The Return of the MVAM Debate

[Graham Kennedy]

We don't know that mass makes much difference to a ship's performance; at impulse it certainly should but at warp, who can say? It should surely make some difference, but how much of a factor it is, is anyone's guess. Shielding is more significant; we know that increasing shield area significantly decreases their effectiveness. But then with more surface area the ship would have more area for a shield projector grid on the hull.

To me, the obvious advantage that MVAM seems to give is the ability to attack from different directions simultaneously - that's what the mode is named after, after all! It's going to hard to judge how big of a deal that is from looking at other engagements, but I can easily believe that three beams of X/3 power hitting from three different directions have more of an effect than one beam of X hitting from one direction.

An in separated mode the ship would be able to do things one big ship can't - engage targets in different places, for instance. So I can see that three ships are better than one, and better enough to justify the connection gear, etc.

So that leaves the opposite conundrum, in a way. If the ship in separated mode is better than it is combined, then why not just make three small ships that can't connect at all? There must, presumably, be some other advantage to combined mode. Again, we can only really guess, but I'd say the combined ship might be faster with all the engines working together than the parts would be. Or there might be economies of scale to be had in terms of systems like gravity generation, replicators, crew support, etc.

So yeah, I can see sense to the Prommie design. But even so, I still think it's never going to be the new wave of the future. Too much complexity, too much to go wrong - I bet a Prommie is a bear to maintain and repair. I think of it as a novelty which is great under the right circumstances, but in day to day use more trouble than she's really worth. No doubt there will be a limited run of them, but they're never gonna be the new Miranda or Excelsior.

[Teaos]

To me, the obvious advantage that MVAM seems to give is the ability to attack from different directions simultaneously - that's what the mode is named after, after all! It's going to hard to judge how big of a deal that is from looking at other engagements, but I can easily believe that three beams of X/3 power hitting from three different directions have more of an effect than one beam of X hitting from one direction.

I would have to disagree with that on some level.

Attacking three different areas waters down the amount of damage given across a far greater area making it less likely you collapse the shields in one area.

I think the advantage comes more from the fact its just harder to fight 3 ships than one logistically. Also it makes it harder for you to keep vunerable bits of you ship out of the line of fire.

[Captain Seafort]

We also have evidence that concentrated fire is as useful in Trek as it is in the real world - FC. Before Picard's intervention the fleet was damaging the cube, but it appeared superficial. When concentrated fire was ordered (on what appeared to be a hole already blasted in the cube) the cube went down fast.

[Deepcrush]

Once the fleet got passed the outer hull of the cube. I'd guess that their fire was free to move about the cabin...

Like an old musket fired miniball.

[Graham Kennedy]

To me, the obvious advantage that MVAM seems to give is the ability to attack from different directions simultaneously - that's what the mode is named after, after all! It's going to hard to judge how big of a deal that is from looking at other engagements, but I can easily believe that three beams of X/3 power hitting from three different directions have more of an effect than one beam of X hitting from one direction.

I would have to disagree with that on some level.

Attacking three different areas waters down the amount of damage given across a far greater area making it less likely you collapse the shields in one area.

We just don't know how shield systems work, though. There's nothing to say that they must work in ways that we intuit they should.

[Teaos]

I unfortunatly don't have the instant recall of trek trivia you do but I'm sure we have heard a few times that shields have collapsed in certain areas.

[Coalition]

We don't know that mass makes much difference to a ship's performance; at impulse it certainly should but at warp, who can say? It should surely make some difference, but how much of a factor it is, is anyone's guess. Shielding is more significant; we know that increasing shield area significantly decreases their effectiveness. But then with more surface area the ship would have more area for a shield projector grid on the hull.

I was basing it on the idea that larger ships are faster. A larger ship would have its volume (and power supply) increase faster than its cross section, all else being equal. This lets it get either higher top speed, more efficient cruising speed, or both.

I unfortunatly don't have the instant recall of trek trivia you do but I'm sure we have heard a few times that shields have collapsed in certain areas.

