Reason for D'Deridex size

The Next Generation

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Mikey » Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:52 am

I think you're conflating attack with differing viewpoint. Yes, some of us use... "colorful metaphors." Yes, some of us disagree with you on certain points and take advantage of the same opportunity to voice our opinions as you do to voice yours. Rather than unfair, that seems to be the height of fairness. If you want a forum to vent your opinions while disallowing anyone else to give voice to a differing opinion, I'm afraid you might be in the wrong place. Likewise, if someone wants to disagree with you, he not only CAN point out the parts of your arguments which he feels is flawed - he SHOULD. That's the nature of debate. If you want to defend your points, and tell me that mine are wrong, so be it - so long as you debate in an honest and supported manner (which I believe you have so far.) I don't take your disagreement with me as an attack, and TBH I wouldn't care enough to make such an attack effective if it were one.

BTW, I'm afraid I don't see your logic in saying, "larger volume + smaller naval complement = smaller troop complement."
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Tiberius » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:13 am

Mikey wrote:I think you're conflating attack with differing viewpoint. Yes, some of us use... "colorful metaphors." Yes, some of us disagree with you on certain points and take advantage of the same opportunity to voice our opinions as you do to voice yours. Rather than unfair, that seems to be the height of fairness. If you want a forum to vent your opinions while disallowing anyone else to give voice to a differing opinion, I'm afraid you might be in the wrong place. Likewise, if someone wants to disagree with you, he not only CAN point out the parts of your arguments which he feels is flawed - he SHOULD. That's the nature of debate. If you want to defend your points, and tell me that mine are wrong, so be it - so long as you debate in an honest and supported manner (which I believe you have so far.) I don't take your disagreement with me as an attack, and TBH I wouldn't care enough to make such an attack effective if it were one.

BTW, I'm afraid I don't see your logic in saying, "larger volume + smaller naval complement = smaller troop complement."


Well, for a start, not one person here has agreed that my points are plausible, even if you disagree. All I've seen is everyone else stating that my points are just plain wrong. And with some pretty far fetched logic, making assumptions that aren't supported by evidence in order to disregard my viewpoint.

All I've done is assume the bare minimum.

1. The Romulans wanted to land troops on Vulcan.
2. More troops makes it easier to accomplish a mission than fewer troops.

Assumption: The Romulans wanted to land as many troops as possible on Vulcan. Or at least, they wanted to land enough troops to overthrow the Vulcan government. or whatever they wanted to do with their invasion.

3. Once the Romulan invasion force is detected, the warbird decloaks to destroy the invasion force.
4. By decloaking, the Romulans ensure that security around Vulcan will be much tighter than it would have been if the warbird's presence remained secret, meaning that there was no way the mission could have succeeded.

Assumption: any troops being carried on the warbird itself were not enough to complete the mission alone, so abandoning the mission was the only thing the Romulans could have done.

Assumption: The troops on the Vulcan ships meant the difference between success and failure.

5. Geordi states the number of troops on the three Vulcan ships as being over 2000.

Assumption: 2000 troops is a large enough percentage to make the difference between success and failure.

Now, I think all of these assumptions are reasonable. And we can use them to make a guess as to how many troops in total the warbird can carry.

McAvoy said that a 30% loss is a failure, even if the battle is won. If we assume that the Romulans lost only 30% of their troops, that still left 70% of the toal troops on the warbird. That works out to about 4700 troops on the warbird.

If the Vulcan ships carried 40%, then the warbird only carried 3000 troops. So, to be as generous as possible, we'll assume that the loss of the troops on the Vulcan ships was the smallest percentage loss as possible while still ensuring failure (or at least a victory considered too costly). That means we have to assume the smallest possible percentage for the Vulcan ships.

Let's assume that the Vulcan ships carried only 20% of the total troops. That would leave 8000 troops on the warbird. But that would mean that the total planned invasion force that the Romulans sent was 10,000 troops. I won't debate whether that number is enough to invade a planet. I will accept that however many troops the Romulans sent, they thought it was enough. But that number falls short of the 30% to justify giving up the plan. So if this is the case, the warbird cannot carry 8000 troops.

