surprised by the Boomer revalation. I think its a bad bad bad idea, but then agian they made boomer a women.

Like Seven, oops, I mean Six (or is it sex) said, some don't even know they are cylon.

Also if she is a cylon, wouldn't someone have figured it out by now. I assume it takes "YEARS" to go through the Colonial Military Acadamy and then fleet service to earn your wings. The Last I looked, she was flying a ship.

I like how they were willing to sacrafice people to save themselves. Leaving those other ships behind was something you would never see in Star Trek. I rather enjoyed it myself.

The Glassing of whole worlds, again a very nice thing to see.

And we don't know if the glassings were done via orbital bombardment, or bomb, although they did make referance to a detonation "above" Capracica City.

I will never buy the story line about the cylons being made by man although it is key to the story. I like the concept that another race built the cylons and that the cylons killed that race before coming after humanity. That to me was a much better story idea then this Blade Runner & Screemers rip off.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

I also was floored when Boomer was revealed to be a cylon sleeper agent. Apparently these particular types of models can age and grow, as she would have to be younger to have gone through the academy and then put whatever years of service she had to be to the point where she is now. And apparently the cylons didn't know or care that she was in her original craft when they killed that squadron. So hopefully she'll turn out to be a sleeper who turns good. I hope, if they do create a series, that is one of the story lines that get developed and is made into a good story of programming vs moral choice.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I respectfully disagree. The motivation for the Cylons causing them to try so hard to completely eradicate the human race was one of the weaknesses in my mind of the original series. It never seemed to make sense why they would hate them so much just because they interfered in some war. The Cylons being made by man gives them more depth and personality.

Not familer with Screemers, but I don't see this as derivative of Blade Runner at all. Mainly the difference is one of degree. To me Blade Runner is more of a metaphor for the racial tensions we experience between different Groups of humans. The Robots there are playing the part of a disenfranchised minority group lashing out against the oppresive moajority power structure. You might get yourself killed by a psychotic robot on an individual basis if you were unlucky, but they were no threat to the species as a whole. The fact that they are robots isn't really central to the theme in Blade Runner in my mind. It's coloring instead of the substance of the story. You could replace the robots in Blade Runner with the minority racial, religious or ethnic group of your choice and the story would be just as relevent and compelling.

The Cylons in this form on the other hand represent our dependance on technology unleashed come back to haunt us. They represent a real threat to the entire human species, much more then the robots in Blade Runner did. In my mind it's more comparative to The Stand or Terminator.

Geoschmo

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

I'll have to agree with Geo on this one, making the cylons a human creation gives the story more depth.

What really impressed me was the combat. The old series had the fighters behaving as if there were an atmosphere in space. In this one the physics are much better, cut your thrust, spin around and fly backwards! That's what space combat should look like! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Why is it that if a concept is used once, everything that comes after it is "stale"? The possiblity of humans creating an artificial intelligence that grows beyond their control is a great starting point for any number of stories. It's how you fill in the story that makes the difference. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

With respect to the humanoid Cylons...it appears that they are going to have some sort of problem with "emotions"...Six is already struggling with her feeling for Baltar, and maybe Boomer will have the same problem because of Boxey? Now, I guess it would be hypocrital of me to say that would be stale, wouldn't it?

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Speaking of the combat, a couple things from those of you well familier with the original BG series.

First, the scene where they had to vent the oxygen in the hanger deck to keep from losing the ship. Was that not in the original series, maybe in the original movie. It sure seemed very familier to me. Nice touch if so, borrowing scenes from the original.

Also, the scene in part two where Starbuck locked noses with Appolo's viper and landed on the deck at full speed. That also seemed familier to me. I may be wrong about that one and it may have just been a dramatic scene where someone landed at full speed, but I seem to have a memory of Starbuck pushing Appolo's ship backwards like that. Maybe it was in one of the comic books?

Anyone else remeber those or is it just my mind playing tricks on me?

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Well, im thinking the only one who could know about 12 models is her...

maybe since she found 'love' she's already in on the human side? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

either that or its a subconcious bit of info from our favorite computer hacker http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Geo,

there is one episode where one of the hanger bays catch fire, but I don't remember if they vented it to space or not. i bought the dvd set, but haven't had the time to watch them all yet. When I do watch it, i'll let you know if that's how they did.

As far as locking noses, I don't ever recall seeing that scene in any series or movies before. I thought it was pretty neat, though.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">There used to be a toy of a Viper that had some sort of booster apparatus strapped to it...maybe that was what you were thinking of?

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Yeah, in the original episodes the hanger bay catches fire and it takes a little over 1/2 the episode until Commander Alpo (420 dog years old)suddenly realizes the best fire fighting tactic is to utilize the vacuum of space to put out the fires (duh) Too bad little Boxey and the Monkey/Robot/Dog thing weren't in the same hanger bay.
And there was a super fast recon Viper that was fitted with boosters (but no weapons) and was controlled by a sassy sexy computer C.O.R.A. that had the hots for Starbuck.

Battle Barge Collapsica Rules!

