Projectile weapons

[Batman]

No that means that at the very least their tech should be as good as ours. In the case of the Empire and Federation, their armor, for instance, should be far superior, but at the very least it isnt any worse. I saw a page where a stormtroopers armor seems to crack in ROTJ alot more easily than it should have. Do you know why?

IIRC, it is only seen to have a crack. It doesn't crack on screen.

1. Rule No. 1 "Artifacts of the film making process"
Its a movie. They arent real stormtroopers wearing real battle armor, they are actors and stuntmen wearing cheap-o costume armor. Naturally it will crack alot more easily. What is the alternative? To analyze the scene as if real, and come to what conclusion? That Roman blacksmiths could forge tougher armor than the materials scientists of the Galactic Empire?!?

Yes, because substandard manufacturing is an unknown in the real world. Oh wait it isn't. How about that one piece is shitty? And that's assuming we actually see it crack, instead of simply seing that is has a crack.

"if it were real...."
2. Rule No.2 .....than their armor must be at least as good as ours.

Why? This is the default position no doubt but if their armor consistently sucks onscreen in situation were modern armor would've held, then no it isn't.

These guidlines don't limit their tech to our level, it means that they cant be worse than ours, no matter what you see on that screen.

And that completely violates SoD. Their armor is as good as what we see on-screen, nothing more. Single instances of failure can be ationalised as filming gaffes if no in-universe explanation works, but if, say, the Vunusian Oppresion Guards wear body armor that consistently fails to stop rubber balls thrown by toddlers than, yes, their armor is inferior to modern sporting gear. Them's the breaks.

[MickeyMo]

if on-screen evidence shows something different then what the "Creators" says, their statements are irrellevant.

What is shown on screen is the say so of the MU. Ships, weapons, tech, tactics, dialogue, visual, sound and special effects. All of it.

... if on-screen evidence shows otherwise, the statement in question is wrong.

That statement, that it would take about 11 days to travel 8,000 nm at 30 knots, reflects the real world, where you dont get to fudge. But yes, the MU can establish, in FX scenes and dialogue, any travel time he wants. "If it were real...." he couldnt.

On-screen evidence, combined with statements that don´t conflict with the on-screen evidence or have yet to be disproven by on-screen evidence, constitute the basis of what we use in discussing issues in fictional universes as if they were real universes.

What you're discussing is the say so of the MU, since everything that happens on screen is what he determines. He descibes in the script how much damage is done by a warhead. When he looks at the FX scene that was created on the basis of his description...he can say...."no, make it bigger" , or smaller, or..... "perfect!" Depending on the cirucumstances, the yield "if it were real..." could be swinging up and down by orders of magnitude based on nothing other than his visual preference.

No, it is treated as "real" not REAL. Certain phenomenon seen in the work that are impossible to reproduce in real life, yet contain some abilities relatable to values in our universe, will simply constitute a part of the fictional universe and we use SoD to treat it as a real phenomenon ("real" in the context of the fictional universe).

Thats the rub. "if this were real...and we are keeping literary license...what sense can we make of it?" If there is still an MU and literary license is still in effect, there isnt any sense you can make out of it. Since he can just make the weapons more powerful and the ships faster just by saying so,... Abra Cadabra. Thats the beauty of fiction. You can have wicked witches, light sabers, magic dragons and a wonderland where Alice can meet talking bunny rabbits.

But if its real, than there is no MU and never was. So how powerful are the weapons? Well, lets start with what we can already do, and extrapolate from there, rather than start with the MUs "on screen" FX and dialogue. Or more precisely, lets use the FX and dialogue as talking points to start, and not established "facts", which they arent.

[Batman]

Would somebody please once more explain SoD to that complete and utter moron? Not that I believe he can understand it but I I were to try I'd propably strangle him with it.

[Darth Wong]

2. Rule No.2 .....than their armor must be at least as good as ours.

Good, since our modern soldiers' shoulder armour is nothing more than a piece of cloth. Oh wait, I guess that means modern soldiers' body armour is just as weak as a piece of cloth!

[MickeyMo]

Would somebody please once more explain SoD to that complete and utter moron? Not that I believe he can understand it but I I were to try I'd propably strangle him with it.

My last comments in this thread had been on feb 12. I was perfectly willing to just let the matter drop, especially since my posts were off topic and therefore irrelevent to a versus thread. Then, four days later, 4 new posts appeared, all of them directing comments or questions to me. So I responded to some of them. If the Mods feel that on-topic posts to this thread have apparently ended and only off-topic material is keeping it going, they can just close and lock it.

