Shared technology base?

[Tyyr]

By that logic, internal combustion engines should vary from country to country depending on where and when it was invented. If the principles are the same, we can probably expect the machinery to be the same

Not necessarily. There are a lot of ways to do internal combustion. Based off local conditions if people came up in a vacuum there's no reason to suspect that everyone would settle on doing it exactly the same way.

OOU That's a lack of forethought on the producer/directors parts, IU we could assume that all planets which support sentient space-faring life are Earth-Like and as such would have similar masses leading to similar gravities...

Which is a hell of a stretch. Then again the root cause of the problem is that in ST we're all supposedly descended from some progenitor race. Mostly it's an IU explanation for the show rarely bothering with any aliens that can't be done with an hour or two's makeup.

A bullet is a bullet is a bullet isn't it?

Nope. Even amongst projectiles used by the same army there is tremendous variation in bullets, missiles, etc. However in Trek even torpedoes built by totally different races seem to behave the same way, have the same limitations, and do similar amounts of damage. Take a look at the variation in modern day anti-ship missiles. You go from subsonic to Mach 2+. A few hundred pounds to the size of a small jet fighter. High altitude, low altitude. Straight into the side vs. popup terminal maneuvers. Contact warheads versus penetrators. Small few hundred pound warheads to multi-ton goliaths.

Just because everyone doesn't use it currently doesn't mean it won't become near-universal in the future. As for the Romulans, it may not be that there's significant power issues, but that they're the only ones to make a quantum singularity (mini blackhole) based power system work. The Feds may not want to risk trying it.

However you don't see universal constants. Sure, lets say that nukes are so stunningly obvious that in the near future everyone starts adopting them. There's still going to be variation in their design and there's always someone pushing the envelope. Its rare to see everyone on the same developmental plateau here on earth, forget star empires.

[Sonic Glitch]

By that logic, internal combustion engines should vary from country to country depending on where and when it was invented. If the principles are the same, we can probably expect the machinery to be the same

Not necessarily. There are a lot of ways to do internal combustion. Based off local conditions if people came up in a vacuum there's no reason to suspect that everyone would settle on doing it exactly the same way.

But either way, there's a combustion chamber and compression and gasses to be expelled yes? And that power must be transferred into motion or whatever, so even if the the technology is not identical it would be similar no?

OOU That's a lack of forethought on the producer/directors parts, IU we could assume that all planets which support sentient space-faring life are Earth-Like and as such would have similar masses leading to similar gravities...

Which is a hell of a stretch. Then again the root cause of the problem is that in ST we're all supposedly descended from some progenitor race. Mostly it's an IU explanation for the show rarely bothering with any aliens that can't be done with an hour or two's makeup.

Hey, I didn't say it was a good explanation Besides, what in Star Trek isn't a stretch?

A bullet is a bullet is a bullet isn't it?

Nope. Even amongst projectiles used by the same army there is tremendous variation in bullets, missiles, etc. However in Trek even torpedoes built by totally different races seem to behave the same way, have the same limitations, and do similar amounts of damage. Take a look at the variation in modern day anti-ship missiles. You go from subsonic to Mach 2+. A few hundred pounds to the size of a small jet fighter. High altitude, low altitude. Straight into the side vs. popup terminal maneuvers. Contact warheads versus penetrators. Small few hundred pound warheads to multi-ton goliaths.

Even with all that, a bullet or missile is still an explosive head and a package. While there are different kinds of bullets/missiles, they are meant to do a similar job. It could be that there are only so many ways to make a photon torpedo work?

Just because everyone doesn't use it currently doesn't mean it won't become near-universal in the future. As for the Romulans, it may not be that there's significant power issues, but that they're the only ones to make a quantum singularity (mini blackhole) based power system work. The Feds may not want to risk trying it.

However you don't see universal constants. Sure, lets say that nukes are so stunningly obvious that in the near future everyone starts adopting them. There's still going to be variation in their design and there's always someone pushing the envelope. Its rare to see everyone on the same developmental plateau here on earth, forget star empires.

Have we ever actually seen another species M/AM powerplant? Perhaps there are differences in design.

[Tyyr]

But either way, there's a combustion chamber and compression and gasses to be expelled yes? And that power must be transferred into motion or whatever, so even if the the technology is not identical it would be similar no?

Gas Turbine vs. 2 cycle motor. Not even remotely similar other than in the broadest strokes.

Even with all that, a bullet or missile is still an explosive head and a package. While there are different kinds of bullets/missiles, they are meant to do a similar job. It could be that there are only so many ways to make a photon torpedo work?

