Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Most SE ships would be considered Runabouts by the Starfleet.

Discussion in 'General' started by MedwedianPresident, Apr 15, 2017.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. MedwedianPresident Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    2
    The Starfleet ship classification category "Runabout" lies between the shuttle and "real" ships. Captain's yachts, small escorts or very large fighters (comparable to WWII-era "destroyers") would fall into this category as well as most medium-sized SE vehiches including the stock red and blue ship, both designed for a crew of 5 to 20 people. Just interesting.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Nacon Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    591
    Oh ok...

    I'm sure this is the part where Commander Rotal come in and say few things. Or worse... start testing something.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  3. Llessur Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    100
    I am curious how do people make such small functional ships? according to google a runabout is 23.5m long that is what 12 large block? I have two ships 100 lrg blocks long and I still cant fit everything in them :(
     
  4. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    414
    Indeed but Starfleet never had to encounter Lord Clang, the most they had to deal with was Species 8472 and The Borg which by comparison is kids stuff :D
     
  5. SF-1 Raptor Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    740
    Have a purpose for the ship and stick to it. A Jack-of-all-Trades tends to get pretty big. Granted, I'm making one of this in my survival game now so I can take my miner with me and mod it, sooo....
     
  6. Gth Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    15
    Space Engineers ships don't need as much space to do what they do as a Star Trek ship would.
     
  7. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,824
    Say, let's start a thread with a gross generalization that's blatantly inaccurate. Be sure to ask when SE is going to get ported to Linux and Xbox.
     
  8. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    Not really much to say; most Survival-built ships should be just about in that size-range, and would probably have less functionality than a Danube Class Runabout, except maaaaaybe when it comes to cargo and even that is arguable; if Runabouts don't come standard with tractor beams (i honestly can't remember) they could be equipped with one.


    Actually it's the other way around. We know little about the actual interior of Danube Class Runabouts BUT we know from Shuttlecraft of various sizes that Starfleet can squeeze warp-capable engines into even the tiniest of vessels:

    [​IMG]

    This is a Type 15 Shuttlepod. Originally they were designed to be sub-light only but Star Trek writers were notorious for not reading the tech-bible, so here we are with this thing being used for warp-flight. This thing is usually meant to be used by one or two people, with a maximum of three crew (probably four if you REALLY cram it in). It's a little under 4 meters in length and offers you features like: life support, power generation, power storage, FTL capability, sensors and i wouldn't be surprised if it has a shield generator too. Not really seeing any weapons, but you get the point: good luck cramming that into a ship in Space Engineers.
    Nono. SE-ships are small in Survival because there, they are purpose-built and need to be economical with resources. Plus, unless it's a modded world, someone has to weld all of that together. There's a reason why bigger ships than that are mostly a Creative-thing.

    Edit: if you're interested in Starfleet's rather large array of tiny auxilliary craft i recommend reading this: http://www.ex-astris-scientia.org/schematics/starfleet_shuttles.htm
    (Actually that entire site is great.)
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. May Rears Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    414
    According to http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Galaxy_class the Enterprise D had a maximum complement of 15000 though was usually around 1000-6000. Imagine the scale of the ship required in Space Engineers to built a ship with the facilities to house that many engineers :)
     
  10. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    To be fair the actual crew required is somewhere in the 800-ish range. The additional "crew" to around a thousand people was achieved by crewmembers taking their families with them. With 6 000 crew most of those poor sods would sit around navelgazing.
    As for housing 15 000 Engineers (provided the net code allowed it...): fairly sure this would do the trick: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=583949804
     
  11. Devon_v Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,602
    You can actually make really small ships in SE by not giving them an armor skin. Just some cleaver connecting of the functional blocks via their integral conveyors can get you a long way. I don't think I ever blueprinted it but I had a hydrogen fueled flyer that was basically just a large hydrogen trusterer attached to a hydro tank, attatched to an oxygen generator, attatched to a small cargo, attatched to the cockpit. Then it had small ions pointing in the other directions. It had to 180 to slow down, but it was remarkably compact.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. ViroMan Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,123
    Have a ship that has just and assembler and a large storage container. Have a hanger large enough for a refinery to sit in with a few welders and grinders. Now set up a projector to project "sets" of needed things into that hanger. I had a ship like that once. I didn't often need to refine things. The hanger was mostly for auto building satellites to dump out the back. Once in a while I would need more of something... and project/build a refinery to refine.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Taemien Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    The survival ship we built for landing on the Alien planet was 32 (80m) blocks tall and 33 (82.5) blocks wide (roughly spheroid). We used my BattleTech Union-Class Dropship blueprint as a shell and projected it. It was capable of lifting 40-60 Million kg of cargo.

