The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2024, 09:25:55 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Celebrating 30 years of Star Control 2 - The Ur-Quan Masters

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  General UQM Discussion (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  SC myths...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print
Author Topic: SC myths...  (Read 12837 times)
AnotherW
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 72



View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #30 on: August 17, 2006, 05:15:13 pm »

Vania:
Quote
The wierd round space-ship that you can see at the end-movie, a.k.a. Mark II.
It supposedly is a precursor battlecruiser.

heh, funny, but that's one thing i would consider to be a myth...
Logged
pendell
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 17



View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #31 on: August 17, 2006, 07:11:56 pm »

3 thoughts:

1) Why would the Precursors build weapons?

Why not for the same reason humans build weapons -- to fight brutal civil wars over resources, over religion, over revenge, or even just for fun.   

There's no reason why a galaxy-spanning race shouldn't fragment into factions and then spend their time gleefully blowing each other up for the Greater Glory of [your cause here].  Even if they were all-in-all a peaceful species, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be pirates or outlaw factions which would require warships to put down, and weapons on civilian craft to defend against.

Another possibility is that the Precursors had trans-dimensional capability -- witness the fate of the Androsynth experimenting with Precursor relics on Alpha Lalande.  They may have had to cope with extra-dimensional threats such as the Orz, if they went exploring other dimensions with any frequency. 

2. Where is it stated that the Mark II is a battlecruiser?

3. This is a petty peeve of mine -- WHY is it called a battlecruiser and not a battleship? 

Small history lesson here -- during the late 19th century Battlecruisers were the brain child of Admiral Fisher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiral_Sir_John_Fisher).  The problem he faced was that cruisers (the primary weapon of the French, who were preparing for a commerce raiding war vs. England) could outrun the powerful British battleships that could stop them, but could put up an even fight against fellow cruisers.

The solution was the battlecruiser -- a battleship stripped of most of it's armor to give it speed comparable to a cruiser, while still retaining the armament that would allow it to outmatch those ships.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlecruiser)

The only problem was that people kept trying to use them in line-of-battle against real battleships -- where they subsequently were destroyed because "speed" isn't actually that useful against supersonic shells, and their lack of armor resulted in some true catastrophes, such as that experienced by HMS Hood when fighting the Bismarck.   It was literally blown to bits. The same thing happened to battlecruisers at the Battle of Jutland -- HMS Invincible, Queen Mary and Indefatigable were also all blown to bits.  Not a single battleship on either side was sunk at all. 

So ... the battlecruiser was a bad idea, an unworkable hybrid of two opposing concepts. I have a hard time believing the Precursors would still be using such an idea.

Therefore "battlecruiser" is probably a mis-used term for the Mark II.

If it is a capital ship whose purpose in life is destroying other large capital ships, it is a "battleship".   

If it is a fast raiding vessel designed to scout and explore in peacetime, and in wartime to use speed to hit merchant traffic than run away before  the BigShips show up, it is a "cruiser". 

Yeah, yeah. I know Star Trek started it by using the word "Battlecruiser" for Klingon warships, and everyone follows their lead.  Still a pet peeve of mine. Sorry. Rant over.

Respectfully,

Brian P.
Logged
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 296


Internet Piracy


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #32 on: August 17, 2006, 08:01:18 pm »

2. Where is it stated that the Mark II is a battlecruiser?

Someone, somewhere, somewhen.
Really, I only remember that I read this on this forum.
Logged

Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #33 on: August 17, 2006, 08:04:10 pm »

It came from an IRC chat with TFB:
Quote
<Fwiffo> The Mark II was a precursor cruiser as opposed to a precursor tug which is what you guys flew.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
Zeep-Eeep
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 917


Good Grief


View Profile WWW
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #34 on: August 17, 2006, 08:04:36 pm »

I think the term battlecruiser became popular to describe a ship
which has an excellent balance of high speed and heavy firepower.
Perhaps it's not very accurate, from a historical viewpoint, but that's
the image I get in my mind.
Logged

What sound does a penguin make?
Ivan Ivanov
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 296


Internet Piracy


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #35 on: August 17, 2006, 10:34:05 pm »

If it is a capital ship whose purpose in life is destroying other large capital ships, it is a "battleship".   

If it is a fast raiding vessel designed to scout and explore in peacetime, and in wartime to use speed to hit merchant traffic than run away before  the BigShips show up, it is a "cruiser". 

Sorry about that.
I didn't really study the subject but I think it is quite interesting, so I appreciate the history leston.
And yes it was most likely Star Trek that made use that name. Smiley
Logged

Your bruises are reminders of naivete and trust
Holocat
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #36 on: August 18, 2006, 04:34:00 am »

Yes, in our world it's FF(frigate) DD(destroyer) CA(cruiser) and BB(battleship), with BB being the front line... supposedly.

It could be argued that there were not a whole lot of BB losses because during both wars they were conserved, horded for some enormous and decisive campaign where they would be needed.  It never occured, perhaps because everyone continually held them back.

I can't agree that a battlecruiser is a failed idea, they just aren't battleships.  The Hood was blown to bits not because it lacked all armour, it just lacked the armour it needed.  If it was belt armour that was deficient rather than deck armour, perhaps it would have fared better.  This is, of course, just naval gazing.  By this time the era of the long gun ship was well on its way to obsolescence, the aircraft carrier becoming the decisive tool.  They were nice to see but were no longer the decisive tools of war they may have been.

