Post by Hatzegopteryx on Feb 28, 2014 23:18:05 GMT
Felids and Theropods will fight eachother in a team fight. The sizes are not necessarily accurate, and we are scaling mass by the cube of the scaling factor, while strength is by the square of the scaling factor.
Round 1:Baryonyx walkeri wins quite comfortably; Its weaponry should guarantee its victory.
Round 2:Neofelis nebulosa wins, its foe lacks proper weaponry to fight it, despite its size advantage (which I doubt would be enough).
Round 3:Uncia uncia wins for similar reasons as above; It is smaller, but has superior weaponry, and along with Neofelis nebulosa, it has less rotational inertia due to its more compact body.
Round 4: The size advantage here isn't that great, and of course, the pantherid has surprisingly effective weaponry. Panthera pardus wins.
Round 5: Either 50/50, or else Panthera leo wins. It is superior weaponry against size.
Round 6:Panthera tigris wins; Its weaponry is superior, having an effective bite that doesn't just apply a lot of force, but also can be used to grapple effectively, and its huge and muscular front limbs are too powerful, even if it is smaller.
Round 7: Panthera onca wins. Jaguars are incredibly muscular; They also have the second strongest bite of all mammalians. The Jaguar has a definitive weaponry advantage over its foe.
Using square cube law would put me infavour of the theropods as them scaled down would have multiple advantages but ignoring square cube law would be really stupid as it basically sets it for the theropods to lose.
Hatzegopteryx: That's not even the beginning, the whole forum is disturbingly lethargic.
Jun 14, 2014 15:49:29 GMT
Spinosaurus Maroccanus: I'm quite surprised how no one has touched the Argentina 97ma thread
Jun 14, 2014 15:20:28 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: This forum needs some serious attention; I'll be at it for a moment, unless I get other tasks that do not allow me to do so.
Jun 6, 2014 19:13:55 GMT
Hatzegopteryx: It's a genetic fallacy. It's basically an argument that intends to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position.
May 26, 2014 20:47:51 GMT