In any case, the best way to get me to stop answering questions on this topic, is to not direct any more comments or questions to me about it.

[Batman]

Would somebody please once more explain SoD to that complete and utter moron? Not that I believe he can understand it but I I were to try I'd propably strangle him with it.

My last comments in this thread had been on feb 12. I was perfectly willing to just let the matter drop, especially since my posts were off topic and therefore irrelevent to a versus thread. Then, four days later, 4 new posts appeared, all of them directing comments or questions to me. So I responded to some of them. If the Mods feel that on-topic posts to this thread have apparently ended and only off-topic material is keeping it going, they can just close and lock it.
In any case, the best way to get me to stop answering questions on this topic, is to not direct any more comments or questions to me about it.

Let's see-you either don't understand or blatantly ignore SoD, you want to indroduce writers intend when that has NO VALIDITY WHASOEVER in a vs debate, you display a profound amount of ignorance in the matter you're trying to discuss, namely firearms, and you do all this in discussion forum that was intentionally created to debate using SoD ignoring writer's intent. Wich makes you a troll.
And a stupid one to boot, if your firearms ignorance is any indication. Check the board motto.I will stop posting when I feel like it or a Mod tells me to.

[Steven Snyder]

If you have a silenced rifle firing say a 165 Grain .30-06cal projectile. It can do some damage.

A silenced .30-06??? Ooookay...

PS I was US Army Air Borne and other than being a Scifi fan, I'm a firearms instructor and a firearms collector. SO I try to mix my hobbies.

Anyone who brags about their accomplishments like that is immediately suspect in my mind. Oh and it's Airborne (one word).

[Darth Servo]

[1. Rule No. 1 "Artifacts of the film making process"

Its a movie. They arent real stormtroopers wearing real battle armor, they are actors and stuntmen wearing cheap-o costume armor. Naturally it will crack alot more easily. What is the alternative? To analyze the scene as if real, and come to what conclusion? That Roman blacksmiths could forge tougher armor than the materials scientists of the Galactic Empire?!?

No, that one or two guys got a defective piece of armor. It happens.

[harbringer]

Mickymo.....

Gene Roddenberry had very little to do with star trek so his opinions (including the one of "it isn't star trek unless I say it is ") generally get ignored. However Star Trek has NEVER shown anything like better abilities in many areas compared with today. There is no evidence they have hidden away 50, 500 or 5 million MT nukes. They don't use them and you can try the photon torpedo replaced them many times but how do you prove it? why did they replace them?.

And SOD or suspension of disbelief is very very simple. Treat what is on the screen as is what was intended to be there (after all they put so much work into making look exactly like that you know). If the people who owned/controlled the franchise wanted something different why do you think they allow this to happen, they after all pay the writers.

Finally the cracked armour could have happened anywhere anytime prove it broke easily and didn't get broken by an AT-ST stomping on it or a shuttle landing on it. You want to put something forward YOU have to show why it works.

Lastly whining that "everbody picks on meeeeee" is as effective as using an umbrella to protect against one of your nukes going off right above your head. It des nothing proves your a moron and places your IQ in the same range as the celcius temperature of refridgerated water.

[MickeyMo]

Mickymo.....

Gene Roddenberry had very little to do with star trek so his opinions (including the one of "it isn't star trek unless I say it is ") generally get ignored. However Star Trek has NEVER shown anything like better abilities in many areas compared with today. There is no evidence they have hidden away 50, 500 or 5 million MT nukes. They don't use them and you can try the photon torpedo replaced them many times but how do you prove it? why did they replace them?.

And SOD or suspension of disbelief is very very simple. Treat what is on the screen as is what was intended to be there (after all they put so much work into making look exactly like that you know). If the people who owned/controlled the franchise wanted something different why do you think they allow this to happen, they after all pay the writers.

Finally the cracked armour could have happened anywhere anytime prove it broke easily and didn't get broken by an AT-ST stomping on it or a shuttle landing on it. You want to put something forward YOU have to show why it works.

Lastly whining that "everbody picks on meeeeee" is as effective as using an umbrella to protect against one of your nukes going off right above your head. It des nothing proves your a moron and places your IQ in the same range as the celcius temperature of refridgerated water.

