| Subject: Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon) |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 19:03:01 10/16/02 Wed
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
Warspite
's message, "Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)" on 09:53:02 10/16/02 Wed
>>>>if the TIE's were smart he would spread his fighters
>>>out
>>>>and strike from multiple points on the shields as
>>this
>>>>would cause the shields to work harder at dealing
>>>>energy dissapation, and deflection.
>>>
>>>So are you saying that multiple TIEs are needed to
>>>destroy single shuttles?
>
>>NO I WAS TALKING ABOUT AVOIDING TORPEDOS WHILE
>>DESTROYING THE BIG CAPITAL SHIP. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE
>>ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE SHUTTLES AT ALL.
>
>Why shouting?
>
>I'm a little confused, since we were talking about
>fighters vrs shuttles, but no matter. Against a full
>size ST ship, SW fighters are going to have big
>problems. We saw in VOY:Dragons Teeth that even on
>manual targeting, Fed ships are capable of effectively
>striking at multiple targets at the same time with
>phasers. Given that the ships they were destroying had
>shields, and standard TIE fighters would not, a Fed
>ship should be even more effective against them. With
>a starships warp drive, it would be very difficult for
>fighters to get into a position where they could
>strike the shields from different angles at the same
>time.
>
>>If not, what
>>would the other
>>>shuttles be doing while the TIEs are dfoin this?
>>>Furthermore, given that shuttles have warp, how are
>>>the TIEs going to manouver into position?
>
>>How is warp
>>going to help in a dog fight. With warpdrive you can
>>pretty much just go in a strait line really fast. Wow
>>so the shuttles could run.
>
>So now we're back on shuttles. Okay. :)
>
>Firstly, you most certainly can turn at warp, we have
>seen it done many times. Paris's comment was refering
>to what new cadets are told on their first day when
>learning to fly a warp driven spaceship. I can assure
>you (from personal experience), that when you first
>learn to fly, you spend most of the lesson flying
>straight and level. You certainly don't perform loops
>and rolls (or any seriosu manouvers)until much later.
>
>Why would warp be useful in this kind of battle? Okay,
>let's say that a SW fighter gets on the tail of a
>shuttle, and the pilot can't shake him. The Fed pilot
>applies warp 1 for 0.5 seconds, and suddenly he is
>150,000km away and well out of range of the SW
>fighters weapons. He can then head back, and
>re-position himself. Or how about if the Fed pilot
>sees multiple protons heading towards him. A short hop
>at warp, and they've all missed! Even just using warp
>fractions (i.e warp 0.5, 0.8 etc), allows the Fed
>shuttles the kind of acceleration rates that nothing
>in the SW universe can come close to (0-250,000km/sec
>in a couple of seconds!). QWhere is your canon onscreen proof of this?
>
>>Don't try to use the flimsy
>>warp strafing tactic here cause I know thats not going
>>to work.
>
>Did I mention warp strafing? No! And please, keep the
>confrontational 'flimsy' comments to a minimum. Let's
>try to avoid this turning into a slagging match.
>
>>Try dog fighting for once. Shuttles sure
>>don't look very manuverable in ANY of the episodes
>>I've seen.
>
>Then you certainly haven't seen them all. Take a look
>at VOY:Initiations for one.
>
>>Since you'll know doubt sat TIEs in ANH
>>didn't either we can agree that at the very least they
>>are even which is a BIG BIG complement for shuttles.
>
>TIEs have shown good manouverability, though I don't
>believe them to be the uber-manoverable craft that
>many warsies seem to believe. They are put to shame by
>many Sci-Fi fighters. In ANH, their abilities were
>frankly VERY poor, flying pretty much in straight
>lines. However, they were better in TESB and RotJ.
>
>>>
>>>>I'm not trying to
>>>>knock Trek here but shuttles are just that shuttles.
>>>
>>>And I'm not knocking SW fighters. Its just that
>>>without shields, and fighter is dead meat.
>
>>Based on
>>what, do you make that claim. Remember their from
>>another universe!
>
>Based on the fact that a single phaser hit is going to
>kill them, and phasers are generally pretty accurate
>weapons! If you have shields, you can survive glancing
>hits, and maybe even the odd full on hit. Why do you
>think that the more modern SW fighters all have
>shields?
>
>>>If this was
>>>X-Wings, it 'might' be different.
>
>>Oh hell yeah there
>>would be a diference The X-Wings would wipe'em out two
>>and three at a time. Their shuttles for God sake
>>poorly aremed transports against space superiority
>>star FIGHTERS, please try to remember the diference.
