Details details details...

[Mikey]

If we agree that we don't know how 'Trek AG works, how do we know it creates a greater sensor signature than an engine/transmission combo?

[Captain Seafort]

I would imagine with another 300+ years of work, tracks would have reached a point of being fairly easy to work with.

Possibly, but I think it's more likely that the issues are inherent to the nature of tracks - because the track itself has to be separate from the wheels, it's inherently vulnerable to being thrown, and the need for links between each and every track and (more problematically) between the track and the drive wheels make them complicated. On anything remotely resembling firm, smooth ground wheels (a description that covers some pretty vicious terrain) wheels are superior. You also have the problem that tracks have to interact with the ground, and can therefore get jammed by mud and debris, and are vulnerable to enemy fire. Antigravs, from what we've seen, are entirely self contained, and are therefore much less vulnerable to such external influence.

This isn't to suggest that antigravs should be used instead of tracks - as I said above I believe that tracks are superior. Their advantages, however, are far less clear-cut than they might appear at first glance, and whether or not simplicity and reliability is one of them is debatable.

While we don't know for certain how Trek anti-grav works, I rather doubt it's a matter of charging up some magic material, we just don't see a lot of that kind of tech. I would say it's much more likely an engine like device, which I can only imagine has to be more complex than tracks and a drive system.

That's entirely possible, however I'm pointing out that since we don't know the details, it would be foolish to state as a bare fact that tracks are simpler.

Point, but interia dampeners don't seem like they'd be that difficult an item in relative terms, as even shuttle craft, which are about the size of this tank or smaller, have them. It's pretty wide spread tech with a lot of years of use, I'd think they'd be fairly common. And the g forces of a gun recoil are pretty small next to FTL travel, I doubt you'd need much of a unit to compensate.

Again, this is something that shouldn't be assumed to be a bare fact, even if it seems obvious. Indeed, given the nature of Trek FTL, it's likely that that the inertial forces produced by FTL are negligible, or even zero - the ship isn't accelerating within its own frame of reference. Impulse travel, of course, is an entirely different matter.

True, but your artillery should be positioned so that anyone trying to get at them has to go through your main force first. At least with the anti-grav units, your artillery could keep up with a mobile battle.

In a fluid, fast-moving mobile battle, the concept of lines that the enemy has to breach before reaching your artillery is obsolete - indeed, IIRC artillery pieces usually stock a few anti-tank rounds for self defence, just in case they're surprised by enemy forces.

[Tyyr]

And you're better off with self propelled artillery anyways as I can keep up with the troops and get into combat quickly. If the enemy gets close to mobile artillery it can haul ass.

[Tyyr]

Oh, and speaking of tracks, there are some vehicles that use one piece rubberized treads. No links, just one long continuous track. Eliminates the possibility of busting links and losing the tread but it has other issues like wearing quickly.

[Lighthawk]

If we agree that we don't know how 'Trek AG works, how do we know it creates a greater sensor signature than an engine/transmission combo?

We don't, but it makes sense that it would be that way. We know they can detect and measure gravity with their sensors, and an engine pumping out gravitrons or whatever you want to call them would seem likely to be much more detectable than something that's just turning it's power into kinetic motion.

I would imagine with another 300+ years of work, tracks would have reached a point of being fairly easy to work with.

*snip*

All good points, but...my fic, and with no Trek canon stating or showing tracks at all (that I'm aware of), I feel no issue at all in saying that tracks have reached a point of being so simple (relatively) that they are a very dependable tech at this point.

That's entirely possible, however I'm pointing out that since we don't know the details, it would be foolish to state as a bare fact that tracks are simpler.

True, but the point of this thread is to work out these details for the fic. If we have no canon to go with, then I am going to make something up, and would like to go with what makes the most sense. And to me, in trek, an engine device makes more sense than an anti-grav material that floats when you run a charge through it.

Again, this is something that shouldn't be assumed to be a bare fact, even if it seems obvious. Indeed, given the nature of Trek FTL, it's likely that that the inertial forces produced by FTL are negligible, or even zero - the ship isn't accelerating within its own frame of reference. Impulse travel, of course, is an entirely different matter.

Actually, I have no problem assuming this, as stated above. I'm not trying to figure out how canon trek works, I'm just trying to work out some details that would make sense in a trek setting.

In a fluid, fast-moving mobile battle, the concept of lines that the enemy has to breach before reaching your artillery is obsolete - indeed, IIRC artillery pieces usually stock a few anti-tank rounds for self defence, just in case they're surprised by enemy forces.