You missed the point. In Trek aside from a change in color every single species torpedo acts exactly the same. In real life there is a phenomenal difference in how different weapons act.

5.56mm rifle round vs. 16" naval round. Javelin anti-tank guided missile vs. Russian "Sunburn" style antiship missile. They all operate on the same principles but you will NEVER mistake one for the other. There's nothing wrong with most vessels using a torpedo like weapon but why do they all act the same way? Where are the little swarmers, the big monsters. The slow but incredibly accurate or the hyper fast ones? Why is the color the only thing that seems to change?

Have we ever actually seen another species M/AM powerplant? Perhaps there are differences in design.

Top of my head I can't recall. However it would make more sense to see other than M/AM powerplants. More singularity drives or pure fusion, or some other way to make power.

[Lighthawk]

Granted, it is the FTL of the series. Still, it's that everyone's warp drive seems indentical to everyone elses.

We don't really know that it is. All we know is that most of them use warp drive. The speed and effeciency of each species' drives are all mysteries.

Hmmm...yeah okay, got to give you that one.

Yes, but only by species with inferior tech. When a species reaches the general area of adavancement of the federation, they've long given up laser weapons.

And that very reason is probably why we've not seen much diversity amongst the "main" powers of the AQ. It seems that the next level up in terms of weapons tech is either disruptor weaponary or phasers. Why some species use one and not the other is unknown, though presumably there are trade-offs for each system which lead governments to favour one or the other.

While that does make some sense, on a certain level, I'm just not pleased with it. I think it's largely a matter that every phaser and every disruptor seems to be by and by the same as every other phaser/disruptor. Where are the species' specific traits to each of these weapons? The sword for example was a weapon used by just about every single civilization that graced the earth, and each one put their own flavor and feel to the weapon.

You can, though it still strikes me as odd that everyone's torps seem virtual identical to everyone elses.

Why wouldn't they? If photorps are the most powerful weapons available, why not use them? Presumably everyone'll be using Qtorps once the other major powers start either designing their own or capture working models.

See Tyyr's posts on this.

Fair points, but like I pointed out to stitch, it was more a matter of everyone cramming the entire launcher inside the ship.

It makes sense to me. If I were designing a weapon then I'd have the bulk of the machinery inside the ship to allow ease of maintanence and extra protection. It's a logical position.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, but EVERY alien race is of the exact same mind set on this? Hell, if it's better to have stuff inside the ship, why doesn't everyone follow the bird-of-prey idea of sticking the warp nacells inside as well?

But they all seem to be exactly the same, the same limits, the same ranges, the same time to transport, hell even the same design to the pads themselves save artistic deviation on the outer casing.

If they're based on the same principles then they should have such similarities. Maybe that's as fast and as far as they can transport something. And mabe the design is a requirement of the system (though personaly I too would have liked some different designs).[/quote]

I point to Tyyr's words about differences in combustion engines for my responce to this.

Just cause it's the best doesn't mean everyone will have it. Nuclear power is the best power source we have right now, but you can hardly say that everyone uses it.

True enough, but the lack of nuclear power plants is primarily due to idiots opposing it due to thinking every reactor is a Chernobyll waiting to happen. If that pressure wasn't there, every nation with the capability to do so would be building nuke plants.

In Trek, the tech they use needs an insane amount of power. It's possible that the next step up from nuclear power is M/AM power. That step up is so big that any pressure from fringe idiot groups would likely be ignored. Nowadays we have alternatives to nuclear power plants when it comes to powering a city. But if you need to send a kilometre-long starship at thousands of times the speed of light while also maintaining weapons, shields and FTL comms and sensors, I doubt you've got much alternatives to M/AM. In Trek, any opposition to M/AM power would likely have been overruled due to pragmatism.[/quote]

Possible, certainly.

Especially in a battle, with the ship jumping around under you, imagine trying to hit a bunch of dancing lights without accidently hitting a half dozen other controls.

Not to mention response times, particularly for the helmsman. Which is quicker; typing on a keyboard or yanking back a joystick?

Exactly. Plus which one allows for a tactile feel of the ship's movement?

[Lighthawk]

If you're Super Species X, then yes. If you're just Race Joe Shmoe though, you warp.

And if you're super species X on Earth you use the internal combustion engine or various types of steam power. If you're not, you walk.

Or you take a horse...or use wind power for a boat...or row the boat...or hook the horse to a cart...or ride a bike...or...