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

I remember the modified viper, but that's not what I am thinking about. I have this fairly clear memory of one of the vipers sticking it's gun in the nose hole of the other and pushing it backwards. It might have been in the comic, or for that matter maybe it was something my friends and I came up with playing with our model vipers. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Geoschmo

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Personally I was more pissed about Boomer being a Cylon just because I liked her :-( I mean hey they made her likeable and a carring character just to have her turn out to be a killing machine.
I do hope if there is a series they don't have to kill her because she seems like a good motherly character for boxy and they'd kinda need one of those in such a grim series.

I liked the Viper Mark 7s too I mean I know in part two we didn't get to see as many and in the series we will probobly get to see only a handful. But still I like the way they mixed the Ultra Modern Viper 7s with the older looking Viper 2s.

I also like the fact that they've done away with those high pitched whiney bLasters that the ships and warriors held and replaced the ships guns with uber flak batteries. And the "soldiers" guns with those things that look like they fire mini high explosive rockets.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

I have a couple of old cylon figures, one large cylon figure, one large colonial figure, one cylon radier toy fighter, and a BSG movie poster. I found them while I was moving. I wonder what they are worth to a collector. Forget Ebay, man that place is impossible now. And expensive to.

Any offers? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I respectfully disagree. The motivation for the Cylons causing them to try so hard to completely eradicate the human race was one of the weaknesses in my mind of the original series. It never seemed to make sense why they would hate them so much just because they interfered in some war. The Cylons being made by man gives them more depth and personality.

Not familer with Screemers, but I don't see this as derivative of Blade Runner at all. Mainly the difference is one of degree. To me Blade Runner is more of a metaphor for the racial tensions we experience between different Groups of humans. The Robots there are playing the part of a disenfranchised minority group lashing out against the oppresive moajority power structure. You might get yourself killed by a psychotic robot on an individual basis if you were unlucky, but they were no threat to the species as a whole. The fact that they are robots isn't really central to the theme in Blade Runner in my mind. It's coloring instead of the substance of the story. You could replace the robots in Blade Runner with the minority racial, religious or ethnic group of your choice and the story would be just as relevent and compelling.

The Cylons in this form on the other hand represent our dependance on technology unleashed come back to haunt us. They represent a real threat to the entire human species, much more then the robots in Blade Runner did. In my mind it's more comparative to The Stand or Terminator.

Geoschmo </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To me human made robots that now look like humans who want to kill humanity has just been done to death.

The cylons are aliens, why they hate the colonials is irrelivant to the fact that they simply do. Why would any alien race hate another?

My point is that point of the story could have been explored in more depth than simply opting for a hollywood cookie cutter Version of man makes robots then robots want to kill man.

Come on.... Terminator, Screamers, Blade Runner, Alien, The Twilite Zone, The Outer Limits, and many many more have just beaten this concept into the ground.

The best writers who write the best shows tackel the difficult parts of the story and make them work for the story. Those who just want to get it done use the cookie cutter.

Now I am not saying Moore is a bad writer, he is quite gifted and I admire him emensly for his work, but I simply wish he would have choosen a differant route. I don't think it would have taken from the story, but rather added more depth. Why do the cylons hate us so. Why do the cylons want to be like us, why why why?

For Example:
"God did not create the cyclons, the Cylonian race did, and they paid for it with their lives. Now humanity must pay the price for the Cylonians mistakes?"

"Humanity shares many of the flaws that the Cylonians had. Maybe that is why the Cylons are anhilating us."
"Your right, we do, we have emotions. We are alive and not manufactured in some assembly line. We have a soul, and that is something the Cylons will never understand. We have the capicity to expand beyond what we have become, to be more. The Cylons have no concept of this, no emotions, no feelings, and no soul. This is why they are attacking us. We are living beings and they are machines simply programed to kill."

"Have you considered that you are wrong about the Cylons Adama?"
"How so?"
"It seems to me that a race that has dedicated itself the enihilation of humanity must understand emotion, especially the emotion of hatred. And if they have the capicity to feel hatred, then they to must have a soul."

[ December 11, 2003, 06:34: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

I should point out that Bladerunner had artificially cloned, designed, and grown humans, not robots.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And the human cylons are.......... not robots.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Robots can certainly be human-looking. Read Asimov. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Well Atrocities you are partially right that holywood has done the "Man makes machine now machine wants to kill man" part but completely wrong about the cookie cutter part.

Normally holywood has man win, BSG had mankind lose and lose everything to boot. There is nothing left of humanity as far as the Colonials go except for 52,000 people.
Another thing about the new BSG is thay they show quite clearly (unlike many others) WHY The machines want to kill man. Most Sci-Fi leaves it as well they want yo kill us because we made them sort of story. The Cylons want to kill us because what they think we did to them, and in some ways the New BSG shows that Humanity almost (note almost not fully) deserved what they got in the end because not only did they create these creatures and then effectively enslave them they fought a war and forgot all the lessons they learned there and it cost them everything in the end.


And BTW Alien wasn't robots man made it was ALIENS that man wanted to turn into a weapon of war but never got the chance....oy.

Bladerunner were not Robots Cylons are and you could easily understand why the Blade runner clones wanted to kill man I would too if I were them...

Twilight Zone was the First to do it the Original Outer Limits just ripped them off.

The NEW Outer Limits made Everything kill man and they always made it mans fault and always made it that Humanity had some how fugged up and deserved to die....basically your talking about a series that ENDED with the death of all that was left of Humanity even though they were trying to recover and become more noble and good.

