AdmiralToguroAni

you said you did some editing in Rebed. Lets make sure thats okay, first. Go to Rebed, select your Sith Assassins, and make sure at the bottom it says "Available missions are those of: Noghri Commandos"

I don' think that would be possible, given the nature of the Battlestations mod. As you can tell from Rebed, there are flags that can turn any ship into an interdictor (just check "gravity wells" on the screen). You'll also notice that you can change the hyperspace rating and sublight speed in Rebed. The problem is, however, that when you select a rating of "0" for these two fields, Rebed automatically bumps them up to "1". Thats where the battlestation patch comes in. The patch presumably goes into the DLL files and changes the ship's hyperdrive and sublight speed directly. Thats why you can't look at the ship's stats in Rebed once you run the battlestations mod without running it again.

You're also better off not using a decoy if there aren't any troops or ships over the planet. If you have a "clear shot" at an unprotected target, you don't need a decoy.

Lets see if I can get the quote function to work, since I didn't know either! I agree with you up to the point where you 'simply' say that humans are more advanced than chimps. Saying they're less complex might be accurate, saying they're lower (I know you didn't say this, valerian, it was posted a few posts back) or that they're less advanced (in the evolutionary sense) isn't. The point is that such qualifications are biased. I'll agree that "higher" and "lower" might not be the best term for what happens in evolution, but those are the terms used by evolutionary theorists. However, that's not to say that they mean "better", but "more complex", as of course we've stated. Debate on this point seems to be more of a problem with word usage, since we can probably agree that a human or chimp or goldfish is more complex than a virus or mold. When you say that we can look at our communication abilities, compare the tools primates use to ours and things like that, the bias is already in the comparison. As humans, we like to think that our ability to do these things is important or generally beneficial for all organisms, without addressing the question whether this is the case. It clearly isn't. Whether it clearly is or isn't is up for debate, but that isnt the point of this post. Primates have tools to communicate and even perform basic tasks (such as getting food from anthills with a stick) and for them, assuming that nothing changes their habitate or lifestyle, that is enough if it keeps them alive. However, the requirements for keeping a human alive at one point must have been greater than keeping a primate alive, else we wouldn't have evolved a more complex brain structure (as only those with mutations in the brain that caused more complex, i.e. "higher", thought managed to survive whatever physical change the primates' environment was undergoing). Once that initial batch of "smarter-than-average" apes became the norm, the process repeated until you had humans. You're absolutely correct when you say that using the phrase "higher" is biased, but while the word usage might be biased, since it simply means "more compex", then despite the biasedd usage, it still stands. Let's have look at - say - viruses. As far as we know, viruses do not have these abilities either. Does that make humans more advanced than viruses in the evolutionary sense? No, because viruses apparently don't need these traits to be successful, they have developed other traits, which make them more successful when it comes to survival (which is actually what natural selection is about); they are able to survive dormantly over long periods of time - which humans can't - and they mutate quite easily in a matter of days (weeks, months, years? I don't know the actual time frame - somebody please correct if neccessary), which humans can't either. Sure, you could argue that we're more complex, but that doesn't necessarily make us a higher organism or more successful in the evolutionary sense. Again, correct. I WILL point out that many people do not consider viruses to be life forms, but we'll assume they are since its important for this point. Viruses are excellent at survival, but are not very complex. Since "higher", be it a biased term or not, simply means compex, viruses are a prime example of an organism that has not needed to become higher/complex to survive. It seems that the debate over "higher/lower" is just a problem with word usage more than the substance that the words entail. Moreover, stating that some organisms are more advanced implies that evolution has direction, i.e., that evolution leads up to some common point of ultimate advancement. Evolution scientists generally refute this notion. It doesn't imply that when you consider that "higher/lower" means more or less complex.

No World Cultures for me either, Tofu, and I live in the Bible Belt! As for your point on the terrorists, I agree that they aren't evil. Few people are evil. Truman did what he thought was best by dropping an A-bomb on two Japanese cities, and in his mind it was justified. Same with them. You can argue lots of stuff about it, like "it was war", or "it wasn't a sneak attack", and even if we find out that its true and they weren't justified, they THINK they were, and so aren't "evil." Whether they were "wrong" to do it depends on history, but since we'll probably win the War on Terror, I'm thinking they'll be "wrong."