Well maybe not lines literally, but surely artillery is kept in relative safety, positioned such that unless the force is just plain out-manuevered, there should be some element capable of intercepting a hostile force before it can flatten the artillery units.

And you're better off with self propelled artillery anyways as I can keep up with the troops and get into combat quickly. If the enemy gets close to mobile artillery it can haul ass.

Agreed.

Oh, and speaking of tracks, there are some vehicles that use one piece rubberized treads. No links, just one long continuous track. Eliminates the possibility of busting links and losing the tread but it has other issues like wearing quickly.

Interesting idea...especially coupled with some future extra strength rubber or just replicating new treads for every battle.

[Mikey]

We don't, but it makes sense that it would be that way. We know they can detect and measure gravity with their sensors, and an engine pumping out gravitrons or whatever you want to call them would seem likely to be much more detectable than something that's just turning it's power into kinetic motion.

It makes sense if you posit something made-up for your story that explains how AG works in a power-intensive way. Otherwise, we can't assume that it makes sense at all. For all we know, the AG tech of 'Trek could use something that generates far less emissions than a transmission.

[Captain Seafort]

All good points, but...my fic, and with no Trek canon stating or showing tracks at all (that I'm aware of), I feel no issue at all in saying that tracks have reached a point of being so simple (relatively) that they are a very dependable tech at this point.

Fair enough, it your fic, and you don't need the tracks to be 100% reliable - simply to be a better balance of mobility and reliability than the alternatives. Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the issues you have to consider.

True, but the point of this thread is to work out these details for the fic. If we have no canon to go with, then I am going to make something up, and would like to go with what makes the most sense. And to me, in trek, an engine device makes more sense than an anti-grav material that floats when you run a charge through it.

Actually, I have no problem assuming this, as stated above. I'm not trying to figure out how canon trek works, I'm just trying to work out some details that would make sense in a trek setting.

Again, fair enough. Since we don't know how AG works, you can make up your own version (preferably without excessive technobabble).

Well maybe not lines literally, but surely artillery is kept in relative safety, positioned such that unless the force is just plain out-manuevered, there should be some element capable of intercepting a hostile force before it can flatten the artillery units.

In theory, yes, but no plan survives contact with the enemy, and it's always worth having plans B to Z drafted for when Plan A fails.

[Mark]

On a completely different tangent. I'd make the suggestion of placing it far enough in the future (say 30 years or so) that you could manipulate things easily, and have an easy explination for the "Heroes of Trek" being unavailable.

[Lighthawk]

We don't, but it makes sense that it would be that way. We know they can detect and measure gravity with their sensors, and an engine pumping out gravitrons or whatever you want to call them would seem likely to be much more detectable than something that's just turning it's power into kinetic motion.

It makes sense if you posit something made-up for your story that explains how AG works in a power-intensive way. Otherwise, we can't assume that it makes sense at all. For all we know, the AG tech of 'Trek could use something that generates far less emissions than a transmission.

I'd rather not get into an endless cycle of "well it could be that way" kind of debate. I'm more asking, in your personal opinion, do you think an engine that pumps out anti-gravity would be more or less easily picked up on sensors than an engine that turns a drive shaft.

I'm asking for this kind of input so that people read this and go "Yeah that makes sense," without having to say "Device X works in *insert technobabble* way that makes it so."

So basically, would you accept such a 'fact' as sensible just on its own?

[Lighthawk]

Fair enough, it your fic, and you don't need the tracks to be 100% reliable - simply to be a better balance of mobility and reliability than the alternatives. Nonetheless, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the issues you have to consider.

Noted, and appreciated.

Again, fair enough. Since we don't know how AG works, you can make up your own version (preferably without excessive technobabble).

Defiantely. Techbabble is never good scifi

In theory, yes, but no plan survives contact with the enemy, and it's always worth having plans B to Z drafted for when Plan A fails.

Of course, but just because no plan survives contact with the enemy doesn't mean that every always goes FUBAR in every battle. Otherwise what would be the point of tatics?

[Lighthawk]

On a completely different tangent. I'd make the suggestion of placing it far enough in the future (say 30 years or so) that you could manipulate things easily, and have an easy explination for the "Heroes of Trek" being unavailable.

Alternate universe, and not like trek XI alternate, ALTERNATE. Spock, Kirk, Picard, ect...never existed in this one.