1. Being Picked On

I didnt say "everyone picks on me". I just said don't ask the question, if you don't want the answer. I don't mind answering them at all.

2. Armor

The armor is constume armor in a theatrical movie. The purpose for the stated "Rule No. 1 : Its a movie" is to indicate that nothing, either pro or con, can be extrapolated to how Stormtrooper battle would perform "if it were real...." on the basis of the performance of costume armor.

Given that it is in fact costume armor, the explanation that it is inherently weak is actually the best answer. The problem comes when you try to extrapolate to real battle armor. Saying that it indicates the inherent weakness of all Imperial body armor just so happens to violate a second rule, in addition to the first.

But any extrapolation from costume armor is ruled out. So such other explanations as "its a defect" or "design flaw of shoulder plates" or "an imperial shuttle landed on him" ...are unnessesary and meaningless. That is not to say that real armor couldnt have defects. Only that, since this is not real battle armor, no meaningful extrapolation to real armor is possible or necessary.

3. SoD

I dont have any problem with SoD when I am watching and enjoying a movie. What I do have a problem with is SoHBF (Suspension of Higher Brain Functions.) Alot of what we see in scifi reminds me of those silly short films that they used to make about the "kitchen of the future". Those of you old enough to remember them know what I am talking about. Just these silly ideas that people had about what life would be like in the future.

The point being is that they would portray the most technically sophisticated way of doing any task as the one that people would use, without regard to whether that made any sense or was a meaningful improvement. It will never be easier to have robot arms come out of a wall and crack your eggs for you. And opening a cupboard with one hand and taking out a cup with the other is not exactly such a labor or time consuming effort that automating it with some robotic conveyor belt-like contraption would be worthwhile. The only change in your life from these useless gizmos would be a bigger electric bill.

The reason I go into all this is that if we are going to say "If this was real.." then lets start with a simple question: How is this better than what we have right now? For me transitioning from fiction to real (and yes i mean REAL, not "real") should logically involve some reboot of what we are seeing to bring it into line with what makes more sense to do, rather than simply accept every depiction of tech as described and portayed in fictional tv shows and movies.

Not every door in the future is going to opening electronically. For energy efficiency and engineering simplicity its hard to beat the doorknob. Projectiles are often the better weapon, targeting the enemy weapons with guided munitions will probably always be alot easier than "shields", vaporisation as an anti-personnel weapon is ludicrous overkill, and cell doors made of strong alloys will hold the prisoners very nicely (I am leaving out "shape shifters").

To cut this short, lets suspend disbelief, but not our higher brain functions.

4. Nukes

Why did "they" replace .... "They"... are screenwriters. "Evidence"?....You mean what you see on a fictional TV show and in movies? Thats not evidence.

"If it were real..." They would probably have some mix of lasers, beam weapons, and projectiles. The latter would most likely include at least some with various warhead yields. And these yields would have not in any way be limited by what you see in FX scenes designed for TV shows.

[PeZook]

Mickey, what do you propose as an acceptable method of doing a "what if" comparison between two fictional universes, if not treating the movies as if they were a real recording of real events? And please don't say it's a silly thing to do, as I'm sure people here already know that.

The armor is constume armor in a theatrical movie. The purpose for the stated "Rule No. 1 : Its a movie" is to indicate that nothing, either pro or con, can be extrapolated to how Stormtrooper battle would perform "if it were real...." on the basis of the performance of costume armor.

The purpose is not to develop measures for some armor that may possibly exist sometime in the future while assuming realistic technology development. The purpose of a vs is to discuss the properties of technology employed within both involved universes as depicted in the movies. If you want to discuss real life military tech and how it will look like in the future, join the HAB or start a thread in SLAM.

But any extrapolation from costume armor is ruled out. So such other explanations as "its a defect" or "design flaw of shoulder plates" or "an imperial shuttle landed on him" ...are unnessesary and meaningless. That is not to say that real armor couldnt have defects. Only that, since this is not real battle armor, no meaningful extrapolation to real armor is possible or necessary.

The posters are not extrapolating anything from goddamned props. We see how (for example) the armor reacts to adversity in the movie (yes, I know they are special effects. For the purpose of the discussion we treat them as a real recording. And your musings about them changing at any time it suits the writes are irrelevant, as many sci-fi universes are self-consistent) and develop limits based on what we see.

Alot of what we see in scifi reminds me of those silly short films that they used to make about the "kitchen of the future"

So? If a sci-fi race does something stupid, it doesn't invalidate the method of analysis used.

