Total Annihilation

[phongn]

There was also the 1960's level US with ~20GT of nuclear firepower (IIRC, mostly in strategic forces)

BIG BOMB FETISH

Only because the CEP was so large!

[gravity]

My point is that you can't take the report and apply it to the game itself because they contradict each other!!!. Or did you not understand? Its irrelevant how much damage supposedly happened in the battle if we have no idea of how many or what type of units took place in it. And the only source for the number of units is the game itself, which can't be used because it directly contradicts the supposed firepower levels.
You can't use the fucking in-game unit limits as a basis for anything because the in-game contradicts the firepower quote.

So the battlgrounds quote can't really be used because it's almost meaningless by itself, and we have nothing to flesh it out with that doesn't also contradict it.

There is such a thing as game play itself. It is scaled so that the game can be played. Fact is the makers of the game gave canon status to the fanfic writers and further gave information through their news reports durring the Galactic war reports.

If it's scaled (and therefore the game reported one wasn't representative of the "actual" events), then you can't use it to find the number of units, and therefore the battlegrounds quote is mostly useless, obviously. How many times do I have to explain this?

Also, if fanfic is canon then you might as well throw the whole universe away, because a lot of it is contradictory (from what I've heard described of it), and there's no real way to say which is the higher canon.

[gravity]

The differance is, in my view(duh), betwen TA & starcraft is that there is consistant ingame mechanics.

Yes, the TA-ingame is consistent; consistently weak (proved by trees, solar, etc.).

Not that that makes it a bad game (not as good as SC though ), but it isn't a particularly strong universe, based on the in-game itself.

And if the in-game is scaled down, then there's no way to make use of the Battlegrounds quote, because we don't know how many units, nukes, etc, they were talking about (since the actual game wasn't the same as the "real" events).

[Alyeska]

My point is that you can't take the report and apply it to the game itself because they contradict each other!!!. Or did you not understand? Its irrelevant how much damage supposedly happened in the battle if we have no idea of how many or what type of units took place in it. And the only source for the number of units is the game itself, which can't be used because it directly contradicts the supposed firepower levels.
You can't use the fucking in-game unit limits as a basis for anything because the in-game contradicts the firepower quote.

So the battlgrounds quote can't really be used because it's almost meaningless by itself, and we have nothing to flesh it out with that doesn't also contradict it.

There is such a thing as game play itself. It is scaled so that the game can be played. Fact is the makers of the game gave canon status to the fanfic writers and further gave information through their news reports durring the Galactic war reports.

If it's scaled (and therefore the game reported one wasn't representative of the "actual" events), then you can't use it to find the number of units, and therefore the battlegrounds quote is mostly useless, obviously. How many times do I have to explain this?

Also, if fanfic is canon then you might as well throw the whole universe away, because a lot of it is contradictory (from what I've heard described of it), and there's no real way to say which is the higher canon.

The ranges, speeds, and weapon effects are scaled for game play. For the most part, the game firepower is true to life and so are unit numbers. That means the 2 Gigatons are still in, and they are still validly divided against 200 attacking units.

[Alyeska]

The differance is, in my view(duh), betwen TA & starcraft is that there is consistant ingame mechanics.

Yes, the TA-ingame is consistent; consistently weak (proved by trees, solar, etc.).

Not that that makes it a bad game (not as good as SC though ), but it isn't a particularly strong universe, based on the in-game itself.

And if the in-game is scaled down, then there's no way to make use of the Battlegrounds quote, because we don't know how many units, nukes, etc, they were talking about (since the actual game wasn't the same as the "real" events).

You say these burning trees make them look weak. Yet these burning trees pump out enough energy that they can create power of a significant fraction to a Fussion reactor. These are not normal trees. And you call the Solar bad? Do you know how close they are to the stars? Do you know what sort of stars they are using? Your assuming our solar standards when theirs can be far different.

[gravity]

There is such a thing as game play itself. It is scaled so that the game can be played. Fact is the makers of the game gave canon status to the fanfic writers and further gave information through their news reports durring the Galactic war reports.

If it's scaled (and therefore the game reported one wasn't representative of the "actual" events), then you can't use it to find the number of units, and therefore the battlegrounds quote is mostly useless, obviously. How many times do I have to explain this?

Also, if fanfic is canon then you might as well throw the whole universe away, because a lot of it is contradictory (from what I've heard described of it), and there's no real way to say which is the higher canon.

The ranges, speeds, and weapon effects are scaled for game play. For the most part, the game firepower is true to life and so are unit numbers. That means the 2 Gigatons are still in, and they are still validly divided against 200 attacking units.

But the in-game firepower is observably much less than that (you can prove this by calculating the value in joules of 1 energy unit (and therefore 1 damage unit), based on the area and output of the solar collectors, and comparing to the Krogoth's energy consumption and damage for it's blue-laser attack), so it is obviously scale too, and the quote can't be used like that.

[gravity]

The differance is, in my view(duh), betwen TA & starcraft is that there is consistant ingame mechanics.

Yes, the TA-ingame is consistent; consistently weak (proved by trees, solar, etc.).

Not that that makes it a bad game (not as good as SC though ), but it isn't a particularly strong universe, based on the in-game itself.

And if the in-game is scaled down, then there's no way to make use of the Battlegrounds quote, because we don't know how many units, nukes, etc, they were talking about (since the actual game wasn't the same as the "real" events).

You say these burning trees make them look weak. Yet these burning trees pump out enough energy that they can create power of a significant fraction to a Fussion reactor. These are not normal trees. And you call the Solar bad? Do you know how close they are to the stars? Do you know what sort of stars they are using? Your assuming our solar standards when theirs can be far different.

The trees look relatively normal/biological (they can't be *that* weird or they would look different), and there's nothing to say that a Fusion plant has to put out a lot of power. It might only just be getting a bit over the level where it's putting out what it's using up.
If they were too close to the stars, there would be no normal-looking life on the planet (which there is on at least some of them). And even assuming 10x the solar energy density of Earth at ground level (very generous since that would probably preclude the normal looking trees we see on some levels) would leave you with a level of firepower nowhere near the gigaton level (probably, I haven't done that actual calcualtions).