The whole point of the New Outer Limits is taht man should die and women should rule the friggin universe because it would be better that way. T he ONLY shows where Humanity lived on in hope was when some woman led the way and smacked all us warmongering men upside our collective evil heads and made us good.

I mean hell in the Last ep it was a guy who blew up the remnants of the world while all miss noble woman tried to rescue the world from death.

The New OUter limits was basically just a feminist POS that I wouldn't even make refference to as good story writing.

[ December 11, 2003, 07:39: Message edited by: Starhawk ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

I sense a bit of hostility coming from you Starhawk. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">To many times people take what is typed as literial. I don't recall the "synthetic" humans name that went off on the crew. The point is he went off on the crew.

And what is this crap that Baltar has a chip in his head. Hummm, where have we seen this before??? *Caugh* Farscape.

And the cookie cutter theory is sound. The premis is the same, man makes machine, and now machine wants to kill man. The fact that they changed the out come is utterly pointless here. The basic structure of the story is man made machines that now have come back to kill them. The out come of the story is like adding stuff to the cookie doe.

And Starhawk I have to disagree with you about them explaining why the cylons hate them. That was very vague here and in the original series. More so here because we are only two episodes into the mini series. What we do know is that man made a "Chrome Toaster" that then turned on them. They had no idea why. In fact they NEVER said why they turned on them. Humanities Children Have Come Home is just not going to cut it for why the Cylons hate man. They will need to do better.

About blade runner, again it is the same cookie cutter, albeit the cookie cutter that has been used more often then any other. Human made "machines" who look human being used as slaves and developing a soul then choose to no longer be slaves and turn on those who have created them. Again you assume that the cookie cutter has changed when it has not. The ingredants, the story, has. So what if they are synethetic, robotic, machines, liquid metal, clones, cyborgs, the point is, the cookie cutter has been used to death. (PEIROD) The ingreadiants have changed in the doe, but the overall cookie still looks like so many others that have come before it.

And frankly the New Outerlimits lost any sense of direction years ago. So I have not been following it. I would rather watch Stargate.

[ December 11, 2003, 11:08: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Atrocities, honestly there is nothing available anywhere that is truely original. We've been making movies now for a hundred years, and telling each other stories for thousands or millions of years before that. Anything anyone thinks up now has been thought up before. So saying something is cookie cutter is just argumentative. Every example you suggest was derivative of somethinn that came before it. And the original BSG was derivative of stuff before that. For that matter, if the current BSG were done over closer to the original, you could say even more truthfully that it was cookie cutter. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Since it's impossible to be truely original any more, the only thing you can hope for is for the story to be compelling, interesting, and well written. I think that this was. I hope to see more of it.

Geoschmo

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Amen to that. I definitely want to see more. As far as stories go, there was a post recently that stated there are only 5 or 10 original stories, and everthing else is just a mixture of those stories. So the "cookie cutter" method has been going on for thousands of years. And Hollywood has definitely been doing that for ages. There are very few original ideas that have come out of the left coast. Mostly now, they produce sequels or remakes. Even Star Wars was a mixture of ideas, myths, and a Japanese film. But as far as BSG, I also would have like to have more of an explanation as to why teh Cylons hate humanity to the point of genocide.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Original Thought Challenge: Find a story involving travel into the past prior to A Connecticut Yankee in King Aurthur's Court. This book beats-out The Time Machine by nine years.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well, if you are talking about the new Version, the explanation was pretty well summed up in the Last two minutes. The cylons consider the human worlds to be their home too, as naturally they would since they oringated there. Since the two Groups couldn't live together, proven by the war that ended forty years before, the cylons had to remove the humans. Hunting them down and killing the Last of them is neccesary becuase they know if any humans are left alive they will return some day and take their revenge. It's been this way throughout our history, and is the reason the new king always kills the old kings children.

[ December 11, 2003, 17:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

You may be right. I don't remember every word that was said in those Last 2 minutes. I'll try to catch the re-showing on Sunday.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">A Christmas Carol (1843) by Charles Dickens! The 'Ghost of Christmas Past' does take him into the past.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Hey all,

I had some praise and critisism for the ship architecture on this one.

The Cylons -I love the new Base Star, is is sleak and deadly looking and looks alot better than that gay "calm shell" looking thing. Sot of curious why the Cylons need windows though. It seems that missile weapons used for both the Cylons main ship batteries and their prime fighter/bomber weopons. Their fighters use lasers only in fighrer to fighter combat.

Humans - Galactica puzzles me. It was pretty obvious in the first series that a "Battlestar" was a combo battleship and carrier. It had an impresive array of main gun "laser cannons" and robust carrier deck functions. This time around I am confused. It seems to have an abundace of flak weapons, a nice addition, but nothing else. Granted, in the only batle we have seen the Galactica was outnumbered and wasn't trying to engage the Base Stars, but it it truely lacks a main batrey capable of dueling with a Base Star then the series in dead for me. Also, when the Battlestar was nuked in Part one, it appeard to have shields of some sort looking at he explosion, and also since the Galactica survived.

Since it seems lasers have now been relegated to fighters only, and missiles are now the big thing to use against capital ships, the puny little viper should be rather worthless in this series.