    That's a bit bigger than a simple Star Trek Runabout.

    We also used a Jumpship (of custom design) that was about 30ish blocks long and 12 blocks wide to deliver the dropship to orbit.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    In most video games, and probably several TV shows/movies, the interior of ships & structures is larger than the outside. Game interiors also usually have odd sizing, such as huge hallways and doors. There are several reasons for this, which I will skip discussing.

    In Space Engineers, the ship interior and exterior exist simultaneously, so you can't cheat on scaling. Walls/armor blocks are much thicker than reference ships but this is a necessary thing for the grid physics to work.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. Dwarf-Lord Pangolin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,597
    Star Trek ships are surprisingly big by sci fi ship standards, though not to the degree of, say, Warhammer 40K. Romulan Warbirds in particular are yuuuge, though a lot of that is open space between the various bits.

    Off-topic, but: I would love to see this ship. I'm planning on building a BattleTech style jumpship myself at some point and it would be great to see how someone else has approached it.
     
  16. Forcedminer Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,227
    Captain!
    They appear to be firing primitive metal kinetic rounds at us....
    while it would be devastating to ground units our shields are completely unaffected and are holding at max charge.
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. ViroMan Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,123
    I was a huge ST:NG fan back in the day... there were a few episodes like that...
     
  18. SF-1 Raptor Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    740
    Well...comparable Star Wars vessels are almost twice the size of Star Trek ships.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  19. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    Depends on what kind of "Star Trek" vessel you're talking about. Starfleet really ranges on the tiny side of Science Fiction, topping out at 650-ish with the Galaxy Class (the Sovereign is longer but has less internal volume) for ships. But then you got shit like the humble 3km-sided Borg Cube, V'Ger or the Dyson Sphere that put things right back into ridicilous territory. And of course the Kelvin Timeline flatout doubles ship length for the hell of it meaning the Dreadnought Class is about the size of a regular Star Destroyer. Because JJ has this weird obsession with doubling sizes. We shall not speculate as for why.
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  20. Taemien Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    468
    I don't envy you. I did a Scout-Class Jumpship once. In creative of course. It performed.. well. This was before Jumpdrives so I actually put a drive coil in the center. Basically a Mass Block spine with Grav drives on its cardinal points. Ever seen a 275m (110 blocks) long ship go 0-200m/s in a second? It did it. Had a slight... banking to one side with a Leopard (and don't ask for the design, it was bad, really bad) attached. But it was manageable for long distances.

    Once I had it complete.. somewhat. Jumpdrives came out. I'd see about sharing the blueprint of the Scout, but it basically looks like a baby arm holding an apple. And anyone who knows what Btech jumpships look like will understand why that's the case. I never did get around to doing any sort of detailing work.

    The Union on the other hand, looks legit. Its modified to accommodate space and atmospheric craft (not mechs, the bay doors are higher up). As well as anti-spider weapons under the craft. Here's a picture of it:

    [​IMG]

    That's taken directly from a survival DS server.

    The bay doors are colored red, blue, yellow, and green. Cameras are named after them as well. There's no real port or starboard or left or right in a spheroid craft. Just up and down pretty much. So we named the sides by colors. The nub on the left hand side in the pic was a docking port to a small custom jumpship (which remained in orbit). My original design had a docking collar on the bottom. I was too lazy to redesign it with hydrogen thrusters (original was all Ion, pre-hydrogen design).

    We used Titan (the planet in the picture) as a base of operations to prepare for the alien world. One does not simply land on a spider infested world with 1.1 gravity. So here we tested designs for a drop ship port design as well as redesigning some of our atmospheric designs. Actually we had to create them to begin with, see if they worked, then redesign them to work in 1.1g.

    Before we stopped playing our scenario to play some ESO, Wildlands, and other games. We were in the works to redesign our Jumpship. Just as an FYI. The Union, fully loaded takes three jumps from 6 jump drives to cross about 2000km I believe. So if you do decide to design a jumpship.. understand you'll need alot of jumpdrives if you want to traverse planets in SE. At least in a timely manner.