Mando won't stop a blaster bolt according to the EU books I've read, but neither Fett was shot in the movies, so we can't say for certain. I think it'll save you if it just barely hits you or whatever, but you can't take a blaster in the chest just because you have Mando. The book might have been a "Tales" book, but it went something like this: Boba Fett and Han Solo were staring each other down, and Han said something like "even your Mandalorian armor won't stop a shot at this distance (which is ridiculous because if it doesn't stop a shot at 3 feet, its not going to stop a shot at 30 meters)." So they called it a draw and walked away. By the way, has anyone noticed that the movies don't imply that the X-wings are any stronger than TIE fighters? One hit still kills them.

Higher doesn't mean better, Scath. At least not from what my Uni teaches. "Higher" just means more complex. In that regard, a human is "higher" than a carrot because a human has had to become more complex in order to thrive, while the carrot has been able to survive with fewer radical changes. Also, you don't have to prove a negative. By default, you believe it doesn't exist. I can't prove God doesn't exist, so I should accept that he might exist. It sounds good in theory, and there's nothing inherently wrong about this, but by that logic, I can apply this example: Somewhere in the universe is the planet Neverneverland, where Peter Pan lives. Peter Pan left his travel log on a trip to Earth, where J.M. Barrie found it and wrote the novel. The original log was lost to time, leaving the novel as the only evidence to Peter Pan's existance. There is no way (at least right now) to disprove that Peter Pan exists, so we must assume that he MIGHT exist. Even that example is plausible when looked at in a certain way. Peter Pan COULD exist. However, the possibility is so low that it isn't worthy of consideration. If we find some hard evidence of God's existance, then we could say that theres a greater chance of God existing. Until then, we have to stick with whatever theory has the most evidence.

I'm not so sure Yoda "absorbed" the Dooku's lightning (or Palpy's, for that matter) as he "blocked" it. Even if he DID absorb it though, it had that little glow around it, while Vader did not. As for why Vader had blaster proof armor and the stormies didn't, it probably IS because the armor costs too much. The Empire is cheap when it comes to manpower. They don't put shields on TIEs because it would cost too much, instead relying on sheer numbers to overwhelm opponents. This logic carries over into the Stormtroopers as well. The armor is more for show, I think. If Ewoks throwing rocks can get through it, then its pretty worthless for anything else.

Are you SURE Vader "absorbed" the blaster bolts? I have a feeling that he simply blocked them, having a metal hand and all. Remember that his shoulder pad took a lightsaber blow and barely got scratched. Having a blaster bolt strike his hand wouldn't be a problem--especially considering that since most of the Jedi are dead, Vader's real opposition would be people with blasters. It would make sense for him to have blaster proof armor. Further, we clearly see Vader's skeleton in ROTJ as he's being electrocuted. If he was only being short circuited, you wouldnt have seen his skeleton. I have never read I, Jedi. However that book presents it, though, the movies give no hint of Vader absorbing energy, and in fact show quite the opposite.

I'll buy Scath's first two arguments. But I dont think Vader absorbs outside energy. Palpy's force lightning was what killed him, after all.

Its true that certain emotions may seem as if they don't fit into emotions, but its not the great mystery that you seem to think it is. When an animal goes into heat, for example, chemicals are released into their brain in response to outside stimuli that produces conditions in which to mate. In humans, we have a similar effect with arousal or happiness (in terms of dopamine release). As great as these emotions feel, they are simply chemicals that tell us how to feel. We have conclusively linked brain chemicals to emotions, and the release of brain chemicals to produce behavior associated with emotions in humans has been found in lower animals. So it does stand to reason that emotions are an evolved trait. Especially when you consider that higher animals experience emotions closer to humans than lower animals. As for not knowing what random mutations lead to effects and behavior...that doesn't hold. We know what genes cause Down Syndrome, many agree on what causes homosexuality, AND we know that having x strains of DNA in y order will produce people who are MORE LIKELY to behave in z fashion. I'll concede that genetics is not the only thing that governs behavior, since social conditioning is a huge, perhaps greater factor than genetics in that respect. However, we know more about genetics and behavior than you think. I can grab some articles if you'd like, or you can google them yourself. As for how we'd react in your hypothetical scenario....just because we don't want to hear it doesn't make it the truth.

erm, actually all thats changed too. I went ahead and changed the files as I went along, so I really DON'T have Rebellion on my computer, only URPG: Supremacy. I cant find my disk either, so I only have my mod! Seriously though, EVERY DLL has new stuff in it, and even the .exe has changes in it in the form of a new icon and the title being changed to "URPG Supremacy" with Turkworks added to the list of companies. When I mod a game, I really mod it!

