one-off awesome 'Trek concepts.

[Mikey]

Completely irrelevant to an in-universe topic.

So are discussions about 20th and 21st century aircraft and navies but those are routinely accepted in arguments here.

This is a joke, right? You're talking on one hand about using RL issues - budgets, writing constraints/inconsistencies, etc., to describe IN-UNIVERSE in issues; and on the other hand, the fact that people make ANALOGIES to support their positions. You're comparing apples to fork lifts.

And yes, it's absolutely true that 24th century weapons are better than 23rd century ones, and that we've seen ships go down in one shot to those 24th century weapons. As I mentioned, the 23rd century ships were more robust RELATIVE TO CONTEMPORARY WEAPONRY than the late ones. It doesn't matter which from which end of the spectrum you choose to view that point.

[Duskofdead]

No worse, sure, but it's certainly as bad as any damage we've seen - either in ST3 or at Chintoka. I was simply making the point that it goes pretty deeply into the saucer, rather than being restricted to the outer hull being ripped away.

The point is that Teaos and I don't really see the "crystal clear" claim that TOS designs were better and held up to damage better overall. Damage in TNG tended to be a lot nastier. The one image we can dig up of a ship wrecked up as badly as ships routinely got trussed in TNG+ shows that ship not faring much better with comparable levels of damage.

[Duskofdead]

Completely irrelevant to an in-universe topic.

So are discussions about 20th and 21st century aircraft and navies but those are routinely accepted in arguments here.

This is a joke, right? You're talking on one hand about using RL issues - budgets, writing constraints/inconsistencies, etc., to describe IN-UNIVERSE in issues; and on the other hand, the fact that people make ANALOGIES to support their positions. You're comparing apples to fork lifts.

And yes, it's absolutely true that 24th century weapons are better than 23rd century ones, and that we've seen ships go down in one shot to those 24th century weapons. As I mentioned, the 23rd century ships were more robust RELATIVE TO CONTEMPORARY WEAPONRY than the late ones. It doesn't matter which from which end of the spectrum you choose to view that point.

The fact that weapons were weaker doesn't mean the ships were "better designed", it just means they had to deal with mitigating a lot less damaging firepower per given shot/volley/battle. I don't see why reiterating the point about the ships being stronger relative to the contemporary weaponry should strengthen the point that the ships were better designed; they weren't. They just had to deal with a decreased level of threat in terms of enemy weapons.

And no, I'm not kidding. It's one thing to draw an analogy, it's another thing that demand that a claim about design in Trek must necessarily be undeniably true because it's true with ship design today, which IMHO is very erroneous. If someone is simply making a comparison for what it's worth that's one thing, it's another to use it as substitute canon in instances where proof is insufficient to reach a hard conclusion. And THAT is what happens frequently around here.

[Captain Seafort]

And no, I'm not kidding. It's one thing to draw an analogy, it's another thing that demand that a claim about design in Trek must necessarily be undeniably true because it's true with ship design today, which IMHO is very erroneous. If someone is simply making a comparison for what it's worth that's one thing, it's another to use it as substitute canon in instances where proof is insufficient to reach a hard conclusion. And THAT is what happens frequently around here.

We've never claimed that Trek designs must follow modern designs to the letter. This is Star Trek, not SBY. We do, however, point out that the underlying principles do not change. A command centre with lots of hull between it and enemy weapons fire will always be less vulnerable than a bridge with less hull between it and weapons fire. Single-role ships will always be better in that role than multi-role ships. Military vehicles of all sizes will always be a compromise between firepower, protection and mobility, with the optimum balance depending on the role. We do not substitute these principles to canon, we apply them to canon, in order to determine whether, and if so how, the canon design could be improved.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

command centre with lots of hull between it and enemy weapons fire will always be less vulnerable than a bridge with less hull between it and weapons fire.

I do agree on most of your points, but don't most warships have a bridge on or near the top of the superstructure? I think the command centers on Carriers are more vulnerable then the ones we see on Starfleet vessels

[Sionnach Glic]

Correct, but the ships also contain a Combat Information Centre at the very heart of the vessel, which is probably the most well-protected area of the ship. It's from here that the vessel is controled during combat. Even of the bridge was blown straight off, it would have little effect on the ship's combat effectiveness.

