Rant: Total Morons Expect 20th Century Tech Rollovers in SW

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-06-15 08:04pm

http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11323530&start=12039866

I'm in pain.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-06-16 05:07am

The TF.net boards are blocked by Koyo High School`s filter. Can`t say I`m suprised. *Budda-bum-CHING!*

seanrobertson · Post by **seanrobertson** » 2003-06-16 12:10pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11323530&start=12039866

I'm in pain.

It's not as bad as Space Battles, where a lot of people are still calling 200 gigaton turbolaser shots "fan wanking." A few of the bolder (read: really stupid) posters like to take pot-shots at Curtis, noting that he "must've been on crack" when writing the cross-sections text. That pisses me off, but then I remind myself, "Forget it, Sean...it's Spacebattlestown." (A cookie to anyone who can name that reference!

)

When will people understand that an organization that can build Death Stars MUST be capable of building smaller warships with near solar levels of power? That ISDs and the like would be incapable of billion terawatt firepower PLUS is what's absurd...

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-06-16 12:35pm

I *really* wish my registration would be approved. I applied two weeks ago.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-06-16 01:36pm

sean, your reference is to Roman Polanski's Chinatown. Also deftly referenced in the excellent television program Home Movies.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-06-16 01:40pm

I don't think anyone was arguing about the ability of 20th century technology to defeat SW technology. I think they were just discussing the technological stasis within the SW Galaxy. Granted, that's still pretty damn stupid, but it's not quite as bad as you had made it out to be.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-06-16 02:10pm

Master of Ossus wrote:I don't think anyone was arguing about the ability of 20th century technology to defeat SW technology. I think they were just discussing the technological stasis within the SW Galaxy. Granted, that's still pretty damn stupid, but it's not quite as bad as you had made it out to be.

I think that's what IP was talking about in the first place. By "tech rollovers" he means technology being replaced by new technology, in this case at a rate comparable to that of 20th century Earth.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-06-16 04:18pm

Exactly.

Morons who whine that they must be retarded to use TIE Fighters in the NJO because there must be technological "rollovers" in military hardware every decade or two.

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-06-17 02:42am

Yopu want bad? Galaxy over in SB is convinced sidewinder missles will bring down TIE fighters because a fighter was destroyed flying down the Death Star tunnel.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-17 03:00am

Morons who whine that they must be retarded to use TIE Fighters in the NJO because there must be technological "rollovers" in military hardware every decade or two.

Which is silly, of course. Look how long the B-52 was in service.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-06-17 04:41am

Typhonis 1 wrote:Yopu want bad? Galaxy over in SB is convinced sidewinder missles will bring down TIE fighters because a fighter was destroyed flying down the Death Star tunnel.

What was his "reasoning", or did he even give any?

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-06-17 05:04am

Galaxy's "reasoning" is "I think this, therefore it is so."

Typhonis 1 · Post by **Typhonis 1** » 2003-06-17 12:52pm

He aid because a TIE fighter has such flimsy construction sidewinders should be able to shoot it down.Stock sidewinders not the ones I asked about armed with small nukes.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-06-17 06:07pm

SPOOFE wrote:Galaxy's "reasoning" is "I think this, therefore it is so."

Is this the same Galaxy that returns occasionally to troll our board for a couple days before running away without conceding defeat?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-06-17 06:21pm

Master of Ossus wrote:
SPOOFE wrote:Galaxy's "reasoning" is "I think this, therefore it is so."
Is this the same Galaxy that returns occasionally to troll our board for a couple days before running away without conceding defeat?

Yep.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-06-18 07:45am

SPOOFE wrote:Galaxy's "reasoning" is "I think this, therefore it is so."

That would fall under "lack thereof".

justifier · Post by **justifier** » 2003-06-18 03:25pm

seanrobertson wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:http:// boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=11323530&start=12039866

I'm in pain.
It's not as bad as Space Battles, where a lot of people are still calling 200 gigaton turbolaser shots "fan wanking." A few of the bolder (read: really stupid) posters like to take pot-shots at Curtis, noting that he "must've been on crack" when writing the cross-sections text. That pisses me off, but then I remind myself, "Forget it, Sean...it's Spacebattlestown." (A cookie to anyone who can name that reference! )

When will people understand that an organization that can build Death Stars MUST be capable of building smaller warships with near solar levels of power? That ISDs and the like would be incapable of billion terawatt firepower PLUS is what's absurd...

The worst thing is when we're not even using the ICS and beating the other side in a debate, they bring up the ICS and say we're wanking, when we weren't even using it!

Prince-Admiral Krennel · Post by **Prince-Admiral Krennel** » 2003-06-19 01:51am

Sadly they've gotten so used to ST that if it doesn't look fancy then it's not considered very advanced.

As far as the sidewinder thing goes, I think it's safe to assume that a spacefighters frame will be built out of more resilient material than our current day airplanes.

HappyTarget · Post by **HappyTarget** » 2003-06-19 02:55am

Which is silly, of course. Look how long the B-52 was in service.

[devils advocate] It also has had significant improvements done to it over the original production specs since it's been in service. Something the stock Tie Fighter hasn't seem to have had done to it. [/devils advocate]

Isolder74 · Post by **Isolder74** » 2003-06-19 11:06am

SPOOFE wrote:
Morons who whine that they must be retarded to use TIE Fighters in the NJO because there must be technological "rollovers" in military hardware every decade or two.
Which is silly, of course. Look how long the B-52 was in service.

Was, it still is in service!

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-06-19 11:41am

HappyTarget wrote:
Which is silly, of course. Look how long the B-52 was in service.
[devils advocate] It also has had significant improvements done to it over the original production specs since it's been in service. Something the stock Tie Fighter hasn't seem to have had done to it. [/devils advocate]

Too bad SW has been economically/technologically stagnant for thousands of years.

JodoForce · Post by **JodoForce** » 2003-06-19 12:21pm

Well, was there ANYTHING that was ever shown to fail to blow up a TIE fighter?

Sidewinder downing a TIE fighter sounds pluasible enough to me

Not that it matters in the balance of power against anything... TIE fighters are never meant to take any kind of blast and survive, any kind at all

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2003-06-19 03:55pm

JodoForce wrote:Well, was there ANYTHING that was ever shown to fail to blow up a TIE fighter? Sidewinder downing a TIE fighter sounds pluasible enough to me

Not that it matters in the balance of power against anything... TIE fighters are never meant to take any kind of blast and survive, any kind at all

They can withstand prolonged small arms fire. This is shown in a couple comics (which ones escape me at the moment).

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-06-19 04:59pm

Well, TIEs are for all purposes trans-atmospheric vehicles, so they have a fuselage strong enough to withstand multiple atmospheric reentries, also, they can't take SW-level damage, but that doesn't mean they can't absorb damage from current (let's say, low-tech) missiles.

On-topic:

JodoForce · Post by **JodoForce** » 2003-06-20 03:52am

Warspite wrote:Well, TIEs are for all purposes trans-atmospheric vehicles, so they have a fuselage strong enough to withstand multiple atmospheric reentries, also, they can't take SW-level damage, but that doesn't mean they can't absorb damage from current (let's say, low-tech) missiles.

To hijack this thread further

, what happens when you fire a sidewinder at the Space Shuttle?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rant: Total Morons Expect 20th Century Tech Rollovers in SW

Rant: Total Morons Expect 20th Century Tech Rollovers in SW

Re: Rant: Total Morons Expect 20th Century Tech Rollovers in

Re: Rant: Total Morons Expect 20th Century Tech Rollovers in