The reason I go into all this is that if we are going to say "If this was real.." then lets start with a simple question: How is this better than what we have right now? For me transitioning from fiction to real (and yes i mean REAL, not "real") should logically involve some reboot of what we are seeing to bring it into line with what makes more sense to do, rather than simply accept every depiction of tech as described and portayed in fictional tv shows and movies.

So according to your line of thinking, all sci-fi tech should be treated the same, because real-life tech isn't going to progress like it did in 99% of sci-fi universes. Should we assume, then, that Star Trek ships do not have any form of an FTL drive, because it's physically impossible, and we won't be going faster than light, ever?

Additionally, should we assume that Federation phaser rifles are not in fact phaser rifles as portrayed, as it would make more sense to use normal guns, and the writers were stupid, and so the series Feds must be using bullets somewhere, even though we do not see it?

Not every door in the future is going to opening electronically. For energy efficiency and engineering simplicity its hard to beat the doorknob. Projectiles are often the better weapon, targeting the enemy weapons with guided munitions will probably always be alot easier than "shields", vaporisation as an anti-personnel weapon is ludicrous overkill, and cell doors made of strong alloys will hold the prisoners very nicely (I am leaving out "shape shifters").

...and we're never gonna have Deathstars or FTL drives, and humans don't live in a galaxy far, far away. Furthermore, we'll never create an interstellar opressive empire that will have to fight a bunch of rag-tag rebels in spectacular space battles. Should we then assume every goddamned sci-fi universe is exactly the same as our future will be (because, after all, it makes more sense)?

With SoD, we can do an objective analysis and come to a conclusion that will provide an answer to a hypothetical question.

With your method, we can keep "extrapolating" from current technology untill we're dead, and our grandchildren all graduate from universities and get jobs, and ultimately it comes down to nothing more than subjective drivel with no clear resolution.

[VT-16]

1. Being Picked On

I didnt say "everyone picks on me". I just said don't ask the question, if you don't want the answer. I don't mind answering them at all.

So far you haven´t answered anything besides saying "if this was real it wouldn´t exist". That is not the premise of discussion here.

2. Armor

The armor is constume armor in a theatrical movie.

Yes, we are all aware of this fact, but that is not the premise of discussion.

I dont have any problem with SoD when I am watching and enjoying a movie.

You have demonstrated time and time again that you do not understand the premise of SoD and therefore your claim to like it is nonsensical.

What I do have a problem with is SoHBF (Suspension of Higher Brain Functions.)

Nice way to harass the members of this board. Go someplace else if you feel your intelligence is being insulted.

Just these silly ideas that people had about what life would be like in the future.

Whether or not ideas such as this is silly, they are debated on this board as if they were feasible and put to practical use. Once again SoD rears its ugly head.

The reason I go into all this is that if we are going to say "If this was real.." then lets start with a simple question: How is this better than what we have right now? For me transitioning from fiction to real (and yes i mean REAL, not "real") should logically involve some reboot of what we are seeing to bring it into line with what makes more sense to do, rather than simply accept every depiction of tech as described and portayed in fictional tv shows and movies.

Then you are again missing the point of there discussions. Most members on this board are perfectly aware of all the ludicrous ideas in sci-fi and fantasy, we simply like to debate them in the context of their own universes, and rl-analogies are used so that people can relate to them more easily.

Not every door in the future is going to opening electronically. For energy efficiency and engineering simplicity its hard to beat the doorknob. Projectiles are often the better weapon, targeting the enemy weapons with guided munitions will probably always be alot easier than "shields", vaporisation as an anti-personnel weapon is ludicrous overkill, and cell doors made of strong alloys will hold the prisoners very nicely (I am leaving out "shape shifters").

Thank you for pointing out the obvious.

To cut this short, lets suspend disbelief, but not our higher brain functions.

You do not understand the concept of Suspension of Disbelief and can therefore claim no higher intellectual ground. In other words, knock it off, jackass.

"Evidence"?....You mean what you see on a fictional TV show and in movies? Thats not evidence.

Yes, when used in debates about fictional issues they do indeed constitute evidence.

And SOD or suspension of disbelief is very very simple. Treat what is on the screen as is what was intended to be there...

This is the method used on this board to debate technical issues in fictional universes. Writers intent does not apply here, neither does saying "if this was real it would not exist". If you can not understand Suspension of Disbelief, then you are simply trolling up to board.