[Duskofdead]

And no, I'm not kidding. It's one thing to draw an analogy, it's another thing that demand that a claim about design in Trek must necessarily be undeniably true because it's true with ship design today, which IMHO is very erroneous. If someone is simply making a comparison for what it's worth that's one thing, it's another to use it as substitute canon in instances where proof is insufficient to reach a hard conclusion. And THAT is what happens frequently around here.

We've never claimed that Trek designs must follow modern designs to the letter. This is Star Trek, not SBY. We do, however, point out that the underlying principles do not change. A command centre with lots of hull between it and enemy weapons fire will always be less vulnerable than a bridge with less hull between it and weapons fire. Single-role ships will always be better in that role than multi-role ships. Military vehicles of all sizes will always be a compromise between firepower, protection and mobility, with the optimum balance depending on the role. We do not substitute these principles to canon, we apply them to canon, in order to determine whether, and if so how, the canon design could be improved.

I don't recall anyone ever disagreeing with the "general principles." However there is a vast difference between saying, for example, a single role ship is better at that one single role than a multirole ship, and saying that a single role interstellar fleet spread across 8,000 light years is thus necessarily better, and claiming the argument is proven. Such a claim relies on a very hazy assumption that the logistics would work out such that there would always be relatively nearby single role ships to perform that single role as needed, despite the canon vast distances involved, lengthy travel times, and the relatively sparse dispersion of the fleet during non-war situations.

At any rate this is neither here nor there. The point is when I make a comment on effects or budget or writing inconsistencies, which I try to unerringly put in parentheses, it is meant as a passing comment or non-canon opinion on why something didn't make sense or drastically changed or what have you. Not everything I say, especially if it's a passing comment or in parentheses, need be interpreted like I am posing a hard challenge to canon or something. And if someone is going to be the "omg I see a non-canon comment" violation-giver around here then might I suggest they do it a bit more consistently across the board.

[Captain Seafort]

I don't recall anyone ever disagreeing with the "general principles." However there is a vast difference between saying, for example, a single role ship is better at that one single role than a multirole ship, and saying that a single role interstellar fleet spread across 8,000 light years is thus necessarily better, and claiming the argument is proven. Such a claim relies on a very hazy assumption that the logistics would work out such that there would always be relatively nearby single role ships to perform that single role as needed, despite the canon vast distances involved, lengthy travel times, and the relatively sparse dispersion of the fleet during non-war situations.

The sparse distribution of the fleet is due to most ships being explorers, or science vessels. Dedicated warships could remain relatively concentrated, either around the core worlds, or near potential trouble spots, with relatively few further out. The distances involved aren't as great as they might appear - at maximum sustainable speed (about 2700c) the E-D could get from one side of the Federation to the other in about three years, rather than the eight years suggested by Voyager's long-term cruising. Since warships would be stationed out that way as well, there's a decent chance of ships being available within high-sprint (9000c) range of trouble. These times drop considerably if the reasonable assumption is made that ships' speeds and endurance have improved since early TNG.

At any rate this is neither here nor there. The point is when I make a comment on effects or budget or writing inconsistencies, which I try to unerringly put in parentheses, it is meant as a passing comment or non-canon opinion on why something didn't make sense or drastically changed or what have you. Not everything I say, especially if it's a passing comment or in parentheses, need be interpreted like I am posing a hard challenge to canon or something. And if someone is going to be the "omg I see a non-canon comment" violation-giver around here then might I suggest they do it a bit more consistently across the board.

Everyone grumbles about the real issues that affect Trek, B&B being the favourite target. What you seem to do is simply say "it was due to cost/different people's ideas/lack of research" and leave it at that, rather than looking for in-universe explanations and grumbling about the real reason in addition to that.

[Mikey]

The fact that weapons were weaker doesn't mean the ships were "better designed", it just means they had to deal with mitigating a lot less damaging firepower per given shot/volley/battle. I don't see why reiterating the point about the ships being stronger relative to the contemporary weaponry should strengthen the point that the ships were better designed; they weren't. They just had to deal with a decreased level of threat in terms of enemy weapons.