    Oh and to add to the peril of design issues. My friend and his brother decided the server would be played in Forced First Person. The Union does have a glass top for the bridge (can't see in the pic). But seeing over the sides was not possible. So we used I think about six or seven cameras. Landing that thing by camera.. with no damage on a 1.1g world was pretty good piloting if I wouldn't say so myself.

    I did 'cheat' a bit using scripts. I used LCD displays from Auto LCD script to judge acceleration and deceleration. As well as a comparison of sealevel and actual altitude. And another script to show how level it was. This was before the HUD update. But other than that.. feathered the descent with spacebar. Bit of advice.. use a button to lock/unlock landing gear. Using P will disengage all attached ships. That's not a good thing when landing.

    Needless to say.. that is not a simple runabout. Though I did craft a jump capable large ship (in block size) small craft that could be used as one. You kinda need to when you have bases several hundreds or thousands of km apart.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  21. Dwarf-Lord Pangolin Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,597
    I mean ... sorta? SW has a lot of ships that are bigger than ST ships, but most of them are the sillier ones. Once you get above Star Destroyer size, you're basically just using the ship as a plot device to show how borked someone is.

    I guess it depends what kind of sci fi we're talking about; compared to, for example, Warhammer 40K, true, they're dinky. But compared with something a bit less insane, like Mass Effect, Babylon 5, or a lot of Halo ships, some of them are a bit small, but not really tiny. A cruiser in Mass Effect is about the same length as a Galaxy-class.

    [​IMG]

    @Taemien: Oh my gosh, that is beautiful. And I love how rigorous you're being with that playthrough.

    ... I need my Summoner. Now.
     
  22. LFCavalcanti Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,378
    Before someone starts a D measuring contest between our various favorite Sci-Fi franchises, take a look at this chart: http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/191accgnmnevzjpg/original.jpg

    Star Trek ships are among the smallest when you consider their fire power, I know that's a whole discussion in itself, but truth is a battle between a Sovereign Class and a Star Destroyer, a dozen Quantum Torpedos would do it.

    Focusing on usable space, crew accommodation, engineering equipment, ST ships are not realistic at all, that the one thing JJ actually got right, think about it, the Galaxy Class(Memory Alpha) is listed as 190m in height and having 42 decks, that's 4,5m per deck... 3 m for hallways and crew quarters, including floors between them with plasma conduits and other various systems, that's too small.

    I love Star Trek, but the ships I personally consider more realistic are the Battlestars from the new series of Battlestar Galactica, being the Galactica and Pegasus(You can see a detailed image here). Except the FTL drive we know nothing about really, all the other characteristics seems realistic, from the size of the crew accommodations, to the fighter pods, armor plates and etc.

    Now... of course we can't build a ship 1450m long in SE, by the time you reach the bow of the ship, the stern is no longer visible. If we had the possibility of having more than 500 players in the same server, big ships like that would make sense, being controlled by multiple players, with fighters, maintenance crew and what not, but now... if you have two "big" ships going at each other, just the collision calculations take the sim speed down the hill.
     
  23. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    I really wish people would stop perpetuating the 200-meter-hight-myth for the Galaxy Class. Depending on what sideview picture you use the Galaxy tops out at somewhere between 128 and 145 meters hight; generally i roll with 135. The hallways and rooms on Starfleet vessels seem to range between 3 and 3,4 meters depending on ship class and section (for example the Galaxy Class's corridors tend to have higher roofs in the Saucer Section); most of the wireing and piping happens in the walls, not so much in the floors. (Jeffreys Tubes are a terrible, terrible topic in this regard. Personally i think we should start calling them Schrödingers Tubes.)

    As for not being able to build ships that long: that used to be the case; nowadays you can actually do that, it's just... block death can and will occur once you turn your beautiful replica-Station into an actual Ship grid. Because the engine is terrible.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    Star Destroyers regularly exhibit firepower in the megaton range from just their point defense armaments. The only rigorous analytical evidence of photon torpedo performance places it at about 3MT each, and while the TM leads to a yield of 64MT and twice that for quantum torpedoes, this is not entirely inconsistent as antimatter explosions are some of the least efficient in nature as far as usable energy release, and when you consider that photon torpedoes are depicted as standard omni-directional warheads and not shaped charge, even the 64MT figure can dwindle to just 24MT or 7MT of actual energy on target, direct vs. proximity. The strongest showing of Federation shielding on the Galaxy-class (direct predecessor to the Sovereign and still quite capable given its continued use during the Dominion war) points to a net energy capacity of 1.25E+17 J, or about 30MT, before the shield fails, which is equivalent to just ten of the lowest yield estimate photon torpedoes, which actually fits quite well with the battles I can recall. Star destroyers are consistently estimated to have a lower limit shielding capacity of 1E+19 to 1E+20 J, a variance between 14-24GT total.