Hmm, not that many episodes that I can remember with multiple threats to a ship.

"Peak Performance" had the Enterprise-D in the wargames, and when the Ent-D turned to face the fake Romulan ship, the Hathaway was able to score simulated hits on the hull. Since we are assuming the computers were instructed to make the damage appear realistic, so when they reported simulated heavy damage, they were correct.

This provides an instance where an older ship was able to punch through Ent-D's shields. This could be due to weaker aft shields, Ent-D angling its shields towards specific threats, or both. If the shields are angled automatically, that could be why fighters are so useful, as they can get to the weaker side and rear shields, while the forward shields are angled towards the enemy battle line.

If the angling was a computer program control, and could only focus on one vector at a time, that would be among the systems to disable in combat. Just give me equal strength shields everywhere, and I'll roll the ship to handle the other two attackers, while killing one at a time. The other attacks will be coming in to weaker areas, but their attacks are weaker as well.

[Sionnach Glic]

Actualy, two instances of concentrated fire causing more damage than spread fire comes to mind:
FC. Originaly, the fleet was just firing randomly at the Cube. When they began foccusing their fire, they blew a hole in the centre of the Cube and then blew it apart.
Some VOY episode I can't remember. The Kazon continuously attacked one specific part of the ship, causing heavy damage in that way.

[Sonic Glitch]

Actualy, two instances of concentrated fire causing more damage than spread fire comes to mind:
FC. Originaly, the fleet was just firing randomly at the Cube. When they began foccusing their fire, they blew a hole in the centre of the Cube and then blew it apart.
Some VOY episode I can't remember. The Kazon continuously attacked one specific part of the ship, causing heavy damage in that way.

Or even DS9 during the Dominion assault on the station, dukat orders the fleet to concentrate their fire on a section of the docking ring to bring down the shields. It's on youtube somewhere but I can't get to it during school...

[Mark]

It seems to me that we also forget other instances, like in Yesterday's Enterprise, when the two BoP came at the E-D from either side, pummeling her.

Let's look at the advantages of MVAM.

It can be used to provide a numerical and tactical advantage especially with the Prommie's armor, speed, weapons, and such.

It can be used to field more weapons in one direction at once. (example......in a head to head battle, a ship can only fire it's direct facing weapons at a ship. MVAM allows weapons from each segment to be added to the fight, which would otherwise not be in a firing position)

For all we know, hitting multiple shields from different angles drains overall shield power at a quicker pace. (that is a complete guess, but not beyond the scope of reason)

You provide three targets for an enemy's tactical officer to try and deal with at once, which makes it easier for each of the segments to evade incoming fire in the confusion. Add to that the maneuverability of each section and the ability to dodge into a ships "blind spots", and it's akin to how the wolf pack brings down the bear.

I simply can't imagine Starfleet building a ship with MVAM, if it would REDUCE it's overall combat effectiveness. I always assumed MVAM was for short duration use only, and the ship LIKELY would only function optimally for non combat missions when fully connected.

Anyway, I'm leaving alot of my thoughts out, because I'm getting foggy from fatigue.

[Sionnach Glic]

It seems to me that we also forget other instances, like in Yesterday's Enterprise, when the two BoP came at the E-D from either side, pummeling her.

Anything to show that if they'd both concentrated their fire on one point, they couldn't have achieved the same (if not better) results?

Let's look at the advantages of MVAM.

It can be used to provide a numerical and tactical advantage especially with the Prommie's armor, speed, weapons, and such.

When combined with its superior weapons, of course it's going to have an advantage.

If you pit the Prommie against a ship with a strength equal to the Prommie's three sections, then that advantage quickly turns into a liability. The three smaller sections simply can't have the same shield strength or power reserves as the single ship, and will be blown apart one by one. It just turns into a battle of "battleship Vs three destroyers".

It can be used to field more weapons in one direction at once. (example......in a head to head battle, a ship can only fire it's direct facing weapons at a ship. MVAM allows weapons from each segment to be added to the fight, which would otherwise not be in a firing position)

That's pretty much the only advantage this gimick has. Of course, it's then easier and smarter to simply build three small ships than an MVAM ship.