Now, let's say that the warbird carried 5000 troops, and the three vulcan ships carried 2000 as Geordi said. That means that the Vulcan ships carried just over 28.5 percent. This is close enough to the 30% figure to justify the Romulans giving up the plan. This seems to be pretty fair reasoning, I think. Certainly a great deal more generous than the 1500 troops and crew figure stated in the DS9 technical manual and on this very website. But the question asked is why is the warbird so big? was it built so large to accommodate that many troops?

And my answer is no. Yes, the warbird can carry that many troops, but it did not need a large size to accomplish that. The Galaxy class is capable of carrying at least 6000 troops, as stated in yesterday's Enterprise. This shows that a vessel does not need to be the size of the warbird in order to carry 5000 troops. hence my conclusion that the warbird is not as big as it is to carry troops.

Now, other explanations have been given for why the warbird gave up the attack, with the suggestion being that maybe the large size is so that it can carry a much larger number of troops than I have concluded. However, I do not think that the reasons given are enough to justify abandoning the mission. Here's why.

Assume that the large size of the warbird is indeed so it can carry a huge number of troops, far more than the Galaxy class can. If we assume the maximum capacity of a GCS is 6000, then it's conceivable that the capacity of the warbird (if they packed the troops in with the same density) could be up to 15,000. If we assume that the Romulans don't care much for the comfort of their troops, they could back them in even tighter. As discussed earlier, this would show that the number of troops on the Vulcan ships was quite insignificant compared to the number of troops that could be placed on the warbird. This would render the troops on the Vulcan ships practically worthless. So why have troops on those ships at all?

Here are several different plans the Romulans could have used.

Instead of troops, put a group of diplomats on those ships. Sure, you loose 2000 troops from your forces, but it's a small loss compared to how many troops you still have. As we saw in the episode Spock was able to send a message warning of the Romulan invasion force. The warbird nearby does nothing. But the Enterprise, investigating the Vulcan ships looking for this Romulan invasion force, instead finds only a few hundred diplomats, all of whom know nothing about the military's real invasion plans, all of whom tell the Enterprise crew that yes, it really is a peaceful diplomatic mission. Now, with no reason to stop the convoy (it would seem that Spock was wrong, after all!), it is able to continue to Vulcan, at which time the warbird decloaks and beams down thousands of troops thus invading the planet.

Use fake biosigns on the Vulcan ships. This accomplishes much the same as above, but it won't stand up to any serious scrutiny by any Federation ships. It could have worked, but it doesn't cover all possibilities, so I doubt the Romulans would have used it.

If the romulans wanted to make sure that nothing was suspected, they could have used a variation. As before, have the ships with fake biosigns (or if it could be detected that the life signs are fake, put prisoners or something on them). Then set a bomb on a timer, or some flaw in the engine, something that will ensure that the three Vulcan ships are destroyed shortly after crossing the border. Now the Federation will think that even if Spock's message was correct and the Vulcan ships were destroyed, then they're all dead now, so the plan obviously failed.

But let's assume the worst, and the Federation is still suspicious and thinks the Romulans are up to something anyway. They place extra security in orbit of Vulcan. How long are they going to keep it there? it is reasonable to assume that a warbird is self sufficient, just as a Galaxy class ship is. Once the warbird is in Federation space (its crossing of the border covered by the Vulcan ships it was shadowing), it can go into hiding. It can hide in a nebula if it would be unable to maintain its cloak. it wouldn't be that hard to find an out of the place way to hide for a while. Then, when the extra security is stepped down, the warbird can procede to Vulcan and continue with the plan.

In short, I do not think that the warbird was guaranteed to fail in its mission unless the troops on the Vulcan ships were essential to that mission. And given that they were only 2000 or so, that speaks to me of the warbird having a capacity of less than 8000.

I think my assumptions are valid and do not contradict canon and cover most disagreements that have been raised. Sorry for the long post.
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
Tiberius
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:45 am

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Mikey » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:04 pm

Tiberius wrote:Well, for a start, not one person here has agreed that my points are plausible, even if you disagree. All I've seen is everyone else stating that my points are just plain wrong. And with some pretty far fetched logic, making assumptions that aren't supported by evidence in order to disregard my viewpoint.


