What I'm expecting from Firefly

POSTED BY: Ringwraith
UPDATED: Monday, October 7, 2002 18:47
VIEWED: 8236
PAGE 3 of 3

PREV PAGE 1 2 3

HAPLO721

Thursday, October 3, 2002 5:58 AM

I read a story once in an old SF magazine about aliens who kept attacking humans psychically by projecting a sensation of utter aloneness. The only defense was to call up your strongest memories of togetherness. By the end, it turns out that being alone is preferable to these beings, and that they dread being with others. The "attacks" were their attempts to communicate. How's that for alien?

HANDSOFBLUE

Thursday, October 3, 2002 8:17 AM

We need to stop hoping that Firefly won't get cancelled and do something about it, It's time to get of our asses and spread the word that Firefly without any dought ROCKS!! We must tell our friends get them to tell their friends, hand out flyers ANYTHING!!! to stop it's demise. If Fox won't make an effort we have to. Otherwise after the death of Farscape the only space shows left will be the dull Enterprise, The worn out Stargate SG1 and the crappy Andromeda. We must do what we can to save the best space show since the beloved Farscape.

Handsofblue

ZICSOFT

Thursday, October 3, 2002 7:34 PM

Quote:
How about a show that simply fits with human history. The entire history of man has been one of continual technological advantages.

You mean "advancements", right? Anyway, that's just not true. Perhaps you've heard of the Middle Ages?

But that's all beside the point. The advanced technology isn't missing from the Firefly. It's just that not everybody has equal access to it. And that's not exactly a weird idea. How many humans have access to private cars, CD players, the Internet? Almost everybody you know? But you probably live in a "developed" country, and that only accounts for maybe 25% of the world's population.

Plus, new technology is not always better. Firearms are a good example. Jeff Timm, our resident gun enthusiast (and also a Traveller RGP enthusiast, which is probably not a coincidence) has posted a lot of interesting comments on this topic. I won't attempt to repeat his arguments, but he makes a good case for "old-fashioned" weapons being around for a long time.

JOSS, WHERE'S MY CHECK???!!!

LOONYTOON

Monday, October 7, 2002 6:47 PM

Okay, this is going to be entirely about weapons, and how a beam weapon would restrict tactics.

exposure: okay, picture this scenario. We`re in the firefly universe. A band of baddies is about 150 yards away, you are setup in some brush, well camoflauged, in a ghilly suit. You have a semiautomatic battle rifle, similar to a FN FAL.
You take careful aim on the leader, and drop him, and another before they figure out what is happening. They didn`t see the muzzle flash, as you are deep under cover. You can pick off a couple more before they figure out where you are, and then you have the upper hand, they are scared, and you can either withdraw, or pursue the engagement.
Now picture this. We are in the trek or star wars universe. You are setup in a similar situation. You fire on the leader with your compression phaser rifle. It lights up the sky, pointing out you position, momentarily blinding you if it is dark. They let out a flurry of fire as they hit the ground. They know exactly where you are, you can`t move as they are covering you with fire. Correct me if I`m wrong, But there is a reason snipers don`t use tracers?

protection: picture the borg. they can disperse energy, as it is basically heat and energy. Give it a better place to go, path of least resistence. Or they can even feed it into a battery of sorts, gaining strength from your fire. Now shoot the SOB with a .460 weatherby, chugging along with 7500 foot pounds of energy. Even if the sheilds hold back the bullet, its still going to dump almost 4 tons worth of energy into a little maybe 400 pound drone. Look mommie, the borg can fly! So if the idiots would have armed the away team with M-60s with AP rounds, the borg would be a footnote in history.

Collateral damage: It is much easier to sheild your own ship against gunfire. If you put 1/2 inch plate over sensitive electronics, a .45 acp bullet will deflect, where if you want to destroy it, you carry a .308. A energy weapon would fry it from the heat alone, whether the firer be freind or foe. Plus, the trekkie weapons almost all seem the widen there beam at range, making precise hits impossible.

Easier to fix: guns are metal. All mechanical(except that bastardized m700 etron-x). Where a beam weapon would necesarily be quite complex, there for hard to fix in the middle of a firefight. It would require complex tools to do any significant mods.

Sheer power: on another sight, they were making fun of firefly for using shotguns. Yeah, they are 110 old technology, but the rangers still carry remington 870s. You show me something that is as good for close range combat that is as quick handling, powerful, or simple. Why screw with something that has worked for years?

Besides, the colt slabsides has been around for almost 1 century, why not a couple more?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3