    In essence, USS Whatever shows up, fires full spread, is annihilated before the torpedoes even reach the ISD's shields, whereupon they detonate harmlessly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  25. LFCavalcanti Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,378
    @REDSHEILD

    The first problem with this type of discussion is that all "facts" are based on non canon information, including all the calculations that you posted that are based on assumptions based on estimates based on observations on battles in the series and movies of both franchises, so no amount of guessing games can settle a discussion like that.

    Shields for example, in Star Trek it's clear they can protect a ship from energy, radiation, thermal and kinetic form of threats, while in Star Wars they are often shown to be vulnerable to kinetic, thermal and radiation based threats.

    Weaponry, multiple episodes of TNG showed inferior technology form species firing "Laser based" weapons at the Enterprise D with no effect, while the Turbo Lasers in Star Wars seems to be much more powerful, thing is, both weapons are not based on anything "real", even Star Trek's Phasers and Disruptors.

    Another example: It takes several Star Destroyers to decimate a planet's surface, while 4 Quantum Torpedos can be tweaked to incinerate a planet's atmosphere. While Star Wars have things like the Death star, that can obliterate a planets.

    Quantum Torpedos doesn't have a defined payload, some episodes it's said to be a plasma based warhead, while other use some technobabble to a Quantum Time membrane extracting energy from an enriched vacuum.

    Do you see the issue?

    What makes the difference in Star Trek is how the technology can be adapted to serve a purpose in a given situation, so a Sovereign Class shows up and attacks a Star Destroyer, so it's deflectors might stop the Phaser fire, but then the captain order a scan on the Star Destroyer, they identify the alloys the hull is made of, then modify a full spread(6) of Quantum Torpedos with a Payload that can cause more damage to the Star Destroyer's Hull using replicators, or even easier, concentrate fire on the Star Destroyer's Bridge Deflectors and then take down the bridge, thus disabling the whole thing.

    You could also make the argument the Turbo Lasers would take down the shields of the Sovereign Class by the time they finished the scan... they I can say Star Trek have Transporters and they might just transport a bunch of explosives and torpedos inside the Star Destroyer and detonate them.

    The discussion can go on... and on... and on...

    That's why I said Battlestar Galactica is the more "realistic" space battle you can get.
    --- Automerge ---
    It's not a myth, it's the canon height for the ship. I've seen debates around this many times as well, but no matter how much people bitch about it, the Tech Manual for The Next Generation and the series creators them selves stated those measures many times over. Memory Alpha is pretty accurate at this point to the source material, if the ship's dimensions are not realistic to the model or it's visual representation, it's one thing, but the official information is there.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  26. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    I really didn't want to get involved in THAT discussion, but since it's happening anyway...

    Yes. Kinda. Let me explain.
    Star Trek and Star Wars have two fundamentally different approaches to the "Science"-portion of their labels (Science Fiction and Science Fantasy, respectively):
    STAR WARS ignores Science entirely and leaves it to the Expanded Universe (or, now, the Canon) to mop up the question of, say, how powerful a Turbolaser is, based on what the franchise displays.
    STAR Trek, on the other hand, first writes up a tech-bible for each show that has reasonably realistic (for lack of a better term) numbers... and THEN the writers ignore Science entirely and just write whatever the hell they want. This, of course, makes it really easy for the Star Wars-side of The Argument to cherrypick canonical numbers for stuff like Photon Torpedoes and compare them to Turbolasers, ignoring that Photons tend to be about as powerful as the plot demands (and yes, the Star Trek-side tends to do the same with Star Wars).
    Point is: Star Wars doesn't give a shit, and Star Trek only pretends to give a shit.

