| Subject: Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon) |
Author:
Warspite
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 14:50:35 10/21/02 Mon
Author Host/IP: ipd54b1a80.free.wxs.nl/213.75.26.128
In reply to:
capn hayes
's message, "Re: New poll (Nebula v Nebulon)" on 02:50:23 10/20/02 Sun
>I'm not saying that you or your data on the shuttles
>is in wrong. Although on ocasion Trek writers screw up
>on their technical data, which can lead to faulty
>dialog. You are right on about all your information,
>no arguement. But what I was trying to get across is
>that none of your examples proves that a TIE is in
>anyway out performed by a shuttle. While I agree that
>any FTL ship has a way out in combat and could use it
>as an advantage to escape and evade. I have never seen
>examples like the ones discribed where it would be
>useful in the middle of a dogfight.
Okay, that's fair. It's a difficult thing to 'prove' anything in these debates, even in the clearest of topics. Let me explain my thinking. It seems to me that in the debate of a TIE vrs Shuttle, we need to examine six areas. They are defences, speed, acceleration, manouverability, craft size and firepower. Actually there also might be a seventh area, 'pilot skill', but that is a very difficult topic to discuss, and it takes away from the specific 'which is the better craft?' debate. I think it is generally easier to assume that the pilots are of comperable skill, and know their own craft's capabilities well. A 'win' in any single area would probably not give victory, but a 'win' in the majority of them should.
Firstly 'Defences'. AFAIK, neither are armored, but shuttles have shields, and standard TIE fighters do not. Therefore, IMHO, a shuttle wins this field easily.
Next speed. Shuttles and TIEs can both achieve high relativistic velocities on their STL (impulse & ion) drives, but shuttles can also travel at FTL speeds using warp. Regardless of whether it might be of use in a turning dogfight (probably not), it is still an advantage over a craft that cannot travel at those speeds. Warp can be used to escape a bad position, or reposition for an attack. With warp, IMHO, a shuttle wins the speed area.
Shuttle impulse acceleration is high as shown in TNG:Suspicions, and, if necessary, can be further augmented by use of warp drive. We have little evidence for TIE acceleration, but from what I have seen, it doesn't appear to be as high as a shuttles. We know that TIEs can achieve orbit, so that gives us a confirmed absolute bottom level TIE acceleration (it cannot be lower than 10m/sec2). There may be proof that shows very high TIE accelerations, but I don't know it. I therefore base my figures on the scenes from ANH, where the TIE is chased by the MF, from various asteroid field scenes in TESB, and finally from scenes from the battle of Endor. In none of these scenes, does TIE accleration approach that seen for shuttles. That doesn't mean they cannot, but unless I can show evidence for it, I cannot prove it. Therefore, unless you can show evidence of higher accelerations, I would be inclined to give this to shuttles.
TIE fighters are probably more manouverable than shuttles, but given the scene from VOY:Initiations, I don't believe the advantage is as great as many believe. However, I do think TIEs are better, so this field is a TIE win.
Finally, the two craft are of similar dimensions (the TIE is slightly larger), though the shuttle almost certainly masses more than the TIE. I would give this as a draw.
Firepower is a difficult one. AFAIK, we have never seen any impressive TIE examples, and they do not carry missiles or torpedoes. OTOH, shuttles generally do not excite either, and also do not carry missiles or torpedoes. Lacking definitve evidence, I would be inclined to make this a draw too.
From the above points, I conclude that the shuttle has the advantage in three of the six areas. The TIE wins one, and the other two are draws. Does this 'prove' the shuttle would win? No, but it seems to me that it gives the shuttle the advantage.
>I also admit that
>TIE's in ANH don't look all that maneuverable onscreen
>and YES Lucas did actually base the dogfighting
>sequences in all of the Star Wars movies on actual WW
>II aerial footage. But that is artistic representation
>not based on real tactics. I'm quite sure that if
>TIE's went up against SPADS or F-15's they would realy
>spank them hard! The same could be said of Trek
>shuttles, they could probably take out an entire
>airforce ID4 style.
I think you are quite correct, both should well outperform anything we have now.
>The point that I was tring to make
>is this, it seems unrealistic that vehicles that were
>designed for transport would stand much of a chance
>against vehicles designed for dogfighting and attack.
But as you just said, shuttles would probably take out an entire 'modern' airforce of craft designed for dogfighting and attack. I know what you are saying, but I just don't think it necessarily holds true when comparing different universes with very different tech. I'm not saying trek is more advanced than wars, just that it is different. In some fields, wars is more advanced, in some trek is more advanced. In the case of TIEs v shuttles, I just feel that specific trek advanatages give the shuttles the edge. That doesn't mean that the Feds could ever win against the Empire overall, just in a specific TIE v shuttle contest. Furthermore, just because I think a standard TIE would lose, that doesn't necessarily hold true if the TIE was swapped for an X-Wing or Defender. In those craft, I believe the defences field would be a draw, and the fighters would take the weaponry field (they carry torpedoes and missiles). That makes it a lot more even, and probably leans towards the fights IMHO.
>I should have been more generic in my examples
>earlier. If we were to assume that Star Trek/Wars are
>about equal in technology, most evidence does point to
>this conclusion with both cultures developing
>different technilogical advantages whe compared to one
>another, i.e. Hyperdrives, Holonet, Transporters,
>lightsabers, phasers, etc. But over all they are about
>equal in most repects. Yes there are subtle
>differences but otherwise they would just be coping
>off one another.
In general terms I agree, but I think that Wars advantages in sheer size, strategic ship speed and industrial potential means that the Federation could never win a war. However, that doesn't mean that in specific areas, the Federation doesn't have advantages.
>We love/hate them both for the
>differences. Shields can be regenerated backup quite
>rapidly on Star Trek/Wars ships we have seen this on
>TPM with Artoo restoring the shields on the queens
>ship. We have also seen this little trick employed on
>more Trek episodes than I can count, hell the
>Enterprise has backup shield generators just for that
>reason. This could acount for Luke and Artoo's
>miraculous good fortune at withstanding the TIE's
>laser cannon shots. I say this because at other times
>we the TIE's blow the crap outta the rebel fighters
>with ease. While this realy seems more like the Hero
>factor at work than good marksmanship. Anyway if you
>watched the [DS9]"Maquis pt2" episode I was talking
>about you would notice the ship I was talking about. I
>beleive part 1 has the type 8 phaser reference I was
>talking about. Sorry sometimes this stuff takes a
>while to recall, after all that episode aired in 1994.
No problem. As I have said before, I think you are wrong about them being Peregrines, but you might be right. If you are, I will admit it. As for the rest, I pretty much agree with you.
>While they may look awkward onscreen TIE's aren't, as
>FX get better the ships get a lot more maneuverable.
>I'm quite sure that the shuttles in the early TNG
>episodes are more maneuverable than they look. But
>shuttlepods aren't remember in "In Theory" [TNG] when
>picards pod losses its IDF/SIF fields that thing
>explodes from what looked like a casual spin a car
>could survive doing donuts on a icy parking lot. See
>how visuals and dialog can be confusing.
They can, but this is the problem. All we have to go on are the visuals and the dialogue. If we ignore those, then it comes down to just my opinion vrs yours, with neither of us able to prove anything. That is why in these 'vrs' groups, the rules of canonicity were developed. I didn't invent them, and sometimes I find them annoying, but they are all we have to go on.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 