This post will be shorter as its 3:30 in the morning. But I'll do my best to respond to your arguments, the foremost being adaptation and why it occurs once symbosis is reached with another species (if necessary, such as the case of the flowers and bees). As explained in my university, our cells are constantly mutating, whether we like them to or not! Sometimes the changes are small and we don't notice them, and they don't do anything. These tend to die off, as cells do with time. Note that if you get 2 mutations on the same DNA strand, you get cancer, which is NOT beneficial for survival. Hence, cancer kills and takes away that particular specimen. It should be noted that medical practices have the effect of slowing the onset of cancer to the point where most people who are prone to cancer will have already reproduced. Without that medicine, many people who got cancer would die before reproducing. The point of this is that regardless of whether another species like the bee is around, mutation will continue to happen by virtue of cellular change and decay. Having another species select which mutations are desirable (more pollen, brighter collers) only affects HOW the mutations occur, not the fact that they DO occur. Hopefully that takes care of your first problem. Moving on to emotions: Humans are not particulary strong, fast, or anything else other than intelligent. Our evolutionary line sacrificed physical aptitude for mental ability. Emotions like attachment and love grew out of this as a necessity to keep our children alive. A baby snake can live on its own from day one, but a human baby sure can't! But like you said, a it doesn't explain happiness, altruism, etc. I'll address all of these point by point so you can refute or agree with them: Why do you feel happy when the sun shines? There are likely two factors involved in this. The first being social conditioning. Its easy to say "social conditioning causes this", but I think there's a darned good reason here. Being out in a rainy day, unprotected, causes your immune system to weaken and you get sick more easily. Today, that's nothing due to medicine. To early people, this was deadly. Sunny days were the days in which to be active. A mother tells her son not to go outside because its rainy, but to go outside when its sunny because "its a good day today." This story has never really changed, and now even hundreds of years later, it still stands. Think about elementary schools with the pictures of the big smiling suns and the mean looking rain clouds. That has an effect on you whether you recognize it or not. The other factor is that human beings desire a feeling of warmth that the sun provides. Slight warmth typically feels better than a slight chill, so that naturally causes people to think that sunny days are better. Why do some people get depressed at the end of the year (besides looking at their bank account after Christmas?) This is known as Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) and it is caused by the shortening days upsetting the body's internal clock. Speaking from a natural selection standpoint, why do people have this? Certainly having a brain that is unable to adequately cope with changes can't be good for survival. What probably happened here is the brain developed the capacity to think and perform advanced functions, and included a resting function in order to prevent overload due to stress. However, mutation stepped in, causing this problem to occur. Remember earlier when I stated that mutation happens regardless of other species. SAD, however, is not life threatening, and so otherwise healthy individuals with SAD continued to breed, passing this problem down until many people had it. A similar example is the Green Iguana, which at one point was in the process of developing a heat-sensitive "third eye" on its forehead. This never quite worked out, but this partially developed eye wasnt life-altering, and thus the iguanas with the "eye" kept breeding until the point where they kept it. What we can conclude is that natural selection will USUALLY produce the best possible specimen, but will not always remove unwanted traits if those traits are not life threatening. Next up: The cow and the hamburger. To this, all I have to say is "social conditioning", and point you to Genie, the wild child left in her room for 13 years. Acts of violence did not bother her, as she was not conditioned to feel empathy (though she COULD feel empathy, as her caretakers later taught her how). Basically this goes with attachment. Humans have evolved the capability of feeling attachment, but our intelligence enables us to choose who or what we attach to. Naturally, we attach to things that benefit us. At first it might be Mother and Father, and when we get a little older, our beloved pet who gives us comfort. Now we put animals into the loop. Once we feel empathy for an animal, we feel that way about other animals. Hence we why feel bad for a cow being killed because it makes us think about US being killed, our our DOG being killed, or whatever. We know pain and do not wish it on others due to attachment. As far as the hamburger is concerned, we speed on the interstate because we are thinking of immediate gratification rather than the effects of speeding where someone could get hurt. Likewise with the hamburger, we are enjoying immediate gratification, which is greater than the overall effect that being empathetic towards cows gives us. Finally, the challenge of altruism! Many will say that true altruism does not exist. If you donate to charity, you feel good about yourself and others look upon you kindly. Though not a physical reward, many people feel that the good feeling you get justifies the donation. Its hard to argue that in THIS situation, you get no reward. But I have a feeling that what you're talking about is the man jumping onto a grenade, killing himself to save his friends. Or maybe the man on the plane who fights and defeats the terrorists, crashing the plane into a field so the plane doesn't hit the White House. Why do something altruistic when you know you're going to die? This is certainly a hard question, but one I'm prepared to answer. Attraction is a very powerful emotion. Mothers sacrifice themselves for children because of instinct to save their progeny (which has the evolutionary effect of preserving the species). Likewise, people will sacrifice themselves to protect people they know because of attachment. Remember that natural selection is for the benefit of the many, not the individual, so any action which results in one person saving many at the cost of himself fits into that in the same way that a bee will kill itself by stinging an opponent for the benefit of the hive. Our emotions and developed intellect has nearly buried that in favor of protecting ourselves, however it still comes out in times of crisis. As you can see, there is room for altruism in natural selection--its just odd that humans haven't evolved out of it yet. Or perhaps the opposite is true. Perhaps altruism is something that humans have fully evolved, but our social conditioning is preventing us from being altruistic (it should be noted that some research says that higher apes are capable of altruism, so that would imply that it is evolved. This hasnt been delved into too much, so I won't use it as a point). Whew! Okay, back to homosexuality. This was longer than I expected. I try not to depend on internet articles for my research, so I can't give you links. However I will tell you which biologists to look up so you can try to find some journals. I got mine from the West Virginia University library, but since you're on Tatooine, I dont think you can get them. Basically its a problem in the development of the hypothalamus during the first trimester of pregnancy. One such journal, "Is Behavior Written in our Genes?" by Dennis Drayna goes into this with a lot of detail, going so far as to say that portions of our genes, when altered during pregnancy, can cause homosexual behavior. It can be found in the January 2006 edition of the New England Journal. Here is another article: TIME Title: WHAT MAKES YOU WHO YOU ARE , By: Ridley, Matt, Time, 0040781X, 6/2/2003, Vol. 161, Issue 22 Database: Academic Search Elite Section: SCIENCE Here's an excerpt about homosexuality: "HOMOSEXUALITY Ray Blanchard at the University of Toronto has found that gay men are more likely than either lesbians or heterosexual men to have older brothers (but not older sisters). He has since confirmed this observation in 14 samples from many places. Something about occupying a womb that has held other boys occasionally results in reduced birth weight, a larger placenta and a greater probability of homosexuality. That something, Blanchard suspects, is an immune reaction in the mother, primed by the first male fetus, that grows stronger with each male pregnancy. Perhaps the immune response affects the expression of key genes during brain development in a way that boosts a boy's attraction to his own sex. Such an explanation would not hold true for all gay men, but it might provide important clues into the origins of both homosexuality and heterosexuality." So here's another genetic factor. I'll concede that among the Christians and the general populace, the idea of an in-born tendancy toward homosexuality may not be the prevailing theory, but the reverse is true among the science community. Hope that helps. Feel free to respond to my arguments and point out anything I missed. I haven't got to do this since the religion forum died out a while back!

