Craptastic, Failfabulous, Destructi-prone starships

Trek Books, Games and General chat
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Duskofdead wrote:Again, because those ships faced different circumstances. We didn't see a vastly superior alien ship cutting into the Constitution's engineering section.
No, we saw a Starfleet ship that knew exactly where to target to do the most damage blasting holes in the Connie's engineering section.
We didn't see a ship collide into its nacelles.
No, we saw an identical nacelle ripped apart by phaser and torpedo fire.
So the comparison is flawed, we didn't see two ships of the same era facing very similar threats/situations.
See above. And TWOK.
*snip waffle*
I repeat Rochey's request

Show me a single example of any of us simply waving away your points without backing up our arguments.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Tsukiyumi wrote:
Captain Seafort wrote:When I say "bits" I mean part of the ship rather than the whole thing, not that there was only a few scraps of shrapnel involved.
It just sounds a bit understated, is all. That was a hell of a big bit, and a seroiusly high-speed impact.
But it clearly impacted shields, backed up by the fact that the power drain the shields had sustained was mentioned in the immediately following bridge scene. If a chunk of a warbird had flown high-speed into an unshielded Sovereign-class nacelle we might have seen a very different ending to the movie.
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Show me a single example of any of us simply waving away your points without backing up our arguments.
You are not even listening to the point. The point is that you guys keep declaring one obvious, irrefutible conclusion to EVERYTHING you ever voice any opinion on whatsoever when there is insufficient overwhelming evidence in canon to reach such a point on almost any topic of importance. The fact that you answer my argument or the canon used in said argument with some opposing canon (often heavily relying on off-screen 'common sense', as defined by you guys) doesn't make you right and me wrong. In a majority of these discussions there is canon for both impressions, and when so confronted the response from you two is "well that's because Starfleet is incompetent, WE know what's more logical", which is a total cop-out since you two routinely demand people stick only to canon. You can't definitively prove anything you guys claim as "obvious" because there is frequently an equally supported alternative argument, so then you fall back on either attacking the other party's "lack of common sense" or "historical precendent."

In short, you two are far too preoccupied with conclusive victory in a subject matter where there is substantially too little hard fact to achieve conclusive victory, so you fall back on opinion, which you two almost unerringly present as either fact or logical common sense to everyone, and then claim you've refuted opposing viewpoints. Frankly it's b.s.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

I'm sorry, I evidently didn't make the point clear enough.

Show me a single example of any of us simply waving away your points without backing up our arguments.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Captain Seafort wrote:I'm sorry, I evidently didn't make the point clear enough.

Show me a single example of any of us simply waving away your points without backing up our arguments.
When I mentioned the Defiant vs. the mirror universe Negh'Var you waved it off as an "unusual case", and ignored my response that your examples for your argument (The Enterprise-D vs. a Borg cube solo during BoBW, and the Enterprise-E vs. the Scimitar) were equally unusual.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Which was that? The wide-angle starhsip phaser argument? If so I pointed out that the apparent wide-angle beams demonstrated parallel edges at long range, indicating that their apparent wide-angle nature was a trick of perspective.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Duskofdead
Captain
Captain
Posts: 1913
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 8:06 pm

Post by Duskofdead »

Captain Seafort wrote:Which was that? The wide-angle starhsip phaser argument? If so I pointed out that the apparent wide-angle beams demonstrated parallel edges at long range, indicating that their apparent wide-angle nature was a trick of perspective.
No I believe it was one of the arguments about how the Galaxy Ent-D vs. the Borg and the Sov Ent-E vs. the Scimitar were examples of how Starfleet had foolishly underpowered its "warships" or something to that effect. And my argument was that many other factors besides pure raw firepower affect how even unequal battles conclude, such as the Defiant vs. the mirror Negh'var.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

True, battles aren't often decided by raw firepower. It certainly doesn't hurt, however, while huge crew quarters and equipment for analysing stars and so on do. The key factors in all battles, assuming equally capable commanders and crew, are firepower, protection, mobility and intelligence. Those are the factors which should recieve absolute priority, with the balance between them varying according to doctrine and class-specific roles (battleships, scouts, escorts, etc).
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

The Miranda class (and by extension the refit Connie, Constellation, and Soyuz classes) nacelles are far more solid - they can be raked with phaser fire and blown off by a torpedo without causing the entire ship to explode.
Ships like that, that you claim to be so much better built are also substatually less powerful.

