Sw vs ST, the Issue of Speed
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
For about a week now the Pro-ST side as been saying that TIE are very
slow, using on screen evidence.
The Pro-SW side replied with, ST side move even slower. !0 meters per
second at 1/4 Impulse is not slow, it's pathetic.
The Pro-ST side then stated, several times, that ST still has Warp
speed.
It is with this response the biggest problem comes. WHO CARES. We have
only seen battle at warp speed when one side was running away and the
other was chasing. When even there have been battles between one side
with Warp and another side without (DS9, for instance) warp is NEVER
used, not even the almighty Picard Maneuver.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> For about a week now the Pro-ST side as been saying that TIE are very
> slow, using on screen evidence.
>
> The Pro-SW side replied with, ST side move even slower. !0 meters per
> second at 1/4 Impulse is not slow, it's pathetic.
>
> The Pro-ST side then stated, several times, that ST still has Warp
> speed.
>
> It is with this response the biggest problem comes. WHO CARES. We have
> only seen battle at warp speed when one side was running away and the
> other was chasing.
Nope. Seen a battle from warp in TOS.
> When even there have been battles between one side
> with Warp and another side without (DS9, for instance) warp is NEVER
> used, not even the almighty Picard Maneuver.
OK, I will save this reply, and paste it whenever you say this.
The Picard Maneuver works only on ships or stations with STL or very bad
sensors. It has been stated many times.
Nobody fights from warp because there is no advantage in it. Nobody
attacks DS9 from warp because the attacker would not gain anything. Their
weapons ranges and sensors are the same, and the speeds of their weapons
are the same. There is absolutely nothing to gain from attacking DS9 at
warp.
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> > For about a week now the Pro-ST side as been saying that TIE are very
> > slow, using on screen evidence.
> >
> > The Pro-SW side replied with, ST side move even slower. !0 meters per
> > second at 1/4 Impulse is not slow, it's pathetic.
> >
> > The Pro-ST side then stated, several times, that ST still has Warp
> > speed.
> >
> > It is with this response the biggest problem comes. WHO CARES. We have
> > only seen battle at warp speed when one side was running away and the
> > other was chasing.
>
> Nope. Seen a battle from warp in TOS.
>
> > When even there have been battles between one side
> > with Warp and another side without (DS9, for instance) warp is NEVER
> > used, not even the almighty Picard Maneuver.
>
> OK, I will save this reply, and paste it whenever you say this.
>
> The Picard Maneuver works only on ships or stations with STL or very bad
> sensors. It has been stated many times.
No, the only reason it didn't work against the Enterprise was because they
knew what was going on. They knew Picard was reliving that fight.
BTW, why did it work against the Ferengi in the first place.
> Nobody fights from warp because there is no advantage in it. Nobody
> attacks DS9 from warp because the attacker would not gain anything. Their
> weapons ranges and sensors are the same, and the speeds of their weapons
> are the same. There is absolutely nothing to gain from attacking DS9 at
> warp.
Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
forgetting.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > > When even there have been battles between one side
> > > with Warp and another side without (DS9, for instance) warp is NEVER
> > > used, not even the almighty Picard Maneuver.
> >
> > OK, I will save this reply, and paste it whenever you say this.
> >
> > The Picard Maneuver works only on ships or stations with STL or very bad
> > sensors. It has been stated many times.
>
> No, the only reason it didn't work against the Enterprise was because they
> knew what was going on. They knew Picard was reliving that fight.
They were better able to prepair against it, but Picard Maneuver is
taught at the Academy. The disorientation goes away with good sensors,
but the surprise still works.
> BTW, why did it work against the Ferengi in the first place.
Because they had bad sensors!
> > Nobody fights from warp because there is no advantage in it. Nobody
> > attacks DS9 from warp because the attacker would not gain anything. Their
> > weapons ranges and sensors are the same, and the speeds of their weapons
> > are the same. There is absolutely nothing to gain from attacking DS9 at
> > warp.
>
> Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
> range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
> systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
> forgetting.
Who says there are no automated defense systems? It might work as a
surprise attack, but DS9 would detect the ship while it is still half a
sector away - unless it has cloak. After that DS9 can set up its own
computers to fire at will, and the ship would have gained nothing.
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
I'll use small words so you can understand this.
THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED! We have never seen a ST ship defend itself, the captain
always has to tell the weapons officer to fire. End of story.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
But what does the weapons officer do? He tells the computer to fire. The reason for
that is that the captain has to direct the computer where and when it would be best to
fire. We have seen that computers can attack by themselves in 'Message in a Bottle'.
The Doctor simply said 'attack pattern alpha' - he used the same phrase as was used in
all other episodes. The captain simply directs when and where to fire, the computer
fires by itself.
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> > Elim Garak wrote:
> >
> > > Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Nobody fights from warp because there is no advantage in it. Nobody
> > > > > attacks DS9 from warp because the attacker would not gain anything. Their
> > > > > weapons ranges and sensors are the same, and the speeds of their weapons
> > > > > are the same. There is absolutely nothing to gain from attacking DS9 at
> > > > > warp.
> > > >
> > > > Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
> > > > range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
> > > > systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
> > > > forgetting.
> > >
> > > Who says there are no automated defense systems? It might work as a
> > > surprise attack, but DS9 would detect the ship while it is still half a
> > > sector away - unless it has cloak. After that DS9 can set up its own
> > > computers to fire at will, and the ship would have gained nothing.
> >
> > I'll use small words so you can understand this.
> >
> > THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED! We have never seen a ST ship defend itself, the captain
> > always has to tell the weapons officer to fire. End of story.
>
> But what does the weapons officer do? He tells the computer to fire.
Exactly, HE TELLS THE COMPUTER TO FIRE, THE COMPUTER DOESN'T FIRE AUTOMATICALLY. AND HUMAN
REACTION IS TOO SLOW MEANING THE WARP TACTIC WOULD WORK.
Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
> The reason for that is that the captain has to direct the computer where and when it
> would be best to
> fire. We have seen that computers can attack by themselves in 'Message in a Bottle'.
> The Doctor simply said 'attack pattern alpha' - he used the same phrase as was used in
> all other episodes. The captain simply directs when and where to fire, the computer
> fires by itself.
But the computer WILL NOT FIRE UNTIL THE CAPTAIN TELLS IT TO. Got that.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> > > > > > Nobody fights from warp because there is no advantage in it. Nobody
> > > > > > attacks DS9 from warp because the attacker would not gain anything. Their
> > > > > > weapons ranges and sensors are the same, and the speeds of their weapons
> > > > > > are the same. There is absolutely nothing to gain from attacking DS9 at
> > > > > > warp.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
> > > > > range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
> > > > > systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
> > > > > forgetting.
> > > >
> > > > Who says there are no automated defense systems? It might work as a
> > > > surprise attack, but DS9 would detect the ship while it is still half a
> > > > sector away - unless it has cloak. After that DS9 can set up its own
> > > > computers to fire at will, and the ship would have gained nothing.
> > >
> > > I'll use small words so you can understand this.
> > >
> > > THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED! We have never seen a ST ship defend itself, the captain
> > > always has to tell the weapons officer to fire. End of story.
> >
> > But what does the weapons officer do? He tells the computer to fire.
>
> Exactly, HE TELLS THE COMPUTER TO FIRE, THE COMPUTER DOESN'T FIRE AUTOMATICALLY. AND HUMAN
> REACTION IS TOO SLOW MEANING THE WARP TACTIC WOULD WORK.
The computer doesn't fire automatically because it is not set to fire
automatically. The human officer is supposed to choose the target and
when to fire. In ST it is not fire untill you run out of weapons or
energy. It is fire when you have the best shot at the predisignated
target when it would work best tactically. Most of these things can be
done by a computer, but humans are generaly better at tactics.
> Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
Why can't you get the fact that ST has just better tech and thus would
win through yours?
> > The reason for that is that the captain has to direct the computer where and when it
> > would be best to
> > fire. We have seen that computers can attack by themselves in 'Message in a Bottle'.
> > The Doctor simply said 'attack pattern alpha' - he used the same phrase as was used in
> > all other episodes. The captain simply directs when and where to fire, the computer
> > fires by itself.
>
> But the computer WILL NOT FIRE UNTIL THE CAPTAIN TELLS IT TO. Got that.
Did the EMHs tell the computer to fire?
Graham Kennedy
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
>
> Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
> range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
> systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
> forgetting.
What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
In any case, covering 4,000,000 km at warp 9.9 would take 4.4
seconds. I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
counterattack.
--
Graham Kennedy
Jarrett or Ross Sauby
Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote in article <34F311...@usa.net>...
> > Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
>
> Why can't you get the fact that ST has just better tech and thus would
> win through yours?
>
Better Tech? So that's why Hyperdrive is so much faster then warp. Look we
haven't established much in the way of tech. Claiming victory on any tech
is very hard to do.
--Jarrett
Elim Garak
It is very easy. The Federation has been around only for 200+ years or so, and look
how far they are ahead of SW. They have transporters, FTL in real space, much more
powerful weapons (just look at hand held weaponry), replicators, etc. I think the
biggest achievement of SW battle technology is the Sun Crusher that can blow up
stars. The Enterprise did that accidentally. I am sure that with 7's knowledge and
Borg examples the transwarp, the Federation will have it within a century.
Jarrett or Ross Sauby
Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote in article <34F3E164...@usa.net>...
> Jarrett or Ross Sauby wrote:
>
> > Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote in article <34F311...@usa.net>...
> >
> > > > Why can't you get that through your thick skull?
> > >
> > > Why can't you get the fact that ST has just better tech and thus
would
> > > win through yours?
> >
> > Better Tech? So that's why Hyperdrive is so much faster then
warp. Look we
> > haven't established much in the way of tech. Claiming victory on any
tech
> > is very hard to do.
>
> It is very easy. The Federation has been around only for 200+ years or
so, and look
> how far they are ahead of SW. They have transporters,
I heard SW had this in an RPG source book. I'm not sure though..
FTL in real space,
Do we know SW ships don't?
much more
> powerful weapons (just look at hand held weaponry)
SW has a better firing rate.
replicators, etc.
Sorry, SW has replicators ,too.
I think the
> biggest achievement of SW battle technology is the Sun Crusher that can
blow up
> stars.
Hmmmmmm, Well considering it's practicly invesible and the size of an
X-wing, probably.
The Enterprise did that accidentally. I am sure that with 7's knowledge
and
> Borg examples the transwarp, the Federation will have it within a
century.
Good for them. I doubt a war would last that long. In a year or more I'm
sure SW would win. Don't bother responing to this part. I KNOW what your
gonna say.
BTW SW can hurl planet sizesd ships through space (not the DS a much bigger
ship).
--Jarrett
Thor Odinson
>Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>>
>>
>> Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
>> range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
>> systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
>> forgetting.
>
>What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
>and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
>computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
>Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
I must have not seen this episode, but I have seen Captain Picard yell
"Raise Shields!" at the start of a battle. Why did he do this if it
wasn't necessary?
>In any case, covering 4,000,000 km at warp 9.9 would take 4.4
>seconds.
Wait a minute. The speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/s.
Sooooo, Light would take 13.3 seconds to travel that distance. Are you
willing to say that warp 9.9 is only 3 times the speed of light?
> I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
>can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
It's a little fast, but possible. But your speed calculationif off, so
it doesn't matter.
Additionaly, after yelling "Return Fire" the person at Weapon Ops must
return fire. It is not done automatically.
>Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
>weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
>who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
>counterattack.
But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
Thor Odinson
Elim Garak
Jarrett or Ross Sauby wrote:
> FTL in real space,
> Do we know SW ships don't?
Yes, because it has never been shown or mentioned.
> > much more
> > powerful weapons (just look at hand held weaponry)
> SW has a better firing rate.
No it doesn't. An ST ship can fire a continuous beam for a very long time - much
longer then SW. And firing rate is nothing if you look at the weapon strength.
> > replicators, etc.
> Sorry, SW has replicators ,too.
Where?
> > I think the
> > biggest achievement of SW battle technology is the Sun Crusher that can
> > blow up
> > stars.
> Hmmmmmm, Well considering it's practicly invesible and the size of an
> X-wing, probably.
Do you mean practically invincible? Yes, the armor thing does sound pretty good,
but a phaser would take it out. If not a phaser then a photon torpedo. And lets
not talk about pure antimatter charges!
> > The Enterprise did that accidentally. I am sure that with 7's knowledge and
> > Borg examples the transwarp, the Federation will have it within a century.
>
> Good for them. I doubt a war would last that long. In a year or more I'm
> sure SW would win. Don't bother responing to this part. I KNOW what your
> gonna say.
> BTW SW can hurl planet sizesd ships through space (not the DS a much bigger
> ship).
If ST really needed to, they could have made some. It is just a lot cheaper and
simpler to make a lot of small ships then one huge one.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:20:49 +0000, Graham Kennedy
> <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
> >> range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
> >> systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
> >> forgetting.
> >
> >What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
> >and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
> >computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
> >Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
>
> I must have not seen this episode, but I have seen Captain Picard yell
> "Raise Shields!" at the start of a battle. Why did he do this if it
> wasn't necessary?
Because it is necessary? Because it would be inconviniant if the ship automatically
raised shields every time there is a lound bang nearby?
> > I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
> >can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
>
> It's a little fast, but possible. But your speed calculationif off, so
> it doesn't matter.
>
> Additionaly, after yelling "Return Fire" the person at Weapon Ops must
> return fire. It is not done automatically.
True, but if the security officer set up the computer to automatically fire the
phasers at all incoming fighters, it won't matter.
> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
> >counterattack.
>
> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
According to your logic they would throw off their own aim as well. And why should
the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
Michael Wong
>> Better Tech? So that's why Hyperdrive is so much faster then warp. Look we
>> haven't established much in the way of tech. Claiming victory on any tech
>> is very hard to do.
>It is very easy. The Federation has been around only for 200+ years or so, and look
>how far they are ahead of SW. They have transporters, FTL in real space, much more
>powerful weapons (just look at hand held weaponry), replicators, etc. I think the
>biggest achievement of SW battle technology is the Sun Crusher that can blow up
>stars. The Enterprise did that accidentally. I am sure that with 7's knowledge and
>Borg examples the transwarp, the Federation will have it within a century.
Transporters are not possible in the SW universe or even in this
universe, nor is FTL in realspace. Both were fabrications of 1960's
sci-fi writers for various reasons (FX budget in the case of
transporters) and have now been retained as part of the Star Trek
canon. Using them as "proof" that Trek would beat Star Wars is cheesy
at best.
Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
with Star Destroyers. As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
lower than hyperdrive.
Elim Garak
Michael Wong wrote:
> >> Better Tech? So that's why Hyperdrive is so much faster then warp. Look we
> >> haven't established much in the way of tech. Claiming victory on any tech
> >> is very hard to do.
>
> >It is very easy. The Federation has been around only for 200+ years or so, and look
> >how far they are ahead of SW. They have transporters, FTL in real space, much more
> >powerful weapons (just look at hand held weaponry), replicators, etc. I think the
> >biggest achievement of SW battle technology is the Sun Crusher that can blow up
> >stars. The Enterprise did that accidentally. I am sure that with 7's knowledge and
> >Borg examples the transwarp, the Federation will have it within a century.
>
> Transporters are not possible in the SW universe or even in this
> universe, nor is FTL in realspace. Both were fabrications of 1960's
> sci-fi writers for various reasons (FX budget in the case of
> transporters) and have now been retained as part of the Star Trek
> canon. Using them as "proof" that Trek would beat Star Wars is cheesy
> at best.
I am using them as proof that ST has better tech then SW. And aren't we talking about
these things as if they were real and in the same universe? If so, then the writers and
the FX budget doesn't exist as far as we are concerned here. :)
> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
> with Star Destroyers.
How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
then SW.
> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
> lower than hyperdrive.
Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
in ST.
Jarrett or Ross Sauby
Sorry when I didn't use my spell checker on my last post when I said the
S.C. was practically invisible (that's what it sounded like to me) I ment
invincible.
--Jarrett
Thor Odinson
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:35:30 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Michael Wong wrote:
>
>I am using them as proof that ST has better tech then SW. And aren't we talking about
>these things as if they were real and in the same universe? If so, then the writers and
>the FX budget doesn't exist as far as we are concerned here. :)
The them in this case is Transporters. I thought I should clarify
Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
>> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
>> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
>> with Star Destroyers.
>
>How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
>then SW.
To destroy the Asteroinds the beam had to be on the target for several
seconds. This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what you
know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say anything.
>> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
>> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
>> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
>> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
>> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
>> lower than hyperdrive.
>
>Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
>seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
>in ST.
So you ignore them becuase they make your side look weak. This will
not help your cause.
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:26:31 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:20:49 +0000, Graham Kennedy
>> <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
>> >> range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
>> >> systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
>> >> forgetting.
>> >
>> >What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
>> >and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
>> >computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
>> >Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
>>
>> I must have not seen this episode, but I have seen Captain Picard yell
>> "Raise Shields!" at the start of a battle. Why did he do this if it
>> wasn't necessary?
>
>Because it is necessary? Because it would be inconviniant if the ship automatically
>raised shields every time there is a lound bang nearby?
So you are now saying the sheilds are not raised every time the ships
detects danger. Which means my original point is valid.
>> > I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
>> >can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
>>
>> It's a little fast, but possible. But your speed calculationif off, so
>> it doesn't matter.
>>
>> Additionaly, after yelling "Return Fire" the person at Weapon Ops must
>> return fire. It is not done automatically.
>
>True, but if the security officer set up the computer to automatically fire the
>phasers at all incoming fighters, it won't matter.
It does matter if the target is already out of range by the time the
computer is ready.
>> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
>> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
>> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
>> >counterattack.
>>
>> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
>> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
>> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
>
>According to your logic they would throw off their own aim as well.
Yes, my booby trap just caught a booby.
The firing ship would know about the sudden course change in advance
and would be able to compensate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
> And why should
>the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
>would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
>tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
>problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
It the fact that the ship has no inititive, it must be told to do
something before it can attack, raise shields, track incoming ships,
etc. Because of this, the slowness of the Human reaction time would
make warp combat unstoppable. But, and this is my original point, we
almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
not used.
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 22:10:31 +0000, Graham Kennedy
<gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>
>Hey, I'm beginning to think this is a personal vendetta!
>
>> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:20:49 +0000, Graham Kennedy
>> <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
>> >> range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
>> >> systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
>> >> forgetting.
>> >
>> >What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
>> >and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
>> >computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
>> >Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
>>
>> I must have not seen this episode, but I have seen Captain Picard yell
>> "Raise Shields!" at the start of a battle. Why did he do this if it
>> wasn't necessary?
>
>He does this sometimes, but the computer can raise the shields
>if it senses imminent danger. I guess Picard just pre-empts it
>sometimes, or just prefers his own judgement rather than
>having blind faith in the software - something he would have
>in common with any modern military man.
Then why did Kahn think is tactic was going to work in STII. He was
relying on getting one free shot on Kirk without shields. If the
shields went up automatically on sensing danger, and a ship firing or
for that matter targeting, you isn't danger, I don't know what is.
>> >In any case, covering 4,000,000 km at warp 9.9 would take 4.4
>> >seconds.
>>
>> Wait a minute. The speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/s.
>> Sooooo, Light would take 13.3 seconds to travel that distance. Are you
>> willing to say that warp 9.9 is only 3 times the speed of light?
>
>Oops, I dropped a factor of three in there - thought it was
>4 billion, not four million. Scratch that bit, you'd only
>have 4.4 milliseconds.
Fair enough, no harm no foul.
On a side not, Elim, try doing this once in a while, admit you
mistakes.
>> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
>> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
>> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
>> >counterattack.
>>
>> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
>> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
>> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
>
>What makes you think manoeuvring would throw off their aim?
Moving at FTL speeds the targeting system MUST lead the target,
therefor, any quick change inheading will throw off the targeting
computer, at least for a little while. More than enough time to get
the hell out of Dodge, as it were.
>These targeting systems aren't Imperial manufacture, you
>know! Starfleet generally _hits_ what it aims at, no matter
>how it is moving.
Not when evassive manuers are going on, if they did, no one would
bother dodging.
>If DS9's torpedoes can go to warp after launch, then the
>battle would be basically the same as a sublight one but
>over greater ranges.
But as far as we have seen, they can't. I don't know what the tech
manual says but battles involving Photon Torps show they are not any
faster than pahsers and sub-light battles.
Thor Odinson
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:35:30 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Michael Wong wrote:
> >
> >I am using them as proof that ST has better tech then SW. And aren't we talking about
> >these things as if they were real and in the same universe? If so, then the writers and
> >the FX budget doesn't exist as far as we are concerned here. :)
>
> The them in this case is Transporters. I thought I should clarify
>
> Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
> means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
> there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
> Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
First of all you just agreed that ST tech is better then SW tech.
Second, if the shields are down or simply not very good - as they are on
all SW ships - one can simply beam a few bombs into the ship. Nobody
has to board. And it is possible to beam stuff through SW shields
because they don't cover the whole ship - not very well at least.
Otherwise they wouldn't have to be stabilised or angled.
> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
> >> with Star Destroyers.
> >
> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
> >then SW.
>
> To destroy the Asteroinds the beam had to be on the target for several
> seconds.
Where have we seen E blow up asteroids?
> This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
> moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what you
> know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say anything.
I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
phaser rifles.
> >> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
> >> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
> >> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
> >> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
> >> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
> >> lower than hyperdrive.
> >
> >Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
> >seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
> >in ST.
>
> So you ignore them becuase they make your side look weak. This will
> not help your cause.
No, I do not ignore them. I simply have nothing else to say.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 13:26:31 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Thor Odinson wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 24 Feb 1998 17:20:49 +0000, Graham Kennedy
> >> <gra...@adeadend.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Except they can target while at 4,000,000 km, fire at warp 9.9, and be out of
> >> >> range before Sisko says "Return Fire." Remember there are no automated defense
> >> >> systems, they have to be manually activated. Which you are constantly
> >> >> forgetting.
> >> >
> >> >What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
> >> >and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
> >> >computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
> >> >Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
> >>
> >> I must have not seen this episode, but I have seen Captain Picard yell
> >> "Raise Shields!" at the start of a battle. Why did he do this if it
> >> wasn't necessary?
> >
> >raised shields every time there is a lound bang nearby?
>
> So you are now saying the sheilds are not raised every time the ships
> detects danger. Which means my original point is valid.
Yes, your original point is valid - shields are usually not set on
automatic on ST ships. So what? Can you tell me why they couldn't?
> >> > I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
> >> >can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
> >>
> >> It's a little fast, but possible. But your speed calculationif off, so
> >> it doesn't matter.
> >>
> >> Additionaly, after yelling "Return Fire" the person at Weapon Ops must
> >> return fire. It is not done automatically.
> >
> >True, but if the security officer set up the computer to automatically fire the
> >phasers at all incoming fighters, it won't matter.
>
> It does matter if the target is already out of range by the time the
> computer is ready.
The computer is ready as soon as the target is in range. Do you think
it has to wake up, take a shower, dress, and drink its morning coffee
before firing?
> >> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
> >> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
> >> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
> >> >counterattack.
> >>
> >> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
> >> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
> >> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
> >
> >According to your logic they would throw off their own aim as well.