Zolay Nessis. Get my character's first name in there

Even though the movies were made in the '70s, you still have to take them for what they were. I dont think you can use their age as an excuse to make up the battles in your minds. It even makes sense from the movie's perspective, too. Yoda used the Force in his lightsaber style (Ataru?) and that style is forgiving of his age. Obi-Wan's defensive form of saber combat and Anakin's offensive form rely on physical stamina in addition to skill, and so its only natural that they'd slow with age (and robotic limbs). Luke, at the same time, never received full training and thus wasnt as strong as the other Jedi of earlier despite his high midichlorian count. I think he ends up getting better in the EU, but from the comics and books I've read, his saber skills are always pretty sub-par (almost losing to a lava worm), and he relies on the Force (bringing down an AT-AT with the Force) instead. As for Vader being a visible symbol of the Dark Side, i just find it hard to believe because there are other methods of keeping the troops in line that don't involve having a Dark Jedi who's almost as strong as you. If Palpatine was the only Sith, he'd have nothing to worry about. To be honest, I don't think Palpy REALLY cared about the rule of two.

I dont host the files on filefront because I'm not sure if what I have is considered a "mod" or "pirate software." Evaders has made it pretty clear that my mod isnt welcome here unless I do an installation file, which I have no clue how to do. This is the best way I know of getting it to you without getting me in trouble with the law.

too bad neither of those cards have models to go with them =/

Just did some testing. Theres no limit on Jedi. In fact, I believe its possible to make every character (except Thrawn and Han) a Jedi. Here's what I did. Vader goes on a recruitment mission. Save the game. He comes back with someone. If they're not a Jedi, I reset. He comes back with a new person each time, so it means that the characters arent generated at the start of the mission. Repeat characters (I got Bin Essada twice) have different stats, so they are determined as soon as they are recruited, rather than at game start. I was able to get 2 consecutive Jedi this way, so I believe it is all a matter of chance.

Hm...I'm not too big on my EU, I think "Planet of Twilight" turned me off to it and I barely know what a Yuuzhan Vong is, but I DID read Dark Empire I and II. So lets sum this up: 1) Palpy is a genius 2) Palpy is evil and started the empire to rule the world for eternity because of his Sith ideals, not for anything like the good of the galaxy. 3)He had clone bodies and kept his apprentice on a leash because he wanted to be the evil Overlord for all eternity. Okay. I buy all of that. Now comes the hard part: Why keep Vader around after taking over? In Palpy's plan, Vader never becomes the master. Vader is gimpy once he's in the suit when compared to his power before. Having force users isnt a concern thanks to Lady Lumina and Mara Jade and all of his Sith Adepts on Byss. So, why keep Vader around? The most obvious answer is that Vader is a symbol terror and shows the "New Age" of the Empire. I don't buy that. ANYONE can be a symbol of terror: Osama Bin Laden brings fear into people's hearts, and he's a 70 something year old man! Truth by told, Palpy wouldn't even need a human as a symbol of terror since he had the Death Star. What then, was the real reason he kept Vader around?

Evolution is just the long term result of adaption and mutation. Neither the flower nor the bee were "aware" of the other's advancement (though the bee may recognize the flower's UV signature, it probably didnt think "I'll evolve to recognize this even more!") This is where we get into natural selection: Suppose that flowers needed a way to reproduce, and bees needed a way to eat. Many flowers were dull and mundane, and in fact looked more like grass than actual flowers. These bees, in the meantime, decided to go out and look for food. Some of them tried to find food on a rock or a tree or a fish. They failed and died. Some got lucky and found flower pollen. They make it back to the hive. The larvae are now fed pollen, and thus when the new queen bee forms, she says "Okay bees. We were raised on this pollen stuff, so go find it." Maybe she doesn't SAY it, but thats the bee command she gives. So now the bees go off and look for that pollen. The bees that found the pollen do their little bee dance and lead the new bees to the flowers. They only collect pollen from flowers that resemble what the old bees found. Thus, any plant that doesn't look like that dies