 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 |
 June 22, 2016 - 7:52am | 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! |
 June 22, 2016 - 4:37pm | 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? |
 June 22, 2016 - 7:09pm | 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). |
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? |
 June 23, 2016 - 9:21am | 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.  Other than that, the whole idea of a planet killer is a bit overblown. All you really need is to make the surface a lifeless waste. It would take far less energy.Joe Cabadas |
June 23, 2016 - 4:33pm | Well, at least the Planet Killer had a use for crushed planets. |
June 23, 2016 - 9:54pm |   |
June 24, 2016 - 5:18am | 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?  Vorlon planet killer...  The Shadow's cloud of missiles that can destroy a planet... Oh, well, I guess they did that too.  Joe Cabadas |
June 24, 2016 - 5:19am | And yes I like the cornicopia of death... Joe Cabadas |
June 24, 2016 - 7:27am | Actually it was a Bugles chip... The one right below the "B" is a better representation.  |
June 24, 2016 - 8:56am | 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 |
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. |