>
> Yes, my booby trap just caught a booby.
>
> The firing ship would know about the sudden course change in advance
> and would be able to compensate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
Why exactly would sudden maneuvering matter to the computer? What part
of the system do you think wouldn't be able to do anything about it? Do
you think that the computer system couldn't calculate the course of the
ship in time? Do you think that the sensors wouldn't give the
information in time to the computer? Do you think that the weapons
wouldn't be locked on in time?
> > And why should
> >the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
> >would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
> >tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
> >problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
>
> It the fact that the ship has no inititive, it must be told to do
> something before it can attack, raise shields, track incoming ships,
> etc. Because of this, the slowness of the Human reaction time would
> make warp combat unstoppable.
If somebody started a tactic like this, the crew of DS9 would just
laugh, and turn on an ancient subroutine in the computer that has not
been used in centuries. Then the computer would simply fire on
automatic, and the attacking ship would gain nothing.
> But, and this is my original point, we
> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
> not used.
And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
Thor Odinson
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:54:46 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:35:30 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Michael Wong wrote:
>> >
>> >I am using them as proof that ST has better tech then SW. And aren't we talking about
>> >these things as if they were real and in the same universe? If so, then the writers and
>> >the FX budget doesn't exist as far as we are concerned here. :)
>>
>> The them in this case is Transporters. I thought I should clarify
>>
>> Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
>> means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
>> there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
>> Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
>
>First of all you just agreed that ST tech is better then SW tech.
>Second, if the shields are down or simply not very good - as they are on
>all SW ships - one can simply beam a few bombs into the ship. Nobody
>has to board. And it is possible to beam stuff through SW shields
>because they don't cover the whole ship - not very well at least.
>Otherwise they wouldn't have to be stabilised or angled.
Firstly, you can't transport anti-matter. And this is the type of
bombs you are talking about.
Secondly, Normally sheilds in SW cover the whole ship evenly, you can
change this if it is not necessary. Wouldn't it be a good thing not to
waste energy protecting a part of the ship that is not being hit. If
you are being hit form behind, it doesn't matter how strong your
shields up front are. This is an area of Tech where SW is way ahead of
ST.
>> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
>> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
>> >> with Star Destroyers.
>> >
>> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
>> >then SW.
>>
>> To destroy the Asteroinds the beam had to be on the target for several
>> seconds.
>
>Where have we seen E blow up asteroids?
We have seen phasers destroy rocks before, small rocks. And it talks a
focuses beem several seconds to heat the rock till it vaporiates, even
at very high levels.
>> This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
>> moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what you
>> know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say anything.
>
>I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
>x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
>the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
>phaser rifles.
Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
>> >> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
>> >> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
>> >> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
>> >> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
>> >> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
>> >> lower than hyperdrive.
>> >
>> >Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
>> >seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
>> >in ST.
>>
>> So you ignore them becuase they make your side look weak. This will
>> not help your cause.
>
>No, I do not ignore them. I simply have nothing else to say.
You call it an inconsistancy, and expect everyone else to just pretend
it didn't happen. How do you know it is the weak side that is the
inconsistancy, maybe it's stuff that makes the ST side look good that
has to be discounted.
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:01:04 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>
>Yes, your original point is valid - shields are usually not set on
>automatic on ST ships. So what? Can you tell me why they couldn't?
Yes, and I can say that the SD is able to get with 1 km of the E-D
before the fight starts. If this contradicts Standard Operating
Procedures you can't use it.
>> >> > I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
>> >> >can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
>> >>
>> >> It's a little fast, but possible. But your speed calculationif off, so
>> >> it doesn't matter.
>> >>
>> >> Additionaly, after yelling "Return Fire" the person at Weapon Ops must
>> >> return fire. It is not done automatically.
>> >
>> >True, but if the security officer set up the computer to automatically fire the
>> >phasers at all incoming fighters, it won't matter.
>>
>> It does matter if the target is already out of range by the time the
>> computer is ready.
>
>The computer is ready as soon as the target is in range. Do you think
>it has to wake up, take a shower, dress, and drink its morning coffee
>before firing?
The computer isn't ready until the Weapons Officer makes it ready, and
by the time he/she does that the target it out of range. This is not a
difficult concept to understand
>> >> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
>> >> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
>> >> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
>> >> >counterattack.
>> >>
>> >> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
>> >> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
>> >> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
>> >
>> >According to your logic they would throw off their own aim as well.
>>
>> Yes, my booby trap just caught a booby.
>>
>> The firing ship would know about the sudden course change in advance
>> and would be able to compensate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
>
>Why exactly would sudden maneuvering matter to the computer? What part
>of the system do you think wouldn't be able to do anything about it? Do
>you think that the computer system couldn't calculate the course of the
>ship in time? Do you think that the sensors wouldn't give the
>information in time to the computer? Do you think that the weapons
>wouldn't be locked on in time?
The fact that we hear the Captain shout, "Evassive Manuevers!" Almost
every battle. If sudden movement didn't through off the aim of you
enemy, why do it?
>> > And why should
>> >the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
>> >would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
>> >tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
>> >problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
>>
>> It the fact that the ship has no inititive, it must be told to do
>> something before it can attack, raise shields, track incoming ships,
>> etc. Because of this, the slowness of the Human reaction time would
>> make warp combat unstoppable.
>
>If somebody started a tactic like this, the crew of DS9 would just
>laugh, and turn on an ancient subroutine in the computer that has not
>been used in centuries. Then the computer would simply fire on
>automatic, and the attacking ship would gain nothing.
WHY IS THIS NEVER DONE? We have never seen this? If it is so usuful
it wouls have been used.
Remember your argument about the power of X-Wings. If they would have
been able to stop the AT-ATs they would have? Remember that? Well if
the computer can automatically target and defend itself, there woulf
be no need for a Weapon Officer. They have one so the computer can NOT
do it itself.
>> But, and this is my original point, we
>> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
>> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
>> not used.
>
>And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
>other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
And I just showed you why there is an advantage, again.
Thor Odinson
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:54:46 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Thor Odinson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:35:30 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Michael Wong wrote:
> >> >
> >> >I am using them as proof that ST has better tech then SW. And aren't we talking about
> >> >these things as if they were real and in the same universe? If so, then the writers and
> >> >the FX budget doesn't exist as far as we are concerned here. :)
> >>
> >> The them in this case is Transporters. I thought I should clarify
> >>
> >> Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
> >> means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
> >> there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
> >> Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
> >
> >First of all you just agreed that ST tech is better then SW tech.
> >Second, if the shields are down or simply not very good - as they are on
> >all SW ships - one can simply beam a few bombs into the ship. Nobody
> >has to board. And it is possible to beam stuff through SW shields
> >because they don't cover the whole ship - not very well at least.
> >Otherwise they wouldn't have to be stabilised or angled.
>
> Firstly, you can't transport anti-matter. And this is the type of
> bombs you are talking about.
Are you sure you can't transport antimatter? And I think it would be easyer to transport
tri-cobalt devices which are just up to 100 megaton standard demolition devices.
> Secondly, Normally sheilds in SW cover the whole ship evenly, you can
> change this if it is not necessary. Wouldn't it be a good thing not to
> waste energy protecting a part of the ship that is not being hit. If
> you are being hit form behind, it doesn't matter how strong your
> shields up front are. This is an area of Tech where SW is way ahead of
> ST.
Really? ST can do that too - often does.
> >> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
> >> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
> >> >> with Star Destroyers.
> >> >
> >> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
> >> >then SW.
> >>
> >> To destroy the Asteroinds the beam had to be on the target for several
> >> seconds.
> >
> >Where have we seen E blow up asteroids?
>
> We have seen phasers destroy rocks before, small rocks. And it talks a
> focuses beem several seconds to heat the rock till it vaporiates, even
> at very high levels.
Where? And how high are the levels?
> >> This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
> >> moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what you
> >> know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say anything.
> >
> >I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
> >x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
> >the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
> >phaser rifles.
>
> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
couldn't.
> >> >> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
> >> >> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
> >> >> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
> >> >> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
> >> >> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
> >> >> lower than hyperdrive.
> >> >
> >> >Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
> >> >seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
> >> >in ST.
> >>
> >> So you ignore them becuase they make your side look weak. This will
> >> not help your cause.
> >
> >No, I do not ignore them. I simply have nothing else to say.
>
> You call it an inconsistancy, and expect everyone else to just pretend
> it didn't happen. How do you know it is the weak side that is the
> inconsistancy, maybe it's stuff that makes the ST side look good that
> has to be discounted.
I don't know if that is true or not, but until I see something that discounts it I will not
repeat it.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:01:04 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Thor Odinson wrote:
> >
> >Yes, your original point is valid - shields are usually not set on
> >automatic on ST ships. So what? Can you tell me why they couldn't?
>
> Yes, and I can say that the SD is able to get with 1 km of the E-D
> before the fight starts. If this contradicts Standard Operating
> Procedures you can't use it.
Huh? I didn't understand any of what you said.
> >> >> > I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
> >> >> >can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a little fast, but possible. But your speed calculationif off, so
> >> >> it doesn't matter.
> >> >>
> >> >> Additionaly, after yelling "Return Fire" the person at Weapon Ops must
> >> >> return fire. It is not done automatically.
> >> >
> >> >True, but if the security officer set up the computer to automatically fire the
> >> >phasers at all incoming fighters, it won't matter.
> >>
> >> It does matter if the target is already out of range by the time the
> >> computer is ready.
> >
> >The computer is ready as soon as the target is in range. Do you think
> >it has to wake up, take a shower, dress, and drink its morning coffee
> >before firing?
>
> The computer isn't ready until the Weapons Officer makes it ready, and
> by the time he/she does that the target it out of range. This is not a
> difficult concept to understand
It is a very difficult concept to understand. All the weapons officer has to do is load a
program into memory that automatically fires the weapons. That's it! And after that he is
out of the loop - if he wants to be, which he will if the battle is at warp speeds.
> >> >> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
> >> >> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
> >> >> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
> >> >> >counterattack.
> >> >>
> >> >> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
> >> >> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
> >> >> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
> >> >
> >> >According to your logic they would throw off their own aim as well.
> >>
> >> Yes, my booby trap just caught a booby.
> >>
> >> The firing ship would know about the sudden course change in advance
> >> and would be able to compensate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
> >
> >Why exactly would sudden maneuvering matter to the computer? What part
> >of the system do you think wouldn't be able to do anything about it? Do
> >you think that the computer system couldn't calculate the course of the
> >ship in time? Do you think that the sensors wouldn't give the
> >information in time to the computer? Do you think that the weapons
> >wouldn't be locked on in time?
>
> The fact that we hear the Captain shout, "Evassive Manuevers!" Almost
> every battle. If sudden movement didn't through off the aim of you
> enemy, why do it?
Because it is a battle of computers. One computer has a firing pattern in it, another an
evasive pattern. If one pattern is smarter then the other, one of the ship wins the game.
And the pattern is for the photon torpedoes which are indeed not as good at targeting as
phasers.
> >> > And why should
> >> >the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
> >> >would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
> >> >tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
> >> >problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
> >>
> >> It the fact that the ship has no inititive, it must be told to do
> >> something before it can attack, raise shields, track incoming ships,
> >> etc. Because of this, the slowness of the Human reaction time would
> >> make warp combat unstoppable.
> >
> >If somebody started a tactic like this, the crew of DS9 would just
> >laugh, and turn on an ancient subroutine in the computer that has not
> >been used in centuries. Then the computer would simply fire on
> >automatic, and the attacking ship would gain nothing.
>
> WHY IS THIS NEVER DONE? We have never seen this? If it is so usuful
> it wouls have been used.
Why is it useful if it can be so easily ignored? The ship at warp would have degraded
weapons, shields, and warp capability. What would be the advantage if it can be hit anyway?
> Remember your argument about the power of X-Wings. If they would have
> been able to stop the AT-ATs they would have? Remember that? Well if
> the computer can automatically target and defend itself, there woulf
> be no need for a Weapon Officer. They have one so the computer can NOT
> do it itself.
Remember 'Message in a Bottle'? The computer there did just fine. The weapons officer is
there to tell the computer whether to begin to fire or not, which targets it should fire at
(perhaps one of them holds a leader or has bad shields), and which areas of the ship it
should fire on. And the officer chooses the offensive pattern. What he doesn't do is use a
joystick to target the ships, as you seem to be implying.
> >> But, and this is my original point, we
> >> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
> >> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
> >> not used.
> >
> >And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
> >other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
>
> And I just showed you why there is an advantage, again.
No you didn't. Where? You just attempted to tell me why it is impossible, not why it would
be an advantage.
Graham Kennedy
Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> >> >What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
> >> >and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
> >> >computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
> >> >Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
> >>
> >> I must have not seen this episode, but I have seen Captain Picard yell
> >> "Raise Shields!" at the start of a battle. Why did he do this if it
> >> wasn't necessary?
> >
> >if it senses imminent danger. I guess Picard just pre-empts it
> >sometimes, or just prefers his own judgement rather than
> >having blind faith in the software - something he would have
> >in common with any modern military man.
>
> Then why did Kahn think is tactic was going to work in STII. He was
> relying on getting one free shot on Kirk without shields. If the
> shields went up automatically on sensing danger, and a ship firing or
> for that matter targeting, you isn't danger, I don't know what is.
We don't know how the software is written - it may have some
form of IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system built into
it, like modern day fighters do. So it may not recognise that
a vessel already identified as friendly can offer a threat.
> >> >In any case, covering 4,000,000 km at warp 9.9 would take 4.4
> >> >seconds.
> >>
> >> Wait a minute. The speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/s.
> >> Sooooo, Light would take 13.3 seconds to travel that distance. Are you
> >> willing to say that warp 9.9 is only 3 times the speed of light?
> >
> >Oops, I dropped a factor of three in there - thought it was
> >4 billion, not four million. Scratch that bit, you'd only
> >have 4.4 milliseconds.
>
> Fair enough, no harm no foul.
>
> On a side not, Elim, try doing this once in a while, admit you
> mistakes.
>
> >> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
> >> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
> >> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
> >> >counterattack.
> >>
> >> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
> >> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
> >> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
> >
> >What makes you think manoeuvring would throw off their aim?
>
> Moving at FTL speeds the targeting system MUST lead the target,
> therefor, any quick change inheading will throw off the targeting
> computer, at least for a little while. More than enough time to get
> the hell out of Dodge, as it were.
I don't see why this is so. Starfleet FTL scanners are perfectly
capable of tracking vessels that move around at warp speeds. I
don't see why jinking would throw them off any more than jinking
around at sublight throws off their sublight sensors.
> >These targeting systems aren't Imperial manufacture, you
> >know! Starfleet generally _hits_ what it aims at, no matter
> >how it is moving.
>
> Not when evassive manuers are going on, if they did, no one would
> bother dodging.
Evasive manoeuvers are generally designed to put you in a place
where the enemy cannot bring weapons easily to bear on you,
while you can bring your weapons to bear on him. There's a few
tactical scenarios described in the Tech Manual and they all
talk about this.
> >If DS9's torpedoes can go to warp after launch, then the
> >battle would be basically the same as a sublight one but
> >over greater ranges.
>
> But as far as we have seen, they can't. I don't know what the tech
> manual says but battles involving Photon Torps show they are not any
> faster than pahsers and sub-light battles.
The tech manual states that photon torps can go at warp if
the ship launching them is at warp. Now I would _think_ that
a specialist version would be used for stations to let them
fire warp-speed torps. We know such things are possible
because there are warp-speed probes the size of torpedoes.
Indeed, the fact that nobody ever tries the warp-speed attack
tactic on DS9 would indicate that it wouldn't give them an
advantage, i.e. the sensors and weapons are up to it.
--
Graham Kennedy
Michael Wong
>> But, and this is my original point, we
>> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
>> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
>> not used.
>And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
>other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
The Technical Manual has a completely different explanation. Perhaps
you should read it- it comes from Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda,
and contrary to popular belief, it IS canon- the preface states
specifically that it overrides all preceding technical texts or
precedents.
Michael Wong
Elim Garak wrote:
>> Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
>> means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
>> there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
>> Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
>First of all you just agreed that ST tech is better then SW tech.
>Second, if the shields are down or simply not very good - as they are on
>all SW ships - one can simply beam a few bombs into the ship. Nobody
>has to board. And it is possible to beam stuff through SW shields
>because they don't cover the whole ship - not very well at least.
>Otherwise they wouldn't have to be stabilised or angled.
That is a ridiculous argument. Capital ships do not ever stabilize,
angle, or redirect shields. Fighters do it because they're trying to
maximize the effect of limited shield power by focusing it on a
particular region of the ship.
BTW, the Technical Manual says that it's dangerous to transport
antimatter because it's so volatile- it might blow up when you try and
transport it, and having a photon torpedo detonation inside your ship
is not exactly a good way to win a battle.
>> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
>> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
>> >> with Star Destroyers.
>> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
>> >then SW.
No, the Technical Manual clearly details the reasons that phasers are
highly effective on rock and not on shields, and it also specifically
details the limitations of shields:
- 768MW steady state energy dissipation
- 804GJ maximum pulse energy dissipation
A 2500TJ blast from a Star Destroyer's turbolaser cannon ought to
easily penetrate those pathetic ST shields.
>I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
>x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
>the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
>phaser rifles.
How did you evaluate that one phaser rifle is stronger than an X-Wing?
A single phaser rifle has power output of 0.01 MW while an X-Wing's
lasers, in order to do the damage they did to the surface of the Death
Star, must be capable of 8GJ blasts, and it appears to be able to
rotate fire among four cannons per second, giving it total output of
32 GJ/second or 32GW. BTW, X-Wings cannot take on an ISD without a
capital ship assisting them. ISD shields are far too strong for puny
weapons in the gigawatt range, like X-Wing lasers (32GW), GCS phasers
(1.02GW) or Romulan Warbird pulse phasers (20GW).
I'll say it again: READ THE STAR TREK TECHNICAL MANUAL!!!!!
>> >> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
>> >> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
>> >> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
>> >> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
>> >> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
>> >> lower than hyperdrive.
>> >Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
>> >seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
>> >in ST.
So you feel that the "Scorpion" incident (if you aren't simply
mis-quoting it) is canon, but the Technical Manual and all other
incidents supporting slow subspace propagation rates are
"inconsistencies"? You can't have your cake and eat it too- when
something disagrees with the Technical Manual, it is an inconsistency-
the TM is canon and it specifically states in its preface that it
overrides all preceding technical information regarding ST. It also
states that there have been some regrettable failures of consistency
in the writing, but that the TM is still to be adhered to.
Michael Wong
>> Firstly, you can't transport anti-matter. And this is the type of
>> bombs you are talking about.
>Are you sure you can't transport antimatter? And I think it would be easyer to transport
>tri-cobalt devices which are just up to 100 megaton standard demolition devices.
It doesn't matter- you can't transport through shields unless they're
already down. If they're already down, you've pretty much won the
battle anyway.
>> Secondly, Normally sheilds in SW cover the whole ship evenly, you can
>> change this if it is not necessary. Wouldn't it be a good thing not to
>> waste energy protecting a part of the ship that is not being hit. If
>> you are being hit form behind, it doesn't matter how strong your
>> shields up front are. This is an area of Tech where SW is way ahead of
>> ST.
>Really? ST can do that too - often does.
Not in TNG or later. Sector shields are only seen in TOS.
>> We have seen phasers destroy rocks before, small rocks. And it talks a
>> focuses beem several seconds to heat the rock till it vaporiates, even
>> at very high levels.
>Where? And how high are the levels?
Try reading the TM sometime. Vaporizing rock is a lot harder than
explosively uncoupling it, and the TM states that phasers can
explosively uncouple rock, not vaporize it. In order to vaporize it,
a phaser would have to be set differently, and it would take a lot
more work.
>> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
>You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
>phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
>couldn't.
Really! You saw an X-Wing fire at the walkers? I didn't- I saw
snowspeeders, which obviously were a failure. The X-Wings in ANH were
blowing up big chunks of the Death Star's surface.
Michael Wong
>> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
>> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
>> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
>What makes you think manoeuvring would throw off their aim?
>These targeting systems aren't Imperial manufacture, you
>know! Starfleet generally _hits_ what it aims at, no matter
>how it is moving.
The only time we ever saw a low sublight vessel shooting at a high
sublight vessel was in TOS with the Orion strafing vessel, which the
Enterprise MISSED with its phasers ... REPEATEDLY.
Do the math- subspace sensors carry information at 200,000c, and
maximum warp is roughly 3000c (see Technical Manual). Sensor range is
roughly 20 light years. Therefore, an oncoming vessel at maximum warp
can be detected at 20 light years, but the "ping" will take 53 minutes
to return to its source. During that time, the ship could have
changed speeds and direction.
It depends on how often the sensors ping. Suppose the ship is pinged
at a range of 4,000,000km. This is 13.3 light-seconds away and within
photon torpedo launch range, and the ping would return to the source
ship in just 66.7 microseconds. During that time, the ship's position
would have changed by 60,000km. Think about it- at maximum torpedo
range, your sensor readings of a ship at maximum warp would be SIXTY
THOUSAND KILOMETRES OFF!!!
At maximum phaser range of 300,000km, the delay time would be 5
microseconds, during which the ship would have moved by 4500km. This
is the stupidity of warp combat- even using ST subspace sensors, they
would NOT be able to get an accurate location on a ship at maximum
warp. At maximum torpedo range, their sensor pings would be 60,000km
off, and at maximum phaser range, their sensor pings would be 4500km
off. No wonder they always fight at low sublight relative velocities.
>If DS9's torpedoes can go to warp after launch, then the
>battle would be basically the same as a sublight one but
>over greater ranges.
Photon torpedoes can increase their speeds by 75% when fired at low
sublight, but they can't go to warp unless they are launched at warp.
See the Technical Manual.
And besides, their sensor readings at those ranges would be so
horribly far off the mark that they would be reduced to GUESSING where
the ship is, based on its last known location and direction, because
it would be as much as sixty thousand kilometres away from your best,
most recent estimate of its location.
I'll say it again, as I've said before: the only warp combat that ever
occurs in Star Trek happens between ships that are BOTH at warp, and
going at pretty much the same direction and speed.
Thor Odinson
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:38:54 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 10:54:46 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Thor Odinson wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 26 Feb 1998 14:35:30 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Michael Wong wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >I am using them as proof that ST has better tech then SW. And aren't we talking about
>> >> >these things as if they were real and in the same universe? If so, then the writers and
>> >> >the FX budget doesn't exist as far as we are concerned here. :)
>> >>
>> >> The them in this case is Transporters. I thought I should clarify
>> >>
>> >> Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
>> >> means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
>> >> there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
>> >> Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
>> >
>> >First of all you just agreed that ST tech is better then SW tech.
>> >Second, if the shields are down or simply not very good - as they are on
>> >all SW ships - one can simply beam a few bombs into the ship. Nobody
>> >has to board. And it is possible to beam stuff through SW shields
>> >because they don't cover the whole ship - not very well at least.
>> >Otherwise they wouldn't have to be stabilised or angled.
>>
>> Firstly, you can't transport anti-matter. And this is the type of
>> bombs you are talking about.
>
>Are you sure you can't transport antimatter?
Positive.
> And I think it would be easyer to transport
>tri-cobalt devices which are just up to 100 megaton standard demolition devices.
