Talk:Cylon Centurion/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Discussion page of Cylon Centurion/Archive 1
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Nick Kuzmik | Nick Kuzmik | ||
: Actually, given that we never saw any organic matter come out of a shot Cylon Warrior, we can assume it is more robotic than organic. Obviously, this has not been stated overtly, so it is still conjecture. Therefore, it is possible that the Cylon Warrior is an "evolutionary" step to an organic-like Cylon (one with more fluid movement and flexibility) using non-organic materials. -- [[User:Joe.Beaudoin|Joe.Beaudoin]] (not logged in) | |||
Revision as of 23:05, 14 June 2005
The stub calls the Warrior an "upgrade" of the old chrome toaster. Given what we have seen of the inside of the BaseStar and Starbuck's Raider, isn't it likely that the Warrior is a product of the semi-organic line of Cylons?
The Warrior is, at best, the conceptual and functional sucessor to the old Centurion. A similar relationship might be found between the the M-4 Sherman tanke of World War II and the M-1A2 Abrams tank of today. Both machines do the same job, have many analogous features, but the only contributions the Sherman made to the development of the Abrams were its flaws.
Nick Kuzmik
- Actually, given that we never saw any organic matter come out of a shot Cylon Warrior, we can assume it is more robotic than organic. Obviously, this has not been stated overtly, so it is still conjecture. Therefore, it is possible that the Cylon Warrior is an "evolutionary" step to an organic-like Cylon (one with more fluid movement and flexibility) using non-organic materials. -- Joe.Beaudoin (not logged in)