    Star Wars Shields seem to be more powerful the bigger the generator; a planetary shield with a generator the size of Road Island will protect your entire base from everything short of a Death Star or constant fleet-bombardment; meanwhie an X-Wing's deflector will likely buy you a shot or three. And, apparently, all of them can be walked through in a leasurely pace (see: Droids walking through the Gungan Shields, Jedi Starfighters flying through CIS-force fields, the Empire's AT-ATs casually invading Echo Base's personal space, and it's all over the place in The Clone Wars. There are some isolated cases of force fields actually keeping people and ships out, like the Laser Doors in Phantom Menace or the Planetary Shield in Rogue One but seeing how we don't really see those hold up under heavy firepower - or getting under fire at all - i would hesitate to really count those as positive examples. For all we know there is a major drawback to doing so, otherwise ALL deflector shields would behave like that.).

    Star Wars likes to pretend that the Turbolasers aren't actually laser-based, but Plasma-Weapons. I have no idea if that's canon again though; Order 66 really screwed us over in terms of consistent tech data. All i know is that the only way to reliably compare Star Trek- to Star Wars-weapon-power is that we know both Photon Torpedoes and Turbolasers can vaporize asteroids, and until we get the inevitable crossover where the JJ-Prise yet again has no Shields that's about as informative as it gets.

    Depends on whether the Empire's shield technology can block a transporter beam. Given how easy it is to, well... walk through them, i would guess not. (Starfleet has similar functions for Force Fields but those aren't really meant to protect a ship during battle; you can't beam through Shields [unless the plot says otherwise].)

    [quoteThe discussion can go on... and on... and on...[/quote]
    It really shouldn't D:

    BSG still has fleshy toasters, Jump Drives, angels and God. BSG really disqualifies itself, no matter how shitty it's tech is. At least Q has the decency of being an alien. And an asshole.


    The Canon-hight of the ship is whatever you get when measuring the ship's hight based on the canonical length of 642 meters, which sure as hell isn't 200 meters. I don't know where that number comes from but go on, load up your favorite picture manipulation tool and give it the ol' "Cut it in thirds and hold it to the hight of the ship"-test. Measuring the ship's hight with the variables for the 642 meter length nets you anywhere between 128 and 145 meters, depending on the side view you use - i guess the best number would be netted if we could measure the 6 foot model, or failing that, the 4 foot variant, but seeing how neither are available we'll have to make due with what we have. Go on, measure it yourself, i'll wait. (Btw, i can assure you the Technical Manual doesn't mention the ship's hight. My copy is almost entirely black due to all the marks i left when building my own Galaxy Class.)

    [​IMG]

    Speaking of the creators: i've had the opportunity to pester Andrew Probert (the Galaxy Class' designer) about this topic in the comments section of this Trekyards video:

    Short version: he never specified the hight or width, only the length, but he gave me some numbers: 8 ft per deck plus 2 ft in between, meaning 10 ft per Deck, roughly speaking. 42 Decks means 420 ft; in meters that's about 128 m. I usually add a little more because there's the Hull to think of, plus some decks are taller than others; that's where my general assumption of 135 meters comes from.
    I'd rather quite like to know where that 200 meter-number comes from; unless my math is terrifyingly off course, which i rather doubt (then again, school has been a while) the only origin i can think of is some kind of conversion-accident from feet to meters that nobody noticed because few people give a shit about ship hights, including their own creators, apparently.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  27. REDSHEILD Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    888
    It's not a "guessing game." It's applying physics to what is observed. Tell me, if someone tells you that their .22 plinker can shoot through a tank, but it can't manage to penetrate 2-by-4s, would you believe them if they showed you the gun's paperwork to back up their claims? Dialogue and writing only provides a framework, but observations are the gold standard.

    The problem with relying entirely on what is stated in the works (via written or spoken methods) is that it often causes far more problems than it solves. Voyager is a perfect example of this really, where they can't even get their own invented units consistent. (Isotons anyone?)

    Nonsense. Wars ship-grade deflectors are never seen to be vulnerable to sub-weapons-yield radiation, and have consistently been demonstrated to consist of full particle and ray shielding for a ship's primary shields.

    Turbolasers and blasters are likely a form of self-containing plasma burst given all evidence. Phasers are very strange since they seem to work better on Trek shields than on physical objects, but not more so than a torpedo. Then there's the disintegration part which is very problematic because it doesn't seem to occur through direct energy transfer. And how phaser power settings don't seem to scale linearly with the effects observed. Etc.

    A single Star Destroyer can reduce the upper crust of a planet into molten slag in under a day, with some bombardments by half-dozen-ship fleets being energetic enough that the atmosphere of the target world was actually stripped off permanently. Merely incinerating the atmosphere is nothing in comparison.