We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
SW shields.
>> Secondly, Normally sheilds in SW cover the whole ship evenly, you can
>> change this if it is not necessary. Wouldn't it be a good thing not to
>> waste energy protecting a part of the ship that is not being hit. If
>> you are being hit form behind, it doesn't matter how strong your
>> shields up front are. This is an area of Tech where SW is way ahead of
>> ST.
>
>Really? ST can do that too - often does.
I just saw an episode where this happened. I therefor apologize, ST
and SW shields have the same bells and whistles.
>> >> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
>> >> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
>> >> >> with Star Destroyers.
>> >> >
>> >> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
>> >> >then SW.
>> >>
>> >> To destroy the Asteroinds the beam had to be on the target for several
>> >> seconds.
>> >
>> >Where have we seen E blow up asteroids?
>>
>> We have seen phasers destroy rocks before, small rocks. And it talks a
>> focuses beem several seconds to heat the rock till it vaporiates, even
>> at very high levels.
>
>Where? And how high are the levels?
I hate to bring this up cause it causes a hole SHIT LOAD of problems.
Picard got Rike and Worf to fire at the end of a tunnel to make a path
to a nearby cavern. It was said the power used was "Maximum Setting"
and it took a combine shot of about 5 seconds to do this.
AND, the hole was barely big enough to crouch through, and was only a
couple of feet thick.
The big problem is this, why didn't the phaser beam effect travel
though the rest of the rock in the tunnel like it does when it hit the
human body?
>> >> This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
>> >> moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what you
>> >> know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say anything.
>> >
>> >I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
>> >x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
>> >the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
>> >phaser rifles.
>>
>> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
>
>You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
>phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
>couldn't.
And I've should why X-Wings were not used in that battle. Also you BIG
HOLE theory is fatally flawed.
>> >> >> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
>> >> >> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
>> >> >> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
>> >> >> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
>> >> >> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
>> >> >> lower than hyperdrive.
>> >> >
>> >> >Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
>> >> >seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
>> >> >in ST.
>> >>
>> >> So you ignore them becuase they make your side look weak. This will
>> >> not help your cause.
>> >
>> >No, I do not ignore them. I simply have nothing else to say.
>>
>> You call it an inconsistancy, and expect everyone else to just pretend
>> it didn't happen. How do you know it is the weak side that is the
>> inconsistancy, maybe it's stuff that makes the ST side look good that
>> has to be discounted.
>
>I don't know if that is true or not, but until I see something that discounts it I will not
>repeat it.
Or we can take an average.
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 14:57:54 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 1998 11:01:04 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Thor Odinson wrote:
>> >
>> >Yes, your original point is valid - shields are usually not set on
>> >automatic on ST ships. So what? Can you tell me why they couldn't?
>>
>> Yes, and I can say that the SD is able to get with 1 km of the E-D
>> before the fight starts. If this contradicts Standard Operating
>> Procedures you can't use it.
>
>Huh? I didn't understand any of what you said.
I'm saying that if something just isn't done in the Show we can't
assume it would be done when SW and ST are fighting. In fact we can't
even say it might happen we SW and ST fight. You have to take into
account how the two sides would react to a conflict.
>> >> >> > I don't know how quickly you talk, but most people
>> >> >> >can say "Return fire" in under a second where I come from!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a little fast, but possible. But your speed calculationif off, so
>> >> >> it doesn't matter.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Additionaly, after yelling "Return Fire" the person at Weapon Ops must
>> >> >> return fire. It is not done automatically.
>> >> >
>> >> >True, but if the security officer set up the computer to automatically fire the
>> >> >phasers at all incoming fighters, it won't matter.
>> >>
>> >> It does matter if the target is already out of range by the time the
>> >> computer is ready.
>> >
>> >The computer is ready as soon as the target is in range. Do you think
>> >it has to wake up, take a shower, dress, and drink its morning coffee
>> >before firing?
>>
>> The computer isn't ready until the Weapons Officer makes it ready, and
>> by the time he/she does that the target it out of range. This is not a
>> difficult concept to understand
>
>It is a very difficult concept to understand. All the weapons officer has to do is load a
>program into memory that automatically fires the weapons. That's it! And after that he is
>out of the loop - if he wants to be, which he will if the battle is at warp speeds.
Time table
0:00.00 Enemy ship is moving at warp 6 towards DS9
0:00.10 DS9 Detects enemy, raise shield command is given
0:05:00 Enemy 4,000,000 km away, shields are raised
0:05.05 Enemy Fires Photon Torps
0:05.10 DS9 Senses incoming shot
0:05.50 Weapon Ops says "Romulans firing"
0:05.74 Weapons hit
0:06.00 Romulans 4,000,000 + km away
0:06:10 Sisko Says "Return Fire"
0:07:00 Worf Says "They are no longer in range"
>> >> >> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
>> >> >> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
>> >> >> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
>> >> >> >counterattack.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
>> >> >> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
>> >> >> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
>> >> >
>> >> >According to your logic they would throw off their own aim as well.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, my booby trap just caught a booby.
>> >>
>> >> The firing ship would know about the sudden course change in advance
>> >> and would be able to compensate. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
>> >
>> >Why exactly would sudden maneuvering matter to the computer? What part
>> >of the system do you think wouldn't be able to do anything about it? Do
>> >you think that the computer system couldn't calculate the course of the
>> >ship in time? Do you think that the sensors wouldn't give the
>> >information in time to the computer? Do you think that the weapons
>> >wouldn't be locked on in time?
>>
>> The fact that we hear the Captain shout, "Evassive Manuevers!" Almost
>> every battle. If sudden movement didn't through off the aim of you
>> enemy, why do it?
>
>Because it is a battle of computers. One computer has a firing pattern in it, another an
>evasive pattern. If one pattern is smarter then the other, one of the ship wins the game.
>And the pattern is for the photon torpedoes which are indeed not as good at targeting as
>phasers.
If this is true why don't we see this sceen on ST.
Weapons Ops: Romluans are closing in to weapons range"
Captain: "Why the hell are you telling me, set the computer on auto
Duel, I'll be in the Holosuite"
Weapons Ops: "I'll Join You!"
>> >> > And why should
>> >> >the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
>> >> >would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
>> >> >tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
>> >> >problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
>> >>
>> >> It the fact that the ship has no inititive, it must be told to do
>> >> something before it can attack, raise shields, track incoming ships,
>> >> etc. Because of this, the slowness of the Human reaction time would
>> >> make warp combat unstoppable.
>> >
>> >If somebody started a tactic like this, the crew of DS9 would just
>> >laugh, and turn on an ancient subroutine in the computer that has not
>> >been used in centuries. Then the computer would simply fire on
>> >automatic, and the attacking ship would gain nothing.
>>
>> WHY IS THIS NEVER DONE? We have never seen this? If it is so usuful
>> it wouls have been used.
>
>Why is it useful if it can be so easily ignored? The ship at warp would have degraded
>weapons, shields, and warp capability. What would be the advantage if it can be hit anyway?
THE ATTACKING SHIP WOULD COME IN, SHOT, AND BE OUT OF THERE IN LESS
THAN 3 MILISECONDS.
The people in command would have time to react, and by the time they
did the enemy would be gone.
>> Remember your argument about the power of X-Wings. If they would have
>> been able to stop the AT-ATs they would have? Remember that? Well if
>> the computer can automatically target and defend itself, there woulf
>> be no need for a Weapon Officer. They have one so the computer can NOT
>> do it itself.
>
>Remember 'Message in a Bottle'? The computer there did just fine. The weapons officer is
>there to tell the computer whether to begin to fire or not, which targets it should fire at
>(perhaps one of them holds a leader or has bad shields), and which areas of the ship it
>should fire on. And the officer chooses the offensive pattern. What he doesn't do is use a
>joystick to target the ships, as you seem to be implying.
BUT THE COMPUTER DIDN"T FIRE UNTIL THE DOCTOR TOLD IT TO. I KNOW THE
COMPUTER DOES THE TARGETING BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE IS NOTHING
TO TARGET. BY THE TIME THE HUMANS KNOW WHATS GOING ON THE ENEMY IS
HALF WAY TO HOME WRITING A NEW OPERA ABOUT THERE VICTORY!
>> >> But, and this is my original point, we
>> >> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
>> >> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
>> >> not used.
>> >
>> >And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
>> >other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
>>
>> And I just showed you why there is an advantage, again.
>
>No you didn't. Where? You just attempted to tell me why it is impossible, not why it would
>be an advantage.
Please read it again. I am sayig that the humans are in control and
that the computer doesn't do anything until it is told. And at warp
speeds there is not time for the crew of DS9 to react to the attack
and fire before the enemy is gone.
I am NOT saying the computer couldn't track and fire on a object
moving at warp speed, I am saying that by the time someone said return
fire the ship would no longer be in weapon range.
I hope this clears things up
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>>
>> >> >What do you mean be "defence systems"? Shields are for defence,
>> >> >and they are certainly designed to go up automatically if the
>> >> >computer senses a threat to the ship. Just look at TNG's "The
>> >> >Arsenal of Freedom" for an example of this.
>> >>
>> >> I must have not seen this episode, but I have seen Captain Picard yell
>> >> "Raise Shields!" at the start of a battle. Why did he do this if it
>> >> wasn't necessary?
>> >
>> >He does this sometimes, but the computer can raise the shields
>> >if it senses imminent danger. I guess Picard just pre-empts it
>> >sometimes, or just prefers his own judgement rather than
>> >having blind faith in the software - something he would have
>> >in common with any modern military man.
>>
>> Then why did Kahn think is tactic was going to work in STII. He was
>> relying on getting one free shot on Kirk without shields. If the
>> shields went up automatically on sensing danger, and a ship firing or
>> for that matter targeting, you isn't danger, I don't know what is.
>
>We don't know how the software is written - it may have some
>form of IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system built into
>it, like modern day fighters do. So it may not recognise that
>a vessel already identified as friendly can offer a threat.
They would still raise automatically when the freindly ship TARGETS
you.
>> >> >Additionally, Trek ships can detect targets at far beyond
>> >> >weapons ranges, and determine the state of their weapons and
>> >> >who they are aimed at. More than enough time to be ready to
>> >> >counterattack.
>> >>
>> >> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
>> >> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
>> >> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
>> >
>> >What makes you think manoeuvring would throw off their aim?
>>
>> Moving at FTL speeds the targeting system MUST lead the target,
>> therefor, any quick change inheading will throw off the targeting
>> computer, at least for a little while. More than enough time to get
>> the hell out of Dodge, as it were.
>
>I don't see why this is so. Starfleet FTL scanners are perfectly
>capable of tracking vessels that move around at warp speeds. I
>don't see why jinking would throw them off any more than jinking
>around at sublight throws off their sublight sensors.
The sensors are FTL but the shot is not. Phasers move at LS.
Sooooo.... If you shot at a ship a place X, by the timethe shot
reaches X the ship is already moved to place Y. Watch ST:FC when Data
shots at the warp ship he leads it and still misses. Of course this is
his plan.
Photon Torps are only FTL if the ship firing is also FTL.
>> >If DS9's torpedoes can go to warp after launch, then the
>> >battle would be basically the same as a sublight one but
>> >over greater ranges.
>>
>> But as far as we have seen, they can't. I don't know what the tech
>> manual says but battles involving Photon Torps show they are not any
>> faster than pahsers and sub-light battles.
>
>The tech manual states that photon torps can go at warp if
>the ship launching them is at warp. Now I would _think_ that
>a specialist version would be used for stations to let them
>fire warp-speed torps. We know such things are possible
>because there are warp-speed probes the size of torpedoes.
But we have never seen these mythical warp speed Photon Torps than you
claim DS9 has, so we can ignore them purpose of this discusion.
>Indeed, the fact that nobody ever tries the warp-speed attack
>tactic on DS9 would indicate that it wouldn't give them an
>advantage, i.e. the sensors and weapons are up to it.
But the Humans clearly aren't
Thor Odinson
Elim Garak
Michael Wong wrote:
> Elim Garak wrote:
> >> Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
> >> means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
> >> there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
> >> Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
>
> >First of all you just agreed that ST tech is better then SW tech.
> >Second, if the shields are down or simply not very good - as they are on
> >all SW ships - one can simply beam a few bombs into the ship. Nobody
> >has to board. And it is possible to beam stuff through SW shields
> >because they don't cover the whole ship - not very well at least.
> >Otherwise they wouldn't have to be stabilised or angled.
>
> That is a ridiculous argument. Capital ships do not ever stabilize,
> angle, or redirect shields. Fighters do it because they're trying to
> maximize the effect of limited shield power by focusing it on a
> particular region of the ship.
Are you sure? Well, in that case they might as well work as ST shields - but a lot weaker of
course.
> BTW, the Technical Manual says that it's dangerous to transport
> antimatter because it's so volatile- it might blow up when you try and
> transport it, and having a photon torpedo detonation inside your ship
> is not exactly a good way to win a battle.
So use tricobalt devices. They are just fusion-fission bombs that are used for demolition.
> >> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
> >> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
> >> >> with Star Destroyers.
>
> >> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
> >> >then SW.
>
> No, the Technical Manual clearly details the reasons that phasers are
> highly effective on rock and not on shields, and it also specifically
> details the limitations of shields:
> - 768MW steady state energy dissipation
> - 804GJ maximum pulse energy dissipation
> A 2500TJ blast from a Star Destroyer's turbolaser cannon ought to
> easily penetrate those pathetic ST shields.
This makes sense only if these numbers are the energy efficiency of the shield generators. The
generators themselves deflect a lot more energy then that. Proof? I believe that in the latest
Voyager episode Paris tested a 1 TW rifle. It is pretty big as far as rifles go, but you can't
tell me that one ST rifle would crack ST shields. Plus I would like to mention that blasters
give off basically kinetic energy. Any ST ship accelerating to warp gets a lot more kicks then
2500 TJ. If you look at the equation for kinetic energy, you will see that as the speed
approaches to c, the kinetic energy approaches to infinity. So an ST ship accelerating to warp
from sub light is hit by infinitely more energy then an SD or even the DS can produce. It
apparently uses some kind of strange principle to ignore that energy, but there you go.
> >I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
> >x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
> >the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
> >phaser rifles.
>
> How did you evaluate that one phaser rifle is stronger than an X-Wing?
> A single phaser rifle has power output of 0.01 MW while an X-Wing's
> lasers, in order to do the damage they did to the surface of the Death
> Star, must be capable of 8GJ blasts, and it appears to be able to
> rotate fire among four cannons per second, giving it total output of
> 32 GJ/second or 32GW. BTW, X-Wings cannot take on an ISD without a
> capital ship assisting them. ISD shields are far too strong for puny
> weapons in the gigawatt range, like X-Wing lasers (32GW), GCS phasers
> (1.02GW) or Romulan Warbird pulse phasers (20GW).
Where did you get those numbers? I am very curious about them.
> I'll say it again: READ THE STAR TREK TECHNICAL MANUAL!!!!!
I did, and the only way it makes sense is if the numbers reflect only internal ship's power, not
effects.
> >> >> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
> >> >> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
> >> >> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
> >> >> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
> >> >> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
> >> >> lower than hyperdrive.
>
> >> >Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
> >> >seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
> >> >in ST.
>
> So you feel that the "Scorpion" incident (if you aren't simply
> mis-quoting it) is canon, but the Technical Manual and all other
> incidents supporting slow subspace propagation rates are
> "inconsistencies"? You can't have your cake and eat it too- when
> something disagrees with the Technical Manual, it is an inconsistency-
> the TM is canon and it specifically states in its preface that it
> overrides all preceding technical information regarding ST. It also
> states that there have been some regrettable failures of consistency
> in the writing, but that the TM is still to be adhered to.
You are the one always shouting that screen evidence overrides everything else. Or at least I
think it is you.
Elim Garak
Michael Wong wrote:
> >> Firstly, you can't transport anti-matter. And this is the type of
> >> bombs you are talking about.
>
> >Are you sure you can't transport antimatter? And I think it would be easyer to transport
> >tri-cobalt devices which are just up to 100 megaton standard demolition devices.
>
> It doesn't matter- you can't transport through shields unless they're
> already down. If they're already down, you've pretty much won the
> battle anyway.
Unless we are talking about a DS station that doesn't have any shields.
> >> Secondly, Normally sheilds in SW cover the whole ship evenly, you can
> >> change this if it is not necessary. Wouldn't it be a good thing not to
> >> waste energy protecting a part of the ship that is not being hit. If
> >> you are being hit form behind, it doesn't matter how strong your
> >> shields up front are. This is an area of Tech where SW is way ahead of
> >> ST.
>
> >Really? ST can do that too - often does.
>
> Not in TNG or later. Sector shields are only seen in TOS.
Perhaps sector shields, but I am pretty sure that TNG can strengthen a part of its shields. They
did it when Picard went insane - they strengthened the shields near the Stargaser.
> >> We have seen phasers destroy rocks before, small rocks. And it talks a
> >> focuses beem several seconds to heat the rock till it vaporiates, even
> >> at very high levels.
>
> >Where? And how high are the levels?
>
> Try reading the TM sometime.
I did read the TM! How many times are you going to repeat this? Just because I don't remember it
exactly doesn't mean I never read it.
> Vaporizing rock is a lot harder than
> explosively uncoupling it, and the TM states that phasers can
> explosively uncouple rock, not vaporize it. In order to vaporize it,
> a phaser would have to be set differently, and it would take a lot
> more work.
In other words the rock would not be vaporized, but would flow out in all directions. Sounds
pretty good.
> >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
>
> >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
> >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
> >couldn't.
>
> Really! You saw an X-Wing fire at the walkers? I didn't- I saw
> snowspeeders, which obviously were a failure. The X-Wings in ANH were
> blowing up big chunks of the Death Star's surface.
Keep up with this argument. I am saying that x-wings were not brought in because they wouldn't
have helped. At the power levels you described a few blasts from the x-wings would have ended the
battle. Since they were not brought in, apparently it would take a lot more to end the battle then
the x-wings have.
Elim Garak
Michael Wong wrote:
> >> But, and this is my original point, we
> >> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
> >> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
> >> not used.
>
> >And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
> >other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
>
> The Technical Manual has a completely different explanation. Perhaps
> you should read it- it comes from Rick Sternbach and Michael Okuda,
> and contrary to popular belief, it IS canon- the preface states
> specifically that it overrides all preceding technical texts or
> precedents.
There is something specifically on the impossibility of warp combat? I
didn't notice that. I guess I have to read it again.
Elim Garak
Michael Wong wrote:
> >> But if a ST ship can manuever in Warp they can change headings just
> >> before hitting max weapon range, through off there enemy's aim, fire
> >> and be out of there before the DS9 could track htere new heading.
>
> >What makes you think manoeuvring would throw off their aim?
But SW ships don't have warp.
> >If DS9's torpedoes can go to warp after launch, then the
> >battle would be basically the same as a sublight one but
> >over greater ranges.
>
> Photon torpedoes can increase their speeds by 75% when fired at low
> sublight, but they can't go to warp unless they are launched at warp.
> See the Technical Manual.
>
> And besides, their sensor readings at those ranges would be so
> horribly far off the mark that they would be reduced to GUESSING where
> the ship is, based on its last known location and direction, because
> it would be as much as sixty thousand kilometres away from your best,
> most recent estimate of its location.
>
> I'll say it again, as I've said before: the only warp combat that ever
> occurs in Star Trek happens between ships that are BOTH at warp, and
> going at pretty much the same direction and speed.
I will have to read the manual again, but you could be right.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> >> >> >I am using them as proof that ST has better tech then SW. And aren't we talking about
> >> >> >these things as if they were real and in the same universe? If so, then the writers and
> >> >> >the FX budget doesn't exist as far as we are concerned here. :)
> >> >>
> >> >> The them in this case is Transporters. I thought I should clarify
> >> >>
> >> >> Transports are not that big of a deal when it comes to combat. All it
> >> >> means it that you side is less likely to try and destroy a ship when
> >> >> there are a dozen or so of you troops on it. BTW, there are more
> >> >> Stormtroopes on each SD than there are people on the E-D.
> >> >
> >> >First of all you just agreed that ST tech is better then SW tech.
> >> >Second, if the shields are down or simply not very good - as they are on
> >> >all SW ships - one can simply beam a few bombs into the ship. Nobody
> >> >has to board. And it is possible to beam stuff through SW shields
> >> >because they don't cover the whole ship - not very well at least.
> >> >Otherwise they wouldn't have to be stabilised or angled.
> >>
> >> Firstly, you can't transport anti-matter. And this is the type of
> >> bombs you are talking about.
> >
> >Are you sure you can't transport antimatter?
>
> Positive.
Then we will have to use tricobalt devices. Maximum of 100 megatons. Too bad.
> > And I think it would be easyer to transport
> >tri-cobalt devices which are just up to 100 megaton standard demolition devices.
>
> We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
> SW shields.
DS doesn't have shields.
> >> >> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
> >> >> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
> >> >> >> with Star Destroyers.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
> >> >> >then SW.
> >> >>
> >> >> To destroy the Asteroinds the beam had to be on the target for several
> >> >> seconds.
> >> >
> >> >Where have we seen E blow up asteroids?
> >>
> >> We have seen phasers destroy rocks before, small rocks. And it talks a
> >> focuses beem several seconds to heat the rock till it vaporiates, even
> >> at very high levels.
> >
> >Where? And how high are the levels?
>
> I hate to bring this up cause it causes a hole SHIT LOAD of problems.
>
> Picard got Rike and Worf to fire at the end of a tunnel to make a path
> to a nearby cavern. It was said the power used was "Maximum Setting"
> and it took a combine shot of about 5 seconds to do this.
Which episode was that?
> AND, the hole was barely big enough to crouch through, and was only a
> couple of feet thick.
>
> The big problem is this, why didn't the phaser beam effect travel
> though the rest of the rock in the tunnel like it does when it hit the
> human body?
That is easy. At that level the beam is not set for human bodies, it is set for general
destruction. So it was not set to go through.
> >> >> This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
> >> >> moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what you
> >> >> know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say anything.
> >> >
> >> >I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
> >> >x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
> >> >the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
> >> >phaser rifles.
> >>
> >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
> >
> >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
> >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
> >couldn't.
>
> And I've should why X-Wings were not used in that battle.
No you didn't. You explained why no x-wings could be separated from the transports. You didn't
explain why the transports couldn't wait.
> Also you BIG
> HOLE theory is fatally flawed.
As are your power calculations for the x-wings.
> >> >> >> As for propulsion, hyperdrive is much faster
> >> >> >> than transwarp. Hyperdrive is 6 times faster than subspace sensors,
> >> >> >> and the Federation was able to detect approaching transwarp Borg cubes
> >> >> >> with subspace sensors with plenty of time to spare, so even transwarp
> >> >> >> is SIGNIFICANTLY slower than subspace and therefore a HELLUVA LOT
> >> >> >> lower than hyperdrive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Watch Scorpion - I think. A Borg cube tractors Voyager several light years in a few
> >> >> >seconds. That is faster. I think that subspace sensors are simply another inconsistency
> >> >> >in ST.
> >> >>
> >> >> So you ignore them becuase they make your side look weak. This will
> >> >> not help your cause.
> >> >
> >> >No, I do not ignore them. I simply have nothing else to say.