The world Battlecruiser I would say has become the popular and interchangable replacement for battleship, which is generally now thought as the end all of naval armament, similar to the dreadnought/pre-dreadnought thinking of one era previous to battleships.  It describes both a main-stay ship ( a crusier ) and a fighting ship ( a battleship ) and with a certain irony, makes some historical sense, in a loopy way.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3620


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #37 on: August 18, 2006, 08:58:20 am »

Lukipela:
then i stand by my original statement:
Quote
what war machines do we know of other than the sa-matra?

Those that have been mentioned earlier on? The Ion Cannon for a Precursor Tug. The Sa-Matra. The planetary "refinement" tool a.k.a a huge bomb. possibly even the Sun Device (radiation erxposure, if it shines with the power fo a sun, then there is a lot of unhelathy energy coming out of it as well). The Mark 2, shown in the extro.

Also, whike this is of course very much speculative, I'd say that only the presence of a battle platform such as the Sa-Matra defiently indicates that there is more Precursor war-tech out there. it seems a tad illogical for a race that inhabits all of known space to build only one single enormously advanced piece of weaponry, rather than a array of them and other similarly themed equipment.
Logged

What's up doc?
Holocat
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #38 on: August 18, 2006, 02:01:26 pm »

I don't think the sun device produces a lot of harmful radiation, personally.  There's no evidence for (or against, I admit) such radiation being generated, but it... feels(?) like it was a replacement sun, a terraforming tool, rather than a very slow and inefficent way of killing someone, given that they have toroids and things.

To put an opposing spin on things, we can't be entirely sure the sa-matra was designed as a weapon;  Perhaps another tool, or construction/demolitions platform.  Though I put this idea forward, my own instinct points me in the direction that it is indeed a battleship, though if there is direct evidence of this I can't recall.
Logged
Mugz the Sane
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 159


need coffee...


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #39 on: August 22, 2006, 10:13:35 am »

the 'utwig' bomb aka precursor planeteering tool...

it has, correct me if I'm wrong, a blast radius of somewhere in the vicinity of 500AU. 1 AU is the distance from Earth to Sol.

Isn't 500AU a little steep to destroy a mere planet? Then again, our staid friend Cmdr Hayes was probably being highly cautious, given that the shofixti used a similar bomb to nova their sun. 'Not incidentally destroying dozens of Ur-Quan Dreadnoughts (snork-snork-snork).' If 500AU is indeed the blast radius, why is Delta Gorno and its attendant planets still there?

Who knows - maybe the precursors had an issue with inconvenient moons. Or inconvenient aliens. Or other precursors, presumably inconvenient.

The Sa-Matra is definitely a weapon, though. The weapons it uses at the end of SC2 are purely defensive, while the ones it used against the old Alliance were the offensive variety. I think the end of SC2 was a surprise attack, or the dnyarri was preventing the operators from activating the big guns. Or both.

That's my two bits.
Logged

I'm seriously considering going to Bali to paint nude women.
Culture20
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 917


Thraddash Flower Child


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #40 on: August 22, 2006, 02:17:27 pm »

Quote from: Cmdr. Hayes
SUBJECT: Utwig Bomb Device.
DATA: Analysis has yielded little information about this device
largely because of our technicians' unwillingness to open it, or even remove the bomb from your ship.
That aside, here's what we know so far
The device is correctly defined as a Bomb... one of enormous destructive potential
but it is not of Utwig origin -- nothing about it relates to the technology we see in the Jugger ship.
We believe it to be of late Precursor origin, though it somewhat resembles certain Chenjesu technology.
Its original function? -- Probably a planeteering tool for dispersing unwanted moons.
SUMMARY: Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise
DO NOT ACTIVATE THIS DEVICE! LEAVE IT ALONE!
Any experimentation should be conducted AT LEAST 12 AU from this starbase
preferably a bit further.
In other words, they think it blows up moons, but just to make sure it doesn't blow up solar systems, use it _far_ away from the starbase.  Wink
Logged
Mugz the Sane
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 159


need coffee...


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #41 on: August 24, 2006, 08:51:45 am »

where the hell was I coming up with 500AU? someone PLEASE tell me hayes said '500AU' instead of 12 in the pc version.
Logged

I'm seriously considering going to Bali to paint nude women.
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3873


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #42 on: August 24, 2006, 03:41:37 pm »

Maybe that's the enhanced version?

Also, it's not clear what he meant it would be lethal to at that range. An unprotected person? Okay, that's... sizable, but not an absurd amount of damage.
Logged
Holocat
Frungy champion
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #43 on: August 25, 2006, 02:04:22 am »

My assumption was it was lethal to the starbase out to that range.  Of course, it's probably lethal range plus buffer, but we can't get any idea of what that buffer might be.

Given that they won't experiment or even move the thing, it might be significantly off in either direction too.  That aside, it's one of the only numbers we have to judge by.
Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3873


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: SC myths...
« Reply #44 on: August 25, 2006, 04:16:26 pm »

Also, if you're making a planeteering tool, chances are good that you won't make the blast sperically symmetric. Hayes could have been factoring in the chance of getting a concentrated dose.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!