If you honestly have a need for people to preface their disagreements with you with an explicit statement of how we may disagree but you are a good human being and deserve our validation, and we are truly sorry for the temerity of disagreeing with you, then you need help from fora far more serious than entertainment-based ones like this. I have tried to be understanding of some heretofore-unknown fragility or fissure in your ego, but there are plenty of folks in line behind me who will tell you, as I know from experience on this board, to nut up or shut up.

Tiberius wrote:1. The Romulans wanted to land troops on Vulcan.


I'm on board so far.

Tiberius wrote:2. More troops makes it easier to accomplish a mission than fewer troops.

Assumption: The Romulans wanted to land as many troops as possible on Vulcan. Or at least, they wanted to land enough troops to overthrow the Vulcan government. or whatever they wanted to do with their invasion.


Not necessarily a universal truth, and there certainly may have been a critical mass when it came to the number of units before the operation became unwieldy; but I will definitely go along with the idea that the Romulans wanted to land enough troops to do what they wanted to do.

Tiberius wrote:3. Once the Romulan invasion force is detected, the warbird decloaks to destroy the invasion force.


Absolutely.

Tiberius wrote:4. By decloaking, the Romulans ensure that security around Vulcan will be much tighter than it would have been if the warbird's presence remained secret, meaning that there was no way the mission could have succeeded.


This is not a given, but could be a probability. In any event, I don't think we need to argue about the odds of this to agree that either IU or OOU, the warbird's destruction of the transports effectively ended the operation.

Tiberius wrote:Assumption: any troops being carried on the warbird itself were not enough to complete the mission alone, so abandoning the mission was the only thing the Romulans could have done.

Assumption: The troops on the Vulcan ships meant the difference between success and failure.


It would appear so. I have even been a proponent of the same deduction.

Tiberius wrote:5. Geordi states the number of troops on the three Vulcan ships as being over 2000.

Assumption: 2000 troops is a large enough percentage to make the difference between success and failure.


Indeed. Here's where we get to the short-and-curlies, though:

Tiberius wrote:McAvoy said that a 30% loss is a failure, even if the battle is won. If we assume that the Romulans lost only 30% of their troops, that still left 70% of the toal troops on the warbird. That works out to about 4700 troops on the warbird.


Yeah, we're starting to go long-lining for red herrings now. Here's what McAvoy said:
Rule of thumb: 30% of loss is a failure even if the battle was won.


If you actually read that, instead of completely spinning the message to one's own ends while ignoring the actual meaning, it is a statement of acceptable vs. unacceptable casualty rates, not of operational success. I will re-post it, with the salient parts in bold:
Rule of thumb: 30% of loss is a failure even if the battle was won.

Obviously, McAvoy's 30% remark can't refer to operational success, because it contains a caveat about ignoring the possible operational success for purposes of determinations involving the 30% figure. Even further, a rule-of-thumb of 21st century Western military usage can't be claimed to even have a good chance of applying to a fictitious SF species of the 24th century. So, everything that follows from these calculations, and any other percentages derived from arbitrary margins of error from same, are so much tripe.

Tiberius wrote:Certainly a great deal more generous than the 1500 troops and crew figure stated in the DS9 technical manual and on this very website.


Well, I've shown that the derivations made from that 30% figure are moot; now to this. Don't use "and on this very website," because the number shown "on this very website" is explicitly noted to come directly from the DS9 TM. You have just basically said, in effect, that your 1500-man complement comes from the DS9 TM, as well as from the DS9 TM. Spinning it to try to put the shine of the Kennedys on it is low. In any event, as you said twice, that number comes from the DS9 TM... and as such, has as much canonical authority as the drawing of Thomas the Tank Engine which my son just made. In other words, the fact that the DS9 TM says that the D'Deridex has a 1500-man complement means that the D'Deridex truly has as much of a chance of having a 1500-man complement as it does of having a 308-man complement, or an 842-man complement, or a 2542-man complement, or...

Tiberius wrote:And my answer is no. Yes, the warbird can carry that many troops, but it did not need a large size to accomplish that. The Galaxy class is capable of carrying at least 6000 troops, as stated in yesterday's Enterprise. This shows that a vessel does not need to be the size of the warbird in order to carry 5000 troops. hence my conclusion that the warbird is not as big as it is to carry troops.