> >>
> >> You call it an inconsistancy, and expect everyone else to just pretend
> >> it didn't happen. How do you know it is the weak side that is the
> >> inconsistancy, maybe it's stuff that makes the ST side look good that
> >> has to be discounted.
> >
> >I don't know if that is true or not, but until I see something that discounts it I will not
> >repeat it.
>
> Or we can take an average.
Nah - that will make it even worse.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> >> >Yes, your original point is valid - shields are usually not set on
> >> >automatic on ST ships. So what? Can you tell me why they couldn't?
> >>
> >> Yes, and I can say that the SD is able to get with 1 km of the E-D
> >> before the fight starts. If this contradicts Standard Operating
> >> Procedures you can't use it.
> >
> >Huh? I didn't understand any of what you said.
>
> I'm saying that if something just isn't done in the Show we can't
> assume it would be done when SW and ST are fighting. In fact we can't
> even say it might happen we SW and ST fight. You have to take into
> account how the two sides would react to a conflict.
When they meet the first time - yes. But SOPs change.
0:10:00 Worf finishes setting the automatic firing protocols.0:20:00 The Romulans try this again,
DS9 detects them, and reacts accordingly.
We have seen this. "Message in a Bottle". Completly on automatic.
> >> >> > And why should
> >> >> >the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
> >> >> >would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
> >> >> >tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
> >> >> >problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
> >> >>
> >> >> It the fact that the ship has no inititive, it must be told to do
> >> >> something before it can attack, raise shields, track incoming ships,
> >> >> etc. Because of this, the slowness of the Human reaction time would
> >> >> make warp combat unstoppable.
> >> >
> >> >If somebody started a tactic like this, the crew of DS9 would just
> >> >laugh, and turn on an ancient subroutine in the computer that has not
> >> >been used in centuries. Then the computer would simply fire on
> >> >automatic, and the attacking ship would gain nothing.
> >>
> >> WHY IS THIS NEVER DONE? We have never seen this? If it is so usuful
> >> it wouls have been used.
> >
> >Why is it useful if it can be so easily ignored? The ship at warp would have degraded
> >weapons, shields, and warp capability. What would be the advantage if it can be hit anyway?
>
> THE ATTACKING SHIP WOULD COME IN, SHOT, AND BE OUT OF THERE IN LESS
> THAN 3 MILISECONDS.
>
> The people in command would have time to react, and by the time they
> did the enemy would be gone.
Computer.
> >> Remember your argument about the power of X-Wings. If they would have
> >> been able to stop the AT-ATs they would have? Remember that? Well if
> >> the computer can automatically target and defend itself, there woulf
> >> be no need for a Weapon Officer. They have one so the computer can NOT
> >> do it itself.
> >
> >Remember 'Message in a Bottle'? The computer there did just fine. The weapons officer is
> >there to tell the computer whether to begin to fire or not, which targets it should fire at
> >(perhaps one of them holds a leader or has bad shields), and which areas of the ship it
> >should fire on. And the officer chooses the offensive pattern. What he doesn't do is use a
> >joystick to target the ships, as you seem to be implying.
>
> BUT THE COMPUTER DIDN"T FIRE UNTIL THE DOCTOR TOLD IT TO. I KNOW THE
> COMPUTER DOES THE TARGETING BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE IS NOTHING
> TO TARGET. BY THE TIME THE HUMANS KNOW WHATS GOING ON THE ENEMY IS
> HALF WAY TO HOME WRITING A NEW OPERA ABOUT THERE VICTORY!
You think each of the times one of the three sections fired one of the doctors said 'fire'? They
would have had to repeat this many many times very very quickly. I seriously doubt that they did
this.
> >> >> But, and this is my original point, we
> >> >> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
> >> >> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
> >> >> not used.
> >> >
> >> >And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
> >> >other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
> >>
> >> And I just showed you why there is an advantage, again.
> >
> >No you didn't. Where? You just attempted to tell me why it is impossible, not why it would
> >be an advantage.
>
> Please read it again. I am sayig that the humans are in control and
> that the computer doesn't do anything until it is told. And at warp
> speeds there is not time for the crew of DS9 to react to the attack
> and fire before the enemy is gone.
>
> I am NOT saying the computer couldn't track and fire on a object
> moving at warp speed, I am saying that by the time someone said return
> fire the ship would no longer be in weapon range.
>
> I hope this clears things up
You are right about the first shot, but why can't a program be loaded after that?
ZenShadow
Thor Odinson wrote:
> Secondly, Normally sheilds in SW cover the whole ship evenly, you can
> change this if it is not necessary. Wouldn't it be a good thing not to
> waste energy protecting a part of the ship that is not being hit. If
> you are being hit form behind, it doesn't matter how strong your
> ST.
It's quite common in ST to hear a command issued to divert power to a
specific set of shield generators (i.e. aft, fore, port, starboard), so
I'd guess that ST and SW are about even there. It might just not be
Federation policy to drop *any* shields during an attack (wouldn't it be
quite a surprise if a little shuttle popped up behind you, your shields
were down, and it fired two or three torpedoes up your tailpipe? :)
--ZS
ty...@deathsdoor.com
In article <34FA146D...@usa.net>,
SW shields DO cover the whole ship, they can just be angled to add extra
protection if neccessary. So you can't beam A tricobalt device into an ISD.
You could try beaming one near, but a 100 megaton explosion is negligable to
SW ships.
> > > And I think it would be easyer to transport
> > >tri-cobalt devices which are just up to 100 megaton standard demolition
devices.
> >
> > We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
> > SW shields.
>
> DS doesn't have shields.
DSII does. Since we use the E-D and not the E-nil for our ISD v Enterprise
debates, we should also use the later version of the Death Star.
What? Surely general destruction CALLS for it to go through, causing the max
amount of damage to the rock.
> > >> >> This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
> > >> >> moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what
you
> > >> >> know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say
anything.
> > >> >
> > >> >I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then
an
> > >> >x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD,
and
> > >> >the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger
then
> > >> >phaser rifles.
> > >>
> > >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
> > >
> > >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got
it from the fact that a
> > >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and
an x-wing apperently
> > >couldn't.
> >
> > And I've should why X-Wings were not used in that battle.
>
> No you didn't. You explained why no x-wings could be separated from the
transports. You didn't
> explain why the transports couldn't wait.
Because the Imperial Fleet was encircling the system, trying to trap the
Rebel ships. You obviously didn't watch the movie very closely. The longer
they waited, the harder it would be to get out - why do you think they had to
start sending out two transports at once later on?
> > Also you BIG
> > HOLE theory is fatally flawed.
>
> As are your power calculations for the x-wings.
How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW blasts
from anti-starfighter cannons (or at least one or two in quick succession,
any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits without
sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons would
need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
against other shielded Starfighters.
<snip>
Piett
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Thor Odinson
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 14:01:52 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Michael Wong wrote:
>
>> Vaporizing rock is a lot harder than
>> explosively uncoupling it, and the TM states that phasers can
>> explosively uncouple rock, not vaporize it. In order to vaporize it,
>> a phaser would have to be set differently, and it would take a lot
>> more work.
>
>In other words the rock would not be vaporized, but would flow out in all directions. Sounds
>pretty good.
Which lowers the total energy out put in TDiC.
>> >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
>>
>> >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
>> >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
>> >couldn't.
>>
>> Really! You saw an X-Wing fire at the walkers? I didn't- I saw
>> snowspeeders, which obviously were a failure. The X-Wings in ANH were
>> blowing up big chunks of the Death Star's surface.
>
>Keep up with this argument. I am saying that x-wings were not brought in because they wouldn't
>have helped. At the power levels you described a few blasts from the x-wings would have ended the
>battle. Since they were not brought in, apparently it would take a lot more to end the battle then
>the x-wings have.
And I have already stated why they were NOT brought in. You just
chose to ignore those reasons cause they don't help the ST side.
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:07:43 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>> >> Firstly, you can't transport anti-matter. And this is the type of
>> >> bombs you are talking about.
>> >
>> >Are you sure you can't transport antimatter?
>>
>> Positive.
>
>Then we will have to use tricobalt devices. Maximum of 100 megatons. Too bad.
>
>> > And I think it would be easyer to transport
>> >tri-cobalt devices which are just up to 100 megaton standard demolition devices.
>>
>> We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
>> SW shields.
>
>DS doesn't have shields.
Then how did the DS survive Alderaan Exploding?
>> >> >> >> Now, if we look at the weapons, Star Trek weapons are very powerful
>> >> >> >> against rocks, and quite weak against shields. Not useful in battle
>> >> >> >> with Star Destroyers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >How did you make that leap of logic? I think that ST shields are just a lot stronger
>> >> >> >then SW.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To destroy the Asteroinds the beam had to be on the target for several
>> >> >> seconds.
>> >> >
>> >> >Where have we seen E blow up asteroids?
>> >>
>> >> We have seen phasers destroy rocks before, small rocks. And it talks a
>> >> focuses beem several seconds to heat the rock till it vaporiates, even
>> >> at very high levels.
>> >
>> >Where? And how high are the levels?
>>
>> I hate to bring this up cause it causes a hole SHIT LOAD of problems.
>>
>> Picard got Rike and Worf to fire at the end of a tunnel to make a path
>> to a nearby cavern. It was said the power used was "Maximum Setting"
>> and it took a combine shot of about 5 seconds to do this.
>
>Which episode was that?
I think it was the one with Mark Twain. Something very similar
happened in another episode where the ENTIRE BRIDGE CREW WENT ON AN
UNDERCOVER MISSION! Who is in charge of tactics in ST?
>> AND, the hole was barely big enough to crouch through, and was only a
>> couple of feet thick.
>>
>> The big problem is this, why didn't the phaser beam effect travel
>> though the rest of the rock in the tunnel like it does when it hit the
>> human body?
>
>That is easy. At that level the beam is not set for human bodies, it is set for general
>destruction. So it was not set to go through.
There was no mention of the phaser being set to 'General Destruction,'
if there is such a setting. And we've seen people get hit with a
Phaser at maximum setting before, and the result was no different than
what normally happens.
>> >> >> This makes it less effective in combat, when the target is
>> >> >> moving. BTW, we don't care what you think, we only care about what you
>> >> >> know. Show us proof, or a least some evidence, or don't say anything.
>> >> >
>> >> >I just did, you simply ignored it. One phaser rifle is stronger then an
>> >> >x-wing, about 60 (OK, maybe 100 or 200) of x-wings can take an ISD, and
>> >> >the main phasers of the Enterprise are about 100,000 times stronger then
>> >> >phaser rifles.
>> >>
>> >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
>> >
>> >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
>> >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
>> >couldn't.
>>
>> And I've should why X-Wings were not used in that battle.
>
>No you didn't. You explained why no x-wings could be separated from the transports. You didn't
>explain why the transports couldn't wait.
X-Wings are not desgined to fight in atmosphere.
AT-AT can hit X-Wings that are not at combat speeds.
The Atmosphere on Hoth is Moist and Cold enough that any extended
periond of flight would have resulted in so much on the Wings of the
X-Wing that it would CRASH.
Do you need any more reasons?
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 11:19:38 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Michael Wong wrote:
>
>> Elim Garak wrote:
>> BTW, the Technical Manual says that it's dangerous to transport
>> antimatter because it's so volatile- it might blow up when you try and
>> transport it, and having a photon torpedo detonation inside your ship
>> is not exactly a good way to win a battle.
>
>So use tricobalt devices. They are just fusion-fission bombs that are used for demolition.
And are much weaker then the weapons used in SW.
>> No, the Technical Manual clearly details the reasons that phasers are
>> highly effective on rock and not on shields, and it also specifically
>> details the limitations of shields:
>> - 768MW steady state energy dissipation
>> - 804GJ maximum pulse energy dissipation
>> A 2500TJ blast from a Star Destroyer's turbolaser cannon ought to
>> easily penetrate those pathetic ST shields.
>
>This makes sense only if these numbers are the energy efficiency of the shield generators. The
>generators themselves deflect a lot more energy then that. Proof? I believe that in the latest
>Voyager episode Paris tested a 1 TW rifle. It is pretty big as far as rifles go, but you can't
>tell me that one ST rifle would crack ST shields. Plus I would like to mention that blasters
>give off basically kinetic energy. Any ST ship accelerating to warp gets a lot more kicks then
>2500 TJ. If you look at the equation for kinetic energy, you will see that as the speed
>approaches to c, the kinetic energy approaches to infinity. So an ST ship accelerating to warp
>from sub light is hit by infinitely more energy then an SD or even the DS can produce. It
>apparently uses some kind of strange principle to ignore that energy, but there you go.
No, it uses a warp bubble to stop the KE from hitting hit. And even
then it only has to stop a few micrograms/second.
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:13:04 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>
>When they meet the first time - yes. But SOPs change.
We are not considdering a capaign style war here. Were are
considiering a few encounters.
If we went for campaign, SW would just need to send 100 or so SD to
each of the 150+ planets in the Federation and Melt the surface in
under 2 minutes.
The Imperial navy could ignore whatever forces were there, cause they
would still have more than 5000 SD in reserve.
There is no try again. This in the end of the battle. With hundreds of
deaths, DS9 defenses destroyed or inoperable, maybe even all of DS9
destroyed if there was a large enough attack.
BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS, EVER!
Yes but only AFTER the doctor told the computer to do this. With warp
speeds the Captain would not have time to finish saying "Return Fire!"
before the target was long gone.
>> >> >> > And why should
>> >> >> >the DS9 have any problems tracking them? If somebody tried that one, the computer
>> >> >> >would just be set on automatic, and fire as soon as the ship comes in range. Can you
>> >> >> >tell me why it should have a problem tracking the ship? Where do you see the
>> >> >> >problem? In the computer, in the weapons systems, or in the sensors?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It the fact that the ship has no inititive, it must be told to do
>> >> >> something before it can attack, raise shields, track incoming ships,
>> >> >> etc. Because of this, the slowness of the Human reaction time would
>> >> >> make warp combat unstoppable.
>> >> >
>> >> >If somebody started a tactic like this, the crew of DS9 would just
>> >> >laugh, and turn on an ancient subroutine in the computer that has not
>> >> >been used in centuries. Then the computer would simply fire on
>> >> >automatic, and the attacking ship would gain nothing.
>> >>
>> >> WHY IS THIS NEVER DONE? We have never seen this? If it is so usuful
>> >> it wouls have been used.
>> >
>> >Why is it useful if it can be so easily ignored? The ship at warp would have degraded
>> >weapons, shields, and warp capability. What would be the advantage if it can be hit anyway?
>>
>> THE ATTACKING SHIP WOULD COME IN, SHOT, AND BE OUT OF THERE IN LESS
>> THAN 3 MILISECONDS.
>>
>> The people in command would have time to react, and by the time they
>> did the enemy would be gone.
>
>Computer.
The computer wouldn't do SHIT! We saw this in "Message in a Bottle"
The computer just sat there getting it's ass shot off. And it would
have continued to sit there if the doctor hadn't accidentally
initiated the automatic attack program. Why is this so hard for you to
understand.
>> >> Remember your argument about the power of X-Wings. If they would have
>> >> been able to stop the AT-ATs they would have? Remember that? Well if
>> >> the computer can automatically target and defend itself, there woulf
>> >> be no need for a Weapon Officer. They have one so the computer can NOT
>> >> do it itself.
>> >
>> >Remember 'Message in a Bottle'? The computer there did just fine. The weapons officer is
>> >there to tell the computer whether to begin to fire or not, which targets it should fire at
>> >(perhaps one of them holds a leader or has bad shields), and which areas of the ship it
>> >should fire on. And the officer chooses the offensive pattern. What he doesn't do is use a
>> >joystick to target the ships, as you seem to be implying.
>>
>> BUT THE COMPUTER DIDN"T FIRE UNTIL THE DOCTOR TOLD IT TO. I KNOW THE
>> COMPUTER DOES THE TARGETING BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THERE IS NOTHING
>> TO TARGET. BY THE TIME THE HUMANS KNOW WHATS GOING ON THE ENEMY IS
>> HALF WAY TO HOME WRITING A NEW OPERA ABOUT THERE VICTORY!
>
>You think each of the times one of the three sections fired one of the doctors said 'fire'? They
>would have had to repeat this many many times very very quickly. I seriously doubt that they did
>this.
THE BATTLE WOULD BE OVER BEFORE THE DOCTOR COULD HAVE TOLD THE
COMPUTER TO FIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE. REMEMBER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
WARP SPEED COMBAT WHERE ONE TARGET IS NOT AT WARP SPEED.
>> >> >> But, and this is my original point, we
>> >> >> almost never see warp combat (We only see it when one side is running)
>> >> >> therefor there must be an unspoken reason warp tactics like this are
>> >> >> not used.
>> >> >
>> >> >And I just told you why. Because there are no advantages in it when the
>> >> >other ship has good sensors, weapons, and computers.
>> >>
>> >> And I just showed you why there is an advantage, again.
>> >
>> >No you didn't. Where? You just attempted to tell me why it is impossible, not why it would
>> >be an advantage.
>>
>> Please read it again. I am sayig that the humans are in control and
>> that the computer doesn't do anything until it is told. And at warp
>> speeds there is not time for the crew of DS9 to react to the attack
>> and fire before the enemy is gone.
>>
>> I am NOT saying the computer couldn't track and fire on a object
>> moving at warp speed, I am saying that by the time someone said return
>> fire the ship would no longer be in weapon range.
>>
>> I hope this clears things up
>
>You are right about the first shot, but why can't a program be loaded after that?
WHO CARES?
The fight would be over. The damage is done.
Thor Odinson
Thor Odinson
On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:02:19 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>Michael Wong wrote:
<SNIP!>
>But SW ships don't have warp.
Niether does DS9. That's why I've been showing you how to use warp
combat to destroy it.
<SNIP!>
Thor Odinson
Graham Kennedy
Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> >> Then why did Kahn think is tactic was going to work in STII. He was
> >> relying on getting one free shot on Kirk without shields. If the
> >> shields went up automatically on sensing danger, and a ship firing or
> >> for that matter targeting, you isn't danger, I don't know what is.
> >
> >We don't know how the software is written - it may have some
> >form of IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system built into
> >it, like modern day fighters do. So it may not recognise that
> >a vessel already identified as friendly can offer a threat.
>
> They would still raise automatically when the freindly ship TARGETS
> you.
So says you. If the programmers never considered that scenario,
they wouldn't have put it in. Having used Windows 95 for a few
years I don't believe there is anything so simple that a
programmer can't screw it up with a million features and still
miss half the basics.
> >> Moving at FTL speeds the targeting system MUST lead the target,
> >> therefor, any quick change inheading will throw off the targeting
> >> computer, at least for a little while. More than enough time to get
> >> the hell out of Dodge, as it were.
> >
> >I don't see why this is so. Starfleet FTL scanners are perfectly
> >capable of tracking vessels that move around at warp speeds. I
> >don't see why jinking would throw them off any more than jinking
> >around at sublight throws off their sublight sensors.
>
> The sensors are FTL but the shot is not. Phasers move at LS.
Photon torps do not. Not when they are fired at warp, anyway,
or if they have their own warp engine as the ones on DS9 MAY
do.
> Sooooo.... If you shot at a ship a place X, by the timethe shot
> reaches X the ship is already moved to place Y. Watch ST:FC when Data
> shots at the warp ship he leads it and still misses. Of course this is
> his plan.
And there I was, about to pound on you, until you said that
last sentance.
> Photon Torps are only FTL if the ship firing is also FTL.
Or if they are modified to maybe. It would be a sensible
thing for a space station.
--
Graham Kennedy
Thor Odinson
>Thor Odinson wrote:
>>
>> >> Then why did Kahn think is tactic was going to work in STII. He was
>> >> relying on getting one free shot on Kirk without shields. If the
>> >> shields went up automatically on sensing danger, and a ship firing or
>> >> for that matter targeting, you isn't danger, I don't know what is.
>> >
>> >We don't know how the software is written - it may have some
>> >form of IFF (Identification Friend or Foe) system built into
>> >it, like modern day fighters do. So it may not recognise that
>> >a vessel already identified as friendly can offer a threat.
>>
>> They would still raise automatically when the freindly ship TARGETS
>> you.
>
>So says you. If the programmers never considered that scenario,
>they wouldn't have put it in. Having used Windows 95 for a few
>years I don't believe there is anything so simple that a
>programmer can't screw it up with a million features and still
>miss half the basics.
These are the same programmers that Elim thinks can create the perfect
automatic combat program.
>> >> Moving at FTL speeds the targeting system MUST lead the target,
>> >> therefor, any quick change inheading will throw off the targeting
>> >> computer, at least for a little while. More than enough time to get
>> >> the hell out of Dodge, as it were.
>> >
>> >I don't see why this is so. Starfleet FTL scanners are perfectly
>> >capable of tracking vessels that move around at warp speeds. I
>> >don't see why jinking would throw them off any more than jinking
>> >around at sublight throws off their sublight sensors.
>>
>> The sensors are FTL but the shot is not. Phasers move at LS.
>
>Photon torps do not. Not when they are fired at warp, anyway,
>or if they have their own warp engine as the ones on DS9 MAY
>do.
>
>> Sooooo.... If you shot at a ship a place X, by the time the shot
>> reaches X the ship is already moved to place Y. Watch ST:FC when Data
>> shots at the warp ship he leads it and still misses. Of course this is
>> his plan.
>
>And there I was, about to pound on you, until you said that
>last sentance.
Thanks, it seems most people don't read the message fully before
attacking it. At least I have an excuse. (It's 5:00 am)
>> Photon Torps are only FTL if the ship firing is also FTL.
>
>Or if they are modified to maybe. It would be a sensible
>thing for a space station.
Sensible and what is done are two completely differrent things.
Remeber your Winodws 95 argument.
Thor Odinson
Graham Kennedy
Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> >> They would still raise automatically when the freindly ship TARGETS
> >> you.
> >
> >So says you. If the programmers never considered that scenario,
> >they wouldn't have put it in. Having used Windows 95 for a few
> >years I don't believe there is anything so simple that a
> >programmer can't screw it up with a million features and still
> >miss half the basics.
>
> These are the same programmers that Elim thinks can create the perfect
> automatic combat program.
Well that's a much simpler task. You do know that there are
weapons platforms RIGHT NOW that can do this kind of thing,
son't you? The Ticonderoga class cruiser can detect targets,
classify them as friendly or not, arrange the unfriendlies
in order of threat, and engage them automatically. All without
a single Human involved. And this is using missiles that need
in-flight inertial updates and terminal radar guidence from
the ship, making the whole business MUCH more complex.
In comparison, steering a phaser beam onto the target would
be child's play.
> >> Sooooo.... If you shot at a ship a place X, by the time the shot
> >> reaches X the ship is already moved to place Y. Watch ST:FC when Data
> >> shots at the warp ship he leads it and still misses. Of course this is
> >> his plan.
> >
> >And there I was, about to pound on you, until you said that
> >last sentance.
>
> Thanks, it seems most people don't read the message fully before
> attacking it. At least I have an excuse. (It's 5:00 am)
Jeez, what a horrible time to be awake!
> >> Photon Torps are only FTL if the ship firing is also FTL.
> >
> >Or if they are modified to maybe. It would be a sensible
> >thing for a space station.
>
> Sensible and what is done are two completely differrent things.
> Remeber your Winodws 95 argument.
