Editing Talk:Cylon Spacecraft (RDM)/Archive 1
Discussion page of Cylon Spacecraft (RDM)/Archive 1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
Are the interiors of Raiders, Basestars, etc. truly "organic"? I got the impression that they were synthetic; machines so advanced on a microscopic level that the overall "machine" is a "bio-chemical machine" rather than "organic". I'm not sure on this so I don't want to make any "demands", but I would like to say that I'm worred that calling it "organic" would lead to confusion that they're somehow Cyborgs; I think they're more a step between purely mechanical Centurions and humanoid Cylons. Perhaps "bio-mechanical" is a better term? Discuss. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] | Are the interiors of Raiders, Basestars, etc. truly "organic"? I got the impression that they were synthetic; machines so advanced on a microscopic level that the overall "machine" is a "bio-chemical machine" rather than "organic". I'm not sure on this so I don't want to make any "demands", but I would like to say that I'm worred that calling it "organic" would lead to confusion that they're somehow Cyborgs; I think they're more a step between purely mechanical Centurions and humanoid Cylons. Perhaps "bio-mechanical" is a better term? Discuss. --[[User:Ricimer|Ricimer]] | ||
:It's really just not very clear. I think using "organic" to make a point in opposition to "mechanical" is fine, but since we don't actually know whether or how those two elements interact, I'm a little averse to anything else. --[[User: | :It's really just not very clear. I think using "organic" to make a point in opposition to "mechanical" is fine, but since we don't actually know whether or how those two elements interact, I'm a little averse to anything else. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 21:50, 30 December 2005 (EST) | ||
== Heavy Raider Centurion Capacity == | == Heavy Raider Centurion Capacity == | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
:::::I think it would just be easier to build them there, considering these ships are meant for Cylons that are too far away from the world, and having to go back and forth would be a waste of fuel and time when they could just as easily have that in the ship. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 06:51, 25 April 2007 (CDT) | :::::I think it would just be easier to build them there, considering these ships are meant for Cylons that are too far away from the world, and having to go back and forth would be a waste of fuel and time when they could just as easily have that in the ship. --[[User:Sauron18|Sauron18]] 06:51, 25 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
::::::But then building lots of mobile production facilities is also quite expensive. You do have a point though, on-site, just-in-time construction is a nice thing to have. But we're drifting off topic and into a forum discussion, which is [[BW:NOT|not what Battlestar Wiki is meant for]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 07:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT) | ::::::But then building lots of mobile production facilities is also quite expensive. You do have a point though, on-site, just-in-time construction is a nice thing to have. But we're drifting off topic and into a forum discussion, which is [[BW:NOT|not what Battlestar Wiki is meant for]]. --[[User:Catrope|Catrope]]<sup>([[User talk:Catrope|Talk to me]] or [[Special:Emailuser/Catrope|e-mail me]])</sup> 07:18, 25 April 2007 (CDT) | ||