-Pat

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

The fighters can carry missiles as well. And they can shoot down the missiles. As for Galactica fighting on its own. Well it was just holding back until the Civilians could flee and prior to that hadn't had any ammo. That is stated several times and the whole reason for going down to that planet base Ragnar. Picking up weapons, ammo, warheads, missiles etc.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

It has been awhile since I have seen the original series, but I seem to remember them finding another BattleStar that survived. I also remeber it having a Father/Daughter team on board. The dad was the Captain and the daughter was a fighter pilot who had the hots for Starbuck. I wonder if they are going to pull that one off?

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

What?? You don't recall the Battlestar Pegasus and the legendary Commander Caine???

I liked a lot of this new Battlestar Galactica. I was expecting Adama to correct the President by pointing out that the humans were still at war because the Cylons wouldn't stop coming after them. Yes, the Cylon pursuit of humanity makes more sense in this re-telling, although the first one made a logical cause. In the original, the Imperious Leader executes Baltar (remember, this is the original movie), stating the human beings are a threat by their very nature. In this new Version, the Cylons feel that they are the perfect creation of God, and they must exterminate humanity in order to prove this. In the context of a religious crusade, it makes sense that the Cylons would need to kill every Last human.

I was disappointed in the final speech by Adama. Great delivery, but I rather like the Lorne Greene Adama: thoughtful, wise and spiritual. The new Adama seems a bit cynical, and even this reasoning would be hard to accept (the top command knows where Earth is, but kept it a secret). I would rather he laid it out as a quest to find Earth, and the Proforma system was a first step in that path. Even if it was, in a sense, a lie he creates to give his people a reason to live.

I thought it funny that the new production included women (as an effort to re-examine or change the characters) yet somehow also managed to eliminate the major black characters, unless you count the Athena replacement. I do agree that revealing Boomer as a Cylon seems a mistake. They should have left far more room for speculation of spies and "sleepers" in the fleet rather than reveal who it is.

The original Galactica never had much in the way of major ship to ship weapons (just point defense), and neither did this one. That was surprising, given that this Adama told Apollo that the Galactica would deal with the base ships. I expected missiles or something shooting at the base ships.

Yes, I know the Last Galactica tv episode was a duel with a base ship, but even those weapons looked like the point-defense from every other episode. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

When the Pegasus took on the two basestars it was with nuclear missles. Of course the clip they showed of the missles launching looked like the Saturn V third stage separatign from stage two. QUite comical looking, and it didn't help that they showed the same 2 seconds over and over about 12 times in a single 30 second segment. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Geo, you're right, but that's not the episode I was referencing.

Repeating the same scenes over and over again..and we still loved that show. You always knew the viper would hit that middle cylon raider and the other two would break right and left. And the cylons would always fall for the "hit the brakes and watch them fly right by us" manuever, even looking over their shoulders when they should have been trying to turn their ship. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Ah, the memories....

EDIT POST: I like how some of the other ships made it to this new movie. I expected that one ship to say "Colonial Movers: We Move Anywhere". I was surprised the botannical ship was destroyed. I expected it to escape, as there was one in the series fleet. That was probably deliberate.

[ December 11, 2003, 23:17: Message edited by: Cheeze ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Hey,

I was also hoping to see a few more military ships escape. At the end of Part one Adama sends a message to the fleet he tells them to regroup at the anchorage for a counterattack. Now I wasn't expecting a counterattack to actually happen, nor was I was expecting to see any more battlestars (they said 30 were destroyed off the bat and that was only 1/3 of the fleet. 90 BATTLESTARS!!!) but what about the rest. Not a single Cruiser, Destoyer, or Frigate escaped? If I remember correctly in the original series there were some smaller warships present, many of them participated in the figher defence. How about some left over fighters? As it is I don't thing the Galactica could have escaped with any more than a wing of 30 odd fighters, and at least 10 were already destroyed. They are going to run out.

And why does Adama care what the "President" says. For one, she is 34th in line, which is like Monica Lewinski taking power. And she talks alot about democracy, but I am pretty sure an education minister is an appointed position.

-Pat

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Actually the entire colonial fleet consisted of 120 battlestars with 240 fighter squadrons (2 per ship unless the third gen battlestars could hold more) the approximate manpower was 245,000 men and women in the fleet. Frigates, destroyers, and cruisers were probobly considered absolete being that a battlestar (especially the third gen battlestars which we sadly didn't see any of) would be a turbo charged battleship with the ability to launch the advanced viper mark 7s and besides that in space a battleship with intercept fighters would probobly be better then a small ship.

As for additional warships and surviving fighters if you look very closely at the fleet of survivor ships when boomer makes her jump into the sector you see what looks to be at least three seperate fighter Groups flying CAP around the area of the fleet, some of them look like the mark 7s while others look kind of like 2s. So I think these fighters probobly just came aboard Galactica when the refugee fleet arrived because if you remember all of Galactica's mark 7s were destroyed yet in the final battle scene we see a conisderable number of 2s and 7s launching to engage the Cylon raiders at the Galactia perimiter. So perhaps they made reference to it when that guy was talking to Baltar and mentioned having to refitt the new vipers.
If Galactica was fully loaded it could hold an approximate 40 to 60 vipers depending on how cramped they packed her.
And is it just me or did some of those Viper's look different from both the Mark 7s and 2s? Maybe some older fighters managed to link up with the Civilian fleet??
Oh and those aren't lasers the fighter use they are railguns most likely, as reffered to when CPO Tyrol said "She's fully loaded and fueled sir" or something like that when telling Adama about his old Viper. Lasers don't count as munitions.