But in the this case NOT doing it would, as you pointed out,
make the station horribly vulnerable. Surely in the many
decades of photon torpedo development, somebody thought of
this.
--
Graham Kennedy
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Thor Odinson wrote:
> >
> > >> They would still raise automatically when the freindly ship TARGETS
> > >> you.
> > >
> > >So says you. If the programmers never considered that scenario,
> > >they wouldn't have put it in. Having used Windows 95 for a few
> > >years I don't believe there is anything so simple that a
> > >programmer can't screw it up with a million features and still
> > >miss half the basics.
> >
> > These are the same programmers that Elim thinks can create the perfect
> > automatic combat program.
>
> Well that's a much simpler task. You do know that there are
> weapons platforms RIGHT NOW that can do this kind of thing,
> son't you? The Ticonderoga class cruiser can detect targets,
> classify them as friendly or not, arrange the unfriendlies
> in order of threat, and engage them automatically. All without
> a single Human involved. And this is using missiles that need
> in-flight inertial updates and terminal radar guidence from
> the ship, making the whole business MUCH more complex.
>
> In comparison, steering a phaser beam onto the target would
> be child's play.
Then why don't we see this in ST. We see ships getting the crap beat out of
them and they don't retaliate on their own. They have to be told to 'Return
Fire.' WHich is the point I was trying to make. It fact I made it, several
times.
> > >> Photon Torps are only FTL if the ship firing is also FTL.
> > >
> > >Or if they are modified to maybe. It would be a sensible
> > >thing for a space station.
> >
> > Sensible and what is done are two completely differrent things.
> > Remeber your Winodws 95 argument.
>
> But in the this case NOT doing it would, as you pointed out,
> make the station horribly vulnerable. Surely in the many
> decades of photon torpedo development, somebody thought of
> this.
But we have seen that Photon Torps fired from DS9 are SLOWER than the phaser
shots. Which makes them STL.
C.S.Strowbridge
Stephen Castro
Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> Thor Odinson wrote:
> >
> > >> They would still raise automatically when the freindly ship TARGETS
> > >> you.
> > >
> > >So says you. If the programmers never considered that scenario,
> > >they wouldn't have put it in. Having used Windows 95 for a few
> > >years I don't believe there is anything so simple that a
> > >programmer can't screw it up with a million features and still
> > >miss half the basics.
> >
> > These are the same programmers that Elim thinks can create the perfect
> > automatic combat program.
>
> Well that's a much simpler task. You do know that there are
> weapons platforms RIGHT NOW that can do this kind of thing,
> son't you? The Ticonderoga class cruiser can detect targets,
> classify them as friendly or not, arrange the unfriendlies
> in order of threat, and engage them automatically. All without
> a single Human involved. And this is using missiles that need
> in-flight inertial updates and terminal radar guidence from
> the ship, making the whole business MUCH more complex.
Without a single human involved? Really you never spent anytime in any
branch of the military have you. If anything flies into controlled air
space it is detected and classified but the ship doesn't automatically
shoot the intruder down if this happened there would be commerial planes
being shot down right and left.
David Liashenko
whats not possible-in 1875 the president of the U.S Patent office was
quotes saying, "everything that can be invented-has been invented" and
that was before the airplane, the television , even the computer your
using to read this (monitor,t.v, etc) right now-just because you don't
believe it cann't be invented doesn't mean it wont be-it's like when
people believed that man would one day walk on the moon-it used to be
science fiction too
Graham Kennedy
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Thor Odinson wrote:
> > >
> > > >> They would still raise automatically when the freindly ship TARGETS
> > > >> you.
> > > >
> > > >So says you. If the programmers never considered that scenario,
> > > >they wouldn't have put it in. Having used Windows 95 for a few
> > > >years I don't believe there is anything so simple that a
> > > >programmer can't screw it up with a million features and still
> > > >miss half the basics.
> > >
> > > These are the same programmers that Elim thinks can create the perfect
> > > automatic combat program.
> >
> > Well that's a much simpler task. You do know that there are
> > weapons platforms RIGHT NOW that can do this kind of thing,
> > son't you? The Ticonderoga class cruiser can detect targets,
> > classify them as friendly or not, arrange the unfriendlies
> > in order of threat, and engage them automatically. All without
> > a single Human involved. And this is using missiles that need
> > in-flight inertial updates and terminal radar guidence from
> > the ship, making the whole business MUCH more complex.
> >
> > be child's play.
>
> Then why don't we see this in ST. We see ships getting the crap beat out of
> them and they don't retaliate on their own. They have to be told to 'Return
> Fire.' WHich is the point I was trying to make. It fact I made it, several
> times.
For the same reason the Ticos don't sail around with this equipment
in full automatic mode; because when you can, you do things the
manual way because people like to be in control of their weapons.
And if you read the tech manual, the ship does automatically compute
the firing patterns. The CO orders the firing, the tactical officer
chooses the appropriate pattern from a list of options offered by
the computer, the computer implements it. Read page 126 of the
tech manual and then try and tell me firing phasers is manual only.
> > But in the this case NOT doing it would, as you pointed out,
> > make the station horribly vulnerable. Surely in the many
> > decades of photon torpedo development, somebody thought of
> > this.
>
> But we have seen that Photon Torps fired from DS9 are SLOWER than the phaser
> shots. Which makes them STL.
When fired at nearbyu targets, yes. But I would think that they
could be fired at warp also.
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
Stephen Castro wrote:
>
> > Well that's a much simpler task. You do know that there are
> > weapons platforms RIGHT NOW that can do this kind of thing,
> > son't you? The Ticonderoga class cruiser can detect targets,
> > classify them as friendly or not, arrange the unfriendlies
> > in order of threat, and engage them automatically. All without
> > a single Human involved. And this is using missiles that need
> > in-flight inertial updates and terminal radar guidence from
> > the ship, making the whole business MUCH more complex.
>
> branch of the military have you.
No, actually I haven't.
> If anything flies into controlled air
> space it is detected and classified but the ship doesn't automatically
> shoot the intruder down if this happened there would be commerial planes
> being shot down right and left.
I didn't say it would automatically shoot down everything in sight.
I said it CAN do this. It's an option that the tactical crew can
select, if they are in a situation which requires it. It can also
operate on a command-authorisation-mode, in which it does the same
thing but prompts the operators for permission to shoot each
target down. That's more like how the E-D firing system works.
Read page 126 of the technical manual if you don't believe me.
--
Graham Kennedy
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
And I have showed you why it wouldn't work.
Michael Wong
Elim Garak wrote:
>> We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
>> SW shields.
>DS doesn't have shields.
DS2 would have had an energy shield had it been completed. DS1 was
blown up so it is irrelevant. If future DS's were built, they would
have had energy shields like the one at Endor, which was impenetrable.
>> Picard got Rike and Worf to fire at the end of a tunnel to make a path
>> to a nearby cavern. It was said the power used was "Maximum Setting"
>> and it took a combine shot of about 5 seconds to do this.
>Which episode was that?
"Inheritance".
>> The big problem is this, why didn't the phaser beam effect travel
>> though the rest of the rock in the tunnel like it does when it hit the
>> human body?
>That is easy. At that level the beam is not set for human bodies, it is set for general
>destruction. So it was not set to go through.
Wrong. Haven't you ever studied the physics of heat transfer into
semi-infinite conducting bodies? A human body is not semi-infinite
for the purposes of heat conduction, or conduction of the NDF chain
reaction. However, an entire planet IS semi-infinite. Semi-infinite
bodies cause heat, and chain reactions, to dissipate exponentially
with distance. Therefore, in a semi-infinite body, the NDF chain
reaction cannot propagate to any significant distance beyond the
radius of the original phaser beam, and the result is a drilled hole
rather than vast destruction.
>> Also you BIG
>> HOLE theory is fatally flawed.
>As are your power calculations for the x-wings.
How?
>> Or we can take an average.
>Nah - that will make it even worse.
Averages are more reasonable, but the fact is that averages will
bestow an obvious advantage upon the Empire because of its superior
numbers and industrial capacity, so the Trekkies in this debate have
exhausted huge efforts attempting to throw out averages in their
attempts to make single starships seem ridiculously powerful.
Michael Wong
>> If anything flies into controlled air
>> space it is detected and classified but the ship doesn't automatically
>> shoot the intruder down if this happened there would be commerial planes
>> being shot down right and left.
>I didn't say it would automatically shoot down everything in sight.
>I said it CAN do this. It's an option that the tactical crew can
>select, if they are in a situation which requires it. It can also
>operate on a command-authorisation-mode, in which it does the same
>thing but prompts the operators for permission to shoot each
>target down. That's more like how the E-D firing system works.
>Read page 126 of the technical manual if you don't believe me.
I've read page 126 of the technical manual. You are mis-quoting it.
Nowhere on that page does it describe an autonomous attack mode where
it targets and destroys threat entities without human intervention.
It indicates that there are many layers of computer AI that affect
weapon firing and that the computer has to translate generalized
commands from bridge personnel accounting for countless variables
before actually firing. That does not equate to autonomous targeting
and firing, Graham.
There is also no mention whatsoever of "command-authorization-mode"
anywhere on that page. Don't invent things in the TM just to support
your argument. BTW, aren't you the guy who insists that nav
deflectors are totally immune to ALL lasers regardless of power, even
though the TM says nothing of the sort and the theoretical mechanism
behind shields (as described in the TM) contradicts you? Ironic that
you quote it now. I am perfectly willing to abide by the TM- it is
generally the Trekkies that want to throw it out the window.
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > Graham Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> For the same reason the Ticos don't sail around with this equipment
> in full automatic mode; because when you can, you do things the
> manual way because people like to be in control of their weapons.
>
> And if you read the tech manual, the ship does automatically compute
> the firing patterns. The CO orders the firing, the tactical officer
> chooses the appropriate pattern from a list of options offered by
> the computer, the computer implements it. Read page 126 of the
> tech manual and then try and tell me firing phasers is manual only.
Ok, I'm going to say this for the last time, hopefully everyone will read this and
stop saying stupid things.
I KNOW THE #@$#$% COMPUTER FIRE THE @#$%#$@ PHASERS!
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IT WON'T DO IT TILL THE WEAPONS OFFICER TELLS IT TO FIRE.
SO AN ENEMY COULD FLY BY AT WARP, FIRE AS MANY PHOTON TORPS AS POSSIBLE, AND BE
OUT OF WEAPON RANGE BEFORE THE CAPTAIN COULD SAY 'Return fi....'
BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS HAPPEN, EVER.
SO COMBAT AT WARP SPEEDS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT POSSIBLE AGAINST A NON-WARP SHIP.
And before anyone says, 'Stop yelling' I have reasons. This is the forth time I've
said this, and every time the Pro-ST side, the ship fires the phasers, not the
officer. It could target ships at warp. But if the ship is not longer in range, it
can't hit it. I don't see why people can't understand this.
> > > But in the this case NOT doing it would, as you pointed out,
> > > make the station horribly vulnerable. Surely in the many
> > > decades of photon torpedo development, somebody thought of
> > > this.
> >
> > But we have seen that Photon Torps fired from DS9 are SLOWER than the phaser
> > shots. Which makes them STL.
>
> When fired at nearby targets, yes. But I would think that they
> could be fired at warp also.
Could and what is done is two different things.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> >> Vaporizing rock is a lot harder than
> >> explosively uncoupling it, and the TM states that phasers can
> >> explosively uncouple rock, not vaporize it. In order to vaporize it,
> >> a phaser would have to be set differently, and it would take a lot
> >> more work.
> >
> >In other words the rock would not be vaporized, but would flow out in all directions. Sounds
> >pretty good.
>
> Which lowers the total energy out put in TDiC.
And lowers the total energy of the whole SW side even more. Since X-wings still couldn't do that.
> >> >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
> >>
> >> >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
> >> >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
> >> >couldn't.
> >>
> >> Really! You saw an X-Wing fire at the walkers? I didn't- I saw
> >> snowspeeders, which obviously were a failure. The X-Wings in ANH were
> >> blowing up big chunks of the Death Star's surface.
> >
> >Keep up with this argument. I am saying that x-wings were not brought in because they wouldn't
> >have helped. At the power levels you described a few blasts from the x-wings would have ended the
> >battle. Since they were not brought in, apparently it would take a lot more to end the battle then
> >the x-wings have.
>
> And I have already stated why they were NOT brought in. You just
> chose to ignore those reasons cause they don't help the ST side.
Look, how many times do I have to repeat this? If the x-wings were that powerful, then one or two shots
from just one x-wing would have turned the battle around. And there were one or two x-wings available -
Luke flew out in one, and during the battle he was in a speeder.
Elim Garak
ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
> > Then we will have to use tricobalt devices. Maximum of 100 megatons. Too
> bad.
>
> SW shields DO cover the whole ship, they can just be angled to add extra
> protection if neccessary. So you can't beam A tricobalt device into an ISD.
> You could try beaming one near, but a 100 megaton explosion is negligable to
> SW ships.
Since an x-wing can't do anything to the ground in front of a walker, but can hurt
an ISD, it is not negligable.
> > > We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
> > > SW shields.
> >
> > DS doesn't have shields.
>
> DSII does.
Haven't seen any. And the Emperor did say it was fully operational.
> Since we use the E-D and not the E-nil for our ISD v Enterprise
> debates, we should also use the later version of the Death Star.
Nah, in that case why not use the E-E or that ship frim 'Message in a Bottle'?
> What? Surely general destruction CALLS for it to go through, causing the max
> amount of damage to the rock.
Depends on what you want to do. If you want to punch small holes in the rock, you
can do that. If you want to strip paint off a wall, you can do that too.
> Because the Imperial Fleet was encircling the system, trying to trap the
> Rebel ships. You obviously didn't watch the movie very closely. The longer
> they waited, the harder it would be to get out - why do you think they had to
> start sending out two transports at once later on?
Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
> > > Also you BIG
> > > HOLE theory is fatally flawed.
> >
> > As are your power calculations for the x-wings.
>
> How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW blasts
> from anti-starfighter cannons
How so? Where did you get that number?
> (or at least one or two in quick succession,
> any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits without
> sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons would
> need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
> against other shielded Starfighters.
So this means that a phaser rifle should equal to an x-wing.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> >DS doesn't have shields.
>
> Then how did the DS survive Alderaan Exploding?
Don't know, but it wasn't with shields. Otherwise how did the fighters get through?
> I think it was the one with Mark Twain.
I will have to watch it again, though I don't remember anything like that.
> Something very similar
> happened in another episode where the ENTIRE BRIDGE CREW WENT ON AN
> UNDERCOVER MISSION!
Was that the one where the Cardassians tortured Picard? I don't remember a phaser beam vs. rock
there.
> >> The big problem is this, why didn't the phaser beam effect travel
> >> though the rest of the rock in the tunnel like it does when it hit the
> >> human body?
> >
> >That is easy. At that level the beam is not set for human bodies, it is set for general
> >destruction. So it was not set to go through.
>
> There was no mention of the phaser being set to 'General Destruction,'
> if there is such a setting.
Wide beam, power of the beam, stuff like that. Can be clearly seen on the phasers.
> And we've seen people get hit with a
> Phaser at maximum setting before, and the result was no different than
> what normally happens.
Where was that?
> >> And I've should why X-Wings were not used in that battle.
> >
> >No you didn't. You explained why no x-wings could be separated from the transports. You didn't
> >explain why the transports couldn't wait.
>
> X-Wings are not desgined to fight in atmosphere.
What flight? One shot and a walker is dead - just lift a few meters off the ground and fire
something.
> AT-AT can hit X-Wings that are not at combat speeds.
Why would they be at combat speeds? You call lifting, firing one shot and landing combat?
> The Atmosphere on Hoth is Moist and Cold enough that any extended
> periond of flight would have resulted in so much on the Wings of the
> X-Wing that it would CRASH.
See above.
> Do you need any more reasons?
Since yours make no sence, yes.
Elim Garak
Michael Wong wrote:
> Elim Garak wrote:
> >> We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
> >> SW shields.
>
> >DS doesn't have shields.
>
> DS2 would have had an energy shield had it been completed. DS1 was
> blown up so it is irrelevant. If future DS's were built, they would
> have had energy shields like the one at Endor, which was impenetrable.
It is quite possible that you are right. It is also quite possible that an ST ship would
find the gap in them.
> >> Picard got Rike and Worf to fire at the end of a tunnel to make a path
> >> to a nearby cavern. It was said the power used was "Maximum Setting"
> >> and it took a combine shot of about 5 seconds to do this.
>
> >Which episode was that?
>
> "Inheritance".
I will have to watch it again - I don't remember that. Are you talking about hand phasers?
> >> The big problem is this, why didn't the phaser beam effect travel
> >> though the rest of the rock in the tunnel like it does when it hit the
> >> human body?
>
> >That is easy. At that level the beam is not set for human bodies, it is set for general
> >destruction. So it was not set to go through.
>
> Wrong. Haven't you ever studied the physics of heat transfer into
> semi-infinite conducting bodies?
No - didn't get that far.
> A human body is not semi-infinite
> for the purposes of heat conduction, or conduction of the NDF chain
> reaction. However, an entire planet IS semi-infinite. Semi-infinite
> bodies cause heat, and chain reactions, to dissipate exponentially
> with distance. Therefore, in a semi-infinite body, the NDF chain
> reaction cannot propagate to any significant distance beyond the
> radius of the original phaser beam, and the result is a drilled hole
> rather than vast destruction.
I didn't get most of that, but it doesn't matter, because phaser beams do not necessarily
create simple heat, and even when set for heat they use some strange principles which make
all of what you said irrelevant (I think :).
> >> Also you BIG
> >> HOLE theory is fatally flawed.
>
> >As are your power calculations for the x-wings.
>
> How?
See other arguments. A several thousand TW blast would melt plenty of ice. And we are not
talking about the multi-megaton torpedoes and missiles of an x-wing.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> >> BTW, the Technical Manual says that it's dangerous to transport
> >> antimatter because it's so volatile- it might blow up when you try and
> >> transport it, and having a photon torpedo detonation inside your ship
> >> is not exactly a good way to win a battle.
> >
> >So use tricobalt devices. They are just fusion-fission bombs that are used for demolition.
>
> And are much weaker then the weapons used in SW.
SW weapons couldn't melt even a few meter hole in the snow. So how do you figure that?
> >This makes sense only if these numbers are the energy efficiency of the shield generators. The
> >generators themselves deflect a lot more energy then that. Proof? I believe that in the latest
> >Voyager episode Paris tested a 1 TW rifle. It is pretty big as far as rifles go, but you can't
> >tell me that one ST rifle would crack ST shields. Plus I would like to mention that blasters
> >give off basically kinetic energy. Any ST ship accelerating to warp gets a lot more kicks then
> >2500 TJ. If you look at the equation for kinetic energy, you will see that as the speed
> >approaches to c, the kinetic energy approaches to infinity. So an ST ship accelerating to warp
> >from sub light is hit by infinitely more energy then an SD or even the DS can produce. It
> >apparently uses some kind of strange principle to ignore that energy, but there you go.
>
> No, it uses a warp bubble to stop the KE from hitting hit.
And if I am not mistaken, the definition of shields is very close to the definition of warp bubbles.
Both create distortions of space.
> And even
> then it only has to stop a few micrograms/second.
Are you talking about mass here? I am pretty sure that we have seen the E go to warp in areas of
space where there was a lot more stuff around.
Elim Garak
Thor Odinson wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:13:04 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> >Thor Odinson wrote:
> >
> >When they meet the first time - yes. But SOPs change.
>
> We are not considdering a capaign style war here. Were are
> considiering a few encounters.
>
> If we went for campaign, SW would just need to send 100 or so SD to
> each of the 150+ planets in the Federation and Melt the surface in
> under 2 minutes.
No, it would watch them destroyed after a few shots from the people on the ground with hand phasers:)
Seriously, first they would need to mobilise that many ships, then they would need the maps and the
locations of the planets, then they would need to defeat the vessels already there.
> The Imperial navy could ignore whatever forces were there, cause they
> would still have more than 5000 SD in reserve.
SDs that crumble like paper.
> >> 0:00.00 Enemy ship is moving at warp 6 towards DS9
> >> 0:00.10 DS9 Detects enemy, raise shield command is given
> >> 0:05:00 Enemy 4,000,000 km away, shields are raised
> >> 0:05.05 Enemy Fires Photon Torps
> >> 0:05.10 DS9 Senses incoming shot
> >> 0:05.50 Weapon Ops says "Romulans firing"
> >> 0:05.74 Weapons hit
> >> 0:06.00 Romulans 4,000,000 + km away
> >> 0:06:10 Sisko Says "Return Fire"
> >> 0:07:00 Worf Says "They are no longer in range"
> >
> >0:10:00 Worf finishes setting the automatic firing protocols.0:20:00 The Romulans try this again,
> >DS9 detects them, and reacts accordingly.
>
> There is no try again. This in the end of the battle. With hundreds of
> deaths, DS9 defenses destroyed or inoperable, maybe even all of DS9
> destroyed if there was a large enough attack.
>
> BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS, EVER!
Yes, because one shot of a BOP is not enough to get through the shields of DS9.
> >> Weapons Ops: Romluans are closing in to weapons range"
> >> Captain: "Why the hell are you telling me, set the computer on auto
> >> Duel, I'll be in the Holosuite"
> >> Weapons Ops: "I'll Join You!"
> >
> >We have seen this. "Message in a Bottle". Completly on automatic.
>
> Yes but only AFTER the doctor told the computer to do this. With warp
> speeds the Captain would not have time to finish saying "Return Fire!"
> before the target was long gone.
And I am not arguing with you about that. First shot could easily go to the enemy. But that would
work only once.
> >> The people in command would have time to react, and by the time they
> >> did the enemy would be gone.
> >
> >Computer.
>
> The computer wouldn't do SHIT! We saw this in "Message in a Bottle"
>
> The computer just sat there getting it's ass shot off. And it would
> have continued to sit there if the doctor hadn't accidentally
> initiated the automatic attack program. Why is this so hard for you to
> understand.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that the people that start the programs also wouldn't just sit
there? They would start the right defence protocols. The other ship could get the first shot, but
after that it wouldn't work.
> >You think each of the times one of the three sections fired one of the doctors said 'fire'? They
> >would have had to repeat this many many times very very quickly. I seriously doubt that they did
> >this.
>
> THE BATTLE WOULD BE OVER BEFORE THE DOCTOR COULD HAVE TOLD THE
> COMPUTER TO FIRE IN THE FIRST PLACE. REMEMBER WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
> WARP SPEED COMBAT WHERE ONE TARGET IS NOT AT WARP SPEED.
Stop shouting - you are already annoying enough as it is. The battle would be over only if the other
ship could completly penetrate the shields of the first one and destroy it with one shot. Only then
it would be over. Otherwise there would still be a ship with functioning weapons, computer, and
people to initiate the programs in the computer for the weapons.
> >> I am NOT saying the computer couldn't track and fire on a object
> >> moving at warp speed, I am saying that by the time someone said return
> >> fire the ship would no longer be in weapon range.
> >>
> >> I hope this clears things up
> >
> >You are right about the first shot, but why can't a program be loaded after that?
>
> WHO CARES?
>
> The fight would be over. The damage is done.
