NationStates Jolt Archive

should battlestar galatica be considered ft or pmt?

Battlestar Galactica is firmly and utterly FT.

but with the exeption of the ftl is it that much different than pmt?

The options don't fit the question in the poll.

Personally, BSG seems PMT because it has no uber FT other than jump drives. However, the size of a battlestar is a bit large for what I think of PMT having. In FT, they would likely get torn apart by plasma, lasers, and the like, but in PMT they might be a bit too strong. Difficult question.

Let's see here. Big spaceship that is free of Earth's orit and has wars in space. FT.

ok then what other options do you suggest?

Its FT, and the poll answers dont match the questions.

sorry big mistake. meant to put "is bsg ft?then yes or no.

For the poll? FT and PMT. Yes and No don't answer an either/or question.

Pythogria has a point, the concept is FT, but most of the tech is PMT at best. Thus, in one world you get blown away and in the other you're uber and people don't like it. BSG might be a place to stay away from.

if i could change it i would.

Frozopia started a new tech a while back specifically for these sorts of things, it was called NFT (New/Near Future Tech) but it never got off the ground.

I think anyone who reads the thread will understand.

what about the origan it had lasers and shields?

BSG, Stargate, ST, and B5 are basically the lame ducks of FT. They don't get used for a reason.

MM: One can still use eliments of them, though.

so what i have my tech base on bsg.

Well one could be FT and base tech on BSG, but change the weapons and add shields so as to be competitive.

like make the guns lasers and stuff ok then i'll do that.

so what i have my tech base on bsg.

Then you're a lame duck. Wanna fight sometime?

please no more posting i understand.

Well one could be FT and base tech on BSG, but change the weapons and add shields so as to be competitive.

That'd work too, I guess...

As the vast majority of FT is utter bullshit these days, BSG is one of the few I'd bother with. MT isn't a lot better, of course, but at least there you don't have fanboys arguing over which particular genre of nonsense is the most powerful.

BSG, Stargate, ST, and B5 are basically the lame ducks of FT. They don't get used for a reason.

What's wrong with ST?

What's wrong with ST?

He doesn't like ST. Bizarrely enough, ST fanboys claim the opposite.

He doesn't like ST. Bizarrely enough, ST fanboys claim the opposite.

I don't like SW either. ST just sucks more. No one really uses B5, but SG sucks too. Ascended Being my ass...

i am changing all weapons to plasma guns.

I can honestly say that I would never base entirely all my tech on one source...that can really be a killer. Mix and match elements from different sources and science to form the best fit tech.

Actually, ST's main problem is that the ranges on their guns are in the kilometers at most, the Feds have a horrid grasp of basic physics, and they rely overly on small numbers of unarmored under-armed infantry, which would be patently useless against something like, say, a battalion of Otagian Combat Avatars.

or a couple platoons of stomptroopers.

I can honestly say that I would never base entirely all my tech on one source...that can really be a killer. Mix and match elements from different sources and science to form the best fit tech.

I'm trying to make my tech at least somewhat original. It has similarities to ST, but it also has differences.

Actually, ST's main problem is that the ranges on their guns are in the kilometers at most, the Feds have a horrid grasp of basic physics, and they rely overly on small numbers of unarmored under-armed infantry, which would be patently useless against something like, say, a battalion of Otagian Combat Avatars.

Good point about their infantry. We Sagitians are explorers, not warriors, but even we know better than to send our away teams into hostile areas without personal force-fields.