As I've previously stated, comparing the D'Deridex' standard transport capacity - including kit, armor, heavy weapons, motor pool, and whatever else may accompany an infantry brigade - to the total transport capacity of a GCS including abandonment of the vehicles, hotbunking, etc., is tantamount to comparing apples to stop signs. However, that's not the fundamental flaw - this is: there is no logical way to say that being larger than necessary to accommodate a troop complement means that there can't be a troop complement. I've been on Boeing 747's that were only carrying 250 passengers; by your logic, since the 747 could accommodate 416 and was therefore larger than it needed to be to carry 250, then it must not have had any passengers at all. I trust I don't have to supply the reasons why this conclusion is false. Further, it has been posited by various folks here that troop-transport capacity is only one of several possible reasons for the D'Deridex' size, one of which that could easily be in operation concurrently with the others.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby McAvoy » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:13 pm

...I want to post my thoughts on this, but I don't have the will.

Just a random question and sorry if this was already brought up: Was it ever mentioned that there was only three transports and only one warbird? I mean do the Romulans really need to decloak fifty ships to destroy transports?
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Tiberius » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:04 pm

Double post.
Last edited by Tiberius on Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
Tiberius
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:45 am

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Tiberius » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:18 pm

You'll forgive me for snipping out the parts where we are in agreement...

Mikey wrote:
Tiberius wrote:5. Geordi states the number of troops on the three Vulcan ships as being over 2000.

Assumption: 2000 troops is a large enough percentage to make the difference between success and failure.


Indeed. Here's where we get to the short-and-curlies, though:

Tiberius wrote:McAvoy said that a 30% loss is a failure, even if the battle is won. If we assume that the Romulans lost only 30% of their troops, that still left 70% of the toal troops on the warbird. That works out to about 4700 troops on the warbird.


Yeah, we're starting to go long-lining for red herrings now. Here's what McAvoy said:
Rule of thumb: 30% of loss is a failure even if the battle was won.


If you actually read that, instead of completely spinning the message to one's own ends while ignoring the actual meaning, it is a statement of acceptable vs. unacceptable casualty rates, not of operational success. I will re-post it, with the salient parts in bold:
Rule of thumb: 30% of loss is a failure even if the battle was won.

Obviously, McAvoy's 30% remark can't refer to operational success, because it contains a caveat about ignoring the possible operational success for purposes of determinations involving the 30% figure. Even further, a rule-of-thumb of 21st century Western military usage can't be claimed to even have a good chance of applying to a fictitious SF species of the 24th century. So, everything that follows from these calculations, and any other percentages derived from arbitrary margins of error from same, are so much tripe.


But I wasn't using it to refer to operational success. I was using it to refer to whether it was worth the Romulans continuing. Since they gave away their game by decloaking, they obviously thought it was not.

And the exact percentages don't matter either. It is enough to say that the troops on the Vulcan ships formed a percentage large enough to scrap the mission if they were lost.

Tiberius wrote:Certainly a great deal more generous than the 1500 troops and crew figure stated in the DS9 technical manual and on this very website.


Well, I've shown that the derivations made from that 30% figure are moot; now to this. Don't use "and on this very website," because the number shown "on this very website" is explicitly noted to come directly from the DS9 TM. You have just basically said, in effect, that your 1500-man complement comes from the DS9 TM, as well as from the DS9 TM. Spinning it to try to put the shine of the Kennedys on it is low. In any event, as you said twice, that number comes from the DS9 TM... and as such, has as much canonical authority as the drawing of Thomas the Tank Engine which my son just made. In other words, the fact that the DS9 TM says that the D'Deridex has a 1500-man complement means that the D'Deridex truly has as much of a chance of having a 1500-man complement as it does of having a 308-man complement, or an 842-man complement, or a 2542-man complement, or...


The only reason that I used the figures from this website is to show that Graham took the figure in the technical manual as reasonable. I'm not trying to spin anything.

And I doubt that something that was made by the actual creators of the show has the same reliability as fan fiction. Please.