You think starfleet just woke up one day and went "You know what? To hell with having robust nacelles lets make them out of glass"

No, they powered up their ships to make them faster,stronger,better and the result was they couldnt have a dinky little nacelle like the Miranda.

Sure I can't know this because it was never said out right but the fact that EVERY latter design was like this (until they seem to solve the problem somewhat it the very lattest designs) and there would eb no reason to weaken them for any other reason.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Teaos wrote:Ships like that, that you claim to be so much better built are also substatually less powerful.
By the time of DS9 sure, but at the time of their construction they were among the most powerful ships in the fleet.
You think starfleet just woke up one day and went "You know what? To hell with having robust nacelles lets make them out of glass"
Not at all, I've no idea why they went from the solid, well designed ships of the TOS-era to powderkegs like the Galaxy, I simply have solid evidence that such a change occured.
No, they powered up their ships to make them faster,stronger,better and the result was they couldnt have a dinky little nacelle like the Miranda.
Dinky? Proportionally to the size of the ship the Miranda's nacelles were bigger than any TNG-era ship's.
Sure I can't know this because it was never said out right but the fact that EVERY latter design was like this (until they seem to solve the problem somewhat it the very lattest designs) and there would eb no reason to weaken them for any other reason.
If they decided to reduce safety so much to improve speed then they made an eceptionally poor design trade-off. They'd have been better off simply multiplying the number of original nacelles (as they did with the Constellation) until they had a safe design to go back to the paired arrangement.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

Sorry I was trying to make a different point.

Its not the relative power. Yes the Miranda was kick ass when it first came out. But it still had a limited power.

The more modern day starship funnels a lot more power through its systems and nacelles. Thus they may not be able to make them as robust due to the shear amount of powe contained. Or at least not at the time of the GCS construction since they seem to have fixed the problem some what.

So they faced a choice, scale it down and have it more robust or push themselves to the limti of what they can do. Sure the latter option has more risks but it has its rewards to.
Dinky? Proportionally to the size of the ship the Miranda's nacelles were bigger than any TNG-era ship's.
Dinky as in the amount of exhaust it could funnel. It only had those gaps on the side.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

Teaos wrote:The more modern day starship funnels a lot more power through its systems and nacelles. Thus they may not be able to make them as robust due to the shear amount of powe contained. Or at least not at the time of the GCS construction since they seem to have fixed the problem some what.
Then, as I said, add more nacelles until you've got a design that can handle the power properly, or scale down the design.
So they faced a choice, scale it down and have it more robust or push themselves to the limti of what they can do. Sure the latter option has more risks but it has its rewards to.
The didn't push their technology to the limit - they pushed it well beyond the limit, much as the Russians did with their early nuclear-powered submarines. The result was a ship with an alarming tendency towards blowing up if you hit it in the wrong place.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Teaos
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:00 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: Behind you!

Post by Teaos »

It had its problems but they were manageable. And by pushing themselves they now have a better fleet over all. If they didnt have the problems in the GS to work out they may not have the Sov or Defiant or Promethius. They may have lost the war by settling for whats comfortable over hard.
What does defeat mean to you?

Nothing it will never come. Death before defeat. I don’t bend or break. I end, if I meet a foe capable of it. Victory is in forcing the opponent to back down. I do not. There is no defeat.
User avatar
Captain Seafort
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 15548
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Blighty

Post by Captain Seafort »

I'm not talking about settling for comfortable, I'm talking about settling for what they're capable of safely doing. For some reason they were unable to produce a warp core as powerful as the GCS's while adhering to modern safety standards. Either because they were trying to get too much power before they had the technological know-how to do it safely, or because they're idiots. The latter is more likely, given the range of possible safety mechanisms proposed in this thread.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe: Albert Einstein.
User avatar
Bryan Moore
Captain
Captain
Posts: 2729
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 4:39 am
Location: Perpetual Summer Camp
Contact:

Post by Bryan Moore »

Where would you all suggest to place the bridge?
Don't you hear my call, though you're many years away, don't you hear me calling you?
Post Reply