>
>You have a serious problem getting past the name
>'shuttles'. Yes they are shuttles, but they are
>shuttles that are faster than SW fighters. They are
>shuttles that have shields that can take capital ship
>firepower. They are shuttles that can out-accelerate
>SW fighters. Forget the name 'shuttle', and just look
>at the performance data! I did and more importantly I watched the onscreen "canon" movies and TV shows and guess what you once again fail to prove any point from your conjectureal point of view. Sorry but where is your proof. Answer you don't have anymore proof of what your saying than I or anyone else has. Performance data based on what; your good word? Or your excellent observations of a TV show. Well I commend the fact that your a pilot. But that is real life not Star Trek. There is no way you can be absolutely sure of your obervations, and while you have some good tactical sense, this in no way means that you can acurately dictate what kinds of tactics would effective in Star Wars/Trek, for example why don't we that little trick used more often? Don't use the "flimsy " excuse about ships without warpdrive, cause we've seen plenty of examples when a ship loses the ability to got to warp. Unless the other guys use warp to escape its not used. They stick to sublight.
>
>>Besides remembers starfleets policy about warships.
>>They have only recently begun to fact that they need
>>warships and fighters. You never even heard of
>>fighters until the Borg showed up, and they weren't
>>used until the Dominion War.
>
>Well we never saw them used, but that is not quite the
>same thing. Until the Dominion war, we had never seen
>any large scale battles where they would be used.
>
>>Only recently has
>>starfleet even addressed the issue that maybe having
>>warships and fighters ain't such a bad idea,since we
>>nearly got wiped out a few times. And since every
>>other major power in the galaxy has them why not us?
>
>Maybe, maybe not. We simply have no evidence when they
>started using them for the first time. We know that
>the Marquis were using stolen Federation 'fighter'
>type craft before the Dominion battles. We know that
>some races were using 'fighter' type craft before that
>(TNG:Conundrums). We know the Federation had small one
>man craft in mid TNG time. Hell, we know that some
>races were using them in the Delta quadrant hundreds
>of years ago (TNG:Dragon's teeth). We cannot say for
>certain when they were introduced by the Federation. Maybe definetly maybe not!
>
>>>
>>>>Its like sending up a Lear jet with a .50 caliber
>>>>machineguns and chaff dispensers to do battle with a
>>>>fully armed F-15 Eagle.
>>>
>>>Actually its more like putting a LearJet with .50
>>>caliber guns against a SPAD (WW1 fighter).
>
>>Oh really,
>>where is your official "canon" onscreen proof of that
>>little claim. I at least tried to give a somewhat
>>realistic comparison. Yours is utterly absurd, please
>>try to be serious when debating.
>
>ROTFLMAO. Really? Let's see how 'realistic' your
>example was for our purposes (F-15 = TIE and Lear =
>Shuttle). An F-15 is faster than a Lear, but in our
>example, the shuttle is faster than the TIE. An F-15
>accelerates faster than a Lear, but in our example,
>the shuttle is quicker. The F-15 has missiles, and TIE
>does not. An F-15 would outrange a Lear even just on
>guns, but AFAIK, a TIE would not outrange a shuttle.
>
>Now let's look at my example (Lear = shuttle, SPAD =
>TIE). A Lear is faster than a SPAD. Yes that is
>correct, a shuttle is faster than a TIE. A Lear
>accelerates faster than a SPAD. Yes, a shuttle
>accelerates faster than a TIE. A Lear doesn't have
>missiles. Yes, a shuttle doesn't have missiles.
>
>Hmmmm....it seems that my example is far more
>realistic than yours. Oops there you go again making BIG claims without any real evidence to back your self up. I could do that to but like you I'd have to resort to conjecture. Remember Star Trek is 99% conjecture, so anything you come up with is subject to question. A SPAD that's actually kinda funny, and maybe the Enterprise D should be compared to the Hindenburg. A WW 1 fighter that makes me laugh. Is a shuttle a like a minivan now?
>
>>>
>>>>Oh I know most trekkies are
>>>>going to cry foul when they read this. But it is the
>>>>truth we have never seen shuttles used as
>>fightercraft
>>>>EVER.
>>>
>>>You are wrong to say never. We have seen them used
>>>against other shuttle size ships, and in emergencies,
>
>>Yeah in EMERGENCIES not in regular combat, come on man
>>I know your a better debater than that.
>
>Please don't use that kind of debate tactic. Playing
>the man and not the ball doesn't get us anywhere. I
>said 'emergencies'. In VOY:Basics II a shuttle is used
>effectively.
Then I must ask you to also keep the BS to a minmum about shuttles being like big bad ass fighters when they are definitly not.
>
>>>against large starships. VOY:Basics II and
>>>VOY:Initiations are good examples. Generally I agree
>>>they shouldn't last five minutes normally, because
>>>their oponents would generally be shielded capital
>>>ships. However, that is not the case in this
>scenario.
>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter if they are armed with type 4
>>>>phasers or even the dreaded type 5! Starfleet attack
>>>>fighters are armed with type 8 phasers which are
>>>>roughly equal to a standard TIE fighters twin laser
>>>>cannon.
>>>
>>>No, Runabouts and Peregrines
>
>>YES STARFLEET FIGHTERS
>>DO HAVE TYPE EIGHT PHASERS AS SHOWN ON AN EPISODE OF
>>DS9 WHEN SEVERAL MAQUIS SHIPS ARE SHOWN ATTACKING A
>>CARDASSION WARSHIP.
>
>Which episode. Did it say type 8 phasers? If not, how
>do you know? I know because YES they specificly mention the fact, and know I'm not going to try and hunt down the name of the episode of DS9. I do recall it was about one of Sisko's old buddies turning "bad" and no I didn't make a mistake about the type of ship used IT WAS the same ship that is commomly refered to as Perigrine.
>
>>LATER IT IS SHOWN TO BE THE SAME
>>SHIPS THAT ARE CALLED PARAGRINES, SO IF THIVES CAN
>>AQUIRE TYPE 8 PHASERS AND MOUNT THEM ON FIGHTERS, THEN
>>IT STANDS TO REASON THAT STARFLEET COULD DO THE SAME
>>WITH THEIR FIGHTERS.
>
>Well there's your mistake. The Marquis 'Raider' is not
>the same ship as the Peregrine. The 'Raider' shown in
>Caretaker and Preemptive Strike is substantially
>larger than a Peregrine. They are different ships. The only mistake is yours. The Maquis often used both types of ships which also come in different sizes.
>
>Also, the Marquis also acquired a cloak at one time,
>but Fed shuttles don't have cloaks. Stop knitpicking, it make it look like your grasping for ways to prove your self right, we all know that is not going to happen cause all you've got is conjectureal material to backup your claims.
>
>Again, why are you shouting? So you'll listen...
>
>>(and type 7 and 9a
>>>shuttles) are armed with type V phasers. Even Miranda
>>>class starships are only armed with type 7 phasers.
>>Thats because Miranda class ships are old as hell,
>>Note Sisko's ship the Saratoga had those big cannons
>>(which they didn't even use).
>
>First, yes they are old. But are you seriously
>suggesting that the Federation are fielding 278m long
>starships that are outgunned by <30m long fighters?
>Mirandas have been modernised. The type rating of
>phasers doesn't necessarily change over time, but
>their power may. A type II phaser probably has more
>power than a type II phaser of Kirks time. Sure why not, but then technology has also improved over time, so new small 16 meter, 32 meter and the big heavy 64 meter paragrine fighters could all have type 8 phasers. While old 278m Miranda class ships lack comparable firepower. Also remember that Miranda class ships were generally ships of exploration not war. The dedicated fighter I'm talking about are made for war.
>
>>>Where do you get your comparison to TIE lasers from?
>>Based on what has been shown on the movies. But since
>>there is no way to really know it is really
>>conjecture. But it seems a fair comparison since both
>>classes of fighter are supposed to be top of the line.
>>i am trying to be some what fair here, unlike some
>>people.
>
>Again, cut out of behind the back insults (i.e 'unlike
>some people'). They are no use to anyone. If you want
>to debate, then debate, If you want to insult, do it
>elsewhere. Allright, but show me proof to back up your claims, oops you can't.
>
>As for TIE lasers, they don't seem very impressive in
>the movies. A TIE laser bolt didn't even blow off the
>top off R2 (yes it did damage it, but the droid
>structure was sound, and repairable). Ever consider maybe it was a glancing blow? Or possibly the shields took the brunt of the damage? No I'm sure you wouldn't do that. Against the MF,
>they did very little. As you said, we don't have any
>definitive figures, but we've never seen anything
>impressive. The MF has armor plate and shields that are on par with military ship specs. My God if it were a runabout you'd be all "yeah cause its a trek ship sure its that tuff" but why would you think that the MF wouldn't be tuff enough to take a beating from a few TIE's she's a mean bitch. Oh I forgot its a Star Wars ship.
>
>>>According to the TM, a 0.28 second discharge from a
>>>mere type II hand phaser can "explosively uncouple
>650
>>>meter/3 of rock". If a mere type II hand phaser can
>do
>>>that, think what a type IV ship phaser will do to
>>>unshielded TIE fighters.
>
>>Um, I thought the TM wasn't
>>canon,
>
>Lets not do that again. I have told you the definition
>of what is and is not allowed in these debate. If you
>want to read it again, go here:-
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/empire/blueyard/canon.html
>Don't care really what you consider canon and don't but just for the record show me one example of a type 2 phaser doing what it says in the TM, without major modifications?
>>besides can you show me one, just one example
>>of a type 2 phaser doing that onscreen. I sure as hell
>>don't ever remember seeing anything aproaching level
>>of destruction from a hand phaser.
>
>There are numerous examples of large amounts of rock
>being vaporised in TOS, (Where is this?) but I know you'll just
>complain that was years ago. How about Insurrection?
>We saw a large hole easily blasted through 'Calcite'
>rock. We saw Worf use his phaser to cut a tube through
>sold rock, albeit of unknown density ("Chain of
>Command, Pt. I"[TNG]). We've seen phasers make rocks
>red-hot while on low settings
>several times ("A Private Little War"[TOS] and "Silicon
>Avatar"[TNG]). We've seen phasers cut through large
>rock walls on several occasions ("Caretaker"[VOY],
>Neelix and Paris pop a big hole in the ceiling. It
>should be noted that in the examples above, we cannot
>be sure what setting the phaser was on. Do any of them
>show 650m/3 being destroyed, probably not. However, we
>have no evidence to show they cannot, and the canon
>evidence shows that they can destroy large amounts of
>rock with little problem, so unless you have any
>contrary evidence (ie a case where they needed to
>destroy that much rock but couldn't), then the
>official TM statement will stand. Wow you are uncanny at making conjectural jumps of power when it comes to phasers aren't you. None of the above examples can lead to the BOLD conclusions you claim phasers are capable of. But you do have a great imagination.
>
>>As far as type 4
>>phasers are concerned they don't seem to carry that
>>much of a punch either. Look at the trouble one had
>>with a semi-truck!
>
>True, on the other hand, a pickup gets completely
>vaporised by a hand phaser in VOY:Futures end. I guess
>it depends on seettings and intentions. Umm that was a 29th century hand phaser, which surprised Tuvok when they hid behind the truck. Now we should assume Tuvok has tactical knowledge of 24th century phasers and would know whether or not he's hidden behind cover hat is capable of providing protection. This fact leads to the conclusion that he thought he would be safe from a 24th century phaser, and much to his surprise they were not! That is a conjectureal analysis of that scene, but does explain the scene.
>
>>Sorry I did resort to using
>>conjecture when comparing TIE's to Starfleet fighters,
>>but that is all anyone else on this debate site does
>>when ever they use an episode of the show as an
>>example to prove their point. Star Trek is nothing but
>>conjecture.
>
>Conjecture is fine, as long as it is delivered as
>conjecture, and not as a fact. I normally try to tag
>something like 'It seems to me' or 'It seems
>reasonable that' when I am using conjecture. Otherwise
>people will immedietely jump on you for saying it.
True and most of what you say DOES make good sense and would seem to make sense. But we base all base our "facts" on conjectureal misleading information.
>
>>>
>>>>Yeah major military firepower. I have come to
>>>>these conclusions after studing several episodes of
>>>>[DS9] and of course the Star Wars Trilogy in
>addition
>>>>to the many many tech guides and RPG gaming
>material,
>>>>which I do consider canon since they don't discount
>>>>the movies, especialy the RPG stuff. Also knowing
>the
>>>>complete history of both trek and wars helps. You
>can
>>>>be sure that I know this stuff as well as anyone
>>here.
>>>
>>>You probably do, but I think you're discounting Fed
>>>shuttles simply because they are called shuttles.
>>
>>No not at all but shuttles aren't tactically suited to
>>deal with a dedicated starfighters. Even Star Trek
>>recognizes that, so they "invented" fighters for the
>>show.
>
>Certainly not dedicated ST fighters. But if we are
>talking about SW fighters (i.e Standard TIEs), they
>lack a lot of features that would be standard on Fed
>fighters (ie shields, warp etc). Oh I'm sure you think so! While Standard TIE's do lack shields they make up for it with maneuverability. While poor misguided trekkies claim phasers are so pricise I must point out phasers DO miss even against Trek ships. We don't know for sure that TIE fighters wouldn't be able to avoid phaser locks they need only 1.5 seconds on average to avoid the TO's ability to lock-on with phasers. However I do belive they could be used at point blank range as point defense weapons. As for TIE Defenders which do have shields that only leaves "warp" well it is no more difficult to go to warp than it is to use a Hyperdrive (this is not conjecture) I don't have to prove this the evidence is there. Microjumps are no more difficult to make than warp jumps. We have seen examples where it sometimes not easy to attempt warp or hyperdrive travel under the right or wrong conditions. While at other times there is no problem. These situations seem to depend on their dramatic value in the story. So if we use hyperdrives to keep up with the little warp jumps or use tractor beams (Remember TIE Defenders) we might see a different outcome. But I don't think the Feddie shuttles would try to run like cowards, but then thay are in shuttles and that is Starfleets normal policy when they lose shields they run. For starfleet I guess that's okay after all its Starfleet.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 