Really? So if you had a shield generator that didn't, for example, block transporters, you'd call the whole thing uselss, even if it blocked energy and physical weapons, and rather go without it at all? That's what I'm getting at, how come every speices' shields have all the same capabilities as everyone elses?

I wouldn't rather go without, but I would be at an insane disadvantage, because everyone else would be able to board my ship at will. It's the equivalent of an army having no air defence - they loose very quickly anyone with half-decent ground attack aircraft.

Of course it would be a disadvatage, but if it's the best you got, you use it.

What I'm getting at is in trek there seems to be no middle ground with the shields. Races go from having no shields, to shields that do everything. Just because race B's newly developed shields don't block transporters like race A's more developed shields doesn't mean race B isn't going to use their new tech until it's up to the same level.

But still, a gun and a cannon at least manage to have a different feel about them when fired. I guess that's what really gets me, they used the exact same visual and audio effect for the ship phasers as they did for the hand phasers. Would it have been too much to ask for some variation, something to really get the proper feel across that one of these weapons is several thousand times more powerful than the other?

The only difference between small arms and artillery is one of scale - one jerks the firer's arms slightly, the other recoils several feet. One produces an almost invisible puff of smoke, the other produces clouds. They're still basically the same.

I think that's an over simplification. Difference of scale yes, but scale isn't everything, purpose is tied into that. A tank cannon and an artillery piece are very close in scale, but very different in purpose.

[Captain Seafort]

Or you take a horse...or use wind power for a boat...or row the boat...or hook the horse to a cart...or ride a bike...or...

You've produced precisely one new method of power generation - wind. All the others are variations on walking.

Of course it would be a disadvatage, but if it's the best you got, you use it.

And you loose.

What I'm getting at is in trek there seems to be no middle ground with the shields. Races go from having no shields, to shields that do everything. Just because race B's newly developed shields don't block transporters like race A's more developed shields doesn't mean race B isn't going to use their new tech until it's up to the same level.

Point. Another possibility is that transporters are piss-easy to disrupt. Something that has a ton of evidence to support it.

A tank cannon and an artillery piece are very close in scale, but very different in purpose.

Different in purpose, but identical in operating mechanism - as is everything from the Liberator to Gustav.

[Lighthawk]

Much of it I just chalk up as "best solution". Today all surface warships use propellors, most use some sort of turbine engine to power them, all of them use chemical explosive projectile weapons, most with missiles, many with torpedoes, and most of them are just variations on a theme. Inside most of them display information on CRT or LCD screens, and use switches and buttons and such to control them.

True there is variation, like nuclear power and such. But then Romulans use quantum singularities not matter/antimatter, and phasers and disrupters seem to represent two different schools of beam weapon. Then there are photons, but there are also plasma torps, quantum torps and tricobalt torps in widespread use, and isolytic subspace warheads which are used by at least some.

In hull form there is huge variation. From Borg cubes to Federation ships to Klingon, Romulan and such, we see FAR more diversity in Trek ships than we do in ships today.

I think what I've been learning about my disagreements over the trek tech in debating this is I guess more of a want for more flavors in the tech. The ships, as you've pointed out, come in a vast and wide range of designs, which help to distiguish one race's ideas of form and function from anothers. Show a trekkie a ship, and he has a good chance of telling you what race it belongs to, even if the ship is brand new to him.

When it comes to the stuff inside the ship though, the weapons, the shields, the transporters...there is such a lack of flavor. Even a hard core trekkie would be hard pressed to name a race based only on their weapon or transporter or shield FX.

It's like everyone gets to pick out their own, personalized suit of armor, but then they all have to choose one of three types of swords and one of two shields.

Overall I don't mind it. I mind far, far more that these systems have now been in use almost unchanged for 300 years.

Well that's another debate all together.

[Captain Seafort]

I think what I've been learning about my disagreements over the trek tech in debating this is I guess more of a want for more flavors in the tech. The ships, as you've pointed out, come in a vast and wide range of designs, which help to distiguish one race's ideas of form and function from anothers. Show a trekkie a ship, and he has a good chance of telling you what race it belongs to, even if the ship is brand new to him.

When it comes to the stuff inside the ship though, the weapons, the shields, the transporters...there is such a lack of flavor. Even a hard core trekkie would be hard pressed to name a race based only on their weapon or transporter or shield FX.

Much the same is true of WW2 era equipment - ships are pretty easily distinguishable but small arms, especially rifles and pistols, are far more difficult.

