Volturnus article reworked

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
June 17, 2016 - 7:25am
I just finished reorganizing and in places rewriting parts of the Volturnus article at the other wiki.  I also footnoted and referenced it and added appropriate images.

Tell me what you think.

http://starfrontiers.wikia.com/wiki/Volturnus
Comments:

jedion357's picture
jedion357
June 22, 2016 - 7:52am
ChrisDonovan wrote:
That would be relatively simple. Get a cybodragon and get gene samples from it's organic components.  Either clone the critter or culture the DNA for IVF of a similar species.

You have a point about the bureaucracy though.

Simple yes but easy no so much. The cybo dragon is high maintenance as sathar bio-constructs go. You are just not going to find them running wild. So you're going to have to get them from the sathar and that is always going to be an interesting proposition. In addition residents of Voturnus who originate in the rest of the Frontier will object to releasing sathar bio-forms into the environment. Witness the objections over re-introducing wolves into areas of the West and the end result a healthier elk population and some culling of domesticated cattle.

The scientist heading this up will need to raise a few individuals and prove there isnt lasting effects from the sathar tampering with the original form. And once the story leaks out how long till the sathar hear via their agents? And how long till the sathar set up a "to good to be true opportunity" to recover some dragons? Except these dragons have a special genetic package spliced in.
I might not be a dralasite, vrusk or yazirian but I do play one in Star Frontiers!

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
June 22, 2016 - 10:09am
Good points.

rattraveller's picture
rattraveller
June 22, 2016 - 4:37pm
ChrisDonovan wrote:
It was the same weapon.  If you had an AR, would it be correct usage to say you hadn't fired it until you went full auto?

Not a good comparison since it is a completely different weapon system.  Think of the old battleships. Their main guns were designed to shoot other battleships. They could be fired at incoming aircraft attacking them but that is a nightmare of gun control and has limited chance of success. 

No one is giving the Stars Wars movie credit for realism but the shooting of the rebel ships with the main gun was like I described and should not have happened but we don't credit movie people with knowing the finer points of military tactics.
Sounds like a great job but where did you say we had to go?

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
June 22, 2016 - 7:09pm
rattraveller wrote:
 Think of the old battleships. Their main guns were designed to shoot other battleships. They could be fired at incoming aircraft attacking them but that is a nightmare of gun control and has limited chance of success. 

No one is giving the Stars Wars movie credit for realism but the shooting of the rebel ships with the main gun was like I described and should not have happened but we don't credit movie people with knowing the finer points of military tactics.

The difference is that DS2 could fire at those targets with the primary weapon, and did so quite effectively.

Now imagine if DS2 survived the battle of Endor (for whatever plot you want to use...lack of inside information, failure at the bunker, etc). That primary weapon could be used on a planet, and then on any escaping ships moments later. Next would be the neighboring planet, the local gas giant after that, etc etc etc. whereas the original DS was a one and done operation.

Like I said, an improvement to the prior design. We just didn't get to see it utilized in full force (no pun intended).
I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
June 23, 2016 - 8:10am
Just as an aside, I wouldn't use the superlaser on a gas giant.  It already has enough power to pulverize far less reactive substances. Can you imagine how much amplification you'd get out of volatile gasses?

JCab747's picture
JCab747
June 23, 2016 - 9:21am
ChrisDonovan wrote:
Just as an aside, I wouldn't use the superlaser on a gas giant.  It already has enough power to pulverize far less reactive substances. Can you imagine how much amplification you'd get out of volatile gasses?


Well, if you've ever played Star Wars Empire at War and used the Death Star to blow up the gas giant Bespin, it's a blast shall we say. Foot in mouth

Other than that, the whole idea of a planet killer is a bit overblown. Foot in mouth All you really need is to make the surface a lifeless waste. It would take far less energy.

Joe Cabadas

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
June 23, 2016 - 4:33pm
Well, at least the Planet Killer had a use for crushed planets.

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
June 23, 2016 - 9:54pm


I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

JCab747's picture
JCab747
June 24, 2016 - 5:18am
ChrisDonovan wrote:
Well, at least the Planet Killer had a use for crushed planets.


Yes, there's just no need for "planet killers" in science fiction. Why did Babylon 5 do such a thing?

Image result for babylon 5 vorlon planet killer

Vorlon planet killer...

File:Spksky.jpg

The Shadow's cloud of missiles that can destroy a planet...

Oh, well, I guess they did that too. Surprised
Joe Cabadas

JCab747's picture
JCab747
June 24, 2016 - 5:19am
And yes I like the cornicopia of death...

Image result for cornucopia
Joe Cabadas

Shadow Shack's picture
Shadow Shack
June 24, 2016 - 7:27am
Actually it was a Bugles chip...


The one right below the "B" is a better representation. Cool


Shadow Shack wrote:


I'm not overly fond of Zeb's Guide...nor do I have any qualms stating why. Tongue out

My SF website

JCab747's picture
JCab747
June 24, 2016 - 8:56am
Shadow Shack wrote:
Actually it was a Bugles chip...



Oh, yes, I've eaten Bugles a few times...

of course all you need is something like the Alpha Omega bomb to destroy the planet's surface...

Joe Cabadas

ChrisDonovan's picture
ChrisDonovan
June 24, 2016 - 9:08am
The question was why a planet killer might need to pulverize a planet intstead of just frying the surface.  The answer for the PK was that it used the pulverized bits for fuel.