off. Therefore, only those plants get to reproduce. Now...how do the flowers "beecome" so specific? We've got to understand that most flowers at this time would have pollen that would be hard for bees to get. After all, the flowers haven't been subject to natural selection for very long! So, eventually mutations develop. For this example we'll say that a flower grew up having loose pollen that flaked off easily. This would probably be the human equivalent to a person with premature balding syndrome or something. Either way it happens by accident. One of the bees collects pollen and says "bzzzz!! bzzz!" which roughly translates into "I can collect more pollen with half the work on this plant! Everyone look for these!!!" Thus, only those plants are given the opportunity to reproduce. Soon, all species of that flower have loose pollen. In this manner, which is repeated time and again for different species (since the bees probably found more than one flower to get pollen from), the bees and flowers change and evolve without ever being "aware" of the other. The bees do it for convenience, and the flowers are forced along out of natural selection. I took some liberty with the bee talk, but thats the basis of evoluton. As for the human emotions...I turn your attention to the Polar Bear over here. http://www.coolbuddy.com/wallpapers/animals/imgs/polar%20bear.jpg Consider this true: A warm coat is good for survival if you live in the artic. Consider this true: a coat that is lightweight is good for survival. The Polar bear finds himself in a predicament. He can't have BOTH of these, as a warm coat is by definition a heavy one. Several dead lightweight coated polar bears later, natural selection determines that heaving a warm coat outweighs the disadvantages of having a heavy coat. So, how does that affect us humans? Feeling the concepts of attraction and love are beneficial for the survival of our species. However, this doesn't explain the queasiness that we feel in our stomachs. After all, having butterflies in your stomach is uncomfortable! Just like the polar bear, however, the queasy stomach is necessary (a reaction to the chemicals your thyroid and brain release) for the feeling of attraction. Attraction is necessary, so the butterflies stay. As for beings of the same sex (in cases where it is not a conscious choice), biologists have determined that this is a result of brain deformity developed during the fetal period. I know its not PC to say that homosexuality is a brain deformity, but that is what seems to be the case. I will concede that there are other theories (such as homosexuality being a choice in all circumstances), but I am merely stating the prevailing theory. This would be an example of the mutations I spoke of earlier in the bee scenario. As for why you feel more attracted to one person than another, blame social conditioning. Humans are extremely vulnerable to it. Same way with "feeling like it was destined to be." Hope that helps, Scath. As for the half of the world believes in a God thing, remember that we all have a common geographic origin, a common need to explain things we can't understand. All one person had to do was say "God" at that time, and everyone would start wondering if it was true. It was a good idea at the time, so of course it stuck. I think my bee post covers your other arguments. If not, just let me know. Edit: Oh sorry! Almost missed your humans with wings in the second post. While I won't say that this is the only way to do it, a good way to start would be to position yourself where it is geographically beneficial to have wings. Lets say the treetops. No one in the trees is ever allowed to come down. If they do, you kill them. Now make it necessary to move from tree to tree. You'll quickly find that the best jumpers and those with the longest legs are the best. Increase the distance so that those without legs die off or something. Now the people who survive will be lighter, more muscular, and have long legs. Now it gets tricky. The trees must be just so far apart that those people can barely make it. One of several things will happen: The survivors of this group will merely get longer legs, the people will start to grow wings in the form of skin flaps like sugar gliders have, or they will develop some other way. Its a gamble at this point--if it wasn't, we'd have homogeneity in all of our archetypes like flyers, swimmers, etc. I should note that the body will undergo drastic changes to do this. Since we're so focused on tree hopping, we're likely to lose arm and stomach muscle, and probably any brain mass not needed for survival, so our winged people are likely to be pretty stupid