Now on to the Galactica and those who were disapointed by her firepower, I don't think she was actually comitting herself to the fight, as her "main guns" the big ones that fired slower then those rapid deck guns seemed to fire HE shells which would be more then enough to blow a hole in a base star's armor if she was trying to kill one.

And BTW NO the Galactica DOES NOT have shields, that was the effect of the Nuke going off, as even Adama said "The hull plating caught most of the hard stuff". So it is most likely that the Galactica has ablative armor or at least some type of reactive armor.

Oh and as to why Adama respects the president, easy she is now rightfully the president and is a very in charge person so unless he had her shot he wouldn't be able to come up with a good reason to take over.

Remeber this Adama is not the "wiseman/godlike know it all/ spiritual guide/ moses/ noah" that the original was he is a much more realistic MILITARY commander who thinks in military terms and the President is the best choice for controling the civvie population.


P.S. I do hope if they get a full series out we get to see the Battlestar Pegusus and hopefully she'll be one of the New Battlestars that was replacing the second gen Galactica type because I'd love to see one of them. And it would also be cool if they actually had her SURVIVE in the series so that we get to see some more kickass space battles between Battlestars and Basestars.


P.P.S. Nope no hostility at all Atrocities I just really didn't like the New Outer Limits and even thinking about it sometimes ticks me off http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif .

Now as to the Cylons, they did explain it but it was more in the way the Cylons acted then in the "spoken" script so since I often read into things a great deal it seemed obvious to me I meant no offense to those of you who didn't quite get it.

[ December 12, 2003, 09:45: Message edited by: Starhawk ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Assuming smaller ship classes are obsolete is just something the AI thinks http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif . The fact is smaller ships are normally cheaper and have very different roles than something the size of the Galactica. Obviously, if I fitted a battlecruiser with the weapons of the more advanced battlestars you talk about then it would probobly make mincemeat of the Galactica. How about an Unrep or support ship? Unsupported battleships are useless.

And I think most military leaders disregard the civilian chain of command sucession after 20 heartbeats, and rightfully so. Hell, I bet Adamas G-Rate is even higher than the "Prez." In all seriousness if they reallyn want to be democratic they need to hold an election. Civilians have nothing better to do, except die of course.

-Pat

[ December 12, 2003, 11:55: Message edited by: Patroklos ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Well then please explain why evey navy since the beginning of time up too now has all range of combatants. Obviously this is sea versus space, but similarities are plenty. Remember what I said, I battlecruiser with modern weapons, versus a Galactica with obviously less than up to date weaponry (hence decommissioning). And As far as our fighting roles, you need smaller ships for decoys, screening, tactical manuever and other things. And in real life ship cost is exponential, that is as tonage goes up cost rises exponentially. So several smaller ships would be cheaper, and together probobly have more firepower. Let alone the fact that one large ship can only be in one place at one time.

Then of course the question of the navel nomenclature in their universe comes up. What is a Battlestar? Is it an uber battleship, a heavy carrier, or an assault carrier? I say the battlestar is an assault carrier, ie a vessel that mixes carrier function with main battery weaponry. Jack of all trades, master of none. It must take large amounts of space and support operate fighters, and that obviously detracts from ship to ship fighting characteristics.

I do not agree with you SEIV ship construction strategy. Once again, I can build enough battlecruisers to have the same number of weapons as your fewer Dreadnoughts. The diferance is while you are chasing half my fleet my other half has the option of bypassing you and devestating your colonies. The rule isn't to have the most, it is to BE THERE with the most. Besides, your analogy assumes my battlecruisers don't have dedicated carriers that would be much more efficient at the carrier funtion and the ad hoc Galactica. I might even have a PDC dedicated ship (I usually do) to swat your fighters out of the sky on mass. And since we are talking about Battlestars versus smaller craft, all your dreadnaughts would be filled halfway with hanger bays.

On an offshoot, a Battlestar carrying only two squadrons is an extreme waste of space. Each of its side slung hanger bays are the size of a Nimitz carrier, and their fighters are half the size of our aircraft. They could probobly hold hundreds of Vipers.

-Pat

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

As long as a SE IV design doctrine tangent as started, I feel obligated to point out that the larger mounts available for Battleships and Dreadnaughts are very, very potent.

Personally, I usually skip the Dread and jump straight from Battleship to Baseship, but that could be a flaw in my methods.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Well okay your right if the Galactica Class warship has only 2 squadrons of 20 Vipers it would be a waste I'm just telling you what I saw on the new BG web site. And assuming she has other craft such as shuttles and disaster releif ships they would take up some of those launch bays space which is maybe why there are only 2 squadrons.
The "Last Galactica" squadron consisted of only 20 Mark 7 Vipers and 1 Raptor class Recon ship so maybe that is what they based their two squadron analogy on.

And I was using the reference to a MODERN battlestar vs a MODERN battlecruiser the BC would be blown apart as the Battlestar obviously has highly resilliant armor and weapons systems.