[Lighthawk]

Or you take a horse...or use wind power for a boat...or row the boat...or hook the horse to a cart...or ride a bike...or...

You've produced precisely one new method of power generation - wind. All the others are variations on walking.

Rowing is a form of walking?

Besides, we're not talking about power generation, that's the warp core, not the warp drive. We're talking about ways of using the energy source we have to provide motion. Which in trek seems to be limited (in FTL terms) to warp if you're any average race. Only super special races have other options.

Of course it would be a disadvatage, but if it's the best you got, you use it.

And you loose.

Or you adapt. In your shields can be beamed through, you need to bring extra troops along into battle to repel boarders. If your air defense is crap...well that's a bit harder to deal with actually. Having beam throughable shields is a disadvantage, but I don't see it as a "You always gunna lose" card.

What I'm getting at is in trek there seems to be no middle ground with the shields. Races go from having no shields, to shields that do everything. Just because race B's newly developed shields don't block transporters like race A's more developed shields doesn't mean race B isn't going to use their new tech until it's up to the same level.

Point. Another possibility is that transporters are piss-easy to disrupt. Something that has a ton of evidence to support it.

Point

A tank cannon and an artillery piece are very close in scale, but very different in purpose.

Different in purpose, but identical in operating mechanism - as is everything from the Liberator to Gustav.

I think calling it identical is a bit of a stretch. Similiar yes, but if they were all identical, why would there be so many different types? How could there be so many different types if they were all identical?

[Sionnach Glic]

While that does make some sense, on a certain level, I'm just not pleased with it. I think it's largely a matter that every phaser and every disruptor seems to be by and by the same as every other phaser/disruptor. Where are the species' specific traits to each of these weapons? The sword for example was a weapon used by just about every single civilization that graced the earth, and each one put their own flavor and feel to the weapon.

Yes, swords did vary greatly from place to place. Compare a gladius to a katana and you'll see easily how different fighting styles influenced different weapon designs.

But why did so many different sword designs evolve? Different sword designs evolved due to different figthing styles. The Japanese were more individual fighters, and thus created a long, curved sword that they could swing in a wide arc. The Romans moved and fought in great masses of men, meaning that there was no room to swing a long sword without beheading the guy standing next to you. Thus a small sword designed for thrusting was created.

Now take a look at modern combat. Compare an Italian soldier to a Japanese soldier. There really isn't that much of a difference in tactics or training. Thus there's no need for massive variation in weapons. Now take a look at a gun built in Italy and a gun built in Japan. They're much the same, because they're built for the same purpose with the same tactics in mind.

The same should hold true for Trek. When it comes to ground combat, there simply isn't any need for weird and wonderful gun designs. A Klingon disruptor should look like a Romulan disruptor, as there's no real difference in fighting style when using a gun.

5.56mm rifle round vs. 16" naval round. Javelin anti-tank guided missile vs. Russian "Sunburn" style antiship missile. They all operate on the same principles but you will NEVER mistake one for the other. There's nothing wrong with most vessels using a torpedo like weapon but why do they all act the same way? Where are the little swarmers, the big monsters. The slow but incredibly accurate or the hyper fast ones? Why is the color the only thing that seems to change?

Standardisation, perhaps? Maybe the various powers sell torps to others, bringing about a sort of standardised torpedo casing size. The payload of the weapons, however, has been seen to vary greatly. Calcs have put torps varying from a few KT to one or two GT.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, but EVERY alien race is of the exact same mind set on this? Hell, if it's better to have stuff inside the ship, why doesn't everyone follow the bird-of-prey idea of sticking the warp nacells inside as well?

Well, the accepted theory is that shoving the nacelles inside the vessel and armouring them reduces speed and effeciency in some way. Thus the Federation may have decided to favour speed over protection, and placed the nacelles outside, while the Cardassians favoured resilience over speed and placed the nacelles inside.

When it comes to the placement of torp tubes, however, there really aren't that many possible variations that are practical. Shoving everything inside the ship is simply the best option. Thus everyone does it.

I point to Tyyr's words about differences in combustion engines for my responce to this.

To be honest, I'm not sure how applicable the combustion engine comparison is. We've no idea how transporters work. We know that there are a number of ways to rig up a combustion engine, but there may not be as many ways to hook up a transporter. It's quite possible that they're very finnicky and require precise construction with little deviation. Indeed, the fact that every transporter seen follows a similar pattern would seem to indicate this.

Exactly. Plus which one allows for a tactile feel of the ship's movement?