Tiberius wrote:And my answer is no. Yes, the warbird can carry that many troops, but it did not need a large size to accomplish that. The Galaxy class is capable of carrying at least 6000 troops, as stated in yesterday's Enterprise. This shows that a vessel does not need to be the size of the warbird in order to carry 5000 troops. hence my conclusion that the warbird is not as big as it is to carry troops.


As I've previously stated, comparing the D'Deridex' standard transport capacity - including kit, armor, heavy weapons, motor pool, and whatever else may accompany an infantry brigade - to the total transport capacity of a GCS including abandonment of the vehicles, hotbunking, etc., is tantamount to comparing apples to stop signs.


First of all, it's comparing space vessels designed to carry troops to space vessels designed to carry troops.

However, that's not the fundamental flaw - this is: there is no logical way to say that being larger than necessary to accommodate a troop complement means that there can't be a troop complement. I've been on Boeing 747's that were only carrying 250 passengers; by your logic, since the 747 could accommodate 416 and was therefore larger than it needed to be to carry 250, then it must not have had any passengers at all. I trust I don't have to supply the reasons why this conclusion is false.


But since we have agreed that the Romulans would likely want to land as many troops as possible on Vulcan, the analogy doesn't apply. The 747 was partially empty because they couldn't find enough paying passengers to fill the seats. I doubt the Romulans would have a hard time finding troops.

Further, it has been posited by various folks here that troop-transport capacity is only one of several possible reasons for the D'Deridex' size, one of which that could easily be in operation concurrently with the others.


That is entirely possible.
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
Tiberius
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:45 am

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Tiberius » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:23 pm

McAvoy wrote:...I want to post my thoughts on this, but I don't have the will.

Just a random question and sorry if this was already brought up: Was it ever mentioned that there was only three transports and only one warbird? I mean do the Romulans really need to decloak fifty ships to destroy transports?


You're suggesting that there was more than one warbird, and while one decloaked to destroy the Vulcan ships, the other went ahead to Vulcan?

Possible, but two things suggest this didn't happen.

First of all, it reveals the military's part in what happened, which would lead to increased diplomatic friction with the Federation. Revealing that the Romulan military and government played a major part in an attempted invasion and occupation wouldn't be wise for the Romulans.

Secondly, since we never saw any further attempts by this hypothetical second warbird to invade Vulcan, we have to ask why not. it's possible that there was and the reason why it didn't succeed is the subject of a story as yet unwritten, but I doubt it.
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
Tiberius
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:45 am

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby McAvoy » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:29 pm

Keep in mind that my comment of 30% loss, does have exceptions. Losing for example 30% of planes for example in a battle in WW2 is only a bad loss after the battle. I really can't think of any battle where some commander said "oops we lost 30%, time withdraw the planes."

30%, 32% 12%, 92% who knows what the percentage was. We all can make some random number as far as troops and how many each ship has. Regardless, I highly doubt the amount of the four ships we saw wouldn't even dent a determined Vulcan defense. A single warbird would not have done anything either. But this is TNG so...

You're suggesting that there was more than one warbird, and while one decloaked to destroy the Vulcan ships, the other went ahead to Vulcan?

Possible, but two things suggest this didn't happen.

First of all, it reveals the military's part in what happened, which would lead to increased diplomatic friction with the Federation. Revealing that the Romulan military and government played a major part in an attempted invasion and occupation wouldn't be wise for the Romulans.

Secondly, since we never saw any further attempts by this hypothetical second warbird to invade Vulcan, we have to ask why not. it's possible that there was and the reason why it didn't succeed is the subject of a story as yet unwritten, but I doubt it.


I am suggesting nothing. I want to know the dialogue that stated anything in relation to these ships. There could have been one warbird or fifty or more. But we are forced to assume there was only one because we saw only one.
"Don't underestimate the power of technobabble: the Federation can win anything with the sheer force of bullshit"
User avatar
McAvoy
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
 
Posts: 4009
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:39 am
Location: East Windsor, NJ

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Mikey » Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:08 am

Tiberius wrote:But I wasn't using it to refer to operational success. I was using it to refer to whether it was worth the Romulans continuing.