Now as to your reference to wet navies having many ranges of combatant you are somewhat correct. However if you look back throughout history ships such as 18th century Sloops and Frigates were NOT front line warships, they were raiders and light combatants and in fleet actions they MAY have been messenger ships. The only TRUE front line world changing warship of the day was the Ship of the Line which was slow and unwealdy thus it required frigates to be recon ships, however if you put a frigate vs a SOL the SoL would blow the frigate apart in one broadside.
Modern Navies have only two real surface combatants that are used regularly Destroyers for primary assault and Frigates for Patrol and interdiction missions. Cruisers never leave the protection of a Carrier battlegroup and their main role is to protect the carrier because it has no guns of it's own while the destroyer acts as a Picket ship for the battlegroup and the frigate acts as a close in defense ship.

Now the Battlestar has advanced sensors so it really doesn't need a picket ship, it has FTL communications which means it doesn't need a messenger sloop. It has it's own close in point defense guns which removes the frigates, it has heavy missile tubes which we have yet to see in action which takes over the role of a cruiser and destroyer, she has rail cannons which are obviously designed for powerful impact weapons which takes the role of a cruiser or battleship and she has her own fighter compliment which removes the need for a dedicated carrier ship.
Okay and as to your reference of BEING there, with an FTL jump drive the Galactica or any battlestar could BE THERE instantly.


Now to your reference of the SEIV you could get your battlecruisers and go around my fleet...hardly as I blockade all warp points into my space with a powerful fleet (when the 100 turns lets me) and a friend of mine places 4 space bases ranging from battlestation to starbase around every warp point that leads to his systems, now these have MASSIVE mounts while your cruiser can only have a HEAVY so if I throw a few dreadnoughts to bulster a defense like that your BCs are dead.

And a Dreadnought can carry more weapons and can carry MASSIVE weapons as apposed to your heavy which naturally gives my dreadnought more firepower, I usually build my ships to be heavy on the defense which means my dreads could have more armor and shields then your BC and still have the same number of guns so if I had six dreadnoughts against your 12 or MORE battlecruisers I'd win in a streight fight.
I too bulster my fleet with Point Defense ships and in the full game I garantee I will bolster them with carriers and SOME dreadnoughts fitted with fighter bays to swat your fighters out of my way while I bring my big guns to bear and turn your BCs into molten slag.

Also if my colonies are heavily defended your BCs might not have the strength to beat the colony before a reinforcement force can arrive so while my dreadnoughts are engaging and destroying the other half of your fleet your remaining half might find it's self cut off in enemy space. And your assuming there wouldn't be mines and weapons platforms around my worlds to prevent just such a tactic as you describe.

And another thing....your neglecting that I could more easily devestate your colonies as if I engage that half of your fleet it's gonna die easy.
Then when my dreadnoughts meet your colonies they'd have an easier time with your defenses then your battlecruisers would have with mine simply do to the sheer firepower bonuses. And since i use a more battlegroup style arrangement for my fleets instead of simply bulking my whole fleet together I'd send half my fleet to pursue each HALF of your fleet, and my fleets would win most likely.

P.S. When I say I have a battlegroup arrangment usually what I mean is that I have a "main fleet" or two depending on the circumstances and resources available and several fast reactionary forces deployed throughout my space.
So if your BCs met up with a few of my reaction forces you may win through sheer numbers but you'd take losses before you even reach my colonies, and that would be after whatever defenses you face at the warp points that come between your "avoiding" my fleet and my space.

[ December 12, 2003, 14:29: Message edited by: Starhawk ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

About the only two fighter squadrons per ship issue, I'd like to point out that this was during peacetime. I think it quite likely that if the colonies were on a full war footing then each ship would carry more fighters. Given the fact that it was peacetime with no enemy in sight, the colonies were maintaining a huge fleet considering that there were only 12 worlds to protect.

As to how to classify what kind of ship the Galactica is, that's easy, it's a Battlestar. You can't really classify it by our military standards. Support ships? The show seems to imply that it doesn't need any and I'm willing to go with that. The ship is huge and we've only seen a few locations on board.

Finally, tactics. Why aren't they using more smaller ships? I think this probably comes down to one thing, money. FTL engines must be quite expensive or else most ships would have them. Look at how many ships were left behind by Colonial One. A warship would almost have to have them in order to be effective in that kind of theater of operations. This would lead back to building giant ships and using a different tactical doctrine than what we're used to.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Minor note, Starhawk. Cruisers and Battle Cruisers in stock SE IV use the Large Mount. Battleships and Dreadnaughts use the Heavy Mount. And among ships only Baseships use the Massive Mount

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Wooops thanks Loser I guess I got a Mod of some type confused with the stock game.

"About the only two fighter squadrons per ship issue, I'd like to point out that this was during peacetime. I think it quite likely that if the colonies were on a full war footing then each ship would carry more fighters. Given the fact that it was peacetime with no enemy in sight, the colonies were maintaining a huge fleet considering that there were only 12 worlds to protect."

That does make sense, afterall why station over a hundred fighters per ship when you have 120 ships of that size.
And the funny thing to me is that the colonies had something like 20 billion people on em yet their military manpower would only be in the few hundred thousand not even the millions. Well at least their fleet.

