Toggle menu
Toggle preferences menu
Toggle personal menu
Not logged in
Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits.

Talk:Battle of the Binary Star System/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Discussion page of Battle of the Binary Star System/Archive 1
No edit summary
Hawke (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


:Particularly since ''Galactica'' lost some 85 crew when hit with a single nuke, while ''Pegasus'' took three. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:36, 18 February 2006 (EST)
:Particularly since ''Galactica'' lost some 85 crew when hit with a single nuke, while ''Pegasus'' took three. --[[User:Peter Farago|Peter Farago]] 11:36, 18 February 2006 (EST)
: The real number we'll have to examine is the next episode. For all we know, the casualties (deaths) could still be in the process of counting, since during the chaos of a battle (especially one as heated), there is no way for certain to keep an accurate count. It's best done in the hours (perhaps day) afterwards, when a thorough head count, or assessment, can be done. But yes, it does look optimistic, doesn't it? -- [[User:Hawke|Hawke]] 11:42, 18 February 2006 (EST)

Revision as of 16:42, 18 February 2006

Based on the white board at the end of the episode, there were only five deaths total for the entire episode (both Raptor crews and Garner). It's possible that just means there were a lot of injured personnel, and is good news considering the entire Pegasus could have been lost. --Ltcrashdown 08:48, 18 February 2006 (EST)

Particularly since Galactica lost some 85 crew when hit with a single nuke, while Pegasus took three. --Peter Farago 11:36, 18 February 2006 (EST)
The real number we'll have to examine is the next episode. For all we know, the casualties (deaths) could still be in the process of counting, since during the chaos of a battle (especially one as heated), there is no way for certain to keep an accurate count. It's best done in the hours (perhaps day) afterwards, when a thorough head count, or assessment, can be done. But yes, it does look optimistic, doesn't it? -- Hawke 11:42, 18 February 2006 (EST)