For all we know, hitting multiple shields from different angles drains overall shield power at a quicker pace. (that is a complete guess, but not beyond the scope of reason)

My previous given examples would suggest the opposite; that concentrating fire causes more damage to shields.

You provide three targets for an enemy's tactical officer to try and deal with at once, which makes it easier for each of the segments to evade incoming fire in the confusion. Add to that the maneuverability of each section and the ability to dodge into a ships "blind spots", and it's akin to how the wolf pack brings down the bear.

Then why not just build three destroyers if they're going to be fighting seperately all the time. Again, it turns into battleship V destroyers. In a battle where both parties have equal weapons strength, the battleship will win.

I simply can't imagine Starfleet building a ship with MVAM, if it would REDUCE it's overall combat effectiveness. I always assumed MVAM was for short duration use only, and the ship LIKELY would only function optimally for non combat missions when fully connected.

I simply can't imagine anyone inteligent building a ship that's a hybrid of a battleship and a science ship, and then filling it up with civilians. But we have the GCS.
Starfleet does a tonne of things that make absolutely no sense, and indeed may even hinder their performance. Applying that mentality to spaceships isn't too unreal.

[Mikey]

To use the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "Let me explain. No, there is too much... let me sum up."

The shield strength loss of the individual sections is overestimated by some people here. There is no indication that each individual sections power generation capability drops to 1/3 that of the combined ship. Considering the output of the Defiant's little core, I'd assume that the individual sections can generate more than 1/3 of the combined Prommie's total.

That said, and even though I've been a proponent of MVAM, I don't believe that the argument of a three-ship squadron v. one Prommie is anything more than academic. I like the Prometheus with its MVAM, but I don't believe it can be, or was intended to be, a stopgap for a three-vessel group. Rather, I believe it is intended to be a single fast cruiser with a particular tool or usage - the MVAM - to be used as the tactical situation indicates. I.e., I think of MVAM as a situational "weapon," no more or less so than the tactical decision for a captain to use either torpedoes or phasers in any given situation.

[Captain Seafort]

The shield strength loss of the individual sections is overestimated by some people here. There is no indication that each individual sections power generation capability drops to 1/3 that of the combined ship. Considering the output of the Defiant's little core, I'd assume that the individual sections can generate more than 1/3 of the combined Prommie's total.

That, by definition, is impossible. If it has power generators, then they can be used either in docked or separated mode. The only thing that changes between docked and separated mode is surface area, that must be protected by the same shielding system that protects the much smaller surface area of the docked ship.

[Sionnach Glic]

Exactly.

Let's say that each of the sections has an equaly powerful generator.

Combined, this means they have a shield strength equal to three generators. Seperated, this means they have a shield strength equal to one generator.
Ergo, ¹/₃ of the whole total possible power. The only way it isn't so is if when docked one or more of the generators is turned off, which is just stupid, or if one of the sections has a stronger or weaker reactor than the others.

[Mikey]

Power generation in UFP starships is performed by a warp core. We have seen the Defiant, with a much smaller warp core than many other ships, produce a great deal of power for weapons and shields (the Defiant's reputedly slower speed may be for any one of a number of nebulous reasons, like configuration, nacelle placement, etc.)

Separating the warp core into three shorter cores will probably reduce efficiency in generation, but an M/AM reaction with a given amount of reactants will always generate the same amount of energy. Perhaps the change in size will reduce the resultant power somewhat, by allowing for a lesser total volume of reactants, but surely not as drastically as has been proposed.

Further, the shield area for a given component is naturally less than the shield area of the combined ship. For the sake of argument, let's say that a component vector's power generation is 1/3 that of the copmbined ship. If we also posit that the shielded perimeter is 1/3 that of the combined ship (not dead-on, I know, but useful for the sake of argument) then you're no longer discussing the same drop-off in shield strength.