"As to how to classify what kind of ship the Galactica is, that's easy, it's a Battlestar. You can't really classify it by our military standards. Support ships? The show seems to imply that it doesn't need any and I'm willing to go with that. The ship is huge and we've only seen a few locations on board."

Actually it would be a battleship by United States standards because of it's ship killing firepower. The fact that it has launch bays would only make sense in a space based theatre of combat because in space a fighter could go above you beneath you beside you that sort of thing and unless you want to add too many guns and use up all your ammo in only a few volleys you'd much rather have fighters available to cover your "weak" points.

"Finally, tactics. Why aren't they using more smaller ships? I think this probably comes down to one thing, money. FTL engines must be quite expensive or else most ships would have them. Look at how many ships were left behind by Colonial One. A warship would almost have to have them in order to be effective in that kind of theater of operations. This would lead back to building giant ships and using a different tactical doctrine than what we're used to."

Another good point, the battlestar appears to have enough provisions and supply to Last for a great deal of time on it's own and this makes sense considering it is a starship of enormious size and you really don't want to have to bring it into port on a regular basis.

And you have a really good point about the FTL drive, they seem to be a rare thing among ships and considering the Galactica hadn't made a jump in over twenty years prior to the new Cylon attack it leads me to beleive that there are some kinds of regulations or cost prohibiting effects of using the FTL drive on a regular basis, especially for warships.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

AND you will have world ships, AND you will have etc. ect.

If you have concentrated your fleet for an attack, then you won't be there to defend your warp points. And if you have a huge fleet of Dreadnaughts you won't have starbases to go everywhere (assuming you do not own half the map, which is not normally the case and thus maintenance will get you). In a normal game you can't have everything. And who said I wouldn't have Dreadnaughts, I just said I would complement them with a range of vessels. The dabate is about Battlestars, with a SEIV comparision. If that is the case then as in the show, you would only have ONE clase of ship that you use for everything a la Batlestar Galactica. That means no starbases, carriers, PDC ships, minesweepers, etc. and half your dereadnaughts would be filled with fighter bays.

Your fleet would be powerful in one field, but lack capabilities to accomplish other missions. Example, who pillage collonies better, one dreadnaught of three BCs? Which force would be easier to track down and destroy? And of cource you DNs will be slow as compared to my cruisers. It all comes down to playing style really, and I bet both srategies will work.

-Pat

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Hmmm yes I suppose you are right, it does all depend on play styles....and I said his wormhole defense stations were ranging in sizes I guess he must have meant ranging from space station to starbase in some areas. Space stations being relatively cheap.

Now I beleive that a dreadnought with fighterbays can be a good idea, and I usually equip all my light and full cruisers with PDCs so I would definately equip battleships, dreadnoughts and baseships with PDCs and would probobly create a dreadnought class with launch bays to work In Conjunction with my gun only dreadnoughts, and of course I'd have PDC destroyers and repair ships travel with my fleet so that I have the jack of all trades ships as well as the dedicated gunplatforms that are necessary to winning a capital on capital battle.

And thus far my playstyle has been more to just throw up minefields and satelites around my warp points and use the majority of my resources to create a large mobile navy that I can use to assault enemies while at the same time protecting my own empire.
So I do beleive I'd have a few battleships and would probobly keep my battlecruisers in service, but I'd probobly not replace my lost battlecruisers and instead just build battleships or dreadnoughts to replace them as time went on.
I would of course upgrade my battlecruisers to keep them in fighting condition afterall just because a ship is 50 years old doesn't mean it has to look it right?

Oh and if you were wondering I wasn't disagreeing with your tactics as I'd probobly use them to an extent as well but to me it sounded like you were relying totally on battlecruisers which would be as bad as me relying totally on dreadnoughts http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif if not worse as a battlecruiser is a smaller platform to work with.

[ December 12, 2003, 17:11: Message edited by: Starhawk ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Before the topic gets too far off track from the original thread, I was talking to a friend who works at Suncoast Motion Pictures where I get most of my dvds. He was telling me, first of all, that both Olmos and Katee Sachoff had never seen Battlestar Galactic before and were surprised at all of the vehemence that was being thrown their way. Once they saw some of the original BSG, they were disturbed by all of the differences. He informed me that if a new series were to develop, they would probably not be in it. Also, he doubts there will be a new series, due to the outrage that has come out over the new BSG and what happened to Farscape. And once he mentioned to me what Richard Hatch's storyline would have been like, I wish that would have been made instead. But apparently Glen Larson threw a monkey wrench into those plans, and then Universal stood up and claimed they owned the rights, but wasn't willing to pay the budget for the script. That's when Sci-Fi channel claimed they would make a mini-series instead.

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

I agree, relying on a singe platform would be disasterous.

Lately I have been experimenting with alternate ship designs. Clocked raiders with anti-planet weapons to kill attack behind enemy lines. Same sort of ships with troops to capture a base in the rear, then by the time my fleet gets there they have a base to repair and resupply at. One with all pychic/conVersion weaons to "recruit a lone warship. And just simple cloaked raiders to kill single transports and mine layer/sweeper ships wandering around. My favorite (which I haven't actually used yet) is a cloaked raider with mines. They shadow an enemy fleet and when I figure out where it is moveing I seed the route with mines. There are so many possibilites to harass enemies.