    The only yield figures on quantum torpedos are derived from the technical manual, which is also the source for the 64MT yield of photon torpedoes. The issues of consistency and reliability are dealt with by establishing ground rules in order to determine which examples are mostly likely representative. This is also why there are lower and higher estimates, to cover the range of observed phenomena.


    How are they going to attack the bridge deflectors without taking down the shields first? Shields which are observed to be more resilient than the highest examples of Federation firepower?
    Replicators have never been used in combat.
    As with above, the transporter doesn't work through shields, nor high jamming environments. Meanwhile, as per the A New Hope novelization, jamming equipment in SW physically distorts space. I doubt a transporter will be able to get a lock on anything near the ISD, let alone beam aboard.

    Funnily enough, several sources in the Star Wars EU put neutronium as a major component in durasteel armor, which would render most SW ships essentially immune to any ST weapons observed. You can argue that it is a different neutronium, but alas we don't know much about the material in either setting.
    --- Automerge ---
    @Commander Rotal An important thing to note about the Hoth base shield is that it was an umbrella shield, so it did not extend to the surface, which is why the Imperial forces could land outside of it and then enter underneath it. The only major theater shield I am aware of in the movies that allows slow-moving objects to enter is the Gungan shield. All other full deflector shields observed explicitly block physical objects.
     
  28. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    Personally i have adopted SFDebris' theory that adding iso- is just their way of cursing. An "iso-ton" is just "a crap-ton" and so on...

    While i enjoy that concept, it's generally one invented by games that have to make sense of all that. Technically, Photon Torpedos exist because in the early days, Starfleet-ships could not use their Phasers while at warp, due to power shortage, if i remember correctly, necessitating a way to fight at warp. Like most good intentions this one got eventually dropped (which is a polite way of saying they probably just forgot about it). The actual shows rarely make a real difference between Phasers and Torpedos in terms of usage; most of the times it seems quite random.
     
  29. Arcturus Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,649
    The Expanse is pretty good as well:


    - The crew depressurizes the ship ahead of battle (it turns out in the next episode that the crew of the other ship had not done this and were not suited up)
    - When the ship's thin hull gets perforated by bullets, you can see metal trails in the vacuum (~7 minutes in)
    - The ship has to stay put while someone unstraps from their acceleration seat to go do repairs
     
    • Like Like x 2
  30. Commander Rotal Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,975
    That would make sense, i guess, better than the alternative. They also seem to use the same kind of force field for their hangars that Starfleet uses; who knows if that's supposed to be the same tech or not.

    One thing that this kind of discussion rarely touches upon, though, is the way that kind of conflict would go over time. (It's also a question of whom you pit against whom, but that's another discussion entirely.) I pretty much agree that, unless it's a Hero Crew, just about every first contact between Starfleet and Empire would end with a repeat of Wolf 359, likely because most Starfleet Captains would go "Target their weapons, target their engines" while the ISD hacks it's way through the shields. To be blunt: your regular Starfleet Captain might as well command a supply truck, most of them suck hard at warfare.
    Also...
    [​IMG]
    It's funny but there's some truth to it; while a single security officer should be able to mop the floor with any given amount of Stormtroopers with his or her hand phaser's sweep-setting, they're usually too dumb to use it. By the time First Contact is over the Empire would probably have a wreck to study, and Starfleet... Starfleet kicks into Nerd-mode. That's the long-term-thing: give Starfleet's eggheads a couple of weeks and they'll reverse-engineer whatever the Empire has to offer, likely improve upon it, and use their replicators to pump out whatever Defiant Class-variant they cook up with the new knowledge (first and foremost i reckon Starfleet would want to get it's hands on that juicy plot-speed Hyperdrive, provided they don't have the juicy plot-speed Warp Drive-variant, looking at you, Star Trek 5 and TOS Pilot). Both franchise's major fleets have Pros and Cons in some areas but in a prolonged conflict... i would not want to mess with the Federation in the long term.
    (Edit: there's also the question of range and accuracy. Star Wars weapons are notoriously useless at long range, and ISDs routinely display a rather clumsy and slow disposition when it comes to battle maneuvers; see Rogue One and Empire Strikes Back. And yes, i know, Cause and Effect. Pilot-fails are not the Enterprise's fault.)
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2017
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.