Does that mean that R:R will have a still image as an agent? I dont feel so bad about mine now.

I dont see how the existance of a person you like is conclusive evidence of a being who defies all physical laws. People liking someone else is a natural occurance caused by attraction. In fact, our ability to feel those emotions helps us keep attached to other people for the purpose of child rearing (although not everyone acts on that) and is more of a point in the evolution category than in the ID. Sounds to me like you weren't sure about being atheist out of a fear of Hell, and found a way to justify a belief in God. Consider this--even if a higher being DID exist, it could be multiple beings a la Hinduism or any number of other religious deities. Either way, it should take more than a fuzzy feeling to refute all the evidence about the physical world that we have.

The guy with a death star for an avatar calls the guy with the machine gun toting cat a vile character? Nice job, Jahled. The blade seems right to me. I know some sabers are pretty thick.

Most of the Ships in Rebellion are grey with some color on them. Thats boring. A ship with a base green color or a base red color with designs overtop of it would look cooler and add some variety.

Hm. This leads me to this theoretical scenario in which the Empire won on Endor and now 21 years later, the Vong attack. Courscant: 1 DS2 w/shield. Eclipse SSDs and regular ISDIIIs and whatever other ships the Imps use are guarding the planet. They aren't there for the DS2 though, they're ALL there to protect the Galaxy Guns. Two should work. A Sun Crusher sneaks into a system and starts sending the worldships' locations to Coruscant, which fires the Galaxy Guns. SC blows up the sun taking out whatever half of the planets is currently facing the sun. I'll assume Palpy has no qualms about blowing up his own planets to stop the Vong. The surviving Vong on the half of the planets that weren't hit by the sun's explosion board their worldship and start to take off, only to be smacked by the GG's missiles, which should be arriving just about now. That about wraps it up for the Vong. How do you afford all this? Why, the OTHER Super weapon! World Devastators. Palpy has them suck up all the raw materials and either sends them off to be built into GGs and SCs (they can do all this in 21 years) or maybe he can actually build them right there within the WDs. Not sure. Either way, since the Clone emperor comes out and starts churning out WDs in Dark Empire, I figure he knew how to build all these Superweapons the whole time, he just didnt get around to it earlier because he was thrown down the shaft. If he didnt get shafted then I think we'd see lots of superweapons. You know how much he likes superweapons.