If one ship has shields like cardboard (which is true for the SW ships) then you are right. Otherwise
the ship that is being attacked can and will return fire as soon as the warp vessel gets back into
range.
Graham Kennedy
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> Graham Kennedy wrote:
>
> > Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > >
> > > Graham Kennedy wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thor Odinson wrote:
> >
>
> > For the same reason the Ticos don't sail around with this equipment
> > in full automatic mode; because when you can, you do things the
> > manual way because people like to be in control of their weapons.
> >
> > And if you read the tech manual, the ship does automatically compute
> > the firing patterns. The CO orders the firing, the tactical officer
> > chooses the appropriate pattern from a list of options offered by
> > the computer, the computer implements it. Read page 126 of the
> > tech manual and then try and tell me firing phasers is manual only.
>
> Ok, I'm going to say this for the last time, hopefully everyone will read this and
> stop saying stupid things.
>
> I KNOW THE #@$#$% COMPUTER FIRE THE @#$%#$@ PHASERS!
>
> BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IT WON'T DO IT TILL THE WEAPONS OFFICER TELLS IT TO FIRE.
>
> SO AN ENEMY COULD FLY BY AT WARP, FIRE AS MANY PHOTON TORPS AS POSSIBLE, AND BE
> OUT OF WEAPON RANGE BEFORE THE CAPTAIN COULD SAY 'Return fi....'
You are aware that ships at warp can be seen from lightyears away?
with minutes or hours of warning before they can be in weapons range?
That Trek sensors can tell if somebody has weapons armed well before
they fire, from distances well beyond firing range?
So this tactic you keep going on about simply wouldn't work.
> BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS HAPPEN, EVER.
>
> SO COMBAT AT WARP SPEEDS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT POSSIBLE AGAINST A NON-WARP SHIP.
We have seen such combat at least once, in TOS.
> > > But we have seen that Photon Torps fired from DS9 are SLOWER than the phaser
> > > shots. Which makes them STL.
> >
> > When fired at nearby targets, yes. But I would think that they
> > could be fired at warp also.
>
> Could and what is done is two different things.
Photon torps can certainly be fired at warp by a Starship. The E-D
did so early in "Encounter at Farpoint".
--
Graham Kennedy
Graham Kennedy
Michael Wong wrote:
>
> >> If anything flies into controlled air
> >> space it is detected and classified but the ship doesn't automatically
> >> shoot the intruder down if this happened there would be commerial planes
> >> being shot down right and left.
>
> >I didn't say it would automatically shoot down everything in sight.
> >I said it CAN do this. It's an option that the tactical crew can
> >select, if they are in a situation which requires it. It can also
> >operate on a command-authorisation-mode, in which it does the same
> >thing but prompts the operators for permission to shoot each
> >target down. That's more like how the E-D firing system works.
> >Read page 126 of the technical manual if you don't believe me.
>
> I've read page 126 of the technical manual. You are mis-quoting it.
> Nowhere on that page does it describe an autonomous attack mode where
> it targets and destroys threat entities without human intervention.
> It indicates that there are many layers of computer AI that affect
> weapon firing and that the computer has to translate generalized
> commands from bridge personnel accounting for countless variables
> before actually firing. That does not equate to autonomous targeting
> and firing, Graham.
>
> There is also no mention whatsoever of "command-authorization-mode"
> anywhere on that page. Don't invent things in the TM just to support
> your argument.
You are misquoting me here. The above description is of a Ticonderoga
class cruiser currently in service with the United States Navy. If you
read the thread you have jumped into you will see this.
The only part of this that refers to the E-D is the last sentance :
> >That's more like how the E-D firing system works.
> >Read page 126 of the technical manual if you don't believe me.
Which is to say that the E-D firing system offers the tactical officer
a list of firing options and he just picks one; the computer does the
rest. It is a tiny, tiny jump from this to just let the computer
engage any target it thinks is offering a threat. The change to the
software would be so small as to be childs play; literally tell the
computer to go with its best option instead of waiting for permission.
> BTW, aren't you the guy who insists that nav
> deflectors are totally immune to ALL lasers regardless of power, even
> though the TM says nothing of the sort and the theoretical mechanism
> behind shields (as described in the TM) contradicts you? Ironic that
> you quote it now. I am perfectly willing to abide by the TM- it is
> generally the Trekkies that want to throw it out the window.
The TM doesn't say it, an episode does.
Are you new to this group or something? This is at least the
second time you have jumped into the middle of a thread and
started making wild accusations because you have no idea of
what has gone before in the discussion. If you wish to join
a discussion, proper netiquette is to follow it for a few
posts first in order to get an idea of what the people involved
are talking about. Only then can you make a sensible
contribution.
--
Graham Kennedy
ty...@deathsdoor.com
In article <3500A9CB...@usa.net>,
Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
>
> > > Then we will have to use tricobalt devices. Maximum of 100 megatons.
Too
> > bad.
> >
> > SW shields DO cover the whole ship, they can just be angled to add extra
> > protection if neccessary. So you can't beam A tricobalt device into an
ISD.
> > You could try beaming one near, but a 100 megaton explosion is negligable
to
> > SW ships.
>
> Since an x-wing can't do anything to the ground in front of a walker, but
can hurt
> an ISD, it is not negligable.
*sigh* I'm not even going to bother. All i'll say is, it wouldn't hurt the
ISD, and we never saw an X-Wing TRY, for exactly the reasons i'll state later
on in this message.
> > > > We still haven't established weather or not you can tranport through
> > > > SW shields.
> > >
> > > DS doesn't have shields.
> >
> > DSII does.
>
> Haven't seen any. And the Emperor did say it was fully operational.
>
> > Since we use the E-D and not the E-nil for our ISD v Enterprise
> > debates, we should also use the later version of the Death Star.
>
> Nah, in that case why not use the E-E or that ship frim 'Message in a
Bottle'?
Fine, E-E it is. Flagship of the Fleet, after all.
> > What? Surely general destruction CALLS for it to go through, causing the
max
> > amount of damage to the rock.
>
> Depends on what you want to do. If you want to punch small holes in the
rock, you
> can do that. If you want to strip paint off a wall, you can do that too.
But they were trying to blaster through in the example stated, so my original
question stands.
> > Because the Imperial Fleet was encircling the system, trying to trap the
> > Rebel ships. You obviously didn't watch the movie very closely. The
longer
> > they waited, the harder it would be to get out - why do you think they
had to
> > start sending out two transports at once later on?
>
> Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
Are you EVER, EVER going to listen to why they couldn't use spacegoing
fighters???? I will give you several good, valid and plausible reasons why
not:
1) They need ALL of their starfighters to act as escort. They were SO scarce
they could only assign TWO per transport, and later on they had to assign two
for two transports. Trying LISTENING to the movie.
2) The Speeders were a calculated gamble - they were untested in combat, but
were especially modified for the conditions. Not only that, they were
expendable, as they weren't really worth anything on any planet except Hoth.
As opposed to the X-Wings, which are MUCH more valuable, and just as
vulnerable to the AT-AT fire.
3) They were NOT aiming to stay for a prolonged siege. If you'd actually
LISTENED, you'd have heard General Rieekan say they were trying to buy time,
not dig in and try to defend. Whether or not the shield was up or down was
irrevelant to the evactuation - they were trying to avoid becoming encircled.
Now, can you refute any of these with GOOD cause? ANY of them?
> > > > Also you BIG
> > > > HOLE theory is fatally flawed.
> > >
> > > As are your power calculations for the x-wings.
> >
> > How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW blasts
> > from anti-starfighter cannons
>
> How so? Where did you get that number?
Simple - anti-starfighter guns on the DS did hit the X-Wings, but they
survived for a while (until the TIEs became involved). So they CAN survive
thousands of TW of power in a short space of time.
> > (or at least one or two in quick succession,
> > any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits without
> > sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons
would
> > need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
> > against other shielded Starfighters.
>
> So this means that a phaser rifle should equal to an x-wing.
Heh, prove it. Since we NEVER saw X-Wings get involved in the Battle of Hoth
for PRECISELY the reasons I cited above, you cannot POSSIBLY get that figure
logically.
Piett
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
ty...@deathsdoor.com
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> > >> Vaporizing rock is a lot harder than
> > >> explosively uncoupling it, and the TM states that phasers can
> > >> explosively uncouple rock, not vaporize it. In order to vaporize it,
> > >> a phaser would have to be set differently, and it would take a lot
> > >> more work.
> > >
> > >In other words the rock would not be vaporized, but would flow out in all directions. Sounds
> > >pretty good.
> >
> > Which lowers the total energy out put in TDiC.
>
> And lowers the total energy of the whole SW side even more. Since X-wings still couldn't do that.
You logic is pathetic. I'll explain for the FIFTH time why X-Wing were not used at the end of this message.
> > >> >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
> > >>
> > >> >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
> > >> >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
> > >> >couldn't.
> > >>
> > >> Really! You saw an X-Wing fire at the walkers? I didn't- I saw
> > >> snowspeeders, which obviously were a failure. The X-Wings in ANH were
> > >> blowing up big chunks of the Death Star's surface.
> > >
> > >Keep up with this argument. I am saying that x-wings were not brought in because they wouldn't
> > >have helped. At the power levels you described a few blasts from the x-wings would have ended the
> > >battle. Since they were not brought in, apparently it would take a lot more to end the battle then
> > >the x-wings have.
> >
> > And I have already stated why they were NOT brought in. You just
> > chose to ignore those reasons cause they don't help the ST side.
>
> Look, how many times do I have to repeat this? If the x-wings were that powerful, then one or two shots
> from just one x-wing would have turned the battle around. And there were one or two x-wings available -
> Luke flew out in one, and during the battle he was in a speeder.
1.) X-Wings are not meant to fight in Atmosphere
2.) The atmosphere of Hoth was so inhospitable that X-Wings could not Spend more time flying in the
Atmosphere than ABSOLUTELY necessary.
3.) AT-ATs can hit Starfighters in atmosphere. And would be able to defend themselves against X-Wing
attacks.
4.) The battle was already lost. Remember only ONE of the SD AT-ATs were brought to Hoth. There were 2 other
SD and the SSD with AT-ATs ready to land if needed.
5.) The Rebels needed to escape BEFORE the SD set up a TIE fighter blockade
Do you need anymore reasons.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Thor Odinson wrote:
> > Something very similar
> > happened in another episode where the ENTIRE BRIDGE CREW WENT ON AN
> > UNDERCOVER MISSION!
>
> Was that the one where the Cardassians tortured Picard? I don't remember a phaser beam vs. rock
> there.
Nope, different episode.
> > >> And I've should why X-Wings were not used in that battle.
> > >
> > >No you didn't. You explained why no x-wings could be separated from the transports. You
> > >didn't explain why the transports couldn't wait.
> >
> > X-Wings are not desgined to fight in atmosphere.
>
> What flight? One shot and a walker is dead - just lift a few meters off the ground and fire
> something.
>
> > AT-AT can hit X-Wings that are not at combat speeds.
>
> Why would they be at combat speeds? You call lifting, firing one shot and landing combat?
You really should READ the post before replying.
I said the AT-AT would be able to hit the X-Wing if it was NOT at full combat speeds.
> > The Atmosphere on Hoth is Moist and Cold enough that any extended
> > periond of flight would have resulted in so much on the Wings of the
> > X-Wing that it would CRASH.
>
> See above.
>
> > Do you need any more reasons?
>
> Since yours make no sence, yes.
Then maybe you should READ THE DAMN POST BEFORE YOU DISAGREE WITH IT!
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
> > > What? Surely general destruction CALLS for it to go through, causing the
> max
> > > amount of damage to the rock.
> >
> > Depends on what you want to do. If you want to punch small holes in the
> rock, you
> > can do that. If you want to strip paint off a wall, you can do that too.
>
> But they were trying to blaster through in the example stated, so my original
> question stands.
Since I haven't seen that episode (or don't remember it), I can't comment.
> > Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
>
> Are you EVER, EVER going to listen to why they couldn't use spacegoing
> fighters???? I will give you several good, valid and plausible reasons why
> not:
>
> 1) They need ALL of their starfighters to act as escort. They were SO scarce
> they could only assign TWO per transport, and later on they had to assign two
> for two transports. Trying LISTENING to the movie.
Yet Luke flew out in one. Why didn't he fly in his x-wing? It was just sitting
there waiting for him, idling.
> 2) The Speeders were a calculated gamble - they were untested in combat, but
> were especially modified for the conditions. Not only that, they were
> expendable, as they weren't really worth anything on any planet except Hoth.
> As opposed to the X-Wings, which are MUCH more valuable, and just as
> vulnerable to the AT-AT fire.
They have shields. And they are a lot more powerful, so powerful that one could
have ended the whole battle.
> 3) They were NOT aiming to stay for a prolonged siege. If you'd actually
> LISTENED, you'd have heard General Rieekan say they were trying to buy time,
> not dig in and try to defend. Whether or not the shield was up or down was
> irrevelant to the evactuation - they were trying to avoid becoming encircled.
Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
> Now, can you refute any of these with GOOD cause? ANY of them?
Look above.
> > > How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW blasts
> > > from anti-starfighter cannons
> >
> > How so? Where did you get that number?
>
> Simple - anti-starfighter guns on the DS did hit the X-Wings, but they
> survived for a while (until the TIEs became involved). So they CAN survive
> thousands of TW of power in a short space of time.
So where did you get that number?
> > > (or at least one or two in quick succession,
> > > any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits without
> > > sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons
> would
> > > need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
> > > against other shielded Starfighters.
> >
> > So this means that a phaser rifle should equal to an x-wing.
>
> Heh, prove it. Since we NEVER saw X-Wings get involved in the Battle of Hoth
> for PRECISELY the reasons I cited above, you cannot POSSIBLY get that figure
> logically.
Look above.
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Thor Odinson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 01 Mar 1998 18:13:04 -0800, Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Thor Odinson wrote:
> > >
> > >When they meet the first time - yes. But SOPs change.
> >
> > We are not considdering a capaign style war here. Were are
> > considiering a few encounters.
> >
> > If we went for campaign, SW would just need to send 100 or so SD to
> > each of the 150+ planets in the Federation and Melt the surface in
> > under 2 minutes.
>
> Seriously, first they would need to mobilise that many ships, then they would need the maps and the
> locations of the planets, then they would need to defeat the vessels already there.
Firstly, they could ignore the ships in defense and just concentrate on the planet. Leave when they are
done.
Secondly, They could get the appropriate maps form the Ferengi, or chart the space themselves with scout
probes.
> > The Imperial navy could ignore whatever forces were there, cause they
> > would still have more than 5000 SD in reserve.
>
> SDs that crumble like paper.
That's YOUR OPINION, and it is disputed.
> > >> 0:00.00 Enemy ship is moving at warp 6 towards DS9
> > >> 0:00.10 DS9 Detects enemy, raise shield command is given
> > >> 0:05:00 Enemy 4,000,000 km away, shields are raised
> > >> 0:05.05 Enemy Fires Photon Torps
> > >> 0:05.10 DS9 Senses incoming shot
> > >> 0:05.50 Weapon Ops says "Romulans firing"
> > >> 0:05.74 Weapons hit
> > >> 0:06.00 Romulans 4,000,000 + km away
> > >> 0:06:10 Sisko Says "Return Fire"
> > >> 0:07:00 Worf Says "They are no longer in range"
> > >
> > >0:10:00 Worf finishes setting the automatic firing protocols.0:20:00 The Romulans try this again,
> > >DS9 detects them, and reacts accordingly.
> >
> > There is no try again. This in the end of the battle. With hundreds of
> > deaths, DS9 defenses destroyed or inoperable, maybe even all of DS9
> > destroyed if there was a large enough attack.
> >
> > BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS, EVER!
>
> Yes, because one shot of a BOP is not enough to get through the shields of DS9.
What, there is only one BOP in the entire ST fleet.
BTW, each ship could launch 10 Torps PER launcher PER ship. That means Half a dozen ships could send 240
Torpedoes at DS9, that would disable the station long enough to get a second attack run, OR, most likely,
destroy it completely.
<SNIPPED A LOT OF CRAP!>
I erased the rest of this debate cause it was basically a repeat of what is above.
C.S.Strowbridge
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > > >> >> Where did you get the Phaser is stronger than the X-Wing?
> > > >>
> > > >> >You keep saying that you read everything here, you should know. I got it from the fact that a
> > > >> >phaser rifle could make a hole large enough in front of the walkers, and an x-wing apperently
> > > >> >couldn't.
> > > >>
> > > >> Really! You saw an X-Wing fire at the walkers? I didn't- I saw
> > > >> snowspeeders, which obviously were a failure. The X-Wings in ANH were
> > > >> blowing up big chunks of the Death Star's surface.
> > > >
> > > >Keep up with this argument. I am saying that x-wings were not brought in because they wouldn't
> > > >have helped. At the power levels you described a few blasts from the x-wings would have ended the
> > > >battle. Since they were not brought in, apparently it would take a lot more to end the battle then
> > > >the x-wings have.
> > >
> > > And I have already stated why they were NOT brought in. You just
> > > chose to ignore those reasons cause they don't help the ST side.
> >
> > Look, how many times do I have to repeat this? If the x-wings were that powerful, then one or two shots
> > from just one x-wing would have turned the battle around. And there were one or two x-wings available -
> > Luke flew out in one, and during the battle he was in a speeder.
>
> 1.) X-Wings are not meant to fight in Atmosphere
No fight was necessary. Lift, fire, land. No big deal.
> 2.) The atmosphere of Hoth was so inhospitable that X-Wings could not Spend more time flying in the
> Atmosphere than ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Several dozen (at least) lives are worth several dozen hours of some mechanic's time.
> 3.) AT-ATs can hit Starfighters in atmosphere. And would be able to defend themselves against X-Wing
> attacks.
Shields.
> 4.) The battle was already lost. Remember only ONE of the SD AT-ATs were brought to Hoth. There were 2 other
> SD and the SSD with AT-ATs ready to land if needed.
A few nukes would have taken care of all of them.
> 5.) The Rebels needed to escape BEFORE the SD set up a TIE fighter blockade
Huh? What stopped them? Just launch the TIEs - should take more then a few minutes.
> Do you need anymore reasons.
Yep.
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > > Something very similar
> > > happened in another episode where the ENTIRE BRIDGE CREW WENT ON AN
> > > UNDERCOVER MISSION!
> >
> > Was that the one where the Cardassians tortured Picard? I don't remember a phaser beam vs. rock
> > there.
>
> Nope, different episode.
So which one was it?
> > > X-Wings are not desgined to fight in atmosphere.
> >
> > What flight? One shot and a walker is dead - just lift a few meters off the ground and fire
> > something.
> >
> > > AT-AT can hit X-Wings that are not at combat speeds.
> >
> > Why would they be at combat speeds? You call lifting, firing one shot and landing combat?
>
> You really should READ the post before replying.
>
> I said the AT-AT would be able to hit the X-Wing if it was NOT at full combat speeds.
Lift above a hill for a second, fire, land. Safe enough. + shields.
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > > >When they meet the first time - yes. But SOPs change.
> > >
> > > We are not considdering a capaign style war here. Were are
> > > considiering a few encounters.
> > >
> > > If we went for campaign, SW would just need to send 100 or so SD to
> > > each of the 150+ planets in the Federation and Melt the surface in
> > > under 2 minutes.
> >
> > Seriously, first they would need to mobilise that many ships, then they would need the maps and the
> > locations of the planets, then they would need to defeat the vessels already there.
>
> Firstly, they could ignore the ships in defense and just concentrate on the planet. Leave when they are
> done.
1 photon torpedo = 1 ISD. The Enterprise can launch several a second. ISDs would not have enough time. +
land based phasers.
> Secondly, They could get the appropriate maps form the Ferengi, or chart the space themselves with scout
> probes.
Time, time, time.
> > > There is no try again. This in the end of the battle. With hundreds of
> > > deaths, DS9 defenses destroyed or inoperable, maybe even all of DS9
> > > destroyed if there was a large enough attack.
> > >
> > > BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS, EVER!
> >
> > Yes, because one shot of a BOP is not enough to get through the shields of DS9.
>
> What, there is only one BOP in the entire ST fleet.
Huh? There is a BOP in ST fleet? And aren't we talking about attack on the Feds, not by the Feds?
> BTW, each ship could launch 10 Torps PER launcher PER ship. That means Half a dozen ships could send 240
> Torpedoes at DS9, that would disable the station long enough to get a second attack run, OR, most likely,
> destroy it completely.
If they all organized, yes. But then DS9 would have launched its own torpedoes and set up a firewall. And
there would be no more DS9 to take over, or to have a series about.
Jarrett or Ross Sauby
Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote in article <3501AEF7...@usa.net>...
Elim, you have proven yourself to be a total moron with no comprehension
skills. Now you can stop ackting like an idiot. I would explain things to
you but it's already happened. 5 TIMES. You can stop now, admit your
wroung, or make your self look like a bigger idiot and continue this
argument that you have alread lost.
--Jarrett
Michael Wong
Elim wrote:
>> SW shields DO cover the whole ship, they can just be angled to add extra
>> protection if neccessary. So you can't beam A tricobalt device into an ISD.
>> You could try beaming one near, but a 100 megaton explosion is negligable to
>> SW ships.
>Since an x-wing can't do anything to the ground in front of a walker, but can hurt
>an ISD, it is not negligable.
When did an X-Wing fire at the ground in front of a walker? You're
inventing SW occurrences again, Elim.
>> DSII does.
>Haven't seen any. And the Emperor did say it was fully operational.
No, he said it was "fully armed and operational". It was fully armed
and it was somewhat operational, but it was OBVIOUSLY not complete,
and they could have used the extra space for storage of fuel or for an
energy shield generator or both. What did you think they were going
to do with that huge piece of uncompleted structure? Store boxes of
Cheerios in it?
>> Since we use the E-D and not the E-nil for our ISD v Enterprise
>> debates, we should also use the later version of the Death Star.
>Nah, in that case why not use the E-E or that ship frim 'Message in a Bottle'?
The E-D is most often used because it is the ship on which the most
data is available. There's nothing unreasonable about that.
>> Because the Imperial Fleet was encircling the system, trying to trap the
>> Rebel ships. You obviously didn't watch the movie very closely. The longer
>> they waited, the harder it would be to get out - why do you think they had to
>> start sending out two transports at once later on?
>Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
Perhaps X-Wings handle like pigs in the atmosphere. They are
STARfighters, after all. Perhaps they thought the snowspeeders would
work out better than they did. Once they realized that they weren't
powerful enough to do the job, it was too late to go back for their
X-Wings.
>> How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW blasts
>> from anti-starfighter cannons
>How so? Where did you get that number?
Well, I personally estimate that X-Wing laser cannons can deal out
approximately 8GJ blasts in order to vaporize 1 cubic metre of iron
per blast (based on the destruction they dealt to the surface of the
Death Star in ANH). We also know that a single two-shot salvo from a
TIE fighter can penetrate an X-Wing's shields and destroy the fighter
but a single shot will only achieve partial penetration. Therefore,
we can conclude that X-Wing shields can handle a little less than 8GJ.
Since the entire phaser output of a Galaxy Class starship is just
1.02GW, it would take close to 8 seconds to take down the shields of
an X-Wing fighter- quite a long time when you are being shot at.
>> (or at least one or two in quick succession,
>> any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits without
>> sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons would
>> need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
>> against other shielded Starfighters.