On a related note, I just remembered the episode where Tuvok went blind and then somehow still managed to use his flat, featureless touch-screen control panel. It's no wonder Starfleet doesn't bother teaching tactics and combat strategies; they're too busy teaching cadets how to memorise their consoles.

[Lighthawk]

While that does make some sense, on a certain level, I'm just not pleased with it. I think it's largely a matter that every phaser and every disruptor seems to be by and by the same as every other phaser/disruptor. Where are the species' specific traits to each of these weapons? The sword for example was a weapon used by just about every single civilization that graced the earth, and each one put their own flavor and feel to the weapon.

Yes, swords did vary greatly from place to place. Compare a gladius to a katana and you'll see easily how different fighting styles influenced different weapon designs.

But why did so many different sword designs evolve? Different sword designs evolved due to different figthing styles. The Japanese were more individual fighters, and thus created a long, curved sword that they could swing in a wide arc. The Romans moved and fought in great masses of men, meaning that there was no room to swing a long sword without beheading the guy standing next to you. Thus a small sword designed for thrusting was created.

Now take a look at modern combat. Compare an Italian soldier to a Japanese soldier. There really isn't that much of a difference in tactics or training. Thus there's no need for massive variation in weapons. Now take a look at a gun built in Italy and a gun built in Japan. They're much the same, because they're built for the same purpose with the same tactics in mind.

The same should hold true for Trek. When it comes to ground combat, there simply isn't any need for weird and wonderful gun designs. A Klingon disruptor should look like a Romulan disruptor, as there's no real difference in fighting style when using a gun.

Where there should be.

Sorry, had to get that out. Anyway, point taken, though I still think they could have done just a little more to add a bit of flavor to the weapons. Lets take Halo for example. The Covenant is a great example of a range of different weapon types based on the different aliens that use them. Compare the plasma rifle to the brute shot, I rather think the differences in the weapons nicely matches the personalities of the species that normally weilds it.

I think it would have been a nice touch if say, Klingon disruptors were shown to be high powered, rugged, yet inaccurate weapons compared to Romulan disruptors.

5.56mm rifle round vs. 16" naval round. Javelin anti-tank guided missile vs. Russian "Sunburn" style antiship missile. They all operate on the same principles but you will NEVER mistake one for the other. There's nothing wrong with most vessels using a torpedo like weapon but why do they all act the same way? Where are the little swarmers, the big monsters. The slow but incredibly accurate or the hyper fast ones? Why is the color the only thing that seems to change?

Standardisation, perhaps? Maybe the various powers sell torps to others, bringing about a sort of standardised torpedo casing size. The payload of the weapons, however, has been seen to vary greatly. Calcs have put torps varying from a few KT to one or two GT.

Countries today sell weapons to other countries, and we have nowhere near the standardization we've seen in trek torps.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, but EVERY alien race is of the exact same mind set on this? Hell, if it's better to have stuff inside the ship, why doesn't everyone follow the bird-of-prey idea of sticking the warp nacells inside as well?

Well, the accepted theory is that shoving the nacelles inside the vessel and armouring them reduces speed and effeciency in some way. Thus the Federation may have decided to favour speed over protection, and placed the nacelles outside, while the Cardassians favoured resilience over speed and placed the nacelles inside.

When it comes to the placement of torp tubes, however, there really aren't that many possible variations that are practical. Shoving everything inside the ship is simply the best option. Thus everyone does it.

Okay, so then why did DS9 have turrets?

I point to Tyyr's words about differences in combustion engines for my responce to this.

To be honest, I'm not sure how applicable the combustion engine comparison is. We've no idea how transporters work. We know that there are a number of ways to rig up a combustion engine, but there may not be as many ways to hook up a transporter. It's quite possible that they're very finnicky and require precise construction with little deviation. Indeed, the fact that every transporter seen follows a similar pattern would seem to indicate this.

Knew that was coming. Yeah, we don't know exactly what is needed for a functioning transporter. But let me ask you this, can you name a piece of common day equipment that's found in most 1st and 2nd world countries that has almost no deviantion between models?

Exactly. Plus which one allows for a tactile feel of the ship's movement?

On a related note, I just remembered the episode where Tuvok went blind and then somehow still managed to use his flat, featureless touch-screen control panel. It's no wonder Starfleet doesn't bother teaching tactics and combat strategies; they're too busy teaching cadets how to memorise their consoles.

I could almost forgive Tuvok memorizing his control layout, it seems like the thing he'd do anyways. But exactly how the hell was he to know WHERE to fire the weapons if he couldn't see the read outs?

[Atekimogus]

Overall I don't mind it. I mind far, far more that these systems have now been in use almost unchanged for 300 years.

Well that doesn't bother me so much to be honest because I like to think of it placeholders similar to the "red matter" from star trek xi. We know what they are supposed to do, no point in renaming it for variations sake.

Warp Drive - Going FTL, the actual mechanics might have changed tremendously.
Photon Torps - The seeking weapons of the 24th century might have almost nothing to do with the 21th ones except the basic principle. It is still a m/am torpedo going boom but range, sensors, accuracy, speed etc. could really be centuries apart.
Phasers - Well it is the space equivalent of a cannon. Altough the basic principle is the same you wouldn't compare a 15th century field gun with let's say a modern mbt-cannon. Maybe the efficiency of the phaser is so high that the only meaningful improvment we might see in the future lies only in the warp core/fusion reactor tech, not the phaser emitter itself.

So the only instance were it does bother me is once again Enterprise were most of those things shouldn't have been there, or only in very limited ways. Shields for example. They didn't have ones, instead they renamed it to polarized armor which acted exactly like shields. What they should have done was giving us shields, but extremly primitve ones. Maybe a generator only able to project a shield across a certain area like the medieaval equivalent. Suddenly flanking maneuvers become dangerous etc. But once they have shields, no point in renaming them on a regular basis.

[Sionnach Glic]

Where there should be.

Why should there be differences in fighting styles? There's not much variation on "point gun, pull trigger" that you can get.

The real difference should lie in tactical doctrine. Some species may favour masses of heavy armour, while another may favour small independant squads of troops. For the former species you'd expect a lot of anti-tank weapons to be in use, and for the latter you'd expect rapid-fire weapons. But the design on the weapons themselves would have no reason to change.

Sorry, had to get that out. Anyway, point taken, though I still think they could have done just a little more to add a bit of flavor to the weapons. Lets take Halo for example. The Covenant is a great example of a range of different weapon types based on the different aliens that use them. Compare the plasma rifle to the brute shot, I rather think the differences in the weapons nicely matches the personalities of the species that normally weilds it.

Aye, but there are far more differences in physiology between members of the Conenant than between the various AQ races. If all the Covenant races looked mostly the same, there'd be very little variation in weapons.

I think it would have been a nice touch if say, Klingon disruptors were shown to be high powered, rugged, yet inaccurate weapons compared to Romulan disruptors.

I agree, it would be nice to see some species perhaps foccussing more on raw firepower than accuracy, for example.

Countries today sell weapons to other countries, and we have nowhere near the standardization we've seen in trek torps.

Fair point.

Okay, so then why did DS9 have turrets?

Because the station itself would take too long to rotate for a fixed emplacement to aim at an enemy vessel. Starships, being more maneouverable, can afford to have the weapons fixed in place.

Knew that was coming. Yeah, we don't know exactly what is needed for a functioning transporter. But let me ask you this, can you name a piece of common day equipment that's found in most 1st and 2nd world countries that has almost no deviantion between models?

Refridgerators?

What I was getting at was that the design of the transporter may be required. If the design was indeed required, you'd expect them all to look the same.

I could almost forgive Tuvok memorizing his control layout, it seems like the thing he'd do anyways. But exactly how the hell was he to know WHERE to fire the weapons if he couldn't see the read outs?

That's a damn good question.

[stitch626]

Yikes so much to read!

What I'm getting at is in trek there seems to be no middle ground with the shields. Races go from having no shields, to shields that do everything. Just because race B's newly developed shields don't block transporters like race A's more developed shields doesn't mean race B isn't going to use their new tech until it's up to the same level.

With block transporters, that seems to be a property of shields, having nothing to do with their technological advancement. And even with the most advanced shields, there are ways through them.

As for warp drive being the only thing around, it isn't that surprising. Anything faster seems to be difficult to handle (slipstream, transwarp) and even to develop. And anything slower means the chances of encountering said species would be limited. Also, we know practically nothing about 90% of species warp drives. They may operate on different principals.
Kinda like rotating fans being the only thing commonly used in public aircraft. Doesn't matter where in the world you go, they use big fans to provide thrust.

[stitch626]

We've also seen a number of different torps. The rockets used by the Tellarians for example. Also, the torps used by the Sona are much slower than others. And the Dominion torps (or at least one of them) seems to be made of three somethings.
And don't even suggest that they all have the same casing. AFAIK, the only casings we've seen are feds.