How are those things separate? Operational success = success of the operation. The only reason for the Romulans to "poison pill" the transports and cease the mission would be if they thought they had lost the opportunity for operational success. If you refer to one, you are by default referring to the other.

Tiberius wrote:The only reason that I used the figures from this website is to show that Graham took the figure in the technical manual as reasonable. I'm not trying to spin anything.


As I understand it, GK took the figures from the TM only because there were no canon figures, and he needed the filler. Whatever the case may be, the source is what it is.

Tiberius wrote:And I doubt that something that was made by the actual creators of the show has the same reliability as fan fiction. Please.


Please what? Please stop using the process of critical thought? #1 - reliability isn't at issue here. What is at issue is that the TM's aren't canon any more than some crew figure I make up and write on a scrap of toilet paper. EOS. #2 - the TM's are highly unreliable when compared to canon in a number of areas. Bottom line: the figure of 1500 crewmen for a D'Deridex is not a valid figure. It may seem reasonable to some, but that is in no way the same thing as being a "fact" of the 'Trek universe.

Tiberius wrote:First of all, it's comparing space vessels designed to carry troops to space vessels designed to carry troops.


As I've explained, it isn't really; further, the alternate-universe E-D could carry 6,000 troops according to Yar; but from what source do you have it that she was designed with troop transport as one of its primary roles (as is what's at question for the D'Deridex?) The YE E-D was the same dimensions as the "real" E-D, meaning that the "real" E-D could also carry 6,000 troops; would you say that the E-D was a troop transport?

Tiberius wrote:But since we have agreed that the Romulans would likely want to land as many troops as possible on Vulcan, the analogy doesn't apply. The 747 was partially empty because they couldn't find enough paying passengers to fill the seats. I doubt the Romulans would have a hard time finding troops.


It doesn't matter if they could fill the berths or not. This was in response to your position that the D'Deridex doesn't carry troops because it could carry more than it seemed like it did on the Vulcan mission. My example was an illustration of how fallacious that "logic" is.
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Tiberius » Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:40 am

Mikey wrote:
Tiberius wrote:But I wasn't using it to refer to operational success. I was using it to refer to whether it was worth the Romulans continuing.


How are those things separate? Operational success = success of the operation. The only reason for the Romulans to "poison pill" the transports and cease the mission would be if they thought they had lost the opportunity for operational success. If you refer to one, you are by default referring to the other.


I was referring to the fact that if the Romulans had continued they might still have succeeded, but they could have considered the cost too great for it to be worth it.

Tiberius wrote:And I doubt that something that was made by the actual creators of the show has the same reliability as fan fiction. Please.


Please what? Please stop using the process of critical thought? #1 - reliability isn't at issue here. What is at issue is that the TM's aren't canon any more than some crew figure I make up and write on a scrap of toilet paper. EOS. #2 - the TM's are highly unreliable when compared to canon in a number of areas. Bottom line: the figure of 1500 crewmen for a D'Deridex is not a valid figure. It may seem reasonable to some, but that is in no way the same thing as being a "fact" of the 'Trek universe.


I never said the TM was canon, but I am saying that since it is created by the guys who actually make the show, it's a better source than some scribble by a kid on a scrap of paper.

Tiberius wrote:First of all, it's comparing space vessels designed to carry troops to space vessels designed to carry troops.


As I've explained, it isn't really; further, the alternate-universe E-D could carry 6,000 troops according to Yar; but from what source do you have it that she was designed with troop transport as one of its primary roles (as is what's at question for the D'Deridex?) The YE E-D was the same dimensions as the "real" E-D, meaning that the "real" E-D could also carry 6,000 troops; would you say that the E-D was a troop transport?


No, because some of the space that the YE E-D used to carry troops would no doubt be used for science labs, sensors etc in the regular E-D.

Tiberius wrote:But since we have agreed that the Romulans would likely want to land as many troops as possible on Vulcan, the analogy doesn't apply. The 747 was partially empty because they couldn't find enough paying passengers to fill the seats. I doubt the Romulans would have a hard time finding troops.


It doesn't matter if they could fill the berths or not. This was in response to your position that the D'Deridex doesn't carry troops because it could carry more than it seemed like it did on the Vulcan mission. My example was an illustration of how fallacious that "logic" is.