>So this means that a phaser rifle should equal to an x-wing.
Obviously, this poster is using somewhat different numbers from mine,
perhaps based on some other visual evidence. But regardless, the TM
is very explicit in its description of the energy requirements and
rock destruction capabilities of phasers. The destruction effect of
phasers is caused by a chain-reaction in the target matter that is
triggered by the phaser, but this doesn't change the actual power
level of the phaser. Type II hand phasers are limited to 0.01MW, and
shipboard phasers are limited to 1.02GW. The fact that they can set
off beautifully destructive chain reactions in rock doesn't change the
fact that they actually don't put a lot of raw energy, and there is no
matter to react with in a shield.
Michael Wong
>> BTW, aren't you the guy who insists that nav
>> deflectors are totally immune to ALL lasers regardless of power, even
>> though the TM says nothing of the sort and the theoretical mechanism
>> behind shields (as described in the TM) contradicts you? Ironic that
>> you quote it now. I am perfectly willing to abide by the TM- it is
>> generally the Trekkies that want to throw it out the window.
>The TM doesn't say it, an episode does.
No, it says that a tiny low-powered vessel couldn't possibly hurt the
Enterprise with lasers, which makes sense since its entire power
output was probably lower than the multi-gigawatts required to power a
laser big enough to be a threat to the E-D. You are inventing
dialogue- no one ever said that no lasers of ANY power level could
hurt the Enterprise in that episode.
>Are you new to this group or something? This is at least the
>second time you have jumped into the middle of a thread and
>started making wild accusations because you have no idea of
>what has gone before in the discussion.
I know what's gone on before in the discussion, and I've been around
this group for a very long time. It's just that your ridiculous "no
laser" argument is one of the oldest and stupidest arguments in this
NG and it has been refuted so many times there should be a webpage on
it.
>If you wish to join
>a discussion, proper netiquette is to follow it for a few
>posts first in order to get an idea of what the people involved
>are talking about. Only then can you make a sensible
>contribution.
I know exactly what you are talking about, Graham. The problem is
that you don't want to hear proofs that you are wrong, and would
rather comment on your perceived concept of netiquette (part of which
requires that you don't bring up long-dead arguments because it's a
waste of bandwidth to fight a long-dead war AGAIN).
ty...@deathsdoor.com
In article <3501ABD4...@usa.net>,
Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
>
> > > > What? Surely general destruction CALLS for it to go through, causing
the
> > max
> > > > amount of damage to the rock.
> > >
> > > Depends on what you want to do. If you want to punch small holes in the
> > rock, you
> > > can do that. If you want to strip paint off a wall, you can do that
too.
> >
> > But they were trying to blaster through in the example stated, so my
original
> > question stands.
>
> Since I haven't seen that episode (or don't remember it), I can't comment.
Well, it paints the Phaser to be less powerful than claimed.
> > > Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
> >
> > Are you EVER, EVER going to listen to why they couldn't use spacegoing
> > fighters???? I will give you several good, valid and plausible reasons
why
> > not:
> >
> > 1) They need ALL of their starfighters to act as escort. They were SO
scarce
> > they could only assign TWO per transport, and later on they had to assign
two
> > for two transports. Trying LISTENING to the movie.
>
> Yet Luke flew out in one. Why didn't he fly in his x-wing? It was just
sitting
> there waiting for him, idling.
Go back and watch ESB. Tell me what was ALSO sitting there, waiting to take
off. Look a hell of a lot like a transport to me. They were still
evactuating, still needed the X-Wings for that purpose.
> > 2) The Speeders were a calculated gamble - they were untested in combat,
but
> > were especially modified for the conditions. Not only that, they were
> > expendable, as they weren't really worth anything on any planet except
Hoth.
> > As opposed to the X-Wings, which are MUCH more valuable, and just as
> > vulnerable to the AT-AT fire.
>
> They have shields. And they are a lot more powerful, so powerful that one
could
> have ended the whole battle.
They could NOT have ended the whole battle. If one X-Wing could have
defeated 5 or 6 Walkers, the Imperial Walker would be totally useless as far
as any military campaign goes. Obviously, they aren't, as the ground based
weaponry firing with no effect at them shows.
> > 3) They were NOT aiming to stay for a prolonged siege. If you'd actually
> > LISTENED, you'd have heard General Rieekan say they were trying to buy
time,
> > not dig in and try to defend. Whether or not the shield was up or down
was
> > irrevelant to the evactuation - they were trying to avoid becoming
encircled.
>
> Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
The only way they could have bought any time at all was to blow up some of
the ISDs. All they could do was disable any that were within a certain
flight path. Again, the AT-ATs were not the greatest concern, the time was.
> > Now, can you refute any of these with GOOD cause? ANY of them?
>
> Look above.
I have, and i'm STILL waiting. These are the same answers you've
regurgitated throughout this debate.
> > > > How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW
blasts
> > > > from anti-starfighter cannons
> > >
> > > How so? Where did you get that number?
> >
> > Simple - anti-starfighter guns on the DS did hit the X-Wings, but they
> > survived for a while (until the TIEs became involved). So they CAN
survive
> > thousands of TW of power in a short space of time.
>
> So where did you get that number?
Asteroid calcs. Like 'em or lump 'em, as far as i'm concerned. They are
from an unbiased viewpoint.
> > > > (or at least one or two in quick succession,
> > > > any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits
without
> > > > sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons
> > would
> > > > need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
> > > > against other shielded Starfighters.
> > >
> > > So this means that a phaser rifle should equal to an x-wing.
> >
> > Heh, prove it. Since we NEVER saw X-Wings get involved in the Battle of
Hoth
> > for PRECISELY the reasons I cited above, you cannot POSSIBLY get that
figure
> > logically.
>
> Look above.
*whistles boredly* STILL waiting.
Elim Garak
ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
> > Since I haven't seen that episode (or don't remember it), I can't comment.
>
> Well, it paints the Phaser to be less powerful than claimed.
Yes, apparently it does. However I haven't seen it.
> > Yet Luke flew out in one. Why didn't he fly in his x-wing? It was just
> sitting
> > there waiting for him, idling.
>
> Go back and watch ESB. Tell me what was ALSO sitting there, waiting to take
> off. Look a hell of a lot like a transport to me. They were still
> evactuating, still needed the X-Wings for that purpose.
What the hell are you babbling about? Did they need the x-wings as tugs
or
something? Because they were just sitting there doing absolutely
nothing. While
they could have been doing something.
> > They have shields. And they are a lot more powerful, so powerful that one
> could
> > have ended the whole battle.
>
> They could NOT have ended the whole battle. If one X-Wing could have
> defeated 5 or 6 Walkers, the Imperial Walker would be totally useless as far
> as any military campaign goes. Obviously, they aren't, as the ground based
> weaponry firing with no effect at them shows.
OK, you tell me what a walker is supposed to do when a several megaton
bomb is
blown up under or near it.
> > Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
>
> The only way they could have bought any time at all was to blow up some of
> the ISDs. All they could do was disable any that were within a certain
> flight path. Again, the AT-ATs were not the greatest concern, the time was.
People dying was not a great consern? Apperently the Rebels were not
much better
then the Empire.
> > > Now, can you refute any of these with GOOD cause? ANY of them?
> >
> > Look above.
>
> I have, and i'm STILL waiting. These are the same answers you've
> regurgitated throughout this debate.
Look above. I have repeated them because you still can't understand my
replyes -
why, I have no idea.
> > > Simple - anti-starfighter guns on the DS did hit the X-Wings, but they
> > > survived for a while (until the TIEs became involved). So they CAN
> survive
> > > thousands of TW of power in a short space of time.
> >
> > So where did you get that number?
>
> Asteroid calcs. Like 'em or lump 'em, as far as i'm concerned. They are
> from an unbiased viewpoint.
And asteroid calcs suck. They are from a biased viewpoint because they
use
incorrect data. How many times do I have to repeat that? Just look for
the
specific weight of asteroids on the net - you will see that you are
wrong.
Elim Garak
Michael Wong wrote:
> Elim wrote:
> >> SW shields DO cover the whole ship, they can just be angled to add extra
> >> protection if neccessary. So you can't beam A tricobalt device into an ISD.
> >> You could try beaming one near, but a 100 megaton explosion is negligable to
> >> SW ships.
>
> >Since an x-wing can't do anything to the ground in front of a walker, but can hurt
> >an ISD, it is not negligable.
>
> When did an X-Wing fire at the ground in front of a walker? You're
> inventing SW occurrences again, Elim.
No, I am not. Keep up with the argument. I am saying that it did not fire at the
ground because it would not do anything.
> >> DSII does.
>
> >Haven't seen any. And the Emperor did say it was fully operational.
>
> No, he said it was "fully armed and operational". It was fully armed
> and it was somewhat operational, but it was OBVIOUSLY not complete,
> and they could have used the extra space for storage of fuel or for an
> energy shield generator or both. What did you think they were going
> to do with that huge piece of uncompleted structure? Store boxes of
> Cheerios in it?
OK, your point.
> >> Since we use the E-D and not the E-nil for our ISD v Enterprise
> >> debates, we should also use the later version of the Death Star.
>
> >Nah, in that case why not use the E-E or that ship frim 'Message in a Bottle'?
>
> The E-D is most often used because it is the ship on which the most
> data is available. There's nothing unreasonable about that.
True.
> >> Because the Imperial Fleet was encircling the system, trying to trap the
> >> Rebel ships. You obviously didn't watch the movie very closely. The longer
> >> they waited, the harder it would be to get out - why do you think they had to
> >> start sending out two transports at once later on?
>
> >Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
>
> Perhaps X-Wings handle like pigs in the atmosphere. They are
> STARfighters, after all. Perhaps they thought the snowspeeders would
> work out better than they did. Once they realized that they weren't
> powerful enough to do the job, it was too late to go back for their
> X-Wings.
They just needed to lift above the ground, fire one shot, and land - not that much
maneuvering.
> >> How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW blasts
> >> from anti-starfighter cannons
>
> >How so? Where did you get that number?
>
> Well, I personally estimate that X-Wing laser cannons can deal out
> approximately 8GJ blasts in order to vaporize 1 cubic metre of iron
> per blast (based on the destruction they dealt to the surface of the
> Death Star in ANH). We also know that a single two-shot salvo from a
> TIE fighter can penetrate an X-Wing's shields and destroy the fighter
> but a single shot will only achieve partial penetration. Therefore,
> we can conclude that X-Wing shields can handle a little less than 8GJ.
> Since the entire phaser output of a Galaxy Class starship is just
> 1.02GW, it would take close to 8 seconds to take down the shields of
> an X-Wing fighter- quite a long time when you are being shot at.
The 1.02 GW number is incorrect (or reflects some strange aspect of the weapons)
because in Voyager we have seen a rifle that puts out about a TW.
> >> (or at least one or two in quick succession,
> >> any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits without
> >> sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons would
> >> need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
> >> against other shielded Starfighters.
>
> >So this means that a phaser rifle should equal to an x-wing.
>
> Obviously, this poster is using somewhat different numbers from mine,
> perhaps based on some other visual evidence. But regardless, the TM
> is very explicit in its description of the energy requirements and
> rock destruction capabilities of phasers. The destruction effect of
> phasers is caused by a chain-reaction in the target matter that is
> triggered by the phaser, but this doesn't change the actual power
> level of the phaser. Type II hand phasers are limited to 0.01MW, and
> shipboard phasers are limited to 1.02GW. The fact that they can set
> off beautifully destructive chain reactions in rock doesn't change the
> fact that they actually don't put a lot of raw energy, and there is no
> matter to react with in a shield.
So you are saying that even though phaser rifles are more powerful then x-wings (or
produce larger effects), they are not very usefull because they would be blocked by any
shield? You could be right there, I haven't thought of that.
Elim Garak
What are you doing? Glue? Advil? How did you hallucinate yourself to victory?
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> >
> > Graham Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Graham Kennedy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Thor Odinson wrote:
> > >
> >
> > > For the same reason the Ticos don't sail around with this equipment
> > > in full automatic mode; because when you can, you do things the
> > > manual way because people like to be in control of their weapons.
> > >
> > > And if you read the tech manual, the ship does automatically compute
> > > the firing patterns. The CO orders the firing, the tactical officer
> > > chooses the appropriate pattern from a list of options offered by
> > > the computer, the computer implements it. Read page 126 of the
> > > tech manual and then try and tell me firing phasers is manual only.
> >
> > Ok, I'm going to say this for the last time, hopefully everyone will read this and
> > stop saying stupid things.
> >
> > I KNOW THE #@$#$% COMPUTER FIRE THE @#$%#$@ PHASERS!
> >
> > BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT IT WON'T DO IT TILL THE WEAPONS OFFICER TELLS IT TO FIRE.
> >
> > SO AN ENEMY COULD FLY BY AT WARP, FIRE AS MANY PHOTON TORPS AS POSSIBLE, AND BE
> > OUT OF WEAPON RANGE BEFORE THE CAPTAIN COULD SAY 'Return fi....'
>
> You are aware that ships at warp can be seen from lightyears away?
> with minutes or hours of warning before they can be in weapons range?
> That Trek sensors can tell if somebody has weapons armed well before
> they fire, from distances well beyond firing range?
>
> So this tactic you keep going on about simply wouldn't work.
But the Federation NEVER fires first. Everyone knows this so when attack forces come to
take DS9 they would be guaranteed a first MASSIVE strike. And would be able to scan DS9
and see what kind of damage was done and order a full surrender.
> > BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS HAPPEN, EVER.
> >
> > SO COMBAT AT WARP SPEEDS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT POSSIBLE AGAINST A NON-WARP SHIP.
>
> We have seen such combat at least once, in TOS.
Yeah, but I don't think you want to start a SD vs E-Nil debate.
> > > > But we have seen that Photon Torps fired from DS9 are SLOWER than the phaser
> > > > shots. Which makes them STL.
> > >
> > > When fired at nearby targets, yes. But I would think that they
> > > could be fired at warp also.
> >
> > Could and what is done is two different things.
>
> Photon torps can certainly be fired at warp by a Starship. The E-D
> did so early in "Encounter at Farpoint".
Are you sure? The TM makes it clear they can't. And it was written AFTER that episode.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Graham Kennedy wrote:
> Michael Wong wrote:
> >
> Which is to say that the E-D firing system offers the tactical officer
> a list of firing options and he just picks one; the computer does the
> rest. It is a tiny, tiny jump from this to just let the computer
> engage any target it thinks is offering a threat. The change to the
> software would be so small as to be childs play; literally tell the
> computer to go with its best option instead of waiting for permission.
Have you ever thought that this is NOT possible? There are probably safety
features that prevent this from happening. Think about this scenario, DS9 is
attacked br a foe using this tactic. They set the computer for AUTO-DEFEND. They
are hit, life control is shut down and EVERYBODY dies.
Now there is a HEAVILY armored battle station that will fight anything it
PERCEIVES as a threat. I don't think the federation would allow this.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
>
> > > Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
> >
> > Are you EVER, EVER going to listen to why they couldn't use spacegoing
> > fighters???? I will give you several good, valid and plausible reasons why
> > not:
> >
> > 1) They need ALL of their starfighters to act as escort. They were SO scarce
> > they could only assign TWO per transport, and later on they had to assign two
> > for two transports. Trying LISTENING to the movie.
>
> Yet Luke flew out in one. Why didn't he fly in his x-wing? It was just sitting
> there waiting for him, idling.
He didn't fly his X-Wing in the battle cause they are not fit for atmospheric
battles. Especially in the hostile atmosphere of Hoth.
> > 2) The Speeders were a calculated gamble - they were untested in combat, but
> > were especially modified for the conditions. Not only that, they were
> > expendable, as they weren't really worth anything on any planet except Hoth.
> > As opposed to the X-Wings, which are MUCH more valuable, and just as
> > vulnerable to the AT-AT fire.
>
> They have shields. And they are a lot more powerful, so powerful that one could
> have ended the whole battle.
But they can still be shot down. Before they can fire.
> > 3) They were NOT aiming to stay for a prolonged siege. If you'd actually
> > LISTENED, you'd have heard General Rieekan say they were trying to buy time,
> > not dig in and try to defend. Whether or not the shield was up or down was
> > irrevelant to the evactuation - they were trying to avoid becoming encircled.
>
> Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
Then the TIEs have set up the interception net in space and will catch every
Transport as it leaves. Good plan.
> > Now, can you refute any of these with GOOD cause? ANY of them?
>
> Look above.
Ditto
BTW, these are the same reasons that have been given for the past week. And every
time you get these reason you repeat your original reasons. Which have been shot
down.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
<SNIPPED A LOT OF CRAP ABOUT X-WINGS IN THE BATTLE OF HOTH!>
> > 1.) X-Wings are not meant to fight in Atmosphere
>
> No fight was necessary. Lift, fire, land. No big deal.
Lift
Get shot down by AT-AT
Die.
> > 2.) The atmosphere of Hoth was so inhospitable that X-Wings could not Spend more time flying in the
> > Atmosphere than ABSOLUTELY necessary.
>
> Several dozen (at least) lives are worth several dozen hours of some mechanic's time.
The X-Wing had the ability to leave the planet, and that's about it.
If it tried to fight it would have frozen up and crashed the first time it tried to dodge a shot from the AT-AT.
> > 3.) AT-ATs can hit Starfighters in atmosphere. And would be able to defend themselves against X-Wing
> > attacks.
>
> Shields.
The AT-AT cannon can punch through X-Wing shields.
> > 4.) The battle was already lost. Remember only ONE of the SD AT-ATs were brought to Hoth. There were 2 other
> > SD and the SSD with AT-ATs ready to land if needed.
>
> A few nukes would have taken care of all of them.
And all of the Rebels with radiation.
> > 5.) The Rebels needed to escape BEFORE the SD set up a TIE fighter blockade
>
> Huh? What stopped them? Just launch the TIEs - should take more then a few minutes.
Right, so the Rebels only had a few minutes to escape before the trap was set. After that the transport would have
a very difficult time surviving to make it to Hyperspace.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> > > Seriously, first they would need to mobilise that many ships, then they would need the maps and the
> > > locations of the planets, then they would need to defeat the vessels already there.
> >
> > Firstly, they could ignore the ships in defense and just concentrate on the planet. Leave when they are
> > done.
>
> 1 photon torpedo = 1 ISD. The Enterprise can launch several a second. ISDs would not have enough time. +
> land based phasers.
Firstly, most planets are NOT defended. We have seen this in almost all episodes.
Secondly, we have NEVER seen ground base defenses, EVER!
Thirdly, 1 Photon Torpedo would NOT take out a SD. Photon Torpedoes are weaker than Proton torpedoes. And 1
Proton Torpedo will NOT take out a SD. So 1 Photon Torpedo will not take out 1 SD.
> > Secondly, They could get the appropriate maps form the Ferengi, or chart the space themselves > with scout
> probes.
>
> Time, time, time.
What, buying from the Ferengi will not take time. And scouting can be done without the Federation detecting it.
> > > > There is no try again. This in the end of the battle. With hundreds of
> > > > deaths, DS9 defenses destroyed or inoperable, maybe even all of DS9
> > > > destroyed if there was a large enough attack.
> > > >
> > > > BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS, EVER!
> > >
> > > Yes, because one shot of a BOP is not enough to get through the shields of DS9.
> >
> > What, there is only one BOP in the entire ST fleet.
>
> Huh? There is a BOP in ST fleet? And aren't we talking about attack on the Feds, not by the Feds?
I was talking about the Romlulan Fleet. Not the Federation. That is why I said ST not Federation.
> > BTW, each ship could launch 10 Torps PER launcher PER ship. That means Half a dozen ships > could send 240
> Torpedoes at DS9, that would disable the station long enough to get a second
> > attack run, OR, most likely, destroy it completely.
>
> If they all organized, yes. But then DS9 would have launched its own torpedoes and set up a firewall. And
> there would be no more DS9 to take over, or to have a series about.
Yes, they could organize this BEFORE they left Romulan Space. And if you use the 'The show would be over if
they did that' excuse, you have to do the same with the SW side.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
>
> > > Yet Luke flew out in one. Why didn't he fly in his x-wing? It was just
> > sitting
> > > there waiting for him, idling.
> >
> > Go back and watch ESB. Tell me what was ALSO sitting there, waiting to take
> > off. Look a hell of a lot like a transport to me. They were still
> > evactuating, still needed the X-Wings for that purpose.
>
> What the hell are you babbling about? Did they need the x-wings as tugs or
> something? Because they were just sitting there doing absolutely nothing.
> While
> they could have been doing something.
They were waiting for the transports to be loaded so they could escort them.
> > > They have shields. And they are a lot more powerful, so powerful that one
> > could
> > > have ended the whole battle.
> >
> > They could NOT have ended the whole battle. If one X-Wing could have
> > defeated 5 or 6 Walkers, the Imperial Walker would be totally useless as far
> > as any military campaign goes. Obviously, they aren't, as the ground based
> > weaponry firing with no effect at them shows.
>
> OK, you tell me what a walker is supposed to do when a several megaton
> bomb is blown up under or near it.
Take out the X-Wing that shot it. It might be mutual destruction, and that would
leave only 1 X-wing to escort a Transport.
> > > Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
> >
> > The only way they could have bought any time at all was to blow up some of
> > the ISDs. All they could do was disable any that were within a certain
> > flight path. Again, the AT-ATs were not the greatest concern, the time was.
>
> People dying was not a great consern? Apperently the Rebels were not
> much better then the Empire.
They were trying to get off Hoth BEFORE the Imperial Navy set up the interception
net above hoth. If they didn't leave immediately all would have been lost.
Rebel Officer #1: We took our time and destroyed the AT-ATs.
Rebel Officer #2: While you were doing that the Imperial Navy was able to set a a
blockage stronger than we can by through
Rebel Officer #1: Oh @#%$@!!!
> > > > Now, can you refute any of these with GOOD cause? ANY of them?
> > >
> > > Look above.
> >
> > I have, and i'm STILL waiting. These are the same answers you've
> > regurgitated throughout this debate.
>
> Look above. I have repeated them because you still can't understand my
> replyes - why, I have no idea.
We could say the same thing.
> > > > Simple - anti-starfighter guns on the DS did hit the X-Wings, but they
> > > > survived for a while (until the TIEs became involved). So they CAN
> > survive
> > > > thousands of TW of power in a short space of time.
> > >
> > > So where did you get that number?
> >
> > Asteroid calcs. Like 'em or lump 'em, as far as i'm concerned. They are
> > from an unbiased viewpoint.
>
> And asteroid calcs suck. They are from a biased viewpoint because they
> use incorrect data. How many times do I have to repeat that? Just look for
> the specific weight of asteroids on the net - you will see that you are
> wrong.
And I have shown you that you MISINTERPRETED the calculation and declared them
invalid.
C.S.Strowbridge
ty...@deathsdoor.com
In article <35025D99...@usa.net>,
Elim Garak <eli...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
>
> > > Since I haven't seen that episode (or don't remember it), I can't
comment.
> >
> > Well, it paints the Phaser to be less powerful than claimed.
>
> Yes, apparently it does. However I haven't seen it.
>
> > sitting
> > > there waiting for him, idling.
