Page 3 of 4

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:06 pm
by Mark
I agree......but I'm having a hard time why they can be so much more advanced than the Colonials in most techs, but be around 70 to 100 years behind the Colonials in weapons and defensive techs.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:09 pm
by Tyyr
Not necessarily behind. I think they've just made different design decisions. The Colonials built the battlestars for straight up ship on ship engagements. The Cylons built their basestars for anti-insurgency work. Rochey's explanation is plausible that the Cylons assumed their virus would work and built their fleet not for a war but for the aftermath.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 7:13 pm
by Captain Seafort
Not necessarily - the main reason Cylon missile spam is ineffective is because of the Battlestars' flak barrier. With the virus disabling their systems, that flak barrier would be removed, making the stand-off missile spam a good way of staying clear of any Colonial attempts to ram (assuming engines can be more easily switched over to manual control than weapons).

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:41 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Mark wrote:Now, that said....I've come up with an explination (possibly). If the Cylon mindset is based around the idea of resurection, perhaps they're not overly concerned about building survivable ships?
Unlikely. What glimpses we get at the Cylon industrial base does not seem all that impressive. Without going into spoilers, I'd estimate the entirety of their fleet numbered less than half of the Colonial Fleet. They're in no position to start treating vessels as expendable.
Captain Seafort wrote:Not necessarily - the main reason Cylon missile spam is ineffective is because of the Battlestars' flak barrier. With the virus disabling their systems, that flak barrier would be removed, making the stand-off missile spam a good way of staying clear of any Colonial attempts to ram (assuming engines can be more easily switched over to manual control than weapons).
Agreed. In the one instance where Galactica is without its flak barrier it gets hammered pretty quickly.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:30 am
by Graham Kennedy
Mark wrote:I agree......but I'm having a hard time why they can be so much more advanced than the Colonials in most techs, but be around 70 to 100 years behind the Colonials in weapons and defensive techs.
I don't think they are behind as such, it's a design choice. As I said, my suspicion is that the Cylons planned to fight at long range, far enough to be out of the effective range of Battlestar guns. So they figured no need for masses of close in defence weapons; devote that space to more missile and fighter storage instead.

Unfortunately for them, it hasn't worked out that way. Perhaps Battlestars are faster than the Cylons expected, or their guns longer ranged or more accurate. Whatever, Battlestars have consistently been able to close to within gun range and plaster the base stars. Bad design choice by the Cylons; it's let the Colonials fight to their strengths, despite having a technology lag.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 2:48 am
by Mark
Its a pretty serious design flaw to have one of your capital ships crumble under a single enemy salvo.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:25 am
by Sionnach Glic
GrahamKennedy wrote:Unfortunately for them, it hasn't worked out that way. Perhaps Battlestars are faster than the Cylons expected, or their guns longer ranged or more accurate. Whatever, Battlestars have consistently been able to close to within gun range and plaster the base stars.
Have they really? In most battles the Cylon Basestars do stay out of range of the Colonials. Most that we see go down to the Galactica or the Pegasus get taken down either because they were defending something (Battle of the Resurrection Ship/Hub) or because they were taken by surprise (New Caprica, Kobol). The only instance I can think of offhand where a Battlestar actualy closes with a Basestar that doesn't have to hold position for whatever reason is in The Captain's Hand, which could probably be chalked up to overconfidence and lack of caution on the Cylons' part (they'd been hammering the Pegasus until Lee took command, after all).

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 11:09 am
by Graham Kennedy
But that's just agreeing with what I've said. I speculated as to some reasons, but whatever the reason, the Battlestars get in close. If having to remain in a defensive position is the reason, so what? It still means that the base star design is badly chosen for the role, because the role involves holding defensive positions quite often, and base stars suck at it.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 1:53 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Oh, right. Thought you were getting at something else. We're in agreement then.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 8:48 pm
by Aaron
One wonders what the Cylons intended to do if the virus failed or for reasons unknown, the Colonial Fleet survived in numbers to fight back. One Battlestar's flak guns are capable of holding off at least two Baseships (Pegasus would likely have taken out all three at New Caprica if fully crewed, w/flak up) but they are obviously not designed to work alone. Lots of the show points to them operating in groups, which means escorts and a stronger flak barrier.

Looks like the Cylons would be pretty pooched with just their Raiders and Baseships.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:14 pm
by Graham Kennedy
Can you imagine four Battlestars flying in a box formation? And with 800 fighters in the sky to boot. That would be a hell of a force.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:27 pm
by Aaron
Yeah it would. NO wonder the skinjobs went for the virus.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:33 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Cpl Kendall wrote:One wonders what the Cylons intended to do if the virus failed or for reasons unknown, the Colonial Fleet survived in numbers to fight back. One Battlestar's flak guns are capable of holding off at least two Baseships (Pegasus would likely have taken out all three at New Caprica if fully crewed, w/flak up) but they are obviously not designed to work alone. Lots of the show points to them operating in groups, which means escorts and a stronger flak barrier.
They already had humanoid Cylons infiltrated into the Fleet. Maybe even onto every ship. It seems that they were planning to take down any unaffected vessels by sabotage, as they tried with Galactica and Pegasus. That tactic obviously didn't work as well as they thought it would, however.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:05 pm
by Aaron
That was their plan for the Bucket? I totally missed it.

Re: Would the colonies have won an honest war?

Posted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:14 pm
by Sionnach Glic
Well, they had Doral plant some weird device in the Galactica's CIC in the Miniseries. Then when that ploy failed (Baltar spotted it) they had Boomer start setting up bombs around the place.