And no, I'm not kidding. It's one thing to draw an analogy, it's another thing that demand that a claim about design in Trek must necessarily be undeniably true because it's true with ship design today, which IMHO is very erroneous. If someone is simply making a comparison for what it's worth that's one thing, it's another to use it as substitute canon in instances where proof is insufficient to reach a hard conclusion. And THAT is what happens frequently around here.

EVERYTHING is relative. If a 23rd century ship is better able to deal with 23rd century weaponry than a 24th century ship is regarding 24th century weaponry, then it is better able to deal. I've never said that a Connie would stand up better to a Negh'Var; that's ridiculous. The decreased ability of 23rd century weapons (compared to 24th century) corresponds with a century less of materials tech - yet the difference still exists.

I don't recall anyone saying that what happened on 20th/21st century Earth in RL is canon - I certainly hope you're not implying that I did. But I have seen that idea used as a supporting analogy; and when presented with a lack of alternate governing philosophy, that's definitely a usable position.

[stitch626]

Correct, but the ships also contain a Combat Information Centre at the very heart of the vessel, which is probably the most well-protected area of the ship. It's from here that the vessel is controled during combat. Even of the bridge was blown straight off, it would have little effect on the ship's combat effectiveness.

Which is similar to the Auxillary Control Room in starships which is deep within the ship. I don't know if 24th century ships had an Aux Control, but 23rd did.

[Sionnach Glic]

They're not really that analogous. There're major differences between the two of them.

[Captain Seafort]

Which is similar to the Auxillary Control Room in starships which is deep within the ship. I don't know if 24th century ships had an Aux Control, but 23rd did.

Different principles entirely - the ACR is a back-up, to take command of the ship if the main bridge were destroyed. It should be commanded by the 2iC, but since Spock doubled as science officer he tended to stay on the bridge.

The CIC is the Captain's station on a modern warship, where the ship is primarily commanded from. I think the 2iC is stationed in the damage control centre, which can double as the CIC if the main one is taken out, but my knowledge is somewhat hazy on that point. Damage Control would therefore be the modern equivalent to the ACR, with CIC being equivalent to the bridge.

[Aaron]

Seafort is entirely correct. The only real function of a bridge on a modern naval vessel is to steer the ship and have a place for lookouts to stand. And even the steering can be handled from three or four different locations.

[Teaos]

Single-role ships will always be better in that role than multi-role ships.

Not always. I agree there should be some pure ships but a lot of the time a swiss army knife ship is a rather good use of resourses. Look at the Nebula as an example.

[Duskofdead]

The fact that weapons were weaker doesn't mean the ships were "better designed", it just means they had to deal with mitigating a lot less damaging firepower per given shot/volley/battle. I don't see why reiterating the point about the ships being stronger relative to the contemporary weaponry should strengthen the point that the ships were better designed; they weren't. They just had to deal with a decreased level of threat in terms of enemy weapons.

And no, I'm not kidding. It's one thing to draw an analogy, it's another thing that demand that a claim about design in Trek must necessarily be undeniably true because it's true with ship design today, which IMHO is very erroneous. If someone is simply making a comparison for what it's worth that's one thing, it's another to use it as substitute canon in instances where proof is insufficient to reach a hard conclusion. And THAT is what happens frequently around here.

EVERYTHING is relative. If a 23rd century ship is better able to deal with 23rd century weaponry than a 24th century ship is regarding 24th century weaponry, then it is better able to deal. I've never said that a Connie would stand up better to a Negh'Var; that's ridiculous. The decreased ability of 23rd century weapons (compared to 24th century) corresponds with a century less of materials tech - yet the difference still exists.

I don't recall anyone saying that what happened on 20th/21st century Earth in RL is canon - I certainly hope you're not implying that I did. But I have seen that idea used as a supporting analogy; and when presented with a lack of alternate governing philosophy, that's definitely a usable position.

Mikey I completely get what you are saying. Seriously, I do. What I mean is that for us to agree on that and then for someone to say "therefore, TOS ships were better designed" is out of left field. TOS ships had the luxury/benefit of existing in a time where weapons technology did not have such a marked advantage over materials/shields/defenses technology as in TNG. That's a very different assessment that saying that there was therefore something inherently superior in the TOS designs for them to stand up to weaker weapons more effectively.