> >
> > Go back and watch ESB. Tell me what was ALSO sitting there, waiting to
take
> > off. Look a hell of a lot like a transport to me. They were still
> > evactuating, still needed the X-Wings for that purpose.
>
> What the hell are you babbling about? Did they need the x-wings as tugs
> or
> something? Because they were just sitting there doing absolutely
> nothing. While
> they could have been doing something.
X-Wings are still not designed for atmospheric combat, and certainly not on a
planet as cold as Hoth. The transports were waiting to lift off, as was
artoo. The fact that the X-Wings weren't designed to fight in atmosphere is
all the real proof we need to end this.
> > > They have shields. And they are a lot more powerful, so powerful that
one
> > could
> > > have ended the whole battle.
> >
> > They could NOT have ended the whole battle. If one X-Wing could have
> > defeated 5 or 6 Walkers, the Imperial Walker would be totally useless as
far
> > as any military campaign goes. Obviously, they aren't, as the ground
based
> > weaponry firing with no effect at them shows.
>
> OK, you tell me what a walker is supposed to do when a several megaton
> bomb is
> blown up under or near it.
Die. Or if it is within a certain hemisphere, it can be intercepted by laser
fire. But if they fired a proton torp, or several, at the Walkers, the
resulting explosion would not only have hurt the troops on the ground, but
damaged the base as well. We've already seen that it was unstable.
> > > Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
> >
> > The only way they could have bought any time at all was to blow up some of
> > the ISDs. All they could do was disable any that were within a certain
> > flight path. Again, the AT-ATs were not the greatest concern, the time
was.
>
> People dying was not a great consern? Apperently the Rebels were not
> much better
> then the Empire.
Heartless? Allright, lets do the math - aboard the transports, you have
hundreds of crew and troops, lots of equipment, important personnel etc...and
on the ground, you have about 100 ground troops and a small Squadron of
snowspeeders. If YOU were a military commander that had to make an
instantaneous choice, which would you make?
> > > > Now, can you refute any of these with GOOD cause? ANY of them?
> > >
> > > Look above.
> >
> > I have, and i'm STILL waiting. These are the same answers you've
> > regurgitated throughout this debate.
>
> Look above. I have repeated them because you still can't understand my
> replyes -
> why, I have no idea.
Because they make no sense, and have been disproven. Firing a bunch of torps
at the walkers would hurt the Rebels JUST as much as it did the walkers. ANd
i've explained the mechanics of the battle of Hoth, they were in an extreme
rush.
> > > > Simple - anti-starfighter guns on the DS did hit the X-Wings, but they
> > > > survived for a while (until the TIEs became involved). So they CAN
> > survive
> > > > thousands of TW of power in a short space of time.
> > >
> > > So where did you get that number?
> >
> > Asteroid calcs. Like 'em or lump 'em, as far as i'm concerned. They are
> > from an unbiased viewpoint.
>
> And asteroid calcs suck. They are from a biased viewpoint because they
> use
> incorrect data. How many times do I have to repeat that? Just look for
> the
> specific weight of asteroids on the net - you will see that you are
> wrong.
No, they aren't biased because they weren't done for this debate. They were
done indepedently, using the most LIKELY asteroid composition. You're free
to talk to Saxton about this, if you want to ask him why he chose it. If the
calcs bug you so much, why don't you do that?
ty...@deathsdoor.com
In article <35025F69...@usa.net>,
We should really use the E-E, but the lack of data on it makes it a
nuisance. Get more factual data and we'll use that.
> > >> Because the Imperial Fleet was encircling the system, trying to trap
the
> > >> Rebel ships. You obviously didn't watch the movie very closely. The
longer
> > >> they waited, the harder it would be to get out - why do you think they
had to
> > >> start sending out two transports at once later on?
> >
> > >Why then did Luke take the speeder into battle, and not his x-wing?
> >
> > Perhaps X-Wings handle like pigs in the atmosphere. They are
> > STARfighters, after all. Perhaps they thought the snowspeeders would
> > work out better than they did. Once they realized that they weren't
> > powerful enough to do the job, it was too late to go back for their
> > X-Wings.
>
> They just needed to lift above the ground, fire one shot, and land - not
that much
> maneuvering.
Ok, you have to lift up fairly slowly on your repulsorlifts, line up the
target, and fire. Judging by the speed of the repulsoe lifts, this isn't
going to be instantaneous....i'd estimate at least 15 seconds. That is
enough time to be targeted and shot at.
> > >> How so? You can calculate that X-Wing shields can survive 2000 TW
blasts
> > >> from anti-starfighter cannons
> >
> > >How so? Where did you get that number?
> >
> > Well, I personally estimate that X-Wing laser cannons can deal out
> > approximately 8GJ blasts in order to vaporize 1 cubic metre of iron
> > per blast (based on the destruction they dealt to the surface of the
> > Death Star in ANH). We also know that a single two-shot salvo from a
> > TIE fighter can penetrate an X-Wing's shields and destroy the fighter
> > but a single shot will only achieve partial penetration. Therefore,
> > we can conclude that X-Wing shields can handle a little less than 8GJ.
> > Since the entire phaser output of a Galaxy Class starship is just
> > 1.02GW, it would take close to 8 seconds to take down the shields of
> > an X-Wing fighter- quite a long time when you are being shot at.
>
> The 1.02 GW number is incorrect (or reflects some strange aspect of the
weapons)
> because in Voyager we have seen a rifle that puts out about a TW.
Wasn't a Federation piece of equipment. And Paris seemed very impressed by
it - he commented as much, proving that it was superior to Federation
weapons. So you're trying to disprove what the entire output of a GCS is
based on what a piece of ALIEN tech. Doesn't work.
> > >> (or at least one or two in quick succession,
> > >> any more and you die) so the shields can survive hundred TW hits
without
> > >> sustaining much damage to the shields. Logically, the X-Wings cannons
would
> > >> need to fire somewhere near this level to be even marginally effective
> > >> against other shielded Starfighters.
> >
> > >So this means that a phaser rifle should equal to an x-wing.
> >
> > Obviously, this poster is using somewhat different numbers from mine,
> > perhaps based on some other visual evidence. But regardless, the TM
> > is very explicit in its description of the energy requirements and
> > rock destruction capabilities of phasers. The destruction effect of
> > phasers is caused by a chain-reaction in the target matter that is
> > triggered by the phaser, but this doesn't change the actual power
> > level of the phaser. Type II hand phasers are limited to 0.01MW, and
> > shipboard phasers are limited to 1.02GW. The fact that they can set
> > off beautifully destructive chain reactions in rock doesn't change the
> > fact that they actually don't put a lot of raw energy, and there is no
> > matter to react with in a shield.
>
> So you are saying that even though phaser rifles are more powerful then x-
wings (or
> produce larger effects), they are not very usefull because they would be
blocked by any
> shield? You could be right there, I haven't thought of that.
>
>
Piett
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> Elim Garak wrote:
>
> > ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Yet Luke flew out in one. Why didn't he fly in his x-wing? It was just
> > > sitting
> > > > there waiting for him, idling.
> > >
> > > Go back and watch ESB. Tell me what was ALSO sitting there, waiting to take
> > > off. Look a hell of a lot like a transport to me. They were still
> > > evactuating, still needed the X-Wings for that purpose.
> >
> > What the hell are you babbling about? Did they need the x-wings as tugs or
> > something? Because they were just sitting there doing absolutely nothing.
> > While
> > they could have been doing something.
>
> They were waiting for the transports to be loaded so they could escort them.
In other words they were idling while pilots like Luke flew the speeders.
> > > They could NOT have ended the whole battle. If one X-Wing could have
> > > defeated 5 or 6 Walkers, the Imperial Walker would be totally useless as far
> > > as any military campaign goes. Obviously, they aren't, as the ground based
> > > weaponry firing with no effect at them shows.
> >
> > OK, you tell me what a walker is supposed to do when a several megaton
> > bomb is blown up under or near it.
>
> Take out the X-Wing that shot it. It might be mutual destruction, and that would
> leave only 1 X-wing to escort a Transport.
X-wings have shields. And they don't need to be really close to the walker to fire -
missiles, remember? And what about nuclear mines?
> > > > Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
> > >
> > > The only way they could have bought any time at all was to blow up some of
> > > the ISDs. All they could do was disable any that were within a certain
> > > flight path. Again, the AT-ATs were not the greatest concern, the time was.
> >
> > People dying was not a great consern? Apperently the Rebels were not
> > much better then the Empire.
>
> They were trying to get off Hoth BEFORE the Imperial Navy set up the interception
> net above hoth. If they didn't leave immediately all would have been lost.
>
> Rebel Officer #1: We took our time and destroyed the AT-ATs.
> Rebel Officer #2: While you were doing that the Imperial Navy was able to set a a
> blockage stronger than we can by through
> Rebel Officer #1: Oh @#%$@!!!
They could have saved some lives and did it quckly with the x-wings. Do you really
think that it takes that long to get into an x-wing then into a speeder that it would
matter?
> > And asteroid calcs suck. They are from a biased viewpoint because they
> > use incorrect data. How many times do I have to repeat that? Just look for
> > the specific weight of asteroids on the net - you will see that you are
> > wrong.
>
> And I have shown you that you MISINTERPRETED the calculation and declared them
> invalid.
Can you show me one single place anywhere that says that the specific weight of
asteroids is 7 or 8 g/cm^3 as the formula uses?
Elim Garak
ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
> X-Wings are still not designed for atmospheric combat, and certainly not on a
> planet as cold as Hoth. The transports were waiting to lift off, as was
> artoo. The fact that the X-Wings weren't designed to fight in atmosphere is
> all the real proof we need to end this.
How many times do I have to repeat this? No combat was necessary, they could have
just lifted, fired a few shots from behind a hill or something, and landed.
Wouldn't have taken more then a minute at the most.
> > OK, you tell me what a walker is supposed to do when a several megaton
> > bomb is
> > blown up under or near it.
>
> Die. Or if it is within a certain hemisphere, it can be intercepted by laser
> fire. But if they fired a proton torp, or several, at the Walkers, the
> resulting explosion would not only have hurt the troops on the ground, but
> damaged the base as well. We've already seen that it was unstable.
The troops on the ground would be hurt only if they are stupid and sit right under
the walker (or at least really close to it). The walkers could have been
intercepted a lot farther from the base.
> > People dying was not a great consern? Apperently the Rebels were not
> > much better
> > then the Empire.
>
> Heartless? Allright, lets do the math - aboard the transports, you have
> hundreds of crew and troops, lots of equipment, important personnel etc...and
> on the ground, you have about 100 ground troops and a small Squadron of
> snowspeeders. If YOU were a military commander that had to make an
> instantaneous choice, which would you make?
To save both. While the troops and stuff are getting on the transports, their
future escorts can blow up a few speeders.
> > And asteroid calcs suck. They are from a biased viewpoint because they
> > use
> > incorrect data. How many times do I have to repeat that? Just look for
> > the
> > specific weight of asteroids on the net - you will see that you are
> > wrong.
>
> No, they aren't biased because they weren't done for this debate. They were
> done indepedently, using the most LIKELY asteroid composition. You're free
> to talk to Saxton about this, if you want to ask him why he chose it. If the
> calcs bug you so much, why don't you do that?
Perhaps I will. But untill then, can you find me one single place anywhere where
the specific weight of asteroids is 7 or 8 g/cm^3 as is used in the calcs?
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > > 1) They need ALL of their starfighters to act as escort. They were SO scarce
> > > they could only assign TWO per transport, and later on they had to assign two
> > > for two transports. Trying LISTENING to the movie.
> >
> > Yet Luke flew out in one. Why didn't he fly in his x-wing? It was just sitting
> > there waiting for him, idling.
>
> He didn't fly his X-Wing in the battle cause they are not fit for atmospheric
> battles. Especially in the hostile atmosphere of Hoth.
Look, I will say this one last time - no battle was necessary. Lifting above a hill,
firing, and then landing shouldn't put any strain on an x-wing.
> > > 2) The Speeders were a calculated gamble - they were untested in combat, but
> > > were especially modified for the conditions. Not only that, they were
> > > expendable, as they weren't really worth anything on any planet except Hoth.
> > > As opposed to the X-Wings, which are MUCH more valuable, and just as
> > > vulnerable to the AT-AT fire.
> >
> > They have shields. And they are a lot more powerful, so powerful that one could
> > have ended the whole battle.
>
> But they can still be shot down. Before they can fire.
Only if they hang around right in front of the walker.
> > > 3) They were NOT aiming to stay for a prolonged siege. If you'd actually
> > > LISTENED, you'd have heard General Rieekan say they were trying to buy time,
> > > not dig in and try to defend. Whether or not the shield was up or down was
> > > irrevelant to the evactuation - they were trying to avoid becoming encircled.
> >
> > Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
>
> Then the TIEs have set up the interception net in space and will catch every
> Transport as it leaves. Good plan.
Very good plan, because if the Rebels used the x-wings the time would have been the
same. There were x-wings idling - like Luke's x-wing.
> BTW, these are the same reasons that have been given for the past week. And every
> time you get these reason you repeat your original reasons. Which have been shot
> down.
I haven't seen them shot down.
Elim Garak
ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
> > They just needed to lift above the ground, fire one shot, and land - not
> that much
> > maneuvering.
>
> Ok, you have to lift up fairly slowly on your repulsorlifts, line up the
> target, and fire. Judging by the speed of the repulsoe lifts, this isn't
> going to be instantaneous....i'd estimate at least 15 seconds. That is
> enough time to be targeted and shot at.
They just need to pop up a meter or so above the hill, and they could line up
early. Or just use a balistic trajectory. Or make the missiles ride a beam of
some spotter. Or use internal guidance. Or make them ride the wire, and have
the x-wing's computer direct them. In this case the x-wings don't even have to
lift.
> Wasn't a Federation piece of equipment. And Paris seemed very impressed by
> it - he commented as much, proving that it was superior to Federation
> weapons. So you're trying to disprove what the entire output of a GCS is
> based on what a piece of ALIEN tech. Doesn't work.
Sure it works. Paris was impressed with the weapon, but he did not faint from
surprise. The weapon is a lot more powerful then standard Federation weapons,
but not so much more powerful that it would blow up Voyager or the Enterprise
with one shot. If that were so, the weapons dealer would have blew up Voyager
with the exhaust of his ship.
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > > 1.) X-Wings are not meant to fight in Atmosphere
> >
> > No fight was necessary. Lift, fire, land. No big deal.
>
> Lift
> Get shot down by AT-AT
> Die.
Why die? First of all they just need to pop up a meter above a hill, fire and then land immediately - no time for the
walker to notice or blast them. Second, they have shields. And third, if they had good weapons they wouldn't need to
lift at all. They could program the torpedoes to search for targets, or use laser targeting with a remote spotter, or
use a simple ballistic trajectory, or use a wire. Any way you put it, SW looses.
> > > 2.) The atmosphere of Hoth was so inhospitable that X-Wings could not Spend more time flying in the
> > > Atmosphere than ABSOLUTELY necessary.
> >
> > Several dozen (at least) lives are worth several dozen hours of some mechanic's time.
>
> The X-Wing had the ability to leave the planet, and that's about it.
> If it tried to fight it would have frozen up and crashed the first time it tried to dodge a shot from the AT-AT.
See above about dodging.
> > > 3.) AT-ATs can hit Starfighters in atmosphere. And would be able to defend themselves against X-Wing
> > > attacks.
> >
> > Shields.
>
> The AT-AT cannon can punch through X-Wing shields.
Two hits shouldn't bother it - not much anyway.
> > > 4.) The battle was already lost. Remember only ONE of the SD AT-ATs were brought to Hoth. There were 2 other
> > > SD and the SSD with AT-ATs ready to land if needed.
> >
> > A few nukes would have taken care of all of them.
>
> And all of the Rebels with radiation.
All of the Rebels that are dumb enough to sit under the walker, sunbathing. The rebels just need some protective
clothing and shelters. And are you seriously telling me that SW medical technology can't take care of a few minor
radiation burns?
> > > 5.) The Rebels needed to escape BEFORE the SD set up a TIE fighter blockade
> >
> > Huh? What stopped them? Just launch the TIEs - should take more then a few minutes.
>
> Right, so the Rebels only had a few minutes to escape before the trap was set. After that the transport would have
> a very difficult time surviving to make it to Hyperspace.
I mean't to say shouldn't. And even so, all the pilots had to do to win the battle was take the idling x-wings, not
speeders.
Elim Garak
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
> > > > Seriously, first they would need to mobilise that many ships, then they would need the maps and the
> > > > locations of the planets, then they would need to defeat the vessels already there.
> > >
> > > Firstly, they could ignore the ships in defense and just concentrate on the planet. Leave when they are
> > > done.
> >
> > 1 photon torpedo = 1 ISD. The Enterprise can launch several a second. ISDs would not have enough time. +
> > land based phasers.
>
> Firstly, most planets are NOT defended. We have seen this in almost all episodes.
> Secondly, we have NEVER seen ground base defenses, EVER!
> Thirdly, 1 Photon Torpedo would NOT take out a SD. Photon Torpedoes are weaker than Proton torpedoes. And 1
> Proton Torpedo will NOT take out a SD. So 1 Photon Torpedo will not take out 1 SD.
We have gone over all of this before. Lets take it to another thread.
> > > Secondly, They could get the appropriate maps form the Ferengi, or chart the space themselves > with scout
> > probes.
> >
> > Time, time, time.
>
> What, buying from the Ferengi will not take time. And scouting can be done without the Federation detecting it.
Even Ferengi would see that Empirial rule would be bad for buisness. The Grand Nagus is one smart Ferengi.
> > > > > There is no try again. This in the end of the battle. With hundreds of
> > > > > deaths, DS9 defenses destroyed or inoperable, maybe even all of DS9
> > > > > destroyed if there was a large enough attack.
> > > > >
> > > > > BUT WE NEVER SEE THIS, EVER!
> > > >
> > > > Yes, because one shot of a BOP is not enough to get through the shields of DS9.
> > >
> > > What, there is only one BOP in the entire ST fleet.
> >
> > Huh? There is a BOP in ST fleet? And aren't we talking about attack on the Feds, not by the Feds?
>
> I was talking about the Romlulan Fleet. Not the Federation. That is why I said ST not Federation.
Now it makes even less sence. Romulans have nothing BUT BOPs. And their fleet is quite large.
> > If they all organized, yes. But then DS9 would have launched its own torpedoes and set up a firewall. And
> > there would be no more DS9 to take over, or to have a series about.
>
> Yes, they could organize this BEFORE they left Romulan Space. And if you use the 'The show would be over if
> they did that' excuse, you have to do the same with the SW side.
What about a firewall or shooting at torpedoes?
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> Sandy & Selma Strowbridge wrote:
>
> > Elim Garak wrote:
> >
> > > ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
> > >
> > > What the hell are you babbling about? Did they need the x-wings as tugs or
> > > something? Because they were just sitting there doing absolutely nothing.
> > > While
> > > they could have been doing something.
> >
> > They were waiting for the transports to be loaded so they could escort them.
>
> In other words they were idling while pilots like Luke flew the speeders.
1.) It was not Idling, that would waste fuel.
2.) The speeders were built for ground combat.
> X-wings have shields.
Yes, and the AT-AT could still destroy the X-Wing. It will damage the X-Wing for sure.
> And they don't need to be really close to the walker to fire missiles, remember?
And the AT-AT was able to fire from Miles away too.
> And what about nuclear mines?
The Rebels don't use nuclear weapons because it leave long term environmental effects.
They're the good guys remember.
> > > > > Buy time - kill off all of the enemies. Same difference.
> > > >
> > > > The only way they could have bought any time at all was to blow up some of
> > > > the ISDs. All they could do was disable any that were within a certain
> > > > flight path. Again, the AT-ATs were not the greatest concern, the time was.
> > >
> > > People dying was not a great consern? Apperently the Rebels were not
> > > much better then the Empire.
> >
> > They were trying to get off Hoth BEFORE the Imperial Navy set up the interception
> > net above hoth. If they didn't leave immediately all would have been lost.
> >
> > Rebel Officer #1: We took our time and destroyed the AT-ATs.
> > Rebel Officer #2: While you were doing that the Imperial Navy was able to set a a
> > blockage stronger than we can by through
> > Rebel Officer #1: Oh @#%$@!!!
>
> They could have saved some lives and did it quckly with the x-wings. Do you really
> think that it takes that long to get into an x-wing then into a speeder that it would
> matter?
They couldn't use the X-Wing. For the reason I've already posted.
> > > And asteroid calcs suck. They are from a biased viewpoint because they
> > > use incorrect data. How many times do I have to repeat that? Just look for
> > > the specific weight of asteroids on the net - you will see that you are
> > > wrong.
> >
> > And I have shown you that you MISINTERPRETED the calculation and declared them
> > invalid.
>
> Can you show me one single place anywhere that says that the specific weight of
> asteroids is 7 or 8 g/cm^3 as the formula uses?
Ok, I'll explain this AGAIN.
Saxton used PURE IRON for the calculation because the energy needed to vaporize PURE IRON
is LESS than the energy to vaporize the same VOLUME of CARBONIC ROCK.
So he was able to calculate the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM power of a Turbolaser.
C.S.Strowbridge
Sandy & Selma Strowbridge
Elim Garak wrote:
> ty...@deathsdoor.com wrote:
>
> > X-Wings are still not designed for atmospheric combat, and certainly not on a
> > planet as cold as Hoth. The transports were waiting to lift off, as was
> > artoo. The fact that the X-Wings weren't designed to fight in atmosphere is
> > all the real proof we need to end this.
>
> How many times do I have to repeat this? No combat was necessary, they could have
> just lifted, fired a few shots from behind a hill or something, and landed.
> Wouldn't have taken more then a minute at the most.
And how many times do I have to say this: Frozen PLAINS of Hoth.
BTW, The X-Wings would not be able to fly after a minute. And most would have crashed
before then.
> > > OK, you tell me what a walker is supposed to do when a several megaton
> > > bomb is
> > > blown up under or near it.
> >
> > Die. Or if it is within a certain hemisphere, it can be intercepted by laser
> > fire. But if they fired a proton torp, or several, at the Walkers, the
> > resulting explosion would not only have hurt the troops on the ground, but
> > damaged the base as well. We've already seen that it was unstable.
>
> The troops on the ground would be hurt only if they are stupid and sit right under
> the walker (or at least really close to it). The walkers could have been
> intercepted a lot farther from the base.
A nuclear weapon large enough do destroy an AT-AT would have a nearly 100% ratio for
nearly 1 km. And a more than 50% kill ratio for more than 2 km. Which would reach to
the bunker. Of course the Rebel medical technology could heal all these wounded, but
that would take time they did NOT have.
> > > People dying was not a great consern? Apperently the Rebels were not
> > > much better
> > > then the Empire.
> >
> > Heartless? Allright, lets do the math - aboard the transports, you have
> > hundreds of crew and troops, lots of equipment, important personnel etc...and
> > on the ground, you have about 100 ground troops and a small Squadron of
> > snowspeeders. If YOU were a military commander that had to make an
> > instantaneous choice, which would you make?
>
> To save both. While the troops and stuff are getting on the transports, their
> future escorts can blow up a few speeders.
I assume you meant blow up a few AT-ATS.
BUT, the Future escorts would be destroyed in the process. Leaving Hundred of troopers
with no protection has they tried to escape.
C.S.Strowbridge