I don't expect to see any of this in BSG as the war is "over", but these ships must have existed before the defeat, and SOMETHING other than a Battlestar should have made it to the anchorage.

-Pat

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

If you look at it it really isn't surprising no other military vessel made it.

The Cylons had complete knowledge of the location, distribution, supplies, capabilities of every ship in the military via access to the computer system. They also were able to shut down the new program that was apparantly installed on everything from fighters to battlestars. They show up where they know the enemy is or where the standard plan says they should go turn them off and destroy them neat as you please.

So why does Galactica survive? It was old, obsolete, the program wasn't networked to all the sytems but limited to a few because of a cantankerous old commander who wouldn't allow networked systems onboard. When hostilities break out they aren't going to follow the standard plan because they have no munitions, large fighter group is destroyed right off, no supplies, no support and no orders to them from other higher ups because of all this.

The others try to engage the enemy and get destroyed. The Galactica doesn't and when engaged runs away and can't be disabled like the others were.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No offense man but yeah right....I doubt anyone much less the actors were truely disturbed by the changes. So I think your friend is FOS. Especially because there have been numerious interveiws including at ScifiCon or whatever it's called where Almos and Sachoff both say they enjoyed their roles and would return so I think your friend was yanking your wank.

As to Sci-Fi making a full series I doubt they'd let what happened to farscape get in the way as most people really don't care about the old BSG now a days and those that are truely outraged really need to get a life. Personally the majority of people I've spoken to that have seen it loved it and really hope it comes out as a full fledged series so again I think you were getting taken for a ride.
Farscape was a disaster in that it was pulled too late, personally season five tanked and they really should have ended it back in season four and by time the realized it they were already SOL.
As far as Richard Hatch goes he was probobly gonna make a campy cheesy new series that was just like the old one where you couldn't really get attached to any of the characters because either they were goofballs that were supposedly hellraisers like Starbuck or they were little pretty boy perfect guys like Apollo.

The new Starbuck is a badass and a true hellraiser that you just love because she's got more chutspa then a lot of guys on the show.
The new Apollo and Adama are REAL people they have problems they have failings and they are easily liked because of this.

Sorry man but what you said is just not beleivable at all as the actors said to every interveiw that they enjoyed their role and would love to return and considering they were already paid and the miniseries already made they'd have no reason to lie about it. And Sci-Fi would not have put the time and great ammount of money that they did into making a Pilot episode with a bigass clifhanger when they had no intention of bringing it back especially because most of the old die hard BSG fans are just that....OLD they are looking for young people ages 16 to 25 and so would make a series targeted for them and being that most 16-25 year olds would consider BSG campy and lame they'd probobly greatly enjoy the new one and thus it would get HIGH Ratings from the youngons.
I mean even my SISTER liked it and really hopes they come out with a new series and she gagged every time she saw the original series.

[ December 12, 2003, 22:11: Message edited by: Starhawk ]

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

If you fit a battlecruiser style ship with the Galactica weapons it would lose because the galactica has more of them AND a fighter wing to support it. Why build 300 cheap warships when you can build 120 that can devestate those 300?

Basically this is not Star Trek where the ships zoom about like mad if you look at the New Galactica Universe ships seem to fight like ships of old where they stand and deliver their firepower in volley after volley. A BC wouldn't stand up to the Galactica or any other Battlestar for that matter. When you are facing a ship bristling with flak guns, missile tubes, and heavy rail cannons that fire HE rounds and that ALSO carries a fighter wing then your pretty well boned unless you outnumber it by a good ammount.

Now Unrep and Support vessels are NOT warships they are support vessels and I'm sure the Colonial fleet had a few of those.

As for size vs firepower let's use SEIV as an Example usually my cruisers have few guns then the enemy ships but I usually end up winning because my cruisers have more Shield and armor systems. So why would I build a dozen escorts for the same price when my cruiser could blow through them like snot through a tissue?
Now I have also completely destroyed a light cruiser with a simple destroyer, not because I stood and fought but BECAUSE I outfit all destroyer and smaller ships with missile tubes only so the enemy can't get my range and destroy them, only when I get up to Light Cruiser do I make gunships with shields and armor. But the second I get a full gunship Light Cruiser against a Full Gun cruiser the LC dies hard but still dies, if it gets lucky it cripples the enemy enough for the next poor SOB to win. Now these cruisers or even light Cruisers with shields and armor combo's just shrug off missile attacks and still manage to close the range and destroy your missile ship so size does matter http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif .

Now if it was a Dreadnought that you had equipped with a few missile tubes and THEN with lots of guns shields and armor it would all depend on how many PDCs your enemy had and how good his shields and armor were. But a dreadnought even equipped with all guns could wipe the floor with a BC without much trouble.

Now Galactica has everything you could want, Missile Tubes (as mentioned by the XO and CMDR alot) for long range pummeling, she has heavy Rail cannons for medium range fire (as we saw them establish a perimiter against the Raiders) and she has a crapload of deck guns that fire flak and Phalanx style rounds for close in. She pretty much IS her own battlegroup and if enemy fighters slip in she just launches her own wing and blows em up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif .

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Son, you need to buy better tissues. That or not push so hard when you blow your nose. You can damage your ears that way.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Re: Battlestar Galactica **Spoilers** discussion
 

Lets keep this civil guys.