I meant that the 747 would have made the flight even if it wasn't packed to capacity. The bosses of the airline can't just order more people to buy tickets.

On the other hand, if the romulans want to land as many troops as they can and only have enough volunteers to fill it up half way, they aren't going to say, "Ah well, I guess we just better go with the ones we've got." No, they're going to say, "Right, you, you and you, get aboard that ship now!"
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
Tiberius
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:45 am

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Mikey » Tue Oct 23, 2012 4:54 pm

Tiberius wrote:I was referring to the fact that if the Romulans had continued they might still have succeeded, but they could have considered the cost too great for it to be worth it.


Which is to say that they couldn't have completed the mission as intended or with the specified results; i.e NOT an operational success. 6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other.

Tiberius wrote:I never said the TM was canon, but I am saying that since it is created by the guys who actually make the show, it's a better source than some scribble by a kid on a scrap of paper.


It's a great source for writing fanfic or what have you, it could be great. However, 'Trek doesn't have varying levels of canon the way 'Wars does; for evidence in a debate about the show, something is either canon or it isn't. In that situation, the scribble by a kid holds as much water as one of the TM's. BTW, this is even further magnified by the fact that the TM's are often at odds with canon.

Tiberius wrote:No, because some of the space that the YE E-D used to carry troops would no doubt be used for science labs, sensors etc in the regular E-D.


Fair enough. OK, to try to exemplify the same logic with a more appropriate example; the E-D had the most bad-ass weapons systems of its time when it was launched. Is it a pure warship?

Tiberius wrote:I meant that the 747 would have made the flight even if it wasn't packed to capacity. The bosses of the airline can't just order more people to buy tickets.

On the other hand, if the romulans want to land as many troops as they can and only have enough volunteers to fill it up half way, they aren't going to say, "Ah well, I guess we just better go with the ones we've got." No, they're going to say, "Right, you, you and you, get aboard that ship now!"


You are correct, but that's tangential. Here's the point: it is ludicrous to say, "The warbird could have held 5,000 troops... she only carried 2,000... therefore, this is proof that she can't carry any."
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Tiberius » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:39 am

Mikey wrote:
Tiberius wrote:I meant that the 747 would have made the flight even if it wasn't packed to capacity. The bosses of the airline can't just order more people to buy tickets.

On the other hand, if the romulans want to land as many troops as they can and only have enough volunteers to fill it up half way, they aren't going to say, "Ah well, I guess we just better go with the ones we've got." No, they're going to say, "Right, you, you and you, get aboard that ship now!"


You are correct, but that's tangential. Here's the point: it is ludicrous to say, "The warbird could have held 5,000 troops... she only carried 2,000... therefore, this is proof that she can't carry any."


I thought I was quite clear. If the warbird could have held 5000 troops, and the Romulans wanted to land as many troops as possible on Vulcan, then it WOULD have been holding 5000 troops.
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
Tiberius
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:45 am

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Mikey » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:07 am

OK... even if we assume that the warbird would have been at maximum capacity - see a much prior post for why that may not be the case - then the conclusion would be, "If the warbird was only holding x troops, then her maximum capacity was x troops," definitely NOT "The warbird was only holding x troops, therefore she can't hold any."
"We've been over this. We don't shoot first and ask questions later."
"Of course! We never ask questions."
User avatar
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 33178
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:04 am
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Tiberius » Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:10 am

Mikey wrote:OK... even if we assume that the warbird would have been at maximum capacity - see a much prior post for why that may not be the case - then the conclusion would be, "If the warbird was only holding x troops, then her maximum capacity was x troops," definitely NOT "The warbird was only holding x troops, therefore she can't hold any."


When did I say the warbird can't hold ANY troops?
Go and read my fan fic "The Hansen Diaries"! And leave comments!
Tiberius
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:45 am

Re: Reason for D'Deridex size

Postby Jim » Wed Oct 24, 2012 10:56 am

but... why is it green?
Ugh... do not thump the Book of G'Quan...
User avatar
Jim
Commander
Commander
 
Posts: 1462
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:32 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

PreviousNext

Return to TNG

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest