Movies)

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2001 11:59:51 -0500 devans@uneb.edu writes:
<snip>
> ***

I thought not best to get too technical <grin> Besides most children and
cartographers (old children) call them by what they 'look like' Magenta
- a funny looking red Cyan - a washed out blue.

> ***

But humans would have to describe in 'false color terms' to 'see; it...

Gracias,

On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 01:00:06 -0400 Allan Goodall <awg@sympatico.ca>
writes: <snip>
> This is all neat stuff to think about. There should be an evolutionary

Would predators (assume the KV are predators for now) tend then to make them
*not* stay still so as to flush prey? Would they assume 'hiding'
behaviors (as opposed to submissive) define something/someone as prey
(and worthy of destruction?

And if they were the prey could their aggressive behavior be a defense
mechanism (preemptive defense?) versus now extinct predators? Wasn't there a
hint that the KV are fleeing from someone 'badder' in the core (IIRC) in one
of the web stories or am I delusional again? Maybe having
been slaves/prey they have responded by living out the JDL (is that the
right acronym?) motto "Never Again"?  Jeez, sounds like the Nektons -
ouch, Nekton-KV 'first contact' (defined as who gets their (KV) rail or
(Nekton) sonic gun in action first gets 'first contact' on the other
species...)

Gracias,

> On Fri, 27 July 2001, Glenn M Wilson wrote:

> Would predators (assume the KV are predators for now) tend then to

I got to thinking, in a thread on the playtest list, about the KV's
physiology. It's possible that their whole "adrenalin rage" thing came from
hiding and then rushing out to quickly kill a prey that walked past. I call
this the "trapdoor spider" mode of hunting.

In this case, they would be really nasty in combat: accustomed to not moving
except when they need to, and then doing that very quickly and powerfully.

If this is the case, then they would also, likely, have much less endurance.
Combat is a quick win or lose propisition. As a battle goes on, the greater
the chance for Ro'Kah, but also the greater the chance that they will pack up
and cut thier losses.

Ambush hunters (as opposed to tracker/stalker hunters)
ususally do not have the ability or will to conduct a protracted battle
against near equals. Usually if the trap fails to catch or disable the prey in
the first moments of conflict, the prey will escape and the ambush hunters
will set the trap for another victim.

I guess the reverse could be just as valid. That once they commit to battle,
it takes a great effort to disengage (even if spent). Such philosophy could
come from an environment with strong, tough, or scarce prey. If you don't get
this Hexamamoth, the next may not come for days or weeks. Think what if the
only prey for humans was tigers.

---
Brian Bell bbell1@insight.rr.com ICQ: 12848051 AIM: Rlyehable YIM: Rlyehable
The Full Thrust Ship Registry:
http://www.ftsr.org
---

[quoted original message omitted]

G'day Glenn,

> Would predators (assume the KV are

Some of the most effective (and deadly/lethal) predators on Earth are
what they call ambush predators... they just sit and wait for their prey to
wander past.

> And if they were the prey could their

This is the view I prefer, predators, but not the top of the pile. However,
even if they were top of the pile there's actually no such thing as "having no
natural enemies". Besides the "we all get sick" problems, packs etc can
overwhelm single large predators and large predators all have to go through a
small or "weaker" stage. For instance even Great White Sharks have a pecking
order and if you over step yourself you could be in big trouble.

Cheers

G'day Allan,

> It's possible that their whole "adrenalin rage"

Its not a bad idea, though I personally wouldn't chose Trapdoor spiders.

"Pure" ambush predators (e.g. Trapdoors) wouldn't have enough of "an
adventurous spirit" to become interstellar or even social (e.g. Trapdoors
don't wander more than about 3 body lengths from home) and for them its not so
much an adrenalin spike as a reflex reaction, trip the trap and bang. On the
other hand things like lions which are ambush in that they have to sneak close
unseen and then "burst forth" would work well. As would something like Funnel
Web spiders... in their case the females never leave their nests, but the
males go on long journeys looking for mates and so turn up in people's homes
and swimming pools etc.

Ambush behaviour isn't needed for a quick "adrenalin" spike dynamic to appear
in an animals behavioural repertoire (most animals on Earth have a
"fight or flight response"), but a semi-ambush response could be a neat
way of explaining Ro'Kah, so long as it wasn't long lasting.

Cheers

G'day Brian,

> If this is the case, then they would also, likely, have

Yep.

> Ambush hunters (as opposed to tracker/stalker hunters)

..or even lesser beings who managed to string them along long enough...

> Usually if the trap fails to catch or disable the prey in the first

Maybe after a lengthy delay. Though pack based "semi-ambush" predators
usually have multiple traps set in the first place. That's why they'll
encircle and hide, so if the target gets away from the "alpha strike" it

runs bang into the "beta strike" on the other side of the attack area.

> I guess the reverse could be just as valid. That once

They'd pick on something smaller or learn to target from further away or be
nomadic and follow the Hexamamoth on its travels;) Ambush predators don't turn
up in situations where bringing down the prey is prolonged (because the prey
are very tough or have immense endurance)

unless they're so good at it they can usually cut the prey down in the first
moments or call it off. If they can't then you get "endurance
predators" like what they think the Neanderthal's did - apparently they
used to run down their prey over long distances (think English deer chase
hunt, but everybody is on foot).

Existing predators on Earth all like to sneak up at least some way on their
prey (or let the prey come to them) and then strike fast in the end. Much
less waste of your energy then - metabolic costs mean that you'll only
get
about 10% of the potential energy stored/consumed by the prey when you
eat it. So the less wasted in the hunt, the better.

Now I should probably give you all a well earned break from ecology 101
lessons and go cook dinner;)

Beth,

Your knowledge is immense and what we would do without you (even if I don't
believe in Evolution it makes a great game mechanic <grin>) and your biology
knowledge.

What would cause multiple blind spots? Might need to create a race like that
some day...

Gracias,
Glenn/Triphibious
This is my Science Fiction Alter Ego E-mail address.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2001 10:18:49 +1000 Beth Fulton
> <beth.fulton@marine.csiro.au> writes:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Glenn M Wilson wrote:

> (even if I

That's the nice thing about the evolution theory. it actually makes sense,
so you don't need to _believe_ it (or have _faith_) to accept it as
obviously sensible;)

Cheers,

> > (even if I

G'day Glenn,

> Your knowledge is immense

I wouldn't go that far;)

> and what we would do without you

Probably quite a lot;)

> (even if I don't believe in

Each to his own mate.

> What would cause multiple blind spots?

Multiple connections to the brain/brain stem would be the most obvious,
but
there may well be other causes based on the physiology of the eye -like
us lacking good shape detection in the centre of the eye as we're low on rods
there and lacking colour vision on the periphery as we're low on cones there.

Have fun

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 15:26:48 -0400 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> > (even if I

Killed, buried (with a stake in it's heart) and in a lead coffin sealed with
welded seams.

On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:02:59 +1000  "Fulton, Beth (CMR, Hobart)"
> <Beth.Fulton@marine.csiro.au> writes:

Would you prefer full of trivia? <grin>

> and what we would do without you

Yeah but we wouldn't do it so well.

<snip dangerous subject>

> What would cause multiple blind spots?

Hmmm, that does give me some ideas. Muchas gracias!

> Have fun

Gracias,

Let's just say we don't agree on what is sensible and drop this "OT and on
list" discussion at that. That's something for a beer or wine fueled after
game discussion.

But I am perfectly willing to accept it on a Science Fiction aspect approach
to the game. Hence my playing Nektons (Intelligent amphibians?!) in Starguard.

Gracias, Glenn.

On Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:24:00 +0200 (CEST) Derk Groeneveld
> <derk@cistron.nl> writes:

G'day,

> Would you prefer full of trivia ? <grin>

Its better than saying I'm fulla the 4 letter alternative;)

> Yeah but we wouldn't do it so well.

;)

> Hmmm, that does give me some ideas.

Is that the definition of dangerous?

> Muchas gracias!

No sweat.

Have fun