|
European and asguardian weapons are designed the same way because they fulfill the same purpose: getting through armor. In the case of europeans its that insane full plate armor they covered people in, in the case of asgardians its the supernaturally tough skin of their opponents?
Except that very soon after people came up with the concept of guns, armors became useless. A sword attempts to go through armor by having a lot of weight behind every strike. A bullet accumulates much more energy than that and has a very small impact area, rendering any sort of armor ineffective at stopping it.
Even if the skin of Asgardians (or their enemies) is ten times as hard as the armoring of a warship, if the Asgardians can pierce through that kind of difference with a spear, then they can take what material it is that they build their spears from, build bullets out of it, and then shot it at great speeds to achieve even better results.
The hyper longevity (not to mention super strength, fast healing, and invulnerability) probably wasn't a feature of their original race, but something they engineered themselves into much later. Probably long long after they technologically passed current human development.
Hmm, not a bad answer. But, if all the quircks and boons of being an Asgardian were engineered rather than naturally evolved, it makes it hard to explain why they wouldn't engineer themselves to better utilize more sophisticated weapons. Why not choose to be extremely good in long ranged fighting rather than melee? technology would very soon unlock the ability to take out opponent who are kilometers away with a handheld weapon, and that would make all the pother buffoons running around with shields and armors seem clownish. Kinda like this.
Except that very soon after people came up with the concept of guns, armors became useless.
European and asguardian weapons are designed the same way because they fulfill the same purpose: getting through armor. In the case of europeans its that insane full plate armor they covered people in, in the case of asgardians its the supernaturally tough skin of their opponents?
If by "soon" you mean "centuries later", sure.
Even if the skin of Asgardians (or their enemies) is ten times as hard as the armoring of a warship, if the Asgardians can pierce through that kind of difference with a spear, then they can take what material it is that they build their spears from, build bullets out of it, and then shot it at great speeds to achieve even better results.
This is assuming they could engineer something that matches their level of strength. Thor is strong enough to exert enough force to crush something weighing over a million tons, and throw something that can strangle the Earth after wrapping itself around it several times over.
Apply that force to a single point. That is a MASSIVE amount of force.
Not all Asgardians are as strong as he is, but they have some reasonable approximation of it.
Getting that same amount of force from a simple projectile weapon is next to impossible (which is likely why they use energy weapons instead).
Plus it's more a cultural thing anyway. Glory of combat and all that.
European and asguardian weapons are designed the same way because they fulfill the same purpose: getting through armor. In the case of europeans its that insane full plate armor they covered people in, in the case of asgardians its the supernaturally tough skin of their opponents?Except that very soon after people came up with the concept of guns, armors became useless. A sword attempts to go through armor by having a lot of weight behind every strike. A bullet accumulates much more energy than that and has a very small impact area, rendering any sort of armor ineffective at stopping it.
Even if the skin of Asgardians (or their enemies) is ten times as hard as the armoring of a warship, if the Asgardians can pierce through that kind of difference with a spear, then they can take what material it is that they build their spears from, build bullets out of it, and then shot it at great speeds to achieve even better results.
The hyper longevity (not to mention super strength, fast healing, and invulnerability) probably wasn't a feature of their original race, but something they engineered themselves into much later. Probably long long after they technologically passed current human development.Hmm, not a bad answer. But, if all the quircks and boons of being an Asgardian were engineered rather than naturally evolved, it makes it hard to explain why they wouldn't engineer themselves to better utilize more sophisticated weapons. Why not choose to be extremely good in long ranged fighting rather than melee? technology would very soon unlock the ability to take out opponent who are kilometers away with a handheld weapon, and that would make all the pother buffoons running around with shields and armors seem clownish. Kinda like this.
Actually you are wrong...armor did prove effective against early firearms it took years for them to go out of style...though just a point we still wear armor it is called bullet proof vest.
Also armor are designed to stop different things...I could go on a very lengthy discussion here but I think you just have to believe this in your words 'just silly fun that makes no sense'.
Except that very soon after people came up with the concept of guns, armors became useless.
It goes back and forth. Even now high end ceramic armors are getting so good that if you have an ak 47 you need to aim for the face. Maybe at that level of science its easier to make a super strong defense than a missile weapon that can penetrate it.
A sword attempts to go through armor by having a lot of weight behind every strike. A bullet accumulates much more energy than that and has a very small impact area, rendering any sort of armor ineffective at stopping it.
Lots of weight AND lots of muscle. Mjolnir screws with mass, other weapons might do the same on a smaller scale.
Even if the skin of Asgardians (or their enemies) is ten times as hard as the armoring of a warship, if the Asgardians can pierce through that kind of difference with a spear, then they can take what material it is that they build their spears from, build bullets out of it, and then shot it at great speeds to achieve even better results.
Unless you can't make the weapon do what it does and be that small, so it needs to be big, so your cannon becomes vulnerable from a long distance. Or maybe getting asgard metal up to those kinds of speeds is impossible.
Hmm, not a bad answer. But, if all the quircks and boons of being an Asgardian were engineered rather than naturally evolved, it makes it hard to explain why they wouldn't engineer themselves to better utilize more sophisticated weapons. Why not choose to be extremely good in long ranged fighting rather than melee?
Because the people that did the designing thought that MISSILE WEAPONS ARE fOR COWARDS! Just because they're scientists doesn't mean they're immune to cultural moores.
Or perhaps the super strength is merely a side effect of the super durability. They were made to be durable, throwing tanks was a happy accident. Superhealing WOULD let you build muscles a lot faster.
t
Saw the movie today, it was AWESOME! Though it makes me wish that Scarlet Witch and Vision could get there own movies.
|
|
Actually you are wrong...armor did prove effective against early firearms it took years for them to go out of style...though just a point we still wear armor it is called bullet proof vest.
Also armor are designed to stop different things...I could go on a very lengthy discussion here but I think you just have to believe this in your words 'just silly fun that makes no sense'.
Yeah, I meant the heavy armor that medieval knights were so fond of. Just wasn't effective against guns - didn't do enough to stop the bullets and made you much slower, which is bad against the much more superior range of guns.
And sure, extremely early gun technology was not all that impressive, but it *was* good enough to very swiftly overtake all other martial traditions, especially when it got more sophisticated with time.
Lots of weight AND lots of muscle. Mjolnir screws with mass, other weapons might do the same on a smaller scale.
Now do that for projectiles and you get the exact same technology described in the Mass Effect games. If you can screw with mass, make the bullet lighter, accelerate it then make it heavier. Bang.
This is assuming they could engineer something that matches their level of strength. Thor is strong enough to exert enough force to crush something weighing over a million tons, and throw something that can strangle the Earth after wrapping itself around it several times over.
So when one needs to explain why Asgardians don't advance technologically the explanation is that they reached singularity a long time ago anyway and just about everything is possible for them. But then, when it comes to explaining why they are limited to using mostly melee weapons, all of a sudden they can't fire a projectile with a strength that can compete with their arms. I dunno. Seems unreasonable.
I would, once again, wish to remind everyone that I am only arguing that Asgardians don't *actually* make sense, not that they don't make comic book sense. These are simply two separate things, and there's nothing wrong with it.
|
|
The end result of what you describe is less kinetic energy delivered to the target than if you left it alone.Lots of weight AND lots of muscle. Mjolnir screws with mass, other weapons might do the same on a smaller scale.Now do that for projectiles and you get the exact same technology described in the Mass Effect games. If you can screw with mass, make the bullet lighter, accelerate it then make it heavier. Bang.
Are you aware of the fact that kinetic energy equals half times mass times velocity squared?
Reduce mass of projectile => the force your gun applies is the same but operating on a smaller mass so it conveys more speed than it normally could
Before hit, increase mass of projectile into much more than it's original mass => now projectile is moving with the speed of a smaller one, that is faster, but with the mass of a larger one.
Since kinetic energy increase linearly with mass (overall raised in this process) *and* squarely with velocity, you get much more kinetic energy than you could possibly have gotten otherwise.
Plus, when discussing speeds that begin to approach noticeable percentages of the speed of light, which would definitely happen with such a technology, you can start cheating your way around relativity physics, not just Newtonian.
This technology knowingly breaks conservation of energy, and it is the entire driving force of the Mass Effect universe. Which, by the by, has many alien races that are considerably more convincing than the Asgardians ever could be.
Actually you are wrong...armor did prove effective against early firearms it took years for them to go out of style...though just a point we still wear armor it is called bullet proof vest.
Also armor are designed to stop different things...I could go on a very lengthy discussion here but I think you just have to believe this in your words 'just silly fun that makes no sense'.
Yeah, I meant the heavy armor that medieval knights were so fond of. Just wasn't effective against guns - didn't do enough to stop the bullets and made you much slower, which is bad against the much more superior range of guns.
And sure, extremely early gun technology was not all that impressive, but it *was* good enough to very swiftly overtake all other martial traditions, especially when it got more sophisticated with time.
Again you are not correct. The crossbow and the English longbow had much more penetrating power than early guns and did more (probably it has been a long time since I really looked into the subject) to end the heavy armor.
Also there was the cost of heavy armor. Though early heavy armor(IE plate mail) had no problem stopping early bullets. No matter the range. It was not until they developed what you think of as a modern bullet did guns have the penetrating factor that would make armor ineffective. But by than other factors made those armors ineffective.
The idea that guns made the medieval armor obsolete is a myth.
|
|
Actually you are wrong...armor did prove effective against early firearms it took years for them to go out of style...though just a point we still wear armor it is called bullet proof vest.
Also armor are designed to stop different things...I could go on a very lengthy discussion here but I think you just have to believe this in your words 'just silly fun that makes no sense'.
Yeah, I meant the heavy armor that medieval knights were so fond of. Just wasn't effective against guns - didn't do enough to stop the bullets and made you much slower, which is bad against the much more superior range of guns.
And sure, extremely early gun technology was not all that impressive, but it *was* good enough to very swiftly overtake all other martial traditions, especially when it got more sophisticated with time.
Again you are not correct. The crossbow and the English longbow had much more penetrating power than early guns and did more (probably it has been a long time since I really looked into the subject) to end the heavy armor.
Also there was the cost of heavy armor. Though early heavy armor(IE plate mail) had no problem stopping early bullets. No matter the range. It was not until they developed what you think of as a modern bullet did guns have the penetrating factor that would make armor ineffective. But by than other factors made those armors ineffective.
The idea that guns made the medieval armor obsolete is a myth.
Sure, I guess, if it wasn't guns than it was other kinds of projectile weapons. Proves the same point, really.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And now you're just throwing out technobabble. A relativistic projectile would blow up in your face.
|
|
Mass effect fields are created through the use of element zero. Element zero can increase or decrease the mass content of space-time when subjected to an electrical current via dark energy. With a positive current, mass is increased. With a negative current, mass is decreased. The stronger the current, the greater the magnitude of the dark energy mass effect.
Clearly you can use a mass effect field to increase the mass of an object, not just decrease it. It seems that the way this technology is used in guns is that a mass effect is created within the barrel (or perhaps only in part of the barrel), the bullet is accelerated and when it leaves the gun it maintains the speed it achieved - which means your interpretation of the technology is impossible, because then it couldn't be used that way:
Weapons in the Mass Effect universe are micro-scaled mass accelerators, using mass-reducing fields and magnetic force to propel miniature slugs to lethal speeds.
accelerator design was revolutionized by element zero. A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be accelerated to greater speeds, permitting projectile velocities that were previously unattainable. If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon. However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact energy. This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor on slug velocity.
Also, mass effect fields are used to propel entire spaceships to greater than light speeds, so you very definitely can use this effect to cheat on relativity. Additionally, dreadnoughts have cannons that can accelerate a slug to 1.3 percent of the speed of light, so this technology is used in weapons as well. And, it's not techno babble if it is accurate both in real world science and in-game lore, and when you know what you're talking about ;)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really amused that this thread has descended into arguments about the plausibility of Asgardian technology and culture.
And for the record, yeah, I find it fairly plausible. They have plenty of vehicle-mounted ranged weapons, swords that shoot energy, etc. They're clearly just enjoying both their pseudo-medieval aesthetic and the advantages they have in hand-to-hand combat (which are immense). They're generally tough enough to survive getting into melee (especially while wearing armor), and they kill everything once they're there.
I just re-watched the scene in the throne room in Thor 2, and firstly, leading up to that, the Asgardians were doing really well with anti-aircraft guns and ship-to-ship combat (they killed something like 90% of the attacking ships), especially considering it was a surprise attack. Heck, even if they suck in man-to-man combat, maybe that's why nobody messes with them. Maybe they're a naval power. That was certainly true to some extent for vikings.
Secondly even once we're talking man-to-man fighting, the grenades were what did a lot of the damage, not the standard ranged weapons (which, as mentioned, were blockable by their shields...they were just a bit out of practice having not fought these foes in some thousands of years). It's pretty reasonable to assume that their armor stops the vast majority of energy weapons, and thus vs. most foes the tactics shown there would've worked fine...the Dark Elves just happen to be equipped with more powerful man-portable energy weapons than just about anyone else.
And, actually, melee tactics make a lot of sense with the naval power theory, and their soldiers primarily serving as marines. If you're boarding crippled (or surrendered) enemy space ships and doing corridor-to-corridor fighting...you probably don't want to to be throwing around energy blasts and blowing holes in things (especially if you're trying to capture or loot them), and melee tactics are very valid in that environment.
So...yeah, that actually makes even more sense, now that I've thought about it.
I'm really amused that this thread has descended into arguments about the plausibility of Asgardian technology and culture.
IKR?!?
It should totally be about mass effect.
I'm really amused that this thread has descended into arguments about the plausibility of Asgardian technology and culture.Indeed. I hope that by Tuesday or Wednesday, we can get back to discussing Marvel's Agents of SHIELD and the in-show repercussions of the events from Avengers 2.
Never!!!
So when one needs to explain why Asgardians don't advance technologically the explanation is that they reached singularity a long time ago anyway and just about everything is possible for them. But then, when it comes to explaining why they are limited to using mostly melee weapons, all of a sudden they can't fire a projectile with a strength that can compete with their arms. I dunno. Seems unreasonable.
I would, once again, wish to remind everyone that I am only arguing that Asgardians don't *actually* make sense, not that they don't make comic book sense. These are...
I would rack it up to 'necessity is the mother of all invention'. You just have to look at who they fight. Frost Giants. Their weapons schooled them pretty well there... Then they had Peace for how long? Viking Age till Thor 1? The #1 reason to design new weapons, is that the old weapons aren't as good for some reason.
Add in the near immortality of the Warriors, and you aren't 'replacing' weapons that often. Thor has his hammer, Odin has his spear, etc. etc. They've seen the glory of a thousand battles with this armor or this weapon... they simply haven't upgraded.
As for melee vs. ranged... I believe it to be a cultural thing. They worship strength and physical might in battle. Not blasting someone from behind an armored wall. They want the glory. They want people to know exactly who got what kills and add up the scores at the end of the battle. The kind of thing that only happens when you're up close and personal.
Add in that they do have magic users... and the whole debates start to fall apart. Odin has the Destroyer armor... why bother with warriors/army at all? Why not just have that thing walk through the frost giant realm blasting. Made short work of the thieves...
But yeah, there is always a disconnect between 'logic' and 'culture'.
|
There's also a saying in the scientific community that nothing really groundbreaking can be theorized until the current generation is dead, as they will fight to perpetuate the theories they grew up with (or discovered) and they control the funding and the laboratories, making it not impossible, but certainly an uphill struggle to advance science, with the old guard fighting you to protect their own theories.
We see that sort of conservatism of thought in any culture where lifespans continue to increase, and anything new is seen as a threat to the old order. Just listen to any seventy year old congressman trying to talk about Net Neutrality. They might as well be trying to explain how to cosplay as Pokemon characters, since they are just as clueless about this 'internet thing, with it's nets and tubes.'
Imagine how that sort of thing applies to Asgard, where the same dude has unilaterally run the place for *three thousand years.* (Give or take a few centuries.) The old guard *never die.* New ways of doing things or thinking about things could take centuries to get accepted, if they ever do.
We see it Odin's reactionary comments about Midgardians and about Dark Elves, in the movie (dismissing one as useless, even if it's Midgardian science that saves the day, and the other as extinct, even as they are blowing up his city around his ears). Dude's gotten used to being right about everything for a couple thousand years. It's no surprise that it's taking him an hour or two to adjust that entrenched worldview...
|
I'm really amused that this thread has descended into arguments about the plausibility of Asgardian technology and culture.Indeed. I hope that by Tuesday or Wednesday, we can get back to discussing Marvel's Agents of SHIELD and the in-show repercussions of the events from Avengers 2.
Well now you're just talking crazy. Don't you know this pissy contest HAS to be won? WON, I TELL YOU!!!
|
|
Well now you're just talking crazy. Don't you know this pissy contest HAS to be won? WON, I TELL YOU!!!I'm really amused that this thread has descended into arguments about the plausibility of Asgardian technology and culture.Indeed. I hope that by Tuesday or Wednesday, we can get back to discussing Marvel's Agents of SHIELD and the in-show repercussions of the events from Avengers 2.
Need a new episode of SHIELD to talk about! Why is it taking so long? :)
I'm a total hypocrite. On the one hand, I kind of love seeing stuff that's different than the comics (like new characters in Gotham or whatever, or a fake Mandarin in Iron Man 3).
On the other hand, sometimes I go the other direction and resent every second some prettyboy schmuck like Lightning Lincoln is on-scree, instead of someone more familiarly 'Inhuman.' When he was badly hurt, I was kind of cheering inside, although I know the Whedon family's writing style well enough that they'll never kill off someone I *want* to die. :)
It would be interesting to see at least one Ultron drone, active or inactive on AoS.
While I agree that Whedon killed off a lot of great characters, there are very few that he didn't that I wish he had killed off.
Well now you're just talking crazy. Don't you know this pissy contest HAS to be won? WON, I TELL YOU!!!I'm really amused that this thread has descended into arguments about the plausibility of Asgardian technology and culture.Indeed. I hope that by Tuesday or Wednesday, we can get back to discussing Marvel's Agents of SHIELD and the in-show repercussions of the events from Avengers 2.Need a new episode of SHIELD to talk about! Why is it taking so long? :)
I'm a total hypocrite. On the one hand, I kind of love seeing stuff that's different than the comics (like new characters in Gotham or whatever, or a fake Mandarin in Iron Man 3).
On the other hand, sometimes I go the other direction and resent every second some prettyboy schmuck like Lightning Lincoln is on-scree, instead of someone more familiarly 'Inhuman.' When he was badly hurt, I was kind of cheering inside, although I know the Whedon family's writing style well enough that they'll never kill off someone I *want* to die. :)
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Come on guys. entertain me! Cage fight between Aberzombie and Set!
I also agree that Ward is probably (eventually) going to be turned into an existing character in the comics. My thoughts were Taskmaster, but that was mostly based on internet chatter, and I don't really know Marvel comics very well to argue for against other candidates such as Nomad or Ronin.
I do think he did fill pretty much a "trainer" type persona with Agent 33.
Ward's character would be a pretty good fit for Crossfire (Hawkeye foe) from the comics, if they wanted to turn him into an actual existing Marvel character. Ex-federal agents turned mercenaries.
Of course, they're introducing the Cross family in the Ant-Man movie now, and Ward isn't one of them (at least he doesn't appear to be; adopted? Distant relative? Maybe.)
Indeed. I hope that by Tuesday or Wednesday, we can get back to discussing Marvel's Agents of SHIELD and the in-show repercussions of the events from Avengers 2.
Amen.
On Ultron drones:
** spoiler omitted **
That said, it would be cool to see. :)
Just like last year, I fully expect this next episode to be happening at the SAME TIME as the current movie. They already hinted that they were making a push on HYDRA and SHIELD is still defunct as of last episode... I really don't see everything picking up right from where the movie left off without an explanation.
So there's a chance for an ultron drone in this one... maybe even the final fate of Strucker shown....
