| Subject: Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon) |
Author:
capn hayes
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 21:54:01 10/19/02 Sat
Author Host/IP: NoHost/207.14.48.2
In reply to:
Warspite
's message, "Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)" on 13:45:39 10/17/02 Thu
>>>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.
>
>I watched the shows too, and guess what, I stated the
>evidence earlier. However, just in case you missed it,
>I will restate! Proof of speed? Look at any example
>where the shuttle goes to warp in a couple of seconds.
>Proof of accleration? Look at TNG:Suspicions where a
>shuttle covers 1 million km in three minutes from a
>standing start. Proof of manouverability? Look at
>VOY:Initiations where Chakotay does a very tight loop.
>Proof of shuttle weapons? Again, look at
>VOY:Initiations. Proof they can take heavy fire? Look
>at VOY:Basics II. I have stated these examples before.
>What lack of proof are you talking about? What more
>proof do you want?
>
>>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.
>
>I'm not a pilot yet, but I have done flight training
>in the RAF and at civilian schools.
>
>>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.
>
>What are you talking about? How many examples have we
>seen of a ship limited to impulse being attacked. I
>can think of a few, and in most, warp is used to the
>advantage of the attacker. The examples include
>TNG:Peak Performance, TOS:Elaan of Troyius,
>TOS:Journey to Babel.
Examples I mention would be the many times when when the warp drive one ship in a fight is disabled the other guy either runs or closes in (on Impulsedrive) for the kill. [TNG] "Redemption pt 1" is but one example.
>
>>>>>>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.
>
>Look, I don't want to get into a slagging match again
>with you, it's boring. You came up with a real world
>example, then I came up with one. When you complained,
>I showed reasons why mine was more realistic. Now you
>complain again. Instead of complaining, show why you
>example is more accurate. If you want proof of my
>claims, look at any performance chart for the F15,
>Learjet and SPAD.
I'm not interested in the performance of the real planes. I am interested with the performance of a TIE fighter, and a type (insert number here) shuttle. The comparison should be more generic like military fighter vs civilian aircraft. At any rate your examples are fine, but there is nothing to suggest that TIE fighters any of them aren't able to match or excceed a shuttles performance. As far as firepower We have both seen examples of where TIE's and shuttles seem to lack firepower. The proof of armor plate is from the Star Wars Technical Journal and several novel references although I don't remember which ones. At any rate no onscreen references are out there to prove me wrong.>
>
>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>
>There is no BS. I have stated the performance of the
>shuttles, and provided multiple episode to back up my
>claims. If you think fighters can win, tell me what
>advantages they have, and show proof from the films or
>books. Speed and maneuverability! Not to mention firepower, You have yet to show with your trek examples why you think shuttles could best TIE fighters. Since we nave never seen anyone use warp tactics as you suggest I will discount its useage unless you count running away, which means they lose. In a battle consistent with what we have seen onscreen in both universes TIEs would easily slaughter any light to medium sized shuttle! My proof is in the TV shows and the movies.
>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>
>Fine, please do. I might be wrong, but you'll pardon
>me for asking for the proof. Just to be helpful, I
>think the ep you are looking for is pre-emptive strike.
>
>>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.
>
>Fine, then get me the proof. It is generally accepted
>they are different ships, but maybe you can prove
>otherwise.
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>How is it a nitpick? You stated that if the Marquis
>hav something then the Feds must also have it. I
>showed that is not always the case. Let's stick to the
>facts.
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Because it would be pointless to keep sending them
>out, and would just get their crews killed. They would
>be vulnerable in any combat. Given the time frame,
>this would be the same as the RAF sending SPADs to war
>now. We know that Fed ships are upgraded, the
>Enterprise in the motion picture and the USS Lakota
>prove that.
>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>
>Aleady have. I have listed multiple episodes. I listed
>them again in this post.
>
>>>
>>>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.
>
>Look at it yourself on freeze frame. It hit a good
>couple of inches below R2's dome, but later ALL of
>R2's dome is still there. The only damage we see is
>some blackening of his outer shell. Nothing was
>actually blown off. Could the bolt have been stopped
>or weakened by the shields? Possible, but Luke's
>shields had already be pierced earlier when his engine
>took a hit. The engine wasn't blown off either, and
>incidently showed no sign of external damage later
>when we get a good look at it. It seems that two hits
>did minimal damage. It is possible that both were
>partially stopped by the shield, but that would have
>to be very lucky. In other cases from the books, TIE
>fighter fire is shown to be very light. In Darksabre,
>they were used to strafe ground targets, and were
>described as setting trees alight. Nearby people were
>unharmed. Is that like barely exploding the cab of a semi?
>
>>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.
>
>I know it had upgraded shields (and other features),
>but I haven't heard of it being armoured, Do you have
>a source for that? In TESB novel, it states that the
>MF hull can withstand light blaster fire, but not
>anything heavier. This would suggest it is only
>lightly armoured if at all.
>For the ANH battle, the novel says that some of the
>shots that hit are deflected by the shields, and some
>pierce them. Apart from blowing out a few wires,
>there's little damage.
>
>>>
>>>>>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
>
>Well you should. Its the rules of the group, and if
>you don't want to stick to them then you cannot debate
>here.
>
>>but just for the record show me one example of a type
>>2 phaser doing what it says in the TM, without major
>>modifications?
>
>I've already answered this below.
>
>>>>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 I said, I showed examples where they have destroyed
>large amoutns of rock. I then stated that in none of
>the cases did the rock amount to 650m3. However, can
>you show an example where they ever wanted to move
>that much but failed? If you cannot, then the TM
>stands. If you can, then fine, I'll stand corrected.
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>It does, and I was wrong. You are quite correct, that
>was a future phaser. See, if you do show proof, I will
>conceed, but just arguing and refusing to examine the
>proof I bring up will get you nowhere.
>
>>>
>>>>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.
>
>I always try to back up what I say with proof, and I
>will conceed if you can prove your case with counter
>proof. However, I will not conceed if you do not show
>evidence. Neither of us want this debate to get nasty,
>but it does anno me when you start to use inflamatory
>phrases. I do not insult you. Please do not insult me.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>
>That is a fair view. I don't happen to agree, but
>that's okay.
>
>>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.
>
>Of even a proximity photon detonation. Against
>unshielded fighters it would be lethal.
>
>>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.
>
>Making the microjump is easy. Being sure that you
>won't end up dead afterwards is not so easy. We saw in
>Rebel Stand, that pilots are not happy about making
>uncalculated jumps, even for a second. Because warp is
>slower, it is safer. You are unlikely to end up in a
>star, because you have the time to react. We
>hyperdrive you do not.
>
>>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.
>
>Instant microjumps are possible, but not guided ones.
>You could not do a instant microjump to catch up with
>warp, because you could end up anywhere.
>
>>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.
>
>To use warp to get out of a nasty situation is very
>sensible. Only idiots stay in no win situations if
>they have a choice.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 