As for Ward, I REALLY don't think he'll be the taskmaster.
1) Wrong name....
2) Wrong Background...
3) No 'abilities'...
4) A costume that is nigh-impossible to cinematize....
Really, other than 'Taskmaster is cool... I hope he shows up' is there any actual evidence pointing toward Ward filling those boots?!?f
Admittedly, AoS has done things I did NOT like before <COUGH> Quake... <COUGH> Inhumans....,<gag>
Still, If Ward IS taskmaster, it will be INSANELY unsatisfying reveal.
Sorry, dude, wrong combatants.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Come on guys. entertain me! Cage fight between Aberzombie and Set!Yeah, we only fight for our own entertainment. Not the hoi-polloi in the cheap seats!
But... But... But I have a dollar riding on Aberzombie! You two can't let me down now.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But... But... But I have a dollar riding on Aberzombie! You two can't let me down now.Sorry, dude, wrong combatants.
Fight! Fight! Fight!
Come on guys. entertain me! Cage fight between Aberzombie and Set!Yeah, we only fight for our own entertainment. Not the hoi-polloi in the cheap seats!
Sure we can! I let people down all the time.
|
Just like last year, I fully expect this next episode to be happening at the SAME TIME as the current movie. They already hinted that they were making a push on HYDRA and SHIELD is still defunct as of last episode... I really don't see everything picking up right from where the movie left off without an explanation.On Ultron drones:
** spoiler omitted **
That said, it would be cool to see. :)
I suspect:
** spoiler omitted **Just like last year, I fully expect this next episode to be happening at the SAME TIME as the current movie. They already hinted that they were making a push on HYDRA and SHIELD is still defunct as of last episode... I really don't see everything picking up right from where the movie left off without an explanation.On Ultron drones:
** spoiler omitted **
That said, it would be cool to see. :)
I suspect:
** spoiler omitted **
Of course, that leads to
~whistles~ wow... Not good.
Wow...what an episode
The whole episode set up the Shield-Inhuman peace talks as being either in risk of sabotage by:
Gonzales/former Other Shield, who doesn't trust enhanced people
OR
Raina, who was setting things up for a power play within the inhumans and attempting to remove Skye's mother from power.
I honestly didn't see Raina being right, and Skye's Mother deliberately sabotaging things to spark a Inhuman vs Shield war.
Also almost as soon as they set up Ward as being a little more sympathetic and doing a genuine good deed with Agent 33....
Nope...this is still part of a greater design, and I still have no frigging clue what it is Ward is after (but hopefully next week in the two hour finale that will be revealed).
I am wondering if they are setting up Ward as being the genuine big bad of next season?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of was a little dissapointed with tonights episode. Too much passing around of the idiot ball. First Skye father is portrayed to be unstable and psychotic. Then Skye mom is asking him for advice on dealing with Shield. Suddenly he is a stable and font of stable and sane wisdom. He's the best and most unbiased person to be asking for advice. That no one expected Ward to pull a fast one. Except maybe Coulson. That's like inviting Mystique into your team and not expecting her to stab you in the back. Maybe it's me but I hate it when writers both in and out comics make the good guys act completely dumb. With the villains always seeming able to pull a fast one without the heroes noticing. Or if they do it's too little to late imo.
Though it would be nice to see Gonzales come back somehow. As well was not expecting Skye mom to do what she did. Then again it makes sense. After what Whitehall did to her why would she trust let alone get along with Shield or humanity at large. Which I'm not too keen on as it smacks too much of the same rehashed mutant vs human trope that Marvel been done to death. With all due respect in a world where we have the Thing, The Human Torch and other non-mutant/Inhuman characters that in some cases look more different and freakish looking. Why would the average person single out mutants/Inhumans. Hell how would the average person even know the difference.
** spoiler omitted **
I don't think its that simple, otherwise Ward would have simply had 33 kill Bobbi. I think that now, instead of helping 33, he is using her (and Bobbi) to accomplish some other end. He mentioned they still needed her I think.
It wouldn't surprise me if the end goal wasn't something that transformed Ward into a known Marvel comics universe villain, and they may in fact be setting him up as next season's big bad.